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.

Spoletta wrote:
It is a much bigger nerf than you imagine.

Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.

This guy gets it.

The people saying games are decided by turn 4 might be lacking some true competitive experience. Were're talking START or turn 4 here, not the end.

Many of my games at casual and tournament level come down to turn 5.
Whats important is that Astartes will be a lot less effective in these later turns, and the units that are guarding objectives, or hidden, etc will be that much harder to deal with.

UM are the chapter which should be able to play around doctrines. It is something that defines them, i'm fine with it.

Spoletta wrote:
It is a much bigger nerf than you imagine.

Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.

The game is already decided by T3 basically, and that's part of the problem with the Assault Doctrine.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
It is a much bigger nerf than you imagine.

Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.

The game is already decided by T3 basically, and that's part of the problem with the Assault Doctrine.

Lol maybe your games are. Mine are not.

Perhaps you need to match opponents better.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So they basically just made Ultramarines and Raven Guard the strongest as they get the most benefit with two turns. Good job, GW. You did the same thing you tried to avoid: favor certain armies again.

Just fething delete Super Doctrines. Why is it so hard for them to admit they're a fething awful idea and they need to be let go of?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think the only thing they did wrong with this was deleting the doctrine change stratagem. A simple change in cost could'a fixed that.

Especially when you're allowed to be in the Tactical one for two turns for no apparent reason than just favoritism.

Get back when there's win rate % of around 60% at least in non-ITC for UM.

ATM they aren't even close to 60%...

The stratagem does not allow you to return to Tactical. it spesifically cycles back to Devastator.

And as its now turn based, rather than by what you were last trun-it will jump right back to assault, skipping tactical.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
It is a much bigger nerf than you imagine.

Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.

The game is already decided by T3 basically, and that's part of the problem with the Assault Doctrine.

That happens only when 2 ultra aggressive lists face each other. Half the lists are gone before the start of turn 3.

It's only one kind of a matchup though, not the norm.

 BoomWolf wrote:
The stratagem does not allow you to return to Tactical. it spesifically cycles back to Devastator.

And as its now turn based, rather than by what you were last trun-it will jump right back to assault, skipping tactical.

That still has some value, a bit of extra flexibility.

 Ishagu wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
It is a much bigger nerf than you imagine.

Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.

The game is already decided by T3 basically, and that's part of the problem with the Assault Doctrine.

Lol maybe your games are. Mine are not.

Perhaps you need to match opponents better.

'
Maybe you need to go play in more competive enviroment.

I do, and I rarely find any of my games decided as early as turn 3. Some are, of course.

If you are getting defeated early, or are winning early, in casual gaming all the time, then you haven't balanced the game with your opponent.

Spoletta wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
It is a much bigger nerf than you imagine.

Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.

The game is already decided by T3 basically, and that's part of the problem with the Assault Doctrine.

That happens only when 2 ultra aggressive lists face each other. Half the lists are gone before the start of turn 3.

It's only one kind of a matchup though, not the norm.

You mean the way the game is played? Shocker!
The meta is not fiddle farting around to see what happens. ALL lists that win are ultra aggressive basically. Anything outside that is NOT a norm.

 Ishagu wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
It is a much bigger nerf than you imagine.

Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.

This guy gets it.

The people saying games are decided by turn 4 might be lacking some true competitive experience. Were're talking START or turn 4 here, not the end.

Many of my games at casual and tournament level come down to turn 5.
Whats important is that Astartes will be a lot less effective in these later turns, and the units that are guarding objectives, or hidden, etc will be that much harder to deal with.

What are you complaining about? No other army has any form of doctrine in turn 4 and up, much less any turn, so you'll still have an advantage.

@SlayerFan

If you don't like that type of game don't play it.

Are you a slave to people around you? Can you not suggest what type of game is played?

You must be a yes man in a cutthroat meta in real life.

 Ishagu wrote:
I do, and I rarely find any of my games decided as early as turn 3. Some are, of course.

If you are getting defeated early, or are winning early, in casual gaming all the time, then you haven't balanced the game with your opponent.

It's good that I'm not paying anyone to write these rules, otherwise I would be upset about having to do it myself.

Oh hey wait a minute.

 Ishagu wrote:
I do, and I rarely find any of my games decided as early as turn 3. Some are, of course.

If you are getting defeated early, or are winning early, in casual gaming all the time, then you haven't balanced the game with your opponent.

It's not a contract negotiation. It's a competitive game with a winner and loser. Opponents aren't looking for balance. They are looking for competitive advantages. If there is a way for my foes to stomp me turn 1, they will.

 Ishagu wrote:
@SlayerFan

If you don't like that type of game don't play it.

Are you a slave to people around you? Can you not suggest what type of game is played?

You must be a yes man in a cutthroat meta in real life.

We do suggest what kind of game is played. 2000 points, ITC or Chapter Approved 2019. Look at that!

40k is a social contract. You can discuss a lot more than the format of the game before you play.

It's part of being a mature adult in the hobby.

Glad they're making these changes. Had a modicum of thought been put into them they would never have come out needing these adjustments in the first place, but it's good to see they're being addressed now. I don't think we've ever seen quite this type of response from GW before specifically in response to competitive balance issues in this way, it's good that they're at least recognizing the existence and validity of such issues these days.

 Ishagu wrote:
40k is a social contract. You can discuss a lot more than the format of the game before you play.

It's part of being a mature adult in the hobby.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there. Because we've never treated as such and likely won't ever do that. I don't know anyone who does. So even if i agreed with you, I'd have no way to play it that way. Also, definitions of "mature adult" vary wildly. Nice stealth insult, there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Glad they're making these changes. Had a modicum of thought been put into them they would never have come out needing these adjustments in the first place, but it's good to see they're being addressed now. I don't think we've ever seen quite this type of response from GW before specifically in response to competitive balance issues in this way, it's good that they're at least recognizing the existence and validity of such issues these days.

Doesn't address how it gets out the door to begin with.

I feel bad if you think that two adults can't discuss what sort of game they want to play before hand.

In my local I often agree to play with weaker lists whilst players are learning a new army, or testing out new units, or wanting to play a narrative style game. This is part of the social contract. It doesn't mean you aren't trying to win the game with the assets you have on the tabletop to the best of your ability.

Maybe in America it's different. Too bad

 Ishagu wrote:
40k is a social contract. You can discuss a lot more than the format of the game before you play.

It's part of being a mature adult in the hobby.

Yeah, it is a social contract. But it's just fundamentally not a balanced game. Here is a discussion that happened recently:

"Hey, I play mono-Slaanesh daemons, can I have a handicap or something?"

"No, you made the choice to play mono-Slaanesh. The consequences of that are your responsibility, so own it. "

Which person is in the wrong?

 Ishagu wrote:
I feel bad if you think that two adults can't discuss what sort of game they want to play before hand.

In my local I often agree to play with weaker lists whilst players are learning a new army, or testing out new units, or wanting to play a narrative style game. This is part of the social contract.

Maybe in America it's different. Too bad

People usually play with that they have. I'm sure someone somewhere discusses the game beforehand, but I've never seen this practice going back to 2nd ed. As I said, if opponents can stomp someone in one turn, they do it. There is no "agreement". In fact, people are frequently looking for rules to make the weaker armies even weaker to ensure victory.

 Ishagu wrote:
40k is a social contract. You can discuss a lot more than the format of the game before you play.

It's part of being a mature adult in the hobby.

Except we've been talking about competitive games on this thread, so no , there is no social contract when playing competitively, winning is what matters. For all the comlpaining about marines being Op and stuff. ive never actually gone against the top lists at my lgs because we just dont play that way. Another store close to my place does play ITC only so there you gotta go all-in.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I feel bad if you think that two adults can't discuss what sort of game they want to play before hand.

In my local I often agree to play with weaker lists whilst players are learning a new army, or testing out new units, or wanting to play a narrative style game. This is part of the social contract.

Maybe in America it's different. Too bad

People usually play with that they have. I'm sure someone somewhere discusses the game beforehand, but I've never seen this practice going back to 2nd ed. As I said, if opponents can stomp someone in one turn, they do it. There is no "agreement". In fact, people are frequently looking for rules to make the weaker armies even weaker to ensure victory.

i'm lucky enough that at my lgs when we organise friendly games we do actually ask each other what kind of games we're looking for. in tournaments however, everyone is expected to bring out the cheese.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
40k is a social contract. You can discuss a lot more than the format of the game before you play.

It's part of being a mature adult in the hobby.

Except we've been talking about competitive games on this thread, so no , there is no social contract when playing competitively, winning is what matters. For all the comlpaining about marines being Op and stuff. ive never actually gone against the top lists at my lgs because we just dont play that way. Another store close to my place does play ITC only so there you gotta go all-in.

Yes, and I'm saying that if games are all ending early there is a disparity between the player lists and ability.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
It is a much bigger nerf than you imagine.

Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.

The game is already decided by T3 basically, and that's part of the problem with the Assault Doctrine.

Scoffs in Leman Russ T2 tablings.

 Ishagu wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
40k is a social contract. You can discuss a lot more than the format of the game before you play.

It's part of being a mature adult in the hobby.

Except we've been talking about competitive games on this thread, so no , there is no social contract when playing competitively, winning is what matters. For all the comlpaining about marines being Op and stuff. ive never actually gone against the top lists at my lgs because we just dont play that way. Another store close to my place does play ITC only so there you gotta go all-in.

Yes, and I'm saying that if games are all ending early there is a disparity between the player lists and ability.

So the game isn't balanced, then, given that I literally either crush people or lose hard to the same people entirely depending on what list I bring? And I can usually tell before the game what will happen?

The problem is CA missions. If everyone just stopped using CA missions, then marines would be the weakest army in the game.

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I do, and I rarely find any of my games decided as early as turn 3. Some are, of course.

If you are getting defeated early, or are winning early, in casual gaming all the time, then you haven't balanced the game with your opponent.

It's not a contract negotiation. It's a competitive game with a winner and loser. Opponents aren't looking for balance. They are looking for competitive advantages. If there is a way for my foes to stomp me turn 1, they will.

What's the fun in that? This whole competitive stuff really feths with people's heads. This game is supposed to be FUN. I've been in gentler mosh pits than some of you people's local metas.

ERJAK wrote:
The problem is CA missions. If everyone just stopped using CA missions, then marines would be the weakest army in the game.

I enjoy CA missions but I disagree because the Iron Hands issue came from ITC. Who for sure do not use CA missions.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I do, and I rarely find any of my games decided as early as turn 3. Some are, of course.

If you are getting defeated early, or are winning early, in casual gaming all the time, then you haven't balanced the game with your opponent.

It's not a contract negotiation. It's a competitive game with a winner and loser. Opponents aren't looking for balance. They are looking for competitive advantages. If there is a way for my foes to stomp me turn 1, they will.

What's the fun in that? This whole competitive stuff really feths with people's heads. This game is supposed to be FUN. I've been in gentler mosh pits than some of you people's local metas.

People need maturity to realise that the hobby is about many things. Lore, Collecting, Modelling, Building, Painting, Playing, Displaying, Narrative, etc etc etc
The problem with many competitive players is that they put competitive play ahead of every other hobby aspects ALL THE TIME. There is nothing wrong with wanting to play at a high level, but you must know that not everyone around you wants that all the time. Context is everything.

It's very easy to poison a local community. After 23 years in the hobby I have seen this happen time and again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
The problem is CA missions. If everyone just stopped using CA missions, then marines would be the weakest army in the game.

Bad troll lol