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.
Xenomancers wrote: My only concern is Dev doctrine based armies have gone from the obvious best choice to the obvious worst choice. Plus Ultras went from the obvious worst choice to the obvious best. Every power combo was removed and IH and IF made entirely irrelevant due to only get 1 turn of their super doctrine. That was the wrong way to handle it. Entirely wrong. They should have just changed dev doctrine if it was the obvious problem - not just give you 1 turn of it. Alas though. GW continues their over nerfing of things. I feel bad for IF and IH players. OFC the inevitable nerf Ultramarines crowd will be up in arms as they always are. Even when they have a sub 50% WR in competitive play.
Oo no, RG are still easily ahead of UM's and are who I would point to as the top SM chapter.
Humm...That is possible. Their best combo got nerfed. They do have a great chapter tactic and super doctrine. Also Now that I think of it IF spamming ABR also seems really good. As they still have and insane chapter tactic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/27 17:39:33
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Kithail wrote: I think they are sufficient for the time being but I still think some FW needs adjustment. Mainly the Leviathan and the Chaplain dreadnought. I think that given the second has no kit should be moved to legends, and the Leviathan should be fixed to its more original melee version, while the Deredeo should remain the gundread, as originally designed.
Yeah whoever wrote that Levis lose attacks when they add guns should be fired.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Kinnda sucks to be dark angels, losing the extra range isn't going to make or break them, but they were not in a position where a nerf was warranted. They are more successful than Grey knights, but not by much.
Now that half of space marines special doctrines are worthless, I think the big side effect of this will be the return of soup.
Constantly being negative doesn't make you seem erudite, it just makes you look like a curmudgeon.
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
These people never played anything else so all they can do is defend the crap job GW does.
Yeah, the I Infinity faction logos in my sig are just cause I like the design.
I would play Malifaux or Infinity over 40k any day, I also play WMH but I won't play with theme lists so I do need to discuss that with opponents beforehand. However my group really likes 40k, so thats what mainly get played. The shocking thing about me is, now sit down, because you might not be able to cope with this concept, I can find enjoyment in a game I don't 100% like.
So in other words, you defend GW just because you can basically.
I defend GW because otherwise the forum would be nothing but hyperbolic screaming from people who don't play the game about how its the worst game ever when the game is pretty okay, elevated to great when you have a good group who don't take it 100% seriously. I just get annoyed by the fact that most of the negative hyperbole surrounding 40k comes from people forcing it into a niche it was never meant to fill and I can express my distaste for that opinion if I want to because it's a free forum.
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
Stalker has extra ap and range.
Exactly. Basically it's the regular Bolt Rifle that suffers as most of the time I'd rather get 3 shots at AP0 than 1-2 at AP-1. You'd basically have to plan a 10 man Bolt Rifle getting close enough to make use of the Strat that makes them Rapid Fire 2.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
While these are overall good, making Marines not broken but still good, I think the most telling part is that they didn't seem to understand why these were issues until they saw all the complaints from non-marines about how not fun it was to play against Marines. Only then did they realize "Hmm maybe we made this too good."
IMHO speaks volumes for how out of touch the 40k design team is. Yikes.
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
These people never played anything else so all they can do is defend the crap job GW does.
Yeah, the I Infinity faction logos in my sig are just cause I like the design.
I would play Malifaux or Infinity over 40k any day, I also play WMH but I won't play with theme lists so I do need to discuss that with opponents beforehand. However my group really likes 40k, so thats what mainly get played. The shocking thing about me is, now sit down, because you might not be able to cope with this concept, I can find enjoyment in a game I don't 100% like.
So in other words, you defend GW just because you can basically.
I defend GW because otherwise the forum would be nothing but hyperbolic screaming from people who don't play the game about how its the worst game ever when the game is pretty okay, elevated to great when you have a good group who don't take it 100% seriously. I just get annoyed by the fact that most of the negative hyperbole surrounding 40k comes from people forcing it into a niche it was never meant to fill and I can express my distaste for that opinion if I want to because it's a free forum.
If a new game were released with the current rule set we have right now, can you honestly say people shouldn't speak up? The only thing 40k has is momentum from existing for a while. It is NOT because of the rules, and as much as some people want to say the game is doing well, it really is not doing much better, especially when you aren't able to see what in particular is keeping them afloat.
People need to stop buying their rules until they improve, period.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Sim-Life wrote: ...I defend GW because otherwise the forum would be nothing but hyperbolic screaming from people who don't play the game about how its the worst game ever when the game is pretty okay, elevated to great when you have a good group who don't take it 100% seriously. I just get annoyed by the fact that most of the negative hyperbole surrounding 40k comes from people forcing it into a niche it was never meant to fill and I can express my distaste for that opinion if I want to because it's a free forum.
Is it possible that the community expressing frustration with GW's practices might be...I don't know...symptomatic of problems with the game that may affect you less than other people?
Well at least we are back on topic. They are more than sufficient IMO. Literally every competitive combo was nerf and instead of 3-4 turns of dev doctrine you only get 1. If you added up all the lost hit rate and damage rate of IH and IF type dev build armies. Their damage is probably down more than 50% after turn 1.
I think some units definitely need points hikes still. FW dreads and stalker rifles for starters.
Ugh, don't start with your bizarre aversion to resin models again.
Da Boss wrote: Ishagu, you said players should arrange their games to compensate for the incompetent and unprofessional rules writing of the GW designers.
Another poster asked you then what handicap you thought would be reasonable for playing a Mono-slaanesh list. You never answered. You come across as very self assured and confident in your posts and often mention your vast experience with the game and maturity as a player.
Could you help us lesser beings out and explain what sort of handicap you would recommend? It would help those of us who are more immature to improve.
That is NOT what I'm saying at all.
In 40k you have vast freedom on how to build list, and levels of tactical skills vary greatly. Two lists within the SAME FACTION might not be equal.
I'm saying that unless two people have largely the same skill in list building and play, the game can always end up being one sided.
If a new game were released with the current rule set we have right now, can you honestly say people shouldn't speak up? The only thing 40k has is momentum from existing for a while. It is NOT because of the rules, and as much as some people want to say the game is doing well, it really is not doing much better, especially when you aren't able to see what in particular is keeping them afloat.
People need to stop buying their rules until they improve, period.
It's a fun game, I can play it basically anywhere, and I like the models. So . . I'll keep buying.
I'll pass on products I don't want, like PA and FW, and I don't chase the meta particularly hard. This keeps my costs low. All I need is a codex and the rulebook. My only beef is the SM Supplements, I didn't want to buy one, but I bought the UM one to keep up.
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
These people never played anything else so all they can do is defend the crap job GW does.
Yeah, the I Infinity faction logos in my sig are just cause I like the design.
I would play Malifaux or Infinity over 40k any day, I also play WMH but I won't play with theme lists so I do need to discuss that with opponents beforehand. However my group really likes 40k, so thats what mainly get played. The shocking thing about me is, now sit down, because you might not be able to cope with this concept, I can find enjoyment in a game I don't 100% like.
So in other words, you defend GW just because you can basically.
I defend GW because otherwise the forum would be nothing but hyperbolic screaming from people who don't play the game about how its the worst game ever when the game is pretty okay, elevated to great when you have a good group who don't take it 100% seriously. I just get annoyed by the fact that most of the negative hyperbole surrounding 40k comes from people forcing it into a niche it was never meant to fill and I can express my distaste for that opinion if I want to because it's a free forum.
If a new game were released with the current rule set we have right now, can you honestly say people shouldn't speak up? The only thing 40k has is momentum from existing for a while. It is NOT because of the rules, and as much as some people want to say the game is doing well, it really is not doing much better, especially when you aren't able to see what in particular is keeping them afloat.
People need to stop buying their rules until they improve, period.
Given that 40k and GW are doing better than they have in 20 years I think the people with rules issues are in a very vocal minority.
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
Stalker has extra ap and range.
Exactly. Basically it's the regular Bolt Rifle that suffers as most of the time I'd rather get 3 shots at AP0 than 1-2 at AP-1. You'd basically have to plan a 10 man Bolt Rifle getting close enough to make use of the Strat that makes them Rapid Fire 2.
Well I think there is actually a choice now between taking BR or ABR. No one will take stalkers anymore. Even Ironhands are gonna be taking ABR probably. Ultras as always will be taking BR.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
On the rules, the big thing is to think of this. If a brand new game without GW/Warhammer came out with rules as 40k has, it'd be laughed out of everywhere as being a total joke of a game that should never have been made since the rules are so terrible.
It's only because GW is GW, the miniatures and/or the popularity 40k already has that keeps things going. Now that doesn't mean people can't enjoy 40k, but trying to argue the rules are good is like trying to argue the sky is green. You can have fun and the rules can be piss poor.
Sim-Life wrote: ...Given that 40k and GW are doing better than they have in 20 years I think the people with rules issues are in a very vocal minority.
I find that Dakka now sounds a lot like Dakka did at the low points of 6e/7e, and I find that the problems of the rules are the exact same problems as 7e for the exact same reasons. GW hasn't changed. Were the folks with problems with the rules a vocal minority back then, too?
Da Boss wrote: Ishagu, you said players should arrange their games to compensate for the incompetent and unprofessional rules writing of the GW designers.
Another poster asked you then what handicap you thought would be reasonable for playing a Mono-slaanesh list. You never answered. You come across as very self assured and confident in your posts and often mention your vast experience with the game and maturity as a player.
Could you help us lesser beings out and explain what sort of handicap you would recommend? It would help those of us who are more immature to improve.
That is NOT what I'm saying at all.
In 40k you have vast freedom on how to build list, and levels of tactical skills vary greatly. Two lists within the SAME FACTION might not be equal.
I'm saying that unless two people have largely the same skill in list building and play, the game can always end up being one sided.
And if they have the same budget and amount of time to paint.
So is that how you want to define the barrier to entry? You may only play with people with the same skill level in list building AND the same skill level in play AND the same understanding of/philosophy about the rules AND the same amount of time to paint/prep AND the same budget AND who started playing around the same time?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/27 18:00:30
Well at least we are back on topic. They are more than sufficient IMO. Literally every competitive combo was nerf and instead of 3-4 turns of dev doctrine you only get 1. If you added up all the lost hit rate and damage rate of IH and IF type dev build armies. Their damage is probably down more than 50% after turn 1.
I think some units definitely need points hikes still. FW dreads and stalker rifles for starters.
Ugh, don't start with your bizarre aversion to resin models again.
Sim-Life wrote: ...Given that 40k and GW are doing better than they have in 20 years I think the people with rules issues are in a very vocal minority.
I find that Dakka now sounds a lot like Dakka did at the low points of 6e/7e, and I find that the problems of the rules are the exact same problems as 7e for the exact same reasons. GW hasn't changed. Were the folks with problems with the rules a vocal minority back then, too?
Dakka is hardly a good barometer of general opinion. At the lowest point of 7th GW were only barely managing to stay in the black financially and that was with closing a lot of stores and laying off staff. Their stock value and profits currently are higher than they've ever been.
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
Stalker has extra ap and range.
Exactly. Basically it's the regular Bolt Rifle that suffers as most of the time I'd rather get 3 shots at AP0 than 1-2 at AP-1. You'd basically have to plan a 10 man Bolt Rifle getting close enough to make use of the Strat that makes them Rapid Fire 2.
Well I think there is actually a choice now between taking BR or ABR. No one will take stalkers anymore. Even Ironhands are gonna be taking ABR probably. Ultras as always will be taking BR.
Raven Guard can still make use of Stalkers if they need to commit to the Strat for them. I know in my list I was using them in case that 3CP needed to be spent.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Sim-Life wrote: ...Given that 40k and GW are doing better than they have in 20 years I think the people with rules issues are in a very vocal minority.
I find that Dakka now sounds a lot like Dakka did at the low points of 6e/7e, and I find that the problems of the rules are the exact same problems as 7e for the exact same reasons. GW hasn't changed. Were the folks with problems with the rules a vocal minority back then, too?
Dakka is hardly a good barometer of general opinion. At the lowest point of 7th GW were only barely managing to stay in the black financially and that was with closing a lot of stores and laying off staff. Their stock value and profits currently are higher than they've ever been.
Sales aren't a good barometer for the game. I know a lot more people who bought Infinity models to paint than who actually play Infinity because the learning curve is so high.
Ishagu wrote:X-Wing for sure, at certain points. I've played it for years. The nerfs and buffs that occur regularly in that game would make GW blush.
The other games are vastly less dynamic and far more 2 dimensional than 40k. It really us a unique beast with vast scope and freedom in terms of tabletop expression.
I would say that the two things I would have been also eyeing were custom chapters and thunderfire cannon.
When Eldar, Tau, Tyranids, Guard, etc. take a custom doctrine/tenet/adaptation they lose access to subfaction stratagems, relics, and special abilities. If you take a custom Tau tenet, you lose Focused Fire. This makes a degree of sense, since a lot of the "best stuff" is spread out between the subfactions and picking custom traits will usually result in a more optimized choice than any of the base ones, so picking the best of the relic/stratagem/special ability set and then customizing your doctrine would just be really good. But when Space Marines take a Master Artisans and Stealthy, they also get their Iron Hands stratagems, relics, and super doctrine even though they're as much Iron Hands as a Soldiers in Arms & Hardened Warheads is T'au or Gunnery Experts & Disciplined Shooters is Cadian.
And I don't think the successive hits to the Leviathan make a big difference. It was irritating, but there's 1700 other points of unbalanced in a Space Marines list. And, you can still have character dreadnoughts, so untargetable Vendread with las/missile is definitely still a thing and going to be more of a thing. There aren't any AT sniper weapons.
Same smell on the Raven Guard side. Centurions can't be taken with, so take Aggressors instead. It's basically the same.
Doctrines changes is a sizable nerf to IH fast movers lists, that and the dreadnought being -1 instead of half is basically the extent of meaningful nerfs.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SMbs.
Whoopdee fething doo.
Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.
With these nerfs plus the buffs Tau got in their PA book, I would say Tau have the advantage in that match up again IMO.
Hoenstly this matchup will always be decided by who goes first. Tau needs some nerfs to sheild drones right away though.
I am not so sure. Even if you go first with marines the new Tau should be able to survive the alpha because of drones and their counter punch will be stronger than before. And then marine shooting will be weaker in later turns, especially for IH.
Tau can still probably win even if they go second. The buffs suits got in Tau's PA are pretty strong.
I haven't been able to test this yet since I just got my copy of the book this week.
The competitive build is going to be -1 AP to missles (wow it lasts all game too) with 9" ftgg. (I think that is what I figured out at a glance).
Broadsides/ missle crisis / and riptides (of both flavors) will be very competitive. There is also the tripple storm-surge (yeah these cost less than a repulsor executioner now) build that got a massive buff due to IF not being auto win against it as well. Tau are likely going to be the biggest benefactors from this nerf IMO.
My competitive Ultras army took a small nerf because my contemptor with quad las is way less durable now. I might just replace it with 6 suppressors now.
I don't think custom Tau septs will take off because they won't have Focused Fire.
I also think UM are really good an only held back through virtue of Marines basically being designed to counter other marines and MEQhard. Fall back and shoot, and count as stationary after moving are both traits that are really good, and there are some pretty good stratagems in there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/27 18:11:47
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
Stalker has extra ap and range.
Exactly. Basically it's the regular Bolt Rifle that suffers as most of the time I'd rather get 3 shots at AP0 than 1-2 at AP-1. You'd basically have to plan a 10 man Bolt Rifle getting close enough to make use of the Strat that makes them Rapid Fire 2.
Well I think there is actually a choice now between taking BR or ABR. No one will take stalkers anymore. Even Ironhands are gonna be taking ABR probably. Ultras as always will be taking BR.
Raven Guard can still make use of Stalkers if they need to commit to the Strat for them. I know in my list I was using them in case that 3CP needed to be spent.
3 CP is STEEP. Really steep for that. Though I feel shooting twice with BR for 2 CP is also pretty steep.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Ishagu wrote:X-Wing for sure, at certain points. I've played it for years. The nerfs and buffs that occur regularly in that game would make GW blush.
The other games are vastly less dynamic and far more 2 dimensional than 40k. It really us a unique beast with vast scope and freedom in terms of tabletop expression.
I would say that the two things I would have been also eyeing were custom chapters and thunderfire cannon.
When Eldar, Tau, Tyranids, Guard, etc. take a custom doctrine/tenet/adaptation they lose access to subfaction stratagems, relics, and special abilities. If you take a custom Tau tenet, you lose Focused Fire. This makes a degree of sense, since a lot of the "best stuff" is spread out between the subfactions and picking custom traits will usually result in a more optimized choice than any of the base ones, so picking the best of the relic/stratagem/special ability set and then customizing your doctrine would just be really good. But when Space Marines take a Master Artisans and Stealthy, they also get their Iron Hands stratagems, relics, and super doctrine even though they're as much Iron Hands as a Soldiers in Arms & Hardened Warheads is T'au or Gunnery Experts & Disciplined Shooters is Cadian.
And I don't think the successive hits to the Leviathan make a big difference. It was irritating, but there's 1700 other points of unbalanced in a Space Marines list. And, you can still have character dreadnoughts, so untargetable Vendread with las/missile is definitely still a thing and going to be more of a thing. There aren't any AT sniper weapons.
Same smell on the Raven Guard side. Centurions can't be taken with, so take Aggressors instead. It's basically the same.
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
I've played War Machine, X Wing, Star Wars Legion, Wings of Glory, Infinity and Malifaux.
And I like 40k more than all of them by a vast margin.
And in how many of those did you have to negotiate which models you do and don't use to avoid getting turn-one tabled?
How about having an argument about how line of sight works before games?
TwinPoleTheory wrote: This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SMbs.
Whoopdee fething doo.
Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.
With these nerfs plus the buffs Tau got in their PA book, I would say Tau have the advantage in that match up again IMO.
Hoenstly this matchup will always be decided by who goes first. Tau needs some nerfs to sheild drones right away though.
I am not so sure. Even if you go first with marines the new Tau should be able to survive the alpha because of drones and their counter punch will be stronger than before. And then marine shooting will be weaker in later turns, especially for IH.
Tau can still probably win even if they go second. The buffs suits got in Tau's PA are pretty strong.
I haven't been able to test this yet since I just got my copy of the book this week.
The competitive build is going to be -1 AP to missles (wow it lasts all game too) with 9" ftgg. (I think that is what I figured out at a glance).
Broadsides/ missle crisis / and riptides (of both flavors) will be very competitive. There is also the tripple storm-surge (yeah these cost less than a repulsor executioner now) build that got a massive buff due to IF not being auto win against it as well. Tau are likely going to be the biggest benefactors from this nerf IMO.
My competitive Ultras army took a small nerf because my contemptor with quad las is way less durable now. I might just replace it with 6 suppressors now.
I don't think custom Tau septs will take off because they won't have Focused Fire.
I also think UM are really good an only held back through virtue of Marines basically being designed to counter other marines and MEQhard. Fall back and shoot, and count as stationary after moving are both traits that are really good, and there are some pretty good stratagems in there.
You can't take a ML on a chaplain dread. Though you really wouldn't want to anyways. The Powerfist is great on him. Most of the time the chappy in CC is what wins me the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/27 18:12:25
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
Stalker has extra ap and range.
Exactly. Basically it's the regular Bolt Rifle that suffers as most of the time I'd rather get 3 shots at AP0 than 1-2 at AP-1. You'd basically have to plan a 10 man Bolt Rifle getting close enough to make use of the Strat that makes them Rapid Fire 2.
Well I think there is actually a choice now between taking BR or ABR. No one will take stalkers anymore. Even Ironhands are gonna be taking ABR probably. Ultras as always will be taking BR.
Raven Guard can still make use of Stalkers if they need to commit to the Strat for them. I know in my list I was using them in case that 3CP needed to be spent.
3 CP is STEEP. Really steep for that. Though I feel shooting twice with BR for 2 CP is also pretty steep.
Hell I sometimes do it and I'm running MSU. It isn't efficient but if you REALLY just want to plink off a Commander...
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
Stalker has extra ap and range.
Exactly. Basically it's the regular Bolt Rifle that suffers as most of the time I'd rather get 3 shots at AP0 than 1-2 at AP-1. You'd basically have to plan a 10 man Bolt Rifle getting close enough to make use of the Strat that makes them Rapid Fire 2.
Well I think there is actually a choice now between taking BR or ABR. No one will take stalkers anymore. Even Ironhands are gonna be taking ABR probably. Ultras as always will be taking BR.
Raven Guard can still make use of Stalkers if they need to commit to the Strat for them. I know in my list I was using them in case that 3CP needed to be spent.
3 CP is STEEP. Really steep for that. Though I feel shooting twice with BR for 2 CP is also pretty steep.
2CP is the going rate for a second round of shooting.
1CP is the going rate for +1 to hit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/27 18:14:37
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
Ishagu wrote:X-Wing for sure, at certain points. I've played it for years. The nerfs and buffs that occur regularly in that game would make GW blush.
The other games are vastly less dynamic and far more 2 dimensional than 40k. It really us a unique beast with vast scope and freedom in terms of tabletop expression.
I would say that the two things I would have been also eyeing were custom chapters and thunderfire cannon.
When Eldar, Tau, Tyranids, Guard, etc. take a custom doctrine/tenet/adaptation they lose access to subfaction stratagems, relics, and special abilities. If you take a custom Tau tenet, you lose Focused Fire. This makes a degree of sense, since a lot of the "best stuff" is spread out between the subfactions and picking custom traits will usually result in a more optimized choice than any of the base ones, so picking the best of the relic/stratagem/special ability set and then customizing your doctrine would just be really good. But when Space Marines take a Master Artisans and Stealthy, they also get their Iron Hands stratagems, relics, and super doctrine even though they're as much Iron Hands as a Soldiers in Arms & Hardened Warheads is T'au or Gunnery Experts & Disciplined Shooters is Cadian.
And I don't think the successive hits to the Leviathan make a big difference. It was irritating, but there's 1700 other points of unbalanced in a Space Marines list. And, you can still have character dreadnoughts, so untargetable Vendread with las/missile is definitely still a thing and going to be more of a thing. There aren't any AT sniper weapons.
Same smell on the Raven Guard side. Centurions can't be taken with, so take Aggressors instead. It's basically the same.
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
I've played War Machine, X Wing, Star Wars Legion, Wings of Glory, Infinity and Malifaux.
And I like 40k more than all of them by a vast margin.
And in how many of those did you have to negotiate which models you do and don't use to avoid getting turn-one tabled?
How about having an argument about how line of sight works before games?
TwinPoleTheory wrote: This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SMbs.
Whoopdee fething doo.
Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.
With these nerfs plus the buffs Tau got in their PA book, I would say Tau have the advantage in that match up again IMO.
Hoenstly this matchup will always be decided by who goes first. Tau needs some nerfs to sheild drones right away though.
I am not so sure. Even if you go first with marines the new Tau should be able to survive the alpha because of drones and their counter punch will be stronger than before. And then marine shooting will be weaker in later turns, especially for IH.
Tau can still probably win even if they go second. The buffs suits got in Tau's PA are pretty strong.
I haven't been able to test this yet since I just got my copy of the book this week.
The competitive build is going to be -1 AP to missles (wow it lasts all game too) with 9" ftgg. (I think that is what I figured out at a glance).
Broadsides/ missle crisis / and riptides (of both flavors) will be very competitive. There is also the tripple storm-surge (yeah these cost less than a repulsor executioner now) build that got a massive buff due to IF not being auto win against it as well. Tau are likely going to be the biggest benefactors from this nerf IMO.
My competitive Ultras army took a small nerf because my contemptor with quad las is way less durable now. I might just replace it with 6 suppressors now.
I don't think custom Tau septs will take off because they won't have Focused Fire.
I also think UM are really good an only held back through virtue of Marines basically being designed to counter other marines and MEQhard. Fall back and shoot, and count as stationary after moving are both traits that are really good, and there are some pretty good stratagems in there.
You can't take a ML on a chaplain dread. Though you really wouldn't want to anyways. The Powerfist is great on him. Most of the time the chappy in CC is what wins me the game.
You can make any dreadnought a character.
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
