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:
Marines do lose super doctrines for mixing faction. They also lose doctrines all together for including other imperial units that are non astartes. Daemons don't - they can take CSM or TS or whatever they want at no penalty. So it's clear the intent of marines is to be played mono. I would be entirely fine with marines losing all bonus if they include even other chapters (other than their own successors) which for some reason you lose your super-doctrine for.

Daemons do lose their bonuses if you take other units in their detachment.

I'm not interested in "play a different army" if the one I'm playing is allowed in the rules (and even encouraged, at least within a detachment). If it's not intended, the rules shouldn't allow it. Part of the imbalance of the game is the developers tolerating unintended interactions. Even in this very SM FAQ they talk about how something wasn't being used the way they intended, and changed it. If daemons aren't intended to be ran mono, then they shouldn't be allowed to run mono.

Of course, I'd argue they're absolutely intended to be able to be run mono.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Marines do lose super doctrines for mixing faction. They also lose doctrines all together for including other imperial units that are non astartes. Daemons don't - they can take CSM or TS or whatever they want at no penalty. So it's clear the intent of marines is to be played mono. I would be entirely fine with marines losing all bonus if they include even other chapters (other than their own successors) which for some reason you lose your super-doctrine for.

Daemons do lose their bonuses if you take other units in their detachment.

I'm not interested in "play a different army" if the one I'm playing is allowed in the rules (and even encouraged, at least within a detachment). If it's not intended, the rules shouldn't allow it. Part of the imbalance of the game is the developers tolerating unintended interactions. Even in this very SM FAQ they talk about how something wasn't being used the way they intended, and changed it. If daemons aren't intended to be ran mono, then they shouldn't be allowed to run mono.

Of course, I'd argue they're absolutely intended to be able to be run mono.

In the same detachments only though. So basically you are just forced to take more deatchments which you were going to do to get CP anyways. It is not an issue. It is intended to work like this. Unless you play 500/750 point games exclusively. I don't see an issue. Plus in my experience which admittedly low. Their HQ's do seem kind of busted.

The DA nerf is dumb as hell. Just deleting a stratagem that had no use in the old doctrine system but that now is useful is stupid as hell and there's no other way to put it.

 Xenomancers wrote:
In the same detachments only though. So basically you are just forced to take more deatchments which you were going to do to get CP anyways. It is not an issue. It is intended to work like this. Unless you play 500/750 point games exclusively. I don't see an issue. Plus in my experience which admittedly low. Their HQ's do seem kind of busted.

Ah, so the adult way to resolve the situation I've described is to ask me to build and paint models I don't want, so that I can play them (which I also don't want), to make my Slaanesh Daemons lose slightly less catastrophically, by not really running Slaanesh Daemons anymore at all, except possibly in one detachment if I really want.

Well, glad that's cleared up. I'm glad we solved this like adults before the game (which I'm not playing since I don't own the models).

If the solution to the "how should players converse before the game to make it better" is "don't play the game" - well, I already can just not play the game, and avoid the conversation entirely. Thanks for the input!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
...Ah, so the adult way to resolve the situation I've described is to ask me to build and paint models I don't want...

And it's your responsibility to be prescient and figure out if the models you like are going to be nerfed, or squatted, or if their only advocate on the rules team is going to leave so they get ten years of terrible army books, because how could GW ever be held responsible for trying to make a game where you can use the models you bought from them!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In the same detachments only though. So basically you are just forced to take more deatchments which you were going to do to get CP anyways. It is not an issue. It is intended to work like this. Unless you play 500/750 point games exclusively. I don't see an issue. Plus in my experience which admittedly low. Their HQ's do seem kind of busted.

Ah, so the adult way to resolve the situation I've described is to ask me to build and paint models I don't want, so that I can play them (which I also don't want), to make my Slaanesh Daemons lose slightly less catastrophically, by not really running Slaanesh Daemons anymore at all, except possibly in one detachment if I really want.

Well, glad that's cleared up. I'm glad we solved this like adults before the game (which I'm not playing since I don't own the models).

If the solution to the "how should players converse before the game to make it better" is "don't play the game" - well, I already can just not play the game, and avoid the conversation entirely. Thanks for the input!

I agree with the message you're trying to pass but you're over-exaggerating. An adult conversation pregame should be more like

"what level of competetiveness do you want to play?"
"Oh, i play pure slaanesh demons, so don't expect me to be super competitive, i'd appreciate if you could tone down your list"
"Sure thing, i'll put some unoptimal choices, vindicator, reivers, bikes, and a few rhinos to carry my assault marines, do you mind if i proxy some things? i'd rather have a closer game than be WYSIWYG"
"Oh, thanks a lot, that sounds fun"

there, quick conversation to know what type of game to play. Of course this only applies for friendly games that are organised via facebook or something like that.

Does this mean that your mono slaanesh demons will not be the underdog of the battle? no it doesn't but at least it shows that your opponent is willing to accomodate to your low power army to try and make it an enjoyable experience.

At the end of the day, i'd rather get my ass stomped by an enjoyable opponent than have a close game against an donkey-cave.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Just run a fun sub optimal list for the UM, units you know aren't stellar and don't use often. Failing that play thematically rather than to beat face in, heroic character combats etc.

What sort of suboptimal units? As for deliberately playing badly, what degree of "deliberately playing badly" on the UM's part is required? For example, I could argue that it's fluffy for the Intercessors to charge the lone Daemon (such is their rage at the blasphemer!), even if it takes them off the objective, while it is equally fluffy for them to sit tight.

Also, having someone deliberately play badly against you just to give you a chance is really awful, imo, as far as how good the game feels. Like they literally throw the game to you and you might win. :/

Then you need to make a decision, if you want competitive games with competitive opponents then the short comings of your army choice. Mono slaanesh is a hard army to play and tough to win with, but that's a conscious choice to make.

Likewise playing for fun isn't playing badly necessarily,its just having a different objective in mind. Sure lobbing a captain at shalaxii is likely to end badly, but maybe the satisfaction of seeing if chapter master Brad Pitt can slay the daemon might be as satisfying as scoring an objective for some people.

This is just what was inferred by the having an adult conversation bit earlier in the thread. 2 people deciding what the spirit of the game is will give you a far more enjoyable experience.

WhiteDog wrote:
The DA nerf is dumb as hell. Just deleting a stratagem that had no use in the old doctrine system but that now is useful is stupid as hell and there's no other way to put it.

Because it would circumvent the intended nerf of forcing the IH and IF to leave devastator doctrine. That's why it's "not stupid". Of course, we can't take back the supplements, soo....

So why is this thread now about Slaanesh Daemons? Stop it!

Dudeface wrote:
...Then you need to make a decision, if you want competitive games with competitive opponents then the short comings of your army choice. Mono slaanesh is a hard army to play and tough to win with, but that's a conscious choice to make...

Maybe if GW put a little coloured circle on the army books to tell you which armies are OP and which are a handicap instead of trying to say that all their armies are designed to play the same game.

Or, here's a thought, maybe write some rules to give some kind of advantage to the army books that are unplayable garbage to give players some guidelines on how to construct fair games instead of requiring they eyeball it? You could, I don't know, assign some kind of number to each unit, and work out the values so that an army with an equal total of all those numbers to another might have a fair game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
So why is this thread now about Slaanesh Daemons? Stop it!

Because the "GW is always right" lobby is insistent on arguing that we should be able to fix the game ourselves by arguing with each other before the game starts, and therefore shouldn't be trying to pass judgement on the quality of GW's rules, and Unit1126PLL is trying to demonstrate the silliness of their position.

VladimirHerzog wrote:I agree with the message you're trying to pass but you're over-exaggerating. An adult conversation pregame should be more like

"what level of competetiveness do you want to play?"
"Oh, i play pure slaanesh demons, so don't expect me to be super competitive, i'd appreciate if you could tone down your list"
"Sure thing, i'll put some unoptimal choices, vindicator, reivers, bikes, and a few rhinos to carry my assault marines, do you mind if i proxy some things? i'd rather have a closer game than be WYSIWYG"
"Oh, thanks a lot, that sounds fun"

there, quick conversation to know what type of game to play. Of course this only applies for friendly games that are organised via facebook or something like that.

Does this mean that your mono slaanesh demons will not be the underdog of the battle? no it doesn't but at least it shows that your opponent is willing to accomodate to your low power army to try and make it an enjoyable experience.

At the end of the day, i'd rather get my ass stomped by an enjoyable opponent than have a close game against an donkey-cave.

I am exaggerating for effect, but the problem is that most people don't tone down their lists like that, or can't. Who owns a vindicator? Rhinos and assault marines? Maybe old players have some on the shelves. Bikes and Reivers are actually, in my experience, quite good - Reivers have a load of attacks to kill T3 5++. Proxying is an option, but at the point where they are pretending an Inceptor is an Assault Marine, most players would find another game. After all, that's like asking me to proxy my Daemonettes as Emperor's Children or Bloodletters, which would actually make them good (or at least better).

I've tried to have these conversations before, and it usually comes down to something unreasonable, like someone proxying a large portion of their army or running units they don't want to run.

Dudeface wrote:Then you need to make a decision, if you want competitive games with competitive opponents then the short comings of your army choice. Mono slaanesh is a hard army to play and tough to win with, but that's a conscious choice to make.

Likewise playing for fun isn't playing badly necessarily,its just having a different objective in mind. Sure lobbing a captain at shalaxii is likely to end badly, but maybe the satisfaction of seeing if chapter master Brad Pitt can slay the daemon might be as satisfying as scoring an objective for some people.

This is just what was inferred by the having an adult conversation bit earlier in the thread. 2 people deciding what the spirit of the game is will give you a far more enjoyable experience.

I don't disagree with you in principle - I prefer narrative, fluffy games, and that's a pretty cool image. But it's just silly. I'd very much prefer the game to be balanced, rather than people have to deliberately play badly (even if they can put that thin veneer of fluff over it to justify it). I will tease them for Brad Pitt being the most TAKTICULLY INTELLIGUNT chapter master if he willingly throws himself onto Shelaxi's spear.

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Just run a fun sub optimal list for the UM, units you know aren't stellar and don't use often. Failing that play thematically rather than to beat face in, heroic character combats etc.

What sort of suboptimal units? As for deliberately playing badly, what degree of "deliberately playing badly" on the UM's part is required? For example, I could argue that it's fluffy for the Intercessors to charge the lone Daemon (such is their rage at the blasphemer!), even if it takes them off the objective, while it is equally fluffy for them to sit tight.

Also, having someone deliberately play badly against you just to give you a chance is really awful, imo, as far as how good the game feels. Like they literally throw the game to you and you might win. :/

Then you need to make a decision, if you want competitive games with competitive opponents then the short comings of your army choice. Mono slaanesh is a hard army to play and tough to win with, but that's a conscious choice to make.

Likewise playing for fun isn't playing badly necessarily,its just having a different objective in mind. Sure lobbing a captain at shalaxii is likely to end badly, but maybe the satisfaction of seeing if chapter master Brad Pitt can slay the daemon might be as satisfying as scoring an objective for some people.

This is just what was inferred by the having an adult conversation bit earlier in the thread. 2 people deciding what the spirit of the game is will give you a far more enjoyable experience.

So, in other words, playing badly to help your opponent out.

That's about what I expected from this thread in defense for GW. Don't play the actual game! Do stupid moves!

Isn't that called forging the narrative? When you do stupid stuff like charging melee only stuff, not shot at stuff you could wipe out with shoting etc.

Karol wrote:
Isn't that called forging the narrative? When you do stupid stuff like charging melee only stuff, not shot at stuff you could wipe out with shoting etc.

GW used that excuse many times, and surprise surprise the white knights bought into it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:I agree with the message you're trying to pass but you're over-exaggerating. An adult conversation pregame should be more like

"what level of competetiveness do you want to play?"
"Oh, i play pure slaanesh demons, so don't expect me to be super competitive, i'd appreciate if you could tone down your list"
"Sure thing, i'll put some unoptimal choices, vindicator, reivers, bikes, and a few rhinos to carry my assault marines, do you mind if i proxy some things? i'd rather have a closer game than be WYSIWYG"
"Oh, thanks a lot, that sounds fun"

there, quick conversation to know what type of game to play. Of course this only applies for friendly games that are organised via facebook or something like that.

Does this mean that your mono slaanesh demons will not be the underdog of the battle? no it doesn't but at least it shows that your opponent is willing to accomodate to your low power army to try and make it an enjoyable experience.

At the end of the day, i'd rather get my ass stomped by an enjoyable opponent than have a close game against an donkey-cave.

I am exaggerating for effect, but the problem is that most people don't tone down their lists like that, or can't. Who owns a vindicator? Rhinos and assault marines? Maybe old players have some on the shelves. Bikes and Reivers are actually, in my experience, quite good - Reivers have a load of attacks to kill T3 5++. Proxying is an option, but at the point where they are pretending an Inceptor is an Assault Marine, most players would find another game. After all, that's like asking me to proxy my Daemonettes as Emperor's Children or Bloodletters, which would actually make them good (or at least better).

I've tried to have these conversations before, and it usually comes down to something unreasonable, like someone proxying a large portion of their army or running units they don't want to run.

I own Vindicators. Two of them, and I bought the first one before GW fixed their gun.

"Sure, let me proxy some sub-optimal choices" isn't so likely. "Let me chop 500 points out of the list I brought as a handicap" is a lot more plausible. Not that playing 2000 points of Slannesh into 1500 points of Marines isn't still going to be a slaughter. We had a particularly memorable game when Knights were the meta bogey-man, 1000 points each of Dark Eldar and Necrons into a 1000 point mono-IK list. The DE and Necrons got tabled turn 2.

Pretty well done nerfs, hope they'll be enough.

Yup! Good work from GW, a little slow but much better than 7th edition!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Karol wrote:
Isn't that called forging the narrative? When you do stupid stuff like charging melee only stuff, not shot at stuff you could wipe out with shoting etc.

GW used that excuse many times, and surprise surprise the white knights bought into it.

Hey if GW designs the rules to work like that, it is hard to argue with anything.

Pretty well done nerfs, hope they'll be enough.

I wonder how the tau are going to be now, they got really good buffs in their PA book, and it was only being kept in check by marines dunking on everything. Without marines who is going to keep tau armies in check? the next PA is SW and Orc. SW are not going to be the new meta checker, and if orcs end up being one, it is not going to be very fun, because high tier swarm armies are very unfun to play against. Stuff is going to be very interesting for sure, specialy the spring FAQ. I doubt they have been testing it with the marine changes, and they don't have much time to do it, if they were to start stuff from scratch now.

Tau has to deal with chaos possessed bomb and eldar, 2 match-ups that are god awful for Tau. Possessed bomb got hit badly by GK buffs but I suspect people will be brewing anti-GK tech in their chaos list very soon

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Just run a fun sub optimal list for the UM, units you know aren't stellar and don't use often. Failing that play thematically rather than to beat face in, heroic character combats etc.

What sort of suboptimal units? As for deliberately playing badly, what degree of "deliberately playing badly" on the UM's part is required? For example, I could argue that it's fluffy for the Intercessors to charge the lone Daemon (such is their rage at the blasphemer!), even if it takes them off the objective, while it is equally fluffy for them to sit tight.

Also, having someone deliberately play badly against you just to give you a chance is really awful, imo, as far as how good the game feels. Like they literally throw the game to you and you might win. :/

Then you need to make a decision, if you want competitive games with competitive opponents then the short comings of your army choice. Mono slaanesh is a hard army to play and tough to win with, but that's a conscious choice to make.

Likewise playing for fun isn't playing badly necessarily,its just having a different objective in mind. Sure lobbing a captain at shalaxii is likely to end badly, but maybe the satisfaction of seeing if chapter master Brad Pitt can slay the daemon might be as satisfying as scoring an objective for some people.

This is just what was inferred by the having an adult conversation bit earlier in the thread. 2 people deciding what the spirit of the game is will give you a far more enjoyable experience.

So, in other words, playing badly to help your opponent out.

That's about what I expected from this thread in defense for GW. Don't play the actual game! Do stupid moves!

I feel like we had this discussion before but here we go again.

The aim of the game in 40k is for both players to have fun. If I see my opponent is having a gakky time, then I am having a gakky time. Deliberately making sub-optimal decisions in order to allow the other player to enjoy themselves IS NOT A BAD THING. And before you say it, players having a bad game is nit exclusive to balance. We've all had games where the dice are against us.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Because the "GW is always right" lobby is insistent on arguing that we should be able to fix the game ourselves by arguing with each other before the game starts, and therefore shouldn't be trying to pass judgement on the quality of GW's rules, and Unit1126PLL is trying to demonstrate the silliness of their position.

The silliest position is the belief that you either have to be a dick stomping egotistical wannabe with an ITC boner, or you're a GW apologist who laps up any corporate bull like a lost puppy.

Heaven forbid people realised there are combinations of positions and opinions than can include talking to your opponent.

Ehhh - probably nothing is going to keep tau in check now.

 Continuity wrote:
Tau has to deal with chaos possessed bomb and eldar, 2 match-ups that are god awful for Tau. Possessed bomb got hit badly by GK buffs but I suspect people will be brewing anti-GK tech in their chaos list very soon

very interesting. Well all in all, it looks like people are going to have 2-3 weeks of testing and changing lists or armies. Those that new the changes before probably already have their tau and possseded bombs ready, to play with and tested. Plus who knows maybe something in the upcoming PA is going to be very good too, but not good enough to warrent a giga nerf after a month or two, we may as well see some shifts in what is good.

Dudeface wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Because the "GW is always right" lobby is insistent on arguing that we should be able to fix the game ourselves by arguing with each other before the game starts, and therefore shouldn't be trying to pass judgement on the quality of GW's rules, and Unit1126PLL is trying to demonstrate the silliness of their position.

The silliest position is the belief that you either have to be a dick stomping egotistical wannabe with an ITC boner, or you're a GW apologist who laps up any corporate bull like a lost puppy.

Heaven forbid people realised there are combinations of positions and opinions than can include talking to your opponent.

Talking to your opponent is no substitute for working rules.

Working rules are no substitute for talking to your opponent.

On the topic that has moved on I think the issue is that GW has decided to have countless factions. For grognards like me Daemons should not be their own faction, let alone a singular god of them. There's no need to have so many different identities for space marines. Small flavourful chapter tactic type things are fluffy and fine but when they are powerful enough to drastically influence what you take in your list...no. It's too much to balance if that is what you are after. I've said before that I believe a lot of the special rules should be suggested for narrative only if the company and players want a good tournament game too.

I've actually no problem with 'hard/easy mode' armies existing but agree if they are going to then this should be obvious before you buy a single book or miniature. I played Wood Elves in WFB back in the day and it was common knowledge back then (and the GW staff didn't mind offering the info that they were a tough army to play but incredibly hard to beat when mastered).

I don't think GW rules writers are incompetent or even bad at their jobs really. They're likely churning stuff out faster than they should be if we want it to be absolute top quality and they've got an incredibly difficult task with the sheer amount of stuff out there. They clearly play the game with different goals in mind than cutthroat players but I am not sure that is such a huge issue compared with the rest. As such if you're annoyed about this you really should be taking it out on the suits rather than the creatives.

Dai wrote:
. . . if you're annoyed about this you really should be taking it out on the suits rather than the creatives.

This is generally correct.

Hehe, so may of them like taking credit for the creatives work anyways.

I think they are really obviously incompetent, and have been for years and years. They obviously don't care much about the playerbase. And I think it is new players who suffer the worst from this, not cut throats. Poor balance benefits the cut throats and disadvantages ignorant newer players who just wanted to play with the models they like and then discover that they are horribly disadvantaged for no particular reason.

Honestly when the 1 Page Rules people can do a better job than you for free, you gotta question how a team of full timers can be so bad at it.

Dai wrote:
...I don't think GW rules writers are incompetent or even bad at their jobs really. They're likely churning stuff out faster than they should be if we want it to be absolute top quality and they've got an incredibly difficult task with the sheer amount of stuff out there. They clearly play the game with different goals in mind than cutthroat players but I am not sure that is such a huge issue compared with the rest. As such if you're annoyed about this you really should be taking it out on the suits rather than the creatives.

The impression I get from trying to read GW's rules is that they have a series of warring tribes that don't really pay attention to how their book fits into the broader framework of the game before writing it. It was very obvious in early Age of Sigmar (the first Sylvaneth book writing a bunch of different battalions they actually expected you to use in the game, versus the Stormcast book's thousand-dollar-bundle-of-models battalion design, or the Khorne book's aura-management strategy ignoring the fact that a shooty army just goes up and removes all your characters in one phase...), but the disproportionate attention they give to various armies, the power variance, the wildly varying assumptions about what weapon statlines/unit statlines should mean, etc...

Whether or not GW's individual rules writers are incompetent is almost completely immaterial because there's no leadership or centralized vision for the game, so what emerges from their design team is entirely accidental because it's nobody's job to work out how books are supposed to interact with each other.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


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...

So much this. Luckily these are all Paid Beta Codex updates so I hope they will fix these issues for other factions when they actual 2.0 codex's come out and bring them in line with marines.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Dai wrote:
...I don't think GW rules writers are incompetent or even bad at their jobs really. They're likely churning stuff out faster than they should be if we want it to be absolute top quality and they've got an incredibly difficult task with the sheer amount of stuff out there. They clearly play the game with different goals in mind than cutthroat players but I am not sure that is such a huge issue compared with the rest. As such if you're annoyed about this you really should be taking it out on the suits rather than the creatives.

The impression I get from trying to read GW's rules is that they have a series of warring tribes that don't really pay attention to how their book fits into the broader framework of the game before writing it. It was very obvious in early Age of Sigmar (the first Sylvaneth book writing a bunch of different battalions they actually expected you to use in the game, versus the Stormcast book's thousand-dollar-bundle-of-models battalion design, or the Khorne book's aura-management strategy ignoring the fact that a shooty army just goes up and removes all your characters in one phase...), but the disproportionate attention they give to various armies, the power variance, the wildly varying assumptions about what weapon statlines/unit statlines should mean, etc...

Whether or not GW's individual rules writers are incompetent is almost completely immaterial because there's no leadership or centralized vision for the game, so what emerges from their design team is entirely accidental because it's nobody's job to work out how books are supposed to interact with each other.

Indeed. I think it's a lack of overarching design that generally catches GW out.