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.

I don't think these changes are enough.

IH may be dethroned from their top position or be forced into another build (flyers, perhaps) but I don't think this is going to spell the end of the Marine meta, more of a shift into other Marine subfactions.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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.

From what I heard over the years the division that sets the pace and is kinda in charge is not the rules team but the studio. You know model company first and all that.

What I heard from a local store owner was that a GW rep told them that the reason why we are getting speciality games like blood bowel again is because the previous leadership in the studio didn't want to do them and when the new CEO told them to do it anyway they refused. After that there was a change in leadership at the studio.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

From what I heard over the years the division that sets the pace and is kinda in charge is not the rules team but the studio. You know model company first and all that.

What I heard from a local store owner was that a GW rep told them that the reason why we are getting speciality games like blood bowel again is because the previous leadership in the studio didn't want to do them and when the new CEO told them to do it anyway they refused. After that there was a change in leadership at the studio.

Sounds like a company to me! Having experience with corporate creative environments . . "I've . . . seen things you people wouldn't believe. . . "

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't think these changes are enough.

IH may be dethroned from their top position or be forced into another build (flyers, perhaps) but I don't think this is going to spell the end of the Marine meta, more of a shift into other Marine subfactions.

Exaclty. But at least now the elephant is out of the room and we can begin to see the other stuff that goes overlooked due to the glaringly obvious auto take choices... Im certain we will now see a shift to the next most efficient/broken combo wombo.

But, Its a good start..

I've dropped the Slaanesh thing a moment, I think the point's made.

As for the game design thing though (which is relevant because it plays into these nerfs), I think the biggest problem is they don't have a coherent idea of the abstractions.

For example, I wish to abstract the situation where a mobile unit screens for a nearby unit of some kind. Right now, off the top of my head, there are:

1) The Iron Hands dreadnought thing that just got canned.
2) The way tau drones do it.
3) The way other bodyguards do it (e.g. Celestians, Acolytes)
4) Stratagems that make the screened unit untargetable (Salamanders)
5) Stratagems that grant -1 to-hit if the units are relatively positioned (Astra Militarum, bullgryns must be in front).
6) The Character rule thingy.

All of these things are ways to represent "lots of units are around and some of them interfere with enemy attempts to attack a nearby unit of some kind." Essentially, they represent screening forces.

Why so many abstractions of the same concept? Similarly: "This guy/these guys are really mean stuff when they charge!" is handled in like a HUNDRED DIFFERENT WAYS DAMN.

1) "Crush Them": An AM Tank charging hits on a 2+.
2) Impact hits: Slaanesh chariots do mortal wounds on 6+
3) Fighting twice (but only when you charge!)
4) Increased strength on the charge
5) Living battering ram: mortal wounds on the charge but not the same way the Slaanesh chariots do - not even close.

Etc.etc.

They clearly don't have a good sense of how they mean to abstract things from the "reality" of the game into the "game" of the game.

It's ok for the company to assess how things are going and make changes appropriately. I'm grateful they're looking at the game balance. I remember when they rarely did. Could they make changes to how they things, sure. But at least they've shown they're willing to course correct after rules are published.

The Newman wrote:

 lifeafter wrote:
Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?

[Quietly swaps Assault Centurions for Aggressors]
"Sure does, totally toned down my capability for stupidly effective alpha strikes with units pointed around their limited speed and weapon reach."

1 less wound
3+ instead of 2+
PF is way less scary than drills

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I've dropped the Slaanesh thing a moment, I think the point's made.

As for the game design thing though (which is relevant because it plays into these nerfs), I think the biggest problem is they don't have a coherent idea of the abstractions.

For example, I wish to abstract the situation where a mobile unit screens for a nearby unit of some kind. Right now, off the top of my head, there are:

1) The Iron Hands dreadnought thing that just got canned.
2) The way tau drones do it.
3) The way other bodyguards do it (e.g. Celestians, Acolytes)
4) Stratagems that make the screened unit untargetable (Salamanders)
5) Stratagems that grant -1 to-hit if the units are relatively positioned (Astra Militarum, bullgryns must be in front).
6) The Character rule thingy.

All of these things are ways to represent "lots of units are around and some of them interfere with enemy attempts to attack a nearby unit of some kind." Essentially, they represent screening forces.

Why so many abstractions of the same concept? Similarly: "This guy/these guys are really mean stuff when they charge!" is handled in like a HUNDRED DIFFERENT WAYS DAMN.

1) "Crush Them": An AM Tank charging hits on a 2+.
2) Impact hits: Slaanesh chariots do mortal wounds on 6+
3) Fighting twice (but only when you charge!)
4) Increased strength on the charge
5) Living battering ram: mortal wounds on the charge but not the same way the Slaanesh chariots do - not even close.

Etc.etc.

They clearly don't have a good sense of how they mean to abstract things from the "reality" of the game into the "game" of the game.

Good post tbf, again points to a lack of central direction. I'm all for flavour but it's almost at the point of absurdity.

 Argive wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't think these changes are enough.

IH may be dethroned from their top position or be forced into another build (flyers, perhaps) but I don't think this is going to spell the end of the Marine meta, more of a shift into other Marine subfactions.

Exaclty. But at least now the elephant is out of the room and we can begin to see the other stuff that goes overlooked due to the glaringly obvious auto take choices... Im certain we will now see a shift to the next most efficient/broken combo wombo.

But, Its a good start..

Agreed 100%. This is exactly the right way to nerf something to be fair, don't absolutely destroy it, but remove the most broken combos and take stock from there.

It's a very good start.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 lifeafter wrote:
Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?

[Quietly swaps Assault Centurions for Aggressors]
"Sure does, totally toned down my capability for stupidly effective alpha strikes with units pointed around their limited speed and weapon reach."

1 less wound
3+ instead of 2+
PF is way less scary than drills

And 25ppm less expensive, don't forget that part.

Seriously though, they're both units with extremely high shot output and melee capacity per man with point costs clearly based on limited threat range and not being able deploy 9" away from enemy lines. Their points efficiency is even fairly close if you take both shooting and melee into consideration. Are you going to argue that the Aggressors aren't abusive in that role just because Cents were worse, or do you geniunely not think Aggressors deploying 9" off your line isn't problematic?

Na the nerf is just badly thought. The doctrine is finally where it should be (necessary change of doctrine with each turn) but without any ways to change the doctrine even if it is only once, and due to the super doctrine that favor one doctrine specifically, the idea in itself just feels flawed.
Imo the doctrines should have more diversity and super doctrine should not exist to favor a diverse playstyle. As it is, the nerf just means chapters that rely on tactical and assault are flat out better.

WhiteDog wrote:
Na the nerf is just badly thought. The doctrine is finally where it should be (necessary change of doctrine with each turn) but without any ways to change the doctrine even if it is only once, and due to the super doctrine that favor one doctrine specifically, the idea in itself just feels flawed.
Imo the doctrines should have more diversity and super doctrine should not exist to favor a diverse playstyle. As it is, the nerf just means chapters that rely on tactical and assault are flat out better.

That's only true if the game isn't over outside of mopping up the stragglers after the first turn or two.

Argive wrote:

 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.

I'm not holding my breath for new 2.0 codecies for all armies, much less bringing them in line with Codex Marines. These are our codex supplements.

WhiteDog wrote:Na the nerf is just badly thought. The doctrine is finally where it should be (necessary change of doctrine with each turn) but without any ways to change the doctrine even if it is only once, and due to the super doctrine that favor one doctrine specifically, the idea in itself just feels flawed.
Imo the doctrines should have more diversity and super doctrine should not exist to favor a diverse playstyle. As it is, the nerf just means chapters that rely on tactical and assault are flat out better.

I assume this is @me from a few pages back.

It's pretty much a given that the codex supplements should not have existed. But they do. So we have a hotfix to force the IH out of devastator doctrine.

Honestly, I don't think the doctrine system is even a good idea in the first place. Extra AP is not what the game needed and a rotating cycle of weapons through the game is definitely just going to emphasise weapon groups unintentionally. Why build into melee if you could stay in devastator doctrine all game with a bucket of heavy weapons, but you won't get your melee bonus if you've built into melee until turn 3. In order to actually make the latter doctrines worth building into, you basically either have to force people to move into them.

I think Sacred Rites & Warp Tides should probably have been the template for doctrines and future doctrine-likes. Pick one that complements your build, and use that one through the game. A stratagem to change it to one of your choice could then be in order, but when forcing you to move is a core part of the way the mechanic supposedly incentivizes not just having a pile of heavy weapons, there shouldn't be a way to switch back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:
Na the nerf is just badly thought. The doctrine is finally where it should be (necessary change of doctrine with each turn) but without any ways to change the doctrine even if it is only once, and due to the super doctrine that favor one doctrine specifically, the idea in itself just feels flawed.
Imo the doctrines should have more diversity and super doctrine should not exist to favor a diverse playstyle. As it is, the nerf just means chapters that rely on tactical and assault are flat out better.

That's only true if the game isn't over outside of mopping up the stragglers after the first turn or two.

The game isn't usually, though, unless there's some major mismatch in power. Usually we end up calling games around T4 or T5 with ITC scoring. It can be over faster in CA missions, but that's a question for a different thread.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I've dropped the Slaanesh thing a moment, I think the point's made.

As for the game design thing though (which is relevant because it plays into these nerfs), I think the biggest problem is they don't have a coherent idea of the abstractions.

For example, I wish to abstract the situation where a mobile unit screens for a nearby unit of some kind. Right now, off the top of my head, there are:

1) The Iron Hands dreadnought thing that just got canned.
2) The way tau drones do it.
3) The way other bodyguards do it (e.g. Celestians, Acolytes)
4) Stratagems that make the screened unit untargetable (Salamanders)
5) Stratagems that grant -1 to-hit if the units are relatively positioned (Astra Militarum, bullgryns must be in front).
6) The Character rule thingy.

All of these things are ways to represent "lots of units are around and some of them interfere with enemy attempts to attack a nearby unit of some kind." Essentially, they represent screening forces.

Why so many abstractions of the same concept? Similarly: "This guy/these guys are really mean stuff when they charge!" is handled in like a HUNDRED DIFFERENT WAYS DAMN.

1) "Crush Them": An AM Tank charging hits on a 2+.
2) Impact hits: Slaanesh chariots do mortal wounds on 6+
3) Fighting twice (but only when you charge!)
4) Increased strength on the charge
5) Living battering ram: mortal wounds on the charge but not the same way the Slaanesh chariots do - not even close.

Etc.etc.

They clearly don't have a good sense of how they mean to abstract things from the "reality" of the game into the "game" of the game.

A consequence of randomly writing new versions of each and every special rule rather than Universal rules. I've no idea why they've fetishized their (flawed) conception of 'bespoke' so much for the current editions, but its really getting in the way of coherent rules.
I'd much rather have consistency over buzzwords.

The Newman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 lifeafter wrote:
Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?

[Quietly swaps Assault Centurions for Aggressors]
"Sure does, totally toned down my capability for stupidly effective alpha strikes with units pointed around their limited speed and weapon reach."

1 less wound
3+ instead of 2+
PF is way less scary than drills

And 25ppm less expensive, don't forget that part.

Seriously though, they're both units with extremely high shot output and melee capacity per man with point costs clearly based on limited threat range and not being able deploy 9" away from enemy lines. Their points efficiency is even fairly close if you take both shooting and melee into consideration. Are you going to argue that the Aggressors aren't abusive in that role just because Cents were worse, or do you geniunely not think Aggressors deploying 9" off your line isn't problematic?

Which is harder to kill?

24 2+ wounds in 4 wound segments

or

18 3+ wounds in 3 wound segments

Because there isn't a WHOLE army getting placed by that trait. It's one unit. It is still a strong unit, but the overall strength is far less.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 lifeafter wrote:
Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?

[Quietly swaps Assault Centurions for Aggressors]
"Sure does, totally toned down my capability for stupidly effective alpha strikes with units pointed around their limited speed and weapon reach."

1 less wound
3+ instead of 2+
PF is way less scary than drills

And 25ppm less expensive, don't forget that part.

Seriously though, they're both units with extremely high shot output and melee capacity per man with point costs clearly based on limited threat range and not being able deploy 9" away from enemy lines. Their points efficiency is even fairly close if you take both shooting and melee into consideration. Are you going to argue that the Aggressors aren't abusive in that role just because Cents were worse, or do you geniunely not think Aggressors deploying 9" off your line isn't problematic?

Which is harder to kill?

24 2+ wounds in 4 wound segments

or

18 3+ wounds in 3 wound segments

Because there isn't a WHOLE army getting placed by that trait. It's one unit. It is still a strong unit, but the overall strength is far less.

Pretty much. The issue was getting a really powerful unit into that close of a range. You can still get a good unit close, but it's no longer the absolute wreckingball that a full assault cent squad is (especially since it's also supported by characters). You're working with a less effective unit, with less points that you're "boosting", and that is easier to remove.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't think these changes are enough.

IH may be dethroned from their top position or be forced into another build (flyers, perhaps) but I don't think this is going to spell the end of the Marine meta, more of a shift into other Marine subfactions.

Exaclty. But at least now the elephant is out of the room and we can begin to see the other stuff that goes overlooked due to the glaringly obvious auto take choices... Im certain we will now see a shift to the next most efficient/broken combo wombo.

But, Its a good start..

Agreed 100%. This is exactly the right way to nerf something to be fair, don't absolutely destroy it, but remove the most broken combos and take stock from there.

It's a very good start.

Told you so.

Agressors are a good unit. Agressors infiltrating at 9" from you are a very good unit. But they possess a much less of a threat than Centurions.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't think these changes are enough.

IH may be dethroned from their top position or be forced into another build (flyers, perhaps) but I don't think this is going to spell the end of the Marine meta, more of a shift into other Marine subfactions.

Exaclty. But at least now the elephant is out of the room and we can begin to see the other stuff that goes overlooked due to the glaringly obvious auto take choices... Im certain we will now see a shift to the next most efficient/broken combo wombo.

But, Its a good start..

Agreed 100%. This is exactly the right way to nerf something to be fair, don't absolutely destroy it, but remove the most broken combos and take stock from there.

It's a very good start.

Told you so.

I mean, Black Templars are still going to be a meta breaking problem but GW might catch them on the next pass.

If that happens then bring down the hammer and good riddance to us. I obviously don't think it will, but it could.

Whilst something needed to be done about the power level of marines, it feels like all this will achieve is for the competitive mindset to return to soup. Now that the bonuses for single faction "super traits" is now mostly restricted to a single turn the benefit I see the return of imperium soup lists.

At least as an FAQ it can always be undone in the future if/when new codexes are released that up the power creep and overtake marines

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Whilst something needed to be done about the power level of marines, it feels like all this will achieve is for the competitive mindset to return to soup. Now that the bonuses for single faction "super traits" is now mostly restricted to a single turn the benefit I see the return of imperium soup lists.

At least as an FAQ it can always be undone in the future if/when new codexes are released that up the power creep and overtake marines

Oh, I don't think so. The bonuses for traits are still damn strong. Walking around as UM and firing my weapons as though remaining stationary is suuuper good.

I can see a resurgence of Space Marine soup of different chapters. Doctrines are too powerfull of a bonus to ignore.

Good job GW.

I think this should really settle the meta.

Its funny to read comments about people still complaining about marines. But there is some really strong competition for the top now.

Execution-wise who knows if GW can pull off nerfing Marines competently, but I just want to say that even acknowledging that there's a problem and taking the initiative to try to fix it is something we can never have expected old GW to do. I'm a perfect world I wouldn't have to give props to a company for fixing the mess they themselves created, but credit where it's due.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 lifeafter wrote:
Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?

[Quietly swaps Assault Centurions for Aggressors]
"Sure does, totally toned down my capability for stupidly effective alpha strikes with units pointed around their limited speed and weapon reach."

1 less wound
3+ instead of 2+
PF is way less scary than drills

And 25ppm less expensive, don't forget that part.

Seriously though, they're both units with extremely high shot output and melee capacity per man with point costs clearly based on limited threat range and not being able deploy 9" away from enemy lines. Their points efficiency is even fairly close if you take both shooting and melee into consideration. Are you going to argue that the Aggressors aren't abusive in that role just because Cents were worse, or do you geniunely not think Aggressors deploying 9" off your line isn't problematic?

Which is harder to kill?

24 2+ wounds in 4 wound segments

or

18 3+ wounds in 3 wound segments

Because there isn't a WHOLE army getting placed by that trait. It's one unit. It is still a strong unit, but the overall strength is far less.

I suppose that's fair, but it's still ignoring the point differential. The better comparison is the full Centurion squad deploying forward versus the full Aggressor squad and the Invictor you could buy with the extra points.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why so many abstractions of the same concept?

When GW started talking about 8th they kept talking up how everything was going to be "bespoke". That's why we have a million different ways to die in the west.

If they went back to USRs then this wouldn't be an issue, and it'd be easier to update things across the board.

I think it looks good, broadly speaking.
The stratagem changes tone them down but they're still good.
Cycling through the doctrines encourages more balanced lists that are a nerf to some more than others and improves the internal balance of the different chapters to boot.
Marines still look strong but some of the most dominant builds have been weakened, it may turn out to be in need of further tweaks but it looks a group of decent changes to me.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Whilst something needed to be done about the power level of marines, it feels like all this will achieve is for the competitive mindset to return to soup. Now that the bonuses for single faction "super traits" is now mostly restricted to a single turn the benefit I see the return of imperium soup lists.

At least as an FAQ it can always be undone in the future if/when new codexes are released that up the power creep and overtake marines

I don't play anywhere close to the bleeding edge of optimization, but my Primaris only army does okay by itself. I already didn't make use of any of the supplements being an 'Unknown' successor chapter (custom chaper). So the doctrine change is really the only thing that affects me. Even then, it barely does. My army has Bolter Fusillades and Whirlwind of Rage as chapter tactics. I don't have many Stalker Bolt Rifle Intercessors and only a single squad of Bolt Sniper Rifle Eliminators so I always moved to Tactical round 2 anyways to make better use of all the Rapid Fire and Assault Bolt weapons I have. Typically, I stayed in Tactical round 2 and 3. Going to Assault was usually tied to how many of Rievers actually reached or looked ready to reach melee combat after deep strike. I would say it was 50/50 on round 4 switching to Assault with me taking a moment to actually consider it.

Now I know my army list sounds pretty badly optimized. I like Reivers and made them my chapter's signature unit good or bad. However, my army still wins a little bit more than it loses even favoring Reivers and the holes in the Primaris unit types in general. Just don't ask it to take on armored companies (maybe giant hordes too, haven't played against one) and it does fine. I don't think I would trade Doctrines away for what other IoM units can give me. Especially since I haven't really lost anything with this most recent FAQ. I sure some chapters might wander back to allies especially if they value CPs, but I don't think the change is enough to see mono-marine armies disappear completely or even very much.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why so many abstractions of the same concept?

When GW started talking about 8th they kept talking up how everything was going to be "bespoke". That's why we have a million different ways to die in the west.

If they went back to USRs then this wouldn't be an issue, and it'd be easier to update things across the board.

Gw has a trend of pushing things they love for an edition and they toss out buzzwords for it over and over to try and make people love it. 6th was forging the narrative, they doubled down with 7th and it was forging the narrative with formations. ( we remember how that turned out ) now its these bespoke rules, Strategems and well more formations that also forge the narrative. Bad ideas die hard at GW prime.