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.

 Smirrors wrote:
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.

It's just the same few people. Who have been around for ages.

 Sim-Life wrote:

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.

It is a bad thing though. If the game designers aren't allowing two opponents to go at it to the best of their abilities but one is at a severe handicap because of army choice alone, there needs to be a change. You deciding to buy into that means you're handily ignoring the problem and not helping the opponent learn a lesson into doing research before buying models.

In reality that shouldn't HAVE to happen, but you allow GW to let that happen.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 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.

Well, you would need a USR for...

Plasma
Plasma on vehicles
Weapons that are D6 damage, but 1s and 2s count as 3
Deepstrike
Turn 1 Deepstrike
Reroll 1s to Wound
Reroll all Wounds
Weapons that ignore cover
Models that provide ignore cover to a unit
Weapons that wound infantry, but not vehicles well
Weapons that do more damage to vehicles (multiple varieties)
Weapons that do mortal wounds to vehicles
Ignore move and shoot for heavies, but with an Advance penalty
Ignore move and shoot for heavies
Self Heals
Heals that can target certain units
Units that do a MW per unit on the charge
Units that do a MW per model on the charge
Weapons that do bonus damage and continue
Weapons that do bonus damage and end the attack
Units that have thorns from making invulns
Invulnerables
Invulnerables that only work on ranged
Invulnerables that only work on melee
Invunerable bubbles wholly within
Invunerable bubbles partially within
Explosions with D3" / D6" / 3" / 6" / 9"
Stackable LD debuffs
Unstackable LD debuffs

etc, etc, etc

We COULD have USRs. And then when I play my opponent who has an army I am unfamiliar with I can ask to see his unit's sheet, read the rules, and the go to the BRB to find the corresponding USRs I have not memorized...

Or, I can just look at the data sheet and have everything I need and GW gets more design space without having to tack on more USRs or exceptions to USRs.

I don't play marines, only against them and the doctrines are really good. I haven't played against IH so I am not experienced with the craziness that I have seen on the internet.


But what ever your stand is on the latest change to SM (nerfed into the ground, still OP etc. etc.) there is on thing I think we can all agree on. I have said this before on this forum and I say it again, GW has really stepped up its game in addressing issues with balance. Yes in an ideal world they would have better play tested the doctrine rule before release. However, I think everyone can agree that SM was over-preforming especially IH based on the community stats. And GW is attempting to balance this out within less than a year from the release of the codex and supplement. And in 8th edition they have repeatedly made changes to the meta within months of a problem.

Anyone who has played this game from 3rd - 7th has to appreciate this. I remember years of having to deal with ungodly broken IG lists, Necron list, and Grey Knights that were an auto win for years, not to mention several different versions of broken Eldar. The only time in 3rd - 7th that balanced was addressed was when a new codex came out that was more OP than the last, and if your Codex was not the new OP hotness, well then enjoy having a crap army for the next 3-5 years or more (see 6th edition CSM codex). And again I say I would GLADLY have to have more books and FAQs etc., then go back to an era when OP codex were in the meta for years, no point adjustments to improve under preforming units or fix OP ones, etc and GW was completely non-responsive to the meta.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 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.

Well, you would need a USR for...

Plasma
Plasma on vehicles
Weapons that are D6 damage, but 1s and 2s count as 3
Deepstrike
Turn 1 Deepstrike
Reroll 1s to Wound
Reroll all Wounds
Weapons that ignore cover
Models that provide ignore cover to a unit
Weapons that wound infantry, but not vehicles well
Weapons that do more damage to vehicles (multiple varieties)
Weapons that do mortal wounds to vehicles
Ignore move and shoot for heavies, but with an Advance penalty
Ignore move and shoot for heavies
Self Heals
Heals that can target certain units
Units that do a MW per unit on the charge
Units that do a MW per model on the charge
Weapons that do bonus damage and continue
Weapons that do bonus damage and end the attack
Units that have thorns from making invulns
Invulnerables
Invulnerables that only work on ranged
Invulnerables that only work on melee
Invunerable bubbles wholly within
Invunerable bubbles partially within
Explosions with D3" / D6" / 3" / 6" / 9"
Stackable LD debuffs
Unstackable LD debuffs

etc, etc, etc

We COULD have USRs. And then when I play my opponent who has an army I am unfamiliar with I can ask to see his unit's sheet, read the rules, and the go to the BRB to find the corresponding USRs I have not memorized...

Or, I can just look at the data sheet and have everything I need and GW gets more design space without having to tack on more USRs or exceptions to USRs.

Or those USRs can just be printed on the datasheet and then you only create a new one as necessary.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 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.

Well, you would need a USR for...

Plasma
Plasma on vehicles
Weapons that are D6 damage, but 1s and 2s count as 3
Deepstrike
Turn 1 Deepstrike
Reroll 1s to Wound
Reroll all Wounds
Weapons that ignore cover
Models that provide ignore cover to a unit
Weapons that wound infantry, but not vehicles well
Weapons that do more damage to vehicles (multiple varieties)
Weapons that do mortal wounds to vehicles
Ignore move and shoot for heavies, but with an Advance penalty
Ignore move and shoot for heavies
Self Heals
Heals that can target certain units
Units that do a MW per unit on the charge
Units that do a MW per model on the charge
Weapons that do bonus damage and continue
Weapons that do bonus damage and end the attack
Units that have thorns from making invulns
Invulnerables
Invulnerables that only work on ranged
Invulnerables that only work on melee
Invunerable bubbles wholly within
Invunerable bubbles partially within
Explosions with D3" / D6" / 3" / 6" / 9"
Stackable LD debuffs
Unstackable LD debuffs

etc, etc, etc

We COULD have USRs. And then when I play my opponent who has an army I am unfamiliar with I can ask to see his unit's sheet, read the rules, and the go to the BRB to find the corresponding USRs I have not memorized...

Or, I can just look at the data sheet and have everything I need and GW gets more design space without having to tack on more USRs or exceptions to USRs.

Usrs are about consistency, nothing more.

Each one of those effects just needs to be standardised so if people see the rule 'plasma' they know it will do the same thing ever time they see it.

Thats it.

Hellebore wrote:


Usrs are about consistency, nothing more.

Each one of those effects just needs to be standardised so if people see the rule 'plasma' they know it will do the same thing ever time they see it.

Thats it.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't like some of the variety GW has offered through bespoke rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:

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.

Yes, but it is important to note that the Harlequin who brought haywire and previously had nothing to shoot now has a prime target that can be bracketed as well. There are a lot of idiosyncrasies to account for in the change.

 xeen wrote:
I don't play marines, only against them and the doctrines are really good. I haven't played against IH so I am not experienced with the craziness that I have seen on the internet.


But what ever your stand is on the latest change to SM (nerfed into the ground, still OP etc. etc.) there is on thing I think we can all agree on. I have said this before on this forum and I say it again, GW has really stepped up its game in addressing issues with balance. Yes in an ideal world they would have better play tested the doctrine rule before release. However, I think everyone can agree that SM was over-preforming especially IH based on the community stats. And GW is attempting to balance this out within less than a year from the release of the codex and supplement. And in 8th edition they have repeatedly made changes to the meta within months of a problem.

Anyone who has played this game from 3rd - 7th has to appreciate this. I remember years of having to deal with ungodly broken IG lists, Necron list, and Grey Knights that were an auto win for years, not to mention several different versions of broken Eldar. The only time in 3rd - 7th that balanced was addressed was when a new codex came out that was more OP than the last, and if your Codex was not the new OP hotness, well then enjoy having a crap army for the next 3-5 years or more (see 6th edition CSM codex). And again I say I would GLADLY have to have more books and FAQs etc., then go back to an era when OP codex were in the meta for years, no point adjustments to improve under preforming units or fix OP ones, etc and GW was completely non-responsive to the meta.

As much as I bash GW this is true. Although I have not played all the way through the editions. I was around as Tyranids during 3rd/4th ed (whatever the one with the black templars on the cover of the BRB was was the one I started...). I remember really not liking how weak my nids were lol

My only gripe isn't in armies being tweaked on the fly, that is only a good thing for most people.

My only issue is the crap excuse of " We couldn't have known it would be this way. " It's a weak excuse, they should have just corrected it and left that part out. As it makes them look like they are either dumb or lying.

I hope it goes well with the changes and glad they didn't throw the baby out with the bath water this time.

And here is where USRs offer a window as well as handle on balance. Not that we must be limited to USRs. Specific units can have so called bespoke rules. It seems that we have USRs in practice regardless. They just have different names for different units and this is just confusing for ... me anyways. As if black chess pieces had one set of names for the same moves that white pieces take but with black specific names. A mess. Unnecessrily complicated. I suppose great for trademarking every weird name in the galaxy but why for a second should i cate about GW trademark? $%#@ GW trademarks and their %$$#$ IP nonsense. Their profits first paranoid reactionism screws up my game!

Not Online!!! wrote:
Well the doctrines got also kicked, so we will probs see Soup again.

yeah not sure this is going to really be a marked improvement. but hey, guard sales will be up again!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Wow. Thanks iron hands. Guess my ultramarines will sit on the shelf for another 2 years

UM still have at least two methods of getting units into Tactical Doctrine (warlord trait, and a UM specific stratagem).

As a UM player, I'm not really fussed. I didn't really like Doctrines anyways, so I'm unaffected by this.

yeah course how will this interact with the rules given the rules say "at 4th level you are in assault" thats going to need a FAQing

If soup comes back after what I'd consider a modest nerf then the forum may need to admit that the balance is way more delicate then many would let on.

No, because we all know of several things that should've been done. For example, Super Doctrines shouldn't exist, period. That's not something delicate to go around. Instead we have GW trying to keep their bad idea still around, which in turn makes certain armies much better and functioning bizarrely, like Ultramarines being better at lugging around heavy weapons for two turns compared to Iron Hands.

So what else do you want?

 jeff white wrote:
And here is where USRs offer a window as well as handle on balance. Not that we must be limited to USRs. Specific units can have so called bespoke rules. It seems that we have USRs in practice regardless. They just have different names for different units and this is just confusing for ... me anyways. As if black chess pieces had one set of names for the same moves that white pieces take but with black specific names. A mess. Unnecessrily complicated. I suppose great for trademarking every weird name in the galaxy but why for a second should i cate about GW trademark? $%#@ GW trademarks and their %$$#$ IP nonsense. Their profits first paranoid reactionism screws up my game!

And we have rules that are nearly same, have no real reason to be different yet are different.

Why on earth space marines(but not blood angels, dark angels etc) and sisters have superior melta weapons to...well pretty much any other melta weapon? Why ork shock attack gun and souped up shock attack gun work differently on whole roll strenght, pick target thing? Why there is multiple different ways to have bodyguard type effect resulting in tau drones being so frigging good, grots being 2nd best and models like celestine being poor man's bodyguard?

Because they are better at using those weapons? The rules represent both the weapon strength and the unit's proficiency at using it.

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.

My idea of fun stuff, yeah.

Enemy leader sat out there in the open, surrounded by my army? You bet I'm charging him alone with just my Captain.

Making USR isn't that easy.

Take deepstrike for example, which seems to be the easier one.

To cover the current nids range (without forgeworld) you would need SIX different deepstrike rules.

Deepstrike at 9"
Deepstrike at 12"
Deepstrike at 2" but no charge
Deepstrike at any distance from enemy but within 6" of x model
Deepstrike at 9" and immediately disembark at 9"
Deepstrike at 9" and also deepstrike another troop at 9"

Spoletta wrote:
Making USR isn't that easy.

Take deepstrike for example, which seems to be the easier one.

To cover the current nids range (without forgeworld) you would need SIX different deepstrike rules.

Deepstrike at 9"
Deepstrike at 12"
Deepstrike at 2" but no charge
Deepstrike at any distance from enemy but within 6" of x model
Deepstrike at 9" and immediately disembark at 9"
Deepstrike at 9" and also deepstrike another troop at 9"

Or they could have a USR and then give those units a special rule that modifies it. Like they used to do.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
No, because we all know of several things that should've been done. For example, Super Doctrines shouldn't exist, period. That's not something delicate to go around. Instead we have GW trying to keep their bad idea still around, which in turn makes certain armies much better and functioning bizarrely, like Ultramarines being better at lugging around heavy weapons for two turns compared to Iron Hands.

So what else do you want?

Respectfully Slayer.

Your comments are now at a rinse and repeat point whenever I see it's you who's left a comment I have stopped reading and just glancing over. That wasn't on purpose. I just noticed myself doing that. I thought to myself that's not fair I better read. So I did read and I thought to myself. "this is a broken record".

I get you are unhappy but my god, there's a way to go about it and type constructively. Your POV has been white noise and even if you have valid points it's a massive shame (because you have had a couple) they're not gunna get seen or taken into account. Especially by GW community members (who do go through these forums, I game with many ex GW staff who still know people in business and have informed me as such), if I thought it turned into relentless ramble and moan for the sake of it, so will they and your POV will never be taken.

Here's my take on the whole thing.

The centurion thing, the dreadnought character thing, the half damage turned into 1 damage. All great.

The doctrine thing from a game POV is great, from fluff POV maybe not but the game isn't fluff, the game is the game.

I don't think we can say what will happen next whether it'll be enough or too much. No competitive events have taken place so time will tell.

I suspect we will see more primaris after this, marine soups maybe and personally I think Ravenwing Lists are gunna become top tier after all this after seeing what happened at that recent GT with the 6 flyers. I think that's only gunna get better. The DA dev super doctrine I don't think we DA players have room to complaign, if I am still 36" away form the enemy after my first turn then there is something wrong with both players.

The DA flyer list suffers a lot from this change. That list lived in dev doctrine, they only weapons it has for the assault doctrine are the hurricane bolters on the Talons.

Sammael, Talon masters and Nephilim have only heavy weapons. Those are the real firepower of the list.

Spoletta wrote:
The DA flyer list suffers a lot from this change. That list lived in dev doctrine, they only weapons it has for the assault doctrine are the hurricane bolters on the Talons.

Sammael, Talon masters and Nephilim have only heavy weapons. Those are the real firepower of the list.

Maybe, but I still think Ravenwing are going to be key. Maybe larger units of black knights instead of as many flyers. I still think Ravenwing lists are going to increase in podium positions.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
The DA flyer list suffers a lot from this change. That list lived in dev doctrine, they only weapons it has for the assault doctrine are the hurricane bolters on the Talons.

Sammael, Talon masters and Nephilim have only heavy weapons. Those are the real firepower of the list.

Maybe, but I still think Ravenwing are going to be key. Maybe larger units of black knights instead of as many flyers. I still think Ravenwing lists are going to increase in podium positions.

Being forced into tactical makes me wish Hellblasters could deep strike.

I think the big winners with this change are going to be Ultramarines.

There are no winners, only bigger and smaller losers. Ultramarines lost almost nothing, but they surely didn't become better.

 Sgt_Smudge 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.

My idea of fun stuff, yeah.

Enemy leader sat out there in the open, surrounded by my army? You bet I'm charging him alone with just my Captain.

that doesn't sound very fun. It is like beating someone and then leting him get a penality point, it equalizes so instead of a fast win, you get to beat them up for a long time for everyone to see. In sports that is one of the most donkey-cave things to do. If you dominate someone you end it quick, you don't let them earn points, they shouldn't have earned anyway. Not to mention that in case of any event game it looks like your trying to farm small points or exposer from sponsors.


How are DA going to work after the devastator change? Maybe they should have their super doctrin doctrin, divided in to 3 parts. So each works in devastator, tactical and assault ones. Because right now it seems like they aren't getting much out of their rules, unless they spam vehicles.

For all the people complaining that ultramarines, salamanders, etc... didn't deserved the nerf, and they are victims, etc... should I remember that if those factions had a less than stellar winrate was only because they were destroyed by other marines?

Agaisnt xenos and many chaos factions and lists they were at minimun equal or in most of the cases just flat out better.

Also, I love that this subfaction winrate diferentiation was made for other factions. Nobody says "omg T'au sept is OP but look at Vior'la how crapy they should buff it". As always, with marines we spin the well to try to arguee and justify their opness.

My take away?

Those who built lists to exploit two or three odd interactions now find their army much harder to use.

I'd say the Errata is working?

BrianDavion wrote:
I think the big winners with this change are going to be Ultramarines.

My money is on Eldar being the big winners. Tau look pretty strong, but they lose to Eldar hit modifiers and they have no real answer to GK mortal wound spam. Either way, Adepticon is going to be a pretty good source of data on this.

Either way, being able to play against marines without having to take a competitive list is nice.

Adepticon might be a bit soon to produce reliable data?

These sorts of changes take time to bed in Not only might we see changed lists, but also people changing armies. Lots of variables in play, and often they don't settle until we've a few such tournies to refer to?

I could argue that we don't have a book for Vior'la and a book for T'au. Those 2 differ only for a couple of stratagems relics and Warlord traits.

UM are as different from IH as they are from BA. It makes a lot of sense to consider each chapter a different faction.

Completely different warlord traits and relics, only a few stratagems in common, totally different psy powers. There are even differences in the models themselves.