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.

It's funny seeing xenos players going from complain about Space Marines to gloating about their demise in the span of a single faq.

It's pretty sad, yeah. Honestly I wish people in general would be a little more respectful to each other. It's not even unique to any one type of person on here.

So I'm not sure some of the "everything is ruined" talk is as accurate as people think it is. If only because a balanced Tau list (piloted by someone who ironically was very salty about how bad armies with the Devastator Doctrine bonus) got tabled by a fairly balanced Dark Angels army. The Dark Angels player is the newer player of the two, so it's not like we're talking about a massive difference in experience helping either.

The game is still healthier, but I think people are over estimating how much this hurts certain armies.

I for one am happy for this FAQ. I was bored to death of the lists my FLGS has been toting the last few months. I havent had a game since an October GT where (unsurprisingly IH, RG and Eldar took top bill. I decided this week to dip my toe back in, and just at the right time it seems. Maybe games will make it to turn 4 now!

 Galas wrote:
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.

You have a point when T'au and Vior'la each has own book with more and more stragems, free bonus rules, relics, possily own unique units etc.

 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.

So much this.

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?

But it isn't a bad idea. Giving people a dynamic that makes soup a choice rather than a requirement is a good thing.

You wouldn't have been saying this if it had been implemented more smoothly.

So, UM are good at lugging heavies now, but they don't get the AP bonus.
IH get half as many turns at it, but the get it on the most important turn with better AP and a free captain. Now we may even see successors step back as IH go back to their founding chapter for the FNP and overwatch.

Smells like a more interesting dichotomy to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

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

Then what's the point? Why make me take out the BRB? Just put the text on the datasheet and the job is done.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[

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.

That's arguing in bad faith. I want to add "and you know it" but I don't want to assume things.

There's no debating that swapping Cents for Aggressors in that RG list clears 150ish points, there's no debating that there are a lot of things that can be in your opponent's face turn-one in the Marine arsenal that can fit into 150 points, there's no debating that if I have to swap Cents out for Aggressors in that slot I'm going to use the 150 point difference to try to make up the difference in effectiveness, there's no debating that if Aggressors aren't the next-most-effective thing to put in that slot then whatever the next-most-effecitve thing actually is will bubble up eventually, and I shouldn't have to point any of that out.

None of your counter-points have addressed the underlying sentiment of "GW once again fixed the use-case and not the underlying problem."

The Newman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[

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.

That's arguing in bad faith. I want to add "and you know it" but I don't want to assume things.

There's no debating that swapping Cents for Aggressors in that RG list clears 150ish points, there's no debating that there are a lot of things that can be in your opponent's face turn-one in the Marine arsenal that can fit into 150 points, there's no debating that if I have to swap Cents out for Aggressors in that slot I'm going to use the 150 point difference to try to make up the difference in effectiveness, there's no debating that if Aggressors aren't the next-most-effective thing to put in that slot then whatever the next-most-effecitve thing actually is will bubble up eventually, and I shouldn't have to point any of that out.

None of your counter-points have addressed the underlying sentiment of "GW once again fixed the use-case and not the underlying problem."

Not it is not.

Skew lists are real. Anyone taking anti-vehicle of a type that Centurions care little about suffer from the presence of Centurions.

5 Lascannons wounds --
Let's assume a sequence of possible damage rolls : 3, 5, 3, 1, 4

Invictor: 4 and change get through armor. You don't have to worry about rolls over-flowing - it will take 12 to 16 damage.
Centurions : 3 and change get through. Did you roll a 3 for damage? Whoops. Oh, you rolled a 5 for the next one? That's too bad. Still only one model dead. Oh you only rolled a 3? Better luck next time.

And that set of wounds would kill 3 aggressors.

Don't pretend there isn't a difference, because if Aggressors and Invictors were as viable they would have seen more play.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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?

But it isn't a bad idea. Giving people a dynamic that makes soup a choice rather than a requirement is a good thing.

You wouldn't have been saying this if it had been implemented more smoothly.

So, UM are good at lugging heavies now, but they don't get the AP bonus.
IH get half as many turns at it, but the get it on the most important turn with better AP and a free captain. Now we may even see successors step back as IH go back to their founding chapter for the FNP and overwatch.

Smells like a more interesting dichotomy to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

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

Then what's the point? Why make me take out the BRB? Just put the text on the datasheet and the job is done.

I would've been saying it to begin with, because it's arbitrary to add rules on top of rules on top of rules. The base codex itself when released was fine outside Iron Hands having a three tiered Tactic, and it shouldn't have been hard to eliminate the wound chart part and of course outside Salamanders, bless their hearts. The Supplements added a codex's worth of rules on top of that. There's no "smooth", there's just bloat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

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.

And I've been doing my part. The moment I or someone else catches issues, I shoot the email. Because of endless bloat I refuse to give them money for any more rules. I've been telling people to do the same because the problems are growing, just like with the end of 6th and 7th.

However people aren't listening again and missing the same exact patterns.

Daedalus, you must be in a weird meta to be talking about anti-tank fire and using massed Lascannons as a baseline. The common D2 weapons everyone actually takes for anti-tank work are more efficient against Cents than they are against Aggressors.

You know what? Forget I said anything. Talk about missing the forest for the trees, the difference between a full Cent squad and a full Aggressor squad is only 90 points, making up the 24ish melee damage differential with 90 extra points to spend is a different proposition.

I like the fact that now the diffefrent chapters have different counterplays.

IH and IF will be a deployment battle to limit turn 1 as much as possible and then strike turn 2.

Against UM it will be an attrition battle where you must NOT focus fire units. They love big units for the selected doctrines and stratagems, it is better to let live 2 units of intercessors at 5 men each than one squad at 10 men.

Spoletta wrote:
I like the fact that now the diffefrent chapters have different counterplays.

IH and IF will be a deployment battle to limit turn 1 as much as possible and then strike turn 2.

Against UM it will be an attrition battle where you must NOT focus fire units. They love big units for the selected doctrines and stratagems, it is better to let live 2 units of intercessors at 5 men each than one squad at 10 men.

Deep Strike units might actually be useful against IH and IF.

It's funny seeing xenos players going from complain about Space Marines to gloating about their demise in the span of a single faq.

All the "WE MUST NERF THEM IMMEDIATELY" talk from xenos players was especially funny given the near auto-win that Eldar and Tau were for nearly two straight editions ...

For myself, my marine army is actually Red Hunters, but since FW haven't updated those, I play them as Sons of Orar. I haven't had enough time to really go through and think about these changes, but at first glance, I feel like these shouldn't effect me too much? The real issues I have with this nerf are that it looks like they may have nerfed some things across-the-board, that were only problematic in IH lists. This is frustrating because the whole reason they sold us on the keyword system was to avoid having to do that. Plus, deleting an entire strategem? Is that a first in this edition?

My only big issue with this whole thing is this:

We maintained a degree of flexibility by letting players choose when they would progress to the next
doctrine, imagining that every Space Marines player would wish to progress through the sequence as quick as they
could – after all, an average ‘combined arms’ army has more melee weapons in it than it has Rapid Fire weapons (every
model technically has a melee weapon) and fewer still have Heavy weapons. The idea was that as the game progressed
(and the enemy got closer) you’d get more of a bonus by switching combat doctrines.

It shows the games designers are still RADICALLY miss-aligned with even the casual player base, and indeed with a sci-fi war game in general. It reads like they expect this to be the Napoleonic Wars. We'll line up, fire our canons, move up, shoot our rifles, and then .... CHAAAAARRRRRRRGE!

The line "every model technically has a melee weapon" is especially telling. It's like they really think that, your marines with Stalker bolters are still going to be moving up to fight in CC .... No GW. When we have good ranged weapons, we're going to stick to those weapons. We're not going to abandon them to use CC because in your head you're still designing WFB ...

Plus, they've done everything they can to make CC as difficult as possible, then are surprised when people aren't attempting it? I agree a nerf was called for here, but their whole line of thinking is confusing and problematic and will only continue to lead to additional issues down the road. The whole thing just makes me glad my primary is still Death Guard I guess ...

Spoletta wrote:
I like the fact that now the diffefrent chapters have different counterplays.

IH and IF will be a deployment battle to limit turn 1 as much as possible and then strike turn 2.

Against UM it will be an attrition battle where you must NOT focus fire units. They love big units for the selected doctrines and stratagems, it is better to let live 2 units of intercessors at 5 men each than one squad at 10 men.

Ooo. I like this observation a lot.

The Newman wrote:
Daedalus, you must be in a weird meta to be talking about anti-tank fire and using massed Lascannons as a baseline. The common D2 weapons everyone actually takes for anti-tank work are more efficient against Cents than they are against Aggressors.

You know what? Forget I said anything. Talk about missing the forest for the trees, the difference between a full Cent squad and a full Aggressor squad is only 90 points, making up the 24ish melee damage differential with 90 extra points to spend is a different proposition.

Not everyone has ravagers or riptides.

I already gave you a perfectly cromulent example in haywire. The #3 LVO player had 12 of them. The top Ork player has TBs (D3) and SAGG (DD6). What do those shoot when facing Cent spam? Are they better or worse at killing Aggressors and/or Invictors? Have you never seen Sisters with 3 Exorcists MLs? Miracle dice won't save all of those rolls.

And will you continue to ignore that Centurions save 100% more than aggressors do against AP3 and actually have a save against AP4?

Spoletta wrote:
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"

Q - Are you sure these all want/need to be reproduced exactly?

Anyway, start with a USR of Deep Strike [N"], where N is defined as how far away from an enemy unit you can place the models. That clears your first two automatically, and provides a baseline rule for the remainder other than the fourth one.

3, 5 & 6 need an add-on rule of some form (I'm don't own the 'Nid book, so I can't look up the exact wording to suggest how to word them - as a general idea "When this unit is deployed via Deep Strike[N"], then...").

I think 4 would have to be a bespoke rule - which unit currently has it?

@Daedalus, before you kick off again - it would be entirely possible for this USR wording to be in place on each datasheet, assuming there was room on the sheet. The key thing, of course, is that if you needed to make a global change to how Deep Strike works, you're not having to check for abilities that look similar but are worded differently - you just look for Deep Strike and update it wherever it lies.

I play UM and I did actually use the Doctrines how GW intended. Typically going r1=Dev, r2=Dev, r3=Tac, r4=Tac, r5+=Assault. It worked for me. Being able to stay in Dev or Tactical an extra round really helped, but I did progress through.

So... I'm not terribly thrilled with the change to Doctrines, but whatever... IH were over the top OP. I get it that something needed to be done. I just don't agree with what that 'something' is.

I think that this change is short sighted and reactionary. I think that GW has given zero consideration that since the release of the SM codex that they have released 8 other books that build on to/off of the Doctrines mechanic. This, from my viewpoint, has become a complete dumpster fire.

But I think what upsets me the most; is that there are 9 books with 7 sets of gaming aids... $405.00 worth of obsolete, degenerate product and the precedent it sets.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Should the bad matchups extend to matchups that are so bad you read the lists and then might as well say "All right, you win, good game, let's do something else now"?

This, basically. The game is going to be so bad one might not even bother. So the question is:

Since we can work this out like adults, according to Ishagu, then let's provide an example to the forum of how to work it out like adults. After all, it's simple, right? Easy to do. "All it takes is a conversation and a bit of arranging." So let's have that conversation: I'd like to play my mono Slaanesh vs his Ultramarines. What's a reasonable way to arrange this game to compensate for the bad matchup?

This is actually something I've worked on before, You could use a handicap, they are easy enough to calculate and we have lots of data to base it on. Using ITC missions and a golf style handicap, it's around an 7 point handicap. It's super easy to calculate, Without getting to far out into the weeds, you just take the mean of the a factions score (there is a bit I'm leaving out for the sake of clarity), compared that to the overall mean score, and the inverse of the difference is that factions handicap. Thanks to 40k stats we have a wealth of data to calculate the handicap, and since it's a simple algorithm it's incapable of bias. However Handicapping is an extremely unpopular topic, for GW it's an admission of failure to balance the game, and 40ks competitive players want the advantages that come from unbalanced factions.

It's worth noting that the competitive players are the whales of 40k, they are absolutely willing to go drop 500+ bucks for a new army that will give them an advantage. I think GW played them with this whole iron hands/space marine debacle, there is no other good explanation, the GW rules team can do simple math, and the playtesters are on record saying they told GW that the marine stuff was broken AF. So how did we get a meta as trashed as the one we are just leaving, simple GW wanted marines to be massively OP, because otherwise Competitive players wouldn't touch marines with a 10' pole. Same pattern with the castellant, come out broken, sells like hotcakes, sales slow down, gets nerfed.

That pattern is why I think we should consider a handicap, because GW messes this game up everytime they decide to milk the whales. Handicapping removes the incentive for whales to go buy new armies when GW releases something broken AF, because in a week or two the handicap will adjust and it won't be that broken anymore.

 oni wrote:
I play UM and I did actually use the Doctrines how GW intended. Typically going r1=Dev, r2=Dev, r3=Tac, r4=Tac, r5+=Assault. It worked for me. Being able to stay in Dev or Tactical an extra round really helped, but I did progress through.

So... I'm not terribly thrilled with the change to Doctrines, but whatever... IH were over the top OP. I get it that something needed to be done. I just don't agree with what that 'something' is.

I think that this change is short sighted and reactionary. I think that GW has given zero consideration that since the release of the SM codex that they have released 8 other books that build on to/off of the Doctrines mechanic. This, from my viewpoint, has become a complete dumpster fire.

But I think what upsets me the most; is that there are 9 books with 7 sets of gaming aids... $405.00 worth of obsolete, degenerate product and the precedent it sets.

The solution was to nerf the dev doctrine. Not just make it a 1 and easily avoidable.

Dev doctrine = Move and shoot heavies without penalty.
Move all dev doctrine traits to be tactical doctrine.
All other doctrines remain the same.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Daedalus, you must be in a weird meta to be talking about anti-tank fire and using massed Lascannons as a baseline. The common D2 weapons everyone actually takes for anti-tank work are more efficient against Cents than they are against Aggressors.

You know what? Forget I said anything. Talk about missing the forest for the trees, the difference between a full Cent squad and a full Aggressor squad is only 90 points, making up the 24ish melee damage differential with 90 extra points to spend is a different proposition.

Not everyone has ravagers or riptides.

I already gave you a perfectly cromulent example in haywire. The #3 LVO player had 12 of them. The top Ork player has TBs (D3) and SAGG (DD6). What do those shoot when facing Cent spam? Are they better or worse at killing Aggressors and/or Invictors? Have you never seen Sisters with 3 Exorcists MLs? Miracle dice won't save all of those rolls.

And will you continue to ignore that Centurions save 100% more than aggressors do against AP3 and actually have a save against AP4?

Don't act like defensive stats mean jack-squat in this game below T8, and don't pretend like that Warlord trait doesn't let you hide the target unit as completely as the terrain rules will allow until after you know if you have the first turn or not.

Besides, when someone admits they were working from an incorrect premise and withdraws their argument you're suppose to acknowledge the point and move on, not continue arguing.

 Dysartes wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
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"

Q - Are you sure these all want/need to be reproduced exactly?

Anyway, start with a USR of Deep Strike [N"], where N is defined as how far away from an enemy unit you can place the models. That clears your first two automatically, and provides a baseline rule for the remainder other than the fourth one.

3, 5 & 6 need an add-on rule of some form (I'm don't own the 'Nid book, so I can't look up the exact wording to suggest how to word them - as a general idea "When this unit is deployed via Deep Strike[N"], then...").

I think 4 would have to be a bespoke rule - which unit currently has it?

@Daedalus, before you kick off again - it would be entirely possible for this USR wording to be in place on each datasheet, assuming there was room on the sheet. The key thing, of course, is that if you needed to make a global change to how Deep Strike works, you're not having to check for abilities that look similar but are worded differently - you just look for Deep Strike and update it wherever it lies.

Number 4 is the Genestealer infestation.

Luckily, as a DA player, I wasn't super thrilled with our super doctrine anyway. RotD for me was all about what they did for Ravenwing and Deathwing. That hasn't changed much.
For Ravenwing we have the WT to give all RW within 6" our dev doctrine back. Deathwing get some AP on thise stormbolters when they come down, and knights bumping their maces to AP-3 is downright tasty.
Super doctrines should be a small bonus, not something an entire army builds around.

The Newman wrote:


Don't act like defensive stats mean jack-squat in this game below T8, and don't pretend like that Warlord trait doesn't let you hide the target unit as completely as the terrain rules will allow until after you know if you have the first turn or not.

Besides, when someone admits they were working from an incorrect premise and withdraws their argument you're suppose to acknowledge the point and move on, not continue arguing.

Not sure I read your post properly.

In any case there's a lot more in difference between Aggressors and Cents than just defense.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
It's funny seeing xenos players going from complain about Space Marines to gloating about their demise in the span of a single faq.

That would be pretty funny. Where are you seeing these people doing this?

The responses I've seen so far have been "AAAAGH, TOO MUCH!" or "Great, but not enough".

Not seeing a ton of "Gloating about their demise."

Spoletta wrote:
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.

That's only because they decided to give them that, and not give the Tau that.

Guard regiments don't even share the same models! And, in fact, there was once a whole separate codex for one group of Guardsmen like BA and DA's relationship with Space Marines.

Basically, you're saying: "SM should have supplements for each subfaction with different psychic powers and 15 different stratagems because they have supplements with different psychic power and 15 different stratagems."

I can write a new suite or orders and 15 new stratagems and 12 new relics and all that for Catachan, Cadia, Valhallan, etc. and there'd be greater difference between any of them than between any 2 space marine chapters, because at one step up, the models aren't even the same.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
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.

That's only because they decided to give them that, and not give the Tau that.

Guard regiments don't even share the same models! And, in fact, there was once a whole separate codex for one group of Guardsmen like BA and DA's relationship with Space Marines.

Basically, you're saying: "SM should have supplements for each subfaction with different psychic powers and 15 different stratagems because they have supplements with different psychic power and 15 different stratagems."

I can write a new suite or orders and 15 new stratagems and 12 new relics and all that for Catachan, Cadia, Valhallan, etc. and there'd be greater difference between any of them than between any 2 space marine chapters, because at one step up, the models aren't even the same.

No, what i'm saying is that since SM chapters are so different from each other, it makes sense to track the competitivness of each separately.

Spoletta wrote:
No, what i'm saying is that since SM chapters are so different from each other, it makes sense to track the competitivness of each separately.

Its interesting but difficult to be meaningful - since competitive players don't pick factions base on fluffy reasons.
So we have had a "the problem is the IH/RG Cents/IF being IF"
Well, maybe. But were all the Marine players running those just because they were the best Marine factions? If so then yes its a nerf, but we might be about to see the rise and rise of UM/WS (already a thing) and Salamanders. Just because the "good" players are playing them instead now. Having ditched say IH (if indeed they do), you would expect that subfaction's average win rate to drop.

To some degree this is a problem across the whole meta - which will tend to exaggerate imbalances. But what you want in a healthy game is for top competitive players to be scattered across the various factions, rather than gravitating towards a handful of options. I'm not quite sure how that would appear in terms of win percentages though.

Tyel wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
No, what i'm saying is that since SM chapters are so different from each other, it makes sense to track the competitivness of each separately.

Its interesting but difficult to be meaningful - since competitive players don't pick factions base on fluffy reasons.
So we have had a "the problem is the IH/RG Cents/IF being IF"
Well, maybe. But were all the Marine players running those just because they were the best Marine factions? If so then yes its a nerf, but we might be about to see the rise and rise of UM/WS (already a thing) and Salamanders. Just because the "good" players are playing them instead now. Having ditched say IH (if indeed they do), you would expect that subfaction's average win rate to drop.

To some degree this is a problem across the whole meta - which will tend to exaggerate imbalances. But what you want in a healthy game is for top competitive players to be scattered across the various factions, rather than gravitating towards a handful of options. I'm not quite sure how that would appear in terms of win percentages though.

I think it's really misguided to think win % of a faction like ultramarines would increase for any other reason than they wouldn't have to face ironhands and IF in 15-20% of their matches. It's not cause all the "good players" are going to start laying ultramarines. More than likely if they are meta chasers they are going to play tau or GK. Really everyone's win rates are going to go up slightly with no Insane ironhands out there. Tau might prove to be equally problematic though - I doubt they will be as dominant. The army isn't ignoring any of it's weaknesses and these are pretty big weaknesses too.

I played a game last night against a friend's Death Guard to try out the new changes. I lost the match but it wasn't because of the changes.

The Doctrine errata.
I'm not a fan of this but it is something that I will live with. As a primaris army I want the tactical doctrine. I don't want nor need to go to assault doctrine as I only have three units in my army that benefit from it and two of those are characters!

What they should have done is keep the stratagem that lets you go back but make it so it is only once per battle and lasts only for a turn.

Eternal Duty.
I completely disagree with this one. It is now almost pointless. In the game last night my redemptor dreadnought was pretty much burnt to the ground turn 1. All this stratagem needed was a CP cost increase to 2 to make it fair.

I'm not "salty" about it at all as I'll just adapt same as everyone else. I will say that if a specific faction such as Iron Hands are perceived as too powerful, then errata their specific chapter supplement rather than nerf everyone else.