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.

 Melissia wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
a primaris army [...] don't want nor need to go to assault doctrine as I only have three units in my army that benefit from it

Why would you call your list an army if it only has one squad and two characters?

But seriously, "hurr my Primaris army with WS3+, S4, and two attacks per model can't benefit at all from assault buffs in any way!" is kinda blind.

well it is a redundand buff. units that do benefit from it, have to be in melee a lot faster then turn 3, so buffing those in turn 3 is a win more thing. As if the opponent didn't counter those thunder captins, they are losing real bad turn 3. On units like intercessors it doesn't create a large enough swing, specially if your super doctrin is devastator focused and use that effectivly you need to focus even more on units that can benefit from it . And the third problem is that on turn 3 primaris are not going to be doing much charging at targets where the buff matters. Because if there are strong, not killed by shoting options in the enemy army, then getting in to melee is either going to be not possible or worse the targets are really good at melee and then intercessors do not want to be in melee with those targets.

It is a buff the same way GK get a buff to casting psychic powers. It is a buff, and it is always active in every game, but its impact on the game is miniscule.

it's not redunant, thats the thing, -1 to AP is actually pretty useful on basic grunts, with assault doctrine a squad of primaris marines on the charge is not that bad. you're talking about 15 attacks at S4 AP -1. no it's not going to kill a death star but it will easily handle just about any troop unit thats trying to dig in on an objective. Late game thats going to be important to consider as you might need to grab that objective yourself

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:If an enemy leader presents the opportunity by being out in front of their army, I try to turn them into smoking boots with d6 damage heavy weapons or heavy artillery before even getting close to him. I'm not going to risk the chance that he might accomplish anything/anything else.

There's a difference between the enemy placing their leader close to the front deliberately, and me killing everything around their leader so that they're the last unit standing, as it were.

More than happy to snipe characters while their army is still intact, and do damage there, but if a situation comes up where the rest of either their or my armies are destroyed, and the battle is largely decided, a heroic challenge is all but assured for me to attempt. My guardsmen heroes I don't gear for so much, but I at least give them melee weaponry of some kind.

Characters are too powerful in this game.

If characters are so powerful, then surely my own powerful characters are capable of killing them then?

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Agreed. If you overextend your character further enough that I can target him he either gets the firing squad or gang piled.

Course I play Night Lords. It's what we do.

Ah, well that makes sense for your army! But I usually play some Space Marine army, who are big on the whole "courage and honour" thing.

123ply wrote: I like that. Its also good for your opponent because instead of his favourite character/ warlord/ whatever just simply dying, it gives him a chance to actually do something with him. Its much more cinematic and more exciting (especially if the characters are even)

That's pretty much how I see it - the game's pretty much been decided, and just blowing up your now vulnerable character just feels like shooting fish in a barrel. I'd rather give you a cool death, and potential glory, than "my remaining artillery wipes your hero off the table".

To me, the only time Id probably prefer to just get shot down is if I wasnt having fun in the first place and/or if there was not even the slightest chance that I could still possibly win the game. If there was a slight chance of turning the game around and its been fun, playing with an opponent who is also trying to have fun, then I would welcome such a duel. If my character ends up winning, but I still lose then it becomes like a movie or something and just adds to the experience

I'd completely understand if an opponent says "look you've already won, let's just pack up so we can start again/grab a beer/go home" or whatever, but usually, they seem to enjoy the chance for a glorious death and cinematic moments. And if it ever were the other way around (my hero alone and surrounded by the enemy, deep in the corpses of his soldiers), I'd always want a chance for a duel.

I like how some folks think not being able to make your Dreads practically immortal nor being able to stay in a single Doctrine all game means that Marines are now "nerfed into oblivion". Reminds me of when Ork players were screaming about how their Faction wasn't viable anymore because GW took away Mobbed-Up Lootas and 1+ Save MANz.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Agreed. If you overextend your character further enough that I can target him he either gets the firing squad or gang piled.

Course I play Night Lords. It's what we do.

Ah, well that makes sense for your army! But I usually play some Space Marine army, who are big on the whole "courage and honour" thing.

"Courage and honor" translated to Nostroman is basically "doing something fething stupid, which results in you being flayed alive and then nailed up to the nearest wall so as to show everyone else what happens when you do something fething stupid".

Seriously you want to talk about cool thematic moments? How's about tearing apart your buddies Shield Captain with a pack of warp talons and a claw lord.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

More than happy to snipe characters while their army is still intact, and do damage there, but if a situation comes up where the rest of either their or my armies are destroyed, and the battle is largely decided, a heroic challenge is all but assured for me to attempt. My guardsmen heroes I don't gear for so much, but I at least give them melee weaponry of some kind.

Just want to say, I think that's a much more reasonable situation for a heroic duel scenario.

After all, you don't generally want to feel that doing something 'narrative' has lost you the match. But if it's unlikely to make a difference then I can definitely see the appeal in trying to at least kill one or more of the enemy characters with your own. Hell, I've done this myself on multiple occasions.

Then again, I play Dark Eldar, so it's not uncommon for me to end up with multiple characters who are both surplus to purpose and (as a result) entirely extendable. Hence, I'll frequently throw these at my enemy (especially their characters) right from the beginning of the game.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

If characters are so powerful, then surely my own powerful characters are capable of killing them then?

I think it depends. I certainly wouldn't say that every character in 40k was powerful. Especially if your aim is for a melee duel. For example, a Farseer is powerful but probably isn't going to win many sword fights. And whilst a Tau Commander could no doubt roast many HQs, being shot to death by an HQ is only marginally more personal than being shot to death by non-character units.

Honestly I'd had worked out doctrines like:

You start the game in devastator, then you can either switch to tactical OR assault for the second turn, then you go into the one you didn't pick for the third, with the option of remaining either in tactical OR assault for the third turn (two consecutive ones) for a 1cp strategem. If you use the strategem, you are forced into the one you didn't use for 4th and consecutive turns. It is more varied for some builds and chapters that way

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Agreed. If you overextend your character further enough that I can target him he either gets the firing squad or gang piled.

Course I play Night Lords. It's what we do.

Ah, well that makes sense for your army! But I usually play some Space Marine army, who are big on the whole "courage and honour" thing.

"Courage and honor" translated to Nostroman is basically "doing something fething stupid, which results in you being flayed alive and then nailed up to the nearest wall so as to show everyone else what happens when you do something fething stupid".

Stupid, but awesome looking - and if it *doesn't* get me killed, then it wasn't that stupid!

Seriously you want to talk about cool thematic moments? How's about tearing apart your buddies Shield Captain with a pack of warp talons and a claw lord.

That is cool, but blowing up the Shield Captain with a Repulsor Executioner from half a table away isn't. Hence my point, I'd rather be doing things that would look/sound cool over the "tactical" option any day.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

If characters are so powerful, then surely my own powerful characters are capable of killing them then?

I think it depends. I certainly wouldn't say that every character in 40k was powerful. Especially if your aim is for a melee duel. For example, a Farseer is powerful but probably isn't going to win many sword fights. And whilst a Tau Commander could no doubt roast many HQs, being shot to death by an HQ is only marginally more personal than being shot to death by non-character units.

Oh yeah, there's absolutely characters that aren't over-tough - that was my main point, my issue with the claim that "characters are too tough!". It's not all characters, it's ones that, realistically, should feel tough.

 flandarz wrote:
I like how some folks think not being able to make your Dreads practically immortal nor being able to stay in a single Doctrine all game means that Marines are now "nerfed into oblivion". Reminds me of when Ork players were screaming about how their Faction wasn't viable anymore because GW took away Mobbed-Up Lootas and 1+ Save MANz.

Well Ironhands are nerfed into oblivion. 1 turn of high power compared to probably 4-5 is oblivion status. No one thought the levi shenanigans were cool. I called it the day the material leaked that that was going to be unbeatable.
IF are still going to be great as they have Ignore cover and exploding 6's on all bolt weapons. DA...they were likely going to start dominating but now are going to be relatively garbo.
Ultramarines and RG which both have good tac doctrine super doctrines will be alright though. It really wasn't necessary to reduce the half damage for dreads stratagem. Case and point would be a CSM hellbrute can shoot twice for 1 cp at the closest target. If it is your dread with half damage - at best the stratagems cancel each other out and if you are using d6 damage - not all your damage is reduced to half (because you round up) and the shooting strat wins out. Plus - you can always just shoot something else and now you are ignoring the stratagem completely. they really fixed issues with the stratagem by removing the ability to bodyguard's for vehicles.

First off...all the changes seem good to me, after watching some of the nonsense you can build into a marine army right now. Nerfing them still leaves you with a completely competent army capable of winning tournaments/games until the next big thing comes along.

Changing the way doctrines work is a good idea, and also opens up more design room for future marine chapters. While they removed the "choose your doctrine" strat, this is also design space for characters - which would be great, anything that keeps GW away from the god damn "everything just re-rolls stuff" design style. Maybe your character allows a single unit (you can make it infantry only if you want) within 3" to act as if in the devastator doctrine, etc. etc. A Blood Angel character could give you "assault doctrine" when within 3" etc.

Overall, a very healthy change for the game.

Karol wrote:
well it is a redundand buff. units that do benefit from it

If you're playing Primaris, your entire damn army benefits from it, whether or not you're willing to admit it to yourself or not.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I like how some folks think not being able to make your Dreads practically immortal nor being able to stay in a single Doctrine all game means that Marines are now "nerfed into oblivion". Reminds me of when Ork players were screaming about how their Faction wasn't viable anymore because GW took away Mobbed-Up Lootas and 1+ Save MANz.

Well Ironhands are nerfed into oblivion. 1 turn of high power compared to probably 4-5 is oblivion status. No one thought the levi shenanigans were cool. I called it the day the material leaked that that was going to be unbeatable.
IF are still going to be great as they have Ignore cover and exploding 6's on all bolt weapons. DA...they were likely going to start dominating but now are going to be relatively garbo.
Ultramarines and RG which both have good tac doctrine super doctrines will be alright though. It really wasn't necessary to reduce the half damage for dreads stratagem. Case and point would be a CSM hellbrute can shoot twice for 1 cp at the closest target. If it is your dread with half damage - at best the stratagems cancel each other out and if you are using d6 damage - not all your damage is reduced to half (because you round up) and the shooting strat wins out. Plus - you can always just shoot something else and now you are ignoring the stratagem completely. they really fixed issues with the stratagem by removing the ability to bodyguard's for vehicles.

Let me give a summary on why this is nonsense:


Oh, and Iron Hands still have the tankiest chapter trait meaning the art good at attrition and don't mind being charged as much thanks to theit buffed overwatch.

 Melissia wrote:

Karol wrote:
well it is a redundand buff. units that do benefit from it

If you're playing Primaris, your entire damn army benefits from it, whether or not you're willing to admit it to yourself or not.

On third turn, the game is over most of the time. An assault army won't, if it works, because it is going to be in melee finishing the game prior turn 3. And if someone is devastator doctrin and focused on shoting, then a bonus to melee doesn't help much. It is like losing a 100$ and finding a 1$.

Oh, and Iron Hands still have the tankiest chapter trait meaning the art good at attrition and don't mind being charged as much thanks to theit buffed overwatch.

they aren't tanky enough to ignore incoming shoting. And a shoting army will blow them off the table now. And they can't use their assault buffs, because assault armies struggle to reach shoty armies, a shoty army is going to be too slow to reach something like tau in large enough numbers.

It doesn't mean that IH aren't better then the worse or bad w40k armies, but comparing oneself to bad armies isn't very smart thing to do. One has to comper oneself to the best armies, not the worse.


Oddly enough I thought that GK managed to avoid nerfs this FAQ, but I was wrong. Our dreads got worse too, and we never had access to the chaplain dreads. So again instead of fixing the problematic model or removing it from the game, GW changes a big rule and armies get hit by it, even if they weren't using the best version of the rule or best unit for it.

I was gonna say what Clockwork said. This is 100% not a "nerf to oblivion". At worst, IH players are gonna hafta figure out a different strategy (using their wide array of units and rules).

 Xenomancers wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I like how some folks think not being able to make your Dreads practically immortal nor being able to stay in a single Doctrine all game means that Marines are now "nerfed into oblivion". Reminds me of when Ork players were screaming about how their Faction wasn't viable anymore because GW took away Mobbed-Up Lootas and 1+ Save MANz.

Well Ironhands are nerfed into oblivion. 1 turn of high power compared to probably 4-5 is oblivion status. No one thought the levi shenanigans were cool. I called it the day the material leaked that that was going to be unbeatable.
IF are still going to be great as they have Ignore cover and exploding 6's on all bolt weapons. DA...they were likely going to start dominating but now are going to be relatively garbo.
Ultramarines and RG which both have good tac doctrine super doctrines will be alright though. It really wasn't necessary to reduce the half damage for dreads stratagem. Case and point would be a CSM hellbrute can shoot twice for 1 cp at the closest target. If it is your dread with half damage - at best the stratagems cancel each other out and if you are using d6 damage - not all your damage is reduced to half (because you round up) and the shooting strat wins out. Plus - you can always just shoot something else and now you are ignoring the stratagem completely. they really fixed issues with the stratagem by removing the ability to bodyguard's for vehicles.

IH is still very strong. Stronger than the assault chapters still.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I like how some folks think not being able to make your Dreads practically immortal nor being able to stay in a single Doctrine all game means that Marines are now "nerfed into oblivion". Reminds me of when Ork players were screaming about how their Faction wasn't viable anymore because GW took away Mobbed-Up Lootas and 1+ Save MANz.

Well Ironhands are nerfed into oblivion. 1 turn of high power compared to probably 4-5 is oblivion status. No one thought the levi shenanigans were cool. I called it the day the material leaked that that was going to be unbeatable.
IF are still going to be great as they have Ignore cover and exploding 6's on all bolt weapons. DA...they were likely going to start dominating but now are going to be relatively garbo.
Ultramarines and RG which both have good tac doctrine super doctrines will be alright though. It really wasn't necessary to reduce the half damage for dreads stratagem. Case and point would be a CSM hellbrute can shoot twice for 1 cp at the closest target. If it is your dread with half damage - at best the stratagems cancel each other out and if you are using d6 damage - not all your damage is reduced to half (because you round up) and the shooting strat wins out. Plus - you can always just shoot something else and now you are ignoring the stratagem completely. they really fixed issues with the stratagem by removing the ability to bodyguard's for vehicles.

Let me give a summary on why this is nonsense:


Oh, and Iron Hands still have the tankiest chapter trait meaning the art good at attrition and don't mind being charged as much thanks to theit buffed overwatch.

"But that csm hellbrute strategem is so OP! That's why every csm player runs hellbrutes instead of those gakky fw dreadnoughts! How will the poor sm players ever be able to win against this total hellbrute domination?"

BrianDavion wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Or you can realize the Iron Warriors were actually a very uninspired piece of rules

CSM's big problem are units; we need drop pods, snipers, a fully realized Guard equivalent. The Thousand Sons in particular seem very empty.

I wanna highlight that as it's not a big problem. if your codex needs a second codex to work, that is a problem with your codex in and of itself.
Also, as much as I would like to see a traitor guard codex, I don't think CSMs partiuclarly need them. the value of guard for IoM players is as a CP battery, CSMs can just use cultists.

There is no reason why CSMs don't have pods, snipers and the like.

At the very least there should be a "Renegades" supplement with this in - after all we have only had how many Marine supplements and of course the other Marine supplements that hardly pretended to be a Campaign book.

Its wierd how GW could sell more Pods to CSMs players
Land Raiders, Rhinos and Chimeras etc to Ad Mech players

with just easily made upgrade packs

but doesn't.

 Mr Morden wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Or you can realize the Iron Warriors were actually a very uninspired piece of rules

CSM's big problem are units; we need drop pods, snipers, a fully realized Guard equivalent. The Thousand Sons in particular seem very empty.

I wanna highlight that as it's not a big problem. if your codex needs a second codex to work, that is a problem with your codex in and of itself.
Also, as much as I would like to see a traitor guard codex, I don't think CSMs partiuclarly need them. the value of guard for IoM players is as a CP battery, CSMs can just use cultists.

There is no reason why CSMs don't have pods, snipers and the like.

At the very least there should be a "Renegades" supplement with this in - after all we have only had how many Marine supplements and of course the other Marine supplements that hardly pretended to be a Campaign book.

Its wierd how GW could sell more Pods to CSMs players
Land Raiders, Rhinos and Chimeras etc to Ad Mech players

with just easily made upgrade packs

but doesn't.

Gw seems to be going away from upgrade packs for factions for some reason, the rapid removal of fw legion specific upgrades being a prime example. I agree it's odd, especially considering how many chaos units are literally just loyalist kits that they expect you to convert (eg any ck except rampagers and desecrators).

Iron Hands ignore 1/6 of all saves they fail. This works put to them saving 20% more wounds than other Marines. And that's not even counting the fact they also ignore 1/6 of all Mortal wounds.

That is still one hell of a strength. It means you'll need to allocate 20% more wounds onto the Iton Hands meaning they can hold better than other Marines, they can out attrition other chapters and their buffed overwatch makes them better at dealing with assault armies than other Marine armies.

Looking at only the super doctrines is to intentionally put blinders on and refuse to consider the full strengths of an army in favor of an obvious singular buff.

This is something you need to get past doing if younwant to win more games.

Karol wrote:
Oddly enough I thought that GK managed to avoid nerfs this FAQ, but I was wrong. Our dreads got worse too, and we never had access to the chaplain dreads. So again instead of fixing the problematic model or removing it from the game, GW changes a big rule and armies get hit by it, even if they weren't using the best version of the rule or best unit for it.

I take it you had gained access to Duty Eternal in the PA book? Unfortunate.

Unrelated note, Karol - shooting, not shoting.

Iron Hands have literally the strongest subfaction rule in all of the game. They have three different subfaction rules backed into one. And on top of that they have a TON of extra rules and DOCTRINES.

Now they'll have an Alpha Strike of "only" one turn like EVERY OTHER ARMY instead of being able to alpha strike EVERY TURN.

Wow. such nerf. so useless.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I like how some folks think not being able to make your Dreads practically immortal nor being able to stay in a single Doctrine all game means that Marines are now "nerfed into oblivion". Reminds me of when Ork players were screaming about how their Faction wasn't viable anymore because GW took away Mobbed-Up Lootas and 1+ Save MANz.

Well Ironhands are nerfed into oblivion. 1 turn of high power compared to probably 4-5 is oblivion status. No one thought the levi shenanigans were cool. I called it the day the material leaked that that was going to be unbeatable.
IF are still going to be great as they have Ignore cover and exploding 6's on all bolt weapons. DA...they were likely going to start dominating but now are going to be relatively garbo.
Ultramarines and RG which both have good tac doctrine super doctrines will be alright though. It really wasn't necessary to reduce the half damage for dreads stratagem. Case and point would be a CSM hellbrute can shoot twice for 1 cp at the closest target. If it is your dread with half damage - at best the stratagems cancel each other out and if you are using d6 damage - not all your damage is reduced to half (because you round up) and the shooting strat wins out. Plus - you can always just shoot something else and now you are ignoring the stratagem completely. they really fixed issues with the stratagem by removing the ability to bodyguard's for vehicles.

Let me give a summary on why this is nonsense:


Oh, and Iron Hands still have the tankiest chapter trait meaning the art good at attrition and don't mind being charged as much thanks to theit buffed overwatch.

I can't help but reiterate this post. IH got knocked off being the single most powerful spot in the game, they hardly got nerfed into oblivion, they're certainly in a far better place and were treated with far more care than many other factions and units. They're still among the most powerful armies in the game, able to compete with any other army quite effectively and without even having to deal with any price changes and models getting bumped out of lists.

While the nerfs are reasonable, removal of Adaptive Strategy seems a bit too harsh. Increasing the CP cost to 3 would have sufficed.

However, I am surprised Master Artisans successor chapter tactic(and to some extent Aeldari Expert Crafters) was left unmodified. I see it as one of the most bland and cancerous element that led to the age of IH successor chapters, along with IH/IF devastator doctrine.

There is simply no reason not to take Master Artisans in competitive games. Who wouldn't when it gives literally dozens of free Command Re-roll every turn?

At least taking Master Artisan should prevent the player from second successor chapter tactic. Better option would be nerfing it. For example, allowing the unit to re-roll one hit roll OR one wound roll per battle round.

The best option however would be just deleting Master Artisan/Expert Crafters completely. It simply should not have existed from the first place.

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
While the nerfs are reasonable, removal of Adaptive Strategy seems a bit too harsh. Increasing the CP cost to 3 would have sufficed.

However, I am surprised Master Artisans successor chapter tactic(and to some extent Aeldari Expert Crafters) was left unmodified. I see it as one of the most bland and cancerous element that led to the age of IH successor chapters, along with IH/IF devastator doctrine.

There is simply no reason not to take Master Artisans in competitive games. Who wouldn't when it gives literally dozens of free Command Re-roll every turn?

At least taking Master Artisan should prevent the player from second successor chapter tactic. Better option would be nerfing it. For example, allowing the unit to re-roll one hit roll OR one wound roll per battle round.

The best option however would be just deleting Master Artisan/Expert Crafters completely. It simply should not have existed from the first place.

So are salamanders too op? They get it plus an ignore -1 ap rule.

kingheff wrote:

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
While the nerfs are reasonable, removal of Adaptive Strategy seems a bit too harsh. Increasing the CP cost to 3 would have sufficed.

However, I am surprised Master Artisans successor chapter tactic(and to some extent Aeldari Expert Crafters) was left unmodified. I see it as one of the most bland and cancerous element that led to the age of IH successor chapters, along with IH/IF devastator doctrine.

There is simply no reason not to take Master Artisans in competitive games. Who wouldn't when it gives literally dozens of free Command Re-roll every turn?

At least taking Master Artisan should prevent the player from second successor chapter tactic. Better option would be nerfing it. For example, allowing the unit to re-roll one hit roll OR one wound roll per battle round.

The best option however would be just deleting Master Artisan/Expert Crafters completely. It simply should not have existed from the first place.

So are salamanders too op? They get it plus an ignore -1 ap rule.

Master Artisan was toxic to the meta when it was combined with top notch doctrines(IH, IF) and second layer of successor chapter tactic. Stealthy for example, which along with Master Artisan is another "no-brainer" choice.

Salamanders do not have doctrines comparable to IH. Nor do I think ignoring ap -1 is powerful as stealthy.

I think the nerf has rebalanced artisans for marines quite a bit and I don't think it's ever been must take for eldar. Min units have drawbacks but it can be very good if you build around it. The problem stems more from the fact that a lot of the traits are weak or niche.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I like how some folks think not being able to make your Dreads practically immortal nor being able to stay in a single Doctrine all game means that Marines are now "nerfed into oblivion". Reminds me of when Ork players were screaming about how their Faction wasn't viable anymore because GW took away Mobbed-Up Lootas and 1+ Save MANz.

Well Ironhands are nerfed into oblivion. 1 turn of high power compared to probably 4-5 is oblivion status. No one thought the levi shenanigans were cool. I called it the day the material leaked that that was going to be unbeatable.
IF are still going to be great as they have Ignore cover and exploding 6's on all bolt weapons. DA...they were likely going to start dominating but now are going to be relatively garbo.
Ultramarines and RG which both have good tac doctrine super doctrines will be alright though. It really wasn't necessary to reduce the half damage for dreads stratagem. Case and point would be a CSM hellbrute can shoot twice for 1 cp at the closest target. If it is your dread with half damage - at best the stratagems cancel each other out and if you are using d6 damage - not all your damage is reduced to half (because you round up) and the shooting strat wins out. Plus - you can always just shoot something else and now you are ignoring the stratagem completely. they really fixed issues with the stratagem by removing the ability to bodyguard's for vehicles.

Let me give a summary on why this is nonsense:


Oh, and Iron Hands still have the tankiest chapter trait meaning the art good at attrition and don't mind being charged as much thanks to theit buffed overwatch.

Oh Iron hands will still be durable. It just after one turn other marines will be so much better if they benefit from the tac doct. Blood angels can be just as tanky actually and get a lot out of tactical doctrine with the units that they bring. I wouldn't put Ironahnds much over BA.

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
While the nerfs are reasonable, removal of Adaptive Strategy seems a bit too harsh. Increasing the CP cost to 3 would have sufficed.

it's especially odd givern that Ultramarines still have a strat to shift themselves back up to devestator doctrine. which I suspect GW has forgotten about as they'll need to at the very least clarify how it works now

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I like how some folks think not being able to make your Dreads practically immortal nor being able to stay in a single Doctrine all game means that Marines are now "nerfed into oblivion". Reminds me of when Ork players were screaming about how their Faction wasn't viable anymore because GW took away Mobbed-Up Lootas and 1+ Save MANz.

Well Ironhands are nerfed into oblivion. 1 turn of high power compared to probably 4-5 is oblivion status. No one thought the levi shenanigans were cool. I called it the day the material leaked that that was going to be unbeatable.
IF are still going to be great as they have Ignore cover and exploding 6's on all bolt weapons. DA...they were likely going to start dominating but now are going to be relatively garbo.
Ultramarines and RG which both have good tac doctrine super doctrines will be alright though. It really wasn't necessary to reduce the half damage for dreads stratagem. Case and point would be a CSM hellbrute can shoot twice for 1 cp at the closest target. If it is your dread with half damage - at best the stratagems cancel each other out and if you are using d6 damage - not all your damage is reduced to half (because you round up) and the shooting strat wins out. Plus - you can always just shoot something else and now you are ignoring the stratagem completely. they really fixed issues with the stratagem by removing the ability to bodyguard's for vehicles.

Let me give a summary on why this is nonsense:

Oh, and Iron Hands still have the tankiest chapter trait meaning the art good at attrition and don't mind being charged as much thanks to theit buffed overwatch.

Oh Iron hands will still be durable. It just after one turn other marines will be so much better if they benefit from the tac doct. Blood angels can be just as tanky actually and get a lot out of tactical doctrine with the units that they bring. I wouldn't put Ironahnds much over BA.

You somehow seem completely focused on IH's being 'required' to bring nothing but units that want Dev doctrine. When clearly after this change an IH list is likely to diversify a bit.

 Galas wrote:
Iron Hands have literally the strongest subfaction rule in all of the game. They have three different subfaction rules backed into one. And on top of that they have a TON of extra rules and DOCTRINES.

Now they'll have an Alpha Strike of "only" one turn like EVERY OTHER ARMY instead of being able to alpha strike EVERY TURN.

Wow. such nerf. so useless.

Oh it is a strong subfaction rule. Successor traits are still probably better than it. Every space marine army regardless of composition can take those. MOA and or +3 inch range or stealthy is honestly superior. Only vehicles take advantage of the third part of the trait anyways and only vehicles with more than 10 wounds care about. So that part doesn't really change the power level for other chapters. Mainly if you don't benefit from tactical doctrine - you are going to be weaker than armies that do. It is true that some space marine armies were forgoing their super doctrine benefits already like the RG and ironhands soup build. This army got nerfed in 2 ways though. heavy support Ironhands detachment lost dev doctrine all game and now much weaker after turn 1 and the RG first turn auto charge has been reduced to aggressors from cents (this list will probably still do pretty good but no where near 63% it will be a casual 50ish%.)