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.

BrianDavion 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.

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

Ultraminarines can have it because Dev doctrine itself is not the problem. The Super doctrine is/was the issue and gave IH's to many good bonuses (no move penalty especially).

 Ordana wrote:

 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.

Yes they will. But at the same time - that makes them a lot weaker than before. A LOT weaker. when 100% of your army can have reroll 1's move and shoot without penalty and ap-1 all game...now nothing close to 100% will get that or only get it for 1 turn. It is a massive nerf. This will lower their WR probably on par with what it did to ynnari.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion 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.

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

they can remove it for all I care. After turn 4 or 5 the game is already over. You have to be in the assualt doctrine to do it and it happens on the next turn I think.

ohh I agree the UM strat isn't that big a deal, (although it might allow a sudden swing in turn 6 it's hardly going to be seen as broken) it's more a matter of it'll need clarification on how it works now

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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%.)

The concept being the best defense is a strong offense, which is why you see so many people drop the 6+++ for successors.

 Ordana wrote:
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.

I feel like this is a trap a lot of players fall into. Sure leaning into a bonus only makes a list stronger, but it's at the cost of being able to handle other threats effectively. Especially when said bonuses can't be left on all the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:

BrianDavion 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.

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

Ultraminarines can have it because Dev doctrine itself is not the problem. The Super doctrine is/was the issue and gave IH's to many good bonuses (no move penalty especially).

Super doctrines aren't even the problem on their own. It's more the ability to be abused (namely by never leaving a specific doctrine and spamming the max number of key units that benefit from said doctrine) that created the poor play experiances people were having.

Honestly as much as I want to say people should be able to do whatever they want in the game, I feel like the game needs to bring back restrictions on the number of certain units we can take per detachment. Like locking SM to one Captain or Chapter Master per detachment, or limiting other units to 0-1, 0-2, or 0-3 limits per detachment.

The game just needs built in spam caps that force a higher level of tax than we currently see.

And maybe charge CP for allies while we're at it too.

 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.

WTF are you talking about? Which units in BA benefits from tactical doctrine? IH still have valhalla tanks and a ton of ways to repair them. BA are also NOT just as tanky.

It's Xeno. He's just trying to keep the spotlight away from his ultras. "Hey, look at that chapter over there ! They're totally OP! Not like my totally non threatening little blue fellers who get to stay in their super doctrine twice as long !"

Gadzilla666 wrote:
It's Xeno. He's just trying to keep the spotlight away from his ultras. "Hey, look at that chapter over there ! They're totally OP! Not like my totally non threatening little blue fellers who get to stay in their super doctrine twice as long !"

It's also Martel - dude just loves to complain about his BA, and 40k in general, but seems reluctant to move on...

Martel732 wrote:

 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.

WTF are you talking about? Which units in BA benefits from tactical doctrine? IH still have valhalla tanks and a ton of ways to repair them. BA are also NOT just as tanky.

BA have 5+ FNP banner. Plus intercessors benefit greatly from tactical doctrine with ABR or BR. With a 5+ FNP you are tanky as hell. Ironahnds can do this too but they have to bring a master apoth which will cost you 2 CP. BA intercessors are also bad ass in CC with +1 to wound. Bring a chappy dread now you are wounding most infantry on 2's.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Yes they will. But at the same time - that makes them a lot weaker than before. A LOT weaker. when 100% of your army can have reroll 1's move and shoot without penalty and ap-1 all game...now nothing close to 100% will get that or only get it for 1 turn. It is a massive nerf. This will lower their WR probably on par with what it did to ynnari.

They needed to be a lot weaker, not only were they far too strong but they required almost zero skill so they were also ludicrous on the middle tables. They are still strong, just not outrageous.

One side effect of the Brohammer move to show just how broken IH could be is that I doubt if the WTC will change their no-FW rule for quite some time! The fact that the list of brokenness had so much FW in it was hardly subtle.

As for the rule changes, very much needed and probably about right overall. I have a slight feeling that Ravenguard got off lightly but that is just my intuition and it could be that results over the next couple of months prove me wrong.

Martel732 wrote:
WTF are you talking about? Which units in BA benefits from tactical doctrine?

Most of them?

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:

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.

Master Artisans isn't even that good, and one of the issues being complained about here is how GW handled Successor Chapters. How it should have worked is you choose the primary part of your Chapter Tactic for your parent/suspected Chapter, and the second part is more out there. So all Iron Hands successors MUST have the 6+++ and the second ability is chosen through a particular list.

Do the other build your own subfactions in non Astartes books get to keep any benefits from the parent subfaction?

 Eldarain wrote:
Do the other build your own subfactions in non Astartes books get to keep any benefits from the parent subfaction?

Nope. However those aren't necessarily successors to anyone, so I don't think that in particular counts.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Do the other build your own subfactions in non Astartes books get to keep any benefits from the parent subfaction?

Nope. However those aren't necessarily successors to anyone, so I don't think that in particular counts.

Ah. Thought they might have set up the Nids as splinter fleets. Just frustrating when some factions get enthusiastic lore focused updates and some just get mailed in.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Yes they will. But at the same time - that makes them a lot weaker than before. A LOT weaker. when 100% of your army can have reroll 1's move and shoot without penalty and ap-1 all game...now nothing close to 100% will get that or only get it for 1 turn. It is a massive nerf. This will lower their WR probably on par with what it did to ynnari.

They needed to be a lot weaker, not only were they far too strong but they required almost zero skill so they were also ludicrous on the middle tables. They are still strong, just not outrageous.

One side effect of the Brohammer move to show just how broken IH could be is that I doubt if the WTC will change their no-FW rule for quite some time! The fact that the list of brokenness had so much FW in it was hardly subtle.

As for the rule changes, very much needed and probably about right overall. I have a slight feeling that Ravenguard got off lightly but that is just my intuition and it could be that results over the next couple of months prove me wrong.

Seeing as what made the leviathan so ridiculous was ih rules and chaplain dreads are oop and probably soon to be sent to legends, yeah, better keep out all those massively OP fw units.

Imperial Armour has been taken over by the main studio which could help tone the unintended rules issues down.

Martel732 wrote:

WTF are you talking about? Which units in BA benefits from tactical doctrine? IH still have valhalla tanks and a ton of ways to repair them. BA are also NOT just as tanky.

Angelus bolters go to AP2. DC Intercessors.
Tanky from the 5+++ banner.

Just as a side note and something I'd been pondering. I feel like the doctrines are fundamentally flawed, even with this change.

You only have Dev doctrine one turn, true. However assault comes into play way too late. 2nd turn charge should be easy enough to do for most armies that want to be that close. Being forced to wait till 3 promises at that point that most of your relative game will be over with how brutal the offense is these days.

It just feels like it's a fun game design but only if your games are actually going to go to turn limits. Like if you build your list around Dev and Tac you can probably scissor away most of an opposing list in those 3 offered turns before you ever need to bust into assault.

If you're focusing on assault because it ties to your super doctrine, you get maybe a turn or two but odds are most of those units have been torn to pieces and had to make the most out of them turn 2 already.

Just my humble thoughts but by turn 3 on it's mostly cleaning up and seeing what things can be secured. Leaving the best lists, to my view being Tac focused super doctrines with enough heavy to promise some crushing on turn 1 and let assault just clean it up once its all said and done.

Focusing on assault doctrine seems like a kind of meh venture in how it works anyways. As well if they don't want you to focus on any of the doctrine states, thats cool but then why even make anyone hyper focus on one state for the extra power in their army ? It's only natural to want to go big with what you're best at.

So they can keep nerfing top dogs but all it ends up being is a shell game as you cut down one and two more will take their place till they clean up and straighten out what I feel was a good idea that just got away from them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

WTF are you talking about? Which units in BA benefits from tactical doctrine? IH still have valhalla tanks and a ton of ways to repair them. BA are also NOT just as tanky.

Angelus bolters go to AP2. DC Intercessors.
Tanky from the 5+++ banner.

If we're talking about the Banner of Sacrifice, that doesn't work on Death Company.

The 5+++ banner is okay, but its still not free and ubiquitous like ih tactics. BA chapter tactic is awful in practice because range zero attacks suck in 8th. BA intercessors dont live to punch anything because the banner is elsewhere.

In ITC games and the way they do points Doctrines are good because they need to not table their opponent to maximize points.

Other tourneys though...

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

WTF are you talking about? Which units in BA benefits from tactical doctrine? IH still have valhalla tanks and a ton of ways to repair them. BA are also NOT just as tanky.

Angelus bolters go to AP2. DC Intercessors.
Tanky from the 5+++ banner.

If we're talking about the Banner of Sacrifice, that doesn't work on Death Company.

Well, yea - they have an innate 6+++, but the SG with W2 don't mind going 5+++.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Just as a side note and something I'd been pondering. I feel like the doctrines are fundamentally flawed, even with this change.

You only have Dev doctrine one turn, true. However assault comes into play way too late. 2nd turn charge should be easy enough to do for most armies that want to be that close. Being forced to wait till 3 promises at that point that most of your relative game will be over with how brutal the offense is these days.

It just feels like it's a fun game design but only if your games are actually going to go to turn limits. Like if you build your list around Dev and Tac you can probably scissor away most of an opposing list in those 3 offered turns before you ever need to bust into assault.

If you're focusing on assault because it ties to your super doctrine, you get maybe a turn or two but odds are most of those units have been torn to pieces and had to make the most out of them turn 2 already.

Just my humble thoughts but by turn 3 on it's mostly cleaning up and seeing what things can be secured. Leaving the best lists, to my view being Tac focused super doctrines with enough heavy to promise some crushing on turn 1 and let assault just clean it up once its all said and done.

Focusing on assault doctrine seems like a kind of meh venture in how it works anyways. As well if they don't want you to focus on any of the doctrine states, thats cool but then why even make anyone hyper focus on one state for the extra power in their army ? It's only natural to want to go big with what you're best at.

So they can keep nerfing top dogs but all it ends up being is a shell game as you cut down one and two more will take their place till they clean up and straighten out what I feel was a good idea that just got away from them.

Frankly the Design of it is indeed not working.

The time f.e. until assault is the, in most cases, two most decisive turns of the game.
Also melee armies can not allow to dilly dally around at all due to the damage output atm only really beeing migitated via damaging your opponent.
The massive supremacy of offensive atm certainly does not help that.

Also massed melee just doesn't work this edition.

Yeah that was my thoughts on it. I mean I get what they were going for. I kind of like the idea of marines having a set game plan they follow. Bombard, push in for close range fire fights, finish off with CC. Feels good, the regimented nature of the combat plan goes in line with the rigid mindset of marines or imperial forces in general.

Just on the table top it ends up a damn mess as you're taking and doing a ton more damage by the time you'd be at the third stage of the plan you've been blasted to pieces or blasted them to pieces and it hardly matters anymore.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yeah that was my thoughts on it. I mean I get what they were going for. I kind of like the idea of marines having a set game plan they follow. Bombard, push in for close range fire fights, finish off with CC. Feels good, the regimented nature of the combat plan goes in line with the rigid mindset of marines or imperial forces in general.

Just on the table top it ends up a damn mess as you're taking and doing a ton more damage by the time you'd be at the third stage of the plan you've been blasted to pieces or blasted them to pieces and it hardly matters anymore.

This ^^^^^

Martel732 wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yeah that was my thoughts on it. I mean I get what they were going for. I kind of like the idea of marines having a set game plan they follow. Bombard, push in for close range fire fights, finish off with CC. Feels good, the regimented nature of the combat plan goes in line with the rigid mindset of marines or imperial forces in general.

Just on the table top it ends up a damn mess as you're taking and doing a ton more damage by the time you'd be at the third stage of the plan you've been blasted to pieces or blasted them to pieces and it hardly matters anymore.

This ^^^^^

There are very few "defensive" builds for melee that work and it shows, to my knowledge the only one is the possesed bomb and that one basically relies in a huge stack of comboed spells,Units and stratagems too work.

And it isn't also really defensive because there sure as hell will be warptime and movement shenanigans involved and therefore the unit will likely at the latest hit at Turn 2.

As space wolves their real only difference is wulfen with storm shields, and hiding character dreads behind a screen to try and get people into place to smash.

Like the faction or not like them but they suffer from the same issues of " We love assault " well assault is a long road to travel " spam units and hope for the best, charge the line ! "

Just feels like the doctrines need more time to bake and/or some increase in defense to off set all the early game slaughter.

Blood Angels can protect their CC units to an extent by deep striking them and using the bonus to charges paired with other bonuses the army has to make fairly reliable turn 3 charges.

That said, 8th has felt like the combined-arms edition to me. Between knights and chaffe armies need multiple answers built into their lists for a number of threats/obstacles.

Melee is still powerful, and can hard counter certain units given the right set up, but it requires smart play and is just not an option people can go all-in on and be successful.

I'm sure there are some edge cases that can do it, but that only serves to reinforce the point, rather than disprove it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Blood Angels can protect their CC units to an extent by deep striking them and using the bonus to charges paired with other bonuses the army has to make fairly reliable turn 3 charges.

That said, 8th has felt like the combined-arms edition to me. Between knights and chaffe armies need multiple answers built into their lists for a number of threats/obstacles.

Melee is still powerful, and can hard counter certain units given the right set up, but it requires smart play and is just not an option people can go all-in on and be successful.

I'm sure there are some edge cases that can do it, but that only serves to reinforce the point, rather than disprove it.

BA can only afford to pay for DoA twice really and not on the same turn. If DoA affected three units instead of one, id agree
Its just too easy to screen out deep striking BA.