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.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think Protocols are bad. Its nice because its an upgrade versus *nothing* - but if this is the equivalent mono-faction rule to Marines and Sisters, it seems clearly weaker.

But wait and see I guess.

No incentive to really go mono-dynasty when you can actually get the best dynasty for each unit's purpose

The incentive is command points and less points wasted on HQ's.
It all comes down to stratagems.

Not skimming 45 pages of rumours. Is there a compiled list of cofirmed changes to other codexes? Mostly conserned about GSC.

 Sasori wrote:

Cynista wrote:
Command Protocols are perhaps the worst rules I've ever seen as a faction's major force multiplier. What on earth were GW thinking setting such a staggering amount of restrictions for such little payoff?

I'm not even going to bother with them at all. I'll simply make a custom Dynasty with the traits I like and not worry about jumping through half a dozen different hoops to get marginal gains.

I'm really not sure either. Some of the protocols are really good, like Sudden storm, but the amount of the hoops you have to jump through for the payoff is really odd.

Unless Doctrines and other future army-wide rules are going to have similar restrictions, it seems pretty annoying. It's a cool concept, but really seems to have failed in execution.

That being said, you can still get protocols with a custom dynasty, you just won't get the two directives that a core dynasty would grant on a single protocol.

The only part I would say they failed at the execution is with the core code for each faction. That rule should be a lot better. With none of these main factions being overwhelmingly good. There is a pretty good chance a unique dynasty could be a lot stronger with the ability to customize exactly to the force you want.

changemod wrote:

 buddha wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think Protocols are bad. Its nice because its an upgrade versus *nothing* - but if this is the equivalent mono-faction rule to Marines and Sisters, it seems clearly weaker.

But wait and see I guess.

It's definitely the "super doctrine" equivalent.

One thing I will say is that new rules seem to be highly tactical and in the hands of a skilled player might be very competitive. Does not seem like an auto-pilot type army which also means it is unforgiving.

No, “Git gud” isn’t a valid Defense of minor benefits that require a ton of unnecessary hoop jumping and tracking.

Who said anything about "git gud"? I was just commenting they offer tactical options for those who can utilize them.

Command Protocols don't fire me up to play Necrons, and they're certainly super annoying and more needless bookkeeping, but I don't think they're as bad as people are making them out to be.

I think CP order is a list-building tool, not a gameplay hindrance. Going into a tournament, I would have a pre-determined order for my Command Protocols, I would have a list designed to maximize the effectiveness of my CP order, and I would make myself stick to the plan of battle that made me select the CP order in the first place.

Does that mean sometimes the CPs will be useless or near-useless? Yes. Does that suck? Sure. Is it better than nothing? Absolutely.

Also, let's be honest: you set your strongest CPs for the first two turns because that's when most of the killing will happen, then you pick "utility" CPs for turns three, four, and five.

For instance, I would almost always choose Sudden Storm for turn 1. If I'm going first, I probably do +1 movement. If second, I probably pick shoot and perform actions. If I'm a melee list, I choose Hungry Void for turn 2. If I'm a ranged list, I pick Conquering Tyrant. And so on.

 buddha wrote:

changemod wrote:

 buddha wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think Protocols are bad. Its nice because its an upgrade versus *nothing* - but if this is the equivalent mono-faction rule to Marines and Sisters, it seems clearly weaker.

But wait and see I guess.

It's definitely the "super doctrine" equivalent.

One thing I will say is that new rules seem to be highly tactical and in the hands of a skilled player might be very competitive. Does not seem like an auto-pilot type army which also means it is unforgiving.

No, “Git gud” isn’t a valid Defense of minor benefits that require a ton of unnecessary hoop jumping and tracking.

Who said anything about "git gud"? I was just commenting they offer tactical options for those who can utilize them.

“and in the hands of a skilled player might be very competitive”

“Could be good if you’re skilled” is a direct rephrase of git gud.

changemod wrote:

 buddha wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think Protocols are bad. Its nice because its an upgrade versus *nothing* - but if this is the equivalent mono-faction rule to Marines and Sisters, it seems clearly weaker.

But wait and see I guess.

It's definitely the "super doctrine" equivalent.

One thing I will say is that new rules seem to be highly tactical and in the hands of a skilled player might be very competitive. Does not seem like an auto-pilot type army which also means it is unforgiving.

No, “Git gud” isn’t a valid Defense of minor benefits that require a ton of unnecessary hoop jumping and tracking.

Look I'm gonna break it down for you.
The codes could be locked in a turn order like marine doctrines. Instead they let you choose the order. That is not hoop jumping - that is called options.
The benefits aren't minor ether. If the standard for doctrines is -1 for a few specific weapon types per turn. Necrons have that beat here (not counting super doctrine). Ignore cover/ 6's for -1 AP on all weapon types/ +1 Str in melee are all roughly equivalent to a +1 AP bonus. If you use them at the right time (are a good general and can see how the battle unfolds before it happens) you should actually be able to beat out the doctrine bonus.

Super doctrines...you got no answer to that. Though I do like the Szarekhan combo for 2 wounds on living metal and a reroll for a reanimation on the same turn. That bonus is pretty decent. The double code bonus does not seem equal to super doctrine bonus for any of the OP marine factions. Maybe we see a big change to those super doctrines.

 Niiai wrote:
Not skimming 45 pages of rumours. Is there a compiled list of cofirmed changes to other codexes? Mostly conserned about GSC.

Nothing. We only have a few confirmed changes to Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Necrons.

The most annoying thing about Command protocols vs Doctrines is doctrines are always going to be useful. Like there is no way without deliberately trying that you are not going to benefit to a greater extent from +1AP to your weapons on specific turns over the course of a game.

Command Protocols seem like they COULD be good but also if you put them in the wrong spot in your order they could be completely useless but you don;t get to wait until you know the turn order before choosing them. Or if your opponent doesn't do what you expect them to do they could have minimal effect. Lets not even start about how you have to be within 6" of a <Necron> <Noble> to get them or how should you lose all your nobles you no longer get your command protocols at all.

Last time i checked there was no way to 'switch off' doctrines and marines didn't have to be within 6" of a captain or lieutenant to get them.

 Xenomancers wrote:

changemod wrote:

 buddha wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think Protocols are bad. Its nice because its an upgrade versus *nothing* - but if this is the equivalent mono-faction rule to Marines and Sisters, it seems clearly weaker.

But wait and see I guess.

It's definitely the "super doctrine" equivalent.

One thing I will say is that new rules seem to be highly tactical and in the hands of a skilled player might be very competitive. Does not seem like an auto-pilot type army which also means it is unforgiving.

No, “Git gud” isn’t a valid Defense of minor benefits that require a ton of unnecessary hoop jumping and tracking.

Look I'm gonna break it down for you.
The codes could be locked in a turn order like marine doctrines. Instead they let you choose the order. That is not hoop jumping - that is called options.
The benefits aren't minor ether. If the standard for doctrines is -1 for a few specific weapon types per turn. Necrons have that beat here (not counting super doctrine). Ignore cover/ 6's for -1 AP on all weapon types/ +1 Str in melee are all roughly equivalent to a +1 AP bonus. If you use them at the right time (are a good general and can see how the battle unfolds before it happens) you should actually be able to beat out the doctrine bonus.

Super doctrines...you got no answer to that. Though I do like the Szarekhan combo for 2 wounds on living metal and a reroll for a reanimation on the same turn. That bonus is pretty decent. The double code bonus does not seem equal to super doctrine bonus for any of the OP marine factions. Maybe we see a big change to those super doctrines.

The distinction is that they’re aura based and require more paperwork.

If they just applied to the army flat, the analogy to the marine equivalent would be more complete.

That is a good point but it is fairly easy to have characters in range. They are just trying to have it be fluffy. Much like the reason RP doesnt work if you wipe the unit compared to DR which is 100% active all the time. They want it to be different.

Heck - look at tyrranids leviathan requirement. It's 6+ FNP and have to be within 6 of a synapse creature. More or less being 6" of a synapse creature is almost 100% of the time anyways. I wish in these cases the army with the restriction ended up with the better rule though at least. In this case with nids and with crons it is totally the opposite. Many armies get 6+ FNP with no restrictions. Marines get their doctrine bonus with no character requirements. It is not really going to be a hindrance.

 Stormonu wrote:
*sigh* here we go with the plethora of "Fight first" rules that will start showing up in every codex.

If only there was some sort of statistic that could determine the order which models fight.

 vipoid wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
*sigh* here we go with the plethora of "Fight first" rules that will start showing up in every codex.

If only there was some sort of statistic that could determine the order which models fight.

The statisic is belt of russ (or equivalent) or go home.

The statistic that was overwritten by plethora of special rules before?

It's not stat or lack of it that's problem. Problem is tons of exceptions that ignore the basics anyway.

It's like morale generally. What's the point of morale when most armies just ignore it?

the_scotsman wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
Not skimming 45 pages of rumours. Is there a compiled list of cofirmed changes to other codexes? Mostly conserned about GSC.

Nothing. We only have a few confirmed changes to Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Necrons.

Hand flamer range, at a minimum?

tneva82 wrote:
The statistic that was overwritten by plethora of special rules before?

It's not stat or lack of it that's problem. Problem is tons of exceptions that ignore the basics anyway.

It's like morale generally. What's the point of morale when most armies just ignore it?

Honestly there was nothing wrong with the charger always going first and the interrupt system. It worked just fine. These additional rules should only affect subsequent rounds of combat.

tneva82 wrote:
The statistic that was overwritten by plethora of special rules before?

So either cut down on those or make them modifiers to Initiative.

Removing Initiative entirely was throwing the baby out with the bathwater and has left us with a completely nonsensical system.

"Quickly, brother! Strike them down fast and true!"
"Hole, brother! Our brothers in yonder ruins have already struck first! Thus we must endure the full brunt of our enemies might before we are able to strike them back!"

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Umbros wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think it's good overall to take this slow with the rule. Honestly DG DR is OP as feth. So this had even more potential to be OP. They should basically give DG the same rule if they are to come out at the same time.

I've heard that DR is being replaced with -1 to wound...

That is probably more broken to be honest. WAY too good.

The DG tactics thread has already mathhammered it to be a downgrade in almost every case, especially against mortal wounds.

Well there is an issue already with an army wide trait that is as good or better than -1 to wound in almost every case. The reason -1 to wound armywide can be worse though is for t8 vehicals and t5 vs str 4 guns...You can be functionally invulnerable if things need 6's to wound you.

The difference between 5+++ and -1 to wound in those cases is marginal and it wasn't a good idea to shoot that kind of weapon at those models in the first place.

Theres nothing to stop a deathstar DG unit from getting a 5+ FNP another way and it really starts to get stupid.

Well, nothing stops them, except of course there not being a way to give DG units a 5+ FNP.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Umbros wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think it's good overall to take this slow with the rule. Honestly DG DR is OP as feth. So this had even more potential to be OP. They should basically give DG the same rule if they are to come out at the same time.

I've heard that DR is being replaced with -1 to wound...

That is probably more broken to be honest. WAY too good.

The DG tactics thread has already mathhammered it to be a downgrade in almost every case, especially against mortal wounds.

Well there is an issue already with an army wide trait that is as good or better than -1 to wound in almost every case. The reason -1 to wound armywide can be worse though is for t8 vehicals and t5 vs str 4 guns...You can be functionally invulnerable if things need 6's to wound you.

The difference between 5+++ and -1 to wound in those cases is marginal and it wasn't a good idea to shoot that kind of weapon at those models in the first place.

Theres nothing to stop a deathstar DG unit from getting a 5+ FNP another way and it really starts to get stupid.

Well, nothing stops them, except of course there not being a way to give DG units a 5+ FNP.

Pretty sure there is a way to do it.

 Dysartes wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
Not skimming 45 pages of rumours. Is there a compiled list of cofirmed changes to other codexes? Mostly conserned about GSC.

Nothing. We only have a few confirmed changes to Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Necrons.

Hand flamer range, at a minimum?

When do we expect those changes to weapons in other codexes to take effect? Will we get an errata when the new Loyalists codex is released? And more importantly (at least to csm players) do we get our extra wound in that errata or do we have to wait for our new codex?

The only thing they have said they are errataing is weapons that are literally identical to ones being updated in the SM codex. I.e. heavy bolters and autocannons should be updated, but reaper autocannons will not be until the chaos codex comes out. The wounds they explicitly said are not changing until the respective codexes.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
Not skimming 45 pages of rumours. Is there a compiled list of cofirmed changes to other codexes? Mostly conserned about GSC.

Nothing. We only have a few confirmed changes to Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Necrons.

Hand flamer range, at a minimum?

When do we expect those changes to weapons in other codexes to take effect? Will we get an errata when the new Loyalists codex is released? And more importantly (at least to csm players) do we get our extra wound in that errata or do we have to wait for our new codex?

Weapons changes are simultaneous:

However, it’s not just the Adeptus Astartes who will benefit from all of the shiny new rules found within the next codex. These changes will also be rolled out to all other factions that utilise the same wargear* – even xenos races such as the T’au Empire and Aeldari – at the same time the codex is launched!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/09/14/codex-space-marines-weapons-and-wargear-updates/


-----
Wounds are codex by codex, I believe:

And as for future codexes for other genetically engineered transhuman warriors (both of the shiny grey and spikey variety), the same will apply to them. Just think how durable that will make units like Rubric Marines or Plague Marines.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/08/13/new-boxes-new-rules-new-codexes/

Pl changes were also supposed to come simultaneously with　launch of 9e not expecting new wargear for my sisters right away.

Voss wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
Not skimming 45 pages of rumours. Is there a compiled list of cofirmed changes to other codexes? Mostly conserned about GSC.

Nothing. We only have a few confirmed changes to Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, and Necrons.

Hand flamer range, at a minimum?

When do we expect those changes to weapons in other codexes to take effect? Will we get an errata when the new Loyalists codex is released? And more importantly (at least to csm players) do we get our extra wound in that errata or do we have to wait for our new codex?

Weapons changes are simultaneous:

However, it’s not just the Adeptus Astartes who will benefit from all of the shiny new rules found within the next codex. These changes will also be rolled out to all other factions that utilise the same wargear* – even xenos races such as the T’au Empire and Aeldari – at the same time the codex is launched!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/09/14/codex-space-marines-weapons-and-wargear-updates/


-----
Wounds are codex by codex, I believe:

And as for future codexes for other genetically engineered transhuman warriors (both of the shiny grey and spikey variety), the same will apply to them. Just think how durable that will make units like Rubric Marines or Plague Marines.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/08/13/new-boxes-new-rules-new-codexes/

Well that's annoying, but expected, I guess. Guess csm will remain Inferior Marines for a while, even compared to tacs, devastators, etc. At least the Death Guard won't have to wait as long.

I literally want to cry about tactical marines getting 2 wounds. You have no idea how many times I have thought about selling my marines. I was even thinking about going pure Xenos!

tneva82 wrote:
Pl changes were also supposed to come simultaneously with　launch of 9e not expecting new wargear for my sisters right away.

You mean the PL updates that were released two weeks after the 9th BRB released and months before any codices were released?

Yes. The ones that were also supposedly simultaneously with the launch. Last time 2 weeks later isn't simultaneous.

So don't be surprised if you are waiting for using 2 shot multi meltas with non-marines week after codex is out.

If GW says "immediately" it doesn't mean neccessarily same what it might mean for most. Players likely think it will come same day as codex comes. For GW it could be 2 weeks after codex is on sale.

tneva82 wrote:
Yes. The ones that were also supposedly simultaneously with the launch. Last time 2 weeks later isn't simultaneous.

So don't be surprised if you are waiting for using 2 shot multi meltas with non-marines week after codex is out.

If GW says "immediately" it doesn't mean neccessarily same what it might mean for most. Players likely think it will come same day as codex comes. For GW it could be 2 weeks after codex is on sale.

Yeah, kind of like the new fw rules coming out "soon" after the release of 9th going to "after we get all this other stuff out", like weird terrain based matched play rules.

To be fair their entire year's worth of releases has been royally messed by Corona. We don't even know how smooth things are running behind the scenes and it might be that releases are being shifted around a lot behind the scenes. Sons of Bahamat already feels like they started marketing for an earlier release and then moved it.

GW might also be reacting to the news and the potential for the north (where GW are) getting even tighter lockdowns in the UK. So GW might have pushed sons on one week to try and get Necrons and Marines out a week early etc...


Not to mention we've no idea how shipments are for them; both in terms of getting material in and getting material out. Already we've seen the likes of Black Library have several months where they clearly slowed down dramatically in releases and appear to only now be getting back up to speed.

You can bet originally this month would have likely been wave 2/3 or whatever of the necron/marine release or even have them out fully and be the supplements or another codex etc..

Sure. There's plenty of good reasons. I'm not saying GW is bad for putting them later. All I'm just saying is don't be surprised if the erratas DON'T come out same day as codex and don't bring in pitchfork in that case. If you have tournament coming up right away brace for the possibility you might not be using the new stats yet.