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.

JWBS wrote:
Come on guys. You're all forgetting about the large diverse group of community-known playtesters that said the game is good. It's all good, just relax.

If we just wait a bit longer, we'll all see how good it is!

Mmmm... tasty tasty CoolAid!

Does anyone know if in the new 9th book you can choose the custom traits that allows you to choose a first founding chapter’s traits and also allow you to choose a diffrent supplement to use.

I.e. Imperial Fists chapter traits using Iron Fists supplement as a custom chapter.

broxus wrote:
WTF they nerfed IF AGAIN! So now only Heavy weapons STR 7 or higher do an extra damage in devastator doctrine. They keep making the worst chapter worse for NO reason. The whole super trait never made sense to start with ig they were going to errata and nerf it why not just give us a new one such as an extra buff to bolt weapons in the tactical doctrine.

Well I’m done with 40K. @$#% you GW!

Yep, they have destroyed IF once and for all.

What kind of playtesters do they have?

Did inceptors get an extra shot per gun for their bolters??

Hot takes from the new rules:
Dark Angels are the premier Marine faction right now. Very good.
They FINALLY fixed Commander Dante to make him more than just a beatstick.
Death Company Intercessors are going to be nuts, if expensive.
Deathwatch toned down the Special Issue Ammunition IMMENSELY.
GW REALLY does not like Imperial Fists.

broxus wrote:
Did inceptors get an extra shot per gun for their bolters??

Oh! I didn’t think to look at them in the new book! Their guns had always been like short ranged heavy bolters, but now heavy bolters got buffed. Any changes to the Inceptor guns?

broxus wrote:
WTF they nerfed IF AGAIN! So now only Heavy weapons STR 7 or higher do an extra damage in devastator doctrine. They keep making the worst chapter worse for NO reason. The whole super trait never made sense to start with ig they were going to errata and nerf it why not just give us a new one such as an extra buff to bolt weapons in the tactical doctrine.

Well I’m done with 40K. @$#% you GW!

So, lets see, it doesn't work for Heavy Bolters...which are +1 damage ALL the time now..., and Grav Cannons, which you probably shouldn't really be firing at vehicles anyway. Is there anything else you'd be firing at vehicles that this really matters for? I'm not familiar with some of your Heavy vehicle weapons.
And that slight restriction seems a fair trade for now, if I'm not mistaken, having a Strat which turns on the Devastator Doctrine for a unit for a turn.

 Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

broxus wrote:
WTF they nerfed IF AGAIN! So now only Heavy weapons STR 7 or higher do an extra damage in devastator doctrine. They keep making the worst chapter worse for NO reason. The whole super trait never made sense to start with ig they were going to errata and nerf it why not just give us a new one such as an extra buff to bolt weapons in the tactical doctrine.

Well I’m done with 40K. @$#% you GW!

So, lets see, it doesn't work for Heavy Bolters...which are +1 damage ALL the time now..., and Grav Cannons, which you probably shouldn't really be firing at vehicles anyway. Is there anything else you'd be firing at vehicles that this really matters for? I'm not familiar with some of your Heavy vehicle weapons.
And that slight restriction seems a fair trade for now, if I'm not mistaken, having a Strat which turns on the Devastator Doctrine for a unit for a turn.

Point is the ability is awful now. Instead of gimping them again they should have just given IF a new one or made it not work on Heavy Bolters or STR 5 weapons. This new rule may at most translate into 2-3 extra wounds a game since it only works the first turn. Overall, pretty silly and a completely pointless nerf. What made IF original from the beginning was they didn’t use high STR and high damage weapons. They used volume of fire and the legacy of dorn rule to reach the same effect. Heavy bolter, onslaught gattling guns, Assault cannons, and similar high volume fire weapons replaced those big AT guns. Now they gimped all that.

 Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

broxus wrote:
WTF they nerfed IF AGAIN! So now only Heavy weapons STR 7 or higher do an extra damage in devastator doctrine. They keep making the worst chapter worse for NO reason. The whole super trait never made sense to start with ig they were going to errata and nerf it why not just give us a new one such as an extra buff to bolt weapons in the tactical doctrine.

Well I’m done with 40K. @$#% you GW!

So, lets see, it doesn't work for Heavy Bolters...which are +1 damage ALL the time now..., and Grav Cannons, which you probably shouldn't really be firing at vehicles anyway. Is there anything else you'd be firing at vehicles that this really matters for? I'm not familiar with some of your Heavy vehicle weapons.
And that slight restriction seems a fair trade for now, if I'm not mistaken, having a Strat which turns on the Devastator Doctrine for a unit for a turn.

Heavy Onslaught Gatling and Assault Cannons are S6 and very good candidates for tank hunting with +1 D. Not anymore.

What unit would you spend 2 CP to have a further turn of Dev Doctrine, actually? Almost 100% of buffed heavy weapons are single shot, multi damage. +1D on them is almost inconsequential.
The waste-of-a-FA-slot three-man Suppressors? The less-efficient, static, bland Firestrike Servo-turrets?

broxus wrote:

 Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

broxus wrote:
WTF they nerfed IF AGAIN! So now only Heavy weapons STR 7 or higher do an extra damage in devastator doctrine. They keep making the worst chapter worse for NO reason. The whole super trait never made sense to start with ig they were going to errata and nerf it why not just give us a new one such as an extra buff to bolt weapons in the tactical doctrine.

Well I’m done with 40K. @$#% you GW!

So, lets see, it doesn't work for Heavy Bolters...which are +1 damage ALL the time now..., and Grav Cannons, which you probably shouldn't really be firing at vehicles anyway. Is there anything else you'd be firing at vehicles that this really matters for? I'm not familiar with some of your Heavy vehicle weapons.
And that slight restriction seems a fair trade for now, if I'm not mistaken, having a Strat which turns on the Devastator Doctrine for a unit for a turn.

Point is the ability is awful now. Instead of gimping them again they should have just given IF a new one or made it not work on Heavy Bolters or STR 5 weapons. This new rule may at most translate into 2-3 extra wounds a game since it only works the first turn. Overall, pretty silly and a completely pointless nerf. What made IF original from the beginning was they didn’t use high STR and high damage weapons. They used volume of fire and the legacy of dorn rule to reach the same effect. Heavy bolter, onslaught gattling guns, Assault cannons, and similar high volume fire weapons replaced those big AT guns. Now they gimped all that.

Point is they are still heads and shoulders above majority of codexes by virtue of being space marines for the nex x months/years...

broxus wrote:

 Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

broxus wrote:
WTF they nerfed IF AGAIN! So now only Heavy weapons STR 7 or higher do an extra damage in devastator doctrine. They keep making the worst chapter worse for NO reason. The whole super trait never made sense to start with ig they were going to errata and nerf it why not just give us a new one such as an extra buff to bolt weapons in the tactical doctrine.

Well I’m done with 40K. @$#% you GW!

So, lets see, it doesn't work for Heavy Bolters...which are +1 damage ALL the time now..., and Grav Cannons, which you probably shouldn't really be firing at vehicles anyway. Is there anything else you'd be firing at vehicles that this really matters for? I'm not familiar with some of your Heavy vehicle weapons.
And that slight restriction seems a fair trade for now, if I'm not mistaken, having a Strat which turns on the Devastator Doctrine for a unit for a turn.

Point is the ability is awful now. Instead of gimping them again they should have just given IF a new one or made it not work on Heavy Bolters or STR 5 weapons. This new rule may at most translate into 2-3 extra wounds a game since it only works the first turn. Overall, pretty silly and a completely pointless nerf. What made IF original from the beginning was they didn’t use high STR and high damage weapons. They used volume of fire and the legacy of dorn rule to reach the same effect. Heavy bolter, onslaught gattling guns, Assault cannons, and similar high volume fire weapons replaced those big AT guns. Now they gimped all that.

Well, I'm certainly glad i'm not going to simply lose against an IF player with a centurion unit. If a single heavy bolter was able to do 9 damage (not including the extra bolt procs) each time it shoots that would be a little off gameplay wise. A mate of mine was already kicking my arse when I played mech orks.

Since when have been Imperial Fists one or the worst space marine subfaction when they where TOP 3 with iron hands and ravenguard for more than half a year?

It's fair to say that Imperial Fists needed a nerf.
It's also fair to say that the way it's been handled, making their replacement ability all but useless save in a handful of edge cases, means they no longer feel like Fists. Instead they're now vanilla Marines that could have been a better Chapter, if only it weren't for all that pesky yellow (especially compared to Salamanders, who still get special flamers and melta).

I'd have much preferred a toned-down version of Bolter Drill. That way you're still rewarded for building a reasonably fluffy list.
That said - I'm very much aware this is the 40k version of a "first world problem". I'm not actually complaining here - just adding my perspective.

I think people are forgetting the IF have taken like 4 rounds of nerfs. Centurions already were useless since they could only be in the devastator doctrine for one turn, had a massive points increase, no longer get bolter discipline, are not core, no longer were able to use PA strategem, and can no longer be in specialist detachments. So you are saying need ANOTHER nerf? They cost 90pts each for a T5 4 wound model!


I think people are forget all the previous IF nerfs. If they made the cut line at STR 6 it still would have been a nerf, but at least somewhat useful For one turn. As of now it is a completely useless skill.

I think people realize they're still plenty strong, despite one rule or another being reigned in just a bit.

It would have honestly been crazy still at S6. Quite a few of those guns got more shots and are spammable in the army.

I think the attitude of "That's too bad, but you're still playing Marines so suck it!" is unhealthy.

A rule nerf is a rule nerf no matter what army it's for, and further diluting the identity of the Imp Fists by not reworking their Chapter traits just reeks of laziness from GW.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think the attitude of "That's too bad, but you're still playing Marines so suck it!" is unhealthy.

A rule nerf is a rule nerf no matter what army it's for, and further diluting the identity of the Imp Fists by not reworking their Chapter traits just reeks of laziness from GW.

Rules nerfs are quite often good and necessary.

It isn't a matter of 'suck it' as much as an awareness that they're still really good and still distinctive among the list of chapters.

And since the weapons in question are strictly better all the time rather than just in Dev Doctrine (where they still get bonus AP)...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think the attitude of "That's too bad, but you're still playing Marines so suck it!" is unhealthy.

A rule nerf is a rule nerf no matter what army it's for, and further diluting the identity of the Imp Fists by not reworking their Chapter traits just reeks of laziness from GW.

To put it another way. If Bezos complained that he dropped a hundred dollars, most people would either go. So? Or actively laugh at him.

It's hard not to argue that marines have a bit too much going for them at the moment. Nerfs, be they minor or major brings them in line with the other codexes and is healthy for the state of the game. If only because stagnation is bad for 40K, be it casual or competitive.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think the attitude of "That's too bad, but you're still playing Marines so suck it!" is unhealthy.

A rule nerf is a rule nerf no matter what army it's for, and further diluting the identity of the Imp Fists by not reworking their Chapter traits just reeks of laziness from GW.

I disagree 100%. When one army is so far above and beyond when it comes to rules, I see nothing wrong with nerfing something because the only thing you can compare IF to is other space marine armies. They are still head and shoulders above nearly every other army in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cody.d. wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think the attitude of "That's too bad, but you're still playing Marines so suck it!" is unhealthy.

A rule nerf is a rule nerf no matter what army it's for, and further diluting the identity of the Imp Fists by not reworking their Chapter traits just reeks of laziness from GW.

To put it another way. If Bezos complained that he dropped a hundred dollars, most people would either go. So? Or actively laugh at him.

It's hard not to argue that marines have a bit too much going for them at the moment. Nerfs, be they minor or major brings them in line with the other codexes and is healthy for the state of the game. If only because stagnation is bad for 40K, be it casual or competitive.

Damn, you said it better than I could.

broxus wrote:

Point is the ability is awful now. Instead of gimping them again they should have just given IF a new one or made it not work on Heavy Bolters or STR 5 weapons. This new rule may at most translate into 2-3 extra wounds a game since it only works the first turn. Overall, pretty silly and a completely pointless nerf. What made IF original from the beginning was they didn’t use high STR and high damage weapons. They used volume of fire and the legacy of dorn rule to reach the same effect. Heavy bolter, onslaught gattling guns, Assault cannons, and similar high volume fire weapons replaced those big AT guns. Now they gimped all that.

That IF, the siege specialist chapter had a rule that discouraged them from taking dedicated bunker-busting weapons such as missiles and lacannons was utterly absurd, so in that sense this change makes perfect sense. Granted, it is very weak now, and it would have been nice had they buffed it along with restricting which weapons it affects.

Well I started IF because they were the weakest SM chapter months ago. They keep kicking that chapter at the bottom and ignore the ones which create problems. I’m just hoping they nerf everyone else to include chaos and Xenos books.

For those saying giving STR 6 guns the +1D (when it was every damage before) are crazy. SMs as a whole were nerfed hard by this codex. IF a just seem to have gotten the worst of it.

 Crimson wrote:

broxus wrote:

Point is the ability is awful now. Instead of gimping them again they should have just given IF a new one or made it not work on Heavy Bolters or STR 5 weapons. This new rule may at most translate into 2-3 extra wounds a game since it only works the first turn. Overall, pretty silly and a completely pointless nerf. What made IF original from the beginning was they didn’t use high STR and high damage weapons. They used volume of fire and the legacy of dorn rule to reach the same effect. Heavy bolter, onslaught gattling guns, Assault cannons, and similar high volume fire weapons replaced those big AT guns. Now they gimped all that.

That IF, the siege specialist chapter had a rule that discouraged them from taking dedicated bunker-busting weapons such as missiles and lacannons was utterly absurd, so in that sense this change makes perfect sense. Granted, it is very weak now, and it would have been nice had they buffed it along with restricting which weapons it affects.

give them a shoot twice ability with lascanons, multi-melta's and missile launches on all core units in the devestator doctine? that'd be nutso powerful and enchourage use of devestators for an early alpha

BrianDavion wrote:
give them a shoot twice ability with lascanons, multi-melta's and missile launches on all core units in the devestator doctine? that'd be nutso powerful and enchourage use of devestators for an early alpha

But then they'd just have to change it again once Devs are moved to Legends after the next Marine book.

Besides, Primaris don't make great use of Lascannons and Missile Launchers. They've got their own fancier (and more trademarkable) versions ("Las-Talon").

Did Inceptors get an extra shot??

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
give them a shoot twice ability with lascanons, multi-melta's and missile launches on all core units in the devestator doctine? that'd be nutso powerful and enchourage use of devestators for an early alpha

But then they'd just have to change it again once Devs are moved to Legends after the next Marine book.

Besides, Primaris don't make great use of Lascannons and Missile Launchers. They've got their own fancier (and more trademarkable) versions ("Las-Talon").

Las-Talons predate Primaris, but otherwise you are right.

broxus wrote:
Well I started IF because they were the weakest SM chapter months ago. They keep kicking that chapter at the bottom and ignore the ones which create problems. I’m just hoping they nerf everyone else to include chaos and Xenos books.

For those saying giving STR 6 guns the +1D (when it was every damage before) are crazy. SMs as a whole were nerfed hard by this codex. IF a just seem to have gotten the worst of it.

Were you expecting buffs to SM ???

Ummm, DA are utterly bonkers now? They just seem like the best choice.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Ummm, DA are utterly bonkers now? They just seem like the best choice.

If you play Deathwing, sure. Inner Circle is bonkers and needs to be nerfed when the actual supplement releases. Ravenwing get a buff because Outriders are good but are otherwise are where they were before this, maybe a little lower with fewer buffs going around to Speeders. Greenwing likes Heavy Intercessors and Eradicators buff them because Eradicators are broken good and improve ANY army they're in, but otherwise, again, more or less in the same place.

Dark Angels as a whole are hardly the best choice since most of the army receives the best buffs the first round in Devastator Doctrine. It's really only Deathwing that are crazy good(for once).

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Ummm, DA are utterly bonkers now? They just seem like the best choice.

deathwing terminators are stupid good. if you want to run a terminator army deathwing is MASSIVLY the way to go.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Ummm, DA are utterly bonkers now? They just seem like the best choice.

deathwing terminators are stupid good. if you want to run a terminator army deathwing is MASSIVLY the way to go.

Ah I heard all the special dudes got the Transhuman rule baked in, but is it just their termies?