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.

 Tiberius501 wrote:

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?

Any Infantry with inner Circle rule....so Azrael, Ezekiel, Interrogator chaplains, plus all terminators in the index.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:

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?

Any Infantry with inner Circle rule....so Azrael, Ezekiel, Interrogator chaplains, plus all terminators in the index.

Ah not as bad as I thought then, I should definitely fact check before I post on the internet haha. Still seems very strong for those units, especially with the +1 to hit for standing still now.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 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).

Eh. Even if you value the super doctrines, there are solutions to that. Their Codex SM warlord trait is to roll back doctrines for a nearby unit one step, so someone can be using devastator doctrine until turn 3. There's also a strat to turn them all on for a unit.

 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").

That "after next marine book they go to legends!" claim is getting bit old. This is already 3rd time it's been claimed. GW isnt' in a hurry.

From what I’ve read I think Roboute is the only one with the Chapter Master aura rule who still gives it to more than one unit at a time. His lieutenant aura part of that rule is still only one core unit though.

Plus Grimnar’s axe is a lot better from what I remember as are his wolves attacks

Argive wrote:

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...

That's not the point. This is a problem of internal, not external balance. They got much worse than the rest of alternatives. Playing them seems like shooting yourself in the foot now.

cody.d. wrote:

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.

You know each heavy bolter shot has a very small chance of wounding band going through the save of a tank right? It's not "auto 9 damage lol". It's 4/6x2/6x4x6x9. Like 1.4 wounds. Whoa.

Galas wrote: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?

Since they got three consecutive rounds of nerfs.Thats the past, it doesn't count Late 8th and 9th edition they have managed two top 3 in tournaments, one in the weird Australian meta.

Super Ready wrote: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.

But they didn't need it. Salamanders needed it. White Scars needed it. Iron Hands may have needed it. IF were rock bottom of SM.

Voss wrote: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.

Voss 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.

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)...

They are still not really good and not distinctive at all. Super Doctrine, Stratagems, Psychic powers and Warlord traits define an army. Most of those for IF are useless "do something to a building noone plays", extremely situational of simply weak. It's not just the bad Super Doctrine. It's that the rest of the kit was really lackluster to begin with.

nintura 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.

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.

So far beyond what? They are not more powerful that the rest of the Marines. They were actually weaker. Do you play competitively? Do you read tournament reports?

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.

Fluff is never a good guide to balance rules. Balance is. Making something bad because it's fluffy is bad game design.

DanielFM wrote:

That's not the point. This is a problem of internal, not external balance. They got much worse than the rest of alternatives. Playing them seems like shooting yourself in the foot now.

At least you can solve that by making list as another chapter instead. Yellow white scars or salamanders

Silly but that's what you get with chapter specific rules.

tneva82 wrote:

 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").

That "after next marine book they go to legends!" claim is getting bit old. This is already 3rd time it's been claimed. GW isnt' in a hurry.

At this point I've become convinced that every time someone predicts that firstborn will be legends'ed in the next codex GW gives firstborn another buff

DanielFM 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.

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?

Eradicators.

BrianDavion wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 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").

That "after next marine book they go to legends!" claim is getting bit old. This is already 3rd time it's been claimed. GW isnt' in a hurry.

At this point I've become convinced that every time someone predicts that firstborn will be legends'ed in the next codex GW gives firstborn another buff

Your lips to GW's ears


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Why is it unhealthy? What's wrong with nerfs by default?

tneva82 wrote:

DanielFM wrote:

That's not the point. This is a problem of internal, not external balance. They got much worse than the rest of alternatives. Playing them seems like shooting yourself in the foot now.

At least you can solve that by making list as another chapter instead. Yellow white scars or salamanders

Silly but that's what you get with chapter specific rules.

I fully acknowledge that it's an option many underpowered armies don't get.
Yet, it's not as easy as that. First, if you swap Chapters you stop being able to use your special characters. No biggie, maybe. But there you have them gathering dust on the shelf.
Then, if you aren't one of those players that only care about the game, playing an army painted as Imperial Fists with rules for (f.e.) Salamanders feels like an abomination. Plus some tournaments don't allow that. You must at least modify the paintjob enough that they may pass as a homebrex chapter. I don't have the willpower to modifiy each and every model in my army

AduroT wrote:

DanielFM 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.

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?

Eradicators.

You mean, going from average 5.5/7.5 to 6.5/8.5 is really worth 2 CP? They do so much damage an extra pip of damage add almost nothing. +1 to wound or reroll 1's to hit plus no move-shoot penalty are waaaay more impactful. Even +6 range if you didn't move. It's a sh*tty buff for Heavy Eradicators.

I've got to say, I'm liking the change to Lightning Claws. TH/SS is no longer the braindead, go-to option. They are both viable now.

 Billagio wrote:
I mean, im having fun.

Undervalued comment.

tneva82 wrote:
That "after next marine book they go to legends!" claim is getting bit old.

Only if you think that this was going to be a quick thing.

tneva82 wrote:
This is already 3rd time it's been claimed. GW isnt' in a hurry.

Of course they're not. You can't just remove something as iconic as regular Marines within an edition.

deadairis wrote:
Why is it unhealthy? What's wrong with nerfs by default?

I didn't say nerfs were unhealthy. I said the attitude of "your nerfs don't matter because your army is good" and lauding that over people is unhealthy.

Since the Imperial Fists doctrine applies to so few shots now, what if they upped it to d3?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

deadairis wrote:
Why is it unhealthy? What's wrong with nerfs by default?

I didn't say nerfs were unhealthy. I said the attitude of "your nerfs don't matter because your army is good" and lauding that over people is unhealthy.

This is why I dislike the whole "Nerf buff" terms in balance discussion. It implies that anything "weaker" than it was before is a negative and anything stronger is a positive; but it only looks at each rule in full isolation from the rest of the context of the whole block. It's a flawed way to approach things because, yes, a reduction in power of one rule might well not be a nerf because other rules have increased; or because the original function led to it being overpowered. Ergo not all nerfs are bad. Heck some make a codex better because they remove something "auto include" and shift it to "good choice". Which in turn opens up other choices.

 AduroT wrote:
Since the Imperial Fists doctrine applies to so few shots now, what if they upped it to d3?

definataly not, the idea that IF should have had D3 & D4 heavy bolters, the heavy1 version of any primaris weapon.
Their buff in the first place was poor game design.
They definatly don't need D6+D3 lascannon, lastalons, not to mention autocannons. You chose to play the defensive siege specialist chapter stop complaining they dont delete vehicals with bolters.

Overread wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

deadairis wrote:
Why is it unhealthy? What's wrong with nerfs by default?

I didn't say nerfs were unhealthy. I said the attitude of "your nerfs don't matter because your army is good" and lauding that over people is unhealthy.

This is why I dislike the whole "Nerf buff" terms in balance discussion. It implies that anything "weaker" than it was before is a negative and anything stronger is a positive; but it only looks at each rule in full isolation from the rest of the context of the whole block. It's a flawed way to approach things because, yes, a reduction in power of one rule might well not be a nerf because other rules have increased; or because the original function led to it being overpowered. Ergo not all nerfs are bad. Heck some make a codex better because they remove something "auto include" and shift it to "good choice". Which in turn opens up other choices.

Ok, let's see that way. We have several Space Marines Chapters. Some ere more powerful, other less so. GW picks one of the less competitive ones (shown by a wealth of tournament result data) and make one of their main rules weaker, while leaving all the equivalent rules from other Chapters untouched. All Chapters receive the same base rules, so any increase or decrease in power affected all of them equally.
Hence, the nerf (decrease in power if you want) was undeserved (affected one of the weaker Chapters only) and made internal balance even worse.

It's not: "hey, now Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons and Heavy Onslaughts are bad I will use other weapons". But: "hey, now the only rule that made IF stand out is even more niche and restricted I will pick a more competitive Chapter". GW solved nothing due to a misplaced nerf within an internal balance scenario.

Ice_can wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
Since the Imperial Fists doctrine applies to so few shots now, what if they upped it to d3?

definataly not, the idea that IF should have had D3 & D4 heavy bolters, the heavy1 version of any primaris weapon.
Their buff in the first place was poor game design.
They definatly don't need D6+D3 lascannon, lastalons, not to mention autocannons. You chose to play the defensive siege specialist chapter stop complaining they dont delete vehicals with bolters.

No, I picked a defensive siege specialist to get some f'in bennefits out of it. A couple of hilariously niche and useless psychic powers and stratagems that only interact with buildings no-one use or Area Terrain no-one gets into against us (because it doesn't give them any benefit to begin with) together with a pair of defensive stratagems which are not better than what other Chapters get from Strats, Psychic powers or passive abilities is definitely not enough to justify pickig them.
If I can't get an effective offensive bonus due to fluff, at least make us be tankier than the rest (we definitely aren't). Or let us interact with scenery in a meaningful way (we can't). But GW simply don't care.
We got the worst designed Supplement and we are stuck with it (nerfed by FAQ) for...years?

DanielFM wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
Since the Imperial Fists doctrine applies to so few shots now, what if they upped it to d3?

definataly not, the idea that IF should have had D3 & D4 heavy bolters, the heavy1 version of any primaris weapon.
Their buff in the first place was poor game design.
They definatly don't need D6+D3 lascannon, lastalons, not to mention autocannons. You chose to play the defensive siege specialist chapter stop complaining they dont delete vehicals with bolters.

No, I picked a defensive siege specialist to get some f'in bennefits out of it. A couple of hilariously niche and useless psychic powers and stratagems that only interact with buildings no-one use or Area Terrain no-one gets into against us (because it doesn't give them any benefit to begin with) together with a pair of defensive stratagems which are not better than what other Chapters get from Strats, Psychic powers or passive abilities is definitely not enough to justify pickig them.
If I can't get an effective offensive bonus due to fluff, at least make us be tankier than the rest (we definitely aren't). Or let us interact with scenery in a meaningful way (we can't). But GW simply don't care.
We got the worst designed Supplement and we are stuck with it (nerfed by FAQ) for...years?

Worst designed, fairly sure IF artillery spam was why Thundefire Cannons, Whirlwind all got nerfed repeatedly.

Also the Heavybolter hurican bolter centurions that do MW and extra damage and extra hits on 6's was toxic to play against.

They used to have rules that allowed them to fortify buildings in their deployment zone that would work, you can have +2sv in cover in yiur deployment zone.
Also you do already have an offensive buff you get free bolter hits on 6's.

Jesus, you could have way worse trait like if you don't move you get light cover, you get a 6+FNP but not against MW. You roll 2d6 and pick the highest for advance rolls.

Ice_can wrote:
They used to have rules that allowed them to fortify buildings in their deployment zone that would work, you can have +2sv in cover in yiur deployment zone.

This specifically wouldn't really work, because it encourages you to sit in your deployment zone with a gunline... something that it seems 9th edition is actively trying to get rid of, what with the spread-out objectives.

I do like the stratagem solution that they've gone with, instead - once per game, fortify a bit of terrain for +1Sv - it being once per game stops you doing it to everything at deployment, and you lose the bonus if you move away. That's an elegant idea that makes it ideal for using once you reach an objective to hold onto it.
The trouble is, as it's (by necessity) a once-per-game strat that only affects one unit, it's absolutely no replacement for a proper decent Chapter Tactic.

 Super Ready wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
They used to have rules that allowed them to fortify buildings in their deployment zone that would work, you can have +2sv in cover in yiur deployment zone.

This specifically wouldn't really work, because it encourages you to sit in your deployment zone with a gunline... something that it seems 9th edition is actively trying to get rid of, what with the spread-out objectives.

I do like the stratagem solution that they've gone with, instead - once per game, fortify a bit of terrain for +1Sv - it being once per game stops you doing it to everything at deployment, and you lose the bonus if you move away. That's an elegant idea that makes it ideal for using once you reach an objective to hold onto it.
The trouble is, as it's (by necessity) a once-per-game strat that only affects one unit, it's absolutely no replacement for a proper decent Chapter Tactic.

Most missions have 1 objective sometimes 2 you can hold or contest from your deployment zone.

I think having 1+ saves for anyone holding your backfield objectives would be quite a boost as it makes them rediculous to shift.

So sorry if I missed this, but are the Necron Warriors boxed for £29 the push-fit models from Indomitus or are they new 'regular' models?

 cuda1179 wrote:
I've got to say, I'm liking the change to Lightning Claws. TH/SS is no longer the braindead, go-to option. They are both viable now.

What's the change to Lightning Claws?

Poor Imperial Fists that can no longer spam anti infantry weapons and destroy vehicles by sheer number of dice and also shred infantry.

All nerfs to super doctrines are a good thing. Those are a small bonus that you get on top of everything. Imperial Fists are still expected to spam a ton of bolter but now they have a reason for using anti tank weapons.

Since they got three consecutive rounds of nerfs.Thats the past, it doesn't count Late 8th and 9th edition they have managed two top 3 in tournaments, one in the weird Australian meta.

An army that is still making top 3 is hardly a bad army. Imperial Fists are a long shot from being the worst marines, and even then the worst marines are quite ahead a ton of armies. I have been playing Dark Angels since 7th and we have been consistently the worst space marine chapter in all of 8th, by like, a ton. And they were still fun to play agaisnt everything that wasnt a top tier meta list. Maybe imperial fists players should learn to use other units that aren't Dev Centurions?

 Tiberius501 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:

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?

Any Infantry with inner Circle rule....so Azrael, Ezekiel, Interrogator chaplains, plus all terminators in the index.

Ah not as bad as I thought then, I should definitely fact check before I post on the internet haha. Still seems very strong for those units, especially with the +1 to hit for standing still now.

plus the swordsmen from the indomitus box

Has anyone noticed that in the Necron Codex, Tomb Blades can take Particle Beamers but there aren't any points listed for Particle Beamers in the back of the codex?

Does the 25ppm base cost for Tomb Blades include the Particle Beamer?

Bueller?

Blood Angels are looking super scary now. Sanguinary Guard seem nuts.

Nurglitch wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I've got to say, I'm liking the change to Lightning Claws. TH/SS is no longer the braindead, go-to option. They are both viable now.

What's the change to Lightning Claws?

You now get an extra attack for each one, so +2 attacks for a pair.

 Knute wrote:
Has anyone noticed that in the Necron Codex, Tomb Blades can take Particle Beamers but there aren't any points listed for Particle Beamers in the back of the codex?

Does the 25ppm base cost for Tomb Blades include the Particle Beamer?

Bueller?

Points include base wargear and weapons now, and just list a cost to upgrade to something else.

 Knute wrote:
Has anyone noticed that in the Necron Codex, Tomb Blades can take Particle Beamers but there aren't any points listed for Particle Beamers in the back of the codex?

Does the 25ppm base cost for Tomb Blades include the Particle Beamer?

Bueller?

Yes that's the way the new points layout works - if there's no cost listed it's free and included with the base cost of the model.