|
xtothez posted:Space marine nerfs at last 
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 14:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:In addition, doctrines also didn't need a nerf at all. It also does basically nothing to address the actual balance problems with space marines. Source your quotes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 14:55
|
|
|
inscrutable horse posted:So a couple more questions re: the 500 pt. inquisition force I'm working on; I'm only able to source 5 pairs of bolt pistols/chainswords for my acolytes from my bits and sprues, and it doesn't look like those bits are easily available elsewhere without digging deep in my pockets. For the other 5, I've been considering either meltas or plasmas, leaning mostly toward plasmas - is the damage on the meltas really worth those extra points? Especially considering the low range? Plasma is generally better but honestly at such a low points value with a narrative list I wouldn't swear it too much. As for daemonhosts you've got super unlucky because you could have bought them on made to order a while back. Ultimately there's no "right" daemonhost, but chains and scrolls seems fitting. A couple of places do cool totally-not-GW-daemonhost models, Artel W does totally-not-cherubael which looks awesome. Revelation 2-13 posted:Nah, making doctrines auto-change is pretty lame, both from a fluff and mechanics perspective. Especially the latter since it makes list building more dumb, and messes with a bunch of stuff like how you want to play turn 1 and so on. Fluffwise it doesn't make sense at all. In Yeah I dont agree it doesn't make sense from a fluff perspective. Almost every single drawing of space marines fighting dudes ever is them shooting Boltguns into the face of bad guys from like 5m away, even the most gun heavy chapters have leaders and sergeants who carry swords because thet inevitably end up fighting close quarters, either because your enemies are CC based (and they come to you) or they are not (in which case you go to them). Mechanically I think it's fine as a concept. The idea is to buff balanced space marine armies who do a combination of long, medium, and short range stuff. Specialising in just long range or just assault is already good in its own right because specialist nearly always trumps generalist in games Kitchner fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Feb 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
How does it make list building more dumb than any other special trait? That's like saying dakka dakka dakka is dumb for list building because Orks "have" to take guns or they're wasting it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 15:05
|
|
|
Also an interesting point is one chapter still retains a good level of control over which doctrine they are using, and that's the Ultramarines. They get traits and strats that let them gently caress with the doctrine which before were totally pointless but now you could see some benefit. Like the warlord trait that let's you pick a unit and it applies a different doctrine. Or the Cycle of War strat which changes the doctrine to devastator (which is interesting because if you use it turn 4 RAW you stay in devastator for the rest of the game).
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 15:09
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Also an interesting point is one chapter still retains a good level of control over which doctrine they are using, and that's the Ultramarines. Rowboats finest? Pff, they were never getting a nerf.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
These changes are extremely good and needed and I feel no sympathy for SM players now that their army went from "oppressively broken and unfun to play against unless you were also SM" to just "very good".
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 15:57
|
|
|
Mr. Funktastic posted:These changes are extremely good and needed and I feel no sympathy for SM players now that their army went from "oppressively broken and unfun to play against unless you were also SM" to just "very good".
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
Probably a great time to pick up an unpainted Iron Hands army with some dreadnoughts with a skull stuck on them from eBay
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
Mr. Funktastic posted:These changes are extremely good and needed and I feel no sympathy for SM players now that their army went from "oppressively broken and unfun to play against unless you were also SM" to just "very good". Yeah absolutely, but I do think it's hilarious the way they've worded it. "Space Marines are supposed to be flexible with their tactics and adapt to the battlefield, so we've devised a turn by turn schedule that cannot be deviated from regardless of battlefield conditions."
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 16:30
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Yeah I dont agree it doesn't make sense from a fluff perspective. Almost every single drawing of space marines fighting dudes ever is them shooting Boltguns into the face of bad guys from like 5m away, even the most gun heavy chapters have leaders and sergeants who carry swords because thet inevitably end up fighting close quarters, either because your enemies are CC based (and they come to you) or they are not (in which case you go to them). Sure it makes sense fluffwise that space marines arbitrarily and unstoppably get extra good at fighting with the knives while the enemy is still on the other side of the board? Is some commander ordering them to focus on assault and rapid fire guns despite no one bringing either of those along? Predator tanks suddenly get better at ramming and devastator squads get worse a shooting because the battle is not longer in the start phase. I’m not asking for verisimilitude or anything, but that’s dumb as poo poo. Come to think of it, that’s how literally every faction in the game is depicted, let’s make them all follow the exciting recipe of better long range, short range, melee. Just make doctrines a universal rule, overpowered problem solved! It’s also dumb because it railroads playstyle, list building and fluff choices. Finally it doesn’t buff balanced armies, you think this means that it’s suddenly gonna be good to bring some heavy, some assault/rapid fire and some melee troops? loving lol. It’s mainly funny because a bunch of the chapters lost their super doctrines for 4/5 of the game, which people loved because it gave their chapters more character both mechanically and fluff-wise. Haha. Foul Ole Ron posted:Source your quotes. Just for the record, space marines definitely needed a nerf, doctrines auto-changing is a lame and dumb way to do it for numerous reasons. I’m stumped how anyone who plays space marines or has any knowledge of them, could think so. What’s next, are we fixing t’’’’’au by making them ballistic skill 5? I literally don’t think I could come up with a worse way to do it, outside ‘space marines just use their original 8th codex again’.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:Sure it makes sense fluffwise that space marines arbitrarily and unstoppably get extra good at fighting with the knives while the enemy is still on the other side of the board? Is some commander ordering them to focus on assault and rapid fire guns despite no one bringing either of those along? Predator tanks suddenly get better at ramming and devastator squads get worse a shooting because the battle is not longer in the start phase. I’m not asking for verisimilitude or anything, but that’s dumb as poo poo. I mean it makes as much sense as:
The game is abstract. GW clearly tried to design combat doctrines to, in a rough and ready fashion, represent the fact that Space Marines used combined arms and start shooting at long range while closing the gap with the enemy to finish them off, or loading round into round into the enemy while they run at them. None of the other Imperial armies have that some sort of reputation, so this rule represents that. I get you don't like the fact that people HAVE to move through the doctrines, but you also don't have to build an army around using all the doctrines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 16:53
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:Sure it makes sense fluffwise that space marines arbitrarily and unstoppably get extra good at fighting with the knives while the enemy is still on the other side of the board? Is some commander ordering them to focus on assault and rapid fire guns despite no one bringing either of those along? Predator tanks suddenly get better at ramming and devastator squads get worse a shooting because the battle is not longer in the start phase. I’m not asking for verisimilitude or anything, but that’s dumb as poo poo. Keep going this is amazing salt
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:I mean it makes as much sense as: You were the one that said it made perfect sense fluffwise, not me. I was in fact saying the opposite. Are you now saying that is in fact is stupid fluffwise, and even equally as stupid as some of the other stupid things GW comes up with? Because then thank you for agreeing with me. It would have been easier if you just said ‘I agree with your post forums member revelation 2-13’.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 17:04
|
|
|
There are three doctrines and six turns in most games. What about something like stating that each doctrine is active for a maximum of two game turns but can be advanced after one turn? So you could do any of the following: 1-2 Devastator, 3-4 Tactical, 5-6 Assault 1-2 Devastator, 3 Tactical, 4-6 Assault 1 Devastator, 2-3 Tactical, 4-6 Assault 1 Devastator, 2 Tactical, 3-6 Assault Seems like it would mitigate the advantages of staying in your preferred doctrine all game but allow for some flexibility nonetheless while still moving you through each of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 17:05
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:You were the one that said it made perfect sense fluffwise, not me. I was in fact saying the opposite. No dude, I'm saying that the rules aren't supposed to be literal, they are representative. It does make sense fluff wise that Marines get a boost as they work through long range, medium range, and then close range fighting, because that's what they are trained to do. Imperial Guardsmen get trained to stab sacks of straw with a bayonet because some bad guys do get close, not because it's a preferred way of fighting. Your response is essentially "yeah well what about when it's turn 4 but your enemy has successfully screened their army and are out of assault range?". You're being too specific, loads of things that are specific in this game don't make sense, hence my list. The point is the rules are, in a vague and high level sense, supposed to represent how those armies normally fight. Not pick up some specific example and complain this makes no sense in the lore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
The main dumb thing GW did with doctrines was that you couldn’t chose which one you started it. Making them fixed to specific turns is like the one way to make them even dumber. Tulip posted:Keep going this is amazing salt I’m honestly way more salty about aberrants and the GSC side of the greater good. Also potentially the banshee prices. If that really is the price for 5 m8 is, I’m 100% getting most of my stuff from recasters from now on. E: ^^^ I guess I finally found something I where think corrode had a good point Revelation 2-13 fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Feb 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:The main dumb thing GW did with doctrines was that you couldn’t chose which one you started it. Making them fixed to specific turns is like the one way to make them even dumber. While we're at it, doctrines should cycle on a unit by unit basis. It makes no sense that your assault marines need to hold back because your tacticals are shooting. In fact, every gun should get a -1 to AP in the hands of the noble adeptus astartes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
But what if Dave, one of the Assault Marines, really wants to transfer to be a Devastator because its ez time at the back of the board, so he volunteers to take the plasma gun in the assault squad and tries to show off his devastator skills? I reckon he should be able to stay in Tactical doctrine while his mates as in assault. Anything less than that ruins my immersion.
Kitchner fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Feb 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 17:31
|
|
|
I don't think there was anyway they were going to change doctrines without pissing anyone off. So they just went with it. GW seems to feel the game should be a mix of shooting to melee, which really makes me wonder how tau fit into things at this point. They are slowly boosting melee with "you can't run away" strats which is good. Maybe the new doctrine set up will work better in this 9th ed everyone is convinced is coming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
The amount of salt coming of RG and IH players could preserve enough food to feed a small city through a harsh winter. This is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
So take These broken Hands And learn the game again Learn to play Marines
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
As a space marines player I love these changes. Yeah I'd rather stay in tactical doctrine all game but this seems pretty fair. Still looks good, but not game breaking I especially like the fact that whenever I ask for feedback on a list, I'll no longer have to hear 'that would be better as IH'
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
I especially love that they nerfed interesting fist lists with bunches of intercessors and made the uninteractive lovely artillery park lists the competitive ones. Nice work gw, glad you understand your game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
Not sure I agree with the notion that Marines being to stay in Devastator for an entire game was more fluffy than the new setup. My perception of the fluff was that individual Marines train in everything, which gives them flexibility personally, but that the force as a whole trains and fights in a very specific, prescribed, and dogmatic way due to their adherence to the Codex. They get incredibly good at fighting that way, sure, and it actually is a super good book about fighting wars, so it confers benefits to get super good at doing what the Codex says to do - but at the same time, it confines their whole approach to a very specific and planned way of doing things. It feels much more 40k for Marines to be religiously and dogmatically adherent to some ancient book that says to always do X when the enemy is in position Y, then to follow up with Z - or you’re a bad Marine and not loyal to the Emperor. I never interpreted Marine ‘flexibility’ to mean that they were like some kind of space Delta Force where they’re ideologically and psychologically open to whatever tools do the job best. Basically nobody in 40k, except maybe Tau, actually think like normal people that way, and the Emperor’s brainwashed and conditioned super-soldiers would be more likely to fall into that problem than anybody. I say this as a guy who plays Salamanders and nothing else. Our supplement repeatedly describes the chapter as being very practical and flexible... then goes right on to describe their incredible stubbornness and frequent habit of doing battle by just marching forward no matter the cost or the losses. Doesn’t square at all, but welcome to 40k. The tabletop game needed a fix for Marines, about all there is to it
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
Well said, totally changed my mind when you used the Codex itself as an example. Now I feel like a dork for ever thinking otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
Excited to finally clear out my painting backlog when working from home because of coronavirus
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
I'm bummed about losing -0 bs while moving heavy weapons. That's the only Hands rule I cared about, as it made a bunch of otherwise weak units with cool models (speeders, vindis, dakkapreds, the fliers) viable. I agree with the other nerfs, but now a lot of my favorite units are hard to justify. I was even thinking about finishing my vindicator. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
Pretty classic GW fashion to make something incredibly overpowered, not realize what actually made it overpowered, and then nerfing it in a overwrought and hamfisted way so it becomes more boring and bland. See also Ynnari. You'd have to be a complete idiot not to want nerfs to the space marines. It's actually a great relief that they did something because I thought they'd be dominating till the next chapter approved. Making super doctrines not work for the majority of the game is super lame. e: also, I didn't think of this but lol dark angels Revelation 2-13 fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Feb 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
Coldbird posted:A good post Agreed. Let's not forget that for years marines were the faction who would consistently be depicted with mixed role weapons for 'flexibility': missile/flamer tac squads, one of each Devastator heavy weapon together, sergeants with powerfists, etc. They would absolutely run through a rigid battle plan to justify their wargear choices rather than the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
I can't believe it's the Sisters' time to shine. Suck it Assfarties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:I'm bummed about losing -0 bs while moving heavy weapons. That's the only Hands rule I cared about, as it made a bunch of otherwise weak units with cool models (speeders, vindis, dakkapreds, the fliers) viable. I agree with the other nerfs, but now a lot of my favorite units are hard to justify. You still have that big mobility turn 1! Turn on the jets for first turn and get where you want to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
All my marine armies came out okay. I play crimfists for the exploding 6s and size bonuses, the doctrine was just gravy. Salamanders (who's doctrine bonus owns in spite of my whining back when they came out) get to spend 2 turns turning up the heat. Blood Angels are Blood Angels and are happy to just get doctrines at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:I'm bummed about losing -0 bs while moving heavy weapons. That's the only Hands rule I cared about, as it made a bunch of otherwise weak units with cool models (speeders, vindis, dakkapreds, the fliers) viable. I agree with the other nerfs, but now a lot of my favorite units are hard to justify. Yeah, nerfs were needed but it sucks to lose a viability booster like that. On the bright side I guess I don't have to feel so bad about taking allies and losing doctrine access. Improbable Lobster fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Feb 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
The RG community was expecting the change to Centurions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
Nerfs were coming, and we all knew it. What bothers me is the new doctrine rules leaves you making less decissions. If I got to decide, I'd rather let marines pick their doctrine every turn, and forcing them to pick different doctrines every turn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
Looks like Ultramarine's back on the menu, boys! (I couldn't find the uruk hai dude photo that should go here) Edit to be more useful - how does the Ultra Cycles of War stratagem even work now? If you used it on say turn 4, to go back to Devestator, would your next turn warp back to Assault? Or move to Tactical? If this, would I get a second Tactical after that like the original progression?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 22:04
|
|
|
I liked whoever suggested Devastator round 1 - Dev or tac round 2 - tac or assault round 3 - assault round 4 onwards. You'd keep some of the flexibility for each faction but you don't get to live in that doctrine forever. There was probably some kinder nerfs like making the "stay in current doctrine" stratagem cost more or being only once a game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 22:06
|
|
|
BaronVanAwesome posted:Looks like Ultramarine's back on the menu, boys! As written, it doesn't work. You'll need gw to FAQ it once they realize it's hosed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
The Deleter posted:I liked whoever suggested Devastator round 1 - Dev or tac round 2 - tac or assault round 3 - assault round 4 onwards. You'd keep some of the flexibility for each faction but you don't get to live in that doctrine forever. There was probably some kinder nerfs like making the "stay in current doctrine" stratagem cost more or being only once a game. I think the problem is just writing it without making it crazy complicated. Like how you just wrote it you could switch from devastator to assault and skip tactical entirely. Basically the goal is that all SM armies should through the course of the game move from devastator, to tactical, to assault. Goal is to be in assault by turn 4 at the latest. If the secondary goal is that basically you can go DD-T-A, D-TT-A, D-TT-A, or D-T-AA you need to find a way to word that which lets you decide whether to move on but you still need to work through all three. Maybe there's a way to write it like that in a straight forward way, but I imagine they probably want to go for simplicity. Even with the old rule when I played with a friend who hand't played in a year he had to double check how this worked a couple of times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2020 22:22
|
|