Well, its official (Spring 2019 Update)

[MajorNese]

What was the SftS nerf about in the first place? Was it used for something unintended?

I mean, the RG chapter was mainly chosen for its -1 to hit chapter tactics, wasn't it?

Instead of being sneaky, people used it to see if they get first turn, then (if they do) drop blobs of aggressors right in front of the most valuable unit around. As SftS means they remained stationary, they'd instantly nuke something expensive.

 

To be honest, I can understand that nerf. Zero risk (beyond maybe wasting a CP if going second), high reward, and it was good enough as the sole reason you saw "astartes chapter of the week" players suddenly run RG a lot. On a local tournament, I even met a guy who did just that, and later ragequit "because that is not as good as people said it is" and "marines are just underpowered this edition". Same tournament I got 3rd out of 18 with Raptors (Axioms of Victory approach), so yeah sure, you can't ever possibly win with marines...

[Panzer]

It wasn't specifically about Aggressors. It's part of the general turn 1 alpha strike nerfs.

[MajorNese]

It wasn't specifically about Aggressors. It's part of the general turn 1 alpha strike nerfs.

Yes, similar to turn 1 deep strike - there is no drawback. It is quite powerful, entirely without risk, so it became quite a no-brainer. Aggressors were quite shafted with their favorite deployment option nerfed, but also jump pack units SftSing for a guaranteed first turn charge that had enough distance to just jump over screens. That was too easy and one-dimensional, so I can fully understand why GW nerfed it.

[thewarriorhunter]

What was the SftS nerf about in the first place? Was it used for something unintended?

 

The original SftS was a deployment anywhere on the board more than 9" away from an enemy unit before the first battle round. I personally liked it because I could pop my devastators into a piece of terrain that they would not normally be able to get too, I felt it was very thematic and really fit with the army. Unfortunately it was abused and you saw things like 30 strong blobs of cultists being dropped and making games not fun, or the 6 man aggressor combo like Dracos mentioned.

 

 

I mean, the RG chapter was mainly chosen for its -1 to hit chapter tactics, wasn't it?

 

Maybe if you weren't playing marines until 8th and then chose them. For those of us who were playing before 8th that wasn't really a factor. I started in 7th and chose them for their lore and their CT in 7th was arguably not that good. It only applied for one turn IF night fighting happened.

[duz_]

I'm fairly disappointed with the ruling on the SftS, although I personally will continue to suggest they revisit it.

At the very least it should be paid before the game begins, as opposed to when they're deployed.

 

I haven't looked too deep into the SM FAQ, but when I did skim it I didn't see anything too significant in terms of changes.

Which I guess is a good thing? 

[MajorNese]

I haven't looked too deep into the SM FAQ, but when I did skim it I didn't see anything too significant in terms of changes.

Which I guess is a good thing? 

Yes. Other factions had their hardcore combos nerfed or removed - eldar soup psykering, castellans, ork looter blobs to name a few. Trimming at the top of the power level, it left marines in an unchanged state but improved them compared to other codices.

[Panzer]

 

I haven't looked too deep into the SM FAQ, but when I did skim it I didn't see anything too significant in terms of changes.

Which I guess is a good thing? 

The biggest change for SM is probably that Devastators can't use the Hellfire+Cherub combo anymore.

[Dracos]

I admit to not being up on the newer rule for Who Goes First. If games were played using the new sequence for setting up wouldn’t that make SftS more dependable ?

[thewarriorhunter]

it might, but there's the 16% chance you're seized on, which can make those CP be a waste if the seize roll matters (which has happened to me).

[Kua]

Maybe if you weren't playing marines until 8th and then chose them. For those of us who were playing before 8th that wasn't really a factor. I started in 7th and chose them for their lore and their CT in 7th was arguably not that good. It only applied for one turn IF night fighting happened.

 

I was speaking about a rule-wise choice, not how you paint your army.

After all, I’m playing Eldar and there the subfaction rules GW gave the different Craftworlds mostly fit not the Craftworlds they were given to. Wouldn’t blame people calling them “chapter of the day players” if they choose different subfaction rules than the codex suggests, if they are doing it not solely for PG reasons.

[Dracos]

it might, but there's the 16% chance you're seized on, which can make those CP be a waste if the seize roll matters (which has happened to me).

 

Those are odds I'm good with.

 

I ignore things that do or don't happen on a "6" when putting a battle plan together. There's no doubt I take it slightly more serious the more dice that are being tossed, but usually I have enough flexibility and redundancy in a list to roll with it and go to Plan B ;)