Have they "jumped the shark" with the Marine Dex(s) power?

[The Unseen]

Yeah, playing 8th edition without any stratagems sounds very... boring.

[mughi3]

Unlikely, considering Stratagems and Doctrines are mostly thematic additions..

 

 

 

 I think you misunderstand what I mean by theme. yes some are specific to a chapter or faction like the salamanders abilities with flamers. but others like bolter storm have no chapter specific theme and is just a mechanic that breaks the core rules of the game. what I was more referring to was list building themes AKA making an outrider force for blood angels that reflects the 30K version of them with a focus on jump infantry as "troops".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, playing 8th edition without any stratagems sounds very... boring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or...streamlined, clean, faster dare I say more balanced (in the sense you are not bypassing core rules of the game like 7th did with formations). my thinking is to focus the game more on actual tabletop tactics and not gimmicks built on power gaming list building to maximize the bypass mechanics.

Edited November 15, 2019 by mughi3

[Berzul]

 

Yeah, playing 8th edition without any stratagems sounds very... boring.

Or...streamlined, clean, faster dare I say more balanced (in the sense you are not bypassing core rules of the game like 7th did with formations). my thinking is to focus the game more on actual tabletop tactics and not gimmicks built on power gaming list building to maximize the bypass mechanics.

The game can almost feel like a TCG to a point, sometimes.

 

You move this squad here, fire at that unit there and then oh-noes! You've activated my trap card! And now I spend this many CPs so that this squad here does this, and this many CPs so that it hits you with that, and then as I wound you I spend another few CPs so that this thing happens and blah blah blah.

 

I once had a fight at 1000 points against a guard list with a double batallion that supported a line of artillery tanks, that could burn 8cp in one turn to shoot me off the board. It was insane. And had a double combo for orders with made him do about a dozen orders a turn.

 

And then I found the list is template. As in, you could find people discussing it the way people discuss putting together a M:tG card deck.

 

The whole layer of CP economy to the game is fun on paper... But it does make it all feel a bit TCG-y at times, and can seriously break the game. Same as it could happen with the formations on 7th ed. (Most of all towards the end, when it felt like GW just didn't give a anymore, and were releasing formations that were just insane).

Edited November 15, 2019 by WarriorFish
Swear filter dodge removed

[mughi3]

kinda reminds me of the old 'cut and paste' army lists people would copy when they saw a tournament winning list.

[Ishagu]

The fault lies with the Internet community, to an extent.

 

People approach 40k like they would magic, or a video game to build optimisation tactics around in casual gaming.

 

40k as a hobby has a much wider spectrum of focus from the community, and we have to be careful and pro active to discuss what we want from a game with our opponent. It's easier said then done, I appreciate that.

[Berzul]

We had to actually implement agreements in my local gaming group, against optimization.

 

Before a game is played, both players MUST agree on the level of optimization allowed. It is considered reprehensible to show up to a game with a list that makes no sense in fluff, but can stomp all over your opponent in a turn or less, without warning.

 

This, after a few games in which people came to the table with so many different expectations, that matches lasted close to nothing, as lists were played like the good old (and despised) Magic The Gathering turn-one combo decks.

 

I personally had to suffer two of these events. One against a friend that wanted to (and I quote) "play something special", and came to the table with 5 Imperial Knights against an army that was NOT ready for that much armor. I lost in under 2 turns. Then one against another friend that was my opponent in a narrative campaign, that came with Eldar, packing a reaper combo that blew my small infantry vanguard team out of the board in the very first shooting phase (which was made all the worse, by virtue of the fact that he had first turn, so all I got to do was deploy, before the game was up).

 

Some people really play to win, no matter what. And you can make some seriously OP combos with some armies, in current 8th ed.

[Happy-inquisitor]

This might just be me but ... I have been nervous enough of the obvious power level of the new marines that I have not got a game in since the IF supplement dropped. I need/want to understand how to tune the power levels of the new marines before i turn up and accidentally smash someone off the table in what should have been just a regular game at my FLGS.

 

I have been building and painting these dudes all year and the last thing I want anyone to think is that I only did it to be That Guy.

 

I think i have my head round it now. I think I can build a list that just plays well without smashing someone's face in. But i still could be wrong. So on those grounds I am still concerned that GW overdid it.

 

I can see what they were trying to achieve. The community have been asking since 8th dropped for rules that make single-faction armies competitive with soup lists and it is really clear that this is what GW were aiming for. I think the doctrines in the base codex were along the right lines and were probably enough, my gut feeling is that the extra layer of bonus from the supplements is going to be an issue unless/until GW even out the playing field one way or another.

 

I know what list I would take if I was going to a tournament but the issue with that is I think it would be a boring list to play with and to play against. I have no interest in spending my precious spare time being bored just to win some meaningless prize, so I am not that keen on them for tournament play. I have one more tournament this year and honestly I think I will get my Farsight Enclaves out again because while its going to be a lot harder to win with them at least i will have fun trying.

[Ciler]

Surely that's easy enough. No repulsor executioner, only one warsuit thingy, and then just play nice.

[mughi3]

Surely that's easy enough. No repulsor executioner, only one warsuit thingy, and then just play nice.

Specific units themselves are not the problem. it's using CP/STRATS to flat out ignore core mechanics of the game.

 

Even the captain re-roll 1s bubble still requires a roll to hit- things like bolter storm basically re-incarnate jervis johnsons "you deserve it" idea, so it just happens. this is supposed to be a wargame of tabletop strategies you should never be in a position to "deserve" anything.

[Ciler]

Specific units themselves are not the problem. it's using CP/STRATS to flat out ignore core mechanics of the game.

I see your point, but I would still contend that specific units are a problem as well. Take the repulsor executionner for instance, it's laser destroyer is better (statwise) than a twin link lascannon for less points. That in itself already makes it a somewhat "unfair" unit.

[Ishagu]

 

Specific units themselves are not the problem. it's using CP/STRATS to flat out ignore core mechanics of the game.

I see your point, but I would still contend that specific units are a problem as well. Take the repulsor executionner for instance, it's laser destroyer is better (statwise) than a twin link lascannon for less points. That in itself already makes it a somewhat "unfair" unit.

It's a unique weapon on a very expensive chassis that isn't particularly hard to destroy. You shouldn't compare weapons on a vacuum. I'd argue I can get more dedicated anti tank firepower from a Mortis Contemptor, as an example.

 

The Repulsor Executioner is only slightly more damaging than a regular Repulsor, and the Repulsors used to be significantly cheaper too.

The vehicle is fine, it's a cog in the machine of a stronger performing army and is a popular model.

[jaxom]

 

Specific units themselves are not the problem. it's using CP/STRATS to flat out ignore core mechanics of the game.

 

 

Ignoring or breaking core mechanics is part of game design. However, it tends to be an inverse correlation with the complexity of the core rules. Even "core rules" can be something of a sticky wicket. For example, in chess, are the movement patterns part of the core rules or are they unique rules for each piece that everyone knows? I think this is part of the competition/casual friction described. I think it's the unexpected or the subversion of expectations at a casual game which can cause the most disgruntlement while a competition player makes it part of their preparations to learn how other armies operate and the most used unit/CP/Stratagem combinations.

 

I think unfairness in regards to how or which armies get benefits (from either detachment, unit, or stratagem specific options) is a different issue. Game balance is very tricky in part because it depends on what the designer is willing to add or remove while keeping an appropriate "feel" to the game's connective tissue (for any game that is not just mechanics) and cognitive load. For example, the current AP system has higher cognitive load, but allows for more granularity within the system. An army which benefits from this is Armageddon Steel Legion and their tanks which is a great benefit against autocannons. Then, Combat Doctrine negates that. Does that mean one is more powerful than the other? What about Combat Doctrine againse a Daemon army or Harlequins with all invulnerable saves? Or Deathwatch getting to snipe Aeldari flyers but not Tau?

[Ciler]

It's a unique weapon on a very expensive chassis that isn't particularly hard to destroy. You shouldn't compare weapons on a vacuum. I'd argue I can get more dedicated anti tank firepower from a Mortis Contemptor, as an example.

You're missing the point. I'm not being specifically critical of the executioner, merely using it to illustrate a point. I could probably do the same with a number of other weapons (the gatling type on various vehiclescomes to mind).

 

You shouldn't compare weapons on a vacuum.

But I am not, I am comparing it to a very similar weapon on a similar chassis - the twin-linked lascanon (on a land raider). When you can get better output for less points, it is a unit advantage, whether you like it or not.

[Ishagu]

There are gun that are free on certain units. The chassis plays a part in the cost.

[Volt]

Also I'd point out that they absolutely jumped the shark in the codex because of how much it invalidates the other marine codices. Unless Dark Angels, Blood Angels, and Space Wolves receive an update soon, there is no point in actually running those lists anymore in favor of just running C:SM lists due to how vastly superior they are. The codex and its rules absolutely should be dialed back, or everything brought to parity. Which cynically, is probably their intention as it's another impulse to buy even more books in what was supposed to be a fairly book-light edition.

[Ciler]

I expect BA, DA and SW will get updated in due course. If you remember the initial release of 8th edition, it took I think over a year for SW to get their codex.

[Dark Shepherd]

SW should get theirs late Jan

DA could be the marines to be made stand in the corner this time

[Verux]

I bought into 8th with the understanding GW planned to streamline rules and eliminate the broken formation / power combos from 7th. No more lugging around 4 books to play certain lists.

 

It's more of the same sadly, except now we get the flavor of the month tournament crushing new releases, which miraculously get FAQed after the initial surge in sales. Some people I play with call this the pay to win scenario, but I think it's worse. Essentially, its pay to rent rules. Each book stronger than the last temporarily.

[mughi3]

I bought into 8th with the understanding GW planned to streamline rules and eliminate the broken formation / power combos from 7th. No more lugging around 4 books to play certain lists.

 

It's more of the same sadly, except now we get the flavor of the month tournament crushing new releases, which miraculously get FAQed after the initial surge in sales. Some people I play with call this the pay to win scenario, but I think it's worse. Essentially, its pay to rent rules. Each book stronger than the last temporarily.

Yep, which is why I posted about the streamline test-no command points, no doctrines, no stratagems. Just spoke to the guys at the FLGS Saturday-challenge accepted.

 

I have an iron hands player onboard(well he plays like 6 different armies but we will start with the monster first). also an IG/crimson fist/iron warriors player.

 

funny thing is that the first guy claimed that genestealer cults were built around stratagems and could not be played without them(good generalship included). the second guy is stepping up to the plate and building a list for them at 2k with the streamlined approach in mind.

 

 

 

 

Surely that's easy enough. No repulsor executioner, only one warsuit thingy, and then just play nice.

the executioner is basically a 40K primaris version of the sicaran venator tank destroyer. not really as bad as you think.

[Closet Skeleton]

 

funny thing is that the first guy claimed that genestealer cults were built around stratagems and could not be played without them(good generalship included). the second guy is stepping up to the plate and building a list for them at 2k with the streamlined approach in mind.

 

 

Genestealer Cults have the biggest degree of stuff that they used to be able to do without stratagems that are now only do-able via stratagems.

 

You can build an army that doesn't need stratagems but its throwing out most options in the book.

 

 

but others like bolter storm have no chapter specific theme and is just a mechanic that breaks the core rules of the game.

 

Not really, its a limited use stratagem (12" range in an army with 30" range) I've never seen used that counters to hit penalties which are much more of a fancy special bonus most armies can't access.

Edited November 18, 2019 by Closet Skeleton

[Dark Shepherd]

What some indy tournaments do, and this is a great idea IMO, is not allow codexes that havent been FAQd

 

A positive almost is soupy lists are being punished by the sheer volume of volumes they have to lug around.

[Sonoftherubric21]

 

Surely that's easy enough. No repulsor executioner, only one warsuit thingy, and then just play nice.

the executioner is basically a 40K primaris version of the sicaran venator tank destroyer. not really as bad as you think.

 

 

I agree with this, I played a couple games against the new marine dex and the executioner is a very solid tank but not the horrific monster people online are making it out to be. 

 

It shot things, did some solid damage, and then proceeded to die both games. (One by Obliterator fire, one by Knight fire) 

 

Though to be fair he was only fielding 1 each time. I imagine having 3 on the table is nuts (then again that goes for any big-bad tank) 

[Panzer]

 

 

Surely that's easy enough. No repulsor executioner, only one warsuit thingy, and then just play nice.

the executioner is basically a 40K primaris version of the sicaran venator tank destroyer. not really as bad as you think.

 

 

I agree with this, I played a couple games against the new marine dex and the executioner is a very solid tank but not the horrific monster people online are making it out to be. 

 

It shot things, did some solid damage, and then proceeded to die both games. (One by Obliterator fire, one by Knight fire) 

 

Though to be fair he was only fielding 1 each time. I imagine having 3 on the table is nuts (then again that goes for any big-bad tank) 

 

 

Having 3 on the table is also pretty expensive and you won't have much for the rest of your already expensive army left. ;) 

[mughi3]

Having 3 on the table is also pretty expensive and you won't have much for the rest of your already expensive army left.

The one guy at our FLGS that metas really hard is always going on about how good or bad units are. I think that kind of misses the point of it all. yes the storm hawk is only better against "fly" units and my storm eagle ROC is points heavy......but damn they are fantastic looking kits. I tend to favor the rule of cool over pure performance myself. Edited November 19, 2019 by mughi3

[Ishagu]

3 Repulsors is only a thing in ITC missions where you pick your secondaries.

 

If people are worried about over powered units play the CA missions instead.