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

[Panzer]

 

 

 

 

 Dreadnoughts aren't made to be unkillable, sure they're way tougher for IH but again they're not broken. 

/snip

I mean regarding the 'unkillable Dreadnought' shenanigans:

 

Bray'arth Ashmantle says "Hello". How's a Toughness 9, 8 Wound, 2+/5++/4+++ Dreadnought that's a Character sound?

 

It simply seems Iron Hands saw Bray'arth and thought "Huh... We need this."

 

 

It's not the Dreadnought stats that are the problem, although the Leviathan is nearly double the Wounds of Ashmantle. The issue is the reduction in Damage through assorted Stratagems, Relics, and Traits, so that lascannon that does D6 wounds now does 1 less (to a minimum of 1) and then halves the remaining damage that it would have received, so now instead of taking a potential 6 wounds, is taking 3 at most. Combine that with the sheer amount of repairing the Iron Hands can do, and it gets a bit crazy.

 

 

If you are smart you half first and then reduce it by 1 so a Lascannon does only 2 damage at most.

 

Rules say you add/subtract then multiply/divide .

 

Where does it say that?

Edited September 28, 2019 by sfPanzer

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

I think the problem is more ITC Missions rather than the new codex and supplements. It can be argued ITC is not proper 40k.

You're always around to point out things you dislike about the community, but how about vocalizing some reasons why you think that? Considering the wide appeal of the ITC format, I'm always curious when someone thinks it's not "proper 40k".

At the risk of putting words in Black Blow Fly’s mouth (apologies if I’m not correct) but for me, no matter how popular ITC is, it’s not the official rules. At the end of the day it’s just a set of house rules. Using it to compare the performance of armies/rules and overall balance has to be taken with a pinch of salt because the armies and game were not designed for those rules.

 

If something is overpowered when playing house rules, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is anywhere near as overpowered when playing the normal rules.

 

This is not an anti ITC rant from me, I like a lot of the rules they use but on discussions around balance, it seems it is often forgotten that ITC is not how the game or the armies are designed.

[Wulf Vengis]

@Azekai: Again, we have to remember that there are MANY more Codex updates on the horizon and I'm guessing the psychic awakening will see those updates in overall balance start to come in.

 

Edit: I'm not familiar with the ITC rulings.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Wulf Vengis

[Closet Skeleton]

 

At the risk of putting words in Black Blow Fly’s mouth (apologies if I’m not correct) but for me, no matter how popular ITC is, it’s not the official rules. At the end of the day it’s just a set of house rules. Using it to compare the performance of armies/rules and overall balance has to be taken with a pinch of salt because the armies and game were not designed for those rules.

 

If something is overpowered when playing house rules, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is anywhere near as overpowered when playing the normal rules.

 

This is not an anti ITC rant from me, I like a lot of the rules they use but on discussions around balance, it seems it is often forgotten that ITC is not how the game or the armies are designed.

 

 

ITC is a scenario pack with like 2 houserules about terrain, the game is designed for players to come up with their own scenarios, half the rulebook is about scenario variability. The idea that anything outside of official matched play scenarios isn't what the game is really about is nonsense.

 

Scenarios effect what army is good or isn't good but that's not something that changes what 40k is supposed to be like, its a core part of the game from the start.

 

edit:

 

 

ITC also has a different scoring system involving killing or holding more than your opponent as well as being able to pick secondaries from a list.

 

40k doesn't have a default scoring or win condition in its core rules. Scoring is completely different between eternal war missions and maelstrom missions only share a scoring system in that its a limited game type. ITC is no more different to official 40k than maelstrom and eternal war are to each other and ETC's weird maelstrom and eternal war and kill points at the same time format is no less a houserule just for being built out of more official parts than ITC's format.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Closet Skeleton

[BitsHammer]

ITC also has a different scoring system involving killing or holding more than your opponent as well as being able to pick secondaries from a list.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

At the risk of putting words in Black Blow Fly’s mouth (apologies if I’m not correct) but for me, no matter how popular ITC is, it’s not the official rules. At the end of the day it’s just a set of house rules. Using it to compare the performance of armies/rules and overall balance has to be taken with a pinch of salt because the armies and game were not designed for those rules.

 

If something is overpowered when playing house rules, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is anywhere near as overpowered when playing the normal rules.

 

This is not an anti ITC rant from me, I like a lot of the rules they use but on discussions around balance, it seems it is often forgotten that ITC is not how the game or the armies are designed.

 

ITC is a scenario pack with like 2 houserules about terrain, the game is designed for players to come up with their own scenarios, half the rulebook is about scenario variability. The idea that anything outside of official matched play scenarios isn't what the game is really about is nonsense.

 

Scenarios effect what army is good or isn't good but that's not something that changes what 40k is supposed to be like, its a core part of the game from the start.

I didn’t say anything about stuff outside matched play scenarios being nonesense, the more variety the better IMO.

 

I said that if you are going to add new rules and change existing ones (like ITC does) then essentially, it’s not fair to blame GW rules writers if some armies become overpowered because those rules writers never designed/balanced them with those changes in mind because how could they?

 

My main point is that you cannot fairly judge the balance/power of a codex or army using ITC (or any other house ruled system) because the codex and army were not designed with those in mind and I think that is something that is often forgotten when people discuss this kind of thing.

[GrinNfool]

So in response to the original question, yes, especially with the Ironhands dreadnought nonsense.  Part of the original idea of 8th was (I thought) to try and move away from super combos of units/relics/rules that let a model break the game.  Even GWs targeted nerfs have been along those lines trying to remove combinations in that vein.  This latest codex creep seems a betrayal of that previous philosophy.  The didn't just jump the shark they cleared it by 100 feet.  Even scarier should rumors be believed, the Imperial Fist codex is supposed to be even better.  Really hope thats not the case though, and that has nothing to do with the Imperial fists, just for the state of the game. 

 

If all of the marine releases is a sign of things to come (and an example of the power level); with all codexes getting a similar update not sure that its a good thing for the health of the game.  Honestly though I can't see the Ironhands stuff staying completely intact, something seems it will have to give a little with it, be it more CP cost, removal of some of the stacking or something.  My bet is on a hefty relic levi point hike in CA, but who knows.

[Closet Skeleton]

 

I didn’t say anything about stuff outside matched play scenarios being nonesense, the more variety the better IMO.

 

I said that if you are going to add new rules and change existing ones (like ITC does) then essentially, it’s not fair to blame GW rules writers if some armies become overpowered because those rules writers never designed/balanced them with those changes in mind because how could they?

 

90% of what ITC rules are IS the mission pack. If you're talking about ITC you're talking about the missions unless you explicitly mention one of the tiny number of house rules.

 

This is the ITC rules document, there's no actual FAQ points even in there anymore it just directs you to the official FAQs and Chapter approved.

 

The most impactful ITC house rules are the ruins one which is actually moot if you're using ITC standard terrain so is a scenario that could happen in a non-ITC setting anyway and the 'no blocking off levels' ruling (which isn't even in the ITC pack as of this moment). Then there's the chess clock which can have big effects but time limit is a factor for many casual games anyway.. Everything else is minutia.

 

There's no point in you restating your point if you're not even going to bother responding to any point I made, I wasn't explicitly disagreeing (and your personal opinions wasn't the topic of your own post). Of course GW aren't responsible for fan rules, its just that the rules were clearly designed with the expectation that fan missions would be an important part of the hobby.

 

If there was a set of house rules that changed what wasn't over-powered then you'd have some okay points but that just isn't what ITC is at this point in time. When people say "this unit is better in ITC" then all they mean is that there are ways to use that unit which is rewarded better in ITC missions than in say Chapter Approved missions. The main change in ITC is progressive scoring which the Chapter Approved Eternal War missions tried to incorporate more of anyway so there isn't even that big a design gap between ITC and the official rules team.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Closet Skeleton

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

 

 

I didn’t say anything about stuff outside matched play scenarios being nonesense, the more variety the better IMO.

I said that if you are going to add new rules and change existing ones (like ITC does) then essentially, it’s not fair to blame GW rules writers if some armies become overpowered because those rules writers never designed/balanced them with those changes in mind because how could they?

90% of what ITC rules are IS the mission pack. If you're talking about ITC you're talking about the missions unless you explicitly mention one of the tiny number of house rules.

 

This is the ITC rules document, there's no actual FAQ points even in there anymore it just directs you to the official FAQs and Chapter approved.

 

The most impactful ITC house rules are the ruins one which is actually moot if you're using ITC standard terrain so is a scenario that could happen in a non-ITC setting anyway and the 'no blocking off levels' ruling (which isn't even in the ITC pack as of this moment). Then there's the chess clock which can have big effects but time limit is a factor for many casual games anyway.. Everything else is minutia.

 

There's no point in you restating your point if you're not even going to bother responding to any point I made, I wasn't explicitly disagreeing (and your personal opinions wasn't the topic of your own post). Of course GW aren't responsible for fan rules, its just that the rules were clearly designed with the expectation that fan missions would be an important part of the hobby.

 

If there was a set of house rules that changed what wasn't over-powered then you'd have some okay points but that just isn't what ITC is at this point in time.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. I am happy for and agree that fan made scenarios should be part of the game, just that feedback from those, no matter whether it’s ITC or two dudes in a basement is not a good yardstick to measure whether armies are overpowered or not.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

 

I think the problem is more ITC Missions rather than the new codex and supplements. It can be argued ITC is not proper 40k.

 

 

You're always around to point out things you dislike about the community, but how about vocalizing some reasons why you think that? Considering the wide appeal of the ITC format, I'm always curious when someone thinks it's not "proper 40k".

Here are some things I don’t like about ITC -

 

First because of the tracking system they use it ranks everyone who plays by faction thus making it even more competitive.

 

Second there are some top armies that are copied because they are doing very well that provide little if any real interaction for opponents. Often the format tends to favor these top armies because of the mission design, such as eldar flying circus. Understand that while there are six missions in truth it’s just one mission with little variance. For example what you pick for your secondary objectives are always the same set of choices.

 

Third some of their home grown rules such as magic boxes are unhealthy since they give a certain advantage to specific type of army builds.

 

Fourth the tracking system should record players that were caught cheating or bad sports so that bans can be handed out to offenders... this is currently a hot topic.

 

 

I know competitive tourney players like the mission format but introducing some new elements could shake up the meta... for now it’s too much of a good thing imo.

[Wulf Vengis]

I refuse to believe they've jumped the shark. But I'll attest however that there is not enough evidence to definitively say otherwise. Until we see some more of the new Codecies we just can't know for sure.

 

As far as rules bloat goes, 8th released as a streamlined, bareboned ruleset, much like 3rd. They released the baseline Codecies via the indecies, just like the army list section in the back of the 3rd edition rulebook. Since the initial release they've grown the rules further and further. Some would say bringing bloat.

Is it too much? Is it not enough? What even IS "too much"? What determines when the growth has become bloat? More importantly what signifier indicates the bloat "popping" and the end of an edition?

Edited September 29, 2019 by Wulf Vengis

[Morticon]

 

 

 

 

 

If you are smart you half first and then reduce it by 1 so a Lascannon does only 2 damage at most.

 

Rules say you add/subtract then multiply/divide .

 

Where does it say that?

 

Going based off this precedent until its FAQed: 

 

Q: If a rule modifies a model’s Strength characteristic, and that model is equipped with a melee weapon that also has a modifier (e.g. ‘x2’), could you explain the order in which the modifiers are applied to the characteristics and the weapon’s Strength?

A: First you must determine the model’s current Strength characteristic. To do so apply all modifiers to it that multiply or divide the value, then apply any that add or subtract to it. Having done this, you then modify this value as described by the weapon’s Strength characteristic.

 

I will admit, though, that I had originally thought this particular FAQ question was in relation to all numbers- not only S of a weapon, so they could very well change it, or it could very well be argued against.  I can see arguments being made for "same time" so, commanding player picks order...but, unlikely to stay that way. 

[Tyriks]

Same time would be the player whose turn it is deciding, not the commanding player, I believe.

[Morticon]

Same time would be the player whose turn it is deciding, not the commanding player, I believe.

 

"Commanding player" was super unclear- that's what i meant yeh. The player who is commanding the turn (rather than the unit) - horrible term to use - my bad!!

[Panzer]

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you are smart you half first and then reduce it by 1 so a Lascannon does only 2 damage at most.

 

Rules say you add/subtract then multiply/divide .

 

Where does it say that?

 

Going based off this precedent until its FAQed: 

 

Q: If a rule modifies a model’s Strength characteristic, and that model is equipped with a melee weapon that also has a modifier (e.g. ‘x2’), could you explain the order in which the modifiers are applied to the characteristics and the weapon’s Strength?

A: First you must determine the model’s current Strength characteristic. To do so apply all modifiers to it that multiply or divide the value, then apply any that add or subtract to it. Having done this, you then modify this value as described by the weapon’s Strength characteristic.

 

I will admit, though, that I had originally thought this particular FAQ question was in relation to all numbers- not only S of a weapon, so they could very well change it, or it could very well be argued against.  I can see arguments being made for "same time" so, commanding player picks order...but, unlikely to stay that way. 

 

 

Well that FAQ entry has two steps and mostly just clarifies the order of those steps. First modifying the models stat directly and then applying the weapon modifier. Hence why a character with thunderhammer and +1S modifier ends up with S10 instead of S9.

However it also mentions how you do the multiplier first and then add or subtract afterwards within the same step here. So if anything it's not add/subtract first and then multiply/divide and instead multiply/divide first and then add/subtract.

[Morticon]

I will try find the picture that showed the data, but this weekend, across the various major GTs -->  Iron Hands took 50% of the top 4 spots, and marines took a total of 67% of the top spots.

 

"9 GT sized or greater events; 36 top 4 placings.

Of those, 24 were Space Marines or had a detachment.

Of those, 18 were Iron Hands.

Of the 9 events, Iron Hands won 7 of them; the eighth was White Scars with an IH successor detachment.

That’s 50% of all top 4 being Iron Hands; Space Marines 67%."

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/dhrgmm/pandas_weekend_rundown_10121013/

 

 

Guess time will tell what happens....

[toaae]

I'm going to SoCal Open, and I'm sure it's going to just be stupidly full of Marines. Luckily, I'm not taking a good list, so after getting mashed a few times, hopefully I can avoid most of them at the lower tables.

[The Unseen]

Those stats don't tell us much at all without knowing how many people were bringing what. Everyone knows its powerful, its also new and shiny. If 50% of the people playing brought marines, and we ignore self selection with more skilled players picking whatever, and just assume skill level is roughly evenly distributed, then yeah, 50% of the winners will be playing Marines. And it is pretty obvious that Iron Hands are mechanically more raw powerful than others, and they are also fairly simple to play. They have fewer tricks, but their hammer is bigger.

The problem would be if say, 20% of the players were marines, but half the winners were.

Be careful with stats, they can be made to say anything if you squint hard enough.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The Iron Hands flying circus looks to be the strongest list so far. Lots of Stormtalons.

[BitsHammer]

New armies tend to have a massove jump until people work out the tricks to kill the army.

 

ITC rules seem to be buffing Iron Hands a fair bit too.

[GrinNfool]

Oof bit early to say called it but.... doesn't bode well.

[Panzer]

Well that was merely the first big impact of the new IH rules. Now that people experienced it let them try and figure out how to deal with it.

[mughi3]

So in response to the original question, yes, especially with the Ironhands dreadnought nonsense.  Part of the original idea of 8th was (I thought) to try and move away from super combos of units/relics/rules that let a model break the game.  Even GWs targeted nerfs have been along those lines trying to remove combinations in that vein.  This latest codex creep seems a betrayal of that previous philosophy.  The didn't just jump the shark they cleared it by 100 feet.  Even scarier should rumors be believed, the Imperial Fist codex is supposed to be even better.  Really hope thats not the case though, and that has nothing to do with the Imperial fists, just for the state of the game. 

 

If all of the marine releases is a sign of things to come (and an example of the power level); with all codexes getting a similar update not sure that its a good thing for the health of the game.  Honestly though I can't see the Ironhands stuff staying completely intact, something seems it will have to give a little with it, be it more CP cost, removal of some of the stacking or something.  My bet is on a hefty relic levi point hike in CA, but who knows.

welcome back to the start of 4th edition when they planned to simplify the game. -go and look at the dark angels codex(it was the first of the "new" style) and the 2 that followed it. after that they reversed course and did the same power up codex creep. thank matt ward

[Morticon]

 

So in response to the original question, yes, especially with the Ironhands dreadnought nonsense.  Part of the original idea of 8th was (I thought) to try and move away from super combos of units/relics/rules that let a model break the game.  Even GWs targeted nerfs have been along those lines trying to remove combinations in that vein.  This latest codex creep seems a betrayal of that previous philosophy.  The didn't just jump the shark they cleared it by 100 feet.  Even scarier should rumors be believed, the Imperial Fist codex is supposed to be even better.  Really hope thats not the case though, and that has nothing to do with the Imperial fists, just for the state of the game. 

 

If all of the marine releases is a sign of things to come (and an example of the power level); with all codexes getting a similar update not sure that its a good thing for the health of the game.  Honestly though I can't see the Ironhands stuff staying completely intact, something seems it will have to give a little with it, be it more CP cost, removal of some of the stacking or something.  My bet is on a hefty relic levi point hike in CA, but who knows.

welcome back to the start of 4th edition when they planned to simplify the game. -go and look at the dark angels codex(it was the first of the "new" style) and the 2 that followed it. after that they reversed course and did the same power up codex creep. thank matt ward

 

I was at a talk by Jervis Johnson and Phil Kelly where they talked about that move.   It crashed and burned so quickly after that :/  Guess we shall seeee

[Lord_Caerolion]

Yeah, I still remember Jervis proudly boasting in White Dwarf of "yeah, we removed all special stuff from character options, so that way Special Characters can really be special! After all, artificer armor etc should be reserved only for the big heroes", and just thinking to myself "ok, and so what about everyone who doesn't want to just use the existing Special Characters, but want to do our own thing?"