Is enhancing through traits/doctrines optimal?

[Djangomatic82]

Hmmm, i'd suggest that you might be giving too much benefit of the doubt to the game designers. I worked with a games company for 8 years, saw their internal stuff, did QA, etc...they arent infallible, in that sometimes one hand designing a section doesnt know or realize that another hand's design will have an impact on their part. sometimes the imbalance is intentional, maybe by business or marketing design or in that a particular dev just wants to see something pushed through to production.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Hind sight is always 20/20.

[War Angel]

 

Imperial fist is already situational enough as it is. You want it to only work a 6th if the time too?

 

considering their over representation , yeah, their super doctrine needs to be looked at.  If Iron hands suddenly were no longer an issue, I'm sure IF would simply slot into their position, not to mention the chilling affect they have on vehicle adoption. Just because IF are not as overpowered against infantry, doesn't mean their over performance against vehicles is not an issue.

Hahahaha.

[Raktra]

Any rebuttal of substance to provide?

[Djangomatic82]

 

 

 

Imperial fist is already situational enough as it is. You want it to only work a 6th if the time too?

considering their over representation , yeah, their super doctrine needs to be looked at.  If Iron hands suddenly were no longer an issue, I'm sure IF would simply slot into their position, not to mention the chilling affect they have on vehicle adoption. Just because IF are not as overpowered against infantry, doesn't mean their over performance against vehicles is not an issue.

Hahahaha.

 

Any rebuttal of substance to provide?

 

 

I'm wondering the same. Not particularly constructive.

[War Angel]

Stop being afraid of 6’s to wound.

[Hymnblade]

What?

[War Angel]

What?

Str 4 vs toughness 8. Stalkers vs tanks. Sure, 60 of them will be deadly, but so would 60 bolt rifles at that volume.

[Dracos]

Hmmm, i'd suggest that you might be giving too much benefit of the doubt to the game designers. I worked with a games company for 8 years, saw their internal stuff, did QA, etc...they arent infallible, in that sometimes one hand designing a section doesnt know or realize that another hand's design will have an impact on their part. sometimes the imbalance is intentional, maybe by business or marketing design or in that a particular dev just wants to see something pushed through to production.

 

No argument there. I perfectly believe your personal experiences brought any number of issues to light. Without knowing who your referring to I can't make a comment on the companies practices other than imagine that lasting 8 years was actually not bad given the current state of the hobby outside of the few giants ... such as GW. Who also are in no way perfect, but they have visibly improved their product, rules and customer service over the past few years. Incidents of goofs and gaffs, absolutely. Half the game is designed on math the other half on art. Beauty in the eye of the beholder and all. 

 

The point of the post was that there is a science to good game design as much as an art and looking in from the outside I don't think we can begin to guess at all that effects the design, production and then review of a rulebook or line of models. Doesn't mean we can't point out things that slipped by them, just suggesting we do it in a productive and community friendly manner .... I really want us to stay constructive, substantive and detailed hereon the B&C. I sure as Nurgle rots couldn't spend this kind of time on a few similar if definitely less friendly sites. I'm 55 year old gamer with no time for faceless fools hiding behind the safety of the net.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

War Angel mentions not being afraid of "6"s. I'm curious how other members feel about Traits or Doctrines that activate on a roll of "6"? Back in 3rd edition I flatly refused to be worried about opponents traits that activated this way. I know I'm bringing that bias into 8th edition and going to carry it into (9th?) the future. Thing is in today's game there are just soooo many more dice hitting the table, I'm not sure if maybe I should revise that thinking.

 

For instance my DIY Chapter is designed for a lot of mid range shooting followed up by assault. It's a RG successor that I am starting to use Master Artisan and Long Range Marksmen. I feel that loads me heavily in the shooting (many Agressors and Assault Centurions). The only ones that add to assault that I would consider only activate on a "6". Curious what others may think.

[Hymnblade]

 

What?

Str 4 vs toughness 8. Stalkers vs tanks. Sure, 60 of them will be deadly, but so would 60 bolt rifles at that volume.

 

I don't think we're having the same conversation. That means I am probably not communicating well, so I apologize.

 

I'm not saying that, if you need more anti-tank, it's efficient to spam SBR. Throwing a thousand points of Intercessors at a 250-point tank is obviously dumb. I'm saying that IF gain a lot from spamming SBRs just for regular use, because their rules encourage them to castle up and stay in Devastator, so a 36" rifle with exploding sixes, damage 2, and plasma-level AP certainly isn't bad for your basic troops, although sure, it's less effective than AP2 double-tapping bolt rifles against most 1W units. But if you have a lot of those on the field, they can also cover anti-tank surprisingly well, because they've got pretty good AP, D3 against vehicles, and access to Tank Hunters. (With CM + Lieutenant rerolls and Tank Hunters, it takes about 19 SBR shots to kill a Land Raider, or 37 to kill a Knight. At this point, they're close to earning their points back in one turn - I'm not counting the cost of characters or CP, so this isn't as efficient as it sounds, but it's pretty damn good for a basic Troop choice shooting a Knight.)

 

I'm saying that +1D and +1AP is indeed a small buff for weapons that already have high damage and high AP; a meltagun barely improves. So don't take meltaguns. Take the weapons where it's +50% or +100% damage, like heavy bolters and stalker rifles.

 

That's why I brought it up in response to you saying that Dev Doctrine doesn't really help meltaguns. That's true, it doesn't. But IF aren't spamming meltaguns. "60 SBR intercessors" isn't some weird gimmick that I pulled out of thin air, it's the basic format of multiple tournament-winning IF lists over the last few months. A bunch of SBR squads, maybe with TH sergeants, some HB/HB DevCents, some Eliminators, some Thunderfires, and that's the whole list. No dedicated anti-tank in sight, just a truckload of bolters. Basic calculations say this is plenty dangerous to vehicles, and tournament results say it works in practice.

 

There certainly are weaknesses to this, like monsters/battlesuits that don't have the VEHICLE keyword. But 'nobody needs AP5 meltaguns' isn't the weakness; nobody wanted to use meltas anyway.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Hymnblade

[War Angel]

 

 

What?

 

Str 4 vs toughness 8. Stalkers vs tanks. Sure, 60 of them will be deadly, but so would 60 bolt rifles at that volume.

 

I don't think we're having the same conversation. That means I am probably not communicating well, so I apologize.

 

I'm not saying that, if you need more anti-tank, it's efficient to spam SBR. Throwing a thousand points of Intercessors at a 250-point tank is obviously dumb. I'm saying that IF gain a lot from spamming SBRs just for regular use, because their rules encourage them to castle up and stay in Devastator, so a 36" rifle with exploding sixes, damage 2, and plasma-level AP certainly isn't bad for your basic troops, although sure, it's less effective than AP2 double-tapping bolt rifles against most 1W units. But if you have a lot of those on the field, they can also cover anti-tank surprisingly well, because they've got pretty good AP, D3 against vehicles, and access to Tank Hunters. (With CM + Lieutenant rerolls and Tank Hunters, it takes about 19 SBR shots to kill a Land Raider, or 37 to kill a Knight. At this point, they're close to earning their points back in one turn - I'm not counting the cost of characters or CP, so this isn't as efficient as it sounds, but it's pretty damn good for a basic Troop choice shooting a Knight.)

 

I'm saying that +1D and +1AP is indeed a small buff for weapons that already have high damage and high AP; a meltagun barely improves. So don't take meltaguns. Take the weapons where it's +50% or +100% damage, like heavy bolters and stalker rifles.

 

That's why I brought it up in response to you saying that Dev Doctrine doesn't really help meltaguns. That's true, it doesn't. But IF aren't spamming meltaguns. "60 intercessors" isn't some weird gimmick that I pulled out of thin air, it's the basic format of multiple tournament-winning IF lists over the last few months. A bunch of SBR squads, maybe with TH sergeants, some DevCents, some Eliminators, some Thunderfires, and that's the whole list. No dedicated anti-tank in sight, just a truckload of bolters. Basic calculations say this is plenty dangerous to vehicles, and tournament results say it works in practice.

 

There certainly are weaknesses to this, like monsters/battlesuits that don't have the VEHICLE keyword. But 'nobody needs AP5 meltaguns' isn't the weakness; nobody wanted to use meltas anyway.

I feel like this is all off topic, but maybe no one will notice. Part of why no one is spamming melta guns is there isn’t a way to spam them. Sternguard I guess but then you loose out on the whole thing that makes them sternguard.

 

Nerfing IF because their trait favors them to castle will only force them to castle further. I enjoy playing my Marines aggressively, and only recently started taking any SBR’s at all (2 five man) I still take dedicated tank weapons because they double as dedicated MC, and i still haven’t run into any time where it was better for me to shoot at a vehicle with the SBR’s. Needing 6’s to wound make it so much better to put actual anti tank into them.

 

Half the time it’s either nids or tau, so the entire doctrine is a waste, the other half it’s Wolfen dreads with shields, or deamon land raiders with involv saves. The doctrine is useful a quarter of the time, not something worth spamming intercessors for.

[Djangomatic82]

 

Hmmm, i'd suggest that you might be giving too much benefit of the doubt to the game designers. I worked with a games company for 8 years, saw their internal stuff, did QA, etc...they arent infallible, in that sometimes one hand designing a section doesnt know or realize that another hand's design will have an impact on their part. sometimes the imbalance is intentional, maybe by business or marketing design or in that a particular dev just wants to see something pushed through to production.

 

No argument there. I perfectly believe your personal experiences brought any number of issues to light. Without knowing who your referring to I can't make a comment on the companies practices other than imagine that lasting 8 years was actually not bad given the current state of the hobby outside of the few giants ... such as GW. Who also are in no way perfect, but they have visibly improved their product, rules and customer service over the past few years. Incidents of goofs and gaffs, absolutely. Half the game is designed on math the other half on art. Beauty in the eye of the beholder and all. 

 

The point of the post was that there is a science to good game design as much as an art and looking in from the outside I don't think we can begin to guess at all that effects the design, production and then review of a rulebook or line of models. Doesn't mean we can't point out things that slipped by them, just suggesting we do it in a productive and community friendly manner .... I really want us to stay constructive, substantive and detailed hereon the B&C. I sure as Nurgle rots couldn't spend this kind of time on a few similar if definitely less friendly sites. I'm 55 year old gamer with no time for faceless fools hiding behind the safety of the net.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

War Angel mentions not being afraid of "6"s. I'm curious how other members feel about Traits or Doctrines that activate on a roll of "6"? Back in 3rd edition I flatly refused to be worried about opponents traits that activated this way. I know I'm bringing that bias into 8th edition and going to carry it into (9th?) the future. Thing is in today's game there are just soooo many more dice hitting the table, I'm not sure if maybe I should revise that thinking.

 

For instance my DIY Chapter is designed for a lot of mid range shooting followed up by assault. It's a RG successor that I am starting to use Master Artisan and Long Range Marksmen. I feel that loads me heavily in the shooting (many Agressors and Assault Centurions). The only ones that add to assault that I would consider only activate on a "6". Curious what others may think.

 

my experience has mostly been versus Genstelaers with their Ap-4 and Eldar Shurikcan weapons with Ap-3, both proc'ing on 6's to wound. Those wouldn't be bad on units that only make 5 to 10 shots be turn like tacs and intercessors, but for those units, they have more shot/attacks baseline per model, as well as having larger units sizes than marines. On top of that, just like marines, those units want to stack reroll aura's or shoot/fight twice strats if they have them. in the end, yes, per shot/attack, there's a low chance of proc'ing tha ability, but en mass, as units using these abilities do, they end up being a significant increase to overall killing ability.

As a side note, consider Orks and their Dakka, Dakka rule as a prime example of the principle. it isn't unusual for a Boyz squad to end up with more successful hit than they initially shot!

[Djangomatic82]

 

 

 

What?

Str 4 vs toughness 8. Stalkers vs tanks. Sure, 60 of them will be deadly, but so would 60 bolt rifles at that volume.

 

I don't think we're having the same conversation. That means I am probably not communicating well, so I apologize.

 

I'm not saying that, if you need more anti-tank, it's efficient to spam SBR. Throwing a thousand points of Intercessors at a 250-point tank is obviously dumb. I'm saying that IF gain a lot from spamming SBRs just for regular use, because their rules encourage them to castle up and stay in Devastator, so a 36" rifle with exploding sixes, damage 2, and plasma-level AP certainly isn't bad for your basic troops, although sure, it's less effective than AP2 double-tapping bolt rifles against most 1W units. But if you have a lot of those on the field, they can also cover anti-tank surprisingly well, because they've got pretty good AP, D3 against vehicles, and access to Tank Hunters. (With CM + Lieutenant rerolls and Tank Hunters, it takes about 19 SBR shots to kill a Land Raider, or 37 to kill a Knight. At this point, they're close to earning their points back in one turn - I'm not counting the cost of characters or CP, so this isn't as efficient as it sounds, but it's pretty damn good for a basic Troop choice shooting a Knight.)

 

I'm saying that +1D and +1AP is indeed a small buff for weapons that already have high damage and high AP; a meltagun barely improves. So don't take meltaguns. Take the weapons where it's +50% or +100% damage, like heavy bolters and stalker rifles.

 

That's why I brought it up in response to you saying that Dev Doctrine doesn't really help meltaguns. That's true, it doesn't. But IF aren't spamming meltaguns. "60 intercessors" isn't some weird gimmick that I pulled out of thin air, it's the basic format of multiple tournament-winning IF lists over the last few months. A bunch of SBR squads, maybe with TH sergeants, some DevCents, some Eliminators, some Thunderfires, and that's the whole list. No dedicated anti-tank in sight, just a truckload of bolters. Basic calculations say this is plenty dangerous to vehicles, and tournament results say it works in practice.

 

There certainly are weaknesses to this, like monsters/battlesuits that don't have the VEHICLE keyword. But 'nobody needs AP5 meltaguns' isn't the weakness; nobody wanted to use meltas anyway.

I feel like this is all off topic, but maybe no one will notice. Part of why no one is spamming melta guns is there isn’t a way to spam them. Sternguard I guess but then you loose out on the whole thing that makes them sternguard.

 

Nerfing IF because their trait favors them to castle will only force them to castle further. I enjoy playing my Marines aggressively, and only recently started taking any SBR’s at all (2 five man) I still take dedicated tank weapons because they double as dedicated MC, and i still haven’t run into any time where it was better for me to shoot at a vehicle with the SBR’s. Needing 6’s to wound make it so much better to put actual anti tank into them.

 

Half the time it’s either nids or tau, so the entire doctrine is a waste, the other half it’s Wolfen dreads with shields, or deamon land raiders with involv saves. The doctrine is useful a quarter of the time, not something worth spamming intercessors for.

 

I think you need to understand that when we are talking about the Issues that lead to overpowered IF lists, we arent talking about your particular situation or usual opponents. We are talking about IF in the context of the game as a whole, which doesn't seem to be reflected in your local meta.

[Hymnblade]

 

I feel like this is all off topic, but maybe no one will notice. Part of why no one is spamming melta guns is there isn’t a way to spam them. Sternguard I guess but then you loose out on the whole thing that makes them sternguard.

 

Nerfing IF because their trait favors them to castle will only force them to castle further. I enjoy playing my Marines aggressively, and only recently started taking any SBR’s at all (2 five man) I still take dedicated tank weapons because they double as dedicated MC, and i still haven’t run into any time where it was better for me to shoot at a vehicle with the SBR’s. Needing 6’s to wound make it so much better to put actual anti tank into them.

 

Half the time it’s either nids or tau, so the entire doctrine is a waste, the other half it’s Wolfen dreads with shields, or deamon land raiders with involv saves. The doctrine is useful a quarter of the time, not something worth spamming intercessors for.

 

 

With Tank Hunters, you don't need sixes to wound, though. (And plenty of T6-7 vehicles exist.) Ten SBRs cost about the same as a quad-las Contemptor, and with Tank Hunters, do about the same damage to a t8 vehicle (yes, I am counting the buff for the Contemptor). They actually do more damage than the Contemptor to a T7 vehicle. This is the same effect again: +1 to wound is a +100% buff if you wound on sixes, but a +25% buff if you wound on threes. Wounding on 5+ isn't bad when you have enough dice; that's why Grav Devastators are good, for example.

 

If only a quarter of the lists you face have vehicles, that may say more about your local meta than about how effective the IF doctrine is. But yes, in those situations, the doctrine as a whole is much less valuable, and SBR spam is less effective.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Hymnblade

[War Angel]

Are you suggesting that because there’s a strat that gives one unit +1 to wound they are over powered? Obliterators can fire a whole second time a turn, and have precision delivery. Blood angles whole army has +1 to wound in combat. Every faction has units that can be pushed further. You can’t just keep nerfing everything until it’s all garbage. Might as well play risk at that point.

 

We could just get rid of stratagems entirely, hell they didn’t exist for many editions.

[Hymnblade]

Are you suggesting that because there’s a strat that gives one unit +1 to wound they are over powered?

I am not, no.

 

Remember, I brought it up in the first place in response to when you said 'Devastator sucks' and that SBRs are 'just fishing for wounds', and then I led with "It is not true that those weapons are poor against vehicles". I'm not asserting that anything is OP. I'm saying that Devastator Doctrine, the IF doctrine bonus, and SBR generally are not weak. I haven't said or implied they are overpowered, just not weak.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Hymnblade

[War Angel]

 

Are you suggesting that because there’s a strat that gives one unit +1 to wound they are over powered?

 

I am not, no.

 

Remember, I brought it up in the first place in response to when you said 'Devastator sucks' and that SBRs are 'just fishing for wounds', and then I led with "It is not true that those weapons are poor against vehicles". I'm not asserting that anything is OP. I'm saying that Devastator Doctrine, the IF doctrine bonus, and SBR generally are not weak. I haven't said or implied they are overpowered, just not weak.

Sorry, I ment the other guy. I agree it’s not weak.

 

Well I guess he didn’t mention anything about strats, so I’m just blending everything together at this point.

[Dracos]

Easy to do in a conversation like this. Perfect example how none of these things exist in a vacuum. Picking one factor as OP without taking the other variables into account is an exercise in futility.

 

I’m old school as they get and the stratagems can get overwhelming sometimes, especially when they are synergizing three levels deep, but honestly I think it has made the game more interesting and gives Marines to finally play closer to how the narrative describes them.

[jaxom]

Regarding the original post: I don't mind. Does it also allow for some cool, not optimized armies that won't get rolled over in a non-tournament setting? Yes. Does it reward certain play styles to be paired with certain chapters? Yes. Is it perfect? No. Does it allow for certain hyper-efficient builds? Yes.

 

As some are of you have noted, 6s are nothing to be scared of. In my area, tournament play issues are nothing to be scared because we know when they're going to be on the table and can come with the expectation of having to deal with them.