Major nerf

[ValourousHeart]

Not having played since just before the Combat Doctrines for DA came out, I was under the impression that the doctrines necessarily advanced at various points to begin with, not that one could just sit on one's fat arse eating chips/crisps and plinking away with lascannons using the Devastator Doctrine the whole game. What a boring arse game that would be.

 

I guess we really do have to give thanks to the tournament scene for doing such a bang up job of exploiting things, thereby unavoidably drawing attention to such obvious jackassery. They do serve a purpose after all! Kudos! I completely support folks needing to learn more about the Face Shootin' and Stabby Stabby doctrines.

Boring!!! I make airplane noises when I push my speeders around during the movement phase and machine gun noises during the shooting phase.  It's like I'm a 4 year old in a 43 year old's body.

 

But I can see your point you are making for units that don't move like Devastator Squads and Hellblasters.

 

IMHO there are two ways to go: keeping the doctrines or not

If we feel the doctrines are useful even if nerfed the best way Is double Battalion with talon masters and chaplains as HQs, bare scouts as troops and then RW units like there is no tomorrow with eventually some DWK to add HtH punch

If we feel doctrines are messed up the best way Is still the Imperial soup with a loyal 17/32 and eventually a IK

I'd actually prefer to see a move away from the Battalion.  Yes I know the battalion detachment is the most similar to the required core of 1 HQ and 2 Troops from editions past.  But 8th was supposed to be the edition of play whatever you want.  And the more that everything points back to not only must you use 1 battalion, but you should use 2 battalions just feels boring to me.

 

Everyone on here bashing tournament players for "exploiting" or "abusing rules" need to stop.

 

A person playing at a Tournament optimizing their list to the best rules available to them isn't cheating, abusive or exploiting in the slightest. They are just using the best tools within the rules given to them by GW to win in a competitive event and are actually very innovative to come up with these army list idea's to win in a competitive setting.

 

This is no different to what happens in other game systems, video games or even competitive sports.

 

Tournament players shouldn't be blamed because GW realized they can use their rules to generate profits. They are very comparable to pay to win mobile games now in that regard. They also have sub standard rules writers that aren't quality checking properly or even listening to their play testers. Add to that an awfully long 6 monthly rules review process (that get's delayed) and do knee jerk, quick fix band aids when they think their angered customer base is affecting profits.

 

This isn't a tournament players fault, it's GW's fault with their lazy rules writing.

No.

 

Adults should be accountable for their actions.  Is it 100% the fault of tournament players?  No, of course not.  But that doesn't absolve them of all accountability.  GW only goes to tournaments to collect feedback, they aren't going around to the local clubs.  All the questions that come back on these FAQ can be traced back directly to one or more incidents that happened at a tournament.  They might as well name the FAQ changes.

 

TO also have a bit of blame to take for this.  The way points are scored and terrain density are 100% in the purview of the TO.  Given the lack of terrain on most of board means that first turn long range strikes are even more effective.  If you doubt this consider the DA flyer list from GenghisCon.  6 flyers, 2 speeders and a Darkshroud when huddled together have a 20 inch by 20 inch footprint.  That is a larger footprint than most FW titans.  He was able to move that footprint around during the first 2 turns of every game, and kept most of that footprint together for turn 3+.

 

Now this isn't to say that GW made some errors in judgment.  Their first big error was to expect players to play this game for fun and not make abusive lists.  Well the tournament players sure showed them.

 

And as for you comment about "Tournament players not Cheating" I have this to say.  I watched all 6 games of that DA Flyer at GenghisCon.  Here are the list of broken rules that I caught with a single viewing.

1. Darkshroud - 16 move.  In every game he rolled at least one 6 for advance, and followed that by moving the Darkshroud 22 inches.
2. Talonmaster - 7 wounds.  In at least one game Talonmaster and Sableclaw were brought down to 1 and 2 woulds.  If the 1 wound model was Talonmaster then he used that model for 2 turns after it should have been removed.
3. Dark Talons moved 50 inches without advancing.  Max move for them is 40 inches

When I brought these up before quite a few tournament players came to his defense and say "well he just mis-remembered the rules", "I wouldn't say he was cheating", and other such excuses.  I have a clear definition about rule-breaking... Ignorance of the rules does not change the fact of if the rules were followed or not.  Cheating is when the rules aren't followed.  It nicely eliminates motive from consideration.

[Berzul]

 

A person playing at a Tournament optimising their list to the best rules available to them isn't ... exploiting in the slightest. They are just using the best tools within the rules given to them by GW to win in a competitive event and are actually very innovative to come up with these army list idea's to win in a competitive setting.

That’s actually the very definition in English of exploit:

 

Merriam-Webster:

exploit verb

ex·​ploit | \ ik-ˈsplȯit , ˈek-ˌsplȯit \

exploited; exploiting; exploits

Definition of exploit (Entry 2 of 2)

transitive verb

1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE

exploiting your talents

exploit your opponent's weakness

 

So yes, if they are optimizing, they are very much exploiting - that doesn’t make it an inherently bad thing just because the word “exploit(ing)” does have a negative denotation as well - you can be 100% within the rules and still be exploiting them (it sometimes actually makes the exploitation that much more of an issue).

 

GW recognized the explotative capability and the realizations thereof from the rules that had been released and took action, no matter how delayed. Whether they should have ever written the potentially exploitative rules in the first place, or should have acted sooner, is neither here nor there to that - it’s trying to discuss a completely different topic that would be more suited to the general section of the board on its own.

 

Is this a nerf to Dark Angels? How you view that (and the perceived magnitude of said nerf) is probably greatly dependent on how much benefit you had received already or were anticipating receiving in the future from exploiting the rules as they were written.

 

I haven’t even played 8th with Dark Angels, so to me it’s of very little difference whether it was a nerf or not.

 

You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.

[ChaplainNemiel]

 

Not having played since just before the Combat Doctrines for DA came out, I was under the impression that the doctrines necessarily advanced at various points to begin with, not that one could just sit on one's fat arse eating chips/crisps and plinking away with lascannons using the Devastator Doctrine the whole game. What a boring arse game that would be.

 

I guess we really do have to give thanks to the tournament scene for doing such a bang up job of exploiting things, thereby unavoidably drawing attention to such obvious jackassery. They do serve a purpose after all! Kudos! I completely support folks needing to learn more about the Face Shootin' and Stabby Stabby doctrines.

Boring!!! I make airplane noises when I push my speeders around during the movement phase and machine gun noises during the shooting phase.  It's like I'm a 4 year old in a 43 year old's body.

 

But I can see your point you are making for units that don't move like Devastator Squads and Hellblasters.

 

IMHO there are two ways to go: keeping the doctrines or not

If we feel the doctrines are useful even if nerfed the best way Is double Battalion with talon masters and chaplains as HQs, bare scouts as troops and then RW units like there is no tomorrow with eventually some DWK to add HtH punch

If we feel doctrines are messed up the best way Is still the Imperial soup with a loyal 17/32 and eventually a IK

I'd actually prefer to see a move away from the Battalion.  Yes I know the battalion detachment is the most similar to the required core of 1 HQ and 2 Troops from editions past.  But 8th was supposed to be the edition of play whatever you want.  And the more that everything points back to not only must you use 1 battalion, but you should use 2 battalions just feels boring to me.

 

Everyone on here bashing tournament players for "exploiting" or "abusing rules" need to stop.

 

A person playing at a Tournament optimizing their list to the best rules available to them isn't cheating, abusive or exploiting in the slightest. They are just using the best tools within the rules given to them by GW to win in a competitive event and are actually very innovative to come up with these army list idea's to win in a competitive setting.

 

This is no different to what happens in other game systems, video games or even competitive sports.

 

Tournament players shouldn't be blamed because GW realized they can use their rules to generate profits. They are very comparable to pay to win mobile games now in that regard. They also have sub standard rules writers that aren't quality checking properly or even listening to their play testers. Add to that an awfully long 6 monthly rules review process (that get's delayed) and do knee jerk, quick fix band aids when they think their angered customer base is affecting profits.

 

This isn't a tournament players fault, it's GW's fault with their lazy rules writing.

No.

 

Adults should be accountable for their actions.  Is it 100% the fault of tournament players?  No, of course not.  But that doesn't absolve them of all accountability.  GW only goes to tournaments to collect feedback, they aren't going around to the local clubs.  All the questions that come back on these FAQ can be traced back directly to one or more incidents that happened at a tournament.  They might as well name the FAQ changes.

 

TO also have a bit of blame to take for this.  The way points are scored and terrain density are 100% in the purview of the TO.  Given the lack of terrain on most of board means that first turn long range strikes are even more effective.  If you doubt this consider the DA flyer list from GenghisCon.  6 flyers, 2 speeders and a Darkshroud when huddled together have a 20 inch by 20 inch footprint.  That is a larger footprint than most FW titans.  He was able to move that footprint around during the first 2 turns of every game, and kept most of that footprint together for turn 3+.

 

Now this isn't to say that GW made some errors in judgment.  Their first big error was to expect players to play this game for fun and not make abusive lists.  Well the tournament players sure showed them.

 

And as for you comment about "Tournament players not Cheating" I have this to say.  I watched all 6 games of that DA Flyer at GenghisCon.  Here are the list of broken rules that I caught with a single viewing.

1. Darkshroud - 16 move.  In every game he rolled at least one 6 for advance, and followed that by moving the Darkshroud 22 inches.
2. Talonmaster - 7 wounds.  In at least one game Talonmaster and Sableclaw were brought down to 1 and 2 woulds.  If the 1 wound model was Talonmaster then he used that model for 2 turns after it should have been removed.
3. Dark Talons moved 50 inches without advancing.  Max move for them is 40 inches

When I brought these up before quite a few tournament players came to his defense and say "well he just mis-remembered the rules", "I wouldn't say he was cheating", and other such excuses.  I have a clear definition about rule-breaking... Ignorance of the rules does not change the fact of if the rules were followed or not.  Cheating is when the rules aren't followed.  It nicely eliminates motive from consideration.

 

 

I'm OK with the batallion concept I just wish there were more methods to work with it.

I hate the idea of having to get 3x5 troops or scouts + 2 commanders just to get some of those precious command points.

I wish Azrael/Belial/Sammy could make DW/RW units count as "troops" like back in 6th. 

I want to play DW/RW mix only. It's legal to do this but we suffer a lot from not having command points 

[shabbadoo]

 

Ah.  But, that is about Codex Adeptus Astartes.  Was the PA available for use at LVO?  They poorly addressed the issue and it has had far reaching, hopefully unintended and fixable effects.  I don't believe they're citing Dark Angels as the root of this Errata

 

Of course it isn't directed at Dark Angels specifically. The genesis of it is Codex Astartes. It simply spread to, and therefore includes, DA, BA, etc.

 

On further reflection, I do find this all sort of funny though. To paraphrase, "After months of feedback, we really had no idea regarding the extent to which people would break the $#@! out of our new Space Marine rules. Consequently, we need to dial it back a bit. - GW" C'mon, GW! It's what people do! Always!!! Worthy of criticism? A little bit. Worthy of praise for taking steps to fix things? Most definitely! It really is a positive thing that GW is actively open to tweaking rules one way and the other, when needed, rather than sticking to the old GW way of, "You've been voicing your concerns for years, and boy did we hear you! Five years later, the new game edition is out, and it... IS...AWESOME!!!" And then new issues are found with the new rules, and so the five year clock is reset...I am very glad that is no longer a thing.

I'll go back to reading everyone's thoughts on how this affects various units, and sorry for ending on a positive note.

Edited February 29, 2020 by shabbadoo

[ValourousHeart]

 

I'm OK with the batallion concept I just wish there were more methods to work with it.

I hate the idea of having to get 3x5 troops or scouts + 2 commanders just to get some of those precious command points.

I wish Azrael/Belial/Sammy could make DW/RW units count as "troops" like back in 6th. 

I want to play DW/RW mix only. It's legal to do this but we suffer a lot from not having command points 

 

I don't think that they we need to make RW/DW Troops.

Spearhead, Vanguard, and Outrider detachments just need a small boost in CP.

 

When it was +3 for a Battalion and +1 for Outrider, 6 CP vs 4 CP was good balance given the strength of specialist units over troop units.

But when they raised Battalions to +5 it wasn't because Battalions were under-powered vs outrider, it was because 6-9 CP wasn't enough for a tournament size game vs other battalions.

But now the difference is 8 CP vs 4 CP and will often be 13 CP vs 5 CP.

So now I'm not fighting your units, I'm fighting your stratagems.

For the exact same reason that battalions needed more CP the specialist detachments also need more CP.

 

If they would increase CP to the Spearhead, Vanguard and Outrider Detachments to either +2 or +3.

Then the match ups would be 8 CP vs 5 or 6 CP or 13 CP vs 7 or 9 CP.

 

At least with RW the main stratagems are 1 point each, meaning I can do 1 per turn for 4 turns.

Most of the ones for DW are 2 points, enjoy only get to use 2 stratagems.

 

The one that really gets me is that my RW speeder list fits into a single outrider, whereas my Knights fit into a single Super-Heavy Detachment.

So Speeders have 4 CP vs Kights with 9 CP... Knights don't really need that extra advantage over my speeders.

[ChaplainNemiel]

 

 

I'm OK with the batallion concept I just wish there were more methods to work with it.

I hate the idea of having to get 3x5 troops or scouts + 2 commanders just to get some of those precious command points.

I wish Azrael/Belial/Sammy could make DW/RW units count as "troops" like back in 6th. 

I want to play DW/RW mix only. It's legal to do this but we suffer a lot from not having command points 

 

I don't think that they we need to make RW/DW Troops.

Spearhead, Vanguard, and Outrider detachments just need a small boost in CP.

 

When it was +3 for a Battalion and +1 for Outrider, 6 CP vs 4 CP was good balance given the strength of specialist units over troop units.

But when they raised Battalions to +5 it wasn't because Battalions were under-powered vs outrider, it was because 6-9 CP wasn't enough for a tournament size game vs other battalions.

But now the difference is 8 CP vs 4 CP and will often be 13 CP vs 5 CP.

So now I'm not fighting your units, I'm fighting your stratagems.

For the exact same reason that battalions needed more CP the specialist detachments also need more CP.

 

If they would increase CP to the Spearhead, Vanguard and Outrider Detachments to either +2 or +3.

Then the match ups would be 8 CP vs 5 or 6 CP or 13 CP vs 7 or 9 CP.

 

At least with RW the main stratagems are 1 point each, meaning I can do 1 per turn for 4 turns.

Most of the ones for DW are 2 points, enjoy only get to use 2 stratagems.

 

The one that really gets me is that my RW speeder list fits into a single outrider, whereas my Knights fit into a single Super-Heavy Detachment.

So Speeders have 4 CP vs Kights with 9 CP... Knights don't really need that extra advantage over my speeders.

 

 

You make solid points here and convinced me. I always thought allowing DW/RW to be troops would be the simple solution for us...But literally giving an extra point to specialist detachments levels the playing field in a better way...

 

This would give my list 3 points for battle forged (assuming that still exists right?) 2 for vanguard and 2 for outrider....7 CP sounds so much nicer than 5! 

[SnakeChisler]

They put the CP up at the same time they stopped CP farming abuse and killed off the loyal 32

 

A change I'd like to see is +3 CP for a single faction force, the marine buffs were designed to encourage mono factions and the next breaking point will be marine soup.

 

Were handily placed to take advantage of the rules changes, our Invictor warsuits have extra range on thier flamers T1, Hellblaster also benefits in 3 out of 4 phases, standard bikes get more utility being able to keep them at range t1 then move up quickly.

 

With special litany and strategems warlord traits were pretty rounded.

[Bryan Blaire]

Rather than directly raise the CP for a detachment overall, GW could give a rule to certain types of Commanders providing bonus CP for using a full force of certain types of Detachments - so Belial could provide an extra 1 to 2 CP in a Vanguard Detachment if all Detachment members share the Deathwing key word, while Sammael could provide a similar CP benefit when in an Outrider Detachment with all Detachment members sharing the Ravenwing key word. 2 CP would be the equivalent of making the Deathwing/Ravenwing units Troops under the old Battalion value, while with the current value, it provides a boost while not totally negating the better bonus provided by a Battalion.

 

The same could be done for other Marine forces with famous Detachment type commanders.

 

You could even write the rule such that you could only get the benefit of the CP from one type of commander (make the rules mutually exclusive) if it was determined that multiple CP bonuses was too much benefit.

[Master Sheol]

About CP if GW would give CP according to runrns (like KT) or according total points of the army would be a better and more fair thing than using this detachment based way that only push players to exploit alleances and multiple detachments just to have more CP

The problem is that GW knows the CP problem but they don't want to do anything about it

[Berzul]

KT has a lot of mechanics that I feel work better than 40k.

[G8Keeper]

About CP if GW would give CP according to runrns (like KT) or according total points of the army would be a better and more fair thing than using this detachment based way that only push players to exploit alleances and multiple detachments just to have more CP

The problem is that GW knows the CP problem but they don't want to do anything about it

I think the fact that they've made changes before to the CP system shows that they will. There are many solutions they coukd consider and I'd place a bet on something more balanced in 8.5.

[Grand Master Raziel]

I am modestly annoyed with the nerf. I feel like GW threw the baby out with the bathwater, punishing all Astartes players because Iron Hands overperformed at tournaments, and I didn't happen to notice them directly addressing the Dreadnought character shenanigans that were the core of the problem, though they did nerf the strat that let nearby units Shield Drone for them.

That said, I think it's a case of 3 steps forward, 1 step back. Our super-doctrine is now kind of lame, yeah, but we get Combat Doctrines and a pile of great strats, Chaplain litanies, Warlord Traits, and relics. We are still unambiguously better off than we were pre-PA4 by a wide margin. We're worse off than we were pre-nerf, but compared to having to slog through a whole edition with a previous edition's underperforming dex, we're in a pretty sweet spot. 5th ed Dark Angels players would laugh at the complaints of current Dark Angels players. For that matter 6th ed wasn't so hot for us either.

Just my effort to keep things in perspective.

[Master Sheol]

KT has a lot of mechanics that I feel work better than 40k.

KT is 100% better than regular 40K IMHO this is why i am playing only KT since GW released it

 

 

 

About CP if GW would give CP according to runrns (like KT) or according total points of the army would be a better and more fair thing than using this detachment based way that only push players to exploit alleances and multiple detachments just to have more CP

The problem is that GW knows the CP problem but they don't want to do anything about it

I think the fact that they've made changes before to the CP system shows that they will. There are many solutions they coukd consider and I'd place a bet on something more balanced in 8.5.

 

The problem is that they gave more CP only to some detachments makes the problem even more harsh

First it punishes the specialistic detachments (like Vanguard or Outrider) that now NEED to be allied to other kind of detachments to have the minimum decent amount of CP

Second it makes the CP difference between horde armies and elite armies even worse

This change they made is so bad that makes the players even more willing to exploit the multiple detachments and alliances just to get some more CP (this lead to RW armies that instead of being a outrider detachment are a battalion detachment with 3 bare 5 man scout units used only to have the CP and sit on some objectives all the match without doing nothing else) 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Master Sheol