FAQ changes Feb 2020

[NatBrannigan]

Someone had to start the topic...

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/02/27/space-marines-rules-update-february-2020/

 

What do we think? Ouch right?  Are we now potentially the worst supplement? Lucky me it doesn't actually affect my army that much but it's a huge hit for the more competitive lists.

Edited February 27, 2020 by NatBrannigan

[DesSaboteur]

I thought about starting it but am still trying to process it. 

 

My initial thoughts were It has now made legacy of dorn a moot point. We have no flexibility on its usage. First we have to have a opponent that brings vehicles, then we have to have weapons that can shoot them turn one, so all heavy weapons 36" and less are out, then our opponent has to have them not hidden so we can see them to shoot.

 

It seems like a change meant to hurt the IH and we were in the crossfire.

 

Other than that i think it pretty much sends most lists back to the drawing board and we now have to rethink the entire army. 

[Dumah]

The Fists Super Doctrine always struck me as limiting in the first place. Did many players really sit in Dev Doctrine all game? Against Nids and horde type armies it was already less potent at best and all but useless with no vehicles to shoot at. Being in the Tactical Doctrine is more flexible overall and at least has synergy with IF Chapter Tactics and stratagems.

[War Angel]

I think it’s a shame our doctrine was ever devistator at all. What’s worse is if it had changed before this it could have been seen as a nerf because we would have to wait a turn. Now it would be a buff because we would have it for a second turn.

 

In the end, we just need to rely on actual anti tank weapons to destroy tanks unsteady of anti infantry weapons. The super doctrine is no longer a thing to build your list around, but a nice boost on turn one.

[NatBrannigan]

You could sit in Devestaror all game because Horde killing heavies were also decent against vehicles. I'm glad this change has come in to (hopefully) stop things like Centurions getting a big points hike mind you.

 

I like that Marines took a big nerf like this because it was needed, but it's really hammered Fists and i'm not sure that was specifically needed. I'm even more sad that our super doctrine bonus is what it is now, it never really fit for Fists anyway and I wanted a tactical boost to bolt weapons personally.

[Acebaur]

I thought about starting it but am still trying to process it. 

 

My initial thoughts were It has now made legacy of dorn a moot point. We have no flexibility on its usage. First we have to have a opponent that brings vehicles, then we have to have weapons that can shoot them turn one, so all heavy weapons 36" and less are out, then our opponent has to have them not hidden so we can see them to shoot.

 

It seems like a change meant to hurt the IH and we were in the crossfire.

 

Other than that i think it pretty much sends most lists back to the drawing board and we now have to rethink the entire army. 

 

 

I think that is a bit of the "sky is falling" attitude if you ask me.  IF are still really good and while it may require more positioning and tactics that doesn't mean that it's useless or that its such a heavy nerf. It's still a really powerful bonus and there are ways to mitigate the penalty to move and shoot. 

[redmapa]

IF still have the MW spam from Vigilus and their tactic mixes well with Tactical doctrine so I dont see how they are losing things beyond this hurting the Stalker bolter spam list.

[Snazzy]

The Fists Super Doctrine always struck me as limiting in the first place. Did many players really sit in Dev Doctrine all game? Against Nids and horde type armies it was already less potent at best and all but useless with no vehicles to shoot at. Being in the Tactical Doctrine is more flexible overall and at least has synergy with IF Chapter Tactics and stratagems.

 

Yes.  If you built your whole army around Legacy of Dorn you were building it around Devastator Doctrine.  That means you were taking less Lascannons and Multimeltas, more TFCs, Assault Cannons and Whirlwinds.  Occasionally you would see something like PACs. Grav, Icarus ACs or Plasma Cannons, because the +1 Dmg from Legacy of Dorn benefits higher rate of fire weapons more than high strength, single shot weapons.  These same weapons were going to get more value from the additional -1 AP than something that was already -3 AP.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Snazzy

[Lemondish]

I thought about starting it but am still trying to process it.

 

My initial thoughts were It has now made legacy of dorn a moot point. We have no flexibility on its usage. First we have to have a opponent that brings vehicles, then we have to have weapons that can shoot them turn one, so all heavy weapons 36" and less are out, then our opponent has to have them not hidden so we can see them to shoot.

 

It seems like a change meant to hurt the IH and we were in the crossfire.

 

Other than that i think it pretty much sends most lists back to the drawing board and we now have to rethink the entire army.

It was a change meant to make manifest the primary design intent for all marines - that we are a combined arms force that should maximize their capability in every doctrine.

 

One thing is certain - lists will absolutely need to change. This is such an exciting time because now everything feels like it can be valid again, even just to test. Nothing is certain and the Fists seem like an amazingly capable force that, if you can maximize it properly, will be able to hit vehicle targets hard turn 1 to get the edge, but now your opponent has some counter play. They still can handle the Infantry with the Bolter tools available to them in tactical starting turn 2. No more staying at range with Stalkers and artillery for the whole game.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Lemondish

[Lemondish]

The Fists Super Doctrine always struck me as limiting in the first place. Did many players really sit in Dev Doctrine all game? Against Nids and horde type armies it was already less potent at best and all but useless with no vehicles to shoot at. Being in the Tactical Doctrine is more flexible overall and at least has synergy with IF Chapter Tactics and stratagems.

The reason you stayed in devastator the whole game as Fists is because when it did work, it was devastating (ha) but relied on specific weapons to apply (only heavy).

 

That meant you had big incentives to load up on heavy weapons for those opponents that had vehicles. For those that didn't, you'd still be getting an extra point of AP in your favour for the vast majority of your weapons.

 

Artillery and stalker bolt rifles are big key pieces of the most recent IF competitive lists, and those are now less effective starting turn 2 against EVERY army.

[War Angel]

I mean, my list won’t need to change it’s going to be fine guys. This only hurts if you were a competitive player.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Dosjetka
=][= No tolerance for "us" vs "them" mentality and name-calling. =][=

[Hellebras]

Glad I built for fluff rather than power. I already changed to Tactical doctrine at some point in most games because of all the bolt rifles in my list.

[tvih]

I dunno. It's all just so ham-handed. Now, I'm not gonna say that IH/IF didn't need toning down, but what they should've done in the first place is make the doctrine/superdoctrine bonuses less powerful (or just skip the whole superdoctrine crap) but so that you can start with whichever doctrine you want (so that those with a dev superdoctrine don't benefit all game but others not), and change back and forth as well. Now the entire Devastator superdoctrine is meaningless after turn 1. Which means on a table with reasonable cover there's a 50-50 chance it is wasted pretty much entirely since enemy army is hidden and you're going first.

 

I'm not sure what to do with my planned CF tournament list that now never got into a tournament at all prior to this change. I already liked my bolt Inceptors and with this they look even better comparatively, but still unsure what to drop to fit them. CF Cents didn't have MW spam to begin with and I guess now you just benefit more from the hurricane bolters rather than heavy bolters. But overall certainly gonna need more heavy anti-tank too, I'm just not sure in what form. Ye olde Devastator Squad? But then again I run into the "what to drop" dilemma. Sigh. The next tournament is in a week, so the problem is not just making the list but also painting what's needed.

[Fenriwolf]

I've yet to think about this, but for sure it'll require changing how lists are made. 

 

And i'm not thinking about just stalker spam, now you can't rely on mid-size heavy weapons to cover vs veichles so that'll need to be completly modified as an approach. 

 

On a personal note,it just killed my list and i'm suddenly glad i didn't go ahead buying all the autocannons and HB platforms i was thinking about

Edited February 27, 2020 by Fenriwolf

[tvih]

It sure makes the Executioner quite a bit worse for us as well given it was mostly Heavy weapons, and I hadn't even gotten the damn thing painted yet! It was the one thing I specifically bought for our supplement rules. Despite like I said agreeing to IH/IF being too good this implementation just kinda feels like getting the rug pulled out from under you especially given the personally bad timing. CF already wasn't considered quite as good as IF, yet I reckon this actually hurts CF more than IF because at least IF can still spam the Centurion mortal wounds that don't even care about the doctrine and its bonus. So even if nothing else they can still mow down silly amounts of infantry.

[Snazzy]

On the one hand, i'm happy that since i can't stay in Devastator Doctrine, i have to lean into closer ranged tactics.  On the other hand, models were bought, built and painted around being able to count on Devastator Doctrine.  We still punch above other when it comes to anti-tank, thanks to the Tank hunters strat.  But, as i've said in other threads, i am disappointed that Clearance Protocols is so negatively effected.

 

Bolter Terminators starting to look decent again.

[Mr. Oddity]

Pre-post disclosure: I don't play (yet), but have a solid understanding of the rules. More fluffy/TAC-oriented mindset than WAAC.

 

On the whole, I'm in favor of the changes they implemented. While single-doctrine playstyles did fit some armies thematically the actual interactions between rules and bonuses had major potential to be abused since the onset of Codex 2.0 and the Chapter supplements. The loss of Adaptive Strategy is an interesting choice, and not one I'm sure was completely necessary. Keeping the strategem but bumping it to (realistically) 3 CP seems like it could have been a reasonable compromise and one that would have still benefited all Chapters not dependent on Assault doctrine. (EDIT: another user in the main news thread suggested it as a once-per game shift either forwards or backwards. I like this idea.) With Iron Hands, us, and somewhat Dark Angels relying on Devastator to pump out that extra damage, a way to extend the doctrine past turn 1 with its potential for non-viable targeting and a wasted superdoctrine turn would have been welcome. And with the turn-based doctrines now, Tactical would have been resumed the next turn. This would actually make for some solid tactical decisions for Fists, as sacrificing a turn of boosted bolter-equivalent fire for more anti-tank could be a hard call due to our exploding 6's. Admittedly it does have a significant impact on Legacy of Dorn, but that's had its own issues since the supplement dropped due to the vehicles-only targeting.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if we were due for another Update similar to the September one after all Psychic Awakening books are out and the dust has settled from the changes like this along the way. Ideally it'll offer some tweaks to how the Devastator superdoctrines work if it's decided they came down a bit too hard on us and Iron Hands. In my ideal world, I'd see the move-and-shoot part of Iron Hands become non-doctrine dependent and Legacy of Dorn become a wounds-based ability rather than doctrine-based, say 10 wounds and up rather than just vehicles. But of course, we'll have to wait and see.

 

Personally, the list I've planned out for my eventual army is a fairly even mix of heavy and infantry weapons, so the changes aren't too drastic. The loss of the extra damage will hurt a little, but as I mentioned above it's already a situational bonus.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Mr. Oddity

[Snazzy]

Starting to contemplate how to squeeze out the most from Devastator Doctrine while we have it.

[Fenriwolf]

Starting to contemplate how to squeeze out the most from Devastator Doctrine while we have it.

Most likely not worth building specifically for it,aside from keeping WWs and TFs

Edited February 28, 2020 by Fenriwolf

[Lemondish]

 

 

Starting to contemplate how to squeeze out the most from Devastator Doctrine while we have it.

Most likely not worth building specifically for it.

I imagine we'll start seeing actual anti-tank weaponry in lists again. The always on super doctrine meant you didn't really need to worry about it. Anti-infantry weapons with high RoF but middling str would gain an AP and damage boost in Devastator that made them viable AT weapons for the whole game. That will only be true for the first turn now, so a decent bonus but one that doesn't allow a list to forego high str weapons.

 

Marines in general will now be a strong army but not one that is built to be so completely dominant from turn 1.

[War Angel]

 

 

Starting to contemplate how to squeeze out the most from Devastator Doctrine while we have it.

Most likely not worth building specifically for it.

I imagine we'll start seeing actual anti-tank weaponry in lists again. The always on super doctrine meant you didn't really need to worry about it. Anti-infantry weapons with high RoF but middling str would gain an AP and damage boost in Devastator that made them viable AT weapons for the whole game. That will only be true for the first turn now, so a decent bonus but one that doesn't allow a list to forego high str weapons.

Marines in general will now be a strong army but not one that is built to be so completely dominant from turn 1.

 

The best way to take advantage of the devistator docterine now is to have high strength anti tank weapons that have a high chance of wounding so that you can get some extra damage done on the first turn. After that it’s business as usual. If the opponent hides everything out of line of sight, give him first turn. We can hide repulsors and land raiders out of sight too, and use power of the machine spirit to fire at full ballistics. A drop pod of multimeltas could be a bit of an overkill way to pop a tank, but screening will play a factor. Could just use it as a way to keep them safe till you get to use them.

 

There’s a lot of options out there that haven’t been getting used because it wasn’t “the best” now they get their turn to shine too. Last night I killed an iron hands dreadnaught in close combat with the burning blade and sword of the imperium.

[domsto]

In my Mind the Super Doctrines where the real problem here.

Why should i change to tactical Doctrine when i got so many Buffs in the Dev Doctrine.

So instead of fixing the problem Super Doctrines make, they just force you to change.

So the IF Super Doctrine which was already very situationell, is now more or less useless.

You can't kill all the Tanks in Turn 1, so you have to includes Weapons that don't profit from the Legacy of Dorn as much to be able to kill Tanks in Turn 2.

I will switch back to HEllblasters now for my Anti Tank, they don't need a certan Doctrine to be good.

[Closet Skeleton]

It sure makes the Executioner quite a bit worse for us as well given it was mostly Heavy weapons, and I hadn't even gotten the damn thing painted yet! It was the one thing I specifically bought for our supplement rules.

Executioner and the regular repulsor are still good because of decent movement and long range guns. Its heavy bolter centurion spam that got really nerfed as they used to be able to take on almost every target with a single weapon that benefited from all the IF stuff.

 

Turn 1 Ironhail stubber fire will be good against T7- vehicles on turn 1 and then can move onto infantry on later turns if your repulsor survives, that's still good.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Closet Skeleton

[jeremy1391]

We still have the best artillery. Triple thunderfire and triple whirlwind will still lay the hurt turn one. And ignore cover is still extremely valid. We will see less stalker bolt rifles and more over the bolt rifle and auto bolt rifle.

 

I’m personally gonna make a big old indomitus Crusade list with sixty bolt rifle intercessors and then pop no matter the odds when in range for double exploding sixes

[tvih]

I've been trying to sort out a reformed list but it really feels difficult to fit enough anti-tank using a dual battalion while maintaining other requirements and roles - and sticking with minis that I already have, I can't justify buying more marines.

 

If I go for battalion+spearhead to spend less points on troops, that's 4 less CP. But post-FAQ if I had to go against any armor-heavy list, like knights or whatever, I'd be screwed. Most of the anti-tank I could lend-lease from my Templars on short notice as a last resort is oldmarine stuff  much of what no one seems to use much these days. Predator, Devastators. Dreadnoughts. Vindicators. A Whirlwind (well maybe two, but I had been planning on selling the other one as it is unbuilt; maybe not, then). Land Speeders in AT config. Technically could change the Centurions to AT config, but boy do they become expensive as such, much like the Land Speeders. I suppose I could also try to retain the basic Hellblasters from my non-tournament lists, but they're still only 1-2 damage per shot so they're not taking down knights any time soon.