New edition and new units. How will they affect Ultras?

[emperorpants]

Why would you want a rewritten Chapter Tactic?

 

Ultramarines vehicles can now Fall Back and shoot with Heavy Weapons; other armies can't (typically) do that. Morale is also supposedly going to be more impactful, but we have no clue as to what changes are being made there.

 

Doctrine isn't as powerful now that non-Infantry don't suffer the Heavy penalty? Um, ok. It's still useful for the plethora of bolt weapons that Ultramarines use and, as mentioned, Aggressors.

 

Considering that there has been some serious doom-and-gloom about, "But vehicles will be able to shoot in combat" - this is now showing that it's actually not unrestricted at all, and has a quite significant restriction. That means that the Chapter Tactic definitely has more value, at the very least, and indicates that maybe there's more to the new rules than what you know.

How so? It looks like they can shoot other units as long as they can kill what's within an inch of them first, which wont be hard at all with units like repulsors. Functionally its not all that different than what we can do. Are we harder to stop from shooting? Yes, but not by all that much. Is our chapter tactic of being a bit harder to stop from shooting really as good as what IH, Sallies, RG, and IF get? Honest question.

 

Also, again, according to GW themselves and playtesters, troops and Infantry are going to have less importance. This is the edition of big powerful units. This means getting stuck in melee with chaff is less likely anyway. Also, if there are less infantry models to kill, it makes all our bolt guns a bit less relevant, still good though of course. Also, since this is the edition of bigger more powerful units, doesn't it suck that our doctrine has no benefit for the vast majority of big powerful units available to us? Again, honest question.

 

Yes, our Aggressors are still good, which is great. So are our intercessors. But should we be happy losing so much just because we haven't lost everything? I'm not convinced we should be. If you are, cool, fair enough. :)

Edited June 9, 2020 by emperorpants

[Kallas]

How so? It looks like they can shoot other units as long as they can kill what's within an inch of them first, which wont be hard at all with units like repulsors. Functionally its not all that different than what we can do. Are we harder to stop from shooting? Yes, but not by all that much. Is our chapter tactic of being a bit harder to stop from shooting really as good as what IH, Sallies, RG, and IF get? Honest question.

Also, again, according to GW themselves and playtesters, troops and Infantry are going to have less importance. This is the edition of big powerful units. This means getting stuck in melee with chaff is less likely anyway. Also, if there are less infantry models to kill, it makes all our bolt guns a bit less relevant, still good though of course. Also, since this is the edition of bigger more powerful units, doesn't it suck that our doctrine has no benefit for the vast majority of big powerful units available to us? Again, honest question.

 

Yes, our Aggressors are still good, which is great. So are our intercessors. But should we be happy losing so much just because we haven't lost everything? I'm not convinced we should be. If you are, cool, fair enough.

 

How so? Because they are actual restrictions.

 

Sure, a Repulsor is probably able to clear off a few infantry to then shoot at something with its bigger guns, assuming that it's only been tagged by something relatively light and not, say, a mob of Ork Boyz that just got done butchering something else.

 

Here's the thing: you can allocate your Repulsor's firepower, targeting the units in Engagement Range (at -1) and if you kill all of them then you can shoot the other things. Or you can just fall back and shoot at -1, at whatever you want. It's not like most vehicles are good in melee anyway.

 

RE: Doctrine:

How is it not relevant to big guns? Take the Repulsor Executioner as the prime example. It still benefits greatly, able to move full speed and still double shoot its main gun. Totally worthless Doctrine, right?

 

And you say that there'll be less infantry (and to a degree there certainly will be, due to points changes), but we don't actually know that that's how the game is going to shake out. How the Devs and playtesters see things and how the general playerbase sees things is often radically different (see: every meta-breaking change; see: Iron Hands on release, apparently GW didn't think they were broken, but they were).

 

What my point is, is that we don't have all of the information.

 

[Edited out an unnecessary attack, sorry.]

Edited June 9, 2020 by Kallas

[Kallas]

Actually, as an additional thing:

Yes, the Doctrine is lessened by the Heavy Weapon change. It means out vehicles like Predators, Vindicators, Stormtalons/hawks, etc don't need to rely on the Doctrine to be better.

 

How is that...bad?!

 

That makes those units better all of the time. Why, because it's not specifically being Ultramarines that makes them better, that's a bad thing?

 

One thing that I am aware of is that the Land Raiders are going to have to see some kind of adjustment: they have Power of the Machine Spirit, but that is now entirely redundant with the Heavy Weapon change. Am I upset that other vehicles are going to have that rule as standard now? No; I am interested in seeing what happens with Raiders (if anything).

[emperorpants]

 

How so? It looks like they can shoot other units as long as they can kill what's within an inch of them first, which wont be hard at all with units like repulsors. Functionally its not all that different than what we can do. Are we harder to stop from shooting? Yes, but not by all that much. Is our chapter tactic of being a bit harder to stop from shooting really as good as what IH, Sallies, RG, and IF get? Honest question.

 

Also, again, according to GW themselves and playtesters, troops and Infantry are going to have less importance. This is the edition of big powerful units. This means getting stuck in melee with chaff is less likely anyway. Also, if there are less infantry models to kill, it makes all our bolt guns a bit less relevant, still good though of course. Also, since this is the edition of bigger more powerful units, doesn't it suck that our doctrine has no benefit for the vast majority of big powerful units available to us? Again, honest question.

Yes, our Aggressors are still good, which is great. So are our intercessors. But should we be happy losing so much just because we haven't lost everything? I'm not convinced we should be. If you are, cool, fair enough. :)

 

How so? Because they are actual restrictions.

 

Sure, a Repulsor is probably able to clear off a few infantry to then shoot at something with its bigger guns, assuming that it's only been tagged by something relatively light and not, say, a mob of Ork Boyz that just got done butchering something else.

 

Here's the thing: you can allocate your Repulsor's firepower, targeting the units in Engagement Range (at -1) and if you kill all of them then you can shoot the other things. Or you can just fall back and shoot at -1, at whatever you want. It's not like most vehicles are good in melee anyway.

 

RE: Doctrine:

How is it not relevant to big guns? Take the Repulsor Executioner as the prime example. It still benefits greatly, able to move full speed and still double shoot its main gun. Totally worthless Doctrine, right?

 

And you say that there'll be less infantry (and to a degree there certainly will be, due to points changes), but we don't actually know that that's how the game is going to shake out. How the Devs and playtesters see things and how the general playerbase sees things is often radically different (see: every meta-breaking change; see: Iron Hands on release, apparently GW didn't think they were broken, but they were).

 

What my point is, is that we don't have all of the information and this whining and bitching that you and Ishagu have been doing is not only not useful, it's actively harmful.

Actually, since the repulsor can fly, it can fall back and still shoot with no penalty, like all fliers. Also, remember I said we can't be stopped from shooting as easy. But I see you didn't respond to my point about whether or not being a bit harder to tie up in shooting is as impactful as what other chapters get.

 

Also, did you not read my post? I addressed the Executioner. It's pretty much the only vehicle in the codex that gets any benefit from our doctrine. Seriously, name one other vehicle. I'll wait. Also, all the good forgeworld stuff (barring c beams) gains zero benefit as well. So yes, our doctrine isn't useful at all for the vast VAST majority of vehicles and big units available to space marines, you really didn't address that point at all I'm afraid. *shrugs shoulders*

 

One other thing, can you tone down the hostility? The whole point of the thread is to speculate about how 9th will affect Ultras. That means we may have to discuss possible negative ways it affects us. So far, it looks like it will have several negative effects. However it is implicit that all of this could be bunk and could change. That's why it's called speculation. :)

 

I mean, are we not allowed to talk about possible short comings to our chapter? Or how changes could affect us in a possibly negative manner? Are we not allowed to debate things? If I remember right, you were all about talking about how IH would negatively affect the game before they came out. Seems odd that now you're against speculation and debating how things might work. Also, I haven't been hostile to you at all, so please extend the same? Im mean, if you just want this to be an echo chamber about how everything is great at all times with Ultras, fair enough. I can do that. Just pass me the blueberry koolaid then, it's the best. :)

Edited June 9, 2020 by emperorpants

[emperorpants]

Actually, as an additional thing:

Yes, the Doctrine is lessened by the Heavy Weapon change. It means out vehicles like Predators, Vindicators, Stormtalons/hawks, etc don't need to rely on the Doctrine to be better.

 

How is that...bad?!

 

That makes those units better all of the time. Why, because it's not specifically being Ultramarines that makes them better, that's a bad thing?

 

One thing that I am aware of is that the Land Raiders are going to have to see some kind of adjustment: they have Power of the Machine Spirit, but that is now entirely redundant with the Heavy Weapon change. Am I upset that other vehicles are going to have that rule as standard now? No; I am interested in seeing what happens with Raiders (if anything).

I mean, because everyone gets something we had in addition to what they already had? Making them better in comparison because our rule became a general rule that does nothing , whilst theirs still does something? Because they keep their rules and gain ours, while we don't get theirs? Honestly, if our doctrine becomes standard across all armies for their vehicles, and they keep their factions rules whilst gaining ours....how are our units NOT weaker than theirs in comparison?

 

Edit: sorry if that sounded mean Kallas. Didn't mean for it to.

Edited June 9, 2020 by emperorpants

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Wow that came across as spiteful because Kallas doesn’t agree with you.

[emperorpants]

Wow that came across as spiteful because Kallas doesn’t agree with you.

*shrugs shoulders* if you say so. I didn't mean for it to be spiteful. If it came off that way I apologize, I've got nothing to be spiteful to him about. He came off as spiteful because he didnt agree with me, imo. However, weird you would call what I said spiteful but not how he talked to me, because you agree with him.

Edited June 9, 2020 by emperorpants

[Ishagu]

It's not a bad thing for the game that vehicles are gaining what amounts to the Ultramarine doctrine for free.

 

It's bad for the competitive level of the Ultramarines chapter specifically.

 

Our Chapter Tactic has some value still, not much currently but it might be more useful in 9th if the table is smaller and there is more combat. We'll have to see how it pans out.

 

The value of our special Doctrine is definitely reduced. Salamanders are better at our Aggressor trick, other chapters are outright better in other ways also. Our most unique character is potentially nerfed out of contention unless the rules are updated.

 

I hope GW do update our supplament. We need Erratas for our units and chapter doctrine. An update that would be valuable is if we now ignore hit modifiers imposed by other units, that's a good way to update the Doctrine. None of this has to be updated of course, but then there's no reason to play the Ultras ahead of other chapters if you want a strong army. Blood Angels are now generally as good at shooting as Ultramarines, but are much better in close combat. That's just an example.

[Kallas]

Actually dude, since the repulsor can fly, it can fall back and still shoot with no penalty. Like all fliers. For everyone. Also, remember I said we can't be stopped from shooting as easy. But I see you purposely didn't respond to my point about whether or not being a bit harder to tie up in shooting is as impactful as what other chapters get.

 

I'm aware that FLY lets you fall back and shoot...in 8th Edition. Do we know, for certain, that it is remaining exactly the same?

 

I didn't purposely not respond, I just am trying to cut down my time talking to people who are ready to dismiss an entire new rule set with minimal information.

 

You say that it's going to be harder to tie up, but what evidence is there? That GW/playtesters say so? Well, they're the geniuses who let Iron Hands come out as initially broken as they did. They're the ones who didn't see that people would spam Tau Commanders because why wouldn't you?

 

As I did say, what GW/playtesters see and think is often not what the wider playerbase ends up finding.

 

Also, did you not read my post? I addressed the Executioner. It's pretty much the only vehicle in the codex that gets any benefit from our doctrine. Seriously, name one other vehicle. I'll wait. Also, all the good forgeworld stuff (barring c beams) gains zero benefit as well. So yes, our doctrine isn't useful at all for the vast VAST majority of vehicles and big units available to space marines, you really didn't address that point at all I'm afraid. *shrugs shoulders*

 

No, I must have missed that/stop paying attention.

 

You're right that pretty much all vehicle lose any benefit from the Doctrine. So?

 

Blood Angels vehicles do benefit from their Doctrine, but who cares about a Baal Predator getting +1 attack in the Assault Doctrine? Who cares about a Land Speeder doing 2D on its two attacks when White Scars are in Assault Doctrine? A Salamanders Predator gains no benefit from Flamecraft; most Raven Guard units don't benefit from their Doctrine unless it's in melee (or a targetable character).

 

Essentially, Scions of Guilliman becomes an infantry-benefitting Doctrine. Is that really the end of the world?

 

 

One other thing, can you tone down the hostility? The whole point of the thread is to speculate about how 9th will affect Ultras. That means we may have to discuss possible negative ways it affects us. So far, it looks like it will have several negative effects. However it is implicit that all of this could be bunk and could change. That's why it's called speculation. 

I mean, are we not allowed to talk about possible short comings to our chapter? Or how changes could affect us in a possibly negative manner? Are we not allowed to debate things? If I remember right, you were all about talking about how IH would negatively affect the game before they came out. Seems odd that now you're against speculation and debating how things might work. Also, I haven't been hostile to you at all, so please extend the same? Im mean, if you just want this to be an echo chamber about how everything is great at all times with Ultras, fair enough. I can do that. Just pass me the blueberry koolaid then, it's the best. 

 

I did edit my post before you replied, as that was (mostly) unnecessary. That said: no. If you're going to complain about this being the most awful thing in the world, without actually having much reasoning beyond, "Well, currently it'd be bad" and knowing that we're going to see some significant changes to a large portion of the game...well, no, that means you aren't discussing in good faith, or at the very least you need to step back, take a breath and look at things more objectively.

 

We simply don't know a lot of stuff about 9th.

 

If you want to compare this to Iron Hands, you're looking at it the wrong way around. When their Doctrinal benefit was revealed people immediately saw how powerful it was when applied to the base Codex. You didn't need to shift out of Devastator Doctrine then, and you could build an army around it: it was readily identifiable as A Bad Idea. What you are complaining about here is the opposite: you're complaining about the possibility of things being bad when we don't know how they're going to be affected.

 

Yes, the Doctrine is diminished by the Heavy Weapons change (although, it still has unique benefits, but let's not mention those, oh no  ) - it's not utterly garbage. As for the echo chamber: I honestly don't care. I play using the Ultramarines supplement most of the time because my Chapter are descendants; a fair amount of the time I play using Space Wolves (I did before the Supplements, and I am now, occasionally) because I find they fit the theme of my Chapter more, quite often. If Ultramarines end up sucking, I don't care; I'll still use them. Point is that I'm waiting to see enough pieces of 9th to put together a reasonably coherent idea of what the edition will be like; right now, there isn't enough to tell how it's going to pan out.

 

I mean, because everyone gets something we had in addition to what they already had? Making them better in comparison because our rule became a general rule that does nothing , whilst theirs still does something? Because they keep their rules and gain ours, while we don't get theirs? Honestly, if our doctrine becomes standard across all armies for their vehicles, and they keep their factions rules whilst gaining ours....how is our units NOT weaker than theirs in comparison?

 

 

The Ultramarines Doctrine doesn't do nothing. Infantry Heavy Weapons move and shoot with no penalty; Bolter Discipline is triggered for applicable units/weapons; Aggressors double tap on the move; Repulsors and C-Beams benefit. Is that what it used to be? No. Is it still a benefit? Yes. Does it still do unique stuff? Yes.

 

Also, this whole focus on this particular aspect of Ultramarines...perhaps it's because we don't have enough information yet?!

Edited June 9, 2020 by Kallas

[emperorpants]

It's not a bad thing for the game that vehicles are gaining what amounts to the Ultramarine doctrine for free.

It's bad for the competitive level of the Ultramarines chapter specifically.

Our Chapter Tactic has some value still, not much currently but it might be more useful in 9th if the table is smaller and there is more combat. We'll have to see how it pans out.

The value of our special Doctrine is definitely reduced. Salamanders are better at our Aggressor trick, other chapters are outright better in other ways also. Our most unique character is potentially nerfed out of contention unless the rules are updated.

I hope GW do update our supplament. We need Erratas for our units and chapter doctrine. An update that would be valuable is if we now ignore hit modifiers imposed by other units, that's a good way to update the Doctrine. None of this has to be updated of course, but then there's no reason to play the Ultras ahead of other chapters if you want a strong army. Blood Angels are now generally as good at shooting as Ultramarines, but are much better in close combat. That's just an example.

Yeah, updating our doctrine to ignore hit penalties from other units would be a good and easy change to make. I could see them actually do it too. The more things are revealed, the more I think they may actually do a few little updates for us like that, that would help us quite a bit.

 

I'm not saying I want Ultras to be superior, I just want more parity between the chapters. Quick and easy little changes like that could accomplish that without invalidating our supplement. Like Idaho said, I also now find it increasingly likely that changes like that could occur. They have to be aware of how these changes affect us. However, the point all along has been that if they don't update our rules, we will struggle and not be on equal footing with other armies. I am hopeful though that some little and helpful changes will be made.

[Ishagu]

No one is saying it doesn't have some impact.

 

I'm saying the impact is negligible and has been reduced to a few niche uses. And, as I've pointed out, the most powerful being Aggressors shooting twice. That's something Salamanders can literally do but better.

 

A Blood Angels Predator is as accurate as an Ultramarine Predator. A Blood Angel is far better in combat than an Ultramarine.

 

I run mainly Primaris these days, and I don't have a single heavy weapon on any infantry unit. Our super doctrine now has no impact on my army lol

Edit: Actually I do have a few Eliminators. Not a unit that moves around much unfortunately lol. Don't remember the last time I repositioned them as they have Ignore LoS shooting....

Edited June 9, 2020 by Ishagu

[Captain Idaho]

Ultramarines tanks can fall back and shoot, hitting on 4s with their weapons (less if damaged of course).

 

All other vehicles either lose shooting to fall back or have to shoot the unit in close combat with them. So if a single model clips a tank it is probably going to fire a single "secondary" weapons at that single model and its other weapons at choice targets, sure.

 

But if you 6 Hormagaunts, or 3 Assault Marines etc in close combat with that vehicle, or the vehicle has specialised in anti-tank, you're looking at wasted shots for sure.

 

Not for us Ultramarines. We can decide what to do and when.

 

Our Dreadnoughts are even more brutal too. They benefit from the Tactical Doctrine, advance up the table hiding behind terrain, fight in close combat and then decide if they wan to retreat and shoot or shooting into combat and then fight.

 

So flexible.

[Ishagu]

We basically don't have a super Doctrine anymore.

May as well start mixing with other chapters as there is no loss to the army in terms of unit performance. I can spend 1 CP to keep my Aggressors as counting as stationary.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Ishagu

[emperorpants]

 

Actually dude, since the repulsor can fly, it can fall back and still shoot with no penalty. Like all fliers. For everyone. ;) Also, remember I said we can't be stopped from shooting as easy. But I see you purposely didn't respond to my point about whether or not being a bit harder to tie up in shooting is as impactful as what other chapters get.

 

I'm aware that FLY lets you fall back and shoot...in 8th Edition. Do we know, for certain, that it is remaining exactly the same?

 

I didn't purposely not respond, I just am trying to cut down my time talking to people who are ready to dismiss an entire new rule set with minimal information.

 

You say that it's going to be harder to tie up, but what evidence is there? That GW/playtesters say so? Well, they're the geniuses who let Iron Hands come out as initially broken as they did. They're the ones who didn't see that people would spam Tau Commanders because why wouldn't you?

 

As I did say, what GW/playtesters see and think is often not what the wider playerbase ends up finding.

 

Also, did you not read my post? I addressed the Executioner. It's pretty much the only vehicle in the codex that gets any benefit from our doctrine. Seriously, name one other vehicle. I'll wait. Also, all the good forgeworld stuff (barring c beams) gains zero benefit as well. So yes, our doctrine isn't useful at all for the vast VAST majority of vehicles and big units available to space marines, you really didn't address that point at all I'm afraid. *shrugs shoulders*

 

No, I must have missed that/stop paying attention.

 

You're right that pretty much all vehicle lose any benefit from the Doctrine. So?

 

Blood Angels vehicles do benefit from their Doctrine, but who cares about a Baal Predator getting +1 attack in the Assault Doctrine? Who cares about a Land Speeder doing 2D on its two attacks when White Scars are in Assault Doctrine? A Salamanders Predator gains no benefit from Flamecraft; most Raven Guard units don't benefit from their Doctrine unless it's in melee (or a targetable character).

 

Essentially, Scions of Guilliman becomes an infantry-benefitting Doctrine. Is that really the end of the world?

 

 

One other thing, can you tone down the hostility? The whole point of the thread is to speculate about how 9th will affect Ultras. That means we may have to discuss possible negative ways it affects us. So far, it looks like it will have several negative effects. However it is implicit that all of this could be bunk and could change. That's why it's called speculation. :)

 

I mean, are we not allowed to talk about possible short comings to our chapter? Or how changes could affect us in a possibly negative manner? Are we not allowed to debate things? If I remember right, you were all about talking about how IH would negatively affect the game before they came out. Seems odd that now you're against speculation and debating how things might work. Also, I haven't been hostile to you at all, so please extend the same? Im mean, if you just want this to be an echo chamber about how everything is great at all times with Ultras, fair enough. I can do that. Just pass me the blueberry koolaid then, it's the best. :)

 

I did edit my post before you replied, as that was (mostly) unnecessary. That said: no. If you're going to complain about this being the most awful thing in the world, without actually having much reasoning beyond, "Well, currently it'd be bad" and knowing that we're going to see some significant changes to a large portion of the game...well, no, that means you aren't discussing in good faith, or at the very least you need to step back, take a breath and look at things more objectively.

 

We simply don't know a lot of stuff about 9th.

 

If you want to compare this to Iron Hands, you're looking at it the wrong way around. When their Doctrinal benefit was revealed people immediately saw how powerful it was when applied to the base Codex. You didn't need to shift out of Devastator Doctrine then, and you could build an army around it: it was readily identifiable as A Bad Idea. What you are complaining about here is the opposite: you're complaining about the possibility of things being bad when we don't know how they're going to be affected.

 

Yes, the Doctrine is diminished by the Heavy Weapons change (although, it still has unique benefits, but let's not mention those, oh no :rolleyes: ) - it's not utterly garbage. As for the echo chamber: I honestly don't care. I play using the Ultramarines supplement most of the time because my Chapter are descendants; a fair amount of the time I play using Space Wolves (I did before the Supplements, and I am now, occasionally) because I find they fit the theme of my Chapter more, quite often. If Ultramarines end up sucking, I don't care; I'll still use them. Point is that I'm waiting to see enough pieces of 9th to put together a reasonably coherent idea of what the edition will be like; right now, there isn't enough to tell how it's going to pan out.

 

I mean, because everyone gets something we had in addition to what they already had? Making them better in comparison because our rule became a general rule that does nothing , whilst theirs still does something? Because they keep their rules and gain ours, while we don't get theirs? Honestly, if our doctrine becomes standard across all armies for their vehicles, and they keep their factions rules whilst gaining ours....how is our units NOT weaker than theirs in comparison?

 

 

The Ultramarines Doctrine doesn't do nothing. Infantry Heavy Weapons move and shoot with no penalty; Bolter Discipline is triggered for applicable units/weapons; Aggressors double tap on the move; Repulsors and C-Beams benefit. Is that what it used to be? No. Is it still a benefit? Yes. Does it still do unique stuff? Yes.

 

Also, this whole focus on this particular aspect of Ultramarines...perhaps it's because we don't have enough information yet?!

Again, I pointed out in a previous post that Aggressors and intercessors were still good. I have also said our doctrine is going to have no benefit for the vast majority of our vehicles, which is accurate. That statement also means that there cases were it can have some benefit. Mostly useless is not the same as totally useless. I also never said that our doctrine would be useless for infantry. You seem to be erecting and attacking several strawmen here, as you mentioning that infantry heavy weapons benefit has no bearing at all on the discussion at hand. I never claimed that the doctrine was useless for infantry, so attacking a claim I never made is of no benefit. No offense.

 

Seriously, in a previous post I said our doctrines power has been cut in half, meaning it still has uses. I have been mainting this whole time that it's power is lessened, and cut in half as it has no benefits to the vast majority of our vehicles, unless GW updates Ultra marines a bit. I also recently said that I'm becoming increasingly hopeful that GW will update us upon 9th's release.

 

Also, if you aren't going to read what I'm posting, it's YOU that isn't debating in good faith.

 

Also, again, the whole point is speculation. There is nothing wrong with debates. Speculation implies that what we are speculating about might be wrong. My speculations are based on what we know. We know 9th will be similar to 8th in core rules, per GW. We know our codex and supplements are going to still be valid. We know what GW and playtesters have told us about basic facts of gameplay. It's reasonable to take that information and extrapolate and speculate. I'm sorry if you disagree. Based on what we know, I feel it's reasonable to make these speculations. I've also speculated positive things.

 

That said, I find it strange that you say you don't care and yet get so upset. Does it personally offend you if someone speculates with the given information that things might not be good for Ultras? Sorry if it does, I honestly don't want to upset you. However, I've always maintained that this all could change and it's possible that GW may have some tweaks up their slaves for us. I guess I don't see what your problem with that is.

Ultramarines tanks can fall back and shoot, hitting on 4s with their weapons (less if damaged of course).

All other vehicles either lose shooting to fall back or have to shoot the unit in close combat with them. So if a single model clips a tank it is probably going to fire a single "secondary" weapons at that single model and its other weapons at choice targets, sure.

But if you 6 Hormagaunts, or 3 Assault Marines etc in close combat with that vehicle, or the vehicle has specialised in anti-tank, you're looking at wasted shots for sure.

Not for us Ultramarines. We can decide what to do and when.

Our Dreadnoughts are even more brutal too. They benefit from the Tactical Doctrine, advance up the table hiding behind terrain, fight in close combat and then decide if they wan to retreat and shoot or shooting into combat and then fight.

So flexible.

How do our dreadnoughts benefit from tactical doctrine compared to other armies? All dreadnoughts, indeed all vehicles, can do the same thing in all doctrines. They all have power of the machine spirit now basically. Edited June 9, 2020 by emperorpants

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Is inevitable that a codex loses power over time as the game and meta change. Look at the hits Imperial Fists and Iron Hands have already taken prior to ninth edition in so short a time. We may have to change the way we design our lists to remain competitive.

[Kallas]

That said, I find it strange that you say you don't care and yet get so upset. Does it personally offend you if someone speculates with the given information that things might not be good for Ultras? Sorry if it does, I honestly don't want to upset you. However, I've always maintained that this all could change and it's possible that GW may have some tweaks up their slaves for us. I guess I don't see what your problem with that is.

 

My main issue is with attitude. Perhaps I am conflating you with Ishagu, but essentially a lot of this speculation has just been whining about Ultramarines becoming terrible.

 

Quite simply, a whole lot of stuff is unknown. We can speculate about what we don't know, and that is pretty understandable; what is ridiculous is taking pretty unfounded notions (such as sweeping statements that Ultramarines will be crap) and asserting them to be the case...when we don't have the information.

 

If I said that 9th was maybe going to make Flamers amazing weapons, because Blast (which we don't know much about, until tomorrow at least), and so Salamanders are going to be the most powerful Chapter. That's a bit of an unreasonable statement: it's assuming one thing and then taking a further leap to say that another thing is going to be the result. Clearly, if GW/playtesters are to be believed (and the reason I don't hold with their statements is because they've been proven wrong time and again, 8th edition alone) vehicles/monsters are going to be major players, so of course Flamers, and by extension Salamanders, aren't going to suddenly be incredible.

 

Do you see what I mean? It's that kind of leap of logic that is unhelpful and just gets a frustration circle jerk going, when there's no real need. By all means, compare and contrast the elements that we know (like how the change to Heavy Weapons does lessen the Doctrine for vehicles); but extrapolating huge changes from nothing is a terrible idea.

 

As for my personal caring: I said I don't care if the rules end up being :cuss, because ultimately one can play what they want, and I will still use Ultramarines when I want to (and whether I want to depends on how I feel about a certain list/what kind of game I want to play). I do find the negativity here, about things that haven't come to pass yet, annoying - especially when they come from people who've said the opposite before (eg, Ishagu with Primaris). It doesn't offend me if someone speculates with the given information; what is ridiculous is speculating far beyond the given information to then make major statements about how an entire supplement is going to be awful.

[emperorpants]

Also, Kallas, I feel that I should clarify my current stance. I feel that if things aren't changed the Ultras are going to be comparatively weaker than before. I feel we will still have some tricks, but overall we will be diminished in an unfair manner. HOWEVER, I do feel that it is reasonable to assume that GW will address some of this upon 9ths release with faqs new rules to 9th. My point is that if they don't, we will take a big hit. A bigger hit than most. Given the information that we have, I feel it's also reasonable to speculate that GW won't fix these things for us and we will have to wait for a new codex. Time will tell. If I'm wrong about all this I will gladly admit I was wrong.

 

As to being overly negative, I feel that the only time I was being OVERLY negative was when we were talking about Guilliman' s cp tax. I have since edited that post and I apologize to anyone it bothered. I don't feel my other posts have been overly negative, just realistic given the information we have, and I see nothing wrong with them, as I feel debates are a good thing, and simply pointing out a chapters possible shortcomings is NOT overly negative.

 

All that said, I have never meant any disrespect to you, and I apologize if I came off that way at any point.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

When you were questioning Captain Idaho that was harsh imo .

[emperorpants]

 

That said, I find it strange that you say you don't care and yet get so upset. Does it personally offend you if someone speculates with the given information that things might not be good for Ultras? Sorry if it does, I honestly don't want to upset you. However, I've always maintained that this all could change and it's possible that GW may have some tweaks up their slaves for us. I guess I don't see what your problem with that is.

 

 

My main issue is with attitude. Perhaps I am conflating you with Ishagu, but essentially a lot of this speculation has just been whining about Ultramarines becoming terrible.

 

Quite simply, a whole lot of stuff is unknown. We can speculate about what we don't know, and that is pretty understandable; what is ridiculous is taking pretty unfounded notions (such as sweeping statements that Ultramarines will be crap) and asserting them to be the case...when we don't have the information.

 

If I said that 9th was maybe going to make Flamers amazing weapons, because Blast (which we don't know much about, until tomorrow at least), and so Salamanders are going to be the most powerful Chapter. That's a bit of an unreasonable statement: it's assuming one thing and then taking a further leap to say that another thing is going to be the result. Clearly, if GW/playtesters are to be believed (and the reason I don't hold with their statements is because they've been proven wrong time and again, 8th edition alone) vehicles/monsters are going to be major players, so of course Flamers, and by extension Salamanders, aren't going to suddenly be incredible.

 

Do you see what I mean? It's that kind of leap of logic that is unhelpful and just gets a frustration circle jerk going, when there's no real need. By all means, compare and contrast the elements that we know (like how the change to Heavy Weapons does lessen the Doctrine for vehicles); but extrapolating huge changes from nothing is a terrible idea.

 

As for my personal caring: I said I don't care if the rules end up being :cuss, because ultimately one can play what they want, and I will still use Ultramarines when I want to (and whether I want to depends on how I feel about a certain list/what kind of game I want to play). I do find the negativity here, about things that haven't come to pass yet, annoying - especially when they come from people who've said the opposite before (eg, Ishagu with Primaris). It doesn't offend me if someone speculates with the given information; what is ridiculous is speculating far beyond the given information to then make major statements about how an entire supplement is going to be awful.

Fair enough man. Even if the worst should happen, I don't feel the Ultras will be crap. We just will be quite far behind other marines and some other armies. I just want more parity in the chapters, and if this stuff pans out poorly for us, there won't be much parity.

 

I honestly and truly care about Ultras and want them to be good. Guilliman is my favorite character. I love to play competitive. I'd like those things to all intersect if possible. Lol.

[emperorpants]

When you were questioning Captain Idaho that was harsh imo .

To be fair, you have been quite harsh to me in several threads over the past year. That said, I honestly have no problem with you, I know you love the Ultras and have the forums best interests at heart.

 

As to Idaho, I didn't mean to be harsh. I was curt, but i didn't think I was being harsh. Sorry if i came off that way Captain idaho.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Is okay. :)

[Kallas]

Fair enough man. Even if the worst should happen, I don't feel the Ultras will be crap. We just will be quite far behind other marines and some other armies. I just want more parity in the chapters, and if this stuff pans out poorly for us, there won't be much parity.

I honestly and truly care about Ultras and want them to be good. Guilliman is my favorite character. I love to play competitive. I'd like those things to all intersect if possible. Lol.

 

See, that's the thing, there'll always be a top dog. We absolutely should call for as close to parity as possible, but just looking at the game's current state Ultramarines are pretty damn solid. Yes, Blood Angels are better, so are, probably, Raven Guard, and White Scars; but what about Tyranids? Death Guard?

 

If infantry are being reduced in impact/scale, then what happens to Tyranid horde armies? We already saw very few of them because Marines just hose them off the table in a couple of turns; if 9th is going to have less infantry, and if hordes are dead, then that's pretty rough.

 

My point being, Ultramarines aren't in a terrible place (they're Marines, so they're at the very least decent, compared to the field as a whole), they're just not top tier Marines. I do hope that there are some balance changes: the seemingly wide sweeping changes to a lot of core game mechanics means that there will be plenty of rules that are invalidated (eg, Power of the Machine Spirit) and need to be factored in. Using an example from earlier: I love Land Raiders, they're cool. They're terrible, but they're cool. I use the Helios variant because it's less terrible and can actually benefit from Ultramarines stuff quite well (eg, the Chapter Tactic applies very nicely to a Chapter Master-led Helios ball). With PotMS being 'overridden' by the default Heavy Weapons change, are we going to see Land Raiders get a new rule? A points drop/small points increase to compensate? *shrug* I don't know. I hope so, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it, even though I spent however much time and money on my Raiders.

 

Once I have the rules (or more information about other changes) I can form a better opinion.

 

With regards to Guilliman (and somewhat the Silent King), I find it hard to imagine that there won't be some kind of change. We're looking at some significant changes to the fabric of the game already, and that's without seeing everything. For such iconic models, I doubt they will let the various Primarchs sit for too long in the new edition. Like, his CP generation and the way the 'core' detachments work: yup, that's a weird, janky interaction, and it's because the differences between 8th and 9th mean that they function basically opposite to one another. Will they see that and fix it? Maybe not, but I hope so.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

You know what’s funny... I’ve already seen some Necron players online complaining about the leaked rules for TSK .

[emperorpants]

 

Fair enough man. Even if the worst should happen, I don't feel the Ultras will be crap. We just will be quite far behind other marines and some other armies. I just want more parity in the chapters, and if this stuff pans out poorly for us, there won't be much parity.

 

I honestly and truly care about Ultras and want them to be good. Guilliman is my favorite character. I love to play competitive. I'd like those things to all intersect if possible. Lol.

 

 

See, that's the thing, there'll always be a top dog. We absolutely should call for as close to parity as possible, but just looking at the game's current state Ultramarines are pretty damn solid. Yes, Blood Angels are better, so are, probably, Raven Guard, and White Scars; but what about Tyranids? Death Guard?

 

If infantry are being reduced in impact/scale, then what happens to Tyranid horde armies? We already saw very few of them because Marines just hose them off the table in a couple of turns; if 9th is going to have less infantry, and if hordes are dead, then that's pretty rough.

 

My point being, Ultramarines aren't in a terrible place (they're Marines, so they're at the very least decent, compared to the field as a whole), they're just not top tier Marines. I do hope that there are some balance changes: the seemingly wide sweeping changes to a lot of core game mechanics means that there will be plenty of rules that are invalidated (eg, Power of the Machine Spirit) and need to be factored in. Using an example from earlier: I love Land Raiders, they're cool. They're terrible, but they're cool. I use the Helios variant because it's less terrible and can actually benefit from Ultramarines stuff quite well (eg, the Chapter Tactic applies very nicely to a Chapter Master-led Helios ball). With PotMS being 'overridden' by the default Heavy Weapons change, are we going to see Land Raiders get a new rule? A points drop/small points increase to compensate? *shrug* I don't know. I hope so, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it, even though I spent however much time and money on my Raiders.

 

Once I have the rules (or more information about other changes) I can form a better opinion.

 

With regards to Guilliman (and somewhat the Silent King), I find it hard to imagine that there won't be some kind of change. We're looking at some significant changes to the fabric of the game already, and that's without seeing everything. For such iconic models, I doubt they will let the various Primarchs sit for too long in the new edition. Like, his CP generation and the way the 'core' detachments work: yup, that's a weird, janky interaction, and it's because the differences between 8th and 9th mean that they function basically opposite to one another. Will they see that and fix it? Maybe not, but I hope so.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. There could be a ton of crazy changes that we don't know about. I'm open to all of that being a possibility. I don't think there will be crazy changes like that, and I believe we know enough about 9th to make some reasonable speculation, but I fully admit I could be wrong.

 

I agree that currently in 8th Ultras are in a good spot. I'd say they are high tier, but not top tier. My concern is that these changes won't be addressed and they will drop quite far. Will they suck? No. As you said, they are still Marines. They could very easily drop to "Why bother taking them when much better and more unique chapters exist?" Tier though. That is what I don't want to see.

 

Again, all that said, I've grown more confident that GW will do something to address Guilliman, and quite possibly our super doctrine upon 9ths launch. Our chapter tactic will probably remain as is though. Just a gut feeling that.

[emperorpants]

You know what’s funny... I’ve already seen some Necron players online complaining about the leaked rules for TSK .

Really? Holy crap, what more do they want? TSK might very well be one of the best models per points in the game if the leaks are accurate. Lol. Are they expecting a hand shake and the opponent to pack up the second TSK is plunked down on the table?