New space marine nerfs

[emperorpants]

So, the new space marine nerfs are out....and we ultras actually made it out of the nerfs fairly well.  We are probably one of the chapters least affected by them.  In fact, our doctrine manipulation abilities just got alot more useful then they were before, and that is something we can hang our hat on as our own.  We can manipulate the doctrines.  Other chapters can't, and since you now HAVE to move through the doctrines (except turn 3, you can choose to be in tactical or assault on turn 3) our ability to manipulate the docttrines to the extent that we can has become VERY useful and our own unique claim to fame.  Thoughts?

[Subtleknife]

Still dont like doctrines in general but I agree Ultras are nearly unaffected by the nerfs. We get two turns of being in our super doctrine and we can manipulate the doctrine if need be. I would like to think that I would have won or lost the game by that stage once I'm forced to move into assault doctrine. Edited February 27, 2020 by Subtleknife

[Dumah]

I like this change! It goes some way in closing the power gap between the Ultras and the Fists and Hands. They might even be the new contender for most useful doctrine...

[Captain Idaho]

I think we actually are affected by the changes as late game (4+) we will lose our double bolter shots and AP boon, which helps a lot with reduced numbers maximising their impact on the game.

 

However, I also feel like the changes today are necessary for game balance as well internal balance. We actually might use Cycle of War now. Oh and Master of War is pretty cool too. And Squad Doctrines. :)

 

Loving today really.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Captain Idaho

[Kallas]

However, I also feel like the changes today are necessary for game balance as well internal balance. We actually might use Cycle of War now. Oh and Master of War is pretty cool too. And Squad Doctrines.

 

Ishagu has brought up a good point about Cycle of War: by the wording of the new changes, using Cycle of War will bring it back around to Devastator, but then it will immediately drop into the Assault Doctrine the turn after - it won't reset it to Devastator -> Tactical -> Assault.

 

Hopefully that gets FAQ'd, because that's kind of the point of it.

[aquamarine]

For a second my heart sank...then I read the FAQ and shrugged...then I thought about it a little more and realised this really sets Ultras apart as tactical masters!

 

My worried assumption was our doctrine-affecting stratagems would go the way of Adaptive Strategy, but nope.

 

(My Blood Angels are totally unaffected too as they already want to cycle through to Assault Doctrine ASAP...)

 

Does anyone else really believe the Designers, though, when they express surprise and dismay that marine players were not dutifully cycling through the doctrines, and rather than building balanced lists were (shock!) designing lists around the strengths of a single doctrine? 

[Kallas]

Does anyone else really believe the Designers, though, when they express surprise and dismay that marine players were not dutifully cycling through the doctrines, and rather than building balanced lists were (shock!) designing lists around the strengths of a single doctrine? 

 

Particularly when you give each Chapter a specific bonus in a particular Doctrine...and some of them are obnoxiously easy to build around, and powerful when doing so!

 

The mind boggles.

[CCE1981]

This change to doctrines does nothing to affect me. All of my games have been against Iron Hands, and I’ve dominated them in every game before this. I haven’t had any effective resistance past turn 3.

[Emicus]

I've been running 30x bolter Intercessors.. Halving my AP and range/mobility for the late game is a hard slap :/

[Sloeberjong]

...

 

Does anyone else really believe the Designers, though, when they express surprise and dismay that marine players were not dutifully cycling through the doctrines, and rather than building balanced lists were (shock!) designing lists around the strengths of a single doctrine? 

 

Unfortunately I kinda do. GW are notoriously bad rules writers. Always have been and probably always will be. 

 

At least nowadays they try to fix some of it. In the past you were stuck with it.

[Stickeh]

This errata has definitely stealth buffed certain rules and stratagems by changing the doctrine rules. The warlord trait Master of Strategy (Tigurius’ default warlord trait) now has some non-niche uses, by guaranteeing one unit will always be in tactical doctrine (hello aggressors). Im going to play around with a few lists using Tigurius as warlord now, something I almost immediately dismissed previously due to how the doctrine system worked.

 

As other have mentioned, the stratagems like cycle of war and squad doctrines makes us the premier army for tactical flexibility, and I think Ultramarines can do an all rounder list better than most because of this. We don’t shoot as well as IF or OH, or fight as well as BA or WS, but that’s never been the UM’s forte.

 

I’ll probably also look to include a unit of chain sword vanguard veterans again too. They fell out of favour with the new codex, but the forcing of assault doctrine T4 onwards along with them being a cheap, easy to conceal unit, with large threat range and a lot of attacks at -1ap might justify their inclusion again.

[StraightSilver]

I'm kinda 50/50 on it tbh. I think it's a clever change but it does affect my "default" list somewhat.

I run a non-Primaris list which has quite a lot of units that benefit greatly from being in Devastator Doctrine.

My games have been pretty much stay in Devastator for Turns 1 and 2, possibly 3 and then stay in Tactical. I cannot remember a game where i switched to assault but my list doesn't have any dedicated assault units.

I can still pretty much do the above - Turn 1 Devastator, Cycle of War Turn 2 to stay in Devastator, Turn 3 Tactical and then Turn 4 Assault. But that means I spend a command point I didn't have to before and I lose a round of Tactical.

However, this has made me look again at my list and I'm actually thinking of adding in some dedicated assault units. I just think for Space Marines, unless you're Blood Angels you're not getting your points worth with assault units?

I think if you're a Primaris player it bites even harder.

Then again, as an Ultramarine player, I shouldn't grumble, this actually makes us way more fluffy and makes us stand out from other Chapters and I am thinking of trying out new units again.

I'm also thinking Drop Pods also now got more cost effective?

[Ishagu]

You can only use cycle of war once you reach the Assault Doctrine I believe.

[StraightSilver]

You can only use cycle of war once you reach the Assault Doctrine I believe.

Doh!! You are right, oh well. That's a kicker but not the end of the world.

[Kallas]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/favgi3/new_doctrines_and_ultramarines_cycle_of_war/

 

Warhammer Community confirms (although it's not in an FAQ just yet) that yes, Cycle of War goes: T4 Assault -> T5 CoW Devastator -> T6 Assault.

 

Honestly disappointing, because that's not a cycle is it...that's a pendulum!

Edited February 28, 2020 by Kallas

[Captain Idaho]

That's fair enough, as we can still use Squad Doctrines and Master of Strategy if needed.

 

I think, outside the above, Primaris took a big hit. The AP in assault is welcome of course, but the majority of Primaris are shooting based and lose AP when forced into Assault Doctrine.

 

It's an unintended consequence I'm sure but I don't think Primaris sales are going to slump off the back of it ;)

[Subtleknife]

That is really irritating regarding cycle of war. Just further shows imo that this was a panic nerf caused by failing to adequately test various suplements before release.

[Captain Idaho]

It is disappointing in the sense that it costs CP so isn't cheap and is only going to net you at best a turn of Tactical Doctrine extra.

 

But I'm happy Marine players will have to have more varied and balanced combined arms lists.

[Kallas]

It is disappointing in the sense that it costs CP so isn't cheap and is only going to net you at best a turn of Tactical Doctrine extra.

 

No, that's the problem, it doesn't net you any Tactical Doctrine, it nets you a single turn of Devastator Doctrine. With enough CP, you could go:

1. Devastator
2. Tactical
3. Tactical
4. Assault
5. Devastator (1CP)
6. Assault
7. Devastator (1CP)

But with the clarification from WHC Cycle of War doesn't 'reset' the Doctrines to Devastator, it gives you Devastator, and then the Doctrines rule kicks in on T5/6/7 and shunts it back to Assault - that's because Tactical doesn't follow Devastator, Tactical is active T2, and then T3 if you choose, that's it. Assault isn't after Tactical, it's active T3 (if you choose) and compulsorily T4+. Cycle just gives you a turn of Devastator under the new rule.

 

I total agree with Subtleknife that it's a kneejerk nerf because they couldn't see that people would obviously build around super easily built aroundable bonuses (Iron Hands) which are easily the most directly powerful (from a simplicity standpoint).

 

The nerfs made to the rest of the rules were targeted and direct (RG Centurions; IH Cogitated Martyrdom, etc) - I don't understand why the problem Super Doctrines (notably Iron Hands and Imperial Fists) couldn't have been targeted instead of the Doctrine rule as a whole. The issue is with the Super Doctrines: an additional -1 AP is not game breaking, the additional layer of rules was/is.

[Captain Idaho]

No I meant, if it was how we wanted it to be, it would only net us a turn of Tactical Doctrine. Sorry about the confusion. Edited February 29, 2020 by Captain Idaho

[Kallas]

Ahh, I get you now.