Turn one charges were always a terrible rule. They invalidated many armies right away, really cutting down on the fun variety you could come across.
Now you see things like genestealer cults with MSU units and magus, running formations for 2 dice to go for that 6 on infiltrate, and the broodlord and 20 genestealer group. THEN you also have people allying coteaz in a corner by himself, just for rerolls for turn one steal, or to force a turn one steal reroll. Rolling on strategy for warlord trait to get +1 to sieze. Right away, with a list like this, you eliminate a ton of things. Non tank heavy guard lists get absolutley pooped on. Seen a top of turn one concede after there was only 15 models left on the board TOP OF TURN ONE. You cannot yourself infiltrate any units, so I hope you did not have your own, because you have to stay 18 inches away, where they can be as close as 3. If they deploy their large blob of genestealers first, theres no ROOM left on the board where you can be 18 inches away, sometimes not even in your own deployment zone.
In the past people complained about things like space wolf scouts charging from the enemies deployment zone unable to be stopped. Even space marine gladius strike force can cripple the enemy army when built right, with devastating turn one abilities.
Should games be all but decided on the top of turn one? Because there are games like these where you are guaranteed to lose or win, and its the poorest of poor game design.
World Eaters also get some devastating turn one charges. Two of my last games ended on turn two and I'm still tweaking my list to get even more units into the turn one assault. 1850 points for those asking.
OP: if GSC are ruining your day you can try taking some fortifications? I haven't played against them myself so I don't know how much this would help.
andysonic1 wrote: World Eaters also get some devastating turn one charges. Two of my last games ended on turn two and I'm still tweaking my list to get even more units into the turn one assault. 1850 points for those asking.
I almost can't believe it. Help me understand how it works.
I have been playtesting Black Legion and getting turn one charges with Raptors, but it's not the same, even with MoK and IoW.
This is the smallest fiddle in the world playing for shooting lists in 7th ed. 1st turn charges are necessary when you are losing 1/3 of your list every shooting phase. Plus speed bump units, plus overwatch, plus no sweeping advance, plus failed charges. Yeah assault is just taking over.
Dismissive 'smallest fiddle' comments aside I'm actually with Martel on this one (for once). How are turn one assaults any different from a heavily optimized gunline wiping most of your army on turn one?
Martel732 wrote: This is the smallest fiddle in the world playing for shooting lists in 7th ed. 1st turn charges are necessary when you are losing 1/3 of your list every shooting phase. Plus speed bump units, plus overwatch, plus no sweeping advance, plus failed charges. Yeah assault is just taking over.
Which is also a problem.
Basically, the game has a fundamental "Alpha Strike" problem in which most armies will receive a huge bonus if they go first. Some armis become game breaking if they go first (Tau, Eldar, GSC). The entire "I Go, You Go" system needs to be scrapped in favor of an initiative based system more akin to X-Wing.
Martel732 wrote: This is the smallest fiddle in the world playing for shooting lists in 7th ed. 1st turn charges are necessary when you are losing 1/3 of your list every shooting phase. Plus speed bump units, plus overwatch, plus no sweeping advance, plus failed charges. Yeah assault is just taking over.
Was not aware that imperial guard had ATSKNF or equivalent. How do they stop sweeping adv?
I guess maybe because I'm new, it just seems like assault is the best way to win. You can't be shot when you're in assault by any unit, all those extra dice, instant death strength rules... I will admit I do have a myopic view of this since I am new. But in every game i've played assault was the deciding factor.
Martel732 wrote: This is the smallest fiddle in the world playing for shooting lists in 7th ed. 1st turn charges are necessary when you are losing 1/3 of your list every shooting phase. Plus speed bump units, plus overwatch, plus no sweeping advance, plus failed charges. Yeah assault is just taking over.
Was not aware that imperial guard had ATSKNF or equivalent. How do they stop sweeping adv?
I guess maybe because I'm new, it just seems like assault is the best way to win. You can't be shot when you're in assault by any unit, all those extra dice, instant death strength rules... I will admit I do have a myopic view of this since I am new. But in every game i've played assault was the deciding factor.
Old sweeping advance that let you consolidate into a new CC. Assault is generally bad because you die before you can do so. And assault units are not much cheaper than the shootier deadlier units.
So yeah, the 'Coteaz for everyone' thing is a bit obnoxious, but I really don't see anything else here that is new. There've been ways to get first-turn charges since 5th edition. It got *harder* in 6th, but it was always possible. (If nothing else, Stormboyz had an effective 30" threat radius if you had good dice, and that lasted until our 7th-ed codex.)
AnomanderRake wrote: Dismissive 'smallest fiddle' comments aside I'm actually with Martel on this one (for once). How are turn one assaults any different from a heavily optimized gunline wiping most of your army on turn one?
They're different because in most cases the overpowered shooty army can be countered simply by putting the right amount of terrain on the table.
People have been complaining about first turn shooting for twenty years now. It generally turns out that they're fighting on Planet Bowling Ball.
Martel732 wrote: This is the smallest fiddle in the world playing for shooting lists in 7th ed. 1st turn charges are necessary when you are losing 1/3 of your list every shooting phase. Plus speed bump units, plus overwatch, plus no sweeping advance, plus failed charges. Yeah assault is just taking over.
Which is also a problem.
Basically, the game has a fundamental "Alpha Strike" problem in which most armies will receive a huge bonus if they go first. Some armis become game breaking if they go first (Tau, Eldar, GSC). The entire "I Go, You Go" system needs to be scrapped in favor of an initiative based system more akin to X-Wing.
Warmachine seems to manage discrete turns without it all collapsing into a mush, but they do it by constraining movement/shooting to the point where you can't park somewhere and shoot anything on the board/move across the board in a turn. LoS-block area terrain, more LoS-block terrain in general, deployable LoS-block, smaller movement, shorter weapon ranges, defensive buffs that fall somewhere in between "You can't do anything" (Invisibility, Shrouding) and "Nothing at all"...
Alternating activation is a solution, but the problem is a little more complicated than "Discrete turns suck, alternating activations are the answer to all problems!" You could make an alternating-activations 40k game an alpha-strike-wins game very, very easily if you didn't make a whole lot of other changes along with it.
AnomanderRake wrote: Dismissive 'smallest fiddle' comments aside I'm actually with Martel on this one (for once). How are turn one assaults any different from a heavily optimized gunline wiping most of your army on turn one?
They're different because in most cases the overpowered shooty army can be countered simply by putting the right amount of terrain on the table.
People have been complaining about first turn shooting for twenty years now. It generally turns out that they're fighting on Planet Bowling Ball.
And the infiltrate-charge army can't be countered by the right table? Put enough impassible terrain up and they'll have a hell of a time getting enough first turn charges off to make much difference.
andysonic1 wrote: World Eaters also get some devastating turn one charges. Two of my last games ended on turn two and I'm still tweaking my list to get even more units into the turn one assault. 1850 points for those asking.
I almost can't believe it. Help me understand how it works.
I have been playtesting Black Legion and getting turn one charges with Raptors, but it's not the same, even with MoK and IoW.
The two games I mentioned were my World Eaters against Grey Knights. Anything moving 12 inches that gets a decent 2D6 free move before the game starts (Butcherhorde) has the opportunity to assault the enemies deployment edge units. My DP, Juggerlord with spawn, Talisman'ed Termies, and Bikes all charge into combat turn one often. My Termies made a 14 inch charge last game due to my Warlord trait allowing for 3D6 charge die + rerolls + talisman. Hilariously, my bike units often DON"T make their charges simply because my other units take up too much space on my deployment so the bikes are relegated to the edges and have absurd charge distances and the lead model usually dies to overwatch, so I'm most likely going to change them out for Raptors.
Against my friend's Grey Knights, he is forced to put everything on the table or hug his table edge in fear. Turn One I killed two Dreadknights, then he Cleansing Flamed as much as he could to try to kill everything. He couldn't and he conceded right then and there because he knew the rest of my army was going to roll him over in assault (he had a bunch of purifiers, a unit of termies, and one dreadknight left). Was he playing a competitive army or list? No. He does, however, have a competitive Necron list that I'd love to play against. My KDK was constantly putting him back on his heels when he brought it against them, I'd love to see what 4+ Turn One assaults could do to him.
AnomanderRake wrote: And the infiltrate-charge army can't be countered by the right table? Put enough impassible terrain up and they'll have a hell of a time getting enough first turn charges off to make much difference.
The level of terrain required to stop that is not reasonable. Large blocks of impassible terrain are bad for everything but preventing one list from dominating. They destroy the effectiveness of shooting, destroy the effectiveness of movement, and pretty much reduce the game to a non-interactive slog to see who happens to have a clear route to reach more of the objectives. LOS-blocking and cover-granting terrain, on the other hand, can mitigate shooting alpha strikes sufficiently without destroying the rest of the experience. You don't have to cover anywhere near as much of the table with it, and because it isn't impassible those areas of the table are still interactive and interesting. And the level of LOS-blocking terrain required to mitigate shooting alpha strikes is a pretty typical amount of terrain that the game was intended to use. The games that fail to have sufficient terrain are the ones where there's a single tiny "forest" piece in the center of the table and nothing else, because a store that normally has one game at a time has to provide terrain for a 50-person tournament.
The answer, in essence, is that the game has shrunk.
Almost everything that we consider to be "good" has the ability to move and engage optimally at all times. It is always in range, always moving, and always charging or avoiding a charge. The only way to hamper someone is to also be always moving, always be in range, and always charging or avoiding a charge. If you have to wait around for even 1 turn, you are dead or disappeared. In essence, the battlefield of the game has shrunk in size. 48 inches in the past was a HUGE distance, but now is traversable in but a couple of turns, if even that many. With points costs going down and game sizes going up, it's also harder to not be involved in a combat at almost all stages.
This is exactly what people want, but it's also the opposite of what the game, in my opinion, needs. Bring back the slow and the methodical! Bring back the "yeah, you want good movement? you pay for it out the nose".
AnomanderRake wrote: Dismissive 'smallest fiddle' comments aside I'm actually with Martel on this one (for once). How are turn one assaults any different from a heavily optimized gunline wiping most of your army on turn one?
They're different because in most cases the overpowered shooty army can be countered simply by putting the right amount of terrain on the table.
People have been complaining about first turn shooting for twenty years now. It generally turns out that they're fighting on Planet Bowling Ball.
That's completely untrue in 7th. Mobile shooters are everywhere. Terrain stops static gunlines only. I had a board with 70% terrain and eldar still dominated me.
Orock wrote:Turn one charges were always a terrible rule. They invalidated many armies right away, really cutting down on the fun variety you could come across.
Now you see things like genestealer cults with MSU units and magus, running formations for 2 dice to go for that 6 on infiltrate, and the broodlord and 20 genestealer group. THEN you also have people allying coteaz in a corner by himself, just for rerolls for turn one steal, or to force a turn one steal reroll. Rolling on strategy for warlord trait to get +1 to sieze. Right away, with a list like this, you eliminate a ton of things. Non tank heavy guard lists get absolutley pooped on. Seen a top of turn one concede after there was only 15 models left on the board TOP OF TURN ONE. You cannot yourself infiltrate any units, so I hope you did not have your own, because you have to stay 18 inches away, where they can be as close as 3. If they deploy their large blob of genestealers first, theres no ROOM left on the board where you can be 18 inches away, sometimes not even in your own deployment zone.
In the past people complained about things like space wolf scouts charging from the enemies deployment zone unable to be stopped. Even space marine gladius strike force can cripple the enemy army when built right, with devastating turn one abilities.
Should games be all but decided on the top of turn one? Because there are games like these where you are guaranteed to lose or win, and its the poorest of poor game design.
Any army relying on getting a 1/6 result consistently for its strategy to work will lose 5/6 of the time. Simple math.
Dark_Apostle_Spartachris wrote:
Martel732 wrote: This is the smallest fiddle in the world playing for shooting lists in 7th ed. 1st turn charges are necessary when you are losing 1/3 of your list every shooting phase. Plus speed bump units, plus overwatch, plus no sweeping advance, plus failed charges. Yeah assault is just taking over.
Which is also a problem.
Basically, the game has a fundamental "Alpha Strike" problem in which most armies will receive a huge bonus if they go first. Some armis become game breaking if they go first (Tau, Eldar, GSC). The entire "I Go, You Go" system needs to be scrapped in favor of an initiative based system more akin to X-Wing.
I see this as a step in the right direction, honestly. Shooting armies were too easily a counter to every single CC-based army, either forcing those armies to be bottom tier, or to have to take unfluffy lists just to play.
And I don't mean win, I mean play in a manner that wasn't just moving their models for their opponent to subsequently remove them.
On a tactical note, you really need to make sure you understand HOW that turn 1 charge is possible, that way you can either mitigate the damage, or call out your opponent for not knowing their own rules.
For example, you mentioned the GSC Patriach + Genestealers, but did you know that only he and 2, yes 2 not 20, Genestealer Princelings are allowed to charge after infiltrate?
With their crap saves, a good overwatch can hurt them pretty bad. And they are both unique units, so you lose at best 2 units before the rest of your army shreds them to pieces.
Galef wrote: I see this as a step in the right direction, honestly. Shooting armies were too easily a counter to every single CC-based army, either forcing those armies to be bottom tier, or to have to take unfluffy lists just to play.
And I don't mean win, I mean play in a manner that wasn't just moving their models for their opponent to subsequently remove them.
On a tactical note, you really need to make sure you understand HOW that turn 1 charge is possible, that way you can either mitigate the damage, or call out your opponent for not knowing their own rules.
For example, you mentioned the GSC Patriach + Genestealers, but did you know that only he and 2, yes 2 not 20, Genestealer Princelings are allowed to charge after infiltrate?
With their crap saves, a good overwatch can hurt them pretty bad. And they are both unique units, so you lose at best 2 units before the rest of your army shreds them to pieces.
That's not the formation in question. You're looking at the Overkill Ghosar Quintus Broodking rules. The one in question is the First Curse formation from the Codex in conjunction with the Cult Ambush USR roll of "6".
Any army relying on getting a 1/6 result consistently for its strategy to work will lose 5/6 of the time. Simple math.
As a Cult player, there is a lot you can do too make the it more likely. You get 2 rolls on the warlord table looking to get that 6, the Subterranean assault units (powerful melee units all) get 2 dice each, any unit with a Primus (any primus, I take one in formation and one out of formation to give me two units with this bonus) gets to roll 3. First turn assaults isn't a possibility, it's a fact against GSC, it's only a question of do I get first turn to charge without counter play and what exact units get to charge.
And I've been put off Cult a little bit now, because 80% of my games are decided turn 1. Either they can handle my assault and I actually get a game, or they can't and they loose and they get upset and don't want to play anymore. Game design wise, I prefer my Run and Charge Harlequins. It feels like more of a game, where positioning and a good psychic phase gives my opponent more counter play. Winning turn 1 isn't fun, for the winner or the loser, at least in my opinion.
Martel732 wrote: This is the smallest fiddle in the world playing for shooting lists in 7th ed. 1st turn charges are necessary when you are losing 1/3 of your list every shooting phase. Plus speed bump units, plus overwatch, plus no sweeping advance, plus failed charges. Yeah assault is just taking over.
Well said Martel.
You don't get to delete my units before they make charges AND while they make charges?
There's a Major Payne quote about sympathy that really applies here.
Gunzhard wrote: This isn't nearly far enough frankly, assault needs to be much better for a more balanced game.
So you're in favor of more games ending at the start of turn 1, before one player even gets to have a turn?
Not any different than it is now. Funny how he doesn't complain when he can shoot his opponent on turn one but when the shoe is on the other foot he complains. Funny when in a shooty editon made even more shootier people say adapt. So how come the shootier people are not adapting but whining instead?
So do what assault based armies had to do. Adapt. Don't whine about it. Don't cry about it. You had what now, 3 shooty editions? So the "easy button" is taken away now a bit. It's not like it's ever freaking game so why is the Original Poster complaining about it?
You know your army has made it when someone posts in GenDis bewailing the fact it's OP. I'd like it noted that I predicted this months ago.
Marmatag wrote:Out of curiosity, what point level does this start to happen?
With Genestealer Cults it'll happen at any points level, although you'd probably want an Insurrection detachment to make best use of it, and you can't really fit one of those in below 500pts.
andysonic1 wrote:OP: if GSC are ruining your day you can try taking some fortifications? I haven't played against them myself so I don't know how much this would help.
I don't really know what fortifications do, but if it's just extra terrain then it won't help much. Units that land a 6 on Cult Ambush can deploy anywhere within 3" of enemies, which cuts down the distance they have to charge, and aside from the Stealers themselves everything has grenades.
Dark_Apostle_Spartachris wrote:Basically, the game has a fundamental "Alpha Strike" problem in which most armies will receive a huge bonus if they go first. Some armis become game breaking if they go first (Tau, Eldar, GSC). The entire "I Go, You Go" system needs to be scrapped in favor of an initiative based system more akin to X-Wing.
Enthusiastic +1. I really hope they implement this in 8th.
EnTyme wrote:Any army relying on getting a 1/6 result consistently for its strategy to work will lose 5/6 of the time. Simple math.
Except the mathematics aren't that simple. Cult Ambush charges just aren't reliable enough to be a lynchpin of your strategy - most of the time you use it to redeploy or reinforce units rather than launch an assault - and nobody who plays GSC with a straight face is going to build an army that will lose if it doesn't get 6s. That's why MSU Morph builds are so powerful; partly because it means I'm rolling huge numbers of dice (and thus have an elevated chance to land 6s), and partly because it'll be difficult to kill enough of anything to matter before I get to bring my charges home.
Martel732 wrote: This is the smallest fiddle in the world playing for shooting lists in 7th ed. 1st turn charges are necessary when you are losing 1/3 of your list every shooting phase. Plus speed bump units, plus overwatch, plus no sweeping advance, plus failed charges. Yeah assault is just taking over.
You sound like those tau and eldar players that accuse you of being bad because you cant beat their wraithknight with your orks. Just because there are existing problems, does not mean new problems are forgiven because "stuffs boned anyway"
Orock wrote:Turn one charges were always a terrible rule. They invalidated many armies right away, really cutting down on the fun variety you could come across.
Now you see things like genestealer cults with MSU units and magus, running formations for 2 dice to go for that 6 on infiltrate, and the broodlord and 20 genestealer group. THEN you also have people allying coteaz in a corner by himself, just for rerolls for turn one steal, or to force a turn one steal reroll. Rolling on strategy for warlord trait to get +1 to sieze. Right away, with a list like this, you eliminate a ton of things. Non tank heavy guard lists get absolutley pooped on. Seen a top of turn one concede after there was only 15 models left on the board TOP OF TURN ONE. You cannot yourself infiltrate any units, so I hope you did not have your own, because you have to stay 18 inches away, where they can be as close as 3. If they deploy their large blob of genestealers first, theres no ROOM left on the board where you can be 18 inches away, sometimes not even in your own deployment zone.
In the past people complained about things like space wolf scouts charging from the enemies deployment zone unable to be stopped. Even space marine gladius strike force can cripple the enemy army when built right, with devastating turn one abilities.
Should games be all but decided on the top of turn one? Because there are games like these where you are guaranteed to lose or win, and its the poorest of poor game design.
Any army relying on getting a 1/6 result consistently for its strategy to work will lose 5/6 of the time. Simple math.
Dark_Apostle_Spartachris wrote:
Martel732 wrote: This is the smallest fiddle in the world playing for shooting lists in 7th ed. 1st turn charges are necessary when you are losing 1/3 of your list every shooting phase. Plus speed bump units, plus overwatch, plus no sweeping advance, plus failed charges. Yeah assault is just taking over.
Which is also a problem.
Basically, the game has a fundamental "Alpha Strike" problem in which most armies will receive a huge bonus if they go first. Some armis become game breaking if they go first (Tau, Eldar, GSC). The entire "I Go, You Go" system needs to be scrapped in favor of an initiative based system more akin to X-Wing.
Because Eldar aren't powerful enough, right?
but its not 1/6th is it? the formation allows a reroll to get that 6, AND 2 dice to pick from, AND you can have a magus for 3 dice instead. 3 dice with rerolls, its closer to 5/6 to get it. And as for first turn, you can take coteaz to give you a reroll, and try for warlord traits to add one to that. if you get that warlord trait, its a rerollable 5 to steal, so that is more like 2/3 chance to steal. Lets not forget you could just straight up win the chance to go first. and coteaz makes your opponent reroll the chance to steal, so 1/6 goes to 1/36. that does not sound like 1/6 of a chance to work your plan to me.
Orock wrote: Just because there are existing problems, does not mean new problems are forgiven because "stuffs boned anyway"
But this "first turn charge" thing isn't a problem at all.
It's a matchup-dependent problem, and/or part of a problem rather than the whole story of the problem. It's a problem because shooty skew armies that can't do anything about it exist. If the Tau were less one-dimensional it'd be less of a problem, for instance.
You know your army has made it when someone posts in GenDis bewailing the fact it's OP. I'd like it noted that I predicted this months ago.
Marmatag wrote:Out of curiosity, what point level does this start to happen?
With Genestealer Cults it'll happen at any points level, although you'd probably want an Insurrection detachment to make best use of it, and you can't really fit one of those in below 500pts.
andysonic1 wrote:OP: if GSC are ruining your day you can try taking some fortifications? I haven't played against them myself so I don't know how much this would help.
I don't really know what fortifications do, but if it's just extra terrain then it won't help much. Units that land a 6 on Cult Ambush can deploy anywhere within 3" of enemies, which cuts down the distance they have to charge, and aside from the Stealers themselves everything has grenades.
Dark_Apostle_Spartachris wrote:Basically, the game has a fundamental "Alpha Strike" problem in which most armies will receive a huge bonus if they go first. Some armis become game breaking if they go first (Tau, Eldar, GSC). The entire "I Go, You Go" system needs to be scrapped in favor of an initiative based system more akin to X-Wing.
Enthusiastic +1. I really hope they implement this in 8th.
EnTyme wrote:Any army relying on getting a 1/6 result consistently for its strategy to work will lose 5/6 of the time. Simple math.
Except the mathematics aren't that simple. Cult Ambush charges just aren't reliable enough to be a lynchpin of your strategy - most of the time you use it to redeploy or reinforce units rather than launch an assault - and nobody who plays GSC with a straight face is going to build an army that will lose if it doesn't get 6s. That's why MSU Morph builds are so powerful; partly because it means I'm rolling huge numbers of dice (and thus have an elevated chance to land 6s), and partly because it'll be difficult to kill enough of anything to matter before I get to bring my charges home.
There are a ton of fortifications, many of which allow you to stick units inside to shoot out of while coming with several upgrades to help the shooting and defend against assault units. No one ever takes them from what I've seen, but with the onset of Turn One charges they might start looking at them.
Losing a huge chunk of your army turn 1 would suck.
Just more reason to have additional units in reserves I suppose.
I do find it funny that people are upset with the shooty nature of this game. I mean, when we decided to start playing, it was under the expectation that a game set 40,000 years in the future would be focused very heavily on shooting, not punching.
Orock wrote: Just because there are existing problems, does not mean new problems are forgiven because "stuffs boned anyway"
But this "first turn charge" thing isn't a problem at all.
for the people using the strategy. But for the health of the game it absolutley is. Any posability of fun balanced take all comers lists dies even harder to the point everyone has to run a one sided gimmick list. It takes with it balanced armies that have variety, and throws them out the window in favor of every list having to be min max spam lists now. Take the cult example. What if my friend puts this army together and craps on everyone. Now people come with things like all ork walker lists, and suddenly he is tabled after killing a single kan. How is that fun? Where is the fun in setting up a board for 30 minutes, to have the game over in 25 from a turn one domination. And how do justify the death of any kind of actual game? Do you have to win so much with your turn one alpha strike any conversation to the effect of "this is bad for the game" is replyed with, to paraphrase you "nuh uh".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: Losing a huge chunk of your army turn 1 would suck.
Just more reason to have additional units in reserves I suppose.
I do find it funny that people are upset with the shooty nature of this game. I mean, when we decided to start playing, it was under the expectation that a game set 40,000 years in the future would be focused very heavily on shooting, not punching.
but you cant keep reserves, because this is what happens.
6 units assault what you DO have on the field, and table that. Now your turn comes around, you cant roll for reserves, and you are tabled. good game. Sure marines with drop pods can do it, but everyone else takes it in the shorts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: I see this as a step in the right direction, honestly. Shooting armies were too easily a counter to every single CC-based army, either forcing those armies to be bottom tier, or to have to take unfluffy lists just to play.
And I don't mean win, I mean play in a manner that wasn't just moving their models for their opponent to subsequently remove them.
On a tactical note, you really need to make sure you understand HOW that turn 1 charge is possible, that way you can either mitigate the damage, or call out your opponent for not knowing their own rules.
For example, you mentioned the GSC Patriach + Genestealers, but did you know that only he and 2, yes 2 not 20, Genestealer Princelings are allowed to charge after infiltrate?
With their crap saves, a good overwatch can hurt them pretty bad. And they are both unique units, so you lose at best 2 units before the rest of your army shreds them to pieces.
no there is a formation where a bunch of hybrids and genestealers can get turn one. I wish what you said was true. I have seen a 20 strong group of genestealers with a leader, and 5 hybrid groups get the 6 on the infiltrate rules. its game over at that point for many armies.
Any army relying on getting a 1/6 result consistently for its strategy to work will lose 5/6 of the time. Simple math.
As a Cult player, there is a lot you can do too make the it more likely. You get 2 rolls on the warlord table looking to get that 6, the Subterranean assault units (powerful melee units all) get 2 dice each, any unit with a Primus (any primus, I take one in formation and one out of formation to give me two units with this bonus) gets to roll 3. First turn assaults isn't a possibility, it's a fact against GSC, it's only a question of do I get first turn to charge without counter play and what exact units get to charge.
And I've been put off Cult a little bit now, because 80% of my games are decided turn 1. Either they can handle my assault and I actually get a game, or they can't and they loose and they get upset and don't want to play anymore. Game design wise, I prefer my Run and Charge Harlequins. It feels like more of a game, where positioning and a good psychic phase gives my opponent more counter play. Winning turn 1 isn't fun, for the winner or the loser, at least in my opinion.
this exactly. Also it is the absolute last nail in the coffin for any kind of game diversity, with armies not hyper specialized in a field.
Orock wrote: ...but its not 1/6th is it? the formation allows a reroll to get that 6, AND 2 dice to pick from, AND you can have a magus for 3 dice instead. 3 dice with rerolls, its closer to 5/6 to get it. And as for first turn, you can take coteaz to give you a reroll, and try for warlord traits to add one to that. if you get that warlord trait, its a rerollable 5 to steal, so that is more like 2/3 chance to steal. Lets not forget you could just straight up win the chance to go first. and coteaz makes your opponent reroll the chance to steal, so 1/6 goes to 1/36. that does not sound like 1/6 of a chance to work your plan to me.
Details in support: In a normal game both sides have a 50% chance to go first (1/2 * 1/6 to lose the roll-off and seize plus 1/2 * 5/6 to win the roll-off and not get seized on). Coteaz' reroll to your own failed seize rolls/your opponent's successful seize rolls changes that to 11/36 to successfully seize and 1/36 to get seized on, an army with Coteaz is going first closer to 64% of the time.
The Subterranean Uprising formation allows you to roll two dice and pick one on the Cult Ambush table, or roll three and pick one instead for the unit that's been joined by the Primus, so in that formation you've got about a 30% chance for any given unit to get the 6, 42% for the one with the Primus.
Useful Warlord Traits are Ambush Leader, which lets your Warlord and his unit pick their Cult Ambush result instead of rolling, and Strategic Genius, which adds +1 to your Seize roll (which has you going first 76% of the time).
So top-of-turn-one charges off of Cult Ambush are both more reliable than EnTyme seems to think and less likely than Orock seems to think. To my mind Cult Ambush is powerful in the same way Invisibility is powerful; quite, but if you don't get the right results on a few pre-game rolls much less so.
(If I've missed any effects that add to Cult Ambush let me know, I don't play the army and haven't seen them on the table so this is the result of a quick scan of the book.)
actually i put it at 66 precent, so higher than what I thought if 76 precent is the correct chance with coteaz and rerolling warlord trait looking for strategic genius.
Orock wrote:but its not 1/6th is it? the formation allows a reroll to get that 6
... since when? Far as I know there's no way to get rerolls on Cult Ambush dice. I wish there was, that would be awesome. Also, very broken.
AND 2 dice to pick from
The Subterranean Uprising (SubUp) Formation allows for that. It has a 7-unit maximum and the units can only be deployed by Cult Ambush (i.e. can't be placed in Reserve, i.e. can be shot at immediately).
AND you can have a magus for 3 dice instead.
That's a Primus. Attaching a Primus to a SubUp allows the unit he's attached to to roll 3d6 for their Cult Ambush. That's one unit that gets 3d6, and again, there's no way I know of to get Cult Ambush rerolls.
And as for first turn, you can take coteaz to give you a reroll, and try for warlord traits to add one to that. if you get that warlord trait, its a rerollable 5 to steal, so that is more like 2/3 chance to steal. Lets not forget you could just straight up win the chance to go first. and coteaz makes your opponent reroll the chance to steal, so 1/6 goes to 1/36. that does not sound like 1/6 of a chance to work your plan to me.
And on top of all that, it's perfectly possible to build and play GSC without bothering to alpha strike, and against a lot of opponents alpha strike isn't necessarily a good idea. It's an option, but it doesn't work against everyone in every game.
AnomanderRake wrote:It's a problem because shooty skew armies that can't do anything about it exist
Which is to say it's not a problem at all. Match-ups matter if and only if you're running an unbalanced, "soft" army. A problem is a problem if it can't be accounted for by building a balanced army and learning to play it effectively. I can't speak to KDK or World Eaters or whatever, but from a GSC perspective this isn't a problem at all.
If the Tau were less one-dimensional it'd be less of a problem, for instance.
Funny you should mention Tau, since the GSC tactica thread has come to the conclusion that they're one of the tougher opponents for GSC to face. That bears out, in my experience - they're not a hard counter, but they get a lot of free shooting at your dudes and can kill so many of them every turn that you can't depend on resilience in numbers the way you would against other opponents. Light mech shooty armies, like Sisters and Gladius, are a handful too, because I have no way to dismount opponents outside of assault, which leaves my dudes out in the open for an extra turn, and nothing kills GSC units like being stuck on the table.
Of course, this is all relevant if and only if you manage to avoid the alpha strike, which is much easier to do against an assault army than it would be against a shooting army.
It's not a problem for anyone. I used to win most of my games back in November - now that my opponents have sussed out my army I'm down to maybe 50-50. The fact you can't cope with it says nothing about the health of the game.
Any posability of fun balanced take all comers lists dies even harder to the point everyone has to run a one sided gimmick list. It takes with it balanced armies that have variety, and throws them out the window in favor of every list having to be min max spam lists now. Take the cult example. What if my friend puts this army together and craps on everyone. Now people come with things like all ork walker lists, and suddenly he is tabled after killing a single kan. How is that fun? Where is the fun in setting up a board for 30 minutes, to have the game over in 25 from a turn one domination. And how do justify the death of any kind of actual game? Do you have to win so much with your turn one alpha strike any conversation to the effect of "this is bad for the game" is replyed with, to paraphrase you "nuh uh".
Orock wrote: actually i put it at 66 precent, so higher than what I thought if 76 precent is the correct chance with coteaz and rerolling warlord trait looking for strategic genius.
I mean, given that you've only got a 30% chance of getting that Warlord Trait with a reroll you could write the actual chance of getting turn one as 25/36 * (1/2 * 11/36 + 1/2 * 35/36) + 11/36 * (1/2 * 5/9 + 1/2 * 35/36) for a combined chance of about 67.7%, so your initial 66% is pretty close to spot on.
The bit you were overestimating is the chance of a given unit getting a '6' on the Cult Ambush table; you can't actually get that higher than 42% and it's going to be 30% for almost everything if you're trying to saturate targets to get more rolls rather than dumping resources into 75pt ICs instead of more units.
I do find it funny that people are upset with the shooty nature of this game. I mean, when we decided to start playing, it was under the expectation that a game set 40,000 years in the future would be focused very heavily on shooting, not punching.
This would be a reasonable assumption, except that so many armies in the game are completely dependent on punching, with little in the way of decent shooting.
Are those armies supposed to just be the joke options, only there to be targets in the shooting gallery for the sensible armies with their guns?
Trap choices, to trip up new players?
The game does indeed heavily favour shooting over assault right now. 'Realistic' as that may be, I'm happy to see the first hints that game balance might finally be swinging back in the other direction.
Orock wrote:but its not 1/6th is it? the formation allows a reroll to get that 6
... since when? Far as I know there's no way to get rerolls on Cult Ambush dice. I wish there was, that would be awesome. Also, very broken.
AND 2 dice to pick from
The Subterranean Uprising (SubUp) Formation allows for that. It has a 7-unit maximum and the units can only be deployed by Cult Ambush (i.e. can't be placed in Reserve, i.e. can be shot at immediately).
AND you can have a magus for 3 dice instead.
That's a Primus. Attaching a Primus to a SubUp allows the unit he's attached to to roll 3d6 for their Cult Ambush. That's one unit that gets 3d6, and again, there's no way I know of to get Cult Ambush rerolls.
And as for first turn, you can take coteaz to give you a reroll, and try for warlord traits to add one to that. if you get that warlord trait, its a rerollable 5 to steal, so that is more like 2/3 chance to steal. Lets not forget you could just straight up win the chance to go first. and coteaz makes your opponent reroll the chance to steal, so 1/6 goes to 1/36. that does not sound like 1/6 of a chance to work your plan to me.
And on top of all that, it's perfectly possible to build and play GSC without bothering to alpha strike, and against a lot of opponents alpha strike isn't necessarily a good idea. It's an option, but it doesn't work against everyone in every game.
AnomanderRake wrote:It's a problem because shooty skew armies that can't do anything about it exist
Which is to say it's not a problem at all. Match-ups matter if and only if you're running an unbalanced, "soft" army. A problem is a problem if it can't be accounted for by building a balanced army and learning to play it effectively. I can't speak to KDK or World Eaters or whatever, but from a GSC perspective this isn't a problem at all.
If the Tau were less one-dimensional it'd be less of a problem, for instance.
Funny you should mention Tau, since the GSC tactica thread has come to the conclusion that they're one of the tougher opponents for GSC to face. That bears out, in my experience - they're not a hard counter, but they get a lot of free shooting at your dudes and can kill so many of them every turn that you can't depend on resilience in numbers the way you would against other opponents. Light mech shooty armies, like Sisters and Gladius, are a handful too, because I have no way to dismount opponents outside of assault, which leaves my dudes out in the open for an extra turn, and nothing kills GSC units like being stuck on the table.
Of course, this is all relevant if and only if you manage to avoid the alpha strike, which is much easier to do against an assault army than it would be against a shooting army.
It's not a problem for anyone. I used to win most of my games back in November - now that my opponents have sussed out my army I'm down to maybe 50-50. The fact you can't cope with it says nothing about the health of the game.
Any posability of fun balanced take all comers lists dies even harder to the point everyone has to run a one sided gimmick list. It takes with it balanced armies that have variety, and throws them out the window in favor of every list having to be min max spam lists now. Take the cult example. What if my friend puts this army together and craps on everyone. Now people come with things like all ork walker lists, and suddenly he is tabled after killing a single kan. How is that fun? Where is the fun in setting up a board for 30 minutes, to have the game over in 25 from a turn one domination. And how do justify the death of any kind of actual game? Do you have to win so much with your turn one alpha strike any conversation to the effect of "this is bad for the game" is replyed with, to paraphrase you "nuh uh".
What point are you trying to make here?
The point is limiting the game even farther to what is "safe" to take without being run over kills diversity, the very thing that made this game popular in the first place. Yes there were always dominant min max lists, but you have things like all vehicle, all knight, all flyer all extreme range and all immediate assault in the game, it becomes less of a skill game and more of rock paper scisors.
AnomanderRake wrote: The bit you were overestimating is the chance of a given unit getting a '6' on the Cult Ambush table; you can't actually get that higher than 42% and it's going to be 30% for almost everything if you're trying to saturate targets to get more rolls rather than dumping resources into 75pt ICs instead of more units.
... 75pt ICs that are one-per-Insurrection, where "Insurrection" is the Detachment you need to take if you want to be able to Ambush anything other than SubUps and Genestealers (i.e. if you want an alpha strike that is actually scary as opposed to a bunch of T3 5+ dudes and some T4 5++ dudes with Stealth).
Not to mention the army's psykers are pretty important, and if you start taking Primuses outside your Insurrection you're cutting down on the number of powers you can roll in most comp regimes. Taking Coteaz in an ITC event is impossible, but if it were, you'd be losing two Magus slots and another 10 Acolytes/ 20 Neophytes for the sake of a silly gimmick that the army doesn't even need in order to function.
Arson Fire wrote: This would be a reasonable assumption, except that so many armies in the game are completely dependent on punching, with little in the way of decent shooting.
Then fix the problem. Remove the idea of having armies with no realistic way to shoot anything.
AnomanderRake wrote:It's a problem because shooty skew armies that can't do anything about it exist
Which is to say it's not a problem at all. Match-ups matter if and only if you're running an unbalanced, "soft" army. A problem is a problem if it can't be accounted for by building a balanced army and learning to play it effectively. I can't speak to KDK or World Eaters or whatever, but from a GSC perspective this isn't a problem at all.
If the Tau were less one-dimensional it'd be less of a problem, for instance.
Funny you should mention Tau, since the GSC tactica thread has come to the conclusion that they're one of the tougher opponents for GSC to face. That bears out, in my experience - they're not a hard counter, but they get a lot of free shooting at your dudes and can kill so many of them every turn that you can't depend on resilience in numbers the way you would against other opponents. Light mech shooty armies, like Sisters and Gladius, are a handful too, because I have no way to dismount opponents outside of assault, which leaves my dudes out in the open for an extra turn, and nothing kills GSC units like being stuck on the table.
Of course, this is all relevant if and only if you manage to avoid the alpha strike, which is much easier to do against an assault army than it would be against a shooting army.
Yes and no. Matchup-dependency isn't the product of 'soft' lists so much as it is the problem of unbalanced army books in which the tools to counter all opponents don't actually exist, and army books that encourage skew (brief detour: 'skew' is the concept of taking a single unit, strategy, weapon, or other element that is good enough to deal with almost everything you're going to see, and building narrowly-focused lists around it. Scatterbike/Wraithknight spam, the IK Codex, and the Gladius are all skew lists.). Cult Ambush and the GSC book in general are the product of a design team that's (intentionally or not) pushing skew lists over generalist lists this edition (with formations/meta-detachments, miniature Codexes with built-in blindspots, and other synergistic benefits for taking lots of duplicates of the same thing).
Skew lists can still do fine when plonked down against each other when neither one is hitting the other's blind spot, but when a list that you can't efficiently counter or just don't have the tools to counter shows up on the other side of the table you're going to get casually mangled and there's very little you can do about it. Scatterbikes/Wraithknights are very strong, but plonk a Chaos flying circus down opposite them and they'll get ground away by an army they're fundamentally not equipped to do anything to, no matter how hard they'll crush most opposing lists.
Orock wrote: The point is limiting the game even farther to what is "safe" to take without being run over kills diversity
Forcing you to think about what you put in your army list is not a deficiency in the game system, as far as I'm concerned. The fact there are so many worthless unit options is a deficiency in the design room, not the game system.
diversity, the very thing that made this game popular in the first place.
Citation needed. I play for the beer, pretzels, competition, models and fluff. I don't care that I can't run Aberrants or Penitent Engines or 5-model Fenrisian Wolf units or Daemonhosts. Diversity is less interesting to me than meaningful competition.
Yes there were always dominant min max lists, but you have things like all vehicle, all knight, all flyer all extreme range and all immediate assault in the game, it becomes less of a skill game and more of rock paper scisors.
It's only RPS until you actually learn what these lists are capable of and how to shut them out. Doing this is more difficult if you want to bring an army full of stuff you think is cool rather than stuff that will be effective. Don't do that. Instead, build a balanced army with distributed damage and the ability to handle anything your opponent deploys. If you don't want to do that, that's fine - it's your dollar - but you don't get to complain about zomgop rules or whatever.
Arson Fire wrote: This would be a reasonable assumption, except that so many armies in the game are completely dependent on punching, with little in the way of decent shooting.
Then fix the problem. Remove the idea of having armies with no realistic way to shoot anything.
Squat half the armies in the game? Yep. Sounds like a great plan.
Yes there were always dominant min max lists, but you have things like all vehicle, all knight, all flyer all extreme range and all immediate assault in the game, it becomes less of a skill game and more of rock paper scisors.
It's only RPS until you actually learn what these lists are capable of and how to shut them out. Doing this is more difficult if you want to bring an army full of stuff you think is cool rather than stuff that will be effective. Don't do that. Instead, build a balanced army with distributed damage and the ability to handle anything your opponent deploys. If you don't want to do that, that's fine - it's your dollar - but you don't get to complain about zomgop rules or whatever.
Part of the problem with this discussion is that the skew list/RPS game exists at a level somewhere between hard RPS where you don't actually need to bother deploying because I've got the hard-counters to your stuff and a balanced game where my performance doesn't vary much based on which list archetype I've run into; skew is a problem, but it's not a big enough problem to reduce the entire game to list-building RPS. The things that cause more serious problems and get people complaining about 'zomgop rules' are outliers, either in being skew lists that are too good against too many things (e.g. Wraithknight/Scatterbikes) or in being skew elements that are needlessly punishing to plan to counter (e.g. massed Flyers, because ground-based AA is so incredibly useless if you're not fighting massed Flyers and ground-based weapons almost always kill ground-based targets more cheaply/effectively than Flyers do).
Arson Fire wrote: This would be a reasonable assumption, except that so many armies in the game are completely dependent on punching, with little in the way of decent shooting.
Then fix the problem. Remove the idea of having armies with no realistic way to shoot anything.
Squat half the armies in the game? Yep. Sounds like a great plan.
A better plan (and/or a better creative interpretation of that sentence) might be to take them off the list of armies with no realistic way to shoot anything and put them on the list of armies with a realistic way to shoot anything. Standardize kit across Marine books a bit more, bring back Daemon shooting weapons instead of making all the guns psychic powers, that sort of thing.
AnomanderRake wrote: A better plan (and/or a better creative interpretation of that sentence) might be to take them off the list of armies with no realistic way to shoot anything and put them on the list of armies with a realistic way to shoot anything. Standardize kit across Marine books a bit more, bring back Daemon shooting weapons instead of making all the guns psychic powers, that sort of thing.
Exactly. The problem is not that shooting is more powerful than throwing a bunch of screaming idiots with chainsaws at the problem, it's that GW has created one-dimensional armies and reduced the depth of their concept to "WAAAAAAAAGH". CSM are supposed to be traitor marines, not orks in power armor. They might invest more in melee combat than a loyalist army, but they're still going to have most of the same shooting units as C:SM available. And if a player ignores the tools they have in favor of WAAAAAAAAGH-marines it's entirely ok for them to lose the game as a result.
The only codices that would need to see major changes/squatting are demons and tyranids. Tyranids are a terrible idea that should be squatted for many other reasons, and demons never should have been an independent army in the first place. Put them back to being support units for a C:SM army and get rid of the idiotic "LOL GUYS YOU CAN PLAY YOUR WHFB ARMY IN 40K" concept of demons as a separate army and their melee-only restrictions are no longer a problem. Orks would probably need some significant rule updates because the codex is so obsolete at this point, but their fluff concept already includes plenty of shooting so it's more of a power level update than a meaningful change of identity.
AnomanderRake wrote: (brief detour: 'skew' is the concept of taking a single unit, strategy, weapon, or other element that is good enough to deal with almost everything you're going to see, and building narrowly-focused lists around it. Scatterbike/Wraithknight spam, the IK Codex, and the Gladius are all skew lists.).
I don't see a problem with this. Sure, spam for spam's sake is one of the best ways to ensure your army sucks, but what you're describing isn't that. Nothing wrong with building an army around a competent core, is there?
Cult Ambush and the GSC book in general are the product of a design team that's (intentionally or not) pushing skew lists over generalist lists this edition (with formations/meta-detachments, miniature Codexes with built-in blindspots, and other synergistic benefits for taking lots of duplicates of the same thing).
Define "generalist". The only thing my GSC can't run down are Zooming/ Swooping Flyers, and even against those I have options - none of which include bringing crumby Allies that mess up my RttS cycle and potentially my psychic phase. The army has a very acute focus - close combat - but they're equipped to
Skew lists can still do fine when plonked down against each other when neither one is hitting the other's blind spot, but when a list that you can't efficiently counter or just don't have the tools to counter shows up on the other side of the table you're going to get casually mangled and there's very little you can do about it. Scatterbikes/Wraithknights are very strong, but plonk a Chaos flying circus down opposite them and they'll get ground away by an army they're fundamentally not equipped to do anything to, no matter how hard they'll crush most opposing lists.
In what way do Scatbike Eldar not have the tools to deal with a Flying Circus? I know there's a more general principle here, but this specific example is a good illustration of what I don't understand about the stuff you're saying. Flying Circus armies have, like, 30 models in them, with perhaps 50-odd wounds. Scatbiker Eldar are pumping out 120+ shots a turn, and they have D weapons. I'm not seeing the "skew" here.
Orock wrote: The point is limiting the game even farther to what is "safe" to take without being run over kills diversity
Forcing you to think about what you put in your army list is not a deficiency in the game system, as far as I'm concerned. The fact there are so many worthless unit options is a deficiency in the design room, not the game system.
diversity, the very thing that made this game popular in the first place.
Citation needed. I play for the beer, pretzels, competition, models and fluff. I don't care that I can't run Aberrants or Penitent Engines or 5-model Fenrisian Wolf units or Daemonhosts. Diversity is less interesting to me than meaningful competition.
Yes there were always dominant min max lists, but you have things like all vehicle, all knight, all flyer all extreme range and all immediate assault in the game, it becomes less of a skill game and more of rock paper scisors.
It's only RPS until you actually learn what these lists are capable of and how to shut them out. Doing this is more difficult if you want to bring an army full of stuff you think is cool rather than stuff that will be effective. Don't do that. Instead, build a balanced army with distributed damage and the ability to handle anything your opponent deploys. If you don't want to do that, that's fine - it's your dollar - but you don't get to complain about zomgop rules or whatever.
Army lists USED to make you think about what to put into them. Your version is built for you, with hard counters that make it a non game. As a typical alpha strike GSC list, what do you do when you plop down for your "competative" game and the other guy brings 5 knights. You go on to say you play for beer and pretzels, and competition. Those are two completely different play styles. You say you play for the models, but if all thats left effective is flyrant spam, knight spam, fotm spam, where is your model enjoyment then. You cant tell me you dont enjoy seeing a diverse ork list across the board for example, with fun conversions all around. In the game you profess to prefer, these dont exist, as they are non competative. I guess you can enjoy painting 30 genestealers and 30 hybrids, with bare minimume cultists.
Your idea of balanced army building is funny, because you say adjust to the tactics. Tell me, how do you build a balanced army for a tournament where your opponents are as follows: all knights, followed by demon flying circus, followed by heavy ranged tau, then heavy turn one assault oriented GSC, then mabye space marine gladius for fun. All skew lists, you build to stop one or two, the other 3 eat you alive.
And dont use citation needed. That is the fallback I cant think of any good retort, so I will goalpost and ask something impossible to prove, even though my counter arguement is equally impossible to prove. You also need to prove that the game is more popular due to the beer and pretzels aspect as opposed to the model diversity, which if you see most anticdotal replies when asking what got you into the game in the first place is the reason. There are already hundreds of beer and pretzel free time hobbies. That is not the reason you got into this one.
BBAP wrote: I don't see a problem with this. Sure, spam for spam's sake is one of the best ways to ensure your army sucks, but what you're describing isn't that. Nothing wrong with building an army around a competent core, is there?
The problem is that when it's a common thing it drives the game overwhelmingly into a rock/paper/scissors meta where 90% of the game is determined by "did my opponent bring the counter for my list". If they did, you lose. If they didn't you win. You very rarely get games with meaningful interaction beyond playing out the expected outcome of the matchup and desperately hoping for the dice to give you an opportunity.
Problem is that even if you do give those armies more shooting options is that those armies are still losing the numbers game. There's no drawback to being bad at assault, and because you're not paying for those assault stats they're cheaper too. Armies that pay anything into assault basically lose to cost effectiveness. It becomes a game of the minmaxers vs everyone else trying to play catch up.
You need to give SOME kind of concession and purpose to assault in a game that has the rules for it. Yes, it's not "realistic", but realism has never had correlation with a good game.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Problem is that even if you do give those armies more shooting options is that those armies are still losing the numbers game. There's no drawback to being bad at assault, and because you're not paying for those assault stats they're cheaper too. Armies that pay anything into assault basically lose to cost effectiveness. It becomes a game of the minmaxers vs everyone else trying to play catch up.
You need to give SOME kind of concession and purpose to assault in a game that has the rules for it. Yes, it's not "realistic", but realism has never had correlation with a good game.
Deciding the game top of turn one is not a concession. Proper terrain can compensate for armies that accomplish this thru shooting. Nothing can compensate for turn one assault armies that does not directly force you to build a certain way.
Skew lists can still do fine when plonked down against each other when neither one is hitting the other's blind spot, but when a list that you can't efficiently counter or just don't have the tools to counter shows up on the other side of the table you're going to get casually mangled and there's very little you can do about it. Scatterbikes/Wraithknights are very strong, but plonk a Chaos flying circus down opposite them and they'll get ground away by an army they're fundamentally not equipped to do anything to, no matter how hard they'll crush most opposing lists.
In what way do Scatbike Eldar not have the tools to deal with a Flying Circus? I know there's a more general principle here, but this specific example is a good illustration of what I don't understand about the stuff you're saying. Flying Circus armies have, like, 30 models in them, with perhaps 50-odd wounds. Scatbiker Eldar are pumping out 120+ shots a turn, and they have D weapons. I'm not seeing the "skew" here.
Just wanted to explain this example. Take 120 and divide it by 6, since the non-flier warp batteries are probably going to hide outside line of sight. That's only 20 hits a turn. Most of the time, those Scatterlasers are only going to wound the flying daemons on a 4+ or 5+. So cut it in half and you get 10. The Daemons pretty easily run 2+ invulnerable or 2+ jink saves. So divide it by 6 again. That's 3.3 wounds inflicted by the bikes per turn.
Now just imagine the psychic explosion of damage that gets inflicted back on the bikes. It's almost certainly going to be higher than 3.3.
Yeah the Eldar have D, but not with Skyfire and not in sufficient quantity to get much in past that first 6 division over the course of a whole game.
So it's a good example for his point.
On the main topic, assault definitely needed a buff and with Overwatch being what it is, especially an army like Tau, I don't think it's out of hand. The Grey Knight player in the OP followed the wrong strategy. Against an army like GSC, he should be relying much more heavily on 1st turn Deep Strike with the Incinerators and free Run that GK's have with it.
AnomanderRake wrote: (brief detour: 'skew' is the concept of taking a single unit, strategy, weapon, or other element that is good enough to deal with almost everything you're going to see, and building narrowly-focused lists around it. Scatterbike/Wraithknight spam, the IK Codex, and the Gladius are all skew lists.).
I don't see a problem with this. Sure, spam for spam's sake is one of the best ways to ensure your army sucks, but what you're describing isn't that. Nothing wrong with building an army around a competent core, is there?
The problem is that the way formations, detachments, and army books are set up even a competent all-comers army is going to be fine against 70-80% of lists, utterly demolish 10-15% of lists because you're approaching squarely out of their blind spot, and get steamrolled without effort by the remaining 10-15% of lists because they happen to have your hard counter in reliable quantity. List-building should be important, but it shouldn't overwrite the rest of the game, and the fact that it can even in a few matchups is a problem.
Cult Ambush and the GSC book in general are the product of a design team that's (intentionally or not) pushing skew lists over generalist lists this edition (with formations/meta-detachments, miniature Codexes with built-in blindspots, and other synergistic benefits for taking lots of duplicates of the same thing).
Define "generalist". The only thing my GSC can't run down are Zooming/ Swooping Flyers, and even against those I have options - none of which include bringing crumby Allies that mess up my RttS cycle and potentially my psychic phase. The army has a very acute focus - close combat - but they're equipped to
I don't have the information to discuss the GSC in great depth since I haven't seen them on the table and I don't know their book all that well. From what I have read I'd expect summon-happy Daemons, armies with access to cheap/widespread template weapons, armies with lots of flying targets, Drop Pods, Superheavies, and people who are fast enough to evade melee to present difficulty, but without seeing more games that's a list of where I'd look to find the GSC's counters, not a list of what they are.
Skew lists can still do fine when plonked down against each other when neither one is hitting the other's blind spot, but when a list that you can't efficiently counter or just don't have the tools to counter shows up on the other side of the table you're going to get casually mangled and there's very little you can do about it. Scatterbikes/Wraithknights are very strong, but plonk a Chaos flying circus down opposite them and they'll get ground away by an army they're fundamentally not equipped to do anything to, no matter how hard they'll crush most opposing lists.
In what way do Scatbike Eldar not have the tools to deal with a Flying Circus? I know there's a more general principle here, but this specific example is a good illustration of what I don't understand about the stuff you're saying. Flying Circus armies have, like, 30 models in them, with perhaps 50-odd wounds. Scatbiker Eldar are pumping out 120+ shots a turn, and they have D weapons. I'm not seeing the "skew" here.
When 120+ shots a turn are hitting on 6s, wounding on 4s-6s (depending on whether you're shooting an FMC or a vehicle, and on what buffs are in place), and have to batter past Jink saves or Daemon Invul shenanigans to do anything they're worth less than you think. As for D-weapons Wraithknights may be good but 295pts for one hit every three turns that has to roll another '6' or risk getting shut down again by save shenanigans is far from an efficient use of them, Wraithguard have to catch said Flyer with their 6" movement and 12" range guns to do anything, and the rest are blast/templates and can't hit flyers.
As for the attacks coming the other way hellchickens get to RFP scatterbikes with almost no chance of failure, and there are plenty of psychic powers capable of slowly grinding down a Wraithknight over six turns of flying around in lazy circles watching it not do anything to you.
I think 40k could learn something from games where you cannot (or very rarely) interact meaningfully with your opponent first turn. For all it's flaws, the fact you can't decimate an opposing army first turn in Warmachine is a good thing. Even Epic used to have it, with tons of stuff being out of range first turn, save perhaps for artillery or titan weapons. Early 40k has so few weapons (on the table) that even if you could fire off a shot or two.. well it was a shot or two.
Fixing that though would require a ground up rebuild of the game though.
Orock wrote: Deciding the game top of turn one is not a concession. Proper terrain can compensate for armies that accomplish this thru shooting. Nothing can compensate for turn one assault armies that does not directly force you to build a certain way.
A) Oh, I agree that games decided at turn one is bad, but I'm annoyed that some people's solution to that is "lets make the game even more of a boring one sided shoot fest".
B) Back in the day when you could assault out of outflank, Boss Snikrot was quite the terror. He made many a gunline quake in their booties, with ork players remarking "Fear the sides!"
Except all you had to do was move your units 12" away from the board edge and he was basicly useless. Now he IS useless
...How about getting mangled when someone who is good at assault catches you?
m
To paraphrase the old joke "But good luck getting there". 60% of the time assault is decided by who gets the charge off, even tau hit marines on a 4+. So Being good at assault has some terrible deminishing gains problems and those units that are genuinely good at assault you have to pay out the nose to get and that's not including the power weapon you have to shell out for. So your 300pt amazing elites killed a 100pt meltavet squad, big whoop, and you will probably lose a guy from overwatch on top of it.
Kojiro wrote: I think 40k could learn something from games where you cannot (or very rarely) interact meaningfully with your opponent first turn. For all it's flaws, the fact you can't decimate an opposing army first turn in Warmachine is a good thing. Even Epic used to have it, with tons of stuff being out of range first turn, save perhaps for artillery or titan weapons. Early 40k has so few weapons (on the table) that even if you could fire off a shot or two.. well it was a shot or two.
Fixing that though would require a ground up rebuild of the game though.
Not really. Remove spammable big guns (multiple-big-thing formations, heavy tank squadrons, etc), shrink deployment zones, take away turn one Reserves, and make the really big guns run on the Bolt Action indirect-fire scheme and you'd get much closer.
Not saying a ground-up overhaul wouldn't be a good idea, or that it wouldn't be a better/cleaner way to make said changes, but it's far from intrinsic to the fix.
Which is only a very small part of it. They hit on a 4+, but they only wound on a 5+ and have nothing to ignore the 5+ armor saves. The marines hit on a 3+, wound on a 3+, only face a 4+ save, and can take power weapons that ignore saves entirely. Then, once the marines win the combat, they're likely to make the Tau fall back and likely to turn that attempt at running into a sweeping advance that wipes out the entire unit. The Tau, should they by some miracle win, have a much smaller chance of forcing the marines to run and can not kill the unit with a sweeping advance. And that's just tactical marines, a shooting unit that is vaguely capable of melee combat. If you're talking about actual assault units the Tau get wiped off the table effortlessly. In fact, the biggest challenge is making sure you don't kill the Tau too quickly since being locked in combat during their shooting phase is the safest place to be.
This of course is the problem with turn 1 charges: on turn 1 a lot of your army simply disappears, most of the assault units are locked in combat during your turn so you can't do anything about them, then on the following turn they charge the rest of your army and repeat the process. The game is effectively over before you get a turn if you don't win the roll to go first and then roll well with your own attacks. Shooting armies (with the exception of a handful of overpowered units) can't do this on a table with a proper amount of terrain.
So your 300pt amazing elites killed a 100pt meltavet squad, big whoop, and you will probably lose a guy from overwatch on top of it.
And then it killed another 100 point unit in exchange for one overwatch loss, then another 100 point unit, and so on. Or maybe this isn't a world in which 100 point melta vet squads are the only unit on the table, and the 300-point assault unit eats a 500 point LRBT squadron. Or maybe this is a world in which scoring objectives matters, and the 300 point unit wipes out the melta vet squad then locks down the nearby objective with a "come within range to score and you die" bubble (using LOS-blocking terrain to avoid being sniped from a distance).
Then of course there's the question of how things work in return. If you want to kill a 100 point assault unit in one turn you're probably going to have to spend something like 300 points to do it. The issue is not melee vs. shooting, it's that killing a unit in a single turn usually requires spending more than that unit's point cost to do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kojiro wrote: I think 40k could learn something from games where you cannot (or very rarely) interact meaningfully with your opponent first turn.
IMO this doesn't really help much, since it makes the first turn a wasted turn that isn't very interesting. The way to fix the alpha strike problem is to remove the combos that allow turn 1 charges and play with sufficient terrain to prevent shooting alpha strikes from dominating. If there's a proper amount of terrain on the table even shooting-heavy armies aren't going to do all that much damage unless you make stupid deployment choices. Spots with no LOS are available, and most of the units that are exposed to LOS should be able to get cover saves. The shooting army will have to move up to get clear shots around the terrain if they want to counter your defensive positions, which won't happen until later in the game. But there's still interaction on turn 1 and pressure to care about denying shots instead of being able to sit out in the open without fearing your opponent's 12" threat range.
Which is only a very small part of it. They hit on a 4+, but they only wound on a 5+ and have nothing to ignore the 5+ armor saves. The marines hit on a 3+, wound on a 3+, only face a 4+ save, and can take power weapons that ignore saves entirely. Then, once the marines win the combat, they're likely to make the Tau fall back and likely to turn that attempt at running into a sweeping advance that wipes out the entire unit. The Tau, should they by some miracle win, have a much smaller chance of forcing the marines to run and can not kill the unit with a sweeping advance. And that's just tactical marines, a shooting unit that is vaguely capable of melee combat. If you're talking about actual assault units the Tau get wiped off the table effortlessly. In fact, the biggest challenge is making sure you don't kill the Tau too quickly since being locked in combat during their shooting phase is the safest place to be.
This of course is the problem with turn 1 charges: on turn 1 a lot of your army simply disappears, most of the assault units are locked in combat during your turn so you can't do anything about them, then on the following turn they charge the rest of your army and repeat the process. The game is effectively over before you get a turn if you don't win the roll to go first and then roll well with your own attacks. Shooting armies (with the exception of a handful of overpowered units) can't do this on a table with a proper amount of terrain.
So your 300pt amazing elites killed a 100pt meltavet squad, big whoop, and you will probably lose a guy from overwatch on top of it.
And then it killed another 100 point unit in exchange for one overwatch loss, then another 100 point unit, and so on. Or maybe this isn't a world in which 100 point melta vet squads are the only unit on the table, and the 300-point assault unit eats a 500 point LRBT squadron. Or maybe this is a world in which scoring objectives matters, and the 300 point unit wipes out the melta vet squad then locks down the nearby objective with a "come within range to score and you die" bubble (using LOS-blocking terrain to avoid being sniped from a distance).
Then of course there's the question of how things work in return. If you want to kill a 100 point assault unit in one turn you're probably going to have to spend something like 300 points to do it. The issue is not melee vs. shooting, it's that killing a unit in a single turn usually requires spending more than that unit's point cost to do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kojiro wrote: I think 40k could learn something from games where you cannot (or very rarely) interact meaningfully with your opponent first turn.
IMO this doesn't really help much, since it makes the first turn a wasted turn that isn't very interesting. The way to fix the alpha strike problem is to remove the combos that allow turn 1 charges and play with sufficient terrain to prevent shooting alpha strikes from dominating. If there's a proper amount of terrain on the table even shooting-heavy armies aren't going to do all that much damage unless you make stupid deployment choices. Spots with no LOS are available, and most of the units that are exposed to LOS should be able to get cover saves. The shooting army will have to move up to get clear shots around the terrain if they want to counter your defensive positions, which won't happen until later in the game. But there's still interaction on turn 1 and pressure to care about denying shots instead of being able to sit out in the open without fearing your opponent's 12" threat range.
Your problem is that you're still playing a game where having more of the biggest guns wins the day.
You just stated for yourself the biggest weaknesses of melee units - the safest place for them to be is locked in combat, their biggest danger is ending that combat on their owner's turn.
Use the terrain to your advantage and screen your big guns with cheap units.
Fitting as many big guns in your list as possible is now creating a TWC chew toy list, now you have to balance big guns against tactical blocking.
Any army relying on getting a 1/6 result consistently for its strategy to work will lose 5/6 of the time. Simple math.
As a Cult player, there is a lot you can do too make the it more likely. You get 2 rolls on the warlord table looking to get that 6, the Subterranean assault units (powerful melee units all) get 2 dice each, any unit with a Primus (any primus, I take one in formation and one out of formation to give me two units with this bonus) gets to roll 3. First turn assaults isn't a possibility, it's a fact against GSC, it's only a question of do I get first turn to charge without counter play and what exact units get to charge.
And I've been put off Cult a little bit now, because 80% of my games are decided turn 1. Either they can handle my assault and I actually get a game, or they can't and they loose and they get upset and don't want to play anymore. Game design wise, I prefer my Run and Charge Harlequins. It feels like more of a game, where positioning and a good psychic phase gives my opponent more counter play. Winning turn 1 isn't fun, for the winner or the loser, at least in my opinion.
This sounds like my experience playing vs cult. 2 games played, techinically only 0-1 because we didnt finish the second game in which i was dominating by model count anyway but the store closed. He crushed me when going first, when i did, another story. Great opponent and great guy, but i kinda of loathe the idea of playing them again, atleast anytime soon. There are many problems with the game from a shooting standpoint, but i flat out hate game design that lets any kind of turn 1 charge.
Orock wrote: Army lists USED to make you think about what to put into them.
I missed 6th, but 5th wasn't significantly different from 7th in terms of list building complexity or variety of units used. My mech Wolves and DEldar weren't significantly more difficult to build than my Genestealer Cults - but they were both a lot easier to play.
As a typical alpha strike GSC list, what do you do when you plop down for your "competative" game and the other guy brings 5 knights.
Play the way I normally do against shooty low-model-count armies - grind him down in close combat and run circles around him everywhere else. Maybe I alpha strike, if there's a Knight hanging out somewhere and I can take it out quickly, maybe I don't. Either way 5 Knights aren't a hard counter to 140+ Genestealer Cultists. The fact you think they are tells me something about your knowledge of this army and further makes me suspect you've never played with or against it.
You still haven't explained where I get rerolls on my Cult Ambush from either.
Spoiler alert: Spoilering the rest of this reply because it's a long one and nobody wants to read that gak.
Spoiler:
You go on to say you play for beer and pretzels, and competition. Those are two completely different play styles.
I meant literal beer and pretzels during meaningful competition, but you raise a point here. If you want casual, play casual. If you want competitive, accept that will ask certain things of you over and above just turning up on game night. Nothing wrong with either. Plenty wrong with whining.
You say you play for the models, but if all thats left effective is flyrant spam, knight spam, fotm spam, where is your model enjoyment then.
Same place it was when I bought my Wolves in 5th Edition; building, buying, painting and fielding a decent army, then using it to whup people - or getting whupped, figuring out why, and coming back for another shot next week.
You cant tell me you dont enjoy seeing a diverse ork list across the board for example, with fun conversions all around. In the game you profess to prefer, these dont exist, as they are non competative.
If the Ork army looks like gak and is filled with half-assed "conversions" then I'd much rather play a beautifully-painted Riptide Wing spam Tau army every day forever.
Your idea of balanced army building is funny, because you say adjust to the tactics. Tell me, how do you build a balanced army for a tournament where your opponents are as follows: all knights, followed by demon flying circus, followed by heavy ranged tau, then heavy turn one assault oriented GSC, then mabye space marine gladius for fun. All skew lists, you build to stop one or two, the other 3 eat you alive.
Don't build a "skew" list then, whatever the hell that means. Don't spam one unit unless that unit is somehow effective against everything.
And dont use citation needed. That is the fallback I cant think of any good retort
You want me to elaborate? Okay:
Your claim was that diversity is the reason 40k became popular. You failed to specify what "diversity" meant, so I have to assume it was some nebulous assertion about unit and model types. Leaving aside that ambiguity, you made a truth claim that is not supported by any evidence that I can see, and is contravened by the fact people can run events catering to the competitive player and make money doing so. I'd like you to substantiate your claim in light of this.
tl:dr - Citation needed.
My counter-claim is that there are as many reasons to play 40k as there are people who play 40k, and trying to single out any one as The One True Reason is fatuous, especially so if you have no data to substantiate such a claim.
AnomanderRake wrote: The problem is that the way formations, detachments, and army books are set up even a competent all-comers army is going to be fine against 70-80% of lists, utterly demolish 10-15% of lists because you're approaching squarely out of their blind spot, and get steamrolled without effort by the remaining 10-15% of lists [snip]
I want to see the hard counter for Riptide Wing armies, Gladius freebies and Scatbike Eldar. I honestly don't think there's a hard counter for MSU Morph Genestealer Cults armies either. EWO Tau come quite close, but even they're beatable. It's a tought-ass game - but it's supposed to be a tough-ass game. It's not supposed to be easy.
I don't have the information to discuss the GSC in great depth since I haven't seen them on the table and I don't know their book all that well. From what I have read I'd expect summon-happy Daemons, armies with access to cheap/widespread template weapons, armies with lots of flying targets, Drop Pods, Superheavies, and people who are fast enough to evade melee to present difficulty, but without seeing more games that's a list of where I'd look to find the GSC's counters, not a list of what they are.
"To present difficulty" is not the same as "hard counter", is it? There are plenty of things that cause problems for my GSC, but there's very little that shuts down my army to the extent that I might as well not bother deploying.
Things that make winning difficult are not "hard counters". Winning isn't supposed to be easy.
When 120+ shots a turn are hitting on 6s, wounding on 4s-6s [etc etc]
It's the math-hammer again.
Here's the thing about numerical analysis models; they have to take everything into account to be worth anything. A (trivial) numerical analysis of wounds caused and taken doesn't do that. It ignores so much of the rest of the game that I find it difficult to take it seriously as a tool for army analysis. It's useful for unit selection, sure, but beyond that I think you're stretching it to places where its limitations make it inappropriate. You can't account for the lack of killiness inherent in an army that relies on psychic dice for both shooting and buffing - you can't land monsters unless they're Invisible, because if you do, the monster will die. How are you going to find the dice to shoot my army off the table once you start targetting Warp Spiders, and they start jumping out of range oir LoS? How do you account for stuff that whiffs? In an army with a low model count every whiff hurts - but the model doesn't take account of it. Can't take account of it. Can only give you a picture of how your army will perform on average. Sure, the Eldar will only land, what, 3.3 wounds a turn on average - but what happens if they land 5 on Kairos turn one? How much does it hurt if they only manage to land 1 or 0 wounds in any given turn?
Also can we stop referring to the army as "Scatbike Eldar"? The successful lists are all built around Warp Spiders rather than Scatbikes.
AnomanderRake wrote: Dismissive 'smallest fiddle' comments aside I'm actually with Martel on this one (for once). How are turn one assaults any different from a heavily optimized gunline wiping most of your army on turn one?
Well for one unless said gunline ignores LOS requirements it's easier to protect your army from shooting than many of the first turn charges. Unless board is something idiotic like open plain.
AnomanderRake wrote: The problem is that the way formations, detachments, and army books are set up even a competent all-comers army is going to be fine against 70-80% of lists, utterly demolish 10-15% of lists because you're approaching squarely out of their blind spot, and get steamrolled without effort by the remaining 10-15% of lists [snip]
I want to see the hard counter for Riptide Wing armies, Gladius freebies and Scatbike Eldar. I honestly don't think there's a hard counter for MSU Morph Genestealer Cults armies either. EWO Tau come quite close, but even they're beatable. It's a tought-ass game - but it's supposed to be a tough-ass game. It's not supposed to be easy.
I suspect the worst-case scenario for a tournament Eldar list is either Guard/SM (barrage weapons for the bikes/Warp Spiders, grav-weapons for the Wraithknight) or a Daemon flying-circus shenanigans list. For Gladius freebies you're either going to need to be playing enough bodies that the pods don't get you or enough S7 to point and laugh at Rhinos/Razorbacks; the quick answer is probably a Warpflame Host, with the added benefit of laughing in the face of grav-weapons with all Sv - models. As to the Riptide Wing you're looking for the traditional Loth/Draigo/Grav-Cents deathstar; it's invisible, packs as many grav-weapons as you want, teleports wherever it needs to be, and if it gets bored with shooting you Draigo's coming in with S7/AP2/ID attacks at I5. Barring that Daemon Prince Invul shenanigans to make it to melee would also do the trick.
Trying to find a hard-counter for MSUGSC I'd look in the Guard book (for cheap-as-dirt flamers, torrent flamers off the Hellhound and variants, and the ability to bubble-wrap anything important in irrelevant bodies) or the Daemons book (summoning for speedbumps, flying witchfires to do killing, and enough psychic dice to swamp the Magi). Yet again I don't have any live experience with them, so this is speculation.
I don't have the information to discuss the GSC in great depth since I haven't seen them on the table and I don't know their book all that well. From what I have read I'd expect summon-happy Daemons, armies with access to cheap/widespread template weapons, armies with lots of flying targets, Drop Pods, Superheavies, and people who are fast enough to evade melee to present difficulty, but without seeing more games that's a list of where I'd look to find the GSC's counters, not a list of what they are.
"To present difficulty" is not the same as "hard counter", is it? There are plenty of things that cause problems for my GSC, but there's very little that shuts down my army to the extent that I might as well not bother deploying.
Things that make winning difficult are not "hard counters". Winning isn't supposed to be easy.
For the third time. I don't know what the hard-counter to the Genestealer Cult book is because I haven't got the playtime with it. All I can tell you from here is where I'd start looking for one.
When 120+ shots a turn are hitting on 6s, wounding on 4s-6s [etc etc]
It's the math-hammer again.
Here's the thing about numerical analysis models; they have to take everything into account to be worth anything. A (trivial) numerical analysis of wounds caused and taken doesn't do that. It ignores so much of the rest of the game that I find it difficult to take it seriously as a tool for army analysis. It's useful for unit selection, sure, but beyond that I think you're stretching it to places where its limitations make it inappropriate. You can't account for the lack of killiness inherent in an army that relies on psychic dice for both shooting and buffing - you can't land monsters unless they're Invisible, because if you do, the monster will die. How are you going to find the dice to shoot my army off the table once you start targetting Warp Spiders, and they start jumping out of range oir LoS? How do you account for stuff that whiffs? In an army with a low model count every whiff hurts - but the model doesn't take account of it. Can't take account of it. Can only give you a picture of how your army will perform on average. Sure, the Eldar will only land, what, 3.3 wounds a turn on average - but what happens if they land 5 on Kairos turn one? How much does it hurt if they only manage to land 1 or 0 wounds in any given turn?
Also can we stop referring to the army as "Scatbike Eldar"? The successful lists are all built around Warp Spiders rather than Scatbikes.
The mathhammer is here because we can sling anecdotal evidence back and forth all night without getting anywhere.
Planning for or designing around edge-case scenarios is pretty meaningless. You can land five wounds on Kairos on turn one. It is physically possible. It is also physically possible to shoot thirty scatterbikes at Kairos for six turns without touching him. Which case do you want to use to argue for how scatterbikes should be designed? Are they broken because they can theoretically remove anything in the game (unless it has a flare shield or is under the effects of Veil of Tears) in a turn? Are they weak because they can theoretically do nothing over the course of an entire game? What did those thirty scatterbikes do to Kairos that three terrified Conscripts in rapid-fire range couldn't theoretically do?
I talk about 'scatterbike Eldar' because I have more play experience of them than of Warp Spiders, because the name is catchier, and because people whine at me more about them. If you'd rather talk about Warp Spiders we can do that too, most of this discussion doesn't change.
Just personal observations here but in theory if you are truely interested in making a take all comers generalist, its actually very difficult. To do it right you actually have to a great deal of what the meta is like and build enough approriate counters or a stragety of how to use what you have to maximize your ability to counter.
Taking a spam list and going mono strat is actually way easier as a list builder and general behind it.
Approriate bubblewrap msu is practically required in any tac list. You have to know which parts of your list is expendable and which are not. You incidentially also have to know the same of your enemy's. Usually this means the best general has to not just play his list well but ideally should know how to play their opponents list as well.
Long story short, i dont have enough experience with playing as gsc to know all their functions but this thread definately makes me want to try it (with proxy models) but very good read so far.
Playing such thing against a variety of lists will help tailor a true tac commander.
Tac doesnt mean fluff nor does it mean mastery of none. It would in fact have to reflect the opposite.
No list is uncounterable.
Peregrine wrote: IMO this doesn't really help much, since it makes the first turn a wasted turn that isn't very interesting.
I don't follow. You can still move and reposition, still do some extreme range attacks/interactions and- should the game support it- allocate resources/prepare for upcoming turns. Only in a game where movement isn't necessary and there's nothing to do but inflict casualties does such a turn lack merit. I'm speaking more generally here though, not exclusively of 40k, as alpha strikes are a plague on all games. The core element of any game is interaction with your opponent- something alpha strikes attempt to minimise as much as possible.
AnomanderRake wrote: Dismissive 'smallest fiddle' comments aside I'm actually with Martel on this one (for once). How are turn one assaults any different from a heavily optimized gunline wiping most of your army on turn one?
Well for one unless said gunline ignores LOS requirements it's easier to protect your army from shooting than many of the first turn charges. Unless board is something idiotic like open plain.
Generally if you can't see through it or over it terrain is considered "Impassable Terrain" so it has to be travelled around, slowing the charges every bit as much as blocking LOS. On top of that, if you can't draw LOS you can't charge anyway.
Orock wrote: Army lists USED to make you think about what to put into them.
I missed 6th, but 5th wasn't significantly different from 7th in terms of list building complexity or variety of units used. My mech Wolves and DEldar weren't significantly more difficult to build than my Genestealer Cults - but they were both a lot easier to play.
As a typical alpha strike GSC list, what do you do when you plop down for your "competative" game and the other guy brings 5 knights.
Play the way I normally do against shooty low-model-count armies - grind him down in close combat and run circles around him everywhere else. Maybe I alpha strike, if there's a Knight hanging out somewhere and I can take it out quickly, maybe I don't. Either way 5 Knights aren't a hard counter to 140+ Genestealer Cultists. The fact you think they are tells me something about your knowledge of this army and further makes me suspect you've never played with or against it.
You still haven't explained where I get rerolls on my Cult Ambush from either.
Spoiler alert: Spoilering the rest of this reply because it's a long one and nobody wants to read that gak.
Spoiler:
You go on to say you play for beer and pretzels, and competition. Those are two completely different play styles.
I meant literal beer and pretzels during meaningful competition, but you raise a point here. If you want casual, play casual. If you want competitive, accept that will ask certain things of you over and above just turning up on game night. Nothing wrong with either. Plenty wrong with whining.
You say you play for the models, but if all thats left effective is flyrant spam, knight spam, fotm spam, where is your model enjoyment then.
Same place it was when I bought my Wolves in 5th Edition; building, buying, painting and fielding a decent army, then using it to whup people - or getting whupped, figuring out why, and coming back for another shot next week.
You cant tell me you dont enjoy seeing a diverse ork list across the board for example, with fun conversions all around. In the game you profess to prefer, these dont exist, as they are non competative.
If the Ork army looks like gak and is filled with half-assed "conversions" then I'd much rather play a beautifully-painted Riptide Wing spam Tau army every day forever.
Your idea of balanced army building is funny, because you say adjust to the tactics. Tell me, how do you build a balanced army for a tournament where your opponents are as follows: all knights, followed by demon flying circus, followed by heavy ranged tau, then heavy turn one assault oriented GSC, then mabye space marine gladius for fun. All skew lists, you build to stop one or two, the other 3 eat you alive.
Don't build a "skew" list then, whatever the hell that means. Don't spam one unit unless that unit is somehow effective against everything.
And dont use citation needed. That is the fallback I cant think of any good retort
You want me to elaborate? Okay:
Your claim was that diversity is the reason 40k became popular. You failed to specify what "diversity" meant, so I have to assume it was some nebulous assertion about unit and model types. Leaving aside that ambiguity, you made a truth claim that is not supported by any evidence that I can see, and is contravened by the fact people can run events catering to the competitive player and make money doing so. I'd like you to substantiate your claim in light of this.
tl:dr - Citation needed.
My counter-claim is that there are as many reasons to play 40k as there are people who play 40k, and trying to single out any one as The One True Reason is fatuous, especially so if you have no data to substantiate such a claim.
AnomanderRake wrote: The problem is that the way formations, detachments, and army books are set up even a competent all-comers army is going to be fine against 70-80% of lists, utterly demolish 10-15% of lists because you're approaching squarely out of their blind spot, and get steamrolled without effort by the remaining 10-15% of lists [snip]
I want to see the hard counter for Riptide Wing armies, Gladius freebies and Scatbike Eldar. I honestly don't think there's a hard counter for MSU Morph Genestealer Cults armies either. EWO Tau come quite close, but even they're beatable. It's a tought-ass game - but it's supposed to be a tough-ass game. It's not supposed to be easy.
I don't have the information to discuss the GSC in great depth since I haven't seen them on the table and I don't know their book all that well. From what I have read I'd expect summon-happy Daemons, armies with access to cheap/widespread template weapons, armies with lots of flying targets, Drop Pods, Superheavies, and people who are fast enough to evade melee to present difficulty, but without seeing more games that's a list of where I'd look to find the GSC's counters, not a list of what they are.
"To present difficulty" is not the same as "hard counter", is it? There are plenty of things that cause problems for my GSC, but there's very little that shuts down my army to the extent that I might as well not bother deploying.
Things that make winning difficult are not "hard counters". Winning isn't supposed to be easy.
When 120+ shots a turn are hitting on 6s, wounding on 4s-6s [etc etc]
It's the math-hammer again.
Here's the thing about numerical analysis models; they have to take everything into account to be worth anything. A (trivial) numerical analysis of wounds caused and taken doesn't do that. It ignores so much of the rest of the game that I find it difficult to take it seriously as a tool for army analysis. It's useful for unit selection, sure, but beyond that I think you're stretching it to places where its limitations make it inappropriate. You can't account for the lack of killiness inherent in an army that relies on psychic dice for both shooting and buffing - you can't land monsters unless they're Invisible, because if you do, the monster will die. How are you going to find the dice to shoot my army off the table once you start targetting Warp Spiders, and they start jumping out of range oir LoS? How do you account for stuff that whiffs? In an army with a low model count every whiff hurts - but the model doesn't take account of it. Can't take account of it. Can only give you a picture of how your army will perform on average. Sure, the Eldar will only land, what, 3.3 wounds a turn on average - but what happens if they land 5 on Kairos turn one? How much does it hurt if they only manage to land 1 or 0 wounds in any given turn?
Also can we stop referring to the army as "Scatbike Eldar"? The successful lists are all built around Warp Spiders rather than Scatbikes.
140 genestealer cultists was not the original complaint, but the 20 genestealer with broodlord formation, and the other formation that gives each MSU 2 dice for their infiltrate attempt. Sorry If I confused you about the reroll, re read what I had wrote and meant to say re roll on the sieze, the infiltrating part wasent rerolled, mearly the chances for favorable outcomes increased with extra dice. And against that all eggs in one basket type of alpha strike list (the kind I am claiming further kills diversity in this game) 5 knights would punish it, as more points are tied up in expensive models than your example.
I dont believe, and this is backed up by "what drew you to start playing tabletop 40k/fantasy" surveys on this and other fan sites, that the majority of people would be happy seeing the same 4 or 5 models for each army every game. Mabye that is adequate for your tastes, but many would disagree. And if you believe there is some other draw to this game that supersedes the cool aspect of the models and concept of them being a playable game, I am all ears. If you would like, I can start another survey in a seperate thread, asking a list of things that possibly drew players to 40k. I think you will find, as cited before, the majority, being at least 51 precent of answers, would answer the cool model range, Not one specific model that made them play alone, but a range of cool combinations, ala diversity.
"If the Ork army looks like gak and is filled with half-assed "conversions" then I'd much rather play a beautifully-painted Riptide Wing spam Tau army every day forever." You dont have to address every point if you dont want. I think you know the chances of the opposite if what you wrote here are far more likely an outcome. You yourself said you collect and model and paint your mineatures as part of your passion. I dont think you would argue people are collecting orks these days to be competative go for the throat, where the army you express here you would rather play against has ....lets say better odds of being the grey legion color scheme.
"Here's the thing about numerical analysis models; they have to take everything into account to be worth anything." Not my point made, but this is false. If you are deciding actions, math plays a huge part in the correct ones. Not every variable has to be taken into account for a "good enough" result. Take for example 4 terminators sitting on a winning objective. You have 3 squads of marines left. One squad absolutley has to stay in range of your own objective, but for the win you have to shoot them off the objective. They are still in range, but just barely. So one shot each. The other 2 squads have a plasma gun each. So you begin your shooting. You check again to discover that one of the terminators had a TH/SS combo, reducing your chances to remove them with plasma. Assuming 48 bolter shots, and 4 plasma shots you get 36 bolter hits and 3 plasma hits or so on average. the bolters should wound 18 times, the plasma 2-3. Assuming you have your opponent take the bolter wounds first, odds say 3 terminators should die, then with the plasma left, and a 5+ odds say the other terminator is still dead. If you DID not realize there was a storm shield, and told him to take the plasma wounds first, he would absorb 2 of the 3 on average, die, and the others still die to bolter rounds, again on average. Either way that is very close, and you would probably divert more attention if possible to that squad, to shoot for better results. Even if you read your enemies list, odds are there will be something in the game you cant anticipate, numerical analysis with incomplete information does not become worthless then, its still gives the best path.
Orock wrote: Turn one charges were always a terrible rule. They invalidated many armies right away, really cutting down on the fun variety you could come across.
Now you see things like genestealer cults with MSU units and magus, running formations for 2 dice to go for that 6 on infiltrate, and the broodlord and 20 genestealer group. THEN you also have people allying coteaz in a corner by himself, just for rerolls for turn one steal, or to force a turn one steal reroll. Rolling on strategy for warlord trait to get +1 to sieze. Right away, with a list like this, you eliminate a ton of things. Non tank heavy guard lists get absolutley pooped on. Seen a top of turn one concede after there was only 15 models left on the board TOP OF TURN ONE. You cannot yourself infiltrate any units, so I hope you did not have your own, because you have to stay 18 inches away, where they can be as close as 3. If they deploy their large blob of genestealers first, theres no ROOM left on the board where you can be 18 inches away, sometimes not even in your own deployment zone.
In the past people complained about things like space wolf scouts charging from the enemies deployment zone unable to be stopped. Even space marine gladius strike force can cripple the enemy army when built right, with devastating turn one abilities.
Should games be all but decided on the top of turn one? Because there are games like these where you are guaranteed to lose or win, and its the poorest of poor game design.
Is just another example of GW establishing design limitations, and then ignore them because
1) "LOL we changed our mind"
2) "Well, those models will not sell themselves"
3) "D-hurr... these three rules combined had unintended consequences..."
This design team will run 40k to the ground like what happened to WHFB.
Orock wrote: Turn one charges were always a terrible rule. They invalidated many armies right away, really cutting down on the fun variety you could come across.
Now you see things like genestealer cults with MSU units and magus, running formations for 2 dice to go for that 6 on infiltrate, and the broodlord and 20 genestealer group. THEN you also have people allying coteaz in a corner by himself, just for rerolls for turn one steal, or to force a turn one steal reroll. Rolling on strategy for warlord trait to get +1 to sieze. Right away, with a list like this, you eliminate a ton of things. Non tank heavy guard lists get absolutley pooped on. Seen a top of turn one concede after there was only 15 models left on the board TOP OF TURN ONE. You cannot yourself infiltrate any units, so I hope you did not have your own, because you have to stay 18 inches away, where they can be as close as 3. If they deploy their large blob of genestealers first, theres no ROOM left on the board where you can be 18 inches away, sometimes not even in your own deployment zone.
In the past people complained about things like space wolf scouts charging from the enemies deployment zone unable to be stopped. Even space marine gladius strike force can cripple the enemy army when built right, with devastating turn one abilities.
Should games be all but decided on the top of turn one? Because there are games like these where you are guaranteed to lose or win, and its the poorest of poor game design.
Agreed, close combat definitively needs a boost in 7th ed., but turn 1 charge and making super units who basically destroy everything they touch in c.c. like the Wulfen is definitively not the approach to take to solve the problem. It only makes for boring and frustrating gaming experience.
Agreed, close combat definitively needs a boost in 7th ed., but turn 1 charge and making super units who basically destroy everything they touch in c.c. like the Wulfen is definitively not the approach to take to solve the problem. It only makes for boring and frustrating gaming experience.
They have not sense of scale. Shooting either is useless or blows everything out of the table. CC units either are shots to bits or are so fast, or assault after deepstrike, that you cannot really counter anything and you have to hope about the random of the charge roll, or of the DS roll.
Is as if they purportedly design the game to remove as much as player agency as possible. I cannot understand if this is by design and they are just the least fun designer that ever infested a game, or they are genuinely and naively incompetent.
Marmatag wrote:I do find it funny that people are upset with the shooty nature of this game. I mean, when we decided to start playing, it was under the expectation that a game set 40,000 years in the future would be focused very heavily on shooting, not punching.
In terms of the setting, part of the fun of 40k is that armies with weapons strong enough to wipe out planets are still fighting with swords and shields. Chainswords and powerfist are as much a part of it as laser guns and spaceships. Can't speak for the current fluff, but 40k was always more fantasy in space than sci-fi.
In terms of the game itself, assault armies have been historically strong throughout previous editions. 3rd ed. is a particular standout, because the amount of damage a unit could inflict through shooting pales in comparison to the damage that could be done in close combat. Your mileage may vary depending on your local meta and what edition you started playing, but from my point of view the jedi are evil it's odd that the game is now so heavily focused on shooting to the exclusion of traditional assault armies.
Peregrine wrote:
IMO this doesn't really help much, since it makes the first turn a wasted turn that isn't very interesting. The way to fix the alpha strike problem is to remove the combos that allow turn 1 charges and play with sufficient terrain to prevent shooting alpha strikes from dominating. If there's a proper amount of terrain on the table even shooting-heavy armies aren't going to do all that much damage unless you make stupid deployment choices. Spots with no LOS are available, and most of the units that are exposed to LOS should be able to get cover saves. The shooting army will have to move up to get clear shots around the terrain if they want to counter your defensive positions, which won't happen until later in the game. But there's still interaction on turn 1 and pressure to care about denying shots instead of being able to sit out in the open without fearing your opponent's 12" threat range.
There was very little action on turn 1 of a WHFB game, but what players decided to do on that turn often dictated the flow of the entire game. We've been playing quite a bit of 3rd ed. recently and while turn 1 is rarely explosive, it's more about setting up for following turns while using long range support to soften up priority targets. Positioning and allocation of resources are more meaningful when you can't always do stuff. I don't really see the issue in turn 1 not being very interesting if it facilitates the rest of the game being interesting.
I can see where you're coming from with using to terrain to mitigate turn 1 shooting shenanigans. The concern here would be that placing more terrain might be fine down the local games shop, providing there's enough terrain to go around, but what would you do at a tourney where you might not necessarily have a say on the terrain setup?
Well, I'm not in your boat.
The 7th edition is a shooty one. Everybody has agreed on this. Proves are given by Eldar, Tau, and whatnot.
Now we see several capable alpha strike armies that can take on the enemy in turn 1.
I think this brings some new challenges to the game. Be open to deal with it.
Waaaghpower wrote: So yeah, the 'Coteaz for everyone' thing is a bit obnoxious, but I really don't see anything else here that is new. There've been ways to get first-turn charges since 5th edition. It got *harder* in 6th, but it was always possible. (If nothing else, Stormboyz had an effective 30" threat radius if you had good dice, and that lasted until our 7th-ed codex.)
Not as obnoxious as "Coteaz only for the good human-type guys".
Martel732 wrote: This is the smallest fiddle in the world playing for shooting lists in 7th ed. 1st turn charges are necessary when you are losing 1/3 of your list every shooting phase. Plus speed bump units, plus overwatch, plus no sweeping advance, plus failed charges. Yeah assault is just taking over.
You sound like those tau and eldar players that accuse you of being bad because you cant beat their wraithknight with your orks. Just because there are existing problems, does not mean new problems are forgiven because "stuffs boned anyway"
If you can't beat a WK with codex: S9AP2 on bikes, you probably aren't really good.
but you cant keep reserves, because this is what happens.
6 units assault what you DO have on the field, and table that. Now your turn comes around, you cant roll for reserves, and you are tabled. good game. Sure marines with drop pods can do it, but everyone else takes it in the shorts.
IF he can play Coteaz, you can have a bunch of Drop Pods.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, I'm not in your boat. The 7th edition is a shooty one. Everybody has agreed on this. Proves are given by Eldar, Tau, and whatnot. Now we see several capable alpha strike armies that can take on the enemy in turn 1. I think this brings some new challenges to the game. Be open to deal with it.
Est modus in rebus. There is a volume of fire that makes the game challenging, and THEN a volume of fire that makes the game frustrating for a not-top-tier army, unless you use an army with a resilience so stupid that makes playing against it a frustrating experience.
The same, there can be well designed and risky alpha strikes, OR a game with dumb counters that just force people to shuffle from one dumb combo to another, but in the end, we remain in a situation in which a game is still won or lost at the army building level.
In a well designed game, model placement should have a role in the way you answer to the enemy. BUT with these all-or-nothing formations, combos, and strong skewed list, this is not what happens; strong builds wipe the enemy, unless something as much as hard and skewed is on the table.
Worse, along with randumb, they remove more agency from the players beyond the list making, and make the game even less an interactive experience. Then people get surprised of why gamers switch to Videogames.
AnomanderRake wrote: (brief detour: 'skew' is the concept of taking a single unit, strategy, weapon, or other element that is good enough to deal with almost everything you're going to see, and building narrowly-focused lists around it. Scatterbike/Wraithknight spam, the IK Codex, and the Gladius are all skew lists.).
I don't see a problem with this. Sure, spam for spam's sake is one of the best ways to ensure your army sucks, but what you're describing isn't that. Nothing wrong with building an army around a competent core, is there?
The problem is that the way formations, detachments, and army books are set up even a competent all-comers army is going to be fine against 70-80% of lists, utterly demolish 10-15% of lists because you're approaching squarely out of their blind spot, and get steamrolled without effort by the remaining 10-15% of lists because they happen to have your hard counter in reliable quantity. List-building should be important, but it shouldn't overwrite the rest of the game, and the fact that it can even in a few matchups is a problem.
Cult Ambush and the GSC book in general are the product of a design team that's (intentionally or not) pushing skew lists over generalist lists this edition (with formations/meta-detachments, miniature Codexes with built-in blindspots, and other synergistic benefits for taking lots of duplicates of the same thing).
Define "generalist". The only thing my GSC can't run down are Zooming/ Swooping Flyers, and even against those I have options - none of which include bringing crumby Allies that mess up my RttS cycle and potentially my psychic phase. The army has a very acute focus - close combat - but they're equipped to
I don't have the information to discuss the GSC in great depth since I haven't seen them on the table and I don't know their book all that well. From what I have read I'd expect summon-happy Daemons, armies with access to cheap/widespread template weapons, armies with lots of flying targets, Drop Pods, Superheavies, and people who are fast enough to evade melee to present difficulty, but without seeing more games that's a list of where I'd look to find the GSC's counters, not a list of what they are.
Skew lists can still do fine when plonked down against each other when neither one is hitting the other's blind spot, but when a list that you can't efficiently counter or just don't have the tools to counter shows up on the other side of the table you're going to get casually mangled and there's very little you can do about it. Scatterbikes/Wraithknights are very strong, but plonk a Chaos flying circus down opposite them and they'll get ground away by an army they're fundamentally not equipped to do anything to, no matter how hard they'll crush most opposing lists.
In what way do Scatbike Eldar not have the tools to deal with a Flying Circus? I know there's a more general principle here, but this specific example is a good illustration of what I don't understand about the stuff you're saying. Flying Circus armies have, like, 30 models in them, with perhaps 50-odd wounds. Scatbiker Eldar are pumping out 120+ shots a turn, and they have D weapons. I'm not seeing the "skew" here.
When 120+ shots a turn are hitting on 6s, wounding on 4s-6s (depending on whether you're shooting an FMC or a vehicle, and on what buffs are in place), and have to batter past Jink saves or Daemon Invul shenanigans to do anything they're worth less than you think. As for D-weapons Wraithknights may be good but 295pts for one hit every three turns that has to roll another '6' or risk getting shut down again by save shenanigans is far from an efficient use of them, Wraithguard have to catch said Flyer with their 6" movement and 12" range guns to do anything, and the rest are blast/templates and can't hit flyers.
As for the attacks coming the other way hellchickens get to RFP scatterbikes with almost no chance of failure, and there are plenty of psychic powers capable of slowly grinding down a Wraithknight over six turns of flying around in lazy circles watching it not do anything to you.
I don't think you know what a Scatbike army consists of.
You generally have two farseers, both of which would have guide in this case, and against this particular army might elect to get Perfect Timing and the Divination Guide.
That's combined with 2x10 scatbikes, or 80 rerollable shots.
+ 4x6 scatbikes, or 96 shots, of which 24 may be rerollable.
The toughest target to bring down would be the Heldrake, and against that you get 13 hits,67 rerolls, that's 24 hits total, 4 sixes, 8/3rds make it through the invul, 4 if he jinked but why o why ...
So basically, it's going to take a few more jetbikes to take that one down ... etc.
But.
Assuming you are playing Maelstrom, the Eldar will have at least two days of free Objectives, and I don't see you denying the WraithKnight anything while it goes to destroy your few ground forces.
And then, Mysterious Objectives, of which there are six, sometimes are Skyfire Nexuses.
Find one of them on the map, and your air superiority suddenly is entirely pointless.
Plus, you're rocking a list that sucks balls and is 100% against Eldar only.
Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 solutions to 1rst turn charges - MSU build, mech up, or bubble wrap.
With an MSU build, you limit the amount of damage your opponent can do by spreading your points out. So, you can lose some units turn 1, and still come out swinging. Against assault, this also helps ensure your opponent won't be able to hide from retaliation by staying locked in combat, because whatever they charge will likely get wiped out by the charge.
Meching up forces your opponent to peel your units out of their tracks. If they can't accomplish that with shooting, then they have to assault the tracks. They may kill the track, but that leaves them not locked in combat. If they don't kill the tracks, the tracks can likely just drive away, leaving the assaulting unit in the open and bunched up.
Bubble wrap protects your important units with a layer (or layers) of cheap expendable units whose purpose is to die to protect the important units.
Most codices have access to at least a couple of these solutions. With Allies, everyone has access to all of them.
These 1rst turn charge armies are relatively new, so some people are going to be caught off guard by them for a while. The first time one encounters one, some sour grapes are to be expected. After that, though, forewarned is forearmed. Adjust your lists. Adjust your deployment. It might take a few tries, but if the game system could absorb flyers and superheavies an still function, it can absorb first turn charge builds.
How, in three pages, has nobody mentioned the idea of a counter-assault unit/units? These 1st turn assaults may actually be a blessing for the game as more lists will be come more rounded with counter-asaault units rather than just being completely shooting focussed. Those Honour Guard or Assault Termis that needed a rediculously priced LR to reach assault in decent time before? Now they may have a point. Those Kroot who were always overlooked for MORE GUNS... now can play a roll. Those 'mediocre' Scorpions and Banshees that stayed on the shelf? Dust them off - they may become useful if the meta changes to accomadate the GSC/DC/WE/BL first turn charges.
Plus the aforementioned fortifications playing more of a roll.
You never know... this may bring variety to the guns mounted on guns mounted on guns approach that so many armies take these days.
And if you're Guard... well, poor you :-p (p.s. allies)
Martel732 wrote: This is the smallest fiddle in the world playing for shooting lists in 7th ed. 1st turn charges are necessary when you are losing 1/3 of your list every shooting phase. Plus speed bump units, plus overwatch, plus no sweeping advance, plus failed charges. Yeah assault is just taking over.
You sound like those tau and eldar players that accuse you of being bad because you cant beat their wraithknight with your orks. Just because there are existing problems, does not mean new problems are forgiven because "stuffs boned anyway"
Well I forgive them. Turn 1 assault is at least a new way to lose.
Haven't played vs GSC but khornate or DC 1-st turn assault is not that great as you can't choose targets. An opponent who knows what you can do will just stick a couple rhinos up front to wreck your assaulters afterwards.
AnomanderRake wrote:I suspect the worst-case scenario for a tournament Eldar list is
That wasn't the deal, Mancuso. Hard counters. Stuff that beats tournament Eldar without the need to play the game. As for "hard counters" relying on psychic powers, it's worth remembering that these armies, Tau, Taudar and Eldar, can also bring a Culexus Assassin.
Spoiler:
I don't have the information to discuss the GSC in great depth since I haven't seen them on the table and I don't know their book all that well. From what I have read I'd expect summon-happy Daemons, armies with access to cheap/widespread template weapons, armies with lots of flying targets, Drop Pods, Superheavies, and people who are fast enough to evade melee to present difficulty, but without seeing more games that's a list of where I'd look to find the GSC's counters, not a list of what they are.
"To present difficulty" is not the same as "hard counter", is it? There are plenty of things that cause problems for my GSC, but there's very little that shuts down my army to the extent that I might as well not bother deploying.
Things that make winning difficult are not "hard counters". Winning isn't supposed to be easy.
For the third time. I don't know what the hard-counter to the Genestealer Cult book is because I haven't got the playtime with it. All I can tell you from here is where I'd start looking for one.
I note you've ignored my main point - that "hard to beat" is not "hard counter". Let's deal with that before we start talking about Genestealer Cults.
Tau with mass EWO and SMS are a huge pain for Genestealer Cults, but they're not a hard counter. I can still impose myself on the game even if my opponent is removing 30+ models every turn - I can force my opponent to do things he doesn't want to do, force him to make costly mistakes, etc etc. If I don't do it right he'll hose me off the table, but if he doesn't do it right I'll entagle/ kill his dudes and grind out a win.
Compare and contrast that "match-up" to the one between tournament Eldar and, say, Ironwolves armies. There's no way at all for a mech Space Wolves army (or a mech Sisters army, or any light mech army) to impose themselves on the Eldar. The Eldar can out-move and out-shoot every gambit you could bring to the table; they run the show from turn one to the end of the game, and the Wolves are, at best, chasing the game forever. At worst they're getting hosed into a corner and ignored.
The mathhammer is here because we can sling anecdotal evidence back and forth all night without getting anywhere.
Right, and my contention is that the anecdotal evidence is more authoritative than the math-hammer when it comes to army analysis. It's not perfect, but it's far better than a numerical model which ignores the 95% of the game that doesn't involve rolling to hit or wound.
You can land five wounds on Kairos on turn one. It is physically possible. It is also physically possible to shoot thirty scatterbikes at Kairos for six turns without touching him. Which case do you want to use to argue for how scatterbikes should be designed?
We're not talking about unit design - we're talking about army builds. Five wounds on Kairos is a dead Kairos. That hurts the Daemons player. Does zero wounds on any monster hurt the Eldar player to the same extent? It sucks and is disheartening, but does it hurt his chances of winning? No it doesn't, because your army has stuff on the ground and he may be shooting at that instead, which erodes your ability to control the table and thus stop him chasing your mandatory-move monsters into a corner/ off the table, unless you drop a Monster or two down to deal with him, in which case the monsters die.
Either case may come up during a game. Math-hammer ignores them both.
Orock wrote:140 genestealer cultists was not the original complaint, but the 20 genestealer with broodlord formation
That's 370pts for 21 dudes. If I'm paying 370pts for 21 dudes it'd better be able to evapourate half your army if you allow me to charge it on turn one.
What do you think the answer is in this situation? Bubble-wrap? Reserves? Complain on Dakka?
Sorry If I confused you about the reroll, re read what I had wrote and meant to say re roll on the sieze, the infiltrating part wasent rerolled, mearly the chances for favorable outcomes increased with extra dice.
Cult Ambush works like this: whenever a unit either Infiltrates or deploys from Reserve, roll d6 (2d6 for units in a SubUp, 3d6 for SubUp unit with a Primus attached) and consult the table. Which of these dice are being rerolled?
The correct answer is "none of them". If you're going to give some other answer then someone's lied to you. To the best of my knowledge you don't get rerolls on Cult Ambush dice, ever, for any reason. Those are
And against that all eggs in one basket type of alpha strike list (the kind I am claiming further kills diversity in this game) 5 knights would punish it, as more points are tied up in expensive models than your example.
But the alpha strike Genestealer spam army is a pretty sucky way to build a Genestealer Cults army, for the exact reason you're giving. 5 Knights will punish it because it has too few models and psychic dice to prevent such. 5 Knights are a much less formidable prospect for an MSU Morphs army with lots of psykers, and while alpha striking is a possibility with that build too, it's not a must-do situation. you have the flexibility and resilience to play maneuver and attrition if you want to.
I dont believe, and this is backed up by "what drew you to start playing tabletop 40k/fantasy" surveys on this and other fan sites
You know what I'm going to say here.
Not my point made, but this is false. If you are deciding actions, math plays a huge part in the correct ones.
It does, but if your model doesn't account for all the factors involved in a situation then it's inappropriate to use it to analyse that situation. Math-hammer tells you the average performance a unit is capable of under idealised conditions (every model is still alive and is in a position to make its attacks, any preconditions such as Warp Charges etc have been met). It is, therefore, an inappropriate tool for trying to predict an army's performance on the tabletop.
Spoiler:
Take for example 4 terminators sitting on a winning objective. You have 3 squads of marines left. One squad absolutley has to stay in range of your own objective, but for the win you have to shoot them off the objective. They are still in range, but just barely. So one shot each. The other 2 squads have a plasma gun each. So you begin your shooting. You check again to discover that one of the terminators had a TH/SS combo, reducing your chances to remove them with plasma. Assuming 48 bolter shots, and 4 plasma shots you get 36 bolter hits and 3 plasma hits or so on average. the bolters should wound 18 times, the plasma 2-3. Assuming you have your opponent take the bolter wounds first, odds say 3 terminators should die, then with the plasma left, and a 5+ odds say the other terminator is still dead. If you DID not realize there was a storm shield, and told him to take the plasma wounds first, he would absorb 2 of the 3 on average, die, and the others still die to bolter rounds, again on average. Either way that is very close, and you would probably divert more attention if possible to that squad, to shoot for better results. Even if you read your enemies list, odds are there will be something in the game you cant anticipate, numerical analysis with incomplete information does not become worthless then, its still gives the best path.
Calculating on the fly in the middle of a game is very, very different from trying to math-hammer a conclusion without any models on the table. In the former case - as in your example - there are enough parameters set that the calculation isn't incomplete. It has context. In the latter case you're comparing numerical averages against numerical averages and ignoring 95% of the game. that is a bad thing to do.
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:These 1rst turn charge armies are relatively new, so some people are going to be caught off guard by them for a while.
+9,001
Think how many whineposts would be averted if people just realised that they're not 40k sages with some divine right to win every game without ever having played against their opponent's army before. I've gone steadily from 100% wins with my GSC to something approaching 50-50 as me and my group have slowly picked apart the Codex. My group is used to my shenanigans now - and because I like to swap armies, so am I.
Can we all just agree that 40k is an awful mess of a game with zeron attention or care given to balance and functionality and that all sorts of stuff is horrifcally broken?
Yes, igougo alpha strike stuff can suck. Turn 1 charges also *really* suck. This game as a whole is really terrible *as a game*.
Poly Ranger wrote: How, in three pages, has nobody mentioned the idea of a counter-assault unit/units?
Because the dedicated assault ones are designed by people with the mind of a 9 years old.
The wulfen have rules that basically say: "you outmaneuvered me and assaulted me with a unit with higher initiative? TOO BAD"
Fun that you bring the Howling Banshees into this.
I mean fun, if it wasn't so sad.
Wulfen are not Alpha Strike units.
They (luck permitting) give the extra movement to other units. Wulfen themselves never make melee before turn two and rarely make it before turn four.
If they made it turn 1 your opponent drop podded them in on their first turn and you charged them on yours (because why the hell not?).
Vaktathi wrote: Can we all just agree that 40k is an awful mess of a game with zeron attention or care given to balance and functionality and that all sorts of stuff is horrifcally broken?
Yes, igougo alpha strike stuff can suck. Turn 1 charges also *really* suck. This game as a whole is really terrible *as a game*.
No, because only a few codexs seem to be "the problem". Perhaps all armys should be squated besides CSM, orcs and D eldar because thats the only time GW can be bothered to write non-op rule sets.
Vaktathi wrote: Can we all just agree that 40k is an awful mess of a game with zeron attention or care given to balance and functionality and that all sorts of stuff is horrifcally broken?
Yes, igougo alpha strike stuff can suck. Turn 1 charges also *really* suck. This game as a whole is really terrible *as a game*.
No, because only a few codexs seem to be "the problem". Perhaps all armys should be squated besides CSM, orcs and D eldar because thats the only time GW can be bothered to write non-op rule sets.
Vaktathi wrote: Can we all just agree that 40k is an awful mess of a game with zeron attention or care given to balance and functionality and that all sorts of stuff is horrifcally broken?
Yes, igougo alpha strike stuff can suck. Turn 1 charges also *really* suck. This game as a whole is really terrible *as a game*.
No, because only a few codexs seem to be "the problem". Perhaps all armys should be squated besides CSM, orcs and D eldar because thats the only time GW can be bothered to write non-op rule sets.
even within those there are major balance issues, the internal balance of at least the Ork and CSM books are awful
Grand.Master.Raziel wrote: Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 solutions to 1rst turn charges - MSU build, mech up, or bubble wrap.
With an MSU build, you limit the amount of damage your opponent can do by spreading your points out. So, you can lose some units turn 1, and still come out swinging. Against assault, this also helps ensure your opponent won't be able to hide from retaliation by staying locked in combat, because whatever they charge will likely get wiped out by the charge.
Meching up forces your opponent to peel your units out of their tracks. If they can't accomplish that with shooting, then they have to assault the tracks. They may kill the track, but that leaves them not locked in combat. If they don't kill the tracks, the tracks can likely just drive away, leaving the assaulting unit in the open and bunched up.
Bubble wrap protects your important units with a layer (or layers) of cheap expendable units whose purpose is to die to protect the important units.
Most codices have access to at least a couple of these solutions. With Allies, everyone has access to all of them.
These 1rst turn charge armies are relatively new, so some people are going to be caught off guard by them for a while. The first time one encounters one, some sour grapes are to be expected. After that, though, forewarned is forearmed. Adjust your lists. Adjust your deployment. It might take a few tries, but if the game system could absorb flyers and superheavies an still function, it can absorb first turn charge builds.
Like a Billion times this.
As a side note, some posters have mentioned other types of alpha strikes. As a marine player, I have a hard time being against the potential for first turn charges when I have access to full Drop Pod armies. Both can be completely devastating for an unaware opponent. There is another conversation to be had about limiting alpha striking capability overall, and on the whole I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment. I prefer longer "starts" to my battles. But "longer-start" games are still completely possible, with more terrain, clever reserves, or just like minded players agreeing by certain tenets. By themselves first-turn-charges are not the end of the world, and if they unseat some other annoying armies (like Big-robot Tau or re-rollable-jinking bikers) I'm all for it.
The wheel of warhammer continues to turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Can we all just agree that 40k is an awful mess of a game with zeron attention or care given to balance and functionality and that all sorts of stuff is horrifcally broken?
Vaktathi wrote: Can we all just agree that 40k is an awful mess of a game with zeron attention or care given to balance and functionality and that all sorts of stuff is horrifcally broken?
No.
Well then you're wrong. 40k is indisputably a broken mess of a game with zero attention given to balance or functionality.
Vaktathi wrote: Can we all just agree that 40k is an awful mess of a game with zeron attention or care given to balance and functionality and that all sorts of stuff is horrifcally broken?
No.
Well then you're wrong. 40k is indisputably a broken mess of a game with zero attention given to balance or functionality.
Why would it be? Are you honestly going to suggest that 40kisn't broken and unbalanced?
Not long ago, we had a thread that was titles "Am I the only one who thinks 40K is fine?", and lo and behold, the OP was not the only one. So saying things like "Can't we all just agree everything is horrible" and "indesputably a broken mess" is only done by people who only can't conceive of an opinion different than their own. Which is a poor way to have a conversation.
Insectum7 wrote: Not long ago, we had a thread that was titles "Am I the only one who thinks 40K is fine?", and lo and behold, the OP was not the only one. So saying things like "Can't we all just agree everything is horrible" and "indesputably a broken mess" is only done by people who only can't conceive of an opinion different than their own. Which is a poor way to have a conversation.
I can conceive of an opinion different from my own, but that opinion is still wrong. 40k's balance problems are indisputable, no reasonable person can argue that wraithknights and scatter laser jetbikes are balanced with orks. Functionality is also pretty indisputable, as demonstrated by the YMDC forum and how many arguments there are over how the rules are supposed to work. And GW's own statements confirm that they don't care about balance or rule clarity, if the current state of the game wasn't already enough proof. Anyone who can look at 40k and say "this is fine" is either playing their own heavily house-ruled version of 40k that fixes the standard version's problems or so completely lacking in experience with other games that don't share 40k's flaws that they're unable to imagine a better way of doing things.
Its hard for me to take seriously armies like Tau and Eldar complaining about CC on the first turn. They have the tools in their dex, the mobility, and firepower to deal with it. People just dont want to stop spamming riptides, scatpacks, wraithknights, warpspiders and so on.
I can understand Orks or Dark Eldar armies being upset but come on there isn't a useless unit in the Eldar dex. You just dont want to take it.
thekerrick wrote: They have the tools in their dex, the mobility, and firepower to deal with it.
Mobility and firepower don't help at all. The first-turn charges happen before you get a turn and the opportunity to move away. Your only desperate hope is that you somehow do enough damage with overwatch fire to avoid losing the game at the start of turn 1.
thekerrick wrote: They have the tools in their dex, the mobility, and firepower to deal with it.
Mobility and firepower don't help at all. The first-turn charges happen before you get a turn and the opportunity to move away. Your only desperate hope is that you somehow do enough damage with overwatch fire to avoid losing the game at the start of turn 1.
Gasp! Do Eldar have to take units besides scatpacks!? I use my ruststalkers in War Convocation, which are often considered a bad unit and a tax, to bubble my grav units. They do quite well vs most of the stuff that can first turn charge me. Most dedicated CC units can deal with GSC. Eldar have them and can use them.
The game is only ok when you play armies within the same tiers and a higher tier army that doesn't absolutely counter another army.
Play dark eldar vs tau and you'll see just how imbalanced the game can be. I face a guy that it's even a miracle if i make it past turn 4 against. Double stormsurge, 1 riptide, 6 stealth suits (2 units of 3), shadowsun and 2 ghostkeels with drones attached. It is the absolute dumbest thing to face. Most of the stealth and ghostkeel units have a 2+ cover save added onto whatever save they already get. Ghostkeel are MC's so they have ap 2 attacks in close combat as well as multiple attacks (as if that's even needed) and the rest has the various BS shenanigans tau can usually pull (skyfire, stim injectors, 3+ inv riptide due to using their generator, ignores cover weapons, smarts missile systems that ignore cover and LoS). It's just total garbage. It's the same few 'I Win' units in the tau army that are spammed to death with formations. Course some people say this guy cheats so take his win rate with a grain of salt. Also though he's so smug when he plays and teases opponents are cowards Grey Knights scare him due to psychic phase, close combat and dreadknights.
Pretty sure 40k would be infinitely more balanced if they took gargantuans and super heavies out again. Riptides and some eldar cheese would still be there but it'd be a bit more balanced.
-------
Also have a hard time believing people are complaining about close combat getting a boost in an edition of 40k where shooting is considered king.
thekerrick wrote: They have the tools in their dex, the mobility, and firepower to deal with it.
Mobility and firepower don't help at all. The first-turn charges happen before you get a turn and the opportunity to move away. Your only desperate hope is that you somehow do enough damage with overwatch fire to avoid losing the game at the start of turn 1.
Mobility and firepower let you attempt attacks on units your opponent doesn't want attacked, possibly forcing them to divert their charge in a direction other than forwards.
Won't work so well on a Deathstar but it works great on the Drop Pods and Wulfen.
Dakka Wolf wrote: Mobility and firepower let you attempt attacks on units your opponent doesn't want attacked, possibly forcing them to divert their charge in a direction other than forwards.
Won't work so well on a Deathstar but it works great on the Drop Pods and Wulfen.
How exactly do you divert their charge when half your army is dead (or locked in combat and about to die) before you get a turn, and the other half is boxed into your deployment zone by a wall of angry melee units? The whole point of the first-turn charge is that you take the initiative entirely and annihilate your opponent's army before they get a chance to react.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Also have a hard time believing people are complaining about close combat getting a boost in an edition of 40k where shooting is considered king.
The issue is not close combat in general, it's two specific things: first-turn charges that end the game before you get a turn, and absurd buff-stacking death stars that make the game a one-dimensional question of whether it is mathematically possible for you to put enough shots into the death star to have a chance of winning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
flamingkillamajig wrote: You play guard right? Take vehicles and units embarked in them as they can't be locked in combat.
So, your solution to first-turn charges is to invest a bunch of points into expensive vehicles that get auto-killed if charged?
Dakka Wolf wrote: Mobility and firepower let you attempt attacks on units your opponent doesn't want attacked, possibly forcing them to divert their charge in a direction other than forwards.
Won't work so well on a Deathstar but it works great on the Drop Pods and Wulfen.
How exactly do you divert their charge when half your army is dead (or locked in combat and about to die) before you get a turn, and the other half is boxed into your deployment zone by a wall of angry melee units? The whole point of the first-turn charge is that you take the initiative entirely and annihilate your opponent's army before they get a chance to react.
If only my IG or Tau army had dedicated melee units...
First, guard along with DE, Orks and a few others have issues well beyond the scope of this argument. Guard are hurting in a lot of areas. As far as Tau go. Take two firewarrior squads, bubble your entire army in a corner, feed him your trash and then dump on him in overwatch and your next shooting phase after he wipes the warriors. After that you can jetpack away!
flamingkillamajig wrote: Also have a hard time believing people are complaining about close combat getting a boost in an edition of 40k where shooting is considered king.
The issue is not close combat in general, it's two specific things: first-turn charges that end the game before you get a turn, and absurd buff-stacking death stars that make the game a one-dimensional question of whether it is mathematically possible for you to put enough shots into the death star to have a chance of winning.
Depends on the army i guess. I'll admit i haven't played as much as some (took a break for Fantasy till it died) but depending on the power level of the melee unit and what it can do it would dictate how broken it is. Oddly i have more faith with the new head of GW and he seems to be making decent decisions as opposed to Kirby and friends which tried to screw over as many people as possible esp. in Fantasy.
Genestealer cults while annoying far as i know have a 1 in 6 chance to roll melee for their units coming in and they may roll up bad results. There was one dude i played against that was new but got a bunch of bad results so he tried going back into reserve and trying again (bad decision i'm sure). 1 in 6 chance isn't as insane as some make it out to be. I'll also admit the guy being new wasn't some vet that mastered them so i have no idea what they're like when mastered.
Except for maybe khorne i think most armies are much slower. I did have a guy in my last battle vs chaos marines move his chaos units 2/3 or more across the table practically within striking distance of my guys. I still curb stomped him as dark eldar.
I still say putting your guys in vehicles or behind cover would help tremendously. It's a game change that requires different tactics. Perhaps more shield walls to ruin enemy charges with vehicles. I'd actually be interested to see more vehicles and hit and run units start showing up again (due to not being locked in combat).
-----
Transports aren't that expensive and whether they die in combat or not they don't stay locked in combat. This allows you time to shoot at the enemies that are trying to get in close combat with you.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Genestealer cults while annoying far as i know have a 1 in 6 chance to roll melee for their units coming in and they may roll up bad results.
Perhaps you should start by reading the OP before posting about this? It's a 1/6 roll on the table, but there are various ways of improving the roll that make it much more consistent.
As for transports, yes, they help, but only at an extreme cost. Chimeras are 55 points each and require a commitment to a tank-heavy army to be effective. That's a lot of points to be spending on sacrificial units that leave the survivors of the squad inside trapped at point blank range next to a wall of threats that will eat them next turn if they don't completely table the assault army in a single shooting phase. And all those LRBTs that you have to take to make mech IG effective are 150+ point paperweights against first-turn charges.
Dakka Wolf wrote: Mobility and firepower let you attempt attacks on units your opponent doesn't want attacked, possibly forcing them to divert their charge in a direction other than forwards.
Won't work so well on a Deathstar but it works great on the Drop Pods and Wulfen.
How exactly do you divert their charge when half your army is dead (or locked in combat and about to die) before you get a turn, and the other half is boxed into your deployment zone by a wall of angry melee units? The whole point of the first-turn charge is that you take the initiative entirely and annihilate your opponent's army before they get a chance to react.
If only my IG or Tau army had dedicated melee units...
You don't want dedicated CC units, real Close Combat armies should eat whatever a Shootie army can field for breakfast and CC units are a massive point sink, you want cheap, expendable units. Melee is only scary when it's tearing through your expensive stuff, the most powerful deathstar in the world can be balked for a turn by your cheapest unit because it can't just pass through a unit. Spend bigger on the cheap stuff to hold the first turn charges up, or if they're slinging Drop Pods use said cheap and expendables to prevent Pods landing where you don't want them.
Better question is how come 4 foot wide tables are "standard." Play on a 5 foot wide table and you will not only eliminate this problem for the most part, but you make the movement phase actually important besides MOVE FORWARD CLOSER SO I CAN KILL SOON, or GO GET OBJECTIVE. Now you cant have a devastator squad shooting safely in its corner for 6 turns, they may have to move a turn or two to get set up in a good position. Objective play is better as they aren't as easy to take. It takes skill and effort to get an assault instead of going straight up the guts cause you know you can survive one round of shooting. Now there's two or more.
Thats all Ive got. Or play 30k, because a lack of formations and detachments makes for a much more fun game instead of looking up which units and formations break or ignore core rules. Plus Primarchs!
Why would it be? Are you honestly going to suggest that 40kisn't broken and unbalanced?
Not long ago, we had a thread that was titles "Am I the only one who thinks 40K is fine?", and lo and behold, the OP was not the only one.
40k being "fine" in a subjective sense for any individual is different than 40k being broken and unbalanced. Sometimes people are perfectly fine with, or even actively seek out and enjoy, broken and unbalanced things. Some people just don't have to face the really broken stuff or just don't care about rules functionality issues and won't have problems from their views. However, it doesn't mean that 40k isn't an extremely poorly functioning ruleset with insanely poor balance
Would you like to make the case that 40k is a balanced game, and has a finely tuned, well functioning, and easy to understand rules system?
Dakka Wolf wrote: You don't want dedicated CC units, real Close Combat armies should eat whatever a Shootie army can field for breakfast and CC units are a massive point sink, you want cheap, expendable units. Melee is only scary when it's tearing through your expensive stuff, the most powerful deathstar in the world can be balked for a turn by your cheapest unit because it can't just pass through a unit. Spend bigger on the cheap stuff to hold the first turn charges up, or if they're slinging Drop Pods use said cheap and expendables to prevent Pods landing where you don't want them.
And this is the problem: if you don't spend a bunch of points on units that will be removed from the table before they get to act you lose the game. Why should a shooting army have to waste points (and time and money to buy and paint the models) on meatshields that are immediately removed from the table at the start of the game when melee armies don't have to do the same? Or should we have a new rule that all melee armies must remove 1/3 of their points from the table at the start of the game in exchange for a 4+ cover save for the rest of their army for the first turn?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Play on a 5 foot wide table and you will not only eliminate this problem for the most part
It doesn't, because the units in question use infiltrate/deep strike/etc to start the game within charge range no matter where you deploy.
40k is bad. But the reasons I feel this way isn't mostly because of the core rules. Individual codex creeping is ruining the game. Rules that break rules, its almost as if the current meta builds their armies like a magic card deck. I only care about the fluff at this point. Should've thrown that in somewhere.
Dakka Wolf wrote: You don't want dedicated CC units, real Close Combat armies should eat whatever a Shootie army can field for breakfast and CC units are a massive point sink, you want cheap, expendable units. Melee is only scary when it's tearing through your expensive stuff, the most powerful deathstar in the world can be balked for a turn by your cheapest unit because it can't just pass through a unit. Spend bigger on the cheap stuff to hold the first turn charges up, or if they're slinging Drop Pods use said cheap and expendables to prevent Pods landing where you don't want them.
And this is the problem: if you don't spend a bunch of points on units that will be removed from the table before they get to act you lose the game. Why should a shooting army have to waste points (and time and money to buy and paint the models) on meatshields that are immediately removed from the table at the start of the game when melee armies don't have to do the same? Or should we have a new rule that all melee armies must remove 1/3 of their points from the table at the start of the game in exchange for a 4+ cover save for the rest of their army for the first turn?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Play on a 5 foot wide table and you will not only eliminate this problem for the most part
It doesn't, because the units in question use infiltrate/deep strike/etc to start the game within charge range no matter where you deploy.
Ya because spending less than 200 points on a few min squad of troops will lose you the game? Please. Any of the upper tier armies will have no problem wiping gsc off the board even with a few hundred point deficit.
[quote=Peregrine 713053 9116455 6e2a7a65b40f1b79
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Play on a 5 foot wide table and you will not only eliminate this problem for the most part
It doesn't, because the units in question use infiltrate/deep strike/etc to start the game within charge range no matter where you deploy.
Didn't take that into account, oops lol. But since I have no experience playing against an idiotic army like that I don't feel very bad lol. Like that is just absurd. Infiltrate + charging wtf
thekerrick wrote: Ya because spending less than 200 points on a few min squad of troops will lose you the game?
Spending less than 200 points on minimum size squads of troops isn't going to buy you much for meatshields. It makes it really easy for your opponent to clear your meatshields with shooting, and it forces you to deploy your entire army in a densely packed corner to have any chance of getting your meatshields to cover the whole perimeter. And of course the rest of the time, when you aren't facing a first turn charge list, those 200 points are contributing nothing to your army because naked minimum-cost infantry suck.
Please. Any of the upper tier armies will have no problem wiping gsc off the board even with a few hundred point deficit.
That isn't the point. I don't care if some top-tier tournament army can beat the gimmick list, it isn't fun to play against for everyone else.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: 40k is bad. But the reasons I feel this way isn't mostly because of the core rules. Individual codex creeping is ruining the game. Rules that break rules, its almost as if the current meta builds their armies like a magic card deck
I don't know that "Codex creep" is an appropriate term, given that the most powerful Codexes are all pretty old by this point, but yeah - the lack of attention being given to Codexes is fething up the game pretty badly. The core rules are fine, it's the supplementary stuff that sucks.
thekerrick wrote: Ya because spending less than 200 points on a few min squad of troops will lose you the game? Please. Any of the upper tier armies will have no problem wiping gsc off the board even with a few hundred point deficit.
Not even remotely true. Between Cult Ambush, cover shenanigans, the Insurrection reinforcement SR and Summons GSC are a lot tougher than their statline would suggest.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Genestealer cults while annoying far as i know have a 1 in 6 chance to roll melee for their units coming in and they may roll up bad results.
Perhaps you should start by reading the OP before posting about this? It's a 1/6 roll on the table, but there are various ways of improving the roll that make it much more consistent.
As for transports, yes, they help, but only at an extreme cost. Chimeras are 55 points each and require a commitment to a tank-heavy army to be effective. That's a lot of points to be spending on sacrificial units that leave the survivors of the squad inside trapped at point blank range next to a wall of threats that will eat them next turn if they don't completely table the assault army in a single shooting phase. And all those LRBTs that you have to take to make mech IG effective are 150+ point paperweights against first-turn charges.
That's funny, if any shootie armie benefits from first turn assault it's Astra Militarum.
Cheap bodies to block the assault? Absolute check.
Metal Boxes that lay down lots of fire then either blow up in the enemy's face or get wrecked to create roadblocks? Hell Yeah.
Fortifications that can make five models cover a foot of board space? Gotit!
Long Ranged blasts? Guard got that.
Benefits when all the other shootie armies downsize their artillery because first turn assaults got them scared? Hell yeah.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: Better question is how come 4 foot wide tables are "standard." Play on a 5 foot wide table and you will not only eliminate this problem for the most part, but you make the movement phase actually important besides MOVE FORWARD CLOSER SO I CAN KILL SOON, or GO GET OBJECTIVE. Now you cant have a devastator squad shooting safely in its corner for 6 turns, they may have to move a turn or two to get set up in a good position. Objective play is better as they aren't as easy to take. It takes skill and effort to get an assault instead of going straight up the guts cause you know you can survive one round of shooting. Now there's two or more.
Thats all Ive got. Or play 30k, because a lack of formations and detachments makes for a much more fun game instead of looking up which units and formations break or ignore core rules. Plus Primarchs!
Did I mention no god awful formations?
Adding an extra 12" to the table just makes shooting armies like Tau or Eldar even more ridiculous. It makes non-first turn charge assault armies useless. And it would just eventually end up with units/spells/formations that move 36" and charge.
How did we end up with first turn charges? It was because of scatter bikes and broadsides and riptides etc making the 24" that we have too deadly to cross slowly. Any more than one turn spent in no-man's-land is death.
I definitely don't think that first turn charges are a good thing. But they are nearly necessary I'm the current environment. If you want to get back to 2nd or even 3rd turn charges, we also need to reduce ranged damage by half or more as well.
thekerrick wrote: Its hard for me to take seriously armies like Tau and Eldar complaining about CC on the first turn. They have the tools in their dex, the mobility, and firepower to deal with it. People just dont want to stop spamming riptides, scatpacks, wraithknights, warpspiders and so on.
I can understand Orks or Dark Eldar armies being upset but come on there isn't a useless unit in the Eldar dex. You just dont want to take it.
Storm guardians.
You know, not all eldar players like being douchebags that spam scatter bikes for all events like casual/friendly matches.
First, guard along with DE, Orks and a few others have issues well beyond the scope of this argument. Guard are hurting in a lot of areas. As far as Tau go. Take two firewarrior squads, bubble your entire army in a corner, feed him your trash and then dump on him in overwatch and your next shooting phase after he wipes the warriors. After that you can jetpack away!
That sounds like a great way to get your entire Tau army annihilated in one assault phase, and just lose the game in general.
Most of these "counters" just don't work. Dumping 25% of your force in to transports that will die first turn. 15 % if your army in to bubble wrap. For what? It hardly works against the first turn charge armies, and it doesn't work at all vs all the other armies.
All things considered, first turn charges are good for the game and something that was required.
One might consider that if the game includes ways to shoot someone off the board on turn 1, then such an option should exist for melee. Melee was and to some extent still is the underdog.
The games meta was absolutely shooting dominated before the latest additions. Armies like Tau didn't have to worry about melee or going for the TAC approach.
Now they do, as you might have to go against an army of GSC, World Eaters and the like.
In a perfect world shooting wouldn't be powerful enough to delete armies off the board on turn one, and due to this melee who waltzes across the table would have an equal chance of victory.
The only way to counter turn 1 tabling shooting is turn 1 tabling melee. Or something that can take the hits and live to tell the tale, which would be a deathstar. Equally unenjoyable.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Genestealer cults while annoying far as i know have a 1 in 6 chance to roll melee for their units coming in and they may roll up bad results.
Perhaps you should start by reading the OP before posting about this? It's a 1/6 roll on the table, but there are various ways of improving the roll that make it much more consistent.
As for transports, yes, they help, but only at an extreme cost. Chimeras are 55 points each and require a commitment to a tank-heavy army to be effective. That's a lot of points to be spending on sacrificial units that leave the survivors of the squad inside trapped at point blank range next to a wall of threats that will eat them next turn if they don't completely table the assault army in a single shooting phase. And all those LRBTs that you have to take to make mech IG effective are 150+ point paperweights against first-turn charges.
That's funny, if any shootie armie benefits from first turn assault it's Astra Militarum.
1. Cheap bodies to block the assault? Absolute check.
2. Metal Boxes that lay down lots of fire then either blow up in the enemy's face or get wrecked to create roadblocks? Hell Yeah.
3. Fortifications that can make five models cover a foot of board space? Gotit!
4. Long Ranged blasts? Guard got that.
5. Benefits when all the other shootie armies downsize their artillery because first turn assaults got them scared? Hell yeah.
Been playing IG since 2nd ed, and thoroughly disagree with your 'analysis'.
1. You mean Conscripts? Deployed in a tight bubble all the way around everything else in my army? Not as 'cheap' as you seem to think, IMO, since it would probably take 2 x 50 man squads of them to build a decent meat shield, which also means two platoons, etc etc...
2. Chimeras? AV 10 deathtraps that will die if they get charged. Using the two platoon matrix above, that means a minimum of six of them at 65 points each, almost 400 points. So let's see, we're already at 800-900 points, depending on weapons in the platoons...
3. Not even sure what you're talking about here, but let's just go with a standard Aegis Line with a gun, that's what? another 100 or so? So depending on size of game, I now have 500-850 or so points for an HQ and anything else, like valk/vendettas, Leman Russ tanks, an HQ of some sort, etc etc etc
4. Long ranged blasts don't do much to units that start right in your face and/or engage you in assault before you get to shoot them... 'Nuff said.
5. This one might be a possibility, except that if I modify my army, aren't I in the same boat?
BTW, I have a large Genestealer Cult army from way back in the day, and am hoping to field it once I rebuild models to the current ruleset, so I guess I'm on both sides of this predicament. How do I build my IG or Sisters to face this issue, and how do I build my GS Cult to make use of it?
One might consider that if the game includes ways to shoot someone off the board on turn 1, then such an option should exist for melee. Melee was and to some extent still is the underdog.
So we are now moving toward a rocket tag game and this is somehow good?
One might consider that if the game includes ways to shoot someone off the board on turn 1, then such an option should exist for melee. Melee was and to some extent still is the underdog.
So we are now moving toward a rocket tag game and this is somehow good?
That one idea is horrible. For once I agree with you.
Honestly, warhammer 40k needs to be burnt down to the ground (the rules, not the setting) and start anew with something more streamlined and properly done.
Runic wrote: All things considered, first turn charges are good for the game and something that was required.
One might consider that if the game includes ways to shoot someone off the board on turn 1, then such an option should exist for melee. Melee was and to some extent still is the underdog.
OR One could make it impossible to shoot something off the board turn one.
Like add hit modifiers or something. Which is what every other wargame nowadays seems to be doing.
One might consider that if the game includes ways to shoot someone off the board on turn 1, then such an option should exist for melee. Melee was and to some extent still is the underdog.
So we are now moving toward a rocket tag game and this is somehow good?
That one idea is horrible. For once I agree with you.
Honestly, warhammer 40k needs to be burnt down to the ground (the rules, not the setting) and start anew with something more streamlined and properly done.
I would prefer, making a parallel with WHFB, a reboot like WHFB 6th edition that something completely new like AoS.
One might consider that if the game includes ways to shoot someone off the board on turn 1, then such an option should exist for melee. Melee was and to some extent still is the underdog.
So we are now moving toward a rocket tag game and this is somehow good?
That one idea is horrible. For once I agree with you.
Honestly, warhammer 40k needs to be burnt down to the ground (the rules, not the setting) and start anew with something more streamlined and properly done.
I would prefer, making a parallel with WHFB, a reboot like WHFB 6th edition that something completely new like AoS.
But here is where we start to disagree again
Honestly I'd hate an AoS-clone for 40k. I play the games because they are their own thing, not a copy-and-past version IN SPACE! I mean, it was fine for rogue trader but I find it depressing that, should they want to make an interesting game, the dev-team must always copy-cat the fantasy version.
A nice thing they did was to release a Ravening Hordes book with all the armies as a simple, universal army book, and then build from that. 6th was good if 1) played with tournament limitations - limits to magic, anti-spam rules for specials and rare units 2) you did not get the usual "the designer hates my army" like happened to High Elves. Jake Thornton makes Cruddace look good. Is an impressive feat. Still cavalry was too strong. But 8th edition needed to go more back to that instead of goin in that suicide path.
So for 40k a reboot does not grant anything, but the game needs pruning. My fear is that designers interpret it as a "CAD and WS tables are difficult, let's get rid of them" while the problems, of course, lie elsewhere.
OR One could make it impossible to shoot something off the board turn one.
Like add hit modifiers or something. Which is what every other wargame nowadays seems to be doing.
That'd be better, however the current reality is that the power of ranged lists is/was too great.
Now you can get both shot and charged off the table on turn one. That's better than just the former, since it atleast forces the gunline lists to account for meeting the instant melee (or take a chance, possibly end up decimated.) I guess someone might think having shooting being dominant and the only way to remove someones army on turn one (or cripple it so badly the game is over in practice) is a good thing, but I disagree. I see nothing positive in the ranged aspect being superior. Atleast now things are a bit more even and some melee lists have a chance.
If we're talking complete theory then the greatest solution would be for the game to be balanced in all aspects.
There is an irony to Eldar players complaining the rules for the new Genestealer cults are overpowered and wrecking the game.
Am just getting started with a Black Legion army under the new rules. Another thing to think about is the ability to deep strike on turn one. Only Raptors can assault that turn, but Cyclopea Cabals that arrive get Shroud of Deceit and can have an 18 inch nova power.
This can be almost as powerful as a turn one assault. Used this army against an Eldar scatbike list over the holidays. Killed a Farseer and had the scatbikes shooting each other up in the first turn. Abaddon was assaulted turn 2, which actually worked against my opponent. Game ended turn 4.
There are some simple, obvious counters to this, but it will take time for pure gunline armies to compensate. I agree it is a major change for 7th edition, but certainly not something that wrecks the game.
techsoldaten wrote: There is an irony to Eldar players complaining the rules for the new Genestealer cults are overpowered and wrecking the game.
Am just getting started with a Black Legion army under the new rules. Another thing to think about is the ability to deep strike on turn one. Only Raptors can assault that turn, but Cyclopea Cabals that arrive get Shroud of Deceit and can have an 18 inch nova power.
This can be almost as powerful as a turn one assault. Used this army against an Eldar scatbike list over the holidays. Killed a Farseer and had the scatbikes shooting each other up in the first turn. Abaddon was assaulted turn 2, which actually worked against my opponent. Game ended turn 4.
There are some simple, obvious counters to this, but it will take time for pure gunline armies to compensate. I agree it is a major change for 7th edition, but certainly not something that wrecks the game.
Yes because all Eldar players are competitive players who deserve to be bashed by other competitive-ish combos.
You might want to use your anti scatbike combo against other armies to see how it fares... it may be another of these tailored anti-Eldar lists... how does it deal with the first turn Imperium of Friends charge ?
One might consider that if the game includes ways to shoot someone off the board on turn 1, then such an option should exist for melee. Melee was and to some extent still is the underdog.
So we are now moving toward a rocket tag game and this is somehow good?
It doesn't matter if it's good. It's just. As soon as Codex:Eldar was printed for 7th ed there needed to be a reciprocal force.
Runic wrote: All things considered, first turn charges are good for the game and something that was required.
One might consider that if the game includes ways to shoot someone off the board on turn 1, then such an option should exist for melee. Melee was and to some extent still is the underdog.
OR One could make it impossible to shoot something off the board turn one.
Like add hit modifiers or something. Which is what every other wargame nowadays seems to be doing.
Armies were shot off the board MORE in 2nd ed and that was with to-hit modifiers.
One might consider that if the game includes ways to shoot someone off the board on turn 1, then such an option should exist for melee. Melee was and to some extent still is the underdog.
So we are now moving toward a rocket tag game and this is somehow good?
It doesn't matter if it's good. It's just. As soon as Codex:Eldar was printed for 7th ed there needed to be a reciprocal force.
Runic wrote: All things considered, first turn charges are good for the game and something that was required.
One might consider that if the game includes ways to shoot someone off the board on turn 1, then such an option should exist for melee. Melee was and to some extent still is the underdog.
OR One could make it impossible to shoot something off the board turn one.
Like add hit modifiers or something. Which is what every other wargame nowadays seems to be doing.
Armies were shot off the board MORE in 2nd ed and that was with to-hit modifiers.
We will talk when codex marines stops bringing 600+ of free vehicles or 2++ re-rollables with 2+ fnp at T5 and EW. So apparently guardian squads are broken now, pathfinders too. Warlock conclaves are broken too, and so are shinning spears, vypers, fireprisms, etc. Yeah, most of the codex is extremely underpriced and it's certainly not three (maybe 4) specific units.
You got that reciprocal force, it was in codex: space marines. And that force went out of its way to blow even harder the game.
Honestly speaking I find mindboggling that ANY side says it's fine to finish the game turn 1 before the other side has the chance of doing anything.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Genestealer cults while annoying far as i know have a 1 in 6 chance to roll melee for their units coming in and they may roll up bad results.
Perhaps you should start by reading the OP before posting about this? It's a 1/6 roll on the table, but there are various ways of improving the roll that make it much more consistent.
As for transports, yes, they help, but only at an extreme cost. Chimeras are 55 points each and require a commitment to a tank-heavy army to be effective. That's a lot of points to be spending on sacrificial units that leave the survivors of the squad inside trapped at point blank range next to a wall of threats that will eat them next turn if they don't completely table the assault army in a single shooting phase. And all those LRBTs that you have to take to make mech IG effective are 150+ point paperweights against first-turn charges.
That's funny, if any shootie armie benefits from first turn assault it's Astra Militarum.
1. Cheap bodies to block the assault? Absolute check.
2. Metal Boxes that lay down lots of fire then either blow up in the enemy's face or get wrecked to create roadblocks? Hell Yeah.
3. Fortifications that can make five models cover a foot of board space? Gotit!
4. Long Ranged blasts? Guard got that.
5. Benefits when all the other shootie armies downsize their artillery because first turn assaults got them scared? Hell yeah.
Been playing IG since 2nd ed, and thoroughly disagree with your 'analysis'.
1. You mean Conscripts? Deployed in a tight bubble all the way around everything else in my army? Not as 'cheap' as you seem to think, IMO, since it would probably take 2 x 50 man squads of them to build a decent meat shield, which also means two platoons, etc etc...
2. Chimeras? AV 10 deathtraps that will die if they get charged. Using the two platoon matrix above, that means a minimum of six of them at 65 points each, almost 400 points. So let's see, we're already at 800-900 points, depending on weapons in the platoons...
3. Not even sure what you're talking about here, but let's just go with a standard Aegis Line with a gun, that's what? another 100 or so? So depending on size of game, I now have 500-850 or so points for an HQ and anything else, like valk/vendettas, Leman Russ tanks, an HQ of some sort, etc etc etc
4. Long ranged blasts don't do much to units that start right in your face and/or engage you in assault before you get to shoot them... 'Nuff said.
5. This one might be a possibility, except that if I modify my army, aren't I in the same boat?
BTW, I have a large Genestealer Cult army from way back in the day, and am hoping to field it once I rebuild models to the current ruleset, so I guess I'm on both sides of this predicament. How do I build my IG or Sisters to face this issue, and how do I build my GS Cult to make use of it?
Uh huh.
If you've been Guarding since 2nd edition you must think I've never read the codex.
1. 60 point squads of Conscripts are hardly your cheapest line of meat shields.
Lets try 130 points for an Infantry Platoon that gives you two 50 point units of infantry and a 30 point Command Squad.
Since each Alpha Strike works diffrrently they need different strategies.
Against Drop Pods - Three of these platoons laid out right can prevent Drop Pods even landing close to your stuff. Using Aussie 5c pieces - smaller than a guard base - and abusing the two inch rule I can cover three square feet of playing surface, and that's for 390 points. Add in terrain and whatever tanks you happen to be fielding , plus the size of the drop pod itself and the fact it has to be at least two inches away from any one of your models and I'm pretty sure a smart fellow like yourself could prevent an opponent's pod from even landing in your deployment zone.
Against Wulfen boosted Spaz Mutts - Mutts are going in one direction, forward. Plant your stuff behind the biggest bottle neck in your deployment zone and plug the gaps with lines of meat shields and the Chimeras, the Wolves hit the first meat wall and evaporate it then stop. Shoot the hell out of them. They charge again, hit the second meat shield, evaporate it then stop. Shoot the hell out of them. They charge again and hit the Chimera, it either blows up and deals wounds or it becomes a wreck and difficult terrain TWC and Space Wolves bikes really don't like moving through difficult terrain, it becomes dangerous terrain. Make them pay for every inch with saving throws. Did I already mention shooting the hell out of them?
TWC Deathstar - That bottleneck is going to be an even bigger pain to the butt. Forget multi charges, you can limit that Deathstar down to two inches per turn, for a grand total of nine squads and 390 points, assuming they can shoot a full squad a turn out of the way.
Genestealers are the hard one, I've never played with or against the Cult, so I have no idea what their Alpha Strike entails or how many units they can bring to the party.
2. Chimeras are only deathtraps if they have troops inside them or 'Bubble wrapping' them. Use the fact that the Chimera takes up space and has the habbit of blowing up to make it a nifty roadblock, until then use it's guns.
3. I was actually thinking Wall of Martys defense lines and bunkers. Don't bother with gun batteries, 80 points to plug that bigger hole. We're sitting at 600 points so far which leaves you 1250 to buy big tanks.
4. We've covered how to stop them getting close to your big guns, blast away Son!
5.Yes and no. Because your meat shields are cheaper per model than Eldar and Tau those two are being hit harder by all this and those extra gun platforms the Tau have had to drop to field said meat shields mean less Ignores Cover pie plates being dropped on your stuff.
Armies were shot off the board MORE in 2nd ed and that was with to-hit modifiers.
With negative modifiers? I find that hard to believe.
Everything cost way more points, targeters were a thing, as were sustained fire dice and armor modifiers. You do the math. I saw it happen at least a dozen times, twice to myself.
Armies were shot off the board MORE in 2nd ed and that was with to-hit modifiers.
With negative modifiers? I find that hard to believe.
Everything cost way more points, targeters were a thing, as were sustained fire dice and armor modifiers. You do the math. I saw it happen at least a dozen times, twice to myself.
So don't have those things. Just because one edition used to hit modifiers and had those things doesn't mean to have to use all those things again along with re-introduced to hit modifiers.
SM are the neo-orks as battlecompany is a horde list. And i have better success against them than tau or eldar.
Look at marines without formations or even ba formations. Most eldar units are undercosted. Naming off the few that aren't doesn't get you any pity points.
Eldar effectively end me in one turn, so it's time the shoe is on the other foot.
Armies were shot off the board MORE in 2nd ed and that was with to-hit modifiers.
With negative modifiers? I find that hard to believe.
Everything cost way more points, targeters were a thing, as were sustained fire dice and armor modifiers. You do the math. I saw it happen at least a dozen times, twice to myself.
So don't have those things. Just because one edition used to hit modifiers and had those things doesn't mean to have to use all those things again along with re-introduced to hit modifiers.
SM are the neo-orks as battlecompany is a horde list. And i have better success against them than tau or eldar.
Look at marines without formations or even ba formations. Most eldar units are undercosted. Naming off the few that aren't doesn't get you any pity points.
Eldar effectively end me in one turn, so it's time the shoe is on the other foot.
"Naming off the few that arent". Do you mean 3 out of 5 troop choices, almost all unique headquarter choices, 2 (if not 3) out of 4 of the generic ones, half if not more the tanks and fliers, half of the aspects (swooping hawks, banshees, shinning spears, dire avengers) is a few units that are not undercosted? Because wow, you have a high treshold for a "few", there's easily 2/3 of the codex there.
If you can beat easily a broken-ass SM force (battlecompany/superfriends) you can beat a generic eldar force that is not scatbike/warpsider/wraithknight spam. That doesn't give you pity points, it makes you look like a D-bag.
I look at SM without formation and I see grav-cav still is there, which can and has handily win tournaments, specially with white scars.
SM are the neo-orks as battlecompany is a horde list. And i have better success against them than tau or eldar.
Look at marines without formations or even ba formations. Most eldar units are undercosted. Naming off the few that aren't doesn't get you any pity points.
Eldar effectively end me in one turn, so it's time the shoe is on the other foot.
"Naming off the few that arent". Do you mean 3 out of 5 troop choices, almost all unique headquarter choices, 2 (if not 3) out of 4 of the generic ones, half if not more the tanks and fliers, half of the aspects (swooping hawks, banshees, shinning spears, dire avengers) is a few units that are not undercosted? Because wow, you have a high treshold for a "few", there's easily 2/3 of the codex there.
If you can beat easily a broken-ass SM force (battlecompany/superfriends) you can beat a generic eldar force that is not scatbike/warpsider/wraithknight spam. That doesn't give you pity points, it makes you look like a D-bag.
I look at SM without formation and I see grav-cav still is there, which can and has handily win tournaments, specially with white scars.
I didn't say beat it. I said fare better. I lose to battle company, but at least I don't get tabled like a chump.
I maintain compared to the garbage that straight marines get saddled with, many of those Eldar units are undercosted. I for one would love to have Eldar tanks, dire avengers, and HQ choices.
"I see grav-cav still is there"
Meh. Without libby conclave for invis, they are easy meat for the Eldar and Tau. Imperial durability is completely predicated on a psychic power everyone loathes. But there's no problem at all with Eldar and Tau. None at all.
Martel732 wrote: Because Eldar have been the consistently best codex in 40K forever.
So you've only been playing since Eldar 6th and until the new SM psychic powers, is that correct ?
I've been playing them since 2nd. And during the time period from 2nd-7th, Eldar are consistently the best list in the game. They were down in 3rd until they got a codex and in 5th (sorta, I still saw a LOT of arrogant space puppy players massacred en masse by scatterlasers). That's it.
Martel732 wrote: Because Eldar have been the consistently best codex in 40K forever.
So you've only been playing since Eldar 6th and until the new SM psychic powers, is that correct ?
I've been playing them since 2nd. And during the time period from 2nd-7th, Eldar are consistently the best list in the game. They were down in 3rd until they got a codex and in 5th (sorta, I still saw a LOT of arrogant space puppy players massacred en masse by scatterlasers). That's it.
BULL. To begin with they got a codex in 4th ed and it was bad, it wasn't until 6th ed that they got this strong. But yeah, they were consistently the best list between 2nd and 7th... if you ignore 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th.
techsoldaten wrote: There is an irony to Eldar players complaining the rules for the new Genestealer cults are overpowered and wrecking the game.
Am just getting started with a Black Legion army under the new rules. Another thing to think about is the ability to deep strike on turn one. Only Raptors can assault that turn, but Cyclopea Cabals that arrive get Shroud of Deceit and can have an 18 inch nova power.
This can be almost as powerful as a turn one assault. Used this army against an Eldar scatbike list over the holidays. Killed a Farseer and had the scatbikes shooting each other up in the first turn. Abaddon was assaulted turn 2, which actually worked against my opponent. Game ended turn 4.
There are some simple, obvious counters to this, but it will take time for pure gunline armies to compensate. I agree it is a major change for 7th edition, but certainly not something that wrecks the game.
Yes because all Eldar players are competitive players who deserve to be bashed by other competitive-ish combos.
You might want to use your anti scatbike combo against other armies to see how it fares... it may be another of these tailored anti-Eldar lists... how does it deal with the first turn Imperium of Friends charge ?
I imagine the free VotLW will ensure they do just fine against the Imperium.
The other thing being overlooked in this conversation is that it's no sure thing a turn one assault / deep strike army will actually arrive. For the Black Legion, only the warlord is guaranteed a first turn arrival, all other units arrive on 3+ (and that's before mishaps.) WEs depend on dice rolls for range. I understand Genestealer Cults rely on rolls for arriving from reserve as well.
Let's also remember Eldar have plenty of melee units that could be in their lists. It's only a matter of time before the competitive lists move away from pure gunlines to something more balanced that still kicks everyone in the teeth.
Martel732 wrote: Because Eldar have been the consistently best codex in 40K forever.
So you've only been playing since Eldar 6th and until the new SM psychic powers, is that correct ?
I've been playing them since 2nd. And during the time period from 2nd-7th, Eldar are consistently the best list in the game. They were down in 3rd until they got a codex and in 5th (sorta, I still saw a LOT of arrogant space puppy players massacred en masse by scatterlasers). That's it.
BULL. To begin with they got a codex in 4th ed and it was bad, it wasn't until 6th ed that they got this strong. But yeah, they were consistently the best list between 2nd and 7th... if you ignore 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th.
I remember the perspective that Eldar were bad in everything between 2nd and 5th, and the reality that skilled players knew what to do with them.
What makes Eldar lists seem so much better in the current edition is the fact it requires a lot less thinking to make them work. Just take psykers with Divination, add units with outrageous numbers of shots, and blow things away.
Martel732 wrote: Because Eldar have been the consistently best codex in 40K forever.
So you've only been playing since Eldar 6th and until the new SM psychic powers, is that correct ?
I've been playing them since 2nd. And during the time period from 2nd-7th, Eldar are consistently the best list in the game. They were down in 3rd until they got a codex and in 5th (sorta, I still saw a LOT of arrogant space puppy players massacred en masse by scatterlasers). That's it.
BULL. To begin with they got a codex in 4th ed and it was bad, it wasn't until 6th ed that they got this strong. But yeah, they were consistently the best list between 2nd and 7th... if you ignore 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th.
I remember the perspective that Eldar were bad in everything between 2nd and 5th, and the reality that skilled players knew what to do with them.
What makes Eldar lists seem so much better in the current edition is the fact it requires a lot less thinking to make them work. Just take psykers with Divination, add units with outrageous numbers of shots, and blow things away.
That's simply not mathematically true. 2nd ed Eldar actually took very little skill except against specific opponents (CSM + Tyranids). The IoM armies other than maybe space wolves had basically zero chance. They were also fantastic in 3.5, and dominant in 4th. Their ONLY down periods are 3rd pre-codex and 5th-6th pre-codex. And let's be real here.They have never been as down as DA were for over a decade, or the Orks/BA are now.
Martel732 wrote: Because Eldar have been the consistently best codex in 40K forever.
So you've only been playing since Eldar 6th and until the new SM psychic powers, is that correct ?
I've been playing them since 2nd. And during the time period from 2nd-7th, Eldar are consistently the best list in the game. They were down in 3rd until they got a codex and in 5th (sorta, I still saw a LOT of arrogant space puppy players massacred en masse by scatterlasers). That's it.
BULL. To begin with they got a codex in 4th ed and it was bad, it wasn't until 6th ed that they got this strong. But yeah, they were consistently the best list between 2nd and 7th... if you ignore 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th.
I remember the perspective that Eldar were bad in everything between 2nd and 5th, and the reality that skilled players knew what to do with them.
What makes Eldar lists seem so much better in the current edition is the fact it requires a lot less thinking to make them work. Just take psykers with Divination, add units with outrageous numbers of shots, and blow things away.
This. Between 2nd and 5th Eldar were like their dark cousins but with psykers and a bit more forgiving. That's it. You needed a plan and it needed to go as expected or else you were going down like a ten dollar hooker.
There's a reason for competitive lists focusing only on farseers and the three previously mentioned units with some odd addition. Nothing else is THAT good. It's solid, few things in the codex are bad, but it's nowhere close to make it to the top tables consistently.
You are both going heavy revisionist history here. I'm not fooled, as I was there for this crap. 2nd ed Eldar was actually the number one culprit for turn 1 tablings, followed by CSM. Sorry if you guys didn't figure out the power combos in your own codex back then.
Meanwhile, I hope the cult eats your face and we get more turn one charges. I mean, BA can't do it, but I'll enjoy all the tears of shooty lists. It's clear we're never getting balance, so I'll settle for spite.
Martel732 wrote: You are both going against my heavy revisionist history here. Sorry if I didn't figure out the power combos in my own codex back then.
There fixed it for you.
Also, BA unable of turn 1 charges? Guess who needs to figure out the power combos he can make with the right tools.
Martel732 wrote: You are both going against my heavy revisionist history here. Sorry if I didn't figure out the power combos in my own codex back then.
There fixed it for you.
Also, DA unable of turn 1 charges? Guess who needs to figure out the power combos he can make with the right tools.
You can disagree all you like, but I suspect I know with whom the majority of other posters will agree with. I've been ganged up on by far worse than the two of you.
Martel732 wrote: Because Eldar have been the consistently best codex in 40K forever.
So you've only been playing since Eldar 6th and until the new SM psychic powers, is that correct ?
I've been playing them since 2nd. And during the time period from 2nd-7th, Eldar are consistently the best list in the game. They were down in 3rd until they got a codex and in 5th (sorta, I still saw a LOT of arrogant space puppy players massacred en masse by scatterlasers). That's it.
BULL. To begin with they got a codex in 4th ed and it was bad, it wasn't until 6th ed that they got this strong. But yeah, they were consistently the best list between 2nd and 7th... if you ignore 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th.
And 6th until the Eldar Codex, and 7th after the Space Marine Crazy Psy Powers.
Martel732 wrote: You are both going against my heavy revisionist history here. Sorry if I didn't figure out the power combos in my own codex back then.
There fixed it for you.
Also, DA unable of turn 1 charges? Guess who needs to figure out the power combos he can make with the right tools.
You can disagree all you like, but I suspect I know with whom the majority of other posters will agree with. I've been ganged up on by far worse than the two of you.
BA, not DA.
Just out of curiosity, will it be like Nixon's majority?
Oh cry me a river. Someone help this BA player, he's been brutalized by two people disagreeing with him!!
Hardly. You two are a bit of a joke, really. Eldar players looking for sympathy. Oh noes! I might lose a game if the big bad Tyranids can sneak up and assault me!
Let's also remember Eldar have plenty of melee units that could be in their lists. It's only a matter of time before the competitive lists move away from pure gunlines to something more balanced that still kicks everyone in the teeth.
Urgh... yes Eldar have plenty of melee units all of which are so terrible at their job... if we played those, we wouldn't even have a chance against SMC.
But the T1 charge people are complaining about is probably the competitive one, the one that was entirely removed from ITC, electro displacement-based superfriends superfist don't even try to dodge this combo.
Martel732 wrote: Hardly. You two are a bit of a joke, really. Eldar players looking for sympathy. Oh noes! I might lose a game if the big bad Tyranids can sneak up and assault me!
Oh noes, I may lose a game because I don't play the over-powered (this last 2 editions) flavor of power armor! LOVE ME AND SCORN THEM!!
Let's also remember Eldar have plenty of melee units that could be in their lists. It's only a matter of time before the competitive lists move away from pure gunlines to something more balanced that still kicks everyone in the teeth.
Urgh... yes Eldar have plenty of melee units all of which are so terrible at their job... if we played those, we wouldn't even have a chance against SMC.
But the T1 charge people are complaining about is probably the competitive one, the one that was entirely removed from ITC, electro displacement-based superfriends superfist don't even try to dodge this combo.
Well, scorpions aren't bad. Not uber but they get the job done for me from time to time.
Martel732 wrote: Because Eldar have been the consistently best codex in 40K forever.
So you've only been playing since Eldar 6th and until the new SM psychic powers, is that correct ?
I've been playing them since 2nd. And during the time period from 2nd-7th, Eldar are consistently the best list in the game. They were down in 3rd until they got a codex and in 5th (sorta, I still saw a LOT of arrogant space puppy players massacred en masse by scatterlasers). That's it.
BULL. To begin with they got a codex in 4th ed and it was bad, it wasn't until 6th ed that they got this strong. But yeah, they were consistently the best list between 2nd and 7th... if you ignore 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th.
wait what?
4E Eldar were astoundingly strong. Flying circus, invinciskimmers, untargetable harlequins, etc. Before that was invinciskimmers and Starcannon spam and Alaitoc disruption tables. Eldar were absolutely top tier in 3E and especially 4E. 2E they were so broken they were a big part of what prompted the 3E reboot (though some of that was due to the insanity of 2E psychics). 5E was the *only* edition where Eldar were not at the top 1-3 of the power pile, mainly because it was the only edition they didnt get a codex update in.
Eldar have absolutely been a top tier army throughout the vast majority of the games lifespan
I remember the perspective that Eldar were bad in everything between 2nd and 5th, and the reality that skilled players knew what to do with them.
What makes Eldar lists seem so much better in the current edition is the fact it requires a lot less thinking to make them work. Just take psykers with Divination, add units with outrageous numbers of shots, and blow things away.
Don't get me wrong, they weren't "bad" like Dark Eldar is "bad", but they weren't top tier for a very long period of time.
The vast majority of Eldar history was: optimize 100%, play super smart and you may have a chance against the top lists when they're either unlucky or played by less skilled players.
I agree though, Eldar often had a shot, which is more than some obscure codexes ever had.
Martel732 wrote: Because Eldar have been the consistently best codex in 40K forever.
So you've only been playing since Eldar 6th and until the new SM psychic powers, is that correct ?
I've been playing them since 2nd. And during the time period from 2nd-7th, Eldar are consistently the best list in the game. They were down in 3rd until they got a codex and in 5th (sorta, I still saw a LOT of arrogant space puppy players massacred en masse by scatterlasers). That's it.
BULL. To begin with they got a codex in 4th ed and it was bad, it wasn't until 6th ed that they got this strong. But yeah, they were consistently the best list between 2nd and 7th... if you ignore 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th.
wait what?
4E Eldar were astoundingly strong. Flying circus, invinciskimmers, untargetable harlequins, etc. Before that was invinciskimmers and Starcannon spam and Alaitoc disruption tables. Eldar were absolutely top tier in 3E and especially 4E. 2E they were so broken they were a big part of what prompted the 3E reboot (though some of that was due to the insanity of 2E psychics). 5E was the *only* edition where Eldar were not at the top 1-3 of the power pile, mainly because it was the only edition they didnt get a codex update in.
Eldar have absolutely been a top tier army throughout the vast majority of the games lifespan
Shuriken cannons laid waste in 2nd ed due to their -3 armor save modifier and high rate of fire. Even terminators crumbled like chumps before them. CSM terminators just had a hope of killing them first.
I remember the perspective that Eldar were bad in everything between 2nd and 5th, and the reality that skilled players knew what to do with them.
What makes Eldar lists seem so much better in the current edition is the fact it requires a lot less thinking to make them work. Just take psykers with Divination, add units with outrageous numbers of shots, and blow things away.
Don't get me wrong, they weren't "bad" like Dark Eldar is "bad", but they weren't top tier for a very long period of time.
The vast majority of Eldar history was: optimize 100%, play super smart and you may have a chance against the top lists when they're either unlucky or played by less skilled players.
I agree though, Eldar often had a shot, which is more than some obscure codexes ever had.
Again, that's blatantly untrue. So you're clearly not able to use your own codex or are intentionally falsifying how the past codices worked.
Let's also remember Eldar have plenty of melee units that could be in their lists. It's only a matter of time before the competitive lists move away from pure gunlines to something more balanced that still kicks everyone in the teeth.
Urgh... yes Eldar have plenty of melee units all of which are so terrible at their job... if we played those, we wouldn't even have a chance against SMC.
But the T1 charge people are complaining about is probably the competitive one, the one that was entirely removed from ITC, electro displacement-based superfriends superfist don't even try to dodge this combo.
Oh noes, I have to pick some powers out of Telepathy instead of Divination to buff my units! GIVE ME BACK MY GUNLINE!
...
Sorry if that's too obnoxious. Eldar have the tools to buff melee units to the point where they can withstand a first turn charge. Invisible Seer Council wrecks face.
4E Eldar were astoundingly strong. Flying circus, invinciskimmers, untargetable harlequins, etc. Before that was invinciskimmers and Starcannon spam and Alaitoc disruption tables. Eldar were absolutely top tier in 3E and especially 4E. 2E they were so broken they were a big part of what prompted the 3E reboot (though some of that was due to the insanity of 2E psychics). 5E was the *only* edition where Eldar were not at the top 1-3 of the power pile, mainly because it was the only edition they didnt get a codex update in.
Eldar have absolutely been a top tier army throughout the vast majority of the games lifespan
It all depends on what you call top tier.
In my opinion, if your army doesn't get more than 25% of tournament victories, it's not really top tier.
I'll let someone else cover 2nd and 3rd ed.
In 4th Edition, the top Eldar build was Falcons with Harlequins, which were very targetable, but unfortunately for you, they would only get out of the Falcon to charge you, because that was still a thing, and Falcons with holofields were hard to crack.
They were playable, they had a shot, but they were VERY FAR from being the best 4th Ed army, and I'm quite sure they weren't top 3.
In 5th Edition, the top Eldar Build was more around Wave Serpents with Fire Dragons, which was weaker than 4th Ed and definitely not top 3.
2nd Edition ?
3rd Edition ?
4th Edition was Leafblower ?
5th Edition was dominated by GK, Eldar wasn't top 3
6th Edition prior to Eldar Codex - no idea, Eldar wasn't top 3
6th Edition after Eldar Codex - Eldar, Tau, Necrons, Daemons, Space Marines
7th Edition before SM powers - Eldar, Necrons, Tau, Space Marines, Daemons
7th Edition after SM powers - Space Marines, ... no idea this is still too fresh.
Let's also remember Eldar have plenty of melee units that could be in their lists. It's only a matter of time before the competitive lists move away from pure gunlines to something more balanced that still kicks everyone in the teeth.
Urgh... yes Eldar have plenty of melee units all of which are so terrible at their job... if we played those, we wouldn't even have a chance against SMC.
But the T1 charge people are complaining about is probably the competitive one, the one that was entirely removed from ITC, electro displacement-based superfriends superfist don't even try to dodge this combo.
Oh noes, I have to pick some powers out of Telepathy instead of Divination to buff my units! GIVE ME BACK MY GUNLINE!
...
Sorry if that's too obnoxious. Eldar have the tools to buff melee units to the point where they can withstand a first turn charge. Invisible Seer Council wrecks face.
Yes, you go try that combo of yours and then come back telling me how your fleshbane pa nothing attacks totally wrecked face on those 2+ rerollable 3+ fnp guys who were invisible, without even losing a single member to 40+ S10AP2 attacks.
Eldar, unfortunately, do not have "reroll to get the power you like" or "pass powers on a 2+ because Spehs mehreeens"
Let's also remember Eldar have plenty of melee units that could be in their lists. It's only a matter of time before the competitive lists move away from pure gunlines to something more balanced that still kicks everyone in the teeth.
Urgh... yes Eldar have plenty of melee units all of which are so terrible at their job... if we played those, we wouldn't even have a chance against SMC.
But the T1 charge people are complaining about is probably the competitive one, the one that was entirely removed from ITC, electro displacement-based superfriends superfist don't even try to dodge this combo.
Oh noes, I have to pick some powers out of Telepathy instead of Divination to buff my units! GIVE ME BACK MY GUNLINE!
...
Sorry if that's too obnoxious. Eldar have the tools to buff melee units to the point where they can withstand a first turn charge. Invisible Seer Council wrecks face.
Ehm... not really. Sure you're sixes to hit but you're efectively dishing 10 attacks with no AP whatsoever. Even factoring fleshbane in you're killing a MEQ or two (1.57) with two farseers and three warlocks. Killing a marine per turn is... underwhelming for a 380pts unit.
Uh huh.
If you've been Guarding since 2nd edition you must think I've never read the codex.
1. 60 point squads of Conscripts are hardly your cheapest line of meat shields.
Lets try 130 points for an Infantry Platoon that gives you two 50 point units of infantry and a 30 point Command Squad.
Since each Alpha Strike works diffrrently they need different strategies.
Genestealers are the hard one, I've never played with or against the Cult, so I have no idea what their Alpha Strike entails or how many units they can bring to the party.
Min platoon is 25 bodies, not much of a meat shield. Anyways, I'm still a blob player so my platoons are usually part of my 'shooty'. Could still use them as meatshields tho...
And Genestealer Cult is the one that I expect to cause the most problems. With a possible ability to Infiltrate 3" away and still assault on the first turn, well, that's fairly nasty against an IG army. means I have to line up no more than 3" from the back edge or sides, meatshield close enough (6 or so inches) that they cannot infiltrate between units, and so on.
As a GSC player, I'll take the disorganized charge and multi-assault so as to tie up as much as I can, hoping that one of your fleshy units doesn't run that first turn (cause we both know the IG are going to lose the combat) so that I'm safe from shooting during your turn. Sure, your vehicles can shoot at my stuff that didn't get to Infiltrate in close (which will be MY shooty and tanks), assuming that it survives... But really won't know for sure until I hit the table with it, and even then it's just anecdotal. Heh, may have to look at building an IG style Cult list...
Anyways, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Martel732 wrote: Now invis isn't good enough for Eldar. Hilarious!
At which point I said invisibility was bad? I said that invisible council has an underwhelming output. So now you're revisioning comments too? Could you please act like a bigger dumkopf?
Martel, I know you are BA player and think everything outside your codex is better but look at this objectively: it's a 380pts unit. In CQC gets you 14 points killed per round.
Yeah, totally a landmower that will crack down any specialized meelee unit!
Just look at this match-up:
10 regular terminators versus the seer conclave. 350pts vs 380pts
Seer conclave makes 10 attacks. Hits 5.6666 times (4 attacks hit on 3s, 6 on 4s). And wounds 4.72 times. It causes a whooping... 0.78 terminators. But let's be generous and say they killed a termie! 10% wiped out in a turn.
9 terminators make 18 attacks. Hit 3 times. Wound 2.5 times. It causes 1.25 dead warlocks/farseers, whichever fool gets in. 20% wiped out in a turn.
fething regular terminators do better than the conclave all while being cheaper.
Let's also remember Eldar have plenty of melee units that could be in their lists. It's only a matter of time before the competitive lists move away from pure gunlines to something more balanced that still kicks everyone in the teeth.
Urgh... yes Eldar have plenty of melee units all of which are so terrible at their job... if we played those, we wouldn't even have a chance against SMC.
But the T1 charge people are complaining about is probably the competitive one, the one that was entirely removed from ITC, electro displacement-based superfriends superfist don't even try to dodge this combo.
Oh noes, I have to pick some powers out of Telepathy instead of Divination to buff my units! GIVE ME BACK MY GUNLINE!
...
Sorry if that's too obnoxious. Eldar have the tools to buff melee units to the point where they can withstand a first turn charge. Invisible Seer Council wrecks face.
Ehm... not really. Sure you're sixes to hit but you're efectively dishing 10 attacks with no AP whatsoever. Even factoring fleshbane in you're killing a MEQ or two (1.57) with two farseers and three warlocks. Killing a marine per turn is... underwhelming for a 380pts unit.
I play CSMs. Welcome to the world of the unit tax, where you include sub-optimal units to keep the good ones alive.
I must not play against Eldar enough, I thought Seer Councils were more capable. Perhaps Howling Banshees could fill some roll that keeps me from slaying your Jetbikes, Farseer and Wraithknights on the first turn?
Martel732 wrote: Now invis isn't good enough for Eldar. Hilarious!
Invisibility depends on the target.
Invisibility on an early 7th Ed Iyanden BeastStar is incredibly powerful.
Invisibility on a Centurion Bomb is incredibly powerful.
Invisibility on 3 jetbikes is not very powerful.
Basically, it's a force multiplier that gains value as the target is more expensive and more powerful.
Thus, a top tier unit like the Grav Centurion, when built into a deathstar, is a good bet.
So is a Titan, if you play with people who think invisibility should be cast on a Titan...
So is a 1000 point IoM deathstar that can do serious damage.
It's not that great on a 500-ish Eldar jetbike deathstar that can do nothing good except casting self buffs - which it will if it's going for invisibility (and then logically, Fortune, if they're going to tank anything).
So you're paying 500 points for a unit that may be able to survive a few rounds of combat with the IoM deathstar, but you don't stand a chance of dealing them any damage, even if they lose Invisibility, and you're at risk of one turn obliteration if you do fail it.
You can't lock it in combat, because it has ways to get out of there, and you can't get out of combat, because taking mr. superwings would be far too expensive.
All the while, your conga line of 500 points of jetbikes dudes can hardly block access to much of the map, and once ignored by your opponent becomes nearly useless, while your other units drop like flies.
Now even if you manage to win that match, your list is so terrible it's going to get destroyed by every other good list out there, from crons to daemons.
Martel732 wrote: Now invis isn't good enough for Eldar. Hilarious!
At which point I said invisibility was bad? I said that invisible council has an underwhelming output. So now you're revisioning comments too? Could you please act like a bigger dumkopf?
Martel, I know you are BA player and think everything outside your codex is better but look at this objectively: it's a 380pts unit. In CQC gets you 14 points killed per round.
Yeah, totally a landmower that will crack down any specialized meelee unit!
Just look at this match-up:
10 regular terminators versus the seer conclave. 350pts vs 380pts
Seer conclave makes 10 attacks. Hits 5.6666 times (4 attacks hit on 3s, 6 on 4s). And wounds 4.72 times. It causes a whooping... 0.78 terminators. But let's be generous and say they killed a termie! 10% wiped out in a turn.
9 terminators make 18 attacks. Hit 3 times. Wound 2.5 times. It causes 1.25 dead warlocks/farseers, whichever fool gets in. 20% wiped out in a turn.
fething regular terminators do better than the conclave all while being cheaper.
Martel732 wrote: Now invis isn't good enough for Eldar. Hilarious!
At which point I said invisibility was bad? I said that invisible council has an underwhelming output. So now you're revisioning comments too? Could you please act like a bigger dumkopf?
Martel, I know you are BA player and think everything outside your codex is better but look at this objectively: it's a 380pts unit. In CQC gets you 14 points killed per round.
Yeah, totally a landmower that will crack down any specialized meelee unit!
Just look at this match-up:
10 regular terminators versus the seer conclave. 350pts vs 380pts
Seer conclave makes 10 attacks. Hits 5.6666 times (4 attacks hit on 3s, 6 on 4s). And wounds 4.72 times. It causes a whooping... 0.78 terminators. But let's be generous and say they killed a termie! 10% wiped out in a turn.
9 terminators make 18 attacks. Hit 3 times. Wound 2.5 times. It causes 1.25 dead warlocks/farseers, whichever fool gets in. 20% wiped out in a turn.
fething regular terminators do better than the conclave all while being cheaper.
My terminators are 40/model.
And guess fething what, they'd do about as well against that unit, just for 20pts more.
I'm conflicted about first turn charges. On one hand assault armies (and assault in general) have been crapped on for a long time now. On the other hand one of my two armies is Imperial Guard, who get absolutely decimated if anything other than Gretchin assault us. All we'd get is maybe one round of overwatch fire (if I'm going second) and no-one fears Guard overwatch
Let's also remember Eldar have plenty of melee units that could be in their lists. It's only a matter of time before the competitive lists move away from pure gunlines to something more balanced that still kicks everyone in the teeth.
Urgh... yes Eldar have plenty of melee units all of which are so terrible at their job... if we played those, we wouldn't even have a chance against SMC.
But the T1 charge people are complaining about is probably the competitive one, the one that was entirely removed from ITC, electro displacement-based superfriends superfist don't even try to dodge this combo.
Oh noes, I have to pick some powers out of Telepathy instead of Divination to buff my units! GIVE ME BACK MY GUNLINE!
...
Sorry if that's too obnoxious. Eldar have the tools to buff melee units to the point where they can withstand a first turn charge. Invisible Seer Council wrecks face.
Ehm... not really. Sure you're sixes to hit but you're efectively dishing 10 attacks with no AP whatsoever. Even factoring fleshbane in you're killing a MEQ or two (1.57) with two farseers and three warlocks. Killing a marine per turn is... underwhelming for a 380pts unit.
I play CSMs. Welcome to the world of the unit tax, where you include sub-optimal units to keep the good ones alive.
I must not play against Eldar enough, I thought Seer Councils were more capable. Perhaps Howling Banshees could fill some roll that keeps me from slaying your Jetbikes, Farseer and Wraithknights on the first turn?
Farseers and warlock have each 2 attack: 1 base and another for two CCW. No AP whatsoever. Using them in meelee is a bad idea. Big time. Almost any dedicated meelee unit will beat them systematically. Mutilators would handily beat them, should they be taken in an equivalently costed unit: with LC they average a wound per turn versus the 0.78 of eldar and they'd be seven versus 5 eldar models, so 14 wounds versus 9. I seriously don't know where this invisibility council beating face but it couldn't be farther from the truth.
I play Emperors Children, I know full well the tale of taxes. I know the story well and that by and large the eldar are pathetic when it comes to infantry survivability. Banshees? They die to shooting. T3 and a 4+ save in the open is a good way to get killed in this edition. They only thing that would be viable for defense would be scorpions (which I run aniway) because they can have very solid cover saves. Wraithguards with axe+shield mayhaps but they are expensive like lawyers so they do poor for screening.
andysonic1 wrote: There are a ton of fortifications, many of which allow you to stick units inside to shoot out of while coming with several upgrades to help the shooting and defend against assault units. No one ever takes them from what I've seen, but with the onset of Turn One charges they might start looking at them.
Escape Tunnel? Escape Hatch? one of those lets you redeploy 18 in away from the fortification. Have already looked into it.
Your comparison is meaningless. We are talking about using invis models with invuln saves to tarpit real cc units, not terminators. The output of a tarpit is largely unimportant.
4E Eldar were astoundingly strong. Flying circus, invinciskimmers, untargetable harlequins, etc. Before that was invinciskimmers and Starcannon spam and Alaitoc disruption tables. Eldar were absolutely top tier in 3E and especially 4E. 2E they were so broken they were a big part of what prompted the 3E reboot (though some of that was due to the insanity of 2E psychics). 5E was the *only* edition where Eldar were not at the top 1-3 of the power pile, mainly because it was the only edition they didnt get a codex update in.
Eldar have absolutely been a top tier army throughout the vast majority of the games lifespan
It all depends on what you call top tier.
In my opinion, if your army doesn't get more than 25% of tournament victories, it's not really top tier.
how do you define "tournament victory"? First place? Best overall? Best General? Events make a lot of distinctions, and often the difference between 1st and 7th is a single die roll coming up for the opponent.
In 4th Edition, the top Eldar build was Falcons with Harlequins, which were very targetable
only within 2d6x2 inches, which meant, between 4E LoS rules and area terrain, invinciskimmer transports, and consolidation into new combats, they were effectively untargetable by shooting. 4E is when I initially built my Eldar army, and they were truly ridiculous in that edition, easily on par with the most heinous CSM 3.5 builds before that book got replaced.
but unfortunately for you, they would only get out of the Falcon to charge you, because that was still a thing, and Falcons with holofields were hard to crack.
Right.
They were playable, they had a shot, but they were VERY FAR from being the best 4th Ed army, and I'm quite sure they weren't top 3.
Ther tournament placement would dictate otherwise as they dominated GT events with that codex
In 5th Edition, the top Eldar Build was more around Wave Serpents with Fire Dragons, which was weaker than 4th Ed and definitely not top 3.
hence why I noted the exception for 5th.
2nd Edition ?
while I dont have hard tournament results anymore, betwern psychics, SR5 for determing first turn, moveshootmove skimmers, -3 ASM giant flame template initiative test warp spider guns, etc, Eldar were horrifically broken and matched largely only by a couple Chaos builds and some Space Wolf sillyness with multiple HW equipped terminators
3rd Edition ?
Eldar did very well in this edition with cheap 3 shot Starcannons on everything, nigh unkillable skimmers, psykers that were almost impossible to directly attack due to IC rules, and stuff like Alaitoc disruption tables.
4th Edition was Leafblower ?
IG were terrible in 4E, absolutely awful (yay chimeras that cost 100pts after basic kit and force an autodisambark with a pinning test on each penetrating hit!), and the "leafblower" thing was a 5E incarnation that came about in 2500pt 'Ard Boyz events, mainly where one player on a popular blog got first turn every single game and won one year with a heavy alpha strike list
4E was *very* friendly for the Eldar in tournament placement.
5th Edition was dominated by GK, Eldar wasn't top 3
again, hence the exception, but the edition was more a rotating circus of imperial armies in general on top, 2008 was SM's, 2009 was IG and SW's, 2010 and 2011 was GK's and to a lesser extent BA's, with Necrons moving in on top spot in the last few months up to 6E.
Martel732 wrote: Your comparison is meaningless. We are talking about using invis models with invuln saves to tarpit real cc units, not terminators. The output of a tarpit is largely unimportant.
Oh yeah, 9 wounds on T4 3+/4++ WITHOUT FEARLESS models is an uber-tarpit. Specially cheap and cost effective. And good and totally reliable. Just be careful you don't lose that ld test you're going to make every single round. And my comparison isn't meaningless since he said they WRECK FACE. Not that they are a tarpit, but a hammer to crush the enemy.
And this is from a veteran player's comments:
My experience was that it still took relatively mistake-free play to actually win games regularly - one bad decision or mistake could easily cause even the competitive builds of the day to fold, and quickly.
Yeah, marine competitive builds have always done that too, haven't... they?
BULL. To begin with they got a codex in 4th ed and it was bad, it wasn't until 6th ed that they got this strong. But yeah, they were consistently the best list between 2nd and 7th... if you ignore 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th.
This doesn't happen terribly often, but I'm with Martel on this one. I've been playing since 3rd edition, and in that time frame, only during 5th edition were there some dexes that edged out Eldar. 3rd ed Eldar featured starcannon spam and the incredibly abuseable Codex: Craftworld Eldar. 4th ed featured unkillable Falcon grav tanks. 5th edition, they didn't get a dex, but they were still at least mid-tier. 6th ed re-established Eldar as the heavyweight champion of the broken dexes,, but that is a title they enjoyed for a long, long time before then.
Martel732 wrote: Your comparison is meaningless. We are talking about using invis models with invuln saves to tarpit real cc units, not terminators. The output of a tarpit is largely unimportant.
Hey, let's not attack Terminators. They are real cc units. Abaddon is a Terminator.
Martel732 wrote: Your comparison is meaningless. We are talking about using invis models with invuln saves to tarpit real cc units, not terminators. The output of a tarpit is largely unimportant.
Oh yeah, 9 wounds on T4 3+/4++ WITHOUT FEARLESS models is an uber-tarpit. Specially cheap and cost effective. And good and totally reliable. Just be careful you don't lose that ld test you're going to make every single round. And my comparison isn't meaningless since he said they WRECK FACE. Not that they are a tarpit, but a hammer to crush the enemy.
And this is from a veteran player's comments:
My experience was that it still took relatively mistake-free play to actually win games regularly - one bad decision or mistake could easily cause even the competitive builds of the day to fold, and quickly.
Yeah, marine competitive builds have always done that too, haven't... they?
Vanilla marines have rarely had a spot in the sun. Yes, they'r rather obnoxious at the moment, but it's still rather novel, because they've never been on top for an extended period of time before.
One actually had to play 2nd ed with people who knew what they were doing to appreciate the absurdity of the 2nd ed Eldar codex. It was a long time before the trio of CSM/Eldar/Tyranids was surpassed. Even the 3.5 CSM codex couldn't touch the 2nd ed CSM list.
I think Vakathi's specifics settle the issue of Eldar efficacy since 2nd ed. So pity is out of the question. As for 1st turn charges, I'm still not seeing the difference between that and losing 1/3 of my list on the 1st turn to shooting. Except that I don't get to choose what dies when getting shot and the Eldar list does get to choose what gets assaulted when they deploy. If you stick big daddy Wraithknight out there, they better charge with something heavy duty.
Insectum7 wrote: Not long ago, we had a thread that was titles "Am I the only one who thinks 40K is fine?", and lo and behold, the OP was not the only one. So saying things like "Can't we all just agree everything is horrible" and "indesputably a broken mess" is only done by people who only can't conceive of an opinion different than their own. Which is a poor way to have a conversation.
I can conceive of an opinion different from my own, but that opinion is still wrong. 40k's balance problems are indisputable, no reasonable person can argue that wraithknights and scatter laser jetbikes are balanced with orks. Functionality is also pretty indisputable, as demonstrated by the YMDC forum and how many arguments there are over how the rules are supposed to work. And GW's own statements confirm that they don't care about balance or rule clarity, if the current state of the game wasn't already enough proof. Anyone who can look at 40k and say "this is fine" is either playing their own heavily house-ruled version of 40k that fixes the standard version's problems or so completely lacking in experience with other games that don't share 40k's flaws that they're unable to imagine a better way of doing things.
Why would it be? Are you honestly going to suggest that 40kisn't broken and unbalanced?
Not long ago, we had a thread that was titles "Am I the only one who thinks 40K is fine?", and lo and behold, the OP was not the only one.
40k being "fine" in a subjective sense for any individual is different than 40k being broken and unbalanced. Sometimes people are perfectly fine with, or even actively seek out and enjoy, broken and unbalanced things. Some people just don't have to face the really broken stuff or just don't care about rules functionality issues and won't have problems from their views. However, it doesn't mean that 40k isn't an extremely poorly functioning ruleset with insanely poor balance
Would you like to make the case that 40k is a balanced game, and has a finely tuned, well functioning, and easy to understand rules system?
The most concise answer I can give is that asymmetry =/= imbalance, and that 95+% of 40K is asymmetric, not imbalanced. That there are a small amount of actual imbalances, doesn't invalidate the vast majority of perfectly acceptable units and rules, and their relationships to one another. I prefer asymmetry, it makes the game more interesting, IMO.
The proof that the rules are acceptable and functional for me, is that I can get an enjoyable game (in which I have to make meaningful decisions on the tabletop in order to win) with a complete stranger. It has been a loooong time since I felt the game has screwed me with some rules interpretation/misunderstanding. The most unpleasant situations I can recall, have largely been because the other guy was a dick, and that hasn't happened in a while. And most of the time, even if the other player is a bit of a tool, I can still manage to make meaningful moves on the table that often result in a victory for me, so the game still works.
As for Orks (or Tyranids), I'm a firm believer that horde armies are plenty capable, but just not tournament friendly. I see this more a fault of tournaments than the structure of 40K. I've watched a green tide army run over a number of competitive lists "in the wild", so while I understand that they aren't top tier, the fact that a capable player can still win with them is just more evidence that the system functions. (and that asymmetry is an important component)
BULL. To begin with they got a codex in 4th ed and it was bad, it wasn't until 6th ed that they got this strong. But yeah, they were consistently the best list between 2nd and 7th... if you ignore 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th.
This doesn't happen terribly often, but I'm with Martel on this one. I've been playing since 3rd edition, and in that time frame, only during 5th edition were there some dexes that edged out Eldar. 3rd ed Eldar featured starcannon spam and the incredibly abuseable Codex: Craftworld Eldar. 4th ed featured unkillable Falcon grav tanks. 5th edition, they didn't get a dex, but they were still at least mid-tier. 6th ed re-established Eldar as the heavyweight champion of the broken dexes,, but that is a title they enjoyed for a long, long time before then.
I think 4th featured a number of very good codexes though, of which Eldar was only one of them. Space Marines, Necrons, Chaos (most of 4th they were on 3.5 book), and even Nids were all solid books from what I remember. Personally I never had much of an issue with Eldar in 4th. In fact most of what I remember about Eldar in 4th was Eldar fans being upset at Necrons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Starcraft is asymmetric, yet doesn't have a scatterbike equivalent.
The scatbike is not representational of the majority of 40K, the scatbike is an outlier.
Martel732 wrote: BA have basically zero meaningful moves vs Tau and Eldar.
I'm sorry but I don't believe you. You have Grav, Drop Pods, and Librarians with access to the same new psychic powers that Chaos and SM have. BA may not be top tier, but you still have options.
The most concise answer I can give is that asymmetry =/= imbalance, and that 95+% of 40K is asymmetric, not imbalanced.
I would agree that asymmetry does not necessarily mean imbalance, however that does not mean that 40k is balanced. A typical Ork or IG army is going to be at a marked and significant disadvantage against an Eldar or Necron army, and its not because of some fundamental aspects of any of these forces being inherently intended or designed to be vulnerable against or excel against the others. I dont feel that is a controversial statement.
Something like a Knight army absolutely can be so asymetric as to be inherently and fundamentally imbalanced in a pickup or all comers scenario. A formation like the Skyhammer detachment can absolutely win many games right off turn 1. Stuff like rerollable 2+ saves, Titans, etc all can easily result in stupidly one sided games that one player has no chance at winning.
That there are a small amount of actual imbalances, doesn't invalidate the vast majority of perfectly acceptable units and rules, and their relationships to one another.
I would take issue with the idea that there are a small amount of actual imbalances. Without wanting to waste pages on detail, there are gargantuan issues with allies interaction, formation and detachment freebies and synergy, unit and wargear costings, and more.
The proof that the rules are acceptable and functional for me, is that I can get an enjoyable game (in which I have to make meaningful decisions on the tabletop in order to win) with a complete stranger. It has been a loooong time since I felt the game has screwed me with some rules interpretation/misunderstanding.
See, I've had increasingly more of these problems, and, at least in my experience and the locales I haunt, pickup gaming is dead as a result. The last time I was able to get in just a general pickup game was probably almost two years ago now? Most everything else has been arranged games or store events. And thats in two different states and four or five different game stores.
The most unpleasant situations I can recall, have largely been because the other guy was a dick, and that hasn't happened in a while. And most of the time, even if the other player is a bit of a tool, I can still manage to make meaningful moves on the table that often result in a victory for me, so the game still works.
what finally killed it for me was running a CADIG list against a War Convocation playing with probably close to a 30%pts advantage over me and it was all "kosher" because...reasons.
And there's a difference between the game "working" well enough that occasionally you can squeeze out victory and being meaningfully balanced, particularly with the very high level of RNG in GW games for almost every single possible mechanic.
The sheer amount of FAQGW has had to do, and the minirulebooks of errata that tournaments have to use should be plenty of evidence the game has major functionality and balance issues. Well balanced and smoothly functioning rulesets do not require these things to such an extent. It has been almost three years and people still have routine and major issues sorting out things like allies and multiple detachments.
Come try it sometime. Drop pods are crap in the hands of BA because they turn off our chapter tactic AND formation bonuses. And we have no units really worth podding in.
We have grav, but without invis or skyhammer, no platforms with the durability or means to deploy said grav.
We have the new psychic powers, but no libby conclave, so there is not a good way to cast them. Our "chief" librarian still only gets two rolls on any given psychic tree.
"
The scatbike is not representational of the majority of 40K, the scatbike is an outlier. "
There's no limit on how many scatbikes can show up, nor how often they show up. BA have no reasonable counters to said scatbikes. Scatbikes ARE 40K at this point.
The most concise answer I can give is that asymmetry =/= imbalance, and that 95+% of 40K is asymmetric, not imbalanced.
I would agree that asymmetry does not necessarily mean imbalance, however that does not mean that 40k is balanced. A typical Ork or IG army is going to be at a marked and significant disadvantage against an Eldar or Necron army, and its not because of some fundamental aspects of any of these forces being inherently intended or designed to be vulnerable against or excel against the others. I dont feel that is a controversial statement.
Something like a Knight army absolutely can be so asymetric as to be inherently and fundamentally imbalanced in a pickup or all comers scenario. A formation like the Skyhammer detachment can absolutely win many games right off turn 1. Stuff like rerollable 2+ saves, Titans, etc all can easily result in stupidly one sided games that one player has no chance at winning.
So, examples like the all Knight army, Skyhammer, Titans and re-rollable 2+ saves I see as representing less than 5% of the actual game content. A very small portion whose existence owes little to what I'd consider to be the core game, IMO.
As for the "typical Ork army vs. typical Necron army", I have no idea what a "typical Ork army" is supposed to look like. I just know what I've seen to be effective. I'd also say that many army matchups/unit imbalances can shift dramatically depending on army-wide strategy and terrain. What is "typical" can change from club to club, and can be defined by the players themselves. The fact that Tau are incredibly dangerous to face on tables without what I'd consider to be ample terrain is just no surprise at all. And of the Necron armies that I've seen recently vs. the Ork armies, I'd actually put my money on the Orks.
Everything else I think we'll have to agree to disagree on. I can't agree that 40K is inherently broken.
If 5% of the content gets used 75% of the time, it becomes 75% of the content. In effect, windriders are the only Eldar troops because taking the others ones is foolish. Because of imbalance. I consider that a state of brokenness. BA are different kind of broken in that no matter which units you put together, there's a good 40% of game you can't touch on the table.
Come try it sometime. Drop pods are crap in the hands of BA because they turn off our chapter tactic AND formation bonuses. And we have no units really worth podding in.
We have grav, but without invis or skyhammer, no platforms with the durability or means to deploy said grav.
We have the new psychic powers, but no libby conclave, so there is not a good way to cast them. Our "chief" librarian still only gets two rolls on any given psychic tree.
"
The scatbike is not representational of the majority of 40K, the scatbike is an outlier. "
There's no limit on how many scatbikes can show up, nor how often they show up. BA have no reasonable counters to said scatbikes. Scatbikes ARE 40K at this point.
"but you still have options."
Options that all result in a loss.
"Scatbikes ARE 40K at this point. " That might be the most hyperbolic statement I've read in a long time. They certainly haven't been in my area.
For the rest of it, I'm embarking on my new journey with Chaos, who, at the core, are CC oriented marines without Grav, Drop Pods, AKSKNF, Skyhammer or Gladius. You could wait for me to have a new sympathy for BA, but I doubt it'll come.
I don't care if you have sympathy or not. Also, your area doesn't matter to me in the slightest. If I go to a tournament, they are everywhere, just as they are everywhere were I play. I can't get away from them. The fact that they are legal at 27 ppm is broken, even if people in your area choose not to use them. That actually has no bearing on their mathematical brokenness.
"For the rest of it, I'm embarking on my new journey with Chaos, who, at the core, are CC oriented marines without Grav, Drop Pods, AKSKNF, Skyhammer or Gladius."
Who have good assault from DS units instead of gak ones. CSM are now 10X more functional than BA at their own game.
Martel732 wrote: CSM are now 10X more functional than BA at their own game.
Because CSM are a gun-line army? and 10X functional is a bit much. As good as would be a better way to describe them.
Having a viable assaulter from deep strike makes an enormous functional difference. As does workable formations. Angel's Blade is turning out to be some diarrhea that GW put on some paper and published.
Martel732 wrote: CSM are now 10X more functional than BA at their own game.
Because CSM are a gun-line army? and 10X functional is a bit much. As good as would be a better way to describe them.
Having a viable assaulter from deep strike makes an enormous functional difference. As does workable formations. Angel's Blade is turning out to be some diarrhea that GW put on some paper and published.
Yeah well just wait till you try and DS with CSM and realize that there is little to no DS mitigation so of the 3 units you have deep striking only 2 come in and only 1 of those actually lands where you want it to.
Maybe, but Jancoran swears by it and he has more victories with CSM than I do by far. You can also bring twice as many models as I can, so you've got lots of chances.
I cannot bother to answer to some of the stuff I read in he posts but anyone that thinks that EVERY current Eldar unit overperforms is either incredibly bad at this game, misinformed and never played, or just insane.
Also, In 3rd Eldar were absolutely not difficult to play as the Dark Eldar (and the latter were almost impossible to play before the revised rules). They were good enough in the hand of competent players; and that was what they should be. Now does not happen because Phil Kelly.
How can people hate Eldar so much for daring to have a full 24 months of competitive light between years of Imperial abuse ???
Hmm, didn't see anyone saying they hate Eldar. Just said it's good they now have an actual nasty matchup myself. They did not have a "hard counter" if you can call it that, before. Not one that isn't tailored and viable in tournament play.
How can people hate Eldar so much for daring to have a full 24 months of competitive light between years of Imperial abuse ???
Hmm, didn't see anyone saying they hate Eldar. Just said it's good they now have an actual nasty matchup myself. They did not have a "hard counter" if you can call it that, before. Not one that isn't tailored and viable in tournament play.
Also, the original comment was based off a falsehood.
Insectum7 wrote: The most concise answer I can give is that asymmetry =/= imbalance, and that 95+% of 40K is asymmetric, not imbalanced. That there are a small amount of actual imbalances, doesn't invalidate the vast majority of perfectly acceptable units and rules, and their relationships to one another. I prefer asymmetry, it makes the game more interesting, IMO.
No, 40k's balance problems are balance problems, not asymmetry. And yes, even if a minority of things are unbalanced to the degree of riptides and scatter laser jetbikes it's still a major flaw with the game as a whole. Guess which units you're going to see a lot of, and how likely you are to see those weak units that can't compete.
The proof that the rules are acceptable and functional for me, is that I can get an enjoyable game (in which I have to make meaningful decisions on the tabletop in order to win) with a complete stranger. It has been a loooong time since I felt the game has screwed me with some rules interpretation/misunderstanding. The most unpleasant situations I can recall, have largely been because the other guy was a dick, and that hasn't happened in a while. And most of the time, even if the other player is a bit of a tool, I can still manage to make meaningful moves on the table that often result in a victory for me, so the game still works.
You must be exceptionally lucky then. Every game of 7th I've played against strangers, without up-front negotiation and working to fix at least some of 40k's problems, has been a miserable experience. The games I've won have been because my army is just better than my opponent's army and the game consists of nothing more than rolling dice to make it official, and the games I've lost have been because my army is just worse than my opponent's army and the game consists of nothing more than desperately hoping for dice luck to give me a chance. Thankfully none of the rules arguments have escalated to TFG behavior, but most of these games have included way too much time spent on flipping through rulebooks trying to figure out how something works.
As for Orks (or Tyranids), I'm a firm believer that horde armies are plenty capable, but just not tournament friendly. I see this more a fault of tournaments than the structure of 40K. I've watched a green tide army run over a number of competitive lists "in the wild", so while I understand that they aren't top tier, the fact that a capable player can still win with them is just more evidence that the system functions. (and that asymmetry is an important component)
How exactly are they "not tournament friendly"? Getting isolated wins here and there doesn't mean much if they can't compete in tournaments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: So, examples like the all Knight army, Skyhammer, Titans and re-rollable 2+ saves I see as representing less than 5% of the actual game content. A very small portion whose existence owes little to what I'd consider to be the core game, IMO.
Then you're wrong. It's way more than 5% of the actual game content because people inevitably play the stuff that is good. It doesn't matter if they're only 5% of the rules by word count, they're way more than 5% of the game experience for most players. The only time these things don't dominate the experience is when people agree that a problem exists and avoid using the game-breaking stuff, a concession that the game as published by GW is unplayable garbage.
Runic wrote: Hmm, didn't see anyone saying they hate Eldar. Just said it's good they now have an actual nasty matchup myself. They did not have a "hard counter" if you can call it that, before. Not one that isn't tailored and viable in tournament play.
There's a difference between "nasty matchup" and "non-interactive tabling". First turn charge lists are bad for the game, period, no matter what tournament win/loss records are.
Runic wrote: Hmm, didn't see anyone saying they hate Eldar. Just said it's good they now have an actual nasty matchup myself. They did not have a "hard counter" if you can call it that, before. Not one that isn't tailored and viable in tournament play.
There's a difference between "nasty matchup" and "non-interactive tabling". First turn charge lists are bad for the game, period, no matter what tournament win/loss records are.
Lists aren't tabled any more by first turn assaulting than by first turn shooting.
Peregrine wrote: The only codices that would need to see major changes/squatting are demons and tyranids. Tyranids are a terrible idea that should be squatted for many other reasons, and demons never should have been an independent army in the first place. Put them back to being support units for a C:SM army
Eurgh, no thanks. We don't need to turn the game in to even more of a marinefest than it already is.
Chaos marines are boring as feth compared to daemons, and ultimately no need to restrict daemons that way. There's plenty of ways to turn daemons in to an army that has shooting options without simply shoving them in as support units for pathetic, whiny bald donkey-caves screaming about how much they hate their dad and really frakking wish they could cut off his life support and burn down his house out of sheer teen-angst-induced spite. Slaaneshi daemons assaulting with psychic sound waves that shatter bones, nurgle daemons attacking by throwing nauseating disease-ridden creatures that glide in to enemy position, tzeentch daemons being easy with any number of possibilities on how they'd deploy their pure warp-energy based destruction, even khornate daemons could do things warp-guided chained hooks that if enough hit make it easier to assault-- really, just be creative. They're Chaos after all.
And Tyranids, as well, there's plenty of options for biology-based weaponry that enables further shooting, such as guns that fire powerful gastric acid streams, or pneumatic lung-cannons that launch corrosive poison grenades, a specialized giant creature that can spit out a wide swath of plasma devastation, and so on.
Though all that said, a more rational idea is to stop the constant one-upsmanship in firepower that GW keeps getting itself in to like some kind of gun addict that just can't stop himself from constantly purchasing more and bigger guns.
The most concise answer I can give is that asymmetry =/= imbalance, and that 95+% of 40K is asymmetric, not imbalanced.
I would agree that asymmetry does not necessarily mean imbalance, however that does not mean that 40k is balanced. A typical Ork or IG army is going to be at a marked and significant disadvantage against an Eldar or Necron army, and its not because of some fundamental aspects of any of these forces being inherently intended or designed to be vulnerable against or excel against the others. I dont feel that is a controversial statement.
Something like a Knight army absolutely can be so asymetric as to be inherently and fundamentally imbalanced in a pickup or all comers scenario. A formation like the Skyhammer detachment can absolutely win many games right off turn 1. Stuff like rerollable 2+ saves, Titans, etc all can easily result in stupidly one sided games that one player has no chance at winning.
So, examples like the all Knight army, Skyhammer, Titans and re-rollable 2+ saves I see as representing less than 5% of the actual game content. A very small portion whose existence owes little to what I'd consider to be the core game, IMO.
Its common content, one of those is an entire faction unto itself that them has formations to give it even more freebies, and that was a very tiny subset of things just to give examples. I could go on for pages. Decurion bonuses that give basic 13pt Warriors resiliency roughly on par with 40pt Terminators across most weapons types, Necron wraiths, TWC's and wound allocation shennanigans, Invisibility, FNP that has to be FAQ'd to "only" work on a 2+. Skimmer transports that can jink and still allow passngers to fire at full effect. The clear gap in capability and resiliency between skimmers and non skimmers. MC vs Vehicle balance. Allies abuse and formation/detachment synergy. Gravcents, Scatterbikes, BS5 Aspect Warriors that pay nothing for the stat boost, Wraithknights, Etc ad nauseum. Then we can go to the opposite end of the spectrum. Why are Defilers 200pts? Tempestus Scions with neutered range AP3 popguns for twice the price of a basic IG Veteran. Maleceptors, Mutilators, Vespids, etc . This sort of balance mismatch is ubiquitous, not rare exceptions.
As for the "typical Ork army vs. typical Necron army", I have no idea what a "typical Ork army" is supposed to look like. I just know what I've seen to be effective. I'd also say that many army matchups/unit imbalances can shift dramatically depending on army-wide strategy and terrain. What is "typical" can change from club to club, and can be defined by the players themselves.
In some ways, sure. However, there are generally strong trends, themes, hallmarks, etc that, both intentionally and unintentionally, have impacts that are pretty universal, and going by results data from events we can see that Orks do not place anywhere near as well as Necrons or Eldar do on average. Looking at amalgamated results and averages will usually tell a pretty accurate story of relative capabilities. The fact that Eldar and Necrons pretty routinely take high placings and Orks or IG do not tells us there is a balance issue of some sort.
The fact that Tau are incredibly dangerous to face on tables without what I'd consider to be ample terrain is just no surprise at all.
well, Tau are dangerous on any table, markerlights and deep strike help a lot. IG are far more impacted by terrain.
And of the Necron armies that I've seen recently vs. the Ork armies, I'd actually put my money on the Orks.
fair enough but I think you'd be in the minority. Going by my own subjective experience and reviewing tournament results, I would without hesitation put my money on the Necrons with strong confidence.
Everything else I think we'll have to agree to disagree on. I can't agree that 40K is inherently broken.
Peregrine wrote: How exactly are they "not tournament friendly"? Getting isolated wins here and there doesn't mean much if they can't compete in tournaments.
Tournaments have strict time limits, and are thus not friendly to high model counts.
Then you're wrong. It's way more than 5% of the actual game content because people inevitably play the stuff that is good. It doesn't matter if they're only 5% of the rules by word count, they're way more than 5% of the game experience for most players.
Prove it.
I can prove that Scatbikes, Riptides and Wraithknights make up not even a single percent of available units. Can you prove what "most players" experience? Keep in mind that tournaments are not what most players experience, and that tournaments encourage very specific player behaviors.
Peregrine wrote: How exactly are they "not tournament friendly"? Getting isolated wins here and there doesn't mean much if they can't compete in tournaments.
Tournaments have strict time limits, and are thus not friendly to high model counts.
Then you're wrong. It's way more than 5% of the actual game content because people inevitably play the stuff that is good. It doesn't matter if they're only 5% of the rules by word count, they're way more than 5% of the game experience for most players.
Prove it.
I can prove that Scatbikes, Riptides and Wraithknights make up not even a single percent of available units. Can you prove what "most players" experience? Keep in mind that tournaments are not what most players experience, and that tournaments encourage very specific player behaviors.
Available units doesn't matter at all. What people actually use does. I don't think we can prove what most players experience. But none of that speaks to mathematical brokenness of units.
Melissia wrote: Chaos marines are boring as feth compared to daemons, and ultimately no need to restrict daemons that way. There's plenty of ways to turn daemons in to an army that has shooting options without simply shoving them in as support units for pathetic, whiny bald donkey-caves screaming about how much they hate their dad and really frakking wish they could cut off his life support and burn down his house out of sheer teen-angst-induced spite. Slaaneshi daemons assaulting with psychic sound waves that shatter bones, nurgle daemons attacking by throwing nauseating disease-ridden creatures that glide in to enemy position, tzeentch daemons being easy with any number of possibilities on how they'd deploy their pure warp-energy based destruction, even khornate daemons could do things warp-guided chained hooks that if enough hit make it easier to assault-- really, just be creative. They're Chaos after all.
You could do those things, but you still have a WHFB army on round bases, not anything that belongs in 40k. Demons are supposed to be summoned allies for the mortal Chaos armies, not a complete army of their own. For fluff reasons they should never have been given an independent codex, the rule problems merely offer another reason to get rid of them.
And Tyranids, as well, there's plenty of options for biology-based weaponry that enables further shooting, such as guns that fire powerful gastric acid streams, or pneumatic lung-cannons that launch corrosive poison grenades, a specialized giant creature that can spit out a wide swath of plasma devastation, and so on.
Likewise, tyranids need to go for other reasons. Their models are ugly, their fluff is boring and stupid, and the awful rules just add insult to injury. If you take away the power level differences between vehicles and MCs they are nothing more than a less interesting version of orks. They are, by far, the most worthless faction in 40k and the setting would lose nothing if they were squatted.
Peregrine wrote: How exactly are they "not tournament friendly"? Getting isolated wins here and there doesn't mean much if they can't compete in tournaments.
Tournaments have strict time limits, and are thus not friendly to high model counts.
These armies have builds with relatively low model counts that do see play. Some even are amongst the most powerful these armies can field.
Vaktathi wrote: Its common content, one of those is an entire faction unto itself that them has formations to give it even more freebies, and that was a very tiny subset of things just to give examples. I could go on for pages. Decurion bonuses that give basic 13pt Warriors resiliency roughly on par with 40pt Terminators across most weapons types, Necron wraiths, TWC's and wound allocation shennanigans, Invisibility, FNP that has to be FAQ'd to "only" work on a 2+. Skimmer transports that can jink and still allow passngers to fire at full effect. The clear gap in capability and resiliency between skimmers and non skimmers. MC vs Vehicle balance. Allies abuse and formation/detachment synergy. Gravcents, Scatterbikes, BS5 Aspect Warriors that pay nothing for the stat boost, Wraithknights, Etc ad nauseum. Then we can go to the opposite end of the spectrum. Why are Defilers 200pts? Tempestus Scions with neutered range AP3 popguns for twice the price of a basic IG Veteran. Maleceptors, Mutilators, Vespids, etc . This sort of balance mismatch is ubiquitous, not rare exceptions.
But again we'll have to differ, because I see a lot of those examples as instances of asymmetry rather than imbalance. Necrons are tough until you sweeping advance them, MCs are weirdly tough until you have Grav in your meta or ID weapons, etc. I see a lot of those examples as part of a healthy churn.
In some ways, sure. However, there are generally strong trends, themes, hallmarks, etc that, both intentionally and unintentionally, have impacts that are pretty universal, and going by results data from events we can see that Orks do not place anywhere near as well as Necrons or Eldar do on average. Looking at amalgamated results and averages will usually tell a pretty accurate story of relative capabilities. The fact that Eldar and Necrons pretty routinely take high placings and Orks or IG do not tells us there is a balance issue of some sort.
. . . fair enough but I think you'd be in the minority. Going by my own subjective experience and reviewing tournament results, I would without hesitation put my money on the Necrons with strong confidence.
I view tournaments as very particular events, and not any indication of normalcy at clubs/game circles. It's tempting to look at them as a source of statistics, but only because they are the only source of any statistics. But it'd be crazy to think that was how everybody played 40K.
There is no way you can convince me a scatbike is only worth 27 pts or a Wraithknight is only worth 295 pts. That's NOT just asymmetry. Those are absolute no-brainer picks because they outperform their price tag in nearly every situation.
Just as you can't convince me that a BAtac marine is worth 14 pts or a BA assault marine is worth 17 pts in 7th ed. Because they under-perform is almost every situation.
"MCs are weirdly tough until you have Grav in your meta or ID weapons,"
There are no ID weapons for T6 models for the most part. But any vehicle can be one-shotted by AP 2 or better. Asymmetric? I say imbalanced.
Likewise, tyranids need to go for other reasons. Their models are ugly, their fluff is boring and stupid, and the awful rules just add insult to injury. If you take away the power level differences between vehicles and MCs they are nothing more than a less interesting version of orks. They are, by far, the most worthless faction in 40k and the setting would lose nothing if they were squatted.
If Space Marines are drawing at all from Starship Troopers (and they are) then Tyranids deserve to be right next to them as the Bugs in the same novel.
Insectum7 wrote: But again we'll have to differ, because I see a lot of those examples as instances of asymmetry rather than imbalance. Necrons are tough until you sweeping advance them, MCs are weirdly tough until you have Grav in your meta or ID weapons, etc. I see a lot of those examples as part of a healthy churn.
And you're wrong again. Necrons being tough until you sweeping advance them is an example of asymmetry and a valid design concept. The issue is not that necrons are tough, it's that they get the ability to stack bonuses to durability (including bonuses from detachments that aren't paid for in the price of the unit) and become far too turable for their point cost. Same thing with MCs, certain MCs are way too durable for their point cost (especially compared to vehicles) and "just take grav" is not an answer when most armies don't have grav weapons.
I view tournaments as very particular events, and not any indication of normalcy at clubs/game circles. It's tempting to look at them as a source of statistics, but only because they are the only source of any statistics. But it'd be crazy to think that was how everybody played 40K.
The only meaningful difference between tournaments and "normal" 40k is that tournaments actively encourage you to take the best possible lists, while "normal" games are often played with unwritten rules that you avoid abusing the overpowered stuff because it isn't fun for everyone else. And when you have to agree to refrain from using the broken stuff it's a concession that the game is broken.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: If Space Marines are drawing at all from Starship Troopers (and they are) then Tyranids deserve to be right next to them as the Bugs in the same novel.
Nope. The orks already took the "infinite horde" role, and are much more interesting.
Martel732 wrote: There is no way you can convince me a scatbike is only worth 27 pts or a Wraithknight is only worth 295 pts. That's NOT just asymmetry. Those are absolute no-brainer picks because they outperform their price tag in nearly every situation.
Then you aren't reading correctly. I didn't say scatbikes weren't imbalanced. I said that they were part of the tiny minority of units that are.
There are no ranged force weapons for the most part. Trying to go into CC with MCs is mainly suicide for BA.
"I said that they were part of the tiny minority of units that are. "
I think there are more imbalanced units than you think. And then there's the horde of overcosted units that rarely get used. I have a whole codex of them. No one I play with uses units that my tacticals are effective against, which makes them worth far less than 14 pts. And I have no units that are effective against what they DO bring.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Why yes, I'd love for my Keeper of Secret to die just by getting looked at with no saves allowed.
Flying MCs get no pity at all from me. There should be at least a few non-Eldar weapons in the game they respect. Instead, between saves and hard to hit, they can laugh off entire armies worth of fire. Here I am again, having to use Eldar as a standard for competency.
And you're wrong again. Necrons being tough until you sweeping advance them is an example of asymmetry and a valid design concept. The issue is not that necrons are tough, it's that they get the ability to stack bonuses to durability (including bonuses from detachments that aren't paid for in the price of the unit) and become far too turable for their point cost. Same thing with MCs, certain MCs are way too durable for their point cost (especially compared to vehicles) and "just take grav" is not an answer when most armies don't have grav weapons.
All MC's? Because I'm sure some Tyranid players would disagree with you. Riptides and Dreadknights =/= all MCs. Even bonus durability Necrons can be sweeping advanced, which is important to note given the thread title.
The only meaningful difference between tournaments and "normal" 40k is that tournaments actively encourage you to take the best possible lists, while "normal" games are often played with unwritten rules that you avoid abusing the overpowered stuff because it isn't fun for everyone else. And when you have to agree to refrain from using the broken stuff it's a concession that the game is broken.
Are you saying that tournaments don't have time limits?
Nope. The orks already took the "infinite horde" role, and are much more interesting.
That's an extreme opinion and you're welcome to it, but Tyranids took the "horde" identity prior to Orks back in 2nd Ed, and "bugs" have been a sci-fi staple for a looong time.
Martel732 wrote: There are no ranged force weapons for the most part. Trying to go into CC with MCs is mainly suicide for BA.
"I said that they were part of the tiny minority of units that are. "
I think there are more imbalanced units than you think. And then there's the horde of overcosted units that rarely get used. I have a whole codex of them. No one I play with uses units that my tacticals are effective against, which makes them worth far less than 14 pts. And I have no units that are effective against what they DO bring.
This is actually a good point. I myself think now and then that 40k is pretty good except for a few problem units, (and some other more general things,) except I forgot to consider the many many problem units that are problems in the opposite direction.
Insectum7 wrote: All MC's? Because I'm sure some Tyranid players would disagree with you. Riptides and Dreadknights =/= all MCs.
If you read my post you'd see that it clearly says "certain MCs", not "all MCs".
Even bonus durability Necrons can be sweeping advanced, which is important to note given the thread title.
Being able to lose to a non-interactive gimmick list that shouldn't exist is not a balancing factor.
Are you saying that tournaments don't have time limits?
They do, but those time limits shouldn't be a major factor. And time limits often help horde armies, since the ability to play slowly and end the game before your opponent has enough time to win is a very powerful one.
And again, I have to remind Xeno players that marines ARE NOT GOOD. Vanilla marines have formations (battle company, skyhammer) and gimmicks (invis) that make NOT GOOD units GOOD. Take away that stuff and you have BA and BT players who try to use crusader squads.
Peregrine wrote: There's a difference between "nasty matchup" and "non-interactive tabling". First turn charge lists are bad for the game, period, no matter what tournament win/loss records are.
Nah, no periods, just your subjective view. They aren't any worse than first turn tabling by shooting asfar as I'm concerned.
Not that first turn tabling, of any kind, is "good for the game" on a general level, but in practice shooting of the kind already existed, and I consider melee having the same option a good thing in this context.
Runic wrote: Nah, no periods, just your subjective view. They aren't any worse than first turn tabling by shooting asfar as I'm concerned.
Shooting alpha strikes are highly overstated, unless you don't bother putting sufficient terrain on the table.
There's enough Ignores Cover or just plain volume of fire on the top tier lists that normal amounts of terrain hardly make a difference.
Ofcourse in a perfect world one can fill their terrain to look like a scenic shot out of a movie, but in reality tournaments don't usually have this luxury as there are quite a bit of tables to set up.
Peregrine wrote: There's a difference between "nasty matchup" and "non-interactive tabling". First turn charge lists are bad for the game, period, no matter what tournament win/loss records are.
Nah, no periods, just your subjective view. They aren't any worse than first turn tabling by shooting asfar as I'm concerned.
Not that first turn tabling, of any kind, is "good for the game" on a general level, but in practice shooting of the kind already existed, and I consider melee having the same option a good thing in this context.
Of course, you're the one that is taking all the models out while he just removes his dead pieces.
Like honestly... I'm... I'm all out of feths to be honest. This thread is a lost cause, isn't it?
Peregrine wrote: There's a difference between "nasty matchup" and "non-interactive tabling". First turn charge lists are bad for the game, period, no matter what tournament win/loss records are.
Nah, no periods, just your subjective view. They aren't any worse than first turn tabling by shooting asfar as I'm concerned.
Not that first turn tabling, of any kind, is "good for the game" on a general level, but in practice shooting of the kind already existed, and I consider melee having the same option a good thing in this context.
Of course, you're the one that is taking all the models out while he just removes his dead pieces.
Like honestly... I'm... I'm all out of feths to be honest. This thread is a lost cause, isn't it?
Oh, like Eldar haven't been doing this for two editions now. From across the board. They don't even have to get their hands dirty.
Bobthehero wrote: It'd be nice if every codex had some sort of ID weapon.
You have to understand that if marines have the answer for X, X is fine.
Is the design team stance, after all.
Of course, think of the kiddies (or old whales who shell a boatload of monnis), we can't have their uber-badass chapter master of the Raging Snowflake's chapter be sniped somewhere along the game, can't we?
Lord Kragan wrote: Of course, you're the one that is taking all the models out while he just removes his dead pieces.
Like honestly... I'm... I'm all out of feths to be honest. This thread is a lost cause, isn't it?
Not sure what you're trying to say exactly, but I guess you consider it okay to have people shot off the table on turn one, but for some reason having them melee'd off the table on turn one is somehow worse? Or?
Bobthehero wrote: It'd be nice if every codex had some sort of ID weapon.
You have to understand that if marines have the answer for X, X is fine.
Is the design team stance, after all.
Of course, think of the kiddies (or old whales who shell a boatload of monnis), we can't have their uber-badass chapter master of the Raging Snowflake's chapter be sniped somewhere along the game, can't we?
He's much easier do deal with than 100 S6 shots from 36" away. I can let loose the Wraiths and he has to fight them for many, many turns for example. The Eldar choose what dies every turn.
Runic wrote: There's enough Ignores Cover or just plain volume of fire on the top tier lists that normal amounts of terrain hardly make a difference.
Ignoring cover doesn't help if you can't draw LOS to a target.
Ofcourse in a perfect world one can fill their terrain to look like a scenic shot out of a movie, but in reality tournaments don't usually have this luxury as there are quite a bit of tables to set up.
I deal in the reality, not the utopia.
Then those tournaments need to limit the number of people who can sign up until they can obtain sufficient terrain to do it right. The game is intended to have enough terrain, including LOS-blocking terrain, to significantly reduce the effectiveness of gunlines and shooting alpha strikes. Complaining about how powerful shooting is when you fail to bring sufficient terrain makes about as much sense as complaining about how overpowered assault armies are when you change the rules to have armies start 1" apart on a 2'x1' table.
Peregrine wrote: There's a difference between "nasty matchup" and "non-interactive tabling". First turn charge lists are bad for the game, period, no matter what tournament win/loss records are.
Nah, no periods, just your subjective view. They aren't any worse than first turn tabling by shooting asfar as I'm concerned.
Not that first turn tabling, of any kind, is "good for the game" on a general level, but in practice shooting of the kind already existed, and I consider melee having the same option a good thing in this context.
Of course, you're the one that is taking all the models out while he just removes his dead pieces.
Like honestly... I'm... I'm all out of feths to be honest. This thread is a lost cause, isn't it?
Oh, like Eldar haven't been doing this for two editions now. From across the board. They don't even have to get their hands dirty.
Like I did... oh no I didn't. Not everyone is a vindictive jackwad that will make the game as unpleasant as possible to the others. And in competitive play I find it hard to believe that an eldar list wipes out a competitive, well built, list in a single turn. Something that superfriends and their ilk are capable of.
Vaktathi wrote: Its common content, one of those is an entire faction unto itself that them has formations to give it even more freebies, and that was a very tiny subset of things just to give examples. I could go on for pages. Decurion bonuses that give basic 13pt Warriors resiliency roughly on par with 40pt Terminators across most weapons types, Necron wraiths, TWC's and wound allocation shennanigans, Invisibility, FNP that has to be FAQ'd to "only" work on a 2+. Skimmer transports that can jink and still allow passngers to fire at full effect. The clear gap in capability and resiliency between skimmers and non skimmers. MC vs Vehicle balance. Allies abuse and formation/detachment synergy. Gravcents, Scatterbikes, BS5 Aspect Warriors that pay nothing for the stat boost, Wraithknights, Etc ad nauseum. Then we can go to the opposite end of the spectrum. Why are Defilers 200pts? Tempestus Scions with neutered range AP3 popguns for twice the price of a basic IG Veteran. Maleceptors, Mutilators, Vespids, etc . This sort of balance mismatch is ubiquitous, not rare exceptions.
But again we'll have to differ, because I see a lot of those examples as instances of asymmetry rather than imbalance. Necrons are tough until you sweeping advance them, MCs are weirdly tough until you have Grav in your meta or ID weapons, etc. I see a lot of those examples as part of a healthy churn.
Necrons are easy to sweeping advance if you can get into combat and beat them (remember, aside from Init they fight like Marines but with better resiliency) and make them break on Ld10. This is not easy and is outright impossible for many armies. IG for instance is not going to be able to do that and can neither shoot them down fast enough nor outmaneuver them. (In fact I havent seen any IG army defeat a Necron army in 7E). Wraiths are even worse, being absurdly resilient against both quantity and quality of firepower, a 200something point unit of Wraiths will take more S10 firepower to kill than a Warhound titan will, and at the same time can be kitted to be resilient enough against small arms fire such that you'd need nearly 900 lasgun shots (far beyond what any IG army could ever hope to deliver) to put them down. Likewise, most things that work against MCs also work against tanks, massed grav will kill tanks through HP loss just fine, and they risk ID on any AP1/2 penetrating hit. Tanks dont get armor saves and have to deal with a damage table and have wounds to boot like MC's, and usually fewer wounds than MC's typically have, about the only thing they have is higher base "toughness".
Then we get stuff like formation bonuses and theres nothing really asymmetric about that, just freebie power bonuses. Same with allies synergies and the like.
Asymmetry does come into play, but theres so much that goes beyond simple asymmetry that is egregiously balanced.
I view tournaments as very particular events, and not any indication of normalcy at clubs/game circles. It's tempting to look at them as a source of statistics, but only because they are the only source of any statistics. But it'd be crazy to think that was how everybody played 40K.
In some respects sure, but theyre a pretty good reflection of general trends and relative rankings. They wont tell us anything too specific, but one can probably pretty safely conclude that Eldar are very powerful relative to say, Scions or Orks which would appear to be dramatically less so from looking at event trends when Eldar are usually routinely occupying many spots in the top ~15% of finishers while it is particularly noteworthy and rare for something like Scions or Orks to finish that high. Same way a winning season usually says a lot about the quality of a sports team even if it doesnt necessarily tell you how well individual players or specific games or strategies went.
Peregrine wrote: There's a difference between "nasty matchup" and "non-interactive tabling". First turn charge lists are bad for the game, period, no matter what tournament win/loss records are.
Nah, no periods, just your subjective view. They aren't any worse than first turn tabling by shooting asfar as I'm concerned.
Not that first turn tabling, of any kind, is "good for the game" on a general level, but in practice shooting of the kind already existed, and I consider melee having the same option a good thing in this context.
Of course, you're the one that is taking all the models out while he just removes his dead pieces.
Like honestly... I'm... I'm all out of feths to be honest. This thread is a lost cause, isn't it?
Oh, like Eldar haven't been doing this for two editions now. From across the board. They don't even have to get their hands dirty.
Like I did... oh no I didn't. Not everyone is a vindictive jackwad that will make the game as unpleasant as possible to the others. And in competitive play I find it hard to believe that an eldar list wipes out a competitive, well built, list in a single turn. Something that superfriends and their ilk are capable of.
Suuuure,from across the board. My arse.
I"ll give you some BA and I'll take Eldar and show you.
" Not everyone is a vindictive jackwad that will make the game as unpleasant as possible to the others"
No, it's very easy, you just need the right kind of terrain. Ruins with solid walls, intact buildings, etc. The problem is TLOS, it's that people put a single tree in the center of the table and then complain when shooting is effective.
Lord Kragan wrote: Of course, you're the one that is taking all the models out while he just removes his dead pieces.
Like honestly... I'm... I'm all out of feths to be honest. This thread is a lost cause, isn't it?
Not sure what you're trying to say exactly, but I guess you consider it okay to have people shot off the table on turn one, but for some reason having them melee'd off the table on turn one is somehow worse? Or?
What? NO. If you'd actually bother to read ANY of my comments you'd find that I'm against that kind of gak around. And I've stated multiple times that it's a bad idea for ANYONE.
Peregrine wrote: Their models are ugly, their fluff is boring and stupid, and the awful rules just add insult to injury.
You just described Chaos Space Marines, so let's get rid of them, too.
CSM are at least the necessary mirror to loyalist marines. They should be consolidated into a single CSM codex (just like loyalist marines should be consolidated into a single C:SM book), but their existence is a key part of the setting. Tyranids are a later addition that is nothing more than an attempt to cash in on the "scifi bugs" cliche, replace them with orks in every piece of fluff they appear in and nothing changes.
Peregrine wrote: Then those tournaments need to limit the number of people who can sign up until they can obtain sufficient terrain to do it right. The game is intended to have enough terrain, including LOS-blocking terrain, to significantly reduce the effectiveness of gunlines and shooting alpha strikes. Complaining about how powerful shooting is when you fail to bring sufficient terrain makes about as much sense as complaining about how overpowered assault armies are when you change the rules to have armies start 1" apart on a 2'x1' table.
And I find it makes the least sense of all to talk about these perfect world scenarios, since they are afterall, nonexistent.
Sure, that could work. Doesn't go this way in practice 90% of the time though, the bigger the tournament, the more apparent the lack of proper terrain. Should've could've hardly changes how these things are on a practical level.
And, in the end, shot or melee'd on turn 1, doesn't make a difference to me. Both are equally nasty, and I'm happier in the context of how the game is that now both kinds of builds can do it instead of just the shooty ones. Allows people to win with melee builds atleast, something of a rarity before.
Peregrine wrote: There's a difference between "nasty matchup" and "non-interactive tabling". First turn charge lists are bad for the game, period, no matter what tournament win/loss records are.
Nah, no periods, just your subjective view. They aren't any worse than first turn tabling by shooting asfar as I'm concerned.
Not that first turn tabling, of any kind, is "good for the game" on a general level, but in practice shooting of the kind already existed, and I consider melee having the same option a good thing in this context.
Of course, you're the one that is taking all the models out while he just removes his dead pieces.
Like honestly... I'm... I'm all out of feths to be honest. This thread is a lost cause, isn't it?
Oh, like Eldar haven't been doing this for two editions now. From across the board. They don't even have to get their hands dirty.
Like I did... oh no I didn't. Not everyone is a vindictive jackwad that will make the game as unpleasant as possible to the others. And in competitive play I find it hard to believe that an eldar list wipes out a competitive, well built, list in a single turn. Something that superfriends and their ilk are capable of.
Suuuure,from across the board. My arse.
I"ll give you some BA and I'll take Eldar and show you.
" Not everyone is a vindictive jackwad that will make the game as unpleasant as possible to the others"
All it takes is the codex authors. So too late.
Wonderful, hope you like shinning spears. I have plenty of those. I also hope you like wraithlords. Because, you know, every single choice in an army has been predeterminated by the writer and you can't compose a list without his consent.
Runic wrote: And I find it makes the least sense of all to talk about these perfect world scenarios, since they are afterall, nonexistent.
It's funny, but I don't have any problems getting sufficient terrain on the table. Perhaps games with sufficient terrain aren't so nonexistent after all?
Sure, that could work. Doesn't go this way in practice 90% of the time though, the bigger the tournament, the more apparent the lack of proper terrain. Should've could've hardly changes how these things are on a practical level.
Then, as I said, people should stop hosting tournaments with more players than they have the ability to accommodate. And players should stop financially supporting poor tournament hosts. If a TO can't provide sufficient terrain then their customers should stay home until they fix the problem.
And in any case tournaments are not the entire game. The failures of individual TOs do not say anything about the game as published by GW. Your "90% of the time" only applies to the minority of 40k games that are played in tournaments. If you are playing a single game, outside of a tournament, the terrain problem does not exist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Nah. You can have a massively interesting and clearly identifiable 40k setting without having a single marine, loyalist or otherwise, in it.
You really can't. Marines are one of the defining elements of 40k. You can have a dystopian future setting with no space marines, but it won't be 40k anymore.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Why yes, I'd love for my Keeper of Secret to die just by getting looked at with no saves allowed.
Flying MCs get no pity at all from me. There should be at least a few non-Eldar weapons in the game they respect. Instead, between saves and hard to hit, they can laugh off entire armies worth of fire. Here I am again, having to use Eldar as a standard for competency.
Keeper of Secrets don't fly, they walk. 6" walk, d6+3" run with Fleet. The only thing stopping a bullet from damaging it unless I get lucky is T6 and a 5++.
If it wasn't for all the Marine players around here replacing their plasma and melta with Grav he'd die a lot more often. Give marines and ID gun anywhere close to the reliability of Grav and he'll become a liability.
Peregrine wrote: Their models are ugly, their fluff is boring and stupid, and the awful rules just add insult to injury.
You just described Chaos Space Marines, so let's get rid of them, too.
CSM are at least the necessary mirror to loyalist marines. They should be consolidated into a single CSM codex (just like loyalist marines should be consolidated into a single C:SM book), but their existence is a key part of the setting. Tyranids are a later addition that is nothing more than an attempt to cash in on the "scifi bugs" cliche, replace them with orks in every piece of fluff they appear in and nothing changes.
Tyranids actually predate Chaos Space Marines and basically the Heresy entirely. They existed in the original RT book, rather differently than they do now, but not anymoreso than anything else from that era.
Runic wrote: And I find it makes the least sense of all to talk about these perfect world scenarios, since they are afterall, nonexistent.
It's funny, but I don't have any problems getting sufficient terrain on the table. Perhaps games with sufficient terrain aren't so nonexistent after all?
Yeah, really weird. I can also get enough terrain on my table. So very odd tournament organizers can't do it in events that occasionally have over 100 participants.
There must be some differing factor somewhere between these two scenarios... have to investigate.
Peregrine wrote: Then, as I said, people should stop hosting tournaments with more players than they have the ability to accommodate. And players should stop financially supporting poor tournament hosts. If a TO can't provide sufficient terrain then their customers should stay home until they fix the problem.
Well, still these big tournaments happen and continue to happen and the meta is largely defined in them as the top players participate. And in the end, while cover might mitigate some first turn tabling from a steroid shooting list, in the same way Overwatch, alternative deployments and bubblewrapping can take the edge off a melee alpha strike. Basically making the whole "which is worse" -debate useless, since next to these there are a ton of other factors at play.
We'll just agree to disagree that you think turn 1 melee is worse, and I think they're both equally nasty/powerful/bad however one wants to put it.
Peregrine wrote: You really can't. Marines are one of the defining elements of 40k. You can have a dystopian future setting with no space marines, but it won't be 40k anymore.
Not to me. Something like, say, a massive battle of Imperial Guard vs Orks as the latter attack a blasted fortress world is, to me, the most clearly identifiable setup for 40k lore-- and without needing a single marine in place. Inquisitors and their acolytes investigating heretics in a hive city, rogue traders flitting about the galaxy wheeling, dealing, and stealing, the imperial navy blasting and being blasted by the rest of the galaxy, and so on and so forth, all clearly identify 40k to me as opposed to other settings.
I would be willing to accept the argument that without the Imperium there is no 40k, as the Imperium takes center stage, but if you cannot recognize the Imperium without Space Marines then you quite simply don't know 40k very well.
Martel732 wrote: Still better than BA units. That's what you don't get. The whole codex is. The Wraithlord is one more MC than I get in my whole codex.
It's also a unit that would need to footslog through the entire board, and will be most likely get killed long before it can earn its points back as it won't diver too much firepower. in correlation with its cost. Meanwhile you can just drop pod the bloody dread and almost earn its points back as it fries half a 6-man bike squad and it fails its morale text. The moment they meet, the dreadnought has a more than solid chance to kill the wraithlord, which is more expensive, while he will need a rather lucky roll to kill the dreadnought.
Plus you have baal predators in squadrons, don't gak with me, those fast tanks can get in dangerous and wreck the bikes by turn two. Just park in two rhinos on the sides of them and the scatterlasers don't kill them.
Martel732 wrote: Still better than BA units. That's what you don't get. The whole codex is. The Wraithlord is one more MC than I get in my whole codex.
It's also a unit that would need to footslog through the entire board, and will be most likely get killed long before it can earn its points back as it won't diver too much firepower. in correlation with its cost. Meanwhile you can just drop pod the bloody dread and almost earn its points back as it fries half a 6-man bike squad and it fails its morale text. The moment they meet, the dreadnought has a more than solid chance to kill the wraithlord, which is more expensive, while he will need a rather lucky roll to kill the dreadnought.
Plus you have baal predators in squadrons, don't gak with me, those fast tanks can get in dangerous and wreck the bikes by turn two. Just park in two rhinos on the sides of them and the scatterlasers don't kill them.
You're safe from ba shooting i assure you. Also, reserve fragile units until the pods commit and then win because units on foot are dead in 7th.
Martel732 wrote: Still better than BA units. That's what you don't get. The whole codex is. The Wraithlord is one more MC than I get in my whole codex.
It's also a unit that would need to footslog through the entire board, and will be most likely get killed long before it can earn its points back as it won't diver too much firepower. in correlation with its cost. Meanwhile you can just drop pod the bloody dread and almost earn its points back as it fries half a 6-man bike squad and it fails its morale text. The moment they meet, the dreadnought has a more than solid chance to kill the wraithlord, which is more expensive, while he will need a rather lucky roll to kill the dreadnought.
Plus you have baal predators in squadrons, don't gak with me, those fast tanks can get in dangerous and wreck the bikes by turn two. Just park in two rhinos on the sides of them and the scatterlasers don't kill them.
You're safe from ba shooting i assure you.
Yeah, because you seem unable to find ways to use it.
Melissia wrote: Not to me. Something like, say, a massive battle of Imperial Guard vs Orks as the latter attack a blasted fortress world is, to me, the most clearly identifiable setup for 40k lore-- and without needing a single marine in place. Inquisitors and their acolytes investigating heretics in a hive city, rogue traders flitting about the galaxy wheeling, dealing, and stealing, the imperial navy blasting and being blasted by the rest of the galaxy, and so on and so forth, all clearly identify 40k to me as opposed to other settings.
I would be willing to accept the argument that without the Imperium there is no 40k, as the Imperium takes center stage, but if you cannot recognize the Imperium without Space Marines then you quite simply don't know 40k very well.
That might be how it is for you, but you are not the majority here. Like it or not space marines are the face of the setting, the element that is most recognizable as "40k" outside of the dedicated fans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Runic wrote: Well, still these big tournaments happen and continue to happen and the meta is largely defined in them as the top players participate.
Who cares about the "meta" in that sense? The fact that someone in a tournament I'll never attend won with a list doesn't necessarily mean that every other game is going to go the same way. Nor does the fact that some big tournament fails to use sufficient terrain. Outside of a few badly-run tournaments the terrain issue should not be a problem, and that's the environment that makes up the majority of 40k games.
And in the end, while cover might mitigate some first turn tabling from a steroid shooting list, in the same way Overwatch, alternative deployments and bubblewrapping can take the edge off a melee alpha strike.
The difference is that things like bubble wrap essentially come down to "you still lose a bunch of stuff on turn 1 and there's nothing you can do about it, but at least you get to choose which half of your army you lose". The mitigating factors against shooting alpha strikes, on the other hand, allow you minimize or even eliminate losses entirely.
Peregrine wrote: You could do those things, but you still have a WHFB army on round bases, not anything that belongs in 40k. Demons are supposed to be summoned allies for the mortal Chaos armies, not a complete army of their own. For fluff reasons they should never have been given an independent codex, the rule problems merely offer another reason to get rid of them.
The fact they've performed better than the "mortal" Chaos armies for the last 2/3 editions seems to suggest its the other way around. Chaos emo-teen Spess Mehrens are nothing more than support for Daemons and should be pruned back into the supplement that they are. Codex: Chaos Agents should let you take 1 Chaos Warlord and a unit of Smelly, Angry, Shouty or Magic Marines alongside your Daemons army. That way we cut down on the number of Marines in the game, and nothing of value is lost.
Peregrine wrote: Ignoring cover doesn't help if you can't draw LOS to a target.
Filling the table with LoS-blocking terrain has been mooted for years. It was a bad idea when fail Ork players were demanding it back in 5th to keep their gakky army "competitive" against the grain of the game, and it's an even worse idea now that I can drop 120 Metamorphs and Acolytes on my opponent on turn 1. Genestealer Cults are already difficult to kill, making it harder just makes them more powerful.
If you read my post you'd see that it clearly says "certain MCs", not "all MCs".
Fair enough, my apologies. But that doesn't mean those "certain MCs" aren't a small percentage of actual MC's. Nor does their resilience automatically make them unbalanced rather than asymmetrical. I'm looking forward to charging Riptides with my CSMs.
Being able to lose to a non-interactive gimmick list that shouldn't exist is not a balancing factor.
First turn charges have as much right to exist as Drop Pods. And since you can put units in reserve, start them in vehicles, or bubble wrap your units, you're automatically capable interacting with them as a strategy.
They do, but those time limits shouldn't be a major factor. And time limits often help horde armies, since the ability to play slowly and end the game before your opponent has enough time to win is a very powerful one.
Slow play in tournaments is rarely awarded with high-standings, and "points" tend to be better scored with immediate kills, rather than an attrition grind. Horde strategies tend to work best in the long game, and tournaments actively discourage long games.
Peregrine wrote: Who cares about the "meta" in that sense? The fact that someone in a tournament I'll never attend won with a list doesn't necessarily mean that every other game is going to go the same way.
Quite a lot of people actually, and what the top players in tournaments devise in their lists more often than not finds it's place in games outside tournaments aswell. Aside from fluffy soft matches, and in those first turn tabling isn't an issue and are therefore irrelevant.
Peregrine wrote: The difference is that things like bubble wrap essentially come down to "you still lose a bunch of stuff on turn 1 and there's nothing you can do about it, but at least you get to choose which half of your army you lose". The mitigating factors against shooting alpha strikes, on the other hand, allow you minimize or even eliminate losses entirely.
You still lose a bunch of stuff on turn 1 against steroid shooting lists. Aka no difference.
Losses entirely mitigated against a list capable of tabling an army on turn 1 with shooting is a fantasy unless you're null deployed. And, as you pointed out, against shooting you don't even get to choose what part of your army you lose. Except by going into reserves. Something that also works against melee.
Also, if a player can't interact against a GSC list then they're just lacking in the know-how department. All of the ways to do so have already been listed in this thread, just above for example. Ignoring these strategies doesn't make them non-existent.
There is more interaction that one can do against a melee alpha strike than there is against a shooting one. Especially if they have accounted being melee'd in their list building.
If not, what can one say. There are now multiple armies that pose a serious threat in melee. To ignore this fact in ones list design is a choice.
Runic wrote: Losses entirely mitigated against a list capable of tabling an army on turn 1 with shooting is a fantasy.
Only if you don't put enough terrain on the table. Stop playing games on empty tables and shooting alpha strikes do very little damage. Only IG barrage weapons can ignore LOS, and IG artillery spam is suicidally weak against anything fast enough to get around the LOS-blocking cover and annihilate the fragile artillery tanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: But that doesn't mean those "certain MCs" aren't a small percentage of actual MC's.
They are a huge percentage of actual MCs, because the powerful MCs are the ones that see use. It doesn't matter if some random tyranid MC is weak, few people are going to use it. Riptides, on the other hand, are commonly spammed.
Nor does their resilience automatically make them unbalanced rather than asymmetrical.
It really does. Riptide durability is not a powerful advantage offset by a disadvantage (possibly including a high point cost) as a design concept, it's the result of MCs being better than walkers in virtually every situation. The Riptide is fast, it can JSJ, it has amazing shooting for its point cost, and it has amazing durability for its point cost. Even charging it in melee isn't an answer, as its high mobility allows it to avoid combat and the MC unit type makes it reasonably competent in melee (especially compared to everything else in the Tau army). The Riptide is just too good for its point cost, period.
First turn charges have as much right to exist as Drop Pods.
Drop pods, as they are now, should not exist either. At minimum they need to lose the ability to come in on turn 1 and be forced to deal with reserve rolls just like most other deep striking units.
And since you can put units in reserve, start them in vehicles, or bubble wrap your units, you're automatically capable interacting with them as a strategy.
You can't put your whole army in reserve because then you automatically lose the game. So all these things come down to "you can choose which of your units are automatically destroyed before you get a turn", not any meaningful interaction or ability to prevent the alpha strike.
Slow play in tournaments is rarely awarded with high-standings, and "points" tend to be better scored with immediate kills, rather than an attrition grind. Horde strategies tend to work best in the long game, and tournaments actively discourage long games.
I don't think you understand tournaments then. Kill points are only a small part of the game, one that most people argue for minimizing. If I'm playing a horde army I can play quickly in the early turns to secure the objectives I need, then slow play the rest of the game so that it ends before you have a chance to counter my objective claims. And because everyone knows that horde armies take a lot of time to play the judge is probably not going to believe you when you complain that I'm stalling.
Runic wrote: Losses entirely mitigated against a list capable of tabling an army on turn 1 with shooting is a fantasy.
Only if you don't put enough terrain on the table. Stop playing games on empty tables and shooting alpha strikes do very little damage. Only IG barrage weapons can ignore LOS, and IG artillery spam is suicidally weak against anything fast enough to get around the LOS-blocking cover and annihilate the fragile artillery tanks.
And what exactly do you consider "enough?"
I'd really like to see you completely eliminate losses against a list which includes say, a buffmander command squad, 2 stormsurges, a riptidewing and then some without using null deployment. A core of a common tournament list. Asfar as I'm concerned it would require a table which has enough LOSblock to conceal a complete army, and even then the 48 smart missiles (which ignore LOS, and Cover) from the Riptidewing would do some damage.
Yeah. On a table that completely LOSblocks an entire army. The imaginary kind. Anything less and you're getting hit by Markerlights and other weaponry aswell. The weaponry that makes up the remaining 80% of that cores firepower.
I personally highly disagree that first turn charges are bad. I use them and am often hit by them. This is really only a problem for niche army lists which build their force to min max one style of play, If you take CAD you're not good at fighting anything but you often don't have any real weakness either.
I think 7th did a good job at mitigating 4 and 5th editions first round death round issue of heavy guns and tanks. With extra cover saves, stealth for first turn and many more ways to infiltrate, outflank and deepstrike, going first for my group of friends. And the introduction to Fortifications is a huge and happily accepted improvement and addition.
That being said, I play as Guard and Tyrands (with some GSC and Chaos) as of late and I have yet to see any lists in our gaming community be broken more than Decurian and Tau/Eldar. In fact the only complaints I've seen about first turn charges was from my buddy Necron player was annoyed that I was able to tie up his immortals for two turns with jump marines. Saying that it was cheesy.
Admittedly, I cannot vouch for everyone, but our group has no issues other than the usual, Necron, Tau and Eldar abusive lists and the only one complaining are the Necron Tau and Eldar lists which are now no longer guarateed an easy win. I'm curious to hear what you guys have been bumping into and what tactics and strategies you guys have tried to change with the now more common first turn charges.
You did nothing wrong. It's a Dakka thing from time to time. Next time you see a double post, just leave it. Dakka will auto correct it. When you delete or change the "double post" it will erase both posts just like what happened to you just now or when ever you posted it I mean.
Runic wrote: And what exactly do you consider "enough?"
Multiple large pieces of LOS-blocking terrain across the middle of the table is the most important thing. There should be gaps in the wall, of course, but at least half of the opposing deployment zone should either be out of LOS entirely or out of LOS from most of the table and in cover against the rest.
I'd really like to see you completely eliminate losses against a list which includes say, a buffmander command squad, 2 stormsurges, a riptidewing and then some without using null deployment. A core of a common tournament list. Asfar as I'm concerned it would require a table which has enough LOSblock to conceal a complete army, and even then the 48 smart missiles (which ignore LOS, and Cover) from the Riptidewing would do some damage.
You're not going to eliminate it completely, but you can certainly reduce it to a few casualties here and there. Most of your army will be out of LOS entirely, and the markerlight units aren't guaranteed to have LOS to the units the primary shooting units have LOS to. And even when some of a unit is visible only those visible models can be removed as casualties. If half a unit is out of LOS then the few models that are visible get overkilled, but the unit remains a viable threat. So the most likely outcome is that the Tau player gets some damage in, but you probably don't lose any complete units unless the dice hate you. That's far different from the situation with first turn charges, where multiple entire units are dead as soon as the game begins.
And I notice your example is MC-heavy Tau, a list exploiting a unit that virtually everyone agrees is way too cheap and a formation that virtually everyone agrees is one of the best examples of why formations are bad. If this army succeeds in overcoming the terrain factor it has more to do with balance issues involving specific units than core rule issues involving first-turn shooting. If the Riptide and Stormsurge are given appropriate point costs this list is a lot less impressive.
Peregrine wrote: And I notice your example is MC-heavy Tau, a list exploiting a unit that virtually everyone agrees is way too cheap and a formation that virtually everyone agrees is one of the best examples of why formations are bad. If this army succeeds in overcoming the terrain factor it has more to do with balance issues involving specific units than core rule issues involving first-turn shooting. If the Riptide and Stormsurge are given appropriate point costs this list is a lot less impressive.
I don't think I've ever seen a table where the deployment zone of the opposing player is completely LOSblocked. Not saying it can't be done, but I've never ever seen or played on one in practice.
However currently (in practice, again) a core you meet on a regular basis in competitive play, or just competitive matches. As I mentioned before, I don't deal in the should've/could've. Only how things actually are in reality matters to me. I don't know how often you play and in what kind of enviroment, but perhaps this makes the difference.
In practice you get to play (if you can call it that...) lists like these often in more competitive environments, and while usually tables have decent amounts of terrain, the kind where an army like that doesn't severely dent the opponents army if they go first (aside from the strategies that counter it to some degree such as full Drop Pod armies) are somewhat non-existent. In bigger tournaments it escalates due to amounts of terrain sometimes being lacking. Eldar can make it almost equally bad by spamming Scatter Lasers, some D-shots here and there as basically their whole Codex is underpriced. A fully scouting White Scars Gladius Strike Force bristling with Grav can make for a nasty alphastrike aswell, altough it is not of the same caliber as the two former. That armys strength lies elsewhere. All of them are, however, prevalent armies you meet all the time.
And this is why "tournaments with large amounts of players should have "enough" terrain" doesn't help, as in reality this is rarely the case. It's a nice thought but that's all it is. In practice things are how they are, and in that I find the few first turn charging builds are the best medicine available against a meta that was dominant with just spamming powerful and mobile ranged units.
Most critique I have heard from players who play these one trick pony ranged steroid lists who have 0 preparation for blocking charges, managing their reserves and the like. Go figure huh.
Runic wrote: I don't think I've ever seen a table where the deployment zone of the opposing player is completely LOSblocked. Not saying it can't be done, but I've never ever seen or played on one in practice.
That's not what I said. I said ~50% of the deployment zone is LOS blocked or at least severely LOS restricted. You don't get to put your units wherever you want and be immune to damage, but there's plenty of space to hide out of LOS if you need to avoid a first-turn alpha strike.
However currently (in practice, again) a core you meet on a regular basis in competitive play, or just competitive matches. As I mentioned before, I don't deal in the should've/could've. Only how things actually are in reality matters to me. I don't know how often you play and in what kind of enviroment, but perhaps this makes the difference.
Ok, fine, you only play in competitive tournaments that can't afford enough terrain to make proper tables. That's your depressing reality. But that doesn't mean your experience is the most important one. Most games can have sufficient terrain, and I don't think many people are saying "no, we'd better only use one small piece of terrain in the center of the table because that's what a major tournament does".
And this is why "tournaments with large amounts of players should have "enough" terrain" doesn't help, as in reality this is rarely the case. It's a nice thought but that's all it is. In practice things are how they are, and in that I find the few first turn charging builds are the best medicine available against a meta that was dominant with just spamming powerful and mobile ranged units.
IOW, "balance the whole game for the minority of games that are played in big tournaments with no terrain, even if it means creating a miserable experience for everyone else". This is terrible game design.
Most critique I have heard from players who play these one trick pony ranged steroid lists who have 0 preparation for blocking charges, managing their reserves and the like. Go figure huh.
That's not it at all. The problem is that the best and most interesting option for avoiding charges, taking mobile units and outmaneuvering your opponent, becomes impossible when you're getting charged before you get a turn. The only thing you can have any control over is exactly which units you're going to lose before you get a turn. If you deploy perfectly and use every tool you have available you might only have your least important units removed from the table without being able to do anything about it. That is not fun.
And please stop suggesting reserves as a counter. You can't put your whole army in reserve anymore without automatically losing, so you can't hide from an alpha strike. Your opponent can just kill whatever you leave on the table, and if you don't throw away enough of your points as suicide fodder for the alpha strike you automatically lose at the end of the turn. Until we go back to the 5th edition rules for reserves this is not a viable answer.
Some folks: ZOMG first turn charges that destroy a significant portion of an army are terribad and unfair!
Other folks: Yea, but first turn enemy army decimation before the opponent can react, that many armies can and have been able to accomplish at range for months or years now, is also bad, how is doing it in assault any worse?
Some folks: Assaulting turn one before the opponent moves isn't fun and makes things one dimensional.
Other folks: Again, how is doing that exact same thing in the shooting phase to the same effect any different?
Some folks: Use terrain! You can mitigate losses to shooting by using more/proper terrain. You can't stop first turn charges!
Other folks: You can't put an entire army in or behind cover on any reasonably normal terrain setup such that you can survive the kinds of alpha strikes/firepower many of the worst offenders of that kind of firepower output can dish out. You're going to lose a chunk of your army, often a significant chunk. Short of them whiffing the majority of their shots you just have to take it on the chin.
Some folks: Then null deploy!
Other Folks: Then bubble wrap!
Some folks: That won't work!
Other folks: Neither will that!
Consensus: The rules need a long overdue overhaul that, in theory, is coming. In the mean time have fun with your army and play to have fun. If you're not having fun, don't play the person who is keeping you from having fun.
For me the funniest thing in this thread is people using arguments that speak as much against them as it does for them.
In response to someone saying shooting lists can win turn 1 in the same way assault can:
Not everyone is a vindictive jackwad that will make the game as unpleasant as possible to the others"
Well... the exact same thing is applicable to people who run assault-based armies. Not everyone who charges turn one brought the best list in the world and will wreck you turn 1.
Peregrine wrote: That's not what I said. I said ~50% of the deployment zone is LOS blocked or at least severely LOS restricted. You don't get to put your units wherever you want and be immune to damage, but there's plenty of space to hide out of LOS if you need to avoid a first-turn alpha strike.
True, you said that.
Ok, fine, you only play in competitive tournaments that can't afford enough terrain to make proper tables. That's your depressing reality. But that doesn't mean your experience is the most important one. Most games can have sufficient terrain, and I don't think many people are saying "no, we'd better only use one small piece of terrain in the center of the table because that's what a major tournament does".
Untrue, it's just more common than uncommon that larger tournaments (globally) don't have vast amounts of terrain on the tables. I rarely participate in massive ones, and I play outside tournaments aswell. We're talking in the context of first turn tabling, which, factually, means competitive lists. Most of these you will find in tournaments, and the larger the tournament, usually the more competitive the roster. But sure, in a random match outside of a tournament it's very possible to have more than enough terrain on the table to help against shooting alpha strikes of abovementioned caliber and have them do almost no damage. That's the first turn ofcourse, if you're hidden and unable to do serious damage back, you will feel the wrath of anchored dual Stormsurges on turn 2, which hurts more than the fusillade on turn 1. Hiding also doesn't score objectives which are usually required in all but the crappiest of scenarios/rulesets, meaning you will most likely have a bad time by just hiding. Going on the defensive will most likely also have you lose the scenario Kill Points if they are used, and the abovementioned Tau list doesn't leak that many of those.
Just out of interest, how many games have you played against such a Tau list for example, and what type of army were you using? I'd appreciate if you don't skip this question as it's an answer in itself. That Tau core is concretical, and common. Anyone can field it outside of a tournament unless somehow banned by houseruling.
IOW, "balance the whole game for the minority of games that are played in big tournaments with no terrain, even if it means creating a miserable experience for everyone else". This is terrible game design.
I dont think anyone does none of the above. It just happens that people take note of what is being played in large tournaments, and those list designs leak into normal matches, outside tournaments aswell. 40K is a terribly designed game if you're objective about it. And it's quite obvious the factors in it's design don't include tournament play, nor do they seem to include friendly balanced matches either. As pretty much everybody who knows anything is aware.
Communities across the globe have been criticizing the overpowered shooting for years now. It doesn't stem from nothing. In the context of how the game currently is, getting charged on turn one is infact, a remedy against them. It's not the best remedy (that would be a well balanced game as a whole) but for now it's the best we got in practice. Maybe one day the utopia will become reality and 40K will be balanced so these thoughts and ideas of "how things should be" will not be in vain. Sure it will.
And please stop suggesting reserves as a counter. You can't put your whole army in reserve anymore without automatically losing.
Actually there are some formations and builds that allow for a null deployment and arrive on turn one. This, and your earlier sentence where you stated that only Imperial Guard artillery ignores LOS leads me to doubt how well you are up-to-date in the game knowledge department. Ad hominem I know, but just saying. Also "use reserves" doesn't mean "null deploy completely."
But really. You're free to think that powerful first turn charging is worse than powerful first turn shooting. I disagree and as has already been indicated, so do others. I think it's fine that there's now a need to do something more than just spam powerful guns in a list.
It seems to me you deal a lot on the ideological side of things. But even if you find the first turn charging builds annoying/dumb/gamebreaking... in practice, and in reality, these armies exist. They're out there, and unless you play rarely/pick your opponents you will have to deal with them. Ergo I see no point in "how things should be" - it doesn't change this.
I surely prefer charges turn one than shooting phases with 150+ shots at b3/4/5 or psychic phases with 30+ dice. I hate full shooting armies of full psykers armies, if you're scared of being charged turn one drop some units that don't do any other things than hiding and shoot and bring some close combat units to deal with those scary enemies that want to charge you as soon as possible. 40k is a lot of fun as soon as the games are balanced so when you play keep it in mind, it's a game not a sport and the final result doesn't count. Bringing lists that can't be defeated (or very unliklely) isn't fun for both players, if the game is compromised turn 2 i wouldn't have fun, even if i'd be winner.
Blackie wrote: I surely prefer charges turn one than shooting phases with 150+ shots at b3/4/5 or psychic phases with 30+ dice. I hate full shooting armies of full psykers armies, if you're scared of being charged turn one drop some units that don't do any other things than hiding and shoot and bring some close combat units to deal with those scary enemies that want to charge you as soon as possible. 40k is a lot of fun as soon as the games are balanced so when you play keep it in mind, it's a game not a sport and the final result doesn't count. Bringing lists that can't be defeated (or very unliklely) isn't fun for both players, if the game is compromised turn 2 i wouldn't have fun, even if i'd be winner.
"it's a game not a sport and the final result doesn't count. "
Blackie wrote: if you're scared of being charged turn one drop some units that don't do any other things than hiding and shoot and bring some close combat units to deal with those scary enemies that want to charge you as soon as possible.
IOW, don't play IG or Tau. You know, armies that don't have close combat units.
Blackie wrote: I surely prefer charges turn one than shooting phases with 150+ shots at b3/4/5 or psychic phases with 30+ dice. I hate full shooting armies of full psykers armies, if you're scared of being charged turn one drop some units that don't do any other things than hiding and shoot and bring some close combat units to deal with those scary enemies that want to charge you as soon as possible. 40k is a lot of fun as soon as the games are balanced so when you play keep it in mind, it's a game not a sport and the final result doesn't count. Bringing lists that can't be defeated (or very unliklely) isn't fun for both players, if the game is compromised turn 2 i wouldn't have fun, even if i'd be winner.
"it's a game not a sport and the final result doesn't count. "
I am not sure I completely understood this.
If the game is balanced till the end but i lose i had fun, if i table the opponent turn 2 or oblitrate 70% of his army i didn't have fun even if i won.
Blackie wrote: if you're scared of being charged turn one drop some units that don't do any other things than hiding and shoot and bring some close combat units to deal with those scary enemies that want to charge you as soon as possible.
IOW, don't play IG or Tau. You know, armies that don't have close combat units.
I'm sure they can deal with turn one assault in some way, maybe blobs of fearless guardsmen? or 3-4 tau vehicles or kroot blobs to block those assaults? But they're two armies that i don't like at all so i don't know about them and honestly fighting an army that does nothing else than staying in the corner and shoot (maybe hiding in the assalut phase) is the thing i hate most in 40k. I mean the style and the concept of those armies, where's the fun in playing them?
Blackie wrote: I'm sure they can deal with turn one assault in some way, maybe blobs of fearless guardsmen? or 3-4 tau vehicles or kroot blobs to block those assaults?
Fearless blobs are expensive and don't solve the problem of "lose a bunch of stuff before you get a turn", and Tau vehicles are even more expensive. You're talking about 300+ points of stuff instantly dying as soon as the game begins, with no possible way to prevent it. And that's the best-case scenario. You can potentially lose a lot more than that if they can force a gap through your meatshields.
Blackie wrote: I'm sure they can deal with turn one assault in some way, maybe blobs of fearless guardsmen? or 3-4 tau vehicles or kroot blobs to block those assaults?
Fearless blobs are expensive and don't solve the problem of "lose a bunch of stuff before you get a turn", and Tau vehicles are even more expensive. You're talking about 300+ points of stuff instantly dying as soon as the game begins, with no possible way to prevent it. And that's the best-case scenario. You can potentially lose a lot more than that if they can force a gap through your meatshields.
Okay, I'll bite. How do you prevent "lose a bunch of stuff before you get a turn" in a shooty meta. Stuff like that always happens and it's just part of a turn-by-turn games.
Are you telling me your solution to shooting is "stay out of LOS", but you're somehow unable to do that against melee armies? 2D6+12" move averages 19". That's not a lot of wiggle room to go around obstacles in order to get in LoS and charging distance.
This whole arguments against assaulting basically boils down to "I can't set up my units wherever I want and this bothers me". Congratulations, you are now in the position assault armies have been in for a long time; the one where you actually have to put some thought into where you put your stuff instead of just slapping them wherever they have the most line of sight across the table.
Blackie wrote: I'm sure they can deal with turn one assault in some way, maybe blobs of fearless guardsmen? or 3-4 tau vehicles or kroot blobs to block those assaults?
Fearless blobs are expensive and don't solve the problem of "lose a bunch of stuff before you get a turn", and Tau vehicles are even more expensive. You're talking about 300+ points of stuff instantly dying as soon as the game begins, with no possible way to prevent it. And that's the best-case scenario. You can potentially lose a lot more than that if they can force a gap through your meatshields.
Okay, I'll bite. How do you prevent "lose a bunch of stuff before you get a turn" in a shooty meta. Stuff like that always happens and it's just part of a turn-by-turn games.
Are you telling me your solution to shooting is "stay out of LOS", but you're somehow unable to do that against melee armies? 2D6+12" move averages 19". That's not a lot of wiggle room to go around obstacles in order to get in LoS and charging distance.
This whole arguments against assaulting basically boils down to "I can't set up my units wherever I want and this bothers me". Congratulations, you are now in the position assault armies have been in for a long time; the one where you actually have to put some thought into where you put your stuff instead of just slapping them wherever they have the most line of sight across the table.
I have to agree with you there. 300+ points dead on turn one?! You must be fighting Tau. Oh, you're using Genestealer Cults?! Awesome something new and fitting with the aesthetic of 40k.
Vaktathi wrote: and the "leafblower" thing was a 5E incarnation that came about in 2500pt 'Ard Boyz events, mainly where one player on a popular blog got first turn every single game and won one year with a heavy alpha strike list
4E was *very* friendly for the Eldar in tournament placement.
5th Edition was dominated by GK, Eldar wasn't top 3
again, hence the exception, but the edition was more a rotating circus of imperial armies in general on top, 2008 was SM's, 2009 was IG and SW's, 2010 and 2011 was GK's and to a lesser extent BA's, with Necrons moving in on top spot in the last few months up to 6E.
Thanks for taking the time to write an articulate post with a lot of information.
As I said and you confirmed, Eldar really weren't top dog for any of these editions as I remembered.
I understand that owners of terrible codices would resent an army being top 5 most of the time and even getting top 1 now and then, but hey, go hate on space marines kthx.
Martel732 wrote: Your comparison is meaningless. We are talking about using invis models with invuln saves to tarpit real cc units, not terminators. The output of a tarpit is largely unimportant.
Oh yeah, 9 wounds on T4 3+/4++ WITHOUT FEARLESS models is an uber-tarpit. Specially cheap and cost effective. And good and totally reliable. Just be careful you don't lose that ld test you're going to make every single round. And my comparison isn't meaningless since he said they WRECK FACE. Not that they are a tarpit, but a hammer to crush the enemy.
And this is from a veteran player's comments:
My experience was that it still took relatively mistake-free play to actually win games regularly - one bad decision or mistake could easily cause even the competitive builds of the day to fold, and quickly.
Yeah, marine competitive builds have always done that too, haven't... they?
From my limited observation, Eldar has always been very tricky.
The IoM and Space Marines have always been more "in-your-face" I believe, making them less afraid of many potential mistakes.
Runic wrote: Nah, no periods, just your subjective view. They aren't any worse than first turn tabling by shooting asfar as I'm concerned.
Shooting alpha strikes are highly overstated, unless you don't bother putting sufficient terrain on the table.
There's enough Ignores Cover or just plain volume of fire on the top tier lists that normal amounts of terrain hardly make a difference.
Ofcourse in a perfect world one can fill their terrain to look like a scenic shot out of a movie, but in reality tournaments don't usually have this luxury as there are quite a bit of tables to set up.
I deal in the reality, not the utopia.
You're supposed to have LOS-blocking terrain on a proper table.
Lord Kragan wrote: Of course, you're the one that is taking all the models out while he just removes his dead pieces.
Like honestly... I'm... I'm all out of feths to be honest. This thread is a lost cause, isn't it?
Not sure what you're trying to say exactly, but I guess you consider it okay to have people shot off the table on turn one, but for some reason having them melee'd off the table on turn one is somehow worse? Or?
Actually, the best shooty lists can at most take 30% of your force down on the first turn, if there is no real terrain.
But you don't know yet what is going to happen on T2 and T3 (earliest tabling in general).
I think Assault is different, because T1 assault, you lose 30% of your force, and you know that T2 = assault and lose another 30%, etc.
If you can't dodge a T1 assault, you cant dodge any assault, and the electro displacement mechanic makes every assault almost guaranteed and undodgeable.
WIth shooting, as your numbers dwindle, cover per unit increases, and shooting fears assault.
Invisible Assault Blob fears nothing but air, none of which can seriously damage it afaik - maybe we're slated for a return of the flyrants - although I'm expecting enough psy powers to completely annihilate them.
DaPino wrote: How do you prevent "lose a bunch of stuff before you get a turn" in a shooty meta.
By using sufficient terrain, as I keep saying. If there is sufficient LOS-blocking terrain on the table LOS between deployment zones will be severely limited and a shooting army (other than IG barrage spam, which is not a good list overall) will have to spend a turn or two moving out of its deployment zone to get good shots, or wait for you to move out and come to them. If your opponent's whole army is firing focused shots into your key units on turn 1 and inflicting lots of damage it's a pretty strong hint that you didn't put enough terrain on the table. The more likely outcome, with sufficient terrain, is that your opponent's guns either can't get clear shots at all or have to split fire across multiple targets and you survive the turn with some wounds taken but most of your units still at effective strength.
Are you telling me your solution to shooting is "stay out of LOS", but you're somehow unable to do that against melee armies? 2D6+12" move averages 19". That's not a lot of wiggle room to go around obstacles in order to get in LoS and charging distance.
Err, what? You do realize that the context of this thread is an army that starts the game by infiltrating within 3" of the units they're going to charge, right? And that other turn-1 charge armies can deep strike to set up the charge? The whole point of why it's a problem is that terrain doesn't matter.
This whole arguments against assaulting basically boils down to "I can't set up my units wherever I want and this bothers me".
No, it's "it doesn't matter where you set up, you're losing hundreds of points of stuff before you get a turn and your only choice is which units to sacrifice". Conventional assault units are fine, you have to deploy to avoid them but you have a chance to react to them and potentially escape the charge. Assault units that get guaranteed charges on turn 1 no matter where you deploy are not fine.
I'm thinking people confuse "shooting has been responsible for most of the damage lately" with "shooting is the strongest in 40K".
Assault in 40K is by far the strongest force, it can even deal with taking losses, it can delete entire units, unless they're spehs mehreens of course, it deals vastly more damage per point, etc.
Also, I'm not really worried by GSC, they have one turn of free assault, that's cool.
What worries me is Electro Displacement and every-turn guaranteed charge anywhere on the map, thanks to one fethed up psy power and the always overpowered drop pod which lands anywhere safely for 35 points.
When the best possible strategy comes down to : just include fearless AM blobs in your army, I fear the game is going downhill.
Actually, the best shooty lists can at most take 30% of your force down on the first turn, if there is no real terrain.
But you don't know yet what is going to happen on T2 and T3 (earliest tabling in general).
Actually, depending on the army you are using among other countless factors, the best shooty lists can take more than 30% of your force down.
morgoth wrote: I think Assault is different, because T1 assault, you lose 30% of your force, and you know that T2 = assault and lose another 30%, etc.
Aside from the part where a competitive Tau list for example, shoots harder on T2 than on T1 because Stormsurges. And any dakka list just keeps shooting unless you damage them back. The same as with melee.
Atleast I can agree on one thing, and that's GSC not being anything compared to an electrodisplacing Invisible Feel No Pain 4++ wolfstar.
Dunno, pointless conversation in a way. GSC, World Eaters and other builds that charge you on turn one are in the game. The end. Find ways to deal with it. Just like you have to do with double Stormsurges + Riptidewings and deathstars.
"I understand that owners of terrible codices would resent an army being top 5 most of the time and even getting top 1 now and then, but hey, go hate on space marines kthx."
Except vanilla marines have only been on the top recently. They were never a truly strong list until 6/7th. And the beginning of 3rd. They were outright unplayable in 2nd.
Blackie wrote: I'm sure they can deal with turn one assault in some way, maybe blobs of fearless guardsmen? or 3-4 tau vehicles or kroot blobs to block those assaults?
Fearless blobs are expensive and don't solve the problem of "lose a bunch of stuff before you get a turn", and Tau vehicles are even more expensive. You're talking about 300+ points of stuff instantly dying as soon as the game begins, with no possible way to prevent it. And that's the best-case scenario. You can potentially lose a lot more than that if they can force a gap through your meatshields.
Turn one of your immortal Riptides into an eternal tarpit. You've got Riptides to spare because they are undercosted.
DaPino wrote: How do you prevent "lose a bunch of stuff before you get a turn" in a shooty meta.
By using sufficient terrain, as I keep saying. If there is sufficient LOS-blocking terrain on the table LOS between deployment zones will be severely limited and a shooting army (other than IG barrage spam, which is not a good list overall) will have to spend a turn or two moving out of its deployment zone to get good shots, or wait for you to move out and come to them. If your opponent's whole army is firing focused shots into your key units on turn 1 and inflicting lots of damage it's a pretty strong hint that you didn't put enough terrain on the table. The more likely outcome, with sufficient terrain, is that your opponent's guns either can't get clear shots at all or have to split fire across multiple targets and you survive the turn with some wounds taken but most of your units still at effective strength.
Unless you're saying that you can put your entire army behind LoS-blocking terrain, you will still end up losing stuff before your first turn. Then you are also "losing hundreds of points of stuff before you get a turn and your only choice is which units to sacrifice".
Are you telling me your solution to shooting is "stay out of LOS", but you're somehow unable to do that against melee armies? 2D6+12" move averages 19". That's not a lot of wiggle room to go around obstacles in order to get in LoS and charging distance.
Err, what? You do realize that the context of this thread is an army that starts the game by infiltrating within 3" of the units they're going to charge, right? And that other turn-1 charge armies can deep strike to set up the charge? The whole point of why it's a problem is that terrain doesn't matter.
I thought we were also still talking about the Khorne thing, I lost track a couple of pages ago.
With that said and done, yes I could bring 13 MSU Subterranean Uprising formations and probably feth up people royally but I probably can cook up a shooting army that equally feths people over.
This brings us back to "not everyone is a scumbag".
This whole arguments against assaulting basically boils down to "I can't set up my units wherever I want and this bothers me".
No, it's "it doesn't matter where you set up, you're losing hundreds of points of stuff before you get a turn and your only choice is which units to sacrifice". Conventional assault units are fine, you have to deploy to avoid them but you have a chance to react to them and potentially escape the charge. Assault units that get guaranteed charges on turn 1 no matter where you deploy are not fine.
Which I can kind of agree to but then again drop pods have been a thing for how long now? They allow a shooting unit to be wherever it wants and alpha-strike whatever unit it wants no matter where they deploy. You cannot deploy to avoid a drop pod either (again, unless you have a unusually large amount of terrain) and yet I don't see anyone complaining about that.
DaPino wrote: [
Which I can kind of agree to but then again drop pods have been a thing for how long now? They allow a shooting unit to be wherever it wants and alpha-strike whatever unit it wants no matter where they deploy. You cannot deploy to avoid a drop pod either (again, unless you have a unusually large amount of terrain) and yet I don't see anyone complaining about that.
Drop Pods are broken but we've come to accept them.
However, their main effect was to obliterate tanks T1, which was easily prevented with light bubble wrapping.
The meta will certainly recover from this but right now, several tournaments had to simply remove that combo from existence, which sort of speaks to its non-competitive nature.
DaPino wrote: [
Which I can kind of agree to but then again drop pods have been a thing for how long now? They allow a shooting unit to be wherever it wants and alpha-strike whatever unit it wants no matter where they deploy. You cannot deploy to avoid a drop pod either (again, unless you have a unusually large amount of terrain) and yet I don't see anyone complaining about that.
Drop Pods are broken but we've come to accept them.
However, their main effect was to obliterate tanks T1, which was easily prevented with light bubble wrapping.
The meta will certainly recover from this but right now, several tournaments had to simply remove that combo from existence, which sort of speaks to its non-competitive nature.
Drop pods are actually overrated. Even the dreaded skyhammer is completely foiled by..... the Rhino. Or the Chimera. Xeno lists get greedy and maximize firepower at all costs leaving themselves open to alpha strike. If BA can beat skyhammer, broken-ass Tau and Eldar can, too.
Blackie wrote: I'm sure they can deal with turn one assault in some way, maybe blobs of fearless guardsmen? or 3-4 tau vehicles or kroot blobs to block those assaults?
Fearless blobs are expensive and don't solve the problem of "lose a bunch of stuff before you get a turn", and Tau vehicles are even more expensive. You're talking about 300+ points of stuff instantly dying as soon as the game begins, with no possible way to prevent it. And that's the best-case scenario. You can potentially lose a lot more than that if they can force a gap through your meatshields.
Yes you'll lose 300+ points of stuff turn one but the rest of your army, the best shooting units, can easily evaporate 300+ points of genestealers in your first turn. If i face space marines, eldars or tau i would be prepared to lose 300+ points turn one because of their overpowered shooting phase. Losing 300-400 points for a 1850 army doesn't seem to me a big deal, for 2/3 of the armies is what they get everytime if they go second. If there's an army that is extremely scary to these overpowered shooting lists i don't see the problem, only a few players play with genestealers and i'm sure every army can deal with them. Maybe they will not be top armies in 40k anymore if they change their broken list but with tau, IG, space marines and eldars you can surely defeat an army that charges turn 1 if you're prepared to deal with it, use expendables units, terrain, flamers, reserves... If you go to a tournament you shouldn't care, how many genestealer cult armies are you going to fight against? probably not even a single one. The point is some players only take the same broken list ant they're upset that now there's a hard counter for them.
No, it's "it doesn't matter where you set up, you're losing hundreds of points of stuff before you get a turn and your only choice is which units to sacrifice". Conventional assault units are fine, you have to deploy to avoid them but you have a chance to react to them and potentially escape the charge. Assault units that get guaranteed charges on turn 1 no matter where you deploy are not fine.
Again, it's the standard scenario for many players to lose even a third of their army (and probably the best units as they're targeted first) turn one if they play against some only-shooting lists. No matter how much you're going MSU or using terrain, with my orks and dark eldars i can lose even half the army against some opponents, even if i take competitive lists. Stop playing with 5 riptides and a stormsurge or with 15 tanks if IG and you won't automatically lose turn one when you face the cult. They don't seem to me one of the most competitive armies in 40k, just a hard counter for some lists but far from being overpowered. Eldar, tau and space marines are overpowered, not those genestealers. And i'm not a fan of the cult nor i play them, so i have no interest in defending them, as i hate how they look.
I understand that owners of terrible codices would resent an army being top 5 most of the time and even getting top 1 now and then, but hey, go hate on space marines kthx.
I've hated on Space Marines of all stripes plenty through the years as I'm sure other posters here will remember , and I *have* and Eldar army, about 5000pts worth in fact, including two superheavies, but I gotta call it like I sees it with Eldar, they've been probably the single most well treated army, when taken as a whole, throughout the lifespan of the game in terms of power level with only one edition where they werent top tier competitive.
I understand that owners of terrible codices would resent an army being top 5 most of the time and even getting top 1 now and then, but hey, go hate on space marines kthx.
I've hated on Space Marines of all stripes plenty through the years as I'm sure other posters here will remember , and I *have* and Eldar army, about 5000pts worth in fact, including two superheavies, but I gotta call it like I sees it with Eldar, they've been probably the single most well treated army, when taken as a whole, throughout the lifespan of the game in terms of power level with only one edition where they werent top tier competitive.
The only time they weren't updated either! But yeah it's been one thing or another, Exarchs, Sunspam/Ulthwe/ALTIOC , Skimmerspam, 5th edition not top tier but not bot tier either, 6th edition wraith/serpent spam, then 7th S Scatbikes.
, Skimmerspam, 5th edition not top tier but not bot tier either, 6th edition wraith/serpent spam, then 7th S