It would seem with the opening back up of alpha assault, that we will go back to the days where assault armies are entirely loaded into alpha strike and the bare minimum is fielded, thus circumventing the need for the movement phase.

(this complaint was fairly loud and in part why it was removed from the game a few editions ago, and here it is back).

Having played during the days of alpha strike and owning an alpha strike army back then, and having borne witness to the popularity of sigmarine alpha strike armies, are we looking at a ton of all deep strike assault armies coming back, removing the need for positioning and maneuver?

I doubt it.

1. There's a matched play restriction on how many units can start out in reserves in matched play.

2. You have to roll at least a 9 for the vast majority of units that you'd want to charge with from deepstrike, and even higher if you are charging into a crater, a forest, etc.

That said, rhino rush is definitely back...on steroids!

Well in matched play you can only take half your army points in deep strike so its meh. I just finished a game a hour ago and it felt way better with this type of deployment.

You roll 8 to get in now that's only one more than the average result on 2d6, no longer need to get in base contact just within one inch.

zalak wrote:
Well in matched play you can only take half your army points in deep strike so its meh. I just finished a game a hour ago and it felt way better with this type of deployment.

Half of the units, not points.

DS is now much easier to deny with careful positioning, because a 17" gap between two units isn't sufficient to drop anymore (in the past, that would have been a decent spot to land multiple drop pods).
Flamers are never in range after a DS, and with just a tiny bit of wrapping you can also deny melta range on your vehicles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hobojebus wrote:
You roll 8 to get in now that's only one more than the average result on 2d6, no longer need to get in base contact just within one inch.

You need to DS more than 9" away, so you need to roll 9+ to move within 1" of your target.

hobojebus wrote:
You roll 8 to get in now that's only one more than the average result on 2d6, no longer need to get in base contact just within one inch.

You deploy more than 9" away. So you need a 9. That's about 28%; goes up to 52% I think with a single re-roll.

First turn assault heavy armies are going to be insanely good.

hobojebus wrote:
You roll 8 to get in now that's only one more than the average result on 2d6, no longer need to get in base contact just within one inch.

DS is OVER 9 inches away. Over 9 inches minus 1 inch equals over 8 inches. There is no way to roll 8.something with the dice and rolling 8 leaves the unit over 1 inch away resulting in a failed charge. A 9 or more needs to be rolled.

Ninja clan got me.

zerosignal wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
You roll 8 to get in now that's only one more than the average result on 2d6, no longer need to get in base contact just within one inch.

You deploy more than 9" away. So you need a 9. That's about 28%; goes up to 52% I think with a single re-roll.

First turn assault heavy armies are going to be insanely good.

48% with a reroll. Death Company with Lemartes can get that but you are paying plenty of points and there is still a 52% chance you will be left hanging in the breeze. Let's say you run 3x5 man DC and Lemartes, that is nearly 400 points before upgrades and you will need to roll above average to get more than one into assault. To make matters worse, if the DC make the charge and Lemartes himself does not, they will have charged out of his 6" reroll bubble meaning they won't hit nearly as hard.

So the short answer it yes, you can launch Turn 1 assaults but it is likely to be pretty piecemeal. Maybe once in a while you roll hot and most of your units make their charges but more often than not the majority will be left kicking their heels in front of the enemy guns.

Rather than trying to pull it off, you will probably be better running a big DC with Lemartes and jumping up the centre. Have a Libby Dread behind to cast Shield of Sanguinius on them for a 4++ save and you have a reasonably fast and durable unit that has a charge range of 24+2D6" on turn 2.

Alpha strike deepstrikers fall flat on the face the moment they meet bauble-wrap.

 koooaei wrote:
Alpha strike deepstrikers fall flat on the face the moment they meet bauble-wrap.

100% agree. Bubble wrap is so strong and important for shooty armies now.

I'm wracking my brain on how to over come it myself with an Alpha Strike Nid list using triple Trygon primes joined by mass Hormagaunts

 Zande4 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Alpha strike deepstrikers fall flat on the face the moment they meet bauble-wrap.

100% agree. Bubble wrap is so strong and important for shooty armies now.

I'm wracking my brain on how to over come it myself with an Alpha Strike Nid list using triple Trygon primes joined by mass Hormagaunts

Waves. Bring a Trygon on each turn with Hormagaunts to assault in the same general area and you should eventually be able to break through, especially if the rest of the army is applying pressure elswhere.

Oh well. I can't like everything about an edition lol.

RIP Manueuver and Movement.

It just seems that every assault person I know is going full on alpha strike, so if it wasn't that good, I wouldn't expect to see 100% of the people I know and a good chunk I read online to be using it fully.

 Imateria wrote:

 Zande4 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Alpha strike deepstrikers fall flat on the face the moment they meet bauble-wrap.

100% agree. Bubble wrap is so strong and important for shooty armies now.

I'm wracking my brain on how to over come it myself with an Alpha Strike Nid list using triple Trygon primes joined by mass Hormagaunts

Waves. Bring a Trygon on each turn with Hormagaunts to assault in the same general area and you should eventually be able to break through, especially if the rest of the army is applying pressure elswhere.

Attacking in waves in a fixed points game is otherwise known as attacking piecemeal, only part of your army vs the whole of theirs. Sure there's benefits in holding back a unit occasionally but not to the extent they're saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
Alpha strike deepstrikers fall flat on the face the moment they meet bauble-wrap.

Bubble wrap and units that scout/infiltrate/setup differently, sending that 9" miles away from the main force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
Oh well. I can't like everything about an edition lol.

RIP Manueuver and Movement.

It just seems that every assault person I know is going full on alpha strike, so if it wasn't that good, I wouldn't expect to see 100% of the people I know and a good chunk I read online to be using it fully.

And vs any competent IG force they'll be able to charge say 2 Scout Sentinels and some Ratlings. Then be stood with their dicks in their hands in front of a vast volume of fire.

Deep Strike will be very handy vs some lists. Others, not so much. A balanced force (shock!) will likely be move effective over a set of games.

We shall see. Based on AOS Stormcast being able to do it and most if not all stormcast players I've played doing full alpha strike all the time, and based on the past when deep strike / reserve assault was a thing and min/maxed, I'm expecting the same here.

Its just vastly easier to use.

 auticus wrote:
We shall see. Based on AOS Stormcast being able to do it and most if not all stormcast players I've played doing full alpha strike all the time, and based on the past when deep strike / reserve assault was a thing and min/maxed, I'm expecting the same here.

Its just vastly easier to use.

Stormcast typically wanted to be in melee with the exception of their bowmen however, with the opposite for various Space Marine stuff.

I really don't see mass alpha as a thing from deepstrike. Having lots of chances to roll 9" on 2 dice and if you fail you get charged everywhere sounds terrible.

Well, nobody will be going full alpha strike, since only half the units can in any army.

lol thats true. Half the units I mean.

But we all know what that means =P

Three units of min garbage troops. Then three units of super maxed out units alpha striking lol.

Seems to me like it will be part of a more balanced attack for assault armies. Throw in some deepstriking units to harass and draw fire away from your other slower threats. Bubble wrap will hurt this as a whole army tactic once people adjust to it. When you first read about the turn 1 assault you get excited and want to go whole hog, but eating a couple cheap units and getting shot to death will be what happens in many cases. Using AOS as an example seems like a bad idea, shooting in that game is not near as deadly as it is in 40k. I think this would be a bigger issue if you could not "fall back" (really you can move any direction you want) from combat, this means that whether you kill that bubble or not you are getting shot on their turn if they want you to. Or if they have durable bubble wrap maybe they just keep you tied up and shoot other things.

I will say that 8th is slowly turning me off. I was quite excited about it, but every single 8th ed. battle report (watched maybe 15-20) I've seen has been a turn 1 or maaaaybe turn 2 huge melee scrum, regardless of any tactics/strategy/movement/shooting. That's tremendously boring to me. Stat-wise I think the game is in good shape.

My 2nd ed. buddies and I are already considering simply adopting 2E base rules (well, our modified version) and using the new stats (allowing non 2nd ed. armies to join the fun, essentially).

 auticus wrote:
It would seem with the opening back up of alpha assault, that we will go back to the days where assault armies are entirely loaded into alpha strike and the bare minimum is fielded, thus circumventing the need for the movement phase.

(this complaint was fairly loud and in part why it was removed from the game a few editions ago, and here it is back).

Having played during the days of alpha strike and owning an alpha strike army back then, and having borne witness to the popularity of sigmarine alpha strike armies, are we looking at a ton of all deep strike assault armies coming back, removing the need for positioning and maneuver?

If you think that removes that need, you haven't played against enough alpha strike armies.

 auticus wrote:
lol thats true. Half the units I mean.

But we all know what that means =P

Three units of min garbage troops. Then three units of super maxed out units alpha striking lol.

What super maxed out unit is worth deepstriking to kill a small scout squad? Which ones can reliable make that charge? Which ones of those can deepstrike? and can then survive tons of shooting from the enemy including multiple overwatch shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
I will say that 8th is slowly turning me off. I was quite excited about it, but every single 8th ed. battle report (watched maybe 15-20) I've seen has been a turn 1 or maaaaybe turn 2 huge melee scrum, regardless of any tactics/strategy/movement/shooting. That's tremendously boring to me. Stat-wise I think the game is in good shape.

My 2nd ed. buddies and I are already considering simply adopting 2E base rules (well, our modified version) and using the new stats (allowing non 2nd ed. armies to join the fun, essentially).

I wonder how much of that is mission based. Would Maelstrom missions cause this to happen less often?

I play one of the heaviest alpha strike armies (PAGK in Stormravens) and i will tell you now. With the ability to fall back, you can completely control where I am standing and what you can shoot at me with. Don't put your expensive units in the front rank and you will be able to counter me.

You can take an 8pt acolyte for every unit you want to start in reserve as well.

so 80pts of acolytes on the table gets you 10 units in reserve.

The cost of drop pods is going to have a huge effect on how people are playing marines.

I'm more concerned about gun lines than alpha strike tbh

Remember than ANY unit can easily get a re-roll from command points. I've used it almost every game for any deep striking units, and it makes a tremendous difference.

If AoS is any indication (and it should be since the basic rules are nearly identical), alpha strike armies are going to be a thing for sure. Unlike AoS, those units in 40K also all have guns, so even if you dont get a charge you're still shooting at full effect the turn you come in and in rapid fire range.

The real difference between AoS and 40K that ive seen so far are transports, which practically every force has access to. In the current edition rushing units up the field in rhinos/whatever on turn 1 then unleashing on turn 2 seems to be a thing as well. I guess we'll see which one makes more sense. I suspect it will depend on the forces. For Space Marines, who have access to many squads with both great shooting and others specialized in close combat, I think both builds are viable so far.

 Elbows wrote:
I will say that 8th is slowly turning me off. I was quite excited about it, but every single 8th ed. battle report (watched maybe 15-20) I've seen has been a turn 1 or maaaaybe turn 2 huge melee scrum, regardless of any tactics/strategy/movement/shooting. That's tremendously boring to me. Stat-wise I think the game is in good shape.

This is what I was referring to when I say "RIP Movement Phase".

I've only played a few games of 8th but I really haven't felt this way.

I'm playing an Eldar army that wants to get in close and shoot, with only the Yncarne as a big CC threat. The other day I played against a mostly-CC oriented Tyranid army, which included a Mawloc, a Trygon, 2 flying Tyrants, and Genestealers. I was moving all over the place. I was blocking routes with flyers, falling back into transports and then moving the transports out of threat range themselves, and surrounding dangerous units with almost-dead squads to waste their next turn. I recently added a 21 point Razorwing unit to my list as a bit of first turn deep strike defense.

Taffy17 wrote:
You can take an 8pt acolyte for every unit you want to start in reserve as well.

so 80pts of acolytes on the table gets you 10 units in reserve.

The cost of drop pods is going to have a huge effect on how people are playing marines.

I'm more concerned about gun lines than alpha strike tbh

Hope all those acolytes don't die and lose you the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dosiere wrote:
Remember than ANY unit can easily get a re-roll from command points. I've used it almost every game for any deep striking units, and it makes a tremendous difference.

If AoS is any indication (and it should be since the basic rules are nearly identical), alpha strike armies are going to be a thing for sure. Unlike AoS, those units in 40K also all have guns, so even if you dont get a charge you're still shooting at full effect the turn you come in and in rapid fire range.

The real difference between AoS and 40K that ive seen so far are transports, which practically every force has access to. In the current edition rushing units up the field in rhinos/whatever on turn 1 then unleashing on turn 2 seems to be a thing as well. I guess we'll see which one makes more sense. I suspect it will depend on the forces. For Space Marines, who have access to many squads with both great shooting and others specialized in close combat, I think both builds are viable so far.

ONE unit can get a re-roll from command points. You can only re-roll once per phase, so if you are deepstriking a ton of units you get 1 re-roll for charge unless you have another method of getting that re-roll.

Not all assault units have guns, so some won't be shooting. Also unless you shoot a unit other than the one you are closest to you just might shoot yourself out of a charge.

Transports are a big deal, and could also be used to stop assault units. If you charge my bubble wrap, then they retreat, and I shoot you then charge you with a Rhino, now you are stuck trying to beat on a fairly durable unit (assuming it can survive 1 round of combat).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I will say that 8th is slowly turning me off. I was quite excited about it, but every single 8th ed. battle report (watched maybe 15-20) I've seen has been a turn 1 or maaaaybe turn 2 huge melee scrum, regardless of any tactics/strategy/movement/shooting. That's tremendously boring to me. Stat-wise I think the game is in good shape.

This is what I was referring to when I say "RIP Movement Phase".

Isn't there some tactics, strategy, movement involved with avoiding the assault scrum.

Breng77 wrote:

Taffy17 wrote:
You can take an 8pt acolyte for every unit you want to start in reserve as well.

so 80pts of acolytes on the table gets you 10 units in reserve.

The cost of drop pods is going to have a huge effect on how people are playing marines.

I'm more concerned about gun lines than alpha strike tbh

Hope all those acolytes don't die and lose you the game.

My first thought was that you should be able to hide at least ONE of those models well enough that nothing can shoot it, but your opponent can deep strike on turn 1 too. It may very well be possible to wipe out all ten in a single turn, although I think it's still unlikely.

Well i'd like to think i'm not cheap enough to do that. but it's not hard to hide them in LOS obscuring cover,

if you're going first its not an issue either and if not put them on your board edge out of sight, survive one turn

Isn't there some tactics, strategy, movement involved with avoiding the assault scrum.

Some. But the onus of having to have strategy and tactics is on the army NOT landing and assaulting.

The importance of the movement phase, and of maneuver in general, seem to have been lessened overall.

I share your suspicions Auticus, and I'll leave at that.

I wonder if the dev team thinks that turn one everything should be shooting and getting stuck in, rather than having a turn for re-positioning and main movement.
Possibly over reacting to how slow some units would be previously, even with all the rules trying to speed them up.

 auticus wrote:

Isn't there some tactics, strategy, movement involved with avoiding the assault scrum.

Some. But the onus of having to have strategy and tactics is on the army NOT landing and assaulting.

The importance of the movement phase, and of maneuver in general, seem to have been lessened overall.

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say. The Onus of the strategy is on deploying in a manner where you don't get anything important assaulted, if you go first maneuvering in a way to diminish it even further. Then using movement to keep away from assault while doing your damage.

What has changed is that this used to be swapped. Shooting armies did not need to care much about movement, while assault units needed to jump through a ton of hoops to be effective. Now they are more equal and both will need to use movement (and movement abilities like deepstrike) to decide the outcome of the game. A space marine army with a few scout squads can essentially render your deepstrike alpha strike completely null by controlling your deployment zone. I mean 2x 5 man scout squad can essentially force you to drop in your own deployment zone if you want to drop turn 1. If you are dropping after turn 1 you have already given up the alpha strike and the rest of your opponents force can further deny you good position. Eldar can do the same with Rangers, Tau can do similar with Kroot Squads, and have For the greater good (supporting fire) . No other army should really care much because they have good chaff units and assault units of their own. If you want to try and alpha assault my orks feel free...

I dont see it being any worse than AoS is currently,,and I just came out of a small event a couple days ago were I faced 2 Ironjaw lists that were in my face turn one with my Bonesplitterz,,both still close games with a win and a loss.Of course thats probably not a good indication of the potential power of a nu40k alpha strike but still,I dont think alpha lists will break the game.

I think that those attempting to directly beatdown an opponents army from the get go as opposed to playing more to the scenario objectives will end up on the loosing end with this ruleset more often then not.

Apple fox wrote:
I wonder if the dev team thinks that turn one everything should be shooting and getting stuck in, rather than having a turn for re-positioning and main movement.
Possibly over reacting to how slow some units would be previously, even with all the rules trying to speed them up.

From watching games on Warhammer TV last week, they absolutely seem to be getting fully engaged on turn 2, sometimes turn 1. Before games felt like turn 1 was a little bit of fire and movement, turn 2 was full fire and preparing for charge, and turn 3 was fully engaged. It feels like things have been sped up a turn. Not necessarily the end of the movement phase (although, sure, it's a different phase now... especially since you can withdraw from combat) but 'the movement turn' certainly seems to have been reduced.

 auticus wrote:

Isn't there some tactics, strategy, movement involved with avoiding the assault scrum.

Some. But the onus of having to have strategy and tactics is on the army NOT landing and assaulting.

The importance of the movement phase, and of maneuver in general, seem to have been lessened overall.

It doesn't take many units/models to make your deployment zone impenetrable to DS, if you go off diagonals, two models will cover 36x18 area, so six models will cover 36x54 or 18x92, both of which are overkill. Single models are easy enough to hide behind LOS blocking, so those 6 Acolytes, at 48 points, can deny your entire deployment zone from DS. Have a few spare and you can basically foot slog 6" at a time up the field, denying any DS opportunities behind you quite easily. With a faster army, say all bikes, you can make the entire board DS proof in Turn 3...

Course list countering is quite easy, what those acolytes are going to do against a non-DS army is questionable...

 Zande4 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Alpha strike deepstrikers fall flat on the face the moment they meet bauble-wrap.

100% agree. Bubble wrap is so strong and important for shooty armies now.

I'm wracking my brain on how to over come it myself with an Alpha Strike Nid list using triple Trygon primes joined by mass Hormagaunts

Hormagaunts pile in and consolidate 6 inches now.

You do both before your opponent does anything with a unit. That means, as long as another units model is the closest enemy unit you can pile into them as well.

Fall Back greatly changes the dynamics of combat. Movement strategy is certainly not going the way of the Dodo, except insofar as 40k is not chess.

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say.

I grew up in an era where what pulled me into wargames was the maneuver. There were no games where you started right off in combat. If there were, I'd probably not be here today because that doesn't interest me. My first real wargame was a version of Advanced Squad Leader. After that it was Battletech and DBA.

I played a null deploy alpha strike army in the past when that was a thing. I played a rhino rush army in the past when that was a thing. I did so because... it was very easy and required no real strategy or tactics other than knowing which target units were the biggest threat, and those were what you pointed at and removed.

I also understand deployment and "bubble-wrap". However my post is not "I can't understand how to counter alpha strike armies". My post is "RIP Movement Phase".

If you can just deploy and charge without needing to worry about maneuver, the movement phase's importance has been lessened. IMO greatly lessened.

That IMO removes a great chunk of strategy and tactics and chucks them out the window. The strategy switches from moving and counter-moving to assault army figures out what armies he can destroy in one turn by pointing at it, and defending army figures out how to bubble wrap.

Then assault army figures out how to assault in waves.

Then defending army figures out how to take as many guns as possible and hope volume of dice wins the day.

While this can be entertaining and fun, its no longer a game where maneuver is really that important. There is some importance, but its very minor.

This was the state of the game during rhino rush and when alpha assault was legal as well.

I will remain suspicious that the maneuver phase of the game is largely an after-thought now and watch reports and what not for the remainder of the year before I really put any more emotional investment into the game to see where things are after the min/max builds start becoming fleshed out and a dominant thing in my area.

I know how to bubble wrap armies. I'm just not interested in that style of game.

 auticus wrote:

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say.

I grew up in an era where what pulled me into wargames was the maneuver. There were no games where you started right off in combat. If there were, I'd probably not be here today because that doesn't interest me. My first real wargame was a version of Advanced Squad Leader. After that it was Battletech and DBA.

I played a null deploy alpha strike army in the past when that was a thing. I played a rhino rush army in the past when that was a thing. I did so because... it was very easy and required no real strategy or tactics other than knowing which target units were the biggest threat, and those were what you pointed at and removed.

I also understand deployment and "bubble-wrap". However my post is not "I can't understand how to counter alpha strike armies". My post is "RIP Movement Phase".

If you can just deploy and charge without needing to worry about maneuver, the movement phase's importance has been lessened. IMO greatly lessened.

That IMO removes a great chunk of strategy and tactics and chucks them out the window. The strategy switches from moving and counter-moving to assault army figures out what armies he can destroy in one turn by pointing at it, and defending army figures out how to bubble wrap.

Then assault army figures out how to assault in waves.

Then defending army figures out how to take as many guns as possible and hope volume of dice wins the day.

While this can be entertaining and fun, its no longer a game where maneuver is really that important. There is some importance, but its very minor.

This was the state of the game during rhino rush and when alpha assault was legal as well.

I will remain suspicious that the maneuver phase of the game is largely an after-thought now and watch reports and what not for the remainder of the year before I really put any more emotional investment into the game to see where things are after the min/max builds start becoming fleshed out and a dominant thing in my area.

I know how to bubble wrap armies. I'm just not interested in that style of game.

To be clear then you have never liked 40k? Because what you state has never existed in this game. For me now there is more maneuver than the past several editions because assault is such a threat. You will need to block with units, then escape, set up assaults and counter assaults etc. The past 3 editions have largely been no different from this except that because you could shoot from turn 1, and assaults did not happen until turn 2 or 3, shooting was far more powerful and you could just sit and shoot all day. I think you are largely over-rating the reliability of being able to drop in and charge for most armies. Especially with "bubble wrap" (which amounts to perhaps having a single infiltrating unit or 2).

Thats what happens when the solution in people's mind to the useless that was meele in the past is making 1st turn charges viable as a tactic.

We are gonna houserule reserves to not come before turn 2. So, no turn 1 charges.

But the ideal solution should be:
-Make meele armies toughter and faster but not so tought that they are inmortal or not so fast that they are in meele without having to move for the battle.
-Make shooting powerfull but not as powerfull that he can just eliminate half of a enemy army in the first turn of shooting.

If you can just point and click your assaults, that means you don't need to maneuver to accomplish your goal. You just drop your units down and say "and go". The onus of maneuver and tactics is on your opponent, not on the assaulting player, who can just use a laser pointer for the most part.

If it turns out to be a couple units doing it, thats one thing. But if there's one thing I know I can count on with the community its that everything will be extreme.

 Galas wrote:
Thats what happens when the solution in people's mind to the useless that was meele in the past is making 1st turn charges viable as a tactic.

We are gonna houserule reserves to not come before turn 2. So, no turn 1 charges.

But the ideal solution should be:
-Make meele armies toughter and faster but not so tought that they are inmortal or not so fast that they are in meele without having to move for the battle.
-Make shooting powerfull but not as powerfull that he can just eliminate half of a enemy army in the first turn of shooting.

I think what they have done is better than what you suggest. I think people should need to adjust to the possibility of turn 1 charges. If you eliminate them, you also then need to eliminate falling back from combat and overwatch.

We had an edition of
Super powerful shooting, and immortal combat units. That is what happens when you artificially restrict when assaults can happen. Units need to survive in the open for multiple turns, against entire armies of shooting. Making armies tougher but not too tough is hard.

I think the idea of risky turn 1 charges is fine when those charges need to take overwatch, have at best a 50-50 shot at a charge, then get shot again by the opponent on their turn, then if they are still alive, eat overwatch again.

I will never understand the thinking that Turn 1 shooting is fine, but assault should not be allowed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
If you can just point and click your assaults, that means you don't need to maneuver to accomplish your goal. You just drop your units down and say "and go". The onus of maneuver and tactics is on your opponent, not on the assaulting player, who can just use a laser pointer for the most part.

If it turns out to be a couple units doing it, thats one thing. But if there's one thing I know I can count on with the community its that everything will be extreme.

Why is it a problem that the onus of maneuver and tactics is on the opponent, which when they succeed shifts the onus to adapt back the other way. I think extreme deepstrike assault armies will be noob stomper armies. Against good players you won't get a great target to assault.

These concerns are the same as the AoS crowd that did not understand fall back and assault movement.

If you watch two inexperienced players in AoS they always hit in a giant blob in the middle because neither realizes you can fall back around a unit, or that you can position in a way to prevent multi-charges or to tie up enemy units.

The movement phase just became MORE complicated not simplified, if you place your gunlines too close together you will get sucked into a combat you didn't want. If you assault a unit that can survive and fall back you just got stuck in the open. If you spread out too much a unit that just assaulted you can "fall back" and swing around you and take an objective.

Just my two cents.

Breng77 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Thats what happens when the solution in people's mind to the useless that was meele in the past is making 1st turn charges viable as a tactic.

We are gonna houserule reserves to not come before turn 2. So, no turn 1 charges.

But the ideal solution should be:
-Make meele armies toughter and faster but not so tought that they are inmortal or not so fast that they are in meele without having to move for the battle.
-Make shooting powerfull but not as powerfull that he can just eliminate half of a enemy army in the first turn of shooting.

I think what they have done is better than what you suggest. I think people should need to adjust to the possibility of turn 1 charges. If you eliminate them, you also then need to eliminate falling back from combat and overwatch.

We had an edition of
Super powerful shooting, and immortal combat units. That is what happens when you artificially restrict when assaults can happen. Units need to survive in the open for multiple turns, against entire armies of shooting. Making armies tougher but not too tough is hard.

I think the idea of risky turn 1 charges is fine when those charges need to take overwatch, have at best a 50-50 shot at a charge, then get shot again by the opponent on their turn, then if they are still alive, eat overwatch again.

I will never understand the thinking that Turn 1 shooting is fine, but assault should not be allowed.

in response to your last sentence, Both needs to be balanced. There was way to much First turn shooting before, and it may swing to far to just making the game to lethal to fast.

But what was really needed for a lot of the CC armys, was way better support to get them there.
Some of them would effectively just run and hope in some cases, with little to do to threaten a ranged army enough to give them reasonable choices.

GW do not just need to change rules, but they do need to think how these factions interact with each other and with themselves internally.

I think deepstrike assault is that support for most assault armies. I see it as an early way to get rid of bubble wrap units. Before I needed to spend a turn or 2 getting to the bubble wrap, then eat that, then if I still had time, assault the rest of the army. I agree with some more support, but that is hard to do, if you give them super durable transports, that are affordable and allow direct assault, or some other durability buff, which lead to deathstars in 6th and 7th.

Essentially if what I do is assault, my threat to you is also going to be an assault. Now maybe what units can assault should be more limited, but I think things will be fine.

Breng77 wrote:
I think deepstrike assault is that support for most assault armies. I see it as an early way to get rid of bubble wrap units. Before I needed to spend a turn or 2 getting to the bubble wrap, then eat that, then if I still had time, assault the rest of the army. I agree with some more support, but that is hard to do, if you give them super durable transports, that are affordable and allow direct assault, or some other durability buff, which lead to deathstars in 6th and 7th.

Essentially if what I do is assault, my threat to you is also going to be an assault. Now maybe what units can assault should be more limited, but I think things will be fine.

I Actually agree with you But it would still be nice IF GW Design would Give it some effort, Since they sucked before at it.
The main one for me was daemons, To many take this if you want to win Otherwise roll dice at start of game if its under 3 probably isnt worth playing that one.

But Support is way more than Just durable transports and buffs, Its also the ability to take units that can threaten as you opponents do, even if it is less than a full shooting army.
But it also means creating a game that encourages shooting factions to take something to mitigate those close combat in some way, rather than ignoring it.
So far the Rules probably do this much better in 8th So happy there, but some more thought still needs to go into the factions.

The alternative is marching across the board in a straight line, because terrain does nothing anyway. So it's not like deep strike changes much in the way of tactical depth.

Breng77 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Thats what happens when the solution in people's mind to the useless that was meele in the past is making 1st turn charges viable as a tactic.

We are gonna houserule reserves to not come before turn 2. So, no turn 1 charges.

But the ideal solution should be:
-Make meele armies toughter and faster but not so tought that they are inmortal or not so fast that they are in meele without having to move for the battle.
-Make shooting powerfull but not as powerfull that he can just eliminate half of a enemy army in the first turn of shooting.

I think what they have done is better than what you suggest. I think people should need to adjust to the possibility of turn 1 charges. If you eliminate them, you also then need to eliminate falling back from combat and overwatch.

We had an edition of
Super powerful shooting, and immortal combat units. That is what happens when you artificially restrict when assaults can happen. Units need to survive in the open for multiple turns, against entire armies of shooting. Making armies tougher but not too tough is hard.

I think the idea of risky turn 1 charges is fine when those charges need to take overwatch, have at best a 50-50 shot at a charge, then get shot again by the opponent on their turn, then if they are still alive, eat overwatch again.

I will never understand the thinking that Turn 1 shooting is fine, but assault should not be allowed.

Personally I have always speak again'st turn 1 shooting. Turn 1 should be 100% manouvering and maybe some shooting in the form of Bassilisk and long range weaponry. Alpha Strikes aren't funny.

And the problem with assault is that, once units are engaged, players have 0 choice. It becomes auto-mode. In the other hand, shooting is a more engaging and interactive gameplay.

 Galas wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Thats what happens when the solution in people's mind to the useless that was meele in the past is making 1st turn charges viable as a tactic.

We are gonna houserule reserves to not come before turn 2. So, no turn 1 charges.

But the ideal solution should be:
-Make meele armies toughter and faster but not so tought that they are inmortal or not so fast that they are in meele without having to move for the battle.
-Make shooting powerfull but not as powerfull that he can just eliminate half of a enemy army in the first turn of shooting.

I think what they have done is better than what you suggest. I think people should need to adjust to the possibility of turn 1 charges. If you eliminate them, you also then need to eliminate falling back from combat and overwatch.

We had an edition of
Super powerful shooting, and immortal combat units. That is what happens when you artificially restrict when assaults can happen. Units need to survive in the open for multiple turns, against entire armies of shooting. Making armies tougher but not too tough is hard.

I think the idea of risky turn 1 charges is fine when those charges need to take overwatch, have at best a 50-50 shot at a charge, then get shot again by the opponent on their turn, then if they are still alive, eat overwatch again.

I will never understand the thinking that Turn 1 shooting is fine, but assault should not be allowed.

Personally I have always speak again'st turn 1 shooting. Turn 1 should be 100% manouvering and maybe some shooting in the form of Bassilisk and long range weaponry. Alpha Strikes aren't funny.

And the problem with assault is that, once units are engaged, players have 0 choice. It becomes auto-mode. In the other hand, shooting is a more engaging and interactive gameplay.

I feel that now that we have alternating combat activation and fall back the opposite is actually true. The Assault portion of the game is more interactive than shooting by a lot IMO. I have never felt that shooting is a very engaging part of the game. In 8th if we start with the charge phase, we have the choice about whether or not to assault (this often involves some risk, unlike shooting), then overwatch (engagement by the other player), then the charge itself with positioning, setting up pile in moves etc. Then the fight phase, we have a charging unit attack, then potentially a command point spend to interrupt if there are other units that have charged, once all charge attacks are made, we have decisions for players to make about ongoing combat activations etc.

As for turn 1 shooting. That would be fine, but it would require a rewrite of the entire game, and a change in table size to work. Too many guns have 36" + range, which essentially guarantees first turn shooting, throw in most guns being 18"+ in range it is very easy to get in range even with average mobility. Unless we had much more abstract terrain rules, or no LOS across the table turn one shooting will be common and plentiful. Also so long as any units exist that can shoot turn 1 unless they are limited, or risky players will just spam those units.

 Galas wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Thats what happens when the solution in people's mind to the useless that was meele in the past is making 1st turn charges viable as a tactic.

We are gonna houserule reserves to not come before turn 2. So, no turn 1 charges.

But the ideal solution should be:
-Make meele armies toughter and faster but not so tought that they are inmortal or not so fast that they are in meele without having to move for the battle.
-Make shooting powerfull but not as powerfull that he can just eliminate half of a enemy army in the first turn of shooting.

I think what they have done is better than what you suggest. I think people should need to adjust to the possibility of turn 1 charges. If you eliminate them, you also then need to eliminate falling back from combat and overwatch.

We had an edition of
Super powerful shooting, and immortal combat units. That is what happens when you artificially restrict when assaults can happen. Units need to survive in the open for multiple turns, against entire armies of shooting. Making armies tougher but not too tough is hard.

I think the idea of risky turn 1 charges is fine when those charges need to take overwatch, have at best a 50-50 shot at a charge, then get shot again by the opponent on their turn, then if they are still alive, eat overwatch again.

I will never understand the thinking that Turn 1 shooting is fine, but assault should not be allowed.

Personally I have always speak again'st turn 1 shooting. Turn 1 should be 100% manouvering and maybe some shooting in the form of Bassilisk and long range weaponry. Alpha Strikes aren't funny.

And the problem with assault is that, once units are engaged, players have 0 choice. It becomes auto-mode. In the other hand, shooting is a more engaging and interactive gameplay.

That's not true at all. Activation order, withdrawing, counter-assaults, pile-in and consolidation decisions are all choices that players make during Assault. And that's ignoring the decisions that take place prior to engagement. I could just as easily make the case that Shooting isn't interactive, since once you're in weapon range all you do is point and click (even though you obviously make decisions about target priority and such).

Yeah, sorry. I was talking about 7th edition and the others. Meele in 8th is much more reactive and engaging than before.

And I'm glad about that!

theocracity wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Thats what happens when the solution in people's mind to the useless that was meele in the past is making 1st turn charges viable as a tactic.

We are gonna houserule reserves to not come before turn 2. So, no turn 1 charges.

But the ideal solution should be:
-Make meele armies toughter and faster but not so tought that they are inmortal or not so fast that they are in meele without having to move for the battle.
-Make shooting powerfull but not as powerfull that he can just eliminate half of a enemy army in the first turn of shooting.

I think what they have done is better than what you suggest. I think people should need to adjust to the possibility of turn 1 charges. If you eliminate them, you also then need to eliminate falling back from combat and overwatch.

We had an edition of
Super powerful shooting, and immortal combat units. That is what happens when you artificially restrict when assaults can happen. Units need to survive in the open for multiple turns, against entire armies of shooting. Making armies tougher but not too tough is hard.

I think the idea of risky turn 1 charges is fine when those charges need to take overwatch, have at best a 50-50 shot at a charge, then get shot again by the opponent on their turn, then if they are still alive, eat overwatch again.

I will never understand the thinking that Turn 1 shooting is fine, but assault should not be allowed.

Personally I have always speak again'st turn 1 shooting. Turn 1 should be 100% manouvering and maybe some shooting in the form of Bassilisk and long range weaponry. Alpha Strikes aren't funny.

And the problem with assault is that, once units are engaged, players have 0 choice. It becomes auto-mode. In the other hand, shooting is a more engaging and interactive gameplay.

That's not true at all. Activation order, withdrawing, counter-assaults, pile-in and consolidation decisions are all choices that players make during Assault. And that's ignoring the decisions that take place prior to engagement. I could just as easily make the case that Shooting isn't interactive, since once you're in weapon range all you do is point and click (even though you obviously make decisions about target priority and such).

Yup, I'm trying to think of interactive decisions that occur in shooting that don't also occur in assault. If you include the charge phase I cannot think of any. The only decisions your opponent gets to make during shooting involve which models to assign wounds to. A shooting vs shooting battle may involve some play in the movement phase to try to get the superior positioning, but this is also true for assault armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, sorry. I was talking about 7th edition and the others. Meele in 8th is much more reactive and engaging than before.

And I'm glad about that!

Yes in 7th unless you had hit and run, melee was largely just roll dice according to prescribed order by initiative.

First you have to realize that there are two types of lists. Static and mobile. Some army's default to one or the other. For static armies deployment trumps movement. Generally speaking they are trading duribility and buffing for speed. Mobile armys are more forgiving on deployment, but sacrifice buffs for that threat bubble. 8th has made this even more noticable by getting rid of everything moving 6" and with falling back and having overwatch and multihit flamers.

So static lists are going to be tougher as they will have overlapping buffs and (generally) better weapon options for overwatch. Nids can actually gunline really well if we want to.

Mobile lists are all about choosing where to attack. Bringing overwhelming number if attacks to a weak point. That can be CC or shooting.

Now if your playing a static army then movement phase doesn't mean much. Because you probably moving things as a block or just shuffling around units. Mobile armies will be zipping around trying to exploit things though.

Now that's not to say there won't be static elements in a mobile army or mobile ones in a static Army. That's just balanced list building.

But I think a lot of people will be in unhappy because in 7th everything was slower. The speed of the game is slower. Most of the units were slower. But you ended up seeing that the meta got dominated by fast armies. You also saw a whole sections of codexes that nobody took because they didn't have that speed or the range.

Sisters can do it.

Act of Faith on Seraphim to move then 12" at the start of the turn, move them another 12" in the movement phase, they're now in Hand Flamer/Inferno Pistol range [of which they carry 4], and easy charge range, they shoot, charge what's left, then Act of Faith on their next turn to shoot their pistols again before the shooting phase to try to wipe out the unit they were in combat with so they can move 12", shoot, then charge again.

The problem is only one squad [and Celestine, who has to be with them for it to work] can be doing this at a time, since they will outrun Imagifiers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

Personally I have always speak again'st turn 1 shooting. Turn 1 should be 100% manouvering and maybe some shooting in the form of Bassilisk and long range weaponry. Alpha Strikes aren't funny.

And the problem with assault is that, once units are engaged, players have 0 choice. It becomes auto-mode. In the other hand, shooting is a more engaging and interactive gameplay.

There's no 1st turn shooting in Dropzone Commander, and I dislike that fact. It feel like an extended deployment phase, like the battle hasn't started.

 auticus wrote:
If you can just point and click your assaults, that means you don't need to maneuver to accomplish your goal. You just drop your units down and say "and go". The onus of maneuver and tactics is on your opponent, not on the assaulting player, who can just use a laser pointer for the most part.

If it turns out to be a couple units doing it, thats one thing. But if there's one thing I know I can count on with the community its that everything will be extreme.

You and everyone complaining about turn one assaults are still in the 7th mindset. No, it isn't as simple as point and clicking assaults, you still have to roll to make it in after taking overwatch. Yes, you do need to maneuver to accomplish your goal because a smart player will only let you assault their chaff unit, then fall back with that unit and shoot you to bits. Honestly you need to play and watch a few more games of 8th to understand that alpha striking isn't going to be super powerful due to transport costs and cheap chaff units in the way. You will have to account for it and play smart but it isn't difficult to do that with practice.

The worst you'll see is maybe two drop pods with some terminators dropping in and shooting up your front line, maybe assaulting right after. But honestly they'll be opening themselves up to be shot to hell and back or counter-assaulted right after. If you think turn one assaulting is brainless you haven't played enough games of 8th or your opponents are terrible.

Well turn one assaulting in AOS and turn one assaulting in previous editions of the game was certainly brainless. Thats what I'm going off of with my opinion here.

 auticus wrote:
Well turn one assaulting in AOS and turn one assaulting in previous editions of the game was certainly brainless. Thats what I'm going off of with my opinion here.

So completely different games? It seems to me that 8th has enough differences to both those things to be decidedly different.

Hence the "?" in the subject title. It is a question as opposed to a statement of fact.

 Galas wrote:

Personally I have always speak again'st turn 1 shooting. Turn 1 should be 100% manouvering

Oh man, I wish. I still have fond memories of a 4th edition White Scars vs Eldar game where shooting, apart from a Whirlwind, started turn 4. Of course, back then area terrain was the focal point of the game.

I'd say yes, movement is going to be largely irrelevant, and by design. This game is designed to blow crap up turn 1, and get stuck in with Close combat no later than turn 2, usually turn 1 as well. Movement is usually just going to be a rather gamey challenge of how to annoyingly space your units to either maximize or minimize your chances of getting pulled into combat. Again though, by design IMO. Terrain in general is intentionally designed not to completely block LoS, and not to create huge no go zones.

It's essentially the opposite of Bolt Action, where you have 2-3 turns of movement and ineffectual shooting before it really heats up. That game has lots of terrain designed to block LoS, range penalties, the ability to go into cover/go down (and it's very effective against almost any kind of shooting), and few ways to insure a close combat oriented squad can just pop up and start killing guys without having to spend a few turns getting there, and even then the equivalent of overwatch in that system can be really punishing.

The real action in AoS and 40k now happens in the assault phases, which are much more interesting than before. Movement is just treated as an impedement to getting to what really matters.

I don't really see it as either better or worse, just different. I haven't played a ton of games with 8th (5 at this point), but I've experienced AoS enough to know that's how it is. There's more shooting in 40k though, and I'm not 100% sure how it will change the way both games play compared to each other.

I think that people are overestimating the importance of the movement phase in 7th edition.

I also wish to point out that 8th edition actually has greater tactical depth than 7th in terms of unit placement.

Alternating deployment is a thing now.

The fact that you can't "Deep Strike" within 9" of an enemy model is huge. It means you can have units that are 18" apart, which is gigantic, and the enemy cannot land in between them. That's incredible area denial.

It seems like a piece of cake to prevent most units from getting anywhere near anything important if you're intent on preventing a strong assault oriented alpha strike.

Add to that the fact hat you can voluntarily fall back out of combat. . . I think the few units that can make those first turn assaults are going to be facing some serious counter-threats in the enemy phase.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The alternative is marching across the board in a straight line, because terrain does nothing anyway. So it's not like deep strike changes much in the way of tactical depth.

This is ultimately the heart of the problem. Ever since they eliminated abstracted area terrain and replaced it by TLOS when switching from 4e to 5e, deploying most assault specialist on the board normally has been an act of suicide. When the rules let you blast an entire squad to oblivion because you can see exactly one member of that squad through the window of some ruins half way across the board, of course their going to die before reaching assault.

People have been calling for assault out of deepstrike for three editions now. It wasn't granted until 7e, presumably because it would have been broken as all hell. And depending on how easy is to obtain exceptions to the 2d6 charge range or >9" deepstrike restrictions (just deploy homing beacons with a small bike squad right next to the enemy DZ turn 1?) it could very easily be game breaking in 8th. It is a terrible idea in any case, substituting outmaneuvering your opponent with rolling a 9 on 2d6 does not engender deep tactics. And the whole bubble wrap idea feels very metagamey, always requiring you to keep cheap units on the edge of your forces so people with swords can't suddenly materialize out of the ether and jump an important unit. It feels sort of like blocking drop pod alpha strikes in previous editions by filling your DZ with fodder to deny the pods enough room to legally deploy. It works for sure but it never felt right that that was the only method you had for countering these alpha strike shenanigans.

I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

I feel that. I had my last "best" WHFB in 6th, small not optimized 1000 points battles with a HE neighbour vs my chaos. Nothing beats those 4-5 units each side accumulating tension and baiting the enemy until the first charge.

I am very happy of the statlines, army selection, tone and other choices of 8th edition but the concerns expressed in the thread are more than reasonable, IMHO.

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

Positioning still helps screen things, and is what smart deployment is all about. Maneuvering is still key to counter-attacking efficiently after a first turn assault.

Buuuuuttt. . . . these examples are entirely in a vacuum too. If you have a well-terrained board, with some good LOS blockers and move/assault-modifying terrain (like real war), positioning and maneuvering becomes even more important.

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

This is absolutely ridiculous. X-Wing is far and away the best selling miniatures game out right now. You're going to tell me that game doesn't involve maneuver and positioning? Give me a break.

If you're just coming here to gripe and spout tomfoolery like that, why even bother? Fact is, movement is still a big part of the game, I struggle to see how anyone could say otherwise with a straight face. Hey, I can pull out anecdotal evidence too - I played a game yesterday with my Eldar, and I left half my opponents army out to dry on the other side of the board by *gasp* using positioning, and maneuvering!

Have you actually played the game? So far seems like mostly armchair generals with these weirdly sweeping statements about how 8th plays.

 auticus wrote:
Well turn one assaulting in AOS and turn one assaulting in previous editions of the game was certainly brainless. Thats what I'm going off of with my opinion here.

The shooting in 8th ed. is an order of magnitude more powerful than it is in AoS. So where an alphassault in AoS would likely need to be replied to by a counter-assault (potentially starting an endless chain of assault/counter-assault until everything is dead) a legitimate reply in 8th edition would be to fall back and then unload ranged hell on the chargers.

The old versions of alphassault you keep referencing were only brainless because there was no safe way to fall back from combat. The charger picked their target of choice (depending on if they wanted to kill it, stall it, tar pit it, etc.) and then the resolution was mostly up to time and dice (and normally favoured the attacker, since they made the decision on who to charge and why). This system is totally different.

You keep referencing the importance of the movement phase in past editions while also seeming to indicate a distaste for melee vs. shooting... but ironically the movement phases of yore were SO much more important for melee units than they were for shooty ones. A melee unit needed to deploy on a projected path to a viable target, then make its way there while benefiting from cover, but trying to avoid the penalties for charging through cover, while range-dodging/LoS-dodging as many threats as it possibly could. The maneuvering performed by shooty units was significantly more basic/shallow (ie. move to get LoS and deny cover)

 Jambles wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

This is absolutely ridiculous. X-Wing is far and away the best selling miniatures game out right now. You're going to tell me that game doesn't involve maneuver and positioning? Give me a break.

If you're just coming here to gripe and spout tomfoolery like that, why even bother? Fact is, movement is still a big part of the game, I struggle to see how anyone could say otherwise with a straight face. Hey, I can pull out anecdotal evidence too - I played a game yesterday with my Eldar, and I left half my opponents army out to dry on the other side of the board by *gasp* using positioning, and maneuvering!

Have you actually played the game? So far seems like mostly armchair generals with these weirdly sweeping statements about how 8th plays.

Do me a favor and dial down your aggression. If you can't respond without beating your chest, move to a different thread. There's no point to trying to have a conversation or a thread otherwise.

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

have you tried WMH?

 carldooley wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

have you tried WMH?

Yep I still have a cryx army. My community that plays WMH is super competitive esports types, which doesn't mesh well with what I want though. The narrative gaming is why I have stuck with GW so long despite its ruleset being of questionable quality.

 auticus wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

This is absolutely ridiculous. X-Wing is far and away the best selling miniatures game out right now. You're going to tell me that game doesn't involve maneuver and positioning? Give me a break.

If you're just coming here to gripe and spout tomfoolery like that, why even bother? Fact is, movement is still a big part of the game, I struggle to see how anyone could say otherwise with a straight face. Hey, I can pull out anecdotal evidence too - I played a game yesterday with my Eldar, and I left half my opponents army out to dry on the other side of the board by *gasp* using positioning, and maneuvering!

Have you actually played the game? So far seems like mostly armchair generals with these weirdly sweeping statements about how 8th plays.

Do me a favor and dial down your aggression. If you can't respond without beating your chest, move to a different thread. There's no point to trying to have a conversation or a thread otherwise.

I note you didn't answer his question tho. X-wing for all it's faults is absolutely all about manouvering and positioning. Hell beyond fleet building and some basic statistical analysis of dice outcomes that's all it is.

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

Movement phase is definitely not dead but it has changed a lot. It will be faster now than before with less things to delay. I think that he alternating deployment units idea and the shift in deepstrike rules will make deployment far more important and movement phase as more of a continuation of your deployment strategy.

Also we have to accept that very little in 40k is reflective of real war and certainly not historical warfare where out maneuvering was important but I'm sure that rapid engagement in modern warfare is definitely a thing.

I'm really looking forward to bubble wrapping with flamers and letting the turn one charges begin. I'm sure that the alpha strike of old will be very different in 8th.

I've played XWing. Yes there's movement and maneuver in XWing. It is a far shadow to the movement and maneuver of the games I am referencing in which I say that the games that involve heavily maneuver and positioning matter. If someone is going to claim that xwing is a deep game about maneuver and positioning, I will just have to say I disagree and we'll leave it at that.

While XWing has movement and maneuver, no I do not consider it to be as important as deckbuilding and combo chaining in that game.

I already understand 40k is not reflective of real war. That goes back to my response of "i have to accept that the type of games that I like ... (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago". That is acknowledging that 40k is not like real war. 40k is primarily up to this point about listbuilding. Manuever and the like were never a heavy trait of 40k, but I think with the new edition my guess is that movement and maneuver are going to be even less an issue now that so much can just show up where it wants to.

Deploying bubble wrap is not maneuver to me. It is deploying, which is a different "skill". Maneuver and movement is the act of moving pieces into an optimal position. When you can point and click at the table, thats as difficult as drawing breath or sustaining a heartbeat.

Will alpha strike 8th be different than the old way? I'm sure in some ways. Like I said in a different response a few pages ago... I'm not saying "i can't counter alpha strike" I'm asking "is the movement phase pretty much a non issue now with some minor importance"?

maelstrom?

Do you have a link?

 Insectum7 wrote:
The fact that you can't "Deep Strike" within 9" of an enemy model is huge. It means you can have units that are 18" apart, which is gigantic, and the enemy cannot land in between them. That's incredible area denial.

It seems like a piece of cake to prevent most units from getting anywhere near anything important if you're intent on preventing a strong assault oriented alpha strike.

Add to that the fact hat you can voluntarily fall back out of combat. . . I think the few units that can make those first turn assaults are going to be facing some serious counter-threats in the enemy phase.

Its why its players choice when they can bring em on board.

at least till T3 hopefully stuff has advanced up field.

MaxT wrote:

 auticus wrote:

 Jambles wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I just have to accept that the type of games that I like that involve maneuver and positioning (like real war) fell out of favor a couple decades ago.

This is absolutely ridiculous. X-Wing is far and away the best selling miniatures game out right now. You're going to tell me that game doesn't involve maneuver and positioning? Give me a break.

If you're just coming here to gripe and spout tomfoolery like that, why even bother? Fact is, movement is still a big part of the game, I struggle to see how anyone could say otherwise with a straight face. Hey, I can pull out anecdotal evidence too - I played a game yesterday with my Eldar, and I left half my opponents army out to dry on the other side of the board by *gasp* using positioning, and maneuvering!

Have you actually played the game? So far seems like mostly armchair generals with these weirdly sweeping statements about how 8th plays.

Do me a favor and dial down your aggression. If you can't respond without beating your chest, move to a different thread. There's no point to trying to have a conversation or a thread otherwise.

I note you didn't answer his question tho. X-wing for all it's faults is absolutely all about manouvering and positioning. Hell beyond fleet building and some basic statistical analysis of dice outcomes that's all it is.

Of course he didn't answer, he has nothing to say.

To his point, though - not much point in trying to have a thread when you've already decided your position, is there?

You can take it as aggression, but I'm just pointing out that you're blatantly ignoring information contrary to your opinion, even going so far as to make false assumptions and use them as statements to support your case. And then you backpedal and move the goalposts when you get called on your cognitive dissonance.

You even admit yourself that you don't actually know if what you're saying about 8th is true, it's just your guess. So what's that you said about trying to maintain a "conversation"? You're just here to soapbox about something you don't like.

I posted my opinion above. [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

In other news, our club has a club night saturday where there will be a ton of 40k games going on and a good number of null deploy styled alpha strike lists, so we'll get a better feel after the weekend.

I think your club needs to start using the Matched Play rules in the rulebook which state you need 50% of your army on the table at the start of the game, otherwise you're going to have a bad time this weekend. Null deploy lists are just silly, even more so that you can bring in EVERYTHING turn one without any rolling of any kind.

Thats correct you're right. Thats an exaggeration on my part though unintentional.

I wish it was 50% of your points had to be on the table. Instead of 50% units where you can just put min sized trash on there and the bulk of the points in your army come streaking down wherever they want.

I remember playing 5th. I played Orks, and so "bubblewrap" for me meant screening with throwaway units of Gretchin to prevent losing my Battlewagons to a turn 1 demovet rush, or running Buggies in a Cruising circle to provide a screen against BA Vanguard Vets. Granted, Orks were a fairly straightforward army (no DS, minimal outflank, super-weak infiltrators unless they used Snikrot to smuggle a beatstick unit, etc) but a lot of their movements were "preplanned" in a way. ("Wagons advance towards hard targets, and minimize side exposure to AT", "Buggies sacrifice themselves as move blockers", etc).

I liked the 7e shooting system over other ones, because "closest model removed first" was superior to the 5e "50% cover" mechanic, it promoted some elementary flanking 101, and mostly protected against "musical wounds" (at least, before you got Thunderwolf Deathstars, etc). I feel the 8e system is worse than both, because cover is more meaningless, flanking is more meaningless, spacing out is less meaningful, etc. Now, for the same trouble and effort you would gave gone to to attempt to flank your opponent, it's far easier to just create a musket line and concentrate all firepower in a narrow frontage, while keeping bubblewrap chaff to eat "ninja assaults".

auticus wrote:I posted my opinion above. [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

Jambles wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I posted my opinion above. [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

There's a difference between taking a hard stand and being a jerk to someone. You're both taking things personally; argue the point, not the person.

Like every edition of 40k, the importance of movement will be dictated by terrain. If you have a good amount of LOS blocking terrain, it will matter if not then it won't.

As for remove the closest model, it is a terrible mechanic because it amounts to screwing over assault armies. 8th isn't perfect but I think the wound mechanics are the cleanest they have been since I started playing. No more musical wounds, but also no more remove the closest model costing you inches of movement. Spacing out will have different meaning, you won't need to do it to avoid blasts, but you will for chaining buffs, or pulling units into combat.

You also still have flanking against characters. It is different, and I think if you play with little terrain it will get stale. But that was always the case.

You're both taking things personally; argue the point, not the person.

At the point you ask things to be dialed down and the person responds by turning the dial up to 11, there's not much more thats going to be gained by that conversation I don't think.

 Desubot wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The fact that you can't "Deep Strike" within 9" of an enemy model is huge. It means you can have units that are 18" apart, which is gigantic, and the enemy cannot land in between them. That's incredible area denial.

It seems like a piece of cake to prevent most units from getting anywhere near anything important if you're intent on preventing a strong assault oriented alpha strike.

Add to that the fact hat you can voluntarily fall back out of combat. . . I think the few units that can make those first turn assaults are going to be facing some serious counter-threats in the enemy phase.

Its why its players choice when they can bring em on board.

at least till T3 hopefully stuff has advanced up field.

Which is a nice balance, IMO. On the one hand you can delay your reserves at will, waiting for the enemy to give you an opening. But the flip side is that you're conducting the battle with less of an army on the table and active.

Breng77 wrote:
Like every edition of 40k, the importance of movement will be dictated by terrain. If you have a good amount of LOS blocking terrain, it will matter if not then it won't.

As for remove the closest model, it is a terrible mechanic because it amounts to screwing over assault armies. 8th isn't perfect but I think the wound mechanics are the cleanest they have been since I started playing. No more musical wounds, but also no more remove the closest model costing you inches of movement. Spacing out will have different meaning, you won't need to do it to avoid blasts, but you will for chaining buffs, or pulling units into combat.

You also still have flanking against characters. It is different, and I think if you play with little terrain it will get stale. But that was always the case.

There were plenty of other factors at work that made assault armies non-viable (barring stacking defensive buffs, or using it for "secondary sweeps" once shooting was done); these ultimately stemmed from 5th edition removing the ability to consolidate into new assaults. Hence the original "bubblewrap" debate. Add in Disordered Charge, randomized charge distances, and many "assault armies" having incomplete toolboxes/support to actually make assault work, or Lanchester's Laws of military equations.

You want to "fix assault", you give assault armies the tools to get into assault, you revise the rules to make suppression actually viable, you make Overwatch a conscious decision rather than a "free round" of shooting (aka "hi Dark Angels"), or anything else rather than replacing "elementary firefight tactics 101" with "battle of the blob".

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Like every edition of 40k, the importance of movement will be dictated by terrain. If you have a good amount of LOS blocking terrain, it will matter if not then it won't.

As for remove the closest model, it is a terrible mechanic because it amounts to screwing over assault armies. 8th isn't perfect but I think the wound mechanics are the cleanest they have been since I started playing. No more musical wounds, but also no more remove the closest model costing you inches of movement. Spacing out will have different meaning, you won't need to do it to avoid blasts, but you will for chaining buffs, or pulling units into combat.

You also still have flanking against characters. It is different, and I think if you play with little terrain it will get stale. But that was always the case.

There were plenty of other factors at work that made assault armies non-viable (barring stacking defensive buffs, or using it for "secondary sweeps" once shooting was done); these ultimately stemmed from 5th edition removing the ability to consolidate into new assaults. Hence the original "bubblewrap" debate. Add in Disordered Charge, randomized charge distances, and many "assault armies" having incomplete toolboxes/support to actually make assault work, or Lanchester's Laws of military equations.

You want to "fix assault", you give assault armies the tools to get into assault, you revise the rules to make suppression actually viable, you make Overwatch a conscious decision rather than a "free round" of shooting (aka "hi Dark Angels"), or anything else rather than replacing "elementary firefight tactics 101" with "battle of the blob".

The largest blow to assault the last 2 editions was overwatch + remove from the front. It essentially made every charge longer, and every unit slower. Remove the closest model to me was a rule which often lead to trying to determine the difference of a mm to see which model needed to take the wound. I understand the desire to want that "sniping" ability in the game, but as often as not it just meant important stuff hid in the middle of units making it less effective. If you eliminate overwatch it is slightly better, but still not a really enjoyable mechanic.

 auticus wrote:
Like I said in a different response a few pages ago... I'm not saying "i can't counter alpha strike" I'm asking "is the movement phase pretty much a non issue now with some minor importance"?

No, though the notion that 40k was ever a deep strategy game seems to be an underlying problem for this thread. It's a bucket dice rolling game with really cool models, and hopefully just enough strategy to keep it interesting.

Nah. I never had the train of thought that 40k was a deep strategy game. It has never been. The strategy always revolved around building the better list and hedging statistics in your favor.

However there was at least some weight in the movement phase years ago.

You will still find a lot of opportunities for the movement phase to be crucial. Yes the universal availability of more than 9" deployments has changed this game in a massive way. You are still doing these deployments during your movement phase and there is still strategy involved in manouvering your troops to optimal positions to benefit from or mitigate these deployments.

I am yet to play a game with my first game being this saturday against a friend. I know that the tendency initially will be to rush together into combat as quickly as possible but I expect over time depth of strategy will come to the fore. I don't think you will be as dissapointed in the long run as your posts suggest you are now.

Auticus, what army/armies do you play?

 auticus wrote:
Nah. I never had the train of thought that 40k was a deep strategy game. It has never been. The strategy always revolved around building the better list and hedging statistics in your favor.

However there was at least some weight in the movement phase years ago.

This.

I have played every edition of 40K (I still have my old Rogue Trader book tucked away somewhere) and there never was a halcyon age when manoeuvring was king.

Various strategies have come and gone and I have seen them all. Rhino rush, Fish of Fury, Blood Rodeo, Thunderwolf-stars, drop pod spam. I have fought or fielded most of them and they all had one thing in common. They involved using the mechanics of the movement phase to gain advantage or to set up an advantage for future turns.

In every case I saw players who regarded those tactics as cheesy or power-gaming that went against the spirit of the game. I saw other players who saw them as legitimate tactics designed to represent an army's style of play.

8th edition is a new kettle of fish and it will take a little while for everything to settle down. The change from 7th to 8th is bigger than anything since the change from 2nd to 3rd. People will evolve new tactics with the system and I can guarantee some people will see them as cheesy while others argue that this is how the game is supposed to be played.

One thing I am sure of though is that the movement phase will continue to remain just as important as it was in previous editions. Some armies will want to rush into combat, some will want to gunline and some will want to shoot-and-skoot.

Change is inevitable and 8th edition will undoubtedly force players to change their playstyle. But arguing that tactical manoeuvring was better in the good old days or has somehow been eliminated in 8th is just the usual sky-falling complaints that accompany every new edition.

Whenever issues like this come up the first question that should be asked is always "are any of these people good enough at the game to know one way or another?"

I'm certainly not(yet) and the amount of arrogance you'd have to have to truly believe that at this point, when the game isn't even fully out yet, that you've gained enough mastery of the game to know for sure that the movement phase is completely irrelevent, is approaching Kanye West level.

 auticus wrote:
Nah. I never had the train of thought that 40k was a deep strategy game. It has never been. The strategy always revolved around building the better list and hedging statistics in your favor.

However there was at least some weight in the movement phase years ago.

If that's the case, I think you'll find player skill matters as much in this edition as any, in every phase. With the added benefit of increased variety in the list building.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Karhedron wrote:
I have played every edition of 40K (I still have my old Rogue Trader book tucked away somewhere) and there never was a halcyon age when manoeuvring was king.

Various strategies have come and gone and I have seen them all. Rhino rush, Fish of Fury, Blood Rodeo, Thunderwolf-stars, drop pod spam. I have fought or fielded most of them and they all had one thing in common. They involved using the mechanics of the movement phase to gain advantage or to set up an advantage for future turns.

In every case I saw players who regarded those tactics as cheesy or power-gaming that went against the spirit of the game. I saw other players who saw them as legitimate tactics designed to represent an army's style of play.

8th edition is a new kettle of fish and it will take a little while for everything to settle down. The change from 7th to 8th is bigger than anything since the change from 2nd to 3rd. People will evolve new tactics with the system and I can guarantee some people will see them as cheesy while others argue that this is how the game is supposed to be played.

One thing I am sure of though is that the movement phase will continue to remain just as important as it was in previous editions. Some armies will want to rush into combat, some will want to gunline and some will want to shoot-and-skoot.

Change is inevitable and 8th edition will undoubtedly force players to change their playstyle. But arguing that tactical manoeuvring was better in the good old days or has somehow been eliminated in 8th is just the usual sky-falling complaints that accompany every new edition.

This.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Like every edition of 40k, the importance of movement will be dictated by terrain. If you have a good amount of LOS blocking terrain, it will matter if not then it won't.

As for remove the closest model, it is a terrible mechanic because it amounts to screwing over assault armies. 8th isn't perfect but I think the wound mechanics are the cleanest they have been since I started playing. No more musical wounds, but also no more remove the closest model costing you inches of movement. Spacing out will have different meaning, you won't need to do it to avoid blasts, but you will for chaining buffs, or pulling units into combat.

You also still have flanking against characters. It is different, and I think if you play with little terrain it will get stale. But that was always the case.

There were plenty of other factors at work that made assault armies non-viable (barring stacking defensive buffs, or using it for "secondary sweeps" once shooting was done); these ultimately stemmed from 5th edition removing the ability to consolidate into new assaults. Hence the original "bubblewrap" debate. Add in Disordered Charge, randomized charge distances, and many "assault armies" having incomplete toolboxes/support to actually make assault work, or Lanchester's Laws of military equations.

You want to "fix assault", you give assault armies the tools to get into assault, you revise the rules to make suppression actually viable, you make Overwatch a conscious decision rather than a "free round" of shooting (aka "hi Dark Angels"), or anything else rather than replacing "elementary firefight tactics 101" with "battle of the blob".

I guess one big aspect is that the amount of shooting available nowadays is on very different levels compared to the stuff that was available in 3rd/4th edition and even in 5th. Back then iron warriors army with 9 obliterators, basilisk, defiler, two predators and five las/plas squad was about as shooty as it got. Now I've seen 8th edition lists which have 9 basilisks as a starter. Not to say about the grey knights or guard in 5th or tau/eldar armies in 6th/7th (though I don't have so much experience on those as I stopped playing 40k soon after the 7th edition was released).

 Nithaniel wrote:
You will still find a lot of opportunities for the movement phase to be crucial. Yes the universal availability of more than 9" deployments has changed this game in a massive way. You are still doing these deployments during your movement phase and there is still strategy involved in manouvering your troops to optimal positions to benefit from or mitigate these deployments.

I am yet to play a game with my first game being this saturday against a friend. I know that the tendency initially will be to rush together into combat as quickly as possible but I expect over time depth of strategy will come to the fore. I don't think you will be as dissapointed in the long run as your posts suggest you are now.

Auticus, what army/armies do you play?

Thousand Sons
Guard (looks like I'm going to have to bring back my leafblower guard for this edition)
Death Guard
Fallen
Eldar Iyanden
Necrons

If that's the case, I think you'll find player skill matters as much in this edition as any, in every phase

I wasn't arguing against that (player skill) or even wondering about that. From my community it appears that most games are going to feature armies that just land 9" in front of you and charge. I know how to counter that, since I had to learn how to do that in the last edition where this was a thing (4th?), and in AOS this is a thing.

I have played every edition of 40K (I still have my old Rogue Trader book tucked away somewhere) and there never was a halcyon age when manoeuvring was king.

You're right, 40k has never been that and I hope I did not give the impression that I thought that. However, there was more weight in the movement phase before you could dump off your whole army 9" away from the enemy and charge. I don't find that particularly engaging. To me thats a step away from not worrying about using models and just putting two spreadsheets together and rolling dice and removing hit points from units on paper.

I was around for the change from 2nd to 3rd and you're right, it is a big change. Its not the change part that bothers me.

The style of army appears to be either rush into combat and max your dice out, or gunline leafblower and max your dice out. My collection is over twenty years old so I have plenty of models to do that with, but my own personal question is is this something that I'll enjoy? I kind of wish I hadn't discovered wargaming until 2010 lol.

I think the notion that the game will revolve around armies dumping 9" away is wrong, though you will certainly see people playing with the new toy.

Some obvious additions to movement strategy:

-Setting up "shoot one unit, charge another" combos, in order to tie up vehicles/etc.

-Positioning for Pile In and Consolidate in order to pull or not pull surrounding units.

-Positioning in order to counter the previous.

-Positioning for Fall Back, both attackers and defenders.

-Characters.

These are all important, tactical, and new (at least compared to 7th). Opinions are certainly free, and you are entitled to yours. But there are some pretty strong counterpoints.

 auticus wrote:


I wasn't arguing against that (player skill) or even wondering about that. From my community it appears that most games are going to feature armies that just land 9" in front of you and charge. I know how to counter that, since I had to learn how to do that in the last edition where this was a thing (4th?), and in AOS this is a thing.

I'm still really curious how this is happening given that - at best - 50% of your units can start the game in any form of reserve. How exactly is it that you're facing entire armies that are landing 9" that are still legal lists? To be clear I'm not trying to be confrontational - this is an honest question, what are you seeing in army composition that is allowing your opponent to put his entire army within 9" from jump street?

 auticus wrote:
The style of army appears to be either rush into combat and max your dice out, or gunline leafblower and max your dice out. My collection is over twenty years old so I have plenty of models to do that with, but my own personal question is is this something that I'll enjoy? I kind of wish I hadn't discovered wargaming until 2010 lol.

We will have to wait and see but my hunch is there is a lot of room between static gunlines and combat rush. First and foremost, charging into combat no longer guarantees the safety of the attacker. Units can disengage from assault (assuming they survive) and pull back leaving the attackers somewhat exposed either to return fire or to counter-charge. Even on its own, I think that means we will see combats that ebb and flow as both sides seek to reinforce a particular combat. Manoeuvring will be about how to best position units for mutual support.

Many armies have the option to include some hitty CC units of their own. Even IG (not noted for their close combat prowess) can include an Imperial Knight which will act as a great leveller. Sure those Khorne Bezerkers would love to charge your gunline but that Knight can blow one squad back into the Warp with its firepower and then charge another. In your next turn, it will be free to disengage from combat, rinse and repeat thanks to the Super Heavy Walker rule.

I actually think that mono-build armies will struggle against several common counters. Deep Striking (as was) is another example. You might want to teleport in a unit of XXX and assault that Marine Devastator squad but they are being babysat by a Dreadnought (who is also doing some decent shooting himself). If you teleport in and fail to roll a 9+ to charge, those Devastators will shoot you in their turn while their Dreadbuddy wanders over to crack some heads.

I haven't played yet so this is all just theoryhammer at the moment but I think there will be several builds between gun-line and combat-rush that will be very viable. Just based on the durability of transports, Razorback-spam and Serpent-spam look very strong on paper for both Marines and Eldar. These armies will move about trying to maximise their firepower. Against gun-line armies, they can roll forwards and disgorge the infantry into the heart of the enemy. Against CC armies, they will keep shooting and scooting while trying to stay out of charge range. If they get charged, the infantry in side will pile out, shoot the attackers and then assault them if necessary while the transports pull back. There are relatively few units strong enough to tear down a Wave Serpent in one round of assault (and those that can should be given a wide berth).

Plus of course there will be objectives to take, it isn't always about tabling your opponent's list.

xmbk wrote:
I think the notion that the game will revolve around armies dumping 9" away is wrong, though you will certainly see people playing with the new toy.

Some obvious additions to movement strategy:

-Setting up "shoot one unit, charge another" combos, in order to tie up vehicles/etc.

-Positioning for Pile In and Consolidate in order to pull or not pull surrounding units.

-Positioning in order to counter the previous.

-Characters.

These are all important, tactical, and new (at least compared to 7th). Opinions are certainly free, and you are entitled to yours. But there are some pretty strong counterpoints.

I largely agree with this. I think at the start of the edition we will see a lot of drop and charge armies, but as counters to this become common (and they are already becoming well known), it will start to go away as a main strategy and instead become part of a comprehensive plan. So dropping in a squad to try and charge, but more to tie of a key unit than to wipe out the opposing army. IT is just too easy to counter it as the main army plan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Farseer_V2 wrote:

 auticus wrote:


I wasn't arguing against that (player skill) or even wondering about that. From my community it appears that most games are going to feature armies that just land 9" in front of you and charge. I know how to counter that, since I had to learn how to do that in the last edition where this was a thing (4th?), and in AOS this is a thing.

I'm still really curious how this is happening given that - at best - 50% of your units can start the game in any form of reserve. How exactly is it that you're facing entire armies that are landing 9" that are still legal lists? To be clear I'm not trying to be confrontational - this is an honest question, what are you seeing in army composition that is allowing your opponent to put his entire army within 9" from jump street?

He sees imperial armies doing things like taking single acolyte units for 8 points, to be the on board units. So you take 8 units for 64 points and put everything else in deepstrike. Which works until your opponent goes first and tables you turn 1.

Farseer_V2 wrote:

 auticus wrote:


I wasn't arguing against that (player skill) or even wondering about that. From my community it appears that most games are going to feature armies that just land 9" in front of you and charge. I know how to counter that, since I had to learn how to do that in the last edition where this was a thing (4th?), and in AOS this is a thing.

I'm still really curious how this is happening given that - at best - 50% of your units can start the game in any form of reserve. How exactly is it that you're facing entire armies that are landing 9" that are still legal lists? To be clear I'm not trying to be confrontational - this is an honest question, what are you seeing in army composition that is allowing your opponent to put his entire army within 9" from jump street?

Half your UNITS is the key.

I can take eight units.

Unit 1 - 4 min size trash costing say 300 points.
Unit 5-8 - my real army costing 1700 points that deep strikes and assaults.

For example.

Now its not the entire army. Its just the vast majority of the army.

Had it been half points then that'd make a difference.

 auticus wrote:


Half your UNITS is the key.

I can take eight units.

Unit 1 - 4 min size trash costing say 300 points.
Unit 5-8 - my real army costing 1700 points that deep strikes and assaults.

For example.

Now its not the entire army. Its just the vast majority of the army.

Had it been half points then that'd make a difference.

Wouldn't you put yourself in a fairly precarious position that if you did not go first you might be entirely removed from the table before your alpha strike kicked off? I'm not saying you are wrong I just feel like you have adopted a view point (movement doesn't matter in 8th because armies can land 9" away from you) and are not willing to acknowledge that you may have misread the meta and/or that alpha strike combat armies have some significant mitigating factors that preclude them from simply being the best possible option at all times.

I just feel like it is too easy to control and thereby eliminate the effectiveness of an alpha deep strike army for it to truly be the primary form of list building.

If you use a decent amount of terrain like we do that means LOS is blocked from across the table to a lot, which means its virtually impossible to get your trash units entirely removed in one turn since a lot of it can be hidden.

Additionally it would require your opponent to either have a lot of weaponry that can reach across the table and wipe out units enmasse or have deepstrike assault themselves to get to them.

None of my armies have that range except for a few weapons, and certainly not enough to kill the entire min set up in one turn, so at least against me you wouldn't have to worry about that.

If half your points instead of half your units could be on the table, there are different ways to abuse it. Push it too much and 1/6th of the games you'll be tabled before you get a turn, without a meaningful payoff.

Farseer_V2 wrote:

 auticus wrote:


Half your UNITS is the key.

I can take eight units.

Unit 1 - 4 min size trash costing say 300 points.
Unit 5-8 - my real army costing 1700 points that deep strikes and assaults.

For example.

Now its not the entire army. Its just the vast majority of the army.

Had it been half points then that'd make a difference.

Wouldn't you put yourself in a fairly precarious position that if you did not go first you might be entirely removed from the table before your alpha strike kicked off? I'm not saying you are wrong I just feel like you have adopted a view point (movement doesn't matter in 8th because armies can land 9" away from you) and are not willing to acknowledge that you may have misread the meta and/or that alpha strike combat armies have some significant mitigating factors that preclude them from simply being the best possible option at all times.

I just feel like it is too easy to control and thereby eliminate the effectiveness of an alpha deep strike army for it to truly be the primary form of list building.

It really depends on terrain.

Based on a thread a day or two ago, my group plays with very littler terrain. 4 large structures, about the size of a Land Raider at most, and maybe 6 small walls. As I said there, if there's a spot in your deployment zone it's completely impossible to target without indirect fire from their deployment zone, you may have too much terrain. But other people use lots of terrain, and say that if it's possible to shoot from one deployment zone to the other without artillery, you have to little terrain.

In the former case, bringing 4 small cheap acolyte squads is a recipe for disaster. In the latter case, it will be almost impossible to dislodge all of them in 1 turn.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Farseer_V2 wrote:

 auticus wrote:


Half your UNITS is the key.

I can take eight units.

Unit 1 - 4 min size trash costing say 300 points.
Unit 5-8 - my real army costing 1700 points that deep strikes and assaults.

For example.

Now its not the entire army. Its just the vast majority of the army.

Had it been half points then that'd make a difference.

Wouldn't you put yourself in a fairly precarious position that if you did not go first you might be entirely removed from the table before your alpha strike kicked off? I'm not saying you are wrong I just feel like you have adopted a view point (movement doesn't matter in 8th because armies can land 9" away from you) and are not willing to acknowledge that you may have misread the meta and/or that alpha strike combat armies have some significant mitigating factors that preclude them from simply being the best possible option at all times.

I just feel like it is too easy to control and thereby eliminate the effectiveness of an alpha deep strike army for it to truly be the primary form of list building.

It really depends on terrain.

Based on a thread a day or two ago, my group plays with very littler terrain. 4 large structures, about the size of a Land Raider at most, and maybe 6 small walls. As I said there, if there's a spot in your deployment zone it's completely impossible to target without indirect fire from their deployment zone, you may have too much terrain. But other people use lots of terrain, and say that if it's possible to shoot from one deployment zone to the other without artillery, you have to little terrain.

In the former case, bringing 4 small cheap acolyte squads is a recipe for disaster. In the latter case, it will be almost impossible to dislodge all of them in 1 turn.

I disagree with your terrain assessment. If there is at least not one spot in your deployment zone out of LOS from the enemy deployment zone you have too little terrain. If it is possible to hide 50+% of your army in said spots (baring very small armies) you have too much terrain. I think it should be impossible to kill the opposing force with never leaving your own deployment zone. Now there should be no terrain that disallows shooting from all angles but your opponents board edge, but for small units I think the ability to hide out of LOS is completely a fair expectation.

Our terrain generation is random. Otherwise the assault players will load it down and the shooty players will insist on there being like four small pieces lol.

Games vary from plains to cityscapes to jungles. Some games you'll have line of sight to most things. Other games line of sight will not be guaranteed.