Title.

I don't think that it is a good approach to bring alphastrikes in check.

Shooty armies were the problem from the very beginning, against melee threats you can simply use a screen. T1 overwhelming firepower was the main issue (in my opinion), now those armies have an even bigger advantage against non-shooty lists as they don't have to worry about the first turn. Screening units will still be a requirement, but with the changes I think there will be a big shift to gunline armies again.

Opinions?

 Kopy wrote:
Title.

I don't think that it is a good approach to bring alphastrikes in check.

Shooty armies were the problem from the very beginning, against melee threats you can simply use a screen. T1 overwhelming firepower was the main issue (in my opinion), now those armies have an even bigger advantage against non-shooty lists as they don't have to worry about the first turn. Screening units will still be a requirement, but with the changes I think there will be a big shift to gunline armies again.

Opinions?

Pretty much agreed. The rule is almost DOA. We need some version of it, but not this.

Yeah, I’ve been struggling to see why people think melee alpha strikes are such a prevalent and terrible thing. There are very few armies that can do them, and those that can do because it’s the only way to survive. And it’s also fluffy.

It should only be if you go first, if you go second clearly the first player had time to attack so you should be able to still deep strike close turn one. And if you're a Deep Striking army going first you'd just be able to move closer with the stuff starting on the table and then proceed with the plans turn two.

Azoqu wrote:
It should only be if you go first, if you go second clearly the first player had time to attack so you should be able to still deep strike close turn one. And if you're a Deep Striking army going first you'd just be able to move closer with the stuff starting on the table and then proceed with the plans turn two.

Gun line would take bottom of turn 1 as much as possible.

Well my friends IG army went from 12cp to 20 cp and my marines went from 3 to 5 so.... it's not just DS that effects big gunlines...

But honestly... I only ever sent my terminators and kptas in t1 if there was a big shooty scary unit i needed to stop.... in 7th edition I would normally save my DS for important missions. I honestly think they need to fix shooting and that will probably relax a lot of casual DS players.

Also it was funny... the dev talks about how everyone gets blown off the table turn 1 by shooting and then says he nerfed cc.... My jaw dropped.

 lolman1c wrote:
Well my friends IG army went from 12cp to 20 cp and my marines went from 3 to 5 so.... it's not just DS that effects big gunlines...

You mean 6 to 8?

Gunlines were pretty much non-existent in competitive 40k. Are they getting a buff? I think so. I also think its needed.

Azoqu wrote:
It should only be if you go first, if you go second clearly the first player had time to attack so you should be able to still deep strike close turn one. And if you're a Deep Striking army going first you'd just be able to move closer with the stuff starting on the table and then proceed with the plans turn two.

Problem with even that is that it still hurts h2h deep strikers more than shooters. Enemy can push their screen so far that you would be getting closer to enemy(and to better charge odds!) by foot than deep strike! So about only h2h deep strike that can still work at all are expensive elite 3d6" charging one. Cheap ones like kommando's are just plain screwed. You are better off taking more boyz instead. You get turn 2 charge with better odds than with kommandos against any half-decent player.

Kommandos would now need big increase in gaming board sizes so that the ability to set up would be bigger help but that would really kill ork boyz so...That would be bad trade off. Now if board would be bigger so that there would be like 24" BEHIND enemy where he can't just deploy while leaving distance between armies on T1 same that would make kommandos useful. But on 6'x4' kommandos are now liability.

I play a CSM gunline. This is a good buff.

Instead of worrying about turn 2 charges, I'm looking at turn 3.

Another round to shoot off 25 lascannons means more tanks die early, fewer CPs are spent on Stratagems, and I can spread my screen out a little further to ensure deep strikers don't get near the dangerous stuff.

It has me thinking the real purpose of the change is not to eliminate 1st turn charges, but to make going first less important. No way I want to be shooting at a field of stuff that has yet to arrive, I would rather go second to maximize my opportunities to shoot at things on the table.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Well my friends IG army went from 12cp to 20 cp and my marines went from 3 to 5 so.... it's not just DS that effects big gunlines...

You mean 6 to 8?

Ah... forgot about the orginal 3... yes. But also his is now 23 XD

I think anything over like 10 or 12 command points is overkill. Especially for guard who already recycle CP. They will never use up that many. It's wasted resources.

ThePorcupine wrote:
I think anything over like 10 or 12 command points is overkill. Especially for guard who already recycle CP. They will never use up that many. It's wasted resources.

Thing is you don't NEED that recycling that much anymore. More CP's from start+getting from enemy strategems is enough leaving warlord trait for other uses like master of command, draconian disclipianiar or if your enemy has something big like Magnus/Mortarion old grudge.

That's the big help pure guard got from the CP change. They get more than enough CP while allowing other warlord traits. Before grand strategist was pretty much auto choice except maybe if you took brigade. Now others are viable options.

 Kopy wrote:
Title.

I don't think that it is a good approach to bring alphastrikes in check.

Shooty armies were the problem from the very beginning, against melee threats you can simply use a screen. T1 overwhelming firepower was the main issue (in my opinion), now those armies have an even bigger advantage against non-shooty lists as they don't have to worry about the first turn. Screening units will still be a requirement, but with the changes I think there will be a big shift to gunline armies again.

Opinions?

There are rules that were a strong leesh on alpha deepstrike :
- movement phase is eaten
- must do a 9+ charge

And with the new beta rules, there is no alpha deepstrike anymore.

Meanwhile, Turn 1 Crippling shooting is completely unnafected, and got a direct boost. If a shooty army has turn 1, they have will have 2 full rounds of free shooting, enough to cripple any army outthere (turn 1 could already be deadly)

There seems to be a bias against melee in 8th edition overall, and it's been confirmed with this FAQ.

I like the idea going around where you can't shoot into the enemy's deployment zone on turn one. Makes the first turn be all about jockying for position, and screws over boring static gunlines big time because without a mobile element of some kind they're completely wasting their first turn.

That's a) too far b) way too gamey. Some suspension of disbelief is required or you might just as well play chess.

I think that gunline armies just got a needed buff. I play both shooty and melee armies (Astra+tyranids). Where tyranids was able to charge first turn, swarmlord catapulting genestealers, my guard gunline had problems taking objectives. Every turn that melee armies spend at close combat (screens or not), they are safe from shooting. + They are more mobile to take objectives.

They are in combat on their turn. On your turn you simply step back with your few lasguns and shoot. Turn 1 they will not be assaulting anything but chaff either.

Objectives is true enough but hey that's what T2 scions can be used landing on their backlines. And gunline needs SOMETHING to be weakness.

 Spreelock wrote:
I think that gunline armies just got a needed buff. I play both shooty and melee armies (Astra+tyranids). Where tyranids was able to charge first turn, swarmlord catapulting genestealers, my guard gunline had problems taking objectives. Every turn that melee armies spend at close combat (screens or not), they are safe from shooting. + They are more mobile to take objectives.

Fall Back rule says hi.

After all the nerfs at conscripts? After all the points increase at manticore and wyvern? Direct shooting can also be avoided covering behind terrain.. I just played a tournament with 10 indirect firing tanks and I was placed last with 3/60points.

So what if deploying your army was part of the first round?
Instead of setting up everything beforehand, the players have to move their units onto the battlefield turn 1. The player who goes first can't cripple anything sicne there are no enemy models on the board and focusses on positioning. The player who goes second has the advantage of being able to shoot, but everything that arrives has moved, of course, and he (probably) won't be close enough to the enemy to shoot at him with anything but long range guns.

You could add that deep strikers can only arrive in your own table half at the first turn and maybe give scouts the option to basically move twice their movement value during turn 1. Or something like that....

Basic idea is moving onto the battlefield as part of the first turn.

They're better now, but why's it unnecessary? Proper gunline lists have barely been appearing in big top 8s in recent months.

 Spreelock wrote:
After all the nerfs at conscripts? After all the points increase at manticore and wyvern? Direct shooting can also be avoided covering behind terrain.. I just played a tournament with 10 indirect firing tanks and I was placed last with 3/60points.

So? Infantry squads are fine. Basilisk>manticore. Terrain...8th ed means that unless terrain is custom built no LOS blocking really exists. GW official terrain(common enough) has all those windows etc that hiding any significant stuff is real hard since you need to see only tiny slice of one guy to shoot entire squad off.

Try comparing infantry squads or conscripts to chaos cultists, as they really needed the nerf. One of my last games were against 120 cultists that kept summoning back with tide of traitors.

 BigmekRatsmek wrote:
So what if deploying your army was part of the first round?

Gets very busy at the table edges in larger games and also requires a side-table or more time to deploy from your carry case. Plus all the 'start of turn' stuff that some armies rely on more than others.

But you could roll some of the effects into the first turn - treat everything as moving for the purposes of shooting, prevent indirect fire from non-stationary units. Just a little to take the edge off.

 Spreelock wrote:
Try comparing infantry squads or conscripts to chaos cultists, as they really needed the nerf. One of my last games were against 120 cultists that kept summoning back with tide of traitors.

Well look at that. Tide of traitor got hit by a nerfbat.

 BigmekRatsmek wrote:
So what if deploying your army was part of the first round?
Instead of setting up everything beforehand, the players have to move their units onto the battlefield turn 1. The player who goes first can't cripple anything sicne there are no enemy models on the board and focusses on positioning. The player who goes second has the advantage of being able to shoot, but everything that arrives has moved, of course, and he (probably) won't be close enough to the enemy to shoot at him with anything but long range guns.

You could add that deep strikers can only arrive in your own table half at the first turn and maybe give scouts the option to basically move twice their movement value during turn 1. Or something like that....

Basic idea is moving onto the battlefield as part of the first turn.

I really like that idea. Forward scouts actually approaching forward before the army, some of the heavier units could have rules to show up on the later turns too!

Buuuut I don't know how it would be from a gameplay perspective. There's a few rules that would be really janky if so

Major problem could be slow big armies simply fitting on board. Good luck with greentide...

 greyknight12 wrote:
Yeah, I’ve been struggling to see why people think melee alpha strikes are such a prevalent and terrible thing. There are very few armies that can do them, and those that can do because it’s the only way to survive. And it’s also fluffy.

Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

 BigmekRatsmek wrote:
So what if deploying your army was part of the first round?
Instead of setting up everything beforehand, the players have to move their units onto the battlefield turn 1. The player who goes first can't cripple anything sicne there are no enemy models on the board and focusses on positioning. The player who goes second has the advantage of being able to shoot, but everything that arrives has moved, of course, and he (probably) won't be close enough to the enemy to shoot at him with anything but long range guns.

You could add that deep strikers can only arrive in your own table half at the first turn and maybe give scouts the option to basically move twice their movement value during turn 1. Or something like that....

Basic idea is moving onto the battlefield as part of the first turn.

This is a cool idea. I suspect a things would need reworking but the idea is a good one.

CassianSol wrote:

 BigmekRatsmek wrote:
So what if deploying your army was part of the first round?
Instead of setting up everything beforehand, the players have to move their units onto the battlefield turn 1. The player who goes first can't cripple anything sicne there are no enemy models on the board and focusses on positioning. The player who goes second has the advantage of being able to shoot, but everything that arrives has moved, of course, and he (probably) won't be close enough to the enemy to shoot at him with anything but long range guns.

You could add that deep strikers can only arrive in your own table half at the first turn and maybe give scouts the option to basically move twice their movement value during turn 1. Or something like that....

Basic idea is moving onto the battlefield as part of the first turn.

This is a cool idea. I suspect a things would need reworking but the idea is a good one.

DZC does that. 2nd move on turn 1 is actually really strong.

All things considered though, it's effectively the same as having a deployment phase, just with a -1 to hit for the first player.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Yeah, I’ve been struggling to see why people think melee alpha strikes are such a prevalent and terrible thing. There are very few armies that can do them, and those that can do because it’s the only way to survive. And it’s also fluffy.

Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

U kiddin' right

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Yeah, I’ve been struggling to see why people think melee alpha strikes are such a prevalent and terrible thing. There are very few armies that can do them, and those that can do because it’s the only way to survive. And it’s also fluffy.

Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

I'm not sure I'd go way more powerful, but most top tier alpha armies do include a good portion of assault because of the ability to such down opposing forces after they get to shoot them. It removes the return fire. Eldar Reaper armies are not nearly as powerful without Shining spears.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BigmekRatsmek wrote:
So what if deploying your army was part of the first round?
Instead of setting up everything beforehand, the players have to move their units onto the battlefield turn 1. The player who goes first can't cripple anything sicne there are no enemy models on the board and focusses on positioning. The player who goes second has the advantage of being able to shoot, but everything that arrives has moved, of course, and he (probably) won't be close enough to the enemy to shoot at him with anything but long range guns.

You could add that deep strikers can only arrive in your own table half at the first turn and maybe give scouts the option to basically move twice their movement value during turn 1. Or something like that....

Basic idea is moving onto the battlefield as part of the first turn.

It would very much change what is good. Things like flyers become super powerful because of their added movement.

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Meanwhile, Turn 1 Crippling shooting is completely unnafected, and got a direct boost.

You people ignore systemic vs endemic problem difference. If shooty unit is too good, its points can be raised, problem solved. Balancing it is easy as it's shooting is something that can be assumed by default. However, deep strike CC is not fun, gives zero interaction to other player, and can't be raised in points unless you want to ruin that unit usability in all scenarios that are not easy mode unit deletions from reserves. This change not only balances the problematic units without nerfing them needlessly, but decreases importance of screens and makes troops other that stuff that can move before the game begins more viable, which was something that was sorely needed.

 Irbis wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Meanwhile, Turn 1 Crippling shooting is completely unnafected, and got a direct boost.

You people ignore systemic vs endemic problem difference. If shooty unit is too good, its points can be raised, problem solved. Balancing it is easy as it's shooting is something that can be assumed by default. However, deep strike CC is not fun, gives zero interaction to other player, and can't be raised in points unless you want to ruin that unit usability in all scenarios that are not easy mode unit deletions from reserves. This change not only balances the problematic units without nerfing them needlessly, but decreases importance of screens and makes troops other that stuff that can move before the game begins more viable, which was something that was sorely needed.

Maybe, but I think it's also fair to say that too many of these fixes take endemic problems and try to make them systemic. The problem with playtesting stuff like this at tournaments like Adepticon is that you end up creating a fix geared at the cheesiest, most hypercompetitive 5% of the community, who rely on maybe 20% of the available factions, and then blindly apply it to the entire game. So, instead of fixing the issue by slightly nerfing units that are prime for alpha strike CC abuse, they fix it by giving shooty armies a buff across the whole game and nerfing the many CC units from the other 80% of the game for whom CC alpha strikes are a calculated, tactical risk, not a guaranteed game winner.

This is why I don't play tournaments. Tournament players ruin the game for everyone else with the way they play.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Meanwhile, Turn 1 Crippling shooting is completely unnafected, and got a direct boost.

You people ignore systemic vs endemic problem difference. If shooty unit is too good, its points can be raised, problem solved. Balancing it is easy as it's shooting is something that can be assumed by default. However, deep strike CC is not fun, gives zero interaction to other player, and can't be raised in points unless you want to ruin that unit usability in all scenarios that are not easy mode unit deletions from reserves. This change not only balances the problematic units without nerfing them needlessly, but decreases importance of screens and makes troops other that stuff that can move before the game begins more viable, which was something that was sorely needed.

Maybe, but I think it's also fair to say that too many of these fixes take endemic problems and try to make them systemic. The problem with playtesting stuff like this at tournaments like Adepticon is that you end up creating a fix geared at the cheesiest, most hypercompetitive 5% of the community, who rely on maybe 20% of the available factions, and then blindly apply it to the entire game. So, instead of fixing the issue by slightly nerfing units that are prime for alpha strike CC abuse, they fix it by giving shooty armies a buff across the whole game and nerfing the many CC units from the other 80% of the game for whom CC alpha strikes are a calculated, tactical risk, not a guaranteed game winner.

This is why I don't play tournaments. Tournament players ruin the game for everyone else with the way they play.

This FAQ wasn't the fault of tournament players and you know it.

 BigmekRatsmek wrote:
So what if deploying your army was part of the first round?
Instead of setting up everything beforehand, the players have to move their units onto the battlefield turn 1. The player who goes first can't cripple anything sicne there are no enemy models on the board and focusses on positioning. The player who goes second has the advantage of being able to shoot, but everything that arrives has moved, of course, and he (probably) won't be close enough to the enemy to shoot at him with anything but long range guns.

You could add that deep strikers can only arrive in your own table half at the first turn and maybe give scouts the option to basically move twice their movement value during turn 1. Or something like that....

Basic idea is moving onto the battlefield as part of the first turn.

That's wild! But I also think that's a pretty good idea. A scouting unit would probably have the option to start on the board, in their deployment zone, I'd think. And this probably would speed up the game, because we'd essentially be skipping the 1st turn move phases. And it would give everyone a chance to play with their models at least for a turn.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Meanwhile, Turn 1 Crippling shooting is completely unnafected, and got a direct boost.

You people ignore systemic vs endemic problem difference. If shooty unit is too good, its points can be raised, problem solved. Balancing it is easy as it's shooting is something that can be assumed by default. However, deep strike CC is not fun, gives zero interaction to other player, and can't be raised in points unless you want to ruin that unit usability in all scenarios that are not easy mode unit deletions from reserves. This change not only balances the problematic units without nerfing them needlessly, but decreases importance of screens and makes troops other that stuff that can move before the game begins more viable, which was something that was sorely needed.

Maybe, but I think it's also fair to say that too many of these fixes take endemic problems and try to make them systemic. The problem with playtesting stuff like this at tournaments like Adepticon is that you end up creating a fix geared at the cheesiest, most hypercompetitive 5% of the community, who rely on maybe 20% of the available factions, and then blindly apply it to the entire game. So, instead of fixing the issue by slightly nerfing units that are prime for alpha strike CC abuse, they fix it by giving shooty armies a buff across the whole game and nerfing the many CC units from the other 80% of the game for whom CC alpha strikes are a calculated, tactical risk, not a guaranteed game winner.

This is why I don't play tournaments. Tournament players ruin the game for everyone else with the way they play.

This FAQ wasn't the fault of tournament players and you know it.

I know absolutely nothing of the sort. I'd absolutely love to hear how you think these "fixes" are somehow the result of non-competitive, casual players who don't do 99% of the crap GW is now having to "fix." That ought to be a laugh.

Scion Spam...

Slaanesh Obliterator Spam...

Pretty much anything with Plasma Spam...

Melta drops...

Webway Guardians/Fire Dragons/Wraithguard

Yeah, lots of nerfs to many of those brutal CC concepts there.

This doesn't empower IG shooting at all. They are literally exactly the same if they're playing gunline and not Scion drop. If they're playing Scion drop, this is a nerf.

The big change is the gamble on going first just got a lot more interesting because some of those heavy-handed drops may have to be deployed on the tabletop now.

That's what is really causing the salt... and bravo GW.

Shooting alpha strike from deepstrike was a lot lower risk and still a very high reward over CC alpha strike... and both could make fairly uninteresting play.

Point by point scion plasma is 3 times as effective as anything else the guard can deploy. Losing the alpha strike those guys brought is no joke for guard.

 koooaei wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

U kiddin' right

+1

It's true that there are a lot of things here that look like buffs for a long-range shooting army. But it's worth noting that the Raven Guard trait still punishes these severely. This is especially true for Guard, who are otherwise the stand-out shooting army.

I haven't been paying too much attention to the competitive scene lately, but which gunline lists are really strong? I don't think we've seen much Guard artillery lately, though Russes and artillery might still be very strong casually. Mortars are also a lot harder to spam, though technically you can still bring 9 units of them across the codex and FW index. Guilliman gunlines with Ancients or Dark Angels gunlines are likewise fairly good, but they haven't been major contenders. Chaos doesn't have much other than mass PBCs, which now can't be taken. Dark Reapers are the major Eldar gunline unit, and they took a significant nerf. Tyranids don't have much here other than maybe Biovores, which got nerfed into the ground. Tau aren't actually much of a gunline army and like Guard are severely punished by hit mods. Necrons and Dark Eldar are very new, but I don't see how either one gunlines effectively with the 0-3 datasheet restriction.

I mean, Infantry Squads are still one of the best units in the game, but that was already the case, and they're not really a static gunline unit anyway. Maybe they got a little better because now they're guaranteed a turn to move out of their deployment zone before they get hit, but I'm actually not really seeing many other gunline units that are going to be problematic now, especially since there's a 0-3 restriction on everything other than Troops and Transports.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Yeah, I’ve been struggling to see why people think melee alpha strikes are such a prevalent and terrible thing. There are very few armies that can do them, and those that can do because it’s the only way to survive. And it’s also fluffy.

Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

I am not sure what you mean. If a unit goes charging into another unit they have a chance of taking losses through Overwatch. And IF they get there and can't really hurt the targeted unit(s) those units get to swing back for another chance at causing losses. AND if the attacked unit still can't doing anything about the assaulting unit, they can fall back most likely leaving the assaulting unit out in the open and exposed to near by supporting units be attacked. If you aren't supporting your good units (i.e. have infantry near tanks, bubblewrap or no, and other infantry supporting other squads) you deserve to lose that unit as they are the weak link (just like in Chess) and your opponent picked up on that. At the same time you can't have your support too close to allow multi-charges unless that support can function in close combat or you don't mind falling back with all affected units. Finally, if you painted yourself into a corner and can't fall back, once again; you made a tactical error that good opponent will make you pay for.

 Kopy wrote:
Title.

I don't think that it is a good approach to bring alphastrikes in check.

Shooty armies were the problem from the very beginning, against melee threats you can simply use a screen. T1 overwhelming firepower was the main issue (in my opinion), now those armies have an even bigger advantage against non-shooty lists as they don't have to worry about the first turn. Screening units will still be a requirement, but with the changes I think there will be a big shift to gunline armies again.

Opinions?

I think its fine, I also think the shooting needed something though

have everything on the first player turn count as having moved its full speed and prohibit non-LoS shots on the first player turn

Dionysodorus wrote:
Mortars are also a lot harder to spam, though technically you can still bring 9 units of them across the codex and FW index.

You don't even need to rely on that, infantry squads can take mortars as an embedded heavy weapons team and since infantry squads are a troop choice there's no limit on how many you can take.

 gbghg wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Mortars are also a lot harder to spam, though technically you can still bring 9 units of them across the codex and FW index.

You don't even need to rely on that, infantry squads can take mortars as an embedded heavy weapons team and since infantry squads are a troop choice there's no limit on how many you can take.

This is a much worse way to bring mortars, though, and so you usually only see it when people otherwise want their squads to have only 9 models (i.e. when using ITC objectives). A mortar team in a HWS is 11 points. The way almost everyone accounts for the points, a mortar team in an Infantry Squad is 13 points, and on top of this it doesn't synergize well with the squad's lasguns. The lasguns want to move, but the mortar wants to stay still. The lasguns want to get FRFSRF, but the mortar doesn't benefit and replaces a lasgun -- a lasgun inside 12" with FRFSRF gets 4 S3 shots compared to the mortar's 3.5 S4 shots at -1 to hit. It's not like a lascannon where you'd prefer it in an Infantry Squad in order to protect it, since mortar HWSs are barely any more expensive than regular Infantry per wound (and can hide).

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Yeah, I’ve been struggling to see why people think melee alpha strikes are such a prevalent and terrible thing. There are very few armies that can do them, and those that can do because it’s the only way to survive. And it’s also fluffy.

Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

Fall Back says "Hi", and generally assault units are double the cost of their equivalent.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 gbghg wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Mortars are also a lot harder to spam, though technically you can still bring 9 units of them across the codex and FW index.

You don't even need to rely on that, infantry squads can take mortars as an embedded heavy weapons team and since infantry squads are a troop choice there's no limit on how many you can take.

This is a much worse way to bring mortars, though, and so you usually only see it when people otherwise want their squads to have only 9 models (i.e. when using ITC objectives). A mortar team in a HWS is 11 points. The way almost everyone accounts for the points, a mortar team in an Infantry Squad is 13 points, and on top of this it doesn't synergize well with the squad's lasguns. The lasguns want to move, but the mortar wants to stay still. The lasguns want to get FRFSRF, but the mortar doesn't benefit and replaces a lasgun -- a lasgun inside 12" with FRFSRF gets 4 S3 shots compared to the mortar's 3.5 S4 shots at -1 to hit. It's not like a lascannon where you'd prefer it in an Infantry Squad in order to protect it, since mortar HWSs are barely any more expensive than regular Infantry per wound (and can hide).

oh i know, I was just stating that if you wanted to bring more mortars than what rule of 3 allows you could do so without dipping into forgeworld.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Yeah, I’ve been struggling to see why people think melee alpha strikes are such a prevalent and terrible thing. There are very few armies that can do them, and those that can do because it’s the only way to survive. And it’s also fluffy.

Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

Fall Back says "Hi", and generally assault units are double the cost of their equivalent.

Lol no, assault units are always much much cheaper than the shooting equivalent. Try finding something that for 85 points has the durability of a dreadnaught and shoots 6 attacks S6 AP-3 damage 3 at 3+ and has a 50% chance to inflict a mortal wounds when it attacks you And i'm talking about a model that is not considered competitive.

What you said was true in 7th, but finally GW has understood in 8th that being an assault model is actually a drawback compared to being a shooty one, so for the same costs it needs a much higher lethality/durability. Look at the cost of a powerfist, and tell me if you really believe that (let's assume 3 attacks) a ranged weapon with those stats would cost 12 points.

If you think the Deep Strike nerf was about assault, you don't understand why it is a good idea.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
If you think the Deep Strike nerf was about assault, you don't understand why it is a good idea.

I presume you mean it was for scions etc? Well yeah. Problem is by nerfing few problem units GW just screwed up tons of units. And you know what? IG LOVES this change. Yes scions took a hit. Enemies took even bigger hit. This FAQ HELPED IG. It was huge boost for IG. Even eldars overall benefitted from this FAQ.

Just like always when you try to apply game wide changes to fix problem units that are minority you make game balance worse by helping out already powerful armies and hurting weaker armies.

IG, eldar. These armies just love this FAQ. They got huge power boost up thanks to it.

Eldar had farseers, locks, and reapers go up in points (and be restricted!) Eldar guardian bomb is a turn 2 tactic now and no good way to protect your guys if you're going t2 aside from being Alaitoc. How did eldar get better again?

quentra wrote:
Eldar had farseers, locks, and reapers go up in points (and be restricted!) Eldar guardian bomb is a turn 2 tactic now and no good way to protect your guys if you're going t2 aside from being Alaitoc. How did eldar get better again?

By enemies being hurt more.

Here's very simple example to illustrate concept. Let's say FAQ gives 10% price hike to Eldar. All other armies gets 50% price hike.

Yes eldars got nerfed. Others were nerfed more.

You don't have to worry about getting nerfed if those nerfes hurt enemy even more. That's why IG and eldar don't care about this. But sure. Look just one army and ignore what happens to others!

tneva82 wrote:

quentra wrote:
Eldar had farseers, locks, and reapers go up in points (and be restricted!) Eldar guardian bomb is a turn 2 tactic now and no good way to protect your guys if you're going t2 aside from being Alaitoc. How did eldar get better again?

By enemies being hurt more.

Here's very simple example to illustrate concept. Let's say FAQ gives 10% price hike to Eldar. All other armies gets 50% price hike.

Yes eldars got nerfed. Others were nerfed more.

You don't have to worry about getting nerfed if those nerfes hurt enemy even more. That's why IG and eldar don't care about this. But sure. Look just one army and ignore what happens to others!

Please point to a 50% point increase or admit that you actually don't understand how 40k works.

quentra wrote:
Eldar had farseers, locks, and reapers go up in points (and be restricted!) Eldar guardian bomb is a turn 2 tactic now and no good way to protect your guys if you're going t2 aside from being Alaitoc. How did eldar get better again?

They also have a rule that makes Soup armies legal for them through the Ynnari leaders.

Index: Xenos 1 Page 76 – Army of the Reborn ‘If your army is Battle-forged and the Warlord of your army is either Yvraine, the Visarch or the Yncarne then you can include any of these models in any Craftworlds, Harlequins or Drukhari Detachment (as defined in their respective codexes)

quentra wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

quentra wrote:
Eldar had farseers, locks, and reapers go up in points (and be restricted!) Eldar guardian bomb is a turn 2 tactic now and no good way to protect your guys if you're going t2 aside from being Alaitoc. How did eldar get better again?

By enemies being hurt more.

Here's very simple example to illustrate concept. Let's say FAQ gives 10% price hike to Eldar. All other armies gets 50% price hike.

Yes eldars got nerfed. Others were nerfed more.

You don't have to worry about getting nerfed if those nerfes hurt enemy even more. That's why IG and eldar don't care about this. But sure. Look just one army and ignore what happens to others!

Please point to a 50% point increase or admit that you actually don't understand how 40k works.

What sort of list do you see beating Eldar now that its top contenders got killed. Flyrants, Poxwalker horde (Faq+Agents of Vect)

quentra wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

quentra wrote:
Eldar had farseers, locks, and reapers go up in points (and be restricted!) Eldar guardian bomb is a turn 2 tactic now and no good way to protect your guys if you're going t2 aside from being Alaitoc. How did eldar get better again?

By enemies being hurt more.

Here's very simple example to illustrate concept. Let's say FAQ gives 10% price hike to Eldar. All other armies gets 50% price hike.

Yes eldars got nerfed. Others were nerfed more.

You don't have to worry about getting nerfed if those nerfes hurt enemy even more. That's why IG and eldar don't care about this. But sure. Look just one army and ignore what happens to others!

Please point to a 50% point increase or admit that you actually don't understand how 40k works.

Lol. You can't even understand concept of example? I tried to make simple example so that anybody could understand...It was not meant literally what happened but since for example concept of deep strike nerf hurting different units and armies more than others is not as obvious figured I should go with the obvious example but guess that was still too difficult concept.

Sigh. Well keep on ignoring what happens to other armies and think just because one army got weakened means it lost overall power when others were hurt more.

The "winners" of this FAQ are in order:

1) Necrons
2) T'au
3) IG

Eldars are firmly in the losing bracket together with tyranids, they lost really a lot.

 helgrenze wrote:

quentra wrote:
Eldar had farseers, locks, and reapers go up in points (and be restricted!) Eldar guardian bomb is a turn 2 tactic now and no good way to protect your guys if you're going t2 aside from being Alaitoc. How did eldar get better again?

They also have a rule that makes Soup armies legal for them through the Ynnari leaders.

Index: Xenos 1 Page 76 – Army of the Reborn ‘If your army is Battle-forged and the Warlord of your army is either Yvraine, the Visarch or the Yncarne then you can include any of these models in any Craftworlds, Harlequins or Drukhari Detachment (as defined in their respective codexes)

That rule is supersceded by the new Battle-Brothers rule, so AFAIK you can't run a battalion of Yvraine, Incubi, and Reapers anymore

tneva82 wrote:
Lol. You can't even understand concept of example? I tried to make simple example so that anybody could understand...It was not meant literally what happened but since for example concept of deep strike nerf hurting different units and armies more than others is not as obvious figured I should go with the obvious example but guess that was still too difficult concept.

Sigh. Well keep on ignoring what happens to other armies and think just because one army got weakened means it lost overall power when others were hurt more.

Lol, you can't even argue with facts and have to rely on hyperbole and outright deception to prove your points? Keep on ignoring the actual facts and think that just because you imagine a thing to be true, it is.

Ordana wrote:What sort of list do you see beating Eldar now that its top contenders got killed. Flyrants, Poxwalker horde (Faq+Agents of Vect)

I think we still haven't seen the potential of DE displayed in a tourney environment. Their codex is strong and full of unexplored synergies, and none of the FAQ stuff really affected them. Now that you can't spam $TEXAS DR and/or SS, IG gunlines are suddenly a lot more potent. Tau will give eldar forces a run for their money. CWE definitely isn't GK-tier, but it is far from accurate to say that they gained anything from the FAQs. I do think CWE are still strong, but as people have rightly pointed out, Guard, Tau, and other 'stay in one place and shoot you from across the board' armies are suddenly far, far more attractive than most of the DS-reliant strategies.

All these people saying this change is good because it nerfs Imperial Guard Plasma and Scion spam, that's one bloody unit (that's ALREADY been limited to 3 in this very FAQ), don't you think that, you know, nerfing the specific unit in particular is a better idea than nerfing EVERYONE at the same time? The shooting phase wasn't nerfed because Dark Reapers were OP, and the Psychic Phase wasn't nerfed because Farseers and Tyrants were OP, why should Deepstrike be nerfed because 1 or 2 units are able to abuse it?

I know that if this change goes through as is I'm never playing a non-gunline Tau army ever again, which I'm sure will be very fun for my opponent, and I'm also sure Grey Knights and Terminator users everywhere will be absolutely thrilled to have their already overcosted units further rammed into the dirt.

quentra wrote:

Ordana wrote:What sort of list do you see beating Eldar now that its top contenders got killed. Flyrants, Poxwalker horde (Faq+Agents of Vect)

I think we still haven't seen the potential of DE displayed in a tourney environment. Their codex is strong and full of unexplored synergies, and none of the FAQ stuff really affected them. Now that you can't spam $TEXAS DR and/or SS, IG gunlines are suddenly a lot more potent. Tau will give eldar forces a run for their money. CWE definitely isn't GK-tier, but it is far from accurate to say that they gained anything from the FAQs. I do think CWE are still strong, but as people have rightly pointed out, Guard, Tau, and other 'stay in one place and shoot you from across the board' armies are suddenly far, far more attractive than most of the DS-reliant strategies.

I haven't looked to much at Tau but aren't they, DE shooting and Guard heavily effected by Allaitoc's -1 to hit?
That is how Eldar pushed out Guard to begin with.

I don't know how to feel about this change at all, its a good and a bad thing

On one hand it makes turn one a little less important and , (in some cases) will alow choice units to react and do something, in my group of players Alpha-striking was a thing like 10 man combi-plasma slaaneesh terminators with sorcerer and chaos lord is probably a good example of what will be fixed stuff like that is and can be devastating 1st turn especially with cacophony, but our meta adjusted who doesn't bring chaff these days there the best thing at alpha strike denial but the close combat isn't the issue its the shooting 1st turn shooting is more devastating than anything else. Especially in "casual" (use thew term loosely lol) groups when you know who your opponent is.

MalfunctBot wrote:
All these people saying this change is good because it nerfs Imperial Guard Plasma and Scion spam, that's one bloody unit (that's ALREADY been limited to 3 in this very FAQ), don't you think that, you know, nerfing the specific unit in particular is a better idea than nerfing EVERYONE at the same time? The shooting phase wasn't nerfed because Dark Reapers were OP, and the Psychic Phase wasn't nerfed because Farseers and Tyrants were OP, why should Deepstrike be nerfed because 1 or 2 units are able to abuse it?

I know that if this change goes through as is I'm never playing a non-gunline Tau army ever again, which I'm sure will be very fun for my opponent, and I'm also sure Grey Knights and Terminator users everywhere will be absolutely thrilled to have their already overcosted units further rammed into the dirt.

It wasn't just those units. I agree with people saying that nerfing T1 Deepstrike Alpha is a good thing. The issue is that, imo, GW did not look at why there was so much movement towards DS by the community. Stuff simply dies to fast and without DS to protect assault units and T1 charges limiting the shooting from gunlines the game will be more unbalanced towards shooting.

The beta rules disproportionately hit assault while leaving shooting (mostly) intact. Both needed to be toned in tandem to allow for more tactical play.

Likely earlier 8th ed builds will come back maybe razor spam since the re exempt from rule of 3.
DS plasma and plasma spam likely to return.
Guard remain a/the top tier tool box almost untouched by the FAQ, surprised that no other army has managed to remain at that level and avoided almost all meaning full nerfs for the edition so far.

Base Shooting for sure did get better.

Honestly, better cover would help fix that more than many other things atm.

quentra wrote:
I think we still haven't seen the potential of DE displayed in a tourney environment. Their codex is strong and full of unexplored synergies, and none of the FAQ stuff really affected them.

You're joking, right?

 Ordana wrote:

quentra wrote:

Ordana wrote:What sort of list do you see beating Eldar now that its top contenders got killed. Flyrants, Poxwalker horde (Faq+Agents of Vect)

I think we still haven't seen the potential of DE displayed in a tourney environment. Their codex is strong and full of unexplored synergies, and none of the FAQ stuff really affected them. Now that you can't spam $TEXAS DR and/or SS, IG gunlines are suddenly a lot more potent. Tau will give eldar forces a run for their money. CWE definitely isn't GK-tier, but it is far from accurate to say that they gained anything from the FAQs. I do think CWE are still strong, but as people have rightly pointed out, Guard, Tau, and other 'stay in one place and shoot you from across the board' armies are suddenly far, far more attractive than most of the DS-reliant strategies.

I haven't looked to much at Tau but aren't they, DE shooting and Guard heavily effected by Allaitoc's -1 to hit?
That is how Eldar pushed out Guard to begin with.

Alaitoc trait gives CWE survivability, but the trait itself wasn't enough to push IG out of the meta. (You never see people claiming RG is 'too strong' against guard, for example, even if the traits are nearly identical.) It was the trait + ridiculously powerful long-range shooting in spammed dark reapers, and even then the reapers really needed to be soulbursted in order to really get to peak effectiveness. So -1 to hit is still a retardedly strong trait (and honestly one that I think shouldn't have been printed, as it just 'feels' bad), but IG can now outweigh it with weight of dice considering the deepstriking, soulbursting reaperspam tactic that eldar relied on is illegal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

quentra wrote:
I think we still haven't seen the potential of DE displayed in a tourney environment. Their codex is strong and full of unexplored synergies, and none of the FAQ stuff really affected them.

You're joking, right?

Do you have an argument to make?

So, I play Tau. Which means I have the shootiest of the shooty armies.

There are kind of a lot of ways to close the gap? I have had to deal with them every game I play against someone who has played more than 1 game against Tau before. 1st turn charges just happen, and anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell something.

It's easier with DS, but it's not even remotely difficult without. So, yeah you can have screens but thats points then I can't spend on a gunline that needs to put out every point of firepower it can to support itself to begin with.

And a lot of this that I'm reading is also ignoring the restriction on spam. It's kind of obvious that GW is pushing more army diversity. An obvious solution here, is to make yourself an army that benefits from range and/or resilience on turn one, and deepstrike 50% in turn 2. You Also can cull screening units so that when you deepstrike on 2 you don't have to deal with them. I mean put stuff on the board you know can take a beating, things with -1 or -2 to hit, with a FNP, and/or an invul.

And then there is also, just... hey it's a change, we've kind of got to adapt?

quentra wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

quentra wrote:

Ordana wrote:What sort of list do you see beating Eldar now that its top contenders got killed. Flyrants, Poxwalker horde (Faq+Agents of Vect)

I think we still haven't seen the potential of DE displayed in a tourney environment. Their codex is strong and full of unexplored synergies, and none of the FAQ stuff really affected them. Now that you can't spam $TEXAS DR and/or SS, IG gunlines are suddenly a lot more potent. Tau will give eldar forces a run for their money. CWE definitely isn't GK-tier, but it is far from accurate to say that they gained anything from the FAQs. I do think CWE are still strong, but as people have rightly pointed out, Guard, Tau, and other 'stay in one place and shoot you from across the board' armies are suddenly far, far more attractive than most of the DS-reliant strategies.

I haven't looked to much at Tau but aren't they, DE shooting and Guard heavily effected by Allaitoc's -1 to hit?
That is how Eldar pushed out Guard to begin with.

Alaitoc trait gives CWE survivability, but the trait itself wasn't enough to push IG out of the meta. (You never see people claiming RG is 'too strong' against guard, for example, even if the traits are nearly identical.) It was the trait + ridiculously powerful long-range shooting in spammed dark reapers, and even then the reapers really needed to be soulbursted in order to really get to peak effectiveness. So -1 to hit is still a retardedly strong trait (and honestly one that I think shouldn't have been printed, as it just 'feels' bad), but IG can now outweigh it with weight of dice considering the deepstriking, soulbursting reaperspam tactic that eldar relied on is illegal.

For simplicty just taking the LVO winning list. it had 3x3 reapers and 1x8. losing 3 Reapers there is not going to make or break the matchup.
They were never deepstriking them so that change does nothing.
Yeah you can't Deepstrike the Shining Spears but they have the movement to start on the table and still charge whatever they want thanks to Quicken.

Well you are dismissing too easily the nerfs to Eldar.

First of all he has to drop some more reapers due to the increased cost on them and on the support. Then you have to take into account that Word of Phoenix became unreliable.

Also, shining spears can start on the board and charge but can be shot turn 1 and have less total movement to jump over screens.

quentra wrote:
Do you have an argument to make?

Well, first off, I'd question the idea that DE have a lot of unexplored synergies. If anything, they're an army of anti-synergies. You've got HQ auras that don't work with most of their faction, you've got HQ auras that are redundant, you've got shooty HQ auras that don't work when in transports, you've got HQs that have no mobility alongside transports with no additional slots, you've got Obsessions that don't work with relics for no reason whatsoever, etc. etc.

Regarding the FAQ, you've got stuff like Fire and Fade not being useable after deep striking, you've got their 3-Patrol Raiding Force being invalidated by the increase in CPs from Battalions (which now gets more CP with fewer required units). And at tournaments, they're now stuck with the 0-3 rule. This is an army where one subfaction has a single HQ choice. They literally need to take a special character just to take 2 Battalions. Not to mention the Court of the Archon, where you can't even take 4 of the same model because the unit was (for some stupid reason) split into individual models.

44" movement before charging gets you across any screen you need to.

The biggest nerf to the list is Word of Phoenix. not the Spam, deepstrike changes.

 Ordana wrote:

quentra wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

quentra wrote:

Ordana wrote:What sort of list do you see beating Eldar now that its top contenders got killed. Flyrants, Poxwalker horde (Faq+Agents of Vect)

I think we still haven't seen the potential of DE displayed in a tourney environment. Their codex is strong and full of unexplored synergies, and none of the FAQ stuff really affected them. Now that you can't spam $TEXAS DR and/or SS, IG gunlines are suddenly a lot more potent. Tau will give eldar forces a run for their money. CWE definitely isn't GK-tier, but it is far from accurate to say that they gained anything from the FAQs. I do think CWE are still strong, but as people have rightly pointed out, Guard, Tau, and other 'stay in one place and shoot you from across the board' armies are suddenly far, far more attractive than most of the DS-reliant strategies.

I haven't looked to much at Tau but aren't they, DE shooting and Guard heavily effected by Allaitoc's -1 to hit?
That is how Eldar pushed out Guard to begin with.

Alaitoc trait gives CWE survivability, but the trait itself wasn't enough to push IG out of the meta. (You never see people claiming RG is 'too strong' against guard, for example, even if the traits are nearly identical.) It was the trait + ridiculously powerful long-range shooting in spammed dark reapers, and even then the reapers really needed to be soulbursted in order to really get to peak effectiveness. So -1 to hit is still a retardedly strong trait (and honestly one that I think shouldn't have been printed, as it just 'feels' bad), but IG can now outweigh it with weight of dice considering the deepstriking, soulbursting reaperspam tactic that eldar relied on is illegal.

For simplicty just taking the LVO winning list. it had 3x3 reapers and 1x8. losing 3 Reapers there is not going to make or break the matchup.
They were never deepstriking them so that change does nothing.
Yeah you can't Deepstrike the Shining Spears but they have the movement to start on the table and still charge whatever they want thanks to Quicken.

I definitely think that spears and reapers are still undercosted. However, the LVO list relied very heavily on Ynnari synergy (which has been killed thanks to Battle-brothers), as well as being very heavily favored in an ITC format. You didn't see eldar domination at Adepticon, for example. Spears and reapers are still very strong units, but I would say that losing the reaper unit in the Ynnari detachment (and the ynnari detachment as a whole) is crippling for that strategy specifically, not to mention that that list was specifically tailored to ITC, and did not fare as well in other tourneys.

 vipoid wrote:

quentra wrote:
Do you have an argument to make?

Well, first off, I'd question the idea that DE have a lot of unexplored synergies. If anything, they're an army of anti-synergies. You've got HQ auras that don't work with most of their faction, you've got HQ auras that are redundant, you've got shooty HQ auras that don't work when in transports, you've got HQs that have no mobility alongside transports with no additional slots, you've got Obsessions that don't work with relics for no reason whatsoever, etc. etc.

Regarding the FAQ, you've got stuff like Fire and Fade not being useable after deep striking, you've got their 3-Patrol Raiding Force being invalidated by the increase in CPs from Battalions (which now gets more CP with fewer required units). And at tournaments, they're now stuck with the 0-3 rule. This is an army where one subfaction has a single HQ choice. They literally need to take a special character just to take 2 Battalions. Not to mention the Court of the Archon, where you can't even take 4 of the same model because the unit was (for some stupid reason) split into individual models.

People that dont play DE dont understand. They dont understand we are not CWE or Imperial where everything fits together very nicely.

DE doesnt fit together, we are 3 different armies in 1 codex that shares 3 units (Scourges, Incubi, Mandrakes) and a few stratagems and 3.

quentra wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
For simplicty just taking the LVO winning list. it had 3x3 reapers and 1x8. losing 3 Reapers there is not going to make or break the matchup.
They were never deepstriking them so that change does nothing.
Yeah you can't Deepstrike the Shining Spears but they have the movement to start on the table and still charge whatever they want thanks to Quicken.

I definitely think that spears and reapers are still undercosted. However, the LVO list relied very heavily on Ynnari synergy (which has been killed thanks to Battle-brothers), as well as being very heavily favored in an ITC format. You didn't see eldar domination at Adepticon, for example. Spears and reapers are still very strong units, but I would say that losing the reaper unit in the Ynnari detachment (and the ynnari detachment as a whole) is crippling for that strategy specifically, not to mention that that list was specifically tailored to ITC, and did not fare as well in other tourneys.

Why is the Ynnari synergy or detachment gone? The only non Craftworld units were 2x min DE warriors which can be replaced (or removed and dropping the battalion to a smaller detachment) and the Yvraine which is ignored for the Battle Brothers rule.
We indeed did not see the Eldar dominate at Adepticon but I primarily attribute that to the Flyrant lists running around in force which are a natural counter. ICT secondaries kept Flyrants in check at LVO.

 Spreelock wrote:
After all the nerfs at conscripts? After all the points increase at manticore and wyvern? Direct shooting can also be avoided covering behind terrain.. I just played a tournament with 10 indirect firing tanks and I was placed last with 3/60points.

Direct shooting can be avoided by terrain? Not if its a basalisk or a manticore - you can't hide from them anywhere....

 Amishprn86 wrote:

People that dont play DE dont understand. They dont understand we are not CWE or Imperial where everything fits together very nicely.

DE doesnt fit together, we are 3 different armies in 1 codex that shares 3 units (Scourges, Incubi, Mandrakes) and a few stratagems and 3.

The thing is though, even the components of those individual subfactions don't fit together well.

I can get behind the Succubus' aura not working on Kabalite or Coven units (bit weird that the Archon's aura doesn't work when he's supposed to be the one in overall charge, but whatever). Fine.

But then why can't the Archon buff units in his own transport? Why do 2/3 of the units he allows to reroll 1s already have their own reroll ability that makes his completely redundant? Why do some Obsessions not with with artefacts for no apparent reason? Why are HQs allowed no mobility options, and actually screw over their own units by riding with them (9 Wyches lose out on 2 Wych weapons, 9 Kabalites lose out on 1 Special and 1 Heavy weapon etc.)? Why does each subfaction have just a single HQ choice (SCs notwithstanding) that's completely inflexible? Why is there no support whatsoever for Mandrakes or Scourges (and basically none for Incubi, since Drazhar is useless)?

Yeah, I get it, DE are like 3 different armies. But that doesn't excuse those mini-armies being horribly designed and overflowing with anti-synergy.

ThePorcupine wrote:
I think anything over like 10 or 12 command points is overkill. Especially for guard who already recycle CP. They will never use up that many. It's wasted resources.

Guard should then be spending 3 points on two extra relics. Any 3 out of 4 best relics in a codex. Kurov's Aquila (should have been the free relic), Laurels of Command, Relic of Lost Cadia, Auto Reliquary (only for Scions).

In their current form, battle brothers from the beta rules is actually quite interesting and makes it harder to soup cherry pick list. Which was a problem cause soup made many armies WAY too synergetic.

The tactical reserves one on the other hand is a bit too much. Especially for Melee based or melee focused armies, this basically cripples them when facing a shooting based army. You might as well pack your models if your opponent is running a gun-line, cause you aint gonna get close to it.

This will never address units that can 1st turn charge without a deep strike mechanics, cause those ones usually go with a high mobility with other rules that make the charge a cakewalk. And deep strike shooting armies still see no difference with these changes, in fact scion are probably even more powerful because you can destroy the opponents shield units and such in the first turn, and the second turn brings in the shooting bombs all over again. Shooting deep strike is actually more devastating with these rules, assault deep strike just got dumpster fired because of this rule.

Most melee based armies either have:

a) high mobility

b) deep strike

in order to get their units into fighting position, each have their own advantages but in a game where shooting is king, melee is severely lacking.

Most people forget that for shooting you get another "last" shooting in before the close combat, and if the unit isn't wiped out, you have something called "fall back" which makes any melee unit hillariously easy to kite and destroy.

"Ohh. I lost my one unit of screen units to that scary melee monster, ohh well. Time to aim all my big guns at him and deal with him in a single turn, while using the rest of my armies large amount of guns to destroy his other units. Hurduh, I knows tactics"

This is not the way this should be addressed, if anything this is the complete wrong way to address the issue.

Deep strike is easily mitigated if you actually know how to properly use the map and such to ensure the maximum amount of potential from all your units (deep strike denial, screening units, running blockers for your big guns, using terrain)

What people are soo stupid about is the fact that they dont think of these things, get stomped by a alpha striking army and then complain about it because "IT'S TOO OVERPOWERED. NERF THIS!!"

There is a saying i can say right now. And i will say it as many times as need be to get the point across

Get Gud

Learn about your armies units, what their strengths and weaknesses are, think of how you can use them to their maximum potential, Look at your STRATAGEMS (Cause some people dont actually look at them!), look at the battlefield, If you have deployment then pick a deployment that would work very well for you (ohh. I have a long range gunline? lets go Hammer and Anvil!) Play to the objective of the mission, not to the other player.

In other words

Get Gud

I wouldn't mind the deepstrike changes so much if the turn 3 limit was lifted or moved up. Why is it so over powered to deepstrike turn 4-6 when the opponent has moved and died, and made some room?

MalfunctBot wrote:
All these people saying this change is good because it nerfs Imperial Guard Plasma and Scion spam, that's one bloody unit (that's ALREADY been limited to 3 in this very FAQ), don't you think that, you know, nerfing the specific unit in particular is a better idea than nerfing EVERYONE at the same time? The shooting phase wasn't nerfed because Dark Reapers were OP, and the Psychic Phase wasn't nerfed because Farseers and Tyrants were OP, why should Deepstrike be nerfed because 1 or 2 units are able to abuse it?

I know that if this change goes through as is I'm never playing a non-gunline Tau army ever again, which I'm sure will be very fun for my opponent, and I'm also sure Grey Knights and Terminator users everywhere will be absolutely thrilled to have their already overcosted units further rammed into the dirt.

You think Scions were the only ones abusing first turn drop rules for shooting?

Ever had 3 squads of Obliterators drop down and destroy your day?

Probably haven't had 20 Guardians step out and assassinate a Doomed target, either.

Plasma Terminators?

You can watch it all over Battle Reports on YouTube and just about any tournament report... Deep Strike was used almost exclusively for 1 or 2 things, and frequently both:

1) Assassinate with shorter ranged shooting (Plasma, Melta, etc.)
2) Hold units off the table to save them from losing the 1st turn roll-off

Deep Striking expressly to get into close combat on turn 1 has something like a 44% chance to succeed, and a large portion of the time it was against garbage anyways. These armies were hurt heavily by screens, as they would be forced to charge a screen and then get shot off the table afterwards unless they could consolidate into another target (well, they'd still get shot off the table after the withdraw).

In any case, 44% is not something you make a list around. But 3 blobs of Obliterators precision deep striking with Veterans and Endless Cacophony at their disposal... that may do.

With the amount of wailing on this thread, I'd assume greater than 50% of the population plays Blood Angels, as they seem the melee army most affected by this FAQ... everyone else was already on hopes and prayers.

Coming in on turn 2 is also not a terrible thing when you think about the game outside of a glass cannon or 1 turn fish meet barrel scenario. It keeps pressure on your opponent to NOT spread out, and gives you the opportunity to blast away a screen to put pressure on an exposure before your elite forces hit the ground.

Is it a nerf? Yes. Is it the end of the world? Hardly.

 gbghg wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Mortars are also a lot harder to spam, though technically you can still bring 9 units of them across the codex and FW index.

You don't even need to rely on that, infantry squads can take mortars as an embedded heavy weapons team and since infantry squads are a troop choice there's no limit on how many you can take.

HWT cost per mortar : 11
IS cost per mortar : 45

Not to mention people were using spammed HWT mortars to shore up their deficiencies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:


The beta rules disproportionately hit assault while leaving shooting (mostly) intact. Both needed to be toned in tandem to allow for more tactical play.

That is an unquantified statement. IG perhaps, sure. But when you're mid range high powered guns are unable to reach what they want to shoot turn 1 you're either waiting or transitioning to units who typically have fewer strong weapons per point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Adeticon top 16:

BA - melee DS
Tyranids - shooting DS (arguably melee, too)
Tyranids - shooting DS
Tyranids - shooting DS
Chaos Soup - no DS
Chaos Soup - no DS
Dark Angels - no DS, but fast flyers which are functionally similar
Tyranids - shooting DS / super heavies backed by flyrants
DG - no DS, but two fire raptors
Imperium - melee DS (BA)
Tyranids - shooting DS
Aedlari - potential shooting DS

Not the most fair comparison, but i'm certain if we had access to the other lists you'd see way more shooting instead of melee deepstrike.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


HWT cost per mortar : 11
IS cost per mortar : 45

They technically already paid the 40 points for the squad adding 5 points for a mortar isn't a big deal. Honestly I was thinking a 50 point IS with a Mortar and grenade launcher seems sweet.

While not as strong or having the extended range Guard can replace a 33 point mortar HWT with Grenade launcher special weapon Team for 39 points. its still 3d6 however only S3 frag but it is flexible enough to have 3 S6 Krak doing D3 wounds. not a bad trade off.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


HWT cost per mortar : 11
IS cost per mortar : 45

They technically already paid the 40 points for the squad adding 5 points for a mortar isn't a big deal. Honestly I was thinking a 50 point IS with a Mortar and grenade launcher seems sweet.

While not as strong or having the extended range Guard can replace a 33 point mortar HWT with Grenade launcher special weapon Team for 39 points. its still 3d6 however only S3 frag but it is flexible enough to have 3 S6 Krak doing D3 wounds. not a bad trade off.

No? Grenade Launchers are crap, they're not remotely worth the points, considering that their fire output is matched by Guardsmen under First Rank Fire Second Rank Fire.

The point of the mortars is the indirect fire property, allowing the otherwise incredibly fragile squad to hide away behind cover and keep shooting. If they're embedded in guard squads, either your 40 points to guys aren't shooting, or they targetable and you might as well have taken a harder-hitting heavy weapon.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Yeah, I’ve been struggling to see why people think melee alpha strikes are such a prevalent and terrible thing. There are very few armies that can do them, and those that can do because it’s the only way to survive. And it’s also fluffy.

Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

I am not sure what you mean. If a unit goes charging into another unit they have a chance of taking losses through Overwatch. And IF they get there and can't really hurt the targeted unit(s) those units get to swing back for another chance at causing losses. AND if the attacked unit still can't doing anything about the assaulting unit, they can fall back most likely leaving the assaulting unit out in the open and exposed to near by supporting units be attacked. If you aren't supporting your good units (i.e. have infantry near tanks, bubblewrap or no, and other infantry supporting other squads) you deserve to lose that unit as they are the weak link (just like in Chess) and your opponent picked up on that. At the same time you can't have your support too close to allow multi-charges unless that support can function in close combat or you don't mind falling back with all affected units. Finally, if you painted yourself into a corner and can't fall back, once again; you made a tactical error that good opponent will make you pay for.

I don't think I've literally ever even cared about overwatch. It can be assumed to cause negligible damage. In addition, the target's backswing can be assumed to be negligible, since the units you want to be in melee with can't fight worth a damn anyway.

In addition, the unit doing the assaulting doesn't strictly need to survive. Just getting there locks off the enemy unit from shooting unless it can fall back and shoot or FLY, so you've both disabled that tank and drawn the fire of a fair amount of the enemy force. Whether they relieve their unit bu falling back and shooting you or by counter-charging with another unit, you still locked out the charged unit.

In addition, melee generally delivers better stats/point at the drawback you have to get close, and most melee units will total whatever they get in with in a single turn, so relieving locked units with counterchargers is generally more efficient than falling back and shooting them, with the drawback that they can be avoided and they might be useless is your valuable units don't end up in melee.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

ummm....no.

There is a penalty to falling back from Close combat, but, Eldar can ignore this, flying units ignore this, Ultra Smurfs ignore this and im sure a lot more stuff ignores or limits the downside of this. Furthermore, if you have a chaff (meat shield) unit that gets assaulted all you have to do is fall back, and then blast the ever loving hell out of whatever was attacking it. It is literally one of the most basic strategies in the game. Plus, fun fact, to get into CC you have to get across the board and assault the enemy, if you aren't deep striking that means at the very least you will be subjected to 1 full round of shooting and 1 round of overwatch. My 180pts of Boyz marching up the table will get decimated before they get into CC, which is why I usually bring closer to 720-900pts worth of boyz. That works not because CC armies are better then shooting armies, but because I am relying on target overload to get into CC and hopefully kill or tie up as many of your units as possible. I have no ability to take down flyers or heavy armored targets like Land Raiders or knights, I rely on my boyz to tie them up for the entire game if possible. Shooting armies on the other hand can take down whatever they want and can start inflicting casualties turn 1.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

ummm....no.

There is a penalty to falling back from Close combat, but, Eldar can ignore this, flying units ignore this, Ultra Smurfs ignore this and im sure a lot more stuff ignores or limits the downside of this. Furthermore, if you have a chaff (meat shield) unit that gets assaulted all you have to do is fall back, and then blast the ever loving hell out of whatever was attacking it. It is literally one of the most basic strategies in the game. Plus, fun fact, to get into CC you have to get across the board and assault the enemy, if you aren't deep striking that means at the very least you will be subjected to 1 full round of shooting and 1 round of overwatch. My 180pts of Boyz marching up the table will get decimated before they get into CC, which is why I usually bring closer to 720-900pts worth of boyz. That works not because CC armies are better then shooting armies, but because I am relying on target overload to get into CC and hopefully kill or tie up as many of your units as possible. I have no ability to take down flyers or heavy armored targets like Land Raiders or knights, I rely on my boyz to tie them up for the entire game if possible. Shooting armies on the other hand can take down whatever they want and can start inflicting casualties turn 1.

Again, a "full round of overwatch" is basically harmless, Only Tau from Tau really matter.

I think you're missing my point. Flyers and units that can fall back and still retain efficiency are the only real concern, since once you get there you've shut them off for a turn.

I can run Seraphim up the board 24" and jump the guardsmen since I fly to lock out multiple tanks on the first turn. You don't have to have close combat weapons, in fact, you're better if you don't, because that means you didn't pay any points extra. You just have to be a fast warm body. I can also clear away the screen with storm bolters and send my tanks through into melee if I'm really concerned and want to shut out more than the Seraphim can. Any units I catch, unless they specifically ignore it, won't be shooting or charging on their own turn, and if they don't fall back I can to make them a target.


In addition, fast units moving up the board have to be dealt with on turn 1, so they're also drawing fire away from other, more expensive, harder-hitting units.

quentra wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

quentra wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

quentra wrote:

Ordana wrote:What sort of list do you see beating Eldar now that its top contenders got killed. Flyrants, Poxwalker horde (Faq+Agents of Vect)

I think we still haven't seen the potential of DE displayed in a tourney environment. Their codex is strong and full of unexplored synergies, and none of the FAQ stuff really affected them. Now that you can't spam $TEXAS DR and/or SS, IG gunlines are suddenly a lot more potent. Tau will give eldar forces a run for their money. CWE definitely isn't GK-tier, but it is far from accurate to say that they gained anything from the FAQs. I do think CWE are still strong, but as people have rightly pointed out, Guard, Tau, and other 'stay in one place and shoot you from across the board' armies are suddenly far, far more attractive than most of the DS-reliant strategies.

I haven't looked to much at Tau but aren't they, DE shooting and Guard heavily effected by Allaitoc's -1 to hit?
That is how Eldar pushed out Guard to begin with.

Alaitoc trait gives CWE survivability, but the trait itself wasn't enough to push IG out of the meta. (You never see people claiming RG is 'too strong' against guard, for example, even if the traits are nearly identical.) It was the trait + ridiculously powerful long-range shooting in spammed dark reapers, and even then the reapers really needed to be soulbursted in order to really get to peak effectiveness. So -1 to hit is still a retardedly strong trait (and honestly one that I think shouldn't have been printed, as it just 'feels' bad), but IG can now outweigh it with weight of dice considering the deepstriking, soulbursting reaperspam tactic that eldar relied on is illegal.

For simplicty just taking the LVO winning list. it had 3x3 reapers and 1x8. losing 3 Reapers there is not going to make or break the matchup.
They were never deepstriking them so that change does nothing.
Yeah you can't Deepstrike the Shining Spears but they have the movement to start on the table and still charge whatever they want thanks to Quicken.

I definitely think that spears and reapers are still undercosted. However, the LVO list relied very heavily on Ynnari synergy (which has been killed thanks to Battle-brothers), as well as being very heavily favored in an ITC format. You didn't see eldar domination at Adepticon, for example. Spears and reapers are still very strong units, but I would say that losing the reaper unit in the Ynnari detachment (and the ynnari detachment as a whole) is crippling for that strategy specifically, not to mention that that list was specifically tailored to ITC, and did not fare as well in other tourneys.

It didn't rely on the synergy - it just gave them a few neat tricks - the lists relied on spears and reapers - spears are still strong as ever. Expect more spears and less reapers now.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

ummm....no.

There is a penalty to falling back from Close combat, but, Eldar can ignore this, flying units ignore this, Ultra Smurfs ignore this and im sure a lot more stuff ignores or limits the downside of this. Furthermore, if you have a chaff (meat shield) unit that gets assaulted all you have to do is fall back, and then blast the ever loving hell out of whatever was attacking it. It is literally one of the most basic strategies in the game. Plus, fun fact, to get into CC you have to get across the board and assault the enemy, if you aren't deep striking that means at the very least you will be subjected to 1 full round of shooting and 1 round of overwatch. My 180pts of Boyz marching up the table will get decimated before they get into CC, which is why I usually bring closer to 720-900pts worth of boyz. That works not because CC armies are better then shooting armies, but because I am relying on target overload to get into CC and hopefully kill or tie up as many of your units as possible. I have no ability to take down flyers or heavy armored targets like Land Raiders or knights, I rely on my boyz to tie them up for the entire game if possible. Shooting armies on the other hand can take down whatever they want and can start inflicting casualties turn 1.

Again, a "full round of overwatch" is basically harmless, Only Tau from Tau really matter.

I think you're missing my point. Flyers and units that can fall back and still retain efficiency are the only real concern, since once you get there you've shut them off for a turn.

I can run Seraphim up the board 24" and jump the guardsmen since I fly to lock out multiple tanks on the first turn. You don't have to have close combat weapons, in fact, you're better if you don't, because that means you didn't pay any points extra. You just have to be a fast warm body. I can also clear away the screen with storm bolters and send my tanks through into melee if I'm really concerned and want to shut out more than the Seraphim can. Any units I catch, unless they specifically ignore it, won't be shooting or charging on their own turn, and if they don't fall back I can to make them a target.

Except as mentioned, entire armies ignore the penalty to fall back, some units and powers allow them to ignore it and you still have to deal with the screen, which I am sorry, will not die to a handful of Stormbolter shots. I dare you to remove my 30 grot squad with stormbolters. They are basically fearless with my herder near by and Orkz are sure as hell not the only army with competent Screening units.

And for overwatch, its a free shooting round at less BS. Do I get a free CC round when you run away? or when you shoot at me?

SemperMortis wrote:


Except as mentioned, entire armies ignore the penalty to fall back, some units and powers allow them to ignore it and you still have to deal with the screen, which I am sorry, will not die to a handful of Stormbolter shots. I dare you to remove my 30 grot squad with stormbolters. They are basically fearless with my herder near by and Orkz are sure as hell not the only army with competent Screening units.

That's what snipers and sniper spells are for - 3 or 4 wound support characters.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
The point of the mortars is the indirect fire property

Thanks, I would have never figured it out.

I use grenade launchers and they work just fine I have never said wow that 5 points was worthless.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


Except as mentioned, entire armies ignore the penalty to fall back, some units and powers allow them to ignore it and you still have to deal with the screen, which I am sorry, will not die to a handful of Stormbolter shots. I dare you to remove my 30 grot squad with stormbolters. They are basically fearless with my herder near by and Orkz are sure as hell not the only army with competent Screening units.

That's what snipers and sniper spells are for - 3 or 4 wound support characters.

Alternatively, that's why the tank and the troops riding in it output 24 storm bolter shots and 2d6 heavy flamer shots, with additional fire coming in from other squads or the storm bolters on other tanks. Yes, it takes about 4x the cost of a unit to destroy it in shooting, but concentrated fire can clear a path if a path needs clearing.

Melee...too powerful?

Do you even play the same game as everyone else?

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


Except as mentioned, entire armies ignore the penalty to fall back, some units and powers allow them to ignore it and you still have to deal with the screen, which I am sorry, will not die to a handful of Stormbolter shots. I dare you to remove my 30 grot squad with stormbolters. They are basically fearless with my herder near by and Orkz are sure as hell not the only army with competent Screening units.

That's what snipers and sniper spells are for - 3 or 4 wound support characters.

Alternatively, that's why the tank and the troops riding in it output 24 storm bolter shots and 2d6 heavy flamer shots, with additional fire coming in from other squads or the storm bolters on other tanks. Yes, it takes about 4x the cost of a unit to destroy it in shooting, but concentrated fire can clear a path if a path needs clearing.

Few things,

1: 24 Storm bolter shots against an Ork grot unit = about 11-13 Dead grotz, unless they are in cover. 2D6 Heavy flamer shots = an additional 5-6 dead Grotz, At most you have killed 19 out of the 30 I have infront of you, and I can easily kill off the right ones to shield my unit your trying to get at. So my cheap, throwaway screening unit just took 200-300pts worth of shooting (i don't know SoB that well) and are still alive and ready to be annoying.

2: So you didn't get into CC on turn 2 ( you couldn't have pulled that trick off turn 1 anyway because Deep striking happened before shooting and after movement, so now you are stranded in no mans land getting shot at again for a 3rd turn. YAY screening units work and stop assault armies on foot. Now if you deep struck you could always assault that Screen unit, but then again that is what I would want you to do because then I can just counter charge OR have my grotz fall back and shoot the piss out of you.

3: for the sniper comment, good luck drawing LOS to my herder who is guarding a screening unit.

Close Combat is not over powered. There is a wicked inherent risk in close combat and even turn 1 alpha strike close combat. I use 90 Kommandos in 6 squads backed up by 30 boyz jumped into range. Even with my army wide reroll for charge you are looking at a lower then 50% success rate for charges, and leaving my kommandos out in the open because they failed a charge is basically giving you first blood and a free kill, and at 9ppm they aren't cheap enough to throw away like boyz are. And trust me, it doesn't take 4x as many points to liquefy my Kommandos out in the open, T4 6+ save.

CC is inherently risky, a lot more so then ranged combat which is just point click destroy. But since we invalidate your shooting options people don't like it.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Yeah, I’ve been struggling to see why people think melee alpha strikes are such a prevalent and terrible thing. There are very few armies that can do them, and those that can do because it’s the only way to survive. And it’s also fluffy.

Close combat is way more powerful than shooting.

Very much disagree with this statement.

Melee has to get there first.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Melee...too powerful?

Do you even play the same game as everyone else?

I think what they are trying to say is that melle can do more damage in 1 turn that shooting can - in a lot of cases that is true. The balance between shooting and CC is an always will be epic fail - range warfare killed off melle for a reason. There are fundamental problems melle has to get around to be useful. The ability to deepstrike and charge with a 50% chance or less was actually pretty good at replicating a balanced situation....and they removed it....

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Melee...too powerful?

Do you even play the same game as everyone else?

I think what they are trying to say is that melle can do more damage in 1 turn that shooting can - in a lot of cases that is true. The balance between shooting and CC is an always will be epic fail - range warfare killed off melle for a reason. There are fundamental problems melle has to get around to be useful. The ability to deepstrike and charge with a 50% chance or less was actually pretty good at replicating a balanced situation....and they removed it....

That would be because we have more gunline armies then we do pure CC armies. Which is why they got rid of it. Hey that is fine, weaken CC, just buff the ever loving crap out of my ranged Ork units to compensate, because as it stands I have KMKs and that is it for ranged shooting worth taking.

quentra wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:

quentra wrote:
Eldar had farseers, locks, and reapers go up in points (and be restricted!) Eldar guardian bomb is a turn 2 tactic now and no good way to protect your guys if you're going t2 aside from being Alaitoc. How did eldar get better again?

They also have a rule that makes Soup armies legal for them through the Ynnari leaders.

Index: Xenos 1 Page 76 – Army of the Reborn ‘If your army is Battle-forged and the Warlord of your army is either Yvraine, the Visarch or the Yncarne then you can include any of these models in any Craftworlds, Harlequins or Drukhari Detachment (as defined in their respective codexes)

That rule is supersceded by the new Battle-Brothers rule, so AFAIK you can't run a battalion of Yvraine, Incubi, and Reapers anymore

Well since the bit I quoted is from the same FAQ, I would say that it overrides that rule. It is actually listed on the "Summary and Beta" page under Related Erratta below the Battle Brothers Rule along with the bits about Assassins and other Imperium units.

. You can include these models in the Detachment even if you are using the Battle Brothers matched play rule.

Referring specifically to the 3 models in the Triumverate. The rest of the very same rule makes it clear that the detatchment must be Craftworlder, Harliquin, or DE. The 'these models' is only referring to the 3 explicitly listed.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

ummm....no.

There is a penalty to falling back from Close combat, but, Eldar can ignore this, flying units ignore this, Ultra Smurfs ignore this and im sure a lot more stuff ignores or limits the downside of this. Furthermore, if you have a chaff (meat shield) unit that gets assaulted all you have to do is fall back, and then blast the ever loving hell out of whatever was attacking it. It is literally one of the most basic strategies in the game. Plus, fun fact, to get into CC you have to get across the board and assault the enemy, if you aren't deep striking that means at the very least you will be subjected to 1 full round of shooting and 1 round of overwatch. My 180pts of Boyz marching up the table will get decimated before they get into CC, which is why I usually bring closer to 720-900pts worth of boyz. That works not because CC armies are better then shooting armies, but because I am relying on target overload to get into CC and hopefully kill or tie up as many of your units as possible. I have no ability to take down flyers or heavy armored targets like Land Raiders or knights, I rely on my boyz to tie them up for the entire game if possible. Shooting armies on the other hand can take down whatever they want and can start inflicting casualties turn 1.

Again, a "full round of overwatch" is basically harmless, Only Tau from Tau really matter.

I think you're missing my point. Flyers and units that can fall back and still retain efficiency are the only real concern, since once you get there you've shut them off for a turn.

I can run Seraphim up the board 24" and jump the guardsmen since I fly to lock out multiple tanks on the first turn. You don't have to have close combat weapons, in fact, you're better if you don't, because that means you didn't pay any points extra. You just have to be a fast warm body. I can also clear away the screen with storm bolters and send my tanks through into melee if I'm really concerned and want to shut out more than the Seraphim can. Any units I catch, unless they specifically ignore it, won't be shooting or charging on their own turn, and if they don't fall back I can to make them a target.


In addition, fast units moving up the board have to be dealt with on turn 1, so they're also drawing fire away from other, more expensive, harder-hitting units.

That's a very specific amount of units you are talking about. Most armies do not have access to hyper fast first turn charge units. Deep strike was their only reliable method to get into close combat without being turned into Swiss cheese.

If you want to see a lopsided game, play an army that has no ranged capabilities and fight it against another army which is all shooting with these rules and then tell me if the tactical reserves rule should be added.

You will only see the true disproportion of this rule when you see it in it's extreme.

With armies that have a decent amount of melee and ranged this isn't much of a problem. It's when you get into CC focused armies or factions that only deal in CC that you start to see the cracks in this rule.

And BTW, you might be saying overwatch is not that great. Tell that to the unit that is popping out 90 shots at the target before they get to charge and then tell me that shooting needs a buff.

(If your wondering which unit im talking about. 30 squad of pink horrors with a herald gives you 90 Shots at Str 4, 1 dmg each. at 18" range, it's bloody ridiculous, add on flickring flames and it's wounding Marines on 3's. It's seriously messed up how strong their shooting is

You mean like my Ork Horde which has 5' movement, no transports worth taking for Boyz (our only useful unit) and one unit that is useful at shooting (KMK Mek Gunz)

my army is unnecessarily slow, weak against vehicles and apparently now has to walk into gunlines since alpha strike is banned.

SemperMortis wrote:
You mean like my Ork Horde which has 5' movement, no transports worth taking for Boyz (our only useful unit) and one unit that is useful at shooting (KMK Mek Gunz)

my army is unnecessarily slow, weak against vehicles and apparently now has to walk into gunlines since alpha strike is banned.

Sounds like the ork way of doing things, to me!

being the NPC race and allowing everyone to feel good blasting us off the table?

SemperMortis wrote:
being the NPC race and allowing everyone to feel good blasting us off the table?

There's only like 350 quintillion more of you guys to kill... so, yeah. I mean, someone has to fill that role. Look at the service you're doing for the community

SemperMortis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Melee...too powerful?

Do you even play the same game as everyone else?

I think what they are trying to say is that melle can do more damage in 1 turn that shooting can - in a lot of cases that is true. The balance between shooting and CC is an always will be epic fail - range warfare killed off melle for a reason. There are fundamental problems melle has to get around to be useful. The ability to deepstrike and charge with a 50% chance or less was actually pretty good at replicating a balanced situation....and they removed it....

That would be because we have more gunline armies then we do pure CC armies. Which is why they got rid of it. Hey that is fine, weaken CC, just buff the ever loving crap out of my ranged Ork units to compensate, because as it stands I have KMKs and that is it for ranged shooting worth taking.

Orks have kind of always been a shooting army - at least IMO. In 4th my friend would blow my marines off the table with rocket spam. Then in 5th it was lootas in battle waggons. Not saying they were exceptionally strong or anything - just that they have always had great shooting options.

I think when they get a codex - they just need a rule that they always hit on 5's and they will be a great shooting army.

IMO it would've been a lot better if problematic deepstrikers (Plasma Scions, Slaanesh Oblits etc.) would have gotten a price hike or were otherwise nerfed/ restricted. Now every unit that relied on 1st turn deepstrikes to be viable (viable, not broken) is gutted and gunlines have gotten a big and unneccessary buff, there were plenty of ways to screen a gunline from deepstrikers.

Pandabeer wrote:
IMO it would've been a lot better if problematic deepstrikers (Plasma Scions, Slaanesh Oblits etc.) would have gotten a price hike or were otherwise nerfed/ restricted. Now every unit that relied on 1st turn deepstrikes to be viable (viable, not broken) is gutted and gunlines have gotten a big and unneccessary buff, there were plenty of ways to screen a gunline from deepstrikers.

I wonder how much a lot of this would be fixed if terrain actually gave a proper cover save like in 7th instead of making it so AP weapons just chew through armor and the +1 you get from cover. Deepstrike plasma was always less effective when that AP2 was meet with a 4+ ruins save.

Pandabeer wrote:
IMO it would've been a lot better if problematic deepstrikers (Plasma Scions, Slaanesh Oblits etc.) would have gotten a price hike or were otherwise nerfed/ restricted. Now every unit that relied on 1st turn deepstrikes to be viable (viable, not broken) is gutted and gunlines have gotten a big and unneccessary buff, there were plenty of ways to screen a gunline from deepstrikers.

Yeah I agree - it's pretty obvious to me. Lot of people on Dakka don't think you can balance the game with points though - I'm sure there is an equal majority in basically every other 40k community too. They for some reason prefer blanket "solutions" which end up just making lots of problems.

Just adjusting points costs is playing WAAC-a-mole. As soon as you adjust the points of one undercosted unit, the meta will just move to the next undercosted unit. Ideally, there wouldn't be any undercosted units, but that's not a realistic expectation in a game as big and diverse as 40k. You have to adjust mechanics along with points, which is what they're trying to do.

 EnTyme wrote:
Just adjusting points costs is playing WAAC-a-mole. As soon as you adjust the points of one undercosted unit, the meta will just move to the next undercosted unit. Ideally, there wouldn't be any undercosted units, but that's not a realistic expectation in a game as big and diverse as 40k.

Sure, but there is such thing as 'close enough.'

You have to adjust mechanics along with points, which is what they're trying to do.

Then adjust the mechanics of the units that are actually the problem! I though that was one of the selling points of not having universal special rules that doing so was possible...

 EnTyme wrote:
Just adjusting points costs is playing WAAC-a-mole. As soon as you adjust the points of one undercosted unit, the meta will just move to the next undercosted unit. Ideally, there wouldn't be any undercosted units, but that's not a realistic expectation in a game as big and diverse as 40k. You have to adjust mechanics along with points, which is what they're trying to do.

Point is that the deepstrike change is WAAC-a-mole on a game system scale instead of a unit scale. The only thing this will achieve is shifting the meta from alpha strike to gunlines while leaving armies that had non-broken deepstrikers in the gutter. All hail the Guilliman Parking Lot once more I suppose.

Pandabeer wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Just adjusting points costs is playing WAAC-a-mole. As soon as you adjust the points of one undercosted unit, the meta will just move to the next undercosted unit. Ideally, there wouldn't be any undercosted units, but that's not a realistic expectation in a game as big and diverse as 40k. You have to adjust mechanics along with points, which is what they're trying to do.

Point is that the deepstrike change is WAAC-a-mole on a game system scale instead of a unit scale. The only thing this will achieve is shifting the meta from alpha strike to gunlines while leaving armies that had non-broken deepstrikers in the gutter. All hail the Guilliman Parking Lot once more I suppose.

Probably intended. Can't have the Primaris and the posterboy be bad, can we?

Wayniac wrote:

Probably intended. Can't have the Primaris and the posterboy be bad, can we?

Umm... they're pretty bad. Marine armies are really struggling now.

Guilliman price bumb was a good thing though. Sooner people stop using him, sooner the true extent of Marine weakness becomes apparent, and we might finally get some actual fixes.

Wayniac wrote:

Pandabeer wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Just adjusting points costs is playing WAAC-a-mole. As soon as you adjust the points of one undercosted unit, the meta will just move to the next undercosted unit. Ideally, there wouldn't be any undercosted units, but that's not a realistic expectation in a game as big and diverse as 40k. You have to adjust mechanics along with points, which is what they're trying to do.

Point is that the deepstrike change is WAAC-a-mole on a game system scale instead of a unit scale. The only thing this will achieve is shifting the meta from alpha strike to gunlines while leaving armies that had non-broken deepstrikers in the gutter. All hail the Guilliman Parking Lot once more I suppose.

Probably intended. Can't have the Primaris and the posterboy be bad, can we?

They nerfed Guilliman again in this FAQ, so... I can't say for sure, but you might be jumping to conclusions with that conspiracy theory there.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Pandabeer wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Just adjusting points costs is playing WAAC-a-mole. As soon as you adjust the points of one undercosted unit, the meta will just move to the next undercosted unit. Ideally, there wouldn't be any undercosted units, but that's not a realistic expectation in a game as big and diverse as 40k. You have to adjust mechanics along with points, which is what they're trying to do.

Point is that the deepstrike change is WAAC-a-mole on a game system scale instead of a unit scale. The only thing this will achieve is shifting the meta from alpha strike to gunlines while leaving armies that had non-broken deepstrikers in the gutter. All hail the Guilliman Parking Lot once more I suppose.

Probably intended. Can't have the Primaris and the posterboy be bad, can we?

They nerfed Guilliman again in this FAQ, so... I can't say for sure, but you might be jumping to conclusions with that conspiracy theory there.

He got a whole 15 points more expensive? In the meanwhile everything that he gives his massive reroll bubble to has gotten a huge buff because they don't have to worry about turn 1 deepstrikers anymore.

edit: I don't mean to say I'm a conspiracy theorist here but it's undeniable that gunline armies have gotten a large buff and the Guilliman Parking Lot is just a prime example of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Probably intended. Can't have the Primaris and the posterboy be bad, can we?

Umm... they're pretty bad. Marine armies are really struggling now.

Guilliman price bumb was a good thing though. Sooner people stop using him, sooner the true extent of Marine weakness becomes apparent, and we might finally get some actual fixes.

Guess that's fair enough as well (well, besides Raven Guard with their -1 to hit and infiltrate) but with the buff gunlines have gotten Girlyman indirectly got a much bigger buff than a 15 point cost increase can ever hope to offset.

No marine gunline can compete with IG gunline.