I know, we should wait and see how the meta evolves with the new changes.

But I'm just curious what people think about it at first glance or after they already discussed it elsewhere.

Of course there are people who are in between yes and no, those who would change DS to xyz. But that's not an option right now as our feedback to GW mostly revolves around keeping it or not.

I voted tentatively yes. I'm mentally working through it still though.

Lets play with it for a while before we start saying yes and no. These kinds of polls are really too early as the changes are too early to say.

This thread would be better in August, when we've actually had time to play with the beta rules. You know, beta test them.

No.

Why the feth should CC armies be penalized an entire round; which by the way, allows the enemy to move its screens foward, meaning you're that much further from the juicy targets; while shooting gets ZERO penalty?

Complete removal of CC
vs
No penalty to shooting+wider screen deployment

Feels fair man.

Yes, of course it is premature, but I'm interested in the opinions as they developed throughout the day.

I'm just really worried the change is an unecessary (huge) buff to gunlines and melee armies hot inherently worse. They have to endure even more shooting than before and gunlines can extend their screens.

It just doesn't seem balancing at all to me - more like a heavy shift to an even shootier meta

I love how the deepstrike change is just only seen as something for CC armies.

Like if the strongest armies that use deepstrike as their best tool werent actually shooting armies!

Definately too early for a poll, I play both, shooty and melee armies, and this might be a good way, since melee armies have dominated most of the games. It actually does not nerf melee armies that much, because, if the shooty list is built correctly those melee forces would be hitting screens anyway at first turn.

 Galas wrote:
I love how the deepstrike change is just only seen as something for CC armies.

Like if the strongest armies that use deepstrike as their best tool werent actually shooting armies!

I agree. Outsides of factions that had something like warptime you weren't charging, but you could unload all your guns.

 Galas wrote:
I love how the deepstrike change is just only seen as something for CC armies.

Like if the strongest armies that use deepstrike as their best tool werent actually shooting armies!

It's definitely both. That guy dropping 9 (or 18!) Obliterators won't be too happy about this either.

Yes. No more deploying directly into melee/rapid fire plasma range on turn 1. Short ranged units now have to care about the drawback of short range.

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes. No more deploying directly into melee/rapid fire plasma range on turn 1. Short ranged units now have to care about the drawback of short range.

Now I'll feel less stupid for using tempestus scions without plasma and inside taurox primes!

It's a big change, but probably a good one. I think it puts some emphasis back on long range firepower and on transports (particularly for assault units), which had generally been eclipsed by the safer and generally faster deepstriking alternatives.

"How will CC work now that we can't deepstrike on turn 1 and we need to use transport to reach CC!"


I love how people complaint about how toxic the game is but then, instead of asking for a fix to the dominance of alpha strike shooting and gunlines that comes from nerfing it, people is happy with having meele just as toxic and alpha-strikey as shooting.

And then, people complaint that the game is decided by a coin flip based in who goes first.

 Galas wrote:
"How will CC work now that we can't deepstrike on turn 1 and we need to use transport to reach CC!"


I love how people complaint about how toxic the game is but then, instead of asking for a fix to the dominance of alpha strike shooting and gunlines that comes from nerfing it, people is happy with having meele just as toxic and alpha-strikey as shooting.

And then, people complaint that the game is decided by a coin flip based in who goes first.

This about sums up my feelings. It's also funny how deepstrike melee was never that reliable outside of stratagems and shenanigans, meanwhile plasma scions were ALWAYS able to lay down the hurt.

Could be a good change but nothing has been done to blunt gunline alpha strikes. It will shift the meta but probably into a more ranged favored game but cover rules are still lacking in this edition.

Some of the comments here are a bit short sighted:

Saying "just use transports" doesn't make anyone feel better. Most transports suck and are over priced taxes. When players were able to get into combat effectively without them, the whole list was drastically improved because you picked up an additional 300 points in "good stuff." You've now effectively lost that 300 points.

Also the nerf to deep strike for CC armies is two-fold. Yes the rule in-and-of-itself will push more gunlines into the meta. But when you take it in conjunction with units standing on a second floor ledge being unchargeable, or even standing on crates, why would anyone bring a CC army to a competitive game? The competitive scene will be dominated by gunlines because competitive players max/min, and gunlines are now always max, it's that simple.

I'm all for those Deepstrike beta rules - this will add more counter play besides "Just add more screens".

What it wont do though is stop turn 1 alpha strikes - those still exist. This a small stop-gap and we need to see ALL defensive options improved (ie cover rules)

I would keep the nerf, but then consolidate the anti-alpha by adding either a cover save for all units starting on the board OR add -1 to hit for any weapons firing at greater than 24". Or something along those lines to mitigate the shooty alpha.

My gut says that the deepstrike nerfs will cause more problems than they solve. Generally, I can use fodder to keep enemy deepstrikers at a distance. My options for meaningfully interacting with enemy gunlines without deepstrikers or my own gunline are more limited.

Currently, I typically don't field a lot of dark reapers, preferring to diversify with things like deepstriking fire dragons or optimistic swooping hawks/scorpions (that charge in and tie things up). These changes have me wanting to start spamming dark reapers because I know they'll be able to engage my opponent right off the bat.

Vilehydra wrote:
I would keep the nerf, but then consolidate the anti-alpha by adding either a cover save for all units starting on the board OR add -1 to hit for any weapons firing at greater than 24". Or something along those lines to mitigate the shooty alpha.

-1 to hit mechanics disporportionaly hurt units like Ork lootas way more than say Space Marine Devs. Blanket rules like to hit modifiers tend to just throw more instability into the game balance mix. A type of cover save that isnt negated by AP would help dampen long range alpha strike armies but I don't know if the core rules can make that work without it breaking at another point.

 peteralmo wrote:
Some of the comments here are a bit short sighted:

Saying "just use transports" doesn't make anyone feel better. Most transports suck and are over priced taxes. When players were able to get into combat effectively without them, the whole list was drastically improved because you picked up an additional 300 points in "good stuff." You've now effectively lost that 300 points.

Yeah, the game is so much better when nobody needs to actually move and we just put our units where we want in turn 1, roll dice, and end the game.

Gun-lines are toxic, I absolutely agree. The dominance of alpha striking shooting is toxic. I agree. But deepstriking meele armies are just as bad for the health of the game. I can't agree with that as an option. Meele units should rely on transports, or foostloging if they are hordes, something that needs a minimun of imput from the player.

I agree. This change will make inmovile gun-lines stronger. But one problem at a time.

With this DS change we fix alpha striking meele armies that don't move, and alpha striking shooting lists like Slaanesh Obliterators, Tempestus Scions with plasma spam, etc, etc... and thats a very good thing in my list of changes I wante from this FAQ.

Tentatively no. I think a more nuanced solution is in order. Truthfully, I so rarely play that it barely matters, but I’m theoretically annoyed with the proposed change.

 Galas wrote:
"How will CC work now that we can't deepstrike on turn 1 and we need to use transport to reach CC!"


I love how people complaint about how toxic the game is but then, instead of asking for a fix to the dominance of alpha strike shooting and gunlines that comes from nerfing it, people is happy with having meele just as toxic and alpha-strikey as shooting.

And then, people complaint that the game is decided by a coin flip based in who goes first.

It'd be fine if shooting had gottent the same kind of nerf. But as of right now, IG gunline are totally unaffected, and get 1 to 2 free turn to move into position before being threathen by any melee / deepstrike threat.
Leman russ spam is still possible.
Artillery still shoot as good without needing LoS.

But in exchange, at least blood angels can't charge turn 1, that's super healthy for the game and will totally not shift the meta toward IG gunline even more

No, unless 1st turn gunline Alpha is also addressed in some way.

this is just going to nerf every army that relies on DS into the ground, and make it so that guard and eldar are the top cheese and gunlines are the way to play. If you can't do a good gunline or skitter across the board in one turn, you're trash after this change. It'll effectively nerf grey knights into unplayability, slit the wrists of every viable melee build, and sucker punch chaos space marines, all armies that don't need this kinda hurt.

I was thinking about running crisis suits or vespids in my tau, but I guess I'll just throw in a third riptide now and set up camp even harder. I'll also go ahead and just leave my grey knights on the shelf, I can't even dream of doing anything useful with them on the board.

Also, the reason why people only think about this in terms of CC is because shooty armies just won't run deep strike and will take more lascannons or something that'll poke you from across the board turn one. Melee armies however lose the only gimmick that made them sorta work.

 bullyboy wrote:
No, unless 1st turn gunline Alpha is also addressed in some way.

Los blocking terrain works for that.

Avragecommisar wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
No, unless 1st turn gunline Alpha is also addressed in some way.

Los blocking terrain works for that.

So you can hide your entire army behind terrain? how about 1/2 of it?

 Jaxler wrote:

Avragecommisar wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
No, unless 1st turn gunline Alpha is also addressed in some way.

Los blocking terrain works for that.

So you can hide your entire army behind terrain? how about 1/2 of it?

And even if you get lucky and have a board where you can do that, you're still sacrificing board control and probably some VP to do so.

As A Blood Angel Player I have no problem with the beta rules.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
As A Blood Angel Player I have no problem with the beta rules.

As a grey knights player, I'm mortified. They basically took us out back and shot us in the head.

I think it's a positive change as someone who'll be affected by the rules (my destroyers will have to come in on turn 2 from now on), though I'm worried that it might make static gunlines too strong without first turn aggression keeping them in check. We'll have to see if Guard and Tau light up the leaderboards.

 Jaxler wrote:

Avragecommisar wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
No, unless 1st turn gunline Alpha is also addressed in some way.

Los blocking terrain works for that.

So you can hide your entire army behind terrain? how about 1/2 of it?

Are you not deep striking? You only need to totally hide some right. Perhaps grab some cover for the others. I get what you're saying but where I play rarely does someone lose half or more of their army to turn 1 shooting. But it may be different for you.

Solves nothing. The only way to truly deal with alpha strikes is to fundamentally change the game from IGOUGO to Alternating activations. But that’s probably too much. Either way, this is a poor badly thought out solution. Instead target specific units that abuse this and address gun lines. Bye GK!

Avragecommisar wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
No, unless 1st turn gunline Alpha is also addressed in some way.

Los blocking terrain works for that.

Manticore and Basilisk say Hi!

VoidSempai wrote:

Avragecommisar wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
No, unless 1st turn gunline Alpha is also addressed in some way.

Los blocking terrain works for that.

Manticore and Basilisk say Hi!

As does anything that can see even half of one model in your squad. There is no LOS blocking terrain that can cover everything.

Nope, and I don't really think there's a need to "wait and see" on a rule that is so obviously unbalanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Avragecommisar wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
No, unless 1st turn gunline Alpha is also addressed in some way.

Los blocking terrain works for that.

This comment makes zero sense given how LoS works in this edition. Unless it was a flying unit, any piece of terrain large and solid enough to block LoS would also effecrively remove the unit from the game for several turns while they maneuvered around it.

JFC the whining. Melee worked fine in previous editions when you couldn't charge out of deep strike at all. Now you can, but it isn't enough because you can't deploy directly into melee on turn 1 and turn the game into a CCG.

 Peregrine wrote:
JFC the whining. Melee worked fine in previous editions when you couldn't charge out of deep strike at all. Now you can, but it isn't enough because you can't deploy directly into melee on turn 1 and turn the game into a CCG.

Please, do regale me with tales of melee working fine in 7th Ed.

Let's be real guys, this nerf (or some iteration of it) is the first step to reducing alpha strike. Will it need something more later? Maybe. But for now it's a step in the right direction.

Also, anybody complaining about gunline dominance just needs more terrain. Y'all should be fighting in dense urban environments, or dense jungle, or canyons or anything that involves LOS blocking terrain every 6" of board.

 Kopy wrote:
I know, we should wait and see how the meta evolves with the new changes.

But I'm just curious what people think about it at first glance or after they already discussed it elsewhere.

Of course there are people who are in between yes and no, those who would change DS to xyz. But that's not an option right now as our feedback to GW mostly revolves around keeping it or not.

Only if they also nerf turn 1 shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:
Let's be real guys, this nerf (or some iteration of it) is the first step to reducing alpha strike. Will it need something more later? Maybe. But for now it's a step in the right direction.

Also, anybody complaining about gunline dominance just needs more terrain. Y'all should be fighting in dense urban environments, or dense jungle, or canyons or anything that involves LOS blocking terrain every 6" of board.

What about "that guy" who throws a tantrum accusing you of cheating him of victory, because he can only win if his 20 dark reapers can see your whole army turn 1 ?

Gunlines were not competitive before this change, seriously go look at any big even results and find me a static gunline.

Spoiler: You will find only Dark Reapers, and guess what happened to them and to Eldar in general?

Let's not assume that AM got out of this unscathed, because they didn't, they lost their top builds as much as everyone else. Spamming artillery with infantry screening is NOT an AM top build. Spamming artillery with infantry screening AND complement it with a mobile element, be it scions drops or some Blood Angels, THAT is the AM top build, and guess what happened to that?

Sure, they still have some nice lists, and could be the top faction now, but it's too early to tell.

Dandelion wrote:
Let's be real guys, this nerf (or some iteration of it) is the first step to reducing alpha strike. Will it need something more later? Maybe. But for now it's a step in the right direction.

Also, anybody complaining about gunline dominance just needs more terrain. Y'all should be fighting in dense urban environments, or dense jungle, or canyons or anything that involves LOS blocking terrain every 6" of board.

This change hurts less the units that were problem than units that weren't problem.

And 8th ed made sure LOS blocking is bloody hard. Not all can make pretty terrain and say GW's own ruins have all those windows etc making LOS blocking useless with them.

ohmehgerd, the 'more terrain' argument again?

Those who say 'relax, it's targetting the shooting DS alphastrike' - no it's not. That could have been done quite neatly; 'any unit that DS's in turn one suffers -1 modifiers to hit and wound in the shooting phase.'

Let's say for simplicity that there are three stratagies: Gunline, Deepstrike Guns and Deepstrike Melee. A proposed change nerfs the third (weakest of the three), nerfs half the second (Reapers are happy DS'ing into their own zone on turn 1), while leaving the first, already dominant, strategy, untouched. How can that be a good call?

The proposed change, crucially, hits weak units and armies the hardest. Stronger rosters can accomodate with, you guessed it, more guns. Weaker rosters or units don't have the same flexibility. So not only does the proposal highly reward more guns-in-a-row, it punishes not-guns-in-a-row.

And Spoletta: AM have the valk, the only transport in the game that can reliably deliver CC units into melee turn 1. My heart does not weep for my AM brethren... The change also disproportionately boosts 'movemovemove!' orders - you can have your deepstrike denial utterly sown up for turn 2 as a guard player. bare bones infantry squads zooming up the board to form a denial bubble reaching into the opponent's half of the board (whilst now generating more CPs) will become very common now.

It is a terrible idea, in short, that seems to be supported by vets, because earlier editions had the same kind of rule. But 8th is a very diferent beast.

 grouchoben wrote:
ohmehgerd, the 'more terrain' argument again?

Those who say 'relax, it's targetting the shooting DS alphastrike' - no it's not. That could have been done quite neatly; 'any unit that DS's in turn one suffers -1 modifiers to hit and wound in the shooting phase.'

Let's say for simplicity that there are three stratagies: Gunline, Deepstrike Guns and Deepstrike Melee. A proposed change nerfs the last two, leaving the first, already dominant, strategy, untouched. How can that be a good call?

The proposed change, crucially, hits weak units and armies the hardest. Stronger rosters can accomodate with, you guessed it, more guns. Weaker rosters or units don't have the same flexibility. So not only does the proposal highly reward more guns-in-a-row, it punishes not-guns-in-a-row.

And Spoletta: AM have the valk, the only transport in the game that can reliably deliver CC units into melee turn 1. My heart does not weep for my AM brethren...

Top of that deep strike gun didn't get hit nearly as much as deep strike melee. Yes T2 arrival is bit of a bummer but then again that was time to time tactical choice already...And while say IG is hurt bit by T2 arrival the enemy often gets hurt MORE so it actually helps them.

At least Valk is struggling to get useful h2h units inside. Makes that bit more bearable.

Rather ironic. I'm just about getting my orks 8th ed playable stage and they get hit by nerfbat while my IG got big boost GW REALLY wants me to play IG eh?

You have to stop the arms race somewhere and this seems a good start. They can nerf gun lines as it becomes necessary.

Tyel wrote:
You have to stop the arms race somewhere and this seems a good start. They can nerf gun lines as it becomes necessary.

If they want to start with one and fix other later they started with wrong one...And even this fix would have been better off putting in line the offending units which were minority of units this affects.

 meleti wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I love how the deepstrike change is just only seen as something for CC armies.

Like if the strongest armies that use deepstrike as their best tool werent actually shooting armies!

It's definitely both. That guy dropping 9 (or 18!) Obliterators won't be too happy about this either.

You mean those Obliterators with the 24" gun that can sit for one more turn as necessary?

This literally only hits Scion drops and that's it. And they're cheap enough you don't care!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 meleti wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I love how the deepstrike change is just only seen as something for CC armies.

Like if the strongest armies that use deepstrike as their best tool werent actually shooting armies!

It's definitely both. That guy dropping 9 (or 18!) Obliterators won't be too happy about this either.

You mean those Obliterators with the 24" gun that can sit for one more turn as necessary?

This literally only hits Scion drops and that's it. And they're cheap enough you don't care!

Yeah, Oblits are still great units. My point was that Oblits were a very powerful deep striking shooting unit, not that Oblits were totally unplayable or anything like that.

It does hit the Oblits though, because any time you've got a serious portion of your list like 9 Oblits stuck in reserves for a turn, that's a lot of your points that many games you'd rather deploy turn 1 and get an extra turn of shooting from.

Apart from my Gk crying on the shelf, this hits the most cc armies as they won’t be able to charge turn one.
Shooty deep strikes are still viable because of the gun they are using (anyone using melta deep strikes anymore?) , the only downside is that you want always be in range to rapid fire that juicy unit with you plasma .
Also is anyone that scared of turn one charges from deep strike( even alpha legion berserkers)?

I think this will be interesting to see how it plays out, and I believe it has to be played out so we can see how it fares and report the results to GW. Also, if it ends up being horribly imbalanced I believe tourneys will skip the rule as it is a beta rule after all. It is literally something GW is testing to see if it is viable or not.

Anything that brings Power Level to matched play can go soak their fat head.

What if we keep the new DS rules and instead make it so that Drop Pods and Tyrannocytes have the ability to DS outside your deployment zone turn 1. Would suddenly make the units fill a stronger niche and perhaps even be worth their points.

 Nighttail wrote:
What if we keep the new DS rules and instead make it so that Drop Pods and Tyrannocytes have the ability to DS outside your deployment zone turn 1. Would suddenly make the units fill a stronger niche and perhaps even be worth their points.

That would make sense but there would be still the problem for certain armies who really relie on that deep strike
Then again until it is play tested it’s probably early to condemn this beta rule

I voted no. In principle I agree with the idea of minimising the first turn charge. However this solution on its own just empowers first turn shooting. Which was already a bigger issue than the first turn charge. I've advocated for a while that they should not make all deep strike within 9", but instead offer different distances (with drop pods being the closest). By default I'd go with 18". There already are many advantages to being able to deploy reactively (and stay safe off the board).

If the deep strike rules came with some kind of anti-shooting rule, like nightfight or acid rain (-1 to hit in the first turn from shooting) then maybe I'd be ok with it.

I should say that with my TS and Primaris I'm rarely deep striking and charging anyway, so it isn't a huge negative for me.

- I am kind of OK with limiting DS for the player going first. But not for the player going second. Having to withstand two shooting phases without any interaction whatsoever means an assault army can just pack up and concede when losing first turn roll.

- 50% reserves limits based on value (but points, not PL!) makes a lot of sense. I never liked filling up slots with dummy units just to fullfill an abstract rule. Now address the same thing when it comes to detachments and CPs maybe?


In past editions first turn assault was a mythical achievement very hard to pull off. But in those times, you would not lose 50% of your army every shooting phase.
Today this is the case, unless you somehow mitigate it by getting parts of the army into CC.
If vehicle rules wouldn't suck, if terrain and cover actually did something, if LOS rules were better, if the general damage output of guns wasn't as high as it is, I would LOVE to get rid of all that deep strike and have proper advancing assault armys again.
As it stands, deep strike is a crutch we need, because all the other rules are so messed up. And that's not getting addressed of course, instead they kick out the crutch and let all the already crippled armys collapse.

Deep Strike is still too strong for cost, or more precisely, it's competition is too expensive. The average deepstriker, ranged or melee, pays about 3 points for the ability. By comparison, an otherwise unarmed Rhino or Drop Pod costs 70 points, and doesn't offer as much protection.

Deep Strike needs to go up in cost, and transports need to come down.

I would also kind of like to see mass-assault armies just sort of die. Gunline armies are at least mostly fun to play against. But it floats some people's boat, and it is something different every once in a while.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Deep Strike is still too strong for cost, or more precisely, it's competition is too expensive. The average deepstriker, ranged or melee, pays about 3 points for the ability. By comparison, an otherwise unarmed Rhino or Drop Pod costs 70 points, and doesn't offer as much protection.

Deep Strike needs to go up in cost, and transports need to come down.

I would also kind of like to see mass-assault armies just sort of die. Gunline armies are at least mostly fun to play against. But it floats some people's boat, and it is something different every once in a while.

I agree with the first part. But melee is far more fun to play than shooting. Because both players actually get to interact in a melee.

CassianSol wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Deep Strike is still too strong for cost, or more precisely, it's competition is too expensive. The average deepstriker, ranged or melee, pays about 3 points for the ability. By comparison, an otherwise unarmed Rhino or Drop Pod costs 70 points, and doesn't offer as much protection.

Deep Strike needs to go up in cost, and transports need to come down.

I would also kind of like to see mass-assault armies just sort of die. Gunline armies are at least mostly fun to play against. But it floats some people's boat, and it is something different every once in a while.

I agree with the first part. But melee is far more fun to play than shooting. Because both players actually get to interact in a melee.

Really? That's pretty much the exact opposite. With shooting, movement and position is actually a relevant consideration, setting fire lanes to cover and drive the enemy away from key positions, finding lines of sight, and taking cover. Melee units ignore just about everything, and their only real sense of interactivity and control is moving away from them; and since they're fast you can't outrun them, so you either kill them or you die.

It's undeniable that being the one charging is fun because it's hilariously good to shut off 400 points of tanks with a 150 point jump squad that moved 24" on turn 1, but it is kind of stupid.

The "interaction" is a lie, because the one declaring the charge won't charge a unit he cant neuter first and can kill him if he doesn't neuter it, so it's really just a dog-and-pony show.


Assault is a useful tactical tool; because it's highly disruptive and effective [and powerful melee units can deter the harassers], but lists where the entire plan basically boils down to "go that way, kill them all" are exceptionally boring to face. There's no real interactivity, just making a show of rolling the die to see if your guardsman/sister/space marine/skitarii/tank/etc. that aren't actually going to do anything relevant by counterattacking.

With 8th ed terrain rules 2 shooting armies though basically just stand up and shoot and roll dice.

I say 'No'. But of course I haven't played with the rules yet. It seems like they are trying to fix the 'alpha strike' problem with this, but, of course, this does nothing to fix alpha strike by gunline. The DS rules were already quite nuanced in creating their own inherent defence against alpha strikes. A 9" bubble, behind which clever players positioned screening units-- it's a very viable tactical decision making process. So I think this rule punishes melee DS, punishes melee focused armies, and rewards gunline armies. Rather than slove a problem, I think this will push the meta down a road we've already travelled.

Spoletta wrote:
Gunlines were not competitive before this change, seriously go look at any big even results and find me a static gunline.

Spoiler: You will find only Dark Reapers, and guess what happened to them and to Eldar in general?

They got a slight point increase, plus massive debuff to anything threatening them (Flyrants, deep striking Guardians, Inceptors, Obliterators and Scions) on the first turn, so I'd say they are probably better off now than before. Just stick ten of them in an out of LOS Wave Serpent, disembark, move into cover, and let rip.

Yes.

They are still the strongest, most reliable DS rules 40K ever had outside of the last 8 months.

Near-auto charges on turn 1 are a stupid gimmick.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Yes.

They are still the strongest, most reliable DS rules 40K ever had outside of the last 8 months.

Near-auto charges on turn 1 are a stupid gimmick.

7th ed deep strikes were more powerful than now. Melta and flamer could shoot when they come(well melta can now but only virtually. Melta on deep strike is worthless now) and cheap chaff doesn't push you to deep strike on your table half. You can actually shock horror deep strike further than you could have walked on foot.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Yes.

They are still the strongest, most reliable DS rules 40K ever had outside of the last 8 months.

Near-auto charges on turn 1 are a stupid gimmick.

Those auto charges are chaff cleaners most of the time ( a least if the player who’s charged knows how to place his units)
The real deal in DP are shooting units not CQC ( scions anyone?) and they don’t need DP to shoot
CQC armies use DP to avoid using transports( more points where it matters) and I don’t see a CQC meta

No *cries in Grey Knight*

No, not in there current form, at this point I would rather they brought back a roll and scatter but kept the 1st turn deep strike, it’s a buff to shooting armies that wasn’t needed.

 peteralmo wrote:
But when you take it in conjunction with units standing on a second floor ledge being unchargeable, or even standing on crates, why would anyone bring a CC army to a competitive game? The competitive scene will be dominated by gunlines because competitive players max/min, and gunlines are now always max, it's that simple.

Unchargeable how? You know jump packs or units that ignore height difference (like Reivers) are a thing, yes? If they put a thin line of models on edge of platform to block conventional assault, simply charge through them and set up in the middle, done. Not to mention doing so has massive drawbacks, like not being able to fall back from combat. Do consider all the aspects of change, please, before saying fixing blatantly broken thing was a bad idea.

As for min/max, too bad GW took care of that too, with max sheet change. Maybe now we will actually see balanced, varied armies more often instead of spamming easy mode units charging from deep strike deleting half of the models on table with no possible countermeasures for most armies? I'll gladly take the DS change seeing it also means reaper/commander spam, a much bigger problem, is no longer there.

I like how through most of the game history, you couldn't deep strike in first turn, yet now slight curbing of first turn deep strike is somehow 'crippling'. Ditto with deep strike assaults, you couldn't do that either through 95% of game history but now the slightly curbed back version somehow makes CC 'unplayable'...

The problem with the poll for me:

There are actually 2 changes to deep strike.

1 We are now limited to half of our armies power total (should have been points, but that's a minor complaint)

2 We cant DS turn 1 outside our deployment zone.

I actually am in support of part 1 of the change, but part 2 i don't think was necessary.

 Irbis wrote:

Unchargeable how? You know jump packs or units that ignore height difference (like Reivers) are a thing, yes? If they put a thin line of models on edge of platform to block conventional assault, simply charge through them and set up in the middle, done. Not to mention doing so has massive drawbacks, like not being able to fall back from combat. Do consider all the aspects of change, please, before saying fixing blatantly broken thing was a bad idea.

Opponent puts up models so that you can't put up base there. Can't assault. Why worry about not being able to fall back BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BE CHARGED!

Read the FAQ. Unless your opponent is careless if he doesn't want you to assault he can make it so that you...can't....legally...charge...them.

No big deal for shooty army. Just shoot them. Imagine orks with objective on 2nd floor. That objective is basically impossible for orks.

As for min/max, too bad GW took care of that too, with max sheet change. Maybe now we will actually see balanced, varied armies more often instead of spamming easy mode units charging from deep strike deleting half of the models on table with no possible countermeasures for most armies? I'll gladly take the DS change seeing it also means reaper/commander spam, a much bigger problem, is no longer there.

Max limitations don't fix problem. They just hide but problem still exists.

 Irbis wrote:

 peteralmo wrote:
But when you take it in conjunction with units standing on a second floor ledge being unchargeable, or even standing on crates, why would anyone bring a CC army to a competitive game? The competitive scene will be dominated by gunlines because competitive players max/min, and gunlines are now always max, it's that simple.

Unchargeable how? You know jump packs or units that ignore height difference (like Reivers) are a thing, yes? If they put a thin line of models on edge of platform to block conventional assault, simply charge through them and set up in the middle, done. Not to mention doing so has massive drawbacks, like not being able to fall back from combat. Do consider all the aspects of change, please, before saying fixing blatantly broken thing was a bad idea.

As for min/max, too bad GW took care of that too, with max sheet change. Maybe now we will actually see balanced, varied armies more often instead of spamming easy mode units charging from deep strike deleting half of the models on table with no possible countermeasures for most armies? I'll gladly take the DS change seeing it also means reaper/commander spam, a much bigger problem, is no longer there.

I like how through most of the game history, you couldn't deep strike in first turn, yet now slight curbing of first turn deep strike is somehow 'crippling'. Ditto with deep strike assaults, you couldn't do that either through 95% of game history but now the slightly curbed back version somehow makes CC 'unplayable'...

Most building terrain people (and tournaments) have sends to be the GW city stuff. blocking off a 3" wide floor is doable, rendering units immune to charges until they suffer casualties.

Assault armies were also dead through most of the games history and the AP changes have made shooting significantly more powerful against 'elite' armies like space marines.

1000% yes.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Yes.

They are still the strongest, most reliable DS rules 40K ever had outside of the last 8 months.

Near-auto charges on turn 1 are a stupid gimmick.

10" is "near-auto?"

Man, I gotta buy dice where you do.

The stock rules make DS charge - or most 1st turn charges - a gamble. 9" charges without buffs is hard. Fair enough, but still didn't like it. But then they started giving out all the sweet sweet candy/special rules that make it reliable. That's when it went from annoying to stupid.

I can't really say yes or no. I don't think either is exactly right.

First, haven't playtested it yet. But it does seem heavy handed. Sure, it sucks to be GK. Or Rangers used for positioning. Or Striking Scorpions getting into position (they usually can't make a 9" charge, so to use them offensively, they probably can't charge till T3 now).

Second, I like the way they're headed, if this is just the first pass on a sweeping change to tone down alpha strikes. As has been pointed out, this really just nerfs some DS armies. Not just CC though - things like Scions take a bit of a hit here, too.

I hope in subsequent passes, it's more nuanced. Not impacting World Eaters-Dressed-As-AlphaLegion and their T1 charge is stupid. Impacting things like Drop Pods with Tacs in them is stupid (although nobody does that anymore, I'd love to have it become common where 1 podded Tac squad was commonplace - spammign pods made the game less fun, but one was fun).

However, to really do the "rule" right, it needs to not just be DS. It really needs to be a "Turn 1 doesn't kill half an army" rule. It needs to impact most Alpha Strikes - so Prisms, Reapers, Artillery, etc should all, somehow, be tuned down.

I'd also be totally fine if the restrictions were only *top* of turn 1. It is asymetric that bottom of 1 be less restricted than top of 1, but "who goes first" will always be asymetric. Restricting top of 1 but not bottom would help counterbalance that.

So I think the goal - reduce alpha strike - is definitely worth exploring. I think the rule as written will cause a lot of problems, and probably fix more than it breaks. It certainly needs iteration.

Perhaps a better rule would be something like "No top-of-1 Assaults" or "No Assaults from Deepstrike", paired with something to equally tune down top-of-1 shooting.

Bharring wrote:
The stock rules make DS charge - or most 1st turn charges - a gamble. 9" charges without buffs is hard.

10". You have to be "more than 9" away," meaning you'll need at least 10" to get within an inch.

You need to be more than 9" away to place, but you need to get within an inch, not BtB.

So I place 9.5" away the nearest model, roll a 9. If I move 9" directly towards the nearest model, I'm now 0.5" away. Within an inch. Successful charge.

A common point of confusion. THere's an FAQ that explicitly states 9", and there's also been some YMDC threads on it.

 meleti wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 meleti wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I love how the deepstrike change is just only seen as something for CC armies.

Like if the strongest armies that use deepstrike as their best tool werent actually shooting armies!

It's definitely both. That guy dropping 9 (or 18!) Obliterators won't be too happy about this either.

You mean those Obliterators with the 24" gun that can sit for one more turn as necessary?

This literally only hits Scion drops and that's it. And they're cheap enough you don't care!

Yeah, Oblits are still great units. My point was that Oblits were a very powerful deep striking shooting unit, not that Oblits were totally unplayable or anything like that.

It does hit the Oblits though, because any time you've got a serious portion of your list like 9 Oblits stuck in reserves for a turn, that's a lot of your points that many games you'd rather deploy turn 1 and get an extra turn of shooting from.

My main point is that Obliterators have a good range in their gun that, honestly, they (and Necron Destroyers under Nephrekh) weren't hit as hard as you think. The main offender hit was Plasma Scions, who are already cheap enough that leaving them in reserve isn't a big deal for an extra turn as necessary.

It's really just a hit to melee.

The stock 9" DS charge SHOULD be a gamble but is not because pretty much everything that relies on this tactic has abilities or strategems to negate this gamble.

Keep the Deep Strike rules as is, but if shooting becomes too overwhelmingly powerful (read: all gun armies dominate melee armies like in 5th) they will need to implement something... i.e. all shooting weapons are -1 to hit on T1, all weapons are half range turn one (old school night fight), or something similar.

Just need to see how it pans out. I think the DS rules are good, because alpha-striking was all that was emphasized. Plus, this now gives fast moving units a niche and use over deep strikers. Terminators do need some love, though.

Bharring wrote:
You need to be more than 9" away to place, but you need to get within an inch, not BtB.

So I place 9.5" away the nearest model, roll a 9. If I move 9" directly towards the nearest model, I'm now 0.5" away. Within an inch. Successful charge.

A common point of confusion. THere's an FAQ that explicitly states 9", and there's also been some YMDC threads on it.

Ah, you're right, I'm getting all mixed up in my head, thinking of the fact that they clarified you need 9", not 8". Mah bad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
The stock 9" DS charge SHOULD be a gamble but is not because pretty much everything that relies on this tactic has abilities or strategems to negate this gamble.

Mitigate, maybe, I don't know about negate. With Drukhari, at least, I know the best I can do for my DS CC units, like Mandrakes or Webway Wyches, is spend a CP to let them reroll the charge, giving me two chances to gamble instead of one. Don't know what CC units in other armies have going for them, though.

 auticus wrote:
The stock 9" DS charge SHOULD be a gamble but is not because pretty much everything that relies on this tactic has abilities or strategems to negate this gamble.

Oh it is very much a gamble. In my experience the average number on 3d6 is apparently 7.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The stock 9" DS charge SHOULD be a gamble but is not because pretty much everything that relies on this tactic has abilities or strategems to negate this gamble.

Oh it is very much a gamble. In my experience the average number on 3d6 is apparently 7.

Lmao. When I shoot with my Banebades I consider 12 a low number, despite also being 3d6. Dice are weird like that.

I voted no.

Deep strike is needed to protect your stuff from gunlines. Many units that could deep strike, can also be effective starting on the board, or be effective riding in a transport.

The reason these aren't options isn't because deep strike gives you this insane attack advantage, but because you absolutely cannot survive a round of full on shooting from a gunline with the stuff you want to protect.

Hive Tyrants with wings fly 16". I would ALWAYS start them on the table if they could survive my opponent's table-length shooting alpha strike. Think about it. With scout moves and screening units, a 16" move will get me way closer to my opponent than deep striking. In fact, deep striking against some lists, going second, i have HAD to land in my deployment zone, because they created such a bubble. But again, knowing this, I still elect to deep strike so i don't lose them immediately.

The Swarmlord was nerfed into oblivion. He can no longer use his ability to move units that arrived via deep strike. Now, there is no feasible way to protect genestealers should you even want to run them, and wait for the turn 2. Think about the Swarmlord - why did no one really play him competitively? Because it's not hard to deal 14 wounds to a T7 4++ model in 1 turn. If the Swarmlord had wings he would have been auto-take. Not because he needs that 9" charge (i mean get real), but because he could have been protected for 1 turn.

Give us a way to survive gunline fire. Deep strike was how i did it.

Siegfriedfr wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Let's be real guys, this nerf (or some iteration of it) is the first step to reducing alpha strike. Will it need something more later? Maybe. But for now it's a step in the right direction.

Also, anybody complaining about gunline dominance just needs more terrain. Y'all should be fighting in dense urban environments, or dense jungle, or canyons or anything that involves LOS blocking terrain every 6" of board.

What about "that guy" who throws a tantrum accusing you of cheating him of victory, because he can only win if his 20 dark reapers can see your whole army turn 1 ?

Tell him to get lost. Seriously, how is this a counter argument? "Well, some people suck so this rule sucks".

And 8th ed made sure LOS blocking is bloody hard. Not all can make pretty terrain and say GW's own ruins have all those windows etc making LOS blocking useless with them.

"Pretty" terrain is not a requirement. A couple sprays and you're done. Besides, how much time and money do people spend on models vs terrain? Terrain is a lot easier to get to tabletop standards than models. If you own 2000 pts of an army, it behooves you to spend a little money and time on terrain. Also, as far as GW terrain goes, just glue some plasticard on the windows to "board" them up, then spray paint it. And GW isn't the only company making terrain...

And when I say more terrain, I mean every square foot of board needs a large piece of LOS blocking terrain. It's not just one or two pieces, it's 20. There is no other way to nerf shooting and still have it be fair. If shooting were nerfed to the point that melee can consistently make it to the gunline with most of the models (across bare terrain), then shooting armies would be unplayable.

Well, I've voted yes.
I want a smooth game similar to 30k where both parties move forward until they get in touch.
Putting too much pressure on the enemy in first turn makes a stressful game. Not my liking.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I've voted yes.
I want a smooth game similar to 30k where both parties move forward until they get in touch.
Putting too much pressure on the enemy in first turn makes a stressful game. Not my liking.

This.

I'm holding my judgement about the effects on balance of this FAQ, there are too many changes combined. Will need at least a couple of months to really stabilize.

What i'm sure is that moving the focus of the game to turn 2 is definitely the correct decision.

Can we finally admit that in less than 12 months with a full reset, 40k 8th edition is a giant mess already?

BRING ON THE 9th EDTION DUMPSTER FIRE!

Pancakey wrote:
Can we finally admit that in less than 12 months with a full reset, 40k 8th edition is a giant mess already?

BRING ON THE 9th EDTION DUMPSTER FIRE!

Nah, I still think 8th is one of the best. I'd rather something be wonky for a few months while they try something out and then make fixes, than be wonky for years while they're busy not giving a like in 7th.

I voted yes. And I think 8th is an immensely successful ruleset.

Pancakey wrote:
Can we finally admit that in less than 12 months with a full reset, 40k 8th edition is a giant mess already?

BRING ON THE 9th EDTION DUMPSTER FIRE!

I'll still take the "giant mess" over the broken pile of garbage rotting away in an exploding trash recycling plant that 7th edition was .

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Anything that brings Power Level to matched play can go soak their fat head.

Dude it's necessary. Not everyone starts with the same things in DS each game. Being able to calculate it on the fly is HELPFUL and it won't overly penalize super elite units.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
Can we finally admit that in less than 12 months with a full reset, 40k 8th edition is a giant mess already?

BRING ON THE 9th EDTION DUMPSTER FIRE!

I'll still take the "giant mess" over the broken pile of garbage rotting away in an exploding trash recycling plant that 7th edition was .

You are taking the giant mess on the chin for sure.

7th is dead.

8th is here and its a steaming pile of meta shifting garbage.

Who would have thought that being able to place all your models anywhere on the boad during turn one with zero risk was going to be an issue??? WTF??

TIME FOR BETA ROOLZ.

What a joke.

I think GW is trying to improve the game, they just haven't realized that AM is overall too good. Other codexes had a "good unit," but those get nerfed quickly. Tyrants, nerfed, Reapers, nerfed, Storm Ravens, nerfed. Meanwhile AM has been balls out awesome from the jump and only seems to get better as time goes by.

I think the main problem with AM is that no watter what core issue you try to fix. A general rule change seems always in some way benefit AM. At least according to dakka.

I think AM simpllly needs an across the board 10-15% points hike and ,as Pete Folley confirmed in the stream, they don't really wanna change points in these FAQ's. They don't want these things to cause massive shifts. That's reserved for Chapter approved.

So here's what you do to fix the deep strike issues - you apply the same logic close combat units have to face:

1) Units can't shoot unless they pass a 9+ on 2d6 prior to shooting

That's just being reasonable, all things considered. For added sake, let's consider...

2) Units can't shoot unless they're in base-to-base contact, within 1" of the enemy, or within 1" of a model in it's unit meeting one of the previous two criteria (b2b/1")
3) Units can't shoot models in terrain, unless they roll a 11+ (9+2+) on 2d6 prior to shooting
4) Round 1, up to half your units [by PL], can't move outside their deployment zone, but can't be shot at in return


I mean, these changes are only fair - it's what close combat units have to go through in order to attack the enemy.

But hey, T1 melee deepstriking was such a bad thing - right, forum?

I understand people don't like an entire army deploying on their doorstep with no ability to react to it outside of screening; but, nuking melee deepstrike units was not the answer.

fe40k wrote:
No.

Why the feth should CC armies be penalized an entire round; which by the way, allows the enemy to move its screens foward, meaning you're that much further from the juicy targets; while shooting gets ZERO penalty?

Complete removal of CC
vs
No penalty to shooting+wider screen deployment

Feels fair man.

Lets add that shooting cannot occur against targets outside of your deployment zone until turn 2.

 krodarklorr wrote:

fe40k wrote:
No.

Why the feth should CC armies be penalized an entire round; which by the way, allows the enemy to move its screens foward, meaning you're that much further from the juicy targets; while shooting gets ZERO penalty?

Complete removal of CC
vs
No penalty to shooting+wider screen deployment

Feels fair man.

Lets add that shooting cannot occur against targets outside of your deployment zone until turn 2.

How about instead "shooting cannot occur on targets inside of their own DZ until turn 2". Because right now, assault units can assault things outside of their opponent's deployment zone if they're deployed at the beginning of the game, and so shooting units should be too.

The only difference here is being able to reach into the other player's DZ with shooting. I'd be okay removing this ability. But not removing it from the whole board, unless you also prevent assault from assaulting outside their own DZ turn 1, which is frankly ridiculous (I play Slaanesh Daemons. I can get a turn 1 charge without deepstrike easily.)

Also lost in this haze is that guardsmen are still undercosted.

 Marmatag wrote:
Also lost in this haze is that guardsmen are still undercosted.

Yeah; after all my thoughts on GW changing the deepstrike rules, it struck me that Guardsman didn't go up to 5ppm.

It's insane how undercosted those models are.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

fe40k wrote:
No.

Why the feth should CC armies be penalized an entire round; which by the way, allows the enemy to move its screens foward, meaning you're that much further from the juicy targets; while shooting gets ZERO penalty?

Complete removal of CC
vs
No penalty to shooting+wider screen deployment

Feels fair man.

Lets add that shooting cannot occur against targets outside of your deployment zone until turn 2.

How about instead "shooting cannot occur on targets inside of their own DZ until turn 2". Because right now, assault units can assault things outside of their opponent's deployment zone if they're deployed at the beginning of the game, and so shooting units should be too.

The only difference here is being able to reach into the other player's DZ with shooting. I'd be okay removing this ability. But not removing it from the whole board, unless you also prevent assault from assaulting outside their own DZ turn 1, which is frankly ridiculous (I play Slaanesh Daemons. I can get a turn 1 charge without deepstrike easily.)

Sure. This works. But also, how about we limit all shooting and assault to being second turn only. Only movement is allowed first turn.

Or better, yet, remove the first turn and go straight to the second turn. It's only fair.

 krodarklorr wrote:
Or better, yet, remove the first turn and go straight to the second turn. It's only fair.

You know the thread about 40k jumping the shark? This is 40k jumping the shark. lol

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Or better, yet, remove the first turn and go straight to the second turn. It's only fair.

You know the thread about 40k jumping the shark? This is 40k jumping the shark. lol

But jumping the shark isn't allowed until the start of the second turn.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Or better, yet, remove the first turn and go straight to the second turn. It's only fair.

You know the thread about 40k jumping the shark? This is 40k jumping the shark. lol

But jumping the shark isn't allowed until the start of the second turn.

Maybe even the second turn is too early? maybe we should push everything back to turn 3 just to be fair, that way every game will last to turn 5/6 like its supposed too.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Or better, yet, remove the first turn and go straight to the second turn. It's only fair.

You know the thread about 40k jumping the shark? This is 40k jumping the shark. lol

But jumping the shark isn't allowed until the start of the second turn.

Great, it wasn't bad enough I had to roll a 9 to jump the shark turn one, now you're giving a decisive advantage to armies that shoot the shark.

I think yes, but I predict that we'll see gunlines become more powerful. We may even see a return to old leafblower type lists of the past. When that shakes out, I think the next FAQ will likely refine the rules for deepstriking more and maybe nerf alpha strike shooting, and then we'll be in a pretty good position.

Time will tell.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Dude it's necessary. Not everyone starts with the same things in DS each game. Being able to calculate it on the fly is HELPFUL and it won't overly penalize super elite units.

It's not necessary at all. You have a written army list with all of your point totals for each unit already added up. To calculate it on the fly with either system you do the exact same math, adding a single number per unit. PL adds absolutely nothing to this situation besides pandering to the "casual" players who want PL to exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
How about instead "shooting cannot occur on targets inside of their own DZ until turn 2". Because right now, assault units can assault things outside of their opponent's deployment zone if they're deployed at the beginning of the game, and so shooting units should be too.

How about instead we understand how long range guns vs. short-range guns vs. melee work and not make a rule that is essentially "long-range weapons no longer exist". Complaining that it isn't "fair" that long-range weapons have longer range and are able to engage earlier in the game is missing the point entirely and driving 40k in the direction of being a bad CCG.

At this point I’m not sure what’s best or even what the point is here. There doesn’t seem to be a vision for this game, no ones actually driving, GWs just rolling down a hill with gravity pulling us all somewhere. It’s just messy, which is exactly what I thought the point of 8th edition wasn’t.

The only thing I do know is lol @ the LoS terrain blocking crowd. I don’t want to spray paint a bunch of shoeboxes for terrain, put every forest on a six inch plateau, or glue plasticard across every window, door, and bullet hole in my terrain. My terrain is fine, thanks, and works for every other game out there except this one. It would be incredibly easy to re write the terrain rules to resemble something sensible; certainly a lot easier than expecting very single hobbyist to modify or replace their entire collection of terrain.

 Peregrine wrote:
PL adds absolutely nothing to this situation besides pandering to the "casual" players who want PL to exist.

Oh My God-Emperor, why do we even let these filthy "casual" players exist. Anyone who doesnt want to play super serious Adepticon level cheese games ALL THE TIME should just be rounded up and shot.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
Oh My God-Emperor, why do we even let these filthy "casual" players exist. Anyone who doesnt want to play super serious Adepticon level cheese games ALL THE TIME should just be rounded up and shot.

"Casual" and casual are not the same things. The players in question aren't really casual, they're just obnoxiously proud about how they use a badly balanced system as a show of how morally superior they are. They'll happily whine and cry about WAAC TFGs and express very strong opinions on how the game should be, the exact opposite of being casual.

It's a good idea overall, but probably needs some tweaking like Smite did. I think the final version will be much better

I'm fairly mad about the change but it also removes things like 40 gene stealers deep strike charge turn 1, and if that is being removed I guess my Elysians can learn to stay in the teleportarium one turn longer.