Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hellfire Rounds are going to create a significant problem for GW and balance. Not that balance was expected to be perfect, but this is really tits up.

Captain
2x10 Sternguard

Use the strat on one unit ( all bolt rifle ).

20 * .888 * .998 = 18 mortal wounds ( at long range! ) -- they'll most certainly have killed something and get to shoot again ( at a second target under Oath, because of the Tome ).

Then you can use the Captain's ability to use that strat again on the second unit of Sternguard. Probably with no rerolls, but who cares? Drop pod for even more insanity?

This isn't something points can fix. So what changes to the strat would you make to prevent this absurdity? Ban this strat?

Has anyone found anything truly absurd?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Hellfire Rounds are going to create a significant problem for GW and balance. Not that balance was expected to be perfect, but this is really tits up.

Captain
2x10 Sternguard

Use the strat on one unit ( all bolt rifle ).

20 * .888 * .998 = 18 mortal wounds ( at long range! ) -- they'll most certainly have killed something and get to shoot again ( at a second target under Oath, because of the Tome ).

Then you can use the Captain's ability to use that strat again on the second unit of Sternguard. Probably with no rerolls, but who cares? Drop pod for even more insanity?

This isn't something points can fix. So what changes to the strat would you make to prevent this absurdity? Ban this strat?

Has anyone found anything truly absurd?

Restrict it's usage on sternguard.

Are Sterngaurd even allowed to be taken in Deathwatch?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

Restrict it's usage on sternguard.

.....which makes no sense

Eliminators can do this to a lesser extent, but that might be a worthwhile idea. Is there a reasonable long term fix?

All said this is "only on infantry" ( also Monster 5+ ) so there's ways around it, but I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to be boxed up all the time to avoid this.

Limit it to once a battle, no captain rerolls allowed due to 'rare ammunition' allowing only one salvo.

EZ.

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Limit it to once a battle, no captain rerolls allowed due to 'rare ammunition' allowing only one salvo.

EZ.

I think I like that. 'This stratagem can only ever be used once per battle and cannot be used again even if another rule would allow you to do so'.

Add a restriction that weapons in the selected lose Devastating Wounds until the end of the phase.

Change it to Anti-Infantry 4+ and Anti-Monster 4+. The interaction with Devastating Wounds is certainly intentional and I think it is pretty fluffy to encourage using it on Sternguards.

However, all these special-issue ammo strats should be restricted to Bolt weapons. This Sternguard/Eliminators are just one thing, but a full Infernus Squad getting Kraken Rounds is no fun either.

Alternatively, ban all non-KT unit from the Deathwatch detachment.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Are Sterngaurd even allowed to be taken in Deathwatch?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

Restrict it's usage on sternguard.

.....which makes no sense

Why does it make no sense? You're the one who is often telling people they're too attached to names. Call it "special ammo" and done if it bothers you, the sternguard bolters already have the devastating wounds to represent their special ammo and this strat applies to all sorts of weird ass weapons that make less sense.

It's not as ridiculous as the stern guard thing, but I don't quite get what they are going for with the fights first rule in general.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it if you have fights first and and enemy unit has not, you fight first even if you were charged.
That just straight up makes fight first the most powerful rule to have in the fight phase.

So if you're a melee army, you basically need access to this rule somehow otherwise you are at a severe disadvantage against any army with a powerful unit that can geht fight first (like any space marine unit that can have a judiciar leading it for example).

Just on face value that doesn't seem like good rule design to be honest.

Tiberias wrote:
It's not as ridiculous as the stern guard thing, but I don't quite get what they are going for with the fights first rule in general.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it if you have fights first and and enemy unit has not, you fight first even if you were charged.
That just straight up makes fight first the most powerful rule to have in the fight phase.

So if you're a melee army, you basically need access to this rule somehow otherwise you are at a severe disadvantage against any army with a powerful unit that can geht fight first (like any space marine unit that can have a judiciar leading it for example).

Just on face value that doesn't seem like good rule design to be honest.

It's just one of GW's design bugbears that they're perpetually unable to solve. Two editions down the line they'll probably re-introduce initiative or whatever; in the past their (dumb) system was too complicated, so now their pendulum swung back to 'no complexity at all', it's very predictable that halfways through 10th, the creep will start with various 'fight firsterer' abilities, gimmicks that make enemies lose 'fights first' and so on... Fulgrim/Slaanesh or various flavours of Eldar are likely candidates to start messing with it.

Tiberias wrote:
It's not as ridiculous as the stern guard thing, but I don't quite get what they are going for with the fights first rule in general.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it if you have fights first and and enemy unit has not, you fight first even if you were charged.
That just straight up makes fight first the most powerful rule to have in the fight phase.

So if you're a melee army, you basically need access to this rule somehow otherwise you are at a severe disadvantage against any army with a powerful unit that can geht fight first (like any space marine unit that can have a judiciar leading it for example).

Just on face value that doesn't seem like good rule design to be honest.

Disagree here. For fights first to matter you need to be getting charged, which means you've lost the initiative. If you can't fight through someone's judiciar / fights first unit...shoot it. He can't join with any other characters and can't join any super tough units.

So far the full list of Fights First includes:

Deathleaper
Lictors
Leapers
Judiciar
Sanguinor ( self only )
Mephiston
Lion

Sanguinor is alone and Mephiston and the Judiciar can't join anything crazy. So the only tough one is Lion who will likely be expensive.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
It's not as ridiculous as the stern guard thing, but I don't quite get what they are going for with the fights first rule in general.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it if you have fights first and and enemy unit has not, you fight first even if you were charged.
That just straight up makes fight first the most powerful rule to have in the fight phase.

So if you're a melee army, you basically need access to this rule somehow otherwise you are at a severe disadvantage against any army with a powerful unit that can geht fight first (like any space marine unit that can have a judiciar leading it for example).

Just on face value that doesn't seem like good rule design to be honest.

Disagree here. For fights first to matter you need to be getting charged, which means you've lost the initiative. If you can't fight through someone's judiciar / fights first unit...shoot it. He can't join with any other characters and can't join any super tough units.

So far the full list of Fights First includes:

Deathleaper
Lictors
Leapers
Judiciar
Sanguinor ( self only )
Mephiston
Lion

Sanguinor is alone and Mephiston and the Judiciar can't join anything crazy. So the only tough one is Lion who will likely be expensive.

Shoot it isn't really a good argument here. In my opinion a rule like this should be designed so that it has counterplay in the fight phase itself.
I think this is even more idiotic than the overly convoluted fight first fight last crap in 9th.

You basically don't have to care at all of being charged if you have fight first in 10th and if you are a somewhat competent melee unit. If that isn't an example of bad basic rules design then I really don't know what is.

Ah yes. Everything just automatically deletes everything. Never mind attacks have been reduced, ap been reduced, armies like ba have lost +1 to wound. Everything just dies automatically. Judicator led unit with no other characters just deletes everything without even effort.

Tiberias wrote:
Shoot it isn't really a good argument here. In my opinion a rule like this should be designed so that it has counterplay in the fight phase itself.
I think this is even more idiotic than the overly convoluted fight first fight last crap in 9th.

You basically don't have to care at all of being charged if you have fight first in 10th and if you are a somewhat competent melee unit. If that isn't an example of bad basic rules design then I really don't know what is.

There's more tactical considerations available to deal with fights first than with Hellfire. You can multi-charge and prevent them from being able to use counter-offensive to protect a valuable unit that doesn't have fights first. You can avoid the unit. You can shoot the unit. You can speed bump it. You can bait them with a unit that can move when they come too close. You can rapid ingress a blocking unit.

Dealing with Fights First has options.

tneva82 wrote:
Ah yes. Everything just automatically deletes everything. Never mind attacks have been reduced, ap been reduced, armies like ba have lost +1 to wound. Everything just dies automatically. Judicator led unit with no other characters just deletes everything without even effort.

Nobody said anything about delete. A unit of Black templar bladeguard veterans lead by a judiciary kills 2,5 marine terminators if they get charged, before they get to do anything, if they get +1 to wound trough a strat or whatever they kill 3.
Does that seem like good rules design to you? Does that in any way incetivise melee combat if you don't have fight first?

Tiberias wrote:

Does that seem like good rules design to you? Does that in any way incetivise melee combat if you don't have fight first?

should melee combat be the correct way to deal with a melee specialist unit?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Hellfire Rounds are going to create a significant problem for GW and balance. Not that balance was expected to be perfect, but this is really tits up.

Captain
2x10 Sternguard

Use the strat on one unit ( all bolt rifle ).

20 * .888 * .998 = 18 mortal wounds ( at long range! ) -- they'll most certainly have killed something and get to shoot again ( at a second target under Oath, because of the Tome ).

Then you can use the Captain's ability to use that strat again on the second unit of Sternguard. Probably with no rerolls, but who cares? Drop pod for even more insanity?

This isn't something points can fix. So what changes to the strat would you make to prevent this absurdity? Ban this strat?

Has anyone found anything truly absurd?

When you apply the relevant (ie reasonable & easily accessible) buffs, it works out at being closer to 28 MWs. Of course, you can also do it twice.

If you're really determined, you can do it 4 times in a single shooting phase!

And there are a couple of other unit combos in the deathwatch index that can do similar.

xerxeskingofking wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

Does that seem like good rules design to you? Does that in any way incetivise melee combat if you don't have fight first?

should melee combat be the correct way to deal with a melee specialist unit?

*Looks at my Nurgle Daemons*
Got any other options?

Melee wise, the closest to a counter is all those "fight on death" abilities that seem to be pretty much everywhere.

And as it happens in your turn, you can probably set up as many buffs and debuffs as you can.

Tiberias wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Ah yes. Everything just automatically deletes everything. Never mind attacks have been reduced, ap been reduced, armies like ba have lost +1 to wound. Everything just dies automatically. Judicator led unit with no other characters just deletes everything without even effort.

Nobody said anything about delete. A unit of Black templar bladeguard veterans lead by a judiciary kills 2,5 marine terminators if they get charged, before they get to do anything, if they get +1 to wound trough a strat or whatever they kill 3.
Does that seem like good rules design to you? Does that in any way incetivise melee combat if you don't have fight first?

What makes you think I've ever been incentivized to engage in melee? Let alone vs obvious melee specialists??
Nope, my answer to stuff like that is to shoot it. A LOT.

I love that Hellfire rounds can be used with Las-weaponry.

Well done to whomever came up with that.

Tiberias wrote:
Shoot it isn't really a good argument here. In my opinion a rule like this should be designed so that it has counterplay in the fight phase itself.
I think this is even more idiotic than the overly convoluted fight first fight last crap in 9th.

You basically don't have to care at all of being charged if you have fight first in 10th and if you are a somewhat competent melee unit. If that isn't an example of bad basic rules design then I really don't know what is.

"Units that are bad to charge into" is pretty common in a lot of games. Usually polearm infantry get rules like this.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
Shoot it isn't really a good argument here. In my opinion a rule like this should be designed so that it has counterplay in the fight phase itself.
I think this is even more idiotic than the overly convoluted fight first fight last crap in 9th.

You basically don't have to care at all of being charged if you have fight first in 10th and if you are a somewhat competent melee unit. If that isn't an example of bad basic rules design then I really don't know what is.

There's more tactical considerations available to deal with fights first than with Hellfire. You can multi-charge and prevent them from being able to use counter-offensive to protect a valuable unit that doesn't have fights first. You can avoid the unit. You can shoot the unit. You can speed bump it. You can bait them with a unit that can move when they come too close. You can rapid ingress a blocking unit.

Dealing with Fights First has options.

I haven't read through the marine rules yet, but I think Daedalus probably has it right. If charging a melee unit is a bad tactic, then don't use that tactic. The counterplay is to shoot that melee unit or to speed bump it or to movement block them, etc. I don't think it's necessarily bad game design to expect people to find counterplay options outside of the charge/fight phases.

Also, the enemy fighting first even when charged was just the norm in a lot of matchups prior to 8th edition (when the initiative stat was a thing.) Now obviously that system was annoying enough that GW went looking for alternatives, but it certainly wasn't the end of the world.

Hellfire Rounds sound spicy. Maybe I'll change my mind once I actually get some games in against it. Isn't the usual approach to MW problems just to put a cap on how many mortals can be generated?

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Are Sterngaurd even allowed to be taken in Deathwatch?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

Restrict it's usage on sternguard.

.....which makes no sense

Why does it make no sense? You're the one who is often telling people they're too attached to names. Call it "special ammo" and done if it bothers you, the sternguard bolters already have the devastating wounds to represent their special ammo and this strat applies to all sorts of weird ass weapons that make less sense.

1. I'm referring to the unit entry of Sternguard, not whether or not they exist in the Deathwatch (which obviously not, but that's GW trying to cram Deathwatch into the main codex instead of doing the Grey Knight treatment).
2. If you have to stop a unit from using a particular Strat, especially a wargear one, then it shouldn't exist in that incarnation and needs to be revised or just removed. Sternguard carry Bolters, and there's no reason why the rounds wouldn't work on theirs vs an Intercessors. You gotta go back to the drawing board.

I doesn't seem that "having bolters" is a prerequisite to using Deathwatch specialist bolter ammunition. They appear to work with every gun, even those that don't use bolt rounds.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I doesn't seem that "having bolters" is a prerequisite to using Deathwatch specialist bolter ammunition. They appear to work with every gun, even those that don't use bolt rounds.

I'm more referring to the fix proposed of "just don't let THIS particular Bolter unit use them!", which is a silly proposition.

That the Strats are for any unit's weapon and not just the Bolts is a whole other can of worms.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I doesn't seem that "having bolters" is a prerequisite to using Deathwatch specialist bolter ammunition. They appear to work with every gun, even those that don't use bolt rounds.

I'm more referring to the fix proposed of "just don't let THIS particular Bolter unit use them!", which is a silly proposition.

That the Strats are for any unit's weapon and not just the Bolts is a whole other can of worms.

I never said bolter, I said unit. There's a few units it's problematic with and the strat needs a redesign completely, but removing a strat from applying to 1 type of unit isn't exactly a bad solutions if it only has 1 dud interaction. Again, stop getting hung up on names.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I doesn't seem that "having bolters" is a prerequisite to using Deathwatch specialist bolter ammunition. They appear to work with every gun, even those that don't use bolt rounds.

I'm more referring to the fix proposed of "just don't let THIS particular Bolter unit use them!", which is a silly proposition.

That the Strats are for any unit's weapon and not just the Bolts is a whole other can of worms.

I never said bolter, I said unit. There's a few units it's problematic with and the strat needs a redesign completely, but removing a strat from applying to 1 type of unit isn't exactly a bad solutions if it only has 1 dud interaction. Again, stop getting hung up on names.

Nothing I said had to do with names, so I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I doesn't seem that "having bolters" is a prerequisite to using Deathwatch specialist bolter ammunition. They appear to work with every gun, even those that don't use bolt rounds.

I'm more referring to the fix proposed of "just don't let THIS particular Bolter unit use them!", which is a silly proposition.

That the Strats are for any unit's weapon and not just the Bolts is a whole other can of worms.

I never said bolter, I said unit. There's a few units it's problematic with and the strat needs a redesign completely, but removing a strat from applying to 1 type of unit isn't exactly a bad solutions if it only has 1 dud interaction. Again, stop getting hung up on names.

Nothing I said had to do with names, so I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove.

You can't seem to divorce the stratagem use from bolters based off historic use of the term hellfire rounds in relation to bolters. This isn't bolter ammo, it's nothing to do with bolters, it isn't the sternguard boltguns that I was talking about. There is no reference to bolters at all.