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.

If you deploy as far forward as humanly possible and then get charged on turn 1, that's kinda your fault.

If a unit is deployed on the board in deployment zone, and gets in position for a turn 1 charge, that is 100% fine.

Assaulting from deep strike, outflank, or cult ambush is very strong. Very strong. Which is why outside of Genestealers its incredibly rare and very limited in what can actually do this.

Electrodisplacement is not overpowered for turn 1 charge. It has a very basic counter play and isn't at all guaranteed.

Yes and no. First turn charges should be a thing... but not from a reliable pinpoint accuracy deep strike. None of this "your heavy weapons squad in the back starts out in close combat on turn one". And I say that as someone who actually likes blood angels.

 rawne2510 wrote:
No

have they faq-d it? Cause there sure is no prohibition in the brb.

If a person is allowed to shoot you off the board on turn one, then a person should be allowed to charge you off the table on turn one.

No way around this. Aside from biased excuses.

 Runic wrote:
If a person is allowed to shoot you off the board on turn one, then a person should be allowed to charge you off the table on turn one.

No way around this. Aside from biased excuses.

Hrm, no, they function differently. Close combat has advantages over shooting. Shooting can be done from any range and doesn't risk attacks back in the same phase. That's its advantage.

Close combat locks the opponent's actions for the involved units, allows automatic hitting of vehicles on rear armor without having to worry about angle, allows you to hide from shooting, ignores all cover saves, forces more morale tests, adds additional potential movement and affords the ability to irrevocably wipe a unit without having to actually kill it to the last model (i.e. Sweeping Advance, where as little as one wound can result in a unit being subsequently obliterated). These are CC's advantages. The tradeoff is that you have to get close to exercise these advantages and this should fundamentally take time.

 Vaktathi wrote:


Hrm, no, they function differently. Close combat has advantages over shooting. Shooting can be done from any range and doesn't risk attacks back in the same phase. That's its advantage.

Close combat locks the opponent's actions for the involved units, allows automatic hitting of vehicles on rear armor without having to worry about angle, allows you to hide from shooting, ignores all cover saves, forces more morale tests, adds additional potential movement and affords the ability to irrevocably wipe a unit without having to actually kill it to the last model (i.e. Sweeping Advance, where as little as one wound can result in a unit being subsequently obliterated). These are CC's advantages. The tradeoff is that you have to get close to exercise these advantages and this should fundamentally take time.

You may be right if the average shooting of the 7th was the chaos, gk or tyranids one. With armies that can spam more than 100 (if not 200) mid strenght shots with bs4 or bs3 with modifiers, grav, d weapons... it seems acceptable that a few units can assault turn 1.

 Blackie wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


Hrm, no, they function differently. Close combat has advantages over shooting. Shooting can be done from any range and doesn't risk attacks back in the same phase. That's its advantage.

Close combat locks the opponent's actions for the involved units, allows automatic hitting of vehicles on rear armor without having to worry about angle, allows you to hide from shooting, ignores all cover saves, forces more morale tests, adds additional potential movement and affords the ability to irrevocably wipe a unit without having to actually kill it to the last model (i.e. Sweeping Advance, where as little as one wound can result in a unit being subsequently obliterated). These are CC's advantages. The tradeoff is that you have to get close to exercise these advantages and this should fundamentally take time.

You may be right if the average shooting of the 7th was the chaos, gk or tyranids one. With armies that can spam more than 100 (if not 200) mid strenght shots with bs4 or bs3 with modifiers, grav, d weapons... it seems acceptable that a few units can assault turn 1.

The biggest problem with first turn assaults is that Tau still have the best answers.

 koooaei wrote:

 rawne2510 wrote:
No

have they faq-d it? Cause there sure is no prohibition in the brb.

I hand´t noticed the little change in wording from previous edition. My bad.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Runic wrote:
If a person is allowed to shoot you off the board on turn one, then a person should be allowed to charge you off the table on turn one.

No way around this. Aside from biased excuses.

Hrm, no, they function differently. Close combat has advantages over shooting. Shooting can be done from any range and doesn't risk attacks back in the same phase. That's its advantage.

Close combat locks the opponent's actions for the involved units, allows automatic hitting of vehicles on rear armor without having to worry about angle, allows you to hide from shooting, ignores all cover saves, forces more morale tests, adds additional potential movement and affords the ability to irrevocably wipe a unit without having to actually kill it to the last model (i.e. Sweeping Advance, where as little as one wound can result in a unit being subsequently obliterated). These are CC's advantages. The tradeoff is that you have to get close to exercise these advantages and this should fundamentally take time.

Shooting is still way too strong. And you can shoot whatever you want. The assault list has to assault what their opponent lets them assault. Huge difference. So yes, if you can shoot me off the table turn 1, turn 1 charges should absolutely be a thing. Don't like that? Make shooting a lot less potent. You can cripple a list turn 1 now.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Runic wrote:
If a person is allowed to shoot you off the board on turn one, then a person should be allowed to charge you off the table on turn one.

No way around this. Aside from biased excuses.

Hrm, no, they function differently. Close combat has advantages over shooting. Shooting can be done from any range and doesn't risk attacks back in the same phase. That's its advantage.

Close combat locks the opponent's actions for the involved units, allows automatic hitting of vehicles on rear armor without having to worry about angle, allows you to hide from shooting, ignores all cover saves, forces more morale tests, adds additional potential movement and affords the ability to irrevocably wipe a unit without having to actually kill it to the last model (i.e. Sweeping Advance, where as little as one wound can result in a unit being subsequently obliterated). These are CC's advantages. The tradeoff is that you have to get close to exercise these advantages and this should fundamentally take time.

And shooting from across the board without any risk of retaliation, also being able to ignore cover saves, also causing morale tests, Haywire, gauss, grav, etc don't give a damn about sides, sometimes even being able to fire and retreat (psychic powers, eldar, tau) are somehow not advantages of shooting?Anything you can do in CC you can do at range, sometimes better. The only advantage is sweeping advances but shooting has all the advantages without any of the drawbacks so that's not saying much. You can even kill units on the enemy turn and shooting can do all of that for a fraction of the cost while being more reliable at the same time.

Or move into alternate activation so one side cannot just shoot with impunity their entire force before the other gets to respond.

 auticus wrote:
Or move into alternate activation so one side cannot just shoot with impunity their entire force before the other gets to respond.

Alternate activation takes more of skill/tactics out of the game and puts it more into luck of the draw

Blackie wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


Hrm, no, they function differently. Close combat has advantages over shooting. Shooting can be done from any range and doesn't risk attacks back in the same phase. That's its advantage.

Close combat locks the opponent's actions for the involved units, allows automatic hitting of vehicles on rear armor without having to worry about angle, allows you to hide from shooting, ignores all cover saves, forces more morale tests, adds additional potential movement and affords the ability to irrevocably wipe a unit without having to actually kill it to the last model (i.e. Sweeping Advance, where as little as one wound can result in a unit being subsequently obliterated). These are CC's advantages. The tradeoff is that you have to get close to exercise these advantages and this should fundamentally take time.

You may be right if the average shooting of the 7th was the chaos, gk or tyranids one. With armies that can spam more than 100 (if not 200) mid strenght shots with bs4 or bs3 with modifiers, grav, d weapons... it seems acceptable that a few units can assault turn 1.

These are army balance issues, not fundamental core rules issues. Don't change the core rules because Scatterbikes are ridiculous, change the scatterbikes. Perhaps Eldar should go back to being BS3 with no heavy weapons available on each and every bike instead...

Martel732 wrote:
Shooting is still way too strong. And you can shoot whatever you want. The assault list has to assault what their opponent lets them assault. Huge difference. So yes, if you can shoot me off the table turn 1, turn 1 charges should absolutely be a thing. Don't like that? Make shooting a lot less potent. You can cripple a list turn 1 now.

Again, army balance issues, not core rules issues. Fix the codex issues, don't create more issues by breaking the core rules further.

Roknar wrote:

And shooting from across the board without any risk of retaliation, also being able to ignore cover saves

This requires special rules, and is not an inherent function of just any shooting attack.

also causing morale tests,

Not as easily, and not with the threat of sweeping advance.

Haywire, gauss, grav, etc don't give a damn about sides

These are special rules, not inherent functions of shooting, and is there are issues with specific weapons and codexes and should be fundamentally addressed there, not the core rules between close combat and shooting. Yes, there are problems with these things, but not that should be addressed in the basic combat rules.

sometimes even being able to fire and retreat (psychic powers, eldar, tau)

Again, special rules, these are exceptions, same way a CC weapon might have Force or X2 Strength or a unit might have Hit & Run or the like.

are somehow not advantages of shooting?Anything you can do in CC you can do at range, sometimes better. The only advantage is sweeping advances but shooting has all the advantages without any of the drawbacks so that's not saying much. You can even kill units on the enemy turn and shooting can do all of that for a fraction of the cost while being more reliable at the same time.

And this is almost always due to codex imbalance issues, that need to be addressed at the codex level, not fixing those mistakes by changing the core rules.

That's how we end up with dumb things like vehicle HP's and tanks the end up just being MC's with no armor saves.

So half your arguments to the statements are that they are special rules.

All the armies with turn 1 charges are armies that extensively are combat and not shooty based with special rules that have certain restrictions to gain those rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only army that sort of changes the core rules for charging turn 1 is GSC and to be honest I would call taht an army wide special rule.

So nothing about turn 1 charges are changing the core rules in any way. The are all special rules that are a counter to shooty armies and benefit the combat orientated armies.

In the same way SoS is now a hard counter to Psychic armies. But you will say that they are changing the core rules to effect the psychic phase obviously.

 rawne2510 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Or move into alternate activation so one side cannot just shoot with impunity their entire force before the other gets to respond.

Alternate activation takes more of skill/tactics out of the game and puts it more into luck of the draw

I don't really see how. IGO / UGO is more luck of who goes first.

Alternate activation is activating a single unit then the other person activates a single unit. If anything it makes it more like chess and is MORE about skill/tactics then the person getting to go first being able to obliterate your army in shooting in turn 1.

 rawne2510 wrote:
So half your arguments to the statements are that they are special rules.

All the armies with turn 1 charges are armies that extensively are combat and not shooty based with special rules that have certain restrictions to gain those rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only army that sort of changes the core rules for charging turn 1 is GSC and to be honest I would call taht an army wide special rule.

So nothing about turn 1 charges are changing the core rules in any way. The are all special rules that are a counter to shooty armies and benefit the combat orientated armies.

In the same way SoS is now a hard counter to Psychic armies. But you will say that they are changing the core rules to effect the psychic phase obviously.

people are talking about first turn charges in much wider contexts here, such as Runic's statement above, and no, not all turn 1 charges are possible only through extremely specialized CC armies (e.g. Skyhammer formations), and the conversation in general is talking about it as being a counter to a shooting heavy meta rather than an isolated tiny exception, in which case the issues with shooting should be taken care of at their source not by changing something the game has attempted to actively prevent, and with good reason, for almost 20 years and 5 editions.

The shooting lists can suck it up as far as I'm concerned at this point. They have been dominating for three editions now. There need to be some assault mechanics they respect other than superfriends.

Martel732 wrote:
The shooting lists can suck it up as far as I'm concerned at this point. They have been dominating for three editions now. There need to be some assault mechanics they respect other than superfriends.

which is a terribly poor mindset for game design, and would explain how 40k became the unholy mess that it is today.

By all means, nerf D stuff, nerf Eldar and their scatterbikes, grav, etc ad nauseum, but realize where those problems come from and what their source is, not breaking something else in a rage fuelled attempt to "fix" it...by breaking more stuff.

Lets also keep in mind not every shooting army is actually good either. IG gunlines arent exactly making anyone nervous for example.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Lets also keep in mind not every shooting army is actually good either. IG gunlines arent exactly making anyone nervous for example.

Correct, but they's extremely boring to play against, and IMHO also to play with. If gun lines based lists are possible and at least viable (if not good or even overpowered) that means a bad game design, the possibility of charging turn one makes the game more tactical instead as you are forced to counter that ability by reserving some units and/or deploying the rest of the army in order to minimize the eventual charge.

Saying grav is comparable to auto hitting rear armor shows incredibly bias.

Glancing on 6s... think about that for a minute. Grav isn't strong because it glances on 6's against vehicles, it's strong because it hurts high toughness, low save monstrous creatures.

Grav versus vehicles is not nearly as strong as people claim. finally, heavy grav is 24" range, which means no matter how your opponent deploys, you can avoid being hit by their grav on turn1... and a lot of the strong grav units don't even fire overwatch should you charge them.

This whole conversation is silly. You argue strong shooting means turn 1 assault should be allowed? That makes no sense. Only in very limited scenarios, or ones with sufficient counter play, should a turn 1 charge be allowed.

You can counter play a strong shooty list by taking cover, and adjusting your position. if someone can deploy anywhere and charge, what's the counter play? Hoping for 6s in overwatch, with the units that can fire it?

Counterplay: make me assault a poor unit.

Cover is frequently means nothing vs shooting, you need los blocking terrain. And even that is often foiled by mobile firepower.

 Blackie wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Lets also keep in mind not every shooting army is actually good either. IG gunlines arent exactly making anyone nervous for example.

Correct, but they's extremely boring to play against, and IMHO also to play with. If gun lines based lists are possible and at least viable (if not good or even overpowered) that means a bad game design

That is a very subjective view, there is nothing fundamentally broken or wrong about gunline armies, they either stop you from getting close or they die, theyre just boring to some people, but thats neither univeral nor a fundamental balance issue.

They have lots of firepower but are relatively immobile and inflexible. The problem is that we have armies with tons of flexibility and mobility *and* all the firepower and often capable CC options to boot if they want them (e.g. Eldar or Space Marines).

the possibility of charging turn one makes the game more tactical instead as you are forced to counter that ability by reserving some units and/or deploying the rest of the army in order to minimize the eventual charge.

No, what this does is just allows one to break the gunline without ever giving it the chance to do its thing. One will notice nobody has run an IG gunline army successfully in a major tournament in 5 years, it's hard to see where turn 1 charging is "fixing" anything there

Turn 1 charging just lets you enjoy the benefits of close combat without having to put the effort into setting up the assault and closing the distance. There is nothing tactical about that. The heavy shooting armies that dominate are not immobile gunlines, they are mostly highly mobile generalist armies that have been poorly balanced with too many toys like scatterbikes and ridiculous formations and the like.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The shooting lists can suck it up as far as I'm concerned at this point. They have been dominating for three editions now. There need to be some assault mechanics they respect other than superfriends.

which is a terribly poor mindset for game design, and would explain how 40k became the unholy mess that it is today.

By all means, nerf D stuff, nerf Eldar and their scatterbikes, grav, etc ad nauseum, but realize where those problems come from and what their source is, not breaking something else in a rage fuelled attempt to "fix" it...by breaking more stuff.

Lets also keep in mind not every shooting army is actually good either. IG gunlines arent exactly making anyone nervous for example.

They'll shoot me off the table. So yeah, i'm nervous.

 Marmatag wrote:


Electrodisplacement is not overpowered for turn 1 charge. It has a very basic counter play and isn't at all guaranteed.

You keep saying this as of somehow your opinion is a fact and bottom line is you are flat out wrong. Electrodisplacement has been extensively tested and it's even more broken then any other form of assault from deepstrike because the player dictates which unit is assaulting first turn not a very controlled formation that can never have any ICs attached. The absolute worst assault lists in game now have little concern about screening units, movement or charge ranges becuase they can magically appear anywhere they please with little concern. Even if lib council wasn't a garaunteed thing that it is electrodisplacement would still be utterly broken. There are a handful of events that allow it and it's still a dominant build.

gungo wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Electrodisplacement is not overpowered for turn 1 charge. It has a very basic counter play and isn't at all guaranteed.

You keep saying this as of somehow your opinion is a fact and bottom line is you are flat out wrong. Electrodisplacement has been extensively tested and it's even more broken then any other form of assault from deepstrike because the player dictates which unit is assaulting first turn not a very controlled formation that can never have any ICs attached. The absolute worst assault lists in game now have little concern about screening units, movement or charge ranges becuase they can magically appear anywhere they please with little concern. Even if lib council wasn't a garaunteed thing that it is electrodisplacement would still be utterly broken. There are a handful of events that allow it and it's still a dominant build.

Okay so, 1, you have to generate the power, 2, you have to manifest it, and 3, you have to not get denied. Right there, 3 things can go wrong before you can even pick up a model. Like it or not, Deny the Witch is counter play. A lib council does make that difficult but the possibility exists. Meanwhile, there is NO counter play for deep strike charge. None. You just cross your fingers and hope.

Electrodisplacement is strong, but not exclusively because of turn 1 charging.

Can you share extensive testing results please? Maybe i'm looking in the wrong spots

 Marmatag wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Electrodisplacement is not overpowered for turn 1 charge. It has a very basic counter play and isn't at all guaranteed.

You keep saying this as of somehow your opinion is a fact and bottom line is you are flat out wrong. Electrodisplacement has been extensively tested and it's even more broken then any other form of assault from deepstrike because the player dictates which unit is assaulting first turn not a very controlled formation that can never have any ICs attached. The absolute worst assault lists in game now have little concern about screening units, movement or charge ranges becuase they can magically appear anywhere they please with little concern. Even if lib council wasn't a garaunteed thing that it is electrodisplacement would still be utterly broken. There are a handful of events that allow it and it's still a dominant build.

Okay so, 1, you have to generate the power, 2, you have to manifest it, and 3, you have to not get denied. Right there, 3 things can go wrong before you can even pick up a model. Like it or not, Deny the Witch is counter play. A lib council does make that difficult but the possibility exists. Meanwhile, there is NO counter play for deep strike charge. None. You just cross your fingers and hope.

Electrodisplacement is strong, but not exclusively because of turn 1 charging.

Can you share extensive testing results please? Maybe i'm looking in the wrong spots

bubblewrapping is way better counterplay to deepstrikers than hoping for some awesome dice rolls on DtW

 Blackie wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Lets also keep in mind not every shooting army is actually good either. IG gunlines arent exactly making anyone nervous for example.

Correct, but they's extremely boring to play against, and IMHO also to play with. If gun lines based lists are possible and at least viable (if not good or even overpowered) that means a bad game design

Oh will you just deal with it, I for one love gunlines be it to play with or agaisnt, everything should be roughly equally playable (even if assault is dumb, but eeeeeeeeh), it should Warhammer 40k, not Warhammer 40k Blackie edition, that'd be terrible.

 gummyofallbears wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Electrodisplacement is not overpowered for turn 1 charge. It has a very basic counter play and isn't at all guaranteed.

You keep saying this as of somehow your opinion is a fact and bottom line is you are flat out wrong. Electrodisplacement has been extensively tested and it's even more broken then any other form of assault from deepstrike because the player dictates which unit is assaulting first turn not a very controlled formation that can never have any ICs attached. The absolute worst assault lists in game now have little concern about screening units, movement or charge ranges becuase they can magically appear anywhere they please with little concern. Even if lib council wasn't a garaunteed thing that it is electrodisplacement would still be utterly broken. There are a handful of events that allow it and it's still a dominant build.

Okay so, 1, you have to generate the power, 2, you have to manifest it, and 3, you have to not get denied. Right there, 3 things can go wrong before you can even pick up a model. Like it or not, Deny the Witch is counter play. A lib council does make that difficult but the possibility exists. Meanwhile, there is NO counter play for deep strike charge. None. You just cross your fingers and hope.

Electrodisplacement is strong, but not exclusively because of turn 1 charging.

Can you share extensive testing results please? Maybe i'm looking in the wrong spots

bubblewrapping is way better counterplay to deepstrikers than hoping for some awesome dice rolls on DtW

that's a fair point but again that's not an option to people with low model counts.

 Marmatag wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Electrodisplacement is not overpowered for turn 1 charge. It has a very basic counter play and isn't at all guaranteed.

You keep saying this as of somehow your opinion is a fact and bottom line is you are flat out wrong. Electrodisplacement has been extensively tested and it's even more broken then any other form of assault from deepstrike because the player dictates which unit is assaulting first turn not a very controlled formation that can never have any ICs attached. The absolute worst assault lists in game now have little concern about screening units, movement or charge ranges becuase they can magically appear anywhere they please with little concern. Even if lib council wasn't a garaunteed thing that it is electrodisplacement would still be utterly broken. There are a handful of events that allow it and it's still a dominant build.

Okay so, 1, you have to generate the power, 2, you have to manifest it, and 3, you have to not get denied. Right there, 3 things can go wrong before you can even pick up a model. Like it or not, Deny the Witch is counter play. A lib council does make that difficult but the possibility exists. Meanwhile, there is NO counter play for deep strike charge. None. You just cross your fingers and hope.

Electrodisplacement is strong, but not exclusively because of turn 1 charging.

Can you share extensive testing results please? Maybe i'm looking in the wrong spots

Well, actually a Deep Striking charging unit has plenty of counter play just using those same criteria you have vs Electrodisplacement.

1) You have to arrive from reserves. 1/3 chance of failing to come in. And can't happen turn 1 with most armies anyway.

2) Interceptor exists which would allow you to shoot them before they charge, and then you also get overwatch on top of that. Shooty focused factions like Tau especially have a lot of Interceptor.

3) You're still dealing with the randomness of your 2D6 scatter for the Deep Strike and then the 2D6 for assault distance.

That was one of the delicious treats of 3rd Ed. in that the only thing remotely resembling assault from Deep Strike was Daemonic Summoning, and that was not even that bad until you got Incubi Bloodletters in 3.5