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.

Reapers *sans stratagem* can't fall back and shoot. The original discussion was *sans stratagem*. That stratagem is nice, and perhaps too nice vs CC, but not everything in the game has that stratagem. And not all units can use it. If you have two units you've assaulted, only one can use it, for instance.

Saying CC is bad because a strat exists that lets units fall back and shoot is like saying CC is OP because a strat exists that lets units pile in/fight/consoldiate twice in one round.

If it helps, just go with the other example of non-UM/WS Devs/Havocs being charged by Banshees. Same thing, different sides.

Bharring wrote:
Reapers *sans stratagem* can't fall back and shoot. The original discussion was *sans stratagem*. That stratagem is nice, and perhaps too nice vs CC, but not everything in the game has that stratagem. And not all units can use it. If you have two units you've assaulted, only one can use it, for instance.

Saying CC is bad because a strat exists that lets units fall back and shoot is like saying CC is OP because a strat exists that lets units pile in/fight/consoldiate twice in one round.

If it helps, just go with the other example of non-UM/WS Devs/Havocs being charged by Banshees. Same thing, different sides.

'Not everyone in the game has it' is a bad argument.
That ability isn't exactly rare across fly, army traits and stratagems. The fact that some units don't have it just means that those units are worse and may not be played because of it (unlikely, because who plays melee really?).
Or players acknowlegde it and build around it (screens).

In any way, the strength of melee isn't the issue. That can be adjusted by balance fixes. But the core rules totally destroy internal balance across melee units:
- The number 1 factor which makes a melee unit viable is their means of delivery. The baseline here (up to the FAQ at least) was being able to deepstrike. Walking up to the enemy, as well as transports were already out.
Units with some kind of special rule, or stratagem that increases their chances to get into CC turn 1 are prefered. Interestingly a lot of armies have one such trait or unit. But this means most CC units are just taking up space in their codizes never to see play, while a select few are very powerful.
- Then the next thing you look at is pure offensive power. You already picked the unit with the most broken delivery system, so it will most likely get into combat. But you only have one round of CC, so better make that worth it. Now all CC units are suicide glass cannons.
CC units which are more oriented to defense are not being played, as no matter the defense, it will not survive sitting right in front of the enemy army for a shooting phase. So why waste points buing say terminator armor when you can get a few more attack dice for the same cost?
There are a few exceptions to this rule, notably the Flyrant lists, but this obviously should not be the standard we are aiming for.

So internally melee is divided into a lot of useless units and a few broken ones.
I would rather see the whole melee thing scaled back in volatility, have more valid unit choices across the board and have more flexible ways to use melee than the one way of throwing in a suicide glass cannon via some special rule.

Actual data contradicts your claims, HMint.

To address your two bulleted points:
- This isn't true at all. Slaanesh has amazing means of delivery for its melee units, arguably the best out of all the Gods in the Daemons codex. But people universally revile her as the worst of the Gods, possibly only exceeded by Tzeench, which is the only shooting God.

- You have way more than one round to deliver your damage if you use even a modicum of basic tactics and surround an enemy unit so it can't fall back. There are also mechanics that exist to prevent Fall Back (for example, the wytch cult rule in the new Drukhari codex or the Slaanesh Fiend's "Soporific Musk" rule. So Shooting While Falling Back isn't available to all shooting armies; similarly, Preventing Units From Falling Back isn't available to all melee armies, but does exist.

Dandelion wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Because if all options are equally useful for every faction then their really is no faction identity. If orks can make a shooting army that is as good as Tau the only reason to Play either becomes I like the models. Ork shooting units should not be terrible but the should be supporting pieces not the main focus of the army like people suggesting shooting be king think is a good idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I agree with you that all melee with no guns shouldn’t be a thing, but disagree that shooting should be primary. I think forces with 60-70% melee should be viable. In a list like that shooting is supporting a largely melee force.

All options should be equally useful. Are you suggesting that flash gitz should always be inefficient simply because they use big guns? And you're attaching too much importance to melee vs ranged as a faction identity. Orks are characterized by excessive violence, (and funny mishaps) which involves both shooting and melee. This forum is even called "dakkadakka". Even World Eaters have access to good shooting, (well, as good as marine shooting is). Tyranids also have solid shooting options. And, considering that most people pick factions they like the look of, why force them into very specific playstyles?
-"Oh, you picked Orks? Well, you're stuck doing melee all the time until you pay $1000 to play Tau."
-"But I don't like Tau"
-"How about Admech?"
-"But I like Orks..."

This isn't a MOBA where you can swap characters out on the fly.

List themes can double down on either shooting or melee, but the army as a whole needs to offer both.
If a player wants to make a 70% shooty Orks then he should not feel hamstrung for doing so. And again, the fluff 100% supports shooting focused Orks (either Bad Moonz or Freebooterz).

Though, keep in mind, I am not asking to nerf melee, just that I believe everyone should have capable shooting as a minimum.

The problem is capable shooting is defined by he shooting capabikity of other armies. Do I believe Flash Gits should be bad no, I think they should fill a role in the Ork army. Do I think they should be on a level with Tau shooting units when it comes to shooting. No I don’t, they can’t because they are paying for other abilities like not being trash in close combat. Which is the Ork problem (other than gretchin) every Ork is reasonably good in melee and the stats support that. Higher strength, more attacks etc. so if a unit pays for those things relative to another unit, and those things are counter to its primary role it won’t be ass efficient at its primary role. So unless all units are re-statted to be relatively equal to ther things that have their same role, there will be differences. I don’t see how as currrntly designed you can fairly point Ork units and have them make as efficient a gunline as Guard. As such some armies are going to lean more in one direction than another. I mean it sounds like you want one army with different skins, everyone has access to the same units but can use different models for those units. As soon as you move away from that some armies will be better at certain styles of play than others. Horde Eldar is not going to be as good as horde Orks because of how tre armies are designed. Orks should shoot, but they don’t make a top tier gunline because they pay for advantages in other areas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
All options should be equally useful... unless that option happens to be a sword, I guess.

If you just double down on every army needing shooting to be viable rather than fixing melee then the only correct way to play will be an IG-style gunline. Long range shooting needs disadvantages, which it... just doesn't have right now.

Or IG becomes garbage as everyone else shoots as well as they do and can fight too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the Reaper argument if the need to spend a stratagem the fall back is by definition no longer free as they have spent a resource on it.

I think people are missing the point, I was saying in a hypothetical rule system where there is a universal ability to fall back and still shoot, not with the rules as they currently stand.

Also, the idea that a unit is worthless because the entire army shooting at it can kill it in one round is odd, and really doesn't differ between CC and shooting. In either case, odds are the entire army shooting at one unit - outside superheavies or deathstars - should be able to kill it.

I would argue that a single (sub-500pt) unit that the opponent spends most of their firepower to remove in one round has typically done it's job. Because your other units have another turn to do whatever they want.

Even for those who do have the stratagems or fly, it's not like they ignore CC for free. They "ignore" fallback in that survivors of a round of CC could then contribute. But only the survivors - your CC unit probably killed some of them.

HMint wrote:

'Not everyone in the game has it' is a bad argument.
That ability isn't exactly rare across fly, army traits and stratagems. The fact that some units don't have it just means that those units are worse and may not be played because of it (unlikely, because who plays melee really?).
Or players acknowlegde it and build around it (screens).

Fly is pretty damn rare for front line units blocking melee assaults.

In any way, the strength of melee isn't the issue. That can be adjusted by balance fixes. But the core rules totally destroy internal balance across melee units:
- The number 1 factor which makes a melee unit viable is their means of delivery. The baseline here (up to the FAQ at least) was being able to deepstrike. Walking up to the enemy, as well as transports were already out. Units with some kind of special rule, or stratagem that increases their chances to get into CC turn 1 are prefered. Interestingly a lot of armies have one such trait or unit. But this means most CC units are just taking up space in their codizes never to see play, while a select few are very powerful.

Transports are not out. They really, really aren't. People didn't use them, because T1 deepstrike was readily available. That and the perception that they are hugely overcosted, which they are, but not by a margin that changes lists in any meaningful way.

- Then the next thing you look at is pure offensive power. You already picked the unit with the most broken delivery system, so it will most likely get into combat. But you only have one round of CC, so better make that worth it. Now all CC units are suicide glass cannons.
CC units which are more oriented to defense are not being played, as no matter the defense, it will not survive sitting right in front of the enemy army for a shooting phase. So why waste points buing say terminator armor when you can get a few more attack dice for the same cost?
There are a few exceptions to this rule, notably the Flyrant lists, but this obviously should not be the standard we are aiming for.

Bring cheap, durable melee that can tie up the majority of the front line. THEN when the line is broken deepstrike the glass cannon.

"Bring cheap, durable melee that can tie up the majority of the front line. THEN when the line is broken deepstrike the glass cannon. "

Almost like there's actually different roles for different CC units!

Units should be different for variety.

But there is no point having bad units - because people simply won't use them.

If all Ork shooting units are points inefficient they will just put their points into assault units. And vice versa for say Tau. There is no upside for taking inefficient units.

Its really not a problem for a Codex to have good assault and shooting units because a player can't spend the points twice. The only issue is if you have stackable synergy - and this is partly why Eldar have been good in almost every edition of the game.

Bring cheap, durable melee that can tie up the majority of the front line. THEN when the line is broken deepstrike the glass cannon.

I actually don't think there is such a thing? There are plenty of durable melee units, but they're expensive, and there are tons of cheap melee units, but they're all very flimsy. I suppose we would need to define what we mean by durable. When I think of durable I think of a unit that has two out of these three things: 2 wounds base, 3+ invulnerable save, some sort of FnP. Nothing that I can think of firts that criteria and is cheap. Again what do we mean by cheap? I would think, given the context, no more than 20 ppm?

Yeah, there shouldn't be inefficient units.

Some factions, though, simply function better. You can't really do Green Tide with Eldar. IG doesn't do Combined Arms well.

Orkz should prefer CC, like how their Shoota Boy will punch the lights out of any silly Guardians who let them get close. IG and Tau should prefer shooting, because that's their feel/fluff. IG and Tau having a couple CC units that can compete is fine, but shouldn't be able to build a pure CC list as well as Orkz. A shooty IG should outshoot a shooty Ork list, but even a shooty Ork list should outpunch a shooty IG list. Which wins should depend on how it plays out, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think of IG Guardsmen and Gaunts as durable, too. Not per model, but certainly per presence.

Necron Warriors are rather durable, and only sorta-have one of those three.

Pox Walkers?

 peteralmo wrote:

Bring cheap, durable melee that can tie up the majority of the front line. THEN when the line is broken deepstrike the glass cannon.

I actually don't think there is such a thing? There are plenty of durable melee units, but they're expensive, and there are tons of cheap melee units, but they're all very flimsy. I suppose we would need to define what we mean by durable. When I think of durable I think of a unit that has two out of these three things: 2 wounds base, 3+ invulnerable save, some sort of FnP. Nothing that I can think of firts that criteria and is cheap. Again what do we mean by cheap? I would think, given the context, no more than 20 ppm?

If I were to define durable it would be lower killing power traded for greater wounds at lower points and where they are mostly self reliant on morale.

VV with TH/SS is a very different unit from VV with CS/BP. Even tac marines (AHHHHHHHH! DIRTY WORD!).

Most CC opponents have 1) no special weapons, and 2) very a low number of attacks at a low strength.

Tyel wrote:
Units should be different for variety.

But there is no point having bad units - because people simply won't use them.

If all Ork shooting units are points inefficient they will just put their points into assault units. And vice versa for say Tau. There is no upside for taking inefficient units.

Its really not a problem for a Codex to have good assault and shooting units because a player can't spend the points twice. The only issue is if you have stackable synergy - and this is partly why Eldar have been good in almost every edition of the game.

Units don’t need to be inefficient to be less efficient than choices in other armies. For instance Ork shooting units could be built to fill specific roles in the Ork army that are important but not be efficient when compared to guard shooting units. So for instance you want to bring big guns in your army to deal with vehicles behind screens, but you don’t want to build a gunline or those units, because it won’t beat a gunline of guard shooting units.

Bharring wrote:
Yeah, there shouldn't be inefficient units.

Some factions, though, simply function better. You can't really do Green Tide with Eldar. IG doesn't do Combined Arms well.

Orkz should prefer CC, like how their Shoota Boy will punch the lights out of any silly Guardians who let them get close. IG and Tau should prefer shooting, because that's their feel/fluff. IG and Tau having a couple CC units that can compete is fine, but shouldn't be able to build a pure CC list as well as Orkz. A shooty IG should outshoot a shooty Ork list, but even a shooty Ork list should outpunch a shooty IG list. Which wins should depend on how it plays out, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think of IG Guardsmen and Gaunts as durable, too. Not per model, but certainly per presence.

Necron Warriors are rather durable, and only sorta-have one of those three.

Pox Walkers?

But neither warriors nor pox walkers are actually mobile. I assume mobility is assumed in the original recommendation?

I should have been clearer. I was showing that durable didn't mean 2w or a 3++ or a FNP. There are many ways to be durable.

Mobility should be yet another tradeoff.

Bharring wrote:
I should have been clearer. I was showing that durable didn't mean 2w or a 3++ or a FNP. There are many ways to be durable.

Mobility should be yet another tradeoff.

That's fine, but would you agree that melee units that aren't mobile, and also aren't swarms, aren't really seeing play right now?

This led me to answer my own question. Necron Scarabs. They are cheap, durable, and fast. There's one!

 peteralmo wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I should have been clearer. I was showing that durable didn't mean 2w or a 3++ or a FNP. There are many ways to be durable.

Mobility should be yet another tradeoff.

That's fine, but would you agree that melee units that aren't mobile, and also aren't swarms, aren't really seeing play right now?

This led me to answer my own question. Necron Scarabs. They are cheap, durable, and fast. There's one!

Which is yet another reason for transports.

Now, i'm not going to put pox walkers in a rhino, but they can still run upfield and be wave #3.

If only there was someway to make a unit mobile and durable...

... some sort of ... other unit, that could hold it, that was both faster and more durable...

... perhaps something like a tank with the weapons removed...

GAH! I feel like I'm so close to a revolutionary military concept but I just can't get it to gel...

I would agree that, currerntly, there's a problem where durability is either undercosted or underapreciated.

Again, most players will take half again the killyness over double the durability. For the same points. So it might be undercosted, but that's not the only problem.

A lot of shooting certainly feels overtuned right now, too.

I don't think the answer to overtuned shooting/undertuned durability is to make it so once you hit CC, you're basically safe from shooting for the rest of the game, either.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If only there was someway to make a unit mobile and durable...

... some sort of ... other unit, that could hold it, that was both faster and more durable...

... perhaps something like a tank with the weapons removed...

GAH! I feel like I'm so close to a revolutionary military concept but I just can't get it to gel...

Transports would be fine if shooting wasn't as powerful. It shouldn't be as easy to 1-round a monolith as it is.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Transports would be fine if shooting wasn't as powerful. It shouldn't be as easy to 1-round a monolith as it is.

I'm sorry, but if people are regularly 1-rounding a monolith there is no way they have enough anti-infantry for hordes or their dice are loaded.

The issue is at the cost involved it should be super rare, and it is not. Even if it only happens like 25% of games that is a non-starter for tournament play.

Breng77 wrote:
The issue is at the cost involved it should be super rare, and it is not. Even if it only happens like 25% of games that is a non-starter for tournament play.

Monolith is 381 all in. That's 2 Las Preds or 11 Dark Reapers. There is a 6% chance the Preds can ace it in one turn and just about 0% for Dark Reapers.



The most likely damage outcomes are between 6 and 12.



If they've taken 3 Las Preds then it's 27%. So, if your opponent has outspent your monolith on anti-tank by 50% and it also happens to be LC only then, yes, it could die turn 1. Magnus is 19% under the same conditions.

Okay, so we've established that I'm absurdly unlucky. I guess I'll give my monolith another try. Maybe have it transport a unit of scytheguard and a unit of tesla immortals so that moving it with the deceiver isn't a complete point sink. Leave the immortals out if the opponent brought enough anti-tank where it's a strong chance they'll get dropped and just veil them up.

Typically getting a return like that is super good though, so you kinda prove how non durable the Monolith is, unless you wanna argue for the Land Raider being durable too.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Okay, so we've established that I'm absurdly unlucky. I guess I'll give my monolith another try. Maybe have it transport a unit of scytheguard and a unit of tesla immortals so that moving it with the deceiver isn't a complete point sink. Leave the immortals out if the opponent brought enough anti-tank where it's a strong chance they'll get dropped and just veil them up.

I don't know that you're unlucky. There's plenty of ways to easily kill a monolith, but it usually takes an investment and that usually means a trade off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Typically getting a return like that is super good though, so you kinda prove how non durable the Monolith is, unless you wanna argue for the Land Raider being durable too.

Yea, it is...unless your meta runs a bunch of LC it will do well. I don't see much in terms of LC in recent tournaments, either.

Okay, so it is easy enough to kill a monolith. Now my lychguard are stuck on my side of the table (I have to use Dimensional Corridor to move them because neither the Eternity Gate nor Emergency Invasion Beam works on turn one) and are going to have to weather 2-3 turns of incoming fire without doing anything at all to affect the board during that time because they're slow without some way to teleport around. If we include the Deceiver that I included in the list to make the Monolith usable in the first place then that's 906 points that have been effectively taken out of the game by cracking that one brick. That's a "lost on turn one" situation, Daedalus.

It'd be the same deal with rhinos or any other transport: if you go second, you're going to have to walk, and that means you lost the game.

You are using glass cannons for that analysis though, and glasscannons do not have a 4 turn life expectancy. If you repeat the same math with a more balanced unit, like a standard leman russ, you would see that on a monolith it has a return of 33%, which is indeed a bit high, but not to the levels of making it unusable. The real problem with the monolith is that when playing with big models, one would like to put some buff on those, but necrons don't have anything like that.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I remember back in 5th edition when you couldn't break contact for free where I had a bunch of Leman Russ Tanks vs like 40 genestealers.

In 5th edition guard could blob, so I did just that, and had 50 guardsmen in a blob in front of my tanks.

The genestealers charged the guardsman blob, and wiped them all out except for 1 one-wound heavy weapons team (dice, I guess?). I was like "no problem, that heavy weapons team will fail leadership and run away, letting my tanks pound on the genestealers." after the genestealers all piled in and locked themselves up with the heavy weapons team.

Morale check? Snakeyes. Insane Heroism universal rule kicked in, Heavy Weapons Team didn't run.

So because of a single desperate man with a shovel hiding under the slain corpses of his foes, three squadrons of Leman Russ tanks just sat there sucking their thumbs eight feet in front of a gigantic mob of genestealers.

It was the least intuitive, least realistic, least sensible, and least fun I think I've ever had playing a gunline. Watching my tanks just sit there awaiting their inevitable death told me all I needed to know about how stupid the ability to lock things in combat was.

It’s worth pointing out that you’re talking about a minute chance (1/36) of that happening, and an even smaller chance that it’s going to happen at a critical junction like that. It’s sad to to say it but sometimes your dice just hate you and it can spoil a game for you. That doesn’t mean a mechanic is bad because one time you got royally and unfairly screwed by it.

You know what’s massively more common? Failing an easy charge and losing the game because of it. I lost count of how many times that happened to me in 7th, and I have to say that the ability to reroll one of the dice for a CP is the only thing that saves the swingyness of a 2D6” charge length from being a travesty in my eyes. And yes, sometimes you will roll snake eyes, reroll one of the dice and come up with another 1, at which point you just have to accept that the dice gods are just deliberately dicking around with you.

Having to take a 2D6 ‘can your unit actually do some damage this turn or is it just going to get shot off the board’ test is one of the myriad hurdles assault units face. Being able to charge off a Turn 1 Deep Strike removed enough of these hurdles that assault armies became competitive with gunlines where they hadn’t been for, what, 4 editions? They weren’t dominant but they were at least viable. Now I’ll agree that massed Turn 1 charging was obnoxious to play against, which is why I’m coming around to being in favour of the beta rule despite it kicking my beloved Terminators when they’re already down and bleeding. It does, however, drag us back to the previous decade’s worth of the game where assault armies were at a massive disadvantage to shooting ones (barring those with some kind of gimmick that bends the game to make them viable).

I think we could definitely redress the balance post-beta ruling by mitigating some of the hurdles assault armies face. The most obvious is unlimited Overwatch - you hit on 6s in Overwatch because it’s meant to represent a last minute desperate barely-aimed snap shot in the nick of time. A model that can shoot once in its own shooting phase suddenly gets a high enough rate of fire to shoot five times in the split second before it’s charged? Cap units to shooting once in the Charge Phase and you help assault armies a little bit (and, incidentally, fix the Y’vahra).

Another hurdle is that, thanks to the Fall Back mechanic, assault units typically get to make their attacks once in the game. This means that units that can’t frontload apocalyptic amounts of damage the turn they charge become useless, and prevents cinematic, desperate drawn-out hand-to-hand struggles over a vital objective. Further, it’s incredibly immersion-breaking to have the enemy just stroll away mid-brawl. If you turn your back on, say, Khârn the Betrayer mid-fight, you’re going to cop an axe where the sun don’t shine. I agree with another poster - if a unit Falls Back, a unit in combat with it should be able to attack that unit as if it’s the Fight Phase, but not Pile In or Consolidate. Obviously if you limit Overwatch to once per phase you’d limit this to once per phase too.

Little changes to help redress the balance without completely altering the game. If it proves not to be enough you go a step further - say, if a unit shoots in the Charge Phase, it can’t shoot in its own following Shooting Phase. It gives you a tactical choice of whether to make a weaker out-of-sequence attack or take the chance that your opponent will fail the charge and get your full strength attack the next turn.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Fly is pretty damn rare for front line units blocking melee assaults.

Fly is pretty rare, except for Tau, Eldar and Dark Eldar. But lets also not forget the point here is we are talking about units/armies that ignore or minimize the downside to falling back from CC. Ultramarines ignore it and that 1 unit loses 1BS for 1 turn...that is it. Eldar also have a strat that allows them to retreat a unit from CC without consequence, A number of armies have abilities which allow you to teleport out of CC like Greyknights. And then to make the point even more obvious, the only major offending gun line army that CAN NOT do this is IG, but they don't need to. They can just screen there good stuff with cheap, throwaway infantry units. Ohhh no! you had to lose 1 round of shooting from your 10 man Guardsman unit? The horror. I guess the other 5 will just have to blast the offending CC unit off the table while your long ranged guns keep pounding away.

CC was already hard enough to get into with GOOD units and keep them tied up without this nerf, saying otherwise is a lie.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Transports are not out. They really, really aren't. People didn't use them, because T1 deepstrike was readily available. That and the perception that they are hugely overcosted, which they are, but not by a margin that changes lists in any meaningful way.

My army had the ability to turn 1 deepstrike Kommandos, which are 50% overpriced boyz....that is about it. So why didn't I bring transports for my army? Ohh that is right, because they are AWFUL and a complete waste of my points. 82pts for a Trukk with T6 4+ save and the ability to transport 12 models. Or I could double down and get a Battlewagon which will run 160+ and can transport 20 models. So the trukk literally costs MORE then the boys its transporting and the Battlewagon is SIGNIFICANTLY more then the 20 boys its transporting. neither can shoot worth a damn, but the battlewagon can at least take a deffrolla which makes it not useless after delivering its payload, of course now its even more expensive. In other words, Yes they are "overcosted" and by a very "Meaningful Way". So.....Yeah, Transports right now are UTTERLY useless.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Bring cheap, durable melee that can tie up the majority of the front line. THEN when the line is broken deepstrike the glass cannon.

No such CC unit exists. And lets break down your suggestion here. Bring up cheap durable melee (which doesn't exist) and tie up the majority of the frontline, this takes 2 turns to do , Turn 1 you move and advance and then turn 2 you move, advance and attempt to charge, so Really you are saying, spend 2 turns getting shot off the table and then deepstrike my other CC units.....basically to where my "Cheap durable" melee unit is because Screens are a thing and I have yet to run across an opponent who doesn't factor in a 9' deepstrike .

None of your suggestions are feasible, realistic or work. you invent units that don't exist to prove a point that you then forget takes several turns to accomplish where as before we were doing the exact same thing with turn 1 deepstrike AND STILL weren't winning tournaments.



So this brings me to another point, why did GW Nerf turn 1 deepstrike. The answer is simple, not because of Turn 1 deepstriking MELEE armies, nope, the offending units that needed a nerf were Turn 1 Deep striking Shooting units like Tau Commanders and the plethora of other units that were showing up and shooting OVER a screening unit instead of having to mulch through it in CC.