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.

Don't jump down my throat! I love playing on beautifully crafted tables with plenty of LOS blocking terrain (urban combat regiment).

But most people don't, and rather than trying to get them to change their ways, I just sigh and say "yep, lascannons are clearly a problem." It's literally easier to build the game around people who don't use terrain than it is to convince people to use good terrain, lol.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Niiai wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Turn 1 charges from deepstriking where absolutely toxic.

I know people is pissed about that, and I can understand it, playing with Adeptus Custodes (And not spamming jetbikes or shield captains) I actually normally deepstriked 5 terminators +Allarus Dreadnought or 20 guardians.

But as Peteralmo said, shuting down wholle armies with that tactic with 0 counter play was horrible. I'm glad that is gone.

Now they just need to make something similar (In the sense of not allowing for more Alpha Strikes that absolutely devastate your opponent, not in the sense of doing a rule that is the same like "Not shooting units in the enemy deployment zone turn 1") with shooting!

There was a lot of counterplay in list building and deployment. Set up zone where they can not deepstrike.

Except the beta rules does not stop some form of first turn charges. (Raven guards, alpha legion).

I also do not see the semqntic difference between loosing to deep strikers turn 1, and lascannons turn 1.

In an ideal world, you would have good terrain rules so that lascannons couldn't see/hurt/target/whatever your units.
GW's ... questionably mediocre ... terrain rules in this case are making shooting a "point and click" that it really shouldn't be.

In an ideal world, people wouldn't be playing on tables that consist of two ruins and a random 'tower' in the center.

This would be more of an argument if all the official ruins that GW sells had any game effect whatsoever with their basic terrain rules, other than to afford an additional advantage to shooting units that want to stand on top of them and give themselves total immunity to assault from non-infantry/fly models.

When a board with no terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, and a board full of terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, you get...well, I'll let you make that connection.

the_scotsman wrote:
When a board with no terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, and a board full of terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, you get...well, I'll let you make that connection.

GW hasn't changed their "Ruins" models since 4th edition. It's understandable the models for terrain that aren't even mandatory are lagging behind the rules for same.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
When a board with no terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, and a board full of terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, you get...well, I'll let you make that connection.

GW hasn't changed their "Ruins" models since 4th edition. It's understandable the models for terrain that aren't even mandatory are lagging behind the rules for same.

I'm sitting here with 600 bucks worth of Sector Mechanicus terrain that came out sometime last year IIRC that I'm building and painting for my local club to use.

If you have some way that I can make any of this terrain such that it does not just give a gigantic advantage to shooty, infantry based units under GW's official rules, I'm all ears. Because I sure as heck can't figure out how to make anything but this one little central pillar block any kind of LOS.

It's a huge platform on stilts that only Infantry and Fly units can get up on, that puts those models 6" above the battlefield and is incredibly easy to cover with your units to make you immune to assault.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
When a board with no terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, and a board full of terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, you get...well, I'll let you make that connection.

GW hasn't changed their "Ruins" models since 4th edition. It's understandable the models for terrain that aren't even mandatory are lagging behind the rules for same.

I'm sitting here with 600 bucks worth of Sector Mechanicus terrain that came out sometime last year IIRC that I'm building and painting for my local club to use.

If you have some way that I can make any of this terrain such that it does not just give a gigantic advantage to shooty, infantry based units under GW's official rules, I'm all ears. Because I sure as heck can't figure out how to make anything but this one little central pillar block any kind of LOS.

It's a huge platform on stilts that only Infantry and Fly units can get up on, that puts those models 6" above the battlefield and is incredibly easy to cover with your units to make you immune to assault.

Put spikes, exhaust pipes, random bits, or anything around the house on top of the problem places and declare them impassable terrain.

Ramps, maybe?

I can't imagine how you could make your unit immune to charge if there were a ramp up to it.

Or club rules that the ruins have only so many HP.

Ideally, if some Carnifex or something were rampaging through downtown, you might run up to the second(/third/fourth) floor of a sturdy building to try to escape it. It's little friends might come into the building to fight you, but "... I'm gonna hide here..." is a reasonable tactic for facing the big grounded stuff, fluff-wise.

Crunch-wise, tournies should be careful not to give infantry too much of an advantage in terrain. I miss building and floor rules from 6th E.

 gwarsh41 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
When a board with no terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, and a board full of terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, you get...well, I'll let you make that connection.

GW hasn't changed their "Ruins" models since 4th edition. It's understandable the models for terrain that aren't even mandatory are lagging behind the rules for same.

I'm sitting here with 600 bucks worth of Sector Mechanicus terrain that came out sometime last year IIRC that I'm building and painting for my local club to use.

If you have some way that I can make any of this terrain such that it does not just give a gigantic advantage to shooty, infantry based units under GW's official rules, I'm all ears. Because I sure as heck can't figure out how to make anything but this one little central pillar block any kind of LOS.

It's a huge platform on stilts that only Infantry and Fly units can get up on, that puts those models 6" above the battlefield and is incredibly easy to cover with your units to make you immune to assault.

Put spikes, exhaust pipes, random bits, or anything around the house on top of the problem places and declare them impassable terrain.

I am still left with a piece of terrain that either does A) nothing at all except look pretty (If I make the whole thing impassable on top) or B) affords a huge advantage to shooty infantry and Fly units that are the exact same units that have the most advantage when you aren't playing with any terrain at all.

The rules as they are written interact with the terrain the company sells as it comes out of the box in such a way that it gives a massive advantage to particular army builds. This means that the rules are broken and should be changed, this does not put the onus on the players to bend over backwards to houserule and modify the terrain they have to fit the game.

Bharring wrote:
Really? Reapers should have been 50% nerfed? 56ppm? I call BS.

Dev ML Marines are at about the same cost as Reapers. Reapers have better firepower, but the Marines are much more survivable.

In your same example, the Devs get 2 rounds of shooting + something Auspexes anything that comes in. Sure, the Auspex isn't as powerful, but you're also losing a lot fewer of the Devs for every shot at them.

Sure, reapers have Alaitoc. If only Devs had something like Raven Guard.

Reapers do have Ynnari. That certainly helps. But the Ynnari reapers do not get Alaitoc's trait - it's one or the other.

I just don't see how a Reaper would be worth 56ppm. Pairity with ML Devs - which nobody thinks is any good - seems about right.

I mean I agree with you on not making them 56 PPM but Marines as much more survivable is a bit of a stretch.

Both have a 3+ save, the only difference is toughness. Marines take 17% fewer wounds against S 3,4,6,7. Against anything else they are equally durable. So marines are slightly more durable against a majority of common anti-infantry guns. But neither is all that fragile against non-AP small arms fire. A squad of mortars kills on average 1.17 Dark Reapers and 0.875 Marines. So probably about 1 in both cases. If those units are in cover it is 0.58 Reapers, 0.43 marines. Throw in Fire and fade, and the ability to always hit on a 3+ and I would actually give the Nod to reapers as they can hide out of LOS and jump back into LOS to shoot. They can also deploy embarked to weather the turn 1 shooting and be no worse for it.

From a damage stand point the Krak missile is probably a little better than the S8 reaper shot if only because it has more upside, but it is unrealiable (averages 3.5 damage vs 3). The big win for the reapers is the lower strength fire mode is significantly better against most things being 2 damage, S 5 and AP -2. Vs D6 S4 Ap 0 1 damage shots. It is really only better against T3 with 4+ save or worse single wound models, and again not reliable. I would say Reapers should probably run about the same as a marine with ML which would be 38 points. So 11 points more than their pre-FAQ cost. But I'm ok with where they are now given the price bumps on their supporting models.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
When a board with no terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, and a board full of terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, you get...well, I'll let you make that connection.

GW hasn't changed their "Ruins" models since 4th edition. It's understandable the models for terrain that aren't even mandatory are lagging behind the rules for same.

I'm sitting here with 600 bucks worth of Sector Mechanicus terrain that came out sometime last year IIRC that I'm building and painting for my local club to use.

If you have some way that I can make any of this terrain such that it does not just give a gigantic advantage to shooty, infantry based units under GW's official rules, I'm all ears. Because I sure as heck can't figure out how to make anything but this one little central pillar block any kind of LOS.

It's a huge platform on stilts that only Infantry and Fly units can get up on, that puts those models 6" above the battlefield and is incredibly easy to cover with your units to make you immune to assault.

You mean you can't use these to block LOS? The one painted white-ish in that picture looks to be about the size of a Rhino. And at my local GW, this terrain piece can block LOS to 50% of a Baneblade, meaning damn near anything else in the game barring a Land Raider can hide behind it. I've had Malcador tanks hide behind it, for example.

EDIT:
As for putting people on top: we usually network all the catwalks together from DZ to DZ, meaning both armies can deploy up there and have a neat infantry fight in the catwalks while the tanks and whatnot slug it out on the ground. It's been pretty awesome.

Breng - I'd agree. I'd be totally fine with 38 point Reapers. I'd see Devs and Reapers as about equal with Reapers maybe *slightly* better. Both have different upsides, but work out to be eerily close in value per model.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
When a board with no terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, and a board full of terrain gives a shooting, infantry focused army an advantage, you get...well, I'll let you make that connection.

GW hasn't changed their "Ruins" models since 4th edition. It's understandable the models for terrain that aren't even mandatory are lagging behind the rules for same.

I'm sitting here with 600 bucks worth of Sector Mechanicus terrain that came out sometime last year IIRC that I'm building and painting for my local club to use.

If you have some way that I can make any of this terrain such that it does not just give a gigantic advantage to shooty, infantry based units under GW's official rules, I'm all ears. Because I sure as heck can't figure out how to make anything but this one little central pillar block any kind of LOS.

It's a huge platform on stilts that only Infantry and Fly units can get up on, that puts those models 6" above the battlefield and is incredibly easy to cover with your units to make you immune to assault.

You mean you can't use these to block LOS? The one painted white-ish in that picture looks to be about the size of a Rhino. And at my local GW, this terrain piece can block LOS to 50% of a Baneblade, meaning damn near anything else in the game barring a Land Raider can hide behind it. I've had Malcador tanks hide behind it, for example.

you get ONE of either one or the other of those with the Sector Mechanicus set. You could conceivably hide a marine behind the former, but not a rhino. The latter is a bit more usable, but see my example here: https://imgur.com/gallery/3Omg1 (these are the pieces I have used as a visual aid, by the by).

When making the decision of what to purchase, I purposefully ordered only one kit that contained the small canister (for variety) and ordered four of the kits that contained the large canisters. I also included 2 sets of Armored Containers, 2 sets of Ryza Walls, and 1 set of Haemotrope reactors.

Even with the Ryza Walls ringing the base, Armored Containers under the areas where there is no central pillar, and central pillars under every piece, it is still laughably easy to see the tiny sliver of any medium-sized vehicle that wants to hide that it takes to fire ranged weapons at full effect. If you turn one of your baneblades sideways such that you can draw LOS from any point from the rear to the front of the hull, I would give you a hundred dollars if you could hide a rhino out of LOS at any point on my big franken-ruin assembly. That thing would be taking full fire at full effectiveness with no cover bonus from all the baneblades ranged weapons.

Simply put, that is a 100% broken ruleset for terrain. There's no way around it, no ifs ands or buts. it does not perform the basic function that scenery in 40k is supposed to perform.

the_scotsman wrote:

I am still left with a piece of terrain that either does A) nothing at all except look pretty (If I make the whole thing impassable on top) or B) affords a huge advantage to shooty infantry and Fly units that are the exact same units that have the most advantage when you aren't playing with any terrain at all.

The rules as they are written interact with the terrain the company sells as it comes out of the box in such a way that it gives a massive advantage to particular army builds. This means that the rules are broken and should be changed, this does not put the onus on the players to bend over backwards to houserule and modify the terrain they have to fit the game.

Mount each piece of terrain on a 3" tall plateau.

Alternatively, I bet you could make some really neat Infinity terrain out of that stuff.

I mean the big advantage reapers have is heavy weapon on each model, with how buffs generally work that is a big deal. Especially in the new 0-3 rule. Also the exarc weapon options are much better fit for the squad than anything the Space Marines get. But on a model per model basis they are fairly close in value. In reality I'd probably rather marine devs go down in price to 34 points per model than reapers go up.

the_scotsman wrote:
Simply put, that is a 100% broken ruleset for terrain. There's no way around it, no ifs ands or buts. it does not perform the basic function that scenery in 40k is supposed to perform.

Yes, RAW, the rules are broken for terrain.

However, leaving behind the broken mess that is RAW, literally no one I've ever played with, at NOVA (a tournament with prize money), local tournaments, or anywhere, has ever claimed you can shoot at a vehicle with as small a piece showing as that Deffdread's sawblade. What's more, I've only played against a few people who claim that the deff-dred could then shoot, in the same situation, and only in games where me and buddies were testing the 8th edition rules and decided RAW was broken.

But yes, RAW is broken. If only sense could prevail...

I'd love it if Exarchs went up +10ppm across the board, but I'm not holding my breath.

The big advantage of everyone-takes-a-heavy comes at a huge disadvantage of no cheap chumps to take incomming fire. a 10-man Dev squad needs to lose 6 guys before they lose any firepower, but only has 4 guns. Same points gets you, what, 6 Reapers? So Devs can increase their durability by 2.5x, for about the same points that Reapers can improve their firepower by 1.5x.

What makes the Reapers come off slightly better there is the game is currently all about the alpha, and Devs aren't really considered the priority that Reapers are. So most people would rather half again the firepower over more than double the durability.

I'd be totally fine with 34 pt ML Devs vs 35 pt Reapers. I think we're mostly on the same page.

Bharring wrote:
Really? Reapers should have been 50% nerfed? 56ppm? I call BS.

Dev ML Marines are at about the same cost as Reapers. Reapers have better firepower, but the Marines are much more survivable.

In your same example, the Devs get 2 rounds of shooting + something Auspexes anything that comes in. Sure, the Auspex isn't as powerful, but you're also losing a lot fewer of the Devs for every shot at them.

Sure, reapers have Alaitoc. If only Devs had something like Raven Guard.

Reapers do have Ynnari. That certainly helps. But the Ynnari reapers do not get Alaitoc's trait - it's one or the other.

I just don't see how a Reaper would be worth 56ppm. Pairity with ML Devs - which nobody thinks is any good - seems about right.

This has already been exhaustively talked about. The Reaper is far superior to the marine with a missle. It should be more expensive not less. What's silly is even after a 7 point increase - IT IS STILL LESS. By far superior we mean far superior.

GhostRecon wrote:
With the new deep strike rules, should just make it that anything not deep striking has to move onto the table turn 1 from your board edge. Only infiltrators and the like start deployed.

Turn 1 alpha pretty much gone for shooting and assault; going second means you’ll get to ‘alpha’ better but the guy going first gets to pick where he’s putting his units to protect against it. Everything has to move on or DS so you’re counting as moving, only long ranged stuff is going to get range, etc. Makes infiltrators and scouts matter more by letting them secure key terrain before anybody moves on. Even makes later turns matter more since turn 1 is more of a wash.

How about everything counts as having moved for the purpose of shooting? Though I can see people skewing to guns than ignore move penalties...

 Daedalus81 wrote:
How about everything counts as having moved for the purpose of shooting? Though I can see people skewing to guns than ignore move penalties...

Those guns do tend to be more expensive though, so it would still be a firepower reduction. Basilisks hitting on 5s are bad, but swapping them to Leman Russes to hit on 4s is actually worse, imo.

Who's still moaning about Guilliman?

He's the one guy holding Marines up and now at 400 I think I just gotta play Raven Guard.

Far superior, until you get shot.

At 56ppm, each Reaper would cost more than a ML Dev + chump. That's 2 T4 bodies to 1 T3 body. That's an insane durability difference for not that much of a shooting difference.

Where the Reapers outperform Devs is against minuses-to-hit, and with their secondary fire option. Outside that, a Krak missile is quite a bit better than what Reapers shoot. D6 wounds is very nice.

Where ML Devs outperform Reapers is durability and versatility. Durability is a big one. You get:
S1: Same
S2: 2 dead reapers for every 1 dead Marines
S3: 3:2
S4: 4:3
S5: Same
S6: 5:4
S7: 5:4
S8+: Same

So for about the same firepower and about the same points, ML Devs survive ~20% better (varying from same to twice as durable).

It is a little silly that it's still less. It's also a little silly that we're talking about ML Devs vs Reapers instead of LC Devs.

However, all that said, they're now in the ballpark of Devestators, which are generally considered not competative.

Bharring wrote:
I'd love it if Exarchs went up +10ppm across the board, but I'm not holding my breath.

The big advantage of everyone-takes-a-heavy comes at a huge disadvantage of no cheap chumps to take incomming fire. a 10-man Dev squad needs to lose 6 guys before they lose any firepower, but only has 4 guns. Same points gets you, what, 6 Reapers? So Devs can increase their durability by 2.5x, for about the same points that Reapers can improve their firepower by 1.5x.

What makes the Reapers come off slightly better there is the game is currently all about the alpha, and Devs aren't really considered the priority that Reapers are. So most people would rather half again the firepower over more than double the durability.

I'd be totally fine with 34 pt ML Devs vs 35 pt Reapers. I think we're mostly on the same page.

True, but most people aren't bringing 6 bolter marines in their dev squads now maybe they should, but that is 65 points that adds basically no offense to your game.

And the game is too centered around offense.

When I think Devs, I think LCs and PCs. Maybe GCs. I'm certainly not thinking MLs, because it (and it's variants aside from Reaper Launchers) feel overcosted right now.

And we're back to my recurring theory: lethality is too high, offense is too good, and should be nerfed.

You can take a 4xLC Dev Squad with some chumps, or you can take a QuadLas Pred.

You can't really take a BL Falcon to replace Reapers, as they don't have the firepower/pt or firepower/slot like the QuadLas Pred.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Totally agree, Unit.

Bharring wrote:
I'd love it if Exarchs went up +10ppm across the board, but I'm not holding my breath.

The big advantage of everyone-takes-a-heavy comes at a huge disadvantage of no cheap chumps to take incomming fire. a 10-man Dev squad needs to lose 6 guys before they lose any firepower, but only has 4 guns. Same points gets you, what, 6 Reapers? So Devs can increase their durability by 2.5x, for about the same points that Reapers can improve their firepower by 1.5x.

What makes the Reapers come off slightly better there is the game is currently all about the alpha, and Devs aren't really considered the priority that Reapers are. So most people would rather half again the firepower over more than double the durability.

I'd be totally fine with 34 pt ML Devs vs 35 pt Reapers. I think we're mostly on the same page.

Repeat after me:
Nobody. Will. Take. 10. Man. Squads. Of. Either. Because. Of. Morale. Being. A. Liability.

You've never seen a 10-man reaper squad?

I've never fielded one above 5, but I've certainly seen them. I've seen tourny lists with 10, too.

In MSU sqads, the variance of chumps vs non is much smaller, so reduces the consideration - doesn't exacerbate it.

10man Devs are rare though. 5man Devs are less rare, but still not common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further, Marines can do chumps in MSU if they want.

(Also, if it were *just* morale, SM would take 10mans - because Combat Squads would negate morale. But there are so many other reasons why MSU is better...).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I'd love it if Exarchs went up +10ppm across the board, but I'm not holding my breath.

The big advantage of everyone-takes-a-heavy comes at a huge disadvantage of no cheap chumps to take incomming fire. a 10-man Dev squad needs to lose 6 guys before they lose any firepower, but only has 4 guns. Same points gets you, what, 6 Reapers? So Devs can increase their durability by 2.5x, for about the same points that Reapers can improve their firepower by 1.5x.

What makes the Reapers come off slightly better there is the game is currently all about the alpha, and Devs aren't really considered the priority that Reapers are. So most people would rather half again the firepower over more than double the durability.

I'd be totally fine with 34 pt ML Devs vs 35 pt Reapers. I think we're mostly on the same page.

Repeat after me:
Nobody. Will. Take. 10. Man. Squads. Of. Either. Because. Of. Morale. Being. A. Liability.

A marine player would have to build around it to take that many useless guys

 fraser1191 wrote:
Who's still moaning about Guilliman?

He's the one guy holding Marines up and now at 400 I think I just gotta play Raven Guard.

Playing RG is your only choice at this point. Ultras do way more damage but get blasted off the table and have 0 ability to get into possition. Going to look into ravengaurd Spamming Agressors/Intercessors/hellblasters with ancient.

Fraser,
My point is that Reapers are now in the same range as ML Devs, and nobody thinks ML Devs are OP.

The point about adding chumps was to show the differences. You could get more than double your durability by maxing out a Dev squad, for only half again the points, but nobody does it.

Bharring wrote:
Far superior, until you get shot.

At 56ppm, each Reaper would cost more than a ML Dev + chump. That's 2 T4 bodies to 1 T3 body. That's an insane durability difference for not that much of a shooting difference.

Where the Reapers outperform Devs is against minuses-to-hit, and with their secondary fire option. Outside that, a Krak missile is quite a bit better than what Reapers shoot. D6 wounds is very nice.

Where ML Devs outperform Reapers is durability and versatility. Durability is a big one. You get:
S1: Same
S2: 2 dead reapers for every 1 dead Marines
S3: 3:2
S4: 4:3
S5: Same
S6: 5:4
S7: 5:4
S8+: Same

So for about the same firepower and about the same points, ML Devs survive ~20% better (varying from same to twice as durable).

It is a little silly that it's still less. It's also a little silly that we're talking about ML Devs vs Reapers instead of LC Devs.

However, all that said, they're now in the ballpark of Devestators, which are generally considered not competative.

Slow down there buddy. I was thinking more like...45.