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.

 Infantryman wrote:
Probably not a good idea to slow down the game. The theme I've picked up on from players here and on other 40k groups is a desire for quick, decisive games. According to some here, most games are decided by turn 3. If anything, we should be looking to reduce that to turn 2.

It's not so much about "slowing the game" down versus making the time allocations where players make active decisions into shorter interleaved chunks. Mind, in my proposal, Overwatch means forfeitting shooting during your turn; however, it is a -1 BS penalty instead of a "hit on 6s."

Games are decided by turn 1 when you're able to remove a fourth of the enemy's points and their army has no way to defend against it.

 Lemane0116 wrote:
Games are decided by turn 1 when you're able to remove a fourth of the enemy's points and their army has no way to defend against it.

Pretty much this. 8th has gotten way outta hand with alpha stike. This was something I knew was gonna happen from the very start of 8th and even before when inklings of the rules were being leaked. Garunteed deep strike is what did this. No one wanted to believe me when I told them how powerful this was going to be, now look. Games are over turn 1 or 2 most of the time. GW only made alpha strike worse this Ed.

That said, it's also VERY easy to counter an alpha stike. For example, if you are imperium, you twke 3 Scot sentinals. That's 135 points you can use to deny half the board of deep strike. People are just refusing to take point taxes to prevent such an attack.

 Lemane0116 wrote:
^Indeed.

I liked just holding reserves, going to keep doing so in my matches for less linearity. It is distasteful and dishonorable to consistently be able to delete several hundred points T1.

MagicJuggler your overwatch suggestion is also interesting, but radical. Unless you allowed the player going second to place units in overwatch, it seems like it wouldn’t help them much. If anything wouldn’t it help T1 player to avoid wasting firepower.

Old school overwatch worked like this and was a great mechanic in my opinion.
some felt that it ended up with stagnant 'waiting for you to move so that I can overwatch your a$$' sorts of situations but with objectives to meet, points to score, narratives to fulfill, it added to the suspense.

Frankly, I like your suggestions, and bet that they work well.
I was reading bat reps in the Dec White Dwarf and noted how predictably the Eldar/Marine game went.
Deep strike in, erase unit x, deep strike, erase unit y, unless you have an underpowered (not a hellblaster or a redemptor dread's newfangled 'volkite' mega cannon or whatnot) gun, in which case you do diddly regardless, so why bother with those and why not spam hellblaters for the win, huh?
Just, yuck. What a terrible game/business model.

Seems to me that so many people play their armies to beat the game, rather than play the game to beat other players' armies.
It is like gaming with the mildly autistic, damaged mirror neurons and incapacity to empathize, but with probability math reasoning left in place.
So, now it is about finding loopholes and spamming plastic.
I am for anything that returns the game (in spirit) to a strategy battlefield simulation, and that mostly involves ignoring GW rules writers.
For example, I refuse to play according to RaW wound allocation, LoS and terrain/cover rules.
If confronted with a situation where the other player insisted on using the RaW in 8th, I would just pack up my models and paint, instead.
People may argue that 40k was never a strategy battlefield simulation, but coming out of chess at the beginning 25years ago, I found enough in 40k to hold my interest in this way, at least.
Now, there is almost nothing left, just dice rolling and tricks.

You do realize your playing a competitive game, people are going to fine out how to win. It's not an autistic thing, it's a, I'm going to use stratagy to make a good list.

And that means alpha strike in this edditon. Just counter it as j said and you will see how quickly it cripples and army.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
You do realize your playing a competitive game, people are going to fine out how to win. It's not an autistic thing, it's a, I'm going to use stratagy to make a good list.

And that means alpha strike in this edditon. Just counter it as j said and you will see how quickly it cripples and army.

Competitive in what dimensions? Simple W/L by points? Yeah, no thanks. If someone's main aim in pursuing this hobby is winning games by exploiting bad rules, spending big money to spam the new hotness, trying to argue that it is 'fluffy' to spam 3 units of x and 5 units of y when clearly these units are chosen only to exploit rules, I wouldn't play that person. Oh, and since when is this hobby more about deck... errr, 'list' building than creating a killer drama on a realistic tabletop with hand crafted terrain and a deep collection of lovingly painted sculpture? When I started out, I learned right away that the guy with all the phoenix lords and the spammed dark reapers was playing the game wrong. How is it that the hobby got reduced to this level in the past 25 years? Mass brain damage is the best explanation that I can come up with...

 jeff white wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
You do realize your playing a competitive game, people are going to fine out how to win. It's not an autistic thing, it's a, I'm going to use stratagy to make a good list.

And that means alpha strike in this edditon. Just counter it as j said and you will see how quickly it cripples and army.

Competitive in what dimensions? Simple W/L by points? Yeah, no thanks. If someone's main aim in pursuing this hobby is winning games by exploiting bad rules, spending big money to spam the new hotness, trying to argue that it is 'fluffy' to spam 3 units of x and 5 units of y when clearly these units are chosen only to exploit rules, I wouldn't play a game with them. I would ignore them and if they pushed I would shame them for being simple. The only 'competition' that such a person 'wins' is being a d00$h.

Umm yeah that's the game. Maybe you should not be in a hobby where that is the norm.
If I run a list that uses 50 pink horrors and then use HQs that let me reroll hits and wounds and give them 60 attacks that hit on 4s and woulds most things on 3s. And the rest of my army is tzeentch and t sons, am I now a power gamer? Because that's a pretty damn fluffy list. I just was smart about it and made it good.

You have this conception that fluffy and competitive are mutually exclusive. They are not, your army can and should be both.

Honestly you don't sound like a good person to have around in the hobby if you expect a list thats pure fluff to be any good. I have a dw rw list I build that's SUPER fluffy, but it's utter crap because we are Garbo, my tzeentzch is super fluffy as well, but is really strong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your are essentially upset that people are not hobbying the way you do and that anyone who is not hobbying like you is a power gamer and wrong.

 Backspacehacker wrote:


Umm yeah that's the game. Maybe you should not be in a hobby where that is the norm.
If I run a list that uses 50 pink horrors and then use HQs that let me reroll hits and wounds and give them 60 attacks that hit on 4s and woulds most things on 3s. And the rest of my army is tzeentch and t sons, am I now a power gamer? Because that's a pretty damn fluffy list. I just was smart about it and made it good.

You have this conception that fluffy and competitive are mutually exclusive. They are not, your army can and should be both.

Honestly you don't sound like a good person to have around in the hobby if you expect a list thats pure fluff to be any good. I have a dw rw list I build that's SUPER fluffy, but it's utter crap because we are Garbo, my tzeentzch is super fluffy as well, but is really strong.

See, you are not running that 'list' because you think it is 'fluffy',
you are using 'fluffiness' to give you an excuse to build a 'list.'
That is no different than a collectible card game, in my mind.
Why not just skip the painting and the battlefield and play Magic or something?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your are essentially upset that people are not hobbying the way you do and that anyone who is not hobbying like you is a power gamer and wrong.

No, I am not upset.
It would upset me to have to play spammy list-builders, especially those who excuse their spamminess arguing that they are so 'fluffy' when it is so clearly just a ruse to exploit bad rules.
Nah...
I just ignore all that.
I like the rules that the OP has suggested.
Something must be done to fix the mess that GW has made of itself, imho.
I mean, do you like 8th edition rules?
Good.
Lots of people for you to hang out with, then.
I would rather play with someone like the OP who recognizes that the current edition is pretty much garbage, and needs fixing.
We would have a lot of fun together figuring out how to do that.
And, get some good games in at the same time.

No I think my list is pretty dn fluffy.

It's Magnus leading t sons with daemon support. Which is VERY fluffy to their lore. I'm just capable of looking a list and realizing

"Oh, if I bring a D prince instead of a burning charriot, all my horrors can reroll 1s to hit, that's a smarter move."

That's not being a power gamer, that's just realizing abetter choice.

Here this is my full 2 k list and I want you to honestly tell me this is not fluffy. Keep in mind, horrors are the equivalent of culitsts in the daemon world they are the cheap units that area dime a dozen

Daemon detachment.
Flux master (formally Harold of tzeentzch)
Daemon prince (tallons no wings)

Pink horrors (banner ) x20
Pink horrors (banner) x20
Pink horros (banner )x10

Flamers x3

T some detatchment
Rubric squad, (2 flamers, soulreaper) x10
Rhino

Rubric squad (2 flamers, soulreaper) x10
Rhino

Terminator sorcerer

Magnus

That's a pretty damn fluffy list my dude.

I play this game because I like pushing models around the table and making an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because right now, your making it sound like if I do any synergy I'm a power gamer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I agree that there are issues in 8th bad one, really bad ones in fact, but your coming off as someone who thinks anyone who wants to make a list decent is a power gamer, and that's not a very good position to take.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
No I think my list is pretty dn fluffy.

It's Magnus leading t sons with daemon support. Which is VERY fluffy to their lore. I'm just capable of looking a list and realizing

"Oh, if I bring a D prince instead of a burning charriot, all my horrors can reroll 1s to hit, that's a smarter move."

That's not being a power gamer, that's just realizing abetter choice.

Here this is my full 2 k list and I want you to honestly tell me this is not fluffy. Keep in mind, horrors are the equivalent of culitsts in the daemon world they are the cheap units that area dime a dozen

Daemon detachment.
Flux master (formally Harold of tzeentzch)
Daemon prince (tallons no wings)

Pink horrors (banner ) x20
Pink horrors (banner) x20
Pink horros (banner )x10

Flamers x3

T some detatchment
Rubric squad, (2 flamers, soulreaper) x10
Rhino

Rubric squad (2 flamers, soulreaper) x10
Rhino

Terminator sorcerer

Magnus

That's a pretty damn fluffy list my dude.

I play this game because I like pushing models around the table and making an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because right now, your making it sound like if I do any synergy I'm a power gamer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I agree that there are issues in 8th bad one, really bad ones in fact, but your coming off as someone who thinks anyone who wants to make a list decent is a power gamer, and that's not a very good position to take.

OK man, the only thing that I really don't like about that army (I don't like the word 'list' so I am not going to use it) is the inclusion of the named character.
If you dropped Magnus for some other units including some unnamed characters for example then I would play.
I come from an era when named characters could only be used with the opposing player's consent, and I myself refuse to field one, ever, in fact I do own a few old named character models but have converted them and now they represent unnamed characters.
I will never own a Girlyman, or even a wraithknight for that matter (lots of reasons not to own a WK imho, 'fluff' based reasons especially).
I do have a stompa and a morakaut though, so it is not that I mind shelling out for cool models either just saying...
Now, I would not use RaW 8th edition rules in a lot of cases, and we would have to sort that out and you might not like to play accordingly so the game might not happen for those reasons, too, but sure, the trouble is not with your army so much but with the horrors being pretty powerful these days (from my understanding, never played against them).

Again I think the idea that not wanting to play someone because they bring a given you is extremely juvenile. If the reasoning is because he is to powerful I could easily being something that can cause just as much of a headache. For example I could just take a blood thirster, which is cheaper, and deep strike him in and charge into you turn one. That's a very good example of how just because he is not a named character does not mean he can not be broken byond all reasoning. I would not do that because it would break my fluff of the list so.

Plus Magnus is easy to deal with. Laz cannons and your done, he can only roll so many saves.

Lemane0116 wrote:Games are decided by turn 1 when you're able to remove a fourth of the enemy's points and their army has no way to defend against it.

And from my understanding this should be desirable, because it lets you get more games in.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Plus Magnus is easy to deal with. Laz cannons and your done, he can only roll so many saves.

So long as he doesn't have an out-of-los unit slightly closer you need to deal with first.

Magnus has more than 9 wounds.

 Infantryman wrote:

Lemane0116 wrote:Games are decided by turn 1 when you're able to remove a fourth of the enemy's points and their army has no way to defend against it.

And from my understanding this should be desirable, because it lets you get more games in.

Technically yes. However, you could make the same argument for replacing all dice rolls with a single coinflip to determine who wins. The same way that singular die rolls in 7th carried disproportionate weight (Stomp and D), putting too much weight into "Do I Go First?" makes it less of a game in the long run.

 Infantryman wrote:

Lemane0116 wrote:Games are decided by turn 1 when you're able to remove a fourth of the enemy's points and their army has no way to defend against it.

And from my understanding this should be desirable, because it lets you get more games in.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Plus Magnus is easy to deal with. Laz cannons and your done, he can only roll so many saves.

So long as he doesn't have an out-of-los unit slightly closer you need to deal with first.

Character targeting rules don't apply to him, he has over 9 wounds. You can target him with out issues.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:

Lemane0116 wrote:Games are decided by turn 1 when you're able to remove a fourth of the enemy's points and their army has no way to defend against it.

And from my understanding this should be desirable, because it lets you get more games in.

Technically yes. However, you could make the same argument for replacing all dice rolls with a single coinflip to determine who wins. The same way that singular die rolls in 7th carried disproportionate weight (Stomp and D), putting too much weight into "Do I Go First?" makes it less of a game in the long run.

Yeah, but then the guys who buy all the new plastic and pay someone else to paint it for them won't get their win button unless that coin is weighted more heavily on the side of the platinum card. Better bet is to compare credit scores and house values modulated by the anticipated recompense that chosen professions/inheritance trust funds and so on would reliably deliver over the course of a given rules edition, and let it go at that - then just go back to the bar. Why play a strategy game at all? Sheesh... Get more games in, rather than play one long meaningful dramatic realistic game that is grounded in sound reason. I just don't get this new mindset. Even a hobby like this one becomes disposable, along with afternoons and evenings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Again I think the idea that not wanting to play someone because they bring a given you is extremely juvenile. If the reasoning is because he is to powerful I could easily being something that can cause just as much of a headache. For example I could just take a blood thirster, which is cheaper, and deep strike him in and charge into you turn one. That's a very good example of how just because he is not a named character does not mean he can not be broken byond all reasoning. I would not do that because it would break my fluff of the list so.

Plus Magnus is easy to deal with. Laz cannons and your done, he can only roll so many saves.

Juvenile?
Like someone crying because someone else doesn't like named characters as a matter of principle?
Uh-huh.

What if I said that I refuse to spend time with people who never made the effort to learn how to read and write correctly?
Make you feel better?

What's also interesting is with the new t sons information, it seems like GW is pushing for even MORE deep strike, almost all armies can alpha strike now. T sons get a strat to do it. And an artifact that can do it as well.

 Infantryman wrote:

Lemane0116 wrote:Games are decided by turn 1 when you're able to remove a fourth of the enemy's points and their army has no way to defend against it.

And from my understanding this should be desirable, because it lets you get more games in.

More worse games is not desirable over less great games.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:

Lemane0116 wrote:Games are decided by turn 1 when you're able to remove a fourth of the enemy's points and their army has no way to defend against it.

And from my understanding this should be desirable, because it lets you get more games in.

More worse games is not desirable over less great games.

QFT best games are ones won by like a 1 or 2 point margin.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:

Lemane0116 wrote:Games are decided by turn 1 when you're able to remove a fourth of the enemy's points and their army has no way to defend against it.

And from my understanding this should be desirable, because it lets you get more games in.

More worse games is not desirable over less great games.

QFT best games are ones won by like a 1 or 2 point margin.

Agreed, hard fought games with a lot of player interaction are much more valuable then quick stomps. Matter of opinion maybe, but I'd much rather play one 3 hour close game, than two 1 hour stomps.

Tbh theoar fun we have had game was has been doing strong hold assault. I wanna fight someone who is defending as guard really bad.

Ya know i dont think i mind the no t1 DS part of it.

thinking about it it kinda forces people to move to nab first turn objectives and opens up their side of the field. giving more opportunities for deep strikers to do a thing.

sure they dont have to move but that limits your board position for things other than just killing and shooting.

And again it's not hard to deny deep strike, especially as imperum. It's like a 200 point tax and you can set up an 18 inch buffer zone that they can't strike in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me rephrase that, for 200 points you can add 18 inches from your deployment One that they can't deep strike with it, which ends up making an 18 inch range that they cant get into with deep strike.

Yup. People need to realize that you don't place units 9" from each other. it's closer to 19". 2 models in 2 units with any size base deny an area like this.

-----9"-----------------9"
-----/-------------------/--
-----/-------------------/----
9"--Unit1----19"----Unit2--9"
-----/-------------------/----
-----/-------------------/--
----9"------------------9"


With some intelligent planning you can very easily close off your entire deployment zone and have a 19" buffer between the nearest deepstrikeable unit and anything actually important.

Does not even need to be intelligent planning. You take a commisar and 3 scout sentinals. Set them on the edge of the deployment spread out. Before the first battle round they get to move up 9 inches, you just made a larger deny zone.