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.

I'll never play the game so long as this turn 1 place your units wherever you want on the table and charge mechanic is the norm. Seriously... no maneuvering is a game dead to me.

So the beta rules are a step in the right direction for me.

How do you make brainless turn 1 charge something that could work? By making alternating activations how the game works instead of IGOUGO.

fe40k wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Global -1 to hit on ranged attacks to represent the army just having gotten into position in addition to the deep striking stuff.

Do you think that completely removing an entire phase of the game (Combat phase), on the most critical round of the game (Round 1), for armies that live and die by the Combat phase; is equal to a -1 to hit for shooting?

Really?

If Melee armies can't deep strike, then Shooting armies shouldn't be able to shoot - period. Let the first battle round be for movement and jockeying for position, if we're going that route.

Hey to be fair, they didn't just make assault irrelevant in the first turn, they made it irrelevant in every turn with their lovely "terrain upper stories are un-assaultable" rule.

Enemy sticks objectives up there, parks a shooty unit, and Bam, there's one objective and one unit you can never do anything about with assault.

AnFéasógMór wrote:
The problem with saying "you can't shoot anything that is in its own deployment zone is it just shifts that advantage from whoever goes first to whoever goes second. Or just turns the game into "who can pick the deployment zone with the most objectives and then sit there for 5-7 rounds," which sounds like a really boring game that could be replaced by rolling a d6 once and then just spending a few hours staring at some pretty models.

Honestly, I think the best fix to first turn Alpha strikes would be the same thing I've said since day one would be a good fix for a myriad of problems in the game: make every single round and every single phase of the game alternate. One player moves a unit, then the other. One player shoots with a unit, and then the other, etc, etc.

One thing I know for sure, though, is that this beta rule is not the way to fix it; it pretty indisputably affects CC armies more than shooting armies, and destroys a degree of balance the game hasn't had in years.

Uhm, the limitation is only on the first turn. Which, if both players chicken out and sit there, still leaves the advantage of shooting first to the player going first.

 auticus wrote:
I'll never play the game so long as this turn 1 place your units wherever you want on the table and charge mechanic is the norm. Seriously... no maneuvering is a game dead to me.

So the beta rules are a step in the right direction for me.

How do you make brainless turn 1 charge something that could work? By making alternating activations how the game works instead of IGOUGO.

Make all guns have less than 24 inch range then. You talk about no maneuvering how the hell do you think gunlines play.

I'm not sure it takes anything as drastic as some of these recommendations. How about a simple All units count as having moved the first turn? That'll mean -1 to hit for most of the weapons that allow gunline alpha strikes to be too strong, but won't hurt lots of other units that aren't the problem.

fe40k wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Global -1 to hit on ranged attacks to represent the army just having gotten into position in addition to the deep striking stuff.

Do you think that completely removing an entire phase of the game (Combat phase), on the most critical round of the game (Round 1), for armies that live and die by the Combat phase; is equal to a -1 to hit for shooting?

Really?

If Melee armies can't deep strike, then Shooting armies shouldn't be able to shoot - period. Let the first battle round be for movement and jockeying for position, if we're going that route.

Soooo, what your saying is just play Warmachine? Starting to think about making that my main game (again) until GW figured out how their own game plays.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Leman Russ can only be taken as 1 per data sheet and not 1-3 in matched play with rule of 3, that or just make all tanks 1-3 line leman Russ (predator, falcon etc.)

Were people taking tons of squadded Leman Russes? It just seemed to me that Squadding actually makes it overall worse then the previous tactic of taking as many leman russes in individual slots rather then all together.

They'll probably need to faq this but i would argue that the leman russ's data sheet and rule allows you to treat 3 squadron'd leman russ's as a single unit up to deployment, allowing you to field a total of 9 russes.

The rules in question

This Unit contain 1 Leman Russ battle tank. It can include 1 additional Leman Russ Battle Tank (Power Rating +10) or 2 Additional Leman Russ Battle Tanks (power Rating +20) Each Model is Equipped with a battle cannon and heavy bolter.

Vehicle Squadron: The first time this unit is setup, all models in this unit must be placed within 6" of each other. From that point onwards, each operates independantly and is treated as a seperate unit for all rules purposes.

It's gonna be important to get a resolution on this as most vehicles in the guard codex can be placed into squadrons.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
I'm not sure it takes anything as drastic as some of these recommendations. How about a simple All units count as having moved the first turn? That'll mean -1 to hit for most of the weapons that allow gunline alpha strikes to be too strong, but won't hurt lots of other units that aren't the problem.

Does nothing against weapons that rely simply on massed fired and the law of averages. Still disproportionately penalizes CC armies, because a gunline at -1 still has a chance to do something, albiet at a penalty. A CC army with no ability to charge doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HMint wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:
The problem with saying "you can't shoot anything that is in its own deployment zone is it just shifts that advantage from whoever goes first to whoever goes second. Or just turns the game into "who can pick the deployment zone with the most objectives and then sit there for 5-7 rounds," which sounds like a really boring game that could be replaced by rolling a d6 once and then just spending a few hours staring at some pretty models.

Honestly, I think the best fix to first turn Alpha strikes would be the same thing I've said since day one would be a good fix for a myriad of problems in the game: make every single round and every single phase of the game alternate. One player moves a unit, then the other. One player shoots with a unit, and then the other, etc, etc.

One thing I know for sure, though, is that this beta rule is not the way to fix it; it pretty indisputably affects CC armies more than shooting armies, and destroys a degree of balance the game hasn't had in years.

Uhm, the limitation is only on the first turn. Which, if both players chicken out and sit there, still leaves the advantage of shooting first to the player going first.

Okay, I missed the 1st turn part. Change that to

"sounds like a really boring round that could be replaced by rolling a d6 once and then just spending half an hour staring at some pretty models.

If you can't fire at units in their deployment zone turn one, all that's going to happen is neither player moving turn one, and turn two effectively being turn one, but for some reason called turn two.

I'm not sure the beta rules need any change, not yet at least. GW's been working with pro gamers to get this out and these results are data driven (adeptacon).

Instead of spitting in GW's face we need to do them the service of playing out these rules for a few months, and adjusting away from these more abusive play-styles (deepstrike, spam, soup, smites, etc)

but if this was the "most playtested edition ever" (as i read many many times in past months), why now so massive fixes are needed? contradictory seems to me

How Do we improve the beta rules? Seems pretty easy to me.

Tactical Reserves:
Part 1: On Turn 1, you can only deep strike in your own TABLE HALF. Drop Pods, Tyrannocytes, Mawlocs, Primaris Rievers, and terminators are immune from this restriction.
Part 2: New global Stratagem. 2 CP: Dug in: Your armor saves cannot be reduced by more than 1 on the 1st shooting phase of the game to a minimum of a 6+.

It might not be the perfect dialed in fix, but it's pretty good, and excellent for army diversity. How many Mawlocs, Drop Pods, Terminators do you expect in the meta with the GW version of this rule? My version creates a role for those units in the game again. It also tackles alpha strike in a meaningful way. It's not platitudes about "More Terrain" or a fix to a subset of alpha strike (deepstrikers). It tackles the problem head-on in a meaningful way.


Battle Brothers:
Grey Knights gets Ordo Malleus
Sisters of Battle gets Ordo Heritucs
Deathwatch gets Ordo Xenos
(maybe) Custodes gets Ordo Specialist

Assassins and Sisters of Silence get (Ordo) allowing them to pick Ordo Xenos, Ordo Malleus, Ordo Heriticus, or Ordo Specialist.

Every faction mentioned and inquisition are all improved, and in a pretty fluffy way that allows you to do away with soup detachments.

GW if you are reading this (and I suspect you are), please consider our ideas. We are happy you are putting in the effort, and trying, and hope that together we can improve the fun and diversity of the game.

 blackmage wrote:
but if this was the "most playtested edition ever" (as i read many many times in past months), why now so massive fixes are needed? contradictory seems to me

Ah this joke.

Most playtested =/= perfect balance

A nerf to shooting in the first turn was acually a thing in the past. It was called nightfighting and limited the firing range to 2d6 times 3.

 gbghg wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Leman Russ can only be taken as 1 per data sheet and not 1-3 in matched play with rule of 3, that or just make all tanks 1-3 line leman Russ (predator, falcon etc.)

Were people taking tons of squadded Leman Russes? It just seemed to me that Squadding actually makes it overall worse then the previous tactic of taking as many leman russes in individual slots rather then all together.

They'll probably need to faq this but i would argue that the leman russ's data sheet and rule allows you to treat 3 squadron'd leman russ's as a single unit up to deployment, allowing you to field a total of 9 russes.

The rules in question

This Unit contain 1 Leman Russ battle tank. It can include 1 additional Leman Russ Battle Tank (Power Rating +10) or 2 Additional Leman Russ Battle Tanks (power Rating +20) Each Model is Equipped with a battle cannon and heavy bolter.

Vehicle Squadron: The first time this unit is setup, all models in this unit must be placed within 6" of each other. From that point onwards, each operates independantly and is treated as a seperate unit for all rules purposes.

It's gonna be important to get a resolution on this as most vehicles in the guard codex can be placed into squadrons.

Oh I really did not notice that rule, that changes things considerably then what I was thinking.

 blackmage wrote:
but if this was the "most playtested edition ever" (as i read many many times in past months), why now so massive fixes are needed?

Because you don't understand game design probably. What game are you aware that got their balancing done right at the on-set and didn't need multiple iterations to improve its mechanics?

LoyalGuardsman69 wrote:
I'm not sure the beta rules need any change, not yet at least. GW's been working with pro gamers to get this out and these results are data driven (adeptacon).

Instead of spitting in GW's face we need to do them the service of playing out these rules for a few months, and adjusting away from these more abusive play-styles (deepstrike, spam, soup, smites, etc)

The problem with saying that drawing on tournaments is "data driven" is it doesn't take into account whether that data represents an accurate cross section of the game. It's like saying a poll on whether people are content with their standard of living that only questions rich, white people is "data driven" when applied to everyone in the country. Things like Adeptacon draw particular types of lists because those are what are considered competitive. At Adepticon this year, for example, of the top 16 lists, 5 were Nids, 4 were Chaos, 6 were Imperium. 93.75% of the top lists split between like 20% of the available factions. Issues that may have arisen from the types of lists people were playing at Adepticon hardly represent and are hardly applicable to every other army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tag8833 wrote:

Part 1: On Turn 1, you can only deep strike in your own TABLE HALF. Drop Pods, Tyrannocytes, Mawlocs, Primaris Rievers, and terminators are immune from this restriction.

Okay, why those specific units, and why specifically not every other deep striking unit.

Anyone can come up with a reason why their unit should or should not be affected. Any change to deep striking needs to have solid grounding, and create a level field. To me, that just seems like saying "except these units from major, competitive armies, because reasons."

 Sim-Life wrote:
Global -1 to hit on ranged attacks to represent the army just having gotten into position in addition to the deep striking stuff.

I think going with +1 to WS/BS (-1? whatever, make it harder to hit them) is a better call. Still allows for fancy abilities to go off on 6s, and wont make plasma overcharge a 1/3 chance to die. I would be 100% ok with my deep strikers being disoriented and having worse melee/shooting for the turn they arrive as a balance.

Why not just make it so the player going first can't bring stuff in from Reserves? Actually makes people think about going first or second, or whether seizing the initiative is worth it.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Why not just make it so the player going first can't bring stuff in from Reserves? Actually makes people think about going first or second, or whether seizing the initiative is worth it.

Same problems (though in a more minor form) as GW's version. Alpha Strike shooting is still boosted by removing it's natural enemy (turn 1 assault) from the ecosystem.

I agree that alpha strike assault can be pretty intense. I think it can be mitigated by screening your army. Long range shooty alpha strikes like Guard Artillery, Dark Reapers, or Tau Riptides are much harder to mitigate, and much less fun to play against. My opinion is that a fix to alpha strikes should also addresses shooting alpha strikes and not only assault based ones.

LoyalGuardsman69 wrote:
I'm not sure the beta rules need any change, not yet at least. GW's been working with pro gamers to get this out and these results are data driven (adeptacon).

Instead of spitting in GW's face we need to do them the service of playing out these rules for a few months, and adjusting away from these more abusive play-styles (deepstrike, spam, soup, smites, etc)

GW has a tremendously perfect track record for balancing, and it's impossible to know more than them when it comes to game design; or critical thinking.

/s

fe40k wrote:

LoyalGuardsman69 wrote:
I'm not sure the beta rules need any change, not yet at least. GW's been working with pro gamers to get this out and these results are data driven (adeptacon).

Instead of spitting in GW's face we need to do them the service of playing out these rules for a few months, and adjusting away from these more abusive play-styles (deepstrike, spam, soup, smites, etc)

GW has a tremendously perfect track record for balancing, and it's impossible to know more than them when it comes to game design; or critical thinking.

/s

And I've seen the logic on this forum and it's gak a lot of the time, too. I wouldn't be so quick to claim that many here would do better.

 gwarsh41 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Global -1 to hit on ranged attacks to represent the army just having gotten into position in addition to the deep striking stuff.

I think going with +1 to WS/BS (-1? whatever, make it harder to hit them) is a better call. Still allows for fancy abilities to go off on 6s, and wont make plasma overcharge a 1/3 chance to die. I would be 100% ok with my deep strikers being disoriented and having worse melee/shooting for the turn they arrive as a balance.

You want to make a shooting alpha better?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Leman Russ can only be taken as 1 per data sheet and not 1-3 in matched play with rule of 3, that or just make all tanks 1-3 line leman Russ (predator, falcon etc.)

Were people taking tons of squadded Leman Russes? It just seemed to me that Squadding actually makes it overall worse then the previous tactic of taking as many leman russes in individual slots rather then all together.

Separate gives better CP access(not really problem), squadroning limits bit deployment but also cuts down on drops=better chance to get +1 for first turn.

tag8833 wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Why not just make it so the player going first can't bring stuff in from Reserves? Actually makes people think about going first or second, or whether seizing the initiative is worth it.

Same problems (though in a more minor form) as GW's version. Alpha Strike shooting is still boosted by removing it's natural enemy (turn 1 assault) from the ecosystem.

I agree that alpha strike assault can be pretty intense. I think it can be mitigated by screening your army. Long range shooty alpha strikes like Guard Artillery, Dark Reapers, or Tau Riptides are much harder to mitigate, and much less fun to play against. My opinion is that a fix to alpha strikes should also addresses shooting alpha strikes and not only assault based ones.

I completely understand, but I really can't see any other way of trying to make that jank rule work since between the DE shutting off Strategems and this Beta rule, what is the point of even playing Blood Angels?

GW: "Hey we gave you some sweet assault rules in your Codex!"

GW a few months later: "LULZ! So you wanted to use your rules?! Gotcha!"

GW is the ultimate troll.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Why not just make it so the player going first can't bring stuff in from Reserves? Actually makes people think about going first or second, or whether seizing the initiative is worth it.

Same problems (though in a more minor form) as GW's version. Alpha Strike shooting is still boosted by removing it's natural enemy (turn 1 assault) from the ecosystem.

I agree that alpha strike assault can be pretty intense. I think it can be mitigated by screening your army. Long range shooty alpha strikes like Guard Artillery, Dark Reapers, or Tau Riptides are much harder to mitigate, and much less fun to play against. My opinion is that a fix to alpha strikes should also addresses shooting alpha strikes and not only assault based ones.

I completely understand, but I really can't see any other way of trying to make that jank rule work since between the DE shutting off Strategems and this Beta rule, what is the point of even playing Blood Angels?

GW: "Hey we gave you some sweet assault rules in your Codex!"

GW a few months later: "LULZ! So you wanted to use your rules?! Gotcha!"

GW is the ultimate troll.

That's what you get when you try to apply game wide rule changes to combat few problematic units.

From my point of view, what needs to be done is adding a new 'Imperial Agents' faction keyword to the datasheets for Inquisition, Officio Assassinorum, Adeptus Ministorum (but not Adepta Sororitas stuff except for Sisters Hospitaller and Dialogus) and Astra Telepathica units so that they can be used together in a single detachment without having to do stupid lore-destroying things like fielding Assassins in threes or having Sisters of Silence drag along Astropaths and Primaris Psykers to fill compulsory FoC slots. That then means we can lose the silly exception-to-an-exception rules for fielding Assassins and SoS in HQ-less vanguard detachments.

For Legion of the Damned, it makes more sense fluff-wise to keep them in their own isolated detachments (like GK or DW in Inquisition armies), so I'd rather see them get some new units (i.e. HQ choices) to make them viable. Or maybe let them bypass the normal -1CP cost of taking a single squad in an auxilliary detachment, since a single unit showing up to help out feels appropriate. You could actually do that with Assassins as well.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 gwarsh41 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Global -1 to hit on ranged attacks to represent the army just having gotten into position in addition to the deep striking stuff.

I think going with +1 to WS/BS (-1? whatever, make it harder to hit them) is a better call. Still allows for fancy abilities to go off on 6s, and wont make plasma overcharge a 1/3 chance to die. I would be 100% ok with my deep strikers being disoriented and having worse melee/shooting for the turn they arrive as a balance.

You want to make a shooting alpha better?

No he means making 3+ shooting a 4+. (ie adding 1). With a -1 it makes plasma overcharge on a 2, whereas his way means it is just harder to hit.

 auticus wrote:
So the beta rules are a step in the right direction for me.

How do you make brainless turn 1 charge something that could work? By making alternating activations how the game works instead of IGOUGO.

Unfortunately this.

It actually would not need all that much work by GW, but they seem somewhat entrenched in their way of wanting games to work. Everything else is a sticking plaster on an open wound.

tag8833 wrote:
Battle Brothers:
Grey Knights gets Ordo Malleus
Sisters of Battle gets Ordo Heritucs
Deathwatch gets Ordo Xenos
(maybe) Custodes gets Ordo Specialist

Assassins and Sisters of Silence get (Ordo) allowing them to pick Ordo Xenos, Ordo Malleus, Ordo Heriticus, or Ordo Specialist.

Every faction mentioned and inquisition are all improved, and in a pretty fluffy way that allows you to do away with soup detachments.

That's a great way to solve the inquisition problem.
I would also like if the inquisition also had access to Chimeras, and maybe Taurox.

For Ynnari:
- The Ynnari keyword becomes eligible as a detachment faction keyword
- When you take an Ynnari character, all your Aeldari detachments become Ynnari. It's an all-or-nothing thing.

 Quickjager wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I'll never play the game so long as this turn 1 place your units wherever you want on the table and charge mechanic is the norm. Seriously... no maneuvering is a game dead to me.

So the beta rules are a step in the right direction for me.

How do you make brainless turn 1 charge something that could work? By making alternating activations how the game works instead of IGOUGO.

Make all guns have less than 24 inch range then. You talk about no maneuvering how the hell do you think gunlines play.

There are a solid dozen wargames that are set in modern or sci fi times that seem to do just fine. The fact that "gunlines" can exist is another failing of the core rules of 40k. The truth of the matter is that an all gun or an all melee army SHOULD fail. "Gunlines" exist because the terrain rules are ridiculously barely existent and cover is garbage.