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.

CassianSol wrote:

 BigmekRatsmek wrote:
So what if deploying your army was part of the first round?
Instead of setting up everything beforehand, the players have to move their units onto the battlefield turn 1. The player who goes first can't cripple anything sicne there are no enemy models on the board and focusses on positioning. The player who goes second has the advantage of being able to shoot, but everything that arrives has moved, of course, and he (probably) won't be close enough to the enemy to shoot at him with anything but long range guns.

You could add that deep strikers can only arrive in your own table half at the first turn and maybe give scouts the option to basically move twice their movement value during turn 1. Or something like that....

Basic idea is moving onto the battlefield as part of the first turn.

This is a cool idea. I suspect a things would need reworking but the idea is a good one.

DZC does that. 2nd move on turn 1 is actually really strong.

All things considered though, it's effectively the same as having a deployment phase, just with a -1 to hit for the first player.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Yeah, I’ve been struggling to see why people think melee alpha strikes are such a prevalent and terrible thing. There are very few armies that can do them, and those that can do because it’s the only way to survive. And it’s also fluffy.

Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

U kiddin' right

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Yeah, I’ve been struggling to see why people think melee alpha strikes are such a prevalent and terrible thing. There are very few armies that can do them, and those that can do because it’s the only way to survive. And it’s also fluffy.

Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

I'm not sure I'd go way more powerful, but most top tier alpha armies do include a good portion of assault because of the ability to such down opposing forces after they get to shoot them. It removes the return fire. Eldar Reaper armies are not nearly as powerful without Shining spears.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BigmekRatsmek wrote:
So what if deploying your army was part of the first round?
Instead of setting up everything beforehand, the players have to move their units onto the battlefield turn 1. The player who goes first can't cripple anything sicne there are no enemy models on the board and focusses on positioning. The player who goes second has the advantage of being able to shoot, but everything that arrives has moved, of course, and he (probably) won't be close enough to the enemy to shoot at him with anything but long range guns.

You could add that deep strikers can only arrive in your own table half at the first turn and maybe give scouts the option to basically move twice their movement value during turn 1. Or something like that....

Basic idea is moving onto the battlefield as part of the first turn.

It would very much change what is good. Things like flyers become super powerful because of their added movement.

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Meanwhile, Turn 1 Crippling shooting is completely unnafected, and got a direct boost.

You people ignore systemic vs endemic problem difference. If shooty unit is too good, its points can be raised, problem solved. Balancing it is easy as it's shooting is something that can be assumed by default. However, deep strike CC is not fun, gives zero interaction to other player, and can't be raised in points unless you want to ruin that unit usability in all scenarios that are not easy mode unit deletions from reserves. This change not only balances the problematic units without nerfing them needlessly, but decreases importance of screens and makes troops other that stuff that can move before the game begins more viable, which was something that was sorely needed.

 Irbis wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Meanwhile, Turn 1 Crippling shooting is completely unnafected, and got a direct boost.

You people ignore systemic vs endemic problem difference. If shooty unit is too good, its points can be raised, problem solved. Balancing it is easy as it's shooting is something that can be assumed by default. However, deep strike CC is not fun, gives zero interaction to other player, and can't be raised in points unless you want to ruin that unit usability in all scenarios that are not easy mode unit deletions from reserves. This change not only balances the problematic units without nerfing them needlessly, but decreases importance of screens and makes troops other that stuff that can move before the game begins more viable, which was something that was sorely needed.

Maybe, but I think it's also fair to say that too many of these fixes take endemic problems and try to make them systemic. The problem with playtesting stuff like this at tournaments like Adepticon is that you end up creating a fix geared at the cheesiest, most hypercompetitive 5% of the community, who rely on maybe 20% of the available factions, and then blindly apply it to the entire game. So, instead of fixing the issue by slightly nerfing units that are prime for alpha strike CC abuse, they fix it by giving shooty armies a buff across the whole game and nerfing the many CC units from the other 80% of the game for whom CC alpha strikes are a calculated, tactical risk, not a guaranteed game winner.

This is why I don't play tournaments. Tournament players ruin the game for everyone else with the way they play.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Meanwhile, Turn 1 Crippling shooting is completely unnafected, and got a direct boost.

You people ignore systemic vs endemic problem difference. If shooty unit is too good, its points can be raised, problem solved. Balancing it is easy as it's shooting is something that can be assumed by default. However, deep strike CC is not fun, gives zero interaction to other player, and can't be raised in points unless you want to ruin that unit usability in all scenarios that are not easy mode unit deletions from reserves. This change not only balances the problematic units without nerfing them needlessly, but decreases importance of screens and makes troops other that stuff that can move before the game begins more viable, which was something that was sorely needed.

Maybe, but I think it's also fair to say that too many of these fixes take endemic problems and try to make them systemic. The problem with playtesting stuff like this at tournaments like Adepticon is that you end up creating a fix geared at the cheesiest, most hypercompetitive 5% of the community, who rely on maybe 20% of the available factions, and then blindly apply it to the entire game. So, instead of fixing the issue by slightly nerfing units that are prime for alpha strike CC abuse, they fix it by giving shooty armies a buff across the whole game and nerfing the many CC units from the other 80% of the game for whom CC alpha strikes are a calculated, tactical risk, not a guaranteed game winner.

This is why I don't play tournaments. Tournament players ruin the game for everyone else with the way they play.

This FAQ wasn't the fault of tournament players and you know it.

 BigmekRatsmek wrote:
So what if deploying your army was part of the first round?
Instead of setting up everything beforehand, the players have to move their units onto the battlefield turn 1. The player who goes first can't cripple anything sicne there are no enemy models on the board and focusses on positioning. The player who goes second has the advantage of being able to shoot, but everything that arrives has moved, of course, and he (probably) won't be close enough to the enemy to shoot at him with anything but long range guns.

You could add that deep strikers can only arrive in your own table half at the first turn and maybe give scouts the option to basically move twice their movement value during turn 1. Or something like that....

Basic idea is moving onto the battlefield as part of the first turn.

That's wild! But I also think that's a pretty good idea. A scouting unit would probably have the option to start on the board, in their deployment zone, I'd think. And this probably would speed up the game, because we'd essentially be skipping the 1st turn move phases. And it would give everyone a chance to play with their models at least for a turn.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Meanwhile, Turn 1 Crippling shooting is completely unnafected, and got a direct boost.

You people ignore systemic vs endemic problem difference. If shooty unit is too good, its points can be raised, problem solved. Balancing it is easy as it's shooting is something that can be assumed by default. However, deep strike CC is not fun, gives zero interaction to other player, and can't be raised in points unless you want to ruin that unit usability in all scenarios that are not easy mode unit deletions from reserves. This change not only balances the problematic units without nerfing them needlessly, but decreases importance of screens and makes troops other that stuff that can move before the game begins more viable, which was something that was sorely needed.

Maybe, but I think it's also fair to say that too many of these fixes take endemic problems and try to make them systemic. The problem with playtesting stuff like this at tournaments like Adepticon is that you end up creating a fix geared at the cheesiest, most hypercompetitive 5% of the community, who rely on maybe 20% of the available factions, and then blindly apply it to the entire game. So, instead of fixing the issue by slightly nerfing units that are prime for alpha strike CC abuse, they fix it by giving shooty armies a buff across the whole game and nerfing the many CC units from the other 80% of the game for whom CC alpha strikes are a calculated, tactical risk, not a guaranteed game winner.

This is why I don't play tournaments. Tournament players ruin the game for everyone else with the way they play.

This FAQ wasn't the fault of tournament players and you know it.

I know absolutely nothing of the sort. I'd absolutely love to hear how you think these "fixes" are somehow the result of non-competitive, casual players who don't do 99% of the crap GW is now having to "fix." That ought to be a laugh.

Scion Spam...

Slaanesh Obliterator Spam...

Pretty much anything with Plasma Spam...

Melta drops...

Webway Guardians/Fire Dragons/Wraithguard

Yeah, lots of nerfs to many of those brutal CC concepts there.

This doesn't empower IG shooting at all. They are literally exactly the same if they're playing gunline and not Scion drop. If they're playing Scion drop, this is a nerf.

The big change is the gamble on going first just got a lot more interesting because some of those heavy-handed drops may have to be deployed on the tabletop now.

That's what is really causing the salt... and bravo GW.

Shooting alpha strike from deepstrike was a lot lower risk and still a very high reward over CC alpha strike... and both could make fairly uninteresting play.

Point by point scion plasma is 3 times as effective as anything else the guard can deploy. Losing the alpha strike those guys brought is no joke for guard.

 koooaei wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

U kiddin' right

+1

It's true that there are a lot of things here that look like buffs for a long-range shooting army. But it's worth noting that the Raven Guard trait still punishes these severely. This is especially true for Guard, who are otherwise the stand-out shooting army.

I haven't been paying too much attention to the competitive scene lately, but which gunline lists are really strong? I don't think we've seen much Guard artillery lately, though Russes and artillery might still be very strong casually. Mortars are also a lot harder to spam, though technically you can still bring 9 units of them across the codex and FW index. Guilliman gunlines with Ancients or Dark Angels gunlines are likewise fairly good, but they haven't been major contenders. Chaos doesn't have much other than mass PBCs, which now can't be taken. Dark Reapers are the major Eldar gunline unit, and they took a significant nerf. Tyranids don't have much here other than maybe Biovores, which got nerfed into the ground. Tau aren't actually much of a gunline army and like Guard are severely punished by hit mods. Necrons and Dark Eldar are very new, but I don't see how either one gunlines effectively with the 0-3 datasheet restriction.

I mean, Infantry Squads are still one of the best units in the game, but that was already the case, and they're not really a static gunline unit anyway. Maybe they got a little better because now they're guaranteed a turn to move out of their deployment zone before they get hit, but I'm actually not really seeing many other gunline units that are going to be problematic now, especially since there's a 0-3 restriction on everything other than Troops and Transports.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Yeah, I’ve been struggling to see why people think melee alpha strikes are such a prevalent and terrible thing. There are very few armies that can do them, and those that can do because it’s the only way to survive. And it’s also fluffy.

Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

I am not sure what you mean. If a unit goes charging into another unit they have a chance of taking losses through Overwatch. And IF they get there and can't really hurt the targeted unit(s) those units get to swing back for another chance at causing losses. AND if the attacked unit still can't doing anything about the assaulting unit, they can fall back most likely leaving the assaulting unit out in the open and exposed to near by supporting units be attacked. If you aren't supporting your good units (i.e. have infantry near tanks, bubblewrap or no, and other infantry supporting other squads) you deserve to lose that unit as they are the weak link (just like in Chess) and your opponent picked up on that. At the same time you can't have your support too close to allow multi-charges unless that support can function in close combat or you don't mind falling back with all affected units. Finally, if you painted yourself into a corner and can't fall back, once again; you made a tactical error that good opponent will make you pay for.

 Kopy wrote:
Title.

I don't think that it is a good approach to bring alphastrikes in check.

Shooty armies were the problem from the very beginning, against melee threats you can simply use a screen. T1 overwhelming firepower was the main issue (in my opinion), now those armies have an even bigger advantage against non-shooty lists as they don't have to worry about the first turn. Screening units will still be a requirement, but with the changes I think there will be a big shift to gunline armies again.

Opinions?

I think its fine, I also think the shooting needed something though

have everything on the first player turn count as having moved its full speed and prohibit non-LoS shots on the first player turn

Dionysodorus wrote:
Mortars are also a lot harder to spam, though technically you can still bring 9 units of them across the codex and FW index.

You don't even need to rely on that, infantry squads can take mortars as an embedded heavy weapons team and since infantry squads are a troop choice there's no limit on how many you can take.

 gbghg wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Mortars are also a lot harder to spam, though technically you can still bring 9 units of them across the codex and FW index.

You don't even need to rely on that, infantry squads can take mortars as an embedded heavy weapons team and since infantry squads are a troop choice there's no limit on how many you can take.

This is a much worse way to bring mortars, though, and so you usually only see it when people otherwise want their squads to have only 9 models (i.e. when using ITC objectives). A mortar team in a HWS is 11 points. The way almost everyone accounts for the points, a mortar team in an Infantry Squad is 13 points, and on top of this it doesn't synergize well with the squad's lasguns. The lasguns want to move, but the mortar wants to stay still. The lasguns want to get FRFSRF, but the mortar doesn't benefit and replaces a lasgun -- a lasgun inside 12" with FRFSRF gets 4 S3 shots compared to the mortar's 3.5 S4 shots at -1 to hit. It's not like a lascannon where you'd prefer it in an Infantry Squad in order to protect it, since mortar HWSs are barely any more expensive than regular Infantry per wound (and can hide).

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Yeah, I’ve been struggling to see why people think melee alpha strikes are such a prevalent and terrible thing. There are very few armies that can do them, and those that can do because it’s the only way to survive. And it’s also fluffy.

Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

Fall Back says "Hi", and generally assault units are double the cost of their equivalent.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 gbghg wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Mortars are also a lot harder to spam, though technically you can still bring 9 units of them across the codex and FW index.

You don't even need to rely on that, infantry squads can take mortars as an embedded heavy weapons team and since infantry squads are a troop choice there's no limit on how many you can take.

This is a much worse way to bring mortars, though, and so you usually only see it when people otherwise want their squads to have only 9 models (i.e. when using ITC objectives). A mortar team in a HWS is 11 points. The way almost everyone accounts for the points, a mortar team in an Infantry Squad is 13 points, and on top of this it doesn't synergize well with the squad's lasguns. The lasguns want to move, but the mortar wants to stay still. The lasguns want to get FRFSRF, but the mortar doesn't benefit and replaces a lasgun -- a lasgun inside 12" with FRFSRF gets 4 S3 shots compared to the mortar's 3.5 S4 shots at -1 to hit. It's not like a lascannon where you'd prefer it in an Infantry Squad in order to protect it, since mortar HWSs are barely any more expensive than regular Infantry per wound (and can hide).

oh i know, I was just stating that if you wanted to bring more mortars than what rule of 3 allows you could do so without dipping into forgeworld.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Yeah, I’ve been struggling to see why people think melee alpha strikes are such a prevalent and terrible thing. There are very few armies that can do them, and those that can do because it’s the only way to survive. And it’s also fluffy.

Close combat is way more powerful than shooting. Shooting has to actually kill the target, which takes about 4 times it's cost. Close quarters just has to get there, you don't even need melee weapons.

Fall Back says "Hi", and generally assault units are double the cost of their equivalent.

Lol no, assault units are always much much cheaper than the shooting equivalent. Try finding something that for 85 points has the durability of a dreadnaught and shoots 6 attacks S6 AP-3 damage 3 at 3+ and has a 50% chance to inflict a mortal wounds when it attacks you And i'm talking about a model that is not considered competitive.

What you said was true in 7th, but finally GW has understood in 8th that being an assault model is actually a drawback compared to being a shooty one, so for the same costs it needs a much higher lethality/durability. Look at the cost of a powerfist, and tell me if you really believe that (let's assume 3 attacks) a ranged weapon with those stats would cost 12 points.

If you think the Deep Strike nerf was about assault, you don't understand why it is a good idea.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
If you think the Deep Strike nerf was about assault, you don't understand why it is a good idea.

I presume you mean it was for scions etc? Well yeah. Problem is by nerfing few problem units GW just screwed up tons of units. And you know what? IG LOVES this change. Yes scions took a hit. Enemies took even bigger hit. This FAQ HELPED IG. It was huge boost for IG. Even eldars overall benefitted from this FAQ.

Just like always when you try to apply game wide changes to fix problem units that are minority you make game balance worse by helping out already powerful armies and hurting weaker armies.

IG, eldar. These armies just love this FAQ. They got huge power boost up thanks to it.

Eldar had farseers, locks, and reapers go up in points (and be restricted!) Eldar guardian bomb is a turn 2 tactic now and no good way to protect your guys if you're going t2 aside from being Alaitoc. How did eldar get better again?

quentra wrote:
Eldar had farseers, locks, and reapers go up in points (and be restricted!) Eldar guardian bomb is a turn 2 tactic now and no good way to protect your guys if you're going t2 aside from being Alaitoc. How did eldar get better again?

By enemies being hurt more.

Here's very simple example to illustrate concept. Let's say FAQ gives 10% price hike to Eldar. All other armies gets 50% price hike.

Yes eldars got nerfed. Others were nerfed more.

You don't have to worry about getting nerfed if those nerfes hurt enemy even more. That's why IG and eldar don't care about this. But sure. Look just one army and ignore what happens to others!

tneva82 wrote:

quentra wrote:
Eldar had farseers, locks, and reapers go up in points (and be restricted!) Eldar guardian bomb is a turn 2 tactic now and no good way to protect your guys if you're going t2 aside from being Alaitoc. How did eldar get better again?

By enemies being hurt more.

Here's very simple example to illustrate concept. Let's say FAQ gives 10% price hike to Eldar. All other armies gets 50% price hike.

Yes eldars got nerfed. Others were nerfed more.

You don't have to worry about getting nerfed if those nerfes hurt enemy even more. That's why IG and eldar don't care about this. But sure. Look just one army and ignore what happens to others!

Please point to a 50% point increase or admit that you actually don't understand how 40k works.

quentra wrote:
Eldar had farseers, locks, and reapers go up in points (and be restricted!) Eldar guardian bomb is a turn 2 tactic now and no good way to protect your guys if you're going t2 aside from being Alaitoc. How did eldar get better again?

They also have a rule that makes Soup armies legal for them through the Ynnari leaders.

Index: Xenos 1 Page 76 – Army of the Reborn ‘If your army is Battle-forged and the Warlord of your army is either Yvraine, the Visarch or the Yncarne then you can include any of these models in any Craftworlds, Harlequins or Drukhari Detachment (as defined in their respective codexes)

quentra wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

quentra wrote:
Eldar had farseers, locks, and reapers go up in points (and be restricted!) Eldar guardian bomb is a turn 2 tactic now and no good way to protect your guys if you're going t2 aside from being Alaitoc. How did eldar get better again?

By enemies being hurt more.

Here's very simple example to illustrate concept. Let's say FAQ gives 10% price hike to Eldar. All other armies gets 50% price hike.

Yes eldars got nerfed. Others were nerfed more.

You don't have to worry about getting nerfed if those nerfes hurt enemy even more. That's why IG and eldar don't care about this. But sure. Look just one army and ignore what happens to others!

Please point to a 50% point increase or admit that you actually don't understand how 40k works.

What sort of list do you see beating Eldar now that its top contenders got killed. Flyrants, Poxwalker horde (Faq+Agents of Vect)

quentra wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

quentra wrote:
Eldar had farseers, locks, and reapers go up in points (and be restricted!) Eldar guardian bomb is a turn 2 tactic now and no good way to protect your guys if you're going t2 aside from being Alaitoc. How did eldar get better again?

By enemies being hurt more.

Here's very simple example to illustrate concept. Let's say FAQ gives 10% price hike to Eldar. All other armies gets 50% price hike.

Yes eldars got nerfed. Others were nerfed more.

You don't have to worry about getting nerfed if those nerfes hurt enemy even more. That's why IG and eldar don't care about this. But sure. Look just one army and ignore what happens to others!

Please point to a 50% point increase or admit that you actually don't understand how 40k works.

Lol. You can't even understand concept of example? I tried to make simple example so that anybody could understand...It was not meant literally what happened but since for example concept of deep strike nerf hurting different units and armies more than others is not as obvious figured I should go with the obvious example but guess that was still too difficult concept.

Sigh. Well keep on ignoring what happens to other armies and think just because one army got weakened means it lost overall power when others were hurt more.

The "winners" of this FAQ are in order:

1) Necrons
2) T'au
3) IG

Eldars are firmly in the losing bracket together with tyranids, they lost really a lot.

 helgrenze wrote:

quentra wrote:
Eldar had farseers, locks, and reapers go up in points (and be restricted!) Eldar guardian bomb is a turn 2 tactic now and no good way to protect your guys if you're going t2 aside from being Alaitoc. How did eldar get better again?

They also have a rule that makes Soup armies legal for them through the Ynnari leaders.

Index: Xenos 1 Page 76 – Army of the Reborn ‘If your army is Battle-forged and the Warlord of your army is either Yvraine, the Visarch or the Yncarne then you can include any of these models in any Craftworlds, Harlequins or Drukhari Detachment (as defined in their respective codexes)

That rule is supersceded by the new Battle-Brothers rule, so AFAIK you can't run a battalion of Yvraine, Incubi, and Reapers anymore

tneva82 wrote:
Lol. You can't even understand concept of example? I tried to make simple example so that anybody could understand...It was not meant literally what happened but since for example concept of deep strike nerf hurting different units and armies more than others is not as obvious figured I should go with the obvious example but guess that was still too difficult concept.

Sigh. Well keep on ignoring what happens to other armies and think just because one army got weakened means it lost overall power when others were hurt more.

Lol, you can't even argue with facts and have to rely on hyperbole and outright deception to prove your points? Keep on ignoring the actual facts and think that just because you imagine a thing to be true, it is.

Ordana wrote:What sort of list do you see beating Eldar now that its top contenders got killed. Flyrants, Poxwalker horde (Faq+Agents of Vect)

I think we still haven't seen the potential of DE displayed in a tourney environment. Their codex is strong and full of unexplored synergies, and none of the FAQ stuff really affected them. Now that you can't spam $TEXAS DR and/or SS, IG gunlines are suddenly a lot more potent. Tau will give eldar forces a run for their money. CWE definitely isn't GK-tier, but it is far from accurate to say that they gained anything from the FAQs. I do think CWE are still strong, but as people have rightly pointed out, Guard, Tau, and other 'stay in one place and shoot you from across the board' armies are suddenly far, far more attractive than most of the DS-reliant strategies.

All these people saying this change is good because it nerfs Imperial Guard Plasma and Scion spam, that's one bloody unit (that's ALREADY been limited to 3 in this very FAQ), don't you think that, you know, nerfing the specific unit in particular is a better idea than nerfing EVERYONE at the same time? The shooting phase wasn't nerfed because Dark Reapers were OP, and the Psychic Phase wasn't nerfed because Farseers and Tyrants were OP, why should Deepstrike be nerfed because 1 or 2 units are able to abuse it?

I know that if this change goes through as is I'm never playing a non-gunline Tau army ever again, which I'm sure will be very fun for my opponent, and I'm also sure Grey Knights and Terminator users everywhere will be absolutely thrilled to have their already overcosted units further rammed into the dirt.