Switch Theme:

Are Most Games Over By Turn Two?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Numberless Necron Warrior




UK

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Rerolling everything was a bad idea. Rerolling 1s wasn't too bad, but everything? That's too much. Gw concentrated too much on increasing lethality instead of survivability.


I think this is certainly the case with the marine codex. If you look at other general re-roll rules in other armies they are usually highly specific or specialized around one unit. Necrons have access to hit and wound re-rolls.... but only with a stratagem that affects one unit. Craftworlds can do it, but even then it's only with a psychic power that targets one unit or with a stratagem that, again, only affects one unit type. Where Marines break the game is having access to giant re-roll all auras that everything within range can benefit from, against every single target you choose. With other armies, you actually have choices and decisions to make as to how, when and where you want to apply these buffs, but with Marines a lot of that decision making is just completely absent.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





Jimbotron wrote:
Long time lurker and have finally decided to join in the discussion. I am getting back into the hobby and from reading tournament discussion on blogs and forums the general consensus I am getting is most games are decided by the end of turn 2. The last edition I played was 5th and that edition felt like more results were in question going into the final turns.

Is this just for tournaments with ITC-like missions or is this the norm, even for playing missions straight from the rulebook?

Thanks!


This isn't overall true, but there are some CA EW missions that can be actually decided by turn 2 or turn 3 due to their scoring scheme. That said, I rarely see games over on T2 or T3.

There's a couple of factors in making the end turns meaningless, but chief among them is Progressive Scoring, which I was previously in favor of but am now increasingly against. There will reach a point where one player cannot score enough points to overcome an accumulated lead. Even if I was only leading by 1 point [a very narrow margin such as "holds center of board"], all game, the accumulated 5 point lead by turn 6 means that you'd be hard pressed to [or it might be even outright impossible to] score enough points in that last turn to win.
5e era missions were "competitive to the end" because points were only scored in the last turn, and thus the winner was decided by who held the objectives on the last turn. It could shift suddenly with a last turn push effort to take the lead.
However, we've moved away from that model because the general lethality of the game has changed: while everything is tougher [well, arguably not vehicles], in response the cost of firepower has gone down and weapons have become more versatile and more destructive.
To combat lists that were taking a policy of "it's easier to shoot the enemy off the board and move out and cap on the last turn [or outright table the enemy]", progressive scoring was implemented so that you had to do more than trade heavy fire in the early game, and had to at least make an attempt to move out.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/03 22:23:35


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Nitro Zeus wrote:
At the highest level, games are rarely ever decided before turn 4

At the general skilllevel this forum, I imagine a significant number of games are pretty much decided before the models hit the table.


It would be interesting to run some numbers on this. You'd need some sort of objective measure for deciding when a game is over.

Because I agree - good players, with good lists, will tend to go 4+ rounds. Anyone who thinks 40k has no skill, and its just flailing away with big numbers should watch the LVO finals, or something equivalent, if they are out there. Its a precise game where players are constantly making measured bets based on what happens. Much like poker, top players don't just go "I'm all in, hope it works".

But... we also know a lot of people got smashed by say Centurions or unkillable Ironhands in two turns - and I'm not sure you can say they are all bad players. It also raises the question of whether you are bad if you don't bring a top list?

If we are going down the alpha strike hole - it would also be useful if there were lots of stats from tournaments for win% for going first and second. Mainly because you get a lot of anecdotes on this (often with "weaker" players saying its the most decisive factor, while good players say going second is fine or even the superior option) but data would be more interesting.

But then this might be a good player/bad player thing (and list functionality). A good player will say backline/LOS block so the majority of short range weapons can't do anything in turn 1, and their critical units can barely be touched. So the opponent's turn is effectively wasted. Whereas bad players often seem to think they are duty bound to deploy on the starting line, and just eat the bullets.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





Tyel wrote:


If we are going down the alpha strike hole - it would also be useful if there were lots of stats from tournaments for win% for going first and second. Mainly because you get a lot of anecdotes on this (often with "weaker" players saying its the most decisive factor, while good players say going second is fine or even the superior option) but data would be more interesting.

But then this might be a good player/bad player thing (and list functionality). A good player will say backline/LOS block so the majority of short range weapons can't do anything in turn 1, and their critical units can barely be touched. So the opponent's turn is effectively wasted. Whereas bad players often seem to think they are duty bound to deploy on the starting line, and just eat the bullets.


I don't think stats for win% for first or second play would be very useful, because it's incredibly variable and isn't going to be "always go first" or "always go second".

Whether I want to take first or second turn varies strongly based on how the points are scored, what units I have in my army, and what units my enemy has in theirs. As a general rule, scoring at the end of the battle round makes me want to go second, and either side having a lot of reserves makes me want to go first. Taking second if you have some good fast melee against somebody relying heavily on melee is also a good plan, since they either have to come forward into your charge threat but at a distance they can't charge, thus giving you the charge on them, or they have to stay back from your melee threat unit, thus keeping them away from your gunline while you blow them to bits.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/03 22:51:25


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

I wouldn't say most, but a significant proportion are, too many to really be healthy. As many have noted, 8E is by far the most lethal edition of the game ever. The markedly non-competitive Grey Knights list I'm building will average almost a third again as many dead Space Marines at 24" as my 5E IG Alpha Strike list with 15 tanks would on its alpha strike turn. Likewise, there's a lot of armies that can effortlessly obliterate a single key unit, no matter how resilient, in one turn if they need to, and a lot of lists break when that happens. The sheer variety of types of armies (from superheavy lanes, tank companies, infantry hordes, to mega elite infantry like custodes, etc) also means a lot of awkward mismatches.

8E has be really heavily alpha strike oriented. This has wobbled over time, from turn 1 deep strike assault and plasma spam to gunline domination and other such things. Average damage output rises with every release with new easily exploitable blanket army wide rules (and rerolls everywhere), and we have weapons and units commonly seen on tables in this edition that were previously seen as the realm of large scale expansions or entirely different scales of game to begin with.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/03 23:09:01


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

Heavy Gear Painting Log, Northern Guard, Southern Republican Army, and Terrain
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 Vaktathi wrote:
Likewise, there's a lot of armies that can effortlessly obliterate a single key unit, no matter how resilient, in one turn if they need to, and a lot of lists break when that happens.


Honestly, I think this is a feature, not a bug. Nothing should be invincible, and armies should not be built around single key units. That's what lead to death stars of the past, and that's what's led to some of the mot egregiously powerful units of this edition.

Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






I played a game today with my mech orks versus vs a competitive-ish IG army.
By the end of turn 2 the only things alive were a single tank commander, a LRBT at 2 wounds, a manticore at 3 wounds and a half-dead valkyrie, as well as multiple (five or so) half-dead infantry squads. In addition, I was holding four objectives and contesting a fifth.
If we had played turn 3, I would have had enough shooting and melee units close to the castle to wipe it out or at least lock it completely down.

If you get lucky in your first shooting phase, or your opponent makes a mistake you can capitalize on, it has become quite common for me decide games by turn 2 or 3.
Only evenly matched armies with evenly matched generals tend be decided in turn 4 or later, and even then a string of good/bad rolls can still decide the game early.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/04 01:48:05


 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Likewise, there's a lot of armies that can effortlessly obliterate a single key unit, no matter how resilient, in one turn if they need to, and a lot of lists break when that happens.


Honestly, I think this is a feature, not a bug. Nothing should be invincible, and armies should not be built around single key units. That's what lead to death stars of the past, and that's what's led to some of the mot egregiously powerful units of this edition.


Then GW shouldn't have designed some army rules, so that running a 10 man paladin unit with support is more or less the way to play the army..
I would love to have a legit army of multiple termintor unit that doesn't die turn 2 and hits like a wet noodle.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut





Tyel wrote:
 Nitro Zeus wrote:
At the highest level, games are rarely ever decided before turn 4

At the general skilllevel this forum, I imagine a significant number of games are pretty much decided before the models hit the table.


It would be interesting to run some numbers on this. You'd need some sort of objective measure for deciding when a game is over.

Because I agree - good players, with good lists, will tend to go 4+ rounds. Anyone who thinks 40k has no skill, and its just flailing away with big numbers should watch the LVO finals, or something equivalent, if they are out there. Its a precise game where players are constantly making measured bets based on what happens. Much like poker, top players don't just go "I'm all in, hope it works".

But... we also know a lot of people got smashed by say Centurions or unkillable Ironhands in two turns - and I'm not sure you can say they are all bad players. It also raises the question of whether you are bad if you don't bring a top list?

If we are going down the alpha strike hole - it would also be useful if there were lots of stats from tournaments for win% for going first and second. Mainly because you get a lot of anecdotes on this (often with "weaker" players saying its the most decisive factor, while good players say going second is fine or even the superior option) but data would be more interesting.

But then this might be a good player/bad player thing (and list functionality). A good player will say backline/LOS block so the majority of short range weapons can't do anything in turn 1, and their critical units can barely be touched. So the opponent's turn is effectively wasted. Whereas bad players often seem to think they are duty bound to deploy on the starting line, and just eat the bullets.


I think other than the absolutely OP lists like pre-nerf Iron Hands, you should be able to make a list for any army that is capable of hanging with the best armies in the game for 4 turns, more games than not. The balance issues really aren’t as pronounced as most people imagine a lot of their problem is their skill or game knowledge or list or all the above. Getting smashed in tourney by a few good rolls from alpha strike Raven Guard doesn’t make you a bad player - but getting smashed off the board every game by it every game might suggest it. Outside of bad match ups of course, which do exist. A good player builds a list with the tools they need to play somewhat flexibly and adapt to the game in front of them.
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







It also depends on the matchup. A squishy army against a gunline (DE v. Guard, for instance) might be over a lot faster than two tough melee armies (Custodes v. Space Wolves, for instance).

I know that in my anecdotal experience of playing a variety of armies (Deathwatch, AdMech, Custodes, Corsairs, CSM, Thousand Sons) against a variety of armies in 8e both players usually know who's going to win on turn one or turn two, and when we play it out to the end they're seldom wrong. Whether or not the game can be competitive and interesting to tournament players who are happy to buy models they may not like and switch armies with the meta every 3-6 months I don't know since I've never been a meta-chaser, but I find at casual tables where people want to play with minis they like the game is often won during list-building.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant




San Jose, CA

Yarium wrote:
Spoiler:
It really does depend on the game and lists and missions and terrain. Here's where some games get decided:

Turn 5/6/7: Two lists and generals that are almost evenly matched, with at least one with a strategy based on getting to objectives more than on killing enemies.

Turn 4: Two lists and generals that are pretty well matched.

Turn 3: Generals that are pretty well matched, but one list runs out of steam early.

Turn 2: Two lists that are not well matched, or two generals where both lists run out of steam early (though these can quickly slip into Turn 5/6/7 territory if they're good enough).

Turn 1: Two lists that are lopsided, where both are susceptible to alpha strikes, and the game is won by whomever goes first.

Deployment: List where the better general has a trick and the opponent doesn't have a means of countering it.

Before game: A bad player, with a bad list, against an opponent with a list based on alpha strike.

for my gaming group (or at least my games) the only reason anything is decided by T2 is actual running out of time.

By time I mean since we are not going full throttle from T1 if we are having more fun chit chatting we won't get to T2. Otherwise we go to T4/5 and sometimes 6 since we play w a ton of terrain and cities of death rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/04 05:21:58


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





washington state USA

 Jimbotron wrote:
Long time lurker and have finally decided to join in the discussion. I am getting back into the hobby and from reading tournament discussion on blogs and forums the general consensus I am getting is most games are decided by the end of turn 2. The last edition I played was 5th and that edition felt like more results were in question going into the final turns.

Is this just for tournaments with ITC-like missions or is this the norm, even for playing missions straight from the rulebook?

Thanks!


That's a good description. in 5th things could change where random game length could see you go from winning to loosing by the game going that extra turn. With 8th the ridiculous amount of attacks(and re-roll bubbles) coupled with the armor reduction system and a general lack of terrain doing much to add to the game it is very likely the player going first is going to win the game. the reason the turn 2 is called is because once you get to far down the curve coming back is very hard to do. also if you use the card system the way you tally points gets absurdly high unlike old fixed objectives or kill points.

It is not so bad using 8th at an epic scale level because there is just so much stuff it doesn't hamper an army as much(that and ranges are seriously reduced so you cannot do much turn 1 unless you have artillery or some big superheavy guns).

I am at the point now i only play 8th with my small 1k mechanicus force or super big with 10K points using epic scale minis. otherwise i am playing 30K or 5th edition with friends(because 5th is superior to 8th even without the few house rules we added)
   
Made in ca
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





London, Ontario

My experience is that good players will build strong lists, and strong lists in this edition come mounted on highly mobile platforms, so that terrain is less impactful than previous editions, coupled with overall weak terrain rules in the first place.

So yes, I think that 90% of games can be called at the bottom of the 2nd turn with near-perfect accuracy. There are ways out and back in that clever play can mitigate... but if both players are fairly skilled and capable, they can counter-play each other to the predicted outcome.

Lethality is ok, but the ranges and relative mobility make counter-positioning very difficult and there are ways around that make it effectively impossible. In a casual environment, I don’t think a game would go past turn 3 without being decided.

Anecdote from the London, ON GW. Games are capped at 4 turns, for time and community consensus that *it just doesn’t matter after that*. So at my local GW, you can’t play past 4 turns. Anecdote is anecdote.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




turn 2 to 4 probably should be the most active turns for most games anyway.

And its where i would consider most of the games fall into for determining win verse loss.

More of and issue i think is how often turn one alpha strikes can be so effective, as well as the reach so much of the game has for lethal power.
This is spread out a lot, and not very well designed. And i think is the main issue with this rather than how fast games can end specifically :(
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker






Honestly we need to differentiate between the pahses of 8th.

Index era was diffrent from CA 1 and that from CA 2 era.

overall tho, lethality is up and has forced a lot of groups to adapt better terrain rules and or use more terrain then normal.

   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




with how much LoS ignore stuff there is in the game and alfa strike stuff, even with a lot of terrain, it is hard to have a strong turn 1, if your opponent is an alfa strike army. Specialy if you play a non horde or worse elite type of army.

I sometimes deploy more then 50% of my army on the table to avoid getting tabled turn one, by RG or RG succesors or RG soups.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in ca
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





Halifax, Nova Scotia

 grouchoben wrote:
I'm a little confused by the consensus here. It's out of whack with my own experiences, amd with the tournament games I watch. Turn 4 is often the round that breaks either way, assuming the game isn't one-sided. In ITC what you do in the late stages of the game is hugely impactful.


This is my experience too. The games decided early tend to be exceptions rather than the norm.
   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





Somewhere over the rainbow, way up high

I'd say that games are usually decided by turn 3. Heavy terrain, including line of sight blocking terrain, helps greatly.

That, and playing game types that require a great deal of mobility to capture key objectives or fulfill criteria that doesn't allow a castle to sit stationary.


Bedouin Dynasty: 10000 pts
The Silver Lances: 4000 pts
The Custodes Winter Watch 4000 pts

MajorStoffer wrote:
...
Sternguard though, those guys are all about kicking ass. They'd chew bubble gum as well, but bubble gum is heretical. Only tau chew gum. 
   
Made in fr
Been Around the Block




Alot depends on the terrain setup. The less terrain there is, the more the lethality of long distance shooting becomes obviously disturbing.

But even then, I think rerolls all around, rule-breaking stratagems , transformed a game of chess into a random shooting fest, and that 48+ firing range needs to go, along with superheavy units.

But we all know it ain't happening since the primary driving force behind GW is selling miniatures, not balanced rules and gameplay.
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





I would say that in my experience, turn 3 is about the average where it's "over but for the crying", and if an opponent brings a heavily alpha-strike oriented list it's almost always turn 2.

It would be turn 1/turn 2 if deep strikes came in turn 1, though. The fact that deep strikes come in turn 2 is the ONLY thing keeping the game going til turn 3 in my experience.

The problem IMO is that GW went too hard on some decisions designed to address common complaints. Kind of like how, in competitive online games, you almost always see any kind of character class with a burst-damage type playstyle nerfed into the ground because people hate playing against it, in 40k those two common pet peeves were "I don't like when my named character dudes die" and "I don't like when I can't kill big thing in my opponent's list."

That led to a situation where it became way too easy to kill everything, and way too difficult to kill small characters (compared to the points they cost). The value that a single 75pt captain upgraded with the Chapter Master stratagem brings to a space marine list is way more than a 350+ point land raider, and the captain is much, MUCH, MUUUUUUUCH harder to take out with a normal list.

And it's not like the community particularly learns from this. The second some unit shows up that can be fairly survivable, or who can take characters down a peg, the kneejerk reaction from the community is instant and apoplectic. The new big knight you could get a 3++ save, the vindicare assassin, the nurgle combo that made for a super tough 2k point list, the GSC gunslinger assassin guy, the time period Tzeentch stuff could combo up to a 2++ save, nothing gets an angrier reaction than durability and character assassinating.
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut





the_scotsman wrote:
I would say that in my experience, turn 3 is about the average where it's "over but for the crying", and if an opponent brings a heavily alpha-strike oriented list it's almost always turn 2.

It would be turn 1/turn 2 if deep strikes came in turn 1, though. The fact that deep strikes come in turn 2 is the ONLY thing keeping the game going til turn 3 in my experience.

The problem IMO is that GW went too hard on some decisions designed to address common complaints. Kind of like how, in competitive online games, you almost always see any kind of character class with a burst-damage type playstyle nerfed into the ground because people hate playing against it, in 40k those two common pet peeves were "I don't like when my named character dudes die" and "I don't like when I can't kill big thing in my opponent's list."

That led to a situation where it became way too easy to kill everything, and way too difficult to kill small characters (compared to the points they cost). The value that a single 75pt captain upgraded with the Chapter Master stratagem brings to a space marine list is way more than a 350+ point land raider, and the captain is much, MUCH, MUUUUUUUCH harder to take out with a normal list.

And it's not like the community particularly learns from this. The second some unit shows up that can be fairly survivable, or who can take characters down a peg, the kneejerk reaction from the community is instant and apoplectic. The new big knight you could get a 3++ save, the vindicare assassin, the nurgle combo that made for a super tough 2k point list, the GSC gunslinger assassin guy, the time period Tzeentch stuff could combo up to a 2++ save, nothing gets an angrier reaction than durability and character assassinating.


preach. So on the ball.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





I used to be terrified of going second and having my whole army blasted off the board before I got a chance to go. But only a few armies can do that, and it's even rarer if you play with a lot of terrain.

Now I find that things rarely die on Turn 1, due to cover, LOS, and defensive stratagems. Range can also be an issue, depending on the deployment zones. It's only on Turn 2, when the armies have closed, that casualties start to mount. By the end of Turn 3 one or both armies are staggering around, punch drunk and out of CP, and try to finish off the game with scraps.

Madness is however an affliction which in war carries with it the advantage of surprise - Winston Churchill 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Falls Church, VA

Don't forget that "use more terrain" is not a panacea. Ruins are the best thing that block LOS, but ruins also slow down non-infantry assault armies (e.g. my Slaanesh with monsters and beasts and cavalry).

Having 14" move is not helpful if most of it is spent running around the perimeter of a 12" box ruin.

Some people say they know no fear. What they mean is that they have encountered and conquered it. I, on the other hand, truly know no fear. It is as alien to me as doubt, rage, or mercy.

2nd Concordian Independent Super Heavy Tank Armoured Regiment - 12,376 points
Order of the Luminous Beacon - 2087 points
Nevian Conclave of the Ordo Hereticus - 2002 points 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't forget that "use more terrain" is not a panacea. Ruins are the best thing that block LOS, but ruins also slow down non-infantry assault armies (e.g. my Slaanesh with monsters and beasts and cavalry).

Having 14" move is not helpful if most of it is spent running around the perimeter of a 12" box ruin.

How are you finding Slaanesh in 8th? Not aware of many people running them.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Falls Church, VA

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't forget that "use more terrain" is not a panacea. Ruins are the best thing that block LOS, but ruins also slow down non-infantry assault armies (e.g. my Slaanesh with monsters and beasts and cavalry).

Having 14" move is not helpful if most of it is spent running around the perimeter of a 12" box ruin.

How are you finding Slaanesh in 8th? Not aware of many people running them.


I only run mono-Daemons, which is a sin against chaos or something (apparently) but unless you hate people it's kinda meh.

If you make it to their army Turn 1, you get to systematically dismantle everything they hold dear without much effort. Keepers of Secrets have 10 attacks at -3, 3 damage. They also have good protection in melee (-1 to hit, always strike first, etc). Slaanesh has good tools to prevent fallback as well, but they're super fragile.

If you don't make it to the enemy quickly, you get evaporated off the board because T7 with a 5++ save is not strong in an era where people table Knights in two turns (as you can see in this battle report).

So basically it's a decisive engagement either way, but someone's going to feel bad at the end by losing all their stuff without feeling like they can do much. I don't think I've had a "close game" yet, except in games of unequal skill where big mistakes are made by the player who is way ahead and the give up some ground.

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2020/05/04 13:35:06


Some people say they know no fear. What they mean is that they have encountered and conquered it. I, on the other hand, truly know no fear. It is as alien to me as doubt, rage, or mercy.

2nd Concordian Independent Super Heavy Tank Armoured Regiment - 12,376 points
Order of the Luminous Beacon - 2087 points
Nevian Conclave of the Ordo Hereticus - 2002 points 
   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





Somewhere over the rainbow, way up high

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't forget that "use more terrain" is not a panacea. Ruins are the best thing that block LOS, but ruins also slow down non-infantry assault armies (e.g. my Slaanesh with monsters and beasts and cavalry).

Having 14" move is not helpful if most of it is spent running around the perimeter of a 12" box ruin.


I built a 24 inch long, 10 inch wide defenseworks piece I can hide a landraider behind. It helps cut back on the rampant long range and reroll problem this edition has.

Bedouin Dynasty: 10000 pts
The Silver Lances: 4000 pts
The Custodes Winter Watch 4000 pts

MajorStoffer wrote:
...
Sternguard though, those guys are all about kicking ass. They'd chew bubble gum as well, but bubble gum is heretical. Only tau chew gum. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Falls Church, VA

 iGuy91 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't forget that "use more terrain" is not a panacea. Ruins are the best thing that block LOS, but ruins also slow down non-infantry assault armies (e.g. my Slaanesh with monsters and beasts and cavalry).

Having 14" move is not helpful if most of it is spent running around the perimeter of a 12" box ruin.


I built a 24 inch long, 10 inch wide defenseworks piece I can hide a landraider behind. It helps cut back on the rampant long range and reroll problem this edition has.


My brain groans trying to figure out how to run Keepers, Seekers, and Fiends all the way around it. It may cut down on shooting, but I'm not going to get there anytime soon. :(

Some people say they know no fear. What they mean is that they have encountered and conquered it. I, on the other hand, truly know no fear. It is as alien to me as doubt, rage, or mercy.

2nd Concordian Independent Super Heavy Tank Armoured Regiment - 12,376 points
Order of the Luminous Beacon - 2087 points
Nevian Conclave of the Ordo Hereticus - 2002 points 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
<-- I have no idea why the URL tag isn't working but the link is there for copypasta.


You're missing the last letter in the closing tag. this battle report

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Falls Church, VA

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
<-- I have no idea why the URL tag isn't working but the link is there for copypasta.


You're missing the last letter in the closing tag. this battle report


Thanks, bud; fixed. I clearly am the worst at troubleshooting.

Some people say they know no fear. What they mean is that they have encountered and conquered it. I, on the other hand, truly know no fear. It is as alien to me as doubt, rage, or mercy.

2nd Concordian Independent Super Heavy Tank Armoured Regiment - 12,376 points
Order of the Luminous Beacon - 2087 points
Nevian Conclave of the Ordo Hereticus - 2002 points 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Nitro Zeus wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't forget that "use more terrain" is not a panacea. Ruins are the best thing that block LOS, but ruins also slow down non-infantry assault armies (e.g. my Slaanesh with monsters and beasts and cavalry).

Having 14" move is not helpful if most of it is spent running around the perimeter of a 12" box ruin.

How are you finding Slaanesh in 8th? Not aware of many people running them.


I only run mono-Daemons, which is a sin against chaos or something (apparently) but unless you hate people it's kinda meh.

If you make it to their army Turn 1, you get to systematically dismantle everything they hold dear without much effort. Keepers of Secrets have 10 attacks at -3, 3 damage. They also have good protection in melee (-1 to hit, always strike first, etc). Slaanesh has good tools to prevent fallback as well, but they're super fragile.

If you don't make it to the enemy quickly, you get evaporated off the board because T7 with a 5++ save is not strong in an era where people table Knights in two turns (as you can see in this battle report).

So basically it's a decisive engagement either way, but someone's going to feel bad at the end by losing all their stuff without feeling like they can do much. I don't think I've had a "close game" yet, except in games of unequal skill where big mistakes are made by the player who is way ahead and the give up some ground.

Thanks for the info. Props to you for sticking to your favorite. You mind sharing your list? Might be a good example of what contributes to games being over by turn 2, and I'm interested to see what a mono Slaanesh list would look like. Bet it looks dope on the table
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: