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 say 'No'. But of course I haven't played with the rules yet. It seems like they are trying to fix the 'alpha strike' problem with this, but, of course, this does nothing to fix alpha strike by gunline. The DS rules were already quite nuanced in creating their own inherent defence against alpha strikes. A 9" bubble, behind which clever players positioned screening units-- it's a very viable tactical decision making process. So I think this rule punishes melee DS, punishes melee focused armies, and rewards gunline armies. Rather than slove a problem, I think this will push the meta down a road we've already travelled.

Spoletta wrote:
Gunlines were not competitive before this change, seriously go look at any big even results and find me a static gunline.

Spoiler: You will find only Dark Reapers, and guess what happened to them and to Eldar in general?

They got a slight point increase, plus massive debuff to anything threatening them (Flyrants, deep striking Guardians, Inceptors, Obliterators and Scions) on the first turn, so I'd say they are probably better off now than before. Just stick ten of them in an out of LOS Wave Serpent, disembark, move into cover, and let rip.

Yes.

They are still the strongest, most reliable DS rules 40K ever had outside of the last 8 months.

Near-auto charges on turn 1 are a stupid gimmick.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Yes.

They are still the strongest, most reliable DS rules 40K ever had outside of the last 8 months.

Near-auto charges on turn 1 are a stupid gimmick.

7th ed deep strikes were more powerful than now. Melta and flamer could shoot when they come(well melta can now but only virtually. Melta on deep strike is worthless now) and cheap chaff doesn't push you to deep strike on your table half. You can actually shock horror deep strike further than you could have walked on foot.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Yes.

They are still the strongest, most reliable DS rules 40K ever had outside of the last 8 months.

Near-auto charges on turn 1 are a stupid gimmick.

Those auto charges are chaff cleaners most of the time ( a least if the player who’s charged knows how to place his units)
The real deal in DP are shooting units not CQC ( scions anyone?) and they don’t need DP to shoot
CQC armies use DP to avoid using transports( more points where it matters) and I don’t see a CQC meta

No *cries in Grey Knight*

No, not in there current form, at this point I would rather they brought back a roll and scatter but kept the 1st turn deep strike, it’s a buff to shooting armies that wasn’t needed.

 peteralmo wrote:
But when you take it in conjunction with units standing on a second floor ledge being unchargeable, or even standing on crates, why would anyone bring a CC army to a competitive game? The competitive scene will be dominated by gunlines because competitive players max/min, and gunlines are now always max, it's that simple.

Unchargeable how? You know jump packs or units that ignore height difference (like Reivers) are a thing, yes? If they put a thin line of models on edge of platform to block conventional assault, simply charge through them and set up in the middle, done. Not to mention doing so has massive drawbacks, like not being able to fall back from combat. Do consider all the aspects of change, please, before saying fixing blatantly broken thing was a bad idea.

As for min/max, too bad GW took care of that too, with max sheet change. Maybe now we will actually see balanced, varied armies more often instead of spamming easy mode units charging from deep strike deleting half of the models on table with no possible countermeasures for most armies? I'll gladly take the DS change seeing it also means reaper/commander spam, a much bigger problem, is no longer there.

I like how through most of the game history, you couldn't deep strike in first turn, yet now slight curbing of first turn deep strike is somehow 'crippling'. Ditto with deep strike assaults, you couldn't do that either through 95% of game history but now the slightly curbed back version somehow makes CC 'unplayable'...

The problem with the poll for me:

There are actually 2 changes to deep strike.

1 We are now limited to half of our armies power total (should have been points, but that's a minor complaint)

2 We cant DS turn 1 outside our deployment zone.

I actually am in support of part 1 of the change, but part 2 i don't think was necessary.

 Irbis wrote:

Unchargeable how? You know jump packs or units that ignore height difference (like Reivers) are a thing, yes? If they put a thin line of models on edge of platform to block conventional assault, simply charge through them and set up in the middle, done. Not to mention doing so has massive drawbacks, like not being able to fall back from combat. Do consider all the aspects of change, please, before saying fixing blatantly broken thing was a bad idea.

Opponent puts up models so that you can't put up base there. Can't assault. Why worry about not being able to fall back BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BE CHARGED!

Read the FAQ. Unless your opponent is careless if he doesn't want you to assault he can make it so that you...can't....legally...charge...them.

No big deal for shooty army. Just shoot them. Imagine orks with objective on 2nd floor. That objective is basically impossible for orks.

As for min/max, too bad GW took care of that too, with max sheet change. Maybe now we will actually see balanced, varied armies more often instead of spamming easy mode units charging from deep strike deleting half of the models on table with no possible countermeasures for most armies? I'll gladly take the DS change seeing it also means reaper/commander spam, a much bigger problem, is no longer there.

Max limitations don't fix problem. They just hide but problem still exists.

 Irbis wrote:

 peteralmo wrote:
But when you take it in conjunction with units standing on a second floor ledge being unchargeable, or even standing on crates, why would anyone bring a CC army to a competitive game? The competitive scene will be dominated by gunlines because competitive players max/min, and gunlines are now always max, it's that simple.

Unchargeable how? You know jump packs or units that ignore height difference (like Reivers) are a thing, yes? If they put a thin line of models on edge of platform to block conventional assault, simply charge through them and set up in the middle, done. Not to mention doing so has massive drawbacks, like not being able to fall back from combat. Do consider all the aspects of change, please, before saying fixing blatantly broken thing was a bad idea.

As for min/max, too bad GW took care of that too, with max sheet change. Maybe now we will actually see balanced, varied armies more often instead of spamming easy mode units charging from deep strike deleting half of the models on table with no possible countermeasures for most armies? I'll gladly take the DS change seeing it also means reaper/commander spam, a much bigger problem, is no longer there.

I like how through most of the game history, you couldn't deep strike in first turn, yet now slight curbing of first turn deep strike is somehow 'crippling'. Ditto with deep strike assaults, you couldn't do that either through 95% of game history but now the slightly curbed back version somehow makes CC 'unplayable'...

Most building terrain people (and tournaments) have sends to be the GW city stuff. blocking off a 3" wide floor is doable, rendering units immune to charges until they suffer casualties.

Assault armies were also dead through most of the games history and the AP changes have made shooting significantly more powerful against 'elite' armies like space marines.

1000% yes.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Yes.

They are still the strongest, most reliable DS rules 40K ever had outside of the last 8 months.

Near-auto charges on turn 1 are a stupid gimmick.

10" is "near-auto?"

Man, I gotta buy dice where you do.

The stock rules make DS charge - or most 1st turn charges - a gamble. 9" charges without buffs is hard. Fair enough, but still didn't like it. But then they started giving out all the sweet sweet candy/special rules that make it reliable. That's when it went from annoying to stupid.

I can't really say yes or no. I don't think either is exactly right.

First, haven't playtested it yet. But it does seem heavy handed. Sure, it sucks to be GK. Or Rangers used for positioning. Or Striking Scorpions getting into position (they usually can't make a 9" charge, so to use them offensively, they probably can't charge till T3 now).

Second, I like the way they're headed, if this is just the first pass on a sweeping change to tone down alpha strikes. As has been pointed out, this really just nerfs some DS armies. Not just CC though - things like Scions take a bit of a hit here, too.

I hope in subsequent passes, it's more nuanced. Not impacting World Eaters-Dressed-As-AlphaLegion and their T1 charge is stupid. Impacting things like Drop Pods with Tacs in them is stupid (although nobody does that anymore, I'd love to have it become common where 1 podded Tac squad was commonplace - spammign pods made the game less fun, but one was fun).

However, to really do the "rule" right, it needs to not just be DS. It really needs to be a "Turn 1 doesn't kill half an army" rule. It needs to impact most Alpha Strikes - so Prisms, Reapers, Artillery, etc should all, somehow, be tuned down.

I'd also be totally fine if the restrictions were only *top* of turn 1. It is asymetric that bottom of 1 be less restricted than top of 1, but "who goes first" will always be asymetric. Restricting top of 1 but not bottom would help counterbalance that.

So I think the goal - reduce alpha strike - is definitely worth exploring. I think the rule as written will cause a lot of problems, and probably fix more than it breaks. It certainly needs iteration.

Perhaps a better rule would be something like "No top-of-1 Assaults" or "No Assaults from Deepstrike", paired with something to equally tune down top-of-1 shooting.

Bharring wrote:
The stock rules make DS charge - or most 1st turn charges - a gamble. 9" charges without buffs is hard.

10". You have to be "more than 9" away," meaning you'll need at least 10" to get within an inch.

You need to be more than 9" away to place, but you need to get within an inch, not BtB.

So I place 9.5" away the nearest model, roll a 9. If I move 9" directly towards the nearest model, I'm now 0.5" away. Within an inch. Successful charge.

A common point of confusion. THere's an FAQ that explicitly states 9", and there's also been some YMDC threads on it.

 meleti wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 meleti wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I love how the deepstrike change is just only seen as something for CC armies.

Like if the strongest armies that use deepstrike as their best tool werent actually shooting armies!

It's definitely both. That guy dropping 9 (or 18!) Obliterators won't be too happy about this either.

You mean those Obliterators with the 24" gun that can sit for one more turn as necessary?

This literally only hits Scion drops and that's it. And they're cheap enough you don't care!

Yeah, Oblits are still great units. My point was that Oblits were a very powerful deep striking shooting unit, not that Oblits were totally unplayable or anything like that.

It does hit the Oblits though, because any time you've got a serious portion of your list like 9 Oblits stuck in reserves for a turn, that's a lot of your points that many games you'd rather deploy turn 1 and get an extra turn of shooting from.

My main point is that Obliterators have a good range in their gun that, honestly, they (and Necron Destroyers under Nephrekh) weren't hit as hard as you think. The main offender hit was Plasma Scions, who are already cheap enough that leaving them in reserve isn't a big deal for an extra turn as necessary.

It's really just a hit to melee.

The stock 9" DS charge SHOULD be a gamble but is not because pretty much everything that relies on this tactic has abilities or strategems to negate this gamble.

Keep the Deep Strike rules as is, but if shooting becomes too overwhelmingly powerful (read: all gun armies dominate melee armies like in 5th) they will need to implement something... i.e. all shooting weapons are -1 to hit on T1, all weapons are half range turn one (old school night fight), or something similar.

Just need to see how it pans out. I think the DS rules are good, because alpha-striking was all that was emphasized. Plus, this now gives fast moving units a niche and use over deep strikers. Terminators do need some love, though.

Bharring wrote:
You need to be more than 9" away to place, but you need to get within an inch, not BtB.

So I place 9.5" away the nearest model, roll a 9. If I move 9" directly towards the nearest model, I'm now 0.5" away. Within an inch. Successful charge.

A common point of confusion. THere's an FAQ that explicitly states 9", and there's also been some YMDC threads on it.

Ah, you're right, I'm getting all mixed up in my head, thinking of the fact that they clarified you need 9", not 8". Mah bad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
The stock 9" DS charge SHOULD be a gamble but is not because pretty much everything that relies on this tactic has abilities or strategems to negate this gamble.

Mitigate, maybe, I don't know about negate. With Drukhari, at least, I know the best I can do for my DS CC units, like Mandrakes or Webway Wyches, is spend a CP to let them reroll the charge, giving me two chances to gamble instead of one. Don't know what CC units in other armies have going for them, though.

 auticus wrote:
The stock 9" DS charge SHOULD be a gamble but is not because pretty much everything that relies on this tactic has abilities or strategems to negate this gamble.

Oh it is very much a gamble. In my experience the average number on 3d6 is apparently 7.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The stock 9" DS charge SHOULD be a gamble but is not because pretty much everything that relies on this tactic has abilities or strategems to negate this gamble.

Oh it is very much a gamble. In my experience the average number on 3d6 is apparently 7.

Lmao. When I shoot with my Banebades I consider 12 a low number, despite also being 3d6. Dice are weird like that.

I voted no.

Deep strike is needed to protect your stuff from gunlines. Many units that could deep strike, can also be effective starting on the board, or be effective riding in a transport.

The reason these aren't options isn't because deep strike gives you this insane attack advantage, but because you absolutely cannot survive a round of full on shooting from a gunline with the stuff you want to protect.

Hive Tyrants with wings fly 16". I would ALWAYS start them on the table if they could survive my opponent's table-length shooting alpha strike. Think about it. With scout moves and screening units, a 16" move will get me way closer to my opponent than deep striking. In fact, deep striking against some lists, going second, i have HAD to land in my deployment zone, because they created such a bubble. But again, knowing this, I still elect to deep strike so i don't lose them immediately.

The Swarmlord was nerfed into oblivion. He can no longer use his ability to move units that arrived via deep strike. Now, there is no feasible way to protect genestealers should you even want to run them, and wait for the turn 2. Think about the Swarmlord - why did no one really play him competitively? Because it's not hard to deal 14 wounds to a T7 4++ model in 1 turn. If the Swarmlord had wings he would have been auto-take. Not because he needs that 9" charge (i mean get real), but because he could have been protected for 1 turn.

Give us a way to survive gunline fire. Deep strike was how i did it.

Siegfriedfr wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Let's be real guys, this nerf (or some iteration of it) is the first step to reducing alpha strike. Will it need something more later? Maybe. But for now it's a step in the right direction.

Also, anybody complaining about gunline dominance just needs more terrain. Y'all should be fighting in dense urban environments, or dense jungle, or canyons or anything that involves LOS blocking terrain every 6" of board.

What about "that guy" who throws a tantrum accusing you of cheating him of victory, because he can only win if his 20 dark reapers can see your whole army turn 1 ?

Tell him to get lost. Seriously, how is this a counter argument? "Well, some people suck so this rule sucks".

And 8th ed made sure LOS blocking is bloody hard. Not all can make pretty terrain and say GW's own ruins have all those windows etc making LOS blocking useless with them.

"Pretty" terrain is not a requirement. A couple sprays and you're done. Besides, how much time and money do people spend on models vs terrain? Terrain is a lot easier to get to tabletop standards than models. If you own 2000 pts of an army, it behooves you to spend a little money and time on terrain. Also, as far as GW terrain goes, just glue some plasticard on the windows to "board" them up, then spray paint it. And GW isn't the only company making terrain...

And when I say more terrain, I mean every square foot of board needs a large piece of LOS blocking terrain. It's not just one or two pieces, it's 20. There is no other way to nerf shooting and still have it be fair. If shooting were nerfed to the point that melee can consistently make it to the gunline with most of the models (across bare terrain), then shooting armies would be unplayable.

Well, I've voted yes.
I want a smooth game similar to 30k where both parties move forward until they get in touch.
Putting too much pressure on the enemy in first turn makes a stressful game. Not my liking.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I've voted yes.
I want a smooth game similar to 30k where both parties move forward until they get in touch.
Putting too much pressure on the enemy in first turn makes a stressful game. Not my liking.

This.

I'm holding my judgement about the effects on balance of this FAQ, there are too many changes combined. Will need at least a couple of months to really stabilize.

What i'm sure is that moving the focus of the game to turn 2 is definitely the correct decision.

Can we finally admit that in less than 12 months with a full reset, 40k 8th edition is a giant mess already?

BRING ON THE 9th EDTION DUMPSTER FIRE!

Pancakey wrote:
Can we finally admit that in less than 12 months with a full reset, 40k 8th edition is a giant mess already?

BRING ON THE 9th EDTION DUMPSTER FIRE!

Nah, I still think 8th is one of the best. I'd rather something be wonky for a few months while they try something out and then make fixes, than be wonky for years while they're busy not giving a like in 7th.

I voted yes. And I think 8th is an immensely successful ruleset.

Pancakey wrote:
Can we finally admit that in less than 12 months with a full reset, 40k 8th edition is a giant mess already?

BRING ON THE 9th EDTION DUMPSTER FIRE!

I'll still take the "giant mess" over the broken pile of garbage rotting away in an exploding trash recycling plant that 7th edition was .