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.

There seems to be SOME need for them, but Tactical Reserves seems a little much and Battle Brothers too little to combat soup. How can they be reworded?

(Note: I still advocate trying them)

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

 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.

Hurts Orks a ton though.

 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.

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.

But if armies are at -1 to hit things on turn 1 then it results in the first round being less critical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 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.

Hurts Orks a ton though.

All that long range shooting orks do?

MFW my slaanesh army still gets 1st turn melee charges and people are saying melee is dead.

I hope people bring stop bringing screens; that way when I charge across the board turn 1 and go steaming into combat, it's with things that matter.

More to the point - what they really need is terrain rules. Something to hurt shooting Turn 1. I think that something should be terrain.

The multiple FNP one was stupid and needs to be removed.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The multiple FNP one was stupid and needs to be removed.

Yeah, that seemed out of left field. I never noticed a time when it was super OP or anything.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The multiple FNP one was stupid and needs to be removed.

Yeah, that seemed out of left field. I never noticed a time when it was super OP or anything.

There's literally ZERO incentive to play Iron Hands. ZERO. Now it's a negative, which is impressive to be fair.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The multiple FNP one was stupid and needs to be removed.

Yeah, that seemed out of left field. I never noticed a time when it was super OP or anything.

There's literally ZERO incentive to play Iron Hands. ZERO. Now it's a negative, which is impressive to be fair.

For sure. Poor Iron Hands; I completely agree. I never saw them, never felt them OP, nothing. Now they're nerfed, lol.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The multiple FNP one was stupid and needs to be removed.

Yeah, that seemed out of left field. I never noticed a time when it was super OP or anything.

There's literally ZERO incentive to play Iron Hands. ZERO. Now it's a negative, which is impressive to be fair.

Don't make it like the problem with Iron Hands is that they don't stack FNP.

Stacking FNP was stupid, god riddance. It nerfs Iron Hands, ok, but the way to make them playable was not with that gimminick.

Just throw stuff out there and see if anything sticks.

Make the restrictions for shooting armies the same as for melee armies: In the first turn you can shoot stuff normally, but only if its outside your opponents deployment zone.
Everything within the deployment zone is safe. Just as the shooting army is safe within its own deployment zone.

HMint wrote:
Make the restrictions for shooting armies the same as for melee armies: In the first turn you can shoot stuff normally, but only if its outside your opponents deployment zone.
Everything within the deployment zone is safe. Just as the shooting army is safe within its own deployment zone.

So turn 1 is essentially a maneuver phase?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

HMint wrote:
Make the restrictions for shooting armies the same as for melee armies: In the first turn you can shoot stuff normally, but only if its outside your opponents deployment zone.
Everything within the deployment zone is safe. Just as the shooting army is safe within its own deployment zone.

So turn 1 is essentially a maneuver phase?

No, everything leaving the deployment zones is fair game: These units can be shot at and surely can be charged by a suited melee army without having to rely in deep strike.
Would also help to relief a bit of the first turn advantage, as the player having to move out first will draw more fire (but he does not have to if he does not want to).

HMint wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

HMint wrote:
Make the restrictions for shooting armies the same as for melee armies: In the first turn you can shoot stuff normally, but only if its outside your opponents deployment zone.
Everything within the deployment zone is safe. Just as the shooting army is safe within its own deployment zone.

So turn 1 is essentially a maneuver phase?

No, everything leaving the deployment zones is fair game: These units can be shot at and surely can be charged by a suited melee army without having to rely in deep strike.
Would also help to relief a bit of the first turn advantage, as the player having to move out first will draw more fire (but he does not have to if he does not want to).

What counts as leaving? Just a mm outside is good enough?

What if you move out of deployment you can shoot? Nah that probably makes it worse again as gunlines set up to inch forward first turn.

I like some of this, but the gunline could just reposition in their zone and wait.

I think the premise, Daedalus, is that a shooting army could not hit targets that stayed in their own DZ on turn 1.

That way, a melee/short-ranged shooting army can stay in their DZ and be safe, though if they go first, they have to choose whether to wander out of their DZ and get into other advantageous positions (and therefore be shot), or remain in their DZ turn 1 and not be shot, but also not gain ground.

I actually like the rule, honestly. It makes Turn 1 more maneuver centric, from both sides (though two gunline armies would just stay parked in their DZ turn one, and open fire turn two, but those games are boring anyways).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think the premise, Daedalus, is that a shooting army could not hit targets that stayed in their own DZ on turn 1.

That way, a melee/short-ranged shooting army can stay in their DZ and be safe, though if they go first, they have to choose whether to wander out of their DZ and get into other advantageous positions (and therefore be shot), or remain in their DZ turn 1 and not be shot, but also not gain ground.

I actually like the rule, honestly. It makes Turn 1 more maneuver centric, from both sides (though two gunline armies would just stay parked in their DZ turn one, and open fire turn two, but those games are boring anyways).

Ok i'm going to add this as a potential suggestion to the doc.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

HMint wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

HMint wrote:
Make the restrictions for shooting armies the same as for melee armies: In the first turn you can shoot stuff normally, but only if its outside your opponents deployment zone.
Everything within the deployment zone is safe. Just as the shooting army is safe within its own deployment zone.

So turn 1 is essentially a maneuver phase?

No, everything leaving the deployment zones is fair game: These units can be shot at and surely can be charged by a suited melee army without having to rely in deep strike.
Would also help to relief a bit of the first turn advantage, as the player having to move out first will draw more fire (but he does not have to if he does not want to).

What counts as leaving? Just a mm outside is good enough?

What if you move out of deployment you can shoot? Nah that probably makes it worse again as gunlines set up to inch forward first turn.

I like some of this, but the gunline could just reposition in their zone and wait.

Well, yes they could just sit there and wait, but it would mean they also give up that turn and don't get to have free shooting phase while the opponent has to wait for turn 2 to do anything useful.
I mean, playing gunline should still be a viable tactic, it just does not need a buff.

Why would anyone ever leave the deplyoment zone turn 1 then?
- to grab objectives
- to spread out and deny deepstrike turn 2 (so it would still kinda buff them, as they could get more deny out of less screen. More time to set up and prepare)
- to challenge infiltrating units
- to set up in favourable positions behind cover /LOS blocking terrain

I like this especially because it allows the player going second to set up their defenses. Like defensive psi powers and such. Which is currently a big part of why going second hurts.

Make 40k alternating activation or give it a proper interrupt system or otherwise not make 40k "I Go U Tinder."

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Make 40k alternating activation or give it a proper interrupt system or otherwise not make 40k "I Go U Tinder."

Predictable, MJ, but we need something that works in the current ruleset.

Charge distances and weapon ranges are halved on the top of T1?

(just spitballing)

Bharring wrote:
Charge distances and weapon ranges are halved on the top of T1?

(just spitballing)

Will benefit IG with 36" BCs and still near infinite range on artillery.

36" BCs become 18" BCs - so they've gotta move 6" forward, and start directly opposite their target. Or go second.

Virtually-infinite range units won't be as impacted (Prisms, Railheads, artillery), that's true. But even the Lasgun - 1 shot @ 12", 2 @ 6" for top-of-one?

Ideally, going 1st or 2nd should be a choice. Should we consider changes to just top of 1, or all of 1?

Humble suggestion here: go play a lot of games with the beta rules and see how they work in practice before you start complaining about what's wrong with them.

Bharring wrote:
36" BCs become 18" BCs - so they've gotta move 6" forward, and start directly opposite their target. Or go second.

Virtually-infinite range units won't be as impacted (Prisms, Railheads, artillery), that's true. But even the Lasgun - 1 shot @ 12", 2 @ 6" for top-of-one?

Ideally, going 1st or 2nd should be a choice. Should we consider changes to just top of 1, or all of 1?

No, I mean they'll be 36" after halving.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 meleti wrote:
Humble suggestion here: go play a lot of games with the beta rules and see how they work in practice before you start complaining about what's wrong with them.

I don't disagree with that and I will be doing that, but my lists don't rely on first turn alpha melee, which is absolutely disproportionately affected here.

The way I read them, they need refinement, but a well-crafted version might help the game a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Won't know until we try them!

The reason it seems like the beta rules are always used is because most of the beta rules have been no-brainers. The first two I played more often than not *before they were beta rules*. Everyone just wanted to play that way.

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.)

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.

 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.