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 haven't seen this idea posted anywhere, but I want to know what people think about changing the tactical reserve rule so that the player that goes second can deepstrike units outside of their deployment zone on their first turn, while keeping the first turn deployment restriction for the player that goes first. I think this change would really help deepstrike melee armies that currently have to weather 2 turns of enemy shooting if they go second, while still making sure the opponent gets to play at least one turn to prepare for it. It should also be a decent way to reduce the advantage of going first in this edition.

Worth a try. Sometimes too much depends on getting first turn.

Mark.

That pretty much removes the point of the nerf. The problem was that deepstrike armies could keep most thier stuff off the board (and thus immune to shooting if they went second) without penalty. Now they have to try and work an entire turn without the support of their DS stuff if they want that immunity.

I love my inceptors, but the fact that they could remove a key 200pt+ piece from the board before the enemy could ever shoot at it was a key reason the rule got made. Ditto for why Flyrants were considered OP. If you don't have to risk running a turn without their synapse support there's no reason no to just DS three of them and fill the rest of the list with CP generating filler.

I think this is a wonderful idea which seem to accomplish what GW set out with this rule.

Player that goes first at least has one turn to maneuver to mitigate getting deep struck on. Player two doesn't have to worry about not getting a chance to move without getting turn 1 deepstruck.

Gets around the problem player 2 faces with having to survive 2 enemy turns without a chunk of their army and gives a good bonus to going second.

I don't see any downside. Anyone?

I like it. I feel like the past deep strikes, "Nothing on turn 1, but everyone can hold things in reserve" was a really nice way to protect your units if you didn't feel confident in the first turn.

The "walking onto the table" reserves was pretty nice. The beta effectively allows deep strikers to "walk onto the table" on turn 1. With deep strikes counting as drops for the first turn roll/decision, next to null deployments don't really get a huge boost.

Precision deep striking with hot weapons and melee crowds was only part of the problem.

The bigger use for deep strike was holding key pieces with the rule off of the table IN CASE YOU LOST TURN 1.

Which your rule would now emphasize.

I will hide my Obliterators in deep strike not because I need to get within 12" or 9" or whatever, but because my opponent now cannot deny me a large part of my game plan... with the added benefit of being less penalized by first turn deployment and movement.

I wish people would stop railing against the beta rule... even as written now... it is still far more generous than mostly any other edition of 40K when it came to tactical reserves (minus drop pods, which were a tax for the benefit - no such tax exists much anymore). Amazing how people got so spoiled to a bad, environment deforming mechanic in under a year... even to the extent that NOTHING EXISTED BEFORE TURN 1 DEEP STRIKE!

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Precision deep striking with hot weapons and melee crowds was only part of the problem.

The bigger use for deep strike was holding key pieces with the rule off of the table IN CASE YOU LOST TURN 1.

Which your rule would now emphasize.

I will hide my Obliterators in deep strike not because I need to get within 12" or 9" or whatever, but because my opponent now cannot deny me a large part of my game plan... with the added benefit of being less penalized by first turn deployment and movement.

I wish people would stop railing against the beta rule... even as written now... it is still far more generous than mostly any other edition of 40K when it came to tactical reserves (minus drop pods, which were a tax for the benefit - no such tax exists much anymore). Amazing how people got so spoiled to a bad, environment deforming mechanic in under a year... even to the extent that NOTHING EXISTED BEFORE TURN 1 DEEP STRIKE!

Thanks, I appreciate hearing from people who are against my idea. I'm sorry if it come off as though I'm railing against the beta rule, it's just that I thought that the purpose of them is to test them out and provide feedback to gamesworkshop. I've played around 8 games with them, trying out different lists with my blood angels, and plan to play a lot more games with them. I honestly appreciate that they are letting us test these new rules before implementing them fully, I find it it pretty fun trying to test out and adapt to new restrictions.

I just believe that in the current edition, from my experience playing, getting the first turn gives you too much of an advantage. Armies with strong shooting capabilities, can wipe out a good chunk of their opponents army before they get the chance to do anything. With my blood angels, if I start a large death company unit on the board, get first turn and use forlorn fury, i can easily charge, kill, and tie up a large portion of their army in the first turn before they can react, but if i go second they get shot off the board, along with a chunk of my other units. I think the first turn deepstrike restrictions in past editions worked because cover rules granted better protection, and it seems like a lot of units in general were more durable.

I think that the new restriction of having to start with half of the power level of you army on the board is a decent way to make sure players hide less units in reserve, though I'd slightly prefer it if they changed it to points. And I feel like my proposed change may actually be able to encourage a less aggressive, high risk high reward type of play. Before the beta rule I found it better to not go for the aggressive turn 1 charge, unless you used a strategem like the blood angels one that allows a 3d6 charge range, you always has less than a 50% chance of making it even with rerolls. I found it better deepstriking small units around the map in more defensive positions, behind los blocking cover to gain board control and put a little pressure on my opponent, usually opting for a turn 2 charge.

I play using similiar but more refined houserule like this (but designed for 7th ed core) and I really like the dynamics it produces, but it's not a blanket fix and requires some preparation: there are two categories of reserves: normal and vanguard. Vanguard is reserved for light and fast recon or harrasement units or para-transports like Trygons and is a rule assigned permanently to particular codex entries.

- during first turn, second player only can attempt to deploy vanguard reserves on a 3+ roll
- during second turn both players deploy any remaining vanguard reserves automatically and can roll 3+ for normal reserves.
- normal reserves deploy automatically in third turn.

This creates opportunities for some not OP manouvers to tie/cripple backfield units from the first/second turn while disabling alpha strikes and ballances gunlines a fair bit. You cannot reliably hide most valuable units in reserves without penalty, you cannot alpha strike with full strenght at once, you cannot shoot at everything from the start and you don't have to footslog entire field under fire to get melee into fighting.

 TechnoWitch wrote:


I just believe that in the current edition, from my experience playing, getting the first turn gives you too much of an advantage. Armies with strong shooting capabilities, can wipe out a good chunk of their opponents army before they get the chance to do anything. With my blood angels, if I start a large death company unit on the board, get first turn and use forlorn fury, i can easily charge, kill, and tie up a large portion of their army in the first turn before they can react, but if i go second they get shot off the board, along with a chunk of my other units. I think the first turn deepstrike restrictions in past editions worked because cover rules granted better protection, and it seems like a lot of units in general were more durable.

This is a problem more with 8th edition's internal balance between shooting and assault more than any issue with Deep Striking. Even with the Beta rules restrictions this is the best Deep Striking has ever been. I used to run Termicide (3 Terminators with Combi Meltas and Power Mauls) with my Chaos. They couldn't come in turn 1, there was a good chance they wouldn't come in when you wanted them to, and another chance that the scatter gods would mess up your arrival and you would have to roll on the mishap table which could also kill your unit. It was brutal, but when those three terminators with their 5 point combi meltas deep struck in properly, and their 1 shot melta guns found home. It was all worth it. I also used to Deep Strike Warp Spiders and outflank War Walkers with my Eldar as well through 5th edition, although that was back when my Autarch gave a + or - 1 to reserve rolls letting me tweak the numbers a bit to get what I wanted in when I wanted it. The deep strike and reserve rules are much much better now. I would not want to go back to the earlier edition versions.... but I'm not too upset about being forced to wait until turn 2.

In another event, I make sure to load up the tables I play on with as much line of sight blocking terrain as possible. The bigger and more solid the terrain is, the better. Even if the terrain looks terrible. The balance between shooting and assault is much better if line of sight blocking terrain limits shooting armies to fire lanes and gives the second player a place to hide from at least some of a first turn alpha strike. As you said, with the change to way multi wound weapons and models work, and with cover being largely irrelevant against long range heavy weapons, playing with a lot of line of sight blocking terrain is crucial to having a good experience and mitigating the massive advantage from going first. The problem is most people don't play with a ton of line of sight blocking terrain, because a lot of it doesn't look good... and players who play heavy weapon gunline armies are never going to suggest adding more LoS blocking stuff because it hurts their army.

Sorry for going off with the "everyone railing against the beta rule for reserves" bit, but this forum was rife with people getting really upset that GW even tossed around the concept of dialing back deep strike.

It has been a spicy topic for the tournament series, as well, but a lot of the problem does come down to playing on tables with simply too much open LoS. Also, army composition plays a lot into this as well. People love killy models, and don't like control models.

I could be an oddity in the game, but my eldar army for example is built around two fire prisms, usually. Then I put in a lot of thought on how to keep my opponent off of them. Using a mix of their 60" guns, LoS blocking terrain, putting them down late in deployment, and controlling the middle of the field I tend to keep them alive until the end of the game. Sometimes I lose 1.5, sometimes both are down some wounds, sometimes armies cannot push through my lines to adequately engage the things. Lots of times, I push up big distraction units (like your death company) to pressure my opponent to deal with them sooner than they want.

That may actually be a big part of the problem. Set your Death Company in reserve and let them hit turn 2 if you want them to be the hammer that is going to punish your opponents. Otherwise, expect them to get blown away and find something else to punish your opponent with after he focused so much strength on your Death Company.

It is probably a bit easier said than done, especially being that Blood Angels were probably the most relevant army that sustained a major power curbing from this beta rule. I don't think it needs to be changed, and I do think the community just needs to find ways to bring new threats into the game now that "drop troop assault" is more of a fluff concept than it is strong.

There probably isn't much use in saying this... but 40K in both the fluff and the practice seems to be a game of strategic losses. When you push something into "no-man's land", you're pretty well condemning it to death. Probably has a lot to do with why it is called "no-man's land" or "the dead zone".

Questions I would ask if I were playing Blood Angels:

1) Are there any viable ways to cross the table and engage gun line armies with melee... assuming I lose initiative (aka: go second).

2) Is there anything I can field to pull attention away from my key units? Would a dreadnought with a lot of attacks be adequate to draw fire off of my Death Company, for example?

3) Can I deploy them in smaller units to distribute the power? Sure I lose some CP efficiency, but getting a little less out of that CP each time is better than a 50/50 on getting anything out of it at all.

4) Are there units that can benefit from this unfair attention my key units get? If my opponent is hellbent on sinking his resources into denying me this resource... what do I have on-hand to slap his wrist? In Eldar I'll use goofy things like a melee Wraithknight and Shining Spears (okay, the spears are not goofy) to screen for my Prisms. I'll use Banshees slingshotting up the field to put some brief pressure into my opponent's deployment zone. I'll have a wave serpent with Fire Dragons and a HQ or Wraithblades with a Spiritseer. How much of your army can be safely deprioritized by your opponent?

I cannot answer these questions for Blood Angels, but GW has given you the entire Imperium to search for them in. I tend to enjoy the mid-field control that Hellhounds can produce. They are a great early threat that can cause havoc if left unaccounted for. They may be able to buy those death company some time so they can drop in turn 2, while also clearing chaff screens that could drain the efficiency of the Death Co. once they reach those lines. I love charging into walls of chaff with assault units... but it is hardly points vs points efficient.

Just a few thoughts

I hardly am ever on point, so feel free to toss it into the dumpster with a lot of the other opinions out here!

Edit: tl/dr: always assume the dice hate you and that you're going second. Build and plan accordingly! Be pleasantly surprised when you go first!

BA units are too overcosted in the 8th ed meta for any of these strategies to work in a general sense. Furioso dreads need to be 100 pts now, not 165 since we need to be simulate a horde army.

With current pricing, BA are reduced to a 3 X scout 2 X beatstick detachment.

It's a nice thought, but i'm not sure this rule solves everything.

Gunline vs Melee.

Gunline wins the roll. Chooses second. Melee can't do anything and gets hit by deepstrike shooting on turn 1 instead of just what the opponent normally has on the table.
Melee wins the roll and are forced to choose second to be more effective, which means whatever is on the table gets shot up.

Worth a try though, I guess.

 akaean wrote:

 TechnoWitch wrote:


I just believe that in the current edition, from my experience playing, getting the first turn gives you too much of an advantage. Armies with strong shooting capabilities, can wipe out a good chunk of their opponents army before they get the chance to do anything. With my blood angels, if I start a large death company unit on the board, get first turn and use forlorn fury, i can easily charge, kill, and tie up a large portion of their army in the first turn before they can react, but if i go second they get shot off the board, along with a chunk of my other units. I think the first turn deepstrike restrictions in past editions worked because cover rules granted better protection, and it seems like a lot of units in general were more durable.

This is a problem more with 8th edition's internal balance between shooting and assault more than any issue with Deep Striking. Even with the Beta rules restrictions this is the best Deep Striking has ever been. I used to run Termicide (3 Terminators with Combi Meltas and Power Mauls) with my Chaos. They couldn't come in turn 1, there was a good chance they wouldn't come in when you wanted them to, and another chance that the scatter gods would mess up your arrival and you would have to roll on the mishap table which could also kill your unit. It was brutal, but when those three terminators with their 5 point combi meltas deep struck in properly, and their 1 shot melta guns found home. It was all worth it. I also used to Deep Strike Warp Spiders and outflank War Walkers with my Eldar as well through 5th edition, although that was back when my Autarch gave a + or - 1 to reserve rolls letting me tweak the numbers a bit to get what I wanted in when I wanted it. The deep strike and reserve rules are much much better now. I would not want to go back to the earlier edition versions.... but I'm not too upset about being forced to wait until turn 2.

In another event, I make sure to load up the tables I play on with as much line of sight blocking terrain as possible. The bigger and more solid the terrain is, the better. Even if the terrain looks terrible. The balance between shooting and assault is much better if line of sight blocking terrain limits shooting armies to fire lanes and gives the second player a place to hide from at least some of a first turn alpha strike. As you said, with the change to way multi wound weapons and models work, and with cover being largely irrelevant against long range heavy weapons, playing with a lot of line of sight blocking terrain is crucial to having a good experience and mitigating the massive advantage from going first. The problem is most people don't play with a ton of line of sight blocking terrain, because a lot of it doesn't look good... and players who play heavy weapon gunline armies are never going to suggest adding more LoS blocking stuff because it hurts their army.

I understand where you're coming from and I do think that it would be ideal if they made cover more effective. I do make sure to play with a good amount of line of sight blocking, but it gets annoying when my opponent can shoot at a unit without penalty and potentially destroy it if even part of one model is visible behind an obstacle. Off the top of my head i think could be better if only individual models in a unit that the enemy can see could be killed, or maybe give units in cover some type of invulnerable save or negative modifier to hit them, I'm not really sure what exactly would work out, but I doubt they are gonna change how cover works until the next edition.

Also as an aside I think it would help if they let at least some models disembark from transports after they move instead of before, that would probably be a good way to buff assault and encourage the use of more transports.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Sorry for going off with the "everyone railing against the beta rule for reserves" bit, but this forum was rife with people getting really upset that GW even tossed around the concept of dialing back deep strike.

It has been a spicy topic for the tournament series, as well, but a lot of the problem does come down to playing on tables with simply too much open LoS. Also, army composition plays a lot into this as well. People love killy models, and don't like control models.

I could be an oddity in the game, but my eldar army for example is built around two fire prisms, usually. Then I put in a lot of thought on how to keep my opponent off of them. Using a mix of their 60" guns, LoS blocking terrain, putting them down late in deployment, and controlling the middle of the field I tend to keep them alive until the end of the game. Sometimes I lose 1.5, sometimes both are down some wounds, sometimes armies cannot push through my lines to adequately engage the things. Lots of times, I push up big distraction units (like your death company) to pressure my opponent to deal with them sooner than they want.

That may actually be a big part of the problem. Set your Death Company in reserve and let them hit turn 2 if you want them to be the hammer that is going to punish your opponents. Otherwise, expect them to get blown away and find something else to punish your opponent with after he focused so much strength on your Death Company.

It is probably a bit easier said than done, especially being that Blood Angels were probably the most relevant army that sustained a major power curbing from this beta rule. I don't think it needs to be changed, and I do think the community just needs to find ways to bring new threats into the game now that "drop troop assault" is more of a fluff concept than it is strong.

There probably isn't much use in saying this... but 40K in both the fluff and the practice seems to be a game of strategic losses. When you push something into "no-man's land", you're pretty well condemning it to death. Probably has a lot to do with why it is called "no-man's land" or "the dead zone".

Questions I would ask if I were playing Blood Angels:

1) Are there any viable ways to cross the table and engage gun line armies with melee... assuming I lose initiative (aka: go second).

2) Is there anything I can field to pull attention away from my key units? Would a dreadnought with a lot of attacks be adequate to draw fire off of my Death Company, for example?

3) Can I deploy them in smaller units to distribute the power? Sure I lose some CP efficiency, but getting a little less out of that CP each time is better than a 50/50 on getting anything out of it at all.

4) Are there units that can benefit from this unfair attention my key units get? If my opponent is hellbent on sinking his resources into denying me this resource... what do I have on-hand to slap his wrist? In Eldar I'll use goofy things like a melee Wraithknight and Shining Spears (okay, the spears are not goofy) to screen for my Prisms. I'll use Banshees slingshotting up the field to put some brief pressure into my opponent's deployment zone. I'll have a wave serpent with Fire Dragons and a HQ or Wraithblades with a Spiritseer. How much of your army can be safely deprioritized by your opponent?

I cannot answer these questions for Blood Angels, but GW has given you the entire Imperium to search for them in. I tend to enjoy the mid-field control that Hellhounds can produce. They are a great early threat that can cause havoc if left unaccounted for. They may be able to buy those death company some time so they can drop in turn 2, while also clearing chaff screens that could drain the efficiency of the Death Co. once they reach those lines. I love charging into walls of chaff with assault units... but it is hardly points vs points efficient.

Just a few thoughts

I hardly am ever on point, so feel free to toss it into the dumpster with a lot of the other opinions out here!

Edit: tl/dr: always assume the dice hate you and that you're going second. Build and plan accordingly! Be pleasantly surprised when you go first!

Thanks this post is actually pretty helpful. I do want to try and discover new builds that may help me get around the new restrictions.

I actually have some ideas in my head I'm been planning to try out. I've thought of maybe using my stormraven gunship and loading it up with a unit of company vets, from the index, with jump packs, plasma guns and storm shields, along with a captain for rerolls, and maybe force my opponents to shoot at either it or my death company, if i still decide to use them. I use a lot of los cover but it can be pretty hard to prevent any part of one model in the unit from being seen, if i want to run a large unit. I actually didn't necessarily find the first turn charge to be important in the past, because I preferred dropping a few small units around the map, behind terrain, for board control and i feel like right now that's not as valid a strategy.

I think answering those questions you posed would be helpful to me.

1) If I want to go for the turn one assault, if i go second, the best thing to do would probably be to make sure my death company are far back in a save position, even by using forlorn fury to get them there before the first turn starts. Then I could use my "on wings of fire" strategem in my movement phase to remove them from the board and deep stritke them in at the end of the phase. (Games workshop did clarify that models that start on the board can use abilities like that strategem, or like Da Jump for orks, to leave your deployment zone,) Then I could use my strategem for the 3d6 charge range to most likely get them into close combat. It would also be better than using the sanguinary guard for this purpose since they require more character support.

2) I don't think using a normal dreadnought is the right move, but I do own a Leviathan Dreadnought that i barely use, and people seem pretty scared of it. My loaded up storm raven that i mentioned before can force the enemies to choose between which unit to focus on. Or maybe I could try adding 3 predators, that could potentially use the kill shot strategem.

3) Smaller units can work. I can put down 2 or 3 units of 5 death company marines, instead of a 15 man one, and spread them out throughout the board. Other then them and my sanguinary guard, which i run in a 7 man unit, I already run mostly 5 man squads. This includes my scouts, devastators, tactical marines, and jump pack company veterans.

4) If i run tactical squads with plasma they usually get ignored for the most part and can do some decent damage. My heavy bolter devastators are ignored about half the time and can pump out 12 strength 5 ap-1 shots a turn, with the option to inflict 2d3 mortal wounds in a turn if I spend a command point and sacrifice my cherub. I'm also thought about running assault marines (which are considered under powered this edition) to tie up enemy units, and maybe kill something.

I know I have the option of allying with guard, or another imperial faction, but Blood Angels are my favorite in fluff and playstyle, and I'd prefer not to ally.

 TechnoWitch wrote:

 akaean wrote:

 TechnoWitch wrote:


I just believe that in the current edition, from my experience playing, getting the first turn gives you too much of an advantage. Armies with strong shooting capabilities, can wipe out a good chunk of their opponents army before they get the chance to do anything. With my blood angels, if I start a large death company unit on the board, get first turn and use forlorn fury, i can easily charge, kill, and tie up a large portion of their army in the first turn before they can react, but if i go second they get shot off the board, along with a chunk of my other units. I think the first turn deepstrike restrictions in past editions worked because cover rules granted better protection, and it seems like a lot of units in general were more durable.

This is a problem more with 8th edition's internal balance between shooting and assault more than any issue with Deep Striking. Even with the Beta rules restrictions this is the best Deep Striking has ever been. I used to run Termicide (3 Terminators with Combi Meltas and Power Mauls) with my Chaos. They couldn't come in turn 1, there was a good chance they wouldn't come in when you wanted them to, and another chance that the scatter gods would mess up your arrival and you would have to roll on the mishap table which could also kill your unit. It was brutal, but when those three terminators with their 5 point combi meltas deep struck in properly, and their 1 shot melta guns found home. It was all worth it. I also used to Deep Strike Warp Spiders and outflank War Walkers with my Eldar as well through 5th edition, although that was back when my Autarch gave a + or - 1 to reserve rolls letting me tweak the numbers a bit to get what I wanted in when I wanted it. The deep strike and reserve rules are much much better now. I would not want to go back to the earlier edition versions.... but I'm not too upset about being forced to wait until turn 2.

In another event, I make sure to load up the tables I play on with as much line of sight blocking terrain as possible. The bigger and more solid the terrain is, the better. Even if the terrain looks terrible. The balance between shooting and assault is much better if line of sight blocking terrain limits shooting armies to fire lanes and gives the second player a place to hide from at least some of a first turn alpha strike. As you said, with the change to way multi wound weapons and models work, and with cover being largely irrelevant against long range heavy weapons, playing with a lot of line of sight blocking terrain is crucial to having a good experience and mitigating the massive advantage from going first. The problem is most people don't play with a ton of line of sight blocking terrain, because a lot of it doesn't look good... and players who play heavy weapon gunline armies are never going to suggest adding more LoS blocking stuff because it hurts their army.

I understand where you're coming from and I do think that it would be ideal if they made cover more effective. I do make sure to play with a good amount of line of sight blocking, but it gets annoying when my opponent can shoot at a unit without penalty and potentially destroy it if even part of one model is visible behind an obstacle. Off the top of my head i think could be better if only individual models in a unit that the enemy can see could be killed, or maybe give units in cover some type of invulnerable save or negative modifier to hit them, I'm not really sure what exactly would work out, but I doubt they are gonna change how cover works until the next edition.

Also as an aside I think it would help if they let at least some models disembark from transports after they move instead of before, that would probably be a good way to buff assault and encourage the use of more transports.

GW will not Change how covers work cause unit would be less killy, but 8th ed. Has been build around this goal, make the game a senseless butchery aimed at 11y old children