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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 10:02:40
Subject: Re:One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Crimson wrote:Pointy sticks vs infantry is not no anti-tank versus tanks situation. Stabbing infantry is exactly what the pointy sticks are for.
Of course that's what it is. An army with no anti-tank weapons is a badly designed army that should not be considered in balance discussions, and the fact that it automatically loses a lot of games is fine and even desirable. An army with nothing but pointy sticks is a similarly terrible army concept, and its failure is desired. The solution is not to complain that your pointy sticks are not winning, it's to stop bringing an army with nothing but pointy sticks to a shooting game.
And those scifi elements include loads of scifi melee weapons! (And I would definitely call it space fantasy rather than scifi.)
Yep, weapons which you can still use in a shooting army. For example, the sergeant in your heavy weapon squad can have an awesome scifi power weapon.
But currently they're really not that usable, even as support elements. It is usually just better to use your points for more shooty stuff instead of investing in melee.
Shrug. That's outside the scope of this thread, dealing with the FAQ and its changes to pure-melee armies. Armies which used deep striking melee units in a support role are fine, just like armies that used deep striking plasma in a support role are fine. The only armies which are significantly hurt by the change are ones that went all-in on deep strike and can't win without it. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orks have guns.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/26 10:03:11
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 10:03:48
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles
|
CassianSol wrote:
Half range or -1 to hit for the first player turn seems like an elegant way of redressing the balance between shooting and melee. It doesn't prevent the defensive player from setting out their layers of battleline that shield their army, but that is tactical movement which should be encouraged.
Er no.... Not all shooting armies care about -1 to hit the same way. Tau will shoot like orks. Imperial guard most likely will too. Orks basically cannot shoot first turn which makes them even more reliant on melee. Eldar and Marines will continue to high five each other as they shoot you off the table with at worst 4+ and usually 3+ after some form of modifier. Or in the case of dark reapers they flat out will not care. Any army that already has a -1 to hit at range will be even more invulnerable on turn 1. You think screens are oppressive now? Now you have no real way to shoot the way clear. Make melee better if you want to fix this. Maybe +1 attack the turn a unit deep strikes since it is an ambush out of nowhere. If half your army is getting shot off the board turn 1 it sounds like both a positioning and terrain problem. More ways to get cover could also go a long ways for fixing this too. Forests giving cover for being wholly within 3 inches or whatever. Reducing the distance apart you have to be on turns 2 and 3 when you deep strike could help to both find holes in screens and guarantee making it in. This is a beta rule, come up with plenty of creative options. The goal is to make both shooting and melee armies fun and exciting to play.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 10:17:55
Subject: Re:One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
Peregrine wrote: Crimson wrote:It is fine for shooting to be more effective than melee, but then that should be reflected in the point costs of those units!
No, because then melee units become powerful again. They may not be elite anymore, but with that cost reduction you can swarm with hordes of melee troops and still win. Stop expecting pointy sticks to be effective.
Yes and that is generally how they should work. Go look at plenty of Sci-fi sources where this is the case (Starship troopers, Aliens, even plenty of examples in 40k fluff supporting melee centric forces that far out number the enemy and "win") 40k is not a universe were no melee should happen, plenty of armies have it as a significant part of their design and pay extra for those stats even on shooting units. So either those stats need to carry less value compared to shooting based stats, or the army with the cheapest guns always wins. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote: Crimson wrote:And you should be able to. Equal points worth of pointy sticks versus laser pointers should make a fair game where both sides have a decent chance of winning.
Nope. That's like arguing that an army with no anti-tank weapons should be able to win against tanks. Badly designed lists should not win. Lists that try to do something that is against the design principles of the game should not win. Your pointy sticks should get wiped off the table 100% of the time because it's a stupid and anti-fluffy list.
I agree but what a badly designed list should be based on the relative strengths and weaknesses inherent in a faction. Armies should not really be 0 Shooting and 100% melee, but 60-70% melee focus makes sense for a lot of factions based on how they have been designed.
And this is a fantasy game.
No it isn't. It's a hybrid scifi/WWII game with some superficial fantasy elements in the fluff.
The fantasy elements are hardly superficial, psykers are a core part of the fluff, Space Orks are a core part of the fluff, Travel through a Daemon infested warp is a key part of the fluff. The fluff is largely based around fantastical gods. IT is far closer to science fantasy than sci fi by any stretch. In fact the science part of basically everything takes a back seat to the fantasy aspect at every turn.
Melee weapons exist, melee units exist. These should be usable.
Sure, and those units/weapons can be usable as long as you treat them as support elements for the shooting core of your army. The issue is not that melee combat exists at all, it's that melee-only armies exist and people expect them to be something other than a joke.
I largely agree, that armies need some balance, but melee centric factions exist and pay points to be good at melee combat. All "long range" shooting armies to me should really be relegated to a similar tier as all melee armies. As in not competitive, the game should encourage (and I feel it largely does encourage) somewhat balanced armies. People have this idea that melee is way underpowered and yet most top table armies at GT have a reasonably sizable melee portion to their army, because melee combat is a powerful tool.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/26 10:27:47
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 11:30:27
Subject: Re:One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Screaming Shining Spear
|
I agree but what a badly designed list should be based on the relative strengths and weaknesses inherent in a faction. Armies should not really be 0 Shooting and 100% melee, but 60-70% melee focus makes sense for a lot of factions based on how they have been designed.
This is a point Peregrine is stubbornly refusing to see. Even if every army could/should have some shooting elements, it's perfectly appropriate, fluffy, and even intuitive based on how the codex is written that some armies will be 2/3's melee. Those armies shouldn't be hamfistedly nerfed to deal with a few problem units, half of witch aren't even melee units, but rather deep striking shooty units.
|
9000 pts 6000 pts 3500 ---> KEEP CALM AND XENOS |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 11:50:26
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
UK
|
It's funny I could swear the tanks worst enemy is infantry, which is why you never send them alone into forests or urban areas.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 12:19:25
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
One of the things that appeals to me about 40k is the ridiculous anachronism that allows all sorts of fighting styles to merge and bump heads with each other without an obvious winner. There are many sci-fi games out there that attempt some manner of justifiable "realism", and they can be lots of fun, but I like having things like cavalry charges vs. battletanks, and the soldiers firing a couple of volleys then charging in to batter each other with spikes and blades.
I wonder if we will see more speculative deepstriking in future - instead of committing to the better half of your army all set for deepstrike, just a few mid-value units ready to pop out and asassinate an exposed character or capture a weakly held objective on turns 2-3 (TBH I don't see why they also felt the need to ban deepstriking after turn 3...)
Mark.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 13:33:21
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
In this thread: "The game is all shooting and melee should play a support role." "But GW released Daemons, that's proof they want melee to be viable." "Your factual evidence contrary to my position is rejected because I personally disagree with it."
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/26 13:33:35
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 14:13:40
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
More or less, you don't even need daemons as an example. Plenty of factions rely heavily on melee and that is where their premier units and abilities lie.
Orks
Blood Angels
Space Wolves
Genestealer cult
daemons
among others are all armies where melee is at least a significant focus in the army, it isn't that they have no shooting, it is just that there is no viable way for those armies to act as primary shooting forces and compete with better shooting armies.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 14:28:45
Subject: Re:One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Screaming Shining Spear
|
Yes, I think all of this is self-evident to 99% of the people here. I think it best to tune out the white noise of "only shooting deserves a place at the competitive table," and focus on solutions to help melee out. For example one thing I'm hearing often around the interwebs from FAQ apologists is "well, whats the big deal, you had to wait until turn 2 or later in 7th edition, you should be used to this." Such a classic false equivalency. We're not playing 7th edition, we're playing 8th, and the sheer volume and power pure shooting can put out turn 1 is so staggering, in my mind it leaves no justification for ever dropping melee down a notch or two in competitive viability without a mirror measure affecting turn 1 shooting. There's been so many ideas floated, from myself and others: No shooting into opponents deployment zone, turn 1 night fighting, changing vehicle disembarkation to happen at the end of movement rather than the beginning, keeping turn 1 deep strike but allowing all units to withdraw from combat still fire at -1 to hit, etc etc etc. Somewhere in there is a better alternative to the current big FAQ nerfing of majority melee armies.
|
9000 pts 6000 pts 3500 ---> KEEP CALM AND XENOS |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 14:40:35
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
To me the only change that needs to happen is that the deployment zone deepstrike restriction should be for the first player turn not battle round. That way each player gets 1 turn of shooting/moving prior to getting hit with deestrike elements. The real reason waiting until turn 2 is not big deal is that competitively you had to anyway, no one let you deepstrike assault anything of value turn 1, so it getting delayed is really a non-issue.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 14:45:55
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Hardened Veteran Guardsman
|
The better solution is to give melee armies some form if viable transport or stratagem to let them cross the board turn 1 and get charges off. Most of what you suggested are terrible blanket changes.
No shooting into DZ turn 1 is an awful idea that just pushes the game start back a turn, anything that leaves the deployment zone will just get shot to hell so people will turtle in it, then turn 2 rolls around and it's basically turn 1 from pre-faq.
Night fighting has merit but the way BS varies across factions affects some much worse than others and it will be particularly asinine when playing against any army with a -1 to hit trait, guard and tau are hitting on 6's and orks can't shoot at all.
I'm a fan of changing vehicle disembarking personally, would make chimeras more viable to run.
The last one seems viable but does nothing to stop deepstriking plasma, one of the intended targets of the nerf.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 14:49:06
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
I like the concept of "One turn in your face, before I charge you". But the implementation is all over the board. For all it's problems, I think that's one thing 6E/7E did better.
It means you can't just run glass cannon CC units and expect to survive. But if shooting is overtuned, it means nothing survives until it gets into CC.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 15:01:30
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Bharring wrote:I like the concept of "One turn in your face, before I charge you". But the implementation is all over the board. For all it's problems, I think that's one thing 6E/7E did better.
It means you can't just run glass cannon CC units and expect to survive. But if shooting is overtuned, it means nothing survives until it gets into CC.
The most entertaining part of all of this is that I run a glass cannon CC unit army (mono-Slaanesh) and generally expect to survive if I go first, because I can tie their screens up, stay locked in, and then murder them in their fight phase with follow up in my psychic phase before charging on into the guts of their army.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 15:54:07
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
After this rule I think they need to bring back disembarking AFTER a transport has moved.
Unit that disembarks counts as moving but at least this way you have a chance at getting most of a melee army stuck in pretty quickly. (12" transport move, 3" disembark, 9" charge = 24")
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 15:57:13
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Wraithguard out of a Serpent?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 15:58:17
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Clousseau
|
peteralmo wrote: auticus wrote:That few are bothering to realize that playing on barren tables is a huge reason why gunlines will dominate you without your turn 1 alpha strike makes me sad.
This is good and well at a local game, or a home game. But at a major tournament where you can't control every piece of terrain do you really want to show up with an assault based army now? Hoping the terrain works out?
Well we are talking about rules changes that affect all of us (yes i know beta rules for tournaments etc etc but where I live, tournament rules are the only rules no matter if its a home game or a store game) so turn 1 alpha strike melee armies that exist only because at adepticons there is no terrain so the rest of us have to deal with the lack of terrain at big tournaments by having to deal with turn 1 alpha striking in all of our games kind of sucks when if you had proper terrain in the first place the melee armies wouldn't be hit that hard by not getting their turn 1 garbage.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/26 15:59:37
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 16:01:32
Subject: Re:One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
I really get the feeling that a few people on dakka are still suffering from a defeat or two in 5/6/7th where a well played and/or cheesy melee force killed all their tanks. I understand the site is called dakkadakka, but I don't think we need a separate board called ChoppaChoppa for a melee-leaning discussion on various tabletop/RPG games.
Anyhoo, I played a game last night and ran my scions for the first time in 8th, because prior I felt dirty running them. I know it's no secret to most here, but plasmagun scions are insane. They are basically unaffected by the beta deepstrike rules, what with being cheap both points and PL, as well as being immune to rule of 3. I had 1 squad (full squad with 4 plasma and vox) nearly quadruple its points in 2 turns. NOTHING should have that level of point efficiency in the game, while also being so inexpensive that losing half the unit is no deal. Scion weapon price nerf didn't go far enough. plasma and melta need to swap points, and grav chute impose a -1 to hit on all weapons fired. I understand it was likely a case of hot dice, but when I fire 4 overcharged plasmaguns and get 13 hits and evaporate a full health Dreadknight GM buffed by sanctuary t3 after having landed turn 2 and removing a stormtalon. Being someone who ran bloodletter bomb and was normally pretty happy when they managed to get a positive KPR. Little buggers out-scored all 3 of my knights in killpoints.
Next game I'm going to use my daemons for the first time with the beta rules, we'll see if they were hit as hard as I thought. Unfortunately for me flesh hounds have been out of stock almost constantly since the end of 7th, so my speed is going to be with thirsters, princes and crushers (kinda). Hopefully my trio of skullcannos can carry them as much as my havocs do in my CSM. I'm hoping to face either RG or eldar of some flavor to see if I move fast/durable enough with the landbound units so that the spend-CP-to-DS dudes aren't by themselves t2 when I open a 2nd front with them. We'll see if they can stand up to how well my rhino-rush berserkers have done for me so far in 8th.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 16:02:33
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch
Netherlands
|
Honestly with cheaper transports nobody would argue. Send the rhino to 30 pts (it's just a metal box anyways), price the rest of the transports around it, maybe give them all 2"-4" of movement more. That's it.
I can get behind GW's mindset for this one. There's "I am now able to charge T1" and then there's "Here's my entire army on your face, NOW.".
it means a lot that, the moment an edition allowed first turn charges, practically everyone turned to alpha strike armies. It shows that it is a very powerful ability.
Players who want to go deepstrike and charge can still do it, only from turn 2 onwards. That's ok, previous edition we couldn't even do that even if we wanted to. And it was second turn on a 3+ only, and then scatter rolls with mishaps etc.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 16:03:10
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Clousseau
|
Unit1126PLL wrote:Bharring wrote:I like the concept of "One turn in your face, before I charge you". But the implementation is all over the board. For all it's problems, I think that's one thing 6E/7E did better.
It means you can't just run glass cannon CC units and expect to survive. But if shooting is overtuned, it means nothing survives until it gets into CC.
The most entertaining part of all of this is that I run a glass cannon CC unit army (mono-Slaanesh) and generally expect to survive if I go first, because I can tie their screens up, stay locked in, and then murder them in their fight phase with follow up in my psychic phase before charging on into the guts of their army.
A few points:
1. You're an incredibly fast army, probably the fastest army in the game. Everything you're describing could have been done before this rule was implemented. You need not rely on DS with a fast army, in fact, you're better off NOT deep striking if you can move 20+ inches on turn 1.
2. You aren't facing people who are properly screening with scout moves, forcing you to move around the "alpha screen"
3. I would request you post a battle report of you versus a solid army. Tying up screens is never enough to win.
|
Galas wrote:I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you 
Bharring wrote:He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 16:08:44
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
A decrease in points on 'pure' transports (rhinos and trucks basically) would be welcome, and perhaps a change to disembark rules. Get out before the transport moves and you act normally. Get out after and you can only move and charge. No advancing, psychic powers or shooting.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 16:09:46
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Marmatag wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Bharring wrote:I like the concept of "One turn in your face, before I charge you". But the implementation is all over the board. For all it's problems, I think that's one thing 6E/7E did better.
It means you can't just run glass cannon CC units and expect to survive. But if shooting is overtuned, it means nothing survives until it gets into CC.
The most entertaining part of all of this is that I run a glass cannon CC unit army (mono-Slaanesh) and generally expect to survive if I go first, because I can tie their screens up, stay locked in, and then murder them in their fight phase with follow up in my psychic phase before charging on into the guts of their army.
A few points:
1. You're an incredibly fast army, probably the fastest army in the game. Everything you're describing could have been done before this rule was implemented. You need not rely on DS with a fast army, in fact, you're better off NOT deep striking if you can move 20+ inches on turn 1.
2. You aren't facing people who are properly screening with scout moves, forcing you to move around the "alpha screen"
3. I would request you post a battle report of you versus a solid army. Tying up screens is never enough to win.
1) This is true. (That's the joke! Where's that simpsons meme...)
2) I actually welcome people who push forwards, as it's much easier to guarantee the survival of my slower units if they have easy charge targets, since the enemy can't fall back. I can literally hide my expensive and fragile (For points) LOW in combat with a scout sentinel while she's on her way to blenderize the enemy gunline. So please, come closer.
3) What a "solid army" is is anyone's guess - mine's certainly not, because no one in their right mind takes Zarakynel, as she's atrociously bad for her points. And "tying up screens" isn't all I do - it just means the typical "fall back to shoot people to death" can't happen. It's like 7th edition, where the goal is to kill the enemy in their turn, and Slaanesh have a psychic power that gives them a way to compensate for bad dice and murder the enemy in their psychic phase to free their CC units up to charge the guns behind them.
Once melee units get to the gunline without harm, it's all over. You just have to nick a basilisk with a single daemonette and it's useless for the rest of the game, not to mention 90 daemonettes and their angry friends that hid in combat using Fiends. My tactics are actually really bad against armies without screens, because units like Hellblasters can just beat the fiends/seekers/daemonettes to death and then shoot. Last game I played, I blitzed into 10 Hellblasters near Azrael with 2 fiends, 5 seekers, and a seeker herald, killed a couple, and then between their regular attacks, banner attacks, and "For the Honour of the Chapter" they just beat my assault units to death and got to fire again. Had I hit a guardsmen squad with all those I'd've locked them up for sure, and then been able to wipe them out in my opponent's fight phase and charge the tanks (assuming there are tanks behind the guardsmen, which is standard practice).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 16:20:53
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
topaxygouroun i wrote:Honestly with cheaper transports nobody would argue. Send the rhino to 30 pts (it's just a metal box anyways), price the rest of the transports around it, maybe give them all 2"-4" of movement more. That's it.
This is why I can't take anyone's position on Dakka about balance seriously. These thoughts are so very clearly out of left field that they would unbalance the game.
You're telling me it's ok to pay 34 points for 11 T7 3+ wounds that has more fire power than 4 marines that cost 52 points?
The rhino is costed well enough. It MIGHT drop 5 or 10 points in the future, but there is NO way it will go to 30 and even paying the extra 40 points for 4 "overcosted" rhinos doesn't make them non-viable.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/26 16:22:37
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 16:22:38
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Screaming Shining Spear
|
Yes the transport change was one I was personally pushing for and like the best of all the ideas put forth. You just need a simple restriction that the transport has to move under 20" in order to still disembark at the end of it's movement, that would address the transports that can be in your opponents deployment zone with a single movement phase.
|
9000 pts 6000 pts 3500 ---> KEEP CALM AND XENOS |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 16:26:58
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch
Netherlands
|
How does a rhino have the firepower of 4 marines exactly?
And yes, 4 marines are troops, they help build detachments and earn CP and they have obsec in battleforged armies. All of which the rhino misses.
And it's not like anybody is playing tactical marines anyways right now. But with a cheap transport, they just might.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/26 16:27:31
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 16:32:10
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Courageous Space Marine Captain
|
You cannot just slash costs of transport. Taking empty transports for their firepower is already prevalent. If most people are not using transports for their intended purpose, then there probably is a problem with the transport rules. Being able to disembark after the transport has moved (and then disembarking unit counting as having moved) might be a good change. And as suggested, there could be some cap on how far the transport can move and still be able to do this.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 16:35:58
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
topaxygouroun i wrote:How does a rhino have the firepower of 4 marines exactly?
And yes, 4 marines are troops, they help build detachments and earn CP and they have obsec in battleforged armies. All of which the rhino misses.
And it's not like anybody is playing tactical marines anyways right now. But with a cheap transport, they just might.
Two storm bolters. It's all they would take. 12 Rhinos in 1,400 points.
It would take 9 Catachan Manticores 6 turns to kill them all (ignoring the 4 shot limit).
2 HQ - 160
5 Scouts - 55 x 6
Rhino 2x SB - 34 x 6
2 HQ - 160
5 Scouts - 55 x 6
Rhino 2x SB - 34 x 6
412 points to spare
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/26 16:37:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 16:36:23
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Courageous Space Marine Captain
|
It can have two stormbolters (and a hunter-killer missile.)
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 16:36:27
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch
Netherlands
|
Crimson wrote:You cannot just slash costs of transport. Taking empty transports for their firepower is already prevalent. If most people are not using transports for their intended purpose, then there probably is a problem with the transport rules. Being able to disembark after the transport has moved (and then disembarking unit counting as having moved) might be a good change. And as suggested, there could be some cap on how far the transport can move and still be able to do this.
I have not witnessed people taking empty transports for shooting to be honest. Maybe they did in the past, but with battalions and brigades at +5/+12 CP now, perhaps this will tone down too. Perhaps they could even make the transports themselves cheap, but their additional guns more expensive. This way you could still have your cheap metal boxes. As it stands now, I'd rather have an extra marine squad than a transport. At any rate, rhinos at 70 pts is extremely high, and so are Devilfish at 120+. Automatically Appended Next Post: Daedalus81 wrote:topaxygouroun i wrote:How does a rhino have the firepower of 4 marines exactly?
And yes, 4 marines are troops, they help build detachments and earn CP and they have obsec in battleforged armies. All of which the rhino misses.
And it's not like anybody is playing tactical marines anyways right now. But with a cheap transport, they just might.
Two storm bolters. It's all they would take. 12 Rhinos in 1,400 points.
It would take 9 Manticores 6 turns to kill them all.
2 HQ - 160
5 Scouts - 55 x 6
Rhino 2x SB - 34 x 6
2 HQ - 150
5 Scouts - 55 x 6
Rhino 2x SB - 34 x 6
412 points to spare
And with what would you kill anything non-infantry in your list?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/26 16:37:55
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 16:49:06
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
412 points for Combis on the sarges.
Or replace some with Tacs + LC (not enough for all).
Not great firepower, but that's 60 Boltgun scout-move bodies with reasonable resiliance, atop the 2 HQs and 12 Rhinos.
That style list has won tournies in the past (pre-8th).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/04/26 16:52:58
Subject: One of the Biggest Problems with Tactical Reserve Beta Rule - Big FAQ
|
 |
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch
Netherlands
|
Bharring wrote:412 points for Combis on the sarges.
Or replace some with Tacs + LC (not enough for all).
Not great firepower, but that's 60 Boltgun scout-move bodies with reasonable resiliance, atop the 2 HQs and 12 Rhinos.
That style list has won tournies in the past (pre-8th).
I know but back then the rhinos were free (and marines had Objective super secured)
Ok then, not 30, but definitely not 70 either. I'm all well and fine with no deepstrike T1, but they have to give melee armies something. It can't be shooting nerfs because then we just delay the whole game by one turn, and turn 2 just becomes the new turn 1. So it has to be something that will let shooty people shoot and hth-ty people stay alive enough to hth next turn.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/26 16:54:20
|
|
 |
 |
|