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.

 Mixzremixzd wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with the GW moon base board https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Realm-Of-Battle-Moon-Base-Klaisus-2017?

It seems like decent value and might be roughly the right size for a 2000pt game if not a little smaller. Just wondering if it may be worth the investment along with the Indomitus box.

It should be good for Combat Patrol and Incursion sized games.

 Mixzremixzd wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with the GW moon base board https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Realm-Of-Battle-Moon-Base-Klaisus-2017?

It seems like decent value and might be roughly the right size for a 2000pt game if not a little smaller. Just wondering if it may be worth the investment along with the Indomitus box.

The amount of terrain is far from enough for anything and the set cost as much as a rubber based 6x4 game mat.

 Jidmah wrote:
I wasn't referring to transports. Both my armies move 5" a turn and their average guns shoot 24" or less. With the 6x4 tables, armies like craftworld eldar, space marines or guard had no troubles keeping their big guns outside of my range and just blast away, with little counterplay possible from my side.

When I think about it, my most successful lists were those which could close the distance faster than my opponents were backing away - ork buggies and DG daemon engines.

This 1,000,000x.

It is too easy to kite your opponent into submission with +48" guns on a 6'x4' tables.

 skchsan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I wasn't referring to transports. Both my armies move 5" a turn and their average guns shoot 24" or less. With the 6x4 tables, armies like craftworld eldar, space marines or guard had no troubles keeping their big guns outside of my range and just blast away, with little counterplay possible from my side.

When I think about it, my most successful lists were those which could close the distance faster than my opponents were backing away - ork buggies and DG daemon engines.

This 1,000,000x.

It is too easy to kite your opponent into submission with +48" guns on a 6'x4' tables.

Objectives are in the center of the table and you're supposed to play with a piece of terrain every 12". You're sure going to kite alright (maybe) but probably going to lose the mission too.

Your opponent only needs to kite your for the first two turns, your army will be unable to win the game afterwards - and those fast units have no problems getting back onto the objectives for the last two turns. When entire armies are balanced around a ~23" threat range, having units that can move 10" away or more and then shoot you from 36"+ from simply doesn't work if you can't push them into a corner while it still matters.

 Jidmah wrote:
"Tactical maneuvering" in 8th meant backing away from mid-range and melee units for three turns, after which the game was essentially over.

A smaller table forces you to actually adapt to terrain and models for your tactical movement, instead of just relying on having enough space to move away from threads while shooting them with 48"+ guns.

With stuff that's faster than in any previous edition or even able to assault turn 1 from their own deployment zone, with more fast assault units than ever before, tables often so full of units and models that maneuver of any sort is often difficult, trivial reserve penalties (e.g. they come in where you want when you want and without any mishap risk), etc, I've never found this to be an issue in 8th personally, in fact I've had far more tables in 8th where maneuver of any meaningful sort wasn't particularly possible (because there was so much stuff on the table) than I've seen armies successfully kite an opponent to victory. Usually if something has lots of 48" range guns, their butt is already on the back of the board or close to it anyway.

Now, I've seen gunlines basically obliterate melee armies before they get to go, I've seen melee armies get shot to pieces before they even make an opponent feel threatened enough to move or that get screwed by some overwatch trick or whatnot, but to be perfectly honest I really haven't seen table maneuvering space allowing for extensive kiting to win significant numbers of games by just backing up forever (especially as that usually means giving up objectives).

dhallnet wrote:
Objectives are in the center of the table and you're supposed to play with a piece of terrain every 12". You're sure going to kite alright (maybe) but probably going to lose the mission too.

For sure. But at the end of the turn, dead units can't score. All one needs to do to ensure the opponent doesn't score is to make sure there are no footslogging enemy units within 15" of the objectives (3" control range + 6" M + 6" Advance) and shoot the fast units down first.

The reason why Jidmah's examples of fast armies performs best among armies he has is precisely because it's designed around threat overloading. One glaring weakness of these lists are that these fast units tend to cost a lot, which severely decreases the number of significant models you can field (which then gets shot down with relative ease due to proliferation of multi damage weapons.

You can park your +48" guns at the edge of your deployment and be able to threaten the entirety of the no-man's land without any repercussions for minimum of 2 turns.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Height of bases is constant so we can easily tell the size from the ratio of lip vs width.

I can tell you that isn't true as I have GW bases of different heights from current model kits.

I second this. There seems to be a slight difference of +/- .5mm. Negligible, but base heights aren't fully uniform.

For example, pill bases (long oval bike bases) are ~.8mm shorter in height than 75mm oval bike bases.

So is either of you claiming that the objectives are on 40mm bases, or are you just typing to hear yourselves type?

So what are you going to do if they turn out to be 40mm?

They didn't.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
They didn't.

For which I am genuinely flabbergasted.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The minimum recommended rules are truly minimum recommended, until you throw the bugbear in that all large "official' tournaments are going by that size, and tournament standard is what a lot of people (at least here in the USA) use for almost all of their games.

That means deviating from tournament standard for many people is not possible because their community will not allow it.

And now we have people on social media, forums, twitter, saying that the playtesters have said they only playtested on this small size and that its the only real "balanced" version of 40k (lol - 40k and balance in the same sentence) which gives ammo to those that are going to cling to tournament standard like a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean.

I look forward to an even bigger divide between casual and tournament than ever before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

Whatever people might say on the internet, table size will gradually be enforced as the new standard in tournaments - even local ones-, and there is nothing anyone will be able to do about it.

Of course what happens in your garage is your problem, just don't expect people with a melee army to play vs tau on a 6x4 board and come back ever again (unless they don't understand they are being played, which is on them).

People played melee armies against tau on a 6x4 for years. Why is it just becoming an issue now?

They made melee worse.

stratigo wrote:
They made melee worse.

I played a game of Salamanders vs Khorne today, using 9th edition rules with 8th edition points, so: No.

Melee army gets into combat faster, with less casualties due to Overwatch. Being able to easily hide behind ruins helps. Yes, other changes (multicharges, coherency) toned it back down a bit, but melee is better than in 8th.
Overall the two games I've played so far with the new missions and terrain rules were a far better experience than most of 8th, although our lists were more experimental than highly optimized tournament lists, of course. (Tyranids vs IF - Nids won, Salamanders vs World Eaters - WE won).
Just make sure you put enough terrain on the table, we were using 4 smaller ruins (>5'' though), one bigger ruin with a large footprint in the center, and 3-4 of each for craters, forests and armoured containers for a Strike Force game (1250 and 1750 points)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
They didn't.

For which I am genuinely flabbergasted.

I think you're not an AoS guy so let me tell you they also wrote mercenary rules so everyone could use the Ironweld Arsenal (dwarf and empire warmachines) and released this pretty much the same day as they removed those models from sale.

stratigo wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The minimum recommended rules are truly minimum recommended, until you throw the bugbear in that all large "official' tournaments are going by that size, and tournament standard is what a lot of people (at least here in the USA) use for almost all of their games.

That means deviating from tournament standard for many people is not possible because their community will not allow it.

And now we have people on social media, forums, twitter, saying that the playtesters have said they only playtested on this small size and that its the only real "balanced" version of 40k (lol - 40k and balance in the same sentence) which gives ammo to those that are going to cling to tournament standard like a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean.

I look forward to an even bigger divide between casual and tournament than ever before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

Whatever people might say on the internet, table size will gradually be enforced as the new standard in tournaments - even local ones-, and there is nothing anyone will be able to do about it.

Of course what happens in your garage is your problem, just don't expect people with a melee army to play vs tau on a 6x4 board and come back ever again (unless they don't understand they are being played, which is on them).

People played melee armies against tau on a 6x4 for years. Why is it just becoming an issue now?

They made melee worse.

How?

By making objectives a stand and hold thing? So now you have to be on top of the objective the whole game, not just touching it for a turn.

By changing the rules for melee combat so you can now engage models 5" vertically and 1" horizontally so you don't have to climb all the way up the building?

By changing the movement rules so that if ANY model in the unit moves the whole unit counts as having moved? Oh well guess heavy weapons in infantry squads is mostly useless now.

By making most terrain sight blocking as long as your not "toe in", allowing you to bound forward from terrain piece to terrain piece to avoid being shot?

By basically removing Overwatch from every army except Tau?

By nerfing fly so you can't shoot after you fall back?

By making the board smaller so Melee units don't have as much ground to traverse?

Should I keep going?

Just wanted to point out that GW is still selling the 6'x4' Sector Imperialis.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The minimum recommended rules are truly minimum recommended, until you throw the bugbear in that all large "official' tournaments are going by that size, and tournament standard is what a lot of people (at least here in the USA) use for almost all of their games.

That means deviating from tournament standard for many people is not possible because their community will not allow it.

And now we have people on social media, forums, twitter, saying that the playtesters have said they only playtested on this small size and that its the only real "balanced" version of 40k (lol - 40k and balance in the same sentence) which gives ammo to those that are going to cling to tournament standard like a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean.

I look forward to an even bigger divide between casual and tournament than ever before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

Whatever people might say on the internet, table size will gradually be enforced as the new standard in tournaments - even local ones-, and there is nothing anyone will be able to do about it.

Of course what happens in your garage is your problem, just don't expect people with a melee army to play vs tau on a 6x4 board and come back ever again (unless they don't understand they are being played, which is on them).

People played melee armies against tau on a 6x4 for years. Why is it just becoming an issue now?

They made melee worse.

How?

By making objectives a stand and hold thing? So now you have to be on top of the objective the whole game, not just touching it for a turn.

By changing the rules for melee combat so you can now engage models 5" vertically and 1" horizontally so you don't have to climb all the way up the building?

By changing the movement rules so that if ANY model in the unit moves the whole unit counts as having moved? Oh well guess heavy weapons in infantry squads is mostly useless now.

By making most terrain sight blocking as long as your not "toe in", allowing you to bound forward from terrain piece to terrain piece to avoid being shot?

By basically removing Overwatch from every army except Tau?

By nerfing fly so you can't shoot after you fall back?

By making the board smaller so Melee units don't have as much ground to traverse?

Should I keep going?

And let’s have a look at the other side of that same coin shall we and view what got harder for melee?





No more guaranteeing a unit safety with tripointing (Ridiculously more impactful alone then literally everything you mentioned combined)

Tripointing being much less practical to pull off in general because of coherency rules.

Coherency rules in general make it harder for units that are active on the board (melee) rather than gunlining

Character rule changed to 3" disproportionately hurts assault armies, since they're more likely to leave the character through charges

Blast weapons hurting bigger units

Tanks shooting into melee

Ability to charge multiple units nerfed significantly (this also nerfs fight twice strategems)

No more re-roll single charge dice, have to re-roll both

-1 to hit abilities being much weaker and less reliable defense against shooting

The Overwatch change is mostly only relevant for armies with big overwatch output, and that nerf didn't even affect the most important one, Tau

Even the ‘buff’ of smaller boards is actually a nerf to GSC and other DS assault units like Tzaangors, Bloodletters, Da Jump mobs, etc, who don’t give a gak about ground to cover and are actually limited for places to get in by denser boards and also much easier to casually screen out




Should I keep going?

I mean, as an Ork player who plays a bit of a hybrid list I'm up for the table size change. Yes the minimum distance is the same at 24 inchs, but the maximum distance the enemy can be has decently shrunk. The mission layouts also tend to push the objectives pretty close to the middle, making the midboard pretty important. I'm hoping to test out some lists against a tau mate, It's possible those saying melee is dead are right, but I feel it may be just as or more important than ever. Bring on the midfield moshpits!

I wonder if some of the table size reasoning has to do with attracting new casual players. When the recommended table size for their small collection fits on a coffee table, it does remove one more barrier to entry.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
No more guaranteeing a unit safety with tripointing (Ridiculously more impactful alone then literally everything you mentioned combined)

Tri-points were always a feels bad moment. You either pulled it off and then wrecked their army or didn't and suffered.

Coherency rules in general make it harder for units that are active on the board (melee) rather than gunlining

Gun lines aren't going to get points easily.

Character rule changed to 3" disproportionately hurts assault armies, since they're more likely to leave the character through charges

Definitely makes those previously terrible increase aura by x" traits seem more interesting. Characters are going to need to move in front of their units with JPs or bikes or hitch a ride.

Tanks shooting into melee

This has been really situational. Also, melee benefits hugely from dreadnoughts with this ability.

Ability to charge multiple units nerfed significantly (this also nerfs fight twice strategems)

This was a necessary result of the O/W changes.

No more re-roll single charge dice, have to re-roll both

Makes Orks quite the kings of charging.

The Overwatch change is mostly only relevant for armies with big overwatch output, and that nerf didn't even affect the most important one, Tau

Big O/W is the bane of melee.

Additional plusses:

- Psykers can't fall back and cast
- You pick who fights first the turn after you charged if your opponent makes no charges
- Chargers pick up a save bonus in heavy cover

Pure melee and shooting armies will both not be optimum.

When you use melee units to remove an opponent's unit from an objective, not only did you remove their unit from scoring position, you placed yourself in that same position and have now forced your opponents hand.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
No more guaranteeing a unit safety with tripointing (Ridiculously more impactful alone then literally everything you mentioned combined)

Tri-points were always a feels bad moment. You either pulled it off and then wrecked their army or didn't and suffered.

Cool, that's still a massive nerf that absolutely shredded certain melee armies and units. Your response isn't a counter to the fact that it was nerfed, this is just you saying how you feel about. And you aren't even correct. Plenty of times it was just what a unit needed to hang on a turn, not get to wreck an entire army lol, while yes it happened sometimes that's a massive hyperbole. You are right though that if they don't get the tripoint, they suffered. So now, for the cost of 2CP, they get to suffer everytime.

You know what else was a feels bad moment? Building melee army just to get dunked on by gunlines every single edition. Seems they left that one in the game though. This is unmistakably a melee nerf.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Coherency rules in general make it harder for units that are active on the board (melee) rather than gunlining

Gun lines aren't going to get points easily.

Already addressed and acknowledged in the post I had responded to. Irrelevant response.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Character rule changed to 3" disproportionately hurts assault armies, since they're more likely to leave the character through charges

Definitely makes those previously terrible increase aura by x" traits seem more interesting. Characters are going to need to move in front of their units with JPs or bikes or hitch a ride.

Yup, so in every way, affects melee armies disproportionately.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tanks shooting into melee

This has been really situational. Also, melee benefits hugely from dreadnoughts with this ability.

Genestealer's should just take their dreadnoughts then :(

Slice it how you want, this is a nerf to melee.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ability to charge multiple units nerfed significantly (this also nerfs fight twice strategems)

This was a necessary result of the O/W changes.

1.) No, it wasn't?

2.) even if it was, this makes the overwatch changes actually a nerf since this change here, is actually more impactful.

3.) irrelevant anyway - whichever way you take it, THIS IS STILL A NERF TO MELEE.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

No more re-roll single charge dice, have to re-roll both

Makes Orks quite the kings of charging.

By virtue of being affected least by another nerf that disproportionately, and entirely unnecessarily, affected melee.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Overwatch change is mostly only relevant for armies with big overwatch output, and that nerf didn't even affect the most important one, Tau

Big OW only exists in a few places outside of Tau who weren't changed at all. And for the ones who were changed, when it is important they can still spend 2CP to do so and often cause an entire unit to miss combat (and die) for that price.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Additional plusses:

- Psykers can't fall back and cast
- You pick who fights first the turn after you charged if your opponent makes no charges
- Chargers pick up a save bonus in heavy cover



Pure melee and shooting armies will both not be optimum.

When you use melee units to remove an opponent's unit from an objective, not only did you remove their unit from scoring position, you placed yourself in that same position and have now forced your opponents hand.

Fair points.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
And let’s have a look at the other side of that same coin shall we and view what got harder for melee?

Sure, why not.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
No more guaranteeing a unit safety with tripointing (Ridiculously more impactful alone then literally everything you mentioned combined)

Tripointing being much less practical to pull off in general because of coherency rules.

Coherency rules in general make it harder for units that are active on the board (melee) rather than gunlining

Because of a Stratagem which means only ONE unit can get away, and it costs CP to do it, and given that the max CP is now greatly reduced paying 2 cp to get a unit out is a big spend so it's going to need to be worth it. Mission objectives are set up now to punish gunline gameplay. You have to move out and push onto objectives, or you WILL lose the match. You know they changed the terrain rules right? You know you will probably be able to move from sight blocking terrain to sight blocking terrain and not get shot at all right? Sure Tripointing is harder, know what else is harder? Seeing your opponent.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Character rule changed to 3" disproportionately hurts assault armies, since they're more likely to leave the character through charges

Finally an actual point that sticks. Maybe ensure your characters can stick with your units, or have the Character charge first, since, you know, no overwatch.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Blast weapons hurting bigger units

Which hurts Shooting as much as it does Melee.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Tanks shooting into melee

Tanks can't shoot into melee, they can shoot at what there engaged with, they also can't fire blast weapons while engaged. Lots of low S shots use a high T unit, a couple of High S shots, use chaff. Blast weapons? Use literally anything since they can't shoot at all.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Ability to charge multiple units nerfed significantly (this also nerfs fight twice stratagems)

That's 2 Sure that kinda sucks that you can't use multi charge as a free move mechanic anymore.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
No more re-roll single charge dice, have to re-roll both

Again hurts shooting just as much as it does melee, possibly more so since there is only a 5% difference between rerolling 1 die and rerolling both dice on charges over 9 inches.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
-1 to hit abilities being much weaker and less reliable defense against shooting

Again affects Shooting as much as it affects melee.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
The Overwatch change is mostly only relevant for armies with big overwatch output, and that nerf didn't even affect the most important one, Tau

So any person that was smart enough to bring Flamers as a deterrent. Any army that has access to special flamers they pay prime points for, to use as a deterrent/force longer charges. Saying that something has no effect does not actually mean it has no effect.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Even the ‘buff’ of smaller boards is actually a nerf to GSC and other DS assault units like Tzaangors, Bloodletters, Da Jump mobs, etc, who don’t give a gak about ground to cover and are actually limited for places to get in by denser boards and also much easier to casually screen out

Again affects shooting armies as much as it affects melee armies.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Should I keep going?

Since of the 11 points you made, only 2 actually apply exclusively to melee units and of those 2 only 1 is an actual nerf (multi-charge) and the other (Tripointing) is "worse" only because they made it extremely easy for you to avoid being shot at when your moving up the board.

sigh... why is it that all the people responsible for all the worst posts, always feel the need to do this thing where they break up every single line of your response into a million different dotpoint quotes and make it a hell of an eyesore. I can remember what I wrote, just respond to it in succession? Like I didn't break up your original list into a ton of individual quotes? This style of formatting is such a hallmark for the worst contributions. But, since you've forced us down this road...

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
No more guaranteeing a unit safety with tripointing (Ridiculously more impactful alone then literally everything you mentioned combined)

Tripointing being much less practical to pull off in general because of coherency rules.

Coherency rules in general make it harder for units that are active on the board (melee) rather than gunlining

Because of a Stratagem which means only ONE unit can get away, and it costs CP to do it, and given that the max CP is now greatly reduced paying 2 cp to get a unit out is a big spend so it's going to need to be worth it. Mission objectives are set up now to punish gunline gameplay. You have to move out and push onto objectives, or you WILL lose the match.

Aaaaaaand straight out the gate with the low level takes. If you think tripointing being escapable for 2CP isn't a massive nerf to melee, you were not playing at a level where you should be commenting on tripointing. Watch how melee armies play at top level. Melee units like Genestealers RELIED upon this, and not only are they a pricier chunk of your list but there is now also NO WAY left to keep them safe. Even Daedulus's response was much better here - as he said, this can be a game changing difference. A brand new option for 2CP to win the game by defanging your entire melee offense, oh my, should I spend it?

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
You know they changed the terrain rules right? You know you will probably be able to move from sight blocking terrain to sight blocking terrain and not get shot at all right? Sure Tripointing is harder, know what else is harder? Seeing your opponent.

You mentioned this in your original post. I didn't say anything to disagree with terrain changes being helpful. I said this is THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN, ie all the nerfs you were either conveniently ignoring, or just lack the game knowledge to recognise. Outside of pointing out your flawed Overwatch argument, my post was an expansion of yours, not an argument that these weren't buffs. I am acknowledging the buffs you mentioned, while including the addition of all the even more significant nerfs that you failed to mention.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Character rule changed to 3" disproportionately hurts assault armies, since they're more likely to leave the character through charges

Finally an actual point that sticks. Maybe ensure your characters can stick with your units, or have the Character charge first, since, you know, no overwatch.

So, exactly what I said. This is a nerf that disproportionately affects melee and adds further limitations to how they are going to be able to move.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Blast weapons hurting bigger units

Which hurts Shooting as much as it does Melee.

Spoken like someone truly unfamiliar with competitive play.

Tell me, what are all this large size infantry shooting units that were relevant in the meta in 8th? Please, name them. Hordes, tarpits, and large melee bombs were a staple for melee play and crucial to how many of these armies function. If you are playing somewhere that large infantry shooting units are equally as important for shooting armies as large melee units are for melee armies, then your meta is so totally alien to me that I don't even know if I can argue what you're saying - maybe it's true where you are, but you're playing a different game to the rest of the world my friend.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Tanks shooting into melee

Tanks can't shoot into melee, they can shoot at what there engaged with

Mate - I don't know if you're deliberately trying to be as nitpicky as you can to present an argument with the least amount of good faith possible, but shooting what you're engaged at IS shooting into melee. I didn't say can shoot into allied melees, that's not a rule? You knew this, I knew this... what are you doing here? Even with your absurd wordplay here, both ways it is STILL a nerf to melee, do you have an argument why it's not?

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Ability to charge multiple units nerfed significantly (this also nerfs fight twice stratagems)

That's 2 Sure that kinda sucks that you can't use multi charge as a free move mechanic anymore.

Well while it wasn't free, you're otherwise right, as it basically destroyed one of the bigger strengths that melee had to try leverage where possible, so it's a pretty significant nerf, glad you agree.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
No more re-roll single charge dice, have to re-roll both

Again hurts shooting just as much as it does melee, possibly more so since there is only a 5% difference between rerolling 1 die and rerolling both dice on charges over 9 inches.

......... how in god's name did you come to the conclusion that this somehow hurts shooting? Even with what you wrote, that still nerfs melee and hurts shooting in no way.

also, this is a perfect example of why empty mathhammer is so silly. Let me give you a practical enough situation - 9" charge. You roll a 6, and a 2. You whiff the charge. Pre nerf, your CP re-roll would have a 2/3 chance of granting you the charge. Post nerf, you have a 1/4 chance of success. It's not a flat "5% difference", it means that many situations will occur where there is a flat out no safe re-roll for a charge, when there was very good odds before.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
-1 to hit abilities being much weaker and less reliable defense against shooting

Again affects Shooting as much as it affects melee.

No, because nerfing -1 to shoot from both sides of a shooting vs shooting match up just puts them on even footing. Removing -1 to shoot in a melee vs shooting match up, just takes away a vital defensive mechanic for one side of the board. I would think that was common sense. Blanket rules might impact everyone, but they do not impact everyone equally.

On top of that, it means that heavy weapons get to move and shoot for free now against anything that was relying on a -1 save for protection.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
The Overwatch change is mostly only relevant for armies with big overwatch output, and that nerf didn't even affect the most important one, Tau

So any person that was smart enough to bring Flamers as a deterrent. Any army that has access to special flamers they pay prime points for, to use as a deterrent/force longer charges. Saying that something has no effect does not actually mean it has no effect.

I'm sorry, this must be my unfamiliarity - please direct me in the direction in some of these lists that did well competitively this year, by being as smart as you claim to be, and taking flamers as a melee deterrent.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Even the ‘buff’ of smaller boards is actually a nerf to GSC and other DS assault units like Tzaangors, Bloodletters, Da Jump mobs, etc, who don’t give a gak about ground to cover and are actually limited for places to get in by denser boards and also much easier to casually screen out

Again affects shooting armies as much as it affects melee armies.

??


???????


I can't even begin to fathom the logic of how this hurts shooting units as much as melee deepstrike units who need to deepstrike every single model as close as humanly possible to make the charge.

Just simply saying these things does not make them true.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Should I keep going?

Since of the 11 points you made, only 2 actually apply exclusively to melee unitsonly 1 is an actual nerf (multi-charge)

Very few changes affect anything exclusively. Look at the points YOU made. Much more Terrain blocking line of sight is a massive buff for no-LoS shooting. However, you were capable of can recognise that this is more of a help to melee. Of the 11 points I made, all them are melee nerfs.




When you make a post like the one you just did mate, I think you need to stop, take a step back, distance yourself from your personal collection, and ask yourself - "am I letting my individual biases heavily influence the statements I make"?

For what it's worth, outside of his tone I agree with Nitro Zeus, and I usually don't.

The only thing that could possible result in a huge gain for melee is the mission design forcing people to move towards assault units instead of away from them.

I am going to explain this one thing to you since you are being neither reasonable nor rational

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
also, this is a perfect example of why empty mathhammer is so silly. Let me give you a practical enough situation - 9" charge. You roll a 6, and a 2. You whiff the charge. Pre nerf, your CP re-roll would have a 2/3 chance of granting you the charge. Post nerf, you have a 1/4 chance of success. It's not a flat "5% difference", it means that many situations will occur where there is a flat out no safe reroll for a charge, when there was very good odds before.

Yes, it takes that situation into account, it literally takes all the possible rolls into account. 10/36 for a 9' charge with no reroll (27%), 20/36 with a reroll (55%), reroll the lowest 22/36 (60%).

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
When you make a post like the one you just did mate, I think you need to stop, take a step back, distance yourself from your personal collection, and ask yourself - "am I letting my individual biases heavily influence the statements I make"?

Really...you know you're totally right.

That’s not the example nor the problem described, perhaps you should re-reread.

I attached my rationalising to every statement I made. You made a bunch of empty statements with no explanation attached while demanding others deliver their points better. Nope, you don’t get to ignore all the overwhelming counter logic to your position and then accuse others of not being rational, just gonna call that out for what it is.