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.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Oh wonderful. DS assaulting Eversor. Like that would not murder everything it hit and would totally not be spammed.

I can do you one better: the Dark Eldar Coprsetheif Claw. Two S7 T7 MCs with a Haemonculus with the Nightmare Doll and Webway Portal. Only three models, counts as a unit the Haemie cannot leave. Depp Strikes exactly one inch away, multiassaults your entire backfield. Enjoy trying to burn though a 3+ re-rollable save that's immune to S3 attacks.

Face it: Deep-Strike assaults, while benefiting certain underused units, would break any remaining balance over its knee. It's been tried before, and it was game-breaking before. Consolidating into combat is a better idea than this.

Consolidating into combat means that my IG are dead as soon as the enemy hits home and there is nothing we can do about it. It ends up as:
'Assaulters hit, murder section1, consolidate into section2, cant be shot in my turn because they are in combat, murder section2, consolidate into section3, murder then consolidate into tank1, etc'

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Oh wonderful. DS assaulting Eversor. Like that would not murder everything it hit and would totally not be spammed.

I can do you one better: the Dark Eldar Coprsetheif Claw. Two S7 T7 MCs with a Haemonculus with the Nightmare Doll and Webway Portal. Only three models, counts as a unit the Haemie cannot leave. Depp Strikes exactly one inch away, multiassaults your entire backfield. Enjoy trying to burn though a 3+ re-rollable save that's immune to S3 attacks.

That's actually the Dark Artisan, but your point still stands.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Depp Strikes exactly one inch away, multiassaults your entire backfield.

Truly it would be a terrifying thing to behold

 master of ordinance wrote:
I remember when having more than three Leman Russ in a 2K game was considered cheese and how the introduction of vehicle squadrons in the IG codex caused an uproar.

My how the times have changed

Three Leman Russ at 2K wasn't even uncommon in SECOND ED.

To be fair, in 2E, it's not like the IG codex had much variation either. You have guardsmen, command squads, ratlings, Ogryn, Leman Russ tanks, Hellhounds, Sentinels, Basilisks, Griffons, Chimeras, Rough Riders, Storm Troopers, and that was literally the entire army.

In a 2E list at 2000pts, you could probably only barely fit in 3 Russ tanks, and your army would be 3 Russ tanks and like 50 guardsmen in a 2k list.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, in 2E, it's not like the IG codex had much variation either. You have guardsmen, command squads, ratlings, Ogryn, Leman Russ tanks, Hellhounds, Sentinels, Basilisks, Griffons, Chimeras, Rough Riders, Storm Troopers, and that was literally the entire army.

In a 2E list at 2000pts, you could probably only barely fit in 3 Russ tanks, and your army would be 3 Russ tanks and like 50 guardsmen in a 2k list.

True, but it was a popular build in my area. I think two tanks was more common.

At any rate, the bottom line is that the rich (wraiths, TWC) need to be a bit poorer and the poor (every other pitiful assault unit) need to be richer. Falling from the sky directly into CC does really crush a few armies way too hard.

leopard wrote:
Yes, with limits, specifically what the deep strike is meant to represent - e.g. a Lictor is using the rule to represent being already there just hidden, so no reason not to assault, marines from a pod would logically need time to organise before striking.

Best way would to be to have a similar rule to Deep Strike, and have that rule allow assaulting, but be limited in what gets it - limited to small units who could approach unobserved until they got into overwatch then the assault, assassin type units

This so much, the fluff backing the assault from deepstrike in special cases makes sense, and makes some units playable without tabling armies. I think the reaction to this is a little harsh. Besides, it gives units a reason to take flamers for surprise assault insurance. Anyone seen Alien 3? Nothing's more fun than surprise aliens maybe being gunned down by frantic troopers before being eaten alive.

For the alien, maybe.

Besides, it gives units a reason to take flamers for surprise assault insurance.

how many special weapon slots does IG have do you think, and those str 4 flamers would maybe hurt eldar assaulters runing out of WWP, but all MCs and meqs would laugh at it. even 4 flamers in a command section do max 4d3, that is 6 bolters shots vs something that can have +2/++2 saves. Sure will help to stop them, probably with the power of the narrative.

Why not have something like only hits on 6's with normal to wound roll and no additional attack for charging.
Then its a serious gamble when doing it, got to weigh up whether its better to be shot at and try charge next turn potentially being charged yourself and shot to pieces or do minimum damage.

I am sorry but all the objections I am hearing are about how guardsmen would be unplayable if any unit would be able to assault from deep-strike or reserves et all. Its like they have to tanks or transports to protect them, or the ability to ally with I don't know an Inquisitor that has a special rule that allows all units within 12 inches to shoot at any unit arriving from reserve. I am just tired of people complaining that 5-8 point models can't kill a 17 point model.... don't forget you have the ability to have twice as many of the lower costing models in the same unit. I don't think every unit should be able to assault from deep-strike then again I don't like how much of the game has become about psychics and shooting units, but I still find ways to rise up and win hard played games. YMMV based on what they are playing and luck.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
I am sorry but all the objections I am hearing are about how guardsmen would be unplayable if any unit would be able to assault from deep-strike or reserves et all. Its like they have to tanks or transports to protect them

Which are just as easy, if not easier, to kill through an assault.

, or the ability to ally with I don't know an Inquisitor that has a special rule that allows all units within 12 inches to shoot at any unit arriving from reserve.

Which is not an integral part of the army, it's another faction's functionality that could change based on future updates or allies changes, and can be subject to event restrictions.

I am just tired of people complaining that 5-8 point models can't kill a 17 point model....

That's not really not the argument people are making.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
I am sorry but all the objections I am hearing are about how guardsmen would be unplayable if any unit would be able to assault from deep-strike or reserves et all. Its like they have to tanks or transports to protect them, or the ability to ally with I don't know an Inquisitor that has a special rule that allows all units within 12 inches to shoot at any unit arriving from reserve. I am just tired of people complaining that 5-8 point models can't kill a 17 point model.... don't forget you have the ability to have twice as many of the lower costing models in the same unit. I don't think every unit should be able to assault from deep-strike then again I don't like how much of the game has become about psychics and shooting units, but I still find ways to rise up and win hard played games. YMMV based on what they are playing and luck.

The real problem with the ability to assault from reserves is the ability to damage multiple units and wipe out units you deal no to minimal damage to. To give you an idea of what a smartly played assault from DS unit could do to IG I will talk about something I did with a unit of 11 (what remained actually) flesh hounds to an IG artillery line. The opponent even got a turn to shoot the unit up and react so this is actually much easier to do if I could outflank and do this with the whole 20 model unit.

I scouted up and took a turn of shooting. The opponent was setup with 2 screening units and 3 artillery units behind an ADL. I moved up and then shot the screening units with some of my anti infantry (a baleflamer and a bike unit or two actually) just enough to open a gap to charge the artillery units behind. This actually worked in my favor as when I charged I could only fit a couple of models into the primary target artillery in the center. I declared a multi charge and rolled fairly well. I don't remember if I got 3 or 4 units in the charge but I killed more than 6 models and all the units had to take Ld1-3 tests. The artillery all was destroyed due to the artillery rules. The insult to injury of this is that one of the screener units had a priest in it so my unit was locked in CC and the opponent couldn't shoot me in retaliation.

You hear a lot about shooting in 40K but a well played assault can do multiples more damage than a similar pts of shooting. If assault from reserves was a thing then at the very minimum multi charge has to be disallowed when you assault from reserves. Really anyone that played a swooping hawk exarch in 3ed knows the abuse that can happen in melee. My record being ~2600 pts killed in a single assault phase by less than 200 pts of model.

 ansacs wrote:
The real problem with the ability to assault from reserves is the ability to damage multiple units and wipe out units you deal no to minimal damage to. You hear a lot about shooting in 40K but a well played assault can do multiples more damage than a similar pts of shooting.

This. When shooting you need to kill several models to even force a Morale check and still more to wipe the unit out. An assault unit gets a chance to wipe out the enemy through Sweeping Advance if they win the combat by as little as one kill, and if there's several units involved all the losers have to test. And ofc, an assault unit is usually much better at assaulting than anything it assaults.

Sure, it doesn't always work. I had a five-girl Dominion Squad outflank my mate's Space Wolves in one game, taking out some tank or other. Then his TWC and a unit of Fenrisian Wolves turned around and charged me. Sadly for him it was a tight fit and a long charge so only one TWC got B2B together with a few wolves, and the poor puppies actually lost the combat (my mate's famous crappy rolls). The wolves were all dead and the TWC ran away in fear only to be swept (now that I think about it they should have had ATSKNF too, but maybe it was still the older Codex). IIRC that's about the only close combat I've ever won against his SW, even when it's a full ten-girl squad against a five-man pack that maybe even lost a guy to Overwatch.

Absolutely not, as it would completely eliminate the primary disadvantage of assault, which is getting the unit into assault. With this option, assault units would be able to decisively wipe a shooting units off the board before their opponent got any kind of chance to react. Assault tends to be far more decisive than shooting from your average unit, and should therefore be harder to initiate than simply declaring "my X are deepstriking." As far as counterbalancing this rule with the likes of overwatch or interceptor fire, I think that is a terrible idea. It involves far too much out-of-turn-sequence shenanigans to facilitate proper tactics. I would prefer we move away from this sort of nonsense and instead try to get assault and assault counterplay to operate within the normal turn sequence. Assaults should be achieved because one player out maneuvered another during the course of the game, not because one player choose a marginally risky deployment option and the other didn't have enough interceptor fire.

I understand that there currently exist a number of dedicated assault units that do not work. But there are ways of fixing these units other than allowing them to assault from reserves. For starters, why not remove the awful overwatch fire and random charge distance rules from the game to make getting into assault more reliable. Shooting units absolutely do not need overwatch fire, they are more than capable of killing assault units in normal sequence of play. Overwatch is cumbersome, time consuming, largely outside both players' control and just a unnecessary obstacle placed in the way of assault. The last thing you want to do is reinforce the need for this rule by bringing assault from deepstrike into the game. Cut this awful rule along with random charge range so assault can work without these stupid problems.

The other thing that needs to happen is the return of prolific line of sight denying terrain. Assault was a much more viable tactic with regular, non-deathstar type units in 4th edition because players could use intervening terrain to cover their advance. The opponent in turn had to open lines of fire or maneuver carefully to avoid getting charged. This is far more interactive and nuanced than taken a unit in reserve and placing them straight into assault Boss Snikrot style.

Finally the game just needs better play balance. Sure, those scatter bikes will likely destroy any assault units you send at them, but scatter bikes can destroy most units you send at them. Its not so much a problem with assault as a problem with a unit that has a devastating 48" range gun which is also fast enough to cross the board in one turn.

The main thing that all the NO people are assuming is that suddenly tomorrow GW releases a statement that says assault after DS is now ok.

This will not happen. There will be a whole bunch of rules that should go with it. Things like assault is no longer 2D6 inches. Still absolutely no assault on turn 1. Removal of many of the ways to do no scatter DS. Bring back a much more risky mishap chart.

You just cant introduce something like assault after DS without changing many other aspects of the game.

Unfortunately the bloat of the game has been its own undoing. The game just cant flow in the way that reflects the fluff or even any sense of balanced play.

 Jayden63 wrote:
The main thing that all the NO people are assuming is that suddenly tomorrow GW releases a statement that says assault after DS is now ok.

Whilst all the YES people are assuming that GW will do everything in its power to make assaulting from reserve fair and balanced.

The fact that GW hasn't given a crap about balance for about 10 years now doesn't seem to phase them.

I don't care about fair and balanced tbh. People say that it will be unfair because "it will give assault armies the chance to wipe out shooting units in a single turn without the shooting player be able to do anything about it". Well guess what are shooting units doing right now? The very thing you just said. Only it's much easier to miss it if you are not in the receiving edge of it.

I would gladly accept such a rule and I would gladly charge gunlines. It would help them actually think for a change rather than point, shoot and kill.

It would also act as a great limiting factor to cheese. One would no longer spend points on 40 scatbikes if they know they can get charged instantly, instead they would spend points to protect their bikes (with guardians or other stuff) and this would have an impact on how many scatbikes you can get in the first place. People would no longer play 5 Riptides if they have to pay for kroot bodies to protect their Riptides from assaults. People wouldn't be all that eager to play free tank gladius formations with MSU marines inside just to profit more from the free stuff if 4 cheap assault units can deepstrike and open 4 razorbacks instantly. Then the gladius player would actually have to either buy bigger squads or buy extra dudes to blitzkrieg their tanks and that would mean less free razorbacks.

Yes, armies like IG would suffer from this at this point, although I still cannot understand why IG players cant' just spread 60 conscripts all around so that they create a wondrous bubble protection against Deep striking. If I have to add ablative wounds to all my units to protect them from shooting, then shooting armies should have to add ablative wounds to protect their gunlines from assault also.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
I don't care about fair and balanced tbh.

That alone speaks volumes.

 vipoid wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
I don't care about fair and balanced tbh.

That alone speaks volumes.

The amount of scatbikes one can see at any tournaments also speaks volumes, though for some reason assault is the bad word in this dictionary. Whatevers.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

The amount of scatbikes one can see at any tournaments also speaks volumes, though for some reason assault is the bad word in this dictionary. Whatevers.

Because the answer to the cheese in the game isn't to build a cheddar-factory.

 vipoid wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

The amount of scatbikes one can see at any tournaments also speaks volumes, though for some reason assault is the bad word in this dictionary. Whatevers.

Because the answer to the cheese in the game isn't to build a cheddar-factory.

No it's not, but some stuff can already assalult from deepstrike (blood angels can somehow, khorne berzerkers + dreadclaw can, skyhammer can) yet I have not seen any of these things crushing the game by any range of imagination. (Skyhammer does good due to its grav devas, not its assault squads). Just saying we could try to see past what it looks on paper and actually try to see how it performs on the table. Even when Ymgarls were around, it still weren't nowhere near the OP range.

Have had some discussions at the FLGS recently about exactly this topic.
I feel that assaulting from deepstrike should definitely be a possibility. Deepstriking involves a lot of risks and if you want to be within a reasonable charge range, even more risk is involved.
That said, I acknowledge that shooting armies need a way to deal damage to units arriving from deepstrike. To do this, I would allow units being charged by units arriving from deepstrike to fire overwatch at full ballistic skill, including vehicles.
You wouldn't be able to charge whatever when arriving from deepstrike. It'd be a stupid idea to charge a leman russ battle tank with a bunch of 3+ guys because you risk losing half your squad.

 vipoid wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
The main thing that all the NO people are assuming is that suddenly tomorrow GW releases a statement that says assault after DS is now ok.

Whilst all the YES people are assuming that GW will do everything in its power to make assaulting from reserve fair and balanced.

The fact that GW hasn't given a crap about balance for about 10 years now doesn't seem to phase them.

It probably doesn't phase them because they've played the last couple of years where their assault army was the definite underdog and every battle is an uphill battle. People with assault armies just had to deal with it and I can't blame them for wanting change. Worst case scenarios are A) Jack gak changes and they're still disadvantaged or B) assault suddenly becomes OP.

There's 3 possibilities: Shooting is better than assault (current), Shooting and assault are equals or Assault is better than shooting. If you're currently playing assault, any change is good because at worst things remain as they and assault stays the bottom tier.

Overwatch is important not to get many kills but because casualties are removed from the front. This can often take the unit out of charge range. DS is risky and unreliable, especially if you want to be in charge range, and the risk of mishap/risk of failing the charge balance is a difficult one to keep.

DaPino wrote:
Have had some discussions at the FLGS recently about exactly this topic.
I feel that assaulting from deepstrike should definitely be a possibility. Deepstriking involves a lot of risks and if you want to be within a reasonable charge range, even more risk is involved.
That said, I acknowledge that shooting armies need a way to deal damage to units arriving from deepstrike. To do this, I would allow units being charged by units arriving from deepstrike to fire overwatch at full ballistic skill, including vehicles.
You wouldn't be able to charge whatever when arriving from deepstrike. It'd be a stupid idea to charge a leman russ battle tank with a bunch of 3+ guys because you risk losing half your squad.

Deep Striking isn't that dangerous. If you mishap there's a 1/6 chance you lose your unit, a 2/6 chance your opponent places your unit and a 1/2 chance that your unit just goes back into reserves.

In 5th there was equal chances across all of those outcomes, with the same rules determining what caused mishaps.

In 4th if you scattered off the table the whole unit was destroyed, if you were unable to deploy the whole unit (some models need to go within 1" of enemy model, in impassable terrain etc.) then the models which cannot be deployed are destroyed. None of this soft "go back to reserves" stuff

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

DaPino wrote:
Have had some discussions at the FLGS recently about exactly this topic.
I feel that assaulting from deepstrike should definitely be a possibility. Deepstriking involves a lot of risks and if you want to be within a reasonable charge range, even more risk is involved.
That said, I acknowledge that shooting armies need a way to deal damage to units arriving from deepstrike. To do this, I would allow units being charged by units arriving from deepstrike to fire overwatch at full ballistic skill, including vehicles.
You wouldn't be able to charge whatever when arriving from deepstrike. It'd be a stupid idea to charge a leman russ battle tank with a bunch of 3+ guys because you risk losing half your squad.

Deep Striking isn't that dangerous. If you mishap there's a 1/6 chance you lose your unit, a 2/6 chance your opponent places your unit and a 1/2 chance that your unit just goes back into reserves.

In 5th there was equal chances across all of those outcomes, with the same rules determining what caused mishaps.

In 4th if you scattered off the table the whole unit was destroyed, if you were unable to deploy the whole unit (some models need to go within 1" of enemy model, in impassable terrain etc.) then the models which cannot be deployed are destroyed. None of this soft "go back to reserves" stuff

I completely agree, deep striking should be incredibly risky, even more so if you want to assault from it.

Now it's kind of like... 'meh odds are the unit will be fine'

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

DaPino wrote:
Have had some discussions at the FLGS recently about exactly this topic.
I feel that assaulting from deepstrike should definitely be a possibility. Deepstriking involves a lot of risks and if you want to be within a reasonable charge range, even more risk is involved.
That said, I acknowledge that shooting armies need a way to deal damage to units arriving from deepstrike. To do this, I would allow units being charged by units arriving from deepstrike to fire overwatch at full ballistic skill, including vehicles.
You wouldn't be able to charge whatever when arriving from deepstrike. It'd be a stupid idea to charge a leman russ battle tank with a bunch of 3+ guys because you risk losing half your squad.

Deep Striking isn't that dangerous. If you mishap there's a 1/6 chance you lose your unit, a 2/6 chance your opponent places your unit and a 1/2 chance that your unit just goes back into reserves.

In 5th there was equal chances across all of those outcomes, with the same rules determining what caused mishaps.

In 4th if you scattered off the table the whole unit was destroyed, if you were unable to deploy the whole unit (some models need to go within 1" of enemy model, in impassable terrain etc.) then the models which cannot be deployed are destroyed. None of this soft "go back to reserves" stuff

I completely agree, deep striking should be incredibly risky, even more so if you want to assault from it.

Now it's kind of like... 'meh odds are the unit will be fine'

Of course the unit should be fine. You paid good points for that unit, having it die 50% of the time without even reaching the table is plain stupid. Assault needs melee range or it does not function, it's simple as that. Either your army has to have assault transports, or you need to have 12" move on your assault units. Everything else is just stranded and has no hope to ever get in hth, because even freaking heavy weapon ranged units can just move around happily (scatbikes, grav bikes, grav centurions, dropping relentless devastators etc etc etc). It is completely ridiculous that ranged shooting units have the same or even faster movement than melee assault units. What are the assault units even going to do? Well, they are going to deep strike. If you think this is wrong then you are part of why the game becomes all the more unbalanced.

TL,DR: Make every single unit that uses heavy weapons immobile or snap shotting. No more relentless bs on everything. Then and only then will I agree on a more dangerous deep striking mechanism.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:


I completely agree, deep striking should be incredibly risky, even more so if you want to assault from it.

Now it's kind of like... 'meh odds are the unit will be fine'

More risky in what sense? Mishapping can already be a decent blow. Even if you don't roll a 1 your unit can still be delayed at a critical moment or your opponent can put them in a corner where they'll never see battle until turn 6 or 7.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

TL,DR: Make every single unit that uses heavy weapons immobile or snap shotting. No more relentless bs on everything. Then and only then will I agree on a more dangerous deep striking mechanism.

Yeah, there's too much relentless around.

Personally, I'd like to remove snapshots altogether. Either stand still and fire your heavy weapon, or move and don't fire it. None of this 'move and fire it really inaccurately' nonsense.