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.

No, it only does that in shooting dominant meta.
In a melee dominant meta, it would be considered pure trash.
In a hybrid meta its a hint-and-miss.

Just like IF/IW trait is currently considered trash, but HAD the meta been "artificial terrain" dominant, it would have been very good.

Good traits in a multi-trait book are ones that they are CONDITIONALLY better.
The -1 to hit fits the bill. its amazing against a gunline, useful against hybrid, and utterly useless against point-blank/assault armies.

 feral_80 wrote:
Your argument does not stand for the simple reason that - I repeat that part - your comparison is not reasonable.

The reason is not that I 'do not care' or I am not sensible to the needs of a close-combat army. There is currently absolutely *no* way to severely impact charge ranges or move distances *army-wide*. There is the occasional weapon, stratagem, or spell, that can do so to one single unit at a time. If any faction had the ability to do so on an army-wide scale, affecting all enemy units, just like the -1 hit does in the case of SM, CSM, CWE, AdMech, (Tyranids) sub-factions, I'd certainly be just as concerned - also because I *do* often play assault armies.

But the fact is, this is not the status of the game at the moment, simply put. So, your comparison is irrelevant. The current tendency is to severely limit long-range firepower army-wide, that's the only fact.

Just to be clear, i DON'T think that those anti assault rules are a problem in the game, i referenced those just for argument sake and to explain why i also don't consider anti ranged rules to be a problem.

 BoomWolf wrote:
No, it only does that in shooting dominant meta.
In a melee dominant meta, it would be considered pure trash.
In a hybrid meta its a hint-and-miss.

Just like IF/IW trait is currently considered trash, but HAD the meta been "artificial terrain" dominant, it would have been very good.

Good traits in a multi-trait book are ones that they are CONDITIONALLY better.
The -1 to hit fits the bill. its amazing against a gunline, useful against hybrid, and utterly useless against point-blank/assault armies.

But there is no melee dominated meta!

In tournaments these traits clearly used the most, and usually when not, it is because incompatible special character. It is clear that this is the best trait, and such imaginary meta where this would not be the case does not exist. Furthermore, it is ironic that the best counter for this trait - an ability to deploy units close to the enemy - is often paired with this trait.

I think the point is that this is only the best choice because of a shooting dominated meta, if the trait is as punishing to that meta as claimed we will see a shift to a close assault meta (short range or assault based) or a hybrid meta. This will naturally hurt shooting armies, which, at the moment are dominant. As such the trait itself encourages a meta in which it is weaker. If counter lists like this do not become prevalent that indicates that the trait, if anything, is a little weak (I don't think this is the case). I suspect we will see shifts to the inclusion of more close range elements.

I'd just like to see we always hit on 6.
Or if negative modifiers make you impossible to hit (like needing you to roll 7+) and you get a 6 you get to roll again and hit on 2+ if first required roll was 7+ or hit on 3+ if first required roll to hit was 8+ (those second rolls would be uneffected by any modifiers).

This guy gets it.

This trait spesifically punishes gunlines, in particular horde gunlines, and yet they are STILL dominant.


So either this trait isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be, or it is really needed to keep horde shooting from being completely overwhelming.

Either way, it's a tool to create a self regulating meta. And doing its job.

 feral_80 wrote:

Because I have my Salamanders/Imperial Fists/World Eaters/etc Painted up and themed as that chapter and always use them with the corresponding trait instead of choosing the one most likely to give me a leg up on my opponent? -1 to hit in no way makes half the models in an average collection useless. That is an over statement of how good it is. You only see it that way because you trait tailor, so everyone you play against knowing you play gunline takes -1 to hit. If instead you played people with varied traits sometimes your units that are not great against -1 to hit would be great against other factions. Part of the fun when you design a list/pick a faction is choosing something that you think makes an effective list in all circumstances, not in choosing the hard counter to your expected opponent. List/Trait tailoring makes for poor games overall, and results in people taking unbalanced armies.

Again the issue is stacking, without stacking there is no occasion where units cannot hit you mathematically. Without -1 to hit, Artillery are super powerful with no real bad match-up in the game. If you want to give up range and make shooting out of LOS targets always -1 to hit regardless of opposing army we can talk about -1 to hit army traits being horrible for the game.

So are we playing the same game anyway? Because where I play, it'a pretty NORMAL to agree on a casual match with a friend, and obviously since I know the guy since years I know his army and know what to expext. And vice versa. And in that case, list-tailoring is only normal, although you obviously try to surprise your opponent with something unexpected. And that indeed IS part of the fun. If you only play against random opponents in a super-competitive tournament-like environment then I am really sorry for you, but that is not the only way, and not nearly the most funny either. So stop considering the kind of game I refer to as something exceptional.

The point about being mathematically unable to hit was a *slight* overstatement. Since stacking is becoming more and more common, it is not that of an overstatement anyway. If you have an army that on average hits at 4+, it quickly becomes close to reality: even against a simple -1 hit a degraded vehicle or a moving heavy weapon start to hit on 6+, and yes, that *is* mathematically screwed. And even at 5+, when 25% to 50% of an average shooty army struggles to land hits, they *are* mathematically screwed, like it or not. And God forbid you were playing Orks and fielded some lootas or similar.

And I say this from the perspective of one who hates static gameplay and gunlines. Even when I (rarely) play AM, I always focus on mobility as I hate sitting and throwing dice. Yet, I consider it very unfair that some people have bought and painted long-range units, and now suddenly the meta has made those units unworthy in most cases. -1 hit IS both limiting the game and ruininig the fun because effectively it dictates tactical options and provides a mathematical advantage that has little to do with skills.

Yes we very much are, I don't play random people all the time, but I never list tailor, I design lists that I want to try out that are balanced, and bring different stuff. It ceases to be fun if against the guy I know loves horde orks (or lacks a range of models to vary his list) and I bring nothing but anti-infantry units. The same is true against the guy that I know runs heavy shooty so everyone always brings the hard counter to his list. I'm not saying how you play doesn't happen, but I don't think that if you do it many people would enjoy it unless everyone has multiple builds for the faction they run, all of which are different and avoid possible counters people bring. Otherwise bringing the hard counter and list tailoring is being a jerk, whether you enjoy it or not. If you only ever play with friends, then it is super easy to say "hey how about we not stack modifiers?" or "lets not use -1 to hit factions." if the answer to those is NO. Then your group isn't about the fun of list building, it is about abusing players to win at all costs. IF you are not list tailoring, then -1 to hit is not that big a deal. Stacking is a big deal as yes that makes it mathematically impossible to hit.

You are confusing 'natural' list-tailoring with min-maxing idiocy. I'll give an example.

Let' say I play AM and agree to play vs a friend, who says will bring his Orks. He has a varied collection, not just the same units he always plays with (otherwise, his would just be a limited collection and I won't exploit the fact).

My assumption: Orkz are horde. My options:

1. Min-maxing idiocy: I'll go all Punishers, gatlings, mortars, Hellhounds, and Vultures, with little to nothing else.
2. Natural list tailoring: I'll take a good quantity of anti-infantry, because I expect horde - it's Orkz after all. I'll also have a plan for mobility, but since I know he'll reach my lines with something, I'm also taking Bullgryns and some tooled up stuff for counter-charge, like e.g. my small Deathwatch detachment, which may not be great, but certainly funny and fluffy vs xenos. My mobile option will be a Valkyrie, because Orkz would probably hit it on 6 so it should survive enough to deploy my squad on the other side of the table. And I love the model even if it's not that great pts-wise, but I just finished painting it and I want to try it. The rest will be mixed and anti-heavy stuff.

Tursn out he decides to surprise me and deploys a fully mechanized army of Killa kanz, Gorkanauts, tanks, etc.

Guess who's going to win? If I did minmax as in option 1, the way you assume I intend it, I'd just have no chance because my extreme bet was completely unsuited to his bet. If I went option 2, I certainly have a chance.

No. 2 is the only thing I refer to when I mention list tailoring. Taking what you believe will be useful while still having a balanced army, because that will work regardless. And it is only natural and obvious to do so - frankly, anybody does so whenever he can. And there is absolutely nothing wrong or weird - actually, it's part of the game and part of the fun! You are really arguing against nothing.

 BoomWolf wrote:
This guy gets it.

This trait spesifically punishes gunlines, in particular horde gunlines, and yet they are STILL dominant.


So either this trait isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be, or it is really needed to keep horde shooting from being completely overwhelming.

Either way, it's a tool to create a self regulating meta. And doing its job.

How it is doing its job if gunlines still dominate? I certainly agree that shooting is
too powerful, but this is a bad fix. It means you're just screwed if you don't have it and having it allows many powerful shooting units avoid reprisal.

 Crimson wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
This guy gets it.

This trait spesifically punishes gunlines, in particular horde gunlines, and yet they are STILL dominant.


So either this trait isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be, or it is really needed to keep horde shooting from being completely overwhelming.

Either way, it's a tool to create a self regulating meta. And doing its job.

How it is doing its job if gunlines still dominate? I certainly agree that shooting is
too powerful, but this is a bad fix. It means you're just screwed if you don't have it and having it allows many powerful shooting units avoid reprisal.r

Its doing its job by preventing it from going completely off the rail and offering SOME sort of counter, at least until the meta shifts somewhat (perhaps with more assault armies pouring in)

It grantees that at least 2 archtypes remain viable-the horde gunline, and it's natural counter the "hard to shoot at" army.

No army can really pull both off simultaneously, and if one COULD, it would be a gamebreaker. (eldar can try, but we all know its not really viable. the best "cant shoot me" units are high tier, and not very long ranged)

 Crimson wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
This guy gets it.

This trait spesifically punishes gunlines, in particular horde gunlines, and yet they are STILL dominant.


So either this trait isn't nearly as bad as you make it out to be, or it is really needed to keep horde shooting from being completely overwhelming.

Either way, it's a tool to create a self regulating meta. And doing its job.

How it is doing its job if gunlines still dominate? I certainly agree that shooting is
too powerful, but this is a bad fix. It means you're just screwed if you don't have it and having it allows many powerful shooting units avoid reprisal.

I'm fairly sure it's diminishing the overall efficiency of gunlines and increasing the value of assault in the meta.

It may not "fix" the meta, but it's part of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feral_80 wrote:
You are confusing 'natural' list-tailoring with min-maxing idiocy. I'll give an example.

Let' say I play AM and agree to play vs a friend, who says will bring his Orks. He has a varied collection, not just the same units he always plays with (otherwise, his would just be a limited collection and I won't exploit the fact).

My assumption: Orkz are horde. My options:

1. Min-maxing idiocy: I'll go all Punishers, gatlings, mortars, Hellhounds, and Vultures, with little to nothing else.
2. Natural list tailoring: I'll take a good quantity of anti-infantry, because I expect horde - it's Orkz after all. I'll also have a plan for mobility, but since I know he'll reach my lines with something, I'm also taking Bullgryns and some tooled up stuff for counter-charge, like e.g. my small Deathwatch detachment, which may not be great, but certainly funny and fluffy vs xenos. My mobile option will be a Valkyrie, because Orkz would probably hit it on 6 so it should survive enough to deploy my squad on the other side of the table. And I love the model even if it's not that great pts-wise, but I just finished painting it and I want to try it. The rest will be mixed and anti-heavy stuff.

Tursn out he decides to surprise me and deploys a fully mechanized army of Killa kanz, Gorkanauts, tanks, etc.

Guess who's going to win? If I did minmax as in option 1, the way you assume I intend it, I'd just have no chance because my extreme bet was completely unsuited to his bet. If I went option 2, I certainly have a chance.

No. 2 is the only thing I refer to when I mention list tailoring. Taking what you believe will be useful while still having a balanced army, because that will work regardless. And it is only natural and obvious to do so - frankly, anybody does so whenever he can. And there is absolutely nothing wrong or weird - actually, it's part of the game and part of the fun! You are really arguing against nothing.

In my book, any kind of list tailoring, considering the opponent's army or style, is weak and underhanded.

I write lists to take on anything and that's what I personally like to play and like to play against.

If you like to play differently and your playmates don't mind, that's perfect too.

Depends, for variety's sake sometimes I play blind sometimes i'll know my opponents faction.

 feral_80 wrote:
You are confusing 'natural' list-tailoring with min-maxing idiocy. I'll give an example.

Let' say I play AM and agree to play vs a friend, who says will bring his Orks. He has a varied collection, not just the same units he always plays with (otherwise, his would just be a limited collection and I won't exploit the fact).

My assumption: Orkz are horde. My options:

1. Min-maxing idiocy: I'll go all Punishers, gatlings, mortars, Hellhounds, and Vultures, with little to nothing else.
2. Natural list tailoring: I'll take a good quantity of anti-infantry, because I expect horde - it's Orkz after all. I'll also have a plan for mobility, but since I know he'll reach my lines with something, I'm also taking Bullgryns and some tooled up stuff for counter-charge, like e.g. my small Deathwatch detachment, which may not be great, but certainly funny and fluffy vs xenos. My mobile option will be a Valkyrie, because Orkz would probably hit it on 6 so it should survive enough to deploy my squad on the other side of the table. And I love the model even if it's not that great pts-wise, but I just finished painting it and I want to try it. The rest will be mixed and anti-heavy stuff.

Tursn out he decides to surprise me and deploys a fully mechanized army of Killa kanz, Gorkanauts, tanks, etc.

Guess who's going to win? If I did minmax as in option 1, the way you assume I intend it, I'd just have no chance because my extreme bet was completely unsuited to his bet. If I went option 2, I certainly have a chance.

No. 2 is the only thing I refer to when I mention list tailoring. Taking what you believe will be useful while still having a balanced army, because that will work regardless. And it is only natural and obvious to do so - frankly, anybody does so whenever he can. And there is absolutely nothing wrong or weird - actually, it's part of the game and part of the fun! You are really arguing against nothing.

Always taking -1 to hit when facing shooty factions falls into group 1, not group 2. If your list tailoring is being done with the intent on creating a fun/fluffy game, then I would suggest that no one would ever take -1 to hit factions, unless sometimes people bring all alpha strike armies, which are neither fun nor fluffy. This is what I am saying. If your intent is to create a fun environment just house rule around -1 to hit, if the intent is that people are bringing their hardest stuff to win games, then it is perfectly fair.

To be honest you cannot on one hands say "I don't min/max list tailor." and "Above all - and this is a paradox really - this rule badly screws 1v1 casual play, because *anybody* who has access to -1 hit will take it whenever he knows he'll face a shooty army." which is MIN/MAX list tailoring or "I play AdMech and I am extremely pissed off by a codex that only offers 2 viable FW options, and 1 (Mars) would not even be so if it wasn't for Cawl (who should have been *nerfed* by CA, not improved). Taking Stygies is a no-brainer 90% of my games, and it's sad." which again is MIN/MAX list tailoring.

You cannot both say "I don't optimize" and then turn and say "well X is always optimal and that is a problem"

Optimizing vs orks isn't all punishers. It is taking the trait that buffs your army vs punishers, its making sure you have effective screening, and then maybe some wyverns or punishers or helhounds, but also Drop Plasma squads, and anti-tank. (Unless you know the other persons list, and tailor directly to it). It is leaning on knowing you will need more anti-infantry and bringing it vs, playing something with no foreknowledge at all.

Essentially if you create an environment where specific traits never have a bad match-up they are then stronger than they otherwise would be. For instance if my opponents always play admech with counts as cover saves, and nids with counts as cover saves. The imperial fist trait becomes more powerful, same if I play with a lot of cover. If I routinely face a ton Dark Reapers -1 to hit is not great, Iron Hands would be better. If I face a ton of assault ultra marines would be better. But by creating an environment where that choice (especially against some armies) has no functional downside it becomes much more powerful.

The things I would have liked to see regarding -1 to hit modifiers are

1.) DO not stack (with the potential exception of moving and firing of heavy weapons, and perhaps some very specific units)
2.) A roll of a 6 to hit always hits.
3.) A separation of these traits from the best stratagems in faction. The 1 CP infiltrate stratagem is tied to the -1 to hit factions, giving these factions a double dip on the most powerful stratagem and one of (if not the) best trait. If you took these apart I think you would also see fewer -1 to hit armies because people would want to use the infiltrate
4.) Chapter tactics only applying to entire armies composed of a single chapter (stops take 1 bonus for my close up stuff and then -1 for my long range shooting).

In either case I never build armies to face a specific opponent, but to be able to handle a variety of opponents, my area is filled with mostly people who are what you would deem limited collection. They own armies not factions. I also play a variety of people and thus don't need to vary my list all the time to enjoy the game.

Breng77, trying to recombine my own statements to argue against me is pretty silly. You perfectly understand what I mean - I hope - and I also hope that you get the difference between playing as a waac and selecting *only* the strongest stuff and playing with a friend but still put up a good fight and designing a *good* balanced army. I am referring to the latter when I mention that people select -1 hit *in this context*. And for your information, when I select it with AdMech I do it because - as you might know - the codex already sucks enough, so sadly it needs all the help it can get since I tend to play vs codex armies. There are really no viable alternatives except Mars (boring as hell) if you want to stand up against any decent opponent. When I play against an index army, I select no FW at all.

We don't house-rule, and certainly I'd never try to willingly limit the choices of an opponent from his legit codex, as poor as it may be in terms of design and internal balance. We are not wannabe game designers, and we expect to all follow the same rules we have bought and shared. We use common sense and friendly attitude when devising our lists, and that is usually enough when you play among mentally developed adults. What I am referring to is that these widespread -1 hit shenanigans are bringing the game to something bad.

You can go ahead and argue forever that everything is perfectly fine as it is. But then you look at real games and realize that if -1 hit sub-factions are vastly more popular, there must be some reason after all. It's vastly superior to anything else, that's it, and nobody who tries to argue the contrary is able to provide an alternative explanation.

 feral_80 wrote:
Breng77, trying to recombine my own statements to argue against me is pretty silly. You perfectly understand what I mean - I hope - and I also hope that you get the difference between playing as a waac and selecting *only* the strongest stuff and playing with a friend but still put up a good fight and designing a *good* balanced army. I am referring to the latter when I mention that people select -1 hit whenever they think it is useful. And for your information, when I select it with AdMech I do it because - as you might know - the codex already sucks enough, so sadly it needs all the help it can get since I tend to play vs codex armies. When I play against index army, I select no FW at all.

We don't house-rule, and certainly I'd never try to willingly limit the choices of an opponent from his legit codex, as poor as it may be in terms of design and internal balance. We are not wannabe game designers, and we expect to all follow the same rules we have bought and shared. We use common sense and friendly attitude when devising our lists, and that is usually enough when you play among mentally developed adults.

You can go ahead and argue forever that everything is perfectly fine as it is. But then you look at real games and realize that if -1 hit sub-factions are vastly more popular, there must be some reason after all. It's vastly superior to anything else, that's it, and nobody who tries to argue the contrary is able to provide an alternative explanation.

The explanation has been given here many times. Those traits are there to counter a shooting meta. Since we are in a shooting meta right now, those traits are always taken.
Nerfing the counter to a meta is not the correct way to address this. The absurd part is that if those traits gave -3 to hit then they would be much less used

Yea, simple answers. And I repeat: if the problem are shooting armies, either give *every* army a way to counter them, or give *every* army a solid shooting, or give each army either of the two.
On the contrary, currently armies with good and competitive shooting also get the -1 to be hit. This system only brings more imbalance to the game instead of allegedly balancing it.

Not everyone needs a rule to shift the meta.. That isn't how méta games work.

Drager wrote:
Not everyone needs a rule to shift the meta.. That isn't how méta games work.

So it is OK for some armies to get annihilated by shooty armies and this is in no way unbalanced! Got it!

 feral_80 wrote:
Breng77, trying to recombine my own statements to argue against me is pretty silly. You perfectly understand what I mean - I hope - and I also hope that you get the difference between playing as a waac and selecting *only* the strongest stuff and playing with a friend but still put up a good fight and designing a *good* balanced army. I am referring to the latter when I mention that people select -1 hit *in this context*. And for your information, when I select it with AdMech I do it because - as you might know - the codex already sucks enough, so sadly it needs all the help it can get since I tend to play vs codex armies. There are really no viable alternatives except Mars (boring as hell) if you want to stand up against any decent opponent. When I play against an index army, I select no FW at all.

We don't house-rule, and certainly I'd never try to willingly limit the choices of an opponent from his legit codex, as poor as it may be in terms of design and internal balance. We are not wannabe game designers, and we expect to all follow the same rules we have bought and shared. We use common sense and friendly attitude when devising our lists, and that is usually enough when you play among mentally developed adults. What I am referring to is that these widespread -1 hit shenanigans are bringing the game to something bad.

You can go ahead and argue forever that everything is perfectly fine as it is. But then you look at real games and realize that if -1 hit sub-factions are vastly more popular, there must be some reason after all. It's vastly superior to anything else, that's it, and nobody who tries to argue the contrary is able to provide an alternative explanation.

Sorry but taking -1 to hit specifically against shooty armies is WAAC, because as you said you are selecting the "strongest stuff". ADMech is just fine unless your opponents are playing the strongest stuff. This is where your argument falls apart. you say "we're casual" but want to take things that will give us an advantage against particular factions/opponents. Sorry but to me these are the same thing. Designing lists to create a good balanced game has nothing to do with selecting optimal effectiveness against an opponent. I would disagree with your friendly attitude when designing lists if you are tailoring to be effective against what you expect to see to the point that if you face Tau you take -1 to hit all the time.

-1 to hit factions are point in fact not the most popular out there unless you refuse to take special characters into account. I've also given you other reasons why they are important. As far as I know 3 of the 4 -1 to hit factions also have the infiltrate stratagem which is the most powerful faction specific stratagem that I can think of. Take that stratagem out of alpha legion and give it to say night lords and see if it makes a difference in which faction gets taken. People want to infiltrate their berserkers, now they have to give up -1 to hit to do it. Same if you did it for Ravenguard, and I think Stygies (though probably not as important there). Now you are looking at lists that are not 100% -1 to hit, I guarantee those stratagems are a significant reason why people take those factions

SO there is your alternative explanation. It is one of the strongest traits (there are others that are close), but it also comes with the strongest stratagem. Which gives it even more reason to be taken. Personally if say Imperial fists had the infiltrate stratagem I would be using them instead of Ravenguard for a majority of my lists. If I just wanted -1 to hit at range I could build my marines as Dark Angels and get it + other bonuses.

That is the real issue is that they did a poor job of balancing Trait + relic + stratagems

As for -1 to hit factions I'm not sure they are overwhelmingly more popular. Eldar is fairly new, but Alpha Legion is so far the only one of these to see a lot of play in tournaments and that is almost always for the infiltrate stratagem. I see way more ultramarines and Mars, and then AM which have no such trait. We also have only seen a few books so far. 4 of 6 have this trait, but we know BA do not, DA if dark shrouds remain unchanged they have a small amount that can be removed by killing the unit providing it. Daemons have a character (that if unchanged) does the same, as do Nids. But if not every army has it, the problem is less if those armies are also good (they may not be), unless people are list tailoring to use it when it is advantageous to them to do so.

Drager: so a rock-scissor-paper system, which is terribly rigid by definition, and rules out any choice that does not conform to the mechanism. Which is exactly what is happening now: as the game quickly shifts towards engagements at <12" range - for one reason or another - we wonder what's the use for long-range units if we get more of this trend. Answer: little to none, probably.
If you are fine with this trend, good for you. I am not, if anything because I don't like to being 'forced' in my choices and I don't like the idea that units that people have bought for their collection become unworthy. I know, there is absolutely nothing new or even surprising here knowing GW. But this had to be 'the new GW'.

 Crimson wrote:

Drager wrote:
Not everyone needs a rule to shift the meta.. That isn't how méta games work.

So it is OK for some armies to get annihilated by shooty armies and this is in no way unbalanced! Got it!

Would those same armies get annihilated by assault armies? Probably not. Would the armies that are resilient to shooting and/or good at it have more trouble with assault armies? Probably yes. So having some armies be very resistant to shooting tilts the meta, this makes assault and short range more prevalent, this makes armies that don't have the trait and are losing to shooting better because the trait exists. If everyone is very resistant to shooting you just kill shooting and have people upset about the assault meta and "why are we not allowed to play long range, why can't guard get any good games?" this is not desirable either. If all armies are resistant to both shooting and assault then games are boring because nothing dies.

In a metagame things cause shifts of what is prevalent and this changes what is powerful, -1 to hit on some clear % of the armies is clearly something capable of doing this. It might actually screw over some of the armies that have it as, if they are shooting armies themselves, they will see their output fall as all they face is things with the -1 trait. For this reason, to combat armies with the trait, armies that are powerful in assault and short-range firefights become stronger, if these also have the -1 trait this pushes the meta faster towards assault. Now there are (or should be) some armies that are very good at countering the rush lists that the -1 trait makes good. These lists also become stronger as they are able to deal with the now more prevalent assault/close range meta.

If they also had resistance to long range shooting they would be unstoppable, being good against both styles. Them being weak to shooting leaves a gap to deal with them, this pushes back towards shooting lists, but as the other counters to those are still around it causes hybrid lists to become more competitive as, although they don't dominate against the shooting armies, or the rush armies or the counter lists they can handle all three to some extent. As these hybrid lists become more prevalent, particularly if they come to dominate the meta then skew lists to counter the best hybrid lists become better.

That is what metagames are like. Right now we have heavy shooting (a predator) and we have a countermeasure -1 to hit (camoflauge) the next step is for people to start taking something to counter that countermeasure. If -1 to hit is strong enough this will inevitably happen. This doesn't mean that those armies that are vulnerable to shooting, but strong against assault should get that trait too for the reasons outlined above, they are having a rough time right now, but they should ascend as shooting drops, giving them a direct counter to shooting will unbalance the whole system.

 feral_80 wrote:
Drager: so a rock-scissor-paper system, which is terribly rigid by definition, and rules out any choice that does not conform to the mechanism. Which is exactly what is happening now: as the game quickly shifts towards engagements at <12" range - for one reason or another - we wonder what's the use for long-range units if we get more of this trend. Answer: little to none, probably.
If you are fine with this trend, good for you. I am not, if anything because I don't like to being 'forced' in my choices and I don't like the idea that units that people have bought for their collection become unworthy. I know, there is absolutely nothing new or even surprising here knowing GW. But this had to be 'the new GW'.

If you ahve a game with factions that are not highly similar and homogenous you get an ecosystem called a metagame, where things wax and wane in power. Having this be dynamic is a good thing, as described above. If you are wondering what is the use for long range units and other people are wondering how to contend with them that is indicating the meta is shifting. Helpin gout the long range guys or the vulnerable to long range guys at this point is not useful.

This is the opposite of rigid it is a highly fluid system, provided enough styles measures and counter measures exist. Does 8th have the legs for this sort of fluid meta? I don't know yet.

Drager wrote:

Would those same armies get annihilated by assault armies? Probably not. Would the armies that are resilient to shooting and/or good at it have more trouble with assault armies? Probably yes.

What assault armies? Where are these assault armies that can threaten Alaitoc Eldar?

 Crimson wrote:

Drager wrote:

Would those same armies get annihilated by assault armies? Probably not. Would the armies that are resilient to shooting and/or good at it have more trouble with assault armies? Probably yes.

What assault armies? Where are these assault armies that can threaten Alaitoc Eldar?

Good question! Assault and short-range firepower, remember. I think nids are a very good contender at the moment. We need to see a little more interaction between the two, but they certainly seem to ahve the teeth. Other than that I don't know. If they don't exist then that is a design problem, not the -1 to hit thing. Blood Angels look like they might be able to do this as well. Maybe Alpha Legion Chaos. There are certainly possibilities.

Drager wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Drager wrote:

Would those same armies get annihilated by assault armies? Probably not. Would the armies that are resilient to shooting and/or good at it have more trouble with assault armies? Probably yes.

What assault armies? Where are these assault armies that can threaten Alaitoc Eldar?

Good question! Assault and short-range firepower, remember. I think nids are a very good contender at the moment. We need to see a little more interaction between the two, but they certainly seem to ahve the teeth. Other than that I don't know. If they don't exist then that is a design problem, not the -1 to hit thing. Blood Angels look like they might be able to do this as well. Maybe Alpha Legion Chaos. There are certainly possibilities.

Blood angels may have some problems with forewarned big reaper blobs since they love to deepstrike, but that can be countered and is a problem tied to a single interaction between a model and a stratagem that can be fixed.
Tyranids definitely eat Alaitoc Eldars for breakfast.

BA don't have to deepstrike. We can also just move up DC units or ride in transports. How big is the bubble?

Spoletta wrote:

Drager wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Drager wrote:

Would those same armies get annihilated by assault armies? Probably not. Would the armies that are resilient to shooting and/or good at it have more trouble with assault armies? Probably yes.

What assault armies? Where are these assault armies that can threaten Alaitoc Eldar?

Good question! Assault and short-range firepower, remember. I think nids are a very good contender at the moment. We need to see a little more interaction between the two, but they certainly seem to ahve the teeth. Other than that I don't know. If they don't exist then that is a design problem, not the -1 to hit thing. Blood Angels look like they might be able to do this as well. Maybe Alpha Legion Chaos. There are certainly possibilities.

Blood angels may have some problems with forewarned big reaper blobs since they love to deepstrike, but that can be countered and is a problem tied to a single interaction between a model and a stratagem that can be fixed.
Tyranids definitely eat Alaitoc Eldars for breakfast.

Tyranids rely heavily on deep strike to...eldar > nids. Between forwarnd reapers/alaitoc army trait/and quicken combined with singing spears. Eldar are pretty much unbeatable if they go first and don't roll terrible. If they go second - they have the best chance of any army to turn it around.

If only there was some way to prevent them from using Forewarned, or perhaps some limitation.

I propose only letting it be used once per turn - that sounds reasonable to me!

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Drager wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Drager wrote:

Would those same armies get annihilated by assault armies? Probably not. Would the armies that are resilient to shooting and/or good at it have more trouble with assault armies? Probably yes.

What assault armies? Where are these assault armies that can threaten Alaitoc Eldar?

Good question! Assault and short-range firepower, remember. I think nids are a very good contender at the moment. We need to see a little more interaction between the two, but they certainly seem to ahve the teeth. Other than that I don't know. If they don't exist then that is a design problem, not the -1 to hit thing. Blood Angels look like they might be able to do this as well. Maybe Alpha Legion Chaos. There are certainly possibilities.

Blood angels may have some problems with forewarned big reaper blobs since they love to deepstrike, but that can be countered and is a problem tied to a single interaction between a model and a stratagem that can be fixed.
Tyranids definitely eat Alaitoc Eldars for breakfast.

Tyranids rely heavily on deep strike to...eldar > nids. Between forwarnd reapers/alaitoc army trait/and quicken combined with singing spears. Eldar are pretty much unbeatable if they go first and don't roll terrible. If they go second - they have the best chance of any army to turn it around.

Not all Nids rely that much on the deep strike, but let's assume they are and the nid player (Jormungandr) deep strikes a Trygon, 30 Devourer Gaunts, A Broodlord and 2 Neurothropes in one shot. He still has a unit of Raveners and a unit of tunnelling Genestealers iand another unit of Devilgaunts n reserve. What does the Eldar player shoot with Forewarned that matters? Does he wait for the other unit to drop? I don';t think Forewarned is scary to nids really.

Martel732 wrote:
BA don't have to deepstrike. We can also just move up DC units or ride in transports. How big is the bubble?

Line of sight of Dark Reapers.

Luckily Eldars are really bad at screening, so if you deepstrike more than unit then they are easily removed. They can put them in a transport but then they are not getting forewarned.

That's a pretty damn big bubble.