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.

GW had a chance to put a few small rules into Chapter Approved that would have significantly improved match play, without unbalancing the game, screwing any armies, or invalidating any models. Most people I spoke with at the NOVA open and the local tournaments I have been to either received these concepts positively, or were neutral at worst. In fact, most people had already independently come up with similar concepts. For example, the prohibition on first turn reserves was so universally understood to be needed in the game, that I was shocked to learn it hadn't been included in Chapter Approved. Instead, at least for tournament play, we get a few small points changes, more restrictive character targeting, and not much else.

This is what I would have liked to see.

1. Weakening the first turn alpha strike. Making the choice to go second at least somewhat viable for some armies.




2. Slightly weakened invulnerable saves, which are far too powerful on already-difficult-to-kill special characters.



3. Fixing the character targeting rules. Characters off by themselves in the middle of the battlefield should not be protected because some other unit is closer, but in the opposite direction. The current character targeting rules are far more open to abuse than the niche cases where people could "snipe" by restricting visability on a shooting model. For example, the current rules enable character-only armies, where difficult to target models (Culexus Assassin) or impossible to hit characters (for example, most Alaitoc Eldar models, or an Alaitoc Autarch with Shimmerplume of Achillrial) lead the way, making the remainder of the army literally impossible to shoot at or damage. These types of armies just shouldn't be possible under a reasonable rule set.



I would also have tried to fix smite spam by making each successive manifestation of the same psychic power more difficult by 1. This would have added some strategy to the timing and ordering of multiple smites, but is somewhat more complicated, and perhaps too much to expect.

Aside from the already discussed viewpoint held by many that we shouldn't be paying for errata, is anyone else disappointed by the lack of easy fixes to the game. Do we have to wait another year for another shot at improvements?

As a Thousand Sons player who's favorite non-TS unit is Obliterators I feel personally targeted by everything in this post.

Alpha Strike is a problem. I agree. But whats exactly the point of changing the Alpha strike in turn 1 to Alpha Strike un turn 2? You are making games longer with no extra tactical depth for the players.

The problem of Alpha Strike is much bigger than just deepstriking a ton of units in turn 1 or giant gunline armies with so much firepower they can cripple the enemy army in one turn.
And I don't find a problem with Invulnerable saves, with AP modifiers, multi damage weapons and Mortal Wounds they are easy to overcome.

Couldn't agree more with Awaiting Orders, couldn't disagree more with Fate is Fickle and thing the Character rules could be much simpler, sepcifically:

An enemy Character with 9 or less wounds cannot be chosen as the target of a shooting attack if there are any visible enemy units between the Character and the unit chosen to make the attack.

Basically, if you have clear line of sight to the character then it can be shot, any enemy models obscuring view and you can't shoot them.

Alpha Strike is a problem. I agree. But whats exactly the point of changing the Alpha strike in turn 1 to Alpha Strike un turn 2? You are making games longer with no extra tactical depth for the players.

The problem of Alpha Strike is much bigger than just deepstriking a ton of units in turn 1 or giant gunline armies with so much firepower they can cripple the enemy army in one turn.

The restriction on turn 1 reinforcements isn't intended to fix the alpha strike problem - no single rule can do that - only make it slightly less severe. If an army with deep strike units goes first (lets say 4 units of plasma drop troops), then the second player gets to take a full turn before that plasma obliterates their back field. The extra tactical depth is that now the deep strike army may occasionally choose to go second instead of first.

And I don't find a problem with Invulnerable saves, with AP modifiers, multi damage weapons and Mortal Wounds they are easy to overcome.

Have you played against grey knights with 2+ invulnerable saves? Astartes with Guilliman? I have played with and against Guilliman in 9 tournament games, and never seen him killed (at least not both of his twp deaths). There are ways to deal with these characters, but generally AP modifiers (doesn't affect invul saves) and smite (character isn't the closest target) don't affect them, and aren't greatsolutions.

#1 I'm indifferent to. I actually hold my deepstrike back a lot of the time as guard for turn 2 so I can get juicier targets, but there are definitely armies this hurts. I don't know if it hurts some armies too much, but I could see that being the case.

#2 seems really insignificant. If you're going to take 1 invuln save odds are you're taking several. Being able to reroll a single save for a command point is hardly game breaking, and is part of the entire reason that strategem exists in the first place. I really doubt this change is needed. The whole point of that ability is you get to reroll a single roll no matter what. Other than the mission related exceptions it really doesn't make sense to start tacking arbitrary exceptions to it.

#3 I kind of like. The idea that cover or being near friendly models makes sense and gives a purpose to abilities that ignore cover like Omnispex. I have this happen a lot in my guard army where a commander will be in the open but a guardsman is technically 2" closer so he's invincible and it definitely feels wonky.

I never see smite spam so I'm indifferent to it. I get why some people hate it but the whole point of smite is so pyskers armies can at least cast something in matched play. If armies like grey knights and tzeentch didn't exist I'd probably agree with you, but as is this is essentially saying grey knights and tzeentch can get bent.

Other than that I haven't gotten a good look at chapter approved yet so I can't give good comments. As far as I know though cover is still kind of pointless and line of sight blocking also remains kind of pointless since if I see an arm the whole unit can be hit. I felt like that definitely needs a change. That and indirect fire being so easy. At bare minimum targeting units out of LOS should come with a -1 penalty or require LOS with a friendly unit from the same codex.

MrMoustaffa: Good points.

#2 seems really insignificant. If you're going to take 1 invuln save odds are you're taking several. Being able to reroll a single save for a command point is hardly game breaking, and is part of the entire reason that strategem exists in the first place. I really doubt this change is needed. The whole point of that ability is you get to reroll a single roll no matter what. Other than the mission related exceptions it really doesn't make sense to start tacking arbitrary exceptions to it.

The situation where this is most relevant is when characters with 2+ invulnerable saves are being targeted by weapons that do multiple damage. When that player is able to use a reroll on a roll of 1, where a single D6 damage wound could kill, the survivability of that models goes off the charts. I agree this is a niche case, but it can still be game breaking when people design their army to abuse those 2+/3+ saves.

 Imateria wrote:
Couldn't agree more with Awaiting Orders, couldn't disagree more with Fate is Fickle and thing the Character rules could be much simpler, sepcifically:

An enemy Character with 9 or less wounds cannot be chosen as the target of a shooting attack if there are any visible enemy units between the Character and the unit chosen to make the attack.

Basically, if you have clear line of sight to the character then it can be shot, any enemy models obscuring view and you can't shoot them.

I don't know if that's a better rule, since it's way more clunky and open to argument.

What counts as obscured? Anything between the character and the unit? If I modelled a guard squad with their arms stretched out and one hand covers the officer does that count? Does a model's base need to be physically between the enemy unit and the firer? What if I can get a line to one tiny corner of the base without touching anything, does that mean I can snipe the character? What if there are two squads in front of my character, but you have a lascannon that can just barely thread the 1" mandatory gap between friendly units to look at your character, can he be shot?

It's a cool idea in theory, but in practice would be similar to things like templates, where all they do is slow the game down and cause arguments at competitive play.

I don't agree with these, and I play in a nice little amount of events.

1. I don't want my games lasting longer, I don't see the point in being forced to hold reserves. Going second is viable, you get the last turn before the game ends (Think last minute objective holding/scoring/denying), you also get to set up great counter attacks.

2. I want to re-roll 1 saving throw Arjac makes when he fights a swarm lord. The beastie already gets free wounds on him with smite.

3. No thanks, I'm sure they have thought of this but keep it simple because that's what makes it 8th edition.

Smite spam isn't too big of an issue, thats all the damage those psyker armies really have anyway.

My biggest surprise?

"A natural roll of 6 to hit is always a hit, regardless of modifiers."

Why isn't this a thing? The whole reason for the new toughness chart was to have units always able to make choices. They wanted every unit to be around to hurt everything, even if the chance was low. Yet, they created situations where units can't hit the stuff they can wound.

I 100% disagree with these rules. I read these "much needed changes" as "I really liked 7th" which we all know has it's fair share of issue.

1. Alpha Strike happens learn to deal with it.

2. Invulnerable saves are fine maxed at 3++, spending a CP to reroll is a fine trade off.

3. Doesn't make sense as a change.

4. Your Smite spam issue only applies to some armies. which usually get beaten anyway.

Consider restricting what detachments players can take and how many of a specific Unit they may take. e.g. Players cannot take more than 1 of each Imperial Assassin.

Tower wrote:

Alpha Strike is a problem. I agree. But whats exactly the point of changing the Alpha strike in turn 1 to Alpha Strike un turn 2? You are making games longer with no extra tactical depth for the players.

The problem of Alpha Strike is much bigger than just deepstriking a ton of units in turn 1 or giant gunline armies with so much firepower they can cripple the enemy army in one turn.

The restriction on turn 1 reinforcements isn't intended to fix the alpha strike problem - no single rule can do that - only make it slightly less severe. If an army with deep strike units goes first (lets say 4 units of plasma drop troops), then the second player gets to take a full turn before that plasma obliterates their back field. The extra tactical depth is that now the deep strike army may occasionally choose to go second instead of first.

And I don't find a problem with Invulnerable saves, with AP modifiers, multi damage weapons and Mortal Wounds they are easy to overcome.

Have you played against grey knights with 2+ invulnerable saves? Astartes with Guilliman? I have played with and against Guilliman in 9 tournament games, and never seen him killed (at least not both of his twp deaths). There are ways to deal with these characters, but generally AP modifiers (doesn't affect invul saves) and smite (character isn't the closest target) don't affect them, and aren't greatsolutions.

I have played Guilliman for roughly 10 times, half of the time he got killed, mainly since he is tarpitted and single out, then smited to death or drowned by volume of AP-1/2 attacks. And 4 out of those 5 times he did not get back up, even I use CP reroll!!!
He is under priced no doubt, since he almost doubled the efficiency of UM firepower. BUT he is not that tough like everyone screamed if he is able to be targeted. Given how squishy Space Marine models are on the tabletop in current edition, wiping out units close to him then target this Primarch is not something impossible.

Rule n°1 : Awaiting Orders

Yes, yes, yes and... Yes. People who say it wouldn't change anything have basically no clue about how this game works.

It would give us a Movement phase before the Deepstrikers come down, thus allowing the second player to move his units in such a way as to deny potential targets.
Right now only a few armies can do that (IG with Scout sentinels for example).

Turn 1 no-scatter Deepstrikes are bad for the game.

Well, another issue is cover. A tank virtually never gets cover as it must be in cover and to some extent concealed.

1) It would not solve the problem at all. You would still be able to use Forward Operatives to charge with 40 bezerkers on the first turn of the first battle round, or use Strike From the Shadows to double-tap with agressors on the first turn of the first battleround.

And then there is the issue of shooting. An artillery gun-line derives an enormous benefit from getting the alpha-strike. I don't think there any easy fixes to that.

2) It would be rather pointless and insignificant I think.

3) It is a good rule. Or just change the character rule to: If a character is closer than 6" to a non-character unit, it can only be targeted by shooting if the character is the closest enemy unit.

Invulnerable saves aren't a problem at all. Things die easily as it is. Any problematic individual saves can be resolved on a case by case basis.

l do like the character targeting change - much more logical.

The problem with alpha strike isn't really from combat units, it is from shooting. I'd just bring back night fighting (or the acid rain card from the open war deck).

pismakron wrote:
And then there is the issue of shooting. An artillery gun-line derives an enormous benefit from getting the alpha-strike. I don't think there any easy fixes to that.

Better terrain & scenario rules with good hefty amount of characters rather than turkey shoot shooting galleries would go long way.

If you play on wide open terrain where it's easy to draw long lines of LOS no surprise those weapons get a boost. You don't try to bring in short ranged guns IRL into desert warfare much either.

And scenarios that encourage tabling as primary mean of killing increases issue more. Have scenarios where static gunline can table enemy and still lose and they are forced to invest in something other than just more guns.

tneva82 wrote:

pismakron wrote:
And then there is the issue of shooting. An artillery gun-line derives an enormous benefit from getting the alpha-strike. I don't think there any easy fixes to that.

Better terrain & scenario rules with good hefty amount of characters rather than turkey shoot shooting galleries would go long way.

If you play on wide open terrain where it's easy to draw long lines of LOS no surprise those weapons get a boost. You don't try to bring in short ranged guns IRL into desert warfare much either.

And scenarios that encourage tabling as primary mean of killing increases issue more. Have scenarios where static gunline can table enemy and still lose and they are forced to invest in something other than just more guns.

Sure. But in turn, better terrain rules could encourage that for people with limited (or GW bought) terrain. Say, extreme example, everything gets +1 cover if it's not fully 100% in the open and +2 cover if it's 50% or more obscured. Suddenly all that see-through-Sector Mechanicus terrain or the window-riddled older GW ruins would have a more meaningful effect on the game play. The current terrain rules go pretty much out of their way to make terrain a minimal thing in the game unless you block up the table with huge boxes of MDF or card board (none of which represent what GW sells or how they show off their game in official publications) that you can barely see your opponent.

redbeast001 wrote:
I 100% disagree with these rules. I read these "much needed changes" as "I really liked 7th" which we all know has it's fair share of issue.

1. Alpha Strike happens learn to deal with it.

2. Invulnerable saves are fine maxed at 3++, spending a CP to reroll is a fine trade off.

3. Doesn't make sense as a change.

4. Your Smite spam issue only applies to some armies. which usually get beaten anyway.

Consider restricting what detachments players can take and how many of a specific Unit they may take. e.g. Players cannot take more than 1 of each Imperial Assassin.

ah the old "Get Good" response.

1: yes it does happen, but some armies have a disproportionate advantage in this department, cheap throw away units that can take advantage of the Alpha strike meta, it is a current issue that GW is also aware of and have tried to fix with a few missions.

2: No I agree its not broken, however I am one of those people that thinks invunerable saves should never be allowed re - rolls, not a popular opinion I grant you.

3: it makes a lot more sense than the current rule.

4: yeah I agree to a point, I see why they added mortal wounds to the game, I just hate it as a mechanic, in the same way I hated old warscythes ignoring all saves, not a fan of anything ignoring saves of any kind.

5: yep that seems like a nice idea, I may test it out in one of my upcoming tournaments.

Things are hardly as simple as "get good" though.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

pismakron wrote:
And then there is the issue of shooting. An artillery gun-line derives an enormous benefit from getting the alpha-strike. I don't think there any easy fixes to that.

Better terrain & scenario rules with good hefty amount of characters rather than turkey shoot shooting galleries would go long way.

If you play on wide open terrain where it's easy to draw long lines of LOS no surprise those weapons get a boost. You don't try to bring in short ranged guns IRL into desert warfare much either.

And scenarios that encourage tabling as primary mean of killing increases issue more. Have scenarios where static gunline can table enemy and still lose and they are forced to invest in something other than just more guns.

Sure. But in turn, better terrain rules could encourage that for people with limited (or GW bought) terrain. Say, extreme example, everything gets +1 cover if it's not fully 100% in the open and +2 cover if it's 50% or more obscured. Suddenly all that see-through-Sector Mechanicus terrain or the window-riddled older GW ruins would have a more meaningful effect on the game play. The current terrain rules go pretty much out of their way to make terrain a minimal thing in the game unless you block up the table with huge boxes of MDF or card board (none of which represent what GW sells or how they show off their game in official publications) that you can barely see your opponent.

Yes better terrain rules would probably help inspire a bit but when you look at common boards even now useful LOS blocking terrain is sparse...

Funny thing is 8th ed is easier than ever for tons of terrain to be playable as stuff don't slow down etc yet terrain is spaaaaarse.

But yeah effect for non-LOS blocking needs to be improved. Did say better terrain rules

If your problem is with rerollable 3++ then why not adjust 2++/3++ in the first place? Disallowing the CP reroll for Inv saves only seems very arbitrary. Especially when there are mortal wounds that ignore those saves. Granted, if you are Tau or Necrons you don't have a lot of these, but these armies seem to have other problems as well in a competitive setting.

"The swirling maelstrom" looks very clumsy. I know what you're trying to say, but the way you wrote it it sounds very complicated. And why should cover give another bonus? That character model will get +1safe already. Adding the 6" around another unit closer to the firing unit I could live with ans seems plausible.

The invul and character changes are a flat No. You are adding unnecessary changes that just don't add to the game and really do not fix anything.

The "Awaiting Orders" rule is ok, but I think you are going too far with it. Being able to bring in units on turn 1 is one of the best changes from prior editions. I makes certain units viable when they would not have been before.
What "Awaiting Orders" should be is this:
"If you have units held as reinforcements during deployment only up to half, rounding up, of those units may enter the battlefield during the first battle round"
This would diminish pure Alpha strike list without neutering list that only use 1-2 units that must use reinforcements to get the most out of those units.

And even then, what would be the point? You already have to deploy half your units anyway, thus limiting how many units can be reinforcements in the first place.

-

Looking at it from the other perspective:

Reducing alpha-strike effectiveness could be addressed by letting people put normal stuff in reserve whenever.

Don't want a unit alpha-struck? Put it in reserve, so it only comes on when you feel save (out to Turn 3, then it must). Still keep the 50% of the list on the board.

That way, I think it becomes a beta-strike and reserves competition, with people jockeying to get enough models on the board to survive and even destroy their opponent's on-table forces to get a tabling victory, while simultaneously holding back their big hitters until they feel safe.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That way, I think it becomes a beta-strike and reserves competition, with people jockeying to get enough models on the board to survive and even destroy their opponent's on-table forces to get a tabling victory, while simultaneously holding back their big hitters until they feel safe.

That sounds like a horrible game experience. I prefer to play 40K, not chicken.

 Galef wrote:
Being able to bring in units on turn 1 is one of the best changes from prior editions.

Disagree strongly. It's a terrible change that never should have happened. Being able to bring on reserves on turn 1, especially with no-scatter deep strike, makes it way too obvious a choice to do it every single time. There's never any situation where you want to deploy any unit like that on the table at the start of the game, and automatic choices are a bad thing. Making it turn 2 or later forces you to choose between two valid options: deploy on the table and have the unit contributing immediately, or sacrifice immediate contributions for a better position on a later turn.

 Galef wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That way, I think it becomes a beta-strike and reserves competition, with people jockeying to get enough models on the board to survive and even destroy their opponent's on-table forces to get a tabling victory, while simultaneously holding back their big hitters until they feel safe.

That sounds like a horrible game experience. I prefer to play 40K, not chicken.

This is how it was in earlier editions; since you could hold anything in reserve, you could protect vital units. However, you also risked missing out on its capabilities until it was too late.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That way, I think it becomes a beta-strike and reserves competition, with people jockeying to get enough models on the board to survive and even destroy their opponent's on-table forces to get a tabling victory, while simultaneously holding back their big hitters until they feel safe.

That sounds like a horrible game experience. I prefer to play 40K, not chicken.

This is how it was in earlier editions; since you could hold anything in reserve, you could protect vital units. However, you also risked missing out on its capabilities until it was too late.

The difference was that you had to roll to get them in. They might come in before you want them or not come in when you need them. It was a risk
What you are suggesting would mean that the player you goes 2nd has a huge advantage because he can wait until turn 3, after all his opponent's units are on the board to drop the rest of his stuff

-

 Galef wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That way, I think it becomes a beta-strike and reserves competition, with people jockeying to get enough models on the board to survive and even destroy their opponent's on-table forces to get a tabling victory, while simultaneously holding back their big hitters until they feel safe.

That sounds like a horrible game experience. I prefer to play 40K, not chicken.

This is how it was in earlier editions; since you could hold anything in reserve, you could protect vital units. However, you also risked missing out on its capabilities until it was too late.

The difference was that you had to roll to get them in. They might come in before you want them or not come in when you need them. It was a risk
What you are suggesting would mean that the player you goes 2nd has a huge advantage because he can wait until turn 3, after all his opponent's units are on the board to drop the rest of his stuff

-

Are you saying there's no risk to having 50% of your army fight 100% of the enemy army for 3 shooting phases possibly?

You do realize that you lose if you get tabled right?

 Galef wrote:
The difference was that you had to roll to get them in. They might come in before you want them or not come in when you need them. It was a risk
What you are suggesting would mean that the player you goes 2nd has a huge advantage because he can wait until turn 3, after all his opponent's units are on the board to drop the rest of his stuff

As opposed to the current situation, where the player who goes first has a huge advantage because they can remove half their opponent's army with a turn-1 alpha strike?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galef wrote:
The difference was that you had to roll to get them in. They might come in before you want them or not come in when you need them. It was a risk
What you are suggesting would mean that the player you goes 2nd has a huge advantage because he can wait until turn 3, after all his opponent's units are on the board to drop the rest of his stuff

As opposed to the current situation, where the player who goes first has a huge advantage because they can remove half their opponent's army with a turn-1 alpha strike?

That's my point. It shouldn't be a choice between a Turn 1 Alpha strike or a Turn 3 Beta Strike. There needs to be something in between.
My solution was to allow SOME units to come in Turn 1, but never ALL.

Basically, you have to choose which units come in carefully and on which turn.

-