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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In 5th edition, reserving your entire army lost you the game because you'd have 0 models on the table at the end of a battle round game turn, since nothing came in Turn 1. It only worked for pod armies, because things did come in turn 1. If you were winning games with your entire army in reserve without reserve modifiers, then it's no wonder you won: you cheated.

Might want to get your facts straight before making posts like this. The rule for auto-loss at the end of the turn did not exist in 5th, it was introduced in 6th.

You either built your army list around certain units being in reserve, or you didn't.

Or you considered the reserves a limited supporting element and didn't go all-in on buffing them. Melta storm troopers were a cheap and efficient unit, deep striking in to attack tanks, even without any buffs to their reserve rolls. You could easily throw in 105/210 points for them alongside your other stuff and win with them.

Some armies don't have a great alpha strike and it's interesting to note why. Necrons and Orks are two that spring to mind and in both cases they lack three things a lot of other armies have:

1. Range. Most of their weapons are short ranged, and even "long range" weapons tend to be 36".

2. Re-rolls/buffs. Neither army gets meaningful re-roll auras to hit or wound (Necrons will get wound re-rolls in the new Codex though). Any buffs they give out tend to be targeted to specific units, not based on an aura.

3. Lack of mass deep strike. They're basically tied to their deployment zone bar a few options, usually unlocked via characters.

The current alpha strike problems stem entirely from some huge errors on GW's part in the core design of the game and a continuing failure to recognise the problems caused by certain rules. Marines re-rolling everything, with a strong long-range firebase is not only mindless in the extreme, it's dull for all involved, for example. One look at a SM Captain babysitting a bunch of Predators and Devastators would tell GW something's wrong with their philosophy. I'd much rather see a Captain affect a single unit, perhaps at 12" rather than all units within 6". Right now it's like we have a bunch of really timid supersoldiers, all clustered around their mate for protection.

For 'Nids, the Tyrant buff in the Codex gave them extra durability in 3 different ways: extra Toughness, better Invulnerable and Deep Strike. Combine that with a huge amount of dakka and they too are a mindless unit. Custodes Shield Captains are similar with the amount of firepower and resilience they have. Does any single model really need 12 shots (with rerolls in some cases)? I think not.

Sadly that's the way the game is now and nothing short of a huge change in direction is likely to fix it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In 5th edition, reserving your entire army lost you the game because you'd have 0 models on the table at the end of a battle round game turn, since nothing came in Turn 1. It only worked for pod armies, because things did come in turn 1. If you were winning games with your entire army in reserve without reserve modifiers, then it's no wonder you won: you cheated.

Might want to get your facts straight before making posts like this. The rule for auto-loss at the end of the turn did not exist in 5th, it was introduced in 6th.

Already mentioned in my edit.

 Peregrine wrote:

You either built your army list around certain units being in reserve, or you didn't.

Or you considered the reserves a limited supporting element and didn't go all-in on buffing them. Melta storm troopers were a cheap and efficient unit, deep striking in to attack tanks, even without any buffs to their reserve rolls. You could easily throw in 105/210 points for them alongside your other stuff and win with them.

You could, yes, but I don't remember that ever being important. The victories I remember Reserves winning in competitive play were victories that involved reserve modification and shenanigans. At least in my local area and any major tournament I ever heard about, the basic 4+ on Turn 2 reserve roll was essentially never used. Also, storm-troopers were 16ppm and garbage, so they were also never used.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The victories I remember Reserves winning in competitive play were victories that involved reserve modification and shenanigans.

Probably because you only remember the spectacular reserve-focused lists and have forgotten all of the times a random 105 point melta squad dropped in and did more than 105 points worth of damage.

Also, storm-troopers were 16ppm and garbage, so they were also never used.

Lolwut. No. Storm troopers were never used as a "normal" unit, they were used as a pair of BS 4 melta guns for 105 points that could re-roll their scatter dice on arrival. But they were a very strong unit in 5th edition.

Well - with deep strike being handed out like candy - there needs a suitable counter.

Putting out a ton of chaff helps but if deepstrike is going to be so prevalent - interceptor within 12 inches also needs to be more prevalent. Perhaps tau will put this crap to bed in the meta but the real core issue here is the flyrant is getting close combat ability for free. MRC is a 20 point weapon (at least).

Another issue is mawlocks. Their attack is screwing up order of operations here - they kill units in the movement phase allowing tyrants to bypass your screens. This is an easy fix - just change the phase the mawlock makes it's attacks in - make it the shooting phase. Now even with 7 tyrants you aren't hitting anything valuable turn 1 with assault.

I'd like to hear from people that were actually at Adepticon and read what they have to say, and the interactions they had with the GW staff that made them pause on issuing the March FAQ. I had no idea that GW sent someone high enough up the food chain in the company to be able to issue a "FAQ Pause" and shows that they are taking the tournament scene seriously.

As a side note, it's been a long, long time since GW took the events from a private convention they were not running to influence the rules of the game. There was the LVO incident of last year and flyers, but we'll have to see what came out of Adepticon. This is a welcome change in GW policy and shows they are listening to the players.

For first turn player only, count all models as moving (so heavies will always be -1 to hit) and count all enemy as in cover (+1 to save throws). This helps to reduce some of the Alpha Strike (but not all obviously).

 bullyboy wrote:
For first turn player only, count all models as moving (so heavies will always be -1 to hit) and count all enemy as in cover (+1 to save throws). This helps to reduce some of the Alpha Strike (but not all obviously).

I don't think that covers enough personally.

Firstly it only nerfs shooty alpha strikes, melee ones (either using Strike from the Shadows or Warptime, or similar effects) are still potentially incredibly punishing. 90 Khorne Berzerkers in melee turn one is not fun!

Secondly, some gunline armies don't rely on weapons of the Heavy type. While the cover rule helps, it gives an unfair disadvantage to units like Devastators compared to say Hellblasters, which can still move and shoot a total of 36" without penalty.

 Tamwulf wrote:
I'd like to hear from people that were actually at Adepticon and read what they have to say, and the interactions they had with the GW staff that made them pause on issuing the March FAQ. I had no idea that GW sent someone high enough up the food chain in the company to be able to issue a "FAQ Pause" and shows that they are taking the tournament scene seriously.

As a side note, it's been a long, long time since GW took the events from a private convention they were not running to influence the rules of the game. There was the LVO incident of last year and flyers, but we'll have to see what came out of Adepticon. This is a welcome change in GW policy and shows they are listening to the players.

Well... in one of the painting classes with Duncan he mentioned that some of the combos he saw out there at the tournament were... {made blah face and shivered}. There were a few GW guys walking about. At the FW table when I was piicking up some models there was a conversation going on with one of the studio guys and three or four others about 40k being what they considered a busted mess and the studio nodding and listening and asking why they thought that (and alpha striking was definitely said several times)

I'm not convinced that this first-turn thing is an issue; didn't ITC have a higher win rate for second turn? So it might just be a function of the tournaments.

I think we're more likely to see changes to the -1 strategems, or HQs/flyrants specifically. That seems more their style.

xmbk wrote:
I really hope the problem they discovered is that going first is way too big of an advantage. Nids excel at winning the Alpha Strike game, and 8th is all about the Alpha.

It would be really nice to have turns 3-5 matter a bit more than they do right now. It would also be nice if going 2nd didn't drastically reduce the win probability for "normal" army builds.

With individual turn taking longer than ever game needs to end in fewer turns to make 8th supposedly faster game. Thus gw aims 1-2 turn games. Thus alpha is and will be key factor

tneva82 wrote:

xmbk wrote:
I really hope the problem they discovered is that going first is way too big of an advantage. Nids excel at winning the Alpha Strike game, and 8th is all about the Alpha.

It would be really nice to have turns 3-5 matter a bit more than they do right now. It would also be nice if going 2nd didn't drastically reduce the win probability for "normal" army builds.

With individual turn taking longer than ever game needs to end in fewer turns to make 8th supposedly faster game. Thus gw aims 1-2 turn games. Thus alpha is and will be key factor

I love how you post this with absolutely no sources and instead just carry on as if your opinion were fact. It's unreal. First turn damage is probably currently too high, I think ultimately addressing the cover rules would help a great deal.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
I'm not convinced that this first-turn thing is an issue; didn't ITC have a higher win rate for second turn? So it might just be a function of the tournaments.

I think we're more likely to see changes to the -1 strategems, or HQs/flyrants specifically. That seems more their style.

Whether or not first turn is a problem at competitive level is only part of the concern. In casual games in my experience it is a huge factor, and if that is a more general trend then that deserves a balance pass too.

tneva82 wrote:

xmbk wrote:
I really hope the problem they discovered is that going first is way too big of an advantage. Nids excel at winning the Alpha Strike game, and 8th is all about the Alpha.

It would be really nice to have turns 3-5 matter a bit more than they do right now. It would also be nice if going 2nd didn't drastically reduce the win probability for "normal" army builds.

With individual turn taking longer than ever game needs to end in fewer turns to make 8th supposedly faster game. Thus gw aims 1-2 turn games. Thus alpha is and will be key factor

Players do and Gw does not. There are no matched play missions ending turn 2. Far too many options lacking th emobility for a game like that.

It's a strangely chicken and egg scenario. Because Alpha striking is so prevalent and games at events rarely go to turn 5-6 Alpha strike becomes necesarry since it's the only kind of list you can actually use. Durability an doutlasting your opponent in turn 4 can only work if there is in fact a turn 4.

Also I think people underestimate how much maelstrom objctives can swing the game around in turn 4-5 when both Alpha strikes have destroyed each other. I have seen plenty of tables turn on what appeared surefire wins when Alpha potential was broken. THat scenario doesn't play out because well games simply do not go to those rounds often enough at top tables.

Look up the chess clock discussions for more on this particular topic.

No turn one deep strike or no charging outta deep strike on turn one

 Backspacehacker wrote:
No turn one deep strike or no charging outta deep strike on turn one

I don't disagree with this out of hand. However I think all this does is shift to a beta strike.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
No turn one deep strike or no charging outta deep strike on turn one

I don't disagree with this out of hand. However I think all this does is shift to a beta strike.

I kept screaming to people being able to charge outta deep strike was crazy strong and sure and gak, garunteed deep strike and charging is the new meta.

Beta strike is significantly easier to deal with than alpha strike.

It gives the defending player a turn to deal with what's deployed on the table at an advantage, as well as to additionally maneuver to defend the strike, which in turn puts them at much less of a disadvantage than against an alpha strike.

So called beta strikes might still be too strong (I think certain strats and psychic powers need a look at too) but it's a step in the right direction.

Stux wrote:
Beta strike is significantly easier to deal with than alpha strike.

It gives the defending player a turn to deal with what's deployed on the table at an advantage, as well as to additionally maneuver to defend the strike, which in turn puts them at much less of a disadvantage than against an alpha strike.

So called beta strikes might still be too strong (I think certain strats and psychic powers need a look at too) but it's a step in the right direction.

I think if you address things like fight again strats, warptime, and the like it helps a lot more. I talk about the beta strike a lot because I play Tzaangors so first or 2nd is fine with me, I can still engage the engine and its nearly impossible to really defend against.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

What a compelling and insightful defense of GW and 8th edition.

Considering the average level of vitriol and emotionality over rational argument displayed in the post he responded to(and many others) it feels like he actually went overkill on insight and reason tbh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stux wrote:
Beta strike is significantly easier to deal with than alpha strike.

It gives the defending player a turn to deal with what's deployed on the table at an advantage, as well as to additionally maneuver to defend the strike, which in turn puts them at much less of a disadvantage than against an alpha strike.

So called beta strikes might still be too strong (I think certain strats and psychic powers need a look at too) but it's a step in the right direction.

This is actually only true some of the time. Deepstriking shooting armies actually get MORE dangerous when they beta strike because it means the opponent has one less turn to react and recover.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
No turn one deep strike or no charging outta deep strike on turn one

I don't disagree with this out of hand. However I think all this does is shift to a beta strike.

I kept screaming to people being able to charge outta deep strike was crazy strong and sure and gak, garunteed deep strike and charging is the new meta.

And yet my Custodes lose if I can't get the charge off out of deepstrike.

Charging out of deepstrike is strong, but it's also the only thing keeping melee in the game. With it Death Company have a guaranteed turn of killing things before they die, without it they die before doing anything at all.

A better solution would be to reverse the escalation of bigger and bigger guns that makes it impossible to get a melee unit into the fight without charging out of deepstrike, simply deleting charge out of deepstrike without touching anything else is just going to bring back the gunline shooty-army-wins meta of 6e/7e.

Eh that's because tazangors need a nerf, fellow t son's player here as well.

I feel like I read multiple posts somewhere about how little terrain was on the adepticon tables.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
No turn one deep strike or no charging outta deep strike on turn one

I don't disagree with this out of hand. However I think all this does is shift to a beta strike.

I kept screaming to people being able to charge outta deep strike was crazy strong and sure and gak, garunteed deep strike and charging is the new meta.

And yet my Custodes lose if I can't get the charge off out of deepstrike.

Charging out of deepstrike is strong, but it's also the only thing keeping melee in the game. With it Death Company have a guaranteed turn of killing things before they die, without it they die before doing anything at all.

A better solution would be to reverse the escalation of bigger and bigger guns that makes it impossible to get a melee unit into the fight without charging out of deepstrike, simply deleting charge out of deepstrike without touching anything else is just going to bring back the gunline shooty-army-wins meta of 6e/7e.

To be fair, the problem is also bad for shooting armies. I can't bring a single Baneblade to a 2k game and actually get to use it (not, at least, without forcing it to be Tallarn and spending 3CP on it... which is essentially just putting it in reserve so now I can have the OP alpha). Big guns instantly deleting units is no fun for the person on the receiving end, regardless of whether they're melee or shooty. It's why I always try to put down a ton of LOS-blocking terrain on my games; it keeps me and my opponent both safe from Turn-1 alphas.

And yes, just to undercut the derail: I recognize LOS-ignoring shooting exists. I'm providing an anecdote, not trying to prove a point.

To be fair unless you treat all terrain like a barrier, it just gets in the way. Idk if they were using the ITC rule of first floor blocks Los if not terrain is just a nucense


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be fair to be fair, LoW are always target number one and never last more then 2 turns

I always laugh when people tie deep strike and alpha strike together.

The reason most people deep strike as opposed to starting on the board, is to keep things ALIVE because of the bonkers shooting this game has.

It would be 100% to my advantage to keep my Flyrants on the board, if they could actually live through a turn of shooting. Moving up 16" is far better than landing more than 9" away.

Reasons why first turn is stupid:

1. Artillery. Shooting anywhere you want without LOS is dumb. Scatter dice were the balancing factor for this. You could potentially hit, but you also did full scatter, making your accuracy a lot lower than it is now.

2. High power shooting. When you do connect, you'll reduce things to their invulnerable save with no difficulty and any failed save is a chunk of health lost, or models slain. I played a game and lost about 250 points from the shooting of one unit on the first turn. (EDIT- Comparable points values)

3. Allows for greater deep strike denial. You can move your chaff up and reposition so that it is nearly impossible to get full use out of deep strikers.

Deep strike has virtually nothing to do with why first turn is good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I can't bring a single Baneblade to a 2k game and actually get to use it

Because you play in a stale meta where people know what you bring (only Baneblade, Baneblade 4 lyf) and plan accordingly. Most TAC lists will have immense difficulty erasing a Baneblade in one turn and you know it.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I feel like I read multiple posts somewhere about how little terrain was on the adepticon tables.

That's been a consistent thing for quite a few years now. You'll get maybe 6-8 pieces (on average) of terrain of varying size, most of which in past years would have been able to obscure but not hide most vehicles.

That alone tends to create a very different meta from what a lot of people are apparently used to.

 Marmatag wrote:
Because you play in a stale meta where people know what you bring (only Baneblade, Baneblade 4 lyf) and plan accordingly. Most TAC lists will have immense difficulty erasing a Baneblade in one turn and you know it.

I don't want to derail the thread, but no, I don't know it. I wish this were true, but at every tournament I've attended (and yes, I go to them beyond my local meta), I've lost a single Baneblade turn 1 (or a single baneblade's worth of wounds on 3 tanks, if my opponent is panicky and spreads his shooting around).

I live in the NOVA area, and I have played at tournaments in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Maryland since 8th dropped, and have lost (or had crippled) a single vehicle damn near every game if the enemy got to go first. If you want to reply, reply in PMs, but I don't want to let you spread your misinformation in this thread.

Here is a silly fix that might work and deter keeping your units in reserve.

The person who goes first does NOT have a movement phase.

That means if you go first you cant deep strike until turn 2. you likely will be out of range your first turn on short range weapons, and if you deployed defensively you may not even have line of sight.

it also makes those games where first turn is random encourage you to deploy certain units instead of just keeping them off the board potentially until turn 2.

and considering the first turn is by far the LONGEST turn in terms of time played and movement especially in horde armies takes forever the first turn... this makes the game faster.

However this does hurt melee horde armies who want to move across the board as quickly as possible, who go first, and who do not have an ability to deploy or place a unit into melee range outside of the movement phase (such as a psychic power). Some of this can be fixed with psychic powers or strategems.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well - with deep strike being handed out like candy - there needs a suitable counter.

Putting out a ton of chaff helps but if deepstrike is going to be so prevalent - interceptor within 12 inches also needs to be more prevalent. Perhaps tau will put this crap to bed in the meta but the real core issue here is the flyrant is getting close combat ability for free. MRC is a 20 point weapon (at least).

Another issue is mawlocks. Their attack is screwing up order of operations here - they kill units in the movement phase allowing tyrants to bypass your screens. This is an easy fix - just change the phase the mawlock makes it's attacks in - make it the shooting phase. Now even with 7 tyrants you aren't hitting anything valuable turn 1 with assault.

You sir totally need to L2P...a nerf for Mawlocs is completely unwarranted given the already built in nerf to multiple Mawlocs...