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.

 lolman1c wrote:
Okay! I'm going to make an entire virtual IG army of 2k points that is pire infintry and mortors!

Someone give me a list that can shut that down and I will play it 3 times against each other and tell you all the results. Not saying either is good but I want to rest this argument and get away from the maths for a second.

2k points of Leman Russ Punishers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
You shouldn't need an obscene amount of terrain to use melee. It should be challenging but not that much. But melee needs to be better than it is now unless I missed some huge change at some point.

The part where you can fall back, and the part where most Space Marine and Chaos Space Marine tanks become outright incapacitated.

No I didn't miss the falling back thing. Why anyone thought that was worth doing is beyond me.

Dandelion wrote:
[

Why do you equate melee and ranged as being direct counters to each other? Why are armies either ranged or melee? Why can't they be both?
I'll never understand the desire to make melee always equal to shooting. They are different. They fulfill different roles, they complement each other. Melee has drawbacks, the main one being that you need to get close, but it has pros such as locking down units. Relying on melee to do all the work is simply a bad tactical decision when guns exist.

Also shooting is low-risk moderate-reward while melee is high-risk high-reward so it's no wonder that when melee loses, it loses hard.

Now, that is not to say that I approve of shooting alpha, but the biggest way to bring that in line is to improve terrain. Without terrain tactics do not exist, even in real life. Should we get better terrain rules? Yes, and something like -1 to hit obscured targets would do wonders (while also removing army wide -1 to hits). But we should also bring obscene amounts of terrain to block most shooting. And yes, shooting out of LOS with artillery should have a penalty.

That's a pretty easy question to answer in 40K (and most other miniatures wargames). Better ranged weapons and melee weapons cost additional points to the overall cost of the unit. So even if the unit can have both, they are paying extra points for that utility. They aren't very likely to make full use of all of it in any given game. To the point that an opponent that specializes their units for melee or ranged combat has the edge since they can field more and just use the specialists to support one another. It is just more efficient use of points. This is on top of the fact that many units have to trade their good ranged attributes for good melee attributes such as trading a boltgun for a chainsword and bolt pistol. Most units don't even have the option to have the utility of being good in melee and range combat.

So you get the dichotomy of, "Shoot the choppy ones, and chop the shooty ones."

pm713 wrote:
No I didn't miss the falling back thing. Why anyone thought that was worth doing is beyond me.

I sound like a broken record by now, I think. I really like the ability to voluntarily leave combat, I think it makes close-quarters combat a very powerful offensive tool in a balanced army.

As I've said, particularly against Space Marines/Chaos Space Marines and Imperial Guard, who make up like 80% of people I play against, having a fast, cheap unit running up the board is very strong. The faster, cheaper, and more resilient-for-cost the better. Even against armies with strong melee options, like the Tyranids, it's fairly decent to run up and charge something to lock it down if you can expect to not die to it during your fight phase.

Since most units can't shoot or charge after falling back, you've effectively disabled the unit you made it into combat with for a round. In addition, if they fall back and shoot you/countercharge you with other units, you've also taken up those units' efforts for the turn with your ideally cheap interference unit while your heavy hitters get into position and knock out key enemy units. If they don't fall back, you can fall back on your turn and knock them out with your big guns, or you can stay in with them while your big guns knock something else out.

It's a matter of efficiently too. If there's two scary enemy tanks on the field, and you don't have enough points to blow up both in a single go, you can blow one up and charge the other, taking both out of the fight, and fall back and blow up the other in the next round.

I imagine you might have a different opinion if you always play Eldar and Tau, though.

I think it's awful. Sure your unit doesn't anything when it leaves combat but my unit is butchered. There's no point in me spending points and time in getting a unit to combat if they get a turn of activity before death. Sure I could use cheap units for it but my armies don't have much of those and if they did I'd rather take cheap shooting units that work.
I never thought I'd say this but 7th cc was way better. I could actually do useful things in some combats. Except Marines.

Okay will do the rolling tmrw. Right now I just did a roll off for 2k points of pure mortors vs 2k points of space marines. Just killed 95 space marines on turn 1 which is (at base value before upgrades) 1235 pts of marines. XD lolololololol.

pm713 wrote:
I think it's awful. Sure your unit doesn't anything when it leaves combat but my unit is butchered. There's no point in me spending points and time in getting a unit to combat if they get a turn of activity before death. Sure I could use cheap units for it but my armies don't have much of those and if they did I'd rather take cheap shooting units that work.
I never thought I'd say this but 7th cc was way better. I could actually do useful things in some combats. Except Marines.

I mean, 150 points to get 300-400 points of Imperial Guard tanks, or 230 points of Razorback, to not shoot for a turn sounds pretty fair to me. Even better if it takes another 230 points of Razorback or Manticore to dislodge the 150 point unit that's in their face.

And, even if you can't move 24" and charge with FLY on the first turn, fast units, cheap, and fairly survivable units are an immediate and pressing threat that much be dealt with in the turn before they hit one's lines, so they're going to have to give it some firepower that would otherwise be going towards heavier guns.

I feel like close quarters is currently more useful to me than it's ever been. It has interesting tactical options and utility, as opposed to just being a thing to avoid

But, this is an argument for another place and time. Only scout sentinels, and salamander scout vehicles will be trying anything of that sort in the Imperial Guard, and the Imperial Guard has among the best anti-charge screening in the game.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Okay! I'm going to make an entire virtual IG army of 2k points that is pire infintry and mortors!

Someone give me a list that can shut that down and I will play it 3 times against each other and tell you all the results. Not saying either is good but I want to rest this argument and get away from the maths for a second.

2k points of Leman Russ Punishers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
You shouldn't need an obscene amount of terrain to use melee. It should be challenging but not that much. But melee needs to be better than it is now unless I missed some huge change at some point.

The part where you can fall back, and the part where most Space Marine and Chaos Space Marine tanks become outright incapacitated.

Just did 2k points of punisher vs 2k tac marines and only rolled 90 dead marines on turn 1. I'm disappointed. This includes the heavy bolt front weapon.

 lolman1c wrote:
Okay will do the rolling tmrw. Right now I just did a roll off for 2k points of pure mortors vs 2k points of space marines. Just killed 95 space marines on turn 1 which is (at base value before upgrades) 1235 pts of marines. XD lolololololol.

Punishers vs. Mortars:


Land Raider Crusader vs. Mortars


There's no contest between tanks and mortars.

If you army is just infantry and mortars, and I know this, I'll just make a skew list of anti-infantry equipped tanks to shred through the mortars. Now, while I own neither 6 Land Raider Crusaders nor 12 Punisher tanks and wouldn't play such a list unless I was explicitly tailoring to beat the pile of mortars, the point stand, you can't win on just mortars alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Okay! I'm going to make an entire virtual IG army of 2k points that is pire infintry and mortors!

Someone give me a list that can shut that down and I will play it 3 times against each other and tell you all the results. Not saying either is good but I want to rest this argument and get away from the maths for a second.

2k points of Leman Russ Punishers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
You shouldn't need an obscene amount of terrain to use melee. It should be challenging but not that much. But melee needs to be better than it is now unless I missed some huge change at some point.

The part where you can fall back, and the part where most Space Marine and Chaos Space Marine tanks become outright incapacitated.

Just did 2k points of punisher vs 2k tac marines and only rolled 90 dead marines on turn 1. I'm disappointed. This includes the heavy bolt front weapon.

Leman Russ Punishers should also generally be coming with sponson heavy bolters. It costs 16 extra points per tank, so you'd only get another tank after 9 tanks. 9x6 is 54 shots at AP1, versus the 40 you'd get at AP0 from another tank.

Against a big pile to tactical guys, the tanks will kill about the same number of guys as the mortars, but will lose far fewer of their number in return. Tac guys are pretty good at killing mortars, they're not really good at killing T8 tanks.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Okay will do the rolling tmrw. Right now I just did a roll off for 2k points of pure mortors vs 2k points of space marines. Just killed 95 space marines on turn 1 which is (at base value before upgrades) 1235 pts of marines. XD lolololololol.

Punishers vs. Mortars:

Spoiler:

T1:
60 Catachan Mortar teams:
~180*4.5 [re-roll shot output]*.58[re-roll 1's]*.17[to wound T8]*.33[tank armor save]=26 wounds average. That's 2 tanks.
12 (10) Cadian Punisher Tanks:
~10*40*.58*.66*.66+10*9*.58*.66*.83=129 wounds average. That's 21 mortar teams.
T2:
60 (39) Mortar teams:
~117*4.5*.58*.17*.33=17 wounds average. That's a tank, plus a tank degraded.
12 (9) Punisher Tanks:
~8*40*.58*.66*.66+8*9*.58*.66*.83+1*40*..33*.66*.66+8*9*..33*.66*.83=110 wounds average. That's 18 mortar teams.
T3:
60 (21) Mortar teams:
~63*4.5*.58*.17*.33=10 wounds average. That finishes off the wounded tank and degrades another.
12 (8) Punisher Tanks:
~7*40*.58*.66*.66+7*9*.58*.66*.83+1*40*..33*.66*.66+8*9*..33*.66*.83=98 wounds average. That's 16 mortar teams.
T4:
60 (5) Mortar teams:
~15*4.5*.58*.17*.33=2 wounds average. Negligible Effect, the degraded tank might become a little more degraded.
12 (8) Punisher Tanks:
~7*40*.58*.66*.66+7*9*.58*.66*.83+1*40*..33*.66*.66+8*9*..33*.66*.83=98 wounds average. That's 16 mortar teams again, and there's no more mortars.

Land Raider Crusader vs. Mortars

Spoiler:

60 Catachan Mortar teams:
~180*4.5 [re-roll shot output]*.58[re-roll 1's]*.17[to wound T8]*.17[tank armor save]=13 wounds average. That's a degraded but still alive tank.
6 (6) Land Raider Crusader Tanks:
~5*24*.87[re-roll 1's]*.87[re-roll 1's]*.66+5*12*.87*.97*.83+1*24*.58*.87*.66+1*12*.58*.97*.83=115 wounds average. That's 20 mortar teams.
T2:
60 (40) Mortar teams:
~120*4.5*.58*.17*.17=9 wounds average. That's the wounded tank, and damage but not degradation on another.
6 (5) Land Raider Crusader Tanks:
~5*24*.87[re-roll 1's]*.87[re-roll 1's]*.66+5*12*.87*.97*.83=102 wounds average. That's 18 mortar teams.

You see where this is going.

There's no contest between tanks and mortars.

If you army is just infantry and mortars, and I know this, I'll just make a skew list of anti-infantry equipped tanks to shred through the mortars. Now, while I own neither 6 Land Raider Crusaders nor 12 Punisher tanks and wouldn't play such a list unless I was explicitly tailoring to beat the pile of mortars, the point stand, you can't win on just mortars alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Okay! I'm going to make an entire virtual IG army of 2k points that is pire infintry and mortors!

Someone give me a list that can shut that down and I will play it 3 times against each other and tell you all the results. Not saying either is good but I want to rest this argument and get away from the maths for a second.

2k points of Leman Russ Punishers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
You shouldn't need an obscene amount of terrain to use melee. It should be challenging but not that much. But melee needs to be better than it is now unless I missed some huge change at some point.

The part where you can fall back, and the part where most Space Marine and Chaos Space Marine tanks become outright incapacitated.

Just did 2k points of punisher vs 2k tac marines and only rolled 90 dead marines on turn 1. I'm disappointed. This includes the heavy bolt front weapon.

Leman Russ Punishers should also generally be coming with sponson heavy bolters. It costs 16 extra points per tank, so you'd only get another tank after 9 tanks. 9x6 is 54 shots at AP1, versus the 40 you'd get at AP0 from another tank.

Against a big pile to tactical guys, the tanks will kill about the same number of guys as the mortars, but will lose far fewer of their number in return. Tac guys are pretty good at killing mortars, they're not really good at killing T8 tanks.

I should point out the Catachan reroll doesn't work on mortars. It only applies to vehicles.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
[

Why do you equate melee and ranged as being direct counters to each other? Why are armies either ranged or melee? Why can't they be both?
I'll never understand the desire to make melee always equal to shooting. They are different. They fulfill different roles, they complement each other. Melee has drawbacks, the main one being that you need to get close, but it has pros such as locking down units. Relying on melee to do all the work is simply a bad tactical decision when guns exist.

Also shooting is low-risk moderate-reward while melee is high-risk high-reward so it's no wonder that when melee loses, it loses hard.

Now, that is not to say that I approve of shooting alpha, but the biggest way to bring that in line is to improve terrain. Without terrain tactics do not exist, even in real life. Should we get better terrain rules? Yes, and something like -1 to hit obscured targets would do wonders (while also removing army wide -1 to hits). But we should also bring obscene amounts of terrain to block most shooting. And yes, shooting out of LOS with artillery should have a penalty.

That's a pretty easy question to answer in 40K (and most other miniatures wargames). Better ranged weapons and melee weapons cost additional points to the overall cost of the unit. So even if the unit can have both, they are paying extra points for that utility. They aren't very likely to make full use of all of it in any given game. To the point that an opponent that specializes their units for melee or ranged combat has the edge since they can field more and just use the specialists to support one another. It is just more efficient use of points. This is on top of the fact that many units have to trade their good ranged attributes for good melee attributes such as trading a boltgun for a chainsword and bolt pistol. Most units don't even have the option to have the utility of being good in melee and range combat.

So you get the dichotomy of, "Shoot the choppy ones, and chop the shooty ones."

I was more talking about the army in general. A lot of people seem to treat them like either gunlines or melee rush. IG get Ogryns which are very powerful on their own, yet people only seem to consider the shooty aspect of Guard. Meanwhile, BA have all the guns that regular marines have but everyone treats them like they only have jump packs. All my point was that doubling down on either gunline or rush is overall detrimental to your own tactics, and the fun you're trying to have. So people complaining about melee rush not being viable are complaining that a bad tactic doesn't work well.

Though, on your point about pricing, I feel that generalists should probably get a sort of discount for having ok, but not great abilities. Take marines for example, a tac marine wants to both shoot and punch things but he can't do both at the same time. If he just shoots all game, he never punches anything. If he charges one turn, then he loses a turn of shooting. Meanwhile a Khorne bezerker always wants to be in a fight, so he'll be getting maximum use out of his points by constantly being engaged.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
You shouldn't need an obscene amount of terrain to use melee. It should be challenging but not that much. But melee needs to be better than it is now unless I missed some huge change at some point.

The terrain is not explicitly for melee. It's for all types of armies. So long as people can camp and just hit the juiciest targets without moving, you're not going to get anything interesting or tactical. Terrain forces people to drop long range firepower for more mobility. Less firepower means fewer things dying which results in a longer game where alpha strike is greatly diminished. This helps melee as much as it helps close range skirmisher units.

Besides, charging a gunline over sparse terrain should be a terrible idea, because that's what it is.

 lolman1c wrote:
Okay! I'm going to make an entire virtual IG army of 2k points that is pire infintry and mortors!

Someone give me a list that can shut that down and I will play it 3 times against each other and tell you all the results. Not saying either is good but I want to rest this argument and get away from the maths for a second.

70-80 rubric marines, a couple rhinos, Daemon Prince, Ahriman. Snipe commanders with spells, gift of chaos, gateway, and corsucating beam to explode units. 2+ means 45 mortars can kill 6 or 7 a turn.

Freezerassasin wrote:


I should point out the Catachan reroll doesn't work on mortars. It only applies to vehicles.

Ah, yeah, I forgot Catachan infantry gets +1STR instead. OTOH, it's not a super relevant consideration, since that just sort of makes them weaker and less able to knock out the tanks.

2x exact same batallions=2000pts and 13 cp
Total units:
4 company commanders
12 infantry squads with one melta each
4 hellhounds
4 leman russ demolisher with maxed out heavy flamers
Valhallan doctrine so morale and degrading stats becomes less of a problem.

Just rush up towards the enemy and burn the hell out of them.

Btw the tanks can be taken in squads so rule of three is no issue here

I don't know if it's just because I'm doing no maths here and I'm rolling hundreds of real dice but sometimes the guard just destroy the enemy turn 1 and sometimes it's the other way around. I geuss it all matters on who gets turn 1 and how random the dice are that game.

Remember in reality every little factor determines the dice roll. The slightest alteration in heat, surface, speed can make the whole 1/2 to get 4s all off....

All the maths in the world can't prepare for me rolling 7 1s on a terminator save. XD

Getting turn one is way too important in 8th it really ruins things.

Nobody likes setting up their army just to remove stuff.

 lolman1c wrote:
I don't know if it's just because I'm doing no maths here and I'm rolling hundreds of real dice but sometimes the guard just destroy the enemy turn 1 and sometimes it's the other way around. I geuss it all matters on who gets turn 1 and how random the dice are that game.

Remember in reality every little factor determines the dice roll. The slightest alteration in heat, surface, speed can make the whole 1/2 to get 4s all off....

All the maths in the world can't prepare for me rolling 7 1s on a terminator save. XD

You can't possibly repeat it enough times by yourself to be relevant on any level. Hence averages, while possibly misleading, make a good spitball for what one can expect.

You can construct a simulation to run a couple thousand times, but at some point that also becomes impractically complex,

I don't care about all that crap... to me I know in situations in my life the avarge never plays out. It's always stupidly random with percentages going way off the scale... my friends have made a tally for every time I make a set of rolls in D&D that are 1/1,000,000+ chance. Like the time I rolled 6 100s with my set of d100 dice and killed the god the DM set up to end the campaign with. Hehe... but then other times I'll roll like 10 1s in 40k so I flip a lot.

The fact is that avarages can predict many possibilities but in reality you should always expect the unexpected. This is why 40k can be hard to balance sometime. It's more than theoretical that 1 character can defeat an entire army. It's improbable but not impossible.

Might I suggest you go play a different less dice based game then lolman? Dice can screw anyone or anything over in a game with this many of them.

Your DM made an error, if he truly didn't want the god to die, he should have been invulnerable.

 Earth127 wrote:
Might I suggest you go play a different less dice based game then lolman? Dice can screw anyone or anything over in a game with this many of them.

Your DM made an error, if he truly didn't want the god to die, he should have been invulnerable.

Why would you be so harsh and negative to me? I never said once that anything I believe is a negative and I don't like it. In fact, I feel I was more positive telling people the beauty of 40k is how sometimes improbable and almost impossible things can happen. Like when i watched 30 grots take down a bloodletter.

A bad DM would make something you can't beat, a good DM makes something that is only possible if you use extreme skill or luck. It's extremely cinematic and we all ended up becoming gods. A fitting tale to a long adventure.

Sorry, it seems I misread the tome of your statement. It came across a lot more negative to me.

Still in general whilst people are overly relying on averages for balance discussion. They (and simulations) are usefull tools.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also @Inquisitor katherine You shouldn't go across multiple turns because basic averages and laws of chance only apply if the rolls are independent.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
You can't possibly repeat it enough times by yourself to be relevant on any level. Hence averages, while possibly misleading, make a good spitball for what one can expect.

You can construct a simulation to run a couple thousand times, but at some point that also becomes impractically complex,

I don't think you would need to run it a couple of thousand times. I suspect just a hundred would give a reasonable curve.
While its pretty boring - but if its just a first turn barrage you could probably do that in a few hours.

You could also set up a spreadsheet to model.

I think the general problem with 40k (certainly before the DS nerf) was that it was too easy to get an army with a crude average expectation of 700-800 points damage output in the first turn. Which meant sometimes you would roll high or roll low - but you would almost always crush weaker armies which might only be able to touch 400 points (or less) if everything went right.

Tyel wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
You can't possibly repeat it enough times by yourself to be relevant on any level. Hence averages, while possibly misleading, make a good spitball for what one can expect.

You can construct a simulation to run a couple thousand times, but at some point that also becomes impractically complex,

I don't think you would need to run it a couple of thousand times. I suspect just a hundred would give a reasonable curve.
While its pretty boring - but if its just a first turn barrage you could probably do that in a few hours.

You could also set up a spreadsheet to model.

I think the general problem with 40k (certainly before the DS nerf) was that it was too easy to get an army with a crude average expectation of 700-800 points damage output in the first turn. Which meant sometimes you would roll high or roll low - but you would almost always crush weaker armies which might only be able to touch 400 points (or less) if everything went right.

I have a program that rolls dice based on weapons fire and the target's stats. I'm actually setting it up to run through an IG's gunline first turn. I just need to finish up the classes and pick the "worst" list and the targets.

You make the program yourself? If so that would be epic! You could basically pay an entire game of 40k without even having to play the game! (Well a tournament game that doesn't care about terrain or large enough tables.

In my mind the best way fix IG and turn 1 would be

A. Have a larger table or half people's range turn 1. Also limit DS if you must. That way long range stuff can still fire while mass fire from infintry is limited until you get into range.

B. Just don't haveba turn 1. Turn 1 is now called turn 2 and thus the game feels longer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And itbismokay Earth. You are forgiven.

 lolman1c wrote:
You make the program yourself? If so that would be epic! You could basically pay an entire game of 40k without even having to play the game! (Well a tournament game that doesn't care about terrain or large enough tables.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And itbismokay Earth. You are forgiven.

Well, there are limits, because I have to tell it what to shoot and make assumptions about what is in range and in line of sight. It would be just a singular freeze frame of a specific scenario and the dice roll crunching of what happens.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Xeno...Unit...STAHP PLS

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Unfortunately, it probably looks like "A BILLION DEATH COMPANY (in one squad), 3 scouts, captain doom, librarian fred" and guard for CP battery/regeneration. Add long range shooting from either army to taste.

Yea the slightly illegal Adepticon BA list was IG, 9 SG, and some support, which is a far cry from the ultimate BA melee shredder. I'll do some hunting.

No, that's not a good list, imo. I'm trying to figure out what best to do after the FAQ, but it isn't looking good, imo. I'm leaning towards banner of sacrifice going in every list now as a necessity.

The biggest problem with an infantry heavy guard army is getting the game done in 2-3 hours. For that reason i think the higher toughness lower model count forces are more practical.

Tyel wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
You can't possibly repeat it enough times by yourself to be relevant on any level. Hence averages, while possibly misleading, make a good spitball for what one can expect.

You can construct a simulation to run a couple thousand times, but at some point that also becomes impractically complex,

I don't think you would need to run it a couple of thousand times. I suspect just a hundred would give a reasonable curve.
While its pretty boring - but if its just a first turn barrage you could probably do that in a few hours.

You could also set up a spreadsheet to model.

I think the general problem with 40k (certainly before the DS nerf) was that it was too easy to get an army with a crude average expectation of 700-800 points damage output in the first turn. Which meant sometimes you would roll high or roll low - but you would almost always crush weaker armies which might only be able to touch 400 points (or less) if everything went right.

You don't need to run it any number of times - the distribution can be derived directly. The fields of blood mathammer tool provides a proper distribution.

VoidSempai wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
In general with this rule change better lists won't bother with deep strike as a primary means of offense.

You want to be able to bring all your shooting to bear turn 1, and with solid range.

In truth i think this rule is actually so bad that they end up squatting it.

"40k is bad because of strong alpha"

*puts in a rule to nerf strong alpha*

"Wow this rule is bad, you can't strong alpha"

No it's more like :
"40k is bad because of strong alpha"
"Alright, so we remove the only counter to strong shooting alpha, which is strong melee alpha"
"Yeah, cool, but what about the strong shooting alpha"
"Oh that, we'll just leave it. We like it when both army face off, dont move, and shoot the crap out of each other turn 1. What's that, you play a melee army and won't ever be able to reach melee range because the other army has too many guns and 2-3 free turn to get into position and shoot you? You just had to buy a real army, like IG. Too bad."

Ahem.

Strong Melee Army player here.

My issue was not getting into combat turn one. My issue was, as others have noted, that before I even got to do anything I had Scions/Eldar/whatever dropping in my face and absolutely wrecking any semblance of a charge. You see to assault, I need to vacate space in the table. I cannot do that effectively when 1/3 to 1/2 of the opponents army drops in perfectly and annihilates who knows what. I love my skull cannons, but I have to leave a unit of blood letters back to keep them from getting wrecked due to some jackwad scions unit on turn one. Or even worse, the eldar player that goes first, deepstrikes in anyway and wrecks them anyway because their weapons have range for it.

It's been a sigh of relief knowing I'm not going to get absolutely ended on turn one, it means my units can move up table without worrying about getting smacked before/after my turn 1.

TLDR: The turn one nerf does not nerf assault armies, it helps move the part of the army on the table more effectively without worrying about being spread out to kingdom come to counter it.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
The biggest problem with an infantry heavy guard army is getting the game done in 2-3 hours. For that reason i think the higher toughness lower model count forces are more practical.

Give this man a cookie. That's why tournament results don't show the casual power of IG lists.