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.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.

He doesn't.

To Nick Nanavati, gunlines didn't really exist in the meta he was factoring for. The high damage he's referring to comes from alpha strike deep strike assault/short range shooting.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.

He doesn't.

To Nick Nanavati, gunlines didn't really exist in the meta he was factoring for. The high damage he's referring to comes from alpha strike deep strike assault/short range shooting.

I think it's important to note WHY gunlines don't exist - in part because they can't play the objectives well in ITC/Adepticon/NOVA.

Perhaps some factors will change enough to let them seep in, but we'll have to wait and see.

Another problem gunlines (should) face is their inability to bring their full potential to bear. Unless you're playing on planet bowling bal/ too small a table/pure kill (and this one has its own host of issues) a gunline based army willnot mange to attack its proirity tagets properly. Big masses are unwieldy. Tournament Meta was IMHO never dominated by dug in gunlines. There is only one mono-codex-list (IG) and one special character -list(RG) that genuinely placed based on gunline tactics. The reapers of LVO and especially the hive tyrants of Adepticon pack quite a bit of mobility and more concentrated firepower.

The problem reminds me of a quote from Art of War:

They've got us surrounded, now our victory is assured.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.

Hard to say if that part comes true, but I think he's basically saying that tougher things will be on the table. Softer things will be in deepstrike. There is less worry about certain direct counters to those tougher things, because deepstrikers won't interfere. And then we you've repositioned you can go tit for tat with deepstrikers - cover your own lines - assault theirs.

What tough units are there in the game that can survive though? Even Magnus in his prime could easily be gunned down and he was IMO the most durable unit in the game. I am struggling to think of anything in my Tzeentch/Thousand sons army that I can use for this kind of purpose and I am drawing a blank really. These alpha strike lists didn't become popular because they could kill lots of stuff. They became popular because having half your army in reserve was the only way to not get shot off the board turn one. If you got lucky and got turn one you could bring your entire army to bear. This edition is just too killy IMO for this rule to exist. If all weapons were limited to 24-inch range on the first turn it could work but as it is right now I think the IG parking lot is going to be start crushing some hopes and dreams.

Doesn't it take most of the longrange shooting from most lists to drop Magnus in 1 turn?

You may need to piece trade. But there shouldn't be an individual unit in the open that a full, 2k point gunline *can't* bring down in one turn. At least not short of a Titan.

If at 2k your list stops working when a 445 point is destroyed. You either need to rework the list or think how you're gna make said model survive.

The Salt Mine wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.

Hard to say if that part comes true, but I think he's basically saying that tougher things will be on the table. Softer things will be in deepstrike. There is less worry about certain direct counters to those tougher things, because deepstrikers won't interfere. And then we you've repositioned you can go tit for tat with deepstrikers - cover your own lines - assault theirs.

What tough units are there in the game that can survive though? Even Magnus in his prime could easily be gunned down and he was IMO the most durable unit in the game. I am struggling to think of anything in my Tzeentch/Thousand sons army that I can use for this kind of purpose and I am drawing a blank really. These alpha strike lists didn't become popular because they could kill lots of stuff. They became popular because having half your army in reserve was the only way to not get shot off the board turn one. If you got lucky and got turn one you could bring your entire army to bear. This edition is just too killy IMO for this rule to exist. If all weapons were limited to 24-inch range on the first turn it could work but as it is right now I think the IG parking lot is going to be start crushing some hopes and dreams.

A unit of 3 prophets of flesh taloi take about 45 shots from Dark Reapers or 33 from lascannons to bring down on average. That's pretty tough for ~300 points and you can take 3 units of 3 if you want.

The Salt Mine wrote:

What tough units are there in the game that can survive though? Even Magnus in his prime could easily be gunned down and he was IMO the most durable unit in the game. I am struggling to think of anything in my Tzeentch/Thousand sons army that I can use for this kind of purpose and I am drawing a blank really. These alpha strike lists didn't become popular because they could kill lots of stuff. They became popular because having half your army in reserve was the only way to not get shot off the board turn one. If you got lucky and got turn one you could bring your entire army to bear. This edition is just too killy IMO for this rule to exist. If all weapons were limited to 24-inch range on the first turn it could work but as it is right now I think the IG parking lot is going to be start crushing some hopes and dreams.

Rubric marines are a rock in cover. And now that you don't have to worry about DS you can potentially deploy them forward.
Magnus is not as weak as people make him out to be and now, again, with no plasma to deepstrike him they have to rely on lascannons/bc/etc. If you deploy him last you can position to reduce their weapon coverage on him considerably.

It is false that people were using deepstrike to guard their list. Deepstrike gave the fastest avenue to effectively placing units.

You might be right about IG, but we will have to wait and see.

Deepstriike is a mechanic where you can place your unit wherever you want without needing to worry about deployment or maneuvering it, and with strategems and other abilities allowed you to even charge (reliably).

That mechanic removes any thought out of the game other than target priority, placing the unit where you want, and then just going through the motions of rolling dice.

The game can (and should) be so much more than that.

 lolman1c wrote:
I fought many armies that sat at the back of the feild and outright destroyed my entire army by turn 2 (no joke... every single unit was killed by turn 2). These kind of armies don't care about objectives and will continue to dominate the casual scene. I think the majority of players need to understand that most lists can be beaten by a tournament style list but a cheesy list in a casual game is often unbeatable by fluffy armies.

This is, in my mind, what gw needs to fix. So far, me and my friends have just been getting the short ends of the stick from all these "fixes" by having fluffy lists.

The game can only marginally represent the fluff.....the fluff is too extreme and is not quantifiable. If you're getting destroyed by turn 2 it sounds like : 1. The board doesn't have enough cover 2. You are deploying your army in an extremely ineffective way that's advantageous to your opponent 3. You're trying to beat an army's strengths with your weaknesses.

It doesn't sound like you're playing with casual players or maybe the problem is your tactics....it's a lot easier to blame the other guy and say it's OP than take a hard look at where you can and need to improve


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 rhinoceraids wrote:
People have a tenancy to become drama queens when it comes to any FAQ. While at the same time be unable to create improved rules that are simple.

The sky is not falling. Deep strike is still fine. Im happy they dealt with spam and soup lists.

Ah yes everything is magically right because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP that implemented rule that has numerous times actually failed to create balance and just made it worse.

Think about that a second. Identical rule others have tried numerous time that keeps failing to bring balance and now just because it\s GAMES WORKSHOP who implements it it\s going to work?

Sorry but name Games Workshop doesn't have magical powers in it.

These beta rules are like decades old idea. Never worked before. Won't work just because it's Games Workshop that decided for it. You might believe in santa clause and magical fairies but I believe in actual empirical data. Which has shown these rules to be bad idea despite so many different variations being attempted. Already tried and failed idea won't become magically working just because Games Workshop decides to join the club of repeated failures.

So far as I know 8th edition has never been created until now so the implementation of these new rules in the current addition has never been done in the past. It sounds like you've just drawn your own conclusions prior to any data at all.....most likely because you don't like the new rules implemented because you'll have to change your tactics. Only time will tell if the rules improve the meta or not and we certainly haven't had enough time or games to determine this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimgold wrote:
Read the article, it's nice to see someone taking a more measured approach to evaluating the FAQ. With that said I think he is a little too optimistic on games getting longer, in very competitive venues game length is tightly constrained and I doubt that will change because alpha strike has been blunted.

I suppose he meant that games would be competitive for longer, and I think I can get behind the point. Alpha strikes are meant to snowball you, Drop in kill a quarter of your opponents army, and then he only has 1500 points left to hit you back with. Next turn you lengthen out your lead by killing more, and he can kill even less in return. Your opponent never catches up, and while the game might go on for a few more turns, it was won in a single phase.

That's why everyone is complaining though......they're whining because now their "one and done" tactic doesn't work and allow them to pummel their opponent over and over from the first turn on.

SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.

He doesn't.

To Nick Nanavati, gunlines didn't really exist in the meta he was factoring for. The high damage he's referring to comes from alpha strike deep strike assault/short range shooting.

I think it's important to note WHY gunlines don't exist - in part because they can't play the objectives well in ITC/Adepticon/NOVA.

Perhaps some factors will change enough to let them seep in, but we'll have to wait and see.

Exactly - he plays a 3-4 turn game. That ends because time runs out 50% of the time.
Everyone else not playing at a tournament game - plays a 6-7 turn game but someone is usually tabled by turn 4-5 - so objectives usually don't matter.

So just put that in perspective - how different a game that is. Why the F should we balance the game based on that? 99% of games aren't played at tournaments with a BS time limit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.

Not so sure that is true - troops are unaffected - SOB best unit is a troop.

 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.

Correction: the 5 sisters players who went out about bought 60 Stormbolter models for the Dominion spam lists just got nerfed.

And maybe the 2 who played the canoness party.

A lot of lists I saw didn't involve 6 Dominion squads, usually in the 2-4 range instead, and that last squad could easily do something else.

I also think Sisters are an army that benefits greatly from allies at higher points because at a certain point value, your lists usually become saturated with things like Dominions... and that simply devalues ALL of them by a little (diminishing returns?) since they're more-or-less balanced.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.

Correction: the 5 sisters players who went out about bought 60 Stormbolter models for the Dominion spam lists just got nerfed.

And maybe the 2 who played the canoness party.

A lot of lists I saw didn't involve 6 Dominion squads, usually in the 2-4 range instead, and that last squad could easily do something else.

I also think Sisters are an army that benefits greatly from allies at higher points because at a certain point value, your lists usually become saturated with things like Dominions... and that simply devalues ALL of them by a little (diminishing returns?) since they're more-or-less balanced.

This kind of nerf or restriction is highly welcome.
After all, it should be a game where armies consist of troops in the first place.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Exactly - he plays a 3-4 turn game. That ends because time runs out 50% of the time.
Everyone else not playing at a tournament game - plays a 6-7 turn game but someone is usually tabled by turn 4-5 - so objectives usually don't matter.

So just put that in perspective - how different a game that is. Why the F should we balance the game based on that? 99% of games aren't played at tournaments with a BS time limit.

Why? Because A) gunlines are MORE successful in poorly constructed missions and B) he states that the new rules allowed him to go to turn 5/6 instead of the usual 3/4.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.

Correction: the 5 sisters players who went out about bought 60 Stormbolter models for the Dominion spam lists just got nerfed.

And maybe the 2 who played the canoness party.

A lot of lists I saw didn't involve 6 Dominion squads, usually in the 2-4 range instead, and that last squad could easily do something else.

I also think Sisters are an army that benefits greatly from allies at higher points because at a certain point value, your lists usually become saturated with things like Dominions... and that simply devalues ALL of them by a little (diminishing returns?) since they're more-or-less balanced.

Armies shouldn't NEED allies.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Exactly - he plays a 3-4 turn game. That ends because time runs out 50% of the time.
Everyone else not playing at a tournament game - plays a 6-7 turn game but someone is usually tabled by turn 4-5 - so objectives usually don't matter.

So just put that in perspective - how different a game that is. Why the F should we balance the game based on that? 99% of games aren't played at tournaments with a BS time limit.

Why? Because A) gunlines are MORE successful in poorly constructed missions and B) he states that the new rules allowed him to go to turn 5/6 instead of the usual 3/4.

BS - the games length with be the same because it is based on time in the tournament scene. If you somehow think removing deep-strike (which is a damage ramp) will somehow make the game go faster - you just don't understand the game very much. Also - from my experience - I know - nothing takes longer to play than a gun line with lots of gun.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.

Correction: the 5 sisters players who went out about bought 60 Stormbolter models for the Dominion spam lists just got nerfed.

And maybe the 2 who played the canoness party.

A lot of lists I saw didn't involve 6 Dominion squads, usually in the 2-4 range instead, and that last squad could easily do something else.

I also think Sisters are an army that benefits greatly from allies at higher points because at a certain point value, your lists usually become saturated with things like Dominions... and that simply devalues ALL of them by a little (diminishing returns?) since they're more-or-less balanced.

Armies shouldn't NEED allies.

Shouldn't need allies to win in tournaments, or shouldn't need allies period?

I'm perfectly fine with the fact some armies are never going to win a tournament. That's only a measure of how well your Codex can produce a TAAC list, and how well it can be optimized to a specific mission pack.

 Xenomancers wrote:


BS - the games length with be the same because it is based on time in the tournament scene. If you somehow think removing deep-strike (which is a damage ramp) will somehow make the game go faster - you just don't understand the game very much. Also - from my experience - I know - nothing takes longer to play than a gun line with lots of gun.

I didn't state that he was fully correct. Just that he claimed his games went faster.

Regardless...bad missions = gun lines win.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.

He doesn't.

To Nick Nanavati, gunlines didn't really exist in the meta he was factoring for. The high damage he's referring to comes from alpha strike deep strike assault/short range shooting.

His LVO list was a basic gunline (reaperspam with buffing characters) with outliers to deal damage (spears).

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.

Correction: the 5 sisters players who went out about bought 60 Stormbolter models for the Dominion spam lists just got nerfed.
And maybe the 2 who played the canoness party.
A lot of lists I saw didn't involve 6 Dominion squads, usually in the 2-4 range instead, and that last squad could easily do something else.

I also think Sisters are an army that benefits greatly from allies at higher points because at a certain point value, your lists usually become saturated with things like Dominions... and that simply devalues ALL of them by a little (diminishing returns?) since they're more-or-less balanced.

Most lists used 4 or 6 dominions because it filled out the transports properly. SoB was hit fairly hard because we don't have that many units to start, and of those units there's not that many which are competitive. You can still stick 2x5 chicks with 6 storm bolters in the same repressor and shoot out the same way. We just miss out on our scout move which was our bread and butter since we have no deep striking.

 wuestenfux wrote:
This kind of nerf or restriction is highly welcome.
After all, it should be a game where armies consist of troops in the first place.

Why? What makes troops so holier than other units? Furthermore, if troops were so important, why are there 3 detachments that let you completely bypass them? Several of your previous posts keep comparing 40k to 30k. SM mirror matches are not what 40k should be.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm still confused as to how he thinks gunlines will have trouble doing exactly as much damage as they always did.

He doesn't.

To Nick Nanavati, gunlines didn't really exist in the meta he was factoring for. The high damage he's referring to comes from alpha strike deep strike assault/short range shooting.

I think it's important to note WHY gunlines don't exist - in part because they can't play the objectives well in ITC/Adepticon/NOVA.

Perhaps some factors will change enough to let them seep in, but we'll have to wait and see.

Exactly - he plays a 3-4 turn game. That ends because time runs out 50% of the time.
Everyone else not playing at a tournament game - plays a 6-7 turn game but someone is usually tabled by turn 4-5 - so objectives usually don't matter.

So just put that in perspective - how different a game that is. Why the F should we balance the game based on that? 99% of games aren't played at tournaments with a BS time limit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.

Not so sure that is true - troops are unaffected - SOB best unit is a troop.

So even using your example that 50% of the games he plays don't go the full length then logically 50% do. Considering he most likely plays at least (if not far more) then 10x the amount of games a normal player does then this rule change ends up affecting far more games per week/year or whatever way you want to measure it. Add this to the fact that the tournament scene is moving to chess clocks he will be forced to finish the vast majority of games if he ever wants to be a champion again, so I would imagine the use of clocks will force him to finish 90% if not 100% of his games if he wants to be champion (he will lose if he doesn't finish). So this change actually is going to have a huge effect on him and if will have to do with the full number of rounds played.

Now personally I'm of the opinion that balance is good for both casual and competitive play, as what is good in competitive play tends to be just as good if not better in a more casual environment. Balancing the game should theoretically help all players play a more fun and balanced matchup regardless of their outlook on the game. But I'm a bit confused if you are playing purely casual and want nothing to do with evil "WAAC competitive players" then why are you even going to use the beta rules? Why not just play without the rules you guys don't like? If you have no desire to ever play a tournament or in a competitive at all enviroment why even use the matched play rules?

I agree that the Rule of Three is hamfisted and it will need more adjustements to make it work.

But I disagree with the notion that the game should led you take what amount of units you want. Not with the fact that a game can permit that, I have 0 problems with spam, but with the notion from a gaming design standpoint that limiting units is bad.

Theres a reason card games normally only allow you to take 2, 3 or 4 copies of the same card. Hearthstone for example has a limit of 2 copies of each card, 1 for legendaries.
You could say "But why can't I have 5 Loathebs?! Thats because he is just OP, so they only allow me to have one!" and... thats a legitimate gaming design decision. To have some units/cards/options be powerfull but limited in use or number.

Thats what GW (Intended) to do with named characters. Powerfull individual units with unique habilities that are "balanced" by the fact that you can only use one. Of course, thats the theory and in reality they where normally or just very bad or just so powerfull that did make all their respective generalistic options irrelevant. But the theory was absolutely fine. They failed at the time of implementation.

The same happens with the 0-3 Rule.

I don't think tournament players are evil. I just acknowledge they are playing a very different game than I am. I'm not talking about lists - I more or less play the same kinds of lists. I'm talking about victory conditions.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think tournament players are evil. I just acknowledge they are playing a very different game than I am. I'm not talking about lists - I more or less play the same kinds of lists. I'm talking about victory conditions.

Right and I think everyone should play closer to ITC style than anything. CA missions represent some of that dynamic.

I can't say you're playing the game wrong, but there needs to be some realization that Dawn of War and shoot (not saying you do that) is not a good game state.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think tournament players are evil. I just acknowledge they are playing a very different game than I am. I'm not talking about lists - I more or less play the same kinds of lists. I'm talking about victory conditions.

So the only difference in your play vs top tournament players is the victory condition dependent on the game type? why not just play a tournament packet set of games? Even though if your gaming group is using all the same lists then you will most likely see the same changes he is (which he thinks are healthy for the game). Once again though if its really such a big deal and your not playing competitively anyway why would you guys just not use the beta rules?

"Dawn of War and shoot (not saying you do that) is not a good game state."

Totally agree on all counts. I am not a fan of maelstrom but I realize it is for fun for the beer & pretzel crowd.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
SoB got nerfed pretty hard by the rule of 3. All 5 of us are upset.

Correction: the 5 sisters players who went out about bought 60 Stormbolter models for the Dominion spam lists just got nerfed.

And maybe the 2 who played the canoness party.

A lot of lists I saw didn't involve 6 Dominion squads, usually in the 2-4 range instead, and that last squad could easily do something else.

I also think Sisters are an army that benefits greatly from allies at higher points because at a certain point value, your lists usually become saturated with things like Dominions... and that simply devalues ALL of them by a little (diminishing returns?) since they're more-or-less balanced.

Armies shouldn't NEED allies.

Shouldn't need allies to win in tournaments, or shouldn't need allies period?

I'm perfectly fine with the fact some armies are never going to win a tournament. That's only a measure of how well your Codex can produce a TAAC list, and how well it can be optimized to a specific mission pack.

Are we inventing a new "AAC"? Peregrine, is that you?

"Tactics At All Costs" - jerky, obnoxious players who insist upon building their lists such that they can achieve objectives and win missions for the express purpose of oppressing the poor, disadvantaged point-and-click players.

punisher357 wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Read the article, it's nice to see someone taking a more measured approach to evaluating the FAQ. With that said I think he is a little too optimistic on games getting longer, in very competitive venues game length is tightly constrained and I doubt that will change because alpha strike has been blunted.

I suppose he meant that games would be competitive for longer, and I think I can get behind the point. Alpha strikes are meant to snowball you, Drop in kill a quarter of your opponents army, and then he only has 1500 points left to hit you back with. Next turn you lengthen out your lead by killing more, and he can kill even less in return. Your opponent never catches up, and while the game might go on for a few more turns, it was won in a single phase.

That's why everyone is complaining though......they're whining because now their "one and done" tactic doesn't work and allow them to pummel their opponent over and over from the first turn on.

It's one of the amusing oddities of our time that 4chan /tg/ is less salty than dakka. As for the reason for the salt, I'm not sure if they are angry about the loss of one and done, if it has indeed been lost. With exceptions like marmatag who thinks the game should only last three turns (or less), I would think most people enjoy competitive games that go the distance as opposed to one sided blowouts, so I don't think that's why. If I had to pick a reason why so many otherwise sane and rational dakkanaughts are up in arms about the FAQ I'd blame a hype backlash. The FAQ was slow to come out, which lead to a long hype cycle, However GW didn't even give so much as a hint as to what would be covered. This left people to speculation as to what was in the FAQ, because everyone has bugbears in the rules they want addressed. Then people argued, got entrenched in their ideas about what was going into the FAQ, and when the FAQ didn't match what they thought the FAQ would be like, they raged.

The issues that people fought about before the FAQ, like spam restriction, are the very issues people are saltiest about after the FAQ, because no one like being wrong. Rather than thinking "Maybe my reasoning was wrong" they think "GW has not a clue how to balance". I wish people would just question their own infallibility and watch how the rules interact with the meta before coming here to rage, but then this is the internet.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think tournament players are evil. I just acknowledge they are playing a very different game than I am. I'm not talking about lists - I more or less play the same kinds of lists. I'm talking about victory conditions.

Right and I think everyone should play closer to ITC style than anything. CA missions represent some of that dynamic.

I can't say you're playing the game wrong, but there needs to be some realization that Dawn of War and shoot (not saying you do that) is not a good game state.

We roll for CA missions - the way the rules tell us to. The game ends when there are no models left on the table or when a random dice tells its over - like the rules tell us. For a 2000 point game - we have between 12-15 med/large peices of terrain placed randomly - some block LOS - some are more area terrain. Objectives almost never come into play.

No where in the rulebook does it say the game is over at 2:30 - no where in the rulebook does it say the first level of a building blocks LOS. No where in the rulebook are you rewarded more points for destroying a 20 man unit over a 19 man unit. IMO - I am playing the game the way it's supposed to be played - they are making up rules at tournaments. Those made up rules should not supersede the actual rules from a balance perspective.