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.

 Galas wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Meh no top army functioned around turn 1 deepstrike, if you watched top players with BA it was mostly turn 2 after screens had been shot up. It hurts deepstrike shooting armies more than assault. Even then it isn’t awful unless you plan was keep 90% of you points off the table and hope not to die.

Even if that were the case (which it wasn't), the state of the game will now revolve around who has the biggest Imperial Guard parking lot. Turn 2 deepstriking isn't awful, it's just irrelevant.

You see to confident in your own opinion to, based in 0 playtesting and feedback and a big FAQ to the core rules of the game, give an categorical premonition of how the meta will shake when players with much more experience than you, and tournament players, are in general keeping their feet on the ground, and avoiding making such statements.

Critical thinking is impossible, unless you're GW, or a tournament player (which btw anyone who entered a tournament at least once in their life qualifies as a "tournament player" ).

No, it's not hard to realize that giving a shooting army what amounts go essential a free round of movement AND shooting WILL shift the game in that direction.

Consider two 2000 point armies - one goes 2000 points of shooting and screens, and the other goes for 1000/1000 Shooting/Deepstrike; the first list will be able to bring all its 2000 points of guns to bear on the first 1000 points of the enemy during the first round, whereas the second list has to play with half its army (hoping they don't get wiped out entirely) for the first 1/2 turns [dependent on who won the first turn, the full army, or the half/half]. And then when the second 1000 points DO arrive, the enemies screens will have had an opportunity to advance forward, denying space and meaning that the opponent has to get THAT much further before they can do anything.

But, again - it's impossible to evaluate a game, unless you're GW, or a tournament player. Speaking of Galas, what tournaments have you played in again, and what place did you come in? Per your own rules, are you allowed to have any input on the state of the game, and the effects of these changes, if the answer to those questions are - "I haven't played/placed in any tournaments."?

fe40k wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Meh no top army functioned around turn 1 deepstrike, if you watched top players with BA it was mostly turn 2 after screens had been shot up. It hurts deepstrike shooting armies more than assault. Even then it isn’t awful unless you plan was keep 90% of you points off the table and hope not to die.

Even if that were the case (which it wasn't), the state of the game will now revolve around who has the biggest Imperial Guard parking lot. Turn 2 deepstriking isn't awful, it's just irrelevant.

You see to confident in your own opinion to, based in 0 playtesting and feedback and a big FAQ to the core rules of the game, give an categorical premonition of how the meta will shake when players with much more experience than you, and tournament players, are in general keeping their feet on the ground, and avoiding making such statements.

Critical thinking is impossible, unless you're GW, or a tournament player (which btw anyone who entered a tournament at least once in their life qualifies as a "tournament player" ).

No, it's not hard to realize that giving a shooting army what amounts go essential a free round of movement AND shooting WILL shift the game in that direction.
[...]
But, again - it's impossible to evaluate a game, unless you're GW, or a tournament player. Speaking of Galas, what tournaments have you played in again, and what place did you come in? Per your own rules, are you allowed to have any input on the state of the game, and the effects of these changes, if the answer to those questions are - "I haven't played/placed in any tournaments."?

Nice strawman you have here. Thats exactly what I said, yeah. Nobody can analise the game unless they are GW or tournament players.

And no, I don't play in big tournaments, thats exactly the reason I avoid to make such statements as the one Fafnir did.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with that is that theme does not take balance into account. Plenty of people ran a ton of Jetbikes last edition, that can be fluffy it doesn’t make it balanced. As for why not address things one at a time the reason is simple they are not releasing FAQs more than twice a year and so restricting only a few things just leads to the next best spam and a situation where people continually buy stuff only to have it restricted later. It is better for consumers to know they cannot use 5 of something, rather than buying 5 and having it take away. Want to run a ton of RW bikes take 3 max squads, some characters and black knights you’ll get to 2k fast. Same with Eldar Jetbikes, take max size squads. If the reason you want to do something is fluff then it should not concern you that your army is less efficient. Want to run pure Kabal well run a brigade, or only 1 battalion and a vanguard etc. you’ll have. 9 CP.

I said before specific limits would be better, however given the choice between everything 0-3 and like 3 units in the game 0-3. I’ll take the former. While I appreciate the fact that th you will be continually adjusting as a consumer I’d prefer going big now and then making tweaks later to doing things one at a time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also important to note, that 0-3 is a suggested organized play rule. So guys playing for fluff and not caring about balance need not use it.

And you could have fixed the Jetbike issue last edition with a few tweaks instead of doing a blanket limit. How cool is that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
I larg my agree it was one of the things I liked about the old FOC or even more so the old Fantasy % based system, where armies had a core and then special and rare units to support that core. Now the thing that should happen is the core should be different from army to army to give them distinct flavor. The issue in modern 40k is that allies go against the idea of factions having strengths and weaknesses. I think this could have been worked around but would require a re-write to do. As it is not factions don’t really have a lot of identity anymore.

Nobody here wants to play Warhammer Fantasy In Space.

Sure you could have tweaked bikes to disappearing from the competitive meta. Just like other balance fixes through points have largely done.

And I’m glad you speak for everyone in the community good to know. That is ignoring the fact of course that similar limits on list building =\= the same gameplay. But sure we’ll go with your keen assessment of how everyone feels.

You can tweak bikes to not be an auto-include but not bad if you aren't lazy. This is pure laziness.

You could've made them 4+ armor
You could've made the Scatterlaser 15 points
You could've tweaked with the minimum squad size being 4 or 5



You don't even always have to do points! You're defending laziness.

And maybe all of those together would have worked to make them something people don’t take. Any one still makes them an auto take in the old Eldar. Preventative measures aren’t inherently lazy. The game cannot really function well with what you call not lazy fixes. Because if they don’t work then spam still occurs. Or say those fixes work but the next thing down the efficiency line gets taken instead. What you view as lazy I view as more stable. You can much more easily back off in areas where needed, or tweak units in a limited environment.

Breng77 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with that is that theme does not take balance into account. Plenty of people ran a ton of Jetbikes last edition, that can be fluffy it doesn’t make it balanced. As for why not address things one at a time the reason is simple they are not releasing FAQs more than twice a year and so restricting only a few things just leads to the next best spam and a situation where people continually buy stuff only to have it restricted later. It is better for consumers to know they cannot use 5 of something, rather than buying 5 and having it take away. Want to run a ton of RW bikes take 3 max squads, some characters and black knights you’ll get to 2k fast. Same with Eldar Jetbikes, take max size squads. If the reason you want to do something is fluff then it should not concern you that your army is less efficient. Want to run pure Kabal well run a brigade, or only 1 battalion and a vanguard etc. you’ll have. 9 CP.

I said before specific limits would be better, however given the choice between everything 0-3 and like 3 units in the game 0-3. I’ll take the former. While I appreciate the fact that th you will be continually adjusting as a consumer I’d prefer going big now and then making tweaks later to doing things one at a time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also important to note, that 0-3 is a suggested organized play rule. So guys playing for fluff and not caring about balance need not use it.

And you could have fixed the Jetbike issue last edition with a few tweaks instead of doing a blanket limit. How cool is that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
I larg my agree it was one of the things I liked about the old FOC or even more so the old Fantasy % based system, where armies had a core and then special and rare units to support that core. Now the thing that should happen is the core should be different from army to army to give them distinct flavor. The issue in modern 40k is that allies go against the idea of factions having strengths and weaknesses. I think this could have been worked around but would require a re-write to do. As it is not factions don’t really have a lot of identity anymore.

Nobody here wants to play Warhammer Fantasy In Space.

Sure you could have tweaked bikes to disappearing from the competitive meta. Just like other balance fixes through points have largely done.

And I’m glad you speak for everyone in the community good to know. That is ignoring the fact of course that similar limits on list building =\= the same gameplay. But sure we’ll go with your keen assessment of how everyone feels.

You can tweak bikes to not be an auto-include but not bad if you aren't lazy. This is pure laziness.

You could've made them 4+ armor
You could've made the Scatterlaser 15 points
You could've tweaked with the minimum squad size being 4 or 5



You don't even always have to do points! You're defending laziness.

And maybe all of those together would have worked to make them something people don’t take. Any one still makes them an auto take in the old Eldar. Preventative measures aren’t inherently lazy. The game cannot really function well with what you call not lazy fixes. Because if they don’t work then spam still occurs. Or say those fixes work but the next thing down the efficiency line gets taken instead. What you view as lazy I view as more stable. You can much more easily back off in areas where needed, or tweak units in a limited environment.

You'd only have needed two of those for a unit that would be taken or not depending on what the player wanted.

That said they were in the TROOP slot! Look at that!

So let's assume they kept basically every goodie they got from 7th. They would have remained untouched as the king troop choice.

So either you actually fix the issues with the unit, or you can be lazy with a blanket limit. Blanket limits won't stop people from taking the minimum troop choices or make them suddenly use bad units for "variety".

 Galas wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Meh no top army functioned around turn 1 deepstrike, if you watched top players with BA it was mostly turn 2 after screens had been shot up. It hurts deepstrike shooting armies more than assault. Even then it isn’t awful unless you plan was keep 90% of you points off the table and hope not to die.

Even if that were the case (which it wasn't), the state of the game will now revolve around who has the biggest Imperial Guard parking lot. Turn 2 deepstriking isn't awful, it's just irrelevant.

You see to confident in your own opinion to, based in 0 playtesting and feedback and a big FAQ to the core rules of the game, give an categorical premonition of how the meta will shake when players with much more experience than you, and tournament players, are in general keeping their feet on the ground, and avoiding making such statements.

Army is significantly powerful.

Its checks and counters get significantly nerfed.

This isn't rocket science.

There are definitely a lot of times where issues are very complex and nuanced, and require a lot of time to consider. This is likely not going to be one of those (although based on GW's track record dealing with the obvious, it's not surprising either).

Guard parking lot still has plenty of counters in the game -1 to big armies for instance. Also things that still bring forward pressure. Seriously turn 1 deepstrike was not a counter to any good guard build played competently. Maybe with poor pilots who don’t screen well, but against those that did it was already not a counter. Personally I would have liked the deepstrike restriction only on the first turn (not battle round), as that would give both players the option to respond to it prior to it happening and lessen the value of going first. My hopes is that come CA, this is the change we see to the beta rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guard parking lot still has plenty of counters in the game -1 to big armies for instance. Also things that still bring forward pressure. Seriously turn 1 deepstrike was not a counter to any good guard build played competently. Maybe with poor pilots who don’t screen well, but against those that did it was already not a counter. Personally I would have liked the deepstrike restriction only on the first turn (not battle round), as that would give both players the option to respond to it prior to it happening and lessen the value of going first. My hopes is that come CA, this is the change we see to the beta rule.

Breng77 wrote:
Guard parking lot still has plenty of counters in the game -1 to big armies for instance. Also things that still bring forward pressure. Seriously turn 1 deepstrike was not a counter to any good guard build played competently. Maybe with poor pilots who don’t screen well, but against those that did it was already not a counter. Personally I would have liked the deepstrike restriction only on the first turn (not battle round), as that would give both players the option to respond to it prior to it happening and lessen the value of going first. My hopes is that come CA, this is the change we see to the beta rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guard parking lot still has plenty of counters in the game -1 to big armies for instance. Also things that still bring forward pressure. Seriously turn 1 deepstrike was not a counter to any good guard build played competently. Maybe with poor pilots who don’t screen well, but against those that did it was already not a counter. Personally I would have liked the deepstrike restriction only on the first turn (not battle round), as that would give both players the option to respond to it prior to it happening and lessen the value of going first. My hopes is that come CA, this is the change we see to the beta rule.

Your a smart man.

Eldar still have plenty of -1 to hit, Alpha Legion CSM has plenty of -1 to hit... theres a lot of -hit shenanigans in this game. It forces people to take more than one approach to the battle.

Yup, there is a bunch of -1 to hit (Eldar, Tau, Marines, Dark angels with dark shroud, Tau ghost keels, stealth suits, all flyers.). FNP mechanics also help especially on hordes. Turn 1 assaults also still exist (GSC, Kracken Nids, alpha legion berserkers, Ravenguard; White scars or raven wing bikers among others, Ork bikes, Celestine, Eldar shining spears ).

The thing that first turn deepstrike had that these don’t is little to no way to damage those units regardless of who goes first, which does have value, but I still feel it is generally better after the screen is dead.