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.

Why not change the beta rules to only allow DS in turn one when you are the second player? This would make sure you eat one rouind of shooting not two

amanwing wrote:
Why not change the beta rules to only allow DS in turn one when you are the second player? This would make sure you eat one rouind of shooting not two

you shoot at what they don't care about hiding out of LOS, and the alpha strike hits just as hard coming down anyway. That being said, the PL changes may have been enuogh

 SHUPPET wrote:

amanwing wrote:
Why not change the beta rules to only allow DS in turn one when you are the second player? This would make sure you eat one rouind of shooting not two

you shoot at what they don't care about hiding out of LOS, and the alpha strike hits just as hard coming down anyway. That being said, the PL changes may have been enuogh

It may make sense not to alpha strike turn 1 a lot too. After turn one the thing you really want to hit may have been moved to where you can get a better shot. Just my 2 cents for those who feel burned, which I can understand and not judging.

How do people use paladins or terminators with the change, it seems to be impossible to build a list in a such a way that it has half its points on the board and doesn't die turn 1, and has strong enough deep strike to actually use its stormbolters at shorter range?

Are there something like stratagems for GK that let them deep strike turn 1, or something like that?

It's easy to cheat the system. Just make your strike squads into 6 men units rather than the usual 5. It takes them from PL7 to PL14. An entire unit of 10 paladins is PL 32. So if you take 3 strike squads you more than balance out the paladins for deep strike purposes.

I have only one strike squad and it is 5 model strong, most of my army is made out of 15 terminators/paladins. I thought there was some way to make them deep strike without the rule being in effect. It makes it harder to use my army, and it is not like it was easy before.

Take 1 Termie Squad of 6 = 26PL + 1 strike squad of 5 = 7PL. Then use your remaining 9 Paladins = 32PL. Just remember that if you have any special weapons to distribute them properly (1 in the Termies max, 2 in the paladins max).

Play with more terrain. There, fixed.

Northern85Star wrote:
Play with more terrain. There, fixed.

Best comment of the day.

Can't beat Tau because of their gunline and ignores LOS and cover weapons? Add More Terrain
Having problems assaulting because short range fire power is killing your troops? Add More Terrain
Tournaments don't have enough terrain and you keep losing? Add More Terrain!

It is almost like we have heard that same ridiculous comment a million times.

SemperMortis wrote:

Northern85Star wrote:
Play with more terrain. There, fixed.

Best comment of the day.

Can't beat Tau because of their gunline and ignores LOS and cover weapons? Add More Terrain
Having problems assaulting because short range fire power is killing your troops? Add More Terrain
Tournaments don't have enough terrain and you keep losing? Add More Terrain!

It is almost like we have heard that same ridiculous comment a million times.

It’s like adding a band aid to a sucking chest wound.... pointless

Infantry can move through walls of ruins, cancelling overwatch. So you should make sure to play with ruins.

As to Tau, they’re not in my meta (luckily, from the batreps i’ve seen they look like the most boring army to play against).

As for tournaments.. well, if you’re going there, it is to WAAC. Pick another army.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Make matched play use the Night Fight rules. There, all but 1 of your units is now -3 to hit. Hurts Gunlines, buffs assault and close range firefight armies and lowers first turn alpha strike.

That sounds like a much better idea.

Northern85Star wrote:
Play with more terrain. There, fixed.

Most of the armies I play against move too fast for terrain to matter. Plus terrain doesn't help much they can see me through doors and windows anyway.

Some rules like ITC's don't allow for openings on the ground floor of a building. As such you can't shoot through the buildings into a unit of troops that are behind/within it.

From the ITC packet:
In ITC events using any missions, the following modification to Ruins type terrain should be used: Ruins: For this event, the bottom level walls of all ruins are considered to block LoS even if they do not actually do so. This means existing openings in them such as those created by windows, doors, bullet holes, etc. block LoS. This rule does not mean the players create walls where none existed. If in doubt as to where to define these barriers, clarify with your opponent before the game begins.

Yeah, i always play ITC. It is more balanced, which makes for more exciting games. None of that lucky card draws.

That means all bottom floor walls block LOS, even if they have holes - and infantry can move through walls and floors, which boosts them. It also makes games smoother.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
... it also means that first turn advance is countered by the second player knowing exactly how many units or objectives he needs to win the battleround.

I love that people criticize GW for bad terrain rules, and then give an example of ITC having better terrain rules.

The ITC rules say the same thing as GW: "Agree with your opponent before the game."

Because in order to dick over their rule, just say "I am in doubt about where to define these barriers" about every single hole in every single wall, and you're back to "discuss with your opponent when the game starts." - which is GW's rule. A dickish opponent is going to be a dickish opponent anywhere there is ambiguity, and considering Terrain from 40k can be anything from leaves & gravel grabbed outside to 60" high Hive City walls on a floor-apocalypse board, there's always going to be tons of ambiguity.

The terrain rules should really say "don't play dickish opponents".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I love that people criticize GW for bad terrain rules, and then give an example of ITC having better terrain rules.

The ITC rules say the same thing as GW: "Agree with your opponent before the game."

Because in order to dick over their rule, just say "I am in doubt about where to define these barriers" about every single hole in every single wall, and you're back to "discuss with your opponent when the game starts." - which is GW's rule. A dickish opponent is going to be a dickish opponent anywhere there is ambiguity, and considering Terrain from 40k can be anything from leaves & gravel grabbed outside to 60" high Hive City walls on a floor-apocalypse board, there's always going to be tons of ambiguity.

The terrain rules should really say "don't play dickish opponents".

This is a theory argument and doesn't come up.

The ITC terrain series is very well constructed for tournaments, should any store use it. Major GTs hosted or sponsored by ITC will.

Some RTs have funky terrain, but any store that wants a 40k presence invests in making functional terrain. Simple foam like the London GT would do honestly for a competitive environment.

And the ITC absolutely does have better terrain rules. Remember, their terrain setup is bog-standard and the rules for the terrain make sense in the context of 8th.

There really isn't ambiguity unless you try to force it, and you won't win the argument, just make an unpleasant gaming experience.

EDIT:

For those interested, they sell this terrain for home use. It's laser-cut wood and comes in packs that are pre-arranged to match a tournament setup. Including the mat it's relatively inexpensive. The terrain itself is actually decent quality, it's that laser cut wood and has some weight to it. In a general sense it's good to play with terrain that is approved for tournament use. That way you have a good frame of reference for understanding the majority of balance discussions, and can increase or decrease your terrain level as you see fit from there. It would make the discussion easier, too, if you have genuine ideas about terrain vs balance. For example, "I added two L-shaped buildings to the bog-standard setup and it really improved XXX".