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.

Dandelion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG would beat pre-faq ba in deployment. It's just not efficient chewing through 4 point models.

This change has not really affected flyrants or scions nearly as badly. They can easily afford to wait a turn because the rest of their list is doing work

So the real problem is that the rest of your codex is garbage? And that guardsmen are too cheap? Those can still be addressed down the road.

Yes, I admit the first turn deep strike thing was just an end-around to these problems.

 peteralmo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Well, Drukhari get 15 disintegrator on super fast vehicles alpha now. So, I guess I get to just die now.

Why 15 disintegrators? That's only 5 ravagers, a single spearhead can fit 6 for 18 disintegrators lol.

Raiders can take them. So can Razorwings. It's an exteremely powerful weapon even if it was properly priced because it has all the good stuff. Str 5 is one of the most efficient strengths ap-3 is perfect 2d is amazing. It's also undercosted by about 10 points too.

I do not think that kind of gunline would be a great choice for a tournament player though.
It is a list that wins or loses against its mirror purely by whoever gets the first turn. There is not much skill involved in playing it, its all in the list building.
An army like that is a poor choice for a good tournament player, because with every match being a 50% diceroll and no way to to impact that with skilled play, the chances of getting a good result over a full tournament are poor.

Does not mean its existance is good for the game, because the players that do bring it will take wins from others purely by going first. Then will lose other games due to not going first and not getting aynwhere near the top ranks either. So playing the tournament is like trying to dodge a minefield of suicide attackers that are trying to take you down with them...

Dandelion wrote:

 peteralmo wrote:

 auticus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Alpha melee was shut down hard by screens.

It FORCES a playstyle. You HAVE to use screens, which means you HAVE to play an army that has the ability to screen well, and even then screens help mitigate, but alpha strike is still strong enough to roll screens (or it wouldn't be so common). Screens are not a hard counter, they are just the only thing that can even give you a remote chance of having a fun game, and you are forced to do it.

There should never be anything in the game that 100% forces people to have to play a certain way to have a good game. Thats not good game design IMO nor is it something a lot of people enjoy or want to spend money on.

This is all good and well, but it leads to my original premise in starting this post. GW basically brought melee to near equal footing with shooting, ie turn1 alpha strikes. The people who don't care for it complained enough and GW promptly nerfed it into the ground. But now that it's gone the community learned a crucial lesson, turn 1 charges are realistically the only way to play a pure melee army and have it be as competitively viable as a gunline. GW clearly felt melee armies shouldn't be as good as gunline armies, hence they made the change, hence now with these changes melee armies are severely handicapped. It appears the only way to enjoy effective melee units is when tucked into shooty armies in small numbers. A number of people on this thread have applauded that reality. They feel 40k isn't a game in which full melee armies should be both viable and competitive. You appear to be in this same camp. That's fine, but for people in that camp, please at least be intellectually honest and consistent. You're happy with the changes, but they definitely do two things: they render pure melee armies ineffectual in a high-end competitive environment, and they incentivize the competitive scene to lean heavily into robust pure-shooty gunline armies. If you can admit those two basic realities are true, I don't think you'll find much issue with the wider community. They may not like the changes as you do, but at least they'd be forced to find you both honest and consistent. The crux has been people in the community applauding the changes, while criticizing melee-centric players for being upset about it, and also claiming the beta rules don't severely nerf melee armies - please stop doing that. Just own the reality and we can all move on.

Shooting can be mitigated by proper amounts of terrain, whereas melee cannot. Melee ignores cover and intervening terrain. On the other hand, the vast majority of shooting needs line of sight, and being in cover increases durability. If you play Cities of Death rules, cover can even offer +2 to cover saves. The only tricky part is, of course, getting a "proper" board set up. So for me, I can easily set up a balanced board where gunlines are not viable, but I cannot set up terrain in a way to mitigate melee rush at all. So, as far as I'm concerned, the game is in a good spot with the FAQ.

Screening units have been a part of 40k since it's inception. The form has changed (Fish of Fury, terminator rhino convoys, The march of death, distraction carnifex) but the function has always been the same so saying it forces you to play a style which has been played for YEARS doesn't mean anything. If anything it just means your incompetent at tactics and are one of those players who doesn't like it when your opponent outsmarts you or exploits a gaping hole that you refused to address.

Melee has always been the short end until this edition. But is still outshone by shooting cause shooting can do it better. When you can get dependable damage across the board for dirt cheep then people are gonna abuse it. Melee is nowhere near cheep enough to justify sending whole units across the board to hit someone with a sword. and with the amount of chance required compared to point and click shooting, it makes you question why people even go melee in the first place.

For most people, it's either because of the satisfaction of watching your opponent rage as his poorly placed units are being sliced apart in the HONORABLE COMBAT that is melee, but other times it's because of fluff and lore.

Terrain does jack all as a equilizer, last editions this would of been true because of cover saves, which most of the time were better saves than the armour of the unit. But now that cover is different and LOS doesn't mean anything anymore (I can see the tip of the guys sword through that window, i can still shoot him no problem. Artillery? who needs LOS?) and the fact the +1 to only ARMOUR saves is the equivalent of putting a codpiece on some units and making others semi tanky is just hillarious to even discuss.

6+ armour save units (Orks, Daemons (yes, cause we have a 6+ armour as normal) IG,Kroot,Wyches) have piss poor armour saves, and they usually have one of two factors:

1: Numbers
2: Invulnurables

Which none of these benefit from the +1 to armour when the amount of shots poured into them means the unit gets wiped out usually two or three times over. And considering that the shooting unit in question is probably half the cost of the melee unit. Saying terrain is this great "Equilizer" is a load of horse manure.

What should be addressed is the fact that shooting once again is far superior at deep striking than melee. So why not just adress the shooting element by adjusting the points to make shooting deep strike MUCH more expensive than it is right now? Maybe even make it that a shooting army is paying 1.2 to 1.5 times more to be able to use a gun over the deep striking units that get no access to guns/ or restricted access to guns? Address the problems on the unit by unit level before something like this is used.

Cause right now, melee deep striking is actually balanced. Shooting deep strike is not.

PS. No one plays cities of death in a matched play scenario. too many rules and it still doesnt address the issue

PPS. If you aint playing with screens, then don't come crying when your army gets stomped. You just need to Get Gud

Bharring wrote:

Last two editions, there were rules that basically amounted to you can't alpha the turn you showed up.

Yeah and everyone complained about the game being in one of it's worst states ever and shooting being the only viable tactic and saw more people leave the game than ever before, leading to 40k growing smaller at a time when tabletop miniature had never been bigger. Why do you think they had to shut down brick and mortar stores etc around this time even though pricing was sat at especially profitable numbers? It was not because people were preferring this.

You should not be mentioning the last two editions as though they are positive example of how to do assault. You should be using it as an example of exactly what not to do.

mchammadad wrote:


Screening units have been a part of 40k since it's inception. The form has changed (Fish of Fury, terminator rhino convoys, The march of death, distraction carnifex) but the function has always been the same so saying it forces you to play a style which has been played for YEARS doesn't mean anything. If anything it just means your incompetent at tactics and are one of those players who doesn't like it when your opponent outsmarts you or exploits a gaping hole that you refused to address.

Melee has always been the short end until this edition. But is still outshone by shooting cause shooting can do it better. When you can get dependable damage across the board for dirt cheep then people are gonna abuse it. Melee is nowhere near cheep enough to justify sending whole units across the board to hit someone with a sword. and with the amount of chance required compared to point and click shooting, it makes you question why people even go melee in the first place.

For most people, it's either because of the satisfaction of watching your opponent rage as his poorly placed units are being sliced apart in the HONORABLE COMBAT that is melee, but other times it's because of fluff and lore.

Terrain does jack all as a equilizer, last editions this would of been true because of cover saves, which most of the time were better saves than the armour of the unit. But now that cover is different and LOS doesn't mean anything anymore (I can see the tip of the guys sword through that window, i can still shoot him no problem. Artillery? who needs LOS?) and the fact the +1 to only ARMOUR saves is the equivalent of putting a codpiece on some units and making others semi tanky is just hillarious to even discuss.

6+ armour save units (Orks, Daemons (yes, cause we have a 6+ armour as normal) IG,Kroot,Wyches) have piss poor armour saves, and they usually have one of two factors:

1: Numbers
2: Invulnurables

Which none of these benefit from the +1 to armour when the amount of shots poured into them means the unit gets wiped out usually two or three times over. And considering that the shooting unit in question is probably half the cost of the melee unit. Saying terrain is this great "Equilizer" is a load of horse manure.

What should be addressed is the fact that shooting once again is far superior at deep striking than melee. So why not just adress the shooting element by adjusting the points to make shooting deep strike MUCH more expensive than it is right now? Maybe even make it that a shooting army is paying 1.2 to 1.5 times more to be able to use a gun over the deep striking units that get no access to guns/ or restricted access to guns? Address the problems on the unit by unit level before something like this is used.

Cause right now, melee deep striking is actually balanced. Shooting deep strike is not.

PS. No one plays cities of death in a matched play scenario. too many rules and it still doesnt address the issue

PPS. If you aint playing with screens, then don't come crying when your army gets stomped. You just need to Get Gud

Oh my... that's quite the retort. Anyway, I personally dislike playing against melee heavy lists because they're boring and monotonous. Oh boy I get to make a square formation again. I'm so excited...

But that's still beside the point. As far as the current rules go, I can easily hamstring gunlines using terrain. I cannot do that with melee. Melee is unaffected by any amount of positioning or terrain other than the tried and true screen. Which is why I think it makes for a terrible game. Losing has nothing to do with it. It's about enjoying the fight.

And if you think 4pt guard with 4+ saves is nothing, well, I'd love to see what you're facing 'cause it must be actual hell.

Now, I will point out that I've never played in a competitive tournament setting. My games are pretty casual. My observation was based around my experiences. And in my experience, shooting is heavily neutered by judicious use of terrain, while melee is not. So if I find a gunline to be too good, I can simply add more terrain. But if a melee army is too good, the only option is screens.

P.S. I only play cities of death at this point. Which means those 4pt guardsmen are at a 3+ save. And Tau FW are at 2+ saves. Shooting is definitely ineffective at that point. Heck, at that point Tau are almost as good at punching guardsmen as they are at shooting them.

Dandelion wrote:

Oh my... that's quite the retort. Anyway, I personally dislike playing against melee heavy lists because they're boring and monotonous. Oh boy I get to make a square formation again. I'm so excited...

Sounds like the problem is your army then

Massed deep striking...a tool used by gamers too stupid to use tactics and too lazy to move their figs 2 feet across the battlefield...................

licclerich wrote:
Massed deep striking...a tool used by gamers too stupid to use tactics and too lazy to move their figs 2 feet across the battlefield...................

its kinda a lot less lazy then camping up in a ball on your own side of the map and shooting at everything trying to run all the way across the field. You know, the tactic that its designed to counter...

Monotonous is when your melee army gets obliterated before they even reach the first units on the enemies side. With what i run (Khorne daemons) vs most of the people i play against (Eldar, tyranids,IG,Tau,Orks) my army, unless im fighting the orks who really like CC as much as me usually results in 7/8th or 2/3rds of my army dead before the first charges with this beta rule.

And this ain't even factoring in that the people i play usually don't run crazy spam list unless they feel like they want the win. Most of the time I am playing against mobile or static gunline armies, with a decent amount of terrain (1/2 the table has something) and the results are usually still the same, complete wipeout before i even reach the second unit in their army.

Also, no one plays Cities of death near my place, no tourney will ever play cities in their games where i am and no one really cares about the extra layer of rules on basically matched play rulings.

We play matched play all the time. No open or narative play, we only play tournament style play because that is what most of the people around our area and around the nation play

My normal list usually runs about 70+ models on the field. majority of them are only T3 5++, i never get any benefit from cover, and the amount of mobile or mass firepower my opponents roll with is enough to obliterate over half of that in a single turn. And that's not even counting if they run "cheese" list. In that case it's more reliable to obliterate 2/3rds of my units instead.

Point being, this beta rule has crippled my previous playstyle, where i was able to win half my games (If my dice were hot). Most of our games came down to the wire without this rule.

It's only when you take out the cheese that you realise that the deep strike rules are decently balanced

 DominayTrix wrote:

He called you out for your "You can't talk about melee unless you play melee" excuse for being a blatant attempt to invalidate opinions just because people don't use melee. You could use the same type of reasoning that melee people don't understand the costs of falling back because they don't play shooting armies. It isn't very productive either way. I can tell you that falling back has drawbacks. You can tie up multiple fire warrior squads and anything that survives is likely to just die to the next round of charges unless I have all my units bunched up sacrificing board control for the sake of anti charge defense. If I am bunching up, why are you trying to table me instead of just playing objectives and using terrain to deny LOS?

Your first premise is incorrect. My point was that several people were explaining to Melee people why melee shouldn't be relevant and they shouldn't have to deploy their armies against melee. The next point was people in Gunline armies explaining how having 1 unit falling back (keeping in mind that unit wouldn't have been able to shoot anyway because they were in CC) and not being able to shoot is a huge burden. Then they explained to melee armies how easy it is to tie up units in CC by surrounding. The conversation boils down to someone with no experience playing a pure CC army and only experience playing against one, telling the experienced player how their army should play and what its capabilities are. This would be fine except that every point they made was incorrect based upon every CC persons comments. As to playing the other side? I have a gun line army, I know both sides of the equation.

Bharring wrote:
I think a lot of disagreement is coming from looking at things differently.
I see Fall Back as a viable reaction to being Assaulted, and thus which costs are "Fall back" costs, and which costs are "having been assualted" costs is a difficult line.
Perhaps the conversation would be better suited talking about costs of being assaulted, instead of costs of falling back.
Costs of being assaulted are certainly less than previous versions. Restrictions to assaults is less. But offense - both CC and shooting - seems to be up. And CC offense going up won't matter if you can't make CC because shooting offense went up.

I disagree, CC is down a LOT for me. My Warboss last edition could mulch a Land Raider in 1-2 CC phases easy enough, my Nobz could usually handle T10-13 Vehicles last edition without to much worry, now? Nope. Now, not even Ghazghkull can kill a Predator in 1 turn. Hell he will struggle to kill a Rhino in 1 turn. Now, boys in general are doing a bit better but only in large mobz. Anything below 20 models and you were probably doing more dmg last edition. (Charging giving +1 attack meant trukk boyz had 4 attacks each, now its 3)

Dandelion wrote:

Shooting can be mitigated by proper amounts of terrain, whereas melee cannot. Melee ignores cover and intervening terrain. On the other hand, the vast majority of shooting needs line of sight, and being in cover increases durability. If you play Cities of Death rules, cover can even offer +2 to cover saves. The only tricky part is, of course, getting a "proper" board set up. So for me, I can easily set up a balanced board where gunlines are not viable, but I cannot set up terrain in a way to mitigate melee rush at all. So, as far as I'm concerned, the game is in a good spot with the FAQ.

Shooting can be mitigated if you use TONS OF TERRAIN! Why didn't I think of that? why didn't 12 people not suggest that already...ohh thats because it isn't true..Terrain restricts what you can see, so ignoring the units that don't require LOS to blow you off the table lets explore why this is a false premise. 1: You will NEVER have your entire army hidden behind terrain and be even remotely competitive as a CC army. Why? Because you need to be moving to get into CC, so not being shot off the table turn 1 is good, it doesn't help turn 2-4 where you are slowed down by all the terrain so it takes even longer to get into CC. As for deep strikers, well terrain actually did matter. My army used Kommandos, I had the option of appearing in cover and getting a wicked 4+ save for 1 turn but not being able to assault because -2 to charge. OR I could deploy out in the open and risk a 45-49% chance to get into CC with them or die gloriously. 2: Cover increases durability...not really. For some it does, but for Nidz and Orkz and some Demons not so much. You try cramming 30 Models into a piece of terrain and let me know how it goes. Plus, even if you do, guess what? you now have a 5+ save WHOOPEE! 3: The game is in a good spot. So melee armies which weren't even winning events just got hit with the nerf hammer hard and you feel that by making the weaker option weaker the game is in a better place? Now keep in mind that isn't opinion that is an actual fact. So you are admitting that you are happy that its going to be a lot easier for your Gunline to kill CC armies.

licclerich wrote:
Massed deep striking...a tool used by gamers too stupid to use tactics and too lazy to move their figs 2 feet across the battlefield...................

Wow....just wow. So I am stupid and lazy for fielding 45-90 Kommandos in my lists? Ok, So it takes more skill and tactics to sit still all game long and pick which unit to obliterate with a gunline? Lets address this because I find it funny.

My Kommando Horde are less efficient and useful boyz. I can take them in units of 5-15. There ONLY uses, and I do mean ONLY uses is to turn 1 deep strike and tie up units that would otherwise be shooting me off the board turn 1-3 OR to deploy turn 3 on objectives. Their success rate is slightly less then 50% because of the 9in charge rule and the rerollable charges that Orkz come standard with. I Therefore have to properly amass my units so that I can either charge 2-3 units into 1 enemy unit or pull off several multi charges for the same reasons. From there its all about consolidation and pile ins to try and get as many screening or shooting units tied up as physically possible, this is because those Kommandos die turn 2 if they aren't in CC. Ohh did I mention they are worse in CC then my Boyz but cost 50% more? As for the "Im lazy" aspect. I play Orkz, So if I have 90 Kommandos deep striking I usually have 90-120 slowly (emphasis on slowly) moving up the board so just one component of my army has probably more models then your entire army put together, and that is of course before we even touch on my Stormboyz, I have 50 of them so sometimes I'll field the whole horde. But im sure me not liking the changes is me being both stupid and lazy.

licclerich wrote:
Massed deep striking...a tool used by gamers too stupid to use tactics and too lazy to move their figs 2 feet across the battlefield...................

Comments like this really do not help or add anything to a discussion.

Let's please refrain from making statements like this.

I don't know if this has been suggested before, but if you couldn't fall back if you have been charged that turn (lets call it "battle shock") then melee troops that make the charge are not going to be left high and dry the next turn and open for shooting?

It gets rid of the trying to tie up a unit shenanigans, if the charging unit kills the unit it charged, then fair enough.

Almost like a semi tarpit?

 gkos wrote:
I don't know if this has been suggested before, but if you couldn't fall back if you have been charged that turn (lets call it "battle shock") then melee troops that make the charge are not going to be left high and dry the next turn and open for shooting?

It gets rid of the trying to tie up a unit shenanigans, if the charging unit kills the unit it charged, then fair enough.

Almost like a semi tarpit?

That is both fair and balanced. Unfortunately, I highly doubt gunline players will go along with any kind of nerf towards them getting an easy kill on a CC unit.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

Oh my... that's quite the retort. Anyway, I personally dislike playing against melee heavy lists because they're boring and monotonous. Oh boy I get to make a square formation again. I'm so excited...

Sounds like the problem is your army then

Oh my god. At least try to understand my point. The whole discussion was about guns being better than melee post faq. I just pointed out that guns are nerfed by adequate terrain. Melee is not. If guns are too good then bring more terrain. This helps every army out there, other than gunlines which are the problem in the first place.

That's why I like the faq. It brought deep strike in line with other means of playing the game. You know, positioning that matters. Deep strike now has a serious drawback which means players get to actually move before engaging.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:


Shooting can be mitigated if you use TONS OF TERRAIN! Why didn't I think of that? why didn't 12 people not suggest that already...ohh thats because it isn't true..Terrain restricts what you can see, so ignoring the units that don't require LOS to blow you off the table lets explore why this is a false premise. 1: You will NEVER have your entire army hidden behind terrain and be even remotely competitive as a CC army. Why? Because you need to be moving to get into CC, so not being shot off the table turn 1 is good, it doesn't help turn 2-4 where you are slowed down by all the terrain so it takes even longer to get into CC. As for deep strikers, well terrain actually did matter. My army used Kommandos, I had the option of appearing in cover and getting a wicked 4+ save for 1 turn but not being able to assault because -2 to charge. OR I could deploy out in the open and risk a 45-49% chance to get into CC with them or die gloriously. 2: Cover increases durability...not really. For some it does, but for Nidz and Orkz and some Demons not so much. You try cramming 30 Models into a piece of terrain and let me know how it goes. Plus, even if you do, guess what? you now have a 5+ save WHOOPEE! 3: The game is in a good spot. So melee armies which weren't even winning events just got hit with the nerf hammer hard and you feel that by making the weaker option weaker the game is in a better place? Now keep in mind that isn't opinion that is an actual fact. So you are admitting that you are happy that its going to be a lot easier for your Gunline to kill CC armies.

1) Terrain does not slow you down one bit. infantry can climb over wall with no penalty. As for cover, it's really easy, just put some sandbags in squares and declare that area to be cover. Or get a bunch of trees and declare it's cover. You just need to be within a terrain feature. It doesn't need to be a building.

2) See point 1. Also, aren't Ork players the ones complaining that going from a 5+ to a 6+ to hit neuters your shooting because it halves your hit rate? Well going from a 6+ to a 5+ doubles it. So yes, it impacts the game.

3) I could not care less what competitive games are doing, I am only saying that for MY games, 8th is in a decent spot. I never claimed otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mchammadad wrote:

Also, no one plays Cities of death near my place, no tourney will ever play cities in their games where i am and no one really cares about the extra layer of rules on basically matched play rulings.

Not my problem. I enjoy cities of death a lot more than the regular rules. Also:

A lot of people claim that "8th terrain rules suck" to which you say "no one cares about the extra layer of rules"
k

SemperMortis wrote:

 gkos wrote:
I don't know if this has been suggested before, but if you couldn't fall back if you have been charged that turn (lets call it "battle shock") then melee troops that make the charge are not going to be left high and dry the next turn and open for shooting?

It gets rid of the trying to tie up a unit shenanigans, if the charging unit kills the unit it charged, then fair enough.

Almost like a semi tarpit?

That is both fair and balanced. Unfortunately, I highly doubt gunline players will go along with any kind of nerf towards them getting an easy kill on a CC unit.

Guess I should float it in the rules section then, see how it fairs!

Dandelion wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


Shooting can be mitigated if you use TONS OF TERRAIN! Why didn't I think of that? why didn't 12 people not suggest that already...ohh thats because it isn't true..Terrain restricts what you can see, so ignoring the units that don't require LOS to blow you off the table lets explore why this is a false premise. 1: You will NEVER have your entire army hidden behind terrain and be even remotely competitive as a CC army. Why? Because you need to be moving to get into CC, so not being shot off the table turn 1 is good, it doesn't help turn 2-4 where you are slowed down by all the terrain so it takes even longer to get into CC. As for deep strikers, well terrain actually did matter. My army used Kommandos, I had the option of appearing in cover and getting a wicked 4+ save for 1 turn but not being able to assault because -2 to charge. OR I could deploy out in the open and risk a 45-49% chance to get into CC with them or die gloriously. 2: Cover increases durability...not really. For some it does, but for Nidz and Orkz and some Demons not so much. You try cramming 30 Models into a piece of terrain and let me know how it goes. Plus, even if you do, guess what? you now have a 5+ save WHOOPEE! 3: The game is in a good spot. So melee armies which weren't even winning events just got hit with the nerf hammer hard and you feel that by making the weaker option weaker the game is in a better place? Now keep in mind that isn't opinion that is an actual fact. So you are admitting that you are happy that its going to be a lot easier for your Gunline to kill CC armies.

1) Terrain does not slow you down one bit. infantry can climb over wall with no penalty. As for cover, it's really easy, just put some sandbags in squares and declare that area to be cover. Or get a bunch of trees and declare it's cover. You just need to be within a terrain feature. It doesn't need to be a building.

2) See point 1. Also, aren't Ork players the ones complaining that going from a 5+ to a 6+ to hit neuters your shooting because it halves your hit rate? Well going from a 6+ to a 5+ doubles it. So yes, it impacts the game.

3) I could not care less what competitive games are doing, I am only saying that for MY games, 8th is in a decent spot. I never claimed otherwise.

1: Terrain does in fact slow you down, especially LOS terrain because guess what? you still have to walk around it, you can't just magically leap 12 inches over the terrain, nor can you "climb over walls with no penalty" I have yet to come across a gamer who has a unit walk through a 3-6in tall wall and say "i can do this with no penalty" unless he was using flyers or a jump unit

2: Again, go ahead and cram those boyz into cover and let me know how it goes, keep in mind that the new rule says I have to have 100% of the unit in cover. As for the next comment, If i shoot you 30 times with a shoota unit thats 10 hits, going to a 6+ to hit makes it 5. A 50% reduction in hits. Going from a 6+ save to a 5+ save doesn't take away half your dmg. If you inflict 18 wounds on me, and I am in cover it goes from me losing 15 Boyz to only losing 12, So I saved 3 more models which means your unit goes down in killing efficiency by 1/6th or 16.6%. Good attempt comparing gaining 1 armor to losing 50% of your shooting.

3: Great, then don't comment about whats wrong with the FAQ if you don't care

Dandelion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

Oh my... that's quite the retort. Anyway, I personally dislike playing against melee heavy lists because they're boring and monotonous. Oh boy I get to make a square formation again. I'm so excited...

Sounds like the problem is your army then

Oh my god. At least try to understand my point. The whole discussion was about guns being better than melee post faq. I just pointed out that guns are nerfed by adequate terrain. Melee is not. If guns are too good then bring more terrain. This helps every army out there, other than gunlines which are the problem in the first place.

That's why I like the faq. It brought deep strike in line with other means of playing the game. You know, positioning that matters. Deep strike now has a serious drawback which means players get to actually move before engaging.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:


Shooting can be mitigated if you use TONS OF TERRAIN! Why didn't I think of that? why didn't 12 people not suggest that already...ohh thats because it isn't true..Terrain restricts what you can see, so ignoring the units that don't require LOS to blow you off the table lets explore why this is a false premise. 1: You will NEVER have your entire army hidden behind terrain and be even remotely competitive as a CC army. Why? Because you need to be moving to get into CC, so not being shot off the table turn 1 is good, it doesn't help turn 2-4 where you are slowed down by all the terrain so it takes even longer to get into CC. As for deep strikers, well terrain actually did matter. My army used Kommandos, I had the option of appearing in cover and getting a wicked 4+ save for 1 turn but not being able to assault because -2 to charge. OR I could deploy out in the open and risk a 45-49% chance to get into CC with them or die gloriously. 2: Cover increases durability...not really. For some it does, but for Nidz and Orkz and some Demons not so much. You try cramming 30 Models into a piece of terrain and let me know how it goes. Plus, even if you do, guess what? you now have a 5+ save WHOOPEE! 3: The game is in a good spot. So melee armies which weren't even winning events just got hit with the nerf hammer hard and you feel that by making the weaker option weaker the game is in a better place? Now keep in mind that isn't opinion that is an actual fact. So you are admitting that you are happy that its going to be a lot easier for your Gunline to kill CC armies.

1) Terrain does not slow you down one bit. infantry can climb over wall with no penalty. As for cover, it's really easy, just put some sandbags in squares and declare that area to be cover. Or get a bunch of trees and declare it's cover. You just need to be within a terrain feature. It doesn't need to be a building.

2) See point 1. Also, aren't Ork players the ones complaining that going from a 5+ to a 6+ to hit neuters your shooting because it halves your hit rate? Well going from a 6+ to a 5+ doubles it. So yes, it impacts the game.

3) I could not care less what competitive games are doing, I am only saying that for MY games, 8th is in a decent spot. I never claimed otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mchammadad wrote:

Also, no one plays Cities of death near my place, no tourney will ever play cities in their games where i am and no one really cares about the extra layer of rules on basically matched play rulings.

Not my problem. I enjoy cities of death a lot more than the regular rules. Also:

A lot of people claim that "8th terrain rules suck" to which you say "no one cares about the extra layer of rules"
k

I'm usually against the argument that someone who doesn't play something as their main army shouldn't speak on it. But it's a post like this that just makes it so clear when someone has literally only ever played one style of army and hasn't even TRIED to even envision the cons associated with a different playstyle. I've never seen a less accurate summary of cc.

I also don't get why people who don't play competitive 40k choose to weigh in on how the game plays at a competitive level. Casual matched play is not representative of how this ruleset works when broken down - literally any strategy can work in not high level play. Handwaving it by saying "yes I only play casually but that's not relevant here" doesn't change it.

Sorry if this sounds harsh but it's really the honest reality of it.

@semper- if the Los blockers are ruins (as most seem to be) infantry can in fact walk through said walls with no penalty per the rules.

Breng77 wrote:
@semper- if the Los blockers are ruins (as most seem to be) infantry can in fact walk through said walls with no penalty per the rules.

very true, and the other million or so types of walls are not ruins and can not be walked through.

SemperMortis wrote:

1: Terrain does in fact slow you down, especially LOS terrain because guess what? you still have to walk around it, you can't just magically leap 12 inches over the terrain, nor can you "climb over walls with no penalty" I have yet to come across a gamer who has a unit walk through a 3-6in tall wall and say "i can do this with no penalty" unless he was using flyers or a jump unit

2: Again, go ahead and cram those boyz into cover and let me know how it goes, keep in mind that the new rule says I have to have 100% of the unit in cover. As for the next comment, If i shoot you 30 times with a shoota unit thats 10 hits, going to a 6+ to hit makes it 5. A 50% reduction in hits. Going from a 6+ save to a 5+ save doesn't take away half your dmg. If you inflict 18 wounds on me, and I am in cover it goes from me losing 15 Boyz to only losing 12, So I saved 3 more models which means your unit goes down in killing efficiency by 1/6th or 16.6%. Good attempt comparing gaining 1 armor to losing 50% of your shooting.

3: Great, then don't comment about whats wrong with the FAQ if you don't care

Sigh...
Let me reiterate my opinion for you:
- I like the FAQ as is. My casual games are a lot more fun now.
- Sure melee got nerfed, but I ( me personally, i'm not telling you to do anything) can scale down guns very easily using terrain. Thus bringing both sides into a balanced match.
That's it. My games are more interesting now. And that's all I can say.

As for your points:
1. True, I will give you that. But if you're behind a 3in wall, aren't you safe from most shooting?

2. Ah, but instead of only saving 3 boyz, you saved 6. That's a 100% increase in the number of models saved. Statistics are dastardly right? Also, you can easily make a terrain feature as big as you like. Throw some trees and some bushes down in a 4ft^2 area and you now have cover in those areas. It only takes a little creativity. Or just throw down a whole bunch of rocks.

3. I do care, because I like the FAQ. Just because I don't play tournaments doesn't mean I can't weigh in on a rule that affects me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

I'm usually against the argument that someone who doesn't play something as their main army shouldn't speak on it. But it's a post like this that just makes it so clear when someone has literally only ever played one style of army and hasn't even TRIED to even envision the cons associated with a different playstyle. I've never seen a less accurate summary of cc.

I also don't get why people who don't play competitive 40k choose to weigh in on how the game plays at a competitive level. Casual matched play is not representative of how this ruleset works when broken down - literally any strategy can work in not high level play. Handwaving it by saying "yes I only play casually but that's not relevant here" doesn't change it.

Sorry if this sounds harsh but it's really the honest reality of it.

See above.
I understand the cons of playing melee. You get shot a lot while trudging along and doing no damage. I'm just saying that for my games I can manipulate the board to an extent where guns aren't nearly as good. Which, for me, solves the issue of melee not being viable, because I can make them viable. If however, melee was much better than guns, then I would be hard pressed to even the playing field using just terrain.

Also, the faq affects everyone, not just competitive folks. So I'm not weighing in on how it plays competitively. In fact, the whole reason why I brought that up is because I was giving a non-competitive point of view.

Dandelion wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

1: Terrain does in fact slow you down, especially LOS terrain because guess what? you still have to walk around it, you can't just magically leap 12 inches over the terrain, nor can you "climb over walls with no penalty" I have yet to come across a gamer who has a unit walk through a 3-6in tall wall and say "i can do this with no penalty" unless he was using flyers or a jump unit

2: Again, go ahead and cram those boyz into cover and let me know how it goes, keep in mind that the new rule says I have to have 100% of the unit in cover. As for the next comment, If i shoot you 30 times with a shoota unit thats 10 hits, going to a 6+ to hit makes it 5. A 50% reduction in hits. Going from a 6+ save to a 5+ save doesn't take away half your dmg. If you inflict 18 wounds on me, and I am in cover it goes from me losing 15 Boyz to only losing 12, So I saved 3 more models which means your unit goes down in killing efficiency by 1/6th or 16.6%. Good attempt comparing gaining 1 armor to losing 50% of your shooting.

3: Great, then don't comment about whats wrong with the FAQ if you don't care

Sigh...
Let me reiterate my opinion for you:
- I like the FAQ as is. My casual games are a lot more fun now.
- Sure melee got nerfed, but I ( me personally, i'm not telling you to do anything) can scale down guns very easily using terrain. Thus bringing both sides into a balanced match.
That's it. My games are more interesting now. And that's all I can say.

As for your points:
1. True, I will give you that. But if you're behind a 3in wall, aren't you safe from most shooting?

2. Ah, but instead of only saving 3 boyz, you saved 6. That's a 100% increase in the number of models saved. Statistics are dastardly right? Also, you can easily make a terrain feature as big as you like. Throw some trees and some bushes down in a 4ft^2 area and you now have cover in those areas. It only takes a little creativity. Or just throw down a whole bunch of rocks.

3. I do care, because I like the FAQ. Just because I don't play tournaments doesn't mean I can't weigh in on a rule that affects me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

I'm usually against the argument that someone who doesn't play something as their main army shouldn't speak on it. But it's a post like this that just makes it so clear when someone has literally only ever played one style of army and hasn't even TRIED to even envision the cons associated with a different playstyle. I've never seen a less accurate summary of cc.

I also don't get why people who don't play competitive 40k choose to weigh in on how the game plays at a competitive level. Casual matched play is not representative of how this ruleset works when broken down - literally any strategy can work in not high level play. Handwaving it by saying "yes I only play casually but that's not relevant here" doesn't change it.

Sorry if this sounds harsh but it's really the honest reality of it.

See above.
I understand the cons of playing melee. You get shot a lot while trudging along and doing no damage. I'm just saying that for my games I can manipulate the board to an extent where guns aren't nearly as good. Which, for me, solves the issue of melee not being viable, because I can make them viable. If however, melee was much better than guns, then I would be hard pressed to even the playing field using just terrain.

Also, the faq affects everyone, not just competitive folks. So I'm not weighing in on how it plays competitively. In fact, the whole reason why I brought that up is because I was giving a non-competitive point of view.

-The FAQ doesn't address the actual problem of the game and just introduces another in it's place. The whole point of the FAQ was to tone down Shooting Deep Strike because of it's destructive nature. As a consequence it destroyed it's other spectrum which was Melee
Addressing the problem actually involves unit by unit adjusting so that those units that are utterly devastating because of their potential (posted about scions in a previous post where you could get a scion bomb with supporting elements for less than 200 pts) are adjusted so that the option falls in line with other tactics. Not this blanket rule that doesn't even adress it. (whoo, turn 2 bombs instead. With a gunline army I'm still obliterating half ur army turn 1, geez. This rule does nothing to my army)

-Just because you can "scale" your guns down with terrain means nothing. People who are playing tournaments (The guys whom these changes effect the most because tournaments) don't get a saying in a few factors of the game (Deployment, Terrain, Mission) so your logic makes zero sense. You must understand that playing casual and giving comments about "casual" play means nothing to the guy trying to win a prize pool. 40k changes when you have an incentive to win

As for your counterpoints.

1. No, cause to use that wall means that your opponent has done their job and the unit in question is reduced to single digits, hardly a threat anymore.

2. saving an additional 100% of your models means nothing when the volume of firepower doubles. Say that the unit just got shot by one of his 5 units of guardsmen with ranked fire (this is not including anything else in the army) that was just one unit, now multiply that by 5. That unit is gone and has done nothing at all to contribute to the army. And considering that was just a small part of his army, he still has everything else to deal with your melee horde.

3. Just because you like the FAQ doesn't mean that it actually addressed the problem. As far as i can see, the problem is still there. And it actually got worse because of this. Only playing casual means that you cannot see the implications of this rule when the ruling means the difference between placing in a tournament and actually winning it.

Most of us who play melee based armies can see the rule for what it is. A rule that was intended to nerf deep strike SHOOTING but instead is effecting how we as a melee army use deep strike in our play style, which is a distraction screening for our main force to advance unhindered

If you cannot look at a rule and see how it effects everything, then you cannot judge others who see it that way. Because by your nature you are biased towards the rule, because it doesn't effect you

Haven't won a game with BA since the FAQ. Glad it's all working as intended.

Really glad melee got nerfed with this.

In my experience first turn alpha was straight up stupid. It made every game follow the same sequence - whether it was a shooty or a choppy unit. At that point why not just make deployment zones right next to each other.

Terrain helps mitigate a gunline, sure - but maybe the solution should be fixing the transport rules to allow disembarking/embarking after the transport moves, as long as both don't happen in the same turn. Might actually make them worth their points.

As if guardsmen existing weren't enough of a nerf on melee.

mchammadad wrote:

-The FAQ doesn't address the actual problem of the game and just introduces another in it's place. The whole point of the FAQ was to tone down Shooting Deep Strike because of it's destructive nature. As a consequence it destroyed it's other spectrum which was Melee
Addressing the problem actually involves unit by unit adjusting so that those units that are utterly devastating because of their potential (posted about scions in a previous post where you could get a scion bomb with supporting elements for less than 200 pts) are adjusted so that the option falls in line with other tactics. Not this blanket rule that doesn't even adress it. (whoo, turn 2 bombs instead. With a gunline army I'm still obliterating half ur army turn 1, geez. This rule does nothing to my army)

-Just because you can "scale" your guns down with terrain means nothing. People who are playing tournaments (The guys whom these changes effect the most because tournaments) don't get a saying in a few factors of the game (Deployment, Terrain, Mission) so your logic makes zero sense. You must understand that playing casual and giving comments about "casual" play means nothing to the guy trying to win a prize pool. 40k changes when you have an incentive to win

As for your counterpoints.

1. No, cause to use that wall means that your opponent has done their job and the unit in question is reduced to single digits, hardly a threat anymore.

2. saving an additional 100% of your models means nothing when the volume of firepower doubles. Say that the unit just got shot by one of his 5 units of guardsmen with ranked fire (this is not including anything else in the army) that was just one unit, now multiply that by 5. That unit is gone and has done nothing at all to contribute to the army. And considering that was just a small part of his army, he still has everything else to deal with your melee horde.

3. Just because you like the FAQ doesn't mean that it actually addressed the problem. As far as i can see, the problem is still there. And it actually got worse because of this. Only playing casual means that you cannot see the implications of this rule when the ruling means the difference between placing in a tournament and actually winning it.

Most of us who play melee based armies can see the rule for what it is. A rule that was intended to nerf deep strike SHOOTING but instead is effecting how we as a melee army use deep strike in our play style, which is a distraction screening for our main force to advance unhindered

If you cannot look at a rule and see how it effects everything, then you cannot judge others who see it that way. Because by your nature you are biased towards the rule, because it doesn't effect you

The faq nerfed deepstrike. Good. Did melee get screwed in the process? Yes, because that was one aspect the devs did not like. Melee deepstrike was just as targeted as shooting deepstrike. Melee deepstrike turn one is gone forever at this point. No amount of arguing will change that and the faq will likely stay as is, minus maybe some Da Jump style clarifications. Maybe now we can focus on other ways to make melee viable instead. I simply proposed that terrain is a decent way to level the playing field for the time being.
Unless you want to suggest that no amount of terrain will ever affect shooting at all. Which is something I disagree with. And as far as I'm concerned, if you're (not you specifically, but players) not interacting with terrain in a meaningful way then you're not really playing a wargame.

So to recap, the FAQ did exactly what it was supposed to do, nerf all deepstrike.

I get that, but melee is likely unrecoverable. Shooting toodles along like always.

Martel732 wrote:
I get that, but melee is likely unrecoverable. Shooting toodles along like always.

Well, I wasn't aiming that at you per se. Though I still firmly believe that all armies should get good shooting components so that individual factions aren't tiered based on how shooty they are. So in your case, whirlwinds would need to be as good as manticores/basilisks for example, and we need more anti-horde guns. That way you can trade shots with guard on an equal footing, and then your jump packs land and disrupt the gunline. But that's not really in the realm of deepstrike.

Perhaps expanding terrain rules to include to hit modifiers would help a bit as well. Oh, and the cities of death rules should really just be standard rules. +2 to your cover save is really effective.

The cruel irony is too much terrain helps IG gunlines. Especially the ones with 20+ mortars.

Martel732 wrote:
The cruel irony is too much terrain helps IG gunlines. Especially the ones with 20+ mortars.

True. And expanding terrain rules for things like -1 to hit with no los would be an excellent start I reckon. But that really is outside of the realm of deepstrike shenanigans which is why ultimately I feel that while this FAQ is a good change, it's still an incomplete change.