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.

I guess I shouldn't complain too much, b/c the deep strike assault was easier to shoot down than deep strike shooting anyway.

Martel732 wrote:
I guess I shouldn't complain too much, b/c the deep strike assault was easier to shoot down than deep strike shooting anyway.

As in melee deep strike was less reliable? If so, I agree. My buddy's full scion list was much scarier than melee as far as deep striking was concerned. I'm glad that got hit a bit.

It got delayed by a turn. Whooo

a scion bomb is still a scion bomb when it kills the target it was going for. Considering the fact that the melee option has to go by chance to be given the opportunity to do damage and even then needs to roll for said damage and then get promptly deleted off the board regardless of how effective it was is not a valid reason why the shooting option can do the job first time,every time.

I would love to have less than 200 points take out that land raider on the second turn, or third turn. Means my opponent just got his 300pt+ land raider killed by a unit at about half it's price. Seems reasonable.

While the equivalent melee unit has probably a slim chance at doing the same job. Got a powerfist/Powerclaw/x2 weapon. That'll cost extra.. Want a re-roll with that? tht'll cost extra more

This rule is stupid, and should be treated as such.

Instead Deep striking shooting should get a 50pt's added cost to them to make it so that it's not an auto take, but rather another option (Melee's fine cause there are tactics around stopping melee, and chance is way higher. Like rolling a 9 on 2d6 (Which is what most melee units are doing) is a lot harder than it seems, even with re-rolls

Also. Terrain does diddly squat when your unit has to walk through said terrain to get to the enemy army. Cause next turn the enemy can shoot the enemy that has to walk out into the open to do damage

I, honest to god, have no idea what your point is.

Just to be clear, multiple changes to bolster melee have been proposed throughout this thread. Including making transports cheaper, or more crucially, allowing disembarkation after the vehicles move. But one assumption has been clear throughout: the beta rule hurts melee armies significantly more than shooty ones. And the majority of the community hopes this was a stupid on GW's part, because why would you knowingly do that when melee always was an uphill battle to begin with, as opposed to point and click.

mchammadad wrote:
It got delayed by a turn. Whooo

a scion bomb is still a scion bomb when it kills the target it was going for. Considering the fact that the melee option has to go by chance to be given the opportunity to do damage and even then needs to roll for said damage and then get promptly deleted off the board regardless of how effective it was is not a valid reason why the shooting option can do the job first time,every time.

When they get 2 full turns of shooting out of it it's possible the ideal target has already done it's job as well.

I'm not necessarily saying anything else concerning whether or not this is a bad rule or who is affected worse by it, but let's not confuse it as not making a difference.

 SHUPPET wrote:

mchammadad wrote:
It got delayed by a turn. Whooo

a scion bomb is still a scion bomb when it kills the target it was going for. Considering the fact that the melee option has to go by chance to be given the opportunity to do damage and even then needs to roll for said damage and then get promptly deleted off the board regardless of how effective it was is not a valid reason why the shooting option can do the job first time,every time.

When they get 2 full turns of shooting out of it it's possible the ideal target has already done it's job as well.

I'm not necessarily saying anything else concerning whether or not this is a bad rule or who is affected worse by it, but let's not confuse it as not making a difference.

But if you have first turn it only has one turn to do anything.

And most big targets arent effective in one turn. I mean it's just like a melee un.....

ohh wait

mchammadad wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

When they get 2 full turns of shooting out of it it's possible the ideal target has already done it's job as well.

I'm not necessarily saying anything else concerning whether or not this is a bad rule or who is affected worse by it, but let's not confuse it as not making a difference.

But if you have first turn it only has one turn to do anything.

Wish I knew the trick to rolling first turn every single game.

mchammadad wrote:

And most big targets arent effective in one turn. I mean it's just like a melee un.....

ohh wait

I have no idea the point you are trying to make here.

 peteralmo wrote:
Just to be clear, multiple changes to bolster melee have been proposed throughout this thread. Including making transports cheaper, or more crucially, allowing disembarkation after the vehicles move. But one assumption has been clear throughout: the beta rule hurts melee armies significantly more than shooty ones. And the majority of the community hopes this was a stupid on GW's part, because why would you knowingly do that when melee always was an uphill battle to begin with, as opposed to point and click.

Well, you do have to consider that GW probably wanted to all deep strike. Melee doesn't get a pass. You can think it's stupid or unfair, but the rule is working as intended. I think the solution is to tweak other rules to make melee better, but turn 1 deep strike assault is dead for everyone. And I appreciate that.

Also, for your comment of point and click, isn't that what deep strike was?

Lastly, how does the rule affect melee ds more than shooting ds? They are both equally affected by the same rule. I would even argue that shooting deepstrike was deadlier than melee deep strike, so putting it off for one turn is nice.

Dandelion wrote:

 peteralmo wrote:
Just to be clear, multiple changes to bolster melee have been proposed throughout this thread. Including making transports cheaper, or more crucially, allowing disembarkation after the vehicles move. But one assumption has been clear throughout: the beta rule hurts melee armies significantly more than shooty ones. And the majority of the community hopes this was a stupid on GW's part, because why would you knowingly do that when melee always was an uphill battle to begin with, as opposed to point and click.

Well, you do have to consider that GW probably wanted to all deep strike. Melee doesn't get a pass. You can think it's stupid or unfair, but the rule is working as intended. I think the solution is to tweak other rules to make melee better, but turn 1 deep strike assault is dead for everyone. And I appreciate that.

Also, for your comment of point and click, isn't that what deep strike was?

Lastly, how does the rule affect melee ds more than shooting ds? They are both equally affected by the same rule. I would even argue that shooting deepstrike was deadlier than melee deep strike, so putting it off for one turn is nice.

There's a lot wrong so I'll go through it carefully. "I think the solution is to tweak other rules to make melee better." This is what the thread has been trying to come up with. If you go back and look at the beginning I was clear in my belief that the rule was here to stay, so I asked the question of what new rules could be introduced to bolster melee.

"Also, for your comment of point and click, isn't that what deep strike was?" Only for deep strike shooting units, melee units are not point and click at all. Also all shooting is point and click, not just deep strike shooting.

"Lastly, how does the rule affect melee ds more than shooting ds? They are both equally affected by the same rule." This was the comment that had me leaping in my seat. They absolutely weren't affected in the same way, not even close. Melee is much harder, first you have to make a 9" charge which fails 2/3's of the time, and you have to deal with the screens preventing you from charging in the first place. DS shooting has no such limitation, usually your deep striking plasma or an equivalent type weapon, meaning there is no barrier to entry, you simply arrive and blast your target away, no need to make a roll that's successful 33% of the time, and screens really can't work against you when you have 24" range guns.

Please cease and desist from this line of reasoning that somehow melee and shooting are on the same footing and were affected equally, it couldn't be further from the truth.

 peteralmo wrote:

"Lastly, how does the rule affect melee ds more than shooting ds? They are both equally affected by the same rule." This was the comment that had me leaping in my seat. They absolutely weren't affected in the same way, not even close. Melee is much harder, first you have to make a 9" charge which fails 2/3's of the time, and you have to deal with the screens preventing you from charging in the first place. DS shooting has no such limitation, usually your deep striking plasma or an equivalent type weapon, meaning there is no barrier to entry, you simply arrive and blast your target away, no need to make a roll that's successful 33% of the time, and screens really can't work against you when you have 24" range guns.

See this is the one I don't get. Melee deep strike was already unreliable. Shooting deep strike is reliable. Removing turn 1 deep strike significantly reduces shooting damage, much more so than melee because melee doesn't alway get in. Melee deep strike was bad before and it''s bad now. Shooting deep strike was much more deadly, which means that removing it turn 1 is a much bigger nerf than the unreliable melee.

So shooting went from 100% success rate to 0%, while melee went from 33% success rate to 0%. See what I mean?

Dandelion wrote:

 peteralmo wrote:

"Lastly, how does the rule affect melee ds more than shooting ds? They are both equally affected by the same rule." This was the comment that had me leaping in my seat. They absolutely weren't affected in the same way, not even close. Melee is much harder, first you have to make a 9" charge which fails 2/3's of the time, and you have to deal with the screens preventing you from charging in the first place. DS shooting has no such limitation, usually your deep striking plasma or an equivalent type weapon, meaning there is no barrier to entry, you simply arrive and blast your target away, no need to make a roll that's successful 33% of the time, and screens really can't work against you when you have 24" range guns.

See this is the one I don't get. Melee deep strike was already unreliable. Shooting deep strike is reliable. Removing turn 1 deep strike significantly reduces shooting damage, much more so than melee because melee doesn't alway get in. Melee deep strike was bad before and it''s bad now. Shooting deep strike was much more deadly, which means that removing it turn 1 is a much bigger nerf than the unreliable melee.

So shooting went from 100% success rate to 0%, while melee went from 33% success rate to 0%. See what I mean?

I do see what you mean. But I don't know if we can really claim that shooting went from 100% to 0%, of course yes on the turn 1, but looking at the game as a whole, not so much, your scion bomb should still be at near full efficacy on turn 2. Melee is a bit trickier, since it's so much more affected by screening, and under the new rules a player will have one to two turns to really spread out there screening, making the chances of the turn 2 melee deep strike being successful extremely low to downright hopeless. The extra turn or two of spreading out can effect some DS shooting, like 12" range melta, but guns with a 24" range or better should still be largely unaffected, even with two turn of spreading out.

Yes, deep strike shooting got hit, but I really don't think it compares, even a little bit, to how hard melee took it in the cohones. Which brings me back to hoping GW provides future rules updates to melee focused DS armies (blood angels, grey knights, daemons) that bolster them back up and over the hole the beta rule put them in.

 peteralmo wrote:


I do see what you mean. But I don't know if we can really claim that shooting went from 100% to 0%, of course yes on the turn 1, but looking at the game as a whole, not so much, your scion bomb should still be at near full efficacy on turn 2. Melee is a bit trickier, since it's so much more affected by screening, and under the new rules a player will have one to two turns to really spread out there screening, making the chances of the turn 2 melee deep strike being successful extremely low to downright hopeless. The extra turn or two of spreading out can effect some DS shooting, like 12" range melta, but guns with a 24" range or better should still be largely unaffected, even with two turn of spreading out.

Yes, deep strike shooting got hit, but I really don't think it compares, even a little bit, to how hard melee took it in the cohones. Which brings me back to hoping GW provides future rules updates to melee focused DS armies (blood angels, grey knights, daemons) that bolster them back up and over the hole the beta rule put them in.

Ah, ok I'm seeing it now. Though, if we take scions for example, the plasma shots are rapid fire, which means they lose half their shots at over 12" which is a lot. And quite frankly, if you're deep striking with a long range gun you can still just deep strike in your deployment zone which isn't much different from a gunline anyway which is another beast entirely.

But still, deep strike melee was a band-aid that ultimately helped (among other things) to narrow the game to turn 1 tabling. The more we remove the ability for all armies to hit turn 1 the better the overall game will be. Deep strike was just the first to go.

 peteralmo wrote:
Just to be clear, multiple changes to bolster melee have been proposed throughout this thread. Including making transports cheaper, or more crucially, allowing disembarkation after the vehicles move. But one assumption has been clear throughout: the beta rule hurts melee armies significantly more than shooty ones. And the majority of the community hopes this was a stupid on GW's part, because why would you knowingly do that when melee always was an uphill battle to begin with, as opposed to point and click.

Yes, we agree. It hurt melee armies.

But the fact that this was what made them decent is also stupid.

Watched a player with full mastery and understanding of Necron stratagems with 4K smash a 2K marine and 2K CSM team off the table like they were insects. Being able to get reanimation protocols up to 3+ is nuts, and all the flying stuff falling back to shoot marines was also nuts. I don't know if the FAQ really made any difference, but it underscored how incredibly gakky marine melee is currently. The necron guy ended with only a few hundred points actually dead. It was really crazy.

Martel732 wrote:
Watched a player with full mastery and understanding of Necron stratagems with 4K smash a 2K marine and 2K CSM team off the table like they were insects. Being able to get reanimation protocols up to 3+ is nuts, and all the flying stuff falling back to shoot marines was also nuts. I don't know if the FAQ really made any difference, but it underscored how incredibly gakky marine melee is currently. The necron guy ended with only a few hundred points actually dead. It was really crazy.

Got a link to that?

Also. Yea, reanimation protocols has kinda been an interesting rule, even during it's old wording. It allows necrons to basically ignore a huge portion of damage, while dealing out a decent amount of firepower in the process. But im guessing that the CSM and SM armies were mostly melee focused? If so, the result was predictable.

This is why there needs to be rules that empower melee, but also not to make it too powerful as to make it an auto take. If you had to tweak it it would probably be three things: Fall back, Overwatch and points.

Let me explain:

Fall back has been the boogeyman for melee this edition. The idea that one unit (Or two units) forgo their shooting or melee (with exceptions) so that the melee unit in question is opened to mass firepower on your side is really one sided. Last editions this was what tarpits were designed to hold back because of the sheer wounds and models in the unit (Nurgle stuff were hillariously good at tarpitting) Now that tarpitting is gone because of fall back that tactics is thrown out of the window, and instead it's a game of charge-Fight-Fallback-shoot. With the melee unit either destroyed or completely crippled after one round of combat.

Overwatch, since it's inception in 6th edition, has always been a fickle thing. One one hand it is the face melting "Destroy your unit before they even think of charging" shooting. Or it's done barely anything. However, this edition has shown an increase of volume of fire (Rapid fire got a number next to it now, most guns are shooting 2 or 3 shots on average) and the fact that overwatch became multiple times doesn't come up that often, but when it does it is devastating. I can think of 3+ units that can dish out a crazy amount of firepower (Pink horrors, Termangaunts,Leman Russ,Baneblades, ect.) that makes overwatch just devastating to one unit, now you have that same unit dishing out multiple shots that frankly makes them feel like they just did 2-3 shooting phases (even on hit on 6's)

Points is my last thing. And this is kinda the main one. shooting and melee should be adjusted to realise how powerful one form is over the other. a T3/4 model with a 24" Rapid fire gun (Standard weaponry) is alot more powerful in terms of points to that same unit with a 12" or no shooting weapon. So points should reflect that, but at the same time we want to avoid the fantasy trap of everything too cheap as that pulls out players who have an interest in this game because of the high model count to start.

Addressing these three things would make melee just as viable as ranged. But at the moment, those who are playing range don't want to listen or even think of these changes because their armies have the distinct advantage over their melee counterparts.

40k has always been about two things; the story and the journey. The story of seeing such a rich history made for this game, and even how grim and dark it is to our modern times. How we would like our armies to be a reflection of that story and the journey we take to slowly build it over time into something we love as hobbyist.

I watched it live, sorry. I'm down on marines and even I was shocked as to how little actual damage the marines could get to stick on the Necrons. Squads of 5-6 destroyers are brutal.

Between the two marine lists, there was a quite a bit of shooting, but they needed to have had so much more to get anything meaningful done... I don't even know where to start with BA lists right now.

Martel732 wrote:
I watched it live, sorry. I'm down on marines and even I was shocked as to how little actual damage the marines could get to stick on the Necrons. Squads of 5-6 destroyers are brutal.

Between the two marine lists, there was a quite a bit of shooting, but they needed to have had so much more to get anything meaningful done... I don't even know where to start with BA lists right now.

You could try the direction I went in LOL, a few amazing BA characters and Sanguinary Guard paired up with another codex. I've actually had the most success pairing Slamguinius, the Sanguinior and some Sanguinary Guard with a majority mechanized sisters army, mass repressors. The transports give me the mobility and durability to keep on trucking while I wait on the melee element to arrive. Here's one of the lists I tried out. Bear in mind I still consider this a medium-tier competitive list, mostly for fun, and I'd never take it to a major tournament over my eldar or necrons. And the sad thing is my pure sisters lists are just better lol.


Battalion & Vanguard Detachments 9 CP

<Battalion Detachment>
HQ – Saint Celestine
HQ – Canoness w/ Storm Bolter & Chainsword

Troops – 5x Battle Sister Squad w/ 3x Storm Bolters
Troops – 5x Battle Sister Squad w/ 3x Storm Bolters
Transport – Sororitas Repressor w/ Heavy Flamer, 2x Storm Bolters & Dozer Ram

Troops – 5x Battle Sister Squad w/ 3x Storm Bolters
Troops – 5x Battle Sister Squad w/ 3x Storm Bolters
Transport – Sororitas Repressor w/ Heavy Flamer, 2x Storm Bolters & Dozer Ram

Fast Attack – 5x Dominion Squad w/ 4x Melta Guns & Combi-Melta
Transport – Sororitas Repressor w/ Heavy Flamer, 2x Storm Bolters & Dozer Ram

Fast Attack – 5x Dominion Squad w/ 4x Melta Guns & Combi-Melta
Transport – Sororitas Repressor w/ Heavy Flamer, 2x Storm Bolters & Dozer Ram

Fast Attack – 5x Dominion Squad w/ 4x Melta Guns & Combi-Melta
Transport – Sororitas Repressor w/ Heavy Flamer, 2x Storm Bolters & Dozer Ram

<Vanguard Detachment>
HQ – Death Company Captain w/ Thunder Hammer, Storm Shield & the Angel’s Wing (Warlord: Gift of Foresight)
HQ – The Sanguinor

Elites – Sanguinary Ancient w/ Angelus Boltgun, Encarmine Sword & the Standard of Sacrifice
Elites – 4x Sanguinary Guard w/ Angelus Boltguns & Encarmine Swords
Elites – 4x Sanguinary Guard w/ Angelus Boltguns & Encarmine Swords

Getting rid of initiative was a mistake.

Martel732 wrote:
Watched a player with full mastery and understanding of Necron stratagems with 4K smash a 2K marine and 2K CSM team off the table like they were insects. Being able to get reanimation protocols up to 3+ is nuts, and all the flying stuff falling back to shoot marines was also nuts. I don't know if the FAQ really made any difference, but it underscored how incredibly gakky marine melee is currently. The necron guy ended with only a few hundred points actually dead. It was really crazy.

How can Necrons get a 3+ RP? The Cryptek buff doesn't stack.

They stack onto the strat, right?

Cryptek gives you a 4+ RP and the stratagem allows you to re roll 1's. Warriors can get two separate rounds of RP in the same turn with a ghost ark.

Ah okay. I didn't question b/c i was watching. This makes the dw strat less bad.

Martel732 wrote:
Ah okay. I didn't question b/c i was watching. This makes the dw strat less bad.

Yes the deathwatch look like they may be the strongest SM variant at the moment, which is frustrating because there models, although beautiful, are expensive, and so few people play them, so GW is setup pretty well to make a killing in sales, almost like they planned it....

Nah, I'm just using intercessors. I think the rest of the DW stuff costs too much.

Martel732 wrote:
Nah, I'm just using intercessors. I think the rest of the DW stuff costs too much.

Yeah but those mixed primaris kill teams seem really really good.

I'm not sure how much I'm going to get out of mixing in the more expensive Primaris variants, honestly. It take 5 T5 models to get the squad up to T5. The only choices are aggressor and inceptors.

The other issue with them is just mobility, being mixed you have neither repulsor or deep strike options, if you go with an inceptor for the fall back rule, so are you just walking them up the board?

DW can pay cp to deepstrike.

Martel732 wrote:
DW can pay cp to deepstrike.

Well there you go, that sounds fantastic.