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.

Ice_can wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Also so...the Castellan didn't get nerfed LOLOLOLOL.

They nerfed the CP that allowed it to have 4-5 turns of being basically unkillable. That fixed it quite a bit.

Even that change nerfed all ultramarines charictors, while not addressing Astra Millicheese and now effectively making them even more mandatory.

But pure knights got hit with The raven strategum being increased to 3CP, oath breaking going to 3 CP.
Ironically that now means their is no point in bringing more than 2 misslies in a knights list as you can't have enough CP to snipe with them.

People keep claiming you need more Guard but ignore that means you get less of everything. Which means Guard are now doing more on the table, and dying more to boot.

The more you bring of Guard to fuel even a single Castellan, the more weaknesses your army has to exploit and take out.

Pandabeer wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

Pandabeer wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I honestly see the situation much brigther now for CC armies.

If i go first no problem, i will have to weather only one turn of firing then it will be my turn 2 and the enemy is out of shooting phases.

If i go second, i will weather one shooting phase with a bonus and his screens will not be protected.

A big improvement. Surely it rewards the mid/close range armies which do not bank on having first turn.

I think you over estimate what +1 save can really do. Most armies already know how to utilize cover as-is, so this Strat doesn't really do much except help armies that have lots of hard-to-hide tanks and Flyers, which are typically part of gunline armies.
Don't get me wrong, I like the strat, but it helps gunline armies a bit more than melee armies.

-

It helps hordes who can't fit their units into cover easilly as well. And it helps transports a lot which were basically neglected.

make me an example of assaulting hordes which can benefit from that stratagem pls.

Despite all my anger towards GW about nerfing general assault armies I have to say this stratagem looks great on Orks.

so you really think have a 5+ save helps you so much? saving average 20 orks? wow good luck with it
the only one which really benefit of that +1 are those which are already strong right now, you ll see at first major events...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pandabeer wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

Karol wrote:
Tyranids with multiple carnifexs, could like it too, But I am no expert on tyranids. I know that no tyranid player is going to cry about his flying tyrants having bonus save turn 1.

carnifex with 4+ to hit in melee they sucks and and we are talking about assault HORDES.

'Fexes get +1 to hit on the charge IIRC.

they can get +1 but 4+ to hit with no re rolls makes them sucks melee units must have or a 3+ to hit and/or a way to re roll 1's or you must pray to be lucky, no one play melee carnifex i guess will be a reason... oh i forgot here 90% play garagehammer so yee there anything works great...
btw im going off topic i will drop this.

Well, if I save 20 Boyz for 2 CP I'm a very happy camper, because that's about 80 potential extra choppa attacks when I do reach CC.

yes the right word is when, did you ever played a high level tournament like Nova/LVO or ETC championships? if not try it and then you will get my point.btw i stop here pointless argue in a forum time will tell who's right, happy game to all.

 blackmage wrote:
yes the right word is when, did you ever played a high level tournament like Nova/LVO or ETC championships? if not try it and then you will get my point.btw i stop here pointless argue in a forum time will tell who's right, happy game to all.

Don't uphold the index performance of Orks to be the same as what they may be able to do once they have their book.

In otherwords, don't count those Squigeons just yet.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Also so...the Castellan didn't get nerfed LOLOLOLOL.

They nerfed the CP that allowed it to have 4-5 turns of being basically unkillable. That fixed it quite a bit.

Even that change nerfed all ultramarines charictors, while not addressing Astra Millicheese and now effectively making them even more mandatory.

But pure knights got hit with The raven strategum being increased to 3CP, oath breaking going to 3 CP.
Ironically that now means their is no point in bringing more than 2 misslies in a knights list as you can't have enough CP to snipe with them.

People keep claiming you need more Guard but ignore that means you get less of everything. Which means Guard are now doing more on the table, and dying more to boot.

The more you bring of Guard to fuel even a single Castellan, the more weaknesses your army has to exploit and take out.

Except with the change to fly the guard screening also became 100% effective as people can no longer change over them and because I the loss of strike from the shadows etc and any turn 1 reserves scouts just lost a big chuck of the reasons to take them.
Those 32 guardsmen are not going anywhere, infact they will just be even more mandatory for any competitive imperial list.

Didn't fix the rule of 3 from being idiotic.

ERJAK wrote:
Didn't fix the rule of 3 from being idiotic.

The only people I see complaining about it are forumgoers, who complain about everything.

 Stux wrote:
It's out! What are our thoughts?

Reserves change is huge. No deep strike at all turn 1. Alpha Legion and Raven Guard strat totally gimped, and Cult Ambush does nothing useful turn 1 (though the FAQ says this will be addressed in the codex)

Max of 1 CP gained per battle round is also huge!

A few issues we've had for a while cleared up! One shot weapons are optional to fire when shooting. Drones taken with battlesuits do not count as a Drones unit for rule of 3 purposes.

Fly units only ignore terrain in the movement phase specifically, so charges etc do NOT ignore terrain.

Overall I'm fairly happy on first pass, though I think there'll be people upset that nothing was done to the Castellan directly, and no points changes.

gak, it was less than the bare minimum, the real important issues with the game were ignored. 5 main points tackled and some cost hikes for Strats and a handful of codex amendments They are paying lip-service to the FAQ format and yes I'm moaning, couldn't care less if you point that out. None of this has any serious impact on the game except tackling the soup was the only serious thing they did.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

gak, it was less than the bare minimum, the real important issues with the game were ignored. They are paying lip-service to the FAQ format and yes I'm moaning, couldn't care less if you point that out.

So what are the real important issues with the game? And keep in mind that all point cost changes are happening in December with Chapter Approved 2018.

Great FAQ, they could have hit soup a bit harder IMHO. But they stopped the battery, which is a welcome change.
I really hope that they will continue the trend of chipping away at soup on FAQ at the time. Because it is necessary. I still think soup is an fun way to set-up a army, but it should not be so much better than playing a mono-faction as it has been this past year.

meleti wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

gak, it was less than the bare minimum, the real important issues with the game were ignored. They are paying lip-service to the FAQ format and yes I'm moaning, couldn't care less if you point that out.

So what are the real important issues with the game? And keep in mind that all point cost changes are happening in December with Chapter Approved 2018.

Are you kidding...

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

meleti wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

gak, it was less than the bare minimum, the real important issues with the game were ignored. They are paying lip-service to the FAQ format and yes I'm moaning, couldn't care less if you point that out.

So what are the real important issues with the game? And keep in mind that all point cost changes are happening in December with Chapter Approved 2018.

Are you kidding...

No. I'm curious what you think.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

meleti wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

gak, it was less than the bare minimum, the real important issues with the game were ignored. They are paying lip-service to the FAQ format and yes I'm moaning, couldn't care less if you point that out.

So what are the real important issues with the game? And keep in mind that all point cost changes are happening in December with Chapter Approved 2018.

Are you kidding...

I'd like to hear it just to get another perspective on what people feel is wrong with the game.

Though if you start crying about gunlines while misusing the term I'm going to laugh at you.

In general I like the FAQ, and the adjustments made are interesting and subtle. Especially the 2nd-go-player getting cover Strat. I'm really keen to see how that feels in practice.

The no-Deep Striking turn one is another hit to Drop Pods, although I like the general idea of the rule.

The Fly change is awesome for keeping those Shield Captain bikers in check a bit. Screens are however more effective than ever at blocking Assault. Interesting move.

My Tyranids run Jormangundr, and so are basically unaffected by the Cover Strat, on either side, since their Warlord Trait lets any unit within 3" of the Warlord ignore cover. Hive Guard with Impaler Cannons ignore cover anyways, too.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 blackmage wrote:
yes the right word is when, did you ever played a high level tournament like Nova/LVO or ETC championships? if not try it and then you will get my point.btw i stop here pointless argue in a forum time will tell who's right, happy game to all.

Don't uphold the index performance of Orks to be the same as what they may be able to do once they have their book.

In otherwords, don't count those Squigeons just yet.

believe me i really hope orks will shake the meta and kick some asses with their choppas, (and i dont play orks) but im tired of full firepower lists

 blackmage wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 blackmage wrote:
yes the right word is when, did you ever played a high level tournament like Nova/LVO or ETC championships? if not try it and then you will get my point.btw i stop here pointless argue in a forum time will tell who's right, happy game to all.

Don't uphold the index performance of Orks to be the same as what they may be able to do once they have their book.

In otherwords, don't count those Squigeons just yet.

believe me i really hope, orks can shake the meta and kick some asses with their choppas (and i dont play orks) but im tired of full firepower lists

I haven't seen many lists that rely only on shooting to win (even mostly on shooting to win), but then again I've mostly been keeping an eye on tournament stuff where people seem to be blending psychic powers, shooting and melee to ensure victory.

meleti wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

meleti wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

gak, it was less than the bare minimum, the real important issues with the game were ignored. They are paying lip-service to the FAQ format and yes I'm moaning, couldn't care less if you point that out.

So what are the real important issues with the game? And keep in mind that all point cost changes are happening in December with Chapter Approved 2018.

Are you kidding...

No. I'm curious what you think.

Seriously... I far prefer 8th but you can't think of a single thing that needs changed.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I haven't seen many lists that rely only on shooting to win (even mostly on shooting to win), but then again I've mostly been keeping an eye on tournament stuff where people seem to be blending psychic powers, shooting and melee to ensure victory.

The most common and successful list at the moment has a relatively small melee portion in Smash Captains and maybe, maybe Catachan Infantry while all other units in said list rain hell from afar (with varying degrees of success)

What tournament lists are you looking at and why are you so defensive around the power of ranged firepower?

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

meleti wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

meleti wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

gak, it was less than the bare minimum, the real important issues with the game were ignored. They are paying lip-service to the FAQ format and yes I'm moaning, couldn't care less if you point that out.

So what are the real important issues with the game? And keep in mind that all point cost changes are happening in December with Chapter Approved 2018.

Are you kidding...

No. I'm curious what you think.

Seriously... I far prefer 8th but you can't think of a single thing that needs changed.

That isn't what I said. I was just asking you what you thought were the real important issues of the game that GW ignored in the September FAQ.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 blackmage wrote:
yes the right word is when, did you ever played a high level tournament like Nova/LVO or ETC championships? if not try it and then you will get my point.btw i stop here pointless argue in a forum time will tell who's right, happy game to all.

Don't uphold the index performance of Orks to be the same as what they may be able to do once they have their book.

In otherwords, don't count those Squigeons just yet.

believe me i really hope, orks can shake the meta and kick some asses with their choppas (and i dont play orks) but im tired of full firepower lists

I haven't seen many lists that rely only on shooting to win (even mostly on shooting to win), but then again I've mostly been keeping an eye on tournament stuff where people seem to be blending psychic powers, shooting and melee to ensure victory.

Yeah but try fielding a battalion CC army etc. Shooting is far more geared to shooting, with shooting so strong this edition, the person that goes first gets to do so much damage, the cover strat is cool but not enough, plus there is far too much multi damage weaponry, multi damage should be reserved for heavy weapons, infantry multi-wound models pretty much don't come with multiple wounds anymore.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

meleti wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

meleti wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

gak, it was less than the bare minimum, the real important issues with the game were ignored. They are paying lip-service to the FAQ format and yes I'm moaning, couldn't care less if you point that out.

So what are the real important issues with the game? And keep in mind that all point cost changes are happening in December with Chapter Approved 2018.

Are you kidding...

No. I'm curious what you think.

Seriously... I far prefer 8th but you can't think of a single thing that needs changed.

I can think of several smaller things, but not any "real important issues" that weren't addressed by these changes other than monobuild armies still needing a buff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I haven't seen many lists that rely only on shooting to win (even mostly on shooting to win), but then again I've mostly been keeping an eye on tournament stuff where people seem to be blending psychic powers, shooting and melee to ensure victory.

The most common and successful list at the moment has a relatively small melee portion in Smash Captains and maybe, maybe Catachan Infantry while all other units in said list rain hell from afar (with varying degrees of success)

What tournament lists are you looking at and why are you so defensive around the power of ranged firepower?

"Rain hell". Most shooting isn't doing that against anything that isn't MEQ or TEQ due to how AP doesn't hurt lower save units as much as it used to. I feel like people are overstating how strong shooting is when it takes more concentrated shooting with a lot more rerolling than past editions to be even close to as good as it used to be without being buffed.

Points wise the Smash Captains aren't a "small melee portion", but sure use model count to determine how much of an army is being poured into a given unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 blackmage wrote:
yes the right word is when, did you ever played a high level tournament like Nova/LVO or ETC championships? if not try it and then you will get my point.btw i stop here pointless argue in a forum time will tell who's right, happy game to all.

Don't uphold the index performance of Orks to be the same as what they may be able to do once they have their book.

In otherwords, don't count those Squigeons just yet.

believe me i really hope, orks can shake the meta and kick some asses with their choppas (and i dont play orks) but im tired of full firepower lists

I haven't seen many lists that rely only on shooting to win (even mostly on shooting to win), but then again I've mostly been keeping an eye on tournament stuff where people seem to be blending psychic powers, shooting and melee to ensure victory.

Yeah but try fielding a battalion CC army etc. Shooting is far more geared to shooting, with shooting so strong this edition, the person that goes first gets to do so much damage, the cover strat is cool but not enough, plus there is far too much multi damage weaponry, multi damage should be reserved for heavy weapons, infantry multi-wound models pretty much don't come with multiple wounds anymore.

Armies focused on only shooting are weaker than it was in 5th, 6th, and 7th unless you drop points into buffing it (auras namely). Which means to make shooting good you are taxed. Not to mention things like tanks degrade in ways that hurt them more than they used to, while also being harder to protect.

CC only armies have always been weaker because they ignore a whole phase needed to deal damage and remove screens, and some of them don't even have a psychic phase to try and balance that out.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I can think of several smaller things, but not any "real important issues" that weren't addressed by these changes other than monobuild armies still needing a buff.

Terrain needs some help.
I'd like to see more tweaks for rule of 3 exceptions (DPs / LRBTs).
Maybe a buff to melee in some way.
Terminators need help.
A couple factions need tweaks.

None of those fall under real important and most of them fit the Chapter Approved format.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

meleti wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

meleti wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

gak, it was less than the bare minimum, the real important issues with the game were ignored. They are paying lip-service to the FAQ format and yes I'm moaning, couldn't care less if you point that out.

So what are the real important issues with the game? And keep in mind that all point cost changes are happening in December with Chapter Approved 2018.

Are you kidding...

No. I'm curious what you think.

Seriously... I far prefer 8th but you can't think of a single thing that needs changed.

I can think of several smaller things, but not any "real important issues" that weren't addressed by these changes other than monobuild armies still needing a buff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I haven't seen many lists that rely only on shooting to win (even mostly on shooting to win), but then again I've mostly been keeping an eye on tournament stuff where people seem to be blending psychic powers, shooting and melee to ensure victory.

The most common and successful list at the moment has a relatively small melee portion in Smash Captains and maybe, maybe Catachan Infantry while all other units in said list rain hell from afar (with varying degrees of success)

What tournament lists are you looking at and why are you so defensive around the power of ranged firepower?

"Rain hell". Most shooting isn't doing that against anything that isn't MEQ or TEQ due to how AP doesn't hurt lower save units as much as it used to. I feel like people are overstating how strong shooting is when it takes more concentrated shooting with a lot more rerolling than past editions to be even close to as good as it used to be without being buffed.

Points wise the Smash Captains aren't a "small melee portion", but sure use model count to determine how much of an army is being poured into a given unit.

The multiple damage issue is big especially for armies that have multiple wounds as stock like Primaris. Its more serious than you might think. Shooting has been buffed so much with the logic of the buffs of the toughness of vehicles and monstrous creatures etc. and cases other than those are severely disadvantaged.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I can think of several smaller things, but not any "real important issues" that weren't addressed by these changes other than monobuild armies still needing a buff.

Terrain needs some help.
I'd like to see more tweaks for rule of 3 exceptions (DPs / LRBTs).
Maybe a buff to melee in some way.
Terminators need help.
A couple factions need tweaks.

None of those fall under real important and most of them fit the Chapter Approved format.

Terrain could use better rules, and yes DP's need to be beaten with a stick. LRBTs don't need to be lumped under the same banner just given a points adjustment to make them more restrictive to take. I don't feel that melee needs a buff as much as the durability of units versus shooting needs a buff. Mostly because Marine melee builds are weaker than water. Terminators suffer from the Marine durability issue so I consider that one problem. As for faction tweaks some of those are due to codexes not being out (example: GSC) while a lot of Marine stuff just needs a rehaul (especially GK).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
The multiple damage issue is big especially for armies that have multiple wounds as stock like Primaris. Its more serious than you might think. Shooting has been buffed so much with the logic of the buffs of the toughness of vehicles and monstrous creatures etc. and cases other than those are severely disadvantaged.

Weapons like Autocannons and Dissies need a points hike or a stat change, that is true. They're too consistent due to a high volume of shots and fixed damage stat. That's more of a CA change though (at least the points are).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I can think of several smaller things, but not any "real important issues" that weren't addressed by these changes other than monobuild armies still needing a buff.

Terrain needs some help.
I'd like to see more tweaks for rule of 3 exceptions (DPs / LRBTs).
Maybe a buff to melee in some way.
Terminators need help.
A couple factions need tweaks.

None of those fall under real important and most of them fit the Chapter Approved format.

Terrain could use better rules, and yes DP's need to be beaten with a stick. LRBTs don't need to be lumped under the same banner just given a points adjustment to make them more restrictive to take. I don't feel that melee needs a buff as much as the durability of units versus shooting needs a buff. Mostly because Marine melee builds are weaker than water. Terminators suffer from the Marine durability issue so I consider that one problem. As for faction tweaks some of those are due to codexes not being out (example: GSC) while a lot of Marine stuff just needs a rehaul (especially GK).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
The multiple damage issue is big especially for armies that have multiple wounds as stock like Primaris. Its more serious than you might think. Shooting has been buffed so much with the logic of the buffs of the toughness of vehicles and monstrous creatures etc. and cases other than those are severely disadvantaged.

Weapons like Autocannons and Dissies need a points hike or a stat change, that is true. They're too consistent due to a high volume of shots and fixed damage stat. That's more of a CA change though (at least the points are).

Exactly there are still a lot of issues to the game, I love 8th but the new FAQ was bare minimum, better than nothing but I expected more.

well i can give you lot of army lists which did 1st-3rd place at major events and having a very solid fire base and almost no melee, firepower is strong in 8th

 ClockworkZion wrote:

"Rain hell". Most shooting isn't doing that against anything that isn't MEQ or TEQ due to how AP doesn't hurt lower save units as much as it used to. I feel like people are overstating how strong shooting is when it takes more concentrated shooting with a lot more rerolling than past editions to be even close to as good as it used to be without being buffed.

Points wise the Smash Captains aren't a "small melee portion", but sure use model count to determine how much of an army is being poured into a given unit.

Your comparison to earlier editions is flawed and foolish. I can name editions where melee dominated and was far, far more powerful than it is now. Doesn't mean it was balanced or fun.

Also shooting became more powerful for many units. Twin linked = double shots. Rerolls are given out like candy in the shooting phase.

Points wise smash captains are what, 120ish points? So two is 240. Less than an eighth of a 2k list. I was never talking about model count so enough strange fallacies.

How many points is the Castellan? Does it race up the field upon wings of fire to cause havoc in cqc?

I asked for the tournament lists you've mentioned seeing that don't have a massive ranged component as you claimed. I'm happy to hear them.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Karol wrote:
If it does majority shoting it is gunline, if it is majority melee it is melee. Is this some historical naming thing from past editions. I haven't seen or played against any ol gunlines. I play less then a year.

Just because you don't know what a gunline actually is like doesn't give you an excuse to keep using the term wrong when it's pointed out.

Karol wrote:
And if GK are so miss balanced, and it is not like a new thing that happened over night, why isn't GW fixing them? They could have done it in the CA, could have done it with the march FAQ or now they didn't do it. Even now when they hurt the GSC army, they at least aknowladge the problem and tell the players, they see it and that they are going to have a new codex that fixs it. GK get nothing, in fact they are running on a 2017 FAQ right now.

There are two problems for GK: EVERY problem that Marines have + bad points costing. The second at least could see fixing in CA. The first is more a ? on when they'll fix it.

Karol wrote:
What is worse everyone is telling me that there is no garente that the next CA is going to fix them. So maybe next year a new codex will come out, but then 8th ed is hiting the 2 year mark and GW seems to start a new edition every 2 years. So GK will either be another first bad codex or worse get a transition one with rules neither working in 8th or 9th ed.

If rumors of 8th are to believed we'll be seeing updates overtime which means we're not waiting for 9th to see an update, but rather just waiting to see if CA does it or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
Then why do close combat units, and even mostly close combat armies even exist if you're not supposed to be able to do anything with them?

Because it looks cool as hell to have a chainsaw sword/axe/baseball bat/boot.

All melee builds are an intentional negation of an entire phase (shooting). This means you reduce your total possible damage output. Ideally (to me at least) you should mix melee and shooting to be able to do damage in multiple phases.

yeah but that means the only good melee army is something like eldar, where the shoting is godly and they can just run one or two super efficient super fast melee units to kill or tie up stuff, and maybe claim objectives end game, if the units seem to survive. A melee army that has to pay for melee upgrades on each of its models would never achive that level of point efficiency, unless of course GW decided to give them some 100-150pts undercosted model or unit. If NDKs suddenly got jump packs and costed 150pts with a full melee load out, I could imagine GK working.

There are several good melee focused armies, but there are no armies that do well being ONLY melee. 40k is best played with some semblance of balance between the two. Or just play Tau who try to stay out of combat as much as possible.

Quick question, who elected you the god of gaming terms? What authority do you have that your definition of 'Gunline' is any more valid than anyone elses?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

"Rain hell". Most shooting isn't doing that against anything that isn't MEQ or TEQ due to how AP doesn't hurt lower save units as much as it used to. I feel like people are overstating how strong shooting is when it takes more concentrated shooting with a lot more rerolling than past editions to be even close to as good as it used to be without being buffed.

Points wise the Smash Captains aren't a "small melee portion", but sure use model count to determine how much of an army is being poured into a given unit.

Your comparison to earlier editions is flawed and foolish. I can name editions where melee dominated and was far, far more powerful than it is now. Doesn't mean it was balanced or fun.

Also shooting became more powerful for many units. Twin linked = double shots. Rerolls are given out like candy in the shooting phase.

Points wise smash captains are what, 120ish points? So two is 240. Less than an eighth of a 2k list. I was never talking about model count so enough strange fallacies.

How many points is the Castellan? Does it race up the field upon wings of fire to cause havoc in cqc?

I asked for the tournament lists you've mentioned seeing that don't have a massive ranged component as you claimed. I'm happy to hear them.

Twin-linked buffed shooting for vehicles and bikes (the biggest sources of TL). Vehicles became easier to kill though and bikes are dominating what meta again?

For most rerolls you need to cast psychic powers or pay for a character to get them or spend CP on the reroll. Not exactly like candy when it comes with a tax, the last of which wasn't being used as much because the CP was being spent elsewhere.

People were running 3 Smash Captains in a Supreme Command Detachment in some lists. Most of the points went into the Castellan and it's friends (most of the lists I've seen use 3 knights with at least 1 of them being a melee build). The least amount went to Guard.

And you're conflating the idea that an army with a lot of shooting, in a game where most armies have a lot of shooting, is the same as a gunline army which is the thing everyone keeps touting as being the melee killer despite not actually being played successfully the way people claim their are.

Most lists I've seen get anywhere try to balance melee and shooting and splash psychic powers in. I haven't seen many lists that are straight shooting with no melee outside of Tau and the Fishheads aren't as successful as they used to be. This edition encourages maximizing damage per turn, which means doing damage in as many phases as you can, not just shooting, not just melee and not just the psychic phase.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

"Rain hell". Most shooting isn't doing that against anything that isn't MEQ or TEQ due to how AP doesn't hurt lower save units as much as it used to. I feel like people are overstating how strong shooting is when it takes more concentrated shooting with a lot more rerolling than past editions to be even close to as good as it used to be without being buffed.

Points wise the Smash Captains aren't a "small melee portion", but sure use model count to determine how much of an army is being poured into a given unit.

Your comparison to earlier editions is flawed and foolish. I can name editions where melee dominated and was far, far more powerful than it is now. Doesn't mean it was balanced or fun.

Also shooting became more powerful for many units. Twin linked = double shots. Rerolls are given out like candy in the shooting phase.

Points wise smash captains are what, 120ish points? So two is 240. Less than an eighth of a 2k list. I was never talking about model count so enough strange fallacies.

How many points is the Castellan? Does it race up the field upon wings of fire to cause havoc in cqc?

I asked for the tournament lists you've mentioned seeing that don't have a massive ranged component as you claimed. I'm happy to hear them.

114 x2 on Andrews list.
Straken, Priest, Ogryn BG, 18 crusaders, and a sentinel with a heavy flamer don't exactly qualify as gunline either - 494 points.

Then a psyker, and cc for 76 points of support.
165 for 3 sets of scouts is hardly amping up the gunline and I'd call them support, too.

Then you have 240 of Catachan IG, which is gunline...I guess?
90 for ML sentinels.
99 for mortars.
604 for the Castellan.

So 722 melee, 241 support, and 1033 gunline with 240 of that being questionable. 60% of the "gunline" is in one unit.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

"Rain hell". Most shooting isn't doing that against anything that isn't MEQ or TEQ due to how AP doesn't hurt lower save units as much as it used to. I feel like people are overstating how strong shooting is when it takes more concentrated shooting with a lot more rerolling than past editions to be even close to as good as it used to be without being buffed.

Points wise the Smash Captains aren't a "small melee portion", but sure use model count to determine how much of an army is being poured into a given unit.

Your comparison to earlier editions is flawed and foolish. I can name editions where melee dominated and was far, far more powerful than it is now. Doesn't mean it was balanced or fun.

Also shooting became more powerful for many units. Twin linked = double shots. Rerolls are given out like candy in the shooting phase.

Points wise smash captains are what, 120ish points? So two is 240. Less than an eighth of a 2k list. I was never talking about model count so enough strange fallacies.

How many points is the Castellan? Does it race up the field upon wings of fire to cause havoc in cqc?

I asked for the tournament lists you've mentioned seeing that don't have a massive ranged component as you claimed. I'm happy to hear them.

Twin-linked buffed shooting for vehicles and bikes (the biggest sources of TL). Vehicles became easier to kill though and bikes are dominating what meta again?

For most rerolls you need to cast psychic powers or pay for a character to get them or spend CP on the reroll. Not exactly like candy when it comes with a tax, the last of which wasn't being used as much because the CP was being spent elsewhere.

People were running 3 Smash Captains in a Supreme Command Detachment in some lists. Most of the points went into the Castellan and it's friends (most of the lists I've seen use 3 knights with at least 1 of them being a melee build). The least amount went to Guard.

And you're conflating the idea that an army with a lot of shooting, in a game where most armies have a lot of shooting, is the same as a gunline army which is the thing everyone keeps touting as being the melee killer despite not actually being played successfully the way people claim their are.

Most lists I've seen get anywhere try to balance melee and shooting and splash psychic powers in. I haven't seen many lists that are straight shooting with no melee outside of Tau and the Fishheads aren't as successful as they used to be. This edition encourages maximizing damage per turn, which means doing damage in as many phases as you can, not just shooting, not just melee and not just the psychic phase.

No you don't, re-rolls come in auras, CP's, the vehicles themselves, re-rolls on hits and wound and D. Acting like this isn't an issue for shooting because you have to expend CP's or psychic powers is just silly. Shooting is over-powered without factoring re-rolls, its even worse when you factor in re-rolls.

How are you assuming that people aren't playing CC armies and tackling gun-lines, you'll have to actually explain that. Expound on how you tackle them.