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.

 Marmatag wrote:
The bigger problem is going to be all of the 4+ guardsmen lined up in front of everything. I hate this change.

. . .

 Marmatag wrote:
Getting a +1 cover save is meaningless when you don't have a base 3+.

The grass is always greener. . . I guess.

Was discussing the save in the context of vehicles. In the context of infantry and spammable models saves have different values.

Kinda wish they made the Tactical reserve restriction only apply to the first PLAYER turn.

The player who goes first gets all the benefits of, well, going first, but cannot deploy any reserves until turn 2.
Player 2, however, can deploy reserves turn 1 as they have to risk at least half their army getting blown off the table by Player 1 before getting to respond.
It shifts the balance away from "player with first turn usually wins".

And that's the point really. Both players should have 1 turn to do something before additional enemy support arrives
They way it is now, Player 1 gets 2 whole turns to so stuff before enemy support arrives, while Player 2 only get 1.
"Free" cover cannot equalize this disparity

-

 Galef wrote:
Kinda wish they made the Tactical reserve restriction only apply to the first PLAYER turn.

The player who goes first gets all the benefits of, well, going first, but cannot deploy any reserves until turn 2.
Player 2, however, can deploy reserves turn 1 as they have to risk at least half their army getting blown off the table by Player 1 before getting to respond.
It shifts the balance away from "player with first turn usually wins".

And that's the point really. Both players should have 1 turn to do something before additional enemy support arrives
They way it is now, Player 1 gets 2 whole turns to so stuff before enemy support arrives, while Player 2 only get 1.
"Free" cover cannot equalize this disparity

-

I actually completely support this.

Audustum wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Kinda wish they made the Tactical reserve restriction only apply to the first PLAYER turn.

The player who goes first gets all the benefits of, well, going first, but cannot deploy any reserves until turn 2.
Player 2, however, can deploy reserves turn 1 as they have to risk at least half their army getting blown off the table by Player 1 before getting to respond.
It shifts the balance away from "player with first turn usually wins".

And that's the point really. Both players should have 1 turn to do something before additional enemy support arrives
They way it is now, Player 1 gets 2 whole turns to so stuff before enemy support arrives, while Player 2 only get 1.
"Free" cover cannot equalize this disparity

-

I actually completely support this.

Yeh, I actually see zero downsides to this, and it would seem to fix so many issues.

 Galef wrote:
Kinda wish they made the Tactical reserve restriction only apply to the first PLAYER turn.

The player who goes first gets all the benefits of, well, going first, but cannot deploy any reserves until turn 2.
Player 2, however, can deploy reserves turn 1 as they have to risk at least half their army getting blown off the table by Player 1 before getting to respond.
It shifts the balance away from "player with first turn usually wins".

And that's the point really. Both players should have 1 turn to do something before additional enemy support arrives
They way it is now, Player 1 gets 2 whole turns to so stuff before enemy support arrives, while Player 2 only get 1.
"Free" cover cannot equalize this disparity

-

Thirded? Yeah, going with that.

Wait, four people in a row agreeing about something on the internet? [Checks for raining blood and glowing horsemen]

Again, Galef comes through with a rule tweak that a lot of players agree with. We really should nominate this dude/gal for an honorary GW staff position.

Noobs/bad players would still get curb stomped by player 2 stuff coming down turn 1 because they don't know how to move/measure in a way to deny shooting/charging to their squishy units (even now that we can't charge over them or get bonus move after deepstrike).

Those players, making up the majority of GWs player base according to dakka, would flood GW with how unfair and unfun deepstrike makes the game and the rule would never see the light of day.

Best bet would to have groups like ITC/ETC implement something like this in their tourney rule pack but with GW stepping back into the competitive/tournament scene my guess is these groups don't want to stray too far away from the GW rule set less they upset the golden cow.

I agree it is a great rule but GW seems to be aiming for pleasing the lowest common denominator and deepstrike looks like one of those concepts which is too complicated for a board/card game.

(dang I've gotten bitter)...

Me and my friends have been running that exact rule in our little local ITC league. It works a charm.

 Galef wrote:
Kinda wish they made the Tactical reserve restriction only apply to the first PLAYER turn.

The player who goes first gets all the benefits of, well, going first, but cannot deploy any reserves until turn 2.
Player 2, however, can deploy reserves turn 1 as they have to risk at least half their army getting blown off the table by Player 1 before getting to respond.
It shifts the balance away from "player with first turn usually wins".

And that's the point really. Both players should have 1 turn to do something before additional enemy support arrives
They way it is now, Player 1 gets 2 whole turns to so stuff before enemy support arrives, while Player 2 only get 1.
"Free" cover cannot equalize this disparity

-

Yeah, this would be way better. I've though so since they first introduced this rule.

bananathug wrote:
Again, Galef comes through with a rule tweak that a lot of players agree with. We really should nominate this dude/gal for an honorary GW staff position.

Noobs/bad players would still get curb stomped by player 2 stuff coming down turn 1 because they don't know how to move/measure in a way to deny shooting/charging to their squishy units (even now that we can't charge over them or get bonus move after deepstrike).

This makes no sense... as those same players would instead under the current rules be complaining that they are getting curb stomped by player 1 on turn 2 (instead of player 2 on turn 1). It's the same situation.

Difference is, under the current rules, those players get stomped by player 1 on turn 1 because of first-turn alpha strikes, and then get stomped by deepstrikers at the start of turn 2 as well. So they get double stomped.

Under the proposed rule, they each get a turn at stomping - Player 1 gets first turn alpha, player 2 gets first deepstrikers.

So it would be much more balanced in every game. Unless you don't play any deepstrikers of course.

Niiru wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Again, Galef comes through with a rule tweak that a lot of players agree with. We really should nominate this dude/gal for an honorary GW staff position.

Noobs/bad players would still get curb stomped by player 2 stuff coming down turn 1 because they don't know how to move/measure in a way to deny shooting/charging to their squishy units (even now that we can't charge over them or get bonus move after deepstrike).

This makes no sense... as those same players would instead under the current rules be complaining that they are getting curb stomped by player 1 on turn 2 (instead of player 2 on turn 1). It's the same situation.

Difference is, under the current rules, those players get stomped by player 1 on turn 1 because of first-turn alpha strikes, and then get stomped by deepstrikers at the start of turn 2 as well. So they get double stomped.

Under the proposed rule, they each get a turn at stomping - Player 1 gets first turn alpha, player 2 gets first deepstrikers.

So it would be much more balanced in every game. Unless you don't play any deepstrikers of course.

No, It's not a good suggestion.
It will create polarising matchups, for example Thousand Sons now dominate if going second, Genestealer Cults must go second to function, Space Wolves dominate going second etc.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Was discussing the save in the context of vehicles. In the context of infantry and spammable models saves have different values.

I don't agree. For my Orks I will never be using the +1 cover save stratgem, ever.

For Necrons? Hell yeah, sign me up for that gak

Uh why wouldn't you use it for Orks? You have easily acquired CP.

 Marmatag wrote:
The bigger problem is going to be all of the 4+ guardsmen lined up in front of everything. I hate this change.

Yep - huge buff to IG.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Uh why wouldn't you use it for Orks? You have easily acquired CP.

Not really. You need 90 Ork boys for each Battalion.

Otherwise you're making the armies best units, worse.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Uh why wouldn't you use it for Orks? You have easily acquired CP.

Not really. You need 90 Ork boys for each Battalion.

Otherwise you're making the armies best units, worse.

As...if that were an issue? You already know you're gonna get price cuts with the codex too.

 Galef wrote:
Kinda wish they made the Tactical reserve restriction only apply to the first PLAYER turn.

The player who goes first gets all the benefits of, well, going first, but cannot deploy any reserves until turn 2.
Player 2, however, can deploy reserves turn 1 as they have to risk at least half their army getting blown off the table by Player 1 before getting to respond.
It shifts the balance away from "player with first turn usually wins".

And that's the point really. Both players should have 1 turn to do something before additional enemy support arrives
They way it is now, Player 1 gets 2 whole turns to so stuff before enemy support arrives, while Player 2 only get 1.
"Free" cover cannot equalize this disparity

-

Do you mean go back to the old beta deep strike? Or player 2 gets full deep strike? IDK that seems too strong for only player 2 to get to deepstrike.

Personally - I wish GW would just release a host of general stratagems with interceptor being an option. Basically it would function just like the Space wolf version. Everyone can deep strike. Everyone can intercept. Seems like this would be pretty fair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I hate nerfs to tau...but this new deep strike rule basically dumpsters them.

The main way I have figured to run the army is to take marker drones and deep strike them next to a drone controller turn 1. Can't do that anymore. So players will just nuke your marker lights as always. Tau can't win without at least 1 turn of solid marker light output. Waiting till turn 2 is NOT an option for a shooting army. Turn 2 is often the turn you are getting assaulted by entire armies. A lot of it is turn 1.

I guess I can just take cadres and firesite marksmen. But that cost more and does not offer the utility of a drone. Basically the more I think about this FAQ. The more I know the rules makers in this game have 0 understand of how this game works.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Uh why wouldn't you use it for Orks? You have easily acquired CP.

Not really. You need 90 Ork boys for each Battalion.

Otherwise you're making the armies best units, worse.

As...if that were an issue? You already know you're gonna get price cuts with the codex too.

"Easily Acquired" CP has a time sink that I can't be bothered dealing with, I don't want to be playing an army with 180++ troop models just to feel like I have CP to toy around with.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Do you mean go back to the old beta deep strike? Or player 2 gets full deep strike? IDK that seems too strong for only player 2 to get to deepstrike.

Personally - I wish GW would just release a host of general stratagems with interceptor being an option. Basically it would function just like the Space wolf version. Everyone can deep strike. Everyone can intercept. Seems like this would be pretty fair.

Agreed 110%. We need more universal mechanics and options, from stratagems ranging to some more utility psychic powers.
The only problem with universal mechanics is that they will almost always (if added now) subtract from an existing codex because of design space

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Uh why wouldn't you use it for Orks? You have easily acquired CP.

Not really. You need 90 Ork boys for each Battalion.

Otherwise you're making the armies best units, worse.

As...if that were an issue? You already know you're gonna get price cuts with the codex too.

If rumors are true then our CP will be better spent on other stratagems. Taking boys from a 6+ to a 5+ isnt all that great, especially considering most things will ignore most or all of that armor anyway. Maybe if you take a mechanized list it would be good but in green tide its not that great when you're saving 6 point models 16% more than you were before (maybe)

You don't nerf the whole game because of a few units.

Simple fixes had been offered to fix smash captains - shinning spears - ect.

Limiting the number of strats a unit could use per turn would effective target the smash captain. Also - +1W thunder hammers should not cost the same as +0 to wound thunder hammers. Increasing the cost of the smash captain and or the strat limit would have fixed him.

Spears just need to cost more and have their psychic powers nerfed a bit (I'd say range or a change in the deny mechanic to make the unit the spell being cast on be the range for the deny).

Boom - just fixed the game without nerfing other armies.

What exactly was the reasoning behind the no DS turn 1? Not even sure that was addressing an actual problem. Perhaps it was the plan all along because too many players were crying about turn 1 DS. So they did pulled a fast one with the Beta rule - always intending to completely remove turn 1 DS. (Even though many players really liked turn 1 DS).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Uh why wouldn't you use it for Orks? You have easily acquired CP.

Not really. You need 90 Ork boys for each Battalion.

Otherwise you're making the armies best units, worse.

As...if that were an issue? You already know you're gonna get price cuts with the codex too.

what are you basing your opinion on in regards to Orks getting a price cut with the codex? Going from 4th to 7th we saw our Army become unarguably bottom tier. Going from 7th to 8th we had a index that functioned EXCLUSIVELY on the premise of taking ONLY boyz and a few support characters/KMKs. Our Trukk went from 30pts to over 80. Our drastically overpriced and under-performing Stompa went from 770 to just shy of 1,000pts. I mean hell, our warbikes which were considered ok in 7th went up 50% in price.

So what are you basing that on?

Also as a side note, why not spend the 2pts? well at the moment there isn't a reason NOT to spend 2CP to get +1 armor turn 1. But that is because we have no Strategems worth using beyond the basic ones. So if I bring out a couple of detachments and have 10-15 CP yeah i'll probably spend 2 to get a tiny buff to my armor on turn 1 but as soon as the codex comes out and we have something worth saving CP for, then the +1 to armor strat goes out the window unless they drastically reduce the price of our more elite units so I can stop taking 180-240 boyz to every game to have a CHANCE of winning.

SemperMortis wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Uh why wouldn't you use it for Orks? You have easily acquired CP.

Not really. You need 90 Ork boys for each Battalion.

Otherwise you're making the armies best units, worse.

As...if that were an issue? You already know you're gonna get price cuts with the codex too.

what are you basing your opinion on in regards to Orks getting a price cut with the codex? Going from 4th to 7th we saw our Army become unarguably bottom tier. Going from 7th to 8th we had a index that functioned EXCLUSIVELY on the premise of taking ONLY boyz and a few support characters/KMKs. Our Trukk went from 30pts to over 80. Our drastically overpriced and under-performing Stompa went from 770 to just shy of 1,000pts. I mean hell, our warbikes which were considered ok in 7th went up 50% in price.

So what are you basing that on?

Also as a side note, why not spend the 2pts? well at the moment there isn't a reason NOT to spend 2CP to get +1 armor turn 1. But that is because we have no Strategems worth using beyond the basic ones. So if I bring out a couple of detachments and have 10-15 CP yeah i'll probably spend 2 to get a tiny buff to my armor on turn 1 but as soon as the codex comes out and we have something worth saving CP for, then the +1 to armor strat goes out the window unless they drastically reduce the price of our more elite units so I can stop taking 180-240 boyz to every game to have a CHANCE of winning.

I'm not even talking Boyz getting a price cut. I'm talking other units.

 conker249 wrote:
I wonder is Reivers with Grapnel guns are affected since theirs doesnt say fly. but acts similar.

They (and Grey Knight Jump-Dudes-Who-I-Forget-The-Names-Of-Right-Now) were left unchanged, likely because that wargear isn't on solo models meaning that screening the unit is less of an issue than screening a solo model with Fly or Flip Belts was.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
I wonder is Reivers with Grapnel guns are affected since theirs doesnt say fly. but acts similar.

They (and Grey Knight Jump-Dudes-Who-I-Forget-The-Names-Of-Right-Now) were left unchanged, likely because that wargear isn't on solo models meaning that screening the unit is less of an issue than screening a solo model with Fly or Flip Belts was.

Canoptek wraiths were nerfed too, and they don't come in solo models.

Maybe that the problem was with those models being too fast on top of being able to fly?

Interceptors are funny now, they weren't given fly as a form of nerf, and no one at GW plays GK, so there is a good chance they don't know that they still can phase through walls and models.

Zustiur wrote:

Kdash wrote:
So, i've been trying to think of ways to make the new Raven Guard strat work... What i have currently is...

Shrike, 2 units of 6 Bolter Inceptors and 1 unit of 4 Plasma Inceptors... Then 1 Knight, 2 mini Knights and a Guard battalion... It just sucks that i realised as soon as i think of ways to take advantage of the free 9" move (still hoping it allows FLY units to... Fly...), it turns into costing so so so many points and you're then left with not a lot of options in the Marine dex to cover all the big gaps - thus leading you to needing something to hit a bit harder and some for of additional CP.

Right now, the only options for the Raven Guard strat imho is Jump Pack units. You could run a couple of big squads of Vanguard Vets (or assault marines lol) down the table with it for a turn 1 charge, but, now that you can't jump screens there is no real reason for you to spend all those points on the melee Marines when another unit can just do a whole lot more for you shooting.

You're over thinking it. Before you were 9" away. Now you're 15" away. Still in double tap range for hellblasters and aggressors.
Still in easy charge range for bikes and jump packs.

Ummm...How you came up with 15"? Even if you start at the deployment line and move 9" you STILL aren't 15" from nearest enemy as it's actually slightly over 24"(even if it's 24.1"). Also even if we assume deployment lines were EXACTLY 24" apart you still aren't going to be within 15" of enemy by 9" move. Why would he give you exact 15" range for double tap when he can deploy 0.1" further away and be safe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Uh why wouldn't you use it for Orks? You have easily acquired CP.

Not really. You need 90 Ork boys for each Battalion.

Otherwise you're making the armies best units, worse.

a) 180 boyz is pretty much mandatory for orks anyway=2 battallion.
b) grots are 90 pts for battallion and are very useful units to begin with. That easily adds up to 3rd battallion.
c) if you don't want 3rd battallion spearhead(for the mandatory KMK) is also easy.

Problem isn't actually troop slots but HQ's. 3rd battallion starts to get bit heavy on HQ tax. But 13-14 CP is pretty much minimum and there's not much you actually need CP for. Rerolls? Reroll choppa attack! Yey! That makes impact. Counter attack sometimes but generally orks aren't in h2h. Morale is sometimes useful at least...

Bigger problem is that the strategem isn't even that useful for orks. Strategem helps the more you have save to begin with. Ergo only thing worse 6+ for the strategem is the ones with 7+...And orks might be behind 2-3 KFF fields for 5++ which is waaaaay better anyway. For starters it's not modifiable and second it's turn 2 onward as well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
"Easily Acquired" CP has a time sink that I can't be bothered dealing with, I don't want to be playing an army with 180++ troop models just to feel like I have CP to toy around with.

Then orks are ATM 100% wrong army for you. And we don't know what codex is for.

Anyway 90 models, 3 battallions. Quite possible now and not even that bad.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

So what are you basing that on?

Also as a side note, why not spend the 2pts? well at the moment there isn't a reason NOT to spend 2CP to get +1 armor turn 1. But that is because we have no Strategems worth using beyond the basic ones. So if I bring out a couple of detachments and have 10-15 CP yeah i'll probably spend 2 to get a tiny buff to my armor on turn 1 but as soon as the codex comes out and we have something worth saving CP for, then the +1 to armor strat goes out the window unless they drastically reduce the price of our more elite units so I can stop taking 180-240 boyz to every game to have a CHANCE of winning.

The way GW does these codexes. They upped the prices in index, got people play 2k, after that every codex has been steadily dropping point costs so people get to buy more models. Name one 8th ed codex that has systematic price ups to index? Generally units not only got free rules and stat increases loaded up on them AND price drops. If you are so sure about orks not getting price drops wanna wager a bet?-) Easy to be sure they won't get claiming GW hates orks but are you willing to put money on the line on that claim? I'm up for it provided we get 3rd party to whom money gets transfered in advance and who then transfers whole pile to the winner so that neither can claim they are in only to back out when they lose.

Or is this more of your "GW hates orks" conspicary theorists...

tneva82 wrote:


Ummm...How you came up with 15"? Even if you start at the deployment line and move 9" you STILL aren't 15" from nearest enemy as it's actually slightly over 24"(even if it's 24.1").

Also even if we assume deployment lines were EXACTLY 24" apart you still aren't going to be within 15" of enemy by 9" move.

have to agree here, most standard deployments are 24.0000001" apart
so a 9" move that's not a move will always leave you out of 15" range,
in the same way a DS of 9" will leave 9" weapons out of range.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Also a few are taking above the minimum, I know Brandon Grant for example likes to run 10 or so and I believe he hit top 10 at NOVA i think

From memory, I believe that of the Imperial Soup armies in the top 10, one took one Infantry squad above minimum for their Battalion/Brigade, and another two above minimum.

Reemule wrote:
I feel they should up the shots fired from Flamers/Heavy Flamers/Flamer equivalents from 1D6, to 1D6 per 5 models in the target unit.

I think I'd scale that with the size of the weapon - of the top of my head:
* Hand Flamers - d3 hits per 10 models (or part thereof)
* Flamers - 2d3 hits per 10 models (or part thereof)
* Heavy Flamers - 3d3 hits per 10 models (or part thereof)

This would need to specify that max hits is equal to the size of the unit.

I'll add that I do think GW missed a trick by not giving weapons keywords (such as BOLT, PLASMA, FLAMER, FORCE, etc), so that a rule could just be attached to the FLAMER keyword, for example.

 Marmatag wrote:
The bigger problem is going to be all of the 4+ guardsmen lined up in front of everything. I hate this change.

At the minute, I think the better question is what about the game don't you hate?

The game, not the sculpts.

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Ummm...How you came up with 15"? Even if you start at the deployment line and move 9" you STILL aren't 15" from nearest enemy as it's actually slightly over 24"(even if it's 24.1").

Also even if we assume deployment lines were EXACTLY 24" apart you still aren't going to be within 15" of enemy by 9" move.

have to agree here, most standard deployments are 24.0000001" apart
so a 9" move that's not a move will always leave you out of 15" range,
in the same way a DS of 9" will leave 9" weapons out of range.

And even if it's 24" exact getting to 15" would require enemy conveniently lining up EXACTLY on the deployment line. Even my orks generally deploy bit further(like 0.5"). Doubly so if I know enemy at 15" that can move 9" pre-game are coming in!

That's why it always amuses me when people figure way to make average(as in 7 roll) 24" charge and are thinking they can make T1 charges reliably. Nice if enemy deploys at deployment line. If they know you have unit that can charge say 26" away targets why would he deploy gunline 26" away from you? Why not 28"? What I find is often enough I need to cover like 30" to gunlike...

tneva82 wrote:

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Ummm...How you came up with 15"? Even if you start at the deployment line and move 9" you STILL aren't 15" from nearest enemy as it's actually slightly over 24"(even if it's 24.1").

Also even if we assume deployment lines were EXACTLY 24" apart you still aren't going to be within 15" of enemy by 9" move.

have to agree here, most standard deployments are 24.0000001" apart
so a 9" move that's not a move will always leave you out of 15" range,
in the same way a DS of 9" will leave 9" weapons out of range.

And even if it's 24" exact getting to 15" would require enemy conveniently lining up EXACTLY on the deployment line. Even my orks generally deploy bit further(like 0.5"). Doubly so if I know enemy at 15" that can move 9" pre-game are coming in!

That's why it always amuses me when people figure way to make average(as in 7 roll) 24" charge and are thinking they can make T1 charges reliably. Nice if enemy deploys at deployment line. If they know you have unit that can charge say 26" away targets why would he deploy gunline 26" away from you? Why not 28"? What I find is often enough I need to cover like 30" to gunlike...

I agree, that it won’t be that simple for Hellblasters, and practically impossible for Aggressors depending on matchup and deployment of course.

Hellblasters can still get a reliable rapid fire. In total they will get a 15” move, putting them 9.0000001” away from the enemy deployment zone first turn – however, knowing this, I’d just make sure that I deploy the units that would be targeted by the Hellblasters 6.5” away from my deployment line (in things like Hammer and Anvil and Spearhead? etc I don’t even need to really worry about that at all).

As for Aggressors – they have an 18” range – so 27”s in total if they want to double fire first turn. The moment someone places their screens 3.5” into their own deployment zone, is the moment they are forced to make an additional move – the moment the screen is 7.5” in, they can’t do anything at all.

Hellblasters still have the range and plasma going for them. Aggressors now, 100% need a transport in order to make the required screen clearing impact on your opponent. And the moment you buy that Repulsor for them, is the moment you might as well ditch the 5-600 point idea and load up on something better.

While I didn't state it on my last post, kdash has correctly included the 6" move in the calculation for hellblasters.
I never said it was as good as what Raven guard had before. Just that being in half range was still possible. Sure, your opponent can deploy further back, but by doing so, they've just conceded ground. They now have further to go to capture any objectives. They've given you a the centre of the table. Your use of a stratagem has dictated their deployment.

Aggressors are anti infantry. Which can be thought of in several armies as anti screen. Are your opponents putting their screens a minimum of 3" behind their deployment line? If not, you're in range without needing to move on your turn. In my experience, screens are usually as far forward as they can be.