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.

We've seen this time and time again but for some reason GW continue to allow certain factions the ability to do things outside of normal phasing.

We all know how Ynarri used to operate and how broken that was. Even with multiple nerfs.

Multiple factions (including my own) can move outside of the movement phase and this tends to lead to a one sided play experience.

Multiple factions (including my own) can fight or shoot on death. Some units do this for free without any CP investment. This ability literally punishes good play. You've managed to get the charge off on my Biker boss? Well played. Shame I'm going to kill you when he dies anyway. At least this ability triggers in the correct phase, however.

For me the worst abilities are those that allow damage outside of the proper phase. It completely ruins the action economy of the game. For example - multiple factions can fire at opponents in their turn if they have the audacity to deep strike. Doesn't this seem counterintuitive? Why would I invest in units with such an ability when they are making themselves targets?

The latest offenders (to my knowledge) are Grey Knights, that can now shoot in the psychic phase. Nice one GW, now my screen is utterly pointless and dies before a flood of 2 MW Smites is thrown at my army. How do I counter this, exactly?

My solution? Simple. Remove any and all abilities to act outside of the normal phases of the game. What do you guys think on this? Am I the only one to find these abilities irritating? I get that it leads to a much more flexible game but I feel that in a IGOUGO system it just doesn't allow balance.

Thoughts?

meh, counterplay to deepstrike is needed in order to not make 40k into alpha strike simulator.

However, 40k also is not designed for counterplay, beeing historically just an IGOUGO that basically reaches it's limitations design wise.


Also let's not pretend screens are relevant in 8th edition beyond the first 2 turns atmost, considering the insane output of firepower this edition has shown sofar.

Not Online!!! wrote:
meh, counterplay to deepstrike is needed in order to not make 40k into alpha strike simulator.

However, 40k also is not designed for counterplay, beeing historically just an IGOUGO that basically reaches it's limitations design wise.


Also let's not pretend screens are relevant in 8th edition beyond the first 2 turns atmost, considering the insane output of firepower this edition has shown sofar.

I thought the "no Deep Strike until Turn 2" was supposed to be the answer to alpha strike Deep Striking units?

Agreed with the IGOUGO limitations restricting counterplay, it's one of the reasons for this thread to be honest.

I think two turns of screening potential, or even one is better than none? GW could always tone down the firepower of units globally (although until very recently we've had armies built around the idea that they simply can't be shifted quick enough), but I'm not sure that would fix the issue at hand.

I think it depends, sweeping "it is always bad when X" is proably a bad idea. nuance is a good thing. 40k is HARDLY unique among gaming for "interrupt" and "attack of oppertunity" abilities. IMHO the best way to do this is actually to build it into the unit. such as allowing a unit to adopt a "over watch stance" in which they specificly forgo shooting to open fire on a unit that "moves within x inches" of it. do it right and you actually add a layer of tactics to 40k beyond "I move all my units, I shoot all my units. now you move what you have left, shoot what you have left" rinse repeat.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I thought the "no Deep Strike until Turn 2" was supposed to be the answer to alpha strike Deep Striking units?

Except that is not true because GW is chronically bad in giving everybody equal long pikes, cue SM droppods. Or movement shenanigans of CSM which are needed to make it for their assault centric comp build atm. (Another core issue is that massed assault lists don't work

Also it is pretty clear that massively differing design paradigms apply to many factions and their books. Exemplifying the issue of the "i can ignore the baserules via interaction if i get lucky in the rules release cycle" and it is not just a issue in regards of acting outside of "your turn" but also in regards to access to output of damage modifyers and army design (cacophony, prescience f.e. improve output, same with auras that allow rerolls).


Access to recycling is another issues, some army don't have any way, others can happily recycle, (CSM are an offender in this, technically you can recycle once 2 units in one turn, allowing you in essence to gain a massive point handicap if oyu think about it, sadly the units you can recycle are also not worth recycling and the whole ordeal can be counterplayed easily by just squad wiping units.)

Agreed with the IGOUGO limitations restricting counterplay, it's one of the reasons for this thread to be honest.

I think two turns of screening potential, or even one is better than none? GW could always tone down the firepower of units globally (although until very recently we've had armies built around the idea that they simply can't be shifted quick enough), but I'm not sure that would fix the issue at hand.

I run a massed CSM list protecting 2 units of havocs and a unit of chosen, this is a fun build for fun matches, mind you, at most semi competitive and that is a far stretch, i have in that list alone over 66 CSM bodies to screen and recycle.
Let me tell you, against some armies it has a massive impact and against others it doesn't matter at all (SM in tac doctrine outrangeing and outgunning me woefully, making it even nigh impossible for me to even use the recycling stratagem i have.)

The issue again is facilitated by the arms race that GW has going with rules.

Brotherhood champions both fight on death, even when they could fight twice on death, they were neither broken, nor even considered much as an option to be taken. So it depends. A knight castellan being able to fight at full one last time before death is probably powerful, specially if it includes shoting. Poking someone with 4 str 4 attacks is not.

BrianDavion wrote:
I think it depends, sweeping "it is always bad when X" is proably a bad idea. nuance is a good thing. 40k is HARDLY unique among gaming for "interrupt" and "attack of oppertunity" abilities. IMHO the best way to do this is actually to build it into the unit. such as allowing a unit to adopt a "over watch stance" in which they specificly forgo shooting to open fire on a unit that "moves within x inches" of it. do it right and you actually add a layer of tactics to 40k beyond "I move all my units, I shoot all my units. now you move what you have left, shoot what you have left" rinse repeat.

A propper interuption system , would really be something handy, it would also strengthen board bound units, compared to alpa strike capable ones.

But at that stage then i'd e unsure if you wouldn't be better off running AA instead. AA also has ofcourse the advantage of not beeing as ridicoulus if done propperly in regards to ofense, reigning that excess in, however that problem could also be solved with a down scaling of the the size creep the gamee has experienced imo and bigger tables so as to guarantee turns in which only a few weapons and units are in range for each side.
Maybee also brings back a point in regards to transport vehicles, which have with the size creep suffered massively.

BrianDavion wrote:
I think it depends, sweeping "it is always bad when X" is proably a bad idea. nuance is a good thing. 40k is HARDLY unique among gaming for "interrupt" and "attack of oppertunity" abilities. IMHO the best way to do this is actually to build it into the unit. such as allowing a unit to adopt a "over watch stance" in which they specificly forgo shooting to open fire on a unit that "moves within x inches" of it. do it right and you actually add a layer of tactics to 40k beyond "I move all my units, I shoot all my units. now you move what you have left, shoot what you have left" rinse repeat.

Love this idea.

I'd love for some sort of "stance" system to make its way into 40k.

I think in general there is a problem with the various out-of-phase activations and abilities and often it's more down to how bad it feels to be on the receiving end of them than the raw power of them. An "interrupt" system wouldn't be a bad thing if it was properly balanced and many games use something like that to allow out-of-order actions to be taken. In almost all cases where this is used effectively there are usually one of two restrictions: either the action is taken at the cost of not being able to do anything later (effectively just moving the unit's normal action to an earlier time, often with a small extra cost); or the action is taken with some extreme penalty (only hitting on 6s, for example). The problem in 40k is actions like these often just cost CPs or have a very minor, easily overcome penalty which makes for limited decision making because they're often just no-brainer actions.

As a general rule I think removing all move twice, shoot twice and fight twice abilities would be a good start but other interrupt style abilities would probably still be OK if they either had a severe penalty applied or replaced a unit's regular actions. Unfortunately 40k doesn't really have a concept of unit actions like many other games do so that's a bit more difficult to apply in practice within the current framework.

Slipspace wrote:
I think in general there is a problem with the various out-of-phase activations and abilities and often it's more down to how bad it feels to be on the receiving end of them than the raw power of them. An "interrupt" system wouldn't be a bad thing if it was properly balanced and many games use something like that to allow out-of-order actions to be taken. In almost all cases where this is used effectively there are usually one of two restrictions: either the action is taken at the cost of not being able to do anything later (effectively just moving the unit's normal action to an earlier time, often with a small extra cost); or the action is taken with some extreme penalty (only hitting on 6s, for example). The problem in 40k is actions like these often just cost CPs or have a very minor, easily overcome penalty which makes for limited decision making because they're often just no-brainer actions.

As a general rule I think removing all move twice, shoot twice and fight twice abilities would be a good start but other interrupt style abilities would probably still be OK if they either had a severe penalty applied or replaced a unit's regular actions. Unfortunately 40k doesn't really have a concept of unit actions like many other games do so that's a bit more difficult to apply in practice within the current framework.

I'd add shooting at units coming in from deep strike to that list. Feth auspex scan.

Now I have 0 evidence backing it up but I felt it was a better system when deep striking was much less reliable and you could choose anywhere to place models but scattered.

Counterpoint : Deathmarks.

Deathmarks have the ability to "interrupt" a deepstrike and attack the incoming unit.

Deathmarks are also a little gakky and Necrons are on the weak end.

Its almost as if there are more factors than out of phase rules.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Counterpoint : Deathmarks.

Deathmarks have the ability to "interrupt" a deepstrike and attack the incoming unit.

Deathmarks are also a little gakky and Necrons are on the weak end.

Its almost as if there are more factors than out of phase rules.

One example of a single unit in a single faction does not my hypothesis refute.

I completely agree that there are many more factors at play to determine if something is (or is not) OP, but this topic is particularly around out of phase actions. Thanks for the revelation, however. My mind is truly blown.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Counterpoint : Deathmarks.

Deathmarks have the ability to "interrupt" a deepstrike and attack the incoming unit.

Deathmarks are also a little gakky and Necrons are on the weak end.

Its almost as if there are more factors than out of phase rules.

One example of a single unit in a single faction does not my hypothesis refute.

I completely agree that there are many more factors at play to determine if something is (or is not) OP, but this topic is particularly around out of phase actions. Thanks for the revelation, however. My mind is truly blown.

No one would take inferno/flamer seraphim if the out of phase shooting strat didn't exist.

I get it that you are annoyed by these abilities or that they feel unfair, as they in 40k often provides additional phases to only one side. However I think the idea of reactions are good and should be universal to make them feel more fair.

Here is how I think it could work if properly adapted:
Units have 1 activation per turn, and can use these in their turn as usual gameplay OR as a reaction to enemy such as returning fire to shoot at the same time, to retreat when attacked, or to dive for cover. These "reactions" should have the disadvantage that your unit is used up your following turn.

If all players had these same tools then I dont think it could be unfair.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Counterpoint : Deathmarks.

Deathmarks have the ability to "interrupt" a deepstrike and attack the incoming unit.

Deathmarks are also a little gakky and Necrons are on the weak end.

Its almost as if there are more factors than out of phase rules.

One example of a single unit in a single faction does not my hypothesis refute.

I completely agree that there are many more factors at play to determine if something is (or is not) OP, but this topic is particularly around out of phase actions. Thanks for the revelation, however. My mind is truly blown.

No one would take inferno/flamer seraphim if the out of phase shooting strat didn't exist.

Right? Genuinely struggling to see your point?

Doesn't that mean flamer seraphim should be pointed more appropriately as if the stratagem didn't exist rather than it justify the existence of the stratagem itself?

Gitdakka wrote:
I get it that you are annoyed by these abilities or that they feel unfair, as they in 40k often provides additional phases to only one side. However I think the idea of reactions are good and should be universal to make them feel more fair.

Here is how I think it could work if properly adapted:
Units have 1 activation per turn, and can use these in their turn as usual gameplay OR as a reaction to enemy such as returning fire to shoot at the same time, to retreat when attacked, or to dive for cover. These "reactions" should have the disadvantage that your unit is used up your following turn.

If all players had these same tools then I dont think it could be unfair.

Yea I like this idea too.

The mechanic is imbalanced and unfair currently because access to these abilities is not consistent. I think that needs to be addressed. Either remove them all or give everyone the same would be my first suggestions.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Counterpoint : Deathmarks.

Deathmarks have the ability to "interrupt" a deepstrike and attack the incoming unit.

Deathmarks are also a little gakky and Necrons are on the weak end.

Its almost as if there are more factors than out of phase rules.

One example of a single unit in a single faction does not my hypothesis refute.

I completely agree that there are many more factors at play to determine if something is (or is not) OP, but this topic is particularly around out of phase actions. Thanks for the revelation, however. My mind is truly blown.

It kind of does though?
Necrons have a unit that operates out of phase
Necrons are also a weak faction
Therefore they are not "imbalanced", assuming that by imbalanced you mean "overpowered" and not "poorly designed"
Therefore your hypothesis isn't correct.

If Necrons were a strong army because of deathmarks, then you'd have a point. But they aren't, so that's not applicable either.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


The mechanic is imbalanced and unfair currently because access to these abilities is not consistent. I think that needs to be addressed. Either remove them all or give everyone the same would be my first suggestions.

Ok that's fair. I can get behind that.
All armies need an indirect fire option too. Because camping hive guard with impaler cannons are bs.

I..strongly disagree. Honestly I think the game is somewhat lacking in these areas especially since the removal of tank shock/ram. The fact that I can stick a gretchin in front of an imperial knight and it cannot do anything to get through or over them until the shooting phase makes just bare-bones bodies/screens in general way too potent.

The fact that you complained that mass assault is too easily made impossible while also complaining about the things that make it function at all in the modern game is pretty odd.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Counterpoint : Deathmarks.

Deathmarks have the ability to "interrupt" a deepstrike and attack the incoming unit.

Deathmarks are also a little gakky and Necrons are on the weak end.

Its almost as if there are more factors than out of phase rules.

One example of a single unit in a single faction does not my hypothesis refute.

I completely agree that there are many more factors at play to determine if something is (or is not) OP, but this topic is particularly around out of phase actions. Thanks for the revelation, however. My mind is truly blown.

It kind of does though?
Necrons have a unit that operates out of phase
Necrons are also a weak faction with a lot of problems that have nothing to do with deathmarks
Therefore they are not imbalanced
Therefore your hypothesis isn't correct.

If Necrons were a strong army because of deathmarks, then you'd have a point. But they aren't, so that's not applicable either.

No, it absolutely doesn't. My hypothesis is as my title - factions with units that can act outside of normal phasing are inherently imbalanced.

This does not mean that, irrespective of this, other circumstances can prevent those same factions from performing well in the current meta (which is an entirely different discussion).

It does mean that when factions do not all have access to these abilities equally, all other things equal (assuming perfect balance), those factions with the abilities are imbalanced.

I'd argue that Necrons have been performing pretty well in the Marine meta all things considered, though that is again a topic for another discussion.

Actually deathmarks are not imbalanced becuase their inate ability is priced within the unit.

Unlike other units relying on stratagems which don't need to be used, therefore externalising the cost so to speak.

the_scotsman wrote:
I..strongly disagree. Honestly I think the game is somewhat lacking in these areas especially since the removal of tank shock/ram. The fact that I can stick a gretchin in front of an imperial knight and it cannot do anything to get through or over them until the shooting phase makes just bare-bones bodies/screens in general way too potent.

The fact that you complained that mass assault is too easily made impossible while also complaining about the things that make it function at all in the modern game is pretty odd.

You seem to have vastly misunderstood my post.

I did not, anywhere, 'complain that mass assault is too easily made impossible'. I think you need to read my OP again.

If you have any questions about the point I'm trying to make, feel free to ask, genuinely. Your point about a Grot blocking an IK, while valid, has very little to do with this topic.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually deathmarks are not imbalanced becuase their inate ability is priced within the unit.

Unlike other units relying on stratagems which don't need to be used, therefore externalising the cost so to speak.

Wouldn't that mean then that stratagems are imbalanced, as not every faction has access to the same type of stratagems, and points values don't take stratagems into consideration?
I actually think the game would benefit from fewer stratagems. There are too many in the game.

You called out auspex scan for example, pre codex 2.0 it wasn't even a start that was used in many games, it wasn't worth it's CP cost, especially when compaired to the eldar equivalent.
Now/historically with marines on the damage high of doctirine etc etc it made some showing, that doesn't make it game breaking and while it's certainly not fun, it's still not as bad as some of the other bonkers you can't use you ability which cost points against me rules that have also been handed out.

GW is and always has been bad at predicting the worst case rukes interactions and seems to have some fantasy that everyone is avout narative and doesn't care about balance.

They are finally admitting that they suck at balance and adding in some fixes with FAQ's etc but realistically they are going to keep introducing "Fluffy" abilities without thought to game balance and depending upon the player base to shout loud enough about the worst offenders that GW will try and address them to stop the shouting.

Your suggestion regardless of merit or not is dead before it leaves the board because it would cost too much money when GW is making lots of money with their current almost good enough approach.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually deathmarks are not imbalanced becuase their inate ability is priced within the unit.

Unlike other units relying on stratagems which don't need to be used, therefore externalising the cost so to speak.

Wouldn't that mean then that stratagems are imbalanced, as not every faction has access to the same type of stratagems, and points values don't take stratagems into consideration?
I actually think the game would benefit from fewer stratagems. There are too many in the game.

Stratagems offer flexibility, and indeed due to them not beeing "obligatory" have potentially no cost due to not beeing needed.
This flexibility is often not priced in.
Therefore yes, and more importantly the underlying CP system as a whole is imbalanced.

but that discussion has been had.

Its not inherently imbalanced - its a function of points or synergies.

As pointed out Auspex Scan was a nothing stratagem when Marines were bottom tier. Now you can put it on a range of units that will mangle whatever unit is deep striking in. If it was "you hit only on natural 6s" would it be a useful stratagem? Probably - but it would obviously be worse.

I'm not convinced Da Jump is inherently imbalanced - its a key Ork ability, and the army seems to be balanced with the fact you can use it in mind.

Grey Knights shooting/moving in the psychic phase is obviously good - but I'm not convinced its breaking the game.

There is an argument that the stratagem system should be consolidated/re thought.
Imo at least there should be a lot more neutral options.
Everyone should get AoV. Everyone should get "dispel on 4+". Everyone should get something like Auspex Scan and a range of other basis abilities.
You could then rebalance the game in this context.

The inherent problem in the game, imo, is more that certain factions can spend their command points on A, or B, or C as they see best, while other factions are stuck with A, and another is stuck with B and thats about it. If the meta evolves in such and such a way, you can't evolve with it.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I..strongly disagree. Honestly I think the game is somewhat lacking in these areas especially since the removal of tank shock/ram. The fact that I can stick a gretchin in front of an imperial knight and it cannot do anything to get through or over them until the shooting phase makes just bare-bones bodies/screens in general way too potent.

The fact that you complained that mass assault is too easily made impossible while also complaining about the things that make it function at all in the modern game is pretty odd.

You seem to have vastly misunderstood my post.

I did not, anywhere, 'complain that mass assault is too easily made impossible'. I think you need to read my OP again.

If you have any questions about the point I'm trying to make, feel free to ask, genuinely. Your point about a Grot blocking an IK, while valid, has very little to do with this topic.

The purpose of the example was to point out that in previous editions, a large unit could act offensively in the movement phase towards a very small unit using Tank Shock or Ram to prevent such blocking tactics, which really rely on the strict order of the phasing in order to be effective.

Your own example, of GK shooting using the psychic phase to clear a screen, is an example of what I would consider to be solid game design, and one of the primary reasons that assault armies are unviable. There's very little you can do with a dedicated assault army to NOT charge the first thing your opponent puts in front of you, allowing them to dictate the flow of the game.

Reactions during the opponent's turn make it so you don't have to just sit and take it during your opponent's turn. I wish there was much more in the line of abilities like auspex scan or forewarned. In my opinion, stripping out of phase reaction abilities would make the game shallower, not deeper.

Many of my ideas for how to generally improve the game with a lite edition change would provide out of phase actions:

1) I would implement an immediate reaction move to any unit that was within 1" of an enemy unit that fell back. This would effectively mean that a unit could not fall back from an assault unit with a higher Mv stat than them, if the pursuing unit wanted to continue to engage them.

2) I would change overwatch from a passive ability to an active one as it was in editions past. A player would forgo their shooting with a unit to ready overwatch, in order to fire at a penalty during the opponent's turn, reducing the power of mass deep strike alpha or of hiding units out of LOS while simultaneously stripping some of the invisible power from shooting in the currently free damage overwatch provides.

3) I would return some form of tank shock/breakthrough moves in the movement phase for larger units to be able to break through or break away from combat with smaller units. This would be based on a keyword comparison between units and would act as a stronger version of Fall Back for large units to avoid being tied up by chaff.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Spoiler:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Counterpoint : Deathmarks.

Deathmarks have the ability to "interrupt" a deepstrike and attack the incoming unit.

Deathmarks are also a little gakky and Necrons are on the weak end.

Its almost as if there are more factors than out of phase rules.

One example of a single unit in a single faction does not my hypothesis refute.

I completely agree that there are many more factors at play to determine if something is (or is not) OP, but this topic is particularly around out of phase actions. Thanks for the revelation, however. My mind is truly blown.

It kind of does though?
Necrons have a unit that operates out of phase
Necrons are also a weak faction with a lot of problems that have nothing to do with deathmarks
Therefore they are not imbalanced
Therefore your hypothesis isn't correct.

If Necrons were a strong army because of deathmarks, then you'd have a point. But they aren't, so that's not applicable either.

No, it absolutely doesn't. My hypothesis is as my title - factions with units that can act outside of normal phasing are inherently imbalanced.

This does not mean that, irrespective of this, other circumstances can prevent those same factions from performing well in the current meta (which is an entirely different discussion).

It does mean that when factions do not all have access to these abilities equally, all other things equal (assuming perfect balance), those factions with the abilities are imbalanced.

Well, it does work that way though. A hypothesis is proven wrong by a single counter-example.

Which means that your original hypothesis "Factions that have units which can act outside of normal phasing are inherently imbalanced." is wrong, or in other words, being able to act out of phase doesn't inherently make a faction imbalanced. Necron's power as a faction is no way related to being able to act out of sequence.

That doesn't make your arguments supporting your hypothesis invalid though: the old ynnari ability, GK shooting, warptime, orks is never beaten, auspex scan are extremely powerful abilities.
However, there are bortherhood champions, death marks, death wing assault, hellbrutes' crazed and planes dropping bombs ("shooting" during movement) which no one would consider imbalanced or are even considered dead weight.

When you check the list of interrupts who aren't great, you'll find that all of those locked to a very limited set of units. So it is quite clearly possible to balance out of sequence options, meaning they are not inherently imbalanced.

All those problem "interrupts" share a common theme - additional shooting, fighting and movement at little to no cost for any unit without limitation. And when you look across what else has been causing problem across 8th, you'll find that reliable moving/shooting/fighting twice with the most efficient units in your codex has always caused massive problems - be in or out of sequence.

Auspex scan can get cancer and die.

I personally believe all the "strategems" are crap.
None are fun except in a gotcha way.

The game should be set up theoretically so all should have access to similar or roughly balanced abilities, some factions get massive OP strats and some get pure crap.

 ImperialArmy wrote:
some factions get massive OP strats and some get pure crap.

So once again the issue is more GW's inability to balance things than the actual strats or abilities individually.

TIL my Harlequins are OP because I can move in the psychic phase and fight twice DDDD