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.

Tripoint is one of the worst 40K mechanics ever, imo. Brought about by the equally terrible fall back mechanic.

Yeah, it's stupid and gimmicky. 8th edition was supposed to simplify things, not make the outcome of assaults rely 100% on an intricate positioning game, where one model being placed half an inch in one direction or the other regularly determines the outcome of games for no reason that makes any kind of sense.


But it's compensating for an even stupider design mechanic. Whoever thought it was a good idea to let units just fall back from melee with no penalty beyond being unable to shoot and charge themselves (unless they have one of the now very common rules that allows you to do one or both of those things anyway) must have been smoking some good stuff at the time.

The whole paradigm has just led to this almost unbearably lame arms race between combat mobility and gunline lethality, which is why we have ended up in this terrible spot where armies get tabled in two turns.

 ultimentra wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
In a recent game against melee-focused World Eaters, I shot the entire army off the board in two turns without even trying. With orks. Rhinos with champions, zerkers and apostles were the first things to go.

If you can't shoot or have some way to not get shot, you are worthless.

So what you're saying is, you took a competitively optimized shooting ork list against some poor sod playing World Eaters? And do you feel good about that life choice? LMAO

No, I took an ork army with a gorkanaut, one of each buggy, a big unit of koptas, two deff dreads, a large unit of warbikers, da red gobbo and one of each generic HQ in the book. And I deployed everything on the table, with no use of the tellyporta and nothing to da jump besides minimal units of gretchin. He also got first turn and plenty of T1 charges on the gretchin.
Try again!

 Jidmah wrote:

 ultimentra wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
In a recent game against melee-focused World Eaters, I shot the entire army off the board in two turns without even trying. With orks. Rhinos with champions, zerkers and apostles were the first things to go.

If you can't shoot or have some way to not get shot, you are worthless.

So what you're saying is, you took a competitively optimized shooting ork list against some poor sod playing World Eaters? And do you feel good about that life choice? LMAO

No, I took an ork army with a gorkanaut, one of each buggy, a big unit of koptas, two deff dreads, a large unit of warbikers, da red gobbo and one of each generic HQ in the book. And I deployed everything on the table, with no use of the tellyporta and nothing to da jump besides minimal units of gretchin. He also got first turn and plenty of T1 charges on the gretchin.
Try again!

Frankly WE, even with the F&F improvent just suck.
Berzerkers in them are a trapo choice, even more expensive then regular marines.
The termites will half the time NOT get a charge off so that CP spent for improving them is wasted half the time.
No psykers also heavy weight around a noose around their necks..

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, it's stupid and gimmicky. 8th edition was supposed to simplify things, not make the outcome of assaults rely 100% on an intricate positioning game, where one model being placed half an inch in one direction or the other regularly determines the outcome of games for no reason that makes any kind of sense.


But it's compensating for an even stupider design mechanic. Whoever thought it was a good idea to let units just fall back from melee with no penalty beyond being unable to shoot and charge themselves (unless they have one of the now very common rules that allows you to do one or both of those things anyway) must have been smoking some good stuff at the time.

The whole paradigm has just led to this almost unbearably lame arms race between combat mobility and gunline lethality, which is why we have ended up in this terrible spot where armies get tabled in two turns.

I predicted this phenomenon due to my experience with 2nd ed. This is really just 2nd ed redux in many ways. The gak GW had to do to marines should have been a red flag. And they still die way too fast.

WE are terrible because they're a melee army focused at being good *in* melee instead of being good at getting *into* melee. They perfectly illustrate the problems with the way the mechanics work right now. It almost doesn't matter how good you are in melee right now, it's all about being able to get there and then survive by trapping. In fact to a large extent you don't *want* to be too good *in* melee, it will just get you killed.

You know something is deeply wrong with a game's rules when people are deliberately not using their weapons in close combat because the only way to win is *not* to kill the enemy.

I take it one step further. I'll charge with DC, but only put a single DC within 1". That way, only one guy fights. But I lose my BA chapter tactic when I do this. I want to take a shower every time I do this.

Nurglitch wrote:
Okay. I think it would have been good to see more mechanics like that sprinkled throughout the game, like on Tyranid Lashwhips and so on.

In the end they did.

In PA there is a stratagem which allows the tentaclefex to stop people from falling back.

Spoletta wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Okay. I think it would have been good to see more mechanics like that sprinkled throughout the game, like on Tyranid Lashwhips and so on.

In the end they did.

In PA there is a stratagem which allows the tentaclefex to stop people from falling back.

I saw that, but first turn deep-strikes are still out for competitive play, and Toxicrenes are a liability. I would have preferred to see it as wargear rather than a highly situational strategems like most Tyranid strategems. As people are saying, being able to safely murder people in close combat is pointless if you can't get close enough fast enough.

yukishiro1 wrote:
WE are terrible because they're a melee army focused at being good *in* melee instead of being good at getting *into* melee. They perfectly illustrate the problems with the way the mechanics work right now. It almost doesn't matter how good you are in melee right now, it's all about being able to get there and then survive by trapping. In fact to a large extent you don't *want* to be too good *in* melee, it will just get you killed.

This. Any WE model will pretty much tear you in half once it reaches combat. But almost none of them do reach combat, and the few that do can be shot off the board by falling back.

 Jidmah wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
WE are terrible because they're a melee army focused at being good *in* melee instead of being good at getting *into* melee. They perfectly illustrate the problems with the way the mechanics work right now. It almost doesn't matter how good you are in melee right now, it's all about being able to get there and then survive by trapping. In fact to a large extent you don't *want* to be too good *in* melee, it will just get you killed.

This. Any WE model will pretty much tear you in half once it reaches combat. But almost none of them do reach combat, and the few that do can be shot off the board by falling back.

Although not fluffy, I can this might be solved by adding Slaneesh Daemon detachments in. Slaneesh can comfortably make a Turn 1 charge in most of the deployment type and have hundreds of method to not allowing opponents to call back. This will buy time for your Khorne worship marines to move in for the kill. So now it is time for most of the shooting army except Tau or Eldar that will get tabled without doing much

In my game we were using the open war cards and we had the deployment with the deployment zones touching each other (no no-mans land) and the twist +2" movement, +1" advance and +1" charge range.
In turn one, a daemon prince with a daemon weapon, two helbrutes, a mauler fiend, a defiler, one unit of zerkers and three spawns successfully charged, and boy did they collect gretchin skulls for the skull throne. 43 gretchin annihilated in the fight phase, and another 11 followed in the moral phase!
The remaining seven gretchin fell back in my turn and almost everything listed above died.

The game literally couldn't have been set up any better for World Eaters and they still were tabled by a casual fun list, because three rows of gretchin are impossible to get across, even if you fight thrice.

Screens of chaff and fallback mechanics are too powerfull.
Vice versa scenario is also easily possible.
And shooting now requireing no Priorität anymore makes it just superior glatt out.

Yeah screens make combat armies without fly useless, and even ones with fly have a really hard time if you screen competently.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah screens make combat armies without fly useless, and even ones with fly have a really hard time if you screen competently.

I keep trying to explain this to people, but too much theorycrafting imo.

Well, I guess I should amend that a bit: it makes combat armies without good screen clearing abilities useless. Combat can still work, but you need a strong shooting component that can clear out the chaff before your combat units come in.

 Jidmah wrote:
In my game we were using the open war cards and we had the deployment with the deployment zones touching each other (no no-mans land) and the twist +2" movement, +1" advance and +1" charge range.
In turn one, a daemon prince with a daemon weapon, two helbrutes, a mauler fiend, a defiler, one unit of zerkers and three spawns successfully charged, and boy did they collect gretchin skulls for the skull throne. 43 gretchin annihilated in the fight phase, and another 11 followed in the moral phase!
The remaining seven gretchin fell back in my turn and almost everything listed above died.

The game literally couldn't have been set up any better for World Eaters and they still were tabled by a casual fun list, because three rows of gretchin are impossible to get across, even if you fight thrice.

This is why you don't go all-in on melee. A 'melee' army in current 40k is probably, at most, 25% of your list being good in close combat, you need shooting to clear screens or else tricks to bypass them.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
In my game we were using the open war cards and we had the deployment with the deployment zones touching each other (no no-mans land) and the twist +2" movement, +1" advance and +1" charge range.
In turn one, a daemon prince with a daemon weapon, two helbrutes, a mauler fiend, a defiler, one unit of zerkers and three spawns successfully charged, and boy did they collect gretchin skulls for the skull throne. 43 gretchin annihilated in the fight phase, and another 11 followed in the moral phase!
The remaining seven gretchin fell back in my turn and almost everything listed above died.

The game literally couldn't have been set up any better for World Eaters and they still were tabled by a casual fun list, because three rows of gretchin are impossible to get across, even if you fight thrice.

This is why you don't go all-in on melee. A 'melee' army in current 40k is probably, at most, 25% of your list being good in close combat, you need shooting to clear screens or else tricks to bypass them.

That basically makes the BA chapter tactic garbage.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
This is why you don't go all-in on melee. A 'melee' army in current 40k is probably, at most, 25% of your list being good in close combat, you need shooting to clear screens or else tricks to bypass them.

In other words, there are no good assault armies, which is exactly my point.

An army that only uses 25% assault units is not an assault army. That's combined arms with a focus on shooting.

Martel732 wrote:That basically makes the BA chapter tactic garbage.

Yet people still do well with them even at very competitive tournaments. Maybe you're just bad at the game and either building or playing your lists wrong...

Jidmah wrote:In other words, there are no good assault armies, which is exactly my point.

An army that only uses 25% assault units is not an assault army. That's combined arms with a focus on shooting.

Is the list below an assault list?



It has 453 points devoted to either melee units or units purely devoted to getting a melee unit into combat. Dark Angels have no dedicated melee option as a troop choice and to get two battalions I have to spend a minimum of 330 points on scouts, my list spends 425 points to get more effective objective holding options. Then there are the RWBKs which are shooting units but which can, due to their Corvus hammers hold their own in melee, are they a melee unit?

There are a number of competitive armies that can put a majority of their points into combat-focused units. But you really do need shooting to clear screens. I guess maybe GSC or Harlequins come closest to having the tools to succeed without using shooting to clear screens, but mono quins isn't particularly competitive and even GSC these days seems to work a lot better with a strong neophyte spam shooting portion.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Is the list below an assault list?

Are you serious? That's literally one assault unit plus support characters.

And no, those silly hammers don't make raven wing knights an assault unit.

"Yet people still do well with them even at very competitive tournaments. Maybe you're just bad at the game and either building or playing your lists wrong..."

Doesn't make the chapter tactic not garbage. BA community is very split on how to play, btw.

+1 to wound and bonus to charge rolls is such a good tactic that even if applied only to part of the list, still makes it quite good.

Can you imagine how OP that tactic would be if it was a shooting tactic? +1 to wound and i guess +3" range on shooting?

It is a tactic which would be much more powerful than any other marine trait (yes, even IH traits), so it is limited by the fact that it only applies to a part of the army and not all of it. It would be seriously OP otherwise.

This doesn't make it garbage, it just doesn't make it OP. This is demonstrated by the fact that BA are doing really well at the moment.

Spoletta wrote:
+1 to wound and bonus to charge rolls is such a good tactic that even if applied only to part of the list, still makes it quite good.

Can you imagine how OP that tactic would be if it was a shooting tactic? +1 to wound and i guess +3" range on shooting?

It is a tactic which would be much more powerful than any other marine trait (yes, even IH traits), so it is limited by the fact that it only applies to a part of the army and not all of it. It would be seriously OP otherwise.

This doesn't make it garbage, it just doesn't make it OP. This is demonstrated by the fact that BA are doing really well at the moment.

LOL Blood Angels doing well, good one

Range 0 is the kiss of death in 8th ed. A lot of BA victories have nothing to do with the trait and everything with critical tricorners.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
+1 to wound and bonus to charge rolls is such a good tactic that even if applied only to part of the list, still makes it quite good.

Can you imagine how OP that tactic would be if it was a shooting tactic? +1 to wound and i guess +3" range on shooting?

It is a tactic which would be much more powerful than any other marine trait (yes, even IH traits), so it is limited by the fact that it only applies to a part of the army and not all of it. It would be seriously OP otherwise.

This doesn't make it garbage, it just doesn't make it OP. This is demonstrated by the fact that BA are doing really well at the moment.

Yeah, those two surviving marines that stagger up to the gunline are sure gonna tear it up with their +1 to wound. Never mind the fact that you don't WANT to kill when you need to tricorner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BA currently sit at 52% after all the crap they gave us. That's actually about right for a decent army, but I think its spite of the terrible chapter tactic, not because of it. It's a derivative of all the crap they gave marines in general.

Martel732 wrote:
Range 0 is the kiss of death in 8th ed. A lot of BA victories have nothing to do with the trait and everything with critical tricorners.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
+1 to wound and bonus to charge rolls is such a good tactic that even if applied only to part of the list, still makes it quite good.

Can you imagine how OP that tactic would be if it was a shooting tactic? +1 to wound and i guess +3" range on shooting?

It is a tactic which would be much more powerful than any other marine trait (yes, even IH traits), so it is limited by the fact that it only applies to a part of the army and not all of it. It would be seriously OP otherwise.

This doesn't make it garbage, it just doesn't make it OP. This is demonstrated by the fact that BA are doing really well at the moment.

Yeah, those two surviving marines that stagger up to the gunline are sure gonna tear it up with their +1 to wound. Never mind the fact that you don't WANT to kill when you need to tricorner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BA currently sit at 52% after all the crap they gave us. That's actually about right for a decent army, but I think its spite of the terrible chapter tactic, not because of it. It's a derivative of all the crap they gave marines in general.

Lol sure, they are good despite the chapter trait being bed, yet they are one of the best marine factions at the moment. Have you read that same data you are using for your argument?

Right now there are ravenguards at the top of the marine curve, then there are IH and BA at pretty much the same win rate, and then everyone else. Your decent results means being tied or almost tied for second place?
So please explain me how that 52% is a derivative of marine goodness mitigated by a bad chapter tactic, if BA are at the top of the marine meta? If your chapter tactic is bad, why are you tied in results with the marine faction with the best chapter trait?

And that's ITC data, where BA storically suffers.

I don't know, but it's not likely because of a range 0 chapter tactic that is turned off by cheap models. In practice, it's a garbage chapter tactic because assault is a joke no matter how many attacks they stack on marines. I've read many of the battle reports for BA and the chapter tactic is rarely useful. It's flabbergasting that they aren't the bottom marines. Give it time. The results truly don't make sense given how much better shooting is in the game. IF should be far more effective than BA.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Martel732 wrote:That basically makes the BA chapter tactic garbage.

Yet people still do well with them even at very competitive tournaments. Maybe you're just bad at the game and either building or playing your lists wrong...

Jidmah wrote:In other words, there are no good assault armies, which is exactly my point.

An army that only uses 25% assault units is not an assault army. That's combined arms with a focus on shooting.

Is the list below an assault list?

Spoiler:

-HQ-

Ravenwing Talonmaster - 188 pts.

Master w/ Jump Pack, Thunder Hammer, Storm Shield - 143 pts.

-Troops-

Infiltrator Squad w/ Helix Adept - 120 pts.

Scouts w/ Camo Cloaks - 70 pts.

Scouts w/ Camo Cloaks - 70 pts.

+++Battalion - 1,409 pts. +5 CP, -1 CP for Attack Squadron+++

-HQ-

Ravenwing Talonmaster - 188 pts.

Sammael in Sableclaw - 200 pts.

-Troops-

Scouts - 55 pts.

Scouts - 55 pts.

Scouts - 55 pts.

-Elites-

Deathwing Knights - 175 pts.

Deathwing Ancient w/ Lightning Claws - 75 pts.

Ravenwing Apothecary - 60 pts.

-Fast Attack-

Ravenwing Black Knights x6 - 204 pts.

Ravenwing Black Knights x6 - 204 pts.

Ravenwing Darkshroud - 138 pts.

+++++Total Points 2,000 - 12 CP+++++

It has 453 points devoted to either melee units or units purely devoted to getting a melee unit into combat. Dark Angels have no dedicated melee option as a troop choice and to get two battalions I have to spend a minimum of 330 points on scouts, my list spends 425 points to get more effective objective holding options. Then there are the RWBKs which are shooting units but which can, due to their Corvus hammers hold their own in melee, are they a melee unit?

In a word? No. That's not an assault army.

Agree. That's a shooting/assault hybrid. 2 dedicated ranged threats, 2 dedicated melee and 3 general purpose (assuming that a talonmaster gets the sword, if not there is one more ranged threat).

Fun list, but i don't like the darkshroud in there.