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.

 Vaktathi wrote:
GW's typical desire to fix rules with more rules

Games Workshop - 'One step forward, two steps back!'

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Great, so they AREN'T going to fix one of the main problems with melee.

No, but we are going to fix the gamey solution that people found for said problem, further amplifying the original problem.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
By that arguement in 9th all Xenos will become one mega army.

He's not making an argument, he's making a joke.

 Platuan4th wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The nice thing about dakka is it isn't full of people who make everything personal, and I hope it stays that way. I shouldn't have risen to the bait, I just wanted to call it out because it's not what this place should be. There's enough other forums on the internet full of people calling each other haters and white knights and making every disagreement into some personal flaw in the person they're disagreeing with.

You must be new here.

Or just a natural optimist, despite what some people here seem to say to the contrary.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Or just a natural optimist, despite what some people here seem to say to the contrary.

Yeah, get used to that.

I like the new strategem because it means cleaver tactics to try and prevent fall back are still in. Yet it doesn’t completely handicap someone and limits the strength of the big bomb all in one basket units.

yukishiro1 wrote:


Well, no, that isn't literally or figuratively what he said, nor is that what I said. But I'm not interested in getting into a sniping match over a straw man.

Indeed not literal, that was me being mildly flippant (indicated by the fact it wasn't literal). You did say it was "such a weird thing", and on so many levels, no less, indicating to you that you're more than a little in his head ("so much"). And if I was wrong to interpret his post as an observation about people complaining, it's very odd that you wrote "you make a post complaining about complaining", isn't it? So no, not remotely a straw man. Anyway, if you genuinely want more civility and less sniping I'd recommend you avoid making such exaggerated proclamations.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
By that arguement in 9th all Xenos will become one mega army.

He's not making an argument, he's making a joke.

Sorry, I thought jokes were supposed to be funny. Is this one of those punk'd things?

JWBS wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:


Well, no, that isn't literally or figuratively what he said, nor is that what I said. But I'm not interested in getting into a sniping match over a straw man.

Indeed not literal, that was me being mildly flippant (indicated by the fact it wasn't literal). You did say it was "such a weird thing", and on so many levels, no less, indicating to you that you're more than a little in his head ("so much"). And if I was wrong to interpret his post as an observation about people complaining, it's very odd that you wrote "you make a post complaining about complaining", isn't it? So no, not remotely a straw man. Anyway, if you genuinely want more civility and less sniping I'd recommend you avoid making such exaggerated proclamations.

Like I said, I'm not interested into getting into it, with you or with him. Please look elsewhere if you want to provoke somebody, you're not going to get it here. I shouldn't have responded to him either.

So instead of changing the original rule to solve the problem we get a once per turn workaround

combine that with the once per turn workaround for Overwatch, less CP and other possible costly Stratagems, and anti-horde rules and now we get into full MSU Edition

the only thing this all leads to is to that you need multiple units to charge/fight at the same time
as soon as there is only one close combat going on,the melee unit has a disadvantage

so nothing really changes, and if we need again LOS to charge, the big buff to make melee armies work is just a nerf that makes it more difficult to play

 kodos wrote:
So instead of changing the original rule to solve the problem we get a once per turn workaround

combine that with the once per turn workaround for Overwatch, less CP and other possible costly Stratagems, and anti-horde rules and now we get into full MSU Edition

the only thing this all leads to is to that you need multiple units to charge/fight at the same time
as soon as there is only one close combat going on,the melee unit has a disadvantage

so nothing really changes, and if we need again LOS to charge, the big buff to make melee armies work is just a nerf that makes it more difficult to play

So many assumptions with no information on how falling back works, how melee itself works, or even how charging works. Not to mention that a fair number of armies are going to be sitting at the same amount of CP or more, it's only the spammiest of lists who need to turn some of their points spent on redundant troops and HQs into more valuable contributing members of their army since the spam is dead and they just need to move on. It means less tax and more room for "the good stuff" which doesn't always need CP support.

Plus people should be looking at using their CP smarter to win games over spamming the same things over and over. Looking at you "bomb" lists.

Don't people get tired of all this jumping to conclusions? Plenty of things in isolation make things look bad. We just don't have enough details about the things in question to properly declare that melee is DOA, or that shooting will continue to break the game.

Heck, we don't even have enough information to even confidently walk through a turn of how the game plays at this point.

Still wanting to be proven wrong like 100% of "too little data" guys in the past

Only time they have been right was with marine codex 2 when ti was even worse than it looked like. But of course that just meant they were "right" by being even more wrong than normally...

tneva82 wrote:
Still wanting to be proven wrong like 100% of "too little data" guys in the past

Only time they have been right was with marine codex 2 when ti was even worse than it looked like. But of course that just meant they were "right" by being even more wrong than normally...

I am not against criticising the faults of the game, but pointing at every scrap of information without the full context of the rest of the rules related to that scrap and saying that it's all bad is a bit much.

I get the saying about broken clocks and all, but maybe it's time to stop going cuckoo over every update.

Honestly I think peopld are confusing "calm down until we know for sure how it all works" for "everything is fine". I mean the former, not the latter when I talk about the hysteria I keep seeing.

And before anyone brings up a "where theres smoke..." rebuttal, yeah it could be smoke, or your glasses might be dirty leading you to not recognize the real situation.

As I've said: it's never to late to sell your army. Waiting a couple more weeks before committing isn't going to hurt anyone who wants to sell because the meta looks bad right now.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Don't people get tired of all this jumping to conclusions? Plenty of things in isolation make things look bad. We just don't have enough details about the things in question to properly declare that melee is DOA, or that shooting will continue to break the game.

we don't need to know details to see how things are going, or just tell me which of the details we don't know could let people switch from MSU to few big units

of course armies will change but from adding cheap units that do nothing but generate CP, it shifts to taking cheap units that to nothing but trigger Stratagems
everyone wants to have chaff now

and while CP Managment will be a thing, trying to play that your opponent will waste them will be a thing as well

this is not about good or bad, it is just that the game will change and melee will be much more difficult to set up

 ClockworkZion wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Still wanting to be proven wrong like 100% of "too little data" guys in the past

Only time they have been right was with marine codex 2 when ti was even worse than it looked like. But of course that just meant they were "right" by being even more wrong than normally...

I am not against criticising the faults of the game, but pointing at every scrap of information without the full context of the rest of the rules related to that scrap and saying that it's all bad is a bit much.

I get the saying about broken clocks and all, but maybe it's time to stop going cuckoo over every update.

I think the issue is with you being rational and having restrain, dakka is built upon knee jerk reactions and pessimism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Don't people get tired of all this jumping to conclusions? Plenty of things in isolation make things look bad. We just don't have enough details about the things in question to properly declare that melee is DOA, or that shooting will continue to break the game.

we don't need to know details to see how things are going, or just tell me which of the details we don't know could let people switch from MSU to few big units

of course armies will change but from adding cheap units that do nothing but generate CP, it shifts to taking cheap units that to nothing but trigger Stratagems
everyone wants to have chaff now

and while CP Managment will be a thing, trying to play that your opponent will waste them will be a thing as well

this is not about good or bad, it is just that the game will change and melee will be much more difficult to set up

If we don't know them, how can someone tell you about them? But chaff units are generally large cheap units that do nothing else, so you will want large units for chaff or you fill out your detachments too quickly.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

As I've said: it's never to late to sell your army. Waiting a couple more weeks before committing isn't going to hurt anyone who wants to sell because the meta looks bad right now.

Who said its going to look bad?
I get the feeling that the suggested change to the game is something you don't like and try to argue against it

MSU being the future of melee is very likley
same as MMU being the way to go for shooting
chaff will be essential for elite armies as was the loyal 32 before

if this turns out to be good or bad is a different story, something we won't know until 1-2 years in and the first Codex books tells us how many of the new core restrictions will be ignored

 kodos wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Don't people get tired of all this jumping to conclusions? Plenty of things in isolation make things look bad. We just don't have enough details about the things in question to properly declare that melee is DOA, or that shooting will continue to break the game.

we don't need to know details to see how things are going, or just tell me which of the details we don't know could let people switch from MSU to few big units

of course armies will change but from adding cheap units that do nothing but generate CP, it shifts to taking cheap units that to nothing but trigger Stratagems
everyone wants to have chaff now

and while CP Managment will be a thing, trying to play that your opponent will waste them will be a thing as well

this is not about good or bad, it is just that the game will change and melee will be much more difficult to set up

Cite the rules that show melee will be harder to set up.

Oh wait, you can't because we don"t even have the rules for charging yet.

And I don't get how your opponent will "waste" your CP unless you're playing against very specific armies like Vect.

Chaffe is big in 8th, and will likely continue to see valuable use in 9th (cheap "action" takers for example), even if taking a triple battalion has lost its luster.

MSU has been a popular approach to 40k since I got back into the game in 5th, and likely even longer than that. I don't think we'll ever see it go away as the "obvious pick" unless something fundamental changes about the game.

Something more fundamental than removing blast templates at least.

Dudeface wrote:

If we don't know them, how can someone tell you about them? But chaff units are generally large cheap units that do nothing else, so you will want large units for chaff or you fill out your detachments too quickly.

you can tell which way the designers want the core rules to go, if this works out, Codex rules will tell

and chaff does not need to be large, 3 units of 5 or 1 unit of 15 just depends on how long the units can survive
with less LOS, and anti-horde it looks like the chance to get 2 out of 3 units doing the job will be easier than have enough models from the 1 unit survive

and we are not limited to 1 Detachment, and if you are taking the standard one, very few people will fill it up anyway as the units that will get the job done are not in the core section

 kodos wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

As I've said: it's never to late to sell your army. Waiting a couple more weeks before committing isn't going to hurt anyone who wants to sell because the meta looks bad right now.

Who said its going to look bad?
I get the feeling that the suggested change to the game is something you don't like and try to argue against it

MSU being the future of melee is very likley
same as MMU being the way to go for shooting
chaff will be essential for elite armies as was the loyal 32 before

if this turns out to be good or bad is a different story, something we won't know until 1-2 years in and the first Codex books tells us how many of the new core restrictions will be ignored

I have a feeling your trying to stuff straw into an old shirt and call it my point.

People have spent several hundred posts saying that X, Y, and/or Z means hordes are dead, melee is dead, 9th is DoA (though that got more over in 40k General than here exactly) and I've even seen people make claims about specific factions being screwed over with no context of the greater rules or even points changes.

And MSU has always been a thing due to how leadership works. The game needs to make a fundamental shift in how it handles large units to offset leadership enough to make it feel "worthwhile" to take big units.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

MSU has been a popular approach to 40k since I got back into the game in 5th

except during that time were DeathStars were a thing

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Cite the rules that show melee will be harder to set up.

Oh wait, you can't because we don"t even have the rules for charging yet.

and?
1 unit can Overwatch per turn, and 1 unit can not prevented from falling back per turn

I don't need to know how charge will work to know that if there is only 1 melee unit that charges per turn that it won't work out
for the same reason you will need to be dangerous on more than 1 places to make it not obvious for the opponent on which unit he will spend his Stratagems

so melee will be harder to set up

 kodos wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

MSU has been a popular approach to 40k since I got back into the game in 5th

except during that time were DeathStars were a thing

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Cite the rules that show melee will be harder to set up.

Oh wait, you can't because we don"t even have the rules for charging yet.

and?
1 unit can Overwatch per turn, and 1 unit can not prevented from falling back per turn

I don't need to know how charge will work to know that if there is only 1 melee unit that charges per turn that it won't work out
for the same reason you will need to be dangerous on more than 1 places to make it not obvious for the opponent on which unit he will spend his Stratagems

so melee will be harder to set up

Deathstars being exceptions only proves the rule. They're basically called "bombs" now but a single big unit surrounded by MSUs is a common build even now.

And if only one unit can Overwatch once, that makes getting into melee easier, and abilities that shut off Overwatch even more powerful since they dictate which units will be allowed to use that single Overwatch.

The ability to escape really only hurts alpha strike strategies that rely on one bomb unit hitting on turn 1 and then consolidating and trapping as many other units as possible over the course of the game.

And if they hit a castle they likely have the ability to trap several units as well.

Mid to late game melee actually looks stronger thanks to the change to Overwatch, which seems like a good balance.

And if playing on the minimum recommended board size, you’ve less distance to cross, and your opponent less space to withdraw into.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And if playing on the minimum recommended board size, you’ve less distance to cross, and your opponent less space to withdraw into.

Wrong on first, correct on second. Distances are measured from center so gap between armies is same regardless of board size.

Ah fair enough.

Dudeface wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Still wanting to be proven wrong like 100% of "too little data" guys in the past

Only time they have been right was with marine codex 2 when ti was even worse than it looked like. But of course that just meant they were "right" by being even more wrong than normally...

I am not against criticising the faults of the game, but pointing at every scrap of information without the full context of the rest of the rules related to that scrap and saying that it's all bad is a bit much.

I get the saying about broken clocks and all, but maybe it's time to stop going cuckoo over every update.

I think the issue is with you being rational and having restrain, dakka is built upon knee jerk reactions and pessimism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Don't people get tired of all this jumping to conclusions? Plenty of things in isolation make things look bad. We just don't have enough details about the things in question to properly declare that melee is DOA, or that shooting will continue to break the game.

we don't need to know details to see how things are going, or just tell me which of the details we don't know could let people switch from MSU to few big units

of course armies will change but from adding cheap units that do nothing but generate CP, it shifts to taking cheap units that to nothing but trigger Stratagems
everyone wants to have chaff now

and while CP Managment will be a thing, trying to play that your opponent will waste them will be a thing as well

this is not about good or bad, it is just that the game will change and melee will be much more difficult to set up

If we don't know them, how can someone tell you about them? But chaff units are generally large cheap units that do nothing else, so you will want large units for chaff or you fill out your detachments too quickly.

How is Clockwork or yourself rational? We have 20+ years of data to show GW is going to screw up again. The REAL irrational people is saying "give GW a third chance again again again!"

And yet here you are, still lapping it up.

We know we’re working with incomplete information. And sadly what we’re seeing is insistence on coming to the worst possible conclusion. Because....well, I’ve absolutely no idea.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And yet here you are, still lapping it up.

We know we’re working with incomplete information. And sadly what we’re seeing is insistence on coming to the worst possible conclusion. Because....well, I’ve absolutely no idea.

NO idea, huh? Like I said, we have 20+ years of data proving GW forgets even basic grammar for writing rules. Not to mention managing to screw each edition 4th onwards middle of the edition or even early on.

You SHOULD be expecting the worst out of them. You have no reason NOT to.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And yet here you are, still lapping it up.

We know we’re working with incomplete information. And sadly what we’re seeing is insistence on coming to the worst possible conclusion. Because....well, I’ve absolutely no idea.

NO idea, huh? Like I said, we have 20+ years of data proving GW forgets even basic grammar for writing rules. Not to mention managing to screw each edition 4th onwards middle of the edition or even early on.

You SHOULD be expecting the worst out of them. You have no reason NOT to.

And as mad doc says, you're still here. I've said it before but the eternal negativity you bring must be tiring, take a break from the game & the forums for a bit.

Most people have 20 years of enjoying a game with friends and happy memories for the most part. None of that is altered by a comma being misplaced or a period missing.

Whilst I understand why everyone is thinking MSU is "the thing" and that hordes are "dead."

But given the spoiled Necron new cryptek reanimation ability, it looks like Auras are changing to Targetted buffs--which absolutely drives unit sizes up.

Except Necrons already have odd targeted buffs instead of auras don't they? This crumbs without context approach is great at keeping us engaged but it's aggravating.

 Eldarain wrote:
Except Necrons already have odd targeted buffs instead of auras don't they? This crumbs without context approach is great at keeping us engaged but it's aggravating.

The 8th edition Cryptek Reanimation improvement buff is an aura.

sieGermans wrote:
Whilst I understand why everyone is thinking MSU is "the thing" and that hordes are "dead."

But given the spoiled Necron new cryptek reanimation ability, it looks like Auras are changing to Targetted buffs--which absolutely drives unit sizes up.

Source? I think I missed that. Did you mean the buff from the Reanimator?