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.

 Just Tony wrote:
My dream change would be for the customer base to actually wisen up and vote with their wallets for a change. I swear, people are starting wishlist threads looking FORWARD to replacing everything rule based. It's like the Apple customer base, but ten times worse...

You say this, but we could be. I know quite a few people I've talked to are legitimately looking forward to 9th edition, based off what's been shown. I'm sure they'll also be "voting with their wallets".

Honestly, I'm pretty excited for 9th too. It doesn't sound like my ideal edition, but it sounds pretty good and they claimed to have made some changes that I would be on board with.

I have some things that I wish were done that are also less popular. I really wish they would kill the campaign books, supplements, and splats. But I know people who really love those sorts of things, in fact, I know more people who were looking forward to them in general than I know cranky people like me who don't want to buy a codex, maybe a supplement, and 2 campaign books for my 5 armies and would rather buy 2 indecies and call it a day. I hate the SM supplements, but among IRL people I know they were astoundingly well received and people want supplements for every faction, so like, they're still voting with their wallets that they like this stuff.

Voting against you is still voting.

 Just Tony wrote:
My dream change would be for the customer base to actually wisen up and vote with their wallets for a change. I swear, people are starting wishlist threads looking FORWARD to replacing everything rule based. It's like the Apple customer base, but ten times worse...

A lot of the people I play with have been voting with their wallets. A straw poll suggests spending on GW stuff during 8th was much lower than in any previous edition and that's true for me too. 99% of my purchases this edition were second-hand through eBay. We're still looking forward to 9th but with cautious optimism rather than any expectation it will be the epitome of balanced gaming.

Slipspace wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
My dream change would be for the customer base to actually wisen up and vote with their wallets for a change. I swear, people are starting wishlist threads looking FORWARD to replacing everything rule based. It's like the Apple customer base, but ten times worse...

A lot of the people I play with have been voting with their wallets. A straw poll suggests spending on GW stuff during 8th was much lower than in any previous edition and that's true for me too. 99% of my purchases this edition were second-hand through eBay. We're still looking forward to 9th but with cautious optimism rather than any expectation it will be the epitome of balanced gaming.

Their financial figures suggest you're the outlier to be honest.

Slipspace wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
My dream change would be for the customer base to actually wisen up and vote with their wallets for a change. I swear, people are starting wishlist threads looking FORWARD to replacing everything rule based. It's like the Apple customer base, but ten times worse...

A lot of the people I play with have been voting with their wallets. A straw poll suggests spending on GW stuff during 8th was much lower than in any previous edition and that's true for me too. 99% of my purchases this edition were second-hand through eBay. We're still looking forward to 9th but with cautious optimism rather than any expectation it will be the epitome of balanced gaming.

I don't know how they would have managed record profits if consumer spending during 8th was lower than any previous edition.

Burn everything that looks gamey.

From silly looking deployments to exploiting things like character targetting restrictions.

I'd like the game to move more towards a simulation (recovering elements they abandoned) and to look less like a board game abstraction.

 Bosskelot wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
My dream change would be for the customer base to actually wisen up and vote with their wallets for a change. I swear, people are starting wishlist threads looking FORWARD to replacing everything rule based. It's like the Apple customer base, but ten times worse...

A lot of the people I play with have been voting with their wallets. A straw poll suggests spending on GW stuff during 8th was much lower than in any previous edition and that's true for me too. 99% of my purchases this edition were second-hand through eBay. We're still looking forward to 9th but with cautious optimism rather than any expectation it will be the epitome of balanced gaming.

I don't know how they would have managed record profits if consumer spending during 8th was lower than any previous edition.

I never said it was. I simply pointed out that wishing people would vote with their wallets is a weird thing to put in a thread like this when that poster has no idea if the people they're speaking to have done just that. It's also pretty presumptuous to suggest everyone should think in the way they do, but I have seen evidence of many of the older gamers around me reducing their spending. I didn't say spending overall has decreased (we know it hasn't). I just don't understand this idea of someone being annoyed that someone else spent their own money on something they enjoy.

Slipspace wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
My dream change would be for the customer base to actually wisen up and vote with their wallets for a change. I swear, people are starting wishlist threads looking FORWARD to replacing everything rule based. It's like the Apple customer base, but ten times worse...

A lot of the people I play with have been voting with their wallets. A straw poll suggests spending on GW stuff during 8th was much lower than in any previous edition and that's true for me too. 99% of my purchases this edition were second-hand through eBay. We're still looking forward to 9th but with cautious optimism rather than any expectation it will be the epitome of balanced gaming.

I don't know how they would have managed record profits if consumer spending during 8th was lower than any previous edition.

I never said it was. I simply pointed out that wishing people would vote with their wallets is a weird thing to put in a thread like this when that poster has no idea if the people they're speaking to have done just that. It's also pretty presumptuous to suggest everyone should think in the way they do, but I have seen evidence of many of the older gamers around me reducing their spending. I didn't say spending overall has decreased (we know it hasn't). I just don't understand this idea of someone being annoyed that someone else spent their own money on something they enjoy.

My point is more along the lines that we have constant complaining over the game, prices, everything basically, but when we get a price hike and a new edition announced, immediately wishlisting for how to rebuy the game starts. For those that find nothing wrong with the state of things, spend away and I hope the new edition is everything you hope for. For those that were endlessly complaining or legitimately dissatisfied, I hope they actually back the talk up.


Oh, and charging more for stuff compensates for fewer units, so it's possible however unlikely that sales could be less but profit still more. Devil's advocate and all that...

 Just Tony wrote:
For those that were endlessly complaining or legitimately dissatisfied, I hope they actually back the talk up.

Now that I definitely agree with. I'm finding myself feeling less and less understanding towards people who do nothing but complain endlessly yet still hang around the forums. Hopefully 9th edition provides a way out for some of those permanently dissatisfied gamers.

Slipspace wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
For those that were endlessly complaining or legitimately dissatisfied, I hope they actually back the talk up.

Now that I definitely agree with. I'm finding myself feeling less and less understanding towards people who do nothing but complain endlessly yet still hang around the forums. Hopefully 9th edition provides a way out for some of those permanently dissatisfied gamers.

I hang around because I'm a stupid optimist that hopes that the games improve or there may pop up some more reasonable model deals as I've definitely felt the sticker shock.

Semper wrote:


- Better entry/exit from combat. Unreliable/random charges are a pain and just don't make sense. A charge should always be a minimum of the unit's movement value at the very least. Falling back from combat is abhorrent as well. Not being able to shoot or charge (which many units can ignore) is not enough of a penalty; it's too easy to just fall back from combat and then leave that combat unit stood still with their dicks or tits in their hands as the whole enemy army pounds them. It could be something simple like to fall back suffer D6 mortal wounds and the attacking unit gets +1 to their save as they're counted as being in cover (due to the army not wanting to hit their falling back allies). Possibly even a change to overwatch - you can shoot or fire overwatch but you don't get both - or a change to WHEN fallback happens. So in this case, you would only be able to fall back in the next melee phase (before attacks) in your turn rather than your next movement phase.

I agree on most of this. Would be nice if charge was Movement x 2, fixed (either entirely done in the movement phase or charge phase). Melee overwatch against withdrawing opponents should be a thing, and there should be a consequence for overwatch in the first place - either you take a penalty to the melee attack for doing impromptu overwatch or you have to relinquish your shooting in the shooting phase to hold your fire for the oncoming charge (and probably a -1 penalty on shooting or somesuch, so armies don't statically stare across the battlefield until someone flinches, ala 2E)

Movement x 2 for running/charging is how Apocalypse handles it, and it works pretty elegantly- you just get double your movement and are free to move into contact with the enemy. I'd be quite satisfied with that system being replicated in 40K, but I'm not sure that GW is willing to write core rules that would invalidate all special rules related to advance or charge rolls.

With regards to fall back being too easy, I think it would be interesting if fall back was something you did during your Charge phase. So it'd be too late to shoot, but you'd be saving your guys from enduring another round of melee on your turn, you'd get to Overwatch if the enemy just charges you again, and you could pull a unit back and then counter-charge with another unit to keep the enemy from doing so.

 catbarf wrote:
Movement x 2 for running/charging is how Apocalypse handles it, and it works pretty elegantly- you just get double your movement and are free to move into contact with the enemy. I'd be quite satisfied with that system being replicated in 40K, but I'm not sure that GW is willing to write core rules that would invalidate all special rules related to advance or charge rolls...

I've tried to implement this system in several homebrew projects and the major problem with it is that you end up with lots of units that can cross the whole table with a double move. If you're going to use this system in something where move stats range from, like, 6" to 12" it works fine, but when you've got units with 4" move and units within 16" move in the same rules system I find it feels better to give units a walk/run stat.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

I don't need to imagine that - it's what happens to my Keeper of Secrets every time I go against a Shadowsword.

Why is it okay for shooting but not for assault?

Eeeeeeh...Lol. Okay. Riiiiight. Something that requires dice roll is clearly same as one that happens with zero dice rollings.

The Shadowsword doesn't have to roll that well. The dice rolls are largely trivial. But sure, we can say "on a 2+ your unit dies" instead of just saying "your unit dies". Maybe you need a 2+ to use this proposed Ambush.

A Shadowsword is twice the cost of a Keeper of Secrets before any upgrades, and won't kill one outright with average rolls in one turn (a base unupgraded Shadowsword will average 12 wounds out of 16).

It's got 6 (average) shots with the main cannon.
3 hits
5/2 wounds
5/3 failed saves
So yeah, about 12 damage. 10 with the Aegis.

But two Keepers of Secrets (440 points) who somehow both manage to charge the Shadowsword do only...

12 attacks
10 hits
35/6 wounds
175/36 unsaved
Or about 14 damage from their main attacks.

Plus 8 Snapping Claws...
20/3 hits
20/9 wounds
10/9+25/27 or 55/27 unsaved
About 6 more damage.

So, two unbracketed Keepers do more relative damage to a Shadowsword, if they both make the charge. Which, considering we're talking about an IG Vehicle, is highly unlikely. First off, even on the edge of the DZ, they've only about a 60% chance of making that charge T1, and if it's even as much as 3" back, that drops to about a 1/4 chance. Not to mention, screens.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

I don't need to imagine that - it's what happens to my Keeper of Secrets every time I go against a Shadowsword.

Why is it okay for shooting but not for assault?

Eeeeeeh...Lol. Okay. Riiiiight. Something that requires dice roll is clearly same as one that happens with zero dice rollings.

The Shadowsword doesn't have to roll that well. The dice rolls are largely trivial. But sure, we can say "on a 2+ your unit dies" instead of just saying "your unit dies". Maybe you need a 2+ to use this proposed Ambush.

A Shadowsword is twice the cost of a Keeper of Secrets before any upgrades, and won't kill one outright with average rolls in one turn (a base unupgraded Shadowsword will average 12 wounds out of 16).

A keeper of secrets is 5 and some change times the cost of the Guard Squad it will probably not one-shot in melee once it finally reaches the screen in front of the Shadowsword. And yes, I did mention buffs in my post. All you need is one to-hit buff to kill it, and the Guard have no shortage of those, even for superheavies. Also, shouldn't it be 14 wounds?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

I don't need to imagine that - it's what happens to my Keeper of Secrets every time I go against a Shadowsword.

Why is it okay for shooting but not for assault?

Eeeeeeh...Lol. Okay. Riiiiight. Something that requires dice roll is clearly same as one that happens with zero dice rollings.

The Shadowsword doesn't have to roll that well. The dice rolls are largely trivial. But sure, we can say "on a 2+ your unit dies" instead of just saying "your unit dies". Maybe you need a 2+ to use this proposed Ambush.

A Shadowsword is twice the cost of a Keeper of Secrets before any upgrades, and won't kill one outright with average rolls in one turn (a base unupgraded Shadowsword will average 12 wounds out of 16).

A keeper of secrets is 5 and some change times the cost of the Guard Squad it will probably not one-shot in melee once it finally reaches the screen in front of the Shadowsword. And yes, I did mention buffs in my post. All you need is one to-hit buff to kill it, and the Guard have no shortage of those, even for superheavies. Also, shouldn't it be 14 wounds?

The mode might be 14 wounds, the average is 12.

I'll plug it into Anydice to see some stuff...

Odds of doing X Unsaved Wounds are...

Wounds.....Percent
1...................85.85
2...................53.06
3...................21.57
4...................5.42

Odds of X Unsaved Wounds killing a Keeper of Secrets are...

Wounds............Percent
1..........................0
2........................33.56
3........................90.35
4........................99.62

For the total odds of...

(5.42*.9962)+(16.15*.9035)+(31.49*.3356)=30.56%

So a Shadowsword has about a 1/3 chance of gibbing a Keeper of Secrets, assuming the Heavy Bolter shoots something else.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So a Shadowsword has about a 1/3 chance of gibbing a Keeper of Secrets, assuming the Heavy Bolter shoots something else.

Now can you do the Keeper of Secrets' chance of intagibbing a Leman Russ from the opposite side of the table on Turn 1? Since a Leman Russ is a bit more than half the cost of a Keeper (like within 5-10 pts). Don't forget to put the Russ's butt right up against its board edge and put ~10 guardsment or so in front of it.

JNAProductions wrote:It's got 6 (average) shots with the main cannon.
3 hits
5/2 wounds
5/3 failed saves
So yeah, about 12 damage. 10 with the Aegis.

But two Keepers of Secrets (440 points) who somehow both manage to charge the Shadowsword do only...

12 attacks
10 hits
35/6 wounds
175/36 unsaved
Or about 14 damage from their main attacks.

Plus 8 Snapping Claws...
20/3 hits
20/9 wounds
10/9+25/27 or 55/27 unsaved
About 6 more damage.

So, two unbracketed Keepers do more relative damage to a Shadowsword, if they both make the charge. Which, considering we're talking about an IG Vehicle, is highly unlikely. First off, even on the edge of the DZ, they've only about a 60% chance of making that charge T1, and if it's even as much as 3" back, that drops to about a 1/4 chance. Not to mention, screens.

Sure, but the Shadowsword is also a specialized killer of single big things (so the fact that it's relatively more effective at killing a giant daemon than the daemon is at killing it isn't surprising) and does little else, the Keeper of Secrets has a very different role and is going to be better at mulching lighter higher model count units and supporting the rest of the army, and if we're talking about Screens, then we also have to talk about incorporating their cost into that equation.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And it breaks down on higher speed values. 14" does t1 charge reliably with no real counter. Imagine having say stratagem that says "pick target unit. Remove it from play. It's dead".

Sounds fun?

I don't need to imagine that - it's what happens to my Keeper of Secrets every time I go against a Shadowsword.

Why is it okay for shooting but not for assault?

Eeeeeeh...Lol. Okay. Riiiiight. Something that requires dice roll is clearly same as one that happens with zero dice rollings.

The Shadowsword doesn't have to roll that well. The dice rolls are largely trivial. But sure, we can say "on a 2+ your unit dies" instead of just saying "your unit dies". Maybe you need a 2+ to use this proposed Ambush.

A Shadowsword is twice the cost of a Keeper of Secrets before any upgrades, and won't kill one outright with average rolls in one turn (a base unupgraded Shadowsword will average 12 wounds out of 16).

A keeper of secrets is 5 and some change times the cost of the Guard Squad it will probably not one-shot in melee once it finally reaches the screen in front of the Shadowsword. And yes, I did mention buffs in my post. All you need is one to-hit buff to kill it, and the Guard have no shortage of those, even for superheavies. Also, shouldn't it be 14 wounds?

Should be ~12 by my math (6*1/2*5/6*2/3*7=11.66+(6*1/2*1/3*2/3)=12.33). If we're incorporating buffs, sure you can increase that, but then that can go both ways, and potentially entail additional costs (and screens aren't free either), and again, we're talking about a dedicated anti-big thing unit that's twice the price of the Keeper of Secrets. With an example that stilted, especially if we factor in a minimal screen, it shouldn't be surprising at almost 500pts of stuff is trouncing a single unit that costs just a bit over 200.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So a Shadowsword has about a 1/3 chance of gibbing a Keeper of Secrets, assuming the Heavy Bolter shoots something else.

Now can you do the Keeper of Secrets' chance of intagibbing a Leman Russ from the opposite side of the table on Turn 1? Since a Leman Russ is a bit more than half the cost of a Keeper (like within 5-10 pts). Don't forget to put the Russ's butt right up against its board edge and put ~10 guardsment or so in front of it.

Giving the Keeper of Secrets a Living Whip. It would have to make it within 6" in the movement phase to use it against the Russ, and it would have to do two unsaved wounds to make it require even one less unsaved melee wound to kill.

I will assume, of course, the Keeper advances, so hits with the whip on 3+.

21.92% chance of dealing at least two wounds
4.58% of at least three wounds.
.04% of at least five wounds

One and four were ignored because they don't affect the melee.
Six was ignored because the odds are .001%.

For the melee... And yee gods, it was annoying to calculate the rend!

Wounds..........Percent
1........................97.61
2........................86.73
3........................64.50
4+......................37.75

All damage is flat, so it's pretty simple. 37.75% chance of one-shotting it, assuming no damage dealt at range.

Odds of making a charge at the following distances are...

Range..........Percent
24"..................62.50
25"..................50.00
26"..................37.50
27"..................25.93
28"..................16.20
29"..................9.26
30"..................4.63
31"..................1.85
32"...................46

The Living Whip has a range of 6", with a 14" move, that means it can only hit up to 26" away (with a 6 on advance).

So, with a successful charge, the Keeper has about 25% chance of killing a Leman Russ than a Shadowsword has of killing a Keeper.

Right, Vakathi, but I used it to counter the idea that "units shouldn't be able to charge Turn 1 because the alpha strike!!"

My point is "the same logic should dictate that units shouldn't be able to alpha-strike with shooting either but apparently no one cares about that." The specific details are a little less than relevant; I think the argument stands, in that:

People are afraid of melee turn 1 alpha-strikes, but are perfectly willing to accept units like the Shadowsword or entire squadrons of tanks that are shooting turn 1 alpha-strikes. I find that personally hypocritical and incredibly silly.

EDIT:
So including charge moves, what's the chance? I'm curious now - and we can disregard screens and assume my opponent is a dingus.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I want fire arcs/armour facings back, the ability to put anything in Reserves for any reason, the "combat airspace" mechanic from 7e so flyers can hop out/in instead of needing to fly a rectangle around the middle of the board. I want Sweeping Advances back to make Morale make a difference and let melee units do something without having to physically roll enough dice to kill every single model in front of them. I want stratagems not to be such a powerful mechanic that they force us to build our armies entirely around efficient use of the card game. I want an overhaul to psykers that stops punishing us for taking multiple psykers. I want all Mortal Wounds to go die in a fire. I want points costs attached to Relics. I want anti-aircraft weapons to be a thing rather than just shooting down planes with flamers and battle cannons. I want to not be punished for liking FW models better than GW models. I want the endless proliferation of random characters to stop and the game to be about my army rather than GW's named characters.

I'm not likely to get any of this, but I thought I'd ask.

You are absolutely are getting what you want for fliers leaving the table; that's been confirmed twice.

I can't say that the new uses for CP will offset the importance of strats- to be fair to you, it probably won't. It will help a bit, but not as much as you want. Having said that, if they create more Vigilus style pay CP specialist detachments, that's another offset to strats. Also, because detachments are no longer the thing that generates CP, it will feel less like you're building an army specifically for CP. But yeah, strats are still going to be important to the game.

Good terrain rules have the potential to make melee better; it sounds like they're revisiting overwatch too, which will help. I'm not sure how many cc troops have No Escape, but that helps melee by making the fall back harder.

As for named characters, there are some that aren't as good as their generic equivalents, especially when cost (both points and $) are taken into account. You may not miss out on much by excluding named characters from your army (depending on who you play). I think what you're actually looking for is for everyone else's game to be about the army and not the characters, because you already have the ability to build an army without named characters. Don't get me wrong; I feel you; it sucks to build an army without named characters and feel proud and noble and have that moral high ground, and then get schooled by a Supreme Command full of table breaking monsters. But your army would still be about your army.

As a possible thing to keep in mind, if you play with friends and not strangers, you can probably convince them to play no-names vs no-names every now and again. I would also suggest the coming Crusade system may be good for you because characters would START as generic, but would come to earn their special abilities in battle to become named characters over time. Ready made special characters can feel cheesy, absolutely, but I suspect the characters you build up from nothing will actually be a point of pride, especially because you get choices about how they grow.

As for morale having an impact, isn't that one of the reasons meta is MSU? Because morale kills large units who don't have morale protections. The other thing Ive found about certain strategies is that they don't work really well unless you go all in. Not sure who you play, but if you take every leadership debuff option in your dex, it might actually work for you. If drop your morale to three and drop a strat to make you roll two dice and pick the lesser result, well morale is gonna hurt you, unless you have protection.

Not sure relics need points when you can only take one unless you use CP, and even if you do that, you only get three.

Not sure how you're punished by taking multiple psykers?

I'd like to see Forgeworld disappear, but the ENTIRE FW range converted to plastic and sold and managed directly by GW. Everything in FW range would become more accessible, and higher quality at the same time. I know this will never happen; $500 + models aren't going to sell well enough for GW to invest in them and absorb that risk. But I find FW to be far less accessible than GW, and it's too bad because there are a lot of Forgeworld models I like too.

I like the idea of anti aircraft weapons, but there are concerns: every list needs it, not just freakin marines, and you know that's how it would be rolled out. Also it would create a situation where both aircraft and anti-aircraft weapons becomes a gamble. Imagine loading up on AA weapons, and then your opponent gets to the table and has no fliers. After this happens twenty or thirty times, I imagine that you might wish you hadn't wished for anti aircraft weapons. I think it's actually why GW took them out in the first place.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, Vakathi, but I used it to counter the idea that "units shouldn't be able to charge Turn 1 because the alpha strike!!"

My point is "the same logic should dictate that units shouldn't be able to alpha-strike with shooting either but apparently no one cares about that." The specific details are a little less than relevant; I think the argument stands, in that:

People are afraid of melee turn 1 alpha-strikes, but are perfectly willing to accept units like the Shadowsword or entire squadrons of tanks that are shooting turn 1 alpha-strikes. I find that personally hypocritical and incredibly silly.

Sure, and from that perspective it's not an invalid point to raise, but I think with CC there's two big issues that make CC alpha strikes more of an issue, at least with the rules we have currently. First, CC has the ability to control other unit's actions even if it doesn't kill and can offer refuge from shooting attacks, and second is that movement has additional utility beyond just getting into range of killing stuff.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, Vakathi, but I used it to counter the idea that "units shouldn't be able to charge Turn 1 because the alpha strike!!"

My point is "the same logic should dictate that units shouldn't be able to alpha-strike with shooting either but apparently no one cares about that." The specific details are a little less than relevant; I think the argument stands, in that:

People are afraid of melee turn 1 alpha-strikes, but are perfectly willing to accept units like the Shadowsword or entire squadrons of tanks that are shooting turn 1 alpha-strikes. I find that personally hypocritical and incredibly silly.

Sure, and from that perspective it's not an invalid point to raise, but I think with CC there's two big issues that make CC alpha strikes more of an issue, at least with the rules we have currently. First, CC has the ability to control other unit's actions even if it doesn't kill and can offer refuge from shooting attacks, and second is that movement has additional utility beyond just getting into range of killing stuff.

But CC is also way easier to shut down-a 40 point Guard unit can spread out over 20", and stop anything without Fly from getting to anything important behind them.

Just as a general question-do you think melee is in a good spot, relative to shooting?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, Vakathi, but I used it to counter the idea that "units shouldn't be able to charge Turn 1 because the alpha strike!!"

My point is "the same logic should dictate that units shouldn't be able to alpha-strike with shooting either but apparently no one cares about that." The specific details are a little less than relevant; I think the argument stands, in that:

People are afraid of melee turn 1 alpha-strikes, but are perfectly willing to accept units like the Shadowsword or entire squadrons of tanks that are shooting turn 1 alpha-strikes. I find that personally hypocritical and incredibly silly.

Sure, and from that perspective it's not an invalid point to raise, but I think with CC there's two big issues that make CC alpha strikes more of an issue, at least with the rules we have currently. First, CC has the ability to control other unit's actions even if it doesn't kill and can offer refuge from shooting attacks, and second is that movement has additional utility beyond just getting into range of killing stuff.

CC also has major weaknesses - it can only control units it can physically touch, which typically aren't your opponent's best units (as it is trivially easy to put impassable terrain or other less important units between the CC unit and the unit needing protection).

CC does not offer a refuge from shooting any more without some kind of special rule to prevent fallback. Getting into CC now doesn't mean that you are safe; if you plan around that, you're gonna die.

Movement doesn't have much additional utility - if you're talking about standing on objectives, that's true, but you need durability too. Moving onto an objective just to be swept off immediately accomplishes little.

EDIT:
CC also gives the enemy the chance to hit you back. Slaanesh Daemons vs Space Wolves is essentially Slaanesh daemons vs a better assault army that also has shooting, for example. It's an exercise in getting punched in dick for being successful at charging the enemy, lol.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, Vakathi, but I used it to counter the idea that "units shouldn't be able to charge Turn 1 because the alpha strike!!"

My point is "the same logic should dictate that units shouldn't be able to alpha-strike with shooting either but apparently no one cares about that." The specific details are a little less than relevant; I think the argument stands, in that:

People are afraid of melee turn 1 alpha-strikes, but are perfectly willing to accept units like the Shadowsword or entire squadrons of tanks that are shooting turn 1 alpha-strikes. I find that personally hypocritical and incredibly silly.

Sure, and from that perspective it's not an invalid point to raise, but I think with CC there's two big issues that make CC alpha strikes more of an issue, at least with the rules we have currently. First, CC has the ability to control other unit's actions even if it doesn't kill and can offer refuge from shooting attacks, and second is that movement has additional utility beyond just getting into range of killing stuff.

But CC is also way easier to shut down-a 40 point Guard unit can spread out over 20", and stop anything without Fly from getting to anything important behind them.

Just as a general question-do you think melee is in a good spot, relative to shooting?

You could screen with guardsman in previous editions, that's not terribly new in and of itself. With regards to CC being in a good spot relative to shooting, I don't think so, but I also don't think it's because CC can't cross the board turn 1. Fundamentally I don't think it really should be able to do that, as the implied assumption through every edition has been that it should take a couple turns to get into combat, and the game has usually gone out of its way to ensure that throughout its history. I think bigger issues are a lack of proper terrain/cover rules, some absurdly over-indulgent TLOS and wound allocation rules allowing stuff like sword blades or banners to be used for LoS to wipe out a whole unit, and changes to CC and morale make the stats of a lot of units underwhelming for the killing power they bring, as in previous editions winning combat by even 1 wound could allow a unit to break its opponent and sweep them off the board without having to kill them to the last man, some melee units are absurdly over-killy, but something like a basic Tac/CSM squad isn't nearly the threat it was in say, 3E-5E in close combat. I don't mind the idea of tanks or giant monsters being able to move out of combat, but an infantry unit stuck in blade to blade with the enemy shouldn't just be able to walk out of that without a more appreciable downside, if at all.

The spiking of short range firepower is also an issue. Previous editions had to worry about doubletaps at 12", not quadruple taps with AP bonuses and multiple rerolls and tons of Mortal Wound abilities that affect units in melee or charge distances.

The reason screening with guardsmen wasn't an issue in earlier games is you couldn't fall back, meaning that a unit that made it into combat with Guardsmen was much more likely to survive to make it out of combat with the Guardsmen.

You still had to be careful back then not to blenderize the whole unit on the charge - if you look back, you can see whole guide-threads on how to pull this off.

Nowadays, you slam into the screen, either kill it or not, doesn't matter. Then you die. No chance, if the enemy screens.

Not sure how you're punished by taking multiple psykers?

dismnishing returns. if you have 8-11 casters in your army and still have to cover for utility, you are goint o be left with turns where units could be out of range of smite, but some other unit already cast another units psychic power, leaving it doing nothing in the psychic phase. But you pay for having a psychic ability what ever you can or can not use it. It is a bit like the the melee weapon tax. GW prices stuff as if all units reached melee at full strenght every time, but we all know that is not the case. Making odd situations where intercessors are the best melee unit, because they can melee, but most important of all have good shoting.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The reason screening with guardsmen wasn't an issue in earlier games is you couldn't fall back, meaning that a unit that made it into combat with Guardsmen was much more likely to survive to make it out of combat with the Guardsmen.

You still had to be careful back then not to blenderize the whole unit on the charge - if you look back, you can see whole guide-threads on how to pull this off.

Nowadays, you slam into the screen, either kill it or not, doesn't matter. Then you die. No chance, if the enemy screens.

To be fair, with respect to Guardsmen specifically, not killing them all off, or at least not having them fall back and leaving one exposed, was usually harder than not, and why people would have to go to weird lengths to avoid doing so. I don't think Guardsmen are the worst offenders in this regard personally, I think it's units you genuinely want to engage and fight (as opposed to simply removing a screen) being able to just walk out of combat and not having to worry about a Sweep mechanic that is more of an issue.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The reason screening with guardsmen wasn't an issue in earlier games is you couldn't fall back, meaning that a unit that made it into combat with Guardsmen was much more likely to survive to make it out of combat with the Guardsmen.

You still had to be careful back then not to blenderize the whole unit on the charge - if you look back, you can see whole guide-threads on how to pull this off.

Nowadays, you slam into the screen, either kill it or not, doesn't matter. Then you die. No chance, if the enemy screens.

To be fair, with respect to Guardsmen specifically, not killing them all off, or at least not having them fall back and leaving one exposed, was usually harder than not, and why people would have to go to weird lengths to avoid doing so. I don't think Guardsmen are the worst offenders in this regard personally, I think it's units you genuinely want to engage and fight (as opposed to simply removing a screen) being able to just walk out of combat and not having to worry about a Sweep mechanic that is more of an issue.

Sure, that's also an issue. But the main thing is that in earlier edition, screens didn't help much against CC, because being locked in combat meant that the enemy couldn't shoot you. I played a Guard tank company then, and screened with guardsmen plenty of times. It usually ended up with my tank guns being mostly silent because the enemy army was locked up with my screen until they decided to start trying (because they could control what models from what units were in combat with consolidate and pile-in moves) and then they just wiped the screen, usually on my turn, and moved into the tanks.

This edition? You can't do that. Screens effectively prevent non-Fly CC, and Fly CC if they're deep enough. There is no amount of screening that will help against shooting. Nothing to be done except hope the table is set up right, hope your opponent wiffs his dice or your dice are hot, or just permanently stay out of range. Shooting is guaranteed damage on vital units, and the ways to mitigate it are not under my control as the defending player the way it is with CC.

With respect to previous editions, I also played IG mechanized lists and tank companies from 4E onward, I don't recall my infantry living long enough for opponent's units to hide in CC much. A depleted 5 man tac squad charging in would kill 3 guardsmen with 10 attacks on average, I'd usually kill nobody back, take a Morale test at -3 (with an Ld8 sergeant meaning testing on a 5), fail ~72% of the time (or less if I allocated wounds to kill off the Sergeant to test Ld7 on a 4), and then typically be swept or otherwise fall back out of position. I never found units hiding in CC with guardsmen to be a consistent problem I had to deal with, from my experience it was always an "unlucky" outlier. As soon as the guardsmen were out of transports or the enemy got to within 12", the guardsmen disappeared off the table. I found that to be a much more advantageous tactic against my CSM's than it ever was with my Guardsmen.

Of much greater importance was the fact that I couldn't draw LoS to a gun barrel on the one dude in range and allocate wounds to the rest of the unit that was otherwise out of range and LoS.