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.

 Lance845 wrote:
First, yes... This belongs in proposed rules.

Second, the issues with alpha strike are a direct result of the igougo turn structure and one player using their entire army before the next player returns the favor. That's the root cause. If you are not addressing the root cause you are using half measures as Band-Aids to try to hide the problem.

For instance... If you shorten the distances of shooting or widen the distance between deployment so then what happens is the alpha strike moves to the second players turn, or the second game turn, or you have players hide in their deployment zones unwilling to make the first move because it give the other guy the first chance to lay into you.

You haven't fixed anything. You just moved when and how the same problem occurs.

Stop with the igougo nonsense. Alpha strikes weren't a problem in lots of previous editions that still had igougo structure. Its not the problem, and they are never going to change it anyway.

Alpha strikes are a problem because 8th massively increased offensive firepower through auras, strats, AP changes, etc, and generally reduced defense through line of sight, cover, and AP changes.

The solution to the alpha strike problem isn't some radical change to the game system, or even to adjust ranges. The solution is to bring back systems more like what we had for the many long years that this was not a problem.

Disagree Units Like suicide terminators were existing quite Long .

 Lance845 wrote:
First, yes... This belongs in proposed rules.

Second, the issues with alpha strike are a direct result of the igougo turn structure and one player using their entire army before the next player returns the favor. That's the root cause. If you are not addressing the root cause you are using half measures as Band-Aids to try to hide the problem.

For instance... If you shorten the distances of shooting or widen the distance between deployment so then what happens is the alpha strike moves to the second players turn, or the second game turn, or you have players hide in their deployment zones unwilling to make the first move because it give the other guy the first chance to lay into you.

You haven't fixed anything. You just moved when and how the same problem occurs.

If Alpha strike is a direct result of IGOUGO, then alpha strike has always been a problem for 40k since it has always been IGOUGO. If you believe that other editions did not have an Alpha Strike problem, then you cannot believe that IGOUGO is directly responsible for alpha strike.

It is fair to say IGOUGO is a factor in first strike. Directly responsible? Hyperbole and logical fallacy all rolled up in a tight little package. (Sorry to argue semantics)

I think the biggest problem with 8th was cover. It wasn't the only problem- long ranges on super bolt weapons, changes to the way rapid fire weapons work, and Space Marine super bolter bolt bolty McBolterson were a factor, and yes, I will admit that my beloved, yet oft maligned IGOUGO does have some share of the blame too.

But cover was far and away the biggest issue, because it is a fourfold problem:

1/ Bad rules about cover.
2/ Compounded by bad rules about LOS- the two issues are so closely linked that I actually consider them to be one problem.
3/ Player refusal to use enough cover.
4/ Player refusal to use Cityfight cover rules.

So I have never played a game where I started in a position where enemies could see the units I did not want them to see. If I sit down at a table, and there isn't enough LOS blocking cover to screen 75% of my forces, I suggest to my opponent that we add more terrain. You know what? I've never had an opponent turn me down. Because they know it benefits them as much as it benefits me.

Here are a few caveats:

- in 31 years, I've played in 3 tournaments; obviously, on those occasions, we didn't have the option of adding scenery (who's using hyperbole now, eh wiseguy?)
- I usually play with home-made terrain so that I have access to LOS blocking terrain, because GW's stuff, though great looking and easy to use, is TERRIBLE at blocking line of sight
- I haven't played with anything bigger than a land raider, and I acknowledge that it would be hard for super-heavies to move freely on most of the tables I've played on
- I mostly play like-mind friends and friends of friends who I've met socially before playing
- We're all pretty casual

I know that not everyone has the option to play that way- people on here say all the time that the only way they can play is in the stores or at tournaments, either because none of their friends play, or they don't have the space or whatever. I also know that some people just crave events, and travel, and just love that kinda stuff. I get it- you know that's your reality. I've just been a nerd all my life- played my first game of AD&D in grade three. I met my wife at a games convention. The idea of needing a store to play in, or preferring to play in public with strangers is alien to me.

(Sigh) I've digressed again...

TL;DR
So do I think there's an Alpha Strike Lethality problem in 8th? Yes.
Do I think that shortening engagement range would help? Yes.
Do I think that getting rid of IGOUGO would help? Yes.
Do I think that either of these two solutions is the best solution? No.
Do I think that a lot of players already have solutions to the problem without modifying a single rule? Yes.
Do I believe that 9th will address some of these issues and therefore be at least somewhat better? Yes.

2nd ed had the most one turn tablings of any edition in my experience.

Every edition has had alpha strike issues. The issues have become more prominent as the lethality has increased. But the advantage of going first has always existed. Or was it 5th when everyone just made static gun lines that sat behind terrain and waited for the other guy to move because the first player to get all their shots off tended to win? I guess that just never happened. Because alpha strikes are a new issue or something.

You know what, you're right.

Everything is fine. Alpha strikes are not real. They are not an obvious consequence of attacking with your entire army all at once as the name alpha strike implies.

 Lance845 wrote:
Every edition has had alpha strike issues. The issues have become more prominent as the lethality has increased. But the advantage of going first has always existed. Or was it 5th when everyone just made static gun lines that sat behind terrain and waited for the other guy to move because the first player to get all their shots off tended to win? I guess that just never happened. Because alpha strikes are a new issue or something.

You know what, you're right.

Everything is fine. Alpha strikes are not real. They are not an obvious consequence of attacking with your entire army all at once as the name alpha strike implies.

Tell me more about these 5th ed alpha strikes

Suicide terminators were still a thing weren't they?

Not Online!!! wrote:
Suicide terminators were still a thing weren't they?

Chaos combi suicide terminators were common in 5th, yes. And their loyalist counterpart, combi-sternguard in drop pods. What about it?

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Suicide terminators were still a thing weren't they?

Chaos combi suicide terminators were common in 5th, yes. And their loyalist counterpart, combi-sternguard in drop pods. What about it?

Isn't that a Alpha strike with crippling capability? 105 pts or some such was it to wipe out potentially 200+ pts in one go.
Course the Risk was greater aswell but imo it was still an issue.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Suicide terminators were still a thing weren't they?

Chaos combi suicide terminators were common in 5th, yes. And their loyalist counterpart, combi-sternguard in drop pods. What about it?

Isn't that a Alpha strike with crippling capability? 105 pts or some such was it to wipe out potentially 200+ pts in one go.
Course the Risk was greater aswell but imo it was still an issue.

I suppose you could call that an alpha strike on a unit level, but what the thread is talking about is army wide alpha striking where it's the whole army shooting the first turn and doing crippling damage, thus deciding the game on who gets first turn.

Suicide combi units like these would have actually meant LESS first turn alpha strike at the time, as they were deepstriking and generally wouldn't be coming in turn 1 (depending on the unit, of course.)

My memory is that people in 5th ed thought that kamikaze drop units were kind of dumb and unfluffy, but not ruining the game or anything.

To the OP: Ha Ha. No.
To anyone complaining about Alpha Strike: Don't deploy aggressively. Keep your stuff in cover on turn one. Done.

 carldooley wrote:
To the OP: Ha Ha. No.
To anyone complaining about Alpha Strike: Don't deploy aggressively. Keep your stuff in cover on turn one. Done.

Yeah, that helps a lot less than you think it does.

 carldooley wrote:
To the OP: Ha Ha. No.
To anyone complaining about Alpha Strike: Don't deploy aggressively. Keep your stuff in cover on turn one. Done.

I sure love condescending posts that ignore that indirect fire exists and pretend TLOS makes it easy to avoid LOS or that cover is worth a damn when everyone has AP across the board.

Anyways, for the sake of discussion:

4th Ed: Your basic infantry typically have a 24" range. If you move, you only get to shoot 12". If you stay stationary, you're still only getting one shot at 24".

8th Ed: If you're Marines, you have 30" range. You can fire one shot if you move, or two if you stay stationary. If you're not Marines, you have 24" range and can still move and take your shot.

Combine this with the typical distance between deployment zones being 24", and IMO that's where a lot of the problems come from. In 4th, only your > 24" range weapons could shoot from one deployment zone to the other, ruling out all infantry. In 8th, basically everything can shoot across the board.

So I see the increased lethality at range coming from a combination of factors:
-Mildly increased ranges (mostly Marines).
-More shots at range (especially with Bolter Discipline, FRFSRF).
-Increased shooting when moving.
-More rerolls across the board, making fire generally more lethal.
-Reduced impact of cover.
-Difficulty avoiding LOS with TLOS.

It's a bunch of little things that add up. The deployment distances really aren't appropriate for the weapon ranges the game now involves. Optimally there should be very little shooting on the first turn, giving both sides room to maneuver before contact.

 catbarf wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
To the OP: Ha Ha. No.
To anyone complaining about Alpha Strike: Don't deploy aggressively. Keep your stuff in cover on turn one. Done.

I sure love condescending posts that ignore that indirect fire exists and pretend TLOS makes it easy to avoid LOS or that cover is worth a damn when everyone has AP across the board.

Anyways, for the sake of discussion:

4th Ed: Your basic infantry typically have a 24" range. If you move, you only get to shoot 12". If you stay stationary, you're still only getting one shot at 24".

8th Ed: If you're Marines, you have 30" range. You can fire one shot if you move, or two if you stay stationary. If you're not Marines, you have 24" range and can still move and take your shot.

Combine this with the typical distance between deployment zones being 24", and IMO that's where a lot of the problems come from. In 4th, only your > 24" range weapons could shoot from one deployment zone to the other, ruling out all infantry. In 8th, basically everything can shoot across the board.

So I see the increased lethality at range coming from a combination of factors:
-Mildly increased ranges (mostly Marines).
-More shots at range (especially with Bolter Discipline, FRFSRF).
-Increased shooting when moving.
-More rerolls across the board, making fire generally more lethal.
-Reduced impact of cover.
-Difficulty avoiding LOS with TLOS.

It's a bunch of little things that add up. The deployment distances really aren't appropriate for the weapon ranges the game now involves. Optimally there should be very little shooting on the first turn, giving both sides room to maneuver before contact.

Indirect weapons are generally rare, and even if LoS blocking terrain isn't on the table, have you never layered defenses? Have you ever brought two large models to limit the LOS of a third unit? I have. When a unit is limited in shooting at the closest enemy unit that it can see, you can play shenanigans by limiting the LOS of the unit with the larger models. If you want to protect that unit, park another larger model in front of it.

I miss my mech guard.

Anyway, I currently play Tau. You want to shorten the range of my guns, make the game more decisive overall? No. If I wanted to play a cookie cutter game, I would never have stopped playing chess, or I'd have a 30k force. If you want to give your Smash Captain a gun, go right ahead, but keep in mind the difference between effective distance, and decisive distance. In the example, Effective distance is the distance at which your unit can effect other units on the board. Decisive distance, is the distance at which your unit can wipe out an enemy unit. With my Tau, and other primarily ranged armies, Effective and Decisive range is effectively the same - effective range. With melee focused armies, the ranges are again the same, except in this example it is decisive range; short melee range. Then there are armies like the Space Marines. They can effect units around them, but their goal is to get to decisive range, where they can roll the enemy units up in melee.

Ranged, Effective units generally want to stay away from enemy units, and will utilize the range of their guns as well as the movement available to them to 'kite' their opponents.
Melee, Decisive units want to get into melee as quickly as possible, and can utilize any number of what an 'effective' player could call 'dirty tricks' to get there in the shortest possible time; Drop Pods, Jetbikes, Terminator Teleports, etc.

If you are pushing for a shift towards decisive play, what are you willing to grant to effective players?

How about you try playing something else then tau. Like lets say try to hide an elite army turn 1 and then try to reach objectives 18-20" away on foot. How about trying to do thatm or try short range armies that work at 12", or even melee armies.

I mean I would love if GW decided that because my army has a melee weapon on every guy, pays points for it, and pays points for being able to deep strike with every units, even if the rules allow to only deep strike 50% of it, so there for the army mechanics should buff the hell out of charges and the abilty to reach melee ASAP. I can tell you that it does not happen in the codex GW gave us, in fact when the codex came out GW was all about how it should work with majority of the army deep striking, something they later made illegal to do.


The problem with ranges in w40k is that melee pays for its abilities as if it was getting turn 1 100% of time and starting 3" from the enemy army. But such situations almost never happpy. While shoting pays for shoting often from turn1 onwards, and that happens quite often.

Melee is way too expensive in general. GK are a special subset case because they are paying for all kinds of crap that do nothing for them on their opponent's turn. They are too elite for their own good. Marines are glass cannons. GK are paper mache cannons.

Martel732 wrote:
2nd ed had the most one turn tablings of any edition in my experience.

On tables without cover and using virus cards?

The basic ranges on most weapons haven't changed since 2E, and if anything we've seen speed and assault ranges substantially increase.

The problem isn't weapon ranges (in most cases), it's that Terrain rules are practically worthless in terms of cover providing meaningful benefits, the LoS rules are far too generous in allowing things like a banner or gun barrel to count, and the wound allocation rules allow for models out of LoS and Range to be killed by weapons that can't see or reach them.

The insane ramping of of power abilities like auras and doctrines also hasn't helped, but that's an issue of lethality, not range.

Likewise, Assault no longer has a Sweeping Advance mechanic, meaning to actually kill something in CC you have to have enough attacks to actually kill each model, whereas in previous editions something like a Tac squad could pull reasonable double-duty as against most other Troops units as winning combat by 1 or 2 would allow a decent chance to wipe out an opposing unit.

The only real issues with Range is largely isolated to a handful of units (Intercessors have no business toting 30" range guns on what are ostensibly basic Troops). Aside from a few exceptions, weapon range isn't really the core problem.

 jeff white wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
2nd ed had the most one turn tablings of any edition in my experience.

On tables without cover and using virus cards?

No. Pure, brutal firepower. Everything was expensive and armor basically didn't function as the AP numbers were even HIGHER. Marines were 30 ppm and AP was very high.

Yeah... I remember one guy with thirty dark reapers. But they only worked on open tables...

 jeff white wrote:
Yeah... I remember one guy with thirty dark reapers. But they only worked on open tables...

Actually lots of terrain made it worse. Eldar vypers had -3 AP weapons and pop up attack. Most marine armies died in 2 turns.

I can tell you what taught me to avoid terrain: Playing games with LoS blocking bits, that didn't impede assaulters a bit.
Me, 'I'm going to shoot that unit 12" away.'
my opponent, 'You can't, that wall you are sheltering behind blocks your Line of Sight.'
Me, 'I'm gonna overwatch.'
my opponent, 'No LoS, remember the wall? Anyway, I'm gonna assault you from 2" away.'
me, 'Don't you have to go up and over the wall?'
my opponent, 'Nothing in the rules says I have to, I can go right through it.'

me, 'tell me again why I couldn't shoot through it...'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Yeah... I remember one guy with thirty dark reapers. But they only worked on open tables...

Actually lots of terrain made it worse. Eldar vypers had -3 AP weapons and pop up attack. Most marine armies died in 2 turns.

didn't Marines have access to a psychic power that allowed a piece of terrain to be moved on the table, then use a Skyshield Landing pad with raised edges for a 4++ moveable firebase?

Just set your screens properly. And laugh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carldooley wrote:
I can tell you what taught me to avoid terrain: Playing games with LoS blocking bits, that didn't impede assaulters a bit.
Me, 'I'm going to shoot that unit 12" away.'
my opponent, 'You can't, that wall you are sheltering behind blocks your Line of Sight.'
Me, 'I'm gonna overwatch.'
my opponent, 'No LoS, remember the wall? Anyway, I'm gonna assault you from 2" away.'
me, 'Don't you have to go up and over the wall?'
my opponent, 'Nothing in the rules says I have to, I can go right through it.'

me, 'tell me again why I couldn't shoot through it...'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Yeah... I remember one guy with thirty dark reapers. But they only worked on open tables...

Actually lots of terrain made it worse. Eldar vypers had -3 AP weapons and pop up attack. Most marine armies died in 2 turns.

didn't Marines have access to a psychic power that allowed a piece of terrain to be moved on the table, then use a Skyshield Landing pad with raised edges for a 4++ moveable firebase?

Not in 2nd. In 7th.

Martel732 wrote:
Not in 2nd. In 7th.

Was that viable in 8th though?

No, it wasn't.

The funny thing is that 8th edition comparatively speaking is a low lethality one.

It simply is the only where we reached a common balance between factions good enough that we care about it a lot more, and we find outrageous when turn 1 30% of my army is swept away.

In 7th edition it wasn't impossible to have your whole list removed in 1 turn and we call 8th edition a lethal one? (Ever tried playing fluffy CSM against scatspam?)

In 7th simply we didn't care because if you had been blown away it meant that you didn't play broken defense combos like rerollable 2++ and invisibility or stuff like that. It was "your" mistake to not bring broken stuff on the table. Now that we are much closer to a common balance, we tend to highlight these happenings much more.

It is not the edition which is more lethal, it is the community that has started to pretend real balance (finally).

Before 8th, the common balance concept was the same one as MtG. Balance only at broken level and don't care about everything else (same one as Warmachine by the way).

So, just for the record, I don’t think engagement range reduction is the only thing needed to help the game. The amount of lethality here is also a major factor, this goes for melee dmg too. But I just think reducing engagement range would do wonders for interactivity with the movement phase. Proper terrain rules will also help here a lot, no doubt.

But I think with an IGOUGO system, giving players the opportunity to shoot with the majority of your army turn 1 before the opposition has a chance to react is just bad design and really not enjoyable for the person who goes second.
Again, this is just my opinion, and I don’t want to start any flame wars, just interested in the discussion.

I by no means want it to become a melee game either. But this is 40k, and 40k is always pictured as being close quarters carnage of thousands of bodies writhing in the mud, either point blanking dudes with their rifles or pulling out chainswords. I would just like melee to be a viable option, and for everyone to get a fair chance, even ranged armies that get wrecked first turn because they didn’t get to go first.

On the one hand I have to say that melee in 8th is much more prevalent and decisive than in 7th and also has gotten a lot of help to pull of.
On the other hand there are many small things that also made shooting pretty lethal, Primaris have been named, turning twin linked into twin weapons doubled shots on a lot of weapons, cover being +1 to armor instead of being a 4++ made weapons with high AP better, being able to move and shoot with only small penalties, auras and stratagems giving many Boni so that you sometimes have a 99% Chance to wound.

I don't think shorten the distance will help much. I'm playing foot slogging Death Guard or Nurgle Daemons - and unlike prior editions it actually works. Not being able to close the gap might be a problem against Tau, but anything else? Hide in cover, walk through walls without slowing down, shooting Blight launchers while advancing - if anything I found things too fast. A whole Dark Eldar army usually moves into CC range in first turn (only their terrible HQs Walking behind), if you close the gap even more I guess they could take all objectives in 1St turn as well

 Vaktathi wrote:
The basic ranges on most weapons haven't changed since 2E, and if anything we've seen speed and assault ranges substantially increase.

The problem isn't weapon ranges (in most cases), it's that Terrain rules are practically worthless in terms of cover providing meaningful benefits, the LoS rules are far too generous in allowing things like a banner or gun barrel to count, and the wound allocation rules allow for models out of LoS and Range to be killed by weapons that can't see or reach them.

The insane ramping of of power abilities like auras and doctrines also hasn't helped, but that's an issue of lethality, not range.

Likewise, Assault no longer has a Sweeping Advance mechanic, meaning to actually kill something in CC you have to have enough attacks to actually kill each model, whereas in previous editions something like a Tac squad could pull reasonable double-duty as against most other Troops units as winning combat by 1 or 2 would allow a decent chance to wipe out an opposing unit.

The only real issues with Range is largely isolated to a handful of units (Intercessors have no business toting 30" range guns on what are ostensibly basic Troops). Aside from a few exceptions, weapon range isn't really the core problem.

The range is only a problem because they increased the number of shots weapons could make after 2nd ed.

In 2nd ed You either shot once, used sustained fire dice, or were a space marine with a bolter, pistol or storm bolter and hadn't moved. Sustained fire also had a massive downside.

The only army with an infantry small arm using sustained fire weapons was the Eldar shuriken catapult, but one in 6 would have jammed.

But now multi shot is baked into the weapon's rules, increasing the amount of damage potential any unit can put out, thus making the range comparatively more dangerous.

If you compare 2nd ed 40k shooting to melee you see that in combat you could regularly have one dude hit their opponent 2+ times if they won the combat, while they could only ever shoot then once. The ratio of hits was very different.

Martel732 wrote:
That really doesn't make any sense. The ranges are already stupid short.

Why are they "stupid short"?