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.

I agree that neither paradigm of Deep Striking felt particularly "right". The old method was too unreliable unless you had something like Drop Pods, which felt downright cheaty. The current paradigm feels like it's too easy to prevent deep striking troops, and at the same time the charge results are too swingy.

 catbarf wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think it works with a 2D6 charge system (and I totally agree with Dysartes that fixed charge distances don't make any sense in a game where units have a variable move stat), because you need to roll a 9 to get into melee, and 9 is well outside the bell curve for a 2D6 roll (with 7, then 6/8 being the most common results), but also not impossible like a required 11 or 12 every time.

In practice, that seems to mean you don't generally try for a charge out of deep strike unless you have abilities that boost your charge roll or give you re-rolls, and then it becomes reliable. And in 9th Ed, reliability is everything- I've noticed a definite trend towards units that behave consistently and reliably rather than having swingy potential to either punch above their weight or flop entirely. It's a bit... sterile, I guess.

Removing randumb isn't sterile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I agree that neither paradigm of Deep Striking felt particularly "right". The old method was too unreliable unless you had something like Drop Pods, which felt downright cheaty. The current paradigm feels like it's too easy to prevent deep striking troops, and at the same time the charge results are too swingy.

Drop Pods only felt cheaty because you could put Centurions in them. Otherwise the best unit was Sternguard, and remember those guys used to be 25 points a dude.

Drop Pods had issues long before Centurions were a thing.

They could arrive first turn and you could just wall off parts of the table. What was in them was often secondary.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I agree that neither paradigm of Deep Striking felt particularly "right". The old method was too unreliable unless you had something like Drop Pods, which felt downright cheaty. The current paradigm feels like it's too easy to prevent deep striking troops, and at the same time the charge results are too swingy.

Drop Pods only felt cheaty because you could put Centurions in them. Otherwise the best unit was Sternguard, and remember those guys used to be 25 points a dude.

Centurions couldn't do as much damage as Drop Melta squads. 25 points a guy is a steal when you're deploying against Knights and Titans. Combi-plasma loadout for situations otherwise. Rude and brutal.

I remember a Tau player warning me that he had a strong list before a game. Joke was on him. He was shocked at what some power armored dudes in Pods could achieve. 6th ed I think . . . The Pods weren't free yet . . .

I want to say the Sternguard were 28 points, 18 for Veteran and 10 for the combi. Probably depends on edition.

this shows a very basic problem of 40k

you always gonna use the most reliable way if getting stuff done

so Deep Strike being unreliable for everyone means it hardly gets used and is for people who like to gamble

yet as soon as a faction get rules that make it more reliable, or has the possibility to get more units deep striking, we have power creep because a former gimmick is now a reliable way to get things done and causes all kind of problems (which are solved by changing the core rules instead of changing the rules for the units)

remember when the best Anti Tank weapons CSM had were 3 Termis with Combi weapons as getting in the back was important and deep striking 3 1-shot weapons was the most reliable way to get it done

it does not really matter how those things are rules in the core, the important part is that all armies are on the same level

 kodos wrote:
this shows a very basic problem of 40k

you always gonna use the most reliable way if getting stuff done

so Deep Strike being unreliable for everyone means it hardly gets used and is for people who like to gamble

yet as soon as a faction get rules that make it more reliable, or has the possibility to get more units deep striking, we have power creep because a former gimmick is now a reliable way to get things done and causes all kind of problems (which are solved by changing the core rules instead of changing the rules for the units)

remember when the best Anti Tank weapons CSM had were 3 Termis with Combi weapons as getting in the back was important and deep striking 3 1-shot weapons was the most reliable way to get it done

it does not really matter how those things are rules in the core, the important part is that all armies are on the same level

Not always true, it depends on your attitude towards the game. i use occasionally use drop pods for dreadnoughts because that is the only way to deep strike them. my assault marines on the other hand either start on the table or risk a strike. my scouts always outflank or infiltrate. i also enjoy using my librarian to gate my tac squad around via deep strike rules even with the added risk involved from using the power + deep strike. my army is themed as a marine version of elysians/paratroopers that is why my choice of units isn't based purely on how powerful they are.

 vict0988 wrote:
You can force your opponent to DS into difficult terrain, that'll make charging nearly impossible. Screens can also be destroyed, so is sometimes to try to charge T2 against a screen or wait for T3 when the screen may or may not be gone or deep strike in the back T2 and just do an action.

I'd find it a lot more interesting if you could kill a screening unit with shooting and then immediately DS where it used to be- then screening would be a little less deterministic. But instead it's perfectly viable to run a cheap single model up the board (or DS in your own units) to project a magical 254 square inch bubble of No-DS-Here for a turn. To me it feels less like managing uncertainty and mitigating risk, and more like following a checklist, measuring distances between units to make sure nobody has an 18+" gap.

With melee occurring in both players' turns you do get some uncertainty, where you don't know whether your units already in combat will survive the turn and thus block DS, but when two shooting armies meet you can reliably determine by the end of your opponent's movement phase whether your DSing units will be able to come in at an optimal location or not.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Having perfectly reliable pinpoint precision deep strike but then crapshoot 2D6 charge distance also never sat right with me, but that's a nitpick.

By the same token, I never liked how you could Deep Strike anywhere - almost as close as you want - then scatter, and then sit there and do nothing for a turn. I mean why bother with HTH units that DS if they have to sit there for a turn and weather all the incoming fire? Not every army has Terminators.

That really gets to a more fundamental issue, which is that high lethality combined with the IGOUGO turn structure means that either a deep striking unit drops onto the board and immediately gets into combat before your opponent has any chance to react, or it drops onto the board, flubs the charge, and then gets shot by the entire enemy army before it ever has a chance to try again. Meanwhile, you can drop a unit of meltagunners or whatever and they can shoot immediately at full effectiveness, and the general expectation is that a good unit will recoup its points in that single attack.

I think DS ought to have some downsides, because you are getting the opportunity to deposit your star melee unit wherever you want instead of having to actually get a transport there or footslog it up the board, but clearly not being able to charge on the turn you drop would be too harsh in a game environment where that typically means they die before they ever have a chance to act.

Bear in mind in the older editions you also had to roll to see when reserves actually showed up, and with the exception of drop pods you couldn't even start rolling until turn 2, and there was only a 50/50 chance they'd arrive on turn 2.

Now of course there is no uncertainty and you can bring on reserves on turn 1. It's dumb.

The thing is drop pods. Meaning you had to deal with uncertainly unless you were Space Marines, because special rules that overwrote core rules.

I think Deep Strike should be a hybrid system; outside of 9" the controlling player gets full control of placement, but try to go closer and there is progressively greater potential for mishap result of increasingly dire consequence. Could create a fun dynamic with the penalties too;

Mild Mishap - Deployed unit cannot shoot or charge this turn while there are enemies within 9" of them [so if the nearby offending units are cleared out by the rest of the army the DSing unit can then act as it normally would]. Some armies/units could get rules to ignore the shooting or charging component of this result.

Major Mishap - Deployed unit cannot shoot or charge this turn, period.

Direskull Bloodhap - Unit goes back in reserve.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Bear in mind in the older editions you also had to roll to see when reserves actually showed up, and with the exception of drop pods you couldn't even start rolling until turn 2, and there was only a 50/50 chance they'd arrive on turn 2.

Now of course there is no uncertainty and you can bring on reserves on turn 1. It's dumb.

Poster boy bonus of the game.

I was introduced to the idea of Drop Pods in Space Marine (2nd Epic). You would have a company of Drop Pods which would be deployed like this:

1) Put numbered counters (each representing a single Drop Pod) on the actual company card.
2) Hold the card with the counters roughly 30 cm over the location where you want to drop them.
3) Tilt the card in such a way that the counters slide down.
4) Place the counters next to units, if they have landed on them.
5) Opposing units on First Fire orders and LOS to the Drop Pods were eligible to shoot the Drop Pods out of the sky destroying both the occupants and the transport in the process.
6) Any surviving Drop Pods can act according to the rules (e.g.: either marines pour out of them or the Deathwind systems can fire upon the opposition).

IMHO the opponent should be able to shoot down Drop Pods in 40K too. It would need a bit of tweaking of the rules when they arrive because the Drop Pod player may want to suppress some opposing units first or else suffer the loss of his cargo.

CP bid-off to shoot down incoming drop pods!

I'm a bit fonder of the older Deep Strike rules, minus the "that unit just dies" results, but a more modern version of that could possibly be riffed off of the way One Page Rules does it (admittedly part of what makes the OPR version work is Alternate Activations, which on its own really helps with units getting to do a thing). Beginning of the overall battleround you declare your deep strikes, roll your scatter and position them etc, then you can play the unit as normal. I find that with AA that works well enough at least as you know, your opponent can react to them, but not with their full army, and on the flip side you can activate the unit early on, but cannot support it with your entire army.

AA is just a different set of problems; for every one it solves, it creates another somewhere else.

for Alternate Activation you need a game system written for it to work fine

but at the same time, if you have a game system written for it, also Alternate Turns or Alternate Phases work fine

Most problems in 40k come from having a system written for something and than thru some random rules in because they sound great, creating a mess that has no clear base and nor clear goal, hence it does not work but is just a collection of stuff that was sounds cool on paper

the main advantage for AA in 40k will be that lethality is toned down because you cannot kill the opponents army in 1 go
yet "not killing the opponents army in 1 go" is the actual solution to the problem it does not matter what this "1 go" (be it activation, phase turn) but because GW likes cinematic alpha strikes, even with AA it would take 1-2 Marine Codices and that 1 Activation would be back in killing the opponents army

Charges imo should've always been faster than a regular move but not significantly so.
(f.e. if you have a M value of 6 add +1 for inf +2 bikes and cav etc)
Vice versa reactionary fire should've hit better the closer an enemy unit decides to charge

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
AA is just a different set of problems; for every one it solves, it creates another somewhere else.

Exactly. It's not the panacea some people make it out to be.

I do think GW's move towards more focus on reactions in HH2.0 is a good way to improve the current system. Ideally, the stratagem system gets tossed and CP's get used as a basis for a reaction system. Just one idea.

My issue with AA systems in 40K is that it just doesn't feel very 40K to me. More specifically, it deemphasizes making a big sweeping play with all your forces doing some grand maneuver and hoping the attacks pan out successfully.

AA systems tend to steal he show and focus. They can end up being less about planning a big series of moves and instead becomes a mini game of deciding which order to activate units in and tactical responding your opponents in a more minute and incremental way. This isn't to say there is less depth or tactics (probably the opposite) but it tends to make the game more focused on the AA system in a way that maybe detracts from the bigger picture.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
AA is just a different set of problems; for every one it solves, it creates another somewhere else.

Exactly. It's not the panacea some people make it out to be.

You'd all have a point if the "problems" it created per some of the complaints in this forum isn't "I'm not able to do my super combo as easy :("

feth IGOUGO, it has no benefit to AA outside if you want to look at your phone for half an hour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:

My issue with AA systems in 40K is that it just doesn't feel very 40K to me. More specifically, it deemphasizes making a big sweeping play with all your forces doing some grand maneuver and hoping the attacks pan out successfully.

See above

 Mezmorki wrote:
I do think GW's move towards more focus on reactions in HH2.0 is a good way to improve the current system. Ideally, the stratagem system gets tossed and CP's get used as a basis for a reaction system. Just one idea.

My issue with AA systems in 40K is that it just doesn't feel very 40K to me. More specifically, it deemphasizes making a big sweeping play with all your forces doing some grand maneuver and hoping the attacks pan out successfully.

AA systems tend to steal he show and focus. They can end up being less about planning a big series of moves and instead becomes a mini game of deciding which order to activate units in and tactical responding your opponents in a more minute and incremental way. This isn't to say there is less depth or tactics (probably the opposite) but it tends to make the game more focused on the AA system in a way that maybe detracts from the bigger picture.

Does AA stop turn 1 wins? Yes. So how a person feels about it becomes a secondary concern when the gameplay is vastly improved. People waste their time packing their army, driving to a location, setting it all up and then getting demolished in 1-2 turns. Yeah, I could fathom a better way to spend my precious time than to have the worst possible outcome of a 40K game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
AA is just a different set of problems; for every one it solves, it creates another somewhere else.

Any issues pale in comparison to turn 1 wins.

AA is something I have zero interest in when I'm plopping down 2k+ pts.

AA is perfect for Necromunda, Titanicus, Aeronautica etc.

I'd really prefer if the actual saving throws were made at the end of the turn Ala Apocalypse. No more 1st turn tabling,

 Strg Alt wrote:

Does AA stop turn 1 wins? Yes.

it doesn't, it just means that you have the chance to do something as well before turn 1 ends
it does not mean you won't get steamrolled turn 1 by another army if the balance between them is off

or in other words, AA removes the ability to win in "1 Go" as this is just 1 unit (but never say never to GW army design), it does not remove the ability to win in 1 turn, which is several "Goes"

if 1 Go is also 1 Turn, than armies just should not have the ability to win in one turn, so this is simply a problem that the faction rules don't fit to the core rules
if GW reduces the "Go" to 1 activation and than increase the power level of units so you have the chance to win with 1 "Go" again, AA solved nothing because no one addressed the actual problem

AA is "one way" to reduce the potential impact of turn 1 alpha strikes. It isn't the only way.

You could incorporate a proper reaction system to allow for some counterplay. You give the second player some bonus concessions like being able to place X-units on overwatch or have them start in a "fortified" state that gives them a defense buff at the start of the game. You cold design missions to use an escalating engagement system where players only start out with a small portion of their army on the board at the same time and are forced to bring others on over via reserves over the course of the next couple of turns. You change core mechanics to require things like declared shooting so you that you can't maximize target deletion. You can also just crank down the lethality of the game across the board. AA is a fine thing, but it isn't the only way to solve 40K's issues.

 Mezmorki wrote:
AA is "one way" to reduce the potential impact of turn 1 alpha strikes. It isn't the only way.

You mean how in 8th they introduced a Strat to give all your army cover?

If literally any other game tried that, we'd be laughing at them. When GW does it, y'all give them a pass.

I've never seen AA advocates back up the claims with a functional AA system. Alternate-by-phase I have seen work on the AoS side and I suspect would work for 40k with similar modifications. But ultimately it's irrelevant since we have no reason to believe Warhammer will be anything but igougo for the foreseeable future. It's what Warhammer has always been, it's what the rule writers have experience with, and given GWs utter domination of the market sphere there's no pressing need to change it.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
AA is "one way" to reduce the potential impact of turn 1 alpha strikes. It isn't the only way.

You mean how in 8th they introduced a Strat to give all your army cover?

If literally any other game tried that, we'd be laughing at them. When GW does it, y'all give them a pass.

Mezmorki didn't give gw a "pass". He went and designed his own alternate ruleset for people to play instead of 8th/9th edition.

Yeah, credit Mez...they did the work that most wouldn't.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Yeah, credit Mez...they did the work that most wouldn't.

+1

Solid work.

While I'm not interested in A for 40k, I can recognize that others may feel differently.

Mez did the legwork, props go to those that earn...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I've never seen AA advocates back up the claims with a functional AA system.

you just always refuse to read them, not even talking about playing them
there are enough examples of system based on 40k (like Bolt Action) or in the same genre (Warpath Firefight) that have a functional AA system