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.

 Kagetora wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Kagetora wrote:


It's pretty much this. ++Saves cover for a lot of missing rules. Right up until you get to the "Devastating/Mortal Wounds" stuff. Does a Daemon or a Harlequin really care what weapon is being shot/swung at them? Not really, unless it's maybe a Blast weapon in the case of the Space Elf Murder Clown Hobos. Those would ignore the Holofield, yet don't, in any edition I can think of. Or Blessed/Holy weapons in the case of Daemons.

Why? Too complex for the smoothbrains at GW to grab onto. It wouldn't really require much more than a single line in each unit's roster. "The Holofield Save may always be taken, except against weapons with the Blast characteristic." Or, "The Daemonic Invulnerable Save may always be taken, except against Blessed or Holy attacks." Then put "Blessed" or "Holy" in certain unit's weapon stats. Sisters, Gray Knights, etc.

Boom. Done. Those units now ignore DW/MW except in certain circumstances. Then, DON'T give those specific units FNP on top of everything, unless it's a super-special-secret-squirrel unit, like, say the Solitaire or something equivalent in the Daemon lists.

Why doesn't GW do this sort of thing? Because they're not smart enough to write coherent rulesets, but they are smart enough to understand if they make the rules significantly different between every edition or every other edition, you buy more models.

Complexity dies with every new edition. FFS, just look at what happened to WFB. Or 40k from RT through today. It's crazy.

That's not to say each edition is bad, or not fun, or a gak game, but, each edition is a little bit dumber.

Since your brain is apparently more wrinkly and the game and seemingly other players are too dumb for you, here's the very obvious issues with your solutions:

Typically expensive elite harelquin infantry are now incredibly survivable against say custodes whose lower volume of attacks means they cant handle them any more, but get wiped with a boring level of regularity by guardsmen with grenade launchers.

Daemons are essentially worthless against 2 armies of the game but incredibly hard to handle by the rest. This cannot be adequately balanced, as their only defensive layer being situationally removed en mass is terrible game design.

You're correct, in a way. You're also very wrong.

First, the person I was responding to was asking for more variety/fluff-based rules, as the game used to have. Not better balance. So I made a couple suggestions. Were they great? No. They were off the top of my head as I was stream-of consciousness typing last night in a hotel room in Butte. How about this? Same setup, Daemons and Harlies always get the Inv save, but Blessed/Holy and Blast weapons get the Devastating Wounds rule against them automatically. Better? Now GK and Sister's weapons ignore Daemonic Saves when they get a Critical Wound, and anything Blast does the same to the Clowns. I mean, at least I'm spitballing things here. What are you doing?

Second, this is 40k. It's never been balanced, and there are always bad matchups when it comes to every edition. There's what? 27 factions? Maybe a bit less if you just lump all the Marines together under "Marines." A quick look at Wahapedia shows 25 listings under "Factions." I mean, look back on earlier editions and the insanity of some of the issues in them.

That's literally impossible to balance. I'm not even bashing GW for the imbalances, because it would take an AI Quantum Supercomputer to figure out "balance," and "fair matchups" across the board. I'll give GW some credit, at least they're sort of trying, in their usual half-assed way, by altering points values every so often determined by tournament data.

If you want balance and fair match-ups, there are other games to play. Wargods (mostly) comes to mind, maybe 30k since everyone is a Marine...I'm sure there are others. 40k isn't, and never will be, balanced or fair. 25+ Factions, 1000+ individual Datasheets for the little plastic models we put on a tabletop. And, if it isn't going to be balanced or fair, why not a little spice with some fluff-based rules, like before?

As long as we avoid the "Speedy Eldar Defense" thing everyone is talking about. I remember the days where if I got to go first, Wave Serpents with Holo-Fields and Spirit Stones were all but immortal. And if you didn't go first, you just picked them up unless by some miracle there was enough terrain out there to hide them from every Missile Laucher or Lascannon after your opponent got to move their models to get LoS. With the Reserve rules as they are, we should probably avoid anything similar.

As someone who balance a game where balance is almost an after thought, I think GW's obsession with balance is hurting the fluff and fun of the game. It's better to have the top tier choices that are fun to play with and against than have a 5:5 utopia where every army feels like a Space Marine army with slight stat differences and little to no special abilities.

Warhammer tho is in a special place because unlike RTS or fighting games where you have a roster that you all pick from. In WH, you collect, paint, and invest in your army, and that can be a feel bad if your army in low tier or has really bad match ups.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'm with you here, though I'd add that many vehicles apparently are in a bad spot. Ork buggies, SM tanks you name it.
Since this thread is about improvements to the game in general, what would you do to help vehicles? Is it a pure codex thing or do they need help in the base rules?

Definitely a codex/datasheet thing.

For Orks, yes, buggies are in a bad place - but mostly because their main guns are bad. When you compare a Megatrakk Scrapjet to the same number of points invested into Tankbustas in a Trukk, it's not even a competition.
Trukks and Kill Rigs are great; Battlewagons, Hunta Rigs, Nauts, Koptas, Mek Guns, and Stompas - while not top-tier competitive - are still solid choices. Deff Dreads and Kanz are too fragile for their role, especially when compared to more durable walkers like Primaris Dreadnoughts or Scout Sentinels.

Death Guard has a whole slew of good vehicles - MBH, Drones, Defilers, and Rhinos. Helbrutes suffer from the same “not durable enough” issue as Ork walkers. PBC are probably too expensive right now, but the unit itself definitely works.

My opponents regularly bring Leman Russes, Chimeras, and Rogal Dorns. Rhinos play a major role in keeping Legion Marines safe, Leagues of Votann rarely leave home without their Sagitaurs, and Space Marines almost always bring a Redemptor or Ballistus Dread, and my DA opponent regularly hammers me with his Storm Speeder. And technically, Tau suits are vehicles too
I’ll be facing Codex Eldar for the first time on Sunday, so I’ll get back to you on that one

Scrolling quickly through the winning lists from last weekend, I also found very few lists with fewer than three vehicles. Apparently, Imperial Knights are a major player in the competitive meta right now (not that I care that much). I also saw a bunch of vehicles being used that aren’t seeing play in my local meta.

If there were a general issue with vehicles, we wouldn’t be seeing such a wide variety used across lists and factions.

So no, I don’t think vehicles have a problem in general, but certain categories of vehicles definitely do:

- Traditional walkers. These often hit hard and have a low number of high-quality shots, good saves, but way too few wounds and not enough toughness to actually play into their strengths. Sentinels and Redemptors are on the right track. I have no doubt both Deff Dreads and Helbrutes would see much more play at T10/12W.

- Tanks with underwhelming guns. Predators and Ork buggies are prime examples here, but I’d argue even the Land Raider suffers from this. You pay a lot for the platform to ensure the gun is in the right place and can still operate at full strength after taking fire. But the platform itself doesn’t bring much to the table compared to infantry, which often has better OC, denies more area, and can be tougher to kill per point. If the guns don’t reliably deal serious damage (like lascannons) or can be found cheaper elsewhere (like on a Scrapjet), why bother? If a vehicle isn’t more or less guaranteed to have an impact when used properly, there’s no reason to field it. That’s why we’re seeing LRBTs, Vindicators, and Doomsday Arks - but not Predators or buggies.

-Problematic concepts. Aircraft, indirect-fire artillery, and super-heavies have all historically caused issues. There's no good solution for them in this edition. GW slapped a bunch of extra points on them just to keep them out of competitive players' hands so they don’t have to worry about those issues. And then, of course, some Ork player goes and wins a GT with a Stompa just to spite them
These units just happen to be vehicles, but they don't have problem because they’re vehicles.

 Jidmah wrote:
[spoiler]

 Hellebore wrote:
there are many ways to represent speed=defence and yet again most people here complaining about it throw the baby out with the bathwater. the concept is fine even if the implementation isn't great.

That's not what I said. I said that removing speed=defense is a conscious design decision because frankly, speed is already one of the most powerful things in the game.

I'd say you're both kind of right. I think it's fair to say that making eldar more squishy was probably an intentional design choice. They didn't have to make craftworld tanks less tough (T9 now when they used to be AV 12/12/10 to a rhino's 11/11/10) or go multiple editions without giving us speed-as-defense, but they have. They didn't have to make drukhari vehicles easier to kill in an edition where every other faction's vehicles became harder to kill. It kind of feels like a designer was new to looking at eldar and was just following the "elves are squishy" trope without acknowledging any of the nuance of the past, but it does seem intentional.

But all that said, I think what Helelbore is getting at is that it feels like one of our pieces is missing. Eldar dying as soon as you look at them isn't really how they're advertised or how they're described in the lore. Sure, a bolter should be roughly as good at pulping them as it is a guardsman once it hits, but part of the idea behind eldar is that they're hard to hit in the first place. We used to represent that concept through things like flat-out saves, jink, 8th edition to-hit penalties, and opposed WS in melee. Currently, it's represented by:

* A couple to-hit penalty strats. That you can use on one unit in your whole army each phase. If you're playing one of the right detachments.
* A single agile maneuver that can be used on one unit per battle round. After your unit has already been shot. If you're not playing drukhari.
* Invuln saves. Overtly in the case of wyches and banshees, but I *think* the invulns on aspect warriors/incubi are meant to represent speed as defense? Except these saves only matter if you're facing enemies with AP-2 or better (-3 or better in the case of Sv3+ units). So they're both slightly niche, and don't do a very good job of simulating the idea of being hard to hit in general. You could probably throw the 6++ drukhari vehicles saves in here too. The ones that used to be 5++. And before that were 4+ cover saves. And before that were 4+ cover saves + only being hit on 6s in melee.

So you can see how we've had our melee defenses (initiative, opposed WS) removed and our shooting defenses reduced to a few minor tricks that can only help 1 or 2 units per turn. It feels like there's a piece missing. At least from a simulationist angle where you want your army's fluff to be widely present instead of popping up as a gamey little video game cooldown ability every now and then.

It's like if the designers looked at orks and said, "Well, the trope is that they attack en masse and die en masse," and then decided to reinforce that by making them T3 and making mega armor a 3+ instead of a 2+. And then to represent how hardy they are, GW gives them a -1 to-wound strat that can be used on a single unit each turn.

Daba wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
In terms of Charge distance, any thoughts on models having extra distance at the cost of not shooting?

e.g. normal charge move = a unit's movement value (M).

If the unit didn't shoot, it can instead Charge 1.5x M (or maybe 2x M?).

Shooting and charging should just be made mutually exclusive. It could even help cut down the phases and just have charge put into the movement phase (just make it 2D6 + Movement + whatever extra distance the unit would need to have), make them all done before normal moves. I

If a unit *must* have shooting before combat, just let them shoot their opponents during the shooting phase as long as they have the special rules/traits to do so during the relevant times (e.g. if they charged this turn, or always, or if they didn't charge this turn).

Letting units shoot at the unit they charged (or only shoot at the unit they plan to charge depending on how you do turn structure) is probably an okay compromise. It means you can't pull off fancy maneuvers where you shoot your lascannon at the unit on the right while charging into the unit on the left, but it would *generally* work out for units that pay for both melee and shooting prowess. The big losers would be units that normally want to splitfire (thinking of the lascannon marine in a tactical squad) or units that want to shoot and charge at very different targets.

Dudeface wrote:

The important part of it is the attitude. Your tone is one of dismissive superiority with no evidence to back it up.
Enjoy the hotel.

Fair. I was tired after 10+ hours of driving, cranky, and sore as hell. I had my first sleepwalking episode in my 54 years on this earth Monday morning about 0130, and fell down the stairs in my house four hours before getting up to start my week. I also had a few cocktails in me from the hotel bar.

I'll tone down the tone, so to speak, even though it's directed at GW and not the people here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:


I hate to break it to you, but 10th edition is largely considered to be balanced, and data supports that. Sure, new rules cause ripples, but GW tends to iron those out rather quickly.
All but one of the 28 factions we currently have at least one archetype that can compete, and the one that isn't is imperial agents, an ally faction. Even the best armies are sitting at ~55% which would barely have qualified as tier 2 in 7th edition. Match-ups between factions vary between 40-60%, were in every oldhammer edition completely unwinnable matchups were the norm.
Today we are talking about archetypes, not "lists". Because in the past, despite (or because of) the FOC, players were running one specific list to win, deviating from that list was considered handicapping yourself. Today, even the worst codices allow players to chose between multiple options, even GT winners running the same archetype often look completely different, never the same.
Speaking of, a good number of well-written codices have multiple well-performing archetypes, especially in less competitive setting, where in old hammer having two lists revolving around the same core of powerful units was already a rare thing.
Spamming the bestest thing as often as you can is mostly a thing of the past. Almost all top placing armies use a wide array of units, often bringing just one or two of any given datasheet to gain more synergy and options. Outside of extremely limited factions like WE or Knights, units that are spammed are either dedicated transports or basic infantry.
The overwhelming majority of competitive armies actually look like "real" armies. Infantry is an essential tool to win the game, despite no one rules explicitly forcing players to bring specific things, they still do.

TL;DR: You're wrong. GW has proven that 40k is not impossible to balance, and there is data to prove it.

Hmmm. The meta-reports I'm seeing on Army/Detachment tier lists from tournaments range from 40% win rates (and literally no tournament wins or even 5-0 records) to 60% win rates (with tons of 5-0 tournament wins) for things like the Ynnari.

I'd argue that's far from balanced, from a statistical point of view. Yes, some of the low-end armies are less played (Imperial Agents don't really get played enough for super-reliable data, for example), but there are a slew of armies right now at the bottom end of the scale that aren't winning events.

Is that because of poor play? Bad list decisions? Excellent opponents? Or gakky balance in the Factions/Detachments? Probably a bit of all four, but not knowing the variables of the first three, that fourth element has to take center stage in the discussion.

Has anyone compared W/L rates in this edition to the previous ones? I'd be curious as to whether or not the 40%/60% band of win rates was exceeded in past editions, i.e. were there times where the low end was 25% and the high was 75%?

From a statistical standpoint, mathematically, I'd argue that a 40/60 split is pretty indicative of some form of unbalance. I'd agree on the part about archetypes though. I think that's a much stronger element this edition that it has been in the past.

 Kagetora wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

The important part of it is the attitude. Your tone is one of dismissive superiority with no evidence to back it up.
Enjoy the hotel.

Fair. I was tired after 10+ hours of driving, cranky, and sore as hell. I had my first sleepwalking episode in my 54 years on this earth Monday morning about 0130, and fell down the stairs in my house four hours before getting up to start my week. I also had a few cocktails in me from the hotel bar.

I'll tone down the tone, so to speak, even though it's directed at GW and not the people here.

Sorry to hear that, sounds like a week from hell ans I hope it's only up from here. Saying that I hope the cocktails were decent at least!

Dudeface wrote:

 Kagetora wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

The important part of it is the attitude. Your tone is one of dismissive superiority with no evidence to back it up.
Enjoy the hotel.

Fair. I was tired after 10+ hours of driving, cranky, and sore as hell. I had my first sleepwalking episode in my 54 years on this earth Monday morning about 0130, and fell down the stairs in my house four hours before getting up to start my week. I also had a few cocktails in me from the hotel bar.

I'll tone down the tone, so to speak, even though it's directed at GW and not the people here.

Sorry to hear that, sounds like a week from hell ans I hope it's only up from here. Saying that I hope the cocktails were decent at least!

They were, and I managed to pull $160 out of the video poker machines in the lounge, so all was not lost. Thanks for understanding my crankiness.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
[spoiler]

 Hellebore wrote:
there are many ways to represent speed=defence and yet again most people here complaining about it throw the baby out with the bathwater. the concept is fine even if the implementation isn't great.

That's not what I said. I said that removing speed=defense is a conscious design decision because frankly, speed is already one of the most powerful things in the game.

I'd say you're both kind of right. I think it's fair to say that making eldar more squishy was probably an intentional design choice. They didn't have to make craftworld tanks less tough (T9 now when they used to be AV 12/12/10 to a rhino's 11/11/10) or go multiple editions without giving us speed-as-defense, but they have. They didn't have to make drukhari vehicles easier to kill in an edition where every other faction's vehicles became harder to kill. It kind of feels like a designer was new to looking at eldar and was just following the "elves are squishy" trope without acknowledging any of the nuance of the past, but it does seem intentional.

But all that said, I think what Helelbore is getting at is that it feels like one of our pieces is missing. Eldar dying as soon as you look at them isn't really how they're advertised or how they're described in the lore. Sure, a bolter should be roughly as good at pulping them as it is a guardsman once it hits, but part of the idea behind eldar is that they're hard to hit in the first place. We used to represent that concept through things like flat-out saves, jink, 8th edition to-hit penalties, and opposed WS in melee. Currently, it's represented by:

* A couple to-hit penalty strats. That you can use on one unit in your whole army each phase. If you're playing one of the right detachments.
* A single agile maneuver that can be used on one unit per battle round. After your unit has already been shot. If you're not playing drukhari.
* Invuln saves. Overtly in the case of wyches and banshees, but I *think* the invulns on aspect warriors/incubi are meant to represent speed as defense? Except these saves only matter if you're facing enemies with AP-2 or better (-3 or better in the case of Sv3+ units). So they're both slightly niche, and don't do a very good job of simulating the idea of being hard to hit in general. You could probably throw the 6++ drukhari vehicles saves in here too. The ones that used to be 5++. And before that were 4+ cover saves. And before that were 4+ cover saves + only being hit on 6s in melee.

So you can see how we've had our melee defenses (initiative, opposed WS) removed and our shooting defenses reduced to a few minor tricks that can only help 1 or 2 units per turn. It feels like there's a piece missing. At least from a simulationist angle where you want your army's fluff to be widely present instead of popping up as a gamey little video game cooldown ability every now and then.

It's like if the designers looked at orks and said, "Well, the trope is that they attack en masse and die en masse," and then decided to reinforce that by making them T3 and making mega armor a 3+ instead of a 2+. And then to represent how hardy they are, GW gives them a -1 to-wound strat that can be used on a single unit each turn.

The core statline now contains three different versions of how much a bullet hurts you (S, AP, D) and three different versions of how little a bullet hurts you (T, Sv, W), while only having a single static measure of how accurate the shooting is (BS) and nothing at all to represent being hard to hit. Which is very bizarre from any kind of descriptive standpoint. And now with WS made static and Initiative removed melee is the same way.

Which leaves you with one of two options. Add more detail back into the game, or abstractify those existing mechanics to represent things their titles don't really describe.

ie Wounds is abstracted to represent a combination of all the things that make it hard to remove a target.

A solitaire or broodlord might have 10 wounds for example, because it's so hard to hit.

They just have to commit to it, rather than halfassing it.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
But all that said, I think what Helelbore is getting at is that it feels like one of our pieces is missing. Eldar dying as soon as you look at them isn't really how they're advertised or how they're described in the lore. Sure, a bolter should be roughly as good at pulping them as it is a guardsman once it hits, but part of the idea behind eldar is that they're hard to hit in the first place. We used to represent that concept through things like flat-out saves, jink, 8th edition to-hit penalties, and opposed WS in melee. Currently, it's represented by:

* A couple to-hit penalty strats. That you can use on one unit in your whole army each phase. If you're playing one of the right detachments.
* A single agile maneuver that can be used on one unit per battle round. After your unit has already been shot. If you're not playing drukhari.
* Invuln saves. Overtly in the case of wyches and banshees, but I *think* the invulns on aspect warriors/incubi are meant to represent speed as defense? Except these saves only matter if you're facing enemies with AP-2 or better (-3 or better in the case of Sv3+ units). So they're both slightly niche, and don't do a very good job of simulating the idea of being hard to hit in general. You could probably throw the 6++ drukhari vehicles saves in here too. The ones that used to be 5++. And before that were 4+ cover saves. And before that were 4+ cover saves + only being hit on 6s in melee.

Okay, as someone whose armies have felt "wrong" for years, I can totally get behind that. I can't offer a solution because, as Orkeosaurus correctly pointed out, "Dodging" is not represented by the game rules at all, and board application of -1 to hit just doesn't work in a d6 system.

So you can see how we've had our melee defenses (initiative, opposed WS) removed and our shooting defenses reduced to a few minor tricks that can only help 1 or 2 units per turn. It feels like there's a piece missing. At least from a simulationist angle where you want your army's fluff to be widely present instead of popping up as a gamey little video game cooldown ability every now and then.

Well, from a melee perspective, I disagree. Both ork and DG infantry are rather slow, and I have had multiple decent eldar players just deny combat to my powerful melee units by staying just outside their charge range and then charging themselves to gain the first hit, fight them in choke points where only a few models could fight or move away completely when the fight wasn't worth fighting. That feels a whole lot more cinematic to me than a warboss with a nob retinue getting slaughtered without landing a single hit, because their numbers were lower. Of course, against a infantry-heavy ork army, space to dodge to would eventually run out, but that's pretty close what happens in novels as well.

It's like if the designers looked at orks and said, "Well, the trope is that they attack en masse and die en masse," and then decided to reinforce that by making them T3 and making mega armor a 3+ instead of a 2+. And then to represent how hardy they are, GW gives them a -1 to-wound strat that can be used on a single unit each turn.

Welcome to 6th-9th edition of orks, when GW did exactly that


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
Which leaves you with one of two options. Add more detail back into the game, or abstractify those existing mechanics to represent things their titles don't really describe.

ie Wounds is abstracted to represent a combination of all the things that make it hard to remove a target.

A solitaire or broodlord might have 10 wounds for example, because it's so hard to hit.

They just have to commit to it, rather than halfassing it.

Well wounds+armor+toughness already are used that way, and GW has been more than willing to experiment on that to get the right feel. T5/5+ orks are good example of that, but many other units have departed from their traditional numbers to play better.

So maybe, let's finding a solution by approaching it from the other direction. Which of the following weapons should be good at killing a guardian and which shouldn't? Which should be good at killing an aspect warrior? Should it be the same for all aspects?
(Storm-)Bolter, Heavy Bolters, Plasma Guns, (Multi-)Melta, Battle Cannon and Lascannons should like a good place to start. How about rokkits or reaper autocannons?

 Jidmah wrote:

Okay, as someone whose armies have felt "wrong" for years, I can totally get behind that. I can't offer a solution because, as Orkeosaurus correctly pointed out, "Dodging" is not represented by the game rules at all, and board application of -1 to hit just doesn't work in a d6 system.

Cheers for common ground.

Well, from a melee perspective, I disagree. Both ork and DG infantry are rather slow, and I have had multiple decent eldar players just deny combat to my powerful melee units by staying just outside their charge range and then charging themselves to gain the first hit, fight them in choke points where only a few models could fight or move away completely when the fight wasn't worth fighting.

I've heard similar arguments before, and I find them frustrating. It feels like you're imagining this ideal scenario where ~2" of extra movement somehow makes it so that eldar are always doing the charging and then somehow ending up in the perfect position so that they can't get charged in return or always happen to be right next to a choke point so that any charges are less effective when they do happen.

Realistically, you're going to get charged at some point. Especially if you're a melee unit because spending all game not charging is like a shooty unit that spends all game not shooting. And after you charge, there's a good chance there will be an enemy unit somewhere in your vicinity, and you probably won't just happen to be standing in some sort of perfect choke point. And once you do get charged, there's really nothing in the rules to prevent the pile of hormagaunts from having a flawless victory against your harlequins while taking no casualties in return.

That feels a whole lot more cinematic to me than a warboss with a nob retinue getting slaughtered without landing a single hit, because their numbers were lower. Of course, against a infantry-heavy ork army, space to dodge to would eventually run out, but that's pretty close what happens in novels as well.

To reiterate, I also think that nobs and their boss getting wiped out without swinging is bad. Which is why I don't particularly want the old version of initiative back. If a squad of incubi or death company or whatever charge an nob squad, even the winner of that fight should be bloody afterwards.

The key difference, I think, is that a unit like nobz or death company still have most of the tools they've always had to help at least a few guys survive to swing back. They still have decent Toughness and armor and maybe some FNPs for good measure. But eldar don't have that. Our equivalent of that used to be opposed WS and getting to kill a few of your guys before they swing so that we didn't have to facetank as many attacks afterwards. Now we only swing first when we're the ones doing the charging.

(And sometimes not even then, but Fights First and the interrupt strat are probably unhelpful tangents.)

So I guess it's a bit like if orks lost two points of toughness and got a worse save on turns that they don't charge. And then a common response to that is, "Well just never get charged then. Duh!"

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I've heard similar arguments before, and I find them frustrating. It feels like you're imagining this ideal scenario where ~2" of extra movement somehow makes it so that eldar are always doing the charging and then somehow ending up in the perfect position so that they can't get charged in return or always happen to be right next to a choke point so that any charges are less effective when they do happen.

Realistically, you're going to get charged at some point. Especially if you're a melee unit because spending all game not charging is like a shooty unit that spends all game not shooting. And after you charge, there's a good chance there will be an enemy unit somewhere in your vicinity, and you probably won't just happen to be standing in some sort of perfect choke point. And once you do get charged, there's really nothing in the rules to prevent the pile of hormagaunts from having a flawless victory against your harlequins while taking no casualties in return.

Well, you need to set up those situations, of course. If you suddenly find yourself in charge range, it's obviously too late. But you usually know what the maximum threat range of a unit is, so you can repeatedly move in a way that you can stay out of harms way. And just because those gaunts charge down your harlequins for three turns doesn't meant that it's a winning move. And it's on you to find and create those choke points. Which doen't need to be a classical "only two models fit through here" situation - forcing a blob of 20 models to make a 9" charge around a the corner of a ruin also works well to set up a fight where just 4 or 5 models can fight.

The key difference, I think, is that a unit like nobz or death company still have most of the tools they've always had to help at least a few guys survive to swing back.

I agree in general, I'd argue that they got new tools (better armor, more toughness, extra wounds) and eldar didn't. I think you massively overestimate how good ork melee units were in the past - in almost all editions orks were exploiting loopholes in the core rules, unit spam and/or overpowered units to stay afloat. 9th has been the first edition when orks actually started playing like orks were described in the fluff since the 4th edition codex.

 Jidmah wrote:

Well, you need to set up those situations, of course. If you suddenly find yourself in charge range, it's obviously too late. But you usually know what the maximum threat range of a unit is, so you can repeatedly move in a way that you can stay out of harms way.

I think the issue is that you're not just keeping out of range of one enemy unit. You're keeping out of range of every enemy unit.

Which probably aren't going to be positioned in a neat line.

Plus you have to consider terrain and trying to not have your models just shot to bits without the enemy even needing to charge them.

You've also got the issue that Eldar/DE have 7-8" movement. But if an enemy has a jump pack or bike, then it's going to have 10+" movement. So there's literally no way you can set up a charge without being in its threat range.

Still, at least DE have lots of open-topped vehicles that they can obviously jump out of and charge on the same turn.

Oh.

 vipoid wrote:

Still, at least DE have lots of open-topped vehicles that they can obviously jump out of and charge on the same turn.

Oh.

This is kin of a neat example that illustrates some of the points made earlier in the thread:

Being able to declare a charge after disembarking from an open-topped transport as a default rule available to all units from any faction all of the time gives it that core mechanic feel, and the whole army can do it all on the same turn, and it's simple to understand and use.

VS.

The Skysplinter Assault detachment, which feels exclusive, cinematic and flashy as hell, but requires you to coordinate unit rules + detachment rules + a cornucopia of transport related strat shenanigans. Not every unit is charging after disembarking from an open-topped transport, but every unit IS getting Ignores Cover on their ranged weapons and lance on their melee weapons, and while not ALL units get to make use of the strats, any unit that does has the option of spending a CP COULD use it to charge after disembarking... But also to get sustained hits after disembarking, or to pile in mortal wounds from passengers if the transport makes a melee attack, or have their transport make a reactive move, or embark after falling back...

Both options are good; they're just different kinds of good. You might prefer Type A Good. Other people will prefer Type B Good. Personally, I like both, but I do lean toward Type B.

Because yes, everybody being able to charge after disembarking is cool, but my Kabalites with Crusade-based poisoned weapon upgrades having the option to combine gain Sustained Fire 2 in addition to Ignores Cover without sacrificing the option for my Wyches to charge after disembarking and combine that with Lance... Well, to me that just feels WAY cooler.

A does not preclude B there, though, Jake - you can make the core rules "better"/"more simulationist" for everyone, while still having (in the current model) a detachment for the Dark Eldar which is a specialist in such assault.

 vipoid wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Well, you need to set up those situations, of course. If you suddenly find yourself in charge range, it's obviously too late. But you usually know what the maximum threat range of a unit is, so you can repeatedly move in a way that you can stay out of harms way.

I think the issue is that you're not just keeping out of range of one enemy unit. You're keeping out of range of every enemy unit.

You are not supposed to be able to just run from combat against multiple melee for five turns. You are supposed to use your extra speed to set up a situation where attacking is beneficial to you.
It's called hit and run for a reason

You've also got the issue that Eldar/DE have 7-8" movement. But if an enemy has a jump pack or bike, then it's going to have 10+" movement. So there's literally no way you can set up a charge without being in its threat range.

Which means that you aren't actually faster than your opponent, so why should you be getting any benefit?
Even if initiative should ever make a return, it's a fairly safe bet that eldar units which aren't combat experts would not be going first against such units.
And let's not forget that mobility is not just the movement stat, it's also baked into the army rule, unit abilities and stratagems. You should watch a video battle report of one of those top aspect warrior lists being played - craftworld eldar are all about speed and deciding which battles are fought when.
Banshees already have fight first, so even if Fulgrim himself decides to charge them from 30" away, they get to strike first.
Troupes can move 10" if they use battle focus plus charge while ignoring terrain and units. If they ever get charged, they can also chose to have -1 to hit for that round of combat.
Scorpions infiltrate, then scout 7" and move up to 9" before even thinking about charging.
Shining spears move up to 16" using the old fly rules, being one of the fastest units in the game.
And that's ignoring any detachment rules or stratagems which add often add more speed or movement shenanigans like falling back into transports.
If your melee units are not fighting first, that opponent deserved it.

Still, at least DE have lots of open-topped vehicles that they can obviously jump out of and charge on the same turn.

I don't think that poor excuse of an index which is barely held together by dataslate duct-tape to represent a completely gutted model range should taken as a metric for any game core rule design decision.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Still, at least DE have lots of open-topped vehicles that they can obviously jump out of and charge on the same turn.

Oh.

This is kin of a neat example that illustrates some of the points made earlier in the thread:

Being able to declare a charge after disembarking from an open-topped transport as a default rule available to all units from any faction all of the time gives it that core mechanic feel, and the whole army can do it all on the same turn, and it's simple to understand and use.

VS.

The Skysplinter Assault detachment, which feels exclusive, cinematic and flashy as hell, but requires you to coordinate unit rules + detachment rules + a cornucopia of transport related strat shenanigans. Not every unit is charging after disembarking from an open-topped transport, but every unit IS getting Ignores Cover on their ranged weapons and lance on their melee weapons, and while not ALL units get to make use of the strats, any unit that does has the option of spending a CP COULD use it to charge after disembarking... But also to get sustained hits after disembarking, or to pile in mortal wounds from passengers if the transport makes a melee attack, or have their transport make a reactive move, or embark after falling back...

Both options are good; they're just different kinds of good. You might prefer Type A Good. Other people will prefer Type B Good. Personally, I like both, but I do lean toward Type B.

I would have to disagree about both being good.

A is 'army actually gets to function how its supposed to'.

B is 'lol, you expect vehicles that are specifically designed to unload troops right into melee to be able to unload troops right into melee? Don't be silly. Rules like that are reserved for proper assault vehicles - like the Imperial Guard Taurox. Okay, tell you what, if you take this one specific detachment then your vehicles can work how they're supposed to. But only one each turn. And only if you spend CP for the privilege.'

I honestly can't see how B could ever be seen as good design.

Imagine if Leman Russ tanks had no ability to fire their main guns. And then GW said 'Don't worry, we're introducing the IRON HAMMER detachment. By using the FIRE AT WILL Stratagem, one of your Leman Russ tanks can make a single shooting attack with its main gun. What do you mean we could have just included that in its basic rules? Clearly you must just suck at resource-management.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

You've also got the issue that Eldar/DE have 7-8" movement. But if an enemy has a jump pack or bike, then it's going to have 10+" movement. So there's literally no way you can set up a charge without being in its threat range.

Which means that you aren't actually faster than your opponent, so why should you be getting any benefit?

But this is the whole point - if +2" of movement is supposed to represent Eldar's speed and reflexes, then it seems rather lacklustre when it can be undermined just because an ork strapped a rocket to his back.

It's an issue of the game no longer distinguishing between raw speed and agility/reflexes.

 Jidmah wrote:

Still, at least DE have lots of open-topped vehicles that they can obviously jump out of and charge on the same turn.

I don't think that poor excuse of an index which is barely held together by dataslate duct-tape to represent a completely gutted model range should taken as a metric for any game core rule design decision.

While I don't disagree as to the quality of the index, I don't see why it shouldn't be used as a metric.

Like it or not, this is what DE have to work in Thine Holy Best Most Balanced Edition of 40k Ever. DE have not received a codex even after, what, two years now? The closest they've come is their partial inclusion in the Eldar book, with the rules there strongly suggesting that there will not be any substantial changes when they do get a book.

Exalting Vipoid's latest post because I agree with everything in it.

You are not supposed to be able to just run from combat against multiple melee for five turns. You are supposed to use your extra speed to set up a situation where attacking is beneficial to you.
It's called hit and run for a reason
...
Troupes can move 10" if they use battle focus plus charge while ignoring terrain and units. If they ever get charged, they can also chose to have -1 to hit for that round of combat.
Scorpions infiltrate, then scout 7" and move up to 9" before even thinking about charging.
Shining spears move up to 16" using the old fly rules, being one of the fastest units in the game.

I want to clarify thta no one is saying eldar have trouble getting the first charge off. The weirdness is in what happens *after that*. My harlequins run up and kill a valuable target? Great. Now the weird part comes when a squad of hormagaunt mooks jog over and wipe out my harlequins without getting so much as a scratch in response.

From a narrative-forging perspective, it tells this weird story about how the harlequins can take on squads of elite tyranid warriors or genestealers no problem, but they're unable to land a single blow against the might hormagaunt!

Which means that you aren't actually faster than your opponent, so why should you be getting any benefit?

One of your earlier points seemed to be that that eldar getting sligihtly higher Movement stats basically made up for all the other stuff they'd lost. So it's fair to point out that even that meager consolation isn't actually relevant in some fairly common situations.

 

Banshees already have fight first, so even if Fulgrim himself decides to charge them from 30" away, they get to strike first.

Okay, but this means that banshees are essentially operating under rules closer to the old initiative system. So bringing up this point kind of feels like an argument in favor of something closer to the old initiative system?

And that's ignoring any detachment rules or stratagems which add often add more speed or movement shenanigans like falling back into transports.

Well, depending on which army and detachment we're talking about, that's generally one unit per turn hiding in a transport or doing some kind of reactive movement trick. Which feels off from a fluffy perspective. Sorry banshee squad #2, banshee squad #1 already re-embarked this turn. Guess you'll have to face tank some shots before you're allowed to use your mobility to help stay alive.

This also creates weird, gamey situations like encouraging people not to shoot at eldar units so that they can't Fade Back to prevent a charge. Which... those sorts of things are probably unavoidable, but it's still not ideal.

You say you don't want the old initiative back, so what is your idea of your new initiative system?

 vipoid wrote:

I would have to disagree about both being good.

A is 'army actually gets to function how its supposed to'.

B is 'lol, you expect vehicles that are specifically designed to unload troops right into melee to be able to unload troops right into melee? Don't be silly. Rules like that are reserved for proper assault vehicles - like the Imperial Guard Taurox. Okay, tell you what, if you take this one specific detachment then your vehicles can work how they're supposed to. But only one each turn. And only if you spend CP for the privilege.'

I honestly can't see how B could ever be seen as good design.

Allow me to clarify: my reference to both being "Good" is more about indicating that each is merely a preference.

Because while everybody being able to charge out of raiders and venoms does work visually and conceptually, and while it is an ability that I too would rather have... It' just kinda simple, unimaginative, inflexible and dull. It's good; I liked it when we had it, but you can't really sink your teeth into it.

Whereas the transport based rules in the detachment are highly cinematic, adaptable for multiple situations offering up offensive/ defensive and utility capabilities so that rather than all vehicles being able to do one simple thing all the time, all vehicles have the potential to do a wide range of things to make them useful in more than one battlefield role. It just feels like there's more actual strategy/ choice/ agency/ decision making involved in applying strats to achieve a broad spectrum of different effects at critical moments than just making use of an always-on ability.

I see the value in the open-topped universal rule, and as I said, I liked it when we had it.

But I don't see either system as being objectively better. They're both just preferences.

 vipoid wrote:

Imagine if Leman Russ tanks had no ability to fire their main guns. And then GW said 'Don't worry, we're introducing the IRON HAMMER detachment. By using the FIRE AT WILL Stratagem, one of your Leman Russ tanks can make a single shooting attack with its main gun. What do you mean we could have just included that in its basic rules? Clearly you must just suck at resource-management.'

This is a total false equivalency. The ability to fire the main gun is something the Russ will do every turn; losing it is not the same as losing the ability for a unit to charge when it disembarks, which the transport might get to use twice in the entire game. Furthermore, the russ-centric detachment that would replace that inherent ability would not merely restore the Russ' ability to fire as normal- it would offer a range of 4-6 distinct capabilities that serve a variety of functions.

It's totally cool for you to prefer the open topped assault thing.

My issue is pretending it's objectively better- it isn't. We're just dealing with two different approaches, and each has merits and flaws.

Why is it a false equivalency?

Both are central features of the appropriate vehicle. Russes shoot. Venoms and Raiders are open topped assault vehicles.

Tyran wrote:You say you don't want the old initiative back, so what is your idea of your new initiative system?

I don't really have one. I mostly just want to complain about the flaws I see in the current system and hope for/speculate about possible ways of doing it better.

If I had to pitch something right now, it would probably be to bring back initiative, probably shrink the range of initiative values we see, and then have easily accessible ways to modify initiative. Ex: charging grants +d3, being pinned inflicts -1, etc. So the intended end result is that faster units will tend to go first and slower units will tend to go last, but there's enough access to modifiers to make it so that sometimes orks are striking simultaneously with or ahead of eldar. This also opens up some interesting space for support role special rules.

PenitentJake wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

I would have to disagree about both being good.

A is 'army actually gets to function how its supposed to'.

B is 'lol, you expect vehicles that are specifically designed to unload troops right into melee to be able to unload troops right into melee? Don't be silly. Rules like that are reserved for proper assault vehicles - like the Imperial Guard Taurox. Okay, tell you what, if you take this one specific detachment then your vehicles can work how they're supposed to. But only one each turn. And only if you spend CP for the privilege.'

I honestly can't see how B could ever be seen as good design.

Allow me to clarify: my reference to both being "Good" is more about indicating that each is merely a preference.

Because while everybody being able to charge out of raiders and venoms does work visually and conceptually, and while it is an ability that I too would rather have... It' just kinda simple, unimaginative, inflexible and dull. It's good; I liked it when we had it, but you can't really sink your teeth into it.

Whereas the transport based rules in the detachment are highly cinematic, adaptable for multiple situations offering up offensive/ defensive and utility capabilities so that rather than all vehicles being able to do one simple thing all the time, all vehicles have the potential to do a wide range of things to make them useful in more than one battlefield role. It just feels like there's more actual strategy/ choice/ agency/ decision making involved in applying strats to achieve a broad spectrum of different effects at critical moments than just making use of an always-on ability.

This is partly why I like the idea of getting rid of strats and using that "space" for expanded detachment rules. Because it creates room for you to have that sort of versatility/in-depth options, but without the baggage of locking those options to a single unit per turn.

Imagine a world where drukkhari vehicles are allowed to have their basic functions regardless of detachment, but then their vehicle-centric detachment opens up the option for vehicles to jink, be better at ramming, pick up/drop off troops part way through a move ala the old scaling nets wargear, some sort of vehicles-moving-fast defensive rule, etc.. Basically, detachments would let you choose which extra set of rules you want to have access to so that you're not making a given game bloated by trying to squeeze every possible mechanic into every game, but you can dramatically change up the way your army plays in fluffy ways from game to game. The current system does a lot of that, but it does it in a way that limits those flavorful mechanics to one unit per turn.

 vipoid wrote:

Imagine if Leman Russ tanks had no ability to fire their main guns. And then GW said 'Don't worry, we're introducing the IRON HAMMER detachment. By using the FIRE AT WILL Stratagem, one of your Leman Russ tanks can make a single shooting attack with its main gun. What do you mean we could have just included that in its basic rules? Clearly you must just suck at resource-management.'

This is a total false equivalency. The ability to fire the main gun is something the Russ will do every turn; losing it is not the same as losing the ability for a unit to charge when it disembarks, which the transport might get to use twice in the entire game. Furthermore, the russ-centric detachment that would replace that inherent ability would not merely restore the Russ' ability to fire as normal- it would offer a range of 4-6 distinct capabilities that serve a variety of functions.

I think it's a pretty good comparison, actually. A dark lance on a raider is nice, but it was never the main reason you took a raider. In editions where dark eldar "felt right," zooming forward to hurl passengers into melee was the reason you took the raider. In that sense, the raider's main job has been changed to a single strat in a single detachment that a single unit can use each turn.

You can easily see how annoyed people would be if a russ's main gun became a strat only available in a single detachment and only usable on one of your russ units each turn.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Imagine if Leman Russ tanks had no ability to fire their main guns. And then GW said 'Don't worry, we're introducing the IRON HAMMER detachment. By using the FIRE AT WILL Stratagem, one of your Leman Russ tanks can make a single shooting attack with its main gun. What do you mean we could have just included that in its basic rules? Clearly you must just suck at resource-management.'

This is a total false equivalency.

Seems pretty equivalent to me! Each ability is the main purpose of the dang vehicles, respectively.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why is it a false equivalency?

Both are central features of the appropriate vehicle. Russes shoot. Venoms and Raiders are open topped assault vehicles.

As I said in the original post, the russ will shoot every turn, the open topped vehicle will deploy it's troops into combat once, possibly twice if you get lucky. 5=/=1.

Also (as I said in the original post), the detachment would not, as the analogy suggested, merely restore normal shooting to the Russ; it would provide an entire suite of benefits for the russ to choose from, giving it access to capabilities far beyond normal shooting- including some that served both defensive and utility purposes.

For these two reasons (which were both VERY CLEARLY STATED in the original post), the analogy does not at all equal the situation to which it is supposed to be analogous. It does make a point, and it does help me understand that people really want charging out of an open topped vehicle as a base ability: they think it is has much intrinsic value to an open topped vehicle as a main gun has for a Russ (and again, they're wrong: an ability that can be used 5+ times per game absolutely DOES have more intrinsic value to its unit than an ability that can only reliably be expected to be used once... But the fact that people FEEL those abilities are of equal value does help me understand how important to them this ability is).

A statement can illustrate a point and still be a poor analogy. And another way of saying that would be, just because a statement illustrates a point, that does not make the statement an analogy. I totally get the point- I'm just saying the analogy sucks.

 Wyldhunt wrote:


This is partly why I like the idea of getting rid of strats and using that "space" for expanded detachment rules. Because it creates room for you to have that sort of versatility/in-depth options, but without the baggage of locking those options to a single unit per turn.

Imagine a world where drukkhari vehicles are allowed to have their basic functions regardless of detachment, but then their vehicle-centric detachment opens up the option for vehicles to jink, be better at ramming, pick up/drop off troops part way through a move ala the old scaling nets wargear, some sort of vehicles-moving-fast defensive rule, etc.. Basically, detachments would let you choose which extra set of rules you want to have access to so that you're not making a given game bloated by trying to squeeze every possible mechanic into every game, but you can dramatically change up the way your army plays in fluffy ways from game to game. The current system does a lot of that, but it does it in a way that limits those flavorful mechanics to one unit per turn.

But that's already what the detachment does!

Detachments in 10th ARE the way to not squeeze every mechanic into every game. There are 42 strats in the Space marine book, but the detachment system means you can only use 6 in any given game. Right?

Look, if the debate is about "You should always be able to charge out of an open topped vehicle" then fine... Sure. As I said in my original post, I'm fine with that I guess? I did say I liked the rule when we had it. I do wonder, however, if once we have the actual dex in our hand and you see all the detachments we're going to get if adding the ability to charge out of an open topped vehicle as a default rule would add so much to the Non-Skysplinter detachments that they would become too powerful. It's also an ability that may be added to more than one detachment- so maybe you can charge out of an open topped vehicle in both the Skysplinter detachment AND the Wych cult detachment.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

You can easily see how annoyed people would be if a russ's main gun became a strat only available in a single detachment and only usable on one of your russ units each turn.

Yes I can see that, however that does not make the analogy less of a false equivalency. If each Russ in the army was only expected to shoot once per game (or possibly twice in some rare occasions), then the abilities given up by each unit would be analogous. That isn't the way it works, so that's one reason why the analogy doesn't work (as an analogy- again, I take the point... But the fact that I take the point does not make the analogy good: in order to be a good analogy, the things being compared must be analogous, whether I get the point or not).

And if the Russ that lost it's ability to shoot outside of a particular detachment not only regained that ability as a strat, but also (for example) the ability to fire indirectly, to fire at full BS as a reaction, to fire a dying shot before it blew up, to force a modified break test against a unit it hit and to do additional mortals vs. Titanic units, then that would also be analogous to the fate of the skimmer's always on open-topped rule. Since the analogy as originally written does not reference the idea that the Russ would gain a suite of options beyond "normal function" it is again, not analogous to the thing it's supposed to be an analogy for... Making it a bad analogy, even it does illustrate a point.

Again, my post was basically a semantics issue, not an indicator that I don't understand the point that people are trying to make.

As I said in the original post, the russ will shoot every turn, the open topped vehicle will deploy it's troops into combat once, possibly twice if you get lucky. 5=/=1.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm not sure frequency of the use of a given capability is the best metric for this sort of thing. To tweak the analogy, let's say dreadnaughts lost their melee weapons. If a dreadnaught is in melee, it swings the same close combat weapon profile as a guardsman *unless* you spend a CP to let that dreadnaught remember he has a giant robot arm he can smash things with. And if you use the stratagem to let one dreadnaught remember it has arms, you can't do the same for any of your other dreads that turn. Have two dreads in melee? Only one is allowed to punch stuff.

Detachments in 10th ARE the way to not squeeze every mechanic into every game. There are 42 strats in the Space marine book, but the detachment system means you can only use 6 in any given game. Right?

Right. My main gripe is the combination of:
A.) Each strat only being able to help one unit per turn and
B.) Many strats representing (sometimes poorly) what should be or used to be non-strat mechanics.

So instead of being able to jink all the jetbikes and skimmers in my army or proactively opt to give up their shooting to gain better defense (ala flat-out saves), I'm now only able to protect a single unit per turn. Only one unit per battle round gets to do the fluffy thing that made them feel like they were doing barrel rolls or hitting the throttle to evade enemy fire. Instead of my drukhari *army* feeling fast and pouncing on the enemy after moving quickly, only a single tiny piece of my army gets to feel fast. And they'd better not get greedy and want to use their grenades. We have to budget that precious CP for a reaction move next turn!

I do wonder, however, if once we have the actual dex in our hand and you see all the detachments we're going to get if adding the ability to charge out of an open topped vehicle as a default rule would add so much to the Non-Skysplinter detachments that they would become too powerful

I don't think anyone is suggesting changes in a vacuum. If charging out of transports is powerful but also a big part of making the army feel the way it should, then you make it a non-detachment-locked rule, and you charge points for transports/design detachments accordingly.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

As I said in the original post, the russ will shoot every turn, the open topped vehicle will deploy it's troops into combat once, possibly twice if you get lucky. 5=/=1.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm not sure frequency of the use of a given capability is the best metric for this sort of thing. To tweak the analogy, let's say dreadnaughts lost their melee weapons. If a dreadnaught is in melee, it swings the same close combat weapon profile as a guardsman *unless* you spend a CP to let that dreadnaught remember he has a giant robot arm he can smash things with. And if you use the stratagem to let one dreadnaught remember it has arms, you can't do the same for any of your other dreads that turn. Have two dreads in melee? Only one is allowed to punch stuff.

The point you keep missing is that most of those mechanics you want back in the game and available for everyone as often as they spam the right units, are also those mechanics which become problematic when units have them all the time - at that point you would have to nerf those effects to a degree where there is no longer a point in having them in the game.
Just like overwatch, grenades and tank-shock, disembarking after charging as an army-wide rule is highly problematic. It removes any counter-play and eliminate the glass cannon drawback of units with high killing power. Drukhari literally had to be nerfed into the ground and dead the last time they had that ability, because they were murdering everything and no one could do a thing about it. The only way to get assault ramps as a datasheet rule is if either the list of passengers is very limited (just wyches and kabalites, for example) OR when melee experts cannot ride your transport OR if your transport is expensive as sin.
And believe me, as an Ork player, I know what I'm talking about.

CP are a balancing mechanism to heavily limit effects which otherwise could just not be in the game at all.

If charging out of transports is powerful but also a big part of making the army feel the way it should, then you make it a non-detachment-locked rule, and you charge points for transports/design detachments accordingly.

Well, you could just cost raiders according to that powerful rule (150-200 points), but I have a feeling that you wouldn't be happy with that either. You can't be cheap, fast, powerful and hard to kill at the same time, despite what eldar lore says.

The one conclusion one can draw from the last few pages is not that 10th Edition or stratagems don't work - it's that the Eldar (Aeldari, Drukhari, Harlequins, Ynnari) don't work. I've hardly seen any other factions complain.
In my opinion, it's a case of gods fallen to the realm of mortals. The Eldar used to have the best weapons, best equipment, the fastest units, the most durable tanks, the best melee fighters. high durability across the board and zero counterplay was part of their theme. Now they are just super fast and above average in every other aspect, and that clashes with how they felt in previous editions, how they are portrayed in their lore.
But the Eldar are not worth going back and sacrificing everyone else's enjoyment of the game, even if that has been the tradition for many editions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why is it a false equivalency?

Both are central features of the appropriate vehicle. Russes shoot. Venoms and Raiders are open topped assault vehicles.

Every army has units that shoot. The vast majority of units in the game shoot. Every player wants to shoot with every unit in every turn of every game he is playing. It's central feature of the game.

Two armies had open topped assault vehicles, three if you count harlies. The majority of units aren't even vehicles, let alone transports. Most transports are not open topped. In most turns you don't want to charge from your vehicle - because there is nothing to charge or because your vehicle is empty. It's not even mentioned outside of some codices.

Orks have four open topped assault vehicles in total - the trukk, battlewagon, hunta rig and kill rig. They perform the role of transporting melee units into combat well enough to even show up in high placing tournament lists. Charging after disembarking from a moving transport is not an essential capability such a unit needs to have to function within its role.

Therefore, it's a false equivalency.

 alextroy wrote:

That leads us to today, where overwatch cost a CP and is rarely worth bothering to pay the cost. It would be more functional rules-wise if units were just better during the first round of combat because everyone is firing their guns as they charge or are charged.

Overwatch is used a lot in competitive play. It's an auto-use on flamer squadrons, but other squadrons use it as well as it can often swing things around. I play monthly in RTTs and BCP Leagues and I'd argue that overwatch is used in about 70-80% of the games I've been. Some units have such a high rate of fire that overwatch just becomes something amazing. Add in potential rerolls and whatnot.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regarding initiative it's a problematic system in many ways. The reason initiative works in RP games is usually because you roll a dice and then you have a small INI modifier for that. However, in Warhammer games the INI is usually a fixed number that creates a sort of barrier between lower INI units and higher INI units. I still have trauma from earlier editions where you could charge with a large squad, but because of INI that squad was not allowed to do and got instead butchered without ever doing a single drop of damage. In short it created death star unit/units. I mean, High Elves are really annoying in TOW because they tend to have high INI.

Now, someone might suggest that GW should imitate the RP systems, but I can only imagine the annoyance when you are on a bad luck streak and your elite units always goes last because you can't roll higher than 1. The current system, as rigid as it is, is a strangely fair system all in all. Haven't met many people who play 10th a lot complain that much about it unless they are also invested into HH or other game that has INI, and often it is more in relation to how Fight First works in 10th, which I admit is a strange ruling.

The only place where the initiative system kind of works is in Horus Heresy, but I also attribute that to the fact that the system is essentially homogenized with its marine v. marine action. So usually you are either having equal INI units fighting, or you both have access to the same high INI squashers that level the playing field.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why is it a false equivalency?

Both are central features of the appropriate vehicle. Russes shoot. Venoms and Raiders are open topped assault vehicles.

As I said in the original post, the russ will shoot every turn, the open topped vehicle will deploy it's troops into combat once, possibly twice if you get lucky. 5=/=1.

Sorry but so what?

Maybe the Transport will only be able to unload troops once but that's still its primary purpose.

You bring a Russ for its main gun.

You bring a Raider/Venom to get your troops where you need them.

 PenitentJake wrote:
Also (as I said in the original post), the detachment would not, as the analogy suggested, merely restore normal shooting to the Russ; it would provide an entire suite of benefits for the russ to choose from, giving it access to capabilities far beyond normal shooting- including some that served both defensive and utility purposes.

Okay, fine, the IRON THUNDER detachment can let Russes Ignore Cover when they shoot.

It still costs them a stratagem to shoot, but hey it will be really "cinematic" when they do shoot.

Apparently.

Somehow.

In a way that definitely wouldn't apply if they could just fire their guns normally.

 Jidmah wrote:
The point you keep missing is that most of those mechanics you want back in the game and available for everyone as often as they spam the right units, are also those mechanics which become problematic when units have them all the time - at that point you would have to nerf those effects to a degree where there is no longer a point in having them in the game.

Just like overwatch, grenades and tank-shock, disembarking after charging as an army-wide rule is highly problematic. It removes any counter-play and eliminate the glass cannon drawback of units with high killing power. Drukhari literally had to be nerfed into the ground and dead the last time they had that ability, because they were murdering everything and no one could do a thing about it.

I find this a baffling argument.

You know this is how DE worked from 3rd-7th, right?

And of those, 5th was the only edition where they could be considered a strong army. In 7th, despite apparently having this amazing, OP ability to charge out of Transports, they were still a bottom-tier army.

So evidently this ability is far from an instant-win for DE.

If you want to argue that it's unfair in the new 'chargers strike first' paradigm, fine. However, I find it rather strange that you're perfectly fine with units in every other army being able to get around this with bikes, jump packs etc.

I'm not clear why a unit - potentially a unit that is otherwise supposed to be slower and better-armoured - having bikes or jump packs that allows them to charge first by giving them extra movement is perfectly fine. Yet an army that it build on speed being able to give its units fast transports so that they can assault into combat is terrible, OP, game-breaking and cannot be allowed under any circumstances.


To take this a step further, imagine if bikes and jump infantry had to choose between moving as infantry or moving as bikes/jump-infantry. The latter give extra movement but prevent them from charging.

If they use their extra movement, they're only allowed to charge if you're using a particular detachment and then use the special stratagem that allows them to charge.

Would this be reasonable?

f you want to argue that it's unfair in the new 'chargers strike first' paradigm, fine. However, I find it rather strange that you're perfectly fine with units in every other army being able to get around this with bikes, jump packs etc.

To be fair the jump packs and bikers tend to max out on 12 inch range, 14 for jetbikes. Those things also tend to have really large bases and can't go through walls with the exception of stratagem usage or shining spears. With wyches in Raiders, if they were to have assault ramps they'd have 14" + 3" + 8" = 25" movement range and then an extra 2-12" charge range. Which I'll admit is insane movement and there is literally no safe place on the table to avoid them charging for the most part. So I get the concerns.

Now, you mention that this wasn't a problem in earlier editions, but earlier editions were also rather different mission-wise, as well as the fact that the Drukhari Units AP only worked on units that had leather jack and T-shirt saves. With AP now being a flat -1 to all saves they do hit a bit harder than the drukhari of old. Regarding missions it is good to keep in mind that the current mission structure is more fluid and requires an army to move around. If one army could tarpit the opponent for a few turns just by overwhelming them with cheap bodies on a small space of the board it can easily become problematic.

I'll add that I do play Drukhari(and Eldar in general) so I would love having assault ramps, but I also understand that it could result in negative player experiences or NPE.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm not sure frequency of the use of a given capability is the best metric for this sort of thing. To tweak the analogy, let's say dreadnaughts lost their melee weapons. If a dreadnaught is in melee, it swings the same close combat weapon profile as a guardsman *unless* you spend a CP to let that dreadnaught remember he has a giant robot arm he can smash things with. And if you use the stratagem to let one dreadnaught remember it has arms, you can't do the same for any of your other dreads that turn. Have two dreads in melee? Only one is allowed to punch stuff.

This is a much better analogy- it's a much closer match to the always-on ability being given up.

The only thing the analogy needs now is to mention that in addition to the punch-in-melee strat, the detachment may also include a strat that allows the dread to make an attack that has precision to character hunt, a strat that allows a dread to do additional mortals to a titanic opponent, and a strat that allows a dread a melee only invul to represent blocking.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

My main gripe is the combination of:
A.) Each strat only being able to help one unit per turn and
B.) Many strats representing (sometimes poorly) what should be or used to be non-strat mechanics.

Okay, and we can work with this now that we're no longer debating the analogy piece. Both of these are legit concerns with the strat system. One of the things that will help take care of part B) is just making equipment strats back into plain old equipment, and I totally agree with that. I think other problematic strats can be dealt with on a case-by case basis.

Addressing problem A is more complicated, but certainly within the realm of possibility. Some enhancements allow particular strat effects to be duplicated, or used at reduced cost, or to benefit more than one unit; in some rare cases, unit abilities do some of these things too. So the key is facilitating the potential for additional uses for abilities that are in high demand, within a balance parameter.

Regarding the Skysplinter detachment specifically, it just happens to be a smokeshow of a detachment. Like, it lets vehicles do insane, crazy cool things. Not every vehicle is going to get to a cool thing every turn, and it's even less likely that two units will be able to do the same cool thing in the same turn... But in this one specific example, the flexibility of the potential that every vehicle carries with due to strat/ enhancement/ unit ability rules interactions, might almost make losing always-on open-topped charging worth it.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I do wonder, however, if once we have the actual dex in our hand and you see all the detachments we're going to get if adding the ability to charge out of an open topped vehicle as a default rule would add so much to the Non-Skysplinter detachments that they would become too powerful

I don't think anyone is suggesting changes in a vacuum. If charging out of transports is powerful but also a big part of making the army feel the way it should, then you make it a non-detachment-locked rule, and you charge points for transports/design detachments accordingly.

No, seriously- read the detachment. A points bump would not be enough to balance always-on open-topped charge; if you found a balance point within the skysplinter, the price would be too high in any other detachment, so the entire purpose of your proposed change (skimmers feel like skimmers in non-Skysplinter detachments) would be erased because no one would take them in non-Skysplinter detachments, and if they did, they wouldn't be able to afford enough other stuff to make the army work.

And if people aren't suggesting changes in a vacuum, maybe they could post the other changes they are suggesting in order to make their ideas work instead of the expecting the rest of us to read their minds. I know it makes for a long post, but it will save extra explanatory posts later.

DaughterOfKhaine wrote:

f you want to argue that it's unfair in the new 'chargers strike first' paradigm, fine. However, I find it rather strange that you're perfectly fine with units in every other army being able to get around this with bikes, jump packs etc.

To be fair the jump packs and bikers tend to max out on 12 inch range, 14 for jetbikes. Those things also tend to have really large bases and can't go through walls with the exception of stratagem usage or shining spears. With wyches in Raiders, if they were to have assault ramps they'd have 14" + 3" + 8" = 25" movement range and then an extra 2-12" charge range. Which I'll admit is insane movement and there is literally no safe place on the table to avoid them charging for the most part. So I get the concerns.

Now, you mention that this wasn't a problem in earlier editions, but earlier editions were also rather different mission-wise, as well as the fact that the Drukhari Units AP only worked on units that had leather jack and T-shirt saves. With AP now being a flat -1 to all saves they do hit a bit harder than the drukhari of old. Regarding missions it is good to keep in mind that the current mission structure is more fluid and requires an army to move around. If one army could tarpit the opponent for a few turns just by overwhelming them with cheap bodies on a small space of the board it can easily become problematic.

I'll add that I do play Drukhari(and Eldar in general) so I would love having assault ramps, but I also understand that it could result in negative player experiences or NPE.

14"+3"+2d6".

You can't make a Normal Move after a disembark.