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.

With the removal of deep strike scatter and reinforcement rolls, tactical reserves far more reliable than prior editions. Many lists currently focus on min/maxing drops and reserves to get their units up in the enemy's faces without having to weather incoming fire. Frankly, especially lists that are tailored around deep strikers, 8th ed deep strike lists are practically null-deploying right now.

What I am proposing is a re-introduction of 'to-enter' roll for reserves and/or some sort of cap on units deployable per turn.

The 'to-enter' roll could be rolled per units attempting to deep strike in the manner below:
-turn 1: 4+
-turn 2: 3+
-turn 3: 2+; units that have not entered the battlefield after turn 3 is automatically destroyed

Alternatively, 'determine-how-many-units-enter-via-deepstrike" roll could be something like:
-roll a d3 and add the current turn to the roll. You can place that many units in tactical reserves onto the battlefield. Any units not deployed in this manner at end of turn 3 are considered to be destroyed. (i.e. a roll of 1 on d3 on turn 1 = 2 units allowed to enter)

What do you think of deep strike in 8th ed? Does it need some sort of risk to the current 'all-reward' system ?

 skchsan wrote:
With the removal of deep strike scatter and reinforcement rolls, tactical reserves far more reliable than prior editions. Many lists currently focus on min/maxing drops and reserves to get their units up in the enemy's faces without having to weather incoming fire. Frankly, especially lists that are tailored around deep strikers, 8th ed deep strike lists are practically null-deploying right now.

What I am proposing is a re-introduction of 'to-enter' roll for reserves and/or some sort of cap on units deployable per turn.

The 'to-enter' roll could be rolled per units attempting to deep strike in the manner below:
-turn 1: 4+
-turn 2: 3+
-turn 3: 2+; units that have not entered the battlefield after turn 3 is automatically destroyed

Alternatively, 'determine-how-many-units-enter-via-deepstrike" roll could be something like:
-roll a d3 and add the current turn to the roll. You can place that many units in tactical reserves onto the battlefield. Any units not deployed in this manner at end of turn 3 are considered to be destroyed. (i.e. a roll of 1 on d3 on turn 1 = 2 units allowed to enter)

What do you think of deep strike in 8th ed? Does it need some sort of risk to the current 'all-reward' system ?

I think the biggest problem with deep strike is when it is intrinsic to units its hard to balance. It should be an added cost upgrade for all units that have it as an option. Some of the Strategem versions of it are especially bad, and some of their rules are vaguely written.

Scions for example, should be two points cheaper and have a two point Deep Strike Upgrade option (identical to reivers). Terminators should have the same, as a teleport cost. I think this would allow GW to more easily rebalance deep strike, and allow these units to be used outside of deep striking, such as in their preferred vehicles. It would essentially be a 2 point discount on terminators for anyone using land raiders or the air transport option.

GW could also then balance deep strike rules, by adding additional point costs later, or limiting the number of units which can take advantage of it per detachment or something.

 argonak wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
With the removal of deep strike scatter and reinforcement rolls, tactical reserves far more reliable than prior editions. Many lists currently focus on min/maxing drops and reserves to get their units up in the enemy's faces without having to weather incoming fire. Frankly, especially lists that are tailored around deep strikers, 8th ed deep strike lists are practically null-deploying right now.

What I am proposing is a re-introduction of 'to-enter' roll for reserves and/or some sort of cap on units deployable per turn.

The 'to-enter' roll could be rolled per units attempting to deep strike in the manner below:
-turn 1: 4+
-turn 2: 3+
-turn 3: 2+; units that have not entered the battlefield after turn 3 is automatically destroyed

Alternatively, 'determine-how-many-units-enter-via-deepstrike" roll could be something like:
-roll a d3 and add the current turn to the roll. You can place that many units in tactical reserves onto the battlefield. Any units not deployed in this manner at end of turn 3 are considered to be destroyed. (i.e. a roll of 1 on d3 on turn 1 = 2 units allowed to enter)

What do you think of deep strike in 8th ed? Does it need some sort of risk to the current 'all-reward' system ?

I think the biggest problem with deep strike is when it is intrinsic to units its hard to balance. It should be an added cost upgrade for all units that have it as an option. Some of the Strategem versions of it are especially bad, and some of their rules are vaguely written.

Scions for example, should be two points cheaper and have a two point Deep Strike Upgrade option (identical to reivers). Terminators should have the same, as a teleport cost. I think this would allow GW to more easily rebalance deep strike, and allow these units to be used outside of deep striking, such as in their preferred vehicles. It would essentially be a 2 point discount on terminators for anyone using land raiders or the air transport option.

GW could also then balance deep strike rules, by adding additional point costs later, or limiting the number of units which can take advantage of it per detachment or something.

I like that, I'd pay full price for teleporting terminators some games and save 3ppm on having them in deployment in others. As for the turn 3 roll 2+ or die, NO. It is so not reasonable to say that a unit just dies without anyone interacting with it at all just because your dice are moody.

One of the best changes entering 8th os the reliability of deepstrike.

I dont want to win/loose a game because of random chance on dice rolls. I want me and my opponent to be tactical. And being able to control what goes where and when is what allows us to do that. The >9" barrier is a pretty great well planned mechanic. So is the no more then 1/2 your units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should clarify before someone mentions that the whole game runs on dice rolls.

I don't want to win/loose because I or my opponent was never able to implement our strategy or tactics because of random dice rolls. I am fine with the calculated risks of random chance when interacting with my opponent. I am not happy with random chance when interacting with the game.

Deep strike is now not random

This is good cause it brings out strategic thinking.

Saying that this deep striking should be random again takes out strategy and brings in luck again.

I do not like playing luck on such a vital part of a strategy, this was why deep striking armies were not a thing in previous editions. Too much randomness (Daemons were forced into this, and it was one of the biggest gripes about their army as a whole)

Deep striking is a choice, but doing to points cost to enable that deep striking seems like a fair thing for me. It means you have to think that little bit more if you want an alpha strike unit or units

Adding more strategic depth to strategy is always a welcome sign

The issue is if you can bring in everything from turn 1 onward, you can just alphastrike with your opponent having next to no option for counterplay. Look at what happpened in 7th when you *could* guarantee that certain units came onboard when and where you wanted: The Skyhammer, or Alex Harrison's Warp Spider Army of Doom are classic examples of this.

I would personally either rework Overwatch as a mechanic, make Reserves cost CP, go for Alternating Activation, or any other mix of options to dissuade "I-Alphastrike-U-Tinder."

For a well drafted list, 1/2 restriction can mean 1800 pt in reserves and 200 pt deployed. 9" restriction only means that you cant flamer, half range melta, and have pretty slim chance at making charge. Its essentially what deepstrike was in previous editions where you cant assault on the turn you arrive. It has only changed for better.

Currently there are no cost for keeping you units away from harms way, only for them to enter 'just as planned' with bleek measure of counter offense in the form of overwatch, that only activates if youre daring enough for the 9" charge.

As magicjuggler pointed out, the issue is that you can bring in EVERYTHING from turn 1 and onwards. Even restricting turn 1 deepstrike would be a step in the right direction of balancing the current deepstrike.

Reliable strategies with little counter-play are usually not very healthy for a game. The best counter right now is to use chaff units. However, the option still exists to destroy the easily killed chaff first, then deep strike 1 turn later.

Darsath wrote:
Reliable strategies with little counter-play are usually not very healthy for a game. The best counter right now is to use chaff units. However, the option still exists to destroy the easily killed chaff first, then deep strike 1 turn later.

Reliable strategie with little counter-play you mean like overwhelming firepower of shooting armies that wipe away half of enemy army at turn 1. There is counters for absurd fire power just like there is for deep striking. If deep strikes were random no one would use it. There was no point on deep strikes before. It was just one way to get your unit killd before doing anything.

Alternating activations has my vote. The best games I have played of 40k have been house ruled versions that swapped out the IGOUGO structure for alternating activations.

^ What this guy said. Played one like that and it was fun

Alternate activation is soo simple it's almost comically funny how more intense it becomes

 skchsan wrote:
With the removal of deep strike scatter and reinforcement rolls, tactical reserves far more reliable than prior editions. Many lists currently focus on min/maxing drops and reserves to get their units up in the enemy's faces without having to weather incoming fire. Frankly, especially lists that are tailored around deep strikers, 8th ed deep strike lists are practically null-deploying right now.

What I am proposing is a re-introduction of 'to-enter' roll for reserves and/or some sort of cap on units deployable per turn.

The 'to-enter' roll could be rolled per units attempting to deep strike in the manner below:
-turn 1: 4+
-turn 2: 3+
-turn 3: 2+; units that have not entered the battlefield after turn 3 is automatically destroyed

Alternatively, 'determine-how-many-units-enter-via-deepstrike" roll could be something like:
-roll a d3 and add the current turn to the roll. You can place that many units in tactical reserves onto the battlefield. Any units not deployed in this manner at end of turn 3 are considered to be destroyed. (i.e. a roll of 1 on d3 on turn 1 = 2 units allowed to enter)

What do you think of deep strike in 8th ed? Does it need some sort of risk to the current 'all-reward' system ?

Not enouth risk. Units that want to deepstrike should have the chance to scatter and to be destroyed, not only to delay. The controlling player chooses when they arrive and rolls a D6, which is NOT re-rollable.

4-5-6: The unit arrives 9'' from the enemy.
2-3: The unit arrives 18'' from the enemy.
1: The unit is completely destroyed.

With a simple delay deepstriking would be still more rewarding than investing a significant amount of points in transports. The nerf of deep strike makes sense only to let the players bring more vehicles to the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:

As for the turn 3 roll 2+ or die, NO. It is so not reasonable to say that a unit just dies without anyone interacting with it at all just because your dice are moody.

They don't actually die, but their delivery system didn't work correctly and they arrived very far from the battle. They count as dead but it's not reasonable if they actually die while trying to arrive by deep strike, it makes sense that they arrived so far from the action that count as dead game wise

In my ideal 40k deep strike would never exist. Everything is deployed on the table, or embarked in a vehicle, before turn 1 starts.

 Blackie wrote:
Not enouth risk. Units that want to deepstrike should have the chance to scatter and to be destroyed, not only to delay... With a simple delay deepstriking would be still more rewarding than investing a significant amount of points in transports. The nerf of deep strike makes sense only to let the players bring more vehicles to the game.

I feel like the old scatter risk was worth it when you still could charge after deep striking. When they nerfed DS so that you can't charge the turn you arrived, that's when DS became too weak as assault only units (i.e. DWK, Assault Termies, etc) had to sit around for a full turn before being able to do anything. If the game was more fast paced, it could've worked, but not in a game where 1 turn would mean at best 20% of the entire game.

While I do feel your sentiments, I feel like DS should be surgically precise. It just needs some more speed bumps for it to be not abuseable.