Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Tactical Reserves

Beta Rules Tactical Reserves Deep Strike

  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#51
chapter master 454

chapter master 454

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,659 posts
  • Location:Fife
  • Faction: Angels of Justice

The issue here is we are all taking it to extremes and assume we have lost everything. This is a common fallacy to fall into and you must remember that there are other factors along with other armies being hit as well, in fact this affects all armies in similar ways.

 

So arguably yes, apparently GKs are getting some more swings of the bat indirectly however this seems to be a trope of GK players right now anyway, anything happens and they complain about how they are being targeted. "Ah Dark Reapers got nerfed, this affects the viability of GKs" in a similar vain of the meme within league of legends regarding irelia (X is happening, better nerf irelia).

 

So let us look at this matter. As I have stated, I am an advocate of this change and feel it is a good change and want to stress this. People seem to forget that Reserve is a powerful ability because it is the ultimate armour.

So lets get this cleared up and debunk some attempts to cause more rule bloating because people want their special "license to do this" because they are feeling targeted.

 

First, Going into DS Reserve is in no way right now with current rules (no beta) a zero cost move. Ok, let us assume the enemy gets first and drops in on you first and makes their move. They attempt to bubble to board best they can but struggle to because NO army in the game that is reasonable and competitive would be able to cover even a 4x4 board completely. At this point, you have to DS into your own DZ which, in effect is now just at this point being the equal of having deployed them there BUT BETTER as your opponent had no way to interact with the unit. Sure it isn't ideal but no plan goes to our design, nothing does so assuming the best is the only viable method is poor arguing and I am even at this juncture applying the WORST case which is equally invalid however this invalidation only strengthens my argument for turn 1 DS being bad for the game.

 

Second: LoS ignoring weapons are not relevant to this argument. Stop trying to use them as a position to argue from as they are un-related and require their own fixes and adjustments that are un-related to DS. They are not valid in this topic. They mess with everyone whether or not you DS or not. A small fringe could be argued that this has made them better as it nerfs their counter but in all reality these units got such bubble wrapping against this it is a non-factor as it was a countered strat anyway so thus other avenues of solving these units must be addressed. As it stands, turn 1 DS causes more trouble than it actually solves and leads to alpha striking being far more potent and uncounterable.

 

It doesn't matter if you are melee or shooting, both DS of these units do similar things. They :cuss things up when they drop in. Yes one has more counterplay than the other but that isn't the point, other than a small counter play option being open to one sub-set of these units (the melee DS) there is no other counter play involved. How do you counter these turn 1 drops? People have been saying it over and over again: Bubble Wrap. It seems people are content to just say this and not think about how to do it because bubble wrapping takes some actual thinking to do. When you bubble wrap, you wrap what is important. If that means your infantry are important then you put them at the core of the bubble wrap and go from there, if your big stuff is important you put that to the core and have the infantry put up the front. You put what is strong out front against what you are countering, it is how herds of animals do it, when they begin to circle up when predators approach they keep the old, ill and young to the middle of the circle with the strong out towards the outside because they can defend against attacks.

 

Can anyone here legitimately argue that turn 1 DS is fair or even reasonable? I want to hear NON-FACTION SPECIFIC arguments. No GK whining, no Tyranid Straw-manning, I want some actual cases for turn 1 DS.

 

I will state that some armies should have it, space marines are the number one contender for it as it is thematic however that is a discussion for another day and not related here. Anyway, hope to see some interesting replies (as I do want to see cases for turn 1 DS as it would lead to us being able to understand and help guide GW as they have been listening reasonably well).   


  • Plaguecaster and BlackTriton like this

I Chapter Master 454, Chapter Master of the Angels of Justice, Warboss of WAAAGH Gubskul, Commander of a Catachan Regiment, Phaeron of a Tomb World, Shas'O to a Cadre and Princeps of a lance of House Taranis hereby pledge that I will not take up any further models til all other prior have been fully built and painted to tabletop standards. There is no time limit for this task, there is no deadline. My oath is to solemnly complete the armies I have now, to see it that they can have their glory. Paint will be stripped from the old in need, thick may it be like ceramite I will see it removed so that plastic and metal alike may see light of new paint. Models yet to be, boxed and in darkness will be assembled with due care and attention. For this task I am permitted to still buy the supplies needed to do my task but not one model more.

http://www.bolterand...one-model-more/ the thread to my oath. My own reminder.

http://www.bolterand...rk-in-progress/ my own chapter
"The objective of playing a game is to win. The point of playing a game is to have fun. Never confuse the two"

 

 

 


#52
Dam13n

Dam13n

    ++ CÆLATOR ALTRICES ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 2,365 posts
  • Location:Poole, UK
  • Faction: The Scions

I think Gentleman loser plays pure GK.
Imagine playing guard with GK. Pre game 4 scout sentinels move forward and push back the potential DS zone. Turn 1, sentinels move forward, fast tanks come in behind with 2 layers of infantry screens behind that and a gunline at the back.
Turn 2, GK can barely manage a DS in their own deployment zone.
GK pamming Razorbacks filled with interceptors might come close to helping but they can only take 3 6 man squads to ride.
GK getting turn one pre Beta rule would be an uphill struggle. Now GK has no answer to a gunline army.


That sounds like an existing "problem" rather than something being introduced by the beta rule.

It also sounds like a problem linked to the GK codex rather anything else.

With the hope of steering this away from becoming a complaint topic centred on GK, and back onto the topic of the proposed Beta rule. What alternate suggestions can you make that might improve this Beta rule?

I do feel the need to point out that these discussions need to be constructive, else they begin to fall foul of the rules of the B&C. Which in turn results in post deletions and eventual thead closure. So please keep that in mind going forwards.

Edited by Dam13n, 19 April 2018 - 03:46 PM.


#53
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
I really think people here just haven't played against an enemy capable enough to space out there troops to remove ds area.

9" is massive. Had no one seen the bat rep of the guy who strings a cultist unit across his entire dz to control two objects, and never moves them so doesn't have to worry about coherency?

Thats a single unit more or less blocking the entire dz from enemy ds.

Damien again it's difficult to suggest improvements when they rule is just plainly bad. Its wrong, and doesn't address the problem it was designed to address.

DS shooting.

DS melee wasn't and still isn't a problem.

Change The rule entirely. Give units a -1 hit on shooting when dsing. Hell Give them a -1 hit for that turn if cc is a worry.

There are many ways to counter ds. I've stated some already. If you want to ignore screening and want to ignore the massive issue 9" distance is then please don't forget the shoot dsing unit strats.

Or reduction to charge ranges like replusors or tanglefoot grenades.

All these existing counters are simply being ignored.

Edit. DS is a far less relible alpha strike for CC than the various ways of getting garanteed first turn charges from units in the board.

Why should ds first turn charges with a 30% odd chance of sucess be stopped and on board guaranteed charges allowed?

Edit.

And if you don't play an army designed to have around 50% deep strike, your opponents probably haven't needed to play to spread out to deny you space.

But it's entirely possible to do so.

Edited by Gentlemanloser, 19 April 2018 - 05:25 PM.

  • Quixus, Kallas and STTAB like this
QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#54
Lysere

Lysere

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,917 posts
  • Location:Crusading in the Geon System
  • Faction: Templar Order

The biggest problem with DS turn 1 for me is if used right it can completely lock an army that lacks the means of getting around the units dropped in from interacting with most of the board. Unless your army has the means to extend its screen before the game beings its entirely possible to be pinned into your own deployment zone from the very start of the game.

 

I was a bit surprised to see this become a beta rule since they also changed how warptime and similar abilities worked with deepstrike but in the long run it doesn't change much except for armies that already have issues. Screens are such an essential part of an army that you'd never get close to anything important with melee or ranged DS anyway.

 

If they wanted to make a small change to it maybe this rule should only apply to the player who goes first. Since half your army in terms of cost has to be on the table now anyway they'll have plenty to target and can take the time to fully deploy their screening units. Once they've set up their screens it shouldn't matter if the second player uses DS outside of their own deployment zone since there probably won't be many places to put them anyway.


  • Maschinenpriester and STTAB like this
ETL_04_Primus_Inter_Pares.jpg

#55
Quixus

Quixus

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 6,906 posts
  • Faction: To be decided later

Find out a 2000 point list that can shoot 1000 point off the table with only cover ignoring shooting in one turn while respecting the rule of 3 and you will find your awnser.

Don't forget that there is no rule of three. Even GW states that it is merely a guideline and organizers are encouraged to change it. No DSing on turn 1 outside of your deployment zone (i.e. nearly no advantage to starting on the board) however is a hard rule in matched games.



#56
Plaguecaster

Plaguecaster

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,977 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Faction: Death Guard

Nids? Hive Guard and Biovorse.

With swarms of gants to block any Turn 2 DS space.

It's not like Nids are one of the top tier armies atm anyway. And these Beta changes don't help them at all...

You do know that if they are doing that turn 2 then they will be doing the exact same thing turn one as well so it doesn't matter stuff all what turn you deep strike in on
Nurgle Abominarions: A Host of Decay Revived for 8th​.
UPDATED 29/07/17

#57
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
Again why is gauranteed turn 1 charges from on board units ok, but first turn ds charges with around 30% chance of success isn't and requires to be nerfed?
QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#58
Plaguecaster

Plaguecaster

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,977 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Faction: Death Guard
Who knows GW writes the rules not me, maybe with enough feedback they might realise the community isn't happy with it and change it or limit the bigger offender with on board turn 1 assault abilities, these Beta rules haven't been set in stone yet we have probably 5 months of trying them out and offering feedback which can change their outcome just look at the Smite Beta rule which you believed would be completely unfair to your GKs and guess what happened GW updated that in the FAQ so GKs and TS are completely unaffected by the new change

Try out the new changes, offer feedback and continue to do so or just don't use them since none of the Beta rules are compulsory so no one can force you to use them (unless tournaments but then again they don't have to use them themselves)

If you have been playing 40k for a while you should of realised by now that rules change which can easily invalidate certain options yet favour other options which previously weren't so great after all of you built your entire army around one tactic which became invalidate there is not much you can do apart from changing it to suit since spending money on models only gets you the model, not some unspoken right to be able to use it wherever whenever and however you want

Edited by Plaguecaster, 19 April 2018 - 11:07 PM.

Nurgle Abominarions: A Host of Decay Revived for 8th​.
UPDATED 29/07/17

#59
BlackTriton

BlackTriton

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 578 posts
  • Location:Montreal
  • Faction: Death Guard

Again why is gauranteed turn 1 charges from on board units ok, but first turn ds charges with around 30% chance of success isn't and requires to be nerfed?

The awnser is: it dosent.

In their live stream on facebook, when they first revealed the changes they said it was mostly to nerf inescapable shooting deepstrike. 

On the other hand, its supposed to slow down the game a bit, along with the other changes. High level player and other play tester seem to think the game will indeed slow down.

 

Also, first turn charges mean the units must start on the board, so if you do not go first, the units aren't safe.  

 

If you are concerned about where the meta is going, I invite you to read Nick Nanavati FAQ breakdown part 2 here. As one of the biggest name in competitive 40K, I feel his opinion has some value.


Edited by BlackTriton, 19 April 2018 - 11:35 PM.

  • Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra and Plaguecaster like this

#60
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
So gunlines more powerful and no mention of GK in the army list breakdown...

I disagree that the game will now go to T6 more often. It will still be decided T1, who goes first, and how much you kill of your opponent with shooting.

Edit. And Yeah I've mentioned GK again. I hope everyone understand why.

While every army might want to ds 1 or 2 units there are currently only 2 armies (and a subsection of a third) That are designed around ds as a core mechanic. GK and Daemons.

Both these armies do not have the depth of option to change and adapt to this nerf, unlike everyone else.

And don't have any gauranteed first turn charging from on board either.

Edited by Gentlemanloser, 20 April 2018 - 06:01 AM.

  • Kallas likes this
QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#61
Madmonkeyman

Madmonkeyman

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 279 posts
So is summoning affected turn one ? It’s a new unit when you summon them. But if that’s the case then you can’t summon past turn 3 which seems very odd

#62
BlackTriton

BlackTriton

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 578 posts
  • Location:Montreal
  • Faction: Death Guard
Why would summoning in the later turn be a problem?
The rule state that unit put in reserved that did not come in past turn 3 are destroyed.
And also that unit arriving on the board turn 1 must arrive in your deployment zone.
Summoning does not abide by the first rule, they are not units put in reserve.
However, summoned unit are arriving on the board and thus subject to the tactical reserve rule.

#63
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
Hillariously, GW are now saying the design studio doesn't apply this rule to any unit that starts on board.

https://m.facebook.c...?type=3

So go go Interceptors and shunt.
QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#64
BlackTriton

BlackTriton

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 578 posts
  • Location:Montreal
  • Faction: Death Guard
Very good!
Thats really interesting. Though I wish they would have rewrote the rules to make it clear, I am glad they adressed the confusion this quickly.

#65
Quixus

Quixus

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 6,906 posts
  • Faction: To be decided later

Hillariously, GW are now saying the design studio doesn't apply this rule to any unit that starts on board.

https://m.facebook.c...?type=3

So go go Interceptors and shunt.

That is nice for GK but does not help BA at all. AFAIK BA do not have shunt or something similar.



#66
BlackTriton

BlackTriton

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 578 posts
  • Location:Montreal
  • Faction: Death Guard

It does mean BA can use "Upon wings of fire" turn one.

Coupled with "Forlorn fury" and the bonus CP we all have, it gives them a chance to get some unit in melee turn one.

Its not what it was, but that time has past and hopefully the game will be a better one for it.

At least now grey Knight can be a competitive ally.



#67
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
Can anyone explain why GW think it's fine that Interceptors can shut to DS outside DZ turn 1.

But Strike squads can't?

They are an identicle unit (ignoring the interceptors larger movement). Able to bring the same shooting weapons and having the same chance at cc, with the same cc weapons and attacks.

But one is deemed too potent.

What's the logic or reasoning here?

Edited by Gentlemanloser, 21 April 2018 - 09:14 AM.

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#68
Plaguecaster

Plaguecaster

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,977 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Faction: Death Guard

Can anyone explain why GW think it's fine that Interceptors can shut to DS outside DZ turn 1.

But Strike squads can't?

They are an identicle unit (ignoring the interceptors larger movement). Able to bring the same shooting weapons and having the same chance at cc, with the same cc weapons and attacks.

But one is deemed too potent.

What's the logic or reasoning here?

I really don't understand why you ask pointless questions like that, they obviously think it's fine or don't care as that is exactly how it just is, maybe keep sending feedback and they may take notice otherwise there is very little anyone can do until the next big FAQ rolls around and we see how feedback has changed the Beta rules. Trial them and send feedback these basically are the only options unfortunately unless you just ignore them as it hasn't even been a week since the FAQ hit

Edited by Plaguecaster, 21 April 2018 - 09:44 AM.

  • Raktra likes this
Nurgle Abominarions: A Host of Decay Revived for 8th​.
UPDATED 29/07/17

#69
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
Ok, does anyone else think its fine that Strikes cant DS but Interceptors can?

What's the argument in favour of the Beta rule and why it should be applied to Strikes?

Edited by Gentlemanloser, 21 April 2018 - 10:20 AM.

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#70
Plasmablasts

Plasmablasts

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 828 posts
Well, Strikes and Interceptors are different units with different rules and different roles. Three units of Strikes get you access to 5 CPs; three of Interceptors to only one. That’s at least some recompense. I don’t think we can argue against the beta rule purely on the basis of Strike Squads. If the rule were felt to be better for the game overall but specifically unfair to Strikes, then we can argue for some form of exemption or mitigation (such as an Infilrate-type ability).
  • Waking Dreamer likes this

#71
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
They are near enough identical. Bar the movement stat.

CP shouldnt be a factor. You get 5cp elsewhere.

Just looking at pure turn1 ds outside of dz. Both units have the same durability, attacks and weapons.

Why cant the strikes ds outside of the dz?

What difference to gameplay would it be if 15 strikes ds compared to 15 interceptors?

Edited by Gentlemanloser, 21 April 2018 - 01:16 PM.

QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#72
BlackTriton

BlackTriton

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 578 posts
  • Location:Montreal
  • Faction: Death Guard

They are near enough identical. Bar the movement stat.

CP shouldnt be a factor. You get 5cp elsewhere.

Just looking at pure turn1 ds outside of dz. Both units have the same durability, attacks and weapons.

Why cant the strikes ds outside of the dz?

What difference to gameplay would it be if 15 strikes ds compared to 15 interceptors?

 

Your question boils down to "why are strike team not an exception to this rule if interceptors are?" 

But this is a bad question, a better one would be "why would strike team be another exception?"

Rules like this are written to cover the whole game and all its faction, not just the one's you like.

 

Like plague caster said, this discussion is pointless. It is an exercise of frustration that would be better received in the grey knight sub-forum.


  • Plaguecaster likes this

#73
Eddie Orlock

Eddie Orlock

    ++ FRATERIS TEMPLAR ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 3,057 posts
  • Location:Calgary
  • Faction: Storm Angels

What difference to gameplay would it be if 15 strikes ds compared to 15 interceptors?

Couple this with the limitation on the numbers of non-troop/transport things. The difference in game play is the presence of 30 pagks in your face turn one compared to all of the pagks in your face on turn one and the relative odds that they will saturate and overwhelm the opposition without much regard to larger maneuvers.

The difference between allowing a surgical strike and a frontal assault.
"Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."
- Wallace Sayre

The continued future of the Bolter and Chainsword is in your hands.

#74
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
30 PAGK would be all of them.

Especially with the PL restriction on DS now.

Besides currently we could shunt 30 interceptors and Gate a GMNDK.

But dropping a GMNDK (costs an exyra 10 points) and 30 Strikes is so different it needs to be banned.

This discussion isn't pointless. There should be some logical reason behind both the nerf and any exceptions.

And theres no real difference between the two options. So why do the rules apply differently?
  • Quixus and Kallas like this
QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.

#75
Gentlemanloser

Gentlemanloser

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 14,653 posts
Different question.

Mawlocks. Terror from the Deep.

You set your mawlock up in reserves. Deep strike it turn 2.

Turn 3 you try to use its burrow ability.

Does This then kill the Mawlock as they are back in reserves at the end of turn 3?
QUOTE (Seahawk @ Jul 30 2011, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We all feel different ways about different rules, but if you're traveling between different gaming groups or to tournaments, the only commonality is the rules as they are written. If you can get your opponent to agree with you on house-ruling something then that changes things, but until then all we can do is go by how things are written.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Beta Rules, Tactical Reserves, Deep Strike

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users