The Big FAQ

[happycamper]

Don’t know about you guys, but I never drop in on turn one.  Let the field spread out a bit, look for weaknesses as game progresses. Or reinforce a weak spot in my own line. Nothing as funny as when my death bubble of Hellblasters is almost finished off to only have a squad of Plasma Inceptors drop in to reinforce the bubble of plasma death.  

Hell I love waiting till Turn 3, half the time my opponent forgets about them and there’s holes in his line.

use your reserves more tactically, don’t think of them as a sledge hammer force.

[Ish]

They’re not going to be very useful capturing objectives (which has always been my primary use for them) if they must arrive by Turn Three.

They're not going to be very effective at disrupting enemy positioning and maneuver if the enemy knows exactly when they’re going to arrive.

[Dusldorf]

1 minute ago, Ish said:

They’re not going to be very useful capturing objectives (which has always been my primary use for them) if they must arrive by Turn Three.

They're not going to be very effective at disrupting enemy positioning and maneuver if the enemy knows exactly when they’re going to arrive.

Stop thinking in absolutes and you might have more success.

By turn three there's often far less on the board that can mess with where you put your reserves.

[happycamper]

5 minutes ago, Ish said:

They’re not going to be very useful capturing objectives (which has always been my primary use for them) if they must arrive by Turn Three.

They're not going to be very effective at disrupting enemy positioning and maneuver if the enemy knows exactly when they’re going to arrive.

By turn 3 your opponent shouldn’t  have the abilty to shoot you off a objective you drop in on and take on your main force.

And if your opponent is making adjustments to positioning or maneuvers because you have troops in reserves.... then you are effecting his decision making without being on the board, use your ground forces to take advantage of that.  

[SPaceORK]

Huh... So we've been deepstriking after turn 1 for like what? Since 5th? Cept now we have no random scatter and can decide what turn we want them to arrive. 

Turn 1 deepstrike was ridiculously broken and I used it constantly. Turn 1 deepstrike in your own deployment was ridiculously broken and I also used it constantly. Turn 2-3 deepstrike is now something I have to think about instead of "hur-dur of course I deepstrike". I will still use it on a regular basis however.

If you think keeping a unit in reserve with the ability to put them almost anywhere you want, is not a good ability then I don't know what to tell you.

[Ish]

I think it was a good ability, it was also the defining ability of my army. 

[Guest]

Dunno, my armies don't tend to be very mobile. It's one of the weak points in my play style. This change to deep strike doesn't matter much to my tactics.

Regarding the FAQ, the big change that disappoints me is the change to the chaos daemon stratagem. No more 3++ daemons. It's an annoying loss.

[WestRider]

I do miss my Drop Pod Armies. Other than that, yeah, I'm fine with going back to no Reserves coming in Turn 1. It would be kind of nice to let them wait until Turn 4 in exchange, tho, so there are still three Turns worth of possible arrival times.

[happycamper]

1 minute ago, WestRider said:

I do miss my Drop Pod Armies. Other than that, yeah, I'm fine with going back to no Reserves coming in Turn 1. It would be kind of nice to let them wait until Turn 4 in exchange, tho, so there are still three Turns worth of possible arrival times.

I agree with this

[Guest]

1 hour ago, WestRider said:

I do miss my Drop Pod Armies. Other than that, yeah, I'm fine with going back to no Reserves coming in Turn 1. It would be kind of nice to let them wait until Turn 4 in exchange, tho, so there are still three Turns worth of possible arrival times.

I feel like Drop Pods should be "summoned" rather than put into reserves. Like have a SM loyalist character roll to summon them instead of moving, not unlike chaos characters summoning daemons. Just seems like a more practical way to have them function in-game.

[Dusldorf]

5 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

I feel like Drop Pods should be "summoned" rather than put into reserves. Like have a SM loyalist character roll to summon them instead of moving, not unlike chaos characters summoning daemons. Just seems like a more practical way to have them function in-game. 

Besides the fact that I don't think this would help drop pods, how on earth would this work thematically? It's not like drop pods need a homing beacon...

[WestRider]

1 minute ago, Dusldorf said:

Besides the fact that I don't think this would help drop pods, how on earth would this work thematically? It's not like drop pods need a homing beacon...

Beyond that, even. They're often the very first things to hit dirt when Marines assault a planet.

10 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

I feel like Drop Pods should be "summoned" rather than put into reserves. Like have a SM loyalist character roll to summon them instead of moving, not unlike chaos characters summoning daemons. Just seems like a more practical way to have them function in-game.

Also, the 8th Ed Summoning Rules suck. You still have to pay Points for the Daemons, but you can't use them to fill in required slots in Detachments and they don't gain Detachment bonuses. Adding in another 80+ Points for a Drop Pod on top of those disadvantages would just be awful.

[Ish]

6 minutes ago, Dusldorf said:

Besides the fact that I don't think this would help drop pods, how on earth would this work thematically? It's not like drop pods need a homing beacon...

"Lieutenant Decimus, you will lead Tactical Squads Philopater and Sextus, along with Devastator Squad Varus to engage the enemy in a ground assault. Sergeant Agrippa and Sergeant Labienus, your squads will remain aboard the strike cruiser to deploy by drop pod. When Decimus gives the signal, you'll drop into the enemy flanks and give them hell."

"Yes, Captain." 

[Dusldorf]

3 minutes ago, Ish said:

"Lieutenant Decimus, you will lead Tactical Squads Philopater and Sextus, along with Devastator Squad Varus to engage the enemy in a ground assault. Sergeant Agrippa and Sergeant Labienus, your squads will remain aboard the strike cruiser to deploy by drop pod. When Decimus gives the signal, you'll drop into the enemy flanks and give them hell."

"Yes, Captain." 

tl;dr- the squad "gives a signal".

welp, better make sure every single space marine unit held in reserve uses the summoning rules, since they're all "getting signals" for when to join the battle, too

/s

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, WestRider said:

Beyond that, even. They're often the very first things to hit dirt when Marines assault a planet.

Also, the 8th Ed Summoning Rules suck. You still have to pay Points for the Daemons, but you can't use them to fill in required slots in Detachments and they don't gain Detachment bonuses. Adding in another 80+ Points for a Drop Pod on top of those disadvantages would just be awful.

8e summoning rules don't suck, but I would argue that the 8e units that can be summoned do suck. There's very few units you can summon that are really worth summoning, but the game mechanic is solid. I do think GW should have added some sort of point reduction to reserve units, as I don't think summoned units have the same value as the same unit unsummoned.

As for the fluff, I think you are correct regarding full drop pod armies. Regarding armies where some are on the ground, and others are not, I think the summon-able drop pod makes perfect sense.

I also think drop pods should have the option to begin the game deployed on the table, representing a drop pod force that has already landed (and probably a discount on said drop pods).

[Ish]

Personally, I think a lot of the problems with WH40k all stem from the scope of the game having grown too large for the 6' x 4' tables we all play on. Alpha Strikes, First Turn Assaults, Death Stars, and so forth... The forces on the table contain so many troops and war machines; the two sides are deployed in such close proximity; and there's a ton of maneuver-enhancing options available to everyone... It's just nuts.

Back in Second Edition, when the game shifted focus from Rogue Trader's story-driven skirmish system (with a Game Master and everything!), into a proper wargame, it was meant to focus on the platoon level. The default game-size was 1500 Points and a lowly Imperial Guardsman cost 10 Points and a basic boltgun carrying Tactical Marine cost 33 Points. Once you factored in equipment costs, a supporting tank or transport, and maybe something "exotic" like a Dreadnought you'd rarely see more than thirty or so Space Marine infantry on the table. Maybe fifty to sixty Imperial Guard or Space Ork infantry because they were the "horde" armies.

Here we are in Eighth Edition, we've grown waaay past the platoon level. It's common for Space Marine players to have a demi-company on the field, with ample supporting elements, up to and including squadrons of aircraft. Hell, if your careful, you can easily field a full Battle Company of Space Marines. Imperial Guard players are routinely putting entire battalions on the table... and god help those crazy "Green Tide" loving Ork players who need snow shovels to push their infantry mobs across the table. 

Warhammer 40,000 has become Epic 40,000 in terms of scope, model types, and troop quantities. But a 6' x 4' table is a lot more relative real estate for a 6 mm tall model to fight across than it is for a 32 mm. 

I think the Warhammer 40,000 community has got to either move to larger tables (6' x 6'?) or move to smaller point games (1500?).

[Dusldorf]

8 minutes ago, Ish said:

Personally, I think a lot of the problems with WH40k all stem from the scope of the game having grown too large for the 6' x 4' tables we all play on. Alpha Strikes, First Turn Assaults, Death Stars, and so forth... The forces on the table contain so many troops and war machines; the two sides are deployed in such close proximity; and there's a ton of maneuver-enhancing options available to everyone... It's just nuts.

Back in Second Edition, when the game shifted focus from Rogue Trader's story-driven skirmish system (with a Game Master and everything!), into a proper wargame, it was meant to focus on the platoon level. The default game-size was 1500 Points and a lowly Imperial Guardsman cost 10 Points and a basic boltgun carrying Tactical Marine cost 33 Points. Once you factored in equipment costs, a supporting tank or transport, and maybe something "exotic" like a Dreadnought you'd rarely see more than thirty or so Space Marine infantry on the table. Maybe fifty to sixty Imperial Guard or Space Ork infantry because they were the "horde" armies.

Here we are in Eighth Edition, we've grown waaay past the platoon level. It's common for Space Marine players to have a demi-company on the field, with ample supporting elements, up to and including squadrons of aircraft. Hell, if your careful, you can easily field a full Battle Company of Space Marines. Imperial Guard players are routinely putting entire battalions on the table... and god help those crazy "Green Tide" loving Ork players who need snow shovels to push their infantry mobs across the table. 

Warhammer 40,000 has become Epic 40,000 in terms of scope, model types, and troop quantities. But a 6' x 4' table is a lot more relative real estate for a 6 mm tall model to fight across than it is for a 32 mm. 

I think the Warhammer 40,000 community has got to either move to larger tables (6' x 6'?) or move to smaller point games (1500?).

Chess clocks, sir. Until it's impossible for two people (who are extremely familiar with their armies and the rules) to finish a game in 2.5-3hrs, the answer is chess clocks. And 8th ed has improved speed play by a ton.

[Ish]

8th has helped speed things up, true enough... But it still feels damn weird to have a Demi-Company of Astartes, a Knight Titan, and a platoon of Astartes tanks deploying on the table within boltgun range of friggin’ battalion of Imperial Guard infantry, a Shadowsword, and a full artillery company... 

 

 

[WestRider]

55 minutes ago, paxmiles said:

8e summoning rules don't suck, but I would argue that the 8e units that can be summoned do suck. There's very few units you can summon that are really worth summoning, but the game mechanic is solid. I do think GW should have added some sort of point reduction to reserve units, as I don't think summoned units have the same value as the same unit unsummoned.

They don't have anywhere near the same value. I would be OK with the current Summoning Mechanic if it were an option you could apply to Units from your Army, to hold them in Reserves and then Summon them in instead of spending CP to "Deep Strike" them, but the costs in lost Detachment benefits and Character mobility are way, way too high for what advantage it provides in flexibility.

20 minutes ago, Dusldorf said:

Chess clocks, sir. Until it's impossible for two people (who are extremely familiar with their armies and the rules) to finish a game in 2.5-3hrs, the answer is chess clocks. And 8th ed has improved speed play by a ton.

It's not just about the time it takes to play. There are balance issues with the way the scope of the Game has increased as well. One of the comments I see all the time is that the MEq/TEq profiles are pretty bad in 8th. And they kind of have to be, because in a system where Armies need to be capable of taking out Knights and whole Companies of Leman Russ tanks, elite infantry can't really be significantly more durable than cannon fodder.

[Dusldorf]

I very much regretted the introduction of Knights and other super-heavies into 40k, but now I've come to enjoy it. I guess there is room for a new size of battle in between what used to be regular 40k and Apoc battles. On the other hand, I think it's a good thing that there's yet another style of army that people have to prepare for when building an all-comers list. It adds variety to the game. I think it remains to be seen whether the FAQs and Chapter Approved move balance in a good or bad direction, but the most recent one holds a lot of promise.

[Ish]

I was an early adopter of Forge World's Imperial Armour series back in 3rd and 4th Edition: armored companies, super-heavies, flyers, titans... The whole thing. As production of these models has moved to plastic, lowering their cost and making them available for all factions, I'm quite happy to see it. 

I just think the scope of the battles need to shift, to better represent the scale of the battlefield. 20-30 Space Marines, a couple Rhinos, and a Knight? 60-70 Ork Boyz, a dozen Trukks, and a Battlewagon? That makes sense to me as a force that would be fighting building to building in a 6' x 4' area. But the scope of the game, at the 1850-2000 Points level, is roughly two times that size.

[Dusldorf]

7 minutes ago, Ish said:

I was an early adopter of Forge World's Imperial Armour series back in 3rd and 4th Edition: armored companies, super-heavies, flyers, titans... The whole thing. As production of these models has moved to plastic, lowering their cost and making them available for all factions, I'm quite happy to see it. 

I just think the scope of the battles need to shift, to better represent the scale of the battlefield. 20-30 Space Marines, a couple Rhinos, and a Knight? 60-70 Ork Boyz, a dozen Trukks, and a Battlewagon? That makes sense to me as a force that would be fighting building to building in a 6' x 4' area. But the scope of the game, at the 1850-2000 Points level, is roughly two times that size.

Well, the beauty of point systems is that you can rescale your games as you see fit, impose restrictions on super-heavies, etc. I get your point, but just because the tournament scene plays games that don't fit your taste doesn't mean you can't play games (or start tournaments of your own) that solve that problem.

[WestRider]

32 minutes ago, Dusldorf said:

I very much regretted the introduction of Knights and other super-heavies into 40k, but now I've come to enjoy it. I guess there is room for a new size of battle in between what used to be regular 40k and Apoc battles. On the other hand, I think it's a good thing that there's yet another style of army that people have to prepare for when building an all-comers list. It adds variety to the game. I think it remains to be seen whether the FAQs and Chapter Approved move balance in a good or bad direction, but the most recent one holds a lot of promise.

I certainly don't think that Knights and Primarchs break the game or anything, but they do shift it to a different scope. And it's very hard to write a rules set that does a good job of handling both ends of the scale without either bogging down in detail or losing some level of distinction between Units. It's a complex balance that GW is trying to maintain, and I honestly think they're doing a pretty good job of it. But I'm still going to complain about the parts that I don't like, because, y'know, I'm human 😉

[Ish]

Of course, Dusldorf, that is all within my power and I would hate to be the kind of guy who tells other people they're "having fun wrong" (see below). But I'm also going to try to explain how I feel about the state of the game and try to convince others to come around to my way of thinking. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Dusldorf said:

Chess clocks, sir. Until it's impossible for two people (who are extremely familiar with their armies and the rules) to finish a game in 2.5-3hrs, the answer is chess clocks. And 8th ed has improved speed play by a ton.

The challenge is that 40k, from a time standpoint, is really bias towards certain builds and factions. The time option works well in chess because the two sides taking the same amount of time is balanced by the two sides consisting of essentially the same forces. In 40k, it isn't balanced to insist that both armies can be striped down to taking the same amount of time.

Additionally, unlike chess, there are phases of the game where both players act. The fight phase, for example. Some armies entirely skip certain phases (like the psychic phase). And, unlike chess, ending your turn prematurely can be an advantage in 40k (especially since many of the phases where the opponent is more likely to damage you happen in the later half of the player turn).

I do see the logic of using timers as an aid to realizing how much time you take, and trying to beat that for future games, but I don't think 40k's rules would translate well to actually enforcing time limits for player turns (or phases).