Is this correct (If it is, it's ridiculous )

[The Neverborn]

The situation

 

• It's your turn
• You intend to charge your opponent's very hard hitting melee unit
• Your opponents very hard hitting melee unit has the fights first ability

 

The  problem

• If you charge your opponent's hard hitting melee unit, both units have fights first (there's naturally, yours is due to charging),  but the inactive player (them) has priority so will go first and destroy your charging unit  

 

The counter

• Assuming the opponent has a "chaf" unit within a few inches of their first first unit
• You can charge that unit instead
• the rules state you have to move into base to base (if possible)
• With some cleaver positioning you can block most of your squad off, so most of the models can not get into base to base with the chaf unit due to it's self
• The other models can move whatever you roll - so you can move them to 1.1" of the fights first melee squad.
• At the start of the fight phase your opponent fights first squad can't active as it's not in engagement range of anything
• You active your squad and pile in to the fights first squad, as activation has already happened they will need to wait until your squad resolves their attacks killing or destroying the fights first squad.

 

The counter of the counter

• The fights first squad heroically intervenes  when you end 1.1" inches away
• It now is in engagement range at the start of the fight phase
• As the inactive player, they activate first due to their fights first

 

The counter of the counter of the counter 

• Before you charge your melee unit in
• Charge the fights first unit with a chaf unit of your own
• As the fights first unit as now in engagement rage, it can't use the heroic intervention stratagem
• the fights first unit (having fought) must consolidate into the nearest enemy unit  (you're 1.1" away so that will be your unit) 
• You activate and prioritise the fights first unit 
• (there's a whole bunch of tedious positioning shenanigans at this point!) But you make sure they can't move away from your melee unit or into it when they activate, or if they can it's 1-2 models. 

 

The counter of the counter of the counter of the counter

• The opposing player sees this all coming and either uses 
  • An overwatch stratagem to destroy your chaf unit
  • A reposition stratagem to ensure his fights first unit is more than  3" away from your assault. 
  • Ensures there's no nearby chaf  unit in the first place. 

 

There might be a "counter of the counter of the counter of the counter of the counter" but i'm so past it now!

Edited September 10 by The Neverborn

[Karhedron]

Looking through the rules, it looks as though your interpretation of each scenario is correct. I guess the main thing to do is if you have a Fights First unit, don't leave a chaff unit nearby that your opponent can exploit in this way.

[Xenith]

You can also charge the chaff with a second unit, alongside your first killy unit. The second unit kills the chaff, then your killy unit gets to fight and piles in 3" into the main enemy unit.

 

Welcome to Cheesehammer 40k. 

Preventing this is what intervention is for. 

[DemonGSides]

Doesn't feel like cheese to me. Feels intentional.

 

There's a whole world of movement shenanigans that you can get into with charging and consolidating. Death Guard play the salsa game when it comes to this stuff quite a bit since they want to be up close. 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

As a note, you don't have to consolidate if you don't want to - so, if you are charging a chaff unit, you are better off not consolidating into the killy unit, as in doing so you are essentially just giving him an extra melee phase with the killy unit.

 

Likewise where you charge the killy unit with your chaff, its best (for him) not to consolidate into your melee unit for the same reason.

 

It often seems like there is an internet presumption that you always consolidate into another unit when you can, but I feel that assumption is kind of flawed when you are giving the unit you are consolidating into melee attacks it wouldn't get otherwise.  That said, that can still be the right decision in the following circumentances:

   1)   to trap a shooting unit in melee so it can't shoot;

   2)   to score an objective or deny it from your opponent;

   3)   to regain coherency if you think you would lose more models to those rules than you would the enemy; or

   4)   where the extra movement is worth the risk of additional casualties.

 

Edited September 10 by Dr_Ruminahui

[The Neverborn]

You are correct you don’t have to consolidate into the charging unit in the example. I’m not sure which counter of a counter of a counter and so on it helps if any.

 

personally I find this level of play not too my liking. 

[DemonGSides]

 

You are correct you don’t have to consolidate into the charging unit in the example. I’m not sure which counter of a counter of a counter and so on it helps if any.

 

personally I find this level of play not too my liking. 

 

What "level of play" are you talking about here?  Are you saying that having the options to do any of the above is too much?  Or do you think it's unfair that there's counterplay situations to think about?

 

Legitimately wondering. You're the first person I've seen say that 10th Ed is too complex, whereas everyone and their mother cannot help but screech about how simple the game has become. It's very interesting to finally hear someone say it's complex.

[The Neverborn]

 

 

What "level of play" are you talking about here?  Are you saying that having the options to do any of the above is too much?  Or do you think it's unfair that there's counterplay situations to think about?

 

Legitimately wondering. You're the first person I've seen say that 10th Ed is too complex, whereas everyone and their mother cannot help but screech about how simple the game has become. It's very interesting to finally hear someone say it's complex.

 

Good Question.

 

To answer your question as best i can. I'm a roll dice stuff goes boom player. Single interactions that involve 3,4,5 steps to achieve an outcome isn't not something I'm looking to engage with. I'd probably just let my opponent do whatever after the counter of a counter, as I wouldn't be interested engaging with the rest of the steps.

 

I do find the game complex in the number of "gotchas" that seem to be present, generally using stragems that break or bend the normal laws of the game.

[DemonGSides]

 

 

Good Question.

 

To answer your question as best i can. I'm a roll dice stuff goes boom player. Single interactions that involve 3,4,5 steps to achieve an outcome isn't not something I'm looking to engage with. I'd probably just let my opponent do whatever after the counter of a counter, as I wouldn't be interested engaging with the rest of the steps.

 

I do find the game complex in the number of "gotchas" that seem to be present, generally using stragems that break or bend the normal laws of the game.

 

I understand that feeling.  However in most cases I've found, the 'gotchas' are never played that way.  We always remind people when they do something (Since this isn't chess and "you take your hand off the piece therefore its stuck there" isn't a thing) that will result in a play that would normally constitute a "gotcha" like in MTG or other types of games.

It's a social game, so talking out intent is always part of the game for us.

 

It feels suitably complex (Back and forth interactions instead of just "It's my turn, therefore you die and then on your turn, I die."), without being burdensome (Armor values and facing and templates).  It's not perfect but I like the basis of this edition.

[Xenith]

 

Doesn't feel like cheese to me. Feels intentional.

 

Oh yes, absolutely, or unintentional then was left in. 

 

I call it cheesy as 'back in the day' when I started, players exploiting these kind of tricks and gimmicks would be called cheesy, beardy, and generally shunned or laughed at by the community, however these kind of shenanigans, layering of power combos and gotcha stratagems that used to be seen as unsportsmanlike are now the core of the game. It's a very different 40k, and a different mindset. Like, I'd actually feel bad doing this to an opponent. <apologies for OT>.

Edited September 11 by Xenith

[The Neverborn]

 

 

Oh yes, absolutely, or unintentional then was left in. 

 

I call it cheesy as 'back in the day' when I started, players exploiting these kind of tricks and gimmicks would be called cheesy, beardy, and generally shunned or laughed at by the community, however these kind of shenanigans, layering of power combos and gotcha stratagems that used to be seen as unsportsmanlike are now the core of the game. It's a very different 40k, and a differenf mindset. Like, I'd actually feel bad doing this to an opponent. <apologies for OT>.

Exactly this.

 

You’ve done a better job of explaining “this level of play” than I have.

 

It feels like “competitive play” is increasingly prevalent and involves various ways of using loop holes and technicalities to create bizarre outcomes. After this is made available on forums or YouTube it becomes the way the game is played 

Edited September 11 by The Neverborn

[Lord_Ikka]

You have it correct, aside from the having to consolidate as pointed out earlier. 

 

It seems like the reasoning behind this was to cut out on the "quadruple activation" that 9th had where the Fight Phase went like this-

1st - Units that charged (active player's charging units)

2nd - Units that had Fight First-style rule (starting with the inactive player)

3rd - Everything else in Engagement (starting with the inactive player)

4th - Any unit with a Fight Last-style rule (starting with the inactive player)

 

So instead they made it so that there are only two- Fight First (which all units that Charged get) and everything else, with both starting with the inactive player. It was no doubt meant to ease some of the confusion on who/when units could fight, but has lead to some strange interactions when they also took away the restriction of only being able to Pile In to units that were already within Engagement range. Since you can now Pile In to any enemy unit as long as you meet the requirements (your model must move towards the closest enemy model, base-to-base if possible, and you must remain in Coherency and Engagement range), so as long as you have one model in Engagement with your original Charged target unit you can position every other model closer to a second, non-Charged unit to Pile In and attack that unit. 

 

Edit- Since it would be simple to state that you cannot Pile In against an enemy unit you that you weren't in Engagement range already, it looks like this is an intentional feature rather than a bug. 

Edited September 12 by Lord_Ikka

[DemonGSides]

 

 

Oh yes, absolutely, or unintentional then was left in. 

 

I call it cheesy as 'back in the day' when I started, players exploiting these kind of tricks and gimmicks would be called cheesy, beardy, and generally shunned or laughed at by the community, however these kind of shenanigans, layering of power combos and gotcha stratagems that used to be seen as unsportsmanlike are now the core of the game. It's a very different 40k, and a different mindset. Like, I'd actually feel bad doing this to an opponent. <apologies for OT>.

 

I just don't understand this at all; I would think this doesn't even come close to rules lawyering as it's all well within the written rules. There's no "Well TECHNICALLY..." In any of this, it's literally the expectation of how to deal with those big damage dealers.

 

Are you basically saying that you would let your opponents get into advantageous positions and then not try to fight back?  I'm just very confused on how any of this is "cheesy" as it all seems to be not only read as written, but also read as intended, and well within the expectations of how close combat would work.

 

Cheesy to me is not letting you opponent know about reactive movements and then letting them stumble into them without a clear "Hey if you do that, these guys will have the opportunity to react in this way.". Like GK Mists movements; cheesy if you use them as a gotcha, whereas none of this melee stuff feels like it's cheesy, it's just straight up good game play and army control; I see a melee threat I can't beat toe to toe, let's get it stuck in somewhere it doesn't want to be. Is using a tarpit cheese?

 

Like, using overwatch is cheese? The other option is "If the enemy has a better melee unit than anything I have, I just straight always lose in melee as long as dice aren't complete statistical anomalies." That, to me, feels infinitely worse than having to make a series of decisions of who and how you should charge.

 

Very intrigued by the idea that complex melee movements is cheese. That's a new one for me. 

Edited September 12 by DemonGSides

[The Neverborn]

I feel this is different to using an over watch stratagem (or similar ) as it’s a single interaction. You do this I do that.

 

This above is when I do this you will do that, so I’ll do that, so you’ll do that, so I’ll do this, so you’ll do that.
 

This is all for a single interaction for mostly “mundane” abilities for all armies plus one “special ability”. There will be many many others which players at this level will have to keep in mind as a result of the reactive abilities added in 8th onwards. Though if I recall correctly you could over watch and possibly heroically intervene in 7th.

 

In terms of complexity. In 3rd and 4th edition I could recall from memory maybe 75% or more of the rules/stat lines special rules from almost all codexs in the game and including weapon profiles and legal loadouts . This at the time was probably only a “high average” level of recall. Maybe you’re an especially intelligent person who can do this in the current year, congratulations if so. I can hand on heart say you're doing better than anyone I know, ask here if anyone else can if so.  

 

in terms of gotcha moments individual experience may vary but in the half dozen or so games I’ve played in 10th I’d say there was a gotcha moment in around half of them. Individual players have their own etiquette. Maybe you’re lucky enough to not experience this, if you did I think you’d reflect very differently.

 

These gotcha moments seemed to start in 8th edition with a reactive phase added, stratagems (in earlier additions some units had once per game abilities).

 

While I'm in full Grognard.

 

Armies have gotten a lot bigger overtime in 3rd/4th edition i could carry my entire collection, not army,  in a single citadel brief case style  carry case with room for paints and codex and dice!

 

I'll have a pop at it from my 20 year old memory

 

1 farseer, strength 3 but has singing spear, which triples is strength in combat, and always wounds on 2+ can be thrown 18" but has no ap he has WS and BS 5, toughness 3, leadership 10 and 4+ invulnerable armour save, initiative 5 and Ghosthelm which allows his to ignore perils of the warp on a 2+ (and deamons half WS in combat with  him) he has  one psychic power is guide which has a range of 12" and allows that unit (if a test is passed the re-roll missed shooting) - he could also have a jet bike (mine didn't)

 

That's just one but it there's just a lot more going on in the game now, with army special rules and the like a 4 stage counter of counter is just the icing at this point 

 

No you should not just have to sand there any get face punched by their hard hitting unit! That's equally absurd! You would do other things about it, some you've already identified. You'd "tar pit it" for a turn or two for example. You could still do that unless for example they can activate a doctrine or stratagem  that allows them to leave combat and charge in the same phase, which you'll need to ask him about, has he got the command points to do so if so, is he then stuck using that with an opportunity cost for the rest of the phase and so on and so on. The questions and what if's this and that, can a rule be changed or bent and so on, if so what are stipulations costs and so on are the complexity i'm thinking about. Though i'd agree that the game is less complex in that the stat sheets shows a hits on x+ rather than a comparison chart. 

 

Now I'm boring myself and probably everyone else too.

 

End wall of text! 

 

Edited September 13 by The Neverborn

[DemonGSides]

 

This above is when I do this you will do that, so I’ll do that, so you’ll do that, so I’ll do this, so you’ll do that.

 

I think it's a VERY specific interaction that will come up very little.  I've played quite a few handful of games of 10th edition and I've had to worry about fights first units combatting a maximum of a few times, and never to the level you've drilled down.

Basically; yes this is an interaction that could happen, No I don't think it's common enough to be concerned about.

 

 

This is all for a single interaction for mostly “mundane” abilities for all armies plus one “special ability”. There will be many many others which players at this level will have to keep in mind as a result of the reactive abilities added in 8th onwards. Though if I recall correctly you could over watch and possibly heroically intervene in 7th.

 

Heroic Intervention and Overwatch were both in existence prior to 8th.  Reaction abilities aren't something new to Warhammer in any way you try to cut it.

 

 

In terms of complexity. In 3rd and 4th edition I could recall from memory maybe 75% or more of the rules/stat lines special rules from almost all codexs in the game and including weapon profiles and legal loadouts . This at the time was probably only a “high average” level of recall. Maybe you’re an especially intelligent person who can do this in the current year, congratulations if so. I can hand on heart say you're doing better than anyone I know, ask here if anyone else can if so.  

 

You're telling me that your memory was better 25 years ago??? I AM SHOCKED! :P  I'm being tongue in cheek, but brother, we've all aged since 3rd and 4th edition.  Back in 1998 I had a lot more free time to sit and study the book.  I don't think you should be required to remember ANYTHING in this game besides the core rules; that's why codexes exist, that's why datacards exist, it's why the internet is great for the game; all of the resources are available.  Your opponent should also be genuine enough to explain their army and some, if not all, of what their abilities do before a game starts.  The game isn't really that more complex (It's lost a lot of the complexity, which has been a regular refrain from quite a few posters here), it's complexity has moved from pie plates and Armor Facing to a more macro perspective; not liking that is absolutely fine and makes sense if you grew up liking 3rd and 4th edition.

 

 

These gotcha moments seemed to start in 8th edition with a reactive phase added, stratagems (in earlier additions some units had once per game abilities).

 

You and I have very different memories.

 

 

Armies have gotten a lot bigger overtime in 3rd/4th edition i could carry my entire collection, not army,  in a single citadel brief case style  carry case with room for paints and codex and dice

 

That's Boarding Actions now.  It's pretty fun!

 

 

I'll have a pop at it from my 20 year old memory

 

1 farseer, strength 3 but has singing spear, which triples is strength in combat, and always wounds on 2+ can be thrown 18" but has no ap he has WS and BS 5, toughness 3, leadership 10 and 4+ invulnerable armour save, initiative 5 and Ghosthelm which allows his to ignore perils of the warp on a 2+ (and deamons half WS in combat with  him) he has  one psychic power is guide which has a range of 12" and allows that unit (if a test is passed the re-roll missed shooting) - he could also have a jet bike (mine didn't)

 

That's just one but it there's just a lot more going on in the game now, with army special rules and the like a 4 stage counter of counter is just the icing at this point 

 

Literally none of that paragraph of a farseer is different from a farseer right now;

 

1 farseer, always hits on 2+ except for his psychic blast which hits on 3+, S3 melee (So not a busted always wounding on a 2+ in melee that's nuts), has a 12" assault shot S9, both are 3 damage, can change one fate dice to a 6, and gives -1 to wound on a 2+ at the beginning of the phase.  He's got 7" of movement and is T3, with a 4+ Invuln (You're never using his 6+ regular save).

Wow, it's even shorter than what you wrote.

 

And literally no one, anywhere, in any situation I've ever played in, expects you to know the opposing army.  Maybe some rough ideas (Space marines are generally toughness 4, Elves are generally toughness 3 etc etc) but even then, it's a social game that's going to require lots of rules checking unless you're playing at the tournament level, so it should be expected.

 

 

No you should not just have to sand there any get face punched by their hard hitting unit! That's equally absurd! You would do other things about it, some you've already identified. You'd "tar pit it" for a turn or two for example. You could still do that unless for example they can activate a doctrine or stratagem  that allows them to leave combat and charge in the same phase, which you'll need to ask him about, has he got the command points to do so if so, is he then stuck using that with an opportunity cost for the rest of the phase and so on and so on. The questions and what if's this and that, can a rule be changed or bent and so on, if so what are stipulations costs and so on are the complexity i'm thinking about. Though i'd agree that the game is less complex in that the stat sheets shows a hits on x+ rather than a comparison chart. 

 

THe type of complexity you're complaining about here is the exact type of complexity that I'm hoping to get out of a game.  I don't really want the complexity of old; Where are my stats?  What book did they come in?  This pie plate technically slivers off a micrometer of this units base, so technically he takes the hit! Well, the oblique angle that you're at is obviously going to hit my side armor so you're rolling against... Why haven't I gotten an update to my Tyranids in FIVE years?!?

 

I'll take "I have to check this data card real quick" over all of that nonsense, any day of the week.

 

And the weird interaction to start the thread, I'll reiterate, is such a non-event that I'm not sure it even warrants concern.  It's requiring a lot of What Ifs to be perfect.

 

Edited September 13 by DemonGSides

[The Neverborn]

I was going to write a lengthy response, but I don't feel we are moving to any degree of cohesion.

 

But in summary, some of you points I agree or disagree with. Others are on a middle ground and I either agree or disagree with "no's" with a "but", or "yes", with an "if". 

  

Edited September 13 by The Neverborn

[DemonGSides]

I don't expect cohesion!  I even said; if you grew up with 3rd and 4th and that's where you spent most of your time playing this game, that's where you're going to have the fun you seek.

10th is basically a different language compared to those games.  I, personally, think it's a better language, but everyone's got their preferences!  I just also think it's a shame to brew up a hypothetical to dissuade yourself from the game when the hypothetical, while possible, is so far gone from the regular experience with the game, that it's basically a useless hypothetical.

Edited September 13 by DemonGSides

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I think we've talked about the rules aspect thoroughly, so I don't really see any further need to go back and forth on this.  So, I'm locking the thread.  If anyone disagrees, feel free to shoot me a message.

 

Your friendly neighbourhood moderator, Dr. R.

Edited September 13 by Dr_Ruminahui