http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/ showthread.php?t=119466

I was reading through this thread and thought it would be interesting to bring it over here to see what others have to say about this.

So basically if you wipe out a squad on the assault your squad will get shot to pieces in your opponents shooting phase.

Its best to win the assault but not kill every last thing so that the combat carries on into your opponents assault phase making your assault troops immune to all shooting. You finish them off in your opponents assault phase leaving you free to launch a new assault in your own turn.

So basically if your assault troops are TOO good it will actually end up getting them killed.

Pretty terrible game design?

Edit:hm, i guess you cant link to heresy online

The game has been this way for 10+ years... why are you only bringing this up now

Heresy IS back online...?

And yeah, Assault changes are really the least of our problems in this edition imo

This has been a part of the game design forever...

I agree, it IS terrible game design. Your assault units should be shot to death before they get to charge anything, it's stupid that they don't get shot to death until after they've charged and wiped out a unit.

It was a little different in 4th, since a unit could wipe out an enemy unit then pile into the next unit. This was unfortunately a terrible bit of game design, since the moment one kickass assault unit hit your line it would never leave unless you had something of equal close combat power. It made playing as any shooty army or Guard really tough.

Honestly, with the changes to assault distances and the inclusion of overwatch, I think allowing units to consolidate into combat wouldn't have been as broken as it was in 3rd (or 4th, or whenever it was) and would have been a nice counterpoint to rules that have otherwise strongly favoured shooting builds. A caveat that units consolidating into combat don't get an extra attack would have made sense and further reduced the chances of a single unit rampaging through entire armies.

 Kaldor wrote:
Honestly, with the changes to assault distances and the inclusion of overwatch, I think allowing units to consolidate into combat wouldn't have been as broken as it was in 3rd (or 4th, or whenever it was) and would have been a nice counterpoint to rules that have otherwise strongly favoured shooting builds. A caveat that units consolidating into combat don't get an extra attack would have made sense and further reduced the chances of a single unit rampaging through entire armies.

Unless you play Tau, in which case you're screwed because you'll never win combat and BS 1 shooting isn't going to stop, say, assault terminators from going straight from massacring one unit to massacring the next without ever being exposed to shooting. Consolidating into combat was removed for very good reasons, and it would be an incredibly bad idea to bring it back.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
Honestly, with the changes to assault distances and the inclusion of overwatch, I think allowing units to consolidate into combat wouldn't have been as broken as it was in 3rd (or 4th, or whenever it was) and would have been a nice counterpoint to rules that have otherwise strongly favoured shooting builds. A caveat that units consolidating into combat don't get an extra attack would have made sense and further reduced the chances of a single unit rampaging through entire armies.

Unless you play Tau, in which case you're screwed because you'll never win combat and BS 1 shooting isn't going to stop, say, assault terminators from going straight from massacring one unit to massacring the next without ever being exposed to shooting. Consolidating into combat was removed for very good reasons, and it would be an incredibly bad idea to bring it back.

There's ways and means around it, and a player has to get very lucky to make it work. It would never be as powerful as it was, and bringing it back might reintroduce some balance towards combat as opposed to shooting.

Besides which, a firewarrior squad costs what, 60 points? An assault terminator unit should be able to trounce a few of them in combat, instead of just pasting one then presenting itself as a target for battlesuits.

 Peregrine wrote:
I agree, it IS terrible game design. Your assault units should be shot to death before they get to charge anything, it's stupid that they don't get shot to death until after they've charged and wiped out a unit.

what is your point? are you saying remove assaulting from the game or make it even worse than it is already?

my point is more about how the turn system interacts with the assault phase. for some reason the game punishes units for being really good in assaulting or rolling well in assault.

the turn system is all around horrible IMO. im surprised GW hasnt switched over to some kind of system where models act in initiative order.

 Peregrine wrote:
I agree, it IS terrible game design. Your assault units should be shot to death before they get to charge anything, it's stupid that they don't get shot to death until after they've charged and wiped out a unit.

There's a time and place for everything, even balls-out crazy bayonet charges. IIRC a British patrol had to resort to it in Afghanistan just a couple years ago. They were pinned down in a ditch by small arms fire from close by and the only thing that would allow men to put their heads up and shoot back was giving the enemy something else to worry about. The sarge and a few men fixed bayonets and charged, thus saving the day.

A move of desperation to be sure but sometimes it's still the best you can do.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
Honestly, with the changes to assault distances and the inclusion of overwatch, I think allowing units to consolidate into combat wouldn't have been as broken as it was in 3rd (or 4th, or whenever it was) and would have been a nice counterpoint to rules that have otherwise strongly favoured shooting builds. A caveat that units consolidating into combat don't get an extra attack would have made sense and further reduced the chances of a single unit rampaging through entire armies.

Unless you play Tau, in which case you're screwed because you'll never win combat and BS 1 shooting isn't going to stop, say, assault terminators from going straight from massacring one unit to massacring the next without ever being exposed to shooting. Consolidating into combat was removed for very good reasons, and it would be an incredibly bad idea to bring it back.

maybe dont put your units so close together then? I think the sweeping advance into combat was good, i used to really like it. Honestly, who in their right mind is going to charge into a unit, absolutely massacre them, and then stand around waiting to get shot by the guys that were standing behind the first unit... bit silly.

An inititave based turn system is one of the worst ideas i have ever heard

kb305 wrote:
what is your point? are you saying remove assaulting from the game or make it even worse than it is already?

Make it worse. Assaulting should be the final attack to finish off the remains of a dug-in unit that you have crippled through shooting. You should not have entire units (and armies!) dedicated to assaulting, because the vast majority of the time they would just be shot to death uselessly.

Spetulhu wrote:
There's a time and place for everything, even balls-out crazy bayonet charges. IIRC a British patrol had to resort to it in Afghanistan just a couple years ago. They were pinned down in a ditch by small arms fire from close by and the only thing that would allow men to put their heads up and shoot back was giving the enemy something else to worry about. The sarge and a few men fixed bayonets and charged, thus saving the day.

Which is fine. I have no problems with desperation charges, or similar rare events. What I have a problem with is assaulting being considered as important as shooting and an equally valid method of winning the game (along with dedicated assault units/armies). The assault phase can stay, assault terminators and planning your strategy around assaulting without lots of shooting first should be removed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nerm86 wrote:
maybe dont put your units so close together then? I think the sweeping advance into combat was good, i used to really like it. Honestly, who in their right mind is going to charge into a unit, absolutely massacre them, and then stand around waiting to get shot by the guys that were standing behind the first unit... bit silly.

Except that when you have multiple charging units on a finite table "don't stand so close together" becomes difficult to impossible. We've already tried it in 4th and the results were exactly what I said, so your hypotheticals about how it "shouldn't happen like that" don't matter.

An inititave based turn system is one of the worst ideas i have ever heard

Actually it's a great idea. Make both players do their turns simultaneously with alternating unit activations and initiative rolls/bonuses/etc to determine who gets to act first. The problem is that it would require a complete re-write of the rules, and GW won't ever do that.

Nerm86 wrote:
maybe dont put your units so close together then? I think the sweeping advance into combat was good, i used to really like it. Honestly, who in their right mind is going to charge into a unit, absolutely massacre them, and then stand around waiting to get shot by the guys that were standing behind the first unit... bit silly.

Thing is unless you were playing a really small game there was bound to be a unit pretty close. And silly? Silly is Dark Eldar Wyches that run around in leather straps and little else, and the way they used to roll up whole flanks in CC before you lost the ability to consolidate into the next unit. Turn based or not, I don't see why assault units should be able to move faster than a hail of bullets/lasbeams coming straight at them.

Make it worse. Assaulting should be the final attack to finish off the remains of a dug-in unit that you have crippled through shooting. You should not have entire units (and armies!) dedicated to assaulting, because the vast majority of the time they would just be shot to death uselessly.

Exactly. A game set in a world with spaceships, apocalyptic weapons, and Titans striding the battlefields shouldn't have entire forces who specialize in sword-fighting, no matter how high-tech the swords. This isn't Star Wars with Jedi- a bayonet charge across a battlefield against a healthy unit with ranged weapons should be considered nearly suicidal without the proper precautions and the accompanying tactics to misdirect fire away from the assaulting unit.

Although, what would the harm be in allowing a SINGLE consolidation move (which also loses the +1 attack for charging) after that first successful assault? That way, units that are especially good at hand-to-hand can get the benefit that if they can overrun a unit, they can essentially "take cover" from ranged reprisals by their enemy by sweeping into another unit.

 Peregrine wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
There's a time and place for everything, even balls-out crazy bayonet charges. IIRC a British patrol had to resort to it in Afghanistan just a couple years ago. They were pinned down in a ditch by small arms fire from close by and the only thing that would allow men to put their heads up and shoot back was giving the enemy something else to worry about. The sarge and a few men fixed bayonets and charged, thus saving the day.

Which is fine. I have no problems with desperation charges, or similar rare events. What I have a problem with is assaulting being considered as important as shooting and an equally valid method of winning the game (along with dedicated assault units/armies). The assault phase can stay, assault terminators and planning your strategy around assaulting without lots of shooting first should be removed.

True that. The reason the Brits could do it was that it was a small force against them, and it consisted of idiots that think shouting "I'll kill you, God willing" is somehow better than practicing marksmanship.

Nerm86 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
Honestly, with the changes to assault distances and the inclusion of overwatch, I think allowing units to consolidate into combat wouldn't have been as broken as it was in 3rd (or 4th, or whenever it was) and would have been a nice counterpoint to rules that have otherwise strongly favoured shooting builds. A caveat that units consolidating into combat don't get an extra attack would have made sense and further reduced the chances of a single unit rampaging through entire armies.

Unless you play Tau, in which case you're screwed because you'll never win combat and BS 1 shooting isn't going to stop, say, assault terminators from going straight from massacring one unit to massacring the next without ever being exposed to shooting. Consolidating into combat was removed for very good reasons, and it would be an incredibly bad idea to bring it back.

maybe dont put your units so close together then? I think the sweeping advance into combat was good, i used to really like it. Honestly, who in their right mind is going to charge into a unit, absolutely massacre them, and then stand around waiting to get shot by the guys that were standing behind the first unit... bit silly.

An inititave based turn system is one of the worst ideas i have ever heard

care to explain why it's bad?

many turned based strat games use an initiative system. units that are faster and more agile get to act first. wow what a concept. for negatives, it would result in a complete rules overhaul. You would need to redo and rebalance everything around it.

the worst idea iv ever heard is what i explained in the first post. terrible backwards counter intuitive nonsense.

 Peregrine wrote:
I agree, it IS terrible game design. Your assault units should be shot to death before they get to charge anything, it's stupid that they don't get shot to death until after they've charged and wiped out a unit.

You are arguing for realism in the game, in a game world where sentient fungus that ignore the laws of physics and power their guns with belief poses a deadly threat to every other race in the galaxy. Besides, how boring would the game be if every game consisted of both sides deploying their static gunlines and then rolling dice at each other?

PrinceOfMadness wrote:
You are arguing for realism in the game, in a game world where sentient fungus that ignore the laws of physics and power their guns with belief poses a deadly threat to every other race in the galaxy. Besides, how boring would the game be if every game consisted of both sides deploying their static gunlines and then rolling dice at each other?

Yeah, because having a shooting-dominated game means you never have movement. Maybe if you're a bad game designer, but lots of people have no problems making enjoyable shooting-focused games that don't consist of nothing but static gunlines and mindless dice rolling.

Also, it's not about fluff realism, it's about scaling. Assault in 40k only "works" because distances are not 28mm scale. If you play with distances that match the scale of the models assaulting will simply never happen, and units will almost always be shot to death long before the idiot with a sword gets anywhere near close enough to use it.

Variety is the spice of life. I like that it's possible to make an army assault-based. It's maybe not realistic, but I don't play 40k for realism. I play it because it has a lot of cool stuff. I could wish that the rules were better written (making the majority of gunline armies a little more flexible and less mind-crushingly dull) but I've got to work with what I've got.

kb305 wrote:

Nerm86 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
Honestly, with the changes to assault distances and the inclusion of overwatch, I think allowing units to consolidate into combat wouldn't have been as broken as it was in 3rd (or 4th, or whenever it was) and would have been a nice counterpoint to rules that have otherwise strongly favoured shooting builds. A caveat that units consolidating into combat don't get an extra attack would have made sense and further reduced the chances of a single unit rampaging through entire armies.

Unless you play Tau, in which case you're screwed because you'll never win combat and BS 1 shooting isn't going to stop, say, assault terminators from going straight from massacring one unit to massacring the next without ever being exposed to shooting. Consolidating into combat was removed for very good reasons, and it would be an incredibly bad idea to bring it back.

maybe dont put your units so close together then? I think the sweeping advance into combat was good, i used to really like it. Honestly, who in their right mind is going to charge into a unit, absolutely massacre them, and then stand around waiting to get shot by the guys that were standing behind the first unit... bit silly.

An inititave based turn system is one of the worst ideas i have ever heard

care to explain why it's bad?

many turned based strat games use an initiative system. units that are faster and more agile get to act first. wow what a concept. for negatives, it would result in a complete rules overhaul. You would need to redo and rebalance everything around it.

the worst idea iv ever heard is what i explained in the first post. terrible backwards counter intuitive nonsense.

When i said "worst idea i have ever heard" it wasnt a reference to every table top wargame out there, i used to play inquisitor which is initiave based and it works pretty well in that. the statement "the worst idea i have ever heard" was solely in relation to having it in 40k. I3 guardsman ALWAYS act after everyone bar orks may well be fluffy but would seriously destroy any sence of balance of fairness in the game. Yes you mentioned that it would require a rewrite of the rules but that was not mention before. If you dont like the rules go play a different system, there are plenty of them out there.

And in regards to the statement about getting rid of assault terminator etc because "they would get shot to piece before they got there", have you not heard of teleport attacks, deep striking, drop pods? This is a MAKE BELIEVE game based on a MAKE BELIEVE universe and if you have ever read any of the fluf there is a bloody aweful lot of hand to hand combat. the 40k universe seems to revolve around a theme of 'de-evolution' of technology and i guess with it would go things like tactics, look at the Death Korps of Krieg for example, the warfare they specialised in was obsolete almost 100 years ago. who is to say hand to hand combat wont 'come back around' in the 40k future

Assault has been a core part of 40k for awhile now. It's science fantasy, so things don't have to be realistic. If shooting is what you want, go play flames of war. I don't play myself, but I hear it can be quite fun. As an ork player, assault is pretty core to me. I don't care about realism in this game. It wasn't made with that in mind. There are plenty of wonderfull sci fi games that follow conventional tactics and strategy, and 40k is not one of them. That's why (for me) it's special and unique.

Nerm86 wrote:
And in regards to the statement about getting rid of assault terminator etc because "they would get shot to piece before they got there", have you not heard of teleport attacks, deep striking, drop pods? This is a MAKE BELIEVE game based on a MAKE BELIEVE universe and if you have ever read any of the fluf there is a bloody aweful lot of hand to hand combat. the 40k universe seems to revolve around a theme of 'de-evolution' of technology and i guess with it would go things like tactics, look at the Death Korps of Krieg for example, the warfare they specialised in was obsolete almost 100 years ago. who is to say hand to hand combat wont 'come back around' in the 40k future

And, once again, it only "works" because the distances are not to scale with the model sizes. If you scale all of the movement distances/shooting ranges/etc up to the same 28mm as the models instead of a random mix of incompatible scales then weapon ranges and table sizes become so large that assault will rarely happen.

 Peregrine wrote:

Nerm86 wrote:
And in regards to the statement about getting rid of assault terminator etc because "they would get shot to piece before they got there", have you not heard of teleport attacks, deep striking, drop pods? This is a MAKE BELIEVE game based on a MAKE BELIEVE universe and if you have ever read any of the fluf there is a bloody aweful lot of hand to hand combat. the 40k universe seems to revolve around a theme of 'de-evolution' of technology and i guess with it would go things like tactics, look at the Death Korps of Krieg for example, the warfare they specialised in was obsolete almost 100 years ago. who is to say hand to hand combat wont 'come back around' in the 40k future

And, once again, it only "works" because the distances are not to scale with the model sizes. If you scale all of the movement distances/shooting ranges/etc up to the same 28mm as the models instead of a random mix of incompatible scales then weapon ranges and table sizes become so large that assault will rarely happen.

I dont see what distance and scale have to do with it when the drop pod is smashing into the ground right next to you.

40k clearly doesnt seem to be the game for you if you are worried about "a random mix of incompatible scales" go play Flames of War because that is more REAL.

Damn it, i just realised im arguing with someone over the internet about a tabletop wargame... im embarassed, where did i go so wrong

Nerm86 wrote:
I dont see what distance and scale have to do with it when the drop pod is smashing into the ground right next to you.

Because "right next to you" in 28mm scale should be on the other end of the 6'x4' table, not literally within a 28mm-scale foot or two (close enough that the shock of impact would probably kill you before the marines could even disembark).

 Peregrine wrote:

Nerm86 wrote:
I dont see what distance and scale have to do with it when the drop pod is smashing into the ground right next to you.

Because "right next to you" in 28mm scale should be on the other end of the 6'x4' table, not literally within a 28mm-scale foot or two (close enough that the shock of impact would probably kill you before the marines could even disembark).

On the other hand, if ranges really reflected what a ranged weapon can do we'd need much bigger tables. Rifles today can kill stuff at a thousand meters away, though you might need better sighting equipment to make the shot with any reliability. Artillery, depending on the type, can be used from something like 40 kilometers away from the battle. A four foot by six foot board would just be the place we sent our poor Saving Private Ryan initial assault troops to die.

Spetulhu wrote:
On the other hand, if ranges really reflected what a ranged weapon can do we'd need much bigger tables. Rifles today can kill stuff at a thousand meters away, though you might need better sighting equipment to make the shot with any reliability. Artillery, depending on the type, can be used from something like 40 kilometers away from the battle. A four foot by six foot board would just be the place we sent our poor Saving Private Ryan initial assault troops to die.

Exactly the problem. Assault doesn't "work" because it makes sense, it "works" because GW had to scale down the distances to fit a 28mm-scale army-level game with aircraft/tanks/etc onto a 6'x4' table. And then they made it worse by insisting that all those long-range units had to have models instead of being (more sensibly) represented by off-table support. Assault armies are just an effect of the distorted scaling process, not a reasonable part of the fluff.

 Peregrine wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
On the other hand, if ranges really reflected what a ranged weapon can do we'd need much bigger tables. Rifles today can kill stuff at a thousand meters away, though you might need better sighting equipment to make the shot with any reliability. Artillery, depending on the type, can be used from something like 40 kilometers away from the battle. A four foot by six foot board would just be the place we sent our poor Saving Private Ryan initial assault troops to die.

Exactly the problem. Assault doesn't "work" because it makes sense, it "works" because GW had to scale down the distances to fit a 28mm-scale army-level game with aircraft/tanks/etc onto a 6'x4' table. And then they made it worse by insisting that all those long-range units had to have models instead of being (more sensibly) represented by off-table support. Assault armies are just an effect of the distorted scaling process, not a reasonable part of the fluff.

Even though it happens in the fluff, all the time.

Otherwise orks wouldn't really have any victories at all.

Games Workshop is a miniatures company first and foremost. They exist to sell models, and tanks happen to be pretty cool models. I would agree that the scaling of the game is all out of whack, but that's honestly going to be a problem with any miniatures game that has technology more advanced than a musket.

We can safely assume that GW will not try to make Assaults a minor part of the game. If they did it they would nerf Lots of armies. How would you feel if Your 3000 point close combat army is no longer even playable in a friendly setting.

We compromised.

If a victorious unit wants to consolidate into another enemy unit, it may try if reaches on a D6" consolidation move. If the enemy unit wants to avoid it, both sides roll a D6; if the victor has the same result or higher it locks another unit in combat. If not, it consolidates normally but can't engage another unit.

This keep some measure of doubt in the assaulting force, and forces the gunlines to spread out a bit.

So, I don't know all the changes with 6e at all, but would it change the game too much to blend the new and old editions to allow a SINGLE consolidation move (which also loses the +1 attack for charging) after that first successful assault? That way, units that are especially good at hand-to-hand can get the benefit that if they can overrun a unit, they can essentially "take cover" from ranged reprisals by their enemy by sweeping into another unit.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
So, I don't know all the changes with 6e at all, but would it change the game too much to blend the new and old editions to allow a SINGLE consolidation move (which also loses the +1 attack for charging) after that first successful assault? That way, units that are especially good at hand-to-hand can get the benefit that if they can overrun a unit, they can essentially "take cover" from ranged reprisals by their enemy by sweeping into another unit.

Yes, it would break the game.

First turn:
Assault terminators charge Fire Warriors and wipe out the unit.
Assault terminators consolidate into combat with crisis suits.

Next turn:
Assault terminators finish off the crisis suits.
Assault terminators charge into combat with broadsides.

Etc.

At no point in this scenario are the assault terminators out of combat and open to being shot, so all the Tau player can do is just pull off models and wait for the game to finally end.

Although - charges from desperate positions are legitimate moves even today. I'd be happy to let a unit conslifate into CC if the enemy failed a LD check - they were so unnerved by the crazy charge that they failed to shoot the chargers down.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
So, I don't know all the changes with 6e at all, but would it change the game too much to blend the new and old editions to allow a SINGLE consolidation move (which also loses the +1 attack for charging) after that first successful assault? That way, units that are especially good at hand-to-hand can get the benefit that if they can overrun a unit, they can essentially "take cover" from ranged reprisals by their enemy by sweeping into another unit.

Yes, it would break the game.

First turn:
Assault terminators charge Fire Warriors and wipe out the unit.
Assault terminators consolidate into combat with crisis suits.

Next turn:
Assault terminators finish off the crisis suits.
Assault terminators charge into combat with broadsides.

Etc.

At no point in this scenario are the assault terminators out of combat and open to being shot, so all the Tau player can do is just pull off models and wait for the game to finally end.

Hey maybe the tau could get a rule for shooting into combat called "The Greater Good" so they can avoid that situation. The tau roll a d6 food each shot... on a 4+ the shot hits the tau.Fire warriors in an assault are as good as dead anyways. Lol

Brother SRM wrote:It was a little different in 4th

... yeah, I was going to say...

This has only been a problem since 5th edition, not a problem since forever. And I agree, assaulty armies have a lot more problems now that 6th ed is around. Loss of by-unit cover, casualties taken from the front, loss of properly hidden weapon upgrades, random assault ranges and overwatch (yes, which I have used to kill something out of assault range before), amongst many, many other reasons are why assault is bad in 6th ed.

I hate to say it, but it seems like assault, outside of a defensive role, or a very tiny select few units is just going to have to wait until 7th ed or some very serious codex changes before it becomes all that viable again.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
So, I don't know all the changes with 6e at all, but would it change the game too much to blend the new and old editions to allow a SINGLE consolidation move (which also loses the +1 attack for charging) after that first successful assault? That way, units that are especially good at hand-to-hand can get the benefit that if they can overrun a unit, they can essentially "take cover" from ranged reprisals by their enemy by sweeping into another unit.

Yes, it would break the game.

First turn:
Assault terminators charge Fire Warriors and wipe out the unit.
Assault terminators consolidate into combat with crisis suits.

Next turn:
Assault terminators finish off the crisis suits.
Assault terminators charge into combat with broadsides.

Etc.

At no point in this scenario are the assault terminators out of combat and open to being shot, so all the Tau player can do is just pull off models and wait for the game to finally end.

Frankly, if you don't move your JSJ unit out of the way you deserve to have it killed. The entire scenario can be avoided by just moving away from the assault, rather than just surrounding it and then pouring fire into the CC unit.

Consolidation into new combats is gone and the game is better for it. I hope it stays gone. (yes I play IG, I also play CSM's which even with their newest codex haven't yet been able to shake off the old "smash and consolidate" paradigm). Consolidation into new assaults never allowed a bonus attack for charging and it was always horrifically abusive. Yeah, the bit about being *too* successful is a bit of oddness, but there's no real good answer. Consolidating into new combats was way too effective, unless we want to start adding in the ability to shoot *into* combat

 Peregrine wrote:

kb305 wrote:
what is your point? are you saying remove assaulting from the game or make it even worse than it is already?

Make it worse. Assaulting should be the final attack to finish off the remains of a dug-in unit that you have crippled through shooting. You should not have entire units (and armies!) dedicated to assaulting, because the vast majority of the time they would just be shot to death uselessly.

An IG player complaining about assaulting. My, my, haven't I read that before.

 Sigvatr wrote:
An IG player complaining about assaulting. My, my, haven't I read that before.

That wasn't just an IG concern in 4th. You'd have any good shooting troops outplayed by assault units, when the real life applications for a long time already have been reduced to charging shaken irregular troops. American troops in the Iraq invasion were impressed that Iraqi irregulars would charge them, but shot them down before getting into knife range. Same goes for just about anyone who has a choice and a ranged weapon.

Peregrine - then you played a different 4th ed to everyone else. New players, or those who didnt plan ahead, got caught by consolidate into combat.

You also, conveniently, ignored that it was either a D6" move, so hardly massive, or 3" (depending on how combat ended) - apparently "bubble wrapping" was a term you never managed to think of in 4th ed.

It usually went - turn 2, assault terminators charge, but the Tau player has seen this is perhaps inevitable and pushed a cheap unit out front, leaving no viable way around (so theyre not getting as close as fast) . They assault, smash the unit, are now 7"+ away from the units that could also move and fire, and die next turn. Rinse, repeat

It wasnt "broken", it made assault, one of the 3 phases of the game, actually viable. 5th made it MUCH less so, 6th even less again

You are also complaining about realism in a game based around gengineered warrior monks firing gyro stabilised grenades. Really, at what point did you think "realism" is a design criteria?

 RunningWithScissors wrote:
We can safely assume that GW will not try to make Assaults a minor part of the game. If they did it they would nerf Lots of armies. How would you feel if Your 3000 point close combat army is no longer even playable in a friendly setting.

If it makes you pay for another 3000 points of shooty models. GW will send out a thundering "Meh..."

This has always been the case, you learn to deal with it (i.e not over committing to a assault).

Assault is still a important part that needs to be planned for, in 5th I could run 60%+ assault elements and preform relatively well. In 6th I run about 40% and can expect similar results, adjustments are made but its far from 'dead'.

tjat's what the consolidation rule is for. If you roll well, you can grab some cover. Assaulting a unit is a risk. If you don't want to take a risk on something, don't do it. simple...

BLUF: Consolidating into enemies but allowing overwatch isn't overpowering at all.



I'm generally in favor of the game becoming more killy, so rolling from one assault to the next I'm in favor of. However, I played Tau in 3rd and 4th edition so I felt the pain of that pretty bad. However, now the pendulum has swung way in the other direction instead of trying to get to the center.

Why not make it so you can roll from one assault to another, but obviously can't make extra swings. All it would do is lock you in combat.

The unit you charge into would get to overwatch, and you're only moving D6".



I mean, let's do some mathhammer:

225 points for a 5 man hammernator squad, deep strikes 9" from two 10 man tau squads with sgt and photon grenades (to try to keep this a little realistic).

The two fire warrior teams move to be 15" away from the hammernator squad, this isn't especially difficult to do.
40 shots - 20 hits - 13.33 wounds - 2.22 through save. (3 terminators remaining)


Say the hammernators roll well and get into an assault with one squad. Not an easy feat because they'd have to roll a 9 on the charge (a 27.78% chance).

Overwatch:
20 shots - 3.33 hits - 2.22 wounds - .37 through save. (2.59 total wounds 2 terminators remaining)
Tau swing:
11 attacks - 5.5 hits - 1.83 wounds - .31 through save (2.90 total wounds 2 terminators remaining)
Terminators swing:
4 attacks - 2.67 hits - 2.22 wounds - 2.22 through save

Fire warriors lost and flee, will most likely regroup next turn.

Terminators get a lucky roll and consolidate into the other fire warrior squad.


Overwatch duplicated:
.37 through save (3.27 total wounds, 2 terminators remain)



Next turn, Tau swing first:
.31 through save (3.58 total wounds, 1 terminator remains)
Terminator swings:
2 attacks - 1.33 hits - 1.11 wounds - 1.11 through save




I can continue this to the bitter end, but the Tau actually end up winning this. Maybe the result would be different if the hammernators were coming out of a land raider, but that gets out of the vacuum concept and the Tau would just take a broadside.

Honestly just doing this with fire warriors and assuming everything rolls odds, the Terminators only kill 121 points worth of Tau and don't even wipe out any squads. This has them locked in combat for 6 player turns as well so nothing else could hurt them. The first 3 squads of Tau ended up fleeing, so the terminators ate 4 rounds of overwatch. I personally think this is hardly "rolling through the entire army". They didn't even roll through their equal points.


Overwatch hurts, random charges hurt, and enemies that can move and shoot hurt. This seems to balance it out to me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peregrine - then you played a different 4th ed to everyone else. New players, or those who didnt plan ahead, got caught by consolidate into combat.

This is patently false, it wasn't hard to herd units into good consolidation range and in every edition it has often been necessary to place units near each other. This could be mitigated, but even against very experienced players this was not an uncommon scenario.

You also, conveniently, ignored that it was either a D6" move, so hardly massive, or 3" (depending on how combat ended) - apparently "bubble wrapping" was a term you never managed to think of in 4th ed.

Not every army could take expendable cheap bubble wrap units.

It usually went - turn 2, assault terminators charge, but the Tau player has seen this is perhaps inevitable and pushed a cheap unit out front, leaving no viable way around (so theyre not getting as close as fast) . They assault, smash the unit, are now 7"+ away from the units that could also move and fire, and die next turn. Rinse, repeat

Or the SM's would just blow away the cheap unit with a minimal amount of firepower and clear the way for the terminators to assault...

It wasnt "broken", it made assault, one of the 3 phases of the game, actually viable. 5th made it MUCH less so, 6th even less again

It made Assault dominant, not merely viable.

Consolidating into hand to hand was 3rd edition, not 4th, wasn't it?

 pretre wrote:
Consolidating into hand to hand was 3rd edition, not 4th, wasn't it?

3rd and 4th, 5th was the one that got rid of it.

Cool, I missed 4th, so wasn't sure. I do remember rhino rush, disembark, assault, consolidate into the next one in 3rd though. That was crazy.

I like the idea of consolidating on a d6 into an enemy unit but why not carry over extra wounds as extra attacks that you have to roll to hit and wound again but allows some retaliation from taking a second Overwatch

 amanita wrote:
We compromised.

If a victorious unit wants to consolidate into another enemy unit, it may try if reaches on a D6" consolidation move. If the enemy unit wants to avoid it, both sides roll a D6; if the victor has the same result or higher it locks another unit in combat. If not, it consolidates normally but can't engage another unit.

This keep some measure of doubt in the assaulting force, and forces the gunlines to spread out a bit.

This isn't a compromise. It's screwing Tau, IG, and 'Crons and giving units of other factions function that they aren't paying for. Why not increase Tau gun range and give Crons 20% more points. That would make as much sense.

 Lobukia wrote:

 amanita wrote:
We compromised.

If a victorious unit wants to consolidate into another enemy unit, it may try if reaches on a D6" consolidation move. If the enemy unit wants to avoid it, both sides roll a D6; if the victor has the same result or higher it locks another unit in combat. If not, it consolidates normally but can't engage another unit.

This keep some measure of doubt in the assaulting force, and forces the gunlines to spread out a bit.

This isn't a compromise. It's screwing Tau, IG, and 'Crons and giving units of other factions function that they aren't paying for. Why not increase Tau gun range and give Crons 20% more points. That would make as much sense.

I did the math up above of Hammernators charging an equal amount of points of Fire Warriors. It really doesn't break the game if you allow for overwatch.

 rabid1903 wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 amanita wrote:
We compromised.

If a victorious unit wants to consolidate into another enemy unit, it may try if reaches on a D6" consolidation move. If the enemy unit wants to avoid it, both sides roll a D6; if the victor has the same result or higher it locks another unit in combat. If not, it consolidates normally but can't engage another unit.

This keep some measure of doubt in the assaulting force, and forces the gunlines to spread out a bit.

This isn't a compromise. It's screwing Tau, IG, and 'Crons and giving units of other factions function that they aren't paying for. Why not increase Tau gun range and give Crons 20% more points. That would make as much sense.

I did the math up above of Hammernators charging an equal amount of points of Fire Warriors. It really doesn't break the game if you allow for overwatch.

How about Ork boys assaulting sequential squads of FW. Taking away FW RF and movement for one turn is a huge hit and they gain nothing. Still would have got their overwatch, but they lose out on a turn of use. If all of my units were facing possibly one less turn of shooting and dying earlier than otherwise, you'd be spotting me some serious points before I'd even consider giving you a free pass on being shot at because you think assaults suffer (which they don't).

To others making the realism argument, really?! Ships that fly Master Chiefs and Rambos through hell to serve a corpse while battling hooligan fungus monkeys, giant cockroaches, hippy elves, and anime bots... And you play the realism card? It's plastic soldiers with fantasy in space fluff. I suppose chess doesn't work for you since cavalry doesn't really jump over friendly soldiers and only move at right angles?

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Make it worse. Assaulting should be the final attack to finish off the remains of a dug-in unit that you have crippled through shooting. You should not have entire units (and armies!) dedicated to assaulting, because the vast majority of the time they would just be shot to death uselessly.

Exactly. A game set in a world with spaceships, apocalyptic weapons, and Titans striding the battlefields shouldn't have entire forces who specialize in sword-fighting, no matter how high-tech the swords. This isn't Star Wars with Jedi- a bayonet charge across a battlefield against a healthy unit with ranged weapons should be considered nearly suicidal without the proper precautions and the accompanying tactics to misdirect fire away from the assaulting unit.

I disagree strongly. The space-fantasy thing 40K has going on relies heavily on the idea of close combat. Either from faceless hordes of monsters, or crusading 'knights' in armour. Given the massive gulf between technology levels even within certain factions, I hardly see this as breaking the suspension of disbelief.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Nerm86 wrote:
I dont see what distance and scale have to do with it when the drop pod is smashing into the ground right next to you.

Because "right next to you" in 28mm scale should be on the other end of the 6'x4' table, not literally within a 28mm-scale foot or two (close enough that the shock of impact would probably kill you before the marines could even disembark).

No, in 28mm scale a drop pod would still land within 6" of the enemy. As would teleport attacks and so on. What makes you think it'd land all the way over there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Yes, it would break the game.

First turn:
Assault terminators charge Fire Warriors and wipe out the unit.
Assault terminators consolidate into combat with crisis suits.

Next turn:
Assault terminators finish off the crisis suits.
Assault terminators charge into combat with broadsides.

How are the Terminators in assault range on turn 1? I assume you mean turn 2 or 3. Further, they have to roll high enough to get into combat on that turn. Then they have to eat a round of overwatch. Then they have to roll high enough to catch the crisis suits, and eat another round of overwatch. Then the Tau player has to decide he doesn't want to move his Broadsides out of that 6" threat bubble. Then the Terminators have to roll high enough to catch them, and eat another round of overwatch.

Consolidating into combat was broken under 4th edition when you could assault out of transports, with a guaranteed assault distance, and not have to worry about overwatch. But it'd have a very different effect on the game now.

Personally, consolidating into combat is unnecessary. What would help assault armies though would be the ability to assault from stationary vehicles, and the removal of some of the 6th ed rules which exist solely to screw over assault armies.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Personally, consolidating into combat is unnecessary. What would help assault armies though would be the ability to assault from stationary vehicles, and the removal of some of the 6th ed rules which exist solely to screw over assault armies.

This I could agree on is an opponent needed it to play me.

Assaulting out of reserves... I'd let this back, if only when in an assault vehicle, or not deep striking

Assaulting when disembarking... sure, but have to use the 6" move to do it

 Lobukia wrote:

 rabid1903 wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

 amanita wrote:
We compromised.

If a victorious unit wants to consolidate into another enemy unit, it may try if reaches on a D6" consolidation move. If the enemy unit wants to avoid it, both sides roll a D6; if the victor has the same result or higher it locks another unit in combat. If not, it consolidates normally but can't engage another unit.

This keep some measure of doubt in the assaulting force, and forces the gunlines to spread out a bit.

This isn't a compromise. It's screwing Tau, IG, and 'Crons and giving units of other factions function that they aren't paying for. Why not increase Tau gun range and give Crons 20% more points. That would make as much sense.

I did the math up above of Hammernators charging an equal amount of points of Fire Warriors. It really doesn't break the game if you allow for overwatch.

How about Ork boys assaulting sequential squads of FW. Taking away FW RF and movement for one turn is a huge hit and they gain nothing. Still would have got their overwatch, but they lose out on a turn of use. If all of my units were facing possibly one less turn of shooting and dying earlier than otherwise, you'd be spotting me some serious points before I'd even consider giving you a free pass on being shot at because you think assaults suffer (which they don't).

To others making the realism argument, really?! Ships that fly Master Chiefs and Rambos through hell to serve a corpse while battling hooligan fungus monkeys, giant cockroaches, hippy elves, and anime bots... And you play the realism card? It's plastic soldiers with fantasy in space fluff. I suppose chess doesn't work for you since cavalry doesn't really jump over friendly soldiers and only move at right angles?

Alright, after doing the math with Ork Boyz vs Fire Warriors

30 ork boyz vs 2x9 fire warriors

Same as above, starting 15" away. Assuming charge and consolidation are favorable.

Tau shooting kills 12, 18 boyz remain
Tau overwatch kills 2, 16 boyz remain

Simultaneous swings:
14.2 Tau die (squad eliminated)
1.25 Orks die (15 boyz remain)

Consolidate into the second squad

Tau overwatch kills 2, 13 boyz remain

Simultaneous swings:
6.5 Tau die (2 remain)
1.25 Orks die (11 boyz remain)

Tau flee, most likely caught.

11 boyz remain at the end of the day, two Tau squads are dead.


Now if the boyz started farther away, and the Tau got another shot off this would be a totally different story.

If the boyz had cover, it would end with only 8 boyz.
If the boyz did not have cover, it would end with 6 remaining with a good chance of being locked in combat for another turn.


So in a vacuum, the boyz would pull it off with about 50 points in their favor. This still isn't anything incredibly overpowering. Also it would not be too far-fetched for the Tau to maneuver and get another round of shooting, resulting in the boyz killing off the first squad and dealing half a wound to the second before biting the dust. Therefore, the extra round of shooting turns it into a 90 point favor for the Tau. That actually seems incredibly balanced.

Vaktathi wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peregrine - then you played a different 4th ed to everyone else. New players, or those who didnt plan ahead, got caught by consolidate into combat.

This is patently false, it wasn't hard to herd units into good consolidation range and in every edition it has often been necessary to place units near each other. This could be mitigated, but even against very experienced players this was not an uncommon scenario.

No, not "patently" false - terrible word misuse there. You are claiming it is false. Big difference. In various UK GTs the vast majority of the time (VAST) if you didnt think ahead you got caught out with this. It was a tactic easily mitigated against by placing with some forethought.

NOt "necessary" but "more advantageous". Again, poor word choice. You took a chance that placing units nearby would give you a greater advantage than the risk of the consolidate to combat

Vaktathi wrote:

You also, conveniently, ignored that it was either a D6" move, so hardly massive, or 3" (depending on how combat ended) - apparently "bubble wrapping" was a term you never managed to think of in 4th ed.

Not every army could take expendable cheap bubble wrap units.

It usually went - turn 2, assault terminators charge, but the Tau player has seen this is perhaps inevitable and pushed a cheap unit out front, leaving no viable way around (so theyre not getting as close as fast) . They assault, smash the unit, are now 7"+ away from the units that could also move and fire, and die next turn. Rinse, repeat

Or the SM's would just blow away the cheap unit with a minimal amount of firepower and clear the way for the terminators to assault...

10 4+ save models is a "minimal" amount of firepower? Have you worked out how many bolters that is? No? Shock.

Vaktathi wrote:

It wasnt "broken", it made assault, one of the 3 phases of the game, actually viable. 5th made it MUCH less so, 6th even less again

It made Assault dominant, not merely viable.

Again, disagree - it made it equal with the other phases. All shooty lists were viable (Tau JSJ shenanigans, as a simple uncounterable example) as were assault lists. Which, given the game is dividied into 3 phases, 2 strictly offensive, is a good thing. 5th detracted from that, generating parking lot lists, and 6th has gone even further away. Assault in 6th is now far, far reduced from 5th, and that is to the detriment of the game as a whole

Yes, it would break the game.

First turn:
Assault terminators charge Fire Warriors and wipe out the unit.
Assault terminators consolidate into combat with crisis suits.

Next turn:
Assault terminators finish off the crisis suits.
Assault terminators charge into combat with broadsides.

Etc.

At no point in this scenario are the assault terminators out of combat and open to being shot, so all the Tau player can do is just pull off models and wait for the game to finally end.

So.....wait..... if we assumed to be adding the "consolidating into close combat" rules back in from 4th ed for my suggestion...your whole army is within 3"/D6" of each other and doesn't shoot the assault terminators before they get into close combat or ever move away from the Terminators or ever use overwatch?? That's what breaks the game?

How are the Terminators in assault range on turn 1? I assume you mean turn 2 or 3. Further, they have to roll high enough to get into combat on that turn. Then they have to eat a round of overwatch. Then they have to roll high enough to catch the crisis suits, and eat another round of overwatch. Then the Tau player has to decide he doesn't want to move his Broadsides out of that 6" threat bubble. Then the Terminators have to roll high enough to catch them, and eat another round of overwatch.

Consolidating into combat was broken under 4th edition when you could assault out of transports, with a guaranteed assault distance, and not have to worry about overwatch. But it'd have a very different effect on the game now.

Exactly.

I still fail to see the OP's statement that the assault rules are broken. Risky? yes, for certain units. Broken? nope.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I still fail to see the OP's statement that the assault rules are broken. Risky? yes, for certain units. Broken? nope.

Because instead of being rewarded for killing/over killing a unit, you're punished by getting shot to death.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I still fail to see the OP's statement that the assault rules are broken. Risky? yes, for certain units. Broken? nope.

Broken isn't necessarily a good word to use. The situation is that being really good at killing, and having a unit perform well is actually a detrimental situation. The best performance does not produce the best result. In fact, it often produces a very BAD result.

Ideally, the best performance should produce a good result. Or at least an opportunity for a good result. If you wipe out a unit in combat, the result should be better than not wiping out that unit.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
So.....wait..... if we assumed to be adding the "consolidating into close combat" rules back in from 4th ed for my suggestion...your whole army is within 3"/D6" of each other and doesn't shoot the assault terminators before they get into close combat or ever move away from the Terminators or ever use overwatch?? That's what breaks the game?

The problem is that you're treating it like this combat is happening in isolation. What you actually have is multiple assault threats closing in from multiple directions and boxing you in with nowhere to run. Right now you can beat that situation by using screening units to buy more shooting time, but if you allow consolidating directly into combat you're going to start losing a lot more units to "free" charges and have a lot more threats locked in combat and immune to shooting.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
So.....wait..... if we assumed to be adding the "consolidating into close combat" rules back in from 4th ed for my suggestion...your whole army is within 3"/D6" of each other and doesn't shoot the assault terminators before they get into close combat or ever move away from the Terminators or ever use overwatch?? That's what breaks the game?

The problem is that you're treating it like this combat is happening in isolation. What you actually have is multiple assault threats closing in from multiple directions and boxing you in with nowhere to run. Right now you can beat that situation by using screening units to buy more shooting time, but if you allow consolidating directly into combat you're going to start losing a lot more units to "free" charges and have a lot more threats locked in combat and immune to shooting.

Which is effectively balanced out by the extra turn it takes to get into combat in the first place due to changes in 6th edition, and the overwatch ability.

rigeld2 wrote:
Instead of being rewarded for killing/over killing a unit, you're punished by getting shot to death.

Well, that's certainly realistic. Flamethrower operators, snipers and other exceedingly killy "can't do anything about them" units are often summarily executed by enemies that catch them.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
So.....wait..... if we assumed to be adding the "consolidating into close combat" rules back in from 4th ed for my suggestion...your whole army is within 3"/D6" of each other and doesn't shoot the assault terminators before they get into close combat or ever move away from the Terminators or ever use overwatch?? That's what breaks the game?

The problem is that you're treating it like this combat is happening in isolation. What you actually have is multiple assault threats closing in from multiple directions and boxing you in with nowhere to run. Right now you can beat that situation by using screening units to buy more shooting time, but if you allow consolidating directly into combat you're going to start losing a lot more units to "free" charges and have a lot more threats locked in combat and immune to shooting.

Which is effectively balanced out by the extra turn it takes to get into combat in the first place due to changes in 6th edition, and the overwatch ability.

No, it isn't. BS 1 does not = extra turn of shooting (plus you're taking away backpedal movement, some units could get two turns of shooting in by the rules. Most assault units are getting into CC exactly when they would have in 5th. Other than outflank charges what other common mode of getting into CC got nerffed?

Spetulhu wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Instead of being rewarded for killing/over killing a unit, you're punished by getting shot to death.

Well, that's certainly realistic. Flamethrower operators, snipers and other exceedingly killy "can't do anything about them" units are often summarily executed by enemies that catch them.

Ignoring realism (because your example is the opposite of mine) when I assault I hope I roll poorly during my turn - because if I do we'll and my opponent flees/dies, I've just lost a unit - essentially guaranteed.

That's broken. I should not hope for poor performance for any of my units ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobukia wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
So.....wait..... if we assumed to be adding the "consolidating into close combat" rules back in from 4th ed for my suggestion...your whole army is within 3"/D6" of each other and doesn't shoot the assault terminators before they get into close combat or ever move away from the Terminators or ever use overwatch?? That's what breaks the game?

The problem is that you're treating it like this combat is happening in isolation. What you actually have is multiple assault threats closing in from multiple directions and boxing you in with nowhere to run. Right now you can beat that situation by using screening units to buy more shooting time, but if you allow consolidating directly into combat you're going to start losing a lot more units to "free" charges and have a lot more threats locked in combat and immune to shooting.

Which is effectively balanced out by the extra turn it takes to get into combat in the first place due to changes in 6th edition, and the overwatch ability.

No, it isn't. BS 1 does not = extra turn of shooting (plus you're taking away backpedal movement, some units could get two turns of shooting in by the rules. Most assault units are getting into CC exactly when they would have in 5th. Other than outflank charges what other common mode of getting into CC got nerffed?

Turn 1 infiltrate assaults. Happened quite often for me, now it's impossible.

This isnt exactly a new thing. This has been a game "flaw" for 3 editions.....

 NoQuestionzAsked wrote:
This isnt exactly a new thing. This has been a game "flaw" for 3 editions.....

Right, and its getting worse - as someone said, 6th is significantly worse than 5th as far as assault power goes.

rigeld2 wrote:

That's broken. I should not hope for poor performance for any of my units ever.

Again, realism is a silly card to play, but I'll bite. Over extension and isolation by momentum has been a fundamental concern of commanders since war began. You should thank GW for adding realism and tactical depth.

Turn 1 infiltrate assaults. Happened quite often for me, now it's impossible.

Well then you're playing morons or repeatedly ambushed newbs, so your game won't suffer anyway.

 Lobukia wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

That's broken. I should not hope for poor performance for any of my units ever.

Again, realism is a silly card to play, but I'll bite. Over extension and isolation by momentum has been a fundamental concern of commanders since war began. You should thank GW for adding realism and tactical depth.

Thanks for assuming I typically overextend. You'd be wrong however - normally my assaults are well supported, but Genestealers don't last long out of cover.

Turn 1 infiltrate assaults. Happened quite often for me, now it's impossible.

Well then you're playing morons or repeatedly ambushed newbs, so your game won't suffer anyway.

Yes, because its trivial to be able to see every spot that's over 12 inches away from your line. Good point - I forgot about that.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, because its trivial to be able to see every spot that's over 12 inches away from your line. Good point - I forgot about that.

It is, actually. Unless you're a clueless newbie you aren't going to miss something that obvious, and you probably aren't going to have a spot at all in a game with true line of sight. If even one fingertip on one model is visible you aren't infiltrating there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NoQuestionzAsked wrote:
This isnt exactly a new thing. This has been a game "flaw" for 3 editions.....

Right, and its getting worse - as someone said, 6th is significantly worse than 5th as far as assault power goes.

Which is good. Give it a few more editions and assault will finally be what it should be: an occasional event to finish off a dug-in unit, not a strategy you dedicate your army to.

 Lobukia wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Turn 1 infiltrate assaults. Happened quite often for me, now it's impossible.

Well then you're playing morons or repeatedly ambushed newbs, so your game won't suffer anyway.

Turn 1 assaults happened quite often for me as well.
There is not much an opponent can do against 5th ed Scout Bike charges, and I never "played morons or repeatedly ambushed newbs".

There was nothing an enemy could do against a up to 12 inch scout move, a 12 inch move and a 6 inch assault, basically if my scout bikes were within 23 inches of my target unit/s they got charged in my first turn even when I went second.

 Lobukia wrote:
No, it isn't. BS 1 does not = extra turn of shooting (plus you're taking away backpedal movement, some units could get two turns of shooting in by the rules. Most assault units are getting into CC exactly when they would have in 5th. Other than outflank charges what other common mode of getting into CC got nerffed?

No, the extra turn of shooting comes from not being able to assault out of transports or from reserve, and people not gambling on assault distances by taking an extra turn to advance.

 Lobukia wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

That's broken. I should not hope for poor performance for any of my units ever.

Again, realism is a silly card to play, but I'll bite. Over extension and isolation by momentum has been a fundamental concern of commanders since war began. You should thank GW for adding realism and tactical depth.

But the mechanic doesn't punish over extension. If I manage to kill all bar one of my target, I'm fine. If I kill that last model, I'm vulnerable. If it were punishing over extension, I would be vulnerable regardless of killing that last model. In fact, I should be more vulnerable, because my assault hasn't been as effective. The effective assault is punished, the ineffective one rewarded, or rather the less effectively I extend, the more I am punished for over extending. It's very counter-intuitive, IMO.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NoQuestionzAsked wrote:
This isnt exactly a new thing. This has been a game "flaw" for 3 editions.....

Right, and its getting worse - as someone said, 6th is significantly worse than 5th as far as assault power goes.

Which is good. Give it a few more editions and assault will finally be what it should be: an occasional event to finish off a dug-in unit, not a strategy you dedicate your army to.

But the problem is that GW keeps on forcing through a myriad of dedicated assault specialists and assault armies, even as they push rules in the opposite direction. GW's army design is consistently in conflict with its own game design, and that's the silly part.

 Kaldor wrote:
It's very counter-intuitive, IMO.

Solution: allow shooting into combat with no penalties. Problem solved. Now there's no drawback to wiping out a unit entirely.

 Fafnir wrote:
But the problem is that GW keeps on forcing through a myriad of dedicated assault specialists and assault armies, even as they push rules in the opposite direction. GW's army design is consistently in conflict with its own game design, and that's the silly part.

Oh, don't worry, I think that's also stupid. GW should stop making units like that and focus both the core rules and the armies around shooting.

I think that, regardless of bias towards shooting or assault, GW needs to sit down and actually look at the rules of their own damn game, and make the armies actually follow that mindset.

I don't mind assault in the 40k setting, since it is, at its core, a fantasy setting. But they can't make every army have a bunch of close-combat badasses, and then make that inclination to close combat useless.

And if they want to make the game based more heavily around shooting, then they need to stop spending time making all these useless close combat specialists, and start making the shooting game more interesting than the point-click-die snoozefest that it is now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
It's very counter-intuitive, IMO.

Solution: allow shooting into combat with no penalties. Problem solved. Now there's no drawback to wiping out a unit entirely.

Sure. I'd be happy with that as well. Consolidation into combat is a better option, since it rewards combat more instead of punishing it, but I'd be happy with either solution.

Peregrine - again, its like you dont realise the game is split into 3 phases, and that ideally each phase should have equal importance. It is a fantasy game, after all.

Its almost like GW created the game around gengineered space KNIGHTS with chainsaw-swords as their preferred weapon. Who'd a thunk it.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, because its trivial to be able to see every spot that's over 12 inches away from your line. Good point - I forgot about that.

It is, actually. Unless you're a clueless newbie you aren't going to miss something that obvious, and you probably aren't going to have a spot at all in a game with true line of sight. If even one fingertip on one model is visible you aren't infiltrating there.

You must not play with much LOS blocking terrain then.
And you must never deploy in a refused flank against infiltrators also.
Or castle in a corner.

Tactically, infiltrators do their job against you even if they never assault.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NoQuestionzAsked wrote:
This isnt exactly a new thing. This has been a game "flaw" for 3 editions.....

Right, and its getting worse - as someone said, 6th is significantly worse than 5th as far as assault power goes.

Which is good. Give it a few more editions and assault will finally be what it should be: an occasional event to finish off a dug-in unit, not a strategy you dedicate your army to.

No, really it's bad game design to ha e 3 phases where only 1 matters. Keep posting your opinion though - its cute.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NoQuestionzAsked wrote:
This isnt exactly a new thing. This has been a game "flaw" for 3 editions.....

Right, and its getting worse - as someone said, 6th is significantly worse than 5th as far as assault power goes.

Which is good. Give it a few more editions and assault will finally be what it should be: an occasional event to finish off a dug-in unit, not a strategy you dedicate your army to.

Perhaps good for you. Believe it or not, some of us actually ENJOY having combat armies with the intention of wrecking face up close. It's kinda the reason i play orks. And, i imagine, the reason some play nids, or some builds of CSM, or most daemon lists, or DoA, or templars, or any other cc list that makes up a huge percentage of the game. And has for almost the entire history of the game. Its something that makes the game different, and something that really shouldn't change. You saying that we should take cc out of 40k because it annoys you is sort of like that Dungeons and dragons should just cut the Arcane power source because you think it's unrealistic. Well, yes, you're right. It is. CC is entirely unrealistic in a game where soldiers have rpg machine guns and laser rifles everywhere. But i don't play 40k for realism. I play it because i enjoy the OTT setting, and the fantasy aspect of it. Just like people play Dnd for the fantasy medieval feel, which involves magic. Don't want magic? Homebrew your own setting that doesn't have it, and tell players not to bring arcane characters. Don't like assault? Form a gaming group with your own campaign, and forbid dedicated assault units. It's a much better alternative than telling a huge portion of the player base that their army is stupid and the rules should make it obsolete.

 loota boy wrote:

It's a much better alternative than telling a huge portion of the player base that their army is stupid and the rules should make it obsolete.

Especially considering how angry Peregrine was with FW for nerfing the Hades Drills and changing them to an elite slot.

I think you have to be very careful to make sure a unit can't do too much in one turn. as it stands, assault type units can probably do the most currently. You have movement, shooting and assault, then asuming you are victorious, you can consolidate. If you are concerned about being stranded after butchering a unit, and then getting shot up in your opponents shooting phase, then it probably wasn't very good planning on your part.

I would also say that as the current ruleset stands, consolidating into close combat makes units a little too effective, overwatch isn't all that good (better then nothing though). the only situation i can think of where i think consolidation would be a good thing is if you assaulted in your movement phase (so no shooting) and your opponent can choose between overwatch, or simply running away such as in WHFB.

I have had some very good success with assaults in 6th, because picking the right time and place to assault is key. if you go for a straight up frontal charge, you should expect your expensive close combat units to get shot to pieces, even when they do connect.

Now I don't know the 6e rules very much, but what if you allowed a victorious unit in assault consolidate - once- into a new unit, but allow that "new" unit to take a Overwatch-based shooting action against the unit coming at them?

It would remove the ability of the army that just got a unit decimated to fire in their next turn, at full effect, into the unit that is just standing there in the open, but at the same time rewarding a unit that is successful at killing an entire unit by allowing them to shelter from that shooting action inside the protection of another enemy unit, but at the downside that they have to weather two Overwatch firing sessions and get lucky enough to be able to reach that other unit with a consolidation move? And this all after surviving to fight the initial unit in the first place.

madtankbloke wrote:
I think you have to be very careful to make sure a unit can't do too much in one turn. as it stands, assault type units can probably do the most currently. You have movement, shooting and assault, then asuming you are victorious, you can consolidate. If you are concerned about being stranded after butchering a unit, and then getting shot up in your opponents shooting phase, then it probably wasn't very good planning on your part.

I would also say that as the current ruleset stands, consolidating into close combat makes units a little too effective, overwatch isn't all that good (better then nothing though). the only situation i can think of where i think consolidation would be a good thing is if you assaulted in your movement phase (so no shooting) and your opponent can choose between overwatch, or simply running away such as in WHFB.

I have had some very good success with assaults in 6th, because picking the right time and place to assault is key. if you go for a straight up frontal charge, you should expect your expensive close combat units to get shot to pieces, even when they do connect.

Great points all. I agree with every point. I've ran mainly my Khorne/Slaanesh CSM for the past 2months and using pretty fundamental tactics done just fine. However, some people don't want to be told that they aren't planning ahead well. It's much easier to say GW is out to screw their codex/army type. The fact that major tournaments and rankings don't reflect their personal view that assaults don't work well in 6e is just ignored. But instead of saying "I want my pet army to do better", which they know sounds petty, they play the "realism" card, and pretend its tactical balance they want.

I'm really curious to watch them play. How on earth all of their assault squads are getting gunned down after successful assaults is beyond me. Maybe they need to try MSU lists or just need more practice evaluating likely game developments a few turns ahead? The nid players I get. The rest, I don't. The assault units are either cheap enough that getting them gunned down after a charge is a non- sequitur, or they're stout enough that basic planning should cause minimal losses. I am the assault guy in my local meta, and running TAC lists that tip to being assault heavy has been a blast in 6e. It's sucked that outflanking bikes can't assault and I can't reserve them all, but I've adapted my White Scars and am hoping a little help comes from Ravenwing rules. Other than that none of my forces have really suffered in 6e. Yes I had to change some tactics and tweak the lists, but, to me, that keeps the game fresh and new.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I still fail to see the OP's statement that the assault rules are broken. Risky? yes, for certain units. Broken? nope.

ok then, i guess you wont mind if i only roll one half of my melee attacks. i dont want to do too well, im only aiming to kill part of your unit.

i wont be activating any of my special powers or psyker abilities either - again, im just aiming to kill part of your unit, being mediocre is best right now.

if you dont like the term broken how does nonsensical, stupid or terrible work for you?

madtankbloke wrote:
I think you have to be very careful to make sure a unit can't do too much in one turn. as it stands, assault type units can probably do the most currently. You have movement, shooting and assault, then asuming you are victorious, you can consolidate. If you are concerned about being stranded after butchering a unit, and then getting shot up in your opponents shooting phase, then it probably wasn't very good planning on your part.

I would also say that as the current ruleset stands, consolidating into close combat makes units a little too effective, overwatch isn't all that good (better then nothing though). the only situation i can think of where i think consolidation would be a good thing is if you assaulted in your movement phase (so no shooting) and your opponent can choose between overwatch, or simply running away such as in WHFB.

I have had some very good success with assaults in 6th, because picking the right time and place to assault is key. if you go for a straight up frontal charge, you should expect your expensive close combat units to get shot to pieces, even when they do connect.

The point, and the problem, is that I can only expect my assault units to get shot up if they do well. If my assault does poorly because I wiff a lot of my attacks, or my opponent rolls exceptionally with his saves, then I'm fine. It's only if my assault works well that I am in trouble.

That's where the derpy-ness of the rules comes from, and it's what people are complaining about. No one is objective to assault units being shot up if they get caught out on their own. People are objecting to the fact that they can only be caught out on their own if they perform well. If they don't, if they take twice as long to kill the enemy, they end up performing better and being rewarded for it, which is completely counter-intuitive.

The only options, as I see it, are to either allow shooting into combat, in which case the assault unit is no more vulnerable or punished for killing all it's foes than it would be for staying in combat, or allowing consolidation into combat, giving the assault unit a chance to remain engaged if it wipes out the enemy. IMO, allowing consolidation into combat is the best option, and given the hits assault units have already taken in this edition, I don't think it would be as game-breaking as it used to be.

 Kaldor wrote:

The only options, as I see it, are to either allow shooting into combat, in which case the assault unit is no more vulnerable or punished for killing all it's foes than it would be for staying in combat, or allowing consolidation into combat, giving the assault unit a chance to remain engaged if it wipes out the enemy. IMO, allowing consolidation into combat is the best option, and given the hits assault units have already taken in this edition, I don't think it would be as game-breaking as it used to be.

The major problem with that, and i can see where you are coming from, is that it allows you to take what amounts to 4 actions each turn (move, shoot, assault, assault). This is an increase on the 3 (move, shoot, assault) an assault unit can usually make, and is double what a shooting unit can make (move, shoot). if you are all for the consolidating after a successful round of close combat, how about you also add in a rule where if you wipe out a unit in the shooting phase, all units that shot it get an additional round of shooting (because its pretty much the same thing).

The major reason its a bad idea is that it breaks the general rule that you can only engage 1 unit a turn (unless you have a special rule/wargear) and you have to assault a unit you shot at (you can ONLY assault that unit) and if you consolidate into combat, the you are engaging an additional unit, so now, not only are you doing twice as many things a turn as a shooting unit, you are also engaging twice as many units

The point, and the problem, is that I can only expect my assault units to get shot up if they do well. If my assault does poorly because I wiff a lot of my attacks, or my opponent rolls exceptionally with his saves, then I'm fine. It's only if my assault works well that I am in trouble.

it's true. I almost see it as a consolation prize to the player that just got massacred in assault, so they can take it out on the unit that did it.

The major problem with that, and i can see where you are coming from, is that it allows you to take what amounts to 4 actions each turn (move, shoot, assault, assault). This is an increase on the 3 (move, shoot, assault) an assault unit can usually make, and is double what a shooting unit can make (move, shoot). if you are all for the consolidating after a successful round of close combat, how about you also add in a rule where if you wipe out a unit in the shooting phase, all units that shot it get an additional round of shooting (because its pretty much the same thing).

I suggested a single-time consolidation move, not counting as charging this time, and with the second assaulted unit being able to Overwatch against them.

An idea: What if it were allowed for a unit that has massacred another in assault to make an immediate consolidation mode into another unit that it can reach, but only allowed to engage them but not attack?

Then they are safe from the shooting situation, but aren't getting "two assault phases".

madtankbloke wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

The only options, as I see it, are to either allow shooting into combat, in which case the assault unit is no more vulnerable or punished for killing all it's foes than it would be for staying in combat, or allowing consolidation into combat, giving the assault unit a chance to remain engaged if it wipes out the enemy. IMO, allowing consolidation into combat is the best option, and given the hits assault units have already taken in this edition, I don't think it would be as game-breaking as it used to be.

The major problem with that, and i can see where you are coming from, is that it allows you to take what amounts to 4 actions each turn (move, shoot, assault, assault). This is an increase on the 3 (move, shoot, assault) an assault unit can usually make, and is double what a shooting unit can make (move, shoot). if you are all for the consolidating after a successful round of close combat, how about you also add in a rule where if you wipe out a unit in the shooting phase, all units that shot it get an additional round of shooting (because its pretty much the same thing).

Yeah, Genestealers, Hormagaunts and a few others have absolutely *stellar* shooting phases.

rigeld2 wrote:

madtankbloke wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

The only options, as I see it, are to either allow shooting into combat, in which case the assault unit is no more vulnerable or punished for killing all it's foes than it would be for staying in combat, or allowing consolidation into combat, giving the assault unit a chance to remain engaged if it wipes out the enemy. IMO, allowing consolidation into combat is the best option, and given the hits assault units have already taken in this edition, I don't think it would be as game-breaking as it used to be.

The major problem with that, and i can see where you are coming from, is that it allows you to take what amounts to 4 actions each turn (move, shoot, assault, assault). This is an increase on the 3 (move, shoot, assault) an assault unit can usually make, and is double what a shooting unit can make (move, shoot). if you are all for the consolidating after a successful round of close combat, how about you also add in a rule where if you wipe out a unit in the shooting phase, all units that shot it get an additional round of shooting (because its pretty much the same thing).

Yeah, Genestealers, Hormagaunts and a few others have absolutely *stellar* shooting phases.

Guardsmen have equally stellar assault phases, just to play devil's advocate.

rigeld2 wrote:

madtankbloke wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

The only options, as I see it, are to either allow shooting into combat, in which case the assault unit is no more vulnerable or punished for killing all it's foes than it would be for staying in combat, or allowing consolidation into combat, giving the assault unit a chance to remain engaged if it wipes out the enemy. IMO, allowing consolidation into combat is the best option, and given the hits assault units have already taken in this edition, I don't think it would be as game-breaking as it used to be.

The major problem with that, and i can see where you are coming from, is that it allows you to take what amounts to 4 actions each turn (move, shoot, assault, assault). This is an increase on the 3 (move, shoot, assault) an assault unit can usually make, and is double what a shooting unit can make (move, shoot). if you are all for the consolidating after a successful round of close combat, how about you also add in a rule where if you wipe out a unit in the shooting phase, all units that shot it get an additional round of shooting (because its pretty much the same thing).

Yeah, Genestealers, Hormagaunts and a few others have absolutely *stellar* shooting phases.

lol yes overwatch isnt good enough, he needs triple shooting.

I can understand your argument, you want your assault units to do better, and not get shot to pieces in subsequent turns. But there are good reasons why you get shot to pieces in subsequent turns, and those reasons are why it probably wasn't a good idea to launch that particular assault in the first place.

I think its unrealistic to expect a single unit to carve a bloody path through an enemy army with almost no penalties, if you want an attack to succeed, you should attack in force, with multiple units, engaging multiple units, having softened up those units beforehand. I've seen assault units get chewed up because I, or my opponent attacked either too early, too late or unsupported and in the wrong place.

madtankbloke wrote:
I can understand your argument, you want your assault units to do better, and not get shot to pieces in subsequent turns. But there are good reasons why you get shot to pieces in subsequent turns, and those reasons are why it probably wasn't a good idea to launch that particular assault in the first place.

I think its unrealistic to expect a single unit to carve a bloody path through an enemy army with almost no penalties, if you want an attack to succeed, you should attack in force, with multiple units, engaging multiple units, having softened up those units beforehand. I've seen assault units get chewed up because I, or my opponent attacked either too early, too late or unsupported and in the wrong place.

I don't mean to harp on like a broken record here, but if you want an attack to succeed, attacking in force with multiple units is not the way to do it. Then you're more likely to wipe out the enemy, leaving yourself exposed. It's better to launch a weaker attack, that takes two turns to complete, leaving your forces protected in combat during the enemy turn.

I don't think anyone wants assault units to just do better, and not get shot to pieces in subsequent turns. The issue is that they only get shot to pieces in subsequent turns if they pull off an effective assault. If they perform poorly, they are safe. That's the issue for me. If I could, it would be beneficial for me to only roll a handful of my attacks and simply stop attacking with the rest of my models when I have reduced the enemy to one or two models.

I understand what you're getting at with the number of actions and engagements a unit can make in a turn, but I don't really see that as an issue for the most part. Certainly it's already possible for a single unit to assault multiple enemies in a single turn. It would definitely improve assault as a viable tactic, but given the general nerf to assault in this edition I don't think it would be as drastic as it used to be.

 Evertras wrote:

rigeld wrote:Yeah, Genestealers, Hormagaunts and a few others have absolutely *stellar* shooting phases.

Guardsmen have equally stellar assault phases, just to play devil's advocate.

Actually, no. Guard blobs are severely underestimated as assault units, and they have a pretty strong shooting phase as well.
There are a significant number of assault units that literally can't fire, meaning its really just another half movement phase.

When shooting units have a 0WS you can compare them to dedicated assault units.

kb305 wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I still fail to see the OP's statement that the assault rules are broken. Risky? yes, for certain units. Broken? nope.

ok then, i guess you wont mind if i only roll one half of my melee attacks. i dont want to do too well, im only aiming to kill part of your unit.

i wont be activating any of my special powers or psyker abilities either - again, im just aiming to kill part of your unit, being mediocre is best right now.

if you dont like the term broken how does nonsensical, stupid or terrible work for you?

wow. I have never heard anyone who builds an assault-heavy army (or any army with assault units) whine that the rules didn't make sense or were stupid.

Nonsensical would mean you were using something upon which to base a sensible close-combat situation... hmmmm, what could we do to compare? oh yeah, the real world. Let's give Spotsylvania Courthouse a try. The Federal army charged into the mule shoe salient to break the line, only to find themselves too far behind the broken line to be effective. Or Marathon, where an outnumbered Greek army allowed their center to fall to allow the Persians to over-extend and fall victim to a double-envelopment of their flanks.

Poor tactical choices don't make the rules "nonsensical, stupid... terrible" or "broken."

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Poor tactical choices don't make the rules "nonsensical, stupid... terrible" or "broken."

You're still missing the point. It's only a poor tactical choice if the unit performs well. If it performs poorly, it's a good tactical choice.

That's the part that grinds. Not that a unit can be punished for over-extending, but that it can only be punished when it performs well. If it performs poorly it is protected from its over extension.

 Kaldor wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Poor tactical choices don't make the rules "nonsensical, stupid... terrible" or "broken."

You're still missing the point. It's only a poor tactical choice if the unit performs well. If it performs poorly, it's a good tactical choice.

That's the part that grinds. Not that a unit can be punished for over-extending, but that it can only be punished when it performs well. If it performs poorly it is protected from its over extension.

It's not the unit that's being punished, its stupid tactical play by the player. Blow through a weak unit near one that can shoot you... And you get shot. Pace yourself, use challenges and appropriate support and you'll do fine. If this is too much nuance for you to grasp, play Grey Knights.

I can't imagine that you can't see the probable outcome and timing of an assault. Wishing that forces with guns don't get to use them at full effect is just silly. This reminds me of all the house rules that club vets make to protect their favorite force from changing meta... Which just causes stagnation and unimagnitive play, all to serve selfish TFG neckbeards.

I can predict the outcome. And then if I roll above average, I'm punished. That makes perfect sense, I must be a poor tactical player because I couldn't predict the exact dice rolls - only what is average. I'm sorry about that... Man. The games I'm losing because I can't predict the future.

rigeld2 wrote:
I can predict the outcome. And then if I roll above average, I'm punished. That makes perfect sense, I must be a poor tactical player because I couldn't predict the exact dice rolls - only what is average. I'm sorry about that... Man. The games I'm losing because I can't predict the future.

Well free consolidation is another roll of the die, you're screwed.

 Lobukia wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I can predict the outcome. And then if I roll above average, I'm punished. That makes perfect sense, I must be a poor tactical player because I couldn't predict the exact dice rolls - only what is average. I'm sorry about that... Man. The games I'm losing because I can't predict the future.

Well free consolidation is another roll of the die, you're screwed.

And on average, I'll get a 3" consolidation. But there's no punishment for rolling well on that - I don't have to move all 6 inches.
Rolling 8 Rends on 12 hits punishes me by leaving my Genestealers open to be shot at.

 Lobukia wrote:
It's not the unit that's being punished, its stupid tactical play by the player. Blow through a weak unit near one that can shoot you... And you get shot. Pace yourself, use challenges and appropriate support and you'll do fine.

I shouldn't be trying to manipulate the rules to do worse in combat. It's a derpy rule mechanic that rewards poor performance while punishing good performance.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
It's not the unit that's being punished, its stupid tactical play by the player. Blow through a weak unit near one that can shoot you... And you get shot. Pace yourself, use challenges and appropriate support and you'll do fine.

I shouldn't be trying to manipulate the rules to do worse in combat. It's a derpy rule mechanic that rewards poor performance while punishing good performance.

No, but you should know when you're over-committing (which is how over penetration and isolation by momentum works in RL too). Plus a challenge (if you win) almost guarantees an assault ending on your turn. Look, I blow through enemy units all the time, and get shot for it. But you had better believe that those units that could shoot at that assault squad are going to have some pie plates and fire brought down on them too. The current rules reward combined and supported assaults, which I think is good. We could add firing into combat and consolidating into another assault, or just leave it as it is and add neither. Again, I feel for Nids that don't want to run the monster zoo... but everyone else besides Chaos Daemons I know inside and out, and I truly believe that you're fine, or if not, it isn't consolidation into assaults that would fix anything. I don't know a nice, non-condescending way to say it, but you're just not playing supported, thought out assaults right, or very well if in 6th ed you think consolidating into combat is a good idea for adding balance or gameplay worth to 40k.

yes...I whole heartedly agree that my massive ork mobs should be able to roll an entire army once one gets into combat because I leapfrog from unit to unit without my opponent getting the chance to shoot me like 4th edition.

Sounds like a totally solid idea guys, lets make this happen.

lobukia can you be my 40k life coach? you are obvs a tactical genius.

they should add a new decoy skill.
your unit sets up one fake enemy and pretends to melee it.
you are therefore locked in combat and cannot be shot at.

or a "hold back" skill. your unit makes really bad melee attacks to prolong the combat therefore avoiding all shooting in your opponents next turn. a unit with "hold back" may reroll successful hits in assaults in an attempt to get misses instead. some say this is also known as a "disciplined and ordered charge".

sometimes you gotta hold back the rage and try to suck to avoid being shot at -Kharn the Betrayer

kb305 wrote:
lobukia can you be my 40k life coach? you are obvs a tactical genius.

they should add a new decoy skill.
your unit sets up one fake enemy and pretends to melee it.
you are therefore locked in combat and cannot be shot at.

or a "hold back" skill. your unit makes really bad melee attacks to prolong the combat therefore avoiding all shooting in your opponents next turn. a unit with "hold back" may reroll successful hits in assaults in an attempt to get misses instead. some say this is also known as a "disciplined and ordered charge".

sometimes you gotta hold back the rage and try to suck to avoid being shot at -Kharn the Betrayer

I've got a better idea....

Charge reactions, in the same way as you have in WHFB, that way, when your uberassault unit of doom decides to try to charge my whole army, my bait unit can decide to run away instead, leaving you isolated in front of my army, looking rather stupid, right before they get gunned down in a hail of bolter and plasma shots.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you are worried that winning an assault isn't a good idea, then assaulting in the first place probably isn't a good idea either. Rather than say how being unable to consolidate into combat isn't fair, think about how you can use your assault units effectively, alter your strategy, use tactics and supporting units. To give you a little piece of advice every EVE online player ever has gotten at some point..

Adapt or Die

madtankbloke wrote:
It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you are worried that winning an assault isn't a good idea, then assaulting in the first place probably isn't a good idea either. Rather than say how being unable to consolidate into combat isn't fair, think about how you can use your assault units effectively, alter your strategy, use tactics and supporting units. To give you a little piece of advice every EVE online player ever has gotten at some point..

Adapt or Die

You're still missing the point. It's not about whether launching the assault is a good idea, or whether the unit will be in trouble after it, or if it's over extended, or anything like that.

It's about the fact that derpy rule mechanics mean that a bad assault is always better than a good one. It's never beneficial for me to win an assault on the turn I launch it. It's always better to win the assault in the second round of combat.

That should never be the case. I should never be hoping (barring bizarre circumstance) for a poor result from my units. I should always be hoping for the best result. And not some fuzzy, tactical definition of 'best'. I should always be hoping for the maximum potential wounds to be inflicted.

 Kaldor wrote:

madtankbloke wrote:
It doesn't take a genius to work out that if you are worried that winning an assault isn't a good idea, then assaulting in the first place probably isn't a good idea either. Rather than say how being unable to consolidate into combat isn't fair, think about how you can use your assault units effectively, alter your strategy, use tactics and supporting units. To give you a little piece of advice every EVE online player ever has gotten at some point..

Adapt or Die

You're still missing the point. It's not about whether launching the assault is a good idea, or whether the unit will be in trouble after it, or if it's over extended, or anything like that.

It's about the fact that derpy rule mechanics mean that a bad assault is always better than a good one. It's never beneficial for me to win an assault on the turn I launch it. It's always better to win the assault in the second round of combat.

That should never be the case. I should never be hoping (barring bizarre circumstance) for a poor result from my units. I should always be hoping for the best result. And not some fuzzy, tactical definition of 'best'. I should always be hoping for the maximum potential wounds to be inflicted.

No one is saying that your assaults shouldn't succeed brilliantly. We're just saying that if you don't like what is waiting for you on the other side, that's on you, not the system. The enemy's forces also shouldn't be all consigned to a slow death because one squad was engaged with a Death Star. Nor should one good assault make you bullet proof. All I see are people asking for an old rule to return because they want an easy button.

And I'm saying, that given 6" movements and pretty linear unit specialties, planning for rolling the victims of your assaults should be pretty straightforward and just is a fundemental skill for 40k. Unfortunately the current rules allow your opponent a chance to have success with his units too.

To be clear, I don't hope for slow assaults that I win before my turn starts (though I like it when that happens). I just make sure that I've set up assaults that either leave me in a good spot when I'm done, or that I'm prepared to take fire as the cost for putting my army in range of enemy guns.

You're not being punished for success, you're just either being punished for not planning a turn beyond the assault, or your having to let your opponent have an effect on the game too.

To be clear, I'm not really for consolidate into combat. I just think its absolutely stupid that I get punished for rolling well and that I have to hope I do poorly the turn I assault.

And it's not lack of planning - I plan a couple of turns in advance. It's just dumb that I have to plan on taking a lot of fire if I do well as opposed to not worrying about the unit if I do poorly.

 Lobukia wrote:

You're not being punished for success, you're just either being punished for not planning a turn beyond the assault, or your having to let your opponent have an effect on the game too.

Rolling better than average DOES punish you for being successful, though.

rigeld2 wrote:To be clear, I'm not really for consolidate into combat. I just think its absolutely stupid that I get punished for rolling well and that I have to hope I do poorly the turn I assault.

And it's not lack of planning - I plan a couple of turns in advance. It's just dumb that I have to plan on taking a lot of fire if I do well as opposed to not worrying about the unit if I do poorly.

I think, if anything the shooty units are the ones getting screwed. Many systems allow a unit to do true overwatch: forgo shooting to light up the next unit that comes into range, or pick an opponent and just shoot them whenever you can next. If anything, assault units and their players should be thrilled that you get magic protection from fire because an assault happened to finish on an odd turn.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:

You're not being punished for success, you're just either being punished for not planning a turn beyond the assault, or your having to let your opponent have an effect on the game too.

Rolling better than average DOES punish you for being successful, though.

So maybe the house rule you're looking for is just do one assault phase a game turn instead of two? After all your units are getting x2 the use of shooty units? Then results would be the same no matter when you finished the combat?

 Lobukia wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:To be clear, I'm not really for consolidate into combat. I just think its absolutely stupid that I get punished for rolling well and that I have to hope I do poorly the turn I assault.

And it's not lack of planning - I plan a couple of turns in advance. It's just dumb that I have to plan on taking a lot of fire if I do well as opposed to not worrying about the unit if I do poorly.

I think, if anything the shooty units are the ones getting screwed. Many systems allow a unit to do true overwatch: forgo shooting to light up the next unit that comes into range, or pick an opponent and just shoot them whenever you can next. If anything, assault units and their players should be thrilled that you get magic protection from fire because an assault happened to finish on an odd turn.

Yeah, we should totally be grateful that we get something useful, it's not like shooting is much more powerful than assaults or anything...

 Lobukia wrote:


So maybe the house rule you're looking for is just do one assault phase a game turn instead of two? After all your units are getting x2 the use of shooty units? Then results would be the same no matter when you finished the combat?

And shooty units get to attack from a range while melee units don't. Could we please stop coming up with silly suggestions that ignore the fact that shooting is more powerful than assaults already?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

And shooty units get to attack from a range while melee units don't. Could we please stop coming up with silly suggestions that ignore the fact that shooting is more powerful than assaults already?

I have a wide selection of assault units available to me in a marine army, off the top of my head, only one of them doesn't have any shooting abilities.
Assault marines have flamers and plasma pistols, tactical terminators have heavy weapons and storm bolters, bikes have TL bolters and a selection of assault options you can use before you assault. pretty much every assault unit i can think of has a nice selection of nasty close ranged weapons at their disposal.

So, generally speaking, a dedicated assault unit can get up close, SHOOT and then assault, now in my book, thats far more utility than a dedicated shooting unit has right there. and yes, there are some units that can't shoot at all, but those are more the exception than the rule

madtankbloke wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

And shooty units get to attack from a range while melee units don't. Could we please stop coming up with silly suggestions that ignore the fact that shooting is more powerful than assaults already?

I have a wide selection of assault units available to me in a marine army, off the top of my head, only one of them doesn't have any shooting abilities.
Assault marines have flamers and plasma pistols, tactical terminators have heavy weapons and storm bolters, bikes have TL bolters and a selection of assault options you can use before you assault. pretty much every assault unit i can think of has a nice selection of nasty close ranged weapons at their disposal.

So, generally speaking, a dedicated assault unit can get up close, SHOOT and then assault, now in my book, thats far more utility than a dedicated shooting unit has right there. and yes, there are some units that can't shoot at all, but those are more the exception than the rule

The thing all of those, except the Terminators (which isn't an assault unit to start with, but whatever) have in common is that they have short-range firepower, and almost never any heavy firepower. The only time you're going to be firing that stuff, with the exception of the TL Bolters on Bikes (which, again, is a primarily shooty unit), is when you're about to assault someone anyway. Compare that to stuff that can sit back and fire all game without having to worry about getting into range first.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

The thing all of those, except the Terminators (which isn't an assault unit to start with, but whatever) have in common is that they have short-range firepower, and almost never any heavy firepower. The only time you're going to be firing that stuff, with the exception of the TL Bolters on Bikes (which, again, is a primarily shooty unit), is when you're about to assault someone anyway. Compare that to stuff that can sit back and fire all game without having to worry about getting into range first.

generally, battles start with just over 24 inches seperating the 2 sides, as most basic weapons have a 24 inch range, then you most certainly do need to move them to get into range, dedicated heavy weapons units will naturally have a longer range, but you will still have to move them sometimes due to LOS reasons.
I have always found Tactical Terminators to be very competent at assaulting things because of their save, their close combat weapons and their higher than average base attacks.

Most assault units have pistols, which aside from a few notable exceptions, have a 12 inch range. if you fire at your maximum range you are comfortably outside assault range (notwithstanding the 1/36 chance of rolling double sixes. Add on to that most assault units i have encountered have better than average access to close ranged assault weapons (although admittedly almost no access to heavy weapons) and quite often the combination of speed and nasty close ranged firepower means often you don't 'have' to assault.

If you do assault, then there will be 3 possible outcomes:

1) you win, your enemy runs away, or is killed to the last man
2) you draw and/or remain locked in combat
3) you lose, you run away or are killed to the last man

now, when you set up an assault, it behooves you to be prepared for each of those outcomes, its called planning ahead. its no good assaulting that squishy unit of guardsmen who just 'happen' to have wandered in front of abaddon, and his deathstar of doom, i mean, its obvious bait, you know whats going to happen, you don't even have to roll the dice (the guardsmen die).
if your plan is relying on just a single unit to remain unscathed, and in close combat the whole game, seriously, you need a new plan

madtankbloke wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

The thing all of those, except the Terminators (which isn't an assault unit to start with, but whatever) have in common is that they have short-range firepower, and almost never any heavy firepower. The only time you're going to be firing that stuff, with the exception of the TL Bolters on Bikes (which, again, is a primarily shooty unit), is when you're about to assault someone anyway. Compare that to stuff that can sit back and fire all game without having to worry about getting into range first.

generally, battles start with just over 24 inches seperating the 2 sides, as most basic weapons have a 24 inch range, then you most certainly do need to move them to get into range, dedicated heavy weapons units will naturally have a longer range, but you will still have to move them sometimes due to LOS reasons.
I have always found Tactical Terminators to be very competent at assaulting things because of their save, their close combat weapons and their higher than average base attacks.

Most assault units have pistols, which aside from a few notable exceptions, have a 12 inch range. if you fire at your maximum range you are comfortably outside assault range (notwithstanding the 1/36 chance of rolling double sixes. Add on to that most assault units i have encountered have better than average access to close ranged assault weapons (although admittedly almost no access to heavy weapons) and quite often the combination of speed and nasty close ranged firepower means often you don't 'have' to assault.

If you do assault, then there will be 3 possible outcomes:

1) you win, your enemy runs away, or is killed to the last man
2) you draw and/or remain locked in combat
3) you lose, you run away or are killed to the last man

now, when you set up an assault, it behooves you to be prepared for each of those outcomes, its called planning ahead. its no good assaulting that squishy unit of guardsmen who just 'happen' to have wandered in front of abaddon, and his deathstar of doom, i mean, its obvious bait, you know whats going to happen, you don't even have to roll the dice (the guardsmen die).
if your plan is relying on just a single unit to remain unscathed, and in close combat the whole game, seriously, you need a new plan

And none of this changes the fact that shooting is much, much more dominant than close combat. Would a buff to melee really be too much? In my opinion, no.

 Kaldor wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Poor tactical choices don't make the rules "nonsensical, stupid... terrible" or "broken."

You're still missing the point. It's only a poor tactical choice if the unit performs well. If it performs poorly, it's a good tactical choice.

That's the part that grinds. Not that a unit can be punished for over-extending, but that it can only be punished when it performs well. If it performs poorly it is protected from its over extension.

"the part that grinds"? That would be called risk. No battle occurs without it. Ever watch genestealers that didn't get the job done early? They get boring, great shock troops usually turn into slowly dwindling forces.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Poor tactical choices don't make the rules "nonsensical, stupid... terrible" or "broken."

You're still missing the point. It's only a poor tactical choice if the unit performs well. If it performs poorly, it's a good tactical choice.

That's the part that grinds. Not that a unit can be punished for over-extending, but that it can only be punished when it performs well. If it performs poorly it is protected from its over extension.

"the part that grinds"? That would be called risk. No battle occurs without it. Ever watch genestealers that didn't get the job done early? They get boring, great shock troops usually turn into slowly dwindling forces.

I'm with Kaldor on this one in that it just doesn't... make sense. Yes, it's a risk, but it's a risk that seems counterintuitive. If you do poorly, you are rewarded. If you do well, you're punished. A risk should have a punishment for when things go poorly, not for when they go well, at least for it to mesh in my head and (I presume) Kaldor's. It's outside of balance at that point. It's like Plasma Guns. If you roll a 1 to hit, BLAM. Cool, I get that, if something goes wrong (you roll a 1) you get punished. That's a risk that makes sense to me. If in assault, you hit and wound everything and it's a total slaughter... you die. What? That makes brainhurt occur for me. I kind of get the 'overextension' idea, and that makes it less brainhurt, but it still feels clunky to me.

But you don't die if you set up your assault well, using terrain to help protect your assaulters from enemy shooting if they do finish the assault on turn 1, using nearby supporting units to engage or threaten your opponent's available shooting support units, etc.

I get your point that it's counterintuitive. Think of it as a balancing mechanic; if you manage to kill the enemy in a single round of HtH, you've avoided suffering any further wounds from them in HtH in return. And the nature of the turn mechanic in 40k means that half the time (if you end an assault on your opponent's turn), you get a consolidate, a full move, and another chance to shoot and charge, with your opponent having no recourse or defense but Overwatch.

I do also think (unlike Lobukia) that overall maybe assault has been de-emphasized a bit excessively in this edition, but I agree with him that it's certainly still viable and useful.

Oh, I agree its still viable and useful.
It's just stupid that when I assault with Genestealers or Hormagaunts (for example) all I can do is hope I don't kill everyone in my turn. Because unlike many other assault units I don't have the armor save to survive, and consolidating into cover isn't possible most of the time.

why is it counterintuitive? you run into the enemy, beat wholesale &$*, but without support or a great consolidation roll, you have made yourself a sitting duck. As I said before, poor tactical decisions don't make the rule "broken" or "nonsensical and stupid."

rigeld2 wrote:I can predict the outcome. And then if I roll above average, I'm punished. That makes perfect sense, I must be a poor tactical player because I couldn't predict the exact dice rolls - only what is average.

If it only requires an above average dice roll for your plan to fall apart then you can hardly claim to have predicted the outcome. If you are only capable of calculating averages then you are not capable of predicting outcomes. Like it or not averages are just that, average, a lot of the time things go very different to the average.

Charging that 12 man squad with my 20 attacks with a 50% hit/wound chance means I average 10 kills, but I have a ~25% chance of killing them all.

We can't predict outcomes for the most part, neither the exact dice rolls, However, we can calculate probabilities of outcomes. Or if you have played enough, have a good feeling for the chance of doing 'too well' or 'too bad'. Averages are useful info, but putting too much faith in them on any given decision is poor play.

 Lobukia wrote:
All I see are people asking for an old rule to return because they want an easy button.

Look, it's really simple.

I charge into an enemy unit that is ten models strong.

If I kill 8 models, that is an ok result.

If I kill 10 models, that is a better result.

BUT WAIT!

Because of the derpy rule mechanics, the better result is actually the worse result. Those mechanics need to change, so that the better result is actually the better result. There should never be a circumstance where killing less models is better for me.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
"the part that grinds"? That would be called risk.

Missed the point again. I have no aversion to risk. But the risk should come from performing poorly, not performing well.

Currently:

I kill the enemy in one turn = bad.

I kill the enemy in two turns = good.

This needs to be reversed, so that the risk is linked to poor performance and not good performance.

How the situation is reversed isn't terribly important. My personal opinion is that close combat has been de-emphasised too much already in this edition and that allowing consolidation into combat would be the best fix. However I'd also be happy with allowing shooting into combat, having a single assault phase per game turn, or some other fix. Perhaps allow an over-run move if you destroy the enemy in a single round of combat. It doesn't really matter. It's just a glaringly obvious problem that needs a fix.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
why is it counterintuitive? you run into the enemy, beat wholesale &$*, but without support or a great consolidation roll, you have made yourself a sitting duck. As I said before, poor tactical decisions don't make the rule "broken" or "nonsensical and stupid."

Because if I don't wipe the unit out I'm not a sitting duck. In fact, not wiping the unit out on the first assault phase is almost always better than wholesale slaughtering them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puree wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I can predict the outcome. And then if I roll above average, I'm punished. That makes perfect sense, I must be a poor tactical player because I couldn't predict the exact dice rolls - only what is average.

We can't predict outcomes for the most part, neither the exact dice rolls, However, we can calculate probabilities of outcomes. Or if you have played enough, have a good feeling for the chance of doing 'too well' or 'too bad'. Averages are useful info, but putting too much faith in them on any given decision is poor play.

Let me amend my statement - if I defy probability and wipe out the target unit, I'm punished.
My point stands.

puree wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I can predict the outcome. And then if I roll above average, I'm punished. That makes perfect sense, I must be a poor tactical player because I couldn't predict the exact dice rolls - only what is average.

We can't predict outcomes for the most part, neither the exact dice rolls, However, we can calculate probabilities of outcomes. Or if you have played enough, have a good feeling for the chance of doing 'too well' or 'too bad'. Averages are useful info, but putting too much faith in them on any given decision is poor play.

Let me amend my statement - if I defy probability and wipe out the target unit, I'm punished.
My point stands.

Defy probability? If you mean you achieve some extremely unlikely result punishing you then you are talkling about something that happens, what? every 50 or so games?

I love the assault rules . not only do they make meq worse , if they try it , because I can overwatch them and they can fail to charge , but also if they actualy come in to contact , then my IG die and marines eat plasma templates on my turn . It is both fluffy [guants ghosts had ultra choppy zerkers die to lasguns] and fun to watch . If I could I would added a rule to droping 1" from charge for every hit you made with overwatch , it would make flamers better for my IG . and it would make sense with marines slowing down under constant fire .

puree wrote:

puree wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I can predict the outcome. And then if I roll above average, I'm punished. That makes perfect sense, I must be a poor tactical player because I couldn't predict the exact dice rolls - only what is average.

We can't predict outcomes for the most part, neither the exact dice rolls, However, we can calculate probabilities of outcomes. Or if you have played enough, have a good feeling for the chance of doing 'too well' or 'too bad'. Averages are useful info, but putting too much faith in them on any given decision is poor play.

Let me amend my statement - if I defy probability and wipe out the target unit, I'm punished.
My point stands.

Defy probability? If you mean you achieve some extremely unlikely result punishing you then you are talkling about something that happens, what? every 50 or so games?

And how often does rolling well when shooting punish you?

puree wrote:
Defy probability? If you mean you achieve some extremely unlikely result punishing you then you are talkling about something that happens, what? every 50 or so games?

Imagine, purely hypothetically, that if you cause more than four wounds on a target during the shooting phase, that the enemy calls in an artillery strike to suppress your position.

Any time you cause more than four wounds, centre a S8, AP3 Large Blast template on your own unit. Roll for scatter.

This is analogous to the current assault rules. It is obviously exaggerated to make a point, so lets not get bogged down in the specifics of the analogy. The point is that you suffer a penalty for causing wounds, when the opposite should be the case.

rigeld2 wrote:

And how often does rolling well when shooting punish you?

When it stops me assaulting/shooting a unit cos its now out of range, or when it means that I lose a cover save for firing through the unit I just killed etc? Being 'punished' for shooting well is possibly more common than doing well in assault.

I'm not arguing about the rule you are complaining about. I'm just intrigued by your assertion first that you were having problems when you rolled above average - relying on averages is just bad play. Or that it only happens when you 'defy probability', which would imply that it hardly ever happens.

I don't get why people are complaining about the ruleset. Yes it does seem worrysome that if you do exceptionally well in an assault you get shot to pieces in the following phase. Yet this is a tactical risk one takes to gain success. If a queen takes a pawn and puts the king in check, thats a tactical gain, however that knight that takes the queen is a consequence of jumping ahead without foresight into your opponents move, and generally and obvious one at that. If you want to assault a unit with success you need to make sure his behind is covered otherwise you do fail in the end. you are not really penalized for assaulting anymore than you are penalized for doing anything else in the game, Its a calculated risk anyone takes, and unlike other games i've played its an extra step instead of inclusive (like warmachine where melee attacks are done in the same phase as shooting.)

I've yet had any real issues with assaults other than I feel assaults are too much of the game (the only phase where a single player acts twice per game turn) rather than a single part of it.

puree wrote:
I'm not arguing about the rule you are complaining about. I'm just intrigued by your assertion first that you were having problems when you rolled above average - relying on averages is just bad play. Or that it only happens when you 'defy probability', which would imply that it hardly ever happens.

You're right - I misstated when I said average. Defying probability happens at least once a game for me - in that I either spectacularly fail (8 Ymgarls losing combat to 12 out of Synapse Termagants) or absolutely slaughter the target that I shouldn't have (8 Ymgarls getting 8/10 Rends and the TH/SS squad failing every invul). I plan for it on every assault now.

A unit that loses an assault has to take a morale check with a penalty equal to the amount they lose the assault by. so, if you charge a 10 man unit, and kill 9 of them (with no casualties on your side) then they have to take a morale check with a whopping -9 modifier, that means any survivor, other than a fearless nutter has a staggering 1/36 chance of not running away (and who can blame him) if your plan is to consistently win a combat by a couple of points, so that the morale checks aren't too hard to pass, then your assault troops aren't doing their jobs, and you should probably fire them.

What the rules reward people for is being tactical, and intelligent in how they employ their forces. when you charge into a unit, and wipe them out (or they run away), and then get promptly shot to pieces, its not because the assault rules are broken, its because it was probably a REALLY bad idea to assault in the first place, because you know your opponent is going to shoot you up.
whereas if you assault an isolated unit, and chop them up when they are unsupported, whats your opponent going to do about it? there isn't much he can do.

Yes, shooting is dominant in this game, but close assault is far and away more decisive.

Lets take 2 units (with basic weapons)

10 tactical marines, can at best, put out 20 shots per turn, or if they use bolt pistols 30 attacks (10 shooting, 20 assault)
10 assault marines on the other hand, can shoot, and then assault for the equivalent of 50 attacks per turn (10 shooting, 10 HoW, 30 assault)

the assault marines are 250% as effective on the attack as a unit that shoots, or 167% as effective if the shooty unit assaults

The price you pay for the sheer volume of attacks you can unleash upon an enemy is that its far and away more decisive than shooting alone, shooting dominates because it has a much greater range, but you can often decide in a single assault phase what it would take that shooty unit multiple turns of shooting to do (or multiple units concentrating their fire in a single turn). admittedly, plasma and melta weapons are seriously effective, but when you have a tooled up unit with a variety of power weapons, they are MORE effective.

Given that assaulting is so effective, its more than likely that your opponents unit is going to lose the combat, either by being wiped out, or by running away, and you should plan accordingly, failure to do so is what so often leads to assault units having their teeth pulled by an effective counter attack

Paitryn wrote:
I don't get why people are complaining about the ruleset. Yes it does seem worrysome that if you do exceptionally well in an assault you get shot to pieces in the following phase. Yet this is a tactical risk one takes to gain success.

Risk is fine, but why attach it to doing well? The risk should be that I do poorly, and doing well should be a good thing. Killing more should always be the best possible outcome, and currently it's the opposite.

If your assault unit killing it's target in one turn leaves it's ass flapping in the breeze you've done something wrong and your unsupported attack deserves to die.

Orktavius wrote:
If your assault unit killing it's target in one turn leaves it's ass flapping in the breeze you've done something wrong.

Yea, Clearly you rolled too many 6's to wound with Genestealers and wiped your target unit in one turn.

Clearly you have "done something wrong" by rolling the dice... [/Sarcasm]

No you've clearly made an unsupported attack where your opponent can afford to focus all his fire on that one assault unit instead of the rest of your army barreling down on him.

Orktavius wrote:
No you've clearly made an unsupported attack where your opponent can afford to focus all his fire on that one assault unit instead of the rest of your army barreling down on him.

"All his fire"? Do you realize how little it takes to kill 8 single wound 4+ save models?
A single TAC squad could probably do it.

"All his fire" indeed.

I guess my main problem with this is that while its uncomfortable/annoying for MEQs (because they're fairly resilient already) many Nid units need to stay locked as often as possible because they die outside cover to very little shooting. If I "mess up" and roll too well it's not a lack of planning that screws me - its the fact that someone sneezing at the wrong time knocks all my stealers over and there's very little I can do about it.

Note that I still run assaulty Nids despite this, and I'm decently successful. That doesn't mean the rule is fine.

Orktavius wrote:
If your assault unit killing it's target in one turn leaves it's ass flapping in the breeze you've done something wrong and your unsupported attack deserves to die.

Still missing the point. Wiping the unit out should always be a good thing, or at least have the potential for more reward than NOT wiping the unit out.

Wiping the unit out should be rewarded, not penalised.

Orktavius wrote:
No you've clearly made an unsupported attack where your opponent can afford to focus all his fire on that one assault unit instead of the rest of your army barreling down on him.

Why should he only be able to focus his fire on that one assault squad, if I wipe out the enemy? Why be penalised for a good performance?

By all means punish isolated assault units, and over extended armies. But it's a poor rule mechanic that only lets you punish units that are both overextended and have managed to wiff their assault. A unit should be in more trouble if it wiffs it's assault, not less trouble.

Why should your opponent's game be ended the moment an assault unit reaches his lines with no way for him to stop it as it leaps from combat to combat?

Orktavius wrote:
Why should your opponent's game be ended the moment an assault unit reaches his lines with no way for him to stop it as it leaps from combat to combat?

Thank you.

For all the criticism in here few people are actually proposing a workable solution.

Also to the person saying assault should basically be removed, play a different game.

Orktavius wrote:
Why should your opponent's game be ended the moment an assault unit reaches his lines with no way for him to stop it as it leaps from combat to combat?

So you're saying that in 4th Edition, one assault unit was able to auto-win against the enemy army by simply getting into one combat, anywhere on the board?

Because that's not how I remember my games going, and I played Guard. With the changes to assault distances, and when you can/can't assault, combined with overwatch, allowing consolidation into combat wouldn't be as bad as it was then, and it wasn't even that bad back then.

But it doesn't even need to be that simple. Maybe make it only possible to consolidate into combat if you destroy the enemy on the first round. Maybe make it so you can't consolidate into combat if you've made a sweeping advance to wipe out the enemy. Hell, allow shooting into combat or limit combat to one round per game turn.

The actual change isn't terribly important, it just needs to be changed so that players want their units to destroy the enemy in assault, instead of hoping for them to fail.

 Kaldor wrote:

Still missing the point. Wiping the unit out should always be a good thing, or at least have the potential for more reward than NOT wiping the unit out.

Wiping the unit out should be rewarded, not penalised.

Wiping out a unit is a good thing. That in no way means that only other good things should follow! You do have the potential for more reward - charging another unit.

But wiping a unit out in melee should allow the all enemy units nearby to have another go at shooting the crap out of you prior to beinig able to get into another combat. So wiping out a unit should be bad in that it means you are now a target for shooting. I see no reason why a unit of Heavy bolters should somehow never get to fire at unit of genestealers that has finished of the first line of defenders.

Another way of looking at it is that the rules are naff for allowing a unit that kills a unit in the enemy turn to escape all bar some overwatch as it charges across to its next target. Not because killing stuff in your turn means you get shot to crap.

puree wrote:
But wiping a unit out in melee should allow the all enemy units nearby to have another go at shooting the crap out of you prior to beinig able to get into another combat.

Ok, so why don't they get that opportunity if I take two rounds of combat to wipe them out? Why should they only get that opportunity if my assault is successful?

I fully accept your way of looking at it, that the rules are naff for not penalising a unit which kills it's enemy during the opponents turn. I absolutely do.

However, I think close combat has already taken a significant hit in this edition, and if one were to address the nonsensical issue of wiping out the enemy being a bad thing instead of a good thing, I think it should be addressed in such a way that encourages more close combat, rather than penalising it even further.

From what I've read so far it seems there is an apparent line in regards to assault. Those who believe assault is a silly and redundant idea, and those who believe that being good in an assault shouldn't get you killed for wiping out your target.

Here's my 2c, in the 41st millennium everything is possible. 8' tall super humans in super armour (or aliens in alien armour) wading through gun fire and personally slaughtering all who oppose them is the norm. So how could you make assault worse without making it utterly worthless? It's already a pretty risky move now, so I think making it worse is not really an option. If anything its the dominating Assault units that cause the issues of invincible army stompers, and they are widely in abundance. Maybe a reduction on number of units or unit size?

But in regards to getting pumped full of holes for being good at assault it's an unfortunate side effect of the game system, without a major overhaul of the rules this is likely to continue into future editions. I find the best solution is artillery around your assault target and reduce the amount of 'local' fire power reduces casualties taken after becoming exposed, but that is only damage limitation not damage avoidance. Possibly a 'GET TO COVER!!' move after an assault meaning exactly that... get to cover...???

 Kaldor wrote:

Ok, so why don't they get that opportunity if I take two rounds of combat to wipe them out? Why should they only get that opportunity if my assault is successful?

I fully accept your way of looking at it, that the rules are naff for not penalising a unit which kills it's enemy during the opponents turn. I absolutely do.

However, I think close combat has already taken a significant hit in this edition, and if one were to address the nonsensical issue of wiping out the enemy being a bad thing instead of a good thing, I think it should be addressed in such a way that encourages more close combat, rather than penalising it even further.

Don't get me wrong, I have no strong feeling either way. I understand what you are saying. I feel it is better than it used to be, but still an artifact of playing an IGOUGO system. Maybe I am too casual nowadays, I accept that there are always oddities with IGOUGO, they may be different oddities in different games, but few such games escape some disconnect with 'reality'. I just accept basing my tactics around the game as it is, rather than worrying about such things.

I probably don't play as much as many on here, we go through phases of playing a game then something else etc. But in our last 40k phase close combat seemed pretty OK to me. It felt far better than the older rhino rush days, or the consolidate down the line days. Certainly the game seems a lot more shooty now, but melee still seems the decisive way of doing things, and only feels it has taken a hit to me in comparison to those older days when melee seemed rather too uber.

Orktavius wrote:
Why should your opponent's game be ended the moment an assault unit reaches his lines with no way for him to stop it as it leaps from combat to combat?

Clearly it's your own fault for not planning ahead and bringing some sort of counter-charge unit, especially now that there's allies...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Why should your opponent's game be ended the moment an assault unit reaches his lines with no way for him to stop it as it leaps from combat to combat?

Clearly it's your own fault for not planning ahead and bringing some sort of counter-charge unit, especially now that there's allies...

so how's this any different from an assaulting unit getting the gak shot out of it because the assaulter couldn't be bothered to give his unit any support? It cut's both ways, assault rules are perfectly fine. I run an assault heavy orc list and it doesn't have to much trouble from anything, meanwhile I remember 4th when you could consolidate into combat and you very much could just roll half your opponents army with a good assault.

Orktavius wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Why should your opponent's game be ended the moment an assault unit reaches his lines with no way for him to stop it as it leaps from combat to combat?

Clearly it's your own fault for not planning ahead and bringing some sort of counter-charge unit, especially now that there's allies...

so how's this any different from an assaulting unit getting the gak shot out of it because the assaulter couldn't be bothered to give his unit any support? It cut's both ways, assault rules are perfectly fine. I run an assault heavy orc list and it doesn't have to much trouble from anything, meanwhile I remember 4th when you could consolidate into combat and you very much could just roll half your opponents army with a good assault.

It's different because shooting is already dominant. There's nothing wrong with the assault rules, except the fact that shooting is much better than assaulting. 4th didn't have Overwatch or random charge distances.

Wouldn't it be a very real worry for a DC squad that they could decimate this squad of Fire Warriors in front of them, but behind them sits a Broadside Team that have been watching the fighting and lining up a barrage should it go inevitably badly for the Fire Warriors?

I could get behind units assaulting directly into another unit after victory if any unit after the first got to overwatch at BS rather than snap shot, that would seem fair to me and in line with the whole 'as reality' line GW seem to be taking.

 Davylove21 wrote:
Wouldn't it be a very real worry for a DC squad that they could decimate this squad of Fire Warriors in front of them, but behind them sits a Broadside Team that have been watching the fighting and lining up a barrage should it go inevitably badly for the Fire Warriors?

I could get behind units assaulting directly into another unit after victory if any unit after the first got to overwatch at BS rather than snap shot, that would seem fair to me and in line with the whole 'as reality' line GW seem to be taking.

Honestly this is a compromise I would be ok with. It would at least make it so my assault units would only get shot by one squad instead of several. I'd only agree to it if the squad could not shoot again in their shooting phase if they somehow wiped out the charging squad.

Please forgive typos, written from phone.

Orktavius wrote:
Why should your opponent's game be ended the moment an assault unit reaches his lines with no way for him to stop it as it leaps from combat to combat?

Odd,as unless you were new, or hadnt planned ahead, that isnt how 4th went - at all.

Currently shooting a unit until you wipe it out cannot penalise your unit (apart from Gets Hot!) whereas close combat can give you a penalty for doing too well

Doing too well should not confer a penalty, espeically when (unlike in shooting) you cannot choose to "hold back" in close combat - the only way to do so is with careful positioning, something which the removal of the engagement zone in 4th is apparently discouraged by GW

 rabid1903 wrote:

 Davylove21 wrote:
Wouldn't it be a very real worry for a DC squad that they could decimate this squad of Fire Warriors in front of them, but behind them sits a Broadside Team that have been watching the fighting and lining up a barrage should it go inevitably badly for the Fire Warriors?

I could get behind units assaulting directly into another unit after victory if any unit after the first got to overwatch at BS rather than snap shot, that would seem fair to me and in line with the whole 'as reality' line GW seem to be taking.

Honestly this is a compromise I would be ok with. It would at least make it so my assault units would only get shot by one squad instead of several. I'd only agree to it if the squad could not shoot again in their shooting phase if they somehow wiped out the charging squad.

Please forgive typos, written from phone.

It's cool for MEQ or better assault units, but it would be just as bad - if not worse - for Nids. It often only takes one squad shooting to make a Nid unit combat ineffective.

rigeld2 wrote:

 rabid1903 wrote:

 Davylove21 wrote:
Wouldn't it be a very real worry for a DC squad that they could decimate this squad of Fire Warriors in front of them, but behind them sits a Broadside Team that have been watching the fighting and lining up a barrage should it go inevitably badly for the Fire Warriors?

I could get behind units assaulting directly into another unit after victory if any unit after the first got to overwatch at BS rather than snap shot, that would seem fair to me and in line with the whole 'as reality' line GW seem to be taking.

Honestly this is a compromise I would be ok with. It would at least make it so my assault units would only get shot by one squad instead of several. I'd only agree to it if the squad could not shoot again in their shooting phase if they somehow wiped out the charging squad.

Please forgive typos, written from phone.

It's cool for MEQ or better assault units, but it would be just as bad - if not worse - for Nids. It often only takes one squad shooting to make a Nid unit combat ineffective.

I understand that, I play nids. However, this lets me dictate what my opponent will shoot at. Will that broadside team unload on a squad of gaunts, or let them charge in? Either way my Flyrant is safe from that unit for a turn. Just gives me more options besides hoping.

Please forgive typos, sent from my phone.

If you're going to house rule in consolidation into new combat, then I think also allowing true overwatch (not shooting in your shooting phase but being able to fire when an enemy moved into range). I'd run it like Interceptor. A squad can overwatch at full BS, but cannot fire in the next shooting phase (only an option for consolidations toward another unit). I'd think that would be enough to balance the game and yet reward successful assaults, but it would take someplaytesting to know for sure.