21604
Post by: Killjoy00
It has been a while now - what are people's impressions of 6th edition? Loving it, hating it?
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
Loving it. Overwatch, grenade rules, hull points, battlefield terrain rules, all of them are awesome. The only things I dislike are A) Hammer and Anvil deployment and B) random psychic power rolls. Best edition so far!
62560
Post by: Makumba
This edition seems much slower then the one we have before it , but in as a guard player I like it . The focus on shoting and the ability to include good counter ally units helps a lot.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
It's a broken mess that took a huge number of steps forward and then flopped around and broke its fall with its face because it thought doing so would look cool.
For every thing that was fixed or enhanced (e.g. wound allocation, psychic powers, cover saves, Overwatch), something else broke (tanks end up being jokes thanks to Hull Points and the new vehicle CC rules), or something completely and utterly unnecessary was added (Challenges, First Blood) or was extremely poorly executed (Flyers).
There is some cool stuff this edition, I like the inclusion of fortifications (even if they feel somewhat market-ey), I like many of the new rules, but so much of the other stuff just feels like either over-compensation (hull points) or stuff shoved in for "cool factor"/"cinematic feel" without regard for the scale of the game.
Overall, my opinion of 6E is that it's an unorganized mess that never went through proper playtesting and doesn't know if it wants to be an RPG, a skirmish game, a company battle game, all of the above or something else entirely.
7637
Post by: Sasori
I find it more enjoyable than 5th, and I think the armies are much better balanced against each other, than they were in 5th.
That being said, it does have it's issues. Such as the large nerf to assault, the dominance of flyers early on (which is being fixed as time moves on) and a few other things.
Overall, I'd say positive experience for sure.
69272
Post by: tommse
I dislike the concept of taking allies. Imo a good army has to have weaknesses. You mitigate that fact by adding allies. The rest i have no idea about since i started with this edition.
69850
Post by: wilsjur
I loke it, just don't "love" it. It has some severe problems, like necron warriors being able to glance a land raider to death without any good luck at all.
60281
Post by: FarseerAndyMan
I think the current edition of the rules is the best.
It took all the cool things of 1st and 2nd ed and cleaned up the garbage the Chambers made out of 3rd ed.
Overall, the best new stuff is ..
Flyers
Fortifications
Overwatch
Allies
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I think 6th is the best edition thus far. Although I do miss my 4th edition chapter traits for my space marines.
wilsjur wrote:I loke it, just don't "love" it. It has some severe problems, like necron warriors being able to glance a land raider to death without any good luck at all.
They've been able to do that since the Necron's first came out.
44276
Post by: Lobokai
Grey Templar wrote:I think 6th is the best edition thus far. Although I do miss my 4th edition chapter traits for my space marines.
Rumors are that this might come back (probably wishlisting, but seems to fit in with other new codices).
I've been playing since the RT days. If only prices came down about 10% and stayed there for a few years I'd have no complaints. This really is the best edition yet.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
Most fun edition of 40k I've played since 2nd edition (through rose tinted glasses syndrome). I never fail to have fun when I play it, even when I lose horribly.
59234
Post by: Verthane
Best version since the early days of RT (not the late 1st edition crap where it was all out of balance and unplayable). Better than 5th, better than 4th (except if you're a Nid player, that was when they had their best codex), waaaay better than 2nd or 3rd.
Still plenty of problems, mind you, but less than the usual.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Still better then 3/4/5 to me.
I liked 2, but it was more for fun because of its crazy things.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Some good some bad.
The good:
- Reduced many sources of cover to 5+
- Better wound allocation / model removal
- More interesting psychic powers
- Flier rules (about time)
- Decent vehicle rules. Hull points were a necessary nerf.
- Codices have generally trended toward greater balance, though DA and CSM are lackluster compared to Tau.
The bad:
- Close combat was heavily nerfed. In an edition that saw shooting gain pretty serious buffs, this wasn't necessary. One or the other would have been sufficient.
- Variable assault distances are ridiculous. I have no idea if my unit is going to sprint 12" (same as a jump pack trooper moves!) or fart 2" forward. Makes no sense whatsoever. 3" + D6 or something like that would have been much better.
- Allies. I like that there are rules for allies. I dislike that they are not optional.
- Fortifications. Again, I like that there are rules for them, but I dislike that they are not optional.
42470
Post by: SickSix
NuggzTheNinja wrote:Some good some bad.
- Allies. I like that there are rules for allies. I dislike that they are not optional.
- Fortifications. Again, I like that there are rules for them, but I dislike that they are not optional.
Uh what? Since when are these not optional?
465
Post by: Redbeard
I really don't like it much. It's a decent game to have a few beers over, but its no longer worth actually paying much attention to.
My main issues:
- Random charge length. So, you have a guy who, thanks to premeasuring, can know exactly whether he's in range or not with his lascannon, and another set of guys who can set up exactly on the 12" line to maximize their rapid-fire guns, but your charging guys have no idea whether they can make it 4" or 10".
- Random psychic powers, warlord traits. The basic idea behind a game with points is that two players who spend the same number of points will have a roughly equivalent matchup. Warlord traits and random psychic powers just chuck this out the window. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell that almost all of the witchfire powers are not-so-good, while the buffs are awesome. So, you roll some witchfire, and I get Iron Arm and Warp Speed, and we'll see how equal that is. Warlord traits are another case of the same. Too often, one player gets something that makes their army rock, and the other player gets nothing that helps them at all.
I think they made all this stuff random because they pretty much proved that they have no idea what's good and what's not. When you look at how they priced psychic powers in books where you could pick them, and you see things like Lash of Submission being cheap, well, it's just easier for their designers to make them random than to try and price them.
- First Blood. The number of games that have come down to this pisses me off. So I'm going to dedicate 2-3 hours to gaming, only to have the outcome decided in the first 15 minutes. Really, what's the point?
- Flyers. Blatant money-grab. Flyers are responsible for more "bad matchup" games than anything else I've seen. If one player goes heavy aircraft and the other doesn't, it gets one-sided in a hurry. There's a reason there were so many Necron lists in the top-ten at Adepticon.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
First blood is weird in that I can see the issue - if both people claim the same amount of objectives, kill the warlord and get line breaker, whoever got First Blood will win, but I just haven't ever experienced that.
In my experience, the games tend to have landslide wins, though that might just be the lists my friends and I play. Even if both sides are butchered by the end of the game,one person is comfortably winning so First Blood has never really mattered.
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
Why is there no "meh" option?
34242
Post by: -Loki-
SickSix wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:Some good some bad.
- Allies. I like that there are rules for allies. I dislike that they are not optional.
- Fortifications. Again, I like that there are rules for them, but I dislike that they are not optional.
Uh what? Since when are these not optional?
He means in that they're not opponents permission. They're optional for you to take, but outside of saying 'I just won't play you', there's no agreement to use them, like the old Special Characters used to have.
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
The Good:
-excellent allocation rules
-Fliers
-Allies
-Pre-measuring
The Bad
-Massive Assault nerfs
-Sometimes nonsensical allies matrix
The Ugly
-Appalling Implementation of fliers (Seriously, One paragraph in an errata would have made thins much better all round)
-randomness for randoms sake
-Everything else GW has been doing with it's bussiness model
That being said, I am somewhat less than fond of 6th because it shafted both my armies. This, and GW's other actions led me to find better ways to spend my time.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Even though it's in my favor most of the time, I've seen First Blood determine enough games to dislike it.
It doesn't always come into play, but I've seen it enough where it has, and it's just too easy for some armies to get (hello long range shooty army that went first, why yes, take the free VP why don't you) and really doesn't mean anything (unlike Slay the Warlord where there's a merit in having removed the enemy commander from the field, and Linebreaker where advancing troops into the enemy rear usually has its own merit).
It's just too much of a "gimme" and doesn't have the same "moral" standing that the other secondary objectives do. This coming from an IG player who usually gets it.
70433
Post by: jimkurtjimmy
Love almost everything. Really hate flyers. Now its just bring as many flyers as possible. But me and my friends usually don't bring any or if we do we make sure the opponent has one too. So I guess its not that big of a deal.
17718
Post by: Drk_Oblitr8r
Flyers are overrated. That's the only thing I don't like about 6th, everyone thinking they're so taboo. The more you have the more likely you can be wiped from the board on turn one.
48746
Post by: Billagio
I really just dislike challenges and random charge. I think the 5th edition version of charging was much better and challenges seem very unnecessary and gimp some armies heavily (orks in particular from my experience). Overall I like it, but there is some things that were not needed at all.
70626
Post by: Dakkamite
I like random charge range, though it should be more reliable, and shooting should have random range or something to compensate - as someone said earlier, 100% being able to rapid fire and such but never knowing if you can charge is bs. Overwatch is also cool by me.
I do not like fliers. The concept of fliers isn't terrible, but their blatant pay2win nature and horrific, game breaking balance is. I also really dislike the paper-scissors-rock nature of skyfire and fliers.
Fortifications aren't too bad, but need to be individual to each faction, weaker, and able to be taken in larger amounts - just another part of the army like troops and heavy support.
I absolutely loathe not being able to assault from deep strike or outflanking or whatever, but still being able to shoot. Thats outright crappy rules right there that shift the balance even further in favour of shooting and away from assault.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
I agree that they fixed a lot of stuff that, while not overtly broken, certainly makes more sense now. The addition of a mechanic like hull points was LONG overdue, and they finally fixed the whole vehicles aren't actually faster than infantry problem. SMF has finally become reasonable after years of not being so, and a bunch of annoying things like the old by-unit movement rules have been cleared off. Over all, things just work in the way you would expect them to.
Unfortunately, just because the game became more intuitive doesn't necessarily make it better balanced. Foot lists got gouged way harder than mech lists, and they all but completely killed off assault outside of a few units. This imbalances the game MORE toward the direction of mechanized gunline armies, and the like. Kinds of lists that are boring to play against, and really didn't need any help on the power curve.
That said I'd agree that, in general, I've had a more fun time playing 6th than I did in 5th, but that could be saying more about myself than about the rules edition.
... if only you could still do assault hordes...
34242
Post by: -Loki-
Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:Flyers are overrated. That's the only thing I don't like about 6th, everyone thinking they're so taboo. The more you have the more likely you can be wiped from the board on turn one.
Unless you're Guard, who have the sheer numbers on the table to absorb an alpha strike. Unless your Chaos, who have the sheer durability from power armour to absorb an alpha strike. Unless your Necrons, who have both the numbers and the durability from Reanimation Protocols to absorb an alpha strike.
So, unless yoiu're using one of the armies with broken flyers, flyers are overrated.
Completely agree.
49408
Post by: McNinja
Every random roll makes me dislike the game slightly more. I Like the game, but random charge distance, rolling for warlord traits... I mean, why? How in any real context does that make sense? Your soldiers see a target, they go after it, they don't all fall and trip over their own feet after running for three seconds. The fact that a major aspect of the game is now random changed assault for the worse, so much so that they had to change rules like fleet to make it suck less.
As for rolling for warlord traits, that makes about as much sense as rolling for psychic powers. The commander has no clue what he's good at before the battle? Right. Its my army, my commander. Games-Workshop is not playing my games for me, so stop making more on tables where 99% of the rolls are useless to me. Psychic powers are even worse; a psyker has no idea what he knows. Not a single clue until the game starts. Its like he opens a book of spells, closes his eyes, and just slaps his finger on the page, and whatever it lands on is what he knows for the game.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
McNinja wrote:Every random roll makes me dislike the game slightly more. I Like the game, but random charge distance, rolling for warlord traits... I mean, why? How in any real context does that make sense? Your soldiers see a target, they go after it, they don't all fall and trip over their own feet after running for three seconds. It's meant to represent the fact that the battlefield is chaotic, and the little skirmish you're playing is not a part of the whole thing. When an assault fails, they're not tripping over their own feet. Maybe a flyer from somewhere else zoomed across at ground level as it was crashing. Maybe an artillery shell from off table landed in the way and made them pause. Maybe a psyker off table was manifesting a hallucination of My Little Pony farting a rainbow and they shielded their eyes in fear. In a hectic battle like they want 40k to represent, so many things can and would happen that yours and your opponents armies just don't entirely capture, and they want you to use your imagination. The problem is, they spend so much time in the book talking about forging a narrative, when a narrative needs a strong foundation. Random mechanics don't make for a strong foundation for a narrative.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
McNinja wrote:Every random roll makes me dislike the game slightly more. I Like the game, but random charge distance, rolling for warlord traits... I mean, why? How in any real context does that make sense? Your soldiers see a target, they go after it, they don't all fall and trip over their own feet after running for three seconds. The fact that a major aspect of the game is now random changed assault for the worse, so much so that they had to change rules like fleet to make it suck less.
As for rolling for warlord traits, that makes about as much sense as rolling for psychic powers. The commander has no clue what he's good at before the battle? Right. Its my army, my commander. Games-Workshop is not playing my games for me, so stop making more on tables where 99% of the rolls are useless to me. Psychic powers are even worse; a psyker has no idea what he knows. Not a single clue until the game starts. Its like he opens a book of spells, closes his eyes, and just slaps his finger on the page, and whatever it lands on is what he knows for the game.
Random charges represent a multitude of things.
The unit doesn't react together cohesively and the ensuring confusion causes the charge to fail.
They fail to correctly judge the distance between them and the target and are unable to reach it before the enemy reacts(the turn ending)
You the commander issue an order to charge and they fail to receive it.
Any number of things can result in a unit failing to accomplish this.
Its why you the commander need to make calculated decisions. have backup plans if your charge fails. How do you react when things don't go according to plan.
Because of this, having some randomness increases the tactical depth of the game. Making it just about which player can set up their certainties best is kinda lame.
Warlord Traits should have been player pick. But random charge distance is a good move.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Random charge length was necessary. Assault is usually decisive, far more so than shooting, and with the ability to measure at any time (a long overdue change) a fixed assault distance would have meant that you could always guarantee a charge (unless there was difficult terrain in the way). That would give powerful assault units the ability to make risk-free charges and wipe entire units off the table with no chance of failure, and that would have been very bad for the game.
Now, random charge length was also poorly executed. Having a range of 2-12" is just stupid, it should have been 3+D6" instead. That would eliminate the worst stupidity of failing a charge from 3" away, but still add enough uncertainty that a successful charge is not automatic. Automatically Appended Next Post: As for 6th in general, it's underwhelming. The randomness is stupid, and there's lots of change for the sake of change, so the end result is that it isn't really any better than 5th. It isn't really much worse than 5th either though, so for me moving to 6th edition is really just a case of 'everyone else is doing it'.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Indeed, that would have made it better.
Fantasy got it right IMO, there is a guaranteed charge distance with uncertainty beyond it.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
I put fine mainly because there wasn't a "meh" option.
The good:
- Better wound allocation / model removal
- More psyker spell options!
- Flier rules! No more of the awkward skimmer that flew high enough to easily be shot to death
- Decent vehicle rules. It was good to see it nerfed
- Codices have become better balanced, though CSM feels a tad bit lackluster in my personal opinion (bar certain units)
The bad:
- Close combat was heavily nerfed. Not really by one specific thing, but by multiple aspects culminating in a mess.
- Random Assault Distance. As others mentioned, I would be entirely for that 3+d6. Gives some risk, but you have some consistency. Heck, bring up the consistency one or two and drop it to d3. You still have the risk but it has some form of reliability
-Overwatch! Interesting in conception but it has several problems. For starters, it is argued that it is more realistic, when honestly it doesn't. This is a game where each marine fires at most two shots (usually) at the enemy in an entire turn and somehow IG can fire even more shots in the same turn. Where each moves forward the foe standing like numb nuts. I do admit though, it seems awesome. But then it brings up a meta problem. It is unbalanced. It heavily hurts Space Marines or any high BS unit but gives a great boon to an ork horde (tons of dakka).
-Challenges. Now please understand, by playing CSM this has heavily broken my feelings towards it. That as well as Necrons have really just killed my original interest for it.
- Allies. I find it a nice addition in concept... but I hate it in execution. It makes no sense to me. It favours Imperium of Mankind Drastically, doesn't properly balance armies that don't get as many options (Nids come to mind) and even by a fluff stand point many of the alliances don't really make much sense.
- Fortifications. I find it interesting but... the Fortress of Redemption and the landing pad just seem excessive.
-Finally, and what irritates me the most, the random everything. To me, a bit of randomness is fun. However, warlord traits (which can be worthless or extremely helpful), psyker rolls, charge rolls, and more cover the edition in an excessive amount of randomness which is honestly rather irritating to me personally. It also seems to be a way to ignore the obvious imbalance of spells and warlord traits.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
I disagree. Anyone who thinks that 6th edition's wound allocation system is an improvement has never played with barrage-sniping Basilisks or attempted to use the multi-shot barrage rules with a full unit of artillery.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
Peregrine wrote:Now, random charge length was also poorly executed. Having a range of 2-12" is just stupid, it should have been 3+ D6" instead. That would eliminate the worst stupidity of failing a charge from 3" away, but still add enough uncertainty that a successful charge is not automatic.
I would have preferred base initiative + D6. Units meant to be naturally faster and more agile would be more likely to get further even hindered by whatever may get in their way than naturally slower units, and working off base initiative means unweildy weapons wouldn't affect it.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Peregrine wrote:
I disagree. Anyone who thinks that 6th edition's wound allocation system is an improvement has never played with barrage-sniping Basilisks or attempted to use the multi-shot barrage rules with a full unit of artillery.
LoS makes it difficult to snipe stuff that isn't an upgrade. I think the directional allocation is fine.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Actually I agree with Loki on this. Although I must ask, Loki? Would that perhaps make fleet a tad too good? Units that have fleet have a tendency of having high initiatives to begin with.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Peregrine wrote:
I disagree. Anyone who thinks that 6th edition's wound allocation system is an improvement has never played with barrage-sniping Basilisks or attempted to use the multi-shot barrage rules with a full unit of artillery.
I think this is about the only major downside of it. I much prefer it to 5E's wound allocation and its gimmickry. While it's odd that it makes barrage weapons very good snipers, and that that's an issue, I feel it's better than the situation that existed in 5E, where oftentimes *more* shooting resulted in fewer casualties, or where you'd get wounds spread around multiwound units and the like.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
StarTrotter wrote:Actually I agree with Loki on this. Although I must ask, Loki? Would that perhaps make fleet a tad too good? Units that have fleet have a tendency of having high initiatives to begin with. I dunno. I've seen plenty of models with high Initiative but no fleet, and plenty with low Initiative and fleet. Also, fleet would probably have to be reworked. If charge worked off D6+something, Fleet allowing a reroll would be exactly the same as jump packs.
69239
Post by: Thokt
I love it, but dislike allies.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Grey Templar wrote: McNinja wrote:Every random roll makes me dislike the game slightly more. I Like the game, but random charge distance, rolling for warlord traits... I mean, why? How in any real context does that make sense? Your soldiers see a target, they go after it, they don't all fall and trip over their own feet after running for three seconds. The fact that a major aspect of the game is now random changed assault for the worse, so much so that they had to change rules like fleet to make it suck less.
As for rolling for warlord traits, that makes about as much sense as rolling for psychic powers. The commander has no clue what he's good at before the battle? Right. Its my army, my commander. Games-Workshop is not playing my games for me, so stop making more on tables where 99% of the rolls are useless to me. Psychic powers are even worse; a psyker has no idea what he knows. Not a single clue until the game starts. Its like he opens a book of spells, closes his eyes, and just slaps his finger on the page, and whatever it lands on is what he knows for the game.
Random charges represent a multitude of things.
The unit doesn't react together cohesively and the ensuring confusion causes the charge to fail.
They fail to correctly judge the distance between them and the target and are unable to reach it before the enemy reacts(the turn ending)
You the commander issue an order to charge and they fail to receive it.
Any number of things can result in a unit failing to accomplish this.
Its why you the commander need to make calculated decisions. have backup plans if your charge fails. How do you react when things don't go according to plan.
Because of this, having some randomness increases the tactical depth of the game. Making it just about which player can set up their certainties best is kinda lame.
Amazing that someone has the balls has to say this about a game where pre-meausuring for shooting attacks doesn't just happen, but is actively encouraged.
Every justification made here could be used to argue that a weapons range should be randomly rolled in every shooting phase. That wouldn't stop 75% of the fanbase from rioting if a firewarrior had to roll 4d6 for range though.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
-Loki- wrote:I would have preferred base initiative + D6. Units meant to be naturally faster and more agile would be more likely to get further even hindered by whatever may get in their way than naturally slower units, and working off base initiative means unweildy weapons wouldn't affect it.
IMO that just stacks too many advantages on having high initiative. You already get to swing first and do a lot of damage before anyone can retaliate, so I think that's enough, especially since I+ D6" would mean a much higher average charge range (imagine Eldar with 8-9" average charge range in addition to fleet re-rolls).
Grey Templar wrote:LoS makes it difficult to snipe stuff that isn't an upgrade. I think the directional allocation is fine.
But things that are upgrades (melta guns, etc) are often the thing you want to kill, and even with LoS if you're taking 5+ wounds from a Basilisk on a character there's a pretty good chance that you fail even 2+ LoS at least once and die. Meanwhile non- IC characters are pretty much auto-killed if the shot lands on target.
Vaktathi wrote:I think this is about the only major downside of it. I much prefer it to 5E's wound allocation and its gimmickry. While it's odd that it makes barrage weapons very good snipers, and that that's an issue, I feel it's better than the situation that existed in 5E, where oftentimes *more* shooting resulted in fewer casualties, or where you'd get wounds spread around multiwound units and the like.
The solution would be to use a modified version of 5th. For example, keep the same method of allocating wounds, but require that each type of wound be done as a separate round (resolve all bolter wounds before doing any plasma wounds). Or require that all save-ignoring wounds be spread as widely as possible, with no model getting two no-save wounds until every model in the unit has one.
Also, the 5th edition system may have had its balance issues, but at least it was quick and simple to resolve. Compare that to 6th where you have endless potential for arguments about LOS/distance ("this model is 1mm closer", "no, you moved it 1mm when you measured it", "NO  YOU") and resolving a salvo from a full battery of quad guns is effectively impossible.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
BlaxicanX wrote: Grey Templar wrote: McNinja wrote:Every random roll makes me dislike the game slightly more. I Like the game, but random charge distance, rolling for warlord traits... I mean, why? How in any real context does that make sense? Your soldiers see a target, they go after it, they don't all fall and trip over their own feet after running for three seconds. The fact that a major aspect of the game is now random changed assault for the worse, so much so that they had to change rules like fleet to make it suck less.
As for rolling for warlord traits, that makes about as much sense as rolling for psychic powers. The commander has no clue what he's good at before the battle? Right. Its my army, my commander. Games-Workshop is not playing my games for me, so stop making more on tables where 99% of the rolls are useless to me. Psychic powers are even worse; a psyker has no idea what he knows. Not a single clue until the game starts. Its like he opens a book of spells, closes his eyes, and just slaps his finger on the page, and whatever it lands on is what he knows for the game.
Random charges represent a multitude of things.
The unit doesn't react together cohesively and the ensuring confusion causes the charge to fail.
They fail to correctly judge the distance between them and the target and are unable to reach it before the enemy reacts(the turn ending)
You the commander issue an order to charge and they fail to receive it.
Any number of things can result in a unit failing to accomplish this.
Its why you the commander need to make calculated decisions. have backup plans if your charge fails. How do you react when things don't go according to plan.
Because of this, having some randomness increases the tactical depth of the game. Making it just about which player can set up their certainties best is kinda lame.
Amazing that someone has the balls has to say this about a game where pre-meausuring for shooting attacks doesn't just happen, but is actively encouraged.
Every justification made here could be used to argue that a weapons range should be randomly rolled in every shooting phase. That wouldn't stop 75% of the fanbase from rioting if a firewarrior had to roll 4d6 for range though.
A bullet doesn't change how far it goes because its firer didn't receive or misunderstood and order. All that matters is if he got on target, hence it being a flat skill test.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
BlaxicanX wrote:Amazing that someone has the balls has to say this about a game where pre-meausuring for shooting attacks doesn't just happen, but is actively encouraged.
Pre-measuring for shooting (and assault, don't forget) exists for one reason: because many people cheated and pre-measured for shooting anyway, so banning it only punished the honest players. The old system of having to estimate range and never be sure until you're committed is better in theory, but completely broken when cheating is so easy and common.
Every justification made here could be used to argue that a weapons range should be randomly rolled in every shooting phase. That wouldn't stop 75% of the fanbase from rioting if a firewarrior had to roll 4d6 for range though.
The difference is that:
1) Shooting is usually less decisive than assault. A Fire Warrior squad that has fixed 30" range will consistently inflict a few casualties every turn. A terminator death star that has fixed 6" charge range (with the ability to measure before committing to a charge) will almost always wipe its target out entirely every time it declares a charge. That makes known and fixed shooting ranges low risk/low reward, while fixed and known charge ranges would be low risk/high reward.
2) Assault has a consistent set of ranges, with virtually every unit having a charge range of 2-12" (even in 5th edition it was 6/12"), while shooting has ranges from 6" to 240". Trying to come up with a single system for random shooting ranges that can cover both short-range pistol fire and cross-table Basilisk barrages (where even the longest shot possible in a game of 40k is less than half maximum range) and still be balanced and easy to work with would be a nightmare.
50698
Post by: Dracoknight
As a fantasy player i would would note that we also have random charge distance, so if anything 40k have now a few rules from fantasy taken in, such as the challange system and the Look out sir.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Fantasy's random charge is a little better as you add your movement value, so there is a guaranteed charge distance(M value+2")
They should have added a fixed value to the distance.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Peregrine wrote:
Also, the 5th edition system may have had its balance issues, but at least it was quick and simple to resolve. Compare that to 6th where you have endless potential for arguments about LOS/distance ("this model is 1mm closer", "no, you moved it 1mm when you measured it", "NO  YOU") and resolving a salvo from a full battery of quad guns is effectively impossible.
Ugh, I certainly never felt that way, I had way more issues with 5th's wound allocation, individually allocating each hit and rolling it in turn. Could it have been solved better? Yes, but 6E's wound allocation, as it stands, I feel is better than 5E's as it was. 5E wound allocation and resolution was perhaps the most time consuming and finicky part of the game. Always had issues with it, and it took forever to teach to new players. 6th's barrage sniping aside, can usually be diced off at worse, I haven't seen the issues with it so far, at least personally, that I did with 5th's wound allocation gimmicks.
Though truth be told, I still prefer 4E's method, minus the range limitations.
61374
Post by: Madcat87
I was fairly neutral about this edition but as more codices come out I'm liking it less and less. I'm now starting to see a pattern that started with the 6th ed rule book where they are trying to take control of the game away from us.
As other people have mentioned the random tables in the rule book as well as the randomness being introduced into the army codex are really getting to me. When I have to start refering to a table at the start of each turn or keep a pen and paper beside me to make notes on what buffs my identical army list does/doesn't have this game I start to lose interest.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Allies, fortifications, flyers, the introduction of pre-measuring and the stupid charge distances lower my verdict to a "fine". Still better than "I HAZ MORE TRANSPORTAZ" 5th.
68166
Post by: rohansoldier
I do like 6th edition but there are both good and bad points:
Good
- Hull Points
- Overwatch
- Allies
- Warlord Traits
- Rulebook Psychic Powers
- Flyers
Bad
- Assaulting from vehicles/outflank (good luck getting Scorpions or Banshees into combat until something changes)
- Allies (the Matrix has very little background behind it when armies like Necrons and Chaos or Grey Knights can ally together)
- Random charges can be a pain (they should have a fixed distance such as Initiative + D6 or bring back different movement values for races again)
- Fortifications and Allies not being player agreement like special characters used to be
41664
Post by: ShatteredBlade
I'm not too sure I like this edition yet as I feel that it was handled poorly. It feels like some sort of odd mixture of 4th and 5th edition with random tables thrown in. While I am happy that shooting got a buff, the way it was handled invalidated a lot of units and tactics. And flier spam is just as annoying as Razorspam, as a lot of time there is not a reliable way to take a flier out.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Grey Templar wrote: A bullet doesn't change how far it goes because its firer didn't receive or misunderstood and order. People don't suddenly trip and fall if they "misunderstand an order" (which is a ridiculous notion, how does one misunderstand "run toward that enemy and hit them with your sword?"), either. Misunderstanding an order to open fire on a particular target, or aiming sloppily due to poor weather/fog of war/a jet flying low above you and disorienting you/being out of breath or needing to catch your footing after moving those 6 inches can and most certainly will affect how many shots fired from a squad will actually hit a target, though. The BS of a unit is a symbolization of the unit's actual aiming skill, the ability to point your gun at a target and shoot- it doesn't take into account battlefield conditions, though, which is why I'm noting that saying "charge distances should be random to symbolize battlefield conditions and circumstances" is incredibly silly because that same exact line of thinking can be applied to shooting or almost anything in the game. Peregrine wrote:BlaxicanX wrote:Amazing that someone has the balls has to say this about a game where pre-meausuring for shooting attacks doesn't just happen, but is actively encouraged. Pre-measuring for shooting (and assault, don't forget) exists for one reason: because many people cheated and pre-measured for shooting anyway, so banning it only punished the honest players. The old system of having to estimate range and never be sure until you're committed is better in theory, but completely broken when cheating is so easy and common. Every justification made here could be used to argue that a weapons range should be randomly rolled in every shooting phase. That wouldn't stop 75% of the fanbase from rioting if a firewarrior had to roll 4d6 for range though. The difference is that: 1) Shooting is usually less decisive than assault. A Fire Warrior squad that has fixed 30" range will consistently inflict a few casualties every turn. A terminator death star that has fixed 6" charge range (with the ability to measure before committing to a charge) will almost always wipe its target out entirely every time it declares a charge. That makes known and fixed shooting ranges low risk/low reward, while fixed and known charge ranges would be low risk/high reward. 2) Assault has a consistent set of ranges, with virtually every unit having a charge range of 2-12" (even in 5th edition it was 6/12"), while shooting has ranges from 6" to 240". Trying to come up with a single system for random shooting ranges that can cover both short-range pistol fire and cross-table Basilisk barrages (where even the longest shot possible in a game of 40k is less than half maximum range) and still be balanced and easy to work with would be a nightmare. Naturally, but I'm not discussing the game mechanics. My points are in regard to the attempts people are making in this thread to justify the random charge distance via in-universe factors, like "misunderstanding orders", gakky weather, being disoriented from an exploding/low-flying jet, etc. Every factor that could affect your ability to run across a field and hit someone with your sword would also affect your ability to shoot straight. On the subject of game mechanics, though, I doubt that the random charge distance was implemented to "balance" assault. There was nothing wrong with it before. Assault armies were hardly overpowered or IMBA in 5th edition, when the charge distance of a unit had a concrete value.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Best edition so far.
Three qualifiers;
- I have played every single edition of the game.
- I have always played in a private setting with 4-5 close friends.
- I dislike tournaments.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
BlaxicanX wrote:People don't suddenly trip and fall if they "misunderstand an order" (which is a ridiculous notion, how does one misunderstand "run toward that enemy and hit them with your sword?"), either.
Again, it's not about literally tripping and falling. Random charge distance might, instead, represent things like suppressing fire being too heavy to get enough momentum going to make a successful charge before having to duck back into the nearest cover.
The BS of a unit is a signification of the unit's actual aiming skill- it doesn't take into account battlefield conditions, though,
Sure, it's an abstraction (and, IMO, a necessary one to keep the game moving at a decent pace), but it's an abstraction that's good enough. Shooting doesn't need random distances/modifiers because shooting is already random. Assault needs random distance because once you're allowed to measure range at any time the outcome of most/many assaults would become completely non-random (if assault terminators charge fire warriors the outcome is obvious). All you would have to do is get within move + charge range and then remove the enemy unit from the table. So random charge distance is necessary to bring an element of risk back into assault.
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
Well, I see it very positive after playing (and organizing) several RTTs.
There are some loopholes in there but they are not really game-changing.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Peregrine wrote:BlaxicanX wrote:People don't suddenly trip and fall if they "misunderstand an order" (which is a ridiculous notion, how does one misunderstand "run toward that enemy and hit them with your sword?"), either. Again, it's not about literally tripping and falling. Random charge distance might, instead, represent things like suppressing fire being too heavy to get enough momentum going to make a successful charge before having to duck back into the nearest cover. ... That's what overwatch and pinning are for. Literally. Sure, it's an abstraction (and, IMO, a necessary one to keep the game moving at a decent pace), but it's an abstraction that's good enough. Shooting doesn't need random distances/modifiers because shooting is already random. Assault needs random distance because once you're allowed to measure range at any time the outcome of most/many assaults would become completely non-random (if assault terminators charge fire warriors the outcome is obvious). All you would have to do is get within move + charge range and then remove the enemy unit from the table. So random charge distance is necessary to bring an element of risk back into assault. Again, I'm not particularly interested in the game mechanics aspect of the justification, though I really don't see how assaulting was overpowered in 5th edition, where the charge distance wasn't nearly as weird as it is in the current edition.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Which would be fine, if overwatch and pinning were actually effective at stopping charges. Overwatch is limited to an occasional bonus casualty or two unless the assaulting unit is trying for a maximum-range charge with only 1-2 models in range to make it, while pinning suffers from low chance of success (most things you care about pinning have very high leadership, or are fearless) and not working at all on overwatch (when it would be most important for stopping a charge).
Again, I'm not particularly interested in the game mechanics aspect of the justification, though I really don't see how assaulting was overpowered in 5th edition, where the charge distance wasn't nearly as weird as it is in the current edition.
Because in 5th you theoretically couldn't measure and be sure of your distance to the target until you committed to a charge. There was still uncertainty in your positioning, and you had a chance of being stuck 6.001" from the target and unable to charge. But when you can measure at any time that risk of failure goes away, and a fixed 6" charge distance would mean that far too many assaults would become automatic successes (with the target being wiped out entirely).
(Yes, people constantly cheated and measured too soon, but that's why measuring at any time is now legal and charge lengths are random.)
62216
Post by: Griddlelol
I'm really liking it, even though the amount I get to play has dropped drastically this year. Overall, I'm loving the new additions but a couple of things I dislike are:
Barrage weapons being the best snipers in the game. That's just silly. I understand why they've done that; barrage weapons should ignore directional cover. However it's clunky and open to abuse.
Random tables. The charge ranges are fine. Peregrine has summed up exactly how I feel about them. With gaining measuring ability, they need to be random. However the psychic tables and warlord traits are annoying at the best and broken at worst.
The psychic powers are annoying because you can't plan very much. I'm sure that's the intention, but personally I don't like it. It's limited my use of psychers outside the Divination discipline.
Warlord traits have some very silly things. Outflanking is ridiculous and can massively alter the game if something like a devourer HT gets it. Not a fan of warlord traits.
62873
Post by: HerbaciousT
I find it more positive than negative, which is good.
The main things I have taken issue with (and have now largely come to terms with) are:
- the inclusion of random charge range (its just a little too unreliable, especially for assault armies)
- The initally unbalanced nature of flyers vs lack of AA for most armies. I still think some flyers are over or under priced
- The larger fortifications are ridiculous (Aegis and Bastion are ok)
- Im still not a fan of allies. Its just an easy way to plug gaps in an army that you should need to use tactics to get around.
73481
Post by: madmanjohn92
i find that it is very good. it is more realistic. like the hull points. i remeber in 5th i had a leman russ which took about 6 pens each game but stubbornly refused to blow up. of course the tank by that time would of fallen apart or ceased to run which hull points are all about. randomly generated pyskic powers are good more of a challenge and your opponent cant really predict what tricks your gonna get.
66712
Post by: Enceladus
Overall I really like how the edition plays. The only couple of things I don't like are the random charge distance which has already been mentioned several times, and the wound allocation for blast weapons.
I'm not sure whether it's just my interpretation of them, but I feel that what's under the marker should be what takes the hits/wounds, not X amount of models was hit by the blast, Y were wounded, allocate wounds from the front of the unit as per normal. I didn't hit the front, why are they dying from the front? Makes no sense.
Other than that I quite enjoy the edition overall.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Peregrine wrote:Random charge length was necessary. Assault is usually decisive, far more so than shooting, Hah hah hah. Have you played 6th ed yet? Please, tell that to the plasma crisis teams that reliably land 10+ AP2 hits that ignore cover. and with the ability to measure at any time (a long overdue change) a fixed assault distance would have meant that you could always guarantee a charge
Not true, because you're discounting the effect of overwatch, not to mention, simply not being able to get close enough to charge in the movement phase. It's randomness for randomness's sake, and that's not good game design. Maybe all shooting attacks should have to roll before firing to see if they're out of ammo and need to reload instead of shooting that turn. Otherwise, shooting is far too reliable and there's no risk in declaring a shot. Random charge length is just stupid and along with the other assault nerfs, makes that part of the game much weaker than shooting.
73543
Post by: Tankage
Having just come back to the hobby after a 16 year hiatus I didnt play 5th ed. While 6 th ed seems generaly ok, I think it is a giant missed opportunity for gw and us.
GW could have created a Linkedin/itunes/steam hybrid including an army builder (for not too great an investment) giving huge opportunities for revenue growth i.e. f2p games etc product tie ins etc. this could have inculded as part of the "army builder" an option to create quick reference cards for each vehicle character and unit (including stat mods from wargear etc in the stat line something the warmachine/hordes lot seem to like, but without the cookie cutter units of WM/H) allowing greater customisation at the list building stage while keeping core rules simple and solving many of my gripes.
My general impression is that they tried to simplify the game (as opposed to what i remenber) somewhere along the line through introducing standardised movement etc. But ended up complicating it with numerous special rules/ abilities inorder to keep the character/individuality of units/races/factions.
1) Bring individual movement allowances back, you wouldnt need so many special rules and you reflect equipment and races better i.e marine = 6 " scout = 7" terminator = 5" etc. This would alow better fluff compliance between units and races.
2) Charge, run, and move all in the movement phase making life better for the nids, orks etc.
3) Salvo stats for most weapons e.g. 3 if you stand still 2 if you move 0 if you run or charge (or something along these lines)
4) Walkers are either vehicles or they are not (Giant Tau Battlesuit vs Dreadnought. What is the difference?) I personally think having them as MC equivalents makes more sense.
5) Overwatch based on successfull initiative tests (orks balanced by numbers vs low intiative marines higher intiative vs low numbers) shot at base BS with modifiers for what they did in previous turn (e.g. ran shot charged) this would give you a tradeoff between keeping your units still (and counter assaults) or jump around (tau i'm looking at you) are ruduce your overwatch chances.
6) If you change movement as above, you could do a charge as 1.5 base movement + D6 and run as base movement + D6.
7) Get rid of jink (i've moved half an inch so now i have a cover save !?!) an introduce a speed save that increases the further a model has moved e.g. 15 - 20" +1 speed save 20 - 25" + 2 and so on this way you could get rid of the snap fire against flyers and have skyfire etc as a speed save modifier (eg skyfire -2 speed save auto trageter -1 stackable.)
8) On vehicle pen - glance reduces armour value and pen takes hull point. This would balance vehicles a little from 5th but prevent the mass shooting glances of death also giving a bit of extra tactical depth i.e. heavy bolters to reduce armour first then go for the kill. ( AP should also mod penetration not the roll chart)
9) Melee weapons ap based on attack strength modified by weapon type (plus bring back Chainswords  ) e.g. powersowrd improves AP by 2 etc
10) Flying less said the better!
These are the main ones Ive come across so far (there will be many more I'm sure e.g. mounts and bikes as wargear that mod stats based on army fluff rather than catch all). My main problem is in the presentation. You used to get handy little things, like a diagram showing the fire arcs for the different vehicles and their weapons, which made things so much clearer rather than some vague rule about turrents vs pintle vs sponson (and nothing about the hardpoints?). I also have a problem with the catch all criteria and ability chains e.g. this model type gets these rules which give these rules etc. Just spilt each ability up into simple entrys and list each in its army entry individually. Allowing you to check at a glance rather than rather than manically search backwards and forwards through mutiple pages or have some sort of super human memory!
Despite all this I am greatly enjoying my foray back into wargamming and 40K (at least once I got over the shock of the fact my parents had thrown away/given to charity 15K of (old points) guard and blood angels, which I thought had been safely stashed in the actic when I went to uni, including two unopened original land raider kits  !! )
18698
Post by: kronk
I love it. Much more fun to play than 5th edition.
Once you get used to all of the pre-game rolls, the game goes much more quickly.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Peregrine wrote: Which would be fine, if overwatch and pinning were actually effective at stopping charges. Overwatch is limited to an occasional bonus casualty or two unless the assaulting unit is trying for a maximum-range charge with only 1-2 models in range to make it, while pinning suffers from low chance of success (most things you care about pinning have very high leadership, or are fearless) and not working at all on overwatch (when it would be most important for stopping a charge).
This is all a big non sequitur. Overwatch and pinning not being effective enough to suppress a charge doesn't change the fact that they are the game's in-universe representation of suppressing fire. Ergo, that is not the in-universe justification for random charge length. Because in 5th you theoretically couldn't measure and be sure of your distance to the target until you committed to a charge. There was still uncertainty in your positioning, lol. Give me a break dude. After a dozen games it doesn't become hard to make a rough guestimate of "Am I in charge range?" The chances of you being off in your eyeballing is laughably low.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Redbeard wrote:Hah hah hah. Have you played 6th ed yet? Please, tell that to the plasma crisis teams that reliably land 10+ AP2 hits that ignore cover.
Obviously there are exceptions to every general rule. But shooting units that automatically kill their target are much rarer (and usually a lot more expensive) than situations where a successful assault automatically means killing the entire target unit with no real losses.
(Also, you're not getting 10+ hits and ignore cover out of a single crisis team. Only a 500-1000 point Farsight bomb can do that.)
Not true, because you're discounting the effect of overwatch, not to mention, simply not being able to get close enough to charge in the movement phase.
Overwatch isn't really relevant because at BS 1 you're unlikely to kill many models, and will only stop a charge if the unit was trying to make a long-range charge with only 1-2 models out in front to get them into range. With a more conservative approach you're much less likely to fail.
And yes, you can fail to get close enough in the movement phase. But if you can measure at any time with fixed charge distance you know you failed, so you can just go move into cover/target a different unit/etc instead of moving out to attempt a charge.
Maybe all shooting attacks should have to roll before firing to see if they're out of ammo and need to reload instead of shooting that turn. Otherwise, shooting is far too reliable and there's no risk in declaring a shot.
Shooting is already random, since you have to-hit rolls, to-wound rolls, and cover rolls. Assault technically has these as well, but if even a tactical squad charges a squad of guardsmen none of them actually have an impact on the final result.
Random charge length is just stupid and along with the other assault nerfs, makes that part of the game much weaker than shooting.
Why do all parts of the game need to be equal? Why does assault need to be 50% of the game instead of something you do after shooting to decisively finish off the last survivors that shooting couldn't get?
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Peregrine wrote:
Why do all parts of the game need to be equal? Why does assault need to be 50% of the game instead of something you do after shooting to decisively finish off the last survivors that shooting couldn't get?
Because GW has created a game in which a long list of models are devoted to melee at the expense of all shooting. Many of these models (Assault Terminators, Incubi, etc.) are expensive enough that you do not want to use them to simply wipe out a couple models that are nearly useless anyways.
Because several Armies (Orks, Tyranids, Chaos Demons) and several army Archetypes (Descent of Angels BA, DE Wyche Cult, Khornate CSM) are also built around the assault phase. Should these armies suffer just because GW decided to make shooting more powerful, at the expense of CC?
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Peregrine has stated in the past that he doesn't think assault/melee combat belongs in the setting.
So, yeah.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Peregrine wrote: Redbeard wrote:Hah hah hah. Have you played 6th ed yet? Please, tell that to the plasma crisis teams that reliably land 10+ AP2 hits that ignore cover.
Obviously there are exceptions to every general rule. But shooting units that automatically kill their target are much rarer (and usually a lot more expensive) than situations where a successful assault automatically means killing the entire target unit with no real losses.
(Also, you're not getting 10+ hits and ignore cover out of a single crisis team. Only a 500-1000 point Farsight bomb can do that.)
You really don't know that codex do you.
Commander, 2 plasma guns
Crisis team: 2x 2 plasma guns, 1x team leader w/ command&control and multi-spectrum suite.
Total cost: under 300 points
In rapid-fire range, they're getting 8 TL bs-3 shots and 4 TL bs-5 shots. Expected results: 9.9 hits. And that's without markerlight backup, which increases the number of hits to 11 with one marker token.
So...
Shooting is already random, since you have to-hit rolls, to-wound rolls, and cover rolls. Assault technically has these as well, but if even a tactical squad charges a squad of guardsmen none of them actually have an impact on the final result.
Wait, if a 180 point unit charges a 60 point unit, the 180 point unit will win? Shocking! You know, if that 180 point unit of SM rapid-fires at those guardsmen, they're going to die too.
Why do all parts of the game need to be equal? Why does assault need to be 50% of the game instead of something you do after shooting to decisively finish off the last survivors that shooting couldn't get?
Because for twenty years or so, the game has been designed in such a way as to make assault a viable strategy. Several army's themes are heavily dependent on assault prowess, and because assault is more tactical than shooting, which is largely a matter of deciding target priority and order. Whether you like it or not, the assault army archetype is found throughout science-fiction, not just 40k. Whether it's highly skilled warrior mages from Star Wars, endless swarms of aliens from Starship Troopers, or steathly xenomorphs from Aliens, assault is cool, and in a universe where flying tanks and teleportation provide perfectly viable explanations of how these guys with swords are engaging in gunfights, why shouldn't it be a viable strategy?
34242
Post by: -Loki-
Redbeard wrote:Whether it's highly skilled warrior mages from Star Wars, endless swarms of aliens from Starship Troopers, or steathly xenomorphs from Aliens, assault is cool, and in a universe where flying tanks and teleportation provide perfectly viable explanations of how these guys with swords are engaging in gunfights, why shouldn't it be a viable strategy? To be fair, Tyranids have never been able to rely on strong assault alone. Tyranids have always had fantastic short ranged and some long ranged anti infantry firepower to soften up targets before assaulting. The only thing Tyranids ever relied on assault for was anti tank, and 5th and 6th editions gave them good ranged anti vehicle options. Tyranid armies relying on assault have always tended to be shot to peices before getting there, even before overwatch.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
No, I just assumed that you were talking about a single unit, not a full unit + attached IC.
And 9.9 average is not the same as 10+ average.
You know, if that 180 point unit of SM rapid-fires at those guardsmen, they're going to die too.
Unless they're in cover and maybe even go to ground, in which case they have a decent chance of surviving. And the gap is not 60 to 180, it's more like 80+ to 180.
and in a universe where flying tanks and teleportation provide perfectly viable explanations of how these guys with swords are engaging in gunfights, why shouldn't it be a viable strategy?
Those aren't viable explanations. The only reason assault works as a strategy in 40k is that the scaling of ranges/movement speeds/etc is completely screwed up. If everything was done at true 28mm scale assaults would almost never happen.
Also, "not a viable strategy" and "not exactly equal to shooting" are not the same thing. Assaulting should be a viable strategy in some situations. It shouldn't be equal in power to shooting.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
It should be noted that all of those armies you just described died in droves when they went up against gunline armies.
Bugs in Starship Troopers? Die by the thousands to kill a dozen Troopers, with or without their power armor.
Jedi? Not an army, and never have been. Even the Army of Light, the largest military force the Jedi ever fielded, was predominantly non-Jedi soldiers lead by Jedi Knights. In the prequels, the Grand Army of the Republic is tens of millions of non-Jedi Clones lead by Jedi Staff Officers... who died in droves against the clones during Order 66. And in both cases, the actual army component of the army was a gunline.
The Xenomorphs of the Alien franchise either die in droves (much like the SST bugs) against gunlines, or they mitigate the advantage of the gunline (which in 40K would be Stealth, or making use of LOS-blocking terrain) army while they pick off 1 troop at a time.
I'm having trouble of envisioning a SF IP in which melee/assault soldiers are on-par with a gunline opponent, provided the melee guy isn't an IC with heavy amounts of plot-armor, or is not significantly out-gunned (it's easier for a Jedi to block blaster fire from one guy than it is to block sustained blaster fire from 20 guys).
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
What's actually being argued right now?
39550
Post by: Psienesis
It could be called "OMG, I brought a knife to a gunfight, WHY R I LOSING?!"
465
Post by: Redbeard
Peregrine wrote:
and in a universe where flying tanks and teleportation provide perfectly viable explanations of how these guys with swords are engaging in gunfights, why shouldn't it be a viable strategy?
Those aren't viable explanations. The only reason assault works as a strategy in 40k is that the scaling of ranges/movement speeds/etc is completely screwed up. If everything was done at true 28mm scale assaults would almost never happen.
I disagree. Lots of things get changes to make it a playable game, and these things aren't always due to scale. There's no reason to believe that, storywise, a unit couldn't teleport in and be in assault range immediately. Gamewise, you have to wait a turn to assault to make it fair for the shooty guys, but storywise, that's not necessary.
Likewise, storywise, armies like orks and tyranids expend wave after wave after wave of troops with no purpose other than to expend the defender's ammunition. Gamewise, how much fun would it be for a shooty player to get one turn of shooting in and then run out of bullets? Probably not much.
You say the scale is compressed, sure. But the timescale is also compressed. The game we play represents the critical moment, and the thousands of extra dead bugs that died are rather irrelevant as long as the small handful of models that we play with got close enough while you were shooting the others.
Also, "not a viable strategy" and "not exactly equal to shooting" are not the same thing. Assaulting should be a viable strategy in some situations. It shouldn't be equal in power to shooting.
Well, that's one viewpoint. I disagree. In a game that is balanced using a point system, either strategy should be equal when points are factored in. If shooting is three times more powerful than assault, then shooty models should cost three times more than assault models. The goal is to have a fair game between two players, and the tools exist to do so. That they are not is a flaw in the game.
Psienesis wrote:It should be noted that all of those armies you just described died in droves when they went up against gunline armies.
And, yet, still won battles.
Bugs in Starship Troopers? Die by the thousands to kill a dozen Troopers, with or without their power armor.
But they have many more thousands to expend. Hence the notion of points. A Trooper is worth way more points than a bug. So a lot of bugs die, big deal.
Jedi? Not an army, and never have been. Even the Army of Light, the largest military force the Jedi ever fielded, was predominantly non-Jedi soldiers lead by Jedi Knights. In the prequels, the Grand Army of the Republic is tens of millions of non-Jedi Clones lead by Jedi Staff Officers... who died in droves against the clones during Order 66. And in both cases, the actual army component of the army was a gunline.
I'm not as well versed in Star Wars backstory as you, obviously. Needless to say, Star Wars would never have been as popular as it is without Lightsabers, the single most iconic weapon in the franchise. Assault clearly has a place in Sci-fi.
I'm having trouble of envisioning a SF IP in which melee/assault soldiers are on-par with a gunline opponent,..
That's because you're thinking of it in terms of soldier versus soldier. We're playing a game based on points. If my guys are 100 times cheaper than yours, then I can afford to have a 1:50 kill ratio, and still win the battle.
- Real world example, just for fun. Consider the battles of the Zulu wars. You had a British gunline, in a time when they had Gatling guns and cannon, against the Zulu army. At Rorke's Drift, the gunline prevailed. But at Isandlwana, the Zulu's numbers got them into assault and the Zulus won the battle. The Zulus were outgunned, but had the numbers to overcome that.
Guns need ammunition. Any commander who has more troops to throw away than his opponent has bullets to use can get into assault. The 40k background is not devoid of stories of this nature.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Redbeard wrote:There's no reason to believe that, storywise, a unit couldn't teleport in and be in assault range immediately.
It's a matter of scale. You can only teleport in at "immediately assault" range in 40k because distances are compressed. If distances were scaled up correctly that "precision" teleport might land hundreds of feet away from the target. There's a reason that terminators carry storm bolters instead of just melee weapons, after all.
Likewise, storywise, armies like orks and tyranids expend wave after wave after wave of troops with no purpose other than to expend the defender's ammunition.
Which is the other problem with 40k: it scales down the damage of shooting. Artillery/air strikes/nuclear weapons/etc all turn "run a whole horde of infantry across an open field" into a joke in a realistic game. To counter this GW had to significantly decrease the power of heavy weapons and reduce the number of models they can kill.
You say the scale is compressed, sure. But the timescale is also compressed. The game we play represents the critical moment, and the thousands of extra dead bugs that died are rather irrelevant as long as the small handful of models that we play with got close enough while you were shooting the others.
Actually the time scale isn't really compressed, it's just completely screwed up. If you look at the time required for a unit to move 6" in "reality" you realize how absurd the whole "I go, you go" system is. A turn has to represent more than a few seconds to make the movement distances be even remotely sensible, but then you have units standing around doing nothing while assault units close the distance and start chopping people in half.
Well, that's one viewpoint. I disagree. In a game that is balanced using a point system, either strategy should be equal when points are factored in. If shooting is three times more powerful than assault, then shooty models should cost three times more than assault models. The goal is to have a fair game between two players, and the tools exist to do so. That they are not is a flaw in the game.
You're making the assumption that assault has to be a primary method for winning the game, rather than a tool that you use occasionally in specific situations.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
We could go back to 3rd edition, where shooting was a tool that you used occasionally in specific situations, rather then assaulting.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Peregrine wrote:
You're making the assumption that assault has to be a primary method for winning the game, rather than a tool that you use occasionally in specific situations.
Yes, it does. For some armies, assault has to be the primary method of winning the game. Chaos Daemons come to mind, doubly so if you play a thematic mono-god army. It's not an assumption, it's the only thing those armies can actually do.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Redbeard wrote:Yes, it does. For some armies, assault has to be the primary method of winning the game. Chaos Daemons come to mind, doubly so if you play a thematic mono-god army. It's not an assumption, it's the only thing those armies can actually do.
Coincidentally I happen to think that making daemons a separate army was a really stupid decision and they should be merged back into CSM where they belong.
6593
Post by: Ventus
6th edition is a disappointment overall for me. While some things are fine, there are too many areas that I dislike or that are badly handled rules-wise.
I greatly dislike all the randomness for randomness sake - totally unnecessary except for GW acknowledging that they are unable to make a game with good/tightly written rules. The random warlord traits and psychic powers are ridiculous. There is enough random in all the regular dice rolling that more random was not needed. Random charge length was badly handled - better would be 3+d6 or 4+d6 - then there is still some risk but you know you will still get a reasonable distance. I am fine with the idea of overwatch but it is the many nerfs added together to assault that makes many units poor choices as GW chose not to errata them to adjust for the nerf.
Random psychic powers is annoying as well. My favourite army is nids (shelved now because I am tired of fighting the poorly written nid dex and 6th edition), and there is no doubt that there are some powerful powers that you can get, but I would rather have had GW errata the nid dex when 6th came out so that the dex powers were all good choices (and many are but the hive tyrant has 1 good one out of 4). I dislike the idea of waiting until the battle is about to begin to see if I got the powerful powers or useless ones.
Allies - by house rules/friendly games you could ally whatever you want. But making such a goofy allies matrix part of the game so that necron and GK show up working together often - yeah that makes sense. And nothing for nids to compensate? Nids shouldn't have allies (either should necrons) but they should have gotten something to compensate. Allies is just another obvious money grab by GW. Armies should have strengths and weaknesses, but allies allows many armies to cover their weaknesses and just adds new imbalance issues.
Flyers - what a mess. First I don't believe flyers should even be in a game of this scale, but fine since they were determined to add them in, then at least make some attempt at good rules and options across the armies for flyers/FMC and skyfire/interceptor. Again, another blatant money grab at the expense of the game (and many players).
40K is a game with a lot of potential that GW botches consistently in the game design area for quick money grabs, and the seeming popularity of 6th in my area means they don't need to make a good game because people are willing to spend the money on the mess they produce. Even many of their models are poor kits for the cost. Look at the plastic hive tyrant kit - its great to have plastic wings finally but they produce a kit with no devourers when they made double devourers practically mandatory for the unit to be useful?
I'll wait on the next nid dex to decide if it is decent enough (not OP) to be worth playing in such a poor ruleset.
3314
Post by: Jancoran
I enjoy the balanced books they are doing and I like the variety of lists they are allowing. 6E is much more about simulation than it was in the past which helps.
67781
Post by: BryllCream
I love how assault players think it's stupid that an assault can completely fail (snake eyes), but don't have a problem with a space marine missing a land raider from one inch away.
Also, I like 6th edition. I like:
*Hull points. I play mech guard but I still think hull points were desperately needed to balance vehicles.
*Warlord traits. The idea, not the execution
*5+ cover
*Random charge range. Assault needed a nerf.
*The new power weapons are pretty cool
*Boost to blast weapons
*Lots of cool new special rules
I don't like:
*Rolling for warlord traits, for reasons expressed plenty of times by others.
*Flyers. 'nuff said
So all in all, pretty positive.
52163
Post by: Shandara
Only thing I dislike, really dislike is random psychic powers. It just doesn't make sense for a great many races.
That and psychic powers (and random again) for Demons! That can fail and cause them Perils of the Warp!
57646
Post by: Kain
I love my iron arm swarmlord, you''re not taking my iron arm swarmlord.
65468
Post by: Messy0
I gotta say. I have been playing since end of 3rd early 4th Edition and this edition is my favorite. I don't know if its that i wasn't very experienced back then and i was a kid (must have been about 12, im 24 now) but i really like this edition.
I like Overwatch, I like hull points, i like flyers (well I play Tau so i like shooting down flyers), i like all the new mission deployments (maybe not so much all the missions themselves) I even like the random rolling for warlord traits and whatnot, it makes every game feel slightly different, especially when you play against the same people often (which is bound to happen more if all the hate-mongering about GW shrinking is correct)
Overall i think this is a great edition and will only get better as all the codices are updated to be inline with 6th edition.
44531
Post by: Agent_Tremolo
I'm happy with 6th, it has the feel of the 90s with the streamlined mechanics of the 00s. We sometimes "forget" about mysterious objectives and night fighting, though.
24267
Post by: akaean
BryllCream wrote:I love how assault players think it's stupid that an assault can completely fail (snake eyes), but don't have a problem with a space marine missing a land raider from one inch away. This is actually a terrible analogy, you have to understand that you are comparing a to hit roll in shooting, to a roll to determine if there will be ANY rolls in close combat. This analogy makes it seem like you have forgotten that units in close combat also have to roll to hit, and then roll to wound. Yes, that Space Marine can miss a Landraider from one inch away, but I have also seen a close combat squad roll nothing but 1s and 2s to hit against guardsmen. That is the equivalent you are reachign for, flubbing a to hit in shooting is far more equivalent to flubbing a to hit in close combat. Your analogy would actually have teeth and be worth noting down if shooting had random range. Lets pretend that Bolters had random range 4d6, and that before every shot is declared you had to roll 4d6 dice to determine if you were in range BEFORE you were allowed to roll to hit. That would be incredibly obnoxious, and it would be equivalent to what happens to assault units now.
18698
Post by: kronk
Shandara wrote:Only thing I dislike, really dislike is random psychic powers. It just doesn't make sense for a great many races.
Agreed. That's rather annoying.
20392
Post by: Farseer Faenyin
I have to say that I love the Codexes that came out in 6th Edition, but I think they could have handled 6th Edition a little better as a core ruleset by incorporating a smoother release system for the flyers. Being too lazy to FAQ in AA for armies was just stupid.
57646
Post by: Kain
Farseer Faenyin wrote:I have to say that I love the Codexes that came out in 6th Edition, but I think they could have handled 6th Edition a little better as a core ruleset by incorporating a smoother release system for the flyers. Being too lazy to FAQ in AA for armies was just stupid.
It's so we'll all have to buy their shiny new AA models and bits.
73345
Post by: zilka86
Lack off AA in many armies is number one my book i dis like flyers so i wish they made more AAoptions . also hp just seem to be a bit strange to me. i got in to this hobby in 5ed seems then vehicles where better and last longer
26890
Post by: Ugavine
Games Workshop can only go so far to help players add some story to their games, but I think 6th Edition makes a good job of helping players out there.
Challenges might not be balanced, but I really enjoy them. even if I know I'm going to lose how can an Ork ever back down
48746
Post by: Billagio
Psienesis wrote:It could be called "OMG, I brought a knife to a gunfight, WHY R I LOSING?!"
Because if assault is useless then it literally means that the army with the best shooting/gunline will literally win every game.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I think Challenges are balanced.
The really lame Shas'la challenges that big bad Chaos Lord so his comrades might be able to stick a few chaos marines before they die. = Heroic
The Chaos Lord butchers the puny Shas'la and is rewarded by the gods. = Heroic
48746
Post by: Billagio
I dunno, maybe you should try playing orks sometime  its a pretty brutal blow to us. I just didnt see it as a necessary or interesting addition to the game at all
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
See, you aren't thinking like a propa ork.
The Nob wants to crump the biggest baddy the enemies got. "Dat Puny Sargant ain't got nuffin on yur powa claw, get em boss!"
67781
Post by: BryllCream
Kain wrote: Farseer Faenyin wrote:I have to say that I love the Codexes that came out in 6th Edition, but I think they could have handled 6th Edition a little better as a core ruleset by incorporating a smoother release system for the flyers. Being too lazy to FAQ in AA for armies was just stupid.
It's so we'll all have to buy their shiny new AA models and bits.
you're right. He should never release any new kits, ever. In fact, there are too many. Hell, vehicles are just a cynical ploy to make money off little Timmys everywhere!
60134
Post by: Hetelic
I'm laughing.
Half the threads here say 6th has too much randomness, and then others are looking for random shooting distances.
Sure I even seen a post that said both
24267
Post by: akaean
The posts about random shooting distances are more to create an absurd parallel to illustrate why random assault distance is annoying. I am laughing that you have missed that incredibly obvious point...
60134
Post by: Hetelic
akaean wrote:The posts about random shooting distances are more to create an absurd parallel to illustrate why random assault distance is annoying.
I am laughing that you have missed that incredibly obvious point...
Well perhaps that is because I am a former fantasy player, and see no problem with random charge distance; I actually believe it adds to the game, as suggested by several others. There are many many things on an active battlefield that could steal the impetus from a charging force, and random charge distances represent that well, as well as allowing for a more tactical game.
48746
Post by: Billagio
Grey Templar wrote:See, you aren't thinking like a propa ork.
The Nob wants to crump the biggest baddy the enemies got. "Dat Puny Sargant ain't got nuffin on yur powa claw, get em boss!"
True, but thats a situation where the nob would probably win. Im mostly talking about a lot of the situations you run into an MC, or another char that will crush a nob (often before he can even attack). We used to be able to rely on that hidden PK in 5th to get a few hits in every turn in order to turn the tide of combat. Now we just rely on nob bikers and manz to do it I guess..
44531
Post by: Agent_Tremolo
Billagio wrote:
I dunno, maybe you should try playing orks sometime  its a pretty brutal blow to us. I just didnt see it as a necessary or interesting addition to the game at all
Yay, I miss insta-gibbing half a squad with my klaws too. But challenges also work in our favor sometimes: Nobs are fearsome enemies to face for most sergeant and even some HQ characters. I've seen lowly nobs drilling an extra set of belly bottoms on guys like Sathonix, Eldrad and the odd marine librarian
465
Post by: Redbeard
Grey Templar wrote:See, you aren't thinking like a propa ork.
That's because I'm a human playing a game, not an ork.
The Nob wants to crump the biggest baddy the enemies got. "Dat Puny Sargant ain't got nuffin on yur powa claw, get em boss!"
As others have pointed out, that's swell and all, but so do all the other orks. Instead, they're just going to watch as the one guy in the squad with a weapon that can really hurt the monster gets killed first. It's stupid.
48746
Post by: Billagio
Agent_Tremolo wrote: Billagio wrote:
I dunno, maybe you should try playing orks sometime  its a pretty brutal blow to us. I just didnt see it as a necessary or interesting addition to the game at all
Yay, I miss insta-gibbing half a squad with my klaws too. But challenges also work in our favor sometimes: Nobs are fearsome enemies to face for most sergeant and even some HQ characters. I've seen lowly nobs drilling an extra set of belly bottoms on guys like Sathonix, Eldrad and the odd marine librarian 
I guess. I dunno, guys like eldrad or a marine libby arnt going to really do much to a mob of orks in CC anyways. Theyre nothing the boyz couldnt handle. The main problem is dealing with tough HQs/characters that boyz wont be too decent at killing (like 2+ saves or high T). Dont know much about Sathonix.
3314
Post by: Jancoran
Defensive Fire/Overwatch is not a new idea. It's been part of other games a long time. that it was adopted isn't surprising. The concept of it is intuitive.
What Orks need is a rule that says when they run, they always run 6". The Waaaaagh could then be an ability that allows them, 1 time per game, to maximize their charge distances.
It stops round 1 charges from happening still and it gives them a sure round 2 charge, where orks should be: in melee, krumpin' stuff.
8330
Post by: kestral
I think the allocation rules are stupid, frankly, though it looks like many people like them. The 2+ save dude stands in the front, sucking bullets, until a plasma round comes in when somebody else jumps in front? Meh to that. They didn't do anything elegant in this edition, just kind of random rules that more or less work. Overwatch kinda has an an effect, sort of, for some armies in some situations rather than being a tactical addition to the game, its just a small buff to shooting units. Hull points are Ok, I suppose, but vehicles are way too vulnerable to close combat. Flying MCs and chariot rules are kind of clunky. The random terrain rules are ludicrous, thankfully people don't usually object to not using them. Warlord traits just slow down starting your game usually.
Glad to see people tend to like it though, because at the end of the day what matters is that people are having fun playing games.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
kestral wrote:I think the allocation rules are stupid, frankly, though it looks like many people like them. The 2+ save dude stands in the front, sucking bullets, until a plasma round comes in when somebody else jumps in front? Meh to that. Change your order of shooting then. Fire the plasma gun first. At worsst, he makes a 50% chance roll and another guys eats it. Even then, a favorable outcome is the squads special/heavy weapon is the one that jumps in front and eats it. I play Tyranids, so I get absolutely no benefit from the new wound allocation rules. I suffer from the bad parts - my assault squads lose models from the front, and I don't gain any of the benefits - I have no squad leaders to have fun with Look Out Sir!. I still like the new wound allocation system, because I can work it in my favour. If my friends Wych squad is on the ground, I can, for example, position a squad to shoot it and kill his Hydraglove/Shardnet/etc models. With the old allocation system, he simply removed those last. Now, I get to choose when they get removed, as long as I position my units well. The only real problem with the current wound allocation system is, as people have already said, Barrage weapons. kestral wrote:Hull points are Ok, I suppose, but vehicles are way too vulnerable to close combat. Hull Points were a fantastic addition, because they fixed the key problem of vehicles - the unreliability of damage to them. You could land multiple penetrating hits on a vehicle every turn and do nothing more than stunlock it. And frankly, vehicles should be vulnerable to assault. If you let someone get close enough to strap a melta bomb to your tank, or let someone with a powerfist get close enough to have a boxing match with it, it deserved to die. The Flying Monstrous Creature rules are actually more intuitive than normal Flyers. They can move like infantry, they can move like jump infantry, and they can fly, slower than aircraft, with limited mobility. FMCs fit the game far, far better than flyers. Think of Swooping as more like longer jumps aided by their wings, and gliding as shorter jumps. kestral wrote:The random terrain rules are ludicrous, thankfully people don't usually object to not using them. Warlord traits just slow down starting your game usually. Yes, random terrain rules are pretty bad. Warlord traits as well. As you said though, no one uses the random terrain anyway. I fail to see how a single roll on a table at the start of the game slows down starting a game - psykers slow down the start of the game more than Warlord traits.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
-Loki- wrote:
Hull Points were a fantastic addition, because they fixed the key problem of vehicles - the unreliability of damage to them. You could land multiple penetrating hits on a vehicle every turn and do nothing more than stunlock it.
You can do the same thing to anything with a save, the damage table *was* the vehicles save, except you always at least kept it from doing something or crippled it even if you didn't kill it.
Vehicles effectively were T6-10 W1 models with a 3+ save that resulted in them being crippled or mitigated in some way if they made their save.
Now it's like saying "Well, you inflicted 3 wounds on that marine, don't bother rolling the saves in case he makes them all, he just falls apart".
Vehicles in general were never the issue. Nobody had a problem with most vehicles. No, the problem was that certain Transports were auto-takes. Instead of addressing the issue where it came from, in the codex entries for those transports, GW wrecked the viability of vehicles in general.
And frankly, vehicles should be vulnerable to assault. If you let someone get close enough to strap a melta bomb to your tank, or let someone with a powerfist get close enough to have a boxing match with it, it deserved to die.
Assaults can happen quite often turn 1, routinely on turn 2, and most lists can't bubblewrap all their tanks all the time. It's not hard at all getting into CC with vehicles, especially if you have units that are something other than basic infantry.
And you don't even need a powerfist or meltabomb. More than half the armies in the game have basic troops equipped with Krak Grenades that will do the job. A tac quad, hell even a 70pt IG veteran squad, getting into any 3HP tank, regardless of how far it moved, will need notably below average rolls *not* to kill it.
I also don't understand how it's easier to hit a grav tank moving at highway speeds, or a maneuvering tracked battletank, than it is to fight something your own size, especially without any risk whatsoever to yourself unless you explode it. It's not like trying to clamp grenades to a moving battletank or zooming skimmer shouldn't entail a rather high degree of risk and large incidence of bodily harm...
Tanks in general are ridiculously, unnecessarily vulnerable to CC in 40k, they're laughably easy to kill. As a result, between these vehicle CC and HP changes, vehicles have very quickly evaporate off tables. Watching my league's games tonight, the only non-flyer vehicles I saw on any of the tables being played were Necron AV13 shielded skimmers, Land Raiders, and a couple Drop Pods.
All that I see people taking generally is the stuff that usually doesn't care about the new vehicle rules (pods, and Land Raiders that are usually killed by weapons with high likelyhoods of inflicting Explodes results more than HP's and are rear AV14) or has huge mitigation (Necron AV13 skimmers)...or they're flyers.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
-Loki- wrote:And frankly, vehicles should be vulnerable to assault. If you let someone get close enough to strap a melta bomb to your tank, or let someone with a powerfist get close enough to have a boxing match with it, it deserved to die.
Stationary tank? Sure, melta bomb it to death. But it turns into pure stupidity when you have a tank moving at full speed (which, if you ignore 40k's ridiculous scale issues, is much faster than a person can run) only having a 33% chance of avoiding an untrained conscript with a grenade. Assaulting a moving vehicle should be much harder (maybe a 5+ for a LRBT, 6+ re-rolling successes for an Eldar tank moving flat out) and a failed to-hit roll should mean that the model automatically dies like with a failed death or glory attack.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
Vaktathi wrote:-Loki- wrote:
Hull Points were a fantastic addition, because they fixed the key problem of vehicles - the unreliability of damage to them. You could land multiple penetrating hits on a vehicle every turn and do nothing more than stunlock it.
You can do the same thing to anything with a save, the damage table *was* the vehicles save, except you always at least kept it from doing something or crippled it even if you didn't kill it.
Vehicles effectively were T6-10 W1 models with a 3+ save that resulted in them being crippled or mitigated in some way if they made their save.
Now it's like saying "Well, you inflicted 3 wounds on that marine, don't bother rolling the saves in case he makes them all, he just falls apart".
Vehicles in general were never the issue. Nobody had a problem with most vehicles. No, the problem was that certain Transports were auto-takes. Instead of addressing the issue where it came from, in the codex entries for those transports, GW wrecked the viability of vehicles in general.
I'm not saying it's a good system, merely that I find it great over the old system. I've been on the other side, watching Railgun shot after Railgun shot bounce off a Predator while my friend grimaced and I cackled with glee.
Honestly, vehicles should have just been given toughness, wounds and an armour save, with the 'vehicle' unit type limiting what kind of bubble effects can affect them (to stop medics giving them FNP or psychic powers giving them Endurace) and stopping things like Poison affecting them. That would have opened them up to small arms fire vulnerability, but T7 base for all vehicles would have kept it at 6's to wound for small arms.
Short of that system, I'll take hull points. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sure, if your opponent is cheating.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Or just going second, and you moved forward at all.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Actually, that would be a great idea. Scrap AV in favor of T and more HP. For example, a land raider could be T10 and have 6 HP.
It would be hurtable by S7 instead of just 8+, but if you threw on more wounds, it would be fine. Plus, you couldn't ever get instantly destroyed by a single meltagun blast.
The fact that monstrous creatures are insanely better than heavier vehicles doesn't make much sense to me.
44326
Post by: DeffDred
I don't mind hull points so much. I wish they just had multiplied them by 2.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
IMO the solution to vehicles was to use hull points, but make all but the lightest vehicles (Sentinels, etc) have more of them. Make it so that hull points are the insurance against rolling nothing but 1s for damage and permanently shaking/stunning a tank into uselessness every turn but never actually killing it, not a primary method for killing vehicles.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
-Loki- wrote:
I'm not saying it's a good system, merely that I find it great over the old system. I've been on the other side, watching Railgun shot after Railgun shot bounce off a Predator while my friend grimaced and I cackled with glee.
We've all been there, but how's that different than watching that last Marine sergeant make 12 saves in a row? Conversly, I've sat there and watched 7 of my 10 tanks explode turn 1 when equally horrid luck occurred for my side.
Honestly, vehicles should have just been given toughness, wounds and an armour save, with the 'vehicle' unit type limiting what kind of bubble effects can affect them (to stop medics giving them FNP or psychic powers giving them Endurace) and stopping things like Poison affecting them. That would have opened them up to small arms fire vulnerability, but T7 base for all vehicles would have kept it at 6's to wound for small arms.
Short of that system, I'll take hull points.
I much prefer the older system, again, the problem was largely with a couple transports more than anything else. What we've got now is essentially the worst of both AV and T systems, where the Vehicle Damage table can be largely ignored if desired (though is still present in case one gets "lucky") and just focused instead of taking off the vehicle "wounds", and of especially once a vehicle's down to its last HP then the qualitative component of AT (super high S and low AP) can be kissed goodbye as its no longer really necessary, you just need to meet that AV value, and the vehicle gets no Save really to try and respond with.
Most vehicles now feel partially like dead weight, as is, lacking saves bar whatever they can try and finagle for cover, they're just way too easy to take down, and the vehicle CC rules are laughably "gimme" for anything assaulting a tank. Generally, if its got grenades, don't bother rolling in most cases for tanks assaults as it's usually a forgeone conclusion, it's easier for a Tac Squad to kill a Flat Out moving HoloFalcon or moving Leman Russ in CC than it is to kill 2 opposing Marines in CC, and Tanks can't even overwatch.
Barring cases of very small numbers of models (like super depleted squads of like 3 guys) initiating an assault, I can count on one hand the number of vehicle assaults I've seen fail to destroy the vehicle on the first round in 6E.
This is on top of Vehicles inexplicably being the only unit type unable to even contest objectives (even if they have an embarked scoring unit), while stuff like MC's and Artillery can hold/contest.
There's a reason why ground vehicles are becoming rarer and rarer. One needs only to peruse the Army Lists section to see how few non-flyer vehicles are taken, usually those that are offer some sort of singular unduplicatable ability (e.g. S10 railguns for Tau, ordnance tanks that can hide for IG) or have major HP mitigation. Seeing tanks in Eldar armies is almost unheard of these days for instance.
Sure, if your opponent is cheating.
Not impossible, usually it happens with whoever goes 2nd engaging a unit that advanced, but I just watched last week a necron player Seize on a Chaos player, the Necron player had deployed a unit of Scarabs across from one of the Chaos units, both at the limit of their deployment zone (so exactly 24" apart), the scarabs moved 12", roll crap for charge but rerolled thanks to Fleet and came up a 12, and were able to make contact as a result. Admittedly *that* instance is rare, but still possible. Either way, turn 1 assaults are not unheard of, and turn 2 assaults are fairly routine, making avoidance by vehicles extremely difficult.
44326
Post by: DeffDred
Vaktathi wrote: last week a necron player Seize on a Chaos player, the Necron player had deployed a unit of Scarabs across from one of the Chaos units, both at the limit of their deployment zone (so exactly 24" apart), the scarabs moved 12", roll crap for charge but rerolled thanks to Fleet and came up a 12, and were able to make contact as a result. Admittedly *that* instance is rare, but still possible. Either way, turn 1 assaults are not unheard of, and turn 2 assaults are fairly routine, making avoidance by vehicles extremely difficult.
Players should discuss things like this before a game. When I was younger I played Tyranids alot and would often let my opponent know that I concidered measurements "at" not "in".
Sometimes I'd just give them the suggestion of deploying at least one inch away from the deployment edge just incase.
I felt it was easier to just let them know ahead of time rather than dealing with complains and judgement calls.
57646
Post by: Kain
Vaktathi wrote:-Loki- wrote:
I'm not saying it's a good system, merely that I find it great over the old system. I've been on the other side, watching Railgun shot after Railgun shot bounce off a Predator while my friend grimaced and I cackled with glee.
We've all been there, but how's that different than watching that last Marine sergeant make 12 saves in a row? Conversly, I've sat there and watched 7 of my 10 tanks explode turn 1 when equally horrid luck occurred for my side.
Honestly, vehicles should have just been given toughness, wounds and an armour save, with the 'vehicle' unit type limiting what kind of bubble effects can affect them (to stop medics giving them FNP or psychic powers giving them Endurace) and stopping things like Poison affecting them. That would have opened them up to small arms fire vulnerability, but T7 base for all vehicles would have kept it at 6's to wound for small arms.
Short of that system, I'll take hull points.
I much prefer the older system, again, the problem was largely with a couple transports more than anything else. What we've got now is essentially the worst of both AV and T systems, where the Vehicle Damage table can be largely ignored if desired (though is still present in case one gets "lucky") and just focused instead of taking off the vehicle "wounds", and of especially once a vehicle's down to its last HP then the qualitative component of AT (super high S and low AP) can be kissed goodbye as its no longer really necessary, you just need to meet that AV value, and the vehicle gets no Save really to try and respond with.
Most vehicles now feel partially like dead weight, as is, lacking saves bar whatever they can try and finagle for cover, they're just way too easy to take down, and the vehicle CC rules are laughably "gimme" for anything assaulting a tank. Generally, if its got grenades, don't bother rolling in most cases for tanks assaults as it's usually a forgeone conclusion, it's easier for a Tac Squad to kill a Flat Out moving HoloFalcon or moving Leman Russ in CC than it is to kill 2 opposing Marines in CC, and Tanks can't even overwatch.
Barring cases of very small numbers of models (like super depleted squads of like 3 guys) initiating an assault, I can count on one hand the number of vehicle assaults I've seen fail to destroy the vehicle on the first round in 6E.
This is on top of Vehicles inexplicably being the only unit type unable to even contest objectives (even if they have an embarked scoring unit), while stuff like MC's and Artillery can hold/contest.
There's a reason why ground vehicles are becoming rarer and rarer. One needs only to peruse the Army Lists section to see how few non-flyer vehicles are taken, usually those that are offer some sort of singular unduplicatable ability (e.g. S10 railguns for Tau, ordnance tanks that can hide for IG) or have major HP mitigation. Seeing tanks in Eldar armies is almost unheard of these days for instance.
Sure, if your opponent is cheating.
Not impossible, usually it happens with whoever goes 2nd engaging a unit that advanced, but I just watched last week a necron player Seize on a Chaos player, the Necron player had deployed a unit of Scarabs across from one of the Chaos units, both at the limit of their deployment zone (so exactly 24" apart), the scarabs moved 12", roll crap for charge but rerolled thanks to Fleet and came up a 12, and were able to make contact as a result. Admittedly *that* instance is rare, but still possible. Either way, turn 1 assaults are not unheard of, and turn 2 assaults are fairly routine, making avoidance by vehicles extremely difficult.
As someone who repeatedly gets facerolled by the infamous Necron Av13 wall of doom list, mech is in no way even remotely dead.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Vaktathi wrote:Not impossible, usually it happens with whoever goes 2nd engaging a unit that advanced, but I just watched last week a necron player Seize on a Chaos player, the Necron player had deployed a unit of Scarabs across from one of the Chaos units, both at the limit of their deployment zone (so exactly 24" apart), the scarabs moved 12", roll crap for charge but rerolled thanks to Fleet and came up a 12, and were able to make contact as a result. Admittedly *that* instance is rare, but still possible. Either way, turn 1 assaults are not unheard of, and turn 2 assaults are fairly routine, making avoidance by vehicles extremely difficult.
That was either cheating (moving too far), or at least a major mistake. You have to deploy at least 24" away, and if you're even one atom-width over 24" you're not in charge range.
13022
Post by: Locclo
Peregrine wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Not impossible, usually it happens with whoever goes 2nd engaging a unit that advanced, but I just watched last week a necron player Seize on a Chaos player, the Necron player had deployed a unit of Scarabs across from one of the Chaos units, both at the limit of their deployment zone (so exactly 24" apart), the scarabs moved 12", roll crap for charge but rerolled thanks to Fleet and came up a 12, and were able to make contact as a result. Admittedly *that* instance is rare, but still possible. Either way, turn 1 assaults are not unheard of, and turn 2 assaults are fairly routine, making avoidance by vehicles extremely difficult.
That was either cheating (moving too far), or at least a major mistake. You have to deploy at least 24" away, and if you're even one atom-width over 24" you're not in charge range.
I'd like to know who is getting first turn assaults off, because I've yet to see one happen. Even using the sideways vehicle trick (start a vehicle sideways, pivot, move up 6", jump out 6", assault) it'd be a hell of a thing to pull off.
On topic:
So far, I'm pretty happy with 6th Edition. I do have a couple of gripes, though. For one, the random terrain is utter trash. I've actually been in a game where one side had 9 pieces of terrain and my side had 3, and it wasn't very fun. Thankfully, I've never seen anyone (aside from that one time) actually use those rules, so all is well. As others have said here, I'm sure, I also think the Warlord traits are kinda pointless, just because so many of them are incredibly specific. I seem to always get the ones that are totally useless for my army, like my Warboss getting Furious Charge in the enemy deployment zone or my Rune Priest getting Counter-Attack in his own.
The other thing that I'm not too happy with is the changes to vehicles. I get that they were pretty powerful in 5th, what with the ability to soak up damage like crazy, but I think they were overbalanced towards the weak end in 6th. I'm not even concerned about the hull points, really, because I still tend to take out vehicles with a single penetrate that blows the thing sky-high (but I also usually shoot them with meltas, so there's that). What really bugs me is the fact that things can't assault out of vehicles that aren't assault vehicles. I mean, is running out the hatch of a Rhino that hasn't moved really so jarring that the unit inside can't charge an enemy?
I do have to say that the one thing that I'm really thrilled about with 6th is the allies rules. I love being able to take them, simply because with a lot of armies, it allows me to cover a specific weakness by bringing in a second army. My current favorite is using Tau allied with a single Warboss and a 10-man squad of Nob Bikers, a unit that I have yet to see wiped to a man. In the last game I played, the Bikers intercepted a squad of Bloodletters, a squad of some Khorne cavalry unit (No idea what they're called), and a Bloodthirster - and they came out with a whopping two casualties. I just love the ability to build stronger, more survivable lists thanks to the allies rules.
TL;DR: I love 6th!
56041
Post by: Frank&Stein
I've been playing since 2nd edition and every version so far has had its problems.
Yet every version has in equal measure fixed problems from other editions.
IMO 6th edition 40K is the exception.
There's a few improvements: pre-measuring, overwatch and random charge range for instance (although the latter could be a little less random).
But these are overshadowed by a mass of unneeded and poorly executed "improvements" and new additions (e.g. wound allocation, psychic powers, warlord traits, hull points challenges, flyers).
Overall, I think that 6th edition tried to move into several different directions at once, a lot of new additions feeling more at home at a skirmish level game while trying to increase the scale game.
It the end it feels like a conglomeration of rules that doesn't do anything particularly well.
58175
Post by: MarkCron
I like 6th better than 5th overall, with the exception of the increased Psychic focus (not only the warlord traits). I think the Psychic abilities can skew against armies that don't have them or have no defences. I know they were in 5th, they just seem more powerful and prevalent now.
There was a classic quote from a Dakka-ite but can't remember who (sorry!) "In a universe with monstrous creatures, huge battle tanks, guns that can blast through anything the most powerful guy on the battlefield is a guy with a stick".
465
Post by: Redbeard
MarkCron wrote:
There was a classic quote from a Dakka-ite but can't remember who (sorry!) "In a universe with monstrous creatures, huge battle tanks, guns that can blast through anything the most powerful guy on the battlefield is a guy with a stick".
If you want a real-world wargame, go play Flames of War. 40k is about Heroic Sci-Fi, and as such, the guy with the power sword has every right to be the powerful one. As Lord Vader once said, "The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force." Energy swords have a long and important tradition in Sci-Fi.
Let's see...
Luke defeated a huge monstrous creature with a stick (The Rancor)
Luke defeated a huge battle tank with a power sword & Meltabomb ( AT- AT, in Empire)
63257
Post by: krazykishere
My biggest beef in the vehicle category is assault walkers. They completely got the shaft as is. However the maulerfiend gives me hope for future codex releases. On the infantry side, the new tau seem to he the.final big nail in Tue coffin of assault armies. Still to early to tell though. What's really funny is the army with the best assault unit is one that is considered to be primarily a shooty army, that being necrons.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Redbeard wrote:MarkCron wrote:
There was a classic quote from a Dakka-ite but can't remember who (sorry!) "In a universe with monstrous creatures, huge battle tanks, guns that can blast through anything the most powerful guy on the battlefield is a guy with a stick".
If you want a real-world wargame, go play Flames of War. 40k is about Heroic Sci-Fi, and as such, the guy with the power sword has every right to be the powerful one. As Lord Vader once said, "The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force." Energy swords have a long and important tradition in Sci-Fi.
Let's see...
Luke defeated a huge monstrous creature with a stick (The Rancor)
Luke defeated a huge battle tank with a power sword & Meltabomb ( AT- AT, in Empire)
If you read the novels in the Expanded Universe you can see those fancy sticks doing pretty freakin amazing things.
13022
Post by: Locclo
krazykishere wrote:My biggest beef in the vehicle category is assault walkers. They completely got the shaft as is. However the maulerfiend gives me hope for future codex releases. On the infantry side, the new tau seem to he the.final big nail in Tue coffin of assault armies. Still to early to tell though. What's really funny is the army with the best assault unit is one that is considered to be primarily a shooty army, that being necrons.
I think Tau + allies is the nail in the coffin for assault-heavy armies. The most recent game I played was against Khorne Daemons, he basically took everything he could that wanted to get up close and personal as fast as possible. In the end, he managed to launch one successful assault against a Tau unit, and it was against a 9-man Fire Warrior squad. Every other unit on the board was shot down or ground into dust by Nob Bikers.
Edit: And just to clarify, the Nob Bikers intercepted three separate units from getting into close combat with the Tau over the course of the game, so they played a huge role in my victory.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Kain wrote:
As someone who repeatedly gets facerolled by the infamous Necron Av13 wall of doom list, mech is in no way even remotely dead.
Necrons are the army that were purposely built to sidestep or ignore much of what 6E nerfed for everyone else. Necron Mech works because everything is AV13 (as such, don't have to worry much about the multishot weapons that strip HP's from vehicles of other races and guns that can penetrate them are usually big enough that HP's don't often come into play), benefits from Jink, and their basic troop transport inexplicably warrants 4HP, on top having having some of the best methods in the game to strip HP's from opponents vehicles with Gauss weapons or generating huge numbers of S7 shots (that perform almost as well when Snapshotting, lending additional speed/durability to the army) to engage medium and light Vehicles, and they've got widespread access to flyers as dedicated transports (which also ignore the bad things about being a Flyer transport...)
So yeah, under those circumstances, Necrons are able to effectively play Mech armies very well in 6th, they do not however apply to any other army in the game unfortunately.
Peregrine wrote:
That was either cheating (moving too far), or at least a major mistake. You have to deploy at least 24" away, and if you're even one atom-width over 24" you're not in charge range.
They'd both pretty much deployed right up on the line as far forward as possible, the CSM player wanting to move forward as best as they could, the Necron player wanting to screen his other units.
20392
Post by: Farseer Faenyin
Or you had Scout and went second.
30265
Post by: SoloFalcon1138
6th edition is fine. Anonymously whining about it on the internet is like trying to train a cat. It wastes your time and annoys the cat.
48746
Post by: Billagio
You can get first turn assault with storm boyz. Just deploy 24in away, move 12 with jumpacks, and you can move an addition d6 inches plus your 2d6 charge range.
58175
Post by: MarkCron
Redbeard wrote:MarkCron wrote:
There was a classic quote from a Dakka-ite but can't remember who (sorry!) "In a universe with monstrous creatures, huge battle tanks, guns that can blast through anything the most powerful guy on the battlefield is a guy with a stick".
If you want a real-world wargame, go play Flames of War. 40k is about Heroic Sci-Fi, and as such, the guy with the power sword has every right to be the powerful one. As Lord Vader once said, "The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force." Energy swords have a long and important tradition in Sci-Fi.
Let's see...
Luke defeated a huge monstrous creature with a stick (The Rancor)
Luke defeated a huge battle tank with a power sword & Meltabomb ( AT- AT, in Empire)
I don't have a problem with power swords, halberds, maces etc. I have a problem with dinosaurs being able to make their buddies stronger. But as you say, not real world. My point was that the increased reliance on Psychic powers in 6th compared to 5th.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:6th edition is fine. Anonymously whining about it on the internet is like trying to train a cat. It wastes your time and annoys the cat.
Sorry people decided to come to an internet discussion board dedicated to discussing tabletop games and discussing said tabletop game...and annoying the cat that purposefully chose to click on and engage in said discussion.
60134
Post by: Hetelic
HP are a tricky one tbh, and I can see it from all angles.
Firstly, Lower-end AV units with few hull points are pretty shafted. The whole point of APC/ transport style units is to allow infantry units to cross the battlefield, relatively safe from small arms fire; NOT necessarily to allow them to cross the battlefield faster. The UK army uses infantry transport vehicles like the Mastiff to allow soldiers a relatively safe way to move about in a hostile zone. Current transport rules in game don't accurately reflect this. In fact, such vehicles are a liability, as they more often than not become a prime target for First Blood.
Secondly, Higher-end AV vehicles with more hull points get a pretty decent boost. To even glance a AV 14 vehicle, you need str 8, and to strip off 4 HP, you need to have a significant amount of it, not accounting for lucky rolling.
The problem lies not that Low av is weak and high av is strong, per say, but that the gap between them is very very wide. At this point, I am seeing very very little AV 10- 12 LAND vehicles getting played. That's a huge indication there is something wrong with that "group" of vehicles.
Perhaps. Light, Heavy and Superheavy need to come into the BRB as defined rules, each giving different buffs/ nerfs and making light vehicles usable again. Perhaps giving a cover save modifier, or a more pronounced speed modifier ect.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Peregrine wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Not impossible, usually it happens with whoever goes 2nd engaging a unit that advanced, but I just watched last week a necron player Seize on a Chaos player, the Necron player had deployed a unit of Scarabs across from one of the Chaos units, both at the limit of their deployment zone (so exactly 24" apart), the scarabs moved 12", roll crap for charge but rerolled thanks to Fleet and came up a 12, and were able to make contact as a result. Admittedly *that* instance is rare, but still possible. Either way, turn 1 assaults are not unheard of, and turn 2 assaults are fairly routine, making avoidance by vehicles extremely difficult.
That was either cheating (moving too far), or at least a major mistake. You have to deploy at least 24" away, and if you're even one atom-width over 24" you're not in charge range.
How so? At least means >/=, not >.
24" separating the two units...a 12" move and a 12" charge should bring them perfectly into B2B assuming that they were deployed on the line directly across from one another.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Additionally, on the subject of light/heavy vehicle debate, heavier vehicles generally require weapons of such high S to hurt that their AP will be 1 or 2, and as such have a much higher chance of being destroyed before they hit their HP threshold than lighter vehicles, so HP's often play less of a role, though admittedly it still requires only about 18 lascannon shots to average 4 HP's on a Land Raider and 27 to average 1 Explodes Result.
As an addendum:
It'd be one thing if vehicles had HP's to match the chance of a destroyed result, but as is so often the average number of shots required to remove all so much HP's is lower than the average number of shots required to average a single destroyed result, meaning that between the two, vehicle lifespans are reduced to half or less than what they were before.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
NuggzTheNinja wrote:How so? At least means >/=, not >.
24" separating the two units...a 12" move and a 12" charge should bring them perfectly into B2B assuming that they were deployed on the line directly across from one another.
Because you can't measure with perfect mathematical precision. Either you will be one atom-width under 24" (in which case the deployment is illegal), or you will be one atom-width over 24" (in which case you're too far away to assault even with perfect dice).
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
That is a point however beyond which normal wargaming will care about as the measurements available and care of the players usually does not extend that far. Theoretically, it's possible, most people play it roughly as such with leeway for the fact that we aren't ultra-precision laser-assisted measuring devices.
20392
Post by: Farseer Faenyin
Peregrine wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:How so? At least means >/=, not >.
24" separating the two units...a 12" move and a 12" charge should bring them perfectly into B2B assuming that they were deployed on the line directly across from one another.
Because you can't measure with perfect mathematical precision. Either you will be one atom-width under 24" (in which case the deployment is illegal), or you will be one atom-width over 24" (in which case you're too far away to assault even with perfect dice).
Not to mention any ripple in the terrain causes additional movement as the movement is terrain following. Unless you play on glass or another perfectly smooth surface, you will not be in range by this factor alone. :-P Automatically Appended Next Post: Well, except for Jump/Jet/Jetbike units. >.<
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Peregrine wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:How so? At least means >/=, not >.
24" separating the two units...a 12" move and a 12" charge should bring them perfectly into B2B assuming that they were deployed on the line directly across from one another.
Because you can't measure with perfect mathematical precision. Either you will be one atom-width under 24" (in which case the deployment is illegal), or you will be one atom-width over 24" (in which case you're too far away to assault even with perfect dice).
So the default is to assume that a perfectly legal move is illegal because of measurement error? I think it's fair to ask your opponent, "Is that unit deployed 'on the line'?" and treat the units, both intentionally deployed 'on the line', as being exactly 24" apart in game terms.
There is the whole separate discussion regarding long assault vehicles that permit the controller to turn it after deployment, gaining inches, moving, then disembarking 6" and charging 12" without a problem.
First turn charges can happen without breaking the game.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
NuggzTheNinja wrote:So the default is to assume that a perfectly legal move is illegal because of measurement error?
No, the default is to assume that if an opponent claims a charge that is only possible if both players are able to measure with precision far beyond what is actually possible (and both players choose to do so) then the charge fails because any "success" is merely the result of moving too far in the movement phase and/or mis-measuring the assault distance.
It's no different than measuring out 30" between models at deployment and then having the opponent try to claim 12" movement + 12" charge for a successful charge. It doesn't matter how much you wave the tape measure around and claim that you successfully charged, it was impossible for you to do it legally and there's no obligation to accept the extra distance you somehow managed to get.
I think it's fair to ask your opponent, "Is that unit deployed 'on the line'?" and treat the units, both intentionally deployed 'on the line', as being exactly 24" apart in game terms.
No, it's fair to actually measure 24". Nothing in that story suggests that the two players both agreed to be exactly 24" apart, and the charged player has every right to point out that it's impossible to make that charge without breaking the rules.
There is the whole separate discussion regarding long assault vehicles that permit the controller to turn it after deployment, gaining inches, moving, then disembarking 6" and charging 12" without a problem.
Possibly, but that's not what happened here.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
generally people aren't assuming lengths measured in atomic radii or requiring micron level precision, and the game rules tell you not to get into such sillyness.
Generally, if both units are set up on at the edge of their deployment zone directly opposite each other, 24 inches of movement+charge will make it.
That's not unreasonable, any greater level of precision quickly turns a game of plastic toy soldiers into something nobody wants to bother with.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Vaktathi wrote:generally people aren't assuming lengths measured in atomic radii or requiring micron level precision
Exactly. So if your opponent declares a "successful" charge that can only be successful if both players have measured with micron-level precision then the proper response is "no, that fails" because the only way they could have done it is by getting some extra movement (for example, moving an extra inch in the movement phase).
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Peregrine wrote: Vaktathi wrote:generally people aren't assuming lengths measured in atomic radii or requiring micron level precision
Exactly. So if your opponent declares a "successful" charge that can only be successful if both players have measured with micron-level precision then the proper response is "no, that fails" because the only way they could have done it is by getting some extra movement (for example, moving an extra inch in the movement phase).
While technically true, this level of semantic interpretation in a game involving little toy soldiers will probably not lead to happy outcomes for both parties involved.
By this criterion, not even casino dice are fair and balanced. Precise as they are, they are not machined to perfect tolerances. Do you always accuse your opponents of using biased dice?
62216
Post by: Griddlelol
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
If you read the novels in the Expanded Universe you can see those fancy sticks doing pretty freakin amazing things.
I believe the stick he was referring to was the bone inside the Rancor's enclosure, considering Luke didn't use a light-sabre at that point (and kind of incorrect, since the "stick" merely enabled him to defeat the Rancor with the almighty door - but that's just nitpicking).
I do agree with the sentiment that 40K is a science fantasy game, and should be treated as such. It's not about realism, it's about badassing kicking other badasses in the ass with big fething weapons.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Peregrine wrote: Vaktathi wrote:generally people aren't assuming lengths measured in atomic radii or requiring micron level precision
Exactly. So if your opponent declares a "successful" charge that can only be successful if both players have measured with micron-level precision then the proper response is "no, that fails" because the only way they could have done it is by getting some extra movement (for example, moving an extra inch in the movement phase).
Normally people would assume that if Unit A is set up at the limit of their deployment zone and unit B is set up on the opposing side at the limit of their deployment zone, they're assumed to be 24" apart, and that a 12" move and a 12" charge should get unit A into combat with Unit B.
44326
Post by: DeffDred
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:6th edition is fine. Anonymously whining about it on the internet is like trying to train a cat. It wastes your time and annoys the cat.
Sorry to go off topic but you do know that cats can be trained right? They can do tricks and even be trained to use a toilet.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Peregrine wrote: Vaktathi wrote:generally people aren't assuming lengths measured in atomic radii or requiring micron level precision
Exactly. So if your opponent declares a "successful" charge that can only be successful if both players have measured with micron-level precision then the proper response is "no, that fails" because the only way they could have done it is by getting some extra movement (for example, moving an extra inch in the movement phase).
You sure sound fun to play against.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Yeah, it's so little fun when you actually measure distances accurately instead of letting people have extra movement distance. Because charging from 24" away usually means that someone measured generously and took an extra half inch of movement distance to get into charge range.
32772
Post by: Hashbeth
This thread was an excellent way to subtly cause chaos and mayhem.
8/10 to OP. Well done sir/madam
48746
Post by: Billagio
Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, it's so little fun when you actually measure distances accurately instead of letting people have extra movement distance. Because charging from 24" away usually means that someone measured generously and took an extra half inch of movement distance to get into charge range.
Unless everything was measured accurately in the first place (ie deployment) and you moved up the full amounts and measured properly for distance. Or if your opponent is not an dill weed
Or if you use stormboyz.
lol dill weed....
46630
Post by: wowsmash
I like sixth for the most part. There are a few annoyance's. I wish fleet still granted an initiative bonus. My orks are having a hard time of it.
I do think busting out a micrometer to measure distance is a little over the top. If somebody's that close I'm not gunna through a fit about it and just call it good.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
Billagio wrote: Peregrine wrote: Yeah, it's so little fun when you actually measure distances accurately instead of letting people have extra movement distance. Because charging from 24" away usually means that someone measured generously and took an extra half inch of movement distance to get into charge range. Unless everything was measured accurately in the first place (ie deployment) and you moved up the full amounts and measured properly for distance. Or if your opponent is not an dill weed The only way for it to actually work is if you have a model in each unit in a perfectly straight line away from each other. Any cause for the tape measure you be turned, at all, to get them to line up will cause extra movement. Add to this circular bases and the requirement of a model actually being brought into base to base contact for a charge to be successful, and you've got a real problem. No one is going to be able to place models that mathematically perfect to get a turn 1 charge. It's not about bein an unfun opponent, it's about not liking opponents cheating. I'm not seeing what Stormboyz bring to the table that allows them to make a turn 1 charge that any other jump infantry doesn't.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
And this is where that whole "golden rule" thing comes into play, because largely outside of internet forums, nobody is going go assume they need that measure of accuracy to make that because such accuracy is impossible given any reasonable conditions. The overwhelmingly vast majority of players will assume that two units that are have obviously and intentionally been deployed at the limit of their deployment zones and directly opposite each other will be able to be reached with a 12" move and a 12" charge.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
So now we're shifting the goalposts? It's mathematically impossible to ensure a turn 1 charge for a variety of reasons. If players want to fudge the rules slightly to let it happen, that's fine. It's, at worst, mutual cheating, since it's mutual breaking of the rules and at best, house ruling. It's akin to me letting my friend get away with measuring his movement from the front of his models base, but moving his model up to that point to the back of his base, getting an extra 1" movement. I ignore it, because I'm just used to it. It doesn't change the fact that it's cheating.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Vaktathi wrote:because such accuracy is impossible given any reasonable conditions.
Exactly. The accuracy in measurement required to get a legitimate 24" turn 1 charge is beyond any real player's ability, so the inevitable conclusion is if someone does claim a turn 1 24" charge they have gained it illegitimately through either deploying too close or moving too far. And in either case their opponent is entirely justified in refusing to allow the illegitimate charge.
13022
Post by: Locclo
-Loki- wrote:I'm not seeing what Stormboyz bring to the table that allows them to make a turn 1 charge that any other jump infantry doesn't.
To answer this, it's because Ork Stormboyz have the Rokkit Pack wargear. Every time they move, they roll a d6. On a 1, one model dies. Regardless, the unit gets to add that die roll to the distance moved. In essence, the Stormboyz could theoretically get a first turn charge by getting an 18" movement followed by any decent charge distance, assuming the opponent is on the line or somewhere close to it.
48746
Post by: Billagio
Locclo wrote: -Loki- wrote:I'm not seeing what Stormboyz bring to the table that allows them to make a turn 1 charge that any other jump infantry doesn't.
To answer this, it's because Ork Stormboyz have the Rokkit Pack wargear. Every time they move, they roll a d6. On a 1, one model dies. Regardless, the unit gets to add that die roll to the distance moved. In essence, the Stormboyz could theoretically get a first turn charge by getting an 18" movement followed by any decent charge distance, assuming the opponent is on the line or somewhere close to it.
Exactly. They can move up to a possible 18inches every turn. They can also take a special char that lets them do a vanguard veteran type of assault out of deepstrike.
465
Post by: Redbeard
-Loki- wrote:
The only way for it to actually work is if you have a model in each unit in a perfectly straight line away from each other. Any cause for the tape measure you be turned, at all, to get them to line up will cause extra movement. Add to this circular bases and the requirement of a model actually being brought into base to base contact for a charge to be successful, and you've got a real problem.
No one is going to be able to place models that mathematically perfect to get a turn 1 charge.
-Loki- wrote:So now we're shifting the goalposts?
It's mathematically impossible to ensure a turn 1 charge for a variety of reasons. If players want to fudge the rules slightly to let it happen, that's fine. It's, at worst, mutual cheating, since it's mutual breaking of the rules and at best, house ruling.
Actually, no. It's entirely mathematically possible. It's just not easy. With some expensive measuring tools, it's not even that hard. If one player deploys on the line, and the other deploys exactly opposite him, on the line, then they're theoretically 24" apart, and all we're quibbling about is microns - that can be measured, just not with the tools most gamers have around.
Peregrine wrote:
Exactly. The accuracy in measurement required to get a legitimate 24" turn 1 charge is beyond any real player's ability, so the inevitable conclusion is if someone does claim a turn 1 24" charge they have gained it illegitimately through either deploying too close or moving too far. And in either case their opponent is entirely justified in refusing to allow the illegitimate charge.
That's quite a stretch. Your argument is fundamentally flawed because you're applying different standards for different parts of the game. Your initial premise is that deploying accurately is not a reasonable goal. Well, if deploying accurately is not a reasonable goal, given the tools we have at our disposal, then it should be just as acceptable for my guys to deploy 2mm past the 24" line as 2mm further back from the line. If your argument is that we can't be precise, then you have to accept that it's an equally valid possibility that we're slightly too close as that we're slightly too far away, and that neither are cheating, they're just the limits of our ability.
The second part of your argument is that we should apply the theoretical application of deployment to the actual position of the models on the table. But if we're applying theoretically, the rules make it theoretically possible that we did deploy accurately, and that the charge is legal.
You're applying shifting standards, and that's the only way your argument works. You demand that we cannot deploy with laser-like accuracy in step one, and then that we ignore where we actually deployed and use a theoretical distance to disallow the charge. That's a ludicrous misapplication of the rules, of common sense, and of basic sportsmanship.
Theoretically, the game allows the possibility that we did deploy legally, and that the charge is legal. Given that this actually requires both players to deploy on the line, with the second player directly across from the first, it's only possible if the first player to deploy actually puts his guys on the line. Clearly, it already requires both player's consent to make this possible. If the first player to deploy doesn't want it to be possible, he has only to deploy off the line. Likewise, if the second player doesn't want the possibility, all he has to do is deploy at an angle to the first, or likewise, off the line. So, in order for this to work, it needs both players to consciously make it possible. That said, if they both do this, why would one of them suddenly go all pedantic when it comes time to roll the charge?
Logically, it's possible. Mathematically, it is possible. It's legal within the rules. It requires both player's cooperation to set up. The only argument you have against it is to apply inconsistent standards to when we use actual distances and when we use theoretical ones. In short, denying it is the epitome of poor sportsmanship - if you're so against it, don't deploy on the line, directly across from your opponent.
39296
Post by: gpfunk
That was really fun to read! (No sarcasm, I promise  )...back to the topic:
I love assault, so I hate 6th edition.
I love being able to kill vehicles, so I love 6th edition.
I don't like fliers, so I hate 6th edition.
I love psychic powers, so I love 6th edition.
I'm getting into the groove of 6th edition. I feel that most of the internet has calmed down enough to get a handle on it. I'm not sure how tournament play is fairing, but my local gaming group has adjusted quite well. I still run assaulty CSM lists and manage to do okay, they just require a bit more thought put in than if I were running a gunline. And that's okay with me. Overall, i'd say it's an improvement.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Redbeard wrote:With some expensive measuring tools, it's not even that hard.
No such tools exist. There is no way to measure 24" so precisely that you are neither one atom-width under 24" (and therefore illegally deployed) nor one atom-width over 24" (and therefore unable to make the turn-1 charge). And even if some theoretical tool could exist to do this, it is certainly not available in a game of 40k. Therefore we know with absolute certainty that a "successful" charge at 24" was due to either illegal deployment or illegal movement.
Well, if deploying accurately is not a reasonable goal, given the tools we have at our disposal, then it should be just as acceptable for my guys to deploy 2mm past the 24" line as 2mm further back from the line.
Nonsense. Deploying 2mm over the line is cheating, therefore you are obligated to deploy in such a way that you are not 2mm over the line, even if that means deploying a full 1" behind the line. It's just like with point costs: if we're playing a 1500 point game then 1501 points is cheating and you might have to play a 1496 point list to be legal.
Obviously this can't be enforced in every case (nor would it even be relevant), but you are NOT entitled to deploy 2mm over the line and then declare a distance that depends on taking advantage of that 2mm.
Clearly, it already requires both player's consent to make this possible. If the first player to deploy doesn't want it to be possible, he has only to deploy off the line.
And here's the problem: both players consenting to be exactly 24" apart and allow a turn-1 charge with a roll of 12" for charge distance is going to be incredibly rare. The vast majority of turn-1 charges in this situation will be either:
1) The charging player says nothing and just measures 24" for a "successful" charge, which means with near certainty that the actual distance was more than 24" and the charging player was taking advantage of careless measuring to gain extra distance and do something that shouldn't have been possible.
or
2) The charging player "traps" an unaware opponent (probably a new or less competitive player) by asking to agree to count it as exactly 24" range. While not technically illegal it's certainly unethical, as the charging player is only getting that agreement by withholding important information about the situation and a fully informed player would not have agreed.
48746
Post by: Billagio
So then how do you measure your deployment zones? Couldnt you just as easily say that the deployment zones are not accuratly measured because we cant measure atom widths? Maybe if you were able to do that I would be within charge range since your deployment line is .0000001 inches closer to mine?
If both players are deployed on a line across from each other with a supposed 24 inch no mans land between then and the first player moves 12 inches, then rolls double 6s for the charge range and overwatch doesn't do anything, then he should be within 24 inches. If you measure and hes not, then he is somewhere out of range, but if you measure 12 inches from the closest model and he is in b2b contact, then he is in range, whether you like it or not. 12+12=24 every time you calculate it, and your atom width arguements are not going to really matter if the ruler says that you are in range and you didnt call them out for moving too far or whatever in the movement phase.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Billagio wrote:So then how do you measure your deployment zones? Couldnt you just as easily say that the deployment zones are not accuratly measured because we cant measure atom widths? Maybe if you were able to do that I would be within charge range since your deployment line is .0000001 inches closer to mine?
No matter where the failure is it's still impossible to charge 24" on turn 1 without having some kind of failure. And no matter where the failure is I have every right to say "no, that's not possible" and refuse to allow my opponent to exploit that failure to gain a major advantage.
Again, look at the point cost analogy. Let's say we're playing a 500 point game and you show up with a C: SM army containing six tactical squads. I don't care what argument you want to make, or where you made a mistake in adding up your point costs, you have an illegal army and there is nothing you can say that will get me to let you play with it. And I'm certainly not going to listen to your excuse that adding up points accurately is hard, so it's just as likely that your army will be over the point limit as it is that it will be under it.
If both players are deployed on a line across from each other with a supposed 24 inch no mans land between then
And no matter how many times people state this ridiculous assumption it is still false. It is impossible to deploy exactly 24" away without being under 24" away (and therefore deployed illegally). That kind of mathematical perfection does not exist in the real world, so every single real game of 40k has models either 24.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001" away or illegally deployed. And if you are 24.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001" away you can not charge on the first turn with a maximum range of 24".
12+12=24 every time you calculate it, and your atom width arguements are not going to really matter if the ruler says that you are in range and you didnt call them out for moving too far or whatever in the movement phase.
Nonsense. It's very easy to cheat and claim a little extra distance in the movement phase (or nudge the model a bit forward when you're measuring for shooting, etc) and it's incredibly unlikely that your opponent will catch until you do something in the shooting/assault phase that makes it obvious. But if your opponent does something that should be impossible based on that extra distance you have no obligation to say "well, I didn't catch you in time, guess I'll just have to let you get away with it".
48746
Post by: Billagio
Whatever, maybe you're right, it never really happens anyways :/
Back to the original problem though, it IS possible to first turn assault, even if we accept Peregrines argument. Just use some stormboyz and hope for good rolls
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Yes, back to the original point of vehicles being ludicrously vulnerable in assaults, it is in fact possible under both theoretical and practical conditions that it should happen turn 1 (especially going 2nd), and that simply avoiding CC with vehicles is not a reasonable counter, especially as average and maximum charge distances have increased and vehicles cannot overwatch.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Peregrine wrote:
Therefore we know with absolute certainty that a "successful" charge at 24" was due to either illegal deployment or illegal movement.
Not at all. I'm sure you think you're very clever, referring to atom widths and all, but really, you're just coming off as a jerk. There has to be an acceptable margin of error, and that margin of error has to be within the scale of what we can actually measure. You know, that's how science works too...
Nonsense. Deploying 2mm over the line is cheating, therefore you are obligated to deploy in such a way that you are not 2mm over the line, even if that means deploying a full 1" behind the line. It's just like with point costs: if we're playing a 1500 point game then 1501 points is cheating and you might have to play a 1496 point list to be legal.
Again, you're confusing two things drawing inaccurate comparisons. The margin of error for points is less than 1 point, because we can accurately measure the points in a list to within 1 point. Playing a 1501 list violates something we can measure.
Deploying 2mm over a line is probably also measurable, although it might be close, depending on the tools available. But we're not really talking about 2mm, we're talking about the atom-width that your insane argument depends on, and that you rightly state that we cannot measure. As such, someone deploying an atom's width over the line isn't cheating, because cheating is an intentional violation of the rules. What's more, even if they had intentionally deployed that atom's width too close, you don't have a tool to prove that they did.
I can certainly deploy 24" inches away from your guy, to within the margin of error that we can actually measure. If I do that, then I can charge you. You can't prove that I didn't deploy perfectly accurately, because you also don't have the tool to know that.
The way to avoid this isn't to be a dick and start talking about the width of an atom, it's to deploy your own guys a measurable distance off the line. That's really easy.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Redbeard wrote:Not at all. I'm sure you think you're very clever, referring to atom widths and all, but really, you're just coming off as a jerk. There has to be an acceptable margin of error, and that margin of error has to be within the scale of what we can actually measure. You know, that's how science works too...
You're right, there's an acceptable margin of error: don't claim turn-1 charges that require you to measure 24" with mathematical perfection.
I can certainly deploy 24" inches away from your guy, to within the margin of error that we can actually measure. If I do that, then I can charge you. You can't prove that I didn't deploy perfectly accurately, because you also don't have the tool to know that.
Except we don't just have the measurement of the models on the table, we have an absolute indisputable rule that models must be at least 24" away. So, we have three possible situations:
Under 24": illegal deployment.
Exactly 24": not possible.
Over 24": no charge.
So we know that IF you have deployed legally you can not charge. If you do charge we can conclude that you deployed illegally or moved illegally. Either way the charge isn't happening.
The way to avoid this isn't to be a dick and start talking about the width of an atom, it's to deploy your own guys a measurable distance off the line. That's really easy.
Did you miss the part where I explained that the most likely scenario for this to come up isn't where there's an arranged "count this as being exactly 24" away", it's where at least one player deploys in a way that guarantees that the distance between models is over 24" and the other player moves more than 24" to get the charge. Deploying 1mm behind the line to make a charge impossible doesn't stop your opponent from moving an extra inch in the movement phase and then arguing that it's "possible" to make a turn-1 charge therefore they didn't cheat.
3314
Post by: Jancoran
Billagio wrote:Whatever, maybe you're right, it never really happens anyways :/
Back to the original problem though, it IS possible to first turn assault, even if we accept Peregrines argument. Just use some stormboyz and hope for good rolls 
Its even easier when you have Infiltrating beasts and go second.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Peregrine, if one side supposedly can't prove that it's deployed exactly 24" away then the other side can't prove that it's not. It is possible, however unlikely, that a unit is deployed correctly within an atom's length. If you're going to call a first turn charge cheating you'd better be able to prove beyond a doubt that it is impossible, which you haven't.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
AlmightyWalrus wrote:It is possible, however unlikely, that a unit is deployed correctly within an atom's length.
It's also possible that I could win every single lottery from now until the end of the universe with one ticket each. However, like deploying at a mathematically perfect 24" away, this "possibility" is purely theoretical and if it ever happened in reality you would be absolutely certain of some kind of fraud.
If you're going to call a first turn charge cheating you'd better be able to prove beyond a doubt that it is impossible, which you haven't.
Sorry, but people are executed under an easier standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" than I've already established.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Two wrongs do not make a right.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Exactly. So you should not be rewarded for making a "mistake" in deployment/measuring by getting a turn 1 charge you shouldn't have.
But really, I don't see why there's any controversy about that. We've established that it's impossible to get a legitimate turn 1 charge in the real world, so what you have to ask yourself is whether or not you're the kind of person who would exploit the lack of precision in measuring to gain a huge advantage for yourself.
66921
Post by: Sinji
Actually Storm Boys can get a turn 1 charge. They move 12+D6" then roll 2D6" for charge for a possible 15"-30" charge range. If your warlord gets the +1" charge trait you can go that extra inch as well.
54671
Post by: Crazyterran
I like 6th Ed. Even though it's going to take away my Null Zone in a few months. :(
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Peregrine wrote:
Exactly. So you should not be rewarded for making a "mistake" in deployment/measuring by getting a turn 1 charge you shouldn't have.
But really, I don't see why there's any controversy about that. We've established that it's impossible to get a legitimate turn 1 charge in the real world, so what you have to ask yourself is whether or not you're the kind of person who would exploit the lack of precision in measuring to gain a huge advantage for yourself.
How is it exploitative to argue that 12+12=24? You can't prove that it's a flawed deployment and yet you're going on about how it's cheating to perform a charge that is completely legitimate in the rules.
49640
Post by: Frecklesonfire
Just from a totally non competitive player you can get a charge on turn one, its not that rare.. Dawn of war your 24'' apart yes? YES. A squad of jump guys moves 12'' forward, they only need 11' of charge distance to be one inch away from the enemies base for a charge. It says in the rules 1" away, then you move into base contact after. You guys are taking this stuff way to seriously, you cant tell me you guys are actually keeping that close of an eye on your guys that ever turn your not moving an extr 1/4" or 1/2" on some guys, EVERYONE DOES ive seent it!
63000
Post by: Peregrine
AlmightyWalrus wrote:How is it exploitative to argue that 12+12=24? You can't prove that it's a flawed deployment and yet you're going on about how it's cheating to perform a charge that is completely legitimate in the rules.
Because it is impossible to deploy exactly 24" away without either deploying under 24" away (illegal deployment) or over 24" away (impossible charge). Nobody has the required level of precision to do it legitimately, so anyone claiming a "successful" charge is either exploiting an illegal deployment or moving their models too far.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Peregrine wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:How is it exploitative to argue that 12+12=24? You can't prove that it's a flawed deployment and yet you're going on about how it's cheating to perform a charge that is completely legitimate in the rules.
Because it is impossible to deploy exactly 24" away without either deploying under 24" away (illegal deployment) or over 24" away (impossible charge). Nobody has the required level of precision to do it legitimately, so anyone claiming a "successful" charge is either exploiting an illegal deployment or moving their models too far.
Or the players both lucked out and placed the models exactly, down to the micron, 24" apart. It's possible, just not very likely, but the mere face that it's possible means your argument is flawed.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
No it doesn't. Page 22, under "failed charge": if you are outside your maximum charge range the charge fails.
you cant tell me you guys are actually keeping that close of an eye on your guys that ever turn your not moving an extr 1/4" or 1/2" on some guys, EVERYONE DOES ive seent it!
I accept that occasionally mistakes will happen in measuring movement distance. However, I do not accept that if it is known beyond any doubt that a mistake was made you should be able to claim the benefits of that mistake. And of course if you're deliberately moving an extra 1/4" you are cheating, period.
54392
Post by: cowen70
Exactly 24": not possible.
It certainly is possible of course it is.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Or the players both lucked out and placed the models exactly, down to the micron, 24" apart. It's possible, just not very likely, but the mere face that it's possible means your argument is flawed.
Down to the micron isn't enough. In fact, even down to the width of a single electron isn't enough. It is FAR more likely that I will buy a trillion consecutive winning lottery tickets than it is that you will make a legal 24" charge.
70626
Post by: Dakkamite
Are we really arguing about atom-widths of being over 24" or whatever?
Pretty sure theres a universal wargaming rule called "give an inch" aka, don't be a douchebag, which I believe firmly overrules micron-specific charge distances.
Theres also another rule called "my foot up your ass" which I am happy to show any player who insists on such nonsense in a game.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Dakkamite wrote:Are we really arguing about atom-widths of being over 24" or whatever?
The point here is that you can't measure that precisely, so if a player claims a "successful" charge that would have required him to measure with atom-width level precision to be legal it's safe to assume the "success" is based on illegal movement and/or deployment.
Pretty sure theres a universal wargaming rule called "give an inch" aka, don't be a douchebag, which I believe firmly overrules micron-specific charge distances.
I'm pretty sure there's a universal wargaming rule called "claiming an extra inch is cheating".
70626
Post by: Dakkamite
"Give an Inch" means you allow your opponent roughly an inch of imprecise measurement over the course of a game, and don't be anal about microns and other stupid gak that adds nothing to the game.
52163
Post by: Shandara
In this case you _know_ you deployed at least 24" away from each other (in fact the rules require you to). So 'give an inch' should go the other away... always assume you're more than 24" apart.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Dakkamite wrote:"Give an Inch" means you allow your opponent roughly an inch of imprecise measurement over the course of a game, and don't be anal about microns and other stupid gak that adds nothing to the game.
Or I can just expect them to measure properly instead of allowing them to gain extra distance when we both know they gained extra distance. I'm not going to insist on measuring every single distance to the nearest 0.00000000000001", but if my opponent tries to claim a distance that could only be true if there was extra movement involved I'm going to tell them to push their models back to the correct distance and stop trying to cheat.
70626
Post by: Dakkamite
Shandara wrote:In this case you _know_ you deployed at least 24" away from each other (in fact the rules require you to). So 'give an inch' should go the other away... always assume you're more than 24" apart.
Sure. I'm 100% referring only to the Microns gak. I've never even mentioned assaults in the first turn before this post.
With regards to that, if we each choose to place our models exactly on the edge of our deployment zone, the "give an inch" rule would dictate that the microns be disregarded. You wanna try and get my dude within your 24" shooting range? Cool, he's now within 24" charge range. Personally, I'd give someone the millimetre on top of that, because I'm not a witch. But thats just me, others are free to play how they like.
52163
Post by: Shandara
If you'd deploy exactly on the 24" line the microns would be disregarded and you should assume you were more than 24" away.
Logically and practically that's the only solution that would conform to the rules of deployment. Any error in measurement should be in that direction, rather than giving a benefit completely opposite to the rules.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Dakkamite wrote:With regards to that, if we each choose to place our models exactly on the edge of our deployment zone, the "give an inch" rule would dictate that the microns be disregarded.
Except there is no "give an inch" rule. You don't get to claim extra movement/assault distance just because you don't like the fact that accurate measurement would mean that you fail.
You wanna try and get my dude within your 24" shooting range? Cool, he's now within 24" charge range.
Of course. The exact same thing would apply to shooting: if you have a weapon with 24" range you will not be in range of a model deployed in your opponent's deployment zone unless one or both models has moved closer before declaring the shot (and any claim of "successfully" measuring range would be ignored). Likewise, if you have moved forward and established that you are now within 24" a move + assault distance of 24" would be sufficient even if a model has been "accidentally" moved backwards out of range.
48034
Post by: Jstncloud
Sasori wrote:I find it more enjoyable than 5th, and I think the armies are much better balanced against each other, than they were in 5th.
That being said, it does have it's issues. Such as the large nerf to assault, the dominance of flyers early on (which is being fixed as time moves on) and a few other things.
Overall, I'd say positive experience for sure.
While some armies are balances, Necrons are not. Immortal spam and anti-all vehicles makes them boring to play against. I swapped away from my parking lot armies but I do still enjoy 'some' armor, however, with how easy it is to nuke vehicles (especially for Necrons) it seems more advantageous to just throw bodies onto the table rather than tanks. While I enjoy some aspects of 6th I hate being forced to field 'x' rather than 'y' because X is competitive and Y is absolute crap.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
I wish certain aspects of chaos had been fixed. Plaguedrake and Nurgle all over again.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Jstncloud wrote: Sasori wrote:I find it more enjoyable than 5th, and I think the armies are much better balanced against each other, than they were in 5th.
That being said, it does have it's issues. Such as the large nerf to assault, the dominance of flyers early on (which is being fixed as time moves on) and a few other things.
Overall, I'd say positive experience for sure.
While some armies are balances, Necrons are not. Immortal spam and anti-all vehicles makes them boring to play against. I swapped away from my parking lot armies but I do still enjoy 'some' armor, however, with how easy it is to nuke vehicles (especially for Necrons) it seems more advantageous to just throw bodies onto the table rather than tanks. While I enjoy some aspects of 6th I hate being forced to field 'x' rather than 'y' because X is competitive and Y is absolute crap.
This. Unless it's a flyer, cheap enough to be utterly expendable, or AV14 or AV13 skimmer, largely vehicles are just too easy to kill and grow rarer and rarer on tables as time goes on.
7613
Post by: Kiwidru
I played my first game of 6th yesterday, having last played 3rd. Huge improvement. Just everything is better than third. I don't know when or how the rules evolved, and obviously haven't encountered any of the crazy exploits/arguements that always exist, but at 1000 points the game was clean, fun, fast, and enjoyable.
51365
Post by: kb305
I agree with peregrine. There's alot of lose cheating douchebaggery that comes along with this game.
another bad one is I notice alot of people alter the direction of scatter dice slightly to gain advantage.
51295
Post by: Nightwolf829
I have seen fist fights over the argument being had on here. It is silly in the extreme. This is a game; not actual war. The only thing at stake here is one's pride. If you want to be out of range of a 24" range gun (as an example) then deploying back a half (or quarter, etc) an inch guarantees it. Done. If it is so close that you are arguing microns roll a D6. That simple.
I am reminded of a game I had a few years back where someone argued seriously with me that a unit could move up to 5.999999999................................. inches and fire, but not 6" exactly and fire.
Apparently common sense is not so common.
On-Topic: 6th hurt my favorite phase of the game (combat) a lot as well as hurting my favorite combat units (wyches). Regardless of that fact I still find it one of the more balanced editions I have ever played. It is fun.
71201
Post by: JWhex
40k players are probably the worst wargamers on the planet when it comes to accurately moving models.
8218
Post by: Raxmei
I think it's a shame that it's no longer possible to take down supersonic aircraft with a cavalry charge. The idea of doing that is just so preposterous that I loved it being part of the game.
51295
Post by: Nightwolf829
Guided A.A. grot missiles needs to happen. Or a gretchin doom-diver straight into the cockpit or engine. Most cost-efficient way to take out expensive enemy aircraft.
26980
Post by: Michael J Young
Dislike it. Warlord traits, Psychic Powers and challenges all add complexity and unnecessary randomness to the game, Allies remove armies' weaknesses and hence character. Random charge distance is too random. Don't think Hull points are necessary. Monstrous creatures still too powerful.
Flyers could be a plus point if they weren't so cost effective.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Michael J Young wrote:Dislike it. Warlord traits, Psychic Powers and challenges all add complexity and unnecessary randomness to the game, Allies remove armies' weaknesses and hence character. Random charge distance is too random. Don't think Hull points are necessary. Monstrous creatures still too powerful.
Flyers could be a plus point if they weren't so cost effective.
MC's are too powerful?
57646
Post by: Kain
ZebioLizard2 wrote:Michael J Young wrote:Dislike it. Warlord traits, Psychic Powers and challenges all add complexity and unnecessary randomness to the game, Allies remove armies' weaknesses and hence character. Random charge distance is too random. Don't think Hull points are necessary. Monstrous creatures still too powerful.
Flyers could be a plus point if they weren't so cost effective.
MC's are too powerful?
He must be butthurt over MCs no longer being the laughable "I wish I was a walker" things they were last edition for him to rip apart.
62595
Post by: zoat
I think it is a huge improvement! I actually bought both the 4th and 5th edition rules, but neither of them made me want to play the game. Come sixth and all of a sudden I got myself a whole new army!
Most issues I have with 6th edition are game balance problems for competitive play. For hobby/collecting, storytelling and "friendly" games I think this edition is awesome. There is SOO much you can do with it as the rules support almost any scenario you can imagine out of the box! I haven't been this enthusiastic since I started out with RT all these years ago! If only I had the same amount of time to waste...
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Kain wrote: ZebioLizard2 wrote:Michael J Young wrote:Dislike it. Warlord traits, Psychic Powers and challenges all add complexity and unnecessary randomness to the game, Allies remove armies' weaknesses and hence character. Random charge distance is too random. Don't think Hull points are necessary. Monstrous creatures still too powerful.
Flyers could be a plus point if they weren't so cost effective.
MC's are too powerful?
He must be butthurt over MCs no longer being the laughable "I wish I was a walker" things they were last edition for him to rip apart.
Considering that I play chaos, the only MC I have access too are greater daemons (good!) and Chaos daemon prince (bad!). It's a mix for me.
Though the DP did get good now that there is less S10 tau now.
57646
Post by: Kain
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Kain wrote: ZebioLizard2 wrote:Michael J Young wrote:Dislike it. Warlord traits, Psychic Powers and challenges all add complexity and unnecessary randomness to the game, Allies remove armies' weaknesses and hence character. Random charge distance is too random. Don't think Hull points are necessary. Monstrous creatures still too powerful.
Flyers could be a plus point if they weren't so cost effective.
MC's are too powerful?
He must be butthurt over MCs no longer being the laughable "I wish I was a walker" things they were last edition for him to rip apart.
Considering that I play chaos, the only MC I have access too are greater daemons (good!) and Chaos daemon prince (bad!). It's a mix for me.
Though the DP did get good now that there is less S10 tau now.
Ah yes, Oldsides. "Pop goes the t5er!"
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Kain wrote: ZebioLizard2 wrote:Michael J Young wrote:Dislike it. Warlord traits, Psychic Powers and challenges all add complexity and unnecessary randomness to the game, Allies remove armies' weaknesses and hence character. Random charge distance is too random. Don't think Hull points are necessary. Monstrous creatures still too powerful.
Flyers could be a plus point if they weren't so cost effective.
MC's are too powerful?
He must be butthurt over MCs no longer being the laughable "I wish I was a walker" things they were last edition for him to rip apart.
I cannot recall any situation in which an MC would have preferred to be a walker, under any edition, especially when it comes to combat between the two. Last editions issues with MC's wasn't with the MC rules themselves but rather most MC's being painfully overcosted following the disgusting hilarity of MC's capabilities in 4E that really were taken care of largely by the new terrain and combat consolidation rules.
57646
Post by: Kain
I honestly remember more people whinging about Fish of Fury than my Carnifex and Hive Tyrant spam in 4e.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Fish of Fury was, along with Eldar, one of the Invinci-skimmer armies. I'd be willing to bet you likely never saw a single Chimera under 4E unless it was used as terrain
But in 4E, the consolidation into new combats and terrain rules often meant MC's never really got a chance to be shot at in many games (especially flying MC's) because they could hide behind area terrain and then hide in combat and move from combat to combat with relative ease. They resolved those in 5E but then the Tyranid book largely upped their cost as well halfway into 5E, which wasn't an issue with the core rules but with the nid book itself.
That said, I still can't think of an instance where I'd rather have Walker status than MC status in almost any edition unless my opponent has nothing but a ludicrous number of S3/4/5/poisoned shots and nothing higher
57646
Post by: Kain
Vaktathi wrote:Fish of Fury was, along with Eldar, one of the Invinci-skimmer armies. I'd be willing to bet you likely never saw a single Chimera under 4E unless it was used as terrain
But in 4E, the consolidation into new combats and terrain rules often meant MC's never really got a chance to be shot at in many games (especially flying MC's) because they could hide behind area terrain and then hide in combat and move from combat to combat with relative ease. They resolved those in 5E but then the Tyranid book largely upped their cost as well halfway into 5E, which wasn't an issue with the core rules but with the nid book itself.
That said, I still can't think of an instance where I'd rather have Walker status than MC status in almost any edition unless my opponent has nothing but a ludicrous number of S3/4/5/poisoned shots and nothing higher 
Venom spam dark Eldar makes my TMCs cry.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
They can yeah, but I haven't seen them on a table in a while either  AV10 HP2 doesn't make for very long lifespans.
4078
Post by: albinoork
I would like to see the return of area terrain rules from 4th edition.
Prescience should not be a Primaris power (it should also cost two points).
Objective counters should not be allowed to be set up in deployment zones.
Other than that I'm very happy to play sixth edition.
44341
Post by: tyrannosaurus
Like
Flyers
Wound allocation better than 5th
Overwatch
Pre-measuring
Fortifications
Hull points [think glances should take off a point of armour and only pens reduce HPs though]
Different ways to score VPs [First Blood etc.]
Dislike
Not being able to assault from non-open top vehicles or from reserve
Random charge range
Warlord traits
Really don't like
Look Out Sir! [my biggest pet hate]
Challenges [nothing wrong with the concept but there should be no penalty for refusing]
The amount of USRs which leads to lots of stop n flick
Randomness for randomness' sake - been put off collecting my Daemons army by having to roll on a table at the start of each turn
Kind of sums it up really - some improvements to 5th but a lot of backward steps as well for me. Can't say I'm having any more or less fun than I did with 5th, although the games seem to take a lot longer in 6th but with fewer draws. Seems like they were so close to coming up with something brilliant which is what I find a little frustrating. Looking forward to 7th edition...
60035
Post by: madtankbloke
on the whole i think the game is an improvement over 5th, its a little inconsistent in areas, and its main issues are the fact that its badly written as has been the case a lot of the time with GW books, and compounded by the fact that a lot of the army books were written for previous editions.
i guess GW can get away with it somewhat by the fact the basic mechanics are the same as they were in 3rd edition (move, shoot, assault). movement distance, weapon ranges and the basic methodology are all the same.
What sets the edition apart is the changes to vehicles, and vehicle damage (a change for the better) the addition of overwatch, and the somewhat increased randomness of certain abilities (psychic powers). im not so sure how i feel about the psychic powers being random.
I still get the feeling the game is stuch in the void between being a skirmish game, and being a true army based game. 3rd ed was all about shifting the focus of the game away from characters (who in 2nd ed dominated to a ludicrous degree) towards the units themselves, and while the game still requires you to have strong units, and the units themselves play a big part, each edition brings in more special characters, who are more powerful, it seems like they are slipping back towards herohammer 40k in increments.
I like 6th edition, but its far from a perfect system
20392
Post by: Farseer Faenyin
There is a way to alleviate the issue at hand (micrometer measuring) and that is clearly explaining to your opponent that your models are standing 1/16th of an inch BEHIND your 12" deployment.
No way they can charge without cheating.
|
|