The Overwatch change maybe not, since that unit would probably be locked in combat next turn anyway, so mostly Tau (Supporting Fire).
The consolidating into other unit thing? maybe. Depends on the range of it, should be easy enough to space units out more (again, Tau suffer because of SF).
Honestly, I'm most interested if it means a move back to regular FAQ's (perhaps the hold was because the rules would be different and all the FAQ-writers (/janitors) would be working on the 6.5th versions).
The unit to unit assault would rebreak it so that it would once more be unbalanced. The alteration to overwatch would not make a difference anyway because the unit would not be able to fire in the following turn anyway since they will be dead or maybe locked.
I very doubt it'll be a 'true' 7th edition. The other rumours I've seen (and more likely to be true) are a combined rulebook with the FAQs and Erratas included with an expanded section that include all/some of the Escalation and Stronghold assault rules.
I don't think they'll shake it up too much, which is a shame, because I'd be all for a complete overhaul.
Gentlemen, Overwatch is the most overpowered thing in certain armies.
Some armies (I know I always bring this up, but the farsight bomb) can hit and run after combat, meaning they could potentially get 3 rounds of shooting in the space of two turns. The overwatch changes are warranted.
Scipio Africanus wrote: Gentlemen, Overwatch is the most overpowered thing in certain armies.
Some armies (I know I always bring this up, but the farsight bomb) can hit and run after combat, meaning they could potentially get 3 rounds of shooting in the space of two turns. The overwatch changes are warranted.
Regardless of whether or not its warranted, its just highly doubtful that GW would make a change like that unless an entirely new edition is released, which is also very unlikely this time in to the current edition.
I wouldn't put much stock in a revamped or new edition. It'll most likely be a re-print with more stuff included. Its the easiest way to make the most money with the least amount of effort.
EVIL INC wrote: The unit to unit assault would rebreak it so that it would once more be unbalanced. The alteration to overwatch would not make a difference anyway because the unit would not be able to fire in the following turn anyway since they will be dead or maybe locked.
Oh right cause making the charge is a guarantee in 6th? ... No. This would be a very welcomed change. Sick of missing out charges cause 10 Firewarriors blasted off 20 Overwatch shots killing 2-3 Ork Boys, only to fail the charge, then have same said Fire Warriors rapid fire the rest of the squad again.
It would be nice to have a reason to get my melee nids back on the table. Bringing a mostly shooty bug army seems unfluffy to me. Bugs are meant to hack you to pieces in my opinion.
The proposed alteration to Overwatch isn't really needed, but isn't really going to matter that much anyway.
The proposed alteration to consolidation moves is ludicrous. I don't want to go back to the old days where one giant assault unit sweeps the entire board without a shot being fired.
I feel the pain for those who played assault-based armies in 5th since 6th really pumped the brakes on assault. Overwatch in 6th is really not too much of a deterrent to me if I really plan on charging someone. Its the other random factors, such as random charge distances, special rules that buff overwatch (which are not needed in my opinion), etc. that really make me think twice. To me, its that and the abundance of high powered shooting stuff that is really make it more difficult on assault armies.
I used to play SM with Terminators which were probably one of the better assault units with TH/SS. After a few games in 6th against an army that had a 6th edition codex, I realized how plentiful AP2, high shot count, high strength weapons are and they became far less effective unless you added more points with a LR. If GW really wants to make those assault-based armies viable, there will have to be some minor changes made. Either shooting will have to be powered down (doubtful) or assault stuff will have to get some buffs (more likely).
Well, GW makes no thorough game testing when implementing new rules. Changing rules back and forth (consolitation was possible in the 3rd ed if I remember correctly) makes not much sense.
I honestly don't see why everyone has such a hate on for overwatch. Yes I play tau and blah blah blah supporting fire but I've never once had overwatch prevent a charge. I can only think of 1 assault where it did anything significant and that was just cause the dice gods truly favoured me for that roll. Most of the time I'm lucky to get a handful of hits and a wound or 2 (which is always promptly saved). If they switch overwatch so a unit that overwatches can't fire the next turn you're effectively singling out tau. since as mentioned with any other army the unit that fired will most likely be in combat or dead the next turn if tau do it half their army would just be sitting around for an entire turn with a dumb look on their face which gives the opponent a free turn of running up the board while your army sips tea and waves. Now combine that with consolidation into another melee and 1 assault against tau would be the end of the game since if 1 unit is assaulting chances are you have other units not far behind so a round of not shooting just allows the opponent to get there with no threat. You can't complain about overwatch if the army doing it does melee like a sissy slap fight. Every other army has a melee unit or upgrades to make melee at least an ok. Tau supporting fire is our entire melee capability we get it for 1 round and only if we get a 6 to hit. I'd just leave it as is and make assaulting out of deep strike an option as a disorderly charge and make assaulting out of reserves fine.
Now we can see why there have been no FAQs answered since April of 2013, which was when I had made my last purchase of GW product.
Honestly, after waiting several months after that particular April, I stopped playing altogether and moved onto other things to occupy my time. Things such as board games (Axis and Allies, Zombicide, even Chess and Stratego) and other non-game interests (Archery, Target shooting, Fishing, wood working, Beer making).
I actualy packed up all of my GW stuff into boxes and put them away in my storage shed just last month. It will remain there until I see some sort of improvement in the state of the game. I continue to keep an eye out on forums such as this one and hang out with my friends that still continue to play, but for now I am out.
I began playing in the later years of 4th edition, played regularly for seven years, spent thousands of dollars and ended up building three different massive armies. Orks, Space Marines, IG and a workable Tau army. I even read the Black Library books. At some point the product began to change making it less enjoyable. It was evidenced not only in the standard game, but in the books and Forgeworld as well.
It began to remind me of what happened to the comic book industry in the early 90's. I would read several titiles regularly and buy a few other titles from time to time. Yes there were a few different titles that covered the same characters such as "The Amazing Spiderman" and "Spectacular Spiderman" but you could follow one or the other without having to have the other title to understand what was going on. Then...everything changed. There was an explosion of books coming out that crossed over, across multiple titles! I couldn't understand what was going on in my issue of "Uncanny X-men" unless I also had "X-men", "X-factor", "X-force" (formerly "New Mutants"), Weapon X and who knows what else they added in just to get the sales of an underperforming book to increase. Even as a teenager I felt as though I was being had.
I first noticed things going that way while reading the Horus Heresy novels. I was following along fairly well, buying the books as they came out and enjoying them. Then other things began to crop up. E-books, audio only books (which I detest and aren't books) and Limited-gold-foil-dragonskin-written-in-the-blood-of-a-virgin-unicorn editions. I couldn't follow the story anymore due to holes that I was unable or unwilling to fill. So I stopped buying them .
The 40K games has gone the same way. I bought the new rule book, there were errors and discrepancies. They fixed a few, but not all. I could live with it knowing that they could correct them. Then they stopped correcting the discrepancies. Then there was a new suplemental rules printed in a magazine that I can never seem to get my hands on, due to limited printing. I eventually got those rules by downloading them for free from another source. They later printed those same rules into a supplemental rule book, that I wouldn't buy (because I downloaded them for free) People ran out and bought this supplemental rule book, for a hefty sum, only to see those that they needed pop up in another rule suplement that they would have to purchase anyway in order to play their prefered army. All the while answering no inquiries about discrepancies in this pile of rules.
Now, there is the rumor that there will be a new rule book that will clarify the mistakes that they made. While I have no doubt that there will be a book, I do doubt that it will truly fix much, More like, create a new batch of discrepancies, if the examples of the recent past are any indicator. To summarize the issue at hand...they are expecting me to buy their product, sight unseen with the expectation that this time....this time.....this time it will be better.
If GW wants to know why their stock dropped or why their sales are down, it's me and everyone like me. They aren't losing me, they've already lost me. I am giving them the opportunity to win me back.
Brutal Viking wrote: I honestly don't see why everyone has such a hate on for overwatch. Yes I play tau and blah blah blah supporting fire but I've never once had overwatch prevent a charge. I can only think of 1 assault where it did anything significant and that was just cause the dice gods truly favoured me for that roll. Most of the time I'm lucky to get a handful of hits and a wound or 2 (which is always promptly saved). If they switch overwatch so a unit that overwatches can't fire the next turn you're effectively singling out tau. since as mentioned with any other army the unit that fired will most likely be in combat or dead the next turn if tau do it half their army would just be sitting around for an entire turn with a dumb look on their face which gives the opponent a free turn of running up the board while your army sips tea and waves. Now combine that with consolidation into another melee and 1 assault against tau would be the end of the game since if 1 unit is assaulting chances are you have other units not far behind so a round of not shooting just allows the opponent to get there with no threat. You can't complain about overwatch if the army doing it does melee like a sissy slap fight. Every other army has a melee unit or upgrades to make melee at least an ok. Tau supporting fire is our entire melee capability we get it for 1 round and only if we get a 6 to hit. I'd just leave it as is and make assaulting out of deep strike an option as a disorderly charge and make assaulting out of reserves fine.
Overwatch is free, it has no downside.
The only armies it has an impact on are those that work better as assault forces, because it is another thing they have to contend with (they've always had to travel across the table somehow, and now in 6th have the potential to be screwed over by random chance even if they make it.)
Back in 2nd, Overwatch represented a tactical decision, as you had to forgo not only your movement but your shooting in your own turn in favour of firing at a target in your opponent's turn that might not have been viable in your own, and forcing your opponent to make considered decisions about their own movement.
6th Edition Overwatch has none of that nuance or decision making, it's just a rule that passively benefits shooting focused factions and lists over assault focused ones. It just gives extra free shooting.
I'm ok with overwatch staying in the game, but how's about making it something that the player has to make a decision about, but making it more effective if they choose to use it?
The phases should be looked at as blocks of time (each phase is 30 seconds) no military or fighting force would spend 30 seconds in a battle doing nothing (I ran all this way now I'm just gonna stand here for 30 seconds just doesn't make sense.
Each phase should have a couple options of things to do in it like...
movement:
move
Aim (grants precision shots)
shooting:
shoot
Run (a set distance not a random one)
Brutal Viking wrote: I honestly don't see why everyone has such a hate on for overwatch. Yes I play tau and blah blah blah supporting fire but I've never once had overwatch prevent a charge. I can only think of 1 assault where it did anything significant and that was just cause the dice gods truly favoured me for that roll. Most of the time I'm lucky to get a handful of hits and a wound or 2 (which is always promptly saved). If they switch overwatch so a unit that overwatches can't fire the next turn you're effectively singling out tau. since as mentioned with any other army the unit that fired will most likely be in combat or dead the next turn if tau do it half their army would just be sitting around for an entire turn with a dumb look on their face which gives the opponent a free turn of running up the board while your army sips tea and waves. Now combine that with consolidation into another melee and 1 assault against tau would be the end of the game since if 1 unit is assaulting chances are you have other units not far behind so a round of not shooting just allows the opponent to get there with no threat. You can't complain about overwatch if the army doing it does melee like a sissy slap fight. Every other army has a melee unit or upgrades to make melee at least an ok. Tau supporting fire is our entire melee capability we get it for 1 round and only if we get a 6 to hit. I'd just leave it as is and make assaulting out of deep strike an option as a disorderly charge and make assaulting out of reserves fine.
Overwatch is free, it has no downside.
The only armies it has an impact on are those that work better as assault forces, because it is another thing they have to contend with (they've always had to travel across the table somehow, and now in 6th have the potential to be screwed over by random chance even if they make it.)
Back in 2nd, Overwatch represented a tactical decision, as you had to forgo not only your movement but your shooting in your own turn in favour of firing at a target in your opponent's turn that might not have been viable in your own, and forcing your opponent to make considered decisions about their own movement.
6th Edition Overwatch has none of that nuance or decision making, it's just a rule that passively benefits shooting focused factions and lists over assault focused ones. It just gives extra free shooting.
I'm ok with overwatch staying in the game, but how's about making it something that the player has to make a decision about, but making it more effective if they choose to use it?
^This. I liked how AT-43 did over watch. You declared the unit was going into over watch in your shooting phase and had to forfeit shooting this round as you prepared for the enemy. It made it a tactical choice and any unit declaring it only got to use it once, not for every unit that charged/shot/etc.
The phases should be looked at as blocks of time (each phase is 30 seconds) no military or fighting force would spend 30 seconds in a battle doing nothing (I ran all this way now I'm just gonna stand here for 30 seconds just doesn't make sense.
Each phase should have a couple options of things to do in it like...
movement:
move
Aim (grants precision shots)
shooting:
shoot
Run (a set distance not a random one)
Weird if they'll actually call it 7th Edition. Mostly because 6th has only been out for such a short time, and all the previous chatter was that GW wanted for 6th to last for a long time. That said, if it makes the game better, I'm all for it... but I'm not holding my breath on it actually accomplishing that.
azreal13 wrote:
Overwatch is free, it has no downside.
The only armies it has an impact on are those that work better as assault forces, because it is another thing they have to contend with (they've always had to travel across the table somehow, and now in 6th have the potential to be screwed over by random chance even if they make it.)
Back in 2nd, Overwatch represented a tactical decision, as you had to forgo not only your movement but your shooting in your own turn in favour of firing at a target in your opponent's turn that might not have been viable in your own, and forcing your opponent to make considered decisions about their own movement.
6th Edition Overwatch has none of that nuance or decision making, it's just a rule that passively benefits shooting focused factions and lists over assault focused ones. It just gives extra free shooting.
I'm ok with overwatch staying in the game, but how's about making it something that the player has to make a decision about, but making it more effective if they choose to use it?
I'm all in for this change! makes the game more about strategy than just reminding some rules..
Brutal Viking wrote:Also should be allowed to charge after running
Brutal Viking wrote: I honestly don't see why everyone has such a hate on for overwatch. Yes I play tau and blah blah blah supporting fire but I've never once had overwatch prevent a charge. I can only think of 1 assault where it did anything significant and that was just cause the dice gods truly favoured me for that roll. Most of the time I'm lucky to get a handful of hits and a wound or 2 (which is always promptly saved). If they switch overwatch so a unit that overwatches can't fire the next turn you're effectively singling out tau. since as mentioned with any other army the unit that fired will most likely be in combat or dead the next turn if tau do it half their army would just be sitting around for an entire turn with a dumb look on their face which gives the opponent a free turn of running up the board while your army sips tea and waves. Now combine that with consolidation into another melee and 1 assault against tau would be the end of the game since if 1 unit is assaulting chances are you have other units not far behind so a round of not shooting just allows the opponent to get there with no threat. You can't complain about overwatch if the army doing it does melee like a sissy slap fight. Every other army has a melee unit or upgrades to make melee at least an ok. Tau supporting fire is our entire melee capability we get it for 1 round and only if we get a 6 to hit. I'd just leave it as is and make assaulting out of deep strike an option as a disorderly charge and make assaulting out of reserves fine.
Overwatch is free, it has no downside.
The only armies it has an impact on are those that work better as assault forces, because it is another thing they have to contend with (they've always had to travel across the table somehow, and now in 6th have the potential to be screwed over by random chance even if they make it.)
Back in 2nd, Overwatch represented a tactical decision, as you had to forgo not only your movement but your shooting in your own turn in favour of firing at a target in your opponent's turn that might not have been viable in your own, and forcing your opponent to make considered decisions about their own movement.
6th Edition Overwatch has none of that nuance or decision making, it's just a rule that passively benefits shooting focused factions and lists over assault focused ones. It just gives extra free shooting.
I'm ok with overwatch staying in the game, but how's about making it something that the player has to make a decision about, but making it more effective if they choose to use it?
^This. I liked how AT-43 did over watch. You declared the unit was going into over watch in your shooting phase and had to forfeit shooting this round as you prepared for the enemy. It made it a tactical choice and any unit declaring it only got to use it once, not for every unit that charged/shot/etc.
That's the way overwatch worked in second edition. It got to the point where no one moved, but just stayed hunkered down, waiting for someone's head to pop out.
Consolidating from combat to combat makes me a sad panda, but as long as they can pull it off better than the 3rd edition days I'll most likely grin and bear it (at least over-watch is still a thing).
*shudders imagining CC units sweeping across an entire army*
dementedwombat wrote: Consolidating from combat to combat makes me a sad panda, but as long as they can pull it off better than the 3rd edition days I'll most likely grin and bear it (at least over-watch is still a thing).
*shudders imagining CC units sweeping across an entire army*
That would swing things back away from shooting.
Which means players may well have to buy whole new units to remain competitive.
gak, its gonna happen (although as a Daemons player primarily, I feel slightly gleeful as I type!)
Eh, to be honest I play Tau and have since 3rd edition. I play in a pretty non-competitive group of people who mainly play assault armies (orks, BA, DE, Tyranids), so I really wouldn't mind having things stacked more against me. I usually end up feeling like a kid kicking down a sandcastle after most of my games.
That said, I think I recall in 3rd edition if you consolidated into a combat you immediately fought that combat in the same assault phase. You could also consolidate 2d6" I think... (don't hold me to this. It has been a very long time). So imagine what that would do to your demons. It would be at least as bad as a Revenant Titan is now, and if assaulting from deep strike was a thing again...
Anyway, that concludes your 40k history lesson for the day.
Watch Demons get really nasty if deep striking assault happens.
As someone who likes to play Mono-Khorne, this could actually make my army somewhat competitive. With most armies having access to some sort of Interceptor weapon, I don't see how assaulting out of deep strike would be that unbalanced. Especially with the amount of firepower some armies can put out a turn. It makes no sense to forbid it anyway as you can run, or take the time to aim and fire your weapons at the opponent. But for some reason if you're a melee fighter you won't charge your opponent upon your arrival? Getting one action seems reasonable to me. Deepstrike, then run, shoot or charge. You would have to get more daring with your deep striking, plus you'll have to survive interceptor fire and overwatch.
EVIL INC wrote: The unit to unit assault would rebreak it so that it would once more be unbalanced. The alteration to overwatch would not make a difference anyway because the unit would not be able to fire in the following turn anyway since they will be dead or maybe locked.
Nope, assault units have been poor and they need this.
Something needs to be done about CC. I'd say assault from stationary transport and assault after running. Those make the most sense without opening things up for unforseen abuses. Assault out of deepstrike, but the cry from tau castles could be heard into the heavens (even though half of their entire fething army can get interceptor). Assault out of deepstrike is a bit more of a radical change than the other 2 meaning more room for things to go wrong. Knowing GW... you get the picture. It may not seem bad now, but hold your opinions till the end of the year after the BA and DE dexes drop.
Overwatch needs to be fixed as well. I like the idea of forefitting the shooting phase prior to declaring overwatch to represent preparing for the oncoming foe. Even if it were at full BS it would be eons better than giving the dominant armies essentially a free round of shooting to double the needed charge range.
BaalSNAFU wrote: Something needs to be done about CC. I'd say assault from stationary transport and assault after running. Those make the most sense without opening things up for unforseen abuses. Assault out of deepstrike, but the cry from tau castles could be heard into the heavens (even though half of their entire fething army can get interceptor).
Consolidating is only D6", so if you can use it to get into another unit it only has a short range. 3rd Ed had you rolling 2D6 and engaging units you could reach, which has a much bigger effect.
I would be happy with this, even if they allowed some form of Overwatch for it.
Hell yes allow consolidation into assault. What I'd suggest is perhaps choosing to attempt a sweep *or* to disregard the sweep and go for the second assault.
You have to space out for pie plate shooty, I don't see why needing a little distance between units to avoid multiple assaults is an issue. Would certainly gak all over those aegis fort in a corner builds.
Would also appreciate "charge, then resolve overwatch", "failed charges move highest/lowest d6", and removing the double standard of deep strike/infiltrate/outflank and shooty/choppy - allow them both or disallow them both, don't allow one at full effect and gak on the other!
The problems with melee won't be fixed this edition. At best it'll be a patch job. I'd be fine with the current state of assault, if units designed for it were cheaper than super shooty units rather than the other way around. Making a unit deadly in close combat takes a significant amount of points and is still less killy even with the perfect set of conditions than a shooty list, often of the exact same units.
Anyway, I don't view this as "6.5" or "7." If what I'm hearing is correct, it's more like "6.1."
EVIL INC wrote: they are rebreaking the edition that fixed the trainwrecks that preceded it.
In fairness, it's a very unbalanced edition. There's almost no point taking a melee army.
Unless of course, you have a basic grasp of army building, strategy and tactics. Whereas before, there was no point in taking an army with guns even with those basic grasps.
I hope they don't change too much . I don't want to play against tau , eldar ,sm and necrons that are shotier and assault armies at the same time with my IG.
The problems with melee won't be fixed this edition. At best it'll be a patch job. I'd be fine with the current state of assault, if units designed for it were cheaper than super shooty units rather than the other way around. Making a unit deadly in close combat takes a significant amount of points and is still less killy even with the perfect set of conditions than a shooty list, often of the exact same units.
Anyway, I don't view this as "6.5" or "7." If what I'm hearing is correct, it's more like "6.1."
Exactly. People are panicking about "7th edition-already!" when it's really just a band-aid for all the brokenness in 6th. They are essentially selling us the errata.
EVIL INC wrote: they are rebreaking the edition that fixed the trainwrecks that preceded it.
In fairness, it's a very unbalanced edition. There's almost no point taking a melee army.
Unless of course, you have a basic grasp of army building, strategy and tactics. Whereas before, there was no point in taking an army with guns even with those basic grasps.
Just because you still spout this doesn't mean it has ever been true since maybe..3rd edition.
EVIL INC wrote: they are rebreaking the edition that fixed the trainwrecks that preceded it.
In fairness, it's a very unbalanced edition. There's almost no point taking a melee army.
Unless of course, you have a basic grasp of army building, strategy and tactics. Whereas before, there was no point in taking an army with guns even with those basic grasps.
I think a simple fix would be, if a unit deep strikes, comes in from reserves, infiltrates, exits a vehicle or in some other way enters the game after the first turn, it may shoot or assault, but not both.
Think the overwatch patch would be a great buff for CC Armies.
Declaring charges on distances between 7-9" (or higher with fleet or jumppacks) would become reasonable, because the possibility to make it isnt too small and if you dont make it your enemy either wasted a shooting phase for some snap shots or did nothing. So you wouldnt be punished anymore to try an assault.
Its a real hard decision for the Defender and a nice nerf against tau who really needs to be nerved.
What does it mean, I can bring Stormsword and kill all those mechanized things like meltavets,leman russes, landraiders, hovering vehicles and everything not flying high?
Or it will be limited range like Malcador/Machius/Crassuss?
To buy or not to buy Shadowsword?
Will you play against superheavy in friendly plays?
This rumour might well be a load of tosh, but I for one would be very happy if they had "rule book annuals" which updated the text with clearer rules and FAQ's on a regular basis.
Of course, I would expect them to leave these FAQ and errata online so you wouldn't need to buy the book, but I don't see why they feel the need to wait so many years in between fixing minor issues.
All the items mentioned here could be changed with essentially 1 line FAQ/erratas which could be put online.
Of course as a nid player I would dearly wish they also errata out the nonsense about not charging from reserve. Or why not change it so you can't shoot from reserve, see how those shooty armies love that eh?
Dakkamite wrote: HYou have to space out for pie plate shooty, I don't see why needing a little distance between units to avoid multiple assaults is an issue. Would certainly gak all over those aegis fort in a corner builds.
I'd be more willing to agree with this if people didn't insist on playing huge games on 6x4 tables where you have to pack everything in close just to be able to deploy your entire army. Consolidating into combat in a 2000 point game doesn't just punish ADL castles, it punishes any army that tries to take a decent defensive position (and guess what you have to do against an aggressive assault army).
And don't forget the potential for allies abuse: take Riptide spam to force everyone to spread out against the pie plates, and now that everyone has spread out so that their units are all next to each other your allied assault unit can start slaughtering everything.
Dakkamite wrote: HYou have to space out for pie plate shooty, I don't see why needing a little distance between units to avoid multiple assaults is an issue. Would certainly gak all over those aegis fort in a corner builds.
I'd be more willing to agree with this if people didn't insist on playing huge games on 6x4 tables where you have to pack everything in close just to be able to deploy your entire army. Consolidating into combat in a 2000 point game doesn't just punish ADL castles, it punishes any army that tries to take a decent defensive position (and guess what you have to do against an aggressive assault army).
And don't forget the potential for allies abuse: take Riptide spam to force everyone to spread out against the pie plates, and now that everyone has spread out so that their units are all next to each other your allied assault unit can start slaughtering everything.
The problem is for that position it makes it far to easy for the shooting player, there's no issues beyond objectives at times. If for example shooting through your own troops had a penalty, it'd mean we wouldn't need consolidated combat, but as it is the castle formation is an easily defensible formation.
EVIL INC wrote: they are rebreaking the edition that fixed the trainwrecks that preceded it.
In fairness, it's a very unbalanced edition. There's almost no point taking a melee army.
Unless of course, you have a basic grasp of army building, strategy and tactics. Whereas before, there was no point in taking an army with guns even with those basic grasps.
Assault hasnt been king since 3rd. Do you play the same 40k as others?
5th was the shootiest edition to date, and was then made worse by 6th
Well, as a Daemon player I really hope this consolidation into a new combat is a pile of BS... I'm already tarred with the brush of being a WaaC's TFG just for playing the damn army, I don't need the added encouragement of a rules set that makes it even easier to hate-on every single Daemon player.
*IF* consolidation is making a return, then it should be done ala Fantasy version of the Overrun rule, meaning you only get it if you wipe out the enemy on the turn you charge.
Otherwise we'll have the fun times of 3rd ed making a comeback where one or two assault units were capable of happily walking through an entire opposing army with maybe one turn of shooting... (and if you think Daemons aren't easily capable of this, then you need to find yourself some better Daemon players!)
Daemonic Beast/Cavbus rush would become the new God Tier army overnight if consolidation comes back.
Anyone Played Risk:Legacy? They introduce new rules with stickers that you place into the rulebook. I'd totally buy a sticker pack to update my current brb (heck I'd probably buy one for every FAQ). Sure, they wouldn't make as much as selling a new one, but it wouldn't cost nearly as much to make either, and they could still sell their super fancy collectors edition.
instead of denied shooting next turn for overwatch units. I'd much prefer charging units can make their failed charge move distant if they want to.
It makes for a more exciting gameplay to have the enemy moving up to your position even after a few fell to overwatch.
The assault player will be more willing to engage assaults even on a 12" distance.
The overwatch player will get to overwatch once, then decide next turn to stand and shoot at full BS or retreat 6" to extend the range.
Some overwatch armies will benefit, like elder with the move shoot move. Others like tau might need to consider their overwatch support units location.
I don't think 7th ed will be any better, honestly. They continually prove utter incompetence in writing balanced rules. 7th ed will be just as broken, just in some other way.
Without re-doing the point costs in all the codexes and removing all the random-table crap (psychic powers, warlord traits), you're still going to have silly broken games.
*IF* consolidation is making a return, then it should be done ala Fantasy version of the Overrun rule, meaning you only get it if you wipe out the enemy on the turn you charge.
That'd also elegantly solve the issue of assault units not wanting to break the enemy on the charge.
Still holding my breath for a full re-write, instead of poking and prodding little tiny parts and calling it a new edition. Tweaking Overwatch doesn't really make a new game in my opinion. I look at the jumps between Dungeons and Dragons editions, and love them or hate them, they were fully new games with new mechanics. I think GW is big enough to release fully updated codexes with a new re-write, especially when they are basically focusing on two games only. Just imagine how exciting that'd be?!
blaktoof wrote: if you fire overwatch you cannot fire in your next shooting phase
This is a horrible change because it either removes overwatch entirely, or changes nothing, depending on the overwatching unit. Units that expect to either get slaughtered in close combat or spend their next shooting phase locked in combat will always overwatch since they aren't going to shoot next turn anyway, while units that expect to repel a suicide charge and be free to act normally next turn will never use overwatch.
blaktoof wrote: if you fire overwatch you cannot fire in your next shooting phase
This is a horrible change ...
I completely agree with your analysis, which is why I believe this rumour and that we'll see this change. It's exactly the sort of crap change that GW will make, thinking it will address an issue - but actually not helping at all.
blaktoof wrote: if you fire overwatch you cannot fire in your next shooting phase
This is a horrible change ...
I completely agree with your analysis, which is why I believe this rumour and that we'll see this change. It's exactly the sort of crap change that GW will make, thinking it will address an issue - but actually not helping at all.
I disagree. On long and short distances there wont be much of a decision, but on 7"-9" you might kill the first model and he might fail the charge because of that. You wont be able to shoot next turn, but you wouldnt be anyway if he would have made it. So you get the opportunity to kill them with your other units and reposition the guys who have overwatched instead of loosing a unit in CC without beeing able to shoot the attacker in your Shooting phase, cause they are locked in combat. Another Thing is: its not always gunline versus CC-crowd. Maybe you have your own Assault Squads and start a Counter attack to get your shooty guys some time to get away.
This rule is a small upgrade for Assault based armies. It wont rebalance Ranged and Close combat, but its a step in the right direction.
I dont know the exact mechanics, but i think actual machineguns dont fire at higher RPM as normal if there are som targets getting close. So why should they in 40k? Well, mayb we can call it "Power of the gun Spirit"... No really, current overwatch has to be fixed.
Every new rules edition make pain.
So, maybe we can play with old rules, like 3ed/4ed/5ed.
But I think no one will play that, because people ALWAYS PREPEARING FOR TOURNAMENT
CP'd from another thread: As long as GW clings to the codex/army book model, their games will always inherently be unbalanced. The lack of playtesting excused by "hey, it's not meant to be played competitively" is an atrocious policy for a game company to have. They need to be a game company first and a model company second for them to produce a decent game, and unless they change ownership I don't think that's going to ever happen.
blaktoof wrote: if you fire overwatch you cannot fire in your next shooting phase
This is a horrible change ...
I completely agree with your analysis, which is why I believe this rumour and that we'll see this change. It's exactly the sort of crap change that GW will make, thinking it will address an issue - but actually not helping at all.
I agree that if you fully lose your shooting next turn it will be to harsh. So if they change it so the unit that overwatched can only snap in the next turn that might be somewhat more balanced.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the assault part I think (or atleast hope) that if you can consilidate-charge into another unit then it will not trigger another combat that turn, only on the other players combat phase.
Since this will force you to be more tactical with unit placement and will give assault troops a much needed buff without making deathstars an insta-win, gameboard sweeper.
salix_fatuus wrote: I agree that if you fully lose your shooting next turn it will be to harsh. So if they change it so the unit that overwatched can only snap in the next turn that might be somewhat more balanced.
No, it's still the same result because the next-turn penalty will never matter.
Dedicated shooting units like fire warriors and guardsmen will always fire overwatch. If they get charged they die in a single turn and won't be alive to shoot next turn, making the penalty irrelevant. You could change it to "units that fire overwatch are immediately removed as casualties after resolving their shooting" and it wouldn't make one bit of difference.
Attrition melee units like IG blob squads or tactical squads facing a charge from another tactical squad will always fire overwatch. Combat is almost guaranteed to extend into the next player turn, and a "you can't shoot this turn" penalty is irrelevant when you're already locked in combat and unable to shoot.
Dedicated melee units won't care either way, since their shooting is pretty much irrelevant.
The only time the penalty ever matters is if you have the rare situation where a unit with meaningful shooting is facing a weak or extremely long-distance charge that is likely to leave them free to shoot next turn, but even in that case losing overwatch doesn't really matter because you're probably going to win combat without it. If the rumor is true it's yet another case of GW throwing random ideas into the rulebook without any coherent plan behind them.
salix_fatuus wrote: I agree that if you fully lose your shooting next turn it will be to harsh. So if they change it so the unit that overwatched can only snap in the next turn that might be somewhat more balanced.
No, it's still the same result because the next-turn penalty will never matter.
Dedicated shooting units like fire warriors and guardsmen will always fire overwatch. If they get charged they die in a single turn and won't be alive to shoot next turn, making the penalty irrelevant. You could change it to "units that fire overwatch are immediately removed as casualties after resolving their shooting" and it wouldn't make one bit of difference.
Attrition melee units like IG blob squads or tactical squads facing a charge from another tactical squad will always fire overwatch. Combat is almost guaranteed to extend into the next player turn, and a "you can't shoot this turn" penalty is irrelevant when you're already locked in combat and unable to shoot.
Dedicated melee units won't care either way, since their shooting is pretty much irrelevant.
The only time the penalty ever matters is if you have the rare situation where a unit with meaningful shooting is facing a weak or extremely long-distance charge that is likely to leave them free to shoot next turn, but even in that case losing overwatch doesn't really matter because you're probably going to win combat without it. If the rumor is true it's yet another case of GW throwing random ideas into the rulebook without any coherent plan behind them.
So you allways succeed a 12" or even a 5" assault? The reason its so strong now is that if you fail you will get 2 turns geting shot at and +2overwatch (or in worst case 3 +3) before you get into cc. This will in situation when its a long charge force the shooting player to either use his overwatch since the enemy might succeed or wait and get to shoot at full bs next turn.
The only time it wouldn't matter is if the assaulting unit is within 2" because of as the game is now a charge from 9-10" and above is to much of a risk and if you fight Tau with SF/ML its on the border of suicide.
salix_fatuus wrote: I agree that if you fully lose your shooting next turn it will be to harsh. So if they change it so the unit that overwatched can only snap in the next turn that might be somewhat more balanced.
No, it's still the same result because the next-turn penalty will never matter.
Incorrect. It will sometimes matter, as instead of assault units never bothering with 9" charges (or 10" with fleet) due to the pain of overwatch not being worth it - they run instead to get to within 5" or s, they may now take a gamble. You, in turn, have to gamble as to whether shooting overwatch is worth it or not
but then we know your dislike of assault, so any mild crumb to assault is something you seem willing to dismiss readily.
Note: I have not said if I think thiis is a good idea or not, or will fix the current stupid imbalance between shooting and assault.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It will sometimes matter, as instead of assault units never bothering with 9" charges (or 10" with fleet) due to the pain of overwatch not being worth it - they run instead to get to within 5" or s, they may now take a gamble.
Except it's not a gamble anymore. If you declare a charge from 12" away there's no way I'm going to spend my shooting on overwatch instead of shooting effectively next turn, so now you're free to declare every 12" charge you can instead of having to decide whether your chances with the random charge range dice are worth it or not. Failing the roll no longer has any penalty for you, and occasionally you'll get lucky and roll double 6s. And even in the unlikely event that I do overwatch you're still coming out ahead because even if you fail to charge you've successfully reduced my shooting phase to snap shots and probably haven't lost many models (if you've lost any at all). If the correct decision is always "charge" then why have random charge distances at all?
You, in turn, have to gamble as to whether shooting overwatch is worth it or not
But it's also not really much of a gamble. If you have any realistic hope of making the charge then 99% of the time I'm going to shoot overwatch, because I'm not going to be shooting next turn anyway (either my unit is dead or locked in combat) and have nothing to lose. It's only a "gamble" when you're talking about long charges that are unlikely to succeed, but all that really produces is table-flipping frustration when you make the correct choice (don't fire overwatch against a 12" charge) and your opponent gets to punish you for it because they got really lucky dice. It's just stupid game design either way, you either have boring non-decisions or more "cinematic" randomness.
but then we know your dislike of assault, so any mild crumb to assault is something you seem willing to dismiss readily.
I'm not against this because it helps assault, I'm against it because it's yet another stupid rule that adds to the bloated mess of rules without actually accomplishing enough to justify its existence. If you want to improve assault, improve assault. Don't add random ineffective rules just because you happened to have an idea.
Again: you gamble on risking the 12" charge now, to still have to potentially move and assault next turn, OR you run. Currently there is no point to trying 12" charges - usually - so you run, instead.
So no, your "never" is just incorrect. Is it very situational? Yes. Never said otherwise. However it is not "never" (or "always charge", either)
Except it's not a gamble anymore. If you declare a charge from 12" away there's no way I'm going to spend my shooting on overwatch instead of shooting effectively next turn, so now you're free to declare every 12" charge you can instead of having to decide whether your chances with the random charge range dice are worth it or not. Failing the roll no longer has any penalty for you, and occasionally you'll get lucky and roll double 6s.
WRONG! If i decrlare a charge i cannot run anymore, so you get the chance to get away next turn. You fire overwatch, I fail the Charge, you move 6 and run another d6 cause you cant fire anyway and your out of the dangerzone.
But it's also not really much of a gamble. If you have any realistic hope of making the charge then 99% of the time I'm going to shoot overwatch, because I'm not going to be shooting next turn anyway (either my unit is dead or locked in combat) and have nothing to lose. It's only a "gamble" when you're talking about long charges that are unlikely to succeed, but all that really produces is table-flipping frustration when you make the correct choice (don't fire overwatch against a 12" charge) and your opponent gets to punish you for it because they got really lucky dice. It's just stupid game design either way, you either have boring non-decisions or more "cinematic" randomness.
I guess in youre world is only black and white... distances about 7"-9" are the greyscale. I have to gamble my run movement and you youre shootingphase.
I'm not against this because it helps assault, I'm against it because it's yet another stupid rule that adds to the bloated mess of rules without actually accomplishing enough to justify its existence. If you want to improve assault, improve assault. Don't add random ineffective rules just because you happened to have an idea.
In my opinion the fact that overwatch is actually a free turn of shooting without any disadvantages is justification enough. The other option would be to remove overwatch completely.
Sry but it seems to me youre some of those gunline players, probably tau, who dont want to loose his extreme advantages over assault armies. This rule wouldnt balance gunlines and CC-lists, i agree on that, but it would definitely effect the game in favour of assault based armies.
Glad I didn't actually BUY the Stronghold, or Escalation crap, and sorry for the people that did...
Sad that I BOUGHT the big hardcover rulebook, which I assume will come out months before we see a new starter set.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And once again, this will just lead to Veteran players getting old edition rules confused with the new editions.
I cant even tell you how many times someone tries to throw some 4th edition rule into 6th and tell me that I am wrong about it. Just when I thought we could have games without rule-checking every 4 minutes... *grumble*
A unit is charged.
1. It can pass a morale check and snapshot overwatch and fight normally if there is CC.
2. It can pass morale check and fire normally overwatch and fight at initiative 1 first round (for expending so much ammo/time firing), if there is CC.
3. Pass morale and Fallback d6 or 2d6. If d6 then can only snapfire next turn due to travel time/redressing lines. If 2d6, can't fire next turn due to travel time/redressing lines. Units with atsknf can't voluntarily fall back. This would give a little love to chaos.
4. Fail morale and run backwards d6 or 2d6 (whatever is balanced).
Charging units that pass morale advance what they roll.
This would get rid of back edge hugging castling (as it IS supposed to be a battle); give charged shooty units options; and help assaulty units that make it some help to compensate for Overwatch. Deepstriking units can charge d6 inches, for a middle ground between all or nothing and to compensate for Overwatch and Interceptor.
JPong wrote: There really isn't a point arguing with Peregrine. He believes assault should be removed from the game and won't be happy until it is gone.
This.
Personally I love assault, if I wanted to play a shooty game I would have played a game with mechanics for modern warfare..
JPong wrote: There really isn't a point arguing with Peregrine. He believes assault should be removed from the game and won't be happy until it is gone.
This.
Personally I love assault, if I wanted to play a shooty game I would have played a game with mechanics for modern warfare..
Assault has already been effectively removed unless you have a 2++ rerollable or are an MC.
You don't have to agree with Peregrine, but don't pretend that he wasn't making a point and backing it up with reasoning. He's not arguing against the change because he hates assault, but because he thinks it's a poor rule change.
Honestly I agree to, and I think assault should be buffed in general. The overwatch change just wouldn't make any sense. The only army that gets to shoot overwatch when they aren't charged is Tau. Which would never get used afterwards because it'll always be better to let the one unit die then shoot at it in the following turn. In fact it would make overwatch pointless since if the unit gets charged you'd want as many bodies getting into CC to ensure your unit breaks.
It would just be better and make more sense if they removed overwatch entirely, and make one army specific rule, one psyker power, and one wargear item useless. Pretending that this would allow more tactical flexibility is just deluding yourself. It's another "cinematic" idea thrown into a game that needs less cinematics as it is.
Well, Peregrin's point also ignores the fact that not every charge suceeds. So it isn't like his points are fully merited. It makes going for 9 inch charges a possibility instead of a stupid thing like now, and adds risk to the defender.
But the change doesn't help the system. It's something tacked on to something that's already not working right.
Assault rules weren't balanced before.
They added 8 new things on to assault that made it bad.
So adding a sub clause to each of those 8 things will balance it out?
If there is a legitimate chance of a charge, then you'll obviously overwatch, since the unit will either die or be tied up. Trying to "fake" a charge is not a good strategy, because it's not a reliable one. Adding another mechanic that will take a tactic and add a random dice roll into it is not the solution.
I just think overwatch should go entirely. In a turn based system the shooting phase is your response to the charge.
Shooty units really shouldn't get a boost to a system they aren't supposed to be good in. The other penalties that stack on assault would probably be fine as it is.
It adds another random point of failure onto assault which already has a terrible point of failure in random charge distance. That's something that shooting doesn't have to deal with. Before you weren't allowed to premeasure and both had a built in point of failure. Now shooting gets to ignore theirs while assault units effectively have a random distance for their weapons. Which don't come cheap I might add.
Vash108 wrote: What would you say to change overwatch to d6 + 1 shots for every 5 models in the unit?
Another pointless change that adds more rules to the bloated mess but doesn't actually accomplish anything.
Seriously, even if you delete overwatch entirely you aren't doing very much to help assault units. Overwatch rarely makes any difference unless you have a habit of spacing everyone out in a maximum-coherency line pointed at the target unit, so that one casualty increases the required charge distance by 3". In realistic situations, where you have several models at roughly the same range from the target, overwatch is just a random dead model or two with negligible effect on your charge distance. And since the units that can inflict meaningful damage with overwatch get auto-killed in assault it's really little more than a "here, throw some dice so you feel like you have a chance when your units get slaughtered" rule.
If you want to make meaningful improvements to assault units/armies you need to address two things: inability to make "safe" charges consistently, and the early-turn shooting advantage that effectively ends the game before anything can reach melee range.
Really, I just think they need to add more risk to shooting. Declare all shooting at the same time, roll for for units and such like normal. Have wounds assigned to models by the shooting player, with LOS! have any model LOS! on a 4+ and any character on a 2+ any overkill is lost. Any unit that loses it's target loses it's action.
And overwatch shouldn't exist because it does have an effect. Going even from 6" to a 7" charge is huge. It increases the odds of failure by 10%.
All this stuff comes back to GW not understanding math or just not caring. You can't even say they're trying to sell models, because they will leave models useless for literally a decade. You can't say they are selling codices with codex creep, because it's totally random which codex is OP in each edition. It's not a sequential pattern.
Martel732 wrote: Make models that shoot well more expensive. Because they are more valuable than models with clubs. Done.
I am still confused as to why hormagaunts cost more than termagants.
Cause the Horma comes with +1I, +1A, the special rules bounding leap, fleet.
Base Gants are pretty bad too, but devourer's are good so thats what's taken, but it doubles their cost as a result. Not to mention what made Gants so awesome before was the Tervigon's spreadable buffs...And even then you still want a Tervigon for them.
JPong wrote: Declare all shooting at the same time...
That would be so horrible to play that I would quit playing that edition. The amount of targets that I would have to remember with infantry Guard would be insane.
JPong wrote: Declare all shooting at the same time...
That would be so horrible to play that I would quit playing that edition. The amount of targets that I would have to remember with infantry Guard would be insane.
It's not that hard. At worst you could name all your units, and make little tokens representing them, then just put them by the units you are shooting.
JPong wrote: Declare all shooting at the same time...
That would be so horrible to play that I would quit playing that edition. The amount of targets that I would have to remember with infantry Guard would be insane.
It's not that hard. At worst you could name all your units, and make little tokens representing them, then just put them by the units you are shooting.
Or...do away with the IGOUGO system and do alternating unit activations.
Havok210 wrote: Overwatch in 6th is really not too much of a deterrent to me if I really plan on charging someone. Its the other random factors, such as random charge distances, special rules that buff overwatch (which are not needed in my opinion), etc. that really make me think twice.
Coming into this game, the random charge/run distance is very weird to me. Also, "Run" seems like someone hauling ass to cover as much distance as possible, while "Charge" is what you do when you are within reach of your enemy but not quite close enough. I feel like having a set charge distance but having running be a random 2d6 would make more sense.
I also tend to agree with the Overwatch debate. Giving it a consequence would be fair (I love overwatch btw).
To weigh in on the Overwatch debate, I would be perfectly fine with forfeiting my own shooting phase in order to use Overwatch on the enemy turn, but only if I can use it at any point in the enemy turn and only if it's at full BS. If I can use it to interrupt my enemy's movement, or sit on it to spoil a charge, that is giving me a level of tactical flexibility that I'm just not getting in the game right now. One of the historicals I play has a game mechanic just like this and it isn't broken or cheesy. It makes finding good firing lanes even more important, and is great for making your opponent careful when they're moving their units.
A reserve move mechanic would also be very interesting. Allowing me to forfeit my movement and shooting so that I could move a unit in between unit activations on the opponent's turn would open up a lot of options and could do a lot to help get things into assault. I know I'd certainly have to think very carefully if some Death Company or some other nasty assault unit was on Reserve Move and could pop it off near the end of my own turn, leaving me to eat the charge on the enemy's turn right afterwards.
Of course, I expect none of this from GW as it's a pretty radical departure from the current ruleset and I don't think radical departures are what they're after right now. But damn, it would be awesome.
Of you are using in overwatch, in the assault phase you are reduced to 1A with a basic CCW, unless you are armed with a pistol + CCW/PW/PF in which case your 1A can be made with that weapon, but no matter what your A stat is, you only get 1A in the assault that follows the shooting. The shooting is made at full BS if you pass an initiative test or it's BS1 (except heavy weapons, which are always BS1), and you cannot then fire in the following shooting phase if the charge fails, but you can run.
Doesn't really help so much with the likes of Tau firewarriors, or guard, but in ways they are the units that need the help with overwatch and would fire as the enemy advances, but stops units that meant to be more combat specialized having their cake and eat it.
I would think (and have heard it said) that this is going to be more of a 6.5e, than a revamp of the BRB rules. It stands to reason that it'll be a collection of dataslates, FAQs and supplements all rolled into one with the rules.
I think a change to overwatch is just wishful thinking. I'm open to the idea though.
Overwatch change sounds a bit pointless. I think that I'll have to agree with Peregrine on this one (also, guys, ad hominem attacks are weaksauce).
What seems to nail assault is just that you can't get into it. Assault was always the best way to wipe out a unit and claim its position, thanks to sweeping advance and suchlike. But right now you really struggle to get at the enemy unit in question. Beyond that we have the real and painful power of shooting, which has gotten better and better. For a brief example, fliers are completely shooting centric for both sides. And there is no easy way to make all assault units better value than shooting units without massive codex rewrites.
For this reason, the consolidation change could be a big help: it allows a unit to be able to more quickly kill more stuff, thus achieving efficiency. Remember that shooting units have more turns of actual efficient use, thanks to their 24" guns and whatnot. But more practically I'd be in favour of returning outflank and run charges, since with overwatch and interceptor they are not able to completely deny the enemy the chance to charge. Also, dammit, I never got around to making Kommandos and I feel like I missed out on something glorious!
Just make it playable without having to flick through the rulebook all the time and lawyering half of the match...
There is no reason why there should be special rules with fancy names that just give you a random set of special rules with fancy names out of the core rulebook. Rules that share the same mechanics should share a name too.
And please don´t punish me for killing my enemies in my first round of assault... This might be the rule that buggers me the most.
And I´d like to declare different targets for every trooper like in Warmachine. What´s the point in having guys sitting around doing nothing while one dude shoots his LasCan on a tank.
JPong wrote: Really, I just think they need to add more risk to shooting. Declare all shooting at the same time, roll for for units and such like normal. Have wounds assigned to models by the shooting player, with LOS! have any model LOS! on a 4+ and any character on a 2+ any overkill is lost. Any unit that loses it's target loses it's action.
And overwatch shouldn't exist because it does have an effect. Going even from 6" to a 7" charge is huge. It increases the odds of failure by 10%.
fething LOS! can fething do one too.
Characters are already well enough protected when in a squad as long as you are thoughtful about where you place your models, they're supposedly on a battlefield, sometimes they will get shot in the head.
Challenges either need to disappear or have a massive overhaul too. I'm neutral as to which way, I'm not a huge fan of them now, but neither do they bother me hugely. If they were to stay, then there need to be greater consequences for your officer cowering at the back of his unit like a pleb, and there need to be greater bonuses for butchering him in front of his men. If my Bloodthirster utterly destroys some nameless Vet Sgt, is it really 'cinematic' that it has no further effect on morale than some random bloke getting a knee to the codpiece in the general melee?
tommse wrote: Just make it playable without having to flick through the rulebook all the time and lawyering half of the match... There is no reason why there should be special rules with fancy names that just give you a random set of special rules with fancy names out of the core rulebook. Rules that share the same mechanics should share a name too.
I completely agree with this. I love games that are elegant because you can sit down at a demo table and pick up the basics in 20 minutes. Mastering the tactics and special rules of the game comes later, but the initial learning curve to these games is flatter.
I think 40k's biggest defect is just the way in which the rules are laid out in the books. There is some cohesive structure to the books (fluff, then units, then rules, then pictures, etc), but there is a major problem of redundancy within the sections. I really like the mini rulebook because I can find things a little quicker in it, but it still has issues. I end up using the reference section in the back more than anything, but there's always one tiny piece of information missing from that chart and I end up having to flip back. It's funny to me that more than a few people have suggested that I just memorize everything. For the sake of reducing error, this is a very bad piece of advice, and I bet it leads to more arguments.
I wonder if a proper edit would fix a lot of things. These books do not read like something that was edited by a professional. It would interesting to see if the core rulebook being edited in a logical way (without changing anything) would make things flow smoothly.
When people say to memorize the rulebook, they don't mean to actually memorize every word as written. They mean to memorize where it is, and how the rule works. That way, if there is an argument, you know where to look to find the answer.
No one gets the rulebook 100%, and not really because it's big. It's just that to every rule there are exceptions, and if you are not familiar with the exceptions (particularly those found in the army codex) it makes arguments come up. The game itself is actually quite simplistic.
Now, why knowing the rules is considered TFG or rule lawyering by so many people, I have no idea. There is no exploiting loopholes, just following the rules. Everyone is playing by the same rules. If you think something someone does is too good to be true, but you can't find a reason why they can't do it in a game, let it go and do some research for next time.
So the biggest complaint with assaulting is that if you roll bad, you're penalized by eating another round of shooting? So make assault available out of reserve/deepstrike and after running then make it a set distance like 8". Now if you can assault you still take the overwatch but you'll still make it into cc. I totally disagree with variable run/assaults ranges. They should be set ranges.
On a separate note I would like to see the random terrain and objective tables go the way of the dodo. A better system would be battlefield conditions like a high gravity planet would subtract 2" off all movement while a low gravity planet could add 2" to all movement. Or a windstorm planet could take 6" off the range of all shooting weapons to a minimum of 6" and would automatically make blast templates scatter (no direct hits unless distance rolled is less than BS). Or a dark side of the planet option where night fighting is in place all game. Rather than rolling for each piece of terrain it would be much easier to remember and I think would make the game more interesting.
On a separate note I would like to see the random terrain and objective tables go the way of the dodo. A better system would be battlefield conditions like a high gravity planet would subtract 2" off all movement while a low gravity planet could add 2" to all movement. Or a windstorm planet could take 6" off the range of all shooting weapons to a minimum of 6" and would automatically make blast templates scatter (no direct hits unless distance rolled is less than BS). Or a dark side of the planet option where night fighting is in place all game. Rather than rolling for each piece of terrain it would be much easier to remember and I think would make the game more interesting.
I think there is a place for these things in a sci-fi game, between consenting players. I don't think there's a place for them in the base rules though. I think any random effects that are applied after you've picked your army are asking for bad games and mismatches that aren't really fun for either player.
In real-world terms, if you're a commanding general, you're going to know that there's no gravity on the planet you're invading, and you're going to equip your force appropriately. You're not just going to stumble into these effects with the force you happen to have with you and hope for the best.
In real-world terms, if you're a commanding general, you're going to know that there's no gravity on the planet you're invading, and you're going to equip your force appropriately. You're not just going to stumble into these effects with the force you happen to have with you and hope for the best.
Arguably. Both Napoleon and Hitler ought to have known that winter in Russia sucks. You're assuming perfect information on the part of the commanders.
A few people are saying the issue with assault units is getting them into assault before they are blown to bits. As a nid player who loves cc I totally agree. Nidz have it especially bad as there are no transports and units must walk/run across the board bar a couple of outflanking options or fliers soloing across the table.
Consolidating into assault would be a nice boon but for my army I would massively prefer the old fleet rule back (you can run and charge in same turn) or that fleet adds to the run distance rather than a reroll. 1d6 plus 6" charge would be a huge boon. Assaulting from outflanking would also be a huge boon to stealers and I miss that option.
Selfishly I was hoping to see such changes in the first dataslate... But no chance.
removing random charge distances would go a big way into helping this. or at least increasing the minimum to say 4 inches with a d3 of additional range
Brutal Viking wrote: I just know I always forget what the mysterious terrain does and it's bitten me a few times
That's more the fault of the player than the fault of the ruleset. Planets like Catachan are part of the setting.
Just because planets with dangerous terrain are part of the setting does not mean that their implementation in the rules doesn't leave a lot to be desired.
Consider that movement is defined as being deliberate, but stopping periodically to check your surroundings. That's the standard 6" move, and that definition comes right from page 10. And yet, in spite of this deliberate movement, you have no idea that the forest, that may well be in your deployment zone, has ironbark or is carnivorous until you actually walk into it. Sure, that makes loads of sense.
We're talking about warfare in the far future, apparently where the range of ones guns are known so exactly that a weapon with a mile range can know whether it needs to shift an inch forward before firing, but you have no clue what the forest 5 feet from you is made of until you stick your head in it.
It's more "cinematic" BS random tables designed to obfuscate the fact that the game designers have no idea how to make a balanced game. Because if the worst army in the game can get a win sometimes because a forest eats their opponent, hey, balance, right?
Brutal Viking wrote: I just know I always forget what the mysterious terrain does and it's bitten me a few times
That's more the fault of the player than the fault of the ruleset. Planets like Catachan are part of the setting.
Or, to phrase it another way,giving the player so much to remember that some things get forgotten, or including rules that are either arbitrary or irrelevant to the point where they are ignored by many, is bad game design.
I don't think 7th is gonna change anything hardly at all. As others have said, its the supplements plus errata bound together to make it more convenient / easier to understand for a person just entering the hobby. Its called 7th because its the only logical thing to call it. Calling '6th edition part deux' is silly and confusing. Forgeworld names their books in a wildly inconsistent way and even people who've been in the hobby for ages can't keep them straight all the time.
As far as the assault vs shooting tossing around of wild rule changes:
Martel732 wrote:Make models that shoot well more expensive. Because they are more valuable than models with clubs. Done.
IMO this is the only reasonable suggestion in the whole thread. I think random charge ranges and overwatch are fun. Models and rules should be made by whats cool and fun. Points are to balance, it is their sole purpose.
It's more "cinematic" BS random tables designed to obfuscate the fact that the game designers have no idea how to make a balanced game. Because if the worst army in the game can get a win sometimes because a forest eats their opponent, hey, balance, right?
Sometimes, you deploy without having all the facts.... or are on a planet that has never previously known the tread of Man/Space-Elf/Space-Antelope-Fish/Bird-Man/Plant-Mushroom-Thing or Space-Dwarf (or any of the above with spikes). So you have no idea that the weird tree-thing over there is a sentient, flesh-eating monstrosity.
After all, sometimes the world's greatest military invades an enemy that is nearly a century behind in technological level, and gets wtfpwned by the weather and then defeated by peasants.
Redbeard wrote: Consider that movement is defined as being deliberate, but stopping periodically to check your surroundings. That's the standard 6" move, and that definition comes right from page 10. And yet, in spite of this deliberate movement, you have no idea that the forest, that may well be in your deployment zone, has ironbark or is carnivorous until you actually walk into it. Sure, that makes loads of sense.
And, worse, the "forest" is really just a couple random trees in an open field. Where the hell are all these nasty carnivores hiding in a patch of "wilderness" smaller than the average front lawn?
I like overwatch. But units that fire over watch should surrender all of their CC attacks in that first round of CC.
Not allowing units that run the chance to charge is terrible. Running already costs you any shooting. Allow units to run and assault. Fleet would work well with it but doesn't need a change.
Allow units to assault from vehicles like they were assaulting from difficult terrain. Assault vehicles ignore this.
Failed charges should still allow/force the unit to move. Perhaps unit must move the highest dice rolled forward?
I like consolidate d6 into assault. Force shooty armies to speead out to avoid it.
Give a bonus to combat resolution to charging units?
40k is a sci-fi game not fantasy assault should be the weakest strategy to use in 40k. If you want to play an assault based game GW already makes a game for that it is called Fantasy. Every one complaining about free shooting rolling sixes is not free shooting. Tau normally have to use most of their army to stop one assault. Assault does not suck because of over watch it sucks because they changed the consolidation rules so you can not sweep most of an army with one good assault unit.
KingofAshes wrote: 40k is a sci-fi game not fantasy assault should be the weakest strategy to use in 40k. If you want to play an assault based game GW already makes a game for that it is called Fantasy. Every one complaining about free shooting rolling sixes is not free shooting. Tau normally have to use most of their army to stop one assault. Assault does not suck because of over watch it sucks because they changed the consolidation rules so you can not sweep most of an army with one good assault unit.
Then assault units should be super cheap. Because they lack efficacy. You don't get to have it both ways.
I think that there should definitely be a CC penalty for shooting overwatch. It doesn't make sense you can fire a weapon in overwatch and attack normally after that you normally wouldn't be able to charge with after shooting.
I have to preface this by saying I've flip flopped my opinion on the state of assault rules. And to say 40k is shooty and fantasy is for banging swords is fallacious. Assault is a part of 40k. Is has an entire phase for gaks sake.
Now, if the rumors are true And we are getting 7th. One can be assured that at least one of these things will happen. Overwatch will be altered. Assault range will be altered (wether it be fixed range or gaining the distance regardless of a successful assault). Consolidating into combat may be allowed. Assaulting from outflank/ds will be allowed. If 7th happens at least one of these things will happen. I'm not saying 7th will happen but if it does, one of these changes if not all are coming. And you can take that to the bank.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I play tau and nids. Since 6th I have shelved my tau and focused on my nids.
KingofAshes wrote: 40k is a sci-fi game not fantasy assault should be the weakest strategy to use in 40k. If you want to play an assault based game GW already makes a game for that it is called Fantasy. Every one complaining about free shooting rolling sixes is not free shooting. Tau normally have to use most of their army to stop one assault. Assault does not suck because of over watch it sucks because they changed the consolidation rules so you can not sweep most of an army with one good assault unit.
Then assault units should be super cheap. Because they lack efficacy. You don't get to have it both ways.
Assault units are as expensive as you want them to be Nids and Orks can spam really good assault units for less than ten points a model. A chaos space marine is something like fourteen points and will beat most shooty units in assault. You are asking for a umber unit that does not cost anything.
Imnewherewheresthebathroom wrote: I have to preface this by saying I've flip flopped my opinion on the state of assault rules. And to say 40k is shooty and fantasy is for banging swords is fallacious. Assault is a part of 40k. Is has an entire phase for gaks sake.
Now, if the rumors are true And we are getting 7th. One can be assured that at least one of these things will happen. Overwatch will be altered. Assault range will be altered (wether it be fixed range or gaining the distance regardless of a successful assault). Consolidating into combat may be allowed. Assaulting from outflank/ds will be allowed. If 7th happens at least one of these things will happen. I'm not saying 7th will happen but if it does, one of these changes if not all are coming. And you can take that to the bank.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I play tau and nids. Since 6th I have shelved my tau and focused on my nids.
Assault is part of 40k but it should not be the stronger strategy to use like it has been in previous edition. Assaulting should be a strategy used when the situation dictates it not I need to assault because assaulting is so much better than using the firearm in my hand.
If they're including super heavies in the standard rules, I hope they tweak some of their rules in the process. D-weapons, Stomp and SH explosions should be seriously toned down.
KingofAshes wrote: 40k is a sci-fi game not fantasy assault should be the weakest strategy to use in 40k. If you want to play an assault based game GW already makes a game for that it is called Fantasy. Every one complaining about free shooting rolling sixes is not free shooting. Tau normally have to use most of their army to stop one assault. Assault does not suck because of over watch it sucks because they changed the consolidation rules so you can not sweep most of an army with one good assault unit.
That's all very nice and stuff, but it's science fantasy, not science fiction, so yeah...
KingofAshes wrote: 40k is a sci-fi game not fantasy assault should be the weakest strategy to use in 40k. If you want to play an assault based game GW already makes a game for that it is called Fantasy. Every one complaining about free shooting rolling sixes is not free shooting. Tau normally have to use most of their army to stop one assault. Assault does not suck because of over watch it sucks because they changed the consolidation rules so you can not sweep most of an army with one good assault unit.
That's all very nice and stuff, but it's science fantasy, not science fiction, so yeah...
Just because you add the word fantasy suddenly a power weapon armed combatant should be stronger than a combatant welding a plasma rifle?
It's not a matter of what "should" be stronger its a matter of game balance. The game does not properly balance shooting and assault.
Attempting shooting has no downsides (barring a few rare cases) whereas attempting assault is extremely dangerous to the assaulting unit. If a unit is weak then it should be low cost so as to create greater threats. If a unit is strong it should cost more to limit spam and reduce supporting units.
KingofAshes wrote: 40k is a sci-fi game not fantasy assault should be the weakest strategy to use in 40k. If you want to play an assault based game GW already makes a game for that it is called Fantasy. Every one complaining about free shooting rolling sixes is not free shooting. Tau normally have to use most of their army to stop one assault. Assault does not suck because of over watch it sucks because they changed the consolidation rules so you can not sweep most of an army with one good assault unit.
That's all very nice and stuff, but it's science fantasy, not science fiction, so yeah...
Just because you add the word fantasy suddenly a power weapon armed combatant should be stronger than a combatant welding a plasma rifle?
Martel732 wrote: No, I'm pretty sure there is a number printed in most codices for assault elements. And under 6th ed rules, they are all too high.
Most of the codexs have shooting models that are to expensive that is not an argument.
Really? You want to go there? So if we make a lineup of overcosted models, how many of the top 10 are going to be assault models? Top 20? Top 50?
Even if you lowered the points what made assault so good in 4th and 5th was the sweeping and consolidation rules. The argument I make is just like I no one uses overpriced shooting units don't use overpriced assault units. I would argue that most of the top overpriced units would be vehicles, and most of them are shooting.
I feel 100% confident saying that "7th" will not have consolidating into combat.
In modern real warfare assault is almost non existent, assault should have more downsides than shooting to represent this, older editions where assault was the main way to remove models, did not represent a conflict between two or more forces that had access to viable ranged weapons, read as anything past arrows.
it -would- be nice to see interceptor changed so that if you fire interceptor not only are you now allowed to fire those weapons during your next shooting phase, but you may not fire those weapons during your next overwatch either. This makes sense as you have a chance to overwatch before you even make it to your next turn, it makes no sense you can fire a weapon for interceptor during your opponents movement phase then you are not allowed to fire it during your next turn, but you can go ahead and do overwatch.
If the weapon cannot fire anymore after interceptor, it should not be immediately firing for overwatch.
of course this matters little as models cannot arrive from reserves and assault usually anyways.
It would be nice to see a change to overwatch to clarify what abilities can be used during overwatch, ie any that may be used during a normal shooting phase, or limited to 1 shot with no additional rules, or special rules unless they specifically say you may use them for overwatch as well.
It would also be nice to see D weapons toned down.
something like = roll to hit, if hit roll a d6 1- no effect
2,3,4,5- models hit suffer 2 wounds [not wound pool, the individual models] with no saves of any kind allowed
6- Models hit suffer 4 wounds with no saves of any kind allowed
And it would be nice to see a re costing of D weapons, especially for some of the models that fire 4 d weapon shots a turn...
Martel732 wrote: No, I'm pretty sure there is a number printed in most codices for assault elements. And under 6th ed rules, they are all too high.
Most of the codexs have shooting models that are to expensive that is not an argument.
Really? You want to go there? So if we make a lineup of overcosted models, how many of the top 10 are going to be assault models? Top 20? Top 50?
Even if you lowered the points what made assault so good in 4th and 5th was the sweeping and consolidation rules. The argument I make is just like I no one uses overpriced shooting units don't use overpriced assault units. I would argue that most of the top overpriced units would be vehicles, and most of them are shooting.
So good? 5th edition mech-hammer cared not for assaults, as the transports easily weathered assaults with 4+ avoidance of hits.
4th edition assaults was beaten back by skimmerspam and general artillery, you couldn't rush down the field in a rhino because an ordnance could kill the entire squad inside of it.
@KingofAshes You do realize that 4th and 5th were mostly shooting editions right. 5th was grey knights, SW, and later necrons shooting it out. 4th was fish of fury and skimmer spam again shooty.
As for overpriced shooting units let me see that would be terminators, landraiders, I guess you could say hammerheads and leman russ'. There really aren't that many. Now if you look at assault units we have terminators, tyranid warriors, assault marines, vanguard veterans, death company, and other as well.
FirePainter wrote: @KingofAshes You do realize that 4th and 5th were mostly shooting editions right. 5th was grey knights, SW, and later necrons shooting it out. 4th was fish of fury and skimmer spam again shooty.
As for overpriced shooting units let me see that would be terminators, landraiders, I guess you could say hammerheads and leman russ'. There really aren't that many. Now if you look at assault units we have terminators, tyranid warriors, assault marines, vanguard veterans, death company, and other as well.
KingofAshes wrote:
Assault is part of 40k but it should not be the stronger strategy to use like it has been in previous edition. Assaulting should be a strategy used when the situation dictates it not I need to assault because assaulting is so much better than using the firearm in my hand.
You do realize that the most famous, most successful sci-fi series ever uses melee weapons as the most iconic weapon in that series, right?
You are aware that several other big, famous, successful sci-fi franchises also heavily feature melee combat, right? Starship troopers, Aliens...
If you want to really boil it down, neither strategy should be stronger, they should each be viable. That's part of a balanced game. Balanced games don't have stronger and weaker strategies, they have different strategies.
Yes, by modern standards, assault shouldn't really work. And yet, in the modern world, we don't have flying tanks or teleporters, or armies of millions of creatures that will happily advance into gunfire without fear. What's more, as recently as 130 years ago, an assault-based army attacked a shooty army using that very strategy, and won. Look up the Battle of Isandlwana. It's a good example of what happens when your 4-point assault grunts get to fight 30 point shooty guys.
I'll go ahead and chuck my opinion in on this one.
I get why overwatch is there. Makes sense to me. If I see a bunch of pissed off, raving, blood drunk killy things charging me, I intend to shoot at them. However, what if I was shooting that guy over there? I say that you can only take overwatch against a unit that you have already fired against. If I start firing at say, that nasty meany-head Furioso, I don't really think I have the chance to shoot at the really mad-pants DC charging at me.
I agree with being able to run and charge. I very rarely run because I feel like it is a total waste of a unit for that turn.
I also think that you should be able to charge after Deep Strike because honestly...why not?
Martel732 wrote: No, I'm pretty sure there is a number printed in most codices for assault elements. And under 6th ed rules, they are all too high.
Most of the codexs have shooting models that are to expensive that is not an argument.
Really? You want to go there? So if we make a lineup of overcosted models, how many of the top 10 are going to be assault models? Top 20? Top 50?
Even if you lowered the points what made assault so good in 4th and 5th was the sweeping and consolidation rules. The argument I make is just like I no one uses overpriced shooting units don't use overpriced assault units. I would argue that most of the top overpriced units would be vehicles, and most of them are shooting.
So good? 5th edition mech-hammer cared not for assaults, as the transports easily weathered assaults with 4+ avoidance of hits.
4th edition assaults was beaten back by skimmerspam and general artillery, you couldn't rush down the field in a rhino because an ordnance could kill the entire squad inside of it.
We must have had very different 4th and 5th edition experiences because I remember some strong assault meta in both editions. Top of my head Nob bikers thunder wolf cavalry in 5th.
Assault hasn't been the king since 3rd. It was stronger in 4th than in 5th. 5th ushered in the beginning of what we see now. The IG were just the proto-Eldar/Tau. Good players in 5th could mitigate your Nob bikerz and Thunder wolf cav. The mitigation has turned into making assault a laughing stock.
If you were losing to assault in 5th, it's because you were letting them get away with it. 4th is trickier, but the Eldar were definitely the special sauce there and they were NOT about assault.
Martel732 wrote: No, I'm pretty sure there is a number printed in most codices for assault elements. And under 6th ed rules, they are all too high.
Most of the codexs have shooting models that are to expensive that is not an argument.
Really? You want to go there? So if we make a lineup of overcosted models, how many of the top 10 are going to be assault models? Top 20? Top 50?
Even if you lowered the points what made assault so good in 4th and 5th was the sweeping and consolidation rules. The argument I make is just like I no one uses overpriced shooting units don't use overpriced assault units. I would argue that most of the top overpriced units would be vehicles, and most of them are shooting.
So good? 5th edition mech-hammer cared not for assaults, as the transports easily weathered assaults with 4+ avoidance of hits.
4th edition assaults was beaten back by skimmerspam and general artillery, you couldn't rush down the field in a rhino because an ordnance could kill the entire squad inside of it.
We must have had very different 4th and 5th edition experiences because I remember some strong assault meta in both editions. Top of my head Nob bikers thunder wolf cavalry in 5th.
Exceptions always exist. Heck, screamerstar (from what I know) is leaning to CC and the flying DP circus of 6th edition is particularly nasty and CC oriented. That being said, a few good CC builds don't = 6th edition being balanced nor CC being better.
KingofAshes wrote: We must have had very different 4th and 5th edition experiences because I remember some strong assault meta in both editions. Top of my head Nob bikers thunder wolf cavalry in 5th.
To chip in some non-deathstar units: Assaulting with boyz from battlewagons worked really well. A fair amount of players managed to get trukk boyz to work as well (dashofpepper had a unit of trukk boyz in most of his games). Kan walls (while exploiting some rules to increase survivabilty) were an assault-oriented army. Snikrot's Kommandoz were a staple among ork armies, with close to no shooting ability. DoA armies were a thing, as were Khorne Berzerkers charging from rhinos. All those have gotten a lot weaker, if not close to useless, with the advent of sixth.
KingofAshes wrote: We must have had very different 4th and 5th edition experiences because I remember some strong assault meta in both editions. Top of my head Nob bikers thunder wolf cavalry in 5th.
To chip in some non-deathstar units: Assaulting with boyz from battlewagons worked really well. A fair amount of players managed to get trukk boyz to work as well (dashofpepper had a unit of trukk boyz in most of his games). Kan walls (while exploiting some rules to increase survivabilty) were an assault-oriented army. Snikrot's Kommandoz were a staple among ork armies, with close to no shooting ability. DoA armies were a thing, as were Khorne Berzerkers charging from rhinos. All those have gotten a lot weaker, if not close to useless, with the advent of sixth.
Indeed - there *were* some viable assault based lists /units, however the *most succesful* lists overall were shooting - GK, Necron, SW, IG. Whole of 5th was one upmanship on shooting in general.
4th, despite the warped remembrance of "one assault unit running through an entire gunline" {D6" movement is SO hard to avoid, clearly) was also shooty. From the lattter half being Eldar flying circus of boredom, Tau JSJ etc.
Nob bikers lasted barely 3 months of 5th as a viable list. Once people realised how they can be screwed (e.g. objectives in ruins means they almost auto lose those games) their time was up. Draigostar lists again relied on overwhelming S5 and 7 shooting, plus the mandatory 3 psyriflemen for S8, and alloocation trickery.
3rd was the last time assault was stronger than shooting. In EVERY edition since it has been weaker, and in EVERY edition since the trend has been that assualt is weaker than the previous edition.
I didn't play much in 4th, but I remember in 3rd, reliably being able to charge 2 Hive tyrants and 3 Carnifexes (and a red terror!) straight into enemy lines without cover, and as long as I didn't fail roll, they made it.
After not being in the game for 4th, I came back to 5th to find the game overflowing with an uncanny amount of dakka. That 3rd ed tidzilla list that I ran wouldn't last two turns nowadays.
That being said, I can only hope that 6th is the end of the pendulum swing, and 7th will start rolling back the other direction.
I get why overwatch is there. Makes sense to me. If I see a bunch of pissed off, raving, blood drunk killy things charging me, I intend to shoot at them.
If I see a bunch of pansy lily-livered shooty things about to shoot me, I intend to assault them.
If you can pre-emptively shoot me on MY turn, I should be able to pre-emptively assault YOU on your turn. Balance grasshopper.
KingofAshes wrote: We must have had very different 4th and 5th edition experiences because I remember some strong assault meta in both editions. Top of my head Nob bikers thunder wolf cavalry in 5th.
To chip in some non-deathstar units: Assaulting with boyz from battlewagons worked really well. A fair amount of players managed to get trukk boyz to work as well (dashofpepper had a unit of trukk boyz in most of his games). Kan walls (while exploiting some rules to increase survivabilty) were an assault-oriented army. Snikrot's Kommandoz were a staple among ork armies, with close to no shooting ability. DoA armies were a thing, as were Khorne Berzerkers charging from rhinos. All those have gotten a lot weaker, if not close to useless, with the advent of sixth.
Indeed - there *were* some viable assault based lists /units, however the *most succesful* lists overall were shooting - GK, Necron, SW, IG. Whole of 5th was one upmanship on shooting in general.
4th, despite the warped remembrance of "one assault unit running through an entire gunline" {D6" movement is SO hard to avoid, clearly) was also shooty. From the lattter half being Eldar flying circus of boredom, Tau JSJ etc.
Nob bikers lasted barely 3 months of 5th as a viable list. Once people realised how they can be screwed (e.g. objectives in ruins means they almost auto lose those games) their time was up. Draigostar lists again relied on overwhelming S5 and 7 shooting, plus the mandatory 3 psyriflemen for S8, and alloocation trickery.
3rd was the last time assault was stronger than shooting. In EVERY edition since it has been weaker, and in EVERY edition since the trend has been that assualt is weaker than the previous edition.
Considering how I started in 5th, I have nothing else to compare 6th to. I really didn't have the feeling that assault was particularly weak or a waste of time in 5th. I do now.
KingofAshes wrote: We must have had very different 4th and 5th edition experiences because I remember some strong assault meta in both editions. Top of my head Nob bikers thunder wolf cavalry in 5th.
To chip in some non-deathstar units: Assaulting with boyz from battlewagons worked really well. A fair amount of players managed to get trukk boyz to work as well (dashofpepper had a unit of trukk boyz in most of his games). Kan walls (while exploiting some rules to increase survivabilty) were an assault-oriented army. Snikrot's Kommandoz were a staple among ork armies, with close to no shooting ability. DoA armies were a thing, as were Khorne Berzerkers charging from rhinos. All those have gotten a lot weaker, if not close to useless, with the advent of sixth.
Indeed - there *were* some viable assault based lists /units, however the *most succesful* lists overall were shooting - GK, Necron, SW, IG. Whole of 5th was one upmanship on shooting in general.
4th, despite the warped remembrance of "one assault unit running through an entire gunline" {D6" movement is SO hard to avoid, clearly) was also shooty. From the lattter half being Eldar flying circus of boredom, Tau JSJ etc.
Nob bikers lasted barely 3 months of 5th as a viable list. Once people realised how they can be screwed (e.g. objectives in ruins means they almost auto lose those games) their time was up. Draigostar lists again relied on overwhelming S5 and 7 shooting, plus the mandatory 3 psyriflemen for S8, and alloocation trickery.
3rd was the last time assault was stronger than shooting. In EVERY edition since it has been weaker, and in EVERY edition since the trend has been that assualt is weaker than the previous edition.
We should all be rejoicing that assault is not as strong as it was back in 3rd edition. The game was boring as hell every one sat in transports doing nothing but assaulting. Here is how a game of 3rd edition played out, I got first turn I rush my transports forward and assault your army. Play a few rounds of assault but I pretty much won because I went first. Assault was not good in 3rd edition because of balanced point cost it was good because you could assault out of any transport you wanted to. Just because every assault model is not this all powerful I win models that every one takes does mean all the assault units are overpriced.
KingofAshes wrote: We must have had very different 4th and 5th edition experiences because I remember some strong assault meta in both editions. Top of my head Nob bikers thunder wolf cavalry in 5th.
To chip in some non-deathstar units: Assaulting with boyz from battlewagons worked really well. A fair amount of players managed to get trukk boyz to work as well (dashofpepper had a unit of trukk boyz in most of his games). Kan walls (while exploiting some rules to increase survivabilty) were an assault-oriented army. Snikrot's Kommandoz were a staple among ork armies, with close to no shooting ability. DoA armies were a thing, as were Khorne Berzerkers charging from rhinos. All those have gotten a lot weaker, if not close to useless, with the advent of sixth.
Indeed - there *were* some viable assault based lists /units, however the *most succesful* lists overall were shooting - GK, Necron, SW, IG. Whole of 5th was one upmanship on shooting in general.
4th, despite the warped remembrance of "one assault unit running through an entire gunline" {D6" movement is SO hard to avoid, clearly) was also shooty. From the lattter half being Eldar flying circus of boredom, Tau JSJ etc.
Nob bikers lasted barely 3 months of 5th as a viable list. Once people realised how they can be screwed (e.g. objectives in ruins means they almost auto lose those games) their time was up. Draigostar lists again relied on overwhelming S5 and 7 shooting, plus the mandatory 3 psyriflemen for S8, and alloocation trickery.
3rd was the last time assault was stronger than shooting. In EVERY edition since it has been weaker, and in EVERY edition since the trend has been that assualt is weaker than the previous edition.
We should all be rejoicing that assault is not as strong as it was back in 3rd edition. The game was boring as hell every one sat in transports doing nothing but assaulting. Here is how a game of 3rd edition played out, I got first turn I rush my transports forward and assault your army. Play a few rounds of assault but I pretty much won because I went first. Assault was not good in 3rd edition because of balanced point cost it was good because you could assault out of any transport you wanted to. Just because every assault model is not this all powerful I win models that every one takes does mean all the assault units are overpriced.
Because winning because of alpha strike shooting is any better. Oh look I just wiped out half your army because of my powerful guns!
I really think they should take a look at Bolt Action and adopt a lot of the rules for that to 40k with modifications of course (I've been reading Bolt Action rules lately and it seems like a better 40k than 40k, although of course there are differences due to it being WW2 and not space fantasy). Then add extras for Kill Team and Apocalypse respectively to let you play the gamut from small to large. You would in effect have:
* 40k Skirmish: Kill Team
* 40k Company: Normal
* 40k Army/Epic: Apocalypse
Three different ways to play using the same basic rules but with tweaks at each level (e.g. for KT maybe you can buy squads as individual figures versus specific sizes) to allow for a different feel to the game.
At this point though I think only a total rewrite a la 2nd to 3rd edition will change enough of the game. The constant shifts in the meta go from one extreme towards the other without addressing any of the underlying problems that have existed for years now.
I get why overwatch is there. Makes sense to me. If I see a bunch of pissed off, raving, blood drunk killy things charging me, I intend to shoot at them.
If I see a bunch of pansy lily-livered shooty things about to shoot me, I intend to assault them.
If you can pre-emptively shoot me on MY turn, I should be able to pre-emptively assault YOU on your turn. Balance grasshopper.
-Grim
Not going to get much argument out of me on that LOL! Except that no decent person/army (fiction or not) will idly stand there and be like "Guhh they're coming right for us!!!" and do nothing. Hence Overwatch.
Here's a cool idea: Why not allow the charging unit to fire overwatch back. After all, most of them have guns, so why wouldn't they be shooting into the crowd they intend to chop up?? Make those snap shots as well and that might bring some balance back.right?
KingofAshes wrote: We must have had very different 4th and 5th edition experiences because I remember some strong assault meta in both editions. Top of my head Nob bikers thunder wolf cavalry in 5th.
To chip in some non-deathstar units: Assaulting with boyz from battlewagons worked really well. A fair amount of players managed to get trukk boyz to work as well (dashofpepper had a unit of trukk boyz in most of his games). Kan walls (while exploiting some rules to increase survivabilty) were an assault-oriented army. Snikrot's Kommandoz were a staple among ork armies, with close to no shooting ability. DoA armies were a thing, as were Khorne Berzerkers charging from rhinos. All those have gotten a lot weaker, if not close to useless, with the advent of sixth.
Indeed - there *were* some viable assault based lists /units, however the *most succesful* lists overall were shooting - GK, Necron, SW, IG. Whole of 5th was one upmanship on shooting in general.
4th, despite the warped remembrance of "one assault unit running through an entire gunline" {D6" movement is SO hard to avoid, clearly) was also shooty. From the lattter half being Eldar flying circus of boredom, Tau JSJ etc.
Nob bikers lasted barely 3 months of 5th as a viable list. Once people realised how they can be screwed (e.g. objectives in ruins means they almost auto lose those games) their time was up. Draigostar lists again relied on overwhelming S5 and 7 shooting, plus the mandatory 3 psyriflemen for S8, and alloocation trickery.
3rd was the last time assault was stronger than shooting. In EVERY edition since it has been weaker, and in EVERY edition since the trend has been that assualt is weaker than the previous edition.
We should all be rejoicing that assault is not as strong as it was back in 3rd edition. The game was boring as hell every one sat in transports doing nothing but assaulting. Here is how a game of 3rd edition played out, I got first turn I rush my transports forward and assault your army. Play a few rounds of assault but I pretty much won because I went first. Assault was not good in 3rd edition because of balanced point cost it was good because you could assault out of any transport you wanted to. Just because every assault model is not this all powerful I win models that every one takes does mean all the assault units are overpriced.
Because winning because of alpha strike shooting is any better. Oh look I just wiped out half your army because of my powerful guns!
I did not see any of the top armies at the LOV winning with alpha strikes instead they won playing the objectives, but hey they where mostly likely a bunch of noobs who did not know what they where doing.
I get why overwatch is there. Makes sense to me. If I see a bunch of pissed off, raving, blood drunk killy things charging me, I intend to shoot at them.
If I see a bunch of pansy lily-livered shooty things about to shoot me, I intend to assault them.
If you can pre-emptively shoot me on MY turn, I should be able to pre-emptively assault YOU on your turn. Balance grasshopper.
-Grim
Not going to get much argument out of me on that LOL! Except that no decent person/army (fiction or not) will idly stand there and be like "Guhh they're coming right for us!!!" and do nothing. Hence Overwatch.
Here's a cool idea: Why not allow the charging unit to fire overwatch back. After all, most of them have guns, so why wouldn't they be shooting into the crowd they intend to chop up?? Make those snap shots as well and that might bring some balance back.right?
I think it is a good idea that makes sense. If you are charging why would you not shoot while doing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: You can't play the objectives when you are tabled.
That is the point none of the top players are getting tabled in one or two turns or loosing to it. The games are going 5 rounds and objectives determine the winner. If the most competitively built list are not losing to being tabled then that is not a problem in the game.
The lists at tournaments are not being tabled because they have 2+ rerollable saves and are units that on turn 5 can split up and move around to claim any objective in movement range. They stay together all game being unkillable and dish out damage in return while waiting for the final turn to claim everything. Meanwhile in most games the volume of fire put out by tau and eldar are tabling most other armies.
I get why overwatch is there. Makes sense to me. If I see a bunch of pissed off, raving, blood drunk killy things charging me, I intend to shoot at them.
If I see a bunch of pansy lily-livered shooty things about to shoot me, I intend to assault them.
If you can pre-emptively shoot me on MY turn, I should be able to pre-emptively assault YOU on your turn. Balance grasshopper.
-Grim
Not going to get much argument out of me on that LOL! Except that no decent person/army (fiction or not) will idly stand there and be like "Guhh they're coming right for us!!!" and do nothing. Hence Overwatch.
Here's a cool idea: Why not allow the charging unit to fire overwatch back. After all, most of them have guns, so why wouldn't they be shooting into the crowd they intend to chop up?? Make those snap shots as well and that might bring some balance back.right?
I think it is a good idea that makes sense. If you are charging why would you not shoot while doing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: You can't play the objectives when you are tabled.
That is the point none of the top players are getting tabled in one or two turns or loosing to it. The games are going 5 rounds and objectives determine the winner. If the most competitively built list are not losing to being tabled then that is not a problem in the game.
I wouldn't want to shoot if I'm trying to assault a unit. It might cause wounds that may make my charge fail.
FirePainter wrote: The lists at tournaments are not being tabled because they have 2+ rerollable saves and are units that on turn 5 can split up and move around to claim any objective in movement range. They stay together all game being unkillable and dish out damage in return while waiting for the final turn to claim everything. Meanwhile in most games the volume of fire put out by tau and eldar are tabling most other armies.
I have to say I dislike the idea of objectives being so important in a wargame. Sure, occasionally your goal should be to get a unit somewhere and do something.
But the idea of being at a certain point and then hoping the game ends or doesn't end is a little silly. Small fast scoring units that hide all game and pop out at the end to grab things isn't exactly what I see when I watch war movies.
I'm not alone in this...
"Find the enemy and shoot him down. Anything else is nonsense" - Captain Manfred von Richthofen
"In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it." - Field Marshal Erwin Rommel
"The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on." - U. S. Grant
You don't hear those guys talking about making sure scoring units are within 3" of a marker.
I agree Redbeard. I think that objectives would be more meaningful and strategic if you had to be claiming them for more than just at the end of the turn. If you had to hold an objective for multiple turns to get the VP then you would have to commit resources to actually holding it.
A real objective is not just quick grab the flag we got this. It's we will hold this hill/bunker/comm relay until the battle ends.
I don't really understand the need to say the game goes 6 turns. (or 5, or 7, or a random number).
Chess doesn't end after 10 turns each, and it's a much more successful game. Why not just keep playing until one side is tabled or concedes defeat (waves the white flag). If you want to fight until the last man, go for it. If you accept that you can't win, surrender the field and come back another day.
In fact, if you did it this way, you could avoid the whole "must have models on the table at the end of the turn" nonsense too. If you want to reserve your whole army, fine, you give your opponent a free turn's worth of maneuvering.
I think better defined terain guidelines could help, people say assault is weak but I can't say whether they play on realms of battle with 2 trees and a bunker or proper maps. Even in 6th when adding terrain there is a point where my assault nids start to be really scary and require a solid battle plan from my enemy to stand a chance. Also I wonder if maybe the intended way to make outlanking units viable was alternating terrain method so you can put some terrain on sides and at least not get shot on arrival.
Anyway some declaration that the standard table is 3 average ruins, 2 hills 2 forests etc would imo help. With ignores cover everywhere now it should be more big LoS blocking pieces or sth.
Also I agree with holding objectives being +1VP for each turn or sth.
Overwatch should be imo 2nd edition esque ability to shoot in opponents turn instead of yours but -2BS or sth, so it wouldn't end as ultimate move.
Love the idea for overrun in 40k. Just today I cried because killed entire unit of terminators, 2 times in a row. I begged for the last one to survive each time.
FirePainter wrote: I agree Redbeard. I think that objectives would be more meaningful and strategic if you had to be claiming them for more than just at the end of the turn. If you had to hold an objective for multiple turns to get the VP then you would have to commit resources to actually holding it.
A real objective is not just quick grab the flag we got this. It's we will hold this hill/bunker/comm relay until the battle ends.
Which really undermines the feel of fast raiding strike forces, getting in to plant a charge and getting out or similar things.
Chess doesn't end after 10 turns each, and it's a much more successful game. Why not just keep playing until one side is tabled or concedes defeat (waves the white flag). If you want to fight until the last man, go for it. If you accept that you can't win, surrender the field and come back another day.
because armies that can't spawn new troops or don't have tough troops or don't have 2++ scoring deathstars would have problems with having scoring units . Most of my wins come from clearing troops and contesting units from more objectives then my opponent has and hoping he didn't get line breaker and first blood on top of slay the warlord people always get vs guard.
There's a place for that. It's in skirmish games, kill-team style games, and the like.
You don't array your biggest tanks and warmachines and monsters to provide a diversion for the guys setting the charge ten feet away from them.
And, in fact, I could even see that approach in a bigger game - except why do both sides want to blow up the same point, and if they do, why are they trying to stop the other side? Seems indicative that one side actually wants to protect it, which you don't do with a fast raiding force...
Objectives are one of the Tools of Wargamers.
You have two was of them being use.
>Just placed on the table to for your opponent to move to capture them for your advantage,
>Placed with some logical sense, The Building were you have been using as your HQ, the crucial Bridge that is the only one that can handle your Tanks or that vital Ammo/Fuel Depot.
Without objective both armies would just hammer each other, the only maneuvering it to gain and advantage.
Objectives force both Armies to think.
I think it is a good idea that makes sense. If you are charging why would you not shoot while doing it.
You just had a shooting phase! Like 2 seconds prior!
One of the things on this note that I'd like to see is models that can give up their normal attacks in melee to make 1 in-combat shooting attack with a pistol, not any other weapon type. If you miss, it's likely because your point-blank target slapped your hand out of the way as you pulled the trigger Equilibrium style.
That is the point none of the top players are getting tabled in one or two turns or loosing to it. The games are going 5 rounds and objectives determine the winner. If the most competitively built list are not losing to being tabled then that is not a problem in the game.
The most competitive lists in the game being able to survive does not balance make, good sir. And as has been pointed out, they use some rather dubious trickery to achieve that, such as having artificial luck so great that they only get wounded 1/36 otherwise successful shots.
I have to say I dislike the idea of objectives being so important in a wargame. Sure, occasionally your goal should be to get a unit somewhere and do something.
But the idea of being at a certain point and then hoping the game ends or doesn't end is a little silly. Small fast scoring units that hide all game and pop out at the end to grab things isn't exactly what I see when I watch war movies.
The game would be a lot more boring without objectives. No one would ever bring more than the compulsory troops slots. And barrage weapons would be crazy awesome, since your entire goal is to kill enemies, and they can do it from behind LOS blocking terrain. Well, until you played the guy who brings cheap hq, two troops, and flyers everywhere.
Anytime we roll up purge the alien, we roll up a 2nd mission to go along with it, just to give us something else to do on the map. Shooting armies need a reason to leave their deployment zone.
As for the random time limit, I think it's assumed that your mission is on a time table, and if you don't complete it, bad things will happen. EG capture that skyfire nexus before our birds have to fly over that zone. Not getting it results in difficulties, and likely deaths, elsewhere in the war. As for sabotaged objectives....uh...you got me...I guess they can be valuable once someone has had a chance to remove the perpetually exploding devices?
I do agree that the "only matters at the end of the game" design is sort of flawed sometimes. I really wish that the coming edition (OMG ON TOPIC) has missions more like 3rd edition. Actual MISSIONS, with an attacker and defender, and asymmetrical goals. Such as: "attacker has to cross the board, defender has to keep the enemy out of his deployment zone," or ambush, where the attacker got to walk on anywhere but behind the defender, and the defender just needed to book it out of there.
I still crack open that book to play those missions in 6th.
Anpu42 wrote:Objectives are one of the Tools of Wargamers.
Without objective both armies would just hammer each other, the only maneuvering it to gain and advantage.
You mean like real armies?
Objectives force both Armies to think.
Yes, because "hold my unit of 3 jetbikes in reserve, using psychic powers to keep them off the table until turn 4, and then rocketing to where the objective was placed" required so much thought.
Oddly enough, destroying the other guy's army can also require thought, you don't need a half-dozen random points marked on the table to achieve that goal. I'm not saying they're always bad, or that they shouldn't exist in some form, but the way objectives work, and are treated, in 6th ed 40k is pretty sad.
Regarding assault, imo people who want it to be out of 40k or marginal not only don't understand the fluff part of 40k and most importantly its mood but also advocate dumbing down of the game. The game is more tactical when you have both assault and shooting as viable tactics, just look at napoleonics. Not to mention even if it was hard sf and not science fantasy, it still wouldn't be obvious that shooting should rule the battlefields, you can make up 100 technologies that improve defense vs bullets to the point where hand to hand combat is common.
As for fluff, it would be half ruined without blood soaked chainswords to the bowels everywhere. You want shooting only game, go somewhere else.
Napoleon did not need to contend with a chain-gun that shoots lasers. Napoleonic tactics also got a million Americans killed when armies that used Napoleonic tactics failed to account for rifles. Napoleonic tactics in 40K would also require those armies using such tactics to mount their units in small trays, so that every model maintains coherency by being in a rectangular block X models wide and at least 2 models deep...
... Napoleon also did not have to contend with indirect artillery fire on the scale that warfare in the 41st millennium presents it. Napoleonic tactics is a good way to get a whole lot of people killed very dead, very quickly.
Psienesis wrote: Napoleon did not need to contend with a chain-gun that shoots lasers. Napoleonic tactics also got a million Americans killed when armies that used Napoleonic tactics failed to account for rifles. Napoleonic tactics in 40K would also require those armies using such tactics to mount their units in small trays, so that every model maintains coherency by being in a rectangular block X models wide and at least 2 models deep...
... Napoleon also did not have to contend with indirect artillery fire on the scale that warfare in the 41st millennium presents it. Napoleonic tactics is a good way to get a whole lot of people killed very dead, very quickly.
I'm not sure which post you are answering, because it rather isn't mine - I was just pointing out that games that have both assault and shooting viable are the most tactical, like napoleonics for example. It was not about comparisions between 40k and Napoleon, using napoleonic tactics in 40k and whatnot. Also I really don't know what was the purpose and meaning of that remark about million Americans killed.
Because while assault is kind of a theme in 40K, 40K is also a game of sci-fi armies, and if you want to charge a bunch of guys with missile-shooting machine-guns with a bunch of guys with sticks (don't want to charge a machine-gun without that! to quote Black Adder) or with swords... expect to lose a *lot* of guys with sticks and swords to machine-gun fire. It's why automatic weapons exist.
While Assault needs a bit of a buff, it should not be considered the first and primary tactic against a line of automatic weapons in a defensive position, unless you can somehow negate the advantage the defensive position of the gunline has (smoke, darkness, pods, armored transport, etc.)... in fact, if you're facing a gunline, assault should be considered the least-viable tactic to dealing with it, unless you can Chenkov (or Orky) your way to the line and come to blows with the machine-gun-wielders.
Psienesis wrote: Because while assault is kind of a theme in 40K, 40K is also a game of sci-fi armies, and if you want to charge a bunch of guys with missile-shooting machine-guns with a bunch of guys with sticks (don't want to charge a machine-gun without that! to quote Black Adder) or with swords... expect to lose a *lot* of guys with sticks and swords to machine-gun fire. It's why automatic weapons exist.
While Assault needs a bit of a buff, it should not be considered the first and primary tactic against a line of automatic weapons in a defensive position, unless you can somehow negate the advantage the defensive position of the gunline has (smoke, darkness, pods, armored transport, etc.)... in fact, if you're facing a gunline, assault should be considered the least-viable tactic to dealing with it, unless you can Chenkov (or Orky) your way to the line and come to blows with the machine-gun-wielders.
Or if your armour is of sufficient quality to simply deflect the machine gun bullets...
Yep, that would be the "armored transport" option I mentioned, too.
So if you've got metal bawkses (and, granted, metal bawkses need some help, too... vehicles are too fragile against small arms in the current edition) and can load your troops into said metal bawkses, feel free to drive up the field... and pray the gunline doesn't have lascannons or missile launchers or other anti-vehicle weapons.
6E is pretty different, but good. I like the CORE (codex +main rule book) a lot. There's a wish list I had but nothing that's a deal breaker to me.
I think that the unintended consequences of certain combos were the issue. I think if a 7th edition addresses the actual CONSEQUENCES of some combos, it would be fine.
For example take the most annoying rules lawyers (they are on DakkaDakka, so it will be easy to find) and then have them explain in depth the F'd up combos they came up with. Then GW takes that, decides which OUTCOMES are just terrible for the game and fix the potential outcomes.
Overwatch for example isn't really the issue it was painted to be. in Flames of War, overwatch is at FULL Ballistic skill. 6th Ed's version is nothing in comparison. So maybe just have a RELOAD rule that says you maybe are reduced to ROF 1 next turn?
2++ saves are obviously an issue. Was it an intended consequence they saw th impact of? Would limiting RE-rolls of ANY kind to a 3 or higher make it a little better without stealing the ability to try to do it ?
Battle Brothers: make battle Brothers mean something different, so the codex's wont be jacked. They did it with Acute Senses and they could do it with the definition of Battle Brothers. Battle Brothers may have been a very bad decision in its current form.
AND F*** the SUPER HEAVY BS in normal games. It's dumber than dumb to inflict that into normal games that are essentially company sized skirmishes.
they will put a DAGGER into the HEART of the game if they proceed with that nonsense outside of supplements. Supplements are there any time two people agree to play them. Outside of that... gimme a break.
Psienesis wrote: Yep, that would be the "armored transport" option I mentioned, too.
So if you've got metal bawkses (and, granted, metal bawkses need some help, too... vehicles are too fragile against small arms in the current edition) and can load your troops into said metal bawkses, feel free to drive up the field... and pray the gunline doesn't have lascannons or missile launchers or other anti-vehicle weapons.
If I can assault from the metal bawkses at some point I'm fine with that. It beats giving you a free round of shooting at me after I've disembarked and am, for some reason standing around, pecker in hand doing nothing with chainsword/powerklaw that I paid extra for like a mental invalid.
Let me elaborate, I'm fine with hoping 4 or 5 LC shots either miss or do minor damage as opposed to having to take 40+ armor saves because my troops are idiots and can't assault the shooty guys the turn they leave their metal bawkses and I for some reason can't run far enough to get behind LoS blocking terrain.
Psienesis wrote: Yep, that would be the "armored transport" option I mentioned, too.
So if you've got metal bawkses (and, granted, metal bawkses need some help, too... vehicles are too fragile against small arms in the current edition) and can load your troops into said metal bawkses, feel free to drive up the field... and pray the gunline doesn't have lascannons or missile launchers or other anti-vehicle weapons.
So personal armour the equivalent in protection to an armoured transport should not exist in this sci-fantasy setting 39000 years in the future?
Psienesis wrote: Yep, that would be the "armored transport" option I mentioned, too.
So if you've got metal bawkses (and, granted, metal bawkses need some help, too... vehicles are too fragile against small arms in the current edition) and can load your troops into said metal bawkses, feel free to drive up the field... and pray the gunline doesn't have lascannons or missile launchers or other anti-vehicle weapons.
So personal armour the equivalent in protection to an armoured transport should not exist in this sci-fantasy setting 39000 years in the future?
Even when it's explicitly stated to be the case, the answer's appearently "no"...
(as a 
i would buy this books for sure
)
