Because its essentially free shooting and yet every ranged unit did not have its points cost increased to reflect this. A flamer which can do d3 instant hits when charged is a lot better than it was before. In comparison nothing was done to give the charging player any kind of compensating advantage. This really hurts armies like DE and tyranids. Just had one game today where Lelith got overwatched by a plasma pistol (her squad and transport had been killed by a helldrake). A 150pt model killed because of some quirky rule in the core rulebook that didn't exist two editions ago gives free shooting to everything.

This is yet another problem that is solved by remembering that this is a scifi game and guns are inherently superior to swords. Just be glad that 40k's scale is such a mess that melee is even possible, if you demand a rebalance of shooting vs. assault GW might fix that problem.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is yet another problem that is solved by remembering that this is a scifi game and guns are inherently superior to swords. Just be glad that 40k's scale is such a mess that melee is even possible, if you demand a rebalance of shooting vs. assault GW might fix that problem.

The lore also says that regular dark elder can dodge bullets and kick grenades back at people. Let alone lelith. So I fail to see your point.

You also clearly never played 3rd, 4th or 5th edition. Nor have you ever read any black library novel or piece of lore in any of the codexes where CC is the major deciding factor of almost every battle unless you are Imperial Guard or Tau.

I like the over watch rule hitting on a 6 don't like any less than that being a it much. But adds a nice element and I am usual the one assulting. Flamers are a pain I do agree with that still think if OnE dies on a role of a 3+ it explodes with 3inch blast s3 ap- that would be fun

Well, the default charge range has the potential of going upto 12" now, and charging units get to lob a small blast grenade and disembark 4 more inches from vehicle exits compared to 5th and...humm...I'm out of ideas.

Callings it free shooting is slightly disingenuous, it's extremely unreliable, rarely does anything, and benefits armies inconsistently. Not enough was done to actually fully develop the idea, but it doesn't break the game in the slightest as an idea.

For instance, Space Marines have godawful overwatch. Their volume of fire is low, there's no benefit from their higher BS, and their access to flamers is quite poor, whereas Tau via markerlights have amazing overwatch, hitting people on 2s, and everything around the target gets to overwatch.

Overwatch was added as with vehicles being made more fragile, units would be more vulnerable to assault; GW predicted a rise in the prevalence of assault, and then also removed assault out of outflank, assault out of transport and assault out of deep-strike for certain units.

The combination of all of those weakens assault, but overwatch is not the straw that broke the camel's back. It's probably the least significant out of all of those. I often charge people with Guardsmen, and once in a while, I'll lose one guardsmen, and once I had a scout sniper kill a Wolf Lord in overwatch; one of these is far more likely than the other.

I agree with the idea of overwatch (and removing assault out of outflank), but the execution was bad. Applying a -2 to BS, and if BS were dropped to 0, the unit can not fire, and flamers can overwatch only if they don't fire in the shooting phase. So spamming BS2 units for overwatch blockers like Conscripts and Shoota Boyz wouldn't be more effective than a super-elite unit, and flamers would actually have to make a choice, rather than being, arguably, the best special weapon in the game.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Well, the default charge range has the potential of going upto 12" now, and charging units get to lob a small blast grenade and disembark 4 more inches from vehicle exits compared to 5th and...humm...I'm out of ideas.

I'd rather charge 6 and not get shot at all.

Why would I risk blowing myself up?

On average with two dice you will get 6 or seven so this really wasn't improved.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is yet another problem that is solved by remembering that this is a scifi game and guns are inherently superior to swords. Just be glad that 40k's scale is such a mess that melee is even possible, if you demand a rebalance of shooting vs. assault GW might fix that problem.

40k isn't really a science fiction game. Look at something like Dropzone Commander for that - there are barely even rules for close combat because it's almost irrelevant. 40k is science fantasy, where people habitually carry swords and the backstory portrays them somehow being used frequently. A big part of my frustration with 40k was the disconnect between the fluff (and the large number of fluffy close combat options so many armies have) and the complete ineffectiveness of those options on the tabletop. Or at least the lack of ability to get those units into close combat where they belong when pitted against a competent opponent with a decent list. There are only a few ways I think 40k's rules could stand to be more "realistic", and zero of them have to do with further neutering close combat.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
Callings it free shooting is slightly disingenuous, it's extremely unreliable, rarely does anything, and benefits armies inconsistently. Not enough was done to actually fully develop the idea, but it doesn't break the game in the slightest as an idea.

For instance, Space Marines have godawful overwatch. Their volume of fire is low, there's no benefit from their higher BS, and their access to flamers is quite poor, whereas Tau via markerlights have amazing overwatch, hitting people on 2s, and everything around the target gets to overwatch.

Overwatch was added as with vehicles being made more fragile, units would be more vulnerable to assault; GW predicted a rise in the prevalence of assault, and then also removed assault out of outflank, assault out of transport and assault out of deep-strike for certain units.

The combination of all of those weakens assault, but overwatch is not the straw that broke the camel's back. It's probably the least significant out of all of those. I often charge people with Guardsmen, and once in a while, I'll lose one guardsmen, and once I had a scout sniper kill a Wolf Lord in overwatch; one of these is far more likely than the other.

I agree with the idea of overwatch (and removing assault out of outflank), but the execution was bad. Applying a -2 to BS, and if BS were dropped to 0, the unit can not fire, and flamers can overwatch only if they don't fire in the shooting phase. So spamming BS2 units for overwatch blockers like Conscripts and Shoota Boyz wouldn't be more effective than a super-elite unit, and flamers would actually have to make a choice, rather than being, arguably, the best special weapon in the game.

My experience is that overwatch can reliably kill a third of a squad. This really hurts wyches where the simple act of getting intact units to the enemy lines is enough of a herculean challenge without scumbag helldrakes and massed shooting wiping you out. So to have, say, 10 wyches charge a squad of chaos marines, a hugely risky proposition anyway I'll just pint out and then have one flamer kill three of them and another 2 to lucky bolt rounds really kills the units effectiveness. Plus, people obviously start taking more flamers if their effectiveness gets better.

The fact wyches don't get their inv save on overwatch is just stupid. They can dodge a bolt pistol to the face but can't dodge one fired a few metres away...

The slowing of the game is a bigger problem IMO. Flamers aren't so bad in regular squads. One flamer doing d3 hits is okay, but units with multiple flamers is a real pain. Charging Wraithguard with 5 Flamers is a real problem.

Then, to be quite frank, you're remarkably unlucky.

Statistically, a squad of CSM with a flamer will hit 3 times with a boltgun, and once or twice with a flamer, between those doing 2 wounds.

Assuming the squad is naked, they cost slightly less than 50% more than your unit, assuming both are ten, and it stands to reason they should be able to do some damage a unit of unarmoured eldar charging them. The difference between 10 and 8 wyches is not significant, especially as ten of them won't beat 10 Chaos Marines even if they don't get to overwatch.

And while I wish the game followed the fluff more closely, and then yes, Eldar units would get a chance to avoid shots and whatnot, but then said Marine would also have multiple wounds, FNP, and boltguns'd be St 6 Ap4 Assault 4 or something like that; don't make the mistake of thinking the game is broken for not following the fluff and that an extremely fragile, mediocre assault unit is going to take a loss or two charging high-end generalist infantry.

Last game I played, I lost 4 Honour Guard, 2+ armour veterans representing the seniormost marines in the chapter to Termagants overwatching, and I correctly attributed that to good rolls on his part and bad on mine, and I still slaughtered the unit handidly, and three others, as the matchup was strongly in my favour overwatch or no, and never once thought that the mechanic was broken; lazy and underdeveloped, yes, ruining assault armies? hardly.

I wrote thos a while back in a discussion as to whether assault had been nerfed in 6th and as to whether it was as strong as shooting... At the time we were talking about all the editions so some of these changes occured in 5th.

1.. A shooty opponent generally gets to reduce a percentage of an assaulty opponents army without suffering much in return. By turn 3 when most assaults can occur, this disadvantage in percentages has become huge. 
2. Overwatch. 
3. Removing models from the front. 
4. Can only disembark if a vehicle has moved 6" or less. 
5. Cannot assault from vehicles unless open topped or assault catagory. 
6. Opentopped vehicles tend to be made of wet paper. 
7. Assault vehicles tend to cost more than the unit they are transporting. 
8. Random charge distances. 
9. Jump shoot jump. 
10. Extremely cheap high strength high rate of fire weapons avaliable. 
11. Excessive amount of ignores cover weapons. 
12. Focus fire. 
13. Disorganised charges. 
14. Unable to sweep into another combat. 
15. Unable to charge from outflank. 
16. Unable to charge from infiltrate on turn 1. 
17. Unable to assault from reserve unless given a specific rule (only BA VV that I can think of) 
18. Gunline army abilities to mass overwatch (IG platoons/tau supporting fire) 
19. Huge amount of armies with access to prescience for rerolls to hit. 
20. Assault units tend to be overcosted for what they achieve. 
21. Shooting units can attack from turn 1 until turn 7. Assault units tend to be 2 or 3 turns max at efficiency (if they make it). 
22. Shooting does not suffer return shots in own phase, assault does.
23. Shooty units can stay in cover. Assault units cannot.
24. Objectives - shooty units are usually at an advantage when holding an objective. Assault units are being wasted.
25. Can measure shooting distances.
26. Counter assault USR.

So as you can see - overwatch was not the issue that was broken but instead a combination of many changes and things that were already in play.

That being said, maelstrom missions have brought a move away from gunlines to a small extent which of course helps assault a teeny weeny little bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The two advantages assault has of course is that you cannot be shot at when engaged in assault and you can sweep entire units (that are not fearless or have atsknf).

 docdoom77 wrote:
The slowing of the game is a bigger problem IMO. Flamers aren't so bad in regular squads. One flamer doing d3 hits is okay, but units with multiple flamers is a real pain. Charging Wraithguard with 5 Flamers is a real problem.

Rolling up 100 dice to overwatch with conscripts is the worst. Especially when the odds of killing the thing charging them is like 2%.

 TheSilo wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
The slowing of the game is a bigger problem IMO. Flamers aren't so bad in regular squads. One flamer doing d3 hits is okay, but units with multiple flamers is a real pain. Charging Wraithguard with 5 Flamers is a real problem.

Rolling up 100 dice to overwatch with conscripts is the worst. Especially when the odds of killing the thing charging them is like 2%.

It's funny because maxing out on conscripts led by a fearless character (who is waay at the back) is an awesome way to roll up a flank


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Personally I think the way overwatch can be fixed is if the same ruled are applied to it as are applied to who can land blows in cc (i.e. models upto 2" away from the frontline).

That way it prevents overwatch shenanigans from huge blobs since it is realistically impossible for that many guys to shoot without shooting through their own guys.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
Then, to be quite frank, you're remarkably unlucky.

Statistically, a squad of CSM with a flamer will hit 3 times with a boltgun, and once or twice with a flamer, between those doing 2 wounds.

Assuming the squad is naked, they cost slightly less than 50% more than your unit, assuming both are ten, and it stands to reason they should be able to do some damage a unit of unarmoured eldar charging them. The difference between 10 and 8 wyches is not significant, especially as ten of them won't beat 10 Chaos Marines even if they don't get to overwatch.

And while I wish the game followed the fluff more closely, and then yes, Eldar units would get a chance to avoid shots and whatnot, but then said Marine would also have multiple wounds, FNP, and boltguns'd be St 6 Ap4 Assault 4 or something like that; don't make the mistake of thinking the game is broken for not following the fluff and that an extremely fragile, mediocre assault unit is going to take a loss or two charging high-end generalist infantry.

Last game I played, I lost 4 Honour Guard, 2+ armour veterans representing the seniormost marines in the chapter to Termagants overwatching, and I correctly attributed that to good rolls on his part and bad on mine, and I still slaughtered the unit handidly, and three others, as the matchup was strongly in my favour overwatch or no, and never once thought that the mechanic was broken; lazy and underdeveloped, yes, ruining assault armies? hardly.

No, they should be able to kill them in close combat for the exact same reason genestealers (who lorewise are a hoard/swarm unit that should be worse, not better than wyches) should be able to butcher tactical marines. You are paying for a unit that is incredibly fragile against shooting but should be really strong assault. Its called a GLASS. HAMMER. It is utterly pointless paying points for units that at full strength and having taken no losses to enemy shooting (near miraculous in this edition BTW) should just bounce off whatever they charge. Because seriously tactical marines with bolters are garbage and little better than cannon fodder. Any CC unit that cannot kill a unit of tac marines in CC is not worthy of the title.

2 Assault phases. I shooting phase. Assault units attack in both. Shooting units get one proper phase and hit on a six in the other. .

yeah, I'm not buying it.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
Well, the default charge range has the potential of going upto 12" now, and charging units get to lob a small blast grenade and disembark 4 more inches from vehicle exits compared to 5th and...humm...I'm out of ideas.

I'd rather charge 6 and not get shot at all.

Why would I risk blowing myself up?

On average with two dice you will get 6 or seven so this really wasn't improved.

You're far more likely to roll greater than 6" than you are to get more than 1 or 2 hits with Overwatch, so if you don't consider the extra assault range much of an improvement I don't understand why Overwatch is a problem as that is far less likely to have an effect.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
Well, the default charge range has the potential of going upto 12" now, and charging units get to lob a small blast grenade and disembark 4 more inches from vehicle exits compared to 5th and...humm...I'm out of ideas.

I'd rather charge 6 and not get shot at all.

Why would I risk blowing myself up?

On average with two dice you will get 6 or seven so this really wasn't improved.

You're far more likely to roll greater than 6" than you are to get more than 1 or 2 hits with Overwatch, so if you don't consider the extra assault range much of an improvement I don't understand why Overwatch is a problem as that is far less likely to have an effect.

5 hits. Flamers in every squad. Wyches have no armor and toughness 3. This=big problem.

Wait till they introduce Claymore Anti Personnel mines into the game

 Jihadin wrote:
Wait till they introduce Claymore Anti Personnel mines into the game

IG vets have snare mines, others have defensive grenades.

Easy fix, get rid of overwatch, keep wall of death. The game was fine before it.

Maybe don't charge a Unit that is exactly equipped to fight and repel CC units then?

Well yeah, if you have an incredibly specific situation like that, bad things can happen. This doesn't change the fact that 99% of the time Overwatch barely does anything. Anecdotal evidence doesn't carry a lot of weight on Dakka.

 GoonBandito wrote:
Maybe don't charge a Unit that is exactly equipped to fight and repel CC units then?

Its was a chaos marine squad, this is hardly charging terminators. In fact it was the only chaos marine squad in his army.


Believe me. If I had a codex that let me take 2 troop choices and let me spam all my points on elite units I would do that. As it is DE have no powerful CC units outside of incubi and HQ choices meaning you are pushed into using them as a shooting army.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 GoonBandito wrote:
Maybe don't charge a Unit that is exactly equipped to fight and repel CC units then?

Its was a chaos marine squad, this is hardly charging terminators. In fact it was the only chaos marine squad in his army.


Believe me. If I had a codex that let me take 2 troop choices and let me spam all my points on elite units I would do that. As it is DE have no powerful CC units outside of incubi and HQ choices meaning you are pushed into using them as a shooting army.

Are you really complaining that army structure in 7th isn't FLEXIBLE enough?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 GoonBandito wrote:
Maybe don't charge a Unit that is exactly equipped to fight and repel CC units then?

Its was a chaos marine squad, this is hardly charging terminators. In fact it was the only chaos marine squad in his army.


Believe me. If I had a codex that let me take 2 troop choices and let me spam all my points on elite units I would do that. As it is DE have no powerful CC units outside of incubi and HQ choices meaning you are pushed into using them as a shooting army.

Are you really complaining that army structure in 7th isn't FLEXIBLE enough?

I am not allying my army. If I want to put grey knights in my army for CC then I would just play grey knights not combine two armies. I want to be able to play DE as a CC wych army. However doing that is impossible with the ruleset which has decided to make them a crappy troops choice that they expect you to spam in order to kill mediocre units like tactical marines.

I am complaining that in order to field what is sold quite forcefully in the codex itself as a viable army build is not possible because incubi are the only good CC unit in the codex and wyches are just aweful. Rather than add an elites option that has rending and better inv saves. I don't want crappy juves on combat drugs with knives; which all these "elite shock troops" are.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:
Then, to be quite frank, you're remarkably unlucky.

Statistically, a squad of CSM with a flamer will hit 3 times with a boltgun, and once or twice with a flamer, between those doing 2 wounds.

Assuming the squad is naked, they cost slightly less than 50% more than your unit, assuming both are ten, and it stands to reason they should be able to do some damage a unit of unarmoured eldar charging them. The difference between 10 and 8 wyches is not significant, especially as ten of them won't beat 10 Chaos Marines even if they don't get to overwatch.

And while I wish the game followed the fluff more closely, and then yes, Eldar units would get a chance to avoid shots and whatnot, but then said Marine would also have multiple wounds, FNP, and boltguns'd be St 6 Ap4 Assault 4 or something like that; don't make the mistake of thinking the game is broken for not following the fluff and that an extremely fragile, mediocre assault unit is going to take a loss or two charging high-end generalist infantry.

Last game I played, I lost 4 Honour Guard, 2+ armour veterans representing the seniormost marines in the chapter to Termagants overwatching, and I correctly attributed that to good rolls on his part and bad on mine, and I still slaughtered the unit handidly, and three others, as the matchup was strongly in my favour overwatch or no, and never once thought that the mechanic was broken; lazy and underdeveloped, yes, ruining assault armies? hardly.

No, they should be able to kill them in close combat for the exact same reason genestealers (who lorewise are a hoard/swarm unit that should be worse, not better than wyches) should be able to butcher tactical marines. You are paying for a unit that is incredibly fragile against shooting but should be really strong assault. Its called a GLASS. HAMMER. It is utterly pointless paying points for units that at full strength and having taken no losses to enemy shooting (near miraculous in this edition BTW) should just bounce off whatever they charge. Because seriously tactical marines with bolters are garbage and little better than cannon fodder. Any CC unit that cannot kill a unit of tac marines in CC is not worthy of the title.

So you feel that a 10 point per model unit should easily overpower a 13 point per model unit based on what? You do realize that tactical marines are technically veteran marines who have done time in both devastator and assault squads. Why would an unarmoured, acrobatic gladiator be able the steamroll a stronger, extremely well armoured and equipped elite soldier?

Losing a special character to a lone plasma pistol to overwatch is a rare occurrence. Overwatch is unreliable in general and hardly breaks the game. Most of the time you're losing 1 or 2 models.

Honestly, I think overwatch should be revamped. Like you can have a unit forgo it's shooting to gain access to full BS overwatch because as it stands now it's a very unreliable way of defending against assaulting unit.

I think what ruins assault is a cocktail of rules changes that happened between 5th and 6th. Removal of by unit cover, reducing the ability of units to assault out from a rapid deployment and the proliferation of ignores cover weaponry. The shift from vehicles to infantry couldn't have helped much as people started to get more anti-infantry crap too (I believe).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So you feel that a 10 point per model unit should easily overpower a 13 point per model unit based on what? You do realize that tactical marines are technically veteran marines who have done time in both devastator and assault squads. Why would an unarmoured, acrobatic gladiator be able the steamroll a stronger, extremely well armoured and equipped elite soldier?

Dark Eldar are depicted as being lethal combatants in close quarters. I don't know if their ability to butcher marines is canon or not but it's certainly an idea prevalent in the 40k community.

Keep overwatch, allow consolidation into a new unit (who can overwatch as well), allow assault out of a stationary vehicle. Start there, see how it goes.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

The lore also says that regular dark elder can dodge bullets and kick grenades back at people. Let alone lelith.

Obviously, this time she couldn't.

I think it would be nice if Overwatch was a bit more tactical. e.g. if you could chose to go on overwatch instead of shooting, but got to resolve it at full BS.

If nothing else, I think 40k could benefit from more in-game options.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is yet another problem that is solved by remembering that this is a scifi game and guns are inherently superior to swords.

So why can't you shoot them in combat? Or into combat?

Instead, if some Tau Fire Warriors get assaulted by a Daemon Prince, they think the best thing to do is run towards it and attempt to hit it with their rifle butts.

I think the problem here lays in Wyches.

Wyches, guys? They're not soldiers. They don't belong on the battlefield. They belong in an arena, fighting against other wyches. That's where they show their awesome.

Charging a decent battle line of riflemen? Well, duh, of course they get destroyed.

The way to fix Wyches? Give them access to a Rending weapon upgrade or something.

 vipoid wrote:
I think it would be nice if Overwatch was a bit more tactical. e.g. if you could chose to go on overwatch instead of shooting, but got to resolve it at full BS.

If nothing else, I think 40k could benefit from more in-game options.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is yet another problem that is solved by remembering that this is a scifi game and guns are inherently superior to swords.

So why can't you shoot them in combat? Or into combat?

Instead, if some Tau Fire Warriors get assaulted by a Daemon Prince, they think the best thing to do is run towards it and attempt to hit it with their rifle butts.

Shooting into a combat at a MC or walker should be an option, though that's another issue entirely.

 TheSilo wrote:

Shooting into a combat at a MC or walker should be an option, though that's another issue entirely.

Even when my infantry are engaged with enemy infantry, I still don't see why I can't shoot into combat.

I mean, the claim that commanders won't risk hitting their own men runs a bit thin, when there's a game mechanic that lets IG Commissars diligently shoot their own squad at point-blank range.

There's a difference between needlessly wasting your own troops versus giving them a little 'motivation'

Charging into the kill-zone of a machine-gun nest is rarely a good idea, and rarely something a soldier gets to do twice.

 TheSilo wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think it would be nice if Overwatch was a bit more tactical. e.g. if you could chose to go on overwatch instead of shooting, but got to resolve it at full BS.

If nothing else, I think 40k could benefit from more in-game options.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is yet another problem that is solved by remembering that this is a scifi game and guns are inherently superior to swords.

So why can't you shoot them in combat? Or into combat?

Instead, if some Tau Fire Warriors get assaulted by a Daemon Prince, they think the best thing to do is run towards it and attempt to hit it with their rifle butts.

Shooting into a combat at a MC or walker should be an option, though that's another issue entirely.

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"

 Ghaz wrote:
There's a difference between needlessly wasting your own troops versus giving them a little 'motivation'

But, again, I don't see how shooting into a melee is 'needlessly wasting' troops. Especially since you're only going to do it if you're losing badly - in which case those troops are dead anyway.

Worst case scenario - you kill your own men, instead of your opponent killing them.
Best case scenario - you kill the enemies, saving those otherwise-doomed soldiers in the process.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"

I hope you don't mind me sigging this.

Not at all, it was what I was thinking at a recent tournie...

I find that restriction even funnier in Fantasy where you have blocks of men engaging one another; what do you mean I can't fire a volley of muskets into the flank or rear of an engaged enemy?

It is one of those things in 40k which exists to artificially make close combat more viable, whereas not being able to charge out of a transport is one of those which exist to artificially make it worse....

In Bolt Action, which uses a ruleset very clearly developed from 40k (shocking, given Alessio Calvatore and Rick Priestly wrote it...), assault isn't a core feature, but it's reasonably well done (and as I play Japan, it's something I actually do quite often). You charge by making a double move into the enemy unit, if the enemy unit has not shot yet (as this game works on activations, like everything that isn't Warhammer), it may choose to fire overwatch and gets +1 to hit, representing that you're shooting the enemy at point blank range and are ready for them. Additionally, you can set other units to "ambush" mode where they can fire out of sequence if anything moves into their line of sight, allowing you to set up kill zones.

In assault, as this is WW2 and a good deal simpler, and more lethal, you just roll to wound, with SMGs and Assault Rifles granting additionally attacks, if neither side is wiped out, you disengage and move 1'' away from one another, and the turn continues as normal, with either combatant eligible to be shot at.

I honestly find it more tactical than 40ks method of assault, as in this game you can also pin and suppress things meaningfully, keep charging units prepared and hope your desired target wastes their turn shooting something else and so on. I'd love it if 40k used Bolt Action's ruleset to be perfectly honest, as it addresses most of my frustrations with 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is yet another problem that is solved by remembering that this is a scifi game and guns are inherently superior to swords. Just be glad that 40k's scale is such a mess that melee is even possible, if you demand a rebalance of shooting vs. assault GW might fix that problem.

Exactly.

Swordhammer 40K is stupid. When in the Grim Darkness of the far future, the guy with a rifle is the weakest man on the battlefield, cringing in terror and hoping that his one or two shots kill the enemy before they run screaming across the battlefield to hit him with an energized stick, you're not playing sci-fi, or even sci-fantasy.

You're just playing Fantasy innnnnnn Spaaaaaaaaaace.


Bringing Overwatch back into the game was the first step on the path to redemption in 6th. Though 7th went off the rails for entirely different reasons.

So the Op learned a lesson I learned one time, running a lone character into a squad can be deadly.

I had a libraian that had his squad killed off so he ran into a Devastator squad. (Yea lots of marine vs marine training missions in my meta). So one of the las conanons rolled a 6 on overwatch. Ok kind of makes sense, not a smart thing to do being that lone guy charging a bunch of guys with guns. SO I won't make that mistake again.

If you have a character that can survive by themselves than fine (ie. Avatar of Khaine, greater demon) but now I know (and you know) not to do that again.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
It is one of those things in 40k which exists to artificially make close combat more viable, whereas not being able to charge out of a transport is one of those which exist to artificially make it worse....

I think this is the problem with constantly patching a ruleset - especially one for which the game has advanced considerably (we've gone from a skirmish-ish game to one with fliers, superheavies etc.).

The 40k rules need a complete redesign, not just a lot of faffing around every edition.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Swordhammer 40K is stupid. When in the Grim Darkness of the far future, the guy with a rifle is the weakest man on the battlefield, cringing in terror and hoping that his one or two shots kill the enemy before they run screaming across the battlefield to hit him with an energized stick, you're not playing sci-fi, or even sci-fantasy.

I think the bigger problem is that there's a massive gulf between fluff and rules. The fluff constantly emphasises melee combat, whilst the rules do everything they can to diminish it.

Then, after diminishing melee combat, GW releases, you guessed it, more dedicated melee units. Why? What's the point?

Likewise, when melee is utter rubbish, why do melee weapons need to be overpriced and useless? AP3 is bad enough on basic power weapons, but did you really need to put it on artefacts too? Is the goal to make sure that they've never taken - e.g. by making the IG sword worse than a Power Axe yet 10pts more expensive.

/RANT

 vipoid wrote:
But, again, I don't see how shooting into a melee is 'needlessly wasting' troops. Especially since you're only going to do it if you're losing badly - in which case those troops are dead anyway.

And who's determining what "losing badly" is? And with the fickleness of dice, there's always a chance that a unit that's "losing badly" can turn around and win the combat. You're "needlessly wasting" troops by letting them get stuck in a close combat, at least give them the honour of bravely holding the line instead of shooting them in the back so you can take down a few of the enemy.

 Ghaz wrote:

And who's determining what "losing badly" is? And with the fickleness of dice, there's always a chance that a unit that's "losing badly" can turn around and win the combat.

No, sorry, sometimes there is a clear winner.

And, how exactly does 'fickleness of dice' translate into fluff?

"Hmm, those 3 Guardsmen are engaged with 9 Terminators and a Chaos Lord - should we shoot them?"

"And risk hitting our own men, are you mad? No, I'm sure our fine soldiers will pull through. Why, for all you know, those terminators could suffer from congestive heart-failure and be dead in a few seconds time. "

 Ghaz wrote:
You're "needlessly wasting" troops by letting them get stuck in a close combat, at least give them the honour of bravely holding the line instead of shooting them in the back so you can take down a few of the enemy.

Except that 'bravely holding the line' actually translates to 'acting as invincible walls for my opponent's men'. You don't 'hold the line' by dying in my turn (whatever that represents) and leaving the enemy free to charge my lines without retaliation.

If anything, they should be classed as traitors and executed with extreme prejudice.

Removing overwatch would be a good idea IF the ranges and such were balanced. Of course, that would mean playing on tables that are like 10 feel across and 18 feet long. As it is now, it actually helps keep the game balanced and ensures that players actually have their models bring guns along.

I wouldn't mind overwatch as much as if when rolling my charge distance and don't make it, I got to move said distance, or half the distance, or something.

I play Tyranids and Orks and with both armies I have had units wiped out when trying to get into hand one to hand. Enemy shoots, kills some guys, my turn, I try and charge. Enemy overwatches, kills some models. Short on the charge range by an inch or two, so they just stand there waiting to get shot again.

I tend to not try and charge unless the range is 8" or less and get cover as much as I can because of the amount of AP 5 chewing up my poor hordes.

and our resident Tau player.... he doesn't even use markerlights but tends to have a blockade of fire warriors with etherals that there is just a rediculous amount of fire.

I've had a full unit of genestealers with a broodlord fully killed off in overwatch to the supporting fire shenanigans.

I agree, you should be able to move the distance you roll when you fail a charge. The only peoblem with that would be you would have tyranid players declaring charges from 48 inches away just to get the extra 2d6 movement.
However, thats a totally different issue from overwatch which plays a very small part in the game (unless your tau but we all agree thats broken) and serves as little more than allowing the player being charged to roll dice in order to feel good. lol The only time it makes a difference is if the assaulting player is stupid enough to assault a unit packed with flamer weapons or if they are being very daring and trying a super long ranged assault. Of course, in almost every situation the assaulting player need only use tactics and ensure that there are multiple models in his charging unit within range so that if one gets picked off, the rest will still reach.

Hold on just a moment now, assaulting remains one of the most effective ways of killing off units if you're not an idiot about it. Assaults still have a number of advantages over shooting that would mean they would be entirely preferable if it wasn't for the Overwatch rule.

Multi-charges, combat being locked, inability to shoot at units locked in combat, sweeping advances, consolidation (i.e. free runs if you win combat), all forms of melee weapons being available for use after moving, etc etc. These are all things that continue to make the assault effective.

Failed charges are a bummer, sure, but the law of averages effectively means that charge ranges have actually been buffed, albeit trading off absolute reliability. Shooting has long had such a disadvantage in the form of cover-saves.

The Tau and their Supporting Fire rule compensates for them having essentially no real assault troops at all. Most if not all other armies have either close combat specialists, generalists who are competent at close combat for one reason or another, or both. The Tau have none of those three. Markerlight spam does make it very powerful, but then, markerlight spam makes pretty much everything in the Tau lists powerful; they're a shooting army. If the Tau were any less shooty, they would have to make the Tau more mobile to compensate. Which would be very very broken.

Wait, you're serious?

HA, HAHA, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, oh my. Sorry.

If you think that's overpowered, try Tau, with their Counter Defensive (can now Overwatch on a 5 or 6) and Supporting fire (everything in 6" gets to overwatch too)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 GreaterGoodIreland wrote:
Hold on just a moment now, assaulting remains one of the most effective ways of killing off units if you're not an idiot about it. Assaults still have a number of advantages over shooting that would mean they would be entirely preferable if it wasn't for the Overwatch rule.

Multi-charges, combat being locked, inability to shoot at units locked in combat, sweeping advances, consolidation (i.e. free runs if you win combat), all forms of melee weapons being available for use after moving, etc etc. These are all things that continue to make the assault effective.

Failed charges are a bummer, sure, but the law of averages effectively means that charge ranges have actually been buffed, albeit trading off absolute reliability. Shooting has long had such a disadvantage in the form of cover-saves.

The Tau and their Supporting Fire rule compensates for them having essentially no real assault troops at all. Most if not all other armies have either close combat specialists, generalists who are competent at close combat for one reason or another, or both. The Tau have none of those three. Markerlight spam does make it very powerful, but then, markerlight spam makes pretty much everything in the Tau lists powerful; they're a shooting army. If the Tau were any less shooty, they would have to make the Tau more mobile to compensate. Which would be very very broken.

This. Although, the last part I have to scoff at. They get a 2d6 jump move in the assault phase. The only thing more mobile than Tau is Eldar with their Battle Focus gak.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
This is yet another problem that is solved by remembering that this is a scifi game and guns are inherently superior to swords. Just be glad that 40k's scale is such a mess that melee is even possible, if you demand a rebalance of shooting vs. assault GW might fix that problem.

Exactly.

Swordhammer 40K is stupid. When in the Grim Darkness of the far future, the guy with a rifle is the weakest man on the battlefield, cringing in terror and hoping that his one or two shots kill the enemy before they run screaming across the battlefield to hit him with an energized stick, you're not playing sci-fi, or even sci-fantasy.

You're just playing Fantasy innnnnnn Spaaaaaaaaaace.


Bringing Overwatch back into the game was the first step on the path to redemption in 6th. Though 7th went off the rails for entirely different reasons.

Okau, 40k years on the future. You can be the guy with the rifle, Ill be the guy with the sword. You take aim at me, I teleport behind you and cleave you in two. A case can, and definitely should (given 40k lore) be made for close combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Keep overwatch, allow consolidation into a new unit (who can overwatch as well), allow assault out of a stationary vehicle. Start there, see how it goes.

Definitely a great start.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Removing overwatch would be a good idea IF the ranges and such were balanced. Of course, that would mean playing on tables that are like 10 feel across and 18 feet long. As it is now, it actually helps keep the game balanced and ensures that players actually have their models bring guns along.

You get every opportunity to shoot in the shooting phase, overwatch doesn't add any tactical element to the game it's just a gimme to shooty armies.

Keep wall of death, drop the rest of overwatch.

The rest actually makes sense. To be honest, it would make sense to make it hit more often. Especially with the borking of ranges and small table size. You dont see people complaining about not getting enough. The other side should not complain about them getting too much. They have less of a leg to stand on. lol

I like overwatch, always wondered why units wouldn't get to shoot at unit charging them. If someone was running at me with a sword I would definitely shoot at them. I do think Astartes should be able to hit on a 5 instead due to their superhuman reflexes etc. Sure cases could be made for others too.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think it would be nice if Overwatch was a bit more tactical. e.g. if you could chose to go on overwatch instead of shooting, but got to resolve it at full BS.

If nothing else, I think 40k could benefit from more in-game options.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is yet another problem that is solved by remembering that this is a scifi game and guns are inherently superior to swords.

So why can't you shoot them in combat? Or into combat?

Instead, if some Tau Fire Warriors get assaulted by a Daemon Prince, they think the best thing to do is run towards it and attempt to hit it with their rifle butts.

Shooting into a combat at a MC or walker should be an option, though that's another issue entirely.

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"

The bullet drop is real.
I would like to see a return of 4th ed target priority, or have units in the path of a firing unit take damage.
Might make things more tactical.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The bullet drop is real.

Hence why we're not allowed to shoot lascannons at it.

 vipoid wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The bullet drop is real.

Hence why we're not allowed to shoot lascannons at it.

...the refraction of light due to atmospheric conditions and battlefield debris, as well as from possible reflective surfaces is real?
Also, not everyone has steady hands. What if a Devastator got a bit of grit in his eyepiece?

Also, that was a jest

I like the concept of overwatch, and don't think it should be removed from the game altogether, but the problem is it is significantly stronger against some armies than others. 10 assault marines assaulting a unit of chaos marines? Overwatch doesn't really matter. A big Hive Tyrant assaulting that same squad of chaos marines? Again, no big deal. A squad of wyches assaulting that same squad? Well now, it's very possible half of that squad will be wiped out by overwatch. Granted Wyches aren't exactly in a good place right now, but it sucks just as hard for my bloodletters, or genestealer squads. It's not always just losing models that's the problem, it's often the loss of those models taking the squad out of assault range. And even worse, this doesn't cost the overwatching unit anything. Like I said, I like overwatch, but I'd like a couple changes to it. For example, in Warhammer Fantasy (and I don't know if this rule applies anymore) if a charging unit was very close to the target unit when it declared the charge, the charged unit didn't have time to ready their weapons and fire, so couldn't stand-and-shoot. If, for example, a Raider full of wyches flew right on top of an enemy squad, engines blasting and screeching, rocks and dirt whipped up by the force of the engines and suddenly that squad of wyches jumped out of the transport right into the enemy ranks, I doubt they would have time to fire their weapons. Therefore, maybe if a unit started it's assault move within, say 4" of an enemy unit, that unit couldn't fire overwatch.

Another idea would be having overwatch give a penalty to the firing unit. If they are firing their guns while they are being assaulted, than maybe they don't get a chance to draw their close combat weapons or get into a proper fighting stance before the enemy gets to them. How about if a unit fires overwatch, they suffer a -1 penalty to attack, or -1 penalty to weapon skill, or strike at initiative 1, or maybe can't fight with anything other than the weapon they used to make the overwatch attack (ie: no additional close combat weapon or power fist if they fired a bolter in overwatch.) Just a few rambling thoughts, but I like my frail, poor armor swarms, and overwatch really hurts them!

Apocros wrote:


Another idea would be having overwatch give a penalty to the firing unit. If they are firing their guns while they are being assaulted, than maybe they don't get a chance to draw their close combat weapons or get into a proper fighting stance before the enemy gets to them. How about if a unit fires overwatch, they suffer a -1 penalty to attack, or -1 penalty to weapon skill, or strike at initiative 1, or maybe can't fight with anything other than the weapon they used to make the overwatch attack (ie: no additional close combat weapon or power fist if they fired a bolter in overwatch.) Just a few rambling thoughts, but I like my frail, poor armor swarms, and overwatch really hurts them!

Initiative 1 makes sense. The firing unit is so busy shooting that they don't have time to prepare for hand to hand. I can see that happening.

Remember overwatch when we could call it during our turn and save it for the following movement and stop the enemy at any point in their movement to take our shots? I thought that was far more realistic but a lot of players cried.
The current version is watered down beyond recognition from that.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Remember overwatch when we could call it during our turn and save it for the following movement and stop the enemy at any point in their movement to take our shots? I thought that was far more realistic but a lot of players cried..

They did, yes... but only because it tended to result on gunline armies both just sitting there in their deployment zones with everything on Overwatch waiting for the other player to move first.

LOL, so true. Especially in the heyday of assault oriented armies. I'm not saying it wasnt broken.
Just something to remind players not liking it nowadays that it's been "worse". I honestly dont think its bad now.

 EVIL INC wrote:
LOL, so true. Especially in the heyday of assault oriented armies. I'm not saying it wasnt broken.
Just something to remind players not liking it nowadays that it's been "worse". I honestly dont think its bad now.

It hasn't been 'worse' though. 2nd ed Overwatch wasn't unbalanced... it just promoted static play.

To many here, that IS worse lol. Thats the problem of talking ut such a subjective matter. Everyone will have a different opinion.
At a time when armies were ure assault oriented, it was a rare player who was about to use it effectively.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

My experience is that overwatch can reliably kill a third of a squad. This really hurts wyches where the simple act of getting intact units to the enemy lines is enough of a herculean challenge without scumbag helldrakes and massed shooting wiping you out. So to have, say, 10 wyches charge a squad of chaos marines, a hugely risky proposition anyway I'll just pint out and then have one flamer kill three of them and another 2 to lucky bolt rounds really kills the units effectiveness. Plus, people obviously start taking more flamers if their effectiveness gets better.

The fact wyches don't get their inv save on overwatch is just stupid. They can dodge a bolt pistol to the face but can't dodge one fired a few metres away...

Well there's your problem. You playing wyches, one of the worst assault units in the game (especially now that they lost haywire grenades).

Overwatch is not a problem, your unit is.

Also... running naked (ok, mostly-naked) into a hail of machine-gun (or machine-lasgun) fire is a really, really bad idea. Maybe put some armor on, ladies, before we go to the battlefield? Might improve your chances of surviving a bit.

Good to see that after being away from Dakka for 2+ months absolutely nothing has changed. Front page looks exactly like I'd expect. Good job everybody, carry on.

Possibly something of an aside, but I dislike is the snapshot mechanic in general.

Aside from feeling a bit out of place in a sci-fi game (as opposed to, I don't know, a celebrating-cowboy simulator), it seems like a bad mechanic with regard to special/heavy weapons.

I say this because, unlike most basic weapons, these weapons generally can't be taken in the numbers required to balance out the odds. So, you end up with a situation where a few dice rolls can make a lot of difference, which always seems dubious to me.

I have to disagree... The addition of snapshots was one of the few 6th ed changes that I liked the idea of. I just don't like the way it was applied. Excluding Blast and Template weapons from firing as snapshots skewed the effectiveness of all the heavy weapon options. Suddenly, my plasma cannon dread was an even worse option than he had been to begin with, and swapping it back to an assault cannon was just a no-brainer.

 insaniak wrote:
I have to disagree... The addition of snapshots was one of the few 6th ed changes that I liked the idea of. I just don't like the way it was applied. Excluding Blast and Template weapons from firing as snapshots skewed the effectiveness of all the heavy weapon options. Suddenly, my plasma cannon dread was an even worse option than he had been to begin with, and swapping it back to an assault cannon was just a no-brainer.

I never understood why Blast weapons were excluded from Snap Snots, as BS can make a difference in their accuracy. Why not jave Bl;asts be able to Snap Fire but always scatter the full 2D6" at BS1?

I have long suggested it was because GW wanted to sell flyers out the bejeebus, so made them unhittable by the power weapons like Demolisher Cannons, Orbital Bombardment, or those random "Kill everything" weapons like Vortex Missiles or old SAG.

 Deadshot wrote:

I never understood why Blast weapons were excluded from Snap Snots, as BS can make a difference in their accuracy. Why not jave Bl;asts be able to Snap Fire but always scatter the full 2D6" at BS1?

I have long suggested it was because GW wanted to sell flyers out the bejeebus, so made them unhittable by the power weapons like Demolisher Cannons, Orbital Bombardment, or those random "Kill everything" weapons like Vortex Missiles or old SAG.

This was my thought too. But then, I also find it strange that you can't snapshot flamers, except on overwatch. Is it because they don't use BS? Because, that shouldn't be a reason to deny them snapshots - it should be a reason to find a better mechanic. It gets even sillier with Invisibility - where you know roughly where the invisible unit is, yet can't fire blasts or flamers at it. You know, the best possible weapons for shooting at a unit you can't see.

Regardless, in terms of blasts, I find it really irritating that they've started turning normal weapons into blast weapons - even when it goes against their main purpose. e.g. in the IG book, there's a small-blast Multi-Melta and a small-blast Autocannon. Why? Is it just so they can't make snapshots or affect fliers? Because, that's the only reason I can think of.

IIRC the small blast Melta is the Banewolf's Melta Cannon? Or is it the Devil Dog?

Either way, that was there in the last Codex too, which was released at the start of 5th Ed.

 Psienesis wrote:
Also... running naked (ok, mostly-naked) into a hail of machine-gun (or machine-lasgun) fire is a really, really bad idea. Maybe put some armor on, ladies, before we go to the battlefield? Might improve your chances of surviving a bit.

Sisters of Battle have to disagree with that part about more armor adding to one's chances of surviving a battle.

Also, Star Wars Stormtroopers. I don't think their armor stops anything. It doesn't even seem to be effective in repelling three-feet-tall bear-people who are hitting them with rocks. Also, their light walkers explode when hit by two logs from opposite sides.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Also... running naked (ok, mostly-naked) into a hail of machine-gun (or machine-lasgun) fire is a really, really bad idea. Maybe put some armor on, ladies, before we go to the battlefield? Might improve your chances of surviving a bit.

Sisters of Battle have to disagree with that part about more armor adding to one's chances of surviving a battle.

Given how bad Repentia are, I doubt it.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Also... running naked (ok, mostly-naked) into a hail of machine-gun (or machine-lasgun) fire is a really, really bad idea. Maybe put some armor on, ladies, before we go to the battlefield? Might improve your chances of surviving a bit.

Sisters of Battle have to disagree with that part about more armor adding to one's chances of surviving a battle.

Given how bad Repentia are, I doubt it.

Repentia have less armor than Wyches. They don't even get an armor save.

 Pouncey wrote:


Also, Star Wars Stormtroopers. I don't think their armor stops anything. It doesn't even seem to be effective in repelling three-feet-tall bear-people who are hitting them with rocks. Also, their light walkers explode when hit by two logs from opposite sides.

Star Wars Stormtrooper armor is 7+. It actually adds to the chance of you killing them. And the imperial light walkers would have fared better within the 7-th ed ruleset. They'd just get immobilized. Too bad the scenario was written a bit earlier.

 Psienesis wrote:
Also... running naked (ok, mostly-naked) into a hail of machine-gun (or machine-lasgun) fire is a really, really bad idea. Maybe put some armor on, ladies, before we go to the battlefield? Might improve your chances of surviving a bit.

Well, wyches are supposed to have lightning fast relexes. You don't need armor if you can dodge. In fact, the armor will just slow you down.
The problem though is that they forget to dodge. I guess the guns are just that shiny.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Also... running naked (ok, mostly-naked) into a hail of machine-gun (or machine-lasgun) fire is a really, really bad idea. Maybe put some armor on, ladies, before we go to the battlefield? Might improve your chances of surviving a bit.

Well, wyches are supposed to have lightning fast relexes. You don't need armor if you can dodge. In fact, the armor will just slow you down.
The problem though is that they forget to dodge. I guess the guns are just that shiny.

Lightning reflexes can't dodge a laser, so Imperial Guard should be good. : D

Unless Wyches are like that one woman who had vision so good she could identify people from a mile away with her Mk 1 Eyeballs. At which point they could probably see the Guardsmen aiming at them and move out of the way before they pull the trigger.

 vipoid wrote:
Possibly something of an aside, but I dislike is the snapshot mechanic in general.

Aside from feeling a bit out of place in a sci-fi game (as opposed to, I don't know, a celebrating-cowboy simulator), it seems like a bad mechanic with regard to special/heavy weapons.

I say this because, unlike most basic weapons, these weapons generally can't be taken in the numbers required to balance out the odds. So, you end up with a situation where a few dice rolls can make a lot of difference, which always seems dubious to me.

I dislike it because it adds lots of player actions with very little added substance. On any given turn, half my tanks either moved or fired ordnance, so I'm rolling up lots of snap-firing heavy bolters and heavy stubbers which are already unlikely to affect the target at full BS, at snap shots they're very inefficient but with the rules there's no reason not to roll them, it just wastes everyone's time and energy.

I also feel like in the fluff a lascannon crew wasting shots on snap shots would be an executable offense to be carried out by the nearest commissar.

 Pouncey wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Also... running naked (ok, mostly-naked) into a hail of machine-gun (or machine-lasgun) fire is a really, really bad idea. Maybe put some armor on, ladies, before we go to the battlefield? Might improve your chances of surviving a bit.

Well, wyches are supposed to have lightning fast relexes. You don't need armor if you can dodge. In fact, the armor will just slow you down.
The problem though is that they forget to dodge. I guess the guns are just that shiny.

Lightning reflexes can't dodge a laser, so Imperial Guard should be good. : D

The First Heretic wrote:“Everything was in motion to an exacting standard – each twist of the spear haft brought the blade up to block las-fire or down to cut flesh…

A clunk, a click, and the weapon was reloaded. Sythran rose again, already cutting the air with grand sweeps, batting aside the streaking laser fire.

Sythran leapt his cadaver barricade and met them head on. They fell in pieces, and beyond a las-burn along his shoulder guard, the blood on his blade was the only evidence he’d even been fighting.”

sup mate

 TheSilo wrote:

I dislike it because it adds lots of player actions with very little added substance. On any given turn, half my tanks either moved or fired ordnance, so I'm rolling up lots of snap-firing heavy bolters and heavy stubbers which are already unlikely to affect the target at full BS, at snap shots they're very inefficient but with the rules there's no reason not to roll them, it just wastes everyone's time and energy.

Agreed.

Also, I just don't like the 'roll some dice and hope you get lucky' approach.

 TheSilo wrote:

I also feel like in the fluff a lascannon crew wasting shots on snap shots would be an executable offense to be carried out by the nearest commissar.

Hah! That's a damn good point.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Also... running naked (ok, mostly-naked) into a hail of machine-gun (or machine-lasgun) fire is a really, really bad idea. Maybe put some armor on, ladies, before we go to the battlefield? Might improve your chances of surviving a bit.

Well, wyches are supposed to have lightning fast relexes. You don't need armor if you can dodge. In fact, the armor will just slow you down.
The problem though is that they forget to dodge. I guess the guns are just that shiny.

Lightning reflexes can't dodge a laser, so Imperial Guard should be good. : D

The First Heretic wrote:“Everything was in motion to an exacting standard – each twist of the spear haft brought the blade up to block las-fire or down to cut flesh…

A clunk, a click, and the weapon was reloaded. Sythran rose again, already cutting the air with grand sweeps, batting aside the streaking laser fire.

Sythran leapt his cadaver barricade and met them head on. They fell in pieces, and beyond a las-burn along his shoulder guard, the blood on his blade was the only evidence he’d even been fighting.”

sup mate

. . . He... can block... lasers. Like... traveling at 300,000,000 meters per second lasers. With a sword.

His weapon is traveling quickly enough to cause an explosion in the atmosphere sufficient to destroy half that god damned planet.

He's a Custodes. He doesn't want anything to do with your filthy physics.

Besides, it's fine. He's using a Guardian Spear, not a sword.

 Ashiraya wrote:
He's a Custodes. He doesn't want anything to do with your filthy physics.

Besides, it's fine. He's using a Guardian Spear, not a sword.

Oh, well if he's using a Guardian Spear, then of course that makes total sense why he's moving at extremely high relativistic speeds.

Indeed.

:: sigh :: I guess it's a moot point. GW's fluff never really had to make sense.

40K as a whole doesn't make sense. It's one of its very core qualities.

Space Marines would never work in any way IRL. But in 40K, not only do they work, they work very well indeed!

You do realise that it is entirely possible to block those shots. You can predict where the laser will be before the shot is fired, based on the fact that laser travels in straight lines. You simply have the blade ready and waiting.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is yet another problem that is solved by remembering that this is a scifi game and guns are inherently superior to swords. Just be glad that 40k's scale is such a mess that melee is even possible, if you demand a rebalance of shooting vs. assault GW might fix that problem.

That's Infinity you're thinking about.

A plasma gun gives you 2 shots whcih might kill you for 15 points. A power sword for the same points can have a lot more killing potential plus cover doesn't help.

40k is about having the right saturation of low AP weapons/attacks and enough chaff/distractions tie down the enemy. Also it's not even sensible since things are far too random to be anyway strategic.

 Deadshot wrote:
You do realise that it is entirely possible to block those shots. You can predict where the laser will be before the shot is fired, based on the fact that laser travels in straight lines. You simply have the blade ready and waiting.

How do you bat aside multiple shots? You still have to move the blade from shot to shot...

 Ashiraya wrote:
40K as a whole doesn't make sense. It's one of its very core qualities.

Space Marines would never work in any way IRL. But in 40K, not only do they work, they work very well indeed!

And the IG's strategy is silly. Doesn't matter how limitless your troops are, pissing them away in a war of attrition is a terrible idea when you can never be sure when or if reinforcements will arrive, due to the nature of Warp travel. But somehow it's managed to hold the line across much of the Imperium for thousands of years of unending war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Deadshot wrote:
You do realise that it is entirely possible to block those shots. You can predict where the laser will be before the shot is fired, based on the fact that laser travels in straight lines. You simply have the blade ready and waiting.

He was blocking an entire squad's shots.

Note for Lasgun designers. Add a beam mode to the next version of your weapons so they can fire a steady beam instead of infrequent pulses. Instruct the troops to use this in a sweeping motion when faced with enemy units that dodge laser pulses. Aim beams at different parts of the target's body when faced with a target that can block with a weapon.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 GreaterGoodIreland wrote:
Hold on just a moment now, assaulting remains one of the most effective ways of killing off units if you're not an idiot about it. Assaults still have a number of advantages over shooting that would mean they would be entirely preferable if it wasn't for the Overwatch rule.

Multi-charges, combat being locked, inability to shoot at units locked in combat, sweeping advances, consolidation (i.e. free runs if you win combat), all forms of melee weapons being available for use after moving, etc etc. These are all things that continue to make the assault effective.

Failed charges are a bummer, sure, but the law of averages effectively means that charge ranges have actually been buffed, albeit trading off absolute reliability. Shooting has long had such a disadvantage in the form of cover-saves.

The Tau and their Supporting Fire rule compensates for them having essentially no real assault troops at all. Most if not all other armies have either close combat specialists, generalists who are competent at close combat for one reason or another, or both. The Tau have none of those three. Markerlight spam does make it very powerful, but then, markerlight spam makes pretty much everything in the Tau lists powerful; they're a shooting army. If the Tau were any less shooty, they would have to make the Tau more mobile to compensate. Which would be very very broken.

This. Although, the last part I have to scoff at. They get a 2d6 jump move in the assault phase. The only thing more mobile than Tau is Eldar with their Battle Focus gak.

Only on the suits, although they have been always about as mobile. Just imagine having that one fire warriors... But, yeah, they suits are very mobile.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
You do realise that it is entirely possible to block those shots. You can predict where the laser will be before the shot is fired, based on the fact that laser travels in straight lines. You simply have the blade ready and waiting.

How do you bat aside multiple shots? You still have to move the blade from shot to shot...

Yes, but you only have to cover yourself, so the distance needed to move is small, you can reduce that further by moving at the same time, and while the shots move quickly, the rate of fire is nowhere near as high

Its how tennis players return serves - theyre moving before the ball is struck.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
You do realise that it is entirely possible to block those shots. You can predict where the laser will be before the shot is fired, based on the fact that laser travels in straight lines. You simply have the blade ready and waiting.

How do you bat aside multiple shots? You still have to move the blade from shot to shot...

Yes, but you only have to cover yourself, so the distance needed to move is small, you can reduce that further by moving at the same time, and while the shots move quickly, the rate of fire is nowhere near as high

Its how tennis players return serves - theyre moving before the ball is struck.

I'd make a comparison to Jedi deflecting Blaster shots in Star Wars, but Blasters aren't lasers - their shots move way too slowly for that to be the case.

However, to further your comparison, add a half-dozen tennis ball launchers all firing, once every second or two. Every returned ball is a block, and every one that gets by the tennis player is a shot that gets by his spear.

Lasbolts arent strict lasers either - various bits of fluff have the laser "bolt" being contained in an energy jacket that stops them disipating so quickly (heating the air, for example) so that could reduce the speed of the "projectile"

Given guardians are supposedly even faster than a normal marine, it doesnt seem inconeivable that they could perform these feats against poorly trained, bricking-it guardsmen.

 Soteks Prophet wrote:

A plasma gun gives you 2 shots whcih might kill you for 15 points. A power sword for the same points can have a lot more killing potential plus cover doesn't help.

How does a sword have more killing potential than a plasmagun? A plasmagun can kill at range and has a much wider range of targets. With a sword, you can kill MEQ... and that's about it. It won't help you kill more TEQ, it won't help against MCs, it won't help against vehicles.

A plasma gun cannot wipe out a squad of more than 2 models, unless they run off the table

A power sword can kill a unit of 100 models if it manages to win, break and chase down.

So a sword has the greatest potential to kill, a plasmagun has the widest range of unts it can easily kill, and a larger reach.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
A plasma gun cannot wipe out a squad of more than 2 models, unless they run off the table

A power sword can kill a unit of 100 models if it manages to win, break and chase down.

But surely combat potential should focus on results that are... likely.

Maybe once in a blue moon the planets will align and your power-sword guy will win combat against a 100-model unit... not sure how, but whatever. And then said unit flees (presumably the IG player forgot the commissar, or the nid player forgot synapse), and gets cut down. However, this hardly seems like the most reasonable scenario to base effectiveness on.

Killing potential. Nothing there about realism.

In addition the 100model green tide, where the fearless guy is dead, is another possibility.

More realistically, I've had a power sword be what won me combat , lost and swept a full 20 man tactical squad. It happens. A plasma gun does not have the same potential as a power sword, this us undeniable - unless you choose to move the goal posts again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Killing potential. Nothing there about realism.

In addition the 100model green tide, where the fearless guy is dead, is another possibility.

More realistically, I've had a power sword be what won me combat , lost and swept a full 20 man tactical squad. It happens. A plasma gun does not have the same potential as a power sword, this us undeniable - unless you choose to move the goal posts again.

The green tide does not run. Even if it loses fearless (big bosspole warboss is dead, stompa is dead/farther than 6") the tide has Da boss iz watchin' rule, which means if they fail morale, they roll on the mob rule table with +2 and take D3+3 S4 hits but then count as passing the morale/Ld test.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Killing potential. Nothing there about realism.

In addition the 100model green tide, where the fearless guy is dead, is another possibility.

Yet the model with a plasmagun still has more killing potential.

After all, he can still win combat even without a power sword, meaning it's still possible for him to wipe out the squad of 100 men by chasing them down in combat. And, of course, he also has a strong ranged attack.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
You do realise that it is entirely possible to block those shots. You can predict where the laser will be before the shot is fired, based on the fact that laser travels in straight lines. You simply have the blade ready and waiting.

How do you bat aside multiple shots? You still have to move the blade from shot to shot...

Everyone will be firing at different times, even if its only a milisecond between each. A Custodes is more than capable of moving fast enough. Plus, the likelihood is that the shots will only be a few inches apart, and only last for an instant. He just needs to have his weapon there for a single moment. Timed right a single sweep could intercept all shots.

I'd have no problems with blast weapons snap shooting. I'd suggest always having it deviate the full distance if you roll an arrow though because of improper aiming. Would cause players to think about distances to themselves....

nosferatu1001 wrote:


More realistically, I've had a power sword be what won me combat , lost and swept a full 20 man tactical squad. It happens.

Considering Tactical Squads can't go higher than 10 models, no it doesn't happen.

 Wilytank wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


More realistically, I've had a power sword be what won me combat , lost and swept a full 20 man tactical squad. It happens.

Considering Tactical Squads can't go higher than 10 models, no it doesn't happen.

Tyrant's Legion and HH squads can reach 20.

 Wilytank wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


More realistically, I've had a power sword be what won me combat , lost and swept a full 20 man tactical squad. It happens.

Considering Tactical Squads can't go higher than 10 models, no it doesn't happen.

30k legions, so yes it has happened.

Well, let's see.

Random charge distance (which is rerollable with fleet, jump packs or err we go which covers most dedicated assault troops in the game) which averages 7" compared to 6" previous

Assault grenades you can use before charging for usually more damage than the over watch.

Hammer of Wrath free on jump packs walkers cavalry bikes etc. (Which is usually stronger than the free over watch attack)

AND in every codex released since sixth dedicated assault units have gotten cheaper.

Noooooo!

My 30 strong shoota boyz sqauds love over watch. Nothing is more satisfying than dakka ' ing down one unit. Then when the second comes to charge Dakka some more and finish it melee.

Some soft units ( in this case wyches) can't assault alone, they need a unit to soak the over watch for them.

Demons have the same issue as wyches. My friends poor blood letters and deamonettes hate shoota my shoota boyz.

the_scotsman wrote:
Random charge distance (which is rerollable with fleet, jump packs or err we go which covers most dedicated assault troops in the game) which averages 7" compared to 6" previous

Except that the fact that the minimum potential charge distance is only 2" means that the increased 'average' does nothing worthwhile. You have to be much, much closer with random charge distance in order to guarantee that the assault will succeed... provided you don't have too many casualties from overwatch eroding your front line and pushing you back out of range.

Random charge distance as an idea is fine. Random charge distance rolled on 2D6 with no sensible minimum threshold? Not so much.

the_scotsman wrote:


AND in every codex released since sixth dedicated assault units have gotten cheaper.

The Wyches wants a word with you..

 insaniak wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Random charge distance (which is rerollable with fleet, jump packs or err we go which covers most dedicated assault troops in the game) which averages 7" compared to 6" previous

Except that the fact that the minimum potential charge distance is only 2" means that the increased 'average' does nothing worthwhile. You have to be much, much closer with random charge distance in order to guarantee that the assault will succeed... provided you don't have too many casualties from overwatch eroding your front line and pushing you back out of range.

Random charge distance as an idea is fine. Random charge distance rolled on 2D6 with no sensible minimum threshold? Not so much.

Agreed. If they're stuck on random charge distance d6+4 would have been good, generating between 5 and 10 inches.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Random charge distance (which is rerollable with fleet, jump packs or err we go which covers most dedicated assault troops in the game) which averages 7" compared to 6" previous

Except that the fact that the minimum potential charge distance is only 2" means that the increased 'average' does nothing worthwhile. You have to be much, much closer with random charge distance in order to guarantee that the assault will succeed... provided you don't have too many casualties from overwatch eroding your front line and pushing you back out of range.

Random charge distance as an idea is fine. Random charge distance rolled on 2D6 with no sensible minimum threshold? Not so much.

Agreed. If they're stuck on random charge distance d6+4 would have been good, generating between 5 and 10 inches.

Some time ago, back in 6-th, i've started a thread about it
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/576961.page

And people do like d6 + 3/4

I quite like a system whereby chance to hit is affected by the distance from the target. It's better with a d10 or d% system though.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Because its essentially free shooting and yet every ranged unit did not have its points cost increased to reflect this. A flamer which can do d3 instant hits when charged is a lot better than it was before. In comparison nothing was done to give the charging player any kind of compensating advantage. This really hurts armies like DE and tyranids. Just had one game today where Lelith got overwatched by a plasma pistol (her squad and transport had been killed by a helldrake). A 150pt model killed because of some quirky rule in the core rulebook that didn't exist two editions ago gives free shooting to everything.

Lelith was killed because you charged her into a unit alone. Sounds like a tactics error to me... do you even general?

 Pyeatt wrote:

Lelith was killed because you charged her into a unit alone. Sounds like a tactics error to me... do you even general?

I'd not make a mistake of trying to general Lelith...but yep, the original post sounds like: "They've killed my favorite mini on overwatch. FIX overwatch!".

As an ork player, with a refilled die I don't think I've ever had a charge under 5" since the new Dex came out, and I've certainly never lost more than two models to over watch.

Overwatch does not brake anything, it is a part of a solution, not a problem.
The problem being assault becoming more (relatively) more and more important in relation to shooting in a sci-fi game.

Overwatch is also not new, it is back (from way back) and they fixed the way it was before, where you had full BS.

And i understand that some rather charge 6" without overwatch than 2D6" plus overwatch, but that is because the ones that prefer no overwatch want their (assault) list to be better, not the game.

The current edition has quite a few problems, the tournament rules IMO are broken, but IMO overwatch is not a problem at all.

ORicK wrote:
Overwatch does not brake anything, it is a part of a solution, not a problem.
The problem being assault becoming more (relatively) more and more important in relation to shooting in a sci-fi game.

Overwatch is also not new, it is back (from way back) and they fixed the way it was before, where you had full BS.

And i understand that some rather charge 6" without overwatch than 2D6" plus overwatch, but that is because the ones that prefer no overwatch want their (assault) list to be better, not the game.

The current edition has quite a few problems, the tournament rules IMO are broken, but IMO overwatch is not a problem at all.

Considering that a Space Marine with a bolter has a less than 1/4 chance to kill a charging Imperial Guardsman, overwatch adds nothing but bloat and wasted time to the game.

 TheSilo wrote:
Considering that a Space Marine with a bolter has a less than 1/4 chance to kill a charging Imperial Guardsman, overwatch adds nothing but bloat and wasted time to the game.

Also, it doesn't add any tactical depth to the game. Being able to put a unit on overwatch instead of shooting (and then get to shoot at full BS if an enemy assaults it) would at least add some options.

As it stands, there's no option - just a bit more gambling in a game already suffering from too much randomness and bloated rules.

 vipoid wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
Considering that a Space Marine with a bolter has a less than 1/4 chance to kill a charging Imperial Guardsman, overwatch adds nothing but bloat and wasted time to the game.

Also, it doesn't add any tactical depth to the game. Being able to put a unit on overwatch instead of shooting (and then get to shoot at full BS if an enemy assaults it) would at least add some options.

As it stands, there's no option - just a bit more gambling in a game already suffering from too much randomness and bloated rules.

Exalt button y you only work once?!

Overwatch makes little sense to me, and believe me my army benefits a lot from it (Eldar).

To balance things it should be:

* Overwatching unit gets lower initiative in following CC
* assaulting unit should be able to choose 1 additional attack in CC OR one free snapshot per weapon while charging...

another approach would be to factor in the view direction of the minis. i.e. when they get assaulted in the side or rear, they get no overwatch!

Bora77 wrote:
Overwatch makes little sense to me, and believe me my army benefits a lot from it (Eldar).

To balance things it should be:

* Overwatching unit gets lower initiative in following CC

Trouble is, this doesn't affect all defenders equally.

"My Guardsmen lose a point of initiative, how will I cope?"

Bora77 wrote:

* assaulting unit should be able to choose 1 additional attack in CC OR one free snapshot per weapon while charging...

The extra attack doesn't really make sense, and please let's not add more snapshots to the game.


I think Overwatch just needs to be a proper mechanic that requires sacrifice ahead of time. i.e. a unit can forfeit its shooting during its turn, but can then fire at full BS at a single unit that tries to assault it in the subsequent enemy turn. This way it's not a free bonus, and the dice rolled are actually meaningful.

 vipoid wrote:
I think Overwatch just needs to be a proper mechanic that requires sacrifice ahead of time. i.e. a unit can forfeit its shooting during its turn, but can then fire at full BS at a single unit that tries to assault it in the subsequent enemy turn. This way it's not a free bonus, and the dice rolled are actually meaningful.

Making it a sacrifice is terrible and makes overwatch a useless mechanic. If I have to give up all my shooting just to get it back at most the same amount of shooting (because i'll take shooting casualties before overwatch) when assaulted why would I not just shoot normally in the first place? Plus what happens if the unit I withheld shooting from doesn't get assaulted (because I withheld shooting so he knows who not to charge) and did no shooting what so ever.

A better sacrifice would be to make the overwatching unit strike last in combat.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Making it a sacrifice is terrible and makes overwatch a useless mechanic.

Well it's not exactly winning any good-mechanic awards right now, either.

 CrownAxe wrote:
If I have to give up all my shooting just to get it back at most the same amount of shooting (because i'll take shooting casualties before overwatch) when assaulted why would I not just shoot normally in the first place?

- Because you can't actually see the unit that's going to assault you.
- Because it's in cover and will have an excellent save against your weapons.
- Because most of your unit's weapons are currently out of range.

Also, it's far from guaranteed that you'll take shooting casualties before overwatch. There are many situations where an opponent won't risk shooting you, for fear of putting himself out of assault range. And, if he does, then he's taking the aforementioned risk.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Plus what happens if the unit I withheld shooting from doesn't get assaulted (because I withheld shooting so he knows who not to charge) and did no shooting what so ever.

Then you don't get to shoot and don't get charged either.

I mean, gee, it's almost like you'd have to think about the decision. What a terrifying thought that must be.


Regardless, here's my question - let's say that you had to give up your shooting phase to make use of Overwatch in the enemy turn. What bonus would you want to make it worthwhile?

 vipoid wrote:
I mean, gee, it's almost like you'd have to think about the decision. What a terrifying thought that must be.

The problem is your change still doesn't actually give you a real decision to make.

Can I shoot the unit? Yes? then shoot. No? then hold for overwatch. Its blatantly obvious what your choice should be in every situation. That's an illusion of choice and doesn't add to good gameplay.

If you want to make overwatch better then make it have an actually effect instead of just extra casualties such as reducing the charging units initiative or something. Then the choice is trading damage for an effect as opposed to "which way gives me the most shooting"

 CrownAxe wrote:

The problem is your change still doesn't actually give you a real decision to make.

Can I shoot the unit? Yes? then shoot. No? then hold for overwatch. Its blatantly obvious what your choice should be in every situation. That's an illusion of choice and doesn't add to good gameplay.

A fair point, but I still think it would be better than the current mechanic - which requires no decision, or thought whatsoever.

 CrownAxe wrote:

If you want to make overwatch better then make it have an actually effect instead of just extra casualties such as reducing the charging units initiative or something. Then the choice is trading damage for an effect as opposed to "which way gives me the most shooting"

I don't want to necessarily make overwatch better, I want to make it different in two ways: Firstly, I'd like it to be a tactical decision with some potential downsides, rather than just an automatic effect. Second, I want to remove this stupid snapshot gambling crap from it (and, ideally, the rest of the game as well).

We wrote:
So the Op learned a lesson I learned one time, running a lone character into a squad can be deadly.

I had a libraian that had his squad killed off so he ran into a Devastator squad. (Yea lots of marine vs marine training missions in my meta). So one of the las conanons rolled a 6 on overwatch. Ok kind of makes sense, not a smart thing to do being that lone guy charging a bunch of guys with guns. SO I won't make that mistake again.

If you have a character that can survive by themselves than fine (ie. Avatar of Khaine, greater demon) but now I know (and you know) not to do that again.

This guys librarians hurt, i can attest lol.

That's what my suggestion was. Overwatch providing an effect instead of shooting. And you can still forgo shooting to do it (though i'd just make it snapshots instead of completely forging shooting). That way you actually have a choice of trading damage for a special effect.

 vipoid wrote:

Bora77 wrote:
Overwatch makes little sense to me, and believe me my army benefits a lot from it (Eldar).

To balance things it should be:

* Overwatching unit gets lower initiative in following CC

Trouble is, this doesn't affect all defenders equally.

"My Guardsmen lose a point of initiative, how will I cope?"

Bora77 wrote:

* assaulting unit should be able to choose 1 additional attack in CC OR one free snapshot per weapon while charging...

The extra attack doesn't really make sense, and please let's not add more snapshots to the game.


I think Overwatch just needs to be a proper mechanic that requires sacrifice ahead of time. i.e. a unit can forfeit its shooting during its turn, but can then fire at full BS at a single unit that tries to assault it in the subsequent enemy turn. This way it's not a free bonus, and the dice rolled are actually meaningful.

I totally agree with Vipoid, it needs to be a decision with sacrifice. Allow a unit to forgo shooting in exchange for overwatch at +1 BS. This ensures that the charging unit will get shredded if they charge a well prepared squad. But on the other hand, it's a risky decision to forgo shooting for that bonus. The benefit to overwatch is that your unit will be firing at close range for all its rapid fire, template, and short range weapons.

I think this'd be a much sleeker mechanic, without all the time wasted on snap shots.

I think its a pointless rule. It slows down the game a bit, for usually no result. and if it does kill a model or two, the charger will probably be annoyed (and rightfully so).

Assault should be better, so there is no need to have such a pointless rule.

The fact that it doesn't scale, like the OP pointed out, is also annoying.

Overwatch does serve a purpose of giving shooting armies a way to deal with assault units that disengage in the shooting player's turn thus being unshootable normally.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Overwatch does serve a purpose of giving shooting armies a way to deal with assault units that disengage in the shooting player's turn thus being unshootable normally.

In that case, can we scrap overwatch and instead add mechanics for shooting in and into combat?

Then we also wouldn't have this:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"

Rather than overwatch alone, I feel the combo of random charge ranges, assault in to cover, casualties taken from the front and overwatch is hurting the game. It invalidates too many assault units.