Being assaulted locks you into CC. With shooting, the survivors of the barrage can move, shoot back, etc. But if you are assaulted, you basically don’t get to do anything but fight back. It takes the control away from the owner, and that’s not a whole lot of fun. Especially on turn one.
I don’t think it’s game breaking to have a small amount of turn one assaults, or assault from reserves. But it should be a rare and special thing. If it gets too far out of hand, you get the same complaints that you have vs. mega shooty armies: all you do is sit there and remove casualties.
Nevelon wrote: Being assaulted locks you into CC. With shooting, the survivors of the barrage can move, shoot back, etc. But if you are assaulted, you basically don’t get to do anything but fight back. It takes the control away from the owner, and that’s not a whole lot of fun. Especially on turn one.
I don’t think it’s game breaking to have a small amount of turn one assaults, or assault from reserves. But it should be a rare and special thing. If it gets too far out of hand, you get the same complaints that you have vs. mega shooty armies: all you do is sit there and remove casualties.
It would be a way to survive Tau and Eldar, though.
Nevelon wrote: Being assaulted locks you into CC. With shooting, the survivors of the barrage can move, shoot back, etc. But if you are assaulted, you basically don’t get to do anything but fight back. It takes the control away from the owner, and that’s not a whole lot of fun. Especially on turn one.
I don’t think it’s game breaking to have a small amount of turn one assaults, or assault from reserves. But it should be a rare and special thing. If it gets too far out of hand, you get the same complaints that you have vs. mega shooty armies: all you do is sit there and remove casualties.
Unless you are one big unit your army is not locked in to combat.
As with shooting you will have units able to move shoot back. Some armys can overwatch at full BS. Bubble wrap you rarely see today as people are not use to defending vs it.
Where is the control vs shooting armies that almost never miss and have AP2 at 30 inch threat range with ignore cover.
I think because generally assault is more lethal than shooting. Even the basic tactical squad can get power weapons. If you're just comparing strength and ap, more powerful melee weapons are more readily available than powerful shooting weapons. For space marines, turn 1 assault really isn't a big deal. They have some good assault units but nothing spectacular. KDK getting a turn 1 assault would be pretty OP
My group all but stopped playing because you can pretty much loose the game turn 1 due to shooting. And that was before there was D everywhere and apocalyptic blasts in "normal" games.
First turn charges would actually be less irritating since you can at least hit back, but anything involving you getting hit HARD without a chance to do anything at all isn't all that fun. Imho Warhammer could do with some kind of strategic layer. Give different factions different things to work with, take some of the luck out of the game. They already have a notion of strategic assets n stuff in apocalypse. I just wish they would revamp that and work it into the core mechanics if they're going to merge apocalypse with normal games like they have done.
Nevelon wrote: Being assaulted locks you into CC. With shooting, the survivors of the barrage can move, shoot back, etc. But if you are assaulted, you basically don’t get to do anything but fight back. It takes the control away from the owner, and that’s not a whole lot of fun. Especially on turn one.
I don’t think it’s game breaking to have a small amount of turn one assaults, or assault from reserves. But it should be a rare and special thing. If it gets too far out of hand, you get the same complaints that you have vs. mega shooty armies: all you do is sit there and remove casualties.
Unless you are one big unit your army is not locked in to combat.
Generally if you can assault in turn 1 you can do it with more than one unit.
Played edition where turn 1 assault was possible? I did. You had multiples assaults in turn 1. What's worse most of your units that were assaulted were STILL in CC in your turn, got wiped in CC and he could repeat next turn.
Hopefully you weren't hoping to shoot at those assaulters in your turn? Only newbie assaulter would allow you that short of bad luck.
You don’t need to tie up the whole army, just the really nasty parts.
And if you have a bunch of units doing this, possibly with multi-assaults, you can tie up a lot of units.
But that’s just taking the concept to the extreme.
I honestly thing a -little- first turn assaults would be good for the game. It would help swing the pendulum from shooting dominance back to a middle ground. What I don’t want is a return of CC blenders bouncing from one assault to another, with no real answer.
Shooting is in theory balanced with range, cover, and LOS. In practice, power creep has made a number of those non-issues. But I blame that mostly on the problem units, and not the system.
Assault fundamentally has a lot more power than raw shooting. Shooting cant knock one guy out of a 50 man unit, force a break test, and annihilate the entire unit with a sweeping advance. Shooting does not get to hit tanks automatically on rear armor at a 3+. Shooting has to deal with cover saves. Shooting cannot lock an opposing units actions and movement the way being locked in CC does. Shooting can only very rarely pick out characters (while CC can force challenges to do so).
Thus, to balance all this out, it must be harder to achieve and possible for an opponent to act beforehand with regards to assaults.
Also, things like overwatching at full BS or Dscythe Wraithguard are exceptions, exceptions that often should be addressed and toned down, not excuses for turn 1 assaults to be possible.
Shooting armies can destroy armies in one round of shooting. Some times tabling in two rounds. With overWatch they can get 3 rounds at full BS.
The new space Marines power can give assault units first round charges. People say that's unfair and bad for the game.
I don't see how it is different from a nasty shooting army with the combo's they can get with powers and some relic's.
What you guys think?
You need a decent amount of fire power to remove a squad in one turn. Several squads or tanks must combine their actions for a turn to destroy a unit who could avoid destruction by either deploying out of LOS in the first place or going to ground- increasing the effort needed to kill them.
In contrast, a single 5 man squad of basic marines (even red ones!) can shut down practically any guard unit indefinitely just by getting there and waving combat knives around. Even if they don't eventually destroy the unit, they can tie up a disproportionate amount of points and take them out of the game for numerous turns.
They will probably win the first turn of combat meaning the guard will either flee or stay. If they flee- they run off the board.
If they stay, the marines can't be shot at and the guard unit's next next turn is wasted.
If the marines win round 2 or destroy the unit, the guard may flee, leaving the marine unit to move and charge again unmolested. If they stay, they get a third round of combat, possibly a fourth.
Worse still, combats tend to block LOS to other enemy units meaning there's even more opportunities for shooting missed.
TLR-
Melee disrupts the enemy more and requires less resources committed to shut down/destroy units.
Melee units 'hide' in combat, protecting them from retaliation.
Martel732 wrote: Assault fundamentally has zero power right now unless you are a Wraith or TWC.
Poor design and hopeless balance, simply making it easyer for assault won't fix much in the long run.
A sci fi or sci fantasy game should favour ranged combat with anything extreamly close being rare or indoors.
what 40k really needs is a bunch of redesign And, someone actuly thinking about the size of the battle the game represents.
Yeah, the scale issues with 40k are massiv6r. First turn assaults arent really going to fix anything, just add more pain to losing first turn when it matters. The 40k core rules have other problems, and its basically trying to cover three very different scales that dont mesh well.
The game tried to balance the strength of close combat orientated armies, unfortunately they went too far the other way.
Rather than turn one assaults I'd allow units to consolidate from a victorious assault straight into another, if the opponent is silly enough to bunch his army together that is.
EnTyme wrote: Try adding more LoS-blocking terrain. If you set your board up to be a shooting gallery, you can't be surprised when it turns into one.
That's the same with T1 assaults too. It's rarely more than 1 unit that manages it. Even then it probably doesn't manage to charge an optimal unit for it to attack. Saw TWC manage a turn 1 assault on a small squad of Fire Warriors. The SW player was so happy, so was the Tau player when the TWC just chewed through the squad and had to endure a turn's worth of shooting from an entire gun line.
It should not be a surprise that an opponent has the ability to charge turn 1 in any given game. Given that you SHOULD know that it's possible, you can null deploy using bubble wrap, castling, starting further toward your table edge, etc. depending on what the threat is.
Aside from the random SM powers the only unit I can think of that gets a consistent first turn charge is TWC in a deathpack because of the 12" plus run and charge with fleet. If you're worried about that either throw a screening unit out front that will get slaughtered, or move yourself back 6-12" and laugh when they get stranded in the middle of the board.
EnTyme wrote: Try adding more LoS-blocking terrain. If you set your board up to be a shooting gallery, you can't be surprised when it turns into one.
It doesn't help as much as you think. Especially with Eldar and Tau. They have almost all mobile shooting platforms now. Remember that terrain impedes assaults as well.
tneva82 wrote: Generally units you cannot do anything to even try to stop aren't particular fun.
Overwatch is a thing. It's a super thing with a D-scythe. On top of interceptor.
Now you see, if you are openly assaulting the thing with D-scythes you are doing it wrong. I don't see how poor tactical choices justify pushing for a situation that, as has already been explained is exponentially more powerful than its normal counterpart.
'But shooting is broken! Shooting is unfair! Why should I not be able to instant assault turn 1?"
Because assaulting is your tactical answer to these firepower armies. Just as shooting is their answer to your assault army. That means you will both end up moving about and trying to position to maximise your advantage against your opponent. You literally have to think, that is all.
Things like cover hopping, using faster units as decoys or distractions, stacking forces on one flank or another to force your opponents to move into a specific direction...
I mean, unless you want a barren table where everyone deploys 12 inches away and you can just literally push your models across, shouting WAAAAAAGH like some kid in GW on a Sunday morning beginners session.
EnTyme wrote: Try adding more LoS-blocking terrain. If you set your board up to be a shooting gallery, you can't be surprised when it turns into one.
This. I HATE THIS! I am sorry to be going off on you specifically EnTyme, but this is the LEAST useful comment to make in regards to the fact that certain armies can delete entire armies in 2 shooting phases.
I understand what LOS block terrain does, I understand how to position my units to minimize exposure, I know basic tactics.
The problem is that Eldar/Tau are the most mobile armies in the game, JSJ is a thing and they love to abuse it. Warp Spiders are a thing and GW and the fanboy who designed them had JSJ in mind, but on Crack.
Assault armies as a rule can not put out much in terms of return fire, so all the ranged combat person has to do is delete enough of the assault army so that by the time he gets close he is to weak to carry out the assault, usually 2-3 turns of shootings.
tneva82 wrote: Generally units you cannot do anything to even try to stop aren't particular fun.
Overwatch is a thing. It's a super thing with a D-scythe. On top of interceptor.
Now you see, if you are openly assaulting the thing with D-scythes you are doing it wrong. I don't see how poor tactical choices justify pushing for a situation that, as has already been explained is exponentially more powerful than its normal counterpart.
'But shooting is broken! Shooting is unfair! Why should I not be able to instant assault turn 1?"
Because assaulting is your tactical answer to these firepower armies. Just as shooting is their answer to your assault army. That means you will both end up moving about and trying to position to maximise your advantage against your opponent. You literally have to think, that is all.
Things like cover hopping, using faster units as decoys or distractions, stacking forces on one flank or another to force your opponents to move into a specific direction...
I mean, unless you want a barren table where everyone deploys 12 inches away and you can just literally push your models across, shouting WAAAAAAGH like some kid in GW on a Sunday morning beginners session.
There are far less tactics in 40K than you think there are. There are huge mathematical advantages at work with Tau/Eldar.
Things like cover hopping, using faster units as decoys or distractions, stacking forces on one flank or another to force your opponents to move into a specific direction...
Tau ignore cover completely, I have no ability to field a faster army then I currently have (Bikes and trukkz with Deff Koptas), Stacking my forces just gives the Eldar/Tau/SM players a bigger target to hit with their apoc blasts and large blasts and multi small blast.
Any other useless suggestions? Sorry but the power creep is real and alive and only certain armies are benefiting from it.
It Is NOT bad to charge turn one, but a couple things about this.
When shooting a unit, your have you whole army that can shoot to kill said unit, if you are IG, Tau, Eldar, you can shoot with multi units to insure a fully killed unit.
In Melee even turn 1 it is never a 100% chance to kill the unit (Unless you break all army and have more than double the attacks of there wounds). If you get into melee you could be stuck there not killing a unit. And you dont have options like shooting does (to change targets or support with other units)
Not killing the unit is good and it is bad. Pro's:
Cant be shot at
You kill on your opponents turn giving you another chance to charge
Con's:
The can get away with other units
They can counter melee
They can use it as a wall for cover/anti charge spot
They will shoot other more important units to kill.
Charging turn one is hard to deal with But it isnt without risk
Con's to charging turn 1 your army is split most the time
Shooting armies can blow a whole and move away
If you over kill they will shoot and kill you
If you over kill no cover
Counter charging is a thing *Cough Cough Knights?wraith night, Necrons cough cough*
I do however feel basic SM SHOULDN'T charge turn one, I feel thats meant for few and rare units, Each book having 1 or 2 units given the ability wouldnt be bad, but a formation that stops Overwatch and can charge with 20-40 marines is just stupid.
Honestly we need a rules that says you can charge turn one, First Strike or something, units like Mandrakes, Genestealers, etc.. will only get this rule.
tneva82 wrote: Generally units you cannot do anything to even try to stop aren't particular fun.
Overwatch is a thing. It's a super thing with a D-scythe. On top of interceptor.
Now you see, if you are openly assaulting the thing with D-scythes you are doing it wrong. I don't see how poor tactical choices justify pushing for a situation that, as has already been explained is exponentially more powerful than its normal counterpart.
'But shooting is broken! Shooting is unfair! Why should I not be able to instant assault turn 1?"
Because assaulting is your tactical answer to these firepower armies. Just as shooting is their answer to your assault army. That means you will both end up moving about and trying to position to maximise your advantage against your opponent. You literally have to think, that is all.
Things like cover hopping, using faster units as decoys or distractions, stacking forces on one flank or another to force your opponents to move into a specific direction...
I mean, unless you want a barren table where everyone deploys 12 inches away and you can just literally push your models across, shouting WAAAAAAGH like some kid in GW on a Sunday morning beginners session.
There are far less tactics in 40K than you think there are. There are huge mathematical advantages at work with Tau/Eldar.
There also appears to be a lot less common sense in the playerbase too.
I mean, when you have the choice of assaulting the d3 autohit per D-scythe unit or any other unit..well, that's your problem if you can't figure out that being hit on a 6 is a much riskier option than being hit automatically. Or you could try to be clever and throw two units at them - one of chaff alongside your assault specialists. They only overwatch once and have to declare it per charge - if the chaff unit isn't shot at and gets in scott free it locks them down. Good on you grots/gaunts/cultists.
Dude I was being snarky about the D-scythes. Of course you don't assault them. Of course, being BA, I can't shoot them either because we don't get any effective guns. So I might as well pack up against them.
rabidguineapig wrote: It should not be a surprise that an opponent has the ability to charge turn 1 in any given game. Given that you SHOULD know that it's possible, you can null deploy using bubble wrap, castling, starting further toward your table edge, etc. depending on what the threat is.
Aside from the random SM powers the only unit I can think of that gets a consistent first turn charge is TWC in a deathpack because of the 12" plus run and charge with fleet. If you're worried about that either throw a screening unit out front that will get slaughtered, or move yourself back 6-12" and laugh when they get stranded in the middle of the board.
I don't think it's really a huge problem yet...
There are probably many instances where Harlequins could have most of their army in melee by the end of turn one if they were allowed to.
There also appears to be a lot less common sense in the playerbase too.
I mean, when you have the choice of assaulting the d3 autohit per D-scythe unit or any other unit..well, that's your problem if you can't figure out that being hit on a 6 is a much riskier option than being hit automatically. Or you could try to be clever and throw two units at them - one of chaff alongside your assault specialists. They only overwatch once and have to declare it per charge - if the chaff unit isn't shot at and gets in scott free it locks them down. Good on you grots/gaunts/cultists.
I play Orks, Orks are an assaulty army. Eldar are a psyker/shooting/fast army. So therefore for me to get into CC with one of their units I need to not only invest in an expensive boyz squad or Meganobz squad, I also need to invest in a 40pt (Minimum) grot unit that I need to footslot as fast as my assault unit who is probably in a trukk or battlewagon to preserve its strength.
So by that logic I need to spend 40-50pts MORE then the unit I am assaulting to guarantee I don't get my butt kicked...that is some crappy logic.
There's a few problems with the system that cause such an imbalance.
1) Shooting is currently too powerful on it's own.
2) Assault on turn 1 could be too powerful on it's own if implemented as a standard rule.
3) The I GO/ You GO turn based system is terrible now. There's no reason 40K should still be running this way. An entire army has to stand by while the other removes it from the board. A single unit activation at a time eliminates the possibility of a turn one win with shooting or assault. This also allows you to counter attack with another unit after the enemy unit has been activated. This would counter balance issues with turn 1 assault.
4) Assault should be permitted from all transports at all times even when moving, but If it isn't an assault transport then you suffer from a disordered charge and the enemy should be able to fire at +1 BS for overwatch. Assault transports could also allow you to re-roll charge distances. With the implementation of Overwatch, Intercepter, random charge ranges and casualties removed from the front, there is no reason Assault should suffer even more.
Brutus_Apex wrote: There's a few problems with the system that cause such an imbalance.
1) Shooting is currently too powerful on it's own.
2) Assault on turn 1 could be too powerful on it's own if implemented as a standard rule.
3) The I GO/ You GO turn based system is terrible now. There's no reason 40K should still be running this way. An entire army has to stand by while the other removes it from the board. A single unit activation at a time eliminates the possibility of a turn one win with shooting or assault. This also allows you to counter attack with another unit after the enemy unit has been activated. This would counter balance issues with turn 1 assault.
4) Assault should be permitted from all transports at all times even when moving, but If it isn't an assault transport then you suffer from a disordered charge and the enemy should be able to fire at +1 BS for overwatch. Assault transports could also allow you to re-roll charge distances. With the implementation of Overwatch, Intercepter, random charge ranges and casualties removed from the front, there is no reason Assault should suffer even more.
tneva82 wrote: Generally units you cannot do anything to even try to stop aren't particular fun.
How's that different from being able to shoot turn 1?
Because you can migitate effect of shooting somewhat.
But many of the turn 1 assaults have been ones you CANNOT really defend against. They come, they assault, they are locked in combat in your turn. Repeat until they either get unlucky enough they can be shot in your turn or you send your own CC units into the fold.
EnTyme wrote: Try adding more LoS-blocking terrain. If you set your board up to be a shooting gallery, you can't be surprised when it turns into one.
That's the same with T1 assaults too. It's rarely more than 1 unit that manages it. Even then it probably doesn't manage to charge an optimal unit for it to attack. Saw TWC manage a turn 1 assault on a small squad of Fire Warriors. The SW player was so happy, so was the Tau player when the TWC just chewed through the squad and had to endure a turn's worth of shooting from an entire gun line.
Thing about that is turn 1 assaults...Well MOVE. That means 24"+ movement by definition. Cannot make turn 1 assault if you CANNOT cover OVER 24" in a turn.. That clears past any LOS blocking terrain.
Not many shooting units can manouver 24"+ though...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rabidguineapig wrote: It should not be a surprise that an opponent has the ability to charge turn 1 in any given game. Given that you SHOULD know that it's possible, you can null deploy using bubble wrap, castling, starting further toward your table edge, etc. depending on what the threat is.
Bubble wrap is nice. Does mean he will have unit from turn 1 though you cannot ever realistically shoot though. Imagine him having most of his army locked in combat before you get to shoot one time. Your only bet is then having good enough CC yourself or overwatch.
Also funny how everybody keeps saying "since eldar and tau are broken turn 1 assaults would be okay". Okay? What about those NON eldar and tau shooty armies? They would be hosed. Howabout rather than make it even more rock paper and scissor fix eldar and tau?
Turn one assaulting would be utterly brutal, especially to the weaker armies and the shooting based ones. Have you even considered how armies like the Imperial Guard will be affected by this - sure, you will be able to avoid the Tau gunline and you will be able to really hurt them but the effect it would have on other armies would be horrific.
Right now it is hard enough to play Guard. Introducing turn 1 assaults would utterly invalidate them and I might as well pack my gak up and sell it off if this ever happens.
master of ordinance wrote: Turn one assaulting would be utterly brutal, especially to the weaker armies and the shooting based ones. Have you even considered how armies like the Imperial Guard will be affected by this - sure, you will be able to avoid the Tau gunline and you will be able to really hurt them but the effect it would have on other armies would be horrific.
Right now it is hard enough to play Guard. Introducing turn 1 assaults would utterly invalidate them and I might as well pack my gak up and sell it off if this ever happens.
IG, shooty marines...
Fixing eldar and tau shouldn't be done by hosing every other shooting army by allowing assaulters be locked in combat before you get to even shoot once. Sorry but if you want to nerf shooting do it in a better way. Brrr at the days of rhino rush in 3rd ed. There's better ways to weaken shooting without going back to that time. Why every fix should be too far? It went too far to shooting so now too far back to CC except maybe against eldar and tau?
master of ordinance wrote: Turn one assaulting would be utterly brutal, especially to the weaker armies and the shooting based ones. Have you even considered how armies like the Imperial Guard will be affected by this - sure, you will be able to avoid the Tau gunline and you will be able to really hurt them but the effect it would have on other armies would be horrific.
Right now it is hard enough to play Guard. Introducing turn 1 assaults would utterly invalidate them and I might as well pack my gak up and sell it off if this ever happens.
Tau are better IG. It sucks, but as it stands, 90% of assault armies have no chance against Tau. And only half have a chance against IG. Most of my games against IG are only moderately better than fighting Tau. Because I'm not a premiere assault list. I just get shot to bloody chunks.
master of ordinance wrote: Turn one assaulting would be utterly brutal, especially to the weaker armies and the shooting based ones. Have you even considered how armies like the Imperial Guard will be affected by this - sure, you will be able to avoid the Tau gunline and you will be able to really hurt them but the effect it would have on other armies would be horrific.
Right now it is hard enough to play Guard. Introducing turn 1 assaults would utterly invalidate them and I might as well pack my gak up and sell it off if this ever happens.
Tau are better IG. It sucks, but as it stands, 90% of assault armies have no chance against Tau. And only half have a chance against IG.
Soooo because Tau and Eldar are too good every other shooty army needs to be nerfed to death...
Yeah that makes sense! We couldn't imagine such a novel concept as fixing Eldar and Tau oh no! That would be too radical idea!
Turn 1 anything is bad design whether it's turn 1 assault or turn 1 shooty death. We need to reduce that rather than increase.
The Tau and Eldar aren't getting nerfed. People need to accept this. There is only one way to power to go: up. GW has decided this.
Even if BA could assault from DS against IG, it's still far from a foregone conclusion. Scatter, failed assaults, overwatch, bubblewrap units, etc. Remember vanguards could do this in 5th and they still sucked.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's a bit like starting a football match with the penalty shoot-off.
Manoeuvre is supposed to be part of the game.
An auto-win for assaulting without manoeuvring is hardly a very challenging type of game.
But Eldar and Tau auto-deleting units from across the board is somehow more skillful and involve more maneuvering?
Every army has shooting units. It's up to you to set up terrain to give areas of cover and manoeuvre cleverly to avoid their lanes of fire, then they will have to manoeuvre to get sight of a target.
But you now, 40K is a fairly gakky game nowadays, which is why I gave up playing it. 40K can't be expected to provide the level of challenge and balance you would get from say Squad Leader. That doesn't mean it will be improved by making it even shittier.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's a bit like starting a football match with the penalty shoot-off.
Manoeuvre is supposed to be part of the game.
An auto-win for assaulting without manoeuvring is hardly a very challenging type of game.
But Eldar and Tau auto-deleting units from across the board is somehow more skillful and involve more maneuvering?
Every army has shooting units. It's up to you to set up terrain to give areas of cover and manoeuvre cleverly to avoid their lanes of fire, then they will have to manoeuvre to get sight of a target.
So? All their shooting is mobile now. I'm struggling to find effective shooting units in CSM or BA.
Martel732 wrote: The Tau and Eldar aren't getting nerfed. People need to accept this. There is only one way to power to go: up. GW has decided this.
Even if BA could assault from DS against IG, it's still far from a foregone conclusion. Scatter, failed assaults, overwatch, bubblewrap units, etc. Remember vanguards could do this in 5th and they still sucked.
Only thing sure in life is change.
You are assuming GW has some Tau/Eldar boost evil plan. In reality their boosts and nerfs are more of random and based more on what army happens to fancy current designer. Eventually designers change and with that armies designers are passionate about.
GW game design isn't competent enough to deliberately have some evil plan what armies to favour and what to dismiss.
Martel732 wrote: The Tau and Eldar aren't getting nerfed. People need to accept this. There is only one way to power to go: up. GW has decided this.
Even if BA could assault from DS against IG, it's still far from a foregone conclusion. Scatter, failed assaults, overwatch, bubblewrap units, etc. Remember vanguards could do this in 5th and they still sucked.
Only thing sure in life is change.
You are assuming GW has some Tau/Eldar boost evil plan. In reality their boosts and nerfs are more of random and based more on what army happens to fancy current designer. Eventually designers change and with that armies designers are passionate about.
GW game design isn't competent enough to deliberately have some evil plan what armies to favour and what to dismiss.
They've been very consistent with Eldar over the last 20 years. Tau, less so, but it appears that Tau are now in the "in" crowd.
master of ordinance wrote: Turn one assaulting would be utterly brutal, especially to the weaker armies and the shooting based ones. Have you even considered how armies like the Imperial Guard will be affected by this - sure, you will be able to avoid the Tau gunline and you will be able to really hurt them but the effect it would have on other armies would be horrific.
Right now it is hard enough to play Guard. Introducing turn 1 assaults would utterly invalidate them and I might as well pack my gak up and sell it off if this ever happens.
Tau are better IG. It sucks, but as it stands, 90% of assault armies have no chance against Tau. And only half have a chance against IG. Most of my games against IG are only moderately better than fighting Tau. Because I'm not a premiere assault list. I just get shot to bloody chunks.
Even Orks laugh at Guard, what assault armies are you on about?
EnTyme wrote: Try adding more LoS-blocking terrain. If you set your board up to be a shooting gallery, you can't be surprised when it turns into one.
This. I HATE THIS! I am sorry to be going off on you specifically EnTyme, but this is the LEAST useful comment to make in regards to the fact that certain armies can delete entire armies in 2 shooting phases.
I understand what LOS block terrain does, I understand how to position my units to minimize exposure, I know basic tactics.
The problem is that Eldar/Tau are the most mobile armies in the game, JSJ is a thing and they love to abuse it. Warp Spiders are a thing and GW and the fanboy who designed them had JSJ in mind, but on Crack.
Assault armies as a rule can not put out much in terms of return fire, so all the ranged combat person has to do is delete enough of the assault army so that by the time he gets close he is to weak to carry out the assault, usually 2-3 turns of shootings.
There's no question that Eldar and Tau are tough armies. But so are Necron, and Marines are pretty good too. But to EnTyme's point: if you set up enough LoS blocking terrain, shooty armies are severely gimped. If there is no shooting lane > 12", the maximum range of any weapon becomes 12". If there is no roadway > 3" you can't field models with bases or a footprint wider than 3". If all the free space is in the form of narrow alleyways instead of wide areas, jetbikes suddenly suck, and grunts with plasma pistols become remarkably useful. And so forth. Terrain constraints can be extremely effective in limiting what is fielded and how those units are played.
If the people you want to play with generally want to play in nice, open fields -- then some shooty armies will do really well with that. But that's no different than a medieval battle with an open field, where one side has significantly more archers and can just mow down the other side as they charge up a grassy hill. If one side has English longbows and mounted knights, and the other side is native American braves with tomahawks, whether the battle occurs in a dense forest or an open field will make a big difference, even though those units might, on paper, have some equivalency in "points".
master of ordinance wrote: Turn one assaulting would be utterly brutal, especially to the weaker armies and the shooting based ones. Have you even considered how armies like the Imperial Guard will be affected by this - sure, you will be able to avoid the Tau gunline and you will be able to really hurt them but the effect it would have on other armies would be horrific.
Right now it is hard enough to play Guard. Introducing turn 1 assaults would utterly invalidate them and I might as well pack my gak up and sell it off if this ever happens.
Tau are better IG. It sucks, but as it stands, 90% of assault armies have no chance against Tau. And only half have a chance against IG. Most of my games against IG are only moderately better than fighting Tau. Because I'm not a premiere assault list. I just get shot to bloody chunks.
Even Orks laugh at Guard, what assault armies are you on about?
Maybe your guard, but Orks do NOT laugh at guard in general.
master of ordinance wrote: Turn one assaulting would be utterly brutal, especially to the weaker armies and the shooting based ones. Have you even considered how armies like the Imperial Guard will be affected by this - sure, you will be able to avoid the Tau gunline and you will be able to really hurt them but the effect it would have on other armies would be horrific.
Right now it is hard enough to play Guard. Introducing turn 1 assaults would utterly invalidate them and I might as well pack my gak up and sell it off if this ever happens.
Tau are better IG. It sucks, but as it stands, 90% of assault armies have no chance against Tau. And only half have a chance against IG. Most of my games against IG are only moderately better than fighting Tau. Because I'm not a premiere assault list. I just get shot to bloody chunks.
Even Orks laugh at Guard, what assault armies are you on about?
Maybe your guard, but Orks do NOT laugh at guard in general.
Your damned right we don't. IG are one of the harder matchups for orks. SoB, IG and Tau are the worst armies for Orks to play against, Eldar are up there as well, but only because GW gave them about 3 times as much love as the next nearest codex.
As far as the other comment about LoS Block terrain and setting up all that. Most Tournaments I have been to limit terrain to a specific number. usually 3+D6 or some such nonsense. Very rarely do have the ability to grab giant buildings and place them in a way in which I can assault around/through them and he can't shoot me. Furthermore everyone seems to be forgetting one key thing, Difficult terrain! Instead of moving 6 and running D6 they are moving D6 and running D6, so you probably lost 2-3 inches of movement each turn. Plus if there is terrain when you assault that is -2 to charge distance. Ohh and god forbid if their is a grav field -4 to charge, better hope for some good rolls.
LoS and just terrain in general won't make an assault based army good overnight, the only decent assault army at the moment is KDK and that is because MC shenanigans and the fact that most of the army gets a 5++ minimum. Orks on the other hand? 6+ saves and open topped transports = lots and lots of dead units.
SemperMortis wrote: As far as the other comment about LoS Block terrain and setting up all that. Most Tournaments I have been to limit terrain to a specific number. usually 3+D6 or some such nonsense. Very rarely do have the ability to grab giant buildings and place them in a way in which I can assault around/through them and he can't shoot me. Furthermore everyone seems to be forgetting one key thing, Difficult terrain! Instead of moving 6 and running D6 they are moving D6 and running D6, so you probably lost 2-3 inches of movement each turn. Plus if there is terrain when you assault that is -2 to charge distance. Ohh and god forbid if their is a grav field -4 to charge, better hope for some good rolls.
Yeah well no surprise if you play in enviroment that's geared from the get go toward shooty lists they get bonus from the get go. Tournaments play with ridiculously low terrain count. That's hardly problem with rules though. Imagine how crappy shooting armies would become in boards with proper terrain if stuff people are clamouring for would be implemented...Might just as well sell any shooting armies.
Tournaments should aim for more terrain to begin with. While not perfect solution it helps AND makes games visually more appealing to begin with!
And there's LOS blocking terrain that isn't difficult terrain either
Assault being weak is a good thing. Melee combat should be an occasional thing, done to finish off the last survivors of a unit that you've crippled and pinned down with shooting. If you bring a whole army of screaming idiots with swords then you should lose every time when the other side brings guns.
Peregrine wrote: Assault being weak is a good thing. Melee combat should be an occasional thing, done to finish off the last survivors of a unit that you've crippled and pinned down with shooting. If you bring a whole army of screaming idiots with swords then you should lose every time when the other side brings guns.
You're one of those people who hates melee aren't you?
Peregrine wrote: Assault being weak is a good thing. Melee combat should be an occasional thing, done to finish off the last survivors of a unit that you've crippled and pinned down with shooting. If you bring a whole army of screaming idiots with swords then you should lose every time when the other side brings guns.
Part of the appeal of grimdark is this goofiness:
And I'd like to keep it that way lol. Kharn would be much less attractive as a speck under a titans boot compared to soloing it with an axe to the face.
Peregrine wrote: Assault being weak is a good thing. Melee combat should be an occasional thing, done to finish off the last survivors of a unit that you've crippled and pinned down with shooting. If you bring a whole army of screaming idiots with swords then you should lose every time when the other side brings guns.
Part of the appeal of grimdark is this goofiness:
And I'd like to keep it that way lol. Kharn would be much less attractive as a speck under a titans boot compared to soloing it with an axe to the face.
There's difference between assaults being viable and assaults being the king.
2nd ed had much more viable balance. Guns were main threat(hey even orks had viable shooting!) but provided you used missions and had real terrain even assaults had a role to play. When you need to drive entrenched enemy out of the objective throwing in assault troops(properly supported) can be hell of a more faster way than lobbing shells at them.
Nevelon wrote: Being assaulted locks you into CC. With shooting, the survivors of the barrage can move, shoot back, etc. But if you are assaulted, you basically don’t get to do anything but fight back. It takes the control away from the owner, and that’s not a whole lot of fun. Especially on turn one.
I think this argument is flawed. Yes that's how it works for 2 shooting units, the survivor shoots back. But what about shooting vs melee? The shooting unit shoots the melee unit, and the melee unit gets to do what exactly? Move closer and get shot at again until it's there. And when it's finally there, the shooting unit even gets to slap back (albeit with less force).
At least in melee the other unit gets a chance to hit you back.Sure, it might not be that much damage, but it's something.
Assault being weak is a good thing. Melee combat should be an occasional thing, done to finish off the last survivors of a unit that you've crippled and pinned down with shooting. If you bring a whole army of screaming idiots with swords then you should lose every time when the other side brings guns.
The main reason why 40K is enjoyable to me as a setting even though it has sci-fi elements is that it is firmly rooted in Fantasy. I hate the idea that shooting should be first. This is Fantasy in space, not sci-fi. High levels of technology and reasoning have no place in Warhammer 40k.
Assault and shooting should be 50/50 at all times. I should be able to bring an all Assault army and still have a reasonable chance at taking on a Tau gunline.
Peregrine wrote: Assault being weak is a good thing. Melee combat should be an occasional thing, done to finish off the last survivors of a unit that you've crippled and pinned down with shooting. If you bring a whole army of screaming idiots with swords then you should lose every time when the other side brings guns.
SemperMortis wrote: As far as the other comment about LoS Block terrain and setting up all that. Most Tournaments I have been to limit terrain to a specific number. usually 3+D6 or some such nonsense. Very rarely do have the ability to grab giant buildings and place them in a way in which I can assault around/through them and he can't shoot me. Furthermore everyone seems to be forgetting one key thing, Difficult terrain! Instead of moving 6 and running D6 they are moving D6 and running D6, so you probably lost 2-3 inches of movement each turn. Plus if there is terrain when you assault that is -2 to charge distance. Ohh and god forbid if their is a grav field -4 to charge, better hope for some good rolls.
Yeah well no surprise if you play in enviroment that's geared from the get go toward shooty lists they get bonus from the get go. Tournaments play with ridiculously low terrain count. That's hardly problem with rules though. Imagine how crappy shooting armies would become in boards with proper terrain if stuff people are clamouring for would be implemented...Might just as well sell any shooting armies.
Tournaments should aim for more terrain to begin with. While not perfect solution it helps AND makes games visually more appealing to begin with!
And there's LOS blocking terrain that isn't difficult terrain either
The rules don't define "proper terrain". That is VERY MUCH an issue with the rules.
Peregrine wrote: Assault being weak is a good thing. Melee combat should be an occasional thing, done to finish off the last survivors of a unit that you've crippled and pinned down with shooting. If you bring a whole army of screaming idiots with swords then you should lose every time when the other side brings guns.
Part of the appeal of grimdark is this goofiness:
And I'd like to keep it that way lol. Kharn would be much less attractive as a speck under a titans boot compared to soloing it with an axe to the face.
There's difference between assaults being viable and assaults being the king.
2nd ed had much more viable balance. Guns were main threat(hey even orks had viable shooting!) but provided you used missions and had real terrain even assaults had a role to play. When you need to drive entrenched enemy out of the objective throwing in assault troops(properly supported) can be hell of a more faster way than lobbing shells at them.
First turn assaults hardly make assault king. It's already possible to get first turn assaults and that hardly has any impact on the game as a whole. TWC were scary before wulfen and there is the fist of khorne.
Some units getting a rule that allows them to assault turn 1 would not break the game. As long as you can't consolidate into another unit, it wouldn't be any more dangerous than some of the crazier guns/spells out there. Sure, the game would benefit from being toned down rather than ramping things up all the time, but I really don't think it would unbalance the game any more than it already is.
Unless you really want to go full ham and make an entire army first turn charge but good luck finding players with that. You can pretty much already do it, but nobody does.
Roknar wrote: First turn assaults hardly make assault king. It's already possible to get first turn assaults and that hardly has any impact on the game as a whole. TWC were scary before wulfen and there is the fist of khorne.
Some units getting a rule that allows them to assault turn 1 would not break the game. As long as you can't consolidate into another unit, it wouldn't be any more dangerous than some of the crazier guns/spells out there. Sure, the game would benefit from being toned down rather than ramping things up all the time, but I really don't think it would unbalance the game any more than it already is.
Unless you really want to go full ham and make an entire army first turn charge but good luck finding players with that. You can pretty much already do it, but nobody does.
Consolidiate isn't that big of a help. Sure it's nice but that could be migated by deploying.
Problem is if first turn assault is possible basically only ways to hurt those units is overwatch(apart from d-flamers that's not generally that effective...) and your own CC units. Those CC units will be spending their game in CC all game...
Of course if game would allow shooting into CC...
We need LESS turn 1 game deciders. Not more. Shooting needs to be nerfed so there's less of turn 1 game deciding. Not "let's add CC turn 1 wins to mix as well!"
And finding players? Good luck trying to prevent what rules allow. On that logic wraithknight+warp spider+scat bike spam isn't problem either. "good luck finding players with that".
Roknar wrote: First turn assaults hardly make assault king. It's already possible to get first turn assaults and that hardly has any impact on the game as a whole. TWC were scary before wulfen and there is the fist of khorne.
Some units getting a rule that allows them to assault turn 1 would not break the game. As long as you can't consolidate into another unit, it wouldn't be any more dangerous than some of the crazier guns/spells out there. Sure, the game would benefit from being toned down rather than ramping things up all the time, but I really don't think it would unbalance the game any more than it already is.
Unless you really want to go full ham and make an entire army first turn charge but good luck finding players with that. You can pretty much already do it, but nobody does.
Consolidiate isn't that big of a help. Sure it's nice but that could be migated by deploying.
Problem is if first turn assault is possible basically only ways to hurt those units is overwatch(apart from d-flamers that's not generally that effective...) and your own CC units. Those CC units will be spending their game in CC all game...
Of course if game would allow shooting into CC...
We need LESS turn 1 game deciders. Not more. Shooting needs to be nerfed so there's less of turn 1 game deciding. Not "let's add CC turn 1 wins to mix as well!"
That would be nice, but turn 1 deciders can't be countered by turn 3 deciders.
Because people like to cause the opponent to pick up models off the table by the bucket load and get much pleasure from a turn 2 tabling and will complain incessantly if it can't be done. All kinds of twists to logic will appear in order to safeguard their tabling shenanigans. After all, how can some one win at all costs so long as there is at least on viable way to to step on it. No that won't do. Such counters should be purged for the heresy it is before any game starts.
I am still puzzled as to why people think IG shooting is that big of a deterrent to assault armies.
"*Set up the gunline*
>1st turn, generic assault army
"I Ds/droppod this, this and this in right on top of you"
'Oh hell, shoot fast and pray I dont scatter onto my own side'
>Turn two
"Assault time" *rubs hands together*
By turn three/four my line is just about rolled up.
master of ordinance wrote: I am still puzzled as to why people think IG shooting is that big of a deterrent to assault armies.
"*Set up the gunline*
>1st turn, generic assault army
"I Ds/droppod this, this and this in right on top of you"
'Oh hell, shoot fast and pray I dont scatter onto my own side'
>Turn two
"Assault time" *rubs hands together*
By turn three/four my line is just about rolled up.
Because it is if you build your list correctly. Murder the units that come out of the pods. Or roll with 50 man blobs with multiple force/power axes with a 4++ and fearless/stubborn.
Quit using overcosted russ hulls and non-wyvern artillery.
50man blobs are very easily removed these days, and Wyverns, while great, arent panaceas to everything.
Ultimately, assaults from drop pods and turn 1 have generally always been disallowed for the most part for a reason. The game has many issues, but allowing such things wont fix any of them, its just adding more garbage to the mountain of trash.
Turn 1 charges would break the game, though they would offer some answer to Tau and Eldar...
....though the argument I am seeing seems to be "Tau and Eldar broke the game, so let's stomp on the smashed wreckage and then maybe assault will be fun again!"
There are more issues to this game that need addressing that are far more important than not assaulting Turn 1.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Turn 1 charges would break the game, though they would offer some answer to Tau and Eldar...
....though the argument I am seeing seems to be "Tau and Eldar broke the game, so let's stomp on the smashed wreckage and then maybe assault will be fun again!"
There are more issues to this game that need addressing that are far more important than not assaulting Turn 1.
There are already at least two ways to reliably first turn assault. And from what I can tell, it didn't break the game. Especially the fist of khorne given how small of a formation it is. You'd be seeing it in every game if it was that broken. You wouldn't even have to worry about come the apocalypse.
Like I said, the game really needs to turn down the power dial (for normal games at least), but with the current state of the game? No big deal.
Now if I had SOME form of interceptor.... that would really help.
And I do not use artillery. Ever. It is stupidly priced and dies to my enemies farts.
Well that's your mistake, then. Explains some of your problems. Get Wyverns.
If your opponent has vindicators, you've already got a big advantage. Because they are not good.
Wyverns? They will die to DS infantry in a turn.
Vindicators that are invisible work very well.
That's a pretty unfair comparison. A 50 man blob with invisiblity is also immune from the vindicator and would protect the wyvern just the same.
wyverns are barrage aren't they? Wouldn't bubblewrapping them do the trick to protect from DS death?
Basically all the complaints are "waaaah! eldar are op, therefor you should make ME op!" and "waaah! tau are op, therefor you should make ME op!"
Why not nerf Eldar and Tau instead? Because there's a lot of shooty armies that would be utterly fethed over by this chance and are NOT currently powerhouses. Or perhaps you want to give, for example, Sisters of Battle Super Boltgun Mk9001s, and SolarMultiMeltaPistols, and PlasFlamers, and turn it in to a "roll for first turn to determine who wins the game" kind of battle?
Tau are not OP. Here's another smart person who figured it out by doing actual research. Came to the same conclusion as I did. Not only that he devled into two more tournaments info than I did and the data in them continues to back up our theory that Tau are top of the mid tier, but not OP. Not by a long shot. http://variancehammer.com/2016/06/08/whats-wrong-with-the-tau/
Gamgee wrote: Tau are not OP. Here's another smart person who figured it out by doing actual research. Came to the same conclusion as I did. Not only that he devled into two more tournaments info than I did and the data in them continues to back up our theory that Tau are top of the mid tier, but not OP. Not by a long shot. http://variancehammer.com/2016/06/08/whats-wrong-with-the-tau/
Except that the tournaments (well at least LVO) had several large restrictions on Tau, which is why they didn't do as well.
4th edition is when I remembered Assault being king, and even then 1st turn assaults were rare.
However 1st turn assaults are unfun to play against and to play as, since it requires little brain cells to concoct up beyond "find the shortest distance and most modifiers" to use. I think a better solution would be more assault-enabled transports in assault based armies (Tyranids, Chaos and to a lesser extent Orks could all use this) and make Assault in general more reliable.
Right now you have a random charge distance that might result in a failed charge, being shot by overwatch, and if you use unwieldy weapons you might not even get to attack before you're killed. Compare that to shooting; in shooting you get to pre-measure distances before shooting (you can pre-measure in assault too but you are not guaranteed a charge, while shooting will pretty much guarantee to be in range), there is zero chance for any sort of retaliation, and even if you're firing a heavy weapon in sub-optimal conditions (snapfiring) there's still not a whole lot that can go wrong (unlike trying to use a power fist).
I would like to say though that I'd prefer having assault from Deepstrike and outflanks. This would make those actions more tactical. I dislike the idea of consolidating into an enemy, as that was the primary reason Assault was ridiculous in 4th edition (a 200 point space marine captain with lightning claws and a jump pack could bunny hop through 800 points of enemy troops by consolidating into one combat after another)
Melissia wrote: Basically all the complaints are "waaaah! eldar are op, therefor you should make ME op!" and "waaah! tau are op, therefor you should make ME op!"
Why not nerf Eldar and Tau instead? Because there's a lot of shooty armies that would be utterly fethed over by this chance and are NOT currently powerhouses. Or perhaps you want to give, for example, Sisters of Battle Super Boltgun Mk9001s, and SolarMultiMeltaPistols, and PlasFlamers, and turn it in to a "roll for first turn to determine who wins the game" kind of battle?
Because they aren't going to get nerfed by GW. Also, there's still wolfstar, gravstar, DA shenanigans, etc. There's too much to nerf now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gamgee wrote: Tau are not OP. Here's another smart person who figured it out by doing actual research. Came to the same conclusion as I did. Not only that he devled into two more tournaments info than I did and the data in them continues to back up our theory that Tau are top of the mid tier, but not OP. Not by a long shot. http://variancehammer.com/2016/06/08/whats-wrong-with-the-tau/
They can table a lot of lists pretty damn quickly for not being OP.
Melissia wrote: Basically all the complaints are "waaaah! eldar are op, therefor you should make ME op!" and "waaah! tau are op, therefor you should make ME op!"
Why not nerf Eldar and Tau instead? Because there's a lot of shooty armies that would be utterly fethed over by this chance and are NOT currently powerhouses. Or perhaps you want to give, for example, Sisters of Battle Super Boltgun Mk9001s, and SolarMultiMeltaPistols, and PlasFlamers, and turn it in to a "roll for first turn to determine who wins the game" kind of battle?
Cause it's far too radical idea to fix the problem rather than try to bandaid at the expense of everything else. Because Eldar and Tau are broken let's concentrate only on that.
Come to think of...That's pretty much mindset what gets GW rules into the mess they are. GW concentrates on only one thing forgetting bigger picture. End result is what we got.
Players are now doing same mistake. Well they can't blame GW then when they are doing same thing
Take a talon strikeforce, take a shadowstrike, assault turn one every game.
I just wish Tau players could admit they are broken. I play marines, and I'm willing to admit white scar gladius' are pretty stupid broken. Then again, I've never heard of a Gladius winning a big tournament, mostly Eldar, Daemons and Space Wolf primaries.
Also, they just nerfed the Thunderwolf star, White Scars can't share their Chapter Tactics with other Marine chapters, including BA/SW/DA/GK.
Melissia wrote: Basically all the complaints are "waaaah! eldar are op, therefor you should make ME op!" and "waaah! tau are op, therefor you should make ME op!"
Why not nerf Eldar and Tau instead? Because there's a lot of shooty armies that would be utterly fethed over by this chance and are NOT currently powerhouses. Or perhaps you want to give, for example, Sisters of Battle Super Boltgun Mk9001s, and SolarMultiMeltaPistols, and PlasFlamers, and turn it in to a "roll for first turn to determine who wins the game" kind of battle?
Because they aren't going to get nerfed by GW. Also, there's still wolfstar, gravstar, DA shenanigans, etc. There's too much to nerf now.
Therefor, feth those armies that would be hurt the most by this?
That's bad game design if I've ever heard it. All you're doing is escalating things, when things need to be deescalated.
Because if your response to some things being OP is to say "okay, make my stuff OP, too", then you're just gonna make everything OP, and the game will end up as just "roll dice to determine who wins turn one" every time. Might as well not show up and put the effort of putting models down if a coin toss is what'll determine who wins.
Melissia wrote: Basically all the complaints are "waaaah! eldar are op, therefor you should make ME op!" and "waaah! tau are op, therefor you should make ME op!"
Why not nerf Eldar and Tau instead? Because there's a lot of shooty armies that would be utterly fethed over by this chance and are NOT currently powerhouses. Or perhaps you want to give, for example, Sisters of Battle Super Boltgun Mk9001s, and SolarMultiMeltaPistols, and PlasFlamers, and turn it in to a "roll for first turn to determine who wins the game" kind of battle?
Because they aren't going to get nerfed by GW. Also, there's still wolfstar, gravstar, DA shenanigans, etc. There's too much to nerf now.
Therefor, feth those armies that would be hurt the most by this?
That's bad game design if I've ever heard it. All you're doing is escalating things, when things need to be deescalated.
Because if your response to some things being OP is to say "okay, make my stuff OP, too", then you're just gonna make everything OP, and the game will end up as just "roll dice to determine who wins turn one" every time. Might as well not show up and put the effort of putting models down if a coin toss is what'll determine who wins.
If this was mentioned earlier in the thread, I apologize for bringing it up now. I wish that the rules actually said that you couldn't assault turn one. I don't actually have a problem with assault from reserves. The problem is that the current rules say that you have to have your models on the field for a turn before assaulting.
Another thing that I wouldn't mind would be if units with Frag\Assault grenades forced rerolls of successful hits with overwatch shots.
I don't have problem with a turn one assault. The issue I have is more of these formations that can assault out of reserve. Usually something we only see in apocalypse games, which is more understandable. In regular game it can be a little much to deal with.
I dare you to try to turn 1 assault my tau. Sending a unit in alone into my rapid fire is GG for you.
Does it matter how large the assaulting unit is?
I'm not sure just how many Storm boys I want in the vulture squad. It caps at 91. I'm close to 45. would 45 make it in?
I've always thought the proscription against first turn assaults is a relic of a bygone era.
In the before time, in the long-long ago, units that consolidated after a combat could consolidate right into another combat if they could reach. Such armies could wipe a whole enemy force out without ever getting shot at, if they could get the 1st turn assault.
I don't think 1st turn assaults are much of an issue anymore; they're a patch to a problem that doesn't exist any longer.
Glitcha wrote: I don't have problem with a turn one assault. The issue I have is more of these formations that can assault out of reserve. Usually something we only see in apocalypse games, which is more understandable. In regular game it can be a little much to deal with.
Usually you only see superheavies, D and apocalpyse blasts in apocalypse too, but that's no longer true. They really need to stop merging apocalypse and 40k, but currently we are stuck with apocalypse level shooting but only 40k level assaults.
I dare you to try to turn 1 assault my tau. Sending a unit in alone into my rapid fire is GG for you.
Does it matter how large the assaulting unit is?
I'm not sure just how many Storm boys I want in the vulture squad. It caps at 91. I'm close to 45. would 45 make it in?
If it's one big unit- it is likely everything close enough to charge would be destroyed. If you had a good charge roll you'd probably be okay.
Gamgee wrote: Tau are not OP. Here's another smart person who figured it out by doing actual research. Came to the same conclusion as I did. Not only that he devled into two more tournaments info than I did and the data in them continues to back up our theory that Tau are top of the mid tier, but not OP. Not by a long shot. http://variancehammer.com/2016/06/08/whats-wrong-with-the-tau/
How many times do we have to say it Gamgee? Your argument only applies to ITC rules. We are not talking about ITC rules. I understand that many tournaments use them, but that is not relevant to a discussion about balance in the core rules. Go bitch on the Frontline Gaming forums and let us have a moment's piece.
The problem honestly is simple, ranged usually beats melee. So those who have the best ranged, will typically be the best army.
Tactically it makes sense. As you run at me I'll just avoid you and shoot you until you're all dead. Especially when you factor in the super highly advanced technology that'd be available in the 41st century.
But as its a game, there should be some semblance of balance between melee and shooting.
Zarroc1733 wrote: The problem honestly is simple, ranged usually beats melee. So those who have the best ranged, will typically be the best army.
Tactically it makes sense. As you run at me I'll just avoid you and shoot you until you're all dead. Especially when you factor in the super highly advanced technology that'd be available in the 41st century.
But as its a game, there should be some semblance of balance between melee and shooting.
That's fine, as long as you cost the assault units appropriately.
Melissia wrote: Basically all the complaints are "waaaah! eldar are op, therefor you should make ME op!" and "waaah! tau are op, therefor you should make ME op!"
Why not nerf Eldar and Tau instead? Because there's a lot of shooty armies that would be utterly fethed over by this chance and are NOT currently powerhouses. Or perhaps you want to give, for example, Sisters of Battle Super Boltgun Mk9001s, and SolarMultiMeltaPistols, and PlasFlamers, and turn it in to a "roll for first turn to determine who wins the game" kind of battle?
Because they aren't going to get nerfed by GW. Also, there's still wolfstar, gravstar, DA shenanigans, etc. There's too much to nerf now.
Therefor, feth those armies that would be hurt the most by this?
That's bad game design if I've ever heard it. All you're doing is escalating things, when things need to be deescalated.
Because if your response to some things being OP is to say "okay, make my stuff OP, too", then you're just gonna make everything OP, and the game will end up as just "roll dice to determine who wins turn one" every time. Might as well not show up and put the effort of putting models down if a coin toss is what'll determine who wins.
Zarroc1733 wrote: The problem honestly is simple, ranged usually beats melee. So those who have the best ranged, will typically be the best army.
Tactically it makes sense. As you run at me I'll just avoid you and shoot you until you're all dead. Especially when you factor in the super highly advanced technology that'd be available in the 41st century.
But as its a game, there should be some semblance of balance between melee and shooting.
That's fine, as long as you cost the assault units appropriately.
True enough. I'm not saying we have a good system, and many assault units are over-costed and many shooting units are under-costed. I'd love to see it balanced better. My favorite army would get better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Making everything OP so no one is honestly seems to be the norm even outside of Warhammer right now. The issue is everyone wants better stuff and new stuff, but you can't get better stuff and new stuff and keep the same scale of game. The game will require more and more and eventually it kills itself off.
The problem is even if they nerf OP armies everyone still wants something newer, bigger, better, and stronger and if they don't get it they'll quit the game because it grows stale. So they'll realease newer, bigger, better, stronger models and armies. It is very difficult for a game like Warhammer to be deescalated because people naturally want more and new, because old eventually gets boring.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not saying that's a good thing and obviously not everyone feels that way but many do. If they have to play with the same models over and over and over again with nothing new coming they'll get bored. Plus if GW doesn't produce newer models How will they ever get anyone to buy models?
Nevelon wrote: You don’t need to tie up the whole army, just the really nasty parts.
And if you have a bunch of units doing this, possibly with multi-assaults, you can tie up a lot of units.
But that’s just taking the concept to the extreme.
I honestly thing a -little- first turn assaults would be good for the game. It would help swing the pendulum from shooting dominance back to a middle ground. What I don’t want is a return of CC blenders bouncing from one assault to another, with no real answer.
Shooting is in theory balanced with range, cover, and LOS. In practice, power creep has made a number of those non-issues. But I blame that mostly on the problem units, and not the system.
YMMV.
Quoted in full. This is the real problem here. Trukk boyz would be a tremendous threat on turn 2 if their trukks didn't blow up (killing almost all of them) on turn 1. Heaven forbid trukk boyz go second, facing TWO full turns of shooting before they do their thing.
Not sure if anyone has brought this up, but in 5th you COULD assault turn one and assault out of reserves. Guess what dominated the meta? Shooting armies, in a time before allying to maximize combo potential, before overwatch, before interceptor.
Its almost like there's more tools to use against assault now in addition to guns getting stronger and stronger.
Jimsolo wrote: I've always thought the proscription against first turn assaults is a relic of a bygone era.
In the before time, in the long-long ago, units that consolidated after a combat could consolidate right into another combat if they could reach. Such armies could wipe a whole enemy force out without ever getting shot at, if they could get the 1st turn assault.
I don't think 1st turn assaults are much of an issue anymore; they're a patch to a problem that doesn't exist any longer.
Consolidiate or not you don't get shot in your opponents turn if you charge. So forget that arqument.
T1 assault is possible, that unit will then spend game locked in h2h short of bad luck.
Jimsolo wrote: I've always thought the proscription against first turn assaults is a relic of a bygone era.
In the before time, in the long-long ago, units that consolidated after a combat could consolidate right into another combat if they could reach. Such armies could wipe a whole enemy force out without ever getting shot at, if they could get the 1st turn assault.
I don't think 1st turn assaults are much of an issue anymore; they're a patch to a problem that doesn't exist any longer.
Consolidiate or not you don't get shot in your opponents turn if you charge. So forget that arqument.
T1 assault is possible, that unit will then spend game locked in h2h short of bad luck.
Jimsolo wrote: I've always thought the proscription against first turn assaults is a relic of a bygone era.
In the before time, in the long-long ago, units that consolidated after a combat could consolidate right into another combat if they could reach. Such armies could wipe a whole enemy force out without ever getting shot at, if they could get the 1st turn assault.
I don't think 1st turn assaults are much of an issue anymore; they're a patch to a problem that doesn't exist any longer.
Consolidiate or not you don't get shot in your opponents turn if you charge. So forget that arqument.
T1 assault is possible, that unit will then spend game locked in h2h short of bad luck.
That's completely incorrect.
How's so? Last time I checked you cannot shoot into close combat...
Or you do think assaulting player is so INCOMPETENT he cannot stack odds in his favour? You do know he doesn't HAVE to rush into CC with every model. Spend movement phase so that only enough reach combat that you don't get yourself screwed. Any half decent player can do that. Sure rookie players might screw that but seriously it does not that that much skill. Especially since premeasuring is allowed.
A good assault unit risks killing their target in one turn, which leaves them sitting ducks and they will more than likely not survive the turn. And even when they do they have to face overwatch, not to mention suffering casualties in the assault itself. And terrain can pull a number on them, unlike shooting.
Hell, I have found the dimensional key to be almost worthwhile JUST for the dangerous terrain bubble. Between forcing gets hot rolls and dangerous terrain I have found that people roll a lot of 1's over the course of a game. And in the case of the key it even deducts charge range.
Another problem with close combat is how static it is.
Units in combat don't really move or maneuver, so if you allow assaults on turn 1, then there would be no reason really ever to shoot unless you were a tank. The army with inferior shooting will always tie up the enemy army so it cannot shoot.
Therefore, no movement aside from pile ins would become the norm, and that's not a game I would like to play.
Jimsolo wrote: I've always thought the proscription against first turn assaults is a relic of a bygone era.
In the before time, in the long-long ago, units that consolidated after a combat could consolidate right into another combat if they could reach. Such armies could wipe a whole enemy force out without ever getting shot at, if they could get the 1st turn assault.
I don't think 1st turn assaults are much of an issue anymore; they're a patch to a problem that doesn't exist any longer.
Consolidiate or not you don't get shot in your opponents turn if you charge. So forget that arqument.
T1 assault is possible, that unit will then spend game locked in h2h short of bad luck.
That's completely incorrect.
How's so? Last time I checked you cannot shoot into close combat...
Or you do think assaulting player is so INCOMPETENT he cannot stack odds in his favour? You do know he doesn't HAVE to rush into CC with every model. Spend movement phase so that only enough reach combat that you don't get yourself screwed. Any half decent player can do that. Sure rookie players might screw that but seriously it does not that that much skill. Especially since premeasuring is allowed.
Calm down there.... No need to get yelly.
It's incorrect because saying "T1 assault is possible, that unit will then spend game locked in h2h short of bad luck" is an incredible overstatement. Units like Cultists, Guardians etc will fold like wet paper in assault so the assaulting unit will get out of combat very quickly. If the assaulting unit is strong such as TWC or a Wraithknight then they'll wipe the unit and move on. The only times where units spend the whole game locked in combat is when you have units that lack assault power such as Tactical Marines that fight each other or if you have units made specifically for tarpitting. So the statement is completely wrong.
Weird things happen in melee, too. A single turn of cold die rolls can mean your unit gets swept from a minor amount of damage. I acknowledge this. The trade off with shooting is that shooting is very, very consistent. With the high ROF, high S capabilities in the game now, shooting can generate bewildering amounts of wounds, quickly making many assault lists not viable even if they make it there. Two marines can't beat 30 fire warriors in assault.
JimOnMars wrote: This is the real problem here. Trukk boyz would be a tremendous threat on turn 2 if their trukks didn't blow up (killing almost all of them) on turn 1. Heaven forbid trukk boyz go second, facing TWO full turns of shooting before they do their thing.
This is another reason why I believe we need an I move you move I shoot you shoot, something like they do in Lord of the Rings. Me and my son used LotR rules for a 40K game and oh it was so much fun. Was it perfect? Nope. Then again 40K right now is no where near perfect, but using LotR rules for 40K made it a hell of a better game.
pm713 wrote:Bubble wrap them? I would've thought that would be easy with Guard.
Well remember what some people think. If they sees 3 Wyverns they're quitting the game because you're a TFG cheesemonger.
Wyverns Cheese? Yeah right.... also considered you need 2-3 of them to be effective.... and a niche unit too, they're not going to manage to stop assaulting troops in transports (unless your one of those idiots who suggests footslogging marines), you then have to waste point babysitting them doing nothing else.
Wyverns are cheap. Most DS infantry isn't. It's unlikely even a full melta drop will kill all of them. And then they lose everything the dropped.
Invisibility makes almost everything good. That's a non argument. If you they casting it on their vindicators, you've won already.
DS infantry can be hella cheap? Free drop pods for anyone? Wyverns are also killed by anything S4 in either shooting or CC... You even have fairly cheap DS units in guards own codex.... never mind nids etc. Like I'm all for helping nids, but as others said you hardly wanna buff every single factions ability to DS charge seeing some, like the guard, would be even worse than they already are.
You don't even need melta's, marines with boltguns can do the job easily enough. If you add bubblewrap to wyverns you're lookimg easily at a 300+ point investment just to keep one of their only slightly competitive units alive.
Gamgee wrote: Tau are not OP. Here's another smart person who figured it out by doing actual research. Came to the same conclusion as I did. Not only that he devled into two more tournaments info than I did and the data in them continues to back up our theory that Tau are top of the mid tier, but not OP. Not by a long shot. http://variancehammer.com/2016/06/08/whats-wrong-with-the-tau/
How many times do we have to say it Gamgee? Your argument only applies to ITC rules. We are not talking about ITC rules. I understand that many tournaments use them, but that is not relevant to a discussion about balance in the core rules. Go bitch on the Frontline Gaming forums and let us have a moment's piece.
It should be noted that while all technically the ITC, the three tournaments mentioned in the analysis all have different rules. The LVO took place before the most recent rules changes were in place. The Midwest Conquest has it's own FAQ, and in several places it departs from the standard ITC FAQ, most notably:
ITC: "Signature Systems, wargear and other special rules that alter the way that a unit fires (e.g., Skyfire) do not apply to other units using the Coordinated Firepower command benefit."
MWC: "Signature Systems, wargear and other special rules that alter the way that a unit fires (e.g. an ability that grants an entire unit Skyfire) do apply to other units using the Coordinated Firepower command benefit."
They're also at different points levels, in different parts of the country, using different army composition rules.
pm713 wrote:Bubble wrap them? I would've thought that would be easy with Guard.
Well remember what some people think. If they sees 3 Wyverns they're quitting the game because you're a TFG cheesemonger.
Wyverns Cheese? Yeah right.... also considered you need 2-3 of them to be effective.... and a niche unit too, they're not going to manage to stop assaulting troops in transports (unless your one of those idiots who suggests footslogging marines), you then have to waste point babysitting them doing nothing else.
Wyverns are cheap. Most DS infantry isn't. It's unlikely even a full melta drop will kill all of them. And then they lose everything the dropped.
Invisibility makes almost everything good. That's a non argument. If you they casting it on their vindicators, you've won already.
DS infantry can be hella cheap? Free drop pods for anyone? Wyverns are also killed by anything S4 in either shooting or CC... You even have fairly cheap DS units in guards own codex.... never mind nids etc. Like I'm all for helping nids, but as others said you hardly wanna buff every single factions ability to DS charge seeing some, like the guard, would be even worse than they already are.
You don't even need melta's, marines with boltguns can do the job easily enough. If you add bubblewrap to wyverns you're lookimg easily at a 300+ point investment just to keep one of their only slightly competitive units alive.
You aren't likely to hp out AV 10 with 20 BS 4 bolter shots. Try again. Let them deep strike in and fire boltguns. Boltguns are quite irrelevant in the game now.
I think that actually ties into the problem Martel. S4 AP5 used to be the best standard troop weapon in the game. It wasn't fear inspiring but it was respected, Orks have S4 AP6 Assault 2 Range 18 weapons which are worse in every way to a bolter but again, about fair. The problems then started to crop up when basic troop weapons were able to glance Land Raiders to death, or the power of the shots went up so that those Tau firewarriors are wounding most foes on 3s and a lot of foes on 2s.
That ties directly into Assaulting 1st turn because it shows just how powerful shooting has become over the last couple of editions. Before a blob of 100 boyz in a single unit would have instilled massive fear in almost every single army in the game. Now? I have witnessed an eldar army of 1500pts (a bit less, some units were in reserve still) almost table a 100 boyz in a single shooting phase/assault phase. When a troop choice is allowed to take a S6 4 shot weapon on a BS4 platform that has 3+ armor and jink? seriously? Shooting is the king right now.
I am not saying turn one assault should be easy to get.
What I'm saying is in 5th edition you could have assault out of reserves unless you deep stike. It didn't brake the game in any way and was very tactically flexible. You had to think about placement from units that could hit you from the side when they came in. It makes no sense for a unit that is outflanking to have to come in stand around for a whole ton of shooting and then gets shot in OverWatch.
pm713 wrote:Bubble wrap them? I would've thought that would be easy with Guard.
Well remember what some people think. If they sees 3 Wyverns they're quitting the game because you're a TFG cheesemonger.
Wyverns Cheese? Yeah right.... also considered you need 2-3 of them to be effective.... and a niche unit too, they're not going to manage to stop assaulting troops in transports (unless your one of those idiots who suggests footslogging marines), you then have to waste point babysitting them doing nothing else.
Wyverns are cheap. Most DS infantry isn't. It's unlikely even a full melta drop will kill all of them. And then they lose everything the dropped.
Invisibility makes almost everything good. That's a non argument. If you they casting it on their vindicators, you've won already.
DS infantry can be hella cheap? Free drop pods for anyone? Wyverns are also killed by anything S4 in either shooting or CC... You even have fairly cheap DS units in guards own codex.... never mind nids etc. Like I'm all for helping nids, but as others said you hardly wanna buff every single factions ability to DS charge seeing some, like the guard, would be even worse than they already are.
You don't even need melta's, marines with boltguns can do the job easily enough. If you add bubblewrap to wyverns you're lookimg easily at a 300+ point investment just to keep one of their only slightly competitive units alive.
You aren't likely to hp out AV 10 with 20 BS 4 bolter shots. Try again. Let them deep strike in and fire boltguns. Boltguns are quite irrelevant in the game now.
Yeah at least 2 HP gone.... first turn... if they manage to assault next turn or turn 1 (like this thread suggests) the wyvern would be insta dead. Never mind upgrades to the drop pod or tactical squad. Anyone who thinks wyverns... or any vehicles with AV10 sides are hard to kill via deepstriking have bigger problems.
Making widescale flankers or DS units capable of CC seems just nuts. There are a few nid units for example I would expect assaulting to possible such as genestealers or those arriving via tunnels. But then again leave it for weaker units and those that are pure CC. Helping the likes of marines in drop pods even more would just risk breaking the farce of balance we have at the moment even more.
They won't be assaulting anything next turn. They'll be dead on your shooting phase. Because 7th ed says so.
And if I pay for a pod and a melta, I should be able to frag a single cheap tank. And Wyverns are cheap. A tac squad or even BA assault squad won't statistically kill more than one wyvern in the squadron. And then they all die. So I'm trading over 100 points for the price of a wyvern.
Marines in drop pods are good because of skyhammer, which ALREADY allows assaulting, but is really all about relentless grav cannons. What about Dante-themed BA lists? They just die under the current rules.
Martel732 wrote: Shootas are better than bolters. You can assault after you use them. AP doesn't matter, and it gets more shots from 12"-18".
The shoota is better..but the shootER isn't. BS2 just sucks.
That's true, but you still score as many hits per point of shoota boy as tac marines. Yeah, they aren't as durable, but that matters less and less with every codex release. The IA splats marines like they were boyz.
Xenomancers wrote:I dare you to try to turn 1 assault my tau. Sending a unit in alone into my rapid fire is GG for you.
Says the person who has the rules in favor of him.
I am pro first turn assault. I think you should be able to do it from infiltrate, reserves, outflank, and deep strike.
Not a chance in hell. It would invalidate so many armies it is not even funny, and I for one am not having my already super hardcore mode turned up to 12 by turn 1 zerg rushes into my Infatry units and Tanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Basically all the complaints are "waaaah! eldar are op, therefor you should make ME op!" and "waaah! tau are op, therefor you should make ME op!"
Why not nerf Eldar and Tau instead? Because there's a lot of shooty armies that would be utterly fethed over by this chance and are NOT currently powerhouses. Or perhaps you want to give, for example, Sisters of Battle Super Boltgun Mk9001s, and SolarMultiMeltaPistols, and PlasFlamers, and turn it in to a "roll for first turn to determine who wins the game" kind of battle?
^^ This. I am in complete agreement with Melissa here - we need to nerf Eldar, marines and Tau back into line with the other codexes, not make everything stupidly over-the-top-as-feth powerful.
Assaulting tanks with marines now is a lot more futile. At least with turn one assault you can fight back. Turn one shooting means i can't do a thing except die.
Martel732 wrote: Assaulting tanks with marines now is a lot more futile. At least with turn one assault you can fight back. Turn one shooting means i can't do a thing except die.
Nerfs aren't coming. They don't sell models.
Powerfist/Thunderhammer/Poweraxe + 1 Krak Grenade plus 24 S4 attacks against RAV 10 will kill most none SH tanks.
Martel732 wrote: Assaulting tanks with marines now is a lot more futile. At least with turn one assault you can fight back. Turn one shooting means i can't do a thing except die.
Nerfs aren't coming. They don't sell models.
Powerfist/Thunderhammer/Poweraxe + 1 Krak Grenade plus 24 S4 attacks against RAV 10 will kill most none SH tanks.
Most marines don't have that because melee weapons are stupidly overcosted. Are you losing to bad marine lists?
Martel732 wrote: Assaulting tanks with marines now is a lot more futile. At least with turn one assault you can fight back. Turn one shooting means i can't do a thing except die.
Nerfs aren't coming. They don't sell models.
Powerfist/Thunderhammer/Poweraxe + 1 Krak Grenade plus 24 S4 attacks against RAV 10 will kill most none SH tanks.
Most marines don't have that because melee weapons are stupidly overcosted. Are you losing to bad marine lists?
I was losing to Krak Grenade spam when it came down to tanks. Havnt tried it with this new errata but given that he could demolish a squadron in the assault phase I am not sure much will change.
Martel732 wrote: They won't be assaulting anything next turn. They'll be dead on your shooting phase. Because 7th ed says so.
And if I pay for a pod and a melta, I should be able to frag a single cheap tank. And Wyverns are cheap. A tac squad or even BA assault squad won't statistically kill more than one wyvern in the squadron. And then they all die. So I'm trading over 100 points for the price of a wyvern.
Marines in drop pods are good because of skyhammer, which ALREADY allows assaulting, but is really all about relentless grav cannons. What about Dante-themed BA lists? They just die under the current rules.
Any the would be dead next turn because? A lucky single wyvern would most likely only kill 2 MEQ's.
Even with first turn assault knowing how to deploy your units to respond can make a huge difference, especially if you know model relation rules.
I went up against a guard player in a tournament, he took one look at my drop pods, dreadnoughts and thunderwolves and responded with deployment changes. Where in other matches he'd deployed things pretty clumped he spread everything so my drop pods couldn't drop into his deployment zone, I couldn't reach his tanks with most of my weapons and had to decide between all-or-nothing full range melta shots at the tanks and flaming troops rather than my usual plan of flamering the tank and torching another unit that happens to be in the way or flaming the infantry and leaving the tank unmolested, my templates were getting minimal models underneath them. Deathwind missile launchers, Heavy and normal flamers and a couple of bolt pistol shots later I'd only killed one unit and forced some movement to maintain unit coherency, two units of my thunderwolves hit and were forced to take on a small unit of cheap guard because I was forced to get past them in order to get at the larger units. Even though I measured an tricked and only got one model of each unit into combat I still tore through those units and was left out in the shooting gallery for my opponent's first turn, his tanks blew away a few of my tanks, a squad of wulfen and a squad of thunderwolves that weren't even in line of sight, guard charged my dread with a twelve man fearless unit just to lock up its heavy flamer for at least six turns. Just the sheer press of bodies forced me into attacking expendable units and the game came down to my grey hunters and his transports & tanks grabbing as many objectives as possible and his bloody tanks obliterating my hunters whenever they got one.
Result
Guard
7x Tactical Objectives
4x Objective Markers
Space Wolves
First Blood Shooting
First Blood Assault
Line Breaker
1x Objective Marker
2x Tactical Objetives
My point isn't that shooting is over powered it's that assault can be dictated by so many more things than shooting, to the point where a smart opponent can force you to attack what he or she would prefer you to attack and pretty much force you out in the open during their shooting phases.
Melee upgrades cost like crazy so you have a lot of points sitting on a small number of wounds and every dead melee model hurts like mad, models can't jump over enemy units nor pass within an inch of them, unless you have split fire you must charge what you shoot at, even if that target was destroyed by shooting, meaning if you kill it with shooting your melee unit's turn ends in the shooting phase, charges are at the mercy of terrain and can suffer modifiers and even wounds like crazy, you can't charge what you can't see in spite of shootie armies being able to shoot what they can't see you have to charge through overwatch, sometimes you have to forgo your unit's own shooting phase and take the full overwatch just to make damn sure your melee units won't kill their target and be left out in the open, vehicles that aren't walkers can't be locked into combat so your unit is going to be left out in the open no matter what the result of their charge was.
Assault armies have it rough and people are griping turn one assaults? To paraphrase Major Payne, you'll find my sympathy in the dictionary between s#it and syphilis.
Skimask Mohawk wrote: Not sure if anyone has brought this up, but in 5th you COULD assault turn one and assault out of reserves. Guess what dominated the meta? Shooting armies, in a time before allying to maximize combo potential, before overwatch, before interceptor.
Its almost like there's more tools to use against assault now in addition to guns getting stronger and stronger.
This. I'd like to refer back to Ailaros's oldie but goldie at the start of 6th edition (spoilered for length):
- Your charge distance is at the mercy of the dice. I have seen several assaults that would have been in range in 5th fail in 6th.
- You can no longer run and assault with Fleet.
- Grenades got nerfed for assaulting through terrain.
- Assault grenades no longer hurt vehicles.
- Overwatch
- And, because it really needs to be mentioned twice given the scope of the rule, transported units can overwatch if their transport gets charged, walkers can overwatch, and flamers are overwatch BEASTS. There is now literally no point in attempting to assault a unit of burnaz.
- A unit type that IS IMMUNE TO CLOSE COMBAT was born and became a staple in many lists (fliers)
- You can't assault out of a non-assault vehicle ever and that includes when it is destroyed on you
- Multi-charges were nerfed
- Challenges killed a lot of the potential of combat beast characters
- You can't assault on the turn you come on from reserves
- You can't assault if you Infiltrate or Scout and go first
- The distance from which an assault vehicle brings you closer to the enemy is reduced
- Some random objectives half your assault range
- Furious Charge got nerfed
- Wound allocation forces you to take the models from the front as casualties, this makes an assault unit take an extra turn(s) of being exposed to gunfire before they can get stuck in.
- Wound allocation means that hidden weapons upgrades are no longer hidden. You only need to kill a squad to the point where the upgrade model is the closest to something. This is very easy to achieve with deepstriking.
- Loss of by-unit cover in favor of by-model cover destroys the ability for foot hordes to advance upfield.
- Addition of focus fire
- Addition of Precise Shot.
- Worsening of cover. Intervening units only give 4+, hills no longer area terrain, etc.
- Power weapons got screwed up. Either Ap3, or I1, take your choice...
- You can no longer disembark after moving more than 6" in a transport (killing mech assault units).
- grenades can now be thrown.
- walkers can no longer tie up squads in close combat.
- grenades now work against monstrous creatures in close combat. This hurts dedicated assault units relative to basic infantry that have no desire to be in close combat.
- pre-measuring makes it much easier to make sure shooting weapons are in range, while not helping assault units make it into assault more reliably.
- rapid fire now puts more shots out on the move.
- you can now move and fire heavy weapons. This and the above change to rapid fire mean that you can now back up away from assault units while still shooting.
- parts of a squad can now move without affecting the accuracy of heavy weapons.
- old wound wrapping gotten rid of. I'm glad, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is a boost to shooting more than assaulting.
- pile-in moves reduced to 3" from 6".
- unengaged models in a unit that is locked in close combat must now move closer to the enemy units. Used to capture objectives far away while in close combat with this one in 5th.
- barrage weapons may now fire within their minimum ranges.
- barrage weapons no longer lose strength against vehicles from off-center scatters.
- artillery units got MUCH more survivable.
- models with two pistol weapons can now fire them both.
- vehicles can shoot all weapons at cruising speed.
- in order to charge a vehicle, you must have some way of damaging it.
RELATIVE BUFFS FOR ASSAULT
- hypothetical increase of maximum charge range from 6" to 12". Given that assault range is no longer reliable, I still consider this more of a nerf than a buff. I mean, if you're 12" away, are you really going to attempt to charge? The most likely result is that your opponent will get some free overwatch, and you're still not making it into close combat.
- hammer of wrath.
- assaulting vehicles now gives you much better chance to hit.
- rage rule change
- gets hot now affects those rare vehicles that have it
So, some of these changes are more important than others, and you can uselessly nit-pick them all you like, but the fact is that there were 39 rule changes to make shooting better, and arguably up to 5 rule changes that make assault better.
Put another way, for every rule that made assault better, there were EIGHT rules that make shooting better.
6th ed is a shooting edition. End of.
Not to mention the codices that have come out since 6th. Eldar and especially tau make a mockery of assault. Or, really, any game mechanic that isn't rolling dice to see if you damage something.
Admittedly some of these changes, like Precision Shots, aren't around in the same form in 7th as in 6th, but we're still looking at a situation where assault is far worse off than in 5th, and shooting was already stronger in 5th!
Martel732 wrote: You do have an army with those wyverns, right? The two remaining wyverns alone would gut a 5 man squad.
Ah yes, the rest of the army which will in all honesty kill maybe a squad in a turn. Why are marine players so set against letting Guard players have anything good?
Martel732 wrote: You do have an army with those wyverns, right? The two remaining wyverns alone would gut a 5 man squad.
3 Wyverns equals 13-14 marines and 3 drop pods..... two Wyverns would kill maybe 4 of those marines?
And heaven forbid Guard having a unit that can kill light infantry and chip away at marines without being horrifically overpriced akin to the rest of their codex. I actually only have two wyverns.... and would only use them in units of two seeing their effectiveness drops when you put them in units of three and it's a risk having three unit squadrons on an open topped chimera chassis.
Martel732 wrote: You do have an army with those wyverns, right? The two remaining wyverns alone would gut a 5 man squad.
Ah yes, the rest of the army which will in all honesty kill maybe a squad in a turn. Why are marine players so set against letting Guard players have anything good?
I've seen guard kill 40 meqs in one turn. Maybe you should look into how to do that. This involved some suboptimal saves from the marine player, but plasma guns and wound spam are a thing.
Martel732 wrote: You do have an army with those wyverns, right? The two remaining wyverns alone would gut a 5 man squad.
3 Wyverns equals 13-14 marines and 3 drop pods..... two Wyverns would kill maybe 4 of those marines?
And heaven forbid Guard having a unit that can kill light infantry and chip away at marines without being horrifically overpriced akin to the rest of their codex. I actually only have two wyverns.... and would only use them in units of two seeing their effectiveness drops when you put them in units of three and it's a risk having three unit squadrons on an open topped chimera chassis.
It might equal it, but your typical pod drop is 5 men and three meltaguns tops. They statistically have around a 50% chance of exploding a single wyvern with no cover. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
And heaven forbid Guard having a unit that can kill light infantry and chip away at marines without being horrifically overpriced akin to the rest of their codex
...You kid right? Guard don't need upgrades or special units to beat marines. Compared to Space Wolves or any other Melee Space Marine outfit war gear Guard have no concept of the term 'expensive' for 140 points a Space wolves player can field two bare five man grey hunter units or a single ten man unit, a guard player can put down two platoon command squads and four infantry squads and arm ten models with bolt guns. That's twenty bolter shots and a further twenty five las-pistol shots. Sheer volume of shots will drop most marine units of a similar points value.
Huron black heart wrote: The game tried to balance the strength of close combat orientated armies, unfortunately they went too far the other way.
Rather than turn one assaults I'd allow units to consolidate from a victorious assault straight into another, if the opponent is silly enough to bunch his army together that is.
Behold as my single thunder hammer blows up your entire back line of vehicles mr parking lot guard.
And heaven forbid Guard having a unit that can kill light infantry and chip away at marines without being horrifically overpriced akin to the rest of their codex
...You kid right? Guard don't need upgrades or special units to beat marines. Compared to Space Wolves or any other Melee Space Marine outfit war gear Guard have no concept of the term 'expensive' for 140 points a Space wolves player can field two bare five man grey hunter units or a single ten man unit, a guard player can put down two platoon command squads and four infantry squads and arm ten models with bolt guns. That's twenty bolter shots and a further twenty five las-pistol shots. Sheer volume of shots will drop most marine units of a similar points value.
You do know a base platoon is 130 points right?
That's just one PCS and two infantry squads and out of them you can arm three with boltguns .... so that's 133 points.... have you even read the guard codex? Guard are horrifically weak in CC and most of their shooting that can reliably take out marines... is notoriously unreliable due to BS 3 scatter shenanigans.
One on one comparisons aren't what the game is about.
Unit X at 100 points may always beat unit Y, but that ignores what Y is strong against, what X is weak to, the movement options the synergy with the rest of the army.
And heaven forbid Guard having a unit that can kill light infantry and chip away at marines without being horrifically overpriced akin to the rest of their codex
...You kid right? Guard don't need upgrades or special units to beat marines. Compared to Space Wolves or any other Melee Space Marine outfit war gear Guard have no concept of the term 'expensive' for 140 points a Space wolves player can field two bare five man grey hunter units or a single ten man unit, a guard player can put down two platoon command squads and four infantry squads and arm ten models with bolt guns. That's twenty bolter shots and a further twenty five las-pistol shots. Sheer volume of shots will drop most marine units of a similar points value.
And you sir are either in a jovial mood or just out right delusional. 140 points, well someone above mentioned how much Platoons cost but he actually got it wrong. The minimal platoon cost, before any upgrades, is 135 points.
135 pints for 25 bods with lasguns.
Your two five man Grey hunter squads will go through that like a hot knife through soft butter, hell 'massacre' does not even begin to cover it.
As with many Marine players I see here, whining about the Guard, you have clearly never read the codex. Try reading it and coming up with a viable army that does not just come down to Vets and Leman Russ/Wyvern spam.
@Martel732: When the dice are with them Grots can take out Terminators. Usually an Imperial guard army will kill less than half that and most of those casualties will come from tank hits against Marines in the open. As soon as the enemy enters cover the effectiveness drops rapidly.
And heaven forbid Guard having a unit that can kill light infantry and chip away at marines without being horrifically overpriced akin to the rest of their codex
...You kid right? Guard don't need upgrades or special units to beat marines. Compared to Space Wolves or any other Melee Space Marine outfit war gear Guard have no concept of the term 'expensive' for 140 points a Space wolves player can field two bare five man grey hunter units or a single ten man unit, a guard player can put down two platoon command squads and four infantry squads and arm ten models with bolt guns. That's twenty bolter shots and a further twenty five las-pistol shots. Sheer volume of shots will drop most marine units of a similar points value.
And you sir are either in a jovial mood or just out right delusional. 140 points, well someone above mentioned how much Platoons cost but he actually got it wrong. The minimal platoon cost, before any upgrades, is 135 points.
135 pints for 25 bods with lasguns.
Your two five man Grey hunter squads will go through that like a hot knife through soft butter, hell 'massacre' does not even begin to cover it.
As with many Marine players I see here, whining about the Guard, you have clearly never read the codex. Try reading it and coming up with a viable army that does not just come down to Vets and Leman Russ/Wyvern spam.
@Martel732: When the dice are with them Grots can take out Terminators. Usually an Imperial guard army will kill less than half that and most of those casualties will come from tank hits against Marines in the open. As soon as the enemy enters cover the effectiveness drops rapidly.
And heaven forbid Guard having a unit that can kill light infantry and chip away at marines without being horrifically overpriced akin to the rest of their codex
...You kid right? Guard don't need upgrades or special units to beat marines. Compared to Space Wolves or any other Melee Space Marine outfit war gear Guard have no concept of the term 'expensive' for 140 points a Space wolves player can field two bare five man grey hunter units or a single ten man unit, a guard player can put down two platoon command squads and four infantry squads and arm ten models with bolt guns. That's twenty bolter shots and a further twenty five las-pistol shots. Sheer volume of shots will drop most marine units of a similar points value.
And you sir are either in a jovial mood or just out right delusional. 140 points, well someone above mentioned how much Platoons cost but he actually got it wrong. The minimal platoon cost, before any upgrades, is 135 points.
135 pints for 25 bods with lasguns.
Your two five man Grey hunter squads will go through that like a hot knife through soft butter, hell 'massacre' does not even begin to cover it.
As with many Marine players I see here, whining about the Guard, you have clearly never read the codex. Try reading it and coming up with a viable army that does not just come down to Vets and Leman Russ/Wyvern spam.
@Martel732: When the dice are with them Grots can take out Terminators. Usually an Imperial guard army will kill less than half that and most of those casualties will come from tank hits against Marines in the open. As soon as the enemy enters cover the effectiveness drops rapidly.
You mean YOUR IG armies. Sounds like you are still rely on Russ hulls to do damage. Big mistake.
You even mentioned Leman Russ spam as part of your "viable" army. No wonder you have so many problems.
And you sir are either in a jovial mood or just out right delusional. 140 points, well someone above mentioned how much Platoons cost but he actually got it wrong. The minimal platoon cost, before any upgrades, is 135 points.
135 pints for 25 bods with lasguns.
Your two five man Grey hunter squads will go through that like a hot knife through soft butter, hell 'massacre' does not even begin to cover it.
Actually I'm getting the numbers from what I've faced and battlescribe, I know it can be wrong, it doesn't allow me to have a Wolf Priest in my 'Heralds of the Great Wolf' formation, anyway I've faced platoons bearing those weapons in those numbers and so far battlescribe has allowed me to recreate those unit without the red notification !!! s.
The hot knife through butter is only true if things really don't go your way.
Best case scenario for Grey Hunters - you've made four pear shaped units and put a model from each unit on the front line and he can get a disorganised charge with one five man unit, you fail all your overwatch or only manage one wound, he passes his charge and then follows it up with a second unit of grey hunters into a single unit that can reach because they've somehow gotten to a flank that you haven't pressed against some kind of terrain or tank and gets fifteen attacks between both squads and your whole platoon locked into combat. If they accomplish all that you deserve to lose the squad like a hot knife through butter.
Normal case - Two Grey Hunter packs attack two squads, lose models in overwatch, kill the both squad then die in Guard player's shooting phase or the next round of overwatch.
Roknar wrote: My group all but stopped playing because you can pretty much loose the game turn 1 due to shooting.
Your group didn't play with nearly enough terrain/cover on the board.
I'm not saying that to be clever. I've seen plenty of battle reports online where people play like terrain is just a decoration and not a tactical consideration.
master of ordinance wrote: And you sir are either in a jovial mood or just out right delusional. 140 points, well someone above mentioned how much Platoons cost but he actually got it wrong. The minimal platoon cost, before any upgrades, is 135 points.
135 pints for 25 bods with lasguns.
D'oh.... I know it's slightly off topic... but where did I miss the 5 points? Codex say PCS is 30 points and infantry squads are 50?
And you sir are either in a jovial mood or just out right delusional. 140 points, well someone above mentioned how much Platoons cost but he actually got it wrong. The minimal platoon cost, before any upgrades, is 135 points.
135 pints for 25 bods with lasguns.
Your two five man Grey hunter squads will go through that like a hot knife through soft butter, hell 'massacre' does not even begin to cover it.
Actually I'm getting the numbers from what I've faced and battlescribe, I know it can be wrong, it doesn't allow me to have a Wolf Priest in my 'Heralds of the Great Wolf' formation, anyway I've faced platoons bearing those weapons in those numbers and so far battlescribe has allowed me to recreate those unit without the red notification !!! s.
The hot knife through butter is only true if things really don't go your way.
Best case scenario for Grey Hunters - you've made four pear shaped units and put a model from each unit on the front line and he can get a disorganised charge with one five man unit, you fail all your overwatch or only manage one wound, he passes his charge and then follows it up with a second unit of grey hunters into a single unit that can reach because they've somehow gotten to a flank that you haven't pressed against some kind of terrain or tank and gets fifteen attacks between both squads and your whole platoon locked into combat. If they accomplish all that you deserve to lose the squad like a hot knife through butter.
Normal case - Two Grey Hunter packs attack two squads, lose models in overwatch, kill the both squad then die in Guard player's shooting phase or the next round of overwatch.
Nahhh even battlescribe equals 130 points for a PCS and 2 infantry squads, so I dunno what you're typing into it....
I've never actually really seen a marine player really struggle against guard, I've obviously beat marines plenty of times but Wyverns have hardly ever been the deciding factor. The marines player generally have to use cover, not try an use lone squads to take on blobs and not be distracted by Distraction Carnifexes. Marines have the advantage of reliable vehicles, cheap transports, wide variety of deep striking option, decent shooting and above average CC and solid troops. Guard have number and blasts.
My main point that seems to have got lost in the "wyverns are cheese argument" is that if you allow charging from DS or reserves some armies, like guard will suffer massively. We already struggle with DS units never mind those that could assault straight away.
master of ordinance wrote: And you sir are either in a jovial mood or just out right delusional. 140 points, well someone above mentioned how much Platoons cost but he actually got it wrong. The minimal platoon cost, before any upgrades, is 135 points. 135 pints for 25 bods with lasguns.
D'oh.... I know it's slightly off topic... but where did I miss the 5 points? Codex say PCS is 30 points and infantry squads are 50?
.
PCS are 35 points last I checked. Then again I could be wrong, I have not run platoons in years
Nahhh even battlescribe equals 130 points for a PCS and 2 infantry squads, so I dunno what you're typing into it....
I think everyone missed the part about bolters. 130 Points for the units + 10 points in upgrades.
Baldeagle91 wrote: I've never actually really seen a marine player really struggle against guard, I've obviously beat marines plenty of times but Wyverns have hardly ever been the deciding factor. The marines player generally have to use cover, not try an use lone squads to take on blobs and not be distracted by Distraction Carnifexes. Marines have the advantage of reliable vehicles, cheap transports, wide variety of deep striking option, decent shooting and above average CC and solid troops. Guard have number and blasts.
My main point that seems to have got lost in the "wyverns are cheese argument" is that if you allow charging from DS or reserves some armies, like guard will suffer massively. We already struggle with DS units never mind those that could assault straight away.
I never had any real input on the 'wyverns are cheese argument' my whole point was that a good guard player can disperse his troops to force the melee units to attack the blobs, shoot the hell out of them then do it again when they emerge on the other side.
Anyhoo.
I've always thought guard were stupidly fragile but if you watch a guard player who plays guard competitively rather than just owning a guard army and blowing the dust off them every now and again you'd change your mind as well. Guard suffer a lot of casualties in any game but if you have a good grasp of the rules and realise that guard wounds are cheap they can do really well in the end result against mid-range armies like marines and the more close combat the army is the more they can dictate what melee their opponent can actually get.
The guy who cleaned my clock only struggled with Necrons, that is where you watch Guard shooting and combat become properly ineffective. Tau and Eldar are glass canons - break their momentum and they don't recover, Close combat armies can have their melee dictated by a smart opponent, Necrons are just so versatile they don't break because they'll lock up anything in combat and can't be forced to do squat because they can just sit out in the open and enjoy a firefight with any army in the game.
then main reason is that ifn it came out of nowhere that peole would go from having a functional army to a worthless one overnight. eldar and tau basically go back t9o the drawing board and whole armies need to get broken down and rebuilt. because they have no answer to the possibility of teir entire army getting locked up and mauled badly by cc at minimum before they fired a shot off. tau players go from having a meta consistent army to one that just runs into a brick wall of impossible odds and extreme and desperate actions. tau basically become unplayable as they are now and might never become meta competitive again if turn 1/charge from reserves starts just being everywhere. they get shut down left n right.
Add kroot, add fire warriors or breachers. They wouldn't drop off overnight, they would have to add units to deal with something actually getting in range.
The only tau army that could be completely tied up in melee are ones that rely on a pile of riptide's because of low model count. Just change your strategy.
Eldar have fantastic counter assault units. Again, a list change does not invalidate an entire faction.
Nahhh even battlescribe equals 130 points for a PCS and 2 infantry squads, so I dunno what you're typing into it....
I think everyone missed the part about bolters. 130 Points for the units + 10 points in upgrades.
Baldeagle91 wrote: I've never actually really seen a marine player really struggle against guard, I've obviously beat marines plenty of times but Wyverns have hardly ever been the deciding factor. The marines player generally have to use cover, not try an use lone squads to take on blobs and not be distracted by Distraction Carnifexes. Marines have the advantage of reliable vehicles, cheap transports, wide variety of deep striking option, decent shooting and above average CC and solid troops. Guard have number and blasts.
My main point that seems to have got lost in the "wyverns are cheese argument" is that if you allow charging from DS or reserves some armies, like guard will suffer massively. We already struggle with DS units never mind those that could assault straight away.
I never had any real input on the 'wyverns are cheese argument' my whole point was that a good guard player can disperse his troops to force the melee units to attack the blobs, shoot the hell out of them then do it again when they emerge on the other side.
Anyhoo.
I've always thought guard were stupidly fragile but if you watch a guard player who plays guard competitively rather than just owning a guard army and blowing the dust off them every now and again you'd change your mind as well. Guard suffer a lot of casualties in any game but if you have a good grasp of the rules and realise that guard wounds are cheap they can do really well in the end result against mid-range armies like marines and the more close combat the army is the more they can dictate what melee their opponent can actually get.
The guy who cleaned my clock only struggled with Necrons, that is where you watch Guard shooting and combat become properly ineffective. Tau and Eldar are glass canons - break their momentum and they don't recover, Close combat armies can have their melee dictated by a smart opponent, Necrons are just so versatile they don't break because they'll lock up anything in combat and can't be forced to do squat because they can just sit out in the open and enjoy a firefight with any army in the game.
You can't have those +10 points, you could add +3.... maybe other options. Anyway point being guard already suffer when it comes to DS'ing. Guard already struggle with heavy infantry armies, necrons and tau.... arguably factions who now out shoot the traditionally shootyist army, all of which are far more resistant to damage. The whole reason Guard is a lower mid tier army is the fact the can deal with non competitive lists as long as they're not facing shooty armies and the fact they can deal with horde CC armies at a distance. If you allowed charging from DS or reserve, I wouldn't be surprised if they dropped to lower tier in their current shape.
I'm not against turn one charging however, seeing it's already a possibility.
Assault units should be cheaper if shooting stays the same, or assaulted units should suffer a pretty huge penalty.
If IG/Tau are trying to chew through metal boxes full of berzerkers, the box full of 10 berzerkers should be able to unload those berzerkers into the Tau fireline and completely chew it up, full stop, crisis suits included.
Having insane firepower should come at a price, and right now, there isn't one.
The transport issues hurt. When units could assault out of stationary transports, units like Berzerkers could at least function. Not being able to assault out of transports that moved was one thing, that was fine and good and really didnt appear to have issues in and of itself through 4E and 5E, but the change to include stationary transports was really crippling for such units starting with 6E.
Vaktathi wrote: The transport issues hurt. When units could assault out of stationary transports, units like Berzerkers could at least function. Not being able to assault out of transports that moved was one thing, that was fine and good and really didnt appear to have issues in and of itself through 4E and 5E, but the change to include stationary transports was really crippling for such units starting with 6E.
Tbh how would letting you move out of a stationary unit really help? If you had a unit next to such a transport you'd either A) Simply move it away or B) Pop it.
ionusx wrote: then main reason is that ifn it came out of nowhere that peole would go from having a functional army to a worthless one overnight. eldar and tau basically go back t9o the drawing board and whole armies need to get broken down and rebuilt. because they have no answer to the possibility of teir entire army getting locked up and mauled badly by cc at minimum before they fired a shot off. tau players go from having a meta consistent army to one that just runs into a brick wall of impossible odds and extreme and desperate actions. tau basically become unplayable as they are now and might never become meta competitive again if turn 1/charge from reserves starts just being everywhere. they get shut down left n right.
This is a little hard to read but I think you are saying Tau and Eldar possibility of a few others would be unplayable if turn 1 assaults became common.
I will disagree. Tau and Eldar have some of the best codex around. The have effective cheap screening units. Their armies tend to be Highly mobile and to top it off all of their units work well together to kill stuff.
Armies that spam one unit or two for max fire power with have issues. Riptide wing will not be maxed out any more which is a good thing.
Tau can be played with fire warriors or kroot and still make a effective army. People are just not use to it is all. It is easy to take the best units ignoring the rest.
Eldar are crazy good and will not suffer at all from getting hit by assault. They have many counter units and do well in assault when pressed.
I don't think anyone can say shooting is at a ok level. It is so overwhelmingly powerful that most assault armies stay home and don't even come to the table. Having units or powers in the game that make you think beyond the shooting phase is a good thing not bad.
Now should assaulting first turn be easy to do?? No but it should be a concept that you need to think about when building a list. If you forgo protective bouble rap or counter assault units then that is your falut. Not the units or powers that allow it.
Vaktathi wrote: The transport issues hurt. When units could assault out of stationary transports, units like Berzerkers could at least function. Not being able to assault out of transports that moved was one thing, that was fine and good and really didnt appear to have issues in and of itself through 4E and 5E, but the change to include stationary transports was really crippling for such units starting with 6E.
Tbh how would letting you move out of a stationary unit really help? If you had a unit next to such a transport you'd either A) Simply move it away or B) Pop it.
Well...it did. If it was blown up, you could still assault the next turn if I remember correctly. It actually made assault armies usable.
Personally I don't mind T1 assaults, I would love to be able to actually use screening tactics to block off certain CC elements and would love to use counter CC units in retaliation but with shooting being so powerful...what's the point?
I can use barrage D blasts on units out of LOS, weapons with monstrous range and rate of fire to murder tanks of all things, or JSJ units to incite my opponent into a murderous rage. Deepstrike Assault T1? that's a problem. Having more reliability to get into CC and the movement to threaten certain units T1 sounds great.
T1 assaults would lead to endless drop pod spam by Space Marines. This would suit the majority of players who play Space Marines and punish everyone else who plays anything else.
Allowing T1 assaults doesn't mean that everybody and their mom should be reliably reaching assault on the first turn. It should be something special. Right now you have to either take a formation or bring a specific set of units for it to work.
Reading through this thread I almost get the impression that most people aren't even aware that T1 assaults are already a thing. So much for breaking the game.
adamsouza wrote: T1 assaults would lead to endless drop pod spam by Space Marines. This would suit the majority of players who play Space Marines and punish everyone else who plays anything else.
Apart from Tau and, to an extent, Eldar.
So once again the top three would gain another godlike buff and the bottom lot would be hit even harder.
T1 assaults would lead to endless drop pod spam by Space Marines. This would suit the majority of players who play Space Marines and punish everyone else who plays anything else.
While it may not be practical for tournament play, I am finding a new found appreciation for Large mobs of Grot slaves again.
Part of my own planning for a first turn assault involves a few units to screen my own units.
I don't feel like I go first very often.
Open wide while I feed you garbage units!
R-
