Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

OK, first things first, the caveats:

Yes I am aware it's a rumour, and as such is completely and totally susceptible to the whims of GW and may not end up being RAW

This is just a discussion, hence why I didn't post it in 'tactics'

Caveats over, I thought this might be an interesting topic to discuss...

So I've read the rumour over at BoLS about the 6th wound allocation:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/05/40k-rumors-6th-wound-allocation.html
Where you allocate wounds at owning players discretion to models closest to the enemy.

Now is it me or does this severely nerf assault armies? What I mean is, for example, as an ork player I will commonly run into open terrain to get a next-charge turn, yeah I may lose 5 boyz to gunfire, but as they are removed from the back of the unit I'm pretty certain I'm going to get into assault next turn with the other 25. e.g. turn 1 run, turn 2 move, assault

Now then, if for example we used the 6th WA rules, those 5 boyz are from the front ranks (where my PK should be, but obviously now he's hiding in the back like a snivelly grot to keep him alive), this could potentially put me 1-2" out of assault range, even more (perhaps even 3-4") because as a huge blob of infantry with a crap armour save I'm at max coherency to minimise blasts. So now I'm standing round like a half-wit because 5 boyz died and I'm about to lose more boyz to my opponents guns because they managed to remove a single row of models from the front.

Discuss...

Dont worry about it until it gets here I would say man, I dont really see this making into the final product as its not a nerf so much as a complete leg amputation for assault armies.

And as we all know, GW tends to REALLY like assault phases XD.

But of course this is just my two cents/pents what have you

I'm taking it with salt, but if this is the real rule for WA, I would say that it does make some armies better and some armies a little worse.

Do I think it's going to make a massive impact on the game?

No. It's closer to a real situation and is bringing an old rule from 2nd ed back... The closest thing to you dies first. Also means that 40k will be primarily a shooting game.

Is there a downside?

Could be.

It might mean that more people are going to mech up to make sure their guys get there.
Also smells like 40k could be going down the route of chucking dice to win the game without tactics.

Also smells like 40k could be going down the route of chucking dice to win the game without tactics.

People don' do that now? It'd also require tactics to think through something like that tactically.

Puscifer wrote:
Also smells like 40k could be going down the route of chucking dice to win the game without tactics.

Yeah, because that would be too close to Mathhammer, and no one plays that anymore...
/sarcasm

Let's just all calm down and wait for 6th edition to actually go to print before we criticize it?

I agree. Until I see something concrete, I'm not trusting anyones "sources" unless I here from old colleagues at GW or the Studio.

On top of the rumor that you can stand and shoot ("Snap Fire" or whatever it was called), this does sound very screwy. I call major salt

Yeah, I'm not convinced on the rumour myself (seeing as all battles would turn into stand-and-shoot firefights, even for assault armies like orks/DE/BA etc). It just seems like a major paradigm shift considering the number of codeci that rely on assault beatsticks as selling points.

However, I was aiming for more of a discussion on the tactical side of things and it's affect on gameplay and your average gamers strategy than on the validity of the rumour...

I quite like it, makes sense that as you charge through fire the closest fall. Doesn't explain what to do when there is an abundance of wounds on the first "rank" so what would happen is this case

oo0#+
ooooo

^^^^^^

o=tac marine
0=sgt
#=melta
+=missile launcher
^= incoming fire

say 6 wounds allocated, does the sixth hit a tac, sgt, melta or ML? And what happens with multi-wound models?

Those guys dont seem particularly informative, and they definitely went with the easy option by only having 3 wounds caused.

I don't think it will nerf assault armies you will just have to use htem more tactfully.

I have a big beef with would allocation and many times use in-house rules for them but realistically if you ran at a run line all the guys in the front would take the hits not the guys in the back.

You just wont be able to wildly charge as often as you used to.

Silentway wrote:I don't think it will nerf assault armies you will just have to use htem more tactfully.

Having to be closer to reliably get a charge off won't hurt assault armies? Wut?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Silentway wrote:I don't think it will nerf assault armies you will just have to use htem more tactfully.

Having to be closer to reliably get a charge off won't hurt assault armies? Wut?

As stated in my previous post you wont be able to wildly charge across as much. You will need to utilize cover and terrain. This just makes it more realistic and requires players to THINK.

But what was I thinking, heaven forbid someone use tactics in 40k.

I've put more thought into this, and I don't think it would be a kick in the jimmies like it appears at first glance.

Here are some basic assumptions for this discussion.
* You will not be an idiot and you will not place your special models up front. In a similar note, you won't lick lead paint.
* You will space your models so they are 2" apart to limit template effects
* This entire post is about a rumor, and cannot be taken with any major seriousness. Its akin to just mental masturbation -- fun but without any real point.
* The examples in a void and are not models you would necessarily use. Their just what I had on hand.
* I am not a super genius. Anyone who spent 10 min of thought on this would have the same ideas.


So how do you run a squad to be effective when you need to protect models and take wounds in the front? Easy, you run two lines and put your important models in the back.

Example One
This bike squad has 2 PG, 1 MM attack bike, and 1 PF that cannot be wounded until all 5 models in the front have been wounded. This also means the effective range of the special weapons has been reduced by 2" -- the distance between the front model and the rear model.


Example Two
In a similar fashion, this eldar unit has placed its special characters in the back. In this case, there are 6 ablative wounds that must be taken down before the special models are effected.

This means if you lose 6 models from the front, you have effectivly lost 2" from your threat radius with an assault unit, as you just fill the gap from the front rank. If your front rank has at least 1 model intact, you threat range is still the same.

Since the IC is fairly tough, you can also stick the IC in the front rank to take wounds if you desire. Since there would be 5 other models in the front rank, you could have plenty of room to place the LC shots, and place the bolter shot on your IC.


Example Three
In this example, the bikes utilize their movement advantage to get to the vulnerable models faster. In the first image, the banshees are poised to assault and protected by their placement. The bikes, being a fast moving unit, skirt to the side and shoot the side, lowering the number of wounds required to hit the exarch down from 11 to 6.

As I posted in the other thread a similar rule was used in EPIC: Armageddon, but it applied casualty removal to the nearest models not attack/wound allocation, that would be both simple enough to play fast and provide some tactical maneuvering for both players.

Jack

Silentway wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Silentway wrote:I don't think it will nerf assault armies you will just have to use htem more tactfully.

Having to be closer to reliably get a charge off won't hurt assault armies? Wut?

As stated in my previous post you wont be able to wildly charge across as much. You will need to utilize cover and terrain. This just makes it more realistic and requires players to THINK.

But what was I thinking, heaven forbid someone use tactics in 40k.

As a nid player, I already use cover and terrain. I'm kind of forced to because of my effectively useless armor save.

When I do take casualties, I take them from the back of the unit.
With this change, I'll have to take them from the front of the unit meaning that it will be harder to land a charge.


It doesn't add "tactics". It slows down assault armies.

rigeld2 wrote:
When I do take casualties, I take them from the back of the unit.
With this change, I'll have to take them from the front of the unit meaning that it will be harder to land a charge.


It doesn't add "tactics". It slows down assault armies.

It may not add tactics when you're talking about a unit of identical models, but it does in most other circumstances (i.e. you maneuver to protect your better assets, I counter maneuver to try and get at them with my shooting).

Add to that, the rule idea 'feels' right, inasmuch as horde of critters comes charging forward and guys with machine guns shoot at them attempting to stall their charge...a common cinematic scene that 40k has never managed to recreate on the tabletop despite sharing the milieu with WW1 trench warfare, and films like Aliens and Starship Troopers, where such tactics are common.

Jack

rigeld2 wrote:

Silentway wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Silentway wrote:I don't think it will nerf assault armies you will just have to use htem more tactfully.

Having to be closer to reliably get a charge off won't hurt assault armies? Wut?

As stated in my previous post you wont be able to wildly charge across as much. You will need to utilize cover and terrain. This just makes it more realistic and requires players to THINK.

But what was I thinking, heaven forbid someone use tactics in 40k.

As a nid player, I already use cover and terrain. I'm kind of forced to because of my effectively useless armor save.

When I do take casualties, I take them from the back of the unit.
With this change, I'll have to take them from the front of the unit meaning that it will be harder to land a charge.


It doesn't add "tactics". It slows down assault armies.

There really is a need for a viable way to slow down an assault besides wiping the unit or pinning it. I see your options would be( if this even happens) rely on either 1) Mass or 2) MSU to get off the charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leigen_Zero wrote:OK, first things first, the caveats:

Yes I am aware it's a rumour, and as such is completely and totally susceptible to the whims of GW and may not end up being RAW

This is just a discussion, hence why I didn't post it in 'tactics'

Caveats over, I thought this might be an interesting topic to discuss...

So I've read the rumour over at BoLS about the 6th wound allocation:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/05/40k-rumors-6th-wound-allocation.html
Where you allocate wounds at owning players discretion to models closest to the enemy.

Now is it me or does this severely nerf assault armies? What I mean is, for example, as an ork player I will commonly run into open terrain to get a next-charge turn, yeah I may lose 5 boyz to gunfire, but as they are removed from the back of the unit I'm pretty certain I'm going to get into assault next turn with the other 25. e.g. turn 1 run, turn 2 move, assault

Now then, if for example we used the 6th WA rules, those 5 boyz are from the front ranks (where my PK should be, but obviously now he's hiding in the back like a snivelly grot to keep him alive), this could potentially put me 1-2" out of assault range, even more (perhaps even 3-4") because as a huge blob of infantry with a crap armour save I'm at max coherency to minimise blasts. So now I'm standing round like a half-wit because 5 boyz died and I'm about to lose more boyz to my opponents guns because they managed to remove a single row of models from the front.

Discuss...

Isnt what they showed the way to allocate the wounds before the save? If anything the discussion should be about how it could be possible to shoot a unit out of coherency.

rigeld2 wrote:

Silentway wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Silentway wrote:I don't think it will nerf assault armies you will just have to use htem more tactfully.

Having to be closer to reliably get a charge off won't hurt assault armies? Wut?

As stated in my previous post you wont be able to wildly charge across as much. You will need to utilize cover and terrain. This just makes it more realistic and requires players to THINK.

But what was I thinking, heaven forbid someone use tactics in 40k.

As a nid player, I already use cover and terrain. I'm kind of forced to because of my effectively useless armor save.

When I do take casualties, I take them from the back of the unit.
With this change, I'll have to take them from the front of the unit meaning that it will be harder to land a charge.


It doesn't add "tactics". It slows down assault armies.

There's currently no real way of slowing down an assault army as is right now.

It dose seem to nerf assault, but ,as a tau player, I an fine with that. It means I have a way to actually stop or delay a charge.

This also gives a nice boost to flanking. You could strike a unit on the back or side and have a better chance at takeing out there valuable units.

It also feels more realistic to kill off the people in front. Realism isn't a big thing, but it helps.

Isnt what they showed the way to allocate the wounds before the save? If anything the discussion should be about how it could be possible to shoot a unit out of coherency.

Exactly how would this work out with barrage (or blast in general) weapons?

Exactly how would this work out with barrage (or blast in general) weapons?

Who knows what if any changes happen with those rules. My guess is models closest take the wounds first.

rigeld2 wrote:It doesn't add "tactics". It slows down assault armies.

Actually, we can now confirm this will be an actual 6th ed rule, because once again, Nids get arbitrarily nerfed.

Tun_Tau wrote:

Exactly how would this work out with barrage (or blast in general) weapons?

Who knows what if any changes happen with those rules. My guess is models closest take the wounds first.

But the point of this rule change is that it's more "realistic" (which in my opinion has no place in game rules), so that making blast take from the front of the squad makes it just as arbitrary as taking casualties from the back.

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Tun_Tau wrote:

Exactly how would this work out with barrage (or blast in general) weapons?

Who knows what if any changes happen with those rules. My guess is models closest take the wounds first.

But the point of this rule change is that it's more "realistic" (which in my opinion has no place in game rules), so that making blast take from the front of the squad makes it just as arbitrary as taking casualties from the back.

Dont barrage rules work as if the shot comes from the center of the blast? So it would follow that if it landed from behind or in the center you would allocate from the center of the blast marker outward.
Like I've been saying shooting may knock units out of coherency , it has the possiblity to effect more than charge range.

This rule would be a disaster, not only because you would get to snipe out otherwise hidden units (why does every rumor seem to want to do away with hidden power fists in one strange way or another?), but for the game as a whole.

I charge in, and throw down some hits. Then we have to have a fight over which models count as "closest", which in most cases won't even make sense (especially in large combats), and then my opponent allocates the hits one by one and rolls armor saves separately?

If this winds up being true, I'm going to put away all of my power weapons and just focus on shooting. It already takes me three hours of reasonably quick play to make my foot horde guard army work, I'm not going to want to double the amount of time a game takes by getting into close combat...

40k has consistently gotten simpler and more streamlined over the editions so that you can play higher and higher point games. If they were to keep the focus on high-point games AND make the rules slower and more convoluted, that would be a very bad thing indeed.

Or, as the article writer put it...

Its amateur game design, adding needless complexity and addressing a problem that doesn't exist in the game right now.

Though I would also note that he talks about skaven. You sure this isn't for WHFB 9th ed mistakenly put up as 40k 6th ed?

Silentway wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Silentway wrote:I don't think it will nerf assault armies you will just have to use htem more tactfully.

Having to be closer to reliably get a charge off won't hurt assault armies? Wut?

As stated in my previous post you wont be able to wildly charge across as much. You will need to utilize cover and terrain. This just makes it more realistic and requires players to THINK.

But what was I thinking, heaven forbid someone use tactics in 40k.

As if assault armies don't use cover and terrain already. It makes it harder to get a successful charge off, forcing the assaulting player to get closer to reliably charge. You can handwave it all you want, it's a nerf to assault armies.

Consider how the rules have been changed in the past:
- only 2 different blast markers and less area weapons
- only smaller flamer template left
- less wounds dealt in single attack
- no real grenades (this is very big tactically)
- less firepower from shooting (less area weapons, smaller areas, more movement)
- deadlier close combat

It used to be so that Marines and Orcs for example were moving 4". Now they move 6". They did charge 8". Now they charge 12" and also shoot assault weapons/pistols during their assault. Some fleet units can go 12"+d6". They can come around corner and shoot and assault. Even models 2" away from enemies can hit in close combat. Also when you are shooting you shoot models from back row which means that it's harder to slow down assaulting enemies.

WH40k has turned into a non-tactical assault game where many tactical options have been taken away from game. This possible rule change would be a very good idea in my opinion. Modern game doesn't need to be this simplified close combat heavy game. I want more tactics even though game would take 20% more time.

Tyranids used to have more movement than others. That's why they were good at reaching close combat. Give them back their movement advantage for normal troops and they get a tactical edge against other close combat armies.

40k is still a shooting-heavy game. Is it really that bad that assault armies have a chance to do damage?

In answer to OP, it can be a nerf. Typical you place models with better CC skill in.front so.they can be engaged,.for example the.PK nob. Having to remove him first will be a very large nerd, and also for things like Power Fist Sgts, Captains or heavy weapons models that are deployed.forward to get into range of effect better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In answer to OP, it can be a nerf. Typical you place models with better CC skill in.front so.they can be engaged,.for example the.PK nob. Having to remove him first will be a very large nerd, and also for things like Power Fist Sgts, Captains or heavy weapons models that are deployed.forward to get into range of effect better.