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.

On the table the models are static, but they're used to represent constantly moving soldiers and vehicles, abstract things. The failed charge could be that the land raider is moving too fast for the marine to catch, stuff like that.

Note that if it was 2 feet away then even a 2in roll should have caught it if your talking like its a real marine charging a real raider. On the other hand, if your being serious the max charge range for a marine is 12inches, so they're was no way you would have made the charge anyway.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:On the table the models are static, but they're used to represent constantly moving soldiers and vehicles, abstract things. The failed charge could be that the land raider is moving too fast for the marine to catch, stuff like that.

Note that if it was 2 feet away then even a 2in roll should have caught it if your talking like its a real marine charging a real raider. On the other hand, if your being serious the max charge range for a marine is 12inches, so they're was no way you would have made the charge anyway.

I meant with a melta gun, sorry, poor wording on my part. Hitting the side of a barn door and all that.
Shooting has suffered from "lolfails" since time immorial. Close Combat was always a lot more reliable, and that irked me. I've had 3 BS4 meltaguns miss the side of a tank from 3 inches away, assault guys can cope with rolling snake eyes every once in a while

Testify wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:On the table the models are static, but they're used to represent constantly moving soldiers and vehicles, abstract things. The failed charge could be that the land raider is moving too fast for the marine to catch, stuff like that.

Note that if it was 2 feet away then even a 2in roll should have caught it if your talking like its a real marine charging a real raider. On the other hand, if your being serious the max charge range for a marine is 12inches, so they're was no way you would have made the charge anyway.

I meant with a melta gun, sorry, poor wording on my part. Hitting the side of a barn door and all that.
Shooting has suffered from "lolfails" since time immorial. Close Combat was always a lot more reliable, and that irked me. I've had 3 BS4 meltaguns miss the side of a tank from 3 inches away, assault guys can cope with rolling snake eyes every once in a while

Agree with you there. Also assault happens twice a game turn and is more killy then shooting, with some exceptions (IG)

Kaldor wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Such as game mechanics that either don't make sense or are flawed.

Horribly balanced, both between and within codecies? "but it's more cinematic that way"
Poorly thought out random elements that take control away from the player? "but it's more cinematic that way"

Examples please?

-Codex: Necrons. That army is so overpowered at this point that I will simply not play against anyone running them.
-"Wall of Draigo" wound allocation
-Random charge distance
-Random warlord abilities
-Mysterious terrain
-Random psychic powers

Just a few.

Fafnir wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Such as game mechanics that either don't make sense or are flawed.

Horribly balanced, both between and within codecies? "but it's more cinematic that way"
Poorly thought out random elements that take control away from the player? "but it's more cinematic that way"

Examples please?

-[1]Codex: Necrons. That army is so overpowered at this point that I will simply not play against anyone running them.
-[2]"Wall of Draigo" wound allocation
-[3]Random charge distance
-[4]Random warlord abilities
-[5]Mysterious terrain
-[6]Random psychic powers

Just a few.

1. People need to find new tactics and stop relying on last edition's meta.
2. Easily overcomable
3. Perfectly reasonable.
4. Complete Crap
5. See number 4.
6. This one's iffy, but I enjoy the Fantasy magic rules and wish they had pretty much copied and pasted from 8th Ed fantasy.

Baronyu wrote:You simply cannot control the random warlord trait, random charge distance, random psychic power, random everything.

No, but you can manage your response to a known risk, and modify the level of risk, by making tactical choices.

The player that does this the best, will (generally) be the winner.

Vaktathi wrote:Difficult terrain penalty is acceptable, because we can circumvent that, we could go around it, sacrifice our initiative, shoot instead of assault, etc... But random assault is simply unavoidable, there is no amount of planning that could overcome that. It really isn't as tactical as some people make it out to be, you'll just eventually settle at a distance you feel the safest, whether it's 2", 5" or 7" is up to you, and then it's the same every game. That's not tactical fun, is it? That's no different from remembering that power sword is now AP3...

And yes, that's what I was saying, you can't plan anything around all the new random craps in 6th ed, hence it's not tactical

That's demonstrably untrue, though. You have other options.

You can move closer, reducing the odds of a failed charge. You can move multiple units into assault range, reducing the odds of a failed charge. You can elect to use your jump packs in the assault phase, reducing the odds of a failed charge. You can use other rules to your advantage (does fleet still do something? I forget) to further reduce the odds of a failed charge.

Fafnir wrote:-Codex: Necrons. That army is so overpowered at this point that I will simply not play against anyone running them.
-"Wall of Draigo" wound allocation
-Random charge distance
-Random warlord abilities
-Mysterious terrain
-Random psychic powers

Just a few.

Yes, but why are they all bad? I mean, what's wrong with wound allocation? Why do you hate random charge distances? What's wrong with Necrons (I haven't had a chance to play against them yet) etc.

It's a bit funny how you can tell with 90% accuracy what army someone plays based on theur style and degree of support for GW in general and 6th Ed in particular.

Reinforcing Fafnir's point:

1-Necrons are absurdly full of nigh-impossible to counter builds in this edition, and that before you factor in the allies they can get. "Finding new tactics" is an easy word to throw around, but not everyone is IG to spam flyers to counter their dedicated-transport flyers, for instance.

2-Wound allocation shenanigans may actually be more of a pain in this edition with Look Out Sir, showing that GW is not really about 'shaking up those old internet lists'. Hell, some old boogeymen rule abuses like nob bikers seem poised to make a comeback, showing that there is no bug that can't be made into a feature.

3-Random charge distance is only perfectly reasonable if all movement and weapon ranges also become variable. there is no strategic flaw involved in rolling a 3 for charge distance when you are 4 inches away from the target unit and then being vaporized as you sit there next turn.

4- As posed before, the warlord tables are amateur-level design. The odds of rolling a result that is useless (bonuses in ruins with no ruins on the table, Counterattack when you're a Space Wolf, offensive bonuses on a desencive HQ and vice versa, etc) while your oppinent actually gets some that is handy again require no skill or planning.

They could have grouped them as Offensive, Defensive and Strateic, for instance, or have let you modify the dice roll by +1 or -1, like armor bonuses in deathwatch, to make it flexible.

5- Mysterious terrain actually doesn't bother me that much, though it too shows that the addiction to random effect tables is as strong as ever at GW. For most things, that is: Space Marines and IG likely won't ever suffer from worse than a Gets Hot! 'random' issue while it seems your Chaos Lord may get to turn into a Spawn after -winning- a challenge.

6- Same as #4. Let psykers add of subtract they Mastery to the roll for picking powers or give them a straight +1 or -1 for a favored discipline. it creates variation while also not letting players stick to the same power set 100% every time. Really, it's scary how simple this is.

I will admit that random charges would have worked alot better if movement was like in fantasy. Each model has a base movement, and its that plus 2d6. And if you fail you still move forward the larger of the two dice.

Psykers choosing their spells, I mean powers, is almost exactly like fantasy, which IMO has the better core rules.

As for the Crons, just wait until more skyfire units are released, then the air force wouldn't be as potent.

Also with the right positioning and forethought wound allocation isn't that bad, and nobs only have a 4+ LoS! so its not as bad as Draigowall, (Which really isn't a problem if you actually think on how to position your models.) I overall like this edition better then 5th, especially the nerf to assault, It was needed. Even if it ruined my favorite way to play Guard, power blobs.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:Draigowall, (Which really isn't a problem if you actually think on how to position your models.)

Trust me on this, I play Draigowall. If someone tries to position to get around Draigo, they will suffer for it. Harshly.

Really though, short of Necrons auto-winning against mechanized lists, and flyer lists being the new top dog, the metagame hasn't been shifted as much as some people think. Mechanized shooty armies are still incredible (and let's face it, Necrons shaft everything now, so auto-losing to Necrons as mechanized isn't really that big a deal), being more reliable at the cost of less overall durability, which is a decent trade-off. Leafblower style lists will be more powerful than ever before, with the new deployments (especially anvil/hammer) and ability to hurt more than one vehicle at a time, as well as the complete trivialization of assault-based special reserves (outflank, ambush, etc.).

Really, short of flyers (which, let's face it, is really just an evolution of the same mechanized lists we've been playing in 5th), nothing has been given the tools needed to rise to the same level of dominance that the top lists in 5th edition had. What's more, most of those same top lists didn't suffer enough to lower them to the level of everything else, and in some cases even got better.

You put Draigo out Front right? So he soaks up all the wound, okay, I flank around to the side, and hit the pals. They are closest so they have to take the wounds. Plus Draigowings are expensive points wise, so your on;y going to have 1-3 scoring units right? In an 1850 list I have 9-12 scouring units, even more if we're playing mission 3 and 4. I respect Draigowing its a tough list, but its not invincible.

Mech wasn't really a big deal for me in 5th, I played mech for a bit, then went to footguard, which really excels against 5th ed meta since it has no vehicles besides the russes.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I will admit that random charges would have worked alot better if movement was like in fantasy. Each model has a base movement, and its that plus 2d6. And if you fail you still move forward the larger of the two dice.

Don't forget though, charging in WHFB means you forfeit your normal movement. In 40K you can still move, than attempt an assault. So it's kinda like WHFB, except if you fail you can still move 6" in any direction, and your 'charge' range is 6+(2D6)

Kaldor wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I will admit that random charges would have worked alot better if movement was like in fantasy. Each model has a base movement, and its that plus 2d6. And if you fail you still move forward the larger of the two dice.

Don't forget though, charging in WHFB means you forfeit your normal movement. In 40K you can still move, than attempt an assault. So it's kinda like WHFB, except if you fail you can still move 6" in any direction, and your 'charge' range is 6+(2D6)

In that case ignore the part where its 2d6 plus movement, you already get that.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:

Testify wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:On the table the models are static, but they're used to represent constantly moving soldiers and vehicles, abstract things. The failed charge could be that the land raider is moving too fast for the marine to catch, stuff like that.

Note that if it was 2 feet away then even a 2in roll should have caught it if your talking like its a real marine charging a real raider. On the other hand, if your being serious the max charge range for a marine is 12inches, so they're was no way you would have made the charge anyway.

I meant with a melta gun, sorry, poor wording on my part. Hitting the side of a barn door and all that.
Shooting has suffered from "lolfails" since time immorial. Close Combat was always a lot more reliable, and that irked me. I've had 3 BS4 meltaguns miss the side of a tank from 3 inches away, assault guys can cope with rolling snake eyes every once in a while

Agree with you there. Also assault happens twice a game turn and is more killy then shooting, with some exceptions (IG)

It's great and all to have 2d6 charge then but what about GW claiming it's for drama and tension?

Plumbumbarum wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:

Testify wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:On the table the models are static, but they're used to represent constantly moving soldiers and vehicles, abstract things. The failed charge could be that the land raider is moving too fast for the marine to catch, stuff like that.

Note that if it was 2 feet away then even a 2in roll should have caught it if your talking like its a real marine charging a real raider. On the other hand, if your being serious the max charge range for a marine is 12inches, so they're was no way you would have made the charge anyway.

I meant with a melta gun, sorry, poor wording on my part. Hitting the side of a barn door and all that.
Shooting has suffered from "lolfails" since time immorial. Close Combat was always a lot more reliable, and that irked me. I've had 3 BS4 meltaguns miss the side of a tank from 3 inches away, assault guys can cope with rolling snake eyes every once in a while

Agree with you there. Also assault happens twice a game turn and is more killy then shooting, with some exceptions (IG)

It's great and all to have 2d6 charge then but what about GW claiming it's for drama and tension?

Maybe because forming a narrative is a part of human nature
Would you prefer they just said "The following is data:"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sephyr wrote:
3-Random charge distance is only perfectly reasonable if all movement and weapon ranges also become variable. there is no strategic flaw involved in rolling a 3 for charge distance when you are 4 inches away from the target unit and then being vaporized as you sit there next turn.

I agree with most of what you said (especially flyers. Seriously fething stupid how difficult they are to kill for some armies, yet easy for others).

But seriously. I can have 750 points of dakka completely miss, and have them obliterated the following turn. Why can't you accept that assault had a huge advantage in reliability and take the hit? Assault may be slightly less likely to succeed, but if it does succeed the 3" pile-in and gaurenteed attack bonus makes it more devestating when they do.

Testify wrote:
But seriously. I can have 750 points of dakka completely miss, and have them obliterated the following turn. Why can't you accept that assault had a huge advantage in reliability and take the hit? Assault may be slightly less likely to succeed, but if it does succeed the 3" pile-in and gaurenteed attack bonus makes it more devestating when they do.

I can grant you that assault had an edge in large-scale lethality over the shooting most (not not nearly all) armies could put out. However, I think they tipped the pendulum way too far in the other direction.

In my gaming group, which includes green tide orks, shooty IG, Salmander,s shooty eldar and LongSpam wolves, the consensus is that it would have been enough to grant overwatch OR deny outflanking/infiltrating assaults. Doing both is overkill.

Also, remember that while CC has more attacks, those are a way to compensate for the fact that your CC specialists will usually not get to do their thing for 2-4 turns as they run up the board, taking casualties, getting their ride smashed and so on. Add to that the fact that shooting actually has an AP rating most of the time, unlike CC where only a few weapons get to ignore any armor level, assaulting through cover, and that the WS table never goes below 3+ while Vindicares and other top shots actually get to rolls 1's and try again...and then factor in how now you get to keep walking back and rapid-firing, playing keep-away with CC units...

And that's not even allowing for the new Hammer&Anvil deployment that actually lets battlecannons, railguns and other really long-range artillery truly worth their weight in gold while giving CC armies an even longer slog to cross.

I think overwatch, the change to cover (even if there are lots of holes that still grant 4+ cover and better) and the rapid fire change balance the shooting/CC equation nicely. But that's a moot point now.

You under-estimate the power of assault. 500 points of assaulty units can destroy 3 to 4 times their points in troops very easily, and more reliably than shooty units. An assault squad with power fist, melta bombs and two meltaguns can kill 500 points of vehicles in a single phase, as well as anything less than other specialised melee troops.

Again, assault pretty much HAs to kill things fast to make up for the turns they spend not being able to do anything. Also, adding -meltaguns- to the unit in questiont highlights the power of firearms, not chainswords.

Testify wrote:You under-estimate the power of assault. 500 points of assaulty units can destroy 3 to 4 times their points in troops very easily, and more reliably than shooty units. An assault squad with power fist, melta bombs and two meltaguns can kill 500 points of vehicles in a single phase, as well as anything less than other specialised melee troops.

A 160 point manticore can ALSO destroy 3 to 4 times it's points in troops (and vehicles, thanks to the change to blast weapons), and it get to sit cozy in the back field and shoot from turn one. A unit that's good for what's designed for is of course going to kill a lot of things. Why should assault units be punished for assaulting?

A manticore has a significant chance to miss, almost as if it had a random dice roll to decide if it hit or not.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:A manticore has a significant chance to miss, almost as if it had a random dice roll to decide if it hit or not.

33% chance of a Direct Hit, another 7/36 of not scattering more than 4 inches. Meanwhile, a unit in melee can whiff it's attacks. Almost as if it had a random dice roll to decide if it hit or not.

Yeah, because it's not like assault was random or anything.

Either way, shooting is still far safer than assault, and will always take some points back, where as assault can easily be all or nothing

Assault has been king of 40k for a long time, when i got my IG army, the FLGS owner commented, "If you want to play alot of shooting, go play Fantasy, 40k is all about the assault." Which is true, you can kill more stuff with assault then with shooting, there is no sweeping advance in the shooting phase.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:Assault has been king of 40k for a long time, when i got my IG army, the FLGS owner commented, "If you want to play alot of shooting, go play Fantasy, 40k is all about the assault." Which is true, you can kill more stuff with assault then with shooting, there is no sweeping advance in the shooting phase.

Shooting's been the dominant theme since 3rd, not sure what you're on about. Similarly, Fantasy is melee-centric.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:A manticore has a significant chance to miss, almost as if it had a random dice roll to decide if it hit or not.

33% chance of a Direct Hit, another 7/36 of not scattering more than 4 inches. Meanwhile, a unit in melee can whiff it's attacks. Almost as if it had a random dice roll to decide if it hit or not.

I don't need to do maths to know that the likelihood of 40 attacks failing is a lot, lot smaller than the likelihood of a blast marker scattering. It's a much smoother gradient than say, a battlecannon's liklihood to kill *all three* of the models that it manages to hit (if it does).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Shooting's been the dominant theme since 3rd, not sure what you're on about. Similarly, Fantasy is melee-centric.

That's probably why tau were so dominant in 4th and BA and GK were so weak.

Testify wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:A manticore has a significant chance to miss, almost as if it had a random dice roll to decide if it hit or not.

33% chance of a Direct Hit, another 7/36 of not scattering more than 4 inches. Meanwhile, a unit in melee can whiff it's attacks. Almost as if it had a random dice roll to decide if it hit or not.

I don't need to do maths to know that the likelihood of 40 attacks failing is a lot, lot smaller than the likelihood of a blast marker scattering. It's a much smoother gradient than say, a battlecannon's liklihood to kill *all three* of the models that it manages to hit (if it does).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Shooting's been the dominant theme since 3rd, not sure what you're on about. Similarly, Fantasy is melee-centric.

That's probably why tau were so dominant in 4th and BA and GK were so weak.

GK were strong because they had excellent shooting while not folding in melee, not the other way around. Similarly, applying your logic, assault was worthless because Black Templars didn't do very well in 5th. Old Codices are bad because they're old.

BA and SW were good because they could spam a metric crapton of transports with shooting weapons on, backed up by Long Fangs/Devastators/Preds/Typhoons/similar, not because they did well in CC too. Again, look at the Black Templars. Just as good in melee as SW (not counting having bolter and grenades) but not the same access to cheap, powerful transports.

Testify wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:A manticore has a significant chance to miss, almost as if it had a random dice roll to decide if it hit or not.

33% chance of a Direct Hit, another 7/36 of not scattering more than 4 inches. Meanwhile, a unit in melee can whiff it's attacks. Almost as if it had a random dice roll to decide if it hit or not.

I don't need to do maths to know that the likelihood of 40 attacks failing is a lot, lot smaller than the likelihood of a blast marker scattering. It's a much smoother gradient than say, a battlecannon's liklihood to kill *all three* of the models that it manages to hit (if it does).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Shooting's been the dominant theme since 3rd, not sure what you're on about. Similarly, Fantasy is melee-centric.

That's probably why tau were so dominant in 4th and BA and GK were so weak.

Actually, Tau were pretty damn strong with the Fish of Fury tactic, not to mention Tri-Falcon. 4th was mostly Skimmerking edition mainly.

Does that alter assault being far more reliable than shooting?
I ask again, have you played any games in 6th? How many times have your assaults failed?

Testify wrote:Does that alter assault being far more reliable than shooting?
I ask again, have you played any games in 6th? How many times have your assaults failed?

About three times over a period of eight games.

And they were mostly because i was trying to desperate charge about 8" to 12" Though I did succeed in a full 18" charge that let me win once

Sounds like fun to me
How did you get 18" charge range? Is that beasts or something?

Testify wrote:Sounds like fun to me
How did you get 18" charge range? Is that beasts or something?

6" movement + 2D6 Charge range, managed to get double 6 and got a clean charge in. Mostly was a desperation move to contest an objective.