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.

Mandor wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:No, Mandor, it would make a significant amount of melee oriented units nearly as cost-efficient as Guardians currently are. However, I can see Defender Guardians gaining Overwatch where most units do not. (Or a complete overhaul of Shuriken Weapons, tying together Ghost's rumours regarding Eldar)

Let's see, here's a small list of units that would become totally useless (or in some cases even more totally useless ) if you would be able to shoot them when assaulted.

Codex Chaos Daemons: Bloodletters, Daemonettes, Flesh Hounds, Fiends, Seekers.
Codex Dark Eldar: Wyches, Hellions, Incubi, Mandrakes, Bloodbrides, Wracks, Harlequins.
Codex Eldar: Howling Banshees, Striking Scorpions, Harlequins.
Codex Tyranids: Warriors, Raveners, Hormagaunts, Genestealers, Lictors, Gargoyles.

Theres an equally large list of units that would become viable were such a change made. It would be nice if it could be done as a preparatory action, preparing for a defensive action in liu of shooting, though that might create weird or illogical situations.

ShumaGorath wrote:Theres an equally large list of units that would become viable were such a change made. It would be nice if it could be done as a preparatory action, preparing for a defensive action in liu of shooting, though that might create weird or illogical situations.

Could you give a couple of examples of such units?

Mandor wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Theres an equally large list of units that would become viable were such a change made. It would be nice if it could be done as a preparatory action, preparing for a defensive action in liu of shooting, though that might create weird or illogical situations.

Could you give a couple of examples of such units?

Eldar guardians, tactical marines, flash gitz, legion of the damned, servitor squads, storm troopers.

ShumaGorath wrote:Theres an equally large list of units that would become viable were such a change made. It would be nice if it could be done as a preparatory action, preparing for a defensive action in liu of shooting, though that might create weird or illogical situations.

...and that's what the whole point of what Overwatch is.

"This unit gains overwatch if it didn't shoot this turn"
...or
"Psychic Power: This unit gains overwatch. Psyker explodes."
...or
"All units with boltguns/shurikenapults/lasguns in this unit gain overwatch"
...or
whatever

The rule is already there.
Defensive Fire whenever you get assaulted as a universal is absurdly inhibiting and has no substance in these 6thEd rules.

Heavy weapons will be borderline untouchable in close combat, and that's usually totally against the archetype.
I shouldn't be afraid to assault a unit of Devastators, Reapers, Heavy Weapons with a dedicated assault unit.

DarknessEternal wrote:Look Out, Sergeant totally pointless.

Look Out Sergeant only punishes you. The column next to it already gives models a 5+ cover save if there's intervening units.

As pointed out only models without a base provides a 5+ cover. As I read it the intervening unit gets a 3++ save from the critical hits if their armour save is worse (higher) than the covered unit's.

I'm reading about MC's, Massive and cover saves, and can't find anything that says MC's must be 50% covered to get a cover save. Am I missing something or is it gone? Because if it's gone, MC's can get Look Out, Sergeant cover from almost any unit (which they badly need in 6th ed).

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mandor wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Theres an equally large list of units that would become viable were such a change made. It would be nice if it could be done as a preparatory action, preparing for a defensive action in liu of shooting, though that might create weird or illogical situations.

Could you give a couple of examples of such units?

Eldar guardians, tactical marines, flash gitz, legion of the damned, servitor squads, storm troopers.

Guardians and Flash Gitz suffer from old codex syndrome, rather than crumbling under assaults (which agreed, they do quite spectacularly). IMO, there's nothing wrong with Tactical Marines. LotD, servitor squads and stormtroopers suffer from internal codex problems. They simply have better choices in the same codex.

You are right that shooting an assaulting unit would make them better, of course. However, it would make the units I mentioned useless in general. Not as in, they are suddenly worse, but rather totally useless and requiring a complete redesign of those Codices.

N.I.B. wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Look Out, Sergeant totally pointless.

Look Out Sergeant only punishes you. The column next to it already gives models a 5+ cover save if there's intervening units.

As pointed out only models without a base provides a 5+ cover. As I read it the intervening unit gets a 3++ save from the critical hits if their armour save is worse (higher) than the covered unit's.

I'm reading about MC's, Massive and cover saves, and can't find anything that says MC's must be 50% covered to get a cover save. Am I missing something or is it gone? Because if it's gone, MC's can get Look Out, Sergeant cover from almost any unit (which they badly need in 6th ed).

It's in the Massive rule, on page 72.

The rule is already there.

Yeah, on one special character in the game. It might as well not exist at all in that case.

Defensive Fire whenever you get assaulted as a universal is absurdly inhibiting and has no substance in these 6thEd rules.

It's got enough substance to cause a debate. Did you not see where I wrote "if" before? I'm not asserting the truth or lack thereof, we don't even know if this gaks real, so try not to be in everyones face about it as if our belief makes it true.

Heavy weapons will be borderline untouchable in close combat, and that's usually totally against the archetype.

Heavy weapons will be borderline worthless in sixth without universal defensive fire. Oh, look, I can either get charged second turn by the entire enemy army while getting hit on 2+ at range or I can move away and not fire this worthless 200 pound paperweight lascanon. I wonder which one I'm going to chose.

I shouldn't be afraid to assault a unit of Devastators, Reapers, Heavy Weapons with a dedicated assault unit.

You also shouldn't be capable of assaulting them turn two without effort, but thats in these rules as well. So which is it? Are dedicated light assault squads worthless or are dedicated foot heavy weapon squads worthless?

Take your pick.

Xca|iber wrote:I guess I'll give my 2 cents about this "leak." After considering it for awhile, I must say I like most of what's presented in this document. I won't comment on the document's validity.

Despite my overall good impressions, I find the consistency of the document very lacking.

Assuming validity, we also should be able to assume that due to the incomplete nature of the document that this is not representative of a final version, so it's not unreasonable to expect the finer points to undergo at least some clarification. That being said, I think that like most unclear rules we are currently burdened by in 5e and some outdated codices, a generally accepted consensus either refuted or supported by a faq will emerge in the typical time frame. The ID/EW Massive Damage confusion, Multi-tracking clarifications, and the distribution of 'new' USRs for existing units will all be debated to death until we have something more substantial from GW.

I'm still looking forward to seeing what some savvy rules lawyers and/or graphic designers can come up with as far as filling in the missing charts and diagrams; as I think that will make things a lot more comfortable for the early adopters who start using these rules instead of the 5e book.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's got enough substance to cause a debate. Did you not see where I wrote "if" before? I'm not asserting the truth or lack thereof, we don't even know if this gaks real, so try not to be in everyones face about it as if our belief makes it true.

Heavy weapons will be borderline worthless in sixth without universal defensive fire. Oh, look, I can either get charged second turn by the entire enemy army while getting hit on 2+ at range or I can move away and not fire this worthless 200 pound paperweight lascanon. I wonder which one I'm going to chose.

You also shouldn't be capable of assaulting them turn two without effort, but thats in these rules as well. So which is it? Are dedicated light assault squads worthless or are dedicated foot heavy weapon squads worthless?.

Of course it's all hypothetical, because even the validity of these rules is doubtful.

But you say that assaulting a shooting unit in turn two is unwanted. Why is it? If I assault you in turn two, it means that you have already a turn of shooting to stop my assault unit. Usually, it would also mean that I have dedicated one of my assault units to neutralize a vital target, possibly exposing it to your counter assault.

If one thing is becoming clear with these rules, it's that stuff dies rather fast, both to shooting and assault.

Guardians and Flash Gitz suffer from old codex syndrome, rather than crumbling under assaults (which agreed, they do quite spectacularly).

No, they suffer from being bad units syndrome. If it was "old codex" syndrome then they would of been useful at some point in their lifespan. They have not been. Guardians are too bad in combat and too short ranged to be useful since most of the games assault elements can leapfrog the 12 inch danger zone. FGs have the statline of an assault unit but carry questionably useful guns. They're better off waaghing and just hitting people with them.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with Tactical Marines.

You are unquestionably wrong.

LotD, servitor squads and stormtroopers suffer from internal codex problems. They simply have better choices in the same codex.

Nothing in the marine codex is better then the LATD at being a relentless heavy weapon firing platform other then base terminators and people consider them to be pretty bad too. The codex isn't exactly high on the power scale either. They're just not a good unit since DSing and firing a few bolters only to get crushed in close combat is a bad unit role. Storm troopers suffer from the exact same issue, they land, fire once, then die without actually having a realistic chance to recoup their costs.

You are right that shooting an assaulting unit would make them better, of course. However, it would make the units I mentioned useless in general. Not as in, they are suddenly worse, but rather totally useless and requiring a complete redesign of those Codices.

Which is exactly like the ones I mentioned as well. Lets not be coy, LATD are useless. Flash gitz are useless. Tactical marines, despite every codex marine player being forced to take them, are almost useless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mandor wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It's got enough substance to cause a debate. Did you not see where I wrote "if" before? I'm not asserting the truth or lack thereof, we don't even know if this gaks real, so try not to be in everyones face about it as if our belief makes it true.

Heavy weapons will be borderline worthless in sixth without universal defensive fire. Oh, look, I can either get charged second turn by the entire enemy army while getting hit on 2+ at range or I can move away and not fire this worthless 200 pound paperweight lascanon. I wonder which one I'm going to chose.

You also shouldn't be capable of assaulting them turn two without effort, but thats in these rules as well. So which is it? Are dedicated light assault squads worthless or are dedicated foot heavy weapon squads worthless?.

Of course it's all hypothetical, because even the validity of these rules is doubtful.

But you say that assaulting a shooting unit in turn two is unwanted. Why is it? If I assault you in turn two, it means that you have already a turn of shooting to stop my assault unit. Usually, it would also mean that I have dedicated one of my assault units to neutralize a vital target, possibly exposing it to your counter assault.

If one thing is becoming clear with these rules, it's that stuff dies rather fast, both to shooting and assault.

Because one turn isn't enough for most foot heavy weapon squads to recoup their cost. Because by not moving they will get decimated at range themselves, and because for less points I could just take a dedicated assault unit and not give you free points. Foot heavy weapon squads are bad in fifth without tanks shooting at multiple targets or unmoving infantry getting hit one number more easily or dedicated assault units being able to charge 21 inches reliably. They're bad now and they're getting worse in this new ruleset.

So again, lets not pretend here, these changes would be the death knell of the dedicated heavy weapons squad. Which do you want to favor, a light assault squad getting torn up before it's able to do it's thing effectively because of defensive firing or do you want heavy weapon squads to vanish because they're free hits at range and free kill points in close combat well before they're able to perform their role?

RE: the "Always defensive fire" interpretation -

IMO, as written the Defensive fire entry doesn't give explicit permission to units which are being assaulted to 'always' execute DF actions. Contextually, it reads more like a clarification that units which are being assaulted are not deprived of the ability to make defensive fire actions.

Annotated here:

Defensive Fire
Type: Support, Shooting

In dire situations soldiers excel themselves and are able to shoot in the enemy turn. Every model in a unit that executes a Defensive Fire action can perform a single Shooting action.

(this seems explicit: When permitted to perform a Defensive Fire action, every model may perform a single shooting action)

They cannot use the multi-targeting rule but gain the relentless
shooting special rule for the duration of this action.

(This permits the use of heavy weapons during defensive fire actions)

Every model has to fire at the target unit that triggered the response, even if the model is normally allowed to fire at a different target than the unit. These Shooting actions do not impair the ability of a model to shoot in its own Shooting phase (except if it uses one shot weapon, of course).

(All good so far)

Resolve the action that triggered this action completely before you interrupt the turn to resolve the defensive fire.

(So Defensive fire is always resolved after the event that triggers it)

The rules for Shooting actions apply with the
following exceptions:
• If the responding unit was assaulted by the
target unit and it was not locked in combat
previously, it can shoot at the target unit.

(This rule does not, as written, suggest that Assaults are a triggering action, only that an assault will not prevent a defensive fire action which has been triggered)

If the units lose contact, follow the rules for lost contact outside of the Assault phase as normal.

(This seems like a redundancy listed for clarification)

junk wrote:
Assuming validity, we also should be able to assume that due to the incomplete nature of the document that this is not representative of a final version, so it's not unreasonable to expect the finer points to undergo at least some clarification. That being said, I think that like most unclear rules we are currently burdened by in 5e and some outdated codices, a generally accepted consensus either refuted or supported by a faq will emerge in the typical time frame. The ID/EW Massive Damage confusion, Multi-tracking clarifications, and the distribution of 'new' USRs for existing units will all be debated to death until we have something more substantial from GW.

I agree, but I worry about the sheer number of inconsistencies, typos, and unclear rules. Even for an absolute 1st draft, it still has quite a few structural problems (despite the fairly positive "spirit of the rules") and it makes me nervous that with so many things to fix and clean up, a lot of these little inconsistencies may fly under the radar. As much as I know that things get fixed in FAQs and that the community often comes to a consensus about issues, I'm bothered every time something controversial springs up because it means I have to play out each of those debates with my gaming group and hopefully get everyone on the same page before it becomes a problem during a game. Also, I don't like waiting for FAQs

I get what you're saying in general, I just feel like a lot of people are simply jumping on the "this is great! we should play this even if it's fake!" bandwagon without really acknowledging a lot of the potential sources of grief that are inherently present in any draft-level document.

Tactical Marines may be useless within it's own codex, but in the grand scheme of things I'd place them in the middle of the useful-scale. However, these new rules do make them more useful since they can more effectively use their guns and for such a good statline with the new shooting rules and their relatively low cost, I'd venture that they aren't useless but rather pretty decent.

ShumaGorath wrote:Which is exactly like the ones I mentioned as well. Lets not be coy, LATD are useless. Flash gitz are useless. Tactical marines, despite every codex marine player being forced to take them, are almost useless.

Very well, let's assume they are quite useless. Is this rather a problem with the unit itself, or with the unit engaging it in assault? For every problematic unit you mention, a superior shooting unit exists. Take for example an IG gunline or even the default mech IG with meltavets. It would wipe out any assaulting army within a single turn if it'd be able to shoot assaulters.

I think the problem is not the assaulting unit or assault in general, but rather the units you mentioned. Changing game mechanics to fit bad unit entries will not fix the game. This specific change would simply ruin any balance currently present.

If defensive fire does ends up working like shuma and I are suggesting, it really brings that cinematic narrative theme the GW are rumored to be introducing in 6th to life.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mandor wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Theres an equally large list of units that would become viable were such a change made. It would be nice if it could be done as a preparatory action, preparing for a defensive action in liu of shooting, though that might create weird or illogical situations.

Could you give a couple of examples of such units?

Eldar guardians, tactical marines, flash gitz, legion of the damned, servitor squads, storm troopers.

Those units already have roles, and are not costed to wipe out 220 points of harlequins on the charge on top of their current role. That those units are not necessarily the best at their designed role does not mean giving them an OP shooting rule makes them more viable. Ie. If everyone has over watch, guardians are still useless, because dire avengers still do it better. Overwatch gives anyone with guns a boost, it doesn't fix imbalances - just creates them by removing any possible use for dozens of dedicated assault units.

BDJV wrote:If defensive fire does ends up working like shuma and I are suggesting, it really brings that cinematic narrative theme the GW are rumored to be introducing in 6th to life.

In the world of turn 1/turn 2 assaults, assault after deepstrike, assault from non-assault vehicles, and other silliness, it really seems appropriate that Defensive Fire could apply all the time to a unit being assaulted. It "solves" the problem of having 12 assault phases in a 6 turn game and only 6 shooting phases, because both players would be able to do damage in each other's turn not just in the assault phase.

However, single model units will really be screwed when assaulting a big shooty unit. (Dreadnoughts especially charging a unit with one or two meltaguns would be suicide in this scenario.)

Mahtamori wrote:Tactical Marines may be useless within it's own codex, but in the grand scheme of things I'd place them in the middle of the useful-scale. However, these new rules do make them more useful since they can more effectively use their guns and for such a good statline with the new shooting rules and their relatively low cost, I'd venture that they aren't useless but rather pretty decent.

The problem with that is that most of their competition is still significantly better than they are. If everything with a rapid fire weapon got a buff and assault got a buff then the only things that tacticals got better than by comparison are things that are bad in assault and had only assault or heavy weapons. Thats... Eldar guardians. The start of this entire conversation. In the new edition gray hunters, purifiers, every C:SM troop, every Ork troop, every necron troop, etc. It's all still significantly better than tacs for cost. They're bad because they're bad, they have illogical mixed weapons, aren't terribly resilient, have a terrible assault profile, and zero ability to actually take objectives which is the entire point of a troop slot.

Very well, let's assume they are quite useless. Is this rather a problem with the unit itself, or with the unit engaging it in assault? For every problematic unit you mention, a superior shooting unit exists. Take for example an IG gunline or even the default mech IG with meltavets. It would wipe out any assaulting army within a single turn if it'd be able to shoot assaulters.

Except that other than in rare cases assault was generally a turn 3 affair against prepared gunlines (shrike marines could get in faster as could nids or DE). In these rules it will be almost universally second turn. Thus thats an entire round of shooting missing. What the hell are tau supposed to do? Lose every single game automatically? What is any gunline army supposed to do when an entire tyranid or blood angel army can be in their deployment zone on the second turn?

I think the problem is not the assaulting unit or assault in general, but rather the units you mentioned. Changing game mechanics to fit bad unit entries will not fix the game. This specific change would simply ruin any balance currently present.

The problem is that assaults are too fast and effective and that in two editions they've taken assaults from being turn four to three to two without actually legitimately upping the firepower or resilience of ranged foot units in most books. Go play a tyranid swarm army with a non mech gunline now when they're slow. See how well that works out. Now take a turn away from that and give them +1 ballistic skill.

The one thing these rules do (fake or real) is make me hold on to my money until they have been verified. The choice is whether to buy more models based on the 5th ed metagame or hold on and wait until 6th is released.

If I buy for 5th I might be left with a pile of models that worked great in 5th, but are subpar in 6th.

First when I read about defensive fire I though it was op as hell but after someone smarter than me pointed out that you could only use it on certain squads in certain sitiuations. Sure df is powerful and capable whiping out light cc units but when do you actually have only one light cc unit? DF can be used only once per unit (DF unit) so even if one cc unit dies you got another alive or you could send in first a tougher unit to weather df and then light units. And let's not forget Alpha strike which can be huge bonus to units like burnas. A simple head on assaults will be harder but timed and balanced assaults are much more effective.

Redemption wrote:

N.I.B. wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Look Out, Sergeant totally pointless.

Look Out Sergeant only punishes you. The column next to it already gives models a 5+ cover save if there's intervening units.

As pointed out only models without a base provides a 5+ cover. As I read it the intervening unit gets a 3++ save from the critical hits if their armour save is worse (higher) than the covered unit's.

I'm reading about MC's, Massive and cover saves, and can't find anything that says MC's must be 50% covered to get a cover save. Am I missing something or is it gone? Because if it's gone, MC's can get Look Out, Sergeant cover from almost any unit (which they badly need in 6th ed).

It's in the Massive rule, on page 72.

Right you are, can't see how I missed it. Seems no cover save, evermore, for MC's.

Honestly, just so long as the Preferred Enemy rules are kept for the official 6th Ed., as well as the Heavy rules and the removal of the Deep Strike mishap table, then I am a happy man. Anything else, I'll deal with. But those three things are my only real desires at this point. (I just want my Monoliths & Destroyers back)

illuknisaa wrote:First when I read about defensive fire I though it was op as hell but after someone smarter than me pointed out that you could only use it on certain squads in certain sitiuations. Sure df is powerful and capable whiping out light cc units but when do you actually have only one light cc unit? DF can be used only once per unit (DF unit) so even if one cc unit dies you got another alive or you could send in first a tougher unit to weather df and then light units. And let's not forget Alpha strike which can be huge bonus to units like burnas. A simple head on assaults will be harder but timed and balanced assaults are much more effective.

Incorrect, no limitation exists on the number of units that can target you with Defensive Fire, nor the number of triggers that can set off Defensive Fire. However, the Deep Strike trigger itself does have limitations.

For example: if your entire army has Overwatch, each of your units may shoot on every opponent that ends its move within 12" of that unit.

Mandor wrote:
For example: if your entire army has Overwatch, each of your units may shoot on every opponent that ends its move within 12" of that unit.

I am sure that it will not work that way in the final version. Mark my words it will be once per turn.

azazel the cat wrote:Honestly, just so long as the Preferred Enemy rules are kept for the official 6th Ed., as well as the Heavy rules and the removal of the Deep Strike mishap table, then I am a happy man. Anything else, I'll deal with. But those three things are my only real desires at this point. (I just want my Monoliths & Destroyers back)

Amen to that! Monoliths, Destroyers and swaths of rapid fire troops supported by some of the new toys being a viable option sounds amazing to me

I also wouldn't complain if the Monolith indeed counted as a single structure point Super Heavy gaining -3 on the damage chart. It would certainly be a return to form for the hulking things.

This is in no way biased by the Necron models I already have which are mostly useless right now

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mandor wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Theres an equally large list of units that would become viable were such a change made. It would be nice if it could be done as a preparatory action, preparing for a defensive action in liu of shooting, though that might create weird or illogical situations.

Could you give a couple of examples of such units?

Eldar guardians, tactical marines, flash gitz, legion of the damned, servitor squads, storm troopers.

All but the guardians already get buffs from other changes to the rules(some major, some minor). How "viable" they are does of course depend in how the metagame evolves in the new edition, but they're worth giving a whirl.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Look Out Sergeant only punishes you. The column next to it already gives models a 5+ cover save if there's intervening units.

Also it denies directed hits. Great for those Ork players worried about losing Nobs. Just run a gretchin screen ahead of them.

Sorry to be the guy who comes into the conversation several months after everyone else, but I really want to check these rules out and the initial link doesn't work for me. Anyone got a better one they could recommend?

Thanks dakka!

I have a fully bookmarked and Table of Contents'd copy, courtesy of an awesome person named Junk. If you want one, just PM me with your email.

Jihadnik wrote:Sorry to be the guy who comes into the conversation several months after everyone else, but I really want to check these rules out and the initial link doesn't work for me. Anyone got a better one they could recommend?

Thanks dakka!

That's weird? Could it be an Aussie thing?(seriously, no shot intended!)
I just tried it and it worked for me?