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.

Your going to tell me dropping a 10 inc tall 4 inch wide silo in front of my adl is an acquired skill?

I'm telling you that if you know there's a 10 inch tall silo available, maybe you're better off using your ADL to bait your opponent into putting that big LOS blocker where you want it. That's a skill.

If I want a second one, I can just stand and old book in the center of the table.


Randomized tables look garbage. How you gonna spend 200+ hours painting an army and then be happy playing on a table that looks like its had a box of toys shaken out on it?

 davou wrote:
If I want a second one, I can just stand and old book in the center of the table.


Randomized tables look garbage. How you gonna spend 200+ hours painting an army and then be happy playing on a table that looks like its had a box of toys shaken out on it?

Aesthetics are quite tertiary to me. I'm an average painter on my good days, so it doesn't bother me at all.

 davou wrote:
If I want a second one, I can just stand and old book in the center of the table.


Randomized tables look garbage. How you gonna spend 200+ hours painting an army and then be happy playing on a table that looks like its had a box of toys shaken out on it?

There is a disconnect in your post. I wouldn't consider playing a game on a table where a book was considered terrain. Typically, when we use randomized terrain, we establish a pool of what is available for that game. Books and soda cans do not factor into it.

 Redbeard wrote:

 davou wrote:
If I want a second one, I can just stand and old book in the center of the table.


Randomized tables look garbage. How you gonna spend 200+ hours painting an army and then be happy playing on a table that looks like its had a box of toys shaken out on it?

There is a disconnect in your post. I wouldn't consider playing a game on a table where a book was considered terrain. Typically, when we use randomized terrain, we establish a pool of what is available for that game. Books and soda cans do not factor into it.

Yes, we also use actual terrain models, so when the LOS blocking stuff is in use, there is none on my tables.

 Las wrote:
It's almost as if the game requires you to weigh tactical decision, make difficult choices and adapt to changing circumstances.

Which would be fine and dandy. Except there are armies out there that have a distinct advantage through both rules going all in their favour, and against assault armies, while all but ignoring 2 out of 3 phases of the game. Sitting and shooting requires very little tactics and adapting, it's all just pointing at things. Tactics should matter to both.

 Redbeard wrote:
I'm telling you that if you know there's a 10 inch tall silo available, maybe you're better off using your ADL to bait your opponent into putting that big LOS blocker where you want it. That's a skill.

No that is not skill that is just showing the middle finger to any army that can't run armies that are build around crusders or drop pods. If my option is to either deploy behind an aegis , get los blocked and lose or be forced to stand in the open and die , I would rather not play. Chaos and marines have it easy anyway.

Makumba wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
I'm telling you that if you know there's a 10 inch tall silo available, maybe you're better off using your ADL to bait your opponent into putting that big LOS blocker where you want it. That's a skill.

No that is not skill that is just showing the middle finger to any army that can't run armies that are build around crusders or drop pods. If my option is to either deploy behind an aegis , get los blocked and lose or be forced to stand in the open and die , I would rather not play. Chaos and marines have it easy anyway.

You statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the balance of 6th. Meq's are middle tier at best. Their armor simply does not provide the resiliency per point to stand up to Xeno shooting.

Makumba wrote:
Chaos and marines have it easy anyway.

Yeah, about that...

JPong wrote:

 Las wrote:
It's almost as if the game requires you to weigh tactical decision, make difficult choices and adapt to changing circumstances.

Which would be fine and dandy. Except there are armies out there that have a distinct advantage through both rules going all in their favour, and against assault armies, while all but ignoring 2 out of 3 phases of the game. Sitting and shooting requires very little tactics and adapting, it's all just pointing at things. Tactics should matter to both.

That's exactly my point. The post I referenced suggested that different types of terrain can be both advantageous and detrimental to unit types and thus cannot be counted on. I believe this is a positive, of course LOS blocking terrain can slow down your ability to assault as well as shield you from incoming fire. So deal with it. That is literally the meaning of tactical decision making.

People always feel that if they can't have their cake and eat it in 40k that they're being cheated. That's simply not the case.

Narrative terrain is more representative of what a battlefield might look like abnd its unbiased which is the REASON for it.

The only reason you WOULDNT do narrative terrain is if you WERE seeking a specifically UNfair setup.

I went to a 96 player tourney a few months ago and they had random terrain. Neither I nor my opponents generally felt compelled to make it easy on each other because we paid to be there. Which was too bad, because i would have rather left the terrain the way it was and just rolled off for sides. But I was forced to counter HIS competitive placement instead so i wouldn't be boned. I didn't want to but HE insisted that the tourney called for it. He lost and then marked me DOWN on sportsmanship after I beat him. one of his reasons? My terrain placement seemed unfair to HIM!

WTF? I was the one who didn't want to do it in the first damn place and i KNEW something like that could happen which made it even LESS worth doing. Boy was I right.

My most sensible opponent looked at me and said "You wanna just leave it as is so we can get to playing?" and I was like "You took the words right outta my mouth man. Lets do this".

Best game I had. Point being: random placement sucks in a tourney. for casual games with buddies... fine. Paid tournies? No way.

I like that there are clear rules for deploying terrain, but it seems really silly to me that you can "pop" a mountain in front of somebody's fortifications (then again I also feel silly that you can drag fortifications with you everywhere - yeah my Bloodletters? Gonna be in an imperial bastion because they're BS5 but suck otherwise.). We also had a disagreement on how I put roughly everything "out of the way" I could because it really looked silly but I hate moving over 100 orks through all these goddamn hills and things that are made for 10 man squads, yeah "this model counts as being there" how about do that for 20 guys, sometimes on more than one unit. Other than that there's been no problems.

Anyway. I see it like this. If you are going to play against everyone and play a competitive game, there's no way to guarantee you'll not be using random terrain rules. If somebody would benefit from them but agrees not to? They don't want to win hard enough, and are not completely competitive. You could as well opt to take some Blitza-Bommas because they're "fluffy" or something. You can decide that you'll only use two wave serpents and have a bunch of howling banshees running around, tada, not a shooty game! That's perfectly fine, but refusing to play against players who want to win doesn't mean the game is balanced between shooting and assault.

 Las wrote:

JPong wrote:

 Las wrote:
It's almost as if the game requires you to weigh tactical decision, make difficult choices and adapt to changing circumstances.

Which would be fine and dandy. Except there are armies out there that have a distinct advantage through both rules going all in their favour, and against assault armies, while all but ignoring 2 out of 3 phases of the game. Sitting and shooting requires very little tactics and adapting, it's all just pointing at things. Tactics should matter to both.

That's exactly my point. The post I referenced suggested that different types of terrain can be both advantageous and detrimental to unit types and thus cannot be counted on. I believe this is a positive, of course LOS blocking terrain can slow down your ability to assault as well as shield you from incoming fire. So deal with it. That is literally the meaning of tactical decision making.

People always feel that if they can't have their cake and eat it in 40k that they're being cheated. That's simply not the case.

Again. There are armies out there that don't have to deal with it. They just get to ignore 2 phases of the 3 phase game. They don't care about LOS blocking terrain making it difficult to shoot. They don't care what their assault army friends are doing to the board, because they have a whole army list stacked against assault without even trying.

Martel732 wrote:
Again, Taudar wants a parking lot and Tyranids want a jungle. And so we randomize.

I don't get it. Why would a taudar player not want to make the game more interesting also to himself by allowing a lot of BLOS terrain? Why unpack your models when you could just compare the lists and mathhammer the winner. Oh yes, it must be the WAAC mentality?

Even if you randomise surely there is still going to be "discussions" on what pieces of terrain are available.

Unless people are just bowing to the shooty armies - or the one who screams the most?

Naw wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Again, Taudar wants a parking lot and Tyranids want a jungle. And so we randomize.

I don't get it. Why would a taudar player not want to make the game more interesting also to himself by allowing a lot of BLOS terrain? Why unpack your models when you could just compare the lists and mathhammer the winner. Oh yes, it must be the WAAC mentality?

You seem to confuse wanting a fair game with WAAC. Following your logic, why wouldn't the nid player want a more 'interesting' game, and choose to play on a table with no terrain at all?

The alternating terrain method allows both players input on what terrain will be on the board, and where it will be placed. The Tau/Eldar player may well want an empty table, but the nid player get the opportunity to place half the terrain in a way that is most beneficial to his strategy as well.

Naw wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Again, Taudar wants a parking lot and Tyranids want a jungle. And so we randomize.

I don't get it. Why would a taudar player not want to make the game more interesting also to himself by allowing a lot of BLOS terrain? Why unpack your models when you could just compare the lists and mathhammer the winner. Oh yes, it must be the WAAC mentality?

If you think that's WAAC behaviour, I'm guessing you don't get out much. True WAAC behaviour is trying to squeeze every advantage out of every ambiguous rule. There is nothing ambiguous about terrain placement: either agree on a set up, (Never seen that, except for 3rd party boards) or randomize. There is nothing WAAC about using a *random* mechanic. No matter what you think might benefit your list, you run the risk of getting hosed by the dice.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

It really is, put a unit behind a 6" wide bunker and see how close you have to get before you can see them. If you want to get that close I'm fine trading a damage to a unit to put a unit like Warp Spiders or a Flyrant in your rear arc.

Doesn't matter when the flying drake moves over you and then shoots 360. You're still toast and still dead.

Woo, you can shoot with a few AP5 shots, that's not enough to damage anything significant, a full volley might kill what, 2 marines or 2 Khorne hounds...
And seeker missiles require LOS because you need a markerlight hit first otherwise they obey normal shooting rules.

Played against a player who used LOS blocking terrain to put Lysander and his termies behind. Granted it was apocalypse, but my Farsight bomb landed, killed off Lysanders unit and put Lysander down to a single unit and then the Broadsides finished him off. That LOS blocking terrain was no problem for me.

Once again, put a unit behind a piece of LOS blocking terrain and see how far you have to move to hit them, you can't kill what you can't see so best case you maybe prune a single guy off the end, wounds don't carry over anymore.

The point being, you move in order to see them.

It's not one unit though, let your opponent set up first and you can very easily use buildings and hills to block large area's of the battlefield from his guns. If you are only hitting with 1/3 of your barrages most armies will easily weather that long enough to get close enough to destroy those flimsy arty chassis.

Like I asked earlier, where are you getting all this LOS blocking terrain. You just can't make up the board any way you like. You either have to roll for terrain or you use the table as is. Plus hills don't protect you if my troops are elevated up because they are firing from the top floor of a ruin.

A couple of pieces 1-3 will usually do it, either large ruins or buildings, bunkers or hills, any of those things breaks up fire lanes. That's a failing of where you play I guess (Terrain is always at a premium anywhere where multiple games are played at once) and it breeds a certain kind of meta, if you play on planet bowling ball then naturally races like Tau with long rang cover ignoring weapons will dominate.

Yes, its easy if you are CHOOSING what terrain to use. However this just isn't possible.

6x4 is 24 foot square blocks, 1/4 should be terrain that's 6x foot square blocks, if 1/3 of that is LOS blocking = 2x square foot blocks.

Of which I pointed out that 1/2 would be in YOUR OPPONENTS side of the table. In other words, you won't be using it.

Depth really does matter, put a hill smack dab in the centre of the board, no other terrain, and see just how much it affects your ability to sit and fire with impunity. See how much extra wrangling you have to do to secure lines of sight and think about how much easier it is for your opponent to close or denied flank you. Then add all the rest of the tables terrain, suddenly you aren't lining up two armies and rolling dice, melee units can close much more easily, units have to move.

Addressed above. I can either shoot you from up high because I am on top of a ruined building, or when I deploy I can see round both ends of your hill by deploying units on each side of my table..

That's a game of 40k to me, terrain matters and shapes a game, so many folks seem to ignore that then complain it's a list builders shooting game. If lining up troops and rolling dice works for you, more power to you, but I find that kind of game frightfully dull and have no interest in playing it.

Yes, well it helps if you're CHOOSING your terrain and you decide to just bring as much LOS blocking terrain as possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Well I guess you wouldn't get many games where I play. Randomized terrain or pre-fabricated layouts designed by neutral parties are the most fair in general.

Yes, and down at one of my stores we have a random terrain generator that the shop uses. So what you get in each square is totally random. It could be a ruin or a bunker. On the other hand you might just get trees.

 DarthOvious wrote:

Doesn't matter when the flying drake moves over you and then shoots 360. You're still toast and still dead.

We covered this already if you read back, if you have to move up your drake so aggressively you reduce your options in future turns without leaving the table and increase the risk of someone getting in your more fragile rear arc, it's a worse position that if the LOS blocker was a waist high wall.

Same with your Farsight bomb, dropping down 24" in front of your opponent and jumping back to your line is far better than if LOS blocking terrain force you to deploy closer to the enemy around a building to get your ideal shot. LOS restricts the options of people who rely on range and shifts the balance of power. It won't make an army of Pulse Carbine Fire Warriors a good melee army but it changes the game.

Choosing terrain is exactly what the Narrative deployment rules mean, it's exactly the thing we've been talking about for like 3 pages now. So yes, my points are for a game where the players chose the terrain.

Redbeard wrote:
You seem to confuse wanting a fair game with WAAC. Following your logic, why wouldn't the nid player want a more 'interesting' game, and choose to play on a table with no terrain at all?

Because playing on an empty board is incredibly dull and not interesting by any stretch? That's hardly comparable is it?

Eh, both sides are entrenched in their idea's, it's pointless discussing it further. I'll stick to my way where melee and shooting work and you stick to your version where assault is dead and shooting reigns supreme. Whatever floats your boat really.

I'd say you like your way I like mine and call it a day but judging by the comments of those involved and the number of complaining threads it doesn't seem like you guys like your way much.

 Dunklezahn wrote:


No offence to you as a person but first time I saw you being the cause of randomized and gamed terrain I'd lose all interest in playing against you and I wouldn't be alone within my group.

Why should randomizing terrain be a bad thing? Surely if it was randomized then both sets of players would have equal chance of having the terrain to favour them. That's the point being made here, you think that the whole random terrain thing is bad to begin with when it shouldn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dunklezahn wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
If you and your opponent can't agree on a narrative to help you set up the terrain, you should use this method instead.

That's pretty clear, if you jumped straight to randomized they wouldn't need the first part of the sentence. It implies that Narrative is the start point and Random is there for when that fails.

Of course there are more rules, it's for when the players can't be trusted to govern themselves and treat their opponent with respect.

Edit:
It occurred to me its very similar to their "Dice off when you can't agree" style ruling, something else I don't think I have ever needed in a single game in 20 years. If neither player is willing to back down and accept an unfavourable result we'll have to force one on you.

The first method is basically "see what's in your terrain box and make a cool battlefield for your armies to fight over". No rules required as at this stage the players are assumed to be trusted not to be thinking purely about the best terrain for their victory.

Sadly it requires the players to put their must win attitudes and biases aside in the name of the game. It saddens me that so many folks cannot do this, worse that some even go further and actively sabotage any attempt by players forced to use this method to build terrain like suggesting in Narrative. If this is how you start your games it's easy to predict how every single close LOS/measurement call is gonna go in the game, it's a horribly unfriendly way to play a game meant to be enjoyed by all participants.

I don't think that you get the fact that this is a two way street. Assault armies want LOS blocking terrain, especially if they are on foot while shooting armies don't. A person with an assault army trying to line up LOS blocking terrain can be viewed in a negative light and looked upon as if he is trying to game to advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dunklezahn wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

Not at all, it offers two choices, both of which are equally valid. And, it provides the more definitive version as being the go-to method if there is a disagreement.

It does offer two methods however it also says if Narrative fails use Random. That implies you started with Narrative or it couldn't fail in the first place.

It also implies that if players can't agree on terrain set-up then this should be an even way to sort out the disagreement and well....... its not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:


All the rulebook does is give more Rules for the alt method - not say its better /standard - indeed, it seems to me that the GW set out from the start to say its a narrative game and this is the rules for playing - now lots of you dont want to play that so here is alt rule set for making random terrain.

Not sure how random equates to fairer by the way - its just random.

Now there is a third way - to set out as local tournaments do it - which near me tends to be pretty open tables - which suits some of my armies and not others........... I really can't see though how the Shooty armies can complain if there is some blocking terrian - for me ideally in a tournament you would get to play on both open and cluttered boards - bit more of a challenge but its seldom the case.

Well if its not fair then there is a problem with the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dunklezahn wrote:


That's exactly whats wrong with the random system in a nutshell. It's gaming the terrain rules to try and tip the odds in your favour. It's far easier to game that system in favour of shooting armies so by deploying like that, shocker, you create a shooters game. Tell me that crater added anything to the theme or aesthetic. It was put there to favour the shooting troops you planned on putting to look through that gap.

I have to love this quote. Using a RANDOM system is a way to game the system so that you are more likely to win.

The point is that a random system shouldn't be leaving one player in the cold while the other player gets a massive advantage. That's not anywhere close to being random.

Because it only takes one player to veto Narrative deployment both gamers must work together, it becomes a compromise, there are assault avenues, there are fire lanes and as a result both aspects can thrive. To me, that makes for a better game and shows a nice level of mutual respecs for each others time. In my eyes it would cut down the amount of threads and posts of people complaining about what a shooting game 6th is.

The fact still remains that the random system is the system used in place of the narrative system. Notice the word narrative is quite specific and is supposed to refer to something fluffy. If you're just dropping by for a pick up game then why would anyway use the narrative rules? You would use the random rules as it is quick and easy and you don't have to spend half an hours gaming time deciding what the terrain is going to be.

Now there will be some who flat prefer Random, and that's fine (I still feel it's a fallback method behind narrative but lets agree to disagree on that) but I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority play it exactly as you posted, an opinion that has only been reinforced by the comments in this very thread. Setting up terrain is one of the first things the players do, introduce yourselves, shake hands maybe, then set up. If your opponents first thought is to how he can create the most unbalanced terrain features to aid his force rather than to thinking about making a fun game for all involved, I'd personally rather walk away from the table, and I feel my 40k gaming has been made better for it.

Random terrain is the official way we play it down at one my stores. They even have their own random terrain generator for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makumba wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
I'm telling you that if you know there's a 10 inch tall silo available, maybe you're better off using your ADL to bait your opponent into putting that big LOS blocker where you want it. That's a skill.

No that is not skill that is just showing the middle finger to any army that can't run armies that are build around crusders or drop pods. If my option is to either deploy behind an aegis , get los blocked and lose or be forced to stand in the open and die , I would rather not play. Chaos and marines have it easy anyway.

Yes, I'm sure that's why they are topping the list in tournaments at the mom............... Hey wait a minute!!! Tau & Eldar are topping the tournament lists at the moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dunklezahn wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

Doesn't matter when the flying drake moves over you and then shoots 360. You're still toast and still dead.

We covered this already if you read back, if you have to move up your drake so aggressively you reduce your options in future turns without leaving the table and increase the risk of someone getting in your more fragile rear arc, it's a worse position that if the LOS blocker was a waist high wall.

So to recap, you've never seen Heldrakes in action.

Same with your Farsight bomb, dropping down 24" in front of your opponent and jumping back to your line is far better than if LOS blocking terrain force you to deploy closer to the enemy around a building to get your ideal shot. LOS restricts the options of people who rely on range and shifts the balance of power. It won't make an army of Pulse Carbine Fire Warriors a good melee army but it changes the game.

In other words you know nothing about playing Tau. You do realise that in the turn after the one I mentioned not only did I disengage from the CC (he charged) using VRTs (Hit & Run) but I then went on to blow up a whole Reaver Titan with it. He couldn't target my unit with his Titan because I used the shield generator asset.

Choosing terrain is exactly what the Narrative deployment rules mean, it's exactly the thing we've been talking about for like 3 pages now. So yes, my points are for a game where the players chose the terrain.

My point was stating that BOTH players generate the terrain. You just don't get to bring whatever the heck you want and say get lost to the other guy. He gets a say in it you know and he isn't just going to let you set-up big massive LOS blocking terrain all across the table.

Without getting mired in the back and forth going on in this thread, I want to suggest another way of looking at the question of assaults and wether or not it is a legitimate playstyle in 6th edition.

I see a lot of gunline armies these days, and fight against them predominantly with CSM assault-style armies. The big challenge for me, tactics-wise, is delivery. How do I get my big group of choppy things across the board so they can inflict damage? Mobility affects the outcome of games moreso than any other factor.

For a lot of armies, there's simply no strong, reliable way to deliver troops across the board. Mobility seems to be the determining factor in the success of an army, when you consider the ones that are widely regarded as top tier:

- Tau and Eldar have the ability to reach out across the board with strong weapons that tear up opponents. They don't really need strong transports so long as they can rely on shooting up other people's transports.

- Space Marines have droppods and thunderhawks. These are unique in the way they arrive and the amount of troops they can carry. They give their armies the ability to strike out across the board.

- Daemons are able to strike anywhere at just about any time. Their mobility gives them the ability to wreak havok on their foes.

These armies have mobility advantages other armies just can't compensate for. When you consider the ones that are in the middle tier:

- CSM have some very hard hitting assault units that rely on Rhinos to get around. Their transports get blown up before they make it across the board.

- Orks have large mobs they put in ramshackle vehicles that can barely survive a round of shooting.

- IG Infantry can load up on plasma all they want, but unless they get within 24 inches in that Chimera, they are going to be toast.

- Necron warriors have those arc things, which seem to be fairly resilient compared to options in other armies. They do perform a little better than the others, accordingly.

I don't really think it's the mechanics of 40k assault so much as mobility in general. You can kind of look at a Codex and know if an army is going to be good based on how far they can fire and what kinds of transport options they have. I mean, seriously, who would be able to deal with a CSM army doing droppod assaults? How about an IG infantry force with AV14 Chimeras?

If I was going to change one thing about 40k, it would be Rhinos / Trucks / other dedicated transport options. I would increase the armor and hullpoints dramatically and make them assault vehicles. This would change the mechanics of the game more than any other rule change could.

I think that would be overkill. I liked the old rule where if the vehicle didn't move, you could disembark and assault. But I suppose, after the slaughter fest things became in melee during the dark (Blood angel and GK) times, that they maybe overcompensated a tiny bit. Assaultign from a Rhino by disallowing it from moving AT ALL that turn would have been a good change to make. Still got a chance of stunning the passengers and such or blowing them out. Maybe make stunning effects stop you from charging out of it? That coulda worked easily.

 Jancoran wrote:
I think that would be overkill. I liked the old rule where if the vehicle didn't move, you could disembark and assault. But I suppose, after the slaughter fest things became in melee during the dark (Blood angel and GK) times, that they maybe overcompensated a tiny bit.

Yeah, it was such a melee slaughterfest that everyone took minimum-sized squads to get more Razorbacks!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
I think that would be overkill. I liked the old rule where if the vehicle didn't move, you could disembark and assault. But I suppose, after the slaughter fest things became in melee during the dark (Blood angel and GK) times, that they maybe overcompensated a tiny bit.

Yeah, it was such a melee slaughterfest that everyone took minimum-sized squads to get more Razorbacks!

Not to mention the top tier razorbacks being Grey Hunters, because they did decent in melee, were powerful scoring units, and could take even MORE razorbacks.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
I think that would be overkill. I liked the old rule where if the vehicle didn't move, you could disembark and assault. But I suppose, after the slaughter fest things became in melee during the dark (Blood angel and GK) times, that they maybe overcompensated a tiny bit.

Yeah, it was such a melee slaughterfest that everyone took minimum-sized squads to get more Razorbacks!

Not to mention the top tier razorbacks being Grey Hunters, because they did decent in melee, were powerful scoring units, and could take even MORE razorbacks.

Above all else, they were good because they were good at shooting and as good on the defensive as most other Marine units on the charge. You couldn't simply charge them and tie them up to stop them shooting, because they'd punch your face in.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
I think that would be overkill. I liked the old rule where if the vehicle didn't move, you could disembark and assault. But I suppose, after the slaughter fest things became in melee during the dark (Blood angel and GK) times, that they maybe overcompensated a tiny bit.

Yeah, it was such a melee slaughterfest that everyone took minimum-sized squads to get more Razorbacks!

Yeah, imagine a silly little thing like BAs assaulting. Why on earth would they want to do that?

Thats the problem with this discussion. People think that BAs in5th ed taking lots os Razorbacks with small assault units and then being able to assault with one of two of those units makes it an assault edition. Just forget about the Razorbacks with guns on top. Just forget about the fact that BAs are supposed to favour assault over shooting. SOmetimes I think some people just don't want any assault in the game whatsoever.

I think the only way to bring CC back is to extend the range of Dirge Casters. At LEAST 8'

Quick answer.

TheRedWingArmada wrote:
I think the only way to bring CC back is to extend the range of Dirge Casters. At LEAST 8'

Quick answer.

Overwatch is the least of CC's worries. The primary issue in this edition is actually getting there.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
I think that would be overkill. I liked the old rule where if the vehicle didn't move, you could disembark and assault. But I suppose, after the slaughter fest things became in melee during the dark (Blood angel and GK) times, that they maybe overcompensated a tiny bit.

Yeah, it was such a melee slaughterfest that everyone took minimum-sized squads to get more Razorbacks!

Not to mention the top tier razorbacks being Grey Hunters, because they did decent in melee, were powerful scoring units, and could take even MORE razorbacks.

I hear this razorback thing a lot, but I never struggled against them. Maybe its the type of army I play (usually with a lot of models and massive mobility). But I was always able to kill them with my Tau and my sisters of battle took the attrition just fine while Excorcizing them; and my Eldar Warp Spiders and outflanking Scorpions blasted the snot out of them before they could fire a single shot as often as not. Against mech's armies the Razorspam probably worked real well and maybe thats why my perception of it is different. I tended not to have any armor, or at least, very little, in most games. People loved melta too much in 5E to bother. I preferred killing peoples tanks with Grenades whenever possible or else DS'ing behind them and ending them that way. Riskier, but ultimately it left me far less exposed to the meta.

Thats off the subject but this post got me thinking about that razorspam phenomenon. It's true, they did do well at tournies I guess. maybe I shoulda gone to some of THOSE. Lol.