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.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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.

See, I don't have that problem unless I just have a ton of open ground to cross. I know for some reason, when people are considering advancing they consider taking fire as well, but I make a point to never present a target in the first place and completely negate LOS. That said, I can close that 6' to charge you, but when I charge I'm getting plowed down by Supportive Fire from Tau or Rapid Fire Las-Shots from uber IG hordes. ><

If there is more that I'm not seeing, then I'd think another good suggestion would be adding more assault craft, or loosening up the reigns on charging out of Deep Strike or something. Especially where Chaos Daemons are concerned. It is extremely disheartening to drop my 9 stacks of Nurglings in front of some marines, and then they unload their heavy weapons and vaporize 6 of them outright before they can move. @.@

You have a lot of LoS blocking terrain then, which is an abnormality.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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.

I thought the actual issue is assaulting the All Mighty Powerful Space Marines who hide and cower in terrain so they strike at I while the person who is actually assaulting assaults at I 1.

Just goes to show you how GW made 6th edition, harder to assault. First you have to get there, second, even if it's your turn, you are still going second when assaulting. So the enemy you are assaulting, gets a free shot at you, (shooting twice a turn) and in a lot of cases gets to go first and kill you before you even get to strike.

Funny how alot of these gun shooting army gets to ignore terrain, but there is no ignore terrain when assaulting.

Davor wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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.

I thought the actual issue is assaulting the All Mighty Powerful Space Marines who hide and cower in terrain so they strike at I while the person who is actually assaulting assaults at I 1.

Just goes to show you how GW made 6th edition, harder to assault. First you have to get there, second, even if it's your turn, you are still going second when assaulting. So the enemy you are assaulting, gets a free shot at you, (shooting twice a turn) and in a lot of cases gets to go first and kill you before you even get to strike.

Funny how alot of these gun shooting army gets to ignore terrain, but there is no ignore terrain when assaulting.

All Mighty Powerful Space marines? When the Edition currently is TauDar and Friends?

MEQ is currently one of the worst to actually getting TO assault, as I can attest with chaos, we have expensive land raiders which most won't be able to take, and is very bad for overall things, and rhino's.

I fight Necrons, and Eldar Wave Spam, to say assault units never get across the board is an understatement.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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.

Won't be long until every army can shoot overwatch with full bs. Just watch this space. Tau can can already do bs2 using a system and there is a psychic power which does it as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Davor wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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.

I thought the actual issue is assaulting the All Mighty Powerful Space Marines who hide and cower in terrain so they strike at I while the person who is actually assaulting assaults at I 1.

Just goes to show you how GW made 6th edition, harder to assault. First you have to get there, second, even if it's your turn, you are still going second when assaulting. So the enemy you are assaulting, gets a free shot at you, (shooting twice a turn) and in a lot of cases gets to go first and kill you before you even get to strike.

Funny how alot of these gun shooting army gets to ignore terrain, but there is no ignore terrain when assaulting.

All Mighty Powerful Space marines? When the Edition currently is TauDar and Friends?

MEQ is currently one of the worst to actually getting TO assault, as I can attest with chaos, we have expensive land raiders which most won't be able to take, and is very bad for overall things, and rhino's.

I fight Necrons, and Eldar Wave Spam, to say assault units never get across the board is an understatement.

I play 3 different armies at the moment and I've started a 4th. I play Blood Angels, Grey Knights and Tau. I've just bought some Eldar as well to start as my 4th army. I've been playing Blood Angels for years and years and by far they are my biggest force and my favourite. However at the moment I'm just not playing them, especially since I want to win the current campaign at my store.

At the moment I am using Tau but when the current campaign in my store finishes I will give the Eldar a try. I only need one more win in the current campaign in order to win it overall and then I will be happy. Just win it one time so I can enter the hall of fame.

I want a good army list thats competitive but I don't want anything thats just going to continually rofl stomp everybody I play against. Although I wouldn't call myself a bad player I am currently winning the campaign by 3 wins which I think is a bit much and it would be more if it wasn't for other players taking flying Daemons and hirophant biotitans to the table.

Razorbacks were viable because of the magic damage table where if you rolled a stream of 1-3, any vehicle was immortal. This does not make 5th an assault edition. Unless you count assaulting tattered remnants after the shooting phase.

6th edition turned my 600$ army into paper weights I can't win a game for the life of me. The entire point of a drop pod is to get into close quarters and now they just get ripped apart. Because the greatest warriors in the glaxay decide it's better to stand still and shoot things with pistols shake there chain swords angrily and stand there while they get shot to hell. Who the feth was the dumb ass that came up with that rule set.

Thanks for making my entire army useless.

... That was true in 5th edition as well. Drop Pod armies weren't changed.

I don't understand this "just use terrain"

Your assuming there is always terrain and you aren't fighting an army that ignores cover, like the Tau for instance.

CC can be powerful in 6th it's just incredibly hard to get there... Which is more realistic, but for 40k the land of "Drive me closer....." It doesn't make sense too many armies are relying on CC and 6th is a giant middle finger to them.

I'm not saying a skilled general can't win with a cc force but it's far too prevalent that generals are winning by simply pointing and pulling the trigger, the same complaint assault was getting in previous editions.

GW needs to decide on whether 40k is me lee centric or shooting centric, not this odd combo of both where one is always nerfed to make the other one more fair.

See, after experiencing "just use terrain" I gotta say that those types of games are just stupid.

Here's a pic:


That's an entire dark eldar army hiding behind that fortress. He decided to turtle for 3 turns and do nothing, which lead to a boring ass game where I eventually said screw it and moved into his warp beasts assault range to get it over with. The thing is, this guy uses that same piece of terrain in every game and uses the same tactic and goes on about how "tournaments should have terrain like this". If you'll notice there is a massive tower, which has 3 hidden floors and there is 20 dark eldar warriors there with the objective.

Its janky, lame and just all around pointless to play.

To be fair, that's a pretty sweet tower. A drop pod army would feth his gak up.

His point isn't invalid though, and is exactly how I play and what I meant in early posts. I play by putting my guys in positions where there is no LoS. It was the only way I could even get close to Tau but they still chewed my everything up in Overwatch, which p-me-o'd.

-Puuhhh-

Somewhat amusing when an eldar player complains about not being able to shoot a sitting duck in a barrel.

 Ravenous D wrote:
See, after experiencing "just use terrain" I gotta say that those types of games are just stupid.

Here's a pic:


That's an entire dark eldar army hiding behind that fortress. He decided to turtle for 3 turns and do nothing, which lead to a boring ass game where I eventually said screw it and moved into his warp beasts assault range to get it over with. The thing is, this guy uses that same piece of terrain in every game and uses the same tactic and goes on about how "tournaments should have terrain like this". If you'll notice there is a massive tower, which has 3 hidden floors and there is 20 dark eldar warriors there with the objective.

Its janky, lame and just all around pointless to play.

Can you really blame him? I find it funny you say he does nothing for 3 turns, but if there was no tower or building to be in, he would be shot to pieces for alot of the other players who stay on their edge or out of range to shoot the up coming army. How is that fun?

I guess the only answer is to find a balance of both rules, that make it fair, and then hopefully fun for everyone instead of GW trying to make people just buy new minis.

Perfect example here.

Diogenesethedog wrote:
6th edition turned my 600$ army into paper weights I can't win a game for the life of me. The entire point of a drop pod is to get into close quarters and now they just get ripped apart. Because the greatest warriors in the glaxay decide it's better to stand still and shoot things with pistols shake there chain swords angrily and stand there while they get shot to hell. Who the feth was the dumb ass that came up with that rule set.

Thanks for making my entire army useless.

GW does hope that you would start a new army and spend more money. Hopefully you didn't do it.

Diogenesethedog wrote:
6th edition turned my 600$ army into paper weights I can't win a game for the life of me. The entire point of a drop pod is to get into close quarters and now they just get ripped apart. Because the greatest warriors in the glaxay decide it's better to stand still and shoot things with pistols shake there chain swords angrily and stand there while they get shot to hell. Who the feth was the dumb ass that came up with that rule set.

Thanks for making my entire army useless.

But you cant assault out of drop pods in 5th edition either....It counted as deep striking.

Davor wrote:


Can you really blame him? I find it funny you say he does nothing for 3 turns, but if there was no tower or building to be in, he would be shot to pieces for alot of the other players who stay on their edge or out of range to shoot the up coming army. How is that fun?

I guess the only answer is to find a balance of both rules, that make it fair, and then hopefully fun for everyone instead of GW trying to make people just buy new minis.

Well given that he gave me first turn and had allied eldar jetbikes to steal objectives last turn. It wasn't a game at that point, he was just being a tit. Its partially why I've instituted placing terrain down first before rolling for set up and mission. Defensive terrain makes for bad games, assault army or not, its always been a bad idea in every edition.

 Ravenous D wrote:
See, after experiencing "just use terrain" I gotta say that those types of games are just stupid.

Here's a pic:


That's an entire dark eldar army hiding behind that fortress. He decided to turtle for 3 turns and do nothing, which lead to a boring ass game where I eventually said screw it and moved into his warp beasts assault range to get it over with. The thing is, this guy uses that same piece of terrain in every game and uses the same tactic and goes on about how "tournaments should have terrain like this". If you'll notice there is a massive tower, which has 3 hidden floors and there is 20 dark eldar warriors there with the objective.

Its janky, lame and just all around pointless to play.

So what you're saying is you never used to use terrain, someone told you it makes the game better, so you grabbed some random bits of terrain from around the shop, put it on the table edges, and were surprised when someone with a fragile army hid at the tale edge?

Be sensibe. Grab a collection of LoS blocking terrain, area terrain and scatter terrain, space it evenly around the board (note - board edges are where the game takes place, don't put terrain there), and play. You'll need to move around to get good shots if you're a shooting army, and you'll have ways to get into assault if you're an assault army.

The unfortunate part is 40k's current method of terrain placement supports your kind of dickishness. For best results, get a third party to put terrain on the table, or if you're playing against a friend, just place it together until you come to an agreement.

Two people , agree on terrain hahaha.

So I'm guessing it must be an American thing to want to feth over your opponent, even if it's their best friend, at every opportunity, including simple terrain placement?

Never had any situation where someone wanted unfair terrain placement in Australia, even amongst random store gamers.

To be honest I don't know how americans think or play , other then from what they write in blogs and forums . What I do know is that if here tables were not pre made , people would be quiting games after terrain rolls are finished , because one side of the tabled would look like a car park and the other like 300M high wall fortress.

I too have never had a problem with narrative terrain placement even with opponents I've never played before, we just shuffle it around until it looks cool. I tried random terrain with a friend once just to see what would happen (bear in mind we were still trying to set up a narrative rather than for advantage) and we came out with a terrible-looking board that neither of us would have dreamt of setting up using our normal method.

The way I see it, the board set up should facilitate the competition, not be a part of it.

I do see though how this can have an effect on assault's effectiveness where this system is used. Most of my games use 3-6 6"x6"x4" LOS blocking pieces, and then 4-5 bits of area terrain (often sized at around 9"x6" for area/ruins), and I have never had a problem getting assault units upfield. However, if you have a situation where the shooty army player is making a priority of putting those LOS blockers in positions to benefit them (ie. leaving a huge kill zone up the middle of the board) then obviously assault armies are going to have issues.

I must admit, I would absolutely hate to play against anyone who tried to set up a board to their advantage, as it ruins the narrative, breaks the immersion of the game, and also massively unbalances it. Using terrain to your advantage in game is great, and shows good tactical thinking, but setting up the game so you have an advantage before either side has put a model down is just unsportsmanlike in my eyes. On a board with good terrain coverage and on which both players have agreed the terrain placement (usually with a fairly even spread), it really should not be an issue for assault armies reaching combat.

Our flgs has made terrain a non issue and has stuck to just using the NOVA terrain layout (we also live in NOVA lol) just to make it simple, save time during setup, and fair terrain. Kinda takes out on the narrative aspect, but a lot of our club terrain terrain has ruin aesthetics so it looks like a city fight near the city center (middle LOS ruin usually ends up being the huge Tower piece).

It really makes me sad when my command squad bikers get over watched to death on the charge, and my remaining bikes being 10" further away than 3" away... Oh well

 -Loki- wrote:
So I'm guessing it must be an American thing to want to feth over your opponent, even if it's their best friend, at every opportunity, including simple terrain placement?

Never had any situation where someone wanted unfair terrain placement in Australia, even amongst random store gamers.

Europe has that issue too, don't be so insulting to one country.

 -Loki- wrote:


So what you're saying is you never used to use terrain, someone told you it makes the game better, so you grabbed some random bits of terrain from around the shop, put it on the table edges, and were surprised when someone with a fragile army hid at the tale edge?

Be sensibe. Grab a collection of LoS blocking terrain, area terrain and scatter terrain, space it evenly around the board (note - board edges are where the game takes place, don't put terrain there), and play. You'll need to move around to get good shots if you're a shooting army, and you'll have ways to get into assault if you're an assault army.

There is using terrain, and then there is abusing terrain and using it as a crutch. Over the years Ive seen plenty of goobs use crutch terrain in casual games and then lose horribly in tournaments.

Our game was nightfight turn one and boiled down like this:
Turn 1: So I moved out of range of his dark lances knowing he can jump out and use night vision and potentially cripple me, and shot out the 3 models that I could see. He turtled doing nothing.
Turn 2: I move forward and kill 5 more in the tower of pain, deepstrike my spiders and try to go for broke and kill his stuff. I strip a hull point off a venom. He turtles deepstrikes in swooping hawks and kills the warp spiders.
Turn 3: I move forward and kill the hawks and try to fire at his beasts that "aren't really there" but someone stuff into the building behind the castle in such a way I cant see. After this I was just annoyed, and realized it wasn't a game at that point. He turtles.
Turn 4: I say screw it and move up and get my army in there and he unleashes the beast master flock of razor wings and a tries to screw me with the multi charge rule. Kills off a majority of the wraithguard, but still stuck in combat.
Turn 5: Kills wraithguard in my turn I start going for raiders and ravagers finally. Find out he also has a wraithlord hidden at this point. He kills a wave serpent and sits in cover with the razorwing flock and baron. I attempt to cook them and baron soaks up 7 of the 10 wounds from my nightspinner.
Turn6: I go after the wraithlord with dragons and dire avengers, he rolls 3 5+ covers because a sliver of his base is touching area terrain. No wounds done. his army turtles and moves the jetbikes to the other objective. I say feth it, cause Ive had enough. He then tries to give me army pointers and tactics, I look at him a saying "seriously? All the tactics you have is using that same damn wall in every game".

 -Loki- wrote:
The unfortunate part is 40k's current method of terrain placement supports your kind of dickishness. For best results, get a third party to put terrain on the table, or if you're playing against a friend, just place it together until you come to an agreement.

That's what I was saying. Set terrain up first then roll for mission to prevent castle greyskull tables.

Makumba wrote:Two people , agree on terrain hahaha.

I've seen the guy use the same BS terrain set up before and saw that he went straight for his crutch piece right away. I figured I would give it benefit of the doubt and learned valuable lessons:

1) Stop playing against goobs

2) Do tournament style set up (terrain first then roll for mission and deployment zones)

-Loki- wrote:So I'm guessing it must be an American thing to want to feth over your opponent, even if it's their best friend, at every opportunity, including simple terrain placement?

Never had any situation where someone wanted unfair terrain placement in Australia, even amongst random store gamers.

Ive been playing for 21 years now, and its just started happening at the tail end of 5th and got much bigger with 6th. Ive seen guys use terrian as a crutch in the past but its much more common now.

2) Do tournament style set up (terrain first then roll for mission and deployment zones)

nothing more true , then this.

I hate it when after placing my landing pad , where my lemmans stand , my opponents puts two buildings in front blocking all LoS or when he places 3 towers just in range for his Kairos , screamers and a DP to hide for 3 turns with the hollow part facing his deployment , making it impossible to be shot at without LoS ignoring weapons .

Terrain happens. Do narative terrain where a third pary places it all or something. if your doing alternating deployment, put a ton of impassible stuff right BEHIND his wall so he cant actually PLACE anything behind it. That'll be fun to watch him handle.

 -Loki- wrote:
So I'm guessing it must be an American thing to want to feth over your opponent, even if it's their best friend, at every opportunity, including simple terrain placement?

Never had any situation where someone wanted unfair terrain placement in Australia, even amongst random store gamers.

S'funny, the first person I ever saw post about doing this was an Aussie.

And I've never seen anyone do it save for once, and that was a game I wasn't part of, that was taking place in Chicago.

In all seriousness, though, Loki's earlier suggestion about having a third party place the terrain is the most sensible. That's what we do in my local area, and it works out SO much better. I don't always LIKE the terrain, but it's usually something resembling fair.