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.

I really can't remember an edition (although I didn't play all of them and started with Rogue Trader) when assault armies were not able to win the game often. But they also did have more shooting involved than these days. Orcs for example laid heavy firepower before engaging in close combat and finishing it off. Tyranid were a fast mass with some decent firepower and they did close up quickly and rend you to pieces. One of the most amazing battles I've seen was in old days when some 300 piece tyranid army was fighting some 60-80 marines (table was also larger than these days). Also to see that same tyranid army facing 20-25 harlequins was a blast.

There is a lot of shooting still involved, but the game is a lot more CC heavy than it used to be and that is a poor thing in my opinion.

i like the idea of your front line being taken out first, adds a little realism.

but as for tactics and using cover and terrain to your advantage, and being able to play smart and maximize on such a supposed rule...well i think thats a total fail, good try but inevitable fail.

i come to this conclusion because my daemon army needs cover and terrain and a smart deployment and movement phase to ensure it sorta works...now the big problem is...

Table Size

the tables at my GW are tiny and often split in half as well making then very small and this is where the fun begins. you can manouver out into the open to close distance and get your charge nd cc and risk getting shot and loosing units. Or you could play tactically and hid in cover/terrain...only to discover that because the table is small your opponent can move around your cover to get LoS and shoot, but for you to move into cover then out of cover and assult...well the distance just doesn't add up to the move and shoot distance.

so you end up always being a little outpaced making tactics a null point.

what this means for the supposed rumor rule ... to me, is essentially nothing. it will play more realistically on the table, will try to establish cc tactics that will fail due to (geological??) factors anyway negating intended tactical effect.

but i do see people loosing an inch or so by loosing a front line, and while annoying on paper...i don't think it's a big deal on the table top, when i assult i usually have a spare inch or so or i flat out cannot make it no matter how i space myself and by the turn that i can make it...well loosing an inch or 2 won't make a difference at all.

still i like the realism of the idea.

Small tables can be problematic. I've always seen 4' x 6' to be the definite minumum with normal armies. But bigger is even better. Bigger tables mean more tactics and that's why we prefer those when possible. Smaller tables means almost instant combat and action and not much room for maneuvering. Also a good amount of terrain is needed to get a decent cover. Huge amount of cover means that assault armies rule as there won't be much shooting. Too little cover means shooting can take out too much assaulting enemies before they get to attack.

Current balance in my opinion seems to be balanced towards mostly open ground in the middle (as can be seen in many battle reports and GW pictures, although pictures want to show as many figs as possible). For example Tyranids and Green Tide will roll over most shooting armies in a city battle.