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.

Arandmoor wrote:
At first glance, they've added a LOT of generalship to this edition. Which I like.

And it's a shame that they defeated the purpose of a lot of that by adding in a lot of random factors that really didn't need to be random.

Arandmoor wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Don't forget fliers. Missiles can use the flakk option to shoot them down (although not confirmed how widespread this will be).

Really, when you consider just how important flyers will be in this edition, it's also important to consider the fact that they cannot be touched by assault troops. Considering you can build entire armies around fliers, that's kind of a big deal.

I haven't read the flyer rules yet. Not until tomorrow.

However, unless vehicles can hold objectives basing your list around flyers could prove detrimental. From what I've heard, objectives are even more important than they were before. Also, if that flyer is, say, carrying a squad that can hold an objective, if has to hover to drop off the squad. While it's hovering it's vulnerable as any skimmer.

At first glance, they've added a LOT of generalship to this edition. Which I like.

From reading the Flyer rules, I honestly feel like Necrons are going to be taking 2-3 Doomscythes in every list, and some Nightscythes to boost. Fliers are really really good.

-Loki- wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:Oh...and vehicles got the hard nerf in 6th too and are way easier to pop from the looks of things. This knocks your entire list down a few pegs.

I don't have my book to hand, but the changes to glancing make vehicles a bit more resilient. Sure, you can be glanced to death, but since a glancing hit doesn't roll on the table, any vehicle suffering a glancing hit can fire at full effect next turn. Think about how resilient this makes AV14. Throw all the S8 weapons you want at it, it's still going to come at you with all guns blazing. It makes lascannons much more important now.

The difference is you now know how much you need to aim at a vehicle to reliably kill it. While before, you could fire your whole army at a tank for 3 turns, only glance it with each weapon, and not do a thing. Now you know how many glances you need to kill it, and you might get lucky on top of that and to it in one hit. I'd say that takes them down a peg.

The flipside was that a single glancing hit effectively took a tank out of the game for a turn. Even if you paid for extra armour, even if your opponent rolled a one on the damage chart, as soon as you were glanced you weren't doing any shooting.

Arandmoor wrote:Take a las/plas razerback for example: 3 weapons + the ability to move. In a worst case scenario, it took you 5 shots to kill one of them. Now, if it has 3 hull points you kill it in 3 glances.

While that's true, with five glancing hits it wasn't shooting for five turns. Now with three glancing hits it's still shooting for two turns. That's a marked increase in reliability. Under the old rules you could land a single glancing hit on a tank, and then ignore it until your next shooting phase. Can't do that anymore.

Sasori wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Don't forget fliers. Missiles can use the flakk option to shoot them down (although not confirmed how widespread this will be).

Really, when you consider just how important flyers will be in this edition, it's also important to consider the fact that they cannot be touched by assault troops. Considering you can build entire armies around fliers, that's kind of a big deal.

I haven't read the flyer rules yet. Not until tomorrow.

However, unless vehicles can hold objectives basing your list around flyers could prove detrimental. From what I've heard, objectives are even more important than they were before. Also, if that flyer is, say, carrying a squad that can hold an objective, if has to hover to drop off the squad. While it's hovering it's vulnerable as any skimmer.

At first glance, they've added a LOT of generalship to this edition. Which I like.

From reading the Flyer rules, I honestly feel like Necrons are going to be taking 2-3 Doomscythes in every list, and some Nightscythes to boost. Fliers are really really good.

How, exactly, does shooting down a flyer work? I didn't read the flyer rules so I can't even begin to analyze their possible impact.

All I can say, is that your example is 500-700 points just for 4-5 flyers that I'm not sure can hold objectives and only have AV 10. I mean...BS 1 is bad, but it's not that bad.

My first reflexive response is to mention how useful twin-linked anti-tank weapons will be for shooting down flyers, but again, I don't know how shooting down flyers works except for the vague notion that you shoot at them with BS 1...

How does flak work?

Kaldor wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:Oh...and vehicles got the hard nerf in 6th too and are way easier to pop from the looks of things. This knocks your entire list down a few pegs.

I don't have my book to hand, but the changes to glancing make vehicles a bit more resilient. Sure, you can be glanced to death, but since a glancing hit doesn't roll on the table, any vehicle suffering a glancing hit can fire at full effect next turn. Think about how resilient this makes AV14. Throw all the S8 weapons you want at it, it's still going to come at you with all guns blazing. It makes lascannons much more important now.

The difference is you now know how much you need to aim at a vehicle to reliably kill it. While before, you could fire your whole army at a tank for 3 turns, only glance it with each weapon, and not do a thing. Now you know how many glances you need to kill it, and you might get lucky on top of that and to it in one hit. I'd say that takes them down a peg.

The flipside was that a single glancing hit effectively took a tank out of the game for a turn. Even if you paid for extra armour, even if your opponent rolled a one on the damage chart, as soon as you were glanced you weren't doing any shooting.

It'll require a change of tactics towards vehicles, to be sure - the whole game will require a rethink on how you play. But the fact that you can look at a tank and know what you need to reliably kill it, the only thing standing in your way is glancing it that many times, is going to make dealing with them a lot easier. They're basically multi wound models with no armour save now, though pretty much immune to small arms and the chance of being killed in a single shot.

Arandmoor wrote:

Sasori wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Don't forget fliers. Missiles can use the flakk option to shoot them down (although not confirmed how widespread this will be).

Really, when you consider just how important flyers will be in this edition, it's also important to consider the fact that they cannot be touched by assault troops. Considering you can build entire armies around fliers, that's kind of a big deal.

I haven't read the flyer rules yet. Not until tomorrow.

However, unless vehicles can hold objectives basing your list around flyers could prove detrimental. From what I've heard, objectives are even more important than they were before. Also, if that flyer is, say, carrying a squad that can hold an objective, if has to hover to drop off the squad. While it's hovering it's vulnerable as any skimmer.

At first glance, they've added a LOT of generalship to this edition. Which I like.

From reading the Flyer rules, I honestly feel like Necrons are going to be taking 2-3 Doomscythes in every list, and some Nightscythes to boost. Fliers are really really good.

How, exactly, does shooting down a flyer work? I didn't read the flyer rules so I can't even begin to analyze their possible impact.

All I can say, is that your example is 500-700 points just for 4-5 flyers that I'm not sure can hold objectives and only have AV 10. I mean...BS 1 is bad, but it's not that bad.

My first reflexive response is to mention how useful twin-linked anti-tank weapons will be for shooting down flyers, but again, I don't know how shooting down flyers works except for the vague notion that you shoot at them with BS 1...

How does flak work?

Well, for starters, Flyers come in from Reserve and always start in reserve. They won't be shot down before they get a chance to Alphastrike. Secondly, our Fliers are AV11, not 10, and have 3 Hullpoints.
Zoom works, that units cannot assault flyers, and may only use snapfire, unless they have the Skyfire rule. Template, Blast, and Large blast weapons, also cannot hit them. Fliers do have to move a minimum distance (18) when Zooming. You can also only make a single pivot on the spot, so planning where they come in, and what you want to kill, is crucial.

You can also choose to Evade, which will give you your Jink save, which will give you a 5+ save. It makes your weapons snapfire, but that doesn't affect the Deathray at all. So, you can have your Doomscythes flying around, requiring enemies to snapfire (Hit on a 6) and get a 5+ cover save, all while being able to alphastrike high priority targets with your Deathray.

-Loki- wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:Oh...and vehicles got the hard nerf in 6th too and are way easier to pop from the looks of things. This knocks your entire list down a few pegs.

I don't have my book to hand, but the changes to glancing make vehicles a bit more resilient. Sure, you can be glanced to death, but since a glancing hit doesn't roll on the table, any vehicle suffering a glancing hit can fire at full effect next turn. Think about how resilient this makes AV14. Throw all the S8 weapons you want at it, it's still going to come at you with all guns blazing. It makes lascannons much more important now.

The difference is you now know how much you need to aim at a vehicle to reliably kill it. While before, you could fire your whole army at a tank for 3 turns, only glance it with each weapon, and not do a thing. Now you know how many glances you need to kill it, and you might get lucky on top of that and to it in one hit. I'd say that takes them down a peg.

The flipside was that a single glancing hit effectively took a tank out of the game for a turn. Even if you paid for extra armour, even if your opponent rolled a one on the damage chart, as soon as you were glanced you weren't doing any shooting.

It'll require a change of tactics towards vehicles, to be sure - the whole game will require a rethink on how you play. But the fact that you can look at a tank and know what you need to reliably kill it, the only thing standing in your way is glancing it that many times, is going to make dealing with them a lot easier. They're basically multi wound models with no armour save now, though pretty much immune to small arms and the chance of being killed in a single shot.

I feel it's important to note here that while, yes, the worst case scenarios when shooting at vehicles have been greatly curtailed, they are in no way "weak" in 6th edition. Because glancing hits cannot damage the vehicle beyond taking away a hull point it means that while a dedicated general will be able to more reliably kill an enemy vehicle with concentrated AT fire, it will be easier for the general controlling the target vehicle to recoup the vehicle's investment.

Basically, while there's still a chance your tank gets blown up first-shot first-turn, it's also much harder to stunlock it to death and prevent it from shooting. It's a trade off that benefits both sides IMO.

Melee has always been about comming to grips with the enemy as much as your damage output. IE, THSS termies are currently awesome in cc, and remain so in the new edition. However, even though they are awesome, they must be in close combat to do anything. So while in 5th ed may see 14 close combat phases for a cc unit, really the number will be much, much lower. With shooting though, if there is 7 turns you get 7 shots.

So while 200 points of THSS gets you 10 s8 ap2 attacks at minimum, while 4 las cannon devestators only get you 4 s9 ap2 attacks, the devestators are shooting from turn 1 on. The balance comes from how much shooting the devestators get before the THSS termies can assault. Land raiders are expensive, but increase the total amount of assault phases the THSS termies can get. So does characters like Shrike or Khan, the former with fleet and infiltrate/outflank, the latter with outflank and hit and run. Finally, there is reserve options like deepstriking off a homer to cut down the time spent moving with a calculated risk that the unit will arrive when you need it.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that dedicated close combat will always be superior to dedicated shooting ONCE YOU ARE IN CC, partly because of how locking units in CC prevents shooting, partly because there are 2 assault phases per shooting phase, partly because dedicated cc units historically have better access to higher quality attacks than shooting units do.

So 6th is changing how some units can assault, like no assault from outflank apparently, or no seperate fleet roll. This changes the value of certian units, this does nothing for the metric of shooting versus assault across the board. Overwatch is a slight nerf to some CC units charging some shooty units, but 2d6 charge range is a buff to several melee units. A big nerf to shooting is the inability to reserve your entire force without extra special rules. A big nerf to some CC is the ability of your target to break away if they cant hurt you.

All in all, those are METAGAME changes, not assault versus shooting changes. So in the metagame matchup between Wraithlords and Tau firewarriors, the Wraithlord got worse as Tau gained more options (overwatch and can flee if desired) while the Wraithlord only gained 1 inch of distance on average to charge.

However, in the example of beasts, now that they ignore terrain they get a much better base movement to assault with. Prior, in terrain they had up to 6 inches randomly, another random 6 inch move, and then a random 12 inch move. Now they get a guarenteed 12 inch move in terrain followed by a random 12 inch move--thus they are moving more relaibly while also ignoring dangerous terrain--a minimum charge from 4 inches prior to 14 is no small change if you want to get into cc.

TLDR; Assault is still better than Shooting because while it still has opportunity costs, like needing to move into base contact, you still get twice the potential damage in cc thanks to 2 phases of assault per turn, you still preclude enemy shooting when in cc, enemies can be run down and removed all at once in cc by losing a single model, and enemies dont get cover saves in cc. That said, the METAGAME that determines what makes a good unit in CC in each codex will be changing in 6th ed, as some keywords like outflank work differently as a negative while some work positively like Rage.

Arandmoor wrote:I feel it's important to note here that while, yes, the worst case scenarios when shooting at vehicles have been greatly curtailed, they are in no way "weak" in 6th edition. Because glancing hits cannot damage the vehicle beyond taking away a hull point it means that while a dedicated general will be able to more reliably kill an enemy vehicle with concentrated AT fire, it will be easier for the general controlling the target vehicle to recoup the vehicle's investment.

Basically, while there's still a chance your tank gets blown up first-shot first-turn, it's also much harder to stunlock it to death and prevent it from shooting. It's a trade off that benefits both sides IMO.

I feel it's important to note that I never said they're weak in 6th. Just that you now know just how much firepower is needed to kill one, and no chance of it screwing up due to a long series of 1's on a damage table.

They're not weak, but they're going to require different tactics to use and deal with. What they've done is put a hard limit on how many glancing andpenetrating shots they can take regardless of your rolls on the penetrating hits table.

Fafnir wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:
At first glance, they've added a LOT of generalship to this edition. Which I like.

And it's a shame that they defeated the purpose of a lot of that by adding in a lot of random factors that really didn't need to be random.

What, apart from charge distance, have they done that to?

I like the changes to charge distance. It requires more thought than a simple 6" range check, and punishes players who rely on luck.

Kaldor wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:
At first glance, they've added a LOT of generalship to this edition. Which I like.

And it's a shame that they defeated the purpose of a lot of that by adding in a lot of random factors that really didn't need to be random.

What, apart from charge distance, have they done that to?

I like the changes to charge distance. It requires more thought than a simple 6" range check, and punishes players who rely on luck.

Warlord abilities
Mysterious terrain/objectives
Psychic power generation
Wound allocation (Look Out, Sir!)
Variety of other things, too many to list.

As for charge distance, having it be a flat rate meant that you'd have to be more tactical about setting up your charges. Now it's mostly luck based. Yes, there is some strategy in considering your chances for success or failure on the table, to say that that requires more thought is not true, at least in more interesting circumstances. If you're just marching up the table into a charge, then there's no thought in it either way, but when it comes to optimizing your assaults (or doing the opposite, if you're in the defensive roll), the standardized range can create a game within the game of players trying to outmaneuver one another.

Furthermore, in the case of punishing players who rely on luck, that's exactly not the case. A player has just as much chance to excel because of luck as they do to fail because of it. Punishing players who rely on luck (ie, players who don't develop tactics) would be using a fixed system from previous editions, since there is no luck involved to ride on.

Sasori wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:

Sasori wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Don't forget fliers. Missiles can use the flakk option to shoot them down (although not confirmed how widespread this will be).

Really, when you consider just how important flyers will be in this edition, it's also important to consider the fact that they cannot be touched by assault troops. Considering you can build entire armies around fliers, that's kind of a big deal.

I haven't read the flyer rules yet. Not until tomorrow.

However, unless vehicles can hold objectives basing your list around flyers could prove detrimental. From what I've heard, objectives are even more important than they were before. Also, if that flyer is, say, carrying a squad that can hold an objective, if has to hover to drop off the squad. While it's hovering it's vulnerable as any skimmer.

At first glance, they've added a LOT of generalship to this edition. Which I like.

From reading the Flyer rules, I honestly feel like Necrons are going to be taking 2-3 Doomscythes in every list, and some Nightscythes to boost. Fliers are really really good.

How, exactly, does shooting down a flyer work? I didn't read the flyer rules so I can't even begin to analyze their possible impact.

All I can say, is that your example is 500-700 points just for 4-5 flyers that I'm not sure can hold objectives and only have AV 10. I mean...BS 1 is bad, but it's not that bad.

My first reflexive response is to mention how useful twin-linked anti-tank weapons will be for shooting down flyers, but again, I don't know how shooting down flyers works except for the vague notion that you shoot at them with BS 1...

How does flak work?

Well, for starters, Flyers come in from Reserve and always start in reserve. They won't be shot down before they get a chance to Alphastrike. Secondly, our Fliers are AV11, not 10, and have 3 Hullpoints.
Zoom works, that units cannot assault flyers, and may only use snapfire, unless they have the Skyfire rule. Template, Blast, and Large blast weapons, also cannot hit them. Fliers do have to move a minimum distance (18) when Zooming. You can also only make a single pivot on the spot, so planning where they come in, and what you want to kill, is crucial.

You can also choose to Evade, which will give you your Jink save, which will give you a 5+ save. It makes your weapons snapfire, but that doesn't affect the Deathray at all. So, you can have your Doomscythes flying around, requiring enemies to snapfire (Hit on a 6) and get a 5+ cover save, all while being able to alphastrike high priority targets with your Deathray.

So, you get one shot guaranteed. That's good. And yeah...AV11. I've got the damn codex right in front of me too... :(

Okay...lemme see here.

The only real threat we face is a (relatively) lucky shot from an AV weapons because they're immune to vollies of bolter-fire. Like skimmers, however, they'll treat immobilized results as destroyed because if they can't move 18" they die. So, flyers are particularly vulnerable to low AP anti-tank fire. I'm also guessing that the IG Hydra is going to get FAQ'd to be a complete nightmare for flyers in general, but that's just one unit in one army. A flyer's natural predator, in this case, will be AT weapons that can somehow be twin-linked (IG again with Bring It Down...and Salamandar meltaguns and multi-meltas come to mind as well if they're fielding vulkan he'stan...lots of others I'm sure).

Against zoom though, the 18" manditory move is going to make positioning a pain in the ass. I can see lots of "just overshot my target...now what?" moments. And lots of "doom scythe went off the table and refuses to come back in from reserves" action as well. One bad roll and you're out a HS unit for an entire turn. Possibly a very, very important turn depending on the game. That's going to hurt when you could have a Doomsday Ark with AV 11(13) and 3-4 HP on the board instead for half the cost.

Also, especially for necrons, flyers are expensive. Almost prohibitively expensive. If you're packing more than one or two I just don't see how you're going to have enough points for a core strategy-based force to round out the army. Besides which, Doom Scythes are single model units that compete with our very, very sexy heavy support lineup. There is a huge opportunity cost to taking multiple doom scythes at the strategic level.

Just going off the cuff here...

Say you have a Devastator squad that's still at full AT strength (4 lascannons). We'll ignore the signum because I have no idea if that will let one of them shoot at BS 5 (we'll assume 'no').

BS1 means you hit on 6 so 2/3 chance of a hit.
If they hit it's S9 vs AV 11 so glance on 2, pen on 3+.
If you glance, woo.
If you pen (likely) you get +1 to the damage table roll for AP2, and immobilized is as good as dead so you have a 4, 5, 6 chance to kill, and on a 3 you lose the death ray. (actually...does stunned prevent you from moving? It's been a while since I fielded a vehicle)

Lets try it with IG...

Take a squad of Heavy Gunners packing autocannons. Assume they received a Take It Down order from the company commander.

That's 3 autocannons at BS1, twin-linked. So 1 & 5/6 hits.
S7 vs. AV11. We glance on 4, pen on 5, 6. Assume 2 hits we fail with 1 while the other has a 1/3 of taking a HP, and 2/3 taking a HP + rolling on the pen chart.
If we glance...woo!
If we pen we have a 1/6 chance of exploding the thing, 1/6 chance of immobilizing it (effectively wrecks it IIRC), and 1/6 chance of killing the death ray.

Not too bad.

It's going to take some quantity, but these things seem very, very fragile. I honestly don't think zooming will buy you more than a round or two if you're playing a competent general who prepared to take down a flyer unless you can out-play him and gimp his available anti-tank fire before the scythe comes onto the board.

Again...I like it. Adding flyers adds a new dimension to game play. If all your AT is short-range, you're going to have a bad time when they field a flyer, but honestly that's your fault for not planning appropriately.

Do we know any of the skyfire weapons? Are they listed in the back anywhere?
Also, can flyers shoot each other down?

And, can you double-check snap-shots? Are you sure you can use the death ray with a snap shot? IIRC it says you can't snapshot any weapon that ignores BS, and the deathray, if I'm reading it right, doesn't roll to hit.

One thing to note - When flyers are "immobilized," they aren't actually immobilized. They're just stuck moving at the same speed for the rest of the game. They can do everything else just fine.

Also, this discussion is starting to get off topic. Remember, we're not talking about flyers, we're discussing the impact of 6th edition on melee combat. Of course, your brief contemplation of countering fliers just goes to show the options that melee combat is lacking in the face of this new foe.

Fafnir wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:
At first glance, they've added a LOT of generalship to this edition. Which I like.

And it's a shame that they defeated the purpose of a lot of that by adding in a lot of random factors that really didn't need to be random.

What, apart from charge distance, have they done that to?

I like the changes to charge distance. It requires more thought than a simple 6" range check, and punishes players who rely on luck.

Warlord abilities
Mysterious terrain/objectives
Psychic power generation
Wound allocation (Look Out, Sir!)
Variety of other things, too many to list.

As for charge distance, having it be a flat rate meant that you'd have to be more tactical about setting up your charges. Now it's mostly luck based. Yes, there is some strategy in considering your chances for success or failure on the table, to say that that requires more thought is not true, at least in more interesting circumstances. If you're just marching up the table into a charge, then there's no thought in it either way, but when it comes to optimizing your assaults (or doing the opposite, if you're in the defensive roll), the standardized range can create a game within the game of players trying to outmaneuver one another.

Furthermore, in the case of punishing players who rely on luck, that's exactly not the case. A player has just as much chance to excel because of luck as they do to fail because of it. Punishing players who rely on luck (ie, players who don't develop tactics) would be using a fixed system from previous editions, since there is no luck involved to ride on.

Luck is a part of the game, however very little you listed relies on luck. Random elements like that add thinking requirements to play that wouldn't otherwise be there. They add unknown factors that make tactical decisions actually have weight, and help shift the deciding factor of "who is going to win?" from the players' army lists and codicies, to how they play the scenario. Which is how it should be. A mechanic based solely on "luck" would be a pre-game orbital bombardment where you could roll to outright remove enemy units wholesale. Mysterious terrain and random psychic powers, OTOH, test your ability to use a variety of tools to your advantage. In those cases, "luck" has very little to do with anything unless you're specifically set up so that one option automatically results in a loss for you because you're completely, mathmatically, imaginatively unable to use it effectively.

In which case, it's your fault anyway because there's no reason you couldn't take whatever it is into account before hand. I mean...it's right there in front of you. It's not like anything that can happen is a total surprise or anything.

Should you win because you math-hammered your army list better? Because you assembled the FOTM list that won the latest GT off of an internet forum? Or because you out-played your opponent and held that objective for one more turn?

The more entropy introduced to the game, the better if you ask me.

The only real threat we face is a (relatively) lucky shot from an AV weapons because they're immune to vollies of bolter-fire. Like skimmers, however, they'll treat immobilized results as destroyed because if they can't move 18" they die. So, flyers are particularly vulnerable to low AP anti-tank fire. I'm also guessing that the IG Hydra is going to get FAQ'd to be a complete nightmare for flyers in general, but that's just one unit in one army. A flyer's natural predator, in this case, will be AT weapons that can somehow be twin-linked (IG again with Bring It Down...and Salamandar meltaguns and multi-meltas come to mind as well if they're fielding vulkan he'stan...lots of others I'm sure).

They do not treat Immobilized results, as destroyed. instead, they are "Vector-locked" which means they must move the same speed for the rest of the game, and cannot evade or move flat out. Keep in mind, that with the new Nightfight rules, that we will gain a bonus to our cover save, depending on the distance we are, from the weapons. As long as it's 12' away, this gives him a +1 to his cover save, if he's more than 24' away, he gains a +2. Shooting down a flier that requires a six to hit, then can make a 4+ or 3+ cover save, is going to be very difficult o do.

gainst zoom though, the 18" manditory move is going to make positioning a pain in the ass. I can see lots of "just overshot my target...now what?" moments. And lots of "doom scythe went off the table and refuses to come back in from reserves" action as well. One bad roll and you're out a HS unit for an entire turn. Possibly a very, very important turn depending on the game. That's going to hurt when you could have a Doomsday Ark with AV 11(13) and 3-4 HP on the board instead for half the cost.

Well, since you can measure at anytime, this shouldn't be a problem.

so, especially for necrons, flyers are expensive. Almost prohibitively expensive. If you're packing more than one or two I just don't see how you're going to have enough points for a core strategy-based force to round out the army. Besides which, Doom Scythes are single model units that compete with our very, very sexy heavy support lineup. There is a huge opportunity cost to taking multiple doom scythes at the strategic level.

The Heavy support slot doesn't really compete with Doomscythes anymore. Monoliths still arn't very good. Spyders are pretty good, but Scarabs really arn't needed anymore. Doomsday Arks got a buff, but they are the same price. The only real competativon is the Annihilation barge, but now the Nightscythe is pretty much a faster Abarge.

BS1 means you hit on 6 so 2/3 chance of a hit.
If they hit it's S9 vs AV 11 so glance on 2, pen on 3+.
If you glance, woo.
If you pen (likely) you get +1 to the damage table roll for AP2, and immobilized is as good as dead so you have a 4, 5, 6 chance to kill, and on a 3 you lose the death ray. (actually...does stunned prevent you from moving? It's been a while since I fielded a vehicle)

Lets try it with IG...

Take a squad of Heavy Gunners packing autocannons. Assume they received a Take It Down order from the company commander.

That's 3 autocannons at BS1, twin-linked. So 1 & 5/6 hits.
S7 vs. AV11. We glance on 4, pen on 5, 6. Assume 2 hits we fail with 1 while the other has a 1/3 of taking a HP, and 2/3 taking a HP + rolling on the pen chart.
If we glance...woo!
If we pen we have a 1/6 chance of exploding the thing, 1/6 chance of immobilizing it (effectively wrecks it IIRC), and 1/6 chance of killing the death ray.

Not too bad.

You have to factor in the Cover save as well, and Immobilization does not kill the flyer, if it's zooming.

And, can you double-check snap-shots? Are you sure you can use the death ray with a snap shot? IIRC it says you can't snapshot any weapon that ignores BS, and the deathray, if I'm reading it right, doesn't roll to hit.

Ah, you're right about that. Just noticed that. a bit of a hit, but not huge.

Fafnir wrote:One thing to note - When flyers are "immobilized," they aren't actually immobilized. They're just stuck moving at the same speed for the rest of the game. They can do everything else just fine.

Also, this discussion is starting to get off topic. Remember, we're not talking about flyers, we're discussing the impact of 6th edition on melee combat. Of course, your brief contemplation of countering fliers just goes to show the options that melee combat is lacking in the face of this new foe.

Well, we can't tell for sure the extent of any "damage" until we explore both sides thoroughly. The fact that people are willing to throw melee under the bus when we have something like flyers that people just don't understand yet tells me that this thread can't come to any sort of conclusion yet.

Like I said in my first post, we need to revisit this conversation in 3 months, minimum. Before that, nobody can say anything with any certainty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sasori wrote:
Well, since you can measure at anytime, this shouldn't be a problem.

The best laid schemes Sasori. Best laid schemes.

Arandmoor wrote:
Luck is a part of the game, however very little you listed relies on luck.

The very nature of random elements necessitates that they rely on luck.

Random elements like that add thinking requirements to play that wouldn't otherwise be there. They add unknown factors that make tactical decisions actually have weight, and help shift the deciding factor of "who is going to win?" from the players' army lists and codicies, to how they play the scenario.

Like in Yahtzee, right?

The thing to keep in mind here is that in most cases, the random elements are things that happen as a result of player action, rather than as a trigger for it. It should, ideally, be the other way around.

You can spend all day setting up an incredibly methodical formation of troops to ensure a perfect charge, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to dice rolls. Tactical decisions have less weight because luck can completely invalidate them.

Which is how it should be. A mechanic based solely on "luck" would be a pre-game orbital bombardment where you could roll to outright remove enemy units wholesale. Mysterious terrain and random psychic powers, OTOH, test your ability to use a variety of tools to your advantage. In those cases, "luck" has very little to do with anything unless you're specifically set up so that one option automatically results in a loss for you because you're completely, mathmatically, imaginatively unable to use it effectively.

So, for example that piece of mysterious terrain that causes D3 S3 AP2 wounds to all psykers on the table (effectively a death sentence for any GK sergeant) out of nowhere and you can do nothing about has nothing to do with luck?

Furthermore, random psychic powers could 'test' your ability to use a variety of tools, only if these powers were all equally viable to the units that could use them and had applications in the same situations. But they don't. Roll poorly, and you could end up with a set of powers that do nothing to compliment the characters that are using them, regardless of the skill of the player.

In which case, it's your fault anyway because there's no reason you couldn't take whatever it is into account before hand. I mean...it's right there in front of you. It's not like anything that can happen is a total surprise or anything.

Like Yahtzee, right?

Should you win because you math-hammered your army list better? Because you assembled the FOTM list that won the latest GT off of an internet forum? Or because you out-played your opponent and held that objective for one more turn?

The more entropy introduced to the game, the better if you ask me.

With your logic, Chess would be a more skill based game if random elements were thrown in.
Math hammering a list and math hammering the odds of a successful charge are very similar. The only difference is that with the list construction, you're making a conscious decision based on the elements put before you. The player uses their judgement based on the information provided. That's actually a good thing, as opposed to removing player interaction (ie, thinking out how to properly charge) in favour of a random system.

There's a lot of skill in movement that does not, and is actually removed because of random elements. Instead of being a game where you play the dice, you should play your opponent.

Sasori wrote:The Heavy support slot doesn't really compete with Doomscythes anymore. Monoliths still arn't very good. Spyders are pretty good, but Scarabs really arn't needed anymore. Doomsday Arks got a buff, but they are the same price. The only real competativon is the Annihilation barge, but now the Nightscythe is pretty much a faster Abarge.

I will argue for monoliths until I'm blue in the face because they're a tactical unit with good firepower. IMO, they're only as good as the unit you can bring through their portal. While a cannon might hurt your opponent, a timely Dimensional Corridor can win you the game. Anything that lets you break rules to a significant degree (and I consider placing a unit somewhere it wouldn't otherwise be able to go in a timely fashion "breaking the rules to a significant degree") is valuable. A doom scythe is valuable, no doubt, but so is the ability to contest an objective from out of nowhere.

Are they as good as they were in the old codex? Actually, IMO they were kind of bad in the old codex because of what they did to our phase out number. Now they get to actually do their job. You just have to think a little differently is all.

Scarabs are overpowered under 5th edition rules. Doesn't mean there's no place for them now.

Doomsday Arks are heavy firepower. They can't move if they want to pimp themselves, but so long as they keep their shield running glancing hits can't stop them from firing anymore. They're going to benefit a LOT from the vehicle changes, as well as the standardization of night fighting so long as you remember to pack a solar pulse.

Annihilation barges are just cheap firepower. Again...opportunity cost. At 1750, each doom scythe is 10% of your army.

I will argue for monoliths until I'm blue in the face because they're a tactical unit with good firepower. IMO, they're only as good as the unit you can bring through their portal. While a cannon might hurt your opponent, a timely Dimensional Corridor can win you the game. Anything that lets you break rules to a significant degree (and I consider placing a unit somewhere it wouldn't otherwise be able to go in a timely fashion "breaking the rules to a significant degree") is valuable. A doom scythe is valuable, no doubt, but so is the ability to contest an objective from out of nowhere.

I played with Monoliths a fair bit, as I have two, in 5th, and honestly, they really did not provide that much to my army. They really just aren't that good. They have utility, but it is really limited by how slow it is.

Scarabs are overpowered under 5th edition rules. Doesn't mean there's no place for them now.

I don't know, I think with the ability of Gauss to strip away hullpoints on a 6, you really don't need scarabs anymore. You can take a Veiling unit of a 10 Warriors, with a Voltaic Staff Cryptek, and kill a vehicle every single turn, as well as being able to claim/contest objectives. I think I'm going to prefer to Take Destroyers now, over Scarabs, thanks to the preferred enemy change, as well as the fact that they can function as Anti-tank and Anti-infantry.

Doomsday Arks are heavy firepower. They can't move if they want to pimp themselves, but so long as they keep their shield running glancing hits can't stop them from firing anymore. They're going to benefit a LOT from the vehicle changes, as well as the standardization of night fighting so long as you remember to pack a solar pulse.

For the same cost, I'd rather have a Doomscythe.

Annihilation barges are just cheap firepower. Again...opportunity cost. At 1750, each doom scythe is 10% of your army.

Yes, but now you can Take Night Scythes, which are faster, carries the destructor, and can drop off troops as well, freeing up your heavy support slot.

Sasori wrote:

Scarabs are overpowered under 5th edition rules. Doesn't mean there's no place for them now.

I don't know, I think with the ability of Gauss to strip away hullpoints on a 6, you really don't need scarabs anymore. You can take a Veiling unit of a 10 Warriors, with a Voltaic Staff Cryptek, and kill a vehicle every single turn, as well as being able to claim/contest objectives. I think I'm going to prefer to Take Destroyers now, over Scarabs, thanks to the preferred enemy change, as well as the fact that they can function as Anti-tank and Anti-infantry.

It's worth noting that Scarab's mobility and resiliency make them a god-tier tarpit, possibly the best in the game.

Fafnir wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:
Random elements like that add thinking requirements to play that wouldn't otherwise be there. They add unknown factors that make tactical decisions actually have weight, and help shift the deciding factor of "who is going to win?" from the players' army lists and codicies, to how they play the scenario.

Like in Yahtzee, right?

Never played Yahtzee. Sorry.

Fafnir wrote:
The thing to keep in mind here is that in most cases, the random elements are things that happen as a result of player action, rather than as a trigger for it. It should, ideally, be the other way around.

You can spend all day setting up an incredibly methodical formation of troops to ensure a perfect charge, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to dice rolls. Tactical decisions have less weight because luck can completely invalidate them.

Talking less about setting up a charge, and more about assessing the potential cost/benefit of bringing an additional unknown quantity into play because, in this case, you have the ability to know beforehand all the possible quantities that can be brought into play. That lets you make a semi-informed decision rather than just crossing your fingers and pressing the big, red, mysterious button. (I'm blindly assuming mysterious terrain works the same way as it does in fantasy, so you have to go into it before it activates and eats you).

Fafnir wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:
Which is how it should be. A mechanic based solely on "luck" would be a pre-game orbital bombardment where you could roll to outright remove enemy units wholesale. Mysterious terrain and random psychic powers, OTOH, test your ability to use a variety of tools to your advantage. In those cases, "luck" has very little to do with anything unless you're specifically set up so that one option automatically results in a loss for you because you're completely, mathmatically, imaginatively unable to use it effectively.

So, for example that piece of mysterious terrain that causes D3 S3 AP2 wounds to all psykers on the table (effectively a death sentence for any GK sergeant) out of nowhere and you can do nothing about has nothing to do with luck?

So long as you know the D3 S3 AP2 wounds to all psykers terrain is a possibility in a finite list of possibilities, none of which are unknown, it's effects come down to statistics. Not luck. Simply because you can opt to NOT trigger the possible death-trap in the first place. If there were no way to avoid it, then you would be right, and it would be luck.

The difference is that you get a choice to trigger it on purpose, and to try to prevent your opponent from triggering it in turn.

The key is 'choice'.

Fafnir wrote:
Furthermore, random psychic powers could 'test' your ability to use a variety of tools, only if these powers were all equally viable to the units that could use them and had applications in the same situations. But they don't. Roll poorly, and you could end up with a set of powers that do nothing to compliment the characters that are using them, regardless of the skill of the player.

It's like an IQ test. You get a number of holes, and a block of a random shape. Because all the possible shapes are accounted for with matching holes, the fact that you try to force the square block into the round hole means that it's not luck.

If there was a chance that there was no square hole to put the square block into, then you would be right and it could be attributed to luck. However, you have the ability to look at all the available psychic abilities while you're building your army list. That means all shapes will be there to match to the appropriate holes. It's not the dice's fault you're trying to fit tab A into slot B despite your insistence that you "just got unlucky this time".

Fafnir wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:
In which case, it's your fault anyway because there's no reason you couldn't take whatever it is into account before hand. I mean...it's right there in front of you. It's not like anything that can happen is a total surprise or anything.

Like Yahtzee, right?

Again, never played Yahtzee.

More like losing 40 hands of blackjack in a row. It might seem like luck, but any savvy player will just tell you that you need to count better.

Fafnir wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:
Should you win because you math-hammered your army list better? Because you assembled the FOTM list that won the latest GT off of an internet forum? Or because you out-played your opponent and held that objective for one more turn?

The more entropy introduced to the game, the better if you ask me.

With your logic, Chess would be a more skill based game if random elements were thrown in.
Math hammering a list and math hammering the odds of a successful charge are very similar. The only difference is that with the list construction, you're making a conscious decision based on the elements put before you. The player uses their judgement based on the information provided. That's actually a good thing, as opposed to removing player interaction (ie, thinking out how to properly charge) in favour of a random system.

There's a lot of skill in movement that does not, and is actually removed because of random elements. Instead of being a game where you play the dice, you should play your opponent.

You would be right if by "random elements" I meant "while playing chess, one person is suddenly, and unexpectedly struck by lightning" and that event allowed the other player to claim victory.
However, in the event something like that actually happened, my guess is that any respectable opponent would consider the game a draw at best if not completely voided due to the sudden death of one of the players.

I don't. So you're not.
Warhammer *is* chess with random elements thrown in. However, there is no truly random element in Warhammer because the game is based on a set of rules that don't change in unexpected ways. There's nothing your opponent can do that you cannot prepare for, and there's no "random event" that you have mentioned from the core rules that can affect the battlefield in a way you cannot see coming, and either take advantage of or deny a like chance to your opponent.

If we were playing a game and a patch of terrain that killed psykers popped up, or something that might turn out to be the terrain that killed psykers, and I, playing necrons, tried to trigger it because it will hurt your GKs but not me you could say that the terrain was "limiting your movement".

However, that's just not an apt description of what's actually going on because it's not limiting you in any way, shape, or form. My action is what is limiting you. My choice. My decision to trigger something that might hurt you. Inversely, if the situations were reversed it would be your option to trigger that terrain and hurt me. If my actions become limited in some way, it's because of a decision you made.

Is luck involved at some point? Sure.

Is it all luck? Hell no. Even if both players decide that the terrain just isn't worth triggering, it's still a decision that was made. The act of weighing the possible costs, comparing them to the possible benefits, and then coming to a decision is a skill. Especially with the inclusion of statistical uncertainty.

So yeah...adding the random stuff makes the game better because it gives both sides more to think about and consider. This makes the person running the army more important than the army itself, assuming both armies are put together with roughly the same competency.

Fafnir wrote:Warlord abilities
Mysterious terrain/objectives
Psychic power generation
Wound allocation (Look Out, Sir!)
Variety of other things, too many to list.

Ok, that's a pretty good list but on the flipside, those are all 'bonus' elements. They're not something you pay for, just a little free icing on the cake and your army should be able to function fully without them.

Fafnir wrote:As for charge distance, having it be a flat rate meant that you'd have to be more tactical about setting up your charges.

Ok, but what does "more tactical" mean?

Look, dice and luck are a crucial element of the game. You can set up the greatest charge in the world, with a ten-man Paladin deathstar, complete with attached Librarian, Grandmaster with Rad Grenades and Psychotroke grenades, and theoretically you can still fluff your rolls and be wiped out by a ten man Conscript squad.

Luck is inherent in the system, all we are doing is debating how much impact it should have.

IMO, adding another layer of luck (over the top of the possibility of fluffing your dice in combat) to the mix is a good thing. It encourages players to more carefully consider the way they deploy and allocate their troops. It adds more to the question "is X in assault range of Y" than a simple yes/no answer, and requires you to act accordingly.

Sasori wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

Sasori wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:I'm sorry but rage was Buffed! Rage doesn't send your units careening off after a kiting unit and you can move them as you will, oh and they have +2 on the charge now.

I can see people not starting Hormagaunts in synapse range now. It's a good thing now if they fail their instinctive behaviour test. You can still control them, and they get +2 attacks on the charge. In a big enough squad, you won't need to worry too much about breaking either, since they'll need to kill a huge amount to do it. Stick a Venomthrope near them to give them a 5+ cover save all the time, and you have a little nightmare.

As a Tyranid player, I'm sure GW is gleefully awaiting a chance to beat us with their Next FAQ.

To be fair, it's broken right now. There's meant to be a drawback to failing instinctive behaviour. At the moment, it's simply a benefit. My guess is they'll simply add 'and much move towards the closest unit' to the feed behaviour.

But then, there's no real benefit to being inside synapse right now either. Fearless on Tyranids is a drawback, since passing the saves simply doesn't happen.

Well, there are no more No retreat saves. Still, Synapse is still a stupid handicap.

Since there are no more "No Retreat!" wounds nowm Synapse just became vastly more important. Hormies getting 2+ Attacks for Rage is great, but what difference does that make if the enemy wipes you out before you can ever assault? And given the buffs to Rapid Fire, and shooting in general, Gaunts will be losing 25% of their unit long before they reach the enemy, hence why Fearless is now so important.

Overall its a mixed bag. While MEQ and GEQ assault units got nerfed, TEQ have became all but invincible in assault against anything but another TEQ unit. As for Nids, I see giving your Hive Tyrants an Armored Shell becoming all but mandatory.

Oh, I'm assuming the psychic powers in the new book are on par with the common spells in fantasy. You know, the ones that start at "I ram my fist down that unit's throat", and end at "Because of his positioning, if I can get this spell off in the next two turns there's a good chance I can crush the hell out of his entire army!"? From the two divination spells I glanced at things look to be on par.

Basically what I'm saying is, when you say "some suck, others are awesome", I think "location, location, location".

I'll see if my assumption is correct some time tomorrow.

Edit: Unity instead of Unit again...Too much game programming in Unity3D for me...

Overall its a mixed bag. While MEQ and GEQ assault units got nerfed, TEQ have became all but invincible in assault against anything but another TEQ unit. As for Nids, I see giving your Hive Tyrants an Armored Shell becoming all but mandatory.

I forsee Hive tyrants taking Biomancy for the potential chance to get a D3 to strength and toughness, and wings to become a flying MC that only is hit on a 6.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Yeah furious charge was nerfed

I'm sorry but rage was Buffed! Rage doesn't send your units careening off after a kiting unit and you can move them as you will, oh and they have +2 on the charge now.
Feel no pain is not denied by power weapons anymore

Rage gets nerfed when you multi charge, because you dont get it, and there is a good possibility that you wont actually make contact with the second unit, sure you'll wreck face to that unit you assaulted, but then you're standing there, in the open.

Oh and transports can only move 6 and disembark, sure the guys inside can move 6" afterward but you still cant assault.

Oh and some talbes might only have 6 peices of terrian on them since they got rid of the 25% rule..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sasori wrote:
Well, for starters, Flyers come in from Reserve and always start in reserve. They won't be shot down before they get a chance to Alphastrike. Secondly, our Fliers are AV11, not 10, and have 3 Hullpoints.
Zoom works, that units cannot assault flyers, and may only use snapfire, unless they have the Skyfire rule. Template, Blast, and Large blast weapons, also cannot hit them. Fliers do have to move a minimum distance (18) when Zooming. You can also only make a single pivot on the spot, so planning where they come in, and what you want to kill, is crucial.

You can also choose to Evade, which will give you your Jink save, which will give you a 5+ save. It makes your weapons snapfire, but that doesn't affect the Deathray at all. So, you can have your Doomscythes flying around, requiring enemies to snapfire (Hit on a 6) and get a 5+ cover save, all while being able to alphastrike high priority targets with your Deathray.

I did notice that they didnt give nightscythes hover.... how the hell do you get out?

It's a mild nerf if you are a Marine-equivalent. MeQs can eat the incoming overwatch, have power fists choices on almost all squads, access to TH/SS if they want to get serious.

For rest? Colossal nerf.

Fragile CC specialists not making it to combat, getting nuked via overwatch. Rare AP 2 weapons and often none that you can sing before the enemy has decimated your squad. Heck, you only need 1 2+ save in a unit to mess you a qhole unit of AP3 banshees/incubi.

The old adage of "shoot the choppy, chop the shooty" doesn't hold anymore. For khorne's sake, do NOT try to chop the shooty! you'll pay for it in pain.

And nevermind the FAQ for necrons says I can fly up to 36" and disembark guys inside AHAHAHAHAHA.

Terminator equivalents just got a helluva lot tougher in assault. I think LC Termies may start becoming slightly more popular now as a result.

Also don't think LR are worth quite so many points now what with the Sudden danger of a megaton of Glancing killing it insted of just slowing it down.

Necrons are a massive AT player now.

P.S. Ravenous D if you drew your pic then You are awesome. I can only do stickmen. Badly.

I think tougher assult units have been nerfed more then hoard assult units..

terminators vs squad of 20 orks.
having to choose your best save out of Armour or Inv save is quite a big difference when dealing with 80 dice being rolled at you