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.

Hello All!

After all the buzz and doomsday prophesizing going on regarding 6th edition, I just thought I'd share a couple thoughts I've had, see if I'm alone in this...

First, the new "overwatch" rule, making it possible to fire into oncoming assaults at a remarkably low BS1 has taken a lot of interweb hating. I'm a bit confused as to why that is... sure, it's new, sure it will make you reconsider how you handle yourself in assaults, but why is that the end of the world? The hate seems to be centered around a concern related to charging into horde-type armies with guns- say, charging into an IG blob, or a mob of Boyz. In this case, there are so many models, all with a comparably low BS anyways, that the drop to BS 1 is sort of an "ah who cares". But its the fact that there are 30 freaking guys in there taht seems to be the problem. I fear that the words "thats bullsh!t" may be permanently scorched into my corneas.

But whats the problem? Do you (oh loathsome whiner, you) mean to suggest that a unit of even the most incompetent soldiers could not see that they were about to be run down by guys ready to eat their faces? Is it impossible to consider that they would naturally frantically swing their respective firearms in the direction of the oncoming face-rape, firing wildly and inaccurately? This all makes perfect sense to me. Why would you charge 5-10 guys into a group of 30 guys with guns, intent on hacking their faces off. What exactly WOULD YOU expect to happen??? Getting charged? High probability of death? What do you do? Bah, what else, throw some bullets that-a-way, why not? It IS a change, a drastic one. But it is a move towards reality, a step towards eliminating all of the small idiosyncrasies that bog the game down and make it unbelievable. Whats the problem, apart from the fact that it is different?

My other thought was regarding the "snap-fire" which I understand makes it possible to fire infantry-mounted heavy weapons while on the move, with a penalty to BS. Was that right? In this case, wouldn't it pretty much be a no-brainer to take, say, plasma cannons on tactical marine squads (and their equivalents in other armies). Look at it: you take a penalty to BS, which in the case of blast weapons, determines how much you scatter.. BUT you DO still have that chance of landing a direct hit anyways. SO, you could fire a lascannon while moving. With the BS penalty, odds are: you miss. Thanks for stopping by. Now, if you move and fire a plasma cannon (or a ML, now that I think about it), you have the possibility of scoring a direct hit- good hustle. Worst case scenario? You muff the scatter roll and miss your mark by a max of like 11 inches. In a horde army, who cares, you could very likely nuke something else nearby anyways. Maybe you miss the squad of terminators and nuke 2-3 tactical marines. Better than a missed lascannon shot, am I wrong?

This could also force your opponent to think twice, or even three times, about unit coherency and spacing. Why space your guys out into a huge formation, enlarging their footprint on the battlefield, knowing that your guys on the edges of the formation might wind up getting clipped by a grossly inaccurately placed plasma bomb thing? Good point, maybe I will force them together so that your scatter will miss me completely! But wait! Thats the turn I score a direct hit and nuke half your squad. Thanks for playing.

Any thoughts you guys would care to share?
Thanks All!

ARKTOR.RECLAIMUS wrote:But it is a move towards reality, a step towards eliminating all of the small idiosyncrasies that bog the game down and make it unbelievable. Whats the problem, apart from the fact that it is different?

I have gleaned that there are generally two types of players in regard to the game being unbelievable or unrealistic. The first wants as realistic an interaction of the playing pieces and terrain as possible, whereas the second just wants a playable game regardless of the realism. These two scenarios are not mutually exclusive, but the balance is pretty hard to come by in mythical setting such as 40K. In modern warfare, 90% or more of casualties are caused by indirect fire. No one charges anybody without massive losses. During the first Iraq war, an Iraqi mechanized division of like 7-8000 troops was left on foot after US air forces destroyed their vehicles. They tried a human wave assault on a Marine column. They lost over 50% of their compliment and never got within 1.5 miles of the Marines. Thousands of troops, hundreds of vehicles, miles of terrain, these do not translate that well to a miniatures game of dozens of models, 4'X6' battlefields, turn based combat, or the 'fantasy' of 40K. I think GW has done an outstanding job of making a playable game that incorporates squad based tactics, psychic powers, shooting, and vehicles.

The main problem with the new set of rules is that people are over reacting to certain aspects that they do not like without taking into account the whole. No one knows how this will shake out, and when it does, no one wants their pride to be ground under the heels of every adversary. They also have their interpretations of how the game interaction and units should be represented, based on previous editions or their own imaginations.

Double check your rumors. I think I heard that you cannot overwatch or snap fire blast weapons. So no plasma cannons.

However, the main bitching about overwatch is not the charging into a unit of 30 guys with multishot weapons. Its that if your not a marine charging into anything is going to result in mostly dead assault squads.

We are talking about guys with 5+ or worse saves. IE. most bugs, DE, Eldar, Orks, etc. A unit of 10 tacticals will drop 2-3 DE/eldar. Thats 1/3 of most assault units.

That is what people are complaining about with overwatch. I have a unit that has been specifically designed to do its killing in assault and I loose 1/3 of them just because I got them into position to do their job.

I have to agree with jayden63 there. Assault based armies already suffer horrendously to shooting, furthering that makes them less competitive. However unless they are going to introduce some ways of making assaulters far more brutal and bloody on the charge then I can't see this actually making assault armies lives any better. What worries me most about this is that we may eventually see assaults disappearing as they become extremely costly endeavours, instead being replaced by close range fire fights. Look at it this way:
Shooters will shoot. Example: Tactical Space Marine
Assaulters will assault. Example: Hormagaunt
Balanced (those who can do both equally well) will shoot rather than eat the enemies face. Example: Chaos Space Marine

My question is that if I multi-assault do they get to overwatch or snap fire on each unit assaulting them or just one.

It's a tad OP on DE, on Orks or nids the numbers make it almost non-effective. But three orks before combat has started is quite steep. Anyway, shooting seems to be the way to go...

Not happy but there's going to be down sides, like lower LD or something.

KrimsunBaron wrote:My question is that if I multi-assault do they get to overwatch or snap fire on each unit assaulting them or just one.

It's a tad OP on DE, on Orks or nids the numbers make it almost non-effective. But three orks before combat has started is quite steep. Anyway, shooting seems to be the way to go...

Not happy but there's going to be down sides, like lower LD or something.

Trukk boys wont like the hit much at all. Not all orks are green tide. I know it will greatly effect my KOS style orks.

KrimsunBaron wrote:My question is that if I multi-assault do they get to overwatch or snap fire on each unit assaulting them or just one.

It's a tad OP on DE, on Orks or nids the numbers make it almost non-effective. But three orks before combat has started is quite steep. Anyway, shooting seems to be the way to go...

Not happy but there's going to be down sides, like lower LD or something.

I have no issue with the new rules. Gonna be fun and different!

The rumor has it that everyone gets an overwatch shot!

That is what people are complaining about with overwatch. I have a unit that has been specifically designed to do its killing in assault and I loose 1/3 of them just because I got them into position to do their job.

That's pretty bad than, because in most cases one would weaken a squad through shooting before charging an assault unit into it. I mean even full on slugga orks prefer weakening a bit by popping them with slugga's and shootas before charging in. You didn't do your job of getting them into position and, as something EVERYONE needs to do, Support them

We are talking about guys with 5+ or worse saves. IE. most bugs, DE, Eldar, Orks, etc. A unit of 10 tacticals will drop 2-3 DE/eldar. Thats 1/3 of most assault units.

In most cases the ones that you charge into assault do not have just have 5+ saves, striking scorpions are 3+, banshee's 4+, harle's 5++, and the rest of the aspects are 4+ (Unless you are seriously trying to tell me Guardians are going to charge into combat)

Incubi are 3+, grots and wracks start with a pain token for FNP (5+ that power weapons can't stop now), bloodbrides and wychs have a 4++ save in combat (probably will keep this), beastmasters have a bit of an issue but keep the razorwings or kymera in front to soak up wounds for the rest

Orks are the only exception to this, but they have cheap troops, and we can easily soften them up by lots of shooting beforehand, and if your that desperate to keep them alive take a unit of 'Ard boyz, or throw chaff. Overwatch is nothing compared to a necron tremorcon list with a C'tan with Writhing world against a full ork tide list.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:
The main problem with the new set of rules is that people are over reacting to certain aspects that they do not like without taking into account the whole. No one knows how this will shake out, and when it does, no one wants their pride to be ground under the heels of every adversary. They also have their interpretations of how the game interaction and units should be represented, based on previous editions or their own imaginations.

Well put. Pretty spot on there. In regards to the realism aspect of it all, I agree that it is difficult to transfer reality from the real world to the table. But as history shows, your example being a great one, charging into a gunline is a bad idea 9 days out of 10. This is just going to force players to adapt and develop a new strategy, rather than the endless mob of bum-rushing lunatics charging into a gunline. Why comlpain (other than having to possibly buy new models)? Be glad that you play a game that allows and encourages development and in-depth thought, and later challenges you to to reevaluate your last position on a tactic. Im of course not speaking directly to you Jon, I'm speaking to the nay-sayers here.

Jayden63 wrote:Double check your rumors. I think I heard that you cannot overwatch or snap fire blast weapons. So no plasma cannons.

AW, POOP!

However, the main bitching about overwatch is not the charging into a unit of 30 guys with multishot weapons. Its that if your not a marine charging into anything is going to result in mostly dead assault squads.

We are talking about guys with 5+ or worse saves. IE. most bugs, DE, Eldar, Orks, etc. A unit of 10 tacticals will drop 2-3 DE/eldar. Thats 1/3 of most assault units.

That is what people are complaining about with overwatch. I have a unit that has been specifically designed to do its killing in assault and I loose 1/3 of them just because I got them into position to do their job.

JbR of the Endless Spire wrote: What worries me most about this is that we may eventually see assaults disappearing as they become extremely costly endeavours, instead being replaced by close range fire fights. Look at it this way:
Shooters will shoot. Example: Tactical Space Marine
Assaulters will assault. Example: Hormagaunt
Balanced (those who can do both equally well) will shoot rather than eat the enemies face. Example: Chaos Space Marine

Some of the various new rumors include various buffs to assault units as well though, it seems. So you lose guys for assaulting, you wouldn't expect to dip in there without taking some fire, now would you? This wil justl require you to be more calculating in the placement of your assault troops, and when and where you choose to charge. These are all things that any commander should be doing in the first place when utilizing assault troops. If anything this seems to make the risky decision of entering into melee with well armed troops 'feel' like more a risky maneuver. You shouldn't be able to make such a bold and dangerous move with impunity in the first place, wouldn't you agree? I just think its silly to throw your hands in the air and beat your chests over not having as many guns. The armies that do have guns tend to be poorer in assault capacities. Observe:
Shooters will be outperformed by assault. Example: Tactical Space Marine V. just about any assault unit.
Assaulters will be outperformed by shoot. Example: Hormagaunt V. just about anything that can gun it down before it gets to you.
Balanced (those who can do both equally well) will likely struggle against anything that does either better. Example: Chaos Space Marine V. just about any assault unit or just about anything that can gun it down before it gets to you.

And if we look at numbers here, the shooty armies that stand to down a few guys on the charge are generally armies that have fewer models, while a lot of the charging-assault armies tend to be larger in number (obviously with exceptions). Fluffwise and considering the nature of the units involved: what would you imagine happening if 30 gaunts charged a mob of IG? Your new and improved 6th edition answer: Charge them and see. Right?

Ok well firstly there won't be 30 gaunts charging... most of the time large numbers die before they even get into close combat, now even fewer will get there.
And the fact that shooters will be outperformed in cc isn't necessarily always the case. A Tactical marine can go toe to toe with most assault units, yes in the end they may lose but the enemy will pay for it (thats IF they even make it into close combat) Firewarriors or Guardsmen fair enough, but they are the least capable in that situation anyway.
A hormagaunt can't shoot back so it will always lose to a shooter at range. The ONLY time its on equal footing is in close combat and with the increased amount of fire coming at you the chance of that happening has decreased. That being said even Firewarriors could take down 5 gaunts if thats all that makes it.
And those that are balanced are effectively both shooters and assaulters so they can go toe to toe in all aspects, what I'm trying to say is that if there is even more risk to assaults than there is already why would they bother?

A couple of things...

As I understand it, you only get one stand and shoot/overwatch reaction. Which to me suggests drawing the fire with a chaff unit and then charge it with the assault unit.

Second, ask a WFB player how often a charge has been stopped by standing and shooting.

I don't know what all the complaining is about. In 2nd edition a unit that did not move or shoot could go on overwatch and shoot at any enemy unit (in LOS) during he opponents movement phase. Was great for shutting down enemy lanes of attack. Also the overwatch shot was taken at full BS.

This is a much needed re-inclusion.

Stop yer whineing!

Sick of being charged by assault marines without getting a single shot off. I welcome snap fire.