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 want to get the community's opinion on this supposition that I'm making. I think this is an important topic, so I'm posting it on a couple of forums to hopefully get some consensus.

I suppose these Axioms could be argued, but I think to do so is folly.

Axiom - Warhammer 6th Edition has improved a player's ability to viably field units which use direct-fire shooting.

Axiom - Games Workshop has put quite a bit of thought into making close combat more fun and narrative.

Axiom - There are two ways to set up terrain, either according to a narrative, or randomly placing d3 pieces of terrain in each 2' square section of the board.

I put it to you that the intent behind this is to be play baseline pick-up games of Warhammer 40k with 12 pieces of medium-sized terrain, exchanging 1 medium-sized piece for 3 small pieces when needed. This is akin to the "25%" rule of the previous edition. I think that the designers wanted to improve shooting, but they did not want to give a huge advantage to massive alpha-strike armies. Not only must there be 12 pieces of terrain, but the players must be given the opportunity to create "leapfrog" positions, allowing them to move across the board with cover saves if they are so inclined.

Therefore, my theorem is as follows:

If you are not playing a standard, non-narrative game of Warhammer 40,000 without an average of 12 pieces of medium-sized terrain, allowing at least half of them to be placed by your opponent, then you are not playing the game the way it was designed and are doing a dis-service to people with assault armies.

What do you think?

That this isnt a rules question?

I suppose these Axioms could be argued, but I think to do so is folly.

Curious why you say that. I personally dont think 1&2 are correct. But, for the premise of your theorem we can ignore that.

Theorem. I have not found assault units to be hampered by 6th any more than they were in 5th. Overwatch is very minimal (unless templates) and if your in a MEQ army, your armor saves will typically cause Overwatch to be about useless. 6th can situationally allow you to cover alot more ground. Rolling charges on vehicles or even certain units(depending on weapons) from 10+ inches away, can allow you to pick up alot of ground (if you succeed), even if you cant reliably hurt it. All in all, if your that worried about cover with assault marines, then you need to reconsider your strategies in how you get those assault marines into combat.

Removing models from the front makes it tough to get into assault. Without a good amount of terrain, failing an assault can be very dangerous. I agree that charging is much as it was in 5th as long as you assume you were charging through cover most of the time in 5th.

I don't think you can just slap a couple pieces of terrain on the table in this game. I'll never bring an assaulty army to a tournament unless I know they'll have a reasonable amount of terrain placed or for me to place, otherwise it's gonna be Lootas and Dakkajets with Big Gunz screens every time.

Should the supposition not be:

If you are playing a standard, non-narrative game of Warhammer 40,000 without an average of 12 pieces of medium-sized terrain, allowing at least half of them to be placed by your opponent, then you are not playing the game the way it was designed and are doing a dis-service to people with assault armies.

The first "not" should be removed?

I think 12 pieces on a 6x4 is still to little imho.
Dividing the board into 6 2x2s means there will only be 2 medium sized pieces per 2x2? What do you define medium as however? Say a sanctum imperialis or a standard GW forest kit? Bigger/smaller?

I would consider GW woods to be medium and the Fortress of Redemption is large.

Maybe about 100 to 120 square inches?

Loopy wrote:Axiom - Games Workshop has put quite a bit of thought into making close combat more fun and narrative.

Wat?

Maybe one could call 6th edition CC rules "narrative" they are neither fun, nor well thought out.