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.

The argument is about the changes in 5e affecting assault. It is pretty widely agreed that various rules changes made assaulting more effective or made shooting less effective.

Certain armies, e.g. Tau, are worse affected than others. There are three ways to address the problem.

1. Make shooting more effective
Drawbacks -- some assault armies have fairly good shooting already. Some balanced armies get a boost without needing it. Lots of arguments that it makes the game boring (overwatch.)

2. Reduce the effectiveness of assaults across the board.
Drawbacks -- People like assault and it may underbalance armies that are more reliant on assault.

3. Add special rules to the next Tau codex to improve their shooting or their defence against assaults.

On the whole, special rules for the armies weak in assault looks the best way to address the issue.

Grignard wrote:I posit that a lot of the seen inequalities in shooting and assault are psychological. I've played both extremes, and I can tell you when I played guard ( admittingly, this was in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, I haven't played them in 5th) it looked like the other guy started the game right in your face. With my Eldar, it seems like that table is a mile wide.

So you don't think static shooty armies are weaker in 5th, but you have never played a static shooty army in 5th...

Sorry buddy, but things are different in 5th edition. I suggest you try playing a few games of 5th with IG against some of the newer armies (read: Orks, SM, Chaos, ect) and see how you do.

What really kicked shooty armies in the importants was Run, which pretty much made buying transports less important and made assault armies that much more mobile and there was no con given to running other than not shooting, but if you're moving and then not assaulting, you're going to be out of shooting range with most assault weapons anyhow. And there was no bonuses given to shooting, they actually made it harder with the plenty of 4+ cover saves now available.

Thats why I think it'll be fixed in the codex updates.

I still think the easiest way is to up the rate of fire. I think lasguns with rapid fire 2 would be about all that was needed for the IG.

GW is obviously only going to change rules for specific armies with new codices - it's too late to change the general assault/shooting rules unless you just play with your own house rules.

That said, I really like the suggestions about making sweeping advances deal additional wounds instead of scattering the whole squad outright. It seems to me the effects of being routed are already covered by falling back from the combat (potentially off the board) and there's no need to have a sweeping advance destroy a whole unit with perhaps dozens of models - allowing a few extra wounds seems like a good compromise. (In particular, the extra wounds being the difference in initiative checks sounds very intuitive to me.)

BoxANT wrote:

Grignard wrote:I posit that a lot of the seen inequalities in shooting and assault are psychological. I've played both extremes, and I can tell you when I played guard ( admittingly, this was in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, I haven't played them in 5th) it looked like the other guy started the game right in your face. With my Eldar, it seems like that table is a mile wide.

So you don't think static shooty armies are weaker in 5th, but you have never played a static shooty army in 5th...

Sorry buddy, but things are different in 5th edition. I suggest you try playing a few games of 5th with IG against some of the newer armies (read: Orks, SM, Chaos, ect) and see how you do.

I'm not denying they might be weaker, and no, I haven't played my IG in 5th. I'm just pointing out that I have heard people complaining about shooting as well, even in 5th. I'm just pointing out that there is a psychological aspect to it, and potentially it is a large contributor.

There is a psychological aspect because people tend to draw long inferences from a few experiences or stories they have heard.

For example, that plane crashes are very deadly. They aren't. It's just we tend to hear about and remember the exceptionally dreadful ones.

However there are various structural changes in the rules that benefit assault rather than shooting.

I disagree with the "difference of initiative" idea. Basically, in most cases you might only overrun your opponent by none, one, or two, which wouldn't always work out. I think it should be one wound (saved or unsaved, hard to decide) per attacking model. Unsaved would be preferable. Does this mean that typically the fleeing squad will be wiped out? Yes, but it solves the one guardsmen wiping out a million Space Marines scenario, and most similiar ones too.

Skinnattittar just becuse they are falling back doesnt mean their armor wont protect them. If that were the case once you got any unit to fall back their armor would just fall off thus not allowing them saves.

Or because you're catching them in the rear you have a better chance to pick and choose where you're going to hit them, typically in the areas weakest, like joints and gaps. In the case of Space Marines, their power pack. Or just your shear volley of attacks since your opponent is unable to defend them selves just makes it improbable they would pass all of their armor saves. I don't know if you have ever been in a fight, but getting at someone's back is infinitely superior to trying to attack their front.