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'm with Peregrine. Anything that annoys assault players is fine by me, even if it does actually increase the average charge range (assault players refuse to acknoledge this).

 Testify wrote:
I'm with Peregrine. Anything that annoys assault players is fine by me, even if it does actually increase the average charge range (assault players refuse to acknoledge this).

To be entirely fair, assault players generally acknowledge that the average charge distance is now 7" instead of 6", but most would rather be always able to make a 6" charge instead of sometimes having that crucial charge fail because you rolled snake eyes. It's a phenomenon where individuals value certainty and what they already have more than any potential gains that come with uncertainty. A real world example is that people will often stick with an established brand, even if an alternative provides a better product at a lower cost, because of a combination of their familiarity with the brand and the chance, no matter how small, that the new product will in some way be a 'worse deal' than the old one.

 Peregrine wrote:

Kal-El wrote:
I was a weapons instructor and there is a difference between max effective range (the average range an average person can hit a target) and max range (the range the bullet can travel in perfect conditions before touching the ground). Indeed it's the effective range you should worry about.

Well, don't forget that there's a huge difference between effective range against a point target (like a marine melta gunner behind cover) and effective range against an area target (like a horde of orks). One requires precise aim, one lets you shoot rifles like mortars and still hit the target easily.

And of course that's with bullets. With laser weapons effective range is infinite with a good enough scope.

A cinematic experience for shooting would to allow better saves or a higher miss rate the further the distance...kinda like how night fighting is now (which makes sense to me).

Except the table for a standard 40k game is too small for effective range to matter at all. Well, maybe it would for pistols, but everything else would be shooting at full BS anywhere on the table.

Also, I'm more inclined to consider 40K ranges logarithmic, or similarly flexible. It means we can play with 28mm models, and still play on a 6 x 4 table.

Yeah, you can deal with the model size problems that way (it's the same way that every space combat game says "the models aren't in scale, we just wanted to have models that are more than a tiny dot at real combat ranges"), but that still leaves movement and table size. The problem is that both of these are completely out of scale with shooting ranges. You start way too close to the other side, and their assault units can cross that distance way too fast. In a to-scale game of 40k you'd start on opposite sides of the store with artillery and heavy weapons, then start adding infantry guns as you got around, say, the 10' mark. And of course you still move 6" a turn. End result: anything with a sword is dead before it gets anywhere near a target to hit with that sword.

And of course this would STILL only represent an incredibly rare close-range battle. Most of the time it would be decided by aircraft and orbital support before any of the ground troops could ever see each other.

Wow man, i think you are putting WAY TOO MUCH effort into something as simple as game balancing mechanics. I've never had a problem with any ranges, like ever everyone wants it longer but it just doesn't happen, i see the idea of 6 inches in the form of miles not feet. End of story.

Btw I haven't minded charge ranges at all, but then again i can get fleet on command and I always try to get as close as possible before charging in anyhow. For everyone who thinks that charges have fubared assault armies they clearly didn't understand the way to play from the get go. Sometimes it's better to gamble.

It's a phenomenon where individuals value certainty and what they already have more than any potential gains that come with uncertainty.

well technicly the movment for assault units got smaller . assault armies were either fleet ,where a 7" charge was the minimal charge range or they were charing out of stationary rhinos/transports , which again was giving them an 8" charge . Even without the whole fail to roll 7+ unit ends up dead thing , this is a thing that hurts assault armies to a point where they arent realy viable to be played . Not that I have anything against it , worse assault armies makes IG only better.

Don't like it, part of the stratergy and the seperation from good plays to great players was gauging distances.

Testify wrote:I'm with Peregrine. Anything that annoys assault players is fine by me, even if it does actually increase the average charge range (assault players refuse to acknoledge this).

While the average assault range may have increased, getting into assault is far harder in 6th. You can't use special delivery mechanisms to get into assault (outflanking, for example), as no unit may assault the turn it arrives anymore. You can't infiltrate into position, because you can't assault on the first turn if you do so.

Running across the field takes an average of a turn longer because you're pulling casualties from the front, which costs you inches. You can't drive over in a vehicle because you have to spend a turn sitting in the open before you're allowed to assault, and even if you're in an assault vehicle, you can only move the vehicle 6" now, instead of 12".

Then, if you do get there, you have to take an extra round of fire before you get to fight. It's too much, and while you might like seeing assault players get annoyed, it's not good for the game to nerf what was previously a viable strategy. Because without viable assault armies, the game is just a matter of picking the right target and rolling some dice.

The change to assaulting from reserves is a nerf, I will admit. But "normal" charges really aren't.

Not only do you get a bonus inch, on average, you also get a gaurenteed pile-in move. This allows a lot more models to get into B2B than before, add to this a gaurenteed +1 attack from the charge (since you no longer need to be in b2b to get it) and mobs in particular got a huge boost. There are plenty of times where these changes combined could easily double the number of attacks in an assault.

Not to mention the potential 12" charge range preys on the mind of the gunline player as much as the potential 2" charge preys on the mind of the assault player.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
As for random charge range, I love it and my only complaint is that it should only be D6. Cry more assault army fans, your idiotic melee armies have no place on a battlefield where guns exist and I approve of anything GW does to destroy the entire concept of an "assault army" and reduce assaults to a rare event to wipe the last survivors of shooting off a critical objective.

sadly i think guns got the much needed boost they required... but we are going to see a re-emergence of assualt units now, because so few armies are prepared for CC now that one good unit can own the battle field. Also it's been heavily suggested by WD employees that nids will be getting a major overhaul soonish and i doubt orks are far behind. I can play the dakka game just fine but i do want to get back into close combat as soon as it's less moronic for us.

But gunline armies are not ill equipped to face things like paladins or biker nobs or foot nobz or mega nobz for example. It's a balancing act and i think you are probably wrong in you assumption CC is going to stay dead in this edition. Right now the equipment info has left most armies weakened that require to punch armor. But i suspect in 1 year you will be back to complaining about assualters like always CC has it's role but it just needs to be revitalized.

That being said I still CC but only have a heavy does of shooting first.

Whoa, weird, my post for some reason disappeared...

Anyways, I enjoy the satisfaction of tearing up a gunline with my assault marines. This actually just recently happened, in fact. Very little is more satisfying than the idea of breaking an overconfident player's gunline.

Eat your heart out Peregrine.

Edit: Meh. Somehow managed to miss the last page of the thread.

 Testify wrote:
The change to assaulting from reserves is a nerf, I will admit. But "normal" charges really aren't.

You clearly don't get it. If you take the change from a fixed 6" charge to a 2d6 random charge in isolation, it's not a nerf, you're right. I just don't like it and think it adds nothing to the game.

The other changes to assault rules and other tweaks add together to make assault far far weaker than it was in 5th, and it is no longer a viable strategy in the game. The simple existence of fliers that cannot be assaulted renders an all-assault army non-viable.

Not only do you get a bonus inch, on average, you also get a guaranteed pile-in move. This allows a lot more models to get into B2B than before, add to this a guaranteed +1 attack from the charge (since you no longer need to be in b2b to get it) and mobs in particular got a huge boost. There are plenty of times where these changes combined could easily double the number of attacks in an assault.

First, I have to ask, have you actually experienced this, or are you postulating. Because I haven't experienced it. The pile-in moves are only 3" now, instead of 6", and your opponent doesn't pile-in at the beginning of the fight. I used to get more models in the combat because of my opponent's pile-in moves than I do now with my 3".

What's more, the +1 attack, that used to be guaranteed, is no longer - you lose it if you multi-charge now (another assault nerf). And it was never restricted to B2B models only in 4th or 5th, that might be a hold-over from 3rd, but it hasn't been that way in a long time.

My actual game experiences in 6th have shown that assault is weak now. I make it into fewer assaults. When I do make it into assault, I get fewer attacks. My mobs, that "got a huge boost" are shot to bits before they make it to combat. My opponent's have the freedom to move their Rapid Fire weapons while still firing at range, and they can premeasure to ensure that their guys are right at the 24" line. My guys die from the front, meaning I have to go further to get there. And my cover saves are worse on top of it all. Assault is dead.

You honestly think assault no longer works in 6th? You need to up your game mate

I have indeed experienced pile-ins. In 5th, you got 6 inches and that was it. In 6th you get an average of 7 inches, plus 3 inches. That's a 66% increase over 5th.
And I don't remember the rule about compulsary multi-charges. They usually only happen when one very very strong unit charges two weak units. I doubt it'll make a difference to Death Company who want to charge two PIS.
But still whinging about being nerfed, huh?

If you want to complain about cover being nerfed, go complain about cover being nerfed.

 Testify wrote:
You honestly think assault no longer works in 6th? You need to up your game mate

I have indeed experienced pile-ins. In 5th, you got 6 inches and that was it. In 6th you get an average of 7 inches, plus 3 inches. That's a 66% increase over 5th.
And I don't remember the rule about compulsary multi-charges. They usually only happen when one very very strong unit charges two weak units. I doubt it'll make a difference to Death Company who want to charge two PIS.
But still whinging about being nerfed, huh?

If you want to complain about cover being nerfed, go complain about cover being nerfed.

I don't see him complaining about assault being worse, just pointing it out and refuting what you had said about it not.

As for my 2 cents, I agree with Redbeard. On its own, random charge distance is fine, but when they also make it harder for you to get your guys into position in the first place, by nerfing outflank, vehicle disembarkation, etc, the hurt starts to pile up. When you have such a multitude of factors working against you, there's not a whole lot you can do to fix the problem besides adapting and adding much more shooting to your list.

 Testify wrote:
You honestly think assault no longer works in 6th? You need to up your game mate

Yes, I honestly think assault as a strategy, is dead in 6th. "Up my game"? I don't know who you are or how you think your death company is going to assault someone's flier, but seriously, upping your game means realistically approaching the changes and using what actually works, not what you theorize works. That means bringing guns, not knives.

I have indeed experienced pile-ins. In 5th, you got 6 inches and that was it. In 6th you get an average of 7 inches, plus 3 inches. That's a 66% increase over 5th.

Again, you're only thinking about your own models. In 5th, I needed to get one model from my unit 6" away from my opponent's units, and my opponent's models would then move 6" towards the rest of mine, thereby bringing more models into B2B before the dice rolling began. Pulling your opponent's models towards yours was actually a big part of getting a big enough engagement to win.

In 6th, If you get one model to 7", you then have to have that one model survive the overwatch fire, and then sure, maybe you get to pull another 3" of your guys in, but until your opponent's pile-in, the rest of his guys haven't moved. And, maybe your death company guys, who have paid for a 3+/5+FNP can pull that off regularly, but my orks can't and my bloodletters can't.

And I don't remember the rule about compulsary multi-charges. They usually only happen when one very very strong unit charges two weak units. I doubt it'll make a difference to Death Company who want to charge two PIS.
But still whinging about being nerfed, huh?

Stating facts is not whinging. Perhaps you should try participating in a discussion instead of trying to belittle others. Again, it's not all about Death Company with FnP. Ork boyz are an assault unit, wyches are an assault unit. If you want to believe that assault is still powerful, you go right ahead. The rest of us will transition to shooty armies and win games.

I don't play BA. In fact I exclusively play shooty armies.

Orks got nerfed by the changes the cover, getting into assault isn't that hard it's just usually by the time they get there, there aren't enough of them left.

Also I'd agree about flyers. Pre-FAQ my deamons struggled no end, now all my FMCs have skyfire

Bloodletters have always been pretty rubbish. Having to deep-strike, then wait an entire turn before being able to assault, is bad, especially with what a 5++?

Plenty of 'nid and BA players, among others, will happily tell you that assault still works.

 Peregrine wrote:
I approve of anything GW does to destroy the entire concept of an "assault army" and reduce assaults to a rare event to wipe the last survivors of shooting off a critical objective.

 Testify wrote:
I'm with Peregrine. Anything that annoys assault players is fine by me, even if it does actually increase the average charge range (assault players refuse to acknoledge this).

Just a thought, people paid I guess ~500$ equivalent on average for their assault armies, you wish GW to destroy the concept and see those people armies unusable. I can only return the favor and wish you that all your bought, built and painted armies are nerfed to the point of unplayable. What a crap, the game was always assault shooting and magic, maybe you should want GW to balance those elements so every option gives you a chance assuming well thought army and good tactical play instead of seeking easy advantage or demanding the game to entirely change its character to cater to your taste.

Similarly, I spend hundreds of pounds on foot guard and was pretty depressed when I noticed that GW's attitude of "assault uber alles" rendered them useless against BA.

Swings and roundabouts.

That's different, what you describe is the usual GW incompetence/ changing rules for the sake of sales, the Peregrine's idea here was that GW throws assault out of the game because it doesn't fit his conception of 40k. Little too late for this imo after all this years, not to mention GW could as well say that all the guns have rusted, noone knows how to make them anymore and 40k is all melee from now on with accidental artifact gun here and there.

Btw as assault player I don't want your shooting army to be nerfed, I want a good balanced ruleset not handicaps provided only because I play something that is latest codex or that acidently benefited from GW cheap rules writing.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Kal-El wrote:
Yeah, you can deal with the model size problems that way (it's the same way that every space combat game says "the models aren't in scale, we just wanted to have models that are more than a tiny dot at real combat ranges"), but that still leaves movement and table size. The problem is that both of these are completely out of scale with shooting ranges. You start way too close to the other side, and their assault units can cross that distance way too fast. In a to-scale game of 40k you'd start on opposite sides of the store with artillery and heavy weapons, then start adding infantry guns as you got around, say, the 10' mark. And of course you still move 6" a turn. End result: anything with a sword is dead before it gets anywhere near a target to hit with that sword.

And of course this would STILL only represent an incredibly rare close-range battle. Most of the time it would be decided by aircraft and orbital support before any of the ground troops could ever see each other.

I know it's been said before but I think it warrants saying again: If you really feel this strongly about realism and close combat, I think this is the wrong game for you. There is nothing realistic about 40k, it's meant to offer a diverse way of playing the game. Assault is another tactical element to give more flavor to games and to break up the tedium of just shooting all the time. I play a shooting army, but I still keep Harlequins around for assault
because the assault phase is just fun, and, as GW keeps reminding us, cinematic. Maybe you don't care for that in your games, but there are a lot of people who do and the assault phase isn't going anywhere.

And the way I see it, the battles o the tabletop represent a really small fraction of battles in the 40k universe, where air support is not a viable option for whatever reason, or the objectives you need to capture are too important to risk getting blown up. Sometimes things need to be done on the ground in close quarters, it's part of the universe and always has been, and always will be.

I did not write that - that's a miss quote. Also you guys are right about point and area targets and I totally dropped the ball on that because it would play a role even in the 40k universe since we use bunched up squads.

Very good catch!!

Kal-El wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Kal-El wrote:
Yeah, you can deal with the model size problems that way (it's the same way that every space combat game says "the models aren't in scale, we just wanted to have models that are more than a tiny dot at real combat ranges"), but that still leaves movement and table size. The problem is that both of these are completely out of scale with shooting ranges. You start way too close to the other side, and their assault units can cross that distance way too fast. In a to-scale game of 40k you'd start on opposite sides of the store with artillery and heavy weapons, then start adding infantry guns as you got around, say, the 10' mark. And of course you still move 6" a turn. End result: anything with a sword is dead before it gets anywhere near a target to hit with that sword.

And of course this would STILL only represent an incredibly rare close-range battle. Most of the time it would be decided by aircraft and orbital support before any of the ground troops could ever see each other.

I know it's been said before but I think it warrants saying again: If you really feel this strongly about realism and close combat, I think this is the wrong game for you. There is nothing realistic about 40k, it's meant to offer a diverse way of playing the game. Assault is another tactical element to give more flavor to games and to break up the tedium of just shooting all the time. I play a shooting army, but I still keep Harlequins around for assault
because the assault phase is just fun, and, as GW keeps reminding us, cinematic. Maybe you don't care for that in your games, but there are a lot of people who do and the assault phase isn't going anywhere.

And the way I see it, the battles o the tabletop represent a really small fraction of battles in the 40k universe, where air support is not a viable option for whatever reason, or the objectives you need to capture are too important to risk getting blown up. Sometimes things need to be done on the ground in close quarters, it's part of the universe and always has been, and always will be.

I did not write that - that's a miss quote. Also you guys are right about point and area targets and I totally dropped the ball on that because it would play a role even in the 40k universe since we use bunched up squads.

Very good catch!!

Sorry about that, missed that you were quoted at the beginning of Peregrine's post, forgot to delete it. My bad!

 Testify wrote:
I don't play BA. In fact I exclusively play shooty armies.

Orks got nerfed by the changes the cover, getting into assault isn't that hard it's just usually by the time they get there, there aren't enough of them left.

Also I'd agree about flyers. Pre-FAQ my deamons struggled no end, now all my FMCs have skyfire

Bloodletters have always been pretty rubbish. Having to deep-strike, then wait an entire turn before being able to assault, is bad, especially with what a 5++?

Plenty of 'nid and BA players, among others, will happily tell you that assault still works.

Ugh? No.

Big mek KFF still gives all my 120 orks 5+ cover saves just like it did in 5th edition.... which works just fine at keeping me alive till the assualt.

The only thing that i feel bad for orks right now that changed majorly was furious charge not giving +1I, multi charge no longer allowing me to retain +1 attack, challenges screwing up my nobz like no one's business and not longer effectively able to trim from the back of my unit or hide my nobz. I adjusted in 1 game, anyone who thinks we got shafted is in for an ass kicking from a competent ork player it sounds like, i'll gladly accept a challenge from someone who thinks i got nerfed.


two words for ya; "Dakka Dakka"

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:

...
The only thing that i feel bad for orks right now that changed majorly was furious charge not giving +1I, multi charge no longer allowing me to retain +1 attack, challenges screwing up my nobz like no one's business and not longer effectively able to trim from the back of my unit or hide my nobz.

In other words, you just named four distinct changes that lessened your assault effectiveness.

I adjusted in 1 game, anyone who thinks we got shafted is in for an ass kicking from a competent ork player it sounds like, i'll gladly accept a challenge from someone who thinks i got nerfed.

two words for ya; "Dakka Dakka"

And it seems, from your final comment, that your solution was to shift your force to a more shooty list - which is exactly what we've been saying all along. We're not saying orks got screwed or that orks can't win, we're saying that assault got weakened, and the key to winning now is all about shooting. And, your comments appear to be agreeing.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:

...
The only thing that i feel bad for orks right now that changed majorly was furious charge not giving +1I, multi charge no longer allowing me to retain +1 attack, challenges screwing up my nobz like no one's business and not longer effectively able to trim from the back of my unit or hide my nobz.

In other words, you just named four distinct changes that lessened your assault effectiveness.

I adjusted in 1 game, anyone who thinks we got shafted is in for an ass kicking from a competent ork player it sounds like, i'll gladly accept a challenge from someone who thinks i got nerfed.

two words for ya; "Dakka Dakka"

And it seems, from your final comment, that your solution was to shift your force to a more shooty list - which is exactly what we've been saying all along. We're not saying orks got screwed or that orks can't win, we're saying that assault got weakened, and the key to winning now is all about shooting. And, your comments appear to be agreeing.

Actually the whole highlight wasn't that orks got nerfed in assualt at all, It was to highlight that person didn't understand that cover didn't change orks nor have we gotten weaker. We always used shoota boyz in the first place even before this edition (the smart orks anyway). These changes not the one stated (which was cover saves) were the reasons we don't assualt blindly, and that is all.

A comprehensive view as opposed to someone's conjecture about the army's "new weaknesses"

The key to winning even in last edition was shooting, Orks themselves always needed shooting due to a low init. We need to cushion our assualts by hurting you before we get into combat. the idea of 120 attacks sounds great till you realize it does nothing against genestealers if you lose almost all the attacks and they still get armor saves. Thus why shooting was needed even back then. However, everyone who is hating on assualts saying "they actively want GW to ruin their tactics are sadly saying that when everything is said and done and for "all the tactics" they can't handle someone staying true to the course and charging in. It's always been a balancing act and in my opinion with so many people focused on shooting like you are saying" it actually only helps assault armies now. I know of very few armies which could handle the a swarming nid guant board while tervogons make them FNP and Carnies coming in from behind because rather than prepare for eventualities they are going hardcore gunlines.

Versatility has shifted, Shooters complained that assualters lacked tactics and now Assualts will declare shooters lack tactics. Both sides are right without versatility they are both two extremes and neither side is more clever or logical in the 41st millenium. So please try and be less smug about army weaknesses or the impact it is having on players and realize these people spend hundreds of dollars on their hobby it isn't unfair for them to want gratification from the investment. Regradless of how my comments are spun these are the true motives of my posts.

Fair honest reviews of the changes and impacts. And someone who KNOWS what the hurdles orks now face are as opposed to wild made up issues. Please don't speak about an army's weakness unless you know it inside and out in the first place. It's aggravating; it would be like saying the weakness of marines if their armor save of 3+ now in this edition or the fact that they have rapid fire guns those aren't weaknesses.

(key note: this isn't directly to you persay, this is to all people bashing assualters or misquoting weaknesses.)

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:

Actually the whole highlight wasn't that orks got nerfed in assualt at all, It was to highlight that person didn't understand that cover didn't change orks

It didn't change the forcefields for infantry. It did change for kanwalls and battlewagon rushes. It also changed for people who used grot screens or nob biker screens for foot units, instead of forcefields. Before you say no one did that, I'll point out that Alan B. won both Wargamescon and the singles event at ETC with an ork list that screened slugga boyz with nob bikers.

nor have we gotten weaker. We always used shoota boyz in the first place even before this edition (the smart orks anyway).

The smart foot-orks. Battlewagon orks used sluggas for the most part.

A comprehensive view as opposed to someone's conjecture about the army's "new weaknesses"

The key to winning even in last edition was shooting, Orks themselves always needed shooting due to a low init.

The most successful ork lists in the last year of 5th were the ones run by Dugg and Alan B. Dugg used a mix of shootas and sluggas, in battlewagons, but little other shooting. Alan used nob bikers and slugga boyz. Saying orks needed shooting in 5th is simply untrue. It's true now though.

...However, everyone who is hating on assualts saying "they actively want GW to ruin their tactics are sadly saying that when everything is said and done and for "all the tactics" they can't handle someone staying true to the course and charging in. It's always been a balancing act and in my opinion with so many people focused on shooting like you are saying" it actually only helps assault armies now. I know of very few armies which could handle the a swarming nid guant board while tervogons make them FNP and Carnies coming in from behind because rather than prepare for eventualities they are going hardcore gunlines.

I don't think assault will go completely away, and someone will catch an opponent from time to time. However, I think that saying that "staying true" or whatever will actually help you with unprepared opponents doesn't really consider what this means. Transports are weaker now than before. They can no longer protect people's troops indefinitely, and even if they survive, the troops have to get out to play with objectives at some point. This means that (in my group, at least), we're seeing an increase in anti-infantry weapons and a slight reduction in anti-vehicle guns. Someone actually took a heavy bolter team in a game last weekend, something I hadn't seen since the early days of 5th. Assault infantry die to the same weapons that shooting infantry die to. This isn't like the meta shift from foot to mech (or back again). Not being prepared for an assault unit means not having a counter-assault unit? Doesn't matter if the assault unit dies to shooting. The example you give, of swarming gaunts, isn't really a weakness to assault, it's a weakness to hordes. But, with the meta shift away from mech units, I think we'll see more guns on the tabletop in general, and more bolters will handle hordes just fine.

Writing this off as "hating on assaults" is stupid. I'm not hating assaults, I'm making reasoned arguments based on experience. (More on this later)

Versatility has shifted, Shooters complained that assualters lacked tactics and now Assualts will declare shooters lack tactics. Both sides are right without versatility they are both two extremes and neither side is more clever or logical in the 41st millenium.

Well, actually, shooters are right in 6th. Because an all-shooty army can actually kill fliers, whereas an assault-only army is going to be an auto-lose to any flyer-heavy force.

So please try and be less smug about army weaknesses or the impact it is having on players and realize these people spend hundreds of dollars on their hobby it isn't unfair for them to want gratification from the investment. Regradless of how my comments are spun these are the true motives of my posts.

Fair honest reviews of the changes and impacts. And someone who KNOWS what the hurdles orks now face are as opposed to wild made up issues. Please don't speak about an army's weakness unless you know it inside and out in the first place. It's aggravating; it would be like saying the weakness of marines if their armor save of 3+ now in this edition or the fact that they have rapid fire guns those aren't weaknesses.

I don't know why you choose to use the word smug, and trust me, I understand how much people spend on this game and how they want their armies to work. Unfortunately, I also realize that GW writes rules only slightly more competently than a room full of drunken chimpanzees, and that while we want everything to work, we rarely get it.

I also would venture to say I know orks inside and out. Not to brag or anything, but I've got over 20,000 points of them painted, and I've both won tournaments, and finished in the top-10 of multiple GTs with them, both in 4th and 5th ed. Don't make the mistake of assuming that people who don't agree with you don't know what they're talking about. The issues I mention aren't wild made-up issues, they're the new reality, and that means that we need to adjust to this new reality (even if that means switching to shooty orks). From 4th to 5th (and the old ork codex to the new one), I made adjustments - I switched from a Kult of Speed army to an all-foot army, and kept winning. When the rules change, you examine what changed, and make adjustments (well, if you want to play competitively). Saying the sky isn't blue doesn't help that process.

Anyway - I'll leave you with a thought exercise. (And, yes, I realize that this isn't a real-game example, it's just an exercise). One that will illustrate how no one change really screwed the assault army, but how the combination of a lot of small changes did. Imagine, if you will, a table that has no difficult terrain, no LOS blocking terrain, but a cover save no matter where you are (call it fog). And then run through a simple engagement between a unit of ork slugga boyz (w/ pk nob), against an equal point value of Tau Firewarriors, starting 36 inches apart with the orks going first. Do this under both 5th and 6th rulesets and you should get a good idea of how the changes work together. When I do this under 5th ed rules, the orks consistently make it into combat with about 10-12 boyz left and can combi-charge and beat the tau. When I do it under 6th rules, the orks are lucky if more than a couple get into combat, they can't multi-charge, and even if they beat the first firewarrior unit, the second guns them down.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:


I also would venture to say I know orks inside and out. Not to brag or anything, but I've got over 20,000 points of them painted, and I've both won tournaments, and finished in the top-10 of multiple GTs with them, both in 4th and 5th ed. Don't make the mistake of assuming that people who don't agree with you don't know what they're talking about. The issues I mention aren't wild made-up issues, they're the new reality, and that means that we need to adjust to this new reality (even if that means switching to shooty orks). From 4th to 5th (and the old ork codex to the new one), I made adjustments - I switched from a Kult of Speed army to an all-foot army, and kept winning. When the rules change, you examine what changed, and make adjustments (well, if you want to play competitively). Saying the sky isn't blue doesn't help that process.

Anyway - I'll leave you with a thought exercise. (And, yes, I realize that this isn't a real-game example, it's just an exercise). One that will illustrate how no one change really screwed the assault army, but how the combination of a lot of small changes did. Imagine, if you will, a table that has no difficult terrain, no LOS blocking terrain, but a cover save no matter where you are (call it fog). And then run through a simple engagement between a unit of ork slugga boyz (w/ pk nob), against an equal point value of Tau Firewarriors, starting 36 inches apart with the orks going first. Do this under both 5th and 6th rulesets and you should get a good idea of how the changes work together. When I do this under 5th ed rules, the orks consistently make it into combat with about 10-12 boyz left and can combi-charge and beat the tau. When I do it under 6th rules, the orks are lucky if more than a couple get into combat, they can't multi-charge, and even if they beat the first firewarrior unit, the second guns them down.

Like i said, even though i used your quotes it wasn't directed at you persay as it was more at others ... which i choose not to yell at since everyone takes something personally. Suffice to say this was a generalization to people who reallyt needed to understand that they're comments are meaner than they realize. You're a Mod i wouldn't yell at you unless i wanted to anger the gods I would just remain silent and form my own opinions and address them with others if i was concerned, which I am not in the least you are a even handed person.

However I think your comments aren't incredibly valid, if it were 1 squad sure, and if it's foot orks sure, and if their were no kff sure. However, BS 3 and st 5 even out of ABOUT 50% lethality. Considering 12 tau firewarriors is only 120 pts before upgrades you are correct in assuming that at this point the tau should be able to wipe the eqvuilent, they always have been able to do this. considering that is only 20 orks with no other rules to help even them out

Battlewagons + shoota boyz + assualting out however is 230 pts and could easily wipe those points with no casualties, the more complex you get the more complex the answer. Suffice to say foot orks aren't invulnerable as they were due to shooting being so focused now not because of cover again. because a fog as you described it is irrelevant to KFF + Runs + 1 round of shooting befor charging at a near point blank range. But what is simpler to do is a battle wagon rushing foreward 25 inches first round moving 7 the next piling out 6 and near garanteed assualts even if you blew it up round 1 due to waaagh and a prudent player waaaghing. The problem is too complex to really know other than this simple rule of thumb "if you think you understand it, you probably don't understand all the variables that cang change the battle plan." I'd agree an completely new ork play without using KFF, or battlewagons and just realizing the rudimentary ability of cover is in for a world of hurt, the same could be said of someone who walks toward the enemy as eldar shooting, it isn't something you are suppose to be doing.

I'm boiling this whole post down to "I don't think i could confidently state the things you just did, a enemy dead set on assualt and armed with the best ways to do it with their codex won't be impeded by a edition change. they will still assualt and still in my mind be tactical enough. because assualts are not just about standing behind an Aegis defense line and making sure you have plenty of LOS and weighing your options as they come due to changing LOS and enemy squad strength. their priorities are where to hit and receive the least retribution, what squads will require your army to widdle it down before engaging, Which threats were to be avoided (such as high init, multi-attack, and ap 4 weaponry). It's frustrating when people don't see the thinking side of their oppositions tactics. Just because I bum rush you doesn't mean i didn't plan for the battle 3 rounds past of the charge to let the rest of my army approach now unmolested.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

The game measures certain skills. Application of assets, resource management, target priority, and basic movement, tactics and strategies.

Being able to gauge 6" is not one of those skills, and should be lumped in with all the other skills that aren't measured in wargaming. Like, ability to throw darts or curl your tongue. It has absolutely zero bearing on your ability as a player.

I am in complete agreement with this statement. I like premeasuring (what a stupid term, why not just call it measuring). I'm not a big fan of random charge lengths, and don't believe that they're necessary to compensate for measuring either.

We have these guys, see, and they've got laser weapons that can fire roughly 48 yards (24", where 1" = 2 yards based on a 28mm scale). And, they know, with absolute certainty that their shot will be useless at 49 yards, but might hit something at 48 yards (BTW, American Civil War muzzle-loading guns were effective to a range of about 500 yards, roughly ten-times as useful as a lasgun's range in this game - and they still relied on bayonette charges, so don't let anyone tell you that it's foolish to carry a sword in a universe where a laser loses all stopping power in 48 yards.) - anyhow, so we have these guys who know with absolute certainty that they cannot hit something 49 yards away. And this certainty, of being able to tell the difference between 48 and 49 yards doesn't ruin the game or detract from "the excitement", yet, when you go to charge, our super-human warriors with 200 years of experience are going to fall to the uncertainty of not knowing whether they can cover four yards or twenty-four yards, and this is meant to be fun and add excitement.

Watching professional athletes run over open ground, they're remarkably consistent at how fast they can run a few yards. And, non-super-human athletes can cover 40 yards in 4-5 seconds. Consistently and repeatedly. So the idea that our super soldiers, running over open ground, couldn't consistently make it twelve yards (6") on a charge is ridiculous. If it's not detrimental to the game to allow the guy with the laser weapon to know, with certainty, that at 24 yards he can hit twice, and at 49 yards he can't hit at all, then it shouldn't be detrimental to the game to allow the guy with the chainsword to know that he can run ten yards in a couple of seconds (a fairly conservative range based on real-world speeds.)

So much of this.

I love measuring, was good at eyeballing it, and consider random charges in a meassuring setting unessesary.