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 hearing alot of complaints about people being to easily tabled and assault armies not able to do enough damage by the time they make it into combat.

Here is my simple solution that I plan on testing this weekend to see how well it works. All units have double their usual number of wounds. No other changes.

Or just make assault-oriented units cheaper, because they are ineffective.

Hrmm, I think straight doubling is a little crazy, as some things like rhinos/razorbacks seems a little too tough as is.

My biggest complaint about assault armies having limited effectiveness is the falling back mechanic. I'm not against it existing, I just think it shouldn't automatically pass and go unchallenged.

The things that make assault units ineffective this time around, to my mind, are archaic pricing assumptions about power weapons/fists, progressive weakening of grenades as anti-armour weapons, loss of the +1A charge bonus, and loss of Sweeping Advance.

If you wanted to throw a wild blanket buff across all units and all armies that was going to actually address the issue +1 Attack to everyone/everything would probably have more effect.

(Addendum: As to the possibility of using "double all Wounds" to counter ranged alpha strikes generally I'd rather see "blast" weapons converted from random shots over to the Conversion Beamer model (one powerful shot, a random number of weak shots if the attack hits) to avoid the dice-spike problem and a general re-pricing of some of the wildly underpriced artillery that's floating around, rather than doubling all Wound counts and making a huge chunk of weapons unplayably bad.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The things that make assault units ineffective this time around, to my mind, are archaic pricing assumptions about power weapons/fists, progressive weakening of grenades as anti-armour weapons, loss of the +1A charge bonus, and loss of Sweeping Advance.

If you wanted to throw a wild blanket buff across all units and all armies that was going to actually address the issue +1 Attack to everyone/everything would probably have more effect.

(Addendum: As to the possibility of using "double all Wounds" to counter ranged alpha strikes generally I'd rather see "blast" weapons converted from random shots over to the Conversion Beamer model (one powerful shot, a random number of weak shots if the attack hits) to avoid the dice-spike problem and a general re-pricing of some of the wildly underpriced artillery that's floating around, rather than doubling all Wound counts and making a huge chunk of weapons unplayably bad.)

You left out the biggest one: cheap screens that cover entire deployment zones.

Consequence free fall back is the problem here, either make it fail half the time, cause models to be slain on a 1 or both!

The fall back mechanic is fine, and melee is perfectly effective once you get into it. Shooting is too effective, but this is best fixed by using more terrain that are not ruins, and by using progressive scoring. That is, when objectives that can be scored on every turn. Nothing kills an assault army as much as open terrain and end-scoring.

The fall back problem is the biggest issue with all melee armies atm actually.

If I manage to outmaneuver my opponent to the point that I tie up multiple units of his he should not just be able to say "nope" and walk backwards (or in some cases forwards onto objectives) and shoot up my units with no penalty.

Its pretty ridiculous.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
The fall back problem is the biggest issue with all melee armies atm actually.

If I manage to outmaneuver my opponent to the point that I tie up multiple units of his he should not just be able to say "nope" and walk backwards (or in some cases forwards onto objectives) and shoot up my units with no penalty.

Its pretty ridiculous.

The fall back mechanic is not the biggest issue for melee armies atm. And I don't think it is ridiculous that you can fall back. Most of the times it comes with a significant penalty.

As an Ork player I definitely prefer the current system to what we had in 7th.

pismakron wrote:
The fall back mechanic is fine, and melee is perfectly effective once you get into it. Shooting is too effective, but this is best fixed by using more terrain that are not ruins, and by using progressive scoring. That is, when objectives that can be scored on every turn. Nothing kills an assault army as much as open terrain and end-scoring.

I can agree that fall back is not as huge a problem as it seems and melee is definitely more powerful this edition, but they are completely different scales when compared to each other and shooting remains undisputed king. I think peoples main problem with the fall-back mechanic is that they spend so long trying to get there losing models that when they actually reach melee, they don't have sufficient models to tie up a gun line effectively so fall back moves turns what should be a temporary respite into a counter tactic that is effective for you with no real planning required. If there was some middle ground to fall back, such as that it is done on some opposed check, that it causes casualties for the falling back unit or even if the enemy unit got some sort of follow-up or consolidation move to turn it into a tactical gamble rather than a get out of jail free card, it would balance out the difference in the two combat methods.

Assault armies do absolutely fine. You just have to assault as an army, not as a few units.

Being the tabling edition has nothing to do with assault and everything to do with how much offense is up across the board.

pismakron wrote:
The fall back mechanic is not the biggest issue for melee armies atm. And I don't think it is ridiculous that you can fall back. Most of the times it comes with a significant penalty.

As an Ork player I definitely prefer the current system to what we had in 7th.

What is this 'significant penalty' you speak of?

A unit charges enemy unit:
Case 1: enemy unit is not finished off > enemy unit falls back > my unit gets lit up by other enemy units
Case 2: Enemy unit is finished off > my unit gets lit up by other enemy units

Assault is risky whether you successfully fought or not.

Charged units should be locked in combat until the end of subsequent shooting phase at the basic-most least.

I would say that the tabling problem and the ineffectiveness of assault are two separate problems. The tabling is due to the lack of efficiently durable units in some armies, and the game encouraging tabling I’m general. The assault problem is different for each army: orks have problems delivering assault units, GK just don’t have very point-efficient melee options, CWE just don’t hit very hard, etc.

Am I alone in thinking that Turn 1 should not, in any way, be a decisive turn?

The damn game just started - Turn 1 should be more about preliminary bombardments and maneuvering, not make-or-break.

M.

The falling-back penalty is that, barring special rules, the unit cannot shoot or assault. So, for most things in the game, falling back penalizes the unit by removing it's ability to do anything for a whole turn.

It doesn't further penalize the player who fell back, but that's intentional. The assaulting player should be no better off for *not* finishing off the unit it charged - which is what the rules do.

Why should falling back have more of a penalty than it has now?

I'd love to see things not die as quickly. Things shouldn't be decided Turn 1. The old P1 Deploys -> P2 Deploys, -> P1 takes turn meant P2 could fully counterdeploy whatever P1 did. Turn 1 was still better most of the time, but it did help quite a bit.

Falling back penalizes the enemy UNIT, but does not aid the assaulting unit at all with respect to the rest of the enemy list. With people fielding 40 pt units, only 2% of the enemy list is affected. Not exactly awe inspiring.

Khadorstompy wrote:
I'm hearing alot of complaints about people being to easily tabled and assault armies not able to do enough damage by the time they make it into combat.

Here is my simple solution that I plan on testing this weekend to see how well it works. All units have double their usual number of wounds. No other changes.

Wouldn't it be easier to half the number of attacks?

Seriously, over the years the number of attacks models makes has been going up and up. While all that dice rolling scratches an itch of "doing something", it has made things in the game a bit too killy. If you lower the number of attacks, things will live a little longer.

I just wish that it was possible to inflict other effects onto models like pinning/suppression (from Bolt Action), or setting enemies aflame - or blinding them, or entangling/slowing them. That way, even if you don't outright kill the enemy with shooting or melee, it doesn't feel like you are wasting your time - if you could hinder or temporarily neuter an opponent in ways other than removing their models from the board completely, it'd feel like a victory.

Stormonu while it would be nice to have such tools tactically, as a general rule of games in general its not a good idea to take away control of another players army. It leaves a bad feeling.


Your right about the attacks thing though. More models, more attacks, more damage on weapons, and only minor increases in survivability (wounds were increased on characters, monsters, and vehicles).

Great for GW since players have to buy more stuff, but it makes the game feel like a point and click to delete units type thing.

 Infantryman wrote:
Am I alone in thinking that Turn 1 should not, in any way, be a decisive turn?

The damn game just started - Turn 1 should be more about preliminary bombardments and maneuvering, not make-or-break.

M.

Turn 1 should be as important as any other turn; those early movesments and such are important.

But I do share your concern that turn one should really be a stage where you can start to destroy large chunks of your opponents army. Turn one devastation works in a game like Magic the Gathering because, lets face it, if you die on turn 1 you can restart the game in a matter of a minute. Warhammer it takes longer, esp if you want to change something or go for different terrain.

I find that more terrain that blocks LoS and actually affords cover bonus as well as proper choice of deployment zones and where to deploy in them can have a huge impact on first turn results.

Though with table sizes and ranges being what they are I think the 2nd player should get a +1 fog of war bonus to their saves on turn one only on any shooting outside of 12".

Would mostly love to see first blood dropped altogether and replaced with a "wipe them out, all of them" bonus where tabling your opponent only gets you that +1 VP rather than an instant win. Tabling would just end the game, and if you were playing the scenario the destroyed player could still achieve victory.

ITC already uses first strike instead of first blood.

The -1-to-hit or +1-to-saves on top-of-one outside 12" is a very interesting idea. In general, some way to make Turn 1 not be so OP would be great.

Between alternating deployment meaning you can't fully counterdeploy the person who's likely to go first, and you can't even put tanks out of LOS if you don't want to give them -1 to hit when they first shoot, it's a lot harder to counterdeploy than it was in 7th.

Some nasty rule to make T1 much less effective at killing things would make it better.

What would y'all think of this:

-Roll off on who chooses who goes first: First player then fully deploys first (as per 7E rules)
-On Top of 1
--All shooting attacks are at -1 to-hit
--All charges are on d6, not 2d6

Now, T1 would still be usefull. You'd still be able to kill some things, and you'd have an extra turn to move and advance. But your ability to wipe out large portions of P2's army is reduced. Plus, P2 was allowed to counterdeploy.

Alternately, what about this rule?:
-At the start of the top of turn 1, player 2 may take one movement phase

This would be insteaed of all of the above. So even if p2 can't counterdeploy, they can then try to reposition a bit to survive. And, if they're an assaulty army, they can close some of the gap before the first turn of shooting.

No reason to nerf charges. Assault is already garbage.

That was specific to "top-of-1" charges - specifically, when you charge before the opponent is allowed to do *anything* (aside from bubblewrap).

Bottom-of-1 and later charges would be unaffected. Assault in general needn't be nerfed, obviously. But Top-of-1 charges are just as stupid as Top-of-1 shooting things off the board.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In more detail - while that does make things worse for the few things that make top-of-1 charges, most CC armies would benefit. Green Tide, for example, isn't likely to be making very many top-of-1 charges, but now takes a lot more dakka before it moves (if it goes second).

The BAs that start on the board are now a lot harder to shoot off if you go second, so they're more likely to get to charge later in the game.

It doesn't stop Infiltrating Zerkers cold, but hurts them. Is that a bad thing, though?

 Overread wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
Am I alone in thinking that Turn 1 should not, in any way, be a decisive turn?

The damn game just started - Turn 1 should be more about preliminary bombardments and maneuvering, not make-or-break.

M.

Turn 1 should be as important as any other turn; those early movesments and such are important.

But I do share your concern that turn one should really be a stage where you can start to destroy large chunks of your opponents army. Turn one devastation works in a game like Magic the Gathering because, lets face it, if you die on turn 1 you can restart the game in a matter of a minute. Warhammer it takes longer, esp if you want to change something or go for different terrain.

Maneuver can still be important, but if I am deleting 20% of the opponent's army...eh.

M.

Martel732 wrote:
ITC already uses first strike instead of first blood.

Which doesn't have anything to do with tabling opponents. I think removing auto-win for tabling your opponent and relegating it to the same benefit as first blood would lessen the blow so to speak. Tabling would then reduce your chance to score VP's by reducing the amount of game turns, and never be a guarantee of victory.

A tabled opponent automatically loses any eternal war scenario; but I guess that could be overcome in maelstrom? I don't know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
That was specific to "top-of-1" charges - specifically, when you charge before the opponent is allowed to do *anything* (aside from bubblewrap).

Bottom-of-1 and later charges would be unaffected. Assault in general needn't be nerfed, obviously. But Top-of-1 charges are just as stupid as Top-of-1 shooting things off the board.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In more detail - while that does make things worse for the few things that make top-of-1 charges, most CC armies would benefit. Green Tide, for example, isn't likely to be making very many top-of-1 charges, but now takes a lot more dakka before it moves (if it goes second).

The BAs that start on the board are now a lot harder to shoot off if you go second, so they're more likely to get to charge later in the game.

It doesn't stop Infiltrating Zerkers cold, but hurts them. Is that a bad thing, though?

Top of 1 charges just hit meaningless targets usually. Top 1 shooting hits whatever the shooter wants. But sure.

Khadorstompy wrote:
I'm hearing alot of complaints about people being to easily tabled

This is usually fun for no-one.
Terrain so an army is not shot off the board is a good start (making use of it is another).
Deep strike is a thing: if you cannot see it, you cannot kill it.
Keep in mind the good old "rock-paper-scissors", use the most appropriate unit for killing the other.
Troop transports actually are a bit tougher now so they could actually deliver their payload alive.

and assault armies not able to do enough damage

That really depends on your target.
Berserker marines have a scary amount of attacks for instance.

by the time they make it into combat.

Again, it depends on how you shelter that unit prior to assaulting.

Here is my simple solution that I plan on testing this weekend to see how well it works. All units have double their usual number of wounds. No other changes.

I have a friend where he plays Orks.
He would LOVE your suggestion.
He would happily take Slugga Boyz, 30 guys with 2 wounds and pretty much impervious to morale...ouch.
The "simple" solution is typically finding a way for them to minimize exposure to enemy shooting which again was outlined earlier.
You start adding extra wounds just because the guy is loaded with close combat weapons would break the "realism" , never mind may dramatically increase the "deal" for points vs. capability.

Depends on the army. Top of 1 shooting won't hit big guns that start out of LOS then move into LOS on their turn. Or things out of range.

Top of 1 charges aren't against chaff in armies without chaff. Personally, I"m not a big fan of all armies needing to use something as chaff, myself. Makes sense for IG, but not SM or CWE.

"Personally, I"m not a big fan of all armies needing to use something as chaff, myself. Makes sense for IG, but not SM or CWE."

It's 8th ed, you don't have a choice. Plasma scions alone make it almost mandatory. You have to push those deep strikes out as far as possible. And alpha legion berserkers.

Why do you think I find marines so bad this edition? CWE can throw away 8 ppm, I have to throw away 11 ppm. And CWE have better huba-joobs. As usual.