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.

Testify wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Shooting's been the dominant theme since 3rd, not sure what you're on about. Similarly, Fantasy is melee-centric.

That's probably why tau were so dominant in 4th and BA and GK were so weak.

Tau were pretty good in 4th, and BA and Daemon Hunters were pretty weak.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Testify wrote:Sounds like fun to me
How did you get 18" charge range? Is that beasts or something?

6" movement + 2D6 Charge range, managed to get double 6 and got a clean charge in. Mostly was a desperation move to contest an objective.

I've managed that twice, once through cover. "Fleet" is an excellent rule in 6e, and makes charges over 6" pretty reliable.

Testify wrote:Does that alter assault being far more reliable than shooting?
I ask again, have you played any games in 6th? How many times have your assaults failed?

Of my four games so far, one was lost because I rolled a 4 when I needed a 5.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:You put Draigo out Front right? So he soaks up all the wound, okay, I flank around to the side, and hit the pals. They are closest so they have to take the wounds. Plus Draigowings are expensive points wise, so your on;y going to have 1-3 scoring units right? In an 1850 list I have 9-12 scouring units, even more if we're playing mission 3 and 4. I respect Draigowing its a tough list, but its not invincible.

What part of "suffer harshly" do you not understand?

Yes, if you manage to get behind them, you can do a fair bit of damage. But the point is that a decent Paladin player should be doing everything in their power to ensure that it comes at a very steep cost.

And for the record, every Paladin's a character, so there's still a 50% chance that any wounds you cause to the rear get diverted to wherever I want anyway.

Sephyr wrote:It's a bit funny how you can tell with 90% accuracy what army someone plays based on theur style and degree of support for GW in general and 6th Ed in particular.

Reinforcing Fafnir's point:

1-Necrons are absurdly full of nigh-impossible to counter builds in this edition, and that before you factor in the allies they can get. "Finding new tactics" is an easy word to throw around, but not everyone is IG to spam flyers to counter their dedicated-transport flyers, for instance.

I'll have to take your word for it, not having been able to get a game in against our local Necron players.

Sephyr wrote:2-Wound allocation shenanigans may actually be more of a pain in this edition with Look Out Sir, showing that GW is not really about 'shaking up those old internet lists'. Hell, some old boogeymen rule abuses like nob bikers seem poised to make a comeback, showing that there is no bug that can't be made into a feature.

The units that depend on wound allocation pay for it fairly. If Paladins and Nobs were unable to take advantage of the new Look Out Sir rules, they would be universally shelved as they would be wildly overcosted. As you said, this is now a feature and is hopefully here to stay.

Sephyr wrote:there is no strategic flaw involved in rolling a 3 for charge distance when you are 4 inches away from the target unit and then being vaporized as you sit there next turn.

Fafnir wrote:Of my four games so far, one was lost because I rolled a 4 when I needed a 5.

It's like anything else. If you've only got one melta-gun, and you fail to destroy that Landraider before it vomits assault terminators into your gun line, did you really win because of bad luck? Or because you only had one tool to do the job.

If you lost the game because you fluffed one charge roll, then you got outplayed. Why didn't you have two units in place to make that assault? Why didn't you have a jump unit there? Your opponent forced you to make a gamble, and you lost. That's not poor game design.

Sephyr wrote:4- As posed before, the warlord tables are amateur-level design. The odds of rolling a result that is useless (bonuses in ruins with no ruins on the table, Counterattack when you're a Space Wolf, offensive bonuses on a desencive HQ and vice versa, etc) while your oppinent actually gets some that is handy again require no skill or planning.

They're none of them game-changing abilities. They're just a little icing on the cake that you didn't even pay for.

Kaldor wrote:They're none of them game-changing abilities. They're just a little icing on the cake that you didn't even pay for.

Not true, not even remotely.

If your warlord gets Legendary Fighter, it can turn the game by itself. With the number of games being won by 1VP and First Blood (at least reported games - see battle report section), a general who can kill earn KP for killing enemy characters is pretty impressive. At worst, you have a model that will force your opponent to refuse all challenges. At best, you get extra KP that your opponent has no chance to earn.

Of course its only useful on a melee Warlord.


Big Meks, IG characters, Tau characters, and Eldar characters are going to find that trait practically useless.

Grey Templar wrote:Of course its only useful on a melee Warlord.


Big Meks, IG characters, Tau characters, and Eldar characters are going to find that trait practically useless.

Go Captain Obvious! But really, is a non melee character going to roll on the Personal Traits table to begin with?

The point isn't that it could be useless, more than half (probably closer to 60%) of them can be useless. It's that it can also be game breaking, as in, you get it, you have a far higher chance of winning that with any other. It gives one player an extra route to Victory Points than the other.

Kaldor wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Of my four games so far, one was lost because I rolled a 4 when I needed a 5.

It's like anything else. If you've only got one melta-gun, and you fail to destroy that Landraider before it vomits assault terminators into your gun line, did you really win because of bad luck? Or because you only had one tool to do the job.

If you lost the game because you fluffed one charge roll, then you got outplayed. Why didn't you have two units in place to make that assault? Why didn't you have a jump unit there? Your opponent forced you to make a gamble, and you lost.

And if those extra measures measures fail too, because of poor dice, does that also mean I was outplayed? Or should I, from now on, in order to ensure that I'm not "outplayed," only charge when I am within 2" from an enemy? Because that seems to be the only way to not be outplayed definitively with an assault.

That's not poor game design.

If you consider Yahtzee to be a fine game. I don't. In 6th edition, GW took an element of control, ie, gameplay away from the player that worked fine otherwise, and replaced it with random chance.

Furthermore, as emphasized by your own point, such design encourages redundancy, ie, spam, instead of well thought out, synergystic tactics.

Sephyr wrote:
They're none of them game-changing abilities. They're just a little icing on the cake that you didn't even pay for.

Plenty of them are game changing. Going up against Dark Eldar who can guarantee night fight? That's huge.

Fafnir wrote:And if those extra measures measures fail too, because of poor dice, does that also mean I was outplayed? Or should I, from now on, in order to ensure that I'm not "outplayed," only charge when I am within 2" from an enemy? Because that seems to be the only way to not be outplayed definitively with an assault.

How do you cope with the shooting phase then? I mean, all your dice could come up 1's and 2's.

Sometimes, you just get unlucky. Taking a game-losing gamble on a single charge-distance roll is not one of those times.

Furthermore, as emphasized by your own point, such design encourages redundancy, ie, spam, instead of well thought out, synergystic tactics.

I would say it encourages synergistic tactics. It requires you to have multiple ways of dealing with a problem, decide which problems are the most important and divert the most resources towards it. A certain amount of redundancy is always required in a list.

Kaldor wrote:

Fafnir wrote:And if those extra measures measures fail too, because of poor dice, does that also mean I was outplayed? Or should I, from now on, in order to ensure that I'm not "outplayed," only charge when I am within 2" from an enemy? Because that seems to be the only way to not be outplayed definitively with an assault.

How do you cope with the shooting phase then? I mean, all your dice could come up 1's and 2's.

Sometimes, you just get unlucky. Taking a game-losing gamble on a single charge-distance roll is not one of those times.

The thing is, every charge shouldn't be a game winning or losing gamble. There's a difference between using random elements as an RNG, but using it to replace player control then removes the influence of good or bad play. You're not outplaying your opponent at that point, you're outrolling them.

Furthermore, as emphasized by your own point, such design encourages redundancy, ie, spam, instead of well thought out, synergystic tactics.

I would say it encourages synergistic tactics. It requires you to have multiple ways of dealing with a problem, decide which problems are the most important and divert the most resources towards it. A certain amount of redundancy is always required in a list.

That's not synergy. If you're relying on every unit in your army to work together to achieve maximum efficiency, you can't do that when elements of your control are randomized.

Fafnir wrote:The thing is, every charge shouldn't be a game winning or losing gamble.

They're not. That part is up to you.

There's a difference between using random elements as an RNG, but using it to replace player control then removes the influence of good or bad play. You're not outplaying your opponent at that point, you're outrolling them.

On the contrary, a healthy dose of random elements gives players the opportunity to demonstrate good or bad play. Too many random elements, which the player has no chance to manage or mitigate, reduce the player input.

But random charge distance does not take it too far. It gives the player the ability to manage the weight of the risk (well, if I fail this charge it's not too bad, I've still put myself in a good position) as well as mitigate the chances of the risk (I need to make this charge, but I've managed to get nice and close to reduce the chances of failure, and I've got two units in position, and one of them is a jump unit)

It provides a mechanic that will reward careful and clever players, and punish careless players.

That's not synergy. If you're relying on every unit in your army to work together to achieve maximum efficiency, you can't do that when elements of your control are randomized.

It follows on the same principle as above. Too much random reduces player input. But introducing random elements that the player can work around gives an opportunity to reward good players. It encourages people to take synergistic lists that contain multiple different ways to solve multiple problems.

Fafnir wrote:The thing is, every charge shouldn't be a game winning or losing gamble. There's a difference between using random elements as an RNG, but using it to replace player control then removes the influence of good or bad play. You're not outplaying your opponent at that point, you're outrolling them.

I play Tyranids. I'd guess roughly 65% of my charges last edition were through cover, and I routinely saw everything from failing 2" charges to making 6" charges; it's the nature of rolling a lot of dice. Frankly, my assault army PREFERS the new random charges - it's got a broader range of results, and Fleet or Jump gives me greater reliability. No, it's not perfect reliability, but it's better than what I had before.

RxGhost wrote:"My fun is not your fun." I totally get, Lead-dude.

I'm not sure I understand this correctly but think this is not not what I wanted to say. It's "my fun and your fun are not exclusive as you seem to imply", "everyone would benefit from what I propse" or sth like that.

RxGhost wrote: I guess the lapse in my understanding is, from my point of view: think/plan/strategize elements can only come from me.

You need a proper environment for those. Crops give you limted options vs GO or chess.

RxGhost wrote:there's something in a victory of that uphill fight that just isn't the same in other places.

I like uphill battles but it's better to be able to set up an uphill battle than be forced to it by internal unbalance.

RxGhost wrote:If you want competition, truly want competition then you can't worry about a win or a loss. They won't ever HAVE meaning because they're meaningless. The only metric in competition that can matter is your own progress and how you grow and learn and face that next competitor...protip, it will probably be Ryu, everyone uses him.

Meaningless win or loss for me is the one that is not deserved. The game might have been 3 hours of narrative fun but that's it and would be better to have narrative fun game resolved by tactical decisions. I'm not saying that in 6th the former will be common but again, the direction is the problem imo - drama, tension, craziness - and with codieces or next edition the game might break.

Kaldor wrote:

Sephyr wrote:there is no strategic flaw involved in rolling a 3 for charge distance when you are 4 inches away from the target unit and then being vaporized as you sit there next turn.

Fafnir wrote:Of my four games so far, one was lost because I rolled a 4 when I needed a 5.

It's like anything else. If you've only got one melta-gun, and you fail to destroy that Landraider before it vomits assault terminators into your gun line, did you really win because of bad luck? Or because you only had one tool to do the job.

If you lost the game because you fluffed one charge roll, then you got outplayed. Why didn't you have two units in place to make that assault? Why didn't you have a jump unit there? Your opponent forced you to make a gamble, and you lost. That's not poor game design.

The problem is imo, GW added another element that forces you to make up for randomness. Add one, two more and the game breaks, or maybe not but why even take the direction - assuming assault really needed nerfing, are there no better ways to balance them? Like make me able to shoot into assault, with some risk maybe, or overwatch at -2 BS, top of my head and not my job but really, from reading posts I will soon come to conclusion that the rule is for drama, tension, balance and actualy benefits tactical play... is GW that good?

Kaldor wrote:

Sephyr wrote:2-Wound allocation shenanigans may actually be more of a pain in this edition with Look Out Sir, showing that GW is not really about 'shaking up those old internet lists'. Hell, some old boogeymen rule abuses like nob bikers seem poised to make a comeback, showing that there is no bug that can't be made into a feature.

The units that depend on wound allocation pay for it fairly. If Paladins and Nobs were unable to take advantage of the new Look Out Sir rules, they would be universally shelved as they would be wildly overcosted. As you said, this is now a feature and is hopefully here to stay.

Balance-wise (which is, I realise, what we're discussing here), that's fair enough; in games mechanics terms, it's a very inelegant and dice-heavy solution. I'm not sure I wouldn't rather have seen wound-allocation shenanigans remain, and GW balance them by allowing all armies an equivalent 2-wound infantry type.

Kaldor wrote:

Fafnir wrote:And if those extra measures measures fail too, because of poor dice, does that also mean I was outplayed? Or should I, from now on, in order to ensure that I'm not "outplayed," only charge when I am within 2" from an enemy? Because that seems to be the only way to not be outplayed definitively with an assault.

How do you cope with the shooting phase then? I mean, all your dice could come up 1's and 2's.

Sometimes, you just get unlucky. Taking a game-losing gamble on a single charge-distance roll is not one of those times.

As has already been discussed, given that an average shooty unit rolls twenty dice to hit, not 2, the odds of failing utterly - which is precisely what a failed charge entails - are exceedingly slim, compared with the 1/12 odds of failing a charge of 3.5". Moreover, most shooty units have a range of 24", meaning that on a redundancy is easy to achieve 6' x 4' table through overlapping fields of fire; compare that with the 6+2D6 movement range of charging infantry. Moreover, unless your shooters are blazing away at something bearing down to assault or hose them next turn, the consequences of an unlucky round's firing are unlikely to be immediately fatal for the unit, compared with those of a failed charge which leaves your assault unit buggering about in the open at point blank range.

Finally, the greatest disadvantage I see to random charges is that it - ironically - discourages risk-taking; sensible, tactically-minded players will skulk their units around (premeasuring everything as they go), rather than getting stuck in and letting something 'cinematic' happen. There is, after all, nothing 'epic' about your squad of Berserkers/Banshees/whatever getting gunned down without ever having the chance to stike a blow simply because you whiffed a single die roll.

English Assassin wrote:There is, after all, nothing 'epic' about your squad of Berserkers/Banshees/whatever getting gunned down without ever having the chance to strike a blow simply because you whiffed a single die roll.

Yes.
No one is going to convince me that I'm having more fun by watching my Wyches-themed army fail charges and getting shot to pieces because of their 6+ armor save. Wait and get closer? Oh yeah, that works well with DE vehicles.

DE players waited a long time to have an updated codex, which was nicely balanced with advantages/disadvantages per unit. Now, I've seen the advantages taken away and the disadvantages even enhanced somewhat. And the fact that certain models weren't selling well getting buffed a little doesn't compensate; nor am I likely to buy them.

I quit Fantasy because 8th failed it's Ward save, and now I see elements I didn't like then incorporated into 40k. And please, no idiots telling me to do something else. I have a substantial money investment in this hobby. (if it helps you, imagine buying a new car and then the government pulls up the roads and tells you to off-road it instead, because it's more cinematic to view the countryside that way) (and I did quit for over a decade(?) once due to the switch from 1st to 2nd.)

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:

English Assassin wrote:There is, after all, nothing 'epic' about your squad of Berserkers/Banshees/whatever getting gunned down without ever having the chance to strike a blow simply because you whiffed a single die roll.

Yes.
No one is going to convince me that I'm having more fun by watching my Wyches-themed army fail charges and getting shot to pieces because of their 6+ armor save. Wait and get closer? Oh yeah, that works well with DE vehicles.

This also highlights a further problem with 6th edition's balance; the introduction of both random charges and overwatch penalise (and benefit) particular armies and units significantly more than others - Dark Eldar and Eldar are both a bit screwed by them, Marines aren't greatly affected thanks to their durability, and Orks and Guard both benefit from the fact that overwatch rewards massed firepower - without the necessary counterbalance of points values being recalculated. For that matter, the power weapon changes just made terminators much better, without any change in their points cost; were too pricey in 5th (well, yes they were) or are they too cheap now (possibly)? Whichever answer is correct, the only conclusion is that GW's points costs are embarrassingly badly-calculated.

Phanatik wrote:

English Assassin wrote:There is, after all, nothing 'epic' about your squad of Berserkers/Banshees/whatever getting gunned down without ever having the chance to strike a blow simply because you whiffed a single die roll.

Yes.
No one is going to convince me that I'm having more fun by watching my Wyches-themed army fail charges and getting shot to pieces because of their 6+ armor save. Wait and get closer? Oh yeah, that works well with DE vehicles.

DE players waited a long time to have an updated codex, which was nicely balanced with advantages/disadvantages per unit. Now, I've seen the advantages taken away and the disadvantages even enhanced somewhat. And the fact that certain models weren't selling well getting buffed a little doesn't compensate; nor am I likely to buy them.

I quit Fantasy because 8th failed it's Ward save, and now I see elements I didn't like then incorporated into 40k. And please, no idiots telling me to do something else. I have a substantial money investment in this hobby. (if it helps you, imagine buying a new car and then the government pulls up the roads and tells you to off-road it instead, because it's more cinematic to view the countryside that way) (and I did quit for over a decade(?) once due to the switch from 1st to 2nd.)

Regards,

Preach it!

IMO the whole GW emphasis on "cinematic," "narrative" play is out of place. If I want to play a "cinematic," "narrative" game, I can (and do, for that matter) play D&D. I didn't get into 40K to be "cinematic" or "narrative," and I resent being told by GW fanboys that if I don't jump on that bandwagon I'm a whiner/quitter/whatever.

Have you considered playing earlier editions with like-minded players (if any are available for play)? To me, that's the best response to this situation. Personally I'd prefer to go back to 3rd.

Redbeard wrote:
Not true, not even remotely.

If your warlord gets Legendary Fighter, it can turn the game by itself. With the number of games being won by 1VP and First Blood (at least reported games - see battle report section), a general who can kill earn KP for killing enemy characters is pretty impressive. At worst, you have a model that will force your opponent to refuse all challenges. At best, you get extra KP that your opponent has no chance to earn.

Not true, not even remotely.

You do not have a model that will force your opponent to refuse all challenges. You only gain the victory point only if the warlord actually kills an enemy character in a challenge. This could be a completely useless ability. You could be fighting against an opponent who doesn't have a lot of characters to kill, or whose characters aren't easily killable in challenges (Swarm Lord graciously accepts challenge on behalf of the nation of Omnomnomica) or your warlord could be someone who simply isn't very good in combat and issuing a challenge to get a victory point could easily lead to the death of your army commander.

Look, I know the rulebook is big and there's a lot to read, but you're making a habit of grossly misrepresenting the books to serve your own opinion and it's gotta stop.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:Have you considered playing earlier editions with like-minded players (if any are available for play)? To me, that's the best response to this situation. Personally I'd prefer to go back to 3rd.

The number of warm bodies that play here is limited. They have all jumped onto 6th.

Regards,

RxGhost wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
Not true, not even remotely.

If your warlord gets Legendary Fighter, it can turn the game by itself. With the number of games being won by 1VP and First Blood (at least reported games - see battle report section), a general who can kill earn KP for killing enemy characters is pretty impressive. At worst, you have a model that will force your opponent to refuse all challenges. At best, you get extra KP that your opponent has no chance to earn.

Not true, not even remotely.

You do not have a model that will force your opponent to refuse all challenges. You only gain the victory point only if the warlord actually kills an enemy character in a challenge. This could be a completely useless ability. You could be fighting against an opponent who doesn't have a lot of characters to kill, or whose characters aren't easily killable in challenges (Swarm Lord graciously accepts challenge on behalf of the nation of Omnomnomica) or your warlord could be someone who simply isn't very good in combat and issuing a challenge to get a victory point could easily lead to the death of your army commander.

Look, I know the rulebook is big and there's a lot to read, but you're making a habit of grossly misrepresenting the books to serve your own opinion and it's gotta stop.

I lost a game solely through Legendary Fighter - a Tervigon can't refuse a challenge from St. Celestine (see game #3).

Legendary Fighter can, in fact, turn a game.

Yeah, it can.

But he could have just as easily have rolled a useless trait and you could have rolled an awsome one.

In that game the stars aligned for him thats all.

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, it can.

But he could have just as easily have rolled a useless trait and you could have rolled an awsome one.

In that game the stars aligned for him thats all.

Granted (although the number of traits that Tyranids actually like is fairly small). But RxGhost claimed that it was a "gross misrepresentation" to say that Legendary Fighter could turn a game. He's wrong.

RxGhost wrote:

Not true, not even remotely.

You do not have a model that will force your opponent to refuse all challenges. You only gain the victory point only if the warlord actually kills an enemy character in a challenge. This could be a completely useless ability. You could be fighting against an opponent who doesn't have a lot of characters to kill, or whose characters aren't easily killable in challenges (Swarm Lord graciously accepts challenge on behalf of the nation of Omnomnomica) or your warlord could be someone who simply isn't very good in combat and issuing a challenge to get a victory point could easily lead to the death of your army commander.

Look, I know the rulebook is big and there's a lot to read, but you're making a habit of grossly misrepresenting the books to serve your own opinion and it's gotta stop.

Actually he makes perfect sense. Suppose a CC beast like Abadon or Mepiston gets that warlord trait. At this point, the enemy can 1-Accept his challenges and pretty much always lose, surrendering an extra VP each time, or 2-Refuse all challenges, letting hi slaughter your squads while the most upgrades model sits aside doing nothing.

But hey, the enemy rolled for Acute Senses on outflanking units he doesn't have, so it's perfectly balanced, right?

Really.

Before ragging on people for supposedly getting lost reading a rulebook, you show try not to get lost reading someone else's paragraph.

Though we can argue all day about the relative merits of given warlord traits, it's pretty obvious that it's very easy for a good number of them to be contextually useless to a given list, and for a few of them to be overly potent in serendipitous circumstances. This is my problem with the system; there is no way to account for the imbalances that introduces to the game.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:IMO the whole GW emphasis on "cinematic," "narrative" play is out of place. If I want to play a "cinematic," "narrative" game, I can (and do, for that matter) play D&D. I didn't get into 40K to be "cinematic" or "narrative," and I resent being told by GW fanboys that if I don't jump on that bandwagon I'm a whiner/quitter/whatever.

Have you considered playing earlier editions with like-minded players (if any are available for play)? To me, that's the best response to this situation. Personally I'd prefer to go back to 3rd.

Ironically, I'd have welcomed a more thematic, more narrative-driven 40k, so long as the rules had been properly thought through with an eye towards balance, and (which is most important) were an optional extra for friendly games. Malifaux and Dark Age both demonstrate very well that it's quite possible to integrate weird environmental effects, story-driven scenarios and 'subplots' with a competitive game - GW, being GW, however, have created with 6th edition a half-arsed mess.

And yes, given the choice, I'd go back to 3rd edition (or even a lightly-errata'd 2nd), but since the number of 40k players in my group has sunk in the last year from ten down to three, I think I'll be shelving my space marines save for games of Space Hulk and proxying for Warpath.

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, it can.

But he could have just as easily have rolled a useless trait and you could have rolled an awsome one.

In that game the stars aligned for him thats all.

You've just confirmed his entire point about the excessive randomness of 6th.

1) Shooting has been dominant since 3rd. The only thing that distinguished armies was those that had the durability to take opposing shooting and not crumble during assault. Leafblower shot the hell out of other armies and had a wall of chimeras for armor. Grey Knights had great shooting and good defense.

2) Necrons are broken. They're not bad in CC, they have very good defense (sup MEQ profile with tons of invulnerable saves), and ridiculous mobility. Shooting is just a given.

I have a list that's built around landraiders delivering assault units. Yes, I play CSM with Khorne Berzerkers and Plague Marines. You can't kill Necrons fast enough to outlast their shooting. It's the truth of it.

Twiqbal wrote:1) Shooting has been dominant since 3rd. The only thing that distinguished armies was those that had the durability to take opposing shooting and not crumble during assault. Leafblower shot the hell out of other armies and had a wall of chimeras for armor. Grey Knights had great shooting and good defense.

2) Necrons are broken. They're not bad in CC, they have very good defense (sup MEQ profile with tons of invulnerable saves), and ridiculous mobility. Shooting is just a given.

I have a list that's built around landraiders delivering assault units. Yes, I play CSM with Khorne Berzerkers and Plague Marines. You can't kill Necrons fast enough to outlast their shooting. It's the truth of it.

I'm sorry but 3rd's rhino rush assault's with the ability to steamroll in assault pretty much proves you wrong on that account, 4th had skimmerspam as king in general, while assaults were worse compared generally to shooting, if a unit got into assault it often steamrolled through and pushed into more assaults, with the ability to kill half the army in one given turn well enough. 5th was Mechhammer, so assault based armies didn't really have a chance to shine here.

I play to have fun not be super competitive but I feel as though 6th has hurt my more fun play-style by adding in a whole new ass-load of random rules and changing all the things like weapons so now I have to memorize the main rulebook just to decided if i want to field a certain weapon in my army. I understand then wanting a more story driven game but come on, Space Marines train for hundreds of fething years and they can't swing an axe because it is unwieldy, that is just complete bs I mean seriously They are made for war and train nonstop with all weapons but can't even use an axe but nobody has any trouble with an axe in fantasy... WTF

I never had any trouble in 5th running my all melee lists or silly theme lists now I do...

It's kind of funny actually, you'd think it'd be power mauls that went through armour easier, what with that being what blunt weapons were originally designed for.

English Assassin wrote:... the greatest disadvantage I see to random charges is that it - ironically - discourages risk-taking; sensible, tactically-minded players will skulk their units around (premeasuring everything as they go), rather than getting stuck in and letting something 'cinematic' happen. There is, after all, nothing 'epic' about your squad of Berserkers/Banshees/whatever getting gunned down without ever having the chance to stike a blow simply because you whiffed a single die roll.

Florintine Mallorean wrote:I play to have fun not be super competitive but I feel as though 6th has hurt my more fun play-style by adding in a whole new ass-load of random rules and changing all the things like weapons so now I have to memorize the main rulebook just to decided if i want to field a certain weapon in my army. I understand then wanting a more story driven game but come on, Space Marines train for hundreds of fething years and they can't swing an axe because it is unwieldy, that is just complete bs I mean seriously They are made for war and train nonstop with all weapons but can't even use an axe but nobody has any trouble with an axe in fantasy... WTF

I never had any trouble in 5th running my all melee lists or silly theme lists now I do...

...the big paradox being the 6th edition as a cinematic/ narrative ruleset is kind of bad. Terminators fail their charge into unit shoting at them standing 6" away on the plain field, what happened? The mighty veterans of countless wars misjudged the distance? The towering power armored giant got his feet clenched between rocks? An avalanche, unexpected treefall, common cold? Did the charging orks stop having second thoughts about it? Is a deadly swarm just running into each other slowing their usual fast and coordinated attack? A 40k book based on the battle written by the 6th edition rules using BRB explanations would be ridiculous and sadly not in the good way.

+1 Plumbumbarum