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.

So, in the first 6 games of 6th edition I've played, I've been tabled twice, and come within a hair's breadth of being tabled twice more. The first game, my opponent conceded at the top of turn 5 because he only had three models left on the board. That's 5 out of 6 games I've played. I was doing a little reasearch, and I actually noticed a lot more mentions of people getting tabled.

Back in 5th ed, tabling was really rare. I got tabled once, and I think I tabled twice in 36 games. Now, it seems like tabling is much, much more common.

I was wondering if anybody else has been seeing this, or if I'm just reading the tea leaves wrong.

If it is true, I wonder why. It seems to me like I've had a point early on, usually in turn 2, where some big event happened - a bunch of meltaguns shot at something that could destroy a big chunk of my army, or whatever - and the results of those couple of events sort of created a cascade effect that wound up with nothing left on the board.

I don't know, what do you think?

Tabling was never rare in 5e with my group, and it has continued to be fairly common in 6e. Not sure if more or the same or what. Anecdotal experience isn't a very good objective measurement.

Tabling was actually pretty common in my group for 5th. My own BA lists have been more focused on tabling than objective holding in both 5th and 6th.

chrisrawr wrote: Anecdotal experience isn't a very good objective measurement.

No, but I'm just trying to get a feel for what's going on. In this case, a few dubious data points are more useful than none at all.

Orblivion wrote: My own BA lists have been more focused on tabling than objective holding in both 5th and 6th.

Well yeah, in the case of BA, tabling seemed to be the best thing to go for before and now.

If tabling is somehow easier, does that mean more armies other than just BA should start to think about table armies rather than objective armies?

Hull points I think is the answer and overwatch seem to help a lot.

Had a game on monday and my 15 Komandos with 2 big shootas managed to kill a fire prism by just glancing it to death. Back in 5th they would have had no chance to kill it.

Overwatch and random charge also helps so far out of the 3 games I have played I have not managed to roll higher than 3 for charging! So my unit then just gets nuked the next turn.

I've definitely seen tabling more at my club. I've tabled one guy and came very close to tabling another out of the 6 or 7 games I've played so far. It definitely seems like stuff dies WAY faster this edition.

My last two games I had my opponents down to 3-6 models when the game ended and I've been nearly tabled myself at least twice.

I figured that would be the case before this edition came out. They want to speed up the game, more frequent tabling does that.

I've come close to tabling my opponent once this edition, and it was on turn 7 against Tau with my IG. One other time I tabled my opponent who had a small elite army and I had lots of Vindicators. It hasn't been more common than it was in 5th for me, but given the deadlier aspects of shooting I can see it happening more.

MrMoustaffa wrote: It definitely seems like stuff dies WAY faster this edition.

... and perhaps this is the simplest way to talk about what happened to foot guard. Playing an army that relies on attrition doesn't make sense in a world where everything dies so fast.

Anyways, another thing that I've also noticed skimming dakka is that a lot of people are conceding games compared to how they used to. In 5th ed, it always made sense to fight on to the bitter end for a chance of victory or at least a draw. What I've been noticing is that a lot of people are having games that are decided by the bottom of turn 3, and the losing player hobbles on to turn 5 and then gives up, either because they've been tabled, or because there's no chance whatsoever for victory. Personally, only 1 of my 6 games have made it all the way to the end.

Have people also been seeing an increase in the games where someone concedes at the end?

I've had a couple of games where the overall result was fairly obvious from turn 3 or 4, but we've played them out anyway to confirm secondary objectives.


The game definitely gets messier, faster. Quite a few of my 6th ed games, we've got to turn 3 and looked at the board and thought 'Really? Is it only turn 3...?'

I had a game not long ago where turn 2 was that turn of "really? We're already at that point?"

I felt bad because it was me on the giving end of that.

I think stuff like Over-watch, Hull Points, Snap shots and the new rapid fire rules means that more shots are being fired per turn and having greater effect. Because shooting occurs throughout the battle, while assaulting mainly toward the end, the improved shooting rules mean that more death occurs per turn. Although it could be argued that the weakened assault rules would balance this out, it's not the case, as the only units really used for assaulting are specialized for it and so either have the armour (termies) or the numbers (Orks) not to be too hardly effected by this. So overall, the considerably more killy shooting phase and the slightly less killy assault phase have given rise to more killy games, and if games are more killy, they'll also tend to lean toward tabling being the result.

What's tabling?

Wytefang wrote:
What's tabling?

You kill everything.

Shooting and assault both got massive buffs so it's to be expected really.

 Testify wrote:
Shooting and assault both got massive buffs so it's to be expected really.

hmm.. i wouldn't really consider assaults massivly buffed by any standards. Most say that it's been slightly nerfed. Assaults have been turned into a kind of the best beating all the rest, with good assault units getting much better, while ok and alright assault units getting worse.

 loota boy wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Shooting and assault both got massive buffs so it's to be expected really.

hmm.. i wouldn't really consider assaults massivly buffed by any standards. Most say that it's been slightly nerfed. Assaults have been turned into a kind of the best beating all the rest, with good assault units getting much better, while ok and alright assault units getting worse.

Average assault range went from 6" to 7", 10" when you include the pile-in which models in 5th did not get. It was 6" or nothing.

Also the +1 attack is universal, you do not have to be within charge range to get it. This benefits mobs hugely. Many large charges will have their attacks increased by up to 1/3.

I think assault players are just natural whingers

But they nerfed multi-assault, assaulting a flamer unit could be disastrous. Overwatch in general could be a deterrent. IC's can't be picked out of combat outside of challenges or precision shots (which neither existed previously, of course). Oh and the model to model/closest to farthest is both a bane and a boon.

The only real buff for assaulting I see is that jump units using their packs to assault into terrain are no longer penalized (short of dangerous terrain tests).

Multi assault is pretty rare and *usually* only happens one one very strong unit assaults multiple very weak units. I wouldn't say that the nerf to multi assault was really meaingful to the overall balance of the game. Multiple platoon infantry squads are still going to fold to assault marines.

The flamer rule is exagerated. It just means units composed entirely of flamers are unassaultable in numbers. And there are what, two of them in the game? If your assault unit is put off by 1 or 2 d3 S4 AP5 hits it probably wasn't very scary to begin with.

By contrast the +4" effective assault range of models is nearly always useful. Unless you're charging from very close (which is rare) you will get more models into the fight, much more often. This may well cancel out the nerf to multi-assault, I may run some numbers on that some time, or at least do some objective analysis.

Definitely anecdotal evidence but completely agree with there being more 'game changing/winning' moments in 6th - like when my opponent brought on their stormraven gunship in turn 2 and pretty much decimated my most effective units by turn 3. I feel like I had a lot closer games in 5th but not sure if this is an improvement or not. Certainly seem to get less draws which is probably an improvement, but going through the motions for 2 turns and pretending it's competitive is no fun

I think the game definitly leads itself to more tablings then previous editions.

This may be because errors are punished more severely, and its just easier to kill stuff now.

 Ailaros wrote:

MrMoustaffa wrote: It definitely seems like stuff dies WAY faster this edition.

... and perhaps this is the simplest way to talk about what happened to foot guard. Playing an army that relies on attrition doesn't make sense in a world where everything dies so fast.

Anyways, another thing that I've also noticed skimming dakka is that a lot of people are conceding games compared to how they used to. In 5th ed, it always made sense to fight on to the bitter end for a chance of victory or at least a draw. What I've been noticing is that a lot of people are having games that are decided by the bottom of turn 3, and the losing player hobbles on to turn 5 and then gives up, either because they've been tabled, or because there's no chance whatsoever for victory. Personally, only 1 of my 6 games have made it all the way to the end.

Have people also been seeing an increase in the games where someone concedes at the end?

You also have to keep in mind that quick to die thing goes both ways. Yes, my guardsmen die faster, but so does the enemy models. I've had games with nightfighting where I'm still knocking out 2 or 3 vehicles or picking off a good chunk of infantry. It feels like the first turn has a lot more damage being done, and a good alphastrike can decide the game before it even begins. It's part of the reason why I bring a lot of HWS's, they've been putting out punishing fire on that critical first turn. I feel like my army is doing far more damage in the opening turns of the game now.

Where i'm going with this is that the first and second turns appear to be deciding the match. Killing that rhino, knocking out that annihilation barge, running off that ork mob, seems to happen much earlier, and thus, events we usually didnt see till turn 4 or 5 are happening regularly on 2 or 3. Perhaps this has something to do with the whole tabling problem?

As for playing the game till the end, I've not seen people concede any more than normal. Those secondary objectives are a big help and can swing the game at the last second. I know I've seen it happen, especialy at the feast of blades event.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think the game definitly leads itself to more tablings then previous editions.

This may be because errors are punished more severely, and its just easier to kill stuff now.

This. My group had a small friendly tournament last weekend, 10 people who all did a match against all others. I tabled three players in nine matches, and only avoided it myself because St Celestine disagreed with the Space Wolf Rune Priest that tried to kill her in CC. Several others tabled opponents too.

Misjudge one thing and you're screwed, pure and simple. The Ork bike list (which did pretty well) got absolutely incinerated vs me because they messed up and turboboosted into my threat range. Have bad luck and you die - the IG threw 12 S6 shots and a S8 large blast at my Rhino for two turns straight and only managed two hull points. After that, barbeque. I misjudged the distance needed to avoid the SW, lost and almost got tabled.

 Testify wrote:
Multi assault is pretty rare and *usually* only happens one one very strong unit assaults multiple very weak units. I wouldn't say that the nerf to multi assault was really meaingful to the overall balance of the game. Multiple platoon infantry squads are still going to fold to assault marines.

The flamer rule is exagerated. It just means units composed entirely of flamers are unassaultable in numbers. And there are what, two of them in the game? If your assault unit is put off by 1 or 2 d3 S4 AP5 hits it probably wasn't very scary to begin with.

By contrast the +4" effective assault range of models is nearly always useful. Unless you're charging from very close (which is rare) you will get more models into the fight, much more often. This may well cancel out the nerf to multi-assault, I may run some numbers on that some time, or at least do some objective analysis.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, I was merely stating instances where assaults DID get nerfed compared to 5th. The magnitude does not matter, only the fact.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

MrMoustaffa wrote: It definitely seems like stuff dies WAY faster this edition.

... and perhaps this is the simplest way to talk about what happened to foot guard. Playing an army that relies on attrition doesn't make sense in a world where everything dies so fast.

Anyways, another thing that I've also noticed skimming dakka is that a lot of people are conceding games compared to how they used to. In 5th ed, it always made sense to fight on to the bitter end for a chance of victory or at least a draw. What I've been noticing is that a lot of people are having games that are decided by the bottom of turn 3, and the losing player hobbles on to turn 5 and then gives up, either because they've been tabled, or because there's no chance whatsoever for victory. Personally, only 1 of my 6 games have made it all the way to the end.

Have people also been seeing an increase in the games where someone concedes at the end?

You also have to keep in mind that quick to die thing goes both ways. Yes, my guardsmen die faster, but so does the enemy models.

This is definitely something to consider. I play my Tyranids as a horde army. I can put a lot of bodies on the table in even a 1000pt game. I assume foot Guard is the same? I heard they can put far more bodies down. In a 1000pt game, I can put down roughly 40 infantry, 7-8 mid sized specialised models (Hive Guard, Warriors, etc), and a couple of monstrous creatures. This army struggled to draw with my friends Dark Eldar in 5th edition. In 6th, with so many bodies, while they're easier to kill, it's easier for me to kill his Dark Eldar, and he has less.

Spetulhu wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:I think the game definitly leads itself to more tablings then previous editions.

This may be because errors are punished more severely, and its just easier to kill stuff now.

Misjudge one thing and you're screwed, pure and simple.

And, more importantly, have a single bit of bad luck and you're done. I mean, in my most recent game, I had three BS4 meltaguns shoot at a vehicle at point blank range. All 3 shots missed. Instead of being fine, that unit ate my entire right side and opened up the path for my opponent to place dudes on one of my objectives.

I feel like the margins have become razor thin in this edition. One mistake. One bad roll. One little thing wrong, and you're just done. You can continue to play the game out if you want, but the game's been decided, now it's just continuing to see if a table happens or not.

Testify wrote:Shooting and assault both got massive buffs so it's to be expected really.

I wouldn't use the word "buff" to talk about what happened to assault. I'd use the word "crucify".

With assault by anything that isn't terminators or on a flying chariot mostly rendered obsolete, it would make sense that...

Banzaimash wrote: So overall, the considerably more killy shooting phase and the slightly less killy assault phase have given rise to more killy games, and if games are more killy, they'll also tend to lean toward tabling being the result.

But if it's all about shooting, then...

MrMoustaffa wrote:a good alphastrike can decide the game before it even begins.

...even moreso than in 5th edition.

Something to think about...

I haven't noticed. But I'd say the games I witness have been decided by tabling for the last 4 years.

 Ailaros wrote:

I wouldn't use the word "buff" to talk about what happened to assault. I'd use the word "crucify".

With assault by anything that isn't terminators or on a flying chariot mostly rendered obsolete, it would make sense that...

How is assault less killy? Just because your guys die in 6th before they can get assaulted, doesn't mean everything does

From what I've read over the past month, I would saw the reason for these tablings is simple; bad list building. Namely, an inability to properly adapt. I think too many people are failing to adapt appropriately to 6th edition, and their 5th edition lists are getting hammered by the new black of 6th. TheCaptain's latest video is a good example of this.