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.

Debating on grounds of realism in a game of psychics, daemons, men that can take cannon shells to the face and generally defying physics in every which-way, always + +

If you are debating melee being "dumb" in 40k . . . have you stopped to ponder the fact that 40k is futurisitc fantasy? It isn't sci-fi by a long shot and has as much to do with reality as LoTR and Snow White.

Assault hasn't been nerfed so much as it is now on a level playing field with shooting. At least in my experience, you now have to think about who and how you want to charge. I would not say assault is dead, by any means, it's just riskier then it was in the last editions. While I still miss the 4th ed consolidate into another unit, it meant that the second your squads hit a tightly packed IG or Tau or even Eldar gunline, the game was over. Now, at least it seems, shooty armies now have a chance to do some damage to an assault unit in the " assault phase" rather than just getting completely wiped.

Did you miss the part where 5th edition was completely dominated by shooting armies?

 Fafnir wrote:
Did you miss the part where 5th edition was completely dominated by shooting armies?

^

 Fafnir wrote:
Did you miss the part where 5th edition was completely dominated by shooting armies?

Not at all. I do kind of miss "Nidzila though. Oh wait, no I don't!

 Fafnir wrote:
Did you miss the part where 5th edition was completely dominated by shooting armies?

I remember space wolves spamming long fangs, also GK which is a mid range shooting army, and Nercons, which is a shooting army, also IG, which is a shooting army.

Codex release scheduled does not make the edition shooting heavy. 5th was the edition of metal boxes.

If anything, forgetting that 6th gave larger charge ranges, impact hits, and various rules helping charge range rolls, it seems very balanced between shooting and melee.

 juraigamer wrote:

If anything, forgetting that 6th gave larger charge ranges, impact hits, and various rules helping charge range rolls, it seems very balanced between shooting and melee.

Unreliable charge distances, casualties from the front, Overwatch, Rapid Fire changes, not charging out of stationary vehicles and a whole host of other nerfs disagree with your assessment.

Honestly, I can't see any intelligent reason to actively move towards an assault other than tarpitting anymore.

Being able to do well in assault is a nice little bonus now. That's it.

 juraigamer wrote:
Codex release scheduled does not make the edition shooting heavy. 5th was the edition of metal boxes.

If anything, forgetting that 6th gave larger charge ranges, impact hits, and various rules helping charge range rolls, it seems very balanced between shooting and melee.

I think the huge ass list posted just one page ago (here) disagrees with you.

Yes, it was edition of metal boxes, shooting metal bawkses.

I don't know what you mean in the "release schedule" part. Even armies that supposed to be CC focused (SW, GK?) were known from incredible shooting capabilities.
Also, edition is not only the rulebook. The units themselves: their rules and pricing can make edition shooting no matter how good close combat is in base rules.
Shooting armies will be there after the edition shift. Shooting heavy in 5th will be shooting heavy in 6th. All the changes noted by Ailaros will only reinforce this.

What do you all suppose prompted these changes to the Assault phase? I'm wholly unfamiliar with it, but I heard that random charge lengths are also in WHFB. Is it as much of an issue in that system?

That doesn't account for the other unfavorable changes, though, and while I hope that as we get more updated codices these problems will disappear, they probably won't.

In fantasy the random charge distance is added onto the unit's base movement, which ranges from 3" (dwarfs) to 10" (fliers) and maybe more (daemons?). That means you have a potential charge of 15" for dwarfs, and are guaranteed to get 5".

40k your guaranteed charge is 2". As the gf would say, that's not very satisfying. Your mighty Space Marines run slower than a dwarf. That said, if you start 8 inches from the enemy, move then assault, you're guaranteed to get in, just don't shoot.

Of course fantasy is a melee game, where ranged units are generally overpriced, ineffective or prone to blowing up. Not that there's anything wrong with your warpfire thrower blowing up, best thing for it. 40k is a shooting game, where it is quite possible to fill every slot with a guy with a gun.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
In fantasy the random charge distance is added onto the unit's base movement, which ranges from 3" (dwarfs) to 10" (fliers) and maybe more (daemons?). That means you have a potential charge of 15" for dwarfs, and are guaranteed to get 5".

40k your guaranteed charge is 2". As the gf would say, that's not very satisfying. Your mighty Space Marines run slower than a dwarf. That said, if you start 8 inches from the enemy, move then assault, you're guaranteed to get in, just don't shoot.

Of course fantasy is a melee game, where ranged units are generally overpriced, ineffective or prone to blowing up. Not that there's anything wrong with your warpfire thrower blowing up, best thing for it. 40k is a shooting game, where it is quite possible to fill every slot with a guy with a gun.

Well my fantasy army is like 80+% shooty.... heck I lose once hand to hand starts.... of course have to hope the trees slow the enemy advance slow enough that they are dead before they get to charge. wood-elves are finesse, and hand to hand is like a hammer....

 60mm wrote:
have you stopped to ponder the fact that 40k is futurisitc fantasy? It isn't sci-fi by a long shot

Uuuhh, dude?... Sci-Fi is futuristic fantasy... Pretty much by definition.
Whoever told you that there's a difference between futuristic fantasy and sci-fi has deceived you... I'm sorry.

I'm happy to see shooting become more dangerous. In a game where everybody is packing heat, it was ridiculously under used before. People with swords running at people with guns are going to get shot. People with guns are going to take pot shots when they can. This is why 6th ed feels a little more organic and less mechanical.

 Archonate wrote:
Uuuhh, dude?... Sci-Fi is futuristic fantasy... Pretty much by definition.
Whoever told you that there's a difference between futuristic fantasy and sci-fi has deceived you... I'm sorry.

I disagree..
Science fiction vs futuristic fantasy.
The first is based on what could possibly, eventually, similarly look like to our future universe. The second is just any crap that comes to mind in futuristic setting.
SF has a big focus on technology itself, FF just uses it to tell a fantasy story.
Star Trek vs Wh40k. Those are not the same.

Close combat is much more viable in Wh40k than it is in our universe. Because it's not pure SF.

 Archonate wrote:

 60mm wrote:
have you stopped to ponder the fact that 40k is futurisitc fantasy? It isn't sci-fi by a long shot

Uuuhh, dude?... Sci-Fi is futuristic fantasy... Pretty much by definition.
Whoever told you that there's a difference between futuristic fantasy and sci-fi has deceived you... I'm sorry.

I'm happy to see shooting become more dangerous. In a game where everybody is packing heat, it was ridiculously under used before. People with swords running at people with guns are going to get shot. People with guns are going to take pot shots when they can. This is why 6th ed feels a little more organic and less mechanical.

Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possible worlds or futures.[2] It is similar to, but differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

For many users of the term, however, "science fantasy" is either a science fiction story that has drifted far enough from reality to "feel" like a fantasy, or a fantasy story that is attempting to be science fiction. While these are in theory classifiable as different approaches, and thus different genres (fantastic science fiction vs. scientific fantasy), the end products are sometimes indistinguishable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy

Your trying to deceive others aren't you heretic?

The game always should have been more shooting oriented (like it used to be). The fact that they moved away from that trying to make the game quicker by creating melee bloodbaths was always pretty silly.

6th Edition is really just 40K going back in the direction towards what it should be.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
The game always should have been more shooting oriented (like it used to be). The fact that they moved away from that trying to make the game quicker by creating melee bloodbaths was always pretty silly.

6th Edition is really just 40K going back in the direction towards what it should be.

Going back to melee-centric armies being worse by definition (never mind that they were behind as it was)? Yeah, that makes sense. /sarcasm

Especially when GW keeps trying to push tonnes of melee based characters and units.

There'd be no problem with 40k being a completely shooting oriented game, if GW actually treated it like one.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
The game always should have been more shooting oriented (like it used to be). The fact that they moved away from that trying to make the game quicker by creating melee bloodbaths was always pretty silly.

6th Edition is really just 40K going back in the direction towards what it should be.

Used to be? There was plenty of melee combat back in RT and 2nd edition, most of the worst Eldar combo's involved getting in your face, and beating it in.

 Archonate wrote:

 60mm wrote:
have you stopped to ponder the fact that 40k is futurisitc fantasy? It isn't sci-fi by a long shot

Uuuhh, dude?... Sci-Fi is futuristic fantasy... Pretty much by definition.
Whoever told you that there's a difference between futuristic fantasy and sci-fi has deceived you... I'm sorry.

Not a big reader I take it. The word "science" in sci-fi means it attempts to have as much plausible basis as possible. Hence the inclusion of the word scientific. Fantasy means the exact opposite, things that are entirely fantasy. As that word also implies directly. This is why it's sci-fi and no sci-fan. Fiction can be 100% plausible, so can fill the requirement of being science-fiction. Fantasy, however, cannot be scientific as it is literally opposite, based on the premise of tossing science out the window. Thinking sci-fi is fantasy is like asking for hot ice, or a silent musical.

40k is fantasy because it has demons, psychics, etc. It is futurisitic because it is in the future. It is furturistic fantasy. Science, and logic, have no place in 40k. If you do not believe me, consult a literature professor. You will hear the same thing.

Sorry, peeve of mine; confusing fantasy and science.

I'll agree that the game has certainly moved to a larger advantage to shooting. But I have had more games decided by assaults in 6th ed than haven't. Getting a squad of Honour Guard or Slaanesh Terminators into combat has decided quite a few battles.

People just seem to be fielding fewer "counter assault" units and that is opening the door for exploiting that weakness.