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.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I still fail to see the OP's statement that the assault rules are broken. Risky? yes, for certain units. Broken? nope.

Because instead of being rewarded for killing/over killing a unit, you're punished by getting shot to death.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I still fail to see the OP's statement that the assault rules are broken. Risky? yes, for certain units. Broken? nope.

Broken isn't necessarily a good word to use. The situation is that being really good at killing, and having a unit perform well is actually a detrimental situation. The best performance does not produce the best result. In fact, it often produces a very BAD result.

Ideally, the best performance should produce a good result. Or at least an opportunity for a good result. If you wipe out a unit in combat, the result should be better than not wiping out that unit.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
So.....wait..... if we assumed to be adding the "consolidating into close combat" rules back in from 4th ed for my suggestion...your whole army is within 3"/D6" of each other and doesn't shoot the assault terminators before they get into close combat or ever move away from the Terminators or ever use overwatch?? That's what breaks the game?

The problem is that you're treating it like this combat is happening in isolation. What you actually have is multiple assault threats closing in from multiple directions and boxing you in with nowhere to run. Right now you can beat that situation by using screening units to buy more shooting time, but if you allow consolidating directly into combat you're going to start losing a lot more units to "free" charges and have a lot more threats locked in combat and immune to shooting.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
So.....wait..... if we assumed to be adding the "consolidating into close combat" rules back in from 4th ed for my suggestion...your whole army is within 3"/D6" of each other and doesn't shoot the assault terminators before they get into close combat or ever move away from the Terminators or ever use overwatch?? That's what breaks the game?

The problem is that you're treating it like this combat is happening in isolation. What you actually have is multiple assault threats closing in from multiple directions and boxing you in with nowhere to run. Right now you can beat that situation by using screening units to buy more shooting time, but if you allow consolidating directly into combat you're going to start losing a lot more units to "free" charges and have a lot more threats locked in combat and immune to shooting.

Which is effectively balanced out by the extra turn it takes to get into combat in the first place due to changes in 6th edition, and the overwatch ability.

rigeld2 wrote:
Instead of being rewarded for killing/over killing a unit, you're punished by getting shot to death.

Well, that's certainly realistic. Flamethrower operators, snipers and other exceedingly killy "can't do anything about them" units are often summarily executed by enemies that catch them.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
So.....wait..... if we assumed to be adding the "consolidating into close combat" rules back in from 4th ed for my suggestion...your whole army is within 3"/D6" of each other and doesn't shoot the assault terminators before they get into close combat or ever move away from the Terminators or ever use overwatch?? That's what breaks the game?

The problem is that you're treating it like this combat is happening in isolation. What you actually have is multiple assault threats closing in from multiple directions and boxing you in with nowhere to run. Right now you can beat that situation by using screening units to buy more shooting time, but if you allow consolidating directly into combat you're going to start losing a lot more units to "free" charges and have a lot more threats locked in combat and immune to shooting.

Which is effectively balanced out by the extra turn it takes to get into combat in the first place due to changes in 6th edition, and the overwatch ability.

No, it isn't. BS 1 does not = extra turn of shooting (plus you're taking away backpedal movement, some units could get two turns of shooting in by the rules. Most assault units are getting into CC exactly when they would have in 5th. Other than outflank charges what other common mode of getting into CC got nerffed?

Spetulhu wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Instead of being rewarded for killing/over killing a unit, you're punished by getting shot to death.

Well, that's certainly realistic. Flamethrower operators, snipers and other exceedingly killy "can't do anything about them" units are often summarily executed by enemies that catch them.

Ignoring realism (because your example is the opposite of mine) when I assault I hope I roll poorly during my turn - because if I do we'll and my opponent flees/dies, I've just lost a unit - essentially guaranteed.

That's broken. I should not hope for poor performance for any of my units ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobukia wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
So.....wait..... if we assumed to be adding the "consolidating into close combat" rules back in from 4th ed for my suggestion...your whole army is within 3"/D6" of each other and doesn't shoot the assault terminators before they get into close combat or ever move away from the Terminators or ever use overwatch?? That's what breaks the game?

The problem is that you're treating it like this combat is happening in isolation. What you actually have is multiple assault threats closing in from multiple directions and boxing you in with nowhere to run. Right now you can beat that situation by using screening units to buy more shooting time, but if you allow consolidating directly into combat you're going to start losing a lot more units to "free" charges and have a lot more threats locked in combat and immune to shooting.

Which is effectively balanced out by the extra turn it takes to get into combat in the first place due to changes in 6th edition, and the overwatch ability.

No, it isn't. BS 1 does not = extra turn of shooting (plus you're taking away backpedal movement, some units could get two turns of shooting in by the rules. Most assault units are getting into CC exactly when they would have in 5th. Other than outflank charges what other common mode of getting into CC got nerffed?

Turn 1 infiltrate assaults. Happened quite often for me, now it's impossible.

This isnt exactly a new thing. This has been a game "flaw" for 3 editions.....

 NoQuestionzAsked wrote:
This isnt exactly a new thing. This has been a game "flaw" for 3 editions.....

Right, and its getting worse - as someone said, 6th is significantly worse than 5th as far as assault power goes.

rigeld2 wrote:

That's broken. I should not hope for poor performance for any of my units ever.

Again, realism is a silly card to play, but I'll bite. Over extension and isolation by momentum has been a fundamental concern of commanders since war began. You should thank GW for adding realism and tactical depth.

Turn 1 infiltrate assaults. Happened quite often for me, now it's impossible.

Well then you're playing morons or repeatedly ambushed newbs, so your game won't suffer anyway.

 Lobukia wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

That's broken. I should not hope for poor performance for any of my units ever.

Again, realism is a silly card to play, but I'll bite. Over extension and isolation by momentum has been a fundamental concern of commanders since war began. You should thank GW for adding realism and tactical depth.

Thanks for assuming I typically overextend. You'd be wrong however - normally my assaults are well supported, but Genestealers don't last long out of cover.

Turn 1 infiltrate assaults. Happened quite often for me, now it's impossible.

Well then you're playing morons or repeatedly ambushed newbs, so your game won't suffer anyway.

Yes, because its trivial to be able to see every spot that's over 12 inches away from your line. Good point - I forgot about that.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, because its trivial to be able to see every spot that's over 12 inches away from your line. Good point - I forgot about that.

It is, actually. Unless you're a clueless newbie you aren't going to miss something that obvious, and you probably aren't going to have a spot at all in a game with true line of sight. If even one fingertip on one model is visible you aren't infiltrating there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NoQuestionzAsked wrote:
This isnt exactly a new thing. This has been a game "flaw" for 3 editions.....

Right, and its getting worse - as someone said, 6th is significantly worse than 5th as far as assault power goes.

Which is good. Give it a few more editions and assault will finally be what it should be: an occasional event to finish off a dug-in unit, not a strategy you dedicate your army to.

 Lobukia wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Turn 1 infiltrate assaults. Happened quite often for me, now it's impossible.

Well then you're playing morons or repeatedly ambushed newbs, so your game won't suffer anyway.

Turn 1 assaults happened quite often for me as well.
There is not much an opponent can do against 5th ed Scout Bike charges, and I never "played morons or repeatedly ambushed newbs".

There was nothing an enemy could do against a up to 12 inch scout move, a 12 inch move and a 6 inch assault, basically if my scout bikes were within 23 inches of my target unit/s they got charged in my first turn even when I went second.

 Lobukia wrote:
No, it isn't. BS 1 does not = extra turn of shooting (plus you're taking away backpedal movement, some units could get two turns of shooting in by the rules. Most assault units are getting into CC exactly when they would have in 5th. Other than outflank charges what other common mode of getting into CC got nerffed?

No, the extra turn of shooting comes from not being able to assault out of transports or from reserve, and people not gambling on assault distances by taking an extra turn to advance.

 Lobukia wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

That's broken. I should not hope for poor performance for any of my units ever.

Again, realism is a silly card to play, but I'll bite. Over extension and isolation by momentum has been a fundamental concern of commanders since war began. You should thank GW for adding realism and tactical depth.

But the mechanic doesn't punish over extension. If I manage to kill all bar one of my target, I'm fine. If I kill that last model, I'm vulnerable. If it were punishing over extension, I would be vulnerable regardless of killing that last model. In fact, I should be more vulnerable, because my assault hasn't been as effective. The effective assault is punished, the ineffective one rewarded, or rather the less effectively I extend, the more I am punished for over extending. It's very counter-intuitive, IMO.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NoQuestionzAsked wrote:
This isnt exactly a new thing. This has been a game "flaw" for 3 editions.....

Right, and its getting worse - as someone said, 6th is significantly worse than 5th as far as assault power goes.

Which is good. Give it a few more editions and assault will finally be what it should be: an occasional event to finish off a dug-in unit, not a strategy you dedicate your army to.

But the problem is that GW keeps on forcing through a myriad of dedicated assault specialists and assault armies, even as they push rules in the opposite direction. GW's army design is consistently in conflict with its own game design, and that's the silly part.

 Kaldor wrote:
It's very counter-intuitive, IMO.

Solution: allow shooting into combat with no penalties. Problem solved. Now there's no drawback to wiping out a unit entirely.

 Fafnir wrote:
But the problem is that GW keeps on forcing through a myriad of dedicated assault specialists and assault armies, even as they push rules in the opposite direction. GW's army design is consistently in conflict with its own game design, and that's the silly part.

Oh, don't worry, I think that's also stupid. GW should stop making units like that and focus both the core rules and the armies around shooting.

I think that, regardless of bias towards shooting or assault, GW needs to sit down and actually look at the rules of their own damn game, and make the armies actually follow that mindset.

I don't mind assault in the 40k setting, since it is, at its core, a fantasy setting. But they can't make every army have a bunch of close-combat badasses, and then make that inclination to close combat useless.

And if they want to make the game based more heavily around shooting, then they need to stop spending time making all these useless close combat specialists, and start making the shooting game more interesting than the point-click-die snoozefest that it is now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
It's very counter-intuitive, IMO.

Solution: allow shooting into combat with no penalties. Problem solved. Now there's no drawback to wiping out a unit entirely.

Sure. I'd be happy with that as well. Consolidation into combat is a better option, since it rewards combat more instead of punishing it, but I'd be happy with either solution.

Peregrine - again, its like you dont realise the game is split into 3 phases, and that ideally each phase should have equal importance. It is a fantasy game, after all.

Its almost like GW created the game around gengineered space KNIGHTS with chainsaw-swords as their preferred weapon. Who'd a thunk it.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, because its trivial to be able to see every spot that's over 12 inches away from your line. Good point - I forgot about that.

It is, actually. Unless you're a clueless newbie you aren't going to miss something that obvious, and you probably aren't going to have a spot at all in a game with true line of sight. If even one fingertip on one model is visible you aren't infiltrating there.

You must not play with much LOS blocking terrain then.
And you must never deploy in a refused flank against infiltrators also.
Or castle in a corner.

Tactically, infiltrators do their job against you even if they never assault.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NoQuestionzAsked wrote:
This isnt exactly a new thing. This has been a game "flaw" for 3 editions.....

Right, and its getting worse - as someone said, 6th is significantly worse than 5th as far as assault power goes.

Which is good. Give it a few more editions and assault will finally be what it should be: an occasional event to finish off a dug-in unit, not a strategy you dedicate your army to.

No, really it's bad game design to ha e 3 phases where only 1 matters. Keep posting your opinion though - its cute.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NoQuestionzAsked wrote:
This isnt exactly a new thing. This has been a game "flaw" for 3 editions.....

Right, and its getting worse - as someone said, 6th is significantly worse than 5th as far as assault power goes.

Which is good. Give it a few more editions and assault will finally be what it should be: an occasional event to finish off a dug-in unit, not a strategy you dedicate your army to.

Perhaps good for you. Believe it or not, some of us actually ENJOY having combat armies with the intention of wrecking face up close. It's kinda the reason i play orks. And, i imagine, the reason some play nids, or some builds of CSM, or most daemon lists, or DoA, or templars, or any other cc list that makes up a huge percentage of the game. And has for almost the entire history of the game. Its something that makes the game different, and something that really shouldn't change. You saying that we should take cc out of 40k because it annoys you is sort of like that Dungeons and dragons should just cut the Arcane power source because you think it's unrealistic. Well, yes, you're right. It is. CC is entirely unrealistic in a game where soldiers have rpg machine guns and laser rifles everywhere. But i don't play 40k for realism. I play it because i enjoy the OTT setting, and the fantasy aspect of it. Just like people play Dnd for the fantasy medieval feel, which involves magic. Don't want magic? Homebrew your own setting that doesn't have it, and tell players not to bring arcane characters. Don't like assault? Form a gaming group with your own campaign, and forbid dedicated assault units. It's a much better alternative than telling a huge portion of the player base that their army is stupid and the rules should make it obsolete.

 loota boy wrote:

It's a much better alternative than telling a huge portion of the player base that their army is stupid and the rules should make it obsolete.

Especially considering how angry Peregrine was with FW for nerfing the Hades Drills and changing them to an elite slot.

I think you have to be very careful to make sure a unit can't do too much in one turn. as it stands, assault type units can probably do the most currently. You have movement, shooting and assault, then asuming you are victorious, you can consolidate. If you are concerned about being stranded after butchering a unit, and then getting shot up in your opponents shooting phase, then it probably wasn't very good planning on your part.

I would also say that as the current ruleset stands, consolidating into close combat makes units a little too effective, overwatch isn't all that good (better then nothing though). the only situation i can think of where i think consolidation would be a good thing is if you assaulted in your movement phase (so no shooting) and your opponent can choose between overwatch, or simply running away such as in WHFB.

I have had some very good success with assaults in 6th, because picking the right time and place to assault is key. if you go for a straight up frontal charge, you should expect your expensive close combat units to get shot to pieces, even when they do connect.

Now I don't know the 6e rules very much, but what if you allowed a victorious unit in assault consolidate - once- into a new unit, but allow that "new" unit to take a Overwatch-based shooting action against the unit coming at them?

It would remove the ability of the army that just got a unit decimated to fire in their next turn, at full effect, into the unit that is just standing there in the open, but at the same time rewarding a unit that is successful at killing an entire unit by allowing them to shelter from that shooting action inside the protection of another enemy unit, but at the downside that they have to weather two Overwatch firing sessions and get lucky enough to be able to reach that other unit with a consolidation move? And this all after surviving to fight the initial unit in the first place.

madtankbloke wrote:
I think you have to be very careful to make sure a unit can't do too much in one turn. as it stands, assault type units can probably do the most currently. You have movement, shooting and assault, then asuming you are victorious, you can consolidate. If you are concerned about being stranded after butchering a unit, and then getting shot up in your opponents shooting phase, then it probably wasn't very good planning on your part.

I would also say that as the current ruleset stands, consolidating into close combat makes units a little too effective, overwatch isn't all that good (better then nothing though). the only situation i can think of where i think consolidation would be a good thing is if you assaulted in your movement phase (so no shooting) and your opponent can choose between overwatch, or simply running away such as in WHFB.

I have had some very good success with assaults in 6th, because picking the right time and place to assault is key. if you go for a straight up frontal charge, you should expect your expensive close combat units to get shot to pieces, even when they do connect.

Great points all. I agree with every point. I've ran mainly my Khorne/Slaanesh CSM for the past 2months and using pretty fundamental tactics done just fine. However, some people don't want to be told that they aren't planning ahead well. It's much easier to say GW is out to screw their codex/army type. The fact that major tournaments and rankings don't reflect their personal view that assaults don't work well in 6e is just ignored. But instead of saying "I want my pet army to do better", which they know sounds petty, they play the "realism" card, and pretend its tactical balance they want.

I'm really curious to watch them play. How on earth all of their assault squads are getting gunned down after successful assaults is beyond me. Maybe they need to try MSU lists or just need more practice evaluating likely game developments a few turns ahead? The nid players I get. The rest, I don't. The assault units are either cheap enough that getting them gunned down after a charge is a non- sequitur, or they're stout enough that basic planning should cause minimal losses. I am the assault guy in my local meta, and running TAC lists that tip to being assault heavy has been a blast in 6e. It's sucked that outflanking bikes can't assault and I can't reserve them all, but I've adapted my White Scars and am hoping a little help comes from Ravenwing rules. Other than that none of my forces have really suffered in 6e. Yes I had to change some tactics and tweak the lists, but, to me, that keeps the game fresh and new.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I still fail to see the OP's statement that the assault rules are broken. Risky? yes, for certain units. Broken? nope.

ok then, i guess you wont mind if i only roll one half of my melee attacks. i dont want to do too well, im only aiming to kill part of your unit.

i wont be activating any of my special powers or psyker abilities either - again, im just aiming to kill part of your unit, being mediocre is best right now.

if you dont like the term broken how does nonsensical, stupid or terrible work for you?

madtankbloke wrote:
I think you have to be very careful to make sure a unit can't do too much in one turn. as it stands, assault type units can probably do the most currently. You have movement, shooting and assault, then asuming you are victorious, you can consolidate. If you are concerned about being stranded after butchering a unit, and then getting shot up in your opponents shooting phase, then it probably wasn't very good planning on your part.

I would also say that as the current ruleset stands, consolidating into close combat makes units a little too effective, overwatch isn't all that good (better then nothing though). the only situation i can think of where i think consolidation would be a good thing is if you assaulted in your movement phase (so no shooting) and your opponent can choose between overwatch, or simply running away such as in WHFB.

I have had some very good success with assaults in 6th, because picking the right time and place to assault is key. if you go for a straight up frontal charge, you should expect your expensive close combat units to get shot to pieces, even when they do connect.

The point, and the problem, is that I can only expect my assault units to get shot up if they do well. If my assault does poorly because I wiff a lot of my attacks, or my opponent rolls exceptionally with his saves, then I'm fine. It's only if my assault works well that I am in trouble.

That's where the derpy-ness of the rules comes from, and it's what people are complaining about. No one is objective to assault units being shot up if they get caught out on their own. People are objecting to the fact that they can only be caught out on their own if they perform well. If they don't, if they take twice as long to kill the enemy, they end up performing better and being rewarded for it, which is completely counter-intuitive.

The only options, as I see it, are to either allow shooting into combat, in which case the assault unit is no more vulnerable or punished for killing all it's foes than it would be for staying in combat, or allowing consolidation into combat, giving the assault unit a chance to remain engaged if it wipes out the enemy. IMO, allowing consolidation into combat is the best option, and given the hits assault units have already taken in this edition, I don't think it would be as game-breaking as it used to be.

 Kaldor wrote:

The only options, as I see it, are to either allow shooting into combat, in which case the assault unit is no more vulnerable or punished for killing all it's foes than it would be for staying in combat, or allowing consolidation into combat, giving the assault unit a chance to remain engaged if it wipes out the enemy. IMO, allowing consolidation into combat is the best option, and given the hits assault units have already taken in this edition, I don't think it would be as game-breaking as it used to be.

The major problem with that, and i can see where you are coming from, is that it allows you to take what amounts to 4 actions each turn (move, shoot, assault, assault). This is an increase on the 3 (move, shoot, assault) an assault unit can usually make, and is double what a shooting unit can make (move, shoot). if you are all for the consolidating after a successful round of close combat, how about you also add in a rule where if you wipe out a unit in the shooting phase, all units that shot it get an additional round of shooting (because its pretty much the same thing).

The major reason its a bad idea is that it breaks the general rule that you can only engage 1 unit a turn (unless you have a special rule/wargear) and you have to assault a unit you shot at (you can ONLY assault that unit) and if you consolidate into combat, the you are engaging an additional unit, so now, not only are you doing twice as many things a turn as a shooting unit, you are also engaging twice as many units

The point, and the problem, is that I can only expect my assault units to get shot up if they do well. If my assault does poorly because I wiff a lot of my attacks, or my opponent rolls exceptionally with his saves, then I'm fine. It's only if my assault works well that I am in trouble.

it's true. I almost see it as a consolation prize to the player that just got massacred in assault, so they can take it out on the unit that did it.

The major problem with that, and i can see where you are coming from, is that it allows you to take what amounts to 4 actions each turn (move, shoot, assault, assault). This is an increase on the 3 (move, shoot, assault) an assault unit can usually make, and is double what a shooting unit can make (move, shoot). if you are all for the consolidating after a successful round of close combat, how about you also add in a rule where if you wipe out a unit in the shooting phase, all units that shot it get an additional round of shooting (because its pretty much the same thing).

I suggested a single-time consolidation move, not counting as charging this time, and with the second assaulted unit being able to Overwatch against them.

An idea: What if it were allowed for a unit that has massacred another in assault to make an immediate consolidation mode into another unit that it can reach, but only allowed to engage them but not attack?

Then they are safe from the shooting situation, but aren't getting "two assault phases".

madtankbloke wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

The only options, as I see it, are to either allow shooting into combat, in which case the assault unit is no more vulnerable or punished for killing all it's foes than it would be for staying in combat, or allowing consolidation into combat, giving the assault unit a chance to remain engaged if it wipes out the enemy. IMO, allowing consolidation into combat is the best option, and given the hits assault units have already taken in this edition, I don't think it would be as game-breaking as it used to be.

The major problem with that, and i can see where you are coming from, is that it allows you to take what amounts to 4 actions each turn (move, shoot, assault, assault). This is an increase on the 3 (move, shoot, assault) an assault unit can usually make, and is double what a shooting unit can make (move, shoot). if you are all for the consolidating after a successful round of close combat, how about you also add in a rule where if you wipe out a unit in the shooting phase, all units that shot it get an additional round of shooting (because its pretty much the same thing).

Yeah, Genestealers, Hormagaunts and a few others have absolutely *stellar* shooting phases.