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.

why is it counterintuitive? you run into the enemy, beat wholesale &$*, but without support or a great consolidation roll, you have made yourself a sitting duck. As I said before, poor tactical decisions don't make the rule "broken" or "nonsensical and stupid."

rigeld2 wrote:I can predict the outcome. And then if I roll above average, I'm punished. That makes perfect sense, I must be a poor tactical player because I couldn't predict the exact dice rolls - only what is average.

If it only requires an above average dice roll for your plan to fall apart then you can hardly claim to have predicted the outcome. If you are only capable of calculating averages then you are not capable of predicting outcomes. Like it or not averages are just that, average, a lot of the time things go very different to the average.

Charging that 12 man squad with my 20 attacks with a 50% hit/wound chance means I average 10 kills, but I have a ~25% chance of killing them all.

We can't predict outcomes for the most part, neither the exact dice rolls, However, we can calculate probabilities of outcomes. Or if you have played enough, have a good feeling for the chance of doing 'too well' or 'too bad'. Averages are useful info, but putting too much faith in them on any given decision is poor play.

 Lobukia wrote:
All I see are people asking for an old rule to return because they want an easy button.

Look, it's really simple.

I charge into an enemy unit that is ten models strong.

If I kill 8 models, that is an ok result.

If I kill 10 models, that is a better result.

BUT WAIT!

Because of the derpy rule mechanics, the better result is actually the worse result. Those mechanics need to change, so that the better result is actually the better result. There should never be a circumstance where killing less models is better for me.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
"the part that grinds"? That would be called risk.

Missed the point again. I have no aversion to risk. But the risk should come from performing poorly, not performing well.

Currently:

I kill the enemy in one turn = bad.

I kill the enemy in two turns = good.

This needs to be reversed, so that the risk is linked to poor performance and not good performance.

How the situation is reversed isn't terribly important. My personal opinion is that close combat has been de-emphasised too much already in this edition and that allowing consolidation into combat would be the best fix. However I'd also be happy with allowing shooting into combat, having a single assault phase per game turn, or some other fix. Perhaps allow an over-run move if you destroy the enemy in a single round of combat. It doesn't really matter. It's just a glaringly obvious problem that needs a fix.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
why is it counterintuitive? you run into the enemy, beat wholesale &$*, but without support or a great consolidation roll, you have made yourself a sitting duck. As I said before, poor tactical decisions don't make the rule "broken" or "nonsensical and stupid."

Because if I don't wipe the unit out I'm not a sitting duck. In fact, not wiping the unit out on the first assault phase is almost always better than wholesale slaughtering them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puree wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I can predict the outcome. And then if I roll above average, I'm punished. That makes perfect sense, I must be a poor tactical player because I couldn't predict the exact dice rolls - only what is average.

We can't predict outcomes for the most part, neither the exact dice rolls, However, we can calculate probabilities of outcomes. Or if you have played enough, have a good feeling for the chance of doing 'too well' or 'too bad'. Averages are useful info, but putting too much faith in them on any given decision is poor play.

Let me amend my statement - if I defy probability and wipe out the target unit, I'm punished.
My point stands.

puree wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I can predict the outcome. And then if I roll above average, I'm punished. That makes perfect sense, I must be a poor tactical player because I couldn't predict the exact dice rolls - only what is average.

We can't predict outcomes for the most part, neither the exact dice rolls, However, we can calculate probabilities of outcomes. Or if you have played enough, have a good feeling for the chance of doing 'too well' or 'too bad'. Averages are useful info, but putting too much faith in them on any given decision is poor play.

Let me amend my statement - if I defy probability and wipe out the target unit, I'm punished.
My point stands.

Defy probability? If you mean you achieve some extremely unlikely result punishing you then you are talkling about something that happens, what? every 50 or so games?

I love the assault rules . not only do they make meq worse , if they try it , because I can overwatch them and they can fail to charge , but also if they actualy come in to contact , then my IG die and marines eat plasma templates on my turn . It is both fluffy [guants ghosts had ultra choppy zerkers die to lasguns] and fun to watch . If I could I would added a rule to droping 1" from charge for every hit you made with overwatch , it would make flamers better for my IG . and it would make sense with marines slowing down under constant fire .

puree wrote:

puree wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I can predict the outcome. And then if I roll above average, I'm punished. That makes perfect sense, I must be a poor tactical player because I couldn't predict the exact dice rolls - only what is average.

We can't predict outcomes for the most part, neither the exact dice rolls, However, we can calculate probabilities of outcomes. Or if you have played enough, have a good feeling for the chance of doing 'too well' or 'too bad'. Averages are useful info, but putting too much faith in them on any given decision is poor play.

Let me amend my statement - if I defy probability and wipe out the target unit, I'm punished.
My point stands.

Defy probability? If you mean you achieve some extremely unlikely result punishing you then you are talkling about something that happens, what? every 50 or so games?

And how often does rolling well when shooting punish you?

puree wrote:
Defy probability? If you mean you achieve some extremely unlikely result punishing you then you are talkling about something that happens, what? every 50 or so games?

Imagine, purely hypothetically, that if you cause more than four wounds on a target during the shooting phase, that the enemy calls in an artillery strike to suppress your position.

Any time you cause more than four wounds, centre a S8, AP3 Large Blast template on your own unit. Roll for scatter.

This is analogous to the current assault rules. It is obviously exaggerated to make a point, so lets not get bogged down in the specifics of the analogy. The point is that you suffer a penalty for causing wounds, when the opposite should be the case.

rigeld2 wrote:

And how often does rolling well when shooting punish you?

When it stops me assaulting/shooting a unit cos its now out of range, or when it means that I lose a cover save for firing through the unit I just killed etc? Being 'punished' for shooting well is possibly more common than doing well in assault.

I'm not arguing about the rule you are complaining about. I'm just intrigued by your assertion first that you were having problems when you rolled above average - relying on averages is just bad play. Or that it only happens when you 'defy probability', which would imply that it hardly ever happens.

I don't get why people are complaining about the ruleset. Yes it does seem worrysome that if you do exceptionally well in an assault you get shot to pieces in the following phase. Yet this is a tactical risk one takes to gain success. If a queen takes a pawn and puts the king in check, thats a tactical gain, however that knight that takes the queen is a consequence of jumping ahead without foresight into your opponents move, and generally and obvious one at that. If you want to assault a unit with success you need to make sure his behind is covered otherwise you do fail in the end. you are not really penalized for assaulting anymore than you are penalized for doing anything else in the game, Its a calculated risk anyone takes, and unlike other games i've played its an extra step instead of inclusive (like warmachine where melee attacks are done in the same phase as shooting.)

I've yet had any real issues with assaults other than I feel assaults are too much of the game (the only phase where a single player acts twice per game turn) rather than a single part of it.

puree wrote:
I'm not arguing about the rule you are complaining about. I'm just intrigued by your assertion first that you were having problems when you rolled above average - relying on averages is just bad play. Or that it only happens when you 'defy probability', which would imply that it hardly ever happens.

You're right - I misstated when I said average. Defying probability happens at least once a game for me - in that I either spectacularly fail (8 Ymgarls losing combat to 12 out of Synapse Termagants) or absolutely slaughter the target that I shouldn't have (8 Ymgarls getting 8/10 Rends and the TH/SS squad failing every invul). I plan for it on every assault now.

A unit that loses an assault has to take a morale check with a penalty equal to the amount they lose the assault by. so, if you charge a 10 man unit, and kill 9 of them (with no casualties on your side) then they have to take a morale check with a whopping -9 modifier, that means any survivor, other than a fearless nutter has a staggering 1/36 chance of not running away (and who can blame him) if your plan is to consistently win a combat by a couple of points, so that the morale checks aren't too hard to pass, then your assault troops aren't doing their jobs, and you should probably fire them.

What the rules reward people for is being tactical, and intelligent in how they employ their forces. when you charge into a unit, and wipe them out (or they run away), and then get promptly shot to pieces, its not because the assault rules are broken, its because it was probably a REALLY bad idea to assault in the first place, because you know your opponent is going to shoot you up.
whereas if you assault an isolated unit, and chop them up when they are unsupported, whats your opponent going to do about it? there isn't much he can do.

Yes, shooting is dominant in this game, but close assault is far and away more decisive.

Lets take 2 units (with basic weapons)

10 tactical marines, can at best, put out 20 shots per turn, or if they use bolt pistols 30 attacks (10 shooting, 20 assault)
10 assault marines on the other hand, can shoot, and then assault for the equivalent of 50 attacks per turn (10 shooting, 10 HoW, 30 assault)

the assault marines are 250% as effective on the attack as a unit that shoots, or 167% as effective if the shooty unit assaults

The price you pay for the sheer volume of attacks you can unleash upon an enemy is that its far and away more decisive than shooting alone, shooting dominates because it has a much greater range, but you can often decide in a single assault phase what it would take that shooty unit multiple turns of shooting to do (or multiple units concentrating their fire in a single turn). admittedly, plasma and melta weapons are seriously effective, but when you have a tooled up unit with a variety of power weapons, they are MORE effective.

Given that assaulting is so effective, its more than likely that your opponents unit is going to lose the combat, either by being wiped out, or by running away, and you should plan accordingly, failure to do so is what so often leads to assault units having their teeth pulled by an effective counter attack

Paitryn wrote:
I don't get why people are complaining about the ruleset. Yes it does seem worrysome that if you do exceptionally well in an assault you get shot to pieces in the following phase. Yet this is a tactical risk one takes to gain success.

Risk is fine, but why attach it to doing well? The risk should be that I do poorly, and doing well should be a good thing. Killing more should always be the best possible outcome, and currently it's the opposite.

If your assault unit killing it's target in one turn leaves it's ass flapping in the breeze you've done something wrong and your unsupported attack deserves to die.

Orktavius wrote:
If your assault unit killing it's target in one turn leaves it's ass flapping in the breeze you've done something wrong.

Yea, Clearly you rolled too many 6's to wound with Genestealers and wiped your target unit in one turn.

Clearly you have "done something wrong" by rolling the dice... [/Sarcasm]

No you've clearly made an unsupported attack where your opponent can afford to focus all his fire on that one assault unit instead of the rest of your army barreling down on him.

Orktavius wrote:
No you've clearly made an unsupported attack where your opponent can afford to focus all his fire on that one assault unit instead of the rest of your army barreling down on him.

"All his fire"? Do you realize how little it takes to kill 8 single wound 4+ save models?
A single TAC squad could probably do it.

"All his fire" indeed.

I guess my main problem with this is that while its uncomfortable/annoying for MEQs (because they're fairly resilient already) many Nid units need to stay locked as often as possible because they die outside cover to very little shooting. If I "mess up" and roll too well it's not a lack of planning that screws me - its the fact that someone sneezing at the wrong time knocks all my stealers over and there's very little I can do about it.

Note that I still run assaulty Nids despite this, and I'm decently successful. That doesn't mean the rule is fine.

Orktavius wrote:
If your assault unit killing it's target in one turn leaves it's ass flapping in the breeze you've done something wrong and your unsupported attack deserves to die.

Still missing the point. Wiping the unit out should always be a good thing, or at least have the potential for more reward than NOT wiping the unit out.

Wiping the unit out should be rewarded, not penalised.

Orktavius wrote:
No you've clearly made an unsupported attack where your opponent can afford to focus all his fire on that one assault unit instead of the rest of your army barreling down on him.

Why should he only be able to focus his fire on that one assault squad, if I wipe out the enemy? Why be penalised for a good performance?

By all means punish isolated assault units, and over extended armies. But it's a poor rule mechanic that only lets you punish units that are both overextended and have managed to wiff their assault. A unit should be in more trouble if it wiffs it's assault, not less trouble.

Why should your opponent's game be ended the moment an assault unit reaches his lines with no way for him to stop it as it leaps from combat to combat?

Orktavius wrote:
Why should your opponent's game be ended the moment an assault unit reaches his lines with no way for him to stop it as it leaps from combat to combat?

Thank you.

For all the criticism in here few people are actually proposing a workable solution.

Also to the person saying assault should basically be removed, play a different game.

Orktavius wrote:
Why should your opponent's game be ended the moment an assault unit reaches his lines with no way for him to stop it as it leaps from combat to combat?

So you're saying that in 4th Edition, one assault unit was able to auto-win against the enemy army by simply getting into one combat, anywhere on the board?

Because that's not how I remember my games going, and I played Guard. With the changes to assault distances, and when you can/can't assault, combined with overwatch, allowing consolidation into combat wouldn't be as bad as it was then, and it wasn't even that bad back then.

But it doesn't even need to be that simple. Maybe make it only possible to consolidate into combat if you destroy the enemy on the first round. Maybe make it so you can't consolidate into combat if you've made a sweeping advance to wipe out the enemy. Hell, allow shooting into combat or limit combat to one round per game turn.

The actual change isn't terribly important, it just needs to be changed so that players want their units to destroy the enemy in assault, instead of hoping for them to fail.

 Kaldor wrote:

Still missing the point. Wiping the unit out should always be a good thing, or at least have the potential for more reward than NOT wiping the unit out.

Wiping the unit out should be rewarded, not penalised.

Wiping out a unit is a good thing. That in no way means that only other good things should follow! You do have the potential for more reward - charging another unit.

But wiping a unit out in melee should allow the all enemy units nearby to have another go at shooting the crap out of you prior to beinig able to get into another combat. So wiping out a unit should be bad in that it means you are now a target for shooting. I see no reason why a unit of Heavy bolters should somehow never get to fire at unit of genestealers that has finished of the first line of defenders.

Another way of looking at it is that the rules are naff for allowing a unit that kills a unit in the enemy turn to escape all bar some overwatch as it charges across to its next target. Not because killing stuff in your turn means you get shot to crap.

puree wrote:
But wiping a unit out in melee should allow the all enemy units nearby to have another go at shooting the crap out of you prior to beinig able to get into another combat.

Ok, so why don't they get that opportunity if I take two rounds of combat to wipe them out? Why should they only get that opportunity if my assault is successful?

I fully accept your way of looking at it, that the rules are naff for not penalising a unit which kills it's enemy during the opponents turn. I absolutely do.

However, I think close combat has already taken a significant hit in this edition, and if one were to address the nonsensical issue of wiping out the enemy being a bad thing instead of a good thing, I think it should be addressed in such a way that encourages more close combat, rather than penalising it even further.

From what I've read so far it seems there is an apparent line in regards to assault. Those who believe assault is a silly and redundant idea, and those who believe that being good in an assault shouldn't get you killed for wiping out your target.

Here's my 2c, in the 41st millennium everything is possible. 8' tall super humans in super armour (or aliens in alien armour) wading through gun fire and personally slaughtering all who oppose them is the norm. So how could you make assault worse without making it utterly worthless? It's already a pretty risky move now, so I think making it worse is not really an option. If anything its the dominating Assault units that cause the issues of invincible army stompers, and they are widely in abundance. Maybe a reduction on number of units or unit size?

But in regards to getting pumped full of holes for being good at assault it's an unfortunate side effect of the game system, without a major overhaul of the rules this is likely to continue into future editions. I find the best solution is artillery around your assault target and reduce the amount of 'local' fire power reduces casualties taken after becoming exposed, but that is only damage limitation not damage avoidance. Possibly a 'GET TO COVER!!' move after an assault meaning exactly that... get to cover...???

 Kaldor wrote:

Ok, so why don't they get that opportunity if I take two rounds of combat to wipe them out? Why should they only get that opportunity if my assault is successful?

I fully accept your way of looking at it, that the rules are naff for not penalising a unit which kills it's enemy during the opponents turn. I absolutely do.

However, I think close combat has already taken a significant hit in this edition, and if one were to address the nonsensical issue of wiping out the enemy being a bad thing instead of a good thing, I think it should be addressed in such a way that encourages more close combat, rather than penalising it even further.

Don't get me wrong, I have no strong feeling either way. I understand what you are saying. I feel it is better than it used to be, but still an artifact of playing an IGOUGO system. Maybe I am too casual nowadays, I accept that there are always oddities with IGOUGO, they may be different oddities in different games, but few such games escape some disconnect with 'reality'. I just accept basing my tactics around the game as it is, rather than worrying about such things.

I probably don't play as much as many on here, we go through phases of playing a game then something else etc. But in our last 40k phase close combat seemed pretty OK to me. It felt far better than the older rhino rush days, or the consolidate down the line days. Certainly the game seems a lot more shooty now, but melee still seems the decisive way of doing things, and only feels it has taken a hit to me in comparison to those older days when melee seemed rather too uber.

Orktavius wrote:
Why should your opponent's game be ended the moment an assault unit reaches his lines with no way for him to stop it as it leaps from combat to combat?

Clearly it's your own fault for not planning ahead and bringing some sort of counter-charge unit, especially now that there's allies...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Why should your opponent's game be ended the moment an assault unit reaches his lines with no way for him to stop it as it leaps from combat to combat?

Clearly it's your own fault for not planning ahead and bringing some sort of counter-charge unit, especially now that there's allies...

so how's this any different from an assaulting unit getting the gak shot out of it because the assaulter couldn't be bothered to give his unit any support? It cut's both ways, assault rules are perfectly fine. I run an assault heavy orc list and it doesn't have to much trouble from anything, meanwhile I remember 4th when you could consolidate into combat and you very much could just roll half your opponents army with a good assault.

Orktavius wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Why should your opponent's game be ended the moment an assault unit reaches his lines with no way for him to stop it as it leaps from combat to combat?

Clearly it's your own fault for not planning ahead and bringing some sort of counter-charge unit, especially now that there's allies...

so how's this any different from an assaulting unit getting the gak shot out of it because the assaulter couldn't be bothered to give his unit any support? It cut's both ways, assault rules are perfectly fine. I run an assault heavy orc list and it doesn't have to much trouble from anything, meanwhile I remember 4th when you could consolidate into combat and you very much could just roll half your opponents army with a good assault.

It's different because shooting is already dominant. There's nothing wrong with the assault rules, except the fact that shooting is much better than assaulting. 4th didn't have Overwatch or random charge distances.

Wouldn't it be a very real worry for a DC squad that they could decimate this squad of Fire Warriors in front of them, but behind them sits a Broadside Team that have been watching the fighting and lining up a barrage should it go inevitably badly for the Fire Warriors?

I could get behind units assaulting directly into another unit after victory if any unit after the first got to overwatch at BS rather than snap shot, that would seem fair to me and in line with the whole 'as reality' line GW seem to be taking.

 Davylove21 wrote:
Wouldn't it be a very real worry for a DC squad that they could decimate this squad of Fire Warriors in front of them, but behind them sits a Broadside Team that have been watching the fighting and lining up a barrage should it go inevitably badly for the Fire Warriors?

I could get behind units assaulting directly into another unit after victory if any unit after the first got to overwatch at BS rather than snap shot, that would seem fair to me and in line with the whole 'as reality' line GW seem to be taking.

Honestly this is a compromise I would be ok with. It would at least make it so my assault units would only get shot by one squad instead of several. I'd only agree to it if the squad could not shoot again in their shooting phase if they somehow wiped out the charging squad.

Please forgive typos, written from phone.