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.

Probably. Those are the big three nerfs imo as well.

 Psienesis wrote:

kingleir wrote:
And i have a complaint about overwatch im just gonna put here. Where is the assault version of overwatch, why would the assault troops stand there And get shot while the shooting troops would not just stand there and get charged?

What are the assault troops going to do, wave their swords at them?

When they become the target of a units shooting they may move an immediate move in any direction that is towards the unit shooting them, if this will bring them into base contact then the units are considered in combat (no charge bonus). Just off the top of my head.

You want to shoot in my phase i should get to move in yours.

Players are now forced to actually use tactics and strategy instead of just showing up and saying "I have an asaulty army so I win" while the guy who actually has a few guns in his space age science fiction army is forced to hang his head and just concede defeat without actualy playing the game. Then the assaulty guy just chalks up a win and walks out.
Now you actually have to play the game and both sides have the same chances of wining with skill and luck deciding.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Players are now forced to actually use tactics and strategy instead of just showing up and saying "I have an asaulty army so I win" while the guy who actually has a few guns in his space age science fiction army is forced to hang his head and just concede defeat without actualy playing the game. Then the assaulty guy just chalks up a win and walks out.
Now you actually have to play the game and both sides have the same chances of wining with skill and luck deciding.

That hasn't been true since 3rd. Try again. It sounds like to me you just never learned how to own assault in 5th. Not our problem.

kingleir wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

kingleir wrote:
And i have a complaint about overwatch im just gonna put here. Where is the assault version of overwatch, why would the assault troops stand there And get shot while the shooting troops would not just stand there and get charged?

What are the assault troops going to do, wave their swords at them?

When they become the target of a units shooting they may move an immediate move in any direction that is towards the unit shooting them, if this will bring them into base contact then the units are considered in combat (no charge bonus). Just off the top of my head.

You want to shoot in my phase i should get to move in yours.

Would depend on the distance the Move permits (since OW is also capped at snapshots). Should probably also count as a disorganized charge or something, since basically it's an "Oh, sh*t!" move to close before they open up, rather than an ordered advance, though that may justify the no charge bonus, or require a round after the melee ends to regroup and consolidate.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Players are now forced to actually use tactics and strategy instead of just showing up and saying "I have an asaulty army so I win" while the guy who actually has a few guns in his space age science fiction army is forced to hang his head and just concede defeat without actualy playing the game. Then the assaulty guy just chalks up a win and walks out.
Now you actually have to play the game and both sides have the same chances of wining with skill and luck deciding.

But that's not true. Like, not even close to true. Either you didn't play 5th edition or you're just lying.

Martel732 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Players are now forced to actually use tactics and strategy instead of just showing up and saying "I have an asaulty army so I win" while the guy who actually has a few guns in his space age science fiction army is forced to hang his head and just concede defeat without actualy playing the game. Then the assaulty guy just chalks up a win and walks out.
Now you actually have to play the game and both sides have the same chances of wining with skill and luck deciding.

That hasn't been true since 3rd. Try again. It sounds like to me you just never learned how to own assault in 5th. Not our problem.

Indeed, last true assault was 3rd, with the balance in 5th already heZvy shoots - the only save being the morale check changes for combat avoiding the endless slogs of 4th, but then resulting in wipe on charge, which was worse.

 Chumbalaya wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Players are now forced to actually use tactics and strategy instead of just showing up and saying "I have an asaulty army so I win" while the guy who actually has a few guns in his space age science fiction army is forced to hang his head and just concede defeat without actualy playing the game. Then the assaulty guy just chalks up a win and walks out.
Now you actually have to play the game and both sides have the same chances of wining with skill and luck deciding.

But that's not true. Like, not even close to true. Either you didn't play 5th edition or you're just lying.

He actually thought 6th edition assault was too strong.

He honestly believes this.

Imnewherewheresthebathroom wrote:
If you were in range you got the assault.

So, you needed a little bit of player skill to judge the range (not everyone could do this, back before pre-measuring), and you also had to get in range, so the shooty army had the opportunity to shoot you along the way.

Even a lowly squad of assault marines would devastate a gunline, then go on to chew on whatever was in sweep range after that. I'm speaking from my perspective playing BA in 5th, the untold devastation an alpha strike could and would do was silly.

See, what you are describing to me is not how most experienced players viewed 5th. I'm sure it was this way for you, because as you have already admitted, you were new to the game, as were your opponents. Most experienced players didn't experience what you are describing because there are some very simple tactics that you can use to prevent the sort of devastation you describe. If simple units of assault marines were devastating entire gunlines, the problem wasn't with the assault marine, it was with the gunline players. In fact, assault marines, even blood angel ones, weren't close to the top of the heap of assault units in 5th.

What's more, 5th edition was widely considered to be more favourable to shooty armies than assault armies. It was a lot closer then, and assault armies were viable, but most of the top-level players switched from assault to shooty armies, and shooty armies won most of the large tournaments. Maybe that's because it actually takes a little player skill to learn the maneuvers that dent the assault armies effectiveness. I will admit, most newbie shooty players were at a disadvantage against any sort of experienced assault player in 5th. But pandering to new (or poor) players by nerfing the assault side of the game isn't the answer. Bad players will always be bad players, no matter how much you push the rules in their favour, and the rules changes only allow the good players to beat them that much more easily.

If you can't concede to at least some of the new rules you are crossing in fanboy territory. Which is fine, but I don't feel bad for those who can't let others have their way at least a little.

2+2 = 5
3+3 = 7
4 +4 = 20

If you can't concede to at least some of those statements, you're probably a math fanboy. You should let others have their way at least a little.


Do you see how silly that sentence is? Calling someone a name if they don't agree with you is poor debate, and expecting to get your way when you're wrong is childish.

Furthermore, if anyone is refusing to budge from their initial stance, it is you. You're not conceding anything, in the face of strong arguments and evidence that contradicts what you're saying.

There are some new rules are reasonable, but they're so mixed in with the others that it's hard to see. Overwatch is fine conceptually (even if it could have been implemented better), and without the hamfisted casualty removal system would not be awful. Overwatch, plus removing casualties from the front, plus not being able to assault from transports or from reserves is overkill. But the sum of all the changes is way too much. When orks and tyranids are played as shooty armies you have to see that the rules are flawed.

LOL, Seems like I am one of the few who has actually played the game for the last 25 years or so.
You have every right to your wrong opinion and as the minority few yells louder than the silent majority of players, go right ahead if it makes you feel better. I'll just save the cheese for you. (you know what it is to go with lol).

The new assault phase is better! You just have to get there first. THAT is the problem with Assaults in 6th Ed.

Random Charge Distance is a horrible rule, and when combined with Overwatch just means it becomes very difficult to assault anything.

Evil - putting models behind fancy cover and leaving them there whilst rolling dice - that is not thinking about strategy.

You say you have played for 25 years. Ok then - think back to the boxed set for 2nd ed with those cardboard walls. Remember the 3 missions in the campaign book? One set 15 orks against 5 marines with a missile launcher, whilst another set 30/40 gretchin against 5 marines with a flamer, the last one set 20 orks, 40 gretchin and a dreadnought against 20 marines with 2 missile launchers and 2 flamers. Remember those? Where terrain covered the board?
Well I contend that the tactics displayed in every one of those mini battles, where one side only had 20models, contained far more tactical nous than 10 3000pt battles from today's gunline armies.
You have yet to actually put any validation behind your claims that assault is fine the way it is...

 EVIL INC wrote:
it does add a touch of realism and tactics to the game that simply was not there before.
1. The idea of a defender sitting there and saying "oh darn, here they come, lets just sit here and take it" just does not make sense.

IGOUGO game mechanic.

Shoot them on your turn.

Cheers

 Psienesis wrote:

kingleir wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

kingleir wrote:
And i have a complaint about overwatch im just gonna put here. Where is the assault version of overwatch, why would the assault troops stand there And get shot while the shooting troops would not just stand there and get charged?

What are the assault troops going to do, wave their swords at them?

When they become the target of a units shooting they may move an immediate move in any direction that is towards the unit shooting them, if this will bring them into base contact then the units are considered in combat (no charge bonus). Just off the top of my head.

You want to shoot in my phase i should get to move in yours.

Would depend on the distance the Move permits (since OW is also capped at snapshots). Should probably also count as a disorganized charge or something, since basically it's an "Oh, sh*t!" move to close before they open up, rather than an ordered advance, though that may justify the no charge bonus, or require a round after the melee ends to regroup and consolidate.

D3 inches in the 180 degree arc facing the unit shooting, no charge bonus or sweeping advance. Gives the chance for the assaulters to end up ahead, in the same way overwatch can halt a charge, shooting could cause one.

If assaults can fail - which they already can due to having to roll to hit, wound etc and also getting mirked by the defending unit if they have a higher Initiative value than you - then shooting should also be able to fail on range, you shouldn't be able to pre-measure and screw it, lets make shooting attacks roll a set amount of dice for range... That's ridiculous though right?

If I was to charge an enemy, on flat terrain and I know that enemy is within my sprinting distance, they won't be able to extend this distance by going backwards (as they would be firing at me) enough to make me fail to make the difference, then I aim closing that distance. If the terrain wasn't flat or was particularly hazardess if flat, then yeah, I may over estimate my ability, but on flat concrete I am getting there, and I'm not a trained military person of the 40k era.

They should just go back to a movement stat, some units should be faster and that speed would also dictate charge range and leave it at that. Eldar should be 6, marines and orks 5, tau and guardsmen 4 (though crisis suits etc would be higher as other units would... That would change things up and nerf charges to some extent so blood angel tactical marines wouldn't be as fast as the assault marine and add more flavor to armies. Grots shouldn't be able to keep up with their ork masters, centurians - even though already slow - wouldn't be keeping up with tactical marines and then they can just get rid of the run rule.