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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Assault-based armies in a game where people have weapons with "infinite" ranges (yes, my Necron Lord can shoot a model on a table in a store located in another state) should suffer.

That is the long and the short of it, adapt or die. Now, that is not to say that an Assault Army has to pick up guns, not at all. But what they need to do is anything they can to mitigate the advantages the guns bring. This means drop-pod assaults, dedicated transports, terrain-hugging, non-dedicated transports that draw fire and eat up enemy shooting phases, or heavy, resiliant infantry that tar-pits enemy shooting, allowing your actual killers to close and strike.

But, the idea of running across what is basically open ground, into a block of 20 guys who all possess automatic weapons... that is absolutely suicidal, even in a narrative game where realism is, at best, a tertiary concern. This is, like, Charge of the Light Brigade type narrative here.

The thing is that the dedicated transports got nerfed, terrain got nerfed, outflanking got nerfed, infiltration got nerfed and, as you say, trying to walk across the battlefield is crazy. You're assuming that these things are fine, when they too took nerfs from 5th edition. I might not agree with Peregrine, but he's got internally consistent arguments. I haven't seen anyone asking for melee units to be able to charge straight across the board without having to try, we've been asking for a shot at competing. If melee is going to be part of the game, fix it, otherwise axe it, but don't half-ass it, that's not good for anyone.

Thing is, all-melee should *not* be competitive under most circumstances. It's the absolute wrong way to go about trying to win a game of space-battles-with-laser-machineguns.

Though there have been a few things mentioned earlier in the thread that I can go with, like assaulting out of vehicles, assaulting out of pods, assaulting from infiltrate, etc. These are the types of things that I have mentioned, time and time again, that an assault force is going to *need* to use to have a *chance* of winning.

And you're right, transports took a bit of a nerf. Most vehicles did. Then again, most vehicles aren't intended to drive up under fire of anti-vehicle grade weaponry and drop some people off. While I agree that the various transports should be immune, or nearly so, to the "small arms" of 40K armies (most of them, anyway), that's broadening the scope of the argument out a bit wider than is encompassed here.

And why would you have your choice of gun? I am talking about fighting hand to hand, where a guardsman can hit the swarmlord, almost as much as he can in shooting.

Because a Guardsman in melee is using his rifle, probably with a bayonet, as his CC weapon. He's not punching an Ork, he's using the tools the God-Emperor gave him. Lemme tell you, hitting someone in the face with the buttstock of a rifle stands a real good chance of crushing their skull. Stab them in the belly with your bayonet, and you can pull their small intestine out. A common soldier in hand-to-hand is hardly an untrained combatant.

What I dont agree with is slanting the game to give them all the advantages. Currently, I would say its about 50/50 on advantages and disadvantages (yeah yeah, I know TAU but they are the broken exception to the rule)
Personaly, I wouldnt mind GW putting out a help book. Something along the lines of having sections for all the different units or even army archetypes and giving strategies and tactics garnered from tournaments, history, themselves even to help players of all sorts. I dont mean some lil phamplet either. I mean an actual book complete with maps and diagrams.. Something like that more people would be willing to read and pay attention to. As it is, its just players online and as we have seen, if it is advice coming from someone a person doesnt like, it is instantly ignored or put down in a negative way instead of actually paying attention to it and altering it to fit your specific needs.

While I get what you're saying here, it bears noting that even GW does not really know how to play their own game sometimes, and often does not play the way that groups of players in other areas play.

And how is moving up the board, running from cover to cover, engaging in a in no way guaranteed win combat and after being left exposed to shooting, not more risky than sitting behind an aegis defense line pointing at things until they die?

I don't think I have ever said that this was not a risky move. OF COURSE it's a risky move! It always has been! Shoot, the reference I made earlier to the Charge of the Light Brigade is *exactly* the kind of risky move you're describing here. You know what the Light Brigade accomplished on their famed charge? Nothing! Nothing at all! They nearly all got killed and accomplished feth all. Had they attacked the right target, though, then they would have pwned face ultrahard... but, well, they didn't. Should certain things be done to give a bone to assault? Sure! Like I said, I think assaulting out of a drop-pod should be a thing. I think assaulting out of a Rhino or a CRASSUS or any other dedicated (as in, the function of this vehicle is a transport, not that your unit and only your unit must ride it) transports should be a thing, because that's the point of IFVs and such. I don't, however, think such things should be 100% bulletproof. I do think that, short of Gauss or heavy weapons, that they should be very hard to shoot to death with small-arms.

Okay so I should throw away my daemon army? Alrighty then.

But yeah guardsman punching orks xD forget my pointy end and butt I shall punch them! Oh merciful emperor may m fist slay this foul xenos scum xD

 Psienesis wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Assault-based armies in a game where people have weapons with "infinite" ranges (yes, my Necron Lord can shoot a model on a table in a store located in another state) should suffer.

That is the long and the short of it, adapt or die. Now, that is not to say that an Assault Army has to pick up guns, not at all. But what they need to do is anything they can to mitigate the advantages the guns bring. This means drop-pod assaults, dedicated transports, terrain-hugging, non-dedicated transports that draw fire and eat up enemy shooting phases, or heavy, resiliant infantry that tar-pits enemy shooting, allowing your actual killers to close and strike.

But, the idea of running across what is basically open ground, into a block of 20 guys who all possess automatic weapons... that is absolutely suicidal, even in a narrative game where realism is, at best, a tertiary concern. This is, like, Charge of the Light Brigade type narrative here.

The thing is that the dedicated transports got nerfed, terrain got nerfed, outflanking got nerfed, infiltration got nerfed and, as you say, trying to walk across the battlefield is crazy. You're assuming that these things are fine, when they too took nerfs from 5th edition. I might not agree with Peregrine, but he's got internally consistent arguments. I haven't seen anyone asking for melee units to be able to charge straight across the board without having to try, we've been asking for a shot at competing. If melee is going to be part of the game, fix it, otherwise axe it, but don't half-ass it, that's not good for anyone.

Thing is, all-melee should *not* be competitive under most circumstances. It's the absolute wrong way to go about trying to win a game of space-battles-with-laser-machineguns.

When said space-battles-with-laser-machineguns has people with armour capable of withstanding said machine guns, Demonic beings that pop up right next to people before eating them, super-human warriors teleporting through Hell to pop up next to you, and extra-galactic bugs that are too many to kill, sure it does. It's not science fiction, it's science fantasy. There's nothing preventing you from running a shooting list if that's your cup of tea, so why can't those of us that want get to play assault-centric lists without having to jump through hoops with our hands bound to our backs? Are you having less fun because we don't enjoy the game in the same way you do? I genuinely don't get it.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Further a Failed charge is a Failed charge, whether it was fate or a misjudged millimeter.

I disagree, a failed charge because you made an error is fundamentally different to a failed charge because luck was against you. If you can't guess within a millimeter, that's your fault and you should get better or make sure you aren't trying to guess ranges within a millimeter. It's not the same as having bad luck so the unit has to suffer an extra turn of fire before charging. One is a tactical error, the other is luck. Obviously the game needs some elements of luck, I just prefer it when those elements are NOT part of movement.

Even "assault units" as you say, they still have around a 15% chance of failing a charge of 7". That just annoys me. If they have a 7" charge, give them a 7" charge. If they have an 8" charge, give them an 8" charge. I think I mentioned it earlier, I don't even like the fact run moves are random.

Some of the best (IMO) games are games where movement is LIMITED, but not RANDOM, so you have to carefully weigh your options and when things go wrong, it was 100% because YOU messed up and put yourself in a bad position, not because the dice weren't falling your way that day. That's the way I likes it, I will admit not everyone likes it that way, but it's what I prefer and I think what a lot of people who like tactical games over "random chance" games prefer.

When said space-battles-with-laser-machineguns has people with armour capable of withstanding said machine guns, Demonic beings that pop up right next to people before eating them, super-human warriors teleporting through Hell to pop up next to you, and extra-galactic bugs that are too many to kill, sure it does. It's not science fiction, it's science fantasy. There's nothing preventing you from running a shooting list if that's your cup of tea, so why can't those of us that want get to play assault-centric lists without having to jump through hoops with our hands bound to our backs? Are you having less fun because we don't enjoy the game in the same way you do? I genuinely don't get it.

Except that doesn't really happen on the tabletop, obviously, because if it did then Daemons and any DS units could start the game inside the opponent's deployment zone. But they don't, so this does not mean anything. If they could, however, that would tie right back into my earlier statement about the necessity of an assault unit to mitigate or remove the very-very-VERY OBVIOUS advantages a bunch of motherfethers with guns has over you. What is written in fluff is not present on the tabletop, which is an *entirely* different conversation.

Also. SM are no longer immune to laser-machineguns. The Tau and the Eldar and the Necrons have proven that.

And do not assume my arguments are based on the army I play. Do not make that mistake, because you would be wrong, from whichever direction you approach it, you would be wrong.

Yes, it's space fantasy. Even in fantasy, mofos with bows often kill mofos with swords. It happens. Is Assault the red-headed stepchild of 6th Ed? Yes. By God, if you have actually put any of my previous posts through your eye-holes, you would know that I'm not arguing that it isn't. But what I am arguing is that Assault Armies should be on the same footing as shooty armies, because one, that has never worked out well in the past and, two, it makes neither logical nor narrative sense. Sure, SM are tough.... other races have now developed weapons that kill them in droves. How's that for advancing the time-line, eh? Xenos have upgraded their guns, imagine that, now the SM gotta upgrade their power armor. Maybe in 7th Ed.

Because, actually, yeah, if you want to play an assault-centric army in a narrative where the SM were planned to be in big armor with big guns, there should be a few hoops that need to be jumped through to make that a viable option in a game with tanks, space-lasers, artillery cannons and skulls that shoot other skulls.

I disagree, a failed charge because you made an error is fundamentally different to a failed charge because luck was against you. If you can't guess within a millimeter, that's your fault and you should get better or make sure you aren't trying to guess ranges within a millimeter. It's not the same as having bad luck so the unit has to suffer an extra turn of fire before charging. One is a tactical error, the other is luck. Obviously the game needs some elements of luck, I just prefer it when those elements are NOT part of movement.

Luck is what wins most battles for the individual soldier. It's pure luck that the guy standing next to you caught one in the face and you didn't. It's not training, gear, or any of that, it's pure dumb luck. As mentioned previously in the thread, a failed charge (due to low dice rolls) can indicate that you tripped, that the ground is not as even as it looks (it could have mole-holes), that it is strung with barbed wire or bear-traps or just loose gravel and pebbles. That it's got a slope that was steeper than expected, or not as well-packed, so the earth gave way under your feet and you did not ascend as quickly (or at all), or that someone in the unit tripped, or got shot, or otherwise fell and tangled up the guys behind him.

Okay so I should throw away my daemon army? Alrighty then.

But yeah guardsman punching orks xD forget my pointy end and butt I shall punch them! Oh merciful emperor may m fist slay this foul xenos scum xD

No, but you might want to consider some allies that shoot things. Also, when I was talking about the Guardsman using what the God-Emperor gave him, I was talking about his lasgun. With a bayonet.

JPong wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
I think Fear is a pretty good contender as well

Fear would be fine if GW didn't insist on making everyone and their brother leadership 10 and some form of fearless.

And also only in CC


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
You might want to consider allying it with someone who shoots things, given the current rules of the game. It's not like I can snap my fingers and make Daemons not an assault army or make assault not the worst possible choice in 6th ed.

Naw honestly I just gave up on bloodletters myself . The units need to be fast and mobile to work. You can't ds into the battlefield and immediately charge and you can't flicker in and out of reality like in fluff, and khorne units really aren't that tough for what the fluff claims so for the most part you just forget that Khorne even exists To be honest, daemons are pretty much the only army that can really do an assault army list. Its just sad that khorne for the most part isn't worth paying attention to.

 Peregrine wrote:
Because I like the shooting armies. And the fact that the game has obsolete mechanics from a 1980s fantasy game does not mean that it needs to continue to have those flaws.

Of all the flaws 40k has... that one barely registers for me. It's a game that balances melee against shooting and it's always been that and that's the way I want it to stay. If I wanted realistic wargames, I wouldn't be touching most GW games with a 40ft pole.

I like the fact my Tyranids are assault based... I like the fact my IG are shooting based... I like the fact my SW are shoot-counter-attack based.

What you call a flaw I call a fundamental draw of the game.

Sorry, that reply was to peregine, I am on my tablet where quoting large blocks of text and formatting is hard. He was the one who said it was not more risky than shooting.

A guardsman can use his melee weapons all he wants, he still should not be almost as good at hitting the swarmlord(ws 9) as he is. Though heprobably isisn't using his weapon but instead a grenade. He is effectively, untrained.

If they aren't going to fix melee, which again has been a major theme in the game for 25 years, they need to make that clear and remove it. Until tney remove it, it absolutely has to be competetive because there are whole armies where it is a central theme and GW is marketing it and selling units that don't work. Thisis what makes a competitive game.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Further a Failed charge is a Failed charge, whether it was fate or a misjudged millimeter.

I disagree, a failed charge because you made an error is fundamentally different to a failed charge because luck was against you. If you can't guess within a millimeter, that's your fault and you should get better or make sure you aren't trying to guess ranges within a millimeter. It's not the same as having bad luck so the unit has to suffer an extra turn of fire before charging. One is a tactical error, the other is luck. Obviously the game needs some elements of luck, I just prefer it when those elements are NOT part of movement.

Even "assault units" as you say, they still have around a 15% chance of failing a charge of 7". That just annoys me. If they have a 7" charge, give them a 7" charge. If they have an 8" charge, give them an 8" charge. I think I mentioned it earlier, I don't even like the fact run moves are random.

Some of the best (IMO) games are games where movement is LIMITED, but not RANDOM, so you have to carefully weigh your options and when things go wrong, it was 100% because YOU messed up and put yourself in a bad position, not because the dice weren't falling your way that day. That's the way I likes it, I will admit not everyone likes it that way, but it's what I prefer and I think what a lot of people who like tactical games over "random chance" games prefer.

Eh I get why most folks are afraid of random stuff... but I'd argue that if you need every little detail to be absolutely controlled then you are playing chess - not a war game.

It's always the same folks that require the most controlled, standard rulebook mission, exactly 1850 point, no expansion game - that are afraid of random stuff. Uncontrollable and unexpected things happen in war - and a GOOD general can still react, think, and find a way to pull out a victory - the game shouldn't be won at the "list-building" phase. If you need everything perfectly predictable then you really cannot call yourself 'competitive' at the very least.

 Peregrine wrote:

JPong wrote:
Peregrine, you may think it is too strong, but you cannot argue that it is at all equal to shooting.

I'm not. Shooting is better. My argument is that assault should be much weaker. The game should be 95% shooting with assault being a rare thing that you only do in exceptional circumstances.

Either makeit compete, or kill off units like that.

Exactly. Kill off the WHFB-in-space units that don't belong in the game.

(In fact, just get rid of Tyranids entirely and put demons back in the CSM codex. That alone solves most of the problems.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
We get it. You'd love for the game to be gunline vs gunline where no one moves. Not really a helpful post in this thread however.

I don't think you really understand the concept of moving and shooting. You don't need to have screaming idiots with swords to have a game with interesting movement and strategy. Gunlines are only a problem when you suck at game balance and combine overpowered static units with a complete lack of LOS-blocking terrain.

How cavalier to wipe away a major part of the game that many players find enjoyable, and even perhaps is the focus for them.

Also I'd say taht wouldn't solve most of the problems. From what I know, most armies have some form of CC unit, along with that, DE are ever so slightly leaning towards CC, Nids lean towards assault quite a bit, daemons heavily prefer CC, Orks lean to a preference for CC, heck even BA have an enjoyment in CC, SW enjoy counter-assault styles of combat, and most armies have some extent of CC. Heck, look at 40k commanders! So many of them have high WS and have a pistol at best wielding a gigantic fist/sword/axe. We'd have to remove that all, take away the iconic close combat, take away S, I, WS from the stats. Then what? What do we replace the void with? And do we really destroy what others find fun about the game? To be honest I never cared for sweeping advance. I almost wish there was a way to make it so that it was either the enemy breaks free or they get stuck in combat but incur d3 2d3 blah blah blah wounds. Then again, this could easily mess the game up. The curse of having shooting and cc in a game argh! By their very natures one screws over the other

No one is asking for total control over the game. Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges. Where is it? Is it focus fire? Is it model based cover saves? Do they have to roll to see if they just don't spot the unit? No, in steady they get a free round of shooting against all assaulting units. Like being able to shoot every turn in the game, whas assaulters only have half the game to do damage.

No one is asking for total control over the game. Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges. Where is it? Is it focus fire? Is it model based cover saves? Do they have to roll to see if they just don't spot the unit? No, in steady they get a free round of shooting against all assaulting units. Like being able to shoot every turn in the game, whas assaulters only have half the game to do damage.

Nightfighting, TLOS, many shooty armies standing around in clumps, Sweeping Advance...

... oh, wait. You said "Balance Ruleset". Sorry, sorry, I thought we were talking about Warhammer 40,000 here.

JPong wrote:
No one is asking for total control over the game. Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges. Where is it? Is it focus fire? Is it model based cover saves? Do they have to roll to see if they just don't spot the unit? No, in steady they get a free round of shooting against all assaulting units. Like being able to shoot every turn in the game, whas assaulters only have half the game to do damage.

Assault IS more difficult no doubt, and probably rightfully so. But if you actually play missions (nightfight etc) and use proper terrain shooting shouldn't be gunline versus gunline. Assaulters - as in assault type units (fleet + jumppacks + MC's etc) get some advantages such as Hammer of Wrath (auto-hit not a snap-fire), get to choose when to use jump, get to REROLL charge roll.

 Gunzhard wrote:

JPong wrote:
No one is asking for total control over the game. Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges. Where is it? Is it focus fire? Is it model based cover saves? Do they have to roll to see if they just don't spot the unit? No, in steady they get a free round of shooting against all assaulting units. Like being able to shoot every turn in the game, whas assaulters only have half the game to do damage.

Assault IS more difficult no doubt, and probably rightfully so. But if you actually play missions (nightfight etc) and use proper terrain shooting shouldn't be gunline versus gunline. Assaulters - as in assault type units (fleet + jumppacks + MC's etc) get some advantages such as Hammer of Wrath (auto-hit not a snap-fire), get to choose when to use jump, get to REROLL charge roll.

Rerolling the charge roll is still worse than not having to roll to see if you get to shoot at all. That's not an advantage so much as a lessened disadvantage.

 Psienesis wrote:

No one is asking for total control over the game. Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges. Where is it? Is it focus fire? Is it model based cover saves? Do they have to roll to see if they just don't spot the unit? No, in steady they get a free round of shooting against all assaulting units. Like being able to shoot every turn in the game, whas assaulters only have half the game to do damage.

Nightfighting, TLOS, many shooty armies standing around in clumps, Sweeping Advance...

... oh, wait. You said "Balance Ruleset". Sorry, sorry, I thought we were talking about Warhammer 40,000 here.

Nightfighting that increaes cover saves, and tons of shooting armies can ignore? TLOS that is nearly impssible to take, and a wole bunch of shooty units ignore? Standing around in clumps, where those elee units do what? Sweeping advance that makes it so the assaulting unit gets shot next turn?

Demanding a balanced ruleset is all we an do.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

JPong wrote:
No one is asking for total control over the game. Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges. Where is it? Is it focus fire? Is it model based cover saves? Do they have to roll to see if they just don't spot the unit? No, in steady they get a free round of shooting against all assaulting units. Like being able to shoot every turn in the game, whas assaulters only have half the game to do damage.

Assault IS more difficult no doubt, and probably rightfully so. But if you actually play missions (nightfight etc) and use proper terrain shooting shouldn't be gunline versus gunline. Assaulters - as in assault type units (fleet + jumppacks + MC's etc) get some advantages such as Hammer of Wrath (auto-hit not a snap-fire), get to choose when to use jump, get to REROLL charge roll.

Rerolling the charge roll is still worse than not having to roll to see if you get to shoot at all. That's not an advantage so much as a lessened disadvantage.

Yeah cuz we could potentially assault 12 inches in the previous edition...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

When said space-battles-with-laser-machineguns has people with armour capable of withstanding said machine guns, Demonic beings that pop up right next to people before eating them, super-human warriors teleporting through Hell to pop up next to you, and extra-galactic bugs that are too many to kill, sure it does. It's not science fiction, it's science fantasy. There's nothing preventing you from running a shooting list if that's your cup of tea, so why can't those of us that want get to play assault-centric lists without having to jump through hoops with our hands bound to our backs? Are you having less fun because we don't enjoy the game in the same way you do? I genuinely don't get it.

I agree with this. This being said, you have to agree that you mentioned the exceptions to the rule. I like them and they have a place. I used to play chaos and am looking forward to building bugs. I just feel that shooting SHOULD be more powerfull than close combat. heck, even the exceptions you mentioned all have shooting elements. The question is degree. i feel that we are as close to the 'sweet spot" as we have ever been in this regard. Still needs tweaking of corse with some give and take from both sides.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Further a Failed charge is a Failed charge, whether it was fate or a misjudged millimeter.

I disagree, a failed charge because you made an error is fundamentally different to a failed charge because luck was against you. If you can't guess within a millimeter, that's your fault and you should get better or make sure you aren't trying to guess ranges within a millimeter. It's not the same as having bad luck so the unit has to suffer an extra turn of fire before charging. One is a tactical error, the other is luck. Obviously the game needs some elements of luck, I just prefer it when those elements are NOT part of movement.

Even "assault units" as you say, they still have around a 15% chance of failing a charge of 7". That just annoys me. If they have a 7" charge, give them a 7" charge. If they have an 8" charge, give them an 8" charge. I think I mentioned it earlier, I don't even like the fact run moves are random.

Some of the best (IMO) games are games where movement is LIMITED, but not RANDOM, so you have to carefully weigh your options and when things go wrong, it was 100% because YOU messed up and put yourself in a bad position, not because the dice weren't falling your way that day. That's the way I likes it, I will admit not everyone likes it that way, but it's what I prefer and I think what a lot of people who like tactical games over "random chance" games prefer.

You have to remember that even in the random games, tactics play a huge part in loading the dice in your favor. Again, we go back to the example of two players in an identical situation. Player #1 is lazy and just pushes a model to within 6 inches, has it killed leaving the next model at 8 inches and the 2nd hit from the d3 flamer kills it leaving the 3rd model 10 inches away and a 9 was rolled for the chare and so it failed. Player #2 moves the entire unit forw the full movement and encircles the target unit where there are 4 models within 3 inches. the flamer kills 2 and a 9 is rolled and the assault hit. Because of the way player #2 used tactics, the ONLY way the charge woulda failed was on snakeeyes.
So tactics play a HUGE role in both games. It is a fallacy to assume that the game with dice rolls doesnt have tactics.

 StarTrotter wrote:

JPong wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
I think Fear is a pretty good contender as well

Fear would be fine if GW didn't insist on making everyone and their brother leadership 10 and some form of fearless.

And also only in CC


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
You might want to consider allying it with someone who shoots things, given the current rules of the game. It's not like I can snap my fingers and make Daemons not an assault army or make assault not the worst possible choice in 6th ed.

Naw honestly I just gave up on bloodletters myself . The units need to be fast and mobile to work. You can't ds into the battlefield and immediately charge and you can't flicker in and out of reality like in fluff, and khorne units really aren't that tough for what the fluff claims so for the most part you just forget that Khorne even exists To be honest, daemons are pretty much the only army that can really do an assault army list. Its just sad that khorne for the most part isn't worth paying attention to.

Good, As I said, lear to work within the new system. Armies that dont have the flexibility of the daemons can use allies but you found a way around it without having to go that route.
we hafta remember they are also in the business of sellinmodels so you can bet that with each new edition or codex, diferent units will wax and wane in power to force us to buy new models to keep up. many havnt learned or are too stubborn lol to o this.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Because I like the shooting armies. And the fact that the game has obsolete mechanics from a 1980s fantasy game does not mean that it needs to continue to have those flaws.

Of all the flaws 40k has... that one barely registers for me. It's a game that balances melee against shooting and it's always been that and that's the way I want it to stay. If I wanted realistic wargames, I wouldn't be touching most GW games with a 40ft pole.

I like the fact my Tyranids are assault based... I like the fact my IG are shooting based... I like the fact my SW are shoot-counter-attack based.

What you call a flaw I call a fundamental draw of the game.

Agreed.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

JPong wrote:
No one is asking for total control over the game. Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges. Where is it? Is it focus fire? Is it model based cover saves? Do they have to roll to see if they just don't spot the unit? No, in steady they get a free round of shooting against all assaulting units. Like being able to shoot every turn in the game, whas assaulters only have half the game to do damage.

Assault IS more difficult no doubt, and probably rightfully so. But if you actually play missions (nightfight etc) and use proper terrain shooting shouldn't be gunline versus gunline. Assaulters - as in assault type units (fleet + jumppacks + MC's etc) get some advantages such as Hammer of Wrath (auto-hit not a snap-fire), get to choose when to use jump, get to REROLL charge roll.

Rerolling the charge roll is still worse than not having to roll to see if you get to shoot at all. That's not an advantage so much as a lessened disadvantage.

Yeah cuz we could potentially assault 12 inches in the previous edition...

What does that have to do with what I just said?

 Gunzhard wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Further a Failed charge is a Failed charge, whether it was fate or a misjudged millimeter.

I disagree, a failed charge because you made an error is fundamentally different to a failed charge because luck was against you. If you can't guess within a millimeter, that's your fault and you should get better or make sure you aren't trying to guess ranges within a millimeter. It's not the same as having bad luck so the unit has to suffer an extra turn of fire before charging. One is a tactical error, the other is luck. Obviously the game needs some elements of luck, I just prefer it when those elements are NOT part of movement.

Even "assault units" as you say, they still have around a 15% chance of failing a charge of 7". That just annoys me. If they have a 7" charge, give them a 7" charge. If they have an 8" charge, give them an 8" charge. I think I mentioned it earlier, I don't even like the fact run moves are random.

Some of the best (IMO) games are games where movement is LIMITED, but not RANDOM, so you have to carefully weigh your options and when things go wrong, it was 100% because YOU messed up and put yourself in a bad position, not because the dice weren't falling your way that day. That's the way I likes it, I will admit not everyone likes it that way, but it's what I prefer and I think what a lot of people who like tactical games over "random chance" games prefer.

Eh I get why most folks are afraid of random stuff... but I'd argue that if you need every little detail to be absolutely controlled then you are playing chess - not a war game.

It's always the same folks that require the most controlled, standard rulebook mission, exactly 1850 point, no expansion game - that are afraid of random stuff. Uncontrollable and unexpected things happen in war - and a GOOD general can still react, think, and find a way to pull out a victory - the game shouldn't be won at the "list-building" phase. If you need everything perfectly predictable then you really cannot call yourself 'competitive' at the very least.

I never said I don't like random, I said I don't like random in the movement phase. I'm aware it's personal preference, but it's still what I prefer.

If I lose a game because my uber soldiers couldn't defeat the enemy uber soldiers despite me weighing the odds as heavily in their favour as possible, I'm fine with that. I just don't like losing (or winning for that matter) because a unit decided that today it's only going to run 3" instead of the required 4" even though it normally likes to run 7" one 6th of the time and greater than 6" 58.3% of the time. It's not what I consider fun, I think we've beaten this dead horse long enough and at the end of the day that's what it comes down to, personal preference.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

When said space-battles-with-laser-machineguns has people with armour capable of withstanding said machine guns, Demonic beings that pop up right next to people before eating them, super-human warriors teleporting through Hell to pop up next to you, and extra-galactic bugs that are too many to kill, sure it does. It's not science fiction, it's science fantasy. There's nothing preventing you from running a shooting list if that's your cup of tea, so why can't those of us that want get to play assault-centric lists without having to jump through hoops with our hands bound to our backs? Are you having less fun because we don't enjoy the game in the same way you do? I genuinely don't get it.

I agree with this. This being said, you have to agree that you mentioned the exceptions to the rule. I like them and they have a place. I used to play chaos and am looking forward to building bugs. I just feel that shooting SHOULD be more powerfull than close combat. heck, even the exceptions you mentioned all have shooting elements. The question is degree. i feel that we are as close to the 'sweet spot" as we have ever been in this regard. Still needs tweaking of corse with some give and take from both sides.

I'd argue that 5th edition had a better balance between shooting and melee (and before Peregrine jumps on me, assuming that one wants melee to be a major part of the game). Shooting was stronger, but melee was still alive and healthy. Then 6th edition came along and stabbed melee combat with a dull spoon repeatedly. Melee's still alive, but it's battered, bruised and bleeding. If it doesn't get medical attention, it'll die.

I agree with you that the difference is in degree, and I don't even mind if shooting's more powerful than melee, just not by the current extent.

JPong wrote:
Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges.

Why? A balanced game is one where all armies can compete, not one where shooting and melee are both equally effective strategies. The game should be balanced around lots of shooting and the occasional assault, and that means that shooting should not have the same drawbacks as melee.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
When said space-battles-with-laser-machineguns has people with armour capable of withstanding said machine guns, Demonic beings that pop up right next to people before eating them, super-human warriors teleporting through Hell to pop up next to you, and extra-galactic bugs that are too many to kill, sure it does. It's not science fiction, it's science fantasy.

No, it has nothing to do with the fluff. Melee combat only works in 40k because of two things:

1) The IGOUGO system that lets a unit move out from behind a LOS-blocking terrain feature, move 12", and start stabbing another unit while the defender has to just sit there and take it (other than ineffective overwatch fire). Add in proper reactions and assault armies have a much smaller chance of getting to a target without getting shot to death first.

2) The fact that GW can't get the scale of the game right. The models are kind of 28mm (except for vehicles), and infantry movement speeds are about right for one turn worth of movement, but weapon ranges are laughably short, vehicle movement speeds are too slow, and the arbitrary table edge prevents units from shooting while falling back and staying out of melee range. If you played 40k at true 28mm scale with no other changes assault armies would probably never even get to declare a single charge before getting tabled.

So, in short, assault armies are the same kind of unrealistic rule exploit as using spare Rhinos to block LOS to a unit so you can only see the sergeant and therefore all wounds have to go to him. It's just exploiting an awkward game mechanic to do something that doesn't make any sense fluff-wise.

Are you having less fun because we don't enjoy the game in the same way you do? I genuinely don't get it.

That's exactly it. Having my guardsmen get slaughtered in melee because their lasguns have laughably short range is annoying. You might be having fun, but don't forget that the rest of us have to put up with your ridiculous assault armies.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
I do not understand how you try to justefy the rules from a realism perspective. They are rules, something you use to play.

But the rules still have make sense. You aren't playing a game of chess with 40k pieces, you're playing a game which is supposed to be a simulation of the "real" events on the battlefield. You know, so you can forge the narrative about how those things happened, imagine all the awesome stuff going on as you roll the dice, etc. When you have obviously unrealistic rules it pulls you out of that narrative and reminds you that it's just a dice game, and not even a very good dice game.

Warhammer 40K is a turn based game, that is not very realistic. This should be your first complaint. After that the "real" argument falls flat. We are on the world of rules, not in the world of real. You might as well try to explain why Super Mario has 3 lives. (Perhaps they are 3 identical twins?) No matter what explanation you come up with they never explain the rules completely, they argue with them.

With an averedge game lasting 2 ours of optimal desions from a gods eye perspective is also a bitt odd when the 5-7 turns would take a maximum of ten minuts in "real", if even that. (2 minuts perhaps?)

If you are also explaining this with the "real" argument can you not come up with exuses as to why it would be hard to charge someone who is shooting at you on a smoke and craterfilled battlefield? Do you think it is more realistic that they always charge 6"? To make things worse you can now pre-measure, so the charging unit would not even have to consider "Do you think we would make it before our turn is over and we are stuck in the open?" Nope, they always know 100% if they will make it or if they will not make it.

If you want to complain about the rules please do so, but arguing with "real" is a bad argument. If this is what you want I would advice you playing the computer game "Arma" where you spend 7 houers slowly crawling towards the enemy trying not to sett up the alarm.

 Peregrine wrote:

Are you having less fun because we don't enjoy the game in the same way you do? I genuinely don't get it.

That's exactly it. Having my guardsmen get slaughtered in melee because their lasguns have laughably short range is annoying. You might be having fun, but don't forget that the rest of us have to put up with your ridiculous assault armies.

So then, in the manner of utilitarianism, the way the game ought to be balanced is the way that the most people will enjoy, no? I'm fairly confident in claiming that more people would like melee to be a major part than not.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Failing an assault because you mispredicted the distance doesn't bother me. Failing an assault because the dice are against you always has annoyed me, regardless of 40k or fantasy and regardless of edition.

That's the trade-off for getting to measure everything whenever you want, though. Which, to my mind, is a bigger deal than the random assault... the whole 'no measuring' thing from previous editions was a nice idea, but too easily abused since people would just come up with clever ways to get around it.

I don't have a problem with charges being random, but I would rather see a bigger minimum distance than the 2" from rolling snake eyes... Say 2D6 for the charge with a minimum of 6" (or just 6" + D6), so you can at least make some pretense of planning out the charge.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

JPong wrote:
No one is asking for total control over the game. Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges. Where is it? Is it focus fire? Is it model based cover saves? Do they have to roll to see if they just don't spot the unit? No, in steady they get a free round of shooting against all assaulting units. Like being able to shoot every turn in the game, whas assaulters only have half the game to do damage.

Assault IS more difficult no doubt, and probably rightfully so. But if you actually play missions (nightfight etc) and use proper terrain shooting shouldn't be gunline versus gunline. Assaulters - as in assault type units (fleet + jumppacks + MC's etc) get some advantages such as Hammer of Wrath (auto-hit not a snap-fire), get to choose when to use jump, get to REROLL charge roll.

Rerolling the charge roll is still worse than not having to roll to see if you get to shoot at all. That's not an advantage so much as a lessened disadvantage.

Yeah cuz we could potentially assault 12 inches in the previous edition...

What does that have to do with what I just said?

Oh I'm sorry I thought you said, "That's not an advantage so much as a lessened disadvantage"? - But you do get some advantages in this edition for being an 'assault type unit' that you NEVER got in previous 40k editions. 2nd ed had overwatch... but now you get your 'snap shot' overwatch, and some assault units get an 'auto-hit' Hammer of Wrath and a potential super long assault, and a REROLL. It's so hard to take these debates seriously when people play up the ridiculous extremes - assault IS more difficult yes, I agree... but c'mon dude.

"Play up ridiculous extremes" and "you can totes assault 12" lolz".

Sometimes things are just funny. Because bringing up assaulting 12" is absolutely a ridiculous extreme.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Further a Failed charge is a Failed charge, whether it was fate or a misjudged millimeter.

I disagree, a failed charge because you made an error is fundamentally different to a failed charge because luck was against you. If you can't guess within a millimeter, that's your fault and you should get better or make sure you aren't trying to guess ranges within a millimeter. It's not the same as having bad luck so the unit has to suffer an extra turn of fire before charging. One is a tactical error, the other is luck. Obviously the game needs some elements of luck, I just prefer it when those elements are NOT part of movement.

Even "assault units" as you say, they still have around a 15% chance of failing a charge of 7". That just annoys me. If they have a 7" charge, give them a 7" charge. If they have an 8" charge, give them an 8" charge. I think I mentioned it earlier, I don't even like the fact run moves are random.

Some of the best (IMO) games are games where movement is LIMITED, but not RANDOM, so you have to carefully weigh your options and when things go wrong, it was 100% because YOU messed up and put yourself in a bad position, not because the dice weren't falling your way that day. That's the way I likes it, I will admit not everyone likes it that way, but it's what I prefer and I think what a lot of people who like tactical games over "random chance" games prefer.

Eh I get why most folks are afraid of random stuff... but I'd argue that if you need every little detail to be absolutely controlled then you are playing chess - not a war game.

It's always the same folks that require the most controlled, standard rulebook mission, exactly 1850 point, no expansion game - that are afraid of random stuff. Uncontrollable and unexpected things happen in war - and a GOOD general can still react, think, and find a way to pull out a victory - the game shouldn't be won at the "list-building" phase. If you need everything perfectly predictable then you really cannot call yourself 'competitive' at the very least.

I never said I don't like random, I said I don't like random in the movement phase. I'm aware it's personal preference, but it's still what I prefer.

If I lose a game because my uber soldiers couldn't defeat the enemy uber soldiers despite me weighing the odds as heavily in their favour as possible, I'm fine with that. I just don't like losing (or winning for that matter) because a unit decided that today it's only going to run 3" instead of the required 4" even though it normally likes to run 7" one 6th of the time and greater than 6" 58.3% of the time. It's not what I consider fun, I think we've beaten this dead horse long enough and at the end of the day that's what it comes down to, personal preference.

A dead horse doesn't get to re-roll the charge roll. But seriously - if it's the narrative aspect of this one random roll that bothers you, in a game with dice - you could think of it as the terrain that dictates the distance rather than your unit 'deciding to run less'; which is actually more realistic anyway despite most folks playing terrain-less games on their mom's kitchen table.

i was fond of the range modifiers for the different guns. I would say extend the range for all of them but add in the modifiers to match. THAT would give the shooting armies nerfs that would fit and be balanced.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Eh I get why most folks are afraid of random stuff... but I'd argue that if you need every little detail to be absolutely controlled then you are playing chess - not a war game.

The chess argument being kicked around is completely backwards. The words "tactics" and "lazy" are getting overused as well. And I don't think anyone has advocated a complete removal of randomness from the game.

Random charge ranges is a way for GW to insert itself into the game to determine a (random) outcome, taking a decision away from the player (that players are used to having.) Removing decision points from the player and turning them over to random dice rolls causes players to rely on luck more than tactics. The notion of a set charge range causing the game to tend towards chess is nonsensical. Chess is a game with a finite number of rules with a finite set of pieces on a finite playing field. Removing significant portions of the game (less player options), such as assaults, would cause the game to tend towards chess more.

Imagine that the shooty type players who think that there is no place for CC in scifi battles are able to band together and ban assault armies (and assaults) from 40k so that they can just line up and shoot at each other. But then perhaps the tank shooters get to thinking the infantry shooters are weighing down the game, because they take sooooooo long to do a turn. So the tank shooters ban together and ban the foot shooters. After a number of reductions, just what game are you left with?

Cheers!