Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 10:09:00
Subject: Re:Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan
|
Jimsolo wrote:I love random charge distances. I think they added a much-needed degree of complexity to assaults.
Against each other, shooting lists have previously required more finesse and forethought than assault lists. You have to set yourself up in the terrain, have to plan three steps ahead about how to evade the assault armies, have to target prioritize WAY more than an assault army, and in general you had to play a more complex game. Meanwhile, the assault list just had to run all their units at you chin-first, and would still usually win. 5th edition addressed some of these issues, but I think that 6th edition has completed the changes that were necessary.
Assault (random charges included) isn't broken in 6th edition. It's just more complicated. It requires some actual forethought and tactical thinking now. Y'know, like shooting lists.
You do realize that shooting was already king in 5th, yes? Further, the idea that assault was somehow easier than shooting just doesn't hold up. For every shooty player who moved to evade, there was a melee player moving to reduce that possibility; for every target priority choice a shooty player had to do, there was one for the melee player. The difference being that the deck was already stacked in favour of the shooting player.
|
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 10:11:24
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Lustful Cultist of Slaanesh
|
I love random charge ranges to be honest,and I have a hard time seeing why people have issues with it. Staying in cover to make charges difficult becomes more valuable, and outside of cover you'll on an average go 7" on the charge which is farther than what it was in 5th edition.
I think a lot of the people who run pure assault lists expect that they can run in a straight line across the map and just charge in any auto-win. I've seen it a lot on youtube (especially a lot of the people whining about the new nids dex), and I've seen it IRL versus other people.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/29 10:13:04
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 10:22:28
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan
|
Isbjornen wrote:
I think a lot of the people who run pure assault lists expect that they can run in a straight line across the map and just charge in any auto-win. I've seen it a lot on youtube (especially a lot of the people whining about the new nids dex), and I've seen it IRL versus other people.
When was that last the case? Seriously, when? Why would anyone expect that, ever?
|
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 10:31:41
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
It was never the case and it is not like cover or stick to it helps assault armies a lot , specialy low save ones like nids , other then a mirror match with nids am having problems with thinking about a build that does ignore cover or runs ally to ignore cover.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 11:19:05
Subject: Re:Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon
|
Biggest problem isnt the assault rules. Biggest problem is GW still overestimating what assault based units can do in a game. Assault being subpar in comparison to shooting is perfectly fine if the units in question dont pay more for less effectivity.
I mean look at one of the best shooty units in the game the Riptide and compare it to an assault based unit and you quickly figure out that he pays less for being much more versatile and doing his job from turn 1 on instead of starting to do something in your 3rd turn if you are lucky enough.
Down with the points for assault based units so overwatch and casualties from shooting dont cripple the last bit of effectivity they have.
I can only shrug when an assault unit enters combat after been shot to death 3 and a half turns only to be overwhelmed by the number of crap attacks the shooty units put out in said combat.
Something needs to be done in my eyes but i dont expect GW to be the one unfortunately. They'll still let you pay premium points for a subpar feature in years ...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 11:31:11
Subject: Re:Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan
|
Mywik wrote:Biggest problem isnt the assault rules. Biggest problem is GW still overestimating what assault based units can do in a game. Assault being subpar in comparison to shooting is perfectly fine if the units in question dont pay more for less effectivity.
I mean look at one of the best shooty units in the game the Riptide and compare it to an assault based unit and you quickly figure out that he pays less for being much more versatile and doing his job from turn 1 on instead of starting to do something in your 3rd turn if you are lucky enough.
Down with the points for assault based units so overwatch and casualties from shooting dont cripple the last bit of effectivity they have.
I can only shrug when an assault unit enters combat after been shot to death 3 and a half turns only to be overwhelmed by the number of crap attacks the shooty units put out in said combat.
Something needs to be done in my eyes but i dont expect GW to be the one unfortunately. They'll still let you pay premium points for a subpar feature in years ...
Couldn't agree more.
|
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 12:39:01
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf
|
insaniak wrote:davethepak wrote:I am fine with random charges...I just think its silly that you don't move if you don't make it.
The thing is, under the current game structure, this would result in there never being any reason for assault units to not declare a charge... You would just charge instead of running every turn.
The answer there of course is to remove the need to 'declare' charges. Just allow units to move into contact with enemy units (whether through normal movement or runnin) and if they make contact, it was a charge.
Or you could just make it so you can't declare a charge you can't physically make. Or make it so you can't shoot if you declare a charge.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 12:40:18
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot
|
Allowed to reroll one dice when assaulting seems like a good idea to make assaults slightly more predictable.
|
A Dark Angel fell on a watcher in the Dark Shroud silently chanted Vengance on the Fallen Angels to never be Unforgiven |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 12:41:48
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets
|
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Isbjornen wrote:
I think a lot of the people who run pure assault lists expect that they can run in a straight line across the map and just charge in any auto-win. I've seen it a lot on youtube (especially a lot of the people whining about the new nids dex), and I've seen it IRL versus other people.
When was that last the case? Seriously, when? Why would anyone expect that, ever?
Third edition...
That's kinda it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 12:42:09
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan
|
AllSeeingSkink wrote: insaniak wrote:davethepak wrote:I am fine with random charges...I just think its silly that you don't move if you don't make it.
The thing is, under the current game structure, this would result in there never being any reason for assault units to not declare a charge... You would just charge instead of running every turn.
The answer there of course is to remove the need to 'declare' charges. Just allow units to move into contact with enemy units (whether through normal movement or runnin) and if they make contact, it was a charge.
Or you could just make it so you can't declare a charge you can't physically make.
That's already the case though. You're not allowed to charge if you can't make it.
|
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 12:47:14
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf
|
This thread does remind me why I prefer Fantasy over 40k (as a game), lol. Though I don't like random charges there either
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 13:29:48
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
4. gak!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 13:39:47
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Stealthy Dark Angels Scout with Shotgun
Craftworld Terra
|
Peregrine wrote:Grim Dark wrote: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.
No, that's not how it works at all. Charge success or failure is not a player decision, and it never was.
No, that's not how it works at all. If I order a unit to charge (that I know is within 6" for purposes of charging in the past) and don't receive a sufficiently high dice roll they stay right where they are. Thus, a player decision has been taken away by GW's lame attempt to create a narrative by increasing randomness. One's previous success or failure at judging 6" is a separate issue. My game has not been enhanced in any way by having an elite unit of trained killers fail to cover, say 3", on the board because of a random roll.
Saying that we now have more decisions to make because we can attempt charges longer than 6" reduces the game to Mathhammer, which I'm certain appeals to some players. But that also doesn't create a narrative.
If randomness = enhanced play then why not have Night Fighting rules mandatory the entire game? How about adding randomness to gun statlines such as Lascannon 48" (+/- d6") Str 9 (+/- d3) AP 2 (+/- 1) Heavy 1 (+1 on days that begin with an 'S' and holidays.) Just thinking about the potential realism is intoxicating!
Cheers.
|
"Alea iacta est" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 13:54:39
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Leader of the Sept
|
Grim Dark wrote:And yet shooters can sit contentedly in such dangerous environments, plinking away as it suits them, safe in the knowledge they have no concerns until some random enemy CC unit makes a random die roll, or someone shoots them back.
Alternatively the shooting rules implicitly take into account the difficulty of the environment into whether a particular model can hit and damage what they are shooting at. Hence while Guardsmen are firing a weapon that should always hit what is being aimed at, their chance to get a solid hit is 50% because they can't take the time to aim properly because they are also getting shot at.
|
Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!
Terranwing - w3;d1;l1
51st Dunedinw2;d0;l0
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 13:56:35
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Grim Dark wrote: Peregrine wrote:Grim Dark wrote: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.
No, that's not how it works at all. Charge success or failure is not a player decision, and it never was.
No, that's not how it works at all. If I order a unit to charge (that I know is within 6" for purposes of charging in the past) and don't receive a sufficiently high dice roll they stay right where they are. Thus, a player decision has been taken away by GW's lame attempt to create a narrative by increasing randomness. One's previous success or failure at judging 6" is a separate issue. My game has not been enhanced in any way by having an elite unit of trained killers fail to cover, say 3", on the board because of a random roll.
Saying that we now have more decisions to make because we can attempt charges longer than 6" reduces the game to Mathhammer, which I'm certain appeals to some players. But that also doesn't create a narrative.
If randomness = enhanced play then why not have Night Fighting rules mandatory the entire game? How about adding randomness to gun statlines such as Lascannon 48" (+/- d6") Str 9 (+/- d3) AP 2 (+/- 1) Heavy 1 (+1 on days that begin with an 'S' and holidays.) Just thinking about the potential realism is intoxicating!
Cheers.
2D6 doesn't even equate to mathhammer because you aren't rolling enough to play the odds. It's just, "Did I make it? Nope, well that's gakky, I just gave them a free round of shooting, and now my guys have their thumbs up their ass."
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 13:57:32
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Leader of the Sept
|
Banzaimash wrote:It is quite fun in a casual game, as it can generate some really memorable and fun moments, but in all honesty I preferred it as it was before. Imagine having to roll to see if your gun works, or to check your range. It would suck right?
You do. The to-hit and to-wound rolls represent the effectiveness of a model firing, not what happens for a particular shot. If you miss or fail to wound you could easily chalk it up to a misfire. You also have random range when considering blast weapons.
|
Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!
Terranwing - w3;d1;l1
51st Dunedinw2;d0;l0
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 13:58:50
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Flinty wrote:Grim Dark wrote:And yet shooters can sit contentedly in such dangerous environments, plinking away as it suits them, safe in the knowledge they have no concerns until some random enemy CC unit makes a random die roll, or someone shoots them back.
Alternatively the shooting rules implicitly take into account the difficulty of the environment into whether a particular model can hit and damage what they are shooting at. Hence while Guardsmen are firing a weapon that should always hit what is being aimed at, their chance to get a solid hit is 50% because they can't take the time to aim properly because they are also getting shot at.
And melee has that too. In Melee combat. When you roll to see if you hit. There is no check for shooting to see if they can even see the unit through the chaotic battlefield, and if they can't, the whole unit does nothing. At best, the comparison is to line of sight, but that means feth all when, if you don't have LOS you can pick another target. There is no committing to shooting. There is no penalty for failure.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 14:07:59
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon
|
Flinty wrote: Banzaimash wrote:It is quite fun in a casual game, as it can generate some really memorable and fun moments, but in all honesty I preferred it as it was before. Imagine having to roll to see if your gun works, or to check your range. It would suck right?
You do. The to-hit and to-wound rolls represent the effectiveness of a model firing, not what happens for a particular shot. If you miss or fail to wound you could easily chalk it up to a misfire. You also have random range when considering blast weapons.
Its not like assault attacks autohit and autowound. Its more like having a gets hot roll on each and every weapon that is dependent on how far the target is away. Imagine every single one of your units having to roll a die to decide if it shoots or not and AFTERWARDS having to hit and wound. Even this isnt even close to the situation a unit that failed its charge is in since its now in the open AND in rapidfire/charging range itself. But dont get me started here since most edition based drawbacks on assault have already been pointed out throughout the thread. No need to repeat all of them.
Dont get me wrong i dont think assault is too weak and i dont really care about random charge ranges tbh. What i do care about though is GW designing melee units and pricing them like its still 4th edition where one of them could kill an entire opposing force if played right. Its not like thats the case against a competent player anymore but still they get a prohibitve price tag which leads to having less units that are able to assault and thus maximising the randomness. This is why shooting is superior. Because its a lot more reliable and point efficient in most cases.
Less randomness is beneficial to both sides btw. There will be that game where your opponent makes 2 or 3 normally almost impossible charges in one game that change the outcome of everything. This is frustrating for the guy with the shooty army too.
I also play FoW. It punishes the shooter when hes not close to the target. Assault is absolute and inevitably deadly in FoW. Stuff just dies ... in droves. Making a charge is A LOT harder than in 40k. Still its worthwile because it gets jobs done that shooting just cant do. Its also somewhat random but you have tools at hand to minimise that randomness. The randomness is not determined through a single 2d6 roll. Thats how i want melee in 40k :(. FoW shows that you can incorporate randomness AND player skill while also not making it overpowered.
|
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2014/01/29 14:20:06
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 14:24:50
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Stealthy Dark Angels Scout with Shotgun
Craftworld Terra
|
JPong wrote:2D6 doesn't even equate to mathhammer because you aren't rolling enough to play the odds. It's just, "Did I make it? Nope, well that's gakky, I just gave them a free round of shooting, and now my guys have their thumbs up their ass."
If your MathHammer only encompasses what happens in one game then perhaps you should take your shoes off. MathHammer includes the current meta.
Lets say you are planning to play in a 3 round tournament. You have to decide on a unit's usefulness over potentially 21 turns of play, give or take. How many dice rolls there?
Don't play in tournaments? Even so, when building an army you have to decide on the usefulness of a unit as regards purchasing, assembling, possibly painting and maintenance and transportation of it over its expected lifetime. How many random dice rolls there?
Already have the unit? But now perhaps it only sits on your shelf collecting dust because GW's narrative generating random dice rolls make it less effective to take. How many lost dice rolls there? Screw the Rain Forests! Lets Save the Randomness!!
Are we there yet?
|
"Alea iacta est" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 14:30:11
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Grim Dark wrote:JPong wrote:2D6 doesn't even equate to mathhammer because you aren't rolling enough to play the odds. It's just, "Did I make it? Nope, well that's gakky, I just gave them a free round of shooting, and now my guys have their thumbs up their ass."
If your MathHammer only encompasses what happens in one game then perhaps you should take your shoes off. MathHammer includes the current meta.
Lets say you are planning to play in a 3 round tournament. You have to decide on a unit's usefulness over potentially 21 turns of play, give or take. How many dice rolls there?
Don't play in tournaments? Even so, when building an army you have to decide on the usefulness of a unit as regards purchasing, assembling, possibly painting and maintenance and transportation of it over its expected lifetime. How many random dice rolls there?
Already have the unit? But now perhaps it only sits on your shelf collecting dust because GW's narrative generating random dice rolls make it less effective to take. How many lost dice rolls there? Screw the Rain Forests! Lets Save the Randomness!!
Are we there yet?
No it doesn't, at least not on single dice rolls. Because your previous rolls have no bearing on your future rolls. Statistically, over a large sample size, you will average out. 8 rolls in 3 hours is not a large sample size.
You play the odds, but cannot expect average, which is why you always try and minimize your chance of failure. I can take 30 boyz with shootas and expect about average rolls for shooting. I can't do that when charging. You have a 40% chance of failing a 7" charge. That is not, in any way, reliable.
Mathhammer is good for figuring out the effectiveness of a unit, it's not good for figuring out if you make a charge or not.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 14:36:07
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Flinty wrote:Grim Dark wrote:And yet shooters can sit contentedly in such dangerous environments, plinking away as it suits them, safe in the knowledge they have no concerns until some random enemy CC unit makes a random die roll, or someone shoots them back.
Alternatively the shooting rules implicitly take into account the difficulty of the environment into whether a particular model can hit and damage what they are shooting at. Hence while Guardsmen are firing a weapon that should always hit what is being aimed at, their chance to get a solid hit is 50% because they can't take the time to aim properly because they are also getting shot at.
Even soldiers with a good amount of training don't hit every time. I know you're going to bring up lasers, but hear me out.
One of the targets during qualification is a 50m target. With an M16 at that range there's essentially no raise/drop so it's like a laser.
There is a non-zero amount of people that fail to hit the 50m target during training and qualification.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 14:44:30
Subject: Re:Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Masculine Male Wych
|
Well I like the current system, its all about maximizing youre chances to get youre guys into CC and having a backup plan, if they fail. At least random elements dont make the whole game totally random if you have a good strategy to minimize its effects.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 14:48:42
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Leader of the Sept
|
@JPong & mywick - Agreed, there are similar mechanics in CC, but GW has decided to make it harder to succeed in CC than in shooting. I'm just against the idea that the charge range roll purely comes down to how "fast" a model can run in any given situation. It is only part of the simplification. They tried adding lmiitations to firing when the target priority tests were still about, and then they dropped them. I imagine that the CC rules will be amended at some point as well to redress the balance.
@rigeld - fair enough, but lasers also don't have appreciable recoil
My biggest problem with CC is that if you can finesse it properly, a CC unit can be in CC and therefore immune to shooting for a long time. This is what really made the difference between CC and gunline armies in rpevious editions, the ability for even mediocre CC troops to eat a whole Tau or Guard army with no real ability for the gunline to react. this was dealt with to a certain extent with the removal of sweeping into new units, but you can still end up with a CC unit winning in their opponents turn charging their way along a whole gunline. In 5th, the gunline basically had 1 turn of shooting to kill the unit dead, or else it was pretty much game over. Overwatch has helped this a bit as well and the random charge distance helps as well by possibly giving the gunline more turns of shooting at the enemy. Is it too much? maybe.
|
Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!
Terranwing - w3;d1;l1
51st Dunedinw2;d0;l0
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 14:56:11
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Flinty wrote:@JPong & mywick - Agreed, there are similar mechanics in CC, but GW has decided to make it harder to succeed in CC than in shooting. I'm just against the idea that the charge range roll purely comes down to how "fast" a model can run in any given situation. It is only part of the simplification. They tried adding lmiitations to firing when the target priority tests were still about, and then they dropped them. I imagine that the CC rules will be amended at some point as well to redress the balance.
@rigeld - fair enough, but lasers also don't have appreciable recoil
My biggest problem with CC is that if you can finesse it properly, a CC unit can be in CC and therefore immune to shooting for a long time. This is what really made the difference between CC and gunline armies in rpevious editions, the ability for even mediocre CC troops to eat a whole Tau or Guard army with no real ability for the gunline to react. this was dealt with to a certain extent with the removal of sweeping into new units, but you can still end up with a CC unit winning in their opponents turn charging their way along a whole gunline. In 5th, the gunline basically had 1 turn of shooting to kill the unit dead, or else it was pretty much game over. Overwatch has helped this a bit as well and the random charge distance helps as well by possibly giving the gunline more turns of shooting at the enemy. Is it too much? maybe.
And gunline armies can take appropriate steps to ensure that doesn't happen ( MSU). And to be fair, it's a lot harder than it sounds to have this balancing act of enough killing power to not lose combat, but win in the next turn. Especially since charging units are stronger on the charging turn. You, as a shooting army, want to lose your unit in the turn it charges.
And all that said about your problem. It still ignores the issue that gunlines won tournaments in 5th, assault won games. Now assault can barely win games. Besides that, shooting armies had at least 2 turns of shooting in 5th before assault units could reach them (barring drop pods, but they typically had meltas in them anyways). And all this still ignores the fact that "Oh well, sometimes you have to lose units in the game" that's part of it being a game, where 2 or more people are playing against each other.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 14:58:34
Subject: Re:Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
StarTrotter wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote: azreal13 wrote:40K is a game, not a simulation. That the game treats both ranged and assault as features of combat equally (never have I heard mention of close combat being "a last ditch tactic" or something units do out of sheer desperation or anything similar) means the rules should make both equally viable. That the Chainsword is almost as iconic a piece of wargear to 40k as a Bolter, isn't coincidence.
Except that it doesn't treat them equally anymore. Shooting is now clearly better than assault, and obviously you haven't read many Guard novels, where close combat is used only when every other option has failed to stop or root out the heretics/xenos/traitors/daemons/whathaveyou.
Why should the rules make them equally viable just because of some symbolism? The Civil War artilleryman's sword is symbolic of his rank and posting, but that doesn't mean that commanders routinely ordered artillery crewmen into close combat because they were so equipped!
Also don't penal legions do suicide charges? Anyways, there are certain other IG that charge (usually barbaric races I might add) but why would you want to charge daemons/ SM/orks/etc. You would be giving up your defensive fortifications but also giving the enemy an advantage. Yes run into the berzerkers, yes run right at the bloodletters... yes run at the hormogaunts. No, feth that shoot them shoot them faster! A SM is going to charge what he thinks is better to charge and shoot what he thinks is better to be shot at. IG just don't get that level of flexibility. Also that sounds like an easy way for guardsman to experience the taste of their own artillery rounds 
The penal legion has not had suicide bombers for a loooong time. To be honest, due to the current world political situation, I'm not holding my breath on them being re-instated.
I will also say that as a guard player, I HAVE assaulted close combat units in order to avoid them hitting their intended targets and tie them up. Also, just to deny them the +1 attack for assaulting. It often works.
quote=AllSeeingSkink 576545 6486465 null] Gunzhard wrote:The real mindjob for me though - when unexpected things - random things - happen, it requires quick thinking, adapting - 'tactics'. Winning the game at the 'army building phase' is not tactical, it doesn't make you 'competitive' or a good general. The so-called 'competitive' players that require an entirely predictable game, using the only the standard missions, strictly 1850 points, no expansions, no forgeworld, no random terrain/objectives - those are really the people I was talking about, not you specifically.
Again... it's not about being random, it's about people not liking random in the movement section of the game. I can totally deal with a bunch of Genestealers getting randomly hammered in close combat by 2 freakishly lucky Guardsmen. Before and after random charges the game is still primarily about stacking the odds in your favour as best you can rather than making game ending decisions.
There's a long way between "you don't like random charge distance" and "you want the game won/lost in the army building stage". That's completely a different thing.
That's exactly why I prefer Fantasy (as a game) to 40k, I don't like seeing games won in the "army building stage" and Fantasy is far less prone to army list imbalance and tailoring, I like to see games won and lost in the MOVEMENT stage... hence why I don't like random movement (other than rare special rules like Fanatics). One of the most fun things I found about Aeronautica Imperialis was that you have limited movement options, and yet movement is THE most important thing. So when you got behind someone to shoot at them, it was you outsmarting your opponent... now if you rolled badly and missed all your shots and next turn found yourself being tailed because you overshot the guy you were just behind, oh well, that's how the dice fall, NOW you can play the "quick thinker" game and try and pull it back.
You keepforgetting that the random element is not in the 'normal" movement phase (forget about difficult terrain as that is a different thread), it is in the charge. TACTICS play a part here. Take this scene from two directions...
Player 1-
Unit of guard starts turn 9" from an enemy HWS. The player decides he wants to assault the HWS to avoing getting shot down by it's HBs . He moves to models. Pushes a single sarge forward 3 inches to be within 6" from thr HWS and nudges the another guy forward an inch to keep cohernce.
Player 2- Has the exact same situation. He moves every model in the squad the full 6" so that when he is done, the HWS is facing a wall of 5 men3" away that has another 5 men in base to base immediately behind them..
Now comes the assault phase with overwatch which causes two wound (the HWS got really lucky and rolled 2 sixes). Both guard players make an average roll of 7 on the charge distance.....
Player 1-
The sarge dies as does the guy behind him keep coherency. the remaining models are still 9" away and thus fail the charge. Player 1 curses the game blaming the random dice roll instead of his own laziness and lack of tactics never even considering the fact he could have done as player #2 did . Following turn, the entire remainder of the squad is mown down by heavy bolters
Player #2-
Removes 2 random troopers as the first 5 guys are equal distance from the squad, Assaults and wipes out the HWS and consolidates into cover to get a cover save from ay possible retaliation fire. Secure in the knowledge that he has already more than made up his points on the infantry sqaud in that single assault.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Jimsolo wrote:I love random charge distances. I think they added a much-needed degree of complexity to assaults.
Against each other, shooting lists have previously required more finesse and forethought than assault lists. You have to set yourself up in the terrain, have to plan three steps ahead about how to evade the assault armies, have to target prioritize WAY more than an assault army, and in general you had to play a more complex game. Meanwhile, the assault list just had to run all their units at you chin-first, and would still usually win. 5th edition addressed some of these issues, but I think that 6th edition has completed the changes that were necessary.
Assault (random charges included) isn't broken in 6th edition. It's just more complicated. It requires some actual forethought and tactical thinking now. Y'know, like shooting lists.
You do realize that shooting was already king in 5th, yes? Further, the idea that assault was somehow easier than shooting just doesn't hold up. For every shooty player who moved to evade, there was a melee player moving to reduce that possibility; for every target priority choice a shooty player had to do, there was one for the melee player. The difference being that the deck was already stacked in favour of the shooting player.
i think, this is where we disagree. I and many others disaagree with you and others, 5th was a step in the right direction but it did not go as far as it should have.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: insaniak wrote:You only say that because you've never seen me rolling dice... The last tournament I had two games out of five in which my Blood Claws rolled snake-eyes for charge distance.
And I'm sure it was amazingly cinematic and formed a wonderful narrative as the headstrong, foolhardy, out-for-glory sons of Russ decided "meh, we COULD advance 3 strides... but really I don't feel like charging anymore than 2 strides... we don't want to do anything too rash like charging the enemy who's about to shoot us again". Totally sounds like a Blood Claw-ish thing to do 
I CAN see a bunch of drunken space wolves being 3 inches from an enemy. One stumbles pasing out on the charge after one step and the rest of the squad staggering about pointing and laughing forgetting what they were supposed to do. LOL
Jimsolo wrote:I love random charge distances. I think they added a much-needed degree of complexity to assaults.
Against each other, shooting lists have previously required more finesse and forethought than assault lists. You have to set yourself up in the terrain, have to plan three steps ahead about how to evade the assault armies, have to target prioritize WAY more than an assault army, and in general you had to play a more complex game. Meanwhile, the assault list just had to run all their units at you chin-first, and would still usually win. 5th edition addressed some of these issues, but I think that 6th edition has completed the changes that were necessary.
Assault (random charges included) isn't broken in 6th edition. It's just more complicated. It requires some actual forethought and tactical thinking now. Y'know, like shooting lists.
You have pretty much hit the nail on the head.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 15:22:06
Subject: Re:Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan
|
EVIL INC wrote:
You do realize that shooting was already king in 5th, yes? Further, the idea that assault was somehow easier than shooting just doesn't hold up. For every shooty player who moved to evade, there was a melee player moving to reduce that possibility; for every target priority choice a shooty player had to do, there was one for the melee player. The difference being that the deck was already stacked in favour of the shooting player.
i think, this is where we disagree. I and many others disaagree with you and others, 5th was a step in the right direction but it did not go as far as it should have.
And where's the evidence to back it up? Shooting armies were already dominating 5th edition. Long Fangs, Vendettas, Psyflemen, Leafblower lists, Venom spam, all the major lists were primarily shooting. I just don't see any supporting evidence to the claim that 5th edition wasn't already ruled by shooting.
|
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 15:34:23
Subject: Re:Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
AlmightyWalrus wrote: EVIL INC wrote:
You do realize that shooting was already king in 5th, yes? Further, the idea that assault was somehow easier than shooting just doesn't hold up. For every shooty player who moved to evade, there was a melee player moving to reduce that possibility; for every target priority choice a shooty player had to do, there was one for the melee player. The difference being that the deck was already stacked in favour of the shooting player.
i think, this is where we disagree. I and many others disaagree with you and others, 5th was a step in the right direction but it did not go as far as it should have.
And where's the evidence to back it up? Shooting armies were already dominating 5th edition. Long Fangs, Vendettas, Psyflemen, Leafblower lists, Venom spam, all the major lists were primarily shooting. I just don't see any supporting evidence to the claim that 5th edition wasn't already ruled by shooting.
There isn't any. Evil will call this off topic, but there's a reason BA did ok and GK did well, and it wasn't that they were very choppy.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 15:43:40
Subject: Re:Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
rigeld2 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: EVIL INC wrote:
You do realize that shooting was already king in 5th, yes? Further, the idea that assault was somehow easier than shooting just doesn't hold up. For every shooty player who moved to evade, there was a melee player moving to reduce that possibility; for every target priority choice a shooty player had to do, there was one for the melee player. The difference being that the deck was already stacked in favour of the shooting player.
i think, this is where we disagree. I and many others disaagree with you and others, 5th was a step in the right direction but it did not go as far as it should have.
And where's the evidence to back it up? Shooting armies were already dominating 5th edition. Long Fangs, Vendettas, Psyflemen, Leafblower lists, Venom spam, all the major lists were primarily shooting. I just don't see any supporting evidence to the claim that 5th edition wasn't already ruled by shooting.
There isn't any. Evil will call this off topic, but there's a reason BA did ok and GK did well, and it wasn't that they were very choppy.
Clearly you remember a different 5th edition than me. I remember one time, I was assaulted by a vendetta. It was horrible. I lost 5s(FIVES) of points in models. And this other time, I was assaulted by a long fang squad carrying missile launchers, that gave me PTSD, I lost 10s(TENS) of points there. Clearly assault was OP, and now it is fine. I was assaulted by 3 Riptides, and only lost 3 points.
That said, I put Evil on ignore, since he never posts any facts to support his fairytale. He also thinks he is some sort of tactical genius for using the same basic tactics that assault units have been using since Rogue Trader.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 15:50:14
Subject: Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Stealthy Dark Angels Scout with Shotgun
Craftworld Terra
|
JPong wrote:No it doesn't, at least not on single dice rolls. Because your previous rolls have no bearing on your future rolls. Statistically, over a large sample size, you will average out. 8 rolls in 3 hours is not a large sample size.
Its unlikely that you would roll 1000 1s over the course of 1000 die rolls, but each number has an equal chance so its possible. So who cares? Sure, there should be an average of rolls. But again, who cares? How many rolls are you making? Why are you making the rolls?
MathHammer CAN be useful in how many charges you are making/failing over a particular time frame. The likelihood of making or not making a number of charges IS part of a unit's expected effectiveness.
Anecdotally, a player over several games could roll noticeably below the curve that not only doesn't enhance his game, but negatively affects it.
A random die roll has been inserted between a player's decision to charge and the resolution of the charge. There is no corresponding random die roll between a decision to fire a unit and the resolution of the firing. And yet there is still Overwatch and casualties from the front that precede the resolution of a charge to consider.
Cheers.
|
"Alea iacta est" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/01/29 15:57:06
Subject: Re:Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance
|
 |
Sneaky Sniper Drone
|
You miss spelled "Champion of Chaos" there man. Chaos Space Marines somehow (Screw you Phil Kelly) got Black Templar's army rule, and they got ours.
|
Urdnot Wrex is not just pleased...he's Delighted!
Enclave Tau army 4000 points (with Shadowsun side lined :( ) Red Corsairs (CSM/SM)
|
|
 |
 |
|