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.

I feel 100% confident saying that "7th" will not have consolidating into combat.

In modern real warfare assault is almost non existent, assault should have more downsides than shooting to represent this, older editions where assault was the main way to remove models, did not represent a conflict between two or more forces that had access to viable ranged weapons, read as anything past arrows.

it -would- be nice to see interceptor changed so that if you fire interceptor not only are you now allowed to fire those weapons during your next shooting phase, but you may not fire those weapons during your next overwatch either. This makes sense as you have a chance to overwatch before you even make it to your next turn, it makes no sense you can fire a weapon for interceptor during your opponents movement phase then you are not allowed to fire it during your next turn, but you can go ahead and do overwatch.

If the weapon cannot fire anymore after interceptor, it should not be immediately firing for overwatch.

of course this matters little as models cannot arrive from reserves and assault usually anyways.

It would be nice to see a change to overwatch to clarify what abilities can be used during overwatch, ie any that may be used during a normal shooting phase, or limited to 1 shot with no additional rules, or special rules unless they specifically say you may use them for overwatch as well.

It would also be nice to see D weapons toned down.

something like = roll to hit, if hit roll a d6
1- no effect
2,3,4,5- models hit suffer 2 wounds [not wound pool, the individual models] with no saves of any kind allowed
6- Models hit suffer 4 wounds with no saves of any kind allowed

And it would be nice to see a re costing of D weapons, especially for some of the models that fire 4 d weapon shots a turn...

 KingofAshes wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 KingofAshes wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure there is a number printed in most codices for assault elements. And under 6th ed rules, they are all too high.

Most of the codexs have shooting models that are to expensive that is not an argument.

Really? You want to go there? So if we make a lineup of overcosted models, how many of the top 10 are going to be assault models? Top 20? Top 50?

Even if you lowered the points what made assault so good in 4th and 5th was the sweeping and consolidation rules. The argument I make is just like I no one uses overpriced shooting units don't use overpriced assault units. I would argue that most of the top overpriced units would be vehicles, and most of them are shooting.

So good? 5th edition mech-hammer cared not for assaults, as the transports easily weathered assaults with 4+ avoidance of hits.

4th edition assaults was beaten back by skimmerspam and general artillery, you couldn't rush down the field in a rhino because an ordnance could kill the entire squad inside of it.

@KingofAshes You do realize that 4th and 5th were mostly shooting editions right. 5th was grey knights, SW, and later necrons shooting it out. 4th was fish of fury and skimmer spam again shooty.

As for overpriced shooting units let me see that would be terminators, landraiders, I guess you could say hammerheads and leman russ'. There really aren't that many. Now if you look at assault units we have terminators, tyranid warriors, assault marines, vanguard veterans, death company, and other as well.

Oh yeah!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That doesn't make sense anymore. Dumb phone lead me to believe otherwise. Sorry.

 FirePainter wrote:
@KingofAshes You do realize that 4th and 5th were mostly shooting editions right. 5th was grey knights, SW, and later necrons shooting it out. 4th was fish of fury and skimmer spam again shooty.

As for overpriced shooting units let me see that would be terminators, landraiders, I guess you could say hammerheads and leman russ'. There really aren't that many. Now if you look at assault units we have terminators, tyranid warriors, assault marines, vanguard veterans, death company, and other as well.

Don't forget half the Tyranid and CSM codices.

KingofAshes wrote:
Assault is part of 40k but it should not be the stronger strategy to use like it has been in previous edition. Assaulting should be a strategy used when the situation dictates it not I need to assault because assaulting is so much better than using the firearm in my hand.

You do realize that the most famous, most successful sci-fi series ever uses melee weapons as the most iconic weapon in that series, right?

You are aware that several other big, famous, successful sci-fi franchises also heavily feature melee combat, right? Starship troopers, Aliens...

If you want to really boil it down, neither strategy should be stronger, they should each be viable. That's part of a balanced game. Balanced games don't have stronger and weaker strategies, they have different strategies.

Yes, by modern standards, assault shouldn't really work. And yet, in the modern world, we don't have flying tanks or teleporters, or armies of millions of creatures that will happily advance into gunfire without fear. What's more, as recently as 130 years ago, an assault-based army attacked a shooty army using that very strategy, and won. Look up the Battle of Isandlwana. It's a good example of what happens when your 4-point assault grunts get to fight 30 point shooty guys.

 Redbeard wrote:

You do realize that the most famous, most successful sci-fi series ever uses melee weapons as the most iconic weapon in that series, right?

Phasers are not melee weapons!

 Crimson wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

You do realize that the most famous, most successful sci-fi series ever uses melee weapons as the most iconic weapon in that series, right?

Phasers are not melee weapons!

Have you seen the amount of brawling and fist fights in star trek?

 FirePainter wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

You do realize that the most famous, most successful sci-fi series ever uses melee weapons as the most iconic weapon in that series, right?

Phasers are not melee weapons!

Have you seen the amount of brawling and fist fights in star trek?

Not to mention Bat'leths!

I'll go ahead and chuck my opinion in on this one.

I get why overwatch is there. Makes sense to me. If I see a bunch of pissed off, raving, blood drunk killy things charging me, I intend to shoot at them. However, what if I was shooting that guy over there? I say that you can only take overwatch against a unit that you have already fired against. If I start firing at say, that nasty meany-head Furioso, I don't really think I have the chance to shoot at the really mad-pants DC charging at me.

I agree with being able to run and charge. I very rarely run because I feel like it is a total waste of a unit for that turn.

I also think that you should be able to charge after Deep Strike because honestly...why not?

I would just be happy if they fix the weapon range vs. wound range issue. No more bolters and flamers killing out to las cannon range.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 KingofAshes wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 KingofAshes wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure there is a number printed in most codices for assault elements. And under 6th ed rules, they are all too high.

Most of the codexs have shooting models that are to expensive that is not an argument.

Really? You want to go there? So if we make a lineup of overcosted models, how many of the top 10 are going to be assault models? Top 20? Top 50?

Even if you lowered the points what made assault so good in 4th and 5th was the sweeping and consolidation rules. The argument I make is just like I no one uses overpriced shooting units don't use overpriced assault units. I would argue that most of the top overpriced units would be vehicles, and most of them are shooting.

So good? 5th edition mech-hammer cared not for assaults, as the transports easily weathered assaults with 4+ avoidance of hits.

4th edition assaults was beaten back by skimmerspam and general artillery, you couldn't rush down the field in a rhino because an ordnance could kill the entire squad inside of it.

We must have had very different 4th and 5th edition experiences because I remember some strong assault meta in both editions. Top of my head Nob bikers thunder wolf cavalry in 5th.

Assault hasn't been the king since 3rd. It was stronger in 4th than in 5th. 5th ushered in the beginning of what we see now. The IG were just the proto-Eldar/Tau. Good players in 5th could mitigate your Nob bikerz and Thunder wolf cav. The mitigation has turned into making assault a laughing stock.

If you were losing to assault in 5th, it's because you were letting them get away with it. 4th is trickier, but the Eldar were definitely the special sauce there and they were NOT about assault.

 KingofAshes wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 KingofAshes wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 KingofAshes wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, I'm pretty sure there is a number printed in most codices for assault elements. And under 6th ed rules, they are all too high.

Most of the codexs have shooting models that are to expensive that is not an argument.

Really? You want to go there? So if we make a lineup of overcosted models, how many of the top 10 are going to be assault models? Top 20? Top 50?

Even if you lowered the points what made assault so good in 4th and 5th was the sweeping and consolidation rules. The argument I make is just like I no one uses overpriced shooting units don't use overpriced assault units. I would argue that most of the top overpriced units would be vehicles, and most of them are shooting.

So good? 5th edition mech-hammer cared not for assaults, as the transports easily weathered assaults with 4+ avoidance of hits.

4th edition assaults was beaten back by skimmerspam and general artillery, you couldn't rush down the field in a rhino because an ordnance could kill the entire squad inside of it.

We must have had very different 4th and 5th edition experiences because I remember some strong assault meta in both editions. Top of my head Nob bikers thunder wolf cavalry in 5th.

Exceptions always exist. Heck, screamerstar (from what I know) is leaning to CC and the flying DP circus of 6th edition is particularly nasty and CC oriented. That being said, a few good CC builds don't = 6th edition being balanced nor CC being better.

 KingofAshes wrote:
We must have had very different 4th and 5th edition experiences because I remember some strong assault meta in both editions. Top of my head Nob bikers thunder wolf cavalry in 5th.

To chip in some non-deathstar units: Assaulting with boyz from battlewagons worked really well. A fair amount of players managed to get trukk boyz to work as well (dashofpepper had a unit of trukk boyz in most of his games). Kan walls (while exploiting some rules to increase survivabilty) were an assault-oriented army. Snikrot's Kommandoz were a staple among ork armies, with close to no shooting ability. DoA armies were a thing, as were Khorne Berzerkers charging from rhinos. All those have gotten a lot weaker, if not close to useless, with the advent of sixth.

 Jidmah wrote:

 KingofAshes wrote:
We must have had very different 4th and 5th edition experiences because I remember some strong assault meta in both editions. Top of my head Nob bikers thunder wolf cavalry in 5th.

To chip in some non-deathstar units: Assaulting with boyz from battlewagons worked really well. A fair amount of players managed to get trukk boyz to work as well (dashofpepper had a unit of trukk boyz in most of his games). Kan walls (while exploiting some rules to increase survivabilty) were an assault-oriented army. Snikrot's Kommandoz were a staple among ork armies, with close to no shooting ability. DoA armies were a thing, as were Khorne Berzerkers charging from rhinos. All those have gotten a lot weaker, if not close to useless, with the advent of sixth.

Indeed - there *were* some viable assault based lists /units, however the *most succesful* lists overall were shooting - GK, Necron, SW, IG. Whole of 5th was one upmanship on shooting in general.

4th, despite the warped remembrance of "one assault unit running through an entire gunline" {D6" movement is SO hard to avoid, clearly) was also shooty. From the lattter half being Eldar flying circus of boredom, Tau JSJ etc.

Nob bikers lasted barely 3 months of 5th as a viable list. Once people realised how they can be screwed (e.g. objectives in ruins means they almost auto lose those games) their time was up. Draigostar lists again relied on overwhelming S5 and 7 shooting, plus the mandatory 3 psyriflemen for S8, and alloocation trickery.

3rd was the last time assault was stronger than shooting. In EVERY edition since it has been weaker, and in EVERY edition since the trend has been that assualt is weaker than the previous edition.

I didn't play much in 4th, but I remember in 3rd, reliably being able to charge 2 Hive tyrants and 3 Carnifexes (and a red terror!) straight into enemy lines without cover, and as long as I didn't fail roll, they made it.

After not being in the game for 4th, I came back to 5th to find the game overflowing with an uncanny amount of dakka. That 3rd ed tidzilla list that I ran wouldn't last two turns nowadays.

That being said, I can only hope that 6th is the end of the pendulum swing, and 7th will start rolling back the other direction.

Murdius Maximus wrote:
I'll go ahead and chuck my opinion in on this one.

I get why overwatch is there. Makes sense to me. If I see a bunch of pissed off, raving, blood drunk killy things charging me, I intend to shoot at them.

If I see a bunch of pansy lily-livered shooty things about to shoot me, I intend to assault them.

If you can pre-emptively shoot me on MY turn, I should be able to pre-emptively assault YOU on your turn. Balance grasshopper.

-Grim

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 KingofAshes wrote:
We must have had very different 4th and 5th edition experiences because I remember some strong assault meta in both editions. Top of my head Nob bikers thunder wolf cavalry in 5th.

To chip in some non-deathstar units: Assaulting with boyz from battlewagons worked really well. A fair amount of players managed to get trukk boyz to work as well (dashofpepper had a unit of trukk boyz in most of his games). Kan walls (while exploiting some rules to increase survivabilty) were an assault-oriented army. Snikrot's Kommandoz were a staple among ork armies, with close to no shooting ability. DoA armies were a thing, as were Khorne Berzerkers charging from rhinos. All those have gotten a lot weaker, if not close to useless, with the advent of sixth.

Indeed - there *were* some viable assault based lists /units, however the *most succesful* lists overall were shooting - GK, Necron, SW, IG. Whole of 5th was one upmanship on shooting in general.

4th, despite the warped remembrance of "one assault unit running through an entire gunline" {D6" movement is SO hard to avoid, clearly) was also shooty. From the lattter half being Eldar flying circus of boredom, Tau JSJ etc.

Nob bikers lasted barely 3 months of 5th as a viable list. Once people realised how they can be screwed (e.g. objectives in ruins means they almost auto lose those games) their time was up. Draigostar lists again relied on overwhelming S5 and 7 shooting, plus the mandatory 3 psyriflemen for S8, and alloocation trickery.

3rd was the last time assault was stronger than shooting. In EVERY edition since it has been weaker, and in EVERY edition since the trend has been that assualt is weaker than the previous edition.

Considering how I started in 5th, I have nothing else to compare 6th to. I really didn't have the feeling that assault was particularly weak or a waste of time in 5th. I do now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 KingofAshes wrote:
We must have had very different 4th and 5th edition experiences because I remember some strong assault meta in both editions. Top of my head Nob bikers thunder wolf cavalry in 5th.

To chip in some non-deathstar units: Assaulting with boyz from battlewagons worked really well. A fair amount of players managed to get trukk boyz to work as well (dashofpepper had a unit of trukk boyz in most of his games). Kan walls (while exploiting some rules to increase survivabilty) were an assault-oriented army. Snikrot's Kommandoz were a staple among ork armies, with close to no shooting ability. DoA armies were a thing, as were Khorne Berzerkers charging from rhinos. All those have gotten a lot weaker, if not close to useless, with the advent of sixth.

Indeed - there *were* some viable assault based lists /units, however the *most succesful* lists overall were shooting - GK, Necron, SW, IG. Whole of 5th was one upmanship on shooting in general.

4th, despite the warped remembrance of "one assault unit running through an entire gunline" {D6" movement is SO hard to avoid, clearly) was also shooty. From the lattter half being Eldar flying circus of boredom, Tau JSJ etc.

Nob bikers lasted barely 3 months of 5th as a viable list. Once people realised how they can be screwed (e.g. objectives in ruins means they almost auto lose those games) their time was up. Draigostar lists again relied on overwhelming S5 and 7 shooting, plus the mandatory 3 psyriflemen for S8, and alloocation trickery.

3rd was the last time assault was stronger than shooting. In EVERY edition since it has been weaker, and in EVERY edition since the trend has been that assualt is weaker than the previous edition.

We should all be rejoicing that assault is not as strong as it was back in 3rd edition. The game was boring as hell every one sat in transports doing nothing but assaulting. Here is how a game of 3rd edition played out, I got first turn I rush my transports forward and assault your army. Play a few rounds of assault but I pretty much won because I went first. Assault was not good in 3rd edition because of balanced point cost it was good because you could assault out of any transport you wanted to. Just because every assault model is not this all powerful I win models that every one takes does mean all the assault units are overpriced.

 KingofAshes wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 KingofAshes wrote:
We must have had very different 4th and 5th edition experiences because I remember some strong assault meta in both editions. Top of my head Nob bikers thunder wolf cavalry in 5th.

To chip in some non-deathstar units: Assaulting with boyz from battlewagons worked really well. A fair amount of players managed to get trukk boyz to work as well (dashofpepper had a unit of trukk boyz in most of his games). Kan walls (while exploiting some rules to increase survivabilty) were an assault-oriented army. Snikrot's Kommandoz were a staple among ork armies, with close to no shooting ability. DoA armies were a thing, as were Khorne Berzerkers charging from rhinos. All those have gotten a lot weaker, if not close to useless, with the advent of sixth.

Indeed - there *were* some viable assault based lists /units, however the *most succesful* lists overall were shooting - GK, Necron, SW, IG. Whole of 5th was one upmanship on shooting in general.

4th, despite the warped remembrance of "one assault unit running through an entire gunline" {D6" movement is SO hard to avoid, clearly) was also shooty. From the lattter half being Eldar flying circus of boredom, Tau JSJ etc.

Nob bikers lasted barely 3 months of 5th as a viable list. Once people realised how they can be screwed (e.g. objectives in ruins means they almost auto lose those games) their time was up. Draigostar lists again relied on overwhelming S5 and 7 shooting, plus the mandatory 3 psyriflemen for S8, and alloocation trickery.

3rd was the last time assault was stronger than shooting. In EVERY edition since it has been weaker, and in EVERY edition since the trend has been that assualt is weaker than the previous edition.

We should all be rejoicing that assault is not as strong as it was back in 3rd edition. The game was boring as hell every one sat in transports doing nothing but assaulting. Here is how a game of 3rd edition played out, I got first turn I rush my transports forward and assault your army. Play a few rounds of assault but I pretty much won because I went first. Assault was not good in 3rd edition because of balanced point cost it was good because you could assault out of any transport you wanted to. Just because every assault model is not this all powerful I win models that every one takes does mean all the assault units are overpriced.

Because winning because of alpha strike shooting is any better. Oh look I just wiped out half your army because of my powerful guns!

I really think they should take a look at Bolt Action and adopt a lot of the rules for that to 40k with modifications of course (I've been reading Bolt Action rules lately and it seems like a better 40k than 40k, although of course there are differences due to it being WW2 and not space fantasy). Then add extras for Kill Team and Apocalypse respectively to let you play the gamut from small to large. You would in effect have:

* 40k Skirmish: Kill Team
* 40k Company: Normal
* 40k Army/Epic: Apocalypse

Three different ways to play using the same basic rules but with tweaks at each level (e.g. for KT maybe you can buy squads as individual figures versus specific sizes) to allow for a different feel to the game.

At this point though I think only a total rewrite a la 2nd to 3rd edition will change enough of the game. The constant shifts in the meta go from one extreme towards the other without addressing any of the underlying problems that have existed for years now.

 Grim Dark wrote:

Murdius Maximus wrote:
I'll go ahead and chuck my opinion in on this one.

I get why overwatch is there. Makes sense to me. If I see a bunch of pissed off, raving, blood drunk killy things charging me, I intend to shoot at them.

If I see a bunch of pansy lily-livered shooty things about to shoot me, I intend to assault them.

If you can pre-emptively shoot me on MY turn, I should be able to pre-emptively assault YOU on your turn. Balance grasshopper.

-Grim

Not going to get much argument out of me on that LOL! Except that no decent person/army (fiction or not) will idly stand there and be like "Guhh they're coming right for us!!!" and do nothing. Hence Overwatch.

Here's a cool idea: Why not allow the charging unit to fire overwatch back. After all, most of them have guns, so why wouldn't they be shooting into the crowd they intend to chop up?? Make those snap shots as well and that might bring some balance back.right?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 KingofAshes wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 KingofAshes wrote:
We must have had very different 4th and 5th edition experiences because I remember some strong assault meta in both editions. Top of my head Nob bikers thunder wolf cavalry in 5th.

To chip in some non-deathstar units: Assaulting with boyz from battlewagons worked really well. A fair amount of players managed to get trukk boyz to work as well (dashofpepper had a unit of trukk boyz in most of his games). Kan walls (while exploiting some rules to increase survivabilty) were an assault-oriented army. Snikrot's Kommandoz were a staple among ork armies, with close to no shooting ability. DoA armies were a thing, as were Khorne Berzerkers charging from rhinos. All those have gotten a lot weaker, if not close to useless, with the advent of sixth.

Indeed - there *were* some viable assault based lists /units, however the *most succesful* lists overall were shooting - GK, Necron, SW, IG. Whole of 5th was one upmanship on shooting in general.

4th, despite the warped remembrance of "one assault unit running through an entire gunline" {D6" movement is SO hard to avoid, clearly) was also shooty. From the lattter half being Eldar flying circus of boredom, Tau JSJ etc.

Nob bikers lasted barely 3 months of 5th as a viable list. Once people realised how they can be screwed (e.g. objectives in ruins means they almost auto lose those games) their time was up. Draigostar lists again relied on overwhelming S5 and 7 shooting, plus the mandatory 3 psyriflemen for S8, and alloocation trickery.

3rd was the last time assault was stronger than shooting. In EVERY edition since it has been weaker, and in EVERY edition since the trend has been that assualt is weaker than the previous edition.

We should all be rejoicing that assault is not as strong as it was back in 3rd edition. The game was boring as hell every one sat in transports doing nothing but assaulting. Here is how a game of 3rd edition played out, I got first turn I rush my transports forward and assault your army. Play a few rounds of assault but I pretty much won because I went first. Assault was not good in 3rd edition because of balanced point cost it was good because you could assault out of any transport you wanted to. Just because every assault model is not this all powerful I win models that every one takes does mean all the assault units are overpriced.

Because winning because of alpha strike shooting is any better. Oh look I just wiped out half your army because of my powerful guns!

I did not see any of the top armies at the LOV winning with alpha strikes instead they won playing the objectives, but hey they where mostly likely a bunch of noobs who did not know what they where doing.

You can't play the objectives when you are tabled.

Murdius Maximus wrote:

 Grim Dark wrote:

Murdius Maximus wrote:
I'll go ahead and chuck my opinion in on this one.

I get why overwatch is there. Makes sense to me. If I see a bunch of pissed off, raving, blood drunk killy things charging me, I intend to shoot at them.

If I see a bunch of pansy lily-livered shooty things about to shoot me, I intend to assault them.

If you can pre-emptively shoot me on MY turn, I should be able to pre-emptively assault YOU on your turn. Balance grasshopper.

-Grim

Not going to get much argument out of me on that LOL! Except that no decent person/army (fiction or not) will idly stand there and be like "Guhh they're coming right for us!!!" and do nothing. Hence Overwatch.

Here's a cool idea: Why not allow the charging unit to fire overwatch back. After all, most of them have guns, so why wouldn't they be shooting into the crowd they intend to chop up?? Make those snap shots as well and that might bring some balance back.right?

I think it is a good idea that makes sense. If you are charging why would you not shoot while doing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
You can't play the objectives when you are tabled.

That is the point none of the top players are getting tabled in one or two turns or loosing to it. The games are going 5 rounds and objectives determine the winner. If the most competitively built list are not losing to being tabled then that is not a problem in the game.

The lists at tournaments are not being tabled because they have 2+ rerollable saves and are units that on turn 5 can split up and move around to claim any objective in movement range. They stay together all game being unkillable and dish out damage in return while waiting for the final turn to claim everything. Meanwhile in most games the volume of fire put out by tau and eldar are tabling most other armies.

 KingofAshes wrote:

Murdius Maximus wrote:

 Grim Dark wrote:

Murdius Maximus wrote:
I'll go ahead and chuck my opinion in on this one.

I get why overwatch is there. Makes sense to me. If I see a bunch of pissed off, raving, blood drunk killy things charging me, I intend to shoot at them.

If I see a bunch of pansy lily-livered shooty things about to shoot me, I intend to assault them.

If you can pre-emptively shoot me on MY turn, I should be able to pre-emptively assault YOU on your turn. Balance grasshopper.

-Grim

Not going to get much argument out of me on that LOL! Except that no decent person/army (fiction or not) will idly stand there and be like "Guhh they're coming right for us!!!" and do nothing. Hence Overwatch.

Here's a cool idea: Why not allow the charging unit to fire overwatch back. After all, most of them have guns, so why wouldn't they be shooting into the crowd they intend to chop up?? Make those snap shots as well and that might bring some balance back.right?

I think it is a good idea that makes sense. If you are charging why would you not shoot while doing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
You can't play the objectives when you are tabled.

That is the point none of the top players are getting tabled in one or two turns or loosing to it. The games are going 5 rounds and objectives determine the winner. If the most competitively built list are not losing to being tabled then that is not a problem in the game.

I wouldn't want to shoot if I'm trying to assault a unit. It might cause wounds that may make my charge fail.

 FirePainter wrote:
The lists at tournaments are not being tabled because they have 2+ rerollable saves and are units that on turn 5 can split up and move around to claim any objective in movement range. They stay together all game being unkillable and dish out damage in return while waiting for the final turn to claim everything. Meanwhile in most games the volume of fire put out by tau and eldar are tabling most other armies.

Well, someone understands it. +1 for you and me.

I have to say I dislike the idea of objectives being so important in a wargame. Sure, occasionally your goal should be to get a unit somewhere and do something.

But the idea of being at a certain point and then hoping the game ends or doesn't end is a little silly. Small fast scoring units that hide all game and pop out at the end to grab things isn't exactly what I see when I watch war movies.

I'm not alone in this...

"Find the enemy and shoot him down. Anything else is nonsense" - Captain Manfred von Richthofen

"In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it."
- Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

"The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on." - U. S. Grant

You don't hear those guys talking about making sure scoring units are within 3" of a marker.