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.

 Vector Strike wrote:
It seems that some people disliking (on a high degree, I'd say) Unbound armies think they'll find pick-up games littered with spammed units. I don't believe this will occur as expected by them.

Firstly, most people do not have access to 10+ of the same uber model (or even 5+); they need to buy them all, assemble and paint (optional). That takes time.
...

I've got 12 of these...


http://www.hlj.com/product/KBYAS-004/Sci

that I bought for £1.50 each, intending to make them into Broadsides. I might make them into Riptides instead. Of course as proxies they could count as either so I can field a 12 x Broadside or a 12 x Riptide Unbound force quite easily.

 tuebor wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So space your units out more than 6" ?

Fairly easy for a Space Marine army, not so easy for 120 Guardsmen, especially if you're using a decent amount of terrain. I had a guy tell me that once back in 4th so we did a test to see if it was possible. Using 25% terrain I was able to get half of my units 6" away from each other by being entirely in base to base, which wasn't really a feasible way to play either.

That said, those were 4th edition problems. The Guard codex has had a lot of changes that mitigate those problems, particularly vets being troops and platoons being able to blob up, as well as Priests and power weapons making those blobs something that a 5 man tac squad isn't going to kill and run down like it would have a similarly sized (and costed) conscript squad back in 4th. I really don't think it would be nearly as much as issue nowadays as it was back then but I certainly understand why people would be leery of it at first glance.

They're leery of it because its something that would disadvantage their shooty army. Just as they like Overwatch because it benefits their shooty army.

They really ought to get over themselves. Shooty Armies get Overwatch. Assault Armies should have Consolidate into Combat, to compensate them for all their losses running the gauntlet of Shooting and Overwatch. And even if they do get it, they'll probably just get shot up a 2nd time by Overwatch as they consolidate into another enemy unit.


I'm not in favour of it because I'm biased towards Assault, I'm in favour of it because I think it would help bring back a balance between Shooting and Assault. My Raven Guard armies tend to be split 50/50 between shooting and Assault. My favourite units include Assault Marines, Vanguard Veterans and CC/Shotgun Scouts. But I also like to use Scout Snipers, Devestators, Sternguard Veterans and Tactical Squads.

Besides, isn't Consolidate a D6" move? Theres always a chance that the Consolidate roll won't be high enough to make a 2nd Assault.

If its really considered overpowered, I think the Consolidation Assault could be easily balanced by:

-Consolidation Assaults ("Overrun Assault?") can only be made in a turn when an Attacking Unit charges and wipes out their target in the same turn.
-Combats that drag on for more than one Turn do not allow the Victors to charge again, to represent their momentum and stamina being spent after getting bogged down in a long melee.
-If a unit Assaults and wipes out its target in the same turn, they may make a D6" Consolidation move. If this is high enough to contact another enemy unit, then a 2nd combat begins.
-No Assault Bonuses apply to the 2nd combat after an Overrun Assault (Furious Charge, bonus attack etc), to represent that their momentum and stamina was spent on the first combat.
-Certain units may have special rules that remove this No Assault Bonus penalty (e.g. Khorne Bezerkers, Genestealers, Vanguard Veterans).

This would offer the Attacking player a dilemma. Do you make the Overrun Assault at decreased effectiveness (no Furious Charge, no extra attacking for charging a 2nd time) and risk losing your weakened unit in the 2nd Assault, or do you choose not to Overrun Assault and risk the unit being shot to pieces?


Also, players who use massive blobs of hundreds of infantry in continuous battle lines deserve to have their flanks rolled up by Consolidation Assaults. It would hardly be fair for the Attacking player to weather numerous rounds of shooting and Overwatch before finally carrying out an Assault and instantly wiping out the soft squishy Imperial Guardsmen only to have to stop his troops 1" away from the next squad of squishy Guardsmen.

Can you imagine Khorne Berzerkers or Genestealers doing that? Doesn't really fit the "Narrative" does it?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
It seems that some people disliking (on a high degree, I'd say) Unbound armies think they'll find pick-up games littered with spammed units. I don't believe this will occur as expected by them.

Firstly, most people do not have access to 10+ of the same uber model (or even 5+); they need to buy them all, assemble and paint (optional). That takes time.
...

I've got 12 of these...


http://www.hlj.com/product/KBYAS-004/Sci

that I bought for £1.50 each, intending to make them into Broadsides. I might make them into Riptides instead. Of course as proxies they could count as either so I can field a 12 x Broadside or a 12 x Riptide Unbound force quite easily.

can you field them as riptides? are they big enough? cant just put down a marine and call it a terminator. etc etc....

this will be the problem with unbound. and to be honest i wouldnt allow it anyway, if you want to field this kind of thing better make intense effort with your "proxy" OR have the real thing, same goes with the escalation units. fairs fair, want to abuse the rules please abuse your wallet.

 Captain Avatar wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Sorry for the ignorance but i w4asn't around at the time. How did you consolidate in 4ed?

You could use your consolidation move to lock an enemy unit into close combat. Therefore saving your unit from a turn of shooting.

You could actually "slingshot" from one enemy unit to another, defeating them without any danger of being shot at or if your troops were tough enough, being counter-charged.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Pacific wrote:


The problem with this viewpoint is that a lot of people have been happy with the game at previous times. If you're invested with time, effort (I think even emotionally!) with the game, if a game suddenly becomes crap and your enjoyment is curtailed then it's not just as simple as saying 'oh well' and going to play a different game.

Fans do have a sense of entitlement. A lot of it can seem groundless but not all of it is unreasonable I don't think.

Was 5th Edition balanced? Was 4th? ...
...
...

No, but they were less unbalanced than 6th edition. In 3rd/4th/5th the unbalance was largely due to faulty codex design. In 6th edition it is more to do with bad game design as well as faulty codex design.

Ack, do you guys see my double post or is it just something weird happening on my end?

Sigh...I hope they don't make all units scoring.

I just starting an Iron Hands army with a ton of Tac Marines with conversions and kit bashings including kits from multiple different games.

I guess I will have to be that one guy who still uses troops.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
It seems that some people disliking (on a high degree, I'd say) Unbound armies think they'll find pick-up games littered with spammed units. I don't believe this will occur as expected by them.

Firstly, most people do not have access to 10+ of the same uber model (or even 5+); they need to buy them all, assemble and paint (optional). That takes time.
...

I've got 12 of these...


http://www.hlj.com/product/KBYAS-004/Sci

that I bought for £1.50 each, intending to make them into Broadsides. I might make them into Riptides instead. Of course as proxies they could count as either so I can field a 12 x Broadside or a 12 x Riptide Unbound force quite easily.

Am I the only one amused by Kilkrazy posting a Mod Lock image after the last couple of pages?

I'm still not mad keen on the idea of EVERY model being scoring, but I guess it's a wait and see.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've got 12 of these...


http://www.hlj.com/product/KBYAS-004/Sci

that I bought for £1.50 each, intending to make them into Broadsides. I might make them into Riptides instead. Of course as proxies they could count as either so I can field a 12 x Broadside or a 12 x Riptide Unbound force quite easily.

Well, proxying is a matter in itself. I do proxy to test new rules before buying minis and such. But I don't think many will agree to play against 12 proxied Riptides!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
They're leery of it because its something that would disadvantage their shooty army. Just as they like Overwatch because it benefits their shooty army.

They really ought to get over themselves. Shooty Armies get Overwatch. Assault Armies should have Consolidate into Combat, to compensate them for all their losses running the gauntlet of Shooting and Overwatch. And even if they do get it, they'll probably just get shot up a 2nd time by Overwatch as they consolidate into another enemy unit.


I'm not in favour of it because I'm biased towards Assault, I'm in favour of it because I think it would help bring back a balance between Shooting and Assault. My Raven Guard armies tend to be split 50/50 between shooting and Assault. My favourite units include Assault Marines, Vanguard Veterans and CC/Shotgun Scouts. But I also like to use Scout Snipers, Devestators, Sternguard Veterans and Tactical Squads.

Besides, isn't Consolidate a D6" move? Theres always a chance that the Consolidate roll won't be high enough to make a 2nd Assault.

If its really considered overpowered, I think the Consolidation Assault could be easily balanced by:

-Consolidation Assaults ("Overrun Assault?") can only be made in a turn when an Attacking Unit charges and wipes out their target in the same turn.
-Combats that drag on for more than one Turn do not allow the Victors to charge again, to represent their momentum and stamina being spent after getting bogged down in a long melee.
-If a unit Assaults and wipes out its target in the same turn, they may make a D6" Consolidation move. If this is high enough to contact another enemy unit, then a 2nd combat begins.
-No Assault Bonuses apply to the 2nd combat after an Overrun Assault (Furious Charge, bonus attack etc), to represent that their momentum and stamina was spent on the first combat.
-Certain units may have special rules that remove this No Assault Bonus penalty (e.g. Khorne Bezerkers, Genestealers, Vanguard Veterans).

This would offer the Attacking player a dilemma. Do you make the Overrun Assault at decreased effectiveness (no Furious Charge, no extra attacking for charging a 2nd time) and risk losing your weakened unit in the 2nd Assault, or do you choose not to Overrun Assault and risk the unit being shot to pieces?


Also, players who use massive blobs of hundreds of infantry in continuous battle lines deserve to have their flanks rolled up by Consolidation Assaults. It would hardly be fair for the Attacking player to weather numerous rounds of shooting and Overwatch before finally carrying out an Assault and instantly wiping out the soft squishy Imperial Guardsmen only to have to stop his troops 1" away from the next squad of squishy Guardsmen.

Can you imagine Khorne Berzerkers or Genestealers doing that? Doesn't really fit the "Narrative" does it?

I know it's tempting to think everyone is a cynical manchild (this is Dakka, after all) who could only be against a rules change because it benefits their army but a lot of people are against the idea entirely because of bad memories from 4th. It's the same reason some people still don't like special characters, 99% of them nowadays are fine but people still have bad memories of getting rolled by some of the more ridiculous ones from back then.

I don't really think you need all of that to make consolidation fair. It was too much in 4th given how assault results were calculated and given how certain codexes were set up back then. I'd assume it would count as a disordered charge as you didn't get charging bonuses back then but the combination of main rules and codexes now would make it perfectly fine. As for narrative concerns Overwatch completely fulfills that.

Using massive blobs of hundreds of infantry was pretty much the only way for Guard to play in 4th, non-skimmers were made of cardboard and your only hope was to kill off the enemy army with lascannons and plasma guns before any of them got into assault or else your whole line would get rolled up by anything scarier than a grot. Things aren't like that anymore and even if someone was running with 120 Guardsmen (which I do regularly), consolidating through a bunch of modern blob squads is an entirely different affair than consolidating through a bunch of 10 man squads from the 4th edition book.

Those Mode Lock kits are about 6 inches tall. How tall is a rip tide?

 Vector Strike wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've got 12 of these...


http://www.hlj.com/product/KBYAS-004/Sci

that I bought for £1.50 each, intending to make them into Broadsides. I might make them into Riptides instead. Of course as proxies they could count as either so I can field a 12 x Broadside or a 12 x Riptide Unbound force quite easily.

Well, proxying is a matter in itself. I do proxy to test new rules before buying minis and such. But I don't think many will agree to play against 12 proxied Riptides!

if the model is roughly the same size as the riptide I'd have no objection playing against it

Yeah I dunno how the box art translates into the finished piece, but those look pretty neat

Consolidating back into combat after a successful assault was a great rule.

1. its easy to mitigate. Just spread your troops out so that its harder to consolidate from one assault to the next.

2. If one of your units is locked in assault and is likely to loose, back away from the assault.

I really started to play in 4th ed with the battle Maccrag set. This rule made playing assault armies fun. Gunlines of tau and IG folded when a couple of units made their way across the table and into melee. Playing an assault army in 6th sucks. Overwatch can be a huge problem.

I think given Overwatch, consolidating back into melee would be a nice buff.

ALSO… I would not play an army with that many riptides and broadsides. Players who insist to field cheese will find less and less games available to them. THe community response to their behavior will help mitigate their list building. After all. What fun is it to play a game where nobody will play with you.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 tuebor wrote:

 Byte wrote:
I hated this rule. Please no...

Being a Guard player I also hated this rule, I've got bad memories of Baharoth eating his way through half of my Guard army more or less by himself on more than one occasion. That said, with blob squads and a few other things I think the Guard has rather less to fear from this rule than it did back then.

So space your units out more than 6" ?

Personally I hope its true. With 6th Edition favouring shooting armies, with Overwatch, Tau, Eldar and Imperial Guard, it'll be nice if Assault themed armies actually had a leg up again. My Raven Guard army of shotgun Scouts, Assault Marines and Vanguard Veterans will certainly need it.

Because its that easy.

If someone is going to spam titan armies, then for once I will be a GW nerd and say they have to be no "counts as" and be the actual minis with WYSIWYG.

Normally I don't care WYSIWYG and always loved counts as, but to play something like just Titans, then they better be the actual models. You spent that much money and time on them, then use them.

The idea of forcing armies to spread out more than 6" to prevent from being consolidated into creates and interesting risk/reward situation for Tau: namely that they can't get their combined Overwatch if they spread out, but if they don't spread out they could get nailed by consolidations.

 sennacherib wrote:
Consolidating back into combat after a successful assault was a great rule.

1. its easy to mitigate. Just spread your troops out so that its harder to consolidate from one assault to the next.

2. If one of your units is locked in assault and is likely to loose, back away from the assault.

I really started to play in 4th ed with the battle Maccrag set. This rule made playing assault armies fun. Gunlines of tau and IG folded when a couple of units made their way across the table and into melee. Playing an assault army in 6th sucks. Overwatch can be a huge problem.

I think given Overwatch, consolidating back into melee would be a nice buff.

ALSO… I would not play an army with that many riptides and broadsides. Players who insist to field cheese will find less and less games available to them. THe community response to their behavior will help mitigate their list building. After all. What fun is it to play a game where nobody will play with you.

so what your saying is, cos assualt sucks in 6th, lets make it UBER in 7th? to be fair thats a terrible idea. so once you have crossed 24" of board space your invincible to shooting, i can think of nothing worse. and saying move away from that assault, if you have an ongoing combat on your left, and something coming up on the right.. wisdom would normally say move away from the inc attacks and like 4th you end up boxed into a corner.

i would like a middle ground please. that would be very nice. as much as i want assault buffed, i really dont want it to be the "be all and end all" of oh look you are whacking on me, game over...

Davor wrote:
If someone is going to spam titan armies, then for once I will be a GW nerd and say they have to be no "counts as" and be the actual minis with WYSIWYG.

Normally I don't care WYSIWYG and always loved counts as, but to play something like just Titans, then they better be the actual models. You spent that much money and time on them, then use them.

Riptides =/= Titans

Actually on that note, Knights aren't Titans either. They are Superheavies, but officially Titans start at the Warhound and go up from there.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Davor wrote:
If someone is going to spam titan armies, then for once I will be a GW nerd and say they have to be no "counts as" and be the actual minis with WYSIWYG.

Normally I don't care WYSIWYG and always loved counts as, but to play something like just Titans, then they better be the actual models. You spent that much money and time on them, then use them.

Riptides =/= Titans

same deal with them both, you want to spam the $100 models go spend the coin. ironically, 10 riptides is still about the price of 1 titan. much sadness struck me as i realise this

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The idea of forcing armies to spread out more than 6" to prevent from being consolidated into creates and interesting risk/reward situation for Tau: namely that they can't get their combined Overwatch if they spread out, but if they don't spread out they could get nailed by consolidations.

I don't think this will be a major concern. You need to be within 6" of the unit that's getting assaulted, before pile in, to get the Support Fire overwatch. You can be well away from 6" away from the actual assault units. One guy actually made the mistake of assaulting a few Kroot only to notice the conga line going right up to a Riptide and several Crisis suits.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
Consolidating back into combat after a successful assault was a great rule.

1. its easy to mitigate. Just spread your troops out so that its harder to consolidate from one assault to the next.

2. If one of your units is locked in assault and is likely to loose, back away from the assault.

I really started to play in 4th ed with the battle Maccrag set. This rule made playing assault armies fun. Gunlines of tau and IG folded when a couple of units made their way across the table and into melee. Playing an assault army in 6th sucks. Overwatch can be a huge problem.

I think given Overwatch, consolidating back into melee would be a nice buff.

ALSO… I would not play an army with that many riptides and broadsides. Players who insist to field cheese will find less and less games available to them. THe community response to their behavior will help mitigate their list building. After all. What fun is it to play a game where nobody will play with you.

so what your saying is, cos assualt sucks in 6th, lets make it UBER in 7th? to be fair thats a terrible idea. so once you have crossed 24" of board space your invincible to shooting, i can think of nothing worse. and saying move away from that assault, if you have an ongoing combat on your left, and something coming up on the right.. wisdom would normally say move away from the inc attacks and like 4th you end up boxed into a corner.

i would like a middle ground please. that would be very nice. as much as i want assault buffed, i really dont want it to be the "be all and end all" of oh look you are whacking on me, game over...

But it doesn't make Assault "uber" at all. Thats just silly hyperbole.

A D6" consolidation means that there is a risk that the assaulting unit will fail to reach a second unit.
if they successfully consolidate into combat, they will get Overwatched a 2nd time.
And if you make it a Disordered Charge (remove Assault bonuses?) then the strength of the Assaulting unit's 2nd assault will be severely weakened. They may also have had their numbers depleted after the first combat.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The idea of forcing armies to spread out more than 6" to prevent from being consolidated into creates and interesting risk/reward situation for Tau: namely that they can't get their combined Overwatch if they spread out, but if they don't spread out they could get nailed by consolidations.

I don't think this will be a major concern. You need to be within 6" of the unit that's getting assaulted, before pile in, to get the Support Fire overwatch. You can be well away from 6" away from the actual assault units. One guy actually made the mistake of assaulting a few Kroot only to notice the conga line going right up to a Riptide and several Crisis suits.

I think it could have an effect on placement, and discourage castling.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Davor wrote:
If someone is going to spam titan armies, then for once I will be a GW nerd and say they have to be no "counts as" and be the actual minis with WYSIWYG.

Normally I don't care WYSIWYG and always loved counts as, but to play something like just Titans, then they better be the actual models. You spent that much money and time on them, then use them.

Riptides =/= Titans

Actually on that note, Knights aren't Titans either. They are Superheavies, but officially Titans start at the Warhound and go up from there.

I know Riptiedes are not Titans.

Someone said they were saying they were going to field more than one Warhound. If you are going to do that, find, field them but don't use "counts as" for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sennacherib wrote:
C
ALSO… I would not play an army with that many riptides and broadsides. Players who insist to field cheese will find less and less games available to them. THe community response to their behavior will help mitigate their list building. After all. What fun is it to play a game where nobody will play with you.

What is the fun that nobody will play you? That type of person will have the pride of being so good that people are "scared" to play him and he is that good. Or at least in his own world.

Some people actually have to win with plastic toy soldiers.

Yeah, I hated Consolidation-conga as much as anyone in 4th with a squishy army, but I think it would actually be quite reasonable now given other factors like Overwatch fire and removing casualties from the front.

It's actually a fairly elegant way of boosting assault armies without making them ridiculous. So that means either GW will further nerf assault units, or pendulum back and combine the granting of Consolidation assaults with the removal of Overwatch

Yeah, I think consolidation + overwatch could be pretty well-balanced, if handled well, and could speed the game up a lot, too. Bring it on.

Not to mention, it would add a layer of finesse into deployment, movement and dispersal. Plus units such as Rippers, Nurglings etc would gain extra utility as cheap screens to act as shields between valuable units. (Well, Rippers and Nurglings are bad examples, as Nids and CDs won't be getting assaulted that often, but you get my point.)

 azreal13 wrote:
Not to mention, it would add a layer of finesse into deployment, movement and dispersal. Plus units such as Rippers, Nurglings etc would gain extra utility as cheap screens to act as shields between valuable units. (Well, Rippers and Nurglings are bad examples, as Nids and CDs won't be getting assaulted that often, but you get my point.)

Grots and Conscripts maybe then?

And you know, there are aegis defense lines everywhere these days. Give them a consolidation protection thing and you're golden

 Bull0 wrote:
And you know, there are aegis defense lines everywhere these days. Give them a consolidation protection thing and you're golden

You're already assaulting through cover, if the disordered charge thing was also implemented, even Firewarriors might stand a chance!

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
Consolidating back into combat after a successful assault was a great rule.

1. its easy to mitigate. Just spread your troops out so that its harder to consolidate from one assault to the next.

2. If one of your units is locked in assault and is likely to loose, back away from the assault.

I really started to play in 4th ed with the battle Maccrag set. This rule made playing assault armies fun. Gunlines of tau and IG folded when a couple of units made their way across the table and into melee. Playing an assault army in 6th sucks. Overwatch can be a huge problem.

I think given Overwatch, consolidating back into melee would be a nice buff.

ALSO… I would not play an army with that many riptides and broadsides. Players who insist to field cheese will find less and less games available to them. THe community response to their behavior will help mitigate their list building. After all. What fun is it to play a game where nobody will play with you.

so what your saying is, cos assualt sucks in 6th, lets make it UBER in 7th? to be fair thats a terrible idea. so once you have crossed 24" of board space your invincible to shooting, i can think of nothing worse. and saying move away from that assault, if you have an ongoing combat on your left, and something coming up on the right.. wisdom would normally say move away from the inc attacks and like 4th you end up boxed into a corner.

i would like a middle ground please. that would be very nice. as much as i want assault buffed, i really dont want it to be the "be all and end all" of oh look you are whacking on me, game over...

To start with, I don't believe the rumors about assault. This sounds like wish fulfillment.

That said, consolidating into combat was never incredibly overpowered in previous editions. You could consolidate up to d6 inches, which was no sure thing. The counter to it was moving back a couple inches, which was not that hard.

In 6th edition, firepower has been dominant because of the rules around hull points and changes to assault rules. On the one hand, there are few reliable transports in any army that cannot be glanced to death. On the other hand, assault is no sure thing now with random charge ranges. When your assault does not work out, your troops are very exposed.

Even more importantly, the idea of assault vehicles combines both drawbacks into a single, steaming pile to have to deal with. Your transports don't make it to the opponent, and your assault troops can't do anything the turn they disembark. This was a gamebreaker in terms of mechanics that left many players unable to craft effective strategies for their armies. I just bought 2 Chaos armies because their owners never saw themselves wanting to play again.

It would make sense, actually, to introduce consolidating into combat as a counterbalance to the 6th edition assault rules. At least that way, if you get there, you have a chance of doing something more than hitting a single unit. If the rumors about vehicles being tougher to kill prove to be true, combined, this would make some armies a lot more useful. It might even provide more balance to the game.

Which is why I know it's a false rumor. GW would never make a thoughtful, effective decision like that, in recognition of a major defect that screws up the mechanics of the game. That sort of thing does not happen in the grimdark of little plastic space soldiers.