Squidbot wrote:
This thread has become even more hilarious than it was.
Let's just pretend CC armies don't exist because of "realism".

 Accolade wrote:

You know, you can make your point without calling everyone stupid. I don't think anyone said that there should not be any assault, more that they enjoyed the fact that assault did not prominently figure in 6th and they would like that to continue. I know my own point was more about diversity of the GW games than getting *rid* of assault, it obviously has its place in 40k.

But hey, ignore those points and call everyone out, seems fair.

Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.

lol. Have an exalt. "In the 41st millennia there are only pointy sticks."

Because, for some silly reason, everyone in the future has guns but they were nothing more then over-glorified clubs. This is the future, guns are everywhere. Why should someone just like up a horde on CC models and run directly at the enemy though withering fire for two rounds then slaughter everything when they get there. Fire and manuever, tanks, artillery, aircraft, and transports. Yet some people want to play the game as if it were WHFB and just line up a large army and run right at the other army.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You used to be able to play 40k in an hour or two...

That's the biggest problem.

40k at conception involved, at most, a few dozen models a side. In the interests of profits to support a growing company and to expand the game in general, 40k has turned from what was a small scale skirmish game (where even melee made a little sense), to massive armies fighting other massive armies.

Cost of entry issues aside, this change requires a huge change in the way that we play said games.

Suffice to say, the changes between 1st and 7th edition have not in any way catered for this. They've done their best to address balance but never started to address the growing scale of 40k.

We're at the point where some games of 40k involve as many men as some of the smallest original Epic games used to involve- and in 40k style rules, that's hell.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:
This thread has become even more hilarious than it was.
Let's just pretend CC armies don't exist because of "realism".

Nobody actually said that. Some people claimed that others had said it in order to argue against a point which wasn't raised.

 undertow wrote:

 rabidguineapig wrote:

 wallygator wrote:
i'm affraid the extra magic-phase will become some kind of 2nd shooting phase. And my orks wil get shot or casted away from table top even faster.

Only when you play Daemons. Most other armies have very little if any psychic shooting attacks, most of the annoying things are blessings.

Most Daemons only have psychic shooting, so they really won't get two shooting phases either.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
I have no idea why people want assault to be even more dead than it is now.

Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.

39,299 years is long enough to get the gist, right?

Eyjio wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

You know, you can make your point without calling everyone stupid. I don't think anyone said that there should not be any assault, more that they enjoyed the fact that assault did not prominently figure in 6th and they would like that to continue. I know my own point was more about diversity of the GW games than getting *rid* of assault, it obviously has its place in 40k.

But hey, ignore those points and call everyone out, seems fair.

I called nobody stupid, because I don't believe anyone that was in response to is stupid. It is, however, extremely foolish to decree that shooting should always vastly dominate assault in a game which used to have precisely the opposite, where the the background supports almost every battle hinging around CC. Assault wasn't just diminished in 6e, it was nearly pointless. Look at the viable assault units - mass MCs (too big to stop), Wraiths (insanely durable, ridiculous amount of attacks), screamerstar (nigh invincible), jet council (nigh invincible), gargoyles (too many to stop, mostly used as a tarpit), etc. There are precisely 0 viable foot assault units. If you want to succeed in assault, you MUSt be able to move 9" per turn AND be able to shred things with very few models. That's not "diminished", that's blatantly broken to the extreme that it forces deathstar builds and non-fluffy lists simply because if you attempt to actually emulate the fluff (using marines to shoot choppy things and assault shooty things for example) you get annihilated. Every game. To negate most of the damage done by shooting, you need good armour, lots of cover and usually to be able to hide out of sight. To negate most of the damage done by assault, your model closest to the enemy needs to be in any form of area cover OR have good overwatch OR be better in assault anyway OR be faster OR be in a vehicle, etc. In fact, the only way assault is 100% reliable is if you're charging at a unit completely exposed with no mass shooting and no combat ability.

 azreal13 wrote:
This assault discussion is
A) Off topic
B) Old ground (very old ground)
C) Irrelevant

But mostly off topic.

HTH has always been a large part of 40K, and as such there is a responsibility on the design team to ensure it's viability is well balanced with shooting.

Might I suggest that be an end to it before the Mods get all shouty?

 44Ronin wrote:
Cavalry charges were a very big deal until the early 20th century, actually.

and shovels, bayonets, knives..... well not obsolete enough to save thousands of people who still died from these attacks in the 20th century. These were not obsolete in the trenches, jungles, and certainly were not obsolete in the streets and tunnels of stalingrad, were they?

In short, you're wrong

 Accolade wrote:
You know, you can make your point without calling everyone stupid. I don't think anyone said that there should not be any assault, more that they enjoyed the fact that assault did not prominently figure in 6th and they would like that to continue. I know my own point was more about diversity of the GW games than getting *rid* of assault, it obviously has its place in 40k.

But hey, ignore those points and call everyone out, seems fair.

 Grey Knight Luke wrote:
Does anyone know when the psychic phase will be? Will it be before or after the Movement Phase?

 Grey Knight Luke wrote:
Does anyone know when the psychic phase will be? Will it be before or after the Movement Phase?

 azreal13 wrote:

Might I suggest that be an end to it before the Mods get all shouty?

 Grey Knight Luke wrote:
Does anyone know when the psychic phase will be? Will it be before or after the Movement Phase?

 Grey Knight Luke wrote:
Does anyone know when the psychic phase will be? Will it be before or after the Movement Phase?

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

 Grey Knight Luke wrote:
Does anyone know when the psychic phase will be? Will it be before or after the Movement Phase?

After the movement phase.

 Grey Knight Luke wrote:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

 Grey Knight Luke wrote:
Does anyone know when the psychic phase will be? Will it be before or after the Movement Phase?

After the movement phase.

With that in mind, I am wondering how this will affect movement related psychic powers (e.g. Wings of Sanguinus)? I guess it will need to be FAQ'd, but I really don't know a simple solution for it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Lansirill wrote:
The new wound allocation doesn't seem all that different from the old. Unless I'm mistaken, in 6th ed the attacker still chooses the order his or her opponent makes saves. The only meaningful difference I see off-hand with the new system is that you have less information to work with when deciding on the order of things, both for determining the order that saves should be taken, and deciding if you want to use LOS or any other shenanigans.

What I'm not sure of is if it will be more or less annoying to sit through a crisis suit team's firing with the 6th ed or 7th ed rules.

7th will be far more annoying, since it looks like you resolve each different weapon separately. That's not just for rolling saves... that's the entire process. It's one more step that previously could be done all in one that GW have for some bizarre reason decided to break up into separate stages.

It slows down the game and makes the whole process more tedious for everyone involved.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Uhh... why must they insist on keeping the "casualties from the front" bull gak. What was so difficult about:

1. Roll To Hit.
2. Roll to Wound.
3. Owning player assigns wounds (1 per model before wrapping around). Wounds must be assigned to models within range and LOS.
4. Owning player takes saves (where applicable).
5. Owning player removes casualties.

So simple. It required almost no thought.

PapaSoul wrote:
From glossing over the WD scans again I've yet to see any clarification on the jink changes, anyone got a source?

PapaSoul wrote:
From glossing over the WD scans again I've yet to see any clarification on the jink changes, anyone got a source?

Eyjio wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

You know, you can make your point without calling everyone stupid. I don't think anyone said that there should not be any assault, more that they enjoyed the fact that assault did not prominently figure in 6th and they would like that to continue. I know my own point was more about diversity of the GW games than getting *rid* of assault, it obviously has its place in 40k.

But hey, ignore those points and call everyone out, seems fair.

I called nobody stupid, because I don't believe anyone that was in response to is stupid. It is, however, extremely foolish to decree that shooting should always vastly dominate assault in a game which used to have precisely the opposite, where the the background supports almost every battle hinging around CC. Assault wasn't just diminished in 6e, it was nearly pointless. Look at the viable assault units - mass MCs (too big to stop), Wraiths (insanely durable, ridiculous amount of attacks), screamerstar (nigh invincible), jet council (nigh invincible), gargoyles (too many to stop, mostly used as a tarpit), etc. There are precisely 0 viable foot assault units. If you want to succeed in assault, you MUSt be able to move 9" per turn AND be able to shred things with very few models. That's not "diminished", that's blatantly broken to the extreme that it forces deathstar builds and non-fluffy lists simply because if you attempt to actually emulate the fluff (using marines to shoot choppy things and assault shooty things for example) you get annihilated. Every game. To negate most of the damage done by shooting, you need good armour, lots of cover and usually to be able to hide out of sight. To negate most of the damage done by assault, your model closest to the enemy needs to be in any form of area cover OR have good overwatch OR be better in assault anyway OR be faster OR be in a vehicle, etc. In fact, the only way assault is 100% reliable is if you're charging at a unit completely exposed with no mass shooting and no combat ability.

As for people not saying "get rid of assault", let's quote some things which absolutely do imply that exact sentiment:

Maybe it's time that all those melee units learned that ranged weapons have been making melee mostly obsolete since approximately 1700.

lol. Have an exalt. "In the 41st millennia there are only pointy sticks."

Because, for some silly reason, everyone in the future has guns but they were nothing more then over-glorified clubs. This is the future, guns are everywhere. Why should someone just like up a horde on CC models and run directly at the enemy though withering fire for two rounds then slaughter everything when they get there. Fire and manuever, tanks, artillery, aircraft, and transports. Yet some people want to play the game as if it were WHFB and just line up a large army and run right at the other army.

In fact, you're the only one who argued against assault who prefaced it with "I don't think assault should disappear". Even then, you said that assault, in its undeniably crippled current state, should be even WORSE. This is a system where there's no penalty against shooting other than cover, yet assault has random distance, worse to hits (4+ vs 3+ for most shooting), worse ability to wound (most units are still S4 compared to the S7+ shooting everywhere), needs high mobility to get there at all and renders that unit almost useless whilst it tries to get there. We're at the stage where terminators, supposedly some of the most elite units SM can bring to bear are actually WORSE than just taking 2 space marines! They're more expensive, fire less shots, have similar durability and less options, all for the trade of a powerfist they're unlikely to ever get to use. Does that seem reasonable? TH/SS terminators are all but worthless nowadays, they have no reliable delivery and are about as scary as molasses flowing downhill with their mobility. This isn't a case of "oh, assault is worse than shooting but that's okay as guns should generally beat assault", this is a case of "assault is almost an entirely pointless phase unless you're taking the nastiest possible lists, at which point it's still more useful as a method to stop people shooting than it is to kill them, yet people still say it should be worse". I can agree with the former sentiment with shooting being marginally more powerful. I cannot, however, agree with people saying that the current state of affairs is reasonable or more fun than the alternative because as it stands, I haven't used the assault phase as anything other than a tarpit since I stopped using mass wraiths. That's pitiful IMO.[/quote
I don't think that assault should be removed from the game entirely. But I do believe that common sense should prevail. With the amount of insane fire power available the game should take on a more shooty approach. Every army has guns/ranged attacks and I think that should be more the focus. And armor will always have little effect on firearms. If you can invent a protection for something, you can invent a way to bypass it.

If you have a bunch of guys charging across a battlefield towards a gun line, then those charging shouldn't make it to said gun line alive. But if that charging army were to make good use of cover and maneuver, supported by shooting and artillery, than that’s another story. I'm not talking about no CC, but just less of a focus on it. I just think that it’s hilarious that all these CC armies have guns, but just run right at the enemy and use that gun to club them with.

I love the focus on shooting in the 6th and I would love to see GW come up with better guns/tactics for CC armies so they can have the necessary fire power to compete with the shooty armies but still keep their superiority in CC. And people mention chaos as being CC focused but they have a lot of ranged fire power and one of the better aircraft.

 rabidguineapig wrote:

 undertow wrote:

 rabidguineapig wrote:

 wallygator wrote:
i'm affraid the extra magic-phase will become some kind of 2nd shooting phase. And my orks wil get shot or casted away from table top even faster.

Only when you play Daemons. Most other armies have very little if any psychic shooting attacks, most of the annoying things are blessings.

Most Daemons only have psychic shooting, so they really won't get two shooting phases either.

Very true, though you can do a decent enough job of mixing the two in a Daemon army with soul grinders, skull cannons, lash princes, etc... It's still going to be a good balance between the two, and I wouldn't worry about non-psychic armies getting blown off the board in both the psychic and then shooting phase. I guess you could have some bad luck with shrieking Nids and the devourers that shoot afterward.

coredump wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Uhh... why must they insist on keeping the "casualties from the front" bull gak. What was so difficult about:

1. Roll To Hit.
2. Roll to Wound.
3. Owning player assigns wounds (1 per model before wrapping around). Wounds must be assigned to models within range and LOS.
4. Owning player takes saves (where applicable).
5. Owning player removes casualties.

So simple. It required almost no thought.

You really dont remember the issues we had (and YMDC threads) dealing with having to spread out the wounds, then re-grouping into 'buckets' of similar models, then the confusion about how you 'assigned' the wound to a certain model, but it actually applied to *any* model in the same 'bucket'. Unless there was only 1 model in that bucket.... So you could stack 3 Rends onto a Sgt, but not onto one specific tac marine....

yeah, that system never had any issues....