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) 2014/09/21 09:04:14
Subject: Re:The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
I would prefer to change the core rules , so special rules are only needed for actual special abilities.(Like every other rule set written for game play currently available!)
IMO, 40k has special rules for anything and everything.(To try to help sell the latest releases.)And this is why the game play gets so messed up!
Adding more rules to a bloated rule set to try to 'fix it' , is what has lead to 7th ed.
(And the core rules are incapable of balancing shooting and assault. Other wise the devs would have managed it at some period over the last 16 years!)
I know some players hate the idea of 'new rules'.But is is the only effective way of solving 40Ks many game play issues.
Here is an example of a '..complicated re-write that would take years to learn..'(According to those defending the current 40k rules  .)
Movement Phase.
All movement takes place in the movement phase.When taking a movement action a unit may move up to its 'move value' in inches.
In the movement phase players may chose one of the following actions for each eligible unit* under their control.
1)Remain stationary and make full use of ranged attacks in the shooting phase**.
2) Move once and make a ranged attack in the shooting phase**.
3) Move once and then move again to bring the units into base contact with an enemy unit they wish to assault in the assault phase**.
4) Move then move again.
*The rules for damage / moral determine what unit are eligible for taking movement actions.
**The rules for shooting and assault will detail which weapons can be used in the shooting and assault phases.
This is just an example of how the rules movement for a phase based game turn could be written.
IMO the real thing missing from 40k to help balance shooting and assault, is proper use of suppression mechanics.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/21 20:38:07
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Hallowed Canoness
|
I have an idea.
Fixing assault is as easy as enforcing model facings on infantry.
If infantry models can only shoot in the direction that they're facing, and can only pivot during their own turn (although I support pivoting freely in their own turn), suddenly tactics become a LOT more important, and tactics can be used to get around being Overwatched, and avoid being ganked by the turn they have to wait around because LoS-blocking terrain becomes a lot more important when you have to move each individual model and face it in the direction it wants to shoot.
Even if the target unit is smart and ends their turn in a circled formation with guns pointing in every direction, you're still cutting down the number of models who can overwatch from (for example) ten down to three.
|

"That time I only loaded the cannon with powder. Next time, I will fill it with jewels and diamonds and they will cut you to shrebbons!" - Nogbad the Bad. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/22 01:57:27
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Bounding Dark Angels Assault Marine
|
koooaei wrote:
Same here. I guess the solution lies within codexes. Orkses have open topped transports, semi-fleet on the charge and can run+charge once per game. It's enough to make assault viable for us without making it too effective. The only thing i'd do right now is allow charging from stationary vehicles so that sm, csm, eldar and others could finally utisile their assaulty units without bikes or landraiders. Demolition vets in chimeras, anyone?
Orks are totally made for this. It's tough for marines to do anything BUT a LR. Rhinos are worthless unless your table is big. I have a razorback and I use it basically for fire support. My best friend has played Orks since the mid 90s and I guess I have gotten used to not even being in a vehicle and rushing to assault.
In short, I completely agree with you. It's a codex issue Automatically Appended Next Post: I think as mentioned before, there is a big problem with AP weapons with massive strength being hidden in units cheaply and that arguably joke of 2d6 charge distance.
The Orks spoken of above, I destroyed a15 man unit of storm boyz because he failed his charge range (twice albeit), was assault, lost, and destroyed Automatically Appended Next Post: I guess what I mean is that should not happen. I got two salvos at him because of the ridiculous charge rules
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/22 02:27:39
Sometimes there's Justice, sometimes there's Just Us... |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/22 07:39:32
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Foxy Wildborne
|
Furyou Miko wrote:I have an idea.
Fixing assault is as easy as enforcing model facings on infantry.
If infantry models can only shoot in the direction that they're facing, and can only pivot during their own turn (although I support pivoting freely in their own turn), suddenly tactics become a LOT more important, and tactics can be used to get around being Overwatched, and avoid being ganked by the turn they have to wait around because LoS-blocking terrain becomes a lot more important when you have to move each individual model and face it in the direction it wants to shoot.
Even if the target unit is smart and ends their turn in a circled formation with guns pointing in every direction, you're still cutting down the number of models who can overwatch from (for example) ten down to three.
Overwatch barely has an impact on assault, though. It's removal from the front, unreliable charge range, inability to avoid LOS, blanket ban on charging on the turn you arrive on the table (including simply deploying from transports) and the general ramping up of shooting power in the past 3 editions.
4th edition had balanced movement, shooting and assault, but ever since then assault has gotten ever weaker and harder to pull off while guns with large blasts, AP2 and Ignores Cover are being handed out like candy and terrain (and hence maneuvering) has been made meaningless. There are no tactics left in the game except target priority and micro-managing model positions within a unit to avoid the important guy from being shot first.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/22 07:41:23
The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/22 09:19:19
Subject: Re:The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
@lord_ blackfang.
No edition of 40k has had a good balance between moving shooting and assaulting!
(Unlike Epic , 40k has never had a rule set written specifically for it , it has always borrowed WHFB rules.)
I agree that since 4th ed , the balance has shifted heavily towards shooting , for the reasons you gave.
And the tactical considerations in game are minimized to micro management of model placement, and targeting priority.
But as the men in charge of GW plc keep saying 'We are in the business of selling toy soldiers to children.'
GW corporate managers believe children can not deal with deep tactical decision making.They just want lots of 'inspiring rules' they can learn, to show how smart they are to their friends.
This explains why 40k has the simplest game play out of the top twenty most popular war games.
Yet has the most overly complicated rules out of the top twenty war games too!
The only way a game can have an equal balance of mobility , fire power and assault.When ranged weapons are as numerous and powerful as in modern warfare.Is if it follows the concept of modern warfare.
Mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement, and assault to contest objectives.
Other wise it follows ancient warfare,with very limited amounts of ranged weapons/attacks.Where tactical mobility is used to gain the most advantageous assaults , for the majority of the game play.And shooting is massively limited and only used in a supporting role.
The rules for 40k removed all the limiting factors from shooting in 3rd ed.Which made it too powerful.
And since then they have been trying to fine tune the game with a sledgehammer, as all the mechanisms for fine tuning (modifiers and free range values)were thrown away!
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/22 09:24:33
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/23 19:39:31
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General
|
ClockworkZion wrote: Grey Templar wrote:No. Thats exactly why BS shooting in Fantasy is useless. All the to-hit modifiers.
You're forgetting that the models tend to have far worse BS, and they have an extended chart that can go as low as 6+/6+ to hit.
you could game the table however you want so that a BS4 model shooting at something 6" in front of him, not moving, out of cover would be autohit and have modifiers go down from there.
|
Dark Mechanicus and Renegade Iron Hand Dakka Blog
My Dark Mechanicus P&M Blog. Mostly Modeling as I paint very slowly. Lots of kitbashed conversions of marines and a few guard to make up a renegade Iron Hand chapter and Dark Mechanicus Allies. Bionics++ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/24 20:52:49
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I think just changing assault range from 2D6" to 1D6" + 6" would be a first very gentle step to making assault more viable.
|
3500 pt - Angels of Light - DA successor chapter |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/24 20:58:12
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces
|
That would create some very long assault moves, however. Change the 6" to 3" or 4" and it'd be just about perfect IMO.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/24 21:50:22
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Fresh-Faced New User
|
I like the idea of Battletech's rule set where in shooting you declared who you were shooting at and resolved all shooting at once. That way, you have to pick between the really shooty killy unit almost within good charge distance or focus on the big guns in the back? No more shooting one or two units at a unit until it's dead, and then choosing to shoot at the other stuff just because you have the extra firepower.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/30 02:46:09
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Black Templar Recruit Undergoing Surgeries
|
I think a combined arms approach would make more sense. Anyone running into combat should be gunned down. If more weapons had pinning, and if those weapons had modifiers against leadership, and if pinned units weren't allowed to over watch, I think assault would be able to take its rightful place in the game.
Leadership is underused and I think things like being charged by a unit that causes "fear" should make the charged unit pass a leadership check (with modifiers). If the unit fails then no over watch.
|
Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/30 04:15:32
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
!!Goffik Rocker!!
|
scitech wrote:I think a combined arms approach would make more sense. Anyone running into combat should be gunned down. If more weapons had pinning, and if those weapons had modifiers against leadership, and if pinned units weren't allowed to over watch, I think assault would be able to take its rightful place in the game.
Leadership is underused and I think things like being charged by a unit that causes "fear" should make the charged unit pass a leadership check (with modifiers). If the unit fails then no over watch.
Pinned units can't fire overwatch allready.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/30 04:47:09
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
The Conquerer
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
|
Perhaps they should change pinning to how it works in Flames of War.
Pinning would be caused if a unit took a certain number of hits, was hit with a weapon which automatically causes Pinning, or if they were hit or targeted by Ordinance weapons.
That would make pinning far more common, and easy to inflict.
|
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/30 05:04:14
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Auspicious Daemonic Herald
|
Grey Templar wrote:Perhaps they should change pinning to how it works in Flames of War.
Pinning would be caused if a unit took a certain number of hits, was hit with a weapon which automatically causes Pinning, or if they were hit or targeted by Ordinance weapons.
That would make pinning far more common, and easy to inflict.
If you do then you need to nerf what pinning does because as is its very crippling (can't move, can't assault, and pretty much can't shoot either). Especially since someone gets to shoot first so will get to pin a unit before it gets to do anything.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/30 05:05:01
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/30 07:30:13
Subject: Re:The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
!!Goffik Rocker!!
|
Don't see how it's of any benefit to an assault army that can be locked in place with pinning so easilly.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/30 08:10:47
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Never Forget Isstvan!
|
By the way, we did test the ability to assault out of rhinos in a game this last week.
We did it as thus:
All rhino's that purchased a mark of possession were allowed to be considered open-topped for units of CSM that also had that same mark. If a unit disembarked said rhino roll a D6 and on a 1 the possessed rhino would eat one of the disembarking passengers.
He took 3 units of chosen and 3 units of berserkers all with possessed rhinos and I used my ground nids.
It was a fun game, but I still dominated him, due to berserkers being slightly overcosted for what they do.
|
JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/09/30 09:34:28
Subject: Re:The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Hellacious Havoc
|
Da Butcha wrote: 3)Introduce a slate of charge responses with comparable benefits/penalties such as Overwatch, Counter-charge, Flee, and Hold.
Exactly what I've been wanting since I started 40k. As a WFB player before I got into this, it always frustrated me how there was no option to flee when being charged. The Counter-Attack USR does something close to a charge response, other than Overwatch, and that's about it. Personally, I believe melee weapons costs in comparison to their ranged counterparts together with delivery problems from both transports and reserves are together making assaults unreliable and usually unviable. However, with penalising Overwatch or adding additional assault responses, I really think we can remove some of the disadvantage from fielding melee-oriented units. To take it from where you left off, I came up with some possible alternative assault responses and overwatch remodel.
a) Overwatch: Unit must not have shot in the previous shooting phase. Fire at full BS, but snap shots next turn. If your opponent's assaulting unit has assault grenades, you fire snap shots in overwatch.
b) Counter-Attack: Replaces the USR. Make an initiative test. If successful, you too roll for assault distance. If you roll higher (including modifiers) than your opponent, then you get your charge bonuses rather than your opponent. You can make a charge happen even if your enemy could not roll high enough. Down side is if you can't roll high enough your opponent is guaranteed to make his charge.
c) Hold: Steel yourself for the coming assault. Unit gains Stubborn until the end of the following Fight phase.
d) Flee: Run away as if you have lost combat. If the enemy catches up, Sweeping Advance applies even if the enemy is wearing Terminator Armour. Fearless units cant flee. ATSKNF applies.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/30 09:36:05
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/01 09:29:11
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
How to fix assault in 40k: understand that 40k is a scifi game where shooting and movement are the most important parts, and assault is used occasionally to finish off a weakened enemy or clear a stubborn opponent out of a building/good cover/etc. Then once you have that understanding stop making armies that are 100% assault. The current space marine codex should be an example of an assault-focused army, even even the most extreme assault armies should still have solid shooting to provide support for the assault units.
Furyou Miko wrote:Fixing assault is as easy as enforcing model facings on infantry.
If infantry models can only shoot in the direction that they're facing, and can only pivot during their own turn (although I support pivoting freely in their own turn), suddenly tactics become a LOT more important, and tactics can be used to get around being Overwatched, and avoid being ganked by the turn they have to wait around because LoS-blocking terrain becomes a lot more important when you have to move each individual model and face it in the direction it wants to shoot.
Even if the target unit is smart and ends their turn in a circled formation with guns pointing in every direction, you're still cutting down the number of models who can overwatch from (for example) ten down to three.
The issue with this, besides the fluff (we'll just assume that 40k's turn structure is already broken enough fluff-wise that it doesn't matter) is that you'd need to change 40k to square or hex bases so that you'd have a clearly defined arc of sight. With round bases there's no straightforward way to determine a model's facing or whether a target is within it's arc, and you'd have constant arguing about where the line should be drawn. Even in X-Wing, a game with clearly defined arcs printed on each ship's base, you still have people arguing about whether or not a ship is in arc. Trying to deal with a similar situation in a 40k game with potentially hundreds of models on the table would be an absolute nightmare. Automatically Appended Next Post: cbteom wrote:a) Overwatch: Unit must not have shot in the previous shooting phase. Fire at full BS, but snap shots next turn. If your opponent's assaulting unit has assault grenades, you fire snap shots in overwatch.
This is an example of GW-style rules bloat. Most relevant assault units have assault grenades, so why add a rule that effectively says "fire at full BS, as long as the unit charging you sucks and has no hope of damaging you"?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/01 09:31:02
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/01 12:51:57
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord
Inside Yvraine
|
Peregrine wrote:How to fix assault in 40k: understand that 40k is a scifi game where shooting and movement are the most important parts, and assault is used occasionally to finish off a weakened enemy or clear a stubborn opponent out of a building/good cover/etc. Then once you have that understanding stop making armies that are 100% assault. I understand that this is your fetish, but as always I feel compelled to step in and tell you that you're wrong. A) Warhammer 40K is not a sci-fi setting, it's explicitly fantasy. In the same vein that Star Wars is fantasy. B) Charging across the battlefield waving swords around in the face of guns has been a staple of the Universe since its early inception and is apart of why the setting is iconic. Changing that because of one guy's modern-warfare fetish-agenda is silly. C) I main Daemons- I play pure-assault lists exclusively (used to main a dakka-Tzeentch army but dropped it when the 7E psychic system crippled horrors) and have never, in a single one of my matches, failed to get the bulk of my units into close-combat with the enemy. That implies that assault armies don't struggle in 40K because they as a concept just don't "fit" (unless you're going to make the claim that Daemon units are overpowered, in which case slap yourself). It implies that many of the assault armies in the game merely lack the tools to compensate for the extreme and ridiculous amounts of ranged firepower an army can bring to bear, while the ones that do have the tools (like Daemons) are demonstrably fine. So, instead of trolololo overhauling vast swathes of the game to remove one of its most popular aspects, it'd be easier (and less stupid) to just focus on giving melee armies the tools they need to make it across the board while also toning down shooting. Because the overpowered attributes of shooting don't just feth over assault for most armies- it demonstrably brings down the game for everyone. The only reason I play pure-assault armies is because I'd rather have my ears filled with rat piss than have to watch or participate in two gunlines duke it out while ignoring the movement phase for the entire game.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/01 12:53:15
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/01 21:35:43
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Slaanesh Chosen Marine Riding a Fiend
Maine
|
BlaxicanX wrote: Peregrine wrote:How to fix assault in 40k: understand that 40k is a scifi game where shooting and movement are the most important parts, and assault is used occasionally to finish off a weakened enemy or clear a stubborn opponent out of a building/good cover/etc. Then once you have that understanding stop making armies that are 100% assault.
I understand that this is your fetish, but as always I feel compelled to step in and tell you that you're wrong.
A) Warhammer 40K is not a sci-fi setting, it's explicitly fantasy. In the same vein that Star Wars is fantasy.
B) Charging across the battlefield waving swords around in the face of guns has been a staple of the Universe since its early inception and is apart of why the setting is iconic. Changing that because of one guy's modern-warfare fetish-agenda is silly.
C) I main Daemons- I play pure-assault lists exclusively (used to main a dakka-Tzeentch army but dropped it when the 7E psychic system crippled horrors) and have never, in a single one of my matches, failed to get the bulk of my units into close-combat with the enemy. That implies that assault armies don't struggle in 40K because they as a concept just don't "fit" (unless you're going to make the claim that Daemon units are overpowered, in which case slap yourself). It implies that many of the assault armies in the game merely lack the tools to compensate for the extreme and ridiculous amounts of ranged firepower an army can bring to bear, while the ones that do have the tools (like Daemons) are demonstrably fine.
So, instead of trolololo overhauling vast swathes of the game to remove one of its most popular aspects, it'd be easier (and less stupid) to just focus on giving melee armies the tools they need to make it across the board while also toning down shooting.
Because the overpowered attributes of shooting don't just feth over assault for most armies- it demonstrably brings down the game for everyone. The only reason I play pure-assault armies is because I'd rather have my ears filled with rat piss than have to watch or participate in two gunlines duke it out while ignoring the movement phase for the entire game.
I like you.
I think you're 100% correct on the concept of: Give assault focused armies the tools they need to accomplish their task.
Orks were finally given that with the revamp to our Waaagh! Granted, one time use, but it SHOULD be all we need. (And to its credit, it usually is!) Other armies either need the proper transports or a rule of their own that gives them that assaulty edge. I feel the same way about a pure shooting game. To Hell with that. I tend to run a consistent 80% assault based Ork army, using Big Gunz to provide the shooting support (Because, lets face it, nothing in the Ork army shoots better than those) while the big Boyz run straight at the enemies faces, Walkers taking up the tail end (or front, depending on what I'm facing for armor to let Klaws do the work).
It's really just a shame the game isn't shaken up enough to have varied armies. I would love to see other factions have the ability to get into CC as well. Mix things up instead of 'I shoot, you shoot' all day.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/02 00:34:24
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Black Templar Recruit Undergoing Surgeries
|
BlaxicanX wrote: Peregrine wrote:How to fix assault in 40k: understand that 40k is a scifi game where shooting and movement are the most important parts, and assault is used occasionally to finish off a weakened enemy or clear a stubborn opponent out of a building/good cover/etc. Then once you have that understanding stop making armies that are 100% assault.
I understand that this is your fetish, but as always I feel compelled to step in and tell you that you're wrong.
A) Warhammer 40K is not a sci-fi setting, it's explicitly fantasy. In the same vein that Star Wars is fantasy.
B) Charging across the battlefield waving swords around in the face of guns has been a staple of the Universe since its early inception and is apart of why the setting is iconic. Changing that because of one guy's modern-warfare fetish-agenda is silly.
C) I main Daemons- I play pure-assault lists exclusively (used to main a dakka-Tzeentch army but dropped it when the 7E psychic system crippled horrors) and have never, in a single one of my matches, failed to get the bulk of my units into close-combat with the enemy. That implies that assault armies don't struggle in 40K because they as a concept just don't "fit" (unless you're going to make the claim that Daemon units are overpowered, in which case slap yourself). It implies that many of the assault armies in the game merely lack the tools to compensate for the extreme and ridiculous amounts of ranged firepower an army can bring to bear, while the ones that do have the tools (like Daemons) are demonstrably fine.
So, instead of trolololo overhauling vast swathes of the game to remove one of its most popular aspects, it'd be easier (and less stupid) to just focus on giving melee armies the tools they need to make it across the board while also toning down shooting.
Because the overpowered attributes of shooting don't just feth over assault for most armies- it demonstrably brings down the game for everyone. The only reason I play pure-assault armies is because I'd rather have my ears filled with rat piss than have to watch or participate in two gunlines duke it out while ignoring the movement phase for the entire game.
Yeah...with an attitude like that (my way should be the only way), I don't feel so bad for assault armies.
|
Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/02 03:21:00
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord
Inside Yvraine
|
Why do you disapprove of balancing out assault and shooting against one another?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/02 06:22:56
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
BlaxicanX wrote:A) Warhammer 40K is not a sci-fi setting, it's explicitly fantasy. In the same vein that Star Wars is fantasy.
And you know what Star Wars has lots of? Guns. Only a very small number of characters ever use melee weapons, and they're mostly used in ritual duels, not in a full-scale battle. 40k should be the same and focus on the grimdark scifi aspects of the universe. Its weakest moments are when it fails to leave its absurd 1980s " WHFB in space" origins.
B) Charging across the battlefield waving swords around in the face of guns has been a staple of the Universe since its early inception and is apart of why the setting is iconic.
It's one part, but a small part.
It implies that many of the assault armies in the game merely lack the tools to compensate for the extreme and ridiculous amounts of ranged firepower an army can bring to bear, while the ones that do have the tools (like Daemons) are demonstrably fine.
But the question here is why should those units have the tools you're asking for? Why shouldn't the solution be to remove the concept of a pure assault army from the game so that nobody expects to be able to play an army without meaningful shooting and still succeed?
So, instead of trolololo overhauling vast swathes of the game to remove one of its most popular aspects, it'd be easier (and less stupid) to just focus on giving melee armies the tools they need to make it across the board while also toning down shooting.
Easier, but worse because it assumes that melee units being better is a desirable outcome. Melee units running across the board and succeeding is not a situation I want to have in 40k. If you take a melee-only army and try to just run at the enemy and stab them to death you should lose the game in a one-sided massacre, just like if you brought nothing but lasguns against a tank army.
Because the overpowered attributes of shooting don't just feth over assault for most armies- it demonstrably brings down the game for everyone. The only reason I play pure-assault armies is because I'd rather have my ears filled with rat piss than have to watch or participate in two gunlines duke it out while ignoring the movement phase for the entire game.
Did you miss the part where modern combat is about moving and shooting, not just gunlines? 40k has gunline problems because it's a game with incredibly superficial LOS/morale/movement/etc rules that allow you to just put a unit at the back of the table and declare a target to kill. Other games don't have this problem. For example, X-Wing is dominated by movement even though nobody ever gets out of their ship to have a sword fight.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/02 06:53:10
Subject: Re:The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
!!Goffik Rocker!!
|
Even though i strongly enjoy assault in wh - and it was essentially one of the main things why i was so fascinated by the universe - Peregrine has his truth. Assault shouldn't be on par with shooting en masse. Yep, it takes place and it's even reasonable sometimes in the setting with stuff like power and terminator armor, orks and tyranids.
The thing is that mellee is a big part of the tabletop and in all fairness, there is a number of effective mellee units and lists. Spawns, Bikers with tough mellee characters - those who have durability, speed and punch can find a way in every list. But there's a number of other units that can't make it on their own. For example, ork boyz. Unlike a unit of bikers with shield eternal CM - who can be thrown in almost any list with good results - regular ork boyz need much more thought and effort put into them. They won't work on their own. They won't work even if you put them in a wagon and throw at an enemy. But when you take 2 wagonboyz + a bunch of truckboyz, they start to be a real force. Or when there are large numbers of footsloggas backed with big gunz.
Assault just has some sort of 'critical mass'. There's no use of a squad of slow footsloggas. But when there are 3 squads, some of them will make it there and wreck face to shooty - oriented guyz who think they're safe in their cosy backfield.
And i think, this situation is perfectly fine and the rulebook represents it all quite well. Yep, there are some annoying things like a failed 2' charge, but they're not deciding.
The current problem i see is within codexes. But i don't propose complete overhaul. Zerks will fare better with just crusader and fleet. For their price, it's gona make them fine footsloggas and will represent fluff well enough. I mean, look at ork boyz. We're the same as in previous codex bar a few special rules. 'ere we go - which allows to reroll 1 dice on the charge and old WAAAAAGH that allows to run + charge. Basically, this things make getting into combat a bit more reliable. And this buffs are allready enough to make the difference.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/02 07:12:36
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/02 07:46:39
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Battleship Captain
|
koooaei wrote:scitech wrote:I think a combined arms approach would make more sense. Anyone running into combat should be gunned down. If more weapons had pinning, and if those weapons had modifiers against leadership, and if pinned units weren't allowed to over watch, I think assault would be able to take its rightful place in the game.
Leadership is underused and I think things like being charged by a unit that causes "fear" should make the charged unit pass a leadership check (with modifiers). If the unit fails then no over watch.
Pinned units can't fire overwatch allready.
Indeed. Shame it so rarely bloody happens!
It's one of the reasons I like Genestealer support for tyranids - I'm not trying to claim genestealers as an especially cost effective combat unit but broodlords with The Horror are one of the few reliable ways to pin people down (especially now massed sniper fire lost the pinning rule).
The problem with adding pinning is that it works both ways - and (logically) if pinning weapons exist, then a shooting focused army will on average have more of them. An assault army needs to be able to move to have any effect.
Ultimately, the problem is that shooting will always have several advantages.
~ It's easier to concentrate power from all along your line to the point you need it.
~ You can affect the game without having to come off a scoring objective or out of the cover keeping you alive.
~ You can (at least with rapid fire) deploy at the front of your deployment zone then shoot whilst moving steadily backwards.
~ You can place a skirmish screen in the way that your opponent has to charge and fight but you can shoot past.
Thanks to the current mechanics
~ Every kill you inflict on an assault opponent pushes them 1" or so further back, making it harder for them to reach you.
~ You can affect the game (devastatingly so) the turn you arrive from reserves.
The problem is, as much as anything, the 'payback' for making it to and winning an assault.
If you lose combat, take a morale check - unlike shooting, though, you get a -1 for each point you lost combat by! This is really good, and means that whilst the average leadership in 40k floats around the "9" mark, if you lose an assault it's quite likely you'll fail the check.....
At which point.....
...nothing happens.
The one thing I never understood with 6th edition was taking out "No Retreat". There is next to no consequence for losing an assault because between the number of ways of giving an army And They Shall Know No Fear and Fearless, no bugger cares (aside from Tau, I'll grant you).
In fact, two armies who most care about losing an assault are....orks and daemons. Which is even more ridiculous because 'shock' melee armies (with large numbers and furious charge) will charge in, win a first round against an opponent who doesn't care, then lose a second round and take serious casualties themselves.
Ultimately.... yeah. Assaults can work, but desperately need speed. Trukks and opentopped battlewagons are gold dust, as are seekers.
|
Termagants expended for the Hive Mind: ~2835
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/02 08:34:13
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
locarno24 wrote:The one thing I never understood with 6th edition was taking out "No Retreat". There is next to no consequence for losing an assault because between the number of ways of giving an army And They Shall Know No Fear and Fearless, no bugger cares (aside from Tau, I'll grant you).
Don't forget that the armies that don't have ways of ignoring the consequences of losing an assault are the ones that are probably getting wiped out anyway and want to lose combat so they can fall back and leave the assaulting unit exposed to shooting next turn. IMO just remove ATSKNF entirely so that assaulting actually means something. It should be difficult to charge successfully and should never be the focus of your army, but when you do successfully charge you should decisively slaughter the enemy unless they're an equally-tough melee unit.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/02 09:36:38
Subject: The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf
|
Yeah if you want to play a game which revolves around shooting like a modern combat game... why don't you go play a modern combat game. 40k has always had a large emphasis on assault, even when the rules favour shooting there are still assault armies they just suck more.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/02 09:48:11
Subject: Re:The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Stealthy Sanctus Slipping in His Blade
|
I think the best way to make assault viable in 40k is to allow pinning through volume of fire in some way like FoW does it and then allow units to consolidate into close combat.
Allows you the option of using your ranged weapons to create an area where an assault would be effective if not devastating. But they shouldn't be so common that half of the units die to a chainsword and the other half to the boltgun.
If you want to bring shooting down a bit bring back area terrain that blocks LoS. Being able to shoot cleanly through a wooded area 10 yards away that is 50 yards deep to a target 200 yards behind it is a little hard to get my mind wrapped around. GW has clearly never heard of dead space on the battlefield.
|
A ton of armies and a terrain habit...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/10/02 14:58:16
Subject: Re:The ONLY thing that destroys assault in 40k, and how to fix it IMO
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
@Dracpanzer.
I totally agree!
When I use the term 'balancing shooing and assault ', it does not mean that all units should be equally effective in all situations , irrespective of if they have assault or shooting focused attacks.
But players should freely be able to chose between forces with any allowable mix of shooting assault focused units, without feeling they are being dis advantaged in some way.
I believe that shooting should not 'JUST ' be defined as as 'what it can kill'.But open up the scope of shooting to include suppression and LOS blocking attacks .
(So shooting can slow enemy units down, and restrict enemy shooting LOS.)
Depending on LOS blocking terrain as a crutch to 'correct' game play is a mistake IMO.
There should be a minimum requirement of terrain to make game play interesting , obviously .But correcting unlimited shooting with artificial means is not really sorting the problem out.
The unit interaction should be defined in the core rules IMO.
|
|
 |
 |
|