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.

There comes a point when certain things just need to be dropped, as you're going nowhere with them.

Or at the very least alter the way in which the discussion is being carried out.

No need for the hostility on display here.

My one wish? Free rules.

pm713 wrote:

Ne_Streets wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I've always thought it was dumb. Hey let's slaughter our troops to kill a few enemies.

There are plenty of armies that just wouldn't care in the least if they killed some enemies. Isn't it an Ork thing that "if it dies, it's an enemy, if it lives, it's friendly"?

There's more who care a great deal.

Not that I'm advocating for either side, but being able to shoot into combat, if allowed, would be an OPTION. So...armies that "care a great deal" could just choose to not do so.

I guess I am advocating for a side, but that side is MORE OPTIONS to do what I want. I hate it when options are legislated out of the rules because of "reasons."

 Voidwraith wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Ne_Streets wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I've always thought it was dumb. Hey let's slaughter our troops to kill a few enemies.

There are plenty of armies that just wouldn't care in the least if they killed some enemies. Isn't it an Ork thing that "if it dies, it's an enemy, if it lives, it's friendly"?

There's more who care a great deal.

Not that I'm advocating for either side, but being able to shoot into combat, if allowed, would be an OPTION. So...armies that "care a great deal" could just choose to not do so.

I guess I am advocating for a side, but that side is MORE OPTIONS to do what I want. I hate it when options are legislated out of the rules because of "reasons."

Except that what will happen is you'll make shooting even more powerful unbalancing the game even further. Sometimes more options is a very bad thing.

 Lukash_ wrote:
What if consolidating into combat was just that, a consolidation? As in you wouldn't have a second fight sub-phase, but would be locked in combat and fight in your opponents phase, probably gaining no extra attacks/other benefits from charging. Note that you can't consolidate after destroying a vehicle in CC.

That's exactly what it was. No charge bonus, but just a new combat was initiated. Gun line players hated it because it needed strategy to counter it. You couldn't simply wait for your shooting phase to blast them. You needed to *gasp* maneuver troops around and *gulp* think ahead.

Oh yeah, snark, that'll help prove your point accross. And no you can't blast them because you can't shoot in combat. Krieg also does not have the possibility to move around easily, without paying absurd amount of points.

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:

 Lukash_ wrote:
What if consolidating into combat was just that, a consolidation? As in you wouldn't have a second fight sub-phase, but would be locked in combat and fight in your opponents phase, probably gaining no extra attacks/other benefits from charging. Note that you can't consolidate after destroying a vehicle in CC.

That's exactly what it was. No charge bonus, but just a new combat was initiated. Gun line players hated it because it needed strategy to counter it. You couldn't simply wait for your shooting phase to blast them. You needed to *gasp* maneuver troops around and *gulp* think ahead.

except that wasnt really it at all, it was "your flying DP or harlequin filled Holofalcon zips up behind LoS blocking Area Terrain turn 1, gets stuck in turn 2, and then proceeds to eat something every turn and never gets to be shot until the game is basically over in turn 6".

Having been on both sides of that, it was a good change to make. The problem for assault units was 6E cutting the legs out on assaulting from reserves and stationary transports.

That's very much true.
Just one or two outflanking units was enough to put the scares on and allow the close combat army to control the shooty army's deployment just enough to have the half chance that they needed.
It was a big loss to cc armies.

pm713 wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Ne_Streets wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I've always thought it was dumb. Hey let's slaughter our troops to kill a few enemies.

There are plenty of armies that just wouldn't care in the least if they killed some enemies. Isn't it an Ork thing that "if it dies, it's an enemy, if it lives, it's friendly"?

There's more who care a great deal.

Not that I'm advocating for either side, but being able to shoot into combat, if allowed, would be an OPTION. So...armies that "care a great deal" could just choose to not do so.

I guess I am advocating for a side, but that side is MORE OPTIONS to do what I want. I hate it when options are legislated out of the rules because of "reasons."

Except that what will happen is you'll make shooting even more powerful unbalancing the game even further. Sometimes more options is a very bad thing.

Well, if you sift back and find my one wish, it was to make assault move viable....so...it's not as if this game is going to be perfectly fixed by altering one single thing.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
That's very much true.
Just one or two outflanking units was enough to put the scares on and allow the close combat army to control the shooty army's deployment just enough to have the half chance that they needed.
It was a big loss to cc armies.

Agreed. Back in 5th I played Tau. When I played against my friend's 100+ genestealer list, I avoided the board edges like the plague!