Chain assaults could be problematic (or not) depending on how it's implemented. Unfortunately (or fortunately, YMMV), we haven't the slightest detail about it to consider, so making any statements about is is a shot in the dark.
Armies: Waaagh! Þursblóð, Hivefleet Orochi
Snap Fire might require that the assaulted unit didn't move or fire, or might require a minimum assault distance, who knows?
I'm mixed about it. I don't like what it means for my orks (who might prefer to BE assaulted, especially the burnas, if it really works like that), but there will likely be other things to balance it back out (chain assaults, a 2D6 assault range, etc).
it really depends how it will be implemented, if it will go in.
at the moment, you assault, win, consolidate, get shot, assault.
with snap fire only working if someone attacks you with a consolidation assault, it could even be okay without a penalty at all.
assault, win, consolidation assault and get shot from snap fire without a penalty.
would be exactly the same amount of shooting.
if snap fire works on every assault, then thats a whole new thing.
i think we can absolutely all agree, that we want something thats balanced for every army. if GW can do it, well.. thats another story. *g*
"And the greatest of them all are the Ultramarines."
Thats a Fact.
Liberarting more Worlds than any other Legion while suffering fewer casualties than any other Legion.
Each member of the Ultramarines Honour Guard has earnt more commendations and glories in a lifetimes service than a whole company of Space Marines from any other Chapter.
Warhammer 40K Tournament Matches with Ultramarines - W:191/L:0/D:0
Furthermore I doubt we know all the rules for example
1) does the unit have to be within a certain distance or further from one to be fired at be snap fire?
2) can the unit use template weapons?
3) does it have triggers so it only happens after consolidations/deep strike?
4) does it have effects on the units CC ability? for example if you snap shot maybe you lose the bonus attack from pistols for that turn.
Crons suck in assaults but, they are probably the most durable army againist shooting, and wraiths point for point my be the most durable assault unit, not being great in assault seem fair otherwise they'd be the best army in the game (IMO they're already tier 1).
Tau are really old I know that seems like a cop out, but orks were at least in part designed with 5th in mind, and tau were built with alot of tricks based on 4th. Their problem isn't so much that they suck in CC, as much as most armies in 5th at least caught up with them in shooting. Honestly I think they're always going be a bit of a nightmare to balance because they do have such a clear strength.
Note: These predictions all assume two factors, BOTH of which MUST be true in order to be valid:
1. These rumors are true (thus can be discarded if proven wrong)
2. Worst Case Scenario (see above about being proven wrong)
Assuming Snap Fire is at BS 1, that means that Orks are going to get the most benefit from it, or any army with assault weapons with a high torrent of fire. The army that gets the least benefit from the rule will most likely be Imperial Guard. Reason: BS1.....Lasguns. Those aren't gonna kill anything.
The effect of chain consolidation will depend on the opponent. Against marines and elite armies in general, the rule will either not hurt that much or will not apply that much. Against a horde army that fills a huge percentage of the table with bodies, it is quite easy to chain consolidate. In general, the armies hit the hardest will be horde shooting lists. As such, the most likely biggest loser under the chain consolidation rule will be Imperial Guard. IIRC, chain consolidation was one of the major reasons why guard was weak in 4th edition (much like KP was a crippling thorn in their side in the first 10 months of 5th) as due to unique troop structure causing the horde to be broken up into smaller 10 man squads, one assault was all it took to bring about a fatal chain reaction.
The rule however that brings the most potential for game breaking balance however is "bloody deep strike". I see a major toxic cocktail when combined with chain consolidation. The prime losers under this rule will be shooting armies such as Tau, Impereial Guard, and Necrons. When combined with chain consolidation, it will be Guard that gets kicked in the teeth the most as it will create a whole barrel of really bad or outright unwinnable matchups assuming the worst case scenario that everything with deep strike will be able to charge the same turn they arrive. Any army list that deploys a whole bunch of units at once on the first turn (any drop pod assault list, Descent of Angels, Chaos Daemons in general) will simply charge a whole bunch of your army turn 1, wipe them out and chain consolidate into another unit, resulting in a huge chunk of your army either dead or engaged before the bottom of turn 1. I also forsee Trygon heavy lists wrecking havoc with a combination of the Trygons and the tunnels they create as deployment zones.
Conclusion: Under Worst Case Scenario, Imperial Guard players have a very valid reason to panic. Either ducking for cover and hoping the Worst Case Scenario is dead wrong or preping a second army (if proven right) might be their best option at this time.
I can't claim to be a top-level tournament player, but if you watch or read reports from the most competitive events, the top tables are very often packed with parking lot lists (IG, SW, GK), which is not to say that they always take first, mind: I don't think first-place finishes are generally representative of what the meta is like, but rather who the best player may be, but this doesn't mean that the game is balanced very well, either.
At this point I would be happy to see almost anything that shook this up, because I find it a particularly boring, frustrating (ever roll nothing but Shaken and Stunned ... I mean Shaken and Shaken ... all game?) and, due to some secondary effects of vehicle rules, game-y way to play the game, which is not to say that I want people who just lurves their tanks to be deprived of the ability to play mech and remain competitive--I just want other types of builds to be equally viable. The rumors seem to be pointing in this direction; the only worry is that they may create some new sort of imbalance that leads to roughly equal homogeneity down the road, but I think its waaay too early (or, more accurately, that way too little is known or even vaguely rumored) to say how likely that is to happen.
EDIT (addendum): On chain consolidation, I would think that the distance will be rather shorter than it was in 3rd, which is the simplest and probably most effective way to limit it, but that's just a guess. On assaulting from deep strike, this neglects rumors of an Overwatch rule, which are just about as common and which rule would almost certainly be designed to punish assaulting from DS against a mostly static shooty enemy. On shooting vs. assault, there were rumors from good sources about rapid fire weapons being buffed in terms of shots at range (i.e. 2 shots at 24" when stationary) across the board which would essentially result in static infantry's anti-infantry shooting being doubled even before taking into account any sort of Snap Fire. On the topic of Guard being punished, they are hit less by BS1 than Marines and Eldar for obvious reasons, and as an army that can take enormous units (which, yes, risks chain assaults, but if you can't put 2-3 blobs far enough away from each other to stop that, either you're playing too many points or you're doing it wrong--and blobs aren't bad in assaults what with being Stubborn and having a bunch of power weapons and all) are actually one of the greatest beneficiaries after Orks, if played in that style. 3 S3 shots are better than 1 S4 shot (or 6 better than 2, respectively, if it works that way) for your 15-ish points, in essence, and blobs can take numerous specials in proportion to their size of course.
Last edited by Aluinn; 08-05-2012 at 23:30.
How Flayed Ones infiltrate:
Originally Posted by Memnos
Overwatch is one of the most controversial game mechanics in the history of 40k. At the extremes, some people insist that it's demise has been a major factor in the dumbing down of 40k while others say that it broke an entire edition.
What the discussions here seem to highlight is that it is very difficult to balance such a game mechanic in the 3rd ed+ rulseset. Obviously we don't know what other changes 6th ed will bring but let's assume that it will still be derived from the 3rd ed system.
Believe it or not but 2nd ed lent itself far better to an overwatch mechanic. For starters, 2nd ed was the last edition to include to hit modifiers so all this talk of blanket BS1 being unfair to high BS armies wouldn't be an issue - there would simply be a to hit modifier.
Secondly, models in 2nd ed only had a 90 degree arc of fire. This meant that you could outflank units on overwatch.
Thirdly, in 2nd ed you always had to shoot at the closest target. This meant that you could 'offer up' either a sacrificial or highly resilient unit to the squad on overwatch to protect another unit. This was a hugely important counter to overwatch. While there's no technical reason that the same targetting rules could not be reintroduced into 40k, in the current era I think it would lead to a ton of abuse.
Fourthly, the rumoured snap fire is more of a 'charge reaction' than the 'out of turn shooting' that 2nd edition 40k overwatch was. For various reasons, including some already mentioned, I don't think out of turn shooting would really work in the 3rd ed+ ruleset. It's messy and doesn't fit with the current design aesthetic.
So if overwatch is to be reintroduced we're left with a 'charge reaction' style rule and all the problems inherent to such a concept. As other have pointed out, it hurts fragile assault units (traditionally more difficult to use) far more than some of the most overpowered units (which are usually overpowered due to a magic combo of good armour save+inv save+FNP). Some of the worst offenders will shrug off the snap fire as though the enemy are firing BB guns.
WDL record with my Swooping Hawk themed Eldar list:-
D: 2 (I felt sorry for my opponents and started firing at my own units)
L: 1 (I played against myself using my undefeated footslogging Fire Warrior list and lost)
I think when it comes to Overwatch it comes down to how it would be handled. Restricting the number of units that can go on OW per turn, only disembarked infantry that didn't move, make them take a 4th ed style target priority test to fire at anything but the nearest enemy unit, RETURN FIRE!!!: Any unit that becomes the target of Overwatch Fire may provided they are able to do so immediatly shoot back at the firing Overwatch unit. Units Returning Fire shoot with the full strength of their unit with casualties from both the Overwatch unit and the Return Fire unit not being removed until both units shooting has been resolved.
Sorry for the wishlistish nature of the post but I'm simply trying to provide examples of how Overwatch could be reintroduced in a more balanced manner because much like others have said IMO Overwatch without these kinds of restrictions is unbalanced but I do feel that done in the right way it would really add something to the game just not in anything too close to its 2nd ed incarnation.
But having played far more Necromunda lately (I say too much because IMO Necromunda is a bland version of 40k 2nd ed with a terrible campaign/advancement system tacked on) than I like I can say with complete conviction that 2nd ed style OW is freaking aweful (so are to hit modifiers for that matter) and would ruin the game.
Sorry no GW I will not pay twice the $$$ to buy from retail stores in Australia and no amount of adds to the hobby, support you FLGS bulldung is going to change the fact your charging twice as much.
But out of interest (and because it is somewhat relevant to the 'snap fire' discussion) why are you so strongly against to hit modifiers? I have yet to hear a good argument against them.
WDL record with my Swooping Hawk themed Eldar list:-
D: 2 (I felt sorry for my opponents and started firing at my own units)
L: 1 (I played against myself using my undefeated footslogging Fire Warrior list and lost)
Ork Bikes were horrendous for this. I had a Mob of 10 that took out 4 full strength Guard squads in 2 turns. Being able to fire those Big Shootas when assaulting was nasty.
I also had a squad of 3 Marine Bikers steamroll a small Tau force almost single handedly. That was about 1500pts IIRC.
Now they may have been poor players, or good luck on my part, but I suspect there are better ways of doing it.
This particular point is less of a problem in my mind than essentially giving everyone Heroic Intervention.
Counsellor to Abaddon
Every soul is sacred, every soul is great!
If a soul is wasted, Tzeentch gets quite irate...
Two slow days at work have benefitted you all
The first post now has a summary. This is likely somewhat incomplete, so please let me know if I've missed anything and where it can be found.
From BoLS, God I hope this ******** is rumour reverb or straight lieing from sources but this tripe continues to make me sick.
-There will be at least 4+ "Disciplines" of Psychic Powers in the game. (WFB has 8 lores)
-Disciplines seem to fall roughly along the lines of the sects described in the novel "A Thousand Sons" as used by the Heresy-Era chapter.
-Each Discipline will have a "Default" power and a set of others that you will roll for each game.
-Number of rolls you get and the the exact details of which powers you end up with are said to be similar to WFB 8th's power selection mechanic.
-Powers have a "Casting Cost" that is different from the mechanic used in WFB 8th.
-Certain 6th Codices will add additional racial specific Disciplines.
For instance, being in cover like ruins or foxholes should make a unit more resilient to barrages. How do one accomplish that with a to-hit system?
The big problem with the 40k cover rules is that you are only allowed one save, meaning instead that cover does very little for heavily armoured units, and can even be a pure drawback for units with equal or better inv.saves.
I don't think GW will return them, as cover saves are much easier to learn, play with and design rules around. And as The Dude points out, I also really hope consolidation into combat does not return. One of the worst rules in 3:ed and 4:ed, which made some games incredibly boring. I remember the feel of of IG and Tau players when I got a fast cc unit in their lines in turn 2, and they realised that the game was probably over barring some really good luck on their parts. Consolidate into combat punished players who tries to set traps or who even just moves his units to contain these types of situations.
It made for some really counter-intuitive games, with very little enjoyment for me at least.
I don't know how good or bad the psychic rumours are. As it is now, only loyalists and Eldar (and Nids, who have little choice in the matter) use psychers, because they have both really good and useful powers, AND they can shut down enemy psychics.
The bad guys generally only have what is in effect a gun that can overheat and which can be turned off by enemy psychers. Psychis is a joke in 40k now, unless you are playing loyalists, so any change is good in my book.
Last edited by totgeboren; 09-05-2012 at 07:05.
My scratch-built Stompa, Traitor Guards, Cthulhu daemons and Word Bearers and my my terrain log.
"It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face... and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies."
- Colonel Walter E. Kurtz
I agree that consolidation into combat is bad, but if you can balance it right somehow, it is at least a slight patch for an absolutely enormous gaping flaw in the rules, namely situations where both sides are hoping to do badly in the combat - if you're the chargers (and therefore, we'll assume, the stronger melee unit), you want to still be locked in combat during your opponent's shooting phase, while he's praying that his troops are butchered to a man or run like sissies so he can shoot you. Yeah. For the Emperor.
And that would be stupid enough if it happened all the time, but it doesn't, it only happens every other player turn. Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing to win a combat depends entirely on the abstract concept of whose "turn" is coming next - essentially both sides are constantly changing their ideal outcome in order to appease this great metaphysical game clock, whose existence the rules should be trying to hide, not emphasise the way 40K does. "If the clock ticked, I want to win my fights, but if it tocked, I want to lose them!" It's absolutely preposterous and I see that as a much, much bigger problem than any balance issue.
To be honest I'd rather they just fixed their godawful turn sequence rather than keep on plastering more and more band aids over the symptoms. As long as the the turn sequence is the same, the only thing I can see that would fix this is to make the conditions for your unit being attacked the same regardless of whether you're in combat now or were in combat in the last round. That would have to be some sort of penalty or cover save, you couldn't just not allow firing at a unit the turn after they win.
I don't really see them doing that. But consolidating into combat is a small nod towards some sort of consistency, because it means you'll less often be penalised for being so unforgivably stupid as to take an odd number of combat rounds to win a fight. I mean honestly, winning a fight in 5 or 15 seconds? Schoolboy error! You want to time it so it takes exactly 10 seconds, son, then they're not allowed to fire at you! Everybody knows that!
It adds weird turn sequence metagaming and believability problems of its own, though, even apart from the potential balance issues and frustration of helplessness for the defending player. I'm not convinced they're AS bad as wanting to fail at combat, but it's what happens when GW insist on not invalidating their codexes - there's just this constant chain reaction of nonsense caused by all the backwards-combatible patches, with the rules writers firefighting rather than building.
Hmmmmm. That came out more negative than I'd meant it too. I'm looking forward to a new edition, honest.
Last edited by Bubble Ghost; 09-05-2012 at 09:18.
Idiots... nothing can live forever.
fixing consolidation is easy. a band aid but easy:
Everytime a unit consolidates into another unit, it loses half its attacks. That then means there is a real tactical choice between doing it and not doing it. Plus it fits the war theme as it shows the warriors running out of energy, as they butcher their way thro the enemy.
Its still powerful, but not overly powerful.
What if they apply consolidation charges like they do with fantasy?
If you consolidate into a new unit or an ongoing assault that has already been resolved then they do not fight another combat that turn, but count as charging in the next player turn (furious charge, +1 attack, etc). The new target unit can still declare reactions (snap fire) if unengaged.
If you consolidate into an assault that has yet to be resolved, then they can attack again but no more consolidation or attacks if they win that combat.
This will stop units steam rolling an entire army in 1 turn, but still be effective in combat.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"Better lucky than good" - Gene Hackman, The Replacements.
There was no such thing as a long consolidation move in 4th, it was D6" just like now. You had to be deployed pretty badly and unlucky with dice to get steamrollered. Of course, few melee units would reach a gunline in the first place, transports being utter death traps back then.
2d6 and 3d6 sweeping advance moves were 3rd edition stuff, along with charging out of moving Rhinos, that was pretty ridiculous. But I'm fairly sure the defender was allowed to shoot the sweeping unit in his shooting phase despite it being engaged.
Of all the threads in all the forums in all the world you had to post into this one.
I think you are missing the point Gotrek Fan, even in 4th edition you couldnt steamroll a force in a single turn. What it meant was that your troops could charge one squad, kill it, and then consolodate into the next squad. There would be no second round of combat in the same turn for that unit.
What it did do though was stop the enemy from shooting you, so against a gunline army such as Guard or Tau, once a good CC squad got into combat, if your army was too close together they would slowly and surely (in every phase) kill your army with there being very little you could do against it.
To me it was more realistic (for the exact reasons that Bubbleghost mentions about the turn based Who wants to live or die), but lots of people complained as it seemed to double the effectiveness of good close combat troops. Nids loved it as did Orks. Tau and Guard Hated it, and most others were right in the middle.
Ill be pleased if it does come back. I think that there are already enough disadvantages for a close combat army in 5th that it would be a good equaliser. I think the main complaints about it dont realise how demoralising a massive close combat surge in the middle of your lines is.