|
I would disagree- in 5E melee was fairly poo poo because of always hitting transports (which were everywhere) on sixes. The armies that dominated 5th edition were all shooting-heavy armies with little or no melee components- IG mechanized lists, SM/SW/BA Razorback lists, Necron skimmer lists, GK mechanized lists, DE Venom lists, etc.
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:I would disagree- in 5E melee was fairly poo poo because of always hitting transports (which were everywhere) on sixes. The armies that dominated 5th edition were all shooting-heavy armies with little or no melee components- IG mechanized lists, SM/SW/BA Razorback lists, Necron skimmer lists, GK mechanized lists, DE Venom lists, etc. That was mostly during the tail end of 5e, not it's entirety. Also, armies like Orks and Space Wolves could play serious melee armies very competitively if they felt like it, even in such an environment, and TH/SS Terminators were an ever present threat in pretty much any serious vanilla Marine list. You didn't need to melee transports (you shouldn't have been trying to), you melee the stuff that comes out of them after you one shot them. Even the DE Venom lists often had token melee units with an Archon + Incubi, and there were just as often giant Baron + Hellion lists that absolutely thrived with a huge melee unit backed up with really good shooting. Melee in 5e was far from bad and 6e put a stop to a lot of list diversity as a result. Don't confuse 'melee and shooting were fairly well balanced' with 'melee only armies were a good idea' because that has pretty much never been the case, even when melee was broken in 3e.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
6th was really harsh in the way it made assault very hamfisted, and the rules change was enough to turn the old Tau codex from low-tier to high-tier. I really want to know what happened at GW HQ to convince them that assault from anything with worse than a 3+ save was so mind-bendingly OP that it needed to be stopped. In the current state of the game it's not worth declaring a charge unless you've got a 3+ save or better, lest you lose the ~3 models that were in range to overwatch and have the charge fail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
HiveCommander posted:6th was really harsh in the way it made assault very hamfisted, and the rules change was enough to turn the old Tau codex from low-tier to high-tier. I really want to know what happened at GW HQ to convince them that assault from anything with worse than a 3+ save was so mind-bendingly OP that it needed to be stopped. In the current state of the game it's not worth declaring a charge unless you've got a 3+ save or better, lest you lose the ~3 models that were in range to overwatch and have the charge fail. It's pretty ironic too, because adding AP to melee weapons was one of the best things they could've done to make melee a less binary result in the game (something I've wanted for a while, too bad now that I'm out of the game  ) - 2+ melee units were very underrated without a good invul because everything in melee ignored your save - and then completely dropped the ball with basically every other change they made. MegaNobz, for instance, would routinely get crushed in melee despite throwing out a ton of attacks because each of their wound caused one wound while your opponents would cause 2, and the AP change really helps and changed that, but so what? The chances of them getting to melee at this point are low enough to be an anomaly and they have no shooting threat to fall back on despite paying the points premium for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
I'd love to see the damage that Warboss entourage formation could do, but it's about 600 base points without any toys at all.CyberLord XP posted:Conversion time. The army of too many buggies is a go! How?!? How did you get this many koptas? Just... How?!?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
S.J. posted:That was mostly during the tail end of 5e, not it's entirety. Also, armies like Orks and Space Wolves could play serious melee armies very competitively if they felt like it, even in such an environment, and TH/SS Terminators were an ever present threat in pretty much any serious vanilla Marine list. You didn't need to melee transports (you shouldn't have been trying to), you melee the stuff that comes out of them after you one shot them. Even the DE Venom lists often had token melee units with an Archon + Incubi, and there were just as often giant Baron + Hellion lists that absolutely thrived with a huge melee unit backed up with really good shooting. Melee in 5e was far from bad and 6e put a stop to a lot of list diversity as a result. Don't confuse 'melee and shooting were fairly well balanced' with 'melee only armies were a good idea' because that has pretty much never been the case, even when melee was broken in 3e. Eh. I know a lot of people wanted Orks to be good in 5E, but I never saw it- I rolled a lot of lovely Green Tide and Battlewagon lists back in the day. TH/SS were a thing, but they were never really top-tier because there were a billion Meltaguns around and it was really easy to block charges. Having a token melee presence wasn't uncommon (like ASM in a BA list), but that didn't make melee their primary- or even a particularly important- strategy for those armies, it was just a way to mop up some troops once all the important models (i.e. their transports) had been gotten rid of. I have no idea where you're getting that Baron/Hellion lists were ever good. I can't think of a single relevant event where they ever won anything; getting Tank Shocked off the table because of crappy Leadership is not a great plan, nor is "I guess I have some S4 attacks." And IG, SM, and SW- all heavily mechanized armies- were the first three codices of 5th Edition, so it wasn't really something that didn't take hold until later; right out of the gates, it was obvious that mech was the way to go. 6th Edition was actually better for melee than 5th because of the absence of tanks and transports, hitting what tanks did exist on 3s rather than 6s, Hull Points being a thing, longer charge ranges, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:6th Edition was actually better for melee than 5th because of the absence of tanks and transports, hitting what tanks did exist on 3s rather than 6s, Hull Points being a thing, longer charge ranges, etc. Hormagaunts. I rest my case  Also, there was the rapid fire buff, casualties from the front, overwatch and 'you can never, ever charge the turn you enter the board under any circumstances' which made getting into melee in the first place a whole lot harder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:6th Edition was actually better for melee than 5th I'm willing to disagree with you on the other points because it doesn't really matter anymore (although the idea that a unit or a list containing a unit needs to win a significant event in order to be considered good is laughable), but this is completely wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Rap Music and Dope posted:Hi I posted in the GBS thread but figured it'd be much better here. Former fantasy player and absolutely do not want to play this game. However I still like to paint the figures and was wondering if anyone could link any good cheap sites for some Orkz? I believe some knock off sites exist and it doesn't have to be 40k. I guess you could say I want a generic version? Thanks guys. http://www.manticgames.com/mantic-shop/warpath/marauders.html Or check out Reaper's line of Bones Miniatures. It's not necessarily sci-fi, or Ork related, but if you want to satisfy a painting itch, you an get good minis there for dirt loving cheap, to where if you screw up, it doesn't matter because the model only cost you two bucks or so. http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/Bones
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
HiveCommander posted:Hormagaunts. I rest my case But Hormagaunts were never good, unless you go back to like 3rd or 2nd maybe. All of those things were annoying to melee, sure, but really casualties from the front was the only one that actually hurt them significantly. Overwatch, as a general rule, just doesn't do very much damage- and for armies of MEQs, it almost never does anything to them. Outflanking into an assault was a cute trick, but in my experience it was something that really only worked on pretty inexperienced players- it was pretty simple to just line up one board edge and wall yourself off with some tank hulls so that all those Genestealers or whatever would come in, fail to do anything (6s followed by 6s is bad times) and then get blasted to death. 6E was a buff to assault because for the first time in an edition, there actually was something to assault on the table for once. Trying to punch tanks to death was both hilarious and futile, but 6E opened up foot armies again, meaning you actually saw melee combats happening. S.J. posted:I'm willing to disagree with you on the other points because it doesn't really matter anymore (although the idea that a unit or a list containing a unit needs to win a significant event in order to be considered good is laughable), but this is completely wrong. I guess we're using different standards of "good," then. I don't really consider "this one time a guy beat me with his Footdar list so it's really good" to be a very meaningful measure of a list's actual quality; good lists are those that perform well against a wide range of enemy armies, are consistent enough to get through 5-8 rounds of play without collapsing, and able to hold their own against other tournament-winning lists. Obviously there are different levels of "good" armies depending on how you judge things, but I was speaking largely from a tournament perspective there because if you're talking about what lists are the best and most functional in an edition, it's pretty natural that those are gonna be the ones being used at tournaments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:I guess we're using different standards of "good," then. I don't really consider "this one time a guy beat me with his Footdar list so it's really good" to be a very meaningful measure of a list's actual quality; good lists are those that perform well against a wide range of enemy armies, are consistent enough to get through 5-8 rounds of play without collapsing, and able to hold their own against other tournament-winning lists. Obviously there are different levels of "good" armies depending on how you judge things, but I was speaking largely from a tournament perspective there because if you're talking about what lists are the best and most functional in an edition, it's pretty natural that those are gonna be the ones being used at tournaments. No, we're not, you're just putting words into my mouth. Regardless, you're still wrong about melee being better in 6th and now 7th.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
S.J. posted:No, we're not, you're just putting words into my mouth. Regardless, you're still wrong about melee being better in 6th and now 7th. Okay, I guess. With such overwhelming support for your case like that I don't see how I can possibly disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:Okay, I guess. With such overwhelming support for your case like that I don't see how I can possibly disagree. S.J. posted:I'm willing to disagree with you on the other points because it doesn't really matter anymore (although the idea that a unit or a list containing a unit needs to win a significant event in order to be considered good is laughable), but this is completely wrong. uh, yeah, okay dude i don't care if you agree
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:But Hormagaunts were never good, unless you go back to like 3rd or 2nd maybe. ...that's exactly why I said that assault with a sub 3+ save is suicide in 6th/7th. Fire Warriors walking backwards 6" each turn and still shooting at full effectiveness does hurt assault units. After they move and run, they are literally only getting d6" closer to the enemy gunline until they run out of board to retreat towards, which is even more frustrating thanks to the stupid sideways deployment. Hormagaunts were always the way Tyranids dealt with Terminators, by doing the Ork trick of forcing saves. Having their threat range neutered from 19-24" down to 8-18" was a huge blow to their viability in lists. Meanwhile, it's perfectly OK for Marine bikers to have their threat range increased from 18" to 14-24". I don't know what your meta was like but I didn't see melee happening at all. Gaunts of all flavours would be lucky to number 10 models by the time they got to the enemy front lines and cover didn't help at all. Thanks, Divination Inquisitor. I didn't want those cover saves anyway  e: as far as transport-blocking Genestealers goes, there's a reason I took Zoanthropes in Spores; to get those vehicles out of the way so 'stealers had a clear charge lane. Otherwise, the enemy deployed in a clusterfuck in the middle of the board, begging for Harpies, Biovores and other blasts to take huge chunks of their army. HiveCommander fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
HiveCommander posted:...that's exactly why I said that assault with a sub 3+ save is suicide in 6th/7th. Fire Warriors walking backwards 6" each turn and still shooting at full effectiveness does hurt assault units. After they move and run, they are literally only getting d6" closer to the enemy gunline until they run out of board to retreat towards, which is even more frustrating thanks to the stupid sideways deployment. Hormagaunts were always the way Tyranids dealt with Terminators, by doing the Ork trick of forcing saves. Having their threat range neutered from 19-24" down to 8-18" was a huge blow to their viability in lists. Meanwhile, it's perfectly OK for Marine bikers to have their threat range increased from 18" to 14-24". Sure, but that's a set of problems specific to Tyranids, not to assault as a whole. For tougher stuff that is assaulting, or things that had transports and other ways to move fast, the changes in 6E weren't nearly as problematic as a whole and you did see some assault-focused armies (like Paladins, Flying Circus, etc) doing extremely well in tournaments, whereas this was not really the case in 5E.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
uhhhhhhhhhhh, flying circus huh when did the newest chaos books come out?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
S.J. posted:uhhhhhhhhhhh, flying circus huh Chaos Space Marines came out near the end of 2012. It was the first 6th edition codex. Daemons came out in early 2013.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
DO IT TO IT posted:Chaos Space Marines came out near the end of 2012. It was the first 6th edition codex. Daemons came out in early 2013. yeah i know, sorry
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:Sure, but that's a set of problems specific to Tyranids, not to assault as a whole. For tougher stuff that is assaulting, or things that had transports and other ways to move fast, the changes in 6E weren't nearly as problematic as a whole and you did see some assault-focused armies (like Paladins, Flying Circus, etc) doing extremely well in tournaments, whereas this was not really the case in 5E.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
The picture didn't show for me (probably a browser extension) but copy-pasting the link did - that is fantastic! Gotta be way lighter than the actual model too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:6th Edition was actually better for melee than 5th because of the absence of tanks and transports, hitting what tanks did exist on 3s rather than 6s, Hull Points being a thing, longer charge ranges, etc. 6th edition was terrible for melee:
They made assaults more random and punished you for even attempting it. Or maybe it's better say to say that 6th edition was terrible for melee-oriented armies like Orks and Tyranids.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:Sure, but that's a set of problems specific to Tyranids, not to assault as a whole. For tougher stuff that is assaulting, or things that had transports and other ways to move fast, the changes in 6E weren't nearly as problematic as a whole and you did see some assault-focused armies (like Paladins, Flying Circus, etc) doing extremely well in tournaments, whereas this was not really the case in 5E. The issue is that light, dedicated assault units suck for everyone in general. They often lack the survivabilty to reach combat in a fighting state, largely thanks to a lack of speed. When Dreadnoughts and Assault Terminators have the same threat range as Hormaguants, that should tell you exactly where the issue lies. Really GW should have resolved this issue when they brought in random charge ranges, perhaps by having Fleet still allow Run + Charge. If Hormaguants, Ork Boyz and Bloodletters had a more reliable 18-24" threat range, that could make the difference between taking 1 or 2 turns of fire. That in turn could be the difference between getting 10 or 20 of them into melee. In the same vein, keeping the tougher assault units like Terminators with a 12-18" threat range would keep them balanced as they're more capable of surviving the trek. xtothez fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
Did 7th edition make melee better? I haven't played it at all. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
I don't see why bringing a knife to a gun fight should ever be a safe thing. Most CC units wreck poo poo once they actually get in combat anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
thiswayliesmadness posted:How?!? How did you get this many koptas? Just... How?!? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
ijyt posted:I don't see why bringing a knife to a gun fight should ever be a safe thing. Most CC units wreck poo poo once they actually get in combat anyway. Normally I'd agree, but this is a setting with chainsaw swords. If I'm given a chainsaw sword, I should drat well get to use it. That said, my assault plan for my orks is "drive boarding ramp battlewagons up close, have Meganobs leap out". It has proved effective so far! Five meganobs vs a Tau Riptide is hilarious overkill, and their wagon weathered the storm of fire on the way in pretty drat well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
xtothez posted:The issue is that light, dedicated assault units suck for everyone in general. They often lack the survivabilty to reach combat in a fighting state, largely thanks to a lack of speed. When Dreadnoughts and Assault Terminators have the same threat range as Hormaguants, that should tell you exactly where the issue lies. Hormies have fleet, so they have a longer practical charge range. Roughly 2 extra inches... a 9" charge has about the same chance of a 7" charge. Hormies have the numbers and bonus run distance (plus fleet) to keep up with casualties, and a full 10 man marine squad on overwatch only averages 1 kill. EDIT: If you aren't taking advantage of the fact that nearly everything in the tyranid book has fleet, and that orks have 'Er we go, you will be frustrated. Overwatch isn't that strong, it's just those wild probability swings where you remember the time you failed a 2" charge because overwatch killed 10 guys versus all the other times you rolled 6-7 and only took one wound from overwatch. LordAba fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
LordAba posted:Hormies have fleet, so they have a longer practical charge range. Roughly 2 extra inches... a 9" charge has about the same chance of a 7" charge. Hormies have the numbers and bonus run distance (plus fleet) to keep up with casualties, and a full 10 man marine squad on overwatch only averages 1 kill. Just a reminder, a full 30-model unit of Hormagaunts in the absolute best conditions against a base-line Tactical Space Marine squad achieves this: 30 Hormagants 150pts 10 Tactical Space Marine 140pts 30 Hormagaunts charge 20 Overwatch shots - 3.33 hits - 2.22 kills 28 Hormagaunts assault 84 Hormagaunt attacks - 42 hits - 13.9 wounds - 4.7 kills 5 Tactical Space Marine attacks - 4.67 hits - 3.11 wounds - 1.85 kills 6 Tactical Space Marine attacks - 4 hits - 2.7 wounds - 2.22 kills Average TSM result: 2 kills Total: Hormagaunts - 4.7 Tactical Space Marines - 4.22 Edit: Bumping the cost of the Hormagaunt unit to add either Adrenal Glands or Toxin Sacs (both achieve the same 4+ result to wound, though TS is better generally) will increase the total number of kills from 3.7 to 4.5. Edit edit: Fixed the math. PierreTheMime fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
So the Hormies take out a third of the Marines, while losing a sixth of their forces? Sounds reasonable!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
Von Humboldt posted:Would you argue that, while there are of course issues with assault in 6/7E, the biggest issue with assault is essentially with the army books and the power and builds they bring with? Basically, early 6E had a number of strong melee lists (which you mention, and I know massed Hounds and Seekers was popular for awhile) and even some wonkier stuff sometimes popping up. Once certain books hit (Eldar and Tau, I suppose, are the big ones,) and more firepower based builds became popular (yes, I would like to TL two vital units every turn in my IG, thank you) you started seeing melee fall more and more out of popularity - is that a reasonable statement? Hmm. That isn't exactly how I would put it, but I think that strikes fairly close to home. I think the biggest problems with melee in 6E were threefold: incredibly powerful shooting units arriving on the scene (Broadsides, Wave Serpent, Heldrake), assaulting through terrain being unbelievably punishing, and GW generally designing extremely poor assault units (Mutilators durr hurr!) The 6E rules as a whole are not terribly friendly to assault, but neither are they insurmountable; a well-done codex that focused on assault could, in theory, be quite successful. But between repeated stumbles on that front and some of the other stuff that was printed, assault as a singular strategy just fared really badly. I will point out, however, that Seerstar and Screamerstar, what were probably the two most powerful lists of the edition hands-down, were both technically assault armies (just extremely nontraditional ones.) They both solved the problem of assault armies in that edition; with shooting so amazingly dominant, most shooting armies would roll over and die to even a comparatively-weak assault unit if it could get in range to make the assault. But with the combination of speed, firepower, and special abilities, the amount of shooting you had to weather in order to do that was fairly insane. Both of those armies solved that problem by being essentially impossible to hurt with shooting (and with assault, so lesser degrees); the fact that once they got stuck in their damage output was actually rather weak for a deathstar of their cost was irrelevant, because raw damage output just wasn't their goal- survivability was. Beer4TheBeerGod posted:They made assaults more random and punished you for even attempting it. Or maybe it's better say to say that 6th edition was terrible for melee-oriented armies like Orks and Tyranids. I would say much more the latter than the former. "Traditional" assault armies like Tyranids, Orks, and Chaos Marines were all quite awful in 6th edition because their game plan was fundamentally flawed; they wanted to send hard-hitting assault units at the enemy and weather their losses with enough force left to do the job. But when your enemy can field the crazy firepower of some of the 6E lists, simply "weathering losses" becomes a nonviable plan because you end up with nothing left by the time you get into charge range. It was only "nontraditional" assault units like the above-mentioned deathstars, extremely-speedy assaulters like Khorn Dogs, things immune to normal shooting like Flying Circus lists, etc, were able to do the job to any significant degree. Moola posted:Did 7th edition make melee better? I haven't played it at all. The main big improvement is that assaulting through terrain is -2" to your charge distance, but that can be mitigated by Move Through Cover (whereas in 6E the "3d6 take the lowest" couldn't be changed at all.) That change alone is actually a significant boon, although there are certainly lots of other factors at play as well in 7E. I think it's too early to really make a call as to how melee will fare because there are some really huge strategic factors that I think haven't sunk in for a lot of people yet- for example, the way objectives are placed. LordAba posted:Overwatch isn't that strong, it's just those wild probability swings where you remember the time you failed a 2" charge because overwatch killed 10 guys versus all the other times you rolled 6-7 and only took one wound from overwatch. Absolutely this. Overwatch, on average, does very little- it's just that it can randomly screw you over out of the blue. Likewise, 2d6" charges are, for the most part, a lot better than 6" charges even with the randomness thrown in (remember, fixed charges often had to deal with "random" lengths due to uncertainty of measure and/or difficult terrain as well); it's just much more emotional and memorable when you fail that 4" charge so it sticks out to you as "random charge length is horrible for assaults." Cognitive biases and all of that. PierreTheMime posted:28 Hormagaunts assault 84 attacks with WS3 against WS4 should be 42 hits, 14 wounds, 4.7 kills, shouldn't it? But I don't disagree with your conclusion. Hormagaunts, as a unit, are not very well-designed. If they were in a faction that had buffs that could be applied to them somehow (psychic powers or other means) they would actually not be that bad, but as it stands they are pretty weak. Doubly so because Gargoyles exist. AbusePuppy fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
Yeah, in my (limited) experience I've found Overwatch really isn't very dangerous on the whole. BS1 doesn't let many hits through. Ironically, I'm pretty sure my 30-model shoota boy mobs are more dangerous on overwatch than something like a Riptide, because they have SO MANY attacks that firing at BS1 isn't a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:84 attacks with WS3 against WS4 should be 42 hits, 14 wounds, 4.7 kills, shouldn't it? Esser-Z posted:So the Hormies take out a third of the Marines, while losing a sixth of their forces? Sounds reasonable! Hey hey, let's not be down on assault units with that example. That's... the best they could possibly hope for. Generally that same marine squad will get to shoot first from cover and the result would be much, much worse. PierreTheMime fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
PierreTheMime posted:Hey hey, let's not be down on assault units with that example. I actually thought doing double your losses (proportionally) was a pretty good deal for the nids. I mean, their whole shtick is swarming, so I'd expect them to lose more models! Taking casualties is less damaging to a 30-model mob than a ten-model mob, too. Esser-Z fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
Fearless wounds aren't still a thing anymore, are they?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:Fearless wounds aren't still a thing anymore, are they? They are not, thankfully. No Retreat died with 5th edition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
Did GW stop selling the starter paint set while I wasn't looking? The one with 8 paints, 5 Dark Angel marines, and a brush.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
Power Player posted:I know the point of a Battlewagon is to shove boys down someone's throat, but is a Kannon ever worth it? I mean, if your BW lives to deliver the boys, it's only ten points to throw out a small blast every turn. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
I like keeping wagons cheap and just use them to block LOS and tank shock if they live long enough to deliver their package.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
CyberLord XP posted:I like keeping wagons cheap and just use them to block LOS and tank shock if they live long enough to deliver their package.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:The main big improvement is that assaulting through terrain is -2" to your charge distance, but that can be mitigated by Move Through Cover (whereas in 6E the "3d6 take the lowest" couldn't be changed at all.) That change alone is actually a significant boon, although there are certainly lots of other factors at play as well in 7E. I think it's too early to really make a call as to how melee will fare because there are some really huge strategic factors that I think haven't sunk in for a lot of people yet- for example, the way objectives are placed. Like what? You guys keep talking about 6th edition in the past tense like its this ancient old game and 7th edition really changed things up, so I'm curious what other changes have made assault in 7th different. I havent read 7th edition at all (because lol I aint buying that turd) so I really am curious. From second hand knowledge all I know is move through cover is better, and FMC have to wait before charging now (lol).
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 14:33
|
|