|
Post by nurglitch on Oct 19, 2015 12:43:46 GMT
Maybe he's not feeling superior. Maybe, like me, he's not seeing a problem where we throw a unit of cannon-fodder before seeing in the killers like Genestealers et al. Locking units in combat not only removes the Initiative penalty for charging across difficult terrain, but it prevents a unit from shooting at your decent assault units.
Sporocysts mean that you can cover the field in Synapse with a single Zoanthrope.
|
|
|
Post by gingerwerewolf on Oct 19, 2015 13:27:02 GMT
Maybe he's not feeling superior. Maybe, like me, he's not seeing a problem where we throw a unit of cannon-fodder before seeing in the killers like Genestealers et al. Locking units in combat not only removes the Initiative penalty for charging across difficult terrain, but it prevents a unit from shooting at your decent assault units. Sporocysts mean that you can cover the field in Synapse with a single Zoanthrope. That's fair enough - but you said it without coming across as condescending so why did he need to? My Biggest problem with sacrificial units is that you have to, by rules as written, get as many of the models in base to base as is possible. Thus it is possible to charge the first unit and make the second unit unable to charge as they do not end up in Base to Base. Ive had this happen to me on several occasions. Then, even with the Second unit is within Base to Base we still fight at the initiative step of 1, with Powerfists and Unweildies means that, the unit, if they have the slightest ability in close combat will have concentrated upon the Elite unit, reducing its numbers. This is why Genestealers and Hormagants are rubbish, you cant get enough of them into CC to make a difference. The size of our units also plays against us. If there is cover, we are in it thus the whole unit counts as being in cover for any movement or charges. We can end up smothering the unit, and then have a conga line running back from it of models that are in combat but couldnt make it the whole way. If Im missing something here please let me know.
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on Oct 19, 2015 14:37:04 GMT
Maybe it doesn't matter if he came across as condescending. It could be any number of reasons un-connected to the thread at hand. Better to just accept the useful content in his post and leave the rest.
Cannon-fodder is an interesting case. There's always the problem that you could be putting yourself out of a charge. However, the point is not to charge one unit with two in the same turn. Charge with one unit first, and then with another unit in the following turn. Because although the cannon-fodder can absorb overwatch on that first turn, it does not eliminate the Initiative 1 penalty until the following turn. In the meantime the cannon-fodder is usually reduced to a convenient size. Maybe the problem you've identified is a problem for you, but only if you're wasting points on fluffing units behind their minimum size. You shouldn't be.
It's probably worth addressing unit size: dividing your models up between as many units as possible is how you play a horde in 40k, because the rules for shooting, excepting a few special rules, are 1:1 so that target saturation is a thing. Small units means that any shooting from an opponent is usually hilarious overkill, and although some people may not think overkill is a thing, it is because it means they're spending firepower inefficiently. More units means more chances to get a unit into combat, and more units that can cross the table.
That's why I own so many Hormagaunts and Genestealers, because the Hormagaunts are cheap and fast, and are very likely to connect those charges thanks to Bounding Leap, Move Through Cover, and native Fleet. And Genestealers have Rending meaning that they can wound anything on a 6 (and then also AP2), Move Through Cover and Fleet for likewise making charges long and reliable, and I6 for murdering my opponent before he gets to attack. I've occasionally benefited from my Hormagaunt's I5, but usually it's a surprise for my opponents to be reminded that they are I5! Formation-wise I recommend Manufactorum Genestealers (piling on Stealth and Hit & Run) with Endless Swarm Hormagaunts. But when a unit is locked in by the Hormagaunts, then the Genestealers can ignore any amount of difficult terrain with Move Through Cover and charge in at I6.
|
|
|
Post by glassiya on Oct 21, 2015 8:10:45 GMT
Seriously glassiya - grow up. Do you feel big and superior just because you used a meme to put someone down? *golfclap* Oh, so I'm the bad guy here. Nice one. OKay, I'll explain the nasty comment. As nurglitch said, there's no problem here big enough to cry for changing the rules. First, OP is talking about Charge sub-phase specifically. So I had to remind him, that we are one of the strongest armies in that subphase. Almost all of our combat units either have "fleet" by default, or you bought dirt-cheap Adrenal Glands for them, getting one of the most useful special rules in the game. Next - both our "small guys", "big guys", and partially "mid-tier units" have "move through cover", ignoring almost permanent -2 penalty. If someone could show me an army that's boosted even more in making a charge - I'd gladly reconsider my views. Could someone? Anyone? Next. Stuff that you're taling about is kind of off-topic (fight sub-phase, not charge, it's great to read the thread before posting), but I'll answer it anyway. Assault grenades? I hear this quite often. Well, marines have them, so what? It doesn't mean that ALL armies must have them. Or "our army must have them, others may pass". That's the point of marines - being slightly better at everything. And in this case, "better" is only a word. If someone asked me, if I want to change both these rules on my hormies for grenades, the answer would be "hell no!" Because successful charge with reduced combat effectiveness is infinitely better than no charge at all. Even more - it's worth remembering, that this scary "all-assault grenades army" have initiative 4. Would it help them if they'll charge hormagaunts or Genestealers? It won't. Would it help hormies then? Nah, they already assaulted that tactical squad and got them locked in combat, so they've done what I wanted. I would actually want them NOT to kill marines on their first round of fight, but finish it on second - so hormies are back in action for my turn, not for enemy shooting. Would I need grenades for this? Again - hell no. Overall, it's a game about different armies. Different armies have different advantages. I remember seeing new Eldar players who cried for Chapter Tactics and wanted to have a set of these too. "Grenades for nids" is popular topic as well. What's next - synapce for Sisters of Battle? Just think what you're talking about. Not to be aggressive (I'm really not), but let's at least think before we go on forums complaining, right? Thanks in advance. And sorry for sounding rude.
|
|
|
Post by gingerwerewolf on Oct 21, 2015 9:33:17 GMT
Ok Glassiya, thank you for the attempted apology - though if Im being honest I dont actually think you made one. Ill get a couple of things straight though - - I'm the OP. So I wrote the opening comment from the following PoV, and I kinda have read it
- I wasn't complaining, I was using the common complaint to spark a new line of thought
- I HAVE thought about what Im talking about
So as Im pretty sure you have missed, Ill explain why. Overwatch being added to the list of things that a charging unit has to deal with has added to the difficulty that Close Combat Armies (not just nids though obviously we're heavily affected) have to deal with. With almost every battlefield having enough cover, so that any charging unit has a high likelyhood of charging through cover at some point it puts the advantage squarely on the Receivers side. So I was talking about a change the charge phase as a way to fix this. I was asking if, by giving Overwatch a downside, if it would force an actual choice for the unit to do or not, if that would help assault armies. The only other way to fix this, is exactly as you say, give Nids Assault Grenades, which I, like you, am pretty sick of hearing about. Give everyone Assault Grenades and then there is no point in having the Initiative penalty in the first place. So, actually I was thinking, maybe what is broken is not Assault Grenades or the Tyranids lack of them, but Overwatch. Considering in the Rulebook they use the same explanation as to why the assaulting Army get the Initiative Penalty, as to why they should also get Overwatch - It felt a bit one sided and since Overwatch and the penalty to Initiative all happen in the Charge Phase, Im pretty sure I am talking about the right thing. But, more importantly, Ive tried to think of a different way to fix it. Ive actually done something you have not, come up with a new and different idea that is not just GIEV ASSSLT GRENZ PLZ KK THX BI!!!!111one So, perhaps you should check to see if what you are assuming about me is correct and that you havent missed anything. I agree in my last post (top of this page in reply to nurglitch) I was a little off topic but I was using it to describe why I was against using sacrificial units and that it doesnt always work. And the Post in reply to you? Yep that was definitely Nid centric. Funny that, considering this is a Tyranid board eh? So our Move through cover - yes I completely agree that we are pretty much unaffected by cover to our movement, which is great. Would I give it up for Overwatch reducing the initiative of the firer? Probably not. IMO Overwatch gave too much to one side, considering that its not been in the game for close to 14 years. Sorry that you felt enough distain to come in and tell me how to better myself. <- Why I told you to grow up. Seriously mate, you havent said anything that others haven't already said, and you come across as patronizing and rude when you do it. You are so sure that you have heard it all before that you didnt even consider it as being different. You scan read, made assumptions and wrote your "Witty" reply - thus *golfclap*
|
|
|
Post by gingerwerewolf on Oct 21, 2015 9:36:47 GMT
Edited for Clarity
|
|
|
Post by glassiya on Oct 21, 2015 10:25:13 GMT
Ouch. Then I'm really sorry.
|
|
|
Post by N.I.B. on Oct 21, 2015 12:33:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gingerwerewolf on Oct 21, 2015 12:37:29 GMT
Maybe it doesn't matter if he came across as condescending. It could be any number of reasons un-connected to the thread at hand. Better to just accept the useful content in his post and leave the rest. Cannon-fodder is an interesting case. There's always the problem that you could be putting yourself out of a charge. However, the point is not to charge one unit with two in the same turn. Charge with one unit first, and then with another unit in the following turn. Because although the cannon-fodder can absorb overwatch on that first turn, it does not eliminate the Initiative 1 penalty until the following turn. In the meantime the cannon-fodder is usually reduced to a convenient size. Maybe the problem you've identified is a problem for you, but only if you're wasting points on fluffing units behind their minimum size. You shouldn't be. It's probably worth addressing unit size: dividing your models up between as many units as possible is how you play a horde in 40k, because the rules for shooting, excepting a few special rules, are 1:1 so that target saturation is a thing. Small units means that any shooting from an opponent is usually hilarious overkill, and although some people may not think overkill is a thing, it is because it means they're spending firepower inefficiently. More units means more chances to get a unit into combat, and more units that can cross the table. That's why I own so many Hormagaunts and Genestealers, because the Hormagaunts are cheap and fast, and are very likely to connect those charges thanks to Bounding Leap, Move Through Cover, and native Fleet. And Genestealers have Rending meaning that they can wound anything on a 6 (and then also AP2), Move Through Cover and Fleet for likewise making charges long and reliable, and I6 for murdering my opponent before he gets to attack. I've occasionally benefited from my Hormagaunt's I5, but usually it's a surprise for my opponents to be reminded that they are I5! Formation-wise I recommend Manufactorum Genestealers (piling on Stealth and Hit & Run) with Endless Swarm Hormagaunts. But when a unit is locked in by the Hormagaunts, then the Genestealers can ignore any amount of difficult terrain with Move Through Cover and charge in at I6. You are quite right I should have let it drop, apologies to all in the thread - as you say bad days and all that. Thanks to glassiya as well. A question (that is now off topic, but please indulge) then Unit Size. Ive played by the rule of maximum sized basic units are the way forward with Hordes (with the notable exception of Devilgaunts) so that they can take casulties and still have enough of a punch at the other side of board. 30 Naked Horms as an example. So are you are saying that 30 is too many as they become unwieldy? Also I am pretty sure that it makes no difference if the enemy is already engaged, the initiative of the charger will be 1 if at least one moves through Difficult Terrain at any point in the game. This is the point that I mean - They use the same fluff Both Quotes from Core 7th Ed rulebook and So if they are applying the fact that the Enemy is Shooting at you as you charge as a damage effect (Overwatch), AND applying it as a negative modifier (Initiative Modifier) on top... Oh and N.I.B. - Thats a Coffee Cup...
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on Oct 21, 2015 12:52:40 GMT
Consider that you can take 3x as many units of 10 Hormagaunts as a single unit of 30. Against two units on the other side of the field, that's one that won't be harmed during a shooting phase, because two units will only be able to engage two Hormagaunts units, whereas both can wipe out a single unit of 30 as easily as two units of 10 thanks to how squishy Hormagaunts are. I'm saying that 30 Hormagaunts in one unit is more vulnerable to enemy fire, and overwatch, than 3 units of 10 Hormagaunts by the basic rules of the game.
Also, you're wrong on whether there's a difference when the enemy is already locked in combat (locked != engaged):
Multiple Combats, Charge Move, Difficult Terrain and Ongoing Combats
"If a unit charges into a multiple combat in which all the enemy units are locked in form from a previous turn, the Initiative penalty for charging through difficult terrain does not apply."
|
|
|
Post by gingerwerewolf on Oct 22, 2015 6:59:24 GMT
Well thats a rule Ive missed!
So at what point are you engaged and then Locked? Does a whole turn have to pass between - is this why you wait a turn?
|
|
|
Post by nurglitch on Oct 22, 2015 12:07:37 GMT
Yes. On game turn 2 you charge with cannon-fodder, and on game turn 3 you charge with the mop-up crew. The tricky part is making sure the cannon-fodder survives two player turns in combat.
Models are engaged if they are in base contact with an enemy model, or within 2" of a model in the same unit in base contact with an enemy model. "If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy mmodel (for any reason), then it is locked in combat."
|
|