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.

Testify wrote:

Therion wrote:

They're still different Armour Values, still just as difficult to penetrate.

You mean still as easy to penetrate. T4 to T6 doesn't matter when you're being shot with S8 weapons and higher. Likewise, AV14 isn't really helpful when everyone is toting meltaguns, gauss weapons and lances. A high number of hull points or wounds for a vehicle that pays a ton of points for its survivability would be a good way to offset the fact that AV14 is overpriced. GW doesn't agree.

I've literally never heard a complaint about too many lance/gauss weapons before in the game. You've decided that it is so prevailant that GW's failure to address it is worthy of doomsaying. How bizarre.
Regarding meltaguns, protip - stay more than 6" away.

Protip, play in a couple of competitive 5th ed tournaments with your AV14 boxes. Stay away from forums untill you've been enlightened. That last bit is for everyone else's sake.

Therion wrote:

Testify wrote:

Therion wrote:

They're still different Armour Values, still just as difficult to penetrate.

You mean still as easy to penetrate. T4 to T6 doesn't matter when you're being shot with S8 weapons and higher. Likewise, AV14 isn't really helpful when everyone is toting meltaguns, gauss weapons and lances. A high number of hull points or wounds for a vehicle that pays a ton of points for its survivability would be a good way to offset the fact that AV14 is overpriced. GW doesn't agree.

I've literally never heard a complaint about too many lance/gauss weapons before in the game. You've decided that it is so prevailant that GW's failure to address it is worthy of doomsaying. How bizarre.
Regarding meltaguns, protip - stay more than 6" away.

Protip, play in a couple of competitive tournaments with your AV14 boxes. Stay away from forums untill you've been enlightened.

AV 14 tanks-
Russ - long range fire support. Unlikley to draw meltagun fire unless your opponent deepstrikes near to you, in which case he's completely exposed.
Land Raider - delivers troops to the front lines. Expect them to take melta guns
Monolith - generally regarded as somewhat nerfed. Short range firepower with no resistance to meltaguns.
Maybe there's more.
Actually you're probably right. There's so much anti-vehicle stuff, that's why mech armies are so unpopular

Actually you're probably right. There's so much anti-vehicle stuff, that's why mech armies are so unpopular

The most popular and succesful mech armies:

Imperial Guard with CCS in Chimeras, PCS in Chimeras, Infantry Squads in Chimeras, Vet Squads in Chimeras, PBS in Chimeras, Vendettas, Hydras and Manticores. Full AV12.

GK with Dreadnoughts, Purifiers in Razorbacks, Henchmen in Razorbacks/Chimeras. All AV11/AV12.

Blood Angels/SW with a various amount of Razorbacks/Rhinos. All AV11. Honorable mention for sometimes including an AV13 Baal Predator or two for the scout move+smoke cover save wall for the AV11 tanks.

Noone in their right mind uses AV14 boxes in a competitive setting both because of their points cost, inherent weaknessess, redundancy, target saturation and other reasons. You would know this if you played in tournaments. I refer to my previous post. Just a tip, for free.

Let's stay calm please people.

Thanks.


Another snippet from Mr. Darnok's source over on 'seer..

I keep remembering stuff, damn brain doesn't work straight wi'out caffeine.

Anyway, Land Speeders have the special rule "Jink", which gives them a 5+ save all the time, this changes to 4+ if they go flat out. (I'm reasonably sure all fast skimmers get this, I'm not sure whether it's a USR or just a quality Fast Skimmers get)

Also, (and I can't believe I forgot this one) models are taken from the front when they're shot. Or, to put it another way, when a unit gets shot at, models from the part of the unit closest to the firer are removed first.

..hmm.... guess I just saved myself some points with regards to flicker fields anyway perhaps ?

..hmm.... guess I just saved myself some points with regards to flicker fields anyway perhaps ?

Yes you did but it can still be seen as a nerf to Venoms. It's an interesting rule but after seeing that I'm really interested in seeing what the slower vehicles get for special rules, considering the fast ones are seemingly getting all sorts of buffs. A Catacomb Command Barge that moves flat out is hit with 6's and gets a 4+ save against hits that glance or penetrate?

The whole 'from the front' thing is going to make things really annoying.

And needlessly complex and precise from a game which claims to be neither...

reds8n wrote: Let's stay calm please people.

Thanks.


Another snippet from Mr. Darnok's source over on 'seer..

I keep remembering stuff, damn brain doesn't work straight wi'out caffeine.

Anyway, Land Speeders have the special rule "Jink", which gives them a 5+ save all the time, this changes to 4+ if they go flat out. (I'm reasonably sure all fast skimmers get this, I'm not sure whether it's a USR or just a quality Fast Skimmers get)

Also, (and I can't believe I forgot this one) models are taken from the front when they're shot. Or, to put it another way, when a unit gets shot at, models from the part of the unit closest to the firer are removed first.

..hmm.... guess I just saved myself some points with regards to flicker fields anyway perhaps ?

Possibly, but if it's still a cover save(most likely) it may still be worth it to have invulns on your most important stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Therion wrote:

..hmm.... guess I just saved myself some points with regards to flicker fields anyway perhaps ?

Yes you did but it can still be seen as a nerf to Venoms. It's an interesting rule but after seeing that I'm really interested in seeing what the slower vehicles get for special rules, considering the fast ones are seemingly getting all sorts of buffs. A Catacomb Command Barge that moves flat out is hit with 6's and gets a 4+ save against hits that glance or penetrate?

The 4+ is nothing new. Again if the 3+ hull points on most vehicles is true, I have a feeling that the fast vehicles will be the exception to "most".

Alpharius wrote:The whole 'from the front' thing is going to make things really annoying.

And needlessly complex and precise from a game which claims to be neither...

I don't see how, its hardly complex, and there will doubtless be some clarity as to what happens with excess wounds, equal distance models, hidden models etc. It also fixes the frankly broken wound allocation rules of 5th.

It is going to make the 'movement phase' needlessly complicated as people try to arrange their squads for maximum benefit and minimum damage, and then the shooting phase will suffer from a similar slowdown for similar reasons.

You do remember the whole 'range sniping' thing?

Alpharius wrote:You do remember the whole 'range sniping' thing?

I remember it being much faster than the current system

Alpharius wrote:The whole 'from the front' thing is going to make things really annoying.

And needlessly complex and precise from a game which claims to be neither...

It may fit with the idea of a squad sergeant from the pancake edition- you choose one model in the squad, and use him for things like challenges and measuring closest models when shooting. It would keep it consistent.

As for the Jink save, it may be a Dark Angels Ravenwing thing from the battle report, and not an ability of all fast skimmers.

It also fixes the frankly broken wound allocation rules of 5th.

I think most people, even ones that were using wound allocation to their advantage, would welcome any rule change that removes that old system. Frankly it's annoying that you're being an idiot if you don't buy small upgrades that you don't even want to diversify your squad.

Naturally the wound allocation can be fixed in many ways, not just by removing closest models in their entirety first. I don't have fond memories from the sniping era.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Alpharius wrote:You do remember the whole 'range sniping' thing?

I remember it being much faster than the current system

You sure you're not misremembering things?

Therion wrote: A Catacomb Command Barge that moves flat out is hit with 6's and gets a 4+ save against hits that glance or penetrate?

All this and

3 Attacks in the movement phase hitting rear armour of tanks
Ignoring Shaken and Stunned on a 2+/4+
Conteracting a Weapon Destroyed or Immobilized result, essentially for free




I may need to buy more of them.

Alpharius wrote:It is going to make the 'movement phase' needlessly complicated as people try to arrange their squads for maximum benefit and minimum damage, and then the shooting phase will suffer from a similar slowdown for similar reasons.

You do remember the whole 'range sniping' thing?

Again i am not seeing the issue, provided that the rules themselves are well worded and properly thought out. I doubt that friendly squads will go back to blocking LOS so all that is left for players to do, if they so wished, was to try and estimate units that will be in range in the opponents shooting phase, which is most cases will be difficult to do especially with more random movement.

I guess the casualty removal system is going to make it a bit more awkward with regards to placing melta guns and the like perhaps ?

I know we haven't got the full "story" yet, but this seems somewhat at odds IMO with Gw's other idea of squads being led, normally from the front, by "characters" (vet sergs, exarchs etc etc ). Possibly makes ork nobz in squads a bit more vulnerable too perhaps ?

We'll see I guess. I'd rather they left things more or less as they are and just reintroduced something along the lines of the old "torrent of fire" rule.

Palindrome wrote:

Alpharius wrote:It is going to make the 'movement phase' needlessly complicated as people try to arrange their squads for maximum benefit and minimum damage, and then the shooting phase will suffer from a similar slowdown for similar reasons.

You do remember the whole 'range sniping' thing?

Again i am not seeing the issue, provided that the rules themselves are well worded and properly thought out. I doubt that friendly squads will go back to blocking LOS so all that is left for players to do, if they so wished, was to try and estimate units that will be in range in the opponents shooting phase, which is most cases will be difficult to do especially with more random movement.

So, there's a slight chance of an issue then?

I guess I wasn't being too clear then...

reds8n wrote: I guess the casualty removal system is going to make it a bit more awkward with regards to placing melta guns and the like perhaps ?

I know we haven't got the full "story" yet, but this seems somewhat at odds IMO with Gw's other idea of squads being led, normally from the front, by "characters" (vet sergs, exarchs etc etc ). Possibly makes ork nobz in squads a bit more vulnerable too perhaps ?

We'll see I guess. I'd rather they left things more or less as they are and just reintroduced something along the lines of the old "torrent of fire" rule.

That's kind of what I'm talking about.

Trying to 'save' the important parts of the squad is going to make the movement phase needlessly annoying.

When you're shooting at a unit and the powerfist Sgt. is 1/32" closer than the Goob With Bolter then it will get ugly. Very.

Think of how fun it is when some models are in cover to some shooters and determining LOS from each individual model then throw in precise game-changing measurements. feth that!

SlaveToDorkness wrote:When you're shooting at a unit and the powerfist Sgt. is 1/32" closer than the Goob With Bolter then it will get ugly. Very.

Another good point, and exactly what I was talking about.

Unless, you know, GW has thought of this and figured something out to help with it?

Specialists die and other mooks pick up the goods?

- Assault moves are indeed 2d6", but added together. Units equipped with jump packs can re-roll the dice to see how far they charge.

- Every army must select a "Warlord" or single general to lead the army, this leader gets an ability. They can choose between three different types of abilities, "Personal", "Inspirational" or "Strategic". They then roll on one of those charts to see what ability it is. The two examples given were a Grand Master giving all friendlies within 12" his Ld of 10 (Inspirational), and a Chaos Lord being a scoring unit (Personal, the ability itself was called "Immovable Object")

Oh good, more inane pointless randomness to make the game less fun.

Alpharius wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:When you're shooting at a unit and the powerfist Sgt. is 1/32" closer than the Goob With Bolter then it will get ugly. Very.

Another good point, and exactly what I was talking about.

Unless, you know, GW has thought of this and figured something out to help with it?

Have a d6 roll off?

As Therion mentioned elsewhere, GW thinks random = fun, so I expect lots more random this time around!

Alpharius wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:When you're shooting at a unit and the powerfist Sgt. is 1/32" closer than the Goob With Bolter then it will get ugly. Very.

Another good point, and exactly what I was talking about.

Unless, you know, GW has thought of this and figured something out to help with it?

BrookM wrote:Specialists die and other mooks pick up the goods?

Something along those lines, like the 'field promotion' rule in Warmachine/Hordes.

Another way to make it less of an argument is to stipulate in the casualty removal that "Models that are within 1" of the closest model(s) can be allocated wounds". That would keep the theme and idea while making measurements quick and less contested. It's too late for input on it now, the rules are written, printed, and soon to be shipped. Let's all grit our teeth in anticipation while we wait to game the system.

EDIT - As an addendum, who else has noticed that Beasts of War's website has been woefully silent on all things 40K related for a couple of weeks now? Last month they were doing videos almost every day with 'rumor' snippets they had gleaned from a source (or sources). here we are 11 days away from the Street date, 3 days away from the White Dwarf hitting stores, and nothing from the BoW crew. I don't have a point here, i just found it odd.


EDIT 2 - Whooops, I was mistaken. http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/40k-6th-released-june30/ . Nothing mind-blowing as we've heard all this from many sources, but they have made a comment regarding 6th.

Still no videos from Darrell or Warren though, as of this post.

Alpharius wrote:As Therion mentioned elsewhere, GW thinks random = fun, so I expect lots more random this time around!

The level of GW fun im willing to spend money on is dwindling quickly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tetrisphreak wrote:

Alpharius wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:When you're shooting at a unit and the powerfist Sgt. is 1/32" closer than the Goob With Bolter then it will get ugly. Very.

Another good point, and exactly what I was talking about.

Unless, you know, GW has thought of this and figured something out to help with it?

BrookM wrote:Specialists die and other mooks pick up the goods?

Something along those lines, like the 'field promotion' rule in Warmachine/Hordes.

Another way to make it less of an argument is to stipulate in the casualty removal that "Models that are within 1" of the closest model(s) can be allocated wounds". That would keep the theme and idea while making measurements quick and less contested. It's too late for input on it now, the rules are written, printed, and soon to be shipped. Let's all grit our teeth in anticipation while we wait to game the system.

EDIT -

Given the idiots that make this game I doubt they'll do anything to reduce the incidence of arguments.

Alpharius wrote:As Therion mentioned elsewhere, GW thinks random = fun, so I expect lots more random this time around!

Given that the entire system is based upon dice rolls everyone who enjoys 40k must also like randomness. I don't understand why people have such a hatred of randomness, providing that it sin't all pervasive and doesn't detract from the game itself then I think that it is a good thing.

Palindrome wrote:

Alpharius wrote:As Therion mentioned elsewhere, GW thinks random = fun, so I expect lots more random this time around!

Given that the entire system is based upon dice rolls everyone who enjoys 40k must also like randomness. I don't understand why people have such a hatred of randomness, providing that it sin't all pervasive and doesn't detract from the game itself then I think that it is a good thing.

It's creeping into pervasive and detracting. It was already there with some things (reserves, stealing the initiative), but when crucial bits of army planning or in game tactics are at the mercy of dice instead of human decision making (warlord strategies, assaults) it detracts strongly. I play 40k to play a game, not watch the dice feth one player into losing.

Therion wrote:

It also fixes the frankly broken wound allocation rules of 5th.

I think most people, even ones that were using wound allocation to their advantage, would welcome any rule change that removes that old system. Frankly it's annoying that you're being an idiot if you don't buy small upgrades that you don't even want to diversify your squad.

Naturally the wound allocation can be fixed in many ways, not just by removing closest models in their entirety first. I don't have fond memories from the sniping era.

This I agree with. The 5th edition wound allocation is honestly part of the reason I stopped bringing Nobz so much. It was fething annoying and REALLY bogged down the flow of the game. To save myself and my opponents time, I just stopped taking them.

Palindrome wrote:

Alpharius wrote:As Therion mentioned elsewhere, GW thinks random = fun, so I expect lots more random this time around!

Given that the entire system is based upon dice rolls everyone who enjoys 40k must also like randomness. I don't understand why people have such a hatred of randomness, providing that it sin't all pervasive and doesn't detract from the game itself then I think that it is a good thing.

Stealing initiative is capable of losing your whole game with a single dice throw.
There are far too many instances like this where single dice rolls are becoming more important, I do find it worrying. Random charge movement is one, it's already kind of in.
The other day I charged my blob in against someone, because I went over a tiny bit of difficult terrain I had to do a difficult terrain test, rolled a 1 and a 2. Yeah, feth that.

Well, Ghost Arks just got more interesting;

4 Hull points, so it's pretty survivable
Can ignore the shaken/stunned
Rapid fire enables it to move 6 (I presume?) and fire 20 gauss--which is 2ish hull point glances
The Warriors can also rapid fire 10 gauss--likely landing another hull point glance

If the flyer rumor is correct, Scythe spam became a great deal more interesting as well;

6 x Scythe
3 x Doom Scythe
= 36 Twin Linked Tesla a turn = 24ish hits = 8 additional hits from the Tesla rule = 32 hits before twin linked. Twin linked nets you another 8 hits, at least one of which should be a 6 = 10 more hits = 42 hits + Whatever the 3 x Death Rays does.
Shoot everything with skyfire and that's fast first, shoot everything else second. The entire army needs 6s to be hit.


Provided the rumors are true of course.