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.

Slave wrote:Finally, any word on the WS vs. WS chart? This thing really pisses me off, that chart should have always run from 2+ to 6+. Its stupid that a snotling can hit a chaos marine champion with the same chances of hitting a blood thirster or avatar.

Back in the early days of WHFB, the table worked much like you suggested. If your WS was 2 points better you hit on 2s and they hit you on 6s. This was modified because it resulted in one sided contests, in a time where Herohammer was dominant, this was taking things too far as regular troops regularly needed to hit on a 6, wound on a 6 and beat a 2+ save. By pulling WS back you help keep troops in the game a little.

Personally, I’ve never had a problem with Bloodthirsters taking wounds from grots. Sure, when we’re spending our time starting at rules and nitpicking, it looks crazy that a model with more than twice the WS is still be hit 1/3 of the time. But when these models go onto the field, strike first with 4 and 5 attacks, wound on a 2+ and ignore armour, it rarely comes up as a problem in game.

Now that IC standing in the middle of that block of troops can be hit, if you put enough fire in there

Forcing ICs to join units unless they want to face enemy firepower is a great move by GW. As many people on this board have somewhat proudly proclaimed, models like the Ork biker Warboss are incredibly easy to keep untouched and deliver into close combat. One even said that he can nearly automatically roll through a Space Marine player's flank, decimating units left and right.

This also means that units that harbour defensive characters like Big Meks and Farseers will be the target number one for everyone, since even if one can't decimate the unit he might be able to force it to fail a break test and run.

efarrer wrote:First because you don't seem to get it.

Reality check. Canadian Tanks in WWII could hit moving German tanks while the Canadian tank was at Max speed (kinda required as the Panzers were a lot better).
40K tanks can't hit anything accurately while moving. THey get worse as they often can't fire more then half thier weapons if they move. Ignoring everything else this says how slowed the rules are.

Second, who really wants to go back to the immobile bunkers of third edition.

Third, if reality and game history don't work for you how about economics. If tanks are immobile bunkers good luck selling them.

On the contrary, I "get it" just fine - you're the one who isnt' getting on board with the changes.

Reality check: the Canadians made trucks, not Tanks (except for their crappy, useless Ram).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_the_Second_World_War

40k Tanks hit at least 1/3 of their targets perfectly dead-on while moving; the rest have some small scatter. Net accuracy is around 50%, about the same as what one would expect based on the average Guardsman being BS3.

If there's no tradeoff between movement and shooting, that's a sign of rather poor game design. Everything should have costs and tradeoffs. Having Battle Tanks mostly sit and shoot, while transport tanks mostly move is a good role separation.

If Tanks are better at killing things than sit and shoot Devastators / Heavy Weapons teams, then they'll do just fine for sales. If Tanks capture the imagination of the treadhead gamers, they'll sell just fine.

I'll be very happy if it's true that all infantry (friendly and enemy) will block LOS. As it stands in 4th ed, in order to make the game tactical at all you need close to 50% terrain. Warmachine, with equal size models blocking LOS to one another, makes for some tricky tactical situations - I'd love to see that kind of thing in 40k. The LD-based target priority check is irritating - another roll that most armies will succeed on 33/36 of the time, it's kind of pointless.

As for the screening unit being able to move out of the way of a friendly shooty squad, then run/fleet back after that squad shoots in order to protect it: that's easy enough to prevent. Simply require all fleeting/running to be done in the movement phase (ie you get to move extra in the movement phase, but then forfeit the right to shoot in the shooting phase). Hopefully the GW playtesting will make that obvious

Crisis suits will get annoying, since they would be JSJ'ing over units instead of having to find vehicles/terrain. Good thing FW and Kroot aren't very durable screens...

As a balance to the benefit that screening will give to assaulty armies: shooting into combats should be allowed!

All the other rumours seem fine, as long as vehicles get to shoot all their weapons while moving. It sounds like it will be a better game than 4th ed rules (could it possibly be any worse )

Therion wrote:Forcing ICs to join units unless they want to face enemy firepower is a great move by GW.

The trouble is keeping track of what squad he's part of. Say you've got a big mek in the middle of four units of boyz... which unit is he part of? The closest one? The last one to move within 2" of him? The one that he moves within 2" of? What if there's multiple eligible targets? The rumour seems to imply that this happens automatically without player input. What happens at the start of the next phase? Does he automatically revert to being independent? Can he be part of multiple units? Is he entitled to some sort of uber out-of-phase movement weirdness - i.e. if he's in combat with multiple squads... and he can't move because he's locked, can he jump squads? He fights alone, but how about end of combat initiative rolls? Majority rules? How about if he's not in melee, but is part of a unit that's in melee, but some other unit moves closer to him... or he moves closer to another unit... does he join that unit?

Do you really trust GW to be able to write this in a clear and concise manner? How about the pages of FAQs to fix all the vague notions of what can or can't be done. A rule like this needs to be written rigorously as 40k has no set turn sequence inside each phase - i.e. units can move in any order and are assumed to move simultaneously - and few "status resetting rules" like ATSKNF.

Extrapolating from previous game play - and trying to remove some of the silliness from above...:

"Independent characters are autonomous models. Any Independent character that is further away than 2" from a friendly squad form their own unit for the purposes of movement and shooting. Independent characters ending their movement 2" or closer to a friendly unit will automatically join that unit, and follows the shooting rules for squad shooting in the following shooting phase. If there are multiple units in the area which are within 2", the controlling player nominates the squad that the independent character joins. At the start of every movement phase, the Independent character is free to leave the squad.

Independent characters always fight alone as their own unit in HTH regardless of whether they have previously joined another squad earlier in the game. As such, they may be targeted in the same way as a squad would be in HTH. At the end of combat, the Independent character may make his own combat resolution roll and move independent of any squad he may have joined prior to combat. If an unattached Independent character moves within 2" of a friendly unit during out of phase movement (i.e. any movement outside the movement phase), he will automatically join that unit. If there are multiple units eligible, the controlling player nominates the squad that the independent character joins."

I mean let's be serious here. Does anyone think that GW will write that much text to make it clear how the ICs should function? I mean its just an IC right? GW's rule would probably be like:

Independent characters are single model characters that form their own unit for purposes of movement, targeting, shooting and HTH. However, in the case that an independent character is within 2" of a friendly unit, the independent character automatically joins this unit and becomes part of this squad.

I'm probably overly jaded, but after reading the ruleset in Warmachine, the 40k ruleset has no structure. It's like a glass and steel skyscraper built on a foundation made of 2x4s and plywood. I mean, 2x4s might be good for your shed, but if you're going to add more floors to it and upscale it, you should beef up your foundation.

keezus wrote: I'm probably overly jaded, but after reading the ruleset in Warmachine, the 40k ruleset has no structure. It's like a glass and steel skyscraper built on a foundation made of 2x4s and plywood. I mean, 2x4s might be good for your shed, but if you're going to add more floors to it and upscale it, you should beef up your foundation.

thats easy add duct tape

The trouble is keeping track of what squad he's part of. Say you've got a big mek in the middle of four units of boyz... which unit is he part of? The closest one? The last one to move within 2" of him? The one that he moves within 2" of? What if there's multiple eligible targets? The rumour seems to imply that this happens automatically without player input. What happens at the start of the next phase? Does he automatically revert to being independent? Can he be part of multiple units? Is he entitled to some sort of uber out-of-phase movement weirdness - i.e. if he's in combat with multiple squads... and he can't move because he's locked, can he jump squads? He fights alone, but how about end of combat initiative rolls? Majority rules? How about if he's not in melee, but is part of a unit that's in melee, but some other unit moves closer to him... or he moves closer to another unit... does he join that unit?

Stop hyperventilating. I'm quite sure it will all be clear enough once the rulebook hits the shelves.

I'm probably overly jaded, but after reading the ruleset in Warmachine, the 40k ruleset has no structure.

Of course it doesn't. You're talking about WH40K here, GW's kids game intended for people new to the modelling hobby.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If there's no tradeoff between movement and shooting, that's a sign of rather poor game design. Everything should have costs and tradeoffs. Having Battle Tanks mostly sit and shoot, while transport tanks mostly move is a good role separation.

If Tanks are better at killing things than sit and shoot Devastators / Heavy Weapons teams, then they'll do just fine for sales. If Tanks capture the imagination of the treadhead gamers, they'll sell just fine.

I don’t know man, I think if there was meant to be fixed position guns in the game, GW would sell people fixed position guns. Those things have tracks, they should use them to advance on the enemy as they unleash their firepower, infantry marching up behind them.

Tanks fulfill the role of mobile big guns. It’s an interesting role that can bring a lot of strategy to a game, having had my ‘stealers hunted by a predator destructor I can verify that a tank that can move and fire is a lot more interesting than a static pillbox. I agree there should be a trade-off for moving, but at present the trade-off for most vehicles is too harsh.

All that said, the abilities and inabilities of tanks in any war are irrelevant. 40K isn’t based around any past, modern or future conflict. It’s a heavily stylized gothic future, where firing an ancient gun that unleashes a heat intensity equivalent to a small sun is just as viable as driving up to someone in a beat up truck, jumping out and smashing heads in with a lead pipe. Modern weapons capabilities are irrelevant.

keezus wrote:The trouble is keeping track of what squad he's part of. Say you've got a big mek in the middle of four units of boyz... which unit is he part of? The closest one? The last one to move within 2" of him? The one that he moves within 2" of? What if there's multiple eligible targets? The rumour seems to imply that this happens automatically without player input. What happens at the start of the next phase? Does he automatically revert to being independent? Can he be part of multiple units? Is he entitled to some sort of uber out-of-phase movement weirdness - i.e. if he's in combat with multiple squads... and he can't move because he's locked, can he jump squads? He fights alone, but how about end of combat initiative rolls? Majority rules? How about if he's not in melee, but is part of a unit that's in melee, but some other unit moves closer to him... or he moves closer to another unit... does he join that unit?

Do you really trust GW to be able to write this in a clear and concise manner? How about the pages of FAQs to fix all the vague notions of what can or can't be done. A rule like this needs to be written rigorously as 40k has no set turn sequence inside each phase - i.e. units can move in any order and are assumed to move simultaneously - and few "status resetting rules" like ATSKNF.

I don’t trust GW one way or the other. I just take their rules at face value when released, as there’s already enough odd stuff out there to worry about without speculating about how unreleased rules might be badly written when released.

“If an IC is within 2” of more than one unit, the owning player can nominate which unit the IC has joined.” It isn’t that hard. Maybe GW will write something simple, or maybe they won’t. Why panic about the possible execution of a rumour?

I'm probably overly jaded, but after reading the ruleset in Warmachine, the 40k ruleset has no structure. It's like a glass and steel skyscraper built on a foundation made of 2x4s and plywood. I mean, 2x4s might be good for your shed, but if you're going to add more floors to it and upscale it, you should beef up your foundation.

I agree. I agree completely. Warmachine is nicely focused, it advertises up front that it’s based around competitive play, focused on killer combinations. I don’t really like that kind of play, but that’s just a personal preference - it’s a good set of rules.

40K, though, is the big game in industry, so it attempts to appeal to more players. As a result it ends up doing a little of everything, and that leads to a game system that’s a little bit of a mess. A strong set of design concepts could have avoided that problem, but the game floated through until 4th ed without ever having any kind of design goals properly stated. But even with that effort, there’s so much historical baggage…

JohnHwangDD wrote:On the contrary, I "get it" just fine - you're the one who isnt' getting on board with the changes.


Your right. I'm not on board. I don't think they are good changes.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Reality check: the Canadians made trucks, not Tanks (except for their crappy, useless Ram).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_the_Second_World_War.

You know very little about Canadian Military history. The wiki is half right. Canada made a variety of AFV's including the Grizzly (an M4 varient) and kangaroo, in addition to trucks. It also mobilized more fully then The key though was that I should have said Candian tank crews could hit german tanks while moving at top speed.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k Tanks hit at least 1/3 of their targets perfectly dead-on while moving; the rest have some small scatter. Net accuracy is around 50%, about the same as what one would expect based on the average Guardsman being BS3. .

As scattering up to six inches is known as small scatter.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
If there's no tradeoff between movement and shooting, that's a sign of rather poor game design. Everything should have costs and tradeoffs. Having Battle Tanks mostly sit and shoot, while transport tanks mostly move is a good role separation..

I think we have fundamental disagreement here. Staying still in combat = death. Unmoving tanks should be dead tanks. I want to play a wargame. You want to play a game. Can I suggest yahtzee? It seems to be what your looking for.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
If Tanks are better at killing things than sit and shoot Devastators / Heavy Weapons teams, then they'll do just fine for sales. If Tanks capture the imagination of the treadhead gamers, they'll sell just fine.

How do you expect to "capture the imagination of the treadhead gamers" when they don't act like tanks do.

keezus wrote:The trouble is keeping track of what squad he's part of.

It's better than the whole "he's not part of the squad that he's in BtB with, so you can't charge the squad / can't engage him in HtH" nonsense.

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If there's no tradeoff between movement and shooting, that's a sign of rather poor game design.

I don’t know man, I think if there was meant to be fixed position guns in the game, GW would sell people fixed position guns. Those things have tracks, they should use them to advance on the enemy as they unleash their firepower, infantry marching up behind them.

Just because a tank has tracks and guns doesn't mean it should be able to use all of them at the same time all of the time.

If tanks are 100% efficient all the time, without any degradation when firing on the move, then there is no tactical decision to be made - you simply always move and shoot.

If tanks are only 100% efficient shooting when stationary, then there is an actual gaming decision to be made whether to shoot 100%, move all-out, or do a little of both with reduced effectiveness.

As it is, tanks can shoot 100%, then scoot to another location. That seems quite reasonable.

efarrer wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Reality check: the Canadians made trucks, not Tanks (except for their crappy, useless Ram).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_the_Second_World_War.

You know very little about Canadian Military history.

The wiki is half right. Canada made a variety of AFV's including the Grizzly (an M4 varient) and kangaroo, in addition to trucks. It also mobilized more fully then The key though was that I should have said Candian tank crews could hit german tanks while moving at top speed.

I know enough to know that there isn't much to speak of. From what I recall, the only notable "victorious" Canadian military action once can speak of is them marching to Washington, D.C. Not nearly recompense for losing all of Canada in the French and Indian War earlier, but at at least it explains the big white stripe smack dab in the middle of the flag. Plus, the Canucks generally got used as fodder by the Brits (IOW, treated just like the other Commonwealth colonies).

As for Canadian tank crews, I can't think of any tank Aces. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to their prowess.

Given that they were in standard Allied tanks, the idea that they always hit on the move is kind of ludicrous. SOP for WW2 was move, stop, shoot, repeat. You don't have the kind of ability to fire at full-speed until you have modern computer-compensated fire systems. Again, source, please?

As scattering up to six inches is known as small scatter.

When it's as little as 1 or 2 inches, yes.

I think we have fundamental disagreement here. Staying still in combat = death. Unmoving tanks should be dead tanks.

If a tank is dug in properly hull down, with heavy armour, it doesn't need to move.

I want to play a wargame. You want to play a game. Can I suggest yahtzee? It seems to be what your looking for.

No thanks, that's not what I'm looking for.

Nice try, tho.

How do you expect to "capture the imagination of the treadhead gamers" when they don't act like tanks do.

From what I can tell, the 40k tanks seem to capture WW2 tank ethos pretty well.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Just because a tank has tracks and guns doesn't mean it should be able to use all of them at the same time all of the time.

If tanks are 100% efficient all the time, without any degradation when firing on the move, then there is no tactical decision to be made - you simply always move and shoot.

If tanks are only 100% efficient shooting when stationary, then there is an actual gaming decision to be made whether to shoot 100%, move all-out, or do a little of both with reduced effectiveness.

As it is, tanks can shoot 100%, then scoot to another location. That seems quite reasonable.

You ignored half my post to repeat your initial statement.

So to repeat myself “Tanks fulfill the role of mobile big guns. It’s an interesting role that can bring a lot of strategy to a game, having had my ‘stealers hunted by a predator destructor I can verify that a tank that can move and fire is a lot more interesting than a static pillbox. I agree there should be a trade-off for moving, but at present the trade-off for most vehicles is too harsh.”

Cutting your firepower to a single weapon or making it very likely your ordnance weapon will only be effective if you roll a ‘hit’ is too harsh a penalty. Tanks should be able to move at half speed, 6”, and maintain close to full firepower, or limit their shooting if they move up to 12”.

This would encourage mobile armour tactics and produce a more interesting game.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Just because a tank has tracks and guns doesn't mean it should be able to use all of them at the same time all of the time.

If tanks are 100% efficient all the time, without any degradation when firing on the move, then there is no tactical decision to be made - you simply always move and shoot.

If tanks are only 100% efficient shooting when stationary, then there is an actual gaming decision to be made whether to shoot 100%, move all-out, or do a little of both with reduced effectiveness.

As it is, tanks can shoot 100%, then scoot to another location. That seems quite reasonable.

Has never played 3rd edition.

How long do your games last to fire and move a tank?

I guess that's why some aspects of 40k were totally weird
to me. I get that it's a fabrication of scale. That's fine. But
playing a tank on such a small area just seems weird.

And then they made tanks bigger! Oh well, at least they
made an expansion to the game bigger to accommodate
those tanks. An expansion I won't play.

Don't get me wrong, tanks are cool, and I'd love nothing
better than to learn to play epic, and I keep planning on
switching to games that offer me the scale that I want,
but tanks seem so out of place in 40k.

[quote=JohnHwangDDI know enough to know that there isn't much to speak of. From what I recall, the only notable "victorious" Canadian military action once can speak of is them marching to Washington, D.C. Not nearly recompense for losing all of Canada in the French and Indian War earlier, but at at least it explains the big white stripe smack dab in the middle of the flag. Plus, the Canucks generally got used as fodder by the Brits (IOW, treated just like the other Commonwealth colonies).

John,

I have to agree with the others. The actual reason I started playing 40K was because I loved the tanks. Granted, when I started the only kits were the Rhino and the Land Raider (and then the plastic Predator later on), but they got me into it.

And in 2nd Ed I loved my tanks. They could zoom around the table, guns blazing, and taking a beating as bits of them were shot off. In third they stopped moving and became main battle bunkers. In 4th they became glass hammers. We gave up at that point and wrote our own ruleset, where tanks again move around with guns blazing.

5th going back to the 'Main Battle Bunker' ideal is just dead boring.

BYE

sebster wrote:Cutting your firepower to a single weapon or making it very likely your ordnance weapon will only be effective if you roll a ‘hit’ is too harsh a penalty. Tanks should be able to move at half speed, 6”, and maintain close to full firepower, or limit their shooting if they move up to 12”.

If we merely disagree on the degree to which movement should penalize shooting, what sort of penalty would you suggest for a Tank that moves 6" or 12"?

For your example please use the Leman Russ (Ordnance), with hull Lascannon (Main), HB sponsons (Secondary), and PMHS (Defensive).

HBMC, perhaps you should have switched over to FOW. They do Tanks much better than 40k.

For the record, the only GW tanks I've purchased are Eldar and Tau. The models are nice compared to the crap that is everything else GW makes, and they aren't utter crap when you use them.

If I wanted to waste my money on tanks I can't play with, I'd go do historical miniatures where the models aren't boxes for retards.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If we merely disagree on the degree to which movement should penalize shooting, what sort of penalty would you suggest for a Tank that moves 6" or 12"?

For your example please use the Leman Russ (Ordnance), with hull Lascannon (Main), HB sponsons (Secondary), and PMHS (Defensive).

Just off the top of my head… I’d allow a leman russ to move 6” and fire it’s battle cannon without penalty, and fire any defensive weapons (which I’d make St 5 or less). Tanks would be free to fire each weapon at different targets if they want. Basically moving up to 6” you give up nothing, you pay the right points costs for a tank instead of a fixed gun, you get to move.

If you move up to 12” you can fire defensive weapons only.

Fast vehicles can fire all weapons up to 6”, and up to 12” can fire one main weapon and their defensive weapons.

But then I’m pretty happy with the general survivability of tanks in the present game. I’d keep the damage table as is and keep working through the codices to reduce the number of AT weapons out there.

I’d also have a limit on movement, restricting tanks to one pivot per turn. So you could move then turn, or turn then move, or just turn and not move at all. None of the current turn 90 deg, move 6” and turn back 90 deg, so it looks like you’re strafing with your Predator tank. This makes tanks good at advancing while laying down a lot of fire, but not so good at maneuvering/retreating.

Stelek wrote:For the record, the only GW tanks I've purchased are Eldar and Tau. The models are nice compared to the crap that is everything else GW makes, and they aren't utter crap when you use them.

If I wanted to waste my money on tanks I can't play with, I'd go do historical miniatures where the models aren't boxes for retards.

Huh, I like the Predator, Land Raider and Leman Russ models.

I've never really thought of myself as a slow.

JohnHwangDD wrote:HBMC, perhaps you should have switched over to FOW. They do Tanks much better than 40k.

Amazing how most other companies have gotten it mostly right the first or second time with the rules. If even half of these rumors are true (Which I'm not inclined to believe yet) I might have to take a long vacation from 40k. My US rifles need painting anyway.

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If we merely disagree on the degree to which movement should penalize shooting, what sort of penalty would you suggest for a Tank that moves 6" or 12"?

For your example please use the Leman Russ (Ordnance), with hull Lascannon (Main), HB sponsons (Secondary), and PMHS (Defensive).

Just off the top of my head… I’d allow a leman russ to move 6” and fire it’s battle cannon without penalty, and fire any defensive weapons (which I’d make St 5 or less). Tanks would be free to fire each weapon at different targets if they want. Basically moving up to 6” you give up nothing, you pay the right points costs for a tank instead of a fixed gun, you get to move.

If you move up to 12” you can fire defensive weapons only.

Fast vehicles can fire all weapons up to 6”, and up to 12” can fire one main weapon and their defensive weapons.

But then I’m pretty happy with the general survivability of tanks in the present game. I’d keep the damage table as is and keep working through the codices to reduce the number of AT weapons out there.

I’d also have a limit on movement, restricting tanks to one pivot per turn. So you could move then turn, or turn then move, or just turn and not move at all. None of the current turn 90 deg, move 6” and turn back 90 deg, so it looks like you’re strafing with your Predator tank. This makes tanks good at advancing while laying down a lot of fire, but not so good at maneuvering/retreating.

Thank you.

I agree that Tanks should always be able to fire Defensive weapons, regardless of distance moved. I'd also allow Tanks to fire Defensive weapons in HtH against Infantry, which is why Tanks mount MGs. I don't think S5 Whirlwind should be "Defensive", so Defensive weapons are up to S4.

Secondary weapons are up to S6. Eldar and Tau treat Secondary weapons as Defensive weapons.

Main weapons are S7+.

If the Russ can move 6" and fire the Battlecannon without penalty, then it should always move 6" - simply because it can. There is no penalty or tradeoff decision. Particularly compared to vehicles with just 1 Ordnance weapon (e.g. Basilisks, Whirlwinds & Vindicators).

Hull Down is a 5+ cover save. Smoke gives a 4+. SMF is 6+ up to 6", 5+ 6" to 12", 4+ over 12". Holofield allows re-roll of SMF.

I'd adjust the Damage table: 1 = shaken, 2 = stun, 3 = weapon, 4 = immobile, 5 = destroyed, 6 = explode! Energy Field / Venerable allows a re-roll on the table.

Destroyed wounds models on a 4+ (save as normal); Entangled tests vs lowest Init. Explodes automatically wounds all models (save as normal).

No splitting fire - 40k is always 1 unit vs 1 unit. Machine Spirit and Spirit Stones can fire 1 weapon at BS2 at a separate target.

Looking at the Russ, normal Ordnance (Scatter d6" is roughly equivalent to BS3. So I'm OK with Scattering the max of 2d6" on the move. It's still better than BS2.

So, with all that as background:

Stationary:
- 1 Ordnance + all Defensive
- 1 Main + all Secondary + all Defensive

Moved <6":
- 1 Ordnance (2d6 Scatter) + all Defensive
- 1 Main + all Defensive
- all Secondary + all Defensive

Moved 6-12":
- 1 Secondary + all Defensive

Moved > 12":
- all Defensive

JohnHwangDD wrote:HBMC, perhaps you should have switched over to FOW. They do Tanks much better than 40k.

Of course then I'd have to actually be interested in WWII table-top games, which I'm not. I like 40K because of the fluff. Currently the fluff does not in any way, shape or form follow the fluff. I remember laughing my head off at the pic of the Demolisher firing all its guns in different directions at the start of the vehicle section in the 3rd Ed rulebook. Nothing's changed since then.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Nothing's changed since then.

And that is just the thing.

GW hasn't presented us, as we'd expect, with a progression of improved rules. From 2nd to 3rd, 3rd to 4th, and so on - none of it has resulted in a better ruleset. What we've got is just GW either making new mistakes, or finding different ways of making the old mistakes.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:Thank you.

I agree that Tanks should always be able to fire Defensive weapons, regardless of distance moved. I'd also allow Tanks to fire Defensive weapons in HtH against Infantry, which is why Tanks mount MGs. I don't think S5 Whirlwind should be "Defensive", so Defensive weapons are up to S4.

Secondary weapons are up to S6. Eldar and Tau treat Secondary weapons as Defensive weapons.

Main weapons are S7+.

You’re right about whirlwinds, but tau secondary weapons (burst cannon and the like) really should be defensive weapons. I also don’t like an autocannon being deemed a main weapon while an assault cannon is called secondary or defensive. To be honest any point you pick is going to be fairly arbitrary, maybe individually designated weapons on each vehicle might be the way to go?

If the Russ can move 6" and fire the Battlecannon without penalty, then it should always move 6" - simply because it can. There is no penalty or tradeoff decision. Particularly compared to vehicles with just 1 Ordnance weapon (e.g. Basilisks, Whirlwinds & Vindicators).

Sure, but that’s alright. Troops with assault weapons don’t have any penalty for moving and shooting, but they pay for the privilege and it allows them to fulfill a unique battlefield role.

But there is a significant risk to advancing under my rules. As long as they’re rolling up the field firing on the enemy they’re fine, but this is increasing the chance the enemy can hit their weaker flank and rear armour, or assault them. Tanks wanting to withdraw would have to expose their rear armour.

Hull Down is a 5+ cover save. Smoke gives a 4+. SMF is 6+ up to 6", 5+ 6" to 12", 4+ over 12". Holofield allows re-roll of SMF.

I like all of this.

I'd adjust the Damage table: 1 = shaken, 2 = stun, 3 = weapon, 4 = immobile, 5 = destroyed, 6 = explode! Energy Field / Venerable allows a re-roll on the table.

So just one table? I’d keep the tables as they are, but have one result for both shaken and stunned. Still call it stunned, and have it allow the tank to either move or shoot, owner’s choice. Means a tank still has a good chance of exploding, but a reasonable chance of being somewhat useful next turn.

Destroyed wounds models on a 4+ (save as normal); Entangled tests vs lowest Init. Explodes automatically wounds all models (save as normal).

Seems pretty reasonable. Things like this tend to be dependant on surrounding circumstances, so it’d be very dependant on playtesting.

No splitting fire - 40k is always 1 unit vs 1 unit. Machine Spirit and Spirit Stones can fire 1 weapon at BS2 at a separate target.

We’ll just have to disagree on that one. I’ve never seen a convincing argument to stop a player saying ‘I’ll fire the heavy bolters at the troops and the lascannon at the vehicle next to it’. From an ease of play POV it’s hardly any longer to resolve. In terms of realism it’s hardly plausible. And in terms of gameplay it opens the door to more general units, with a range of weapons options.

Looking at the Russ, normal Ordnance (Scatter d6" is roughly equivalent to BS3. So I'm OK with Scattering the max of 2d6" on the move. It's still better than BS2.

And it’s a really, really big shell. Even if it’s a little less accurate, it should be worth it for the tremendous whole it leaves in the enemy ranks.

So, with all that as background:

Stationary:
- 1 Ordnance + all Defensive
- 1 Main + all Secondary + all Defensive

Moved <6":
- 1 Ordnance (2d6 Scatter) + all Defensive
- 1 Main + all Defensive
- all Secondary + all Defensive

Moved 6-12":
- 1 Secondary + all Defensive

Moved > 12":
- all Defensive

I’d prefer it was a little more free, but I’d be alright with that if the definition of defensive was a little broader (to include heavy bolters and burst cannon, for instance).

If the Russ can move 6" and fire the Battlecannon without penalty, then it should always move 6" - simply because it can. There is no penalty or tradeoff decision. Particularly compared to vehicles with just 1 Ordnance weapon (e.g. Basilisks, Whirlwinds & Vindicators).

Well, by the same reasoning, all those cheesy infantry models with Assault Weapons also have the possibility to move and fire simply because they can, and with no penalty to boot. Oh, and if that wasn't enough, they can also assault without penalty - now that's a no-brainer. In all honesty, I am not out to ridicule you. My point is, as has been mentioned previously, that the tanks (just as troops with assault weapons) are paying for their mobility in their points cost.

Tanks are supposed to advance over rough terrain and shoot, that is why they exist. IFV's APC's and such are supposed to support them there is no seperation of roles (baring transportation) IFV's exist because tanks exist. Turning tanks into bunkers will be a bad move for 40k


BTW: No more besmirching of the Canadians input in WWII from the yanks please, they were there all the way from '39 and didn't wait until '42 after they'd received invites from the other side.

[edit] QTF:

H.B.M.C. wrote:...none of it has resulted in a better ruleset. What we've got is just GW either making new mistakes, or finding different ways of making the old mistakes.