1691
Post by: Raider
The rumored changes:
1. the addition of a ‘run’ option (similar to fleet but with a trade off to keep fleet special).
2. Improvements to the cover save rules.
3. Rending toned down (rending i.e. auto wound/no armour save on a 6 to wound & reduction in effectiveness against vehicles).
4. Template(Blast) weapons rules streamlined.
5. Sniper weapons rules amended (rending probable)
6. Close combat rules amended with a combat resolution phase similar to fantasy
7. Single vehicle damage table.
8. Vehicles without a WS in CC always get hit in the rear armour.
9. Vehicles able to ram
10. Other vehicle amendments
11. Mission rules changed in a similar manner to Apocalypse (no more Alpha, Gamma or Omega).
12. Only non vehicle non swarm troop choices are scoring units (Note I did not say infantry)
13. Vehicles types are adjusted (the rumoured skimmer nerf)
Now lets combine these with a bit of game theory and we might bow before GWs foresight in a while.
Lets start with what we have now: The problem with 40k right now is that people are pushed towards massing certain types of untis. Nidzilla with as many TMCs as possible or All-Skimmer-lists from Eldar are known examples. The reason is that one cant have too much of a good thing at the moment. Once a unit is slightly undercosted, the tourney player has little incentive to take less then the maximum ammont.
And cooky cutter lists are even rewarded by the fact that the more of one thing you field, the less likely your opponent will have enough specialised weapons (anti tank / anti TMC etc...) to deal with it in an allcomers setting. As we know, this leads to a rather one dimensional game regarding list building and ingame-tactics: Figure out which units are slightly undercosted -> Take as many of these as possible -> play the same 1-3 tactics every game, no matter what your opponent does.
The solution to this problem is not(!) to nerf a certain unit from a specific codex, because people will simply figure out the next best unit and mass that instead. An example for this is the change from Rhino-rush in 3rd Ed to Falcon-rush nowerdays.
The solution is to change the fact that if one unit is good, everyone is pushed towards using as many of it as possible. An example are Skimmers and Terrain. Terrain is limited, so allthough a single Falcon is good, the more you take, the more your Falcons will suffer from a lack of terrain. As we know limited-terrain effects are not enough to discourage 3 Falcons in todays successful tourney lists, so we need more mechanics that make massing inefficient.
My guess is that 5th Edition changes, if done right, will make massing a thing of the past at least among top-lists:
12. Only non vehicle non swarm troop choices are scoring units
-> This creates a strong incentive to use troops.
Now we need a mechanism that prevents mass-troops from being the most powerful thing in the world. I expect this will be done by improving non-troop units, to a degree, where few elite/heavy support choices can spell doom to all-troop armys. Imagine Demolishers killing walking infantry in droves, or Harlequins eating through whole unsupported gunlines.
4. Template(Blast) weapons rules streamlined.
7. Single vehicle damage table.
10. Other vehicle amendments
-> I expect templates to be more devastating then now and vehicles that are harder to shake by shooting. Vindiactors, Fire Prisms, Demolishers etc. will force opposing players into tactics that go beyond "as many scoring troops as possible".
Now we need a mechanism that prevents 3 Template-Tanks in every list. I expect its going to be the following roumored change:
8. Vehicles without a WS in CC always get hit in the rear armour.
-> This means that tanks, while great offensive weapons at range, struggle against multiple attackers in close quarters. Cool isnt it? Sounds almost like real world warfare. Nice changes arise here: Redeplyoment per transport will work as it should, but running Transports into enemy lines unsupported (Rhino-rush/Falcon-rush) will likely result in assaulted and deastroyed transports, even against unequipped str4 opponents.
Vehicles being strong at range but weak at close combat also creates reasons to deversify lists even more: People will be encouraged to use Fast Attack to assault enemy tanks.
Conclusion: At the moment pretty much all units in an army have basicly the same role on the battlefield. Its "kill the opponent and then take whatever objective there was". In 5th edition I hope for different battlefield roles: Troops for scoring and the other choices in a complex rock-paper-scissors game. For example Elites and Heavy Support for killing troops, and Fast Attack for killing Heavy Support etc.. This hopefully leads to a situation where the in-game value of a certain unit is not primarily defined by its power per points, but by the momentary importance of its specific battlefield role.
Ideally the rules should encourage players to take enough troops, but not too many. Enough heavy support units, but not too many, etc.. This way themed armys are still doable, but will mostly lose to ballanced forces led by evenly skilled players. Once ballanced armys become the top contenders, there will likely be more tactical depth in list building as well as in-game decisions.
4477
Post by: skullspliter888
and the end time is here for the skimmer  lol. wow my IG may kick some  in the future .
Raider still no date and is there a new IG codex in there?
3550
Post by: IntoTheRain
Raider wrote:Only non vehicle non swarm troop choices are scoring units (Note I did not say infantry)
Oh good, more marine lists.
1635
Post by: Savnock
Raider, I salute your optimism. Your totally wrong-headed but refreshing optimism, that its.
I fail to see any disincentive to cookie-cutters in those changes. In fact, here come the boyz/marines/necron warrior blocks/identical IG. Only troops scoring will homogenize the game in new ways, not encourage mixed forces. No other unit is going to get strengthened to counter the legions of identical troops, as that would throw game balance even more. Swallow the spider to catch the fly, etc. And those mass-troop-killers will be non-scoring, so worth less beyond their offensive capability.
The problem is min/maxing, not the ruleset. No ruleset is proof against that practice.
Also, skimmers may get slightly downgraded, but they're less affected by the CC thingy (unless it gets easier to hit moving vehicles, which would be downright silly).
I'm way into lots of the other changes, though. I've come 'round on the CC vs. vehicles change. And weaker rending and better snipers sound cool.
The polish work will be nice, but the under-the-hood monkeying looks ominous.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Hope springs eternal.
In my case, I am expecting a lot more Troops to be fielded than current today. But I don't think this means the end to massed whatnots of any type. Particularly as non-Troops are generally fight / move / shoot considerably better than Troops do.
I don't foresee any boost to non-Troops - they're good enough already that they don't need boosting to be taken.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I think it may be a viable strategy to field two or three small units of troops for last-minute grabs, and keep the bulk of the points in the units that actually do the business.
5604
Post by: Reaver83
I think having two to three small units for last minute grabs being a disaster. Any sensible opponent will realise only minimal casualties are needed to stop them being scoring units, and once you've stopped the opposition being able to score, all you need to do is keep your's safe!
Imagine Marine player A, has taken 3 6 man laz/plaz units, the rest is all in elites, HS. HQ etc.
Horde player player B (Orks, guard, nids) has invested half his points in troops. They Horde player only needs to inflict 12 casualties to get every marine unit below half strangth, a couple of well placed plasma cannon equivalents and they horde player wins by default!
Take into the equation combat squads could come in for marines, so a 5 man squad needs only 3 cas, and suddenly large units holding an objective is very viable.
2367
Post by: ptlangley
Raider wrote:The rumored changes:
11. Mission rules changed in a similar manner to Apocalypse (no more Alpha, Gamma or Omega).
12. Only non vehicle non swarm troop choices are scoring units (Note I did not say infantry)
The true effect of rumor 12 has to be taken in the context of rumor 11. I am discounting anyones complaining/celebration regarding 12, since we don't know anything about either other than what is written above, until we know more.
If the number of objectives is less or they are defined differently than they are now then it makes a big difference in the effect of 12. It would make more sense (not that I think GW will do the sensical thing) if each game there were multiple goals, perhaps prioritized in some way) that each result in some number of points:
troops grabbing objectives
assassinate an enemy character
get a unit into enemy deployment zone
Those are pretty standard, but you could come up with any number. Give each side certain random objectives, more than they could accomplish by an average player, and then let the player figure out how to accomplish as much as possible.
5604
Post by: Reaver83
Thinking on that I hope it goes a bit back to 2nd ed when you had different mission cards, especially if your opponent didn't know what it was.
So say you could have player one attempting a 'dawn raid' objective i) get as many scoring units into your opponents deployment zone. objective ii) eliminate opposing HQ (the one with the radio's etc) objective iii) eliminate opponents fast attack options (they'd be the ones chasing you).
Whilst your opponent may have 'high ground' objective i) control the three highest points on the board. objective ii) Bring additional heavy support choice to high ground objective already held (to provide covering fire for troops) objective iii) destroy enemy heavy support (their ability to return fire).
Thats wishfull thinking but would be fun
4296
Post by: OverchargeThis!
It'll make a big difference if they change how long units count as scoring. In CoD, a unit at 25% or more of its original strength still counts as scoring. If that becomes the norm in 5th edition, you virtually have to wipe the squads out to drop them to non-scoring status.
I mention this b/c I heard that lots of the CoD rules will find their way into 5th edition. That, too, is just a rumor I've heard floating around.
5516
Post by: Major Malfunction
I've been thinking about *how* they could streamline the template weapons... does anyone remember the old Cityfight rules? You had a chart for the amount of wounds they did instead of counting the number of models. Something like this:
Flamer d6 hits
Small Blast d3 hits
Large Blast 2d6 hits
That would certainly speed things up. You would just measure range and roll to see how many hits you got.
The only problem I see with this method is it would nullify the "spreading" effect facing a lot of template weapons has. There would then be little incentive to NOT packing your models in a small a space as possible.
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
So I was reading another forum thread about how to kill an Empire Steam Tank in fantasy and I had no idea that it took wounds and used "Steam Points" to operate (never read the new Empire Army book). This just seems so logical to me. Why can't the vehicles in 40k work like this? It would help resolve the MC problem of "Freem... I'm ok. Freem... I'm ok. Freem... I'm ok. Freem... I'm ok. Freem... Ah damn, I'm dead" and vehicles receiving a hard stare to prevent them from shooting. And don't give me that "It's too complicated, 40k needs to be streamlined more" crap. C'mon guys, how many people do you play with in your local stores wear helmets and drool on their minis not because they are gorgeously painted but because they aren't firing on all cylinders. Vehicles need a boost in 5th edition. The idea of vehicle the size of a Quickie Mart rolling around in a Wal-Mart sized parking lot firing beams of pure energy should be terrifying and yet it's not.
5226
Post by: TragicNut
The Green Git wrote:I've been thinking about *how* they could streamline the template weapons... does anyone remember the old Cityfight rules? You had a chart for the amount of wounds they did instead of counting the number of models. Something like this:
Flamer d6 hits
Small Blast d3 hits
Large Blast 2d6 hits
That would certainly speed things up. You would just measure range and roll to see how many hits you got.
The only problem I see with this method is it would nullify the "spreading" effect facing a lot of template weapons has. There would then be little incentive to NOT packing your models in a small a space as possible.
That and totally nullifies any difference in template effectiveness between large tightly packed hordes and small spread out elites. (Think Boyz mob vs Terminator squad)
4477
Post by: skullspliter888
the template rule or good the way there are . they could try to define partially better. is it half the base or quarter of the base etc.
782
Post by: DarthDiggler
I am not entirely convinced only troops choices will be scoring units. 1st there are lists that manipulate the troop selections. 2nd the Chaos codex says Spawn can not hold objectives. Why have that in there if they new 5th edition wouldn't let them hold objectives anyway.
It seems more likely that vehicles and monsterous creatures will not be allowed to hold objectives. This keeps more in line with the chaos changes to spawn and even Daemon Princes/Greater Daemons who lost their IC status.
782
Post by: DarthDiggler
TragicNut wrote:The Green Git wrote:I've been thinking about *how* they could streamline the template weapons... does anyone remember the old Cityfight rules? You had a chart for the amount of wounds they did instead of counting the number of models. Something like this:
Flamer d6 hits
Small Blast d3 hits
Large Blast 2d6 hits
That would certainly speed things up. You would just measure range and roll to see how many hits you got.
The only problem I see with this method is it would nullify the "spreading" effect facing a lot of template weapons has. There would then be little incentive to NOT packing your models in a small a space as possible.
That and totally nullifies any difference in template effectiveness between large tightly packed hordes and small spread out elites. (Think Boyz mob vs Terminator squad)
and it would speed up gameplay since every model wouldn't always need to be 2" apart.
5604
Post by: Reaver83
it would remove the fun of deep striking terminators vs 2 plasma cannons
212
Post by: Kotrin
Removing templates is highly unlikely since Apocalypse came with new ones. The current thread is not to remove them.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
The problem with 40k right now is that people are pushed towards massing certain types of untis.
Agreed. If the march rule comes into play Orks will be top tier.
- G 
5470
Post by: sebster
Savnock wrote:Raider, I salute your optimism. Your totally wrong-headed but refreshing optimism, that its.
I fail to see any disincentive to cookie-cutters in those changes. In fact, here come the boyz/marines/necron warrior blocks/identical IG. Only troops scoring will homogenize the game in new ways, not encourage mixed forces. No other unit is going to get strengthened to counter the legions of identical troops, as that would throw game balance even more. Swallow the spider to catch the fly, etc. And those mass-troop-killers will be non-scoring, so worth less beyond their offensive capability.
The problem is min/maxing, not the ruleset. No ruleset is proof against that practice.
Also, skimmers may get slightly downgraded, but they're less affected by the CC thingy (unless it gets easier to hit moving vehicles, which would be downright silly).
I'm way into lots of the other changes, though. I've come 'round on the CC vs. vehicles change. And weaker rending and better snipers sound cool.
The polish work will be nice, but the under-the-hood monkeying looks ominous.
No, you really can’t argue against the underlying theory argued by Raider. Many games, such as FoW, do not suffer from lists spamming one or two units dominating play. There are still overpriced and underpriced units, but lists spamming one or two units aren’t as viable because the different unit types are very good at different things, and you need the abilities of each unit type to succeed. I’ve seen people take lists where almost all the points were consumer by a couple of King Tigers, and they lose constantly to balanced armies capable of surrounding the tigers with smoke and running infantry units up to seize objectives.
Min-maxing is a common problem in games. But in games with units with genuinely unique abilities, the problem is far less severe than 40K’s current ‘find whatever gives the most bang for your buck and take as much of it as you can’ form of army list design.
The rumoured execution, on the other hand, is ripe for criticism. It’s an extreme change, which taken at face value will produce a number of absurd situations, and is likely to lead to optimum lists featuring almost entirely troops.
To continue the parallel troops in FoW have very limited offensive ability, especially at range, and only limited mobility. You’re paying for their durability and ability to dislodged enemy units from objectives. In FoW, a troop heavy army would have no ability to threaten enemy armour at range, and would need guns, tanks or artillery to threaten the enemy and stop them moving at will. In 40k, though, a troops unit is likely to have a lascannon, giving it all the ranged AT it needs. A troop heavy 40k list will have six scoring units, and each of them can be fairly damanging to the enemyy.
The suggested change could be part of successful 40K design, but only as part of redesigning 40K and its codices entirely. As a running change to a game built around significantly different game design principles, it’s a nightmare.
Personally, I’d change deployment to have infantry deploy first. The area of deployment would be much larger, and would see a lot of units deployed on objectives. This represents the line of skirmish, filled by regular troops. All other units would then deploy during the first and second turn as per the apocalypse reserves rules (50% one turn, 50% the next), coming on from their friendly board edge. This represents the quality units held in reserve and only being released once an engagement has begun.
Give troops a couple of bonus rules such as the current concealment rule (which they would keep until they shoot or move) and suddenly troops are an essential part of the first line of defence, needed to hold objectives and threaten enemy objectives early in the game.
Some individual units, like melee ‘fex would be nearly useless in these rules, but they’re fairly useless anyway. And it would only be a problem with an individual unit, unlike the rumoured change which seems likely to break whole codices. There’d be other problems with finding a place in the game for mechanized infantry, but I’d have to see the game in play to know if such a problem really exists.
Suddenly you'd have a whole new role for infantry units, without anything as dramatic or arbitrary as the rumoured changes.
1635
Post by: Savnock
Sebster-
I see where you're going, and agree that a game wherein "you need the abilities of each unit type to succeed" would be more fun than current 40K. Even 1st person shooters have varied towards a multi-role setup to allow players to have fun witnessing the results of skill synergy.
However, what i'm ponint out is that unit choice is not the cause of the problem (homogenous lists), but a result. The cause is not lack of variety in viable unit choice. As others have just pointed out more eloquently than i, the problem is a narrow set of victory conditions (killing stuff and static objective grabbing).
Varying the sorts of goals that are meant to be reached, and varying them widely, will make for a more rounded game. It will prevent narrow purpose-building of lists, and encourage units for contingencies rather than simple resilience and killing power vs. other predictable lists.
I can argue against the theory that Raider (and you) advance:
You're right, but about the wrong thing.
Maybe mission cards are _too_ widely varying, but the multiple varied simultaneous objectives (appropriate to the scenario, ideally) that ptlangley suggests sound just right. If that's not the way that 4th ed. missions shake out, I'll be using some houserules like that. Thanks, ptlangley!
Maybe the mission cards idea would be good as a mini-scenario. I skipped 2nd ed., and never got the chance to try that out.
4893
Post by: Blackheart666
Stormtrooper X wrote:C'mon guys, how many people do you play with in your local stores wear helmets and drool on their minis not because they are gorgeously painted but because they aren't firing on all cylinders. quote]
apparently that's the norm for Jervis Jr and his crew.. which is all that matters.
5470
Post by: sebster
Savnock;
I can see more varied mission cards spicing games up with some more variety, though care would have to be taken to avoid missions being but one-off, novelty affairs. However, I can’t see how varied missions would have a significant impact on army lists. As it currently stands, I take my winged hive tyrant because he’s good at closing with the enemy and killing them, which is the exact same reason I take my ‘stealers and raveners. To deal with enemy tanks I take my walking tyrant and ‘fex. I can’t really see how different missions will change this.
As a result, I’m just not convinced various missions will have any impact on the variety of army lists. What objectives do you think lead to new tactical considerations? Exactly which units would become more or less valuable in achieving these objectives?
1635
Post by: Savnock
Okay, maybe killing things is the unavoidable central goal. but what if the enemy may still achieve their multiple goals (killing your HQ, getting units into your deployment zone, etc.) with a few evasive or purposed units while you're busy killing the bulk of their army? the game might still end up a draw. And if achieveing those goals becomes more important than victory points gained through kills, that would really change things.
So, say, your opponent is directed to hold the center at all costs while also killing all your HS units. Meanwhile you have to move a token across the battlefield with an HS unit while also contesting the center. No points are given for other achievements. The game becomes about protecting one of your units even more than killing his.
I'm thinking that the removal of Alpha/etc. levels might mean that the usual points-per-model-killed measure might be out in some cases, like an Alpha fight.
Given that crippling your enemy makes achieving their goals more difficult, but that might also make you ignore your own. As long as the goals are conflicting, they don't necessarily have to be purely about carnage.
No doubt carnage will still have a place, though. I mean, it had better!
5528
Post by: The Grog
I'd put in both template resolution systems. Either template or d(whatever), whichever the attacker decides to use. Make templates better, still keeping quick resolution, and also keep people somewhat spread out but not so that you always have to be a 2 inch coherency.
5470
Post by: sebster
Savnock wrote:Okay, maybe killing things is the unavoidable central goal. but what if the enemy may still achieve their multiple goals (killing your HQ, getting units into your deployment zone, etc.) with a few evasive or purposed units while you're busy killing the bulk of their army? the game might still end up a draw. And if achieveing those goals becomes more important than victory points gained through kills, that would really change things.
So, say, your opponent is directed to hold the center at all costs while also killing all your HS units. Meanwhile you have to move a token across the battlefield with an HS unit while also contesting the center. No points are given for other achievements. The game becomes about protecting one of your units even more than killing his.
It would likely make for a more interesting game, depending on execution. But it really wouldn’t do much to improve the current situation of min-maxxing lists. Ultimately, if every unit is capable of the same things (holding objectives, carrying objectives up the field, whatever else) then the only differentiating factor is the ability of units to kill things and survive damage. As a result the best units will be the best units regardless of the mission. Change it up so that only certain units can achieve certain missions, and different units will become more or less important dependant on the mission.
In your example, the best lists to complete the mission are probably still ‘nidzilla and 3 falcon eldar. They’re mobile and tough, which is what you need to get the objective up to the end of the field, and they can kill stuff as they go. But what if only certain units, such as infantry, could physically escort that token up the field? And there isn’t one token, but three? Suddenly the elder and ‘nidzilla armies needs to start deploying infantry units, and a list built around spamming falcons or carnifex won’t be so dominant. Horde ‘zilla and IG would suddenly look a lot more useful.
I'm thinking that the removal of Alpha/etc. levels might mean that the usual points-per-model-killed measure might be out in some cases, like an Alpha fight.
Alpha is presently a step towards changing the game so that sheer destructive ability becomes less important. For a while I was running a tyranid list with 12 scoring units at 1,000 points… it was an interesting experiment that ultimately met with predictably poor results, I had strong success in alpha games but was only somewhat competitive at higher points costs. And that was in a largely social gaming environment, in a really cut and thrust tournament situation I doubt the list would last long at all, even at alpha level.
Ultimately alpha only comes up 1 game in 3. Change it so alpha is the dominant form of play, or so that low cost scoring units are always useful, and suddenly the game works in a wholly different way.
Given that crippling your enemy makes achieving their goals more difficult, but that might also make you ignore your own. As long as the goals are conflicting, they don't necessarily have to be purely about carnage.
Sure, but I’m not arguing against a more complex mission structure, I really think a more complicated mission structure would be welcome. But ultimately that mission structure will succeed if it manages to do what the ‘troops as scoring’ rule change attempts, make different units good at different things.
No doubt carnage will still have a place, though. I mean, it had better!
Absolutely! A better tactical game is always better, but it shouldn’t ever get in the way of mood of 40k. Much of that 40k mood is sheer, meat-headed brutality  .
64
Post by: Longshot
I predict if this type of ruleset change occurs, Godzilla nids and Necrons will become the best armies and will be nearly unstoppable.
Thank you Mr. Single Vehicle Damage Chart Man for making the venom cannon the best antitank gun in the game.
4477
Post by: skullspliter888
for tanks they should be able to fire all weapons and at two different targets if tanks in the real world can why not the future?
i think with one vehicles damage chart tanks well suck in less there is no more glancing you have to beat the armor to kill the tank
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
sebster wrote:I’ve seen people take lists where almost all the points were consumer by a couple of King Tigers, and they lose constantly to balanced armies capable of surrounding the tigers with smoke and running infantry units up to seize objectives.
I wonder how an army composed entirely of StuG III would do...
In 40k, though, a troops unit is likely to have a lascannon, giving it all the ranged AT it needs. A troop heavy 40k list will have six scoring units, and each of them can be fairly damanging to the enemyy.
Sorta, but not so much that you'd take as many without the Troops = Scoring rule.
Personally, I’d change deployment to have infantry deploy first. The area of deployment would be much larger, and would see a lot of units deployed on objectives. This represents the line of skirmish, filled by regular troops. All other units would then deploy during the first and second turn as per the apocalypse reserves rules (50% one turn, 50% the next), coming on from their friendly board edge.
Isn't this just tweaked Escalation?
Some individual units, like melee ‘fex would be nearly useless in these rules, but they’re fairly useless anyway.
The Nid book needs a rewrite anyways.
117
Post by: Tribune
This thread is like a bad spin off series..
5470
Post by: sebster
skullspliter888 wrote:i think with one vehicles damage chart tanks well suck in less there is no more glancing you have to beat the armor to kill the tank
No, equaling a tank’s armour will still result in a damage roll. Otherwise orks would be almost incapable of scratching a land raider.
The single damage table idea, as long as it follows Apocalypse, means a glancing hit has a modifier when rolling on the table.
4477
Post by: skullspliter888
thats right forgot about the Orks i guess the answer is hard then i think.
thats a good idea i like the way you think sebster time to play test
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:Sorta, but not so much that you'd take as many without the Troops = Scoring rule.
That’s right, you wouldn’t have as many, but that’s not really what I’m talking about. The problem is that right now everything in the game fills the same role as everything else, kill the enemy. To build distinct unit types you need to give each unit type their own abilities, so troops are better at taking and holding objectives, while heavy tanks are better at killing and so on. This means you need a balance of units to win games.
Under the proposed change, though, troops fulfill a distinct role, take and hold objectives, but are also pretty good at everything else. This means armies consisting entirely of troops can achieve everything that needs achieving.
Isn't this just tweaked Escalation?
Pretty much, Escalation was a good concept handled badly. If escalation was a consistent event you could price units properly, making units that suffer under the new deployment rules cheaper.
You’d also have ruleset based around having a motivation for taking and holding objectives early in the game. Whether that’s through improved cover making it easier to hold objectives, or pinning/suppression making it harder for units to advance up the board, or giving VP bonus for holding objectives each turn, or some combination of the above. Suddenly you have a game based around holding objectives and assaulting objectives, instead of a game based around wiping the other guy out for 5 turns, then jumping a bunch of stuff onto objectives in the 6th turn.
The Nid book needs a rewrite anyways.
No more than most. Which is to say, there’s plenty of stuff that could be fixed with a new book (lictors, warriors, elite ‘fex and the whole ‘nidzilla thing, the generally greater effectiveness of the big guys over the little guys), but if there was a rewrite they’d probably break as much stuff as they fix. The Tyranid codex is currently sitting in that middle ground of ‘good enough’.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
The thing is, I don't think Troops are pretty good at anything in particular. Yes, they're generally OK, and they're cheap wounds for holding a position. But they're not so good at moving, nor shooting, nor fighting that you'd take them over a specialist. I think a pure Troops army would lose to a mixed-Troops army.
I don't think Escalation needs to be automatic, nor costed per se. Escalation penalizes the "good" units over the "boring" units. So it's a balancer, just like Troops = Scoring. If Escalation were used in the non-Alpha 2/3 of missions, it might have been enough to help rebalance army design on its own.
True, the Nid book isn't so bad, and agree that the Necrons need a rewrite first. But it still needs a rework.
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:The thing is, I don't think Troops are pretty good at anything in particular. Yes, they're generally OK, and they're cheap wounds for holding a position. But they're not so good at moving, nor shooting, nor fighting that you'd take them over a specialist. I think a pure Troops army would lose to a mixed-Troops army.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Troops at present are like everything else, but for the most part are not quite as good at them. But they can still be tailored to fulfill the anti- MEQ, anti- GEQ and AT roles that are presently performed by other units. But compare it to FoW, where the infantry simply can’t threaten tanks at range, or cause significant damage to infantry in hard cover. You still need tanks, artillery and guns, as they have unique abilities that conventional infantry can’t match at all.
But troops in 40K can take weapons that let them threaten all possible enemy targets. You can take a tactical marine squad and pack some solid AT, or you can take a devastator squad and get more AT (for more points) and sacrifice the ability to hold an objective.
I don't think Escalation needs to be automatic, nor costed per se. Escalation penalizes the "good" units over the "boring" units. So it's a balancer, just like Troops = Scoring. If Escalation were used in the non-Alpha 2/3 of missions, it might have been enough to help rebalance army design on its own.
Escalation at present makes interesting units boring, because its basically a rule plonked over the top of a pre-existing system, working to keep non-infantry out of the game for a couple of turns.
My system wouldn’t penalize those units, it would free them to do interesting stuff. While troops hunker down and defend their forward position the reserves sweep up the field to relieve them and advance on enemy positions. Make those specialist units as devastating on the advance/assault as they should be and there’d be no problem.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Further to Sebster's point, if ordinary troops get a "semi-Fleet" rule they will be able to move nearly as fast as most vehicles.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Which is pretty ridiculous. Tanks should be faster than infantry.
118
Post by: Schepp himself
Da Boss wrote:Which is pretty ridiculous. Tanks should be faster than infantry.
Are they? I think in combat speed they don't dodge through narrow gaps in buildings and woods and sneak up behind enemy infantry lines.
Sure, all out with nothing shooting, they should be faster. I hope they get vehicles right, i really hope they do!
I would love to see tanks used as cover for infantry, maybe with the "run" rule, they can keep up the pace and some tanks could function as mobile cover. Kind of like the tanks in WWI and WWII.
Greets
Schepp himself
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
sebster wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:The thing is, I don't think Troops are pretty good at anything in particular.
That’s exactly what I’m saying.
But troops in 40K can take weapons that let them threaten all possible enemy targets.
OK, I thought we were basically agreed. I don't think a single Lascannon should be looked at so powerfully. To me, it's no different than FoW infantry with PanzerFaust / PanzerSchreck.
Speaking of FOW, interesting that you had no comment on the notion on fielding a StuG Abt. Mid-War, I think it'd have decent chances, especially if it mixed Ds with F8/Gs.
Escalation at present makes interesting units boring, because its basically a rule plonked over the top of a pre-existing system, working to keep non-infantry out of the game for a couple of turns.
Make those specialist units as devastating on the advance/assault as they should be and there’d be no problem.
I think those specialists are devastating enough already, which is why we see plenty of minimum / low Troops builds.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
To me, a lascannon is more like an infantry portable guided missile like a Dragon or Milan. Powerful, accurate and long range, but takes time to set up and fire. Very good for defence.
The 'faust, 'schreck and other WW2 infantry anti-tank weapons had very limited range and accuracy, but had better portability and set-up time.
Interesting the RPG7 and the LAW are often used as general purpose heavy grenade launchers. They are the modern equivalent of a bazooka or PIAT launcher.
217
Post by: Phoenix
OverchargeThis! wrote:It'll make a big difference if they change how long units count as scoring. In CoD, a unit at 25% or more of its original strength still counts as scoring. If that becomes the norm in 5th edition, you virtually have to wipe the squads out to drop them to non-scoring status.
If only troop choices are scoring units and all you have to do is drop them under 50% to make them not scoring, I see a lot of draws showing up in future games. I rarely have problems wipeing out large portions of my opponents army and if all I really need to do is wipe out his troops, that makes things all the easier. Now if they go about makeing a unit scoring till its under 25%, that will make it a little more difficult to do so there might actualy be some around. If on the other hand, they just take scoring status away from vehicles and monsterous creatures (and don't tie it to certain portions of the force org chart) then I think things will be a lot better in general.
2354
Post by: mughi3
8. Vehicles without a WS in CC always get hit in the rear armour.
-> This means that tanks, while great offensive weapons at range, struggle against multiple attackers in close quarters. Cool isnt it? Sounds almost like real world warfare. Nice changes arise here: Redeplyoment per transport will work as it should, but running Transports into enemy lines unsupported (Rhino-rush/Falcon-rush) will likely result in assaulted and deastroyed transports, even against unequipped str4 opponents.
I said it in another forum on this very topic and i will say it here.
Vehicles in 40K are already to fragile for a 1 wound model. especially at the points you pay for them. not only is this a bad idea for a rules change it isn't even close to real world warfare like you surmise. tanks can take fire in the rear and suffer damage there where thier armor is the weakest but you still must get to the rear facing to do it.
Not attack them in the front/side and magically hit the rear. if a tank is immobile or immobilised you can already get to the rear in an assault with the current rules. all such a change would accomplish in game terms would be to make vehicles far less useful an option.
13. Vehicles types are adjusted (the rumoured skimmer nerf)
The only skimmer people really have an isse with is the eldar ones. the other skimmers in the game are already nerfed enough. a broad class change would affect all skimmers not jus tthe one that people think needs it. take land speeders for example-expensive with only AV10 and can be knocked out by small arms fire.....and you want to make them less survivable? why would anybody take them then? why would GW want to sell less models?
2661
Post by: Tacobake
mughi3 wrote:
Not attack them in the front/side and magically hit the rear. if a tank is immobile or immobilised you can already get to the rear in an assault with the current rules. all such a change would accomplish in game terms would be to make vehicles far less useful an option.
I think it's supposed to be a "swirling melee".
But yeah it's dumb to me too. #1 it's just dumb, #2 Chainfists are nothing now, and #3 there's probably lots of other reasons why it's dumb
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
When thinking about game rules it is best to ignore "reality" at elast to start with and think about the desired result within the game.
For example, if GW are thinking that vehicles need to be made more vulnerable to infantry H2H attacks, then automatic hits on rear armour is a good way to do it. Then justify that with a line about "swirling melee" and "stuffing grenades into vision slits" and so on.
2661
Post by: Tacobake
The reason why I think it's dumb is because it's dumb. Vehicles are plenty vulnerable to close combat attacks, and if they want to change it just change the 4+ and 6+ modifiers to 3+ and 5+, the 6+ needed to hit being the main problem.
Chain Fists and Melta Bombs (which are now available on every other IC and Vet are pretty much a guaranteed hit. But that 6+ will get you everytime, and it sucks for grenades with only one attack.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
mughi3 wrote:tanks can take fire in the rear and suffer damage there where thier armor is the weakest but you still must get to the rear facing to do it.
Not attack them in the front/side and magically hit the rear.
Instead of attacking the heavier Front and Side armour, they're attacking the much thinner Top armour, which conveniently has the same AV as the Rear.
1066
Post by: happypants
I pray to the Emperor that 5th ed (probably not seeing it until 2010) takes a lot of hints from Apocalypse.
Apoc. makes the game fun again. No VP meaning no VP denial, meaning you will sacrifice half your army to get the objectives meaning more carnage generally resulting in a more fun an interesting game.
There are a host of other improvements to make, but mainly I want to see more fun, and a bit faster paced.
Whatever they do, GW is going to figure out with 5th ed how to get you to buy MORE.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
What is wrong with a tight set of core rules, a competition add-on and a knockabout add-on like Apocalypse.
It's pretty clear that 50% of users love Apoc and 50% hate it. Making it the standard would be a super-bad idea.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Tacobake wrote:The reason why I think it's dumb is because it's dumb. Vehicles are plenty vulnerable to close combat attacks, and if they want to change it just change the 4+ and 6+ modifiers to 3+ and 5+, the 6+ needed to hit being the main problem.
Chain Fists and Melta Bombs (which are now available on every other IC and Vet are pretty much a guaranteed hit. But that 6+ will get you everytime, and it sucks for grenades with only one attack.
It would also seem to devalue Chainfists. A Chainfist is useful against AV14, but if you're hitting the rear AV10 anyway, you might as well just use a Powerfist.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Depends how often you want to hit Monoliths or Landraiders.
2354
Post by: mughi3
Instead of attacking the heavier Front and Side armour, they're attacking the much thinner Top armour, which conveniently has the same AV as the Rear.
Nope, according to GW top hits=side armor
5470
Post by: sebster
mughi3 wrote:Nope, according to GW top hits=side armor
In the current Apocalypse rules. Move it along a step to 5th ed and that'll be changing according to the rumours.
2661
Post by: Tacobake
Asmodai wrote:Tacobake wrote:The reason why I think it's dumb is because it's dumb. Vehicles are plenty vulnerable to close combat attacks, and if they want to change it just change the 4+ and 6+ modifiers to 3+ and 5+, the 6+ needed to hit being the main problem.
Chain Fists and Melta Bombs (which are now available on every other IC and Vet are pretty much a guaranteed hit. But that 6+ will get you everytime, and it sucks for grenades with only one attack.
It would also seem to devalue Chainfists. A Chainfist is useful against AV14, but if you're hitting the rear AV10 anyway, you might as well just use a Powerfist.
I think that's what I was trying to say  . They're still good against dreads. And they're cool.
5934
Post by: Lord Lankington
it sounds very interesting i cant wait,
mabey they'll bring back thg LATD????
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Blackheart666 wrote:Stormtrooper X wrote:C'mon guys, how many people do you play with in your local stores wear helmets and drool on their minis not because they are gorgeously painted but because they aren't firing on all cylinders.
apparently that's the norm for Jervis Jr and his crew.. which is all that matters.
Blackheart666, can I ask what you thought this added to the thread? It’s not even funny.
2354
Post by: mughi3
Well guys i got the working copy of 5th ed today in a PDF.
The good news is that hitting the rear armor in CC regaurdless of facing is not in there.....the bad news is that it is far worse than that for vehicles, all vehicles get nurfed including walkers.
They managed to fix a few things(like rending and the vehicle damage chart) that needed fixing, and then totally break the game by "fixing" things that were not broken. including bringing back variations of bad rules we got rid of from 3rd edition.
5th edition is going to be one boring game if it is even close the file i got today.
If it holds true to the PDF i will only be playing 4th edition till they pull thier heards out of thier hind ends with 6th edition.
with no VPs most of the time. only troops can take objectives and you can only win by taking objectives. everybody will be shooting at the troop choices and almost nothing else. anything not a troop choice, especilly tanks and dreads, are going to be cowering in buildings and bunkers to try and get the best invul save they can while doing as much shooting(at troops) that they can(being stationary is the only way they can fire all thier heavy guns reguardless of weapon strength). aside from troops "marching (fleet- without being able to assault) to the objective" the game is going bland and static.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
The contents of the Ork Codex are quite fascinating in the context of this document.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
mughi3 wrote:...especilly tanks and dreads, are going to be cowering in buildings and bunkers to try and get the best invul save they can while doing as much shooting(at troops) that they can(being stationary is the only way they can fire all thier heavy guns reguardless of weapon strength).
What is the status of Ordinance in the new book, can it be fired in addition to other weapons? Will Leman Russ Sponsons have any purpose, especially the heavy flamer ones? I suppose the same goes for the briefly excellent Baal Predator.
Nurglitch wrote:The contents of the Ork Codex are quite fascinating in the context of this document.
Care to enlighten us non document holders?
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Well, as you may know the last few codicies from the Dark Angels onward (Eldar, Orks, Chaos Marines, Blood Angels) were written with this document in mind (supposing, of course, that the document in question will be something like what gets published).
For one thing, they prevent the anti-Power Fist/Klaw tactics that I've been blathering on about. No more selecting casualties from inside the range and line of sight of weapons, so you won't be able to shape units using shooting anymore. Mind you shooting and assaults have had the relation between units and models jigged. Now models take saves, not units.
Fleet is now Running+, meaning you can run in the shooting phase and charge in the assault phase. It certainly seems to mesh with the Waaagh! rule. Walker vehicles can run...!
Ramming looks pretty interesting, especially if you've been on a Mad Max kick. Interesting results to be had when you ram a Walker that attempts Death and Glory! Looks like we'll see plenty of Guided-Missile Trukks, knowing the fanboyz. Interestingly the damage results for vehicles seem to even things out somewhat with regard to Falcons, Rhinos, and Trukks, and some care has been taken to make the effects of the damage chart have corresponding effects on passengers. Ramshackle and being a Skimmer are no longer huge advantages over bog standard Rhinos.
Deep Strike has been mucked around with, and points out there may be exceptions to assaulting on the turn a unit Deep Strikes (Da Vulcha Boyz).
Speaking of hitting hard, Power Fists and their ilk are now like Lightening Claws where two close combat weapons are concerned. Look like Advantage: Calgar. Another plus for Meganobz over ordinary Nobz as well, and the picture of a Cybork with a Power Klaw and kustom Shoota in Codex: Orks now makes sense (I totally called that, time to call in the bet!) Also Slow and Purposeful doesn't stop a model from gaining an attack bonus for charging. Looks like Ghazghkull's special rule makes sense after all.
I can't find any rules for minefields, but there's a big hole in the movement phase rules under dangerous terrain that might fit some text. That's one thing I don't think people usually notice about the 40k books: the rules have to be written to fit particular column-inches, and that does affect how rules are expressed.
You can choose to have units pinned, which gives them a cover bonus (or cover if they don't have any), although Fearless is still protection against pinning if you don't want it.
Fast vehicles have been slowed down, but models still hit non-Walker vehicles on the side they're touching.
Rending is always wounding and AP2, or or +1D3 for penetration, on 6 to wound and sniper weapons always have it.
I mean the layout so far is hideous and the wording is a hash from cut-and-pastes, and trying to express the weird tangle of models and units. That said the actual games look like they might be pretty interesting. Definitely requires empirical research.
105
Post by: Sarigar
Mughi3
VP's are the default tie breaker. Take and Hold looks to be hellishly hard to win outright, which will default to VP's as the tie breaker.
Total Annihilation gives one the fewest points for destroying Troops. One will want to go after the non troop choices to gain the most points.
Recon is the mission I can see where you really want to outright shoot the troop choices while at the same time trying to preserve yours to grab the objectives.
As it stands, there is only Recon, Take and Hold and Total Annihilation. Then there is a roll for how set up is handled.
I do agree that vehicles appear they will be played with less mobility. I noticed that War Walkers can get ridiculously good despite being Armor 10. Giving cover saves to vehicles looks rough, especially combined with Fortune and Guide for high rate of fire weapons.
Battlewagons with a Big Mek and KFF begs to be used.
This game is looking to play very different despite using the same codexes. Should prove to be interesting.
2354
Post by: mughi3
Interesting is not the word i would use. the word i would use would be
Walker vehicles can run...!
Woop-di freaking do. we have walkers that cannot hold objective, cost more, shoot less, need to hug terrain to survive....oh and they can run and not shoot or assault.....not really worth it for an extra d6 of movement.
Fast vehicles have been slowed down,
Slowed down, nuetered and made more fragile.
Total Annihilation gives one the fewest points for destroying Troops. One will want to go after the non troop choices to gain the most points.
Ignore his troops , the opponant takes more objectives and wins by default. VP won't really matter.
What is the status of Ordinance in the new book, can it be fired in addition to other weapons? Will Leman Russ Sponsons have any purpose, especially the heavy flamer ones? I suppose the same goes for the briefly excellent Baal Predator.
Pretty much covered under the basic rule-move 6" fire one gun above S4 and nothing else save S4 or less guns, or fire ordinance and nothing else.
So no sponson weapons are worthless unless you intend to sit still, which incidently under the new rules you will be doing as your big scary armored vehicle hides for its life in area terrain to get cover saves.
5164
Post by: Stelek
Quite a interesting thread. Most of it is offbase, but whatever talk is always good even when the underlying presumptions are incorrect.
Here's the problem with most of what you are discussing.
From 1st edition through 4th edition, I've always refused to play by GW's slowed ruleset and instead played by my own. It's given me constant success, and until the design studio understands that players cannot be railroaded into doing what they've been told to, it will continue to bring me success through 5th and 6th editions.
Only a new style of 40k, one based around a standard mission with small tweaks to said mission, will change the way I play.
The way I play is to beat my opponents army. Then worry about 'objectives'. I'm very successful in shooting away the other guys army. I used to be very successful in assaulting it away, but the design studio didn't like that so they nerfed it and I adapted to shooting. The planned changes will make shooting even more devastating, with the tweak that every army will play like the Tau--if you shoot well, you'll suck in CC and if the other guy can get to you, you'll suffer for daring to be so good at shooting.
Problem is without Escalation, the game will be even easier to dominate with a huge shooting list because assault troops won't be given any real advantage. What, you think 'running' is it? Let me show you my fast vehicles I will suicide into your army to prevent you from running. I mean, marching. Putting Fantasy rules into 40K is what got 2nd edition such high praise (I find it funny that sooo many people remember 2nd edition fondly--must be all Eldar players cause 2nd edition was pure sh*t), oh right 2nd edition was a junk ruleset cobbled together and it took 3rd, 3.5, and 4th edition to finally make the game playable.
Alot of you guys seem to think these new rules or the new scenarios are well thought out. They aren't. Far from it, in fact. There are so many flaws and ways to abuse the current playtest rules I can't even begin to playtest them.
A FOW scenario system with a different system than IGOYOUGO is something GW needs to consider.
The endless nerfbat reactionary game design is just annoying people to no end.
All I can tell you is, the new ruleset is a lark. It's got so many gimmicks to slow gameplay down, the 10 year olds are going to quit. Which, in my view, is a good thing.
I really can't wait for the first set of tournament games where the other guy thinks he has it all wrapped up with his 'balanced' army and I win via VP's.
Oh well. As things change, they stay the same.
Alot of talk for very little actual change.
Absolutely no innovation, and fun to be found nowhere.
I can only hope the Apoc amendments don't make it into the ruleset, because alot of you will be very upset if they do.
I also hope the date of 2009 is held to, so they can get more results in from playtesters outside of the UK.
105
Post by: Sarigar
Mughi3:
Total Annihilation gives one the fewest points for destroying Troops. One will want to go after the non troop choices to gain the most points.
Ignore his troops , the opponant takes more objectives and wins by default. VP won't really matter.
I don't think you understand the mission Total Annihilation. The objective is to kill your opponent's army, plain and simple. Each Elite, Fast Attack and HS unit is worth 2 points if destroyed or broken; HQ's worth 3 points and Troops worth 1 point. If, at the end of the game, it is a draw, then you go to VP's.
5838
Post by: Cypher037
the 1,2 and 3 vp puts an emphasis on highpoint squads instead of multiple scoring units. Now a squad of 3 speeders gives 1/3 the vps as 3 squads of 1 speeder. It certainly makes point cost less important. Maybe this is to combat min/maxing? Now I think we'll start to see things like 20 man plague marine squads and Orks will be out of control. Congrats! You just killed did 31 wounds to my 250 squad, here's your 1 vp.
Does anyone know the specifics on marching vs. fleeting? I'm dying to know.
-Leo037
105
Post by: Sarigar
A unit wishing to run forfeits shooting: roll a d6 and move that amount in inches during the shooting phase. (just like the current Fleet rules)
However, those units may not launch assaults.
Models with Fleet give the same movement, but are allowed to launch an assault.
5838
Post by: Cypher037
So fleet gets 2d6 if they don't assault?
-Leo037
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Under the new rules the Leman russ seems to be slightly improved. It never relied upon special rules to make enemy's weapons glance, assault cannons are a much reduced threat vs. its high front armour and Ordinance seems to have lost its penalty to hit for moving. Cover now negates hits on a 5+ (or more) instead of causing glancing hits on a 4+.
Offensively the battle cannon now has a larger effective area as partials are gone and still has two dice of penetrating power.
The non-ordinance Leman russ variants are however totally boned.
105
Post by: Sarigar
Cypher: No. Think of it this way: all the infantry (not sure about monstrous creatures) can forfeit shooting to move an extra d6" in the shooting phase. However you can not launch an assault unless you have the 'Fleet' special rule.
No 2d6
2354
Post by: mughi3
The non-ordinance Leman russ variants are however totally boned.
Pretty much any tank with more than 1 gun is boned. welcome back to 3rd edition pillboxes er i mean tanks
I don't think you understand the mission Total Annihilation. The objective is to kill your opponent's army, plain and simple. Each Elite, Fast Attack and HS unit is worth 2 points if destroyed or broken; HQ's worth 3 points and Troops worth 1 point. If, at the end of the game, it is a draw, then you go to VP's
I understand that just fine. it's a meat grinder. i also understand that other missions require objective capturing.
4477
Post by: skullspliter888
hey mughi3 time to model sandbags on my tanks lol hey check your PM
2354
Post by: mughi3
something i just realised-
1k sons armies and death guard armies are going to own in 5th edition. they are heavily troop based and resilant as hell.
hey mughi3 time to model sandbags on my tanks
yeah for those of us mobility and vehicle lovers 5th edition is
2695
Post by: beef
I just wish they would hurry up and come out with 5th edition. Just so threads with rumours can finally be killed off
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
mughi3 wrote:The non-ordinance Leman russ variants are however totally boned.
Pretty much any tank with more than 1 gun is boned. welcome back to 3rd edition pillboxes er i mean tanks
Why does everybody keep saying that?
Did anybody here actually *play* 3rd Edition?
In 3rd Edition, Ordnance was move-or-fire.
In 5th Edition, Ordnance is very different, and *much* improved from a rules perspective as they're must less exotic / arcane and more "ordinary".
From what I can see, "Ordnance" is merely a (Large) Blast weapon. So you place and scatter just like a Frag missile. Ordnance can't fire other weapons, and usually scatters a bit farther on the move (max of 2d6), but it's definitely move-and-fire. Direct Ordnance fires on the move, as only Ordnance Barrage is move-or-shoot.
So I don't see any real changes to my Russes at all.
2354
Post by: mughi3
JohnHwangDD wrote:mughi3 wrote:The non-ordinance Leman russ variants are however totally boned.
Pretty much any tank with more than 1 gun is boned. welcome back to 3rd edition pillboxes er i mean tanks
Why does everybody keep saying that?
Did anybody here actually *play* 3rd Edition?
In 3rd Edition, Ordnance was move-or-fire.
In 5th Edition, Ordnance is very different, and *much* improved from a rules perspective as they're must less exotic / arcane and more "ordinary".
From what I can see, "Ordnance" is merely a (Large) Blast weapon. So you place and scatter just like a Frag missile. Ordnance can't fire other weapons, and usually scatters a bit farther on the move (max of 2d6), but it's definitely move-and-fire. Direct Ordnance fires on the move, as only Ordnance Barrage is move-or-shoot.
So I don't see any real changes to my Russes at all.
I say it because i did play 3rd.
These rules affect more than just ordinance on tanks. look at the big picture.
if your a hammerhead, falcon, predator, and yes leman russ (if the cannon is blown off)-moves it basically looses it effective firepower by half or more.
So the only way for them to stay effective units will be for them to stay(or the equivalent of) immobile.
The only exception to this will be the land raider thanks to the machine spirit, although aside from the crusader even they loose some firepower.
not that its going to matter much when almost no area terrain will block LOS. it is a return to the static stand off armies of 3rd edition.
The effective game becomes-i stand here, you stand there. we shoot at each other until we get our assault units into your lines or march some unit off to take an objective.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
JohnHwangDD: Actually the more I read these rules the more vindicated I feel about the vehicle configurations I chose. Certainly I've never regretted leaving the sponsons off my Leman Russ, but I think I'm going to feel somewhat smug about it in the coming months. While I had a bone to pick with the 3rd edition of 40k (gave up on 40k until half-way through 4th) I never had problems with moving vehicles, particularly my tanks. Shoot and scoot is my plan. The changes to Ordnance and Blast weapons is pretty exciting. Perhaps we'll see a resurgence in Plasma Cannons?
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Nurglitch wrote:JohnHwangDD: Actually the more I read these rules the more vindicated I feel about the vehicle configurations I chose. Certainly I've never regretted leaving the sponsons off my Leman Russ, but I think I'm going to feel somewhat smug about it in the coming months. While I had a bone to pick with the 3rd edition of 40k (gave up on 40k until half-way through 4th) I never had problems with moving vehicles, particularly my tanks. Shoot and scoot is my plan. The changes to Ordnance and Blast weapons is pretty exciting. Perhaps we'll see a resurgence in Plasma Cannons?
I'm not sure. I've been using a 4x Plasma Cannon Dev Squad through all of 4th. They're pretty decent - place the template and multiply. Under 5th they scatter away from the squad and the extra templates go randomly around that random spot. Sure, that's great if you're fighting Orks, but that's not what you use Plasma Cannons against anyway. It seems that they'll be considerably less effective against Marines, Terminators and other small units which they'd frequently completely whiff against.
Though I do like how there's a trade off - if you're densely packed there's a better chance of completely avoiding the template, but if you are hit, you'll take more damage.
Many gamers here never put sponsons on their Russ. I'm not sure why it's something to feel smug about. I suppose I could feel smug about my Tri-Lascannon Annihilator because those poor rubes that did TL- LC + HBs thinking they'd be able to move are getting a rude awakening, but I don't.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Oh sure, there's plenty of stuff around that people like to use and is pretty dang effective. Plasma Cannons are one of them. The thing is that there's also what we might call a public perception (or maybe just an Internet perception) that certain things are not 'competitive' or 'top tier'. The trick of designing a Warhammer game seems to be not to balance the actual game, but to balance it in the eyes of those who think the game begins and ends with army selection.
As for smugness, well, since you're not me it's quite reasonable that you wouldn't understand why I might feel somewhat smug about the lack of sponsons. If I said it's something that people in general should feel somewhat smug about, rather than just a personal thing, then maybe your uncertainly about why would be understandable. But I don't pretend my personal feelings on the matter should be shared by everyone, just shared with everyone.
374
Post by: Strangelooper
Considering the following changes in the rumoured 5th rules:
1) Tanks will be harder to kill, especially in cover
2) Tanks need to sit still in order to fire all their S5+ weapons
3) Transports will rarely damage their occupants when destroyed
I wonder if it might actually be viable for an IG infantry squad to sit in its Chimera and fire out the hatch?
Chimera, Multilaser, HHB, PHS in 4+ cover, with 10 IG (lascannon, special weapon(?)). The Chimera puts out 9 shots at 36" range, the lascannon shoots out the top hatch at a different target within 48", and the 6 Chimera lasguns fire 6 flashlight shots at 24".
Multiply by 6+ for a fully mechanized army, add a few pie plates from Heavy Support...that's not bad. Especially against Ork Hordes. Any Chimeras still standing can zoom up to the objectives tank-shocking any infantry remaining, and dump off their troops in turn 5. Disembarked squads could run (though they'd have to be *far* from any assaulters).
S8 weapon hits will only glance 1/12, pen 1/6 of the time due to cover saves; and less than S6 weapons are completely useless against the army. Of course, once glanced/penned the Chimeras will be destroyed easier due to the +1 for open-topped - but anything other than destroyed doesn't really do much (Immobilize prevents the objective drop-off rush, but as long as a few are mobile it's ok - the others aren't moving anyways; Weapon Destroyed has three weapons to work through; Stunned/Shaken would severely reduce the firepower but doesn't prevent the squad inside from firing its heavy and the hull lasguns (and Stunned/Shaken is less likely to occur with the +1 for Open Topped).
S9 weapons would be more problematic, but the new codices are allowing fewer lascannons and the 4+ save works just fine against LC hits too. As long as there was sufficient target saturation (7+ vehicles) it might work somewhat.
Platoon Command squads could easily hide behind the Chimeras and rush out with 4 Flamers when assaulters get too close...
Hmmm....
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
I have a couple of Leman Russ with no sponsons that I was going to upgrade. I don't think I'll bother now.
I wonder if the Conqueror will find a niche in 5th edition. It has a blast weapon so it will always hit something and a co-axial Stormbolter an the option of another Stormbolter or a Stubber.
It's the players with heavy flamer sponsons that are hit hardest by the new rules with the Heavy Flamer's pitiful 8" range.
4477
Post by: skullspliter888
they need to make Defence weapons S5 or S6 becasue if they don't this well slow tanks down i like my tanks to move and shoot 
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
mughi3 wrote:if your a hammerhead, falcon, predator, and yes leman russ (if the cannon is blown off)-moves it basically looses it effective firepower by half or more.
The only exception to this will be the land raider thanks to the machine spirit, although aside from the crusader even they loose some firepower.
The Falcon is Fast, so it can move up to 6" without losing any firepower.
An Russ without Ordnance and a Rail-less RailHead serves no purpose but to Tank Shock.
And it's good that the Land Raider Machine Spirit finally means something.
3550
Post by: IntoTheRain
JohnHwangDD wrote:The Falcon is Fast, so it can move up to 6" without losing any firepower.
If by fast you mean it moves the speed of infantry, then yes, a falcon is fast. Oh wait, they also added forced march. So fast vehicles are slower than basic infantry if they want to shoot.
JohnHwangDD wrote:An Russ without Ordnance and a Rail-less RailHead serves no purpose but to Tank Shock.
Which is why they normally carry back up weapon systems like 3x heavy bolters. Not anymore..
Vehicles are dead.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Hammerheads can get a target lock that lets them shoot as if they were "Fast".
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Strangelooper wrote:I wonder if it might actually be viable for an IG infantry squad to sit in its Chimera and fire out the hatch?
It's about the same.
If the Chimera is closed-top, then when it explodes, the Guardsmen take S4 hits, rather than being wounded on a 4+. So 10 Guardsmen take 7 wounds instead of 5 wounds, for at least 2 dead instead of almost 2 dead. 1/3 Explode, 2/3 Wounded = 22%.
If the Chimera is Open-Topped from shooting, then it explodes 1/2 the time instead of 1/3 the time. But you don't lose as many guys from the S3 hits. 1/2 Explode, 1/2 Wounded = 25%, so it's slightly (1/36) worse.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
I didnn't put sponsons on my Russes because I think they look bad. With an Alpha-style hull, Russes are almost acceptable-looking. But for sponsons to work, they will need a new tank hull.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
IntoTheRain wrote:If by fast you mean it moves the speed of infantry, then yes, a falcon is fast. Oh wait, they also added forced march. So fast vehicles are slower than basic infantry if they want to shoot.
Full-Shoot Tanks are slower than full-Move Infantry? I fail to understand why that should be a problem. To me, it seems like good design balance.
Which is why they normally carry back up weapon systems like 3x heavy bolters. Not anymore..
Who does that? Sponsons have always been wasted points.
3550
Post by: IntoTheRain
Name one modern tank that cannot move and fire its weapons.
So you feel 2 heavy bolters for 10 points is a bad deal? Please, enlighten us as to what you think is a good deal.
374
Post by: Strangelooper
JohnHwangDD wrote:Strangelooper wrote:I wonder if it might actually be viable for an IG infantry squad to sit in its Chimera and fire out the hatch?
It's about the same.
If the Chimera is closed-top, then when it explodes, the Guardsmen take S4 hits, rather than being wounded on a 4+. So 10 Guardsmen take 7 wounds instead of 5 wounds, for at least 2 dead instead of almost 2 dead. 1/3 Explode, 2/3 Wounded = 22%.
If the Chimera is Open-Topped from shooting, then it explodes 1/2 the time instead of 1/3 the time. But you don't lose as many guys from the S3 hits. 1/2 Explode, 1/2 Wounded = 25%, so it's slightly (1/36) worse.
I thought explode was only on a penetrating 6 (or penetrating 5-6 if opentopped). So it's more like 1/6 explode, 2/3 Wounded = 11% vs 1/3 explode, 1/2 Wounded = 17%. Then half all of those for the 4+ cover save to give 6.5% and 8.3%...
Another thought I had about the implication of the rumoured 5th ed rules: Tyranid Warriors FTW!!!
Warriors can wade around behind/in swarms of gaunts, gaining a 4+ cover save and shooting over them. With Deathspitters (I know, no one uses them in 4th ed) you don't even need to upgrade the BS of the Warriors. Don't have my codex here, but a Warrior with Toxin Sacs, Deathspitter and ST will be pretty cheap. A nice barrage of 3 or more S6 blasts coming out over top of the gaunts will be sweet. Dakkafexi average what, 6 hits at S6 with reroll to wound for 113 points? 3 Warriors with TS, DS, ST will probably touch about 6 models with a barrage on average, at least against hordes. Though they don't get the reroll to-wound, I'm betting they'll cost less than 113 points. And the AP is better on a Deathspitter.
The SpitWarrior, you heard it here first! 
3884
Post by: Buoyancy
JohnHwangDD wrote:Full-Shoot Tanks are slower than full-Move Infantry? I fail to understand why that should be a problem. To me, it seems like good design balance.
You'd need to be almost completely ignorant of military history to think that tanks would move slower than infantry over open ground. You'd also need to be massively ignorant to think that firing a cannon prevents the other weapons on the tank from firing.
Who does that? Sponsons have always been wasted points.
Sponsons and pintle mounted weapons are only wasted points because the rules don't let all guns on the tank fire at the same time and at independent targets. They are useless only because the rules make them useless.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
40k isn't military history. It's military science-fantasy draped over a game; what real tanks do is irrelevant to what they do in the game. Here's where I'd add something insulting about people who thought otherwise, but that would just be crude.
I'll also point out that sponson mounted weapons and pintle mounted weapons will definitely not be useless if the .pdf is any indication. Sponson weapons can still be used at a stop and nothing prevents a vehicle from shooting and scooting, rather than grinding along firing every turn. Pintle-mounted weapons, and additional weapons like hunter-killer missiles, I believe, will be able to fire in addition to the standard complement of weapons on a vehicle.
3884
Post by: Buoyancy
Nurglitch wrote:40k isn't military history. It's military science-fantasy draped over a game; what real tanks do is irrelevant to what they do in the game. Here's where I'd add something insulting about people who thought otherwise, but that would just be crude.
What real tanks do is quite relevant to what the simulated tanks do in the game. If they are supposed to behave like bunkers, then they should be called bunkers, not tanks. If the rules don't produce results that bear any resemblance to actual military engagements (And they don't), then the rules need to be thrown out and rewritten completely. The 40K revisited project is a good example of where 5th edition should be headed.
Although the 40K rules themselves can never be truly fixed until the IGOUGO is replaced with a WEGO system, but that's almost certainly too complicated for the uneducated high school kids at which GW aims their writing.
I'll also point out that sponson mounted weapons and pintle mounted weapons will definitely not be useless if the .pdf is any indication. Sponson weapons can still be used at a stop and nothing prevents a vehicle from shooting and scooting, rather than grinding along firing every turn.
Only an idiot would move the tank instead of leaving it stationary in cover and doubling or tripling its firepower. And we know full well that the rule writers are idiots, since they've decided that causing more wounds to a unit should be able to result in fewer casualties. I can guarantee you that competent players will not move their tanks in 5th edition games unless there are absolutely no valid targets within the vehicle's line of sight.
2354
Post by: mughi3
The Falcon is Fast, so it can move up to 6" without losing any firepower.
and if it does so it does not benefit from "moving fast" so it gets no cover save. it is in effect sitting still in the open.
An Russ without Ordnance and a Rail-less RailHead serves no purpose but to Tank Shock.
incorrect on both counts. a russ especially can expect to loose it's battle cannon from any weapon destroyed result it gets during the game. and it is more likely to get such a result under the new damage table. a triple heavy bolter sponson russ with a stubber currently is an infantry killing machine even after it looses the battle cannon. and the secondary weapons on a hammerhead while not as effective as a russ or still there to do some shooting with.
the whole point of taking a vehicle over a dev squad type unit is its ability to be a mobile heavy weapons platform.
Who does that? Sponsons have always been wasted points.
every IG player i know takes sponson mounts on thier russ's simple because they expect the cannon to get destroyed and depending on the situation the heavy bolters(and sometimes a las cannon) are better choices.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Bouyancy: Well, there's your problem. You think that the "tanks" in Warhammer 40k somehow simulate what real tanks do. Warhammer 40k isn't a military simulation and hence "tanks" don't simulate tanks. Since the Warhammer 40k rules aren't a military simulation, then whether they bear any resemblance to actual military engagements is irrelevant.
The Warhammer 40k rules are what they are, rules for a game of toy soldiers. If you think they should be something other than what they are, then there are plenty of rules out there for games that try to be military simulations. I've written a couple, for example.
The rules writers for GW certainly aren't idiots as they know the product they are making and knowing that they know that the game they charged with writing is neither a military simulation nor intended to be. They know better than to try to make cricket into baseball, so to speak.
3550
Post by: IntoTheRain
Nurglitch wrote:Warhammer 40k isn't a military simulation
Well then what precisely would you call it?
844
Post by: stonefox
It's a game where models move around. Like Chess, Risk and/or Go. You can call it Imperial Bureaucracy 40k (tm), pretend these guys are in a departmental faction shuffling papers and trying to get to the top of the ladder while keeping others down, and the game will still work out the same.
In fact, if more civilian/at-ease 40k models were made, this is probably what I would imagine happens in a game.
edit: If you play marines and predominantly play other marines, you can pretend the battlefield is a big club or bar.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
IntoTheRain: A Table Top Miniatures Game, or TTMG.
|
|
