689
Post by: Salvation122
Via Bell of Lost Souls:
-------------------------------
Shooting
-There's now a reason to have a BS higher than 5 (can we say 2+/5+?).
-All models friend or foe now block line of sight. Vehicles and Monstrous Creature can be targeted over intervening infantry.
-Area terrain does not block line of sight.
-All blast weapons now scatter.
Vehicles
-Defensive weapons on vehicles are now Str 4 and below.
-Skimmers Moving Fast is now a 5+ cover save. (I have heard this is the new rule for All Obscured Targets)
-Dedicated transports can now carry any unit (subject to normal restrictions, i.e., no Terminators) and are no longer the deathtraps they have been (no entangling, just pinning).
- AP 1 weapons add +1 to the vehicle damage chart instead of doing as they do now.
-Ordinance weapons roll 2d6 and pick the highest on the vehicle damage table.
Miscellaneous
-Independent Character targeting restrictions have been eased.
-There is no IC protection any longer unless he is joined to a unit
- ICs within 2" of a unit automatically join it.
-Dark Eldar are not gone, as they're mentioned in the rules (their jetbikes DO get the 6" assault).
-Frag grenades operate as plasma grenades now.
-Monstrous creatures get move through cover, not a reroll.
-Saving Throws are now made AFTER wound allocation. This means you could still roll all your generic troopers as a group, but will need to roll for each special model (serg, heavy weapons, etc) one by one. Torrent of Fire is gone.
Missions
-The missions are different enough that Troops only counting as scoring isn't as big a deal as it would be today.
-Victory points are calculated differently in "cleanse" style missions (points calculated depending on the FOC slot the dead unit took up).
-Scouts and Infiltrators can now try to outflank the enemy and come on as reserves from a different board edge.
-Deepstrike is the same, but if you can't place all the models, you roll on the "deepstrike mishap" table (50% you're dead, 50% you place yourself anywhere you like).
Overall, the rules look a lot more detailed. Not as detailed as 2nd edition, but now there's a difference between a guy standing on the roof of a building and a guy standing in the basement. Actual line of sight matters a lot more than "pretend" line of sight now.
-------------------------------
IC nerf seems unneeded, other than that I like pretty much everything.
4395
Post by: Deadshane1
I like it.
Not sure about the new "torrent of fire" rules though, its going to make rolling for saves take much more time than it has.
I also dont really understand why they changed the strength of defensive weapons. I've always thought it was better that heavy bolters are always shooting...
64
Post by: Longshot
Those vehicle rules are a farking train wreck.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
For those crying in agony over this latest batch of rumours, I'd like to direct you:
Here:
http://www.revisitedproject.org/
Here:
http://www.revisitedproject.org/
And here:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/revisited_project/
Thankyou! 
BYE
689
Post by: Salvation122
Longshot wrote:Those vehicle rules are a farking train wreck.
How so? Transports are better, Skimmers get nerfed. The defensive weapon thing hurts, granted, but I'll trade Heavy Bolter sponsons that can fire on the move for ditching Entanglement any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Salvation122 wrote:-There's now a reason to have a BS higher than 5 (can we say 2+/5+?).
We did it first... 
Salvation122 wrote:-All models friend or foe now block line of sight.
I suppose that's better than target priority tests.
Salvation122 wrote:-Area terrain does not block line of sight.
O... k... ?
Salvation122 wrote:-All blast weapons now scatter.
Making them even more useless. Wonderful.
Salvation122 wrote:-Defensive weapons on vehicles are now Str 4 and below.
*blinks*
Wha... ? 
That's a stupid one. Most defensive guns these days are S5 Shuriken Cannons or Heavy Bolters. How does this rule HELP vehicles?
Salvation122 wrote:-ICs within 2" of a unit automatically join it.
That's so silly it can't be real.
Salvation122 wrote:-Frag grenades operate as plasma grenades now.
Because having three types of non-lethal grenades in the game was too complicated.
Salvation122 wrote:-Saving Throws are now made AFTER wound allocation. This means you could still roll all your generic troopers as a group, but will need to roll for each special model (serg, heavy weapons, etc) one by one. Torrent of Fire is gone.
Yeah. That'll speed things up.
BYE
4395
Post by: Deadshane1
Do we know how reliable these rumour releases are?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Salvation122 wrote:
-There's now a reason to have a BS higher than 5 (can we say 2+/5+?).
What is the 5+? Ignore cover? Ignore intervening models?
-All models friend or foe now block line of sight. Vehicles and Monstrous Creature can be targeted over intervening infantry.
So 6th Edition will have models not blocking LOS again?!? It'd be nice if GW could make up its mind.
-All blast weapons now scatter.
That's one way to stop the annoyance of Blast sniping.
-Defensive weapons on vehicles are now Str 4 and below.
So basic firepower like SBs, Shuricats, & Chimera Lasguns have some use on Tanks? OK. Nice move to reduce lethality BTW.
-Skimmers Moving Fast is now a 5+ cover save. (I have heard this is the new rule for All Obscured Targets)
This is nice and improves consistency between vehicles and infantry.
Of course, now I want to see the details of the new damage chart.
-Dedicated transports can now carry any unit (subject to normal restrictions, i.e., no Terminators) and are no longer the deathtraps they have been (no entangling, just pinning).
This is a pretty big change, and very good for mobile play.
-AP 1 weapons add +1 to the vehicle damage chart instead of doing as they do now.
-Ordinance weapons roll 2d6 and pick the highest on the vehicle damage table.
Nice. These weapons just got properly scarier.
-Independent Character targeting restrictions have been eased.
-There is no IC protection any longer unless he is joined to a unit
-ICs within 2" of a unit automatically join it.
Good. Too much BS monkeying around with ICs before, anyways.
-Saving Throws are now made AFTER wound allocation. This means you could still roll all your generic troopers as a group, but will need to roll for each special model (serg, heavy weapons, etc) one by one. Torrent of Fire is gone.
OK, tho I don't see how this really changes things.
-The missions are different enough that Troops only counting as scoring isn't as big a deal as it would be today.
OK, tho we'll need to see the mission tables. Hopefully it's not another rehash of the same basic missions.
-Victory points are calculated differently in "cleanse" style missions (points calculated depending on the FOC slot the dead unit took up).
Interesting that GW would make this even more complicated, when supposedly they're streaminling.
-Scouts and Infiltrators can now try to outflank the enemy and come on as reserves from a different board edge.
Good! Scouts and Infiltrators got a lot more usable.
-Deepstrike is the same, but if you can't place all the models, you roll on the "deepstrike mishap" table (50% you're dead, 50% you place yourself anywhere you like).
This can lead to some very wierd things happening.
Deadshane1 wrote:I also dont really understand why they changed the strength of defensive weapons.
It's because they wanted to further clarify thebattlefield roles of the various Tanks vs Transports. In particular, it nerfs the Eldar grav tanks and their plethora of S6 weapons.
4395
Post by: Deadshane1
JohnHwangDD wrote:It's because they wanted to further clarify thebattlefield roles of the various Tanks vs Transports. In particular, it nerfs the Eldar grav tanks and their plethora of S6 weapons.
It nerfs tanks across the board, not just Eldar.
Remember all those autocannon / HB Preds people have been putting into their armies...Not even NEARLY as usefull anymore, lemans are hurt by it, Ravagers, Speeders maybe.....
5838
Post by: Cypher037
It nerfs tanks across the board, not just Eldar.
Remember all those autocannon / HB Preds people have been putting into their armies...Not even NEARLY as useful anymore, lemans are hurt by it, Ravagers, Speeders maybe.....
I was gunna say that. But it does hit Falcons hard. Now the best option is shuriken cannon + catapults, ie: cheapest. Not that offensive power was a forte of the Falcon in the first place, but who knows how skimmers will fair in the end. Sooo many changes.
With the new scoring unit/sniper/infiltrate rules I foresee eldar pathfinders becoming amazing-- by far the troop choice of choice.
-Leo037
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:It's because they wanted to further clarify thebattlefield roles of the various Tanks vs Transports. In particular, it nerfs the Eldar grav tanks and their plethora of S6 weapons.
It doesn't clarify tanks, though. It means they move and have minimal firepower, or has them sit still like the pillbox tanks of third ed. The problem with tanks in 4th is it didn't go far enough in making them mobile and shooty.
5470
Post by: sebster
H.B.M.C. wrote:Because having three types of non-lethal grenades in the game was too complicated.
Who said anything about the current system being too complicated. Why would you mention 'complication', unless it was to score a cheap point or two?
I've seen units advance so they'll have to go through cover to reach their target, meaning they'll both attack at the same time. The current system is a mess and leads to some ludicrous results, like space marines deliberately avoiding cover when they're about to be charged by orks. I've seen 'stealers lashed into cover so khorne bezerkers can charge them and both units will go at the same time. It's ridiculous situation at present, and this is a simple rule to get rid of too common ridiculousness.
Nothing to do with 'complication' at all.
4395
Post by: Deadshane1
He was being sarcastic.
443
Post by: skyth
The point of tanks is that they are mobile firepower. If they take that away from them, there's no point in using them any more *shrugs*. Only use for them might be Rhino transports, but we'll see.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
>>-Defensive weapons on vehicles are now Str 4 and below.
Perhaps it means that only weapons of Str4 or less are counted as defensive.
Tau don't have any weapons with less that Str5. How is it that the burst cannon or the SMS on a tank is going to be weaker than the "same weapon" carried by a crisis suit.
161
Post by: syr8766
Some good stuff in there. Hard to say whether the nonsensical stuff will overwhelm the good stuff.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Or they could be making it such that a Tank no longer has the restriction that when it moves it can only fire 1 main weapon and all defensive weapons.
At least one would hope anyway.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps it means that only weapons of Str4 or less are counted as defensive.
Pretty sure we all got that one there.
And I don't believe it, as every gun on Tau vehicles is S5 except for the two bigger ones, so... what... a Devilfish's Burst Cannon is a Main Weapon and therefore cannot be fired if it moves more than 6"? I guess Main Battle Tanks will be reverting back to Main Battle Bunkers like they were in 3rd Ed. Way to go GW. Push that pendulum! Hard as ya can!
But I think if they do change it it'll be S5 and below.
BYE
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
I'm beginning to think these new rules are written using some sort of random rules generator. Are they just trying to remove all the Pete Haines rules from 5th edition?
The problem with defensive weapons isn't their Str it's their range. Anyone can use any transport? 30 Harlequins in borrowed wave serpents anyone? Just when you thought 40k couldn't get any worse, I hope these stay rumors and never become rules.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
I dunno, everyone is being so negative about a lot of these, but I'm going to hold out that this will work out pretty well in the end.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Wasn't troops screening things a feature of 3rd edition?
5642
Post by: covenant84
Some good bits in their, esp. scouts.
hopefully tanks will get to fire more main weapons. Maybe the defensive weapons will always be able to fire?... If not then bunkers are back. defeats the point, why not take heavy weapon squads unless your desperate for big blasts, but then if all blast scatter then it wouldn't be that much of a loss. Frags are weak anyway even if they do scatter (ok, maybe not but i tend to end up fighting power armour) but plasmas that now scatter? I remember when they used to (or at least we played that way years ago) and it meant that you didn't always think carefully about targets. If it misses it may hit something else. I know one player insisted on aiming in between squads BECUASE it would scatter and he was more likly to hit something by aiming to miss.......
I think transports need to be more flexible but not THAT flexible. Just a little something e.g. something that says if you take a SM assualt squad and remove jump packs then they can have a rhino or something.
131
Post by: malfred
What is 2+/5+"?
5046
Post by: Orock
That should make ork custom force fields completely worthless. And good luck having lootas shooting at anything with 30 of their boyz in the way. Although I could take 3 full units of kommandoes now with 2 burnas each and pop up behind enemy lines. That seems fair, or not.
844
Post by: stonefox
Ahahahahaha. Assault lists are making a comeback. Yay.
Also, while fish of fury will no longer work (now we can end the reign of the mech tau list in tournaments!), I'm gonna start using a piranha rush with a huge farsight unit trailing behind them.
I honestly don't know why. But it does sound fun.
118
Post by: Schepp himself
Some serious Fantasy impact here.
2+/5+ is for having a BS of 6 or higher. Basically you roll to hit on a 2+. If it fails, you can reroll and hit on a 5+, giving you another chance of hitting your intended target. The reroll gets better the more BS you got.
Also Combat resolution (not in this chart) and IC are targetable (the IC hiding was erased in 7th edition fantasy).
I like many of these, but some sound rather strange, I have to agree on that. Making defensive weapons S4 or lower? Mh, only with a serious reconstruction of the vehicle firing chart. I like the 5+ ward save though.
The new torrent of fire is rather nice as far as I understand it. Now you can "snipe" the sarge and the heavy weapon guy with one big volley of fire (All get wounds times x, then roll the armor save) Further supports players to bring some basic guys into the field.
Target restriction (aka screening) is the stinkness! Nothing more annoying than a heavy weapon squad with nothing to shoot at. The screening solution of H.B.M.C.'s Group was rather good, or a ward save like the grot save ork armies got...
Greets
Schepp himself
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Wow, if all Scouts & Infiltrators can come on from another board edge, what's the point of Snikrot, now we can do it with normal PK Nobz!
Definitely going to be something interesting going forward, I'm just going to be glad to see the game completely shook up.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I believe these rumors. The cynic would say it forces competitive Tau and Eldar players to dump their existing builds and buy new minis. It also means a return of large troop numbers-again the sale of more minis. In light of the rumored prices in the new Demon dex I think thats a focus.
On a list for balance sake (aka no profit motivator hah hah)
*I could see a cover save for skimmers. I would give them 4+ however. The cover save would have to be in addition to the armor save. But in light of GW’s past overkill this sounds likely.
*models blocking. That’s straight out of V2. Its more believable to me actually. Orks, swarm nids and swarm demons just got better.
*pinning only. Can one say-rhino rush?
*Defensive 4 only. Reinforces the above rhino rush. This one makes me scratch my head as to why. There was no major need for this that I was aware of (see cynic position above). Really nerfs eldar, Tau, and those giants of the tourney scene –mech Guard.
*Terrain not blocking LOS. Barring the six inch rule this also has me scratching my head. Turns the table into well, a table. With a six inch rule it makes it more realistic and I’m more ok with that.
64
Post by: Longshot
HELLO 9 KANNON ORK LISTS! HURR
221
Post by: Frazzled
I'm envisioning an absolute horde of bloodletters, running behind Nurgle swarms (with other BL's deepstriking in). Unbound defilers bringing up the rear.
I'm also envisioning the return of SAFH marines and maybe rhino rush.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Didn't the Rhino Rush require that you actually be able to assault out of your Transport for it to work effectively?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The "Area terrain does not block LOS" subtley devalues Kroot a bit, and thereby nerfs the Tau a little bit more.
4713
Post by: efarrer
Salvation122 wrote:Via Bell of Lost Souls:
-------------------------------
Shooting
-There's now a reason to have a BS higher than 5 (can we say 2+/5+?).
-All models friend or foe now block line of sight. Vehicles and Monstrous Creature can be targeted over intervening infantry.
-Area terrain does not block line of sight.
-All blast weapons now scatter..
Ok with High BS. Seems pointless but whatever.
Ok with the models block LOS, I guess.
Terrain, doesn't make sense unless new categories of terrain are sprouting up.
Blast weapons suck hard right now. Making them worse is nonsensical.
Salvation122 wrote:
Vehicles
-Defensive weapons on vehicles are now Str 4 and below.
-Skimmers Moving Fast is now a 5+ cover save. (I have heard this is the new rule for All Obscured Targets)
-Dedicated transports can now carry any unit (subject to normal restrictions, i.e., no Terminators) and are no longer the deathtraps they have been (no entangling, just pinning).
-AP 1 weapons add +1 to the vehicle damage chart instead of doing as they do now.
-Ordinance weapons roll 2d6 and pick the highest on the vehicle damage table.
.
Defensive weapons to S4 is way too limited. S5 might be ok, but s4 is worthless.
5+ cover save is meh.
AP 1 change nerfs theWitchhunters hard. The current system iis the only chance that army has of penetrating AV 14.
I thought that was ord weapons did right now.
Salvation122 wrote:
Miscellaneous
-Independent Character targeting restrictions have been eased.
-There is no IC protection any longer unless he is joined to a unit
-ICs within 2" of a unit automatically join it..
Good. Let's make IC's less worthwhile then they are right now.
Salvation122 wrote:
-Dark Eldar are not gone, as they're mentioned in the rules (their jetbikes DO get the 6" assault)..
Who cares? Not really news. Jervis has stated they will get support at an unspecified point in the future.
Salvation122 wrote:
-Frag grenades operate as plasma grenades now..
Probably for the best.
Salvation122 wrote:
-Monstrous creatures get move through cover, not a reroll..
Saves some time
Salvation122 wrote:
-Saving Throws are now made AFTER wound allocation. This means you could still roll all your generic troopers as a group, but will need to roll for each special model (serg, heavy weapons, etc) one by one. Torrent of Fire is gone..
Makes no sense really. That's one point I agreed with when we switched to third. Gunner goes down a new guy grabs the good gun.
Salvation122 wrote:
Missions
-The missions are different enough that Troops only counting as scoring isn't as big a deal as it would be today.
-Victory points are calculated differently in "cleanse" style missions (points calculated depending on the FOC slot the dead unit took up).
-Scouts and Infiltrators can now try to outflank the enemy and come on as reserves from a different board edge.
-Deepstrike is the same, but if you can't place all the models, you roll on the "deepstrike mishap" table (50% you're dead, 50% you place yourself anywhere you like).
Ok?
Salvation122 wrote:
Overall, the rules look a lot more detailed. Not as detailed as 2nd edition, but now there's a difference between a guy standing on the roof of a building and a guy standing in the basement. Actual line of sight matters a lot more than "pretend" line of sight now..
I didn't get that out of this but Ok.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I already have four full FW squads and two full Kroot squads so it won't make me buy any more models. Not that I'm a competition player.
181
Post by: gorgon
This is certainly the biggest change we've had since the release of 3rd. In fact, in some ways it's almost like v2.5. I don't mind seeing an overhaul per se, but I'm sure they're going to create a whole new series of issues in the game. It'll just take a little while before some of them are evident.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Makes you think, if "Vehicles and Monstrous Creature can be targeted over intervening infantry." then certainly they should be able to shoot back over the intervening infantry, right?
That would make a LOT of cool setups where tanks and anti-tank specialists could duke it out, and it removes a lot of stupidity from the screening rules that you might think of.
4501
Post by: AlexCage
Just a quick thought: If you allocate hits BEFORE making Armor saves, this totally eliminates "Majority Armor" rules, doesn't it? So having a Sarge wearing extra armor is not so useless now.
Still... stupid rule.
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
I am hoping the "blast weapons scatter" rule is going to be "If a miss is rolled, the blast template scatters." That might add a little benefit to them, especially on thing like IG.
I really hope I am not going to have to determine LOS through a loose squad of Sisters to see if the unit behind can see around/through them to shoot.
Also, I strongly suspect they are going to go to a vehicle damage chart like Apoc. The AP1 = +1 on the roll only makes that more likely I think. It will probably be STR = AV = -2 on the roll, Str > AV even, Str D or AP 1 = +1. Probably will work out alright.
I wouldn't be surprised if area terrain gives a flat bonus to anything being shot through it. I think though that the 6" rule makes a lot of sense, as sooner or later you get enough trees that you can no longer see through it etc.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
All the 4th edition rules on shooting, hitting, wounding and saving are completely screwed up. Getting rid of Majority Armour and Toughness would simplify them a lot.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Not really, it just replaces torrent of fire with a clear setup. If you take less wounds than there are models in a unit, then you allocate them to the grunts, and roll. But if you have say 10 Marines (w/ Special, PF Sarge, and Heavy Weapons) and your opponent does 12 Wounds, you'd allocate the first 7 to the grunts, then one each to the special troopers who roll separately, and then 2 excess also to the grunts.
It just makes torrent of fire a standard rule instead of being restricted to people who know how to "call out torrent on model X" in a game.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Wow... 5th keeps getting weirder and weirder.
Are they still doing the line that 4th ed. Codexes will be compatible? As 5th ed. becomes more and more drastically different, it's hard to believe that that could possibly work.
For example, Frag Grenades will have one set of rules in the main book and one set of rules in Codex: Dark Angels. Normally army specific rules trump, so the Dark Angels rules would be used. But, the main book would be published later, so would those rules be used? More importantly, will Jervis' kid (or any new player) be able to figure that out assuming no internet access and no FAQs?
S4 and below defensive weapons is just annoying. Combined with the ability to target multiple units (also rumoured), most vehicles will never move the whole game. - Even Falcons will now be stationary pillboxes.
Blocking Genestealers will Spinegaunts will be the in-thing again. I wonder if we'll see Shoot the Big Ones return also?
Blast weapons scattering is just bizzare. They're generally held as too weak for the points already. All this does is make Lascannons that much better than Plasma Cannons. (Any with declining numbers of heavy weapons, Lascannons are already squeezing out other less versatile weapons.)
I hope these rumours aren't accurate - the same for most of the 5th ed. rumours actually.
5470
Post by: sebster
Deadshane1 wrote:He was being sarcastic.
You don't understand. I know he wasn't seriously suggesting the system is too complicated. He was riffing on the common cry of 'dumbing down' so beloved on the internet. That was kind of obvious, to be completely honest.
It's that he ignored the obvious of the current rule, where units are often better off assault a target in cover, and troops with good IN and armour are generally best off avoiding cover entirely to make that same, tired old comment.
It just feels like people looking for something to complain about. An odd thing to reach for when there's so much out there in the rumours that look pretty dodgy.
Back on track...
I doubt we'll see the old third ed situation of armies forming up in columns, as your own troops block LOS as well. But then maybe we'll see troops in the front standing in LOS of the enemy screening for the heavy weapons behind them, then moving out the way during their own turn... but I hope not as that'd be really, really stupid.
One thing I can see coming to the fore is 'stealer armies led by a screen of gaunts. Maybe rending won't be as good, but you can be confident of a whole lot more 'stealers reaching the enemy. At least that'll be kind of cool.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
sebster wrote:Deadshane1 wrote:He was being sarcastic.
You don't understand. I know he wasn't seriously suggesting the system is too complicated. He was riffing on the common cry of 'dumbing down' so beloved on the internet. That was kind of obvious, to be completely honest.
It's that he ignored the obvious of the current rule, where units are often better off assault a target in cover, and troops with good IN and armour are generally best off avoiding cover entirely to make that same, tired old comment.
It just feels like people looking for something to complain about. An odd thing to reach for when there's so much out there in the rumours that looks pretty dodgy.
Back on track...
I doubt we'll see the old third ed situation of armies forming up in columns, as your own troops block LOS as well. But then maybe we'll see troops in the front standing in LOS of the enemy then moving out the way during your own turn... but I hope not as that'd be really, really stupid.
Even better, if the unit has Fleet, they can block line of sight for the enemy Devastators, move out of the way in the movement phase, and then use Fleet of Foot at the end of the shooting phase to reblock them after you've blasted away. Cheap Gaunts or even Guardians would be great for this. 
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Asmodai wrote: Even better, if the unit has Fleet, they can block line of sight for the enemy Devastators, move out of the way in the movement phase, and then use Fleet of Foot at the end of the shooting phase to reblock them after you've blasted away. Cheap Gaunts or even Guardians would be great for this.
Fleet? If the "run" rumor is true, then this is possible with regular troops! On one hand, it's On the other hand, it makes me laugh. 
5470
Post by: sebster
Asmodai wrote:Even better, if the unit has Fleet, they can block line of sight for the enemy Devastators, move out of the way in the movement phase, and then use Fleet of Foot at the end of the shooting phase to reblock them after you've blasted away. Cheap Gaunts or even Guardians would be great for this.
Not even GW could release something as obviously goofy as that... Something has to missing from the rumours, possibly the idea that someone just made the whole troop blocking LOS thing up. Hopefully, anyway.
752
Post by: Polonius
Hmm, the whole all models blocking LOS thing has an interesting effect on IG gunlines. Sure, keeping anti-tank squads alive longer is nice, but not having multiple lines of fire really hurts. Of course, this might lead to a cool new rule in the theoretical new IG codex.
All I know is that I've declared an official moratorium on buying new models until 5th edition is released. As the rumors spiral into weirder and weirder possibilities, I'd rather paint what I have then risk buying a new army to have it change in 6 months. Both of my complete armies are big enough to ride out changes, but no new armies!
1795
Post by: keezus
GW never fails to impress with its short sighted rules writing. I'll only be addressing the really stupifying problems these revisions bring up: Comments in italics.
-All models friend or foe now block line of sight. Vehicles and Monstrous Creature can be targeted over intervening infantry.
This rule simultaneously smites infantry based firepower units in favour of helping assault based horde armies. Just off the top of my head things that would benefit are: Orks (Horde + Grot Screen making a return!), Tyranid (Gaunt Horde). Things that get hit hard with the nerf bat: Static infantry heavy-weapons teams. Things like dark reapers, devestator/havocs and IG heavy weapons teams. 3rd edition - protected from shooting and assaults by meatshield. 4th edition - protected from assaults by meatshield. 5th edition - can't fire at a damned thing if you use a meatshield, assault bait otherwise. Horde shooting armies also get hit hard as you can't fire past your own guys (often IN THE SAME SQUAD). Those huge Necron phalanxes and Shoota mobs are stuck with limited firepower unless you spread them out into a line. Necron problems are somewhat offset by the fact that your stupid scarab swarms are now a fast moving LOS wall.
-Area terrain does not block line of sight.
Nice. Invisible bunkers, walls and forests.
-All blast weapons now scatter.
Frag missiles just got THAT MUCH BETTER.
-Defensive weapons on vehicles are now Str 4 and below.
This is utterly pointless, considering that this forces you to waste your S4+ weps in order to fire your S4 weps at soft targets, and the S4 weps can't hurt hard targets, making the ability to shoot them moot. This also un-necessarily smites hammerheads and chimeras - neither of which was too powerful.
-Skimmers Moving Fast is now a 5+ cover save. (I have heard this is the new rule for All Obscured Targets)
Because Tau Skimmers were just -that- good, and landspeeders needed that invulnerable save.
-Dedicated transports can now carry any unit (subject to normal restrictions, i.e., no Terminators) and are no longer the deathtraps they have been (no entangling, just pinning).
The retardedness continues. Now that they can carry any unit, does this mean that they constitute their own slot? Do they stay outside force-org? Do they score? How does this affect who rides in them in the setup phase? Is this declared before escalation? Can a unit disembark from the transport and another one embark in the same turn? I'm sure these will be FAQed just in time for 6th edition.
-AP 1 weapons add +1 to the vehicle damage chart instead of doing as they do now.
Sweet. That means that Meltas now have even less chance of destroying a Necron Monolith. Go SOB!
-Ordinance weapons roll 2d6 and pick the highest on the vehicle damage table.
I'm not sure why they did this, considering that ordinance weapons were already wrecking stuff up on the 1/3 chance that they actually hit something... thanks to scattering all over the place.
-There is no IC protection any longer unless he is joined to a unit
-ICs within 2" of a unit automatically join it.
This one is beautiful. If your IC is in the middle of a horde of units. Which one is he joined to! See you in the FAQ, 2015!
-Frag grenades operate as plasma grenades now.
Hooray! Everyone get's space elf advanced-s7-non-throwable-non-killing-lets-fight-at-initiative-grenades!
-The missions are different enough that Troops only counting as scoring isn't as big a deal as it would be today.
Thanks for that reassurance GW! I feel much better now. Combat squads won't make this rule utterly stupid, because having 2x more scoring units than your opponent won't tip the balance in any way. They should put the GW rules writing department in charge of finance. That way, they'll always show record profits!
-Scouts and Infiltrators can now try to outflank the enemy and come on as reserves from a different board edge.
Hooray! While that's good tactically, What if your scouts and infiltrators are riding in the "can carry anyone" transport? Does that come on the board edge? (SM Vets / Chosen in a rhino/landraider?) Considering the amount of time it took for the Tau Pathfinder issue to be resolved, look for this to be FAQ'd in 2015!
Overall, the rules look a lot more detailed. Not as detailed as 2nd edition, but now there's a difference between a guy standing on the roof of a building and a guy standing in the basement. Actual line of sight matters a lot more than "pretend" line of sight now.
Uh... actual LOS matters, now that area terrain doesn't block LOS, and INFANTRY MODELS DO. That's a leap of logic there GW.
181
Post by: gorgon
AlexCage wrote:Just a quick thought: If you allocate hits BEFORE making Armor saves, this totally eliminates "Majority Armor" rules, doesn't it? So having a Sarge wearing extra armor is not so useless now.
The armor option for Nobz kinda led me to think this was going to happen.
sebster wrote:One thing I can see coming to the fore is 'stealer armies led by a screen of gaunts. Maybe rending won't be as good, but you can be confident of a whole lot more 'stealers reaching the enemy. At least that'll be kind of cool.
Say hello again to 3rd edition rulebook Tyranid armies. Granted, those Genestealers had power weapons, but that army was top-tier competitive.
Asmodai wrote:Even better, if the unit has Fleet, they can block line of sight for the enemy Devastators, move out of the way in the movement phase, and then use Fleet of Foot at the end of the shooting phase to reblock them after you've blasted away. Cheap Gaunts or even Guardians would be great for this.
Do you think GW thought of this or tried it in their playtesting? I'm being half-serious.
5566
Post by: studderingdave
Voodoo Boyz wrote:Wow, if all Scouts & Infiltrators can come on from another board edge, what's the point of Snikrot, now we can do it with normal PK Nobz!
ill take that, but not at the expense of all this other crap. these batch of rumors seem far more unrealistic when compared to the first 2 batches.
1795
Post by: keezus
Voodoo Boyz wrote:Makes you think, if "Vehicles and Monstrous Creature can be targeted over intervening infantry." then certainly they should be able to shoot back over the intervening infantry, right?
That would make a LOT of cool setups where tanks and anti-tank specialists could duke it out, and it removes a lot of stupidity from the screening rules that you might think of.
Voodoo: You'd think that, but this is GW's subtle genius at work. Instead of trying to rebalance the armies, they just make EVERYTHING suck. Assault guys get shot from the front, because uh, they're the only guys that can be targeted. Heavy weapons guys can ONLY shoot the tanks. Tanks can shoot enemy guys in front, or Tanks. Guys in front can only shoot the guys in front! See! Simple. None of this tactical targeting. I'm sure GW will probably include a handy flow chart in the back of the book for those gamers age 5 and below who can't figure it out.
I'm looking forwards to assault armies with a shooting meatshield in front. Totally counter-intuitive. FANTASTIC.
181
Post by: gorgon
keezus wrote:Frag missiles just got THAT MUCH BETTER.
I expect this will be "scatter on a miss," just like in 2nd ed.
Nice. Invisible bunkers, walls and forests.
To be fair, if the system goes to more true LOS, the walls and bunkers will still block. What I wonder is if the forests will block if they're 6" deep? There are a ton of 2nd edition inspirations at work here, so I'm not surprised area terrain doesn't get the infinite column anymore, at least. Forests did block LOS in 2nd, just up to their (visual) height.
I may haveta shorten the post on my flying Tyrant...
Because Tau Skimmers were just -that- good, and landspeeders needed that invulnerable save.
It's just odd to me that they don't go back to some hit modifiers. Everyone knows that speeders should be HARD TO HIT.
Hooray! Everyone get's space elf advanced-s7-non-throwable-non-killing-lets-fight-at-initiative-grenades!
Frag grenades made no sense, you have to admit.
Thanks for that reassurance GW! I feel much better now. Combat squads won't make this rule utterly stupid, because having 2x more scoring units than your opponent won't tip the balance in any way. They should put the GW rules writing department in charge of finance. That way, they'll always show record profits!
I think the whole Troops thing is silly and contrived. But I care less about it now because so much other stuff is changing. It still stinks, but maybe I won't smell it if it's buried under a bunch of other stuff. 
Scouts and Infiltrators can now try to outflank the enemy and come on as reserves from a different board edge.
As in 2nd edition. See what I mean?
5744
Post by: Stormtrooper X
Honestly guys I would take all this with a grain of salt and possibly a few Advil. It only takes one person to make a post like this to cause a huge ripple effect. I could say I heard a rumor from a "reliable" source that says that "All Special Characters must now have a retinue and that retinue must consist of one of each FOC choice and those FOC choices take two FOC choices plus an extra HQ slot for the Special Character making it so that Special Characters can no longer be taken." Seriously, I wouldn't believe half this stuff. I know 40k is based off of WWI era combat with a heavy influence of HtH combat, but the way this reads is EVERYONE will have to take HtH armies in order to compete. I just wouldn't believe all this.
5470
Post by: sebster
keezus wrote:GW never fails to impress with its short sighted rules writing. I'll only be addressing the really stupifying problems these revisions bring up: Comments in italics.
Dude, come on. You're reading off a rumour sheet and assuming every is taken as written. At absolute best, we're looking at summarised . Most likely we're looking at something lying between chinese whispers and outright fantasy.
-All models friend or foe now block line of sight. Vehicles and Monstrous Creature can be targeted over intervening infantry.
This rule simultaneously smites infantry based firepower units in favour of helping assault based horde armies. Just off the top of my head things that would benefit are: Orks (Horde + Grot Screen making a return!), Tyranid (Gaunt Horde). Things that get hit hard with the nerf bat: Static infantry heavy-weapons teams. Things like dark reapers, devestator/havocs and IG heavy weapons teams. 3rd edition - protected from shooting and assaults by meatshield. 4th edition - protected from assaults by meatshield. 5th edition - can't fire at a damned thing if you use a meatshield, assault bait otherwise. Horde shooting armies also get hit hard as you can't fire past your own guys (often IN THE SAME SQUAD). Those huge Necron phalanxes and Shoota mobs are stuck with limited firepower unless you spread them out into a line. Necron problems are somewhat offset by the fact that your stupid scarab swarms are now a fast moving LOS wall.
I will happily agree with you here. If true, this new rule is likely to suck pretty hard.
I'd like to see the return of gaunts running in advance of masses of 'stealers, but this is not the way to get there.
-Area terrain does not block line of sight.
Nice. Invisible bunkers, walls and forests.
Weird assumption. Most likely area terrain reverts to LOS. Guessing it magically stops blocking LOS is just odd an thing to do. Also, why are you classing walls as area terrain?
The idea of using an abstract system for area terrain, namely woods, to prevent a forest having to include every single tree to be useful for LOS blocking was a good idea. Unfortunately the rule managed to confuse around 90% of gamers, including many self-proclaimed veterans, who began to get not only area terrain rules wrong but regular LOS checks as well. Maybe going back to straight up LOS is for the best.
-All blast weapons now scatter.
Frag missiles just got THAT MUCH BETTER.
If all blast weapons work as G weapons do currently, which is a significant assumption. It's most likely they'll be directly placed if the shot is missed, and scatter is
But personally I doubt this rumour entirely. It doesn't fit at all with more recent trends of removing tedious mechanics from the game. It's an odd, unecessary regressive step.
-Defensive weapons on vehicles are now Str 4 and below.
This is utterly pointless, considering that this forces you to waste your S4+ weps in order to fire your S4 weps at soft targets, and the S4 weps can't hurt hard targets, making the ability to shoot them moot. This also un-necessarily smites hammerheads and chimeras - neither of which was too powerful.
If true, this is a terrible change. But again, it flies in the face of GW's stated aim to make units more mobile. Again, I doubt this is true.
-Skimmers Moving Fast is now a 5+ cover save. (I have heard this is the new rule for All Obscured Targets)
Because Tau Skimmers were just -that- good, and landspeeders needed that invulnerable save.
Dude, they lose access to glancing only. That's massive.
It means skimmers will tend to be unharmed or explode spectacularly, instead of the current situation where they generally grind to a half after several hits, completely. This means they'll feel a little more like light, mobile craft like attack 'copters.
-Dedicated transports can now carry any unit (subject to normal restrictions, i.e., no Terminators) and are no longer the deathtraps they have been (no entangling, just pinning).
The retardedness continues. Now that they can carry any unit, does this mean that they constitute their own slot? Do they stay outside force-org? Do they score? How does this affect who rides in them in the setup phase? Is this declared before escalation? Can a unit disembark from the transport and another one embark in the same turn? I'm sure these will be FAQed just in time for 6th edition.
Having a question based on a rumour and getting huffy about it is absurd.
-AP 1 weapons add +1 to the vehicle damage chart instead of doing as they do now.
Sweet. That means that Meltas now have even less chance of destroying a Necron Monolith. Go SOB!
Which assumes the new damage table will be exactly the same as the current tables. A big assumption, flying in the face of many of the rumours.
-Ordinance weapons roll 2d6 and pick the highest on the vehicle damage table.
I'm not sure why they did this, considering that ordinance weapons were already wrecking stuff up on the 1/3 chance that they actually hit something... thanks to scattering all over the place.
They're about as erratic as they should be, but not as damaging as they should be when they hit. So by the rumour they've changed that for the better. Are you suggesting ordinance is currently too powerful?
-There is no IC protection any longer unless he is joined to a unit
-ICs within 2" of a unit automatically join it.
This one is beautiful. If your IC is in the middle of a horde of units. Which one is he joined to! See you in the FAQ, 2015!
Again, a list of summarised rumours do not represent the actual rules. You don't have FAQs for rules that don't yet exist.
-Frag grenades operate as plasma grenades now.
Hooray! Everyone get's space elf advanced-s7-non-throwable-non-killing-lets-fight-at-initiative-grenades!
The current frag grenade rule is absurd. This thread is the first time I've seen anyone try to defend it... but then defending the current rule now allows people to rag on 5th ed, so I guess I can see why it's suddenly got so many fans.
-The missions are different enough that Troops only counting as scoring isn't as big a deal as it would be today.
Thanks for that reassurance GW! I feel much better now. Combat squads won't make this rule utterly stupid, because having 2x more scoring units than your opponent won't tip the balance in any way. They should put the GW rules writing department in charge of finance. That way, they'll always show record profits!
The rumour here is about mission structure not being based around scoring units as much as it is now. You ignored that almost entirely.
-Scouts and Infiltrators can now try to outflank the enemy and come on as reserves from a different board edge.
Hooray! While that's good tactically, What if your scouts and infiltrators are riding in the "can carry anyone" transport? Does that come on the board edge? (SM Vets / Chosen in a rhino/landraider?) Considering the amount of time it took for the Tau Pathfinder issue to be resolved, look for this to be FAQ'd in 2015!
If it isn't their vehicle, why would it come on the board with them? Why would you even think scouts get to deploy onto the board with some other unit's rhino? No unit at present gets to deploy with anyone else's vehicle... and non-dedicated transports don't get to deploy with infiltrating or scout units, so why on earth would you think this would be unclear?
Overall, the rules look a lot more detailed. Not as detailed as 2nd edition, but now there's a difference between a guy standing on the roof of a building and a guy standing in the basement. Actual line of sight matters a lot more than "pretend" line of sight now.
Uh... actual LOS matters, now that area terrain doesn't block LOS, and INFANTRY MODELS DO. That's a leap of logic there GW.
Yeah, that's all based on assumption you've made, nd most of the assumptions are plainly absurd, to be honest.
I'm cool with people being cynical about GW releases, it's almost always better people dissent that simply accept what's presented, and GW has given us plenty to be cynical about over the years. But there's a point between seeing stuff with a cautious eye and making up any assumption you need to make to complain about something. The first will generally make for interesting discussion while the second...
5470
Post by: sebster
gorgon wrote:It's just odd to me that they don't go back to some hit modifiers. Everyone knows that speeders should be HARD TO HIT.
But that leads to an army balance issue. If a BS 4 army suffers a -1 to hit skimmers, 25% of their usual hits would miss the skimmers. But a BS 2 army like orks would have 50% of their usual hits missing the skimmers.
So you take the base BS of 3 and ask what would happen if you applied a -1 mod for them to hit... 33% of their shots that would normally hit would miss. Then you give everyone that same 33% chance of missing by applying a second roll after determining if you hit or not, and you end up with a 5+ cover save.
218
Post by: widderslainte
Salvation122 wrote:Via
-------------------------------
-All blast weapons now scatter.
-Defensive weapons on vehicles are now Str 4 and below.
-Skimmers Moving Fast is now a 5+ cover save. (I have heard this is the new rule for All Obscured Targets)
Blast scatter (I hope) will speed things up. Target a model, roll scatter, you get what you get. Rather than the current place and hope for more than one partial.
Hopefully the change to defensive weapons will also correspond to a change to the move/fire chart. Something like - Move <6" fire everything Move > 6", fire defensive.
I like the Skimmer nerf, but I wish it had been 4+ (like obscured). My Dark Eldar may be getting 1+ Army Transport save until a new codex comes out.
5604
Post by: Reaver83
I wonder if they're thinking of doing something such that if your BS6 you ignore cover saves on a 5+ and BS7 on a 4+, BS8 3+ BS92+ or something like that?
or perhaps a reroll to hit of the above?
1321
Post by: Asmodai
sebster wrote:gorgon wrote:It's just odd to me that they don't go back to some hit modifiers. Everyone knows that speeders should be HARD TO HIT.
But that leads to an army balance issue. If a BS 4 army suffers a -1 to hit skimmers, 25% of their usual hits would miss the skimmers. But a BS 2 army like orks would have 50% of their usual hits missing the skimmers.
So you take the base BS of 3 and ask what would happen if you applied a -1 mod for them to hit... 33% of their shots that would normally hit would miss. Then you give everyone that same 33% chance of missing by applying a second roll after determining if you hit or not, and you end up with a 5+ cover save.
That actually makes a lot of sense.
I think the change to grenades is sensible too (though it conflicts a little with Codex Eldar which is still pretty recent).
Re: The Strength 4 defensive- if this happens I wonder if some weapon stats will change too. Str 4 defensive only makes sense if Heavy Bolters (the most common auxiliary weapon on Land Raiders, Predators, Chimeras, Leman Russ, Hellhounds, etc.) got reduced - maybe to S4 AP5 Heavy 3 for example.
752
Post by: Polonius
Is it possible that the new rules actually differentiate between primary, secondary, and defensive weapons? So that primary and secondary can shoot like they can now, but defensive weapons can be shot in assault, or perhaps if the vehicle moves further than 6" (makeing pintel weapons sort of useful).
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The rumour doesn't say.
Splitting vehicle weapons into three classes on the basis of strength would be illogical (Tau defensive weapons are high strength because of their superior technology, not because they are "secondary") and goes against the idea of streamlining the game.
806
Post by: Toreador
-All models friend or foe now block line of sight. Vehicles and Monstrous Creature can be targeted over intervening infantry.
This rule simultaneously smites infantry based firepower units in favour of helping assault based horde armies. Just off the top of my head things that would benefit are: Orks (Horde + Grot Screen making a return!), Tyranid (Gaunt Horde). Things that get hit hard with the nerf bat: Static infantry heavy-weapons teams. Things like dark reapers, devestator/havocs and IG heavy weapons teams. 3rd edition - protected from shooting and assaults by meatshield. 4th edition - protected from assaults by meatshield. 5th edition - can't fire at a damned thing if you use a meatshield, assault bait otherwise. Horde shooting armies also get hit hard as you can't fire past your own guys (often IN THE SAME SQUAD). Those huge Necron phalanxes and Shoota mobs are stuck with limited firepower unless you spread them out into a line. Necron problems are somewhat offset by the fact that your stupid scarab swarms are now a fast moving LOS wall.
Oddly, you seem to suggest that making grots and gaunt hordes useful is a problem. I think most people would disagree with that (unless they just feel like ragging on the rumours)
Until you really know the LOS rules, it's hard to know exactly what will constitute blocking or not. I don't really see a huge issue with it. Some of the meatshield ideas with fleet are kind of sleazy, but until we know the rules what can we really say? Anyway, blowing away the meatshield with basic weapons so I can get LOS seems to be a tactic used in a lot of other games. It gives a reason for hills and buildings, and for spreading out. Along with blast weapons (maybe) becoming more powerful I can see the need. 2 necron warrior units spread out in a line and staggered is what we would have done in the old rules, while the heavies maneuvered behind them to get the shots they needed. I really hated all the new LOS rules they have come up with. Yeah, they were much easier and were for faster play, but it just seemed counter-intuitive at times.
I like most of these except the str 4 defensive weapons, but without knowing any context I can't say it is a horrible thing yet. Rumours of vehicles being able to split fire, and maybe how many weapons they fire could make this just a rule for bolt on and pintle style weapons.
4351
Post by: ubermosher
Polonius wrote:Is it possible that the new rules actually differentiate between primary, secondary, and defensive weapons? So that primary and secondary can shoot like they can now, but defensive weapons can be shot in assault, or perhaps if the vehicle moves further than 6" (makeing pintel weapons sort of useful).
Hear hear. It's pointless to get too worked up about the S4 rule until we see if the mechanic is the same or has also been changed. Imagine a S4 Pintle mounted Storm bolter being used to keep enemy infantry from hitting that Rear Armor in assault... making it truly a defensive weapon (Probably won't happen though as it makes too much sense). It might also be meant to temper a possible new rule allowing all weapons on a vehicle to fire on different targets. Have to wait and see the new context of vehicle weapons.
As a side note, I wonder if co-axial weapons will be appearing like they are in Apocalypse (which seems to be a blueprint for some of these rumored changes)? I can picture a Falcon's second weapon being made coaxial and allowed to fire when the primary weapon (Pulse Laser) fires, but only at the same target.
I tend to agree with the above comments that all models block LOS (for infantry), and area terrain not blocking LOS might be the result of a true LOS system. I won't miss Size 1, 2, and 3 models. I wonder if Jump Infantry might not have LOS blocked by screening models? Guess that depends on if sales of Assault Marines are lacking.
I love the fact that transports are no longer dedicated. I've had more than a few games that I wished that one of my Wave Serpents could "extract" another squad that was in trouble.
Maybe it's because my first army was a 3rd ed 40K Eldar mech army, but I love the gist of the rumors seem to be increasing the importance of movement and maneuver.
4884
Post by: Therion
Who said that eldar tanks are nerfed? First of all a 5+ cover save is better than the rumoured 4+ reduces to glancing especially if the new damage table favours the vehicles, and it gets even better once you put Eldrad out there to fortune the tanks. As far as defensive weapons go, the Falcon is a transport and rarely uses any weapons, and the Prism uses the main gun from maximum range.
4895
Post by: Logic
Most of the changes sound great. But a few are questionable.
Salvation122 wrote:
-All blast weapons now scatter.
I’d rather see it work like the Hellhound Flamer. The Template must cover as many models in the target squad as possible (this solves a lot of arguments). If you roll to hit, everyone touching the blast template is hit. If you roll to miss, everyone touching the blast template is it on a 4+ instead. This is actually much faster and eliminates the need for a Scatter roll (for non-ordinance blasts).
The Scatter roll is terrible and should be rare IMHO. I’ve seen many arguments over the direction of where the scatter lands (even if the dice is right next to the model). And many people have no sense of angles AT ALL! (in my experience).
-Saving Throws are now made AFTER wound allocation. This means you could still roll all your generic troopers as a group, but will need to roll for each special model (serg, heavy weapons, etc) one by one. Torrent of Fire is gone.
Thanks for slowing down the game even more? Honestly, some units are filled with various “special” models. What happens when you have a unit with 4 different types of special/heavy weapons and basic troops and a sergeant and an attached independent character? Then multiply that by however many of those units you fielded. It’s not going to be common. But that’s no excuse. This type of situation will be common enough that it can really slow down the game for many armies. And that’s a bad idea especially for tournaments.
-The missions are different enough that Troops only counting as scoring isn't as big a deal as it would be today.
As I’ve said before, creating unrealistic rules (an oxymoron… I know) just to needlessly adjust game mechanics is a bad idea. There’s absolutely NO reason my Jump Troops or Dev. Squad can’t hold an objective. There are other ways to balance a game system without creating rules that are just plain stupid.
P.S. The “isn't as big a deal” or “it doesn’t happen often” argument is not a justification for screwing up a game system, (any game system). And it leads to problems down the road.
~Logic
4296
Post by: OverchargeThis!
Okay, so knowing just a little bit about epic and since JJ is working on the 40K game now, this is what I think regarding 'defensive' weapons...
Epic allows shooting to occur as part of the assault 'close combat' phase. What if this mechanic is being brought into 40K?
To make it non-gamebreaking:
1. 1/2 normal range with any rapid fire or assault non-template weapon, or vehicle-mounted defensive weapon
2. may fire into one enemy assaulting unit per assault phase
3. S4 (5 in consideration of Tau) or lower weapons only, one shot per weapon fired.
this way, heavy stubbers, bolters, lasguns, etc. can shoot at enemy infantry as it assaults.
I'm not a games designer, so the specific rules-as-speculation that I've put here are pretty much trash. But the idea seems in line with something Jervis might do...
My point is that defensive weapons may support a game mechanic of short ranged shooting in the assault phase, in the form of defensive fire.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Logic wrote:There’s absolutely NO reason my Jump Troops or Dev. Squad can’t hold an objective.
Better yet, Blood Angel Assault Squads taken as troops can score, but Elite and FA ones can't!
Go GW!!
BYE
5838
Post by: Cypher037
I think we all need to just chill out, and realize that these aren't the only changes being made. Of course they don't make sense because we don't know what else they've done. Instead of freaking out and saying how horrible the game will be in 5th ed, just relax...
...and wait to freak out until we know everything they've screwed up
-leo037
3550
Post by: IntoTheRain
As far as I can tell, GW current plan is to write bad rules to cover up the terrible ones. Also they want to undo any good changes they made in 4th. (will tanks even need a movement value now?)
4042
Post by: Da Boss
50% of the purpose of the news and rumours forum is to freak out at the news and rumours.
Surely you've realised this by now
212
Post by: Kotrin
I think the "template weapon scatters" thingy happens when a to-hit roll fails, ala Necromunda, or otherwise it's incredibly stupid. If it's the case (who knows) I just hope that they'll improve the blast templates a bit, for example while playing them as teardrop template (anything touched is hit.)
BS 5 max is a codex-related thing, it has nothing to do with the rules. AFAIK BS10 is still 2+ now. It's just pointless to let it appear in a codex.
I think friendly models blocking LOS has some tactical interest, at least. It may combine with current target priority rules (you have to pass a Ld test to shoot "over" your comrades.)
IC rules are a bit clearer now, I was annoyed by those "this guy is in the middle of 20 soldiers but nooooo he's not part of the unit". Now IC will be just like other characters, but just able to move from one unit to another should the need arise.
I hope they'll rewrite reserve rules ala Apocalypse, they are so much better there.
806
Post by: Toreador
Better yet, Blood Angel Assault Squads taken as troops can score, but Elite and FA ones can't!
And if you read the rumours:
-The missions are different enough that Troops only counting as scoring isn't as big a deal as it would be today.
-Victory points are calculated differently in "cleanse" style missions (points calculated depending on the FOC slot the dead unit took up).
Then you really don't know if the statement you said above is correct or not.
Also if the IC auto joins unit within 2" rule is only a mechanism for the firing phase (something like what FOW has), it becomes a decent rule protecting an IC from fire.
161
Post by: syr8766
Okay, I've thought about it some more (it's my day off and the boy's a-napping; whaddaya want?)
Here's my problem, and it's similar to what Pixelgeek posted over at Tabletop Gaming News on this subject. IF they were going back and starting fresh: writing a sci-fantasy game for 30mm figures, based on 20 years of 'fluff', I'd be more comfortable with this. Instead, they're essentially trying to patch the thing, which itself was a patch (or a series of patches) on the last rules rewrite. This puts us in an untenable position, basically resorting to these three kinds of discussions:
1. Does it fix/break X mechanic?
2. Does it fix/break Y army?
3. Does it fix/break Z unit?
The conversation that SHOULD be taking place is: what will the quality of the OVERALL GAME be? That question is hopelessly lost as we get mired in talking about all the fixes for all the fiddly bits.
I'm sure this has been said by others more articulately , but it really makes me wonder if 40k can be saved in its current form at all, or does it need a complete revisioning. I don't just mean overbalancing/counterbalancing mistakes from previous editions; I mean wipe the slate clean in terms of ALL game mechanics--eliminate ALL assumptions of how the game is supposed to be played--and start from scratch.
5566
Post by: studderingdave
im kinda glad about the IC thing. i JUST started using the rule, so i can go back to the way i used to do it and stick everyone in units again. makes it easier when i have 3 lascannon shots aimed at st. celestine's noodle from 40 inches away though.
1691
Post by: Raider
-There's now a reason to have a BS higher than 5
-Area terrain does not block line of sight.
-> Combine these with the rumor that cover saves will change and 40k might become more intuitive at least for beginners:
*drumloll* - Units in cover will be harder to HIT ! - *drumroll barely audibly because of overwhelming aplause*
I expect modifiers on the "to hit role" once a unit is inside area terrain, propably BS-1. This way BS6 gets an advantage over BS5.
The change also improves the gameflow by removing coversave-dice roles after wounding.
Like someone before has posted, bad shooters would be affected more by cover then good shooters: BS2-1 = 50% decrease, while BS4-1 = 25% decrease. That makes sense though, doesnt it? An army of highly trained shooters SHOULD have less problems with hiding targets.
-Defensive weapons on vehicles are now Str 4 and below.
Im pretty sure they wont make tanks offensive abilitys worse, so I have to seceond the idea of defensive weapons shooting at infantry assaulting the vehicles rear armor. After all this is what Id suppose to be the purpose of similar weapons on real worl tanks. All non defensive weapons will likely be able to shoot even when moving, with turret weapons being able to aim at independent targets (like with real tanks.. etc.)
-All models friend or foe now block line of sight.
I have no clue how this might work without slowing the game down dramaticly during the movement, as well as during the shooting phase...
4895
Post by: Logic
Toreador wrote:Better yet, Blood Angel Assault Squads taken as troops can score, but Elite and FA ones can't!
And if you read the rumours:
-The missions are different enough that Troops only counting as scoring isn't as big a deal as it would be today.
-Victory points are calculated differently in "cleanse" style missions (points calculated depending on the FOC slot the dead unit took up).
Then you really don't know if the statement you said above is correct or not.
I do agree that we don’t know all the details yet. But I disagree with your line of reasoning.
[As I’ve said before] creating unrealistic rules just to needlessly adjust game mechanics is a bad idea. There are other ways to balance a game system without creating rules that are just plain stupid. (In the 40k game system, the BA Jump Troops vs. other Jump Troops is just one example of how this “troop = scoring units” idea is bad).
The “this isn't as big a deal” or “it doesn’t happen often” argument is not a justification for screwing up a game system. And it leads to problems down the road.
~Logic
4477
Post by: skullspliter888
keezus wrote:[b- -AP 1 weapons add +1 to the vehicle damage chart instead of doing as they do now.
[i]Sweet. That means that Meltas now have even less chance of destroying a Necron Monolith. Go SOB!
lmao
212
Post by: Kotrin
Or perhaps this whole 5th edition rumor is just the FAQ we are all waiting for? : :
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
Maybe this is Jervis and crew's subtle attempt to get everybody playing Warmachine.
5863
Post by: Ihavenoavatar
I personally wonder if the rumored fleet will have an additional effect on the game play.
maybe heavy weapons will be able to be fired ala Slow and Purposeful USR, while units with Slow and Purposeful will get to move during their movement phase but not fleet? It doesn't complicate things and allows units with heavyweaponery to be more mobile then "lets find a hill and shoot like hell" that they are now.
806
Post by: Toreador
It really depends on what you say is "unrealistic" in an abstract game system. Needless and stupid are words that you use to describe it, but that is really just an opinion. Everyone has an opinion and either agrees or disagrees with a game system on how it achieves it's play. Since it has been stated that being a scoring unit isn't as big a deal as it is today, we can assume that all the related rules have changed enough that this may not be forcing or pushing players to take more troops choices. Maybe it only gives a benefit or perk to troops choices when they reach certain objectives or survive the game. Really, until we see the entire thing in action I don't see how you can judge it. After all it is a means to an end.
I don't think this game system necessarily needs a reboot. A decent set of rules and FAQs could achieve what needs to be done. Ravening Hordes was a lot of hell before things all got sorted out. It was almost pointless to play certain armies during that time period, or against some. It could end up being just as much a mess either way we go.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Deadshane1 wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:It's because they wanted to further clarify thebattlefield roles of the various Tanks vs Transports. In particular, it nerfs the Eldar grav tanks and their plethora of S6 weapons.
It nerfs tanks across the board, not just Eldar.
No, it specifically nerfs Eldar (and Tau). A Predator doesn't need to move to stay alive.
1615
Post by: Slave
I hate screening, and I am a tyranid player.
Pinning test, no more entangled? Wow. How does being a cult marine make you immune to having to crawl out of a burning slag heap of a rhino that just exploded? I also play chaos, and I hate how fearless will make you immune from this rule.
Entangled should always be rolled for, and it whouldn't be based on leadrship, it should be an Intiative test or somethig like that to crawl out of the wreckage.
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.
131
Post by: malfred
Schepp himself wrote:Some serious Fantasy impact here.
2+/5+ is for having a BS of 6 or higher. Basically you roll to hit on a 2+. If it fails, you can reroll and hit on a 5+, giving you another chance of hitting your intended target. The reroll gets better the more BS you got.
Also Combat resolution (not in this chart) and IC are targetable (the IC hiding was erased in 7th edition fantasy).
I like many of these, but some sound rather strange, I have to agree on that. Making defensive weapons S4 or lower? Mh, only with a serious reconstruction of the vehicle firing chart. I like the 5+ ward save though.
The new torrent of fire is rather nice as far as I understand it. Now you can "snipe" the sarge and the heavy weapon guy with one big volley of fire (All get wounds times x, then roll the armor save) Further supports players to bring some basic guys into the field.
Target restriction (aka screening) is the stinkness! Nothing more annoying than a heavy weapon squad with nothing to shoot at. The screening solution of H.B.M.C.'s Group was rather good, or a ward save like the grot save ork armies got...
Greets
Schepp himself
Thanks. I play Fantasy, and I guess it didn't make sense to me
until I realized that's what the +2/+5 mechanic meant.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
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.
If Snotlings are still WS2, then I think that is false.
A WS2 Snotling would hit a WS4 CSM Champion on 4s, but needs 5s to hit WS5+ Bloodthirster / Avatar.
270
Post by: winterman
It nerfs tanks across the board, not just Eldar.
No, it specifically nerfs Eldar (and Tau). A Predator doesn't need to move to stay alive.
Yeah, but a predator will likely have to move to get LOS to its target.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
A Predator loses a turn of firing when it shifts to a new firing position? Oh, noes!
The key point is that the Eldar & Tau should be moving (and sacrificing firepower) most of the time.
Imperial Tanks will give up much less.
5164
Post by: Stelek
Longshot wrote:HELLO 9 KANNON ORK LISTS! HURR
And you laughed when I put them into my lists.
4713
Post by: efarrer
JohnHwangDD wrote:A Predator loses a turn of firing when it shifts to a new firing position? Oh, noes!
The key point is that the Eldar & Tau should be moving (and sacrificing firepower) most of the time.
Imperial Tanks will give up much less.
OK. 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.
5164
Post by: Stelek
sebster wrote:gorgon wrote:It's just odd to me that they don't go back to some hit modifiers. Everyone knows that speeders should be HARD TO HIT.
But that leads to an army balance issue. If a BS 4 army suffers a -1 to hit skimmers, 25% of their usual hits would miss the skimmers. But a BS 2 army like orks would have 50% of their usual hits missing the skimmers.
So you take the base BS of 3 and ask what would happen if you applied a -1 mod for them to hit... 33% of their shots that would normally hit would miss. Then you give everyone that same 33% chance of missing by applying a second roll after determining if you hit or not, and you end up with a 5+ cover save.
You understand the GW insanity. Bonus.
5470
Post by: sebster
Kotrin wrote:IC rules are a bit clearer now, I was annoyed by those "this guy is in the middle of 20 soldiers but nooooo he's not part of the unit". Now IC will be just like other characters, but just able to move from one unit to another should the need arise.
And think about how the newly rumoured rule on models making individual armour saves relates to this. There would have been a strong incentive for ICs to stand in the middle of units and never join the unit. Now that IC standing in the middle of that block of troops can be hit, if you put enough fire in there.
It's also possible the new system for individual armour saves may pull back on the effectiveness of powerfists a little. You don't have to kill every enemy model in the area of engagement, just have to score enough wounds to force a save on that powerfist sergeant.
I hope they'll rewrite reserve rules ala Apocalypse, they are so much better there.
I hope reserve missions are written seperately for each mission. There's a lot of potential for variety there that's been ignored so far. But I suspect your wish will come true and mine will not.
4884
Post by: Therion
A lot of the speculation we did when we heard the first rumours have now proved to be incorrect because of incomplete information. Still, most of you are falling to the same trap yet again in assuming that the rumours here are all that will be changing. Tanks might very well be able to fire all their weapons at all times, or there might be a new category called secondary weapons, and so on. In my opinion all we need to understand from these rumours is that the game is getting a major overhaul that somewhat resembles 40K v3.5 and not v5.0. Nearly every part of the game is changing, and so will the armies that play it. I welcome this change, as it seems that all armies will be affected by it. And please, let's not make this another "but XXX army doesn't get hurt by this!!!" thread because we've already had those, and like I said, we don't have a definite list of all the changes to the game.
5470
Post by: sebster
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.
4884
Post by: Therion
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.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
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.
374
Post by: Strangelooper
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 )
1795
Post by: keezus
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.
4477
Post by: skullspliter888
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
4884
Post by: Therion
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.
5470
Post by: sebster
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.
5470
Post by: sebster
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…
4713
Post by: efarrer
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.
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.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
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.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
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.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
efarrer wrote:
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.
5470
Post by: sebster
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.
3550
Post by: IntoTheRain
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.
131
Post by: malfred
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.
4713
Post by: efarrer
[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).
That was british forces.
Canadian military has been a series of successes, and Canada has never fought on the losing side of a war it has been involved in.
Notable battles fought by Canadian forces
WWI- Vimy, the Somme, and Paschandale are all notable battles.
WWII- D-Day (only allied forces to reach all objectives), Holland campaign, Italian campaign
As for Canadian tank crews, I can't think of any tank Aces. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to their prowess.
Commonwealth forces do not appear to have credited tanks (or tank commanders with Ace status. Either that or the information is generally lost. German and Russians seem more interested in naming aces.
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?
But they did it. I've found hard copy accounts over the years of this tactic. And I should note that they did not always hit. They hit often enough to make the dead result of sitting still vs a Panzer the worse option.
When it's as little as 1 or 2 inches, yes.
But 5 or 6 choosing the worst option is over 50% chance.
If a tank is dug in properly hull down, with heavy armour, it doesn't need to move.
May God have mercy on the people dumb enough to have believed this. This is particularly true in any environment with effective antitank weapons.
From what I can tell, the 40k tanks seem to capture WW2 tank ethos pretty well.
Right.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
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
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
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).
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
HBMC, perhaps you should have switched over to FOW. They do Tanks much better than 40k.
5164
Post by: Stelek
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.
5470
Post by: sebster
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.
5470
Post by: sebster
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.
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
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.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
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
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
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
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
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
5470
Post by: sebster
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).
1179
Post by: Tyfe
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.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
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.
2411
Post by: Beast
It seems to me like GW is largely just going back to 3rd edition (something JJ apparently is still in love with) although with some changes thrown in for cover. If all these rumors are true then it looks like they want a total do-over for 4th Ed.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Good thing I have a 3rd edition rulebook then. And most of the codexes. I won't need to buy 5th edition at all.
2411
Post by: Beast
It really surprises me that the design team (and with JJ's guidance) was able to sell this roll-back to the internal GW leadership. The game needs to go forwards not just back to 3rd Ed. with a few different changes that are knee-jerk to the latest Tourney powerbuilds... I'm sure JJ has a vision of what he wants 40K to be and that he wants to erase the mistakes he thinks past designers have made. I am just surprised corporate leadership is buying off on a huge step back to the past... (assuming all the posted rumors are in fact true...)
But then again perhaps corporate leadership in GW isnot what it should be. They probably have absolutely no idea how 40K is or has been played. They view a new rulebook as potential profit along with the inevitable minis that must be purchased to accomodate the new rulebook. In that light I suppose it makes sense...
181
Post by: gorgon
Beast wrote:It seems to me like GW is largely just going back to 3rd edition (something JJ apparently is still in love with) although with some changes thrown in for cover. If all these rumors are true then it looks like they want a total do-over for 4th Ed.
I think I'd call it v2.5. Based on what we know, it's the 3rd edition structure with more 2nd edition flavor. It's probably what they should have done with 3rd edition in the first place. However...
syr8766 wrote:I'm sure this has been said by others more articulately , but it really makes me wonder if 40k can be saved in its current form at all, or does it need a complete revisioning. I don't just mean overbalancing/counterbalancing mistakes from previous editions; I mean wipe the slate clean in terms of ALL game mechanics--eliminate ALL assumptions of how the game is supposed to be played--and start from scratch.
Yeah, ultimately it becomes a question of whether the 3rd edition foundation is robust enough to support all these ridiculous patches and "backwards-compatibility." I'd be fine with a blowup and fresh start. I'd also be fine with GW settling on a ruleset, acknowledging its flaws and (importantly) that they'll never be able to dictate player behavior, and making the small tweaks and clarifications that really improve things for us (see WFB).
What drives me nuts is the constant halfway changes that create as many problems as they solve. Get a frickin' vision for the game.
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
I think if they are going to really fix the weapons types (primary, defensive etc.) on vehicles, they are going to need to do it on a vehicle by vehicle basis. Each entry will need "You can purchase one Primary weapon from this list... You can purchase X secondary weapons from this list" etc. Arbitrary Str ratings for various weapons will create many silly situations across the codexes, as the Tau example shows.
Also, Tanks need to be able to split fire. It just doesn't make sense that the men operating the sponsons have to either shoot the same target as the man opperating the turret, or shut up and stick their thumb in their butt.
689
Post by: Salvation122
gorgon wrote:Yeah, ultimately it becomes a question of whether the 3rd edition foundation is robust enough to support all these ridiculous patches and "backwards-compatibility." I'd be fine with a blowup and fresh start. I'd also be fine with GW settling on a ruleset, acknowledging its flaws and (importantly) that they'll never be able to dictate player behavior, and making the small tweaks and clarifications that really improve things for us (see WFB).
That's just silly. GW can and will dictate player behavior through rules. They decided that the Rhino Rush was unbalanced and overplayed, so they wrote rules that deliberately nerfed it. They decided that heroes were overpowered in WFB, so they nerfed them (a couple editions ago, granted) and made taking more than your minimum core choices a necessity if you want to be competitive (a few gimmicks like the Flying Circus aside.) They want infantry to be the focus instead of tanks, so they make tanks a comparatively weak choice that can still act as a bullet hose against a single unit.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Salvation112, don't forget that before GW decided that Rhino Rush was overpowered or Heroes in WFB, they had previously decided that Rhino Rush and Heroes were a Good Thing.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Wehrkind wrote:Also, Tanks need to be able to split fire. It just doesn't make sense that the men operating the sponsons have to either shoot the same target as the man opperating the turret, or shut up and stick their thumb in their butt.
How does that make any less sense than the men with the Lasguns having to shoot the same target as the guy operating the Missile Launcher in an infantry squad?
689
Post by: Salvation122
Kilkrazy wrote:Salvation112, don't forget that before GW decided that Rhino Rush was overpowered or Heroes in WFB, they had previously decided that Rhino Rush and Heroes were a Good Thing.
I'm pretty sure that just reinforces my point.
4884
Post by: Therion
they'll never be able to dictate player behavior
Like Salvation122 pointed out they can, they have and they always will. The overpowered units or strategies are intended to be exactly that, so that players can have a focus. Once the time for a review comes, the focus is switched elsewhere by either making the previously overpowered units or strategies completely underpowered, or by making something else even more drastically overpowered.
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 those cover saves but not the Holo-Field part. Eldar players want to re-roll their cover saves with Fortune, and save the Holo-Field for the damage tables, but I would accept your rule as well were it ever to become official. Sadly GW seems to have gone with the "everyone gets 5+ cover saves, nothing else changes" approach.
5295
Post by: amnar
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Actually, you're completely wrong. They used American and British tanks, and even built their own version of the M4, called the Grizzly. Canada didn't just have a few tanks, a few complete armour divisions were deployed.
5295
Post by: amnar
JohnHwangDD wrote:efarrer wrote:
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?
Dude, seriously, read a book sometime. Losing all of Canada in the French and Indian War? Do you even know what happened during that war? Maybe you should look it up, because that comment is about as smart as someone saying the US lost all of the south in the American Civil War.
Tank Aces? What are you talking about? Only the Germans really had tank aces, the allies pulled their star crews out and sent them home to train new recruits, similar to pilots. That's why you see German pilots with 300+ kills, and allied aces with 30 something kills, they get sent home to train the next batch.
Books are good... books have information...... knowing stuff in books makes you able to communicate and actually have a clue what you're talking about.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
H.B.M.C. wrote:GW hasn't presented us, as we'd expect, with a progression of improved rules.
N00b.
If you had a copy of the RT Vehicle Companion (with targeting overlay), you'd change your tune.
As far as random mechanics goes, that has got to be one of the craziest things I can ever recall GW releasing for vehicles.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Salvation122 wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Salvation112, don't forget that before GW decided that Rhino Rush was overpowered or Heroes in WFB, they had previously decided that Rhino Rush and Heroes were a Good Thing.
I'm pretty sure that just reinforces my point.
It depends on whether one believes the conspiracy or cock-up theories of rules writing.
The conspiracy theory is that GW have a grand understanding of how to write rules that make good sense, and deliberately create certain overpowered units or tactics every couple of years because switching that focus is a good way of selling models.
The cock-up theory holds that GW simply don't understand the full effects of their rules so things like Rhino Rush are a surprising emergent behaviour which they then overreact to and nerf in the next round.
It doesn't really matter which theory is correct. Players can always choose what they want to play. For example, I chose Tau not because they were powerful (they were actually at the bottom of the cycle at that time) but because I thought the models were cool.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
sebster wrote:You’re right about whirlwinds, but tau secondary weapons (burst cannon and the like) really should be defensive weapons.
Note that I proposed that Tau & Eldar treat Secondary weapons (up to S6) as Defensive weapons, so this addresses your concern.
I also don’t like an autocannon being deemed a main weapon while an assault cannon is called secondary or defensive.
I'm OK with Plasma Cannons & Autocannons as main weapons. A2 Autocannon is arguably superior to a S8 ML.
Assault Cannon is pretty good for a Secondary weapon, but with the pending Rending nerf, I think it'll drop back in line with the other secondaries.
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?
That would be possible, but seems like more work.
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.
I don't like the whole one-pivot business. It's too WFB-like and too clunky when you consider that the model represents a tiny tank. The whole "move as you like" thing is much faster and easier.
So just one table?
Yea, because that's the rumor.
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.
The idea is to have 6 distinct results, so merging results is undesirable. With Shake and only 2 Destroys, it's lower risk than before.
No splitting fire - 40k is always 1 unit vs 1 unit.
We’ll just have to disagree on that one.
Given that 40k specifically limited assaults to single targets (same as shooting target), I think the designers have made their point clear that 40k is supposed to be 1v1. If tanks can split fire, then Machine Spirit has no meaning.
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).
As above, Tau treat secondary as defensive, so Burst Cannon are OK. Imperial HBs are a problem because they are priced so cheaply. If they were Defensive, they would have to be charged at least 10 pts each for IG, 15 pts for SM. Possibly more. And inflating the points of a Russ is undesirable at this time.
5164
Post by: Stelek
Sebster, I didn't mean players that chose the tanks are retards. I meant the tanks look like the boxes retards get stuffed in by our wonderful society. They call it the 'short bus' around here....
5861
Post by: Hivefleet_Damocles
Hmm some awesome poitns there, but some of them HAVE to be complete bs.. well. some of the stuff in the msicelanneous bit up top
689
Post by: Salvation122
Where the hell are people getting "secondary" weapons from? That's not even rumored.
181
Post by: gorgon
Salvation122 wrote:gorgon wrote:Yeah, ultimately it becomes a question of whether the 3rd edition foundation is robust enough to support all these ridiculous patches and "backwards-compatibility." I'd be fine with a blowup and fresh start. I'd also be fine with GW settling on a ruleset, acknowledging its flaws and (importantly) that they'll never be able to dictate player behavior, and making the small tweaks and clarifications that really improve things for us (see WFB).
That's just silly. GW can and will dictate player behavior through rules. They decided that the Rhino Rush was unbalanced and overplayed, so they wrote rules that deliberately nerfed it. They decided that heroes were overpowered in WFB, so they nerfed them (a couple editions ago, granted) and made taking more than your minimum core choices a necessity if you want to be competitive (a few gimmicks like the Flying Circus aside.) They want infantry to be the focus instead of tanks, so they make tanks a comparatively weak choice that can still act as a bullet hose against a single unit.
LOL. And the point goes sailing over your head.
What ACTUALLY happened was that transports started as deathtraps in 2nd edition. They wanted them to be more viable in 3rd, so they got a big buff. Then players discovered the Rhino rush. GW decided "that's not what we wanted," so they nerfed it. Now transports (of the tracked variety, at least) aren't used for much other than moving infantry screens. So once again they decide "that's not what we wanted," so out goes entanglement, etc.
I could list an endless amount of examples. The point is that GW ultimately CAN'T control behavior because players will either find a way around certain limitations or exploit the new rules beyond what was intended. Then the *reactionary* designers make a bunch of changes and the cycle begins anew.
This has been going on in 40K for TWENTY years now. At some point, the designers have to let go a little and let nature take its course, however that may be. Because the game is NEVER going to play exactly the way they intended. There's a Darwinian thing at work as soon as the ruleset is introduced to the public. If they really want to balance the game and improve gameplay, small and subtle rules changes or clarifications will be more effective than the endless pendulum swings we experience that inevitably create new problems as they solve others.
Or they can blow the whole thing up. Either way, at some point they need to make up their minds if this is the ruleset they're going forward with or not. How can a game be around for twenty years and have the designers still "ironing out" major issues?
117
Post by: Tribune
I find the relative lack of overlap between these rumours and Brimstone's a little hard to believe, you'd think they were notable enough to crop up in some way in both. However, I know nothing of this second source's background and perceived reliability, anyone wish to educate me?
Then again, we may all be too busy playing our favourite meta-analysis game to care. For my part, I'd be very interested to see how troop screening and area terrain not blocking line of sight would not be retrograde steps, even with other rules changes. These just seem like bad moves.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
I just hope that troop screening doesn't bring us back to laser pointers...
And I hope that there's some kind of LOS-blocking "volume terrain" for forests.
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
Asmodai wrote:Wehrkind wrote:Also, Tanks need to be able to split fire. It just doesn't make sense that the men operating the sponsons have to either shoot the same target as the man opperating the turret, or shut up and stick their thumb in their butt.
How does that make any less sense than the men with the Lasguns having to shoot the same target as the guy operating the Missile Launcher in an infantry squad?
Oh, it doesn't, well not by much. I think the infantry thing is pretty stupid too. The only thing with the vehicles that makes it a little extra dumb is that they have vastly different fields of vision. The guy on the left sponson probably can't see what the guy on the right is shooting at even if he tries. So instead of shooting something he can see, he just stares blankly. That is wierd.
I personally like HBMC's fix of vehicles splitting fire and infantry squads choosing secondary targets on a Ld test. Makes a lot more sense.
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
JohnHwangDD wrote:H.B.M.C. wrote:GW hasn't presented us, as we'd expect, with a progression of improved rules.
N00b.
If you had a copy of the RT Vehicle Companion (with targeting overlay), you'd change your tune.
As far as random mechanics goes, that has got to be one of the craziest things I can ever recall GW releasing for vehicles.
How many years ago was that? 10, 20, somewhere in there? I would hardly say that having a moderately workable and unsatisfying vehicle system is a vast improvement, even over a really wierd system that doesn't work well, especially over the course of decades.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Wehrkind wrote:Asmodai wrote:Wehrkind wrote:Also, Tanks need to be able to split fire. It just doesn't make sense that the men operating the sponsons have to either shoot the same target as the man opperating the turret, or shut up and stick their thumb in their butt.
How does that make any less sense than the men with the Lasguns having to shoot the same target as the guy operating the Missile Launcher in an infantry squad?
Oh, it doesn't, well not by much. I think the infantry thing is pretty stupid too. The only thing with the vehicles that makes it a little extra dumb is that they have vastly different fields of vision. The guy on the left sponson probably can't see what the guy on the right is shooting at even if he tries. So instead of shooting something he can see, he just stares blankly. That is wierd.
....
Especially considering that tankers are notorious for blasting off whole belts of MG ammo at any suitable target.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
I can't wait for Round 4 of the 5th ed rumors so we can have more of these enlightening conversations.
I think the Canadian Military argument was of particular importance to the validity and discussion of 5th ed rumors.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
4713
Post by: efarrer
Ozymandias wrote:I can't wait for Round 4 of the 5th ed rumors so we can have more of these enlightening conversations.
I think the Canadian Military argument was of particular importance to the validity and discussion of 5th ed rumors.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
The point which got lost in his nationalistic (and ignorant) attack on my nation's military history was that tanks did indeed move and fire while on the move. Tanks in 40K don't really do that now, and it looks like it's going to be even worse in the near future. A fricking steam tank can move and fire more accurately.
4588
Post by: Destrado
efarrer wrote:A fricking steam tank can move and fire more accurately.
Quoted for truth!
I'm thinking of joining the bandwagon with the poster that reads, "Stay Rumours!". Seriously, some of these changes seem to be changes just for the sake of it.
I'll decide when it comes out. I'll still buy the boxed set, if it's anything like people are saying on the internetz.
117
Post by: Tribune
The source of the latest rumours said this at Warseer on http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2258415&postcount=391
Champsguy wrote:My only source is a guy at our store. I didn't think he knew all that many people. But the version I saw had all the little things that a fake 5th Ed wouldn't, like stuff pimping GW's website and products. Nobody writing up a fake version of the rules would spend time talking about fantastic citadel models and paints, or tell you to find out more at GW's website.
'A guy at our store' - As we all know, 'some guy at my local store' has been proven in exhaustive tests to be by far the most reliable source of accurate rumour. Ever.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Wehrkind wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:H.B.M.C. wrote:GW hasn't presented us, as we'd expect, with a progression of improved rules.
N00b.
If you had a copy of the RT Vehicle Companion (with targeting overlay), you'd change your tune.
As far as random mechanics goes, that has got to be one of the craziest things I can ever recall GW releasing for vehicles.
How many years ago was that? 10, 20, somewhere in there? I would hardly say that having a moderately workable and unsatisfying vehicle system is a vast improvement, even over a really wierd system that doesn't work well, especially over the course of decades.
It's been less than 20 years (but not by much).
Vehicles have never been a particularly strong point of 40k's rules. At least they're showing signs of settling down to a more consistent, playable ruleset. Mechanically, I think the 40k Vehicle rules get consistently "better" with each edition, but also agree that there's room for improvement.
806
Post by: Toreador
And again and again. These are just rumours. Could be fake, could be pieces of the whole puzzle. Can't really judge anything off of the tidbits these people see. Sometimes they see things wrong, or out of context.
I like the theme of the rumours. It looks like the new rules are trying to fix and introduce a little more complexity to play. More tactics is always a good thing.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
JohnHwangDD wrote:N00b.
If you had a copy of the RT Vehicle Companion (with targeting overlay), you'd change your tune.
Noob? Noob?
You really are a clueless wonder aren't you John?
BYE
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Ozymandias wrote:I can't wait for Round 4 of the 5th ed rumors so we can have more of these enlightening conversations.
I think the Canadian Military argument was of particular importance to the validity and discussion of 5th ed rumors.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
You've heard the phrase 'If you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything at all", yes?
Part of the reason why I'm cutting this responce short...
...
117
Post by: Tribune
Pithy I like, ad hominem's I don't.
Can't we all just get along?
3550
Post by: IntoTheRain
Tribune wrote:Can't we all just get along?
Perhaps you have forgotten, but this is 40k.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Aye. 'tis a dark future indeed...
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
H.B.M.C. wrote:Noob? Noob?
You really are a clueless wonder aren't you John?
At least I've got a sense of humor.
H.B.M.C. wrote:You've heard the phrase 'If you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything at all", yes?
Part of the reason why I'm cutting this responce short...
...
Perhaps you'd do better to take your own advice more often?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Tribune wrote:Pithy I like, ad hominem's I don't.
An Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy where someone attempts to disprove someone else's point by attacking them personally. I'm not attempting to disprove anything, I'm just attacking him personally. Big difference.
BYE
117
Post by: Tribune
Now that's pithy. Good to have you back!
4588
Post by: Destrado
This is just degenerate. 40k brings the worst of us all.
I think I'm going outside for a cigarette. (too often)
I've been doing some thinking. (rare)
I looked at the rumours. (brain-damaging)
"Is *this* 5th edition?"
I sure hope there's a lot more to it, but then again, I'm a bit scared of it too. They have a nasty habit of screwing something up after showing that they are somewhat capable.
I cry every time I look at one of the new Dire Wolves. And Daemonettes. Not out of joy. Time for nicotine.
5470
Post by: sebster
Stelek wrote:Sebster, I didn't mean players that chose the tanks are retards. I meant the tanks look like the boxes retards get stuffed in by our wonderful society. They call it the 'short bus' around here....
Ah, fair enough then. Your original comment seemed a little harsh and out of character when I first read it. That's why I thought I'd query it. Now that I see what you mean I take it back.
Still think they look cool, but I can see the comparison.
466
Post by: skkipper
I am really looking forward to fifth addition. The changes sound good and the game should be fun to play. I enjoy when they dramaticly change the power of certian units. I never go over the top with the "killer" units. It just makes me chuckle to see people who maxed out their list to the detriment to the game get screwed. with luck these people will stop playing.
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:Note that I proposed that Tau & Eldar treat Secondary weapons (up to S6) as Defensive weapons, so this addresses your concern.
Yeah, but then you're getting into having three categories of weapons, with additional exceptions in certain lists. It just seems a little messy. I'd have primary and defensive weapons, with the vehicle entry defining each option.
I'm OK with Plasma Cannons & Autocannons as main weapons. A2 Autocannon is arguably superior to a S8 ML.
Assault Cannon is pretty good for a Secondary weapon, but with the pending Rending nerf, I think it'll drop back in line with the other secondaries.
Exactly. Strength alone can't properly define weapon values.
That would be possible, but seems like more work.
Maybe, but sometimes it's worth it to avoid an arbitrary rule with multiple 'odd points'.
I don't like the whole one-pivot business. It's too WFB-like and too clunky when you consider that the model represents a tiny tank. The whole "move as you like" thing is much faster and easier.
It's faster, it's easier, and it results in vehicles losing a unique feel on the table. Limit their agility while giving them the ability to shoot and move and they'll start feeling like tanks should.
Yea, because that's the rumor.
Yeah, but we're already in wish-list land anyway. We've been in wish list land since you asked me how I'd like to see the vehicles work. Might as well go the whole hog.
The idea is to have 6 distinct results, so merging results is undesirable. With Shake and only 2 Destroys, it's lower risk than before.
Fair point. My only real issue was with making the lower results on the table less damaging. At present any penetrating or glancing hit stops a tank shooting next turn, making the thing useless.
Changing it up to have 6 different results is fair enough, as long as the lower results don't guarantee the tank will be useless next turn.
Given that 40k specifically limited assaults to single targets (same as shooting target), I think the designers have made their point clear that 40k is supposed to be 1v1. If tanks can split fire, then Machine Spirit has no meaning.
A unit can assault two enemy units, as long as it maintains cohesion.
As above, Tau treat secondary as defensive, so Burst Cannon are OK. Imperial HBs are a problem because they are priced so cheaply. If they were Defensive, they would have to be charged at least 10 pts each for IG, 15 pts for SM. Possibly more. And inflating the points of a Russ is undesirable at this time.
I don't know about that. Kicking a leman russ up to around 180-200 points would be pretty cool, as long as there were sufficient improvements to their toughness, mobility and firepower. It'd work nicely with pulling guardsman back to 5 points and dropping a few heavy weapons back in cost as well, as IG army sizes would maintain their current size.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
H.B.M.C. wrote:Tribune wrote:Pithy I like, ad hominem's I don't.
An Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy where someone attempts to disprove someone else's point by attacking them personally. I'm not attempting to disprove anything, I'm just attacking him personally. Big difference.
BYE
That's correct. What you are portraying is actually online disinhibition, which is usually associated with low emotional IQ.
5470
Post by: sebster
Kilkrazy wrote:It depends on whether one believes the conspiracy or cock-up theories of rules writing.
Never prescribe to malice what can be explained with incompetence...
Anyhow, it's pretty clear GW designs and playtests 40K for more casual social play. You only get really significant power imbalances when people start taking the kinds of extreme lists that wouldn't fly in a casual gaming environment, like 8 tyranid monstrous creatures or 3 falcons. By and large the 40k rules work perfectly well for a casual beer and pretzels game. There's a few annoying moments of inconsistant detail, but by and large the only criticisms that should be levelled are when certain units should be fun and awesome (like Leman Russ and Possessed) but are boring and ineffective.
This would give them a pass from the people who criticise their rulesets from the perspective of highly competitive play, except GW is happy to promote tournaments and competitive play. So GW ultimately demonstrates a kind of incompetence, but it isn't just about their rules. It's about GW having a very inconsistant approach to their game.
5470
Post by: sebster
skkipper wrote:I am really looking forward to fifth addition. The changes sound good and the game should be fun to play. I enjoy when they dramaticly change the power of certian units. I never go over the top with the "killer" units. It just makes me chuckle to see people who maxed out their list to the detriment to the game get screwed. with luck these people will stop playing.
Some will buy new armies and spend a lot time talking about how GW screwed them over and made them buy a new army. Others will stop playing, but there'll be another generation coming along who buy up the new killer army.
GW will continue with their nonsense approach of releasing a rules set that doesn't really work at the competitive level and then sponsoring a whole pile of tournaments.
4884
Post by: Therion
What I especially love about this thread is the fact that the traditional American nationalist JohnHwangDD tried to ridicule Canadian military history, got his so called facts proven dead wrong, and now refuses to reply to any related post. "If I don't reply to anyone who proved that I'm a complete idiot and that I was lying, I can act like I was right all along." Sadly this is the current level of internet discussion.
4477
Post by: skullspliter888
Death to the false rumor maker !!
My question i may have missed in all the talk about tanks and who made them etc. what is the time for the release of 5th
and to our ALLIES to the north sorry about so of us YANKS we were all on the same side and @George Spiggott in 1940 your welcome for all the planes tanks and ships etc.
we came late but fought on the same side
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
AgeOfEgos wrote:That's correct. What you are portraying is actually online disinhibition, which is usually associated with low emotional IQ.
Assuming you proscribe to the theory of multiple types of IQ.
BYE
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
H.B.M.C. wrote:AgeOfEgos wrote:That's correct. What you are portraying is actually online disinhibition, which is usually associated with low emotional IQ.
Assuming you proscribe to the theory of multiple types of IQ.
BYE
I do not think that statement means what you think it means.
2661
Post by: Tacobake
are Havoc launchers S4 or S5 in the new chaos book? whatever they are, I'd say it safe to expect them to be defensive weapons in 5th ed.
And if they're not actually called that there will be a rule that lets them shoot ie say every gun S5 or higher can shoot at a seperate target, all defensive weapons must fire at the same target.
And this thread seriously needs more trannies and/or hot chick talk .
3550
Post by: IntoTheRain
Tacobake wrote: trannies and/or hot chick talk.
Those really aren't things I like to mix and match
131
Post by: malfred
IntoTheRain wrote:Tacobake wrote: trannies and/or hot chick talk.
Those really aren't things I like to mix and match
Yeah. Go trannies or go home!
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
sebster wrote:Strength alone can't properly define weapon values.
If, after allowing for exceptions for the high-tech races (Tau & Eldar), the only exception is the (temporarily overpowered) Assault Cannon, strength alone seems to be just fine.
It's faster, it's easier, and it results in vehicles losing a unique feel on the table. Limit their agility while giving them the ability to shoot and move and they'll start feeling like tanks should.
Except, there's no reason to do this when you also have nimble & agile Eldar & Tau Grav-Tanks. Tanks should be the basic entry, so it would be inappropriate rules-wise to tack on a special rule restriction, only to lift it for the higher-detail version. Plus, turning keys / radiusing / pivot limits are sorts of extremely high-detail mechanics that streamlined 40k is expressly doing away with.
Yeah, but we're already in wish-list land anyway.
Point well taken.
At present any penetrating or glancing hit stops a tank shooting next turn, making the thing useless.
Not all Tanks are measured by their shootiness - Rhinos & such are primarily Transport. Stopping shooting for a turn further encourages movement over killing, so I wouldn't change it. Particularly as the basic results seem to have held solid for the past 2 editions.
A unit can assault two enemy units, as long as it maintains cohesion.
True, but this is only to prevent the opponent from cheesing by intermingling. I was thinking more of the Assault same as Shoot rule.
Kicking a leman russ up to around 180-200 points would be pretty cool, as long as there were sufficient improvements to their toughness, mobility and firepower.
No way. Russes are barely worth their points right now. With AV14/12/10, no armor increase is warranted. Imperial Tank mobility should be basic and limited. And Ordnance is plenty good enough. It's better to allow IG to field more stuff for an even larger army, following the recent Orks approach.
It'd work nicely with pulling guardsman back to 5 points and dropping a few heavy weapons back in cost as well, as IG army sizes would maintain their current size.
I agree that Guardsmen should be 5 points under the new rules, because right now, they're generally overcosted by 10-20%.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Therion wrote:What I especially love about this thread is the fact that the traditional American nationalist JohnHwangDD tried to ridicule Canadian military history, got his so called facts proven dead wrong, and now refuses to reply to any related post. "If I don't reply to anyone who proved that I'm a complete idiot and that I was lying, I can act like I was right all along." Sadly this is the current level of internet discussion.
Actually, I had a really nice post ready to go, but I decided to stop as the thread was degenerating toward flames. However, with HBMC and you deciding that we're going to go down this road, that's all well and good.
Fact is, in a war, I'd rather have the French at my back than a Canuck. At least the French have their Foreign Legion. Canada has nothing of significance.
Yes, Canada has ended up on the winning side of their recent wars. That's only because you followed the Brits and the Americans.
When you look at who did the heavy lifting in WW2, Canada is nowhere to be found. In WW1, the hard business was by the French, Russians, and Brits. Not Canada (nor the US, FWIW). In WW2, the 51st state managed to see even less action resulting in even fewer casualties than in WW1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
Yes, in WW2, the American Sherman tank had gyroscopic gun stabilization. And maybe Canada did have a decent gun crew, whose name is conveniently lost to history. Too bad it was too weak to actually penetrate German armor on a hit, whereas the German tanks were more deadly due to better optics and cannon.
As for truth, lies, and documentation, at least I can provide vetted Wiki links, whereas the Canadian counter is a lame statement that "No, that's not true" with nothing more than some vague reference to history and books.
For the most part, "Canadian military history" consists of little more than riding on someone else's coattails.
If you've got something to say, back it up, please. Otherwise, you can sit down and shut up.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
AgeOfEgos wrote:I do not think that statement means what you think it means.
I'm talking about the five different (apparently...) types of IQ. And I know quite well what they mean, silly pictures aside. But nice try.
But even if we ignore that, you are the first to sling the " You must be immature because you attack people behind 'the intarnetz's' cloak of anonymity" lable, which, given my history here, is laughable at best and downright offensive at worst.
BYE
4884
Post by: Therion
Fact is, in a war, I'd rather have the French at my back than a Canuck. At least the French have their Foreign Legion. Canada has nothing of significance.
Canada has nothing of significance? Your tone about the French is insulting as hell. What exactly counts as significant? Once we establish what counts as significant we can determine who does or doesn't qualify. Does invading and occupying sovereign countries like Iraq against the will of the UN security council and the international community count as significant? Does getting your ass kicked in Vietnam count as significant? Is it significant that the war in Afghanistan will end once the Americans give up? Is it significant or a military achievement that the United States is the only nation that has been crazy enough to deploy nuclear weapons against human targets? Actually, what are the military achievements of the United States? Illuminate me. The only real success I can think of was the defeat of the Nazis and the Americans certainly weren't alone in that one. The French have atleast controlled the largest Imperium in Europe since the Roman Empire. While Napoleon conquered territories he also drafted one of the finest pieces of legislation ever written, the Code Civil. I'd like to see the American oil driller or actor presidents attempt something like that.
Talking of having someone behind your back, I'm sure noone would like the Americans of today behind their backs on an actual warzone. I'm curious if the American soldiers have been trained at all. A large part of the British casualties in joint operations with USA at the Persian Gulf have come from American friendly fire. Here's my favorite quote from The Times Online:
A British officer in Basra said: “The Americans can be pretty pumped-up. Sometimes they fire in broad daylight when we are travelling at two miles per hour, shouting that we are British out of the window and waving the Union Jack. If they shoot, our drill is to slam on the brakes and race in the opposite direction.”
As far as heavy lifting in the WWII goes, you're ignoring some countries, and contrary to your assumption that I'm Canadian I'm in fact Finnish, and would like to quote to you your beloved Wikipedia:
During World War II, Finland was in many ways a unique case. It was the only country which fought against both sides of the conflict under the same leadership. It was the only European country which bordered the Soviet Union in 1939 and was still unoccupied in 1945. Of all the European countries fighting in World War II, only three European capitals were never occupied: Moscow, London and Helsinki. It was also a country which sided with Germany, but in which native Jews (and most refugees) were safe from persecution
The Finns lost almost 100'000 soldiers in the wars against the Soviet Union, and the Soviets suffered over six times as many casualties and over a million wounded. I would call that heavy lifting for a country of ~3 million at that time.
As for truth, lies, and documentation, at least I can provide vetted Wiki links, whereas the Canadian counter is a lame statement that "No, that's not true" with nothing more than some vague reference to history and books.
Like you admitted yourself, I'm sure the Canadians refrained themselves from completely derailing this topic and causing it to close.
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:If, after allowing for exceptions for the high-tech races (Tau & Eldar), the only exception is the (temporarily overpowered) Assault Cannon, strength alone seems to be just fine.
But it isn’t just the assault cannon. Should the ork rockets on the sides of their battlewagons be primary weapons? Why are missile launcher shots primary weapons if they fire krak but defensive if they fire frag?
You could just have codex entries saying that a predator destructor has a primary turret mounted autocannon. It has the option to take two sponson mounted heavy bolters as defensive weapons. It isn’t that complicated and avoids a lot of inevitable mess.
Except, there's no reason to do this when you also have nimble & agile Eldar & Tau Grav-Tanks. Tanks should be the basic entry, so it would be inappropriate rules-wise to tack on a special rule restriction, only to lift it for the higher-detail version. Plus, turning keys / radiusing / pivot limits are sorts of extremely high-detail mechanics that streamlined 40k is expressly doing away with.
Currently the basic tank has a range of restrictions (dangerous terrain, impassable terrain, enemy models) that skimmers can ignore.
There’s nothing wrong with vehicles coming in two categories. Ground based vehicles would be limited to one move and one turn. Skimmers would have more open movement. There is no way to have skimmers work properly without their own section and their own exceptions, so worrying about including a line saying ‘skimmers are free to turn as many times as they want during their movement’ seems a stretch.
Not all Tanks are measured by their shootiness - Rhinos & such are primarily Transport. Stopping shooting for a turn further encourages movement over killing, so I wouldn't change it. Particularly as the basic results seem to have held solid for the past 2 editions.
Yeah, I should have clarified. Tanks taken for their destructive ability (leman russ, predators, hammerheads, fire prisms) have a massive weakness in the current rules that any hit, even just a glancing hit, is guaranteed to make them useless next turn. This means you can shake a tank and then move on to shooting at the next one, and the next one.
Transports didn’t have this weakness, as no-one cared if their rhinos weren’t able to fire, as long as all those blood angels could pile out into assault. This led to the entanglement rules, which are a whole other debate.
But for main battle tanks, the current rules haven’t held solid. They are not viable in competitive play, due to massive number of AT weapons on the field (which is slowly being resolved with codex reform) and the ease at which tanks can be nullified turn after turn.
True, but this is only to prevent the opponent from cheesing by intermingling. I was thinking more of the Assault same as Shoot rule.
Which is another odd rule, part of some design principle I don’t really see any value in. It doesn’t make things simpler or quicker. It just seems to make people look at the rules and say ‘Why is that? Why can’t I shoot the anti-infantry weapons at a different target?’
No way. Russes are barely worth their points right now. With AV14/12/10, no armor increase is warranted. Imperial Tank mobility should be basic and limited. And Ordnance is plenty good enough. It's better to allow IG to field more stuff for an even larger army, following the recent Orks approach.
Yeah, Leman Russes are barely worth their points right now. That’s why I said they could be kicked up in points if their survivability, mobility and firepower grew sufficiently. I think they should be dominating the field, 180-200 point units devastating opposition units, and that making the move/shoot restrictions less harsh, it means making the damage table less harsh, and allowing them to fire their sponson and hull mounted weapons in addition to the cannon.
Keeping them at their current costs and improving their abilities a little to balance them would also work. That’s just a question of preferences.
I agree that Guardsmen should be 5 points under the new rules, because right now, they're generally overcosted by 10-20%.
5 points is the magic number. It’s the same basic value as WHFB. It means a marine is exactly 3 times as valuable as a guardsman. And it really is about what a guardsman is worth.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Therion wrote:Your tone about the French is insulting as hell.
You're the one who wanted the "discussion" to be more about heat than light.
What exactly counts as significant?
Never going more than a generation without being embroiled in some sort of war would seem to be a decent start. 200+ years of nearly continuous combat, so that's got to be some kind of record in human history.
Actually, what are the military achievements of the United States? Illuminate me.
Let's see, if I recall, we did a decent job of kicking the Brits out. No backwater at time.
Then, we did a fair job against the Spanish.
We managed to be the first to create usable Atomics. Yay!
And we managed to bankrupt the Soviets via military spending. Tho really, this is more of an economic / industrial victory...
The French have atleast controlled the largest Imperium in Europe since the Roman Empire.
From a de facto standpoint, we do this, too.
A large part of the British casualties in joint operations with USA at the Persian Gulf have come from American friendly fire.
Duh.
As far as heavy lifting in the WWII goes, you're ignoring some countries, and contrary to your assumption that I'm Canadian
I figured to be part-Canadian - you're far too ill-mannered to be a true Canadian citizen.
I'm in fact Finnish,
Great, then you can educate us all on the meaning of the word "Finlandize".
Like you admitted yourself, I'm sure the Canadians refrained themselves from completely derailing this topic and causing it to close.
Aren't you glad you re-opened this pile of nonsense?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
sebster wrote:But it isn’t just the assault cannon. Should the ork rockets on the sides of their battlewagons be primary weapons?
Are they S7+?
Why are missile launcher shots primary weapons if they fire krak but defensive if they fire frag?
Because they are S4?
You could just have codex entries saying that a predator destructor has a primary turret mounted autocannon. It has the option to take two sponson mounted heavy bolters as defensive weapons. It isn’t that complicated and avoids a lot of inevitable mess.
The problem is that you need to redo *all* of the Codices to make this work, and GW just doesn't have the resources to do that. For better or for worse, 5th Edition needs to be compatible with the 4th (and remaining 3rd) Edition Codices.
Ground based vehicles would be limited to one move and one turn.
I disagree.
Tanks taken for their destructive ability (leman russ, predators, hammerheads, fire prisms) have a massive weakness in the current rules that any hit, even just a glancing hit, is guaranteed to make them useless next turn.
They can be Immobilized, which is meaningless.
Transports didn’t have this weakness,
This led to the entanglement rules, which are a whole other debate.
If Shaken is "may not both move and shoot next turn", then the Transport gives up shooting, and the shooter gives up moving. For all intents and purposes, that's the same as missing entirely. If each result on the Damage table is supposed to do something, and from a practical standpoint, Nothing Happens 1/6 of the time, doesn't that seem wrong?
Which is another odd rule, part of some design principle I don’t really see any value in. It doesn’t make things simpler or quicker. It just seems to make people look at the rules and say ‘Why is that? Why can’t I shoot the anti-infantry weapons at a different target?’
Not splitting fire goes hand in hand with not charging something you didn't shoot at. The point is to limit the abilty of a unit to suppress multiple enemy units. Charging is an exception, as the opponent chooses how closely to place his models.
Yeah, Leman Russes are barely worth their points right now. That’s why I said they could be kicked up in points if their survivability, mobility and firepower grew sufficiently. I think they should be dominating the field, 180-200 point units devastating opposition units, and that making the move/shoot restrictions less harsh, it means making the damage table less harsh, and allowing them to fire their sponson and hull mounted weapons in addition to the cannon.
In an environment in which Guard will need their Platoon forces as Scoring, I think more cheaper stuff would be more useful. Being able to squeeze in an extra mechanized Troops unit would be important to siezing Objectives.
5 points is the magic number. It’s the same basic value as WHFB. It means a marine is exactly 3 times as valuable as a guardsman. And it really is about what a guardsman is worth.
With these rumors in effect, I could see basic Guardsmen going to 4.5 or even 4 pts. They suck in HtH and always need to shoot. So they gain nothing from the nerfed Fleet option. Their enemies will move faster, and they're only 10 guys with 1 WS3 S3 attack. They can't mob or wear good armor.
5604
Post by: Reaver83
I've been thinking about the possible changes to scout/infiltrate and tthe idea of coming on from the flanks/rear of the enemy.
If scout changes from a free 6" move to the abilit to come on from another boad edge, I think it could suddenl make the game a lot more tactical.
If you combine that with having to possibl defend objectives in your own half, then being able to properly outflank the enem is incrediball usefull.
I think that changing scout to that makes a lot of sense fluffwise and imagine some of the possibilities!
DA player with ravenwing squadron head in from the flank, followed by DSing termi's absolute carnage!
The only flaw i see with existing rules is Chaos Possessed as you role for their upgrades (including scout) after deploment!
2661
Post by: Tacobake
H.B.M.C. wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:N00b.
If you had a copy of the RT Vehicle Companion (with targeting overlay), you'd change your tune.
Noob? Noob?
You really are a clueless wonder aren't you John?
BYE
JohnHwangDD wrote:
When you look at who did the heavy lifting in WW2, Canada is nowhere to be found. In WW1, the hard business was by the French, Russians, and Brits. Not Canada (nor the US, FWIW). In WW2, the 51st state managed to see even less action resulting in even fewer casualties than in WW1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
For the most part, "Canadian military history" consists of little more than riding on someone else's coattails.
If you've got something to say, back it up, please. Otherwise, you can sit down and shut up.
You're a slow. How can we back that up. We can start by the gratuitous insulting of the Canadian 'casualties' that gave their lives in freedom's name in both WWI and WWII including but not limited to Vimy Ridge and Juno beach. I'm a statistician by trade (which is why I feel like I have to mention it at all), why don't you run some of those numbers of yours through a calculator and find out just how willing and able the relatively small population of Canada really was.
Fortunately the Canadian men and women whose lives you feel failed to contribute to the 'hard business' of winning WWI and WWII don't need 'Tacobake' on the Internets to defend their honor. Their legacy speaks for itself.
I trust that didn't come across as a personal attack.
2661
Post by: Tacobake
JohnHwangDD wrote:
With these rumors in effect, I could see basic Guardsmen going to 4.5 or even 4 pts. They suck in HtH and always need to shoot. So they gain nothing from the nerfed Fleet option. Their enemies will move faster, and they're only 10 guys with 1 WS3 S3 attack. They can't mob or wear good armor.
And on subject I wouldn't be surprised if there was another rule that 'cancelled out' the fleet option, for instance maybe consolidate will be done away with or charge reactions will be implemented.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
I can't believe people are questioning the countries and soldiers who fought in WW2 in a thread about 5th edition.
Can we please keep on talking about our little pretend plastic wars and gleefully ignore the real ones for a little while in this little slice of the internets?
2661
Post by: Tacobake
Voodoo Boyz wrote:I can't believe slowed talking monkeys are questioning the countries and soldiers who fought in WW2 in a thread about 5th edition.
oops.
Look, I understand the value of moderated discussion, not to mention ignoring obvious trolls, but 'hard business' is a bit much, and it has nothing to do with what country I live in it's a question of basic manners, especially after the guy pulls up a page that listed numbers of killed and wounded.
5560
Post by: Freaky Freddy
Salvation122 wrote:Via Bell of Lost Souls:
-------------------------------
Shooting
-There's now a reason to have a BS higher than 5 (can we say 2+/5+?).
-All models friend or foe now block line of sight. Vehicles and Monstrous Creature can be targeted over intervening infantry.
-Area terrain does not block line of sight.
-All blast weapons now scatter.
Vehicles
-Defensive weapons on vehicles are now Str 4 and below.
-Skimmers Moving Fast is now a 5+ cover save. (I have heard this is the new rule for All Obscured Targets)
-Dedicated transports can now carry any unit (subject to normal restrictions, i.e., no Terminators) and are no longer the deathtraps they have been (no entangling, just pinning).
- AP 1 weapons add +1 to the vehicle damage chart instead of doing as they do now.
-Ordinance weapons roll 2d6 and pick the highest on the vehicle damage table.
Miscellaneous
-Independent Character targeting restrictions have been eased.
-There is no IC protection any longer unless he is joined to a unit
- ICs within 2" of a unit automatically join it.
-Dark Eldar are not gone, as they're mentioned in the rules (their jetbikes DO get the 6" assault).
-Frag grenades operate as plasma grenades now.
-Monstrous creatures get move through cover, not a reroll.
-Saving Throws are now made AFTER wound allocation. This means you could still roll all your generic troopers as a group, but will need to roll for each special model (serg, heavy weapons, etc) one by one. Torrent of Fire is gone.
Missions
-The missions are different enough that Troops only counting as scoring isn't as big a deal as it would be today.
-Victory points are calculated differently in "cleanse" style missions (points calculated depending on the FOC slot the dead unit took up).
-Scouts and Infiltrators can now try to outflank the enemy and come on as reserves from a different board edge.
-Deepstrike is the same, but if you can't place all the models, you roll on the "deepstrike mishap" table (50% you're dead, 50% you place yourself anywhere you like).
Overall, the rules look a lot more detailed. Not as detailed as 2nd edition, but now there's a difference between a guy standing on the roof of a building and a guy standing in the basement. Actual line of sight matters a lot more than "pretend" line of sight now.
-------------------------------
IC nerf seems unneeded, other than that I like pretty much everything.
I do feel the LoS rules suck. Just think of using Grot (Ork) or Grotesques (Dark Eldar) as meat shields to move more CC based units down the field.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Tacobake wrote:Voodoo Boyz wrote:I can't believe slowed talking monkeys are questioning the countries and soldiers who fought in WW2 in a thread about 5th edition.
oops.
Look, I understand the value of moderated discussion, not to mention ignoring obvious trolls, but 'hard business' is a bit much, and it has nothing to do with what country I live in it's a question of basic manners, especially after the guy pulls up a page that listed numbers of killed and wounded.
I don't disagree that what was said about "hard business" was WAY out of line; I can't fault people for arguing over that and other off topic slights that came up during this thread. Personally, I tend not to criticize soldiers who have served honorably; especially not ones who are likely dead for a war fought 60 years ago.
But this thread went way off topic, and since there have been New Revelations about 5th Ed, however unreliable they may be; I figured a new thread would help out rather than just mucking around in here.
1795
Post by: keezus
JohnHwangDD wrote:Canada has nothing of significance.
Foreign Legion? I'll bite and raise you JTF2. Nuff said.
And your comments about pure casualties as a measure of performance is a load of bollocks when you consider that Canada has a fraction of the US population. Canadian performance at Dieppe and Normandy was not insignificant - and considering proportional population to draw from, hardly the weaklings that you describe.
In before lock!
365
Post by: Abadabadoobaddon
JohnHwangDD wrote:Never going more than a generation without being embroiled in some sort of war would seem to be a decent start. 200+ years of nearly continuous combat, so that's got to be some kind of record in human history.
And that's something to be proud of? A wiseman once said: wars not make one great.
221
Post by: Frazzled
1. I see thread four is going so thats good.
2. Lay off the Canadians 
Maple donuts are a proof of the existence of God. They have sacrificed with us in WWI, WWII, and Afghanistan.
4477
Post by: skullspliter888
@jfrazell amen  i hope the my country is better then your country is over yes me too .
what do you guys think about snipers with rending ?? I think i would be cool its like your guy got a head shot etc.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Would be good. Didn't see that though.
171
Post by: Lorek
We're done here. There are other 5th Edition threads, please take the discussion there. Warnings will be meted out as necessary.
|
|
