I've just been reading through some of the 5th Ed rumors and I must say that overall they seem like they will improve the game. The biggest bone of contention is the Strength 4 defensive weapons deal. Combined with the cover save for vehicles rule will mean that all tanks, skimmers, and walkers will be way too static for the game. So my first thought is... The elimination of this rule will most definitely be the first step taken by many gaming groups. Vehicles should be moving and firing, that is what they are best used for. I imagine that IG, Tau, Eldar, Marines/CSMs in particular will want to overturn this rule. It doesn't make sense, Infantry all of the sudden are way more mobile, but vehicles will have to park themselves inside a building to get the full benefits of their firepower.

I'll try playing it GW's way at first, but I can't imagine it will make the game more fun. Tau and Eldar skimmers got nerfed enough for me by the 5th Ed rules, but they should still be able to move 12" and fire with all of St6 or less guns. It is really out of character for these armies to hover around inside buildings and forests, when they should be moving quickly across board using their speed to protect them. Overall I like the improvements to the vehicle rules, but this rule looks ripe for house rule overturning.

Anyone else agree?

Yup. I am of the opinion that Defensive Weapons should be Strength 5.

But the new rules help increase the popularity of Marine Las/Plas squads while reducing the overuse of vehicles...wait

I am not sure what they are trying to do...it is sad.

Considering that vehicles will still be able to move and fire, I don't really see what the problem is. Vehicles can do what vehicles with multiple main weapons can already do: move up to their maximum one turn and then stay still and fire in the next turn.

Ordnance will continue to make the issue of secondary weapons irrelevant. The Power of the Machine Spirit rule for Land Raiders will be commensurate with its value.

Recent codecies such as Dark Angels and Blood Angels show that vehicles are being re-pointed to match their new limitations.

It shouldn't be done on S it should be done on Ap. Ap 5 or weaker can be defensive weapons.

Its still limited but its a better delimited.

You could go Ap4 to include heavy bolters, but then you also get autocannon, missile pods and a whole range of nasties inside - which really ought not to be defensive.

Psycannon bolts not being defensive can be explained easily enough. The rounds are phenomenally expensive, and should not be wasted on 'wild' shooting.

The only other alternative is to declare the weapons threshold as three shots or more. But then you get chimera lasguns as main weapons.

I think Ap5 (maybe 4) is best.

Or just a list in a vehicle profile of which weapons and weapon options are main weapons and which are defensive weapons.

Orlanth wrote:It shouldn't be done on S it should be done on Ap. Ap 5 or weaker can be defensive weapons.

Its still limited but its a better delimited.

You could go Ap4 to include heavy bolters, but then you also get autocannon, missile pods and a whole range of nasties inside - which really ought not to be defensive.

Psycannon bolts not being defensive can be explained easily enough. The rounds are phenomenally expensive, and should not be wasted on 'wild' shooting.

The only other alternative is to declare the weapons threshold as three shots or more. But then you get chimera lasguns as main weapons.

I think Ap5 (maybe 4) is best.

I'm curious under this interpretation, why would a S6 4 shot weapon be a "defensive" weapon, but an S5 3 shot weapon be a "main" weapon? (Heavy Bolter VS Scatterlaser) or a Disintegrator at S4 be a "Main" weapon?

To me, the purpose of defensive weapons is muppet-mowing, to hurt anything that isn't an MC or another Tank, AP isn't the major factor, when determining Main weapons, it's the raw strength with which it can bring to bear against other large targets. Otherwise you could have an S3 AP2 weapon be "main" and an S9 AP6 weapon be "Defensive", which I don't think would be representative of what such weapons should be.

I think the intention is very clear here. Either you move and sacrifice firepower or you stay still and lay it down heavy. Everyone keeps complaining about how this will hurt eldar and tau. I agree that is makes their vehicles less effective, but in a much more balanced way. The skimmers and fast vehicles still retain their edge over all other vehicles, pure mobility. Now they simply have to sacrifice offensive power to do so.

Personally I agree with the S4 defensive weapon idea. This is after much debate with others and myself. While I would like it to be S5, I think that a .75 caliber rocket and it's equivalent should probably be the uppermost limit of "anti personnel" fire. Again, this change will force people to chose between mobility and firepower, a fair trade if you ask me.

Str 5 with a special rule for Shuriken Cannons making them defensive.

Or maybe the Shuriken Cannon just complements anti-tank configurations, to give them some anti-infantry kick. It makes the upgrade less of a no-brainer.

It leaves Eldar a little light on Defensive options vs. Imperials and Orks.

Off topic: Personally my problem with defensive weapons on 4th edition was that there was no compulsion to fire them at the closest target, which IMO would have made them more 'defensive', oh and Assault cannons. The Strength was never an issue to me.

Do people actually override rules that aren't open
to interpretation? This isn't about a gaming group arguing
a wording so much as a gaming group deciding that they
don't like a rule.

Are there examples of such heresy existing on such a scale?

Fleeting Jetbikes

I'm actually a fan of having a total strength of weapons fired in a turn, rather than trying to assign weapons to a main or defensive category.

For example - set a total strength of fired weapons in one turn at 15. This would allow 3 HBs fired at once from one tank (str 5 x 3), OR two autocannons (str 7 x 2 = 14), OR a lascannon and a HB (str 9 + str 5 = str 14), OR two star cannons (str 6 x 2 = 12). Any combination of weapons is legal as long as the total strength fired doesn't exceed the set limit, in this case 15. The avoids any weirdnesss in why some weapons are arbitrarily labelled as "Defensive" or "Main".

The total could be modified as needed - I'm just using 15 as an example.

Ordnance weapons would still be an exception - this works fine as is IMO.

Sevellyn wrote:I'm actually a fan of having a total strength of weapons fired in a turn, rather than trying to assign weapons to a main or defensive category.

Its too much work to expect the kiddies to add up a running total.

Sevellyn wrote:I'm actually a fan of having a total strength of weapons fired in a turn, rather than trying to assign weapons to a main or defensive category.

For example - set a total strength of fired weapons in one turn at 15. This would allow 3 HBs fired at once from one tank (str 5 x 3), OR two autocannons (str 7 x 2 = 14), OR a lascannon and a HB (str 9 + str 5 = str 14), OR two star cannons (str 6 x 2 = 12). Any combination of weapons is legal as long as the total strength fired doesn't exceed the set limit, in this case 15. The avoids any weirdnesss in why some weapons are arbitrarily labelled as "Defensive" or "Main".

The total could be modified as needed - I'm just using 15 as an example.

Ordnance weapons would still be an exception - this works fine as is IMO.

I actually like that idea a lot.

Orlanth wrote: Its too much work to expect the kiddies to add up a running total.

That is a problem - I admit finding it odd that the same people who can run off statistics based on a D6 system in their heads can't add numbers together, but that DOES seem to be the case.

Maybe army builder could just give the possible weapon combinations in a turn for those sorts of people.

As if people don't already rely too much on bad stats and illegal units from army builder.

malfred wrote:Do people actually override rules that aren't open
to interpretation? This isn't about a gaming group arguing
a wording so much as a gaming group deciding that they
don't like a rule.

Are there examples of such heresy existing on such a scale?

In third, rarely anyone used Night fight because they either forhot, or just thought it was dumb, or both.

in 4th ed nobody used Escalation because it was universally deemed stupid.

If Kill Points make it into the new rules, I see them likewise universally reviled.

I am not so sure about the defensive weapons being lowered though.

They tried to do this when they made the transition from third to fourth (1st version of trial vehicle rules, anyone?) and it didnt make it due to overwhelming consensus that it was indeed dumb.

But who knows? We dont know enough about 5th ed to really judge if it will work or not, unlike the populace knowing about the trial vehicle and assault rules that were pretty much thrown out in the trash and not used in 4th.

You can be sure though, if enough of the people feel it is dumb, it wont be used. Sure it will exist as a rule, but the people will just soundly ignore it.

Sevellyn wrote:I'm actually a fan of having a total strength of weapons fired in a turn, rather than trying to assign weapons to a main or defensive category.

That's an interesting wrinkle. Though it kind of screws over Predator Annihilators and Land Raiders completely.

And forcing math vs simply counting adds a lot more complexity than necessary.

Also, don't Orks still have variable Strength weapons?

I like the idea to keep it simple: All, One, or None.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Also, don't Orks still have variable Strength weapons?

Not on their vehicles. The only variable strength weapon is the Shokk Attack Gun.

And Zzap Guns.

I do like the idea of allowing it to remain at S5 or 6, but only if you shoot at the closest enemy unit.

I think S4 is fine.

S6 has a couple problems, namely that the Pred Destructor and Annihilator suddenly have different functional use for their Sponsons. Pred Destructor can always move & fire, but Annihilator can't?

Assault Cannon and Starcannon are Defensive?

S4 is a clear, restrictive rule that fits well with the return push of Troops to the fore.

If you want to move, move. Just don't expect to always be able to fire when doing so. Make a tactical decision whether movement is important, or shooting is important. Don't demand a crutch that removes tactical thought and weakens tactical play.

Assault Cannon and Starcannon are Defensive?

S4 is a clear, restrictive rule that fits well with the return push of Troops to the fore.

Sure, S6 probably isn't defensive, but S5 is certainly anti-infantry. I don't think this change pushes Troops to the fore (what does that is the "Troops Only" scoring limitation now). For non-skimmer armies Infantry was always a better bet than tracked tanks, this only makes the imbalance even worse in that regard. Given how few tanks actually *have* S4 weapons, it seems kinda pointless. Look at it from an Imperial Guard perspective. Sponson weapons have gone from useful to very limited use on a Leman Russ (yes, even with a Battlecannon there are many times where 3 HB's are more useful), and the Exterminator has been, well, exterminated. Chimera's lose half their mobile firepower, and given that they were never taken as transports but as mobile heavy weapons this hurts alot, especially given their hideously over-inflated cost. Coupled with the fact that Tanks are no longer scoring, it makes the Leman Russ and variants much poorer buys than they are currently, which isn't great next to Hammerheads and Fire Prisms and even Predators.

This actually impacts Mech Eldar armies (the ones I believe were the target of this change) less than it does Mech Tau and Mech Guard armies. Mech Eldar can just switch to EML/SC on wave serpents (even if it means tearing up models) and still move and fire everything, the same cannot be said of Chimeras or Devilfish.

If you want to move, move. Just don't expect to always be able to fire when doing so. Make a tactical decision whether movement is important, or shooting is important. Don't demand a crutch that removes tactical thought and weakens tactical play.

I don't think mobile anti-infantry tanks were a "crutch". There is very little reason to take an anti-infantry Predator now, and no reason to take any Predator in a Chaos army when you have Obliterators.



With your predator example, the way I see it, the raw power consumption of firing three lascannons simultaneously may briefly overpower the Predators powerplant, necessitating it not moving so it can route all power to the lascannons. Granted such an explanation doesn't work for everything, but its something. With heavy bolters, they are just spraying rounds anyway, what difference does movement make? Also, a Predator Annihilator *can* move and fire everything under the current rules if given HB sponsons, that's how I've always run my Chaos predators.

It's not a 'crutch'. The problem is that it's not fun to be forced to be stationary pillboxes to fire everything.

I'm a tread-head. I take tanks that can move around, guns blazing. Make it move around OR have guns blazing, and the fun level drops considerably for me.

(That and the only Troops scoring...blah).

Nurglitch wrote:Recent codecies such as Dark Angels and Blood Angels show that vehicles are being re-pointed to match their new limitations.

While that is true, the problem with that is it will take years and years for GW to get around to doing all the codexes and properly re-pointing all the vehicles to match their new limitations. This leaves many vehicles out in the cold of being way too expensive for their ability in the new rules. If 4th edition and several armies' lack of a codex for the edition is any indicator (and I think it is) there are going to be plenty of armies languishing with 3rd or early 4th edition codexes for quite some time now. So until these things get fixed, vehicles are just going to be stuck being static pill boxes. Oh well, at least I can keep my farseer behind my flacon in whatever building its hiding in and give it fortune. If always glance was bad, just wait till falcons have 4+ saves with rerolls in addition to the holo field...*sigh*

Orlanth wrote:It shouldn't be done on S it should be done on Ap. Ap 5 or weaker can be defensive weapons.

Now that's an idea I hadn't though about. I must say that I like it. Ap 5 would allow pleanty of useful weapons to still fall into defensive but not any of the heavy hitters. My only complaint would be the exclusion of the heavy bolter (which I think needs to remain defensive to keep the baal and the chimera viable tank options).

I agree Samwise.

(I wonder if that rumor is bogus, S4? Really...?)

I like the AP idea. Why not AP 4 or worse?

Phoenix wrote:Now that's an idea I hadn't though about. I must say that I like it. Ap 5 would allow pleanty of useful weapons to still fall into defensive but not any of the heavy hitters. My only complaint would be the exclusion of the heavy bolter (which I think needs to remain defensive to keep the baal and the chimera viable tank options).

One thing I'd like to point out is that the Baal has overcharged engines, making it a fast vehicle 33% of the time. In this capacity (assuming 5th playtest rules remain) it would be able to move 6" and fire everything that turn. The chimera is a troop transport first, support vehicle second. I don't think it's unreasonable to limit a tank's effectiveness on the move.

so where is the original rumors post?

I'd rather see it related to the type of weapon.

Sit still - shoot 'em all!
Move some - shoot 1 heavy, all assualt and rapid fire (rapid fire as if not moving) OR 1 ordnance
Move alot - shoot 1 weapon that isn't ordnance

If only assault weapons could fire on the move, then putting heavy flamer sponsons on a tank would be worthwhile.

I would be okay with idea that the AP5(or 4) or less weapons can fire on the move since they are clearly anti-infantry.

But, I also think that some vehicles should get the "multiple gunners" (or at least more vehicles with Machine Spirits) that would let them shoot more than 1 heavy on the move.

That's why I think each vehicle should have separate lists for main weapons and secondary weapons under their main list of wargear. No mucking around with a one-size-fits-all formula of the sort that GW constantly trips up on (traits, veteran skills, doctrines, etc).

Agreed, Nurglitch. It only makes sense that different vehicles would have different move-and-fire capabilities. It's really too bad.

Vaktathi wrote:Sure, S6 probably isn't defensive, but S5 is certainly anti-infantry.

Given how few tanks actually *have* S4 weapons, it seems kinda pointless. Look at it from an Imperial Guard perspective.

the Exterminator has been, well, exterminated.

Chimera's lose half their mobile firepower, and given that they were never taken as transports but as mobile heavy weapons this hurts alot, especially given their hideously over-inflated cost.

S6 is clearly attack-oriented, so it can't be included. S5 is Whirlwinds and Heavy Bolters, which are pretty mean on a Leman Russ. And breaks Predators.

Imperials, SM and CSM have plenty of PMSBs to go around, while Eldar have their twin Shuricats. When I look at my IG, S4 is for Heavy Stubbers, Storm Bolters, and Chimera Lasguns. Besides, the IG are well overdue for a rework, so one should expect much cheaper Chimera Transports that might actually be useful for Transporting stuff...

The Exterminator has been dead for quite some time, so no great change here. :(

The Chimera being taken as a static pillbox instead of a Transport says a lot about how badly it was costed and designed. The S4 Defensive rule means those Lasguns finally have some usage when paired with a PMSB, as opposed to being totally ignored. Rules-wise, this is perhaps the most obsolete mismatched model.

FYI, I have more than a baker's dozen in IG tanks, so don't think that I'm being selfishly anti-IG here. This change definitely affects my IG army, but I see the necessity.

Vaktathi wrote:
I don't think mobile anti-infantry tanks were a "crutch".

Being able to move and shoot with basically no penalty is a crutch. Tanks of similar types should behave in similar ways. Predators should behave similarly regardless of armament. So I like this change.

Vaktathi wrote:Also, a Predator Annihilator *can* move and fire everything under the current rules if given HB sponsons, that's how I've always run my Chaos predators.

If it's not triple Plas, it isn't an Annihilator. Mixed builds are an abomination and heresy against the Machine God!

skyth wrote:It's not a 'crutch'. The problem is that it's not fun to be forced to be stationary pillboxes to fire everything.

I'm a tread-head. I take tanks that can move around, guns blazing. Make it move around OR have guns blazing, and the fun level drops considerably for me.

How is being able to have guns blazing regardless of whether you move NOT a crutch? What tactical decision are you making?

You're simply moving and shooting without having to think or decide whether position or firepower is more important. That is lazy play and weak game design.

Being a treadhead requires more than relying on a lack of balance between infantry and tanks moving and shooting. Redefining Defensive weapons to S4 brings this back in line. SM, CSM, SoB, and IG infantry all can move an fire their S4 and S3 guns, or be static and fire everything. Now their tanks are much more similar.

Phoenix wrote:Ap 5 would allow pleanty of useful weapons to still fall into defensive but not any of the heavy hitters.

My only complaint would be the exclusion of the heavy bolter (which I think needs to remain defensive to keep the baal and the chimera viable tank options).

AP5 would be OK, precisely because it results the same sort of restriction that S4 does.

As for the Baal and Chimera being viable, that will be addressed in their next Codices. Not in the Rulebook. Their lack of viability ties to their Codices being written prior to 4th Edition.

I repeat again, move OR fire is not fun.

As for the Baal and Chimera being viable, that will be addressed in their next Codices. Not in the Rulebook

How about for all the vehicles? Give them proper pricing and let them go around guns-a-blazing like tanks should.

So, my beloved Land Speeders will once again be consigned to the shelf. The str-4 defensive weapon ruling will make them useless, having to stand (float?) still in order to fire ANYTHING. What you get then will be a AV-10 sitting duck, followed in very short order by a crumpled heap of metal. The joys.

Uh, your Land Speeders will be able to move 12" and fire one main weapon and any secondary weapons. It can move 6" and fire all of its main weapons.

The implications of this are simple: If you're going to take a vehicle with two or more main weapons that you want to be mobile the whole game, then make sure those weapons complement each other so that where-ever you move to you have the right tool for the job.

I agree with Nurglitch, oddly enough, that they should just list what weapons are defensive and which are offensive in the Codex entry. That would make things so simple, and would even allow them to tweak vehicle costs and balance.
A landraider being able to fire its lascannons if it moves due to being giant and steady or whatever would suddenly make it much more valuable, perhaps even commensurate to it's points. Maybe flamers could generally be shootable no matter how far the vehicle moves, as Immolators currently do.

Alternately, I would be happy if vehicles could just split fire. I would be happiest if both move and shoot and splitting fire were options, but either would be an improvement.

Yeah the S4 rule is extra stupid when you consider Leman russ with Heavy flamer sponsons.

skyth wrote:I repeat again, move OR fire is not fun.

As for the Baal and Chimera being viable, that will be addressed in their next Codices. Not in the Rulebook

How about for all the vehicles? Give them proper pricing and let them go around guns-a-blazing like tanks should.

And I repeat again: fire that doesn't depend on movement is a non-thinking, non-tactical, non-strategic crutch.

As for all the vehicles, notionally, the Eldar, CSM, Orks, and SM vehicles are all (or will be) properly priced with 5th Edition S4 Defensive weapons in mind. That just leaves the odd-Ball and ancient Chimera to be fixed for the armies that matter.

So I don't see what your complaint is.

Unless it's a protest against (gasp!) having to make some actual tactical decisions in game.

Seriously, how hard is it to figure out whether you should fire all-out, move-and-fire a little bit, or move all-out? :S

Dakkaladd wrote:

Phoenix wrote:Now that's an idea I hadn't though about. I must say that I like it. Ap 5 would allow pleanty of useful weapons to still fall into defensive but not any of the heavy hitters. My only complaint would be the exclusion of the heavy bolter (which I think needs to remain defensive to keep the baal and the chimera viable tank options).

One thing I'd like to point out is that the Baal has overcharged engines, making it a fast vehicle 33% of the time. In this capacity (assuming 5th playtest rules remain) it would be able to move 6" and fire everything that turn. The chimera is a troop transport first, support vehicle second. I don't think it's unreasonable to limit a tank's effectiveness on the move.

The problem with the Baal is that it becomes unreliable at best. 33% is a lot less than 50% and anything short of 50% isn't something I'm going to count on. So there isn't much if any point in buying the sponsoons that you are rarely, if ever, going to use.

As for the chimera, it costs 80 points with no upgrades. 80 points! 10 points less than a wave serpent! I wouldn't complain if it was a dirt cheep transport, but with it costing that much, it had better either be able to add some fire power to my army while still doing its primary job or it had better be tough enough to reliably get my units where they need to be...and fast. However, sadly, it does neither. Razor backs also end up falling into the catagory of "bought it just to get the extra static heavy weapon platform" catagory, but I guess that isn't much of a change.

Actually razorbacks can still move and shoot-their weaponry is one twin linked weapon.

As everyone has noted, the Chimera is completely outdated and grossly overpriced in the current and future environment.

When the price drops to around 50 pts base in the next Codex, it'll be fair.

JohnHwangDD wrote:As everyone has noted, the Chimera is completely outdated and grossly overpriced in the current and future environment.

If the price drops to around 50 pts base in the next Codex, it'll be fair.

Corrected your typo

I just think about how much more fun 40K has been with vehicles that can actually move and shoot. 3rd Ed, when you couldn't move and fire ordinance was one of the least interesting times to be an IG player. I loved the change that 4th edition let you have with moving and shooting vehicles, both regular and fast. It made mechanized guard fun to play, even if they weren't the scariest army out there you could actually execute armored moves across the board. I had no problem with Tau, Eldar, and Marine skimmers moving 12" and shooting, I just had a problem with how impossible to kill they were. If 5th makes skimmers and ground vehicles more balanced that will be fantastic, but a mechanized Eldar army should be able to move more than six inches and still fire most of its guns. Mech Eldar and Mech Tau both rely on the ability to concentrate their fire on the move to stay out of harm's way. Mech Eldar in particular doesn't have impressive amounts of firepower and really needs those shuricannons to make an impact. Now that their vehicles will be more fragile, they really need to retain their firepower abilities. If they can't get an obscured save without losing most of their firepower they are essentially not living up to the fluff behind them. Same story with Land Speeders. They have a pilot who can shoot the assault cannon, and a gunner who can fire a heavy bolter. They are made to do strafing runs, just like Falcons and Dark Eldar Skimmers.

The main reason that I suggested that the Str 4 rule is worth overturning is because vehicles need to be shooting first and foremost. Therefore, vehicles will be way more static as a result since the middle ground of a gradual advance has been nerfed badly. Combine that with vehicles no longer being scoring units, they won't have much of an incentive to go anywhere. I like that Predators and similar vehicles can lay down heavy bolter fire on the move. It gives vehicles an incentive to make tactical moves as opposed to a bunker wedged in a forest.

Except, 5th Edition wants most vehicles to be Transports rather than Bunkers. Most Transports are AV11 or 12. S4 Defensive directly reduces the amount of S5 and S6 shooting that would be directed at these AV11 / AV12 vehicles. This makes Transports more survivable because they will suffer somewhat reduced volumes of mid-power fire.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think S4 is fine.

S6 has a couple problems, namely that the Pred Destructor and Annihilator suddenly have different functional use for their Sponsons. Pred Destructor can always move & fire, but Annihilator can't?

Assault Cannon and Starcannon are Defensive?

S4 is a clear, restrictive rule that fits well with the return push of Troops to the fore.

If you want to move, move. Just don't expect to always be able to fire when doing so. Make a tactical decision whether movement is important, or shooting is important. Don't demand a crutch that removes tactical thought and weakens tactical play.

In the case of some units, yes. Troops with heavy weapons, for instance, are defined by their inability to move and put out decent firepower. But there is nothing to be gained by making every unit obey the same limitation you make every unit the same and you make the game tactically dull. Instead, you have some units that are defined by their ability to move and maintain full firepower. You call these things tanks and you open up a whole range

Seriously, a predator advancing up the field punching out heavy bolter and autocannon fire, while a tactical squad stayed at the tank’s rear, ready to fan out onto an objective. What’s not cool about that?

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think S4 is fine.

S6 has a couple problems, namely that the Pred Destructor and Annihilator suddenly have different functional use for their Sponsons. Pred Destructor can always move & fire, but Annihilator can't?

Assault Cannon and Starcannon are Defensive?

S4 is a clear, restrictive rule that fits well with the return push of Troops to the fore.

If you want to move, move. Just don't expect to always be able to fire when doing so. Make a tactical decision whether movement is important, or shooting is important. Don't demand a crutch that removes tactical thought and weakens tactical play.

Looking at individual units and considering their tactical options in isolation serves no-one.

You don’t weaken play by giving different units different tactical roles. By putting a significant distinction between infantry, who are forced to choose between moving and firing, and tanks that can maintain firepower while moving, you have to distinct units with distinct tactical roles.

That can only improve the strategic depth, increase the number of options and strategies available and improve the game overall.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

skyth wrote:I repeat again, move OR fire is not fun.

As for the Baal and Chimera being viable, that will be addressed in their next Codices. Not in the Rulebook

How about for all the vehicles? Give them proper pricing and let them go around guns-a-blazing like tanks should.

And I repeat again: fire that doesn't depend on movement is a non-thinking, non-tactical, non-strategic crutch.

As for all the vehicles, notionally, the Eldar, CSM, Orks, and SM vehicles are all (or will be) properly priced with 5th Edition S4 Defensive weapons in mind. That just leaves the odd-Ball and ancient Chimera to be fixed for the armies that matter.

So I don't see what your complaint is.

Unless it's a protest against (gasp!) having to make some actual tactical decisions in game.

Making the game more static, especially with vehicles makes the game less fun for me, and a lot of other people. Why not make every weapon in the game move or fire? (Including the ability to fight in hth? If you moved (ie charged) you can't attack that turn.) That would make people have to make 'tactical' decisions in game. Would be a hell of a boring game too.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And I repeat again: fire that doesn't depend on movement is a non-thinking, non-tactical, non-strategic crutch.

How so? If that is the case, Why bother taking Predators at all in a Space Marine list, Havocs can pack in more firepower and last longer, and will move about as often. Tanks are there for *mobile* firepower or for a specialized weapon like a Battlecannon. Without a specialized weapon, infantry heavy weapons units are generally better.


Personally I think maneuvering tanks add a lot more strategic depth to the game as well as realism as opposed to pillboxes.

As for all the vehicles, notionally, the Eldar, CSM, Orks, and SM vehicles are all (or will be) properly priced with 5th Edition S4 Defensive weapons in mind.

You mean by *INCREASING* the cost upgrades like Sponson weapons in the latest SM and CSM codex's?

sebster wrote:Troops with heavy weapons, for instance, are defined by their inability to move and put out decent firepower. But there is nothing to be gained by making every unit obey the same limitation you make every unit the same and you make the game tactically dull. Instead, you have some units that are defined by their ability to move and maintain full firepower. You call these things tanks and you open up a whole range

Seriously, a predator advancing up the field punching out heavy bolter and autocannon fire, while a tactical squad stayed at the tank’s rear, ready to fan out onto an objective. What’s not cool about that?

Except that every unit is forced to choose between static shooting, move-and-shoot, or pure movement. The only exception is for units armed exclusively with Assault weapons, and even then, they still have to trade shooting against Fleet / Run. Otherwise, you give up Heavy fire / long range Rapid-Fire / double-tap Pistols. These are smart trades that proxy for managing a virtual "time" resource for each unit. They force decisions to be made.

Now granted that there are other units that have special rules such that they aren't affected by these trades, but they are few and far between. The only example that comes to mind for me is Slow and Purposeful, which limits the unit mobility compared to other units - in this case, the tradeoff is made when the unit is first selected.

So following the S&P rule, I suppose if Tanks were limited to carrying one weapon and moving 6", I guess I'd be OK with them moving their full 6" and firing their full armament of a single weapon without any restriction.

However, Tanks in 40k have the ability to carry multiple weapons *and* move faster than most infantry. So why they should be categorically better is beyond me. All that does is to deemphasize Infantry and Troops, which is against GW's current objectives.

As for your Predator example, it doesn't excite me at all, because it's tactically boring. You're not making any tactical decision, simply exploiting the fact that the rules don't model a tradeoff or resource.

sebster wrote:Looking at individual units and considering their tactical options in isolation serves no-one.

You don’t weaken play by giving different units different tactical roles. By putting a significant distinction between infantry, who are forced to choose between moving and firing, and tanks that can maintain firepower while moving, you have to distinct units with distinct tactical roles.

That can only improve the strategic depth, increase the number of options and strategies available and improve the game overall.

WTF are you talking about? Tanks have always had to make decisions in 40k. Only in 4th Edition was there any semblance of what you're talking about, and that's because they up-powered the entire game. This reduced strategy compared to what it could have been.

skyth wrote:Making the game more static, especially with vehicles makes the game less fun for me, and a lot of other people. Why not make every weapon in the game move or fire? (Including the ability to fight in hth? If you moved (ie charged) you can't attack that turn.) That would make people have to make 'tactical' decisions in game. Would be a hell of a boring game too.

Except, that's not what the game is doing. And the idea that the game will be more static is probably grossly mistaken. From what I see, 5th will be based primarily on objectives and movement. Choosing to select an army to play a static game would be the player's fault, not the rules fault. Nothing forces the player to make a bad decision.

Vaktathi wrote:If that is the case, Why bother taking Predators at all in a Space Marine list,

You mean by *INCREASING* the cost upgrades like Sponson weapons in the latest SM and CSM codex's?

Predators still have greater mobilty than Infantry. If they need to cover 24" of ground, they give up 2 turns of shooting, not 4. If SM can Run, then the potential mobility is the same, but on average, the SM will have to give up 3 turns of shooting.

If the Sponsons were mis-costed, they were mis-costed.

Again, boring. Increased tactical decision making is not necessarily a good thing.

By your rational, the game would be best if everything had to choose between moving and attacking (including fighting in hand to hand) and each side could only move one unit per turn.

And there are multiple units that can still move and fire everything-

Crisis suits, Bikes, Terminators

Seems to me a logical solution to this problem would be to lower the BS score the more you move.

skyth wrote:Again, boring. Increased tactical decision making is not necessarily a good thing.

By your rational, the game would be best if everything had to choose between moving and attacking (including fighting in hand to hand) and each side could only move one unit per turn.

And there are multiple units that can still move and fire everything-

Crisis suits, Bikes, Terminators

Given that this is a tactical game, it's hard to take any argument against tactical decisionmaking seriously. To me, this simply reveals your ignorance and inability to understand good game design fundamentals.

Actually, that would be a fair approach. Basically, it would make 40k extremely granular, like Chess. But it would preserve decision-making and conservation of resources. The problem of course, is scale. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Even without 5th Edition adding Run as an option, Bikes are a terrible example for you to have proposed:
- turbo-boost move 24", no fire, no assault, no difficult terrain.
- move 12" (difficult terrain test), fire, assault
clearly, Bikes are fast, but there is a fundamental decision that must be made whether to move-or-shoot (turboboost) or move-and-shoot.

As above, Terminators have an inherent movement restriction because they give up Sweeping Advance. Plus, the weapons they can move and fire are tightly constrained to close combat weapons, Assault weapons (Storm Bolter, Heavy Flamer, and occasional Combi-weapon) and Cyclone ML.

I don't play Tau, so it is possible that they might be the "golden" unit that can do everything. Bravo for the Tau. Being the singular exception proves the rule in general.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

skyth wrote:Again, boring. Increased tactical decision making is not necessarily a good thing.

By your rational, the game would be best if everything had to choose between moving and attacking (including fighting in hand to hand) and each side could only move one unit per turn.

And there are multiple units that can still move and fire everything-

Crisis suits, Bikes, Terminators

Given that this is a tactical game, it's hard to take any argument against tactical decisionmaking seriously. To me, this simply reveals your ignorance and inability to understand good game design fundamentals.

Actually, that would be a fair approach. Basically, it would make 40k extremely granular, like Chess. But it would preserve decision-making and conservation of resources. The problem of course, is scale. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Even without 5th Edition adding Run as an option, Bikes are a terrible example for you to have proposed:
- turbo-boost move 24", no fire, no assault, no difficult terrain.
- move 12" (difficult terrain test), fire, assault
clearly, Bikes are fast, but there is a fundamental decision that must be made whether to move-or-shoot (turboboost) or move-and-shoot.

As above, Terminators have an inherent movement restriction because they give up Sweeping Advance. Plus, the weapons they can move and fire are tightly constrained to close combat weapons, Assault weapons (Storm Bolter, Heavy Flamer, and occasional Combi-weapon) and Cyclone ML.

I don't play Tau, so it is possible that they might be the "golden" unit that can do everything. Bravo for the Tau. Being the singular exception proves the rule in general.

You also forgot Terminators can get Assault Cannons (*very* important) and 36" range Reaper Autocannons for Chaos terminators. The loss of Sweeping Advance isn't too big of a deal against Terminators, as there usually isn't much to Sweep left.


Tanks have the added drawback that they cannot in fact hurt anything in CC, nor even hurt anything by ramming it unless its stupid enough to Death or Glory and fail. With the exception of Skimmers, they are also usually hideously vulnerable in close combat, especially to MC's. Against Marine, Tyranid and Chaos armies, I usually lose most of my IG's tanks to power fists and other close combat means, not shooting attacks. *all* of their power comes from shooting. Making them static pillboxes removes much of the reason to take them, especially as anti-infantry weapons, and makes them even more vulnerable in CC.


I also fail to see the difference in your Example with Bikes and Vehicles currently.

Bikes can move 24" and gain an invul save, or shoot and assault. Tanks can stay still and shot everything, move and shoot one main and all defensive weapons, or move their full alotment and fire nothing. This seems identical to me.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Given that this is a tactical game, it's hard to take any argument against tactical decisionmaking seriously. To me, this simply reveals your ignorance and inability to understand good game design fundamentals.

Actually, that would be a fair approach. Basically, it would make 40k extremely granular, like Chess. But it would preserve decision-making and conservation of resources. The problem of course, is scale. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Boy do you sure like the personal attacks.

Quite frankly, anything that makes the game more fluid and encourages moving the pieces around the board makes the game more fun.

The biggest change to game play that I can see arising from 4th edition to 5th edition will be the emphasis on troops as the only scoring units. I see this as a boost because it will end the day of land speeders and falcons popping out and making last turn objective grabs. Infantry are getting faster, which is good also, combined with random game length it will mean that winning games will mean taking and holding objectives.

The problem that I see arising from this is that so many vehicles are geared to have strength 5 or 6 weapons (chimeras, devilfish, battlewagons, land raiders, predators, hammerheads, hellhounds, falcons, etc) that should be able to move in support of the infantry as opposed to just hanging back and laying down covering fire. It is what tanks were designed to do, and if tanks can't fire their supporting weapons on the move, they won't. They aren't scoring, so why risk moving them out of cover where they are hull down? Tanks need an incentive to move, not more reasons to stay put. If a Falcon or Hammerhead can't get a skimmer moving fast save and still shoot most of its weapons, they will just end up floating around in cover. Infantry will be getting a big boost from the new rules, I feel like if they keep tanks mobile then we will actually see more tactical decision making. The simplest way to do that is to let them keep their Str 5 +6 guns. Otherwise they will just end up floating around in the back field.

Samwise158: Land Raiders, at least the Loyalist ones, have the Power of the Machine Spirit.

Likewise these vehicles will be able to fire supporting weapons as they advance, just not as many. A Chimera, for example, will only be able to fire either its Multi-Laser or its Heavy Bolter when it moves, along with its Heavy Stubber or Storm Bolter, instead of both. A Predator Annihilator will be able to move and fire as effectively as before, and like I said this will promote should promote complementary weapons loads rather than synergistic weapon loads. Taking Heavy Bolter sponsons with Twin-Linked Lascannons will make a vehicle more flexible rather than being a waste of points.

Vehicles using Ordnance weapons will be business as usual.

If tanks aren't scoring and don't have the same anti-infantry power on the move, they still have reason to leave cover - to find lines of sight to the enemy, block lines of sight to troops and their transports, to hunt enemy armour, to re-locate to a more advantageous (or less threatened) position, and to ferry troops to objectives.

If you look at the current 5th edition compatible books and the points costs of their tanks, you'll notice that tanks are a no-brainer bargain for hunting infantry over infantry. The 5th edition changes will make this choice less lopsided, and it's nice to see GW planning ahead.

skyth wrote:Boy do you sure like the personal attacks.

Quite frankly, anything that makes the game more fluid and encourages moving the pieces around the board makes the game more fun.

I don't think I've made any personal attacks on you. But if you feel that way, I'm sorry that you feel that way.

Quite frankly, the move to Objectives and inexpensive Transport is going to make the game more fluid and force players to move pieces around the board. Being able to move and fire isn't going to do that.

Samwise158 wrote:The problem that I see arising from this is that so many vehicles are geared to have strength 5 or 6 weapons

Tanks need an incentive to move, not more reasons to stay put. If a Falcon or Hammerhead can't get a skimmer moving fast save and still shoot most of its weapons, they will just end up floating around in cover.

Those S5 / S6 weapons are Troops killers, which is why GW specifically reduced their effectiveness.

Tanks will need to move to move Troops about.

Given that Falcons and Hammerheads are non-scoring, they're "dead" as soon as they hit the board. So the only question is what they do over the course of the game.

Most likely, this means non-Transport Hammerheads won't be seen nearly as often as before. Falcons might still hang around as dual-role Transports, though.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Quite frankly, the move to Objectives and inexpensive Transport is going to make the game more fluid and force players to move pieces around the board. Being able to move and fire isn't going to do that.

For the life of me I cannot see why not?

So movement with transports makes the game fluid, but movement for shooting does not?

This just makes Static Guard armies even *more* static, and increases incentives for taking non-mobile infantry bearing heavy weapons squads in most armies (e.g. HWP's over Russ tanks, especially AC/LC variants, Broadsides over Hammerheads, Havocs and Oblits over the already unfavored Predator, etc...)

Those S5 / S6 weapons are Troops killers, which is why GW specifically reduced their effectiveness.

And Storm Bolters are not?

Given that Falcons and Hammerheads are non-scoring, they're "dead" as soon as they hit the board. So the only question is what they do over the course of the game.

Which will be much less now that the ability to effectively move and fire has been reduced.

Most likely, this means non-Transport Hammerheads won't be seen nearly as often as before

Non-transport Hammerheads?

I think he means Devilfish, although that would be weird since you can't take non-transport Devilfish... Falcons, then?

Vaktathi wrote:So movement with transports makes the game fluid, but movement for shooting does not?

This just makes Static Guard armies even *more* static, and increases incentives for taking non-mobile infantry bearing heavy weapons squads in most armies (e.g. HWP's over Russ tanks, especially AC/LC variants, Broadsides over Hammerheads, Havocs and Oblits over the already unfavored Predator, etc...)

Pretty much. GW needs Transports to be able to move into the open to get Troops to Objectives. For this to work, shooting needs to be de-emhpasized.

Actually, if GW does it right, Static Guard armies will automatically lose against nearly any other army in the game. In the next IG Codex, I expect HWPs will be removed entirely and HWSs will be tied to Troops Platoons. I also think we'll see more (new) Defilers.

I predict that GW will sell a lot of new models with 5th Edition.

Those S5 / S6 weapons are Troops killers, which is why GW specifically reduced their effectiveness.

And Storm Bolters are not?

Not nearly as much, losing 12" range, 1 shot, and 1 point of S. A Storm Bolter (or Heavy Stubber) is much weaker than a Heavy Bolter.

Most likely, this means non-Transport Hammerheads won't be seen nearly as often as before

Non-transport Hammerheads?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Pretty much. GW needs Transports to be able to move into the open to get Troops to Objectives. For this to work, shooting needs to be de-emhpasized.

I disagree, Skimmer transports work quite well. The problem is Tracked tanks, which should be fine with the new damage table. Also, the heavy weapons infantry generally puts out alot more anti-transport firepower than tanks.

Not all armies use or are reliant on transports either, the ones that are heavily reliant on them don't have a problem getting them where they need to be. The problem with Transports is with tracked tanks and Entanglement. Both of these issues are resolved in 5th Ed by removing Entanglement and the new vehicle damage table. Hell smoke launchers and extra armor will practically ensure a transport gets where it needs to be without a chance of destruction. Current defensive weapons are not the biggest threat to these transports either, its weapons like Autocannons that are already Main weapons that are their biggest threat.

I fail to see the need for nerfing the mobility of tanks to fix this issue.

Actually, if GW does it right, Static Guard armies will automatically lose against nearly any other army in the game. In the next IG Codex, I expect HWPs will be removed entirely and HWSs will be tied to Troops Platoons.

I don't see why on earth this is a good thing. Mobile guard armies in the form of Mechanized companies are going to be further hideously impaired for *at least* the next 15 months assuming we get a new IG codex then, Gunline armies will be untenable as well, and Drop Troops will also be further weakened. I fail to see how this adds anything to the game other than making it pointless to play Imperial Guard.

Simply put, Imperial Guard will have very little competitiveness in 5th ed as a result. Yes they have a lot of scoring units. They are overcosted by and large and relatively easy to kill however. The new cover save rules for intervening models and the reduced effectiveness of mobile firepower from tanks is going to negate a huge portion of Imperial Guard shooting, or will force them to deploy at a huge disadvantage relative to other armies not hampered by this as a result to avoid these issues.

I don't see where this change adds anything to the game, I do see where it takes away from the overall tactical options and reduces the fluidity of the game.

Also, I don't see why HWP's would be removed, just about every other army has HS infantry based heavy weapons units (Dark Reapers, Scourge, Devestators, Havocs, Broadsides) and would leave IG with only Ordnance units and Russ variants for heavy support, with Russ variants taking a huge hit to their effective firepower.

I also think we'll see more (new) Defilers.

Why? If anything I'd assume to see even more reliance on Obliterators than anything else.

Not nearly as much, losing 12" range, 1 shot, and 1 point of S. A Storm Bolter (or Heavy Stubber) is much weaker than a Heavy Bolter.

Yes, but heavy bolters generally aren't what makes tanks such a huge threat. Hell, my 7 Chimera's that cost 585pts on average will kill about 16 marines a game, so maybe they kill *half* their points. Against horde armies they do better of course, but not amazingly so. An AC/HB Predator will kill on average 1.3 marines a turn (assuming everything gets to fire) for 100pts of easily killed or negated tank.

Unlike Falcons, Hammerheads don't have any Transport capability. So they can't provide Taxi services to get Troops to Objectives. Therefore, their utility is much worse in 5th Edition.

Exactly, but they don't *need* to be worse. They are fine as-is. A kitted out Hammerhead runs 180-ish points, can be stunned to keep from moving, and once the railgun is gone its secondary systems are much weaker than others.




Basically, I'm still not seeing how this improves the "fluidity" of the game at all, or why its needed to help transports (and in fact weakens many of them as firing bases after paying good points for that ability)

Vaktathi wrote:Basically, I'm still not seeing how this improves the "fluidity" of the game at all, or why its needed to help transports (and in fact weakens many of them as firing bases after paying good points for that ability)

GW has decided that the game should have less focus on killing stuff and more emphasis on moving around. So making Transports worse at shooting was likely intentional. If Transports can't shoot, they should move.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Basically, I'm still not seeing how this improves the "fluidity" of the game at all, or why its needed to help transports (and in fact weakens many of them as firing bases after paying good points for that ability)

GW has decided that the game should have less focus on killing stuff and more emphasis on moving around. So making Transports worse at shooting was likely intentional. If Transports can't shoot, they should move.

But they would move anyway, and this hurts non-transport tanks more than it should and encourages them to stay static.

Dakkaladd wrote:I think the intention is very clear here. Either you move and sacrifice firepower or you stay still and lay it down heavy. Everyone keeps complaining about how this will hurt eldar and tau. I agree that is makes their vehicles less effective, but in a much more balanced way. The skimmers and fast vehicles still retain their edge over all other vehicles, pure mobility. Now they simply have to sacrifice offensive power to do so.

Don't forget they sacrifice their SMF 5+ save in order to fire all weapons, so they lose defensive power as well. So it's a double nerf.

Add in they cannot move 24" anymore, and that mobility isn't so mobile anymore.

So what's the advantage again?

Right, lack of proper playtesting = stupid rules being implemented which will keep 40k as a subpar miniatures wargame for years to come.

Excellent.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Basically, I'm still not seeing how this improves the "fluidity" of the game at all, or why its needed to help transports (and in fact weakens many of them as firing bases after paying good points for that ability)

GW has decided that the game should have less focus on killing stuff and more emphasis on moving around. So making Transports worse at shooting was likely intentional. If Transports can't shoot, they should move.

So the tanks that can't transport get less capability because...?

So the tanks that pay for being a transport get less capability because...?

Land raiders will not suck when?

Be serious.

Those S5 / S6 weapons are Troops killers, which is why GW specifically reduced their effectiveness.

Actually, this is change for the sake of changing.

This is a no-no in basic game theory, in case you did not know this.

Btw pillbox tanks are really boring and because the rules for vehicles haven't been changed (the cross of death arcs, everyone has AV11 on the side and AV10 on the back...i.e. stupidity at it's best) they don't really get better.

They get harder to kill.

Not better.

Agreed.

Did everyone just stop remembering we already have tanks today that can move across country at 45 mph plus and fire every weapon they have and hit a fly's but at half a mile?

I think this universal dumbing down of tanks is universally stupid.

Ok if thats is the case and you can move and fire only 1 main weapon.. then hmmm what army is not affected... wow dark eldar are not bothered at all... Hmm will we see a lot of new DE armies especially considering they are getting a new codex... nnnnooooooooooooo gw isnt that transparent are they ?

And to answer a previous comment there are groups that are talking about throwing out 5th edition and holding 4th edition anti rtt tournaments.. might not be a bad idea

Um... wait. Even today on vehicles you have a main weapon and secondary weapons. In almost no circumstances do I remember or know of anything that fires any secondary weapons at the same time and accuracy as the main. Almost everything is dedicated to that main weapon (and thus why it is the main weapon).

In watching the last league we ran I noticed two things.

Most vehicles are used as pillboxes right now in most circumstances (find good cover shoot until you are blown up), or are mobile fire platforms (skimmers and fast skimmers). I don't see that changing much at all. The difference is the amount of firepower you can throw out when you do decide to move. Cover saves changing, fast skimmers getting nerfed and vehicles being more survivable could make vehicles move mobile by themselves, because the three things above are now more limited.

It makes certain options less of a knee jerk. Leman Russ heavy bolter bunkers (how much do they really move anyway?) and predator las cannon HB combinations aren't an automatic take. Some people might not even spend the points for those options now if they are going to be mobile. It really just makes us take more choices. Almost every other game has movement modifiers for shooting, but because of how 40k is now, you can't have that. Limiting the amount of weapons shooting is something that they can easily do.

I have also heard several rumours that defensive weapons are str4, but that assault weapons also qualify. I am not sure how much I believe it, as without any other rule, bright lances would then be defensive....

Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? So far the defensive weapons being str 4 is the only thing I have heard about the rules that sorta bugs me, but until I play the whole system, I can't really make any good judgment about it's worth in the game. We know nothing for sure, and there is a lot we haven't even heard rumours on yet.

Toreador wrote:Um... wait. Even today on vehicles you have a main weapon and secondary weapons. In almost no circumstances do I remember or know of anything that fires any secondary weapons at the same time and accuracy as the main. Almost everything is dedicated to that main weapon (and thus why it is the main weapon).

That depends on the vehicle in question. On a main battle tank sure (that has more to do with the way the main gun works, if you see it as an Ordnance weapon then 40k already takes that into account), on an IFV you may have secondary weapons being fired along with the main autocannon.

Most vehicles are used as pillboxes right now in most circumstances (find good cover shoot until you are blown up), or are mobile fire platforms (skimmers and fast skimmers). I don't see that changing much at all. The difference is the amount of firepower you can throw out when you do decide to move. Cover saves changing, fast skimmers getting nerfed and vehicles being more survivable could make vehicles move mobile by themselves, because the three things above are now more limited.

Fast Skimmers aren't getting nerfed except with respect to top speed however (and most don't usually move the full 24" anyway if they wish to fire). Cover saves coupled with the new damage table will make them just as hard to put down as before. Non-Fast skimmers (Devilfish) and tracked tanks like Chimera's that really do derive most of their usefullness from movement and what are currently "secondary" weapons are going to get hurt hard.

It makes certain options less of a knee jerk. Leman Russ heavy bolter bunkers (how much do they really move anyway?)

Mine always move unless they need to stay still for better ordnance shots, they often are moving around as heavy bolter platforms. Static tanks are asking for a powerfist or a meltabomb. I lose the majority of my tanks to close combat attacks, not shooting.

and predator las cannon HB combinations aren't an automatic take.

I thought I was one of the only people who ran Preds this way, most people say its a waste, glad to see I'm not the only one

Some people might not even spend the points for those options now if they are going to be mobile. It really just makes us take more choices.

It might just make people not take tanks. Hell, with Chaos right now there is almost no reason to take a Predator, I don't see that changing at all with 5th. Forcing an expansion of "Choices" by simply making the decent ones worse is dumb, what would this change anyway? With respect to Chaos, I don't see anyone taking no-sponson predators, Obliterators are cheaper or the same cost and do more.

Almost every other game has movement modifiers for shooting, but because of how 40k is now, you can't have that. Limiting the amount of weapons shooting is something that they can easily do.

Yes, and we have no modifers for saves, movement, etc... either. Arbitrarily nerfing vehicle shooting (when it wasn't overpowered to begin with) isn't the way to enhance the game experience.

Vaktathi wrote:But they would move anyway, and this hurts non-transport tanks more than it should and encourages them to stay static.

And what makes you think that GW isn't specifically intending to nerf non-Transport Tanks to "encourage" their replacement by Transport Tanks and Troops?

Stelek wrote:Right, lack of proper playtesting = stupid rules being implemented which will keep 40k as a subpar miniatures wargame for years to come.

So you're telling me that you've done months of intensive playtesting with the final 5th Edition rules to come to this conclusion? Or even the playtest PDf Rulebook? From what I see, the changes are highly synergistic to support a very different style of gameplay.

Stelek wrote:So the tanks that can't transport get less capability because...?

So the tanks that pay for being a transport get less capability because...?

Land raiders will not suck when?

Be serious.

Because GW has decided that the game should not emphasize those models. Very simple.

Stelek wrote:Actually, this is change for the sake of changing.

This is a no-no in basic game theory, in case you did not know this.

Btw pillbox tanks are really boring and because the rules for vehicles haven't been changed (the cross of death arcs, everyone has AV11 on the side and AV10 on the back...i.e. stupidity at it's best) they don't really get better.

They get harder to kill.

Not better.

No, not really, when you look into things with a bit more depth. Though looking at GW, they always do changes with every Rulebook and Codex, changing things to indirectly (or blatantly) drive more sales.

That said, I'm pretty much behind the entire slate of changes in the PDF. If anything, I think GW didn't go far enough.

Warpaint Studio wrote:Did everyone just stop remembering we already have tanks today that can move across country at 45 mph plus and fire every weapon they have and hit a fly's but at half a mile?

I think this universal dumbing down of tanks is universally stupid.

Ok if thats is the case and you can move and fire only 1 main weapon.. then hmmm what army is not affected... wow dark eldar are not bothered at all... Hmm will we see a lot of new DE armies especially considering they are getting a new codex... nnnnooooooooooooo gw isnt that transparent are they ?

And to answer a previous comment there are groups that are talking about throwing out 5th edition and holding 4th edition anti rtt tournaments.. might not be a bad idea

"Today" is the start of the Dark Age of Technogy, in which we have an understanding of technology that is far superior to what is used in 40k. I fully believe that the STC systems in 40k tanks include fully-automatic tracking and multi-fire capabilities while on the move at full speed, but that Imperial doctrine and superstition trains everyone to operate in fully manual mode. So rather than using laser designators and fire-control computers with wind and range compensators, they're manually cranking the thing around. Rather than using the high-speed autoloader, they're manually packing and loading ammunition out of the service hatch. Rather than activating NBC mode, they're wearing suits inside the tank. Rather than shifting out of 1st gear they, accept that the tank is "slow". And so on.

People are welcome to play 4th Edition games, just as they are welcome to play 2nd Edition or Rogue Trader games. It's pretty futile, but that's how it goes.

Toreador wrote:Most vehicles are used as pillboxes right now in most circumstances (find good cover shoot until you are blown up), or are mobile fire platforms (skimmers and fast skimmers). I don't see that changing much at all. The difference is the amount of firepower you can throw out when you do decide to move. Cover saves changing, fast skimmers getting nerfed and vehicles being more survivable could make vehicles move mobile by themselves, because the three things above are now more limited.

Exactly. GW is deliberately reducing killiness across the board, which is fine, because 40k is moving away from a VP-orientation.

Vaktathi wrote:Arbitrarily nerfing vehicle shooting (when it wasn't overpowered to begin with) isn't the way to enhance the game experience.

It depends on what sort of experience is desired. If the experience is to have low emphasis on VPs and high emphasis on mobility, then nerfing vehicle shooting makes for a better game.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:But they would move anyway, and this hurts non-transport tanks more than it should and encourages them to stay static.

And what makes you think that GW isn't specifically intending to nerf non-Transport Tanks to "encourage" their replacement by Transport Tanks and Troops?

It makes very poor business sense (Hey lets ruin a product line to sell more of another! that only works when selling a substitute replacement, not a complementary product). Further they have already done such by removing their scoring status. They are in the business of selling models. Ideally what they would do is encourage more of everything. Most tank kits are also old enough by now to have amortized their fixed costs and as such are much more profitable than other kits. The S4 weapons was a poor decision from a game design and a business sense.

MC's, while taking a similar shooting hit, are still much more viable than tanks as both shooting and CC platforms.

Because GW has decided that the game should not emphasize those models. Very simple.

And I will decide not to purchase their new prodcut which they have invested a good deal of time and capital.

That said, I'm pretty much behind the entire slate of changes in the PDF. If anything, I think GW didn't go far enough.

How so? I can agree with some changes, but many seem overkill. Why remove the 2nd attack from Powerfists after increasing their costs across the board and restricting access? The problem with tanks in 4th was survivability. Now we have fixed that but removed their utility.

"Today" is the start of the Dark Age of Technogy, in which we have an understanding of technology that is far superior to what is used in 40k. I fully believe that the STC systems in 40k tanks include fully-automatic tracking and multi-fire capabilities while on the move at full speed, but that Imperial doctrine and superstition trains everyone to operate in fully manual mode. So rather than using laser designators and fire-control computers with wind and range compensators, they're manually cranking the thing around. Rather than using the high-speed autoloader, they're manually packing and loading ammunition out of the service hatch. Rather than activating NBC mode, they're wearing suits inside the tank. Rather than shifting out of 1st gear they, accept that the tank is "slow". And so on.

That's too speculative to try and base rules decisions on, and contradicts a good deal of what is stated in IA books.

Exactly. GW is deliberately reducing killiness across the board, which is fine, because 40k is moving away from a VP-orientation.

They are nerfing *SHOOTING*, not killiness. CC remains just as potent and in fact becomes moreso. Not a good thing when so many armies simply cannot function in CC.

It depends on what sort of experience is desired. If the experience is to have low emphasis on VPs and high emphasis on mobility, then nerfing vehicle shooting makes for a better game.

I still do not understand how nefing vehicle mobile shooting makes the game more mobile. You make things static to make them mobile?

Vaktathi wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And what makes you think that GW isn't specifically intending to nerf non-Transport Tanks to "encourage" their replacement by Transport Tanks and Troops?

It makes very poor business sense (Hey lets ruin a product line to sell more of another! that only works when selling a substitute replacement, not a complementary product). Further they have already done such by removing their scoring status. They are in the business of selling models. Ideally what they would do is encourage more of everything. Most tank kits are also old enough by now to have amortized their fixed costs and as such are much more profitable than other kits. The S4 weapons was a poor decision from a game design and a business sense.

MC's, while taking a similar shooting hit, are still much more viable than tanks as both shooting and CC platforms.

Given that 40k has been around for 20 years, and GW has been doing miniatures wargaming for 25, it's not too unreasonable to think that their bean counters have a good idea of how to milk the fanbase for the maximum amount of profit.

And given that 40k is pretty much fully saturated with players, GW really has no choice but to play favorites with each Rulebook and Codex to encourage new sales to players chasing marginal utility advantages.

40k3 was the big push for "more", when GW cut points drastically across the board. 40k5 is a smaller push for "more", because GW can't do a true reset here while still keeping some link to the previous Codices. That is why revolutionary Codices like Orks can have significant cost cuts, and why we can anticipate major points reduction for IG. The smaller player base and older Codex actually works to GW's advantage here.

And I will decide not to purchase their new prodcut which they have invested a good deal of time and capital.

Good luck with that. I give you no more than 3 years before you buy again. The withdrawal symptoms of the addictive drug the mix into the plastic, paper, and pewter will bring you back.

That said, I'm pretty much behind the entire slate of changes in the PDF. If anything, I think GW didn't go far enough.

How so? I can agree with some changes, but many seem overkill. Why remove the 2nd attack from Powerfists after increasing their costs across the board and restricting access? The problem with tanks in 4th was survivability. Now we have fixed that but removed their utility.

For example, I'd have done away with VPs entirely - if the game is about the experience rather than the result, then it's perfectly OK to end in a draw on Objectives. This helps make the game state crystal clear to both players at all times, and allows players to really focus on desperation / heroic tactics rather than playing safe to preserve VPs.

Powerfists were still way too good for what they were - that much became obvious when even Tactical squads were taking PFs as no-brainers. Tanks are clearly much more survivable at the expense of easy killiness, and that's the intent.

"Today" is the start of the Dark Age of Technogy, in which we have an understanding of technology that is far superior to what is used in 40k. I fully believe that the STC systems in 40k tanks include fully-automatic tracking and multi-fire capabilities while on the move at full speed, but that Imperial doctrine and superstition trains everyone to operate in fully manual mode. So rather than using laser designators and fire-control computers with wind and range compensators, they're manually cranking the thing around. Rather than using the high-speed autoloader, they're manually packing and loading ammunition out of the service hatch. Rather than activating NBC mode, they're wearing suits inside the tank. Rather than shifting out of 1st gear they, accept that the tank is "slow". And so on.

That's too speculative to try and base rules decisions on, and contradicts a good deal of what is stated in IA books.

True, but it explains a lot, no?

As for IA, a lot of that Fluff was pulled out of thin air, so isn't well-established canon.

They are nerfing *SHOOTING*, not killiness. CC remains just as potent and in fact becomes moreso. Not a good thing when so many armies simply cannot function in CC.

The only armies that cannot function in CC are Guard and... and... OK, Guard. But then, their Codex hasn't been updated in a long time, since the days when the game revolved around shooting. So that is to be expected.

It depends on what sort of experience is desired. If the experience is to have low emphasis on VPs and high emphasis on mobility, then nerfing vehicle shooting makes for a better game.

I still do not understand how nefing vehicle mobile shooting makes the game more mobile. You make things static to make them mobile?

You reduce the risk of moving to allow things to be more mobile.

Given that 40k has been around for 20 years, and GW has been doing miniatures wargaming for 25, it's not too unreasonable to think that their bean counters have a good idea of how to milk the fanbase for the maximum amount of profit.

And given that 40k is pretty much fully saturated with players, GW really has no choice but to play favorites with each Rulebook and Codex to encourage new sales to players chasing marginal utility advantages.

Respectfully, I'd have to disagree on that strongly. GW's sales, EBITDA, and net income trends do not support this statement.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Given that 40k has been around for 20 years, and GW has been doing miniatures wargaming for 25, it's not too unreasonable to think that their bean counters have a good idea of how to milk the fanbase for the maximum amount of profit.

And given that 40k is pretty much fully saturated with players, GW really has no choice but to play favorites with each Rulebook and Codex to encourage new sales to players chasing marginal utility advantages.

I'll disagree with this, GW's financials are a mess, their management has been flip-flopping on strategy every few months for years. They switch Codex paradigm every four books or so, etc.

They have no idea what they are doing anymore.

40k3 was the big push for "more", when GW cut points drastically across the board. 40k5 is a smaller push for "more", because GW can't do a true reset here while still keeping some link to the previous Codices. That is why revolutionary Codices like Orks can have significant cost cuts, and why we can anticipate major points reduction for IG. The smaller player base and older Codex actually works to GW's advantage here.

We won't have a new IG codex for at *least* 15 months, thats a long time to play with a broken army.

Good luck with that. I give you no more than 3 years before you buy again. The withdrawal symptoms of the addictive drug the mix into the plastic, paper, and pewter will bring you back.

Oh I'll still buy 40k stuff, I'll just stick with 4th Ed for my gaming. I may still buy new mini's and whatnot. But I may not continue my current armies with 5th Ed.

For example, I'd have done away with VPs entirely - if the game is about the experience rather than the result, then it's perfectly OK to end in a draw on Objectives. This helps make the game state crystal clear to both players at all times, and allows players to really focus on desperation / heroic tactics rather than playing safe to preserve VPs.

That I can agree with.

Powerfists were still way too good for what they were - that much became obvious when even Tactical squads were taking PFs as no-brainers.

When a powerfist Champ is 60 points on a 230pt CSM squad? I think the new added costs were worth it, I know I no longer took Powerfists as default choices after that.

Tanks are clearly much more survivable at the expense of easy killiness, and that's the intent.

The problem is, they were *TOO* vulnerable under 4th, while their shootiness was fine. To Increase their survivability while nerfing their shooting brings us to the same situation in reverse, of Tanks simply not being worth it.

True, but it explains a lot, no?

It could if it were substantiated, but the IA books usually give a pretty good indication of what is in Imperial tanks as well as detailed insides of them.

As for IA, a lot of that Fluff was pulled out of thin air, so isn't well-established canon.

? How so. It's much more detailed and thought out than most GW stuff, and is still official GW materials, making it just as Canon as anything in a Codex.

The only armies that cannot function in CC are Guard and... and... OK, Guard. But then, their Codex hasn't been updated in a long time, since the days when the game revolved around shooting. So that is to be expected.

and Tau. Both of these armies are based around heavy shooting. They don't work as CC armies. Both of these armies take a big hit. Necrons also aren't exactly great CC armies, especially only with Warriors for Troops and are hit by some of the LoS and cover changes pretty hard as well.

You reduce the risk of moving to allow things to be more mobile.

Except defensive weapons aren't usually anti-transport weapons. Heavy bolters are hideously ineffective anti-Rhino, and will not hurt Tau or Eldar transports at all unless from the rear, and won't hurt the front of a Chimera either. Raiders and Trukks are about the only thing that had anything to fear from such weapons, and are usually numerous enough that they don't really have too much to worry about or can be deployed in such a manner as to deploy their cargo before taking fire (WWP).

The nerf to shooting for vehicle doesn't help transports much at all, it really only makes their own shooting worse and makes heavier tanks much less useful and static, thus making the game as a whole more static.

Vaktathi wrote:I'll disagree with this, GW's financials are a mess, their management has been flip-flopping on strategy every few months for years. They switch Codex paradigm every four books or so, etc.

They have no idea what they are doing anymore.

With 5th, to me, it seems like they finally figured it out.

We won't have a new IG codex for at *least* 15 months, thats a long time to play with a broken army.

... said the non-Ork, non-DE player.

For me, I could care less. I've got 3 or 4 other armies, and all of them will have options. If my IG sit on a shelf for 15 months, 2 years, or the entire edition, that's OK. At least I'll have Apocalypse... And Spaz Marinz, Hurr!!!

Oh I'll still buy 40k stuff, I'll just stick with 4th Ed for my gaming. I may still buy new mini's and whatnot. But I may not continue my current armies with 5th Ed.

OK. Though I'm pretty sure GW won't be offended - they make way more money off minis than rules.

For example, I'd have done away with VPs entirely - if the game is about the experience rather than the result, then it's perfectly OK to end in a draw on Objectives. This helps make the game state crystal clear to both players at all times, and allows players to really focus on desperation / heroic tactics rather than playing safe to preserve VPs.

That I can agree with.

Whoa, I never saw that coming.

When a powerfist Champ is 60 points on a 230pt CSM squad? I think the new added costs were worth it, I know I no longer took Powerfists as default choices after that.

I look at it as a marginal cost of +10 pts over a Power Weapon. A pittance.

The problem is, they were *TOO* vulnerable under 4th, while their shootiness was fine. To Increase their survivability while nerfing their shooting brings us to the same situation in reverse, of Tanks simply not being worth it.

I think it just means one needs to be very careful about taking Tanks of any flavor.

? How so. It's much more detailed and thought out than most GW stuff, and is still official GW materials, making it just as Canon as anything in a Codex.

Point well taken. Of course, a lot of the Codex Fluff is nothing to be proud of, either.

and Tau. Both of these armies are based around heavy shooting. They don't work as CC armies. Both of these armies take a big hit. Necrons also aren't exactly great CC armies, especially only with Warriors for Troops and are hit by some of the LoS and cover changes pretty hard as well.

Tau have Kroot, and they're totally OK. Necrons are obsolete, but will do fine once their new book comes out.

Except defensive weapons aren't usually anti-transport weapons.

HBs are OK against AV10 vehicles like Chimeras, Raiders, & Trukks. Shuricannons and Multi-Lasers are OK against Rhinos. Hence, nerfage!

JohnHwangDD wrote:
With 5th, to me, it seems like they finally figured it out.

I'm glad somebody does. Most of the changes seem either foolhardy, unneeded, or poorly thought out to me. Deep Strikers are getting hit (As if it wasn't already bad enough), Vehicles lose their mobile firepower (and hence the point in taking them over infantry heavy weapons units in the first place), only Troops as scoring (affecting many armies to a much greater degree than others, Orks do this much better than Grey Knights for instance), Powerfist attack nerf *after* reducing availability and increasing costs, etc....

... said the non-Ork, non-DE player.

True, I don't play either, but I bitched just as much as many others about their crappy books. At least DE can still be pretty potent. IG don't exactly have the newest book either, it's from what 2002?

For me, I could care less. I've got 3 or 4 other armies, and all of them will have options. If my IG sit on a shelf for 15 months, 2 years, or the entire edition, that's OK. At least I'll have Apocalypse... And Spaz Marinz, Hurr!!!

I have three armies, I just finished (as in within the last couple months) a Tau army which will be effectively crap in 5th Ed (wish I had known better before I bought everything last november), a Guard army which will soon be untenable, and a Chaos Army which just got turned on its head a few months back and will again before I've found a decent list that I like. I'd rather actually be able to *play* whatever army I feel like at the time rather than having to stick to only one because it is the only one I can get to work half decently under the new rules.

OK. Though I'm pretty sure GW won't be offended - they make way more money off minis than rules.

True, however I probably won't be buying what they are hoping I will buy, and won't be buying a whole lot. For the most part its just heavy weapons troops that I plan on buying to flesh out my IG and Chaos armies.

Whoa, I never saw that coming.

I'm not a total asshat

I look at it as a marginal cost of +10 pts over a Power Weapon. A pittance.

Thats significant when you start taking multiple squads and have to decide "do I want powerweapons and plasma guns, meltaguns and powerfists, or an Icon with a powerfist and flamers?" With the new costing in the Chaos codex, I've actually taken power weapons often, and I would never take a Fist in an IG army. If they remove the 2nd Attack, then I probably won't take them at all. I don't see that as good game design, I see it as knee-jerk reaction.

I think it just means one needs to be very careful about taking Tanks of any flavor.

To me it simply says "put those predators away and finish painting your oblits, dump the Russ tanks and bring the the HWP's instead".

Point well taken. Of course, a lot of the Codex Fluff is nothing to be proud of, either.

Too true sadly (damn you Chaos codex)

Tau have Kroot, and they're totally OK. Necrons are obsolete, but will do fine once their new book comes out.

Kroot aren't amazing CC troops, they are cheap meatshields, nobody loads up on more than or rarely two squads of them, they aren't typically centric to the army and don't fit in visually with the theme of many others. Necrons are just as old as IG and face many of the same problems and will probably have to wait even longer for their codex than IG.

HBs are OK against AV10 vehicles like Chimeras, Raiders, & Trukks. Shuricannons and Multi-Lasers are OK against Rhinos. Hence, nerfage!

HB's are ok against Chimera's only from the side. Raiders typically die anyway to even bolter fire soon after they arrive, its the fact that they can deliver their cargo quickly and almost assuredly that makes the great (along with their Darklance). Trukks are the exception, but there are usually a lot, they have Ramshackle, and are cheap. Nobody expects them to live a long time.

Multilasers and Shuricannons are poor anti-Rhino weapons, sure they can do it in a pinch, but autocannons, lascannons and missile launchers are by far more effective. They certainly aren't effective enough to nerf simply because they are somewhat capable of harming light vehicles.

Vaktathi wrote:I have three armies, ...
I'd rather actually be able to *play* whatever army I feel like at the time rather than having to stick to only one because it is the only one I can get to work half decently under the new rules.

I'm guessing I have a lot more minis and more variety / options than you do, which is why I'm more cavalier about the whole thing. So for me, if one thing goes down, another goes up and I'm back where I was before.

True, however I probably won't be buying what they are hoping I will buy, and won't be buying a whole lot.

Sure, tho GW just wants you to buy something.

Whoa, I never saw that coming.

I'm not a total asshat

With the new costing in the Chaos codex, I've actually taken power weapons often, and I would never take a Fist in an IG army. If they remove the 2nd Attack, then I probably won't take them at all. I don't see that as good game design, I see it as knee-jerk reaction.

Yeah, I'll have PWs available for most of my CSM squads. Even without the 2nd Attack, S8 is still good.

To me it simply says "put those predators away and finish painting your oblits, dump the Russ tanks and bring the the HWP's instead".

I wouldn't do anything on IG until they get a new Codex.

Point well taken. Of course, a lot of the Codex Fluff is nothing to be proud of, either.

Too true sadly (damn you Chaos codex)

Have you seen the Daemon Codex Fluff? Ew.

Tau have Kroot, and they're totally OK. Necrons are obsolete, but will do fine once their new book comes out.

Kroot aren't amazing CC troops, they are cheap meatshields, ... Necrons are just as old as IG and face many of the same problems and will probably have to wait even longer for their codex than IG.

Exactly. Kroot are OK and can serve a useful purpose in a Tau army. Necrons are primarily rules issues from predating the 4th Edition USRs.

Multilasers and Shuricannons are poor anti-Rhino weapons, sure they can do it in a pinch,

Every little bit helps. And I'm sure the metagame will shift considerably moving forward.

So, something that I've seen recently is a rumour that GW may not be making defensive weapons S4-, but S5-.

Something that strikes me as odd, although perhaps it shouldn't, is the way vehicles seem to be playing a different game than the rest of Warhammer 40k. I mean, there's already a helpful set of categories defining the relation of a weapon's effectiveness to the movement of whatever is carrying it.

So I figured, why not have Assault and Rapid Fire weapons count as Defensive Weapons, with Heavy and Ordnance weapons counting as Main Weapons?

If GW used S5 as the breakpoint, that would be very strange, as it represents a huge sop to the Imperials with their S5 Heavy Bolters, while just totally screwing the Eldar with their S6 weapons.

The only reason for GW to pick S5 is if they make all Assault weapons also count as Defensive.

But then that takes us right back to where we are today, with the exception of S6 Assault Cannons and Inferno cannon being removed, with the oddity of S5 Whirlwind still counting as Defensive.

Plus, it doesn't address the point of trying to restrict shootiness.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If GW used S5 as the breakpoint, that would be very strange, as it represents a huge sop to the Imperials with their S5 Heavy Bolters, while just totally screwing the Eldar with their S6 weapons.

Which may have been the point. They may have heard all the cries about Mech Eldar, but instead of adressing the root problem (the huge advantage that skimmers have and their mobility for almost no points increase coupled with Holofields and SS) they decided to just nerf eldar secondary weapons.

The only reason for GW to pick S5 is if they make all Assault weapons also count as Defensive.

Possible, but it could also be to make only heavy bolters defensive instead of scatterlasers, assault cannons, etc.

Under the proposed rules, though - if S5 counts as defensive, then (for example) a pred destructor could move 6" and fire all weapons.
An eldar fast skimmer like a falcon with S6 secondary weapons will ALSO be able to move 6" and fire all weapons. Fine if it moves 12" it will only get to fire its main gun, but compare that to the pred that can't fire anything if it moves 12" (and the extra top speed of the falcon)

Eldar aren't as good as they were (but given the complaints people seem to have that may be a good thing?) but his seems a reasonable compromise that keeps imp tanks as they were and nerfs eldar tanks - but not too much.

At 100+ pts each, Eldar tanks are already very heavily nerfed by the new Scoring rules.

JohnHwangDD: Basing the Defensive/Main weapon categories off the Rapid Fire/Assault/Heavy categories was my idea. The S5- Defensive Weapons is the rumour. Besides, the Whirlwind Missile Launcher would still be Ordnance which over-rules the whole Defensive/Main stuff.

JohnHwangDD wrote:At 100+ pts each, Eldar tanks are already very heavily nerfed by the new Scoring rules.

As are Tau, Imperial Guard, Inquisition and others tanks.

I tried coming up with a solution that I've yet to playtest. It's more of an all encompassing "movement and shooting" rule for vehicles. I think it works well enough on paper, but like I said: I haven't playtested it yet. Admittedly, it may not be perfect, but it can still be tweaked to be more effective after I get a few playtests in or get someone to tell me how their playtests went with it. Anyways, take a gander, post some comments, try it out in a game or two or just belittle me for attempting the work of gods (read GW).
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/211682.page

why can't guns that can be fired (as in the 4 n 5 ed) (owners choices) fired at normal bs (representing gunners taking aim) . all other weapons fire a reduced BS depending on movement and number guns (down to a min of bs1) (basicly point in the right direction, fire and hope)

also Eldar Missile Launchers now seem one of the better option for eldar vechicals. Wave Serpent TL E. Missile Launcher and a Shurikan Cannon seem a good all round choice ... Soften up infantry with the SC and Plasma missile or take out the enemy tank with a krak shot

Nurglitch wrote:So, something that I've seen recently is a rumour that GW may not be making defensive weapons S4-, but S5-.

Defensive weapons are most certainly S4 in 5th edition. I only gave it about a 50/50 until I actually read the book.

If you'll note the Soulgrinder is designed with it in mind. The Harvester is only S 4 but has 6 attacks (IIRC) it can fire while hurling love from the mawcannon.

Hellfury wrote:

malfred wrote:Do people actually override rules that aren't open
to interpretation? This isn't about a gaming group arguing
a wording so much as a gaming group deciding that they
don't like a rule.

Are there examples of such heresy existing on such a scale?

In third, rarely anyone used Night fight because they either forhot, or just thought it was dumb, or both.

in 4th ed nobody used Escalation because it was universally deemed stupid.

If Kill Points make it into the new rules, I see them likewise universally reviled.

I am not so sure about the defensive weapons being lowered though.

They tried to do this when they made the transition from third to fourth (1st version of trial vehicle rules, anyone?) and it didnt make it due to overwhelming consensus that it was indeed dumb.

But who knows? We dont know enough about 5th ed to really judge if it will work or not, unlike the populace knowing about the trial vehicle and assault rules that were pretty much thrown out in the trash and not used in 4th.

You can be sure though, if enough of the people feel it is dumb, it wont be used. Sure it will exist as a rule, but the people will just soundly ignore it.

In 3rd my group and I used night fight.

In 4th my group and I used Escalation.

I imagine in 5th we will use kill points or S4 defensive weapons. We have this thing were we like to play by the rules so everyone knows what game they are playing when they show up.

Also, when we play poker, 3 of a kind beats 2 pair, even though it is silly. And in chess, we limit the way a bishop moves to just diagonals.