It isnt to do with the game being just move-shoot-assault, its that the game has been biased towards shooting for 2 editions now - close combat need rarely happen
And so a funky rule that benefits assault units only when they are with different wargear loads is going to help the rest of the assault squads how? My beserkers aren't going to get benefits unlike those nobz with different wargear allocations. Or hell even basic Grey Knight Squads, which are both shooty and partial assault.
nosferatu1001 wrote:You think plasma guns really operate that high a rate of fire? You dont read much of the background, do you.....seconds per round, not rounds per second.
So it is far more realistic that he would ALWAYS without fail wound 2 different people, every time? Not exactly.
It isnt to do with the game being just move-shoot-assault, its that the game has been biased towards shooting for 2 editions now - close combat need rarely happen
That's probably why BA and GK are so uncompetative. And why Tau dominate. [/sarcasm]
Honestly the only competative dakka army is IG, the others combine firepower and CC ability to varying degrees.
nosferatu1001 wrote:You think plasma guns really operate that high a rate of fire? You dont read much of the background, do you.....seconds per round, not rounds per second.
So it is far more realistic that he would ALWAYS without fail wound 2 different people, every time? Not exactly.
It isnt to do with the game being just move-shoot-assault, its that the game has been biased towards shooting for 2 editions now - close combat need rarely happen
That's probably why BA and GK are so uncompetative. And why Tau dominate. [/sarcasm]
Honestly the only competative dakka army is IG, the others combine firepower and CC ability to varying degrees.
Razorspam is one of the most common armies for a reason. Grey Knights are also, despite their CC prowess, mainly a shooty army.
nosferatu1001 wrote:You think plasma guns really operate that high a rate of fire? You dont read much of the background, do you.....seconds per round, not rounds per second.
So it is far more realistic that he would ALWAYS without fail wound 2 different people, every time? Not exactly.
It isnt to do with the game being just move-shoot-assault, its that the game has been biased towards shooting for 2 editions now - close combat need rarely happen
That's probably why BA and GK are so uncompetative. And why Tau dominate. [/sarcasm]
Honestly the only competative dakka army is IG, the others combine firepower and CC ability to varying degrees.
Yeah, BA and GK have some crappy shooting - I forgot. Thanks for the reminder.
nosferatu1001 wrote:You think plasma guns really operate that high a rate of fire? You dont read much of the background, do you.....seconds per round, not rounds per second.
O_o it varies highly depending on whoever wrote it or is portraying it at the time, just like Space Marine power level and how often plasma weapons explode. I can't recall one ever exploding on someone in a fluff book for example. In visual portrayals, Plasma guns are not firing only one shot every few seconds (e.g. Dawn of War they're basically semi-automatic rifles), and in game terms is treated just like an assault rifle, with a rate of fire no different at optimal ranges than an Autocannon or Storm Bolter, certainly faster than weapons like meltaguns, flamers, grenade launchers, mortars, missile launchers, etc that can be reloaded and fired every few seconds.
So it is far more realistic that he would ALWAYS without fail wound 2 different people, every time? Not exactly.
If the RoF is really that slow, why would he be shooting the same person? If it's that slow, he'd have way more than enough time to register the first target was hit and is down and then switch targets.
It isnt to do with the game being just move-shoot-assault, its that the game has been biased towards shooting for 2 editions now - close combat need rarely happen
The game has always been oriented more towards shooting than CC, it's a scifi game after all. If you want a game where CC is the clear dominator, play fantasy. If you feel CC is lacking far more than it should , play with more terrain and outflanking/infiltrating/deepstriking/scouting elements. Had a stellar game last night with my mech guard against a CC necron list where basically the necron opponent had a ton of wraiths and hidden lords with warscythes in warrior units running in ghost arks. I killed most of the wraiths very quickly but the warriors with their warscythe lords hopped out and in short order whacked most of my tanks to death over a couple of turns because I just couldn't keep them down and I ended up winning by the skin of my teeth due primarily to two very (un)lucky failed morale tests on my opponents part.
However, the IFV spam is very much related to other issues of having few other options, if you'll notice in other games, even shooting oriented games, infantry have other options. Look at Flames of War, a platoon of veteran infantry dug in inside a woods and going to ground can pretty much only be dislodged by assault, you can shoot at them all day long and not do a damn thing because you either just won't or can't hit them or they'll have dug in making it very difficult for hits to have an effect. Several mechanics that 40k lacks make this possible. First is digging in, the infantry give up their movement to try and dig in and now instead of just a lesser save to use when hit by big guns, they still get their normal saves and any that fail the opposing player must still roll to penetrate their cover. Second is to-hit modifiers. Going to ground and being in cover add +2 to the score required to hit, or +3 at long range (making it literally impossible at long range when you need base 4's to hit). So when you roll up with eleven machine guns and dump 33 shots into 7 stands (models) at close range, you still need 6's to hit, the infantry need to fail their 3+ saves, and then the machine guns need 6's to break through the cover while tank guns usually need 3's to break through. Thus dug in infantry need to be dislodged by assaults where basically you just need one roll on a 3 or 4 usually to kill a model for each attacking stand. Alternatively, often infantry can spot for artillery units, gap wire and minefields, etc, rather than just sitting there with only the option to move/shoot/assault.
Jefffar wrote:Perhaps wound allocation with an order of operations based on the wound type (ID, No Save and Normal)?
Force as many models as possible to take the ID or No Save wounds first, then spread the normal stuff around more or less equally.
Flames of war does things this way. Each hit *type* needs to be spread out evenly across the targets. For example:
You have 3 armored cars that are fired at by 2 tanks. The tanks hit with 2 AT gun shots and 4 machine gun shots. That is 6 hits total, but you cannot break it up as 2 ATG shots on AC 1, and then 2 MG shots on each other. It breaks down to first the 2 ATG shots are applied to 2 separate ACs. The first MG shot is applied to the one AC that is currently not been assigned a hit and then the rest of the shots are once again balanced across the platoon so it ends up with the first two armored cars taking 1 ATG hit and 1 MG hit each and the last armored car taking 2 MG hits. Specifically designed to keep people from stacking the harder hitting shots on a single vehicle or stand in a platoon.
The Shootfest people panic about is easily resolved by having enough terrain on the table and taking advantage of concealment.
Main problem with wound allocation is that, while bad, it is only recently that Paladins really tipped the extreme use of this over the edge. Having halberds, one normal and one master-crafted is really pushing it. The issue of less shooting causing more wounds if one that should never arise.
Other rules I don't like are flamers. I'm in a building and a flamer shoots in - maybe reduced cover, but no cover at all? AP3 flamers under the current rules are just nuts silly.
Rhinos tank shocking a monstrous creature and the MC having to just back off for fear of a unit half it's size running it over. MCs should be able to take the charge like a vehicle.
Generally tank shocking onto objectives through 4 foot units as non-mech armies have no way of stopping the tank.
On vehicles, there should be more impact for multiple shaken and shocked rolls. Maybe not the second glancing hit, but once you've done it 4-5 times in a turn there should be cumulative issues.
Agree on the damage to transports inhabitants being far far too low when it explodes.
Sieze the initiative. Not a fan. Set up a bike army, had initiative siezed and my army was sat there with no cover saves as they hadn't been able to turbo yet ... Game over then and there.
In 11 pages no one has suggested just going back to the 4E wound allocation rules? Roll to hit and to wound as normal. If the number of wounds meets or exceeds the number of models in the target, the shooter gets to nominate a model that MUST save or die. IE: 6 marines left in a squad. I shoot it with a unit of Firewarriors and score 6 wounds. I nominate the Marine with the Missle Launcher to make a save. If he fails, he dies. If he passes, roll the other saves as normal and remove whichever models the Marine player desires. In the case of mixed weapons, everything wounded a the same time, but when you nominated, the defender could choose what weapon they saved against for the nominated model. Naturally 3 lascannons and a bolter against Termies could still result in a Bolter save for that Thunderhammer Sergeant you were worried about, but hey: better than nothing.
Was that not a thing, or was that some house rule that everyone in my area played with? (One might, in 6th ed, add in making that nominated model take two+ saves, or nominating two+ models to make saves, if you wounded double (or more) of the remaining models in the unit.)
It allows no more sniping from a unit than the current system does, but goes MUCH faster and does not cause more shots to equal less wounds. Would allow players to handle Paladins with a MINOR increase to reliability, as one could
Other rules I don't like are flamers. I'm in a building and a flamer shoots in - maybe reduced cover, but no cover at all? AP3 flamers under the current rules are just nuts silly.
While it can suck with an expensive MEQ unit, AP3 flamers happen to be incredibly rare, I can only think of one off the top of my head and two others that are more variable in nature that can potentially do it. Given their rarity, and the very pronounced gap between 4+/3+Sv's and AP4/AP3 weapons that GW has gone to seemingly great lengths to build, it's not an issue that seems to arise *too* often.
Other rules I don't like are flamers. I'm in a building and a flamer shoots in - maybe reduced cover, but no cover at all? AP3 flamers under the current rules are just nuts silly.
While it can suck with an expensive MEQ unit, AP3 flamers happen to be incredibly rare, I can only think of one off the top of my head and two others that are more variable in nature that can potentially do it. Given their rarity, and the very pronounced gap between 4+/3+Sv's and AP4/AP3 weapons that GW has gone to seemingly great lengths to build, it's not an issue that seems to arise *too* often.
GK Flamestorm cannon says hi.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:Wound allocation for template weapons.
Kinda sucks. You should only be able to remove the models under the template.
I fully agree here, it makes no sense that guys under the template are getting torched by a flamer, but they live and guys from the back just die off. The only reason I could see that being an issue if it worked as you said is that you would now be dealing with unit coherency issues as well.
Blast the middle and hope to break its coherency for the next turn.
rigeld2 wrote: And I'd rather shooting didn't get more deadly in this game.
The current wound allocation system hurts shooting and close combat equally. If anything, it hurts close combat more because models with diluting attacks MUST attack in close combat, while they can choose not to fire in the shooting phase.
nosferatu1001 wrote:...and counter any attempt at realism, that the guardsmen wounding twice with a plasma gun ALWAYS hits 2 different models, and never the same one.
So, you would rather have a game where before you did anything to determine the results of your actions, you and your opponent both had to agree on if what you're doing is realistic? If you want that, go play a historical game, which is filled with things like "yeah, well, realistically you wouldn't be able to penetrate my Panzer IV's hull from that range at that angle". Of course, it's difficult to find someone to play these games with because very few people play these games because they're bad games.
If we switched over to this kind of a system, there would be blood on the table as absolutely every possible thing would become an argument over realism. I don't think that guardsmen are strong enough to hurt marines, even with power weapons, that's just unrealistic. You shouldn't be able to field artillery, because fielding them in a close-range support unit like that is unrealistic. You shouldn't be able to have first turn, because my army is smarter than your army. Etc. etc...
What the rules need is LESS qualitative grey area, not more.
Nagashek wrote:In 11 pages no one has suggested just going back to the 4E wound allocation rules?
This has been mentioned several times in the last 11 pages. Perhaps you could read before you post.
Anyone's flamestorm cannon, nothing really special about GK's too much in that regard. But that's about it as far as AP3 flamers go that I can think of right off the top of my head, there's the one assassin template that rolls against leadership and the variable APDE Homonculus template, they just aren't very common.
I fully agree here, it makes no sense that guys under the template are getting torched by a flamer, but they live and guys from the back just die off. The only reason I could see that being an issue if it worked as you said is that you would now be dealing with unit coherency issues as well.
Blast the middle and hope to break its coherency for the next turn.
It's the same reason you can allocate wounds to guys that can't be seen or are out of range. Nothing about templates is too different there. Same thing with blast weapons.
Vaktathi - Imperial Fist scout novel, cant recall the name. Read it. Plasma weapons overheating occurs in multiple books, but is often a serious "burn" vent, which doesnt preclude the wielder regertting it, or the weapon being out of action.
Dawn of war is so far off canon.....
So they would ALWAYS, without fail, never ever fail, ALWAYS switch targets and take out another model? Always? Never, ever, fail, would always wound perfectly two separate models? Surely you're kidding now?
Thanks for the more than condescending "play with terrain and other units, herp" argument there - regularly do. Doesnt alter that the game still more heavily favours shooting than assault, and going back to 4th ed would simply exacerbate that. It is a scifi game with CHAIN. SWORDS. as weapons and genetically engineered SPACE KNIGHTS as the biggest icons. Some nod towards assault being viable as a tactic would be good.
You also missed the chemhounds weapon - AP3, 2+ poison.
Allaros - wonderful strawman there. No, I did not say that having a game based only on realism was the way to go, I was countering the unintelligent apes towards "realism!" that are the main coutners to 5E wound allocation - that it is "unrealistic" that shooting more guns can (not must) result in fewer wounds, by pointing out that g'teeing the other way round is no more realistic.
It's an abstraction, and an abstraction whereby the specialist in the unit isnt ALWAYS the last to die, unless you got lucky with ToF, is far more preferable to 4E
General - those advocating that those under the template suffer the wound? Did you not play 3E? Havent you experienced the pain of Jaws? Sniping models is dumb. IT breaks the concept of the game as a unit based game, and results in even more imperative to mech up.There's a reason Jaws is more derided than even lash was - thanks to Phil "whats internal balance?" Kelly we're lumbered with a crap mechanic that is horrific against certain armies, and can be an almost one shot i win.
The biggest issue with the 40k system is there are too many binary rulesets - assaultig from deepstrike makes daemons fairly broken. Not assaulting makes them mediocre.
Nagashek wrote:In 11 pages no one has suggested just going back to the 4E wound allocation rules?
This has been mentioned several times in the last 11 pages. Perhaps you could read before you post.
OR MAYBE MY DEALER COULD STOP SELLING ME CRACK!
I recall people mentioning older rule sets, but always with the notion that it was still impossible to pick off specific models (resulting in invincible las cannons and the like.) Sorry if I somehow missed that. In any event, it still seems the more stable rule. I'm on the fence about a return to "removing whole models first," though. Not certain how it would affect balance one way or the other, I just know that the current system just bogs the game down and is a mystery to new players who have a hard enough time memorizing the statline, weapons, armor values, facing rules, wounding a model vs penetrating a tank, etc, without ALSO having to figure out how to game the system as opposed to pure tactics.
I wouldn't mind if it was actually represented amongst all rather than just one, might finally get a use for tyranids and their blast weapons.
Just htink about it for a second, widened out to every blast or template. No wait, no need - just look back to 3rd. Troops on foot meant that the blast always hit the IC / special weapon / etc, and they were dead. Rinse, and repeat. Think mech is bad now? How viable would foot orks be when the first shot snipes out the nob with claw? Or the KFF mech? And so on.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Vaktathi - Imperial Fist scout novel, cant recall the name. Read it. Plasma weapons overheating occurs in multiple books, but is often a serious "burn" vent, which doesnt preclude the wielder regertting it, or the weapon being out of action.
Dawn of war is so far off canon.....
So they would ALWAYS, without fail, never ever fail, ALWAYS switch targets and take out another model? Always? Never, ever, fail, would always wound perfectly two separate models? Surely you're kidding now?
Thanks for the more than condescending "play with terrain and other units, herp" argument there - regularly do. Doesnt alter that the game still more heavily favours shooting than assault, and going back to 4th ed would simply exacerbate that. It is a scifi game with CHAIN. SWORDS. as weapons and genetically engineered SPACE KNIGHTS as the biggest icons. Some nod towards assault being viable as a tactic would be good.
You also missed the chemhounds weapon - AP3, 2+ poison.
Allaros - wonderful strawman there. No, I did not say that having a game based only on realism was the way to go, I was countering the unintelligent apes towards "realism!" that are the main coutners to 5E wound allocation - that it is "unrealistic" that shooting more guns can (not must) result in fewer wounds, by pointing out that g'teeing the other way round is no more realistic.
It's an abstraction, and an abstraction whereby the specialist in the unit isnt ALWAYS the last to die, unless you got lucky with ToF, is far more preferable to 4E
General - those advocating that those under the template suffer the wound? Did you not play 3E? Havent you experienced the pain of Jaws? Sniping models is dumb. IT breaks the concept of the game as a unit based game, and results in even more imperative to mech up.There's a reason Jaws is more derided than even lash was - thanks to Phil "whats internal balance?" Kelly we're lumbered with a crap mechanic that is horrific against certain armies, and can be an almost one shot i win.
The biggest issue with the 40k system is there are too many binary rulesets - assaultig from deepstrike makes daemons fairly broken. Not assaulting makes them mediocre.
I'm pretty sure it's not the rules as much as it's your unique meta, in CC you almost always have the possibility to kill 1 guy then sweep them off the board, you can't do that with shooting, either stop playing your "No strategy CC army where the only tactic involves running in a straight line, disregarding cover" or get better/stop playing bad people.
EDIT: It already hits the KFF Mek if he's under the template as he's a different "unit" in the unit... afaik
nosferatu1001 wrote:Vaktathi - Imperial Fist scout novel, cant recall the name. Read it. Plasma weapons overheating occurs in multiple books, but is often a serious "burn" vent, which doesnt preclude the wielder regertting it, or the weapon being out of action.
Dawn of war is so far off canon.....
So they would ALWAYS, without fail, never ever fail, ALWAYS switch targets and take out another model? Always? Never, ever, fail, would always wound perfectly two separate models? Surely you're kidding now?
Thanks for the more than condescending "play with terrain and other units, herp" argument there - regularly do. Doesnt alter that the game still more heavily favours shooting than assault, and going back to 4th ed would simply exacerbate that. It is a scifi game with CHAIN. SWORDS. as weapons and genetically engineered SPACE KNIGHTS as the biggest icons. Some nod towards assault being viable as a tactic would be good.
You also missed the chemhounds weapon - AP3, 2+ poison.
Allaros - wonderful strawman there. No, I did not say that having a game based only on realism was the way to go, I was countering the unintelligent apes towards "realism!" that are the main coutners to 5E wound allocation - that it is "unrealistic" that shooting more guns can (not must) result in fewer wounds, by pointing out that g'teeing the other way round is no more realistic.
It's an abstraction, and an abstraction whereby the specialist in the unit isnt ALWAYS the last to die, unless you got lucky with ToF, is far more preferable to 4E
General - those advocating that those under the template suffer the wound? Did you not play 3E? Havent you experienced the pain of Jaws? Sniping models is dumb. IT breaks the concept of the game as a unit based game, and results in even more imperative to mech up.There's a reason Jaws is more derided than even lash was - thanks to Phil "whats internal balance?" Kelly we're lumbered with a crap mechanic that is horrific against certain armies, and can be an almost one shot i win.
The biggest issue with the 40k system is there are too many binary rulesets - assaultig from deepstrike makes daemons fairly broken. Not assaulting makes them mediocre.
I'm pretty sure it's not the rules as much as it's your unique meta, in CC you almost always have the possibility to kill 1 guy then sweep them off the board, you can't do that with shooting, either stop playing your "No strategy CC army where the only tactic involves running in a straight line, disregarding cover" or get better/stop playing bad people.
EDIT: It already hits the KFF Mek if he's under the template as he's a different "unit" in the unit... afaik
Shoot 1 guy, enemy fails morale, escort off table. Your argument is invalid.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Vaktathi - Imperial Fist scout novel, cant recall the name. Read it. Plasma weapons overheating occurs in multiple books, but is often a serious "burn" vent, which doesnt preclude the wielder regertting it, or the weapon being out of action.
Sorry I can't be bothered to have read every single one of the triple digits worth of BW books out there, however I do own several dozen (gaunts ghosts, night lords, ultramarines omnibus, etc), and can recall maybe one where it happened?
Dawn of war is so far off canon.....
Was just an example. Either way, plasma guns are not big slow weapons, they have rates of fire that are at least somewhat comparable to weapons able to fire off a couple dozen shots in a few seconds.
So they would ALWAYS, without fail, never ever fail, ALWAYS switch targets and take out another model? Always? Never, ever, fail, would always wound perfectly two separate models?
As far as a game mechanic goes, if it hits and wounds...yeah. That's the whole point, overkill on one dude can be perfectly represented by one hit out of two. If you want to take into account every minor possible realism issue, 40k is not the game for that. Hell, I can't think of any game that takes anything like that into account, even in games where you're only dealing with 5-12 models, much less a company level wargame where there may be up to three hundred models on the board.
Thanks for the more than condescending "play with terrain and other units, herp" argument there - regularly do.
Thank you for the condescending "you don't read much background do you" comments and the like... all I was doing was offer a statement about methods the game already includes for mitigating the power of shooting.
Doesnt alter that the game still more heavily favours shooting than assault
It always has had a preference for shooting over assaults, and always will. They have another system where the opposite is true. That said, CC does have some distinct advantages. Most shooting armies find it hard to table an opponent even if they win, there's no shooting equivalent of Sweeping Advance to destroy a unit in one go, and CC consolidation can gain you extra movement and simply being engaged protects you from enemy shooting.
CC isn't by any means unviable, you just can't expect to consistently do well with nothing *but* CC units. As a mech IG player, most of my casualties and tank losses are to enemy assaults, not shooting.
and going back to 4th ed would simply exacerbate that.
How? it certainly would also help CC as well as previously noted.
It is a scifi game with CHAIN. SWORDS. as weapons and genetically engineered SPACE KNIGHTS as the biggest icons.
Yes, the game has chainswords. It also has artillery cannons, claws, plasma weapons, bayonets, orbital bombardments, powerfists, laser cannons, missile launchers, blades of unreality, flame throwers and autocannons too. You'll notice the much greater devotion heaped upon, and greater use of, the holy Bolter than the Chainsword. Every space marine has a bolter or bolt pistol. Not every space marine has a chainsword, most have just a knife.
Some nod towards assault being viable as a tactic would be good.
It's not unviable. It just can't do everything by itself, nor is it meant to. CC works quite well when backed up by some key shooting elements. Most armies need at least some of both. Relatively few can get by without one or the other. One will notice that most of those bemoaned Razorback lists are packed full of assault troops with two attacks each and either counterattack or possibilities for Red Thirst.
You also missed the chemhounds weapon - AP3, 2+ poison.
Quite right, I did. forgot about them. though they also don't get to throw their template like the Hellhound does, I can't recall the last time I saw one used so it skipped my mind. Either way, there still aren't a whole lot out there.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Vaktathi - Imperial Fist scout novel, cant recall the name. Read it. Plasma weapons overheating occurs in multiple books, but is often a serious "burn" vent, which doesnt preclude the wielder regertting it, or the weapon being out of action.
Dawn of war is so far off canon.....
So they would ALWAYS, without fail, never ever fail, ALWAYS switch targets and take out another model? Always? Never, ever, fail, would always wound perfectly two separate models? Surely you're kidding now?
Thanks for the more than condescending "play with terrain and other units, herp" argument there - regularly do. Doesnt alter that the game still more heavily favours shooting than assault, and going back to 4th ed would simply exacerbate that. It is a scifi game with CHAIN. SWORDS. as weapons and genetically engineered SPACE KNIGHTS as the biggest icons. Some nod towards assault being viable as a tactic would be good.
You also missed the chemhounds weapon - AP3, 2+ poison.
Allaros - wonderful strawman there. No, I did not say that having a game based only on realism was the way to go, I was countering the unintelligent apes towards "realism!" that are the main coutners to 5E wound allocation - that it is "unrealistic" that shooting more guns can (not must) result in fewer wounds, by pointing out that g'teeing the other way round is no more realistic.
It's an abstraction, and an abstraction whereby the specialist in the unit isnt ALWAYS the last to die, unless you got lucky with ToF, is far more preferable to 4E
General - those advocating that those under the template suffer the wound? Did you not play 3E? Havent you experienced the pain of Jaws? Sniping models is dumb. IT breaks the concept of the game as a unit based game, and results in even more imperative to mech up.There's a reason Jaws is more derided than even lash was - thanks to Phil "whats internal balance?" Kelly we're lumbered with a crap mechanic that is horrific against certain armies, and can be an almost one shot i win.
The biggest issue with the 40k system is there are too many binary rulesets - assaultig from deepstrike makes daemons fairly broken. Not assaulting makes them mediocre.
I'm pretty sure it's not the rules as much as it's your unique meta, in CC you almost always have the possibility to kill 1 guy then sweep them off the board, you can't do that with shooting, either stop playing your "No strategy CC army where the only tactic involves running in a straight line, disregarding cover" or get better/stop playing bad people.
EDIT: It already hits the KFF Mek if he's under the template as he's a different "unit" in the unit... afaik
Shoot 1 guy, enemy fails morale, escort off table. Your argument is invalid.
Only if the unit consists of 4 models (or other occasional rules) that would force a panic check.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Vaktathi - Imperial Fist scout novel, cant recall the name. Read it. Plasma weapons overheating occurs in multiple books, but is often a serious "burn" vent, which doesnt preclude the wielder regertting it, or the weapon being out of action.
Dawn of war is so far off canon.....
So they would ALWAYS, without fail, never ever fail, ALWAYS switch targets and take out another model? Always? Never, ever, fail, would always wound perfectly two separate models? Surely you're kidding now?
Thanks for the more than condescending "play with terrain and other units, herp" argument there - regularly do. Doesnt alter that the game still more heavily favours shooting than assault, and going back to 4th ed would simply exacerbate that. It is a scifi game with CHAIN. SWORDS. as weapons and genetically engineered SPACE KNIGHTS as the biggest icons. Some nod towards assault being viable as a tactic would be good.
You also missed the chemhounds weapon - AP3, 2+ poison.
Allaros - wonderful strawman there. No, I did not say that having a game based only on realism was the way to go, I was countering the unintelligent apes towards "realism!" that are the main coutners to 5E wound allocation - that it is "unrealistic" that shooting more guns can (not must) result in fewer wounds, by pointing out that g'teeing the other way round is no more realistic.
It's an abstraction, and an abstraction whereby the specialist in the unit isnt ALWAYS the last to die, unless you got lucky with ToF, is far more preferable to 4E
General - those advocating that those under the template suffer the wound? Did you not play 3E? Havent you experienced the pain of Jaws? Sniping models is dumb. IT breaks the concept of the game as a unit based game, and results in even more imperative to mech up.There's a reason Jaws is more derided than even lash was - thanks to Phil "whats internal balance?" Kelly we're lumbered with a crap mechanic that is horrific against certain armies, and can be an almost one shot i win.
The biggest issue with the 40k system is there are too many binary rulesets - assaultig from deepstrike makes daemons fairly broken. Not assaulting makes them mediocre.
I'm pretty sure it's not the rules as much as it's your unique meta, in CC you almost always have the possibility to kill 1 guy then sweep them off the board, you can't do that with shooting, either stop playing your "No strategy CC army where the only tactic involves running in a straight line, disregarding cover" or get better/stop playing bad people.
EDIT: It already hits the KFF Mek if he's under the template as he's a different "unit" in the unit... afaik
Shoot 1 guy, enemy fails morale, escort off table. Your argument is invalid.
escorting off a 4 man squad =/= Sweeping an x sized squad (I can't even think of many units that can only take 4 models besides stuff like Tyranid Warriors, Wraiths, Meganobs, and bikes, I'm fairly sure those are all multiple wound models too (or high T))
Shoot 1 guy, enemy fails morale, escort off table. Your argument is invalid.
That requires you to be within assault range of them even after their fallback move, not a common occurrence. I think I see this happen once every couple months, sweeping advance I see every time someone isn't playing a fearless army and something gets into CC.
ruminator wrote:Sieze the initiative. Not a fan. Set up a bike army, had initiative siezed and my army was sat there with no cover saves as they hadn't been able to turbo yet ... Game over then and there.
So what there was not a single lick of cover in your deployment zone? If so why weren't you using it? If there wasn't why not...terrain is a necessary feature in 40k to keep shooting from dominating everything. If it was there and you weren't using it then is that really the fault of the seize the initiative rule or is it not actually your fault for not using your cover and "assuming" that you would be moving first and everything would be fine? Or were you doing the fast assaulting army "I've got first turn so I am going to push all my models up the very front of my deployment zone to get at the enemy faster" maneuver and forgot that it was possible that your forces could just be sitting ducks for an enemy seizing the initiative?
Either way, certainly not the fault of the rule itself. Either poor table set up with not enough cover, or you as the player ignoring the cover either out of absentmindedness or out of hope to press the advantage of having the first turn.
Shoot 1 guy, enemy fails morale, escort off table. Your argument is invalid.
That requires you to be within assault range of them even after their fallback move, not a common occurrence. I think I see this happen once every couple months, sweeping advance I see every time someone isn't playing a fearless army and something gets into CC.
Furthermore, not only do you have to end close, but the escorting unit needs to stay alive and in range until the other unit flees off the board. This is pretty easy to stop most of the time.
Meanwhile, with a sweeping advance, you're swept. Sent packing. That's it. There's nothing you can do to keep your guys on the board.
Lord Typhus - sorry lolwut? Get better? I am currently inside the top 50 in the UK, and hardly go to ranked tournies any longer. I'm pretty good - certainly competent to opine on the state of the meta. It is not a "unique" meta, unless "unique" means most of the UK.
Razor / venom / chim spam is rife, and a "classic" 1750 point list involves 1 unit of DCA in a rhino, the rest is cheap henchmen in psybacks with 3 purifiers in psybacks and 3 psyriflem. Shooting is *much* more predictable than CC, given the volume of fire put out, and this predictability is why it can be overloaded to such an extent.
Vaktathi - I gave one out to you there. Also the depictions I have seen dont have it as being the same RoF as an assault rifle - not even close - just that the damage it causes makes a single bolt equal to a number of other rounds. In game RoF does not equal the RoF of the weapon in fluff, its yet another abstraction
It is unrealistic that 2 shots always wound 2 people, and it is equally unrealistic that 2 shots always hits one model only. Your advocacy results in the former, mine sometimes the latter. Which is the better compromise? Its not your system, thats for sure, and you havent proposed anything better as yet.
The icon of the game is a SM with bolter and chainsword. The two working together. Prior to 5th ed codex SM every SM DID have a chainsword, or is your memory of 4th ed tactical squads lacking?
Currently CC is an after thought for most armies - insttead of 60:40 its 90:10, or 80:20.
Staying within range to escort off a unit is fairly easy - I had it done to me twice in one weekends gaming, and did it to one oppoennt in the other. It is hardly rare - its one of the easiest ways to get rid of Space marines.
Ailaros wrote:So, you would rather have a game where before you did anything to determine the results of your actions, you and your opponent both had to agree on if what you're doing is realistic? If you want that, go play a historical game, which is filled with things like "yeah, well, realistically you wouldn't be able to penetrate my Panzer IV's hull from that range at that angle". Of course, it's difficult to find someone to play these games with because very few people play these games because they're bad games.
If we switched over to this kind of a system, there would be blood on the table as absolutely every possible thing would become an argument over realism. I don't think that guardsmen are strong enough to hurt marines, even with power weapons, that's just unrealistic. You shouldn't be able to field artillery, because fielding them in a close-range support unit like that is unrealistic. You shouldn't be able to have first turn, because my army is smarter than your army. Etc. etc...
Really? You are equating realistic rules with arguing over every little thing on the table? Sadly that could be likely given the way GW writes their rules. What really should happen, though, is that the rules are actually written well and clearly to make them more realistic, then there is no argument over the table. That is what you do if you want realism in the game. Things like guardsman being strong enough to hurt marines are already listed in the unit stats and when you compare a guardsman's strength vs. the marines toughness you get the likelihood of how well they could hurt the marine. Why would you remove such things from the game for realism's sake. That would just be a completely and totally idiotic thing to do as those stats already give us an anchor into the abilities of those units.
Also as a player of MANY historical games I am confused by your generalization of them being bad and being as extreme as your example of hitting a panzer IV. Plenty of WWII games, like Flames of War, make it clear that you cannot take out a late war panzer IV from the front with a british 2pdr gun without it being difficult, or hard to do. It is no different than the concept of AV in 40k, except not a single heavy tank in FoW is as heavily armored all the way around like a land raider is. In WWII even the big boys had weak spots to their rear and sides that could allow them to be taken out. Again this is easily done in many games making it more realistic, but not burdensome or crazy. It also requires you to use tactics, ambushes and other methods effectively to be able to deal with bigger threats too. For a land raider it doesn't matter what tactics you use: if you can't beat an AV of 14 too bad. With a Tiger I can ambush it with medium to heavy guns from the side, or I can assault it with infantry which generally tends to bypass the armor itself and drops grenades and the like into view slots, and open hatches in realistic systems instead of trying to beat their way through the heavy armor of the vehicle to take it out. Only in 40k would anyone armed with something other than a power fist attack a tank vs. its armor...
There are plenty of much more realistic and effective combat systems out there than GWs....heck there are many rulesets out there that are far superior to 40k in most ways too and in a real comparison of "popular" games as to how good their rules are, GW is losing ground all the time.
Currently CC is an after thought for most armies - insttead of 60:40 its 90:10, or 80:20.
Staying within range to escort off a unit is fairly easy - I had it done to me twice in one weekends gaming, and did it to one oppoennt in the other. It is hardly rare - its one of the easiest ways to get rid of Space marines.
Orks, Tyranids, Blood Angels, White Scars, Daemons, Grey Knights, (some) Space Wolves, (some) Dark Eldar, Khorne CSM, ect.
My other point, "Get better/Stop playing bad people". If you're/they're letting them/you escort your/there units off the table then you're/they're either still in your/their deployment zone or bad, how about you also tell us how many times Sweeping Advances happened in that gaming weekend?
Vaktathi wrote:Was just an example. Either way, plasma guns are not big slow weapons, they have rates of fire that are at least somewhat comparable to weapons able to fire off a couple dozen shots in a few seconds.
Not sure why others are having a problem with this Vak...after all in the rules itself a plasma gun is a "Rapid Fire" weapon which is exactly what a bolter and lasgun are and bolters are thought to be fully automatic in their operation so why would anyone consider a plasma gun a slow weapon?
Experiment 626 wrote:
a) Vehicles are too strong meaning that mech is dominating while a few armies are left out in the cold because they don't get cheap super-effective transports. (Tyranids & Daemons)
Convsersely, MC's could do with a bit of tweeking to make them more desirable.
Vehicles got stronger in 5th because of the change to the vehicle damage chart. In 3rd and 4th Ed, you had a separate table for glancing hits and penetrating hits. Vehicles could be destroyed with glancing hits with a damage roll of 6. For this reason, and because the consequences for losing a close combat were negligable, players would focus on CC armies with relatively few big vehicles. In those day's you would be considered crazy to bring more than one Land Raider.
f) Melta needs to be tonned way down. Rapid Fire type weapons need some buffs to make them worthwhile again.
Melta is as it always has been. S8 AP1 with +2d6 armor penetration. The difference is that more people take melta weapons because the vehicles have become so prevalent. In the 4th ed days, flamers or plasmaguns were usually a better buy for your points just because you typically never got close enough to an enemy vehicle for melta to matter. Enemy vehicles were probably dead by the time you got that close.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Shoot 1 guy, enemy fails morale, escort off table. Your argument is invalid.
This only applies to units with 4 or less models. How many of those are on the table regularly? Any squad of 5 or more models can lose a single model and will not need any kind of a morale check at all. In close combat this applies a losing squad no matter how big. It can have 20 models in it, but if it loses the combat by taking a single casualty it can be forced to run away. To make that 20 point unit run off the table in the shooting phase you would have to destroy *16* models with shooting and if they went from 20 to 4 models in one shooting step then by rights they really should be running away.
Tempest Six Two wrote:My only real gripe with 5th Ed. is cc Strength not having a direct correlation to beating/ modifying armour saves.. a Nob with uge choppa on the charge can take down a dread- But that guardsman with the flak jacket can shrug it off.
Hoping that cc weapons get armour save modifiers similar to how it worked in 2nd Ed... With a baseline str5 = -1, str6 =-2 and scaling from there. Power weapons maybe get an additional -1 or -2.
Just some thoughts
I think WHFB does this too. It's not a bad idea.
I'd say power weapons ignore armor saves. (because their rules say they do.)
Then if you have a S6 cc, it's -1 to armor, S7 is -2, S8 ignore.
nosferatu1001 wrote: I was countering the unintelligent apes towards "realism!" that are the main coutners to 5E wound allocation - that it is "unrealistic" that shooting more guns can (not must) result in fewer wounds, by pointing out that g'teeing the other way round is no more realistic
When you're arguing that shooting more guns isn't beneficial in a *real life firefight*, you're actually saying something I don't think you mean to be saying.
nosferatu1001 wrote: I was countering the unintelligent apes towards "realism!" that are the main coutners to 5E wound allocation - that it is "unrealistic" that shooting more guns can (not must) result in fewer wounds, by pointing out that g'teeing the other way round is no more realistic
When you're arguing that shooting more guns isn't beneficial in a *real life firefight*, you're actually saying something I don't think you mean to be saying.
LordTyphus wrote:
Orks, Tyranids, Blood Angels, White Scars, Daemons, Grey Knights, (some) Space Wolves, (some) Dark Eldar, Khorne CSM, ect.
My other point, "Get better/Stop playing bad people". If you're/they're letting them/you escort your/there units off the table then you're/they're either still in your/their deployment zone or bad, how about you also tell us how many times Sweeping Advances happened in that gaming weekend?
Blood Angels - what, razorspam central? The codex that defined the 20pt razorback? You see a *few* DoA lists around - but most are based around min assault squads with a melta, in a flamerback or possibly assault back. Its a shooty army in its current form, with one assaulty element - Mephy. Bias heavily to shooting
White Scars - bikers that stay at range before killing remnants, because bikes suck at large unit killing. Bias to shooting.
Daemons - dont really have a choice, but some of the most popular units are used ffor shooting. Grinders, flamers, even horrors with AP4 for necron killing
Grey Knights - well, now here you are just off the deep end as you are waaaaaay off. 12pt henchmen squads x 5, 5 psybacks, 3 psyriflemen, 1xDCA in rhino / back, 3x purifier. Army based entirely around shooting out and assaulting remnants / tough stuff with the one properly assaulty unit. Or you have purifier spam - again based around volume of psycannon fire. About the only common build that even gets close to 50:50 is draigowing, which still relies on trip psyriflemen and quad psycannon to break vehicles open.
SPace wolves - barely any are about CC, again relying on volume of fire. Logan wing is about the only thing that "does" CC in a big way - but still usually has multiple fangs and cyclones.
Not even SOME DE are CC based. Vast minority. They are the epitome of spam - 8 venoms not being uncommon, all with the 10pt cost to double the shots, and triple ravagers / 2 ravagers + 1 fighter. Troops wracks (to camp objectives) and troop kabalites with a blaster, elite 3 - 4 trueborn with blasters. You occasionally see a small unit of incubi, or more often a baron + large hellion unit / flock unit which is shooting mostly CC occasionally. Again, balance is more 80:20 than anything like a CC oriented army
Khorne CSM - oddly enough when you pick the CC unit out of the codex it tends to be CC orientted. However how many have 6 oblits to back them up? A fair few I bet - being a CSM player myself, and noting what else other people play.
Seriously - you're still trying the "get better" schtick? Give it up. Escorting is one of THE single most common way of removing SM from the table
As for the number of SA? Irrelevant to the posited argument that escorting / falling back off the table without ralying is rare. Simple experience of about 5 tourneys so far this year (as I said, not many) of 50players plus, including the top 16 in the UK, shows that to be an argument with little merit.
Also the depictions I have seen dont have it as being the same RoF as an assault rifle - not even close - just that the damage it causes makes a single bolt equal to a number of other rounds. In game RoF does not equal the RoF of the weapon in fluff, its yet another abstraction
I'm not saying it's shooting 600 rounds a minute, but several dozen could be quite attainable. Either way, it's placed in the same class of weapons as assault rifles. It's wielded the same way, has the same maximum kill potential (2), and the same range restrictions. Sure it may not be firing off a dozen rounds a second, but even semi-automatic fire would put it in that category. Yes, it's an abstraction, just as everything in this game is, but if it's capable of 2 shots, it should be killing 2 guys if they hit and wound and fail saves, not both shots hit the same guy if they manage to magically somehow have dudes all differntey equipped but not if they are all identically equipped.
It is unrealistic that 2 shots always wound 2 people, and it is equally unrealistic that 2 shots always hits one model only.
And it's unrealistic that anything has limited range in this game too, rifles can accurately hit targets 400m away, tanks can rountinely hit targets 2km away, visually our battles are being fought in the area of about one city block and rifles can't hit targets more than about 80 feet away. Either way, one can assume that the abstract of 2 probably means he's shooting to maximize kills. 2 shots doesn't necessarily mean it's literally just firing 2 bolts. Routinely having your entire volley hit one dude, whereas if they'd been identically equipped you'd have hit two, is stupid.
No other game works like that. You won't find one. There's a reason for that. The weapons and units and costs really aren't designed around that occurring. Hence why people have so many issues with wound allocation gimmicks.
Your advocacy results in the former, mine sometimes the latter. Which is the better compromise? Its not your system, thats for sure
And what system, pray tell, is that exactly? I mentioned support for several alternate methods. However, any system that rewards bringing greater force to bear against the enemy with fewer casualties is broken and needs replacing, pure and simple. There's no good reason for that, and no reason for the additional dudes/weapons to be present if that is the case.
and you havent proposed anything better as yet.
4E allocation, allocation in step by AP, etc. Basically any system but the one we have now.
The icon of the game is a SM with bolter and chainsword. The two working together.
Typically only sergeants carry them. I just did a google image search for "Space Marine". On the first page I see chainswords in two pictures, one being an Assault squad. There are bolters or bolt pistols in all of them.
Looking at marine codex covers over time, in 2E you didn't see chainswords on either the Angels of Death Cover or the Ultramarines codex covers but you do see a lot of botlers. The 2E Space Wolves cover has...one chainsword being waved in the air with a bunch of terminators opening fire with heavy weapons on something. The 3E SM cover has a bunch of dudes firing bolters and...one chainsword slung over the back of a dude firing a bolt weapon. 3E Codex Blood Angels again had a bunch of dudes with bolters and...no chainswords. The 3E Space Wolves codex had an axe on the marine, who was shooting a bolter into a group of orks. The 5E Blood Angels codex, I don't think I see a chainsword on there either, but a lot of bolters. The 5E SM codex, the only chainsword is on the Chaos marine being blasted by a bolter. The 5E Space Wolves book is the only that doesn't feature what basically looks like a gunline or shooting fight.
Chainswords are cool and all, but they are nowhere near as iconic as a Bolter. Most SM imagery features a bolter, relatively little in comparison features a chainsword.
Prior to 5th ed codex SM every SM DID have a chainsword
I really don't think we're playing the same game or reading the same codex here.
or is your memory of 4th ed tactical squads lacking?
I remember lots of 5 or 6man las/plas squads. Are you referring to that one Trait? Didn't see if that often, maybe once. That was a non-standard (both fluff-wise and meta-wise) loadout.
Currently CC is an after thought for most armies - insttead of 60:40 its 90:10, or 80:20.
What game are you playing? If this is the case then I have a hard time believing you have a decent spread of armies with proper terrain and the full spread of mission and deployment possibilities. Even razorspam BA and SW lists pack in lots of capable CC troops even if in small squads. There's no way you are consistently having games where shooting is taking a 80 or 90% prevalence over CC unless you're constantly playing pitched battle on planet bowling ball.
Staying within range to escort off a unit is fairly easy - I had it done to me twice in one weekends gaming, and did it to one oppoennt in the other. It is hardly rare - its one of the easiest ways to get rid of Space marines.
Nobody is saying it doesn't happen, but it's far less common that sweeping advances, and unless they're already close, it gives the enemy time to engage and destroy your escorting squad, and requires a squad or tanks to sit there walking with it instead of doing something else. it's nowhere near the same league as a sweeping advance.
Khorne CSM - oddly enough when you pick the CC unit out of the codex it tends to be CC orientted. However how many have 6 oblits to back them up? A fair few I bet - being a CSM player myself, and noting what else other people play.
6 Oblits is hardly a ton of shooting. That's 6 heavy or special weapons each turn for the army for nearly 25-33% of their points (if playing 2000 or 1500), ho-boy, talk about shooting central. /not. 6 Oblits does not a shooting list make, not by any means. It's fire support, relatively sparse, if hardy and varied, fire support.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Prior to 5th ed codex SM every SM DID have a chainsword, or is your memory of 4th ed tactical squads lacking?
Do what now?
4th ed Tactical Marines had only a bolter. They have never come standard with a chainsword. In 2nd ed (and possibly RT) they had a bolter and bolt pistol. In 3rd and 4th they just had bolters.
They had a bolter and chainsword, which switched to bolter and bolt pistol in 5E
4E allocation is not "better" than 5E , as always leaving the special heavy / sarge alive is a sucky mechanism. They both have issues, its just the issues in 5E are better than the issues from 4E
You are supposing that, based on the in game "2 shots" that they have the same RoF as an assault weapon. Based on fluff, they dont. Again, the RoF in the game has no bearing on the RoF in the fluff, as it is an abstraction - an assault cannon doesnt only fire twice as many shots as a bolter at short range, does it now? No. Not even close.
Finally - shooting armies dont dominate games? WHen the US spawned the initial leafblower list? Razorspam lists come with 5 man squads with a melta. So do a heck of a ot of GH based SW lists. Shooting lists, current, dominate the UK scene. Whether that is the points levels we play, I dont know - but that is the truth. TAU won the UK Indy GT, and you dont get much more shooty than that...
We are not playing on planet bowling ball. We are using a range of tactics. Apparently repeating this ad naseum to you isnt working - I can state, based on experience across the UK gaming scene at club AND tournament level from 50 players upwards, that we play with appropriate amounts of terrain and with every single deployment type fully utlised. Parroting that out as your response every time is getting you nowhere, as you will struggle to convince me that i was hallucinating all those times.
nosferatu1001 wrote:They had a bolter and chainsword, which switched to bolter and bolt pistol in 5E
You really need to re-read your old codex books. I've got both the 3E and 4E books right here.
Verbatim:
'Weapons: Bolters. The sergeant may replace is his bolter with a bolt pistol and a close combat weapon at no extra cost"
4E allocation is not "better" than 5E , as always leaving the special heavy / sarge alive is a sucky mechanism.
And with 5E, you *increase* such models lifespan with mixed AP fire where in 4E they would have died.
They both have issues, its just the issues in 5E are better than the issues from 4E
So we have issues of increased complexity, increased time required, issues where more shooting=fewer casualties, and that's better than 4E...because the special weapons die sooner if you shoot them with all the same thing...why?
You are supposing that, based on the in game "2 shots" that they have the same RoF as an assault weapon. Based on fluff, they dont. Again, the RoF in the game has no bearing on the RoF in the fluff, as it is an abstraction - an assault cannon doesnt only fire twice as many shots as a bolter at short range, does it now? No. Not even close.
You seem to have missed exactly what I stated. I'm not saying a plasma gun is capable of firing hundreds of rounds a minute. But a modern day mortar crew can do a shell every 3-5 seconds, a tank is considered to have a slow rate of fire if it takes 12 seconds to reload (something akin to a Battlecannon) and can usually do it in 7-10 with most NATO vehicles. Those are all 1 shot per turn weapons. Even assuming the RoF on PG's is actually exactly just 2 shots, (which, again, based on an abstraction, is likely low), then it's likely twice as fast as these weapons, giving us say 3-4 shots every 10 seconds. That's matches some heavy autocannons in many respects or a rifle being aimed with at least some sort of precision on semi-automatic fire. That gives plenty of time to fire and the projectile to strike the target, confirm a kill, and engage another within the same timespan as an 1 shot weapon firing, thus making the "2 shots for 1 dude" rather silly.
Finally - shooting armies dont dominate games? WHen the US spawned the initial leafblower list?
Praytell, define a "Leafblower" list for me.
And keep in mind that the army was played at a points level not intended for typically casual or competitive play and won by the players own admission through getting first turn and favorable deployment every single time.
Razorspam lists come with 5 man squads with a melta.
Which also happen to be either Assault Marines or Grey Hunters, both of which are fairly CC capable and are fairly archetypal CC units (not heavy CC units, but much more CC units than shooting units. 1 meltagun does not make them a shooting unit).
TAU won the UK Indy GT, and you dont get much more shooty than that...
Space Wolf and BA assault armies can be more shooty than Tau sadly in 5E, I see armies that routinely can simultaneously both outshoot and outfight most Tau lists, HOORAY codex creep. Actually, the most successful Tau list I've seen recently revolved around Farsight and a huge bodyguard and drones all kitted out for assaults, it's featured prominently on BoLS a couple times for winning and placing in major events and I've played it with my IG and it did fairly well against me, losing 1 game and winning another.
We are not playing on planet bowling ball. We are using a range of tactics. Apparently repeating this ad naseum to you isnt working
When you keep describing the situations you find yourself in it is difficult to believe because quite frankly it does not match my, or the majority of others, play experience, and quite frankly sounds like BS. I routinely find myself engaged turn 2 by assault units and firing lanes restricted to prevent heavy weapons domination on typical tables. If shooting is dominating as much as you are describing such that nothing CC oriented has a chance, then no, you are not playing with enough terrain and deployment types.
In 4th ed they wouldnt have died, because the low ap shots would have never killed them, and the other shots fired (bolters, lasgun, etc) would not have usually caused enough casualties.
Giving you the exact same situation. At least in 5th you are *forced* to make a save on every special guy before the other guys get to make more than one, a *vast* improvement.
Increased complexity? Barely noticeable. Increased time? Barely noticeable. As in, simply immaterial to the game at hand. Compared to 4th ed casualty removal zones this is a negligible increase in time for a fair amount of decrease in abstraction.
You are, again, assuming perfect fire coordination amongst the unit. Take 2 plasma guns firing - you are assuming that both gunners always perfectly aim at 2 different groupings of models within the unit, so their fire never overlaps. I really dont know how to explain this any simpler than has been already - its just telling you the same thing over and over and over, which is that perfect shot spread is as unrealistic as never killing the special guy until the end, and is less preferable than simulating fire discipline.
Why should I define leafblower? Its not hard - it used mystics for DS protection, mass hydra and chim spam, and sprinkle to taste. It is still quite common in the UK at 1500 - 1750, although struggling against necron due to AV13 prevalence and annihilation barges being freaking awesome.
Additionally, leafblower variants went on to do very well in a number of places both sides of the pond, at least until the next very shooty codex came out. Arey ou next going to suggest DE arent a primarily shooting army, with venomspam (8 - 9 in 1500- 1750 points) being the predominant list? So much so they may onl have a single reasonably capable assault unit in the entire army, with the rest dedicated to shooting? If you do then calls of BS would be coming in thick and fast.
Razorspam - They arent the shooting unit - theyre bought because theyre scoring, slightly more resilient than guard although they do fall over quite easily, and a melta to blow important things up, and are sitting inside the shooting vehicle. They are light melee at best - 11 MEQ attacks with no power weapon, the most common config, is not a "capable" melee unit, unless you consider one dead MEQ, if luck is with you, to be "capable" - i certainly do not.
Tau - aaaaaand point missed. You dont get much more SHOOTING ORIENTED than Tau BS lists. This was a 9 BS + crisis suit heavy list, which against light AV meta does very well, except when claiming objectives. Yes it was played by an exceptional player, who excels with a number of armies but always loves his Tau, but it doesnt alter that this codex has essentially no assault elements - 10ish man kroot squads being it. This was played on well covered tables, with a mix of TLOS blocking and not blocknig terrain, yet he won. Farsight lists? They havent done well here in a while - too many better in shooting AND CC lists than they are, and relies on well covered boards - well above 25% recommended amounts
Finally - call it crap if you want, however I am stating what happens a long way from your location, and so your opinion on whether i am telling the truth is of no importance to me - call me a liar if you want, as you keep insinuating, but given you are talking about an entirely different country you clearly have no experience of, I would suggest keeping your ill founded and insulting opinion to youself.
We play with >25% covered boards at every location I have gamed in
Every. Single. Deployment type is used. All of them. Every single one. Any more ways to say the same hting?
Shooting has dominated 4th and 5th, and unless something changes will dominate 6th. This is true for the UK scene, and from what I have seen the US scene is not so different - not to the extent that you are portraying anyway
nosferatu1001 wrote:In 4th ed they wouldnt have died, because the low ap shots would have never killed them, and the other shots fired (bolters, lasgun, etc) would not have usually caused enough casualties.
If they're in a situation like the one I'm talking about there would have been enough failed saves to kill the entire unit either way.
Giving you the exact same situation. At least in 5th you are *forced* to make a save on every special guy before the other guys get to make more than one, a *vast* improvement.
Except when it means the special guys, and thus the unit as a whole, likely lives longer than it would have otherwise.
Very much noticeable. Take a marine squad, 5 AP3 wounds, 7 AP5 wounds, 8 dudes, 3 distinct. That takes people a good 15-30 seconds to think out about how best to do that typically. Over the course of a game, that adds up. It's a hell of a lot more complex than "5 guys die, make 7 armor saves, remove all failed saves".
As in, simply immaterial to the game at hand.
You seem to be the only person on the planet then to not have seen this take time and thought.
Compared to 4th ed casualty removal zones this is a negligible increase in time for a fair amount of decrease in abstraction.
Different issue entirely.
You are, again, assuming perfect fire coordination amongst the unit.
Nobody said anything about perfect, just enough for the abstraction to make sense, and you're assuming that every "In game" shot is 1 "real" shot, which may or may not be the case. It's also hilarious how if nobody in the enemy unit is equipped differently then the unit firing at the enemy suddenly then becomes perfectly coordinated and some dude having a better crafted weapon throws them all off.
Take 2 plasma guns firing - you are assuming that both gunners always perfectly aim at 2 different groupings of models within the unit, so their fire never overlaps. I really dont know how to explain this any simpler than has been already - its just telling you the same thing over and over and over
Yes, it's the same thing over and over, and I keep telling you, over and over, you're trying to describe an exception that nobody but you is really thinking of as the rule. Trained soldiers really shouldn't have that issue, and the time period we're talking about gives plenty of time to watch fire and reacquire another target.
You're trying to force a justification for the rule that it's not trying to take into account at all. What you are describing in no way was used in the though process for the wound allocation rules, rather it was just designed to make everything take a save to try and pick out special guys potentially sooner.
which is that perfect shot spread is as unrealistic as never killing the special guy until the end
You're assuming the special guy is living until the end, rather than someone else just picking up the damn gun and carrying on.
and is less preferable than simulating fire discipline.
Which is not something the rule is attempting to simulate in any way. You keep trying to hamfist this concept onto something that isn't attempting to do that.
Why should I define leafblower?
Because most people simply call anything with chimeras a leaf blower, which isn't the case.
Its not hard - it used mystics for DS protection, mass hydra and chim spam, and sprinkle to taste.
By mass hydras you mean...how many? Because the actual list what won hardboys had...2. If a couple hydras and some chimeras makes a Leafblower, then just about any IG list that isn't footslogging is a leafblower :/
Not to mention that the actual list that won the event had footslogging infantry, junk like powerfists on CCS's, it had medusas, manticores, etc, and mystics aren't exactly an option anymore so it's hard to see how people are still playing that.
And again, it won largely by getting first turn every time with favorable deployments and opponents that played right into it by the players own admission.
Additionally, leafblower variants went on to do very well in a number of places both sides of the pond, at least until the next very shooty codex came out. Arey ou next going to suggest DE arent a primarily shooting army, with venomspam (8 - 9 in 1500- 1750 points) being the predominant list? So much so they may onl have a single reasonably capable assault unit in the entire army, with the rest dedicated to shooting? If you do then calls of BS would be coming in thick and fast.
The only that that changed from their 3E list was that they swapped Raiders for venoms. They've always been a very shooting heavy army. In 3E they ran a ton of dark lance toting raiders and a ton of 10man warrior units with 2 dark lances each and 3 ravagers with 3 dark lances each and maybe a couple units of wyches with blasters in the raiders and *maybe* a unit of incubi. All that changes was that they went from Raiders to Venoms and dark lances became more expensive.
Razorspam - They arent the shooting unit - theyre bought because theyre scoring, slightly more resilient than guard although they do fall over quite easily, and a melta to blow important things up, and are sitting inside the shooting vehicle. They are light melee at best - 11 MEQ attacks with no power weapon, the most common config, is not a "capable" melee unit, unless you consider one dead MEQ, if luck is with you, to be "capable" - i certainly do not.
A lot more capable than 12 dire avengers, 10 scouts 10 guardsmen, or 5 Tac marines, and hit as hard back when charged as full sized tac squad would.
Tau - aaaaaand point missed. You dont get much more SHOOTING ORIENTED than Tau BS lists.
I didn't say they weren't but trying to make it out like "zomg tau won a tournament, shooting wins everything in this game!" is silly.
Shooting has dominated 4th and 5th, and unless something changes will dominate 6th. This is true for the UK scene, and from what I have seen the US scene is not so different - not to the extent that you are portraying anyway
It has always been more dominant than CC except for times when they were able to abuse the gak out of new consolidations and never face a shot the whole game. However, that doesn't mean that CC units and CC oriented armies aren't capable, it just means they need a shooting component as support. Nothing has changed, you act like CC used to be such a larger component of the game, it wasn't. It's still a huge component, and in fact we have killier and hardier CC units now than we ever have had before, wound allocation or no. You're just expecting something out of the game that simply never was and never will be.
If you want a game where CC is the msot dominant, play Fantasy Battles.
40K is a game set in an era where personal firepower is the norm in war. That means fire and manoeuvre are more important than being able to take or deliver a charge.
White Scars - bikers that stay at range before killing remnants, because bikes suck at large unit killing. Bias to shooting.
I'm sorry, but the last three White Scars lists I've seen have used OutFlanking Assault Terminators in Land Raiders to double up on smacking the hell out of someone with a smattering of bikers. They mostly use outflanking in order to surround, and offend before the enemy can truly hit back.
Daemons - dont really have a choice, but some of the most popular units are used ffor shooting. Grinders, flamers, even horrors with AP4 for necron killing
What, the most popular units are NOT the shooty ones, but things that provide large multiple attacks in assault based combat, such as the fatecrusher list which uses multiple units of fiends, crushers, and seekers.
You cannot even TELL me horrors and grinders are even worthwhile as the large number of penetrating shots vs the the grinders makes them such a lousy choice in the army. The most popular shooting units are Heralds of Tzeentch and DP's with BoC due to the armor penetration. Flamers are good for MEQ and TEQ killing, but against vehicles they are only good at stunning, horrors are just a Tarpit unit that provides numbers of shots that can be at best used if the enemy is foolish enough to leave an actual squad outside of a vehicle, and used to try and tieup dangerous melee squads with their 4++
Do they have no terrain allocation in the UK tournaments? At all?
nosferatu1001 wrote:You are supposing that, based on the in game "2 shots" that they have the same RoF as an assault weapon. Based on fluff, they dont. Again, the RoF in the game has no bearing on the RoF in the fluff, as it is an abstraction - an assault cannon doesnt only fire twice as many shots as a bolter at short range, does it now? No. Not even close
Dude, you are way out of line here. A Plasma gun is a rapid fire weapon, and is given the stats it has (two shots) because the creators assume that it could reasonably hit and kill two people (same as a bolter or lasgun). It it was thought that it's RoF was too slow to reliably hit and kill two targets, it would NOT be rapid fire. It would be Assault 1.
nosferatu1001 wrote:You are supposing that, based on the in game "2 shots" that they have the same RoF as an assault weapon. Based on fluff, they dont. Again, the RoF in the game has no bearing on the RoF in the fluff, as it is an abstraction - an assault cannon doesnt only fire twice as many shots as a bolter at short range, does it now? No. Not even close
Dude, you are way out of line here. A Plasma gun is a rapid fire weapon, and is given the stats it has (two shots) because the creators assume that it could reasonably hit and kill two people (same as a bolter or lasgun). It it was thought that it's RoF was too slow to reliably hit and kill two targets, it would NOT be rapid fire. It would be Assault 1.
There's also the fact they are rapid fire everywhere else, the only reason they fire at Gets Hot! All the time now was a balance convention, before they worked like that ONLY FOR CHAOS, who fires it full blast with no care for the whole it might burn their hand off thing. Space marines actually did the sensible thing, turned it down, and had a lower strength as a result. (Kinda like how Plasma guns work for tau now)
For the last time, THERE IS A SAFETY MODE ON THE PLASMA GUNS. If one fires one at a lower setting it won't ever get hot, but in the tabletop it's presumed now everyone's firing it full power in the combat zone.
I'd also like to point on on the whole " 4th and 5th was based on shooting" arguments that I can count the number of shooty HQs on 2 hands through out both those editions. You would think editions with a big focus on shooting would have shooty HQs.
It just seems to me like nosferatu got roflstomped by a shooty list and is now fixated on justifying his loss by saying the shooting phase is OP
It's not 3rd edition? I liked it way more then I have liked any other version and save for Rhino Rush, it was a great and balanced set of rules and rulebooks.
LordTyphus wrote:I'd also like to point on on the whole " 4th and 5th was based on shooting" arguments that I can count the number of shooty HQs on 2 hands through out both those editions. You would think editions with a big focus on shooting would have shooty HQs.
It just seems to me like nosferatu got roflstomped by a shooty list and is now fixated on justifying his loss by saying the shooting phase is OP
No, there isn't any as there is only so much firepower a single.model can have. You want a.shooty.HQ, I'd.say.Vulkan.for twin linking all the melta in this Mechmeta.
HQs general tend to be.better at combat. 40k may be.futuristic but it works along the lines of ancient warfare, where commanders meet in single combat a duke it out.
And please don't insult other posters. It leads to arguements and the whole thread degenerates to locking.
LordTyphus wrote:It just seems to me like nosferatu got roflstomped by a shooty list and is now fixated on justifying his loss by saying the shooting phase is OP
No, just no. No conversation is possible with personal accusations taken right out of somebody's ass. You and your posts won't be taken seriously with that narrow-minded attitude.
I wouldn't mind a small change to psychic powers. Currently each and every codex does set some rules about when and how powers are cast and 'dispelled'.
Some general rules would be nice. Also, a bigger influence of player, not just: get a Hood and hope for a good roll; Runes of Witnessing and I'm set.
LordTyphus wrote:I'd also like to point on on the whole " 4th and 5th was based on shooting" arguments that I can count the number of shooty HQs on 2 hands through out both those editions. You would think editions with a big focus on shooting would have shooty HQs.
It just seems to me like nosferatu got roflstomped by a shooty list and is now fixated on justifying his loss by saying the shooting phase is OP
Whether the HQs are shooty or not is irrellevant. Indeed, the "best" HQs (Farseers, Librarians, Vulkan, KFF Meks etc.) are not choppy either, but force multipliers. You don't take them to kill stuff in CC, you take them to provide buffs to your army or nerfs to your enemy.
Also, what's up with the personal attacks? Nos has a perfectly valid opinion and is getting blasted with vitriol of various viciousness. If you don't agree with him, fine, but don't start flinging insults.
For what it's worth, I agree that the game is shooting-centric. Note that that doesn't mean that melêe is pointless or too weak, only that shooting is the dominant factor in the game.
LordTyphus wrote:I'd also like to point on on the whole " 4th and 5th was based on shooting" arguments that I can count the number of shooty HQs on 2 hands through out both those editions. You would think editions with a big focus on shooting would have shooty HQs.
Lolwut? So in order for the game to be shooty centric HQs need to be shooty? Does Eldrad mainly being used to increase shooting damage through doom and guide not make him "shooty"? What about coteaz, who massively increases the amount of shooting you can get in the army? What about Vukan? Are you blind to the fact that the most commonly *used* HQs generally massively increase shooting capability for an army? Or theyre there to be cheap, and unlock reasonable troops. You dont generally see strict combat HQs - draigo and possibly logan being the exceptions
LordTyphus wrote:It just seems to me like nosferatu got roflstomped by a shooty list and is now fixated on justifying his loss by saying the shooting phase is OP
So when you argument is comprehensively debunked at every turn, you result to insults? *slow clap*
I've lost to a lot of lists, but it is undeniable in fact that shooting IS more powerful than close combat, significantly so, because it is generally more reliable, higher strength and higher volume (which contributes to reliability)
Vaktathi - just cant be bothered anymore. You dont seem to think 4E was bad, when it was. It was hugely frustrating to always have the specialist left. ALso - another guy picks the gun up? If youve been hit by a battlecannon i imagine the gun is toast.
5th ed may be shooty, but choppy did get a lot better than it was in 4th. It lost the ability to consolidate into fresh close combats, but it gained up to twice the speed with the ability to run, gained cheaper transports, gained the ability to outflank, gained a new combat resolution which makes close combat generally much faster and more brutal, and, most importantly, gained a nearly universal 4+ cover save, compared to the no cover save if your opponent could pass a leadership test (which they could).
Add to that a general increase in codex choppy options (not just a lot of choppy HQs, but GK got purifiers, guard got power blobs, space marines gained ironclads and vanguard vets, etc. etc.), and you've got a much more choppy-friendly environment. Looking over my 4th ed battle reports, close combat seems a lot rarer. Generally, it would only happen at the very end of the game, if my opponents even wanted to bother at all. I mean, it was only one codex and one rules edition ago that BA was a shooty army, their players groaning when devestators succumbed to black rage, rather than purposely taking rending FNP death company because it was good.
As for 4th ed wound allocation, I don't ever recall anybody complaining about it. Like the old area terrain rules, or like not being able to snipe models with blast templates, it was a slight unrealism added to the game to make it play better. It didn't take very long for 5th ed to be out before I started hearing complaints about wound allocation. For good reasons, really. Back in the day, which weapons you took for certain squads didn't have an impact on their survivability, nor did you have to make sure to shoot less to do more damage sometimes.
nosferatu1001 wrote:In 4th ed they wouldnt have died, because the low ap shots would have never killed them, and the other shots fired (bolters, lasgun, etc) would not have usually caused enough casualties.
If they're in a situation like the one I'm talking about there would have been enough failed saves to kill the entire unit either way.
And this conversation has been going on for some time, and is why I was confused that no one had brought it up. In 4e your special weapons WEREN'T safe! If wounded enough, they could be forced to make a save. Yes, they were likely to make it if they were marines, but still a 33% chance at success is a much better chance than 0%, especially now in 5e, where more shooting equals less wounds. Sure, on multi-wound models you decrease the chance that you'll remove models (by a freakish amount) but on units that are diversified and single wound you do have a better chance to force saves on problem models. But the current system is overly complex and allows you to save models unrealisticly as has been outlined.
I also contend that 4e was much more assault focused than 3e. Though they eliminated charging from vehicles, they increased the number and type of attacks from supporting fighters (the infamous "rocks" of 3e) thus making assault elements more brutal. Without craters created by exploding vehicles, troops could zip up, deploy from transport, and hide behind it, forcing a Target Priority test on the opponant to even shoot at the CC units. If you pop the transport, the unit has nice open ground to run across (if you got the "remove model" destroyed result) to then assault you. Vehicles with smoke were always considered "hull down" and this one could only ever get glancing hits against them, regardless of the penetration die roll (unless they had AP1 weapons, of course. Long live the Tau in 4e!)
4e also allowed consolidation into fresh combats. And boy was that fun. Pleh.
Defending the Nos, it's wholly possible that the GB meta has its own issues regarding LOS and missions, Vak. I play MANY shooting armies, and to be perfectly honest I prefer lots of terrain on the board. It allows me to outplay my enemies by deploying to maximize lanes of fire and manuvering the terrain to attack them. It is understandable, Vak, that you don't understand his problems given the difference in meta and presumably experience (different experiences, not more or less gaming experience) but still naive to continue to believe that he MUST be playing on open tables to have these issues with shooting. Most of my CC oriented opponants have been pleasantly surprised and exude supreme confidence when I heap terrain on the board, then by the end of the game realize the trap of assuming that terrain in any fashion hinders my ability to win.
Back on topic, I still miss infinitely tall LOS blocking trees. I wouldn't cry if they returned.
I have to agree with a lot of people on this thread, the wound allocation rules were a change made that wasn't really needed. All it has really done has offered a chance to force special squad members to take armour saves, while detracting from the actual effectiveness of squad's additional armaments.
To further this, why SHOULDN'T a PG, ML and Sarg be the last survivors?
A sergeant is a veteran of combat, he may have the slightest of edge in experience over his squad members. A dropped weapon maybe picked up by a surviving member or alternatively why would the 'Look out sir' effect not also apply to the PG, ML wielding soldier. Haven't these guys EARNT the weapon they're carrying? Wouldn't the others TRY to protect this ancient and treasured tech?
or alternatively why would the 'Look out sir' effect not also apply to the PG, ML wielding soldier. Haven't these guys EARNT the weapon they're carrying? Wouldn't the others TRY to protect this ancient and treasured tech?
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit...
And thats under circumstances that a weapon may survive, in the case of a battle cannon it is possible for the other space marines (the casualties) to shield the bearer or even JUST the weapon.
How do you pick up a Heavy Bolter then? In the case of a Space Marine the ammo feed is in the backpack, which is integrated with the armour. It'd be kinda hard to just "pick that up".
By it being a game not a simulation. A certain degree of abstraction is necessary.
If I wanted realism I wouldn't play a game in which giant augmented masters of the martial arts wearing power armor and carrying fully automatic rocket launchers fight psychic aliens and undead robots.
Jefffar wrote:By it being a game not a simulation. A certain degree of abstraction is necessary.
If I wanted realism I wouldn't play a game in which giant augmented masters of the martial arts wearing power armor and carrying fully automatic rocket launchers fight psychic aliens and undead robots.
So... the argument has no merit then? Funny that, it's almost as if that's what I said in the first place!
But the argument that does have merit with a game is fun.
GW needs to go with a mechanic that is fun. This means it has to be quick and simple so as to not bog down play.
However the rule also needs to account for three scenarios that are not fun. Scenario 1: Those special weapons models you paid extra for are useless because they always die first. Scenario 2: It is impossible to kill the enemy special weapons because wounds are never allocated to them. Scenario 3: It is possible for either player to abuse the system to modify the number of casualties taken.
So to be fun the rule must be simple, fast, and able to prevent the scenarios above.
So, is the current system fun? If not, how can we make it fun?
AlmightyWalrus wrote:How do you pick up a Heavy Bolter then? In the case of a Space Marine the ammo feed is in the backpack, which is integrated with the armour. It'd be kinda hard to just "pick that up".
They're super enhanced warriors. They simply drag the body with the ammo.
*EDIT OR they rip the pack off the back of the armour and drag that along leaving the rest of the body behind.
**EDIT OR they have one of their buddies carry the back pack while firing their own weapon single handedly or rested on the held back pack
SIDE NOTE
On another note I seem to recall rules (in inquisitor I think...) where you had unpowered power armour (lacking the huge power plant in the back pack) which could suggest its detachable and (as I remember only space marines could move around in the unpowered armour just as if it were on (but they didn't gain its strength bonuses) This may be completely wrong as my memory is hazy its been a good 6 years (at least) since I have even seen the rule book...
AlmightyWalrus wrote:How do you pick up a Heavy Bolter then? In the case of a Space Marine the ammo feed is in the backpack, which is integrated with the armour. It'd be kinda hard to just "pick that up".
They're super enhanced warriors. They simply drag the body with the ammo.
*EDIT OR they rip the pack off the back of the armour and drag that along leaving the rest of the body behind.
or just press the release catch and then place it on themselves
AlmightyWalrus wrote:How do you pick up a Heavy Bolter then? In the case of a Space Marine the ammo feed is in the backpack, which is integrated with the armour. It'd be kinda hard to just "pick that up".
They're super enhanced warriors. They simply drag the body with the ammo.
*EDIT OR they rip the pack off the back of the armour and drag that along leaving the rest of the body behind.
or just press the release catch and then place it on themselves
I can understand people comparing 3rd and 4th edition to 5th edition 40k seeing a gradual improvment over time.
And so based on this limited view of rule sets, they may not be ware of how bad 5th ed 40k actualy is!
If 40k was played with JUST standard infantry, then the rules would be fine.
Unfortunatley , all the other units need to have a massive amount of additional rules that contradict the core rules.
And add confusion and complication to the rule set.
Most of the games I like playing have rules that show the players how the game works ,then lets them get on with playing the game.
40k rules show the players how the game doesnt work, by listing the few core rules, than emidiatley contradicting them with poorly defined exceptions.
In summary,
5th ed rules book uses inapropriate game mechanics that delivers one dimentional game play in an overcomplicated, abstract and counterintuiive way.
Lanrak wrote:I can understand people comparing 3rd and 4th edition to 5th edition 40k seeing a gradual improvment over time.
And so based on this limited view of rule sets, they may not be ware of how bad 5th ed 40k actualy is!
If 40k was played with JUST standard infantry, then the rules would be fine.
Unfortunatley , all the other units need to have a massive amount of additional rules that contradict the core rules.
And add confusion and complication to the rule set.
Most of the games I like playing have rules that show the players how the game works ,then lets them get on with playing the game.
40k rules show the players how the game doesnt work, by listing the few core rules, than emidiatley contradicting them with poorly defined exceptions.
In summary,
5th ed rules book uses inapropriate game mechanics that delivers one dimentional game play in an overcomplicated, abstract and counterintuiive way.
Got any examples, or do you just expect us to take your word for it?
each identical weapon must be resolved seperately. So in the example of a battlecannon and Hbs, you must remove casalties before the HBs hit/wound (whichever). That is what we normally do my way, without realising it, and believe me,it is perfectly fine.
Jefffar wrote:I don't like that, all the bodies in the squad were there before the shots were fired, why do the smaller pool of guys take the next wave of hits?
The heavy bolters were fired after the BC to finish everyone else off? You can assume any failed hits/wounds may have already gone to guys killed by the BC's and the remaining wounds are only those that hit the guys left? There's lots of things you can come up with to avoid making additional shooting pointless or worse, detrimental.
How about defender allocates wounds as normal but if the attacker rolls a 6 to hit he may allocate the associated wound?
That just adds even more complexity and time consumption.
Hi again.
As many may not have seen other rule set to compare them to current 40k.
All the good ones write rules that cover all units by defining common traits.And writing characteristics that directly represent them on the battlfield.
EG
All units have a Mobility value.This is the maximum distance the model may move when taking a movement action.
M4 ,M6.M8,M12, etc.
Movment phase.
Units have the option of remaining stationary and improving thier observation range.(And allowing them to use heavier support weapons.)
Units have the option to move up to thier M characteristic , and fire small arms and light support weapons.
Unit have the options to move at double the M characteristic and not make any ranged attacks.
Aternative game turn (Alternating phases.)
A moves.
B moves
A shoots
B shoots
A assault
B assault.
(Roll of for who goes first each turn.This is just one of about half a dosen alternative to get more interaction in the game play.)
Alternate damage resolution.(Ranged and close combat for ALL units!)
All units have an Armour Value.from 1 to 15.(Vehicles and MCs have front side and rear values.)
All weapons have an Armour Piercing value from 5 to 20.
When a model is hit by a weapon, roll a D6 and add the result to the model Armour value.
IF this is hgher than the weapons Armour Piericing value the model passes its armour save.
If this value is equal or lower the model failed its armour save and takes damage.
All models have a damage threshold, 3 to 9.
All weapons have a damage value 1 to 5.
If the model fails its armour save the atacker rolls a D6 and adds it to the weapons damage value.
If this result is lower than the target damage threshold the target is unharmed.
If the result is over the targets damage threshold the target looses one wound/structure point .
If the result is double , or triple the targetd damage threshold it looses 2 or 3 wounds/structure points.
Large creatures and vehcles have wounds/structure points in mobility and armamanet.
As they lose wounds /structure points , they lose mobility or armament/attacks as aprpriate.
JUST ONE example of a damage resolution that is straigntforward and intuitive, that gives proportional results.(I may not have explained it too well though.)
This reduces the current 5th ed book by about 30 pages.In which we can include a straight forward fog of war, supresion mechanics and have greater morale and command and control and still have pages left over!
But some people like huge amounts of superfluos pages of poorly defined badly implemented rules to argue over.
Jefffar wrote:I don't like that, all the bodies in the squad were there before the shots were fired, why do the smaller pool of guys take the next wave of hits?
The heavy bolters were fired after the BC to finish everyone else off? You can assume any failed hits/wounds may have already gone to guys killed by the BC's and the remaining wounds are only those that hit the guys left? There's lots of things you can come up with to avoid making additional shooting pointless or worse, detrimental.
You have to declare what you're shooting before the results are known so all weapons are shot at the unit before casualties can be taken into account.
I thought the 4th ed torrent rule was pretty functional. If you inflicted as many or more wounds as the defending unit had models in it, the attacker could designate one model which had to suffer a save separately on its own- the defender got to choose which kind of wound/weapon it was from if there were multiple, though. The designated model could still also die from wound overflow from the other wounds, though.
So if you shot an enemy unit of 5 guys with (say) some plasma and bolters, and inflicted 5 wounds, you could say- "the sgt will take the torrent wound". Your opponent could then say "okay, it'll be one of the bolter wounds", and so get the 3+ against it, but if he failed it the sgt would have to be removed. This was a decent way to make sure the sgt or heavy wasn't always the last to die, without allowing the wound removal shananigans we presently have.
Honestly I think the 5th ed rules are really great. The only thing I really see as in need of fixing is wound allocation. I could also see changing area terrain back into blocking LOS completely if drawn across it, just to get more LOS blocking back on the table because so many stores and gamers are gorram lazy and have failed to properly outfit their tables with LOS blocking buildings and hills since 5th came out.
Hi again.
As many may not have seen other rule set to compare them to current 40k.
All the good ones write rules that cover all units by defining common traits.And writing characteristics that directly represent them on the battlfield.
EG
All units have a Mobility value.This is the maximum distance the model may move when taking a movement action.
M4 ,M6.M8,M12, etc.
Movment phase.
Units have the option of remaining stationary and improving thier observation range.(And allowing them to use heavier support weapons.)
Units have the option to move up to thier M characteristic , and fire small arms and light support weapons.
Unit have the options to move at double the M characteristic and not make any ranged attacks.
Aternative game turn (Alternating phases.)
A moves.
B moves
A shoots
B shoots
A assault
B assault.
(Roll of for who goes first each turn.This is just one of about half a dosen alternative to get more interaction in the game play.)
Alternate damage resolution.(Ranged and close combat for ALL units!)
All units have an Armour Value.from 1 to 15.(Vehicles and MCs have front side and rear values.)
All weapons have an Armour Piercing value from 5 to 20.
When a model is hit by a weapon, roll a D6 and add the result to the model Armour value.
IF this is hgher than the weapons Armour Piericing value the model passes its armour save.
If this value is equal or lower the model failed its armour save and takes damage.
All models have a damage threshold, 3 to 9.
All weapons have a damage value 1 to 5.
If the model fails its armour save the atacker rolls a D6 and adds it to the weapons damage value.
If this result is lower than the target damage threshold the target is unharmed.
If the result is over the targets damage threshold the target looses one wound/structure point .
If the result is double , or triple the targetd damage threshold it looses 2 or 3 wounds/structure points.
Large creatures and vehcles have wounds/structure points in mobility and armamanet.
As they lose wounds /structure points , they lose mobility or armament/attacks as aprpriate.
JUST ONE example of a damage resolution that is straigntforward and intuitive, that gives proportional results.(I may not have explained it too well though.)
This reduces the current 5th ed book by about 30 pages.In which we can include a straight forward fog of war, supresion mechanics and have greater morale and command and control and still have pages left over!
But some people like huge amounts of superfluos pages of poorly defined badly implemented rules to argue over.
It also completely changes the game. If you don't want to play Warhammer 40k I'd suggest you say that instead of attributing it to the rules.
Ok well weapon/special/character deaths being last in a squad removes all point in 'sniping'. However when it comes to ACTUAL sniper units (those with sniper weaponry) they should just be able to pick their targets.... problem solved. Under the current rules its possible for SM scout snipers to do LESS damage if the squad also has a missile launcher in it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also those rules suggestions you just made are pretty simple stuff, and you have made a valid attempt at solving the entire systems inherent flaws. And as for the remarks of 'if you don't want to play warhammer etc.' Thats completely unfair and more than a little insulting. You asked for an example of how it could be better, he provided one so OF COURSE its not going to be the current system. It does not 'completely change the game' because 40k will be 40k regardless of rule changes. Its just a different WAY of playing the game.
@ Jefffar > we already use a similar mechanic for wound allocation:
If a 6 is rolled to Wound, the attacker has the option to allocate the wound directly. If the previous to Hit roll is rolled again, the attacker can choose which model makes the save. If the previous to Hit roll fails, the wound is lost.
This allows the attacker to attempt to pick out targets but at the risk of losing the wounds entirely. We have found it adds a an interesting option without bogging down basic game play as most of the time people just want to make sure each wound counts.
amanita wrote:
If a 6 is rolled to Wound, the attacker has the option to allocate the wound directly. If the previous to Hit roll is rolled again, the attacker can choose which model makes the save. If the previous to Hit roll fails, the wound is lost.
How do you deal with grotz fighting space marines or MEQ in close combat? Or lasguns wounding nurgle marines or bikers as those require 6's to wound to begin with, how do you deal with it if a 6 is all that can affect it? Your system seems logical but there are a few what ifs about it, could you elaborate for me?
It works the same way regardless. If grotz are lucky to hit in the first place they probably won't take the chance to allocate a specific model, but they may try.
Tougher models that are only wounded on a 6 may always be allocated since a 6 is rolled, but there is still the risk the previous hit roll is failed, thus losing the wound.
Weapons that rend may seem too powerful, since a roll to rend is the same for possible allocation, but that's mitigated by the fact that the original roll To Hit must be redone. Kinda risky to possibly lose that sure fire wound!
There is no limit on how many original wounds may be directed toward a model in the unit. Let's say while rolling to Wound, a tactical squad happens to roll 4 6's while shooting at a mob of 20 boyz with a nob. The space marine player decides to allocate all those hits at the nob.
Seems like overkill, and perhaps unfair?
Well, the marine declares which model is receiving the allocation (the nob) and re-rolls. So approximately 2.64 wounds are inflicted on the nob, who will probably save half of that due to 'eavy armor and so still survive the fusillade. Extra wounds saved by a model are lost of course, and if too many wounds are assigned to a model killed the wounds can't be re-assigned to other models.
The chance to allocate wounds to a specific model with this method can also spare other models in the unit.
The combat resolution favours elite armies because of it going off casualties and in the case of fearless hordes massively penalizes them because of the no-retreat rule.
Cover saves are too high which marginalizes shooting.
The combat resolution favours elite armies because of it going off casualties and in the case of fearless hordes massively penalizes them because of the no-retreat rule.
Cover saves are too high which marginalizes shooting.
This, except for the first one.
Tanks are not the problem. Transports are. You merely need to shake a tank and it's done until you can shoot at it again
Totalwar1402 wrote:Tanks are too difficult to destroy.
I would say rather than the process for destroying tanks is too inconsistent. A 250 point vehicle can be destroyed by a single shot in the first turn... or it can hang around shrugging off shots from now until the end of time.
If the rumoured hull points for vehicles are true, I'll be a happy boy.
My big concern with that is a return to the 4E situation where anti-infantry weapons and basically spamming fists against tanks becomes somewhat viable anti-tank.
And with the anti tank firepower many armies can already put out, one will find that the hybrid and "tank light" armies will suffer even more.
I don't find vehicles all that bad unless you just happen to roll poorly, not unlike anything else. A marine can live through anything that isn't AP3 as long as he keeps rolling that 3 too..
I have to agree with Vak, I don't think tanks are overly hard to kill now. I think they are as tough as they should be. In 4E If you weren't alpha there wouldn't be any tanks on your side of the board by the end of it. I like the look of everything being mechanized as it's cool to see a battlefield with transports dotted all over the place. The problem is that it's not practical for a table top wargame... you get tank spammed to hell and back again.
Hello again.
I only posted my alternative damage resolution example as a responce to being asked to back up my statment that the 40k rule set is over complicated abstract and counter intuitive.
And I did say some peole WANT poorly defined anstract and counter intuitive rules to argue over.
In my suggested alternative , you still roll to see/hit, roll armour saves, and roll to damage.
But the alternative core rules cover ALL units.
Rather than relying on additional systems that are totaly different, causing disparity between vehicle and non vehicle units , for example.
In that sytem you can change a models survivability by altering its AV or its DT by one.And making it exactly one better vs all weapons.
Alowing for finer adjustment than curent 40k rules.
Thats why curent 40k rules need so many additional rules and exceptions.(Using dice in a deterministic way.)
I like the idea of the 40k universe.I like playing a game that brings it alive on the table top.Thats why I like Net Epic and Epic Armageddon.
Its a shame 40ks own rules are not written for 40k gameaply.But for WHFB then mutated horribly to try to get to 40k.
To me it makes sense that a vehicle should be treated dfferently to infantry. Tanks ARE virtually immune to all damage, but can be destroyed in a single hit and their only defence is their armour, not 'toughness.
TBH I think 40k is quite a simple system
They could do a seperate damage table for transports.
Hmmm, thinking about it, the mechanic where the effectiveness of a weapon is based on it's range would be a decent thing to change. I'm usually on the happy side of the line when doign my measuring, but it's annoying ot have to go through a big squad of troops and figure out which ones shoot twice and which ones shoot once. So the idea of Rapid Fire being 2 shots if stationary, 1 shot if moving appeals to me.
In a similar vein, I'd also love Melta to roll 2D6 for penetration for it's full range (that should put a damper on mechanized-heavy meta).
Jefffar wrote:
In a similar vein, I'd also love Melta to roll 2D6 for penetration for it's full range (that should put a damper on mechanized-heavy meta).
I doubt it would - it's just put the emphasis on tougher tanks.
And screw over those armies who don't have melta. Like Nids.
The issue of transports is another classic example of GW offering 3 fixes where one would do. The first one I ever saw was trying to fix Rhino rush by introducing Cleanse II, stopping assaults from vehicles, and then buffing the damage charts and AP1 weapons.
This time they saw how easily transports died, and nerfed the damage chart (to below its 3rd ed level, even) buffed cover, AND dropped the points of transports across the game. If they would have left tanks as deathtraps, but dropped the points accordingly, people would have accepted the trade off. Added mobility at a cost of its danger, rather than in points. Still worth taking, but not the basis for a strategy, rather the compliment of one. Alternatively, introduce the other two rules for vehicle damage and cover, but leave the costs as is. We need transports to take and hold objectives, leading to people include them (providing an upswing in sales) but too prohibitive in cost to take them for every unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:
Jefffar wrote:
In a similar vein, I'd also love Melta to roll 2D6 for penetration for it's full range (that should put a damper on mechanized-heavy meta).
I doubt it would - it's just put the emphasis on tougher tanks.
And screw over those armies who don't have melta. Like Nids.
Or those who can't take affordable/disposable melta. Like Tau or DE.
Nagashek wrote:This time they saw how easily transports died, and nerfed the damage chart (to below its 3rd ed level, even) buffed cover, AND dropped the points of transports across the game.
I respectfully disagree. Most xenos armies don't have such cheap and spammable transports as SM and IG while being close to their effectiveness.
Nagashek wrote:This time they saw how easily transports died, and nerfed the damage chart (to below its 3rd ed level, even) buffed cover, AND dropped the points of transports across the game.
I respectfully disagree. Most xenos armies don't have such cheap and spammable transports as SM and IG while being close to their effectiveness.
Really? I was referring, of course, only to books released since then, EG Orks, DE (no transports for demons or nids) and... well, shoot. I guess that's it. Necrons only have the Ark as a transport, and its cost is figured in by the other things that it brings to the table. No other Xenos have been released yet (Eldar and Tau definitely have very highly costed transports, but this makes sense given their durability for the edition in which they were made) and we certainly know how much love imperials have gotten. Or perhaps you don't feel that the Venoms, Raiders, Trukks and Battle Wagons are cost effective?
DE is an exception, completely agree.
I also agree that Trukk and BW are cool for their points but HS slot an decreasing boys to 12 guys are both huge drawbacks. Side shot to BW (not THAT hard) has similar chance of destroying it as a side shot to rhino. I've never seen complaints about Trukk spam. They are cost effective, but not too much for their cost.
They are also constructed so you can pretty easily nerf them without collateral damage to every vehicle out there - for example tweak Open Topped.
With rhino or razorback you can't do anything and not pull other vehicles too. This is codex at fault, not general rules. Rhino is good because all vehicles are good and it's price is tiny tiny. Any RB tweaks to rhino and every vehicle is affected.
The only thing you could go with imperial vehicles is change fire points but this is just not going to happen.
I guess what I meant is: 5ed brought an end to skimmer silliness without breaking other vehicles. This was done by RB change. I don't see any RB change (that actually has any chance of making into 6th edition) of toning down the most 'spammable' vehicles (let's say DE excluded) and not shelving others.
I think 5th Edition Rulebook is not responsible for transport domination. Some codexes are.
I think a good fix would be to simply make models with the "Transport" rule less appealing to use as widely as they are now, such as +1 to damage results on the chart, higher S damage to occupants, +S to Explode! results affecting them (So there's a chance of chaining exploding transports), slower overall transport speed, but especially reduced ability for occupants to fire out (Such as only if it didn't move or something)
"Transport vehicles, while immensely useful on the battlefield, unfortunately sacrifice many systems to obtain their transport capacity. While Main Battle Tanks may have redundant backups for their fire control system, or a fire suppression system in their engine, Transport tanks lack these systems as a way of maximizing internal space.
To reflect this decreased durability, all transports suffer a +1 modifier on the vehicle damage chart. Additionally, due to the absence of fire suppression systems and wet-ammo storage, any result which would cause Destroyed - Wrecked causes Destroyed - Explodes instead."
Unit1126PLL wrote:Well if we want to do away with abstractions:
"Transport vehicles, while immensely useful on the battlefield, unfortunately sacrifice many systems to obtain their transport capacity. While Main Battle Tanks may have redundant backups for their fire control system, or a fire suppression system in their engine, Transport tanks lack these systems as a way of maximizing internal space.
To reflect this decreased durability, all transports suffer a +1 modifier on the vehicle damage chart. Additionally, due to the absence of fire suppression systems and wet-ammo storage, any result which would cause Destroyed - Wrecked causes Destroyed - Explodes instead."
Or, alternatively: "Throw away hundreds of pounds worth of chimeras".
Jefffar wrote:So open topped transports would have a +2 on the damage chart?
Orks and Dark Eldar would get gutted by that.
Or the +1 for being open topped is removed and some other negative added to being open topped. Something like +1 to all pen rolls due to important gubbinz being exposed or something.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Well if we want to do away with abstractions:
"Transport vehicles, while immensely useful on the battlefield, unfortunately sacrifice many systems to obtain their transport capacity. While Main Battle Tanks may have redundant backups for their fire control system, or a fire suppression system in their engine, Transport tanks lack these systems as a way of maximizing internal space.
To reflect this decreased durability, all transports suffer a +1 modifier on the vehicle damage chart. Additionally, due to the absence of fire suppression systems and wet-ammo storage, any result which would cause Destroyed - Wrecked causes Destroyed - Explodes instead."
Except...transports don't generally lack for those things...and they'd be horrifically easy to destroy, back to 4E status, meaning you'd never see transports used. Bolters would be able to explode Chimeras, Krak Grenades able to explode Stormravens, Krak missiles able to explode Land Raiders.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Well if we want to do away with abstractions:
"Transport vehicles, while immensely useful on the battlefield, unfortunately sacrifice many systems to obtain their transport capacity. While Main Battle Tanks may have redundant backups for their fire control system, or a fire suppression system in their engine, Transport tanks lack these systems as a way of maximizing internal space.
To reflect this decreased durability, all transports suffer a +1 modifier on the vehicle damage chart. Additionally, due to the absence of fire suppression systems and wet-ammo storage, any result which would cause Destroyed - Wrecked causes Destroyed - Explodes instead."
Except...transports don't generally lack for those things...and they'd be horrifically easy to destroy, back to 4E status, meaning you'd never see transports used. Bolters would be able to explode Chimeras, Krak Grenades able to explode Stormravens, Krak missiles able to explode Land Raiders.
This is true, and good, I think.
It's not quite back to 4ed, as explosions are not good (see the entire thread, above), and there is no auto-pinning / entanglement. It's merely weaker transports. And transports deserve to be weak.
As for the realism, most definitely. The Bradley, for example, has mostly aluminum armor (with steel plates bolted on a'la Extra Armor), with no internal fire suppression or WAR. The Stryker has no WAR, and it's fire-suppression is terrible because of all the compromises made for weight and space.
Why not just make the squad inside the Transport become affected by the Damage Result of the transport?
Right now, if you get Stunned or Shakened, the unit inside can just ignore it by getting out. This should be changed to being affected if they even get out.
So a transport that is Shakened means the exiting Squad can only move or charge once getting out. A Stunned transport is basically just stuck there, but the squad should be able to exit the transport, just can not move after exiting.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Why is FNP an issue? I never understood that.
I think the controversy surrounding the wording is an issue, i.e. does the Scarab's Entropic Strike work if FNP is passed? Does the model lose its armor save? OR the DE Hexrifle, just as an example.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Why is FNP an issue? I never understood that.
Two reasons, first as already noted, interactions with other abilities. Second, it's far too widespread, reinforcing the need for heavy weapons spam and AP2. When you can get entire armies of jump packed equipped Space Marines deepstriking with almost no scatter and sporting enough damage reduction to laugh at multiple squads dumping full rapid fire loads into them, something is wrong. FNP was one thing when it was confined to a couple of characters and one or two units, but it has become far too widely available and is simply far too reliable.
Totalwar1402 wrote:
They could do a seperate damage table for transports.
Like this idea more than a I probably should. Perhaps the chart could be like.
1: Crew Shaken
2: Crew Stunnded
3: Passenger Wounded (Passenger takes a hit (str 3 AP - hit? str 4 AP - hit?) for every 3 rolled, multiple Crew Stunned or Shaken results count as another Passenger Wounded)
4: Weapon Destroyed
5: Vehicle Immobilized
6: Vehicle Destroyed (Passengers take D6 hits (same str and AP as a passenger wounded result))
Explosion is removed to jam in the passenger wounded (either it would have to be something like that or switch to a different chart like D10 or 2D6) result, also a transport isn't filled with lots of ammunition like a tank, so there is less to detonate. Honestly it would be better if they switched to a 2D6 damage chart, so it could be like.
2: Crew Shaken
3: Crew Shaken
4: Crew Stunned
5: Crew Stunned
6: Weapon Jammed (one weapon cannot fire for the following turn)
7: Turret Jammed (one turret or pintel mounted weapon cannot rotate although it can still fire, if there are no turret or pintel mounted weapons it counts as a weapon jam)
8: Weapon Destroyed
9: Immobilized
10: Destroyed
11: Destroyed
12: Explosion
Perhaps the transport chart could be
2: Crew Shaken
3: Crew Stunned
4: Passenger Wounded (Passenger takes a hit (str 3 AP - hit? str 4 AP - hit?) for every 4 rolled, multiple Crew Stunned or Shaken results counts as another Passenger Wounded)
5: Passenger Wounded (Passenger takes a hit (str 3 AP - hit? str 4 AP - hit?) for every 5 rolled, multiple Crew Stunned or Shaken results counts as another Passenger Wounded)
6: Weapon Jammed (one weapon cannot fire for the following turn)
7: Turret Jammed (one turret or pintel mounted weapon cannot rotate although it can still fire, if there are no turret or pintel mounted weapons it counts as a weapon jam)
8: Weapon Destroyed
9: Immobilized
10: Destroyed (Passengers take D6 hits (same str and AP as a passenger wounded result))
11: Destroyed (Passengers take D6 hits (same str and AP as a passenger wounded result))
12: Explosion (Passengers take 2D6 hits (str 5 AP 5))
Now transports would be much more dangerous, although the passenger wounded result isn't too bad alone, it has the potential to be annoying and a big hit if you are unlucky. Also the explosion result guarentees that one will take pretty high losses, potentially losing an entire squad because the transport blew up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Why is FNP an issue? I never understood that.
Two reasons, first as already noted, interactions with other abilities. Second, it's far too widespread, reinforcing the need for heavy weapons spam and AP2. When you can get entire armies of jump packed equipped Space Marines deepstriking with almost no scatter and sporting enough damage reduction to laugh at multiple squads dumping full rapid fire loads into them, something is wrong. FNP was one thing when it was confined to a couple of characters and one or two units, but it has become far too widely available and is simply far too reliable.
I feel like it is like that with a lot of special rules, the writers look at a unit and go "these guys are really elite, but we can't really boost their base stats. Maybe to show how tough/brave/skilled they are we will give them FNP/Fearless/ some other USR."
Basically all issues with FNP are caused by Matt Ward giving 6" bubble FNP effect for Priests. In all other 5e Codices, FNP is only given to single units.
Many of those codices did have bubble FNP effects before, but they were removed as it was very bad idea to introduce to game.
FNP is trivial to fix for 6th. Issue errata for BA removing the bubble effect and reword the rule so that wound saved by FNP either 1) doesn't count as unsaved wound (easy option) 2) does count as unsaved wound (will cause some headaches).
Vaktathi wrote:Another easy fix would be to just make it a 5+ does not count as unsaved.
Or make it hurt by AP3 as well, thus giving those anti-power armor weapons another use.
Well, most AP3 weapons are also S8 and thus ignore FNP on *most* things, the bigger issue is that you can throw scatterlasers, heavy bolters, splinter cannons, etc at them all day long and kill very little because of the 4+ FNP on top of the 3+ armor.
Just change it so that any shot that ignores the model in question's armour ignores FNP.
And people are going to scream out for the painboy. I have a fix.
Doc knows wotz- Due to increble orkish regenerative sytems and the Docs knowing stuff, an Ork unit may always may a FNP save, unless the wound was caused by (insert all the stuff currently ignoring FNP, Eg, power swords).
Basically limit everyone else to an armour+FNP or an invulnerable/cover. Orks being supa tuff and regenerating quick, and doc gubbins, can have the current incarnation to balance their crap armour.
Deadshot wrote:Just change it so that any shot that ignores the model in question's armour ignores FNP.
And people are going to scream out for the painboy. I have a fix.
Doc knows wotz- Due to increble orkish regenerative sytems and the Docs knowing stuff, an Ork unit may always may a FNP save, unless the wound was caused by (insert all the stuff currently ignoring FNP, Eg, power swords).
Vaktathi wrote:the bigger issue is that you can throw scatterlasers, heavy bolters, splinter cannons, etc at them all day long and kill very little because of the 4+ FNP on top of the 3+ armor.
Well, take a deep breath here and do the math. A model with a 3+ save and a 4+ FNP is exactly as easy to kill as a model with a 2+. FNP is exactly the same as artificer armor.
Or, it just turns power armored guys into terminators, except they don't get a storm bolter, or power fist, and have no options to take lightning claws or thunderhammers, and cant' take homing beacons, or deepstrike.
It's WAY easy to see FNP as more than it actually is, especially when you consider that the exactly one thing FNP does can be countered by a lot of weapons out there.
Deadshot wrote:Uh, they have Invulns so nothing ignores their armour, . yeah, lets go with that explanation.
Surprisingly it doesn't hold up within the current context between armor and invulnerable save used within the book, meaning everything ignores it's "Armor" but not its invulnerable save. Kinda why one makes more specific thoughts on the matter when it comes to USR
Vaktathi wrote:the bigger issue is that you can throw scatterlasers, heavy bolters, splinter cannons, etc at them all day long and kill very little because of the 4+ FNP on top of the 3+ armor.
Well, take a deep breath here and do the math. A model with a 3+ save and a 4+ FNP is exactly as easy to kill as a model with a 2+. FNP is exactly the same as artificer armor.
Or, it just turns power armored guys into terminators, except they don't get a storm bolter, or power fist, and have no options to take lightning claws or thunderhammers, and cant' take homing beacons, or deepstrike.
The difference is that instead of being 40pts each they often end up being functionally 20-23pts each, and in far larger numbers. Yeah, a terminator would be a lot less scary with just a CCW instead of a powerfist. When you have twice as many and they can move 12" a turn and can still DS, or ride in a transport instead, and take all sorts of special weapons (e.g. BA Assault Marines with a Priest), and still have enough of those special CC weapons in the unit (through sergeant/characters/etc) to matter, it becomes an entirely different issue.
The numbers alone can make all the difference. Take a Leman Russ, remove all it's guns and leave it with a bolter. Make it 15pts and available in units of 1-10. A more exaggerated example, but same principle, you can have too much defensive capability on too many models and even lacking the offensive abilities of units more typical of that toughness they can still be overdone.
FNP went from something that only a couple units and characters have to being available in most codex's and in a whole more units and in some cases entire armies.
It's WAY easy to see FNP as more than it actually is, especially when you consider that the exactly one thing FNP does can be countered by a lot of weapons out there.
Yes, an reinforces that those weapons need to be taken above what should be the more common and utilitarian non AP2 weapons.
Deadshot wrote:Uh, they have Invulns so nothing ignores their armour, . yeah, lets go with that explanation.
Surprisingly it doesn't hold up within the current context between armor and invulnerable save used within the book, meaning everything ignores it's "Armor" but not its invulnerable save. Kinda why one makes more specific thoughts on the matter when it comes to USR
You've still hurt Dark Eldar pretty badly though.
Well, if I recal correctly, Daemons in the Daemon book have a special rule called Daemonic or something, which in turn leads to fearless and Daemon Assault and EW. However, they also have something that says "The save listed on its profile is Invulnerable" This would mean nothing ignores its armour as its armour (the profile) is actually invulnerable. Meaning Plaguebearers till get their FNP and unfortunatley so do GUOs.
As for DE, so? They rarely run infantry in a competitve list. Venomspam is al the rage now.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And it seems the trend in newer dexes to be betteer than anything before. The Vanilla dex has 3 units with FNP. Command Squads, Cassius, and any character attached to a Command Squad, and ONLY if the Apothecary is alive GK have the same lack of FNP but teirs goes on 2 wound Termies, so the penalty is migitated. A 10 man Tac squad rapid firing at Paladins with Apothecary. let's say 2 pallies (Including Apoth)with all swords and no upgrades except the Apothecary and one Master Crafted sword. Both costs the same.
All marines in 12" let's say.
20 shots
13.33333 hits
6.6666 wounds
1.1111 wounds after armour.
0.5 wounds after FNP.
Vaktathi wrote:The difference is that instead of being 40pts each they often end up being functionally 20-23pts each, and in far larger numbers.
If you could give regular marines artificer armor, this points cost is in line with what they'd cost. Plus, artificer armor is a model upgrade, and isn't depending on an IC staying alive in close combat to keep the upgrade.
Vaktathi wrote:Yes, an reinforces that those weapons need to be taken above what should be the more common and utilitarian non AP2 weapons.
This doesn't make any sense. It would be like saying that the existence of AV14 means that you need to take weapons to handle anti-tank over its more common and utilitarian non-S9 or non-melta weapons. If all you ever wanted to take is scatter lasers and heavy bolters, then there are things you should be angrier about than FNP.
You take the weapons you need to handle different target types. There's nothing special about FNP units here.
As for DE, so? They rarely run infantry in a competitive list. Venomspam is al the rage now.
So..To fix something that's a problem in one codex you'd rather ruin several other competitive type lists for another codex (Coven, Web Portal Foot lists, wych lists), well done.
This would mean nothing ignores its armour as its armour (the profile) is actually invulnerable. Meaning Plaguebearers till get their FNP and unfortunately so do GUOs.
The ability is listed as "If this model has a save characteristic, it is counted as it's Invulnerable Save, some will also have an armor save but will be noted separately in their entry"
And it'd be jumped on by WAAC players immediately, as they aren't listed with an armor save, ergo, no more plaguebearer FNP.
Ailaros wrote:
If you could give regular marines artificer armor, this points cost is in line with what they'd cost.
*IF* you could. You can't. There are some things that just don't balance correctly with points alone, and thus aren't implemented.
and isn't depending on an IC staying alive in close combat to keep the upgrade.
Not all that difficult really in a lot of situations, and against shooting it's rather easy to keep that IC alive.
This doesn't make any sense. It would be like saying that the existence of AV14 means that you need to take weapons to handle anti-tank over its more common and utilitarian non-S9 or non-melta weapons.
Um, not really. AV14 tends to be very limited in numbers and availability. Primarily they are Imperial and Ork HS units. Most are just as vulnerable to CC as a Rhino aside from the Land Raider.
If suddenly AV14 vehicles could be taken for relatively cheap by most armies in a bunch of slots, then yeah, it'd mean that you would need to take significantly more S9+/melta weaponry. The simple existence of AV14 does not. Increased availability would.
If FNP were still only on a handful of units, it'd be one thing. When it's possible for entire armies to sport it, that's another.
If all you ever wanted to take is scatter lasers and heavy bolters, then there are things you should be angrier about than FNP.
Not my point either, nobody is saying that that's all you should take. It's that units sporting FNP typically require what amounts to anti-tank weaponry or ordnance weaponry to deal with. It makes those weapons that you'd normally use for such units unable to deal with them when FNP is that widely available. Hence why it reinforces the need to spam AP2 weapons instead of trying to take more generalized weaponry.
You take the weapons you need to handle different target types.
Right, and I'm saying the problem is that FNP is reinforcing taking more and more AP2 than one should really otherwise need to take and making weapons you'd normally take to handle such targets ineffective.
There's nothing special about FNP units here.
Some yes, but when you see it on everything in an army or mostly so, then that's a different issue, because suddenly the weapons you suddenly brought to engage infantry are not doing the job and you don't have enough AP2 weapons to supplement that, while the number of infantry you still have to engage really isn't any different than if they weren't sporting FNP.
Yeah, FNP isn't everywhere and endemic. FNP is usually relegated to a single or a couple of overcosted places in armies that can take it at all (painboyz, guardsmen with medikits, apothecaries, etc.) Really it's just blood angels that can usefully spam the hell out of it. If you don't like this, then don't like blood angels, FNP itself is fine.
Plus, I don't get what the moral argument here is for how much FNP there "should" be in the game or how many plasma guns and power fists you "should" have to take to be able to counter them. Sv3+ FNP is a type of unit that is best handled with a few certain classes of weapons. All target types have a class of weapons that are optimal against them. FNP is no different from anything else in this regard.
I mean, if FNP was like the old monolith where it was AV14 that was basically immune to chainfists, meltaguns and ordnance so that you HAD to take S9 and S10 weapons to stand any chance of hurting it, that would be one thing, but FNP is something much different. Anything that is nothing more survivable than artificer armor (which is still able to be killed by small arms fire, etc.) is hardly game breaking.
Roll a models armour save to prevent it taking damage/wounds.
Exception,1/If the weapons AP is lower than the models save it can not take a saving throw.
Exception 2/if the model has a cover/invunerable save this may be taken instead of its armour save.(And is not affected by AP.)
Exceptoin3/If the model has FNP it gets ANOTHER save , it can use after prevouis saves....
Exception 4/if the model is a Vehicle it uses a completly different sytem entirley!
How is this simple compard to ONE system that covers ALL weapons and units , NO exceptions?
Like I said the game play is fine.
The game mechanic chioce and multiple resolution methods are less than desirable, for elegant intuitive instructions to play the game.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Why is FNP an issue? I never understood that.
Two reasons, first as already noted, interactions with other abilities. Second, it's far too widespread, reinforcing the need for heavy weapons spam and AP2. When you can get entire armies of jump packed equipped Space Marines deepstriking with almost no scatter and sporting enough damage reduction to laugh at multiple squads dumping full rapid fire loads into them, something is wrong. FNP was one thing when it was confined to a couple of characters and one or two units, but it has become far too widely available and is simply far too reliable.
That's a problem with BA, who didn't even need a codex and could have fitted into vanilla marines fine (specal charector, can take assault marines as troops, vehicles +20 points and fast).
Zyllos wrote:Why not just make the squad inside the Transport become affected by the Damage Result of the transport?
Right now, if you get Stunned or Shakened, the unit inside can just ignore it by getting out. This should be changed to being affected if they even get out.
So a transport that is Shakened means the exiting Squad can only move or charge once getting out. A Stunned transport is basically just stuck there, but the squad should be able to exit the transport, just can not move after exiting.
So, don't take transports in other words. Anything that glances one of my chimeras, and the squad inside is useless for a turn? No thanks.
Some yes, but when you see it on everything in an army or mostly so,
There's only four potential armies that can take it on everything or mostly
Blood Angels: Sanguinary Priest
Chaos: Plague marines (Because it's one of the only still decent units in the codex)
Dark Eldar: Who's saves and toughness suck and require pain tokens
Chaos Daemons: If Nurgle lost this here they'd have no reason to be in this codex.
I'd still say have it that AP3 also penetrates FNP.
So, basically the only army which really has "too much" FNP are blood angels, due to their bubble effect.
The only logic consequence would be changing sanguine priests, not FNP. No need to burn dark eldar, tyranids (yes, they depend on FNP, too), and all that nurgle-spawn, to fix one model in one army. All those apothecaries, doks and medics across other codices are hardly the problem.
Lanrak wrote:This is a prime example of overcomplication.
Roll a models armour save to prevent it taking damage/wounds.
Exception,1/If the weapons AP is lower than the models save it can not take a saving throw.
Exception 2/if the model has a cover/invunerable save this may be taken instead of its armour save.(And is not affected by AP.)
Exceptoin3/If the model has FNP it gets ANOTHER save , it can use after prevouis saves....
Exception 4/if the model is a Vehicle it uses a completly different sytem entirley!
How is this simple compard to ONE system that covers ALL weapons and units , NO exceptions?
Like I said the game play is fine.
The game mechanic chioce and multiple resolution methods are less than desirable, for elegant intuitive instructions to play the game.
Wait, how is that "overly complicated"? It takes literally 2 minutes to grasp. It'd be one thing if the save rules created long delays in game, but it doesn't! Furthermore, vehicles don't use a completely different system. Simplicity for the sake of simplicity is not something to strive for.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Everything I see about transports in this thread seems to be:
"Transports are OP, nerf them"
"Yeah, I agree"
*nerfs transports even the slightest bit*
"OMG who would ever take transports!!! FAIL!!"
It's generally not the same people, or the people wanting to balance it hard in one painful direction. (MEQ smashing because they hate space marines, or GEQ smashing because they don't play them)
Unit1126PLL wrote:Everything I see about transports in this thread seems to be:
"Transports are OP, nerf them"
"Yeah, I agree"
*nerfs transports even the slightest bit*
"OMG who would ever take transports!!! FAIL!!"
Almost as if making a rules set for a game like 40k is a hugely complicated and costly affair and the only people who insist it's "easy" are teenagers who've never worked on a large project, of any kind, before.
Still, I'm sure a company that's dedicated to providing returns for its shareholders and spends hundreds of thousands of pounds on games development couldn't possibly compete with 3 minutes of an adolsensent's time.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Everything I see about transports in this thread seems to be:
"Transports are OP, nerf them"
"Yeah, I agree"
*nerfs transports even the slightest bit*
"OMG who would ever take transports!!! FAIL!!"
To be fair, most of the suggestions center around either making transports as easy to kill/neutralize as they were back in 4E (when such vehicles were used primarily for mobile terrain that frequently died to mid-strength anti-infantry weapons and tracked armies that tried to mech up were de-mech'd turn 1 quite often), do something to vehicles as a whole which also effects gun tanks negatively that really aren't an issue, or have a disproportionate effect on non-MEQ armies.
As someone who fielded an army that used lots of transports in 4E simply for theme, I remember how awful they were, and a lot of the suggestions center around returning them to that by people who don't seem to remember 4E
I agree to Vaktahi. Durability of transports are just right, a decent heavy weapon (heavy as as in "makes big holes", not "can't move and shoot") will blow almost all of them away, strong anti-infantry weapons also destroy them just fine.
Units simply get too many benefits from being inside a transport, with almost no drawback for a lot of them.
Other than being inside an exploding transport should be more deadly, the transport rules are fine by me. The cheap cost of transports, especially for Marines is the bigger issue. Make the cost more in line with the advantage they bring.
Vehicle rules are quite good IMHO. Pricing is another thing.
And I kinda agree with Ailaros on FNP thing. It isn't bad in itself, but the abundance of it in one codex makes it stupid. Remove Sang priests and the problem is close to gone. It's not BRB's fault, it's BA's.
Macok wrote:Vehicle rules are quite good IMHO. Pricing is another thing.
And I kinda agree with Ailaros on FNP thing. It isn't bad in itself, but the abundance of it in one codex makes it stupid. Remove Sang priests and the problem is close to gone. It's not BRB's fault, it's BA's.
Agree with everything. It's not the vehicle rules, it's that they're cheap as chips. Try playing razorspam with Black Templars, on the other hand, and transports suddenly aren't that OP anymore.
@ Almighty Walrus.
SImplicity to improve the game play, faster resolution that is more intuitive, IS a valid chioce.(Well for game developers not influenced by GW plc corperate managment anyway.)
Way more so than complicating things for the sake of it.
And vehicles have a saving throw that affected by AP of the attacking weapon ?
And they have invunerable saves and FNP too do they?
Are we loking at a diffrent game ?
An objective assesment of the 5th ed 40k rules book.Comparing it to other rules sets avalable .
Shows it is poolry defined, over complicated and counter intuitive.
Am not talking about the game play of 40k which I think is fine as is.
But the instructions to play the game are an overcomplicated , counter intuitive holistic mess.
Some people like this so they can spend time arguing about them rather than playing the game.
But most gamers prefer playing the game over , arguing over RAWRAI...
Some vehicles have invulnerable saves and AP1 has a better chance of dealing lasting damage. The save system doesn't slow down gameplay, you learn it by heart after five or so games. It's not even complicated and there's no rules interpretation gaps in the armour save rules whatsoever. I don't see the problem. I personally think it makes way more sense to have a separate part for vehicles, as they're generally way tougher than some poor sod on the ground, even if said sod has Terminator Armour.
I think the dual system is actually reasonably realistic in the reflection of the differences in the way weapons interact with human bodies and with vehicles in real life.
I would prefer saves get changed to save modifiers.
Otherwise, you get the curious example of the Manticore, where it's cluster bombs can utterly obliterate tank squadrons (Str 10 Ordnance d3) but only slightly perturbs heavy infantry (AP4).
Vehicles in squadrons blow up for being immobilized (blowing up after loosing unit coherency would be better IMO)
GW should might as well remove Rending all together rather than what they did to it.
Ranged combat sucks even more with the increased Friendly Fire cover saves along with the running and CC always hitting rear of vehicles (though the running and rear armour hits, I'm ok with; infact the rear armour hits make it quite cinimatic, like in Ghost in the Shell when the Major rips the entry hatches off tanks in almost every film/series).
A friend of mine who I play with all of the time has a differing view on cover than i do. he says if it is close it gets cover, i say if it is close it doesnt. This leads to disagreements in many of our games.
dajobe wrote:TLOS on cover is one thing I dont like...
A friend of mine who I play with all of the time has a differing view on cover than i do. he says if it is close it gets cover, i say if it is close it doesnt. This leads to disagreements in many of our games.
Notice that the rulebook does have a mechanic for that, if there's a disagreement it gets a cover save at -1 of what it would otherwise be, making 4+ into 5+.
dajobe wrote:TLOS on cover is one thing I dont like...
A friend of mine who I play with all of the time has a differing view on cover than i do. he says if it is close it gets cover, i say if it is close it doesnt. This leads to disagreements in many of our games.
I assume you are talking about cover for vehicles, right?
Anyway, as mentioned there is a mechanic in place for such situations. Failing that you just need to sack up and remind your friend that the criteria is "50% or more", not "close to 50", but not quite".
dajobe wrote:TLOS on cover is one thing I dont like...
A friend of mine who I play with all of the time has a differing view on cover than i do. he says if it is close it gets cover, i say if it is close it doesnt. This leads to disagreements in many of our games.
Notice that the rulebook does have a mechanic for that, if there's a disagreement it gets a cover save at -1 of what it would otherwise be, making 4+ into 5+.
Right but this allows you to get a 5+ cover from anywhere. My troops are in the open, I claim cover. My opponent disagrees, obviously, so it's 5+. Now that's a stupid example and it might not happen, but THIS happens quite frequently:
Defender: Well that looks like 4+ cover to me.
Attacker: No way, there's no cover at all from that
Defender: Well 5+ cover then?
Attacker: WHAT, no way does that deserve 5+ cover
ad infinitum.
Lanrak wrote:This is a prime example of overcomplication.
Roll a models armour save to prevent it taking damage/wounds.
Exception,1/If the weapons AP is lower than the models save it can not take a saving throw.
Exception 2/if the model has a cover/invunerable save this may be taken instead of its armour save.(And is not affected by AP.)
Exceptoin3/If the model has FNP it gets ANOTHER save , it can use after prevouis saves....
Exception 4/if the model is a Vehicle it uses a completly different sytem entirley!
How is this simple compard to ONE system that covers ALL weapons and units , NO exceptions?
Like I said the game play is fine.
The game mechanic chioce and multiple resolution methods are less than desirable, for elegant intuitive instructions to play the game.
Wait, how is that "overly complicated"? It takes literally 2 minutes to grasp. It'd be one thing if the save rules created long delays in game, but it doesn't! Furthermore, vehicles don't use a completely different system. Simplicity for the sake of simplicity is not something to strive for.
Lanrak is right on the money here, and you're completely wrong. Simplicity for it's own sake should always be something to strive for. Where multiple options to solve a problem exist, the simplest option is always more desirable.
And yes, the armour save mechanisms for troops and vehicles sucks. It is far too complicated. It's not hard to understand, but because it has so many steps and so many ways of interacting with itself, it is impossible to make small changes to tweak somethings abilities without having far reaching catastrophic effects. Just look at the headaches people in this thread are having trying to resolve the FNP issue. And why is there a FNP issue in the first place? Because under the current armour save and wound mechanism it was the easiest way to increase the survivability of some units.
dajobe wrote:TLOS on cover is one thing I dont like...
A friend of mine who I play with all of the time has a differing view on cover than i do. he says if it is close it gets cover, i say if it is close it doesnt. This leads to disagreements in many of our games.
Notice that the rulebook does have a mechanic for that, if there's a disagreement it gets a cover save at -1 of what it would otherwise be, making 4+ into 5+.
Right but this allows you to get a 5+ cover from anywhere. My troops are in the open, I claim cover. My opponent disagrees, obviously, so it's 5+. Now that's a stupid example and it might not happen, but THIS happens quite frequently:
Defender: Well that looks like 4+ cover to me.
Attacker: No way, there's no cover at all from that
Defender: Well 5+ cover then?
Attacker: WHAT, no way does that deserve 5+ cover
ad infinitum.
While I don't disagree, there comes a point at which abuse of the rules becomes obvious and you take alternative actions. Chances are someone like that wouldn't be fun to play with regardless.
Lanrak wrote:This is a prime example of overcomplication.
Roll a models armour save to prevent it taking damage/wounds.
Exception,1/If the weapons AP is lower than the models save it can not take a saving throw.
Exception 2/if the model has a cover/invunerable save this may be taken instead of its armour save.(And is not affected by AP.)
Exceptoin3/If the model has FNP it gets ANOTHER save , it can use after prevouis saves....
Exception 4/if the model is a Vehicle it uses a completly different sytem entirley!
How is this simple compard to ONE system that covers ALL weapons and units , NO exceptions?
Like I said the game play is fine.
The game mechanic chioce and multiple resolution methods are less than desirable, for elegant intuitive instructions to play the game.
Wait, how is that "overly complicated"? It takes literally 2 minutes to grasp. It'd be one thing if the save rules created long delays in game, but it doesn't! Furthermore, vehicles don't use a completely different system. Simplicity for the sake of simplicity is not something to strive for.
Lanrak is right on the money here, and you're completely wrong. Simplicity for it's own sake should always be something to strive for. Where multiple options to solve a problem exist, the simplest option is always more desirable.
And yes, the armour save mechanisms for troops and vehicles sucks. It is far too complicated. It's not hard to understand, but because it has so many steps and so many ways of interacting with itself, it is impossible to make small changes to tweak somethings abilities without having far reaching catastrophic effects. Just look at the headaches people in this thread are having trying to resolve the FNP issue. And why is there a FNP issue in the first place? Because under the current armour save and wound mechanism it was the easiest way to increase the survivability of some units.
I guess I worded my point badly; what I meant was that simplicity isn't something to strive for above all else. If you simply ignore everything else and change rules around to make stuff simpler, chances are you're going to lose what made the rules work in the first place. Besides, the FNP and unsaved wound issue could simply be resolved by making FNP a save or clarifying that any wounds still count as unsaved. That's not a problem with overcomplication, that's a problem with GW doing a shoddy job in the first place.
Well 5th has been pretty good for me. I play a foot slogging black templar army and all the 5th edition rules worked nicely for me. Wound allocation was a blessing since it meant I didn't have to count scouts vs marines every time someone shot me or chopped at my 20 man squads. Yes there is the benefit of more marines living at the end too.
I also got more cover (which was both good and bad) and running was fantastic because Jim SM would look outside his rhino in amazement as this huge black templar squad outran the rhino. 5th edition was a godsend for the reasons that everyone seems to think made it worse than 4th ed.
So for me, in terms of what is wrong with 5th edition, nothing really. Maybe powerfists not getting an extra attack.
@AlmightyWalrus.
40k has very straight forward game play which is part of its charm and apeal to new players.
But the instructions to play the game could be made clearer .
An analagy.
40k rules write .
2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2.
Other games write.
2x20.
With 40k it is easier to mis understand (mis count ) the multiple instructions , and takes much longer to process them.
Other games present the infomation in a clearer easier to undestand way. (With much fewer chances to misundestand.)And they can be procesed quicker.
The truth is ..
40ks core rules have been over simplified too much to support the game play of 40k.And so depend on all these additional rules that add layer upon layer of complication .
Complication is the amount of instructions to determine function.
Complexity in the amount of function allowed by an instruction.
Most games strive for maximum complexity with the minimum complication.
40k apears to be doing the opposite.
5e has alot going for it and I enjoy it alot, I really do. If 6th tightens up the wounding (wounding has changed in every edition that I've played) and leaves most everything else the same, I'll be very happy. I especially loved the changes to infiltrate and the addition of outflanking, giving more tactical options. And of course letting deepstrike happen in all missions rather than just certain ones.
I'd like to see an expansion to the mission chart, certainly. I know KP has its champions and its detractors, but I'm middle of the road on it and see its virtues and failings. Maybe if we added VP's to another of the available mission types, and maybe even another mission type still that also benefitted the small elite armies (:sigh: Yes, that is meant to read Draigowing, loth as I am to protect it.)
Milisim wrote:If 5E is so Awesome then it wouldnt be in need of a 15 page thread of why it sucks.
also if 5E was so awesome, we wouldnt need 40 000 topics in the "You make Da Call" section as 5E was written by gakkers.
Argumentum ad populum. If you're going to whine about how bad 5th is, at least provide examples other than "it sucks because I say so, and others do too!". I can agree that there's stuff that could be better, but your post adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
5E was better than 4E in some ways, and some ways worse than 4E while being better/worse than 3E
Main Thing I truly was glad for: Skimmer's toned down, thank the gods, I was so tired of overpowered Tri-Falcon lists dominating everything besides Fish of Fury
Main Thing I truly dislike: The removal of the ordnance chart. 2D6 with the highest is not a good tradeoff.
Medicore: Blasts went from BS based to scatter dice based, bad for high BS armies, good for orks!
What I really want: Easier ways for assault to hit transports, MC's get a special damage chart for damaging transports (6 is autohits on the unit inside! )
ZebioLizard2 wrote:5E was better than 4E in some ways, and some ways worse than 4E while being better/worse than 3E
Main Thing I truly was glad for: Skimmer's toned down, thank the gods, I was so tired of overpowered Tri-Falcon lists dominating everything besides Fish of Fury
Main Thing I truly dislike: The removal of the ordnance chart. 2D6 with the highest is not a good tradeoff.
Medicore: Blasts went from BS based to scatter dice based, bad for high BS armies, good for orks!
What I really want: Easier ways for assault to hit transports, MC's get a special damage chart for damaging transports (6 is autohits on the unit inside! )
I miss those skimmer rules. :(
But I'd be allright with that last one! They do damage to the passengers as they rip the transport to pieces? Awesome. Though I also would be great with an MC (or someone assaulting a transport) being able to consolidate into the unit that was inside. You don't count as charging, but fight as normal in the next assault phase.
One thing I would like to see come back is the ability for a unit to voluntarily leave combat if the unit/s attacking it can't actually hurt it.
Once upon a time, walker and MCs could leave combat voluntarily. That led to certain abuses, but toning it down slightly, restricting it to those situations where the walker or MC can't be hurt by the attacker (and so really has nothing that is forcing it to stay there) and preventing it from charging into combat again on the game turn that it does so would be a huge help for preventing tarpitting.
Deadshot wrote:Just change it so that any shot that ignores the model in question's armour ignores FNP.
And people are going to scream out for the painboy. I have a fix.
Doc knows wotz- Due to increble orkish regenerative sytems and the Docs knowing stuff, an Ork unit may always may a FNP save, unless the wound was caused by (insert all the stuff currently ignoring FNP, Eg, power swords).
Basically limit everyone else to an armour+FNP or an invulnerable/cover. Orks being supa tuff and regenerating quick, and doc gubbins, can have the current incarnation to balance their crap armour.
That'd be a mighty sad day for Sisters Repentia and Arco-Falgellants (no armor save at all, just FNP).
Milisim wrote:If 5E is so Awesome then it wouldnt be in need of a 15 page thread of why it sucks.
also if 5E was so awesome, we wouldnt need 40 000 topics in the "You make Da Call" section as 5E was written by gakkers.
A vast majority is good. This thread is a dozen pages of people nit-picking a couple of rules. You're talking about up to a half dozen rules in a rulebook that's a hundred pages long. Sounds like a mostly successful rules system to me.
As for the existence of YMDC, clearly you've never seen such things for other games like Malifaux. Furthermore, there was rules bickering in 4th ed as well, of equal volume and ferocity. 5th ed didn't make things any worse in this regard.
Unless you've got a game as simple as chess, you're going to have people arguing about the rules, especially in a world where people try to twist rules on purpose to mean what they want them to mean. If you made an orbital ray generator that removed all TFG tendencies from all 40k players, you'd barely need to have a YMDC section.
6th edition's rulebook is going to be 98% similar to 5th ed. If you really hate 5th ed, you're not going to like 6th ed very much more.
I have been posting why the instructions in the 5th Edition rule book are poorly defined and inapropriate for the end game play of 40k, and its core demoghraphic .
I have no problem with the game play of 40k or its setting.
Most player play 40k becuse of its inspiring asthetic,despite its poor rule set.
Comparing 5th ed 40k to previous editions is just comparing different design ethos , using the same inapropriate game mechanics.
Compare 40k 5th ed rule book to, Epic Armageddon, Net Epic, Dust Warfare, Fast And Dirty, StargruntII,Infinity, etc.And you will see what I mean...
Milisim wrote:If 5E is so Awesome then it wouldnt be in need of a 15 page thread of why it sucks.
also if 5E was so awesome, we wouldnt need 40 000 topics in the "You make Da Call" section as 5E was written by gakkers.
As for the existence of YMDC, clearly you've never seen such things for other games like Malifaux. Furthermore, there was rules bickering in 4th ed as well, of equal volume and ferocity. 5th ed didn't make things any worse in this regard.
"What's the difference between Tier 1,2, and 3 terrain?" "Does 'Whole Models' in 'remove whole models first' mean whole as in the entire model, or whole as in unwounded?" "Does 'gets no save' mean the same as 'automatically fails a save?'" "How do Tau Drones work?" to name just a few off the top of my head.
Lanrak wrote:I have been posting why the instructions in the 5th Edition rule book are poorly defined and inapropriate for the end game play of 40k, and its core demoghraphic .
I have no problem with the game play of 40k or its setting.
Most player play 40k becuse of its inspiring asthetic,despite its poor rule set.
Comparing 5th ed 40k to previous editions is just comparing different design ethos , using the same inapropriate game mechanics.
Compare 40k 5th ed rule book to, Epic Armageddon, Net Epic, Dust Warfare, Fast And Dirty, StargruntII,Infinity, etc.And you will see what I mean...
You mean those obscure games no one has ever heard of or played?
RUDENESS REDACTED. -Mannahnin
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I guess I worded my point badly; what I meant was that simplicity isn't something to strive for above all else. If you simply ignore everything else and change rules around to make stuff simpler, chances are you're going to lose what made the rules work in the first place. Besides, the FNP and unsaved wound issue could simply be resolved by making FNP a save or clarifying that any wounds still count as unsaved. That's not a problem with overcomplication, that's a problem with GW doing a shoddy job in the first place.
Feel No Pain explicitly states that it cannot be taken against "any other wound against which no armour saves can be taken". If you don't get an armour save, you don't get a FNP.
But why bother reading the rulebook before you start slagging it off as being badly written
Joey wrote:
Feel No Pain explicitly states that it cannot be taken against "any other wound against which no armour saves can be taken". If you don't get an armour save, you don't get a FNP.
But why bother reading the rulebook before you start slagging it off as being badly written
Wrong.
If the shot is Str4 AP3 and you have T4 Sv4+ you roll FNP.
And that's not really what he was saying anyway. He was saying that FNP causes issues when there are effects that happen on an unsaved wound - like Pinning (to use one from the BRB). If you make FNP do you still test for pinning?
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I guess I worded my point badly; what I meant was that simplicity isn't something to strive for above all else. If you simply ignore everything else and change rules around to make stuff simpler, chances are you're going to lose what made the rules work in the first place. Besides, the FNP and unsaved wound issue could simply be resolved by making FNP a save or clarifying that any wounds still count as unsaved. That's not a problem with overcomplication, that's a problem with GW doing a shoddy job in the first place.
Feel No Pain explicitly states that it cannot be taken against "any other wound against which no armour saves can be taken". If you don't get an armour save, you don't get a FNP.
But why bother reading the rulebook before you start slagging it off as being badly written
...I didn't start slagging it off as being badly written?
@Joey.
How can you objectivley asses a rule book if you only compare it to itself, or previous edition of itself?
Those games I listed contained the work of Jervis Johinson, Andy Chambers, Alessio Cavatore, and other equaly well known game developers.(Developed with their player base , fans and developers working together!)
But comparing the works of these developers free from GW coprerate influence, to 40k .To get a more objective assesment of the 5th ed rule book.
Is some how 'invalidated' because you never personaly played any of these or other games?
I am sorry you have such a narrow and ill- informed view of the table top minature game hobby...
Ill let you carry on with the circular subjective and pointless discussion of the 5th ed rule book now.
Lanrak wrote:@Joey.
How can you objectivley asses a rule book if you only compare it to itself, or previous edition of itself?
Those games I listed contained the work of Jervis Johinson, Andy Chambers, Alessio Cavatore, and other equaly well known game developers.(Developed with their player base , fans and developers working together!)
The same guys that are hated and reviled for the current CSM and DA Codices IIRC?
Codex creep and very staggered releases really ruin the game for me. I doubt 6th ed will do anything to fix this. The core ruleset isn't that bad, to be honest.
Joey wrote:
Feel No Pain explicitly states that it cannot be taken against "any other wound against which no armour saves can be taken". If you don't get an armour save, you don't get a FNP.
But why bother reading the rulebook before you start slagging it off as being badly written
Wrong.
If the shot is Str4 AP3 and you have T4 Sv4+ you roll FNP.
And that's not really what he was saying anyway. He was saying that FNP causes issues when there are effects that happen on an unsaved wound - like Pinning (to use one from the BRB). If you make FNP do you still test for pinning?
And as a DE player I am extremely grateful that this is the case. I'm a bit worried that changes in the FNP rules will destroy DE just to nerf Paladins and other very powerful FNP units.
My blood angels decent of angels army also worries about the nerf of feel no pain because it would make my men just to easy to kill with small arms fire.
commisar rhodes wrote:My blood angels decent of angels army also worries about the nerf of feel no pain because it would make my men just to easy to kill with small arms fire.
Not sure if serious...?
So I guess if they remove FNP completely you will be on par with SM, GK, DA, BT, SW, CSM's (bar Plagues) troops and harder than IG, Orks, E, DE, SoB, Tyranids and Tau troops. If they nerf it to 5+ BA will still be more resilient troops then all of those. Oh no! Being the most durable = too easy to kill!
Raumkampfer wrote:Codex creep and very staggered releases really ruin the game for me. I doubt 6th ed will do anything to fix this. The core ruleset isn't that bad, to be honest.
This bears repeating. A lot of the issues with the game in general aren't necessarily issues with the core rulebook, but rather codex books being written in the manner of giggly fanboys. Nobody complained about the vehicle damage table until highly capable min/maxable troops units became very widespread and lots of silly rules (e.g. ignoring shaken/stunned results 11/12 times for 5pts) started coming about.
A lot of these issues are likely to continue because the design studio has decided to make them defining features of armies, those will require core rulebook changes. Others however really just require the studio to do a modicum of playtesting and have even just a small handful of outside people look at a book before release, as the players seem to be capable of breaking them inside and out within a couple of days of getting them and often issues are usually identified the second someone starts flipping through.
commisar rhodes wrote:My blood angels decent of angels army also worries about the nerf of feel no pain because it would make my men just to easy to kill with small arms fire.
It would make them still harder than other marines to kill? If you'd be having a hard time with a DoA army because FNP got nerfed to a 5+, there's probably something else going on. Marines as is are not easy to kill with small arms fire. Marines with an additional backup save are never going to be "too easy" to kill with small arms fire.
Raumkampfer wrote:Codex creep and very staggered releases really ruin the game for me. I doubt 6th ed will do anything to fix this. The core ruleset isn't that bad, to be honest.
This bears repeating. A lot of the issues with the game in general aren't necessarily issues with the core rulebook, but rather codex books being written in the manner of giggly fanboys. Nobody complained about the vehicle damage table until highly capable min/maxable troops units became very widespread and lots of silly rules (e.g. ignoring shaken/stunned results 11/12 times for 5pts) started coming about.
+1
One can find numerous vehicles that are useful while not being stupidly cheap spammable or incredibly powerful. Increase the cost of like 10-20% worst ones and suddenly everything is A-OK. Even easier with FNP.
Hard boning vehicles in general rules will bring top togs to medium level but push back much larger group into oblivion.
Lanrak wrote:@Joey.
How can you objectivley asses a rule book if you only compare it to itself, or previous edition of itself?
Those games I listed contained the work of Jervis Johinson, Andy Chambers, Alessio Cavatore, and other equaly well known game developers.(Developed with their player base , fans and developers working together!)
The same guys that are hated and reviled for the current CSM and DA Codices IIRC?
I'm gona say the easiest way to tone down FNP would be to reduce it to 5+ and COMPLETELY remove the bubble effect. For units that have the bubble allow them to choose a unit within 6" to have it or something similar to this.
Vehicles are fine, the problem is the mech spam. Limit the number of transports an army can take, make troops inside them suffer damage from hits or increase their points cost to stop the spam.
Wound allocation can be solved by nearest to furthest model and then set an order in which weapon types wound (e.g. Assault, Heavy, Pistol, Rapid fire) or something similar.
Make the rules written more CLEARLY. Such as FNP is taken after wounds are suffered therefore pinning still applies etc. etc. for all the not so clear rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also don't let Matt Ward design Special Characters. or any space marine relatated codices.
In any event, it still seems the more stable rule. I'm on the fence about a return to "removing whole models first," though. Not certain how it would affect balance one way or the other, I just know that the current system just bogs the game down and is a mystery to new players who have a hard enough time memorizing the statline, weapons, armor values, facing rules, wounding a model vs penetrating a tank, etc, without ALSO having to figure out how to game the system as opposed to pure tactics.
