Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Anyone else really like the new shooting mechanics? I have always thought that Tactical Squads needed a tiny buff to make them a bit more effective and in one fell swoop they have become very good.

The basic configuration of 1 x Flamer + HB/ ML + Sgt with PF & Bolter is incredibly versatile and is ferocious. I played a game against GK last week and they were about to charge me with Justicar and several PA GK's they rolled 3" for the charge and needed 7". My Squad unleashed the fury and even with BS1, the sheer amount of Bolter shots, the Flamer and HB (3 shots) mean't I dealt alot of hits (I think it was 6) of which he lost 2 GK's.

It is pretty impressive, Tactical Squads now dominate that Rapid Fire 12" zone, to Carry an assault you need need to be determined and commit with a good sized survivable squad and even then no guarantees. I'm now modelling Combi-Flamers on all my Sgt's to give me the 2 x D3 auto hitting defense, complemented with Bolters and the HW.

I am now moving towards large, armies of SM troops (4 x10man Tactical Squads in Rhino's + 1 Scout Snipers) and dropping dreadnoughts altogether. As a solely Vanilla player, I am very pleased with this change, though I'm not sure if everyone else is quite so happy.

People on dakka seem to be getting very lucky on overwatch.
You'd need 25 double tapping bolters to get a wound on an MEQ, or 3 flamers.
Outside of things like burna boys and tzeentch flamers it's really not worth considering.

Also I think there's just too much AP1/2/3 around for tac squads to be viable, but then I went from special weapon-laden mechvets to flying circus tzeentch so YMMV.

Overwatch can be a game changer. 11 Firewarriors took down Kharn as he charged last night. He'd already taken one wound but still very lucky rolls.

Just remember Overwatch is done before charge distance rolls.

I've been happy with shooting now for my marines. I play very scout heavy lists though but still. Heavy bolters have been amaazing and now that they can be snapshot on the move they are a tad bit more useful. My strenguard really love the new shooting also. I fielded a squad of 8 of them with a captain and on the first turn they landed in the enemy deployment zine with a drop pod. They did not charge at all during the game (although still spent quite a lot of time in melee) and took out half of the enemy forces mainly during shooting phases and overwatch shooting.

Testify wrote:People on dakka seem to be getting very lucky on overwatch.
You'd need 25 double tapping bolters to get a wound on an MEQ, or 3 flamers.
Outside of things like burna boys and tzeentch flamers it's really not worth considering.

Also I think there's just too much AP1/2/3 around for tac squads to be viable, but then I went from special weapon-laden mechvets to flying circus tzeentch so YMMV.

You've got to get close combat to make AP 1/2/3 count, If you play tactical squads cleverly you can be devastating. Rock up your rhino in your turn, leap out Rapid fire at 11"/12". Then wait for the Enemy turn when they will then usually charge you (maybe shooting if they are silly giving you the option of Combat tactics depending on wounds taken) or otherwise Overwatching.

The game is not Mathhammer, it's 40k, I lost 4 Terminators last week on 8x 2+ saves to bolter fire by rolling 4 x 1's, my terminator unit was reduced to 1 man. It's all luck, statistics is what you would expect the unit to do, but the dice make it fun, random and annoying at the same time.

To Quote Game of Thrones Lord Baelish "If War was numbers, then the mathematicians would rule the World". It is an element, but so is tactics, psychology, effective use of rules, knowledge of the rules, anticipating enemy responses and knowledge of enemy tactics.

My squad puts out 16 Bolter shots + D3 Flamer + 3 x HB at BS1 that's more than I had under 5th where people would just charge me and I would just stand there not firing.

Testify wrote:You'd need 25 double tapping bolters to get a wound on an MEQ, or 3 flamers.

1 dies, so you need to force 3 saves, so you need 6 wounds, BS1 so 36 shots, so 18 double-tapping bolters?

Not much difference, but still...

Non meq armies which dare to even think about assaulting suffer quite a bit from overwatch ( lol Wyches...).

And yet it seems not to have crossed the mind of anybody in the studio just how unbalancing overwatch would be - particularly for the squishy but expensive Eldar and Dark Eldar - before stuffing it into the rules without cutting points values.

Or is it just more cinematic when xenos (that aren't Necrons) suck and die?

English Assassin wrote:And yet it seems not to have crossed the mind of anybody in the studio just how unbalancing overwatch would be - particularly for the squishy but expensive Eldar and Dark Eldar - before stuffing it into the rules without cutting points values.

Or is it just more cinematic when xenos (that aren't Necrons) suck and die?

A ten man tactical squad will kill at best 1.33 wych on average rolls, .5 if with FNP if they are all armed with bolters.

Eldar are just horribly outdated, and hasn't aged well anyways.

Not to mention DE get overwatch too, should your costs be raised because your overwatch could horribly murder a MC charging you with poisoned weapons?

KingDeath wrote:Non meq armies which dare to even think about assaulting suffer quite a bit from overwatch ( lol Wyches...).

Yes. My poor, poor wyches

I'm liking the new shootign stuff. Overwatch actually makes peopel think twice abotu charging my Necron warriors blobs...

although my regular BA opponent finally got aroudn it the other day by leading an initial charge with 5 normal marines who took the overwatch shots, then hammering in with a squad of vanguard who proceeded to slaughter their way round the table. nasty.

All that was made up for though when i managed to gauss-wreck his dread with overwatch fire as it charge in. Funny as hell.

And on the flipside, my friends and I have yet to accomplish anything with overwatch. Like, at all. We haven't made a single kill via overwatch shots. Even my gaunts don't fear it at all.

Granted, no one has had a flamer in a squad yet, but massive amounts of bolters/splinter weapons/devourers/whatever have killed a big fat 0 models.

Sternguard with hellfire are murderous, hit on 6, wounds on 2+. Which from a round of shooting we never even used to get in 5th is a nice to have, regardless of damage done or not done, it's the potential damage that is hard to gauge, due to the composition of the Squad and the Weapons carried plus what if Lysander is with them? They get to re-roll Bolter shots?. Like when the Snap Fire krak Missile rolls a 6, you pretty much know who ever gets hit is going splat (unless they make their INV if they are lucky enough to have one). But then if you take a HB you get 3 shots so you've got a reasonable chance of a 6. In 40k I have lost Characters to the most appalling rolling, and other times I've rolled 5 x Sixes (usually when i've got twin-linked which is even more annoying as there is no point re-rolling!).

It's all to the good, Scout Snipers have BS3 which is arguably not great for normal shooting, but they are just as effective at hitting as everyone else at BS1. Plus 4+ to would 6 = Pickout model for death = Bye Bye unit leader. It's luck, to roll 6's then another 6 but in a game of random chance....

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

English Assassin wrote:And yet it seems not to have crossed the mind of anybody in the studio just how unbalancing overwatch would be - particularly for the squishy but expensive Eldar and Dark Eldar - before stuffing it into the rules without cutting points values.

Or is it just more cinematic when xenos (that aren't Necrons) suck and die?

A ten man tactical squad will kill at best 1.33 wych on average rolls, .5 if with FNP if they are all armed with bolters.

Eldar are just horribly outdated, and hasn't aged well anyways.

Not to mention DE get overwatch too, should your costs be raised because your overwatch could horribly murder a MC charging you with poisoned weapons?

19 shoots, 3,16 hits -> 2,11 wounds, Wyches get no armoursave -> 2 casualties on average if all marines were using bolters.
Overwatch is dangerous for armies which are vulnerable to basic weapons and nothing but a nuisance for those who aren't.
That DE get overwatch is nice but it changes nothing about the increased vulnerability of thinly armoured assault units.
Regarding monstrous creatures, a standard Kabalite warrior squad ( 10 ) with nothing but splinterrifles will cause 3 1/3 hits, 1,2/3 wounds and therefore, since most monstrous creature have a 3+ save,
only a bit more than half an unsaved wound on average.

I'm waiting to see what happens when I get a round ove Overwatch out of 4 Crisis Suits with twin linked Plasma Rifles.

It will probably look like this for the Enemy player and like this for you

mwnciboo wrote:Sternguard with hellfire are murderous, hit on 6, wounds on 2+. Which from a round of shooting we never even used to get in 5th is a nice to have, regardless of damage done or not done, it's the potential damage that is hard to gauge, due to the composition of the Squad and the Weapons carried plus what if Lysander is with them? They get to re-roll Bolter shots?. Like when the Snap Fire krak Missile rolls a 6, you pretty much know who ever gets hit is going splat (unless they make their INV if they are lucky enough to have one). But then if you take a HB you get 3 shots so you've got a reasonable chance of a 6. In 40k I have lost Characters to the most appalling rolling, and other times I've rolled 5 x Sixes (usually when i've got twin-linked which is even more annoying as there is no point re-rolling!).

It's all to the good, Scout Snipers have BS3 which is arguably not great for normal shooting, but they are just as effective at hitting as everyone else at BS1. Plus 4+ to would 6 = Pickout model for death = Bye Bye unit leader. It's luck, to roll 6's then another 6 but in a game of random chance....

Sternguard are kings of overwatch and it's rediculous. I run Lysander with SG, and vulkan for tl melta and tl hellfire rounds.. In my stern squad I run 2 melta's in a 10 man unit. CONSISTANTLY I get 4-6 wounds on overwatch, hopefully with 1 being a melta wound too.

mwnciboo - 6s on to wound are rending, so AP2. You still follow the rules for allocation, you dont get to pick

You cannot Precision Shot on Overwatch

I'm not a big fan of Overwatch because I play Eldar and I am loathe to see what it can do to me when I try to get my Banshees into close combat with Space Marines.

On the other side of things, I am totally glad to see the GW has caught up with other miniatures games by having shooting casualties taken from the nearest models in the squad to the shooting unit. I always hated the old way, especially after playing some other games (like AT-43) where it was "closest figures first" and seeing that it was much easier and more realistic.

AegisGrimm wrote:I'm not a big fan of Overwatch because I play Eldar and I am loathe to see what it can do to me when I try to get my Banshees into close combat with Space Marines.

On the other side of things, I am totally glad to see the GW has caught up with other miniatures games by having shooting casualties taken from the nearest models in the squad to the shooting unit. I always hated the old way, especially after playing some other games (like AT-43) where it was "closest figures first" and seeing that it was much easier and more realistic.

Nothing pissed me off more than random wound allocation and wound "wrapping". So glad to see this gone its not funny.

Overwatch has been good for my Tzeentch daemons, even though I use large squads of horrors (about 10) and they get 3 shots each, they often fail to do much damage.

Flamers on the other hand...

I run mechdar with 4 squads of DA and 2 squads of FD why on earth would I charge anyone? I try to bait people into charging me so I can over watch. I generally still go first in CC so it's win win. Throughing my T3 units at a MEQ just seams a bit silly.

mwnciboo wrote:

Testify wrote:People on dakka seem to be getting very lucky on overwatch.
You'd need 25 double tapping bolters to get a wound on an MEQ, or 3 flamers.
Outside of things like burna boys and tzeentch flamers it's really not worth considering.

Also I think there's just too much AP1/2/3 around for tac squads to be viable, but then I went from special weapon-laden mechvets to flying circus tzeentch so YMMV.

You've got to get close combat to make AP 1/2/3 count, If you play tactical squads cleverly you can be devastating. Rock up your rhino in your turn, leap out Rapid fire at 11"/12". Then wait for the Enemy turn when they will then usually charge you (maybe shooting if they are silly giving you the option of Combat tactics depending on wounds taken) or otherwise Overwatching.

The game is not Mathhammer, it's 40k, I lost 4 Terminators last week on 8x 2+ saves to bolter fire by rolling 4 x 1's, my terminator unit was reduced to 1 man. It's all luck, statistics is what you would expect the unit to do, but the dice make it fun, random and annoying at the same time.

To Quote Game of Thrones Lord Baelish "If War was numbers, then the mathematicians would rule the World". It is an element, but so is tactics, psychology, effective use of rules, knowledge of the rules, anticipating enemy responses and knowledge of enemy tactics.

My squad puts out 16 Bolter shots + D3 Flamer + 3 x HB at BS1 that's more than I had under 5th where people would just charge me and I would just stand there not firing.

War IS mainly about numbers. 40k doubly so.

A small chance of failure doesn't change whether or not something was statistically wise. Statistically, Mephiston with 3W left charging the last scoring unit, a depleted Strike Squad, is a good choice. From a gameplay perspective, choosing to not make a game-winning play because of a narrow chance of failure is a terrible play. In OUR game the Strike Squad got a ridiculous number of hits, a rend, and Mephiston rolled two 1s on two saves and went down. But it was still correct to act in accordance to the statistics. One less wound and the Strikes would've been wiped off the board.

Overwatch is far from reliable. It's highly 'cinematic'. Once in a while you'll get a cute story but more likely, it'll kill a marine or two xenos or nothing. It's certainly BETTER than before for shooting armies, any shooting at all is better than nothing. But it's like standing in a GW with 5 bucks instead of 0. You can get something small but don't expect something great.

AegisGrimm wrote:
On the other side of things, I am totally glad to see the GW has caught up with other miniatures games by having shooting casualties taken from the nearest models in the squad to the shooting unit. I always hated the old way, especially after playing some other games (like AT-43) where it was "closest figures first" and seeing that it was much easier and more realistic.

Actually, this is the "old way", or at least an "old way". 40k has had six and a half editions over 25 years. If you've seen a mechanic in some other game, or just thought of a mechanic you don't think has ever been, odds are it has been in 40k at some point. Removing the closest models has been a rule before, it just wasn't for about 15 years.

When was that a 40K rule, 2e? That was right when I started, so I didn't play a lot of games back then.

Whether or not 40K "claims" it because they had it way back when, the fact that they dropped such an intuitive rule for things like "hidden powerfists" and the like speaks volumes about the 40K ruleset.

If you've seen a mechanic in some other game, or just thought of a mechanic you don't think has ever been, odds are it has been in 40k at some point.

....Alternating Activations. Don't think it's ever even been approached in 40K.

AegisGrimm wrote:
....Alternating Activations. Don't think it's ever even been approached in 40K.

Not in the main game, but it's been in the gaidens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AegisGrimm wrote:
Whether or not 40K "claims" it because they had it way back when, the fact that they dropped such an intuitive rule for things like "hidden powerfists" and the like speaks volumes about the 40K ruleset.

No game can claim a mechanic.

Also, all it actually says about the rules-set is they've tried a lot of rules.

Testify wrote:
War IS mainly about numbers. 40k doubly so.

No it isn't, that's Soviet Doctorine. War is not about numbers at all, many is the instance of a small force defeating a larger force, otherwise it would be a simple case of having a bigger force. As a Graduate of the British Advanced Command and Staff College Shrivenham, I am telling you war is not simple numbers, it's not even close.

EDIT -

nosferatu1001 wrote:mwnciboo - 6s on to wound are rending, so AP2. You still follow the rules for allocation, you dont get to pick

You cannot Precision Shot on Overwatch

Can you reference the rule for not Precision Shooting (pg pls) as I don't have my rule book to hand, so I can correct it with our gaming group on our THursday night gaming session as last week one of the guys did this with a Scout Squad and killed the Sergeant of the squad. Thanks Nosferatu1001.

mwnciboo wrote:

Testify wrote:
War IS mainly about numbers. 40k doubly so.

No it isn't, that's Soviet Doctorine. War is not about numbers at all, many is the instance of a small force defeating a larger force, otherwise it would be a simple case of having a bigger force. As a Graduate of the British Advanced Command and Staff College Shrivenham, I am telling you war is not simple numbers, it's not even close.

With respect I have to disagree.

The other poster did not talk about who had the larger force, he simply said numbers are important. They are. having more men is one number, but it is not always the relevant number.

If my smaller force of rifle armed men encounters on an open plain a much larger force armed with sliced mangos and some spears what is the relevant number? It isn't the size of the force, It is the the 'firepower' number.s It may be hard to quantify, but the fact that one side can kill at a greater range with greater speed is what counts.

If they meet in some closed space and the smaller force is ambushed, then the force size may become the relevant number. Either way the battle is largely dictated by some numbers.

Numbers in war can mean anything - say the prussians and their ability to obtain greater number of train journeys to move troops rapidly from one place to another, or their breech loading rifles firing at a greater rate than the Austrain muzzle loaders. The Napoleanic british regulars firing in 2 lines and at a greater rate than any one else they faced allowed them to have greater firepower dumped on anyone coming at them. The greater production of the allies in WW2 ultimatley made all the tactical victories of the germans moot.

Leadership, tactics and strategy is important, but underlying all of them is some application of numbers, even if it isn't really obvious or explicit. Most are looking to obtain a superiority in something, You must be able to quantify it in some way to be able to obtain such a superiority. If you can say you have a local firepower superiority then you are by definition talking something quantifiable, even if you have no immediate way of actually saying what the numbers are.

In the above exmple the primitive leader should understand (intuitively or more mathmatically) the numbers do not favor him if he just lines up and charges across the open against the rifles, vice versa the rifle guy should undertand that manpower numbers do not favor him in any fight where his rifles do not get used to their full capability.

Look at all wargames we play, be they 40k or ASL or or Third Reich or whatever. They all involve the conversion of various factors into numbers. It can be manpower, firepower, movement, industry etc.

War is not about Numbers of anything. War is the seeking of a Politically acceptable Solution, it can either be Favourable, mutually favourable or unfavourable to the parties involved. No war has ever gone on indefinitely, it has always ceased in a political solution (sometimes the utter destruction of a political/ Social / National Group, but usually capitulation with an imposed Political solution).

You are avoiding the huge problem of scale with Military Forces. Logistics is a prime enabler of Warfare, Tactics wins Battles, Logistics wins wars. The key issue is that Logistics is fundamentally the number one priority of Senior Commanders at all levels. The bigger a force becomes the more unwieldy, the great the logistics burden which in turn constrains your freedom of action. Including rear security, lack of agility, over extending,, the lack of concentration of forces at the Schwerepunkt etc.

Superiority may not necessarily be a quantifiable element such as morale or fighting spirit. The superiority of your forces maybe that they are better equipped and trained as you allude to, But if you are to take 3 M1A3 Abrams and fight 6 T-34's who would win? Quality over Quantity? Is something you can quantify? I know we would assume so based on modern technology and weapons systems, but weapons are only superior to the generation they are compared with.

For example a Modern Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer, is in everyway superior to other destroyers of it's generation. But compared to a WWII Light Cruiser of similar Displacement or even a Smaller destroyer, the Older Belt Armour would standup better to Soviet era Anti-ship missiles which were design to pierce thinskinned hulls not armoured belts. So which Destroyer is Superior? The Average speed of a destroyer is 10kts slower than a WWII Destroyer yet technology has moved on considerably in the last 60 years, which is superior? It is dependant on so many factors including it's conceived role within the weapons system's time frame and effectiveness in that role. All weapons are conceived within their own timeframe and have strengths and weaknesses that are comensurate with perceived threats and reflect the technology, doctorine and beliefs of it's time.

Military Action is difficult to codify as a Science, there are simply too many Factors at play to influence the final outcome. This has often been modelled using fractals and Chaos Theory to look for underlying mathematical proofs in the science, but each conflict is difficult to compare due to the Political (read human) input. So the beginning point and end point are ill defined and applying it can be ridiculously difficult, as often in Battle illogical, and emotive situations arrive where cold hard logic is defied. Plus Actions are interlinked so success in one area may have an tangible or intangible input in another. Numbers is too simple a measure in of itself to measure Military power, there are hundreds of other factors that come into play. I am not arguing that you cannot quantify and compartmentalise individual elements but overall War cannot be simple reduced to a simple number or statistic.

I am happy to debate this in the off topic thread so we don't derail this one. By the Way great debate!