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.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Unfortunately, I see this happening in HTH quite often as sides dwindle (Depending of course on how harsh break tests/sweeping advances become). HTH can become boggy in any game system and I'm not too crazy about adding in wound allocation.

You are correct, but the *BIG* difference with 5th edition is that close combat wounds apply to the entire unit, so again you are less likely to run into situations where you have more wounds than models in the unit.

Will it happen? Sure. But once you play a couple games with it I really don't see it as much of an issue. Since the rules allow you to pull any 'standard' trooper model as a casualty when any other 'standard' model dies even if you have to roll for each model individually you don't have to specifically roll for each one.

Say I have four models left in the unit, one of which has a special weapon or is a sergeant or something. The unit then suffers 13 wounds in close combat.

I decide to put the 'extra' wound on a standard model, so all models have 3 wounds (including the specialist) and one model has four.
I then roll 3 dice for a standard model, check for any failures.
I then roll 3 dice for a standard model, check for any failures.
I then roll 3 dice for a standard model, check for any failures.
I then roll 4 dice for a standard model, check for any failures.

For each failure in one of those groups I have to remove a standard model, but I can (at this point) pick which ones because they are all 'standard' models.

I then roll 3 dice for the specialist and check for failures.


Personally, I don't see this as a difficult situation especially when this sort of thing doesn't happen all but a few times a game.But perhaps it is just me.

it *might* make a difference to positioning (to determine who is in/out of cover for instance) unfortantly I can just imagine people forcing you to roll all saves individually to see if a critical model is pulled as a casulaty (critical as in a standard model just being with 6" of the objective or some such like that.

And as for FnP being nerfed; you just dont get it against Perils or weapons that allow you no save (ie Plaguemarines Vs Plasma weapons wont get FnP... not sure if you get a cover save you can then claim FnP, doubtful thou...)

Well, that's a lot of die rolls compared with 4th!

Re: Feel No Pain, that's just for the usual stuff about the effect being negated by power weapons and the like, not low AP weapons.

yakface wrote:
You are correct, but the *BIG* difference with 5th edition is that close combat wounds apply to the entire unit, so again you are less likely to run into situations where you have more wounds than models in the unit.

Will it happen? Sure. But once you play a couple games with it I really don't see it as much of an issue. Since the rules allow you to pull any 'standard' trooper model as a casualty when any other 'standard' model dies even if you have to roll for each model individually you don't have to specifically roll for each one.

Say I have four models left in the unit, one of which has a special weapon or is a sergeant or something. The unit then suffers 13 wounds in close combat.

I decide to put the 'extra' wound on a standard model, so all models have 3 wounds (including the specialist) and one model has four.
I then roll 3 dice for a standard model, check for any failures.
I then roll 3 dice for a standard model, check for any failures.
I then roll 3 dice for a standard model, check for any failures.
I then roll 4 dice for a standard model, check for any failures.

For each failure in one of those groups I have to remove a standard model, but I can (at this point) pick which ones because they are all 'standard' models.

I then roll 3 dice for the specialist and check for failures.


Personally, I don't see this as a difficult situation especially when this sort of thing doesn't happen all but a few times a game.But perhaps it is just me.

Sure, I can understand your point and for those that have played the game (and other systems) for years it will simply be an annoyance. However, to those whom haven't played tabletop games for a number of years (Or those whom don't play often), I can imagine tedious scenarios popping up based on;

A) Power weapons and powerfist allocation mixed in with normal attacks confusing players
B) New counter attack rules state everyone will move up 6 inches, so more attacks in HTH will need to be allocated
C) Multiple wound models (Which by the PDF appears to defer back to 4th?)
D) HTH tends to last more than one phase/turn and with casualty removal more attacks will be going off in HTH now (Kill zone modification).
E) Players being forced to allocate and roll for each normal trooper...even if there isn't a special in the squad...because if you fail *that* one they will be out of coherency and need to move next turn.

I hope most of these are addressed and I certainly understand the motivation they had to add this element. I'm just afraid as it stands it feels a bit clunky. Then again, I've only seen the PDF, hopefully it's a bit streamlined in the current incarnation.

Cheers

MinMax wrote:Unless you take any of the other Troops choices, including Conscripts, although they're still 20 model minimum, Armoured Fist Squads, which are 10 model, or *Gasp* you could take Grenadiers!

Sure, everyone thinks they suck now. What about in 5th Edition?

Gosh, you're right. I'm going to get working on my all conscript/grenadier IG army right away so I'll be ready for 5th edition. If I hurry maybe I'll finish just in time for the new IG codex. Then me and my friends can all play warhams in the dream house I just finished building in New Orleans.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm generally *for* the changes, particularly the emphasis on Troops and Objectives.

I concur with my associate, JohnHwangDD. Also I think Stratego is a great game but could be made much better by eliminating all the ranks except for the 5's.

deitpike wrote:the modifier is if you and your opponent can't decide if 1/2 of the squad or more is in cover
if you can't agree because it is too close to tell, that is what reduces the cover save by 1.
if it is clear, then the unit gets the appropriate save

Well that's just, like, your opinion, man. Me, personally, I think my little guys are in 4+ cover. Yeah, they might not be completely physically anywhere "near" what you would call "cover" - in the parlance of our times - but, uh, has it ever occurred to you that instead of, uh, you know, sitting there and looking at me like, uh, that maybe things might be, you know, a little more, uh, uh, uh, complex? I mean c'mon man - it's only a game. Look I'm not tryin' to scam anyone here, man... I'll tell ya what - howbout we make it a 5+ then and let's just call it a day?

Nurglitch wrote:Re: Feel No Pain, that's just for the usual stuff about the effect being negated by power weapons and the like, not low AP weapons.

In 4th ed you are correct; 5th ed is a different matter

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

MinMax wrote:Unless you take any of the other Troops choices, including Conscripts, although they're still 20 model minimum, Armoured Fist Squads, which are 10 model, or *Gasp* you could take Grenadiers!

Sure, everyone thinks they suck now. What about in 5th Edition?

Gosh, you're right. I'm going to get working on my all conscript/grenadier IG army right away so I'll be ready for 5th edition. If I hurry maybe I'll finish just in time for the new IG codex. Then me and my friends can all play warhams in the dream house I just finished building in New Orleans.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm generally *for* the changes, particularly the emphasis on Troops and Objectives.

I concur with my associate, JohnHwangDD. Also I think Stratego is a great game but could be made much better by eliminating all the ranks except for the 5's.

deitpike wrote:the modifier is if you and your opponent can't decide if 1/2 of the squad or more is in cover
if you can't agree because it is too close to tell, that is what reduces the cover save by 1.
if it is clear, then the unit gets the appropriate save

Well that's just, like, your opinion, man. Me, personally, I think my little guys are in 4+ cover. Yeah, they might not be completely physically anywhere "near" what you would call "cover" - in the parlance of our times - but, uh, has it ever occurred to you that instead of, uh, you know, sitting there and looking at me like, uh, that maybe things might be, you know, a little more, uh, uh, uh, complex? I mean c'mon man - it's only a game. Look I'm not tryin' to scam anyone here, man... I'll tell ya what - howbout we make it a 5+ then and let's just call it a day?

Abadabadoobaddon: King of intelligent debate.

Yak: I think the additional rolling will come into play more often than you think. I'm used to it since I play Tau, with markerlit burst cannons and rapid firing firewarriors, but I can easily imagine all sorts of kroot, orks, and nids bogging down the game when they charge with 3+ attacks.

Abadabadetc.: Your "revolution" is over, Mr. Doobadddon! Condolences! The bums lost!...My advice is, do what your parents did! Get a job, sir! The bums will always lose-- do you hear me, Abadabadoobaddon? THE BUMS WILL ALWAYS--


Yak: Eldar players give and receive the ol' ToFing on a regular basis too.

I see your point that it's not that big of a deal, overall. But it seems an unnecessary collision of ToF and trying to fix killzones. I just don't know many folks that were seriously against the protection for special weapons, sergeants, etc. I mean, the "another guy picks up the missile launcher/knocks the sarge out of the way/etc" rationale was pretty good for shooting casualty removal, especially with the odd ToF kill making the whole thing equivalent to "Look Out, Sir!" from WHFB. In CC it seemed a lot more ridiculous to not be able to pick out the 'fists, though. Killzones gave us some ability to kill the 'fists, but now only this wounds inflicted > models in unit thingy will kill specialists in close combat. That seems a less universally smooth mechanic, as only sheer quantity attacks will ever kill fists, never quality (fast, deadly) ones.

For many armies, it's just going to mean _tons_ of specific rolling. The calculations may speed up considerably as one gets more familiar with the process, but the rolling won't speed up much. Whatever, I'll give it a try. Then if it sucks, we'll house-rule it locally and learn to deal in tourneys.

My suggestion: you're going to want at least 10 sets of colored dice, at least 3 dice per set (and several with more). Bring a dice cup. Keep all the sets in front of you, separated by color, and get good at grabbing 2-3 dice from each, dropping them in the cup, and dumping them out. A failed save on any of a particular color set means you grab a model; pre-arrange with your opponent as to which colors will generally represent special/heavy weapons/upgrade characters/etc.

It's going to be like the rapid-firing plasma "Gets hot!" thing - one guy failing multiple saves shouldn't kill his buddy off through lack of specificity.

Or am I misunderstanding the implications?

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:Well that's just, like, your opinion, man. Me, personally, I think my little guys are in 4+ cover. Yeah, they might not be completely physically anywhere "near" what you would call "cover" - in the parlance of our times - but, uh, has it ever occurred to you that instead of, uh, you know, sitting there and looking at me like, uh, that maybe things might be, you know, a little more, uh, uh, uh, complex? I mean c'mon man - it's only a game. Look I'm not tryin' to scam anyone here, man... I'll tell ya what - howbout we make it a 5+ then and let's just call it a day?

Way out west there was this fella I wanna tell ya about. Goes by the name of Arnold Snodgrass. At least that was the handle his loving parents gave him, but he never had much use for it himself. See, this Snodgrass, he called himself "Abadabadoobaddon".

Now, "Abadabadoobaddon" - there's a name no man would self-apply where I come from. But then there was a lot about Abadabadoobaddon that didn't make a whole lot of sense. And a lot about where he posted, likewise. But then again, maybe that's why I found the forum so darned interestin'. See, they call Dakka Dakka the "Shark Pit"; but I didn't find it to be that, exactly. But I'll allow it as there are some mean folks there. 'Course I ain't never been to Warseer, and I ain't never seen Bolter and Chainsword. And I ain't never seen no queen in her damned undies, so the feller says.

But I'll tell you what - after seeing Dakka Dakka, and this here story I'm about to unfold, well, I guess I seen somethin' every bit as stupefyin' as you'd seen in any of them other places. And in HTML, too. So I can die with a smileey emoticon on my face, without feelin' like the good Lord gypped me.

Now this here story I'm about to unfold took place in 2008 - just about the time of 40K's transition with 4th ed to 5th ed. I only mention it because sometimes there's a man... I won't say a hero, 'cause, what's a hero? Sometimes, there's a man. And I'm talkin' about Abadabadoobaddon here - Abadabadoobaddon from Dakka Dakka. Sometimes, there's a man, well, he's the man for his time and place. He fits right in there. And that's Abadabadoobaddon. Abadabadoobaddon, from Dakka Dakka. And even if he's a crazy man - and Abadabadoobaddon was most certainly that. Quite possibly the craziest in all of Dakka Dakka forums, which would place him high in the runnin' for craziest on the internets. Sometimes there's a man, sometimes, there's a man. Well, I lost my train of thought here.

LOL, well if you have ever been to Bolter and Chainsword, well they don't really insult you at all. The only time I remember seeing any insults or even rough language would be the infamous "Could Master Cheif Beat Space Marines?" Threads, in which all the Halo freaks go hell yah and all the Marine freaks go hell no...

For some reason, I never clicked on that thread. Can't imagine why not...