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.

Ailaros wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Who is talking about whether it is a good rule or not......

This thread is called "What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?". The entire thread is about bad rules in the rulebook.

Wound wrapping is one of them.

But my comments weren't!

I give up.

daedalus wrote:

Rochronos wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Rochronos wrote:... and only use TLOS for wound allocation.

Do what now?

Bit of a house rule I suppose. 'What you see you can kill'

I don't dislike this, but on the other hand, model sniping?

And you know what waac players are gonna do? I got my rhinos here, gonna scootch em over a bit more so the only model visable to my (insert nasty shooting weapon) is the independent character without EW in that squad. Profit.... this idea doesn't work.

MrMoustaffa wrote:

Nitros14 wrote:

Ailaros wrote:
If you reduce cover to a universal 5+, an already very shooty game relapses into a practically only shooty game, as even a 4+ is already tough to make foot hordes work against opponents who know what their small arm is for. Plus, worse cover makes long-range armies even more powerful, which means more sit-and-shoot dice rolling sessions, and even less movement than we have right now.

If we want cover to get worse, then we need to make everything else faster to compensate. For example, you could give everybody in the game the equivalent of the current fleet special rule as standard, and make it so that units with fleet get to roll an extra D6 for their charge range, or something.

If you don't like cover as it is right now, you have to do things to actually keep the balance, rather than just making cover worse.

What I'd actually like to see is cover being a to hit modifier like fantasy, so that models with armour still get some benefit from that armour in cover, and models with 4+ invulnerable saves actually get benefit from cover. Obviously points values would need to be readjusted for some armies.

This would basically make it where giving orks guns would be the biggest joke in the game

"Oh, I'm sorry, you're BS2? Don't forget that negative modifier to your accuracy. So now, you only hit if you manage to roll a 6 twice in a row."

Obviously, it wouldn't be that broken, but I could see more than a couple of armies getting screwed over by this system, with others getting huge buffs, especially space marines.

It's not like it'll effect orks that much, already have a ton of shooting thanks to shoota's, and if it's changed to BS targetting, Flashgitz git finda's could infact prevent them from needing to lower their BS, maybe increasing it.

Besides, the orks 5+ shots aren't even what makes them good, just the mass of fire.

Also it would be a 6 and than a 4+, given hard cover (-1 from soft would give a 6, hard cover -2 6+ than a 4+)

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Nitros14 wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:Not to mention that a BS cover system would have no effect on blast weapons

There are things you could do about that, like having blast weapons firing into cover always scatter.

Unfortunately, I'm sure people would get even more bent out of shape over the inaccuracy of their blast weapons
But the problem is not if it scatters, because if you're firing at a horde army(who need cover the most) then there's still a good chance of hitting something and you'll essentially insta-lose whatever was hit

If games workshop really felt blast weapons were overpowered in that scenario they could easily go back to models not fully under the template being hit on a 4+.

Kevlar wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Also, get rid of Wound Allocation. I don't care if this nerfs some things, you shouldn't be relying on this at ALL.

I find that, without wound allocation, most multi-wound units are over-priced. With wound allocation, they seem to work out all-right. IMO, I'd prefer to see wound allocation become institutionalised. It just seems counter-intuitive that a unit with twice as many wounds isn't twice as hard to kill.

Sorry, but the way the game has always been played was you remove whole models first. The wound allocation shenanigans do make multi-wound units vastly more survivable than they have ever been, or ever should have been. It doesn't make them worth their points, it makes them extremely undercosted.

I know it has always been played like that. I'm arguing that the way it's always been done is wrong and that in fact, Paladins and Nob bikers are balanced when they can distribute wounds, and far too expensive when they can't. You're paying upwards of 60 points for a single model that dies just as quickly as a 10 point model when faced with plasma, melta, lascannon, etc and only marginally slower when faced with small-arms fire.

Without recourse to distributing wounds through diverse wargear, those units pay far too much for that extra wound.

Kaldor wrote:

Kevlar wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Also, get rid of Wound Allocation. I don't care if this nerfs some things, you shouldn't be relying on this at ALL.

I find that, without wound allocation, most multi-wound units are over-priced. With wound allocation, they seem to work out all-right. IMO, I'd prefer to see wound allocation become institutionalised. It just seems counter-intuitive that a unit with twice as many wounds isn't twice as hard to kill.

Sorry, but the way the game has always been played was you remove whole models first. The wound allocation shenanigans do make multi-wound units vastly more survivable than they have ever been, or ever should have been. It doesn't make them worth their points, it makes them extremely undercosted.

I know it has always been played like that. I'm arguing that the way it's always been done is wrong and that in fact, Paladins and Nob bikers are balanced when they can distribute wounds, and far too expensive when they can't. You're paying upwards of 60 points for a single model that dies just as quickly as a 10 point model when faced with plasma, melta, lascannon, etc and only marginally slower when faced with small-arms fire.

Without recourse to distributing wounds through diverse wargear, those units pay far too much for that extra wound.

I can say without a doubt I understand your position that they pay far to much for that extra wound.

I can also say for fact, that I honestly do not care in the slightest that they become overpriced because of wound allocations removal. That should the future come for nobz, they'll be reduced to a manageable level of cost, alongside Flash-Gitz.

It has happened many times, Tau and Eldar skimmers are now overpriced in this era after the Skimmer Dominance in 4th, but now they are overpriced as it is in this 5th edition, they have been through the issue too.

Armies have gotten over it. You'll live through it too should it come down to it.

Kirasu wrote:Abstract LOS is better for a game based on miniatures

Line of sight is line of sight, regardless of whether it is abstract or 'true'.

Issues only ever come up at that very small grey area, where maybe you can see it and maybe you can't, and using true or abstract LoS does nothing to mitigate that.

True line of sight is a much simpler mechanic than anything else, because it's right there in front of you. If you can see it, you can see it, end of story.

Kaldor wrote:True line of sight is a much simpler mechanic than anything else, because it's right there in front of you. If you can see it, you can see it, end of story.

I actually disagree with this. Yes, you know if you can see what you can see for targeting, but I've gotten in way more arguments over whether something is in cover or not than I ever did back in 4th ed.

4th ed's LOS and terrain system was certainly simpler and less contentious on the table itself. I don't really see what 5th ed's system has really added that's made it worth the relative increase in hassle.

Boggy79 wrote:
A 20 strong unit hiding behind a wall, completely out of view except for a single model can be wiped out.

Bloomin' madness I tells ya!

The alternative being that with the movement of a transport or two to narrow my own line of sight, the only enemy models I can see are the squad leader or special weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:
I actually disagree with this. Yes, you know if you can see what you can see for targeting, but I've gotten in way more arguments over whether something is in cover or not than I ever did back in 4th ed.

I don't understand how that can happen though. If it's clear whether you can see something, it should be equally clear if it is in cover or not.

4th ed's LOS and terrain system was certainly simpler and less contentious on the table itself. I don't really see what 5th ed's system has really added that's made it worth the relative increase in hassle.

It was an intuitive choice IMO. Having a small model block LOS to a larger one simply because it was the same height category was silly, and having models that are clearly visible in terrain be immune to enemy fire because they were a fraction of an inch over 6" inside it, or because it was categorised as being a higher height level, was also silly.

LoS will never be perfect, and there will always be arguments.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

MrMoustaffa wrote:

Nitros14 wrote:

Ailaros wrote:
If you reduce cover to a universal 5+, an already very shooty game relapses into a practically only shooty game, as even a 4+ is already tough to make foot hordes work against opponents who know what their small arm is for. Plus, worse cover makes long-range armies even more powerful, which means more sit-and-shoot dice rolling sessions, and even less movement than we have right now.

If we want cover to get worse, then we need to make everything else faster to compensate. For example, you could give everybody in the game the equivalent of the current fleet special rule as standard, and make it so that units with fleet get to roll an extra D6 for their charge range, or something.

If you don't like cover as it is right now, you have to do things to actually keep the balance, rather than just making cover worse.

What I'd actually like to see is cover being a to hit modifier like fantasy, so that models with armour still get some benefit from that armour in cover, and models with 4+ invulnerable saves actually get benefit from cover. Obviously points values would need to be readjusted for some armies.

This would basically make it where giving orks guns would be the biggest joke in the game

"Oh, I'm sorry, you're BS2? Don't forget that negative modifier to your accuracy. So now, you only hit if you manage to roll a 6 twice in a row."

Obviously, it wouldn't be that broken, but I could see more than a couple of armies getting screwed over by this system, with others getting huge buffs, especially space marines.

It's not like it'll effect orks that much, already have a ton of shooting thanks to shoota's, and if it's changed to BS targetting, Flashgitz git finda's could infact prevent them from needing to lower their BS, maybe increasing it.

Besides, the orks 5+ shots aren't even what makes them good, just the mass of fire.

Also it would be a 6 and than a 4+, given hard cover (-1 from soft would give a 6, hard cover -2 6+ than a 4+)

I was mainly just cracking a joke. I know how orks shooting works, I was just joking if you do anything more to penalize their accuracy they'll never hit anything at all.

Penalizing accuracy wouldnt hurt some armies much, like space marines, but for armies like orks and IG it could be a severe handicap. However I play orks and IG, so I'm obviously biased. I just feel like it wouldn't affect all armies equally.

If you're running into a lot of arguments over TLoS then either you or the other guy needs to stop being TFG. <50% seen cover save, >50% no seen cover saves. For infantry and vehicles.

The only time I've ever had to debate (not even a heated one) over TLoS is with weird looking non symmetrical (which are semi-rare) models. If it does get heated just call a 3rd party, if there is no 3rd party then you're probably playing a house game and can house rule a new LoS

I was mainly just cracking a joke. I know how orks shooting works, I was just joking if you do anything more to penalize their accuracy they'll never hit anything at all.

Penalizing accuracy wouldn't hurt some armies much, like space marines, but for armies like orks and IG it could be a severe handicap. However I play orks and IG, so I'm obviously biased. I just feel like it wouldn't affect all armies equally.

IG has the same thing as orks really, Rate of Fire vs Elite models (And in some cases, same, Stormtroopers might be useful alongside veterans..Nah, but I can dream) But they are BS3, so it's not a heavy loss for IG, not to mention a large number of their vehicles fires with blasts (Which in 5th edition, doesn't roll to hit before scattering, 4th had you hit based on BS, than scattered if failed) and not to mention orders heavily help them out when it comes to shooting.

They have their elites with their BS4, and their massed fire/blasts at BS3. So they aren't bad off at all even in this regard.

Orks have a ton of shot output, those badmoon clans with alotta shoota's are gonna be putting alot of shots in the air, loota's will still potentially be very good with 1-3 shots, the only real ranged I can think of that might take a hit is Tankbusta's (Which I really enjoy personally, I always take one squad) But than it might give an incentive to use squig bombs, hm, and they still would of course have their famous Tankhammers and Da Splosives.

And if all else fails, orks, even the bad moonz clan, can still krump some gitz in melee, where cover does diddly squat to a pissed off ork.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:TLOS has been around since 3rd edition, so I don't see it going away any time soon.

How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

How does a bike climb a ruin?

Kill points are awful because they change the basic premise of the game. Victory points made the game much more tactical, strategic. You would protect your most valuable assets with screens of cheaper troops, use mobile stuff to get to vulnerable enemy, etc. The game was more strategic and made more sense. It was more "realistic" as compared to how an actual representation of real war would pan out.

With kill points the focus of the game changes drastically. It is less strategic and more, "Gee which cheap small units can I quickly eliminate to get ahead in kill points". It would be like playing chess but instead of focusing on putting the enemy king in checkmate the object is just to kill more pawns than your opponent. Sillines.

Bikes should be able to climb stairs but just make it so that any bikers assaulting a multi level building lose relentless and their +1 toughness for that turn.

Kaldor wrote:

Boggy79 wrote:
A 20 strong unit hiding behind a wall, completely out of view except for a single model can be wiped out.

Bloomin' madness I tells ya!

The alternative being that with the movement of a transport or two to narrow my own line of sight, the only enemy models I can see are the squad leader or special weapons.

I'd be happy for an opponent to do this, it's tactical play. Stil far from a perfect rule and I haven't given it enough thought to suggest a better solution. I'll admit I've missed out on most of 5th edition due to a break from the game but this rule is the one that has really bugged me since returning.

The movement phase used to be a case of carefully planning where to place models to maximise targets while minimising potential casulaties. Now you may as well charge forward because of the abundance of 4+ cover saves. As a Blood Angels and Nid player this works in my favour but I don't enjoy steamrolling my mates because the huge unit of expendible 'gaunts protect the nasty gribblies behind.

Just my opinion though, if they're the rules I'll play to them.

Ailaros wrote:4th ed's LOS and terrain system was certainly simpler and less contentious on the table itself.

4th Ed LOS spawned more rules debates than 5th ed's wound allocation has. It was a mish-mash of two adherent systems that thoroughly confused. From what I've seen, most of those who were fans of the system were actually playing it wrong.

TLOS was still the basis of the LOS rules in 4th, and I very much doubt the game will ever move away from it.

Wound Allocation, Pinning weakness, FNP is too powerful, too many Eternal Warriors in codexes.

rockerbikie wrote:Wound Allocation, Pinning weakness, FNP is too powerful, too many Eternal Warriors in codexes.

The "everybody has eternal warrior" argument is way over-exaggerated. Marines have 2 models, DA have none, BA have 1, IG have 1, Orks have 1, BT have 0, GK have 1, Sisters have 0, Dark Eldar have 1. Those are just a few of the codices, but do you see a trend? 7 models in 9 codices,thats hardly "too many". If anything I think Instant Death needs to go or at least change as T3 independent characters die far too easily. One str 6 hit with an unlucky roll and "Poof!" there went your 100 points.

Deep striking and not assaulting makes no sense.
As does not being able to fire heavy weapons when moving in a vehicle, I can understand on foot, but not in a vehicle.

rockerbikie wrote:Wound Allocation, Pinning weakness, FNP is too powerful, too many Eternal Warriors in codexes.

FNP isn't that powerful, theres quite a few ways to remove it

No assault after deepstrike is mostly a balance thing but it also models the disruptive effect on the unit of suddenly dropping into the middle of a firefight.

It is exceedingly difficult to accurately fire a smallarm accurately from a moving vehicle. It would be considerably harder to do so with a heavy weapon. This is due to the vehicle bouncing and turning as it navigates cross country so a potential set of exceptions would be skimmers and travel on roads. Note that vehicle mounted weapons move with the vehicle or have specially stabilized mounts to counter this effect.

Also some heavy weapons produce large backblasts or muzzleblasts that can be painful or even lethal if used inside a confined space.

Finally there is a balance issue again, if Devastators never had to leave their Rhino but could still move and fire it would be . . . devastating.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Wound Allocation, Pinning weakness, FNP is too powerful, too many Eternal Warriors in codexes.

FNP isn't that powerful, theres quite a few ways to remove it

Not every army has easy access to high str or low AP weapons.

FNP is extremely powerful, and only a few codexes hand it out like candy.

Jefffar wrote:No assault after deepstrike is mostly a balance thing but it also models the disruptive effect on the unit of suddenly dropping into the middle of a firefight.

It is exceedingly difficult to accurately fire a smallarm accurately from a moving vehicle. It would be considerably harder to do so with a heavy weapon. This is due to the vehicle bouncing and turning as it navigates cross country so a potential set of exceptions would be skimmers and travel on roads. Note that vehicle mounted weapons move with the vehicle or have specially stabilized mounts to counter this effect.

Also some heavy weapons produce large backblasts or muzzleblasts that can be painful or even lethal if used inside a confined space.

Finally there is a balance issue again, if Devastators never had to leave their Rhino but could still move and fire it would be . . . devastating.

Ok, then explain no assaulting from vehicles.
If they can fire when they disembark, they can assault.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Wound Allocation, Pinning weakness, FNP is too powerful, too many Eternal Warriors in codexes.

FNP isn't that powerful, theres quite a few ways to remove it

Against army-wide FNP, no matter who you are, about ~80% of your firepower just halved in efficiency.
I'd say it was a problem with specific codexes rather than the rules.

andrewm9 wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Wound Allocation, Pinning weakness, FNP is too powerful, too many Eternal Warriors in codexes.

The "everybody has eternal warrior" argument is way over-exaggerated. Marines have 2 models, DA have none, BA have 1, IG have 1, Orks have 1, BT have 0, GK have 1, Sisters have 0, Dark Eldar have 1. Those are just a few of the codices, but do you see a trend? 7 models in 9 codices,thats hardly "too many". If anything I think Instant Death needs to go or at least change as T3 independent characters die far too easily. One str 6 hit with an unlucky roll and "Poof!" there went your 100 points.

Instant death fixed grots (and other mooks) surviving lascannon shots and made some of the übercharacters killable by basic troopers. I don't remember if it fixed other stuff when it was introduced in 3rd edition, but I remember thinking it was a good rule and being happy that it was added.

but mooks like grots can still survive lascannon shots if the lascannon rolls a 1 to wound. As far as I know, there is nothing that truly instantly kills a unit thats a regular shooting attack

Here's another one that irks me:

Vehicle movement. Now, as I have stated before, I have never played the older editions of 40K so I don't know how vehicle movement worked back then. But, vehicle movement is easy to abuse right now because pivoting is free. There needs to be some sort of cost for pivoting. I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the Dark Eldar Raider setup where their sides are facing toward you and they pivot for free on their first turn to gain an extra 2"-3" of movement. Granted that this rule is insanely abusable by mainly just Dark Eldar since their transports are open-topped and their Raiders are about 4 times longer than they are wide so their troops can pull off an assault from a greater distance than other armies would be able to (much more so than what was intended I presume).

Also, there are not clear rules for front, side, and back arcs on vehicles that are not "box-shaped" like Rhinos. From what I can gather, the INAT tells you to draw an imaginary box around the vehicle in question then draw the arcs through the corners of that box (think Eldar Falcon). But, the actual 40K rulebook does not tell you to do this. This leads to a bunch of "am I in or not" situations that the rulebook says to resolve by "rolling a die."

It's been too long since I played 2nd edition to remember the specifics, but I do remember Instant Death being better than one of the 2nd Ed. mechanics. There was something screwy that gave a similar feel to the spearman killing a tank in Civilization I & II. Maybe my brainz iz just getting all fuzzy from old age.... Ugh. Now I want to drag out all the old RT/ 2nd Ed stuff I have in storage to try to figure this out.

But yeah, the toughness rolls have always been there, and I like how that part works. I view that as being the difference between getting a good, center-mass shot and winging the guy.

I personally like the ID rules from the Heretic/Leaked/Pancake 6th rulebook, where at 2 * T, it caused an additional wound if it successfully wounded, at (2 * T) +1 it caused an additional 2 wounds, at (2 * T) +2 it caused an additional 3 wounds, etc (iirc). Your Space Marine Captain would still be vaporized if he was wounded by a lascannon or a railgun, but the Krak missile would just mess him up without killing him outright (assuming full health of course).

I have to say I like the Heretic rules for Multi-wound models and wound allocation, where you group allocated wounds by save type. It still allows for some abuse in large generic squads (IG blobs for example, can still allocate most of the shots to everyone who's not the meltagunner), but unless you bought the expensive save-adjusting upgrades for your multiwound models, they're all treated the same for wound allocation (Thus reducing Nob bikers, Paladins, and Crisis Suits to the same level of shenanigans, ie essentially none, as a Tyranid warrior brood).

Plus they had the rule that at the end of each turn, you had to consolidate your wounds of a multiwound squad so that only one model was wounded, shuffling around wounds so you had as many full-health and dead models as possible. This was nice since you could still hit hard with wounded models in melee, but any wound allocation shenanigans you managed to pull were essentially nullified at the end of the turn.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok, then explain no assaulting from vehicles.
If they can fire when they disembark, they can assault.

Because running out of te hatch leaves them in a bad formation to try to assault from. Shooting it doesn't matter so much as long as everyone can point their weapon at the target, but when you charge the enemy IRL you want to be in a formation that lets your entire unit hit them at once to maximize the shock of your attack.

Open topped allows you to jump out of the vehicle more or less in formation, so there isn't as much effort needed to set up for a charge.


In terms of game balance, it's about not letting a unit have a free pass into assault, there has to be a downside somewhere. In the case of open topped its the fragility of the transport. In the case of deep strike and standard vehicles it's that turn to prepare to assault. In the case of a Land Raider it's 250 points plus options . . .

For me, it's the fact units have just as likely a shot as hitting a land raider that is in their face as they are that grot that's 48 inches away and in cover. Fantasy has this covered by adding +1 to hit large targets (that's what it was in 7th, can't remember if that carried over to 8th). I know 40k does nothing with to hit modifiers, but it would just make so much more sense. I know the argument of "it has to hit something important" is exists, but I thought that's what the penetrate roll and damage table were there to determine.

As for wound allocations, they might be annoying, but I can see how they're represented. In regards to the lasgun firing with the melta guns, what's to say that all three meltas didn't shoot the same ork? (from a fluff standpoint) With less people firing, maybe they can organize their shots to be more effective. With all of them firing, the turmoil could cause them to all hit the same target.

Trust me, as an ork player I know I'm biased towards the wound allocation rule, but to change it now would hurt certain units so much they really wouldn't be worth it. Someone commented on they didn't care if nobz and other units were "balanced" with different wound allocations. I don't think it would "balance" them so much as make them useless (just like the flash gitz in the example). When I do take a unit of nobz, the price tag usually clocks in at over 50 points per model. Hell I'm not even trying to wound allocate, but by the time I finish with upgrades I NEED, there's at least 6-7 unique models. Now, I'm paying MORE for a nob than a standard terminator, and I don't get a 2+ to compensate. Against small arms fire this is made up by the FNP, but against most of the things I'm worried about (S8 AP3 and such) all I have in defense is a 5++.

That's the only example I can draw from in my experience, but I'm sure other armies have a similar sentiment on their models as well.

Now, if it DID get changed and nobz were rendered useless, I probably wouldn't complain too much as I'd just sub in something else in their stead and get on with it, I was just wanting to play devil's advocate as this thread seemed to be unanimous in its disdain for the current rule.