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.

JohnHwangDD wrote:N00b.

If you had a copy of the RT Vehicle Companion (with targeting overlay), you'd change your tune.

Noob? Noob?

You really are a clueless wonder aren't you John?

BYE

Ozymandias wrote:I can't wait for Round 4 of the 5th ed rumors so we can have more of these enlightening conversations.

I think the Canadian Military argument was of particular importance to the validity and discussion of 5th ed rumors.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

You've heard the phrase 'If you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything at all", yes?

Part of the reason why I'm cutting this responce short...

...

Pithy I like, ad hominem's I don't.

Can't we all just get along?

Tribune wrote:Can't we all just get along?

Perhaps you have forgotten, but this is 40k.

Aye. 'tis a dark future indeed...

H.B.M.C. wrote:Noob? Noob?

You really are a clueless wonder aren't you John?

At least I've got a sense of humor.

H.B.M.C. wrote:You've heard the phrase 'If you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything at all", yes?

Part of the reason why I'm cutting this responce short...

...

Perhaps you'd do better to take your own advice more often?

Tribune wrote:Pithy I like, ad hominem's I don't.

An Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy where someone attempts to disprove someone else's point by attacking them personally. I'm not attempting to disprove anything, I'm just attacking him personally. Big difference.



BYE

Now that's pithy. Good to have you back!

This is just degenerate. 40k brings the worst of us all.

I think I'm going outside for a cigarette. (too often)

I've been doing some thinking. (rare)

I looked at the rumours. (brain-damaging)

"Is *this* 5th edition?"

I sure hope there's a lot more to it, but then again, I'm a bit scared of it too. They have a nasty habit of screwing something up after showing that they are somewhat capable.

I cry every time I look at one of the new Dire Wolves. And Daemonettes. Not out of joy. Time for nicotine.

Stelek wrote:Sebster, I didn't mean players that chose the tanks are retards. I meant the tanks look like the boxes retards get stuffed in by our wonderful society. They call it the 'short bus' around here....

Ah, fair enough then. Your original comment seemed a little harsh and out of character when I first read it. That's why I thought I'd query it. Now that I see what you mean I take it back.

Still think they look cool, but I can see the comparison.

I am really looking forward to fifth addition. The changes sound good and the game should be fun to play. I enjoy when they dramaticly change the power of certian units. I never go over the top with the "killer" units. It just makes me chuckle to see people who maxed out their list to the detriment to the game get screwed. with luck these people will stop playing.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Note that I proposed that Tau & Eldar treat Secondary weapons (up to S6) as Defensive weapons, so this addresses your concern.

Yeah, but then you're getting into having three categories of weapons, with additional exceptions in certain lists. It just seems a little messy. I'd have primary and defensive weapons, with the vehicle entry defining each option.

I'm OK with Plasma Cannons & Autocannons as main weapons. A2 Autocannon is arguably superior to a S8 ML.

Assault Cannon is pretty good for a Secondary weapon, but with the pending Rending nerf, I think it'll drop back in line with the other secondaries.

Exactly. Strength alone can't properly define weapon values.

That would be possible, but seems like more work.

Maybe, but sometimes it's worth it to avoid an arbitrary rule with multiple 'odd points'.

I don't like the whole one-pivot business. It's too WFB-like and too clunky when you consider that the model represents a tiny tank. The whole "move as you like" thing is much faster and easier.

It's faster, it's easier, and it results in vehicles losing a unique feel on the table. Limit their agility while giving them the ability to shoot and move and they'll start feeling like tanks should.

Yea, because that's the rumor.

Yeah, but we're already in wish-list land anyway. We've been in wish list land since you asked me how I'd like to see the vehicles work. Might as well go the whole hog.

The idea is to have 6 distinct results, so merging results is undesirable. With Shake and only 2 Destroys, it's lower risk than before.

Fair point. My only real issue was with making the lower results on the table less damaging. At present any penetrating or glancing hit stops a tank shooting next turn, making the thing useless.

Changing it up to have 6 different results is fair enough, as long as the lower results don't guarantee the tank will be useless next turn.

Given that 40k specifically limited assaults to single targets (same as shooting target), I think the designers have made their point clear that 40k is supposed to be 1v1. If tanks can split fire, then Machine Spirit has no meaning.

A unit can assault two enemy units, as long as it maintains cohesion.

As above, Tau treat secondary as defensive, so Burst Cannon are OK. Imperial HBs are a problem because they are priced so cheaply. If they were Defensive, they would have to be charged at least 10 pts each for IG, 15 pts for SM. Possibly more. And inflating the points of a Russ is undesirable at this time.

I don't know about that. Kicking a leman russ up to around 180-200 points would be pretty cool, as long as there were sufficient improvements to their toughness, mobility and firepower. It'd work nicely with pulling guardsman back to 5 points and dropping a few heavy weapons back in cost as well, as IG army sizes would maintain their current size.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tribune wrote:Pithy I like, ad hominem's I don't.

An Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy where someone attempts to disprove someone else's point by attacking them personally. I'm not attempting to disprove anything, I'm just attacking him personally. Big difference.



BYE

That's correct. What you are portraying is actually online disinhibition, which is usually associated with low emotional IQ.

Kilkrazy wrote:It depends on whether one believes the conspiracy or cock-up theories of rules writing.

Never prescribe to malice what can be explained with incompetence...

Anyhow, it's pretty clear GW designs and playtests 40K for more casual social play. You only get really significant power imbalances when people start taking the kinds of extreme lists that wouldn't fly in a casual gaming environment, like 8 tyranid monstrous creatures or 3 falcons. By and large the 40k rules work perfectly well for a casual beer and pretzels game. There's a few annoying moments of inconsistant detail, but by and large the only criticisms that should be levelled are when certain units should be fun and awesome (like Leman Russ and Possessed) but are boring and ineffective.

This would give them a pass from the people who criticise their rulesets from the perspective of highly competitive play, except GW is happy to promote tournaments and competitive play. So GW ultimately demonstrates a kind of incompetence, but it isn't just about their rules. It's about GW having a very inconsistant approach to their game.

skkipper wrote:I am really looking forward to fifth addition. The changes sound good and the game should be fun to play. I enjoy when they dramaticly change the power of certian units. I never go over the top with the "killer" units. It just makes me chuckle to see people who maxed out their list to the detriment to the game get screwed. with luck these people will stop playing.

Some will buy new armies and spend a lot time talking about how GW screwed them over and made them buy a new army. Others will stop playing, but there'll be another generation coming along who buy up the new killer army.


GW will continue with their nonsense approach of releasing a rules set that doesn't really work at the competitive level and then sponsoring a whole pile of tournaments.

What I especially love about this thread is the fact that the traditional American nationalist JohnHwangDD tried to ridicule Canadian military history, got his so called facts proven dead wrong, and now refuses to reply to any related post. "If I don't reply to anyone who proved that I'm a complete idiot and that I was lying, I can act like I was right all along." Sadly this is the current level of internet discussion.

Death to the false rumor maker !!

My question i may have missed in all the talk about tanks and who made them etc. what is the time for the release of 5th

and to our ALLIES to the north sorry about so of us YANKS we were all on the same side and @George Spiggott in 1940 your welcome for all the planes tanks and ships etc.
we came late but fought on the same side

AgeOfEgos wrote:That's correct. What you are portraying is actually online disinhibition, which is usually associated with low emotional IQ.

Assuming you proscribe to the theory of multiple types of IQ.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:That's correct. What you are portraying is actually online disinhibition, which is usually associated with low emotional IQ.

Assuming you proscribe to the theory of multiple types of IQ.

BYE

I do not think that statement means what you think it means.

are Havoc launchers S4 or S5 in the new chaos book? whatever they are, I'd say it safe to expect them to be defensive weapons in 5th ed.

And if they're not actually called that there will be a rule that lets them shoot ie say every gun S5 or higher can shoot at a seperate target, all defensive weapons must fire at the same target.

And this thread seriously needs more trannies and/or hot chick talk .

Tacobake wrote: trannies and/or hot chick talk.

Those really aren't things I like to mix and match

IntoTheRain wrote:

Tacobake wrote: trannies and/or hot chick talk.

Those really aren't things I like to mix and match

Yeah. Go trannies or go home!

sebster wrote:Strength alone can't properly define weapon values.

If, after allowing for exceptions for the high-tech races (Tau & Eldar), the only exception is the (temporarily overpowered) Assault Cannon, strength alone seems to be just fine.

It's faster, it's easier, and it results in vehicles losing a unique feel on the table. Limit their agility while giving them the ability to shoot and move and they'll start feeling like tanks should.

Except, there's no reason to do this when you also have nimble & agile Eldar & Tau Grav-Tanks. Tanks should be the basic entry, so it would be inappropriate rules-wise to tack on a special rule restriction, only to lift it for the higher-detail version. Plus, turning keys / radiusing / pivot limits are sorts of extremely high-detail mechanics that streamlined 40k is expressly doing away with.

Yeah, but we're already in wish-list land anyway.

Point well taken.

At present any penetrating or glancing hit stops a tank shooting next turn, making the thing useless.

Not all Tanks are measured by their shootiness - Rhinos & such are primarily Transport. Stopping shooting for a turn further encourages movement over killing, so I wouldn't change it. Particularly as the basic results seem to have held solid for the past 2 editions.

A unit can assault two enemy units, as long as it maintains cohesion.

True, but this is only to prevent the opponent from cheesing by intermingling. I was thinking more of the Assault same as Shoot rule.

Kicking a leman russ up to around 180-200 points would be pretty cool, as long as there were sufficient improvements to their toughness, mobility and firepower.

No way. Russes are barely worth their points right now. With AV14/12/10, no armor increase is warranted. Imperial Tank mobility should be basic and limited. And Ordnance is plenty good enough. It's better to allow IG to field more stuff for an even larger army, following the recent Orks approach.

It'd work nicely with pulling guardsman back to 5 points and dropping a few heavy weapons back in cost as well, as IG army sizes would maintain their current size.

I agree that Guardsmen should be 5 points under the new rules, because right now, they're generally overcosted by 10-20%.

Therion wrote:What I especially love about this thread is the fact that the traditional American nationalist JohnHwangDD tried to ridicule Canadian military history, got his so called facts proven dead wrong, and now refuses to reply to any related post. "If I don't reply to anyone who proved that I'm a complete idiot and that I was lying, I can act like I was right all along." Sadly this is the current level of internet discussion.

Actually, I had a really nice post ready to go, but I decided to stop as the thread was degenerating toward flames. However, with HBMC and you deciding that we're going to go down this road, that's all well and good.

Fact is, in a war, I'd rather have the French at my back than a Canuck. At least the French have their Foreign Legion. Canada has nothing of significance.

Yes, Canada has ended up on the winning side of their recent wars. That's only because you followed the Brits and the Americans.

When you look at who did the heavy lifting in WW2, Canada is nowhere to be found. In WW1, the hard business was by the French, Russians, and Brits. Not Canada (nor the US, FWIW). In WW2, the 51st state managed to see even less action resulting in even fewer casualties than in WW1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Yes, in WW2, the American Sherman tank had gyroscopic gun stabilization. And maybe Canada did have a decent gun crew, whose name is conveniently lost to history. Too bad it was too weak to actually penetrate German armor on a hit, whereas the German tanks were more deadly due to better optics and cannon.

As for truth, lies, and documentation, at least I can provide vetted Wiki links, whereas the Canadian counter is a lame statement that "No, that's not true" with nothing more than some vague reference to history and books.

For the most part, "Canadian military history" consists of little more than riding on someone else's coattails.

If you've got something to say, back it up, please. Otherwise, you can sit down and shut up.

AgeOfEgos wrote:I do not think that statement means what you think it means.

I'm talking about the five different (apparently...) types of IQ. And I know quite well what they mean, silly pictures aside. But nice try.

But even if we ignore that, you are the first to sling the "You must be immature because you attack people behind 'the intarnetz's' cloak of anonymity" lable, which, given my history here, is laughable at best and downright offensive at worst.

BYE

Fact is, in a war, I'd rather have the French at my back than a Canuck. At least the French have their Foreign Legion. Canada has nothing of significance.

Canada has nothing of significance? Your tone about the French is insulting as hell. What exactly counts as significant? Once we establish what counts as significant we can determine who does or doesn't qualify. Does invading and occupying sovereign countries like Iraq against the will of the UN security council and the international community count as significant? Does getting your ass kicked in Vietnam count as significant? Is it significant that the war in Afghanistan will end once the Americans give up? Is it significant or a military achievement that the United States is the only nation that has been crazy enough to deploy nuclear weapons against human targets? Actually, what are the military achievements of the United States? Illuminate me. The only real success I can think of was the defeat of the Nazis and the Americans certainly weren't alone in that one. The French have atleast controlled the largest Imperium in Europe since the Roman Empire. While Napoleon conquered territories he also drafted one of the finest pieces of legislation ever written, the Code Civil. I'd like to see the American oil driller or actor presidents attempt something like that.

Talking of having someone behind your back, I'm sure noone would like the Americans of today behind their backs on an actual warzone. I'm curious if the American soldiers have been trained at all. A large part of the British casualties in joint operations with USA at the Persian Gulf have come from American friendly fire. Here's my favorite quote from The Times Online:

A British officer in Basra said: “The Americans can be pretty pumped-up. Sometimes they fire in broad daylight when we are travelling at two miles per hour, shouting that we are British out of the window and waving the Union Jack. If they shoot, our drill is to slam on the brakes and race in the opposite direction.”

As far as heavy lifting in the WWII goes, you're ignoring some countries, and contrary to your assumption that I'm Canadian I'm in fact Finnish, and would like to quote to you your beloved Wikipedia:

During World War II, Finland was in many ways a unique case. It was the only country which fought against both sides of the conflict under the same leadership. It was the only European country which bordered the Soviet Union in 1939 and was still unoccupied in 1945. Of all the European countries fighting in World War II, only three European capitals were never occupied: Moscow, London and Helsinki. It was also a country which sided with Germany, but in which native Jews (and most refugees) were safe from persecution

The Finns lost almost 100'000 soldiers in the wars against the Soviet Union, and the Soviets suffered over six times as many casualties and over a million wounded. I would call that heavy lifting for a country of ~3 million at that time.

As for truth, lies, and documentation, at least I can provide vetted Wiki links, whereas the Canadian counter is a lame statement that "No, that's not true" with nothing more than some vague reference to history and books.

Like you admitted yourself, I'm sure the Canadians refrained themselves from completely derailing this topic and causing it to close.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If, after allowing for exceptions for the high-tech races (Tau & Eldar), the only exception is the (temporarily overpowered) Assault Cannon, strength alone seems to be just fine.

But it isn’t just the assault cannon. Should the ork rockets on the sides of their battlewagons be primary weapons? Why are missile launcher shots primary weapons if they fire krak but defensive if they fire frag?

You could just have codex entries saying that a predator destructor has a primary turret mounted autocannon. It has the option to take two sponson mounted heavy bolters as defensive weapons. It isn’t that complicated and avoids a lot of inevitable mess.

Except, there's no reason to do this when you also have nimble & agile Eldar & Tau Grav-Tanks. Tanks should be the basic entry, so it would be inappropriate rules-wise to tack on a special rule restriction, only to lift it for the higher-detail version. Plus, turning keys / radiusing / pivot limits are sorts of extremely high-detail mechanics that streamlined 40k is expressly doing away with.

Currently the basic tank has a range of restrictions (dangerous terrain, impassable terrain, enemy models) that skimmers can ignore.

There’s nothing wrong with vehicles coming in two categories. Ground based vehicles would be limited to one move and one turn. Skimmers would have more open movement. There is no way to have skimmers work properly without their own section and their own exceptions, so worrying about including a line saying ‘skimmers are free to turn as many times as they want during their movement’ seems a stretch.

Not all Tanks are measured by their shootiness - Rhinos & such are primarily Transport. Stopping shooting for a turn further encourages movement over killing, so I wouldn't change it. Particularly as the basic results seem to have held solid for the past 2 editions.

Yeah, I should have clarified. Tanks taken for their destructive ability (leman russ, predators, hammerheads, fire prisms) have a massive weakness in the current rules that any hit, even just a glancing hit, is guaranteed to make them useless next turn. This means you can shake a tank and then move on to shooting at the next one, and the next one.

Transports didn’t have this weakness, as no-one cared if their rhinos weren’t able to fire, as long as all those blood angels could pile out into assault. This led to the entanglement rules, which are a whole other debate.

But for main battle tanks, the current rules haven’t held solid. They are not viable in competitive play, due to massive number of AT weapons on the field (which is slowly being resolved with codex reform) and the ease at which tanks can be nullified turn after turn.

True, but this is only to prevent the opponent from cheesing by intermingling. I was thinking more of the Assault same as Shoot rule.

Which is another odd rule, part of some design principle I don’t really see any value in. It doesn’t make things simpler or quicker. It just seems to make people look at the rules and say ‘Why is that? Why can’t I shoot the anti-infantry weapons at a different target?’

No way. Russes are barely worth their points right now. With AV14/12/10, no armor increase is warranted. Imperial Tank mobility should be basic and limited. And Ordnance is plenty good enough. It's better to allow IG to field more stuff for an even larger army, following the recent Orks approach.

Yeah, Leman Russes are barely worth their points right now. That’s why I said they could be kicked up in points if their survivability, mobility and firepower grew sufficiently. I think they should be dominating the field, 180-200 point units devastating opposition units, and that making the move/shoot restrictions less harsh, it means making the damage table less harsh, and allowing them to fire their sponson and hull mounted weapons in addition to the cannon.

Keeping them at their current costs and improving their abilities a little to balance them would also work. That’s just a question of preferences.

I agree that Guardsmen should be 5 points under the new rules, because right now, they're generally overcosted by 10-20%.

5 points is the magic number. It’s the same basic value as WHFB. It means a marine is exactly 3 times as valuable as a guardsman. And it really is about what a guardsman is worth.

Therion wrote:Your tone about the French is insulting as hell.

You're the one who wanted the "discussion" to be more about heat than light.

What exactly counts as significant?

Never going more than a generation without being embroiled in some sort of war would seem to be a decent start. 200+ years of nearly continuous combat, so that's got to be some kind of record in human history.

Actually, what are the military achievements of the United States? Illuminate me.

Let's see, if I recall, we did a decent job of kicking the Brits out. No backwater at time.

Then, we did a fair job against the Spanish.

We managed to be the first to create usable Atomics. Yay!

And we managed to bankrupt the Soviets via military spending. Tho really, this is more of an economic / industrial victory...

The French have atleast controlled the largest Imperium in Europe since the Roman Empire.

From a de facto standpoint, we do this, too.

A large part of the British casualties in joint operations with USA at the Persian Gulf have come from American friendly fire.

Duh.

As far as heavy lifting in the WWII goes, you're ignoring some countries, and contrary to your assumption that I'm Canadian

I figured to be part-Canadian - you're far too ill-mannered to be a true Canadian citizen.

I'm in fact Finnish,

Great, then you can educate us all on the meaning of the word "Finlandize".

Like you admitted yourself, I'm sure the Canadians refrained themselves from completely derailing this topic and causing it to close.

Aren't you glad you re-opened this pile of nonsense?

sebster wrote:But it isn’t just the assault cannon. Should the ork rockets on the sides of their battlewagons be primary weapons?

Are they S7+?

Why are missile launcher shots primary weapons if they fire krak but defensive if they fire frag?

Because they are S4?

You could just have codex entries saying that a predator destructor has a primary turret mounted autocannon. It has the option to take two sponson mounted heavy bolters as defensive weapons. It isn’t that complicated and avoids a lot of inevitable mess.

The problem is that you need to redo *all* of the Codices to make this work, and GW just doesn't have the resources to do that. For better or for worse, 5th Edition needs to be compatible with the 4th (and remaining 3rd) Edition Codices.

Ground based vehicles would be limited to one move and one turn.

I disagree.

Tanks taken for their destructive ability (leman russ, predators, hammerheads, fire prisms) have a massive weakness in the current rules that any hit, even just a glancing hit, is guaranteed to make them useless next turn.

They can be Immobilized, which is meaningless.

Transports didn’t have this weakness,
This led to the entanglement rules, which are a whole other debate.

If Shaken is "may not both move and shoot next turn", then the Transport gives up shooting, and the shooter gives up moving. For all intents and purposes, that's the same as missing entirely. If each result on the Damage table is supposed to do something, and from a practical standpoint, Nothing Happens 1/6 of the time, doesn't that seem wrong?

Which is another odd rule, part of some design principle I don’t really see any value in. It doesn’t make things simpler or quicker. It just seems to make people look at the rules and say ‘Why is that? Why can’t I shoot the anti-infantry weapons at a different target?’

Not splitting fire goes hand in hand with not charging something you didn't shoot at. The point is to limit the abilty of a unit to suppress multiple enemy units. Charging is an exception, as the opponent chooses how closely to place his models.

Yeah, Leman Russes are barely worth their points right now. That’s why I said they could be kicked up in points if their survivability, mobility and firepower grew sufficiently. I think they should be dominating the field, 180-200 point units devastating opposition units, and that making the move/shoot restrictions less harsh, it means making the damage table less harsh, and allowing them to fire their sponson and hull mounted weapons in addition to the cannon.

In an environment in which Guard will need their Platoon forces as Scoring, I think more cheaper stuff would be more useful. Being able to squeeze in an extra mechanized Troops unit would be important to siezing Objectives.

5 points is the magic number. It’s the same basic value as WHFB. It means a marine is exactly 3 times as valuable as a guardsman. And it really is about what a guardsman is worth.

With these rumors in effect, I could see basic Guardsmen going to 4.5 or even 4 pts. They suck in HtH and always need to shoot. So they gain nothing from the nerfed Fleet option. Their enemies will move faster, and they're only 10 guys with 1 WS3 S3 attack. They can't mob or wear good armor.

I've been thinking about the possible changes to scout/infiltrate and tthe idea of coming on from the flanks/rear of the enemy.

If scout changes from a free 6" move to the abilit to come on from another boad edge, I think it could suddenl make the game a lot more tactical.

If you combine that with having to possibl defend objectives in your own half, then being able to properly outflank the enem is incrediball usefull.

I think that changing scout to that makes a lot of sense fluffwise and imagine some of the possibilities!

DA player with ravenwing squadron head in from the flank, followed by DSing termi's absolute carnage!

The only flaw i see with existing rules is Chaos Possessed as you role for their upgrades (including scout) after deploment!