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.

Viperion wrote:Given that there is another rumour that there is no such thing as an "Alpha/Gamma/Omega" mission, perhaps it's not out of the realm of possibility that the missions themselves are changing as well, and the fact that only troops can claim "objectives" is now meaningless until we find out what type and how many objectives are in any given scenario?

(Man that was a long sentence! A thousand apologies )

Viperion

Well, I hope so!

Maybe I missed it, but IIRC, Cities of Death has the rule that vehicles can't hold objectives.

Hmmm, could some of the CoD and Apocalypse rules be playtests for the 5th edition?

Therion wrote:So, the power level of every codex is determined by how cheesy troops choices they have.

And this is somehow more unreasonable than the power level of a codex being determined by how cheesy Elite & HS choices they have? But perhaps it will once again just come down to people figuring out what are the optimal builds, but hopefully that process will not be so glaringly obvious as it currently seems to be.

Oh, and I completely subscribe to the view that CoD and Apoc are previews/playtests of designer thinking for 5th edition, combined with the last few codices having been written with the overarching aim of balancing out some of the codex abuses present.

Would be a very good reason that scouts were removed from troops in DA and BA.

Not to mention the need to put them & terminators in the same part of the org chart

If CoD and Apoc are possible insights into designer thinking for 5th, I wonder if there will be the introduction of strategems/strategic assets to the regular 40k game? Perhaps as part of the revised mission system.

uber, now that's just crazy talk!

But yeah, stratgegems woudl be great.

Strategems would indeed be nice, but also a new uncontrolled factor that's likely to unbalance the game in a whole new direction.

Please dear baby Jeebus, don't let anything even vaguely resembling Flank March make it into 5th ed. as a common mission option. Favoring infantry for scoring is one thing, but making them warp across the battlefield to get rear hits on every single tank would doom vehicles for all time.

On a tangential note, I just re-read that bit about hits against vehicles in CC always being against rear armor. That's totally uncalled for. In fact, it's going to screw everyone _but_ the skimmers that everyone complains about. I mean, CC hits on tanks are done with meltabombs or powerfists most of the time anyways. Eeesh.

@Savnock
Just think your Guardsmen with a fist can take down a Russ from the front
now if you were getting tank shocked the person with the tank has to think twice now
and people may start to buy krak grenades

and it would be from vehicle with out a WS

Right, but you'd think tanks would be... you know, armored against mines and stuff.

"In the grim darkness of the far, far future, there is only IKEA pressboard between your tank crew and that guy with an axe."

*L* well said, but somewhat innacurate. Most tanks just are not that well armored all over. You have tracks and the wheel carrige that can get mangled, vision slots, that nice little space between the turret and the hull that contains a blast, exhaust ports, and all manner of things.
Another thing to keep in mind is that a big part of the defensive capability of tank armor is the slope that it is set at. Much like a good set of gothic plate, it is designed to deflect shots instead of stopping them cold. That doesn't work as well when someone sticks a bomb on top.

Really, there are a lot of factors, but the take home message is that in real life, tanks are very vulnerable to being swarmed by infantry. That's one reason tanks don't do well in cities and forrests. At the ranges 40k takes place in, tanks really should be fairly vulnerable, but then the range scale of 40k is a bit off in general. Basilisks can fire what, 120"? That's only 240 yards assuming 1" = 6' to scale. That's nothing. The trouble is the game is scaled to play with infantry on a 96 scale yard table. Most soldiers can sprint 100 yards in ~20 seconds or less, and can shoot accurately at that range with a decent rifle. So realistically marines should be able to move 48" and shoot bolters with a 48" range, at least.

I want to start playing Epic...

Savnock wrote:On a tangential note, I just re-read that bit about hits against vehicles in CC always being against rear armor. That's totally uncalled

Actually, it's much more realistic. Tanks top armour is usually very thin, just like the rear. Plus there are hatches / vision ports / vents / whatever that infantry can get at. It is more baffling why infantry wasn't able to use their flexibility and nimbleness to attack the weak spots.

Wehrkind wrote:At the ranges 40k takes place in, tanks really should be fairly vulnerable, but then the range scale of 40k is a bit off in general. Basilisks can fire what, 120"? That's only 240 yards assuming 1" = 6' to scale. That's nothing. The trouble is the game is scaled to play with infantry on a 96 scale yard table.

I want to start playing Epic...

You are confusing model scale with ground scale.

Model scale is easily 5 to 10 times ground scale on average. What I think is that model scale only holds when models are in BtB / HtH. Ground scale increases exponentially or logarithmically with distance. So 1" might be 6 feet. But 12" isn 72 feet - it's 500 feet, and 48" isn't 288 feet - it's a mile or more!

If one wanted 40k to be have consistent model scale and ground scale, then one should be playing 40k with Epic models - at least it would seem somewhat realistic.

We also don't know what the new vehicle damage chart looks like. Disabled is not the same as destroyed. Again, 40k is more like WWI/WW2 for vintage than modern warfare (the Russ even looks like an early tank, esp. without the sponsons). Disabling the tank (but not getting a nuclear explosion) by immobilizing it, jamming the turret, or killing the crew is pretty reasonable.

And the grim darkness of the future may have bulletproof glass in the vision slits, but my marines have laser cutters and bolters (isn't the bolter supposed to be like a 25mm round? that's twice the size of a HMG round!)

all very good points now tanks should have some defense like firing your other weapons at the swarming grunt storm bolter etc.
they should let you fire all weapons and with that at two different targets whats the use for heavy bolter's on the sides if you see a guy with a AT mine but you can't shoot him?

Or say defensive weapons being -- defensive? Like say defensive weapons having an overwatch type mode if infantry are about to assault a vehicle? That would make choosing your assault route important again and also make assaulting a vehicle a somewhat dangerous proposition (as it should be).

Too bad that won't happen.

So what do y'all think is going to be "streamlined" in template/blast weapon rules? I mean, they're pretty streamlined as-is. It would be nice if a bit of hittiness was returned to them without making placement more complicated.


Also- Winterman, I'll be basing a house rule on your suggestion if the assault against vehicle rumors are true. Thanks!

Right now, there's this whole place / resolve / place / resolve thing with multiple templates. That's annoying, and could stand speeding up.

Savnock wrote:Please dear baby Jeebus, don't let anything even vaguely resembling Flank March make it into 5th ed. as a common mission option. Favoring infantry for scoring is one thing, but making them warp across the battlefield to get rear hits on every single tank would doom vehicles for all time.

Oh I dunno... it'd make the new Chaos Possessed slightly less useless.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:Right now, there's this whole place / resolve / place / resolve thing with multiple templates. That's annoying, and could stand speeding up.

Jeez man, that takes too long for you? I've got a new game type you might be interested. before we set up, or get armies out or place terrain, both of us roll a die . Whoever gets higher wins. Game over. Shake hands and go to next game.

The Power Cosmic wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Right now, there's this whole place / resolve / place / resolve thing with multiple templates. That's annoying, and could stand speeding up.

Jeez man, that takes too long for you? I've got a new game type you might be interested. before we set up, or get armies out or place terrain, both of us roll a die . Whoever gets higher wins. Game over. Shake hands and go to next game.

I dislike the current rule for it as well, apart from the agro of trying to find the best place and standing so you are looking straight down, it is also a point of debate in close games about who is or isn't a partial. Hope they go back to last edition where you figure out one blast then just multiply by number of blasts. Id even be happy to see the city fight thing where you don't have use blast markers, but just roll a dice to see how many hits you get, D3 for a small, D6 for a large or something like that, though that does take away from the tactics of spread out/clump up.

Those changes look ridiculous.

They make orks insanely powerful and kill several other builds.
they also seem to completely nerf tanks of all descriptions.
I really hope a lot of those changes aren't true.

Just realized that, with Planetstrike coming out, the nerfing of ground vehicles against CC might be one more reason to snap up (er, convert) some flyer models.

The Power Cosmic wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Right now, there's this whole place / resolve / place / resolve thing with multiple templates. That's annoying, and could stand speeding up.

Jeez man, that takes too long for you?

I've got a new game type you might be interested. before we set up, or get armies out or place terrain, both of us roll a die . Whoever gets higher wins. Game over. Shake hands and go to next game.

No, I don't want to play LotR.

The old way of doing Blasts was better.

The Power Cosmic wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Right now, there's this whole place / resolve / place / resolve thing with multiple templates. That's annoying, and could stand speeding up.

Jeez man, that takes too long for you? I've got a new game type you might be interested. before we set up, or get armies out or place terrain, both of us roll a die . Whoever gets higher wins. Game over. Shake hands and go to next game.

I was sure that rule was going to be in the new Chaos Codex. Perhaps they'll put it in when they revile the Pan-Fo.

5th edition? Sure, maybe. Next you'll perpetuate that lie about plastic cadians. Or a new Ork Codex.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:At the ranges 40k takes place in, tanks really should be fairly vulnerable, but then the range scale of 40k is a bit off in general. Basilisks can fire what, 120"? That's only 240 yards assuming 1" = 6' to scale. That's nothing. The trouble is the game is scaled to play with infantry on a 96 scale yard table.

I want to start playing Epic...

You are confusing model scale with ground scale.

Model scale is easily 5 to 10 times ground scale on average. What I think is that model scale only holds when models are in BtB / HtH. Ground scale increases exponentially or logarithmically with distance. So 1" might be 6 feet. But 12" isn 72 feet - it's 500 feet, and 48" isn't 288 feet - it's a mile or more!

If one wanted 40k to be have consistent model scale and ground scale, then one should be playing 40k with Epic models - at least it would seem somewhat realistic.

That is the silliest thing I have read all day. Do you ever read over what you type to see if it makes sense?

This isn't a fish eye lense model, it's a scale model of "reality". The trouble is they change the distance to make the weapons not have ranges of "yes" like they did in previous editions.

Seriously, do you spend time coming up with this stuff, or do you just shoot from the hip?

puree wrote:but troops aren't gong to win against lists that include other stuff as well. Troops on the whole don't have the Anti-tank/anti-assault/mobility to beat out choices that are often available in fast/elite/heavy

So that means you can show me an all-rounder Eldar build that assuming all the rumours are true can beat footslogger Orks? For example, in 1.85K, the Orks could run a klaw Warboss on Bike, a KFF Mek, 6x30 Shoota Boyz with 3 rokkits and a klaw Nob each, and a couple Deffkoptas or a squad of Lootas if you shave off a couple points elsewhere. What should the Eldar field against that? Any number of Dire Avengers get badly outshot by the Boyz, so I guess your only shot is going with six squads of Jetbikes with Destructor Warlocks, which was my entire point to begin with. Unless you max your troops you won't have a chance in hell, and you still might not have a chance in hell. Orks in that setup are one of the strongest armies in the game already in the 4th edition (although they need a couple more Lootas). A free run move (yeah try coming within 12" of the Ork army to march block them -- the Orks only get faster then since they can all get a free massacre move off you), improved cover saves, weakened vehicle armour in close combat, enemy skimmers suffering penetrating hits, and near everything in the Ork army being scoring and a lot of the opposing armies not being scoring just seals the deal.

You're right that most Troops don't have enough of everything you need, but Ork Boyz and Necron Warriors sure do. Marines of some flavors might have it too. What should you field in 1.85K if you play Necrons? Well like I've already said, a Necron Lord, 66 Warriors and 2 Monoliths should be a nice army. If you're really trying to say that making excellent armies in the 5th edition requires more thought than it does in the 4th edition I think you're sorely mistaken.

JohnHwangDD wrote:It is more baffling why infantry wasn't able to use their flexibility and nimbleness to attack the weak spots.

You don't find it baffling that infantry can attack mobile vehicles in close combat in the first place? A Leopard 2 MBT can go 72 km/h. Try to intercept a vehicle moving 60km/h by running to it and punching it real hard. Even if we imagine that it's somehow possible, you certainly won't be able to take advantage of any weak spots. Attempting something like that would be nothing short of suicidal, so I'd say I find it a little baffling that infantry can attack mobile vehicles in close combat without the huge risk of being run down and killed.

If you need to get a clue what mobile tanks look like, have a look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tbOCJdZ4sQ

Wehrkind wrote:*L* well said, but somewhat innacurate. Most tanks just are not that well armored all over. You have tracks and the wheel carrige that can get mangled, vision slots, that nice little space between the turret and the hull that contains a blast, exhaust ports, and all manner of things.
Another thing to keep in mind is that a big part of the defensive capability of tank armor is the slope that it is set at. Much like a good set of gothic plate, it is designed to deflect shots instead of stopping them cold. That doesn't work as well when someone sticks a bomb on top.

Really, there are a lot of factors, but the take home message is that in real life, tanks are very vulnerable to being swarmed by infantry. That's one reason tanks don't do well in cities and forrests. At the ranges 40k takes place in, tanks really should be fairly vulnerable, but then the range scale of 40k is a bit off in general. Basilisks can fire what, 120"? That's only 240 yards assuming 1" = 6' to scale. That's nothing. The trouble is the game is scaled to play with infantry on a 96 scale yard table. Most soldiers can sprint 100 yards in ~20 seconds or less, and can shoot accurately at that range with a decent rifle. So realistically marines should be able to move 48" and shoot bolters with a 48" range, at least.

I want to start playing Epic...

Scale in 40k is horribly mangled to start with. Leman Russ and Demolisher cannons are damn near the size of deck guns on old-school battleships. They'd be making craters out of the entire table with like two rounds.

Therion, good points. Orks will certainly be broken if this rumour about troops being the only scoring units is true. It will kill list diversity, and change "broken" from one build to another, rectifying nothing. Stupid!

If the ramming rules are anything decent, then troops assaulting a moving vehicle should be in serious trouble, but I'm not hopeful.
40k didn't need a "run" rule anyway, not unless most close combat units were toned down.

Salvation122 wrote:Scale in 40k is horribly mangled to start with.

Remember the Index Astartes article about the Leman Russ MBT? It said the main gun is a 120mm smoothbore tank cannon (same one for example the M1A1 uses in real life). Now, since we know the inside diameter of the gun's barrel, we can figure out the size of the Leman Russ tank. The tank should then be a little more than 1m tall and the only crew who might ever be able to fit inside are Snotlings