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.

So a thought occurred to me today about the rules in the rumoured 5th edition pdf going around. Many of my favourite tactics involve exploiting the "kill zone" that the 4th edition rules create by limiting casualties to engaged models, and that might just be going the way of the conversion beamer in 5th edition. On one hand that's kind of bad, because sometimes killing all the engaged models is the only thing you can do to save a unit from extinction. On the other hand that's kind of good, because sometimes minimizing the number of engaged models is the only thing you can do to save a unit from extinction. However, it occurred to me that things like a Bloodfeeder-armed Lord of Khorne will benefit from the widened selection of casualties. Similarly Orks, with their pathetic Initiative rating, will be able to use their numbers as an advantage against troops that outclass them in every other area. Right now it looks to me like opening up the kill zone to include entire units will level the playing field amongst characteristics like Initiative, Armour, Toughness, Strength, and so on, requiring players to co-ordinate several units in assaults rather than rely on single match-ups between units being won on clever positioning. Of course, part of clever positioning is co-ordinating several units in an assault (something familiar to Eldar players of all stripes, and players of the new Chaos Space Marines) so hopefully this change will discourage the "scream-and-leap" tactic that homogenized gameplay in the 3rd edition.

I think getting rid of kill zones is mainly part of the scheme to bring back hordes and large squad sizes (and by extension, min/maxing).

The unit that seems to be hit hardest by this rule is Harlies. The unit that befits the most is Ork --oh wait, thats an army.

-Leo037

Cypher037 wrote:I think getting rid of kill zones is mainly part of the scheme to bring back hordes and large squad sizes [....]

Rather thinking that getting rid of kill zones is part of the scheme to make 40k overall somewhat more intuitive again to preserve customers (which I welcome for sure!).

Using squads of melee-specialists with killzones to not kill as many enemies as possible due to game-mechanics (enemy turn cc lock) really is counter-intuitive.
So are huge squads that never ever get a single swing back since those harlies manage to clear their killzone...
So are light-armoured fast vehicles (read: antigrav-tanks) which tend to be as easy to hit when moving fast but near invincible when actually hit because of their errr... light armour? Wtf?

So really, to me it seems that GW mostly intends to fix 'bugs' of 4th ed with what is known from 5th.
If they take away kill zones they just enforce those melee troops to do what they are meant for: Kill a maximum number of enemies in cc, period.
Now if they did implement a game mechanic causing you not to be auomatically shot to pieces aka castigated for winning a cc quick for chance, maybe then people would appreciate the aforementioned change more, but maybe that's just silly me wishing for a better world.
As it stands I for one would guess that people will simply take other means of ensuring their cc won't end so soon, so what killzones are to us now could very soon become cautious movement to get as few models to strike in cc as possible.
As for the defender: Since the attacker chooses when and where a cc starts I'd call it reasonable to assume he'd be chosing a good matchup up forces anyway so that those 5 orcs that swing back in 5th but did not so in 4th won't make him loose the squad of harlies.
As for the perspective of the simple trooper an the field of glory: (though I'll exploit kill zones on a regular basis as well) Wanting to kill less foes when they are in front of you, or wanting to fail a leadership test / one more armour save to get wiped out isn't what I'd call tactics but... well... stupid

Khorneflakes

Well it certainly is more real. What I’m not sure about is if it’s really a good change for the game or not. I guess it will encourage large units that were not so viable before, but at the same time it discourages other units. It also seriously penalizes you for being too effective (killing all of your opponent’s troops when you charge). I’ll have to see how it plays out.

Think the killzone removal is good indeed, esp since they upped the price for "hidden" powerfists and reduced their attacks.

Not only is this another step in streamlining everything, it is probably mostly based on selling more miniatures for large CC squads, wich seems to be whats beeing uppet at the moment.

I've gotta join up on the 'good' side of things.

My friend and i have just been teaching a newish 40k player who plays space wolves how its very important that he does not allow his IC to get into base to base contact with any unit he charges.

He rightly scratches his head and asks, well, he has 6 power weapon attacks on the charge, and i can't get those attacks if i am not in base contact with an enemy right? Well, yes that is true friend, but your unit also contains 3 blood claws with power fists, if you attack with your wolf lord, then your opponent will remove models from base contact with your blood claw unit, and you will lose out on 12 power fist attacks.

"Oh, I get it" he says. "So I'm going to start a chaos army now, they don't use ICs."

Another change in the 5th ed close combat section gives a lot of love to ICs with power fists. Something that Imperial Guard desperately needed. The idea that you count up all attackers at the start of the combat, and those guys get to attack unless they are dead, just takes away advantages to micro-managing casualty removal and other slow-playing, tedious, system-gaming tactics.

At high levels of competitive play, there are conga-line charges, meant to tractor beam units away from their current position. their are killzone snipes, where a unit of 10+ models are used to kill a maximum of 2 models (one of which is exponentially more important to the unit). There is the old fashioned 'killzone clear so you can't sweeping advance me'. There are IC isolating casualty removal tactics. All of these 'strategies' are obtuse and counter-intuitive, they are slow, they start arguments, they make players reach for their rulebook, and they are, in almost no accounts, dramatic, cinematic or 'fun'.

Whether bigger units become better is a seperate point. Sure, but outside of imperial guard, I can't currently think of a codex that is light on quality, that can't make up for that with quantity.

I'm forseeing infantry platoons fielded as single units early next year, that will solve IG LOS concerns and make for more respectable counter-assault, pending they get some important leadership special rules.

I see it as taking out another way for skilled players to benefit from being skilled and turning the whole game into just rolling dice to see who wins. That makes the game less fun in my opinion.

Shep wrote:At high levels of competitive play, there are conga-line charges, meant to tractor beam units away from their current position. their are killzone snipes, where a unit of 10+ models are used to kill a maximum of 2 models (one of which is exponentially more important to the unit). There is the old fashioned 'killzone clear so you can't sweeping advance me'. There are IC isolating casualty removal tactics. All of these 'strategies' are obtuse and counter-intuitive, they are slow, they start arguments, they make players reach for their rulebook, and they are, in almost no accounts, dramatic, cinematic or 'fun'.

QUOTED FOR EXTREME TRUTH

Viperion

I don't know skyth, if your tactics are all about kill zone sniping (including doing the same with shooting), that's just not fun. They took this ability out of Fantasy as well (charging a unit of cheap troops into an elite unit in such a way as to limit the casualties the elite unit could cause, i.e. clipping) and I think the game got a lot more tactical cause you couldn't rely on gimmicks like that to win.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Taking the kill zone manipulating out of 40k is just like taking out bonuses for flank/rear charges in Fantasy. There is no longer any reason to maneuver...It's either full speed ahead, stay stationary, or run away. *yawns* Boring if you ask me.

There's plenty of reasons to maneuver: to co-ordinate several units assault a single unit to press an advantage (numbers, synergy, position, capturing an objective, etc), to assault first, to ensure a favourable position upon winning an assault, to prevent several units from assaulting a single one of your own units, open up lines of sight, close lines of sight, and maximize the use of cover. Sure, it's boring in the sense of no-longer having all that mess to micro-manage a bunch of models (apparently some people really really like 'detail'), but it's interesting in the sense that the player's attention is turned to the basic element of the game: the unit. I think it's a case of emphasizing tactics with units rather than tactics with models.

skyth wrote:Taking the kill zone manipulating out of 40k is just like taking out bonuses for flank/rear charges in Fantasy. There is no longer any reason to maneuver...It's either full speed ahead, stay stationary, or run away. *yawns* Boring if you ask me.

http://www.c-pol.com/Fun/CaptainHyperbole.jpg

I haven't got to use that in a while. Plenty of reasons to maneuver Skyth, guns have different ranges, and not all guns exist on the same point on the gaming surface. I am perfectly capable of gaming the system. As are almost all of the gamers I know and game with. It's not a unique skill. What may be unique is having the desire to split the hairs and go the extra mile to find the small advantage, at the cost of a smooth running enjoyable (for both parties) game.

Happy to see the hair-splitting minutia fly away...

I'm with skyth on this one. Removing kill zones basically means, that no matter what you do, charging X unit into Y unit will always produce the same result. I do think removing kill zones makes game play more intuitive. I don't think intuitive game play is a good thing. Why would I want to play a game where every decision I make is natural and obvious (ei: intuitive)?

Daisy-chain charges still work though.

-Leo037

Because the game is played with groups of units, "armies", and not single units? Charging unit X into unit Y will only obtains the same result when taken out of the context of what other units are around, what turn it is, and what your objectives are.

One of my points in the first post is that daisy-chain charges won't work. Your Blood Claw or Death Companion or Genestealer or Carnifex or Chaos Lord or Daemon Prince won't have their attacks get wasted on an empty kill-zone. Units with the Counter-Charge special rule will completely negate it.

Daisy-chain charges won't work as well, but they will still be an effective way charging and minimizing casualties. It still limits the number of attacks you receive, just not the number of casualties possible.

And yes, I do realize 40k is not played in a vacuum, unit vs unit. What I meant was the same result as far as winning the combat is concerned.

-Leo037

I'm with skyth and Cypher037. Removing killzones is a bad thing. Dumbing down the game is a bad thing. Making hordes the only viable choice for CC armies is also a bad thing.

Killzones actually _were_ quite cinematic and explainable IMO. Faster, more able troops carving a swath out of the enemy unit faster than bodies can be piled upon them is both a great image and pretty realistic (as far as ridiculous space fantasy goes). Clearing the killzone was the only way that many ICs could survive a fight against a powerfist squad. It makes elite units playable. It makes powerful characters worth their points-equivalent of flavorless, generic infantry.

Also, any army that pays for high initiative is about to get screwed.

I'm so against it that killzones are going on my list of probable house rules to work into a "playability patch" for 5th to work up and release.

This is not to say that they could not have been done better or improved upon. On that note, do any of you all have suggestions for improvements to the current killzone rules or implementation that would make them more streamlined (or even more realistic)?

And frankly, screw the kiddies. Let them play with GI Joes until they can take enough ADD medication to read the damned rules. That's not GW's view, of course. In all seriousness, I think they underestimate the intelligence (and lurking ruleslawyerism) of their younger market.

I dunno, rushing 2 deadly characters into something and never leaving anyone to strike back was quite stupid requiring almost no intelligence and almost impossible to stop.

Also notice the new powerfist price and the fact that additional CC attacks are now gone.. marines pay 40 pts for 2 pfist attacks.

Only "negative thing" i can agree with is that the value of I is actually lower then what you probably pay for it right now.

Kallbrand wrote:I dunno, rushing 2 deadly characters into something and never leaving anyone to strike back was quite stupid requiring almost no intelligence and almost impossible to stop.

Also notice the new powerfist price and the fact that additional CC attacks are now gone.. marines pay 40 pts for 2 pfist attacks.

Only "negative thing" i can agree with is that the value of I is actually lower then what you probably pay for it right now.

No, rushing 2 deadly characters into combat does actually require quite a bit of thinking, because with the points those 2 characters cost, opponents either bought a metric ton of grunts or their own deadly characters. If those 2 deadly characters get swamped, they're still screwed. It's just that they can actually hit hard on the turn that they charge, rather than going directly into attrition mode. Characters need to be kept on the move, or they die. It does actually take finesse- especially if they are attacking without a supporting unit. And if powerfists can always hit back against them, forget about characters being fielded period.

And it's not just "deadly characters" who get screwed by the removal of killzones-it's elite troops too. Elite units can't wipe out anything that can reach them before the enemy hits back. Then any unit of 20+ automatically beats any unit of 10. Strking first is meant to remove those opponents that can hit you back, not simply lessen their numbers by an often-inconsequential amount. Rough Riders get screwed by the change. Banshees get screwed. Anyone who fights Orks gets screwed. Not to be alarmist, but I see this devolving the game significantly and removing many of these flavorful units from competitive play in favor of boring. gigantic units of grunts.

As for powerfists, those aren't the only things that get nastier (non-removable) with no killzones. Powerweapons, special weapon troopers, _multiple_ powerfists- all these things will now die last. All the time. And hit back regardless of how hard their unit got pummeled. LAME.

Kallbrand, I asked for constructive suggestions for alternative rules, not unsupported qualifications of something as "requiring almost no intelligence." Pointing out that powerfists cost more per hit doesn't mean that elite units aren't getting screwed, or that the rule that we're discussing isn't broken.

Again, does anyone have suggestions for ways to get rid of annoying killzone hedging, but still get the benefits of the rule?

"Kill-zone hedging" only works if you're taking on units in assaults on a 1:1 basis. Don't expect single units to beat single units in assaults. Always go for a 2:1 advantage, 3:1 if you have the units. Use fast units like Jump Infantry to hit the flank while Infantry (or a Dreadnought) hits the front.

As for "daisy chains", those are pretty easily dealt with under the 5th edition rules because you can engage a single model with many models and benefit from their attacks causing casualties across the entire unit, and all models don't fall out of engagement because of casualties at a higher Initiative band. The benefit of reducing the number of incoming attacks is far outweighed by reducing the number of outgoing attacks proportionately further. Putting a unit into a dense formation will make it virtually immune to daisy-chains, at the risk of being vulnerable to blast weapons but making hard choices like those should happen. Another trick is to defend difficult terrain so that the attacker cannot control exactly where her models will end up in the assault (supposing they make it that far).

Cypher037 wrote:I'm with skyth on this one. Removing kill zones basically means, that no matter what you do, charging X unit into Y unit will always produce the same result. I do think removing kill zones makes game play more intuitive. I don't think intuitive game play is a good thing. Why would I want to play a game where every decision I make is natural and obvious (ei: intuitive)?
-Leo037

As far as that goes, I don't see why charging unit x into unit y shouldn't tend to produce a statistically likely result. That is the sort of thing that tactics can be built on. The current kill-zone rules allow for to much silly dancing around and selective casualty removal when they should be about killing as many of the other guys as possible, period. Sure close combat currently allows players to strategically shield their unit from fire, but that shouldn't be the main purpose of it. I'm all for giving close combat units special post-massacre movement, because that would encourage players to actually use their close combat units aggressively!

Horde close combat troops should have certain advantages over elite specialists. Even if they kill the orks in their immediate vicinity, if there are more orks to jump into their spots, then eventually the elites should be mobbed to death. Units will have to win close combats based on their pure killiness, and not on how artfully the player can charge one or two of his people against a couple of the other guy's.

Also if it is still in the rules, then won't the random distribution of all attacks make it hard for players to protect their power fists, especially when being charged by an elite unit that can throw out a ton of attacks?

Just a question?

Removing kill zones just seems like it will make combat flat and unsuspenseful.

Also, removing kill zones undeniably nerfs small elite squads. Regardless of the other perceived merits of removing kill zones, this should be an unacceptable and obvious flaw. To need to be a horde to be good in close combat is unthinkably dumb.

I'm not saying the current system is perfect -far from it. I just think scraping instead of revising it is the wrong way to fix it.

Furthermore, the I stat is more or less useless now. If you still get to attack, even if I kill you, then whats the point of rolling my dice first?

-Leo037

Cypher037 wrote:Furthermore, the I stat is more or less useless now. If you still get to attack, even if I kill you, then whats the point of rolling my dice first?

The guys you kill won't attack back. Sure, if the guy you just clobbered down has 20 buddies with him, you will still get some blows back. But if your Banshee squad attacks a marine squad and kills some of them first, maybe even forcing the fist to make a save, then the higher Initiative was helpful.

The example Shep stated summed it up pretty nicely. Kill-zones seemed like a necessary evil that you use if you got used to it, but then it became pretty much automatic. Nothing I call a big shiny tactic.

Greets
Schepp himself

I like, very much, the establishment of who is engaged at the beginning of the phase, and then everyone gets to swing who was engaged. I though the ability to counter-intuitively deny someone attacks by pulling just the right model was dumb, even if I was good at it.

However, I really dislike the removal of the kill-zone, as I also believe that it renders initiative fairly useless compared to simply running more men.

Eldar/Dark Eldar/Stealers suffer the most for this. Units that had a good punch and good initiative, but only so-so toughness/saves are going to get hammered if they cannot avoid return attacks. Orks benefit greatly though.

I eagerly await the removal of kill-zones, but only for the speed of play. Measuring who was within 2" of whom and who was eligible to attack whom could be a laborious process sometimes, and anything to speed up the game is favorable to me. Faster games sometimes means more games for me, especially with so little time between school and work.

Small units of Elite close combat specialists are still quite effective. You just can't expect them to take out large units of Troop close combat specialists easily and on their own. The simple solution, or at least the one requiring some tactical acumen on the part of players, is to hit one large unit with several small units so that the large unit is overwhelmed by the attacks. Even better, hit the large unit with one large unit of your own, and a small elite unit to do the lion's work of killing.

Incidentally when casualties are not limited to engaged models, players will still need to check which models are engaged and thus can attack. Measuring who is within 2" of an enemy and eligible to attack will be business as usual.

Nurglitch, the problem is still that those several small units of elites cost far, far more than the equivalent number of grunts. Especially Orks.

That's a good point about engaged only striking back. Unfortunately, it still doesn't address special weapon troopers always miraculously surviving. As Samwise points out (to a different end, though), statistically average results should be common. Having the special weapons _never_ die until enough casualties have been inflicted to cover the whole unit isn't statistically average.

I think Redbeard stated the problem (both for those who do and those who do not want to see killzones go) concisely and well:

Redbeard wrote:I like, very much, the establishment of who is engaged at the beginning of the phase, and then everyone gets to swing who was engaged. I though the ability to counter-intuitively deny someone attacks by pulling just the right model was dumb, even if I was good at it.

However, I really dislike the removal of the kill-zone, as I also believe that it renders initiative fairly useless compared to simply running more men.

Eldar/Dark Eldar/Stealers suffer the most for this. Units that had a good punch and good initiative, but only so-so toughness/saves are going to get hammered if they cannot avoid return attacks. Orks benefit greatly though.

So far, everyone on this thread is restating the problem/lack of a problem. What's a good soultion, though- a fix or substitute rule that's fairly realistic and fast? Something that avoids denying counterattacks with a single model pull, but also makes engaged special weapons as likely to die as anyone else?

What about units that are engaged at the start of combat being able to strike even if models in base-to-base with them are pulled at a higher Initiative, unless the killzones are completely cleared? This prevents the unrealistic situation of troops still in arm's reach, but not being reachable. Does that seem correct, and a good idea? It also retains killzones taking out specific models (and thus sniping), which to me actually seems a plus. That's debatable, though. Please have at it.

Anyone else? Anyone? Bueler?

The solution is easy.

1) Figure out who all is engaged at the beginning of the phase. These models are legal casualties, and, if they're alive at their initiative round, get to swing.

2) Allocate wounds as per the proposed 5th ed rules, prior to making saves.

3) If a special weapon guy or sgt. gets a wound allocated to him and he fails his save, he dies. Allow the "you may remove an identical model (statline+equipment)" clause, only within the bounds of engaged models.

Why is that so hard to figure out? It's easy enough to figure out. It should play fast enough, as your special guys will only take saves separately when there are a lot of wounds involved, and every other save can be essentially interchanged. It stops model-pulling tricks, but it doesn't render initiative useless either.

D'oh- I was editing in my solution as you posted yours. You thought of that solution first. Sorry! It's good to see that we're thinking along the same lines, though.

Looks like a good solution. Anyone have a better suggestion, or improvements to that one?

Savnok: So? Small elite units hit harder as well, and in the case of Eldar they are more mobile and more resistant to incoming fire. The fact that they cost more is immaterial. For example suppose that two two-hundred-and-fifty point units are faced with five one-hundred point units, each of which out-numbers them 2:1 so that in total they are outnumbered 5:1. So? The smaller attacking units will outnumber each bigger defending unit 4:1 points wise and if the former lose a twenty-five point model for every handful of five point models in the latter in 1:1 combat, then that's alright: that's equilibrium.

Indeed my point in posting this thread was to point out that because casualties are no longer restricted to engaged models, large units of relatively weaker troops can be destroyed by small units of relatively stronger troops. A Khorne Lord with a Bloodfeeder, or a unit of Chaos Terminator Champions with an Icon of Khorne and Lightening Claws can go 1:1 with large units of cheap troops like Orks because they have so many attacks and resist so well.

Take the example of the Howling Banshees: three attacks per Banshee with Power Weapons is going to put some serious hurt on a unit of Space Marines if those Space Marines can't rely on minimizing the number of Space Marines in the engagement zone. Striking Scorpions will do the same for Orks, with their heavier armour being more capable of resisting the surviving Ork attacks.

Add in the vulnerability of large units of troops to shooting, as they cannot use cover as effectively by the 5th edition rules and small elite units have a parity with equivalent points worth of large regular units - the large unit has an advantage in stamina, and the small unit has an advantage in, well, everything else.

If you've played Epic: Armageddon, or just down lots of play-testing of the 5th edition rules, you'll notice that the method of allocating hits really doesn't permit players to hit special models within units, particularly when you're hitting that unit with more than one unit of elite assault troops. In particular if you apply a number of hits equal to the number at each Initiative step, the special weapon troops have to take more and more saving throws as they survive which is rather like rolling a number of dice and choosing the lowest - it maximizes the chances they'll fail a saving throw.

The only 'solution' players need where 5th edition close combat is concerned (or at least that presented in the pdf going around) is to focus on learning what Epic: Armageddon players already know - units need to 2:1 odds to make an assault acceptably risky, and 3:1 odds to minimize the risk.

The point is that an equal point value of elites will likely loose against a an equal point value of horde unless the elites can control the kill zone.