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.

dietrich wrote: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!)

It's .75 calibre, so roughly 20mm, which makes it a light anti-vehicle round. For example, the Vulcan, the cannon used on every American fighter since the F-4, is 20mm. A bolt-shell is also some kind of weird APDS/HE combination, so it really shouldn't have any trouble at all popping rear armor on most tanks (and should straight-up kill any living thing it hits through sheer blunt force trauma, but that's neither here nor there.)

[length and tangent alert...]

Wehrkind wrote:

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?

Wehrkind, the numbers that JohnHwangDD is using might be off, but what he's saying makes sense. JohnHwangDD may not have expressed it in a manner you care for, so I'd like to reword it. This isn't a challenge, but an attempt to explain something that I've heard lots of other 40K players float around when discussing the strange scale of the game. As you get the fish-eye model John suggests, I see you've got that part. The bit that's sort of perplexing is why anyone would change distance scales, and more importantly whether there's a change between literal interpretation of models with that change in scale as well. This last bit is the weird part, but I hope this sounds right:

40K is a compromise between a visually interesting scale (30mm) and a realistic modern warfare scale (5mm). It's an inconsistent mix of the two that has been balanced for ease of play rather than realism. The 30mm element is stronger, but the 5mm element is also pretty clearly part of it. It's as if distance is contracted when considering the ranges of guns and movement across the battlefield (allowing lots of units on a small surface) and then brought to a more literal representation (for 30mm) when the models close with each other.

Acknowledging that real ballistic ranges would make eye-appealing models difficult to render (when scaled for a playing surface convenient for play inside anything smaller than an aircraft hangar), 40K strikes a compromise. The distances are accurate for modern weapons at something like 5mm scale, but the bigger models are used as markers. You might call this the "figurative" scale. When considering the game at this scale, each model can also be considered to represent more than one actual trooper of it's type. This is the weird part that I don't quite get myself, but I've heard the same logic applied to WHFB. Each spearman model is actually 5-10 of his type, as spear blocks of 10 are pretty useless. 50 to 100 is a more likely number. Similarly, those 10 marines crossing the 24" before they close with the enemy are actually several squads of the same type.

At this point, the 5mm system fails, though. 40K players want to see exactly what options are on which model, as it's more dramatic to play with and more interesting to model for that. It is assumed that when they get close to the enemy the action "zooms in" and the literal model-by-model view kicks in. The other squads represented are assumed to be fighting elsewhere. It's like an RTS that zooms in on one squad that you can then take over.

With unique models like characters and the addition of things like LOS around obstacles included to make the modeling aspect of the game more important, the figurative 5mm scale is ditched for the 30mm scale (a "literal" scale). Reversion to 30mm scale occurs whenever it comes in handy- like determining LOS, etc. In situations where tighter confines make a completely 30mm scale system possible (like hand-to-hand or COD), the system becomes almost completely 30mm (kill zones, movement through buildings, etc.) But when it comes to guns, the 30mm scale is unrealistic to the point of ridiculousness. While the abstraction required to think of the models as oversized markers on a 5mm battlefield fails to allow detail like heavy weapon models, it's not bad for reasoning around why a Marine can only run 30' per 5 seconds, or why rifle bullets fall out of the air at 50 yards.

Thus the chimerical fusion of the two scales. At range, things can be thought of as mostly 5mm and representative, except for LOS. As soon as you get closer in, it's one model equals one man, and yes that building really is 10 termagants high. In fact, it _is_ a fish-eye lens model, as you mentioned. It's one that includes changes in not only scale, but literal interpretation of models as well.

That's just my reasoning, but it's informed by several (admittedly very beery) discussions on just that topic over the last couple decades. It might be an overly complicated abstraction, but it's also something to think about everytime I'm like "HMGs that shoot 250 feet? WTF?!".

Sorry to go so far OT, but it's an interesting topic. If more discussion is in store, maybe we should start a different thread.

Wehrkind wrote:

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.

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!

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?

Are you stupid, slowed, or what?

40k isn't even close to being a scale game, much less some kind of accurately scaled time-motion simulation. The idea that a 40k battle occurs in a space as small as a football field is completely ludicrious. It's highly abstracted with mutable distances and floating time scales.

FYI, you don't have to agree with my posts. But if you're going to respond like you're doing, I'm going to respond in kind.

Savnock wrote:40K is a compromise between a visually interesting scale (30mm) and a realistic modern warfare scale (5mm).

"HMGs that shoot 250 feet? WTF?!"

Exactly. 40k wants to have nice, big models. But it wants to be playable on a 4' x 6' board. The two cannot be reconciled sensibly without something giving way, which is model vs ground scale consistency.

For me, what kills me is how the biggest, baddest Imperial Tank in the 40k universe would have a range of only about 150 yards, when a WW2 tank / anti-tank engagements, might engage at ranges of 500 meters to 2 km. And then you have Cold War era stuff like the Soviet 2S7 Pion - indirect fire range is 37-47 km, not 500m.

Anyhow, if one were to play a true scale 30mm (1/80 scale) game, you'd need an actual football field to play it on, because that's how far scale cannons fire and how far skimmers would actually move. If you shrank the battle to the tiny 4'x6' boards we play on, there would never be any vehicles - it'd be pure squad combat.

On the other hand, if one were to play a properly-scaled 5mm (1/300) scale game, the models are so tiny you'd never be able to tell one model from another. And even that would be overscale...

So 40k splits the difference. When models are close (i.e. HtH), you pretend model scale is correct. When the are far apart, you revert more towards ground scale. And then you presume some intermediate result for models between the extremes.

FWIW, 40k isn't the only game like this. Pirates of the Spanish Main was similarly funny. You have guys arguing about how the ships need to tack into the wind, but ignoring how they scale relative to 3" long islands. Those 2" long ships are not docking at the worlds smallest islands. If PotSM were played at model scale, the whole set of islands could be explored by rowboat!

Wehrkind wrote:

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?

I agree with the exponential scale of gun ranges. A giant laser cannon can only shoot twice as far as a standard bolt rifle, which can only shoot twice as far as a pistol, which can only shoot twice as far as you can throw a demolition charge??... It’s definitely exponential.

But back to the point of the post. I think Troops being the only scoring units would be a huge mistake. Most “Fast Attack” choices are designed to be units that would speed ahead of the main force and secure an area. It also creates weird situations like “this 10 man Marine unit can hold an objective because it has one heavy weapon. But this 10 man Marine unit can’t hold an objective because it has 4 heavy weapons”... Game balance is one thing. But you don’t have to screw up the game with irrational game mechanics in order to accomplish it.

~Logic

Therion wrote:So that means you can show me an all-rounder Eldar build that assuming all the rumours are true can beat footslogger Orks?

[...] 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.

What? where did I say there was more to army creation than now - you must have been reading someone elses post. I said that your argument that you max out on troops and only get other stuff with spare points was hyperbole. i.e. That whilst troops look like having more emphasis on them doesn't mean that everything else will be ignored until you run out of troops to take.

What woud your propsed 1500 ork list look like. Warboss and ~160 boyz? You can't max out troops so there are no spare points. I seriously doubt every one is going to forgo some lootas, or stormboyz or whatever just because they are 'non-scoring'. We will quite probably see less maxing out on them, but that is not the same thing.

As for creating a list based on all the current rumours, As I've indicated in other threads, what an utter waste of time. Half the rumours are so vague that even if they were true we wouldn't actually know what rule we are looking at. Some areas have multiple rumours that can't all be correct. And we don't know which areas might have changed but haven't been noted yet. I'll wait till the new rules come out (leak or release) before getting carried away creating lists.

Having only Troops act as scoring units just does not make any sense at all. I would imagine this is simply a misunderstanding of what was said or heard or read.

I can believe GW not allowing vehicles to hold objectives, which would mainly halt all the skimmers moving 24'+ in the last turn and win the game. (Land Speeders, Vypers, Falcons). CoD works somewhat in this fashion (from my limited experience with CoD)

What would also be silly is not allowing Jump Infantry/Bikes to hold objectives despite their improved movement modes. (Jetbikes, Assault Marines, Raptors, Destroyers etc...)

puree wrote:What woud your propsed 1500 ork list look like. Warboss and ~160 boyz?

I find this disturbing. In my question to you, I posted a proposed 1.85K Ork list, and yet you didn't see it or chose to ignore it. Selective reading? Same goes for JohnHwangDD, who simply ignores posters who point out holes in his arguments. Does it matter what my proposed 1.5K list would be like? I'll entertain you: Warboss, KFF mek, 120-150 Shoota Boyz, 1 unit of Lootas or Snikrot's Kommandos. Basically like I said, 75%-85% of the emphasis on troops, and one support unit. Flexible, resilient, powerful, but not interesting.

i just hope my SW dont get nerfed and lose all thioer snazzy rules and hopefully they bring back rhino rush for marines. I meen come on if they cant jump out of a moving vehicle what kind of lame superhumans are they??

with the template rules there is no problem with them.
i may have missed it in the rumors are they going to fix ,mend IC rule ?

Therion wrote:

puree wrote:What woud your propsed 1500 ork list look like. Warboss and ~160 boyz?

I find this disturbing. In my question to you, I posted a proposed 1.85K Ork list, and yet you didn't see it or chose to ignore it. Selective reading? Same goes for JohnHwangDD, who simply ignores posters who point out holes in his arguments. Does it matter what my proposed 1.5K list would be like? I'll entertain you: Warboss, KFF mek, 120-150 Shoota Boyz, 1 unit of Lootas or Snikrot's Kommandos. Basically like I said, 75%-85% of the emphasis on troops, and one support unit. Flexible, resilient, powerful, but not interesting.

I explained why I wasn't going to get into 'write a list' based on rumours - That was the point of your 1850 point army - asking me to write a similar eldar list, so I didn't ignore it. You just choose to ignore why I wasn't bothered about putting up 1850pt lists based on vague rumour.

I know you play in 1500 pt tourneys (or you did, I'm assuming you still do) so yes 1500 pts is relevant. So would you do what you say and only take non-troops after you have maxed out the troops. Cleary you didn't above in the rought list outlined. I doubt it the vast majority of people would. Your original post (that this argument was about) was hyperbole - that is you were exagerating the affect of a troop only scoring rumour by claiming people would now max out troops for all armies before using the left over points for other stuff. I can't see your post about 75-85% on troops (another thread maybe?), only the one about not spending anything on non-troops until you've maxed troops out.

PS as to interesting. What is interesting about any other list you post? Don't take that the wrong way, the point is you post tourney lists, where the point is to win. There is nothing any more interesting in those lists than the one above. They are just a collection of units that you think will max your chance of winning. That is exactly the same as the 2 rough ork lists you have outlined above. There wil be just as much discussion on optimising every last point spent under 5th as there was under 4th, troop only scores doesn't change that, it just changes the parameters of what is good or bad in an optimised list.

puree wrote:that is you were exagerating the affect of a troop only scoring rumour by claiming people would now max out troops for all armies before using the left over points for other stuff.

Okay, I get it. You ignore my questions to you and the lists that I posted as concrete examples of my opinion, and focus on the single false idea that I have supposedly advocated everyone to unconditionally take six full squads of troops with all possible upgrades before spending points on anything else. You want to draw attention away from the fact that I was right. Voodoo Boyz who replied in the beginning didn't have any trouble understanding what I stated. You're either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding what I said, or playing dense and sticking literally to my very first post regarding these rumours. I also said:

Therion wrote:It's all abouts troop choices now, for every army. You max your troop choices (within reason) and then you see how many points you got left. My new, incredibly interesting speedpaint 5th edition tournament army in 1.5K is Necron Lord with Orb and Veil, 46 Necron Warriors and 2x Monolith.

Does that look to you like six full squads of Warriors? You max out your troops choices within reason, depending on the points limit and the army in question. Did you notice me saying that Orks, Necrons and maybe some Marines are flexible enough to pull this off and because of that will be at a massive advantage? When you play 1000 point games you don't try to take six full squads of troops. Get a grip man.

Therion wrote:
Okay, I get it. You ignore my questions to you

More hyperbole?

I don't believe I've ignored a single question from you. I may not have answered in the way you'd like - e.g. producing a list based on pure speculation as to what the rumours might mean. As far as I can see you asked 2 actual questions of me. I answered both.

question 1 - Are you completely missing my point? I answered that.

No i didn't miss your point. Yes more emphasis on troops looks like how it is going to be if the rumour is true, but...

question 2 - What should the Eldar field against that? I answered that.

As for creating a list based on all the current rumours, As...

Da Boss wrote: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.

Ditto.

I'm thinking I'll leave off my Guard and paint Empire a bit. If all these changes are true, I'd probably sit out and play 4th until 6th gets released in 2012.

These rumours may not be true, or they could be incomplete and there could be other changes that will moderate the effects.

Otherwise it is a massive kick in the nuts for Tau who have the least effective troops in the game and will get their vehicles nerfed as well, and have a recent codex which does not fit the new format but won't get updated for several years.

GW's record on well-thought out rules changes that affect game balance is not reassuring.

I'll probably regret asking, but what's your definition of 'effective troops', KK? I only ask as people seem very quick to dismiss 80% of the troops in the game as somehow 'not worthy'. I call Theoryhammer on yous guys

A nice eldar list to beat ork hordes is based around bikes, falcons and vypers all with a lot of shuriken cannons, along with Dire Avengers to clean up the units that are still scoring. It's quite a chore to play against.

@Troeador its off topic someone seen blade runner lol sorry just read your sig

The new directors cut is out,.. and it is nice

I think once people play against orks, they won't be near what people say they are. They WILL be competitive though...

Tribune wrote:I'll probably regret asking, but what's your definition of 'effective troops', KK? I only ask as people seem very quick to dismiss 80% of the troops in the game as somehow 'not worthy'. I call Theoryhammer on yous guys

Effective troops should have a range of options for combat using H2H and/or ranged weapons, plus mobility and survivability in terms of numbers, armour and morale. Not many armies have all of that in one package but most armies have more of it than Tau.

There is a reason why Tau tournament lists often feature the minimum possible troops.

Kilkrazy wrote:Effective troops should have a range of options for combat using H2H and/or ranged weapons, plus mobility and survivability in terms of numbers, armour and morale.

Ahh, interesting. I'd call that more idealistic than anything else. As you say yourself, you're not going to see that combination often, so I think comparing Tau to that standard is a little unfair.

Kilkrazy wrote:Not many armies have all of that in one package but most armies have more of it than Tau.

Are we talking about other troops units 'having more of it' or other armies in general? I think you mean the former, but am asking the question honestly. If so, comparing one army's troop choices directly to another's in isolation is still a flawed concept IMHO.

Kilkrazy wrote:There is a reason why Tau tournament lists often feature the minimum possible troops.

I think that is the same reason as many other lists do the same. Because the perception is there are better spend options available elsewhere, rather than Tau troops not being 'effective'. Of course, this could all be a case of semantics. But steering back onto topic, the reason I asked is because if troops are actually to be more effective by virtue of being able to hold objectives, perhaps it's worth humouring the idea that Tau troops are not so bad? It may just become the case that rather than sinking points into stealth suits, crisis suits etc., people see their troops (Tau or otherwise) as worthwhile.

Which sounds a lot like what the designers have in mind. QED and all that

What I mean is that most other armies have troops options (I am talking about Troops that will according to rumour be able to capture objectives in 5th edition) that are more effective than Tau Fire Warriors because they have H2H weapons, heavy ranged weapons, bigger numbers, better morale and so on.

For example Orks have decent H2H and numbers to compensate for their low armour and poor shooting. IG have numbers, heavy weapons, some access to H2H weapons and upgrades for morale and armour save. SMs arguably have everything but cost a lot.

In my view it is perfectly reasonable to compare troops from different armies in relation to their ability to take and hold an objective, if this is going to be the focus of the game.

There is also an issue of contribution to overall army effectiveness and points balance. Because FWs are very vulnerable to H2H and cannot carry heavy weapons, increasing the proportion of them in the army makes it more vulnerable to assault and less able to deal with MEqs and vehicles because it absorbs points needed for Crisis suits. My worry is that the effect of this is less exaggerated in other armies because other troops do not have these disadvantages to such an extent.

Kroot should be a help of course.

That's a fair response. I do think your view excludes the idea already posited that troops don't necessarily have to take the objective, they have to be able to hold it. And if some other part of the Tau codex will allow you to take an objective, then comparing the FW unit in isolation with other armies' troops is unfair.

But that's just how I see it. I do agree that I feel for the Tau's need to field heavier weapons via other more specialised units, but I think it's a challenge inherent in their style, not a defining factor of their army list & it's validity.

I think Fire Warriors are great for their points, but I see your issue that they can't bulk out to nearer 20 per squad like a number of other troops choices.

Well, an army with troops that can take an objective as well as hold it would be at an advantage compared to an army whose troops rely on other units to take the objective. I don't think anyone's arguing that the non-Tau armies have useless non-Troop units.

There will always be tactics.

FW's could easily be helped by making Rapid Fire range half of maximum rather than the current 12 inches (nothing about that in the rumours but I can dream.)

Is this about right for troops?

Chaos
Chaos Space Marines
Khorne Berzerkers
Noise Marines
Plague Marines
Summoned Lesser Daemons
Thousand Sons

Daemonhunters
Grey Knights
Inquisitorial Stormtroopers

Dark Eldar
Raider Squad
Warrior Squad

Eldar
Dire Avengers
Guardian Jetbike Squadron
Guardian Squad
Rangers

Imperial Guard
Armoured Fist
Conscripts
Infantry Platoons
(is there a doctrine to allow other units as troops?)

Necrons
Warriors

Tau
Fire Warrior
Kroot squad

Tyranid
Gaunt Brood
Genestealers
Hormagaunts

Witch Hunters
Arbites
Battle Sisters
Inquisitorial Stormtroopers
Zealots

Orks
Boyz Squads
Can be Nobz
Can be Bikerz

Dark Angels
Tactical Squads
Can be Terminators
Can be Ravenwing bikers

Space Marines
Probably change with new dex
Tactical Squads
Scouts

Blood Angels
Assault Squad
Tactical Squad

Guard can have Stormtroopers as troops, Orks can have Dreads. Zealots aren't in the WH codex.

Therion wrote:JohnHwangDD, who simply ignores posters who point out holes in his arguments.

Pretending that you actually had something sensible within your argument, it wouldn't have been ignored.

You need to keep in mind that:
1. This is almost entirely opinion and perspective.
2. I'm not obliged to respond, particularly if I think the post is badgering or foolish.

IMO, the notion of comparing Troops in isolation seems mistaken. Troops will always be fielded with minimum of 1 HQ, and likely with other supporting units.

Second, the notion of including older Codices magnifies the problem, because they were designed under a totally different play concept (stand & shoot for VPs vs maneuver Scoring Troops to Objective).

So it would be appropriate to compare Tau Warriors & Kroot with CSM / Cult Marines, along with Eldar Jetbikes / Guardians / Rangers / Avengers. Within an overall Codex context, I don't think any army suffers too much.

One thing is certain is that the reshuffle will force players to rethink how much the spend on Scoring Troops vs supporting non-Troops, and how they should play. Tactically, there are a lot of interesting challenges associated with the change, far more than just firing away with Heavy Support, then bounding Fast Attack choices on Turn 6, while having 2 minimum Troops to contest one's own table quarters.

And for all those complaining how they lose their Assault Marines scoring, meh, it washes out against Chaos Bikers and Obliterators.

I think 5th Edition is going to be very exciting.

Maybe in fifth edition they should just make a "Counts
as Troops" upgrade that raises the points costs of certain
units if you want to use them to claim objectives.

Actually, Malfred, I'm already dreading the launch of 5th Ed followed by the new loyalist SM codex with the convenient rule that all Marine infantry & jump infantry count as scoring units for holding objectives, thanks to their intense training and versatility blah blah blah...

OK, I thought I'd be cynical for a moment and see how it sat. I'm over it now, honest.