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.

Brother SRM wrote:It was terrible. 5th edition 40k treats meched up close combat armies really well, and they certainly don't need the help.

Fixed that for you.

Katie Drake wrote:I'm actually not completely sure what you're getting at with the second sentence. Do you mean that it's bad for shooty units to be in transports because then the entire unit can't fire at the same time? I'm a bit confused.

In general, yes, you do get more utility from a shooting unit when you keep them out of the transport as a general rule. Why would you keep your unit of Long Fangs in their razorback or your Dark Reapers in their Wave Serpent as a standard goto tactic? You've just turned an expensive unit due to weapon and ability upgrades into the cheapest unit in your respective army for a turn as you're not doing anything with them. Do transport benefit shooty armies? Sure. Do they benefit assault based ones more? I certainly think so. Assault doesn't need a boost IMO compared to what it currently does. The 3rd edition days of consolidating into another assault with custom daemon princes and other units was one of the things that killed 40k in my old area for a few years. If they bring that crappy rule back, they'd better significantly buff shooting as well as it'll need it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

terranarc wrote:For Drake's point, imo there's a huge imbalance between jump-pack-marine cost and rhino cost but less visible for blood angles. I would say this has more to do with unit cost in a way. It's most visible for chaos raptors (and I'd count those silly eldar swooping hawks in but they're not exclusively CC rush oriented like most jump jet units) where you simply get too little bang for buck. If they don't put in combat consolidation, but have all these crazy charge reactions, it'll just nerf them more.

So what you're saying is that units designed in 4th edition have suffered somewhat compared with their decreased-cost brethren in newer codicies put out in 5th edition and will even moreso in the radically different 6th edition rules proposed here? That's not a rules problem but simply an issue of an outdated codex no longer in tune with the last half dozen offerings; the solution is to update both codicies as they're built/costed for a ruleset 2 editions out of date.

warboss wrote:

Katie Drake wrote:I'm actually not completely sure what you're getting at with the second sentence. Do you mean that it's bad for shooty units to be in transports because then the entire unit can't fire at the same time? I'm a bit confused.

In general, yes, you do get more utility from a shooting unit when you keep them out of the transport as a general rule. Why would you keep your unit of Long Fangs in their razorback or your Dark Reapers in their Wave Serpent as a standard goto tactic? You've just turned an expensive unit due to weapon and ability upgrades into the cheapest unit in your respective army for a turn as you're not doing anything with them. Do transport benefit shooty armies? Sure. Do they benefit assault based ones more? I certainly think so. Assault doesn't need a boost IMO compared to what it currently does. The 3rd edition days of consolidating into another assault with custom daemon princes and other units was one of the things that killed 40k in my old area for a few years. If they bring that crappy rule back, they'd better significantly buff shooting as well as it'll need it.

Okay, obviously units that specialize in firing multiple, long-ranged, expensive guns aren't going to want to get into a transport that has limited fire points, I'd say that it's pretty much common sense to not put Devastators into a Rhino. What about Tactical Squads? Guard Infantry squads? Grey Hunters, Dark Eldar Warriors, the sorts of units that are the meat of an army? They all go in transports which protects them a ton from everything, both shooting and assault. There's no way that a Rhino helps an Assault Squad as much as it helps a Tactical Squad, it's about protection. When you're driving into the enemy's face with a Rhino-borne assault unit, it almost inevitably dies because smart players know to stun, immobilize or destroy it to prevent the assault unit from hitting home. Assault needs help in a big way, because the difficulty of actually reaching assault isn't worth the payoff right now. They need to bring back consolidating into combat to make going through the hell of reaching close combat worthwhile. I already talked about how smart players can stop a single unit from tearing through their entire army in a previous post.

warboss wrote:

Necrosis wrote:
But in the end your still shooting and not assaulting? Which is the main point Katie Drake was making.

Why on earth would I assault with a purpose built shooty army? Transports don't automatically change the inherent purpose of an army build. Her point is that assault based forces are at a disadvantage currently (with transports contributing to that imbalance) and I vehemently disagree with that notion.

Okay, I see your point. Which I disagree with. Transports help shooting armies more then assault armies. When a unit exits a vehicle it cannot assault unless it is open top (in which case its easy to kill the vehicle) or be is a lot of points (land raiders or stormravens). Also a shooting unit can fire all its weapons by simply getting out of the vehicle (or if the vechile is open top) or can choose to fire its special weapons instead. To sum it up:
Shooting Unit inside a transport: can fire weapons
Assault unit inside a transport: does nothing
Shooting unit gets out of a trasnport: can fire weapons
Assault unit gets out of a trasnport: does nothing (unless its open topped or has a special rule).
Also if something happens to the vechile (stun, immobilized, wreck...etc) shooting armies can just get out and still do their job while the assault armies have to go across the table.

Jackmojo wrote:

Lockark wrote:To me these new Wound Allocation rules feel more clunky then the ones we already have.

Who knows how it actually works though, it could be a simple variation on the easy 4th edition system with the added caveat of "for each failed save remove the closest model to the attacking unit, rechecking distance as necessary as models are removed" or something similar. Personally this sort of rule will give a small bit of increased value to rapid fire guns vs melee hordes as you can effectively reduce the potential assaulter movement by whittling away their lead elements, something hitherto impossible in 40k, but I would say very 'realistic/cinematic'.

I'll also observe that this is exactly how casualties were removed in EPIC: Armageddon so it's not new ground for GW in general (more recently then 40k 2nd for sure).

Jack

The thing is. That's not how they described it. According to that vid, I understood that wounds are allocated in order of what models are closest, then armour saves are taken.
=/

As for being more Cinematic/Realistic?

Yes. It's VERY cinematic to how have the Nob's, Warboss, ect in my ork squads leading from the back instead of leading from the front like a proper Ork. Or my glory hungry chaos lord now haveing a wall of power armour bouncers in front of him to literally catch bullets.

Realistic and Cinematic do not go hand in hand. I'm sorry. Cinematic is my heros rushing foreword leading a charge, well the chumps behind him catch the bullets. Why doesn't he get shot? Because they are just that bad ass! Now shut up and enjoy the game! Realistic is them being the 1st ones to catch the bullets... I'm sorry but I'm not playing 40k because I want some sort of simulation of actual combat. I play it because the rules are based on action movie logic, and that's FUN.

A 2nd reason I dislike this proposed change is that 5th ed already super favours shooting over assaulting, and to me these changes feels like a move to shut out assault orientated armies even more.

Note: I'm not saying this will make or break 6th ed. 6th ed could still have alot of positive changes. Just for me this would be a negative change...
=/

warboss wrote:

terranarc wrote:For Drake's point, imo there's a huge imbalance between jump-pack-marine cost and rhino cost but less visible for blood angles. I would say this has more to do with unit cost in a way. It's most visible for chaos raptors (and I'd count those silly eldar swooping hawks in but they're not exclusively CC rush oriented like most jump jet units) where you simply get too little bang for buck. If they don't put in combat consolidation, but have all these crazy charge reactions, it'll just nerf them more.

So what you're saying is that units designed in 4th edition have suffered somewhat compared with their decreased-cost brethren in newer codicies put out in 5th edition and will even moreso in the radically different 6th edition rules proposed here? That's not a rules problem but simply an issue of an outdated codex no longer in tune with the last half dozen offerings; the solution is to update both codicies as they're built/costed for a ruleset 2 editions out of date.

CSM was 5th yo. And it goes for SM's generic assault marines and vanguard as well. Jumpjet units in general has been nerfed since.
Now as far as whether it'll suffer more in 6th, that's still up in the air. As premeasuring is in, it'll be a lot easier to deep strike safely. I know for sure I'll put my guys at least 9-11" away from the enemy when they DS.
I would expect to see DSing shooty units to become much more effective since now people may put their upgraded models in the rear. Safer DS + rear shots on infantry being worth something is going to be interesting.

But seriously, why do people who build shooty armies expect to be able to completely table the opponent or else something's wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Necrosis wrote:

warboss wrote:

Necrosis wrote:
But in the end your still shooting and not assaulting? Which is the main point Katie Drake was making.

Why on earth would I assault with a purpose built shooty army? Transports don't automatically change the inherent purpose of an army build. Her point is that assault based forces are at a disadvantage currently (with transports contributing to that imbalance) and I vehemently disagree with that notion.

Okay, I see your point. Which I disagree with. Transports help shooting armies more then assault armies. When a unit exits a vehicle it cannot assault unless it is open top (in which case its easy to kill the vehicle) or be is a lot of points (land raiders or stormravens). Also a shooting unit can fire all its weapons by simply getting out of the vehicle (or if the vechile is open top) or can choose to fire its special weapons instead. To sum it up:
Shooting Unit inside a transport: can fire weapons
Assault unit inside a transport: does nothing
Shooting unit gets out of a trasnport: can fire weapons
Assault unit gets out of a trasnport: does nothing (unless its open topped or has a special rule).
Also if something happens to the vechile (stun, immobilized, wreck...etc) shooting armies can just get out and still do their job while the assault armies have to go across the table.

Yes but consider what happens when you have a squad of khorne bezerkers or footslogging assault unit without transport. At the very least, the dirt cheap rhino offers protection from battle cannons and the like on turn one and often a quick 12" boost or 2 the first 2 turns. If you were to foot slot that, it'd take 3-4 turns and in a game where there's only 6 turns, that's pretty big.
I've never actually seen people use transports to relocate shooty units bar the vet chimera thing. Maybe once with some fire warriors but they loose their shooting for that turn and possibly the next.

CSMs were 4th Ed. They weren't even the last 4th Ed codex. Yo.

gorgon wrote:CSMs were 4th Ed. They weren't even the last 4th Ed codex. Yo.

Is true, they were released before the 5th ed rulebook but weren't designed with 4th in mind.

yay for vendettas now the ultra character sniper :( I mean I've play guard since third ed and been in the game since 2nd God I hate this rumor if it's true it will make mech Guard even better

Necrosis wrote:Okay, I see your point. Which I disagree with. Transports help shooting armies more then assault armies. When a unit exits a vehicle it cannot assault unless it is open top (in which case its easy to kill the vehicle) or be is a lot of points (land raiders or stormravens)

Or they exit prior to its moving which happens roughly every second turn when I play or play against assault armies.

Necrosis wrote:
Also a shooting unit can fire all its weapons by simply getting out of the vehicle (or if the vechile is open top) or can choose to fire its special weapons instead.

And assaulty units can exit the vehicle prior to its moving and move/fleet/assault till their hearts are content.

Necrosis wrote:
To sum it up:

Unfortunately in a frequently incorrect or overly simplified way that ignores the details that make or break the game.

Necrosis wrote:
Shooting Unit inside a transport: can fire weapons

Only out of open topped vehicles which make up the minority of vehicles. As for the other close topped ones, the majority of vehicles have zero fire points, the most common one has 2, and a single one has 5. Your blanket statement ignores the significant limitations on shooting from transports that every army with them except Dark Eldar and Orks have.

Necrosis wrote:
Assault unit inside a transport: does nothing

Except that they generally get out prior to moving every second turn and get their additional 6-18" of move/fleet/charge. On the turn that they are doing "nothing", they're moving directly towards the enemy at almost twice the speed they would be doing so in most cases on foot as well as having the option of shooting if the vehicle and movement allows... Blanket statement is wrong.

Necrosis wrote:
Shooting unit gets out of a trasnport: can fire weapons

If they get out, they count as moving meaning that heavy weapons are not available and their max range with rapid fire is 12". For a shooty squad, they strictly limits their choices of targets as well as the effect they'll have. Again, blanket statement is accuarate as it assumes all weapons have an assault profile.

Necrosis wrote:
Assault unit gets out of a trasnport: does nothing (unless its open topped or has a special rule).

Unless they exit prior to it moving and get their 6-18" of move/fleet/charge (and even some shooting if they're close enough). Even if it moved, they can disembark and shoot/run. Certainly not nothing in either case.

Either way, we won't know the true balance of assault vs ranged combat until the rules in their entirety are released. This drip feeding of somewhat dubious rumors isn't really helping much.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:This is idiotic and argument inducing. It'll never happen.

Stupid BoW.

Some of these rumors sounds like the Necron Superlith. I wont quit because of the money I put into the game, but I definitely wont throw a penny into anything but tournaments anymore.

Just saw the charge fire video. All I have to say is 1 bs? What sense does that make? Do the assaulted units completely lose their fudge? "oh crap, those guys we saw were charging at us are actually going assault us! I have no idea what to do!"

Cinematic? Yes. Realistic in any way? No, especially for armies or units that are highly trained soldiers.

McNinja wrote:Just saw the charge fire video. All I have to say is 1 bs? What sense does that make? Do the assaulted units completely lose their fudge? "oh crap, those guys we saw were charging at us are actually going assault us! I have no idea what to do!"

Cinematic? Yes. Realistic in any way? No, especially for armies or units that are highly trained soldiers.

In fantasy they get a -1 to their BS if they are being charged. Perhaps BoW got some misinformation and -1 BS is the accurate thing, not 1BS when charged. Would make a lot more sense. Guard would be shooting at BS2, SM at BS3, etc, etc. Good God, that's wrong-I just had a horrible thought on how Tau could change with this bonus-being able to STORE marker lights into your opponents turn-oops, you charge, I saved my marker lights, now I rapid fire at your charging unit at my normal BS having used a marker light. Uh oh...People wanted better Tau? I think I foresee them being very nasty in the near future...

Just gonna butt in on the argument regarding assaulty units, but if 6th is going to be more "cinematic" (read: realistic) than assaulting off of consolidation is the exact opposite of what they would want since it is effectively like your guys teleporting from unit to unit (they are moving faster than jetbikes or Eldar transports if they attack enough units). My best guess on how they could balance something like this is to let you "spare" enemy models that you should have killed in combat to allow you to drag out the combat, the bad part of course being that if you aren't careful you can get your unit killed.

Also TTW that would sure as hell be a nifty way to give Tau a much needed boost that is for sure.

Buttons wrote:
Also TTW that would sure as hell be a nifty way to give Tau a much needed boost that is for sure.

Thanks-I don't have any rumor knowledge, just applying a bit of Fantasy info with some common sense and a showing of how GW has adjusted armies in the past. I think if charge reactions happen though, marker lights WILL likely be savable until the opponent's turn. In continuation with my psychic abilities, I see a lot of people starting/revamping a Tau army.

McNinja wrote:Just saw the charge fire video. All I have to say is 1 bs? What sense does that make? Do the assaulted units completely lose their fudge? "oh crap, those guys we saw were charging at us are actually going assault us! I have no idea what to do!"

Cinematic? Yes. Realistic in any way? No, especially for armies or units that are highly trained soldiers.

Agreed. I'm not liking the idea of a flat BS for everyone using that rule; if anything, it should be at a penalty to your normal BS instead. Conscripts straight out of the IG boot camp shouldn't snap fire with the same efficacy as 200+ year old marines.

warboss wrote:

McNinja wrote:Just saw the charge fire video. All I have to say is 1 bs? What sense does that make? Do the assaulted units completely lose their fudge? "oh crap, those guys we saw were charging at us are actually going assault us! I have no idea what to do!"

Cinematic? Yes. Realistic in any way? No, especially for armies or units that are highly trained soldiers.

Agreed. I'm not liking the idea of a flat BS for everyone using that rule; if anything, it should be at a penalty to your normal BS instead. Conscripts straight out of the IG boot camp shouldn't snap fire with the same efficacy as 200+ year old marines.

Ork shoota boys would also be snap firing as well as marines...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Buttons wrote:Just gonna butt in on the argument regarding assaulty units, but if 6th is going to be more "cinematic" (read: realistic) than assaulting off of consolidation is the exact opposite of what they would want since it is effectively like your guys teleporting from unit to unit (they are moving faster than jetbikes or Eldar transports if they attack enough units). My best guess on how they could balance something like this is to let you "spare" enemy models that you should have killed in combat to allow you to drag out the combat, the bad part of course being that if you aren't careful you can get your unit killed.

Also TTW that would sure as hell be a nifty way to give Tau a much needed boost that is for sure.

Sure, but then reintroduce shooting into melee. The game needs more grimdark.

I have to say, I hate watching the BOW videos. Watching those guys fidget and stutter makes me cringe. Is there like a transcript of these things floating around so I can read what they say without having to watch them?

warboss wrote:

McNinja wrote:Just saw the charge fire video. All I have to say is 1 bs? What sense does that make? Do the assaulted units completely lose their fudge? "oh crap, those guys we saw were charging at us are actually going assault us! I have no idea what to do!"

Cinematic? Yes. Realistic in any way? No, especially for armies or units that are highly trained soldiers.

Agreed. I'm not liking the idea of a flat BS for everyone using that rule; if anything, it should be at a penalty to your normal BS instead. Conscripts straight out of the IG boot camp shouldn't snap fire with the same efficacy as 200+ year old marines.

very true. However, one of my main... Concerns with how BS works now is that it's simply a flat number, with almost no modifiers anywhere. Two problems with BS:

- against immobile targets, and especially if you haven't moved at all in the last movement phase, your BS should increase against those units/models. I spent three turns trying to blow up a fortification, but kept missing. Against a building. I literally could not hit the boradside of a barn.

-close range shots are far, far easier to make in real life. I've missed shots at 6" with Dark Lances.honestly, that shouldn't happen. With any weapon. I think if you're within a certain distance from the target unit, like 6" away from them, your BS should increase by 1.

Now snap firing. You're in a battle. You are staring at people/monsters running all over the field. If you're a heavy weapons team you've done nothing but watch the field for hours. Then, all of a sudden, you get charged, from in front of you, and you, what, drop your gun? "Oh no, we got charged, I guess I forgot how to properly fire my weapon." How you fire at anything other than your normal bs is beyond me.

I have always been in favor of dropping cover saves and turning them into to-hit modifiers.

Why should a Space Marine in Power Armour have the same protection on the battlefield and inside a bunker? Cover makes you harder to hit, it doesn't do anything once you are hit and wounded.

Get rid of cover saves, and make them to-hit modifiers instead!

As far as ranges, some weapons are harder to fire at close ranges. I like Infinities system of having an optimum range where weapons are at maximum efficiency., but I would not expect GW to follow that example.

d-usa wrote:I have always been in favor of dropping cover saves and turning them into to-hit modifiers.

Why should a Space Marine in Power Armour have the same protection on the battlefield and inside a bunker? Cover makes you harder to hit, it doesn't do anything once you are hit and wounded.

Get rid of cover saves, and make them to-hit modifiers instead!

Heavy Gear does something like that with its unified single roll to hit/damage. When I was introducing some 40k players to the idea (which I like), they didn't like the number of modifiers they had to take into account and instead preferred to have 3 sets of rules for three different rolls instead. YMMV.

warboss wrote:

d-usa wrote:I have always been in favor of dropping cover saves and turning them into to-hit modifiers.

Why should a Space Marine in Power Armour have the same protection on the battlefield and inside a bunker? Cover makes you harder to hit, it doesn't do anything once you are hit and wounded.

Get rid of cover saves, and make them to-hit modifiers instead!

Heavy Gear does something like that with its unified single roll to hit/damage. When I was introducing some 40k players to the idea (which I like), they didn't like the number of modifiers they had to take into account and instead preferred to have 3 sets of rules for three different rolls instead. YMMV.

The main problem is that it makes armoured armies extremely OP, which they would remain until they got a massive price boost. Look at it this way.

Lets say you fire 50 lasguns at a squad of marines (3+ save) in standard (4+) cover at rapid fire range.
You fire 100 shots
50 hit
about 17 wound
about 6 saves are failed

Now lets say standard cover gives a -1 BS save instead of a 4+ save that must be taken
100 shots are fired
33 shots hit (guard fires at BS 2)
11 wounds
4 saves fail

Now lets look at the reverse in both situations with 10 space marines with bolters (ignoring the bolt pistol like I did the laspistol for simplicity) at rapid fire range
Fire 20 shots
13 hit
9 wounds
4.5 saves fail

With the modifer the results are
20 shots
10 hits
7 wounds
no saves

So this gives marines a massive boost and weakens foot slogging armies yet more. Honestly if something like this happened the only reason to ever leave a transport is if you get a 4+ save or greater, or you are fighting enemies with an AP- standard weapon.

The way cover works now doesn't make sense. If the cover save fails, why would their armor not then take a hit? That goes for invuln saves as well, with the exception on the wych dodge invuln saves.

Cover right now is the opponent rolling for your chance to miss, though if they fail you automatically bypass their armor (which is great). Marines don't use cover saves half of the time anyway, and if they happen to be in a fortification, then they can use the cover save against ap 3 or lower weapons.

Katie Drake wrote:
...
Assault needs help in a big way, because the difficulty of actually reaching assault isn't worth the payoff right now. They need to bring back consolidating into combat to make going through the hell of reaching close combat worthwhile. I already talked about how smart players can stop a single unit from tearing through their entire army in a previous post.

In my opinion as a player who plays BOTH shooty/assault and hyrbid armies, I find this does not match my perceptions or experiences at all.

In fact, I would say with all due respect that this in no way matching any experiences of anyone I have ever discussed tactics/armies/editions with, ever.
Either at tournaments or even "beer and pretzels" games, blogs, battle reports or even read about.

In fact, this is so far off my experiences, that either your situation I would find to be amazingly singular, or you are making this up for the intention of humor or being sarcastic.

I apologize if you are indeed serious, but as an outside observer to this thread I would say that I have seen no indicators to support your observations.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

McNinja wrote:The way cover works now doesn't make sense. If the cover save fails, why would their armor not then take a hit? That goes for invuln saves as well, with the exception on the wych dodge invuln saves.

Cover right now is the opponent rolling for your chance to miss, though if they fail you automatically bypass their armor (which is great). Marines don't use cover saves half of the time anyway, and if they happen to be in a fortification, then they can use the cover save against ap 3 or lower weapons.

The cover makes sense as you ONLY take it in the case where it has been determined that your armor WOULD have failed, and otherwise your model WOULD be wounded otherwise.

Thats the reason marines don't take cover, because most weapons would not already defeat their armor (i.e. the armor save is better).

Or to word it exactly as you have stated it;
If the cover save fails, why would their armor not then take a hit?
Because you are taking the cover save because it has ALREADY been determined that the armor would NOT take the hit (i.e. the AP is better than the armor).

Get rid of AP values

d-usa wrote:Get rid of AP values

So, in other words, a guy wearing a flak jacket should be able to save against a shot of material that would give you an instant third degree burn (plasma)?

What edition did AP values start, and what did we do before them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To-save modifiers, that was it!

Get rid of the stupid AP values, and bring them back.

Why should Power Armor be just as effective against a las-pistol as it is against a Bolter?

Get rid of cover-saves and bring back to-hit modifiers.
Get rid of AP values and bring back save modifiers.

McNinja wrote:The way cover works now doesn't make sense. If the cover save fails, why would their armor not then take a hit? That goes for invuln saves as well, with the exception on the wych dodge invuln saves.

Cover right now is the opponent rolling for your chance to miss, though if they fail you automatically bypass their armor (which is great). Marines don't use cover saves half of the time anyway, and if they happen to be in a fortification, then they can use the cover save against ap 3 or lower weapons.

Because as I mentioned it would break the game. It would take about 100 guardsmen to drop a single terminator with a storm shield in cover if he got three saves.
100 shots
50 hits
17 wounds
9 cover saves failed
3 invul saves failed
0-1 armour saves failed

Never mind, it would take on average more than 100 lasguns firing to drop a terminator if he got all his saves. In order to balance it termies would need to cost about 130 points since it would take about 25 guardsmen 4 turns of shooting to kill him. Hell even executioners would be useless despite their redundancy since terminators would get so many saves.

Maybe they will bring back modifiers in 7th, but it would need to be a complete overhaul with massive codex updates in order to keep the modifier rules from crippling balance.

Edit: Also, people need to remember that the game is an abstraction, many things are simplified or dumbed down in order to speed up the game and maintain balace. Try playing a Guard vs. Dark Angels Deathwing game with all those new modifiers in place of the conventional single save and see what happens. Hint: Guard will get slaughtered since they will only ever get 1 save/modifier unless they bring overpriced carapace armour.

Or instead of raising costs of Terminators, lower the cost of Guardsmen. It would demonstrate a far more literal disparity in survivability between MEQ and GEQ and a more realistic vision of how things would play out, abstraction or not. They would still die to massed fire, which the Guard have in spades, and would have far more of if their point cost was lowered.

Lockark wrote:

The thing is. That's not how they described it. According to that vid, I understood that wounds are allocated in order of what models are closest, then armour saves are taken.
=/

Eh, I'm basically assuming a simpler system would be what we'll actually see, the way its described is a bit too clunky for me to give much credence too (or possibly they simply don't understand the new rules very well yet)

Lockark wrote:
As for being more Cinematic/Realistic?

Realistic and Cinematic do not go hand in hand. I'm sorry. Cinematic is my heros rushing foreword leading a charge, well the chumps behind him catch the bullets. Why doesn't he get shot? Because they are just that bad ass! Now shut up and enjoy the game! Realistic is them being the 1st ones to catch the bullets... I'm sorry but I'm not playing 40k because I want some sort of simulation of actual combat. I play it because the rules are based on action movie logic, and that's FUN.

Part of the reason I put that in quotes is that many folks seem to conflate or confuse the two and heroes with machine guns attempting to hold back the charging alien horde is well grounded in sci fi and wartime cinema As to it being more cinematic for your nob to be up front that's true, but he does need those red shirts to die around him to help make him look good

Additionally perhaps Characters will get back some variation of 'Look out sir! ARRGH!' or similar. Just would remain to be seen if squad upgrade characters would rate that special protection, since they're not really the big damn heroes in 40k.

Jack