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.

skullspliter888 wrote:i think with one vehicles damage chart tanks well suck in less there is no more glancing you have to beat the armor to kill the tank

No, equaling a tank’s armour will still result in a damage roll. Otherwise orks would be almost incapable of scratching a land raider.

The single damage table idea, as long as it follows Apocalypse, means a glancing hit has a modifier when rolling on the table.

thats right forgot about the Orks i guess the answer is hard then i think.
thats a good idea i like the way you think sebster time to play test

JohnHwangDD wrote:Sorta, but not so much that you'd take as many without the Troops = Scoring rule.

That’s right, you wouldn’t have as many, but that’s not really what I’m talking about. The problem is that right now everything in the game fills the same role as everything else, kill the enemy. To build distinct unit types you need to give each unit type their own abilities, so troops are better at taking and holding objectives, while heavy tanks are better at killing and so on. This means you need a balance of units to win games.

Under the proposed change, though, troops fulfill a distinct role, take and hold objectives, but are also pretty good at everything else. This means armies consisting entirely of troops can achieve everything that needs achieving.

Isn't this just tweaked Escalation?

Pretty much, Escalation was a good concept handled badly. If escalation was a consistent event you could price units properly, making units that suffer under the new deployment rules cheaper.

You’d also have ruleset based around having a motivation for taking and holding objectives early in the game. Whether that’s through improved cover making it easier to hold objectives, or pinning/suppression making it harder for units to advance up the board, or giving VP bonus for holding objectives each turn, or some combination of the above. Suddenly you have a game based around holding objectives and assaulting objectives, instead of a game based around wiping the other guy out for 5 turns, then jumping a bunch of stuff onto objectives in the 6th turn.

The Nid book needs a rewrite anyways.

No more than most. Which is to say, there’s plenty of stuff that could be fixed with a new book (lictors, warriors, elite ‘fex and the whole ‘nidzilla thing, the generally greater effectiveness of the big guys over the little guys), but if there was a rewrite they’d probably break as much stuff as they fix. The Tyranid codex is currently sitting in that middle ground of ‘good enough’.

The thing is, I don't think Troops are pretty good at anything in particular. Yes, they're generally OK, and they're cheap wounds for holding a position. But they're not so good at moving, nor shooting, nor fighting that you'd take them over a specialist. I think a pure Troops army would lose to a mixed-Troops army.

I don't think Escalation needs to be automatic, nor costed per se. Escalation penalizes the "good" units over the "boring" units. So it's a balancer, just like Troops = Scoring. If Escalation were used in the non-Alpha 2/3 of missions, it might have been enough to help rebalance army design on its own.

True, the Nid book isn't so bad, and agree that the Necrons need a rewrite first. But it still needs a rework.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The thing is, I don't think Troops are pretty good at anything in particular. Yes, they're generally OK, and they're cheap wounds for holding a position. But they're not so good at moving, nor shooting, nor fighting that you'd take them over a specialist. I think a pure Troops army would lose to a mixed-Troops army.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. Troops at present are like everything else, but for the most part are not quite as good at them. But they can still be tailored to fulfill the anti-MEQ, anti-GEQ and AT roles that are presently performed by other units. But compare it to FoW, where the infantry simply can’t threaten tanks at range, or cause significant damage to infantry in hard cover. You still need tanks, artillery and guns, as they have unique abilities that conventional infantry can’t match at all.

But troops in 40K can take weapons that let them threaten all possible enemy targets. You can take a tactical marine squad and pack some solid AT, or you can take a devastator squad and get more AT (for more points) and sacrifice the ability to hold an objective.

I don't think Escalation needs to be automatic, nor costed per se. Escalation penalizes the "good" units over the "boring" units. So it's a balancer, just like Troops = Scoring. If Escalation were used in the non-Alpha 2/3 of missions, it might have been enough to help rebalance army design on its own.

Escalation at present makes interesting units boring, because its basically a rule plonked over the top of a pre-existing system, working to keep non-infantry out of the game for a couple of turns.

My system wouldn’t penalize those units, it would free them to do interesting stuff. While troops hunker down and defend their forward position the reserves sweep up the field to relieve them and advance on enemy positions. Make those specialist units as devastating on the advance/assault as they should be and there’d be no problem.

Further to Sebster's point, if ordinary troops get a "semi-Fleet" rule they will be able to move nearly as fast as most vehicles.

Which is pretty ridiculous. Tanks should be faster than infantry.

Da Boss wrote:Which is pretty ridiculous. Tanks should be faster than infantry.

Are they? I think in combat speed they don't dodge through narrow gaps in buildings and woods and sneak up behind enemy infantry lines.
Sure, all out with nothing shooting, they should be faster. I hope they get vehicles right, i really hope they do!

I would love to see tanks used as cover for infantry, maybe with the "run" rule, they can keep up the pace and some tanks could function as mobile cover. Kind of like the tanks in WWI and WWII.

Greets
Schepp himself

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The thing is, I don't think Troops are pretty good at anything in particular.

That’s exactly what I’m saying.

But troops in 40K can take weapons that let them threaten all possible enemy targets.

OK, I thought we were basically agreed. I don't think a single Lascannon should be looked at so powerfully. To me, it's no different than FoW infantry with PanzerFaust / PanzerSchreck.

Speaking of FOW, interesting that you had no comment on the notion on fielding a StuG Abt. Mid-War, I think it'd have decent chances, especially if it mixed Ds with F8/Gs.

Escalation at present makes interesting units boring, because its basically a rule plonked over the top of a pre-existing system, working to keep non-infantry out of the game for a couple of turns.

Make those specialist units as devastating on the advance/assault as they should be and there’d be no problem.

I think those specialists are devastating enough already, which is why we see plenty of minimum / low Troops builds.

To me, a lascannon is more like an infantry portable guided missile like a Dragon or Milan. Powerful, accurate and long range, but takes time to set up and fire. Very good for defence.

The 'faust, 'schreck and other WW2 infantry anti-tank weapons had very limited range and accuracy, but had better portability and set-up time.

Interesting the RPG7 and the LAW are often used as general purpose heavy grenade launchers. They are the modern equivalent of a bazooka or PIAT launcher.

OverchargeThis! wrote:It'll make a big difference if they change how long units count as scoring. In CoD, a unit at 25% or more of its original strength still counts as scoring. If that becomes the norm in 5th edition, you virtually have to wipe the squads out to drop them to non-scoring status.

If only troop choices are scoring units and all you have to do is drop them under 50% to make them not scoring, I see a lot of draws showing up in future games. I rarely have problems wipeing out large portions of my opponents army and if all I really need to do is wipe out his troops, that makes things all the easier. Now if they go about makeing a unit scoring till its under 25%, that will make it a little more difficult to do so there might actualy be some around. If on the other hand, they just take scoring status away from vehicles and monsterous creatures (and don't tie it to certain portions of the force org chart) then I think things will be a lot better in general.

8. Vehicles without a WS in CC always get hit in the rear armour.
-> This means that tanks, while great offensive weapons at range, struggle against multiple attackers in close quarters. Cool isnt it? Sounds almost like real world warfare. Nice changes arise here: Redeplyoment per transport will work as it should, but running Transports into enemy lines unsupported (Rhino-rush/Falcon-rush) will likely result in assaulted and deastroyed transports, even against unequipped str4 opponents.

I said it in another forum on this very topic and i will say it here.
Vehicles in 40K are already to fragile for a 1 wound model. especially at the points you pay for them. not only is this a bad idea for a rules change it isn't even close to real world warfare like you surmise. tanks can take fire in the rear and suffer damage there where thier armor is the weakest but you still must get to the rear facing to do it.

Not attack them in the front/side and magically hit the rear. if a tank is immobile or immobilised you can already get to the rear in an assault with the current rules. all such a change would accomplish in game terms would be to make vehicles far less useful an option.

13. Vehicles types are adjusted (the rumoured skimmer nerf)

The only skimmer people really have an isse with is the eldar ones. the other skimmers in the game are already nerfed enough. a broad class change would affect all skimmers not jus tthe one that people think needs it. take land speeders for example-expensive with only AV10 and can be knocked out by small arms fire.....and you want to make them less survivable? why would anybody take them then? why would GW want to sell less models?

mughi3 wrote:
Not attack them in the front/side and magically hit the rear. if a tank is immobile or immobilised you can already get to the rear in an assault with the current rules. all such a change would accomplish in game terms would be to make vehicles far less useful an option.

I think it's supposed to be a "swirling melee".

But yeah it's dumb to me too. #1 it's just dumb, #2 Chainfists are nothing now, and #3 there's probably lots of other reasons why it's dumb

When thinking about game rules it is best to ignore "reality" at elast to start with and think about the desired result within the game.

For example, if GW are thinking that vehicles need to be made more vulnerable to infantry H2H attacks, then automatic hits on rear armour is a good way to do it. Then justify that with a line about "swirling melee" and "stuffing grenades into vision slits" and so on.

The reason why I think it's dumb is because it's dumb. Vehicles are plenty vulnerable to close combat attacks, and if they want to change it just change the 4+ and 6+ modifiers to 3+ and 5+, the 6+ needed to hit being the main problem.

Chain Fists and Melta Bombs (which are now available on every other IC and Vet are pretty much a guaranteed hit. But that 6+ will get you everytime, and it sucks for grenades with only one attack.

mughi3 wrote:tanks can take fire in the rear and suffer damage there where thier armor is the weakest but you still must get to the rear facing to do it.

Not attack them in the front/side and magically hit the rear.

Instead of attacking the heavier Front and Side armour, they're attacking the much thinner Top armour, which conveniently has the same AV as the Rear.

I pray to the Emperor that 5th ed (probably not seeing it until 2010) takes a lot of hints from Apocalypse.

Apoc. makes the game fun again. No VP meaning no VP denial, meaning you will sacrifice half your army to get the objectives meaning more carnage generally resulting in a more fun an interesting game.

There are a host of other improvements to make, but mainly I want to see more fun, and a bit faster paced.

Whatever they do, GW is going to figure out with 5th ed how to get you to buy MORE.

What is wrong with a tight set of core rules, a competition add-on and a knockabout add-on like Apocalypse.

It's pretty clear that 50% of users love Apoc and 50% hate it. Making it the standard would be a super-bad idea.

Tacobake wrote:The reason why I think it's dumb is because it's dumb. Vehicles are plenty vulnerable to close combat attacks, and if they want to change it just change the 4+ and 6+ modifiers to 3+ and 5+, the 6+ needed to hit being the main problem.

Chain Fists and Melta Bombs (which are now available on every other IC and Vet are pretty much a guaranteed hit. But that 6+ will get you everytime, and it sucks for grenades with only one attack.

It would also seem to devalue Chainfists. A Chainfist is useful against AV14, but if you're hitting the rear AV10 anyway, you might as well just use a Powerfist.

Depends how often you want to hit Monoliths or Landraiders.

Instead of attacking the heavier Front and Side armour, they're attacking the much thinner Top armour, which conveniently has the same AV as the Rear.

Nope, according to GW top hits=side armor

mughi3 wrote:Nope, according to GW top hits=side armor

In the current Apocalypse rules. Move it along a step to 5th ed and that'll be changing according to the rumours.

Asmodai wrote:

Tacobake wrote:The reason why I think it's dumb is because it's dumb. Vehicles are plenty vulnerable to close combat attacks, and if they want to change it just change the 4+ and 6+ modifiers to 3+ and 5+, the 6+ needed to hit being the main problem.

Chain Fists and Melta Bombs (which are now available on every other IC and Vet are pretty much a guaranteed hit. But that 6+ will get you everytime, and it sucks for grenades with only one attack.

It would also seem to devalue Chainfists. A Chainfist is useful against AV14, but if you're hitting the rear AV10 anyway, you might as well just use a Powerfist.

I think that's what I was trying to say . They're still good against dreads. And they're cool.

it sounds very interesting i cant wait,



mabey they'll bring back thg LATD????

Blackheart666 wrote:

Stormtrooper X wrote:C'mon guys, how many people do you play with in your local stores wear helmets and drool on their minis not because they are gorgeously painted but because they aren't firing on all cylinders.

apparently that's the norm for Jervis Jr and his crew.. which is all that matters.

Blackheart666, can I ask what you thought this added to the thread? It’s not even funny.

Well guys i got the working copy of 5th ed today in a PDF.

The good news is that hitting the rear armor in CC regaurdless of facing is not in there.....the bad news is that it is far worse than that for vehicles, all vehicles get nurfed including walkers.

They managed to fix a few things(like rending and the vehicle damage chart) that needed fixing, and then totally break the game by "fixing" things that were not broken. including bringing back variations of bad rules we got rid of from 3rd edition.

5th edition is going to be one boring game if it is even close the file i got today.
If it holds true to the PDF i will only be playing 4th edition till they pull thier heards out of thier hind ends with 6th edition.

with no VPs most of the time. only troops can take objectives and you can only win by taking objectives. everybody will be shooting at the troop choices and almost nothing else. anything not a troop choice, especilly tanks and dreads, are going to be cowering in buildings and bunkers to try and get the best invul save they can while doing as much shooting(at troops) that they can(being stationary is the only way they can fire all thier heavy guns reguardless of weapon strength). aside from troops "marching (fleet- without being able to assault) to the objective" the game is going bland and static.

The contents of the Ork Codex are quite fascinating in the context of this document.

mughi3 wrote:...especilly tanks and dreads, are going to be cowering in buildings and bunkers to try and get the best invul save they can while doing as much shooting(at troops) that they can(being stationary is the only way they can fire all thier heavy guns reguardless of weapon strength).

What is the status of Ordinance in the new book, can it be fired in addition to other weapons? Will Leman Russ Sponsons have any purpose, especially the heavy flamer ones? I suppose the same goes for the briefly excellent Baal Predator.

Nurglitch wrote:The contents of the Ork Codex are quite fascinating in the context of this document.

Care to enlighten us non document holders?

Well, as you may know the last few codicies from the Dark Angels onward (Eldar, Orks, Chaos Marines, Blood Angels) were written with this document in mind (supposing, of course, that the document in question will be something like what gets published).

For one thing, they prevent the anti-Power Fist/Klaw tactics that I've been blathering on about. No more selecting casualties from inside the range and line of sight of weapons, so you won't be able to shape units using shooting anymore. Mind you shooting and assaults have had the relation between units and models jigged. Now models take saves, not units.

Fleet is now Running+, meaning you can run in the shooting phase and charge in the assault phase. It certainly seems to mesh with the Waaagh! rule. Walker vehicles can run...!

Ramming looks pretty interesting, especially if you've been on a Mad Max kick. Interesting results to be had when you ram a Walker that attempts Death and Glory! Looks like we'll see plenty of Guided-Missile Trukks, knowing the fanboyz. Interestingly the damage results for vehicles seem to even things out somewhat with regard to Falcons, Rhinos, and Trukks, and some care has been taken to make the effects of the damage chart have corresponding effects on passengers. Ramshackle and being a Skimmer are no longer huge advantages over bog standard Rhinos.

Deep Strike has been mucked around with, and points out there may be exceptions to assaulting on the turn a unit Deep Strikes (Da Vulcha Boyz).

Speaking of hitting hard, Power Fists and their ilk are now like Lightening Claws where two close combat weapons are concerned. Look like Advantage: Calgar. Another plus for Meganobz over ordinary Nobz as well, and the picture of a Cybork with a Power Klaw and kustom Shoota in Codex: Orks now makes sense (I totally called that, time to call in the bet!) Also Slow and Purposeful doesn't stop a model from gaining an attack bonus for charging. Looks like Ghazghkull's special rule makes sense after all.

I can't find any rules for minefields, but there's a big hole in the movement phase rules under dangerous terrain that might fit some text. That's one thing I don't think people usually notice about the 40k books: the rules have to be written to fit particular column-inches, and that does affect how rules are expressed.

You can choose to have units pinned, which gives them a cover bonus (or cover if they don't have any), although Fearless is still protection against pinning if you don't want it.

Fast vehicles have been slowed down, but models still hit non-Walker vehicles on the side they're touching.

Rending is always wounding and AP2, or or +1D3 for penetration, on 6 to wound and sniper weapons always have it.

I mean the layout so far is hideous and the wording is a hash from cut-and-pastes, and trying to express the weird tangle of models and units. That said the actual games look like they might be pretty interesting. Definitely requires empirical research.

Mughi3

VP's are the default tie breaker. Take and Hold looks to be hellishly hard to win outright, which will default to VP's as the tie breaker.

Total Annihilation gives one the fewest points for destroying Troops. One will want to go after the non troop choices to gain the most points.

Recon is the mission I can see where you really want to outright shoot the troop choices while at the same time trying to preserve yours to grab the objectives.

As it stands, there is only Recon, Take and Hold and Total Annihilation. Then there is a roll for how set up is handled.

I do agree that vehicles appear they will be played with less mobility. I noticed that War Walkers can get ridiculously good despite being Armor 10. Giving cover saves to vehicles looks rough, especially combined with Fortune and Guide for high rate of fire weapons.

Battlewagons with a Big Mek and KFF begs to be used.

This game is looking to play very different despite using the same codexes. Should prove to be interesting.