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.

Kallbrand is up to s.th.:
Losing ~ 1 Banshee per 55 pts PF Sarge (or 41 pts orc nob) per unit and turn doesn't look to me like rendering most elite cc units completely useless anyway. A common PF squad character will still have to kill 2-3 assault specialists to gain his points back. So if your cc specialists didn't win their combat after 2 to 3 player turns of melee, then you did wrong in the first place imho. Rushing 30 strong orc mobs with a bunch of banshees francly shouldn't be a good idea regardless of the circumstances. Boyz are so damn cheap because part of them are meant to be removed as shooting casualties long before one is in charge range...

As for Redbeards solution: Nice idea I had loved to see in 4th.

Regarding cinematic effects and independent quality characters: Most of them seem overpriced regardless of the cc system to me atm. Rarely seen a character with 3 wounds and marine stats make back 150+ points, even with killzones. After all it will only take like 18 bolter rounds, or a single melter...
To make those characters more characterfull I for one would propose to grant each and every one of em 'eternal warrior'. I mean, damn, they are heroes and should be used to suck a punch up.
Fist problem solved. A character hit by a 30 strong mob of orcs would drown, killzones or not, but hell I wish Legolas would have...

-Khorneflakes

Edited:

@ skith:

Thats y your elite jumptroops can choose the fight. Or your banshees can hug a transport to arrive at full squad strength at the fight. On the other hand, there is virtually no mechanism to bring your whole squad of cannonfodder to bear in cc without taking casualties first. Those 30 boyz don't start in 6 inch charge range at the beginning of a battle for a purpose.
Besides, barring the (undercosted in the new dex if you ask me) common boyz, please someone enlighten me: Of which huge quantitiy > quality troops that utterly rape many elite combat squads do we speak atm? Small bugs? IG conscripts?? Really don't see it...

Nurglitch wrote:
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.

That's ok, for the ones that do resist well, like terminators. And, even khornate lightning-claw terminator champions will have a hard time with orks if they cannot remove the killzone.

Five of them get what, 6 attacks each on the charge - getting them 30 attacks. That should yield 15 hits, and with lightning claws, 11 kills. But, with 30 bodies to cut through, that PK nob is still hitting you back for 1.11 of your terminators, and let's say 10 engaged boys yields another 30 attacks, another .833 - so you're down two terminators for round two. And the orks are still fearless, so no test or anything. Round 2, your three, non-charging guys now get 15 attacks, yielding five more dead orks. And then that powerklaw nob whacks you again, as well as the rest of the boyz who are then engaged. You "win" combat, but you're down to one guy. Congrats, your 280 point super-duper khornate unit of doom managed to kill slightly more than half of a ork unit worth less points.

Compare this with having a killzone. You charge, and are able to put those 11 kills on the 11 engaged models, including the powerfist nob. Bam, they're gone, you win round one, take no casualties. Round two, you drop eight boys, leaving 11 to swing back - they drag down one of your guys. Round three, you kill another six or seven, leaving 4, who flail ineffectively before dying the next turn.

How does this show that the large number of weak troops is hurt by the change? It appears, to me, at least, that the beneficiaries of being able to remove casualties from outside of a killzone benefits the person who can bring the large number of expendible troops, and not the person relying on fewer, expensive troops, especially if there's a powerclaw hanging around. One, which, with 30 wound s in the unit, isn't going to even have a save allocated against it until everyone else is dead.

Or your khorne lord - what's going to happen? He gets 2d6 attacks or something - ok, assume he hits them all - he kills 10 orks, and then has to suffer 4 powerklaw hits, any one of which will instant-kill him.

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.

3:1 is the rule of thumb for engaging an enemy in most modern combat doctrines, for a reason. That, however, does not account for the overemphasis of numbers over everything else. Bringing three-to-one points into an assault with 30 orks is rarely going to be possible, and is likely to result in the units in that fight being counter-assaulted by other large units of orks.

30 boyz can be assaulted by a higher point assault specialist unit and see them off fairly easily. Whether it's khorne termies, harlies, scorpions, or assault marines, the fact that the attackers cannot kill the models who are engaged and prevent counter-attacks makes this a trump unit - one that can be fielded very cheaply.

@ Redbeard:

As much as I hate orcs, I know how it feels to move around a large squad of cannon fodder like guys. Trust me, it is of not much fun to the orc player either when he walks up the board for like 3 turns, gets shot up in the process, and his 15 boyz left never even take a swing due to killzones.

I'll state again: No one SHOULD be charging a full mob of boyz and win imho. It's as simple as that. Termies and characters simply have to wither down a number of those boyz before charging or let the rest of the army deal with it.

Really, combat specialists as compared to footslogging masses excel in quality. You pay a lot of points for those termies to deep strike and to be able to pull off a fight againts high armour save opponents as well. Or for the ability to withstand that occasional heavy bolter. On a compareable footing, ICs get to use their status to remain save of incoming fire, jump troops or eldar may fleet to choose their fight and so on. Of course all those specialist can't beat the sh*t out of boyz in a direct 1:1 situation because they are special in that they have certain advantages they need to utilise to stand a chance...

I mean, what exactly should be the point to take boyz except their numbers given these numbers won't work for them due to killzones??

Khorneflakes wrote: On a compareable footing, ICs get to use their status to remain save of incoming fire

Not any more. They lose their protection in 5th

, jump troops or eldar may fleet to choose their fight and so on.

Boyz can fleet also.

Of course all those specialist can't beat the sh*t out of boyz in a direct 1:1 situation because they are special in that they have certain advantages they need to utilise to stand a chance...

The problem is that shoota-boyz are take-all opponent unit. They have the 5+ cove save from shooting, the anti-personal firepower with the shootas, and anti-vehicle with the rockets. If they can pack a PK nob, they have anti-heavy infantry capability also.

A specialist should be able to beat a generalist in their field on a point for point value. One way assault specialized units work is using tactics to assault the unit in just the right location to cause the most damage (Or take the least back). With the removal of kill zones, assault specialists lose a lot of power compared to hordes. With the assault specialists also no longer being scoring units and the hordes are scoring, there is no reason to take the specialists any more.

Khorneflakes wrote:Besides, barring the (undercosted in the new dex if you ask me) common boyz, please someone enlighten me: Of which huge quantitiy > quality troops that utterly rape many elite combat squads do we speak atm? Small bugs? IG conscripts?? Really don't see it...

The exact same thought occurred me reading this thread.
Is this a hidden boyz-bash or am I reading it wrong. Give me a matchup where elite assault units are seriously crippled with the new no-killzone rule, because fists or overwhelming numbers are simply better in combat.

I also see the Ork boys as a problem because they seem to have no real weaknesses. The Klaw is very resistable, the shooting is dangerous to all kind of enemies due to their quantity and not their quality and they are fearless most the time. On top of that they are cheap as dirt, so they can withstand even dedicated anti-horde fire without much points lost.

The kill-zones are not a problem imo.

Greets
Schepp himself

skyth wrote:
A specialist should be able to beat a generalist in their field on a point for point value. One way assault specialized units work is using tactics to assault the unit in just the right location to cause the most damage (Or take the least back). With the removal of kill zones, assault specialists lose a lot of power compared to hordes. With the assault specialists also no longer being scoring units and the hordes are scoring, there is no reason to take the specialists any more.

Very true. Has anyone run numbers on orc boyz vs various hand to hand specialist to see what the mathhammer says is the outcome (on an equal point basis)? I'd be interested to see the results. If I get time, I might run the numbers myself.

Schepp himself wrote:
Give me a matchup where elite assault units are seriously crippled with the new no-killzone rule, because fists or overwhelming numbers are simply better in combat.
...
The kill-zones are not a problem imo.

The lack of kill-zones removes a degree of skill from the game. There is skill in correctly setting up assaults in a way that is advantageous. The movement phase (and to a lesser extent, fleeting) is where a skilled player is able to maneuver their units so that when charges take place, they benefit the most.

Take a unit of six stealers, for example. On the charge, they'll be expected to kill 4.5 MEQs. So, there is skill involved in making a charge that manages to engage 5 MEQs. If you engage too few, you lose kills. If you engage too many, the MEQs get to hit back and reduce your numbers, cutting into your effectiveness in later turns. Forget everything about hidden weapons, special guys making special saves, etc. Just basic stealers, basic MEQs.

Get rid of the kill zone, and the casualties will always come from outside the engagement zone. The MEQs will always swing back with however many ended up engaged. This takes a measure of skill away from the game. Now, there's no reason to maneuver your stealers skillfully, in order to attempt to preserve their fighting capabilities in later turns. Simply push your guys at his guys, watch him take his casualties from the back, and see how many of your stealers die. Say there are 10 marines. This makes the difference between the stealers wiping them out in a couple of turns, with taking maybe one casualty, and losing half their number to return attacks. Does it change who is going to win in the end? No. Does it change the impact of the win - yes, a lot. And again, that's a specialist versus a generalist unit.

I don't like it. I don't like things that remove player skill as a factor in the game, without good reason. Sure, there was some skill involved in range sniping a guy or pulling a casualty to avoid a powerfist hit - but I think it makes sense to remove those tricks. Removing the killzone doesn't get you anything except a huge advantage to large squads, and a big disadvantage to any unit that relied on initiative.

Now: 10 harlequinns versus 30 orks.

harlies charge, get 15 orks in killzone. They roll, they kill 15 orks! Wiped out the killzone, no strikes back from the orks. Next turn the harlies don't have their furious charge or charging attacks, so probably won't kill 15 and the remainder will cause damage to the squad.


In 5th: 10 harlies versus 30 orks.

harlies charge, 15 orks elligible to attack. They roll, they kill 15 orks [miraculously, as their rending got nerfed ya know]. 15 non-fighting orks die, 15 orks counterattack and ERADICATE the harlies. 15 orks then move on to kill the wraithlord, laugh at the dire avengers and pretty much manhandle every other unit that isn't even as good as the harlies were.

I'm all for "who gets to fight decided at beginning of combat". Now powerfists get to strike even if the models in btb are taken away, etc. but the killzone NEEDS to stay or horde armies are just going to rule the battlefield.


Though you realize what they're basically doing. They're saying "yes, charging your harlies at 30 orks will get them eradicated. But shooting the orks with your dire avengers and guardians and thinning them down to 18 models will then clear your harlies for an easy assault." They want us to make balanced armies.

Trouble is, not everyone wants to play a balanced army. Some want to have khorne berserkers running across the field, and when outnumbered so, it's not possible for them to always put two units against one to make sure they kill enough, etc. Plus in an army to army basis, 50 berserkers charging 150 orks is about the same as 10 versus 30. It won't be pretty and I doubt the berserkers will win.

skyth wrote:

Khorneflakes wrote: On a compareable footing, ICs get to use their status to remain save of incoming fire

Not any more. They lose their protection in 5th

Sorry, didn't realize this

, jump troops or eldar may fleet to choose their fight and so on.

Boyz can fleet also.

Your turn to be sorry: Boyz technically can't fleet. If you are talking about 'run': Not beeing able to attack after 'fleeting' isn't exactly what I'd call 'choosing a fight'. Case you are talking about 'waagh'. Well, indeed, this is a nice one shot buff for the boyz and it's proper use is exactly what I'd call tactics in a game of 40k, so I am sort of happy about it.

Of course all those specialist can't beat the sh*t out of boyz in a direct 1:1 situation because they are special in that they have certain advantages they need to utilise to stand a chance...

The problem is that shoota-boyz are take-all opponent unit. They have the 5+ cove save from shooting, the anti-personal firepower with the shootas, and anti-vehicle with the rockets. If they can pack a PK nob, they have anti-heavy infantry capability also.

Very true up to this point, I'd happily mark your words as my own (c.f. 5th ed chaos thread). The current boyz speak alot of defective design imho with the biggest fault beeing to make them 2.5 times as efficient in shooting as a marine with basically giving each one of them a stormbolter for 0 points. Let's simply not talk about such nonsense please, it makes me sick
Keep in mind though that every rules change for the whole of the system we neglect / propose that would bring boy mobs on par again likewise destroys the use of all other horde units in the game, like gaunts, conscripts etc.
I really really want to stress that part. I'd happily take killzones away in an attempt to help hordes if that brings back those tyranid swarms I endorse to see on the battlefield. If the same rule specifically pushes boyz over the top while only leveling many other choices, then maybe the orc dex is the problem, not the killzones rule?!

A specialist should be able to beat a generalist in their field on a point for point value. One way assault specialized units work is using tactics to assault the unit in just the right location to cause the most damage (Or take the least back). With the removal of kill zones, assault specialists lose a lot of power compared to hordes. With the assault specialists also no longer being scoring units and the hordes are scoring, there is no reason to take the specialists any more.

This is where I'm at your exact opposition. Not _every_ specialist should be able to beat _any_ generalist on a per-point basis.

1. Beeing 'special' for a squad in 40k means to excel in some area of rules / stats where the rest of your army lacks skills (and subsequently losing out in other areas points wise). This does however not mean specialists are the be-all end-all solutions to your problems. Let's have a look at e.g. flayed ones in the cron dex. Those feature an unbelivable high initiative of 4 compared to the rest of the army, with double the cc attacks compared to a standard warrior. I think we could easily agree that this unit is a specialist unit as per the definition above but one would be a fool to expect them to slaughter their point equivalent in marines real quick.
So all in all they suck even at taking out other armies generalists, but that isn't their purpose. They are in the dex to give you a tool for a certain job, like killing other troops that are < I 4 and have no fists / good armour saves and the like (not discussing the existence of said job at all!). They are simply not there to kill all, or even part of all other generalist units in the system because necrons are in no way especially assaulty and in all not intended to wipe other armies in cc.
Again, likewise it is maybe a stretch to expect most specialists to give horde boyz a run in melee, since I'd argue that the whole faction should after all excel in cc with basic infantry and excel in using a horde approach as well. This general expectance is what you (and many others) do wrong imho.

2. Most people tend to forget that while specialists beeing tools for certain jobs, it is pretty natural for a specialised tool to do one job and not all jobs.
The risk in having specialized units for every single purpose should after all be to choose a specialist and then encounter an enemy from time to time where these specialists utterly fail to do their job barring a certain type of target (job). Creating a 'specialist tool' that excels in all circumstances where applied is a design fault. This applies of course as well to shoota boyz and their ability to take on everyone, but also to harlequins. While everybody is so fond of taking them by now no one seems to notice that their ability to take on quality infantry as well as horde infantry as well in melee is sort of stupid design. Removing killzones will hopefully get rid of this problem.
And yes, it is a problem for me, as it's simply too easy to take a single choice of unit and rip through most enemies without taking even a casualty. There is no shooty unit in the game that evenly efficient shoots both termies or hordes, so why has there to be a cc unit capable of the exact same? Remember, we are not even talking about harlies actually losing any fight other than against boyz but about them taking a casualty or two when facing greater numbers of enemies in 5th. I'd argue that even then they are still a pretty excellent choice after all, since wiping out a compareable amount of points in enemy units and retaining even a single harlie afterwards is still a good deal, isn't it?
On another road of thought, doesn't anybody wonder where all those banshees and scorpions went lately? Maybe it would do the system in general some good if obvious choices like harlies will suffer (a small bit) from removing killzones so one would be hard pressed again to consider bringing scorpions (aka greater numbers of less rending attacks and aka the dedicated tool for the job) to finish off boyz!

redbeard wrote:
Take a unit of six stealers, for example. On the charge, they'll be expected to kill 4.5 MEQs. So, there is skill involved in making a charge that manages to engage 5 MEQs. If you engage too few, you lose kills. If you engage too many, the MEQs get to hit back and reduce your numbers, cutting into your effectiveness in later turns. Forget everything about hidden weapons, special guys making special saves, etc. Just basic stealers, basic MEQs.

Get rid of the kill zone, and the casualties will always come from outside the engagement zone. The MEQs will always swing back with however many ended up engaged. This takes a measure of skill away from the game.

I am with you in that taking any amount of skill away from the already hopelessly simplyfied game of 40k is a sad thing in general, but

1. There were points made that killzone- or range sniping don't necessarily constitute a lot of skill

2. Please ask yourself if the actual oucome of this so called 'skill' movement really is as mandatory as you point it out to be. A won cc is a won cc. In case you take out 6 marines with 6 stealers and three stealers do remain afterwards, didn't you just win the combat? Didn't you just make your points back and still pose a threat to other units around, at least with combined forces with others? Don't you still have a scoring unit as opposed to your marine enemy?
I for one fail to see where you didn't win in the described situation and I'd say that it's neither up to you nor me to demand a cc system where you not only win a fight but win it without a single loss on your own side.
You are always free to simply bring more cc troops to bear on your side to still wipe the enemy squad without own casualties, maybe this just won't work anymore with bringing only a compareable amount of models / points and charging. What may look tough to you can on the other hand very well make the game more enjoyable for everyone, including your opponent. Taking that single stealer or two out in rataliation to losing a whole squad of marines is going to be soothing for your fighter's soul while not changing the general outcome of the game by much.

spellbound wrote:
Now: 10 harlequinns versus 30 orks.

Nah, completely flawed example as reasoned above (worng tool for the job). You do pay points on those harlequins for them not getting shot up due to their nightfighting-rules, you pay for them all having rending and thus beeing able to take out MCs and the like pretty fast, you are paying for fleet, melta-pistols and so on and on.
Harlies should at any rate not be the best bet at killing hordes in cc in the eldar dex. Maybe it is sufficient to show that eldar guardians need a nerf because on average they will wipe my specialist unit of thousand sons in melee? I don't think so

Scorpions or chaos zerkers would be the natural choice since you pay less for shiny little special rules, speed and the like but mainly for raw number of attacks and toughness. I didn't do the numbers till now and won't get as overboard again as I did in other threads, but I'm excited about the outcome... let's see

math dakka inc

30 strong shoota boyz with pk nob ~ 220 pts

10 strong berzerkers ~ 210 pts

If zerkers charge...

zerkers: 40 attacks, 26.7 hits, 17.8 wounds ~ 15 dead boyz
boyz(14): 28 attacks, 14 hits, 4.7 wounds ~ 1.5 dead zerkers
pk nob: 4 attacks, 2 hits, 1.7 wounds ~ 1.7 dead zerkers for a total of 3, seldom 4 dead zerkers.

turn 2:

zerkers(7): 21 attacks, 14 hits, 7 wounds ~ 6 dead boyz
boyz(8): 16 attacks, 8 hits, 2.7 wounds ~ 0.9 dead zerkers
pk nob: 4 attacks, 2 hits, 1.7 wounds ~ 1.7 dead zerkers for a total of 2.6, say 3 dead zerkers

Boyz lost cc, are 9 models strong so are ld 9, below half (-1) and lost cc by a whopping 3 wounds (inevitable with hordes in general but seldom accounted for!) so they get another -3 modifier due to 5th morale.

Beeing at ld 5, chances are the boyz run (and get run down), leaving only approx 4 out of initial 10 zerkers standing (but with the chaos player having next turn!)

math dakka ceased


Chances are those shoota boyz will grab those 3 rockits to be at 250 pts, giving the chaos player 2 more zerkers and thus more of an edge / less losses as well.
Of course I'd pretty much like to see a result more clear than that, leaving all or most of the zerkers intact, but then again they made their points back (strange enough for zerkers ;-)) and are still scoring in 5th.


O.c. to be completely fair one has to note that:

1. Case the boyz charge, the zerkers get wiped out (and even more advantageous for the boyz). Then again, not getting charged but to charge for yourself is tactis and requires skill and that's what we wanted, isn't it?
2. Case we are talking slugga boyz the zerkers will lose out. Then again, maybe that's because orcs should be intended to be a cc oriented army and thus win a fight with basic troopers vs. other not-so-melee armies specialists (c.f. necron flayed ones, above)?
3. Most likely those zerkers wont charge but get charged due to waagh and as well get shot down by those shoota boyz in the process. Then again, we are talking about stupid GW design, jack-of-all-trade silly basic units for far too few pts and an orc dex which is way too shooty (lootas anyone?) overall if you ask me, but that wasn't the point to prove.

The premise I tried to prove was that specialists (zerkers) still tend to wipe out hordes of low cost generalists (shoota boyz) in 5th ed cc, though maybe not without taking any casualtys. This is of course based on using the right tool (great number of cc attacks w/o rending as opposed to harlequins), not the swiss knife of cc units. If one takes any horde unit but codex creeping boyz for reference then the result will be far more obvious, too.

Trouble is, not everyone wants to play a balanced army. Some want to have khorne berserkers running across the field, and when outnumbered so, it's not possible for them to always put two units against one to make sure they kill enough, etc. Plus in an army to army basis, 50 berserkers charging 150 orks is about the same as 10 versus 30. It won't be pretty and I doubt the berserkers will win.

(numbers above)
Again, tough call. I miss my solely cc based chaos armies as well, but I do think that the root of all evil lies in the whole of 4th ed. CC only armies were dead as soon as rhino rush and 2d6 inch consolidation moves disappeared. Throw in that there are freaking too much units you can't hit efficiently in cc at all while not having any more of a problem to shoot them like monoliths that don't move an inch but can only be hit on 6es by a bloodthirster that towers more than half as tall as the monolith does, or fast vehicles / units you can never ever reach in cc but that you can still hit on a 3+ with a lascannon, no matter if they moved slow or four times as fast as normal infantry, and cc only armies are dead from the start on.

I pity this often and alot, but the cause of the general problem really is neither found in killzones or removal of said killzones, nor in the viability of horde armies come 5th. At least when there is a horde, I do get my cc at all

- Khorneflakes

Khorneflakes wrote:
I am with you in that taking any amount of skill away from the already hopelessly simplyfied game of 40k is a sad thing in general, but

1. There were points made that killzone- or range sniping don't necessarily constitute a lot of skill

First, I'm not talking about killzone sniping, where you engage as few models as possible in order to ensure that a specific model dies. I'm talking about killzone optimization. It's a slightly different beast, and requires a bit more skill to pull off. You have to be able to guess, pretty accurately, how many casualties you'll be able to inflict, as well as figure out which models need to be engaged in order to optimize the number of casualties you inflict when clearing your killzone.

2. Please ask yourself if the actual oucome of this so called 'skill' movement really is as mandatory as you point it out to be.
A won cc is a won cc. In case you take out 6 marines with 6 stealers and three stealers do remain afterwards, didn't you just win the combat? Didn't you just make your points back and still pose a threat to other units around, at least with combined forces with others? Don't you still have a scoring unit as opposed to your marine enemy?
I for one fail to see where you didn't win in the described situation and I'd say that it's neither up to you nor me to demand a cc system where you not only win a fight but win it without a single loss on your own side.

Then I don't think you understand the nature of 40k. Yes, it is manadatory for an assault unit to be able to inflict kills without losses. Consider the example above, with genestealers and marines. The genestealers didn't magically appear in combat with the marines. They had to cross the board, in the face of bolter (and probably other) fire. The genestealers are assault troops. They don't have guns. They take their licking from shooty troops as they advance, with the expectation that when they get there, they can deal their damage, without taking any. That's the point of having a high initiative. You go first, you remove the people who can hit you back. Removing killzones means, even if you go first, you remove people who can't hit you back anyway, and then get hit again. What's the point of initiative here?

Those six genestealers that made it into combat not only have to make their own points back, they also have to make back points to account for the other genestealers that didn't make it across the field because the marines got to shoot them. The marines didn't lose a single man while they were shooting the stealers, did they?

There's something called being combat effective. A 5-man marine squad with a lascannon is combat effective down to the last marine. He's still a big threat to a variety of targets because he knows no fear, and has a big gun. A genestealer by itself isn't combat effective. At best it will kill two models before being bludgeoned to death by the rest of the unit it assaulted. When the unit of genestealers loses two members while killing a unit of marines, that means that they're no longer combat effective for charging a second unit of marines. And, since the marines are going to be dropping stealers as they advance up the board, saying just "bring more" is a dumb response. They brought more, many don't make it into combat at all.

You're claiming that initiative is a stat that should only matter if the attacker is able to consistently apply the magical 3:1 force ratio in assault every time. Because, without killzones, if you're not killing every enemy model, you're not killing any that won't strike back. That makes initiative useless, and reduces the ability of all assault armies to win the game as they no longer just have to worry about surviving the enemy firepower just to make it into assault, but then also, surviving charges that they should be able to win easily.

Redbeard wrote:Then I don't think you understand the nature of 40k. Yes, it is manadatory for an assault unit to be able to inflict kills without losses. Consider the example above, with genestealers and marines. The genestealers didn't magically appear in combat with the marines. They had to cross the board, in the face of bolter (and probably other) fire. The genestealers are assault troops. They don't have guns. They take their licking from shooty troops as they advance, with the expectation that when they get there, they can deal their damage, without taking any.

I don't see anywhere in the "nature of 40k" which states assault troops should take no damage in assault. Where is it you get this unique and special insight into what the true meaning of 40k is?

That's the point of having a high initiative. You go first, you remove the people who can hit you back. Removing killzones means, even if you go first, you remove people who can't hit you back anyway, and then get hit again. What's the point of initiative here?

No. That was one of the points of having high initiative in 4th edition. In 5th edition it isn't a point. The point of high initiative is to go first. If you do enough damage then you could easily torrent special units like fists or power weapons even if they aren't in the kill zone (due to new wound allocation rules). If there is one thing Genestealers are good at it is swamping a unit with wounds.

Those six genestealers that made it into combat not only have to make their own points back, they also have to make back points to account for the other genestealers that didn't make it across the field because the marines got to shoot them. The marines didn't lose a single man while they were shooting the stealers, did they?

They didn't loose a man...if the Tyranid player is tactically incompetent. But if you are playing against anyone with some sense, the marines will have been taking a mauling from the Dakkafexes and Sniperfexes in the army. This is little different from moving any other fast assault unit into combat. Even if they possess guns, they are generally not going to get much use from them as they hide behind cover during the approach to the enemy.

There's something called being combat effective. A 5-man marine squad with a lascannon is combat effective down to the last marine. He's still a big threat to a variety of targets because he knows no fear, and has a big gun. A genestealer by itself isn't combat effective. At best it will kill two models before being bludgeoned to death by the rest of the unit it assaulted.

Not in combat, he isn't. A marine with a lascannon has one attack per round with no rending or special ability to bypass armor. At best he will kill one model per turn either in ranged combat or in close combat. A single Genestealer can kill 4 marines in a single turn of combat and costs considerably less than that marine with the 35-point lascannon.

When the unit of genestealers loses two members while killing a unit of marines, that means that they're no longer combat effective for charging a second unit of marines. And, since the marines are going to be dropping stealers as they advance up the board, saying just "bring more" is a dumb response. They brought more, many don't make it into combat at all.

You keep assuming that the player with the Genestealers is an incompetent boob. Is he not using cover? Are other units not shooting the marines and screening the 'stealers? Where's the winged fex that closes for a turn 2 assault and ties up the good guns? Battles do not happen in a vaccum, and if you find youself fighting against shooty marines on planet billiard ball then you have larger problems than kill-zone rules.

Democratus wrote:
I don't see anywhere in the "nature of 40k" which states assault troops should take no damage in assault. Where is it you get this unique and special insight into what the true meaning of 40k is?

Not no damage, but a specialist assault unit should be able to drop a generalist shooty unit without losing half of their strength. If you can't see that, I don't know what else to say.

That's the point of having a high initiative. You go first, you remove the people who can hit you back. Removing killzones means, even if you go first, you remove people who can't hit you back anyway, and then get hit again. What's the point of initiative here?

No. That was one of the points of having high initiative in 4th edition. In 5th edition it isn't a point. The point of high initiative is to go first. If you do enough damage then you could easily torrent special units like fists or power weapons even if they aren't in the kill zone (due to new wound allocation rules). If there is one thing Genestealers are good at it is swamping a unit with wounds.

Yeah, exactly, in fifth ed, it's all about hordes. What do you hit a unit of 30 orks with and expect to torrent anyone?

They didn't loose a man...if the Tyranid player is tactically incompetent. But if you are playing against anyone with some sense, the marines will have been taking a mauling from the Dakkafexes and Sniperfexes in the army.

Check out Centurion99's stealer shock list and show me the dakkafexes? Not all tyranid players play shooty zilla.

But anyway, ok, you like removing kill zones. I can't see why, but there you have it. I think it's going to ruin a lot of armies in 5th ed. Hey, I play orks - probably the best army to take advantage of this change, and I still see it as a problem.

So figure out which tactics solve the problem...

...and then create a version of the rules that doesn't suck, and use it with your friends. Better yet, share it with everyone else too.

As long as we're talking stealers: Everybody remember that useless 1 point upgrade that made you always hit on 3s and looked really cool? Well now it allows you to reroll misses. Further meaning rending was reduced in effectiveness by 1/9 instead of 1/3. Oh, it also gives it to anybody else within 2 inches. For 1 point.

-leo037

I ran the numbers for 32 spinegaunts vs 6 harlies (~Same point cost).

Harlies charge, get 12 gaunts in killzone, and after 2 rounds of fighting (Charge turn, following turn), there averages .5 harlies left and the gaunts are still scoring.

On the Orks vs beserkers, the Orks are more likely to get the charge as they can fleet, not to mention all the shooting casaulties that the beserkers take on the way in from the shootas/rockets.

In the new rumoured rules, you are scoring untill the last man is gone.

If you run 6 harlies alone into 32 spinegaunts you deserve to die (learn to pick your targets). Before you could just run them into anything without much care.. doesnt seem very fair?

There really are alot of units in the game, and taking one of your "meq" slayers and throwing them into a horde, single and unsupported seems like a bad move. Before you could get away with it but now you cant. Seems like a good move to me.

Savnock: Yeah, I've done that. However, considering this is a tactics forum for the ordinary 40k rules I'd say the suggestion to change the rules isn't constructive. This is the forum where tactics are worked out for Warhammer 40k, not other games that people have written.

If you are working out an eldar unit to fight gaunts, check the numbers for scorpions (the correct tool for the job) rather than quins.

Whoa there Phoenix, don't you go bringing sense to this discussion. Eldar Harlequins are good enough for dealing with Marines, so they're good enough for anything!!!11! Rendng fr the win!!!11!!

I haven't seen the leaked 5th edition rules (sadly), but it seems two different versions have been discussed here. One version makes it appear that whole units swing at each other in melee, while another makes it sound like only engaged models may attack, but casualties can be removed from the entire unit.

If it's the former, it's silly and counterintuitive.

If it's the latter, it seems to be a fairly appropriate approach. I understand where the hardcore gamers are coming from, losing both a tactical edge in planning killzones over lesser opponents and gaining a more complex chess-game of kill-zones vs other vets, but I think for many players it was just a PITA to have to plaot out when all you want is one group of troops to assault another.

Not only is it tough to explain to new players, but it bogs down the game with a level of complexity that is unnecessary and unrealistic, at least for a game played at the level 40K is. Mordheim or Necromunda, perhaps, but 40k is about units maneuvering and fighting, not individual soldiers.

I can see where some players are saying the correction to 4th edition's way of doing things is needed, but this swings the pendulum too far in the other direction. With the exception of orks, I don't see this as being a major issue. As far as orks go...it seems they'll be the top of the melee food chain, so armies will have to deal with them another way.

I agree with the above posters that much of this is part of the overall push to make the game smoother, more intuitive and to force people to take more troop heavy, balanced (shooting/assault) lists. Some will like it, some won't, but I think the game will still be playable and enjoyable. It's just going to force people t rethink their lists, which is what happens every time a new codex or ruleset comes out.

For example, tyranids can't out assault orks. The new blast rules, however, coupled with 150+ orks on the board, means barbed stranglers will butcher droves of orcs on the way in. I've already seen several threads lamenting ork's ability to deal with AV14 armor.

"But I want to run an all assault X army, but it can't win against orks". Boo-fricking-hoo. Join the club with every other themed army in the 40K players' imagination that isn't going to be top tier. Go visit warseer to watch people complain that their cool primitive IG army with warrior weapons and hardened fighters never wins. Or read any pure demonhunter/kroot merc/whatever force. Some units and list will benefit from the changes, some won't. Overall, I think the proposed changes will result in more variety in army lists, certainly in the short-term as the meta-game gets figured out, so it will be a fun time, both in terms of game-play and the intellectually satisfying pursuit of trying to find out what works best, and how.

It's the latter.

Redbeard's simple fix (keep killzones, models engaged at the beginning of combat can strike even if b-to-b models are pulled first) is the best of both worlds (simplicity of play vs. complexity of effect/avoiding it all coming down to outnumbering).

Too bad 5th is already written, and that fix won't make it in there. I expect to see it in house rules all over, though.

And Nurglitch, I'm not suggesting a different system. I'm saying that someone shou... er, will probably fix the rules, drop them into a scan of the original GW rulebook, and distribute it all over the internet. Free rulebook, with better rules. It's likely to happen if the rules suck badly enough (40K the Phantom Edit, as it were).

Hopefully people will actually try it out first and try to learn it before dismissing it.

Of course! The system will get its day in court. Then we'll figure out what's (most likely) wrong and fix it. And playtest it. And then someone will put all that on the interwebnet.

And sadly, even if a fix exists, the main system will be used whenever we want to take our shiny little toys somewhere to play in public.