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.

skyth wrote:I was thinking of ways that would make 5th edition actually fun to play for me, and came up with this list.

1) Make every non-vehicle unit scoring. None of this troops-only nonsense.

2) Return to strength 6 defensive weapons.

3) Get rid of kill points, replace with victory points.

4) Bring back area terrain, but make sure that people know that it's ONLY for area terrain (I'm thinking mostly forests), not all terrain and not models.

5) change skimmer moving fast to a 5+ cover if moved >6", 4+ cover for >12".

6) Limit no retreat wounds to the actual amount of wounds that the unit took.

7) Put outnumbering into combat resolution (outnumber=+1 wound, 2x outnumber=+2, etc)




Some of the changes I like (No consolidating into other units, run rule, BS mattering for ordnance weapons, no auto-entangle in wrecks). Regardless, points 1 and 2, and probably 3 would be required for me to play 40k under this edition.

1 no this rule actually makes the game more fun its no longer i spent all my points on this one unit that you cant kill BS
it encourages realistic forces you should never see a military unit based on super elite units

2NO strength 5 might be okay but having a 50% chance to damage armour 10 is to strong to be defensive

3 i think they are a good concept if you dont like them dont play them not that complicated

4area terain still exists for cover if your on the base of a piece of area terrain you get a cover save

5 no there supposed to be moble platforms not stationary

6 maybe might make fearless to powerful

7maybe just 1 for outnumbering like in fantasy

overall i think the game is more balanced now it is more dynamic and fun and stops a lot of power gaming

skyth wrote:Sorry, but CSM or Marines vs same points of IG, Fire Warriors or Necron warriors is not a fair matchup.

In what sense? Sheer killing power alone?

The contents of a Codex are balanced within the context of said Codex. Ergo, as a simple example, a Lascannon for someone with BS3 is of intrinsically less value than a Lascannon fired at BS4. However, and this is the complicated bit, the BS3 troops will be cheaper to buy in the first place, which means I can then have more Lascannons knocking around. Then factor in the relative resilience of said Lascannon Gunner. The more resilient the firer, the longer it will be around, thus the more expensive it gets.

How much worth would a full, dedicated and competent Assault Unit be to a Tau army? A lot more than to Marines, as they have other options and avenues open to them if they go down the Assault Route.

Tell you what, lets also consider the battlefield. Now, according to the designers, at least 25% of your board should be Terrain of varying styles. So, the Space Marine stands about in cover, and comes under Bolter Fire. He retains his 3+ save, his survivability remains the same. A Guardsman, Kroot, Dark Eldar, Guardian type does the same. Suddenly, from nowhere, they get a 4+ save, meaning it is now offically twice as hard to kill them with ranged firepower.

Add in that, due to the structure, unit size and generally price, the lighter troops come in higher numbers. Thus, say I turn the firepower of 2 Devastator Squads, all armed with Heavy Bolters, on two units in the same cover. The units are Sisters of Battle, and Guardsmen. The Sisters can take it, their 3+ armour protects them. The Guardsmen, however, decide to Go To Ground. Suddenlly, Mr Guardsmen, at the price of doing nothing next turn, is just as hard to kill as a Sister, for far less cost.

Going to Ground is of great value to Horde Armies, as they can usually cope with a unit or two doing nothing in the next turn, as they have plenty other units to exact retribution with.

But of course, GW are simpletons and just bung a random number onto points, never for a second considering the game system they wrote...

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:How much worth would a full, dedicated and competent Assault Unit be to a Tau army?

Tell you what, lets also consider the battlefield. Now, according to the designers, at least 25% of your board should be Terrain of varying styles.

Kroot are an *excellent* assault unit in the Tau army. They're cheap, large, very fighty, decently complementary shooting, and *SCORING*. Anyone who says otherwise: UR NOT DOIN IT RITE!

The 4+ cover saves with GTG are a great leveler. Guard gained a *lot* here, especially with Cameoline.

Kroot are not an assault unit.

Define assault unit.

One definition might be any unit that gets special bonus rules for assault, such as extra attacks.

An assault unit is a unit you would probably use the run rule for and definitely charge if within 6", instead of rapid firing.

onlainari wrote:An assault unit is a unit you would probably use the run rule for and definitely charge if within 6", instead of rapid firing.

Terminators aren't assault units?


I'd say that interpretation is highly subjective and also highly dependent on what opponent you are facing. My basic CSM's probably aren't assault units when facing Genestealers and Banshees, but when facing loyalist Space Marines, guardsmen, Dire Avengers, etc, they are very much assault units.

onlainari wrote:Kroot are not an assault unit.

They are in a Tau army.

Kroot are not an assault unit even in a Tau army, but Kroot with hounds at least has I5. But the lack of frag grenades and the rapid fire weapons should give it away.

That being said, they get totally reamed in the new assault rules, and it's real dumb. There is no reason that losing a combat by 3+ should cause you to pretty much auto-run or get swept when you still outnumber your opponent 3:1 after a round of combat. Sure the kroot have no armor, but they can't be so dumb that they can't tell they're going to win the combat if they stay stuck in. If the new rules just caused fights that were going to be losses for one side to be losses sooner...maybe I'd be ok with them. But they don't do that. Squads with low saves that relied on strength in numbers (admittedly a small group) now just get reamed.

No-one claimed the new rules were perfect.

If Kroot aren't the assault / counter-assault unit for Tau, what, pray tell, is?

Who says all armies need to have assault/counter assault troops? Kroot fit the bill for Tau only by default, especially in the new assault rules. It's like being picked first for pickup basketball because you're 5'2 and everyone else is 4'10 and tipsy.

Kroot are the guys that get assaulted.

They never move in the assault phase.

having gone from 3rd ed to a few games of 4th.. 5th was a welcome return to how 2nd and 3rd played.

there is no point in whining about how the rules work. either play 4th edition with your friends or adapt to the new rules. or quit playing for 3-5 years while they work on 6th edition

NaZ

Kroot are a counter-assault unit.

Dedicated Assault Units, tend to have decent Saves, and extra hitty HTH weapons and pistols to add to their powers.

Kroot, in my experience, when not in Cover, are best used to hold up enemy Assault Squads are turn or two.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Kroot are a counter-assault unit.

Counter assault does not exist. None of your units are in combat in your turn. You get charged, you die, you kill the enemy unit.

If that's not how it is for you you will lose.

And we waver ever further from the whole point of my post.

Please give it a good read folks.

And I can make a combat last a good couple of turns when I'm firing on all cylinders. Not every unit gets stomped flat in a single round.

Hi all.
If after 10 years the good game devs at GW towers STILL cannot get the 'new' 40k rule set 'right', dont you think its time to give up on the mutated WH clone and start again?

This time realise there should actualy be at least 3 rule sets to suit the 40k gaming population.

The detailed skirmish game , with a heavy narrative drive.(2nd ed to Necromundia, type game)

A fast paced dice rolling game thats just as heavy on the narrative driven gameplay,(simlar to current 40k but with elegant intuative rules!)

A wargame suitable for ballanced competative play. (Tournament rules.)

A game for large scale battles ...because some gamers are like that!(Elegant and intuative unit rules for Apoc.)

But thats just my opinoin, maybe?

TTFN
Lanrak.

I really don't understand the beef everyone seems to have with the new assault resolution rules. Assault is used, even in real life, to drive the enemy off a position. It's risky as hell, but if it works, it works. In 4th, assault was just an alternate means of doing the same sort of damage as shooting. Now, assault is very specifically a risky maneuver with a potentially big payoff use to force enemies off objectives. It also removes stupid instances of "I'll throw a couple guys in there and tie up the whole unit/block line of sight for a few turns!" Now you don't charge unless you mean it.

As for the troops only thing, I think it's a great idea! Armies don't usually consist just of the commandos and the tanks, it's mostly *gasp* regular infantry! Supporting and rewarding the use of guys that don't win games by themselves is an excellent idea to encourage, you know, thinking, and moves the game away from "how many assault cannons/lascannons/bright lances/power fists/carnifexes can I pack into this list" to "when should I commit my troops? Have I cleared his fire away? Can I take the objective with these troops?" and the game has certainly become more intense when a lesser number of soldiers really matter to the overall outcome. When everything scored, fire control boiled down to "pick the most expensive unit in LOS. Fire everything at it, get it to half, pick a new target" and assault armies didn't really care what they charged. Now, armies have a squishy underbelly that means something, so protecting or committing your troops is an actual decision that matters.

The game hasn't become a troop spam either! Pretty much everyone said that the horde of troops would be the only way and no other army would exist. Well, looking around, armies haven't changed to much, except I haven't seen any "2 min-sized troop choices" armies anymore. Horde armies actually aren't invincible, and right now only the Orks do it really well right now anyway, which, surprise surprise, fits with the character of their army!

The games I've played of 5th have been in every aspect infinitely better than 4th. I really can't say at this moment much needs improving within the rules themselves, I just think that some codex need updating to bring them in line with the changes made. Once that's done I have a feeling things will work out a lot better.

The main question about assault is whether shooty armies have an equal chance to win a game.

In real life, pure assault (meaning actual hand to hand fighting) stopped working in 425BC at the battle of Sphacteria. But this is a game, so what the hell...

::applauds:: open_sketchbook

Kilkrazy wrote:The main question about assault is whether shooty armies have an equal chance to win a game.

In real life, pure assault (meaning actual hand to hand fighting) stopped working in 425BC at the battle of Sphacteria. But this is a game, so what the hell...

Assault doesn't just mean "I poke you with my sharp thing". It's a swirling insane battle of guns, swords and chainsaws, with people busting through walls and chucking grenades and who knows what else. One would imagine that at such ranges high-yield weapons like melta or plasma guns are right out lest you cook your comrades, and if you really like to hit things with other things (you are, say, an ork) doing so is not overly difficult. Assault doesn't mean ranks of soldiers charging into one another, it means two factions have maneuvered close enough to each other that fire control has gone out the window and once you need to reload your chances of survival are higher with a fixed bayonet.

I'm also fairly sure that Battle of Sphacteria didn't feature genetically engineered close combat monsters either...

open_sketchbook wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The main question about assault is whether shooty armies have an equal chance to win a game.

In real life, pure assault (meaning actual hand to hand fighting) stopped working in 425BC at the battle of Sphacteria. But this is a game, so what the hell...

Assault doesn't just mean "I poke you with my sharp thing". It's a swirling insane battle of guns, swords and chainsaws, with people busting through walls and chucking grenades and who knows what else. One would imagine that at such ranges high-yield weapons like melta or plasma guns are right out lest you cook your comrades, and if you really like to hit things with other things (you are, say, an ork) doing so is not overly difficult. Assault doesn't mean ranks of soldiers charging into one another, it means two factions have maneuvered close enough to each other that fire control has gone out the window and once you need to reload your chances of survival are higher with a fixed bayonet.

I'm also fairly sure that Battle of Sphacteria didn't feature genetically engineered close combat monsters either...

Yes, and that's all fiction, because in the real world if a guy with a sword is charging at you, he can't hit you until he is about three feet away, by which time you will have shot him, and if he is a genetically engineered close combat monster you will shoot him with a Claymore mine.

I accept that 40 is a game of far-flung-future heroic combat blah blah etc.

However, shooty armies need an equal chance to win the game or we might as well throw away everything except assault, and that would be boring.

Killkrazy
You should play epic, that game plays more like modern combat.

40k has played like a Napoleonics/WWI hybrid since 2nd edition.
and the goal of those two forms of warfare was to impale your foe on spear tip.

and yes, one guy with a gun shots one guy with a sword
but multiple people spears/stones/fist have never taken down people with rifles
*cough* Zulu *cough cough* Philippines *cough* Somalia *cough cough cough* North Jersey *cough*

:phew: I think I need some lozenges

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:S6 Defensive Weapons. Why shouldn't they be S4? Or S5? Defensive Weapons on Tanks have traditionally been mounted versions of otherwise Man Portable guns.

I'd be ok with S5 or S6 weapons, I really don't think the S4 was warranted in any way.

Otherwise, I'd go for "Defensive" being S5 (i.e. Imperial HB & HF) or Assault (i.e. nearly every Eldar weapon). But S6? No way. S6 Assault Cannons are not "Defensive".

lord_sutekh wrote:On the defensive weapons bit:
Str 6 is not DEFENSIVE; str 6 is light-to-medium tank-killing. There is no reason for a cannon of any type (assault, shuriken, or otherwise) to be classified as such. I could see going up to str 5, but that's pushing it pretty hard.

I don't see how the assault cannon has anything to do with this issue. The general idea is vehicles can sit still and fire everything, move slow and fire one main and all defensive, or move fast and not fire at all. If defensive weapons are set at strength 5, is there any vehicle with an assault cannon that couldn't move slow and fire all its weapons? I can't think of one. Can you? So really the issue of the assault cannon is moot.

The only reason to go with 5 rather than 6 is to screw (or not) the eldar. All of their heavy weapons are 6+ where as imperial and tau weapons have stuff in the 5 range (heavy bolters, heavy flamers, and burst cannons come to mind) that would see a significant gain. So really, if you are going to screw with the defensive weapon strength, the only fair options are leave things at 4 and hose everyone or move them up to 6 where everyone can bring their light end heavy weapons into play. Nothing else really makes sense.

Kilkrazy wrote:

open_sketchbook wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The main question about assault is whether shooty armies have an equal chance to win a game.

In real life, pure assault (meaning actual hand to hand fighting) stopped working in 425BC at the battle of Sphacteria. But this is a game, so what the hell...

Assault doesn't just mean "I poke you with my sharp thing". It's a swirling insane battle of guns, swords and chainsaws, with people busting through walls and chucking grenades and who knows what else. One would imagine that at such ranges high-yield weapons like melta or plasma guns are right out lest you cook your comrades, and if you really like to hit things with other things (you are, say, an ork) doing so is not overly difficult. Assault doesn't mean ranks of soldiers charging into one another, it means two factions have maneuvered close enough to each other that fire control has gone out the window and once you need to reload your chances of survival are higher with a fixed bayonet.

I'm also fairly sure that Battle of Sphacteria didn't feature genetically engineered close combat monsters either...

Yes, and that's all fiction, because in the real world if a guy with a sword is charging at you, he can't hit you until he is about three feet away, by which time you will have shot him, and if he is a genetically engineered close combat monster you will shoot him with a Claymore mine.

I accept that 40 is a game of far-flung-future heroic combat blah blah etc.

However, shooty armies need an equal chance to win the game or we might as well throw away everything except assault, and that would be boring.

You once again forget we are not, for the most part, dealing with human infantry. A Space Marine that wants to save ammo has nothing to fear whatsoever from a lasgun, because despite the lasguns ability to destroy up to a square foot of flesh, the Space Marine is wearing, for all intents and purposes, an M1A1 Abrams tank, with additional internal dampeners and stabilizing systems. Orks have essentially no sense of pain, many redundant organs, and a self-clotting blood system, making it difficult to kill them without a headshot, and even then they have a skull thicker than some IFVs. A Tyranid is the exact opposite, as it has no internal organs whatsoever beyond an extremely armoured heart and lungs, wrapped in an armoured shell where the flesh is basically kevlar and the carapace is literately forged steel bound to flesh with a self-cooling and repairing mechanism. These things can survive the one or two shots at close range that they'll have to take from an Imperial Guardsman or equivalent before they twist off the guardsman's head and crap down his neck, and there are usually more than one of them per guardsman/fire warrior they are assaulting.

I also imagine that ammo is not in great supply in your average 40k battle. Most weapons likely have very limited clips, with the exception of the Lasgun or Pulse Rifle. For example, we know a shirken catapult has 3 seconds of ammunition due to it's excessively high fire rate, and the average .60 cal autogun carries just 20 shots. Conservation of ammuntion is likely very important because engagements are long due to the huge number of troops involved; this game is number 1 of 9 waves of ork warriors/screaming cultists/tyranid warbeasts/warp-spawned gribblies. When guys are reloading/when guys are down to throwing rocks and insults, assault is likely very important. This ain't your moma's modern warfare, where air and artillery support is always five minutes away and there is a huge ammo stockpile around every corner. The Tau planes have been hitting our Trojans constantly, our rear elements have been neutralized by Tyranid bio-weapons, reinforcments are never coming. Every battle is a desperate last stand, every soldier is a hero that throws down his gun and pulls out his shovel/knife/sword/chainsaw/glowy energy weapon/leg of dead enemy to attack when the grox feces has hit the sacred rotary air redistribution system.

Ok I do have some input about the whole "Defensive Weapons" thing.

The arguement is that S6 weapons should be able to shoot defensively on vehicles during movement beause they're hull-mounted. Right?

Well, how about we make a comparison real quick with todays weapons of modern warfare. Me being a military man myself, I've seen these weapon platforms in action. Now stationary, the remote controlled .50 Cal turret from inside the vehicle shoots damn straight and dead on. Now, however, you start moving at any decent rate of speed and you figure out REALLY quickly why thats a Rapid Fire (fully automatic weapon) and not a single shot one, because rolling at those speeds and trying to keep your hands steady which is your aimer and shooter. You are going to need to spray and pray quite a bit. Now lets take those ideas and apply them to the war torn battle fields of the 40k universe and see how many pot-holes, how many vehicle sized craters litter the grounds before the tank. And you want to tell me that they have any kind of accuracy when moving over that terrain...??? Are you nuts?

Also, I have to agree S6 is a little absurd to be considered defensive. I roll a 4 for penetration and I've busted MOST transport tanks. How is that defensive? If anything that makes Land Raiders absurdly overpowered if you equip them with a front mounted twin-linked assualt cannon. Now I don't have the rules sitting right in front of me because I'm at work at the moment. But I mean come on, S6 is ridiculous for "defense", S4 is fine with me.

Another good example, for those that do go outside and see the sunlight, is paintball. Try running full out and firing at the same time and see how accurate your shots are. Now thats with a man-portable and easy carry (weight wise) weapon. But moving at even 75% to full sprint speed and you're not hitting anything but tree lines, rocks and dirt. And maybe, MAYBE if you're lucky a shot will pop an enemy. Oh and paintball guns don't really have any kick or recoil to speak of, so that arguements out the window also.

Running and gunning is only effective on TV and in the Movies, you want a more realistic depiction of war on the table top then try it out with some paintball and see what happens. I would say go to war...but I don't think death = a great learning tool, so the next best thing is good enough.


**Cliff-notes for those that don't want to read my rant:

Movement = inaccurate fire, hull-mounted or not.

"AND"

S6 is not defensive, that's offensive. Defensive is something that takes out light/medium infantry and thats it.

Happy hunting, and fun gaming!

Comparing 40K to reality is always fraught with problems.

What you say is certainly valid for an Imperial tank (assuming the speed of 6 inches is fast...)

Skimmers obviously are unaffected by ground conditions.

The "defensive" weapons in a Tau vehicle consist of drones or mini-turret cannons which have their own aiming, or SMS which is a homing missile.

It's purely a rule mechanism.

Fexor wrote:Ok I do have some input about the whole "Defensive Weapons" thing.

The arguement is that S6 weapons should be able to shoot defensively on vehicles during movement beause they're hull-mounted. Right?

Nope. No one as far as I know made the hull-mounted argument. The argument I made was that generally strength 6 and below are generally high rof weapons, which should be usable at any speed. (similar to your argument).

But the primary argument I make is that moving and firing everything with vehicles is more fun.

Also, I have to agree S6 is a little absurd to be considered defensive. I roll a 4 for penetration and I've busted MOST transport tanks.

Ummm...A strength 6 weapon needs a 6 on the penetration roll to have any chance of a kill vs AV 11 (Which is most transports...That or 12)

In my opinion, defensive weapons would be more around strength 5, as strength six is a body buster even for venerable Space Marines and tough as cinder-blocks Orks. To a normal type sentient being (Tau, Guard, Eldar, ect...) strength 6 is just plain overkill. with S5, you still wound on a 2+ and still does not affect instant death towards the tougher type smaller beings (like special characters). I don't know why they chose S4, as I can't think of any S4 weapons that are mounted on a vehicle.

Also, all defensive weapons should be usable at all times except when moving over 12 inches (at some speed you just can't hit squat). Maybe a better choice should have been Ballistic Skill modifiers when moving at speeds.

Now for my own personal ideas on how to improve 5th: Shooting blast weapons should still run on BS, but if a miss is rolled, then the rounf should ALWAYS scatter D6". No subtracting of BS, just straight D6". Since this will make the round miss the center of target, and the base of 25mm models, which would go in running of a missed shot missing the intended target. Larger based models (40mm and over) would still have the center of the blast template on the base (if a 1 is rolled), showing that larger targets are a bit easier to hit.