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.

Hugely cinematic? Really? Really???

As I am working at the moment I can't look at the video but based on what has been said I can see this system having a number of advantages.

First, it will encourage people to think more about deployment and movement, rather than wound allocation shenanigans at the army list stage.

Second, as squads get smaller it becomes more likely that you will not be able to keep squad leaders/special weapons safe with the 'meat shield'. Not only is this more realistic it will also encourage bigger squads (which given that I can see kill points going out of this edition some mechanism to stop or slow MSU spam is required).

Third, it will stop conga lines. Enough said

Fourth, it should encourage jump infantry to be played in the way that the fluff would suggest (disrupting key parts of an opponents plans by attacking from an unexpected direction or forcing them to alter their plan to defend accordingly) rather than as happens now them simply being faster versions of normal infantry.

Finally, if there is a general increase in speed (which would favour assault armies) this will provide a counter-balance by allowing gunline armies to maintain distance with good target selection.

I thought the idea was that if your melta marine got killed, the bolter marine would still be there to pick it up and use the better weapon. Which is why you get to pick where you want the wounds.

Or maybe they've worked out a way to sell 40K players movement trays.

mmm i like this but this is what i want to know lets say i have a formation of tac marines like so

Y Y Y Y Y
X X X X X


they are then hit from the front by gun fire from some other squad lets call them Z like so


Y Y Y Y Y
X X X X X


^^^^^^^^^

Z Z Z Z Z


lets then say that Squad z inflicts 6 wounds, would i have to treating it so the Y guys behind X are not effected by that 6th wound, i mean a guy can get shot two times before hitting the ground

If true, Guard command squads will be even more vulnerable to shooting. A five-man unit simply cannot protect a fragile character from more that one direction. Beyond that, I won't even try to guess what effects it would have on the metagame. Chaotic, I should imagine.

In terms of purely visual aspects, having every sergeant, specialist or character be forced to hide in the rear ranks of their units will look rather sad to my eyes.

Its a problem with small units....until they offer buildings to put them in.

*the all new command squad and bunker set. Buy NOW*


Still the idea to mow down the front 'rank' is not bad.

Agamemnon2 wrote: A five-man unit simply cannot protect a fragile character from more that one direction. Beyond that, I won't even try to guess what effects it would have on the metagame. Chaotic, I should imagine.

Which is what I love most about it.

I love the idea that it would make deployment and movement on foot more realistic, cinematic and fit closer with the narrative. What I don't like about it is it's just another reason not to footslog. It also does absolutely nothing about mechanized MSU spam, as razorspam and and especially venom spam are designed to keep units from ever being directly shot at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDGlN6mluGA

Can you imagine one bump of the knuckle accidentally knocking a special character out of range? What a bad rule.

edit: I love BoW answer to this problem: "well uhhh plenty of those arguments happen now hurp"

This sounds really bad. Measuring each time to figure out which models are closer? And where do I measure from? This sounds way too much of a hassle to be a real rule. This is the opposite of pancake edition: hugely clunky, the opposite of "more like 8th edition", and the opposite of "good idea"

ph34r wrote:This sounds really bad. Measuring each time to figure out which models are closer? And where do I measure from? This sounds way too much of a hassle to be a real rule.

Honestly, most of the time you should be able to easily eyeball it. After rolling to hit and wound their shouldn't be all that many wounds to worry about. It should generally be a no-brainer to tell to tell which models are closest to yours, and if someone wants to contest a quick swipe of the tape is all that's required.

Sounds like nonesense as this will benefit msu mech the most, multiple fire angles to snipe out characters/weapons and be able to push horde assault units back out of assault range. If this is true it shows GW are sticking to there Grey Knight guns and not making an attempt to rebalance the game. Plus this mechanic plus premeasureing would vastly increase the length of time in the movement phase as all you it's try to "shell" up or maneuver to exact positions to snipe.

I like this this, mostly because Tau just got a massive boost to their JSJ in crisis suits. Hell, even squadrons of Gun Drones would be useful. Pinning TL pulse carbines from any angle you want.

This sounds much better than the horrible 5th ed rules.

I think 5th ed is very playable. It's only some codices that skew it for me. Same as 7th ed fantasy, it was only Daemons that pooped in that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think 5th ed is very playable. It's only some codices that skew it for me. Same as 7th ed fantasy, it was only Daemons that pooped in that.

This is excellent - personally anything that emphasizes general over codex, makes me happy, very happy indeed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:This sounds really bad. Measuring each time to figure out which models are closer? And where do I measure from? This sounds way too much of a hassle to be a real rule. This is the opposite of pancake edition: hugely clunky, the opposite of "more like 8th edition", and the opposite of "good idea"

Actually, personally, I already have to measure each time I shoot already, don't I?

And the times I don't ...its obvious...which I think this will be as well.

Its is easy to be negative and hate change....

Yeah, Horde assault armies were totally breaking the game. I'm glad this new mechanism will make it harder for them to get into combat.

No wait - that other thing. Dang it.

davethepak wrote:This is excellent - personally anything that emphasizes general over codex, makes me happy, very happy indeed.

.

I'll give it until the second codex release until some characters/units start to override it.

Besides those that already do, like Shield Drones, Bodyguards and the like.

Not sure what to think really about this as it's a simpler system than now but it's a little too simple so people who aren't 8 will think about how to take advantage of it but then again it's always been that way. I still be able to abuse it from both angles as you just need to know how to place your models in correct ways, but my biggest worth is powers like lash, and the deamon version both of which would allow you to make characters or special weapon carrier be at the front thus killing them off easily or have I miss understood the system?

sonsoftaurus wrote:

davethepak wrote:This is excellent - personally anything that emphasizes general over codex, makes me happy, very happy indeed.

.

I'll give it until the second codex release until some characters/units start to override it.

Besides those that already do, like Shield Drones, Bodyguards and the like.

Personally, I am ok with the "overrides" of bodyguards etc...thats what they are there for - specialized models with specialized costs.
This is much better than the current state of affairs.

Again, anything that makes the player more important than the codex (it is today overall - but some matchups are still bad) is good.

However, a lot of this is pure speculation until we get actual specific rules in the context of the whole game.

If this rule is true, say goodbye to the WA shenanigans of Nobs and Paladins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And again if true, Tau just got a bit better.

rigeld2 wrote:Yeah, Horde assault armies were totally breaking the game. I'm glad this new mechanism will make it harder for them to get into combat.

No wait - that other thing. Dang it.

You're looking at one rumored change in a vacuum. Perhaps this change was meant to handle wound allocation shenanigans, while other changes were meant to handle shooty (or mech-based) armies having an advantage.

As presented, this rule change is an absolutely terrible idea.

First of all, it doesn't address the biggest problems with wound allocation currently, which are: multi-wound allocation shenanigans & the ability to dump all the 'special' attacks onto a limited number of models if you end up getting too many wounds inflicted on a unit. Now, this rumor is isolated, so we could also see fixes to these issues as well, but it is important to note that this change as presented is just a random change to wound allocation instead of actually fixing anything.

So why is this a terrible change? Because 40K is a squad based game with individual models within the unit adding variety. That means the actual placement of the SQAUD on the table should be what matters, *not* the individual models within the unit. The more things you add back in that start making people worry about where exactly specific models need to be moved to increase their survivability the more time players need to take considering and fiddling with the exact placement of where they move each model.

That's why 2nd edition sucked because you had to worry about the firing arcs of EVERY model in the unit, and canny players would turn model arcs to ensure they could fire at the enemy units they weren't supposed to be able to fire at.

3rd & 4th were better, but you still had range and LOS sniping going on (where casualties had to be taken within range and LOS of weapons) which meant that you still had to worry about the placement of your models when you moved them and this absolutely adds a TON of time into the game over the course of the game.

The whole premise of casualty removal as it stands in 5th edition was that if you put the melta guy in the front rank and he gets gunned down when you pull the model of the back it isn't representing the model in the back getting shot, but rather the melta gun guy is going down and the guy in the back is running forward to pick up the weapon. Its only if the actual Melta model is killed does it represent that the weapon itself took some damage and got knocked out of action.


So yeah, this 'fix' does nothing except make players take more time thinking about and moving each model in every unit. Then the process of measuring range to see which models are closest will take more time as well. I'm sure if they do something like this they would make it pretty easy to figure out (you measure from the absolute closest enemy model in the firing unit and then all the 'closest' models in the target unit are determined from that point), but even so, its an extra step that you didn't need to do before.

And then from that point, its still basically the same process we have now (as presented in that video), so it looks like you'd still be rolling for each 'group' of individually armed models...this system would make it a LITTLE harder to clump 'specialty' wounds all onto the models you want (as I assume you'd have to wrap extra wounds back around to the front models in the unit again), but you'd still totally be able to do it.



So in short: This rule fixes no problems and adds a bunch of time to the game and takes the focus away from where it should be (squad tactics) and puts it improperly back onto model tactics. If you want to deal with model tactics, then you should be playing a skirmish game, not 40K.

Therefore I hate this rumor and I hope it is all bullocks or that it is so incomplete that we're missing something else that makes it much better.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Puscifer wrote:If this rule is true, say goodbye to the WA shenanigans of Nobs and Paladins.

The rule as presented has absolutely no real effect on multi-wound model shenanigans. Yes you're forced where to place the wounds, but they'd still be spread out exactly as they are now. And all you'd have to do is move the wounded guys to the back of the unit and you're fine.

The change that needs to happen to fix this issue is something similar to the leaked PDF, where excess wounds are always consolidated at the end of the phase, removing models and the extra wounds until there is only one wounded model left in the unit at the end of every phase.

Given that this is from the guys who a few videos down seriously try to make a case that you can flame yourself, I'll call their grasp of how to read rules tenuous at best. Even if something like this is coming, I doubt their explanation of it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Or maybe they've worked out a way to sell 40K players movement trays.

Hey, my horde IG uses them already so I guess they're ahead of the game for once!

If anything these wound changes (if real) will unfortunately add time to the game as people will spend even more time trying to position the squad members within each unit. While that's theoretically nice and all, in reality it means that games will take longer. With points values going down per fig with most codicies and tourny values going up (along with average pickup game sizes), this just means that the average game will take significantly longer. I'm hoping for some streamlined rules for the large combat game that 40k is slowly becoming.

I love this change, but my concern is like people have said, characters up front. Leaders would be at the front but I am sure not all would easily die just because they were in the front. I hope there is an added rule which lets you allocate 1 wound every 3 or something to any model in the unit of your choosing. So this could represent the bullets/lasers going past a character and hitting someone in the back row.

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:Sounds like nonesense as this will benefit msu mech the most, multiple fire angles to snipe out characters/weapons and be able to push horde assault units back out of assault range. .

Agreed.

Yay for Mech Guard still being extremely viable (based on this one rule mind you)

yakface wrote:
That's why 2nd edition sucked because you had to worry about the firing arcs of EVERY model in the unit, and canny players would turn model arcs to ensure they could fire at the enemy units they weren't supposed to be able to fire at.

I don't see an issue there. I like nuances such as this when they are build into the core rules. Its much better than just running a big blob where positioning matters little.

The issue of 2nd ed 'sucking' is also rather contentious

The current Wound allocation system is fundamentally broken and while this rumour alone doesn't mean that it is totally fixed it is an improvement. Hopefully there is more to it.

As H.B.M.C. already noted - 'ranks' and 40K?

No thanks!

Really, I am a fan of BoW, but they really need to stop this non-rumor rumor crap.

This rumour is absolutely ridiculous. After the flyer "reveal" by BoW, I don't trust them about anything. As usual, I'll just wait and see what happens.