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.

It isnt to do with the game being just move-shoot-assault, its that the game has been biased towards shooting for 2 editions now - close combat need rarely happen

And so a funky rule that benefits assault units only when they are with different wargear loads is going to help the rest of the assault squads how? My beserkers aren't going to get benefits unlike those nobz with different wargear allocations. Or hell even basic Grey Knight Squads, which are both shooty and partial assault.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You think plasma guns really operate that high a rate of fire? You dont read much of the background, do you.....seconds per round, not rounds per second.

So it is far more realistic that he would ALWAYS without fail wound 2 different people, every time? Not exactly.

It isnt to do with the game being just move-shoot-assault, its that the game has been biased towards shooting for 2 editions now - close combat need rarely happen

That's probably why BA and GK are so uncompetative. And why Tau dominate. [/sarcasm]
Honestly the only competative dakka army is IG, the others combine firepower and CC ability to varying degrees.

Joey wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You think plasma guns really operate that high a rate of fire? You dont read much of the background, do you.....seconds per round, not rounds per second.

So it is far more realistic that he would ALWAYS without fail wound 2 different people, every time? Not exactly.

It isnt to do with the game being just move-shoot-assault, its that the game has been biased towards shooting for 2 editions now - close combat need rarely happen

That's probably why BA and GK are so uncompetative. And why Tau dominate. [/sarcasm]
Honestly the only competative dakka army is IG, the others combine firepower and CC ability to varying degrees.

Razorspam is one of the most common armies for a reason. Grey Knights are also, despite their CC prowess, mainly a shooty army.

Joey wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You think plasma guns really operate that high a rate of fire? You dont read much of the background, do you.....seconds per round, not rounds per second.

So it is far more realistic that he would ALWAYS without fail wound 2 different people, every time? Not exactly.

It isnt to do with the game being just move-shoot-assault, its that the game has been biased towards shooting for 2 editions now - close combat need rarely happen

That's probably why BA and GK are so uncompetative. And why Tau dominate. [/sarcasm]
Honestly the only competative dakka army is IG, the others combine firepower and CC ability to varying degrees.

Yeah, BA and GK have some crappy shooting - I forgot. Thanks for the reminder.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You think plasma guns really operate that high a rate of fire? You dont read much of the background, do you.....seconds per round, not rounds per second.

O_o it varies highly depending on whoever wrote it or is portraying it at the time, just like Space Marine power level and how often plasma weapons explode. I can't recall one ever exploding on someone in a fluff book for example. In visual portrayals, Plasma guns are not firing only one shot every few seconds (e.g. Dawn of War they're basically semi-automatic rifles), and in game terms is treated just like an assault rifle, with a rate of fire no different at optimal ranges than an Autocannon or Storm Bolter, certainly faster than weapons like meltaguns, flamers, grenade launchers, mortars, missile launchers, etc that can be reloaded and fired every few seconds.

So it is far more realistic that he would ALWAYS without fail wound 2 different people, every time? Not exactly.

If the RoF is really that slow, why would he be shooting the same person? If it's that slow, he'd have way more than enough time to register the first target was hit and is down and then switch targets.

It isnt to do with the game being just move-shoot-assault, its that the game has been biased towards shooting for 2 editions now - close combat need rarely happen

The game has always been oriented more towards shooting than CC, it's a scifi game after all. If you want a game where CC is the clear dominator, play fantasy. If you feel CC is lacking far more than it should , play with more terrain and outflanking/infiltrating/deepstriking/scouting elements. Had a stellar game last night with my mech guard against a CC necron list where basically the necron opponent had a ton of wraiths and hidden lords with warscythes in warrior units running in ghost arks. I killed most of the wraiths very quickly but the warriors with their warscythe lords hopped out and in short order whacked most of my tanks to death over a couple of turns because I just couldn't keep them down and I ended up winning by the skin of my teeth due primarily to two very (un)lucky failed morale tests on my opponents part.

However, the IFV spam is very much related to other issues of having few other options, if you'll notice in other games, even shooting oriented games, infantry have other options. Look at Flames of War, a platoon of veteran infantry dug in inside a woods and going to ground can pretty much only be dislodged by assault, you can shoot at them all day long and not do a damn thing because you either just won't or can't hit them or they'll have dug in making it very difficult for hits to have an effect. Several mechanics that 40k lacks make this possible. First is digging in, the infantry give up their movement to try and dig in and now instead of just a lesser save to use when hit by big guns, they still get their normal saves and any that fail the opposing player must still roll to penetrate their cover. Second is to-hit modifiers. Going to ground and being in cover add +2 to the score required to hit, or +3 at long range (making it literally impossible at long range when you need base 4's to hit). So when you roll up with eleven machine guns and dump 33 shots into 7 stands (models) at close range, you still need 6's to hit, the infantry need to fail their 3+ saves, and then the machine guns need 6's to break through the cover while tank guns usually need 3's to break through. Thus dug in infantry need to be dislodged by assaults where basically you just need one roll on a 3 or 4 usually to kill a model for each attacking stand. Alternatively, often infantry can spot for artillery units, gap wire and minefields, etc, rather than just sitting there with only the option to move/shoot/assault.

Jefffar wrote:Perhaps wound allocation with an order of operations based on the wound type (ID, No Save and Normal)?

Force as many models as possible to take the ID or No Save wounds first, then spread the normal stuff around more or less equally.

Flames of war does things this way. Each hit *type* needs to be spread out evenly across the targets. For example:

You have 3 armored cars that are fired at by 2 tanks. The tanks hit with 2 AT gun shots and 4 machine gun shots. That is 6 hits total, but you cannot break it up as 2 ATG shots on AC 1, and then 2 MG shots on each other. It breaks down to first the 2 ATG shots are applied to 2 separate ACs. The first MG shot is applied to the one AC that is currently not been assigned a hit and then the rest of the shots are once again balanced across the platoon so it ends up with the first two armored cars taking 1 ATG hit and 1 MG hit each and the last armored car taking 2 MG hits. Specifically designed to keep people from stacking the harder hitting shots on a single vehicle or stand in a platoon.

The Shootfest people panic about is easily resolved by having enough terrain on the table and taking advantage of concealment.

Skriker

Main problem with wound allocation is that, while bad, it is only recently that Paladins really tipped the extreme use of this over the edge. Having halberds, one normal and one master-crafted is really pushing it. The issue of less shooting causing more wounds if one that should never arise.

Other rules I don't like are flamers. I'm in a building and a flamer shoots in - maybe reduced cover, but no cover at all? AP3 flamers under the current rules are just nuts silly.

Rhinos tank shocking a monstrous creature and the MC having to just back off for fear of a unit half it's size running it over. MCs should be able to take the charge like a vehicle.

Generally tank shocking onto objectives through 4 foot units as non-mech armies have no way of stopping the tank.

On vehicles, there should be more impact for multiple shaken and shocked rolls. Maybe not the second glancing hit, but once you've done it 4-5 times in a turn there should be cumulative issues.

Agree on the damage to transports inhabitants being far far too low when it explodes.

Sieze the initiative. Not a fan. Set up a bike army, had initiative siezed and my army was sat there with no cover saves as they hadn't been able to turbo yet ... Game over then and there.

In 11 pages no one has suggested just going back to the 4E wound allocation rules? Roll to hit and to wound as normal. If the number of wounds meets or exceeds the number of models in the target, the shooter gets to nominate a model that MUST save or die. IE: 6 marines left in a squad. I shoot it with a unit of Firewarriors and score 6 wounds. I nominate the Marine with the Missle Launcher to make a save. If he fails, he dies. If he passes, roll the other saves as normal and remove whichever models the Marine player desires. In the case of mixed weapons, everything wounded a the same time, but when you nominated, the defender could choose what weapon they saved against for the nominated model. Naturally 3 lascannons and a bolter against Termies could still result in a Bolter save for that Thunderhammer Sergeant you were worried about, but hey: better than nothing.

Was that not a thing, or was that some house rule that everyone in my area played with? (One might, in 6th ed, add in making that nominated model take two+ saves, or nominating two+ models to make saves, if you wounded double (or more) of the remaining models in the unit.)

It allows no more sniping from a unit than the current system does, but goes MUCH faster and does not cause more shots to equal less wounds. Would allow players to handle Paladins with a MINOR increase to reliability, as one could

ruminator wrote:

Other rules I don't like are flamers. I'm in a building and a flamer shoots in - maybe reduced cover, but no cover at all? AP3 flamers under the current rules are just nuts silly.

While it can suck with an expensive MEQ unit, AP3 flamers happen to be incredibly rare, I can only think of one off the top of my head and two others that are more variable in nature that can potentially do it. Given their rarity, and the very pronounced gap between 4+/3+Sv's and AP4/AP3 weapons that GW has gone to seemingly great lengths to build, it's not an issue that seems to arise *too* often.

Wound allocation for template weapons.
Kinda sucks. You should only be able to remove the models under the template.

Vaktathi wrote:

ruminator wrote:

Other rules I don't like are flamers. I'm in a building and a flamer shoots in - maybe reduced cover, but no cover at all? AP3 flamers under the current rules are just nuts silly.

While it can suck with an expensive MEQ unit, AP3 flamers happen to be incredibly rare, I can only think of one off the top of my head and two others that are more variable in nature that can potentially do it. Given their rarity, and the very pronounced gap between 4+/3+Sv's and AP4/AP3 weapons that GW has gone to seemingly great lengths to build, it's not an issue that seems to arise *too* often.

GK Flamestorm cannon says hi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Wound allocation for template weapons.
Kinda sucks. You should only be able to remove the models under the template.

I fully agree here, it makes no sense that guys under the template are getting torched by a flamer, but they live and guys from the back just die off. The only reason I could see that being an issue if it worked as you said is that you would now be dealing with unit coherency issues as well.
Blast the middle and hope to break its coherency for the next turn.

rigeld2 wrote: And I'd rather shooting didn't get more deadly in this game.

The current wound allocation system hurts shooting and close combat equally. If anything, it hurts close combat more because models with diluting attacks MUST attack in close combat, while they can choose not to fire in the shooting phase.

nosferatu1001 wrote:...and counter any attempt at realism, that the guardsmen wounding twice with a plasma gun ALWAYS hits 2 different models, and never the same one.

So, you would rather have a game where before you did anything to determine the results of your actions, you and your opponent both had to agree on if what you're doing is realistic? If you want that, go play a historical game, which is filled with things like "yeah, well, realistically you wouldn't be able to penetrate my Panzer IV's hull from that range at that angle". Of course, it's difficult to find someone to play these games with because very few people play these games because they're bad games.

If we switched over to this kind of a system, there would be blood on the table as absolutely every possible thing would become an argument over realism. I don't think that guardsmen are strong enough to hurt marines, even with power weapons, that's just unrealistic. You shouldn't be able to field artillery, because fielding them in a close-range support unit like that is unrealistic. You shouldn't be able to have first turn, because my army is smarter than your army. Etc. etc...

What the rules need is LESS qualitative grey area, not more.

Nagashek wrote:In 11 pages no one has suggested just going back to the 4E wound allocation rules?

This has been mentioned several times in the last 11 pages. Perhaps you could read before you post.

Bluetau wrote:

GK Flamestorm cannon says hi.

Anyone's flamestorm cannon, nothing really special about GK's too much in that regard. But that's about it as far as AP3 flamers go that I can think of right off the top of my head, there's the one assassin template that rolls against leadership and the variable AP DE Homonculus template, they just aren't very common.

I fully agree here, it makes no sense that guys under the template are getting torched by a flamer, but they live and guys from the back just die off. The only reason I could see that being an issue if it worked as you said is that you would now be dealing with unit coherency issues as well.
Blast the middle and hope to break its coherency for the next turn.

It's the same reason you can allocate wounds to guys that can't be seen or are out of range. Nothing about templates is too different there. Same thing with blast weapons.

I think dawn of war needs a fix. I hate night fighting. And alot of people foget about it when they play.

Vaktathi - Imperial Fist scout novel, cant recall the name. Read it. Plasma weapons overheating occurs in multiple books, but is often a serious "burn" vent, which doesnt preclude the wielder regertting it, or the weapon being out of action.

Dawn of war is so far off canon.....

So they would ALWAYS, without fail, never ever fail, ALWAYS switch targets and take out another model? Always? Never, ever, fail, would always wound perfectly two separate models? Surely you're kidding now?

Thanks for the more than condescending "play with terrain and other units, herp" argument there - regularly do. Doesnt alter that the game still more heavily favours shooting than assault, and going back to 4th ed would simply exacerbate that. It is a scifi game with CHAIN. SWORDS. as weapons and genetically engineered SPACE KNIGHTS as the biggest icons. Some nod towards assault being viable as a tactic would be good.

You also missed the chemhounds weapon - AP3, 2+ poison.

Allaros - wonderful strawman there. No, I did not say that having a game based only on realism was the way to go, I was countering the unintelligent apes towards "realism!" that are the main coutners to 5E wound allocation - that it is "unrealistic" that shooting more guns can (not must) result in fewer wounds, by pointing out that g'teeing the other way round is no more realistic.

It's an abstraction, and an abstraction whereby the specialist in the unit isnt ALWAYS the last to die, unless you got lucky with ToF, is far more preferable to 4E

General - those advocating that those under the template suffer the wound? Did you not play 3E? Havent you experienced the pain of Jaws? Sniping models is dumb. IT breaks the concept of the game as a unit based game, and results in even more imperative to mech up.There's a reason Jaws is more derided than even lash was - thanks to Phil "whats internal balance?" Kelly we're lumbered with a crap mechanic that is horrific against certain armies, and can be an almost one shot i win.

The biggest issue with the 40k system is there are too many binary rulesets - assaultig from deepstrike makes daemons fairly broken. Not assaulting makes them mediocre.

Ailaros wrote:

Nagashek wrote:In 11 pages no one has suggested just going back to the 4E wound allocation rules?

This has been mentioned several times in the last 11 pages. Perhaps you could read before you post.

OR MAYBE MY DEALER COULD STOP SELLING ME CRACK!

I recall people mentioning older rule sets, but always with the notion that it was still impossible to pick off specific models (resulting in invincible las cannons and the like.) Sorry if I somehow missed that. In any event, it still seems the more stable rule. I'm on the fence about a return to "removing whole models first," though. Not certain how it would affect balance one way or the other, I just know that the current system just bogs the game down and is a mystery to new players who have a hard enough time memorizing the statline, weapons, armor values, facing rules, wounding a model vs penetrating a tank, etc, without ALSO having to figure out how to game the system as opposed to pure tactics.

Havent you experienced the pain of Jaws?

I wouldn't mind if it was actually represented amongst all rather than just one, might finally get a use for tyranids and their blast weapons.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Havent you experienced the pain of Jaws?

I wouldn't mind if it was actually represented amongst all rather than just one, might finally get a use for tyranids and their blast weapons.

Just htink about it for a second, widened out to every blast or template. No wait, no need - just look back to 3rd. Troops on foot meant that the blast always hit the IC / special weapon / etc, and they were dead. Rinse, and repeat. Think mech is bad now? How viable would foot orks be when the first shot snipes out the nob with claw? Or the KFF mech? And so on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Vaktathi - Imperial Fist scout novel, cant recall the name. Read it. Plasma weapons overheating occurs in multiple books, but is often a serious "burn" vent, which doesnt preclude the wielder regertting it, or the weapon being out of action.

Dawn of war is so far off canon.....

So they would ALWAYS, without fail, never ever fail, ALWAYS switch targets and take out another model? Always? Never, ever, fail, would always wound perfectly two separate models? Surely you're kidding now?

Thanks for the more than condescending "play with terrain and other units, herp" argument there - regularly do. Doesnt alter that the game still more heavily favours shooting than assault, and going back to 4th ed would simply exacerbate that. It is a scifi game with CHAIN. SWORDS. as weapons and genetically engineered SPACE KNIGHTS as the biggest icons. Some nod towards assault being viable as a tactic would be good.

You also missed the chemhounds weapon - AP3, 2+ poison.

Allaros - wonderful strawman there. No, I did not say that having a game based only on realism was the way to go, I was countering the unintelligent apes towards "realism!" that are the main coutners to 5E wound allocation - that it is "unrealistic" that shooting more guns can (not must) result in fewer wounds, by pointing out that g'teeing the other way round is no more realistic.

It's an abstraction, and an abstraction whereby the specialist in the unit isnt ALWAYS the last to die, unless you got lucky with ToF, is far more preferable to 4E

General - those advocating that those under the template suffer the wound? Did you not play 3E? Havent you experienced the pain of Jaws? Sniping models is dumb. IT breaks the concept of the game as a unit based game, and results in even more imperative to mech up.There's a reason Jaws is more derided than even lash was - thanks to Phil "whats internal balance?" Kelly we're lumbered with a crap mechanic that is horrific against certain armies, and can be an almost one shot i win.

The biggest issue with the 40k system is there are too many binary rulesets - assaultig from deepstrike makes daemons fairly broken. Not assaulting makes them mediocre.

I'm pretty sure it's not the rules as much as it's your unique meta, in CC you almost always have the possibility to kill 1 guy then sweep them off the board, you can't do that with shooting, either stop playing your "No strategy CC army where the only tactic involves running in a straight line, disregarding cover" or get better/stop playing bad people.

EDIT: It already hits the KFF Mek if he's under the template as he's a different "unit" in the unit... afaik

LordTyphus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Vaktathi - Imperial Fist scout novel, cant recall the name. Read it. Plasma weapons overheating occurs in multiple books, but is often a serious "burn" vent, which doesnt preclude the wielder regertting it, or the weapon being out of action.

Dawn of war is so far off canon.....

So they would ALWAYS, without fail, never ever fail, ALWAYS switch targets and take out another model? Always? Never, ever, fail, would always wound perfectly two separate models? Surely you're kidding now?

Thanks for the more than condescending "play with terrain and other units, herp" argument there - regularly do. Doesnt alter that the game still more heavily favours shooting than assault, and going back to 4th ed would simply exacerbate that. It is a scifi game with CHAIN. SWORDS. as weapons and genetically engineered SPACE KNIGHTS as the biggest icons. Some nod towards assault being viable as a tactic would be good.

You also missed the chemhounds weapon - AP3, 2+ poison.

Allaros - wonderful strawman there. No, I did not say that having a game based only on realism was the way to go, I was countering the unintelligent apes towards "realism!" that are the main coutners to 5E wound allocation - that it is "unrealistic" that shooting more guns can (not must) result in fewer wounds, by pointing out that g'teeing the other way round is no more realistic.

It's an abstraction, and an abstraction whereby the specialist in the unit isnt ALWAYS the last to die, unless you got lucky with ToF, is far more preferable to 4E

General - those advocating that those under the template suffer the wound? Did you not play 3E? Havent you experienced the pain of Jaws? Sniping models is dumb. IT breaks the concept of the game as a unit based game, and results in even more imperative to mech up.There's a reason Jaws is more derided than even lash was - thanks to Phil "whats internal balance?" Kelly we're lumbered with a crap mechanic that is horrific against certain armies, and can be an almost one shot i win.

The biggest issue with the 40k system is there are too many binary rulesets - assaultig from deepstrike makes daemons fairly broken. Not assaulting makes them mediocre.

I'm pretty sure it's not the rules as much as it's your unique meta, in CC you almost always have the possibility to kill 1 guy then sweep them off the board, you can't do that with shooting, either stop playing your "No strategy CC army where the only tactic involves running in a straight line, disregarding cover" or get better/stop playing bad people.

EDIT: It already hits the KFF Mek if he's under the template as he's a different "unit" in the unit... afaik

Shoot 1 guy, enemy fails morale, escort off table. Your argument is invalid.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Vaktathi - Imperial Fist scout novel, cant recall the name. Read it. Plasma weapons overheating occurs in multiple books, but is often a serious "burn" vent, which doesnt preclude the wielder regertting it, or the weapon being out of action.

Sorry I can't be bothered to have read every single one of the triple digits worth of BW books out there, however I do own several dozen (gaunts ghosts, night lords, ultramarines omnibus, etc), and can recall maybe one where it happened?

Dawn of war is so far off canon.....

Was just an example. Either way, plasma guns are not big slow weapons, they have rates of fire that are at least somewhat comparable to weapons able to fire off a couple dozen shots in a few seconds.

So they would ALWAYS, without fail, never ever fail, ALWAYS switch targets and take out another model? Always? Never, ever, fail, would always wound perfectly two separate models?

As far as a game mechanic goes, if it hits and wounds...yeah. That's the whole point, overkill on one dude can be perfectly represented by one hit out of two. If you want to take into account every minor possible realism issue, 40k is not the game for that. Hell, I can't think of any game that takes anything like that into account, even in games where you're only dealing with 5-12 models, much less a company level wargame where there may be up to three hundred models on the board.

Thanks for the more than condescending "play with terrain and other units, herp" argument there - regularly do.

Thank you for the condescending "you don't read much background do you" comments and the like... all I was doing was offer a statement about methods the game already includes for mitigating the power of shooting.

Doesnt alter that the game still more heavily favours shooting than assault

It always has had a preference for shooting over assaults, and always will. They have another system where the opposite is true. That said, CC does have some distinct advantages. Most shooting armies find it hard to table an opponent even if they win, there's no shooting equivalent of Sweeping Advance to destroy a unit in one go, and CC consolidation can gain you extra movement and simply being engaged protects you from enemy shooting.

CC isn't by any means unviable, you just can't expect to consistently do well with nothing *but* CC units. As a mech IG player, most of my casualties and tank losses are to enemy assaults, not shooting.

and going back to 4th ed would simply exacerbate that.

How? it certainly would also help CC as well as previously noted.

It is a scifi game with CHAIN. SWORDS. as weapons and genetically engineered SPACE KNIGHTS as the biggest icons.

Yes, the game has chainswords. It also has artillery cannons, claws, plasma weapons, bayonets, orbital bombardments, powerfists, laser cannons, missile launchers, blades of unreality, flame throwers and autocannons too. You'll notice the much greater devotion heaped upon, and greater use of, the holy Bolter than the Chainsword. Every space marine has a bolter or bolt pistol. Not every space marine has a chainsword, most have just a knife.

Some nod towards assault being viable as a tactic would be good.

It's not unviable. It just can't do everything by itself, nor is it meant to. CC works quite well when backed up by some key shooting elements. Most armies need at least some of both. Relatively few can get by without one or the other. One will notice that most of those bemoaned Razorback lists are packed full of assault troops with two attacks each and either counterattack or possibilities for Red Thirst.

You also missed the chemhounds weapon - AP3, 2+ poison.

Quite right, I did. forgot about them. though they also don't get to throw their template like the Hellhound does, I can't recall the last time I saw one used so it skipped my mind. Either way, there still aren't a whole lot out there.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

LordTyphus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Vaktathi - Imperial Fist scout novel, cant recall the name. Read it. Plasma weapons overheating occurs in multiple books, but is often a serious "burn" vent, which doesnt preclude the wielder regertting it, or the weapon being out of action.

Dawn of war is so far off canon.....

So they would ALWAYS, without fail, never ever fail, ALWAYS switch targets and take out another model? Always? Never, ever, fail, would always wound perfectly two separate models? Surely you're kidding now?

Thanks for the more than condescending "play with terrain and other units, herp" argument there - regularly do. Doesnt alter that the game still more heavily favours shooting than assault, and going back to 4th ed would simply exacerbate that. It is a scifi game with CHAIN. SWORDS. as weapons and genetically engineered SPACE KNIGHTS as the biggest icons. Some nod towards assault being viable as a tactic would be good.

You also missed the chemhounds weapon - AP3, 2+ poison.

Allaros - wonderful strawman there. No, I did not say that having a game based only on realism was the way to go, I was countering the unintelligent apes towards "realism!" that are the main coutners to 5E wound allocation - that it is "unrealistic" that shooting more guns can (not must) result in fewer wounds, by pointing out that g'teeing the other way round is no more realistic.

It's an abstraction, and an abstraction whereby the specialist in the unit isnt ALWAYS the last to die, unless you got lucky with ToF, is far more preferable to 4E

General - those advocating that those under the template suffer the wound? Did you not play 3E? Havent you experienced the pain of Jaws? Sniping models is dumb. IT breaks the concept of the game as a unit based game, and results in even more imperative to mech up.There's a reason Jaws is more derided than even lash was - thanks to Phil "whats internal balance?" Kelly we're lumbered with a crap mechanic that is horrific against certain armies, and can be an almost one shot i win.

The biggest issue with the 40k system is there are too many binary rulesets - assaultig from deepstrike makes daemons fairly broken. Not assaulting makes them mediocre.

I'm pretty sure it's not the rules as much as it's your unique meta, in CC you almost always have the possibility to kill 1 guy then sweep them off the board, you can't do that with shooting, either stop playing your "No strategy CC army where the only tactic involves running in a straight line, disregarding cover" or get better/stop playing bad people.

EDIT: It already hits the KFF Mek if he's under the template as he's a different "unit" in the unit... afaik

Shoot 1 guy, enemy fails morale, escort off table. Your argument is invalid.

Only if the unit consists of 4 models (or other occasional rules) that would force a panic check.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

LordTyphus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Vaktathi - Imperial Fist scout novel, cant recall the name. Read it. Plasma weapons overheating occurs in multiple books, but is often a serious "burn" vent, which doesnt preclude the wielder regertting it, or the weapon being out of action.

Dawn of war is so far off canon.....

So they would ALWAYS, without fail, never ever fail, ALWAYS switch targets and take out another model? Always? Never, ever, fail, would always wound perfectly two separate models? Surely you're kidding now?

Thanks for the more than condescending "play with terrain and other units, herp" argument there - regularly do. Doesnt alter that the game still more heavily favours shooting than assault, and going back to 4th ed would simply exacerbate that. It is a scifi game with CHAIN. SWORDS. as weapons and genetically engineered SPACE KNIGHTS as the biggest icons. Some nod towards assault being viable as a tactic would be good.

You also missed the chemhounds weapon - AP3, 2+ poison.

Allaros - wonderful strawman there. No, I did not say that having a game based only on realism was the way to go, I was countering the unintelligent apes towards "realism!" that are the main coutners to 5E wound allocation - that it is "unrealistic" that shooting more guns can (not must) result in fewer wounds, by pointing out that g'teeing the other way round is no more realistic.

It's an abstraction, and an abstraction whereby the specialist in the unit isnt ALWAYS the last to die, unless you got lucky with ToF, is far more preferable to 4E

General - those advocating that those under the template suffer the wound? Did you not play 3E? Havent you experienced the pain of Jaws? Sniping models is dumb. IT breaks the concept of the game as a unit based game, and results in even more imperative to mech up.There's a reason Jaws is more derided than even lash was - thanks to Phil "whats internal balance?" Kelly we're lumbered with a crap mechanic that is horrific against certain armies, and can be an almost one shot i win.

The biggest issue with the 40k system is there are too many binary rulesets - assaultig from deepstrike makes daemons fairly broken. Not assaulting makes them mediocre.

I'm pretty sure it's not the rules as much as it's your unique meta, in CC you almost always have the possibility to kill 1 guy then sweep them off the board, you can't do that with shooting, either stop playing your "No strategy CC army where the only tactic involves running in a straight line, disregarding cover" or get better/stop playing bad people.

EDIT: It already hits the KFF Mek if he's under the template as he's a different "unit" in the unit... afaik

Shoot 1 guy, enemy fails morale, escort off table. Your argument is invalid.

escorting off a 4 man squad =/= Sweeping an x sized squad (I can't even think of many units that can only take 4 models besides stuff like Tyranid Warriors, Wraiths, Meganobs, and bikes, I'm fairly sure those are all multiple wound models too (or high T))

Which one is easier and more devastating?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Shoot 1 guy, enemy fails morale, escort off table. Your argument is invalid.

That requires you to be within assault range of them even after their fallback move, not a common occurrence. I think I see this happen once every couple months, sweeping advance I see every time someone isn't playing a fearless army and something gets into CC.

I'd have to say the cover art. Replace it with something more relevant like Matt Ward bro-fisting Marneus Calgar

ruminator wrote:Sieze the initiative. Not a fan. Set up a bike army, had initiative siezed and my army was sat there with no cover saves as they hadn't been able to turbo yet ... Game over then and there.

So what there was not a single lick of cover in your deployment zone? If so why weren't you using it? If there wasn't why not...terrain is a necessary feature in 40k to keep shooting from dominating everything. If it was there and you weren't using it then is that really the fault of the seize the initiative rule or is it not actually your fault for not using your cover and "assuming" that you would be moving first and everything would be fine? Or were you doing the fast assaulting army "I've got first turn so I am going to push all my models up the very front of my deployment zone to get at the enemy faster" maneuver and forgot that it was possible that your forces could just be sitting ducks for an enemy seizing the initiative?

Either way, certainly not the fault of the rule itself. Either poor table set up with not enough cover, or you as the player ignoring the cover either out of absentmindedness or out of hope to press the advantage of having the first turn.

Skirker

Vaktathi wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Shoot 1 guy, enemy fails morale, escort off table. Your argument is invalid.

That requires you to be within assault range of them even after their fallback move, not a common occurrence. I think I see this happen once every couple months, sweeping advance I see every time someone isn't playing a fearless army and something gets into CC.

Furthermore, not only do you have to end close, but the escorting unit needs to stay alive and in range until the other unit flees off the board. This is pretty easy to stop most of the time.

Meanwhile, with a sweeping advance, you're swept. Sent packing. That's it. There's nothing you can do to keep your guys on the board.

Lord Typhus - sorry lolwut? Get better? I am currently inside the top 50 in the UK, and hardly go to ranked tournies any longer. I'm pretty good - certainly competent to opine on the state of the meta. It is not a "unique" meta, unless "unique" means most of the UK.

Razor / venom / chim spam is rife, and a "classic" 1750 point list involves 1 unit of DCA in a rhino, the rest is cheap henchmen in psybacks with 3 purifiers in psybacks and 3 psyriflem. Shooting is *much* more predictable than CC, given the volume of fire put out, and this predictability is why it can be overloaded to such an extent.

Vaktathi - I gave one out to you there. Also the depictions I have seen dont have it as being the same RoF as an assault rifle - not even close - just that the damage it causes makes a single bolt equal to a number of other rounds. In game RoF does not equal the RoF of the weapon in fluff, its yet another abstraction

It is unrealistic that 2 shots always wound 2 people, and it is equally unrealistic that 2 shots always hits one model only. Your advocacy results in the former, mine sometimes the latter. Which is the better compromise? Its not your system, thats for sure, and you havent proposed anything better as yet.

The icon of the game is a SM with bolter and chainsword. The two working together. Prior to 5th ed codex SM every SM DID have a chainsword, or is your memory of 4th ed tactical squads lacking?

Currently CC is an after thought for most armies - insttead of 60:40 its 90:10, or 80:20.

Staying within range to escort off a unit is fairly easy - I had it done to me twice in one weekends gaming, and did it to one oppoennt in the other. It is hardly rare - its one of the easiest ways to get rid of Space marines.

Ailaros wrote:So, you would rather have a game where before you did anything to determine the results of your actions, you and your opponent both had to agree on if what you're doing is realistic? If you want that, go play a historical game, which is filled with things like "yeah, well, realistically you wouldn't be able to penetrate my Panzer IV's hull from that range at that angle". Of course, it's difficult to find someone to play these games with because very few people play these games because they're bad games.

If we switched over to this kind of a system, there would be blood on the table as absolutely every possible thing would become an argument over realism. I don't think that guardsmen are strong enough to hurt marines, even with power weapons, that's just unrealistic. You shouldn't be able to field artillery, because fielding them in a close-range support unit like that is unrealistic. You shouldn't be able to have first turn, because my army is smarter than your army. Etc. etc...

Really? You are equating realistic rules with arguing over every little thing on the table? Sadly that could be likely given the way GW writes their rules. What really should happen, though, is that the rules are actually written well and clearly to make them more realistic, then there is no argument over the table. That is what you do if you want realism in the game. Things like guardsman being strong enough to hurt marines are already listed in the unit stats and when you compare a guardsman's strength vs. the marines toughness you get the likelihood of how well they could hurt the marine. Why would you remove such things from the game for realism's sake. That would just be a completely and totally idiotic thing to do as those stats already give us an anchor into the abilities of those units.

Also as a player of MANY historical games I am confused by your generalization of them being bad and being as extreme as your example of hitting a panzer IV. Plenty of WWII games, like Flames of War, make it clear that you cannot take out a late war panzer IV from the front with a british 2pdr gun without it being difficult, or hard to do. It is no different than the concept of AV in 40k, except not a single heavy tank in FoW is as heavily armored all the way around like a land raider is. In WWII even the big boys had weak spots to their rear and sides that could allow them to be taken out. Again this is easily done in many games making it more realistic, but not burdensome or crazy. It also requires you to use tactics, ambushes and other methods effectively to be able to deal with bigger threats too. For a land raider it doesn't matter what tactics you use: if you can't beat an AV of 14 too bad. With a Tiger I can ambush it with medium to heavy guns from the side, or I can assault it with infantry which generally tends to bypass the armor itself and drops grenades and the like into view slots, and open hatches in realistic systems instead of trying to beat their way through the heavy armor of the vehicle to take it out. Only in 40k would anyone armed with something other than a power fist attack a tank vs. its armor...

There are plenty of much more realistic and effective combat systems out there than GWs....heck there are many rulesets out there that are far superior to 40k in most ways too and in a real comparison of "popular" games as to how good their rules are, GW is losing ground all the time.

Skriker

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Currently CC is an after thought for most armies - insttead of 60:40 its 90:10, or 80:20.

Staying within range to escort off a unit is fairly easy - I had it done to me twice in one weekends gaming, and did it to one oppoennt in the other. It is hardly rare - its one of the easiest ways to get rid of Space marines.

Orks, Tyranids, Blood Angels, White Scars, Daemons, Grey Knights, (some) Space Wolves, (some) Dark Eldar, Khorne CSM, ect.

My other point, "Get better/Stop playing bad people". If you're/they're letting them/you escort your/there units off the table then you're/they're either still in your/their deployment zone or bad, how about you also tell us how many times Sweeping Advances happened in that gaming weekend?