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.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

How does this work? Is it:

1. 2D6-BS
2. 1D6-BS
- or -
3. 2D6(picking highest)-BS

BYE

It is 2D6-BS for misses on the scatter die. If you 'hit' it doesn't move at all.

Anything touched by the blast marker is now automatically hit without any partial rolls.

The center hole still needs to be over a vehicle to get a full strength hit (a miss still equals half strength rounded down). However, the change vs. vehicles is if the center hole scatters off the vehicle the AV used is determined by the center hole of the blast. So if your blast scatters off the back of a vehicle you can still have a chance to punch the back armor of the vehicle.

Telvos wrote:Just a few quick things; I'm read almost 100% of this and I still have a thought or two unanswered.

It says in the WH and IG codex section under armory (as well as in other books) that "You may not take duplicate items for the same model...". How are we going to take two power fists? (not that I want two of the lousy things, give me a Big Choppa or a force weapon any day).

As well, I feel I should point out the 'Blessed Ammunition' that WH can ignore cover saves; anyone hear anything about that ability changing? It seems a bit much now with all these cover saves flying around.

For any codex related questions we're all going to have to wait for the release of the 5th edition codex conversion FAQs. But as for Powerfists, I don't think you'll suddenly see the ability for models to purchase two powerfists. The whole point of the rule change (as it appears to me) is simply to give Powefists less attacks in general.

The rule about carrying two powerfists would seem to be included for the few models out there that have them (such as Marneus Calgar).

So BS3 small blasts will scatter an average of 5". That's a long way for a small blast. Hell, that's a miss most of the time with the large.

Guess that's another reason not to take MLs and GLs in Guard Armies.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:So BS3 small blasts will scatter an average of 5". That's a long way for a small blast. Hell, that's a miss most of the time with the large.

Guess that's another reason not to take MLs and GLs in Guard Armies.

BYE

I don't know...with the "no partial hits" thing, the question becomes whether you choose to disperse your troops (to minimize the effects of any one particular blast marker) or concentrate your troops (to minimize the effect of blast markers in general, while making yourself more vulnerable to a particular blast marker.

Take a small blast marker. Put it over some infantry. Now move it 5" away from them. You've basically missed unless you're firing at a big unit, or a very spread out unit.

If it were 2D6 picking highest, then the 'touch = hit' thing would be a good balance, but as it stands, most blast markers will miss by a long way.

And what's the bet Demolisher Plasma Cannons will go up in price when GW gets around to the Guard Codex again, citing that the 'touch = hit' makes them really powerful.

BYE

Average on 2D6 is 7, so wouldn't it scatter an average of 4", HBMC? Don't forget it still hits 1/3 of the time. We played a few games of 5th already and it surprising how many times a 5 or 6 was rolled on the scatter...which meant it didn't scatter very far at all.

Zoned

Is scatter still 2D6 - BS for indirect fire like Mortars? I could see the mortars being much more effective with the all touching = hit.

I noticed the new wording for the skill Hit and run.

You now have to test to leave the combat. While I think this is good, its not very balanced across all Codexs. Why should Seriphim have a better chance of getting off a hit and run than Dethcopters. I4 vs I2. Its not like their poiints changed to show their superior H&R ability.

I'm really not going to comment on most of this until I read the book myself. But somehow I don't think this will be the only codex imbalance that will show up because of these new rules.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Take a small blast marker. Put it over some infantry. Now move it 5" away from them. You've basically missed unless you're firing at a big unit, or a very spread out unit.

BYE

Or even better, play a game with these rules rather than doing the math and assuming it sucks. Here is something though if you must do math. the template has to be on a model's base. most models are typically 1- 1.5" apart. The base itself is about 1". If you put it in the middle of a squad of, say, 7 models (just for simple math) they cover about (again, just simple math) in a formation of:

....A....A
B......B....B
....C.....C

Which is a fairly realistic spread (I think) and you put it on the center B to not hit ANYTHING at all you would be looking at rolling an 8 or 9 on the 2 dice (you get a half inch in any direction from the center base, plus the 1.25" spread on the models plus the other 1" from the second models base, plus the 1.5" radius of the blast template. Like I have said before, I am not a math guru so some of the numbers may be a bit off, but it is good enough for government work. That doesn't even include the times you will get a hit and not scatter at all.

Play some games, quit theorizing and see that it is not the end of the world and actually makes blast weapons better over all. I have NEVER in my life been hit with more than 1 frag missile on my space marines before I started playing around with 5th edition. Once more, an option has been opened up that didn't exist previously.

Does the new book say anything about how base modeling should be handled for true LOS issues? For instance skimmers being modeled on top of big pillars or walls added to IG heavy weapons for flavor? Thanks in advance.

neofright wrote:
Play some games, quit theorizing and see that it is not the end of the world and actually makes blast weapons better over all.

Actually, enough theorizing would have lead to your conclusion. Warmachine
players theorize around deviations and blasts all the time.

Angst wrote:Does the new book say anything about how base modeling should be handled for true LOS issues? For instance skimmers being modeled on top of big pillars or walls added to IG heavy weapons for flavor? Thanks in advance.

As a matter of fact it does! It says no bringing along your own terrain and anything on the bases like that is purely decorative (as a paraphrase)

malfred wrote:

Actually, enough theorizing would have lead to your conclusion. Warmachine
players theorize around deviations and blasts all the time.

Yeah, but playing is more fun. Besides, everyone knows that warmachine players are deviants <quickly hides Khador models>.

Not everyone can playtest while at the office.

Or at home grading papers.

Jayden63 wrote:I noticed the new wording for the skill Hit and run.

You now have to test to leave the combat. While I think this is good, its not very balanced across all Codexs. Why should Seriphim have a better chance of getting off a hit and run than Dethcopters. I4 vs I2. Its not like their poiints changed to show their superior H&R ability.

I'm really not going to comment on most of this until I read the book myself. But somehow I don't think this will be the only codex imbalance that will show up because of these new rules.

Well exactly. There are going to be loads of minor imbalances. For example, Kroot lose their ability to see through 6.001+ inches of forest area terrain You have to hope (as a Tau player) that that minor penalty is balanced by something else, such as the ability of SMS to ignore LoS.

I think it tends to balance out.

Angst wrote:Does the new book say anything about how base modeling should be handled for true LOS issues? For instance skimmers being modeled on top of big pillars or walls added to IG heavy weapons for flavor? Thanks in advance.

As Neofright mentioned the rules say that any deocrative features modeled on your base do not count towards blocking LOS. The rules also state that models must be mounted on the base they come with. It says that if you wish to use a larger base for scenic purposes you should make sure to tell your opponent about it.

The Skimmer rules also state that skimmer bases have to remain on during the game unless the vehicle is immobilized or destroyed at which point the stand is removed. Unless your skimmer has its base glued in place in which case the skimmer is a 'floating' wreck. . .burning in mid-air while it's anti-grav drives continue to function (I actually really like that visual idea).

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:I'm looking forward to these new rules. My Dark Angels are looking pretty good, especially my Ravenwing force!

If I remember, turboboosting is now a cover save, correct?

But remember, 'only armour saves' can be taken against Psycannon hits, so you're still in the same boat.

BYE

They do actually get round this, basically you get a cover save = to your armour save, and can choose to take either, if memory serves.

HBMC its

direct fire: If not rolling a HIT 1d6 + 1d6 (aka 2d6 and add the sum) less the BS of the shooter.

indirect fire: If not rolling a HIT 1d6 + 1d6 (aka 2d6 and add the sum). There is no BS modifier.

Played last night. It slows the game quite a bit.
edit: Yakkie beat me to it.

Played with the rules last night-interesting
1. The mission setup is quite different. Having the first mover set up first might be a good way to balance. We’ll have to see.
2. No consolidation into squads following combat can really mess up the CC. That’s a real wrinkle and slows down the assault conga line which is a good thing for guard etc.
3. Deepstriking into regular cover causing wounds is glitchy to me but oh well.
4. The new blast template shooting rules slows down the game.
5. Cover. You now get lots and lots of cover saves, but this is balanced against units that would not have been struck in the past now being targets. Good for guard and hordey orks, not as hot for marines. I imagine we’ll start seeing more hills and true LOS blocking stuff for future terrain. Also repeat shooters will be efficacious then lower AP shooters as you’re almost guaranteed a 4+ cover save. I can see potentially why they decided t reduce defensive weapons else the eldar would have a distinct advantage in this in the amount of fire certain builds can put out there (and mech guard to a secondary extent). My mech eldar variant might get more efficacious because of their high firepower output vs. the standard mech eldar build (note the discussion on eldar psychic powers being used to double the cover save).
6. Tanks are much more survivable under the new rolls.
7. Could hellhounds fire indirectly before? I forget. If not, they got that much better being able to shoot through scenery to units behind. Ah my pretty demonettes it burns!

Using the True LOS can you still make an argument to target Things like an upraised sword or flag or something even if the whole model is obscured?

~TS

An interesting boost that seraphim get now is the ability to deepstrike. In the jump pack entry, it says all jump pack models can deepstrike.

Capt K

TommyStriker wrote:Using the True LOS can you still make an argument to target Things like an upraised sword or flag or something even if the whole model is obscured?

~TS

No, LoS is from head of the firer to body (heard, torso and limbs) of the target.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

RussWakelin wrote:I spent an hour and a half reading through the book at my FLGS on Tuesday.

And I have a couple of questions.

RussWakelin wrote:B - Have better visability (area terrain is bye bye, it will be hard to hide from the mighty battle cannon, although you will get 4+ cover saves)
D - I don't need to move as much because of B

But is this a good thing? Tanks can now see through forests and other things, so now they don't have to move? How does that improve the game, in your opinion?

RussWakelin wrote:C - Rotating doesn't count as moving (can still fire everything when I spin)

Fire everything, or fire Ordnance or everything else. Big difference.


BYE

I'll answer what was missed.

On Tanks an movement: Well I was looking at it purly from a 'how effective will vehicles still be in the game' point of view. Not from a 'isn't it cooler if vehicles move a lot' point of view. I guess that depends on your idea of 'realistic tank cinema'. I think of 40k vehicle combat similar to WWII vehicle combat. And when troops are on the ground in with the tanks, they are speeding around at 30 mph. They're going slow and providing cover for the troops. But, your mileage may vary on how cool you think this is. But...

It is definitly true that you will see a lot of folks advancing vehicles forward with troops partially poking out from behind to get a 4+ cover save.

Rotating: All I meant was that pivoting a vehicle doesn't count as moving. So it may EITHER fire everything OR fire ordnance. The reason this is important is now with the reduced ability of hth combat units to 'hide in combat' during your turn, you'll have a chance to turn and shoot that flanking unit of pure strains that just ate the infantry unit that was guarding your tanks left flank.

Someone asked about hellhounds:

The wording on the hellhound template in the IG codex is: The entire template must be placed within range and LOS. So it did get better, as did all shooting through woods. I do think flamers have been kicked up a notch, to the point where it actually might even make sense to put flamers on sponsons (gasp!). However I also think hellhounds will be VERY high priority targets for the enemy. So keep that in mind. But then again, against certain armies (i.e. Orks and nids) my hellhound was ALWAYS early to die.

Kilkrazy wrote:

TommyStriker wrote:Using the True LOS can you still make an argument to target Things like an upraised sword or flag or something even if the whole model is obscured?

~TS

No, LoS is from head of the firer to body (heard, torso and limbs) of the target.

Agreed. The book is quite clear on this. It actually lists what parts of the target model you have to see. It's actuall from the 'eyes of the shooter' to body (at which point it lists what counts: arms, legs, torso, head) of the target. It gives examples of such things like tails, weapons, banners, etc. not counting.

There is also a nice picture of what the 'hull' of a vehicle means. You need range and LOS to the HULL of a vehicle to shoot it. And the picture in the book makes this quite clear.

So do Grenade Launchers on Stormtroopers make sense
yet? Or is it still overcosted?

RussWakelin wrote:I do think flamers have been kicked up a notch, to the point where it actually might even make sense to put flamers on sponsons (gasp!).

Not with the width of a Russ. You'd be lucky to get it into a position where both flamers would be useful. Besides, if you move too far, they're S5, so you can't shoot them anyway! Aren't defensive weapons fun!

BYE

Also, a heavy flamer on a tank means the tank has to get close to use the flamer. This generally considered a bad thing, at least where guard are considered (remember all those marines you're flaming can minimum glance your tank now in cc). Thats also why the hellhound is sweet.

flamers on
Lemans no
Hellhounds yes
Landraiders potentially
screamers you know it baby!

jfrazell wrote:
5. Cover. You now get lots and lots of cover saves, but this is balanced against units that would not have been struck in the past now being targets. Good for guard and hordey orks, not as hot for marines. I imagine we’ll start seeing more hills and true LOS blocking stuff for future terrain...

Kinda makes it seem like the relative strengths of two armies in a game is going to be dictated (at least partially) by how much cover is on the board. Somehow that seems unfortunate but perhaps realistic.

ptlangley wrote:

jfrazell wrote:
5. Cover. You now get lots and lots of cover saves, but this is balanced against units that would not have been struck in the past now being targets. Good for guard and hordey orks, not as hot for marines. I imagine we’ll start seeing more hills and true LOS blocking stuff for future terrain...

Kinda makes it seem like the relative strengths of two armies in a game is going to be dictated (at least partially) by how much cover is on the board. Somehow that seems unfortunate but perhaps realistic.

It does make up for the lack of terrain in tournaments, however. Marines still get the upper hand since they don't need to sacrifice a unit or two to screen but at least the ability is there.

malfred wrote:Not everyone can playtest while at the office.

Or at home grading papers.

Now I know why my one history prof took about a month to grade our papers.

I am curious how the new blast rules slowed things down at all. Basically you place it and scatter, count the models touched then roll to wound.

As opposed to roll to hit, if it hits place the blast, count up models that are fully under and then the ones touched, roll 4+ for the ones touched, then roll for wounds.

It has been the opposite with us and that includes a crazy 9 man warrior squad all with blast weapons.

Scattering templates takes more time than simply hitting or missing.

Janthkin wrote:Scattering templates takes more time than simply hitting or missing.

I think scattering templates will be a bit slower than v4 missle shooting, esp. if there are a lot of missles.

However, I think hth combat resolution will be MUCH faster. And that is one part of v4 that can really slow the game down.

My guess is the game will probably play a bit faster, but only playing a few games will tell.