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.

Vaktathi wrote: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.

Not sure why others are having a problem with this Vak...after all in the rules itself a plasma gun is a "Rapid Fire" weapon which is exactly what a bolter and lasgun are and bolters are thought to be fully automatic in their operation so why would anyone consider a plasma gun a slow weapon?

Skriker

Experiment 626 wrote:
a) Vehicles are too strong meaning that mech is dominating while a few armies are left out in the cold because they don't get cheap super-effective transports. (Tyranids & Daemons)
Convsersely, MC's could do with a bit of tweeking to make them more desirable.

Vehicles got stronger in 5th because of the change to the vehicle damage chart. In 3rd and 4th Ed, you had a separate table for glancing hits and penetrating hits. Vehicles could be destroyed with glancing hits with a damage roll of 6. For this reason, and because the consequences for losing a close combat were negligable, players would focus on CC armies with relatively few big vehicles. In those day's you would be considered crazy to bring more than one Land Raider.

f) Melta needs to be tonned way down. Rapid Fire type weapons need some buffs to make them worthwhile again.

Melta is as it always has been. S8 AP1 with +2d6 armor penetration. The difference is that more people take melta weapons because the vehicles have become so prevalent. In the 4th ed days, flamers or plasmaguns were usually a better buy for your points just because you typically never got close enough to an enemy vehicle for melta to matter. Enemy vehicles were probably dead by the time you got that close.

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

This only applies to units with 4 or less models. How many of those are on the table regularly? Any squad of 5 or more models can lose a single model and will not need any kind of a morale check at all. In close combat this applies a losing squad no matter how big. It can have 20 models in it, but if it loses the combat by taking a single casualty it can be forced to run away. To make that 20 point unit run off the table in the shooting phase you would have to destroy *16* models with shooting and if they went from 20 to 4 models in one shooting step then by rights they really should be running away.

Skriker

Kirasu wrote:The main issue with the 5th edition rulebook is that it isn't selling enough models

HA!

Are you a GW shareholder?

Grugknuckle wrote:

Kirasu wrote:The main issue with the 5th edition rulebook is that it isn't selling enough models

HA!

Are you a GW shareholder?

Coming in 6th edition: All currently existing codex points values are cut in half, but the "normal" game size stays around 1500 points.

That will fix it and pick up mini sales again...or people will just play a lot of 750 point games instead.

Skriker

Tempest Six Two wrote:My only real gripe with 5th Ed. is cc Strength not having a direct correlation to beating/ modifying armour saves.. a Nob with uge choppa on the charge can take down a dread- But that guardsman with the flak jacket can shrug it off.

Hoping that cc weapons get armour save modifiers similar to how it worked in 2nd Ed... With a baseline str5 = -1, str6 =-2 and scaling from there. Power weapons maybe get an additional -1 or -2.

Just some thoughts

I think WHFB does this too. It's not a bad idea.

I'd say power weapons ignore armor saves. (because their rules say they do.)
Then if you have a S6 cc, it's -1 to armor, S7 is -2, S8 ignore.

Or something like that.

nosferatu1001 wrote: 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

When you're arguing that shooting more guns isn't beneficial in a *real life firefight*, you're actually saying something I don't think you mean to be saying.

Randall Turner wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote: 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

When you're arguing that shooting more guns isn't beneficial in a *real life firefight*, you're actually saying something I don't think you mean to be saying.

hehhehehe

LordTyphus wrote:
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?

Blood Angels - what, razorspam central? The codex that defined the 20pt razorback? You see a *few* DoA lists around - but most are based around min assault squads with a melta, in a flamerback or possibly assault back. Its a shooty army in its current form, with one assaulty element - Mephy. Bias heavily to shooting

White Scars - bikers that stay at range before killing remnants, because bikes suck at large unit killing. Bias to shooting.

Daemons - dont really have a choice, but some of the most popular units are used ffor shooting. Grinders, flamers, even horrors with AP4 for necron killing

Grey Knights - well, now here you are just off the deep end as you are waaaaaay off. 12pt henchmen squads x 5, 5 psybacks, 3 psyriflemen, 1xDCA in rhino / back, 3x purifier. Army based entirely around shooting out and assaulting remnants / tough stuff with the one properly assaulty unit. Or you have purifier spam - again based around volume of psycannon fire. About the only common build that even gets close to 50:50 is draigowing, which still relies on trip psyriflemen and quad psycannon to break vehicles open.

SPace wolves - barely any are about CC, again relying on volume of fire. Logan wing is about the only thing that "does" CC in a big way - but still usually has multiple fangs and cyclones.

Not even SOME DE are CC based. Vast minority. They are the epitome of spam - 8 venoms not being uncommon, all with the 10pt cost to double the shots, and triple ravagers / 2 ravagers + 1 fighter. Troops wracks (to camp objectives) and troop kabalites with a blaster, elite 3 - 4 trueborn with blasters. You occasionally see a small unit of incubi, or more often a baron + large hellion unit / flock unit which is shooting mostly CC occasionally. Again, balance is more 80:20 than anything like a CC oriented army

Khorne CSM - oddly enough when you pick the CC unit out of the codex it tends to be CC orientted. However how many have 6 oblits to back them up? A fair few I bet - being a CSM player myself, and noting what else other people play.

Seriously - you're still trying the "get better" schtick? Give it up. Escorting is one of THE single most common way of removing SM from the table

As for the number of SA? Irrelevant to the posited argument that escorting / falling back off the table without ralying is rare. Simple experience of about 5 tourneys so far this year (as I said, not many) of 50players plus, including the top 16 in the UK, shows that to be an argument with little merit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Vaktathi - I gave one out to you there.

Yes, one, hooray!

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

I'm not saying it's shooting 600 rounds a minute, but several dozen could be quite attainable. Either way, it's placed in the same class of weapons as assault rifles. It's wielded the same way, has the same maximum kill potential (2), and the same range restrictions. Sure it may not be firing off a dozen rounds a second, but even semi-automatic fire would put it in that category. Yes, it's an abstraction, just as everything in this game is, but if it's capable of 2 shots, it should be killing 2 guys if they hit and wound and fail saves, not both shots hit the same guy if they manage to magically somehow have dudes all differntey equipped but not if they are all identically equipped.

It is unrealistic that 2 shots always wound 2 people, and it is equally unrealistic that 2 shots always hits one model only.

And it's unrealistic that anything has limited range in this game too, rifles can accurately hit targets 400m away, tanks can rountinely hit targets 2km away, visually our battles are being fought in the area of about one city block and rifles can't hit targets more than about 80 feet away. Either way, one can assume that the abstract of 2 probably means he's shooting to maximize kills. 2 shots doesn't necessarily mean it's literally just firing 2 bolts. Routinely having your entire volley hit one dude, whereas if they'd been identically equipped you'd have hit two, is stupid.

No other game works like that. You won't find one. There's a reason for that. The weapons and units and costs really aren't designed around that occurring. Hence why people have so many issues with wound allocation gimmicks.

Your advocacy results in the former, mine sometimes the latter. Which is the better compromise? Its not your system, thats for sure

And what system, pray tell, is that exactly? I mentioned support for several alternate methods. However, any system that rewards bringing greater force to bear against the enemy with fewer casualties is broken and needs replacing, pure and simple. There's no good reason for that, and no reason for the additional dudes/weapons to be present if that is the case.

and you havent proposed anything better as yet.

4E allocation, allocation in step by AP, etc. Basically any system but the one we have now.

The icon of the game is a SM with bolter and chainsword. The two working together.

Typically only sergeants carry them. I just did a google image search for "Space Marine". On the first page I see chainswords in two pictures, one being an Assault squad. There are bolters or bolt pistols in all of them.

Looking at marine codex covers over time, in 2E you didn't see chainswords on either the Angels of Death Cover or the Ultramarines codex covers but you do see a lot of botlers. The 2E Space Wolves cover has...one chainsword being waved in the air with a bunch of terminators opening fire with heavy weapons on something. The 3E SM cover has a bunch of dudes firing bolters and...one chainsword slung over the back of a dude firing a bolt weapon. 3E Codex Blood Angels again had a bunch of dudes with bolters and...no chainswords. The 3E Space Wolves codex had an axe on the marine, who was shooting a bolter into a group of orks. The 5E Blood Angels codex, I don't think I see a chainsword on there either, but a lot of bolters. The 5E SM codex, the only chainsword is on the Chaos marine being blasted by a bolter. The 5E Space Wolves book is the only that doesn't feature what basically looks like a gunline or shooting fight.


Chainswords are cool and all, but they are nowhere near as iconic as a Bolter. Most SM imagery features a bolter, relatively little in comparison features a chainsword.

Prior to 5th ed codex SM every SM DID have a chainsword

I really don't think we're playing the same game or reading the same codex here.

or is your memory of 4th ed tactical squads lacking?

I remember lots of 5 or 6man las/plas squads. Are you referring to that one Trait? Didn't see if that often, maybe once. That was a non-standard (both fluff-wise and meta-wise) loadout.

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

What game are you playing? If this is the case then I have a hard time believing you have a decent spread of armies with proper terrain and the full spread of mission and deployment possibilities. Even razorspam BA and SW lists pack in lots of capable CC troops even if in small squads. There's no way you are consistently having games where shooting is taking a 80 or 90% prevalence over CC unless you're constantly playing pitched battle on planet bowling ball.

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.

Nobody is saying it doesn't happen, but it's far less common that sweeping advances, and unless they're already close, it gives the enemy time to engage and destroy your escorting squad, and requires a squad or tanks to sit there walking with it instead of doing something else. it's nowhere near the same league as a sweeping advance.

Khorne CSM - oddly enough when you pick the CC unit out of the codex it tends to be CC orientted. However how many have 6 oblits to back them up? A fair few I bet - being a CSM player myself, and noting what else other people play.

6 Oblits is hardly a ton of shooting. That's 6 heavy or special weapons each turn for the army for nearly 25-33% of their points (if playing 2000 or 1500), ho-boy, talk about shooting central. /not. 6 Oblits does not a shooting list make, not by any means. It's fire support, relatively sparse, if hardy and varied, fire support.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Prior to 5th ed codex SM every SM DID have a chainsword, or is your memory of 4th ed tactical squads lacking?

Do what now?

4th ed Tactical Marines had only a bolter. They have never come standard with a chainsword. In 2nd ed (and possibly RT) they had a bolter and bolt pistol. In 3rd and 4th they just had bolters.

They had a bolter and chainsword, which switched to bolter and bolt pistol in 5E

4E allocation is not "better" than 5E , as always leaving the special heavy / sarge alive is a sucky mechanism. They both have issues, its just the issues in 5E are better than the issues from 4E

You are supposing that, based on the in game "2 shots" that they have the same RoF as an assault weapon. Based on fluff, they dont. Again, the RoF in the game has no bearing on the RoF in the fluff, as it is an abstraction - an assault cannon doesnt only fire twice as many shots as a bolter at short range, does it now? No. Not even close.

Finally - shooting armies dont dominate games? WHen the US spawned the initial leafblower list? Razorspam lists come with 5 man squads with a melta. So do a heck of a ot of GH based SW lists. Shooting lists, current, dominate the UK scene. Whether that is the points levels we play, I dont know - but that is the truth. TAU won the UK Indy GT, and you dont get much more shooty than that...

We are not playing on planet bowling ball. We are using a range of tactics. Apparently repeating this ad naseum to you isnt working - I can state, based on experience across the UK gaming scene at club AND tournament level from 50 players upwards, that we play with appropriate amounts of terrain and with every single deployment type fully utlised. Parroting that out as your response every time is getting you nowhere, as you will struggle to convince me that i was hallucinating all those times.

nosferatu1001 wrote:They had a bolter and chainsword, which switched to bolter and bolt pistol in 5E

You really need to re-read your old codex books. I've got both the 3E and 4E books right here.

Verbatim:

'Weapons: Bolters. The sergeant may replace is his bolter with a bolt pistol and a close combat weapon at no extra cost"

4E allocation is not "better" than 5E , as always leaving the special heavy / sarge alive is a sucky mechanism.

And with 5E, you *increase* such models lifespan with mixed AP fire where in 4E they would have died.

They both have issues, its just the issues in 5E are better than the issues from 4E

So we have issues of increased complexity, increased time required, issues where more shooting=fewer casualties, and that's better than 4E...because the special weapons die sooner if you shoot them with all the same thing...why?

You are supposing that, based on the in game "2 shots" that they have the same RoF as an assault weapon. Based on fluff, they dont. Again, the RoF in the game has no bearing on the RoF in the fluff, as it is an abstraction - an assault cannon doesnt only fire twice as many shots as a bolter at short range, does it now? No. Not even close.

You seem to have missed exactly what I stated. I'm not saying a plasma gun is capable of firing hundreds of rounds a minute. But a modern day mortar crew can do a shell every 3-5 seconds, a tank is considered to have a slow rate of fire if it takes 12 seconds to reload (something akin to a Battlecannon) and can usually do it in 7-10 with most NATO vehicles. Those are all 1 shot per turn weapons. Even assuming the RoF on PG's is actually exactly just 2 shots, (which, again, based on an abstraction, is likely low), then it's likely twice as fast as these weapons, giving us say 3-4 shots every 10 seconds. That's matches some heavy autocannons in many respects or a rifle being aimed with at least some sort of precision on semi-automatic fire. That gives plenty of time to fire and the projectile to strike the target, confirm a kill, and engage another within the same timespan as an 1 shot weapon firing, thus making the "2 shots for 1 dude" rather silly.

Finally - shooting armies dont dominate games? WHen the US spawned the initial leafblower list?

Praytell, define a "Leafblower" list for me.

And keep in mind that the army was played at a points level not intended for typically casual or competitive play and won by the players own admission through getting first turn and favorable deployment every single time.

Razorspam lists come with 5 man squads with a melta.

Which also happen to be either Assault Marines or Grey Hunters, both of which are fairly CC capable and are fairly archetypal CC units (not heavy CC units, but much more CC units than shooting units. 1 meltagun does not make them a shooting unit).

TAU won the UK Indy GT, and you dont get much more shooty than that...

Space Wolf and BA assault armies can be more shooty than Tau sadly in 5E, I see armies that routinely can simultaneously both outshoot and outfight most Tau lists, HOORAY codex creep. Actually, the most successful Tau list I've seen recently revolved around Farsight and a huge bodyguard and drones all kitted out for assaults, it's featured prominently on BoLS a couple times for winning and placing in major events and I've played it with my IG and it did fairly well against me, losing 1 game and winning another.

We are not playing on planet bowling ball. We are using a range of tactics. Apparently repeating this ad naseum to you isnt working

When you keep describing the situations you find yourself in it is difficult to believe because quite frankly it does not match my, or the majority of others, play experience, and quite frankly sounds like BS. I routinely find myself engaged turn 2 by assault units and firing lanes restricted to prevent heavy weapons domination on typical tables. If shooting is dominating as much as you are describing such that nothing CC oriented has a chance, then no, you are not playing with enough terrain and deployment types.

In 4th ed they wouldnt have died, because the low ap shots would have never killed them, and the other shots fired (bolters, lasgun, etc) would not have usually caused enough casualties.

Giving you the exact same situation. At least in 5th you are *forced* to make a save on every special guy before the other guys get to make more than one, a *vast* improvement.

Increased complexity? Barely noticeable. Increased time? Barely noticeable. As in, simply immaterial to the game at hand. Compared to 4th ed casualty removal zones this is a negligible increase in time for a fair amount of decrease in abstraction.

You are, again, assuming perfect fire coordination amongst the unit. Take 2 plasma guns firing - you are assuming that both gunners always perfectly aim at 2 different groupings of models within the unit, so their fire never overlaps. I really dont know how to explain this any simpler than has been already - its just telling you the same thing over and over and over, which is that perfect shot spread is as unrealistic as never killing the special guy until the end, and is less preferable than simulating fire discipline.

Why should I define leafblower? Its not hard - it used mystics for DS protection, mass hydra and chim spam, and sprinkle to taste. It is still quite common in the UK at 1500 - 1750, although struggling against necron due to AV13 prevalence and annihilation barges being freaking awesome.

Additionally, leafblower variants went on to do very well in a number of places both sides of the pond, at least until the next very shooty codex came out. Arey ou next going to suggest DE arent a primarily shooting army, with venomspam (8 - 9 in 1500- 1750 points) being the predominant list? So much so they may onl have a single reasonably capable assault unit in the entire army, with the rest dedicated to shooting? If you do then calls of BS would be coming in thick and fast.

Razorspam - They arent the shooting unit - theyre bought because theyre scoring, slightly more resilient than guard although they do fall over quite easily, and a melta to blow important things up, and are sitting inside the shooting vehicle. They are light melee at best - 11 MEQ attacks with no power weapon, the most common config, is not a "capable" melee unit, unless you consider one dead MEQ, if luck is with you, to be "capable" - i certainly do not.

Tau - aaaaaand point missed. You dont get much more SHOOTING ORIENTED than Tau BS lists. This was a 9 BS + crisis suit heavy list, which against light AV meta does very well, except when claiming objectives. Yes it was played by an exceptional player, who excels with a number of armies but always loves his Tau, but it doesnt alter that this codex has essentially no assault elements - 10ish man kroot squads being it. This was played on well covered tables, with a mix of TLOS blocking and not blocknig terrain, yet he won. Farsight lists? They havent done well here in a while - too many better in shooting AND CC lists than they are, and relies on well covered boards - well above 25% recommended amounts

Finally - call it crap if you want, however I am stating what happens a long way from your location, and so your opinion on whether i am telling the truth is of no importance to me - call me a liar if you want, as you keep insinuating, but given you are talking about an entirely different country you clearly have no experience of, I would suggest keeping your ill founded and insulting opinion to youself.

We play with >25% covered boards at every location I have gamed in

Every. Single. Deployment type is used. All of them. Every single one. Any more ways to say the same hting?

Shooting has dominated 4th and 5th, and unless something changes will dominate 6th. This is true for the UK scene, and from what I have seen the US scene is not so different - not to the extent that you are portraying anyway

nosferatu1001 wrote:In 4th ed they wouldnt have died, because the low ap shots would have never killed them, and the other shots fired (bolters, lasgun, etc) would not have usually caused enough casualties.

If they're in a situation like the one I'm talking about there would have been enough failed saves to kill the entire unit either way.

Giving you the exact same situation. At least in 5th you are *forced* to make a save on every special guy before the other guys get to make more than one, a *vast* improvement.

Except when it means the special guys, and thus the unit as a whole, likely lives longer than it would have otherwise.

Increased complexity? Barely noticeable. Increased time? Barely noticeable.

Very much noticeable. Take a marine squad, 5 AP3 wounds, 7 AP5 wounds, 8 dudes, 3 distinct. That takes people a good 15-30 seconds to think out about how best to do that typically. Over the course of a game, that adds up. It's a hell of a lot more complex than "5 guys die, make 7 armor saves, remove all failed saves".

As in, simply immaterial to the game at hand.

You seem to be the only person on the planet then to not have seen this take time and thought.

Compared to 4th ed casualty removal zones this is a negligible increase in time for a fair amount of decrease in abstraction.

Different issue entirely.

You are, again, assuming perfect fire coordination amongst the unit.

Nobody said anything about perfect, just enough for the abstraction to make sense, and you're assuming that every "In game" shot is 1 "real" shot, which may or may not be the case. It's also hilarious how if nobody in the enemy unit is equipped differently then the unit firing at the enemy suddenly then becomes perfectly coordinated and some dude having a better crafted weapon throws them all off.

Take 2 plasma guns firing - you are assuming that both gunners always perfectly aim at 2 different groupings of models within the unit, so their fire never overlaps. I really dont know how to explain this any simpler than has been already - its just telling you the same thing over and over and over

Yes, it's the same thing over and over, and I keep telling you, over and over, you're trying to describe an exception that nobody but you is really thinking of as the rule. Trained soldiers really shouldn't have that issue, and the time period we're talking about gives plenty of time to watch fire and reacquire another target.

You're trying to force a justification for the rule that it's not trying to take into account at all. What you are describing in no way was used in the though process for the wound allocation rules, rather it was just designed to make everything take a save to try and pick out special guys potentially sooner.

which is that perfect shot spread is as unrealistic as never killing the special guy until the end

You're assuming the special guy is living until the end, rather than someone else just picking up the damn gun and carrying on.

and is less preferable than simulating fire discipline.

Which is not something the rule is attempting to simulate in any way. You keep trying to hamfist this concept onto something that isn't attempting to do that.

Why should I define leafblower?

Because most people simply call anything with chimeras a leaf blower, which isn't the case.

Its not hard - it used mystics for DS protection, mass hydra and chim spam, and sprinkle to taste.

By mass hydras you mean...how many? Because the actual list what won hardboys had...2. If a couple hydras and some chimeras makes a Leafblower, then just about any IG list that isn't footslogging is a leafblower :/

Not to mention that the actual list that won the event had footslogging infantry, junk like powerfists on CCS's, it had medusas, manticores, etc, and mystics aren't exactly an option anymore so it's hard to see how people are still playing that.

And again, it won largely by getting first turn every time with favorable deployments and opponents that played right into it by the players own admission.

Additionally, leafblower variants went on to do very well in a number of places both sides of the pond, at least until the next very shooty codex came out. Arey ou next going to suggest DE arent a primarily shooting army, with venomspam (8 - 9 in 1500- 1750 points) being the predominant list? So much so they may onl have a single reasonably capable assault unit in the entire army, with the rest dedicated to shooting? If you do then calls of BS would be coming in thick and fast.

The only that that changed from their 3E list was that they swapped Raiders for venoms. They've always been a very shooting heavy army. In 3E they ran a ton of dark lance toting raiders and a ton of 10man warrior units with 2 dark lances each and 3 ravagers with 3 dark lances each and maybe a couple units of wyches with blasters in the raiders and *maybe* a unit of incubi. All that changes was that they went from Raiders to Venoms and dark lances became more expensive.

Razorspam - They arent the shooting unit - theyre bought because theyre scoring, slightly more resilient than guard although they do fall over quite easily, and a melta to blow important things up, and are sitting inside the shooting vehicle. They are light melee at best - 11 MEQ attacks with no power weapon, the most common config, is not a "capable" melee unit, unless you consider one dead MEQ, if luck is with you, to be "capable" - i certainly do not.

A lot more capable than 12 dire avengers, 10 scouts 10 guardsmen, or 5 Tac marines, and hit as hard back when charged as full sized tac squad would.

Tau - aaaaaand point missed. You dont get much more SHOOTING ORIENTED than Tau BS lists.

I didn't say they weren't but trying to make it out like "zomg tau won a tournament, shooting wins everything in this game!" is silly.

Shooting has dominated 4th and 5th, and unless something changes will dominate 6th. This is true for the UK scene, and from what I have seen the US scene is not so different - not to the extent that you are portraying anyway

It has always been more dominant than CC except for times when they were able to abuse the gak out of new consolidations and never face a shot the whole game. However, that doesn't mean that CC units and CC oriented armies aren't capable, it just means they need a shooting component as support. Nothing has changed, you act like CC used to be such a larger component of the game, it wasn't. It's still a huge component, and in fact we have killier and hardier CC units now than we ever have had before, wound allocation or no. You're just expecting something out of the game that simply never was and never will be.

If you want a game where CC is the msot dominant, play Fantasy Battles.

40K is a game set in an era where personal firepower is the norm in war. That means fire and manoeuvre are more important than being able to take or deliver a charge.

main problem with 5th (in my opinion) is vehicles cannot move and shoot like back in 4th

White Scars - bikers that stay at range before killing remnants, because bikes suck at large unit killing. Bias to shooting.

I'm sorry, but the last three White Scars lists I've seen have used OutFlanking Assault Terminators in Land Raiders to double up on smacking the hell out of someone with a smattering of bikers. They mostly use outflanking in order to surround, and offend before the enemy can truly hit back.

Daemons - dont really have a choice, but some of the most popular units are used ffor shooting. Grinders, flamers, even horrors with AP4 for necron killing

What, the most popular units are NOT the shooty ones, but things that provide large multiple attacks in assault based combat, such as the fatecrusher list which uses multiple units of fiends, crushers, and seekers.
You cannot even TELL me horrors and grinders are even worthwhile as the large number of penetrating shots vs the the grinders makes them such a lousy choice in the army. The most popular shooting units are Heralds of Tzeentch and DP's with BoC due to the armor penetration. Flamers are good for MEQ and TEQ killing, but against vehicles they are only good at stunning, horrors are just a Tarpit unit that provides numbers of shots that can be at best used if the enemy is foolish enough to leave an actual squad outside of a vehicle, and used to try and tieup dangerous melee squads with their 4++

Do they have no terrain allocation in the UK tournaments? At all?

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are supposing that, based on the in game "2 shots" that they have the same RoF as an assault weapon. Based on fluff, they dont. Again, the RoF in the game has no bearing on the RoF in the fluff, as it is an abstraction - an assault cannon doesnt only fire twice as many shots as a bolter at short range, does it now? No. Not even close

Dude, you are way out of line here. A Plasma gun is a rapid fire weapon, and is given the stats it has (two shots) because the creators assume that it could reasonably hit and kill two people (same as a bolter or lasgun). It it was thought that it's RoF was too slow to reliably hit and kill two targets, it would NOT be rapid fire. It would be Assault 1.

Kaldor wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are supposing that, based on the in game "2 shots" that they have the same RoF as an assault weapon. Based on fluff, they dont. Again, the RoF in the game has no bearing on the RoF in the fluff, as it is an abstraction - an assault cannon doesnt only fire twice as many shots as a bolter at short range, does it now? No. Not even close

Dude, you are way out of line here. A Plasma gun is a rapid fire weapon, and is given the stats it has (two shots) because the creators assume that it could reasonably hit and kill two people (same as a bolter or lasgun). It it was thought that it's RoF was too slow to reliably hit and kill two targets, it would NOT be rapid fire. It would be Assault 1.

There's also the fact they are rapid fire everywhere else, the only reason they fire at Gets Hot! All the time now was a balance convention, before they worked like that ONLY FOR CHAOS, who fires it full blast with no care for the whole it might burn their hand off thing. Space marines actually did the sensible thing, turned it down, and had a lower strength as a result. (Kinda like how Plasma guns work for tau now)

For the last time, THERE IS A SAFETY MODE ON THE PLASMA GUNS. If one fires one at a lower setting it won't ever get hot, but in the tabletop it's presumed now everyone's firing it full power in the combat zone.

So they can indeed fire very quickly if need to.

I'd also like to point on on the whole " 4th and 5th was based on shooting" arguments that I can count the number of shooty HQs on 2 hands through out both those editions. You would think editions with a big focus on shooting would have shooty HQs.

It just seems to me like nosferatu got roflstomped by a shooty list and is now fixated on justifying his loss by saying the shooting phase is OP

It will be obsolete in a month or so?

It's not 3rd edition? I liked it way more then I have liked any other version and save for Rhino Rush, it was a great and balanced set of rules and rulebooks.

LordTyphus wrote:I'd also like to point on on the whole " 4th and 5th was based on shooting" arguments that I can count the number of shooty HQs on 2 hands through out both those editions. You would think editions with a big focus on shooting would have shooty HQs.

It just seems to me like nosferatu got roflstomped by a shooty list and is now fixated on justifying his loss by saying the shooting phase is OP

No, there isn't any as there is only so much firepower a single.model can have. You want a.shooty.HQ, I'd.say.Vulkan.for twin linking all the melta in this Mechmeta.

HQs general tend to be.better at combat. 40k may be.futuristic but it works along the lines of ancient warfare, where commanders meet in single combat a duke it out.

And please don't insult other posters. It leads to arguements and the whole thread degenerates to locking.

LordTyphus wrote:It just seems to me like nosferatu got roflstomped by a shooty list and is now fixated on justifying his loss by saying the shooting phase is OP

No, just no. No conversation is possible with personal accusations taken right out of somebody's ass. You and your posts won't be taken seriously with that narrow-minded attitude.

I wouldn't mind a small change to psychic powers. Currently each and every codex does set some rules about when and how powers are cast and 'dispelled'.
Some general rules would be nice. Also, a bigger influence of player, not just: get a Hood and hope for a good roll; Runes of Witnessing and I'm set.

LordTyphus wrote:I'd also like to point on on the whole " 4th and 5th was based on shooting" arguments that I can count the number of shooty HQs on 2 hands through out both those editions. You would think editions with a big focus on shooting would have shooty HQs.

It just seems to me like nosferatu got roflstomped by a shooty list and is now fixated on justifying his loss by saying the shooting phase is OP

Whether the HQs are shooty or not is irrellevant. Indeed, the "best" HQs (Farseers, Librarians, Vulkan, KFF Meks etc.) are not choppy either, but force multipliers. You don't take them to kill stuff in CC, you take them to provide buffs to your army or nerfs to your enemy.

Also, what's up with the personal attacks? Nos has a perfectly valid opinion and is getting blasted with vitriol of various viciousness. If you don't agree with him, fine, but don't start flinging insults.

For what it's worth, I agree that the game is shooting-centric. Note that that doesn't mean that melêe is pointless or too weak, only that shooting is the dominant factor in the game.

LordTyphus wrote:I'd also like to point on on the whole " 4th and 5th was based on shooting" arguments that I can count the number of shooty HQs on 2 hands through out both those editions. You would think editions with a big focus on shooting would have shooty HQs.

Lolwut? So in order for the game to be shooty centric HQs need to be shooty? Does Eldrad mainly being used to increase shooting damage through doom and guide not make him "shooty"? What about coteaz, who massively increases the amount of shooting you can get in the army? What about Vukan? Are you blind to the fact that the most commonly *used* HQs generally massively increase shooting capability for an army? Or theyre there to be cheap, and unlock reasonable troops. You dont generally see strict combat HQs - draigo and possibly logan being the exceptions

LordTyphus wrote:It just seems to me like nosferatu got roflstomped by a shooty list and is now fixated on justifying his loss by saying the shooting phase is OP

So when you argument is comprehensively debunked at every turn, you result to insults? *slow clap*

I've lost to a lot of lists, but it is undeniable in fact that shooting IS more powerful than close combat, significantly so, because it is generally more reliable, higher strength and higher volume (which contributes to reliability)

Vaktathi - just cant be bothered anymore. You dont seem to think 4E was bad, when it was. It was hugely frustrating to always have the specialist left. ALso - another guy picks the gun up? If youve been hit by a battlecannon i imagine the gun is toast.

5th ed may be shooty, but choppy did get a lot better than it was in 4th. It lost the ability to consolidate into fresh close combats, but it gained up to twice the speed with the ability to run, gained cheaper transports, gained the ability to outflank, gained a new combat resolution which makes close combat generally much faster and more brutal, and, most importantly, gained a nearly universal 4+ cover save, compared to the no cover save if your opponent could pass a leadership test (which they could).

Add to that a general increase in codex choppy options (not just a lot of choppy HQs, but GK got purifiers, guard got power blobs, space marines gained ironclads and vanguard vets, etc. etc.), and you've got a much more choppy-friendly environment. Looking over my 4th ed battle reports, close combat seems a lot rarer. Generally, it would only happen at the very end of the game, if my opponents even wanted to bother at all. I mean, it was only one codex and one rules edition ago that BA was a shooty army, their players groaning when devestators succumbed to black rage, rather than purposely taking rending FNP death company because it was good.

As for 4th ed wound allocation, I don't ever recall anybody complaining about it. Like the old area terrain rules, or like not being able to snipe models with blast templates, it was a slight unrealism added to the game to make it play better. It didn't take very long for 5th ed to be out before I started hearing complaints about wound allocation. For good reasons, really. Back in the day, which weapons you took for certain squads didn't have an impact on their survivability, nor did you have to make sure to shoot less to do more damage sometimes.

The only thing I could complain about in 4th was skimmers, and assault consolidation. Wound allocation was A-Okay.

Vaktathi wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:In 4th ed they wouldnt have died, because the low ap shots would have never killed them, and the other shots fired (bolters, lasgun, etc) would not have usually caused enough casualties.

If they're in a situation like the one I'm talking about there would have been enough failed saves to kill the entire unit either way.

And this conversation has been going on for some time, and is why I was confused that no one had brought it up. In 4e your special weapons WEREN'T safe! If wounded enough, they could be forced to make a save. Yes, they were likely to make it if they were marines, but still a 33% chance at success is a much better chance than 0%, especially now in 5e, where more shooting equals less wounds. Sure, on multi-wound models you decrease the chance that you'll remove models (by a freakish amount) but on units that are diversified and single wound you do have a better chance to force saves on problem models. But the current system is overly complex and allows you to save models unrealisticly as has been outlined.

I also contend that 4e was much more assault focused than 3e. Though they eliminated charging from vehicles, they increased the number and type of attacks from supporting fighters (the infamous "rocks" of 3e) thus making assault elements more brutal. Without craters created by exploding vehicles, troops could zip up, deploy from transport, and hide behind it, forcing a Target Priority test on the opponant to even shoot at the CC units. If you pop the transport, the unit has nice open ground to run across (if you got the "remove model" destroyed result) to then assault you. Vehicles with smoke were always considered "hull down" and this one could only ever get glancing hits against them, regardless of the penetration die roll (unless they had AP1 weapons, of course. Long live the Tau in 4e!)

4e also allowed consolidation into fresh combats. And boy was that fun. Pleh.

Defending the Nos, it's wholly possible that the GB meta has its own issues regarding LOS and missions, Vak. I play MANY shooting armies, and to be perfectly honest I prefer lots of terrain on the board. It allows me to outplay my enemies by deploying to maximize lanes of fire and manuvering the terrain to attack them. It is understandable, Vak, that you don't understand his problems given the difference in meta and presumably experience (different experiences, not more or less gaming experience) but still naive to continue to believe that he MUST be playing on open tables to have these issues with shooting. Most of my CC oriented opponants have been pleasantly surprised and exude supreme confidence when I heap terrain on the board, then by the end of the game realize the trap of assuming that terrain in any fashion hinders my ability to win.

Back on topic, I still miss infinitely tall LOS blocking trees. I wouldn't cry if they returned.