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.

Or, couldn't you roll separately? Fire four shots of Plasma Gun, distribute the hits. Then fire 8 Bolters, and distribute the wounds.

The rules aren't even out and we're already discussing them like it was canon? Even though Strangelooper has raised a valid point, that doesn't mean it's going to happen as described. That could give a better use to coloured dice, rather than just characters.

Or, we could also play this like "Overkill". You've got too much firepower for your own good. Don't buy two plasma guns, buy a rhino! :p

Maybe they want to make troops more resilient, as they seem to be crucial in taking objectives - I don't know, I'm just speculating, and we won't know for another 6 or so months, so why bother?

IntoTheRain wrote:

Sarigar wrote:You still need a 6 to hit skimmers.

Counting down till Voodoo reads this and hits the ceiling.

T minus 100..

Could be an error on my part, but the issue seems to be the combination of the "6" and the total inability to penetrate. If you have "6" plus some reasonable chance of achieving a penetrating hit . . . it's no so bad

Kotrin wrote:Perhaps it's the reason you can choose that some of your guys won't fire at all if you don't want them to. I've seen someone mention this rule in the thread. The pure Assault Cannon shots or Plasma shots won't be "soiled" by some bolters if the owning player chooses so.

Yet, I'd prefer Yakface's solution.

I suppose that distributing hits instead of wounds would slow the game down too much (no more majority toughness...). Too bad - you could have the attacker choose which 'hit group' has to be distributed first, and the defender could decide exactly where the hits go. EG: I hit your termies with 3 plasma hits and 12 bolter hits. I tell you to distribute the plasma hits first; you put one on each terminator except the AC and the sgt. Then you get to distribute the 12 bolter hits: one each goes on the AC and the sgt to complete the '1 wound each' first set, and then each terminator gets 2 more bolter hits each. Then wounding rolls start.

Yeah, it would take too long :( Majority toughness is a huge timesaver.

Ok then, how about: distribute the smaller wound group first? 3 plasma wounds and 8 bolter wounds, 3 plasma wounds is the smaller wound group - each plasma wound must go on a separate model. Then the 8 bolter wounds are distributed (2 to the remaining models, then wrap 5 more at 1 per model, then the last one wraps again to a model of the defender's choice): resulting in 2 termies with one plasma and one bolter wound, 1 termie with one plasma and two bolter wounds (I assume you'd stick the 8th bolter wound on a plasma'd deadman), and 2 termies with two bolter wounds.

If some deathguard havocs instead caused 8 plasma and 3 bolter wounds: first you would have to assign 3 bolter wounds to individual models, then the plasma wounds would start being assigned (and wrapping). This would result in 3 termies with one bolter and one plasma wound, 1 termie with 2 plasma wounds, and one unfortunate sod with 3 plasma wounds.

GW are you listening?

does this troop issue mean that "without number" has found its niche? That would make holding a tyranid player's table quarter pretty tough.

pretty hard for swarms to use their fodder as fodder any more without "without number"

Thinking of nobs powerclawing down skimmers makes me really want to see a video as from the beginning of DoW of an Eldar skimmer bearing down on a mob of orks, blasting away, then as it gets close you see a nob getting a running start, leaping off the back of a dead ork or something, and burying his klaw into the underbelly of the falcon, tearing out a chunk and sending the flacon spiraling off to explode on a rock.
That would be so hot.

From the view of someone who likes the odd Guard tank now and again, I like the rumoured blast rules: It makes Executioners, Conquerers and Plasma Sponsoned Demolishers that much more useful.

Overpriced to the extreme, but useful.

Okay, could someone please explain to me what was wrong with Torrent of Fire/Blows, other than the way that it wasn't well-pointed-out in the text? I mean, it was a pretty simple system for forcing saves. Sure, those forced saves were relatively rare and then only on one or two models (out of a possible three-plus sergeants/specialweapon troopers in the average squad), but they did _something_ about invisible 'fists without bogging the game down.

This new system bites many time more than that one did.

Was it the main casualty removal rules that bit, then, or ToB/F? And is there a way to fix casualty removal by expanding/uppowering ToB without getting really intricate?

Seems like a lot of babies got tossed out with the bathwater in these rules. Hope they, like, playtest them. Or something.

One more question: Was there a name/credit on these? By that, I mean do we have proof of the "Hand of Gav" or Alessiofication? I'd liek to know who designed a rulesset this... well, bravely different, actually, but not terribly well-thought-out.

Keep in mind that the guy who was talking about this doc on warseer said it had an original date of July 2007. I doubt a set of rules from that far back will end up being the final draft.

Savnock wrote:Okay, could someone please explain to me what was wrong with Torrent of Fire/Blows, other than the way that it wasn't well-pointed-out in the text? I mean, it was a pretty simple system for forcing saves. Sure, those forced saves were relatively rare and then only on one or two models (out of a possible three-plus sergeants/specialweapon troopers in the average squad), but they did _something_ about invisible 'fists without bogging the game down.

This new system bites many time more than that one did.

Was it the main casualty removal rules that bit, then, or ToB/F? And is there a way to fix casualty removal by expanding/uppowering ToB without getting really intricate?

Seems like a lot of babies got tossed out with the bathwater in these rules. Hope they, like, playtest them. Or something.

One more question: Was there a name/credit on these? By that, I mean do we have proof of the "Hand of Gav" or Alessiofication? I'd liek to know who designed a rulesset this... well, bravely different, actually, but not terribly well-thought-out.

Well, these new rules do away with several clunky mechanisms in the old rules. The majority armor rule is removed (which was pretty darn confusing) as well as torrent of fire. There are also several situations that just aren't covered in the current rules: things like how a unit with differing invulnerable saves determines how many times each type of invulnerable save may be used (there are more, though).

Overall I have to say that the new system is vastly more simple to understand but will slow gameplay down quite a bit. Is the trade off worth it? I'm not sure yet until I try actually playing with these rules.

I know everyone's gut reaction is to look at the scenario where a small unit suffers a ton of fire and gets to abuse the allocation system but I think we need to take a step back and think about it. This sort of situation only occurs when a unit suffers more wounds then it has models in the unit. In the current game this is when 'torrent of fire' kicks in. Just think about how often 'torrent' is used in your games. In my experience, it doesn't occur all that often. In the vast majority of units firing you deal with situations in which you have less wounds than models in the enemy unit in which case the new rules work perfectly fine.


With that said, I still think the suggestion I made earlier makes the system much less open to abuse. To expand a bit on the idea, here is what I propose:


During wound allocation, if there are any wounding hits that would ignore the basic armor save of at least one model in the affected unit then those wounds must be allocated before any other wounding hits (although the owning player still chooses where the wounding hit is allocated).

Whenever a wounding hit is allocated to a model who cannot make a save of any type against it, that wound is immediately resolved. Meaning, if you allocate an AP2 wound on a Space Marine who doesn't have an invulnerable or cover save that wound is immediately resolved and if the Space Marine only has a single Wound on his profile he would be immediately removed as a casaulty before allocating any other wounds.



This proposal does two things: It ensures that the killer low AP wounds are spread evenly amongst the unit (as they are allocated before other types of wounds) and it ensures that a model which you know is going to be pasted by a low AP wound can't be loaded up with extra wounds that you know will be effectively wasted.

IntoTheRain wrote:

Sarigar wrote:You still need a 6 to hit skimmers.

Counting down till Voodoo reads this and hits the ceiling.

T minus 100..

I'm already well aware, of course I get 4 PK attacks per Nob on t he charge, and my Boss will get 6 on the Charge in 5th Ed. I'll roll my 6's, and then Penetrate the living hell out of it and bring it down.

Besides it's not like the thing is going to zoom and capture objectives, or deliver a squad that's going to pound me, and if he gets exposed to fire, the tank possibly will die with a decent probability.

Or you know, there's those AP1 Melta Guns other armies have, that can just get through their cover save eventually, and then they go bye bye. And seeing as how the Mech Eldar list generally revolves around those 3 Tanks in heavy just not dying, the list falls apart. Especially with only troops scoring.

5th Ed signals the death of that army, especially with the random game length for every game. No "last turn objective grabs with Jetbikes" because it may not be the last turn, and then they can just go get wrecked in the subsequent phase.

Similarly, nizilla is a bit weaker now (especially at 1500 points) as only the troops are scoring, and they tend to be fragile and easy to deal with.
I really don't like the current scoring rules. I hope they get changed. The current way encourages monoclonal lists, just in a different way to previously. I'd love to see a system that encourages diversity.

yakface wrote:
I know everyone's gut reaction is to look at the scenario where a small unit suffers a ton of fire and gets to abuse the allocation system but I think we need to take a step back and think about it. This sort of situation only occurs when a unit suffers more wounds then it has models in the unit. In the current game this is when 'torrent of fire' kicks in. Just think about how often 'torrent' is used in your games. In my experience, it doesn't occur all that often. In the vast majority of units firing you deal with situations in which you have less wounds than models in the enemy unit in which case the new rules work perfectly fine.

Rapid firing Marines with Plasma/Meltas pop in everyones head. My dual plasma/Apoth trait marines certainly aren't diggin' it . Then again, my Apoths will probably be 'count as' pretty soon anyways.

I still don't understand how allocating wounds works with LOS. One section it states you only allocate wounds to visible models. Another section states you allocate to everyone. Don't get it.

I still think the biggest change is HTH horde armies. No 2 inch kill zone is huge in my eyes, makes Orks with running/waaghh freaking scary.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

I still don't understand how allocating wounds works with LOS. One section it states you only allocate wounds to visible models. Another section states you allocate to everyone. Don't get it.

I don't see that in the rules. FIRING models that are completely out of range or LOS of the entire enemy unit don't get to fire, but if a firing model is within range and LOS of at least a single model in the unit then all models in the unit are potential casualties. This is the change I was really hoping for with this edition and its here (yay)!

I still think the biggest change is HTH horde armies. No 2 inch kill zone is huge in my eyes, makes Orks with running/waaghh freaking scary.

Well, only models in base contact or within 2" of a friendly model in base contact get to swing, its just that those casualties can affect any model in the target unit.

yakface wrote:
I know everyone's gut reaction is to look at the scenario where a small unit suffers a ton of fire and gets to abuse the allocation system but I think we need to take a step back and think about it. This sort of situation only occurs when a unit suffers more wounds then it has models in the unit. In the current game this is when 'torrent of fire' kicks in. Just think about how often 'torrent' is used in your games. In my experience, it doesn't occur all that often. In the vast majority of units firing you deal with situations in which you have less wounds than models in the enemy unit in which case the new rules work perfectly fine.

I found in my list (SL war walkers + bladestorming DAs), torrent wasn't that uncommon. However, it wasn't so much the chance to snipe a PF that was important to me, but the statistical strength of lots of wounds. With the new wound allocation system, the opponent will be able to blunt the effectiveness of the lots-of-wounds units/builds by putting multiple wounds on single models.

yakface wrote:
With that said, I still think the suggestion I made earlier makes the system much less open to abuse.

I agree. I very much like your idea of first having to allocate the save-ignoring wounds first.

I don't see that in the rules

I posted it earlier, might be what he is referring too. It is in the cover save rules. Quote:
"Models that are completely out of sight of all of
the firers are not counted in either category, and
they cannot be hit."

EDIT -- Looked at 4ed rulebook and this isn't cut and past from there, so I was wrong on that account

yakface wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:

I still don't understand how allocating wounds works with LOS. One section it states you only allocate wounds to visible models. Another section states you allocate to everyone. Don't get it.

I don't see that in the rules. FIRING models that are completely out of range or LOS of the entire enemy unit don't get to fire, but if a firing model is within range and LOS of at least a single model in the unit then all models in the unit are potential casualties. This is the change I was really hoping for with this edition and its here (yay)!

I still think the biggest change is HTH horde armies. No 2 inch kill zone is huge in my eyes, makes Orks with running/waaghh freaking scary.

Well, only models in base contact or within 2" of a friendly model in base contact get to swing, its just that those casualties can affect any model in the target unit.

Page 15, under step 5 it states "Allocate Wounds. The owner of the target unit allocates the wounds on the unit's visible models." Emphasis mine, true this is one statement...but still?

You might still only get to swing if you are within 2'' but that doesn't mean much with kill zone gone. 30 Orks attack Marines in cover led by a Captain, lets say they kill 6 total Orks. Currently, this is a big deal as the Orks won't get many attacks in and the Marines will win combat and bypass making saves.

New edition, you kill 6 Orks....he removes 6 Orks that are in the back of the mob 12 inches away still....yet makes all of his attacks on your Marines from the 2'' Orks. That's a big change.

This really is a cool change, and it works both ways. MIN/MAX squads get their specials etc sniped, and when they get hurt is when they get a massive load of firepower from one squad.

Flamers are uber (not that weren't useful), especially if you have more than one esp if the multiple templates rule is changing with it.

Tacobake wrote:This really is a cool change, and it works both ways. MIN/MAX squads get their specials etc sniped, and when they get hurt is when they get a massive load of firepower from one squad.

Flamers are uber (not that weren't useful), especially if you have more than one esp if the multiple templates rule is changing with it.

Plasma Devs might be nasty now, although they will lost some effectiveness against deep strikers.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Tacobake wrote:This really is a cool change, and it works both ways. MIN/MAX squads get their specials etc sniped, and when they get hurt is when they get a massive load of firepower from one squad.

Flamers are uber (not that weren't useful), especially if you have more than one esp if the multiple templates rule is changing with it.

Plasma Devs might be nasty now, although they will lost some effectiveness against deep strikers.

Plasma Devs sound nasty to me too. The 4 templates count as a scattered barage with no partials. Wherever that thing lands is going to obliterate everything beneath it.

So Plasma Cannons get a boost and the new Starcannon is crap. Eldar are once again screwed by GW! I can't believe they didn't make the Wraithlord T10 in the new book.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
Page 15, under step 5 it states "Allocate Wounds. The owner of the target unit allocates the wounds on the unit's visible models." Emphasis mine, true this is one statement...but still?

You might still only get to swing if you are within 2'' but that doesn't mean much with kill zone gone. 30 Orks attack Marines in cover led by a Captain, lets say they kill 6 total Orks. Currently, this is a big deal as the Orks won't get many attacks in and the Marines will win combat and bypass making saves.

New edition, you kill 6 Orks....he removes 6 Orks that are in the back of the mob 12 inches away still....yet makes all of his attacks on your Marines from the 2'' Orks. That's a big change.

You're right about that blurb on page 15. However its a summary and the full rules are pretty clear that any model in the unit is a potential casualty. This is an early early draft so hopefully something like that gets fixed.

As for the CC example you give, all 30 Orks would have to be in base contact or within 2" of another Ork in base contact in order to be able to attack. That's a pretty difficult thing to achieve especially on the turn they charge.

Clearly it is a boost in power for assault units, but at the same time shooting units also got a boost not losing attacks due to range limitations on the target unit. Even if only a single model in the target unit is within range then the entire unit is fair game to be blown away.

So I do think it works both ways.

Tacobake wrote:Plasma Devs sound nasty to me too. The 4 templates count as a scattered barage with no partials. Wherever that thing lands is going to obliterate everything beneath it.

But at the same time that's totally feast or famine based on where the first marker scatters. If you roll a 6" scatter for that first marker you stand a really good chance of having all your Plasma Cannons hit nothing that round.

winterman wrote:Keep in mind that the guy who was talking about this doc on warseer said it had an original date of July 2007. I doubt a set of rules from that far back will end up being the final draft.

Excellent point. The metadata on it says it was created July 19, 2007 (with QuarkXpress 6.5).

This means that this probably isn't even the version currently in playtest.

yakface wrote:

Tacobake wrote:Plasma Devs sound nasty to me too. The 4 templates count as a scattered barage with no partials. Wherever that thing lands is going to obliterate everything beneath it.

But at the same time that's totally feast or famine based on where the first marker scatters. If you roll a 6" scatter for that first marker you stand a really good chance of having all your Plasma Cannons hit nothing that round.

True enough. Combined with LoS restrictions where you have to target the unit in front (unless the devs are on a hill, gimping their already short range) maybe there's something to be said for mobile firepower.

yakface wrote:
As for the CC example you give, all 30 Orks would have to be in base contact or within 2" of another Ork in base contact in order to be able to attack. That's a pretty difficult thing to achieve especially on the turn they charge.

I think that's kind of my point. Realistically, in a game when Orks reach CC they might only get 6 within 2''. Normally this would mean a Marine unit could safely wipe out the 5-6 that actually matter, win combat and worry about no casualties that round.

However, with the new "You don't have to remove models within 2 inch kill zone" version, those 6 Orks will still fight in HTH this round and deal out potential wounds.

5th Ed signals the death of that army, especially with the random game length for every game. No "last turn objective grabs with Jetbikes" because it may not be the last turn, and then they can just go get wrecked in the subsequent phase.

If wounds allocation is any guidance 5th edition doesn't only signal the disappearance of Eldar from the 40K universe, it signals the end of 40K altogether. Let's be honest, the game has never made much sense, and the designers have never known the direction they want to drag the game, but a lot of the new rules are outright laughable. Third edition they wanted to simplify the game. Fourth edition they wanted to weaken assault, remove screening and make the game a mobile firefight. Fifth edition they want screening, bigger armies and more headlong infantry charging than in Warhammer Fantasy Battle, and no mobile firepower at all.

However, with the new "You don't have to remove models within 2 inch kill zone" version, those 6 Orks will still fight in HTH this round and deal out potential wounds.

Anything to make Orks GW's new money machine. You want to play Orks. You need to play Orks. You don't want elite Orks or trukk Orks either. You want tons and tons of Boyz. Boyz are goooood. Buy now, 20€ per 10. Buy 20 boxes and you get a pot of Gnarloc Green for free.

The last sentence was a joke. Of course you don't get anything for free.

Toreador wrote:I don't see anything that tactics and armament can't help me with

This is quite a statement. Please post your 1.85K Space Marine army list for 5th edition to the army lists forum. We're all curious to see how your all-rounder army deals with the running Orks. I can post the Ork list into your army list thread. By the way, 24" between the armies isn't exactly new.

Asmodai wrote:

winterman wrote:Keep in mind that the guy who was talking about this doc on warseer said it had an original date of July 2007. I doubt a set of rules from that far back will end up being the final draft.

Excellent point. The metadata on it says it was created July 19, 2007 (with QuarkXpress 6.5).

This means that this probably isn't even the version currently in playtest.

I think it might be pretty close though. I wrote a 1000 page textbook that became available to the publisher`s warehouse in March 07. The final draft went to the publisher in late Aug 06. I then received copy edits, with which I could make reasonably small changes. Those were due late Oct 06. The copy edits were then "pored" into the design and page proofs were then generated. I couldn't change anything that would change page flow in those. They were due Dec 06. The actual printing (only 1 color and no hard cover so much quicker) and distribution to the US warehouse then took about 3-4 months. The book didn`t start making its way to the bookstores until about May. Grand total between having a finished Word version and a finished real book in my hands was close to 10 months. Printing more copies, getting them out to a world-wide retail network ... I don`t know, I think that would add on an extra month.

If a July 08 release is planned, then we very well may have seen a rule set quite close to the final one. Again, I could be wrong here, but based on my own experience we might have to live with these rules.

Good points. I don't know the details of GW's process, but they're big fans of vertical integration, so they might be able to cut down on the turn-around time.

The Codex: Orks PDF, which was in a much more finalized state was created on August 2nd 2007 and was dated July 26, 2007 according to a friend I just bugged on MSN to check - so that was a 6 month delay between the finalized version and its release.

That suggests that 40K 5th ed. is already complete and being printed if it comes out in June. This version would be still be about 5 months before finalization though - give or take because it's a rulebook rather than a Codex.

The treatment of vehicles in this new edition will force me out of the game. They are all udder crap. I refuse to just drive up my tanks on turn one and park all game long. Boring as hell. It was tanks that got me into the game because they could actually do something. They slowed them all down and sped up the infantry guys. What the hell is the point of taking tanks again when you can get more guns that shoot and guys that can hoof it almost as fast.

I refuse to play an all infantry army and I refuse to play against most all infantry armies that will be coming my way because of these new rules. But mostly I refuse to play boring games and that sure seems to be what is coming our way with these new rule sets.

Tanks are what got me into this game, and the lack of their utility is what will drive me out.

/rant

yakface wrote:


I don't see that in the rules. FIRING models that are completely out of range or LOS of the entire enemy unit don't get to fire, but if a firing model is within range and LOS of at least a single model in the unit then all models in the unit are potential casualties. This is the change I was really hoping for with this edition and its here (yay)!

yes.. because one guy sticking his head out from behind a 4 foot thick rock wall is a perfectly good reason for his entire squad of 20 guys to evaporate into a cloud of red mist.

that's slowed and an obvious play to the powergaming fanboys that just want to have their opponents push their models out into the open against their meticulously metagamed top tier list of the month that they bought with their allowance so that they can win quickly and get their "whatever the tournament points are called this month."

Blackheart666 wrote:

yes.. because one guy sticking his head out from behind a 4 foot thick rock wall is a perfectly good reason for his entire squad of 20 guys to evaporate into a cloud of red mist.

that's slowed and an obvious play to the powergaming fanboys that just want to have their opponents push their models out into the open against their meticulously metagamed top tier list of the month that they bought with their allowance so that they can win quickly and get their "whatever the tournament points are called this month."

Wha? Powergaming fanyboys?

If anything "powergaming fanboys" loved range and LOS sniping, which is exactly what these new rules eliminate.

The exact placement of models is an abstraction. That is why, for instance, the casualty removal rules allow you to pull any model with the same stats/wargear as a casualty because it represents other models rushing forwards (the same thing why you can pull models out of the 2" engagement zone in CC).

I really don't get how this has anything to do at all with so called "power gaming".

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Page 15, under step 5 it states "Allocate Wounds. The owner of the target unit allocates the wounds on the unit's visible models." Emphasis mine, true this is one statement...but still?

Actually you're even more right than I thought. Page 22 in the section about determining if a unit is in cover or not they again state that models out of LOS cannot be hit, which directly contradicts the casualty removal rules on page 20.

I really hope they catch and correct that error because as it stands now it seems like you only count the models that are within LOS to determine if a unit is in cover or not but then casualties have to be pulled from all models, whether they are within LOS or not. This makes units that are mostly out of LOS very likely not to get a cover bonus which is pretty silly.

I hope they go with: Any unit that has a majority of its models out of LOS gets the cover save of the terrain they are out of LOS behind. If they are out of LOS behind another unit, they count as having a 4+ cover save.

But we shall see what they end up doing when the final rules come out. . .