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.

The Chimera for the inquisition is far superior to the guard chimera because those namby-pambys get TWO fire points! If only I could drive-by 2x melta/plasma w/ my grenadiers!!!

Anung Un Rama wrote:If a Rhino can be used in a vacuum, shouldn't it be at least be amphibic as well?

Your dealing with two different pressured environments. One in which the atmospheric pressure and the pressure of water pushing down on you would crush and the other where the internal pressure would try to blow out. Should it be amphibious yes. Should it be submersible... maybe but that would out side the scope of any fluff I've read.

Necros wrote:On that note, how do space marines with helmets off operate in a vacuum? Or are wars only fought on planets where you can breathe?

This would once again be where space marines excel over guard. Power armor does operate in vacuums, though in a vacuum the space marine would likely have to hold his breath and precede to pop (Just because they wear blue and read does not mean they are "Superman")

If I had to give an explanation I'd say their power armor can feed oxygen straight to their lungs via the various bionic ports that interface the armor to the marine. Other than that it'd be a matter of training (not to inhale), dealing with the cold, and getting extremely red in the face as their blood damaged the blood vessels in their face... that last one might not happen they are space marines (HURR!).

I suspect this thread is verging on going off-topic, somewhat, but it does highlight the pitfalls of WYSIWYG.


My understanding / interpretation of the 40K fluff is that no two chassis of vehicles or minis are ever going to be exactly the same and you can't model everything all the time.

Nit-picking about things such will bog a game down. Pay the points, write in your army list, TELL your opponent & get on with enjoying the game.


It's a war-game about fire, manoever & assault - not detailing the logistics of such.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:But how is that any different to the surrent situation?

At present, if the number of wounds equals the number of men left in the unit (from any source or at any point in the shooting phase) then both members of the HW team have to take a save (if applicable) or just die from AP5 or better.

When you change to a 2-wound model, unless the wound is S6 or greater (and such a wound should be easily shifted to a normal guardsman via wound allocation) you assign 1 wound to the HW team. Extra wounds then have to be assigned to the normal guardsmen until everyone has a second wound before a second wound get to the HW team.

This applies in every case, irrespective of when in the shooting phase it happens or how many men are left in the squad.

Only when the HW team has taken 1 wound does it become as vulnerable as a normal guardsman to the next batch of incoming fire (by which time the squad is probably splashed anyway).

Three words:

Heavy. Weapons. Squads.

Current rules: 6 identical models, 4 wounds (any strength) before you lose a gun.
New siamese heavy weapons guys: 3 models, 2 wounds (any strength) before you lose a gun, AND every S6+ wound instagibs a whole gun.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yeah but how do you throw it forward and it ends up several meters behind you. That's just silly.

BYE

Maybe they throw it back.

Your dealing with two different pressured environments. One in which the atmospheric pressure and the pressure of water pushing down on you would crush and the other where the internal pressure would try to blow out. Should it be amphibious yes. Should it be submersible... maybe but that would out side the scope of any fluff I've read.

I think the chimera is amphibious because it floats. Or at least thats how I've always understood it.

ShumaGorath wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yeah but how do you throw it forward and it ends up several meters behind you. That's just silly.

BYE

Maybe they throw it back.

Visions of brave sergeant nutjob running up to the bunker, pulling the pin on the satchel charge, and throwing the pin...

Simple Answer:

Demo-Charges Bounce.

Like Tiggers?

aka_mythos wrote:

Necros wrote:On that note, how do space marines with helmets off operate in a vacuum? Or are wars only fought on planets where you can breathe?

This would once again be where space marines excel over guard. Power armor does operate in vacuums, though in a vacuum the space marine would likely have to hold his breath and precede to pop (Just because they wear blue and read does not mean they are "Superman")

If I had to give an explanation I'd say their power armor can feed oxygen straight to their lungs via the various bionic ports that interface the armor to the marine. Other than that it'd be a matter of training (not to inhale), dealing with the cold, and getting extremely red in the face as their blood damaged the blood vessels in their face... that last one might not happen they are space marines (HURR!).

The Mucranoid gland "offers a slight degree of protection in a vacuum". (Index Astartes Volume 1, IA: Rites of Initiation, Pg. 5)

H.B.M.C. wrote:Here's hoping that the Hydra mounts four Hydra Autocannons. That'd be some serious firepower there.

BYE

Surprising enough, 4 auto cannons and 2 twin linked auto cannon at BS3 isn't all that diffrent, its 4 hits with the 4 cannons and 3 with the two twin linked, the heavy bolter still only gets 1.5 hits with either set up.

The real questions are.....

Is it still going to be 200 ish points and will they let you put a heavy stubber on it.

Dudes, seriously, satchel charges can misfire, so you don't need an additional mechanism for misfiring satchel charges, you only need the blast rules. What's all the fuzz about?

Greets
Schepp himself

I guess people forget that the railgun can fire a large blast that never materializes if you roll a miss, yet the idea of a demo charge that misses and doesn't materialize freaks people out.

stonefox wrote:I guess people forget that the railgun can fire a large blast that never materializes if you roll a miss, yet the idea of a demo charge that misses and doesn't materialize freaks people out.

um, what? Railgun's large blast rolls for scatter. It always "materializes".

I like rolling scatter dice.

Are the 5ed scatter rules perfect, not close.


Personally, I think that if the target is under 12" away, you only roll 1d6 and minus BS. This would make Blast weapons more in line with rapid fire weapons, in that they are more powerful at close range (which I think they should be).

But as they are right now, I can deal. Yes, sometimes my LRBT shoots itself, but hey, adds some insanity to the game

ObiFett wrote:

stonefox wrote:I guess people forget that the railgun can fire a large blast that never materializes if you roll a miss, yet the idea of a demo charge that misses and doesn't materialize freaks people out.

um, what? Railgun's large blast rolls for scatter. It always "materializes".

Ah, that's right. I've only played a demo game or two of 5th ed.

Wouldn't the most reasonable course of action be to give two options for running heavy weapon squads? Something like:

"Any model may be assigned a heavy weapon, or any two models may be replaced with a heavy weapon team at the following point costs..."

This would still be a (small) "nerf" to guard heavies, as they would lose the ability to "swap" gunner and loader, but it would simplify game play and reduce confusion without requiring elaborate re-basing (which is a very big deal.)

Two wound heavy weapons.

Ho hum, it was too much to ask for to have GW not write in a slowed rule into the new codex.

Irt is also back to the old policy of asticking the finger to older miniatures. Got two mordians and a seperate weapon, it all counts as one stand now, and with the huge size of the heavy weapon stands blast cannot miss.

All this becomes irrelvant, for ordinary squads at least, if you get a special ruler for ordinary troops to take over the guns. Heavy weapon squads are now hosed completely, the only good news is that most high RoF heavy weapons stop at S5. With a good enough price drop, or the ability to use infantry squads as meatshields directly the heavy weapon squads might still be worth it. But I will remain sceptical.

GW has had another of their great ideas, what is the chance they thought it through, let alone playtested. Pretty low I guess.

Maybe they just noticed that nobody would buy their ridicoulus base sets in which you get 5 40mm bases, 2 60mm bases and a whole load of those slowed 25mm bases with a slot of which you never run out of anyway.

I still think that has nothing to do with rules, and more to do with some guy in a suit at GW, screaming 'what do you mean they're getting Nine Heavy weapons out of each Heavy Weapon team box. Nerf that please.'

I will of course be telling GW to kiss my arsh, and using as is, I'll just put them next to one another. Hey if I can give my foes an advantage for placing all my Nobz on large bases, I can take one back for the Guard.

I think for the 20+ points they've effectively knocked off a squad we can live with this "slowed rule." This rule is really a simplification to eliminate something that was unique to the Guard and unaddressed in the core rules. For better or worse it merely simplifies the way they are dealt with in such a way that the core rules are capable of addressing them.

I think it makes sense. The only way two individual models could theoretically be closer is if they were giving each other hugs (and I don't know if the Imperial Guard are as accepting as California)... Two individuals that close to each other would very likely be effected by the same blast or volley of small arms fire.

From a game mechanics stand point, yes we're losing out, but it does make sense.

...On the basing issue I sincerely doubt its to sell bases or to impose on us the purchasing of additional kits. You can still use all those heavy weapons, you just need a single bag of bases or just the bases you threw into your own bag since you didn't use them. And if the concept of buying bases from GW offends you, make some, buy some disks of balsa wood and glue them to that. This is part of the hobby.

I know I'm in the minority but I actually like the HW teams being on one big base. For modeling reasons only though. I think it's cool how you can build em like a mini-diorama. I'd still prefer it was counted as 2 models instead of 2 wounds though...

I don't know why they couldn't have just used the rules for Guardian heavy weapons, where the HW is simply a representation and can be fired from the gunner. It would seem like that would also work very well for IG and not be uncharacterful in any way.

i just cant seem to wrap my head around the idea of a single str 6+ weapon killing 2 men.

"holy cow sir, that melta just ripped through both jones and jenkins in one go... "

kinda odd....

How do we really know the 1 str 6 hit will kill both though? maybe HW teams will be immune to instant death?

Even from the IG codex that Inferno Cannons, Multilasers, and Krak grenades are S6, those things are suppose to kill. Its not just killing two men it killing two men who are only about 2 feet apart as opposed to the 6+ feet everyone else can spread out to. If these weapons are as dangerous as they're suppose to be two guys standing that close should be treated as a single entity at the scope and scale this game takes place.

The idea is that for a heavy weapon to fire you need two people operating it.

In the realm of nerfing this is soooooo incredibly minor.

usernamesareannoying wrote:i just cant seem to wrap my head around the idea of a single str 6+ weapon killing 2 men.

I'd say that that probably didn't even cross their minds.

BYE

Janthkin wrote:
Heavy. Weapons. Squads.

Current rules: 6 identical models, 4 wounds (any strength) before you lose a gun.
New siamese heavy weapons guys: 3 models, 2 wounds (any strength) before you lose a gun, AND every S6+ wound instagibs a whole gun.

We don't know how the squads will be equipped though.

Last wave of rumors I heard made it sound like all squads (of any type) will be 10 strong.

Standard infantry have ten guys with one heavy weapon and one special.

Assault squads will have ten guys with three assault weapons

and heavy weapons squads will have ten guys with three heavy weapons.

If that is indeed how they did it, then the heavy weapons units will be able to allocate the strength 6+ stuff to single models for a bit before they end up losing a heavy weapon.

We also don't know how much cheaper they are going to be... I saw 15 point lascannon in those warseer rumors somewhere.

aka_mythos wrote:Even from the IG codex that Inferno Cannons, Multilasers, and Krak grenades are S6, those things are suppose to kill. Its not just killing two men it killing two men who are only about 2 feet apart as opposed to the 6+ feet everyone else can spread out to. If these weapons are as dangerous as they're suppose to be two guys standing that close should be treated as a single entity at the scope and scale this game takes place.

Sorry Mythos but that's a fluff justification to explain a rules abstraction. That just doesn't work. The Multi-Laser doesn't kill anyone else in the unit when they stand close to one another, so your analogy falls apart right there.

aka_mythos wrote:In the realm of nerfing this is soooooo incredibly minor.

3-Model Heavy Weapon squads say otherwise...

BYE

Necros wrote:How do we really know the 1 str 6 hit will kill both though? maybe HW teams will be immune to instant death?

Honestly if they have eternal warrior im not going to worry about it, that would put them on par with how they are now ( well sorta) and might cut down on the confusion of the whole two models one base thing ( not that I really see the issue with it, all mine are old metal catachan ones based seprately.).

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sorry Mythos but that's a fluff justification to explain a rules abstraction. That just doesn't work. The Multi-Laser doesn't kill anyone else in the unit when they stand close to one another, so your analogy falls apart right there.

A multi-laser... some sort of gatling or high rate of fire laser gun is spraying an area with fire. This game abstracts 1000 shots per minute as heavy 3... the sum total of so many shots are only 3 dice. Are you telling me that two guys standing about a foot apart would not be hit by the same general spray of fire, say 1/3 of 1000 shots?
The individual models in a squad are on circles that would average to 2-3 ft radii around them. Meaning any two base to base models are 5-6 ft apart and will never be as close to each other as a heavy weapons team. And who really marches their guards side by side, they're spaced out even more. But a heavy weapon team would have to stand next to each other, a foot or two, apart to operate their weapon.

It is far from a perfect analogy, but if the idea of multiple models close to each other count as a single entity hold true for things like nurglings and ripper swarms, I think it would for two guys huddled around a heavy weapon.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:In the realm of nerfing this is soooooo incredibly minor.

3-Model Heavy Weapon squads say otherwise...

The question is if the cost of a 20pt a squad reduction is this nerfing of heavy weapon teams how much of that would you pay back to keep them as they are?