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.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Therion wrote:What exactly is wrong with VP denial? It's an interesting aspect of the game.

No, not really. VP denial delays and avoids contact. It is inherently non-interactive. I find VP denial to be boring to play against. It's cowardly and uninteresting.

The game is supposed to be about the engagement of the forces after all. Similarly, VP denial is non-conducive to simulationism. It's a concept created from game mechanics that is unrelated to the reality or story the game is supposed to portray. This means it breaks suspension of disbelief and makes the game less interesting to play. 40K is about creating an epic battle for our amusement, not about pushing pieces of plastic around on a table. That's just the road to the goal.

VP sniping in warmachine is probably worse than VP denial.

Ozymandias wrote:

Rle68 wrote:the only thing missing from it are the pictures and it reaks of gw's not understanding anything

force weapons just got nerfed any unit that is immune to instant death cannot be killed by a force weapon.... all you nids players can start partying you will rule the battle field from hear on out

Because we all know that the only way to ever beat Tyranids is using Force Weapons. Against any army that doesn't have force weapons Nids auto-win.

Seriously? I'm having a great time laughing at all the knee-jerk reactions to changes that ultimately will have little affect on the game.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I've seen this posted over and over so it must be addressed in a FAQ somewhere, but the Nid codex says specifically that Nids in synapse range are immune to instant death caused by weapons with a strength double the defenders toughness. It does not say they are immune to instant death such as that caused by weapons that are double the defenders tougness. So if there isn't a FAQ to clear that up, Nids in synapse still die from force weapons.

Asmodai wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Therion wrote:What exactly is wrong with VP denial? It's an interesting aspect of the game.

No, not really. VP denial delays and avoids contact. It is inherently non-interactive. I find VP denial to be boring to play against. It's cowardly and uninteresting.

The game is supposed to be about the engagement of the forces after all. Similarly, VP denial is non-conducive to simulationism. It's a concept created from game mechanics that is unrelated to the reality or story the game is supposed to portray. This means it breaks suspension of disbelief and makes the game less interesting to play. 40K is about creating an epic battle for our amusement, not about pushing pieces of plastic around on a table. That's just the road to the goal.

I know we are getting off topic with the whole VP denial thing, but lets face it VP denial is part of the game as the game is designed in 4th edition. I.E. it is what it is. I don't personally like it, but the designers didn't acount for it's abuse in 4th edition. I suspect there will still be some aspect VP denial abuse in 5th. It really comes down to difference of opinons of what constitutes "fair" play. I.E. one mans VP denial heartburn is another mans idea of great tactics. It's kind of like the ancient Cheese debate, it really comes down to a matter of opinion.

GG

VP Denial ?
VP Denial ?

I always thought the point of the game was to completely annihlate your opponents forces

It's not over untill your models are the only ones left on the board.

adamsouza wrote:VP Denial ?
VP Denial ?

I always thought the point of the game was to completely annihlate your opponents forces

It's not over untill your models are the only ones left on the board.

I played at the FLGS and that seemed to be their default way of playing. Which I suppose means they won't be overly affected by the Troops as scoring thing.

In many years of wargaming I have found it to be a general rule that it is easier to achieve the objective once the enemy force has been annhilitated.

This is of course a very "Clausewitzean" philosophy and does not fit the modern world.

However, the concept that "I lost 1,000 troops but you lost 1,001 so I WIN!" is surely the heart and soul of the grim darkness of the far future.

Terminizzle wrote:

I've seen this posted over and over so it must be addressed in a FAQ somewhere, but the Nid codex says specifically that Nids in synapse range are immune to instant death caused by weapons with a strength double the defenders toughness. It does not say they are immune to instant death such as that caused by weapons that are double the defenders tougness. So if there isn't a FAQ to clear that up, Nids in synapse still die from force weapons.

The rumored new rule is that Force Weapons now cause Instant Death. This is good as it doesn't require a FAQ to know how it works. I'm a big fan of not having multiple rules that all do essentially the same thing but with small, confusing differences.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

My god this is the biggest bunch of crying children i have seen in a while.

First off, the rules for VPs in armies helps simulation-ism, not hinder it. Are most armies of the 41st Century made of Elite units? Or does anyone not bring troop choices anymore? Maybe the designers got sick of seeing armies with 2HQ 3Elite, 3 Heavy and 2 Troops. Heaven forbid an army be mostly comprised of _troops_.

And for you people whining about Running, christ almighty, does the concept of a Foot Army being viable scare you that much? Holy Hell! So a Black Templar Foot Slogging army is viable! Oh noes! Fleet is still special because it _allows_ you to do things that everyone else _can't_ do.

Seriously, 5th Edition is perhaps the best writing of the rules thus far. The _only_ issue here, is still the Line of Sight Rules, which while fantastic and amazing have tiny quirks in them, otherwise they're perfect, True LOS will help a lot better in these gaming circles than that Bullcrap area terrain before.

Vehicles while not the mobile forces of destruction, are back to being a survivable, thank god they wont be instantly annihilated against Necrons, and I can actually Transport a squad of marines somewhere and not have to wait two turns in order to use them if they get blown up.

So you people can keep crying wolf all you want, the games my group has played with these rules have _all_ been fun and interesting.

Ooohhh... awesome post!

(hope you got your asbestos suit on...)

strange_eric wrote: Are most armies of the 41st Century made of Elite units? Or does anyone not bring troop choices anymore? Maybe the designers got sick of seeing armies with 2HQ 3Elite, 3 Heavy and 2 Troops. Heaven forbid an army be mostly comprised of _troops_.

The thing is, that that army should be as likely to win as an army of 1 HQ and 6 Troops choices. Not to mention that the power of troops choices varies from army to army. It's a hamfisted, 'my way is the only right way to have fun' way of game design, not to mention a bad one. That's what people are complaining about.

I like the idea of having to field more troops. I kinda played that way anyways but i always liked playing similarly minded players cause it doesn't get much more fun than the massive death toll of a well played meat grinder.

skyth wrote:

strange_eric wrote: Are most armies of the 41st Century made of Elite units? Or does anyone not bring troop choices anymore? Maybe the designers got sick of seeing armies with 2HQ 3Elite, 3 Heavy and 2 Troops. Heaven forbid an army be mostly comprised of _troops_.

The thing is, that that army should be as likely to win as an army of 1 HQ and 6 Troops choices. Not to mention that the power of troops choices varies from army to army. It's a hamfisted, 'my way is the only right way to have fun' way of game design, not to mention a bad one. That's what people are complaining about.

Yep. As I've said. I've never had a problem playing against themed armies. If playing against a Blood Axe themed Ork army with three units of Kommandos or a Adeptus Mechanicus themed Guard army with three Tech-Priests is something you're unable to deal with, you should look for another game.

Troops make sense in some lists, they don't in others. It's extremely rude for you to tell me that I shouldn't be able to field my army in the way that the game rules clearly says I can. Look! That Eldar player is fielding three units of Shining Spears in their Saim Hain army! Quick, burn them at the stake!

"First off, the rules for VPs in armies helps simulation-ism, not hinder it. Are most armies of the 41st Century made of Elite units?"

Are most armies in the 41st Millennium made of Space Marines?

No?

Simple solution, no Space Marine units ever count as scoring. Problem solved.

I'm sure no one would object. After all, it's identical to the logic you used to explain the Troops scoring thing. It should also help 'simulationism' in your mind that if the entire Ultramarines 1st Company and one Gretchin are standing on a rock, clearly it's the Gretchin that controls the objective.

>>Simple solution, no Space Marine units ever count as scoring. Problem solved.

Cool! It's a great idea.

Kilkrazy wrote:>>Simple solution, no Space Marine units ever count as scoring. Problem solved.

Cool! It's a great idea.

Lets just get rid of space marines altogether. Only snot nosed newbies use 'em anyhow.

strange_eric wrote:My god this is the biggest bunch of crying children i have seen in a while.

You should see people who complain about people not taking enough troops. Oh wait.

strange_eric wrote:First off, the rules for VPs in armies helps simulation-ism, not hinder it. Are most armies of the 41st Century made of Elite units? Or does anyone not bring troop choices anymore? Maybe the designers got sick of seeing armies with 2HQ 3Elite, 3 Heavy and 2 Troops. Heaven forbid an army be mostly comprised of _troops_.

Maybe I want to field a commando unit, you ever think of that? Maybe the troop quality in the game is radically different depending on what army you play, you ever think of that? Maybe people don't have the time or money to assemble and paint 100 guys, you ever think of that? Of course not, your one of those nitwits who think sitting troops 12" apart and firing on each other for 6 turns is not only interesting, but the only way the game should be played.

strange_eric wrote:And for you people whining about Running, christ almighty, does the concept of a Foot Army being viable scare you that much? Holy Hell! So a Black Templar Foot Slogging army is viable! Oh noes! Fleet is still special because it _allows_ you to do things that everyone else _can't_ do.

Its not like there is already a tier 1 (if you don't know what that means walk away now) list of undercosted footslogging models already. (orks) So of course, the fact that it can almost be guaranteed to be in CC by turn 2 is irrelevant right?

strange_eric wrote:Seriously, 5th Edition is perhaps the best writing of the rules thus far. The _only_ issue here, is still the Line of Sight Rules, which while fantastic and amazing have tiny quirks in them, otherwise they're perfect, True LOS will help a lot better in these gaming circles than that Bullcrap area terrain before.

Are you sure you don't work for GW's PR department? I wonder what adjectives you would use to describe well written and defined rules.

strange_eric wrote:Vehicles while not the mobile forces of destruction, are back to being a survivable, thank god they wont be instantly annihilated against Necrons, and I can actually Transport a squad of marines somewhere and not have to wait two turns in order to use them if they get blown up.

Mobile forces of destruction, funny. And Necrons are the reason that ground based vehicles were unplayable. (lol)

Its not like there is already a tier 1 (if you don't know what that means walk away now) list of undercosted footslogging models already. (orks) So of course, the fact that it can almost be guaranteed to be in CC by turn 2 is irrelevant right?

d6" additional movement is hardly guarenteed to help footsloggers cross an additional 12" by round 2.

Additonally Orks are not undercosted. They can't shoot straight and have crap armor saves, while costing about as much as IG infanrty, who are comparable.

Your actually going to say that Orks and IG have similar enough statlines/weapons to be both worth 6 pts? Orks are tougher, (T:4) stronger, (S:4 with Choppa) hit harder, (A;2)
have a better weapon, and are almost always fearless. IG don't have a single thing that can compete with that.

Ummm, sorry to burst the bubble, but compared to gaurd, orks are just plain better.
Movement: Comparable, leaving out their better transport options, and access to fleet.
WS: Orks are better.
BS: Orks are worse, but it's made up for by the fact that they fire 18" S4 guns. Run the numbers and you'll find they are comparable to lasguns.
S: Furious charge. Thank you!
T: T4 means that against AP 6 and lower guns the orks are still basically as survivable as gaurd. Against AP- guns they are tougher.
W:Yup, equal, except on the Nob.
I: Lower, but furious charge makes this irrelevant most of the time.
A: Better, much better.
LD: Far better as long as you have numbers.

Now, other factors. Shootas are assault, making orks more flexible tactically, and outrange gaurd guns. Squad upgrades for orks include a power claw nob, a CC monster who can take down anything in the game with a bit of luck and some back up. Gaurd don't have anything comparable. The only area gaurd win out in is specials, and those are over costed. Orks are better than gaurdsmen. Faster, as shooty if not better, far, far tougher in hand to hand, as survivable and with more morale and better options.
Add in the fact that the rest of the options are really good too, and you have a recipie for guard whooping.

Though I think that IG are overcosted, rather than orks being undercosted really.

EDIT: What Da Boss said.

I don't want to argue.
I said that Orks were NOT undercosted.
I believe that.

Points values are not decided by a solid formula in 40K.
Troops are priced relative to other models in the army, and other army factors.

Orks will die crossing the board, to make use of their CC abilities. You will need lots of them, and they are priced accordingly.

Think of them as Gaunts who can't shoot effectively or use fleet of foot.

How about thinking of them as Gaunts who can get in Fast open topped transports if they want, and use fleet of foot when it counts?
I agree that in 4th edition they are not overcosted. But come 5th, they are going to be ridiculous.

I don't think the running thing is going to be quite as huge as everyone is predicting, but if they keep vehicles unable to fire defensive weaponry (str 6 or lower) on the move then the game is going to be skewed in favor of infantry big time. Templates hitting everyone they touch will put a few nice dents in horde armies, and if the designers have half a brain then the run rule won't apply to troops with jump packs. It is worrisome to think that some of these rules might make it unchanged into the 5th Ed Book.

It seems obvious from people's reactions on the board that these new changes won't really improve the game but rather skew it in a different direction. I really like a lot of the rules proposed, but they need to be refined big time. If GW won't do this, then the fans will have to do it.

Ozymandias wrote:

Terminizzle wrote:

I've seen this posted over and over so it must be addressed in a FAQ somewhere, but the Nid codex says specifically that Nids in synapse range are immune to instant death caused by weapons with a strength double the defenders toughness. It does not say they are immune to instant death such as that caused by weapons that are double the defenders tougness. So if there isn't a FAQ to clear that up, Nids in synapse still die from force weapons.

The rumored new rule is that Force Weapons now cause Instant Death. This is good as it doesn't require a FAQ to know how it works. I'm a big fan of not having multiple rules that all do essentially the same thing but with small, confusing differences.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I don't think I can make this any clearer than I did the first time, but what I said is the Tyranid Codex doesn't say "Tyranids in Synapse are Immune to Instant Death, period"- it says they are immune to instant death caused by being wounded by a weapon with Strength double their toughness. It does not have the such as qualifier. It seems that RAW as well as RAI do not prevent Nids from dying from Force Weapons in 5e, just as they didn't in 4e.

Terminizzle wrote:
I don't think I can make this any clearer than I did the first time, but what I said is the Tyranid Codex doesn't say "Tyranids in Synapse are Immune to Instant Death, period"- it says they are immune to instant death caused by being wounded by a weapon with Strength double their toughness. It does not have the such as qualifier. It seems that RAW as well as RAI do not prevent Nids from dying from Force Weapons in 5e, just as they didn't in 4e.

Tyranid FAQ overrules that though. They're immune to any and all 'Instant Death' effects.

And now for something completely different...

Once nice clarification is the whole 4th ed mess of "models carrying rapid fire weapons cannot shoot and assault".

Now its specifically says "Models that wish to assault into close combat in the Assault phase may not shoot with rapid fire weapons in the Shooting phase." [pg 26]

No more inane debate about whether the newer marines/CSM's can choose to fire their pistol and charge.

EDIT: Hmmm speaking of which, no more pistol double-tap. Pistols are "effectively assault 1"

5th edition:

4+ Cover
Fortune
Holofield
Falcon
???
Profit

skyth wrote:

Terminizzle wrote:
I don't think I can make this any clearer than I did the first time, but what I said is the Tyranid Codex doesn't say "Tyranids in Synapse are Immune to Instant Death, period"- it says they are immune to instant death caused by being wounded by a weapon with Strength double their toughness. It does not have the such as qualifier. It seems that RAW as well as RAI do not prevent Nids from dying from Force Weapons in 5e, just as they didn't in 4e.

Tyranid FAQ overrules that though. They're immune to any and all 'Instant Death' effects.

Thanks, that's precisely what I was asking.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:The Falcons score.
The Falcons always have that kind of resilience.

No, the Falcons don't have that resilience on turn one. Additionally, when Falcons suffer the immobilised result they lose their resilience. They are easier to destroy than the 4+/3+ cover AV14 tanks of 5th ed.

I'm not complaining about the KFF. I'm refuting the fact that you're saying "Cover will be everywhere you need it to be", which is just flat out untrue

Not untrue at all. If you use a couple squads of Lootas you can find enough cover for them on your deployment zone, for some free armour saves. The rest of the troops have KFF.

And you need to penetrate a Monolith now to reliably hurt it anyway. How is this going to be different?

Because Meltaguns can't penetrate it anymore, and because actual penetrating hits need 5+ to kill it?

I just don't see it as dominating as some people do.

You're dodging one issue constantly. What happens in most games when Orks take 6 units of Boyz, one HQ and one unit of Elites? The army is worth 11KP total. The normal Eldar armies that people play will be worth 18KP or even 20KP. It's arguable if the Eldar have any chance of actually avoid getting wiped off from the table, but my point is that even if they do manage to make an actual fight out of the game, they will simply lose because of the KP system.

Terminizzle wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:

Rle68 wrote:the only thing missing from it are the pictures and it reaks of gw's not understanding anything

force weapons just got nerfed any unit that is immune to instant death cannot be killed by a force weapon.... all you nids players can start partying you will rule the battle field from hear on out

Because we all know that the only way to ever beat Tyranids is using Force Weapons. Against any army that doesn't have force weapons Nids auto-win.

Seriously? I'm having a great time laughing at all the knee-jerk reactions to changes that ultimately will have little affect on the game.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I've seen this posted over and over so it must be addressed in a FAQ somewhere, but the Nid codex says specifically that Nids in synapse range are immune to instant death caused by weapons with a strength double the defenders toughness. It does not say they are immune to instant death such as that caused by weapons that are double the defenders tougness. So if there isn't a FAQ to clear that up, Nids in synapse still die from force weapons.

obviously you didnt read.. the new rules will state that a model that is immune to instant death (as nids are when they are in syanapse range) are immune to being killed by force weapons.. end of statement

now what part of that dont you comprehend? last time i checked fexes are their own synapse thus they cannot be killed by force weapons as the new leak is currently stating

so before you jump all in my face saying the faq says this and the faq says that which im not denying mind you im saying the new rules will nerf force weapons.. cant make it any clear if it was it would be invisible