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:

Quite frankly, the move to Objectives and inexpensive Transport is going to make the game more fluid and force players to move pieces around the board. Being able to move and fire isn't going to do that.

For the life of me I cannot see why not?

So movement with transports makes the game fluid, but movement for shooting does not?

This just makes Static Guard armies even *more* static, and increases incentives for taking non-mobile infantry bearing heavy weapons squads in most armies (e.g. HWP's over Russ tanks, especially AC/LC variants, Broadsides over Hammerheads, Havocs and Oblits over the already unfavored Predator, etc...)

Those S5 / S6 weapons are Troops killers, which is why GW specifically reduced their effectiveness.

And Storm Bolters are not?

Given that Falcons and Hammerheads are non-scoring, they're "dead" as soon as they hit the board. So the only question is what they do over the course of the game.

Which will be much less now that the ability to effectively move and fire has been reduced.

Most likely, this means non-Transport Hammerheads won't be seen nearly as often as before

Non-transport Hammerheads?

I think he means Devilfish, although that would be weird since you can't take non-transport Devilfish... Falcons, then?

Vaktathi wrote:So movement with transports makes the game fluid, but movement for shooting does not?

This just makes Static Guard armies even *more* static, and increases incentives for taking non-mobile infantry bearing heavy weapons squads in most armies (e.g. HWP's over Russ tanks, especially AC/LC variants, Broadsides over Hammerheads, Havocs and Oblits over the already unfavored Predator, etc...)

Pretty much. GW needs Transports to be able to move into the open to get Troops to Objectives. For this to work, shooting needs to be de-emhpasized.

Actually, if GW does it right, Static Guard armies will automatically lose against nearly any other army in the game. In the next IG Codex, I expect HWPs will be removed entirely and HWSs will be tied to Troops Platoons. I also think we'll see more (new) Defilers.

I predict that GW will sell a lot of new models with 5th Edition.

Those S5 / S6 weapons are Troops killers, which is why GW specifically reduced their effectiveness.

And Storm Bolters are not?

Not nearly as much, losing 12" range, 1 shot, and 1 point of S. A Storm Bolter (or Heavy Stubber) is much weaker than a Heavy Bolter.

Most likely, this means non-Transport Hammerheads won't be seen nearly as often as before

Non-transport Hammerheads?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Pretty much. GW needs Transports to be able to move into the open to get Troops to Objectives. For this to work, shooting needs to be de-emhpasized.

I disagree, Skimmer transports work quite well. The problem is Tracked tanks, which should be fine with the new damage table. Also, the heavy weapons infantry generally puts out alot more anti-transport firepower than tanks.

Not all armies use or are reliant on transports either, the ones that are heavily reliant on them don't have a problem getting them where they need to be. The problem with Transports is with tracked tanks and Entanglement. Both of these issues are resolved in 5th Ed by removing Entanglement and the new vehicle damage table. Hell smoke launchers and extra armor will practically ensure a transport gets where it needs to be without a chance of destruction. Current defensive weapons are not the biggest threat to these transports either, its weapons like Autocannons that are already Main weapons that are their biggest threat.

I fail to see the need for nerfing the mobility of tanks to fix this issue.

Actually, if GW does it right, Static Guard armies will automatically lose against nearly any other army in the game. In the next IG Codex, I expect HWPs will be removed entirely and HWSs will be tied to Troops Platoons.

I don't see why on earth this is a good thing. Mobile guard armies in the form of Mechanized companies are going to be further hideously impaired for *at least* the next 15 months assuming we get a new IG codex then, Gunline armies will be untenable as well, and Drop Troops will also be further weakened. I fail to see how this adds anything to the game other than making it pointless to play Imperial Guard.

Simply put, Imperial Guard will have very little competitiveness in 5th ed as a result. Yes they have a lot of scoring units. They are overcosted by and large and relatively easy to kill however. The new cover save rules for intervening models and the reduced effectiveness of mobile firepower from tanks is going to negate a huge portion of Imperial Guard shooting, or will force them to deploy at a huge disadvantage relative to other armies not hampered by this as a result to avoid these issues.

I don't see where this change adds anything to the game, I do see where it takes away from the overall tactical options and reduces the fluidity of the game.

Also, I don't see why HWP's would be removed, just about every other army has HS infantry based heavy weapons units (Dark Reapers, Scourge, Devestators, Havocs, Broadsides) and would leave IG with only Ordnance units and Russ variants for heavy support, with Russ variants taking a huge hit to their effective firepower.

I also think we'll see more (new) Defilers.

Why? If anything I'd assume to see even more reliance on Obliterators than anything else.

Not nearly as much, losing 12" range, 1 shot, and 1 point of S. A Storm Bolter (or Heavy Stubber) is much weaker than a Heavy Bolter.

Yes, but heavy bolters generally aren't what makes tanks such a huge threat. Hell, my 7 Chimera's that cost 585pts on average will kill about 16 marines a game, so maybe they kill *half* their points. Against horde armies they do better of course, but not amazingly so. An AC/HB Predator will kill on average 1.3 marines a turn (assuming everything gets to fire) for 100pts of easily killed or negated tank.

Unlike Falcons, Hammerheads don't have any Transport capability. So they can't provide Taxi services to get Troops to Objectives. Therefore, their utility is much worse in 5th Edition.

Exactly, but they don't *need* to be worse. They are fine as-is. A kitted out Hammerhead runs 180-ish points, can be stunned to keep from moving, and once the railgun is gone its secondary systems are much weaker than others.




Basically, I'm still not seeing how this improves the "fluidity" of the game at all, or why its needed to help transports (and in fact weakens many of them as firing bases after paying good points for that ability)

Vaktathi wrote:Basically, I'm still not seeing how this improves the "fluidity" of the game at all, or why its needed to help transports (and in fact weakens many of them as firing bases after paying good points for that ability)

GW has decided that the game should have less focus on killing stuff and more emphasis on moving around. So making Transports worse at shooting was likely intentional. If Transports can't shoot, they should move.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Basically, I'm still not seeing how this improves the "fluidity" of the game at all, or why its needed to help transports (and in fact weakens many of them as firing bases after paying good points for that ability)

GW has decided that the game should have less focus on killing stuff and more emphasis on moving around. So making Transports worse at shooting was likely intentional. If Transports can't shoot, they should move.

But they would move anyway, and this hurts non-transport tanks more than it should and encourages them to stay static.

Dakkaladd wrote:I think the intention is very clear here. Either you move and sacrifice firepower or you stay still and lay it down heavy. Everyone keeps complaining about how this will hurt eldar and tau. I agree that is makes their vehicles less effective, but in a much more balanced way. The skimmers and fast vehicles still retain their edge over all other vehicles, pure mobility. Now they simply have to sacrifice offensive power to do so.

Don't forget they sacrifice their SMF 5+ save in order to fire all weapons, so they lose defensive power as well. So it's a double nerf.

Add in they cannot move 24" anymore, and that mobility isn't so mobile anymore.

So what's the advantage again?

Right, lack of proper playtesting = stupid rules being implemented which will keep 40k as a subpar miniatures wargame for years to come.

Excellent.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Basically, I'm still not seeing how this improves the "fluidity" of the game at all, or why its needed to help transports (and in fact weakens many of them as firing bases after paying good points for that ability)

GW has decided that the game should have less focus on killing stuff and more emphasis on moving around. So making Transports worse at shooting was likely intentional. If Transports can't shoot, they should move.

So the tanks that can't transport get less capability because...?

So the tanks that pay for being a transport get less capability because...?

Land raiders will not suck when?

Be serious.

Those S5 / S6 weapons are Troops killers, which is why GW specifically reduced their effectiveness.

Actually, this is change for the sake of changing.

This is a no-no in basic game theory, in case you did not know this.

Btw pillbox tanks are really boring and because the rules for vehicles haven't been changed (the cross of death arcs, everyone has AV11 on the side and AV10 on the back...i.e. stupidity at it's best) they don't really get better.

They get harder to kill.

Not better.

Agreed.

Did everyone just stop remembering we already have tanks today that can move across country at 45 mph plus and fire every weapon they have and hit a fly's but at half a mile?

I think this universal dumbing down of tanks is universally stupid.

Ok if thats is the case and you can move and fire only 1 main weapon.. then hmmm what army is not affected... wow dark eldar are not bothered at all... Hmm will we see a lot of new DE armies especially considering they are getting a new codex... nnnnooooooooooooo gw isnt that transparent are they ?

And to answer a previous comment there are groups that are talking about throwing out 5th edition and holding 4th edition anti rtt tournaments.. might not be a bad idea

Um... wait. Even today on vehicles you have a main weapon and secondary weapons. In almost no circumstances do I remember or know of anything that fires any secondary weapons at the same time and accuracy as the main. Almost everything is dedicated to that main weapon (and thus why it is the main weapon).

In watching the last league we ran I noticed two things.

Most vehicles are used as pillboxes right now in most circumstances (find good cover shoot until you are blown up), or are mobile fire platforms (skimmers and fast skimmers). I don't see that changing much at all. The difference is the amount of firepower you can throw out when you do decide to move. Cover saves changing, fast skimmers getting nerfed and vehicles being more survivable could make vehicles move mobile by themselves, because the three things above are now more limited.

It makes certain options less of a knee jerk. Leman Russ heavy bolter bunkers (how much do they really move anyway?) and predator las cannon HB combinations aren't an automatic take. Some people might not even spend the points for those options now if they are going to be mobile. It really just makes us take more choices. Almost every other game has movement modifiers for shooting, but because of how 40k is now, you can't have that. Limiting the amount of weapons shooting is something that they can easily do.

I have also heard several rumours that defensive weapons are str4, but that assault weapons also qualify. I am not sure how much I believe it, as without any other rule, bright lances would then be defensive....

Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? So far the defensive weapons being str 4 is the only thing I have heard about the rules that sorta bugs me, but until I play the whole system, I can't really make any good judgment about it's worth in the game. We know nothing for sure, and there is a lot we haven't even heard rumours on yet.

Toreador wrote:Um... wait. Even today on vehicles you have a main weapon and secondary weapons. In almost no circumstances do I remember or know of anything that fires any secondary weapons at the same time and accuracy as the main. Almost everything is dedicated to that main weapon (and thus why it is the main weapon).

That depends on the vehicle in question. On a main battle tank sure (that has more to do with the way the main gun works, if you see it as an Ordnance weapon then 40k already takes that into account), on an IFV you may have secondary weapons being fired along with the main autocannon.

Most vehicles are used as pillboxes right now in most circumstances (find good cover shoot until you are blown up), or are mobile fire platforms (skimmers and fast skimmers). I don't see that changing much at all. The difference is the amount of firepower you can throw out when you do decide to move. Cover saves changing, fast skimmers getting nerfed and vehicles being more survivable could make vehicles move mobile by themselves, because the three things above are now more limited.

Fast Skimmers aren't getting nerfed except with respect to top speed however (and most don't usually move the full 24" anyway if they wish to fire). Cover saves coupled with the new damage table will make them just as hard to put down as before. Non-Fast skimmers (Devilfish) and tracked tanks like Chimera's that really do derive most of their usefullness from movement and what are currently "secondary" weapons are going to get hurt hard.

It makes certain options less of a knee jerk. Leman Russ heavy bolter bunkers (how much do they really move anyway?)

Mine always move unless they need to stay still for better ordnance shots, they often are moving around as heavy bolter platforms. Static tanks are asking for a powerfist or a meltabomb. I lose the majority of my tanks to close combat attacks, not shooting.

and predator las cannon HB combinations aren't an automatic take.

I thought I was one of the only people who ran Preds this way, most people say its a waste, glad to see I'm not the only one

Some people might not even spend the points for those options now if they are going to be mobile. It really just makes us take more choices.

It might just make people not take tanks. Hell, with Chaos right now there is almost no reason to take a Predator, I don't see that changing at all with 5th. Forcing an expansion of "Choices" by simply making the decent ones worse is dumb, what would this change anyway? With respect to Chaos, I don't see anyone taking no-sponson predators, Obliterators are cheaper or the same cost and do more.

Almost every other game has movement modifiers for shooting, but because of how 40k is now, you can't have that. Limiting the amount of weapons shooting is something that they can easily do.

Yes, and we have no modifers for saves, movement, etc... either. Arbitrarily nerfing vehicle shooting (when it wasn't overpowered to begin with) isn't the way to enhance the game experience.

Vaktathi wrote:But they would move anyway, and this hurts non-transport tanks more than it should and encourages them to stay static.

And what makes you think that GW isn't specifically intending to nerf non-Transport Tanks to "encourage" their replacement by Transport Tanks and Troops?

Stelek wrote:Right, lack of proper playtesting = stupid rules being implemented which will keep 40k as a subpar miniatures wargame for years to come.

So you're telling me that you've done months of intensive playtesting with the final 5th Edition rules to come to this conclusion? Or even the playtest PDf Rulebook? From what I see, the changes are highly synergistic to support a very different style of gameplay.

Stelek wrote:So the tanks that can't transport get less capability because...?

So the tanks that pay for being a transport get less capability because...?

Land raiders will not suck when?

Be serious.

Because GW has decided that the game should not emphasize those models. Very simple.

Stelek wrote:Actually, this is change for the sake of changing.

This is a no-no in basic game theory, in case you did not know this.

Btw pillbox tanks are really boring and because the rules for vehicles haven't been changed (the cross of death arcs, everyone has AV11 on the side and AV10 on the back...i.e. stupidity at it's best) they don't really get better.

They get harder to kill.

Not better.

No, not really, when you look into things with a bit more depth. Though looking at GW, they always do changes with every Rulebook and Codex, changing things to indirectly (or blatantly) drive more sales.

That said, I'm pretty much behind the entire slate of changes in the PDF. If anything, I think GW didn't go far enough.

Warpaint Studio wrote:Did everyone just stop remembering we already have tanks today that can move across country at 45 mph plus and fire every weapon they have and hit a fly's but at half a mile?

I think this universal dumbing down of tanks is universally stupid.

Ok if thats is the case and you can move and fire only 1 main weapon.. then hmmm what army is not affected... wow dark eldar are not bothered at all... Hmm will we see a lot of new DE armies especially considering they are getting a new codex... nnnnooooooooooooo gw isnt that transparent are they ?

And to answer a previous comment there are groups that are talking about throwing out 5th edition and holding 4th edition anti rtt tournaments.. might not be a bad idea

"Today" is the start of the Dark Age of Technogy, in which we have an understanding of technology that is far superior to what is used in 40k. I fully believe that the STC systems in 40k tanks include fully-automatic tracking and multi-fire capabilities while on the move at full speed, but that Imperial doctrine and superstition trains everyone to operate in fully manual mode. So rather than using laser designators and fire-control computers with wind and range compensators, they're manually cranking the thing around. Rather than using the high-speed autoloader, they're manually packing and loading ammunition out of the service hatch. Rather than activating NBC mode, they're wearing suits inside the tank. Rather than shifting out of 1st gear they, accept that the tank is "slow". And so on.

People are welcome to play 4th Edition games, just as they are welcome to play 2nd Edition or Rogue Trader games. It's pretty futile, but that's how it goes.

Toreador wrote:Most vehicles are used as pillboxes right now in most circumstances (find good cover shoot until you are blown up), or are mobile fire platforms (skimmers and fast skimmers). I don't see that changing much at all. The difference is the amount of firepower you can throw out when you do decide to move. Cover saves changing, fast skimmers getting nerfed and vehicles being more survivable could make vehicles move mobile by themselves, because the three things above are now more limited.

Exactly. GW is deliberately reducing killiness across the board, which is fine, because 40k is moving away from a VP-orientation.

Vaktathi wrote:Arbitrarily nerfing vehicle shooting (when it wasn't overpowered to begin with) isn't the way to enhance the game experience.

It depends on what sort of experience is desired. If the experience is to have low emphasis on VPs and high emphasis on mobility, then nerfing vehicle shooting makes for a better game.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:But they would move anyway, and this hurts non-transport tanks more than it should and encourages them to stay static.

And what makes you think that GW isn't specifically intending to nerf non-Transport Tanks to "encourage" their replacement by Transport Tanks and Troops?

It makes very poor business sense (Hey lets ruin a product line to sell more of another! that only works when selling a substitute replacement, not a complementary product). Further they have already done such by removing their scoring status. They are in the business of selling models. Ideally what they would do is encourage more of everything. Most tank kits are also old enough by now to have amortized their fixed costs and as such are much more profitable than other kits. The S4 weapons was a poor decision from a game design and a business sense.

MC's, while taking a similar shooting hit, are still much more viable than tanks as both shooting and CC platforms.

Because GW has decided that the game should not emphasize those models. Very simple.

And I will decide not to purchase their new prodcut which they have invested a good deal of time and capital.

That said, I'm pretty much behind the entire slate of changes in the PDF. If anything, I think GW didn't go far enough.

How so? I can agree with some changes, but many seem overkill. Why remove the 2nd attack from Powerfists after increasing their costs across the board and restricting access? The problem with tanks in 4th was survivability. Now we have fixed that but removed their utility.

"Today" is the start of the Dark Age of Technogy, in which we have an understanding of technology that is far superior to what is used in 40k. I fully believe that the STC systems in 40k tanks include fully-automatic tracking and multi-fire capabilities while on the move at full speed, but that Imperial doctrine and superstition trains everyone to operate in fully manual mode. So rather than using laser designators and fire-control computers with wind and range compensators, they're manually cranking the thing around. Rather than using the high-speed autoloader, they're manually packing and loading ammunition out of the service hatch. Rather than activating NBC mode, they're wearing suits inside the tank. Rather than shifting out of 1st gear they, accept that the tank is "slow". And so on.

That's too speculative to try and base rules decisions on, and contradicts a good deal of what is stated in IA books.

Exactly. GW is deliberately reducing killiness across the board, which is fine, because 40k is moving away from a VP-orientation.

They are nerfing *SHOOTING*, not killiness. CC remains just as potent and in fact becomes moreso. Not a good thing when so many armies simply cannot function in CC.

It depends on what sort of experience is desired. If the experience is to have low emphasis on VPs and high emphasis on mobility, then nerfing vehicle shooting makes for a better game.

I still do not understand how nefing vehicle mobile shooting makes the game more mobile. You make things static to make them mobile?

Vaktathi wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And what makes you think that GW isn't specifically intending to nerf non-Transport Tanks to "encourage" their replacement by Transport Tanks and Troops?

It makes very poor business sense (Hey lets ruin a product line to sell more of another! that only works when selling a substitute replacement, not a complementary product). Further they have already done such by removing their scoring status. They are in the business of selling models. Ideally what they would do is encourage more of everything. Most tank kits are also old enough by now to have amortized their fixed costs and as such are much more profitable than other kits. The S4 weapons was a poor decision from a game design and a business sense.

MC's, while taking a similar shooting hit, are still much more viable than tanks as both shooting and CC platforms.

Given that 40k has been around for 20 years, and GW has been doing miniatures wargaming for 25, it's not too unreasonable to think that their bean counters have a good idea of how to milk the fanbase for the maximum amount of profit.

And given that 40k is pretty much fully saturated with players, GW really has no choice but to play favorites with each Rulebook and Codex to encourage new sales to players chasing marginal utility advantages.

40k3 was the big push for "more", when GW cut points drastically across the board. 40k5 is a smaller push for "more", because GW can't do a true reset here while still keeping some link to the previous Codices. That is why revolutionary Codices like Orks can have significant cost cuts, and why we can anticipate major points reduction for IG. The smaller player base and older Codex actually works to GW's advantage here.

And I will decide not to purchase their new prodcut which they have invested a good deal of time and capital.

Good luck with that. I give you no more than 3 years before you buy again. The withdrawal symptoms of the addictive drug the mix into the plastic, paper, and pewter will bring you back.

That said, I'm pretty much behind the entire slate of changes in the PDF. If anything, I think GW didn't go far enough.

How so? I can agree with some changes, but many seem overkill. Why remove the 2nd attack from Powerfists after increasing their costs across the board and restricting access? The problem with tanks in 4th was survivability. Now we have fixed that but removed their utility.

For example, I'd have done away with VPs entirely - if the game is about the experience rather than the result, then it's perfectly OK to end in a draw on Objectives. This helps make the game state crystal clear to both players at all times, and allows players to really focus on desperation / heroic tactics rather than playing safe to preserve VPs.

Powerfists were still way too good for what they were - that much became obvious when even Tactical squads were taking PFs as no-brainers. Tanks are clearly much more survivable at the expense of easy killiness, and that's the intent.

"Today" is the start of the Dark Age of Technogy, in which we have an understanding of technology that is far superior to what is used in 40k. I fully believe that the STC systems in 40k tanks include fully-automatic tracking and multi-fire capabilities while on the move at full speed, but that Imperial doctrine and superstition trains everyone to operate in fully manual mode. So rather than using laser designators and fire-control computers with wind and range compensators, they're manually cranking the thing around. Rather than using the high-speed autoloader, they're manually packing and loading ammunition out of the service hatch. Rather than activating NBC mode, they're wearing suits inside the tank. Rather than shifting out of 1st gear they, accept that the tank is "slow". And so on.

That's too speculative to try and base rules decisions on, and contradicts a good deal of what is stated in IA books.

True, but it explains a lot, no?

As for IA, a lot of that Fluff was pulled out of thin air, so isn't well-established canon.

They are nerfing *SHOOTING*, not killiness. CC remains just as potent and in fact becomes moreso. Not a good thing when so many armies simply cannot function in CC.

The only armies that cannot function in CC are Guard and... and... OK, Guard. But then, their Codex hasn't been updated in a long time, since the days when the game revolved around shooting. So that is to be expected.

It depends on what sort of experience is desired. If the experience is to have low emphasis on VPs and high emphasis on mobility, then nerfing vehicle shooting makes for a better game.

I still do not understand how nefing vehicle mobile shooting makes the game more mobile. You make things static to make them mobile?

You reduce the risk of moving to allow things to be more mobile.

Given that 40k has been around for 20 years, and GW has been doing miniatures wargaming for 25, it's not too unreasonable to think that their bean counters have a good idea of how to milk the fanbase for the maximum amount of profit.

And given that 40k is pretty much fully saturated with players, GW really has no choice but to play favorites with each Rulebook and Codex to encourage new sales to players chasing marginal utility advantages.

Respectfully, I'd have to disagree on that strongly. GW's sales, EBITDA, and net income trends do not support this statement.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Given that 40k has been around for 20 years, and GW has been doing miniatures wargaming for 25, it's not too unreasonable to think that their bean counters have a good idea of how to milk the fanbase for the maximum amount of profit.

And given that 40k is pretty much fully saturated with players, GW really has no choice but to play favorites with each Rulebook and Codex to encourage new sales to players chasing marginal utility advantages.

I'll disagree with this, GW's financials are a mess, their management has been flip-flopping on strategy every few months for years. They switch Codex paradigm every four books or so, etc.

They have no idea what they are doing anymore.

40k3 was the big push for "more", when GW cut points drastically across the board. 40k5 is a smaller push for "more", because GW can't do a true reset here while still keeping some link to the previous Codices. That is why revolutionary Codices like Orks can have significant cost cuts, and why we can anticipate major points reduction for IG. The smaller player base and older Codex actually works to GW's advantage here.

We won't have a new IG codex for at *least* 15 months, thats a long time to play with a broken army.

Good luck with that. I give you no more than 3 years before you buy again. The withdrawal symptoms of the addictive drug the mix into the plastic, paper, and pewter will bring you back.

Oh I'll still buy 40k stuff, I'll just stick with 4th Ed for my gaming. I may still buy new mini's and whatnot. But I may not continue my current armies with 5th Ed.

For example, I'd have done away with VPs entirely - if the game is about the experience rather than the result, then it's perfectly OK to end in a draw on Objectives. This helps make the game state crystal clear to both players at all times, and allows players to really focus on desperation / heroic tactics rather than playing safe to preserve VPs.

That I can agree with.

Powerfists were still way too good for what they were - that much became obvious when even Tactical squads were taking PFs as no-brainers.

When a powerfist Champ is 60 points on a 230pt CSM squad? I think the new added costs were worth it, I know I no longer took Powerfists as default choices after that.

Tanks are clearly much more survivable at the expense of easy killiness, and that's the intent.

The problem is, they were *TOO* vulnerable under 4th, while their shootiness was fine. To Increase their survivability while nerfing their shooting brings us to the same situation in reverse, of Tanks simply not being worth it.

True, but it explains a lot, no?

It could if it were substantiated, but the IA books usually give a pretty good indication of what is in Imperial tanks as well as detailed insides of them.

As for IA, a lot of that Fluff was pulled out of thin air, so isn't well-established canon.

? How so. It's much more detailed and thought out than most GW stuff, and is still official GW materials, making it just as Canon as anything in a Codex.

The only armies that cannot function in CC are Guard and... and... OK, Guard. But then, their Codex hasn't been updated in a long time, since the days when the game revolved around shooting. So that is to be expected.

and Tau. Both of these armies are based around heavy shooting. They don't work as CC armies. Both of these armies take a big hit. Necrons also aren't exactly great CC armies, especially only with Warriors for Troops and are hit by some of the LoS and cover changes pretty hard as well.

You reduce the risk of moving to allow things to be more mobile.

Except defensive weapons aren't usually anti-transport weapons. Heavy bolters are hideously ineffective anti-Rhino, and will not hurt Tau or Eldar transports at all unless from the rear, and won't hurt the front of a Chimera either. Raiders and Trukks are about the only thing that had anything to fear from such weapons, and are usually numerous enough that they don't really have too much to worry about or can be deployed in such a manner as to deploy their cargo before taking fire (WWP).

The nerf to shooting for vehicle doesn't help transports much at all, it really only makes their own shooting worse and makes heavier tanks much less useful and static, thus making the game as a whole more static.

Vaktathi wrote:I'll disagree with this, GW's financials are a mess, their management has been flip-flopping on strategy every few months for years. They switch Codex paradigm every four books or so, etc.

They have no idea what they are doing anymore.

With 5th, to me, it seems like they finally figured it out.

We won't have a new IG codex for at *least* 15 months, thats a long time to play with a broken army.

... said the non-Ork, non-DE player.

For me, I could care less. I've got 3 or 4 other armies, and all of them will have options. If my IG sit on a shelf for 15 months, 2 years, or the entire edition, that's OK. At least I'll have Apocalypse... And Spaz Marinz, Hurr!!!

Oh I'll still buy 40k stuff, I'll just stick with 4th Ed for my gaming. I may still buy new mini's and whatnot. But I may not continue my current armies with 5th Ed.

OK. Though I'm pretty sure GW won't be offended - they make way more money off minis than rules.

For example, I'd have done away with VPs entirely - if the game is about the experience rather than the result, then it's perfectly OK to end in a draw on Objectives. This helps make the game state crystal clear to both players at all times, and allows players to really focus on desperation / heroic tactics rather than playing safe to preserve VPs.

That I can agree with.

Whoa, I never saw that coming.

When a powerfist Champ is 60 points on a 230pt CSM squad? I think the new added costs were worth it, I know I no longer took Powerfists as default choices after that.

I look at it as a marginal cost of +10 pts over a Power Weapon. A pittance.

The problem is, they were *TOO* vulnerable under 4th, while their shootiness was fine. To Increase their survivability while nerfing their shooting brings us to the same situation in reverse, of Tanks simply not being worth it.

I think it just means one needs to be very careful about taking Tanks of any flavor.

? How so. It's much more detailed and thought out than most GW stuff, and is still official GW materials, making it just as Canon as anything in a Codex.

Point well taken. Of course, a lot of the Codex Fluff is nothing to be proud of, either.

and Tau. Both of these armies are based around heavy shooting. They don't work as CC armies. Both of these armies take a big hit. Necrons also aren't exactly great CC armies, especially only with Warriors for Troops and are hit by some of the LoS and cover changes pretty hard as well.

Tau have Kroot, and they're totally OK. Necrons are obsolete, but will do fine once their new book comes out.

Except defensive weapons aren't usually anti-transport weapons.

HBs are OK against AV10 vehicles like Chimeras, Raiders, & Trukks. Shuricannons and Multi-Lasers are OK against Rhinos. Hence, nerfage!

JohnHwangDD wrote:
With 5th, to me, it seems like they finally figured it out.

I'm glad somebody does. Most of the changes seem either foolhardy, unneeded, or poorly thought out to me. Deep Strikers are getting hit (As if it wasn't already bad enough), Vehicles lose their mobile firepower (and hence the point in taking them over infantry heavy weapons units in the first place), only Troops as scoring (affecting many armies to a much greater degree than others, Orks do this much better than Grey Knights for instance), Powerfist attack nerf *after* reducing availability and increasing costs, etc....

... said the non-Ork, non-DE player.

True, I don't play either, but I bitched just as much as many others about their crappy books. At least DE can still be pretty potent. IG don't exactly have the newest book either, it's from what 2002?

For me, I could care less. I've got 3 or 4 other armies, and all of them will have options. If my IG sit on a shelf for 15 months, 2 years, or the entire edition, that's OK. At least I'll have Apocalypse... And Spaz Marinz, Hurr!!!

I have three armies, I just finished (as in within the last couple months) a Tau army which will be effectively crap in 5th Ed (wish I had known better before I bought everything last november), a Guard army which will soon be untenable, and a Chaos Army which just got turned on its head a few months back and will again before I've found a decent list that I like. I'd rather actually be able to *play* whatever army I feel like at the time rather than having to stick to only one because it is the only one I can get to work half decently under the new rules.

OK. Though I'm pretty sure GW won't be offended - they make way more money off minis than rules.

True, however I probably won't be buying what they are hoping I will buy, and won't be buying a whole lot. For the most part its just heavy weapons troops that I plan on buying to flesh out my IG and Chaos armies.

Whoa, I never saw that coming.

I'm not a total asshat

I look at it as a marginal cost of +10 pts over a Power Weapon. A pittance.

Thats significant when you start taking multiple squads and have to decide "do I want powerweapons and plasma guns, meltaguns and powerfists, or an Icon with a powerfist and flamers?" With the new costing in the Chaos codex, I've actually taken power weapons often, and I would never take a Fist in an IG army. If they remove the 2nd Attack, then I probably won't take them at all. I don't see that as good game design, I see it as knee-jerk reaction.

I think it just means one needs to be very careful about taking Tanks of any flavor.

To me it simply says "put those predators away and finish painting your oblits, dump the Russ tanks and bring the the HWP's instead".

Point well taken. Of course, a lot of the Codex Fluff is nothing to be proud of, either.

Too true sadly (damn you Chaos codex)

Tau have Kroot, and they're totally OK. Necrons are obsolete, but will do fine once their new book comes out.

Kroot aren't amazing CC troops, they are cheap meatshields, nobody loads up on more than or rarely two squads of them, they aren't typically centric to the army and don't fit in visually with the theme of many others. Necrons are just as old as IG and face many of the same problems and will probably have to wait even longer for their codex than IG.

HBs are OK against AV10 vehicles like Chimeras, Raiders, & Trukks. Shuricannons and Multi-Lasers are OK against Rhinos. Hence, nerfage!

HB's are ok against Chimera's only from the side. Raiders typically die anyway to even bolter fire soon after they arrive, its the fact that they can deliver their cargo quickly and almost assuredly that makes the great (along with their Darklance). Trukks are the exception, but there are usually a lot, they have Ramshackle, and are cheap. Nobody expects them to live a long time.

Multilasers and Shuricannons are poor anti-Rhino weapons, sure they can do it in a pinch, but autocannons, lascannons and missile launchers are by far more effective. They certainly aren't effective enough to nerf simply because they are somewhat capable of harming light vehicles.

Vaktathi wrote:I have three armies, ...
I'd rather actually be able to *play* whatever army I feel like at the time rather than having to stick to only one because it is the only one I can get to work half decently under the new rules.

I'm guessing I have a lot more minis and more variety / options than you do, which is why I'm more cavalier about the whole thing. So for me, if one thing goes down, another goes up and I'm back where I was before.

True, however I probably won't be buying what they are hoping I will buy, and won't be buying a whole lot.

Sure, tho GW just wants you to buy something.

Whoa, I never saw that coming.

I'm not a total asshat

With the new costing in the Chaos codex, I've actually taken power weapons often, and I would never take a Fist in an IG army. If they remove the 2nd Attack, then I probably won't take them at all. I don't see that as good game design, I see it as knee-jerk reaction.

Yeah, I'll have PWs available for most of my CSM squads. Even without the 2nd Attack, S8 is still good.

To me it simply says "put those predators away and finish painting your oblits, dump the Russ tanks and bring the the HWP's instead".

I wouldn't do anything on IG until they get a new Codex.

Point well taken. Of course, a lot of the Codex Fluff is nothing to be proud of, either.

Too true sadly (damn you Chaos codex)

Have you seen the Daemon Codex Fluff? Ew.

Tau have Kroot, and they're totally OK. Necrons are obsolete, but will do fine once their new book comes out.

Kroot aren't amazing CC troops, they are cheap meatshields, ... Necrons are just as old as IG and face many of the same problems and will probably have to wait even longer for their codex than IG.

Exactly. Kroot are OK and can serve a useful purpose in a Tau army. Necrons are primarily rules issues from predating the 4th Edition USRs.

Multilasers and Shuricannons are poor anti-Rhino weapons, sure they can do it in a pinch,

Every little bit helps. And I'm sure the metagame will shift considerably moving forward.

So, something that I've seen recently is a rumour that GW may not be making defensive weapons S4-, but S5-.

Something that strikes me as odd, although perhaps it shouldn't, is the way vehicles seem to be playing a different game than the rest of Warhammer 40k. I mean, there's already a helpful set of categories defining the relation of a weapon's effectiveness to the movement of whatever is carrying it.

So I figured, why not have Assault and Rapid Fire weapons count as Defensive Weapons, with Heavy and Ordnance weapons counting as Main Weapons?

If GW used S5 as the breakpoint, that would be very strange, as it represents a huge sop to the Imperials with their S5 Heavy Bolters, while just totally screwing the Eldar with their S6 weapons.

The only reason for GW to pick S5 is if they make all Assault weapons also count as Defensive.

But then that takes us right back to where we are today, with the exception of S6 Assault Cannons and Inferno cannon being removed, with the oddity of S5 Whirlwind still counting as Defensive.

Plus, it doesn't address the point of trying to restrict shootiness.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If GW used S5 as the breakpoint, that would be very strange, as it represents a huge sop to the Imperials with their S5 Heavy Bolters, while just totally screwing the Eldar with their S6 weapons.

Which may have been the point. They may have heard all the cries about Mech Eldar, but instead of adressing the root problem (the huge advantage that skimmers have and their mobility for almost no points increase coupled with Holofields and SS) they decided to just nerf eldar secondary weapons.

The only reason for GW to pick S5 is if they make all Assault weapons also count as Defensive.

Possible, but it could also be to make only heavy bolters defensive instead of scatterlasers, assault cannons, etc.

Under the proposed rules, though - if S5 counts as defensive, then (for example) a pred destructor could move 6" and fire all weapons.
An eldar fast skimmer like a falcon with S6 secondary weapons will ALSO be able to move 6" and fire all weapons. Fine if it moves 12" it will only get to fire its main gun, but compare that to the pred that can't fire anything if it moves 12" (and the extra top speed of the falcon)

Eldar aren't as good as they were (but given the complaints people seem to have that may be a good thing?) but his seems a reasonable compromise that keeps imp tanks as they were and nerfs eldar tanks - but not too much.

At 100+ pts each, Eldar tanks are already very heavily nerfed by the new Scoring rules.

JohnHwangDD: Basing the Defensive/Main weapon categories off the Rapid Fire/Assault/Heavy categories was my idea. The S5- Defensive Weapons is the rumour. Besides, the Whirlwind Missile Launcher would still be Ordnance which over-rules the whole Defensive/Main stuff.

JohnHwangDD wrote:At 100+ pts each, Eldar tanks are already very heavily nerfed by the new Scoring rules.

As are Tau, Imperial Guard, Inquisition and others tanks.

I tried coming up with a solution that I've yet to playtest. It's more of an all encompassing "movement and shooting" rule for vehicles. I think it works well enough on paper, but like I said: I haven't playtested it yet. Admittedly, it may not be perfect, but it can still be tweaked to be more effective after I get a few playtests in or get someone to tell me how their playtests went with it. Anyways, take a gander, post some comments, try it out in a game or two or just belittle me for attempting the work of gods (read GW).
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/211682.page

why can't guns that can be fired (as in the 4 n 5 ed) (owners choices) fired at normal bs (representing gunners taking aim) . all other weapons fire a reduced BS depending on movement and number guns (down to a min of bs1) (basicly point in the right direction, fire and hope)

also Eldar Missile Launchers now seem one of the better option for eldar vechicals. Wave Serpent TL E. Missile Launcher and a Shurikan Cannon seem a good all round choice ... Soften up infantry with the SC and Plasma missile or take out the enemy tank with a krak shot