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.

jfrazell wrote:With respect-more deadly TO them as well.

More survivable I guess. But less effective. Combined with sit and shoot its a not so hot for me. That was the advantage of V3 and Lemans. Yes you had to sit and shoot, however, you had a good chance of causing casualties and an excellent chance of hitting vehicles. Not now.

Actually Lemans don't have anything different than now except until their Battlecannon gets blown off. You can move and fire, but generally will want to stay behind terrain or in it.

Given that, You've got a 33% chance to score a hit. Now for the 66% of the time you do scatter, 8% of those times, you actually hit spot on target (rolling a 2 or 3 on the scatter distance, when -BS you are staying on target). So your chances of "hitting" where you place the template is better than in 4th. Granted that your outliers are worse with a higher max deviation, but the other end of the scale is pretty good.

Couple this with the fact that all partials are hit and I think Leman Russ's are going to rock the proverbial casbah in 5th.

Mekboy wrote:Flamer templates roll to hit, if they miss anything underneath gets hit on a 4+.

Whoa, now that's serious. Is this from the final V5 rulebook?

-I'm thinking more in terms of against vehicles VB.

Edit-is that to hit or to wound with the flamer?

jfrazell wrote:-I'm thinking more in terms of against vehicles VB.

Edit-is that to hit or to wound with the flamer?

True on the Vehicle bit, but still I think Ordinance stopped being all that good vs. Vehicles in 4th anyway.

And IG deepstriking with Meltas will be the way to go vs. tanks anyway since Lascannons just don't seem like they'll be nearly as effective.

Also I'm just salavating over the idea of cheap old 66 Point units of IG with Flamers to "clean up" after speedbumps get run over.

Yep on all counts VB.

PanzerLeader wrote:Besides, making players choose between having to shoot or move makes the game much richer and fun to play.

No it doesn't, it just makes tanks into assault magnets and will make most players not take them. If you think by "richer and more fun" non moving tanks are better its hard for me to see why?

Besides its easy to see that one could take the same gun on infantry and have better staying power already if you have to stay still with the tank anyway?

I dont think that holds much water. Great that you are a tanker, but have you ever operated a grav tank? (Just a joke, a reminder that we are talking about a comic book game here...)

I think I would agree with the static tank doctrine being ok from a game balance perspective if ordinance weapons were actually a threat, but right now, whats to keep a monstrous creature from just walking up to your immobile tank and smashing it? Nothing, welcome to no tank land....

Augustus wrote:I think I would agree with the static tank doctrine being ok from a game balance perspective if ordinance weapons were actually a threat, but right now, whats to keep a monstrous creature from just walking up to your immobile tank and smashing it? Nothing, welcome to no tank land....

Well there IS the small issue of the counter-assault unit I have waiting to assault that MC and remove the last wound or 2 that my shooting hasn't taken yet as he comes rampaging into my firebase. Yay for assault marines/rough riders/aspect warriors/anything painted green with a speech impediment! Yay for mixed forces combat!

hey everyone.
we got the 5th ed rule book in today and we were all combing through it.
the one thing that most stood out to us was that they are bringing back ramming. what are your thoughts on this?

Had a look through the book. First of all, it is a gorgeous piece of production. Some notes I made regarding the rules.

Templates hit all models underneath, not the 4+ mentioned earlier in the thread. Multiple templates are resolved by determining the number of models hit by each template, then determining the number of hits from other weapons in the firing units, and then rolling for wounds based on the total number of hits.

Farseers casting in Falcons... I don't think it's legal. The prerelease .pdf had a line, "If any of the models in the transport have abilities that function within a certain range, this range is measured from the vehicle’s hull." I did not see it in the printed book. Furthermore, the only reference to psychic powers in vehicles involves a Fire Point.

Fast Vehicles have Flat Out Speed of 18". Fast Skimmers have FOS of 24". 4+ cover save for Skimmers moving at FOS. So, either shoot OR get a cover save. Not both.

Buildings now have an AV (Bunkers being AV 14, for example). Can be destroyed in the same way as vehicles. Imagining Vindicators as Bunker Busters...

I only glanced at ramming, but noticed it said +1 S for each 3" moved that turn... Cheesy image of Vypers with Star Engines dancing in my head. Non-skimmers attempting to ram a skimmer, give target skimmer a 3+ save to avoid.

No emergency disembarking for a penetrating hit against. However there is a provision, called "emergency disembarkation", that if a model cannot exit from it's transport within 2" of an access point without coming within 1" of an enemy model, or entering impassable terrain, it may be placed anywhere within 2" of the vehicle hull, but the squad may do nothing for the rest of the turn. It was not explicitly stated, but I believe it implied that it only occurred during your movement phase, i.e. a voluntary disembark, because it later states that models that cannot disembark when the transport is wrecked are removed.

As mentioned, Troops that are not a vehicle or a swarm can claim objectives, but any unit can contest.

I did notice in a battle report in the hobby section a note about how effective Combat Squadding vanilla Space Marines can be... so there's a confirmation of that rumor for the upcoming C: SM. Not that one is needed.

Also I thought it was nice how the reference pages for all current codices was included in the book's appendix. Just in case you play "that guy".

Regarding LOS, do units only get the cover save if blocked by other friendly units? For example, if I am firing an IG platoon with one section in front of another does the enemy unit gain a 4+ cover save because I fired through a unit? Or is it only friendly units?

Thanks and I'm sorry if this was covered elsewhere, seems like I have been reading conflicting posts in other threads.

jfrazell wrote:-I'm thinking more in terms of against vehicles VB.

Edit-is that to hit or to wound with the flamer?

I hope it's not to hit. That would SERIOUSLY affect my desicion to get a redeemer. Sponson flamers are hard enough to use as it is!

~TS