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.

I agree about tanks and shooting. I mean stationary or slow moving tanks that pause to shoot is a WW1 concept that was considered out-dated by the end of that war...

Look at the Battle of the Bulge, Rommel in Africa or the Blitzkrieg. Some of the most influential tank battles in history... because the tanks were firing on the move! Keeping mobile whilst engaging their targets at the same time. Even Mark IVs and A7Vs could do that, admittedly the A7V did bog down and become a firebase after 30 minutes and the Mark IVs lost the ability to turn properly when their trailing wheels got clogged with mud, but still, the idea is that tanks move and shoot big guns, at the same time.

nosferatu1001 wrote:ANd you didnt hear about MSU in 4th? Really? Where were you? Las/plas 6 man marine squads? 6 man lance warrior squads? Anything ring a bell?

MSU and min/maxing isn't the same thing.

Min / max led to the same thing, which was many small units. OR are you saying the IW oblit/las plas CSM spam list wasnt MSU?

MSU existed in 4th as a common term. Sorry you didnt hear it, obviously the UK was more META than Aus?

SumYungGUy - brilliant argument, love the rational, logical rebuttal there. Keep going!

Eyclonus - have you not noticed that the LR has a very...early look about it? The tank designs *are* early WWI in look, and apparently have similarly poor "guidance systems" [i.e. pretty much none, if BL is to be believed]

The ruin / building rules are stilla mess - better than 4th (when there wasnt any.....) but that isnt exactly difficult. The way ICs work is still too all or nothing (either you can hit them, non-retinue, or you cant - one is exponentially more powerful than the other. Like daemons being able to assault from deepstrike) - like a lot of elements in 40k it seems too binary.

It's about all the rebuttal I need for you and your trolling. Try going back to beginning and responding without resorting to 'hurr hurr you suck, I'm better!' so I have something to respond to.

Jaon wrote:Sweeping advance. I am a 5 man tactical squad. I wound 5 guardsmen. Guardsmen only wound 2 of us. Oh ty the other 25 are dead.

...and upon the day that this is balanced out a great music will be heard from above celebrating the return of assault as a horde army not sucking. Bonus points if No Retreat! wounds and multiple assaults are fixed too.

Another thing I'd like fixed is the vehicle damage chart being 2D6 with more shades of grey between 'oh you scratched my paint, no shooting next turn' and 'ZOMG I BLOWED UP'.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Min / max led to the same thing, which was many small units. OR are you saying the IW oblit/las plas CSM spam list wasnt MSU?

False cause analogy.

MSU = the use of multiple small units to gain an advantage in objective (ie. non-VP) based missions.

Min/Maxing = The taking of the minimum required models to gain the maximum possible special/heavy weapon options.

And while it is true that a Min/Maxed unit can be an MSU (as by their virtue they are usually small units), MSU =/= Min/Max.

And you just sound like a bitter player who hated fighting Iron Warriors.

I believed MSU was the idea that there is too many targets to deal with that fire with the exact same efficiency as an entire squad.

Take 9 obliterators for example. In squads of 3, they are (a nightmaare!!!) reasonably easy to kill, but if all 9 were in seperate units i.e. on their own, the list would be nigh unstoppable, for exactly the same points and firing potential.


Also, when I first started 40k I was appalled that tanks couldnt split fire. Extremely surprising. I still wish for the sponsons of a land raider to be able to target different units WITHOUT using potms, or a leman russ to fire its battlecannon at a rhino then destroy some scouts with its heavy bolters.

But of course there is much sense in the way it is, but I just thought it odd at the time.

Also remove unit XXXX is a bumhole, but its quite hard to use on most units (can we ignore JOTWW)

I am sick of razor spam. Ive never versed one myself, but seriously, why should 10 transports be able to beat every single everything ever?

I also wish with all my heart chimeras still had autocannons :(

I would run a autocannon based army:

3x hydra
3x chimera with autocannon
2x leman russ exterminator
3x heavy weapons team with autocannons.

I would then call my self the ELDAR HUNTER and go and kill eldar.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Eyclonus - have you not noticed that the LR has a very...early look about it? The tank designs *are* early WWI in look, and apparently have similarly poor "guidance systems" [i.e. pretty much none, if BL is to be believed]

What about the SPESSSS MAHREENS!? Oh wait Power of the Machine Spirit. But what about Eldar and Orks? I mean being an ancient race of great power, you'd think they'd bothered with investing in improving armoured warfare? And Orks? Why the hell would not having targetting stop them? They don't even need a peephole to encourage them to pull that trigger and its not like the drivers are in the mood to stop their wagons just so some wimpy boy can hit dat humie!

Snipers should be more effective, I mean sure they're rending but wouldn't it make more sense to wound on a 3 then a 4 if their whole purpose is to pinpoint enemy weaknesses?

H.B.M.C. wrote:False cause analogy.

MSU = the use of multiple small units to gain an advantage in objective (ie. non-VP) based missions.

Min/Maxing = The taking of the minimum required models to gain the maximum possible special/heavy weapon options.

And while it is true that a Min/Maxed unit can be an MSU (as by their virtue they are usually small units), MSU =/= Min/Max.

And you just sound like a bitter player who hated fighting Iron Warriors.

Wrong. So ttoally wrong.

MSU = way to win VP battles by having as many small pointed units as is effective. MSU means you have maximised you ability to split fire to the appropriate targets, while having reduced your opponents abiltity to gain points in return (it is harder to get VPs from 3 units of 10 than 1 unit of 30)

MSU was most hellishly effective in VP missions (90% of 4th ed games, at a wager) and existed all through 4th. Ready to concede yet?

Given my first army was IW plus Khorne (when you were allowed 1 unit of 'zerkers, so i made em BIG for that unit as i love my axes) I really, really doubt you have the slightest clue what you are talking about. Really, couldnt be further from the mark.

SUmYungGuy - nope, your argument still rocks. Good going!

Ugh.

Can we all dial down the drama and the personal attacks?

Yes, I believe we can.

I hate the stupid regeneration rule for necrons ¬¬

Unreal Toast wrote:I hate the stupid regeneration rule for necrons ¬¬

Hating on Necrons? That's harsh man. It's like punching a baby kitten.

Rage. Nuff said.

I already said mine, but i'll add psychic powers. Why are they so weak? The whole Imperium fears the psykers for their power and proximity to the warp, but hell if i'm running from a leadership test every now and then...

SumYungGui wrote:

Unreal Toast wrote:I hate the stupid regeneration rule for necrons ¬¬

Hating on Necrons? That's harsh man. It's like punching a baby kitten.

Are you sure were talking about the same thing here, because a necron is definately not a kitten 0.0

Unreal Toast wrote:

SumYungGui wrote:

Unreal Toast wrote:I hate the stupid regeneration rule for necrons ¬¬

Hating on Necrons? That's harsh man. It's like punching a baby kitten.

Are you sure were talking about the same thing here, because a necron is definately not a kitten 0.0

I think he's refering to the fact that they are an outdated codex and therefore weak and defenseless although Dash has shown they aren't as defenseless as some had thought.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ready to concede yet?

You're priceless.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ready to concede yet?

You're priceless.

Isn't he just? Trolls are so cute. I think this one might be a bit confused though, he seems to have left the Warhammer fantasy forum and wandered over here. We don't have Trolls, just Orks.

I'ma have to go with the tried and true 'you can't shoot models engaged in assault.' Silly, ridiculous, and has cost me more games than I can count. I understand why the rule exists, but I still don't like it.

Wow sumyunguy and hbmc .... you both talk with such authority ... whilst having no fething idea what youre talking about ....

kill dem stunties wrote:Wow sumyunguy and hbmc .... you both talk with such authority ... whilst having no fething idea what youre talking about ....

+1

I'm going to go with the whole no consolidating into close combat rule. One of my biggest peeves about playing an assault heavy army is watching one squad assault, wipe out an entire squad, and then proceed to die to shooting on the next turn. Now, I'm not complaining about not being able to sweep across an entire board taking out squads one at a time, but I would like to at least get into CC after winning an assault.

Loccio -but thats the "binary" choice thing I was talking about - key parts of the game seem to end up being overpowered or underpowered, with no middle ground.

Daemons assaulting from deepstrike == game over
Daemons not assaulting from deepstrike == meh

Sumyungguy - carry on, gotta love your spouting of the "t" word, really adds flavour and weight to your argument.

HBMC - since you have failed to refute, I accept your concession.

man so much serious business in this thread

Alpharius wrote:

Can we all dial down the drama and the personal attacks?

The way the assault phase works out on fast units or beasts. They should be able to ride in, beat the crêpe out of them and ride away.

The DEAMONIC ASSAULT rule.

My least favorite rule is "The Most Important Rule," because rather than serve its intended purpose, it lets whiny players try to bend the rules when the outcome of a particular action isn't what they hoped it would be.

Well, I just recently got 5th edition so I haven't come across rules I hate in play, but I do have two I hate in theory.

First is the conga-line of casualty removal; if you can't see or can't range into a model, then he should not be a potential casualty.

Also, I do not like IGO-UGO. I prefer alternating activations like Fast and Dirty does.

M.

Suicidal Cheez wrote:The way the assault phase works out on fast units or beasts. They should be able to ride in, beat the crêpe out of them and ride away.

They call it Hit and Run. That said, its an annoyance but what I find frustrating is that if you manage to beat the tar out of a unit, you can't attempt a Hit and Run. (Or as I call it, the "Show-off Clown Syndrome", due to many a Harlequin unit who stood to gloat over the bodies of fallen Scouts before dying to the Marines who would disembark from their Rhinos to bolter them).