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.

Rochronos wrote:... and only use TLOS for wound allocation.

Do what now?

Joey wrote:

daedalus wrote:

Joey wrote:How can you make it more damaging to MEQ without making it devestating to IG? Higher strength? Give it an AP?

I guess you could make it ignore armor. Hurts IG more, but it lessens the gap between the two. To be fair, if the metal box in which you are currently residing in EXPLODES, it should probably be quite damaging, whether you're in kevlar or in fiction armor.

That would eliminate mech guard in a stroke. Losing all the normal guys plus a special weapon, plus a pinning test, plus a morale test. Leaving you with 2 special weapons and a sargent, probably gone to ground/fleeing.
Yeah, no.

Holly sheet, it might... mean *dramatic shiver* you shouldnt run msu spam anymore.... *GASP*..... Seriously the complaint that this kind of change would ruin the current meta means this should DEFINITELY be implemented. MSU is the single most hated facet of this game currently. And I think we found a perfect way of dealing with that. d6 wounds no armour save sounds PERFECT. No more 6x chimera 5 man 3 plasma or melta squads and a ton of their other tank friends at obscenely low points levels? Sounds good. No more 5 man purifiers running around in razorbacks? AMAZING!!! So " Losing all the normal guys plus a special weapon, plus a pinning test, plus a morale test. Leaving you with 2 special weapons and a sargent, probably gone to ground/fleeing?" YES PLZ!!!!

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

Joey wrote:

daedalus wrote:

Joey wrote:How can you make it more damaging to MEQ without making it devestating to IG? Higher strength? Give it an AP?

I guess you could make it ignore armor. Hurts IG more, but it lessens the gap between the two. To be fair, if the metal box in which you are currently residing in EXPLODES, it should probably be quite damaging, whether you're in kevlar or in fiction armor.

That would eliminate mech guard in a stroke. Losing all the normal guys plus a special weapon, plus a pinning test, plus a morale test. Leaving you with 2 special weapons and a sargent, probably gone to ground/fleeing.
Yeah, no.

Holly sheet, it might... mean *dramatic shiver* you shouldnt run msu spam anymore.... *GASP*..... Seriously the complaint that this kind of change would ruin the current meta means this should DEFINITELY be implemented. MSU is the single most hated facet of this game currently. And I think we found a perfect way of dealing with that. d6 wounds no armour save sounds PERFECT. No more 6x chimera 5 man 3 plasma or melta squads and a ton of their other tank friends at obscenely low points levels? Sounds good. No more 5 man purifiers running around in razorbacks? AMAZING!!! So " Losing all the normal guys plus a special weapon, plus a pinning test, plus a morale test. Leaving you with 2 special weapons and a sargent, probably gone to ground/fleeing?" YES PLZ!!!!

Mech spam with the recommended level of terrain (25%) is a lot less potent than people think. Every tank will have to make a dangerous terrain roll more or less every movement phase. Killing the entire unit when they pop will be the last straw.

Joey wrote:Against some armies i will NEVER fire my lasguns. Any MEQ squad of 5 or less can do wound wrapping to essentially nullify a special weapon wound. It happened the other day when I forget and accidentaly fired my lasguns and plasmas vs 3 terminators and a priest in termy armour. 4 plasma gun wounds, 2 lasgun wounds. Suffice that to say, the terminators died, the priest lived.

This is an easy fix imo. When allocating wounds, you apply them in an "initiative" order if you will with lower ap values being applied first. So your melta and plasma rifle fire, the melta is allocated first, then the plasma wounds, and then the wounds from your las rifles . This way, stacking wounds is effectively impossible.

Kaldor wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Also, get rid of Wound Allocation. I don't care if this nerfs some things, you shouldn't be relying on this at ALL.

I find that, without wound allocation, most multi-wound units are over-priced. With wound allocation, they seem to work out all-right. IMO, I'd prefer to see wound allocation become institutionalised. It just seems counter-intuitive that a unit with twice as many wounds isn't twice as hard to kill.

Sorry, but the way the game has always been played was you remove whole models first. The wound allocation shenanigans do make multi-wound units vastly more survivable than they have ever been, or ever should have been. It doesn't make them worth their points, it makes them extremely undercosted.

insaniak wrote:

Rochronos wrote:... and only use TLOS for wound allocation.

Do what now?

You can only wound models that the squad that is shooting can see

ie If a squad of gaurdsmen see 3 Marines from a squad (Say 1 w/ ML 1/ PG and sarge) if the guardsmen cause any wounds they can only be applied against those three models

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

Joey wrote:Against some armies i will NEVER fire my lasguns. Any MEQ squad of 5 or less can do wound wrapping to essentially nullify a special weapon wound. It happened the other day when I forget and accidentaly fired my lasguns and plasmas vs 3 terminators and a priest in termy armour. 4 plasma gun wounds, 2 lasgun wounds. Suffice that to say, the terminators died, the priest lived.

This is an easy fix imo. When allocating wounds, you apply them in an "initiative" order if you will with lower ap values being applied first. So your melta and plasma rifle fire, the melta is allocated first, then the plasma wounds, and then the wounds from your las rifles . This way, stacking wounds is effectively impossible.

This is what I think needs to be. we are also forgetting the other abuse common in this edition: FnP. I know i tend to run a terminator squad with 5 th/ss and an apothecary. so if you get past my armor with your normal weapons my fnp kicks in and saves half. If you do manage to shoot me with something that ignores my armor I still have a 3++ invulnerable.

fix the cover rules to say
"If you can see it you can shoot it if not you can't" this will stop squad wrapping where you only have the heavy and special weapons shooting out while the rest of the squad hides giving cover.
"if it is in cover but visible 5++ cover save unless you are in a bastion or similar structure in which case it is a 4++ (non modifiable)) in other words 4++ becomes the highest cover save expect for eldar rangers

daedalus wrote:The biggest problem I have with 5th is that EVERYTHING is random. Random game length, random who gets first turn, random what scenario you play, random run length, random moving through cover... well, you get the idea. My biggest complaint is that it feels like, even if you play a 'perfect' game (whatever that means) you're still victim to die rolls. It's like playing Chutes and Ladders.

This is the weakness of playing any game involving dice, but there are random factors in war, that even if you play a "perfect" game you still can lose. The dice add that randomness to the game that would otherwise be missing...

Skriker

* Would allocation

* KP system (this makes draigowing armies unbalanced)

* FNP being a 4+

* Mech rules makes armor very hard to destroy

* Cover saves are to good - when everyone is getting a 4+ save, weapons like PGs are much less valueable.

* Beasts or bikes not being able to climb stairs.

* Lack of missions. Really? 9 mission/deployment combo's total?

Joey wrote:

Jerjare wrote:Sorry if this seems dumb, but I'm not understanding on how firing more weapons results in less casualties. If you fired with 3 meltaguns and 18 lasguns, wouldn't the meltaguns be (probably) wounding on a 2+, disallowing normal armor saves, and the lasguns (probably) wounding on a 5+, allowing armor saves? So if 3 meltaguns wounded and 8 lasguns wounded they would lose 3 models then take their saves for the las wounds? Or am I missing something really slowed about 5th edition here? :confused:

Okay I'm shooting at 3 MEQ with my veteran squad.
If I shoot just the plasma guns :
I get 6 shots, 4 hits, 3 wounds. That's all three of them that have to take a cover/invulnerable.
Now if I shoot the plasma guns AND the lasguns
I have the 3 plasma gun wounds, but I get another 2 lasgun wounds. Now the other player can dump the plasma gun wounds on two models, and simply have the third model make an armour save, whears with JUST the plasma guns he would have to take a cover/invulnerable (or be dead if he was in the open).

Dont the rules say that when a squad fires it MUST fire ALL it's weapons. You can't pick which weapons fire, they all must fire even if out of range.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

Joey wrote:Against some armies i will NEVER fire my lasguns. Any MEQ squad of 5 or less can do wound wrapping to essentially nullify a special weapon wound. It happened the other day when I forget and accidentaly fired my lasguns and plasmas vs 3 terminators and a priest in termy armour. 4 plasma gun wounds, 2 lasgun wounds. Suffice that to say, the terminators died, the priest lived.

This is an easy fix imo. When allocating wounds, you apply them in an "initiative" order if you will with lower ap values being applied first. So your melta and plasma rifle fire, the melta is allocated first, then the plasma wounds, and then the wounds from your las rifles . This way, stacking wounds is effectively impossible.

I do this as well. I usually discuss it with my opponent first before the game but I role special weapons first allocate woulds then resolve say lasguns. Same with the LRBT. I resolve the BC first allocate woulds then resolve for the bolters, if they fired.

Most players dont have a problem with this simply because most hate wound allocation shenanigans as well but like I said I unusually go over it with them before the start.

Silentway wrote:

Joey wrote:

Jerjare wrote:Sorry if this seems dumb, but I'm not understanding on how firing more weapons results in less casualties. If you fired with 3 meltaguns and 18 lasguns, wouldn't the meltaguns be (probably) wounding on a 2+, disallowing normal armor saves, and the lasguns (probably) wounding on a 5+, allowing armor saves? So if 3 meltaguns wounded and 8 lasguns wounded they would lose 3 models then take their saves for the las wounds? Or am I missing something really slowed about 5th edition here? :confused:

Okay I'm shooting at 3 MEQ with my veteran squad.
If I shoot just the plasma guns :
I get 6 shots, 4 hits, 3 wounds. That's all three of them that have to take a cover/invulnerable.
Now if I shoot the plasma guns AND the lasguns
I have the 3 plasma gun wounds, but I get another 2 lasgun wounds. Now the other player can dump the plasma gun wounds on two models, and simply have the third model make an armour save, whears with JUST the plasma guns he would have to take a cover/invulnerable (or be dead if he was in the open).

Dont the rules say that when a squad fires it MUST fire ALL it's weapons. You can't pick which weapons fire, they all must fire even if out of range.

I'm pretty sure you can choose. Don't have the rulebook on me though.

insaniak wrote:

Rochronos wrote:... and only use TLOS for wound allocation.

Do what now?

Bit of a house rule I suppose. 'What you see you can kill'

Rochronos wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Rochronos wrote:... and only use TLOS for wound allocation.

Do what now?

Bit of a house rule I suppose. 'What you see you can kill'

I don't dislike this, but on the other hand, model sniping?

Exactly. If you combat squad your tactical squad and set up the missle launcher on top of the hill and his 4 bolter buddies behind the hill to have cover, that rule will kill that missile launcher guy.

Likewise, by coming in at an angle towards a unit near cover or LoS blocking terrain, you can set your own shooters up so that they only see a special weapons guy or a sergeant and could snipe him that way.

Not a fan of either, to be honest. I'm willing to wait and see what 6th edition brings us. For now, my group is enjoying the hell out of 5th edition.

A lot of these proposed changes.. are just what was already in 4th edition (Which I think had some much better ideas in it.. and some worse ones)

Joey wrote:

Silentway wrote:Dont the rules say that when a squad fires it MUST fire ALL it's weapons. You can't pick which weapons fire, they all must fire even if out of range.

I'm pretty sure you can choose. Don't have the rulebook on me though.

You can absolutely pick what weapons to fire. IF you have a bunch of assault weapons and one heavy you can choose not to fire the heavy, then charge into CC.

rigeld2 wrote:

Joey wrote:

Silentway wrote:Dont the rules say that when a squad fires it MUST fire ALL it's weapons. You can't pick which weapons fire, they all must fire even if out of range.

I'm pretty sure you can choose. Don't have the rulebook on me though.

You can absolutely pick what weapons to fire. IF you have a bunch of assault weapons and one heavy you can choose not to fire the heavy, then charge into CC.

I thought that only applied to a model with multiple weapons. Typically HWs units or squads are also eqipped eith the same weapons as the squad, you choose which weapon the model fires on that specific model not the whole squad. (eg, Guardsmen HWS are equipped with a HW and their lasgun. I can only shooce which weapon on that model to fire but the model MUST fire, the HW or lasgun, however melta vets or plasma vets only have one weapon..)

You can choose to fire one or the other but all models still must fire. I wish I wasnt at work to check this. Maybe Im mistaken

BRB page 16 wrote:WHICH MODELS CAN FIRE?
All models in the firing unit that have line of sight to at
least one model in the target unit can fire.
A player may choose not to fire with certain models if
he prefers (as some models may have one-shot
weapons, for example). This must be declared before
checking range, as all of the models in the unit fire at
the same time.

-> TLOS (worse idea ever in a miniature game)
-> Wound Allocations
-> Transport spam being way to good
-> MCs being completely awful
-> Cover being WAY too good and WAY too easy to obtain
-> "To Hit" chart for close combat is dumb as hell (I don't know what it was like in older editions but it is stupid beyond stupid right now).
-> Squad Coherency (lol. what is that?)

I am sure there are more that I am not thinking about.

EDIT:

Saw some more:

-> Movement up and down levels in ruins are terrible due to beasts and bikes just randomly getting dicked on it
-> KP is awful
-> Missions and scenarios are awful and dull

Out of interest, what do people prefer to TLOS?

I would love more variety of missions, And deployment(please get rid of dawn of war)
Maybe a kill the leader type game.
OR a keep away, Such as a unit picks up objective, gets to carry it around, then you have to kill that unit

The battle mission book is OK, but not all of the missions are balanced. It adds variety, but not equality in mission-to-mission and codex-to-codex comparisons.

Kurce wrote:-> TLOS (worse idea ever in a miniature game)
-> Wound Allocations
-> Transport spam being way to good
-> MCs being completely awful
-> Cover being WAY too good and WAY too easy to obtain
-> "To Hit" chart for close combat is dumb as hell (I don't know what it was like in older editions but it is stupid beyond stupid right now).
-> Squad Coherency (lol. what is that?)

I am sure there are more that I am not thinking about.

EDIT:

Saw some more:

-> Movement up and down levels in ruins are terrible due to beasts and bikes just randomly getting dicked on it
-> KP is awful
-> Missions and scenarios are awful and dull

TLOS has been around since 3rd edition, so I don't see it going away any time soon.

How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

How does a bike climb a ruin?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How does a bike climb a ruin?

Like Meat Loaf.

TLOS has been around since 3rd edition, so I don't see it going away any time soon.

How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

How does a bike climb a ruin?

TLOS in its current incarnation has not been around since 3rd. 4th edition's LOS system was great because absolute TLOS is flawed in a system that uses models a FRACTION of the size of the actual person judging the LOS

In 4th you had unit sizes and the Z axis rarely mattered which made the game take a lot less time, since you could just use a laser leveler to easily figure out LOS. Granted it was silly with trukks blocking LOS to land raiders, but eh that's sorta how the game goes I guess at times (Fixed by adding more sizes I suppose)

I think the single worst part of 5th is TLOS because its extremely cumbersome when you account for terrain (and also it is the largest reason people call me over to judge in an event). Our damn eyes are bigger than 28mm how can we possibly "kneel down" to a models eye view on a board that isn't barren?

Poor mechanic due to its unrealistic expectations. Abstract LOS is better for a game based on miniatures

daedalus wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How does a bike climb a ruin?

Like Meat Loaf.

What he said.

TLOS has been around since 3rd edition, so I don't see it going away any time soon.

How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

How does a bike climb a ruin?

KP is awful. Maximum size unit of Boyz != Minimum squad size of Marines. According to KP, they are. Makes no sense. Ork Trukk? 1 KP. Necron Monolith? 1 KP. How can you defend KP? This all literally makes no sense.

From my understanding, TLOS was not introduced until 5th edition. Could be wrong since I haven't played older editions but that is my understanding. There are numerous other mini games that don't use TLOS and they work so much better and easier. This game is so abstracted anyway just to make the game "playable" so I don't see why there is a need to try and use TLOS...

EDIT:

Kirasu said it much more elegantly than I could. It is a very unrealistic expectation and is not very feasible. From my personal experience, there is no single greater cause of disputes between players than arguing over if something should have cover or not because of TLOS.

Kirasu wrote:In 4th you had unit sizes and the Z axis rarely mattered which made the game take a lot less time, since you could just use a laser leveler to easily figure out LOS.

But getting a laser pointer is OH SO BURDENSOME AND UNWORKABLE

edit:
I have zero problems with TLOS. I've never had an issue figuring out if I could see someone, or vice versa.

Kurce wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

KP is awful. Maximum size unit of Boyz != Minimum squad size of Marines. According to KP, they are. Makes no sense. Ork Trukk? 1 KP. Necron Monolith? 1 KP. How can you defend KP? This all literally makes no sense.

KP's are a balance mechanic. MSU and Mech are no-brainer winning choices for objective missions (2/3 of missions).
Function of Kill Points is to give disadvantage to MSU armies in 1/3 of missions.
So KP's make perfect sense in their context. But that context obviously isn't related to points value of a unit.

Besides, contesting makes literally no sense either, when you consider that I can have 1000 point deathstar on objective and enemy can contest it with single grot.
Same with "only troops can capture". But that is because both of these are balance mechanics too.

Edit: fixed quotes

rigeld2 wrote:

BRB page 16 wrote:WHICH MODELS CAN FIRE?
All models in the firing unit that have line of sight to at
least one model in the target unit can fire.
A player may choose not to fire with certain models if
he prefers (as some models may have one-shot
weapons, for example). This must be declared before
checking range, as all of the models in the unit fire at
the same time.

Awesome thanks for the clarification.

Jerjare wrote:Sorry if this seems dumb, but I'm not understanding on how firing more weapons results in less casualties.

I can give you a more obvious example, then.

Let's say that you've got 5 terminators near your stuff. You've got a demolisher with HHB and heavy bolter sponsons. Let's assume for the moment that the demolisher cannon hits, and hits all 5 models, and wounds with each hit. If you don't fire the heavy bolters, each termie gets an Ap2 shot on it, which means you're making 5 invul saves which means at least 3 of them will probably die. Throw on some heavy bolter shooting, which will throw down, on average three wounds. Suddenly, instead of having 5 termies with one invul save apiece, you now have 2 termies taking 2 invul saves apiece, 1 termie taking an invul and an armor, and 2 termies taking nothing more than a single armor save apiece. If you were slightly unlucky with the bolters, that's 3 termies with a single armor save, and 2 termies with a pair of invuls. Instead of losing 3, maybe 4 terminators, and having the squad wrecked, you've now got two, maybe three gone.

By comparison, if you used 4th ed's system, instead of killing one or two fewer terminators by shooting the bolters, you actually kill one or two more terminators, because the demolisher cannon would wipe out all but 1 or 2, and then the remainder would be picked off by heavy bolters after.

Currently, there are situations where doing more wounds puts down fewer kills, whereas in the past putting down more wounds put down more kills.

Steelmage99 wrote:I will also go on record saying that the wound allocation rule is perfectly easy to both understand and use in game.

Yes, but that doesn't matter.

Seriously, imagine if 40k had a rule where either player turn 5 could decide that instead of letting the game continue as-is, they could opt instead to roll a single die and on a 4+ they win the game outright, and if they fail they just lose. This would be a rule that's very easy to understand, and it would be a rule that would be easy to use.

It would also be an idiotic rule.

Just because something is easy, or logical, or intentional does not, in itself, make it good.

daedalus wrote:

Rochronos wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Rochronos wrote:... and only use TLOS for wound allocation.

Do what now?

Bit of a house rule I suppose. 'What you see you can kill'

I don't dislike this, but on the other hand, model sniping?

Just for reference, this used to be the actual rule in 4th ed. I thought it was a little strange when they moved to the current rule wherein you can kill models with shooting that you couldn't see, but it made sense in the context of killing models you can't reach in close combat. Not sure if this is the better system or not, but it doesn't seem to be much of a to-do.

As for KP, yeah, it doesn't make sense, but neither does "only troops score" so long as the latter rule is in place, then you need to have the former or the game breaks down in a hurry.

I mean, look at environments that don't have a serious KP threat in them (like tournaments). You see how everything is MSU vehicular troops choices with MSU vehicular support? This has much less to do with what is good in the codex, and much more to do with a world where there's no serious risk that you will be penalized for taking too many small units.