Switch Theme:

Sounding the Grog Horn - if I played 5e-7e what do I have to look out for with 4e?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






I'm going to be playing a game of warhammer 4th ed in either a week or two weeks, and while I've played multiple of the older editions (5th, 6th and 7th) I've never played 4th. Looking thru the rules things mostly seem about the same between 4th and 5th with the exception of semi-abstracted line of sight rules and the 'ld test to not target the closest' rule from 2e, but are there any other critical features I ought to be careful not to miss/curveballs that 4e throws that are unique amongst the oldhammer editions?

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Off the top of my head.

1: LOS rules are very different. You'll find there's a lot more LOS blocking. Good to read up on that.

2: Damage tables are more punishing to vehicles In particular the effects of transports being hit/destroyed are harsh. A transported unit whose vehicle is destroyed are automatically pinned the following turn.

3: Cover saves are 5+ rather than 4+

4: Skimmer rules get a bit funky. I think they never block LOS. They can also only be hit on 6s in CC. (Perhaps unless moving 6" or under?)

5: Outnumbering the opponent in CC affects Break Tests, rather than casualties inflicted.

6: I feel like the particulars of placement and attacking in CC were trickier, and allowed for some more manipulation if you were on top of it. But it's been a long time, so I couldn't say how exactly.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





As above. In addition, the wound allocation in 4th was quite different from 5th. IIRC in 4th saves are fast rolled then successful wounds are allocated to the unit by the controlling player.

I played tyranids in 4th and my most frequent opponent was Tau, I struggled to take out the tau tanks as tyranids lacked ranged anti-tank weaponry so hitting on a 6 in CC was a big deal.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Master with Gauntlets of Macragge





Upstate, New York

Double check the rapid fire rules. They changed every edition until 6th?

   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Skimmers in 4e blocked your opponent's line of sight, but not yours, which created some odd Tau/Eldar strategies. And because you had to pay for anti-tank grenades on everyone (even Space Marines, who have them free from 5e on) charging the skimmers isn't always an option.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






I have a lil diagram of 4th ed area terrain rules vs. 5th TLOS. It shows how important it is to have good terrain setups and rules. This pairs with the reduced cover save and increased damage to vehicles in 4th. It should be much easier to reduce the amount of incoming fire using 4th ed rules and a good board.


Full size in spoiler:
Spoiler:

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






1 - yep, the non-true LOS rules are quite interesting. Models can see thru 6" of building but units can hide behind friendly units of a larger size. Really the only potential problem with it is that we have quite a lot of terrain that isnt 6" deep, which means that units would actually be quite a bit safer under 9e's rules.


2 - Skimmers do appear to block line of sight as any enemy vehicles do. I'm not seeing that rule. They do however have the whole 'fast skimmer only glancerino' does have a bit of a drawback, as it does mean a 5 or 6 does automatically destroy it, as opposed to a normal penetrating hit.

3 - disappointingly, this does appear to be one of those editions where assaulting from Deep Strike is utterly pointless in addition to being highly unreliable and extremely risky. Oh well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Skimmers in 4e blocked your opponent's line of sight, but not yours, which created some odd Tau/Eldar strategies. And because you had to pay for anti-tank grenades on everyone (even Space Marines, who have them free from 5e on) charging the skimmers isn't always an option.


I can see that, though it does appear to be true for any vehicle, technically speaking. (your own models never block your LOS) so you could theoretically do the exact same thing with an Ork Trukk claming line of sight between the tires if your opponent decided to be a cheesy little fish.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/06 18:35:08


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 the_scotsman wrote:
...I can see that, though it does appear to be true for any vehicle, technically speaking. (your own models never block your LOS) so you could theoretically do the exact same thing with an Ork Trukk claming line of sight between the tires if your opponent decided to be a cheesy little fish.


Models in the same unit never block LOS, your own models from other units can.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 the_scotsman wrote:
3 - disappointingly, this does appear to be one of those editions where assaulting from Deep Strike is utterly pointless in addition to being highly unreliable and extremely risky. Oh well.
Depends a bit on your army.

Playing Marines I brought a Teleport Homer in a Tactical Squad and sometimes Scout squad for my Terminators to use.

Playing Necrons the Monolith could teleport onto the table, and then other troops on the table could be zapped through it. I did that with Flayed Ones a lot.

Playing Chaos, iirc they could summon Daemons which could assault right into combat.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

Am I wrong that you can never see entirely through area terrain in 4e, ie units on the far side are always invisible?

   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 the_scotsman wrote:
1 - yep, the non-true LOS rules are quite interesting. Models can see thru 6" of building but units can hide behind friendly units of a larger size. Really the only potential problem with it is that we have quite a lot of terrain that isnt 6" deep, which means that units would actually be quite a bit safer under 9e's rules.


In 4th edition, if you classify a piece of terrain as "area terrain", you can't see entirely through it even if it's less than 1" wide. Seeing in/out 6" only applies to when a model is positioned inside of the area terrain.

Basically, if you have area terrain that's less than 6" wide (say a long 2-3" wide dense hedgerow), a model positioned ON the hedgerow area terrain piece would be visible but would get a cover save. Any model's behind the hedgerow would be entirely out of sight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Da Boss wrote:
Am I wrong that you can never see entirely through area terrain in 4e, ie units on the far side are always invisible?


You are not wrong, that's correct.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/06 18:58:02


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk





I don't believe anyone has yet mentioned Rending operating on a 6 to hit, not a 6 to wound (change in 5th edition). Made assault cannons and genestealers very nasty in 4th.

As an aside, I suggest banning/not allowing Eldar holofields which made vehicles like the Falcon pretty much indestructible. Other than that, enjoy!

edit: Oh, and your army list and contents of your transports were to remain secret from your opponent from what I remember (don't have my rulebook with me at the moment). Just agreed-upon total points value. Made sense to me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/06 19:04:10


 
   
Made in no
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






Oslo Norway

 the_scotsman wrote:
1 - yep, the non-true LOS rules are quite interesting. Models can see thru 6" of building but units can hide behind friendly units of a larger size. Really the only potential problem with it is that we have quite a lot of terrain that isnt 6" deep, which means that units would actually be quite a bit safer under 9e's rules.


2 - Skimmers do appear to block line of sight as any enemy vehicles do. I'm not seeing that rule. They do however have the whole 'fast skimmer only glancerino' does have a bit of a drawback, as it does mean a 5 or 6 does automatically destroy it, as opposed to a normal penetrating hit.

3 - disappointingly, this does appear to be one of those editions where assaulting from Deep Strike is utterly pointless in addition to being highly unreliable and extremely risky. Oh well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Skimmers in 4e blocked your opponent's line of sight, but not yours, which created some odd Tau/Eldar strategies. And because you had to pay for anti-tank grenades on everyone (even Space Marines, who have them free from 5e on) charging the skimmers isn't always an option.


I can see that, though it does appear to be true for any vehicle, technically speaking. (your own models never block your LOS) so you could theoretically do the exact same thing with an Ork Trukk claming line of sight between the tires if your opponent decided to be a cheesy little fish.


1 - you can't see through 6" area terrain. Area terrain blocks all LOS behind it. But you can see 6" into an area terrain feature. So you see everything inside a feature less than 6" deep, but if the enemy is at 6.1" inside the terrain, you cannot see them

2 - the skimmer thing "fish of fury" was not about LOS, but about being able to rapid fire without being charged

   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 AnomanderRake wrote:
Skimmers in 4e blocked your opponent's line of sight, but not yours, which created some odd Tau/Eldar strategies.
I think you or your opponents were playing that wrong. See below.

 the_scotsman wrote:

2 - Skimmers do appear to block line of sight as any enemy vehicles do. I'm not seeing that rule. They do however have the whole 'fast skimmer only glancerino' does have a bit of a drawback, as it does mean a 5 or 6 does automatically destroy it, as opposed to a normal penetrating hit.

LOS rules for vehicles (pg 20, BRB for me). "All vehicles, friend or foe block line of sight . . . . Skimmer vehicles only block line of sight if immobilized or wrecked."

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Couple of other things:

* Really look at the WS to-hit chart. For example, WS3 vs WS4. The WS3 "hits up" on a 4+ still (all the way to hitting against a WS7 when it goes to 5+) but the WS4 "hits down" more easily and hits on a 3+.

* Also note that transported units that get hit by ANY penetrating hit, regardless of what happens to the vehicle, have to disembark and also take a pinning test. As mentioned above, id the vehicle is destroyed the passengers are automatically pinned.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Insectum7 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Skimmers in 4e blocked your opponent's line of sight, but not yours, which created some odd Tau/Eldar strategies.
I think you or your opponents were playing that wrong. See below.

 the_scotsman wrote:

2 - Skimmers do appear to block line of sight as any enemy vehicles do. I'm not seeing that rule. They do however have the whole 'fast skimmer only glancerino' does have a bit of a drawback, as it does mean a 5 or 6 does automatically destroy it, as opposed to a normal penetrating hit.

LOS rules for vehicles (pg 20, BRB for me). "All vehicles, friend or foe block line of sight . . . . Skimmer vehicles only block line of sight if immobilized or wrecked."


Ah, thank you, i missed that - I was looking in the Skimmers section.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mezmorki wrote:
Couple of other things:

* Really look at the WS to-hit chart. For example, WS3 vs WS4. The WS3 "hits up" on a 4+ still (all the way to hitting against a WS7 when it goes to 5+) but the WS4 "hits down" more easily and hits on a 3+.

* Also note that transported units that get hit by ANY penetrating hit, regardless of what happens to the vehicle, have to disembark and also take a pinning test. As mentioned above, id the vehicle is destroyed the passengers are automatically pinned.


Yeah it really seems like any good solid hit is enough to just blow the crap out of a vehicle. Makes you wonder why youd want to bother with a unit like Fire Dragons when youve got a baseline 50% chance to destroy any tank on any pen!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Illumini wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
1 - yep, the non-true LOS rules are quite interesting. Models can see thru 6" of building but units can hide behind friendly units of a larger size. Really the only potential problem with it is that we have quite a lot of terrain that isnt 6" deep, which means that units would actually be quite a bit safer under 9e's rules.


2 - Skimmers do appear to block line of sight as any enemy vehicles do. I'm not seeing that rule. They do however have the whole 'fast skimmer only glancerino' does have a bit of a drawback, as it does mean a 5 or 6 does automatically destroy it, as opposed to a normal penetrating hit.

3 - disappointingly, this does appear to be one of those editions where assaulting from Deep Strike is utterly pointless in addition to being highly unreliable and extremely risky. Oh well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Skimmers in 4e blocked your opponent's line of sight, but not yours, which created some odd Tau/Eldar strategies. And because you had to pay for anti-tank grenades on everyone (even Space Marines, who have them free from 5e on) charging the skimmers isn't always an option.


I can see that, though it does appear to be true for any vehicle, technically speaking. (your own models never block your LOS) so you could theoretically do the exact same thing with an Ork Trukk claming line of sight between the tires if your opponent decided to be a cheesy little fish.


1 - you can't see through 6" area terrain. Area terrain blocks all LOS behind it. But you can see 6" into an area terrain feature. So you see everything inside a feature less than 6" deep, but if the enemy is at 6.1" inside the terrain, you cannot see them


Ah, thank you for pointing this out, I would have missed this detail since they talked so much about the "6" thing".

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/06 20:14:50


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk





 the_scotsman wrote:


Yeah it really seems like any good solid hit is enough to just blow the crap out of a vehicle. Makes you wonder why youd want to bother with a unit like Fire Dragons when youve got a baseline 50% chance to destroy any tank on any pen!


That's because Fire Dragons (and Harlequins and Howling Banshees . . .) had the luxury of riding in Falcon skimmers with Holofield and Spirit Stone upgrades making them nearly indestructible (see my post above).

And I can confirm that normally you were to keep secret your army list and the contents of your transports (use tokens or something else to note which squads are in which transports) - see page 81 of the rulebook. That rule also offered a degree of safety for certain specific units when fielding multiple transports.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/06 20:34:10


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 the_scotsman wrote:

Ah, thank you, i missed that - I was looking in the Skimmers section.
Tbf it took a me a little while to find it . I looked for Skimmers first, too.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in ca
Dakka Veteran





 Gnarlly wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:


Yeah it really seems like any good solid hit is enough to just blow the crap out of a vehicle. Makes you wonder why youd want to bother with a unit like Fire Dragons when youve got a baseline 50% chance to destroy any tank on any pen!


That's because Fire Dragons (and Harlequins and Howling Banshees . . .) had the luxury of riding in Falcon skimmers with Holofield and Spirit Stone upgrades making them nearly indestructible (see my post above).

And I can confirm that normally you were to keep secret your army list and the contents of your transports (use tokens or something else to note which squads are in which transports) - see page 81 of the rulebook. That rule also offered a degree of safety for certain specific units when fielding multiple transports.

And also because (owing to the area terrain rules) large parts of each player's army could be out of LoS of enemies (or the enemies with weapons designed to kill them, specifically). Many units moved slower back then, making it harder to get angles when blocked. Flinging shots across the entire (6x4!!!) table was not as automatic as it is now, and having a unit that could move in close and obtain an angle was sometimes worthwhile.
   
Made in no
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






Oslo Norway

Tanks, and especially transports were overall pretty bad in 4th. Expensive, and too easy to kill. Necrons could super easily wipe out even AV14 tanks with normal warriors. The falcon was the exception to the rule.

   
Made in us
Hacking Shang Jí





Fayetteville

Nobody has mentioned consolidation from combat into another enemy unit yet? Wasn't that a big thing in 4th?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/07 17:34:31


The Imperial Navy, A Galatic Force for Good. 
   
Made in us
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk





 Arschbombe wrote:
Nobody has mentioned consolidation from combat into another enemy unit yet? Wasn't that a big thing in 4th?


From what I recall that was more of an issue in 3rd edition after a combat to get into base-to-base contact with another enemy unit and begin another close combat. 4th allowed consolidation and sweeping advances as well but the close combat with the subsequent locked unit was not worked out until the next round.

Back to the topic of vehicle damage tables in 4th being very punishing, from a comparison of both rulebooks note that the vehicle damage tables in 3rd edition are pretty much the same as 4th's. Similarly, I recall vehicles in 2nd edition not being the armored fortresses some seem to remember them to be. And as noted above, 4th edition's terrain rules helped vehicles to be able to stay out of line-of-sight. It really wasn't until 5th edition where vehicles gained a lot more toughness/durability.

I think 4th's pinning mechanic is what most find harsh, but 4th was an edition that tried to simulate more realistic warfare (ex. target priority) and leaving some troops in a state of shock after bailing from their transport that was badly damaged/destroyed is definitely more realistic. But like Target Priority, Pinning tests were also tied to Leadership, and this was another rule that smartly implemented the LD stat and helped differentiate elite troops from regular grunts. A big step away from the nearly useless LD stat in the current editions . . .

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/07 18:54:31


 
   
Made in us
Hacking Shang Jí





Fayetteville

 Gnarlly wrote:
 Arschbombe wrote:
Nobody has mentioned consolidation from combat into another enemy unit yet? Wasn't that a big thing in 4th?


From what I recall that was more of an issue in 3rd edition after a combat to get into base-to-base contact with another enemy unit and begin another close combat. 4th allowed consolidation and sweeping advances as well but the close combat with the subsequent locked unit was not worked out until the next round.


I thought the crux of the issue was consolidating into another unit to prevent them from getting shot on the next turn, not that combat started immediately.

The Imperial Navy, A Galatic Force for Good. 
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'




Crescent City Fl..

You can look forward to the best close combat rules of any edition of 40K.

"Pathetic earthlings. Hurling your bodies out into the void, without the slightest inkling of who or what is out here. If you had known anything about the true nature of the universe, anything at all, you would've hidden from it in terror."
My blog http://warhead01.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-art-of-ork.html 
   
Made in us
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk





 Arschbombe wrote:
 Gnarlly wrote:
 Arschbombe wrote:
Nobody has mentioned consolidation from combat into another enemy unit yet? Wasn't that a big thing in 4th?


From what I recall that was more of an issue in 3rd edition after a combat to get into base-to-base contact with another enemy unit and begin another close combat. 4th allowed consolidation and sweeping advances as well but the close combat with the subsequent locked unit was not worked out until the next round.


I thought the crux of the issue was consolidating into another unit to prevent them from getting shot on the next turn, not that combat started immediately.


From what I can recall, most editions of 40k prevent you from shooting into close combat with the justification of avoiding hitting your own troops. i.e. consolidating into another close combat is a good tactic to prevent your melee-focused troops from being left out in the open and shot the next turn. There are some exceptions like blast weapons and vehicle shooting rules in 9th.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Da Boss wrote:
Am I wrong that you can never see entirely through area terrain in 4e, ie units on the far side are always invisible?


Area terrain in 4th works like this:

1. Defending unit is IN area terrain and within 6 inches of the side from which they will be shot at. The attacking unit can see them because you may target units up to 6 inches in the terrain section. Defending unit becomes a legal target for ranged fire.

2. Defending unit is BEHIND area terrain which consists of a terrain piece with 6 inches or less in depth in every possible direction drawn from the firing unit. The attacking unit CAN´T see them because it is ILLEGAL to fire at defending units who are BEHIND area terrain pieces IRRESPECTIVE of it´s depth. Defending unit can´t be targeted by ranged fire.

3. Attacking unit is IN area terrain of terrain piece (A) and 50% of it´s models are in EXCATLY 3 inch distance to it´s outer edge from which the firing will occur. Defending unit is IN terrain piece (B) and ALL of it´s models are in EXCATLY 3 inch distance to it´s outer edge from which they will be shot at. 50% of the attacking unit´s models may fire upon the defending unit because an attacker can only see up to 6 inches into area terrain.

Note: This is an unrealistic example as your models will never align in such a manner on the board but necessary to illustrate the point in a quick way. During play the attacker will have to check for every model, if it´s line of sight passes through 6 inches or lower when the shots pass area terrain.

Catachans: Those JUNGLE FIGHTERS live up to their true potential as they snipe away opponents who foolishly cower in forest/jungle area terrain within 7-12 inches from the outer edge because Marbo taught them to look up to 12 inches into those terrain pieces.
   
Made in us
Hacking Shang Jí





Fayetteville


 Gnarlly wrote:


From what I can recall, most editions of 40k prevent you from shooting into close combat with the justification of avoiding hitting your own troops. i.e. consolidating into another close combat is a good tactic to prevent your melee-focused troops from being left out in the open and shot the next turn. There are some exceptions like blast weapons and vehicle shooting rules in 9th.


Well, yeah. 5th edition specifically prohibited consolidation into new combats and that prohibition persisted into 6th and I guess every edition since. What I was trying to point out was that this consolidation into new combats was particular to 4th edition and was something I used to hear plenty of complaints about. Things like World Eaters being able to avoid being shot for most of the game by staying in combat for multiple turns. In 3rd units could do sweeping advances into new combats and counted as having charged when the combat was resolved on the following turn, but they had to move in a specific direction. In 4th the consolidating unit was not considered to have charged, but could consolidate in any direction. Then in 5th it was changed to prohibit getting closer than 1" of enemy units. So the tactic became to try hold your punches in your turn so you'd stay locked in combat during the opponent's movement and shooting phases, win the melee in the combat phase and then have the freedom to charge something else in your turn.





The Imperial Navy, A Galatic Force for Good. 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Full size in spoiler:
Spoiler:
That's a fantastic set of diagrams Insectum.

Man I preferred 4th's approach.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk





 Arschbombe wrote:

 Gnarlly wrote:


From what I can recall, most editions of 40k prevent you from shooting into close combat with the justification of avoiding hitting your own troops. i.e. consolidating into another close combat is a good tactic to prevent your melee-focused troops from being left out in the open and shot the next turn. There are some exceptions like blast weapons and vehicle shooting rules in 9th.


Well, yeah. 5th edition specifically prohibited consolidation into new combats and that prohibition persisted into 6th and I guess every edition since. What I was trying to point out was that this consolidation into new combats was particular to 4th edition and was something I used to hear plenty of complaints about. Things like World Eaters being able to avoid being shot for most of the game by staying in combat for multiple turns. In 3rd units could do sweeping advances into new combats and counted as having charged when the combat was resolved on the following turn, but they had to move in a specific direction. In 4th the consolidating unit was not considered to have charged, but could consolidate in any direction. Then in 5th it was changed to prohibit getting closer than 1" of enemy units. So the tactic became to try hold your punches in your turn so you'd stay locked in combat during the opponent's movement and shooting phases, win the melee in the combat phase and then have the freedom to charge something else in your turn.


Your memory is definitely better than mine. I think the big change from 3rd to 4th regarding assault was doing away with "Rhino rush" from 3rd edition where any unit could assault from any transport. 4th changed the disembarking rules so that you could only immediately assault after a transport moved when the transport was open-topped or a Land Raider.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

The biggest change between 3rd and 4th's assault rules was the choosing of casualties.

One of the infamous issues with 3rd was the Wraithlord's T8. Made him impossible to wound for anything that was T4 and below. And the WL could punch your Power Fist Sergeant or Power Klaw Nob to death before he could swing, leaving the rest of the unit unable to do anything to the now invincible and also untargetable Wraithlord.

4th Ed, which built upon the Trial Assault Rules that 3rd got late in the day, did away with this, and made characters in combat viable (perhaps too viable...).

Rhino Rush died with the Trial Vehicle Rules (and even later 3rd Ed development) when you could no longer assault out of a transport if it moved that turn. So you had to have your transports survive a turn, and then get out before they moved the next turn. Sadly they went one step further (as GW always does) with the 'penetrating hit = instant disembark'.

As if 'Zerkers didn't already have enough problems with being forced to disembark if they Blood Raged; now they leap from their transport of a shot takes off the pintle-combi-bolter. Seems that being dedicated to Khorne also makes you claustrophobic.



This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/08 01:29:15


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: