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.

Skinnattittar wrote:

maxpower3579 wrote:The deffrolla is a huge steam roller with spikes pushed by a huge battle wagon, so i expect it to do a lot of damage. also its not high tech, its just huge and heavy.

Why would it do a lot of damage. Seriously. I could see it maybe doing some superficial damage to a Rhino or something, but it's not going to scuff a Land Raider or Russ. Besides, the rules don't allow it, so nothing to worry about.

Wait, NO! I'm not going to keep this going. OFF TOPIC!!!

"When an Ork Bonecruncha ploughed over the Hand of Steel, its giant Deff Rolla crushed the turret and ground its commander to a paste." Ork Deff Rolla inflicts some damage on a Leman Russ, Codex Imperial Guard page 58.

Ramming is a kind of tank shock, blah blah blah

Why are people saying the rules dont allow it, the errata says it works on vehicles so it is allowed.

Because some people dont read the rules and FAQs or understand that when they say ALL tankshocks that Rams, a special type of tankshock move, they really did mean ALL tank shocks.

You then point out to the same people that the deff rolla worked against every vehicle (except LR and MOnoliths) perfectly fine in 4th ed, and they go strangely silent.

Orks have lots of "field" technology because their fluff says so. Seriously - they were engineered by the old ones to have an inate understanding of forcefield technology, and indeed basic mechanics, at the genetic level. So, they have powerfields, KFF, etc - all things that the Imperium have lost the abiiltiy to create from scratch, because they jsut know how it works.

And the BW being AV14 is easily explained - they shoved as much armour as they could onto it at the front, less on the sides and none on the rear. Essentially its a large lump of iron travelling towards you. inelegant and not as reliable as a LR, but works for now, which is all that matters....

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Oh, I did just think of a rule that I think is ridiculous. The -1 LD penalty for every wound you lose by in CC. Absolutely ludicrous and unnecessary and frustrating. Honestly my friend and I usually play without that rule (we make just a -1 for losing CC) because we both hate that rule, and he plays BT.

It's to make combat more brutal and fast. Combat in 4th ed was often protracted, lasting until one side was wiped out, as the maximum penalty (and highly unlikely one!) was -5. Mostly it was -1, which even Ld7 guard had a good chance of passing.

this at least makes -3+ penalties more likely, making combats a lot quicker (as you now actually break troops, whcih is the point of differing Ld values....) and helping the game to flow better.

This is exactly how it works in fantasy, and is a far superior system to the old out numbering system.

It's not that I don't understand it, I just think it's a pretty one-sided rule for all the armies that are better at close combat (see also, marines and tyranids). Doesn't matter to me how much it is justified, I think it's ridiculous.

So you dont think that armies that are good at combat should, you know, be good in combat? Interesting.

I take it you also allow consolidate into fresh enemy?

I have to agree on the leadership negatives from cc seeming a bit harsh. Going from 4th to 5th it seems like losing cc always means your going to lose and flee (and probably sweeping advanved). Even if an army is poor at close combat that army should still be able to use it as a delaying action, rather than simply throwing men into the inevetable one turn cc defeat. I'm not saying the old way was better, but -1 pt for every wound you lost by is very harsh.

Also I'm not biased on this, I play Templars and 'Nids.

Locclo wrote:
This is actually kind of explained in the novel Space Wolf; the opening chapter basically has the main character (Ragnar) run up to a Predator, toss a Krak grenade into the treads, jump up on top of the tank, rip off a turret, and drop a couple of frag grenades down the hole.

I never thought of that scene as having any game relevance. I thought it was just a Sphess Puppies furry faptacular extravagasm for all the fan boi\s.

Kudos on giving it some relevance!

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Locclo wrote:While I agree that the system is way too simplistic, I think it might get too convoluted if the RAW try to interpret the AP value of terrain.

Why not "If you roll a 1, take an armour save or suffer a single wound". There. Problem solved. Then the more dangerous the terrain, the more D6's you roll.

Because, like I posted earlier;

"Adding the armour save would make the rule worthless by the way - risk the perils of running over this lava flow, there's a one in six chance of death. No wait, sorry, forgot about the HBMC rules change, there's a one in sixth chance of having to roll an armour save, so there's a one in eighteen chance of your Chaos warrior taking a wound. Now you've got two rolls with a very low chance of doing anything, might as well just take dangerous terrain out of the game."

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you dont think that armies that are good at combat should, you know, be good in combat? Interesting.

I take it you also allow consolidate into fresh enemy?

Did I say that? No. Also, to your second question, no. But with the way LD works and the sweeping advance rule and the fact that all the good CC armies are fearless or equivalent AND that space marines (or just BT? I can't remember) can't be sweeping advanced...ya, it's a little on the unfair side for an armies that aren't that good at CC considering there are no rules for shooting that allow for wiping out an ENTIRE SQUAD just because you killed a few guys.

Hey, it would make combat smoother and more fluid if they incorporated a ranged sweeping advance style attack. Game would go quicker and you can play more. Ok, so for every guy I kill in shooting you lose -1 LD and have to take a LD test. Failed? Roll a D6, add some modifier, whoever is higher wins. I win, your squad is dead even though I only killed one guy.

Seems fair for the armies that are better at shooting than CC, no?

I think the cc rules work well (though for the "involves close range shooting" piece to be included I'd like to be able to use a squad's guns in cc with 6's to hit).

Anyway, I really hate the IC is forced to join a squad if he ends the movement phase within 2" of it. I've nearly had this ruin a game for me because I needed to move Fuegan and a squad of fire dragons in an X like way so the dragons could kill an obliterator and Fuegan could save Eldrad. I almost couldn't do so because they would have been forced to become one squad.

Just found out in another thread that I have been looking at the vehicle shooting rules wrong.

I thought vehicle weapon range was measured from the hull rather than the muzzle of the gun. Now I have been enlightened...but I don't like it.

The various vehicles in 40k and even different variants of the same vehicle have different sized barrels on their weapons, and since all movement is measured from the hull than it seems this would be taken advantage of in certain situations. The only solution that makes fair sense to me would be to measure the ranges from the hull as well. So no matter how the weapons are arranged the ranges would be constant and standardized. Also since the vehicles aren't really scale models I don't see that this would be a big deal really.

Kevin949 wrote:Did I say that? No. Also, to your second question, no.

But that is the implication - they have made close combat *more* effective, rather than having uber combat unit stuck in combat for 11 rounds. Theres a reason necron players hate 5th - their best tactic was, usually, baiting you into assaulting a lord plus warrior unit, lasting one round (nroamlly testing at Ld10, maybe Ld9 *if* you outnumbered them) then veiling out. Now it is a far riskier propositiion.

However this is *balanced* HUGELY by not being allowed to consolidate into fresh combat - as this usually means that you assault squishy unit with uber killy unit, kill them and sweeing advance...and suddenly you are closer to the opponents lines, not locked in combat and able to be shot to death. Meaning shooting armies can now actually sacrifice units effectively. Making shooting armies focus on combined fire and not in MSU everthihnig - which is the general design philosphy of 5th: an end to min max (ref KP missions)

Kevin949 wrote: But with the way LD works and the sweeping advance rule and the fact that all the good CC armies are fearless or equivalent AND that space marines (or just BT? I can't remember) can't be sweeping advanced

All SM chapters have ATSKNF - they take NR! wounds instead if you catch them. Or they get away but cant rally as you follow up.

Kevin949 wrote:...ya, it's a little on the unfair side for an armies that aren't that good at CC

No, it redresses the huge 4th ed imbalance where shooting was the prime part of the game - combat was too risky and generally bogged down in long, protracted combats. This helps speed things up, makes combat an effective use (how many times did you see sweeping advance used in 4th? Hardly ever as usually the winning side was forced to wipe out the losing side, as morale check modifiers were pathetic)

Sorry, making 1/3rd of the game actually be ffective in 1/3rd of the game is NOT a bad thing, is it?

As I said, this is the exact system fantasy uses, and it is much much stronger for it.

Kevin949 wrote: considering there are no rules for shooting that allow for wiping out an ENTIRE SQUAD just because you killed a few guys.

So falling back off the board edge doesnt exist? Odd, I must revisit my rulebook.

As stated, Sweeping Advance is a fantastically fluffy rule - turning to run from shooting and not being very fast at it shouldnt be anywhere near as punishing as when someone is chopping you to bits with chainswords. Oh look, it isnt! NOrmally people hate GW for making realistic rules, now its the opposite?

Kevin949 wrote:Hey, it would make combat smoother and more fluid if they incorporated a ranged sweeping advance style attack.

No, it would imbalance the game such that shooting, where you have NO drawbacks (apart fom gets hot! and the SAG, shooting has no real penalties to it) is again the preference. SAD style armies would back to being king, and the entire game would resolve into a long range shooting match.

I know you were being facetious with the remark, but it was a telling one.

Kevin949 wrote: Game would go quicker and you can play more. Ok, so for every guy I kill in shooting you lose -1 LD and have to take a LD test. Failed? Roll a D6, add some modifier, whoever is higher wins. I win, your squad is dead even though I only killed one guy.

Is there a facepalm Ork icon yet?

Im sorry you dont get why they rebalanced it so that combat was on a more even footing compared to shooting in 4th ed, I dont know how to explain it in simpler terms. Combats *should* be brutal, and they finally are - and to stop CC armies entirely reigning over all they gave you vehicles that can actually stand up to hits, the removal of consolidation into fresh combat where you are always sfe, and the ability to strike back and not have combat zones cleared. All the last lot balanced combat out, but I guess you didnt consider that?

Kevin949 wrote:Seems fair for the armies that are better at shooting than CC, no?

No, for the reasons above. Sorry that your shooting army now has to think about combat, rather than avoiding it til the last second. You have heard of sacrificial units, right?

zeshin wrote:Just found out in another thread that I have been looking at the vehicle shooting rules wrong.

I thought vehicle weapon range was measured from the hull rather than the muzzle of the gun. Now I have been enlightened...but I don't like it.

The various vehicles in 40k and even different variants of the same vehicle have different sized barrels on their weapons, and since all movement is measured from the hull than it seems this would be taken advantage of in certain situations. The only solution that makes fair sense to me would be to measure the ranges from the hull as well. So no matter how the weapons are arranged the ranges would be constant and standardized. Also since the vehicles aren't really scale models I don't see that this would be a big deal really.

very few models have guns sticking out past the hull more then an inch or so and the guns that do stick out past the hull usually have such a long range that it almost never matters if there is an inch or so difference.

besides this is 100% realistic to the real world. the treads are what moves and so that should be what is measured from for movement.

guns are the same thing.

when you think about it the guns move just as far as the tank does. take 2 tanks(same kind) and measure a 6" movement from the hull one one and a 6" movement from the gun on the other(this illustrates how far the gun moved in relation to the tank)

surprise, surprise, the tanks moved the same distance. this is always the case so even if you think its unfair to measure shooting from the gun remember when the tank moves the gun moved the exact same distance too.

now if someone has magnatized their Landraider lascannon sponsons and switches the holes forward/backward after movement to get an extra 2" range then cry foul, but short of that everything is fine.

Thank you Templar, I understand the principle GW is going for and your right the movement will be constant. Now on the opposite end, let’s take hurricane bolters on a LR crusader though. They lose 25% of there max range and 50% of there rapid fire range just getting past the hull. Maybe I should just put really long sniper barrels on my crusader...like 10".

And again, I understand there is very little impact, but when the vehicles are not to any kind of scale I don't see why the precision of measuring from the muzzle would be required.

zeshin wrote:Thank you Templar, I understand the principle GW is going for and your right the movement will be constant. Now on the opposite end, let’s take hurricane bolters on a LR crusader though. They lose 25% of there max range and 50% of there rapid fire range just getting past the hull. Maybe I should just put really long sniper barrels on my crusader...like 10".

And again, I understand there is very little impact, but when the vehicles are not to any kind of scale I don't see why the precision of measuring from the muzzle would be required.

Where do you mount your hurricane bolters? mine only use 3" getting past the hull 25% of rapid and only 12.5% of max range
I have LR's with sponsons mounted front on some back on others. Makes sense to me the shorter ones would be mounted to the fore but I believe the original box had LC's on the forward mount. I just use what i think looks cool at the time, no-ones ever told me to mount them at the front or i might lose precious inches of range, I think your taking it way too seriously

zeshin wrote:Thank you Templar, I understand the principle GW is going for and your right the movement will be constant. Now on the opposite end, let’s take hurricane bolters on a LR crusader though. They lose 25% of there max range and 50% of there rapid fire range just getting past the hull. Maybe I should just put really long sniper barrels on my crusader...like 10".

And again, I understand there is very little impact, but when the vehicles are not to any kind of scale I don't see why the precision of measuring from the muzzle would be required.

I get what you're saying and I agree to a point, but how does that correspond with LOS? You'd check LOS from the gun, but then measure range from the hull?

sebster wrote:

zeshin wrote:Thank you Templar, I understand the principle GW is going for and your right the movement will be constant. Now on the opposite end, let’s take hurricane bolters on a LR crusader though. They lose 25% of there max range and 50% of there rapid fire range just getting past the hull. Maybe I should just put really long sniper barrels on my crusader...like 10".

And again, I understand there is very little impact, but when the vehicles are not to any kind of scale I don't see why the precision of measuring from the muzzle would be required.

I get what you're saying and I agree to a point, but how does that correspond with LOS? You'd check LOS from the gun, but then measure range from the hull?

My "not to scale" argument does go against the grain a bit on that. But basically the method that made sense to me was to measure from the hull for everything (range and movement) and simply verify that the weapon, as it is mounted, can actually see the target. Thus if my predator is angled toward a heavy weapon on the left of the board (hoping for a fron armour hit) the left sponsons won't be able to shoot much straight down the board and certainly not to my right. It seemed a common sense thing with the LOS, but now my desire to simplify just sounds more complex...

nosferatu1001 wrote:tl:dr

Don't assume I've played 4th ed. Don't assume I give a crap about fluff. Don't assume I want this to be like fantasy warhammer (which I know nothing about). Don't assume I am other people.

You seemed to have missed the obvious sarcasm in parts of my last post. How was it telling, you don't even know me? And sure, units can go off the board if they fail their morale test for losing 25% but they are at not anywhere near the same negative. Nor should they be, but again I think the negatives are way too high. Plus that is a very specific situation as they actually need to be near the board edge, lest they rally again. Not to mention that many many of the new units and/or entire armies are fearless (and I'm speaking of armies that people actually play en masse, not just how many armies GW has).

You can argue until you're blue in the face, I won't change my stance on what I feel is a stupid rule.

sebster wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Locclo wrote:While I agree that the system is way too simplistic, I think it might get too convoluted if the RAW try to interpret the AP value of terrain.

Why not "If you roll a 1, take an armour save or suffer a single wound". There. Problem solved. Then the more dangerous the terrain, the more D6's you roll.

Because, like I posted earlier;

"Adding the armour save would make the rule worthless by the way - risk the perils of running over this lava flow, there's a one in six chance of death. No wait, sorry, forgot about the HBMC rules change, there's a one in sixth chance of having to roll an armour save, so there's a one in eighteen chance of your Chaos warrior taking a wound. Now you've got two rolls with a very low chance of doing anything, might as well just take dangerous terrain out of the game."

Why not just change it to require an armor save for every member of the squad when going over dangerous terrain, fail and take a wound. A 1 in 6 chance of having to take an armor save is just not dangerous enough to simulate dangerous terrain. The method I suggested might be too brutal though.

Not that I see a lot of dangerous terrain.

Kevin949 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:tl:dr

And sure, units can go off the board if they fail their morale test for losing 25% but they are at not anywhere near the same negative.
Nor should they be, but again I think the negatives are way too high.
Plus that is a very specific situation as they actually need to be near the board edge, lest they rally again.
Not to mention that many many of the new units and/or entire armies are fearless (and I'm speaking of armies that people actually play en masse, not just how many armies GW has).

I think this is my sentiment too. Shooting cannot ever get as brutal as cc is now because cc has such stiff penalties for suffering casualties.

I understand some of that is to prevent shooting armies from wiping out cc armies before they can get to cc, but honestly- Tau are in the spot they are partially because they can't compete with cc-hammer... Tau can't push enemies off of objectives without serious focused shooting... whereas I can run a 30boy mob into assault with 120ish attacks and force the enemy off the objective via morale penalty.
I think cc Ld penalty just needs to be adjusted.
Should be easy to achieve a -3 or -4 as the winning side, but a -5 or -6 to Ld should be fairly tough to pull off.
Simply put, cap the wounds suffered penalty at 4. You can still have that brutal feeling of major losses affecting morale- but you don't have silly things like -9.
The additional points would outnumbering 2:1 (have to achieve 2:1) and possibly extra things like banners and masks and such.

WHFB works in the massive Ld penalty rule because you also have lots of available bonuses to Ld, such as banners/musicians and rank bonuses. I can get Skaven up to Ld10 with enough rats in the unit... Only Orks have a similar mechanic...




Other stupid rules include TLOS in regards to infantry. When I put a forest down on the table, it blocks LoS to the other side, there's a lot of trees implied in the forest- although they're not modeled.
If you want to argue that it has to be modeled, then I want to see you fit 10 space marines in a Rhino or fit a dreadnought inside a drop pod and close the doors.
The game isn't fully modeled to realism, why does my forest have to have hundreds of trees to represent a forest?
I place a few trees to show what it is, then there's a mat or paper underneath showing the valid area terrain size.

Likewise, if my models are inside the forest, you can see and shoot them, but they have the cover save. Done.




Other dumb rule- sweeping advance. Initiative should not be used to determine an entire unit's death. Just make it "suffer additional casualties equal to the amount lost by. Equal to or higher than and there's no losses, the unit falls back.
Remove fearless NR rules... it's dumb.

No Retreat was implemented to sort out the uber fearless cc units that would sit in close combat tearing up everything and never dying (i.e. Terminators with Chaplain or daemons)...
No it just hurts any and all units that have fearless - especially nids and orks.
Why not just say the unit takes an additional wound for each point lost by (subject to the amended loss penalties, so never more than 5 or so) and has to make armor saves or die? They have armor and they're fearless... so it's not like you're catching them flat-footed and unable to defend themselves.

sebster wrote:

I get what you're saying and I agree to a point, but how does that correspond with LOS? You'd check LOS from the gun, but then measure range from the hull?

No, you measure both from the gun.

A landraider can hide behind a building just as wide as its hull, fire out with no obstruction and not get shoot at in return.

My interpertation RAW would be that you can't see the LR as the BRB says only a models body or hull counts for LOS, guns don't.

Kevin949 wrote:You can argue until you're blue in the face, I won't change my stance on what I feel is a stupid rule.

I was just explaining your belief was irrational, giving a reasoned argument based on rules, precedent and a grasp of the balance in the game. Balancing 1/3rd of the game so it has an effect in 1/3rd of the game makes sense to me - it doesnt to you, but hey.

Your response is: tl:dr. that explains even more about you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:You can argue until you're blue in the face, I won't change my stance on what I feel is a stupid rule.

I was just explaining your belief was irrational, giving a reasoned argument based on rules, precedent and a grasp of the balance in the game. Balancing 1/3rd of the game so it has an effect in 1/3rd of the game makes sense to me - it doesnt to you, but hey.

Your response is: tl:dr. that explains even more about you.

I read your response, I just didn't feel the need to quote it. Again, taking things way to literally. If I didn't read it, I wouldn't have been able to respond to individual portions of it.

So you're arguing my belief of a rule being stupid by basing your argument on the rules? You seem to not understand, I get the rule. I get where it comes from. I get their reasoning behind it. I fully 100% understand everything about the rule. *I* think it's a dumb rule. Anything that allows an entire squad to be wiped out because you had to roll against some attribute that has huge negatives to it is ridiculous. Especially considering the rule doesn't apply to at least 2 entire armies. Probably more, but again I don't know all the armies and don't know who can be/get fearless.

And I was explaining, mainly for the benefit of others, why it isnt *actually* a stupid rule. It balances the game, which you don';t like.

Your personal belief that it is a dumb rule is fine - it doesnt mean it actually IS.

just because something is dumb doesn't mean its bad. there is a difference between a "dumb" rule and a "bad" rule.


BA Furioso librarian dreadnought with Wings of Sanguinious: Dumb not bad

BA deepstriking LRs: bad not dumb

Necron gauss weapons: bad not dumb

nosferatu1001 wrote:And I was explaining, mainly for the benefit of others, why it isnt *actually* a stupid rule. It balances the game, which you don';t like.

Your personal belief that it is a dumb rule is fine - it doesnt mean it actually IS.

Balances it for the armies that don't actually suffer from it, sure. *Shrug*

nosferatu1001 wrote:And I was explaining, mainly for the benefit of others, why it isnt *actually* a stupid rule. It balances the game, which you don';t like.

Your personal belief that it is a dumb rule is fine - it doesnt mean it actually IS.

it is a stupid rule. It works in the middle but breaks down at the extremes, and unfortunately the extremes are reasonably common.

The problem is that they eliminated outnumbering as any kind of bonus. Their intent is a good one, lets make combat faster and more brutal with less tar pitting. Unfortunately it ended up with some absurd results, such as:

I have 20 guys, you have 6. I kill 5 of your guys, you kill 9 of mine. Now it's 1 on 11 and I'm guaranteed to win...except oh I'm LD 8 so I'm testing on a 4. Now I likely get swept.

The point may be to say that well, even though it looked like you were doing well in that combat, you weren't really, sorry! That is fine, but it looks absolutely ridiculous on the game board when these kind of results happen.

If they kept the current rule, but also put in a modified version of outnumbering that gave a bonus, then it would be fine. As it is, it is terrible, unrealistic, and even though it achieves their quick and brutal goal, it does it in a ham handed way that only GW could be proud of.

PLEASE keep the debate about the points/rules/arguments in the post, and NOT the user specifically, OK?

I used to like the old rules where (i think its been a while) you got -1Ld if out numbered -2 if it was 2:1, -3 if 3:1 and -4 if 4:1 have to look at 3rd ed rulebook tonight

4th ed rulebook. You also got -1 for being below 50%

Kevin - no, you dont get what "balance" means do you? It *balances* COMBAT as a *whole* so it is a reasonable proposition compared to shooting, where you take no risks at all (barring the outliers like Gets Hot! et al) and such where it accounts for the 1/3rd of the game it should be.

What it means is that armies where combat is their focus now have combat phase equal to those armies where shooting is their strength. tautological statements like "it improves those who are good at it" dont disprove or even vaguely address this.

As for the "extremes" - so you mean the situation where you have seen half your mates butchered wouldnt be unnerving to you? At all? Or do you rationally sit down and work out how many you killed, and go "Oh thats not so bad..."? Menwhile the last guy has chopped your head off...and g'teed to win? Why? Are you saying armies with hordes should automatically win combat, just because there are more of them? Uh, no. That is idiotic in the extreme - you are equating 11 grots to 1 space marine there.

Bunk

Combat resolution is another abstraction necessary because of the IGO UGO nature of the game - you have to have a method of working out who "wins" at each step, and this is a great one for making it so that combat doesnt take 3 full turns to complete. It improves combat to the point where it isnt a slow, long slug fest where nothing really happens until the last guy dies or finally you outnumber 4:1 (by virtue of 1 guy left and 4 enemies...) and they break.