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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
...Also: Here's another friendly reminder (as already mentioned above) that ALL the rules from previous paradigms don't have to be brought along even if SOME of the rules are reexamined for reinstatement.

But then the "Like 9th or pike off!" crowd lose their "ANYTHING BUT THE HORRORS OF 7TH" auto-win-arguments button.

I'm failing to understand what the problem with cover and assaulting was in prior editions?

 Mezmorki wrote:
I'm failing to understand what the problem with cover and assaulting was in prior editions?

Cover and Grenades negated initiative, basically. An I6 unit charging an I4 in cover still fought last because cover made them strike at I1. Frag Grenades were used by the attacker when assaulting into cover to give them I10.

Which imo was an alright mechanic, but it could probably be made better by being just a +/- modifier or having some other effect instead. I saw it as defenders being in cover working like an implicit Overwatch, and attacking with Frag Grenades nullified the Overwatch.

The issue most folks seem to have is that sometimes your attacking troops without grenades (Genestealers, for example) lost their advantage of having a high Initiative. I'm on the fence about it, personally. But I think a better system would allow a supporting unit to suppress the defenders in the firing phase, and then charging units wouldn't need grenades. You know, Devilgaunts firing at a unit of Marines keeping them from being able to mount a solid defense againat the assaulting Stealers, as an example. The advantage of Frags in this example could still allow units to Assault effectively without requiring another unit to provide supporting fire. So, Stealers could get their I6, and Marines could still attack into cover without suffering penalties.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I'm failing to understand what the problem with cover and assaulting was in prior editions?

Charing into cover reduced your I to 1 no matter how high it otherwise was.
Unless you had Assault Grenades or an equivalent rule, which wasn't super common to have as part of your basic wargear if you weren't Imperials, Orks or Eldar.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I'm failing to understand what the problem with cover and assaulting was in prior editions?

Cover and Grenades negated initiative, basically. An I6 unit charging an I4 in cover still fought last because cover made them strike at I1. Frag Grenades were used by the attacker when assaulting into cover to give them I10.

Which imo was an alright mechanic, but it could probably be made better by being just a +/- modifier or having some other effect instead. I saw it as defenders being in cover working like an implicit Overwatch, and attacking with Frag Grenades nullified the Overwatch.

The issue most folks seem to have is that sometimes your attacking troops without grenades (Genestealers, for example) lost their advantage of having a high Initiative. I'm on the fence about it, personally. But I think a better system would allow a supporting unit to suppress the defenders in the firing phase, and then charging units wouldn't need grenades. You know, Devilgaunts firing at a unit of Marines keeping them from being able to mount a solid defense againat the assaulting Stealers, as an example. The advantage of Frags in this example could still allow units to Assault effectively without requiring another unit to provide supporting fire. So, Stealers could get their I6, and Marines could still attack into cover without suffering penalties.

The way cover interacted with close combat in previous editions I think set up the stage for 40k allways being a bad game for close combat.
A lot of close combat units would be evective based entirely on the cover, as they couldn’t survive to deal the damage needed after.
It didn’t help that they put challenges in as well, that further pushed it to breaking point, as a lot of the units with both armor and grenades where also good challenge units/models. Something like a hereld was way to many points to pull so many duty’s over even something like a space marine Sargent.
It’s probably sad that it take initiative with it, and GW was not able to see where they could use the stat otherwise :(
Since bringing it back means another full round of new books and updates.

^Challenges sucked. Agreed.

I wouldn't say CC was set up to fail though, there were plenty of units that were monsters in CC without grenades, etc.

I think it can't be stated enough that most of the problems of 6-7th were codex problems rather than core-rules problems. I thought the foundation was decent, with some minor quibbles.

Having units that work does not really make it a successful system for it.
The same way that designing a game to make close combat happen, is not the same as a game that close combat can happen.
For most army’s it was just, can I ignore this. Or can I survive it, and if not. Bad unit :(

Edit, since I think they could have done something good with those systems. They just didn’t.

Apple fox wrote:
Having units that work does not really make it a successful system for it.
The same way that designing a game to make close combat happen, is not the same as a game that close combat can happen.
For most army’s it was just, can I ignore this. Or can I survive it, and if not. Bad unit :(

Edit, since I think they could have done something good with those systems. They just didn’t.

Ehhh, some qualifiers are gonna be needed there. Like are we talking about 3,4,5,6 or 7th? How much terrain were you using? What units are we talking about and what buffs are you loading them with? Like, systems can break just because certain units or abilities are on the table. I think the height was 4th ed, personally, for various reasons. There was a limit to how much you could buff units, Overwatch didn't exist, charges were a predictable 6", area terrain blocked LOS providing more cover for assaulting units, there were fewer fancy/big shooting weapons on the table, etc.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Unless you had Assault Grenades or an equivalent rule, which wasn't super common to have as part of your basic wargear if you weren't Imperials, Orks or Eldar.

And even they didn't have it as their basic kit until the Blue Period of 4th Edition. Before Eldar's release then, those Grenades had to be bought for all models in the unit as 1 point per model.

They started bringing out Defensive Grenades, too, as well. Predominantly among the Tau and Plague Marines. While they didn't mess with the Initiative Order much, they did negate the extra Attack Chargers would get.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Challenges sucked. Agreed.

I wouldn't say CC was set up to fail though, there were plenty of units that were monsters in CC without grenades, etc.

I think it can't be stated enough that most of the problems of 6-7th were codex problems rather than core-rules problems. I thought the foundation was decent, with some minor quibbles.

Eh challenges were handled better in 7th at least where attacks spilled over, but in 6th it was absolutely atrocious.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Challenges sucked. Agreed.

I wouldn't say CC was set up to fail though, there were plenty of units that were monsters in CC without grenades, etc.

I think it can't be stated enough that most of the problems of 6-7th were codex problems rather than core-rules problems. I thought the foundation was decent, with some minor quibbles.

Eh challenges were handled better in 7th at least where attacks spilled over, but in 6th it was absolutely atrocious.

Still had some big issues. And I say that as someone who enjoyed 7th.

 Insectum7 wrote:
...But I think a better system would allow a supporting unit to suppress the defenders in the firing phase, and then charging units wouldn't need grenades. You know, Devilgaunts firing at a unit of Marines keeping them from being able to mount a solid defense againat the assaulting Stealers, as an example. The advantage of Frags in this example could still allow units to Assault effectively without requiring another unit to provide supporting fire. So, Stealers could get their I6, and Marines could still attack into cover without suffering penalties.

That's the approach I took in my own rewrite; hits with the "Suppression" keyword do what frag grenades did, which means you take the I hit for long charges into cover (frag grenades only have 6" range) and keyword-izes the support ability on the Skull Cannon so it can go on more things (Barbed Stranglers, for instance).

 Insectum7 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
Having units that work does not really make it a successful system for it.
The same way that designing a game to make close combat happen, is not the same as a game that close combat can happen.
For most army’s it was just, can I ignore this. Or can I survive it, and if not. Bad unit :(

Edit, since I think they could have done something good with those systems. They just didn’t.

Ehhh, some qualifiers are gonna be needed there. Like are we talking about 3,4,5,6 or 7th? How much terrain were you using? What units are we talking about and what buffs are you loading them with? Like, systems can break just because certain units or abilities are on the table. I think the height was 4th ed, personally, for various reasons. There was a limit to how much you could buff units, Overwatch didn't exist, charges were a predictable 6", area terrain blocked LOS providing more cover for assaulting units, there were fewer fancy/big shooting weapons on the table, etc.

I was mostly playing with 6th, no one play 7th here. But it’s more at the units good at close combat. They could be, but that does not mean the system is well set up and plays well.
New 40k is still woeful design, and even with units that are good. It still very heavy centre on stats as a space marine likes them. Entire faction identifies and fantasy have to contorted into a simple system, with just loaded up special rules and lots of add ons to make it even interesting but very complex.
It’s really just 1 step forward 2 back for 30 years or so.
It’s hard for me to really go into long long details, I already push myself a bit today :(

I enjoyed Challengers, but that's entirely selfish on my part since I enjoyed using my souped up Slaanesh Heralds to assassinate Independant Characters (yay for their Exalted Locus forcing challenges!)

 Stormonu wrote:
Re: Battletech not changing its rules.

Clans. Dark Age. Battleforce. Alpha Strike.

Apparently you don't understand what i said

1. the clan invasion and the (stupid) dark age story arcs were LORE additions to the universe that in no way changed the core game mechanics, at most they added new weapons and systems

2. I said CLASSIC battletech both battleforce and alpha strike are entirely different games set in the battletech universe. unless your trying to argue the equivalent that epic 40k is the same game as regular 28mm 40K

classic battletech still exists as the core game and still has the same core mechanics it has had for close to 30 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Genestealers.. Didn't have Assault grenades, thus got neutered by Cover and were often shot to pieces. Lictors were genuinely awful, Tyrants were never run without double ranged/wings even back in 5th, Slaanesh Daemons didn't have assault grenades and thus their high initiative didn't matter with cover charges and since they were forced to deepstrike meant they were forced to take a turn of fire, Dark Eldar always were inside vehicles, and the only Ork Nobs that fought in melee were Bikers that used 5th's weird rules so that they could split wounds across in a way that GW didn't expect.

I'm not sure how this helped differentiate them besides just simply being worse off.

Yes they did, in the 4th ed codex that was used halfway through 5th-fleshhooks did the same thing as assault grenades. the 4th ed codex is always what i build my nids around when we are playing hybrid 5th edition including importing new bugs from editions 5-7.

Insectum7 wrote:^Mmmhmm, and this is one of those magical paradigms where the opposing unit is always in cover and there's no chaff to pin them down and there are no second rounds of combat and "all Nobs are on bikes" (wtf) and DE Wyches were "always inside vehicles" (wtf), etc etc etc.

Also: Here's another friendly reminder (as already mentioned above) that ALL the rules from previous paradigms don't have to be brought along even if SOME of the rules are reexamined for reinstatement.

Yes! this is exactly what we did with our house rules version of 5th. we sat down and looked at the best rules versions from the various editions and used the best in the framework of 5th edition(it didn't always have the best). it was a grand total of 15 rules that had to be imported across the entire core rules set to make it the most fun version of 40K we have ever played. something as simple as snap fire fixed the move/fire/defensive weapons on vehicles. incorporating some of the FW original flyer rules made the 7th ed flyer rules far less punishing etc..

Insectum7 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I'm failing to understand what the problem with cover and assaulting was in prior editions?

Cover and Grenades negated initiative, basically. An I6 unit charging an I4 in cover still fought last because cover made them strike at I1. Frag Grenades were used by the attacker when assaulting into cover to give them I10.

Which imo was an alright mechanic, but it could probably be made better by being just a +/- modifier or having some other effect instead. I saw it as defenders being in cover working like an implicit Overwatch, and attacking with Frag Grenades nullified the Overwatch.

The issue most folks seem to have is that sometimes your attacking troops without grenades (Genestealers, for example) lost their advantage of having a high Initiative. I'm on the fence about it, personally. But I think a better system would allow a supporting unit to suppress the defenders in the firing phase, and then charging units wouldn't need grenades. You know, Devilgaunts firing at a unit of Marines keeping them from being able to mount a solid defense againat the assaulting Stealers, as an example. The advantage of Frags in this example could still allow units to Assault effectively without requiring another unit to provide supporting fire. So, Stealers could get their I6, and Marines could still attack into cover without suffering penalties.

In 5th edition everybody gets basic grenades(krak/frag/photon) for free(except nids-unless you use the right codex) by default it was a design change we stayed with for all armies. it became even more useful when we added in actual grenade throwing rules from 7th. So not only do you have assault grenades they actually do something (small blast template at 8") they also make you fight at Initiative when charging through cover.

The I/WS/cover system just needed a few tweaks to make it work right, unfortunately GW spread the right rules across 5 different edition but never all together at the same time.

I can tell you from actual game experience over the last couple years we have been using it, that it works well to balance out dedicated CC units VS shooting units. CC happens often and is as useful as shooting units.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Challenges sucked. Agreed.

I wouldn't say CC was set up to fail though, there were plenty of units that were monsters in CC without grenades, etc.

I think it can't be stated enough that most of the problems of 6-7th were codex problems rather than core-rules problems. I thought the foundation was decent, with some minor quibbles.

Eh challenges were handled better in 7th at least where attacks spilled over, but in 6th it was absolutely atrocious.

challenges sucked in general. Space Marine Sgt's would just kill the nob easily and then the mob would run away. So you were paying for a Nob NOT to fight because if he refused the challenge he couldn't fight. And if you accepted the challenge, you were swinging last and the SM was likely killing you.

I view 40k as a RPG battlegame essentially at its strongest. Looked at like that I do miss the WS chart. YMMV.

 aphyon wrote:

In 5th edition everybody gets basic grenades(krak/frag/photon) for free(except nids-unless you use the right codex) by default it was a design change we stayed with for all armies.

Necrons never got a grenade equivalent, never have, probably never will.

 Blndmage wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

In 5th edition everybody gets basic grenades(krak/frag/photon) for free(except nids-unless you use the right codex) by default it was a design change we stayed with for all armies.

Necrons never got a grenade equivalent, never have, probably never will.

Yeah but in 5th they didn't need it. they get back up after you killed them and all of their gauss weapons could hurt everything on a roll of a 6 (auto glance/auto wound) not that you ever want warriors to really assault anything in CC, the true dedicated assault unit-wraiths never had to make a difficult terrain test so they were immune to that rule. and always struck at initiative 5 thanks to the wips

If giving everyone assault grenades is a solution to the problem in charging through cover, you've just removed the mechanic through another method.

I don't think it's a fundamentally bad mechanic. But it would be better if it gave -2 initiative or something instead of just immediately setting you to 1.
Same deal with unwieldy weapons.

Dai wrote:
I view 40k as a RPG battlegame essentially at its strongest. Looked at like that I do miss the WS chart. YMMV.

The lore is what drives us to play the older editions in effect i feel exactly the same.

khorne berserkers blood raging? check, khorne vehicles with saw blades all over them that try to run over infantry? check (3.5)

Grey knights with rules that made them good at fighting demons and chaos specifically (3rd) but not very good at being anything more than an attachment that comes along to help out the main force with that specific problem

White scars that are mechanized and bike addicts (but different from ravenwing) with hunting lances, true grit, hit and run etc...(index astartes rules)

Thats effectively my point earlier that eldar having a higher init and WS represented a host of lore based traits-parry/finesse/speed but with base line human strength (3)-strike fast, avoid being hit but struggle to do damage against superhuman soldiers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
If giving everyone assault grenades is a solution to the problem in charging through cover, you've just removed the mechanic through another method.

I don't think it's a fundamentally bad mechanic. But it would be better if it gave -2 initiative or something instead of just immediately setting you to 1.
Same deal with unwieldy weapons.

It actually adds alot when you add in the ability to actually "throw" the frag grenades especially when you get the benefit if you throw 1 or all of them when you charge in.

i should clarify the free grenades was for all the units that used to get them but had to pay for them. some units never had them so they don't get them and still suffer the penalty. then again those units should really never initiate an assault except under the most dire conditions.

 aphyon wrote:

Togusa wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:
Coming back to 40k from 5th Ed and one of the weirder changes to me is how WS works.

Obviously a lot of stuff in warhammer doesn’t make all that much sense, but I don’t understand why they made WS as a flat value to hit, rather than comparing it to the martial prowess of you opponent? It wasn’t exactly a complicated system before.

Why should an Ork Boy hit a stationery tank on the same value as hitting a Phoenix Lord or Primarch? Comparing WS in the past felt a lot more immersive than only hitting on the same roll every time.

With so much stuff getting power-creeped towards WS 2/3+, it makes combat master special characters feel less special, as one of their qualities was always making lesser characters and units hit them on 4s or 5s.

Anyone feel the same?

I think a better question to ask is "Why can't these game companies make ONE system, ONE edition" and run it forever? To me, the fact that the system has to chance ever X years is a bit silly at this point.

You mean like classic battletech?

In over 30 years it has been effectively the same core rules set. the only major changes they made were fixing the anti-missile system so it made a difference (1 ammo for every firing instead of one ammo for every missile shot down-pretty important when 1 ton of ammo was 12) catalyst changed a few of the damage charts around when they took over and moved the max tech rules and old charts into an "optional rules" book.

Insectum7 wrote:

That would go some distance to dealing with something that always kinda bugged me, which is that Vehicles aren't harder to hit than infantry. Like, are you really going to miss a Monolith? The counterpoint to that is that taking out such a vehicle requires hitting weak points, and those could still be hard to hit, but opening up a stat that modifies defense could provide for some interesting opportunities.

They already had that fixed in 4th. If you remember vehicles didn't have a CC attack(except for the 30K mechanicus land raider/explorator that had a combat claw, and tau flechette launchers) but they could try to run people over with tank shock (it became really good and thematic with the old 3.5 chaos vehicle upgrades-remember when all those saw blades on a khorne rhino did something?). the vehicle owner had to trade off more accurate shooting for being harder to hit in close combat. going from being hit automatically for not moving to a 4+/6+ the faster they went. they also introduced ramming so they could effectively CC attack another vehicle in the movement phase (very useful if you had all your guns blown off). you also only hit the armor you were facing requiring tactical maneuvering (not the BS Jervis Johnson came up with in 5th- hitting on 3+ always against rear armor-.because in his words "you deserve it" if you get into CC with a vehicle-you don't deserve **** in a tactical war game-you earn it by being the better general)

Thats why our group still uses those rules in our hybrid 5th ed games- they were a good tactical and immersive element in the game.

Sure.

Maybe a better example is something like MTG which has had a few major changes, but basically has been the exact same game for nearly 30 years now. I feel that the changes in rules every X years is simply an excuse to FORCE the community to spend more money.

Well that is GWs business model for certain. just when they get all the codexes out for an edition they change editions and you have to re-buy all over again, then they drip- drip releases every month to keep people buying as the meta changes. after the chapter house thing they basically went in a direction to invalidate old models for the new ones they could copyright. while they have not outright squated marines it is pretty obvious to everybody given the release schedule they really really want you to switch over your SM armies to primaris.

It is a never ending roller coaster, after 20 years of this, there is a reason why so many players have chosen to jump off.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I'm failing to understand what the problem with cover and assaulting was in prior editions?

Cover and Grenades negated initiative, basically. An I6 unit charging an I4 in cover still fought last because cover made them strike at I1. Frag Grenades were used by the attacker when assaulting into cover to give them I10.

Which imo was an alright mechanic, but it could probably be made better by being just a +/- modifier or having some other effect instead. I saw it as defenders being in cover working like an implicit Overwatch, and attacking with Frag Grenades nullified the Overwatch.

The issue most folks seem to have is that sometimes your attacking troops without grenades (Genestealers, for example) lost their advantage of having a high Initiative.

But why should cover affect initiative in the first place?

It basically means that for cover to be an advantage, you need to have a lower initiative than the unit assaulting you and for that unit to have no grenades. Why not make cover a universal bonus, rather than one which disproportionally screws over armies like nids, Slaanesh, DE etc., whilst basically not affecting Marines, IG, Necrons or any PF-users at all?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - charging into cover should have cancelled out the extra attack you'd normally get from charging. Boom. Now cover matters with any combination of attacker and defender.

Because there was already a rule for that-defensive grenades used by CC deficient units like tau fire warriors.

Cover represents the assaulting unit having to climb over obstacles to get to a unit they are trying to assault in the cover thus they are at a disadvantage in initiative unless they can force the target of their assault to keep their heads down via frag grenades.

Defensible and heavy terrain is honestly a much cooler way to represent that without randomly screwing over certain armies and not others.

Jidmah

I am not sure if it is how you were taught to play the game from our previous conversations on the way you thought certain rules worked or our difference in what we want out of the game, but i don't think were ever going to agree on this i think the 9th edition terrain rules are complete garbage and not immersive at all compared to previous terrain rules.

 aphyon wrote:
Because there was already a rule for that-defensive grenades used by CC deficient units like tau fire warriors.

Cool. Sounds like Fire Warriors can simulate the effects of terrain for enemies without needing to be in terrain.

FWIW in ProHammer we have it that units attack in initiative order. And charging units that have to cross through cover strike at initiative 1, unless they (or another charging unit) have assault Grenades, in which everyone strikes in initiative order again.

It makes cover matter and is logical IMHO. Sure, some units don't have assault grenades or the equivalent, but most units that need them have them, or have enough mobility to move around cover.

 vipoid wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
Because there was already a rule for that-defensive grenades used by CC deficient units like tau fire warriors.

Cool. Sounds like Fire Warriors can simulate the effects of terrain for enemies without needing to be in terrain.

It's back to the lore based rules, tau detest CC as a general rule, they will do it if they have to but photon grenades where their "go away and leave me alone while i shoot you from a distance" solution to it.

some eldar units have plasma(frag) and haywire grenades and the banshee masks specifically ignore all the benefits of cover in the first round of CC (they always strike at (I10). so there was some variety.