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.

The thing with Insectum7’s second image



Is that yes, you could see more as the firing model, but targets shot through cover, if memory serves, would still receive the benefit of that cover? As in a 5+.

This went a long way to addressing the gross imbalance 3rd created between close combat and shooting.

With 3rd Ed, not only did the overall combat rules really favour fast moving assault, where you could then move from combat to combat with being shot at? But “sorry you can’t see me because terrain blocks LoS through it” created far too many dead zones, where I couldn’t target anything closing the range.

That’s not to say “therefore TLOS is the best”. Just that it had upsides which aren’t immediately apparent, as they come from interactions with the wider rules set of the time.

A.T. wrote:

4e FAQ:
Q. Does an infantry model on a Size 3 hill count as size
3 or as size 5 (3+2) in regards to LOS into/over Area
Terrain and over other models? And what about a Size
3 tank on a hill?
A. The size of the hill is not added to the model’s size,
but rather the model counts as being the same size as
the hill. Both models therefore count as Size 3 for the
purpose of LOS over Area Terrain and other models.

insaniak wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
Shoot the closest unit was a great way to reflect the psychological pressures on the battlefield and the imperfect conditions of war. No general gets to point their dudes exactly where they want them and have them act perfectly every time.

Except in actual practice, the target priority rules actually did allow generals to use LOS-blocking shenanigans to shoot at exactly what they wanted to. (and for what it's worth, 2nd edition had this same problem, but even worse, since every individual model shot at the closest target in their limited LOS arc, allowing you to point specific models at exactly the enemy units you wanted them to shoot).

The shennigans like using rhinos to LoS block are actual tactics used by soldiers though... using apcs for cover to fire on priority targets. Forcing your opponent to form up their units in particular ways in order to protect them from proximity threats to strike further targets is realistic and a trade off when receiving incoming barrages because they're all close together.

It's when tactics used don't reflect warfare that it looks weird. Like a unit of guardsmen standing 4" from a bloodthirster but firing their lasguns at some chaos marines 20" away (without requiring some insane discipline, rather than just assumed automatic discipline).
.
There are less tactics in that, than blocking the thirster with a chimera to do the same. And requiring an apc to support you to do this action creates a risk tradeoff

 Da Boss wrote:
Andykp: I can totally understand where you are coming from. They definitely radically changed Orks and could have done more to make older models usable.

When I read the 2e Codex Imperialis, the two sections I read over and over were the Ork section and the Squat section. I was a huge tolkien nerd and orcs and dwarves were my favourites back then (and today!) so the idea of sci fi orks and dwarves really tickled my fancy.

The Ork background back then was really creative and fun. But I wasn't that impressed with most of the models or the way the army worked on the table. So for me, 3e was where I really enjoyed playing Orks. But I can totally see if you loved the older aesthetic and playstyle, your army was basically gone.

I did learn to love the new (3rd edition) aesthetics of ORKS and still do but it was the lack of character I found so jarring. Death of squats really hurt as well. My mates army and main opponents to my ORKS was a squat army.

Rules wise there was stuff that sucked too. Vehicles felt slow and clunky, and killing them was a bland attrition. And I never got to grips with universal special rules. Special rules should feel special, not universal, by the time they got rid of them they were a massive mess.

 Hellebore wrote:
.
There are less tactics in that, than blocking the thirster with a chimera to do the same. And requiring an apc to support you to do this action creates a risk tradeoff

It's a minimal 'risk' when transports are cheap and useless as actual transports. The rules overall made LOS blocking the sole purpose of transport vehicles, and that always felt both gamey and unfluffy.

 insaniak wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
.
There are less tactics in that, than blocking the thirster with a chimera to do the same. And requiring an apc to support you to do this action creates a risk tradeoff

It's a minimal 'risk' when transports are cheap and useless as actual transports. The rules overall made LOS blocking the sole purpose of transport vehicles, and that always felt both gamey and unfluffy.

My recollection is that some transport heavy armies, like Speed Freaks, still did pretty well. And those Eldar tanks. In fact Tau Fish of Fury was at that time too I think.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
EDIT - Thread moved on whilst typing. This is a response to Jnap. Currently working my way through the others.



The Assault Cannon.

Once a pretty reliable Jack of all Trades. Not the best range, and relatively (just loyalist Terminators, Dreadnoughts and specifically Ravenwing Landspeeders, I think? Oh wait. Imperial Guard Sentinels of all things!) rare. But an impressive rate of fire, respectable strength and save modifier. And importantly? Multiple wounds.

To……drivel. Which still exploded on occasion, with none of the risk/reward of 2nd Ed.

S6? Crap! AP4? Crap! 3 shots? Yeah OK not too shabby. Shame S and AP gave it no preferred prey. But you could still definitely totally whoopsadoodle kill yourself.

Oh and fun fact? I’ve never, ever, ever had an Assault Cannon explode on me. Ever. Not once.

Actually, the assault cannon rolling triple 1's did NOT kill the user, it simply broke the assault cannon. Your terminator roll triple 1's? He's still alive, but without a ranged weapon.

That's not a problem with the tactic, that's a problem with the implementation.

The answer isn't to design the game so that's not necessary, it's to design apcs and cost them in a way that the choice is meaningful.

 Insectum7 wrote:
My recollection is that some transport heavy armies, like Speed Freaks, still did pretty well. And those Eldar tanks. In fact Tau Fish of Fury was at that time too I think.

Open topped transports fared better because troops could bail out of them more effectively. Rhinos were death traps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:

Actually, the assault cannon rolling triple 1's did NOT kill the user, it simply broke the assault cannon. Your terminator roll triple 1's? He's still alive, but without a ranged weapon.

Yeah, in 2nd edition the model was killed. Third just killed the gun.

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
My recollection is that some transport heavy armies, like Speed Freaks, still did pretty well. And those Eldar tanks. In fact Tau Fish of Fury was at that time too I think.

Open topped transports fared better because troops could bail out of them more effectively. Rhinos were death traps.

Devilfish, Falcons and Wave Serpents were all closed-topped though.

Edit:
Is this more about not bring able to Assault out of a Rhino anymore? Because iIrc that's a change in 4th too.

I've been playing since early 3rd edition, and looking back, and trying NOT to use rose-colored glasses, in my honest opinion a lot of things sucked about EVERY edition.

Now, don't get me wrong, there was GREAT stuff about every edition. If I had a magic lamp I'd make the genie hybridize the editions' best qualities into a good game.

Ugly things I hated: Rhino rush, Total imbalance issues that would go unFAQed for years, Vehicles and monsters having different abilities, etc.

Stuff I did like: What edition was it that you could jump from high places and take damage from falling?

I hate 10th with its "take any equipment you want, it's all the same cost". However, other than that I think the game is relatively smooth.

While I like vehicles with a toughness value instead of 3-7 having an armor value, it has brought its own issues. Personally, I think vehicles and monsters SHOULD be easier to kill if you can come up behind them. Also, I think they should bring back turret shooting arches for vehicles and monsters while drawing line of site from the weapon. I hate that you can draw line of site from the prow of a Landraider and get LOS for the HK missile that still behind the building.

I also like older editions where it was easier to kill a falling back unit, or prevent them from regrouping by keeping a unit too close to them. Also, blocking access points on vehicles to kill passengers inside.

I know many of you love true line of site. For me, it's more of a love/hate relationship. It just doesn't work well with some terrain that is, but it's nature, unable to be modeled in a way that both blocks correctly rules wise while being physically able to move models around. I think a return to some form of abstraction would be preferable.

Another thing I miss, certain special rules for terrain. When was the last time you saw a river on the field? I loved that the Chimera used to be amphibious.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Is this more about not bring able to Assault out of a Rhino anymore? Because iIrc that's a change in 4th too.

No, not being able to assault out of enclosed vehicles was only a part of it. Passengers having to bail out anytime the vehicle was penetrated made transports unreliable. Passengers dying really easily when the vehicle took damage made them unsafe. And the disembarking rules forcing you to drive up to the enemy and then just sit there for a turn made them ineffective.

Access points were a nice idea for realism, but caused no end of arguments and just slowed things down on the table.

And really, that sums up the transport rules in a nutshell - the changes made for 4th added realism, but made for a worse gaming experience, because they went too far in neutering the effectiveness of transport vehicles in the majority of armies.

4th ed transport rules weren't perfect by any means, but I'd say it was a vastly improved experience over the Rhino rushes of 3rd, and the parking lot deployments of 5th.

" the disembarking rules forcing you to drive up to the enemy and then just sit there for a turn made them ineffective."
Ahh, so this is about Assaulting then . You could disembark and shoot. Hence the Tau 'Fish of Fury' maneuver, and related Eldar Wave Serpent with Fire Dragons one. Pretty sure I saw CSM rock up with special weapons in Rhinos then, too. Imo using the transports was all about using cover and threat saturation, which seems reasonable.

As for being deathtraps, getting every model onboard killed was only a result of Ordinance penetrating the vehicle and rolling a 6. Most weapons couldn't trigger it. Otherwise it was 4+ to wound for each model, and then saves were allowed. That's not too many casualties unless your armor is bad, which again, seems appropriate.

Transports feels like something GW has always struggled with.

In 2nd Ed? They were death traps. Especially for Marines as Rhinos were your main option, didn’t bring much to the party, and when they went tended to take the embarked squad with them. When your basic Marine was 30 points? That could be a significant chunk of your army lost to a single shot. Land raiders were of course much tougher, but few people had them on account the model was unavailable.

3rd Ed it swung too far the other way. At its worse, combat armies like Blood Angels could make massive movements. 12” move, potential 6” “angery” move, 2” disembark, and 6” charge for 26” assault range. Where as covered, once engaged the squad was pretty safe. (Again if memory serves. Not only a long time ago, but so many editions all blur into one)

And every edition has had flaws and foibles about Transports.

The problem is that if there is a problem with transports in one edition, they tend to swing the pendulum back too far in the next edition.

3e: Assaulting out of transports was very strong, and Rhino Rush was a powerful build.

4e: Now you can't assault any more, and transports that get a penetrating hit cause you to bail, and you can be straight out wiped. No one uses transports outside of a few special cases like skimmers.

5e: Okay, that was too much so let's reduce the points for transports across the board, take away some of the penalizing rules from 4e, and give vehicles in general more offensive output. Now we get the "parking lot" phase of the game, where a transport was often just a cheap mount for a relatively strong gun.

If they had made the 5e changes without the points changes, I think we'd have had a more even result.

I prefer Area Terrain and more abstract terrain rules generally because TLOS sort of implies that your model is always in whatever dramatic pose it's modelled in, and could never crouch, drop prone, or otherwise take advantage of it's surroundings.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Blood Angels could make massive movements. 12” move, potential 6” “angery” move, 2” disembark, and 6” charge for 26” assault range. Where as covered, once engaged the squad was pretty safe. (Again if memory serves. Not only a long time ago, but so many editions all blur into one)

You forgot the BA Supercharged Engines adding an extra 6" for a potential 32" move+charge. May codex author Gav Thorpe never live it down.

Ahhh! I thought I was missing something.

If memory serves, there was a small risk if you piled out of a fast moving transport. As in, roll a die for each model, on a 1 it takes a wound?

But, with a potential 32” charge, that might be the most danger one of your models actually faced.

 Da Boss wrote:
If they had made the 5e changes without the points changes, I think we'd have had a more even result.

The points changes started back in 4th edition with cheap chaos codex rhinos. That said the real damage was done with chimeras in the particularly poorly written guard codex - as strong as transports were you didn't actually see all that many rhino parking lots outside of the sisters (who still paid 50 for most of 5th) and the last codex of the edition with GKs overcharged psybolt assault cannons.

5e damage issues though was more an resistance to death by attrition rather than damage itself. Hull points were a bad fix, all the game needed was +1 damage results on immobilised vehicles and some consideration of being able to wipe out all 'minor' weapons with one hit and/or replacing the weapon/engine damage result with an attackers choice...

...and not giving guard what amounted to a mobile bunker.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Ahhh! I thought I was missing something.

If memory serves, there was a small risk if you piled out of a fast moving transport. As in, roll a die for each model, on a 1 it takes a wound?

But, with a potential 32” charge, that might be the most danger one of your models actually faced.

I'll doublecheck my books but I'm pretty sure that the ONLY armies that could deploy out of a vehicle that moved further than 12" were Blood Angels and Orks,,and it was the Orks who had the potential to take damage while disembarking. And yeah, Khorne Angels getting all those perks for no points increase was probably the biggest ding 3rd had going for it.

 Hellebore wrote:

insaniak wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
Shoot the closest unit was a great way to reflect the psychological pressures on the battlefield and the imperfect conditions of war. No general gets to point their dudes exactly where they want them and have them act perfectly every time.

Except in actual practice, the target priority rules actually did allow generals to use LOS-blocking shenanigans to shoot at exactly what they wanted to. (and for what it's worth, 2nd edition had this same problem, but even worse, since every individual model shot at the closest target in their limited LOS arc, allowing you to point specific models at exactly the enemy units you wanted them to shoot).

The shennigans like using rhinos to LoS block are actual tactics used by soldiers though... using apcs for cover to fire on priority targets. Forcing your opponent to form up their units in particular ways in order to protect them from proximity threats to strike further targets is realistic and a trade off when receiving incoming barrages because they're all close together.

It's when tactics used don't reflect warfare that it looks weird. Like a unit of guardsmen standing 4" from a bloodthirster but firing their lasguns at some chaos marines 20" away (without requiring some insane discipline, rather than just assumed automatic discipline).
.
There are less tactics in that, than blocking the thirster with a chimera to do the same. And requiring an apc to support you to do this action creates a risk tradeoff

So I am not to worried about "what would real troops do" as real troops would not just stand there and wait their turn to shoot etc. Also in a setting where you can nuke things from space, but guys fight with swords, I mean are we that worried about the tactics being "realistic"? Also shooting the closest unit is not even that realistic. Do you think troopers armed with TOW anti-tank missiles shoot them at infantry when there is a tank anywhere in proximity? No, that is what the guys with M16s are for. Do you think a tank shoots it's main gun at infantry charging (which is suicide by the way) at it? No it uses its machine guns or lets the infantry deal with it while it destroys its primary targets.

The 4th edition targeting rules were very very bad, not just because they require a unit to shoot at the closest unit, but how they were implemented (I believe someone else stated this as well). First, I don't believe there was a range restriction, so you had to shoot the closest even if all enemy units were on the other side of the board, so the whole idea that the unit was in immediate danger is nonsense. Then at certain ranges, it was arguable who was in fact that closest unit, yet another opportunity to argue with your opponent (tac on firing a blast weapon and we have a full on debate) It was also an all or nothing system, meaning it did not affect each model individually, so if your squad failed all their guns had to shoot the target, even if they could not hurt it. It also hurt some armies way more, which is a bad mechanic. Leadership 7 on guard or orks meant about a 50/50 to pass. However elite units like space marines with a 8 or 9 LD rarely failed. In fact in some match ups, the mechanic was just extra dice rolling with very very very minimal impact on the game, which is bad game design (which is also why battleshock is the worst rule in 10th). It also does nothing to affect CC units, who were free to charge right past units if they like.

And for true line of sight, it is the worst way to do LOS in a game except for every other way that has been tried. Every game I have played that uses some abstraction is clunky, complex, and leads to arguments which is why many use TLoS. 10th edition actually fixes the main concern with TLoS with using area terrain as blocking regardless of if you can see though. And the +1 for the save for even the minimalist of cover is also a great cover rule, (to the extent that +1 to armor is meaningless sometimes, I would actually like if they reduced ap further for many multiple shot weapons and blasts, with ap-3 being basically single or low shot AT weapons only, and high rate of fire mid weapons, like plasma, being reduced to -2 and blasts being reduced to -1, but that is my preference and I can see if others don't agree).

 Just Tony wrote:
I'll doublecheck my books but I'm pretty sure that the ONLY armies that could deploy out of a vehicle that moved further than 12" were Blood Angels and Ork

3e - Can assault after disembarking, but can only disembark after a move of 12" or less.
Blood Angels ignored this 12" limit entirely while orks could ignore the extra D6" from their turbo boosta and +1" from red paint jobs.

4e AND 5e - Disembark and charge only if stationary for normal vehicles, or after moving up to 12" for assault and open topped vehicles (DE raiders, ork vehicles, landraiders, etc).
There was also the dark elf 'boarding torpedo' trick of turbo-charge ramming an enemy tank and then assaulting out of the crater of the now exploded raider.

 xeen wrote:
The 4th edition targeting rules were very very bad, not just because they require a unit to shoot at the closest unit, but how they were implemented (I believe someone else stated this as well).

4e shooting :

1) Pick a target. Targets are split into large (tanks, MCs) and normal

2) Make a leadership test. If you fail you instead shoot the closest target of the type you picked in step 1.
-DO NOT count targets that cannot be seen, which are engaged in combat, or those that are fleeing
-DO count that one grot in hard cover 21" away that can only be shot at by a single guy because they are closer than the ork horde 21.1" away visible to everyone, out in the open, and standing on the objective.

3) Check range. Under no circumstances should you check range prior to this step and definitely not have long measuring tapes in the movement phase...

4) Determine valid targets in the opposing unit - these are only targets you can see.
-remember this is all TLoS so by all means back your rhino up to block your own LoS to unimportant models in the squad. Also works for target selection.

5) Roll to hit and to wound, etc (big page of mixed armour rules here). Your opponent picks which valid models to remove.

 xeen wrote:
It also hurt some armies way more, which is a bad mechanic.

"This mechanic affects some factions more than others, therefore it is a bad mechanic." is certainly... a take.

Not a good one, admittedly, but a take.

Armour Save Modifiers, to-hit modifiers, damage modifiers, etc, all affect some armies more than others, as they should do. If your default position is that you're naturally inaccurate, something making you more inaccurate should be expected to hurt you more, for example - but the impact of this is something that should be taken into account when calculating points costs.

If we're choosing in an edition to model that lack of control that we, as the eye in the sky that can see everything, would experience, then it makes sense that troops that are less disciplined (generally reflected by a lower Ld) are going to have more issues with following commands than those with greater discipline/experience.

The Guard could (from memory) take advantage of Officer leadership bubbles as required, and even Orks could boost their Ld with characters. I don't have the 4th BRB anywhere near to hand, but wasn't it closest unit or vehicle/monster, or is my memory letting me down there?

 Dysartes wrote:
I don't have the 4th BRB anywhere near to hand, but wasn't it closest unit or vehicle/monster, or is my memory letting me down there?

Correct, though it still has to be the closest "large target" unless passed a target priority (leadership) test.

I never minded the target priority rules, I like rules that make Leadership meaningful.

I will say I never had the experience of people gaming it by putting vehicles in the way intentionally. Most of the time, it worked pretty well. And it meant you could use tactics like screening with some effectiveness too.

4e shooting :

1) Pick a target. Targets are split into large (tanks, MCs) and normal

2) Make a leadership test. If you fail you instead shoot the closest target of the type you picked in step 1.
-DO NOT count targets that cannot be seen, which are engaged in combat, or those that are fleeing
-DO count that one grot in hard cover 21" away that can only be shot at by a single guy because they are closer than the ork horde 21.1" away visible to everyone, out in the open, and standing on the objective.

3) Check range. Under no circumstances should you check range prior to this step and definitely not have long measuring tapes in the movement phase...

4) Determine valid targets in the opposing unit - these are only targets you can see.
-remember this is all TLoS so by all means back your rhino up to block your own LoS to unimportant models in the squad. Also works for target selection.

5) Roll to hit and to wound, etc (big page of mixed armour rules here). Your opponent picks which valid models to remove.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/05/03 16:01:08


I am pretty sure this supports my argument. So it wasn't just shoot the closest (that is how I remember it and couldn't find the exact rules, glad someone did) but much much more complicated. I forgot the whole you couldn't even measure to see who the closest was prior to picking your shot, that is pretty dumb. I mean look how overly complicated this is. OK target large or not? (BTW what happens if you split fire into a large and non-large or was split fire not allowed?) Who is closer of those targets? But wait that unit can't be seen (A whole other complex issue with the abstract terrain). Oh wait this one is in combat, so not that one. Oh those are fleeing so they don't count (side note, can I shoot at the fleeing models freely then?) ok, who is closest now. BTW don't measure for any of this. And you need to do this with every unit prior to shooting, because anyone who has played 40k knows target priority is a big deal, so you need to consider what happens if you fail the test, so you need to look at this just in case most of the time. And then you pass and it was all for nothing. How much extra time does this add to a game? How much value does it add? Especially when two armies are both high leadership elites, where the test is failed almost never.

Then the example provided, having to shoot the one grot, shows how dumb this is even considering "real troops on the battlefield need to engage threats" logic. One grot that is closer by an inch is not more of a threat to a unit than 20 boys. Also this shows the level of gaminess this mechanic caused. Is it tactics to move one grot closer to my heavy weapons team to potentially block the shots against the boys? Does the ability to do that improve game satisfaction for everyone involved?

Also how do you account for this in points? How much is it worth to be able to pass this test better? Just another layer of balance that needs to be figured out and adjusted on top of everything else like base stats, abilities, etc.

Finally, yes some rules affect armies differently, and that is part of the game. But this rule affects the very basic ability of picking a unit to shoot. This is a fundamental core element of the game which is move, shoot, charge, fight (then moral). While there can be many differences in how a unit preforms in those phases, the idea that a unit fundamentally does get to participate in one of them due to a failed LD test (and having to shoot one grot with your heavy weapons is basically equal to not shooting) and that affects some armies worse than others is not good game design.

I mean if people like all of that, then cool that is your preference. But I just don't see it.

Pretty sure split fire wasn't a thing in 4th, with the possible exception of Long Fangs.

 Dysartes wrote:
Pretty sure split fire wasn't a thing in 4th, with the possible exception of Long Fangs.

Yeah that's right. It's one of the few things I would change about those editions. I understand it, design-wise, but I think it felt inaccessible to many, not the least of which was because often the default starter unit was a Tactical Squad, and that was one of the units most punished by no-split-fire.

@xeen: You're really overcomplicating it. It was pretty obvious what the available targets were 95% of the time.

I can see how an uncooperative opponent could
give you a miserable time with those rules. I didn't play that many tournaments in 4th and those I did were pretty chill affairs, so my experience is as Insectum says - almost all the time it was obvious to both players what the closest unit was.

It also let screening units screen, and made maneuvers and positioning important.

I’ll accept a bias, as I played primarily marines, and not a huge amount of 4th. So target priority didn’t bother me a lot. But I like the concept.

But yes, it could lead to some silly frustrating situations.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Pretty sure split fire wasn't a thing in 4th, with the possible exception of Long Fangs.

Yeah that's right. It's one of the few things I would change about those editions. I understand it, design-wise, but I think it felt inaccessible to many, not the least of which was because often the default starter unit was a Tactical Squad, and that was one of the units most punished by no-split-fire.

@xeen: You're really overcomplicating it. It was pretty obvious what the available targets were 95% of the time.

I think Tau could do it too with multi-trackers.

I am in the camp of "make Ld meaningful" and really like target priority (and I say this as a Guard player, not Necrons or something that had great Ld by default). My thoughts were that split fire could also be available after a Ld test, except for the aformentioned units who could do it by default as a nod to their superior training and/or equipment.

No pre-measuring was the norm until 5th. It had pros and cons. I like the concept, but can also see how it is a problem in more competitive settings when people try to game it in the movement phase etc. Goven that oldhammer is now entirely an optional thing, I think such concerns are less important as it is almost always going to be a game between like-minded friends.