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.

I've just been reading through some of the 5th Ed rumors and I must say that overall they seem like they will improve the game. The biggest bone of contention is the Strength 4 defensive weapons deal. Combined with the cover save for vehicles rule will mean that all tanks, skimmers, and walkers will be way too static for the game. So my first thought is... The elimination of this rule will most definitely be the first step taken by many gaming groups. Vehicles should be moving and firing, that is what they are best used for. I imagine that IG, Tau, Eldar, Marines/CSMs in particular will want to overturn this rule. It doesn't make sense, Infantry all of the sudden are way more mobile, but vehicles will have to park themselves inside a building to get the full benefits of their firepower.

I'll try playing it GW's way at first, but I can't imagine it will make the game more fun. Tau and Eldar skimmers got nerfed enough for me by the 5th Ed rules, but they should still be able to move 12" and fire with all of St6 or less guns. It is really out of character for these armies to hover around inside buildings and forests, when they should be moving quickly across board using their speed to protect them. Overall I like the improvements to the vehicle rules, but this rule looks ripe for house rule overturning.

Anyone else agree?

Yup. I am of the opinion that Defensive Weapons should be Strength 5.

But the new rules help increase the popularity of Marine Las/Plas squads while reducing the overuse of vehicles...wait

I am not sure what they are trying to do...it is sad.

Considering that vehicles will still be able to move and fire, I don't really see what the problem is. Vehicles can do what vehicles with multiple main weapons can already do: move up to their maximum one turn and then stay still and fire in the next turn.

Ordnance will continue to make the issue of secondary weapons irrelevant. The Power of the Machine Spirit rule for Land Raiders will be commensurate with its value.

Recent codecies such as Dark Angels and Blood Angels show that vehicles are being re-pointed to match their new limitations.

It shouldn't be done on S it should be done on Ap. Ap 5 or weaker can be defensive weapons.

Its still limited but its a better delimited.

You could go Ap4 to include heavy bolters, but then you also get autocannon, missile pods and a whole range of nasties inside - which really ought not to be defensive.

Psycannon bolts not being defensive can be explained easily enough. The rounds are phenomenally expensive, and should not be wasted on 'wild' shooting.

The only other alternative is to declare the weapons threshold as three shots or more. But then you get chimera lasguns as main weapons.

I think Ap5 (maybe 4) is best.

Or just a list in a vehicle profile of which weapons and weapon options are main weapons and which are defensive weapons.

Orlanth wrote:It shouldn't be done on S it should be done on Ap. Ap 5 or weaker can be defensive weapons.

Its still limited but its a better delimited.

You could go Ap4 to include heavy bolters, but then you also get autocannon, missile pods and a whole range of nasties inside - which really ought not to be defensive.

Psycannon bolts not being defensive can be explained easily enough. The rounds are phenomenally expensive, and should not be wasted on 'wild' shooting.

The only other alternative is to declare the weapons threshold as three shots or more. But then you get chimera lasguns as main weapons.

I think Ap5 (maybe 4) is best.

I'm curious under this interpretation, why would a S6 4 shot weapon be a "defensive" weapon, but an S5 3 shot weapon be a "main" weapon? (Heavy Bolter VS Scatterlaser) or a Disintegrator at S4 be a "Main" weapon?

To me, the purpose of defensive weapons is muppet-mowing, to hurt anything that isn't an MC or another Tank, AP isn't the major factor, when determining Main weapons, it's the raw strength with which it can bring to bear against other large targets. Otherwise you could have an S3 AP2 weapon be "main" and an S9 AP6 weapon be "Defensive", which I don't think would be representative of what such weapons should be.

I think the intention is very clear here. Either you move and sacrifice firepower or you stay still and lay it down heavy. Everyone keeps complaining about how this will hurt eldar and tau. I agree that is makes their vehicles less effective, but in a much more balanced way. The skimmers and fast vehicles still retain their edge over all other vehicles, pure mobility. Now they simply have to sacrifice offensive power to do so.

Personally I agree with the S4 defensive weapon idea. This is after much debate with others and myself. While I would like it to be S5, I think that a .75 caliber rocket and it's equivalent should probably be the uppermost limit of "anti personnel" fire. Again, this change will force people to chose between mobility and firepower, a fair trade if you ask me.

Str 5 with a special rule for Shuriken Cannons making them defensive.

Or maybe the Shuriken Cannon just complements anti-tank configurations, to give them some anti-infantry kick. It makes the upgrade less of a no-brainer.

It leaves Eldar a little light on Defensive options vs. Imperials and Orks.

Off topic: Personally my problem with defensive weapons on 4th edition was that there was no compulsion to fire them at the closest target, which IMO would have made them more 'defensive', oh and Assault cannons. The Strength was never an issue to me.

Do people actually override rules that aren't open
to interpretation? This isn't about a gaming group arguing
a wording so much as a gaming group deciding that they
don't like a rule.

Are there examples of such heresy existing on such a scale?

Fleeting Jetbikes

I'm actually a fan of having a total strength of weapons fired in a turn, rather than trying to assign weapons to a main or defensive category.

For example - set a total strength of fired weapons in one turn at 15. This would allow 3 HBs fired at once from one tank (str 5 x 3), OR two autocannons (str 7 x 2 = 14), OR a lascannon and a HB (str 9 + str 5 = str 14), OR two star cannons (str 6 x 2 = 12). Any combination of weapons is legal as long as the total strength fired doesn't exceed the set limit, in this case 15. The avoids any weirdnesss in why some weapons are arbitrarily labelled as "Defensive" or "Main".

The total could be modified as needed - I'm just using 15 as an example.

Ordnance weapons would still be an exception - this works fine as is IMO.

Sevellyn wrote:I'm actually a fan of having a total strength of weapons fired in a turn, rather than trying to assign weapons to a main or defensive category.

Its too much work to expect the kiddies to add up a running total.

Sevellyn wrote:I'm actually a fan of having a total strength of weapons fired in a turn, rather than trying to assign weapons to a main or defensive category.

For example - set a total strength of fired weapons in one turn at 15. This would allow 3 HBs fired at once from one tank (str 5 x 3), OR two autocannons (str 7 x 2 = 14), OR a lascannon and a HB (str 9 + str 5 = str 14), OR two star cannons (str 6 x 2 = 12). Any combination of weapons is legal as long as the total strength fired doesn't exceed the set limit, in this case 15. The avoids any weirdnesss in why some weapons are arbitrarily labelled as "Defensive" or "Main".

The total could be modified as needed - I'm just using 15 as an example.

Ordnance weapons would still be an exception - this works fine as is IMO.

I actually like that idea a lot.

Orlanth wrote: Its too much work to expect the kiddies to add up a running total.

That is a problem - I admit finding it odd that the same people who can run off statistics based on a D6 system in their heads can't add numbers together, but that DOES seem to be the case.

Maybe army builder could just give the possible weapon combinations in a turn for those sorts of people.

As if people don't already rely too much on bad stats and illegal units from army builder.

malfred wrote:Do people actually override rules that aren't open
to interpretation? This isn't about a gaming group arguing
a wording so much as a gaming group deciding that they
don't like a rule.

Are there examples of such heresy existing on such a scale?

In third, rarely anyone used Night fight because they either forhot, or just thought it was dumb, or both.

in 4th ed nobody used Escalation because it was universally deemed stupid.

If Kill Points make it into the new rules, I see them likewise universally reviled.

I am not so sure about the defensive weapons being lowered though.

They tried to do this when they made the transition from third to fourth (1st version of trial vehicle rules, anyone?) and it didnt make it due to overwhelming consensus that it was indeed dumb.

But who knows? We dont know enough about 5th ed to really judge if it will work or not, unlike the populace knowing about the trial vehicle and assault rules that were pretty much thrown out in the trash and not used in 4th.

You can be sure though, if enough of the people feel it is dumb, it wont be used. Sure it will exist as a rule, but the people will just soundly ignore it.

Sevellyn wrote:I'm actually a fan of having a total strength of weapons fired in a turn, rather than trying to assign weapons to a main or defensive category.

That's an interesting wrinkle. Though it kind of screws over Predator Annihilators and Land Raiders completely.

And forcing math vs simply counting adds a lot more complexity than necessary.

Also, don't Orks still have variable Strength weapons?

I like the idea to keep it simple: All, One, or None.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Also, don't Orks still have variable Strength weapons?

Not on their vehicles. The only variable strength weapon is the Shokk Attack Gun.

And Zzap Guns.

I do like the idea of allowing it to remain at S5 or 6, but only if you shoot at the closest enemy unit.

I think S4 is fine.

S6 has a couple problems, namely that the Pred Destructor and Annihilator suddenly have different functional use for their Sponsons. Pred Destructor can always move & fire, but Annihilator can't?

Assault Cannon and Starcannon are Defensive?

S4 is a clear, restrictive rule that fits well with the return push of Troops to the fore.

If you want to move, move. Just don't expect to always be able to fire when doing so. Make a tactical decision whether movement is important, or shooting is important. Don't demand a crutch that removes tactical thought and weakens tactical play.

Assault Cannon and Starcannon are Defensive?

S4 is a clear, restrictive rule that fits well with the return push of Troops to the fore.

Sure, S6 probably isn't defensive, but S5 is certainly anti-infantry. I don't think this change pushes Troops to the fore (what does that is the "Troops Only" scoring limitation now). For non-skimmer armies Infantry was always a better bet than tracked tanks, this only makes the imbalance even worse in that regard. Given how few tanks actually *have* S4 weapons, it seems kinda pointless. Look at it from an Imperial Guard perspective. Sponson weapons have gone from useful to very limited use on a Leman Russ (yes, even with a Battlecannon there are many times where 3 HB's are more useful), and the Exterminator has been, well, exterminated. Chimera's lose half their mobile firepower, and given that they were never taken as transports but as mobile heavy weapons this hurts alot, especially given their hideously over-inflated cost. Coupled with the fact that Tanks are no longer scoring, it makes the Leman Russ and variants much poorer buys than they are currently, which isn't great next to Hammerheads and Fire Prisms and even Predators.

This actually impacts Mech Eldar armies (the ones I believe were the target of this change) less than it does Mech Tau and Mech Guard armies. Mech Eldar can just switch to EML/SC on wave serpents (even if it means tearing up models) and still move and fire everything, the same cannot be said of Chimeras or Devilfish.

If you want to move, move. Just don't expect to always be able to fire when doing so. Make a tactical decision whether movement is important, or shooting is important. Don't demand a crutch that removes tactical thought and weakens tactical play.

I don't think mobile anti-infantry tanks were a "crutch". There is very little reason to take an anti-infantry Predator now, and no reason to take any Predator in a Chaos army when you have Obliterators.



With your predator example, the way I see it, the raw power consumption of firing three lascannons simultaneously may briefly overpower the Predators powerplant, necessitating it not moving so it can route all power to the lascannons. Granted such an explanation doesn't work for everything, but its something. With heavy bolters, they are just spraying rounds anyway, what difference does movement make? Also, a Predator Annihilator *can* move and fire everything under the current rules if given HB sponsons, that's how I've always run my Chaos predators.

It's not a 'crutch'. The problem is that it's not fun to be forced to be stationary pillboxes to fire everything.

I'm a tread-head. I take tanks that can move around, guns blazing. Make it move around OR have guns blazing, and the fun level drops considerably for me.

(That and the only Troops scoring...blah).

Nurglitch wrote:Recent codecies such as Dark Angels and Blood Angels show that vehicles are being re-pointed to match their new limitations.

While that is true, the problem with that is it will take years and years for GW to get around to doing all the codexes and properly re-pointing all the vehicles to match their new limitations. This leaves many vehicles out in the cold of being way too expensive for their ability in the new rules. If 4th edition and several armies' lack of a codex for the edition is any indicator (and I think it is) there are going to be plenty of armies languishing with 3rd or early 4th edition codexes for quite some time now. So until these things get fixed, vehicles are just going to be stuck being static pill boxes. Oh well, at least I can keep my farseer behind my flacon in whatever building its hiding in and give it fortune. If always glance was bad, just wait till falcons have 4+ saves with rerolls in addition to the holo field...*sigh*

Orlanth wrote:It shouldn't be done on S it should be done on Ap. Ap 5 or weaker can be defensive weapons.

Now that's an idea I hadn't though about. I must say that I like it. Ap 5 would allow pleanty of useful weapons to still fall into defensive but not any of the heavy hitters. My only complaint would be the exclusion of the heavy bolter (which I think needs to remain defensive to keep the baal and the chimera viable tank options).

I agree Samwise.

(I wonder if that rumor is bogus, S4? Really...?)

I like the AP idea. Why not AP 4 or worse?

Phoenix wrote:Now that's an idea I hadn't though about. I must say that I like it. Ap 5 would allow pleanty of useful weapons to still fall into defensive but not any of the heavy hitters. My only complaint would be the exclusion of the heavy bolter (which I think needs to remain defensive to keep the baal and the chimera viable tank options).

One thing I'd like to point out is that the Baal has overcharged engines, making it a fast vehicle 33% of the time. In this capacity (assuming 5th playtest rules remain) it would be able to move 6" and fire everything that turn. The chimera is a troop transport first, support vehicle second. I don't think it's unreasonable to limit a tank's effectiveness on the move.