PDA

View Full Version : Defensive Weapon thoughts...



RFT
11-03-2008, 18:00
GW seem not to be happy with the current "defensive weapon" situation as it stands in 4th, and the proposed solution for 5th (restricting it to S4) has set the internet aflame.

all the suggestions I've seen so far stick with the idea of defining a weapon as "defensive" based on strength, then finding a nuymber fo that definition people are happy with, but there's no real reason that strenght has to be the defining characteristic - it seems very odd that a missile launcher can vary whether it's defensive or not based on what weapon it fires frag/plasma or krak, leading to te situation that I was thinking (assuming that rule doesn;t change) of outfitting one of my wave serpents with missile launchers up top and the shuricannon in the nose, as the launchers could fire defensively.

Anyway, here's a couple of ideas that came to me today about how "defensive" weapons could alternatively be defined. presumably a "defensive" weapon is one meant to protect the tank from immediate attack or assault.

A: with range - weapons with up to 24" max range are defensive, anything over that is a main weapon.

B: with codex definition - the vehicle's codex entry specifically states which weapons (or hardpoints) are defensive (impractical as it would require a fuill set of new codexes or a long list in the rulebook)

C: No specific definition, but a weapon being fired as "defensive" may only be fired at the nearest unit of any sort

D: No specific definition, but a weapon being fired as "defensive" has to fire with a BS penalty

just some thoughts / points for discussion...

Jos
11-03-2008, 18:05
all exept number b seems to be impractical and somewhat unfair. of course, that one would never, ever be choosen but anyway...

FigureFour
11-03-2008, 18:18
Or people could recognize that it dramatically limits a tanks firepower while moving because that's what they intended to do.

If a tank can fire all it's guns while moving, its actions on any given turn require very little tactical thought and would likely become too powerful in 5th editions more movement centric tactical environment.

Ozendorph
11-03-2008, 18:28
If a tank can fire all it's guns while moving, its actions on any given turn require very little tactical thought and would likely become too powerful in 5th editions more movement centric tactical environment.

"My tank sits still, again, so it can fire the weapons I paid for. I'd consider advancing, but it cannot contest or capture objectives anyway."

Yep, that is some extremely tactical thought for this movement centric tactical environment.

Midknightwraith
11-03-2008, 18:30
I really like C and D together, maybe with a little twist.

Auxilliary weapons on vehicles are used to defend against nearby infantry to make close assaults of the vehicle more difficult.
All weapons with a maximum Strength of less than 8 may be fired in a defensive mode against infantry as long as the vehicle has not moved over 12". To do this the weapon is fired at a maximum BS of 3 at the closest infantry target to the vehicle to a maximum range of 24".

The idea here is you can only shoot at infantry that could potentially shoot/Assault you in the following turn. I toyed with the idea of BS 2, but that seems a bit much.

salamandercaptain
11-03-2008, 18:40
I like c.

Because it allow realistic splitting of fire without any other major changes to the rules. and meas that defensive weapons- flamers, Hvy bolters, sriken cats, shootaz etc are used to saturate the vehciles immediate enviroment and prolong it's survival while the gunners target appropriately with the main weapon.

do i think it will happen. No
Is is realistic but at the same time overpowering and hence requiring a recost. yes.

s

PS. Yay post 100- only taken 3 years!

FigureFour
11-03-2008, 18:55
"My tank sits still, again, so it can fire the weapons I paid for. I'd consider advancing, but it cannot contest or capture objectives anyway."

Yep, that is some extremely tactical thought for this movement centric tactical environment.

What are you going to do when your opponent avoids the tank's line of sight, or starts circling it with mobile tank hunters to negate your cover save and get a rear armor shot?

Not all positions for your tank are equally advantageous, and what position is most advantageous changes from turn to turn. Some players will try to take advantage of this, and when 5th ed comes out, I bet they'll beat you.

Mandragola
11-03-2008, 19:34
E: Remove the defensive weapon rule and allow vehicles to fire all their weapons if they go 6" (12" for fast).

Vehicles have dedicated gunners with no job to do other than firing a gun, so they should just get on with it. It'a absolutely ridiculous that you can't fire a built in heavy weapon but you can fire a machine gun out the window.

It wouldn't actually make any difference to the gunner whether he was firing a lascannon or a heavy bolter, a shuriken cannon or a bright lance and arguably it would be easier to fire a laser from a moving platform in any case. The strength-based distinction is nonsense.

Ko Improbable
11-03-2008, 20:25
I'd like to see a mixture of Mandragoria's suggestion and a totally new definition of what a defensive weapon *does*

Stationary: Can fire all weapons at normal BS.
Movement Level 1: Can fire all weapons at half (rounded up) BS
Movement Level 2: May not shoot

what distance the different movement levels were would depend on the speed of the vehicle, of course.

In addition to this, all defensive weapons, defined as weapons of S4 or less, may be fired at a different target than the rest of the weapons, provided this target is within 24" of the vehicle. If an enemy unit is within 12" of the vehicle, all sponson weapons are defined as defensive weapons, but only if they shoot at that unit within 12" Or something like that.

Granted, the whole "the whole unit, even if it's a tank, must shoot at the same target unit" thing never made a whole lot of sense to me. Why waste storm bolter ammo shooting at a Land Raider?

Midknightwraith
11-03-2008, 20:38
@FigureFour - I respect that opinion, but giving vehicles less options doesn't equate with more tactical play. Worse Vehicles already don't opperate in a manner that makes logical sense.

I remember the shift from 2nd to 3rd, and a lot of people left the game because units could no longer split their fire in the shooting phase, especially vehicles. In my opinion, that change more than any other hurts the speed and flow of the game. It especially hurts in a game that is supposed to last only 6 turns. I realize that it makes things slightly easier to balance when any given unit can only engage one other unit a turn. However, it also slows the game down.

I understand about having to make choices, but the defensive weapon rule already forces a choice for vehicles with mixed weapons. Do I fire my main gun at the vehicle, or do I fire my other weapons at a nearby squad. Forcing a choice between movement and shooting for a vehicle, especially given the new area terrain rules will result in not moving in favor of shooting. Moving, especially with a non-scoring unit, just doesn't give enough benefit to justify not shooting. Predators with dual Sponsons under the new rule pay for two weapons when they can only move and fire one. At least that is optional equipment, Falcon's pay for two weapons, and don't have a choice, unless they want the silly missle launcher that can fire defensively, weirdness. It is a terrible rule change. Unless the objective was to not sell vehicle models.

FigureFour
11-03-2008, 20:53
@FigureFour - I respect that opinion, but giving vehicles less options doesn't equate with more tactical play.

But they didn't give vehicles less options. They have the same options.

What they did to is ensure that there are positive and negative effects to choosing either option. The effectively creates a new option, because for most vehicles there was no reason to remain stationary. Ever.


Forcing a choice between movement and shooting for a vehicle, especially given the new area terrain rules will result in not moving in favor of shooting. Moving, especially with a non-scoring unit, just doesn't give enough benefit to justify not shooting.

People keep saying this, but I don't see why it's true. I can think of several occasions when I'd want to move my tank. For example, to gain a cover save or obscure line of sight when threatened by anti-tank weapons, or in order to fire your main weapon at a target that you couldn't otherwise see (or to achieve a better firing position to negate cover saves), or to get a good line of sight to an objective so that I can mow down any troops units that try to take it.

Sure, any time your tank is in a good position you'll want to stay there, but that's the way it should work.

In 4th edition there was next to no reason at all to keep your tank in position. Now there will be reasons to stay put and reasons to move.

Now, honestly I don't think that S4 defensive weapons is the "best" way to make the game play change they want, but it's a quick, effective and non intrusive way to do it. And it certainly isn't half as bad as people think it is.

Midknightwraith
11-03-2008, 21:02
What are you going to do when your opponent avoids the tank's line of sight, or starts circling it with mobile tank hunters to negate your cover save and get a rear armor shot?

Not all positions for your tank are equally advantageous, and what position is most advantageous changes from turn to turn. Some players will try to take advantage of this, and when 5th ed comes out, I bet they'll beat you.

The problem is Vehicles will start doing what they were doing in the past (3rd Ed.). butting up their rear armor to a table edge and parking it, to deny the rear shot. As for advantageous positions. Considering the CC rule changes for vehicles, and the area terrain/LOS changes the only reason for a tank to move will be so that it can get in range, but given the main guns are typically 48"+ range, having to move is not that big a deal. A tank centered at the rear of a deployment zone on a typical 4' x 6' table is going to cover close to 75% of the board with it's main (turret) weapon. With only hills and intact buildings to block LOS (assuming they are tall enough). Or it can move and have a 50-66% decrease in firepower. With a little cover from other nearby units any such vehicle will find it more advantageous to sit where it is rather than waste a turns shooting to move the paltry distances vehicles get to move in 40k.

Ozendorph
11-03-2008, 21:51
Not all positions for your tank are equally advantageous, and what position is most advantageous changes from turn to turn. Some players will try to take advantage of this, and when 5th ed comes out, I bet they'll beat you.

They may beat me, but it won't be because they outflanked my static pill-box tank, as I won't be using one. Single-weapon vehicles (not affected by the S4 weapon rule, now tougher) and Dev Squad Equivalents are going to rule Heavy Support slots if this change comes into effect.

Midknightwraith
11-03-2008, 22:02
But they didn't give vehicles less options. They have the same options.

No actually they have the same number of options, they are just different options than what was had before.

4th: Not move and shoot everything or Move and decide to shoot multiple effective weapons at infantry, or Move and shoot a single effective weapon at big targets.

5th: Not move fire everything, or Move and fire 1 thing.

The only difference here is that the number of weapons that can be fired was dropped which means shooting on the move at the bigger stuff is going to be more appealing now. Which in turn means load outs of all big weapons to take advantage of not moving becomes more popular. As well as not taking additional weapons to save points for vehicles which will move more often. Which means individual vehicles in 5th will be more specialized, which in turn means less options for those vehicles.


What they did to is ensure that there are positive and negative effects to choosing either option. The effectively creates a new option, because for most vehicles there was no reason to remain stationary. Ever.

No it creates a situation where a given vehicle will be good at one thing only. And will either remain stationary and shoot, or be cheaper and be constantly moving and shooting with less. And the hybrid vehicles disapear from army lists entirely. Probably explains the Eldar gripe since their main tank is by design a hybrid. BTW: I've seen plenty of 4th Ed tanks that just sit and shoot. Triple LasCannon predators deployed to woods are notorious for it.


I can think of several occasions when I'd want to move my tank. For example, to gain a cover save or obscure line of sight when threatened by anti-tank weapons,

As opposed to just using other units to eliminate the threat, and having the tank go on about it's business. Brilliant strategy, run and hide and give your opponent even more room to maneuver and split your forces.


or in order to fire your main weapon at a target that you couldn't otherwise see (or to achieve a better firing position to negate cover saves), or to get a good line of sight to an objective so that I can mow down any troops units that try to take it.

You have read the propsed 5th rules, right? You know that units can pretty much shoot across the board ignoring much of the intervening terrain now, right? Moving 6-12" is unlikely to get me to a position to ignore the available cover in such a way that my opponent can't find it again in his movement phase, if at all. Worse, I've probably opened myself up to him by moving giving him the first shot in any exchange. So exactly why is it a good idea to move, and give up 2/3 - 3/4 of my firepower?


Sure, any time your tank is in a good position you'll want to stay there, but that's the way it should work.

yup and if you can't deploy it that way from the start (especially in 5th) you are probably doing it wrong.


In 4th edition there was next to no reason at all to keep your tank in position. Now there will be reasons to stay put and reasons to move.

Again, you sound like a broken record here. These situations exist in 4th as well. It's kind of funny, actually. As I've pointed out all GW would succeed at with this change is eliminating the hybrid vehicles that are used as close support for infantry.


Now, honestly I don't think that S4 defensive weapons is the "best" way to make the game play change they want, but it's a quick, effective and non intrusive way to do it. And it certainly isn't half as bad as people think it is.

This sentance doesn't make sense. If it isn't the "best", then how can it be "quick, effective, and non-intrusive". This change has so many people complaining that it clearly does not qualify as "non-intrusive". "Effective", only if eliminating certain vehicle weapon configurations was the objective. Which it clearly wasn't since printing the codex without those options would be a more effective way to eliminate them. "Quick", okay you got me. It's quick, quickly becomming the most despised proposed rule change ever. No wait I think the trial 4th Ed assault rules played under 3rd edition everything else were probably the most despised.:chrome:

shabbadoo
11-03-2008, 22:05
"B" is the best option, though it is already too late the implement it other than through FAQs. "A" is the next best option, though you still have some oddball weapons counting as defensive, like multi-meltas. "C" and "D" are horrible options, as literally any weapon that is not ordinance or barrage could be considered a defensive weapon. That even inlcudes such things as the Sisters of Battle Exorcist missile launcher. So, "B" is definitely the best option of those presented. All that would be needed would be a "Defensive" tag at the end of the appropriate weapon profiles, similar to how weapons are designated as "Ordinance", "Barrage", "Template", "Rending", "Pinning", etc. in their weapon profile.

Sister_Sin
11-03-2008, 22:08
This Strength 4 limit disturbs me, mainly because I don't think it is an efficient way to do things. For my part, I never used sponsons on my tanks anyway, so the IG and Preds aren't particularly bothered by it. In the case of my Armored Battlegroup, I just have a hull weapon and the main gun, and the hull weapons are usually heavy bolters anyway; they are modeled after WWII German tanks..sort of.

In the case of Predators...I never liked the sponsons on those anyway so didn't bother to use them.

On the other hand, Falcons become a bit over-gunned if the ST 4 rule sticks. Eldar and Dark Eldar vehicles are supposed to be fast moving platforms, not static shooters, at least as I read the fluff. A system that favors sitting still to shoot flies in the face of that. I suspect the Tau might have the same situation. Then again, it's just a case of fluff vs rules I guess.

Perhaps using movement distance to decide how many weapons can fire, as was done before works better than strength determinants.

Sister Sin

Dyrnwyn
11-03-2008, 22:20
B: with codex definition - the vehicle's codex entry specifically states which weapons (or hardpoints) are defensive (impractical as it would require a fuill set of new codexes or a long list in the rulebook)

This one has my vote. If they can put a list of what unit type every unit from every army is in the 4th ed. rulebook, they can put a list of what weapons are main and what weapons are defensive right next to that list in the 5th ed book.

Midknightwraith
11-03-2008, 22:38
Problem is There are mounts that hold different kinds of weapons. A predator sponson with a LasCannon in it, vs one with a Heavy Bolter? Really the LasCannon can fire as a defensive weapon on the move, really? Most eldar hard points are in a similar situation since 3 of their 5 choices are S6, one is S8 or S4/Blast, and the last is S8 straight up. I am sure there are other examples in the other lists.

The only way to do it would be to class the weapons themselves along with the mounts. At which point you may as well abstract it with S limitations anyway.

Ozendorph
11-03-2008, 23:23
Being able to be fired defensively should be an attribute of the weapon, imo. A bolter is a bolter is a bolter. The smallest vehicles tend to only have a single weapon anyway, and anything large enough to use a Plasma Cannon as a defensive weapon is probably a Super Heavy and can fire like crazy in all directions (yay!).

They could quite easily make a comprehensive list of Defensive Weapons in the 5th Ed book, and then include the relevant weapons in each future codex. It may sound a bit cumbersome to have to refer to the new BGB (or more likely a photocopied page) to see if a particular weapon can fire, but we've dealt with far nastier inconveniences in past Edition changes.

Lord Inquisitor
11-03-2008, 23:45
Personally I think the whole defensive weapon thing was unnecessary.

I think that this move - should it happen - is an appallingly bad idea (by far the worst thing about 5th so far, I quite like most of the other changes). I see very, very little difference between the proposed 5th vehicles and 3rd ed vehicles.

All movement will be penalised, meaning that vehicles will simply sit static on top of hills or in buildings and shoot at enemies. Really, tanks should be able to move-and-fire and at the very least keep pace with infantry!

Currently, the defensive weapons rule is rather random - some vehicles can move-and-fire very effectively (predator destructor). Others cannot (predator annihilator). Some tanks are currently versetile platforms, and you can't run rings around them with jump troops, for example, by exploiting the fact that they can't move-and-fire.

I think the best solution is the simplest - do away with the whole "defensive weapons" thing...

- All vehicles may move 6" and fire all weapons
- All vehicles may fire one weapon if it moves over 6"
- No vehicle may fire any weapons if it moves over 12"

I don't see any reason to exempt fast vehicles from this. If you want to add in defensive weapons (S4 limit seems fine for this) then allow them:
- to be fired in addition to any main weapons (i.e. if moving over 6")
- to be fired at a different target to the main weapons. (i.e. fired defensively at encroaching infantry while the tank's main guns get on with their job!)

Finally, we really should be allowed to fire Ordinance and secondary weapons. Make those Defiler autocannons and Russ sponsons worth something.

Kalec
12-03-2008, 00:25
So, instead of making tanks static pillboxes by reducing their firepower when moving, we reduce their firepower when moving?

You confuse me, Lord Inquisitor.

Ozendorph
12-03-2008, 00:45
So, instead of making tanks static pillboxes by reducing their firepower when moving, we reduce their firepower when moving?

You confuse me, Lord Inquisitor.

He's actually increasing their firepower.

If movement is 0-6", all guns blazing.
If movement is 7-12", fire one weapon

Optionally, little guns like stubbers and stormbolters could be fired at separate targets, suddenly validating an untold number of GW tank illustrations.

Frankly, I think it's a nice idea.

cailus
12-03-2008, 00:46
So, instead of making tanks static pillboxes by reducing their firepower when moving, we reduce their firepower when moving?

You confuse me, Lord Inquisitor.

Lord Inquisitor is actually suggesting an increase in fierpower for some tanks.

For example:

Current rules:
Move up to 6 inches and you can now fire one primary (greater than S6) and all defensive weapons (weapons equal to or under S6).

So Predator Annihilator with 3 lascannons can move and fire one lascannon, whereas a Predator Destructor with heavy bolters can move and fire both the S7 autocannon and the S5 heavy bolters.

Proposed 5th edition
Move up to 6 inches and you can fire one primary (greater than S4) and all defensive weapons (equal to or under S4).

So Predator Annihilator with 3 lascannons can move and fire one lascannon, whereas a Predator Destructor with heavy bolters can move and either chose to fire a heavy bolter or the autocannon.

Lord Inquisitor's rules
Move up to 6 inches and you can fire all weapons regardless of strength.

So Predator Annihilator with 3 lascannons can move and fire all three lascannons (big change), whereas a Predator Destructor with heavy bolters can move and fire both the S7 autocannon and the S5 heavy bolters (no change).

Not a bad idea but it probably needs fleshing out with regards to Fast vehicles etc.

So in essence it could boil down to the following perhaps:

Any normal vehicle moving up to and including 6 inches can fire all weapons.

Any fast vehicle moving up to and including 12 inches can fire all weapons.

This isn't a big change to now except it's a bit more streamlined and certain tanks with multiple S7 and greater weapons gain a bit more maneouvrability.

aenimosity
12-03-2008, 01:20
So what you're proposing is to make tanks even more shooty than they were before? I love it. :evilgrin:

Edit: As for the original question in this thread, I'll go for B. Printing a list of all weapons of all races doesn't seem like too much of stretch. They already print the stats of units for all the armies in the fantasy rulebook. That takes up a few pages. So long as they get it right/do it intelligently before it gets printed I'd be happy.

cailus
12-03-2008, 01:29
It only really makes certain tanks more shootier (those with more than 1 S7 weapon).

And given the increased price in points we pay for things like Predator Annihilators, Leman Russ Demolishers or Falcons with multiple heavy weapons, it's only fair.

Of course maintain a restriction on the firing of ordnance - i.e. the vehicle cannot fire any other weapons if it fires an ordnance weapon.

chaos0xomega
12-03-2008, 01:36
Vehicles should be less shooty, not more. Tanks and the like are support weapons, they aren't supposed to be the offensive monsters that the game makes them out to be. That is my one major issue with 40k, and always has been. Vehicles are way too easy to take out, and have way too much firepower at their disposal. Balance-wise its fine, but it doesn't really portray these vehicles/doctrine would work if it were a "real life" situation.

cailus
12-03-2008, 02:09
Vehicles should be less shooty, not more. Tanks and the like are support weapons, they aren't supposed to be the offensive monsters that the game makes them out to be. That is my one major issue with 40k, and always has been. Vehicles are way too easy to take out, and have way too much firepower at their disposal. Balance-wise its fine, but it doesn't really portray these vehicles/doctrine would work if it were a "real life" situation.


What has "real life" got to do with 40K? It's a game where a sword is as potent as a rapid fire rocket launcher, where ships fly through a hell infested dimension, where people believing their bullets will go through armour actually makes the bullets go through armour (I'd personally spend more time beleig in winning the lottery).

I really wish people wouldn't bother with realism and 40K.

And the worst thing is your idea of tanks being offensive monsters not being realistic is not really based on much reality. If you look at any modern military operations from the German Blitz to the Arab Israeli wars to the various US Gulf Wars, tanks are used as offensive monsters. They are the spearhead desgined to tear through enemy lines.

The French used tanks as support weapons in World War II and this contributed to their country being rolled over by the Germans.

That is actually why they were invented in World War I - to drive through heavy torrents of fire and enemy fortifications while delivering death themselves.

Furthermore even if tanks were just "support" alien cultures such as those of the Tau and Eldar would probably have different ideas to humans as how to use their high speed anti-gravity vehicles.

Iron Father
12-03-2008, 02:11
I cant really see them changing defensive weapons to str 4. If whats been said about the (eldar?) DA, Chaos, and Ork codices being written for 5th ed. is true, then it makes certain vehicles (battlewagon for example) not perform as it should. The battlewagon is a mobile gun fortress/transport. They can take a killkannon, 1 kannon, lobba, or zzap gun, and up to 4 big shootas or rokkit launchas. This thing is made to trounce throught he battle field raining proppa death. Not a single gun it takes is under str 5, so I kinda feel the rules on vehicles moving may make a change, but who knows...

Mandragola
12-03-2008, 02:17
One extra point I'd like to make is that we're probably going to see far fewer battle tanks in 5th edition. The troops as scoring thing will tend to mean you play games of orks vs marines, or whatever, not looted basilisks vs predators. That in itself is probably a good thing, but it also makes any changes to tanks less significant, simply because there won't be so many of them around.

Which tank you choose to take is going to shift quite a lot I think. I think that the preferred vehicles are going to be those that you can get as transports for troop choices, especially if they function as tanks. I expect to see a lot of wave serpents, for example. I envy black templars players for getting crusaders as a transport option for their troops, which is potentially a bit worrying in dawn of war.

If it's harder to fire multiple guns then people will be more inclined to get tanks with a single gun. Ordnance platforms of all types look relatively more useful straight away, since they can use most of their firepower on the move. Therefore, oddly, a leman russ demolisher is quite a lot more effective on the move than a predator.

I don't think we will see pillbox tanks much simply because I don't think they will be good. Where possible, people will take troops instead of heavy support. A tank that never moves isn't really an attractive option when you can usually manage a similar effect with units that will score.

Warpcrafter
12-03-2008, 03:19
E: Remove the defensive weapon rule and allow vehicles to fire all their weapons if they go 6" (12" for fast).

Vehicles have dedicated gunners with no job to do other than firing a gun, so they should just get on with it. It'a absolutely ridiculous that you can't fire a built in heavy weapon but you can fire a machine gun out the window.

It wouldn't actually make any difference to the gunner whether he was firing a lascannon or a heavy bolter, a shuriken cannon or a bright lance and arguably it would be easier to fire a laser from a moving platform in any case. The strength-based distinction is nonsense.

I totally agree. This defensive weapon FUBAR is just a rule for a rule's sake and should be squashed. Troops should be used to defend vehicles, and vehicles should be optimised for taking out armor and other hard targets, like terminators and monstrous creatures. Expecting a non-superheavy vehicle to do it all is a dilution of effort. :evilgrin::skull::D

chaos0xomega
12-03-2008, 04:13
What has "real life" got to do with 40K? It's a game where a sword is as potent as a rapid fire rocket launcher, where ships fly through a hell infested dimension, where people believing their bullets will go through armour actually makes the bullets go through armour (I'd personally spend more time beleig in winning the lottery).

I really wish people wouldn't bother with realism and 40K.

And the worst thing is your idea of tanks being offensive monsters not being realistic is not really based on much reality. If you look at any modern military operations from the German Blitz to the Arab Israeli wars to the various US Gulf Wars, tanks are used as offensive monsters. They are the spearhead desgined to tear through enemy lines.

The French used tanks as support weapons in World War II and this contributed to their country being rolled over by the Germans.

That is actually why they were invented in World War I - to drive through heavy torrents of fire and enemy fortifications while delivering death themselves.

Furthermore even if tanks were just "support" alien cultures such as those of the Tau and Eldar would probably have different ideas to humans as how to use their high speed anti-gravity vehicles.

Because this game attempts to emulate real life by borrowing aspects from a variety of past wars(tell me that Catachans aren't supposed to be Vietnam era americans, Krieg aren't pseudo-German Frenchmen from WW1, etc. etc. etc.) Thas what realism has to do with it. 40k strives to present an abstract form of realistic futuristic combat. Most of the background is grounded in science and pseudo-science to give the image of plausibility, THATS what it has to do with it. GW produces all this background and FW those Admech datafiles on all these vehicles in order to give an air of realism and plausibility to the game. THAT IS WHAT "REALISM" HAS TO DO WITH IT.

And your interpretation of "offensive monster" is interesting to say the least. Armour is never deployed without infantry support, this is true even in the Gulf War. A spearhead is just that, the tip of a spear, there is an entire shaft of infantry and support personnel right behind it. If you sent a tank against say a squad of 10 infantrymen, the tank would kill a couple of them before they ducked for cover or got pinned down by a mounted mg. The infantry would eventually maneuver around them and move on, instead of destroying it or "assaulting" it. That big main gun in the tanks turret is almost entirely useless against infantry, unless they are in a defensive position, and even then there is a good chance that it won't be enough to kill or dislodge them.

A tanks role in modern warfare is to take out enemy tanks, that is basically the main focus of their existence. The first tanks were built to support infantry and break through trenches, their main weapons were machine guns usually mounted in sponsons. The response to this was to build what amounted to anti-tank tanks, and the response to that was to counter them with better anti-tank tanks. In addition, various tanks and armoured vehicles have been designed specifically to support infantry over the years, such as tanks that mounted flame-throwers as their main weapon, etc. These vehicles are next to useless against armour. It is impossible to make tanks in the real world into what many 40k vehicles are,(with the exception of superheavies where it is possible due to sheer size and the amount of weapons capable of being mounted). A Leman Russ shouldn't be able to be THAT effective against infantry, and still be able to utilize its main armament to take out tanks without switching its armament(I.E. - I'm saying that when firing against an armoured vehicle, the Leman Russ should be using a non-template weapon, as the blast should be too dispersed to pierce the armour of an enemy vehicle).

Perhaps the problem isn't really in the design of the vehicles, but instead it is a rule design flaw with the armour penetration system. The same weapon that is used by a Russ to tear through infantry(lets assume a HE warhead), should not be anywhere near effective as a tank-killer. Instead it should be firing a much less explosive AP round. 40k kind of models this with the scatter rules, but that really isn't the way it should be. In this case the problem lies with the Vehicle armour rules(whose idea was to cap it at 14?) and it's penetration. A new attribute should have been introduced that determines the effectiveness of a weapon punching through armour (but its too late for that now), instead of just going off the strength values.

There are a variety of ways to fix the problem. First of all, I would suggest instead of limiting what weapons can fire when moving at a certain speed(believing that the weapons crew is too preoccupied watching the driver maneuver is ridiculous...), you effect the BS of the weapon instead(and for scatter weapons, increase the scatter distance, not roll more dice and apply the highest, but either roll more dice and add them, or roll x amount and multiply them). Historically, tankers have had to come to a complete or near complete stop to accurately place shots on enemy armour at any range(which present a much bigger target than infantry). Even the dreaded Germans in their King Tigers didn't have the skill or training to knock out enemy armour on the move, unless they got extremely lucky, they would come to a complete stop, take the shot, and then move on. The same holds true for all sides of the conflict during world war 2, with the exception of the Russians early on who were largely untrained and missed horribly, even when they were at a full stop. Even today it is difficult(even with the aid of computers) to accurately place shots on the move, although it is actually worth attempting nowadays.

Also, I would like to quickly point out that tanks rarely explode in real life. It is also very difficult to determine if a kill has been scored. Usually, the tank has been more than knocked out, and the crew has long since bailed by the time a tank has even started smoking. Tankers have long sworn by the rule that if it ain't burning you should keep pouring shots into it, even if it isn't shooting back.

Also, your evaluation of tanks in WW1 is faulty. They were intended to force a breakthrough, yes, but "delivering death themselves" is an overstatement." Sure they could kill, but the real killers are what followed behind to take advantage of the ground gained by them and the protection afforded by their armoured bulk absorbing the shots.

In regards to aliens, yes, you are right. I have no complaints about them. If you've noticed I really only complained about Imperial tanks, specifically the Leman Russ(and the Demolisher by proxy). Most other vehicles(especially the SM ones) have been done "right" in my opinion, and if I had to choose one vehicle as representative of what 40k vehicles should all be like, I'd have to say the Monolith. Extremely difficult to knock out, capable of doing their own fair share of damage to the enemy, but sunk without infantry to back it up.

=Tempest=
12-03-2008, 04:25
Here's what I think:
Stationary: All guns
Under 6: All guns with at least ROF 2
Under 12: All guns with at least ROF 3
Twinlinked guns count as having double their normal ROF when it comes to checking for ability to fire while moving (So twinlinked lascannon can fire while moving, for example)

Strength dependency for considering weather a weapon is defensive or not is silly. This system makes more sense and scales more easily. It also allows some vehicles to move and shoot even faster, considering that tanks right now, especially MBT's, are a little overcosted for what they should be able to do, IMO.

Ideally you'd use a BS modifier in addition to/instead of this system but GW avoids all modifiers like the plague (although they could fix a couple problems in the game right now, although I actually like the AP system modifiers should be seen elsewhere)

imweasel
12-03-2008, 04:48
I like the:

Move up to and including 6" and fire everything.

Move 7"-12" fire one weapon.

Move over 12" and no fire.

Follows the attempt of the KISS principle 5th ed is trying to bring in.

Natura
12-03-2008, 04:55
Just let vehicles fire all of their damn weapons. I'm sick and tired of my battlewagon firing one ordnance weapon whilst the orks manning the plethora of other weapons decide to have a snooze. That's not orky!

cailus
12-03-2008, 05:33
Because this game attempts to emulate real life by borrowing aspects from a variety of past wars(tell me that Catachans aren't supposed to be Vietnam era americans, Krieg aren't pseudo-German Frenchmen from WW1, etc. etc. etc.) Thas what realism has to do with it.

That's mere imagery for some of the human factions in the game. By the way Catachans are more John Rambo than any actual Vietnam era troops - soldiers usually carry tons of gear such as webbing etc for important things such as ammunition and water (especially water).

By the way Black Templars use Middle Age knight mythology, Ultramarines Roman mythology but that does not mean that this mere imagery is to be used in the game as some sort of ruleset.


40k strives to present an abstract form of realistic futuristic combat. Most of the background is grounded in science and pseudo-science to give the image of plausibility, THATS what it has to do with it. GW produces all this background and FW those Admech datafiles on all these vehicles in order to give an air of realism and plausibility to the game. THAT IS WHAT "REALISM" HAS TO DO WITH IT..

40K does not in any way shape or form offer a form of realistic futuristic combat. This is a game that does not encompass many elements of real war - logistics, intelligence and even such real life crucial elements such as psychology are mainly ignored. The emphasis on close combat over long range firepower is another example of this game does not reflect any sort of modern combat post-1914.

As for the pseudo-science, even that is poorly explained. Look at the 120 mm cannon on the Leman Russ. Then look at the 120mm guns on real tanks.
Or the flying bricks that are imperial aircraft.

Also I do not see how a Monolith or a Falcon or Ork Battlewagon fits your idea of realism. Even if we assume that all the human factions adhere to some sort of 1930's military doctrine it does not mean that Necrons, Tau or Nids or any of the myriad of other factions would.






And your interpretation of "offensive monster" is interesting to say the least. Armour is never deployed without infantry support, this is true even in the Gulf War. A spearhead is just that, the tip of a spear, there is an entire shaft of infantry and support personnel right behind it. If you sent a tank against say a squad of 10 infantrymen, the tank would kill a couple of them before they ducked for cover or got pinned down by a mounted mg. The infantry would eventually maneuver around them and move on, instead of destroying it or "assaulting" it. That big main gun in the tanks turret is almost entirely useless against infantry, unless they are in a defensive position, and even then there is a good chance that it won't be enough to kill or dislodge them.

Interestingly enough in 1991 the US assaulted Iraqi lines with heavy armour supported by bulldozers. The infantry had nothing to do because the tanks simply drove over the defensive trenches and the bulldozers simply buried the Iraqis.

However in city fighting conditions the tank becomes a lot more vulnerable. Hence Soviet tankriders during WWII (that and a lack of truck transport).

Back to 40K.

40K doesn't do any of the things you mention. There is no realistic dynamic in the way any of the units interact.

The infantry generally don't support the tank in any real way because the tank is usually a long range fire support system and most other infantry cannot hurt the tank unless they carry totally unrealistic powerfist type weapons, are a totally unrealistic monstrous creature or in some case very underpowered grenades.

Units that have these sort of gizmos are usually better off in the totally unrealistic and way to common close combat because in 40K a giant hand is much better at crushing your enemies than your 0.75 calibre rocket launcher.

As a big user of tanks, the Guard infantry are often an after thought and generally not much of a threat to anything that can actually hurt a tank in close combat.




A tanks role in modern warfare is to take out enemy tanks, that is basically the main focus of their existence. The first tanks were built to support infantry and break through trenches, their main weapons were machine guns usually mounted in sponsons. The response to this was to build what amounted to anti-tank tanks, and the response to that was to counter them with better anti-tank tanks. In addition, various tanks and armoured vehicles have been designed specifically to support infantry over the years, such as tanks that mounted flame-throwers as their main weapon, etc. These vehicles are next to useless against armour. It is impossible to make tanks in the real world into what many 40k vehicles are,(with the exception of superheavies where it is possible due to sheer size and the amount of weapons capable of being mounted). A Leman Russ shouldn't be able to be THAT effective against infantry, and still be able to utilize its main armament to take out tanks without switching its armament(I.E. - I'm saying that when firing against an armoured vehicle, the Leman Russ should be using a non-template weapon, as the blast should be too dispersed to pierce the armour of an enemy vehicle). .

I actually agree with you as this is what I am arguing. 40K is totally unrealistic.

As I have stated before, it's a game designed by nerds with no knowledge of military affairs.

Real wars are not won because you killed a lot of the enemy. The whole basis of 40K is slaughtering the enemy. Uniits rarely withdraw in 40K and there's no such thing as surrender. Instead it's just kill, kill, kill.

This is fine with me as long as the game is viewed as Space Fantasy and not realistic combat.




Perhaps the problem isn't really in the design of the vehicles, but instead it is a rule design flaw with the armour penetration system. The same weapon that is used by a Russ to tear through infantry(lets assume a HE warhead), should not be anywhere near effective as a tank-killer. Instead it should be firing a much less explosive AP round. 40k kind of models this with the scatter rules, but that really isn't the way it should be. In this case the problem lies with the Vehicle armour rules(whose idea was to cap it at 14?) and it's penetration. A new attribute should have been introduced that determines the effectiveness of a weapon punching through armour (but its too late for that now), instead of just going off the strength values..

Actually Epic has a simple system of giving a weapon an Anti-infantry or/and an Anti-tank rating. So whereas in 40K an Ork punching a Leman Russ in the rear armour can destroy it, such an attack would be rated as Anti-infantry under Epic and would therefore not do any damage.





Also, your evaluation of tanks in WW1 is faulty. They were intended to force a breakthrough, yes, but "delivering death themselves" is an overstatement." Sure they could kill, but the real killers are what followed behind to take advantage of the ground gained by them and the protection afforded by their armoured bulk absorbing the shots.

In real life nothing really deals death the way it does in 40K. Unless your army consists of the type of troops that shoots prisoners of course.

Still the early tanks were equipped with a number of weapons including 6 pounder guns and several machine guns which is quite a lot more firepower than an infantry squad of the day (which was equipped exclusively with rifles, often bolt actions).






In regards to aliens, yes, you are right. I have no complaints about them. If you've noticed I really only complained about Imperial tanks, specifically the Leman Russ(and the Demolisher by proxy). Most other vehicles(especially the SM ones) have been done "right" in my opinion, and if I had to choose one vehicle as representative of what 40k vehicles should all be like, I'd have to say the Monolith. Extremely difficult to knock out, capable of doing their own fair share of damage to the enemy, but sunk without infantry to back it up.

So we need individual rules for each vehicle. Seems fair enoguh given recent Ork trukk rules for exploding.

Alexandr Ulyanov
12-03-2008, 08:20
I've got a new choice:
F: Base it on weapon AP value

For instance: all weapons with AP 4 or more are defensive, all weapons with AP 3 or less are offensive

Now, does this make logical sense in an absolute sense? No, since we could, theoretically, have S2 AP1 weapons. However, it just so happens that most of the current main weapons are AP3 or less guns and the most of the current defensive weapons are AP4 or more guns. In practice, it's much like we have now, but I think it's an idea we can consider.

Alexandr Ulyanov
12-03-2008, 08:23
And here's another idea:
G: Base it on number of shots

Example: 1 shot is a main weapon, 2 shots+ are defensive

Now, this would make ion cannons and autocannons able to fired on the move, but I don't necessarily see that as a problem. It does fix the missile launcher weirdness.

Lord Inquisitor
12-03-2008, 19:36
So, instead of making tanks static pillboxes by reducing their firepower when moving, we reduce their firepower when moving?

You confuse me, Lord Inquisitor.
Sorry... Ozendorph had what I was proposing right...

Keep things simple... just make it if you move up to 6" you can fire all of your weapons, up to 12" you can fire one.

Make this the same for fast and regular vehicles, it's never made much sense why ork trukks can move 12" and fire while razorbacks can't. Fast vehicles should simply be faster, not more stable firing platforms.

Defensive weapons aren't a bad idea but they should be... defensive. That pintel-mounted storm bolter or heavy stubber is there to keep enemy infantry away from the tank while it takes care of buisness - not allowing it to split fire makes it useless unless the tank is firing at infantry anyway.


Lord Inquisitor is actually suggesting an increase in fierpower for some tanks.

...

So Predator Annihilator with 3 lascannons can move and fire all three lascannons (big change), whereas a Predator Destructor with heavy bolters can move and fire both the S7 autocannon and the S5 heavy bolters (no change).

Not a bad idea but it probably needs fleshing out with regards to Fast vehicles etc.
Right. Although, fast vehicles won't be able to move-and-fire any faster than regular vehicles.

I don't think it would present any real balance issues because the only vehicles that would get a "boost" (i.e. bring them in line with all other vehicles) would be anti-tank-toting vehicles like the annihilator. Which would be more powerful against... other vehicles, who also get the ability to move-and-fire and should be able to keep out of the way...


So in essence it could boil down to the following perhaps:
Any normal vehicle moving up to and including 6 inches can fire all weapons.
Any fast vehicle moving up to and including 12 inches can fire all weapons.
This isn't a big change to now except it's a bit more streamlined and certain tanks with multiple S7 and greater weapons gain a bit more maneouvrability.
Only one difference - I wasn't suggesting fast vehicles should be able to move more than 6" and fire all weapons.


And given the increased price in points we pay for things like Predator Annihilators, Leman Russ Demolishers or Falcons with multiple heavy weapons, it's only fair.
Agreed - the new points values are steep enough to survive a little maneuverability.


Of course maintain a restriction on the firing of ordnance - i.e. the vehicle cannot fire any other weapons if it fires an ordnance weapon.
Of course not! Why?? It's always been a stupid rule. I don't know why anyone bothers putting expensive sponsons on Demolishers or Defilers. Leman Russ should be able to bring all of their guns to bear.


Vehicles should be less shooty, not more. Tanks and the like are support weapons, they aren't supposed to be the offensive monsters that the game makes them out to be. That is my one major issue with 40k, and always has been. Vehicles are way too easy to take out, and have way too much firepower at their disposal. Balance-wise its fine, but it doesn't really portray these vehicles/doctrine would work if it were a "real life" situation.
I don't really agree. Tanks are able to fire all of their weapons simultaneously whether they move or not.


One extra point I'd like to make is that we're probably going to see far fewer battle tanks in 5th edition. The troops as scoring thing will tend to mean you play games of orks vs marines, or whatever, not looted basilisks vs predators. That in itself is probably a good thing, but it also makes any changes to tanks less significant, simply because there won't be so many of them around.
I agree. Frankly, if the rumoured changes go through as they have been leaked, it would be the death-knell of any non-transport tanks, in my opinion. They're no more mobile and more fragile than ground troops.


I totally agree. This defensive weapon FUBAR is just a rule for a rule's sake and should be squashed. Troops should be used to defend vehicles, and vehicles should be optimised for taking out armor and other hard targets, like terminators and monstrous creatures. Expecting a non-superheavy vehicle to do it all is a dilution of effort. :evilgrin::skull::D
Well, defensive weapons as suggested (S4 or less, so stormbolters and heavy stubbers) are defensive weapons. Now if you could fire them against seperate targets - i.e. enemy infantry - they might be useful as defensive weapons.


Armour is never deployed without infantry support, this is true even in the Gulf War. A spearhead is just that, the tip of a spear, there is an entire shaft of infantry and support personnel right behind it.
...
Also, your evaluation of tanks in WW1 is faulty. They were intended to force a breakthrough, yes, but "delivering death themselves" is an overstatement." Sure they could kill, but the real killers are what followed behind to take advantage of the ground gained by them and the protection afforded by their armoured bulk absorbing the shots.
"Support personel behind it" - this is exactly what the major issue I have with the tanks not moving. Tanks should be able to move, at least as fast as infantry that are meant to be following it!

Currently, I can take a tank like a predator and move-and-fire effectively, allowing a squad to keep pace and use the bulk as cover. That's feels right, is historically accurate and looks damn cool on the board!

Doesn't sound like you think they should be static pillboxes either.


Historically, tankers have had to come to a complete or near complete stop to accurately place shots on enemy armour at any range(which present a much bigger target than infantry). Even the dreaded Germans in their King Tigers didn't have the skill or training to knock out enemy armour on the move, unless they got extremely lucky, they would come to a complete stop, take the shot, and then move on. The same holds true for all sides of the conflict during world war 2, with the exception of the Russians early on who were largely untrained and missed horribly, even when they were at a full stop. Even today it is difficult(even with the aid of computers) to accurately place shots on the move, although it is actually worth attempting nowadays.
True, but remember that the same is pretty much true of infantry too. Moving 6" in 40K represents moving quickly and stopping to fire, or moving slowly and firing. Either should be possible with a tank! Surely you don't think it unreasonable for a tank to be able to move-and-fire as fast as an infantryman walking?


Also, I would like to quickly point out that tanks rarely explode in real life. It is also very difficult to determine if a kill has been scored. Usually, the tank has been more than knocked out, and the crew has long since bailed by the time a tank has even started smoking. Tankers have long sworn by the rule that if it ain't burning you should keep pouring shots into it, even if it isn't shooting back.
Well, to be fair, they rarely explode in 40K. Still, we can allow some dramatic explosions from time to time! We are firing things like plasma cannons at them, so suspension of disbelief needs to be conceeded...

Midknightwraith
12-03-2008, 19:55
One extra point I'd like to make is that we're probably going to see far fewer battle tanks in 5th edition. The troops as scoring thing will tend to mean you play games of orks vs marines, or whatever, not looted basilisks vs predators. That in itself is probably a good thing, but it also makes any changes to tanks less significant, simply because there won't be so many of them around.

I'm going to disagree. I think you will see tanks in about the same numbers as you do now. I think we will see fewer infantry choices in the FA, and Elite slots to make up the extra points spent in the troops section, unless the scoring unit thing is changed to just infantry models instead of just troop infantry units.

Read your codexes! Most Troop selections come in at half the cost of units in the FA or Elite section (marines are an exception). My expectation is that most lists will trade out an expensive FA or Elite choice for a pair of additional troops (assuming the list wasn't running 4 Troops units already). Tanks rarely show up in those spots on the FOC. So I expect the HS part of most lists to remain unchanged. So not much shifting for tanks. I think if all the vehicle changes go through some of those tanks will change, but they won't go away.

Kalec
14-03-2008, 00:01
Fast vehicles that can't fire while moving fast are useless, especially skimmers. They are already very fragile, and if they can't shoot more then 1 gun while moving at the speed required to keep them from evaporating under fire then they are trash. Horribly overpriced trash.

Lord Inquisitor
14-03-2008, 00:23
Not if, as per the rumoured rules, they are able to gain the same benefits as SMF when hull down. Plus, since they don't crash when immobilised if they move less than 6"... what's the problem? If they can benefit from hull down and aren't destroyed on an immobilised then they're just as survivable as any vehicle of that armour value.

MadDogMike
14-03-2008, 02:15
I can't figure out why the whole flap about defensive weapons to begin with; you could only fire them at the same target as the main guns, which meant you either "wasted" the main gun on small targets or the defensive guns on big targets. The LOS requirements could also be a pain, and if they keep the "aim from the gun itself" requirement then going hull down will block LOS for most defensive weapons anyway since unlike the turret they're behind the cover. What the hell is so unbalanced about defensive weapons as is? I have yet to see a "broken" defensive weapon in play; GW is "fixing" a problem that to my knowledge never existed!

ehlijen
14-03-2008, 02:53
My suggestion would be:

Stationary: Everything shoots
moving slow: sponsons can't shoot, turrets are locked forward (it's easier to aim forward than sideways in a moving vehicle, especially if you'r not the one on the wheel), forward hull mounts can fire as they like.
moving fast: only pintle mounts and passenger operated guns can fire

ducki3x
14-03-2008, 06:45
I've got a new choice:
F: Base it on weapon AP value

For instance: all weapons with AP 4 or more are defensive, all weapons with AP 3 or less are offensive

Now, does this make logical sense in an absolute sense? No, since we could, theoretically, have S2 AP1 weapons. However, it just so happens that most of the current main weapons are AP3 or less guns and the most of the current defensive weapons are AP4 or more guns. In practice, it's much like we have now, but I think it's an idea we can consider.

I think this is a very reasonable idea, and perhaps provides a better definition for a defensive weapon any other attribute, including strength. A defensive weapon should be something that sprays fire against immediate inbound threats and infantry targets of opportunity, not something that attempts to crack armor.

The example you give for a theoretical exception is indeed possible, but is most likely an exception to an otherwise sound rule.

Wrath
15-03-2008, 07:15
Rather fond of the multi-shot version myself.

Xurben
15-03-2008, 10:31
how many of you have actually PLAYED the leaked rules?

The defensive weapon change is not that different, in actual play. Examples to follow;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leman Russ, Currently can move 6'' and fire 1 main and all defensive. Oh wait, you are going to fire the battle cannon anyway.. so nothing changes.

Predators, Anihilator = no change, destructor has to make a decision now on shots vs moving.

Land raider, losses 1 heavy bolter on the move
Crusader, must choose between AC and melta. no big deal.

Eldar tanks, may move 6'' and fire everything it has or 12'' and 1 gun plus the shuriken cats.

Orcs, the only people I can see really complaining. But how often do orcs hit anyhow.. meh. I see the trucks roll as getting the orcs to assault range, then any shooting they can do after is a bonus.

Dark eldar, see eldar tanks.

Necrons, no change

Sisters, no change

Demon hunters, see land raider

Chaos, see land raider and predator. defiler remains the same


----------------------------------------------------------------
If I missed an army.. it's 4am. Now one thing I see is everyone thinking this area terrain change means tanks can see the whole field. WRONG they can see through area terrain, but all terrain did not just magically turn into area terrain. Also if you are firing through this terrain as suggested, everything you shoot at is getting 4+ invuls. (most common cover save) You still don't want to move to get that cover off the target?

Add to that that tanks themselves are getting the same cover save as infantry and a better damage table and thats a HUGE improvement to their longevity. Yes, I think we will see land raiders in army lists finally. There is no way we can have these now hard as rock tanks rolling around blasting everything to death and maintain any sense of balance. The whole focus of 5th edition seems to be maneuvering and the tank changes just flows with that.

I was playing guard in 2nd edition, so I've seen the change to useless tanks. This is not it and far from it.

I welcome it 100%


If you have the pdf, play it. Don't theory craft holes into it, play it.

BrianGeneral
15-03-2008, 11:43
^Tau.
ALL their vehicle-borne weapons are more than Strength 5, and no matter it's Railgun or Ion Cannon on the top for killing infantry, both BC and SMS are good addition to compensate their firepower for their cost. But now what they gain from this rule?


The whole focus of 5th edition seems to be maneuvering and the tank changes just flows with that.
Even so, I don't see the reason of nerfing the Defensive Weapons at a level to what you're not going to use ever, especially when most of the weapons nowadays are more than Strength 5.

Xurben
15-03-2008, 12:09
I missed tau, but honestly tau tanks are eldar tanks with BETTER options and ballistic skill and armor.

How is move 6'' fire everything holding you back? Every Tau player I know takes the +1BS and move as fast upgrades already, they are just going to be even better after 5th. The point I was making is that this change effects ALL armies. Not just yours, adapt or die. This isn't chess, it's a living game that changes as we play on.

/peace

Skyth
15-03-2008, 13:36
It may affect all armies, but the effect is to make the game less fun for all armies...

Xurben
15-03-2008, 14:01
Ah another naysayer.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but as I have said in a couple other posts. Play the new rules, don't whine about them until you have. If you have already done so, then I guess I'll just say that we disagree on what is "fun".

It being a personal opinion. I'm discussing facts, not opinions.

Fact is, there are only a handful of tank/vehicles this will have any effect on and for the most part they are vehicles that are now (4th edition) overpowered and tournament standards.

Discuss.

Mandragola
15-03-2008, 14:51
Xurben the fact is that everyone's defensive weapons have been nerfed.

That isn't unbalancing, though it reduces the effectiveness of some tanks that are currently very effective.

The whole point of vehicles is, currently, to provide mobile firepower. If my tanks have to stay still to fire then why take them at all? I'll just take another unit of infantry troops with some anti-horde weaponry.

Ordnance will be even less effective than it is now, especially with the removal of "annihilated" results on transports. Anti horde tanks will be better replaced with troops, heavy guns will be replaced by devastators and so on.

I can't see people taking things like predator annihilators when they will be able to take a 10 man dev squad split into combat squads with a couple of heavy weps in each. The infantry will just be better.

Personally I like the fact that vehicles can move and shoot their guns. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that a space marine sitting in the sponson of a predator or land raider, surrounded by targetting equipment and probably hard wired in, can't fire his heavy bolter on the move - yet ork boyz can still fire a heavy shoota 36" off the roof of a fast moving trukk. They should just remove the defensive weapon rule and allow vehicles to fire all their guns at up to 6" movement, or 12" for fast.

Xurben
15-03-2008, 15:03
Predator annihilators are completely unchanged by this.. How will they suddenly stop being used when they now will receive cover saves?

Any tank with ordinance weapons will still be better off firing that rather then it's secondary guns. (hey, just like now!) The heavy bolter pred and the eldar/tau skimmers are the only changes really. Yet eldar players aren't throwing fits, in fact most are happy about the cover saves and better damage tables they will be receiving.

So, where is this horrible change going to nerf all tanks? (in a way that cannot be compensated by existing weapon options)

Examples would help me understand here..

BrianGeneral
15-03-2008, 15:12
Predator annihilators are completely unchanged by this.. How will they suddenly stop being used when they now will receive cover saves?

Any tank with ordinance weapons will still be better off firing that rather then it's secondary guns. (hey, just like now!) The heavy bolter pred and the eldar/tau skimmers are the only changes really. Yet eldar players aren't throwing fits, in fact most are happy about the cover saves and better damage tables they will be receiving.

So, where is this horrible change going to nerf all tanks? (in a way that cannot be compensated by existing weapon options)

Examples would help me understand here..
Not just tanks. For one of such example, Tornado Speeders. Assault Cannon + Heavy Bolter= dead hordes. Now in the newer codex, they made them more expensive, nerfing Rending rule (which I can understand), so what's the point to take it as a mobile stopper for even a vanlla Marine army?

Bunnahabhain
15-03-2008, 15:23
Lots of people with Russes will fire 3 heavy bolters in preference to the Battlecannon, as they are much more relaible. Against small, spaced out squads, the ordnance blast can easily miss entirely, the heavy bolters tend to do more damage. There are enemies out there who don't have 3+ saves, so heavy bolters make a mess of very nicely.

For anyone using the Leman Russ Exterminator (TL autocannon, 3 heavy bolters, and a pintle stubber), which is a dedicated anti- horde vehicle, they always move and fire everything, as they can without penalty, and it makes them less vunerable to assualt troops.

So the only armies significantly effected are Tau, Eldar, Guard, Marines, and Orks, all of whom clearly have massivley overpowered vehicles that dominate every game, due to their ability to move and fire medium strength weapons...

You sure you're playing the same 40k as everyone else on the thread?

EDIT: Turn sarcasm dectector on, I'm irrediambley English....

BrianGeneral
15-03-2008, 15:41
Lots of people with Russes will fire 3 heavy bolters in preference to the Battlecannon, as they are much more relaible. Against small, spaced out squads, the ordnance blast can easily miss entirely, the heavy bolters tend to do more damage. There are enemies out there who don't have 3+ saves, so heavy bolters make a mess of very nicely.

For anyone using the Leman Russ Exterminator (TL autocannon, 3 heavy bolters, and a pintle stubber), which is a dedicated anti- horde vehicle, they always move and fire everything, as they can without penalty, and it makes them less vunerable to assualt troops.

So the only armies significantly effected are Tau, Eldar, Guard, Marines, and Orks, all of whom clearly have massivley overpowered vehicles that dominate every game, due to their ability to move and fire medium strength weapons...

You sure you're playing the same 40k as everyone else on the thread?
Tau vehicles aren't that overpowered IMO. As I play Tau I can tell they aren't that powerful and they eat up lots of points in their army.
But honestly most of other armies are rocked hard by this change.

Mandragola
15-03-2008, 15:55
Predator annihilators are completely unchanged by this.. How will they suddenly stop being used when they now will receive cover saves?

Let me try to explain.

Lots and lots of people use predator annihilators with heavy bolter sponsons. It isn't uncommon to see marine armies with three of these. Currently they provide mobile firepower that can engage any target in the game, which is good. Lots of people prefer to have 3 of these instead of an immobile lascannon pred and a dedicated anti infantry tank that is only marginally better even against 4+ saves and worse in every other situation.

3 lascannon predators are unchanged, apart from that they aren't now scoring. They remain avery expensive, poorly armoured, static anti-tank unit. A few people might take them but most people don't use them even now.

Lots of the tanks that you most commonly see, falcons, predators, hammerheads and so on, are taking a very significant drop in their firepower. Hammerheads will feel this the least, since they have the least effective defensive weapons and the most effective main weapons. Falcons will feel it worst.

Why is it that a tank with only one gun, a leman russ or exorcist for example, can fire to full effect on the move but a tank with multiple smaller guns can't? There really is no logic to it at all. You can't tell me it's easier for a sister of battle to play the piano on the back of a moving tank than it is to fire a sponson weapon.

Alexandr Ulyanov
15-03-2008, 18:04
Any tank with ordinance weapons will still be better off firing that rather then it's secondary guns. (hey, just like now!)

That's total crap. Ordnance is incredibly inaccurate in 4th, to the point that it only directly hits(regardless of BS) about 1/3 of the time, and on scatters it only hits on a roll of 2 or less with a partial on larger targets with 3s, which amounts to only about a 55%(normal target) or 61%(big target) chance of hitting when the vehicle firing it is stationary. Also, if the vehicle moves and fires its ordnance, its chances of a hit drop to about 39% due to the extra die of scatter. And, with that consideration, it's often more damaging statistically to fire 4 defensive weapons instead against any target not surrounded by other targets. Consider a leman russ firing at a hive tyrant.

Choice #1:
defensive vs. hive tyrant (mobile or stationary)
9 heavy bolter shots, 4.5 hits, 1.5 wounds
3 heavy stubber shots, 1.5 hits, 0.25 wounds
-saves=0.58333

Choice #2:
Ordnance S8 AP3 (stationary)
1 shot, hits 0.61, wounds 0.508, no save
0.508 wounds

Choice #3:
Ordnance S8 AP3 (mobile)
1 shot, 0.39 hits, 0.325 wounds, no save
0.325 wounds

Against things that are actually very vulnerable to the defensive weapons such as infantry without 3+ or better saves the defensive weapons are better by an even greater margin. The only things the ordnance is better for are longer range pot-shots and firing into huge crowds.

Lord Inquisitor
15-03-2008, 18:59
That's total crap. Ordnance is incredibly inaccurate in 4th, to the point that it only hits a lone monstrous creature about 1/3 of the time.
I use defilers a lot and it is virtually never that I won't use the battlecannon. And it hits way more than 1/3 of the time. If it scatters 1-2 inches, that's still a hit. 3 inches and it's a partial. You have to scatter 4 inches to miss it completely.


And, with that consideration, it's often more damaging statistically to fire 4 defensive weapons instead. Consider a leman russ.

defensive vs. hive tyrant
9 heavy bolter shots, 4.5 hits, 1.5 wounds
3 heavy stubber shots, 1.5 hits, 0.25 wounds
-saves=0.58333

Ordnance S8 AP3
1 shot, hits 0.333, wounds 0.2775, no save
0.2775 wounds
It is much better to deal with absolute probabilities than this "average wounds" buisness which can be misleading.

Probability of inflicting 1 or more wounds with one attack (3 heavy bolters + 1 heavy stubber) versus one battlecannon shot, assuming a 3+ save.

Bolters & stubber
Probability of inflicting at least one wound
= 1-(probability of failing to wound with all of them)
= 1-((1-((1/2)*(1/6)*(1/3))^3)*((1-((1/2)*(1/3)*(1/3)))^9))
= 0.4
= 40% chance

Battlecannon
P= ((1/3)*(5/6))+((2/3)*(1/3)*(5/6))+((2/3)*(1/6)*(1/2)*(5/6))
= 0.51
= 51% chance

Now, the heavy bolters have the advantage that you might inflict more than one wound on the beastie. Then again, there is the chance that your battlecannon will scatter onto another target.

Battlecannon wins in this case.

MegaPope
15-03-2008, 23:34
I can't understand why there's this sudden urge to make vehicles largely static again. If they can't count as 'scoring' units anyway, where's the harm in having them mobile? As it is, they'd surely just be Aunt Sallies for assault troops.

Time was when you'd take a vehicle because it gave you some mobile firepower. That was the true choice that use to be made - vehicles didn't pack that much more firepower than a kitted out heavy weapons squad, but they could fight on the move. This was their biggest advantage back in 2ed. (along with near-total immunity to all small arms). The downside was that a single hit from AT weaponry stood at least a 50% chance of blowing them to bits if they took it in the hull - where most shots were most likely to hit.

That dichotomy pretty much still exists today - except that most vehicles now have at least one section of armour that can be affected by small arms, and they are less effective at firing on the move. Neither can most of them movevery far anyway.

Good lord, just let all tanks unload all their guns at a reasonable speed (12" or so) , even if they can't split their fire - bugger strength values/ordnance/skimmer-ground vehicle restrictions. Hell, let them try to run over enemy infantry as they move (good luck with those Initiative tests!:D).

Just leave it up to the dice to decide how good they are on any given turn. That's normally what happens now anyway. They'll still be support units, clearing objectives of enemy units, so that your own troops can then occupy them. They'll still be unable to take objectives alone. There still won't be that many of them (unless the tank company somehow still manages to exist otside Apoc). And they'll still be destroyable with a single hit from a big enough gun or a giant hand:D. Just like they are now;).

Except that they'll be even more fun and dynamic to use.

Partisan Rimmo
16-03-2008, 00:56
I feel reducing it to S4 for defensive is a bit of a typical GW over swing. If it was made S5, then heavy bolters on tanks would return to being purposeful, but as it is they've been scuppered, and just after the trouble everyone went to of sticking them on...

EDIT* Just read MegaPope's post. A fascinating point. Tanks are less vulnerable, and have less shoot on the move capacity. They are in fact becoming more like infantry in how they function. My, combined with the new obsession for 'Universal Special Rules' for every unit, I sometimes fear this game is on a slide towards homogeneity.

BrianGeneral
16-03-2008, 01:28
My, combined with the new obsession for 'Universal Special Rules' for every unit, I sometimes fear this game is on a slide towards homogeneity.
It's my fear as well. Troops being only scoring units, a great boost for infantry AND CC, while toning down vehicles by quite a lot means that we'll see less variety of lists due to the presence of vehicles, instead we'll just see hordes of MEQs.

Imperialis_Dominatus
16-03-2008, 02:59
I think the best solution is the simplest - do away with the whole "defensive weapons" thing...

- All vehicles may move 6" and fire all weapons
- All vehicles may fire one weapon if it moves over 6"
- No vehicle may fire any weapons if it moves over 12"

I don't see any reason to exempt fast vehicles from this.

I agree, this is a great system IMHO. Very much as vehicles should be- mobile firepower, and with the new Fifth rules nice and 'ard.


Finally, we really should be allowed to fire Ordinance and secondary weapons. Make those Defiler autocannons and Russ sponsons worth something.

They're worth something if the opponent destroys the big gun, but I agree with you here- the price for sponsons and hull weapons and the like on Ordnance-toting vehicles should be cut or they should be made useful. However, I feel that a Demolisher with Plasma Sponsons and a Heavy Bolter hull weapon might be a tad overpowered firing all that in one turn on the move.


So, instead of making tanks static pillboxes by reducing their firepower when moving, we reduce their firepower when moving?

You confuse me, Lord Inquisitor.

Indeed he seems to, as you have interpreted his work... oddly. ;)


Optionally, little guns like stubbers and stormbolters could be fired at separate targets, suddenly validating an untold number of GW tank illustrations.

All those Orks are in the same unit! Honest! Same with the Trukk! :D


Vehicles should be less shooty, not more. Tanks and the like are support weapons, they aren't supposed to be the offensive monsters that the game makes them out to be. That is my one major issue with 40k, and always has been. Vehicles are way too easy to take out, and have way too much firepower at their disposal. Balance-wise its fine, but it doesn't really portray these vehicles/doctrine would work if it were a "real life" situation.

I agree with you that vehicles thus far are way too easy to take out, but I think vehicles as portrayed in 40k's universe and, as per cailus' post, are closer to the offensive monsters than you might imagine.


The whole point of vehicles is, currently, to provide mobile firepower. If my tanks have to stay still to fire then why take them at all? I'll just take another unit of infantry troops with some anti-horde weaponry.

Totally agreed. If I bothered with battle-tank style units at all (I just use transports now, and suspect more will in 5th), I'd switch to infantry in 5th, definitely. Tanks and the like (save for alien techno-witchery ;)) just aren't nearly as survivable as your basic, good sized infantry squad, and if they can't move and fire there's little advantage to them over said infantry.


I feel reducing it to S4 for defensive is a bit of a typical GW over swing. If it was made S5, then heavy bolters on tanks would return to being purposeful, but as it is they've been scuppered, and just after the trouble everyone went to of sticking them on...

Exactly! I think if any change should be made to defensive weapons, it should be to S5 or RoF. Otherwise, they're doing to battle tanks what they did to psykers in the 2nd-3rd transition of editions.


EDIT* Just read MegaPope's post. A fascinating point. Tanks are less vulnerable, and have less shoot on the move capacity. They are in fact becoming more like infantry in how they function. My, combined with the new obsession for 'Universal Special Rules' for every unit, I sometimes fear this game is on a slide towards homogeneity.

Perhaps the rules may seem to be, but for those who care about uniqueness and variety, there's always the heart of where those two qualities always were in this hobby- the background, modeling, and painting. Well, three hearts then. It's like a Space Marine but better. But still.

Codsticker
16-03-2008, 06:39
Totally agreed. If I bothered with battle-tank style units at all (I just use transports now, and suspect more will in 5th), I'd switch to infantry in 5th, definitely. Tanks and the like (save for alien techno-witchery ;)) just aren't nearly as survivable as your basic, good sized infantry squad, and if they can't move and fire there's little advantage to them over said infantry.

Well... perhaps that is all part of GW's grand plan to pull out of their slump:

"First, well release Apocalypse where you can field as many tanks as you like and we will sell BIG BOXES of tanks so everyone buys tanks. Then, we will change all the rules so that tanks totally and completely suxxorz and everyone who doesn't want their **** handed to them will have to buy boxes and boxes of infantry...MWA-HA-HA-HAAAAaaaaa!!!"


...or something like that.

Mandragola
16-03-2008, 10:51
I also think that people will switch to transports in a big way.

Why take a falcon in 5th when you can have a wave serpent with a twin linked bright lance? It's actually more effective at killing enemy vehicles on the move than the falcon, it's cheaper, it gives away 1 kill point instead of 2 and it gets to deploy on the board in dawn of war.

The same goes for marines. Why take an annihilator when you could have a razorback? You lose out on the front armour but save a stack of points.

I think that one gun, fighting transports will be the real winners in 5th. They will have the same firepower as a battle tank on the move but cost less, give away less and show up reliably.

BrianGeneral
16-03-2008, 11:34
I also think that people will switch to transports in a big way.

Why take a falcon in 5th when you can have a wave serpent with a twin linked bright lance? It's actually more effective at killing enemy vehicles on the move than the falcon, it's cheaper, it gives away 1 kill point instead of 2 and it gets to deploy on the board in dawn of war.

The same goes for marines. Why take an annihilator when you could have a razorback? You lose out on the front armour but save a stack of points.

I think that one gun, fighting transports will be the real winners in 5th. They will have the same firepower as a battle tank on the move but cost less, give away less and show up reliably.
After thinking about your words, suddenly I like Devilfish to come with a slot for Battlesuit weapons instead of that flimsy Burst Cannon.:D

Or one can not to use vehicles at all because of vehicle nerf and running.

Imperialis_Dominatus
16-03-2008, 13:55
Well... perhaps that is all part of GW's grand plan to pull out of their slump:

"First, well release Apocalypse where you can field as many tanks as you like and we will sell BIG BOXES of tanks so everyone buys tanks. Then, we will change all the rules so that tanks totally and completely suxxorz and everyone who doesn't want their **** handed to them will have to buy boxes and boxes of infantry...MWA-HA-HA-HAAAAaaaaa!!!"


...or something like that.

Oh yes, more evil-mustache twirling from them. Well, I've got everything I need (mech assault Chaos FTW!) so they won't be getting my wallet! *insert my evil laugh, which is just too damn scary to type and would make GW's evil laugh run away screaming like a pantsed schoolgirl*.

Raellos
16-03-2008, 14:50
If vehicles don't count as scoring units, I don't see the point in these rules. S5, maybe, but S4 is rather prohibitive. I can't see how my russ can't fire it's full compliment of heavy bolters as it trundles towards the enemy. Still, seeing is this as an early leak, then I can hope that this rule has been changed.

Apart from S4 defensive, I'm altogether quite chuffed with the rest of the ruleset.

commander of the marines
16-03-2008, 17:28
srr for saying this but today vehicules are mobile: firing there canon and spraying the incoming infantery with mg fire.

what's the point in taking a heavy bolter (= heavy machine gun) if you can fire only your lascanon)

The SkaerKrow
16-03-2008, 17:50
*insert my evil laugh, which is just too damn scary to type and would make GW's evil laugh run away screaming like a pantsed schoolgirl*.Don't Schoolgirls wear Skirts, not Pants? How do you pants someone who doesn't have pants on? I think you've just created a fashion paradox.

Personally, I'd say that S5 is where the Defensive Weapon cutoff should be, since S5 weapons are still primarily intended to deal with Infantry. That said, I'd like Armor 10 to be phased out from everything short of light Skimmer vehicles.

Skyth
17-03-2008, 01:26
It really should stay strength 6. That is how everyone has thier armies built and it isn't overpowering.

Imperialis_Dominatus
17-03-2008, 01:59
Don't Schoolgirls wear Skirts, not Pants? How do you pants someone who doesn't have pants on? I think you've just created a fashion paradox.

That's how evil my laugh is. It creates paradoxes. Or schoolgirls aren't willing to wear skirts around it. Either way, or both.


Personally, I'd say that S5 is where the Defensive Weapon cutoff should be, since S5 weapons are still primarily intended to deal with Infantry. That said, I'd like Armor 10 to be phased out from everything short of light Skimmer vehicles.

Agreed.

Eirich
17-03-2008, 11:00
S5 def weapons sounds better than S4, maybe even apply a AP limit to it.
If it will turn out as the rumor has it then i'll probably let my Hammerhead rest and send in another trio of Broadsides, or why no two?
9 mobile TL-Railguns, won't that make you complain?
Anyway you shouldn't rely upon armorvalues, a single glancing and the guns are silenced for a round...

kokujin_atsuhara
17-03-2008, 12:17
Personally, I'd say that S5 is where the Defensive Weapon cutoff should be, since S5 weapons are still primarily intended to deal with Infantry. That said, I'd like Armor 10 to be phased out from everything short of light Skimmer vehicles.


Why S5 and not S4?
Or S6?

Are the S6 weapons like Shuriken cannon aren't intenden to kill infantry?
Or scatter laser?

I think that defensive weapons must remain like now, or:
- Be applied to FP5 weapons. These are weapons created to deal with the vast majority of infantry, fluffwise.
- Be applied to assault weapon. If a men could shoot a flamer while running or any other activity (no CaC), a vehicle must can (and gives sense to the rumour of assault canon changin from assaulto to heavy)

Hrafn
17-03-2008, 13:17
Why S5 and not S4?
Or S6?

Because some posters can't seem to think outside their own little box:(
I really, really don't get this clamouring for S5 and not S6 defensive weapons. It makes no difference for Imperial players, but a huge difference to Eldar players. S5 would be a disadvantage to Eldar and a great advantage to Imperial players. So, could anyone please tell me why the combined effect of these two are so diserable?


Are the S6 weapons like Shuriken cannon aren't intenden to kill infantry?Or scatter laser?

No, apparently not :rolleyes:

Midknightwraith
17-03-2008, 14:30
I think that defensive weapons must remain like now, or:
- Be applied to FP5 weapons. These are weapons created to deal with the vast majority of infantry, fluffwise.

This would give too much of a disavantage to Imperial Armies, who's HBs would not be Defensive (AP4), vs things like the Eldar ShurikenCannon(AP5) or Scatter Laser(AP6), which would be.


- Be applied to assault weapon. If a men could shoot a flamer while running or any other activity (no CaC), a vehicle must can (and gives sense to the rumour of assault canon changin from assaulto to heavy)

Totally agree, but then BrightLance/DarkLance need to change from Assault Weapons to Heavy. Honestly not sure why they were ever assault weapons to begin with. I'm sure there are other weapons that would also need changing in this reguard. Then again maybe not, thinking about what carries those.

I'm not a fan of S4 Defensive weapons, but I can live with it. making them S5 is out of the question. Besides, think about how HBs match up vs. the S6 weapons. MEQs have BS4, vs BS3 for most of the other races, and T4 vs T3. A HB will typically hit as often (or even more often), and has the same chance to wound vs non-MEQs as ScatterLaser/Shuriken Cannon/Tau equivalent(Burst Cannons?)/Destroyer Gun has of wounding MEQs. The only real difference is MEQs get a save. The only real disadvantage is for the Guard when fighting marines, but they get Pie-Plates and lots more weapons/troopers for the points, to make up for it.

So, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I might be inclined to believe this is yet another example of GW making a rules change to benefit, and thereby sell more marines. Follow the logic. While Defensive at S4 hits everybody equally. It gives Marines an advantage because S4 weapons don't hurt them as bad as nearly everybody else.

Of course on the other hand it means 4+ Sv troops are somewhat safer approaching Imperial vehicles now. Since they can't move and fire all those save denying weapons. Like I said I'm fine with S4, but it's S4 or S6, not S5.

kokujin_atsuhara
17-03-2008, 14:42
This would give too much of a disavantage to Imperial Armies, who's HBs would not be Defensive (AP4), vs things like the Eldar ShurikenCannon(AP5) or Scatter Laser(AP6), which would be.



Totally agree, but then BrightLance/DarkLance need to change from Assault Weapons to Heavy. Honestly not sure why they were ever assault weapons to begin with. I'm sure there are other weapons that would also need changing in this reguard. Then again maybe not, thinking about what carries those.

I'm not a fan of S4 Defensive weapons, but I can live with it. making them S5 is out of the question. Besides, think about how HBs match up vs. the S6 weapons. MEQs have BS4, vs BS3 for most of the other races, and T4 vs T3. A HB will typically hit as often (or even more often), and has the same chance to wound vs non-MEQs as ScatterLaser/Shuriken Cannon/Tau equivalent(Burst Cannons?)/Destroyer Gun has of wounding MEQs. The only real difference is MEQs get a save. The only real disadvantage is for the Guard when fighting marines, but they get Pie-Plates and lots more weapons/troopers for the points, to make up for it.

So, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I might be inclined to believe this is yet another example of GW making a rules change to benefit, and thereby sell more marines. Follow the logic. While Defensive at S4 hits everybody equally. It gives Marines an advantage because S4 weapons don't hurt them as bad as nearly everybody else.

Of course on the other hand it means 4+ Sv troops are somewhat safer approaching Imperial vehicles now. Since they can't move and fire all those save denying weapons. Like I said I'm fine with S4, but it's S4 or S6, not S5.

About the FP5...well, that's a good reason.

But DarkLances are heavy, not assault, so there will no problem.

Missile launcher and desintegrators have raised its value.

Bunnahabhain
17-03-2008, 15:16
Strength is still the the best way to define defensive weapons, as weapon type, AP, or rate of fire all have notable exceptions.

S6, with any weapon capabale of firing in a mode above S6 counting as a main weapon. Missile launchers switching between main and defensive depending on which missile you fire is daft.

That, or any weapon with 2 or more shots, or an assualt weapon, as most flamer type weapons should be defensive.

Lord Inquisitor
17-03-2008, 15:35
Now wait a second here.

I think the S4 thing about "defensive weapons" makes perfect sense.

No, a shuriken cannon is not a defensive weapon. It's an anti-infantry weapon. Ditto for the heavy bolter. They're offensive weapons, designed to allow the tank to attack enemy formations in a serious way.

A predator with heavy bolter sponsons doesn't have them there "just in case". They're there so that the tank can engage infantry formations at range according to the commander's orders. Now, the pintel-mounted storm bolter is a defensive weapon. It's there so a crewmember can keep any pesky infiltrators away from their tracks while the big guns get on with engaging the enemy proper.

As for Eldar vehicles, no, shuriken cannons are not "defensive" weapons, nor are scatterlasers or anything else. Those are, again, primary anti-infantry weapon systems. Your twin-linked catapults your grav-tanks come with? They're "defensive"...

Now, what's wrong with the whole idea of "defensive" weapons is twofold: firstly, you can't split fire. So they're used in exactly the same manner as main weapons. There's nothing defensive about them at all. Exactly why they're good for moving-and-shooting noone has made it clear to me... if anything, machine-stabilised lascannon on sponson mounts should be more accurate on the move than some poor bugger being bounced around on top of a chimera trying to point a stubber at someone.

Obviously, there's a game-balance issue here, but as I said before, I see no real value in the current defensive weapons rules. Which brings me to my second point - the only thing these rules do is make anti-infantry tanks more points-effective than anti-tank ones. Why, precisely, anti-tank-fitted tanks are unbalancing beats me - especially since if you make them more effective, they're more effective against other tanks, which will also be more effective... you get my point.

For defensive weapons to be worthwhile, you need the following:
Allow, at a minimum, the vehicle to fire it's main weapons at one target and it's defensive weapons at a second
Allow defensive weapons to be fired in addition to other weapons (including ordinance!)

Now, personally I would say for vehicles in general to be effective, we need the following:
Vehicles should be able to move-and-fire, at least moving as fast as infantry walking
Vehicles should be able to fire ordinance and other weapon systems

Codsticker
17-03-2008, 16:18
... pantsed schoolgirl.

:eek:

I quite like the defensive weapons as they are now- my chimeras actually have the opportunity to inflict casualties before they are destroyed. :(

Midknightwraith
17-03-2008, 16:57
Lord Inquisitor - Good points. and I totally agree that their are problems with defensive weapons, that don't make logical sense. The change from 2nd to 3rd was for game balance to limit the number of units any one unit can engage. How this was supposed to make it easier to balance units I am not sure. As I am also not sure how they let the Vibro-Cannon slip through, or justify the D-Cannon being the same cost, is likewise beyond me!

And I like your proposals. Defensive weapons should be able to fire at different targets. What those weapons should be doesn't bother me too much. I'm even okay with sponson lascannons firing as defensive, I know I am alone on this. However, if this is to be the rule, I would like defensive weapons to be required to fire at the closest visible target, the end. Because that is what they should be doing anyway.

There is also the argument that they do fire, but because of the movement their effectiveness basically becomes zero. While I don't disagree with this from the standpoint of taking models off the board. The problem is there is no supression rule. The closest thing 40k has is pinning, and to my knowledge none of the current crop of defensive weapons has this rule. Causing casualties is the alternative, but that is going away. I don't know what the answer is, but I am fairly confident that S4 defensive weapons isn't it. While, I don't mind the change. I do think it makes the game less fun if you take vehicles.

I've posted in other similar threads about my prediction for tanks/vehicles in 5th. The readers digest version: You will see single purpose tanks, generally with fewer weapons, and probably in less numbers, along with a resurgence of transports. The Falcon with more than a Shuriken Cannon or ScatterLaser is dead. If it is used at all it will be solely for it's transport capacity. It's days as a fast gunship are over.

On the plus side Land Speeder Tornadoes are also getting spanked by this, maybe I won't be kidded for fielding my regular landspeeders as much anymore, ho hum.

Alexandr Ulyanov
17-03-2008, 19:55
It is much better to deal with absolute probabilities than this "average wounds" buisness which can be misleading.

Why?



Probability of inflicting 1 or more wounds with one attack (3 heavy bolters + 1 heavy stubber) versus one battlecannon shot, assuming a 3+ save.

Bolters & stubber
Probability of inflicting at least one wound
= 1-(probability of failing to wound with all of them)
= 1-((1-((1/2)*(1/6)*(1/3))^3)*((1-((1/2)*(1/3)*(1/3)))^9))
= 0.4
= 40% chance

Sir, you here either messed up or purposefully distorted the figures. Your estimate is off by over 5%. Proof:

The chance of failing to wound after saves with all of the heavy bolters weapons is actually:
p(not success)=1-p(one success)=1-(1/2*1/3*1/3=0.0556)=.944
(9 choose 9)=1
P (9 of 9 fail)= (1) (0.944^9)(0.0556)^(0) =0.595
by the binomial probability formula.
Therefore, the chance of getting at least one wound with the heavy bolters alone is 40.5%

The chance of failing to wound after saves with all of the heavy stubbers is actually:
p(not success)=0.972
(3 choose 3)=1
P(3 of 3 fail)=.972^3=0.919
Therefore, the chance of getting at least one wound with the heavy stubber alone is 8%.
Probability of heavy bolters or heavy stubber scoring a wound=
P(A or B)=P(A)+P(B)-P(A and B)
=.405+.08-(.08*.405)=.485-.0324=45.3% chance



Battlecannon wins in this case.
Does it? All you've shown is that it has a marginally better chance of scoring a single wound, and the currently defensive weapons have marginal chances of scoring multiple wounds.

Midknightwraith
18-03-2008, 21:31
Lord Inquisitor and Alexandr Ulyanov. As far as I can tell you are both off.

a single stubber shot has the following probability of not wounding
1/2 (chance to miss) +
1/2 * 1/6 (chance to hit and fail to wound) +
1/2 * 5/6 * 2/3 (chance to hit, wound, and make a save) ~ 0.8611

For three such shots to not wound would be 3c3 * p(stubber shot not wounding)^3 * p(stubber wounding)^0 ~ 0.6385

A single Heavy Bolter shot not wounding is
1/2 (chance to miss) +
1/2 * 1/3 (chance to hit and fail to wound) +
1/2 * 2/3 * 2/3 (chance to hit, wound, and make a save) ~ 0.8889

For nine such shots to not wound would be 9c9 * p(stubber shot not wounding)^9 * p(stubber wounding)^0 ~ 0.3464

For the combined shooting to completely fail to wound it is the product of the two preceeding probabilities 0.6385 * 0.3464 ~ 0.2212.

the chance to get at least 1 casualty from this fusilade is 1 - 0.2212, or approximately 78.9%. Without doing the math I suspect the average result is about 1-2 casualties with a standard deviation less than 0.75.

Good lord I think I just trippled the geekiness level of this thread with a single post!

Hrafn
18-03-2008, 21:53
Now wait a second here.

I think the S4 thing about "defensive weapons" makes perfect sense.

No, a shuriken cannon is not a defensive weapon. It's an anti-infantry weapon. Ditto for the heavy bolter. They're offensive weapons, designed to allow the tank to attack enemy formations in a serious way.


Interesting post. I more or less agree.

Let me clarify that I do not mind S4 defensive weapons that much. What I objected strongly against was S5 defensive weapons - solely from a balance POV.

Lord Inquisitor
18-03-2008, 23:17
Why? [are probabilities better than "average wounds"]
Because... let's say you're firing an assault cannon at a hive tyrant and (completely making up the numbers here) you work out that you will cause on average 2.9 wounds. So you conclude that you won't kill the tyrant, on average, with one fussilade. But that doesn't tell you what the probability that you will kill the tyrant. That probability could be, I don't know, 40% or it could be 20%. There's a big difference there and I don't know what it is just by looking at the average wounds. That's why it's sometimes misleading.


Sir, you here either messed up or purposefully distorted the figures. Your estimate is off by over 5%. Proof:
Okay, well... if I made an error it was an honest one ;)

(Edit: Okay, I checked my calculation:
1-((1-((1/2)*(1/6)*(1/3))^3)*((1-((1/2)*(1/3)*(1/3)))^9)) - I missed a bracket, it should have been:
1-(((1-((1/2)*(1/6)*(1/3)))^3)*((1-((1/2)*(1/3)*(1/3)))^9)) = 0.45
So you're right ... stupid excel and stupid brackets ... anything not to blame stupid me :rolleyes:)

Anyway... let's assume you're right... and...


Probability of heavy bolters or heavy stubber scoring a wound=
P(A or B)=P(A)+P(B)-P(A and B)
=.405+.08-(.08*.405)=.485-.0324=45.3% chance

... that's still lower than my calculated value for the battle cannon. Which is the point I was trying to make - there are very few occasions it is worth firing the "defensive" weapons over the battle cannon. One thing that IS true is that my ordinance calculation assumes a stationary vehicle, not a moving one ... but it wouldn't make much difference, honest. :angel:

Personally, I think they should just remove the restriction from firing Ordinance and non-Ordinance. I played a game with that house rule last week and it was hardly game-altering but it made actually paying points for decent sponson weapons on ordinance-toting vehicles more attractive.


Does it? All you've shown is that it has a marginally better chance of scoring a single wound, and the currently defensive weapons have marginal chances of scoring multiple wounds.
What it shows is that there isn't much use for secondary weapon systems like heavy bolters as you're almost always better off - or no worse off - firing the ordinance.


Lord Inquisitor and Alexandr Ulyanov. As far as I can tell you are both off.

a single stubber shot has the following probability of not wounding
1/2 (chance to miss) +
1/2 * 1/6 (chance to hit and fail to wound) +
1/2 * 5/6 * 2/3 (chance to hit, wound, and make a save) ~ 0.8611
For starters, that 5/6 should be a 1/6, right? (Edit: No, wait, I see why you've done that now...)

We're just doing probability for the sake of it now, aren't we.

Probability of hitting = 1/2
P of wounding = 1/6
P of failing a save = 1/3
P of inflicting a wound with a single shot = 1/2 * 1/6 * 1/3 = 1/36

So probability of failing to inflict a wound with a single shot is 1-(1/36) = 35/36 = 0.97

I don't know what you're doing but it don't look right to me... ;)

Alexandr Ulyanov
18-03-2008, 23:21
Lord Inquisitor and Alexandr Ulyanov. As far as I can tell you are both off.

a single stubber shot has the following probability of not wounding
1/2 (chance to miss) +
1/2 * 1/6 (chance to hit and fail to wound) +
1/2 * 5/6 * 2/3 (chance to hit, wound, and make a save) ~ 0.8611

That math is not correct. You can only add the probabilities when events are mutually exclusive. Missing, failing to wound, and wounding but having it saved are not independent.
To find the probability of one OR two OR three dependent events happening, you have to add their probabilities and then subtract the probability of both happening from that.

As such your results should be dismissed completely.



Good lord I think I just trippled the geekiness level of this thread with a single post!
No, to increase the geekiness level you'd have to be right.


Because... let's say you're firing an assault cannon at a hive tyrant and (completely making up the numbers here) you work out that you will cause on average 2.9 wounds. So you conclude that you won't kill the tyrant, on average, with one fussilade. But that doesn't tell you what the probability that you will kill the tyrant. That probability could be, I don't know, 40% or it could be 20%. There's a big difference there and I don't know what it is just by looking at the average wounds. That's why it's sometimes misleading.
Average wounds should generally indicate the most likely result, though not how much more likely that outcome is than the others. Probabilties give both, but neither is an invalid measure.



Okay, well... if I made an error it was an honest one ;)

No problem. I make them too sometimes.



Personally, I think they should just remove the restriction from firing Ordinance and non-Ordinance. I played a game with that house rule last week and it was hardly game-altering but it made actually paying points for decent sponson weapons on ordinance-toting vehicles more attractive.

Agreed.



What it shows is that there isn't much use for secondary weapon systems like heavy bolters as you're almost always better off - or no worse off - firing the ordinance.

disagreed.

Mulciber
19-03-2008, 00:58
So the only armies significantly effected are Tau, Eldar, Guard, Marines, and Orks, all of whom clearly have massivley overpowered vehicles that dominate every game, due to their ability to move and fire medium strength weapons...

You sure you're playing the same 40k as everyone else on the thread?

You sure you are speaking from 5th edition playtest experience?

Xurbun has already posed this question to the posters of this thread. Have you all come to conclusions about the defensive weapon change after playing a few games of rumored 5th edition? Or are you just taking a myopic glance at a particular rule. Pulling it out of the context of ALL rumored changes, and then pronouncing the idea "silly"?

let me share my experiences with this new rule through playtesting. Not all of my opinions on defensive weapons are good or bad, but you'll see that the rational thinking of FigureFour (who was apparently chased out of this thread by torch-wielding protectors of the status quo) and Xurbun isn't so "crazy"

Just played a 5th edition game sunday, I was playing dark angels, I had the master of the ravenwing on his speeder and was playing against an ork kult of speed. there was a point in the game where I was presented with the choice of moving back 12" and only firing the assault cannon and gaining a 5+ cover save, or moving back 6" ,firing both weapons and having no save. I chose to shoot both guns at the bike unit containing a strength 10 warboss, I also followed up that shooting with more shots from other units. my decision was made based on factoring in the chances of killing off the unit, the chances of that unit breaking and falling back, the chances of that unit's controller choosing to charge my landspeeder, and the chances of my land speeder dying to such a charge. Wow, I had to think tactically. here is a situation where a 'better' 40k player is given an opportunity to demonstrate his ability to outplay an opponent based on seeing his options and making decisions based on those options. Better for the game to have choices, just as Figurefour said early on in this post.

As far as tau getting shafted. That is pretty ridiculous. Armor 13 skimmers have gained survivability with the skimmer changes, with sensor spines and a multi-tracker, a hammerhead could move 12" into dangerous terrain (without having to test), claim a 4+ cover save AND fire his railgun. The loss of 6 burst cannon shots is a fair price to pay for this marked jump in survivability.

Why would i want to move? You know how infantry interacts with terrain. Shooty units are looking for cover saves. Now shooty tanks will move and fire their important weapons, they will find the place they can claim a massively powerful 4+ cover save, and then they will start firing more guns. The thing you've just been shooting at just died? Now its time to go look for a new target. The motivation to move has not been diminished in any observable quantity from any of my test games. I'm sure you are all picturing that perfect spot in your deployment zone that has perfectly clear fields of fire. And I'm sure you are all undervaluing the addition of cover saves to vehicles. There isn't any other explanation for how so many posters think vehicles will become 'pillboxes'.

Why should tanks have less shots when they move? Let me answer that with an anecdote. A friend and testing partner of mine has developed a very deadly form of tank abuse that involves lots of movement. he fields a low number of troops units, and a higher number of 'tanks'. With 66% of all games of 5th edition being played over objectives, and with objectives only being scored by being within 3" (rather than the 6" we are all used to) He has been 'pushing' units off of objectives, with tanks, and then squatting on the objective from behind the vehicle. it is a viable tactic, but thankfully, it will NOT be the new obnoxious tactic dijour. And that reason that it won't be the new tourney tactic? Each time he moves towards one of my objectives, he makes a sacrifice. That sacrifice becomes a cost. If you want to tank shock me off of the objectives, you'll need to invest in that tactic.

now i've battled with the frustration of wanting my pintle mounted guns to be able to fire at infanrty while my big guns fired at something else. I battled with the flawed concept of "fantasy reaslism". Defensive weapons "should" be any weapon designed to spray the area around the tank and repel infantry that are trying to sneak close to it from blindspots. But what defensive weapons are going to be are things that are not classed as "heavy" weapons to infantry models.

It seems like the biggest opponents of this change are people who are very focused on what "real" tanks would do. You are all right. Real tanks behave very differerntly than 5th edition vehicles. but those differences help facilitate a fast paced tabletop game. The other opponents of this change are just not interested in developing new tactics, or having to make adjustments that must have been so hard-fought when originally made. Owners of predator annihilators with heavy bolter sponsons have a legitimate gripe. If money is tight, they couldn't simply go to the store, and buy a new predator to put lascannons sponsons on. but to disguise your gripe as an actual 'game-balance concern' is ridiculous. Please come back with test game experiences. After playing a half-dozen games against a spread of opponents, you may just find that the changes add as much as they take away in strategy. And affect your play experience very little. Probably positively, you'll grudgingly admit.

Grubnar
19-03-2008, 04:27
Personally I think the whole defensive weapon thing was unnecessary.

I think that this move - should it happen - is an appallingly bad idea (by far the worst thing about 5th so far, I quite like most of the other changes). I see very, very little difference between the proposed 5th vehicles and 3rd ed vehicles.

All movement will be penalised, meaning that vehicles will simply sit static on top of hills or in buildings and shoot at enemies. Really, tanks should be able to move-and-fire and at the very least keep pace with infantry!

Currently, the defensive weapons rule is rather random - some vehicles can move-and-fire very effectively (predator destructor). Others cannot (predator annihilator). Some tanks are currently versetile platforms, and you can't run rings around them with jump troops, for example, by exploiting the fact that they can't move-and-fire.

I think the best solution is the simplest - do away with the whole "defensive weapons" thing...

- All vehicles may move 6" and fire all weapons
- All vehicles may fire one weapon if it moves over 6"
- No vehicle may fire any weapons if it moves over 12"

I don't see any reason to exempt fast vehicles from this. If you want to add in defensive weapons (S4 limit seems fine for this) then allow them:
- to be fired in addition to any main weapons (i.e. if moving over 6")
- to be fired at a different target to the main weapons. (i.e. fired defensively at encroaching infantry while the tank's main guns get on with their job!)

Finally, we really should be allowed to fire Ordinance and secondary weapons. Make those Defiler autocannons and Russ sponsons worth something.

I think you are on to something there. At the very least you got me thinking and I think it comes down to modifiers.

Way back in 2nd edition we had modifiers. Someone decided they were to complicaded or slowed down the game. So they over-simplyfied the rules and have been trying to get it right ever since.

I was thinking that maybe insted of this "defencive weapon" sillyness we should allow any weapon to fire at any target at any speed with your normal BS BUT only up to a certain RANGE! In short, the faster you are going, the less likely you are to hit anything far away since the slightest inaccuracy will ruin the shot. So when your tank is crusing as fast as it will go, doing double movement on a road in some nameless warzone, you can only shot at somethng very close by (6"-12"?) while when you are not moving at all you can fire up to your maximum range.

Does thins make sence to anyone but me?

Kalec
19-03-2008, 05:30
The slightest inaccuracy matters very little when firing a machine gun, or a tank cannon that deals most of its damage by exploding instead of through direct hits.

Not that reality matters in 40K, but still.

Midknightwraith
19-03-2008, 17:26
That math is not correct. You can only add the probabilities when events are mutually exclusive. Missing, failing to wound, and wounding but having it saved are not independent.

Actually they are independant. Dependant probabilities occur when one event occuring changes the probability of a second event occuring. If you miss, you can't wound. You only get to roll to wound if you hit, however whether you hit or not does not change the probability of you wounding (only whether you get to make the role). And that is only a game mechanic convention to speed up play. Even if you miss you could "theoretically" roll to wound and find the the probability of wounding doesn't change from when you hit (it's still 2/3 or 5/6). Only the probability of removing a casualty changes because missing means you never remove the model.

An example of true dependent events would be where you have a bag of different colored marbles and you draw several marbles without replacement and try to find the probability of the last marble being a specific color. The last draw's probability changes based on what marbles are drawn before it. Further, if you can isolate all of the possible outcome paths (as I did in my example) you are allowed mathematically to add the probabilities (as I did). Time for someone to go back to school....


As such your results should be dismissed completely.
Or you could acknowledge that you don't know as much as you think you do, and stop being an ass to someone who is legitimately trying to help you.:rolleyes: Yeah I don't expect it to happen either.

No, to increase the geekiness level you'd have to be right.
I was/am right. Try not to let your head explode!:D

Half the problem with getting dragged into a Mathhammer debate is that usually only 1/4-1/3 of the participants actually know what they are talking about. Which means that those who have the knowledge are out numbered and shouted down by those who don't by sheer weight of numbers. It's depressing to thing as far as the human race has come this mob mentality still persists. I honestly don't know why I bother. Oh, now I remember because I actually care about the level of discussions on warseer. My mistake.:angel:

I tell you what how about you go and roll 200 Heavy Bolter shots at BS 3 and see if you don't get 22-23 dead marines. doing basic Mathhammer you'd get 100 hits, 66 wounds, and 22 unsaved wounds. Which matches up with the ~89 percent chance of no casualties from my initial post. In short your numbers are way off.

Lord Inquisitor
19-03-2008, 17:41
Further, if you can isolate all of the possible outcome paths (as I did in my example) you are allowed mathematically to add the probabilities (as I did). Time for someone to go back to school....

I was/am right. Try not to let your head explode!:D
Midknightwraith... Alexandr was somewhat rude, but he got the same answer as me using a different method. I'm pretty certain we're right - my method was sound, I just missed a damn bracket in my excel formula.

Check your maths... You've implied that I do not know what I'm talking about now, which disinclines me to be polite to you. I already replied to your "correction". Would you please explain what was wrong with the logic I posted above?

MegaPope
19-03-2008, 18:10
Way back in 2nd edition we had modifiers. Someone decided they were to complicaded or slowed down the game. So they over-simplyfied the rules and have been trying to get it right ever since.


QFT. Once again, we see a problem/discrepancy caused largely by the almost total inflexibility of the ruleset that has caused problems ever since it was adopted. This whole conundrum probably wouldn't exist if it was still possible to impose negative 'to-hit' modifiers for vehicles shooting when moving at speed. This would happily represent their impaired accuracy in a fair and balanced way (because ultimately the quality - BS - of the crew would determine how effective most tanks are) whilst not having to adopt the sledgehammer of 'you can't fire at all', or messing around with which types of guns can and cannot fire on the move, which undermines the whole concept of vehicle being 'mobile' weapons plaforms in the first place.

In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only rigid thinking.

Lord Inquisitor
19-03-2008, 18:12
Aha! Figured out what you did wrong...

Let's look at your single stubber shot. First, my calculation.

Probability of hitting = 1/2
P of wounding = 1/6
P of failing a save = 1/3
P of inflicting a wound with a single shot = 1/2 * 1/6 * 1/3 = 1/36

So probability of failing to inflict a wound with a single shot is 1-(1/36) = 35/36 = 0.97

Now yours:

a single stubber shot has the following probability of not wounding
1/2 (chance to miss) +
1/2 * 1/6 (chance to hit and fail to wound) +
1/2 * 5/6 * 2/3 (chance to hit, wound, and make a save) ~ 0.8611
I've highlighted where you went wrong. Since when is 1/6 the chance of failing to wound? And 5/6 is not the chance of wounding. You've got your numbers the wrong way around.

Your methodology is sound - if somewhat unnessarily long-winded way of doing it - but you screwed it up.

Now, if you do it right:
1/2+(1/2*5/6)+(1/2*1/6*2/3) = 0.97

Oh, look, that would be what I got.

Now... a few choice quotes...


Time for someone to go back to school....

I was/am right. Try not to let your head explode!:D

Half the problem with getting dragged into a Mathhammer debate is that usually only 1/4-1/3 of the participants actually know what they are talking about. Which means that those who have the knowledge are out numbered and shouted down by those who don't by sheer weight of numbers. It's depressing to thing as far as the human race has come this mob mentality still persists. I honestly don't know why I bother. Oh, now I remember because I actually care about the level of discussions on warseer. My mistake.:angel:

Now, we all make mistakes. I did too. However, I had the decency to run on the assumption that I may have made not a conceptual error but a small, irritating mistake before I got on my high horse. You might consider doing the same. ;)

Lord Inquisitor
19-03-2008, 18:21
Average wounds should generally indicate the most likely result, though not how much more likely that outcome is than the others. Probabilties give both, but neither is an invalid measure.
I didn't say it was invalid, I said it could be misleading...


disagreed.
Any particular reason why? Even with your correction, we've worked out that your example of a hive tyrant doesn't stand up to scruitny. There may be some examples where firing the secondary weapons is worthwhile, but they're too rare to make buying expensive secondary weapons worthwhile, especially with the low BS that ordinance-toting vehicles usually have.

Gaftra
19-03-2008, 19:53
lost track in here but has the impact on speeders been discussed? because in 5th they will be almost unilaterally retooled since there is no reason to have a hvy bolter and ac. on my defilers im definitely not taking any gun since the math hammer (which is making my head spin at this point) points to absolutely no reason to. also boning out hvy flamers on vehicles is pretty weak since they now count as main weapons! i wonder if this means more or less hellhounds.

MegaPope
19-03-2008, 20:12
@Gaftra:
Land Speeders and the like are Fast, so presumably, they'll still be able to fire more than one weapon when moving. Funny how the faster and less stable a firing platform a vehicle is, the more guns it gets to fire...;).

Hellhounds will remain pretty much unchanged, I suppose. With the Inferno Cannon constituting its main armament anyway, the only change will revolve around whether you can shoot its heavy bolter and pintle mount at the same time on the move, or only one.

And yes, while I accept that the mathematics are indeed significant in some way, my eyes also glaze over when I see entire series of posts full of it:wtf:;).

Gaftra
19-03-2008, 21:54
yeah, i think there will be alot more tornadoes with TL missle launchers going around. at some point id like to see on some designer's notes why they did str 4 over 5

MegaPope
19-03-2008, 22:27
Well, to be fair, this is all still rumours AFAIK, so everything may still be to play for (I hope!:p)

Skyth
19-03-2008, 23:07
yeah, i think there will be alot more tornadoes with TL missle launchers going around. at some point id like to see on some designer's notes why they did str 4 over 5

Those are strength 5...And aren't tornadoes :)

noobzor
19-03-2008, 23:14
my biggest gripe is that I have to buy a weapon for my falcon that I will use only when the pulse laser is destroyed which rarely happens- I guess I'll go cheap with a Shuriken Cannon :P This is a problem, because my falcon currently is one of my best tank hunters: spewing out 7 S6 and 2 S8 shots into side armor usually has good results! But once that turns into 3 S6 or 2 S8, the effectiveness of a falcon kinda falls through the floor.

This is another sign that GW is changing rules to get people to buy more stuff- I am looking at a prism cannon. At least that still is a good vehicle for its point cost.

Gaftra
19-03-2008, 23:45
whatev, means ill be chopping up my speeders soon

Midknightwraith
20-03-2008, 16:44
Aha! Figured out what you did wrong...

Now, if you do it right:
1/2+(1/2*5/6)+(1/2*1/6*2/3) = 0.97

Oh, look, that would be what I got.


Didn't know the strength of the Heavy Stubber (No Codex, seems like from the math it is S2, how anything that is S2 qualifies as "Heavy" is beyond me, but that is another discussion) I had trouble following your original maths and breaking down what you were doing. At S2 the math works out both ways so there must be something else....

Even allowing for the Heavy Stubber Issue the probability of not getting a single wound is somewhere around 32% or 10-15% lower than either of you. And looking back I can now show you where you made your mistake.

From your corrected post:

I missed a bracket, it should have been:
1-(((1-((1/2)*(1/6)*(1/3)))^3)*((1-((1/2)*(1/3)*(1/3)))^9)) = 0.45

The above is incorrect. Chance of a Heavy Bolter wounding T4 model is 2/3 not 1/3. If you plug that into your formula you will see that the result is ~ 68% to get at least one wound. Which is what I got after correcting for the incorrect S of the Heavy Stubber. Looks like we all got something wrong! ;)

Either methodology arives at the same answer, Hurray math works! I prefer the method I use because when you write formulas in Excel it is easy to miss a parenthesis and screw it up, and having to reverse the probability twice is at least as complicated as doing each specific probability (there are, in fact, the same number of terms). And I like to look at the glass half full, as opposed to the glass half empty.:p

Now that's settled it is pretty clear that the Infantry guns are much better than the Battle Cannon at dealing with marines. I'm not sure about other troops. Things like Guard, Eldar Guardians, and Orks that come in bigger squads, and have weaker armor. I've found that bigger squads tend to bunch up maneuvering around terrain as well, leading to more hits. This is what the Battle Cannon was designed to take advantage of, and what it should be used for.

5th Edition will take the move option away from being able to shoot these guns. Which leads back into the discussion about tanks being pillboxes in 5th. Semi-mobile to be sure, but pillboxes none-the-less. Especially considering the changes to Area Terrain.

Again, S4 defensive weapons doesn't bother me. S5 Does.

On the Speeder Discussion, yes you will be able to fire both on the move (provided you move <= 6", which means you don't get the 5+ save for SMF.

MegaPope - You are exactly correct why a moving speeder can shoot better than a moving tank doesn't really make sense. I've never liked the weapons being able to fire being different based on speed of the vehicle rule. All the vehicles should be one way or the other. From a Game balance perspective speeders are generally more lightly armored than Tanks, and needed the extra fire power on the move to balance out their cost. It also leads to the image of them being fast response units, which I like. Really, though the big problem is the limited number of turns combined with the generally low rate of fire for moving vehicles. Standard speed vehicles are going to be less common in 5th.

Lord Inquisitor
20-03-2008, 16:55
my biggest gripe is that I have to buy a weapon for my falcon that I will use only when the pulse laser is destroyed which rarely happens- I guess I'll go cheap with a Shuriken Cannon :P This is a problem, because my falcon currently is one of my best tank hunters: spewing out 7 S6 and 2 S8 shots into side armor usually has good results! But once that turns into 3 S6 or 2 S8, the effectiveness of a falcon kinda falls through the floor.
Yes, but now you will actually be able to use cover and stay stationary. If you don't need to go shooting around to board to stay alive, you can make a choice - stay put and fire your weapons or move and have to sacrifice some firepower.

That's actually something I'm not complaining about. If vehicles like Falcons have to choose between barrelling at the enemy or hugging terrain and offloading their weapons - that's a good thing. The problem with Falcons is that they're a bit too good at doing everything at once.


Didn't know the strength of the Heavy Stubber (No Codex, seems like from the math it is S2, how anything that is S2 qualifies as "Heavy" is beyond me, but that is another discussion) I had trouble following your original maths and breaking down what you were doing. At S2 the math works out both ways so there must be something else....The above is incorrect. Chance of a Heavy Bolter wounding T4 model is 2/3 not 1/3.
Okay... now I see where you've gone wrong.

Whoever said it was a Toughness 4 model we're talking about? ;)


5th Edition will take the move option away from being able to shoot these guns. Which leads back into the discussion about tanks being pillboxes in 5th. Semi-mobile to be sure, but pillboxes none-the-less. Especially considering the changes to Area Terrain.
Right. But it means that the choice between ordinance and non-ordinance becomes more of a no-brainer as the ordinance can do as much damage as the secondary weapons and can move-and-fire, albeit less accurately.


On the Speeder Discussion, yes you will be able to fire both on the move (provided you move <= 6", which means you don't get the 5+ save for SMF.
But (and correct me if I'm wrong), skimmers will be able to get a 5+ or 4+ save for terrain, meaning that this wouldn't necessarily be a death sentence.


MegaPope - You are exactly correct why a moving speeder can shoot better than a moving tank doesn't really make sense. I've never liked the weapons being able to fire being different based on speed of the vehicle rule. All the vehicles should be one way or the other.
Agreed.

Midknightwraith
21-03-2008, 13:41
Right. But it means that the choice between ordinance and non-ordinance becomes more of a no-brainer as the ordinance can do as much damage as the secondary weapons and can move-and-fire, albeit less accurately.

Ah, I start to see your issue. Ordinance is going to be better on the move, because you can't fire all the S5-6 guns instead. I wouldn't worry too much about this though. It seems like they are going back to the 3rd edition rules for firing weapons, and under those rules Ordinance could not fire at all if the vehicle moved. So there may be nothing to worry about. Anybody with a PDF feel free to chime in.;)

electricblooz
21-03-2008, 14:07
Ah, I start to see your issue. Ordinance is going to be better on the move, because you can't fire all the S5-6 guns instead. I wouldn't worry too much about this though. It seems like they are going back to the 3rd edition rules for firing weapons, and under those rules Ordinance could not fire at all if the vehicle moved. So there may be nothing to worry about. Anybody with a PDF feel free to chime in.;)

As I recall, firing ord on the move is exactly the same as 4th (don't have the .pdf @ work). Firing barrage ord also functions the same.

Mandragola
21-03-2008, 14:16
As people have mentioned already, vehicles that only come with one high strength gun will become more efficient when moving than those with many guns, ordnance or not.

Things like exorcists, immolators, vindicators, razorbacks and wave serpents stay the same in terms of shooting and are tougher. Predators and falcons will be a lot less good. Vehicles that you can get as a transport option for troops will be attractive, since they only give away one kill point and tend to be fairly cheap.

Midknightwraith
24-03-2008, 16:03
Now that you mention the kill point thing. It seems kinda silly doesn't it that a Transport carrying a troop selection is only worth 1 Kill point, but the same transport carrying a non-troop selection will be worth 2 or even 3 in some cases. Seems a bit odd.

Lord Inquisitor
24-03-2008, 16:48
To be fair, most dedicated transports (e.g. rhinos) are cheaper in points quite considerably than undedicated transports. Doesn't necessarily hold up in every case (wave serpents are expensive and dangerous).

Midknightwraith
24-03-2008, 19:28
The wave serpent was the one that jumped out at me too. But still. It's not uncommon to see Rhinos/Razorbacks in the FA/Elite/Heavy Support slots in some Imperial Armies as well(SOB, and to a lesser extent SM, and certainly in Chaos armies Rhino's are prevalent)

I was more concerned about the weaker transports like the Rhino, TBH.

MegaPope
24-03-2008, 20:52
IMO, a major problem facing these rules in the weapons configuration of most vehicle models, especially the older ones with the bigger guns.

Look at the Leman Russ and the Land Raider for example. Both of these appeared in the game in a 'formal' sense at the height of 2ed, where vehicles could fire everything on the move at a cost of reduced accuracy at high speed through negative modifiers to hit and yes, even the Russ could barrel along at 16" a turn at top speed if needed.

Ever since the 3ed system was adopted with restricted vehicular firing and Ordnance rules, these vehicles and their families of variants have always been problematic to deal with because of their unusual weapon fits. Land Raiders in particular have never been 'right' - their prime purpose should be as multi-role assault tanks, yet a huge portion of their cost is simply wasted whatever you decide to do with them because they simply can't be multi-role.

For the Russ, they just said 'oh you can field them without 'expensive' sponsons. Isn't it cool?'. This was low, and a sign of either laziness or intransigence on the part of the designers. First, 10 points - you don't 'save' much at all. If you take three tanks without side sponsons you save enough to buy half an infantry squad, or three plasma guns (that you already bought because of the flexible-as-concrete AP system). Big deal. You an almost buy a Sentinel with no guns. Or you could spend all those points on STORM BOLTERS for the tanks instead!:rolleyes:. Second, when the cannon gets blown off, you 're left with a very expensive and only averagely accurate lascannon or heavy bolter. Way to strike fear into enemy hearts. And third, since 4ed, your tanks become more vulnerable to being totally knocked out without actually being 'killed', as they only have two counted weapons to disable instead of four, meaning it only takes three damage results to take them out instead of five.

And this for the army that relies more than any other on its armour being an integral part of its fighting power! I'm just thankful the Russ doesn't suffer even more; at least its only got the one role to fulfill.

More attention needs to be paid to the redesign of the vehicle rules as a whole - the point of having vehicles on the tabletop in the first place needs to be addressed before anything else can be worked out about what they should do and how they should do it. Sadly, I don't believe this is going to happen at all.

Ozendorph
24-03-2008, 21:03
^ FYI the Land Raider was around waaay before 2nd Edition. Vehicles in RT (especially very early on) were insane. Your other points stand. :)

I agree with your take on the Leman Russ. The Land Raider hasn't been viable for 2 editions now (though I continue to field one). It'd be nice if they fixed that.

Mandragola
25-03-2008, 01:21
Actually I think that land raiders will be more than viable in 5th with the changes to vehicle damage charts. Killing them got far harder and even if you do, the guys inside only take a pinning check.

Of course, land raider crusaders are going to be far better. Land raiders should be able to fire their guns as they move, because they are designed to.

There is simply no logic to the idea that one of three gunners is able to fire his gun as a tank moves, regardless of the strength of the gun. I mean, you can pick any gun you like on a turn by turn basis so it isn't a question of one weapon system having a more secure mounting, less recoil or whatever. For some reason one of the gunners fires his gun and the other two do nothing. Why? What is it that makes a gunner unable to fire his gun if one of his friends is firing?

You should just be able to fire all the guns on a vehicle. If you are going to design a vehicle with three or four guns, you will design it with three or four guns that work. Maybe some of these guns work better if the vehicle is stationary (like ordnance, but the rules already do something for that) but the gunner can still pull the trigger.

Perhaps the most bizarre thing, to me at least, is that troops being transported can fire from a vehicle moving 12". So an ork standing on the roof of a battlewagon can fire his heavy shoota 36" with some expectation of hitting the target, while all his mates shoot and the battlewagon fires its gun, but a marine sponson gunner sitting inside a tank surrounded by targetting gear of one sort or another can't fire from a moving tank if the turret gunner fires? Oh, but things get easier if the tank's turret gets shot away and therefore ceases to fire. Nonsense.

Ozendorph
25-03-2008, 17:22
Every time I think of how easily all these move/fire balance and realism issues could be solved with a simple to-hit modifier, it makes we want to smack a game designer upside the head.

BrianGeneral
25-03-2008, 17:44
Every time I think of how easily all these move/fire balance and realism issues could be solved with a simple to-hit modifier, it makes we want to smack a game designer upside the head.
Seems to a better solution than the present S4.
Still, I think how vehicle weapons work in 4th is completely viable. If it's just a few units which abuse that rule, fix teh unit instead of the whole rules.

A.S.modai
25-03-2008, 19:28
I'm totally down with a modifier based on speed. It's logical and nerfs everyone equally. Keep it at ord. or all other weapons though. Then theres no reason to worry about defensive, offensive.

fast vehicles get less of a mod maybe.

Lord Inquisitor
25-03-2008, 20:11
As an alternative to a hit modifier... how about a flat baseline change?

E.g. if you move, you count as BS2...

It would obviously benefit Orks much more than Marines, but it would be a possibility...

MegaPope
25-03-2008, 20:19
^ FYI the Land Raider was around waaay before 2nd Edition. Vehicles in RT (especially very early on) were insane.

I know. I meant widespread use. It just wasn't often you'd field a tank worth, literally, 900 points:D, even if it was fully capable of earning back every single one of them through the simple expedient of not dying! In terms of actually killing stuff, it was fairly innocuous, even with four Lascannons. Shooting to-hit mods were generally a Good Thing.

Ah, Rogue Trader - where the tanks WERE the Monstrous Creatures! Land Raider: Toughness 10, 20 Wounds, 2+ save and a 5+ unmodifieable Refractor Field...


If you are going to design a vehicle with three or four guns, you will design it with three or four guns that work. Maybe some of these guns work better if the vehicle is stationary (like ordnance, but the rules already do something for that) but the gunner can still pull the trigger.

QFT. IMO, the reason for having fighting vehicles in any situation is to provide mobile firepower. Having a system that makes most vehicles stationary to be effective defeats the object of using them.

If the Ordnance rules are such a problem, why not change them? Roll to hit at normal BS. If you hit, place the template normally. If you miss, roll the Scatter Dice and 2D6 to determine distance (perhaps dropping to D6 if the vehicle sits still). If you roll a HIT on the SD, you don't still hit. Instead you use the little arrow on the crosshair to determine scatter direction. This means that any shot that misses is probably going to scatter about 7" on average, a considerable distance. Keep the effects of Ordnance damage the same. You could then allow the vehicle to fire its other weapons as well, but only at the same target.

Vehicles with a better BS benefit as the Ordnance will be more accurate. Vehicles with a BS of 2 should stay fairly similar to what they are now, since the current rules allow only a 2 in 6 chance of a direct hit anyway. It would also allow the co-axial weaponry on a lot of Guard tanks to do what it's meant to do - act as a tracer to aid the main gunner's aim. You could extend the Apoc rule for the Baneblade's co-axial weaponry to all IG ordnance tanks (but not artillery) that have a Stormbolter or Heavy Stubber co-ax or pintle mount.

Ordnance for artillery could work the same way as now, except that it would have to be stationary to fire indirectly only if the Strength of the weapon exceeded 6 - this is the one occasion where a Strength limit might make sense, since most artillery vehicles are more lightly built than tanks, and larger artillery weapons have a vicious recoil that has to be absorbed mostly by the vehicle's suspension (or in the case of rocket artillery, the weaponry may have to be accurately pre-set before launching, and the vehicle itself must be stable to ensure a sucessful launch). If an artillery gun is dual-purpose, like the Basilisk, you could choose to either fire it as artillery, or over open sights like a tank, using the rules above.

This system would keep most of the big indirect guns sitting still if you want them to fire, making them more vulnerable to possible counterattack, but it would also allow rapid response artillery like the Whirlwind and the Griffon to work properly, laying down close-range bombardments while accompanying the main advance.

Midknightwraith
25-03-2008, 21:28
Lord Inquisitor. There are tanks that would benefit way more from that rule than others. Orks are an obvious example. Maybe something like this.

Stationary, use normal balistic skill
Move 6" or less - Maximum BS of 3
Move 6" - 12" - Maximum BS of 2
Move 12" - 18" - No fire.

Fast vehicles deduct 6" from their actual movement distance for determining BS.

This applies to all weapons. If a vehicle has an Ordinance Weapon, it must fire that weapon first as normal using the above rule. If the vehicle has additional weapons and fires the Ordinance then the other weapons may fire, but add 6" to the distance the vehicle actually moved for determining BS for using those weapons.

I'm in the camp that would prefer to-hit modifiers, but I offer this as an alternative. I think the problem with to-hit modifiers in modern 40k is that 2nd Ed. Stat lines were much different than they are today. And so any modifiers would have to be severely limited in scope.

Ozendorph
25-03-2008, 22:03
Modifiers are just too damn easy.

Stationary - Fire all weapons (or Ordinance)
Moving 1-6" - Fire all non-ordinance weapons at -1 To Hit
Moving 7-12" - Fire all non-ordinance weapons at -2 To Hit (-1 for fast vehicles)

You could say S4 (defensive) weapons may always choose to fire at the closest enemy infantry unit. That way they actually do what they're supposed to.

Bring back targeters to negate the movement penalties if you want to get fancy and differentiate between the technology levels of the various races.

edit: I realize the Orks would never hit anything. That's okay...they mostly just shoot to make noise anyway. They've got Deathrollers and Wrecking Balls for a reason. ;)

MegaPope
25-03-2008, 22:12
I think the problem with to-hit modifiers in modern 40K is that 2nd Ed. Stat lines were much different than they are today. And so any modifiers would have to be severely limited in scope.

Only characters used to have insanely high BS, and they were mostly shooting people with small arms. Statlines for troops are pretty much as they always were.

However, since BS does on average tend to be a shade lower for most things in the modern system, I think modifiers for cover only (-1 soft, -2 hard) would be perfectly adequate to account for most eventualities - you wouldn't need a huge long list of mods for individual weapons, like you used to have in 2ed. Vehicles could have an extra -1 or -2 to hit imposed on them for moving and firing at speed (the downside for being able to shoot heavy weapons on the move in the first place, which most troops cannot do) but you could compensate for this by making them more accurate shooters anyway (1 point better BS than the average for regular troops in your army, to a maximum of BS4 except in very special cases - a BS 5 vehicle is nasty) to account for all the onboard targetting systems (even Orks can nail Big Skopes to their gunz, if only to be able to laugh at the effects of their shooting on the hapless enemy!)

This idea assumes that all vehicles would be able to fire all their weapons while moving at a reasonable speed - something between 12-14" for example. Anything moving faster than that probably shouldn't be able to fire at all, whether it is a ground vehicle or a skimmer, because then it would be demonstrating the other property that most vehicles should have, and most troops shouldn't: the ability to move much faster than footsloggers, or even jump troops, when necessary.

While this obviously benefits lower BS armies more than Marines etc, the advantage that Marines would derive from taking a Land Raider or Predator over a Devastator Squad is better mobility.

Of course, in order to make this whole thing work properly, I think you'd have to put an Armour Save Modifier system for weapons back in as well, since fast-moving heavy weapon platforms could quickly become very deadly, especially if cover was changed back to a modifier rather than a saving throw.

Midknightwraith
26-03-2008, 19:11
I don't quite see how a modifer to hit translates to neccessitating save modifiers, vs the AP system that is already in place. What you are really saying is that cover saves should go away, and not be replaced by anything. I'm not sure I'm kosher with that. Although the rumor is that cover saves are getting better, If they remained the same I'd definitely be for keeping them even with to-hit mods. But again I favor to-hit mods based on what you are doing and save mods based on what your target is doing. That is the real difference between 2nd and 3rd, and likewise the Max BS vs to-hit mods(or BS mods depending on how you look at things). In second there were mods for both, and save adjustments based only on the weapon profile (mostly).

MegaPope
26-03-2008, 20:01
Interesting. Thinking about it, I supposed hit mods could mesh with the AP system if needed. I just got sucked into a tangent - I'm good at that:rolleyes: - the AP system IMO has a whole slew of problems of its own, but that's another story!

It's just the idea of infantry essentially being pinned (not literally) into cover because of highly mobile vehicles trundling around toting some manoeuvrable high strength, low-AP, fairly accurate weaponry en masse. Virtually no-one apart from MEQs would dare cross open ground. On the other hand, having truly mobile vehicles packing heavy firepower would give a strong justification to the proposed run rules - units making a fast dash from cover to cover as they advance. Far more subtle than always using it to "RAAGH! CHAAARGE!"

Hell, I admit it. I just like ASMs more than the AP system - more flexibility in design...

Lorieth
29-03-2008, 00:21
Thought I'd chip in with my tuppence. Perhaps we should return to thinking about what the point of this rule is; it seems to me the point is that tanks tearing across the battlefield should not be able to fire as effectively as ones that are standing still. That makes sense to me, and gives rise to all the nice tactical considerations that've been discussed so far. I suppose we could argue that the "main" gun might have targetters or other ways to compensate, but the general principle seems a good one.

Why should fast vehicles be better at firing on the move? I'm not sure they should in principle, though it would make sense to me for skimmers to be better (i.e. less affected by the terrain => more stable gun platform). How many fast non-skimmers are there? Ork trukks etc. obviously, but you could easily argue they fire so wildly moving shouldn't affect their shooting too much. What else?

Anyway that aside, how could we achieve this effect? Let's forget fast vehicles for the moment, and concentrate on the 6-12" movement range for normal vehicles.

To hit modifiers

I can't see any way GW would go back to modifiers. I started with Rogue Trader and it was a lot of fun, but working out the modifiers was a pain and IMHO GW were wise to lose most of them. Yes I miss them sometimes, but there must be a better way.

Reroll to-hit

Like a modifier, but without a modifier! Reroll all hits scored. Means good BS is still useful, but the shots are inaccurate. I suppose "positive" rerolls, such as twin-linked weapons or a Farseer using Guide, should cancel this out. It makes twin-linked weapons more useful, as well as good BS.

Assault vs Heavy

You can fire one Heavy, all Assault, and Rapid Fire as if moved. If troops can move 12" and fire Assault (move 6 + assault 6) then surely vehicles should be able to? BTW Bright lances are Heavy already, just not when mounted on AG platforms. The scatter laser and starcannon are also heavy, so it might even mean Eldar use more shuriken weaponry like they're supposed to (according to the fluff...)

Fixed BS (=2?) if moving > 6"

Yes Orks would benefit more, but then if your aim's that bad to start with would moving a bit really screw it up much more? Let them have their fun. It ties in with the old Machine Spirit rule too. It means twin-linking would be more useful of course.

Lose a shot

All weapons except one fires one fewer shots. Obviously the exception is needed since generally the "main gun" will only have one shot. Perhaps twin-linked weapons merely lose the "twin-linked"? If two identical sponsons then one may fire?

Reduce range

Halve the range of all weapons. (Is half too severe?)

I think that's covered the ones raised so far, and a few of my own for good measure. Any more for any more? Aside from the modifiers I think these are simple enough to work for GW.

I think the issue of targetting different units with different weapons is really a different discussion.

Jaradakar
04-04-2008, 01:41
As an Eldar player I'm not happy at all about the Str 4 change. In fact I suspect if it goes live, I'll be playing with a house rule of setting it back up to 6.

Falcon had issues in 4th of being very tough (which imo it needs to be due to Eldar overall not being tough). 1-36 tough? Most likely not, so that needed some nerfing sure. (But they do cost ~185 points)

But with a BS 3 (Falcon's rarely would hit) and with this change most of the time it does not even get to fire them? WTF? For ~185 points only getting to fire 1 weapon most of the time is very lame.

Sure, I see that with this change it's trying to force the choice, move a little and fire everything or move a ton but only get to fire 1 weapon but you are also harder to take down. I just don't see it as being necessary (or fun).

It's just stupid. Some vehicles, especially FAST vehicles are meant to keep moving. That's the whole point of vehicles to bring heavy weapons to bear on the battlefield.

This change just wrecks Eldar's Falcon and favors the Fire Prism. It's a rule that makes some sense for normal "Tanks" but IMO should not apply to skimmers. Really just leave it at 6 imo.

Lord Inquisitor
04-04-2008, 02:13
Awww, didums. You mean you'll have to choose between getting skimmer moving fast and firing all your weapons?

That doesn't strike me as a particularly strong argument. Weapons like the starcannon should be primary weapons. Given the proliferation of Falcons, it would actually be a good thing to see a few Fire Prisms hit the table. Falcons right now are so prevalent because then can move fast (12"), fire all of their weapons and carry troops... talk about having cake and eating it. Compare that with a Land Raider, which can either shoot or move but not both.

While were on the subject, exactly why should "fast" vehicles be better at moving-and-firing than "slow" vehicles? Frankly, I think a Land Raider should be rather better at firing on the move than, say, an Ork trukk.

Fast vehicles should be able to move fast. I don't see why being able to fire when doing so should be part of the deal.

Imperialis_Dominatus
04-04-2008, 04:18
Agreed, Inquisitor. I don't really understand why a fast vehicle can fire at full boar either.

Kalec
04-04-2008, 04:49
Because all fast vehicles are balanced around getting to shoot and move, and changing that would make them useless as weapons platforms for the less-updated factions.

Of course, only Eldar and Tau get fast vehicles, and while marines get skimmers they don't deserve to have fun so their skimmers shouldn't be any good anyway.

cailus
04-04-2008, 06:01
Y'know if one applies real life to 40K then:

A tank moving at about 6 km per hour which is the standard that infantry would move cannot fire all of its weapons. This applies to flying tanks as well. In fact a flying tank (and Eldar tanks are capable of full flight) can only move at say 12 kilometres per hour and fire all weapons at full effect.

I say this because it is assumed in 40K that 6 inches is infantry moving carefully to avoid being shot, use cover etc. I am assuming people move at about 6 kilometres per hour.

Now 40K works with abstraction.

So what speed does say 6 inches represent? Is it the same as the 6 inches that the infantry moves or is it something else?

IG88
04-04-2008, 07:49
I have to weigh in and vote for option B, that is, explicitly listing weapons as defensive in the Codexes. I think this should be done on a per-vehicle basis so that, for (a bad) example, a heavy bolter could be a main weapon on a Chimera but defensive on the heavier Leman Russ. I don't think this is impractical: until new Codexes are released, simply put up a PDF on the website with the lists. That keeps it out of the main rulebook, allows older Codexes to have defensive weapon declarations, and makes it future-proof in that they can change their minds later when a Codex is actually released (for example, heavy bolters could be listed as "main" for Chimeras in the PDF but turn out to be "defensive" in the actual Codex). I don't think this will be any more different or painful than when they added fire and access points to vehicles.

Of course, I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of or say this.

TheSanityAssassin
04-04-2008, 07:59
E: Remove the defensive weapon rule and allow vehicles to fire all their weapons if they go 6" (12" for fast).

Vehicles have dedicated gunners with no job to do other than firing a gun, so they should just get on with it. It'a absolutely ridiculous that you can't fire a built in heavy weapon but you can fire a machine gun out the window.

It wouldn't actually make any difference to the gunner whether he was firing a lascannon or a heavy bolter, a shuriken cannon or a bright lance and arguably it would be easier to fire a laser from a moving platform in any case. The strength-based distinction is nonsense.


Yay! The advent of Tanks signaled the dawn of MOBILE warfare! I know! Lets make them even MORE static! Hurrah! One more kick in the face of that fluff-bunny over there. Oh, your Fire Prism's combat speed rating is 80kph? Well, it sure can't move 12" and shoot anything! What? A Leman Russ is an Assault tank? Of course not! It shouldn't lead a charge, it should hang back and not move!

Anyways, go over-reacting, but I'm sleepy, and tired of speculative arguments ripping apart my game club.

Jaradakar
04-04-2008, 08:32
Awww, didums. You mean you'll have to choose between getting skimmer moving fast and firing all your weapons?

That doesn't strike me as a particularly strong argument. Weapons like the starcannon should be primary weapons. Given the proliferation of Falcons, it would actually be a good thing to see a few Fire Prisms hit the table. Falcons right now are so prevalent because then can move fast (12"), fire all of their weapons and carry troops... talk about having cake and eating it. Compare that with a Land Raider, which can either shoot or move but not both.


What's a Land Raider's BS? O' that's right it's 4. A falcon only has 3 BS so even if it's firing all it's weapons, it's only hitting with 1/2 of them!

How much armor does a LR have? More... a Falcon trades off armor for speed.

The Falcon's problem in 4th is it's 1-36 chance of living AND being a scoring unit.

-Dropping survivability with hits not being glancing, check.
-Not being scoring unit (a problem when you can't kill them), check.

This imo makes the falcon a very balanced unit (it costs 185+ points!)

Does the Falcon with it's 3 BS need to be making a choice between firing all it's weapons or firing one single weapon and getting a 5-6 save? I can honestly say I don't think so. Now if you're going to run a Falcon you'll be better off not putting ANY extra weapons on it and/or taking the cheapest options (which just invalids the codex, which sucks).

Personally I think that is overkill and over-nerf :cries:.

With the changes being made it won't be worth fielding. As I stated before, you'll be better off fielding a Fireprism or Wave Serpent. The HYBRID role of both a gunship and transport will be killed.

Which I'd like to point out it did nether role particularly well, it's strength was in it's versatility (not in being a massive gunship and as transports go 6 is a pretty small number

Does this change **** me off? Yes. Rightly so, I've invest time and money in painting my two falcons. I don't own any Fireprism (hate that they're not all plastic).

CaptScott
04-04-2008, 10:43
As an Eldar player I'm not happy at all about the Str 4 change. In fact I suspect if it goes live, I'll be playing with a house rule of setting it back up to 6.


The defensive weapon rule is just fine, the problem (for Eldar) is with the current Eldar codex. If Eldar had access to a decent strength 4 weapon on its skimmers I'm sure most Eldar players would agree.

Perhaps thats a solution (for Eldar at least), a small rule update. Shuriken cannons on vehicles are strength 4, assault 4, for example.

Jaradakar
04-04-2008, 18:28
The defensive weapon rule is just fine, the problem (for Eldar) is with the current Eldar codex. If Eldar had access to a decent strength 4 weapon on its skimmers I'm sure most Eldar players would agree.

Perhaps thats a solution (for Eldar at least), a small rule update. Shuriken cannons on vehicles are strength 4, assault 4, for example.

It's more than just that.

For example if the Falcon had a BS 4, I would be slightly more welcome to this rule change.

Then I would actually feel like I have a choice:

1) Moving slowly and firing everything would be a more viable choice as I might actually hit with my weapons.

2) Moving fast trading defense for offense.

I guess my overall point right now is the Falcon is NOT an offensive powerhouse due to the fact it misses 50% of it's shots. It's a hybrid meant to fly in (and shoot) while it delivers a small number of troops.

(Unlike the Land Raider which has armor to take hits and can deliver a full compliment of troops, has more access points and higher armor all for ~50 points more!)

Currently the Falcon is balanced around BS 3, these rule changes make that invalid. It might be as simple as changing that one number to re-balance to the new rules.

Dooks Dizzo
04-04-2008, 18:41
People need to go easier on the Eldar and their Falcons. I know the old rules generated a lot of hate but let's be fair about this. (let me clarify: Old falcons total BullShizzy, 5th ed falcons...total BS for the ELDAR)

And if you're wondering I play Chaos.

Taking the teeth out of tanks is not good for the game. I think that tanks should be able to move their full movement, fire everything AND split their fire.

Why? Because on the whole a 185-250 point tank has both less fire power and less survivability than it's opposite in infantry. A Space Marine or CSM devastator squad can sit in cover and dish out more fire power for less points than a land raider or a Falcon.

Making tanks no longer score is all you needed to do to balance out Falcons. You can easily keep them stun locked so they can't shoot and what fire power they do put out is rarely enough to seriously threaten strong troop or elite units.

Now I have to disagree with Jara on the Land Raider. I wish to god I could strip the guns off that thing and just use it as a transport. In 5th I will almost NEVER get to fire my weapons, even sitting still. See, Falcons have a turret, I have sponsons and a 5" wide foot print making it almost impossible to fire both LC's at say a Leman Russ all the way arcoss the board and directly in front of me.

Let me be clear, I give a **** about real world anything. We pay money for the models, we should be able to use them effectively.

Honestly, does anyone think tanks moving at full and firing everything without penalty so threatening that it would ruin your chances of winning a game? Oh noes! A falcon took 2 Pulse laser, 2 star cannon and 3 shuriken cannon shots! What's that, 3.5 hits on average? Not exactly devastating is it? Especially with things like 1's to wound, cover and invul saves.

Same goes for a Land Raider. What does it's main armament do? Hunt other tanks, it's not like it's so brutal against the rest of your army and it's a damn easy target to get LOS to.

Lord Inquisitor
04-04-2008, 19:49
Because all fast vehicles are balanced around getting to shoot and move, and changing that would make them useless as weapons platforms for the less-updated factions.
Unless they can get benefit from cover (which, according to the leaked rules, not only do they get but it is better than the benefit for SMF).


What's a Land Raider's BS? O' that's right it's 4. A falcon only has 3 BS so even if it's firing all it's weapons, it's only hitting with 1/2 of them!
Wait a second. Moving 12" and only hitting with half of your shots but being able to fire all your weapons can be considered rather more effective than moving 12" and being allowed to fire none - if I'm not allowed to fire my weapons all the BS and twin-linkage in the world is not going to help. Your BS comparison is moot if we aren't talking about stationary vehicles.


How much armor does a LR have? More... a Falcon trades off armor for speed.
The probability of killing a Land Raider with a lascannon is higher than killing a tooled-up Falcon.


Does the Falcon with it's 3 BS need to be making a choice between firing all it's weapons or firing one single weapon and getting a 5-6 save? I can honestly say I don't think so. Now if you're going to run a Falcon you'll be better off not putting ANY extra weapons on it and/or taking the cheapest options (which just invalids the codex, which sucks).
Dear god... you mean we might see falcons without upgrades? :cries:

Again, if you can get a 4+ save from cover AND shoot all your guns, isn't that better than moving and getting a 5+ save? Yes, this would require static vehicles, but that just means Eldar are in the same boat as everyone else in 5th. Oh, and you'd have to actually use terrain.

Still not seeing how Eldar are nerfed more than anyone else.


With the changes being made it won't be worth fielding. As I stated before, you'll be better off fielding a Fireprism or Wave Serpent. The HYBRID role of both a gunship and transport will be killed.
No, it will still be able to both. Just not both at the same time. Ditto with any other heavy transport.


Does this change **** me off? Yes. Rightly so, I've invest time and money in painting my two falcons. I don't own any Fireprism (hate that they're not all plastic).
I still don't get it. Your falcons will be usuable as either gunships (just hug cover! even better than SMF!) or as transports (power 18" across the board!). They still arguably do both better than just about any other vehicle in the game. You just have to choose which they're going to do at any given time.


The defensive weapon rule is just fine, the problem (for Eldar) is with the current Eldar codex. If Eldar had access to a decent strength 4 weapon on its skimmers I'm sure most Eldar players would agree.
You have twin-suriken catapults, right? Now you're going to have to choose between a proper defensive weapon like that and a real primary weapon system like a shuriken cannon - which ISN'T a defensive weapon, it's an offensive anti-infantry weapon. Maybe upgrading to a shuriken cannon will not be such a no-brainer as it is now. When the Eldar codex came out my opponent and I looked at the vehicles - why wouldn't you upgrade for shuriken cannon?

As I said before, the issue is not allowing defensive weapons to fire at a second target. But still not feeling much sympathy for Falcons.


Then I would actually feel like I have a choice:

1) Moving slowly and firing everything would be a more viable choice as I might actually hit with my weapons.

2) Moving fast trading defense for offense.
Again. You can get more defense from terrain than you would from SMF. I seriously fail to see what BS has to do with this. Your choice is to hug cover or break out in the open. If you make a break over open ground, you probably aren't taking the time to shoot carefully - indeed, rather than just moving fast, one would assume skimmers would be jinking to avoid incoming fire.


I guess my overall point right now is the Falcon is NOT an offensive powerhouse due to the fact it misses 50% of it's shots. It's a hybrid meant to fly in (and shoot) while it delivers a small number of troops.
Low BS = few shots? You still have, what, up to 9 shots at S6-9 with the damn thing? You're still getting more hits, on average when moving 12", with more strength than a Land Raider under the current rules moving 6".


(Unlike the Land Raider which has armor to take hits and can deliver a full compliment of troops, has more access points and higher armor all for ~50 points more!)
And can't move-and-fire at all if I want to actually move faster than the troops inside can walk!

I still can't see why Eldar (or any fast vehicle for that matter) should be able to move-and-fire faster than ground vehicles.


Same goes for a Land Raider. What does it's main armament do? Hunt other tanks, it's not like it's so brutal against the rest of your army and it's a damn easy target to get LOS to.
Agreed. The stupid defensive weapon rule basically prevents tanks from moving-and-firing against other tanks. Which... would also be able to move-and-fire. Where's the balance issue here?

Dooks Dizzo
04-04-2008, 20:50
As I pretty much stated I am all for the Falcon getting to move 12"+ and fire everything. Especially now that it's not toally unkillable. And since it can no longer get itself and another scoring unit onto an objective, it's fairly balanced out.

But saying that the LR is superior for the points is pretty crazy. Between Lance, Melta, 2D6 armor pen (monsters, Kharn) and the like, it isn't near as tough as we would like it to be. Couple that with it's inability to fire and the points cost is just too high.

If I could model it with both twin linked lascannons mounted on a top turret (with Co-ax HB's) and got a little more leniency with the move and shoot I would be all for it. Hell I'd probably pay MORE points for it!

Assaulting out of it is king, but you do have to get there and for Chaos, we can't even make the most of getting 11+ squad size because it only holds 10. (Damn you loyalists and your Crusader!)

My over all point is that I want to see ALL vehicles get better (poor Tau) with a nod to toning down the near invulnerability of the Falcon.

Jaradakar
04-04-2008, 20:54
Lord Inquisitor, you bring up a ton of good points.

Lots to think about.

I'll reserve final judgment to some play-testing (which I hopefully will happen soonish).

Hum, perhaps your right, a Falcon will just have to use terrain more and while I initially hated the thought of my tanks having to cower behind buildings... perhaps it will add a bit of strategy. :eyebrows:

That and of course choosing to fire or drop off troops...

Overall I'm not super thrilled of the idea of "static vehicles" because in my mind, the whole point of a vehicle (skimmers especially) is to be mobile (regardless if it's a troop transport or gunship (or hybrid)).

-Jara

PS: O' and it's not move 12" and fire 1/2 my weapons it's just 1. Again I'd be more okay being able to fire 2 weapons as at least then I'd be firing everything on my turret and it would still give a pause as to "should I upgrade" the under gun to a cannon.

graveaccomplice
04-04-2008, 20:56
Has anyone here spoken with pilots of helicopters and tanks to determine the likelihood of being able to fire all weapons while at a full move?

Dooks Dizzo
04-04-2008, 21:09
Being as I worked with Abrahms back in the late 90's early 2000's...you could ask me. No idea about helicopters, but I bet Wiki has answers.

As for move and fire main tanks...hell yes you can. The turret is hydraulically stabilized. No matter what the tracks are doing the main gun is rock steady. The MG's mounted on the turret benefit from the same system. Though the gunners (being bags of blood and water) do not.

Here's the other thing, no matter what you can always pull the trigger and those rounds have to go somewhere.

The Bradley with it's auto cannon has the same system.

But come on! Who cares what real world crap can do? We're not playing Warhammer 2K! What real life stuff can do makes no difference. Lets hit a nice tone between game balance and fun.

I ask again because no one has commented, what if all tanks could move full and fire everything? (Ordinance having it's own rules as it does now). Would that cripple the game? Screw everything up? I think not personally.

It would make tanks fun and useful. Infantry will still be point for point more efficient, they still couldn't cap objectives and they would still die from stray lascannon rounds.

Honestly, in 6 turns how much can a predator, land raider, hammer head, falcon or whatever kill? COnsidering ANY hit that gets through prevents them from firing, my bet is not that much.

graveaccomplice
04-04-2008, 21:15
Being as I worked with Abrahms back in the late 90's early 2000's...you could ask me. No idea about helicopters, but I bet Wiki has answers.
.

And how does the abrahms compare to other tanks, givien that's it is specifically engineered to be able to fire on the move? Current equivalent is the leopard, which while having a better targeting acquisition system isn't as effective on the move as an abrahms.

Dooks Dizzo
04-04-2008, 21:22
As far as I know or have read or experienced most modern tanks are roughly equal. Some have advantages in one area while giving it up in another. French, German, American, British and Isrealie tanks are all pretty much the same in over all effectiveness.

Lord Inquisitor
04-04-2008, 21:48
Lord Inquisitor, you bring up a ton of good points.
...
Hum, perhaps your right, a Falcon will just have to use terrain more and while I initially hated the thought of my tanks having to cower behind buildings... perhaps it will add a bit of strategy. :eyebrows:
... that was an unexpected response ... ;) ... surely I've not convinced someone of something on the net?

I agree ... I think that one of the (few) good things in the leaked rules is increasing the strategic use of things like skimmers if there is an advantage of using terrain (rather than boosting right next to the enemy). Maybe I'm bitter, but I'm sick of Eldar players throwing their transports right out in the open at me - either I take it down or I get charged. A bit of tactical use of terrain would make the games more interesting (whether it makes them more or less powerful).


Overall I'm not super thrilled of the idea of "static vehicles" because in my mind, the whole point of a vehicle (skimmers especially) is to be mobile (regardless if it's a troop transport or gunship (or hybrid)).
Oh, me neither. As I said before, I think all vehicles (fast or not) should be able to move 6" and fire all weapons and move 12" and fire one.

I just raise my hackles when people are saying that eldar vehicles, particularly the one vehicle which really is too good, will be specifically "nerfed" by the new edition - the Falcon will simply be brought in-line with all other vehicles (which are also getting "nerfed" but then that's a different matter). If it does mean that we'll see more wave serpents or fire prisms all the better.

I'm hoping that the final 5th ed rules might still be different to the leaked rules for vehicles which will suck for everyone, not just Eldar. But as time goes on and no new rumours appear, that hope is dying.


PS: O' and it's not move 12" and fire 1/2 my weapons it's just 1. Again I'd be more okay being able to fire 2 weapons as at least then I'd be firing everything on my turret and it would still give a pause as to "should I upgrade" the under gun to a cannon.
Depends - I was talking about the current rules.

Hmm... Move 6" and fire two weapons plus defensive... could be interesting... that would be better, but still give an incentive to stay stationary - interesting idea.

Dooks Dizzo
04-04-2008, 21:56
Oh and I have seen a video of a chopper hauling ass while a door gunner with a minigun just ripped a bunch of old cars apart.

As for an Apache or something like that, I have generally seen them firing from stationary. But I always pictures vehicles moving in 40k as moving, stopping and firing. Even though I know 'technically' they are moving throughout the whole phase.

Dreachon
04-04-2008, 22:38
All modern tanks have fully stabilized systems, the concept of firing on the move was already in development before WW2 and provded after that.

Lord Inquisitor
04-04-2008, 22:55
The realism is a sticky thing though.

Battlefleet gothic has it's rules entirely based around sea combat with barely any consideration for space combat.

Are the Gothic rules "realistic"? Obviously they're based around naval combat, but saying that they're "unrealistic" because any given niggle doesn't reflect archaic naval combat is daft since we ARE talking about spaceships, but equally it is silly to suggest that they're a "realistic" simulator of space combat either.

The "feel" for the vehicles - driven by aliens or not - is WWI/WWII for the most part. But even so, I think that they should be able to keep pace and fire with infantry! But that may not be the intent of the designers.

Dooks Dizzo
04-04-2008, 22:56
Check out my thread on some proposed idea's for vehicles in 5th. I might have single handedly solved our problems!! (Yeah right.)

Jaradakar
05-04-2008, 01:05
... that was an unexpected response ... ;) ... surely I've not convinced someone of something on the net?


Yeah, I'm not here to just troll :-)

And while I do have to admit my first reaction was a very passionate one (had just read the PDF). I'm really here to talk to other 40K players and share my thoughts as well as listen to theirs. I think it'll help me understand and cope with the changes.

Plus I also realize that no matter how much one theory crafts new rules, actually playing them and trying them out is really the only way to truly get an full understanding of the changes (and I've not had a chance to do that yet).



Oh, me neither. As I said before, I think all vehicles (fast or not) should be able to move 6" and fire all weapons and move 12" and fire one.

I just raise my hackles when people are saying that eldar vehicles, particularly the one vehicle which really is too good, will be specifically "nerfed" by the new edition - the Falcon will simply be brought in-line with all other vehicles (which are also getting "nerfed" but then that's a different matter). If it does mean that we'll see more wave serpents or fire prisms all the better.

I really think the 4th Ed Falcon is too good because of:

A) It's current survivability and
B) It's a scoring unit.

"A" unfortunately has a huge influence on B. Tone down A and remove B and I think it would be perfectly balanced.

I've won/tied many of a game due to the Falcon still being scoring when really it should not have been

Hence, when I saw the (defensive Str change) rules I assumed the change mostly just effected Eldar. With the Falcon not hitting or doing much damage in the games I play as is, it feels like an unnecessary change. Now that I see it is uniform change that effects others... well it's just a huge change.



I'm hoping that the final 5th ed rules might still be different to the leaked rules for vehicles which will suck for everyone, not just Eldar. But as time goes on and no new rumours appear, that hope is dying.


Me too, I'm really hoping they play test the heck out of the new rules and don't nerf vehicles as much as these current rules seem to.

Though I have another friend that thinks that with covering playing a role, all vehicles have got a huge buff...



Hmm... Move 6" and fire two weapons plus defensive... could be interesting... that would be better, but still give an incentive to stay stationary - interesting idea.

I'm personally not 100% sold on the idea of wanting to give a benefit for staying stationary, but I like where you're going with it.

-Jara

PS: The more I think about it the more... I don't want vehicles having to act like infantry. The whole point of putting a heavy weapon on a vehicle Vs having a troop foot slog the weapon is so that you can fire it on the move.

Lord Cook
05-04-2008, 01:52
I really think the 4th Ed Falcon is too good because of:
A) It's current survivability and
B) It's a scoring unit.
"A" unfortunately has a huge influence on B. Tone down A and remove B and I think it would be perfectly balanced.

But this is the problem. It may be overpowered for a falcon to be scoring, but it isn't for other units (like hellhounds). But because of the whole falcon thing, which should be fixed with specific changes to the falcon (like toning down holo fields) they're introducing a huge sweeping rule that hits everybody. Even those who were never part of the problem. Now certain army builds become useless just because someone else's army was too good. Vehicles should definately be scoring.

Lorieth
08-04-2008, 15:59
I don't understand why people object to Fast vehicles moving further whilst firing the same. Isn't the idea that the vehicles stop every now and then to acquire targets and/or fire? I'm pretty sure that's what the Rulebook says, and it's the only way I've ever been able to reconcile the slow speeds of vehicles compared to infantry. Fast vehicles simply move further in between firing. Not to mention that many Fast vehicles are Skimmers, so you might expect them to provide a more stable fire platform.

oni
08-04-2008, 16:27
* I'm not sure why this thread is in here twice, but I'll repost what I said in the other one...

I agree. Typically the way I have always seen tanks used is to move/position itself to an ideal location, than just sit there all game and unleash hell until destroyed. I don't think this rule will really affect game play all that much. I also agree that tanks should be more mobile than troops.

I kind of feel like the tabletop game is being tailored more toward playing like the AI in the DoW computer game. Anyone else feel this way?

Jaradakar
09-04-2008, 21:38
Also one of my other thoughts I had... with Defensive weapons being changed to Str 4...

If they go with this change, I'd really like to see them open up not having to fire everything at the same target. As directing Str 4 weapons AND your primary weapon to the same target is often pointless.

Maybe they could have it so that all defensive weapons must fire at the same target, while all Primary weapons must fire at the same target.

This would add some flexibility (and give more use to Str 4 or under weapons).

-Jara

Lord Inquisitor
09-04-2008, 22:17
But this is the problem. It may be overpowered for a falcon to be scoring, but it isn't for other units (like hellhounds). But because of the whole falcon thing, which should be fixed with specific changes to the falcon (like toning down holo fields) they're introducing a huge sweeping rule that hits everybody. Even those who were never part of the problem. Now certain army builds become useless just because someone else's army was too good. Vehicles should definately be scoring.
But bear in mind that in the new environment, while the Hellhound won't be scoring, neither will any Fast Attack unit, such as Rough Riders.

If Rough Riders aren't scoring, I wouldn't want Hellhounds to be. You might disagree with both, but that's another matter, not just vehicles.


If they go with this change, I'd really like to see them open up not having to fire everything at the same target. As directing Str 4 weapons AND your primary weapon to the same target is often pointless.
Agreed... I've suggested this earlier in this thread... ;) That would actually make defensive weapons defensive.

Kirasu
10-04-2008, 01:09
Thinking about it tho I think a wraithlord with fortune in cover would be a bit more scary given its toughness and BS4 weapons

I sorta wanted eldrad to not be *as* amazing in 5th but with cover being 4+ all around double fortune is still too good to pass up

Jaradakar
10-04-2008, 02:02
Thinking about it tho I think a wraithlord with fortune in cover would be a bit more scary given its toughness and BS4 weapons

I sorta wanted eldrad to not be *as* amazing in 5th but with cover being 4+ all around double fortune is still too good to pass up

A) What does this have to do with defensive weapons? ;-)

B) Nothing has really changed, Wraithlords where always able to get cover (In fact I rarely moved my lords out of cover in 4th Ed, and I love to fortune them).

What's changed is now other Dreads (walkers) can use cover as well, this is a huge boon to them and I'm glade to see it, as I previously thought they where too easy to destroy.

Of course the nerf to them only being able to fire a single weapon and move might give the Wraithlord an advantage in some situations...

Though, Dreads can now "run" which might mean you'll see some interesting "run for cover" moves. Also a Dread with 1 ranged weapon and a power weapon can just keep moving and firing (and get closer to using the power weapon).

--- Granted, I hate that the Eldar War Walkers can't move and fire both weapons... and always have to take 2 weapons.

-Of course they can get cover now, so it means they'll be doing the same thing, run for cover and then once in a good position open fire.

-But with them having so little armor, it pretty much means relying on rolling cover saves... not something I like. 10 armor for the lose.

Lyinar
10-04-2008, 21:58
The problem with changing defensive weapons to S4 only is that the Leman Russ tank suddenly becomes utterly worthless as anything except a bunker, which encourages the kind of "tactics" that created the dreaded Parking Lot of Death formation that more annoying Armoured Company players used. It also makes the Predator Annihilator a thinner bunker with crappier guns, and the Baal-pattern Predator, meant to drive right into the enemy while spewing high-explosive and/or flaming death at them from close range, pretty bloody useless.

And Ork Battlewagons... Where will the Ork Warbosses who invested their hard-earned teef in proper Dakkamobiles be with this change?