PDA

View Full Version : Defensive Weapons - Thoughts



Odd_Motorbike_Guy
05-04-2008, 16:18
Which tanks are actually affected by a change from S6 to S4. It appears to be accepted that the change is intended to weaken Eldar and Tau skimmer tanks. What else is damaged?

I am assuming vehicles with an ordnance weapon will choose that.

Space Marines
Land Raider - Cannot fire Heavy Bolter (assuming PotMS will shoot the other Lascannon)

Predator - Cannot fire sponsons

Chaos

Predator - Cannot fire sponsons

Ork

??? - New codex, don't know

Dark Eldar

Ravager (I'm not convinced, where they able to fire 3 on the move anyway?)

Sisters of Battle

???

Necrons

None

Imperial Guard

Leman Russ Exterminator is no longer a viable option as a moving vehicle.



In short, I think we'll see vehicles become more specialised. Tanks with an ordnance weapon will use that rather than their "secondary" weapons. We probably will see a reduction in sponsons chosen too.

To be honest, I don't see what all the fuss is about. What have I missed? The predator is now not an automatic choice compared with Devastators?

BrianGeneral
05-04-2008, 16:24
For some other armour choices......
LRC for Marines, either Ass Cannon or MM.
Land Speeders (Either Tornado type/Typhoon) for Marines (which has already faced a cost lift).
Chimera (whatever setting) for IG.

Still, 3 DLs won't be able to fire all at once if it moves-----just 1.
I think the problem is mixing them with Disintergrators, which has 2 firing modes.

And together with the Walker nerf for firing, I think GW's intention to make one to buy more Infantry Box is very clear.

KingNova3000
05-04-2008, 17:26
Eh I'm not the biggest fan of the new secondary weapon rules, but I'm not going to let it ruin my day. I've accepted the change is a part of the balancing act, vehicles with extreme move and fire mobility along with their increased toughness would throw points costs for them out of wack. After playing a few games of 5th, the change isn't that dramatic, different I agree but its one of those things that appears much worse on paper.

People will look at other options now which is great. Vehicles like vindicators which were underclassed in 4th become far more inviting.

athamas
05-04-2008, 17:33
the problem for tau is that all their weapons will go from being defencive to main, they have no weapons lower than S5...

i understand that the current setup with a fulcan is somewhat sick, as to is a hammerhead, but the tau need the ability to kill everything dead before it hits their lines.. else they die like a but to a fly swat...

at least eldar have combat troops that can hurt MEQ's


also it will make LRC somewhat evil,

Lord Inquisitor
05-04-2008, 17:43
The "skimmer nerf" is an illusion. We're just going back to 3rd ed. But the fact that skimmers can get more benefit by hugging terrain than by SMF (a 4+ save rather than a 5+ save) means that eldar and tau vehicles are perfectly usable but will have to use terrain like everyone else.

It is transport/tank hybrids like Land raiders, chimera and (yes) falcons that will be hurt most by the new rules as they can either shoot or move, essentially. Falcons, incidentally, are still coming out on top - being able to move 12" and fire one primary weapon is still a whole lot better than not being able to fire anything at all like Land raiders.

Don't get me wrong, I deplore this new rule. Vehicles should be more mobile, not less! Really, tanks should be able to move at least as fast as infantry and fire all their weapons.

But all tanks are equally affected. The only tanks suffering a "nerf" are those that really are too good already, like the Falcon. To hear the Eldar players, you'd think their army has specifically beaten by the new rules - but don't forget that their vehicles got a substantial boost in 4th. I didn't hear anyone complaining (either way) about Falcons in 3rd, and that's what we've come back to.

Edit:

Put another way, are there any vehicles that have received a boost by the defensive weapon rules compared with the third edition rules?

The only vehicle with substantial S4 weaponry would be the LR Crusader, and that always had a special rule that it could fire them in addition to other weapons.

Supremearchmarshal
05-04-2008, 18:37
I agree with Lord Inquisitor on all points. I don't think the rule was made specifically against Tau and Eldar, but it still is a very, very stupid rule and definitely a step backwards. Vehicles in general will be rarer (with a few exceptions like Rhinos), while some like the Predator and Dreadnought will disappear from the battlefields for good.

athamas
05-04-2008, 19:00
well it looks like its supposed to encorage the use of storm bolters and the like...

but as per usuall its still open to abuse, and this time primerially by then LRC...

CaptainSenioris
05-04-2008, 19:03
We'll probably start seeing more storm bolters and heavy stubbers(edit as athamas said), and possibly tanks forsaking sponsons completely, when they do appear that is.

As for Eldar, people might start taking wave serpents for once, that or use Eldar missile launchers on their Falcons for plasma missiles.

Mandragola
06-04-2008, 03:30
What's really stupid is that some vehicles just mount one gun, a really powerful one, and they aren't affected at all.

So for example, something like an exorcist can be pretty happy about 5th. It just got harder to kill and it can still fire to full effect on the move.

On the other hand a predator has been nerfed. It can't fire its heavy bolters on the move any more.

Why is this? Is there something about the exorcist that makes it especially mobile relative to a predator? If so I can't imagine what it could be, since they are both based on the same chassis.

It's a nonsense rule. It's changing the core rules to reduce the power of a couple of units that are doing too well, and in the process it's catching everyone else. Stupid.

Codsticker
06-04-2008, 05:23
The Chimera will get a rather big nerf. The Russ not so much as you can opt to not take sponsons and (providing the leaked rules are good) the battlecannon will be more effective. The Chimera was very weak in 3rd. but the Defensive Fire rules in 4th. gave it a rather good boost; the ability to lay down a fair amount of fire power on the move provided balance against it's fragility.

Odd_Motorbike_Guy
06-04-2008, 14:41
The LRC isn't (significantly) hurt, MM or Assault Cannon just gets shot by the PotMS.

Funnily enough I already said sponsons going. I'm also not particularly upset if Tau and Eldar skimmers are less powerful.

The Chimera is less powerful, that's a case of not in my backyard :D

The dreadnought will not disappear completely, only the Lascannon/Missile Launcher variant.

I hadn't considered the land speeder. Not much point to paying another 35 points now is there. Still, a 36" effective range multi melta will never hurt.

I don't think tanks will disappear, given the extra toughness, I think we'll see more. Less sponsons now as they serve much less purpose and more ordnance where possible. Falcons won't be an automatic choice, there'll be more wraithlords. I do feel for the Tau though.

golembane
06-04-2008, 16:11
Falcons won't be an automatic choice, there'll be more wraithlords.

And this leads right back to where we were back in 3rd edition where people complained about Wraithlords being the only heavy troops Eldar players took. Now with Anti-tank weaponry becoming rarer and rarer on the battlefield, those Wraithlords are going to be just more dangerous as there will be even less things that can hurt their T8 skins, and it'll still take multiple shots in order to take one out of business. Then it's only a matter of time before the cries of 'Cheese' will be heard throughout the lands.

It's a full circle, and eventually 6th edition will come out which will over buff vehicles and the Falcon will leap ahead again as the heavy of choice. It's just the nature that is GW.

Kirasu
06-04-2008, 17:00
You can always move the tau/eldar skimmer 6" or less and fire everything? Or is that fact totally lost because it's easier to bitch?

Just use cover as previous posters said

BrianGeneral
06-04-2008, 17:31
You can always move the tau/eldar skimmer 6" or less and fire everything? Or is that fact totally lost because it's easier to bitch?

Just use cover as previous posters said
This is the only viable solution but in the end it's still an impratical one. As Inquisitor also agreed, armoured units are meant to be more mobile not less. Espeically to Tau and Eldar, Skimmer-tanks are the best weapon they can wield (and Falcons also act as transports) since they're meant to be fast and furious for their armies, and as they're already expensive in their armies, there're really no points to make them pillboxes like others else.

Kirasu
06-04-2008, 18:38
Eldrad + 2 falcons in cover = impossible to kill.. Are falcons supposed to be pillboxes? Perhaps not.. But a 75% chance to avoid EVERY hit against them makes the argument a bit better :p

Add to that some more shooting firepower such as a wraithlord and harlequins in a wave serpent and you have an even tougher to kill eldar army compared to 4th ed.. Not much to complain about imo.. I did eldar in the hard boy finals and if I had a 4+ rerollable cover save for my falcons the game would have been over by turn 2

Skyth
06-04-2008, 18:52
You can always move the tau/eldar skimmer 6" or less and fire everything? Or is that fact totally lost because it's easier to bitch?

Just use cover as previous posters said

Because a unit of guardians on foot can move 6" and fire everything...Vehicles should be able to do better. Especially high-tech fast skimmers.

And not all vehicles that this affects are fast (Preds and Chimeras are the best examples)...They can't move 6" and fire everything with the new rules.

cailus
06-04-2008, 23:58
Eldrad + 2 falcons in cover = impossible to kill.. Are falcons supposed to be pillboxes? Perhaps not.. But a 75% chance to avoid EVERY hit against them makes the argument a bit better :p


This is my problem with the stupid proposed defensive shooting rules.

Tanks are meant to be mobile guns.

Eldar tanks are meant to be supermaneouvrable, high speed, rapid assault units and not stationary pillboxes.

If these rules come out in the new edition it will go to prove yet again that GW rules design is totally arbitrary without any consideration for background or game play.



Add to that some more shooting firepower such as a wraithlord and harlequins in a wave serpent and you have an even tougher to kill eldar army compared to 4th ed.. Not much to complain about imo.. I did eldar in the hard boy finals and if I had a 4+ rerollable cover save for my falcons the game would have been over by turn 2

Add some Dire Avengers or even cheap Guardians in some Wave Serpents that hug the best cover possible for scoring purposes and we're back to "goshdarn those cheesy Eldar!" :D

It's amazing that so many optimists think that 5th edition will get rid of cheesy lists and uber options. People thought the same about 3rd and 4th edition. All that GW does is shift the focus from more popular items to less popular ones.

shaso_iceborn
07-04-2008, 01:20
I think all vehicles should get the 3 different speed options

IE battle speed up to 6" and fire all weapons, crusing speed up to 12" main weapon and defensive, full boar no shooting.

Walkers can move 6" and fire all weapons but cannot move faster unless superheavy.

Now still give fast vehicles (all skimmer or not)that move over 6" the 5+ cover save and Volia done all vehicles good.

Edit: additional content

perhaps make skimmers still need a 6 to hit in CC

Gorbad Ironclaw
07-04-2008, 05:49
The predator is now not an automatic choice compared with Devastators?

I wouldn't take a Predator. Looking at my DA I can take a Razorback instead, it have a little less armour, but if I stick it in cover it doesn't mean so much. In exchange I save a few points, I don't sacrifice anything if I move because it will only have that one gun anyway, I get a bit of transport capasity(double handy in 5th) and importantly, it's worth less Kill Points in Annihilation(is it just me or does Kill Points activly discourage you from taking small varied units?).


I don't think the rules change will see the complete removal of tanks, but it will certainly see some tanks being used much less as they will either be relativly useless, or static. Tanks with a single big gun doesn't really care terrible much, but anything that relied on multiple weapons for it's firepower is out of luck if they still want to do more than sit still and shoot.

Squallish
07-04-2008, 06:44
Eldrad + 2 falcons in cover = impossible to kill.. Are falcons supposed to be pillboxes? Perhaps not.. But a 75% chance to avoid EVERY hit against them makes the argument a bit better :p

Add to that some more shooting firepower such as a wraithlord and harlequins in a wave serpent and you have an even tougher to kill eldar army compared to 4th ed.. Not much to complain about imo.. I did eldar in the hard boy finals and if I had a 4+ rerollable cover save for my falcons the game would have been over by turn 2

Wraithlords have the same ability to shrug off 75% of incoming fire, but have 3 wounds, which is arguably way better than taking a hit on the Damage Chart as it may destroy or totally gimp the tank, while the Wraithlord just keeps on truckin'.. and also gets close combat abilities. The trade-off is slooow redeployment.

Evilof
07-04-2008, 12:58
The sisters wont be affected much.
The Excorcist , the pentinent engine and the Immolator only have one weapon each, so they wont be affected... unless you take Hunterkiller missiles.

We do have access to Landraiders for Inquisitor HQs, but they seem to be rare use of those. I also think that the chimera (transport for IG) does have the possibility for multiple S5+ weapons.

boogle
07-04-2008, 13:44
Looks like my main weapons of choice for my Tank Company will move away from Ordinance based primary weapons, to to thinks like Conquerer Cannons, Exterminators and Annihilators, which won't move as much, plus all my Chimera's will be getting Heavy Stubbers as standard, so they can move to get their squads into position and still be able to fire on the move

Yorrik's_Uncle
07-04-2008, 14:50
My only issue with the proposed defensive weapons is that it really seems at odds with how vehicles are supposed to be used in 5th. In 4th, you really didn't need them to be mobile as they could go sit on an objective and fire all their weapons to keep the enemy at bay.

In an apparent move to force people to stop using tanks as bunkers, they can't hold objectives any more. One would think that keeping them as mobile firing platforms would make them a viable option -- after all, they're expensive, give away KPs, and are worthless unless they're actually killing things instead of acting as area denial platforms. Instead, the only way to use all their weapons is to keep using them as bunkers.

It just seems odd to force people to use tanks as they were intended to be used in 4th (move and fire), but give them the abilities of how people actually used tanks in 4th (move or fire). It's almost like two different people tried to 'solve' the problem in two different ways...and then they stuck both rules together.

oni
07-04-2008, 21:18
My only issue with the proposed defensive weapons is that it really seems at odds with how vehicles are supposed to be used in 5th. In 4th, you really didn't need them to be mobile as they could go sit on an objective and fire all their weapons to keep the enemy at bay.

In an apparent move to force people to stop using tanks as bunkers, they can't hold objectives any more. One would think that keeping them as mobile firing platforms would make them a viable option -- after all, they're expensive, give away KPs, and are worthless unless they're actually killing things instead of acting as area denial platforms. Instead, the only way to use all their weapons is to keep using them as bunkers.

It just seems odd to force people to use tanks as they were intended to be used in 4th (move and fire), but give them the abilities of how people actually used tanks in 4th (move or fire). It's almost like two different people tried to 'solve' the problem in two different ways...and then they stuck both rules together.

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?

Mandragola
08-04-2008, 01:28
There will just be a switch in the types of vehicles people use.

For example take predators. At the moment a predator with lascannon turret and heavy bolter sponsons is popular, but will be pointless in 5th. At the moment it can move and fire all its weapons and take on a variety of targets effectively but in 5th, with the heavy bolters no longer able to fire on the mobe, it will be pointless.

As a result I expect that people will either go for all-lascannon predators or scrap them altogether. One option would be to take razorbacks for tactical squads and arm them with lascannons. Razorbacks, with only one weapon, fire the same as they move as they do when stationary. That makes them more efficient. It helps that they cost way less than a predator, give only one kill point and can move one of your squads around as well.

I think that vehicles like razorbacks, wave serpents and exorcists, with just one gun and often a relatively lower cost, will be pretty good in 5th. Those which can be bought as dedicated transports for troops will be best.

Supremearchmarshal
08-04-2008, 13:45
For example take predators. At the moment a predator with lascannon turret and heavy bolter sponsons is popular, but will be pointless in 5th. At the moment it can move and fire all its weapons and take on a variety of targets effectively but in 5th, with the heavy bolters no longer able to fire on the mobe, it will be pointless.

Yeah, but the Lascannon sponsons in the redux codexes are hideously overpriced and it's very likely the Predators will lose the option to take a Machine Spirit, so I don't think we'll be seeing Predators much at all. Like you said, the Razorback will outclass it in every way except front armour.

Lorieth
13-04-2008, 18:18
One thing that'll hit my Eldar hard is the effect on Vypers. At the moment all of my Vypers are upgraded with underslung shuriken cannons for the extra strength and range over the catapults. However it appears 5th ed will mean I almost never fire them, since all the options for the second weapons are S6 or greater (*). I know I *could* keep them stationary to fire all guns, but then I can't manoeuvre to hit side-armour, it hardly fits the fluff for the unit, and in any case this is supposed to be my Fast Attack! I'm just glad I haven't "upgraded" my Wave Serpent's catapults yet.

(*) OK, except a missile launcher firing plasmas, but one anti-infantry shot on BS3? No thanks... Unless of course the rumours about larger blast templates are true.

Odd_Motorbike_Guy
14-04-2008, 10:03
My only issue with the proposed defensive weapons is that it really seems at odds with how vehicles are supposed to be used in 5th. In 4th, you really didn't need them to be mobile as they could go sit on an objective and fire all their weapons to keep the enemy at bay.

In an apparent move to force people to stop using tanks as bunkers, they can't hold objectives any more. One would think that keeping them as mobile firing platforms would make them a viable option -- after all, they're expensive, give away KPs, and are worthless unless they're actually killing things instead of acting as area denial platforms. Instead, the only way to use all their weapons is to keep using them as bunkers.

It just seems odd to force people to use tanks as they were intended to be used in 4th (move and fire), but give them the abilities of how people actually used tanks in 4th (move or fire). It's almost like two different people tried to 'solve' the problem in two different ways...and then they stuck both rules together.

I hate to be rude, but are you dense? You won't go for pillbox tanks cos they're crap. You'll (if you're smart) go with ordnance tanks and move and fire them every turn. They aren't scoring units, so go crazy and kill your enemy's scoring units.

EDIT: heheheh 69 posts!! I'm so immature.

big squig
14-04-2008, 10:33
Orks and tau have no tank mounted weapon below Str 5. And god help the chimera.

Srt 4 defensive weapons sux.

esk34
14-04-2008, 11:52
Orks and tau have no tank mounted weapon below Str 5. And god help the chimera.

Srt 4 defensive weapons sux.

I pretty much agree. When they changes the rules in 4th, nobody I played with thought it was a ad thing. Most players like the aility for there ig expensive units to lay down firepower while supporting the rest of there army.
Most players I know said that the only prolems with tanks in 4th were that they were to weak, so now they have fixed that, they have also fixed the frankly overpowered SMF rules ( I play Eldar and think that SMF as it is is way over the top.) However the proposed changes sounded good although odd as it should be all vehilces moving over 6" get a 5+ save, and over 12" a 4+.
I really don't get why they are redcing the firepower effectivness of most tanks while on the move. I used to like the flexibility of a HB sponson equiped pred. If this rule does come through I would most likely go fo las cannon sponsons, and play it like a heck of a lot of others do (Like an AT bunker.) Either that or drop it altogether and take devs with 2 lascannons as unlike the pred they will alway be able to shoot. The thing with most vehicles in 40k is they are pretty easy to shut down as far as shooting goes anyway, so the extra firepower is really needed to justify taking a tank over foot troops, or especially monsterous creatures.

ewar
21-04-2008, 23:33
One thing about this whole rule I just don't understand is, what on earth the issue was before? Did people have a massive problem with S6 defensive weapons? I personally thought they just made some light fast units more interesting and viable with a little extra punch.

Did landspeeder tornados need more downgrading than the rending rule being toned down? I don't think so. Did the shuricans on vypers really do that much damage mounted on a unit basically made out of paper and prayers?

Other 5th ed changes I can understand, but this just seems ridiculous and unecessary. I don't see the 'model buying' argument behind it, as they're just nerfing some of the cool and expensive bits of kit that everyone enjoys taking! It's not often I can be arsed to post, but this has finally driven me to it!

Draconian77
22-04-2008, 00:25
I am also a little confused a about the reasoning behind S4 defensive weapons. Tau need all the shots they can get, Leman's and Preds having mobile anti-infantry firepower is fine balance wise and it is not the guns on the Falcon that worry people.

However it is still a rumour isn't it? I mean, nothing has been confirmed as of yet IIRC so lets just hope that the designers read these forums.:angel:

Plebian
22-04-2008, 03:15
I was thinking something along the lines of human sacrifice to appeal to the GW Gods to not screw up 5th. I have plenty of guardsman to spare;)
Maybe that Stupid JO who keeps deepstriking into impassable...>:)

Fletch
14-05-2008, 16:25
One thing about this whole rule I just don't understand is, what on earth the issue was before? Did people have a massive problem with S6 defensive weapons? I personally thought they just made some light fast units more interesting and viable with a little extra punch.


Well the issue as I see it, and possibly where the possibility for abuse is, in the very ridgid targetting rules for vehicles in the latest and proposed 5th edition rules of 40k.

Lets not pretend that "defensive" weapons are being used in that spirit, for the most part it just allowed more players to load up on S6/S5 weapons and chase down lightly armored tanks/transports or face down heavier tanks more susceptible armor facings (sides & rear). Typically players used them for going on the offensive more than reacting i.e. defensive. This pretty much allowed some vehicles to play more of an anti-tank/vehicle roll than I believe they GW intended them to.

I don't really have a problem with the proposed change of what they are now classifying a defensive weapon (i.e. Str 6 is now replaced with Str 4). My biggest issue still lies with the ridgid targetting rules for vehicles.

My suggestion would be to allow defensive weapons (now str4) to shoot at a different target from the main guns. This would allow your Pred tank to roll forward targetting an enemy tank (its offensive purpose) with its TL Lascannons hoping to knock it out, and still fire that Str4 storm bolter at advancing hostile infantry (defensive). Because really whats the point of being able to fire two S4 shots in support of the TL Lascannon when they need to fire against the same target, say a Monolith????


***I know this is a long since quiet post but I believe that since this is a discussion on rules that have yet to be published, the topics are still very valid. Sorry for those that believe the topic is dead.

Sureshot05
14-05-2008, 17:03
I await the rules with baited breath, but I have to say that if this is the case, then I think GW have missed the ball with this one. We hear the phrase that they feel that guardsmen tanks are more like their world war ii equivs which moved or fired in general, but the trouble is GW doesn't seem to be listening to what their player base expects and wants from vehicles.

We want to be able to move and fire them, even if it means paying more to do so. Its a player desire to use these vehicles to provide heavy mobile firepower, and that is about it. Not many people really want to have vehicles which cannot drive forth blasting away with all weapons. Instead, with defensive strength 4, I foresee sponsors just being left off the tanks left, right and center except in a few cases due to the fact that these vehicles have to remain stationary. Why take a predator when you can take a devastor squad which will have pretty much the same effect, and can survive 4 las cannon hits without losing its primary weapon (extreme example, but I'm sure people see the point). I hope that they haven't done this as it was a terrible idea in 3rd Ed to have pill boxes and would be just as bad to see it return in 5th.

Ravenous
14-05-2008, 17:10
With the soul grinder in the new Daemon codex all the weapons are assault weapons.

So I have a theory that defensive weapons are S4 heavy weapons, any assault weapons, and rapid fire weapons. However I could be wrong because the soul grinders secondary gun is the 6 shot S4 gun.

Lord Inquisitor
14-05-2008, 17:46
Orks and tau have no tank mounted weapon below Str 5. And god help the chimera.
Well, Chimera are one of the few vehicles with the option to take a decent S4 bolt-on weapon. Plus does anyone actually move them that much these days anyway?


One thing about this whole rule I just don't understand is, what on earth the issue was before? Did people have a massive problem with S6 defensive weapons? I personally thought they just made some light fast units more interesting and viable with a little extra punch.
I didn't like it too much because it made certain weapon load-outs vastly more effective than others. And it didn't in any way actually play as "defensive" - it just meant that anti-infantry vehicles (like the destructor) were cheaper and better than anti-tank vehicles (like the annihilator).


I am also a little confused a about the reasoning behind S4 defensive weapons. Tau need all the shots they can get, Leman's and Preds having mobile anti-infantry firepower is fine balance wise and it is not the guns on the Falcon that worry people.
I've said this in other posts, but I'll say it again. S4 for "defensive" weapons is just fine. No, the heavy bolter and the shuriken cannon are not "defensive" weapons - they're "offensive" anti-infantry heavy weapons. The only people with S5 small arms are the Tau (and maybe the Orks). The sorts of weapons that should actually be used to try and keep infantry away from tanks are things like stormbolters, shuriken catapults and stubbers. The S4 restriction works quite well that way.

The problems with vehicles are as follows:
1) Tanks should be able to move-and-fire a reasonable distance - at least keep pace with infantry!
2) Defensive weapons should be able to fire defensively
3) Allowing some weapons to fire and others not depending on movement is going to result in optimal builds for vehicles.
4) Not allowing ordinance to fire in addition to other weapons results in optimal builds for these vehicles.

Solutions? Simple:

1) All vehicles (yes, even fast vehicles) should be able to move 6" and fire all weapons, one weapon if they move up to 12" and none if they can/do move faster than that. (This keeps the skimmers needing to choose between shooting everything and SMF, but maintains a decent level of mobility for all vehicles)
2) Defensive weapons (S4 or less: exceptions can be made for things like Tau) can be fired in addition to other weapons, and may fire at a different target to the primary weapons.
3) Ordinance rules as in 4th, but may fire other weapons in addition to ordinance.


However it is still a rumour isn't it? I mean, nothing has been confirmed as of yet IIRC so lets just hope that the designers read these forums.:angel:
Given that preorders for the rulebook are happening, the rules are certainly set in stone (or, rather, in print) by now. They may not be what was leaked, but we're not changing anything now!

Fable
14-05-2008, 18:22
I've said this in other posts, but I'll say it again. S4 for "defensive" weapons is just fine. No, the heavy bolter and the shuriken cannon are not "defensive" weapons - they're "offensive" anti-infantry heavy weapons.

I suppose it's all personal definition though. I always thought of the anti-infantry weapons as being the real qualification that made them "defensive". That's why I think instead of making it a strength qualification they should simply have made it an AP qualification. my suggestion is weapons with an AP of 4, 5 or 6 are "defensive" which is almost the same as now except the Autocannon would become defensive and the Starcannon would be a main weapon. Otherwise it's all unchanged.

Vepr
14-05-2008, 18:37
I would think an easy solution would be to just have any weapons other than the main weapon only hit on a 6 if the vehicle moves. This way you still have a chance to use the weapons but it does make the vehicles completely over powered as you are lot less likely to hit anything. In fluff terms you could say only the main guns have targeting resolution so it makes it a lot harder to hit with the other weapons on the move.

Lord Inquisitor
14-05-2008, 18:42
It's going to be a matter of opinion of course, but I would say that "defensive" weapons are small arms weapons mounted on pintel supports or other wide-ranging mounts that are used to deter enemy infantry. An autocannon is not a defensive weapon!

Consider the predator destructor, fitted with a pintel-mounted storm bolter. The autocannon is a powerful main gun, engaging infantry and light tanks at long range. The heavy bolters are used to support the main gun, or to engage enemy infantry at range. The storm bolter is there as a back-up, much faster and easier to train on infantry at short range, ideal for hosing down any infiltrators sneaking up on the tank.

Yes, the predator can train its main and sponson weapons on infantry. But that's just the point, it has now stopped engaging the enemy at range - it is not using it's defensive (back up) weapons, it is using it's primary weapon systems.

If you look at the Epic rules (in which it might be noted that vehicles can both move-and-fire effectively AND can fire all of the weapons at their disposal, including ordinance), that's exactly what the deal is: weapons like heavy bolters are anti-infantry weapons and things like storm bolters are firefight weapons - only used in assaults.

In any case, changing the arbitrary cutoff from Strength to AP doesn't solve any issues associated with the arbitrary cutoff (such as optimised builds). While we're on the subject, what the heck is the balance issue with things like lascannon being fired on the move? Why on earth should anti-infantry tanks being able to move be okay but anti-tank tanks be unbalanced? Aside from anything else, they're going to be hunting other tanks who will also be more mobile and thus more able to hide from said anti-tank fire!

Plebian
15-05-2008, 07:57
I hate to be rude, but are you dense? You won't go for pillbox tanks cos they're crap. You'll (if you're smart) go with ordnance tanks and move and fire them every turn. They aren't scoring units, so go crazy and kill your enemy's scoring units.

EDIT: heheheh 69 posts!! I'm so immature.

Aye, you can still move and fire, but the template scatters much more. Thats why often times I will fire my 3xHB or my LC/2xPC if I moved my Russes.

Mythrider
15-05-2008, 10:39
This whole thing could be fixed for everyone by simply making defensive weapons S5 or less. I`m still hoping GW has come to their senses and made this change.

As a SM player this affects every single vehicle/walker in the book with the exception of the Vindicator. The rumoured nerf of Dreads is moronic. Get a good look at Dread mounted missile launchers and heavy flamers now, you won`t see any after this summer. As others mentioned about Vypers, the SM Speeder variants will likely disappear as well.

I truly feel bad for Tau players. Looks like we`ll be seeing lots of Broadsides, hopefully people splurge on the spiffy ones from Forgeworld.

silverdragon
15-05-2008, 13:45
This whole thing could be fixed for everyone by simply making defensive weapons S5 or less. I`m still hoping GW has come to their senses and made this change.

Unfortunately this fixes defensive weapons for orks, marines, IG, tau, and chaos but still screws up eldar. The above races have good str 5 weapons that have good AP(4 or 5), good amount of shots (3+), and good range (18"+) - burst cannons, heavy bolters, big shootas, etc... This would leave eldar with a 12" range, str 4, 2 shot defensive weapon putting them at an huge disadvantage in every category.

I think Defensive weapons should be AP 4+ or str 6 or lower like now. If defensive is AP4+, as someone mentioned earlier, this only really effects 2 weapons, the star cannon moving it to a main weapon and the auto cannon moving it to a defensive weapon. Because of this maybe defensive weapons should be AP4+ with str=6 or less to keep the autocannon as an offensive weapon.

No matter how you classify them defensive weapons should be able to shoot at separate targets from the main weapons, especially if they are going to remain as rumored, str4. Vehicles also need to be able to shoot all weapons when moving at least 6." When moving 6-12" vehicles should a) be able to shoot 1 main and defensive weapons when moving 6-12 OR b) shoot 1 weapon without penalty and shoot all others (defensive and offensive at -1 BS).

I agree with above posters that the increased vehicle movement made possible by the defensive weapon rules introduced in 4th was way better than the pillboxes or 1 weapon tanks that were prevalent in 3rd. Especially with vehicles not being able to capture objectives, they need to retain their mobility.

The_Outsider
15-05-2008, 14:45
These shooting changes basically don't affect dark eldar at all.

If anything we'll be seeing triple disintegrator ravagers moving 12" and firing the lot on minimal settings (thats nine S4 AP3 shots per ravager for 120 points).

Raiders only have 1 gun anyway so they aren't affected.

So really the tougher the enemy tanks become the better DE become (with very few exceptions), you shoot less but live more, but with so many dark lances the average DE player won't care at all.

5th edition - the Dark Eldar edition.

Misanthrope
15-05-2008, 15:32
Yeah, it's unfortunate, but thankfully I've magnetized my Leman Russ sponsons in the nick of time... and looks like I'll be leaving them at home most of the time.

This also screws a fair amount of less popular vehicles. The Conqueror for example is now redundant as its specific role was its ability to fire and shoot all weapons (S7 Heavy blast replacing the battlecannon). The Exterminator is also royally screwed. Chimeras were pretty useless already except against light infantry and now even moreso (I imagine, since the front HB/HF is optional, I'll be leaving it at home too...).

However I seem to remember a rumour stating that all pintle-mounted weaponry will be exempt from this rule, ie you'll still be able to fire off that pintle-mounted multimelta on LRCs or whatever it is that has them. In either case I'll be cutting back on a lot of weaponry but probably be adding Stormbolters and Heavy Stubbers to everything I can.. now just gotta go dig them all out of the ol' bitz box...

But anyway as for the reasoning; I think they're trying to artificially impliment more "strategy" this way. Now you can either move and shoot once or stay still and shoot everything. Of course, it's a rather shallow attempt to inject this sort of tactic but meh. We'll see how it goes I guess.

Misanthrope
15-05-2008, 15:39
Another thought, I may actually put Lascannons back on my Russes with the points saved from taking the HB sponsons off. That way, they can fire the Lascannon if they move or the battlecannon if they don't.

Lord Inquisitor
15-05-2008, 16:08
You actually fire the lascannon on your russ?

Meh, I'm not going to pass up the chance to fire the battlecannon, even with an extra D6 scatter. I'd rather stick with the 1/3 chance of hitting plus the scatter with the cannon than the 1/2 chance of hitting with the lascannon.

In order to make secondary weaponry on ordinance-toting tanks as anything other than a back-up they really need to remove the restriction that says if you fire ordinance you can't fire anything else...

The_Outsider
15-05-2008, 16:25
Yes but ordnance weapon are meant to be so powerful that firing them effectively stops you firing anything else.

Imagine a russ sitting in the open battlecannoning a unit, then hitting it with 3 heavy bolters and a pintle mounted heavy stubber and hunterkiller - while the example is an extreme one thats what you are asking.

The problem with the russ is its cost - not the rules that govern its firing.

gitburna
15-05-2008, 16:37
assuming that points costs have to stay the same for vehicles, and a balance needs to be found to level the playing field between skimmers and normal tanks (look at the current difference between a Falcon and a Predator for an example of the gulf) then you have to say that cutting back on defensive weapons was the way to go.

Also assuming that points have to stay the same, then you cant have more resilient vehicles AND more mobile vehicles AND more shooty vehicles all at once, you've GOT to limit which ones you pick. The result seems to be that vehicles are now more resilient (which many people seemed to want) however it has to be at the expense of something, and GW has decided that it should be their shooting ability on the move.

4th edition gave us faster moving, shootier vehicles,which on the face of it was all well and good, but in the end i think GW wanted to "compress" the range between the best performing and worst performing vehicles, if you know what i mean, after 4th edition had "stretched" the scale (so that a falcon or hammerhead were far and away the best, compared to something like say a predator with autocannon and 2 lascannons at the worst)

gitburna
15-05-2008, 16:42
You actually fire the lascannon on your russ?

Meh, I'm not going to pass up the chance to fire the battlecannon, even with an extra D6 scatter. I'd rather stick with the 1/3 chance of hitting plus the scatter with the cannon than the 1/2 chance of hitting with the lascannon.

In order to make secondary weaponry on ordinance-toting tanks as anything other than a back-up they really need to remove the restriction that says if you fire ordinance you can't fire anything else...

Well, the only problem i see is that essentially a Leman Russ with a broken battlecannon is a waste. I lost the demolisher cannon on my vindicator a few games back and was lamenting the fact i hadnt bought the thing a combibolter so i cold at least absorb some extra demage before being out of commission

Priest
15-05-2008, 16:59
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but what if they made assault weapons defensive and heavy as main. This would allow Shurican Cannons and heavy flamers. And if they made Heavy Bolters like the Death Watch variant with the option to be 18" assault then heavy bolters would get to stick around too. I don't know what this would do to the other xenos armies but it makes sense to me.

Puffin Magician
15-05-2008, 17:01
I'm not pleased by s4 Defweaps at all. Unless "Defensive Weapons" could target & fire independently and the tank's larger weapons could all fire at a single target. Yeah, right.

This whole thing could be fixed for everyone by simply making defensive weapons S5 or less.That's exactly what I thought, and then remembered the Shuriken Cannon. The problem with what strength to make Defensive Weapons is that some tanks can be kitted with multiple s6 weapons and be very devastating; eg. Falcon w/ Pulse, StarCannon, ShurCannon. Eliminating s6 meant the Eldar got the shaft, so that's no good. I'd change it to Str ≤5 are Defensive, and the Eldar Shuriken Cannon becomes 24" s5 ap5 Heavy 6 across the board.

On the other hand, the changes to vehicle shooting rules could be because GW wants us to move our tanks into position [able to fire something, at least], and then hold it firing everything we've got. Still mobile firepower, and IMO acts like real tanks do. They don't move around firing every single weapon aboard at whatever they see. It's usually the main gun destroying threats and then 'resting' to scan and then it is able to bring more weapons to bear. I can't imagine the Merkava IV unleashing all it's weapons on a single target on the move...

Lord Inquisitor
15-05-2008, 17:01
Imagine a russ sitting in the open battlecannoning a unit, then hitting it with 3 heavy bolters and a pintle mounted heavy stubber and hunterkiller - while the example is an extreme one thats what you are asking.

The problem with the russ is its cost - not the rules that govern its firing.
So what's the problem with that? Okay, the sponsons are going to need to be re-pointed, but then they need to anyway (heavy bolters on a predator are 30 now, on a russ they're what, 5 or 10 points?)

The Leman Russ is a fearsome tank and should be so! You stay the hell away from Leman Russ formations in Epic because getting hammered by a battlecannon, two heavy bolters and a lascannon per tank is brutal as hell.

As long as the weapons are pointed appropriately, there should be no problem. The demolisher is even worse. At least on the Russ, if you don't fire your heavy bolters then that's not too much of a loss, but if you go for multi-melta sponsons on a demolisher you have to choose between the devastating power of the demolisher or the multimeltas. Either way, you're wasting firepower you've paid good points for.

Similar issues apply to other ordinance tanks. I don't know anyone that bothers with upgrading defilers to carry additional ranged weapons like twin-las or havocs. You're inevitably going to be wasting points by not firing the weapons for a dubious amount of flexibility (since the battlecannon is good against anything anyway). You see most defilers these days have one or both back-up weapons replaced with addition close combat arms as they might actually come in useful (if you're shooting, you're going to be shooting the battlecannon, if you're in combat you're not going to be shooting anyway!)

The issue is with the rules. As long as the tanks are suitably pointed, it won't be a problem balancing them.


Well, the only problem i see is that essentially a Leman Russ with a broken battlecannon is a waste. I lost the demolisher cannon on my vindicator a few games back and was lamenting the fact i hadnt bought the thing a combibolter so i cold at least absorb some extra demage before being out of commission
Well, there is some value in buying weapons as a backup. But for a demolisher, I'm going to buy 10-point heavy bolters as my insurance policy - I'm not shelling out for the expensive sponsons that I'm probably not going to fire.

But seriously, why not allow Ordinance tanks to fire all their weapons? It was the way in 2nd ed, what exactly was the problem with that?


I'm not pleased by s4 Defweaps at all. Unless "Defensive Weapons" could target & fire independently and the tank's larger weapons could all fire at a single target. Yeah, right.
It's simple, it's easy, it makes bucket-loads of sense that the defensive weapons rules never have. Here's hoping!

Kirika
15-05-2008, 22:16
Strength 4 defensive weapons is pretty sucky all around. Seems alot of vehicles get hit hard by it.

The Eldar Shuriken Cannon gets made useless by the strength 4 defensive weapons. Why would you buy one except on a twinlinked eldar missle launcher wave serpent. On Falcons and Serpents you can not shoot the str6 Shuriken cannon and the main gun anymore in 5th. Most of the Eldar vehicles get hit by the Shuriken cannon nerf.

Someone mentioned Wraithlords being better how are they better if they can only shoot one weapon? The monsterous creature nerf to only shoot one weapon is lame too.

silverdragon
15-05-2008, 22:33
assuming that points costs have to stay the same for vehicles, and a balance needs to be found to level the playing field between skimmers and normal tanks (look at the current difference between a Falcon and a Predator for an example of the gulf) then you have to say that cutting back on defensive weapons was the way to go.

The playing field between skimmers and normal tanks is already evened out by the new unified damage table and the change to the SMF rule. The only skimmers which are probably going to be out-preformers are holo field falcons and prisms and the monolith. All Non-skimmers gain a lot of survivabilty vs normal weapons and some survivabilty against melta and AP1 weapons (esp. the monolith, its going to be sick). Skimmers gain a little survivability vs. normal weapons, but lose a lot of survivability against AP1 weapons and melta compared to what they had in 4th (which isn't necassarily a bad thing).



Also assuming that points have to stay the same, then you cant have more resilient vehicles AND more mobile vehicles AND more shooty vehicles all at once, you've GOT to limit which ones you pick. The result seems to be that vehicles are now more resilient (which many people seemed to want) however it has to be at the expense of something, and GW has decided that it should be their shooting ability on the move.

I understand what you are saying, but there's more to it than vehicles becoming better in survivability, mobility, and firepower if defensive weapons stayed str 6. In 3rd ed., vehicles were considered over priced for what they did. Even with the defensive weapon rule many 4th ed. vehicles were still considered over priced. So many vehicles before 5th edition are considered imbalanced because the point values are too high.

In 5th ed. Vehicles are more resilant in most cases. Fast vehicles are also less mobile losing 6" of movement when going full speed. With the str4 defensive weapons all vehicles with more than 1 weapon are less shooty. So over all survivabilty went up (good), small loss in mobility (why?), and bigger loss in firepower (for balance?). You also have to take into account that vehicles can no longer capture objectives, which is huge. Vehicles will now not be able to use their increased resilance to surive and capture objectives in the last turns.

Currently in 5th it looks like vehicles get more resilance vs. non AP1 and melta weapons by at a cost of some speed (for fast vehicles), less firepower (str 4 def weapons), and lose the ability to capture objectives. If some tanks were already over costed as it was it doesn't look like the improved survivability will balance vehicles out very well. Moving Defensive weapons back up to str 6 looks like it would balance out the improvements vs. the nerfs.

I do have to admit I have not tried the 5th edition rules out though. However, I have read a lot of play testing battle reports and it does appear everything besides transports are turning into pill boxes.

newbis
15-05-2008, 23:55
I truly feel bad for Tau players. Looks like we`ll be seeing lots of Broadsides, hopefully people splurge on the spiffy ones from Forgeworld.

The changes don't excite me. I dunno about broadsides though. With infiltrators and scouts coming on from side table edges, slow/expensive models don't seem like a good idea. Multi-trackers, disruption pods and sensor spines should help even out the odds a bit for hammerheads.

Znail
16-05-2008, 01:05
There is no problem for Tau as they get Gun Drones as option so there is an option that avoids the defensive weapon rule totaly.

Lord Inquisitor
16-05-2008, 02:40
The Eldar Shuriken Cannon gets made useless by the strength 4 defensive weapons. Why would you buy one except on a twinlinked eldar missle launcher wave serpent. On Falcons and Serpents you can not shoot the str6 Shuriken cannon and the main gun anymore in 5th. Most of the Eldar vehicles get hit by the Shuriken cannon nerf.
Firstly, you don't have to take shuriken cannon. Believe it or not, Falcons actually come with S4 shuriken catapults - but you'd never see it because the cannon is too damn cheap to pass up and you can fire it along with your other weapons! Talk about a win-win situation.

Secondly, in the new rules you don't need to move your falcons or serpents over 6". You can hide behind cover and you actually get more protection than SMF and fire all of your weapons regardless of strength!

The only difference will be Falcons won't be able to just power right into the enemy guns and fire all of their weapons while carrying their troops in nigh-invulnerbility. Like other tank/transport hybrids such as Land Raiders and Chimera, you're going to have to choose between being a firebase and being a transport.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't like the lack of mobility presented by the leaked 5th ed rules. But the suggestion that Eldar are suffering - cry me a river. They're merely being brought to the same level as everyone else.

Nurgling Chieftain
16-05-2008, 03:13
But the suggestion that Eldar are suffering - cry me a river. They're merely being brought to the same level as everyone else.Not even that. It merely shifts what aspects (so to speak) are most abuseable. The Eldar list is simply too flexible to nerf in one go...

Lord Raneus
16-05-2008, 03:30
I agree with Lord Inquisitor on all points. I don't think the rule was made specifically against Tau and Eldar, but it still is a very, very stupid rule and definitely a step backwards. Vehicles in general will be rarer (with a few exceptions like Rhinos), while some like the Predator and Dreadnought will disappear from the battlefields for good.

Excuse me?

My Predator Annihilator with triple-las couldn't move and fire more than its turret weapon anyways. ;)

And I don't take Dreadnoughts for long-range firepower, they're far too fragile.

electricblooz
16-05-2008, 03:31
Yes but ordnance weapon are meant to be so powerful that firing them effectively stops you firing anything else.

riight... operating word there is "meant." In practice at least half the time you will be better served by firing your 3 heavy bolters. In addtion, the s4 nerf kills the whole point of the Russ varients.


Imagine a russ sitting in the open battlecannoning a unit, then hitting it with 3 heavy bolters and a pintle mounted heavy stubber and hunterkiller - while the example is an extreme one thats what you are asking.

So? what's the problem with that? Vehicles are supposed the biggest, baddest, most awe inspiring weapons on the battelfield.


The problem with the russ is its cost - not the rules that govern its firing.

I don't see the value in this statement - it's like saying the problem with Falcons isn't their survivability it's their ability to preserve its vp's until the end of game.

graveaccomplice
16-05-2008, 05:15
So let's look at current examples of vehicles moving and firing. Look to helicopters, HUMVEE's with gun turrets, and tanks. Compare WWII tanks to current tanks designed to use computers and hydraulics to allow for firing on the move. Look to tank tactics used in WWII, where tanks had infantry support and were noted for their ability to redeploy, bringing heavy support quickly. Not firing while moving (at least not often).

TOW missle gunners have to remain still or slow, as the wire guided system reacts to optics bounced around by terrain. This is true whether in a Helo or HUMMVEE. Even battleships providing gun support on land based targets slow down to fire.

How many vehicles do you see with many weapon systems? Of those few, how many fire ALL of them at the same time while on the move? Of those, how many of those are moving faster than a running man can follow? Not counting jets or other flyers, for obvious reasons. Even C-130 gunships wouldn't fit in a typical game of 40K (I consider skimmers to be equivalent to helos, especially the HIND).


It's GW's game, they can do what they want. But vehicles reducing not firing all weapons at speeds beyond a run is nothing new. The ability to fire all weapons on the move is relatively new.

slingersam
16-05-2008, 07:44
I would think an easy solution would be to just have any weapons other than the main weapon only hit on a 6 if the vehicle moves. This way you still have a chance to use the weapons but it does make the vehicles completely over powered as you are lot less likely to hit anything. In fluff terms you could say only the main guns have targeting resolution so it makes it a lot harder to hit with the other weapons on the move.

That honestly is a sensible solution. Which i like a lot. Just the other day i was versing this guy with 3 preds, heavy bolters on the side spoon i think, and 3x lascannons.Anyway he was able to tear through my necron army, in 4 turns. It was just to many shots and at a pretty decent range too so i had to move quite a bit before i could do damage back at him. So if they move 6 and i move 6. it took me two turns before i could get in rapid fire range, and fire back at him, but by then i was severly under powered and clos to phasing out. he also wiped out two 3xdestroyers squad in one turn. I feel that this rule is meant for people to use vehicles for what they really are, and that is transporting, not whiping out armies.They are meant to support the army, not desimate with it. And if you want to fire all wepons, then just stay still. Also all defensive weapons have decent range so they don't have to be moving the whole game.

Shasolenzabi
16-05-2008, 09:34
[[[ These rules are also the result of cries of "Skimmers are hard to kill!" (Players with Rocket Launchers in their armies), then the other players of "Tau can kills me as they move coz they fire so much!", and the others who felt "Tanks die too easily!", (these unfortunates were unlucky, as I have lost tanks on any of the turns, as in a real battle, tanks are NOT guaranteed to survive contact with the enemy just because they are armored monsters loaded with weapons! If they live thru the battle, Great! especially if they killed a lot, now, to do so, they need to hug cover, because we had timid little rabbits who play a game that is based on rolls of the dice.

Tanks are meant to open fire, and guess what? S4 as the only defensive weapon is the severe pants, as any tank is packing a .30 cal(Heavy stubber), .50cal(close to but not quite a Heavy Bolter(more like a pulse weapon), and the main guns.

This is a game of plastic men and tanks killing each other,,,so folks should not have sweated so much about a tank biting it, especially if it drew ALL the enemy's anti-tank to kill just that ONE tank!, Thank you to all you WAAC whiners for making tanks pillboxes, this is what you wanted, IF this PDF is what is in the pages of the new rules, it is all your doing


It's GW's game, they can do what they want. But vehicles reducing not firing all weapons at speeds beyond a run is nothing new. The ability to fire all weapons on the move is relatively new.

True, and that is what the Tau skimmers were all about, MODERN methods of warfare, now, these ideas of 5th ed are making them have to fight like WWII tanks? when they hover??? there were NO hover tanks in WWII!!!!!

I I am truly hoping that the rule book is so very different than that steaming pile known as the PDF, Please let someone at GW have planted those to smoke out leakers, and keep us off guard, backwards is not the way to go!

Shasolenzabi
16-05-2008, 09:59
There is no problem for Tau as they get Gun Drones as option so there is an option that avoids the defensive weapon rule totaly.


[[[ Do you even know what you are talking about? the difference between gundrones, versus either Burst Cannons or Smart Missiles is a canyon!, sure they can fire(they count as passengers with a totally different BS for firing), and that BS is the same as an ork. and is only 1 shot per drone, storm bolters shoot 2 shots, and Heavystubbers shoot 3 shots!

Burst cannons were wanted for the ability to fire at 2 seperate targets!, and the smart missile fired 4 shots that then had a range comparable to the stormbolter, and could be used in the dark and such, and are worth the 20pts far more than a pair of gundrones.

make my disruptions pods deliver a 4+ save on the move as it acts as obscurement(which is now the cover save in trees rules everyone is so in love with), and I may calm down, Hammerheads usefulness id in "mobile firepower" in all those words mean as they only ever get 2 weapons systems,,,unlike other skimmer tanks, you'd think the way people moan about Hammerheads that they had sponsons, pintle mounts, ordnance and still were skimmers! Oh wait, that is the Manta! which you will rarely ever se as it is 1,500bucks!

Seriously, GW panderrs too much to the babies that cry about the "Not my army is too powerful" and must be nerfed cries.

And they wonder why folks run to other games?

electricblooz
16-05-2008, 16:02
So let's look ... snip... all weapons on the move is relatively new.

Comparsions to past, current, or supposedly future technologies are irrelevant, just like fluff arguments. The fact of the matter was that the past edition has demonstrated that having full-firepower from mobile vehicles was not a problem with just a very few notable exceptions.

I know of no modern helos that still use TOW systems. At least in the US, AFAIK, the Hellfire is used for anti-material work and FFARs for soft targets. In fact, in many cases the gunship does not even need to have LOS to it's target. The advent of remote laser designation from deployed ground troops or Kiowa Scouts means that helo gunships are firing true fire and forget weapons.

The fact that full-firepower with full mobility is new doesn't mean that it wasn't a good idea and that we should go back to the bad old days of 2nd edition. If you want 2nd ed rules, play Necromunda.

Lord Inquisitor
19-05-2008, 17:04
Look to tank tactics used in WWII, where tanks had infantry support and were noted for their ability to redeploy, bringing heavy support quickly. Not firing while moving (at least not often).
And WWII tactics are probably closest to 40K

That said, tanks should be able to move with infantry, even if it has to stop to fire.

If infantry moving 6" and shooting represents moving quickly and stopping to fire, then why shouldn't the same be true of tanks?

Starchild
19-05-2008, 18:04
If infantry moving 6" and shooting represents moving quickly and stopping to fire, then why shouldn't the same be true of tanks?They certainly can in real life... the M1 Abrams can fire accurately at long ranges while moving at 40+ mph.


The fact of the matter was that the past edition has demonstrated that having full-firepower from mobile vehicles was not a problem with just a very few notable exceptions.I agree. There was nothing wrong with the defensive weapons rule. This is definitely a step in the wrong direction. So now we can wait another 4+ years until 6th edition to use vehicles that can actually fire effectively. :rolleyes:

I know I'll be using walkers far more than tanks; I like being able to fire two heavy weapons on the move. :eyebrows:

Priest
19-05-2008, 22:39
Sorry for posting this twice, but since no one cheered or called me stupid I figured it must have been overlooked. Probably because I don't have a cool picture under my name.

*************From my previous post*****************
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but what if they made assault weapons defensive and heavy as main. This would allow Shurican Cannons and heavy flamers. And if they made Heavy Bolters like the Death Watch variant with the option to be 18" assault then heavy bolters would get to stick around too. I don't know what this would do to the other xenos armies but it makes sense to me.

vladsimpaler
20-05-2008, 00:08
Thank you to all you WAAC whiners for making tanks pillboxes, this is what you wanted, IF this PDF is what is in the pages of the new rules, it is all your doing

QFT/QFE

The truth has been spoken.

ehlijen
20-05-2008, 00:28
It's a good thing that tanks are now subject to the decision of: shoot lots now or move and shoot less but shoot much better next turn? Being able to to move about at will and fire all guns anyway just made tank usage a no brainer. Stop blaming people you don't know and start considering that this may actually be a good thing for the game in general.

Keichi246
20-05-2008, 00:52
It's a good thing that tanks are now subject to the decision of: shoot lots now or move and shoot less but shoot much better next turn? Being able to to move about at will and fire all guns anyway just made tank usage a no brainer. Stop blaming people you don't know and start considering that this may actually be a good thing for the game in general.

or think about how this is going to make tank usage a no-brainer because no one will bother with tanks. Because after all - infantry with heavy weapons are more survivable, have a lower profile (can hide better), are often cheaper AND can fire just as much - if not more if stationary.

Moving and firing WERE the only things that made tanks cost effective. And fun. And fun is good for the game... in general...

TheShadow3s
20-05-2008, 17:29
[[[ These rules are also the result of cries of "Skimmers are hard to kill!" (Players with Rocket Launchers in their armies), then the other players of "Tau can kills me as they move coz they fire so much!", and the others who felt "Tanks die too easily!", (these unfortunates were unlucky, as I have lost tanks on any of the turns, as in a real battle, tanks are NOT guaranteed to survive contact with the enemy just because they are armored monsters loaded with weapons! If they live thru the battle, Great! especially if they killed a lot, now, to do so, they need to hug cover, because we had timid little rabbits who play a game that is based on rolls of the dice.

Tanks are meant to open fire, and guess what? S4 as the only defensive weapon is the severe pants, as any tank is packing a .30 cal(Heavy stubber), .50cal(close to but not quite a Heavy Bolter(more like a pulse weapon), and the main guns.

This is a game of plastic men and tanks killing each other,,,so folks should not have sweated so much about a tank biting it, especially if it drew ALL the enemy's anti-tank to kill just that ONE tank!, Thank you to all you WAAC whiners for making tanks pillboxes, this is what you wanted, IF this PDF is what is in the pages of the new rules, it is all your doing



True, and that is what the Tau skimmers were all about, MODERN methods of warfare, now, these ideas of 5th ed are making them have to fight like WWII tanks? when they hover??? there were NO hover tanks in WWII!!!!!

I I am truly hoping that the rule book is so very different than that steaming pile known as the PDF, Please let someone at GW have planted those to smoke out leakers, and keep us off guard, backwards is not the way to go!


Totally agreed, GW listens to whining of immature gamers, who thereby spoil eveything for the people who want to have fun (and have some nice games, and actually win without being Space Marines).

I truly hope the Assauslt can fire is an actual rule in the book, I'm pissed of reading about the str 4 :mad:. Altough the people who have seen the book say contrary things, I still suspect the worse, but have faith GW doesn't nerf em

I can't understand people wanting to complain about those "scary skimmers" getting impossible to kill, my hammerheads get taken down all the time due to some lucky rolls. But do you hear me OMG railhe4ds n33d buff they are underpowerd, I think not. It's a board game, enjoy yourself, don't whine when you get beaten by skimmers because you suck in taking them down.

I most surely hope the assault weapon rule is true, else I'm sticking to my eldar. This because my mobile tau force got bitchclapped in the face with all the running guys, my tanks unable to intercept them, and god knows what more might be in. With eldar I at least get a chance of getting some CC guys in to chop some MEQ's up, and actually having a fun game (without having to hear cheese constanly, because I don't use a falcon).