PDA

View Full Version : 5th Ed gets a write up on AICN!



Cypher
30-05-2008, 16:12
Didn't see this one coming. (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36919)

There's also some comments on the Daemon codex. Nothing anyone who hasnt followed the rumours wont already know, and it is a bit "zomg!", but at the same time it's nice to hear that the game is fun to play.

Locke
30-05-2008, 17:43
looks a bit biased to me... seems to have some sort of problem with eldar...

razormasticator
30-05-2008, 17:55
I dunno, I like what he had to say.

zeqe
30-05-2008, 17:56
looks a bit biased to me... seems to have some sort of problem with eldar...

I'd expect quite a few feelings of smug vindication from the mon-keigh after getting their faces stuffed in by tri-falcon eldar lists for a while. Overall he hit most of the points that resonated with me. Every game I have played of 5E using the in-store rulebook has been 100% better than 4E. We even had someone whip up a large fortified building with mounted weapons on the parapets (Sounds confusing but it isn't, it's all covered under the new structure rules which ROCK) and we played around a bit with it. Adds a whole new level to the game that's been missing since 2E.

Ravenous
30-05-2008, 17:58
So if you can see one model you can kill the entire unit? I dont think stupid quite explains it well enough.

Brushmonkey
30-05-2008, 18:00
Tooled up Vypers for the ramming win eh?

Cornelius
30-05-2008, 18:00
Seems "realistic" enough to me. See one guy, get them grenades and rockets flying.

zeqe
30-05-2008, 18:03
Tooled up Vypers for the ramming win eh?

This has already been FAQ'd sadly. Star engine movement takes place in the shooting phase and doesn't add to ramming apparently. Without the benefit of being a TANK your vyper is more likely to make a neat explosion and some wreckage than it is to take out a Land Raider. If you only aspire to nuking that basilisk in the backfield though it can be pretty effective ;p

Ravenous
30-05-2008, 18:05
Seems "realistic" enough to me. See one guy, get them grenades and rockets flying.

For blast weapons yeah it makes sense, but it totally contradicts the TLOS rules for normal weapons.

Brushmonkey
30-05-2008, 18:08
This has already been FAQ'd sadly. Star engine movement takes place in the shooting phase and doesn't add to ramming apparently. Without the benefit of being a TANK your vyper is more likely to make a neat explosion and some wreckage than it is to take out a Land Raider. If you only aspire to nuking that basilisk in the backfield though it can be pretty effective ;p

Shame, that may have been quite funny a few times.

Geddonight
30-05-2008, 19:02
For blast weapons yeah it makes sense, but it totally contradicts the TLOS rules for normal weapons.

Yeah... that bugs me a lot. "No, all your models must be able to actually see out to shoot opponents. Oh? What? Your one model can be seen? Sweet. The entire squad dies to my fire. Better luck next time."

The contradiction smacks like lutefisk in my mouth.

I'm okay with eldar being taken down a peg or two, but no one should every cry "uncle" in a game because of changed rules. :wtf:

Gaftra
30-05-2008, 19:20
the article was good for someone gushing out everything he just saw. it hits on the point that everything kills you more effectively, shorter assaults, more LOS, wound distribution ect. im pretty psyched

yeah, im not crazy about the "see one model-kill the unit" especially with true LOS. probably will lead to alot units getting gibed thanks to the sergeant's big head ow waving hand.

Marius Xerxes
30-05-2008, 20:08
In some cases I can see the LOS thing going one way but not back the other. Granted this is giving only one example, and a rather specific one at that.

But imagine there are people in said building. Only so many people can look out windows, crack's etc to shoot and have LOS. However an enemy squad, knowing that a certian spot of that building is occupied can strafe the whole, or section of, a floor level knowing there is a gathering of troops in it. This is where the Cover Save would come into effect, not only representing the cover itself, but the ranom shooting through walls that isnt truly aimed any anyone in particular.

Again only 1 situation where it can make some sense, out of numerous it might not. But honestly, while some sort of realism is wanted for this game, ultimatly it is just a game and things wont work like they should or make the most sense. Gues people can either play it and get over it, or just find something to gripe about cause they are bored.

Jwolf
30-05-2008, 20:37
I think see a model, hit the whole squad is a good solution to the "block my own LOS to snipe your lascannon" technique. Very few units have the firepower to mow down a whol unit that has 4+ cover (which a squad that is mostly out of LOS will have), so if that one guy poking out is not your Lascannon, take him as a casualty when the first unit shoots and you're golden. This won't allow you to see a model and place a Hellhound template on the whole sqaud, as the template has to be in LOS, so it's not that bad. I had a squad of 5 Reapers shoot my IG (I was the IG player who wiped the floor with the Eldar in this AICN article) and lost 5, which isn't that big a deal, really.

Halfpast_Yellow
31-05-2008, 00:24
Yeah that change is good IMO. It's not exactly unrealistic for reasons mentioned above, and cuts out all that LOS sniping crap. More cinematic games and action, less gamesmanship bullcrap with LOS and killzone sniping.

CamNZ
03-06-2008, 03:37
I think the see one model kill the squad rule is fine. Compare it to real life (I know comparing reality with a table-top game what an idiot) if there was an infantry squad, and the enemy saw and shot one member of that squad. I doubt the rest of the squad would just leave him there screaming. A couple of his squad mates would go get him, possibly becoming casualties themselves. But they would definately be too busy saving their buddy to return fire. The ability to kill a squad while only seeing one model doesn't mean the others necessarily die just that they're occupied doing something else. This is a small unit tactic which I know is taught to NZ soldiers, one bullet may kill a man. But instead if you use that one bullet to wound a man the rest of squad will have to carry him, possibly withdraw to provide medical assistance, carry additional gear (you're not going to leave the wounded trooper's behind for the enemy) and provide protection for the wounded hence removing a squad level threat.

lethlis
03-06-2008, 04:09
Heck it even says in the codex that battle models are not static as the reason for this rule. Once you read the rule book they explain a lot of the rules changes. and remember just cause one model can be seen by one shooter doesn't mean the entire squad gets to shoot. they all have to be able to draw individual line of sight to the models they are shooting.

szlachcic
03-06-2008, 04:20
So if you can see one model you can kill the entire unit? I dont think stupid quite explains it well enough.

Actually it is quite simple. In "modern" warfare (a lot of high power and/or fast firing weapons) one of your main concerns is not to be seen. If one guy is spotted it gives away the position of your entire unit.

The enemy doesn't have to see each individual soldier to know that they are in the area. So, yeah, I don't see why that rule is stupid. Plus, it makes things much more streamlined from a design perspective as you don't have to determine what is and what isn't in LOS.

Edit: I am not clear on the rule, but I think I might have just seen why you are angry about this. Does every single man in your unit have to be able to individually see the enemy to fire at them? If that is the case then that is really stupid. If this isn't the case then my first statement stands.

BrianGeneral
03-06-2008, 04:39
Actually it is quite simple. In "modern" warfare (a lot of high power and/or fast firing weapons) one of your main concerns is not to be seen. If one guy is spotted it gives away the position of your entire unit.

The enemy doesn't have to see each individual soldier to know that they are in the area. So, yeah, I don't see why that rule is stupid. Plus, it makes things much more streamlined from a design perspective as you don't have to determine what is and what isn't in LOS.
But then, it's just models afterall. How are those outranged squad members are able to fire their weapons beyond their maximum range? TBH if you didn't move your modles into good firing position to extent all firepower available then you should pay the price, granting the outranged squad members the ability to fire is just similar to cheating in my sense.
Besides, in your argument you also state that "gives away the position of your entire unit", but then you still can't (or, less likely to) kill those you can't see or out of range. Blast weapons do have explosion radius to harm them, but if the weapons are direct-firing then I can't see the reason there.

Carlos
03-06-2008, 15:04
The 'kill everyone from seeing one model' means that players will be more careful about hiding behind cover and it makes positioning vital. The fact you can kill all the models is supposed to represent ricocheting bullets and thin walls not providing much cover vs bolt rounds. The 4+ cover save rule is there to amend this.

I like the idea that you can shoot it if you can see even a small part of the model. This will mean all the whiney players out there wont be so quick to argue.

Stingray_tm
03-06-2008, 15:15
The "kill 'em all" rule is totally realistic.

I give you an example, how it would work in real life: Let's assume there are 20 German soldiers inside a WW2 bunker, while one of them is outside for a smoke.

Then we have an American machine gunner, who targets the lone soldier, taking them out. Now all 19 other Germans will run out of the bunker, one by one, totally oblivious to the noise and the pile of bodys in front of them.

Oh... Wait a minute...

It's a retarted rule. This, kill points, and Jervis Johnson saying, that they don't even try to create a ruleset without loopholes and imbalances will make me think very hard about continuing 40K...

Master Jeridian
03-06-2008, 15:26
The 'kill everyone from seeing one model' means that players will be more careful about hiding behind cover and it makes positioning vital. The fact you can kill all the models is supposed to represent ricocheting bullets and thin walls not providing much cover vs bolt rounds. The 4+ cover save rule is there to amend this.


More careful? As in taking an hour longer during game meticulously trying to balance models on uneven terrain pieces to hide them? Constantly having to check LOS? Wondering why your being punished for not modelling your toys hugging the dirt?



I like the idea that you can shoot it if you can see even a small part of the model. This will mean all the whiney players out there wont be so quick to argue.


It means the idea of fire and maneouver, the concept of dead ground, using terrain, fire lanes and tactical movement is greatly reduced. In it's place, the gunline makes it's triumphant return, able to see most of the board, and able to gun down everyone in the few places where they try to hide, because Trooper Joe's gun barrel is sticking out.

szlachcic
03-06-2008, 17:17
Besides, in your argument you also state that "gives away the position of your entire unit", but then you still can't (or, less likely to) kill those you can't see or out of range. Blast weapons do have explosion radius to harm them, but if the weapons are direct-firing then I can't see the reason there.

That is exactly what the cover save represents. In real life you wouldn't just be sitting there hiding behind a wall the entire firefight, you would be moving around and firing back. Obviously models can't do that so a degree of abstraction is required.

Anyways, it is not worth arguing, I find the rule pretty realistic and others don't. As a game mechanic I am not sure if I do or do not like it as I have not played a game of 5th edition yet, so I don't know.


The "kill 'em all" rule is totally realistic.

I give you an example, how it would work in real life: Let's assume there are 20 German soldiers inside a WW2 bunker, while one of them is outside for a smoke.

Then we have an American machine gunner, who targets the lone soldier, taking them out. Now all 19 other Germans will run out of the bunker, one by one, totally oblivious to the noise and the pile of bodys in front of them.

Oh... Wait a minute...

It's a retarted rule. This, kill points, and Jervis Johnson saying, that they don't even try to create a ruleset without loopholes and imbalances will make me think very hard about continuing 40K...

Yeah, if that is what you imagine is going on then, yes, it sounds stupid. However, in your situation, there is nothing stopping the machine gunner from killing men in the bunker, they don't have to leave it to be hit. Just because you are in a bunker doesn't make you immune to bullets, it just means you have more protection which again is represented by a cover save. Also, people keep stating the situation of one model in LOS and then the rest of the unit dies b/c of that one model. That is an extreme case of what may happen during a battle, so I doubt it will happen too often.

Also, to the person saying it is unfair/unrealistic that models out of range can be hit. I always viewed the ranges as "effective" range for the weapons. Bullets don't stop just because the reach the end of their effective range.

If anything the rule seems to be a good way to prevent people from using cheap "sniping" tactics because it is so simple. You can either see part of the unit (allowing you to shoot at the entire unit) or not, period.

Homer S
03-06-2008, 17:34
What I found humorous is the "blast weapons automatically hit". That is flat out wrong! They all scatter now. What rulebook was this guy using?

Homer

neophryte
03-06-2008, 18:26
Or, maybe the guy that goes for a smoke should go to the other side of the building and be out of LoS ;-)

Besides, if people are in a bunker then you can shoot and destroy that.

Asq_Dak
03-06-2008, 23:51
I'm in two minds about this change.

1. It is more like 2nd ed with TLOS, where you must be able to see to shoot, but in 2nd ed you also needed to be seen to be hit! However, we can argue that:


The fact you can kill all the models is supposed to represent ricocheting bullets and thin walls not providing much cover vs bolt rounds. The 4+ cover save rule is there to amend this.

So that is not so bad. However:

2.


Heck it even says in the codex that battle models are not static as the reason for this rule.

Indeed - non-static models means they with strafe in and out of cover taking pot-shots. I personally felt that AREA TERRAIN represented this much better... Same effect, but you don't get that bad taste in your mouth that you can all get shot up while not being able to return the same level of firepower...

Anyway, they are both abstractions to say the least, and that is all you can have in a table top wargame.

Oh, and then there is lascannon billy that can present a small exposure to himself alo with a 4+ cover save and 10 wounds....

neophryte
04-06-2008, 00:22
Oh, and then there is lascannon billy that can present a small exposure to himself alo with a 4+ cover save and 10 wounds....

Ah but the wounds aren't truly ablative anymore, do enough wounds and he will have to take saves on his armor save.

Codsticker
04-06-2008, 00:37
What I found humorous is the "blast weapons automatically hit". That is flat out wrong! They all scatter now. What rulebook was this guy using?

Homer

I suspect he was referring to the fact that there are no more "partials".

Sgt Biffo
04-06-2008, 00:56
...if there was an infantry squad, and the enemy saw and shot one member of that squad. I doubt the rest of the squad would just leave him there screaming. A couple of his squad mates would go get him, possibly becoming casualties themselves.

"Chitter chitter" said the Termagaunt.

"Buzz, whirl, click!" said the Necron.

danscan
04-06-2008, 02:04
In a way the "One model to kill them all rule" is sort of realistic. Since in combat once an enemy is seen by a squad everyone fires at the location. Bullets go through cover or richotet around corners. Concrete or wood flies hitting troops. This is of course balanced out by the cover save.

One thing that seems to balance alot of stuff out is that cover saves are given out so liberally that low AP weaponary loses some of its punch.

Geddonight
04-06-2008, 03:01
What occurred to me a while ago was that it's all well and good to get down to the model's eye view when the model is in a gunline along your table edge. Once that model is in the middle of the board, obscured by terrain, it's much harder to draw LOS (even with a laser pointer). It's even worse with COD terrain, where getting down low risks eye injury.

Sgt Biffo
04-06-2008, 11:59
What occurred to me a while ago was that it's all well and good to get down to the model's eye view when the model is in a gunline along your table edge. Once that model is in the middle of the board, obscured by terrain, it's much harder to draw LOS (even with a laser pointer). It's even worse with COD terrain, where getting down low risks eye injury.

Grab your self one of those cheap laser pointers.

I've got one that has a cross-hair lens!

totgeboren
04-06-2008, 13:02
Edit: I am not clear on the rule, but I think I might have just seen why you are angry about this. Does every single man in your unit have to be able to individually see the enemy to fire at them? If that is the case then that is really stupid. If this isn't the case then my first statement stands.

The answer is that "its really stupid".

Had they allowed all models from a unit that could be seen to shoot back I would be fine with this. Now you have to chose between either being in cover and not being able to fire out, or being in the open for some firepower.

Those I play with use lots of kewl cityfight terrain, but most of the buildings wont be playable with these new rules. :(

Homer S
04-06-2008, 13:51
I suspect he was referring to the fact that there are no more "partials".

Except that he points out the partials as well... here is the complete sentence.


And with the new blast template rules, which no longer have partial effects and automatically hit (you still have to roll damage), mortars, missiles and heavy support just got a whole lot nastier.

He must have watched and not played, consequently only saw the scatter as a hit.

Just wondering... we know how it really works.

Homer