PDA

View Full Version : Is removing the closest modal a good change for 6th?



Rated_lexxx
21-08-2012, 22:38
I have been playing 6th for a while now. I think I have a good grasp on the rules now.

In general I am happy with 6th. It improved in some areas from 5th and brought it some interesting rules.

The one thing that I wish would go away is removing the closest modal when failing a wound.

The reason I dislike this rule is, it often slows the game down. The first problem is trying to figure out who is the closest. When it's hard to tell, and it matters we have to grab the measuring tape. Go back and forth looking and then have a discussion on which one goes. Wash rinse repeat

This mainly happens when a unit is close to a object and when some people are in cover or not.

Next when you have different armor saves in the same group. It's either rolling one dice at a time for armor saves, or rolling for Look our sirs, then rolling armor saves.

I didn't want to dislike this rule. I have gone back and forth thinking if this is a good rule or not.

It does open up some new tactics like where to place your guys when shooting at a unit so you get the modal you want. The down side it can and often slows the game down.

IMHO I don't think what we gained from removing the closest modal was worth the slow down in game time

Fizzy
21-08-2012, 22:42
model* :)

I like the rule. Play only wth my girlfriend and friends and some other nice people and if there are several models that are in the front in almost the exact same line we allow the person taking the wounds to choose wich model in the front that goes.

Works just fine. We play quick and hard. Much easier because otherwise the person just sits and picks out models with care. You also get a chance to kill an important model in the unit if the player is stupid enough to put him in the front :)

Goldenwolf
21-08-2012, 22:52
I like the rule, but in tourneys this will slow the game down a lot, and lead to a lot of frustration. While learning it, we have tried our best, but it does slow the game down.

HOWEVER, it adds an entire new complexity to movement and deployment, as well as tactical moving for firing lines. This is a good thing. We may just need to make games 3 hours instead of 2:15 from now on.

Chem-Dog
22-08-2012, 00:21
It's quicker and more intuitive than any of the previous efforts to "ballance" wound allocation, which means I am a fan.

althathir
22-08-2012, 00:55
I think removing the closest model is a good a change. Wound allocation in 5th made some units more durable than they had a right be, but worse than that was it didn't make sense to new players at all. Now its really intuitive, closest guy takes the hit, unless their is a look out sir roll. There are situations where its tough to tell whose closest but we just roll for it in that case. The people that are gonna make a big of deal of it probably would have found something to argue about in the old rule set that would waste just as much time.

Rated_lexxx
22-08-2012, 01:26
Maybe I have been into many situations where trying to figure out who the closest has been a pain.

What about the other problem I see of having to roll armor save 1 at time due to different armor saves

althathir
22-08-2012, 02:12
Maybe I have been into many situations where trying to figure out who the closest has been a pain.

What about the other problem I see of having to roll armor save 1 at time due to different armor saves

I'm sure I'm gonna run into some games where it does seem to bog it down, though if iirc you play Orks (or at least comment on them alot) and I could see more issues with them because the units are larger.

Mixed armour units can be pain, I kinda wonder if Black Templars are gonna be in the same situation as wood elves where the edition rules and there own have friction (alot of big mixed armour units would suck)

MajorWesJanson
22-08-2012, 02:26
It is logical in concept (guys in front or closest to the blast die first), fairly simple in execution (measure to see who is closest. Nitpicks over .1" differences are generally going to happen with certain players in things like assault as well as shooting), and introduces more tactical thought to movement than just put the sarge in front and remove wounds from the back. Now you have to balance getting closer for a better shot vs more likely to take a wound, or is it worth it to try to go for one flank to try to take out that heavy weapon guy, even if you might not have the range to charge later?

In close combat, removing models in base to base first makes great sense, far more than the old style of "models furthest from the fight die first."

Battleworthy Arts
22-08-2012, 02:36
Its the best change in 6th. It makes sense, and is intuitive.

Chapters Unwritten
22-08-2012, 02:41
Its the best change in 6th. It makes sense, and is intuitive.

This. The rules cover what to do when you aren't sure and in honesty I would say its obvious much of the time. I think this is the single best change to the edition personally, it works well and I really think the slowdown of gameplay is VASTLY overstated, even when rolling one at a time (which you usually only do till the one different guy dies, and I only needed when there is a unit with a single different model).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

red_drake
22-08-2012, 03:10
The only time when taking single saves at a time due to mixed armour will take a ton of your time is if you suffered a *ton* of wounds.
I mean even rolling 10 saves one at a time can be done in like 30 seconds.
And even then you can usually simplify it to 3 ish dice at a time, be it wounds on your different-armour character or squad members in front of said character

igwarlord
22-08-2012, 08:17
i actually dislike this rule
the only reason so far is the random character in the front with termie armor and storm shield making all sorts of 2+/3++ nonsense and if he DOES suffer a wound then begins the the random POS trooper in the WAY back makes a giant leap to start getting shot instead of him.

morvaeldd
22-08-2012, 08:36
I think the rules does not allow for what you described.

ehlijen
22-08-2012, 08:50
The idea is great. Some work needs to be done to tweak though.

-Barrage shouldn't snipe. I'd say let the defender place the marker for barrage, providided he hits as many models as possible.
-Wound rolls should be based on the T of the closest model. It'd make Deddog actually worth his points and stop wraithguard cowering behind a DE shadowfield lord while still lending him their T6...
-Limit on look out sirs per turn

However: Igwarlord, what you describe isn't possible. If the termnator fails his own save, the wound can no longer be passed on with LOS unless the entire squad has the same save (in which case, it's not really much of a difference).

MasterDecoy
22-08-2012, 08:53
i actually dislike this rule
the only reason so far is the random character in the front with termie armor and storm shield making all sorts of 2+/3++ nonsense and if he DOES suffer a wound random POS trooper in the WAY back makes a giant leap that would make olympians drool to take the wound for him

yeah, your playing it wrong, thats why

igwarlord
22-08-2012, 09:25
I think I posted that to make less sense than intended. the termie will take all the rolls till he takes a wound (2 wound model) then begin using LoutS all over the place

Axel
22-08-2012, 09:46
For barrage weapons removing from the center of origin makes no sense, since this allows barrage (of all available weapons) to snipe.

Here it should be swapped to either "each model under the template is hit" or "allocation to any model under the template by the affected player" - thought he latter may lead to "all on a termie" abuse...

For issues of cover the center should still be used, though.

nosebiter
22-08-2012, 10:00
I think the rule is soso. The generel mechanics of it is good, bit the whole my uber save guy takes all the hits is just stupid.

I like the barrage rules though. Fits with the weapon, if by dumb luck this inacutrate weapon dumps its munitions over the heavy weapons guy, well sh.. Happens.

Sithlord
22-08-2012, 10:10
now, we have 'flanking' attacks in 40k :)

Von Wibble
22-08-2012, 16:58
I like this rule a lot. It actually rewards you for getting units firing at the enemy from all directions rather than having firing at the rear no better than the front.

Sithlord
22-08-2012, 17:19
BTW, there is an easy way to fast rolling, you only need to roll different dice when 2 things happen :
1. there is different saves
2. there is a character

however in the case of character, you only do when you want to make that look out sir rolls.
Exp : 10 marine, consist a flamer, sarge and multi melta, say the flamer in the middle, sarge on last line from shooter with multi melta being his closest. Shooter cause 15 wounds, since all marine has same save and sarge is the last dude to be killed. Just roll all of them together and see how many wound it cause, for example, 7 wounds it cause. This mean you just have to remove 7 closest marine models (which include the flamer dude) leaving only one plain marine, multi melta and sarge. Of course this situation would be different if sarge in the middle (as you might want to roll those look out sir). Even if there is 2 models not known for closest, just roll all those saves and how many wound it cause, if it happens that one of those 2 models get hit, roll that random dice and remove the approriate victim.

so that's for the short lesson not on the books :p thank you very much

Haravikk
22-08-2012, 17:45
In theory removing closest model shouldn't affect speed much, as when you prepare to fire at an enemy you should be positioning your squads to do damage to the models you want to kill, where possible anyway. Obviously you might make mistakes in thinking something is nearest (i.e - if you just do the move by eye to be quick), or you can't get into a position you'd like because it doesn't have cover or whatever, but still in general which models are closest are up to your move, so it pays both tactically and in terms of speed to make sure you pick a good position to fire from.

I dunno, I haven't had any major issues with this, and Focus Fire can help if you want to be sure in mixed cover situations.

TheDungen
22-08-2012, 17:50
Yes and no, it works well but i hate seeing characters leading from the back of units.

Sithlord
22-08-2012, 17:56
Yes and no, it works well but i hate seeing characters leading from the back of units.

that's depend how you see the character are use for :p a nob might be in front of his boyz simply because he has more wounds as does a space marine sergeant who has 3+ saves while dark eldar leading from behind it's pretty much common thing (which is true by the way, being T3 and 5+ saves)

Haravikk
22-08-2012, 18:08
while dark eldar leading from behind it's pretty much common thing (which is true by the way, being T3 and 5+ saves)
That and if you're at the back of the unit there's no-one to stab you in the back for their own advancement ;)

IAMNOTHERE
22-08-2012, 18:41
The only bugbear I have with closest model is in combat where despite nearly everyone being in base to base, all the saves will be made on the single 2+ Feel No Pain guy until he's gone.

Really annoys me and I don't think that's how it should be played but that's how the book is worded.

The bearded one
22-08-2012, 18:48
I like it. Now my Tau can fire a crapload of shots at the enemy, and actually prevent them from approaching, instead of only taking out the guys in the back unless I wipe the entire squad.

madden
22-08-2012, 18:50
As long it's at that initiative step. So say an i6 wounds they can only go base to base (then closest) with him then down the order so assault positioning plays a big part, though it is a pain if there all the same.

Damocles8
22-08-2012, 19:00
I don't like the differences between blast and barrage weapons, they should work the same, not different, there's very little difference in the effect of an HE tank round (Leman Russ Battle Cannon round) vs. an artillery round (Basilisk Earthshaker round) short of how it gets there, there's still an explosion centering on the target.

the1stpip
22-08-2012, 19:15
No, I am not happy with it. Being an Ork player who relies on getting into combat with cheap, low armour troops, I will rpobably never be in charge range (maybe an exaggeration, but you get the point). Orks now need to consist primarily of Nobs or shooty ( as fluffy as shooty Space Wolves) if they are going to stand a chance.

I agree with what others have said though, it does make sense, and certainly adds a new dimension to the game.

Rated_lexxx
22-08-2012, 21:40
When I was playing and l was learning about this rule I thought it would be kinda neat and I am the guy who really gives every rule a chance.

I can see both sides of most everything. I played many games and finally thought the pace that it slows the game down is not worth what it gave us.

It could be that I happen upon a lot of games where it slowed the game down a lot. I will say I don't play WAAC players but do play with mid-range competitive players

Omniassiah
22-08-2012, 23:42
yeah, your playing it wrong, thats why


The idea is great. Some work needs to be done to tweak though.

-Barrage shouldn't snipe. I'd say let the defender place the marker for barrage, providided he hits as many models as possible.
-Wound rolls should be based on the T of the closest model. It'd make Deddog actually worth his points and stop wraithguard cowering behind a DE shadowfield lord while still lending him their T6...
-Limit on look out sirs per turn

However: Igwarlord, what you describe isn't possible. If the termnator fails his own save, the wound can no longer be passed on with LOS unless the entire squad has the same save (in which case, it's not really much of a difference).

First what he is doing is quite possible. Take a 2 wound marine captain with Termie armor w/storm shield in front of the unit. make saves with him one at a time till he fails a wound. At which time you can choose to make a LOS with each shot to bounce the wound back to anyone with in 6" perhaps another TH/SS model if it is termies. If the LOS fails he has to take the wound but has a good chance of making it anyway.

Overall I think the Idea is okay the execution is horrible. A much better idea is that you allocate all wounds front to back with attacker picking which shots go to who. Then do LoSs as necessary and roll saves. Simple, quick, easy to explain, works for every unit. You could apply the unit Character los to special weapon/hvy weapon models if you wanted.

Ulrig
22-08-2012, 23:50
It makes sense...speaking real life and all...but that doesn't make it a good rule. We are also speaking of guys in power armour, spaceships, swords and all that jazz. To be more realistic (as everybody touts), if your commander was outmatched and challenged by a superior foe, he would not step down from the challenge and go to the back and not fight, he would continue to kill who he could kill...to win the battle at all cost. How is that realism thing working out for you.

I play orks and I have noticed this. With the new Rapid Fire Range, along with overwatch and the new initiative rules, lack of charge after fleet, random charge distance. Me....a horde army gets only a small fraction of the horde into close combat. Not so orky like. I find myself not making charge range or barely making it with a few troops after overwatch gets done. I can set back with all my shooty stuff, and let the marines creep into range....and fair much better. Not very orky like.

MasterDecoy
23-08-2012, 00:15
First what he is doing is quite possible. Take a 2 wound marine captain with Termie armor w/storm shield in front of the unit. make saves with him one at a time till he fails a wound. At which time you can choose to make a LOS with each shot to bounce the wound back to anyone with in 6" perhaps another TH/SS model if it is termies. If the LOS fails he has to take the wound but has a good chance of making it anyway.

Overall I think the Idea is okay the execution is horrible. A much better idea is that you allocate all wounds front to back with attacker picking which shots go to who. Then do LoSs as necessary and roll saves. Simple, quick, easy to explain, works for every unit. You could apply the unit Character los to special weapon/hvy weapon models if you wanted.

the situation he describes sounds more like a character in termie armour leading a squad of tac marines, in which case, no he cannot.
If it was a character in termie armour leading terminators, then yes he could, but its not really all that much of an issue then is it?

Omniassiah
23-08-2012, 04:32
the situation he describes sounds more like a character in termie armour leading a squad of tac marines, in which case, no he cannot.
If it was a character in termie armour leading terminators, then yes he could, but its not really all that much of an issue then is it?

And why can't he? There is nothing that prevents the LoS to transfer to a tac marine. Like any other mixed armor unit you do the LOS before you roll the save and you only do one at a time. Sure it can mean that LoS shot may kill off a marine but that balances with the multiple ones he saves on a 2+.

Mikial
23-08-2012, 04:43
Yup, definitely a good rule change. Much more realistic and intuitive, and it reduces the old "take out the least valuable model" tendency. Plus, I'm glad to see the end of inflicting lots of wounds on a unit like Nobz and not killing anyone because the other player puts one wound on everyone without having to take any models out. In the cases when there is some doubt as to who is closest, we just roll a dice and choose that way. It really hasn't slowed things down much at all.

I vote it as one of the best new aspects of 6th Ed.

Damocles8
23-08-2012, 04:46
And why can't he? There is nothing that prevents the LoS to transfer to a tac marine. Like any other mixed armor unit you do the LOS before you roll the save and you only do one at a time. Sure it can mean that LoS shot may kill off a marine but that balances with the multiple ones he saves on a 2+.

Because a Look Out Sir is done when the wound is allocated, not saved.

MasterDecoy
23-08-2012, 05:34
This:

Because a Look Out Sir is done when the wound is allocated, not saved.

Words because I have too

Ronin_eX
23-08-2012, 06:08
I enjoy it quite a bit. I can see some people disliking a bit of slowdown from figuring out who is closer. But honestly if two models are .1" off then it hardly matters unless one is a specialist. But that situation is kind of an edge case and quickly resolved with a tape-measure. Still feels quicker than some of the 5th Edition edge cases (having to allocate attacks across a huge squad of Nob bikers was frustratingly slow, and yes, there is a player in my group with a large squad of Nob bikers, this experience is not theoretical). In big mobs of Orks there shouldn't be much slowdown, just roll the saves and shave off the closest ranks, if you are down to the last wound in the pool and it is hard to tell then take either one (hell just roll off if it is really important; I find people tend to argue way too much before just doing a roll off).

What it adds to the game though, is awesome. It makes movement and positioning important and allows you to effectively flank or backstab a unit to get to more choice targets. It allows you to have situations where the unit comes with a damage tank in the front to absorb punishment (some people think this is a bug, I call it a feature). It is also intuitive.

As others have mentioned, the only real downsides have little to do with the base mechanic. The first is barrage sniping (which is weird and unwanted because it actually ignores the wound allocation rules as written) and copious amounts of LoS from squads of characters (which will hopefully be fixed by more explicit naming of Characters in new codices so that you don't get squads composed entirely of characters). These things are less than awesome mostly because the circumvent the actual rules for wound allocation. But the houserule for barrage sniping comes from the same place as the wound allocation rules. In 2nd Edition your opponent could move the blast template to a new position if it allowed him to hit equal or more models. I suggest that as a house rule and will certainly be using it myself. As for squads of characters, I figure that will remain a growing pain until more 6th Edition codices come out, kind of like how nothing currently uses the Psychic system as written.

arthurfallz
23-08-2012, 14:26
I think it's one of the best changes they've made. Turns the game back into a practical shooting game, lets you try and keep an oncoming horde back with a gunline. Though I do wonder if the more "close and personal" models now should get a small point reduction to compensate for the reality a lot of them won't make it into combat at all.

Ozendorph
23-08-2012, 15:17
Ive only run one 6th ed tournament so far, but wound allocation was the biggest rule issue and (near as i can tell) does nothing to prevent the shenanigans with multi-wound models we had in 5th. "my warboss takes five wounds? Okay i will LoS four of them, one to each of these 4 nobs back here see.."

Bubble Ghost
23-08-2012, 15:27
Best system yet. Given that 40K still hasn't grown up and made its lifestyle choice on whether it wants to be about units or models, some sort of system that poses a threat to specialist models is a necessity, to make sure that units are more than just the sum of their upgrades. And though more 'abusable' than the 4th ed system (if you want to call it abusable - I think characters tanking wounds is quite atmospheric for the kind of game 40K wants to be), it feels a lot more natural.

It's also much quicker than 5th ed's ghastly system - occasional individual instances might take longer, but over the course of a game, you'll spend a lot less time in total dicking around with wounds than you would have a few months ago, which I think makes up for the fractionally longer movement phases in 6th ed. 5th ed's system was the most objectively incompetent piece of game design that's ever come out of GW. And that's including 6th ed ATSKNF, so it's really saying something.:D

Chapters Unwritten
23-08-2012, 15:59
Ive only run one 6th ed tournament so far, but wound allocation was the biggest rule issue and (near as i can tell) does nothing to prevent the shenanigans with multi-wound models we had in 5th. "my warboss takes five wounds? Okay i will LoS four of them, one to each of these 4 nobs back here see.."It doesn't work that way.

1.) One at a time, for one thing.

2.) For another, he would be LOSing unsaved wounds, so you would have done damage to X Nobs. I'd hardly say it's a waste of shooting.

3.) Any time the Boss fails his save, he might fail the LOS too, and have to take a wound that otherwise he would have had no chance to suffer in last edition's rules.

4.) This is likely about to FAQed out of the game because characters are only supposed to be unit leaders per the game designers' own comments at that Q&A.

Also, as an aside...there WERE no multi-wound "shenanigans" in 5th. The system changed to make small units of multi wound models durable if they paid a premium for unique gear. I am very weary of people thinking the game is broken because of things that are legitimately a part of it. It wasn't an abuse of the system, like so many say. It was a very odd methodology but the intent was clear; to conditionally allow you to pay extra points to give the unit more durability. I personally wish GW had just not ever had the line about removing whole models whenever possible in the rules, and for the "shenanigans" to be the default.

If you have a problem with Look Out Sir I suggest you start using some strategy and killing off the big baddy's escort. If you wipe them down to a few models LOS can't be attempted twice on a model, so you can defeat it.

I agree that 5th's was not ideal, but this new system is simple and fast, and it threatens specialists and adds a ton of strategic depth to the game that it previously didn't have. What does it take for people to be satisfied? Why do players have to always look at the new stuff in context of the old? Let go of your nostalgia; this game evolves, so should we.

Ozendorph
23-08-2012, 16:57
Oh man. I was typing on an iPad and didn't write things out longhand. My bad.

First, it doesn't matter if the wounds are all-at-once or one-at-a-time, the effect is the same in my example. Warboss takes wound = LoS it to Nob A. Warboss takes wound = LoS it to Nob B. Warboss takes wound = LoS it to Nob C. It goes on like this. If he fails a LoS (2+) he rolls a save. If he makes all 4 LoS checks, he eats the last one. For fun, or something.

Second, I use the term "shenanigans" because it's easier than writing out the entire wound allocation process for multi-wound models in 5th edition. I don't attach any negativity to it, it's just something of an accepted term among people that don't get their shorts all twisted up so easily.

Finally, my beef with the new system is that it is basically the same as the old system, only a bit slower with more measuring. I do like taking guys off the front for the "cinematic effect" and affecting charges, but so far I've found it needlessly time-consuming and open to erm...interesting...tactics like using your own models to provide cover to everyone except the specialist trooper, and things of that nature.

Omniassiah
23-08-2012, 18:13
Because a Look Out Sir is done when the wound is allocated, not saved.

Which is what we said. You don't do a Look out Sir until one wound has resolved on him. Then you start doing the LoS to shift the wounds around to the guys in back on wounds you don't wish to risk him taking.

PANZERBUNNY
23-08-2012, 18:35
People slow the game down.

Rules as simple as that one, don't.

Chapters Unwritten
23-08-2012, 18:45
Oh man. I was typing on an iPad and didn't write things out longhand. My bad.

First, it doesn't matter if the wounds are all-at-once or one-at-a-time, the effect is the same in my example. Warboss takes wound = LoS it to Nob A. Warboss takes wound = LoS it to Nob B. Warboss takes wound = LoS it to Nob C. It goes on like this. If he fails a LoS (2+) he rolls a save. If he makes all 4 LoS checks, he eats the last one. For fun, or something.This is not the correct way to do the wound allocation. It is done differently in different situations. My club has written an FAQ that details it out, but essentially, there are three scenarios and it occurs at different, non-optional points in each. I know it mostly is the same deal, but there are situations where it will screw things up.

First and foremost if they were shot at in your example, the Warboss has to take a save first. He can only LOS unsaved wounds from shooting attacks because you don't allocate wounds until after saves from shooting attacks. So in your example if it was describing shooting, he must take saves and potentially fail them before LOS even happens. So this prevalent idea that LOS is soooooo BS is mostly because people think you can just bust them out at will and it's seen constantly. You think that guy survives because he gets to LOS it all alway, when really, most of the wounds would be saved by his armor and LOS wouldn't even come into play. So the idea that a guy takes 5 wounds and none of them touch him isn't correct.

Now, of course, you can LOS away the fails, but the point is 1.) you potentially fail and he takes the wound, and 2.) Even if you LOS them away, another model is wounded with no save. This is a big deal in some situations more than others, but it dramatically cuts down how often you see LOS when it is used properly.

My club's FAQ with the more verbose explanation is at http://www.evildice40k.com/forum/download/file.php?id=214 if you are interested. It has it's own box on page 2, and wound allocation in general is discussed on page 3.


Finally, my beef with the new system is that it is basically the same as the old system, only a bit slower with more measuring. I do like taking guys off the front for the "cinematic effect" and affecting charges, but so far I've found it needlessly time-consuming and open to erm...interesting...tactics like using your own models to provide cover to everyone except the specialist trooper, and things of that nature.It is completely different and immensely faster in the vast majority of situations, in my experience. I'd love to see a diagram of that tactic you mention, too; I can't quite wrap my head around it in any feasible method for actual gameplay unless you put your specialist on the edge of your unit...in which case he was doomed anyway.


Second, I use the term "shenanigans" because it's easier than writing out the entire wound allocation process for multi-wound models in 5th edition. I don't attach any negativity to it, it's just something of an accepted term among people that don't get their shorts all twisted up so easily.My only point is that you can just say 5th ed wound allocation and it suffices.

The_Klobb_Maniac
23-08-2012, 19:01
IMO, if it's within a 16th of an inch difference or so (where it becomes difficult to tell if it's inaccurate measurement or if you're actually farther) I've started rolling a dice to do "random allocation" between the models that are tied. The most I've had this happen for are 4 models or so (I was thematically walking Necron warriors in a long line parallel to the shooting unit; so several could've been the closest.)

Thing is, when it comes down to ranges that close it really *doesn't* matter; even in a tourney. This is because, IMO, people are just inaccurate enough anyway that they may GET that extra 16th of an inch on accident. IMO when the ranges are that close, you just round to getting the charge range/shot. It's not perfect, but it's faster than arguing about it and usually more satisfying.



I guess more on topic... I like the change. Makes the game quicker, less gamey, more cinematic, and makes you think more than "just how close can I get my assault unit" and where your important models are. I wish that LOS! was more reliable so you could "lead" units with Leaders without feeling like an idiot; but that's just the way it is; in an actual battle you probably wouldn't want the best veteran/specialist leading the way into a hail of bullets..

EDIT:
Cool enough that it also results in Killzones again; which is helpful for expensive Initiative models. It's annoying for all the armies I play but.. at least it's cool.

MasterDecoy
23-08-2012, 19:19
Which is what we said. You don't do a Look out Sir until one wound has resolved on him. Then you start doing the LoS to shift the wounds around to the guys in back on wounds you don't wish to risk him taking.

no, you look out sir when the wound is allocated not resolved

Ozendorph
23-08-2012, 19:37
@chapters

Don't have a rulebook in front of me (hard at work, as you can tell), but iirc if there are mixed armor saves the LoS occurs before the save. I think the rulebook says something vague like "wounds or unsaved wounds" may be LoS'ed, heh. In any case, I didn't specify armor saves in my rather undefined example, but they don't matter much either. The LoS rolls and wound allocation would go down much as I described, the only question is whether they're using the Warboss's save or the Nobz. My only point is that wounds can be distributed among multi-wound models much as they were previously. I know that's something a lot of players weren't keen on, and all this new system has done is add a die roll (2+ in the case of ICs), some measuring, and no longer needing to arm the models differently.

The tactic I'm talking about is similar to the "rhino sniping" of the distant past - blocking LOS to the majority of a squad so that only certain models can be hit. Now it's a bit easier because you don't have to block LOS, you simply have to give the models you're not interested in a cover save (using intervening models) and then focus firing on the intended victim(s). For example, I move some berzerkers between my LC armed Havoks and some terminators. When my havoks shoot at the termies, it turns out the only one not obstructed by the berzerkers happens to have a cyclone. Focus fire on that dude. In the last edition the whole squad would gain cover because 50% of the squad was behind the 'zerkers, and the casualty could come from anywhere. No longer the case. That cyclone guy should have known better than to stand 2" to the left, and will now feel the heat of 100pts-worth of lascannon justice ;). Same thing can be done with positioning a tank (for example) by positioning it so a piece of terrain blocks LOS to several guys, but the goon with the ML is visible. Is this sort of thing the end of gaming as we know it? No. But does removing 99% of abstraction and causing players to worry about fractions of an inch for each of their models slow game play? In my opinion, it does. Dim the lights and ready your laser pointers.

To your last point ("shenanigans" vs "5th ed wound allocation") I actually feel you on this. Everybody's got their buttons...calling things "cheesy" instead of "effective", saying "fluff" instead of "background" or "fiction". But I was only using the term as shorthand, and I've never had any problem with players using the 5th ed wound allocation rules as written.

Sexiest_hero
23-08-2012, 19:54
They got rid of removing models from the rear, and it was for the worst, in shooting and combat. It makes piling in at I a pain, It makes My Archon unfair when added to Eldrad. It's not a BAD rule persay, but it's messy and sloppy, and can lead to issues.

Omniassiah
24-08-2012, 05:33
This is not the correct way to do the wound allocation. It is done differently in different situations. My club has written an FAQ that details it out, but essentially, there are three scenarios and it occurs at different, non-optional points in each. I know it mostly is the same deal, but there are situations where it will screw things up.

First and foremost if they were shot at in your example, the Warboss has to take a save first. He can only LOS unsaved wounds from shooting attacks because you don't allocate wounds until after saves from shooting attacks. So in your example if it was describing shooting, he must take saves and potentially fail them before LOS even happens. So this prevalent idea that LOS is soooooo BS is mostly because people think you can just bust them out at will and it's seen constantly. You think that guy survives because he gets to LOS it all alway, when really, most of the wounds would be saved by his armor and LOS wouldn't even come into play. So the idea that a guy takes 5 wounds and none of them touch him isn't correct. .

Nope you have to do the LoS before you roll the save if you have mixed armor in the unit. This is part of the problem with this rule, they made the speed shortcut the main way and the normal method as an add on which causes a lot of confusion.


no, you look out sir when the wound is allocated not resolved
Not even remotely what I said. so i will try to break this down for you what we are saying.

A tac squad led by a three-wound IC in TH/SS termie armor gets shot and hit by a bunch of shots lets go with 12.

Alright Mixed armor rules apply so your rolling saves one at a time. You save hits 1,2,4,5,6,7, with your 3rd and 8th hit wounding the IC. Now that he is at 1 wound things that would give him his regular armor save you'd probably take and just roll the regular armor save. If you don't feel particularly lucky you then attempt to make the LoS roll for hits 9,10,11, and 12 before rolling saves. Nowhere have we been suggesting that he takes his save then passes the wound. If you still can't see the value of doing this then I suggest you look at how you can use that to your advantage. By slapping a relatively cheapish IC w/different armor up front you as the defender gets to pick where shots go in your squad with out any regard to the order of the models on a 2+.

This also creates the very much not cinematic occurrence where either most of the bullets mystically warp around the lead model to hit everyone behind him or just the ones that seem to have a good shot of hurting him warps behind him. And its not the next guy in line that gets hit its the guy at the back of the squad. Overall 6th edition wound allocation has all of the problems of 4th (LOS sniping) with 5th(Multi-wound model wound spreading) and in both cases it actually managed to make it worse. Now you don't even need to use vehicles to block LoS you can use focus fire and infantry squads; and multi-wound squads that can get a different armor save with either an IC or Full unit of characters can bounce the wounds around to the models that haven't been wounded already.

FoW does it the simple and effective way that achieves the right feel and works in every situation. Attacker allocates wounds front to back to models in LoS, starting back at the front again if more hits then models. Each models saves for his hits. This provides the same front models tend to die more often as they have to be allocated hits first while having the benefit of the realistic and cinematic happening where sometimes nobody shots at the front guy. And yes that does happen all the time in real life(almost got killed because of it), everyone in a squad doesn't shoot the first guy till he's dead then moves to the second, You spread the fire through out enemy formation in order to get the most enemy casualties in the least amount of time.

mattschuur
25-08-2012, 17:22
Good rule on paper, poor in execution. The only way this rule will truly be fair is if every army got a new codex. Right now, those plasma troopers in my chaos army cost 10 points more than their equivalent grey hunters. Granted Chaos is supposedly next, but it just illustrates my point. The rule isn't bad, but it's impact on the current game is just too much. Orks went from a good army to utter crap without nob squads. Eldar went from overpriced to extremely overpriced. And Necrons went from balanced to overpowered and to cheap. All armies are affected, even if they claim they were designed with 6th in mind. And that's the ultimate issue, not just with this rule but all the rule changes. With a company that takes years to update 'half' their codex's, the wide sweeping changes completely unbalances the game.

I remember when people here complained orks were to cheap at 6 points, and now they aren't worth 6 points. Not really against the rule, or 6th edition in general, but I've played since 3rd and this edition gives the carrot and stick to more armies then I've ever seen.

Once GW updates the Codex's 6th will be a fun, effective, and balanced (I hope) game. The only problem is GW never totally updates all the codex's, which means at least 2 armies will remain shafted and unplayable until 7th.

Matt schuur

malisteen
25-08-2012, 18:12
To me the gains in narrative value & positional tactics are more than lost in slower game play and immersion breaking gimmickry. I miss 4e wound allocation, and prefer the ease and abstraction of 'units shoot at units' rather than models at models, with the defender choosing casualties unless sniper weapons or the like are involved. I found the justification of 'Bill just picks up the banner the fallen Bob was carrying' to be perfectly sufficient.

Chapters Unwritten
25-08-2012, 18:18
Disagree. There needed to be a method for specialists to suffer injury. The idea that EVERY SINGLE GUY stopped to pick up his buddy's gear when he died was foolish. Especially with some of the items. Mark of the Wulfen? So my werewolf friend dies and I go pick up his...werewolf DNA...from his dead body?

The idea that specialists lived forever is an outdated one that far increased their value and made rank and file troops worthless. The game is really not even remotely slowed down by the new wound allocation beyond the occasional need to roll a series of saves 1 at a time, and that only applies in more rare situations and seldom takes up more time than just rolling the pile.

I just think this is one of those things that most people just plain do wrong.

I don't know how long it takes you guys to roll X dice one at a time versus in a pile but I think the idea that it takes longer is a fallacy; it takes longer to pick up 20 dice then to roll 1 die 20 times.

malisteen
25-08-2012, 18:31
mark of wulfen are mostly characters in the current rules aren't they? Which results in the even more cumbersome and immersion-breakingly abusable look out sir shenanigans. Yeah, there should be a method for specialists to suffer injury - sniper attacks. Otherwise, no, there doesn't need to be extra rules to punish players for taking them. They're like command models in fantasy - they add visual variety and character to a unit and should be encouraged by the rules rather than discouraged.

The idea that it takes longer to grab 20 dice than resolve a single die 20 times in succession is ridiculous, and doesn't even get into the additional time spent tinkering with movement and line of sight and measurements in the movement phase to try and game the targeting and allocation rules in the shooting phase. And don't even get me started on barrage sniping & rhino sniping.

The new targeting rules were supposed to be immersive and intuitive and narrative, but the way they've played out on tables that I've played at so far has been anything but - just a slow, counterintuitive mess.

jt.glass
25-08-2012, 18:42
Its the best change in 6th. It makes sense, and is intuitive.From what point of view? I'm prepared reserve judgment until I've actually played with the new rule (it might play a lot better than it reads). But, from a narrative PoV it make sod all sense - bullets have been known to go past the closest person to the shooter on occasion, even when no one has a name...


glass.

PANZERBUNNY
25-08-2012, 19:53
It helps cuddle gamers into the idea that where you place your guys, even the small ones, matters.

More thought into the gaming process is always a good thing OR we could all put our troops on little plates and push them towards each others.

de Selby
25-08-2012, 20:47
I'm not keen on it. Or the rules from 5th. I liked the torrent rules from 4th.

I'm slightly surprised by all the people who find it 'realistic and intuitive'. I've never looked at a 40k unit on the tabletop and thought the guys at the back looked much safer than the guys at the front, being about ten percent further away from the enemy. To me, always removing the front guys first is as much an abstraction as always removing basic troopers before specialists. Similarly the flanking tactics thing; are the warriors sayng to themselves 'I want to kill that guy but I can't because he's not the closest, but if I go left he WILL be the closest and I'll then be able to shoot him!' It just doesn't feel real to me.

It also seems to come with a lot of unintended effects and get quite complicated in some circumstances. But I guess if you really want the rules to have the front guys dying first then you're prepared to pay this kind of overhead. It's just not something I want, personally. A bit like the true line of sight rules, I don't like it when the rules focus too much on fiddling around with exact model placement on the tabletop.

The_Klobb_Maniac
25-08-2012, 21:05
I can see the arguments going the other way; but no matter what the rules style is you'll have people placing models weird in order to gain some benefit, or remove models for just some benefit. Look at 4th OR 5th; where you remove models strategically. Someone's about to charge and mistakenly shoots "Oh derp! The one that was in charge range died! how convenient!" Or in 5th when my orks getting close to charging would take a boatload of fire: "Oh weird, you killed guys behind that building 20" over <----there"

No matter the rules the gamers will do something with it that leaves someone with a :wtf: expression because it just.. doesn't fit. This is the closest one that *does* fit as, aside from the LOS! stuff people are attempting to use, it's really difficult to abuse. While I liked the idea of someone else picking up the gun, it *does* get a bit ridiculous that before EVERY special model and EVERY special weapon were completely immune to death until the squad died unless you hit it with atrocious amounts of wounds. I can probably count on my fingers how many times I killed an important model before the squad was 5 models or less.

Spiney Norman
25-08-2012, 21:13
This:


Words because I have too

It's a great way to protect a squad from ap3 shooting though, pop your 2+ character out in front, pass anything that isn't AP3 back to the squad via LOS and roll to save any ap3 hits, dark reapers hate it. I do it all the time with Celestine to protect my seraphim

Tried a similar trick with Nemesor Zahndrek to protect a Necron warrior blob squad, stood him out in front to catch the bullets with his 2+ save and start using LOS when he has taken a wound or two.

Chapters Unwritten
25-08-2012, 21:16
mark of wulfen are mostly characters in the current rules aren't they? Which results in the even more cumbersome and immersion-breakingly abusable look out sir shenanigans. Yeah, there should be a method for specialists to suffer injury - sniper attacks. Otherwise, no, there doesn't need to be extra rules to punish players for taking them. They're like command models in fantasy - they add visual variety and character to a unit and should be encouraged by the rules rather than discouraged.

The idea that it takes longer to grab 20 dice than resolve a single die 20 times in succession is ridiculous, and doesn't even get into the additional time spent tinkering with movement and line of sight and measurements in the movement phase to try and game the targeting and allocation rules in the shooting phase. And don't even get me started on barrage sniping & rhino sniping.

The new targeting rules were supposed to be immersive and intuitive and narrative, but the way they've played out on tables that I've played at so far has been anything but - just a slow, counterintuitive mess.Look Out Sir, Precision Shots, Challenges...all that pushes characters to be vital additions to units. And additional time spent tinkering with movement? We're not talking fractions of an inch here. It's a unit of ten guys, there are 3 important ones, they are not on the edges = the vast majority of gameplay.

Sniping with vehicles doesn't even work if you do the above, and it certainly works even less well if you just kill the vehicles in question.

The 20 dice thing, are you serious? It takes, what, less than a second per single die roll? It takes the same amount of time to pick them up, maybe more to count them if you're feeling thorough.

Barrage sniping? You don't think a shell landing in the middle of your unit should be able to kill a useful model? So it's okay for scrub models magically absorb falling artillery for leaders, but jumping in front of some fire via LOS is immersion-breaking shenanigans? Really?

And on the subject of said shenanigans... the intros to both Dawn of War games depict exactly that sort of thing happening; the awesome experienced leader dodges various attacks that take out his less skilled underlings. And again, I already mentioned how so many people do LOS incorrectly to begin with...what version of it do your people use, the auto 2+ for every IC regardless of save or situation? It's hardly game breaking and it's even less immersion breaking, and for much of those attacks the model HAS to take saves first, it's not just automatically safe.

Has it not occured to you that maybe, if you are playing with guys who spend so long trying to game the rules, that perhaps you should not bother playing them? So many people blame the game when the problem is their playerbase. You can ALWAYS game the rules, no matter what the rules are; it is up to us to use them intelligently. And in all honesty most of what you describe is a lot of reach to go for a fairly weak advantage.

Omniassiah
26-08-2012, 05:12
I can see the arguments going the other way; but no matter what the rules style is you'll have people placing models weird in order to gain some benefit, or remove models for just some benefit. Look at 4th OR 5th; where you remove models strategically. Someone's about to charge and mistakenly shoots "Oh derp! The one that was in charge range died! how convenient!" Or in 5th when my orks getting close to charging would take a boatload of fire: "Oh weird, you killed guys behind that building 20" over <----there"

No matter the rules the gamers will do something with it that leaves someone with a :wtf: expression because it just.. doesn't fit. This is the closest one that *does* fit as, aside from the LOS! stuff people are attempting to use, it's really difficult to abuse. While I liked the idea of someone else picking up the gun, it *does* get a bit ridiculous that before EVERY special model and EVERY special weapon were completely immune to death until the squad died unless you hit it with atrocious amounts of wounds. I can probably count on my fingers how many times I killed an important model before the squad was 5 models or less.

Again battlefront has the best wound allocation system I have ever seen in FoW, It is both realistic quick, and allows just the appropriate amount of risk to special weapons. For 40k it would be hits are allocated front to back by Attackers choice not doubling up until all valid models are hit once. Roll for look out sirs. roll saves by model. That system would cover every single unit in the game, prevent ICs from soaking shooting for entire squads, and still have the general wounds are taken from the front effect everyone seems to want.



Sniping with vehicles doesn't even work if you do the above, and it certainly works even less well if you just kill the vehicles in question.
it works even easier then in 4th as you only need to give cover to the rest of the unit and focus fire on him out of cover or if doing the 2+/3++ tank character just blocking LOS to him.


The 20 dice thing, are you serious? It takes, what, less than a second per single die roll? It takes the same amount of time to pick them up, maybe more to count them if you're feeling thorough.
I guarantee I can do 4th edition saves of 20 wounds on a mixed armor save unit faster then you could with 6th, when it comes down to the defender deciding to take a LoS or not it can be even more of a difference. Think of this: allocate wound1, ask if opponent wishes to roll LoS, make save as appropriate repeat times 20x.


Barrage sniping? You don't think a shell landing in the middle of your unit should be able to kill a useful model? So it's okay for scrub models magically absorb falling artillery for leaders, but jumping in front of some fire via LOS is immersion-breaking shenanigans? Really?
If a deviating artillery shell can do it why can't that heavy weapon guy do it with a Grenade launcher. What inherently makes an exploding artillery shell able to do it that any other blast weapon couldn't? I mean I've shifted fire to engage specific threats from heavy/special weapons to single them out with a M249 machine gun. I guess its the question is why is the greatest benefit of barrage weapons is being able to work as a sniper rifle only better...

Personally I dislike LoS in 40k it makes little sense in non-rank and file skirmish formations. Maybe if it was a model with in 2" it wouldn't be so bad but 6" is just stupid.

And on the subject of said shenanigans... the intros to both Dawn of War games depict exactly that sort of thing happening; the awesome experienced leader dodges various attacks that take out his less skilled underlings. And again, I already mentioned how so many people do LOS incorrectly to begin with...what version of it do your people use, the auto 2+ for every IC regardless of save or situation? It's hardly game breaking and it's even less immersion breaking, and for much of those attacks the model HAS to take saves first, it's not just automatically safe.
It's not hard to figure out when to do the save. In fact the easiest way is to just determine LoS before you roll the save everytime, It is the correct way to handle the situation in a mixed armor unit and has a negligible effect to how it works out in a uniform save unit. Why GW did the full fleshed method that works for every unit as the off to the side rule and have the speedy method as the main rule is beyond me. That said I have not seen one person suggesting the IC mixed armor tank as suggesting to play it wrong. I've had to in this thread explain the situation 3 different times to the same people who were saying that we were doing it wrong because we were playing it the way they said we should.



Has it not occured to you that maybe, if you are playing with guys who spend so long trying to game the rules, that perhaps you should not bother playing them? So many people blame the game when the problem is their playerbase. You can ALWAYS game the rules, no matter what the rules are; it is up to us to use them intelligently. And in all honesty most of what you describe is a lot of reach to go for a fairly weak advantage.

Saving most of a unit of marines from a battlecannon shot because the closest guy is in artificer or terminator armor is not a small advantage especially with pricey squads.

That said when the majority of the game play you can effect in the game comes from rules like this then there isn't much else to do. When an on table maneuvering is generally not important because overall speed of armies allows everyone to easily counter any move you make, assuming that they don't just have a 2/3rds chance to come on Exactly where they need them. 5th was the death of on table maneuvering with the addition of Outflank, shooting priorities are so simple that I can write a one page flow chart to handle 95% of the required choices you need to make. You still have no real effective defensive measures in the game. Sure you can hide in cover, but its often only worth while if your being shot by weapons that straight up ignore your armor save, Apparently a Bolt round just plows right through solid stone wall, but an anti-tank fusion gun originally designed to cut through rock fails to get through it 50% of the time. Sure I guess you could say me and my friends play 40k but we've had to house rule it to the point I wouldn't even call it 40k anymore. Sadly we get a lot more cinematic games with more on table maneuvering that leads to a better story all with less rules then the current edition does.

Tarax
26-08-2012, 09:09
Some of the arguments remind me of a Napoleonic battle where an officer was walking in front of a line of troops. Now replace that officer with an IC and the troops with any unit that IC has joined and you can see what causes an intuitive problem: that officer/IC will take every wound, while the whole unit is shot at. And basically, the unit would take more wounds, because the bullets land all over the unit.
However, if the IC fails a save (and LOS) he might get 'instant deathed'. So it might also be disadvantageous to have him in front.

As to the removal of special/heavy weapons, there was once a commentary in the rules that said that failing your save on one of your special models also meant that his weapons were also destroyed, so couldn't be picked up by another model. I remember a ruleset where you had to roll a dice to see if the weapon was destroyed or not, and if not it could only be picked up, ie you replaced a normal model with the special model, not removing a normal model and keeping the special model where it was, by another model within a certain number of inches.

But despite its limitations, as all rules have, I like this. I also preferred 4th removal rules to 5th, and this works almost the same.

One last thing, removing the front models is also intuitive if you imagine your troops being shaken from the casualties caused and taking a step back.

Omniassiah
26-08-2012, 15:51
Some of the arguments remind me of a Napoleonic battle where an officer was walking in front of a line of troops. Now replace that officer with an IC and the troops with any unit that IC has joined and you can see what causes an intuitive problem: that officer/IC will take every wound, while the whole unit is shot at. And basically, the unit would take more wounds, because the bullets land all over the unit.
However, if the IC fails a save (and LOS) he might get 'instant deathed'. So it might also be disadvantageous to have him in front.

However in napoleonic battles the chance that an officer would get hit was the same as a regular trooper. The unit firing at them would fire to hit the unit with a spread of shots to increase the chances of damaging the wounded. The fact that the front rank died was purely from the fact that it is damn hard to hit the second rank when the first rank is literally shoulder to shoulder. The way the system currently works in 40k would be that the unit fires at a spread of targets, the bullets all mystically curve into the IC until he dies, unless he wills one or two to hit a trooper in the squad in which case it curves over to hit that trooper. None of that is realistic or makes sense.



As to the removal of special/heavy weapons, there was once a commentary in the rules that said that failing your save on one of your special models also meant that his weapons were also destroyed, so couldn't be picked up by another model. I remember a ruleset where you had to roll a dice to see if the weapon was destroyed or not, and if not it could only be picked up, ie you replaced a normal model with the special model, not removing a normal model and keeping the special model where it was, by another model within a certain number of inches.
I personally like the idea of being able to make called shots of special/hvy weapon troopers. It's common to engage heavier weapons as soon as you see them on the battlefield, it was something I knew would happen with my MG if I ever had to do a long burst with it. Not sure how to convert or make a rule to make that work that is reasonable. The old torrent of Fire from 4th with the exception of maybe just a blanket you can allocate one shot per 10 hits or something, don't know.



One last thing, removing the front models is also intuitive if you imagine your troops being shaken from the casualties caused and taking a step back.

Not likely to happen, soldiers won't stop unless the casualties are extremely severe and in many cases that would be the equivalent of signing your own death certificate, If your found in a fire lane you get clear of it as soon as possible. Hesitation = dead. If your doing your bounds right then you shouldn't be exposed for long enough to make returning from your positions more viable then continuing on, One exception to this is getting into close assault range of a position where you can be pushed back or more and likely held in position just by weight of fire.

Ozendorph
26-08-2012, 17:57
I think the whole thing boils down to this: the change in wound allocation would be Okay if we were playing a skirmish game. If both players have 10 or even 20 models, being concerned with the exact location of each of them would be pretty reasonable. Rolling for each of them one at a time, when necessary, wouldn't be too much of a chore. However, when playing even a 1500pt game, this quickly becomes a massive time sink. GW changed 40k from a skirmish game to a Battle game many years ago, and up until now there focus has been on larger scale games with higher model counts. Seems like their dev team and marketing dept need to schedule a meeting lol

Omniassiah
27-08-2012, 00:07
Unfortunately up until recently that would have only included the Dev team as there was no marketing department. now it includes a single person for web marketing hence the increase in videos from GW.

Tarax
27-08-2012, 10:27
@Ozendorph: If we were playing a skirmish game, we wouldn't have wound allocation, as you would probably state which model is shooting at which enemy model and no other model would get hit.

Baragash
27-08-2012, 10:49
To me the gains in narrative value & positional tactics are more than lost in slower game play and immersion breaking gimmickry. I miss 4e wound allocation, and prefer the ease and abstraction of 'units shoot at units' rather than models at models, with the defender choosing casualties unless sniper weapons or the like are involved. I found the justification of 'Bill just picks up the banner the fallen Bob was carrying' to be perfectly sufficient.

This. The scale of 40k numbers-wise is wrong for this mechanic and I have little interest in continuing to play a game of this size where I have to think about the placement of every single model.

arthurfallz
27-08-2012, 18:14
Played my first game of 40k over the weekend with a more experienced player, in a 500 point match to get the rules down. The "closest model" thing proved to be no issue at all in our play, and didn't slow down play one bit. It was obvious every time which was the closest, except in one case - and we just rolled a die without dispute to keep the game moving.

There was a badass Daemon at the front of the unit which was soaking up a lot of my Space Marine incoming fire, so I can see some of the objections here, but a flanking unit would have been targeting completely different models in that unit. And this is what I like about the rule - if I can get in a flank or rear attack, it really does make a difference. And if my opponent wants his badass model at the front of a unit, and I have some options to slag it, he only has Look Out Sir! to save his but. Which kills other models anyways.

IcedCrow
27-08-2012, 18:29
that's exactly what sets this edition apart from past editions. Where you position your models makes a world of difference now in who dies. If the demon in the front is taking all of the fire power, you need to move to a different position, whereas before your position largely meant little.

Rated_lexxx
27-08-2012, 19:26
that's exactly what sets this edition apart from past editions. Where you position your models makes a world of difference now in who dies. If the demon in the front is taking all of the fire power, you need to move to a different position, whereas before your position largely meant little.

I agree and like that aspect. For me the slow down of the game is what bugs me.

Ozendorph
27-08-2012, 19:28
Right. And that is super for a 500 point friendly game. Heck, it's probably fine for a 2000 point friendly, depending on the players. For a 2000pt multi-round tournament with hard time limits and prizes? Haha, no. You can tell people to "pick up the pace" all day long, but when a fraction of an inch is the difference between bolter marine dying and Las Cannon marine dying? When TLOS from every model in a squad, to every model in the target squad impacts not only the number of casualties, but which specific models can die? When each lasrifle shot will often be LoS'ed and saved independently? I don't like hearing the words "We only got to the bottom of turn three" from players, but that's exactly what's coming.

Like I said before, as a casual player (I am very much a "beer and pretzels" guy that loves Apocalypse) I'm fine with the rules. Not impressed with the wound allocation, but I can deal with it because I generally don't give a flip who wins when I'm playing. However, as a TO and judge, all I can do is shake my head and prepare to move to a different game.

IcedCrow
27-08-2012, 19:34
Invest in a laser range finder ;) put it by the model, point and click, it'll tell you in seconds what is closest.

I can see the issue from a tournament standpoint, which is another reason why I'm not a fan of tournaments... but the games I've seen haven't really taken that much longer. What takes a while is when an argumentative player steps up to the plate and demands to see, and then tries to do the 1/8" thing where he tries to find a way to prove his las cannon marine is really not 1/64th" of an inch closer. The argument was popularly seen in warhammer fantasy 6/7th edition too, where the 1/8" dance was common and players would grind the game to a screeching halt arguing over fractions of a fraction of an inch.

Between two reasonable people, I've not seen an issue yet (usually if the difference is 1/4" or so, you dice off and it takes all of 5 seconds).

arthurfallz
27-08-2012, 19:53
Right. And that is super for a 500 point friendly game. Heck, it's probably fine for a 2000 point friendly, depending on the players. For a 2000pt multi-round tournament with hard time limits and prizes? Haha, no. You can tell people to "pick up the pace" all day long, but when a fraction of an inch is the difference between bolter marine dying and Las Cannon marine dying? When TLOS from every model in a squad, to every model in the target squad impacts not only the number of casualties, but which specific models can die? When each lasrifle shot will often be LoS'ed and saved independently? I don't like hearing the words "We only got to the bottom of turn three" from players, but that's exactly what's coming.

Always apply intelligence. Where fractional distances are present, it's important for the tournament organizers to establish rules on how to settle disputes. The one in the book should be adequate - as it's entirely possible that players moved their models a little closer or shorter than intended in the first place.

Something as simple as "any distance less than 1/2 of an inch, where the difference matters for terms of range or position, will be determined with a die roll". Done. Because what does this edition change from last edition with that problem? I'm not dismissing the attempt to perform strategy, but at the scale on the game, with the degree of inaccuracy present, there has to be a more sane option than "argue until each other are blue in the face".

Lord Inquisitor
27-08-2012, 19:54
that's exactly what sets this edition apart from past editions. Where you position your models makes a world of difference now in who dies. If the demon in the front is taking all of the fire power, you need to move to a different position, whereas before your position largely meant little.

To a degree I agree, and it does add a bit of a tactical aspect. Certainly it makes deep strikers behind your lines a total pain as they can pick off your valuable and vulnerable heavy weapon troopers. Unfortunately in many ways these feel very much like "gamey" results. Deep striking or flanking an enemy unit should be effective yes - but it's kind of effective for the wrong reasons. There are a number of real life reasons flanking is effective, but picking off a particular trooper isn't really a general effect.

It also just slows things down way too much. Never mind the actual process of removing casualties (works well enough for simple squads, quicker than 5th anyway, it only drags the game to a crawl with complex squads), I'm just talking about moving your troops. I'm finding I'm spending way too much time faffing around with the exact position of important models, measuing distances and trying to control the process of casualty removal. It's fiddly micromanagement that has no place in a wargame of this scale.

Chapters Unwritten
27-08-2012, 20:41
Problems with the player =\= problems with the game.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Lord Inquisitor
27-08-2012, 20:53
If I don't randomly throw my squads on the board and let whoever ends up in front be in front I'm a "problem" player? :eyebrows:

Ozendorph
27-08-2012, 21:20
Always apply intelligence.
To be fair this is something that should have happened in the "design phase" of the game ;)

Where fractional distances are present, it's important for the tournament organizers to establish rules on how to settle disputes. The one in the book should be adequate - as it's entirely possible that players moved their models a little closer or shorter than intended in the first place.

Something as simple as "any distance less than 1/2 of an inch, where the difference matters for terms of range or position, will be determined with a die roll". Done. Because what does this edition change from last edition with that problem? I'm not dismissing the attempt to perform strategy, but at the scale on the game, with the degree of inaccuracy present, there has to be a more sane option than "argue until each other are blue in the face".

"This model wouldn't balance on the edge of that crater so I had to put him over here. I think he'd be 5/8 of an inch back, but my opponent says it's 1/2 and wants me to dice it but he's got the melta gun and I wanted him to be the fourth model back, not tied for third..."

Friendly games are friendly, generally. Competitive games are...well, let's just say players don't always see eye-to-eye when vying for a top spot. Of course I try to solve disputes quickly (often employing said die-roll when the answer isn't obvious) but everything from deployment, to movement, to shooting, to assault is slowed down by the new rules. Having 50% of a squad in cover doesn't cut it any more. Squads can't just be tossed out onto the table and stood up. Players aren't going to move the first couple boyz and then just shove the other 18 along without concern for where the rokkits and nob are, as an example. It becomes meticulous - factoring in which directions they are likely to get shot from, and which specific models will benefit from cover.


Problems with the player =\= problems with the game.

But everyone knows playing differently than you == having a problem

Nurgling Chieftain
27-08-2012, 21:29
Problems with the player =\= problems with the game.With apologies to Keynes: Game Designers set themselves too easy, too useless a task if among tempestuous players they can only tell us that when played by reasonable people, the game is calm again.

The bearded one
27-08-2012, 22:08
I think we first just need to get the hang of it, and learn speed through familiarity.

Snowflake
27-08-2012, 22:09
Invest in a laser range finder ;) put it by the model, point and click, it'll tell you in seconds what is closest.

I can see the issue from a tournament standpoint, which is another reason why I'm not a fan of tournaments... but the games I've seen haven't really taken that much longer. What takes a while is when an argumentative player steps up to the plate and demands to see, and then tries to do the 1/8" thing where he tries to find a way to prove his las cannon marine is really not 1/64th" of an inch closer. The argument was popularly seen in warhammer fantasy 6/7th edition too, where the 1/8" dance was common and players would grind the game to a screeching halt arguing over fractions of a fraction of an inch.

Between two reasonable people, I've not seen an issue yet (usually if the difference is 1/4" or so, you dice off and it takes all of 5 seconds).

Seriously, this is what it really boils down to. The player. If you have two players who are there to have a good time and aren't being pricks, the game goes quickly and there aren't any arguments. When you get the players who will argue every little thing, who will go to any lengths to try to wring the smallest advantage out of the rules, the game goes slowly and is irritating. But here's a newsflash. This happens with EVERY game. Bad players ruin the experience, period. I play Hordes too, and Warmahordes is generally held up as having an exceptionally good ruleset, particularly for tournaments. Guess what? I've STILL had my playing experience ruined by some jerk trying to game the system. You can abuse ANY ruleset, no matter how clearly written, if you really try to.

If your playing experience is truly slowed down this much by what really is a very simple wound allocation system, then I think you either need to find new people to play with, or admit that YOU are the problem.

For my 2c about the rules, I think they're great. Are they perfect? Not really. But they make sense and are quick and easy. Maybe this is because I also play WHFB, so LoS is not new to me. Either way, never has any rule enraged me more than 5th's wound allocation. Watching wounds just disappear onto models that were already dead pissed me off so much that I quit playing. Coming from that, I'd be happy with anything (which is probably a good attitude to take, anyway).

Ozendorph
27-08-2012, 22:28
And I'll say it one last time - as long as you're playing casually, and aren't overly concerned with the outcome of the game, these new rules work fine. Not great, but fine. My personal games have been fun. However, when people DO care about winning and losing (ie a tournament), you quickly find out how exploitable and slow these rules are. I intend to keep playing 40K - hopefully long after 6th ed has run its course. However, I don't see continuing to organize tournaments, for all the reasons stated.

Lord Inquisitor
27-08-2012, 23:27
With apologies to Keynes: Game Designers set themselves too easy, too useless a task if among tempestuous players they can only tell us that when played by reasonable people, the game is calm again.
Heh, I like this.


I think we first just need to get the hang of it, and learn speed through familiarity.
This will help, but I think we know how it is going to work. It didn't take us long to realise how clunky 5th's wound allocation was going to be and it didn't stop being clunky when we got used to it. I think the horrifically confusing nature of the dual wound allocation systems might get a bit better and special model placement in units might get a bit more intuitive with practice but it's still annoying.


Seriously, this is what it really boils down to. The player. If you have two players who are there to have a good time and aren't being pricks, the game goes quickly and there aren't any arguments.
I think the suggestion that playing correctly = being a prick is going to help. You could say that about anything. Why would you want to play against a prick anyway? Does placing my heavy weapon trooper at the back make me a prick? What if I consider where your terminators will land? Is this being a prick? What about putting a decent save guy at the front? Prickish?


And I'll say it one last time - as long as you're playing casually, and aren't overly concerned with the outcome of the game, these new rules work fine. Not great, but fine. My personal games have been fun. However, when people DO care about winning and losing (ie a tournament), you quickly find out how exploitable and slow these rules are. I intend to keep playing 40K - hopefully long after 6th ed has run its course. However, I don't see continuing to organize tournaments, for all the reasons stated.
I don't see that this will cause any real issues with tournament play. I was at a tournament last weekend (my first 40K tournament in years) and it went well enough. Certainly no arguments or major issues. I was playing a guy with a nob biker unit that played the "look out sir" wound spreading game (holy smokes the nob bikers got obscene in 6th!) but my opponent was super chilled about the game in general and it was a great game. You can be competitive without being a jerk and he was always happy to give me the benefit of the doubt with models in range and so on.

Tournaments have dealt with los-sniping and wound allocation shenanigans in previous editions. I don't see it as a major barrier, just an annoyance. I just don't see any benefit regarding 6th ed wound allocation. It isn't particularly good even if you're willing to play without getting super precise about everything. The only redeeming quality the system might have had was a simplicity of rules and they managed to screw that up by including two distinct wound allocation systems, confusing virtually everybody.

Rated_lexxx
27-08-2012, 23:30
Seriously, this is what it really boils down to. The player. If you have two players who are there to have a good time and aren't being pricks, the game goes quickly and there aren't any arguments. When you get the players who will argue every little thing, who will go to any lengths to try to wring the smallest advantage out of the rules, the game goes slowly and is irritating. But here's a newsflash. This happens with EVERY game. Bad players ruin the experience, period. I play Hordes too, and Warmahordes is generally held up as having an exceptionally good ruleset, particularly for tournaments. Guess what? I've STILL had my playing experience ruined by some jerk trying to game the system. You can abuse ANY ruleset, no matter how clearly written, if you really try to.

If your playing experience is truly slowed down this much by what really is a very simple wound allocation system, then I think you either need to find new people to play with, or admit that YOU are the problem.

For my 2c about the rules, I think they're great. Are they perfect? Not really. But they make sense and are quick and easy. Maybe this is because I also play WHFB, so LoS is not new to me. Either way, never has any rule enraged me more than 5th's wound allocation. Watching wounds just disappear onto models that were already dead pissed me off so much that I quit playing. Coming from that, I'd be happy with anything (which is probably a good attitude to take, anyway).

I am playing with players who are both completive and fun. We don't argue about everything. We both go down and look. Take out the measuring tape and look. We both agree on which to remove and move on

Notice no arguments.

Another person pointed out and I didn't even notice I do it. I have to try to guys in the right position to not be knocked out first

Is it tactical. Yes. Can it be fun. Yes. Does eat more time. Very much so. So I am still on the fence about it

As for 5th wound allocation. It was difficult to understand but I don't think it's any better or worse then 6th wound allocation

big squig
28-08-2012, 07:05
I'm not a fan honestly. I think it's odd that people always complained that models in the back died first in previous editions, yet that's exactly what happens in WHFB and I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain.

Also I think I'm gonna start posting in purple because in the time I've been at portent/warseer I don't think I've ever read something Lord Inquisitor wrote that I didn't agree with.

MasterDecoy
28-08-2012, 07:11
I'm not a fan honestly. I think it's odd that people always complained that models in the back died first in previous editions, yet that's exactly what happens in WHFB and I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain.

and in previous editions of WHFB models that died before their I step couldn't attack back, but it was just easier to take from the back.

big squig
28-08-2012, 07:23
and in previous editions of WHFB models that died before their I step couldn't attack back, but it was just easier to take from the back.

So? It's easier to take from the back in 40k too. We could micro-manage each and every model with wound allocations and pile in moves, or we could just pull casualties from anywhere assuming troopers refill the ranks, soldiers pick up the arms of their fallen comrades, and squad leaders are heroic warriors who fight to the bitter end.

Pretty much exactly like WHFB. No one ever complains about wound allocation in fantasy but if GW wanted too, they could force casualty removal from the front of the regiment, force players too allocate hits before applying cover mods for units half in cover, and force players to physically pile in ranks. It would make te game much more "action packed" and realistic..but it would also make the game slow and annoying.

I hated 5ths allocation rules, and 6th IS an improvement, but it's still a bad system.

MasterDecoy
28-08-2012, 07:30
So? It's easier to take from the back in 40k too. We could micro-manage each and every model with wound allocations and pile in moves, or we could just pull casualties from anywhere assuming troopers refill the ranks, soldiers pick up the arms of their fallen comrades, and squad leaders are heroic warriors who fight to the bitter end.

Pretty much exactly like WHFB. No one ever complains about wound allocation in fantasy but if GW wanted too, they could force casualty removal from the front of the regiment, force players too allocate hits before applying cover mods for units half in cover, and force players to physically pile in ranks. It would make te game much more "action packed" and realistic..but it would also make the game slow and annoying.

I hated 5ths allocation rules, and 6th IS an improvement, but it's still a bad system.

actually, its easier to take models away from anywhere in 40k because your not dealing with block troops of infantry (often) up too 50 guys strong, taking from the front in fantasy would be a nightmare if you just had to push all the guys from the back up again.

The model count in 40k is significantly smaller than fantasy, and the level of unit micro management reflects this

Inquisitor_Thorn
28-08-2012, 11:39
Maybe I have been into many situations where trying to figure out who the closest has been a pain.

What about the other problem I see of having to roll armor save 1 at time due to different armor saves

If their is despute 50/50 it via a random role makes it simple and if the unit is all of same armour value roll all saves and remove number of wounded starting at front to back, it doesnt slow the game down at all and if anything it stops people power gaming by selecting the deaths to their benefit.

Narf
28-08-2012, 12:21
if it comes down to someone whinging about removing figure a or figure b i let them choose, then shoot another unit at there unit to get rid of teh remaining figure - simples

Axel
28-08-2012, 13:21
Something as simple as "any distance less than 1/2 of an inch, where the difference matters for terms of range or position, will be determined with a die roll". Done.

Actually, no: not done. In your case, WAAC players would start to measure out and compete that their invaluable model is just within this half inch, despite the to-be-protected being clearly in the front. Applying your houserule would mean they do have to measure out wether he gets that roll or not. You HAVE to draw a clear line in the rules somewhere, and sometimes this clear line WILL be so close that mere eyesight will not yield an objective result, but rather two different subjectives. "Closest model" is as easy as it may come. Have a third party handy in case you disagree, roll off, or pack your stuff and go.

Enigma6
28-08-2012, 14:09
I like the rule in general, but I get annoyed by the massive disparity between the way allocation normally works, and the way it works using LoS.

They finally didn't need a 'remove whole models where possible' rule because the general mechanic means that a whole model received wounds until dead, and if they didn't die then they would still be the closest model for further attacks most of the time. Also, model placement is suddenly very meaningful and there is very little shennanagins.

Then suddenly the LoS rules allow all the kinds of odd wound bouncing that the 'closest model' rule seems designed to make impossible. I can put an IC at the front of a squad (even easier to do in CC) and always keep the sgt and special weapon alive until the end, and pretty much guarentee that wounds will be spread as thin as humanly possible before I loose a model.

All they had to do is state that, if the LoS is passed, the wound goes to the closest model to the character, and this would bring IC led units in line with the rest of the units in the game.

Another fix, that could be combined with the above, is that if a LoS is passed, choose a model to be the human shield. Then wounds are allocated to THAT model, until it is dead, then allocation returns to the character. Basically they don't jump sacrificially in front of ONE bullet, then return to their place in the line and let someone else have a go, they jump in front of their beloved captain and stay there until either the bullets stop, or they die. Sounds more cinimatic to me.

I prefer the first fix as it clears up more issues, but the second does mean you have to roll less LoS rolls, speeding things up a bit. My preference would be to have both additions, but of course I'm not actually expecting either in the next, or any FAQ

Ozendorph
28-08-2012, 15:10
Using majority armor save (much like majority toughness is used) would have allowd players to "fast dice" every time, making for a lot fewer individual rolls. That and a tweak to LoS as suggested above would certainly help. Of course Focus Fire still needs to die in a fire ;)

IcedCrow
28-08-2012, 16:00
think the suggestion that playing correctly = being a prick is going to help. You could say that about anything. Why would you want to play against a prick anyway? Does placing my heavy weapon trooper at the back make me a prick? What if I consider where your terminators will land? Is this being a prick? What about putting a decent save guy at the front? Prickish?


Absolutely positively not. Putting your guy in the back is not being a prick. It's the guy that when presented with the las cannon marine or the dude with the bolter takes five - ten minutes to measure the distance from 95 different angles to find that one angle where he is 1/64th of an inch farther and then argues that you can't shoot that guy because that one angle out of several dozen came out that way is being the prick and grinding the game down to a halt.

Indecisive players, those being the players that stare at the board for a half hour trying to find the chess formation that will prevent their las cannon marine from dying, are not pricks either. They are just indecisive and very slow. That can be annoying, but that is not being a prick. Anymore than the guy that spends thirty minutes agonizing who to throw the D6 S4 hit fireball spell at you in a tournament with a two hour time limit is in fantasy.

Daedalus81
28-08-2012, 19:08
Sure you can hide in cover, but its often only worth while if your being shot by weapons that straight up ignore your armor save, Apparently a Bolt round just plows right through solid stone wall, but an anti-tank fusion gun originally designed to cut through rock fails to get through it 50% of the time. Sure I guess you could say me and my friends play 40k but we've had to house rule it to the point I wouldn't even call it 40k anymore. Sadly we get a lot more cinematic games with more on table maneuvering that leads to a better story all with less rules then the current edition does.


Or the cover makes it so that cannon can't pinpoint the model's location and it misses. It really isn't that big of a stretch.



The way the system currently works in 40k would be that the unit fires at a spread of targets, the bullets all mystically curve into the IC until he dies, unless he wills one or two to hit a trooper in the squad in which case it curves over to hit that trooper. None of that is realistic or makes sense.


Or the lead model is being focused and the troopers are jumping in front of their leader. No mystical ******** required.

You guys make these retarded logical leaps where they are not required.

Caitsidhe
28-08-2012, 19:13
The rule SHOULD have been that you start your saves at the closest model and move backwards, one save per model until it comes back around and then you move front to back again. That's it. It would have been simple, elegant and hard to abuse. Statistically the models in the front would have born (rightly so) more of the wounds.

Lord Inquisitor
28-08-2012, 19:35
Yes, this is how it works in epic.

However it does have the issue of having to roll each model seperately. Currently, if you take 9 wounds on your 5-man tactical squad you can just grab 9 dice and simply roll and remove the appropriate number of models. While the epic system is fairer and better for mixed units, it is slower for simple units.

Omniassiah
28-08-2012, 23:58
Or the cover makes it so that cannon can't pinpoint the model's location and it misses. It really isn't that big of a stretch.
And again if it hides it from the big gun what is making it so that suddenly the smaller gun held by the same user can see clearly to avoid it? The problem is your going to be damn hard to find a reason why the small gun ignores the cover but the big gun wouldn't either or the other way around.



Or the lead model is being focused and the troopers are jumping in front of their leader. No mystical ******** required.



Again nobody in their right mind focus fires. It will get you killed, there were a lot of good soldiers who died in Vietnam because Generals thought they could command who they should shoot from a helicopter. The idea of Focus Fire comes from RTS games where things have hit points. When you have to hit something 5 times to kill it the it it better to put 5 shots into one guy then 5 shots into 5 separate guys. Now in the real world and the 40k world(in most cases) there is never a reason to focus fire at another squad. First it is extremely had to get everyone coordinated to do that. Second most troopers will not have a shot because they are given fire lanes in other directions, note that the purpose of fire lanes is to makes sure that soldiers DON'T focus fire. Third it just plain ineffective, You can't change who the round is going to hit after its fired so all you do is waste ammo by killing the same person 7-8 times, and have to deal with more shots coming back at your squad for longer. I used to do some building clearing, had the fun job of being the guy with the ballistic shield. let me tell you how effective I was anywhere but a closed in area like a hallway or door in saving my buddies... zero nadda zilch. Why? because anyone with half a brain just shot the other guys in my squad. And guess what if I was the one taking shots how many of my friends were going to try and take a shot for the guy with the best protection on the team... again none.

Now LoS isn't an issue but it should have a few major restrictions. First That character should never have the chance of being able to be assigned every hit. Also the LoS should be made before any hits are assigned, If its passed then he is shoved out of harms way/shielded by another trooper then the squad eats all the shots. None of the possibility of 6-7 guys jumping in front of him one at a time or selecting only specific shots to block, all or nothing. As said the Epic/FoW systems work much better in handling multi-save and regular units and do it much more realistically.


You guys make these retarded logical leaps where they are not required.
Its not retarded (thanks for the personal attack) when you are using logic based on 3-4 years of real life combat/paramilitary experience combined with the knowledge taught by those who were and in some cases still are in that field for longer then I was.


Yes, this is how it works in epic.

However it does have the issue of having to roll each model seperately. Currently, if you take 9 wounds on your 5-man tactical squad you can just grab 9 dice and simply roll and remove the appropriate number of models. While the epic system is fairer and better for mixed units, it is slower for simple units.

A little longer but not significantly when dealing with LoS rolls an the analysis paralysis of some players.

alextroy
29-08-2012, 05:33
The rule SHOULD have been that you start your saves at the closest model and move backwards, one save per model until it comes back around and then you move front to back again. That's it. It would have been simple, elegant and hard to abuse. Statistically the models in the front would have born (rightly so) more of the wounds.

But then you would have to roll saves for every model individually. That's slower then both 5th Edition and 6th Edition!

Weazel
29-08-2012, 06:55
The rule SHOULD have been that you start your saves at the closest model and move backwards, one save per model until it comes back around and then you move front to back again. That's it. It would have been simple, elegant and hard to abuse. Statistically the models in the front would have born (rightly so) more of the wounds.

That wouldn't really speed things up as there would still be debate about which model is the closest. Or second closest, or third, etc.

However I like the concept. If you could roll your dice in a "line", you could nominate clearly which die is the first, which is the second etc.

Omniassiah
29-08-2012, 13:06
That wouldn't really speed things up as there would still be debate about which model is the closest. Or second closest, or third, etc.

However I like the concept. If you could roll your dice in a "line", you could nominate clearly which die is the first, which is the second etc.

Not really, The problem is its much more important in the current system since it can mean the difference of the IC with the 2+/3++ taking all the hits instead of say a special weapon guy. In that method they both will take a hit assuming more then one hit is rolled so the fact that he is .000001" further away doesn't matter. Imagine all the advantage of the same armor save allocation on every unit in the game. it would be just a slight bit slower then 5th edition.

Weazel
29-08-2012, 13:12
Not really, The problem is its much more important in the current system since it can mean the difference of the IC with the 2+/3++ taking all the hits instead of say a special weapon guy. In that method they both will take a hit assuming more then one hit is rolled so the fact that he is .000001" further away doesn't matter. Imagine all the advantage of the same armor save allocation on every unit in the game. it would be just a slight bit slower then 5th edition.

Assuming you manage 2 wounds, the closest guy is a grunt and an obvious casualty (or a successful armour save qualifies as well in this scheme), but then there is a grunt and a special-weapon-grunt at the same distance. Now you're figuring out which one is the closest, and I'm sure the controlling player wants the normal grunt to be closer. ;) And again we are measuring fractions of an inch or rolling off randomly.

Daedalus81
29-08-2012, 16:25
And again if it hides it from the big gun what is making it so that suddenly the smaller gun held by the same user can see clearly to avoid it? The problem is your going to be damn hard to find a reason why the small gun ignores the cover but the big gun wouldn't either or the other way around.


Or the model is out of cover, because he knows the armor can take hits from that gun, but dives back when he sees the cannon shoot.



Its not retarded (thanks for the personal attack) when you are using logic based on 3-4 years of real life combat/paramilitary experience combined with the knowledge taught by those who were and in some cases still are in that field for longer then I was.


Oh military experience. How long does it take you to put on your power armor? Shoot any tyranids lately? If there is a big intimidating guy in crazy armor at the front of the enemy squad then, yea, you'd probably want to take him down first. Then again I haven't had to experience hand to hand combat against someone with a powerfist. Otherwise the shots are spread over the whole unit. I really don't see a problem.

Respect to your military service, but it doesn't really have an application as to whether or not this rule was a good change when someone doesn't see the "real world" application of it since we're talking about a universe we haven't truly experienced.

Omniassiah
29-08-2012, 23:53
Or the model is out of cover, because he knows the armor can take hits from that gun, but dives back when he sees the cannon shoot.
If you can see the cannon shoot you are already dead, I'll assume that you meant see it aim at him. Even with that having worn body armor that was rated for repeated hits from a 7.62 and one maybe 2 from something as large as a .50cal (though only on an undamaged plate) I tended to find that not getting hit in the first place was much more likely to see me live then getting hit and relying on my armor to save me. Generally being in cover is absolutely great and if you don't need to leave it you don't. You get the benefits of being harder to see, harder to hit, and usually a better firing position for your weapon so it hits more often.



Oh military experience. How long does it take you to put on your power armor? Shoot any tyranids lately? If there is a big intimidating guy in crazy armor at the front of the enemy squad then, yea, you'd probably want to take him down first. Then again I haven't had to experience hand to hand combat against someone with a powerfist. Otherwise the shots are spread over the whole unit. I really don't see a problem.
My full body armor took myself and at least one other person to get situated, with ballistic shield, sledge hammer, pistol, grenades all total was a bit over 15 min. Its about as close as you could get to power armor. As for tyranids we just called them insurgents or traffickers depending on the location (all pretty much ran towards you shooting, though they could be considered orks more likely). As for the big guy in the crazy armor, well haven't dealt with the armor part but have done with the idiot leading a charge at my position and frankly he wasn't as important at the moment as the guys shooting at me with the PKM. Its called target priority and range doesn't factor too much into it unless your talking about point blank range in which case the fire lanes were pretty screwed. As for fighting a guy with a powerfist can't say I have either, a 20lb sledgehammer I have fought against and that wasn't particularly fun, got my arm broken on that one, but the rest of the guys in my squad got him once I was knocked down and out of the line of fire.



Respect to your military service, but it doesn't really have an application as to whether or not this rule was a good change when someone doesn't see the "real world" application of it since we're talking about a universe we haven't truly experienced.
While I agree its not a one for one correlation some things haven't changed and won't change because of future tech. Most of our armor tactics still in use today, came from WWII but the sherman is about as far from the M1 as you can get. Why are tankers still taught to go hull down when ever possible even though their armor can stop most shots? because you might catch the one that your armor can't so anything you can do to reduce that is good. Sure we don't have terminator armor but we also don't have lascannons and melta-guns, how long you think those veteran space marines would last trusting on that armor to stop everything? It's good but not perfect and a smart soldier plays every advantage he gets all the time. So if I had fully powered armor of a marine my **** would still be behind cover minimizing my profile to the best of my ability every chance I could get, because if that armor will stop 2 out of 3 rounds and I can prevent half of them from hitting my odds of surviving double and I like living. Your body armor is insurance in case you get hit not something that you rely on so you can be stupid.


Assuming you manage 2 wounds, the closest guy is a grunt and an obvious casualty (or a successful armour save qualifies as well in this scheme), but then there is a grunt and a special-weapon-grunt at the same distance. Now you're figuring out which one is the closest, and I'm sure the controlling player wants the normal grunt to be closer. ;) And again we are measuring fractions of an inch or rolling off randomly.
Those systems allocate hits not wounds. so in most cases your going to be seeing 6-7 hits if not more taken compared to needing to allocate just 2. I've never had an issue with it in FoW or Epic, in the end it just usually doesn't make a difference at that point.

Chapters Unwritten
30-08-2012, 17:30
Still ultimately a question of the player's qualities, not the games. Even if that situation came up a lot, it takes what, 3 seconds to determine?

Omniassiah
30-08-2012, 23:17
Still ultimately a question of the player's qualities, not the games. Even if that situation came up a lot, it takes what, 3 seconds to determine?

Agreed have had no issue with the "which is closer" question, its the "should I attempt to LOS this shot or take it on my IC with the better armor, wait how many wounds does he still have..." analysis paralysis that tends to show its face far more. It can be a problem with anyone and makes a game with a good but normally slow player a nightmare.