|
Post by Scarper on Mar 21, 2009 10:34:50 GMT -5
Hey! I know that all the doctrines are being ditched in the new codex (I only just bought the old one grrrrr), but does anyone know if cameleoline is going to be available for specific units at an extra points cost? I've heard conflicting rumours, and I'm not sure if I can be arsed GSing cloaks on all my men if they're just going to be cut out anyway Cheers for any wild speculation, and sorry if this thread's come up before ;D
|
|
|
Post by tankshock on Mar 21, 2009 15:11:40 GMT -5
I thought I heard something about it being an option for individual squads, but I may be wrong on that. I hope they don't get rid of it.
|
|
|
Post by aeonian on Mar 21, 2009 19:21:24 GMT -5
It's gone, I assure you, sadly. You can get something similar, but it's not fluffy at all, and you only get it when going to ground. It's an order given by an officer called "Down!" and when you gtg, you gain +2 on cover saves, rather than just +1...it's rather sad
|
|
|
Post by Scarper on Mar 21, 2009 21:35:40 GMT -5
Gah, that sucks. Half the friggin unit fluff I came up with was based around them all having cameleoline. Oh well. Did light infantry still make the cut?
|
|
|
Post by norge187 on Mar 21, 2009 22:10:09 GMT -5
everything remains to be seen. Nothing that I have read has confirmed the loss of Light Infantry. At the end of the day I like to think that some things such as Light Infantry will be buy back item's for Platoons. I dunno its down to a waiting game now for sure.
|
|
|
Post by aeonian on Mar 21, 2009 23:08:26 GMT -5
I am under the impression that the bimbo who wrote the codex looked at cadians, then looked at their fluff, and said - "All Imperial Guard fight like this!" How amazingly retarded can GW design staff get? I heard a rumour that the guy they got to write the new 'dex has never worked for GW before! Damnit I hate them so friggin' much! Bastards, burn in hell! Basically, the reason we have orders now instead of doctrines, is because Cadians really did not have doctrines in the current codex. Sharpshooters - no one ever used it, and almost all other regiments listed in the back had that Iron discipline - well, that sort of made it through. The order "Rally!" apprently immediatly regroups all squads in the platoon, so, ID made it through in a way. But what about stealth regiments? I assure you that the Tallarn would not fight by simply waiting for orders and attacking from the front! hell no they wouldn't! They would sneak around the flank of the enemy, set up ambushes in enemy held territory, and creep through cover to get to the enemy! The tanith would never wait for orders to use their stealth cloak! No! They would say "Oh poo, I'm under fire, time to blend in and sneak around to a better firing point!" and they'd take their +1 cover save...all the damn time! Not just when told to and not only when going to ground! Crap! Also...it sounds like there is no order equivelent of Close Order Drill. That was quite possibly the greatest, most awesome doctrine we ever had! Esspecially in 5th edition with the pile in before combat rather than after! God! Why did they have to hire a noob to make a long awaited codex! Those arse holes! And then, we come to the harakoni! All Carapace! All grav-chutes! All of 'em! And what do the harakoni bloody warhawks turn into now? Drop troops in fluff, but only stormies get to DS, and only stormies can use 'pace (and veterans, but they're not in whole platoons!) Armies with 'pace: Harakoni, Vostroyans, Terrax Guard, Jantine, Vitrians, Drang's Mercenaries, Aeonians, and plenty others! Armies with Stealth: Tallarn, Tanith, Savlar, Monians, Dressonians, Catachans (sort of...), and lots of others Armies with Deep Strike: Harakoni, Aeonians, Elysians, D-99, a hell of a lot of others!!! Armies with Warrior Weapons: Kanak, and Amazonians Armies with COD and/or Hardened Fighters: Mordians, Krieg, Terrax, Kanak, Tallarn, Tanith, Catachans, a billion others! Armies with a mass of men and tanks and nothing special about them: Cadians... Armies with sheer awesome Guard flavour and variaty: Nearly every single Imperial Guard army I've seen, except for Cadians! *NEW* Imperial Guard armies with any amount of variety: ... ... *crickets chirping*
|
|
|
Post by jazzadazza on Mar 22, 2009 0:38:11 GMT -5
If they Get rid of Drop Troops... I am going to kill some one
|
|
|
Post by aeonian on Mar 22, 2009 1:36:42 GMT -5
I think you can take stormies as troops, at least that's what I've been hearing. However, even if true, it still makes it like taking an army of marines...but marines who have a 4+ save. The Ap3 gun doesn't matter when you get cover for standing in an inch of water (better hope it's not raining in your game of 40k...). But I guess they're still a good unit, and they can use the valk, which is awesome. Hopefully, hardened veterans will be troop choices with valkyries and 'pace like we've heard.
|
|
|
Post by dragoon6 on Mar 22, 2009 2:57:38 GMT -5
While I understand your frustration, my good Aeonian, I want to point out two things. 1. The codex isn't out yet, and the rumors we are seeing , while not mentioning any of those things that you are missing, hasn't excluded most of them either. I mantain hope based on the idea that if I was trying to get people excited about a new codex, I wouldn't be touting the things that we kept, but rather the things that are new. 2. another reason that we may not be hearing much about the other regiments, is because they aren't trying to sell those. While GW will want to make thier legacy guard player, like you and me, happy, the real point is to draw some new players into the army. Cadians are by far the most famous and Well-known of our armies, mostly because of the decicions that GW has made ( such as making all of the options for a codex army in cadian plastics, with a couple catachan options, and a lot of metals that are expenisve and hard to find nowadays.) But be that as it may, we may merely be getting a targeted pitch. You don't talk about grey knights when describing how Space marines work to someone whos never seen them before, and the same idea applies here.
Dragoon 6
|
|
|
Post by The Refined Gentleman (M.I.A) on Mar 23, 2009 1:10:21 GMT -5
If they do get rid of variety i'll simply make my own doctrine rules or use the Varlon character Aeon made for me (thanks mate). I don't care if people moan, if a SMurf player comes up to me and my army and says "hey! you can't do that!!!" i'll just say "at least you get to make more than one type of army."
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Mar 23, 2009 3:57:49 GMT -5
I plan on refusing cover saves to anyone whom would not be protected in real life:
"Sir, your men are approximately eight feet tall, and, in this case, are wearing massive armoured suits. There is no way in hell they can hide behind that pencil-high barricade, partly because they are wearing stupidly large armour and partly because they wouldn't be able to get up again if they lay down."
"No. Your Fire Warriors do not get cover saves when I'm shooting at them from behind the barricade! It's your own fault they were outflanked. What do you mean, they would hop over the barricade? So do they not get cover saves from the rest of my army!?"
"You do not get a cover save for something that does not block line of sight."
"What do you mean, your Hive Tyrant is being shielded by your Ripper swarms? A Tyrant is thirty times taller than a ripper! There is no way in hell they could shield that."
|
|
|
Post by aeonian on Mar 23, 2009 9:53:16 GMT -5
That's the way that my friend and I play. For example, when hit by a blast marker, we only allow cover saves if the blast marker is touching the cover, because if, for example, it's centered over the unit, and then scatteres behind them and only hits the rear ranks, then there's no way that the missile would strike the cover in front of them!
Stupid 5th edition! There's great stuff in it, and there's stupid stuff in it!
I also play with, that if my unit has completely clear view to their target (as in I am behind them and their cover is in front of them, like RT said), then there is no cover save for them.
last thing is that if I have enough elevation, I ignore your cover. Same thing with the opponent, of course.
I remember playing a game against Redsandroyals and I was running a melta gun special weapon team up towards his bassie, but they got killed by heavy bolters because the heavy bolters were so high up and I got no cover.
|
|
|
Post by inquisitor0sylver on Mar 23, 2009 13:11:25 GMT -5
If I may interject, there is one key aspect of this game that you guys are ignoring with the whole cover save rant that's going on here: Suspension of Disbelief.
No I'm not talking about killing heretics. My point is that what a piece of terrain looks like to us as the players (in god mode) is sustantially different from what it would actually look like to the men fighting our battles. That flat bleak landscape? Its actually rolling terrain with dips and ditches and bushes all over. Those ruined buildings with absolutely nothing on the ground? They are full of rubble and junk making it hard to get a clear shot never mind to actually walk in a perfectly straight line. And then there's smoke and dust, those 2 almost ever present aspects of a battlefield which make everything harder to see clearly.
Unfortunately unless you are lighting several small fires on your gaming table each game for total realism (A motivated yet misguided endeavor.) you have to accept that to make a practical fast paced (and fun) game a generalized system of rules for things like cover and line of sight needs to be created. There are times when it seems weird that someone would get cover from something (ie: space marines behind a chain linked fence.). Rather than scream against the injustice of an uncaring galaxy when you find yourself in such situations why not use the rule which was put in place to settle such disputes?
I am referring to the last paragraph on page 22 of the rulebook, where it is dealing with units partially in cover. "In situations where it's not obvious whether a nuit is in cover or not... the players may agree to treat these units as in cover, but with a cover save of one less than normal."
Apply this to your games and things should be simpler. Monstrous creatures also have an addendum in their rules that deals with cover. Page 51, 2nd to last paragraph: "...In addition, for a monstrous creature to be in cover, at least 50% of it body (as defined on page 16) has to be in cover from the point of view of the majority of the firing models. Also, standing in area terrain does not automatically conver a cover save to monstrous creatures - the 50% rule takes precedence. cover for them works exactly as for vehicles (see page 63). As usual, if you cannot clearly tell if 50% of the model's body is covered, modify its cover save by -1."
So Rolling thunder is correct, ripper swarms do not confer a cover save to a Hive Tyrant. Actually, the only units that Ripper swarms do inarguably confer a cover save to are gaunts and stealers as all other units are over 50% larger than them. Warriors don't count as monstrous creatures though, so while they should get a cover save I'd argue that it could be justified to decrease it to a 5+ save due to the gross size difference (Warriors are 3-4 times taller than rippers.).
Sorry to be a rule's lawyer, but the cover rules are rather sturdy so long as they are used correctly and evenly applied to all cases. Unfortunately about 20% of the player in 40k nowadays have no idea whatsoever what the actual rules for cover are (I'm not implying that you guys don't, you obviously do, but I think you know a few "cover munchins".) or how they work. Just remember that the sacred rule is that if a unit is questionably in cover its cover save is reduced by 1.
On a side note, this is how we deal with elevation with regards to cover. If a unit that is in cover is shot at by a unit with at least 6" of elevation over the target then the target unit's cover save is reduced by 1. It works rather well and is fully in line with the guidelines in Cities of Death (Which really needs an update...).
Last note, Space Marines behind a fence would get a cover save from it just like everyone else as they can always just take a knee (reducing their height to 5-6 feet) and still be fully able to fire and move. Just remember that fences are only a 5+ cover save.
Ok, let fly your stones and kill the rules lawyer....
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Mar 23, 2009 13:38:36 GMT -5
I was talking about a situation where a marine player tried to claim armour saves from some terminators who were standing behind something that was literally as high as a pencil. A Guardsman would have barely taken cover behind it- but a man wearing over a tonne of armour? Don't make me laugh.
|
|
|
Post by Julian Sharps on Mar 23, 2009 13:42:58 GMT -5
You mean cover saves, right? Was this cover you speak of the size of a pencil to scale with them, or to us?
Besides, since when did Terminators need cover saves?
|
|
|
Post by John_Galt (M.I.A) on Mar 23, 2009 14:53:55 GMT -5
It's not just a matter of one unit blocking another with their bodies. If the ripper swarm is much closer than the tyrant, some troops may be too afraid/distracted by the closer threat to effectively engage the tyrant which is farther away, thereby giving it a cover save. As was said, the rules are meant to be very general in order to allow for smooth gameplay.
|
|
|
Post by aeonian on Mar 23, 2009 21:13:54 GMT -5
yes I agree, but some things are just ridiculous. Hey John, remember that rule, Target Priority tests? Yea, well that rule was there for that exact reason
|
|
|
Post by Julian Sharps on Mar 23, 2009 21:34:42 GMT -5
Personally, I preferred the target priority rules over the new cover save thing. Made more sense to me that you'd normally want to fire at the hordes of assault troops barreling down in your direction at full speed than the sniper team hiding in a bunker somewhere far away. I bet the cover save rules for 5th ed came about as a result of a bunch of Ork and Tyranid players complaining about how SMurfs and the like kept on firing past the meat shields and killing off all the juicy stuff inside.
|
|
|
Post by John_Galt (M.I.A) on Mar 23, 2009 21:44:51 GMT -5
I agree, I prefered the target priority rules too. Makes more sense that a well trained smurf has a better chance of targeting what his commander tells him than a bloodlusting ork on a rampage.
|
|
|
Post by aeonian on Mar 23, 2009 22:26:37 GMT -5
I wish they would have made it so that cover saves taken have a chance to wounding the unit that took the save for the squad. That would have made it a lot less enticing
|
|
|
Post by dragoon6 on Mar 23, 2009 22:58:30 GMT -5
I understand being rustrated with rules that don't really make much sense, but I for one LOVE these cover rules. I like being able to protect my poor Heavy weapons squads by putting a screening unit that no one cares to shoot in front of it. In return, I am more than happy to allow my opponants the same luxery. On a more serious note, however, with True LOS, they simply had to put cover everywhere. otherwise the balance is seriuosly compromised in favor of shooting armies. ( even with the cover saves, shooting armies are kicking the crap out of tyranids, blood angels, and most other types of assault. Orks are exceptional, due to having a unit that's outstandingly tough ( Nob Bikers) a unit that's faster than anything else ( Stormboys) and boss Snikrot.)
Dragoon 6
|
|
|
Post by aeonian on Mar 24, 2009 9:39:20 GMT -5
Nob bikerz are a lot faster than storm boyz...
|
|
|
Post by dragoon6 on Mar 24, 2009 10:05:03 GMT -5
I know that. but they're bikes. Also consider that with stormboys, at least the way I read the rules, if you waugh that turn, you get 12+d6 in. in the movement phase, plus Run, plus assault movement. on average, you rassault range when you waaagh is about 24 inches, with a max of 30(!). that's freaking fast. and just to be clear, they get a d6 added to thier movement. this is not a run, it's a random (and therefore "orky") bonus they get in the movement phase, plus they can run.
dragoon 6
|
|
|
Post by aeonian on Mar 24, 2009 11:45:50 GMT -5
Lol. That's damn fast. Oh well, it doesn't matter when the valkyrie they're chasing is sending 6 heavy bolter shells per turn their way
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Mar 24, 2009 12:58:54 GMT -5
Bikes can't run. It specifies infantry.
|
|