Removing Casualties in 5ed

[Inquisitor_Hassan]

OK now, the group of guys I have been playing with do not believe that sniping is allowed.

 

The rule on pg24 of the normal 5ed rule book under REMOVE CASUALTIES (2nd Paragraph) says.......

 

"Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty, even models that are completely out of sight or our of range of all the firers......."

 

That I guess means that you would have to assign the wounds as per complex units (if you have differing models) and hope the one you were trying to snipe is the one that fails its saves (if any were assigned).

 

Is this how you are all playing it? I think it sux :tu: that you set it up so your dudes can't be hit by hiding behind a mountain. The other guy can see one of your guys and he can then destroy the entire unit rather than just that single unit that can be seen.

 

E

[Essayons]

Now keep in mind that I have not seen the new 5th edition rules as of yet (living on a tropical island in the middle of nowhere does have its downsides), but my understanding of the rules was that the normal casualty removal rules stated that the player who was taking the fire got to choose which models were removed from play. This, of course, was absent a special rule (like the Vindicare Assassin) that allowed the shooting player to pick which model was removed. My reading of your quoted portion of the rule is not inconsistent with this as it means that when you take fire, you can remove models as you see fit, even if they are out of sight...as long as they are part of the same unit.

 

If, however, the shooting player gets to pick...he/she gets to pick, but this would be an exception as opposed to the general situation. Them's the breaks I'm afraid.

 

If, of course, the new rules have changed this...I'll shut up and leave. :tu:

[Inquisitor_Hassan]

.... My reading of your quoted portion of the rule is not inconsistent with this as it means that when you take fire, you can remove models as you see fit, even if they are out of sight...as long as they are part of the same unit.

 

I typed the line as it is written in the rules. The rules say (almost) exactly that, pendng the assigning wounds due to complex units, if you have different stats etc models in the unit.

 

The fact that from the rules, it seems as the if a unit of say 10 GK with SB can see a single model of a 10 man SM unit, then if the dice gods are smiling, loose the whole 10 man unit of SM.

 

E

[DarKHaZZ13]

yup thats right

as long as you cans ee one model you can allocate wounds to the whole unit

 

of course this is only if you can see the model and it is in range of all the boys in your squad

 

ain't it a git...

but them wound allocation saves you quite alot

 

i love putting wounds onto models that are already techincally dead =D

[- 7eAL -]

Not necessarily Inquisition related. Also seen arguments about it on the Rumours board before 5th hit, and some on the Official Rules board. Unfortunately this isn't a chan because I want a sage system so I can post without bumping the thread.

 

Either way, bolter rounds can and will tear up walls, trees and even solid rock. That is why we now get cover saves instead of models that can't be hit because they happen to be hiding behind a wooden fence. You may decide to argue that Guard flashli- lasguns are laser-based and cannot pass through cover and should not be able to hit models that cannot be seen, and so no other weapons should either. The counterargument is that lasguns are lasers at least as powerful as modern automatic rifles because autoguns share the same statline - and both modern lasers and modern automatic rifles can indeed punch through or brick, wood and metal.

[Inquisitor_Hassan]

yup thats right

as long as you cans ee one model you can allocate wounds to the whole unit

 

of course this is only if you can see the model and it is in range of all the boys in your squad

 

ain't it a git...

but them wound allocation saves you quite alot

 

i love putting wounds onto models that are already techincally dead =D

 

Damn that sux.

 

I liked the idea of the enemy hiding, and then moving the 6" but only being able to see one guy, and then destroying him in a hail of gunfire. THAT IS COOL. But when guys are hiding behind a mountain and then still get shot the SH*T our of, mmmm, annoying!

 

I hope Silent Requiem adds this to his up and coming thread changes, I (tried) used snipe to get some of the pesky models in my opponents, until they got used to it :P

 

E

[Inquisitor_Hassan]

Not necessarily Inquisition related. Also seen arguments about it on the Rumours board before 5th hit, and some on the Official Rules board. Unfortunately this isn't a chan because I want a sage system so I can post without bumping the thread.

:P

Fair Call Teal. In all the times I have lurked on B&C I have honestly never scrolled far enough down to see the rules board. Also I have come to respect the knowledge of the frequent posters of this Inquisition forum.

 

Either way, bolter rounds can and will tear up walls, trees and even solid rock. That is why we now get cover saves instead of models that can't be hit because they happen to be hiding behind a wooden fence. You may decide to argue that Guard flashli- lasguns are laser-based and cannot pass through cover and should not be able to hit models that cannot be seen, and so no other weapons should either. The counterargument is that lasguns are lasers at least as powerful as modern automatic rifles because autoguns share the same statline - and both modern lasers and modern automatic rifles can indeed punch through or brick, wood and metal.

 

Look I see and understand the argument for and against, my main reason for asking which I never included in my original post was that I saw at least 2 posts over the last 2-3 weeks that still talked about sniping (as per SR water warrior), and no-one seemed to say anything.

 

While I have been playing 40K since the initial release of 4ed rules, I am still in all ways a novice of the game.

 

Lets just let this topic fade from existence. Thanks for your responses.

[the jeske]

and both modern lasers and modern automatic rifles can indeed punch through or brick, wood and metal

 

ok and whats happening when 9 guys sit behind a land raider [or rhino or bunker etc ] and one is not ? your not telling me that lasgun is punching through 2 walls of double armor plating and then still is powerful enough kill sm :lol: True LoS is not ment for systems with tanks in it .

[ArmouredWing]

and both modern lasers and modern automatic rifles can indeed punch through or brick, wood and metal

 

ok and whats happening when 9 guys sit behind a land raider [or rhino or bunker etc ] and one is not ? your not telling me that lasgun is punching through 2 walls of double armor plating and then still is powerful enough kill sm :lol: True LoS is not ment for systems with tanks in it .

 

But thems the breaks. For what it's worth I've considered the addition of the true LoS to the 40K system proper (as opposed to CoD) to be one of the best changes to the game.

 

Tanks or no tanks the 5th ed system does work, I even go as afr to say really well.

[- 7eAL -]

True Line of Sight does not mesh well with tanks or thick solid objects, that is true. Only lobbing shots or smart-seeking weapons would be able to get around those things. Taking cover saves from intervening units without causing damage to any of the intervening models is also unrealistic. I can, however understand the desire for simplification that goes toward the recent rules designs, so some sacrifices must be made on one hand or the other.

[number6]

True Line of Sight does not mesh well with tanks or thick solid objects, that is true. Only lobbing shots or smart-seeking weapons would be able to get around those things. Taking cover saves from intervening units without causing damage to any of the intervening models is also unrealistic. I can, however understand the desire for simplification that goes toward the recent rules designs, so some sacrifices must be made on one hand or the other.

40K has definitely swung back around to being more "gamey", for lack of a better word, than any kind of battle simulation. Personally, that makes me happier, as there have always been far superior game systems for simulated combat. The cover/wound allocation rules combo makes for a bit of head scratching, but after playing the new rules for a while, I can unequivocally say that, IMHO, this is the most fun version of the game to date. I can accept a good amount of silliness in the name Fun. :)

[stinkoman]

its like CoD4. Every army just has the Perk that lets you shoot rounds through walls/rhinos/LRs/etc...

[Charred Heretic]

$0.02

 

Cities of Death was the coolest thing I ever saw GW do since the advent of 3rd ed.

 

CoD Introduced 2 environmental options: vertical movement (creating a 3rd dimension)

and strategems (adding tremendous variety and interest to terrain attributes).

 

No change to the game, before or since, added nearly such depth and variety.

Granted CoD is not perfectly balanced, but it's not far off the basic imbalance.

[the jeske]

Granted CoD is not perfectly balanced, but it's not far off the basic imbalance.

i have never lost a game [yes never] with a nids army at 1750 to 2k pts . I dont think CoD was balanced at all .

 

Also as the gamy part goes . Well I dont like the way we are forced to play non skirmish games [dont tell me that the 2250 and 2500 supported by GW and the minimum of 2k pts is skirmish lvl] with true line of sight . It not only killed most of the terrain ever build by gamers , but also kicked anyone who ever converted or modified his models or bases . For example my wifes paint studio made a DA ravenwing army for a guy from Britsol , I personally modififed the bases of his land speeders and bikes [to his specifications] now the whole army is illegal to not only tournament , but also normal games . And we took money for that . If you are reading this , sorry man .

[march10k]

i love putting wounds onto models that are already techincally dead =D

 

...explain?

[number6]

Granted CoD is not perfectly balanced, but it's not far off the basic imbalance.

i have never lost a game [yes never] with a nids army at 1750 to 2k pts . I dont think CoD was balanced at all .

 

Also as the gamy part goes . Well I dont like the way we are forced to play non skirmish games [dont tell me that the 2250 and 2500 supported by GW and the minimum of 2k pts is skirmish lvl] with true line of sight . It not only killed most of the terrain ever build by gamers , but also kicked anyone who ever converted or modified his models or bases . For example my wifes paint studio made a DA ravenwing army for a guy from Britsol , I personally modififed the bases of his land speeders and bikes [to his specifications] now the whole army is illegal to not only tournament , but also normal games . And we took money for that . If you are reading this , sorry man .

What happened to the bases that makes them so far out of the norm that they wouldn't be allowed for casual games (let alone tournaments)? I know the rules state that using bases other than those supplied require opponent permission, but even in the tournaments I've participated in, nothing has been so unusual as to seem obviously unfair for one player or another. So far, in my personal experience, nobody has nixed anything.

[the jeske]

but even in the tournaments I've participated in, nothing has been so unusual as to seem obviously unfair for one player or anothe

well in atournament if an army is illegal or needs permision it gets auto vetoed . easy 17/0 for the opponent . We used large round bases for the bikes with walls , some where bent to one side [the bikers ] the landspeeders were all small diorams with them flying over walls one crashing a tau suit and one going through a wall . the army is illegal for tournamet play all because of the LoS rules . any non standart thing is going to get vetoed right now and the judges have no other options then to give 17/0 .

 

But then again when I hear about US tournaments , even the hard boyzz them I dont think that your very focused on tournaments . I mean how did a guy managed to play without 3 copies of his list [just read the whining in the Amicus] . here a guy without a list wouldnt be able to pay for entry .

[Eddie Orlock]

But then again when I hear about US tournaments , even the hard boyzz them I dont think that your very focused on tournaments.

I think the differance, as alluded to by prior posts of yours, is how valuable the prizes are compared to the participants incomes. Speaking for myself, money isn't really the first thing that comes to mind when I consider if I should buy something, it's more of when will I find the time to paint it. I'm already so far behind that if I keep up my current pace and don't aquire new things, it'll be 2012 by the time I'm caught up. Previously you've implied that this game is extreemly costly over in eastern Europe and that the value of a prize would represent a significant portion of a monthly income. Given the relative percieved value, no wonder you all take the game that I use as an excuse to show off cool conversions to my friends with and as an excuse to hang out so much more seriously.

 

'Sides, vetoing the opponents army would so heavily kill a persons 'soft-scores' in many events that it'd make victory untenable.

 

"On a scale of 0-5, with 0 being never, and 5 being immediately, how likely would you be to play this person again given the opportunity"

 

"0, the jerk vetoed my awsome biker conversions"

 

I have my own rant against 'Soft-Core-Scores' but that's another thead at another time.