Topic: What's so bad about.....

[Kei'Ariq]

Personally, I prefer just losing guess to having a more subjective judgement of whether someone is using dubious methods of guessing range. I am sure that you have called people up for surfing at some stage and had the surfer loudly deny any wrong doing. I can see the same happening with guess ranging, without a great amount of benefit, if rules preventing assisted range estimation were introduced.

If your idea of using the lowest of 2d6 for AP with an ordnance weapon were used (when the centre misses the target), then regular blast weapons should be less effective. That is why I was suggesting 3d6, take lowest.

As for the entire hole needing to be over the target, I really don't know. It is such a small location that I can see people having problems with judging the exact direction of scatter and suchlike. My instinct would be that the centre of the template is the centre of the hole, so that it will hit the vehicle if the centre of the hole is over it.

If you can't afford a full battery of things like D-Cannons then they will be less effective, you just need to decide if that is worth it or not.

My own experience against Biovores and Spore Mines is that if they miss the target and don't get set off by Synapse that I usually have the choice of taking the explosion (if I don't think it will do too much), or shooting it (often with a unit that has moved to prevent the mine exploding next to it). I don't find that floating Spore Mines really do much more than they would if they always exploded, perhaps even less.

I don't think that the changes will mean that artillery tanks will be placed in the open regularly, but some people might try that option. Basically, I think it will tone down the effectiveness of artillery, which as a Dark Eldar player, I have very limited experience with (as we can't get any), although it can be very damaging to my force.

Against a capable guesser, dropping the template on top of a fast moving vehicle or in the same place as last time, with the current rules isn't terribly different. For a poor guesser, it will make a difference, but I tend to assume perfect guessing by my opponents and get a pleasant surprise if it isn't right on target.

I agree that my suggestion about single d6 scatter for shooting at the same target as the previous turn could get a bit too messy. I was thinking the same point on the table, shooting at a previously immobilised vehicle for example. Basically, I wanted a way of including some crew correction.

My comment about Spellbound's record wasn't intended as a cut on him, or anyone else. It was simply that if his army wins all or almost all of its games, unless there is another factor (like skill disparities) then it should be toned down. My observation would be that Rhino Rush style armies require less skill to use effectively than a shooting based army. As such, I don't think it is unreasonable to reduce their effectiveness slightly. The big question is really whether things have gone too far or not. A few dozen more games with them and I can provide a better judgement on that one.

As a side note, I am in the early stages of starting up a largely Rhino based Slaaneshi army. With the TVR firmly in mind, I am confident that I can win with it, although perhaps less easily than with the current rules in place.

[Koonitz]

My main gripe with the loss of Guess is the loss of just another aspect of the game that required more skill than luck. The more the rules change, the more the game leans towards "He who has more luck, wins". It's not 100%, but it is balancing towards that as more and more things dependant on skill are being removed.
This is, of course, because GW wants to attract more younger gamers. If you have complex rules that require experience and skill, they won't exploit them, and won't buy the waycool models that utelize their rules. Now, with simple luck deciding whether an artillery piece is useful or not, they will take a closer look at them, whereas those of us who cultivated our skill with the piece are left in the dark. Not to mention the fact that I've never had considerable luck anyways, so I have to depend more on my skill than those that would have luck.

Also, have you ever tried using a Gryphon against a largely vehicleless power armour army and tried to make it's points back? Sure, it's effective against your Dark Eldar, but then, it's designed to be effective against light vehicles and light armour. Against Necrons, you're liable to never make it's points back, and against non-vehicle SMurfs, it'll be difficult at best, unless they're having a bad day.
Perhaps commanders with skimmers could have a rule allowing them to declare their skimmer as moving fast at the start of the game (So a first turn artillery barrage won't do so much damage). But then, they'd always do so. Perhaps at a disadvantage of some sort for the start of their turn... (Like, maybe, they have to move it enough for it to count as "Moving Fast" again on their turn).
Then again, that goes against my ideal of not having so many complicated sub-rules.... Who knows...

[Skull]

Isn't it strange? DE and IG players seems not to complain about rules

In fact, if they made those disembarking/pinning rules they should have applied them to all vehicules, not only closed-topped. Disembarking from a fast moving raider also takes a little time and if Raider is destroyed, troops would be a little schocked also. Or make opentopped versions of rhinos and serpents. Rule is overally good, but it's giving some armies (Dark Eldar) additional unbalanced and not-needed advantages.

But thing that worry me the most is the fact that they are giving further advantages to already powerful ordnance, and ability to fire multiple weapons.

[Koonitz]

Isn't it strange? DE and IG players seems not to complain about rules

In fact, if they made those disembarking/pinning rules they should have applied them to all vehicules, not only closed-topped. Disembarking from a fast moving raider also takes a little time and if Raider is destroyed, troops would be a little schocked also. Or make opentopped versions of rhinos and serpents. Rule is overally good, but it's giving some armies (Dark Eldar) additional unbalanced and not-needed advantages.

Actually, ONLY the disembark and assault on the same turn rule is overridden by open-topped. If your vehicle is destroyed, you're pinned, open or not.

But thing that worry me the most is the fact that they are giving further advantages to already powerful ordnance, and ability to fire multiple weapons.

First thing: The new rules still don't override "Ordnance OR other weaponry". You may still only fire the single Ordnance weapon OR other weapons.
Also, have you ever played an Infantry/Armoured Company army? THEY DON'T MOVE! Why is that? Because they lose a LOT of firepower (What their army is based on) when they move. It's actually a rather debilitating thing. I've always had trouble claiming objectives for one of two reasons:
1) I don't move enough to go get said objective
2) If I do move, I don't kill enough of the enemy army to have the numbers to claim the objective.
It's a no-win situation.
Besides, Armoured Company armies are supposed to roll in and roll OVER the enemy (basically). All they do is roll in at extreme ranges and shell the enemy until they win (Or the game's over, 'cause they sure as hell aren't going to be claiming many objectives...). That's the tactics for an ARTILLERY COMPANY, not an Armoured Company.
Maybe NOW Armoured Companies will actually MOVE forward!
Yes, it's a good thing for us Guard, but you make it sound like it's a bad thing all around. Maybe the Guard will actually move now, instead of "Cheesily" (As opponents would say) sit in their deployment zone for the first three turns.

P.S. Going back and reading, yes, we can fire multiple weapons, but so can every other race in the game with weapons S5 or less. as well, have you noticed the Damage tables? They're a little iddy bit harsher on vehicles... It's a lot easier to stun a vehicle or prevent it from firing in some way. We had BLOODY WELL BETTER have a way to get more firepower out of our tanks if we'll have to make due with THOSE Damage Tables.

[Nythrulas]

First of all, on the whole, guess range bit...
Fluff wise: would it make any sense for grots in a looted basilisk to be more accurate than space marines in a vindicator?  In reality, that could very well be the case using the old rules.  Just because the SMurf player is an eight year old kid and the Ork player is a 40-year old, fifteen year veteran shouldn't make the grots any better or the marines any worse.  With the new "Non-guessing" rules, at least everyone is equal (still not quite right, fluff-wise, but fair).  I hate it when I see the kind of situation described above where a basilisk cannon is being dropped on a force commander's head (or strait up his nose, depending on the accuracy) by piss-drunk grots in a vehicle they don't even know how to use, while the space marines (emperor's elite) aren't even able to land shots on the table.  So, new "guess" rules: thumbs up.  The assaulting thing is a tough situation.  Yes it puts the death hold on the assault armies (which I never found terribly hard to beat anyway (except dark eldar, shadowfeilded lord with incubi retenue in HTH on the first turn? Grrrr...)).  It also makes things like the land raider crusader, with it's blast caps or whatever they're called, useless.  In real life, blasting your way out of a transport is the best way to get into combat, you've got surprise, armor and you're already exactly where you need to be.  It's possible that GW is really too lazy to put out a wave serpent model and they're tired of hearing us eldar players complain, so they rewrote the rules so we won't use them... but unlikely.  They probably have a grander vision in store.  Oh and I think pinning when your vehicle is destroyed is a bit much.  No move or assault should be sufficient.

[Prince of Lies]

I can't actually seem to FIND the TVR

Can someone link it to me? Thanks!