Killzones (rant)

Read this. I'll wait.

http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/01/kill-zones-40k-shooting-post-faq/#more-3890

Done? Good.

What. the. hell. is wrong with 40k players?!?!?!

Seriously, when I got back into 40k (5th) everyone was going on about how cover was too much at 4+. Literally EVERYONE said if they knocked it down by 1, it'd be fine. And noone did anything. No Tournament Organizers ruled that way, GW did nothing, no gaming groups said "look this is how we are gonna do it."

This is not hard. IF THE GUN DOESN'T REACH, YOU CAN'T KILL THEM. The absolute BS of saying, "Well they all see that one dude, and he's 23.5" inches away... but my ML can reach them all, so I can kill any of them..." is so rediculous it isn't funny.

Decide what you want to shoot at.
Roll for the shortest range weapon. Resolve.
Roll of next shortest range weapons. Resolve.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

The only thing more infuriating than dumbasses like that who rules lawyer a freakin simple rule to death, is GW being unable to put a simple idea into a coherent paragraph.

/endrant

I'm getting drunk. Good night.

i got half ways through and that was annoying me too much. that's so fucking stupid. "well, these flamers cause 30 possible wounds, but only reach 6 guys. but my lasgun dude is positioned to hit the 25th guy in back, so now all 30 wounds can hit the squad and gank them." retard.

ok it is stupid but here is the really big thing.



ready?



its almost the same as before. in 5th you could have a 10m marine squad rapid fire one lone ork and his 10 buddys would bite it. now, they can't. would it be nice to work based on weapon ranges? yes, but think how much longer 6th ed games are compared to 5th already. do we need to increase the time to determine shooting results?

As someone who has been vandalized by burna boys a time or two, i was happy to see the faq.

this loophole thing is just... dumb.

imo :

resolve hits in the order you choose. if you choose to allocate wounds from weaponry with longer range first, you run the risk of not being able to allocate wounds on models that are only in range of your shorter range weapons....

which only makes sense, as if two guys shoot a shotgun and a pistol at a group of people, the pistol has a chance of hitting the dude in front just as much as it has a chance of going further, and the shotgun has a chance of hitting that exact same guy... but probably not someone much further away.

Jesse: you right about time. Whatever a fix does it shouldnt be slower.

As it currently stands, a flamer guys can cause a wound to aodel 24" away.... But not one around a corner...

With wall of flame you could pull off a 72"+ flamer hit lol. String 30 gaunts with one of their strangleweb flamers at the back and charge the other end. Furthest flamer hit ever.
*Gaunts spread 2" apart each so 58" + base width = 72+ inches
Unless my math is failing.

I just hate the idea of "Here's a new FAQ, and they obviously intended it this way, but the wording means you can bend it to mean this..."

I've often played (and seen it played) that if a individual dude can shoot at a unit, the shot's eligible to kill stuff in the unit. Doesn't come up super often, but if my back rank bolter has range to one guy, and my front rank bolter has range to the whole squad, than it works great...

In 2nd edition, we rolled shooting attacks one dude at a time... even for a mob of 20 orks (they had Bolters back then!)

--

I could see myself putting a mek or big mek in with a mob of burnas so that I can kill more things. This kinda nerfs my Deff Dreads a bit too :-(

--

On the plus side... for some reason 3++ wasn't in my feed. Re-added :-) (I may have been annoyed at Abuse Puppy's whining)

sometimes they have abusive stuff. but most of the time the 3++ folks keep it real. one of the few sites out there that had realistic advice on how to play the 4th ed chaos book. without sugar coating the fact that it was crap.

It seems to depend on the writer. Abusepuppy and Reecius seem to be on the low end of teh scale. Brent is good.

On 3++ I usually like Sir Biscuit and Kirby... although they have been getting a little WAAC happy lately.

Oh games workshop.. How irritating you make your games.

I.. Dont know what to think. Its stupid.. Thats for sure. I hate the examples.. And wouldnt expect anyone to use them lkke that. As analytical as the article is.. Having one lasgun the difference between killing 5 guys and 30 is beyond ridulous. It nerfs flamers a bit.. The new faq that is, but it always bugged me that a umit with five flamers could almoat wipe out a unit by barely scraping a few bases. Woth the wall of death rules.. I think they have there spot as a good defensive weapon and the odd shot yiu can burn something out of cover.. But i dont think the nerf was that bad. I also dont think a lasgun should increase the entire kill zone..

I dont see the autocannon and lasgun one being a huge problem. Even 40 lasgun shots will only kill about 2 marines (40 shots, 20 hits, 6 wounds, 2 dead).

But for the flamers case, would people be interested in a house rule to correct this?

As Beau put it, take the close range weapons (flamers) empty their wound pool onto models in flamer range, THEN move onto longer range guns.

I think thats how it should work. Damn GW. I just have a hard time swallowing what the article is selling

Its hard to swallow because he basically opens with "This is totally not what they intended, but the way they wrote it, it works like this..."

If you are rolling different colored dice it would still be fast.

I roll for a krak missile, a melta gun, and 15 bolter round (14 rapid firing bolters and a pistol, same killzone, 12"). I can still choose which goes first, but when my opponent removes failed save he starts with closest and works back until he either has no models left, or no models in range. I may WANT the krak to go first due to his PW sarge or something, but I may be stealing a wound from the bolter (and maybe not).

To use the obvious extreme... 14 burnaboys and a Mek with a big shoota firing on a 60 man guard blob. go ahead and roll all at once, just make sure you can tell the flamers from the big shoota. remove the 50 gazillion casualties from the flamers until no models are within 7" (template length). Then resolve the heavy bolter wounds.

The one thing I will point out since there was a discussion about it before, I am wholly against the idea of splitting rapid fire attacks out since they should have the same kill zone because the range of the weapon doesn't change just the number of shots.

Other than that I wholeheartedly agree that it can be a little bummer than GW still cannot learn how to write rules correctly, especially in the FAQ. Reminds me of the first Tau FAQ for 6th where they removed Target locks for no reason, next FAQ right back in. I swear it's not that hard to proofread or give good examples.

Aegwymourn wrote:The one thing I will point out since there was a discussion about it before, I am wholly against the idea of splitting rapid fire attacks out since they should have the same kill zone because the range of the weapon doesn't change just the number of shots.

Other than that I wholeheartedly agree that it can be a little bummer than GW still cannot learn how to write rules correctly, especially in the FAQ. Reminds me of the first Tau FAQ for 6th where they removed Target locks for no reason, next FAQ right back in. I swear it's not that hard to proofread or give good examples.

For GW it is hard apparently to proof read as evidenced by the Dark Angel dex...
Or no one there surpassed 3rd grade.....

I also think that rapid fire weapons should still threaten 24" with 2 shots. You don't lose range for being close, you just get an extra shot

its pretty sad that the nation our language originated from cant clearly and concisely get what they're saying across to you on paper....

Have you ever tried to read trainspotting? Its not a wonder they can't get a coherent thought out:)

I read trainspotting and filth.. It took forever deciphering it.

They sure said fook and coont alot.

That's shiet you feckin' cahnt

Lore Weaver wrote:That's shiet you feckin' cahnt

Yeah! What he just said!

see here.

Linky

just when i had lost all faith in the interwebs . an article from the very same site that should probably be printed on the very last page of the 6th edition rulebook.

I saw that one last night. Excellent article, a far cry from the usual "slanted take on rules",
"3 day old rumors we got from our forums" or my personal fav "MBG's pathetic shill".

I would love for this article to expand. How do you rate threats (with examples), common deployment errors (again with examples), etc.