Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Download:

http://rapidshare.com/files/121731491/40KReferenceSheetUS_1_.pdf.html

http://rapidshare.com/files/121731675/40KPOSMajorChangesFlyer_1_.pdf.html


Pics:

Is GW cool with these being out?

the link isnt working for me it says "error file not found"

Thanks for those.

I'm getting a big NO NO ! on the links though.

Very cool, but the links don't work.

Help?

Links fixed

Are these hosted somewhere that isn't so *&%$ annoying?

And the PDF that I was able to download is corrupted.

Just pm your email if you can't get the link to work, I'll send it over.

F those cats is all I can say. Thanks for the sheet though.

Interesting to find that pistols can no longer shoot twice...

yay for reference sheets!

booo for rapidshit, if you have the files, put them up on something such as filefront etc.

As of now, 21:37 US EST, you can download the pdf's for free, without security questions. They're calling it "Happy Hour". I was able to download without a hassle.

got them downloaded but cannot print anyone else have this problem?

Then there's this.

My fav bit is this:

Another point they'll want to talk about is vehicles. Overall, the balance has shifted ... This is all for the benefit of the game as a whole, and not designed to 'nerf' or 'buff' any one army...

That sounds just about as hollow as the 'Your armies won't change! Everything is still valid' claptrap they spewed before 4th came out.

Then there's another bit:

Some players may be worried that their favorite tactic or army combo is no longer valid. In some cases this might be true, but explain there are plenty of new tricks to try out. The new rules are designed to even out the armies and put everyone on a more level playing field

Yeah. Sure.

BYE

Interesting. I see no restrictions on the file. The fact that they are not scans and appear to be direct PDFs created from Quark Xpress 6 makes me think these are deliberate "leaks".

/hugs HBMC.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Then there's this.

My fav bit is this:

Another point they'll want to talk about is vehicles. Overall, the balance has shifted ... This is all for the benefit of the game as a whole, and not designed to 'nerf' or 'buff' any one army...

That sounds just about as hollow as the 'Your armies won't change! Everything is still valid' claptrap they spewed before 4th came out.

Then there's another bit:

Some players may be worried that their favorite tactic or army combo is no longer valid. In some cases this might be true, but explain there are plenty of new tricks to try out. The new rules are designed to even out the armies and put everyone on a more level playing field

Yeah. Sure.

BYE

But what would make you happy? A miniatures game that doesn't receive updated rules = a game that very people play.

Change is the lifeblood of the hobby. If you don't like particular rule changes fine, but to complain simply because they're changing the rules is pretty petty IMHO.

The fact is, you *can* play with your existing units and armies. They won't always be the most efficient choices anymore but that doesn't mean you still can't plunk them down on the table and play a friendly match with them.

The important thing is that there *is* change to give people new ideas and choices and to make for their armies and games and to help generate sales in order to keep the game and business alive.

Yeah, from everything I've seen it seems that people are excited about pretty much nearly every army. Compared to the obvious hatchet jobs in 4th (transports in particular), 5th seems pretty legitimate in it's efforts to, if not balacne things, at least bring more armies into the realm of decently competitive.

yakface wrote:The fact is, you *can* play with your existing units and armies. They won't always be the most efficient choices anymore but that doesn't mean you still can't plunk them down on the table and play a friendly match with them.

I DO agree with you on the rest of it, but honestly...

Where is your Khorne Berserker army?

Your lost and the damned army?

Just saying, not everything is peachy keen...

Stelek wrote:

I DO agree with you on the rest of it, but honestly...

Where is your Khorne Berserker army?

Your lost and the damned army?

Just saying, not everything is peachy keen...

I'd say that the 'run' mechanic help make bezerker armies MORE playable in v5, but I think you're referring to stuff like the pure World Eater army list, right?

It does suck when an army list goes away but IMHO they've been frank about the fact that in the waning days of the Andy Chambers regime the game designers were given incredible license to publish new rules and army lists without considering the ramification that publishing those lists gives the impression that the company will support that variant list forever; something they simply do not have the resources to do.

So while I do find it regrettable, I completely understand the need to eliminate variant lists to move forward with a clear slate of armies that are fully supported.

My favorite part was this:

Flamers and heavy flamers are now much more powerful as there
are no partial hits from template weapons.

Yes pure world eaters, but if that isn't a berserker army what is? Running berserkers just makes it a little more exciting for the other guy, in my honest opinion. It's still a terribly one-sided game. Maybe with the criss-cross 4+ cover save it'll be more viable. Meh, probably not, everyone kills zerkers the same way they kill marines. Roll 20 of those 3+ saves. Yay, you're dead.

Variant lists should be encouraged, but use models people have or at least that exist so support can be maintained indefinitely.

Anything you have to convert or make is bad business for GW, but they keep on doing it. Even in the era of clean slates.

Clean slate is boring. Red, blue, green marines. Hurr.

Maybe they can make a marine chapter for every color...hey wait a minute!

Nice find on the sheets. Change happens to everything best bet is to just maximize the good that comes from it and minimize the bad.

yakface wrote:A miniatures game that doesn't receive updated rules = a game that very people play.

Updating rules and changing rules are two very different things Yak. Updating rules would be improving upon them, making things tighter and more clear, changing concepts that don't work. GW, on the other hand, just changes rules. They give the big ol' pendulum of their's a nice big push and change the rules to where ever it swings.

yakface wrote:Change is the lifeblood of the hobby. If you don't like particular rule changes fine, but to complain simply because they're changing the rules is pretty petty IMHO.

Tsk, tsk, tsk Yak. I expected better of you.

There's nothing inherently wrong with change. Change is good, as long as the changes are done for the right reasons. I hate to use them as a posterchild example again (because I don't want to derail the topic), but take the Classic BattleTech team as an example of positive and appropriate change. They have had some significant rules changes over the years, tied into the over-arcing plotline of the game, a plotline that actually moves forward (unlike some other games we know). In that time, two types of changes have occured:

1. Rule Mechanics Changes - They've spent 25 years going from 1st to 5th Edition, each time striving to improve upon the rules. Things that blatantly didn't work were fixed (aerospace), and if they still didn't work they were fixed again (vehicles). Some things that didn't work were dropped (Land-Air 'Mechs).

2. Faction Changes - People here complain when something gets 'nerfed' or is 'too powerful', as these changes within 40K seem to come at the whims of the minature designers. Got a nice new plastic kit to sell? Here, have some great new rules. Not due for a new model or re-cut sprue? No new rules/bad new rules for you then!!! In BattleTech, there are 'Mechs that simply don't work. They're terrible, and if you fielded them against any of the new units you would probably lose. And there are 'Mechs that were just amazingly powerful when they first debuted, armed with some of th most outlandish and powerful technology the players and the in-game universe has ever seen. But this is intentional - the story has moved forward so what was cutting-edge tech when the game began is now a relic of an era long passed. Things get left behind as new things replace them - things change and get better or worse depending on where the story of the game takes you - rather than randomly swinging back and forth with that pendulum depending on what 'Oooh shiny!' they want to foist onto us this month. Think of the CBT guys like the guys at Forge World, only they have a clue, and know what customer service is.

yakface wrote:The fact is, you *can* play with your existing units and armies. They won't always be the most efficient choices anymore but that doesn't mean you still can't plunk them down on the table and play a friendly match with them.

Ok, I'll just get out my Word Bearers, Iron Warriors, World Eaters, Death Guard, Alpha Legion and Lost & The Damned armies shall I? I can use them against my friends Alaitoc and Ulthwe Lists, and in a few months I'll challenge my Salamander and White Scar friends to a match. Sounds awesome!!!!!!!! Oh wait... none of those armies exist any more (or, in the case of the Marine ones, they won't by the end of the year).

Of course, none of that has anything to do with 5th Ed, but is indicative of a style of 'change' that does not work. They're not changing to move the game forward or improve things, they're changing things because the stuff that was popular before is already owned by everyone, so they have to make a 'new hotness' so everyone can clamour to buy that instead. And in cases where they can't go and make the old stuff suck (Stealth Suits being the perfect example), they have to go and add new, previously unavailable options, but in a new kit that doesn't fit with the old kit, so people who are perfectionists (like me - I refuse to mix old and new Terminators), won't dare to mix them.


Let me ask you another question, related to this:

"They won't always be the most efficient choices anymore..."

I want an honest answer from you Yak - Am I naive and/or asking for too much when I say I want a game where everything is equally useful and effective, where there are no 'tricks' or 'combos' that are always taken because either they're so powerful that you'd be stupid not to or that everything else is junk. Am I being unreasonable when I say that I want there to be no junk units?

You may notice how the person who wrote that nonsense rules summary chose their words very carefully, pointing out that old 'combos' would be dissapearing. This, to me, seems to imply that anyone attempting to find 'combos' is somehow playing in an underhanded way or, to quote Andy Hoare, an 'unscrupulous' manner? So, again, am I wrong to wish for a game where such combos weren't strictly necessary because anything you fielded would be effective in its own right?

yakface wrote:The important thing is that there *is* change to give people new ideas and choices and to make for their armies and games and to help generate sales in order to keep the game and business alive.

Forcing people to play a different way is the opposite of giving them choice. It makes them choiceless.


Look, as I've said before, I do honestly think that 5th Ed will be a major improvement on the train wreck 4th Ed was, but for almost every step GW takes forward, they almost can't help themselves but make a couple backwards as well. They have an all-to-casual approach to writing and improving these rules, and are more interested in selling the new shiny model kit than they are in making a good game.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

I want an honest answer from you Yak - Am I naive and/or asking for too much when I say I want a game where everything is equally useful and effective, where there are no 'tricks' or 'combos' that are always taken because either they're so powerful that you'd be stupid not to or that everything else is junk. Am I being unreasonable when I say that I want there to be no junk units?

You may notice how the person who wrote that nonsense rules summary chose their words very carefully, pointing out that old 'combos' would be dissapearing. This, to me, seems to imply that anyone attempting to find 'combos' is somehow playing in an underhanded way or, to quote Andy Hoare, an 'unscrupulous' manner? So, again, am I wrong to wish for a game where such combos weren't strictly necessary because anything you fielded would be effective in its own right?

I do think you're being naive to think that there can be a game this complex that is under any kind of realistic production schedule that can get every single unit and choice equally balanced. It simply isn't feasible as the amount of time and playtesting it would take would not be cost (or time) effective.

The only way such a thing can be done is with rules that are not physically printed, something like an online 'living' rulebook that can be altered as needed to address the game balance issues that invariably come up after a game hits a wide audience. While you, I and many other online savvy people may enjoy a system of rules like that there is a very large contingent of people who absolutely HATE when a game is constantly updated online. I've met many of these people and I do think they have a point (from their point of view).

They like to have confidence playing a game knowing that the rules they own and have practiced with are the rules to the game. They hate having to check online every few weeks to make sure something hasn't changed in the game that their opponent is going to suddenly inform them of during their game.

So yes, I think with a game system published for a mass market with the time and money limitations that presents you are always going to have some imbalanced units and choices.


And I also firmly believe that *change* to the rules are absolutely vital for a miniature game and the company who makes it.

Even if 40K somehow reached a point where its core rules were "perfect" (whatever that means) I still think the game mechanics would require an "update" (change). This is because miniature games that do not change their rules on a regular basis tend to lose the focus of a whole lot of players who thrive on change and new challenges to fuel their interest. There will always be a 'hardcore' following of people who stick with a game even after it is no longer updated, but to really keep the mainstream interest, changing the core rules every now and then is absolutely necessary.

It is also absolutely vital for a company to change the rules this way as it tends to help drive miniature sales towards models that previously may not have been as interesting to players.

While change is nice and may even be necessary, it would be nice to have all codexes updated before going to a new edition. I don't think that has ever happened.

Well, I'm happy. this to me is a definate move back towards 2nd, the game I started playing and enjoyed. Havn't touched 4th. Liked 3rd as it was far 'simpler' and quicker to play. I hope these changes (in particular saves) don't slow the games down. Iffy about the whole troops can no longer pick up that speacial weapon, but i welcome it all the same. To me squad memebrs are simply there to keep the big guns going longer, now they are actually a squad and the little men count, and to counteract the weapons dying faster they've got rid of the partials and now missed rockets don't disappear into the sky. That's the frag missle i remember!!! Now, I thik it's time to get together my IG flamer squad at last chuckles...... that baneblade cannons also looking extra tasty now too! I think this may have actually persuaded to get 5th, I wasn't planning on it until now.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:While change is nice and may even be necessary, it would be nice to have all codexes updated before going to a new edition. I don't think that has ever happened.

Happened in 2nd edition where they put out a 'gets you by' booklet with all armies until their codex came out. Happened in 3rd edition when they put all the armies into the rulebook until the new codices came out.

But it has always been a very controversial move. Many players hate having their codex invalidated by a simpler 'gets you by' army list. Plus, not having a codex in the shop for an army (because it takes several years for the codices for every army to be published) means that it is harder to sell new players on an army.


It's one of those "you can't please all the people all the time" kind of things.

I would have to agree with HMBC on one point, while disagreeing with him on that same point. To me the pendulum effect is bad game design, but good marketing. By allways making new hotness, there is allways something to bring the stray sheep back into the fold.

I am one of those chronic 40k love/hate folks. every 5 years I decide that the things that frustrate me about the game, the hobby, the industry or some combination of the three are too much, quit the hobby and sell all my stuff. I swear upon the grave of my ancestors that I will never play again, and walk off into the sunset.

Then something like apocalypse happens, or plastic baneblades, or 5th edition and I come sniffing back to the dinner table like a starving dog. (Or sheep)

As for the rules changes I have to admit that although there are some things that frustrate me (rending nerf, tanks that are slower than my foot troops,,,) I like the direction the rules are going in.

So back to 40k I come


Baaaa, Baaaaaa, Baaaaaaaaaa !

bigtmac68 wrote:I would have to agree with HMBC on one point, while disagreeing with him on that same point. To me the pendulum effect is bad game design, but good marketing. By allways making new hotness, there is allways something to bring the stray sheep back into the fold.

I am one of those chronic 40k love/hate folks. every 5 years I decide that the things that frustrate me about the game, the hobby, the industry or some combination of the three are too much, quit the hobby and sell all my stuff. I swear upon the grave of my ancestors that I will never play again, and walk off into the sunset.

Then something like apocalypse happens, or plastic baneblades, or 5th edition and I come sniffing back to the dinner table like a starving dog. (Or sheep)

As for the rules changes I have to admit that although there are some things that frustrate me (rending nerf, tanks that are slower than my foot troops,,,) I like the direction the rules are going in.

So back to 40k I come


Baaaa, Baaaaaa, Baaaaaaaaaa !

Heh, at least you admit it . We're human, we seek intellectual arousal and patterns....changing rules gives us both. I wouldn't want a game where the rules were perfect (Whatever that means to each individual?). I want change. Not everyones arousal state is the same though, some prefer new dex/rules every 6 months...some prefer the same over 3 years. *Shrug*, you're just human.