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.

Yeah. Most other armies also don't treat their troops as an obstacle slowing their progress to writing the tank part of their list. They y'know, put some thought and attention into the load and use of those little tiny meatsacks that take sooooooo long to paint and put on a table.

Yes, because Eldar don't field three Falcons, Tau don't field three Hammerheads, SoBs don't field three Exorcists, and DE don't field three Ravagers.

The only races that don't spam tanks are the races that have no broken ones.

Savnock wrote:

Actually, I really most pissed about defensive weapons on vehicles being set at S4. This is going to completely nerf mobility for tanks and usher in the Pillbox Age, as others have noted. As an Eldar player, I knew I was going to get screwed on te S6 secondary weapons already. But killing the heavy bolters 9and burst cannons, bolt-on-big shootas, etc.) has just screwed pretty much _every_ army.

I don't disagree with you, but I think the potential 4+ cover save for vehicles will probably be just as much reason for the "Pillbox Age". I'll miss moving and shooting my HB with my Leman Russes, but if dug in properly, they will be an extremely tough nut to crack.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:

Yeah. Most other armies also don't treat their troops as an obstacle slowing their progress to writing the tank part of their list. They y'know, put some thought and attention into the load and use of those little tiny meatsacks that take sooooooo long to paint and put on a table.

Yes, because Eldar don't field three Falcons, Tau don't field three Hammerheads, SoBs don't field three Exorcists, and DE don't field three Ravagers.

The only races that don't spam tanks are the races that have no broken ones.

And yet all those races -still- make room for the troops part of their lists, instead of treating them as a handicap keeping them from getting -more- tanks (Which IG can already do better than any other race). Honestly if you needed your leman russ' to fly out and capture objectives because nothing else you had could do it you were doing something wrong. And hey, at least falcons don't score any more either.

All seems ok, apart from the 'No-Argument rule'.

ShumaGorath, you must play in a very Troops-friendly environment. Currently, the Tau and Eldar I know get their two compulsories and move on to the goodies in the Elites and FA slots. Let's not even talk about Nidzilla.

What I find most puzzling about your posts is that you're complaining about IG players' supposed disdain for Troops, yet in 4th, IG are really the most Troops-friendly list if you look at what decent players field. They only have one good thing in the Elites slot (droppingVets) and it takes up very few points. The FA slot has two good units that are also fairly cheap. The real work is done by line squads.

Frankly, I think I made a mistake making that crack about tri-Falcon/Hammerhead/etc because it made it seem like you had a point about IG players glossing over Troops in order to get to the armour. You don't. A decent IG list is all about Troops, and players know it. Ask anyone on the Tactics or Army Lists forum.

Frankly, I think I made a mistake making that crack about tri-Falcon/Hammerhead/etc because it made it seem like you had a point about IG players glossing over Troops in order to get to the armour. You don't. A decent IG list is all about Troops, and players know it. Ask anyone on the Tactics or Army Lists forum.

Odd then. Considering the point of my posts was to argue the fact that the IG were not duly hampered by the new infantry and objective taking rules and that the post I originally quoted was glossing over the troop possibilities of the army.

What I find most puzzling about your posts is that you're complaining about IG players' supposed disdain for Troops

No, I'm complaining about one IG players supposed disdain for troops. Who you then defended. Sorry for assuming that the position you held was the same as the one you were defending.

Wow, it looks like a lot of people here have missed the point of the "no argument" cover rule. The point isn't for one player to go "This is 4+ cover" while the second goes "No it's 6+" cover and have the rule come out to make it 4+ -1 = 5+. The rule is there because cover will be decided on a true line of sight basis. So if the unit being shot at is partialy obscured by something (based on a model's eye view), it gets cover. The rule was put in there becasue lots of arguments about line of sight and weather or not something should get cover arise under that system. The rule means that when one guy goes "I get cover because of this wall that's sort of in the way" and the second guy goes "It's totaly too far for you to get cover from it" then the answer is that the first guy gets 5+ cover instead of 4+ after 30 min of argument. Now the down side is that if someone starts being a tool, everything starts getting the minus, but at least you can do it back if you feel it is necessary.

Phoenix wrote:Wow, it looks like a lot of people here have missed the point of the "no argument" cover rule. The point isn't for one player to go "This is 4+ cover" while the second goes "No it's 6+" cover and have the rule come out to make it 4+ -1 = 5+. The rule is there because cover will be decided on a true line of sight basis. So if the unit being shot at is partialy obscured by something (based on a model's eye view), it gets cover. The rule was put in there becasue lots of arguments about line of sight and weather or not something should get cover arise under that system. The rule means that when one guy goes "I get cover because of this wall that's sort of in the way" and the second guy goes "It's totaly too far for you to get cover from it" then the answer is that the first guy gets 5+ cover instead of 4+ after 30 min of argument. Now the down side is that if someone starts being a tool, everything starts getting the minus, but at least you can do it back if you feel it is necessary.

I'm glad you have more insight into the design studio than the rest of us.

Note to anyone who gets a look at the rules before publication: If you want to be Mr. Popular with your fellow nerds the world over, please please please flip to the LOS and cover/terrain rules first, and report them here.

Following what Pheonix points out (good point, too), we can still prevent most disputes by being clear about what terrain features provide what cover ("Rocks and hard stuff are a 4+, trees a 5+, this Mountain Dew can a 3+"). We may have to more specific when area terrain contains multiple elements, but it's the interpretation on a per-model basis that will require the eyeballing and possible dispute. The ol' laser pointer is going to become as vital to play as your dice, it looks like. A small pointer with a wire sticking out the back-end to align with a model's weapon will end these disputes more easily.

This is also going to bog gameplay down bigtime. For a system which has been gradually encouraging higher model counts ($ka-ching$), this move towards model-specific treatment of terrain is pretty dumb. I liked the abstractions of 4th, including Magic Cylinder Light. More judgement calls, more time for eyeballing every trooper, more time debating cover. Yuck. Rather than encouraging better use of mixed terrain, this is going to discourage building mixed terrain at all. Expect to see less mixed foliage/rocks and hard/soft cover or terrain with various heights of cover (rubble and walls, grass and trees) and more boring, single-item terrain.

Finally, can someone please point out to me how the new casualty removal rules are in any way better than Torrent of Fire was (other than probably not being hidden in a little clause with no index link)?

I don't see the problem with the so-called "No Arguments Rule". If it's debatable whether a model gets a cover save from a piece of terrain it gets that cover save -1. There doesn't seem like any room for argument there since which terrain provides what cover save is decided before round 1.

ShumaGorath, the posts you responded to merely pointed out that IG players already have to take lots of men and spend lots of points just to fill the compulsories. How do you get from there to the position which you claim Agamemnon and C99 hold?

Edit: And if you were just talking about one player's perspective, I don't see how the "most other armies" rubbish you posted was relevant.

The problem with IG and these rules is not relying upon one's Troops or not. IG do rely upon their troops. However, they rely upon their troops to either shoot at range or use heavy weapons, or both, to win. They also have to avoid CC to do well against MEQ or anything even remotely fighty. Necessary movement to close and capture objectives screws them in every way possible. Unless IG troops can get 2 special weapons under their new (doctrineless and probably much blander) codex, they're screwed.

Expect to see Conscripts in every competitive IG build. Being forced to take something in order to win bites real bad.

I hate to be such a Negative Nancy, but this does NOT look good. I really, really wanted (want) to like 5th. Oh well- at least Pathfinders will be getting better with rending, and my 25 Wraithguard may actually see the light of day.

Okay, so what reason is there to play IG anymore? They have next to no ability to take objectives, their tanks all got worse, and they already were the weakest codex?

Thanks a lot, GW, I was worried I was in danger of actually winning a game one of these days. Crisis bloody averted.

This implies that IG were seriously hampered by the change in rules.

Every other armies compulsary troop choices don't require you paint a minimum of 50 models and spend nearly half your armies points.

This is a gross overgeneralization of the plight of the IG trooper supporting the previous quote and implying that it also take a huge ammount of time to model and deploy said worthless troops.

Yeah. Most other armies also don't treat their troops as an obstacle slowing their progress to writing the tank part of their list. They y'know, put some thought and attention into the load and use of those little tiny meatsacks that take sooooooo long to paint and put on a table. If only there was some way to make an IG list where everyone could be in tanks. With the rest of your list being loaded in or starting as a tank as well. What a wonderful world that would be for the average IG player.

This was a post sarcastically debating the previous two, noting that most armies have to paint and model tiny little meatsacks and that there is an obvious recourse for IG players that don't like fielding things with a weapon skill.

Yes, because Eldar don't field three Falcons, Tau don't field three Hammerheads, SoBs don't field three Exorcists, and DE don't field three Ravagers.

This was a post that implied that the previous post was debating the usefulness of vehicles and insinuated that the majority of armies are just broken vehicles with some filler.

And yet all those races -still- make room for the troops part of their lists, instead of treating them as a handicap keeping them from getting -more- tanks (Which IG can already do better than any other race). Honestly if you needed your leman russ' to fly out and capture objectives because nothing else you had could do it you were doing something wrong. And hey, at least falcons don't score any more either.

This was a post that noted that most armies still manage to field some form of troops choice. And went on to note that if all one has to capture table quarters is semistationary guntanks then one is probably doing something wrong.

ShumaGorath, you must play in a very Troops-friendly environment. Currently, the Tau and Eldar I know get their two compulsories and move on to the goodies in the Elites and FA slots. Let's not even talk about Nidzilla.

What I find most puzzling about your posts is that you're complaining about IG players' supposed disdain for Troops, yet in 4th, IG are really the most Troops-friendly list if you look at what decent players field. They only have one good thing in the Elites slot (droppingVets) and it takes up very few points. The FA slot has two good units that are also fairly cheap. The real work is done by line squads.

Frankly, I think I made a mistake making that crack about tri-Falcon/Hammerhead/etc because it made it seem like you had a point about IG players glossing over Troops in order to get to the armour. You don't. A decent IG list is all about Troops, and players know it. Ask anyone on the Tactics or Army Lists forum.

This post oddly contradicted its previous sentiment then about faced to say that IG are a very troop friendly army. Which oddly enough starkly contrasts the two posts originally quoted.

Odd then. Considering the point of my posts was to argue the fact that the IG were not duly hampered by the new infantry and objective taking rules and that the post I originally quoted was glossing over the troop possibilities of the army.

This post attempted to clarify a previous posts meaning.

ShumaGorath, the posts you responded to merely pointed out that IG players already have to take lots of men and spend lots of points just to fill the compulsories. How do you get from there to the position which you claim Agamemnon and C99 hold?

This was a post arguing against the intent of the original several posts, signalling a gulf between the two debaters view of the original few posts.

Edit: And if you were just talking about one player's perspective, I don't see how the "most other armies" rubbish you posted was relevant.

This was something I did not see until just before hitting submit. However I will clarify.

Space marines are not tanks with filler.
IG are not tanks with filler.
Orks are not tanks with filler.
Dark eldar are not tanks with filler.
Tyranids are not tanks with filler (except nidzilla which is a single varient that is very popular in tourny play but hardly encompasses the majority of players)
Sisters of battle are not tanks with filler.
Chaos space marines are not tanks with filler.

Eldar can be tanks with filler.
Tau can be tanks with filler (Albeit more rarely than eldar)

So yeah. Most other armies.

The problem with IG and these rules is not relying upon one's Troops or not. IG do rely upon their troops. However, they rely upon their troops to either shoot at range or use heavy weapons, or both, to win. They also have to avoid CC to do well against MEQ or anything even remotely fighty. Necessary movement to close and capture objectives screws them in every way possible. Unless IG troops can get 2 special weapons under their new (doctrineless and probably much blander) codex, they're screwed.

I would expect to see more IG units in chimeras swooping in in the final turns to take objectives (which isn't a bad thing per se as the chimeras are more surviveable now). Honestly I see rules like these doing more to hurt armies like tyranids or orks who can not simply stop to sit on objectives with large hordes of troops. If those troops aren't moving into close combat they are going to get shot to ribbons The same also applies to mech eldar and equivalent armies which will have to have units able to redeploy onto objectives since the falcons can no longer do the job alone.

Something I've noticed that people seem to completely ignore about the whole secondary weapons being S4- in 5th edition is that there is a happy medium between a tank that sits there in cover and a tank that grinds long as combat speed: A tank that sits in cover and fires at full effect, and then relocates at full speed. It's called "shoot and scoot".

Nurglitch wrote:Something I've noticed that people seem to completely ignore about the whole secondary weapons being S4- in 5th edition is that there is a happy medium between a tank that sits there in cover and a tank that grinds long as combat speed: A tank that sits in cover and fires at full effect, and then relocates at full speed. It's called "shoot and scoot".

It was called 3rd edition. You know, back when no Leman Russ would ever have sponsons, no Falcon would take any gun upgrades, and no Chimera would ever move lest it give up half its firepower.

It will be interesting to see how GW handles the IG in 5th. At the moment, minimum troops requires 4 kill points of T3 humans (min-sized platoon + armored fist/conscripts). Either they'll completely ignore the problem with both the FAQ and the next version of the codex, or else they'll codify an exception to their brand-new rules (e.g., a whole platoon is one KP, instead of a per-unit thing). Neither scenario is particularly thrilling - I really hate GW's insistence of game design by breaking their basic rules with every new release.

Nurglitch wrote: It's called "shoot OR scoot".

Fixed your typo.

There is no "happy medium" anymore. It's either one or the other. The happy medium would be the ability to fire, say, heavy bolters on the move, even if it means giving up the survivability of sitting in pillbox position. You know, like in real life. Main cannon haven't been reliable on the move until modern targeting systems like those on the Abrams. Better to make that the penalty than not being able to fire machine guns, which are the weapon of choice for vehicles that fire on the move IRL.

Threads like this should be titled...

"All of the chicken-littles post here!"

Nurglitch wrote:Something I've noticed that people seem to completely ignore about the whole secondary weapons being S4- in 5th edition is that there is a happy medium between a tank that sits there in cover and a tank that grinds long as combat speed: A tank that sits in cover and fires at full effect, and then relocates at full speed. It's called "shoot and scoot".

Of course, to fully utilize the pillbox effect, your tank will want to be in cover. Scooting means dangerous terrain tests, and a full turn of not shooting much of anything (that's a bit high on the risk analysis). Unless they changed something to allow tanks to shoot BEFORE moving, then we're still talking paying a lot of points to sacrifice firepower for mobility. Now, I don't have the leaked pdf in front of me, but don't you still roll 2 dice to see if you get immobilized if you grind at full bore? That doesn't sound like a medium that makes much of us happy.

On the bright side, if I keep Falcons in the list, I save lots of points on upgrades--just really need holofields and good cover, now... pay for an EML and you've got tank busting power for not terrible price. Not terribly pleased about decreased efficiency of vypers, though.

I'm just glad I have warwalkers in spades... with fortune, guide, and cover, those guys are gonna be beasts.

I'll also hold judgement on the "no argument" rule; seems like a guy can be an utter twit, but we'll see.

Savnock wrote:The problem with IG and these rules is not relying upon one's Troops or not. IG do rely upon their troops. However, they rely upon their troops to either shoot at range or use heavy weapons, or both, to win. They also have to avoid CC to do well against MEQ or anything even remotely fighty. Necessary movement to close and capture objectives screws them in every way possible. Unless IG troops can get 2 special weapons under their new (doctrineless and probably much blander) codex, they're screwed.

Expect to see Conscripts in every competitive IG build. Being forced to take something in order to win bites real bad.

I hate to be such a Negative Nancy, but this does NOT look good. I really, really wanted (want) to like 5th. Oh well- at least Pathfinders will be getting better with rending, and my 25 Wraithguard may actually see the light of day.

You're forgetting that there are two ways to win the objective-game. On is by taking the objective. The other is by killing all you your opponent's Troops so they can't take the objective. One thing IG tanks are good at is killing infantry, you have to admit.

I'll also hold judgement on the "no argument" rule; seems like a guy can be an utter twit, but we'll see.

The mockup specifies the exact kinds of terain and what bonus' they actually give. It's a pretty comprehensive list. Even if you do run into "that guy" there won't really be much for him to dispute outside of situations that are actually somewhat contested. If he tries to say a wall is not a wall you could probably call over a judge to shoot him in the knee.

Not to take away from all the kvetching about tanks and troops and what not, but did I just read this part right?

Charge Response Move: The response move is exactly the same as the countercharge rule. Every unit gets it, but models that already have Countercharge (like Space Wolves) gain +1 Attack as if they had charged themselves.

So when you charge my mob of 30 Boyz, all of whom have shootas, and 2 Base attacks, I get to move all the unengaged models up to 6" in order to become engaged in the combat, and the whole "You remove casualties from elsewhere in the squad" thing is still true?

Wow.

"The Boyz are back in Town"

Yeah Voodoo, that's the take I get from the wording as well. That and run make horde orks even stronger. I see that as fair reward for painting them all up in the first place

It does really help with "charge sniping", and forces people to really get stuck in. I'm not sure if it's a great solution, but it is a solution.

I'm reserving judgement on the new rules until I've played with them for a while. Some stuff sounds terrible, but if I end up playing games that I enjoy, then I'm happy.

I'll start a 5th Edition kvetching thread in Dakka Discussions for people to get it out of their systems.

PP, killing _all_ the enemy troops is not going to be easy with the 4+ cover save for intervening units.

Other than the Defensive weapons rule change I like what I'm seeing so far.

IMHO the more GW borrow from the FOW game system the better 40K will become. FOW is a slick set of rules, if you haven't tried them you're missing out.

Savnock wrote:PP, killing _all_ the enemy troops is not going to be easy with the 4+ cover save for intervening units.

I was under the impression that you had to be able to see the enemy unit over the units in front of it just to be able to fire with the 4+ cover save. Are the new rumors such that you can shoot through any unit with the penalty a 4+ cover save?

Vehicles are just as the leaked PDF? So Defensive Weapons at S4 and below?

Well that's a great way to ensure that vehicles return back to their 'Main Battle Bunker' status of 3rd Ed. Well done Jervis. Great move there, making vehicles even less dynamic than they currently are, and that's quite a feat.

I started playing this game because I love 40K tanks - never mind the fact that when I started the only tanks were Rhinos and Land Raiders - but tanks in 40K have not been fun since 2nd Ed.

In 3rd Ed they were Main Battle Bunkers. If you moved 1" you suddenly couldn't fire your guns, meaning there was no point to moving. In 4th Ed they became glass hammers and, aside from Super-Falcons, were far to easy to kill. Now we get to 5th, and we can't move and shoot with Heavy Bolters or Burst Cannons... great.

Even if the other rules are improved, which they sound like they are, this one's a deal-breaker for me. Tanks should be moving and firing at different targets. Defensive weapons should be defensive, and be able to engage threats to the tank whilst the main gun fires at the tank's target. These rules won't allow that, so forget them...

BYE

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Not to take away from all the kvetching about tanks and troops and what not, but did I just read this part right?

Charge Response Move: The response move is exactly the same as the countercharge rule. Every unit gets it, but models that already have Countercharge (like Space Wolves) gain +1 Attack as if they had charged themselves.

So when you charge my mob of 30 Boyz, all of whom have shootas, and 2 Base attacks, I get to move all the unengaged models up to 6" in order to become engaged in the combat, and the whole "You remove casualties from elsewhere in the squad" thing is still true?

Wow.

"The Boyz are back in Town"

If I'm charging your 30 Boyz then I deserve it .

/Even Stealers would be a toss up with no kill zone

Nothing wrong with charging boyz. Beats letting them charge you. With a Land Raider full of Berzerkers so that they all get into engagement? Shweet.