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.

Janthkin wrote:Yeah, 'cause it's a) so easy; and b) so useful to throw enough firepower at 50 4 pt conscripts to remove them, in order to get at the multiple heavy weapons squads hiding behind them.... (And before the inevitable "they're ld 5; just force a break test" point comes up, I'll remind people that a rerollable ld 9 check is hard to crack, and certainly not to be relied upon.)

I've never actually seen conscripst on the field so I can't say that situation has ever come up for me. However, it does seem to be one situation where my previous statement does, in fact, fall short. Are there any others?

Morskul wrote:

Ekranoplan wrote:Tall grass should only be giving a 6+ cover, 5+ at the most if its really thick like hedge rows.

Grass and hedges offer concealment not cover. There is a very big difference. I guess GW were trying to represent both with the rule for 'cover' though

Im not following. What is the difference?

If hedges only give a 5+ save, then any unit more then 50% concealed by it gets a 5+ save.

Waiting on 5E to arrive and haven't played a game yet but this new cover system has me worried about my Thousand Sons.

4+ Cover from intervening squads right? And 6+ going to ground,5 with a hedge in the way. Sorta makes paying for Inferno Bolts and 4+ Save kinda less useful. Though I heard the new force weapon/physic power change makes that Aspiring Sorcerer a handy little tool.

Anyone tried any of the 1ksons?

Ekranoplan wrote:

Morskul wrote:

Ekranoplan wrote:Tall grass should only be giving a 6+ cover, 5+ at the most if its really thick like hedge rows.

Grass and hedges offer concealment not cover. There is a very big difference. I guess GW were trying to represent both with the rule for 'cover' though

Im not following. What is the difference?

If hedges only give a 5+ save, then any unit more then 50% concealed by it gets a 5+ save.

I didn't quite make myself clear, cover vs concealment was more of a real world reference

Janthkin wrote:Yeah, 'cause it's a) so easy; and b) so useful to throw enough firepower at 50 4 pt conscripts to remove them, in order to get at the multiple heavy weapons squads hiding behind them....

Isn't that kind of the point of Conscripts? The annoying meatshield that hides the soft, chewie bits at the back?

Deadshane1 wrote:
Red has it right, this was my eldar list that pulled it off....

However, with all the cover, I'm of the opinion that one is better off to 'rapid-fire' people to death rather than bust their AP.

My Eldar are doing it..
Grey Knights 'try' to do it...
I'm figuring how Dark Angels can do it...
I'm building a Guard army that should be scary on this theory of the new rules.

YES I CALLED IT!!!!

insaniak wrote:

Janthkin wrote:Yeah, 'cause it's a) so easy; and b) so useful to throw enough firepower at 50 4 pt conscripts to remove them, in order to get at the multiple heavy weapons squads hiding behind them....

Isn't that kind of the point of Conscripts? The annoying meatshield that hides the soft, chewie bits at the back?

Of course the conscripts are probably going to have a 4+ cover save from a variety of pieces of terrain, so you probably should just go for the heavy weapons in the back as its all 4+.

Voodoo_Chile wrote:Waiting on 5E to arrive and haven't played a game yet but this new cover system has me worried about my Thousand Sons.

4+ Cover from intervening squads right? And 6+ going to ground,5 with a hedge in the way. Sorta makes paying for Inferno Bolts and 4+ Save kinda less useful. Though I heard the new force weapon/physic power change makes that Aspiring Sorcerer a handy little tool.

Anyone tried any of the 1ksons?

I'd say your not going to be as satisfied with your Tsons anymore. Anything can have cover anywhere so those inferno bullets, if there is a lot of them, are going to be saved against. Even if that save is at a 4+, 5+, or 6+ there is still a save. It's going to suck where once those bullets laid things to waste now they only might lay things to waste.

But on the bright side Noise Marines just got a lot better (Well... not really. You have to find some way to convert/buy all those damn sonic blasters).

Typeline wrote: I'd say your not going to be as satisfied with your Tsons anymore. Anything can have cover anywhere so those inferno bullets, if there is a lot of them, are going to be saved against. Even if that save is at a 4+, 5+, or 6+ there is still a save. It's going to suck where once those bullets laid things to waste now they only might lay things to waste.

But on the bright side Noise Marines just got a lot better (Well... not really. You have to find some way to convert/buy all those damn sonic blasters).

This isn’t true, unless everyone is playing on the same board all over the world, and that board is the generic board built for games in 4th ed. If you find that everything is gaining a 4+ cover save even at the 24” and 12” ranges favoured by Thousands Sons, you really need to review the boards you’re playing on.

I said it earlier, people need to stop using the default cover mixes of 4th ed. Move away from the scattering of craters and detritus that will give everything a 4+ save, while slightly increasing the building and other large objects that block LOS.

I don't know what tactics you use , but one of the fundamental one I try to use in every game is get as many of my guys into cover as often as possible while fulfilling whatever the missions objectives are.

With the standard amout of terrain on the table, (roughly 25%) and the additional cover provided by your/my intervening units, cover is very abundant

I agree with Janthkin in that the focus of the shooting game has moved to the close-up firefight rather than the first couple of turns long-range slugfest the game used to be.

The fact is, most games of 40K used to tend to really be won or lost in the first few turns. Either the shooty-based army did crippling damage to the assault army before it reached them or alternatively the assault army was able to reach the shooty army without getting crippled and would proceed to decimate the entire opponent's army.

In 5th edition, at the start of the game all your units tend to either be in cover or behind a less valuable screening unit. This means the opening rounds of shooting tend to have less impact even though you can see more of the enemy.

But savvy players will set up their firebases to minimize the amount of damage incoming assault units can cause in a single round of combat.

Instead of a straight line deployment which allows the enemy to hit all your units at once with one big charge:


AAAAA. . . .BBBBB. . . .CCCCC


In fifth edition it is imperative that you set up to absorb the charge and then destroy the attackers:


. . . . . . . .BBBBB

AAAAA. . . . . . . . . .CCCCC



In this way, attackers hit 'unit B' and after wiping it out in combat are then shot to death by units 'A' & 'C'.

Sure the attackers got their cover saves on the way over from your shooting, but if you've set your sacrifice unit up properly you ensure that the enemy won't be getting cover saves from your return fire.


40K isn't so much about the opening rounds anymore. It's more about what you do after the armies begin to become intermingled.

It's about deciding whether it is worth it to fire at the more important unit's beyond and take the 4+ cover save or go ahead and obliterate the intervening unit that isn't getting a cover save.

I think overall it's a much better game.

yakface wrote:In 5th edition, at the start of the game all your units tend to either be in cover or behind a less valuable screening unit. This means the opening rounds of shooting tend to have less impact even though you can see more of the enemy.
...
I think overall it's a much better game.

I'm not convinced yet. As someone who is horribly bad at dice-rolling, I feel that the game has changed from one where a smart player could make good decisions and overcome dice rolls, to one where the game is really decided by how many times you're able to roll 4+.

Kill-zones and consolidating into enemy units made setting up a charge well worth something. Now, counter-assault, and the inability to consolidate into anything after a charge means that no matter how you set up a charge, odds are pretty good that the a whole lot of guys will be engaged, an assault unit will decimate a shooty speed-bump, and will then be decimated by enemy fire afterwards.

I think a lot of the tactics (what they called "gamey" moves) have been removed from the game, leaving a game in which the average player will get to roll more dice, but the good player will benefit less from their skill. Could be wrong, I haven't played too many games yet, but that's what I've gotten from 5th ed so far.

Redbeard wrote:
I'm not convinced yet. As someone who is horribly bad at dice-rolling, I feel that the game has changed from one where a smart player could make good decisions and overcome dice rolls, to one where the game is really decided by how many times you're able to roll 4+.

Kill-zones and consolidating into enemy units made setting up a charge well worth something. Now, counter-assault, and the inability to consolidate into anything after a charge means that no matter how you set up a charge, odds are pretty good that the a whole lot of guys will be engaged, an assault unit will decimate a shooty speed-bump, and will then be decimated by enemy fire afterwards.

I think a lot of the tactics (what they called "gamey" moves) have been removed from the game, leaving a game in which the average player will get to roll more dice, but the good player will benefit less from their skill. Could be wrong, I haven't played too many games yet, but that's what I've gotten from 5th ed so far.

Well, I disagree. Most of the missions aren't even ultimately about killing the opponent. A good player can have their army decimated in any mission and still end up winning by focusing on the mission objectives while their opponent does not.

When it comes to shooting, a poor player will happily play the game shooting at the units that scare them despite the fact there is an intervening unit giving them a cover save. A good player will attempt to set up situations where they can eliminate the screening unit and still have some shooting left over to eliminate the threat unit.

A good player will find the areas of the table where he can set up a kill zone without his opponent getting a cover save and he will put the objective there and fight the battle where he wants to.

A good player will bait assault units into cheap sacrificial units and then obliterate the enemy in the next shooting phase.

A good player with an assault army will stay in cover an extra turn to make sure he has enough units in place to hit the enemy with such force all at once that they won't have enough counter-shooting to kill off their assault units in the next turn.

A good player has to actually decide which enemy units are appropriate to charge as there are many cases where charging the wrong units will now almost certainly lead to you losing your assaulting unit. You can't just 'throw' your assault units into combat anymore and hope for the best. You have to know that your assault unit is actually capable of 'winning' the round of combat.

Keep your 'speed bump' unit in cover lets you strike first when the opponent charges you, but you have to know that it also means the opposing assault unit will then be 'in cover' from your next round of shooting. By setting up your speed bump in the open, you increase your ability to punish any unit that assaults them.


Early in the game, I agree that cover saves are plentiful, but I really do see that it is how a player sets up, reacts and maneuvers to his opponent's moves that ultimately decides how the late game (where cover saves aren't always so plentiful) plays out.

Respectfully, I’d have to disagree somewhat on 4th edition 25% type table. Of the 5th ed games I’ve played, instead of forming up behind cover and then moving, my demons/Nids have been forming up and getting shot at range. Yes they get a nice cover save, but that’s not as good as a 1+ cover save provided by earlier terrain. If terrain starts to return to hills and LOS blocking walls then I’ll readily agree, so your local mileage may vary.

yakface wrote:
Well, I disagree. Most of the missions aren't even ultimately about killing the opponent. A good player can have their army decimated in any mission and still end up winning by focusing on the mission objectives while their opponent does not.

I think that most everyone will figure out that they have to focus on objectives. This has certainly been my experience at Adepticon the last few years, although admittedly the argument could be made that only good players go to tournaments like that.

Still, if the benchmark for being a good or bad player is whether someone can figure out that you win the game by accomplishing the mission, that's setting the bar awfully low.

When it comes to shooting, a poor player will happily play the game shooting at the units that scare them despite the fact there is an intervening unit giving them a cover save. A good player will attempt to set up situations where they can eliminate the screening unit and still have some shooting left over to eliminate the threat unit.

Perhaps I should clarrify. I think this is a big problem for any army with more expensive choices (which includes vehicles). The new terrain rules mean that it's almost impossible to deploy in a way that protects your assets from early game strikes. If my asset is a unit of 30 ork boyz, well, go ahead and shoot at it, and I'll happily take my 4+ cover. But, lets say my asset is a Landraider full of assault terminators. Based on the terrain I've encountered in the tournaments I've been to over the last two years, I'm now gambling that I can roll a 4+. And, while in 4th ed, the general practice was to deploy-as-if-going-second, in 5th ed, I know up-front whether I'm going first or second. If I end up knowing that I'm going second, I have little option but to hope that I can roll 4+.

That doesn't strike me as the best way to play a strategy game. And, it certainly doesn't encourage me to take any high-point assets that I'm going to depend on a 4+ cover save to keep around past the first turn.

I dunno, the cover thing just doesn't bug me that much... maybe it's just because we usually play with a lot of cover, and we always kind of used real LOS, but our terrain pieces were always big enough to hide behind. so if you wanted an actual cover save, you had to be inside something.. just like now. As we cross the board, we stay in a lot of cover. And there'd be so much cover, my IG tanks usually sat there firing all guns if they needed to.

The only thing my group will really need to get used to is the screening units, but it's really not that big of a deal.

lots of terrain makes the game more fun. Who wants to play in a wide open field? it's boring! It's a battlefield, there should be blow'd up stuff all over the place.

Redbeard wrote:
Still, if the benchmark for being a good or bad player is whether someone can figure out that you win the game by accomplishing the mission, that's setting the bar awfully low.

It's one thing to know that accomplishing the objective is needed to win the game (everyone knows that), but its another to be able to tell exactly what actions will best serve you towards accomplishing that objective and to stay focused on making just those actions.

If it were always as easy as just making sure you move a scoring unit next to an objective and then waiting until the end of the game obviously it would be easy for everyone to accomplish. But we all know that's not the case. Moving your units onto the objective can obviously be a death sentence if the opponent has units in position to shoot or assault it. Conversely often times you have to send you have to abandon one objective to tie up more of the enemy's units in order to prevent them from capturing or contesting other objectives.

In every game there is nuance to completing the mission objectives and those who stay focused on only the actions that will help them accomplish those objectives will always do better than those players who lack that focus.

Perhaps I should clarify. I think this is a big problem for any army with more expensive choices (which includes vehicles). The new terrain rules mean that it's almost impossible to deploy in a way that protects your assets from early game strikes. If my asset is a unit of 30 ork boyz, well, go ahead and shoot at it, and I'll happily take my 4+ cover. But, lets say my asset is a Landraider full of assault terminators. Based on the terrain I've encountered in the tournaments I've been to over the last two years, I'm now gambling that I can roll a 4+. And, while in 4th ed, the general practice was to deploy-as-if-going-second, in 5th ed, I know up-front whether I'm going first or second. If I end up knowing that I'm going second, I have little option but to hope that I can roll 4+.

That doesn't strike me as the best way to play a strategy game. And, it certainly doesn't encourage me to take any high-point assets that I'm going to depend on a 4+ cover save to keep around past the first turn.

Well, hopefully there is at least one or two pieces of terrain on each table that allow you to screen your high impact/high cost unit at the start of the game.

I also think the new rules really place an emphasis on taking units that can take advantage of the different deployment options. The more units you have that can outflank, deep strike or infiltrate the more options you have to keep units off the table should you know you're going second. Also, if you have everything mounted in vehicles you can easily choose to keep your entire army in reserve in some missions and just start rolling onto the table in the 2nd turn.

I've found 'scuttlers' on Tyranid gaunts & Stealers to be particularly useful because if I'm getting the first turn they're using their scout move but if I'm going second I can use their outflank move to ensure they don't get shot on the first turn and can pop on from the side of the board for a nasty surprise to my enemy. Placing objectives in locations where your Deep Striking, inflitrating or outflanking units can really take advantage of their abilities can really help.

The last three games I have played have all been "annihilation" missions. The tactic that I have used to win all 3 have been, kill the transports. Rhino's and drop pods are all worth 1KP ad they are VERY hard to protect and use for their intended purpose. This has got me to think that maybe cheap transports are not worth it in 5th.

Agreed! I'm fearfull for my own high unit count/low surviveability IC's and units in games like that.

Admitedly, I haven't played 5th yet but as a Guard player I have to say that either I'm missing something or everyone else is. The "Meat Shield" tactic has become LESS viable in 5th because as you're valuable heavy weapon teams are benefiting from the cover save provided by your own less valuable troops your valuable heavy weapon teams are having their effectiveness reduced because the enemy is getting cover saves provided to them by your own less valuable troops!

In other words, whatever cover you're provided by screening is provided to the enem as well. All I can think of is that my deployment line is going to have to do a flip. Everything that was in the back will now be in the front and vice versa. That's certainly not the way to claim objectives though! I've always liked relying more on vehicles to carry the heavy weapons but with the new screening it may be almost the only way I do it now. I'm not always going to be able to get the lascannon teams into that high building after all!

Meh, whatever. I think that the cover is fine though. As stated earlier, with the new rules comes a new play style. I think in the end it will make for a more dynamic game.

[edit] Also, going to ground, then assaulting? Am I missing something? I thought the unit was done until their next turn.

Never forget the invaluable run feature! There's nothing saying you can't deploy your important stuff abreast to your cannon fodder, and when the shooting phase comes around you fire off the good stuff, then run the meat wall up to take its place and provide a nice 4+ screen.

Also, depending on the building, it's usually going to be ideal to have your lascannons up on the roof. Theoretically you should be getting a 4+ but not giving a 4+, depending on your placement. And you'll have LOS over most objects, terrain, and people. Sniper with a Lascannon!!

AlexCage wrote:Never forget the invaluable run feature! There's nothing saying you can't deploy your important stuff abreast to your cannon fodder, and when the shooting phase comes around you fire off the good stuff, then run the meat wall up to take its place and provide a nice 4+ screen.

What happens when that run roll is a 1? or a 2? or a 3? I can see 4, 5, and 6 though.

Glaive Company CO wrote:[edit] Also, going to ground, then assaulting? Am I missing something? I thought the unit was done until their next turn.

The only way I can see that you would be able to assault on your next turn is if you failed a morale check and fall back. The unit then returns to normal.

so basically, during the enemies shooting phase, after they roll to hit and to wound, you can go to ground to gain the benefits of that rule. If you have to fall back from shooting or by being assaulted, then you regain your composure and return to normal status and can act normally during your next turn.

Unless I am missing a loophole, you cannot assault the turn after you go to ground.

@Glaive Company CO - But you can be assaulted, and your troops fight normally in that instance.

If you're playing with just some buddies or whatnot (i.e. non-tournament setting), couldn't you just ease back on the amount of terrain bit by bit over a few games, until you reach a level that you and your comrades are most comfortable with?

Even if there was/is a hard-rule that states you have to pack the table with terrain, you and your friends can still play any way that you want - so maybe try dropping a bit of the terrain until you have 'just enough' for you and your group's preference.

Just a suggestion, simlar to what a few others have mentioned.

Typeline wrote:

AlexCage wrote:Never forget the invaluable run feature! There's nothing saying you can't deploy your important stuff abreast to your cannon fodder, and when the shooting phase comes around you fire off the good stuff, then run the meat wall up to take its place and provide a nice 4+ screen.

What happens when that run roll is a 1? or a 2? or a 3? I can see 4, 5, and 6 though.

That particular idea works best if your troops are standing in a nice firing line, side by side, so even a roll of a 2 or 3 will give you enough inches to step up into a wall. Which means they'd have to be spread out in a line, and you could really only benefit from this with one rank, so your frontlines would be pretty thin.

I'm gonna see if I can't test this tactic soon, actually. It's all theoretical at this point. And all this relies on your enemy being stupid enough to be in the open anyways.

Honestly though, I view the standard 10 man Guardsmen squad as a mobile unit of cover now. Hrm... On that note, do you guys think it'd be terribly offensive if I paid homage to the South Park movie, and painted all my cadians dark skinned, and called the tactic "Operation get behind the darkies"? Or is that a line not to be crossed?

40K isn't so much about the opening rounds anymore. It's more about what you do after the armies begin to become intermingled.

It's about deciding whether it is worth it to fire at the more important unit's beyond and take the 4+ cover save or go ahead and obliterate the intervening unit that isn't getting a cover save.

I think overall it's a much better game.

I could not agree more yak! I have not played nearly as many games as I would like but I find the tactical nature of the game has improved dramatically. The removal of consolodate into combat, has changed the game from a one dimensional race to see if the shooty army can do enough damage before the assaulty army hits it’s lines into a game of maneuver and strategy.

Its no Flames of War, or Warmachine or even AT-43, but its light years better than 3rd or 4th Editions.

I think a lot of the tactics (what they called "gamey" moves) have been removed from the game, leaving a game in which the average player will get to roll more dice, but the good player will benefit less from their skill.

I think what you are missing here, is that we now have real tactics playing into the game. You have to consider objectives, deployment, fire lanes, cover and better infantry maneuver into your tactics now. The player who can manage all of this and predict his opponents moves in order to head them off will win. I have played 6 games, and not once did I consider dice rolling to have been the deciding factor.

If you are depending on an optimal roll for your strategy, then your strategy is bound to fail. If you plan for bad rolling and set up your strategy with that in account, you will be much more succesful. In my (limited) experience 5th allows you to do that much more often.

Thanks Hellfury and ForceVoid. Typeline, was that what you meant about assaulting after going to ground?

I really don't see what all this fuss is about. %th ed is not 3rd or 4th ed. they were a race across the board, 5th isn't. And we didn't have all these complaints back in 2nd, which is what 5th resembles from what I've played/read so far. It's 2nd ed, but with 3/4ths speed. A better game in my opinion. If there's too much cover...get rid of some. Doesn't take a genius to work that out. We're back to a game where the game doesn't rely on good deployment, and also doesn't punish you as much for poor deployment.

The comment about running your troops to hide weapons in the shooting phase sort of cancels out the whole 50% thing. (in my head, If i can explain it in human terms I'll add it in).

With the whole, your meat shield also sheilds the enemy - that's the point, to block the line of sight. You don't want to totally block it though, hence you need to get said shield into a position where your cannons can shoot passed at the juicy target they want, while minimisng incoming fire. Said meat shield can also double up as your sacrifical unit as well if used right, so your getting double value from a cheap unit. Sounds like a great tactic.

I read a comment that rhinos now supply easy KPs for opponents, does this mean that both horde and MEA are now complaining they have too many KPs or have I understood that wrong? If I haven't then again no problem, everyone has excess KPs, so it's evened it out a bit hasn't it? And why would your rhino be sat out in the open to give your opponent every chance to destroy it anyway? 5th encourages less pieces of terrain, but larger ones, so there should actually be more cover to hide the rhino than in 4th.

feel free to argue, everyone's entitled to an opinion. For me the rules have improved, yes I may think that cover saves are a little on the generous side, but seriously, who plays with so much difficult terrain that the game is reduced to 'who can roll enough 4+s? and if it is, then it's about time to crack out the barrages agin like in the good old days