We were treated to AN EARLY COPY AT OUR LOCAL STORE TODAY

SOME OF THE RUMORS ARE TRUE SOME NOT SO MUCH

tracked vehicles get screwed in moving and shooting fast moving vehicles do not suffer penalties

All you eldar players can calm down, your holo falcon lists are going to be just fine

assauting a vehicle does indeed attack rear armor ..

perils of the warp tests if you fail your psych tests you must then make a perilsof the warp test.. you roll you invo save if you make you must roll it again.. double jeapordy..

ALL SNIPER WEAPONS ARE NOW PINNING AND RENDING...Nuff said

Rending is indeed on the wound

Run.. same as rumor

thats all i can think of right now.. ill post more later

Oh and yes you have to have 2 power fist now to get the extra attack.. dont know how you will do that my space marine codex wont allow me to take a second one if i remember correctly.. or 2 thunder hammers....

Can you find out if it is only troops then that can hold objectives?

yes it is indeed troops only as scoring units

Warpaint Studio wrote:

All you eldar players can now go shut up.. your precious holo falcon lists are going to be just fine

Oh? So fast movement is still 24" and moving at speed is still an auto-glance instead of a 5+ save? Whew!

assauting a vehicle does indeed attack rear armor .. This rule sucks so bad its not funny. They will have to change that one.. im not going to allow you to attack my rear armor if you can barely reach the front its assanine or if i am backed up to the edge of the table

...because unlike normal tanks, YOUR tanks have no vew slits to throw grenades or fire bolters into, weak points on the tracks, or any number of weaknesses that this rule is meant to represent? I guess you're not going to be playing 40k Fizzith edition then?

Oh and yes you have to have 2 power fist now to get the extra attack.. dont know how you will do that my space marine codex wont allow me to take a second one if i remember correctly.. or 2 thunder hammers....its totally lame

Again, I fail to understand why this rule is SO lame....considering its the same for every powerfist in the game, not just the ones in YOUR army. I dont understand.

Ok.. no you can move your normal moving distance and fire all of your guns you now get covers saves to ignore getting shot at at all..

Warpaint Studio wrote:yes it is indeed troops only as scoring units

However, non-troops can contest objectives.

no according to the book only scoring units can control objectives so anything not scoring can not
page 90 of the new book

What i have not found yet is wether or not you can shoot through area terain thats what im looking at right now

TBH I think PKs for orks just got a boost (yay!), AV 14, meet my big power klaw. Oh sorry, AV10. But I get one less attack, so that's only 4 on the charge for a nob...at strength 8. Ouch. I'll miss 25" movement trukks though.

Warpaint Studio wrote:no according to the book only scoring units can control objectives so anything not scoring can not
page 90 of the new book

I'm not stating non-troops can control objectives. I'm stating that non-troops can stop (contest) enemy troops from securing an objective.

Non scoring troops can contest objectives. They cannot take objectives, but if they are within 3" of the objective, they contest it, and no one can claim it. This is usually stated in any of the missions with objectives.

I'm quite happy to have the book in my hands right now. Advantages of owning a store, I can take the preview book home to peruse in my few off hours.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Warpaint Studio wrote:no according to the book only scoring units can control objectives so anything not scoring can not
page 90 of the new book

I'm not stating non-troops can control objectives. I'm stating that non-troops can stop (contest) enemy troops from securing an objective.

you are quite correct its at the bottom of the page i missed it my apologies

still trying to read and type at the same time
sorry

Warpaint Studio wrote:Ok.. no you can move your normal moving distance and fire all of your guns you now get covers saves to ignore getting shot at at all.. give me a break.. eldar will be the dominant army for a long time to come

The strength of the falcon was that it could only be glanced when moving, making it exceedingly difficult to kill when kitted. The fact that it CAN be penetrated breaks it. Its still good, but nowhere near as good.

oh its ok that your one lone guardian can barely make contact with my vehicle but yet you get to attack its weakest point?

yes it is, since a lone guardian has no way to break armour 10 when charging, (he's str 3) not unless you can use its catapult in the hth phase somehow...which i doubt.

why dont you get off your high horse and learn game mechanics before you spout off wether people think a rule is lame or not

after needing to explain that guardians cannot beat armour 10 on the charge and the intracacies if piloting a falcon, I do beleive you could benefit from a skimming of the rules yourself there chief.

why is the rule lame? because einstein you cant take 2 power fists in any codex! hows that grab you smart guy?
its a rule that doesnt exist for any army out there

so where is the big disadvantage? every army is on the same page then, right? noone is at a disadvantage since everyone is following the same rule.


...by the way, calm down.

the rules arent that bad but some of them cannot be implemented

they also show pics of dark eldar models the wytches didnt change there is a mandrake model now.. sucks.. an archon model... ok grotesques .. ehh.. warriors didnt change at all

(deleted)

When is this thing actually due out again? 12 July, isn't it? Damn, I will be out of the country. That means I will have to wait another 5 weeks to get my copy.

That just sucks.

Is there anyway to get a SLIGHTLY early copy (say, 07 July) of this thing that I can take with me? Well, anyway to do it and NOT cause a stampede of GW attornies toward anyone's door or business?

also

there are new line of sight issues whch are going to slow the game down immensely

also there are several new mods to make when calculating armor pen rolls more time.. say hello to 4 hour warhammer games at 1500 points, in my opinion.

grizgrin wrote:When is this thing actually due out again? 12 July, isn't it? Damn, I will be out of the country. That means I will have to wait another 5 weeks to get my copy.

That just sucks.

Is there anyway to get a SLIGHTLY early copy (say, 07 July) of this thing that I can take with me? Well, anyway to do it and NOT cause a stampede of GW attornies toward anyone's door or business?

you could make arrangements to have one shipped to you by any one of a number of online retailers where are you going to be?

Warpaint Studio wrote:
also there are several new mods to make when calculating armor pen rolls more time.. say hello to 4 hour warhammer games at 1500 points

*Damage table is
1. Shaken
2. Stunned
3. Weapon destroyed
4 Vehicle immobilized
5 Wrecked
6 Vehicle explodes d6 inches, Strength 3 ap- hit.
(Glancing is -2, Ap1 is +1. AP- is -1)

*Skimmer rules: Fast skimmers may move 6 inches and fire all weapons, or 12 inches and fire 1 main and all defensive weapon. Skimmers may not move and fire all weapons, or move up to 6 and fire one main and all defensive weapons.

*Fast Skimmers may move flat out i.e. 12-24, fast vehicles may move flat out 12-18, and gain a 4+ obscured cover save. There is no save for a skimmer moving less than 121 These are cover saves, so cannot be gained against template weapons, crack shot, marker lights reducing it. Etc. Works like a normal cover save. Can by fortuned.

*Smoke launchers give you a 4+ cover save for next enemy shooting phase.

*Ramming is exactly as it was in the PDF, i.e. for every 3 inches moved its +1 strength, for every armor point above 10 its +1. The book has the example of a land raider ramming an ork truck in the side. The land raider has moved 12 so inflicts strength 8 hit on the trukk. The truck only inflicts a strength 4 hit since its only armor 10, so the land raider is in no danger. Interestingly strength isn't capped here.

*Tanks are relentless in the fact that they can move 6 and still fire a rapid fire weapon up to its maximum range, or fire heavy weapons, but they are still limited by the limits on vehicles moving. For example a land raider can move up to 6 and still fire one of its weapons, i.e. lascannon, but a crusader can move and fire both hurricane bolters, As they are defensive, the pintle mounted storm bolter, again defensive, but only fire one out of the assault cannon or multimelta.

*Vehicle Squadrons - immobilized result = vehicle destroyed.

*Transports can transport any unit, not just the unit they were bought for. You can't hold a unit in reserves in the tank though unless it's a dedicated transport.

*Walkers fire 2 weapons

*Defensive weapons are S4.

*When a vehicle counts as obscured, i.e. 50% of its hull is not visible to the firer, it gets a cover save equal to the cover that’s doing the obstructing.


Changes in 5th that matter....and I don't really see any of those adding hours to the game?

Marnius Calgar.

Aduro wrote:Marnius Calgar.

Yeah, or maybe two PFs are an option in the new Marine dex. *Shrug*

taking the time to determine if indeed half or more of the vehicle is obscured how many times have you played the win at all costs guys who will argue and say its more than half when it isnt

the new effects of the rules will increase game time dramatically

thats not something to quibble over it will when you have to add and subtract additiaonl numbers on a chart that even vets dont have memorized it slows stuff down

(deleted)

Maybe the whole point WAS to make you lose an attack for taking a Power Fist, and adding in the rule about having two gives them a loophole they can use later if they want to.

Warpaint Studio wrote:Ultras nope

Actually, Ultramarines are the only army I can think of which CAN field a model with two powerfists.

As far as Falcons go, I'm pretty sure that they've been nerfed by these rules. They'll be easier to kill now. Still tough, but probably not quite so unreasonable as they have been.

Warpaint Studio wrote:taking the time to determine if indeed half or more of the vehicle is obscured how many times have you played the win at all costs guys who will argue and say its more than half when it isnt

the new effects of the rules will increase game time dramatically

thats not something to quibble over it will when you have to add and subtract additiaonl numbers on a chart that even vets dont have memorized it slows stuff down

This:

*Damage table is
1. Shaken
2. Stunned
3. Weapon destroyed
4 Vehicle immobilized
5 Wrecked
6 Vehicle explodes d6 inches, Strength 3 ap- hit.
(Glancing is -2, Ap1 is +1. AP- is -1)


Is hardly complicated and easier to remember than 2 different charts (As it is now). As far as gaming time goes, our 5th games have been about the same if not shorter than 4th. The main drag of large game 4th is mired down HTH that lasts turns and when I initially read the wound allocation I was quite worried. However, with the following changes:

*Charge units get a 6" counter assault to get as many models in base as possible before attacks are made. No 2 inch kill zone, remove casualties anywhere in the unit. All models with in 2" get to attack.

*You cannot use a consolidation move to start a new combat. However you can join one already in progress.

*When taking wounds from a combat, it is allocated exactly like shooting, and you can take guys off from anywhere in the combat, i.e. not within 2 inches, so basically unless you kill a model that was within 2 inches before dice were rolled, you can attack them.
Independent characters no longer have to be in B2B contact with the enemy to fight, just within 2 inches. This does mean the enemy within 2 of him can allocate attacks....

*Break tests are taken by the loser, with the difference he lost by subtracted from his leadership (IE Lose by 6 wounds, Leadership 10 becomes Leadership 4!)


We've found HTH to be short, bloody affairs. I think 5th is faster.

I can see the benefits of a 4+ cover save.

I can also see the benefits of the way the falcon works in 4th...which is clearly better considering the way that a falcon is most effectivly deployed...as a heavy transport for dragons or harlies.

I can assure you, eldar players that would rather have it the old way are in the majority.

.............................

as far as the power fist issue, all I'm saying is that its hardly as "lame" as you make it sound. So there's a rule out there that noone can use, that doesnt make fists lame, if you really plan on rushing out and putting 50 points in powerfists on a single model just to get an extra attack however....I dunno WHAT to say to you....considering that its a stupid buy.

Then again, I've always thought that its outright "lame" that there are no rapid fire weapons in the game that have a max range of 27 1/2 inches, but that's just me.

yes unltras have marnius i have yet to see him played in a game over the last 5 years

other than that no one can use 2 unless you were modeling it as master crafted i have a guy with 2 thunderhammers for that reason

Warpaint Studio wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Aduro wrote:Marnius Calgar.

Yeah, or maybe two PFs are an option in the new Marine dex. *Shrug*

ok and that comes out how far after?

and that changes the other marine armies how ?

what im saying is they are makign changes to the game that no one can use for several months aftre its release... i wouldnt want to pl;ay 5th edition as a space amrine until they release the new dex

with wolves sposibly comming out end of year i hope they address this there

Marines will be out in Sept, possibly Oct. That's around 60-90 days after 5th....not exactly a long time..

FYI, I would rather they just get rid of any bonus attacks when you have a PF. Hidden PFs have become weaker with allocation rules and reduction of attacks....but as a Marine player I think it was needed. Two PF is just covering a model/special character/possible strange option so they don't have to FAQ it (Probably).

Dude i play eldar along with other armies

it wont affect me that much at all.. especially since i cant be killed on a glancing shot

ill gladly take a 4+ cover save to ignore you plasma pistol on my rear armor or wherever

there are serious advantages given to the eldar in this edition

i know i have read it.. i can see the implecations of how much an advantage the skimming tanks now have over everyone else

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Warpaint Studio wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Aduro wrote:Marnius Calgar.

Yeah, or maybe two PFs are an option in the new Marine dex. *Shrug*

ok and that comes out how far after?

and that changes the other marine armies how ?

what im saying is they are makign changes to the game that no one can use for several months aftre its release... i wouldnt want to pl;ay 5th edition as a space amrine until they release the new dex

with wolves sposibly comming out end of year i hope they address this there

Marines will be out in Sept, possibly Oct. That's around 60-90 days after 5th....not exactly a long time..

FYI, I would rather they just get rid of any bonus attacks when you have a PF. Hidden PFs have become weaker with allocation rules and reduction of attacks....but as a Marine player I think it was needed. Two PF is just covering a model/special character/possible strange option so they don't have to FAQ it (Probably).

yes lets not talk about how long it will take to roll all those seperate rolls

2-3 months after a rule has been changed is still a bad decision by gw.. i could say they need a faq saying that all armies can now buy a second power fist at cost plus x.. but waiting for faq's is like trying not to breathe you can do it but youll just die trying

except there are specific rules for dark angels and blood angels that say you can only take 1

Warpaint Studio wrote:
yes lets not talk about how long it will take to roll all those seperate rolls

2-3 months after a rule has been changed is still a bad decision by gw.. i could say they need a faq saying that all armies can now buy a second power fist at cost plus x.. but waiting for faq's is like trying not to breathe you can do it but youll just die trying

except there are specific rules for dark angels and blood angels that say you can only take 1

We've found wound allocation an adjustment but not a breaking rule by any means. Usually when you need it, the squad is near dead (Which means large number of dice in few rolls) or HTH. Either way, it's not as 'common' as I initially thought it would be. Interesting effect though, as it makes squads with dual specials weaker (Such as high AP plasma)....but 'more shot less ap' weaponry better. I think I dig that so far.

I think I'm miscommunicating my point regarding two PF. I believe they intended the rule to be "No additional attacks with a PF and close combat weapon" as they found it too strong in 4th (It is). However, perhaps someone spoke up and said "Well Character X can have two PF and we will allow Captains that option too...which means we'll have to FAQ it".

Warpaint Studio:

I appreciate the new information you are sharing with us, but please take a little extra time and effort when writing your posts to ensure that they are coherent and contain proper spelling and grammar.

On a forum, the only means of communication is via the written word and when a whole series of posts in a thread is difficult to read it is highly impolite to your fellow members.

Warpaint Studio wrote:Dude i play eldar along with other armies

Yea? Join the club, I'm using them this year in GT's myself.

it wont affect me that much at all.. especially since i cant be killed on a glancing shot

ill gladly take a 4+ cover save to ignore you plasma pistol on my rear armor or wherever

Yea? ....and in this current edition, you dont have to risk the 50% chance....plasmas have a snowballs chance of doing anything...ever...so long as the vehicle moves over 12". (what you need for your 4+) Falcons are nerfed. Period. Not better, nerfed! If you cant see that, you dont know vehicular rules OR how to properly use a falcon.

there are serious advantages given to the eldar in this edition

Ok, so nothing has changed. Eldar have ALWAYS had a penchant for having huge advantages within certain army selections in regards to their appropriate battlefeild applications.

i know i have read it.. i can see the implecations of how much an advantage the skimming tanks now have over everyone else

So long as skimmers have the possibility of being penetrated while moving at speed, its a nerf. coupled with the new defensive weapon rules, they're definatly LESS effective than before. Good? maybe, it depends on the vehicle, but theres definatly a decrease in power.

Warpaint Studio wrote:We were treated to AN EARLY COPY AT OUR LOCAL STORE TODAY

tracked vehicles get screwed in moving and shooting fast moving vehicles do not suffer penalties

All you eldar players can now go shut up.. your precious holo falcon lists are going to be just fine

assauting a vehicle does indeed attack rear armor ..

Oh and yes you have to have 2 power fist now to get the extra attack.. dont know how you will do that my space marine codex wont allow me to take a second one if i remember correctly.. or 2 thunder hammers....its totally lame

Funny, my store had a copy, too. Of course mine would be the LA Bunker, but that's not especially important.

What's even better is that Fast Skimmers (e.g. Holo-Falcons) still move 24" Flat Out.

Assaulting a Vehicle attacks the *top* armour, which just happens to have the same AV as the rear. It's an excellent correction, and extremely realistic.

With the Power Fist hitting the thinner top armour, instead of the heavy front armour, you won't need the bonus attack...

Or maybe they made the power fist change in order to give people a reason to actually take a power weapon. You know, a choice. Do you want an extra attack or the extra strength? Right now it is a no brainer to take both.

did anyone see if run applies to walkers? will make the difference in weather or not I buy a furioso or 2

NaZ

Yikes, no kidding NaZ. Like Dreads needed another reason not to take them. Wish they could do something to make them a little more survivable. I mean, how may Venerables can you justify?

To the kid posting under Warpaint Studio's avatar... DUDE!

Calm down, spell correctly, proof read your post, and fix your typos before clicking "submit."

You're going to get your dad's dakka account in trouble.

DUDE!

Okay, let's settle this skimmer issue.

Stop! (math)Hammertime!

Odds of downing a holofield falcon in one shot, assuming SMF for 4th ed and Flat Out for 5th (ignoring vectored engines to simplify the comparison; with VE, these become the odds to destroy or immobilize). Assuming the shot hits in all cases, so we don't have to correct for twin-linked, BS of firer, etc.

Lascannon, 4th ed: (2/3 glance)*(1/9 dest./immob. w/ holofield) = 7.41%

Lascannon, 5th ed: [(1/6 glance)*(1/36 imm.) + (1/2 pen)*(1/4 imm/dest)]*(1/2 fail cover save) = 6.48%

That's right, folks, GW just made the holofield falcon tougher. But different weapons are affected differently by the changes... obviously, venom cannons and S6 weapons can only glance, so they're hit much harder. Things with S<9 will obviously lose more than the lascannon, since they have a higher glance:pen ratio, and glances got much, much weaker while pens got somewhat better (assuming the falcon isn't fortuned). Some weapons do gain against the holofalcon, however.

Using the same set of assumptions:

Railgun, 4th ed: (5/6 glance)*(1/9 d./i.) = 9.26%

Railgun, 5th (recall that AP1 is now +1 on damage roll):
[(1/6 glance)*(1/9 d./i.) + (2/3 pen)*(4/9 d./i.)]*(1/2 failed cover save) = 15.7%

I haven't bothered to run the math, but melta weapons would also presumably be deadlier to falcons in 5th, due to high odds of getting a penetrating hit, along with AP1.

A couple of other thoughts:

Waveserpents are a lot tougher now... they would have been somewhat harder to kill even if the cover save had only been 5+, as had been rumored. This might help console all those aspect warriors who had been trying to drink away their sorrows over the loss of their scoring status.

Tau tanks aren't fast skimmers, right? So, if that cover save is really only for fast skimmers, it looks like Hammerheads and Devilfish just got beaten bloody with the nerf bat and left in a ditch to die.

If the skimmer changes were supposed to rein in holofield skimmers, this is a major screw-up... falcons got tougher against the vast majority of weapons, and Tau got severely nerfed.

Easy thought

Eldar = Good.

What you have = Wont do crap.

Simple enough, now think about it.

Dire Wombat, I'm suspending judgment till I actually see how it plays out on the table, but as far as I can see, the changes are still a nerf to Falcons. I don't know if they're a sufficient nerf, or the right nerf, but they are a nerf. In 4th, one shot each Falcon until it was shaken, then moved on. Now, if an Eldar player wants to get the cover save, they'll just have effectively shaken their own Falcon. Should they ever choose not to go flat-out and fire their weapons instead, they'll be leaving the tank much more vulnerable than it used to be.

Fair enough. I may have been overly dramatic with my conclusions.

The main point though, and what I should have emphasized, is that the 5th ed rules as reported here do make Falcons harder to kill with most weapons, thus making them even more durable in their roles as battle taxis.

You're quite right that they're losing a lot of firepower, as well as the ability to claim objectives (though they can still contest), and this may make them less useful overall. Mostly I wanted to debunk the idea that they'd somehow become, in general, more fragile as well.

So if a Prism wants the cover save, it has to give up firing anything. [sarcasm]Fun fun...[/sarcasm]

The real nerf to Falcons is the assault rules. With no kill zones and the counter-assault rule small squads of fragile assaulters are going to get massacred by anything they go after.

Just means snakes on a plane become a clearly better choice than clowns, skyth.

Can't Prisms just get a cover save through normal means? They don't really need to move to get the job done, after all. Fortune + Prisms, as people have been suggesting for a while, could get annoying.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Warpaint Studio wrote:taking the time to determine if indeed half or more of the vehicle is obscured how many times have you played the win at all costs guys who will argue and say its more than half when it isnt

the new effects of the rules will increase game time dramatically

thats not something to quibble over it will when you have to add and subtract additiaonl numbers on a chart that even vets dont have memorized it slows stuff down

This:

*Damage table is
1. Shaken
2. Stunned
3. Weapon destroyed
4 Vehicle immobilized
5 Wrecked
6 Vehicle explodes d6 inches, Strength 3 ap- hit.
(Glancing is -2, Ap1 is +1. AP- is -1)


Is hardly complicated and easier to remember than 2 different charts (As it is now). As far as gaming time goes, our 5th games have been about the same if not shorter than 4th. The main drag of large game 4th is mired down HTH that lasts turns and when I initially read the wound allocation I was quite worried. However, with the following changes:

*Charge units get a 6" counter assault to get as many models in base as possible before attacks are made. No 2 inch kill zone, remove casualties anywhere in the unit. All models with in 2" get to attack.

*You cannot use a consolidation move to start a new combat. However you can join one already in progress.

*When taking wounds from a combat, it is allocated exactly like shooting, and you can take guys off from anywhere in the combat, i.e. not within 2 inches, so basically unless you kill a model that was within 2 inches before dice were rolled, you can attack them.
Independent characters no longer have to be in B2B contact with the enemy to fight, just within 2 inches. This does mean the enemy within 2 of him can allocate attacks....

*Break tests are taken by the loser, with the difference he lost by subtracted from his leadership (IE Lose by 6 wounds, Leadership 10 becomes Leadership 4!)


We've found HTH to be short, bloody affairs. I think 5th is faster.

I beleive he was referring to the way wound allocation works. IE Shooting and CC you allocate wounds on a model by model basis.
Well my work got its book as well and I read the important bits.

* Monsterous creatues CAN shoot 2 weapons.
* Independent characters fight as part of a squad.
* Bunkers work like vehicles (for loading, unloading, and shooting purposes).
* Monsterous creatues ONLY get a cover save if you can't see 1/2 of the model.

Greetings, I just want to know that how many weapons can a MC shoot in a turn ,1 or 2 ? and how much will the blast marker scatter 1D6-BS or 2D6-BS ?

edited : thx Foda_Bett ,you answered the first one even before I put the question

Just a quick question: do multiple-barrage rules still work the same way? I was just wondering because as it stands, my Thudd Guns are incredibly tedious to use (4 separate rolls for scatter) to almost no effect.

Thunderhammer + Storm Shield is better now. Or even Power Fist + Storm Shield.

So what's the run down on the new screening rules?

Dire Wombat wrote:Odds of downing a holofield falcon in one shot, assuming SMF for 4th ed and Flat Out for 5th (ignoring vectored engines to simplify the comparison; with VE, these become the odds to destroy or immobilize). Assuming the shot hits in all cases, so we don't have to correct for twin-linked, BS of firer, etc.

Lascannon, 4th ed: (2/3 glance)*(1/9 dest./immob. w/ holofield) = 7.41%

Lascannon, 5th ed: [(1/6 glance)*(1/36 imm.) + (1/2 pen)*(1/4 imm/dest)]*(1/2 fail cover save) = 6.48%

That's right, folks, GW just made the holofield falcon tougher.

Does the equations take the +1 for pen hit on the damage table into account?

What I am curious about is scoring -

Now I know only troops score, but other units can contest objectives. Can a dedicated transport (Or even a vehicle) or a swarm contest an objective? What happens in the case of a tie with objectives?

And did kill points make it in?

Tacobake wrote:Thunderhammer + Storm Shield is better now. Or even Power Fist + Storm Shield.

Better for who?

Those who are alarmed about the SMF cover save should consider that they can get a _better_ save by using terrain, should they be using their skimmers as gunships rather than transports. If you're doing a transport assault, you'll want to be moving over 12" anyways. The loss of the bonus at 6-12" isn't so bad there.Then once the cargo is deployed, you can go find some cover (moving under 12" to do so if possible) and add fire from the transports.

NEEDS CLARIFICATION:

Here's what will really matter: Is assaulting from close-topped transports back in?

And item 2: Are assault weapons counted as defensive? If so, shuriken cannons are going to be very, very hard to get at bitz trading sites all of a sudden. A Falcon with pulse laser and 2 shuricannons will be the new black.

Dire Wombat wrote:Okay, let's settle this skimmer issue.

Stop! (math)Hammertime!

Odds of downing a holofield falcon in one shot, assuming SMF for 4th ed and Flat Out for 5th (ignoring vectored engines to simplify the comparison; with VE, these become the odds to destroy or immobilize). Assuming the shot hits in all cases, so we don't have to correct for twin-linked, BS of firer, etc.

Lascannon, 4th ed: (2/3 glance)*(1/9 dest./immob. w/ holofield) = 7.41%

I suck at math so take this with a grain of salt:

But shouldn't the result of immobilizing/destroying a holo-field falcon with a glancing hit be 1/12 not 1/9?

You have 3 results out of 36 that do it: 6,6 5,6 & 6,5 out of 36 possible results. 3/36 = 1/12 not 1/9.

Yakface: The one you're missing is 5,5, which brings it up to 4/36 or 1/9. You had me scared for a second there.

His Master's Voice: I'm not sure I follow... +1 for pen hit? Do you mean the +1 for AP1 in 5th ed? If so, yeah, I included that.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Warpaint Studio wrote:Ok.. no you can move your normal moving distance and fire all of your guns you now get covers saves to ignore getting shot at at all.. give me a break.. eldar will be the dominant army for a long time to come

The strength of the falcon was that it could only be glanced when moving, making it exceedingly difficult to kill when kitted. The fact that it CAN be penetrated breaks it. Its still good, but nowhere near as good.

Do the actual math for a 4+ cover save and the average likelihood of a Lascannon killing a Falcon is still very small.

Remember, you get to flat out ignore hits 50% of the time with that save, and when you are successfully penetrated, with the new damage table and Vectored Engines, you are only rolling a destroyed result 1/9 times. So a falcon that gets hit and penetrated by a lascannon has a 1/18 chance to go down with its 4+ cover save. Its totally immune on the glance now, meaning S6 weapons like Multilasers really don't do anything to them.

So out of 54 BS4 Lascannon shots thrown at a Falcon with a 4+ cover save in 5th Ed, on average 1 will result in a kill shot. True, its still not as good as requiring 81 to on average inflict one destroyed result, but its still ridiculous.

I for one am not too upset by this, a Falcon is still going to survive twice as many lascannon hits on average than a Leman Russ or Land Raider on average.

And lets not forget the ability to Fortune them either

Too much math makes my head hurt. Going to have to hit the local Hobby Center to paw the new book and get hounded for a pre-order.

Just took a break from work today to walk down to my hobby store and read through the rulebook.

Some interesting things I noticed:

#1 - True LOS it is. As far as I can tell, that means shooting through the legs of Defilers/Soul Grinders is perfectly legitimate (as long as you don't mind the 4+ cover save).

#2 - Gets Hot requires a roll, even if the target is out of range.

#3 - sniper rifles are S3 + rending against vehicles.

#4 - MCs still fire 2 weapons. Go Go Godzilla.

#5 - SMF only applies to skimmers moving at flat-out speeds. In other words, if the skimmer is going to shoot, it won't get the skimmer cover save. (Fairly significant nerf to all skimmers, but particularly to Tri-falcon eldar, who will now have to choose whether its more important to shoot or to transport the choppy bits inside.

#6 - vehicle squadrons ignore "can't move or shoot" results. (Light vehicle squadrons +1, especially considering the new vehicle damage tables. )

#7 - assault attacks against a vehicle squadron are now against the squadron instead of against individual vehicles. (Long overdue.)

#8 - a fast transport cannot move "flat out" on the same turn that it embarks a squad. (Very interesting---makes late-game objective grabbing tougher.)

#9 - Walkers can run. (Because somebody asked)

#10 - Troops with counter-attack get the counterattack move, but on a leadership test they count as charging. (Are there any armies with units that still use the counter-attack rule?)

#11 - Any non-vehicle/non-swarm troop units count as scoring. (Go Ravening/Guardian Jetbikes!)

#12 - Armies totally wiped out (no units on the table) automatically lose the battle. (Looks like that's going to the Guard strategy in a KP mission)

#13 - Kill points have been modified - each unit, regardless of Org slot, counts as 1 KP for the KP mission. (Still screws Guard, but everyone else comes out okay)

#14 - "Seize the Initiative" the player who goes second can attempt to go first by rolling a "6" on a d6. (Very tricksy - I like)

#15 - Deep striking units with "fleet" can assault on the turn they arrive. (Chaos Daemons are now completely viable, and Tyranid Raveners just got a MAJOR boost)

Centurian99: Thanks for the update.

#1. Big thanks for that clarification. 4+ saves are perfectly reasonable.

#6. Clarification: If I understand your post correctly, vehicle squadrons ignore 'Crew Stunned', but end up with a +1 on the damage chart?

#15. Ouch. Ummm, yeah, this definitely changes things.

#12- not only guard, but anyone who has an existing army that's light on troops can go for this (I'm talking Crisis JSJ Tau, your flying circus necrons, and Nidzilla).

#15- Great! God, I hope you aren't Tau/Guard. This seems broken as hell. Now certain assault units can just decide not to have to face a turn of shooting before hitting someone's lines? Bunk.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

#15- Great! God, I hope you aren't Tau/Guard. This seems broken as hell. Now certain assault units can just decide not to have to face a turn of shooting before hitting someone's lines? Bunk.

My first reaction is the same as yours, especially considering that a lot of the fleet DS units also have a 12" charge range like Raveners and Seekers. The fact that they can Deep Strike, run and then charge 12" means they'll be able to hit exactly where they want without the enemy being able to do anything about it.


However, I think one important thing to remember is that CC units are going to have a harder time staying locked in combat on the opponents turn as combat tends to be resolved in one round and potentially the inability to consolidate into new enemy units (just basing that off of rumors for now).

That means even though these units will be able to slam into your line without immediate reprisal they should generally be left standing in the middle of your army afterwards waiting to be shot. Of course reading all the rules together will be the only real way to put all these puzzle pieces together for me.

Sarigar wrote:Centurian99: Thanks for the update.

#1. Big thanks for that clarification. 4+ saves are perfectly reasonable.

#6. Clarification: If I understand your post correctly, vehicle squadrons ignore 'Crew Stunned', but end up with a +1 on the damage chart?

#15. Ouch. Ummm, yeah, this definitely changes things.

On #6 - no, I was just saying that there's a benefit to vehicle squadrons (along with the automatic death on an immobilized result).

After reading through the book, I believe that this will be a more dynamic and cleaner game. I know some people are worried about the time constraints. However, I think it will be a wash in the end. Some things will go faster and some things will go slower.

Overall - I saw a lot of details that provided very specific and clear answers to a lot of the issues that players encountered in games under the V4 rules. At this point, GW gets a thumbs up from me.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:#12- not only guard, but anyone who has an existing army that's light on troops can go for this (I'm talking Crisis JSJ Tau, your flying circus necrons, and Nidzilla).

#15- Great! God, I hope you aren't Tau/Guard. This seems broken as hell. Now certain assault units can just decide not to have to face a turn of shooting before hitting someone's lines? Bunk.

On #12 - Yeah, but its much more critical for guard because as I read the KP mission, each unit is worth a KP. Guard unit counts are so lopsided that there needs to be some sort of balancing factor.

I need to learn how to read. Took another gander...I was wrong on number #15. I missed the word "unless", so even units with fleet can't assault after DSing. There is a caveat that "unless unit has a special rule that allows it to do so."

:(

is it each unit by squad or each unit by FOC slot? If it's the latter, then it's not bad.

One more thing with #15: Swooping Hawks got better. Drop, fleet, assault vehicle or (extremely) squishy unit like CHQ for Guard. If they survive the opposing players next turn (a big if) they can either jump again or charge an average of 21.5" into another vehicle squishy unit. Guard should love them. Deep Strike Defense just became a major issue

Centurian99 wrote:I need to learn how to read. Took another gander...I was wrong on number #15. I missed the word "unless", so even units with fleet can't assault after DSing. There is a caveat that "unless unit has a special rule that allows it to do so."

:(

Okay, good.

sorry to double post, but isn't there a (now) seldom used vehicle upgrade for Dark Eldar that allows raiders to Deep Strike?

stupid edit won't work.. anyway- that's good. ignore previous ranting.

Here are some of the things I noticed on a quick read-through:

Farseers casting in Falcons... I don't think it's legal. The prerelease .pdf had a line, "If any of the models in the transport have abilities that function within a certain range, this range is measured from the vehicle’s hull." I did not see it in the printed book. Furthermore, the only reference to psychic powers in vehicles involves a Fire Point.

Buildings now have an AV (Bunkers being AV 14, for example). Can be destroyed in the same way as vehicles. Imagining Vindicators as Bunker Busters...

I only glanced at ramming, but noticed it said +1 S for each 3" moved that turn... Cheesy image of Vypers with Star Engines dancing in my head. Non-skimmers attempting to ram a skimmer, give target skimmer a 3+ save to avoid.

No emergency disembarking for a penetrating hit against. However there is a provision, called "emergency disembarkation", that if a model cannot exit from it's transport within 2" of an access point without coming within 1" of an enemy model, or entering impassable terrain, it may be placed anywhere within 2" of the vehicle hull, but the squad may do nothing for the rest of the turn. It was not explicitly stated, but I believe it implied that it only occurred during your movement phase, i.e. a voluntary disembark, because it later states that models that cannot disembark when the transport is wrecked are removed.

I did notice in a battle report in the hobby section a note about how effective Combat Squadding vanilla Space Marines can be... so there's a confirmation of that rumor for the upcoming C: SM. Not that one is needed.

Centurian99 wrote:#10 - Troops with counter-attack get the counterattack move, but on a leadership test they count as charging. (Are there any armies with units that still use the counter-attack rule?)

Space Wolves & Ultramarines (Tyrannic War Vets) spring to mind...

Does the enemy get cover saves if you shoot thru your own units, or only thru theirs?

Aduro wrote:Does the enemy get cover saves if you shoot thru your own units, or only thru theirs?

Yours and theirs

What did the "scouts" USR end up looking like? Can I keep on playing with my ravenwing or am I going to be converting up some chaos bikers?

Etherdude wrote:What did the "scouts" USR end up looking like? Can I keep on playing with my ravenwing or am I going to be converting up some chaos bikers?

Pretty much like the pre-production pdf that appeared last summer, IIRC. Hoping to get a better look tomorrow.

In the Baal thread, there's mention of the Assault cannon going down to Heavy 3 and losing rending, is this accurate?

AshenFang wrote:In the Baal thread, there's mention of the Assault cannon going down to Heavy 3 and losing rending, is this accurate?

Not that I could see...maybe it'll happen in the SM Codex.

Okay, now perhaps I'm being dense and I can't see what's going on, but with Vehicle Squadrons, if you get an Immobilized result, it is the same as a Vehicle Destroyed result? If this is the case, what the hell are Grot Riggers for on a unit of Killa Kanz?

What is the benefit to having vehicle squadrons now? I am a little lost.

I planned on running 6 killa kanz in my dread bash list, but with these rules...

Can someone spell things out a bit more for this dense Warboss?

GrimTeef wrote:Okay, now perhaps I'm being dense and I can't see what's going on, but with Vehicle Squadrons, if you get an Immobilized result, it is the same as a Vehicle Destroyed result? If this is the case, what the hell are Grot Riggers for on a unit of Killa Kanz?

What is the benefit to having vehicle squadrons now? I am a little lost.

I planned on running 6 killa kanz in my dread bash list, but with these rules...

Can someone spell things out a bit more for this dense Warboss?

The way it works is like this:
In a vehicle squadron, as long as there is more than one vehicle remaining:
1) All crew stunned becomes crew shaken. So the squadron will always be able to move.
2) All immobilized results become destroyed. So the squadron will always be able to move.

These benefits/penalties are lost as soon as the squadron is reduced to a single model. So in the case you're talking about, its never worthwhile to have Grot Riggers on more than one vehicle in a squadron. (well, potentially, I guess it could be, due to the way casualties are removed. Essentially, you'd be spending 15 points to guarantee that if the squadron is reduced to a single model, that you could re-mobilize that model. Remember, any model can now contest an objective...which can keep your opponent from claiming it, even if you're not securing it for yourself.

Thanks Centurian. It sounds like it is twice as easy to get destroyed results on a Vehicle Squadron ... Lame.

I would rather they leave me the option of deciding if I want to keep my Vehicle Squadron moving or count the Immobilized vehicle as destroyed in order to move along. Seems to be too much of a penalty to me.

Anyone know the exact wording on this whole LOS fiasco that's about to start?

Dire Wombat wrote:Yakface: The one you're missing is 5,5, which brings it up to 4/36 or 1/9. You had me scared for a second there.

His Master's Voice: I'm not sure I follow... +1 for pen hit? Do you mean the +1 for AP1 in 5th ed? If so, yeah, I included that.

Yeah, I meant +1 for AP1. Nevertheless I suck at match as my calculations gave me a different number.

[1/6*1/12+1/2*10/36]*1/2=0,076

Edit: Right, I suck even harder than I though. Or I have 9 fingers...

[1/6*1/9+1/2*16/36]*1/2=0.118

As a Tau player I have been worrying about the 5th edition rumours. However, there are various things that help Tau.

Vehicles
Tau can get wargear that lets their skimmers count as fast moving and also gives them a cover save.

The Railgun has once again become the best tank weapon in the game.

The revised LoS/cover rules make Smart Missiles very effective.

Infantry
Yes, Fire Warriors suffer from the increased emphasis on assault. OTOH, no consolidation is good news, and double-tapping pulse rifles can now shoot to 30 inches of a deep target unit. And FWs get more mobility the same as any other troops.

Suits
Not much change here. The rule that eliminating the enemy force lets you win automatically, certainly allows the possibility that Tau could continue as before, using a suit heavy force without a lot of troops and count on firepower to wipe out the enemy.

I still would like to know what happens in the case of a tie on objectives.

D6.

I think that Markerlights are vital to Tau now, especially vs. vehicles. Skimmers moving fast and smoke launchers can be negated now, which will really help stop vehicle-based assaults.

Markerlights have always been very useful (under the Empire codex) just expensive and difficult to use.

There was a rumour improving the ability of suits to move and shoot Heavy weapons. Has this come true?

@cent99- Doesn't immobilized only count as destroyed if the other vehicles in the squad move out of coherence? I thought if they stayed still they were fine, at least that's what I've heard.

@anyone who knows- Do you get +1 attack on the charge if you have slow and purposeful now?

Greebynog wrote:@cent99- Doesn't immobilized only count as destroyed if the other vehicles in the squad move out of coherence? I thought if they stayed still they were fine, at least that's what I've heard.

No, they are considered destroyed immediately. There's a line about how they're under orders to keep moving and not slow the squadron down, so immobilized vehicles are immediately abandoned and destroyed lest they fall into enemy hands.

The offshoot is the squadron essentially receives extra armor for free using the same line of reasoning (keep moving).

That is the stupidest reason I've heard. "Fall into enemy hands?" So does that mean that single vehicles like Rhinos and Land Raiders have to keep moving or they'll fall into enemy hands too? Also, what if they are contesting an objective? Should they just keep moving then too? But somehow this stops being a factor to a vehicle squadron once they are reduced to a single model? I'd much rather have it the old way than this idiotic simplification.

Gork save me... At least the vehicles in a squadron got a little bit tougher just because of the new damage chart.

I've always hated that LOS issue with tools that think you an shoot underneath a dread's legs or some such. Yes, your troops are so cool-minded and are waiting for just that exact moment when the dread's legs stop moving to crack off that impossible shot in the chaos of a firefight to hit the smaller unit beyond it that you could never have known was there and could never have seen... Guess I'm going to have to model up rocks and debris that fill in that gap underneath a walker's legs.

On the plus side, this version of the LOS rules stops that incredibly stupid "magic cylinder" that some people like to use to block inordinate amounts of targets behind a smaller vehicle...

meeh... while I agree it doesn't make all the sense in the world, its an interesting game mechanic.... I think vehicle squadrons are benefiting from the new chart, as well as the fact that most are walkers and are going to *love* cover saves.

blown up on immobilized is more of a hit than ignoring stunned for almost all walkers, so its an overall power down.

Oh well. aside from vehicles moving and shooting, I really hated 4th when it came out, now aside from vehicles being pillboxes because of Str 4 Def weapons, I like almost everything I hear. (including the new wound application stuff)

Have they dropped the +1 on the chart for damage to open-topped vehicles?

Okay, LGS owner is good friend and I got to spend some up close and personal time with the new book last night. Here are some of the things I noticed. I know some of these may have already been posted, but I may repost as the info swirls around in my head and ends on this post as typage diarreah. Let me start by saying a large amount of information that was in the PDF that was floating aroung is in the book.

LOS: The game is moving to true LOS. Even with area terrain in some regaurds. LOS is measured from the models eyes to the targets body. If any part of the target models body is obscured it it counts as in cover. They count the body as head, torso, arm, leg. Area terrain... the models base simply has to be partially in the base of the area terrain. If I am reading correctlly, and I read this part about 100 times...The way the terrain is modeled can still block line of sight. So you can shoot through a piece of area terrain if the terrain is modeled where you can see the target model, but the model will get cover. If the terrain is modeled so, you can not see the target (ie the target is behind a wall), then you can not shoot.

Units in Cover: The majority of a target unit has to be in cover to a majority of the shooting unit in order to get cover. If an intervening model is obscuring the target (ie another unit friend or foe) the target gets a 4+ cover.

Range: Range and LOS from shooting unit is measured from shooter to closest target model. This means that an entire shooting unit will get to fire all their weapons if only one model is in range and LOS. Also, models out of range and LOS can be issued wounds.

Damage: This is exactly like the PDF but with one change (or a change to what I remember). You roll to hit, roll to wound, and then you allocate those wounds to the models in the unit. Once all the wounds have been allocated, you make saves for the models wounded. (Here is the change)...Like models(profile and equipment) are grouped and rolled together, and casualties taken.

Pistols: Pistols are now assault 1 weapons.

Blast Weapons: Just like PDF. Models touched are hit, and shooter rolls deviation and 2d6 minus the BS of the shooter.

Sniper: All are pinning and rending. All do Str 3 hits vs Vehicles.

Barrage Weapons: Shots in LOS roll deviation and 2d6-BS, shots out of LOS roll deviation and 2d6(full, no -BS).

Close Combat: Right out of the PDF. All units that are assualted get counter attack that ignores terrain. You are not allowed to consolidate into a new unit. All consolidation is D6. Loser makes LD test with a modifier equal to the differnce in wound caused. For example, I cause 8 wounds and you cause 3. You would make a LD test at -5 (8-3+5). There are no modifiers for outnumbered, and I did not remember seeing any modifiers for being below half.

Jump infantry: Jump infantry make a dangerous terrain test if they START or END their move in difficult terrain.

Monsterous Creatures: They only gain cover if they are at least 50% covered. Area terrain is affected by this, so if the actual model of the are terrain does not cover at least 50% of the model, the MC does not benefit from the cover. Can never be pinned. MCs can always shoot with two weapons.

ICs: ICs that end their move within 2" of a unit automaticly attach. If you do not want to attach, or the model is unable to attach, you MAY NOT move to within 2". ICs still fight as a separete unit in CC.

Jet bikes: They can no longer hover over terrain. If they start or end their move over/in difficult terrain they must make a dangerous terrain test.

Vehicles, shooting from : Moving and firing has been well covered here so I will not repeat. They clearly define some of the fire arcs. All weapons can fire up and down no more than 45 degrees.

Vehicles, shooting to: Over 50% of the facing targeted must be obscured for it to claim cover. If a model is completly block to the side he is on, but can see another side of the vehicle he can shoot but the vehicle gets a cover to represtent the chance of the high angle shot deflecting.

Damage Chart: This has also been covered quite a bit. No forcing out of passengers on penetrating hits.

Transports: Pretty much the same, a few notable exceptions. Embarked models in destroyed vehicles. Wrecked vehicles (#5 on the chart), embarked models disembark if possible and make a pinning test. No damage is done to passengers. Exploded Vehicle (#6 on the chart), the vehicle is removed and the models are placed where the vehicle was (no disembarking). Passengers inside take a STR 4 AP - hit, and a pinning check. A unit shooting at a transport, can assualt the passengers in the assault phase if it destroys the vehicle in the shooting phase.

Tank Shock: Minor change here..a result of stunned, immobilized, or destroyed stops the shocking vehicle. I do not think stunned had any effect before.

Skimmers: No more hovering over terrain. If they end start or end their move over/in difficult terrain they must make a DT. They only gain the 4+ cover for moving if they move over 12". It does not say anywhere that I can find that a skimmer does not block LOS.

Walkers: Walkers can run. Walkers can move and fire all weapons.

USRs General: No more And They Shall Know No Fear, not sure if this will end up in the marine codex or if marines will no longer get this. They have added a few rules and adjusted several others.

Hit and Run: The unit must succeed at an initiative check in order to withdraw, failure means unit may not move out. This is not a contest of intitiative like at the end of CC, it is a roll vs units initiative and a 6 always fails.

Feel no Pain: Big changes here. This ability does not work against insta-kill weapons (not just str double toughness), AP 1 or 2 weapons, and any weapon that denies an armor save (ie rending or power weapons).

Stubborn: This is a new rule that works like WFB. The stubborn unit does not suffers penalties to its LD check in CC.

Relentless: This is another new one. They basicly created a rule to show what units are stable platforms and do can shoot their weapons when they move. IE..heavy, rapid fire, ect.

Missions: There are three missions. Also well covered on the forums. Not going to go over them.

Deployment: Deployment is not back and forth like it was. Players roll, winner chooses to go first or second. The player who goes first chooses table side, and deploys all his army. The opposing player then does the same (opposite sides of course). Then they player who deployed first, takes his first turn. The player who is going second, can attempt to "Seize The Initiative". If he rolls a 6, he takes the first turn instead of his opponent.

Intact Buildings: Intact building are basicly handled like a stationary transport now. Models move to within 2" of the door and "embark" into the building. Models inside, may shoot out firing holes. Two models per whole may fire. A template weapon that touches the building causes d6 hits on the unit inside. Models wishing to get out "Disembark" at the door.

Preliminary Bombardment. Units are hit on a 6, and units hit suffer a d6 Str5 ap4 hits. I think cover is taken as normal, but can't remember.

Ok, this is pretty much all I can muster on a brain dump. This book has not really calmed many of my concerns for the game, but I am going to try and keep an open mind until I see them in practice. There are a bunch of holes that will need to be patched at release to accomodate for old codexes, and this probably scares me the most.

All the changes here seem fairly positive in my mind. The destroyed immobile squadron vehicles is a bit odd, but thats not really lessoning their effectiveness. Especially considering those killa kans can now run. It's probably just there to speed up games a little bit.

As for the falcon getting nerfed.. Good. When a single low armor vehicle is several times harder to kill than a land raider something is very wrong.

Greebynog wrote:TBH I think PKs for orks just got a boost (yay!), AV 14, meet my big power klaw. Oh sorry, AV10. But I get one less attack, so that's only 4 on the charge for a nob...at strength 8. Ouch. I'll miss 25" movement trukks though.

FYI Nobs autoglance every WS-less vehicle in the game except land raiders if they hit it in close combat.

S9+1=10.

They tend to penetrate them.

When I got the latest rules a couple months ago, all of my Trukk boyz immediately got a nob with a PK. lol

Everything else seems spot on.

No one seems to have mentioned the dirty pool tactic of hiding lesser vehicles behind a land raider.

LR leads the way, preds hide behind it and get a very nice cover save and lose 1 sponsons worth of firing.

It works equally well with vehicle squadrons hiding your other vehicles, and even weak vehicles drawing fire from stronger ones so they don't get a cover save.

Leapfrogging smokers is another annoying tactic.

You'll see what I mean when you get to play.

Stelek wrote:

Greebynog wrote:TBH I think PKs for orks just got a boost (yay!), AV 14, meet my big power klaw. Oh sorry, AV10. But I get one less attack, so that's only 4 on the charge for a nob...at strength 8. Ouch. I'll miss 25" movement trukks though.

No one seems to have mentioned the dirty pool tactic of hiding lesser vehicles behind a land raider.

LR leads the way, preds hide behind it and get a very nice cover save and lose 1 sponsons worth of firing.

It works equally well with vehicle squadrons hiding your other vehicles, and even weak vehicles drawing fire from stronger ones so they don't get a cover save.

Leapfrogging smokers is another annoying tactic.

You'll see what I mean when you get to play.

Using land raiders as mobile fortifications for the rest of your army is fluffy and something they should have been able to do all along. Though I'm wondering when i will first begin to see ten chimeras pressed against eachother slightly turned to the left, thus giving them all a heavy cover save and forcing front armor.

I don't think that will work the way you think it will, ShumaGorath...but who knows, AV12 hordes are coming...so it might be!

Someone mentioned vehicles counting as relentless... Does this mean that they can move and shoot assault and rapid fire weapons in addition to a main weapon and defensive weapons?

Basically I'm wondering how my Tau vehicles will work under the new rules. The 4+ cover save just made Disruption Pods a must buy at 5 points, but is it worth it to take Smart Missle Systems on any of my tanks anymore? At least all the other races have pintle mounted Str. 4 weapons or shuriken catapults, etc. Tau don't actually have a single strength 4 weapon in the entire army list outside the suit mounted flamers and airbursting frag projectors. Are Gun Drones the order of the day now? Or do Burst Cannons being Assault 3 allow Tau tanks to move and fire them as well as a single heavy weapon?

Also, vehicle squadrons seem more survivable period now, which is good because they fell apart under a stiff wind in 4th. Skimmer squadrons would always lose a vehicle to immobilization anyway, so counting stunned as shaken just makes them that much tougher in addition to the more favorable damage chart, and Walker Squadrons are probably just going to set up in cover and ignore half their hits anyway.

I looked at the copy at the LGS today and must say that I'm quite disappointed. Every rule that I hate is getting published.

1) S4 defensive weapons
2) Wound allocation by model
3) Powerfist loosing extra attack unless with another powerfist
4) No consolidation into another unit
5) Blast weapons drifting 2D6 - BS

I'm sure there will be more items once I actually get a chance to site down and read the whole thing. I am honestly thinking about shelving 40K till the next edition. The game is getting away from any aspect of tactics and list construction and more towards a who rolls better game. I'll wait till SM and Guard come out before making my descision. If they get to ignore most of the crap core rules like usual, then I'm done with this until the next edition. I'll go play Warmachine where tactics trump dice randomness and the designers don't caker to the whiners who get their face pushed in.

*Looks at page*

*Looks at Carnifexi with Symbiotic Rippers and Thornbacks*

*Looks at page*

*Sighs*

*Puts six out of ten carnifexi on the shelf*

Ok, a bit of hyperbole there. However, no outnumbering anymore? So what's the point of the numerous skills that boost the "counts as X models" score of MCs and so on?

Warmachine is a very fun game. That whole "play like you got a pair" theme just rubs me the wrong way. Hasn't stopped me from sinking $$$ into my armies, though !

Solasun wrote:*Looks at page*

*Looks at Carnifexi with Symbiotic Rippers and Thornbacks*

*Looks at page*

*Sighs*

*Puts six out of ten carnifexi on the shelf*

Ok, a bit of hyperbole there. However, no outnumbering anymore? So what's the point of the numerous skills that boost the "counts as X models" score of MCs and so on?

With a new edition of rules, there are always going to be some random things that get set to the wayside. Grot Riggers for example, and Multi-trackers on Tau vehicles (for the most part). The nice thing about alot of the Tyranid bio-mutations (or whatever they're called) is that just because you have something modeled on doesn't mean you're going to have to take it. Your rippers, for example, are now just a modeling addition. Think Cloverfield and how it drips off those smaller creatures for example. It's unlikely your carnifex is actually going to need an outnumbering bonus to make units break anymore. You kill five guys and they do 0-1 wounds to you and the average unit is looking at taking a leadership test on a 3-4 leadership. That's way better than anything the outnumbering bonus gave you in 4th.

Hehe. They were modelling additions anyway, making a Carnifex spiky is a joy.

The point I was mostly making is, GW in Codex: Tyranids for example seems to make a big thing out of it (we get TWO biomorphs that give us outnumbering on the Fex) even though it's totally useless.

These new rules are joyous for my Carnifexi, they're going to reach melee alive and they will reap a fountain of blood.


Anyway, blabbering aside, not wanting to get too off-topic...

Does anyone have a rough estimate of how many little rules like Thornback have been waylaid at this point due to the edition change?

Does a 4th Edition codex still supercede the BBB as well? (Since 3rd seems to still?)

I'd be interested to know about the "outflank" move via infiltrating/scouting reserves. I'm assuming the mission actually has to have the "reserves" special rule, to you know, actually place units in reserve.

WhiteDevil wrote:I'd be interested to know about the "outflank" move via infiltrating/scouting reserves. I'm assuming the mission actually has to have the "reserves" special rule, to you know, actually place units in reserve.

If I remember correctly, all missions use reserves, scout, infiltrate, and deep strike rules. As for how it works, you declare during normal deployment that you are using the outflank deployment for your scouts. When they become available, you roll a d6. 1-2 they come on the right side of the table, 2-3 they come on the left side, 5-6 you choose the side.

That makes me think of some other bits of info...

Reserve: Models moving on the table from reserve measure their movement as if they are just off the table (ie. You measure from the edge).

Deep Strike: I believe this is in the trial; if a unit is to deep strike you place the first model and roll for deviation. Deviate 2d6, and then place the first model. After that create a circle around the first, completing a circle before starting another, and so on as is normal now. If for some reason a model can not be placed (the first or any in a circle) because of impassible terrain, friendly model, or enemy model or within 1" of enemy model there is a mishap table you must roll on. 1-2 the unit is lost, 2-3 the opposing player gets to place the unit anywhere he chooses in a legal deep strike formation (ie he cant place them somewhere hoping to force another roll on the mishap chart, and must place them in a circle type set up), and 5-6 the goes back into reserve and does not arrive this turn. Also, models that end their deep strike in difficult terrain must make a dangerous terrain test.

I can't wait for demons and drop pods to drop into terrain and die. It's quite amusing really. "Woops..."

Stelek wrote:I can't wait for demons and drop pods to drop into terrain and die. It's quite amusing really. "Woops..."

Drop pods don't scatter.

loomisc wrote:
Range: Range and LOS from shooting unit is measured from shooter to closest target model. This means that an entire shooting unit will get to fire all their weapons if only one model is in range and LOS. Also, models out of range and LOS can be issued wounds.

The first part (about firing) is not true as there is a diagram on the bottom left corner of page 17 that clearly shows an ork who is out of range but his squad is not.

BTW this is a quote:
"Only a second power fist, thunder hammer or lightning claw can confer a bonus attack to a model equipped with one of thsee weapons."
There is nothing about thunder hammers allowing the +1 attack when used with a power fist.

If an IC has a Retinue he counts as part of the squad in CC, BUT if he joins a squad he counts a single model unit.

Drop pods don't scatter? Well, not having any access to a pre-release rulebook or faq or pdf or really any data source besides you folks here (b/c I am floating around on a dang boat, have been for a month and a half, and WILL be when the book comes out, grumble cry moan), I am a bit suprised by this. Care to enlighten me? What DO they do? Just come straight on down where ever you decide to place them?

Stelek wrote:I can't wait for demons and drop pods to drop into terrain and die. It's quite amusing really. "Woops..."

Does this mean a lictor takes damage every time it shows up? It always has to deep strike into cover.

Stelek wrote:I can't wait for demons and drop pods to drop into terrain and die. It's quite amusing really. "Woops..."

Daemons don't scatter when DS'ing within 6" of a Chaos Icon

Codex:Chaos Daemons wrote:Chaos Icon
When a friendly unit Deep Strikes within 6" of an Icon of Chaos it does not roll to scatter, provided that the icon was on the table from the beginning of the turn and has not arrived from Reserves in the same turn

Defensive Weapons = ST4, thats a win for DE Disintegrators 24" Range ST4, AP3 Heavy 3 Sustained Shots

loomisc wrote:
If I remember correctly, all missions use reserves, scout, infiltrate, and deep strike rules. As for how it works, you declare during normal deployment that you are using the outflank deployment for your scouts. When they become available, you roll a d6. 1-2 they come on the right side of the table, 2-3 they come on the left side, 5-6 you choose the side.

That's quite different from the PDF then. So ALL missions have all the generic mission special rules? That's interesting. So I can always count on my units being able to infiltrate/deepstrike if they have said skill?

Can you confirm this?

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Stelek wrote:I can't wait for demons and drop pods to drop into terrain and die. It's quite amusing really. "Woops..."

Drop pods don't scatter.

When did drop pods stop scattering?

The thornpods on carnies will still be good against fearless models, right?

Also, I am curious how drop pods will work - they do scatter, but they stop when they hit impassible terrain currently (so aren't destroyed).

Freaky Freddy wrote:

Stelek wrote:I can't wait for demons and drop pods to drop into terrain and die. It's quite amusing really. "Woops..."

Daemons don't scatter when DS'ing within 6" of a Chaos Icon

Codex:Chaos Daemons wrote:Chaos Icon
When a friendly unit Deep Strikes within 6" of an Icon of Chaos it does not roll to scatter, provided that the icon was on the table from the beginning of the turn and has not arrived from Reserves in the same turn

How are you gonna have icons on the field in turn 1? Half of the army is gonna deep strike without an icon to help. And drop pods do scatter, but have a guidance system to keep them from entering impassable terrain.

Deployment system:

Sounds identical to the WM/Hordes system, which works well and reduces the impact of loosing turn 1. So I think this is a good move.

However the removal of area terrain and move to 'true LOS' is a big mistake. This will lead to more arguments and longer games. Or just less terrain in order to reduce arguments, which will lead to less tactical play.

Shame really, I'm not sure why area terrain was considered a problem that had to be removed.

liljeremyd wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Stelek wrote:I can't wait for demons and drop pods to drop into terrain and die. It's quite amusing really. "Woops..."

Drop pods don't scatter.

When did drop pods stop scattering?

They didn't.

You roll scatter and 2d6 as normal, and if a scatter is rolled then it moves the distance specified by the 2d6. However, if it were to land in a place that would cause it (and it's contents) to be destroyed, you move it *the minimum distance* required to allow it to land safely.

Example: Your drop pod with, lets say a dreadnought, inside of it scatters over a large unit of chaos space marines. You move it the shortest distance possible and set it down just outside of 1" from the daemon models, then disembark from your drop pod such that your dread is farther than 1" from any enemy models.

Not sure how it works if the drop pod scatters off-table, I've never actually seen that happen personally. Be that as it may, I'd assume the drop pod would allow you to place it on the edge of the table, rather than being destroyed, but that's a rules query to bring up in another part of this forum.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

ubermosher wrote:
I only glanced at ramming, but noticed it said +1 S for each 3" moved that turn... Cheesy image of Vypers with Star Engines dancing in my head. Non-skimmers attempting to ram a skimmer, give target skimmer a 3+ save to avoid.

There was much discussion in my LGS about Kamikaze Vypers being a common sight in this edition.

Crimson Devil wrote:

ubermosher wrote:
I only glanced at ramming, but noticed it said +1 S for each 3" moved that turn... Cheesy image of Vypers with Star Engines dancing in my head. Non-skimmers attempting to ram a skimmer, give target skimmer a 3+ save to avoid.

There was much discussion in my LGS about Kamikaze Vypers being a common sight in this edition.

Sigh. There's a reason your store is much maligned locally, CD.

If you go fast in the movement phase (24") and hit a tank with a non-tank...you're taking a S9 hit with a +1 to the damage table IF they don't roll a 1 on the armor result, they'll pen you...and you're dead. Most tanks will take the S8 hit (you aren't a tank so no +1) and laugh at you. Vehicles as a rule don't die to Vyper shock, but Vypers do die when they try it.

Star Engines are triggered in the shooting phase, and you cannot combine effects from the movement and shooting phases.

So at best, IF you don't blow yourself up...you can trigger your Star Engines and 'ram' a vehicle 12" away DIRECTLY in front of the direction you rammed the previous vehicle in.

For a most impressive S4 hit. S5 against a tank. Might kill you, thanks to the combination of vehicle squadron rules/immobilization rules/and open-topped rules. Unlikely to kill anything else though.

Now a squadron of Vypers kitted out with scatter lasers and shuricannons and stones/field...oooh boy it's REAL annoying in 5th...when there are 3 of 3 running around.

If you really wanna talk Kamikaze, Trukks knocking over Dreadnoughts is really quite funny. You usually die, but when you don't...yeah that's good times. lol

Hmmmm... I don't think Star Engines are used in the shooting phase. "May move an additional 12" in lieu of shooting, but troops may not embark of disembark that turn".

I see where you are coming from in that "in lieu of shooting" could be interpreted as doing it instead of shooting during that phase, but the comment about embarking lends me to believe it's used in the movement phase, or else you wouldn't have to mention it since you can't do that during the shooting phase anyways. If it was truely used in the shooting phase, I think it would have specifically told you as much.

"If you did not embark or disembark troops this turn, you may move an additional 12" in the shooting phase in lieu of shooting that turn".

The range thing is right, if the orc was out of range he would not shoot, but he only needs to be in range of the closest model. That is what I was saying in my post. All the shooters must be in range to the closest, but due to the way casualties and wounds are assigned, you can kill the whole unit if you do enough wounds...not just the ones in range and LOS to the unit.

I will get another look at the book and confirm the mission rules, but I think it is correct. Anyone else feel free to chime in if you have it available.

Now a squadron of Vypers kitted out with scatter lasers and shuricannons and stones/field...oooh boy it's REAL annoying in 5th...when there are 3 of 3 running around.

You're fething with me. 115 pts. per Vyper? 1035 pts. for 9? I'd rather face 9 annoying AV10 vehicles than what could have been an actual army, thanks.

You say Vypers are great in 5th. I can buy that, but at 115 pts. each? H-field is not so great when the vehicle's so easily penned, surely.

I'll post in the army forum how it works, TC.

List here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/212552.page

Tactics included at the top.

Stelek wrote:
If you go fast in the movement phase (24") and hit a tank with a non-tank...you're taking a S9 hit with a +1 to the damage table IF they don't roll a 1 on the armor result, they'll pen you...and you're dead. Most tanks will take the S8 hit (you aren't a tank so no +1) and laugh at you. Vehicles as a rule don't die to Vyper shock, but Vypers do die when they try it.

What vehicle can move 24"?

Will have a look at that list later.

For the record, Star Engines does indeed work during the shooting phase and not the movement phase. This doesn't follow from the codex RAW (IMO), but the recent FAQ leaves no doubt about it.

Centurian99 wrote:What vehicle can move 24"?

Any Fast Skimmer, of course.

Centurian99 wrote:

Stelek wrote:
If you go fast in the movement phase (24") and hit a tank with a non-tank...you're taking a S9 hit with a +1 to the damage table IF they don't roll a 1 on the armor result, they'll pen you...and you're dead. Most tanks will take the S8 hit (you aren't a tank so no +1) and laugh at you. Vehicles as a rule don't die to Vyper shock, but Vypers do die when they try it.

What vehicle can move 24"?

Fast skimmers.

Take a look at the rulebook again...at least, that's how it reads to me...

Any word on charging bonus for slow and purposeful?

GrimTeef wrote:That is the stupidest reason I've heard. "Fall into enemy hands?"

To be fair, it's not at all uncommon for troops to scuttle otherwise viable tanks, ships, etc. to prevent capture of sensitive equipment and technology. Indeed, it's SOP most forces, so adding this to 40k Squadrons isn't unrealistic at all.

RussWakelin wrote:I'm not sure why area terrain was considered a problem that had to be removed.

Area Terrain wasn't removed.

Area terrain was removed? Did you get a different copy of the rules than I did? Granted mine is a month old but still...

Slow and purposeful get charging bonuses now, and in 5th too. It's just being relentless that you need to worry about really...which says nothing about removing attacks or denying them.

Stelek wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

Stelek wrote:
If you go fast in the movement phase (24") and hit a tank with a non-tank...you're taking a S9 hit with a +1 to the damage table IF they don't roll a 1 on the armor result, they'll pen you...and you're dead. Most tanks will take the S8 hit (you aren't a tank so no +1) and laugh at you. Vehicles as a rule don't die to Vyper shock, but Vypers do die when they try it.

What vehicle can move 24"?

Fast skimmers.

Take a look at the rulebook again...at least, that's how it reads to me...

Ah, I see. But as I read the ramming rules, it seems like it would be effectively impossible to get that S8, since you would have to be exactly 24" away...

Correct, it is impossible (effectively).

But everyone likes to bust my balls when I make realistic if technically incorrect statements...so...

I was refering to the +1 attack which models with slow and purposeful don't get currently, sorry if that was unclear (pg 75 BGB). In Ghazkhull's rules in the new codex, they seem to suggest that S+P models get the +1 attack in 5th. If so, mega-armour got a boost for sure.

Stelek wrote:If you go fast in the movement phase (24") and hit a tank with a non-tank...you're taking a S9 hit with a +1 to the damage table IF they don't roll a 1 on the armor result, they'll pen you...and you're dead. Most tanks will take the S8 hit (you aren't a tank so no +1) and laugh at you. Vehicles as a rule don't die to Vyper shock, but Vypers do die when they try it.

Star Engines are triggered in the shooting phase, and you cannot combine effects from the movement and shooting phases.

So at best, IF you don't blow yourself up...you can trigger your Star Engines and 'ram' a vehicle 12" away DIRECTLY in front of the direction you rammed the previous vehicle in.

For a most impressive S4 hit. S5 against a tank. Might kill you, thanks to the combination of vehicle squadron rules/immobilization rules/and open-topped rules. Unlikely to kill anything else though.

Now a squadron of Vypers kitted out with scatter lasers and shuricannons and stones/field...oooh boy it's REAL annoying in 5th...when there are 3 of 3 running around.

If you really wanna talk Kamikaze, Trukks knocking over Dreadnoughts is really quite funny. You usually die, but when you don't...yeah that's good times. lol

At first glance I thought you could as is suggested and declare a ramming attack with Vypers, Speeders and the like but Ramming and Tank Shock appear on a page that is listed with the header "Tanks" which implies that it these rules only apply vehicles categorized as a "Tank". In fact if you declare a "ramming attack" you MUST go the maximum distance that vehicle can travel and if you hit a non vehicle unit on the way towards the vehicle then that enemy unit is "Tank Shocked". Again this implies that you must be classed as "Tank".

Also, if you roll a 6 and explode the rammed vehicle you keep on going up to whatever your maximum distance is. So if you hit another vehicle then you "Ram" it also. The question that came to mind is what happens if you keep on going and hit the table edge do you stop or run off the board?

Greebynog wrote:I was refering to the +1 attack which models with slow and purposeful don't get currently, sorry if that was unclear (pg 75 BGB). In Ghazkhull's rules in the new codex, they seem to suggest that S+P models get the +1 attack in 5th. If so, mega-armour got a boost for sure.

As far as I know, you get it.

Ace. Mega armour is now an option for warbosses vs the ubiquitous biker boss.

spaceman spiff wrote:At first glance I thought you could as is suggested and declare a ramming attack with Vypers, Speeders and the like but Ramming and Tank Shock appear on a page that is listed with the header "Tanks" which implies that it these rules only apply vehicles categorized as a "Tank". In fact if you declare a "ramming attack" you MUST go the maximum distance that vehicle can travel and if you hit a non vehicle unit on the way towards the vehicle then that enemy unit is "Tank Shocked". Again this implies that you must be classed as "Tank".

Also, if you roll a 6 and explode the rammed vehicle you keep on going up to whatever your maximum distance is. So if you hit another vehicle then you "Ram" it also. The question that came to mind is what happens if you keep on going and hit the table edge do you stop or run off the board?

First, you can never voluntarily run off the table edge.

Skimmers can choose NOT to tank shock units by flying over them.

So if you cannot tank shock, you can still ram (not tank shock) but you'd have to run over units you cannot ram (infantry, MC, dreads).

Note the Ork Trukk upgrade doesn't make you a tank but it does allow you to tank shock. Same with the DE Raider upgrade.

If you tank shock a tank in such a unit, they will always end up +1S over your hit. Add in armor differences and oooh boy those are auto pens coming your way.

Which against open-topped vehicles means almost certain death.

Remember how everyone is complaining that Marnus Calgar is the only one that can have two power fists? What about every Terminator Sergent in the Marines codex? They all ready have one, so they can get another one from the armory. Or what about getting a thunderhammer/powerfist combo?

cuda1179 wrote:Remember how everyone is complaining that Marnus Calgar is the only one that can have two power fists? What about every Terminator Sergent in the Marines codex? They all ready have one, so they can get another one from the armory. Or what about getting a thunderhammer/powerfist combo?

true, but they will likely lose that option. Look at BA.

Or look at BT...

Alpharius wrote:

Tacobake wrote:Thunderhammer + Storm Shield is better now. Or even Power Fist + Storm Shield.

Better for who?

Maybe 'better' isn't the right word. But a more viable choice. So say you want to give your commander a wicked looking Thunderhammer you may as well give him a wicked looking Storm Shield, too. Powerfist/ Storm bolter or Megaarmour are other choices that require less thinky. Not that that is necessarily a good thing.

Stelek wrote:Or look at BT...

Sergeants? What are they? ;-)

I think instead of looking for unusual methods of getting the extra power fist attack back we should come to the realization that that is exactly what they were preventing. It's an intentional nerf to lesson the power of powerfist equivalents.

I found another way to get two powerfists. Two power claws actually. A Big Mek with Mega armor can get two Power claws. This example will be around for a while.

True enough, an attack squig is ten points cheaper though for the same effect.

Isnt the wording on the Attack squig such that he acts as another cc weapon? If thats the case, it wont work to give powerfists another attack.

If the wording is simply a flat-out addt'l attack, then it isnt really the same effect. Not when you could grab up two claws AND an attack squig.

....I'm still amazed that people are actually considering two fists/claws however....such a waste of points.

It's just +1 attack.

You are correct, two fists is a waste of points.

Especially on a Big Mek, who cunningly enough is T4 and thus will get squished by power fists a very high proportion of the time.

Get a warboss, who takes powerfist hits like a champ and shows you his...

Stelek wrote:
You are correct, two fists is a waste of points.

Thank you for the endorsement, now I feel better!

Give a warboss a cybork body, and on average, using dodgy mathshammer, it's going to take 4 powerfist wounds to knock him down. Badman.

Stelek wrote:

Crimson Devil wrote:

ubermosher wrote:
I only glanced at ramming, but noticed it said +1 S for each 3" moved that turn... Cheesy image of Vypers with Star Engines dancing in my head. Non-skimmers attempting to ram a skimmer, give target skimmer a 3+ save to avoid.

There was much discussion in my LGS about Kamikaze Vypers being a common sight in this edition.

Sigh. There's a reason your store is much maligned locally, CD.

And you wonder why no one like you.

You could have simply corrected me by writing that is not the way the rule works. You didn't have to take the shot, but I guess you can't help being what you are.

Oh god....This isn't good. So.....5th edition hey, how about it?

I repeat my earlier questions, and would appreciate it if anyone with a rulebook could give info on:

Is assaulting from close-topped transports back in?

Are assault weapons counted as defensive?

Thans in advance to anyone who can look those issues up...

Defensive weapons are just S4, no relevance as to their type at all.

I do not believe you can assault out of a moving closed vehicle still.

I also noted that a wrecked vehicle whilst still providing cover is now both difficult and dangerous terrain.

Which I think is quite cool in a way. It's the little changes like this that have me liking this edition so far.

Interesting. As usual, there is a fair amount of pendulem effect in the mix. However it does seem that they are mostly moving in the right direction. I'll have to get a couple of games in and see how things go.

@Phoenix. We have a copy at Game Empire and I am more than happy to get a 5th ed game with you.

Darrian

Stelek wrote:Area terrain was removed? Did you get a different copy of the rules than I did? Granted mine is a month old but still...

Slow and purposeful get charging bonuses now, and in 5th too. It's just being relentless that you need to worry about really...which says nothing about removing attacks or denying them.

They still have area terrain, but it works differently than currently. The way the piece of terrain is actually modeled has a large affect now. The main difference is for LOS drawing, and cover saves for infantry vs monstrous creatures. Infantry gain a cover save for simply have a part of their base in the area terrain, but monstrous creatures have to have 50% of their body obscured by the terrain to gain the cover save.

Aduro wrote:Hmmmm... I don't think Star Engines are used in the shooting phase. "May move an additional 12" in lieu of shooting, but troops may not embark of disembark that turn".

I see where you are coming from in that "in lieu of shooting" could be interpreted as doing it instead of shooting during that phase, but the comment about embarking lends me to believe it's used in the movement phase, or else you wouldn't have to mention it since you can't do that during the shooting phase anyways. If it was truely used in the shooting phase, I think it would have specifically told you as much.

"If you did not embark or disembark troops this turn, you may move an additional 12" in the shooting phase in lieu of shooting that turn".

It's done in the shooting, as per the FAQ&Errata that was released earlier last month. Second to last question. "This extra move of up to 12" is executed during the shooting phase."

It wasn't a shot, CD. Just saying it like it is. If you guys ever came over, or welcomed others, you'd not be in a pit. :(

I know how the new area terrain rules work. The change is mostly semantic.

Any mention of being able to consolidate into the passengers of a vehicle wrecked in CC?
For example, if my unit of Seraphim eviserate the hell out of a rhino and blow it up, are they in combat with the now exposed passengers?

Wehrkind wrote:Any mention of being able to consolidate into the passengers of a vehicle wrecked in CC?
For example, if my unit of Seraphim eviserate the hell out of a rhino and blow it up, are they in combat with the now exposed passengers?

You may NOT use the consolidate move to enter combat with another unit. Full stop.

(You can, however, shoot a transport dead and assault the passengers.)

There are vet sgt. in Templar command squads. It's the only place they get them.

Capt K

neofright wrote:

Stelek wrote:Or look at BT...

Sergeants? What are they? ;-)

Janthkin wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:Any mention of being able to consolidate into the passengers of a vehicle wrecked in CC?
For example, if my unit of Seraphim eviserate the hell out of a rhino and blow it up, are they in combat with the now exposed passengers?

You may NOT use the consolidate move to enter combat with another unit. Full stop.

(You can, however, shoot a transport dead and assault the passengers.)

Ok, though my question was more centered around the fact that in the shooting phase at least the fact that the transport and the cargo are seperate units is overlooked. I was wondering if there was a similar loop hole for assault. I was well aware that you can not consolidate into another unit, just as I am well aware you can not shoot one unit and then assault another.

On the no consolidation into enemy units thing, is it true even for units that have fallen back? Like say you win combat, they break and you don't wipe them with Int massacre roll. They roll poorly for fall back and you roll well for consolidation. Can you still catch them or do you have to stay 1" away? Curious about this for alot of reasons, not least of which is the rumored SM rules.

liljeremyd wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Stelek wrote:I can't wait for demons and drop pods to drop into terrain and die. It's quite amusing really. "Woops..."

Drop pods don't scatter.

When did drop pods stop scattering?

I've heard, twice now, that the new pods won't scatter. I'm not saying it is so but I did hear about a scouter speeder transport option from the same guy. I laughed at that then....now not so much.

winterman wrote:On the no consolidation into enemy units thing, is it true even for units that have fallen back? Like say you win combat, they break and you don't wipe them with Int massacre roll. They roll poorly for fall back and you roll well for consolidation. Can you still catch them or do you have to stay 1" away? Curious about this for alot of reasons, not least of which is the rumored SM rules.

IIRC, you have to stop 1" away from an enemy unit in your consolidation move regardless of that units current status. Basically, you will never be able to consolidate into another unit using a consolidation move.

You mean pods in the smurf book?

Excellent! That only leaves all the other marine armies with books out in the cold.

Which is still quite a lot of marine armies...and not scattering would make an already powerful unit even more so.

reds8n wrote: Defensive weapons are just S4, no relevance as to their type at all.

I do not believe you can assault out of a moving closed vehicle still.

Thanks, reds8n.

Damnit, damnit, damnit. Assault weapons (shuricannons, basically) counting as defensive was my last hope for Eldar vehicles remaining superior in both firepower and mobility. It really does look like it's one or the other now. Frustrating. Guess I'll just strip the add-on shuricannons off of all my Serpents, and mount them as the (never to be used) secondary turret weapons on the Falcons.

And no transport assault from closed vehicles- what about all of those rumors that the Rhino Rush was coming back? Was that a Codex SM rumor that the Rhino would count as having an assault ramp, or was it idle speculation?

This edition is back to looking bleak for mech skimmer armies. Except Tau, as noted above...

Oh it's not that bad Savnock. Really it isn't.

Park in cover, use vectored engines, and have a farseer tossing fortune for a re-rollable 3+ or 4+ save.

Sure it's different, but skimmer armies are not 'nerfed'. Honest.

Stelek wrote:Oh it's not that bad Savnock. Really it isn't.

Park in cover, use vectored engines, and have a farseer tossing fortune for a re-rollable 3+ or 4+ save.

Sure it's different, but skimmer armies are not 'nerfed'. Honest.

Right, I can see that. But skimmer armies have never been about firepower- it's just too easy to shake the little buggers. They're about transport, with a bit of firing on the side. Eldar did get (or remain) more powerful relative to other armies' vehicular mobility, but the combined firing isn't going to be happening. That'll have to happen after the troops get dropped off.

I guess firepower skimmers are _more_ possible now thanks to coversaves (which can be rerolled for a limited number of units) but shooting with skimmer transports is still not the best use of points. At least bikes score, so we can keep that maneuverable element in.

Thanks for the cheer-up- I'm just miffed about having to adapt in a different direction than I thought I would be. Oh well, it's much better than what Guard have to deal with.

Well if you sit still you can still dump alot of firepower out.

With 'run' I think you'll find virtually everyone in range of all of your guns.

The reason I took Prisms in my Vyper list is I think this year there is going to be a heavy emphasis on assault armies for a bit, and heavy vehicle armies. Prisms destroy both, and at long ranges...and let me avoid having to deal with the assault armies and heavy vehicle armies for a bit.

Of course you could bring dual falcons with dual dragons and blow stuff up easily that way too.

"This edition is back to looking bleak for mech skimmer armies. Except Tau, as noted above..."

How are tau not nerfed? The only things we have going for our skimmers is we count as fast moving and don't have to take dangerous terrain test.

Tau get free cover saves out in the open.

Now let me see.................................I get what I paid for before, but pay 5 less points AND get free cover saves.

Really?

"Yes, really."

Ratbarf wrote:"This edition is back to looking bleak for mech skimmer armies. Except Tau, as noted above..."

How are tau not nerfed? The only things we have going for our skimmers is we count as fast moving and don't have to take dangerous terrain test.

Two words: Disruption pods (which give Tau vehicles a 4+ cover save from any enemy more than 12" away from them).


So Tau vehicles with Multi-Trackers & disruption pods can still move 6" and fire all their weapons and any incoming shots suffer a 4+ cover save provided the attacker is more than 12" away. So they behave a bit different (slower than before) but end up being more durable.



And as for everyone talking about certain abilities in certain codexes no longer working (like Tyranid Thornbacks and Symbiote Rippers), shouldn't we wait and see what the 5th edition FAQs do to those abilities first?

And besides, even if they do *nothing* in 5th edition, you can always just not take the upgrade.

And the 4+ cover save for being more than 12" away...

So I spent 3+ hours reading the new rulebook in the LA battle bunker this weekend. Overall I'm a big fan of the rules and the way they are presented in the rulebook. Alessio is given the credit for writing the main rules and he has definitely brought quite a bit more technical clarity than in previous editions, although there are a few areas I personally found a bit lacking. For the most part the book is definitely a big step up in clarity from 4th edition which itself was a big step up in clarity from 3rd edition.

The real place where 4th edition stumbled in terms of clarity is in their 4th edition FAQs that updated 3rd edition codices into the new edition. The real test for GW in my mind will be how well they handle the 5th edition codex FAQs which will be charged with bringing older codices (in some cases 3rd edition codices!) into line with the new rules.

If they put out the same kind of one-page bullet point generalized FAQs as they did for the last edition, I expect there to be quite a few rules questions and issues stemming from these older codices and their interaction with the new rules.

What they need to release are very detailed errata pages that clearly identify the particular wording in the existing codices that needs to be changed and exactly what it is changed to.

So instead of saying stuff like: "Carnifexes with the Thornback upgrade behave as such now. . ." (which can lead to generalities and potential confusion), they need to say stuff like: "Tyranid Codex, page xx, Thornback upgrade: replace the following text: "xxx" with the following new text: "xxx".

It is only with precision errata such as this that I believe 5th edition will finally be much more concise and easy to play for all armies.



Anyway, after that long-winded rant here's a few things I noticed that I personally haven't seen in most of the rumor posts (although I'm sure someone has posted them already somewhere).


1) The Victory Point rules are located in the very back of the book as an optional rule for tournaments and players who want to claim bragging rights for their draws. They are *not* a base rule for anytime a draw occurs in a game. . .rather the game is just a draw if neither side captures more objectives or gets more Kill Points.


2) When vehicles are destroyed if embarked models can't fully fit within the range of the vehicle's access points, the player is allowed to declare an emergency disembarkation, whch allows the models to be placed within 2" of any part of the vehicle's hull (regardless of access points). However, the unit cannot do anything else the rest of that player turn. So "trapping" enemy models inside their vehicle is much harder to do now.


3) When a vehicle explodes (as opposed to becoming a wreck) the rules simply state that you place the models "where the vehicle used to be". This wording was strangely imprecise considering the rest of the rules. I guess that just means the models have to be placed within the 'footprint' of where the vehicle was, but what if there are more models than can fit in that area? Do they have to be fully within the 'footprint' or just part of them, etc.? It could have been a bit more clear.


4) One of the big areas that is not covered is the interspersed enemy unit tactic to deny assaults. I had heard rumors that there was going to be a diagram actually showing that it was allowed, but that is just not the case. The rules don't mention it at all leaving it as a viable tactic unless players and tournaments choose to disallow it.


5) Another really big area I was sad to see didn't receive more attention is units embarked on vehicles. While they do mention that special abilities from embarked passengers are measured from the vehicle's hull and that units can score while inside of vehicles (again, measure the range from the vehicle), the rules *do not* specifically state that embarked units cannot be shot at. While this may seem like a no-brainer thing for some gamers who have played 40K since 3rd edition, 2nd edition had rules for firing at units in open-topped transports and I can totally see some new gamer say: Why can't I shoot at units in an open-topped transport, I can see them! They really should have included a blanket statement that embarked units cannot be hit by enemy shooting.

The other related problem is that they do not cover what happens to embarked units who are affected by weird stuff, like psychic powers that would case them to fall back or go to ground (become pinned). Are they affected? Do they fall back out of their vehicle? What about stuff like Vibro-Cannons? Does a line passing through a transport vehicle mean that the embarked unit is hit too? Can it be pinned or fall back from these casualties, etc.


6) The front of the rulebook clearly identifies that for all ranges in the game if at least one model in a unit is within range of something, all members of the unit are within range, which should put to rest a whole bunch of arguments about stuff like the Ork Kustom Force Field.


7) They finally specify that psychic "shooting attacks" follow the rules for shooting but they no longer specify this blanket statement to 'all' psychic powers. This should solve a whole lot of psychic power arguing.


8) As mentioned by others, although non-vehicle, non-swarm infantry units are the only scoring units in the game now, the fact that ANY unit can contest objvectives (all down to the very last man just like scoring units) seems much, much more balanced than the original idea in the leaked PDF where only scoring units could score and contest objectives.


9) The whole -1 cover save if you and your opponent can't decide whether the unit is in cover or not rule is *very* well defined in the rulebook, with two whole large diagrams devoted to explaining exactly what they mean. The nitty-gritty is thus:

A unit being shot at is considered 'in cover' if the majority of its models are in cover from the majority of the models in the firing unit. If it is not immediately clear whether the majority of the models are in cover from the majority of the firing models, the players have two choices.

One, players can go through each individual model in the firing unit and determine if the majority of enemy models in the target unit are indeed in cover in relation to that particular firing model. Using this process players can determine unequivocally whether the majority of models in the target unit are in cover from the majority of the firing models.

Alternatively (if they don't want to spend all that time), players can just agree that the unit automatically counts as being in cover, but at -1 to what it would normally be.



That's all I can think of for now, but I'll post more as I think of it or answer anyone's questions if they have 'em.

shouldn't we wait and see what the 5th edition FAQs do to those abilities first?

This is GW we're talking about, right?

Breotan wrote:

shouldn't we wait and see what the 5th edition FAQs do to those abilities first?

This is GW we're talking about, right?

And. . .?


They updated most of the weird abilities in existing codices (that didn't function with the new rules) from 3rd edition to 4th edition when that change happened. Why would we not expect them to do the same?

I'm sure some abilities will ultimately become pointless, like Grot Riggers on Killa Kan squadrons, for example but I do expect to see a similar 'fix' for existing incompatible rules when the 5th edition FAQs are released around the time of the new rulebook.

Yak, on #4 are you worried about the whole RB.37.01 "you can't charge my gretchin without getting within 1" of my orks right behind them in btb because the bases are .98 inches wide" thing, or are you talking about something else?

yakface wrote:

2) When vehicles are destroyed if embarked models can't fully fit within the range of the vehicle's access points, the player is allowed to declare an emergency disembarkation, whch allows the models to be placed within 2" of any part of the vehicle's hull (regardless of access points). However, the unit cannot do anything else the rest of that player turn. So "trapping" enemy models inside their vehicle is much harder to do now.

I got the impression that that was only an option during your movement phase, i.e. a voluntary disembarkation. I remember reading later on under wrecked that models that could not disembark were removed. But I only gave it a cursory glance, so I absolutely could be wrong.

biztheclown wrote:Yak, on #4 are you worried about the whole RB.37.01 "you can't charge my gretchin without getting within 1" of my orks right behind them in btb because the bases are .98 inches wide" thing, or are you talking about something else?

That's exactly it. It doesn't appear to be addressed at all in the new rules meaning it is still technically a viable tactic to deny an assault unless you're using a fan-made FAQ or your own house rules.


Edit: Actually, I'm going to take it all back about this point. After looking back at my notes, I notice that the wording is now that charging models are allowed to move within 1" of enemy models, full stop. Since they don't specify ". . .within 1 inch of enemy models they are charging", it looks as though this has been taken care of in the new rules.


Huzzah!

Have they decided how IC join units, fight in combat, etc? What about attaching to a squad in reserve and being able to be rolled for as one group, instead of seperately?

- Salvage

yakface wrote:Alessio is given the credit for writing the main rules and he has definitely brought quite a bit more technical clarity than in previous editions, although there are a few areas I personally found a bit lacking.

Isn't this the same clarity he brought to the Fantasy rules?

yakface wrote:What they need to release are very detailed errata pages that clearly identify the particular wording in the existing codices that needs to be changed and exactly what it is changed to.

Never.
Happen.

yakface wrote:1) The Victory Point rules are located in the very back of the book as an optional rule for tournaments and players who want to claim bragging rights for their draws. They are *not* a base rule for anytime a draw occurs in a game. . .rather the game is just a draw if neither side captures more objectives or gets more Kill Points.

In tournaments, if you think it will optional I think you're mad as a hatter.

yakface wrote:2) When vehicles are destroyed if embarked models can't fully fit within the range of the vehicle's access points, the player is allowed to declare an emergency disembarkation, whch allows the models to be placed within 2" of any part of the vehicle's hull (regardless of access points). However, the unit cannot do anything else the rest of that player turn. So "trapping" enemy models inside their vehicle is much harder to do now.

Not do anything is pretty meaningless if it's your opponents go in a IGOUGO system.

yakface wrote:3) When a vehicle explodes (as opposed to becoming a wreck) the rules simply state that you place the models "where the vehicle used to be". This wording was strangely imprecise considering the rest of the rules. I guess that just means the models have to be placed within the 'footprint' of where the vehicle was, but what if there are more models than can fit in that area? Do they have to be fully within the 'footprint' or just part of them, etc.? It could have been a bit more clear.

This is part of the problem with your inat faq.

It is actually quite clear.

Remove the model, put the figs where the model was.

The rule you quoted ABOVE this one helps when you have a large number of models (like say, 12 Orks in an old school trukk; or 20 boyz in a 'rhino' battlewagon) and need to place them.

In all cases, the rules cover the situation.

yakface wrote:4) One of the big areas that is not covered is the interspersed enemy unit tactic to deny assaults. I had heard rumors that there was going to be a diagram actually showing that it was allowed, but that is just not the case. The rules don't mention it at all leaving it as a viable tactic unless players and tournaments choose to disallow it.

Since you can assault multiple units at once, it isn't much of a tactic.

If you could provide a picture, maybe I could visualize it better...but right now I just don't see it.

yakface wrote:5) Another really big area I was sad to see didn't receive more attention is units embarked on vehicles. While they do mention that special abilities from embarked passengers are measured from the vehicle's hull and that units can score while inside of vehicles (again, measure the range from the vehicle), the rules *do not* specifically state that embarked units cannot be shot at. While this may seem like a no-brainer thing for some gamers who have played 40K since 3rd edition, 2nd edition had rules for firing at units in open-topped transports and I can totally see some new gamer say: Why can't I shoot at units in an open-topped transport, I can see them! They really should have included a blanket statement that embarked units cannot be hit by enemy shooting.

Jesus Christ.

yakface wrote:The other related problem is that they do not cover what happens to embarked units who are affected by weird stuff, like psychic powers that would case them to fall back or go to ground (become pinned). Are they affected? Do they fall back out of their vehicle? What about stuff like Vibro-Cannons? Does a line passing through a transport vehicle mean that the embarked unit is hit too? Can it be pinned or fall back from these casualties, etc.

Jesus Christ.

yakface wrote:8) As mentioned by others, although non-vehicle, non-swarm infantry units are the only scoring units in the game now, the fact that ANY unit can contest objvectives (all down to the very last man just like scoring units) seems much, much more balanced than the original idea in the leaked PDF where only scoring units could score and contest objectives.

Yes, that's why I've been pooh poohing all the ideas about troops are king.

It was eliminated months ago as bad for the game, and it was.

yakface wrote:That's all I can think of for now, but I'll post more as I think of it or answer anyone's questions if they have 'em.

Uhh is it odd I'm defending GW in this thread (from you) and you were defending GW in the other thread (from me)?

Seems so.

Boss_Salvage wrote:Have they decided how IC join units, fight in combat, etc? What about attaching to a squad in reserve and being able to be rolled for as one group, instead of seperately?

- Salvage

ICs that move within 2" of a unit join it, they have no choice in the matter. If they move within 2" of two or more units you pick one for them to join. They may only join and leave in the movement phase as is now.

They fight exactly as they do now in combat (separately from the unit) so they have to be in base-contact with the enemy to fight. When an IC in a unit is charged, you move the IC first for his counter-charge move before the rest of the models in the unit (if he isn't already in base-contact from the charging enemy models) to ensure that characters are always fighting and not hiding behind troopers.


ICs can join any unit pre-game and any unit (including joined characters) can be assigned to a transport pre-game. If this group of units is put into reserve a single reserve roll is made for all of them.

Thanks Yak, sounds nice and simple. The bit about combining a transport pre-game too is expected and good to hear as well.

Another quick one from me, can any unit now split fire (with a Ld test or something)? Or did that get axed?

- Salvage

No split fire.

Stelek wrote:

Isn't this the same clarity he brought to the Fantasy rules?

I don't know, I never played or read the Fantasy book. Are you implying that the new 40K rulebook is not much more clear and concise than it was in the previous edition? Because I would whole-heartedly say it is more clear. While not perfect by an stretch of the imagination, it is much better.

Never.
Happen.

Most likely, of course not. But that was just my bit of constructive criticism because I think the rules are so much more clear it will be a shame if they don't take the proper time to make sure the existing codex wording fits nicely with the new rules.

In tournaments, if you think it will optional I think you're mad as a hatter.

Of course tournaments will use victory points. My surprise was that, unlike in the leaked PDF the victory points are relagated as 'optional' rules in the back of the book pretty much included for use in tournament play. I'm well aware that every tournament will likely utilize them as will most pick-up games IMO, but the fact that they separated them out from the main rules was surprising to me.

Not do anything is pretty meaningless if it's your opponents go in a IGOUGO system.

Agreed, although I did notice looking back at my notes that emergency disembarkation can be used at any time if the player wishes, so I guess that rule is in place to stop players from using that rule to drop models out on the front of their vehicle to fire at the enemy while keeping the front armor of their vehicle also facing the enemy. You can dump your models out in front of the vehicle, but they won't be able to shoot or run if you do.

This is part of the problem with your inat faq.

It is actually quite clear.

Remove the model, put the figs where the model was.

The rule you quoted ABOVE this one helps when you have a large number of models (like say, 12 Orks in an old school trukk; or 20 boyz in a 'rhino' battlewagon) and need to place them.

In all cases, the rules cover the situation.

Not exactly sure what this has to do with our FAQ, but my point is, the 'wrecked' vehicle rules specify that the models disembark, which means you'd follow the normal disembarking rules.

The 'exploded' rules don't say anything about using the disembarkation rules. They just say the passengers take hits and are then placed directly where the vehicle was. Again, this wording is very imprecise because we don't know if that means they can be placed within 2" of where the access points were, or if they have to be actually placed where the vehicle model was.

If they meant for the 'exploded' result to reference the disembarking rules they should have made it a bit more clear.

Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ.

Really? So if someone wants to fire at passengers on an open-topped transport are you going to let them? If not, why? It makes perfect sense that they *should* be an available target.

How hard would it have been to put: "embarked units cannot be targeted or hit by shooting" and "embarked units do not take any and all morale and leadership tests (besides psychic tests) and never fall back or go to ground for any reason."?


Do you really think it is unreasonable for players to wonder what happens to an embarked unit when a Vibrocannon beam passes through it? Do you really think it is unreasonable for players to wonder if Fear of the Darnkess affects embarked units?

Uhh is it odd I'm defending GW in this thread (from you) and you were defending GW in the other thread (from me)?

Seems so.

I don't think I'm attacking GW at all. I gave them some mad props for how much I like the new rulebook and I offered some constructive criticism (as unlikely as it is that it will ever be heard).

Boss_Salvage wrote:Thanks Yak, sounds nice and simple. The bit about combining a transport pre-game too is expected and good to hear as well.

Another quick one from me, can any unit now split fire (with a Ld test or something)? Or did that get axed?

- Salvage

No splitting fire except for. . .wait for it. . .artillery crew.

Artillery crew can fire their personal weapons at a different target than the gun weapons being fired. Exactly why I do not know, but +1 coolness for artillery units!

Wehrkind wrote:

(You can, however, shoot a transport dead and assault the passengers.)

WOOT!!!! FINALLY - thats great!

What about rapid fire - how has that been affected? I noticed the big blank bit in the leaked rules set so wondered what it was now?

I'm saying I never had a problem with the 4th edition rules that you did. Nor 3rd. I've had like one rules disagreement at a tournament that really was unclear for everyone but me and Jeff Hall. Thankfully he was there, and it was fixed.

I guess don't play with gakkers so much, and there won't be so much room for rules issues to come up? lol

As far as the passengers, I think it's covered in the rules. Nowhere does it say they are actually on the board. So why would they be valid targets? Because they can score from inside a transport? Where'd it say they were on the board? It's not really implied either.

You don't think it's an attack? Hmmm...big fan site, you run it, people listen to what you say...and you say 'this bit was great' and then list two pages of 'this sucks'...

yakface wrote:
5) Another really big area I was sad to see didn't receive more attention is units embarked on vehicles. While they do mention that special abilities from embarked passengers are measured from the vehicle's hull and that units can score while inside of vehicles (again, measure the range from the vehicle), the rules *do not* specifically state that embarked units cannot be shot at. While this may seem like a no-brainer thing for some gamers who have played 40K since 3rd edition, 2nd edition had rules for firing at units in open-topped transports and I can totally see some new gamer say: Why can't I shoot at units in an open-topped transport, I can see them! They really should have included a blanket statement that embarked units cannot be hit by enemy shooting.

That is a shame - not only can I see them, but the blighters are shooting at me. The in cover 4+ save would have worked and not required any additional mechanic. After all, the whole of the unit can shoot out of the vehicle.

Just a general question - I found 4th ed to some how always leave an important caveat etc until the last line of the last paragraph in the section - is this still the case?

Stelek wrote:I'm saying I never had a problem with the 4th edition rules that you did. Nor 3rd. I've had like one rules disagreement at a tournament that really was unclear for everyone but me and Jeff Hall. Thankfully he was there, and it was fixed.

I guess don't play with gakkers so much, and there won't be so much room for rules issues to come up? lol

I don't tend to have issues with my tournament games because I tend to just play how my opponent plays the game, I just consider it an added challenge to adapt my game to their "version" of the rules. But playing this way definitely opened my eyes to the ways that different people naturally interpret different portions of the rules.

Obviously I can't speak for you (because I don't know how your games go down) but I do know a lot of people who play the game who have quite a few questions or different interpretations regarding the rules. I think making the rules as clear and concise as humanly possible (without making the rulebook into a tech manual) is an important goal and one that I think they made tremendous strides towards with this rulebook. I give it like an A- for clarity after my first read through.

As far as the passengers, I think it's covered in the rules. Nowhere does it say they are actually on the board. So why would they be valid targets? Because they can score from inside a transport? Where'd it say they were on the board? It's not really implied either.

Well the word "embark" does mean: "to board a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle. . ." and basic common sense dictates that when people board a vehicle they are then onboard that vehicle. The actual rule says:

"When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside, making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported (we find that placing me of the unit's models on top of the transport works welll). If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull."


So while it doesn't explicitly say "these models count as being onboard the vehicle" it also doesn't explicitly say "these models don't count as being on the table" as it did in the 4th edition FAQ.

So some players reading the rules are going to get to this part and wonder: Can I shoot enemies on an open-topped vehicle? It seems like I should be able to.

You don't think it's an attack? Hmmm...big fan site, you run it, people listen to what you say...and you say 'this bit was great' and then list two pages of 'this sucks'...

I absolutely don't think it was an attack. I listed 9 things that I noticed (and remembered) when reading the rulebook. 3 could be considered negative (the assault rule, the exploding vehicle rule and the embarked passenger rules) one of which I later rescinded because I was mistaken. So out of 8 random points I posed 6 were positive and I gave an overall very positive review of the book.

I'll say it again: I really like it!

Plastic Parody wrote:
Just a general question - I found 4th ed to some how always leave an important caveat etc until the last line of the last paragraph in the section - is this still the case?

That's far too general a statement for me to confirm or deny. I will just say it feels to me that in general the tone of the writing in the new rulebook skews towards a technical/concise aspect as opposed to the imaginative/loosey-goosey tone of 3rd edition and (to a lesser degree) 4th edition.

thanks mate, I am looking forward to this rules set.

any one able to confirm the rapid fire rules as they stand for 5th ed?

cheers

I'm excited, one of the members of our group managed to get a copy of the book and is bringing it to our weekly WHFB game. Any questions still out there that you want me to look up?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Plastic Parody wrote:thanks mate, I am looking forward to this rules set.

any one able to confirm the rapid fire rules as they stand for 5th ed?

cheers

Exactly the same as they are now. Except now if a firing model is within range of any model in the firing unit it any enemy model in that unit (even out of range or LOS) is now a valid casualty.

So if your unit of rapid-firing marines are all within 12" of only 1 Ork in the giant 30-man mob, you will still get to fire at full effect (two shots each) into the whole mob and cause maximum damage (although the Ork player will be able to pull casualties from the back of his mob to make sure he reaches you in combat the next turn too). This of course applies to all shooting, not just from rapid fire weapons.

In short, NO MORE RANGE OR LOS SNIPING (wooooohoooooo).


If the firing unit stood still, those within 12" of the target enemy unit fire twice, those more than 12" away (but up to the maximum range of the weapon) fire once. Individual models in the unit are clearly allowed (forced) to fire this way.

Ooh, I like that. Despite its abstract nature the all or nothing two shots is better for me and a little quicker to sort out mid game.

Thank you very much!

Plastic Parody, that's a really good solution to shooting at troops in open-topped transports. In fact, if there are no rules stating that they are _not_ on the board when inside an open-topped transport, and the models are there to be targeted, that's exactly what would be closest to RAW.

[EDIT: After reading Yak's post of the actual text, it seems that the models are not actually on the table to be shot at. This makes things doubtful again. The RAW seems to not support those models being targetable, even if allowing shots at them makes sense for both balance and reality. Besides, it would make the Dark Eldar cry evil little tears if we could kill their ridiculously exposed transported troops.]

Unfortunately, template weapons are really going to screw those close-packed troops- but if template weapons don't do double hits on open-topped vehicles anymore (can anyone confirm/check that, please?), then the change might be balanced. It makes little sense that the guys riding in the back of a glorified pickup truck should be just as shielded from bullets as the occupants of a Rhino. It is also realistic: mortar hits on open-topped transports at Normandy pretty much killed everything inside, even if the boat didn't sink.

I am getting more and more excited about 5th edition, even if I have to chop up all my skimmers to cut off the useless options.

Savnock wrote:Plastic Parody, that's a really good solution. In fact, if there are no rules stating that they are _not_ on the board when inside an open-topped transport, and the models are there to be targeted, that's exactly what would be closest to RAW.

Unfortunately, template weapons are really going to screw those close-packed troops- but if template weapons don't do double hits on open-topped vehicles anymore (can anyone confirm/check that, please?)

Confirm. Open-topped vehicles only suffer the +1 damage roll, they are no longer vulnerable to blasts.

The only problem about firing at troops in open-topped vehicles (even as a house rule) is that you generally can't fit all the model onto the vehicle so resolving a blast or template weapon is going to require additional house rules.

yakface wrote:

Savnock wrote:Plastic Parody, that's a really good solution. In fact, if there are no rules stating that they are _not_ on the board when inside an open-topped transport, and the models are there to be targeted, that's exactly what would be closest to RAW.

Unfortunately, template weapons are really going to screw those close-packed troops- but if template weapons don't do double hits on open-topped vehicles anymore (can anyone confirm/check that, please?)

Confirm. Open-topped vehicles only suffer the +1 damage roll, they are no longer vulnerable to blasts.

The only problem about firing at troops in open-topped vehicles (even as a house rule) is that you generally can't fit all the model onto the vehicle so resolving a blast or template weapon is going to require additional house rules.

If you're going the house rules-route anyway, just apply the Bunkers rules for templates/blasts.

That's an elegant solution, Janthkin. Too bad it won't be used outside of friendlies.

Aero hobbies has their copy of the 5th edition rulebook and I sat down for a while and looked up some specific questions we had and just browsed through it in general.

I will second what most people have said - artwork is amazing throughout. Tons of diagrams. Very good looking at first glance.

A lot of what I confirmed were things people were saying, but these are completely different that I hadn't noticed anyone posting yet.


1. Skimmers can avoid being rammed on a 3+

2. Non skimmer fast vehicles have a max of 18

3. Walkers always fire as if stationary - ie can fire all their weapons (with usual vehicle rules - no ordnance + others).

4. Going to ground prevents you from doing anything until the end of your following turn.

5. Fearless USR specifically says that you can go to ground.

6. New USR called "Rage"

7. AP- is -1 to the roll

8. Jump infantry have to take a dangerous terrain check if they start or end their move in difficult terrain (presumably can still walk out)

Edit:

9. Different rules for buildings and ruins. You can destroy a (building but not ruins) just like vehicle that turns everything but wrecked or explodes (or whatever it is called) a shaken. If it is wrecked you should replace with ruins if you have them and then, like wrecked vehicles it is both dangerous and difficult. If it is totally destroyed you can replace it with rubble.

neofright wrote:8. Jump infantry have to take a dangerous terrain check if they start or end their move in difficult terrain (presumably can still walk out)

Question is, why would you bother walking?

Better to jump and get out of it entirely than stay in it and eat another dangerous terrain check.

Stelek wrote:

neofright wrote:8. Jump infantry have to take a dangerous terrain check if they start or end their move in difficult terrain (presumably can still walk out)

Question is, why would you bother walking?

Better to jump and get out of it entirely than stay in it and eat another dangerous terrain check.

Maybe it is your last model and the game is near the end and if you walk you can contest an objective? Or maybe you plan on charging something in the terrain you are already in since you can't consolidate into a new combat. There are lots of times, actually that come up while you are playing a game that don't come up when you are just thinking about a game ;-)

Stelek wrote:

You don't think it's an attack? Hmmm...big fan site, you run it, people listen to what you say...and you say 'this bit was great' and then list two pages of 'this sucks'...

If a teacher suggests improvements to an essay or your wife suggests an improvement to a project you are doing is it an attack? Constructive criticism is complementing the good whilst criticing the bad in a manner that allows the conversation to continue and be deabted. Skipped that class in high school? Your posts are getting stranger and stranger lately.

So... what are the rules for vehicles moving and firing?

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:So... what are the rules for vehicles moving and firing?

BYE

Same as what you've heard.

Defensive weapons are S4 and less.

Standard vehicles can stand still and fire all their weapons, move up to 6" and fire one weapon, plus defensive weapons (combat speed) or move up to 12" and fire no weapons (cruising speed).

Fast vehicles can move up to 6" and fire all their weapons (combat speed), move up to 12" and fire one weapon plus all defensive weapons (cruising speed) or move up to 18" and fire no weapons (flat-out). Vehicles that embark or disembark models cannot move flat-out. Fast vehicles that make their entire move on a road may move an extra 6" (24") when moving flat-out.

Fast Skimmers may move up to 24" when moving flat-out. Skimmers gain a 4+ cover save when moving flat-out.

Walkers. . .uh. . .I'm having a brain fart. I think they can fire two weapons like MCs although they may be able to fire all their weapons, I can't remember right now (and I don't have my notes on me).


Most terrain is a 4+ cover save and vehicles must have at least 50% of the armor facing being shot at behind cover (which is explained in detail in the rules) to be considered in cover. Smoke launchers and anything else that provides obscurement give a 4+ cover save.

So, back to Main Battle Bunkers again. Yeah. They were fun in 3rd.

*shakes head*

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:So, back to Main Battle Bunkers again. Yeah. They were fun in 3rd.

*shakes head*

BYE

I know that you (and many other people) don't like this regression, but I really do think it forces players into making game choices with their vehicles about how they want them to perform. I especially like the Skimmer rules that force players to choose between firing or getting the 4+ cover save for moving fast.


I think they could have built player choices into the vehicle system in other ways (such as with cover saves as I'll propose below) and still allowed vehicles to move and fire more but the important factor (IMHO) was just to get that player choice in there in some way.


For example, a pipe-dream idea of mine would be to allow vehicles that move under a certain distance to claim a cover save. The fluff rationale would be that vehicles moving over a certain distance are basically being shot by the enemy while moving from one piece of terrain to another so they don't get the cover save unless they slow down and actually get 'hull down' behind terrain. Smoke Launchers and other wargear that obscure vehicles can still provide a cover save to moving vehicle that normally can't take a cover save.

Defensive weapons would remain at S6 and less.

Vehicles that stand still may fire all their weapons (and can get cover saves). Vehicles that move up to 6" can fire one main weapon and all defensive weapons (but can't take cover saves). Vehicles that move up to 12" can fire no weapons (and can't take cover saves).

Fast vehicles can move up to 6" and fire all their weapons (and get cover saves). Fast vehicles that move up to 12" can fire one main weapon and all defensive weapons (but can't take cover saves), Fast vehicles that move up to 18" can fire no weapons (and can't take cover saves).

Fast Skimmers can move up to 24" instead of 18" and can fire no weapons. Skimmers moving more than 12" get a 4+ cover save for moving fast.


That's about it. . .I think this system would keep important choices on how a player wants to use their vehicle (move fast and lose firepower and protection or move slower to gain more firepower and protection, except for skimmers who can move fast and get the cover save but can't shoot at the same time they do).

Under the new vehicle rules, Battlewagons and KFF just got really nasty. 4+ cover save on my cheap AV 14 vehicle full of Orks?! Yes please! WAAAAAAGH

I think Tau tanks may be the new "tri-falcon" with their Vehicle Upgrade that makes any shots from more than 6" (i believe) away Obscured. Hammerheads moving 6-12" with a 4+ cover save will be nice.

Yak, I can't even read it. It's so long it's a justification-for-suckiness speech.

Mobile tanks = fun.

Bunkers = gak.

In fact, the more I think about the new rules, I just go:"yep, that rule helps Orks, yep that rule helps Orks...yep, that rule helps Orks." For example -

1) Countercharging - in case anyone is mad enough to charge 20-30 Boyz
2) Running - makes Sluggas viable again
3) Grotzookas are half decent now with the new Blast rules.
4) Outflanking rule makes Kommandos a serious threat without Snikrot
5) Grots giving Orks a 4+ cover save - without losing casualties!
6) All turbo boosting bikes get a 3+ cover save...on 25pt Ork Bikers

The list goes on. The only new rule that hurts Orks is the multiple template/blast rules. Oh well. Can't win them all.

Zoned

Aduro wrote:I think Tau tanks may be the new "tri-falcon" with their Vehicle Upgrade that makes any shots from more than 6" (i believe) away Obscured. Hammerheads moving 6-12" with a 4+ cover save will be nice.

Yeah I pointed that out a month or two ago and got laughed at. lol

Hammerheads with cover saves in the open are real joys to behold.

Can Skimmers stay in cover and get a 4+ cover save?

BYE

yakface wrote:...but I really do think it forces players into making game choices with their vehicles about how they want them to perform.

I'd be fine with it if defensive weapons were S5. That way Heavy Bolters would have a use, and a Russ could either move fire its main gun or move and fire its defensive weapons. Now all it can do is fire its main gun, or sit still and fire its main gun.

yakface wrote:That's about it. . .I think this system would keep important choices on how a player wants to use their vehicle (move fast and lose firepower and protection or move slower to gain more firepower and protection, except for skimmers who can move fast and get the cover save but can't shoot at the same time they do).

Move slower to gain more firepower? You lose firepower by moving, period. You stop moving - and act like a bunker (in 4+ cover naturally) - you get to fire your guns. And you can't even score now, so what incentive is there for leaving cover?

These rules aren't the typical GW 1 step forward/2 steps back, they're just 5 steps back.

BYE

yakface wrote:That's about it. . .I think this system would keep important choices on how a player wants to use their vehicle (move fast and lose firepower and protection or move slower to gain more firepower and protection, except for skimmers who can move fast and get the cover save but can't shoot at the same time they do).

I believe there will be exceptions to this rule. Land Raiders are going to ignore this rule and I'm sure others will follow in the form of vehicles upgrades.

Stelek wrote:You don't think it's an attack? Hmmm...big fan site, you run it, people listen to what you say...and you say 'this bit was great' and then list two pages of 'this sucks'...

Attack: You're an idiot if you don't know how to use this tactic properly.

Constructive Criticism: That tactic doesn't work because you're an idiot.

Oops, I mean:

Constructive Criticism: That tactic doesn't work because x, y, and z.

(Where x, y, and z do not equal "you are an idiot")

I have to say that I do not desire at all to read any more posts wherein the poster goes on and on about how either the new rules suck or that GW are idiots. Anybody who thinks these things is welcome to geocache their stuff and try their hand at developing the ultimate miniatures game.

I am interested in discussing the effects of the new rules on the game. So have at that.

Stelek wrote:Yak, I can't even read it. It's so long it's a justification-for-suckiness speech.

Mobile tanks = fun.

Bunkers = gak.

Stelek,

Your capacity to be rude for no apparent reason is simply baffling. The majority of my post was simply an offshoot idea about how GW could have made vehicles more mobile but still present the player with tough gameplay choices.

By all means skip reading my posts, I don't care but don't post a reply to a post you didn't read and then criticize it.


YOUR OPINION is that moblie tanks are fun and bunkers are boring.

MY OPINION is that units that require the player to make a choice are better than units that don't require any choice as the current vehicle rules stand. I don't think that GW went with the best possible solution, but I do believe that it is better than the 4th edition rules.


My opinion isn't inherently better or worse than your opinion as they are both just our own differing opinions. Why must every discussion with you turn into a form of verbal combat?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Move slower to gain more firepower? You lose firepower by moving, period. You stop moving - and act like a bunker (in 4+ cover naturally) - you get to fire your guns. And you can't even score now, so what incentive is there for leaving cover?

All units contest objectives from scoring units, so vehicles can prevent troops units from claiming objectives.

Also, there is usually a need at some point in the game to move to get a better line of sight or to evade incoming enemies. Of course the former depends on how much line of sight blocking terrain you use on your tables. If you're playing with all very empty area terrain pieces then yeah, your units will likely have LOS over the whole board and never have to move, but that's really dependent on what type of terrain you're playing with.

Well, I think my devilfishes may actually see use now. With a 4+ cover save and the new chart they might actually be useful aside from a glorified death trap...

(yes I know mech tau work, I just like to run them inf wise thats all. And now that the mandatory devilfishes in my pathfinders can transport anyone I may actually have them do more then sit behind my lines and spring forward to delay an assault...)

And now that the mandatory devilfishes in my pathfinders can transport anyone

.....

I knew about this but completely forgot about it. I may have to rework my possible Mech Tau list to remove the Fire Warriors' Devilfishs and have them just ride in the Pathfinders'.

The problem actually isn't tanks, now that I think about it, it's the core concept of the rules themselves. 40K is completely a case of:

Either/Or

There's no 'and' in the rules. You either move, or you shoot (as doing both incurs a penalty or is impossible). You either shoot, or you assault (as doing both incurs a penalty or is impossible).

Very few things in the game are every designed to be able to do more than one thing a turn. That's why this game fails to progress.

BYE

Is that really a huge problem, HBMC? What you're saying is that 40k forces you to make decisions - you can't have your cake and eat it too. So you have to figure out in your head which move is more advantageous - do I sit back and fire my Heavy Weapon now at a unit that is exposed or do I move into a better firing position that will benefit me in later turns? Will rapid-firing my Bolters do more damage to my opponent or is charging in and winning the assault and possibly catching them in a sweeping advance the better move?

I remember back in third when you could shoot your melta gun and a tank, blow it up, then assault the squad next to it. I really liked the change in 4th where you could only assault the unit you shot at. You had to choose. Your unit couldn't do everything.

Personnaly, I don't find the "either/or" mentality a problem.

Zoned

Zoned wrote:Is that really a huge problem, HBMC? What you're saying is that 40k forces you to make decisions - you can't have your cake and eat it too. So you have to figure out in your head which move is more advantageous - do I sit back and fire my Heavy Weapon now at a unit that is exposed or do I move into a better firing position that will benefit me in later turns? Will rapid-firing my Bolters do more damage to my opponent or is charging in and winning the assault and possibly catching them in a sweeping advance the better move?

I remember back in third when you could shoot your melta gun and a tank, blow it up, then assault the squad next to it. I really liked the change in 4th where you could only assault the unit you shot at. You had to choose. Your unit couldn't do everything.

Personnaly, I don't find the "either/or" mentality a problem.

Zoned

I don't know that I'd go as far as HBMC does, but mobility makes games more fun - neither player is particularly satisfied when one side simply sits and shoots, while the other rushes forward as fast as possible to stop the shooting (or worse - ALSO sits and shoots).

I wish I knew who, exactly, was responsible for deciding that modifiers are "too complex" for 40k; I would like to smack them around a bit. FB handles this problem much, much better - there are penalties (for most units) for moving AND firing, but you have gradations of choice: sit still and shoot at maximum effectiveness; move, and fire at reduced effectiveness (and not at all for certain select weapons); move quickly, and forgo shooting.

Janthkin wrote:

I don't know that I'd go as far as HBMC does, but mobility makes games more fun - neither player is particularly satisfied when one side simply sits and shoots, while the other rushes forward as fast as possible to stop the shooting (or worse - ALSO sits and shoots).

I wish I knew who, exactly, was responsible for deciding that modifiers are "too complex" for 40k; I would like to smack them around a bit. FB handles this problem much, much better - there are penalties (for most units) for moving AND firing, but you have gradations of choice: sit still and shoot at maximum effectiveness; move, and fire at reduced effectiveness (and not at all for certain select weapons); move quickly, and forgo shooting.

I agree with you completely, but Fantasy does tend to have a whole lot less shooting than 40K so the comparison isn't identical, but still you have a good point. I don't think anyone believes that a few well used modifiers in 40k would make the game worse. First and 2nd edition were a gigantic pain where you had to work out modifiers per individual model in the unit, but as long as they kept the modifiers based on the unit level there really isn't any reason they couldn't be added into the game.

Of course, one of the things about 40K is that you have some major races (like Orks) where their standard BS2 equates to needing a 5+ to hit. You really don't have much latitude of modifying an Ork's BS for example.

yakface wrote:I know that you (and many other people) don't like this regression, but I really do think it forces players into making game choices with their vehicles about how they want them to perform. I especially like the Skimmer rules that force players to choose between firing or getting the 4+ cover save for moving fast.

I agree.

5th Edition is going to be far more tactical than 4th, precisely because it is going to force players to make tactical decisions on a turn-by-turn basis between offense (e.g. shooting), defense (e.g. Go To Ground / SMF) and position (Turbo-Boost, Run), and each decision has actual ramifications beyond the phase in which they are taken.

In effect, GW is forcing a flavor of in-game time per turn restrictions and limiting a unit's actions per turn. It's very cool when you think about it from a games design perspective.

Yak I speak more plainly than HBMC.

John thinks the game is going to be more 'tactical'.

I sit in my bunkers for turns 1-4, pounding you.

If I'm not a skimmer army, I start rushing forward on turn 5 and hope the game goes to 6.

If I am a skimmer army, I rush forward and contest/control all objectives/quarters/etc on turn 5 and hope the game ends...but I now have a 4+ cover save and if it goes to 6, it goes to 6.

Hey this is the same as before, except now:

You can't move and fire with tanks effectively.

How is this MORE tactical when you have LESS options? I can more, or fire. Not...I can move here, fire, and be in position to cover hill 3 in case he pushes forward--but then I'm at risk if his mobile elements comes out to challenge me.

Now whatever reason GW applied it is not a 'more choices' game system because removing secondary weapons fire just encourages ONE kind of play.

Oh and fantasy can be totally built to be a shooting game, and doing so usually leaves you vulnerable to assault.

Not so in 40k, so I don't think comparing the two is valid.

Ok, so a guy from my gaming group who managed to buy the local store copy of the 5th ED Just left. I can't really add anything to what has already been said about the rules.

My opinion is that there good. Not thrilling, GW is not putting PP out of buisness this summer or any time soon but they are cleaner and better rules then 4th ED.

The real test will be in like a year from now. Have they FAQ stuff in a timely manner (still waiting for an desperately needed Ork FAQ) or are they going to keep supporting the game like it's 1998 and people are willing to wait a year or two for rules updates. Are we gonna get a GW supported tournament system that is actually fun and doesn't require purchasing the monster army case from Sabol. Ok, that may be a bit much to ask, but how about a Mighty Empires style campaign system with the ill 3D tile map.

Playing a DoW style campaign with four to eight friends could be really cool as a matter of fact it might be more fun than a tourney.

Aduro wrote:I think Tau tanks may be the new "tri-falcon" with their Vehicle Upgrade that makes any shots from more than 6" (i believe) away Obscured. Hammerheads moving 6-12" with a 4+ cover save will be nice.

They also have the upgrade that lets a non-fast vehicle move and fire as if fast.

OTOH Tau vehicles no longer have any defensive weapons, because they are all S5.

Umungaz wrote:how about a Mighty Empires style campaign system with the ill 3D tile map.

I've heard rumors that it's in the works.

grizgrin wrote:Warmachine is a very fun game. That whole "play like you got a pair" theme just rubs me the wrong way. Hasn't stopped me from sinking $$$ into my armies, though !

Someone I know made me laugh when he said "I've seen more playing like you've got a pair in a game of chutes and ladders".

Disclaimer Warmachine is a great game. It is also a slow moving cold hearted brutally calculating game where either the first or second World Championship was decided by a single model dying and time being called.

yakface wrote:
For example, a pipe-dream idea of mine would be to allow vehicles that move under a certain distance to claim a cover save. The fluff rationale would be that vehicles moving over a certain distance are basically being shot by the enemy while moving from one piece of terrain to another so they don't get the cover save unless they slow down and actually get 'hull down' behind terrain. Smoke Launchers and other wargear that obscure vehicles can still provide a cover save to moving vehicle that normally can't take a cover save.

Defensive weapons would remain at S6 and less.

Vehicles that stand still may fire all their weapons (and can get cover saves). Vehicles that move up to 6" can fire one main weapon and all defensive weapons (but can't take cover saves). Vehicles that move up to 12" can fire no weapons (and can't take cover saves).

Fast vehicles can move up to 6" and fire all their weapons (and get cover saves). Fast vehicles that move up to 12" can fire one main weapon and all defensive weapons (but can't take cover saves), Fast vehicles that move up to 18" can fire no weapons (and can't take cover saves).

Fast Skimmers can move up to 24" instead of 18" and can fire no weapons. Skimmers moving more than 12" get a 4+ cover save for moving fast.


That's about it. . .I think this system would keep important choices on how a player wants to use their vehicle (move fast and lose firepower and protection or move slower to gain more firepower and protection, except for skimmers who can move fast and get the cover save but can't shoot at the same time they do).

Hmm, interesting ideas there. when the PDF leaked last year we tried it out and I'll admit I was (am)quite taken with the idea of vehicles getting cover saves. Seems so obvious in retrospect.
We tried messing around with different ideas and the idea we had that seemed to work best was to assign a cover save for ALL vehicles depending on how fast they moved-- we stepped it in line with the speed categories , so if you moved 6" you got a 6+ save, 7-12 a 5+ save etc etc up until a 3+ for flat out. We played that smoke launchers, disruption pods etc if used added an extra +1 to your save that turn.

Stelek makes everything so simple(and he snidely condescends all at the same time! ). Of course we'll all just shoot for 4 turns and then move to take the objectives on turn 5 even though we aren't really close to them at all and the game will end immediately 33% of the time before we get to them! Even if it goes to turn 6 we still won't necessarily be on top of the objectives but that's ok because whether we have skimmers or not are armies are still intact(we don't have to consider what damage you may have taken in projections since we are God General Stelek). You see are armies shoot and kill yet are shot at and not killed due to our insanely over the top skills(I mean irrational ego centric mind).

If Stelek would just post a blog about 40k I wouldn't have to think about 40k at all, I could just absorb his limitless genius.

Did people actually get to discuss 40K on Dakka before Stelek was spawned? Or was Dakka just a part of the Internets?

I do have a blog. Derr.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The problem actually isn't tanks, now that I think about it, it's the core concept of the rules themselves. 40K is completely a case of:

Either/Or

There's no 'and' in the rules. You either move, or you shoot (as doing both incurs a penalty or is impossible). You either shoot, or you assault (as doing both incurs a penalty or is impossible).

Very few things in the game are every designed to be able to do more than one thing a turn. That's why this game fails to progress.

BYE

Sounds like you will prefer Warmachine mate. Maybe time for a change?

Sounds like you cant shake 2nd ed rules from your brain.

NOT a criticism.

Plastic Parody wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:The problem actually isn't tanks, now that I think about it, it's the core concept of the rules themselves. 40K is completely a case of:

Either/Or

There's no 'and' in the rules. You either move, or you shoot (as doing both incurs a penalty or is impossible). You either shoot, or you assault (as doing both incurs a penalty or is impossible).

Very few things in the game are every designed to be able to do more than one thing a turn. That's why this game fails to progress.

BYE

You will prefer Warmachine mate. Maybe time for a change?

Sounds like you cant shake 2nd ed rules from your brain ;-p

NOT a criticism.