Is 5th edition really scheduled for 2008?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/205581.page

Still on the front page.

Mike at Showcase has been told it's not coming in 2008, but Brimstone's usually extremely reliable.

No, it isn't. I'll take fries with that order.

Therion also seemed to have a bit of knowledge about it; may want to PM him.

Who knows since GW thinks it a good marketing strategy not to advertise their upcoming products. No wonder the company is doing bad. In any case, as far as rumours go, the most reliable sources who spread GW rumours online say it's coming summer 2008, so I'm pretty sure it is.

Given the consistent accuracy of the internet rumor engine, I'm willing to put a certain amount of faith in this one.

As an aside, can anybody name the last widely acknowledged rumor that turned out to be false?

As an aside, can anybody name the last widely acknowledged rumor that turned out to be false?

GW designers may write sloppy rules, but they do read web forums. Gav Thorpe himself replies to more important threads at The Warhammer Forum from time to time (although he always refuses to give official rulings). The studio always seems to know what the cheesiest army of the year is since they're so effective in nerfing all of the good stuff people have in their armies and forcing everyone to replace the old units with something nobody with half a brain had before. Do you think it is an accident Harlequins have tons of free veteran skills and abilities? Do you think it is an accident that Falcons dominate the skies? Do you think it was an accident Obliterators were gods of the battlefield in their previous incarnation? Do you think it was an accident the Assault Cannon frenzy started 3 and a half years ago? Don't worry, all of that will be nerfed soon or has been already. Then we can all go nuts about something else and spend some money. Most of the time if something is really overpowered, it's supposed to be. If something is horrendously underpowered, it's supposed to be that too.

What I'm saying is that if GW didn't want guys like Brimstone releasing all of the information 6 months ahead of time, they'd do something about it. They'd either silence the very well known guys who spread the rumours year after year, or their contacts. Brimstone is probably Gav Thorpe himself or some studio geek who gets told to start another feeding frenzy over at the biggest GW related forum on the internet. There's nothing wrong with this and many companies that make computer games operate the same way.

Therion wrote:
What I'm saying is that if GW didn't want guys like Brimstone releasing all of the information 6 months ahead of time, they'd do something about it. They'd either silence the very well known guys who spread the rumours year after year, or their contacts.

Hot damn!

GW Black Ops squads engaging in a little Wet Work!

Whoa!

The studio always seems to know what the cheesiest army of the year is since they're so effective in nerfing all of the good stuff people have in their armies and forcing everyone to replace the old units with something nobody with half a brain had before. Do you think it is an accident Harlequins have tons of free veteran skills and abilities? Do you think it is an accident that Falcons dominate the skies? Do you think it was an accident Obliterators were gods of the battlefield in their previous incarnation? Do you think it was an accident the Assault Cannon frenzy started 3 and a half years ago? Don't worry, all of that will be nerfed soon or has been already. Then we can all go nuts about something else and spend some money. Most of the time if something is really overpowered, it's supposed to be. If something is horrendously underpowered, it's supposed to be that too.

This consistently makes me laugh when it comes up. I would like to assume that when people say this, that they are being sarcastic, but often times they are not. If this was the true case, it would be quite apparent when they did it, and they wouldn't really have to hide behind anything to do it. Heck, why not make EVERYTHING the best, then you would have a really hard time not buying EVERYTHING, because it was all the best. I mean seriously, if you are going to come up with Grassy Knoll theories, they could be a lot better.

And yeah, all signs point to a summer/early fall 5th edition.

Dosadi made the last statement on Warseer about it

Leadership will be back in a big way in 5th edition. I think I've said this before already. There will be leadership modifiers for things like how many casualties you take from a given weapon; if you snipe down three guys then the pinning test would be made with a -3 modifier. Ordinance Barrage weapons give an additional -1 on top of any casualties incurred. Close Combat will have a resolution phase where you determine the winner by comparing the difference in kills with added bonus for outnumbering (go Orks and ‘Nids) and charging (I think). The result is the modifier to leadership checks by the looser. Fearless units just take the difference in wounds. So it’s not all that different than now, only faster and deadlier. This is a great improvement IMO.

With rumours coming up about a tactical movement (like a march move). Changes to vehicle rules(including something that might make falcons less survivable), a one table vehicle damage table, a change to rending, and changes to close combat. All little tweaks to the system, but supposedly no major changes.

Lets hope so. The game could really use some fresh air and more radical changes than from 3 to 4. Come next summer and I may even be able to play the occasional game.

Toreador wrote:With rumours coming up about a tactical movement (like a march move). Changes to vehicle rules(including something that might make falcons less survivable), a one table vehicle damage table, a change to rending, and changes to close combat. All little tweaks to the system, but supposedly no major changes.

a bit like the apocalypse super heavy damage table where modifiers are applied to the dice roll depending on type of hit?

To be honest, I don't thing 40k would be well-suited to big changes. For the most part, 40k seems to have settled down from a rules & mechanics standpoint. Cleanup tweaks would be well-appreciated.

The rumors all sound pretty good. I very much hope we get shooting modifiers to hit, a la fantasy.

Therion's right, guys. Come on, we all joke about how horrendously underpowered asscans were back in 3rd (and surprisingly not in 4th) but won't believe it applies to everything else? Everyone talks about how stupid GW is yet at the same time everyone agrees that they must have some smart businessmen up top or else GW would still be confined to small hobby stores.

This, in addition to my army theme, is why I'm buying more peasants and grail reliquae for my Brets and sold most of my pegasi already.

Heck, why not make EVERYTHING the best, then you would have a really hard time not buying EVERYTHING, because it was all the best

While the balance between uber- and sucky-units could be changed, construction of any game demands that not every unit can be the best. Even in Go, the first 5-6 stones are better than the rest. Nevermind that if everything was the best (therefore equal), you still wouldn't have to buy everything.

This consistently makes me laugh when it comes up. I would like to assume that when people say this, that they are being sarcastic, but often times they are not. If this was the true case, it would be quite apparent when they did it

If it hasn't been obvious for you I'm sorry but you need some help. Lash of Submission just slipped through playtesting? The Assault Cannon was a way to make sure people want the new Terminators and that the new Space Marines were the topic of the discussion everywhere. The Shock Troops rule was a way to make sure the fantastic Carnifex kit is a massive hit.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with GW intentionally making overpowered units, weapons or abilities to sell more models. It's been proven time after time that if an army book or codex doesn't have anything even remotely overpowered in it, it won't sell. GW made some huge mistakes with Codex: Black Templars and Codex: Dark Angels when they forgot to put the broken stuff in them, and now the company has a new CEO and half of the designers who were working on those books have been re-assigned to other duties.

This, in addition to my army theme, is why I'm buying more peasants and grail reliquae for my Brets and sold most of my pegasi already.

It's a reasonable assumption that Pegasus Knights will be nerfed hard, because that's what GW does to make you buy new models. It's debatable whether GW is daring enough to ban you from using some of your models. Sometimes they do it, but usually instead of forcing a strict 0-1 limit on Pegasus Knights and Obliterators, or taking Carnifexes back to Heavy Support only, they would just nerf them hard. That way they can say you can still use all of your models, but forget to add: If you want to play with a much weaker army than before.

Yep I'm only keeping around 6 pegasi, enough for a BSB (as if I'll use it again), a squad, and a general.

The studio always seems to know what the cheesiest army of the year is since they're so effective in nerfing all of the good stuff people have in their armies and forcing everyone to replace the old units with something nobody with half a brain had before. Do you think it is an accident Harlequins have tons of free veteran skills and abilities? Do you think it is an accident that Falcons dominate the skies? Do you think it was an accident Obliterators were gods of the battlefield in their previous incarnation? Do you think it was an accident the Assault Cannon frenzy started 3 and a half years ago? Don't worry, all of that will be nerfed soon or has been already. Then we can all go nuts about something else and spend some money. Most of the time if something is really overpowered, it's supposed to be. If something is horrendously underpowered, it's supposed to be that too.

This consistently makes me laugh when it comes up. I would like to assume that when people say this, that they are being sarcastic, but often times they are not. If this was the true case, it would be quite apparent when they did it, and they wouldn't really have to hide behind anything to do it. Heck, why not make EVERYTHING the best, then you would have a really hard time not buying EVERYTHING, because it was all the best. I mean seriously, if you are going to come up with Grassy Knoll theories, they could be a lot better.

Its not a weird conspiracy theory. It’s just a matter of how you express it. I don’t agree with Therion that certainly things are supposed to be “really overpowered” or “horrendously underpowered”, but the main premise seems accurate to me. GW does pay some attention to tournaments, forums, and sales figures, and is aware that certain things are too good or underpowered. They do deliberately chop down the power of a lot of stuff that’s “too” good (Oblits), and up the power of stuff that no one takes (Assault Cannons).

When 3rd ed came out, terminators had no invulnerable save, and plasmaguns and lascannons (which were even more common then) butchered them wholesale. No one took them, and a couple of years later, GW added the invulnerable save. They still didn’t get taken much in competitive armies, but later terminators (Grey Knights, Salamanders) were cheaper, or better, or both. The Assault Cannon was laughed at from 1998 (which 3rd ed came out) until its stats were revised in the current Codex: SM in spring of 2005. It was pathetic. 3 shots, no special rules, except that it could jam and destroy itself. Then it became a god gun, simultaneously resurrecting itself and the regular use of terminators. Rhinos were the core of every SM or CSM assault army all through 3rd ed. How to fight the Rhino Rush was one of the first tactics every competitive player had to learn. Then they got massively reduced in power in 4th (summer 04), to the extent that competitive players frequently dismissed or ignored them entirely. Now (starting with the new DA codex in spring 07), all the more recent codices make them cheaper and come with free gear.

The power see-saw or pendulum definitely exists. Whether you see it as GW trying to fix something and clumsily overdoing it, or as them deliberately overdoing it, is up to you. Either way it’s reasonable to conclude that there is a conscious effort on their part to change the balance of the game and drive the sales of stuff they improve.

Personally I tend to think it’s more of a clumsy execution of good intentions, based both on my impression of the GW folks I’ve met (like Jervis), and the way they do it (e.g. chopping Rhinos down in power about a year and a half after the current kit came out, or the Baal being released a year after Assault Cannons were made to suck, and languishing unused for six years). I’m certain that the Lash was intended to be badass, but based on how poorly and vaguely worded it is, I severely doubt that they looked at or tested it long enough to realize HOW badass it could be. Undoubtedly there were some additional conventions or restrictions on its use (say, all models move the exact distance rolled in the exact direction indicated, with no angling or alterations of course allowed) the way they played it in the studio, that they simply left out of the actual codex.

I agree with Mannahnin, in that this isn't a bizarre, GW-hating conspiracy. They freely acknowledge that rules drive minis sales, and that they are in the business of selling lots of minis. There are many examples of poor units getting good, quite a few examples of great units becoming poor, and very few examples of poor units staying poor in a new codex.

Certainly not every new model has amazing new rules (techmarine, biovores, etc) but it is not a coincidence that many new models get improved rules. And you know what? I'm glad! I'd rather see new models and fresh army builds on the table then be fighting rhino rush armies non-stop.

I can't remember who posted it but, assuming GW is intentionally making things cheesey/crappy, why not just make a balanced list? Why not have all portions of an army have a use and function? Why not keep rending AND make sniper weapons as rumored above? Would that be so horrible?

If GW is purposefully making these disparities then it just shows a pretty bad business model. All it has gotten them is a smaller market share and competitors that CAN compete.

ender502

Not necessarily. If everything is equally powerful, there is less incentive for people to buy new stuff. If part of their existing army gets downgraded, or a unit they didn't have before gets upgraded, they've got a good reason to change their army and pick up some new stuff.

Mannahnin wrote:Not necessarily. If everything is equally powerful, there is less incentive for people to buy new stuff. If part of their existing army gets downgraded, or a unit they didn't have before gets upgraded, they've got a good reason to change their army and pick up some new stuff.

And if every selection in an army is equally useful/usable (in generic play) but a bit more useful in specific situation (with possibilities for a counter, not a god-mode-unit that destroys everything) then that is an incentive for games to buy more stuff so they can surprise the other player with a new combination without each time feeling like something got downgraded because it was good just so that something else can be upgraded to god-more so it will be bought.

An more complex rock-paper-scissor if you want. They just have to keep three things in mind (from a high level design perspective): First the army list/theme with its pros/cons and, second, its units with their pros/cons have be validated with each other recursively as well as with other armies (third). They just need a very big piece of paper and organise all the armies on it. Of course then you have all the low level design to do (which I didn't mention) when the fundamental architecture for the armies and units is done. But this should not be that much different from normal army list creation except that they now would have guidelines that could help then create a balanced game. Although it could be that something like this is happening for fifth edition with how the recent army lists have been evolving (all the "simplified" lists).

They could have a lot of gamers that buy big parts of their (user's specific army) miniatures range because they need/want to stay competitive with the others who have bought a wider selection of units (and can create more flexible armies) or who just don't want to get bored with the same army list all the time. Of course that would reduce the army-list induced need to buy something but in exchange for that they could have customers who are not frustrated by the ups and downs of new army lists and still buy stuff. So instead of forcing you to buy something specific (for your army to be competitive) they could encourage you to buy more of all the different things hat the army list provides.

In addition to that happy people, for some strange reason, tend to spend more money on stuff they like (secondary armies for example).

Mannahnin: That post is not meant to be "against you", I just used your post as a starting point to jump into my rant against the upgrade/downgrade army list syndrome and it doesn't matter if the "designer conspiracy" is true or these "happy accidents" just happen rather often.

a 4 year gap between a new edition seems pretty soon. usually they go for 5 years, so i can completely understand a 09 release for 4th edition, but 08 just seems to be way to early.

Reasons for the sooner release of 5th Edition could include:

1. Boot to the rump for sales. A new edition would generate lots of excitement, would be pretty much a mandatory purchase for active players of the game, and increase sales.

2. Assist in the Codex Reboot Project. This will assist in the new gentler codexes project in that they now have an excuse to re-do all the codexes that they don't like. May have small tweaks that deal with only 1 heavy weapon per 10 squad members, things like that.

3. Well, that's it really, and I'm mostly banking on point 1.

I'm not entirely convinced that it's coming out in 2008, but it doesn't really matter to me either way. I'm not rushing to make my current rulebook obsolete.

Therion wrote:
. Brimstone is probably Gav Thorpe himself or some studio geek who gets told to start another feeding frenzy over at the biggest GW related forum on the internet.

I can assure you he isn't Mr. Thorpe or part of the design studio team at all. Honest.

whilst I broadly agree that certain items/units get a kick to make them harder etc etc, some of the time it's just dumb luck. Or just dumb. I'm reliably informed that Sammiel on jetbike had 2 special rules that were accidentally cut from his profile late : 1 let him shoot both his plasma cannon and stormbolters in the same turn and the other was just the simple IC status ( a theory supported by some of the strange behaviour seen otherwise in the WD battle report featuring him and the DA).

Although it is strange isn't it how newer units, with equally new shiny and expensive models get the best rules, like chaos possessed or Skyrays or... hnag on...

ender502 wrote:If GW is purposefully making these disparities then it just shows a pretty bad business model.

The opposite really.

If something is good, everyone buys 'it'. Once everyone has 'it', they stop buying 'it'. So, to keep selling things, GW has to make something else into 'it', so they make something else really good, and maybe make the previous 'it' not as good. Then, for the new 'it', they release a shiny new model, so people go out and buy 'it' all over again. Then when it comes time to re-do everything again, they go back to the previous 'it', but they put in a new vehicle accessory sprue and up the price by 10 bucks.

The only times that doesn't work is when there's a unit everyone loves and they can't get away with nerfing them. To do that, they just make 'it' into a better 'it', but do it in such a way that you have to buy the new shiny model. Case in point - plastic Stealth Suits. They couldn't nerf Stealths without angering Tau players. So they actually give them more options, but make those options only available on shiny new plastic models. So they become the new 'it', and the old Stealths become 'not it'.

If not for their falling profits, I'd say it was a pretty good idea, if insidious.

BYE

Therion wrote:

What I'm saying is that if GW didn't want guys like Brimstone releasing all of the information 6 months ahead of time, they'd do something about it. They'd either silence the very well known guys who spread the rumours year after year, or their contacts. Brimstone is probably Gav Thorpe himself or some studio geek who gets told to start another feeding frenzy over at the biggest GW related forum on the internet. There's nothing wrong with this and many companies that make computer games operate the same way.

Brimstone was fired from his GW job for letting out secrets. Unless he has contacts within the company who are passing him info, his store of knowledge will probably exhaust itself in a few months. I wouldn't take what he says as the gospel any longer.

Then I guess we're just going to have to wait and see how 5th turns out.

Wow Darth, that is the biggest amount of supposition with no firm backing that I have seen in awhile. To actually go with your second shooter on the grassy knoll theory, we would have to believe that DA was released long before the BA mini dex was done, which as we all know is false as it was planned and in almost final pdf form long before the DA was released. The explanation even before either codex was released is they wanted to follow through on the old DA/BA dex by releasing both rules at the same time, but couldn't justify a full BA codex release yet as they didn't have any new models or sprues ready yet.

Even then, to actually claim the DA codex was a failure, when the only way to measure this is by sales (as GW is a mini company first), which from all the information I heard from the local stores was that it was quite a success for a sub sect marine list. They would have to gather quite a bit of tournament data even before the BA codex was released to call it a rules failure, when they didn't have the time to do that between the two releases. Even then do you believe data within the first few months of release? Or do you watch it in the long haul (like the Tyranid codex which after quite some time suddenly started to dominate a lot of tournies, but in the beginning was seen as weak?)

I love the net. Simple stories become so blown out of proportion. Just like a lot of the 5th edition rumours are becoming. It is fun to watch though.

Where is my tinfoil hat?

which from all the information I heard from the local stores was that it was quite a success for a sub sect marine list.

I'm quite certain that Codex: DA wasn't a success rules wise nor sales wise, so I'd like to see your data. As far as combat squads are concerned, I can't see them as an advantage of any kind even if troops choices become the mainstay of each army, mostly because the 5man bolter squads get owned by superior troops choices of other armies (6x Thousand Sons will beat 12x Bolter Marines). Besides, we don't know all the rules changes yet. For example, troops choices might not be capped at 6 anymore (like they aren't in FB), and then armies like Eldar could flood the table with 3man Jetbike squads and noone will ever beat them in objective games.

Therion wrote:

which from all the information I heard from the local stores was that it was quite a success for a sub sect marine list.

I'm quite certain that Codex: DA wasn't a success rules wise nor sales wise,

How about your data that makes you so certain it wasn't?

He made it fairly clear that his view is based on what he heard from the local stores, and that he was talking in terms of what a marine chapter dex might be expected to do.

What basis is your view based on?

Glaive said "Leave skimmers how they are. Bump other vehicles so they can engage multiple units."
@Glaive one of smartest thing said so far i salute you

Ouch, to those questioning my sense of history, I meant Rogue Trader in '87 or '88! Dunno where those 9's came from. I guess this is what comes of being old enough to remember queuing for the thing. Senility has laid waste to my limited faculites...

Oh, and Terminators weren't even invented then. Happy days, rolling on a D100 table for your squad weaponry: 'Ooh look, I got a D-cannon!'

Tribune wrote:Happy days, rolling on a D100 table for your squad weaponry: 'Ooh look, I got a D-cannon!'

Yep, except sometimes you got a musket, favored weapon of Birmingham the soot planet. Which no one wanted to go to because it was so black/soot filled and humorless. And bolters were the favored weapons of violent primitives (Orks). And crossbows were better than bolters.

The quote from Brimstone:

12. Only non vehicle non swarm troop choices are scoring units.
13. Vehicles types are adjusted (the rumoured skimmer nerf)

Currently, what Vehicle Troop choices exist? I wonder if Bikes/Jetbikes will finally become vehicles under the new edition.

I take it not everyone will have seen the clarification to the Infantry vs. Troops question from Brimstone - from Warseer at http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2224146&postcount=926

I've amended a couple of things to clarify that vehicles without a WS are hit in the rear armour during CC NOT shooting.

And clarified that I'm talking about TROOPS choices not infantry as scoring units.

That will definitely cause some havoc.

That would really make the focus of lists a lot different. It would further reinforce all Necron warrior armies.

Toreador wrote:That will definitely cause some havoc.

That would really make the focus of lists a lot different. It would further reinforce all Necron warrior armies.

Warriors + Liths to keep them alive. And if they get rid of more anti-tank weapons from other armies they're even better!

I'm just hoping they get the balance right for Vehicles. If they buff regular vehicles survivability or ability to continue to do damage (ie. a glance or pen no longer gaurantee's a tank can't shoot next turn), then nerfing skimmers so SMF = Hull Down isn't too bad.

As long as they make it so nothing's virtually unkillable like Eldar Heavy Skimmers, then we could get something nice here.

Very much in agreement. Though I would almost like a vehicle system like with Superheavies where vehicles could have some type of structure points (or at least things like Land Raiders). The whole one hit BOOM! sucks.

With the unified damage table, one can expect only 2/6 Destroyed on Penetrate, so it'll be fine.

Toreador wrote:Very much in agreement. Though I would almost like a vehicle system like with Superheavies where vehicles could have some type of structure points (or at least things like Land Raiders). The whole one hit BOOM! sucks.

Thing is though that is what tanks do. They tend to be largely unaffected or BOOM!. Thats why I wouldn't like any form of wound system, unless it sill allowed plenty of 1 hit BOOM!. Balancing vehicles is easiest done by keeping a tight reign on how easy it is to get hold of the weapons to take them out with. Something that seems to have been happening with last few Codices. When lists are packing 1 heavy and 1 light anti-tank weapon per 6-10 men it is hardly surprising that tanks are swept of the field in short order.

A change to AP system could be made to further set apart weapons that take out tanks. If base AV ranged from 5 to 12, and any hit being calculated as providing a total AV = base AV plus the AP of the weapon you'd get quite a change in how armor works. So an AV 12 tank hit by a lascannon would roll for AP as Str 9 against AV 14 (just like now). Rail guns would roll Str 10 vs AV 13, so they get a bit better. Missiles launchers though go Str 8 vs Av 15 (not possible). So you end up with AV 12 representing semi-super heavy tanks that need serious AT weapons to take out. At the lower end a bolter against very light vehicle with AV 5 works out as Str 4 vs AV 10. Just like existing lightest tanks. So bolters vs weakest armor and lascannon vs heaviest armor defines the upper lower and upper bounds, but a lot changes within that system.

First off you get 3 extra AV values (5-12, compared to 10-14) so you can provide a better spread of armor. e.g. I would make land raiders and Liths AV 12, but Russes AV 11. I just don't see Russes in the same category as LRs or Liths. AV 11 would be what missile launchers are currently like against AV14. At the lower end you could better split up the things that are to be affected by most basic troop guns, and those that whilst light can shrug them off.

Rending AssCannons take a bit of bit of a hit against heavy stuff, due to their AP4. They woud need to hit 16 to get a LR or 15 for an AV11 russ. Autocannons are the same AP 4 makes them ineffective against anything AV10+, clearly defining them as light/medium tank killers.

You wouldn't need a wound like system for tanks, making AT weapons require high str and low ap cuts down on what tanks have to fear quite a bit, especially at the heavy end. Whilst at the same time still leaving them as 1 hit BOOM! when you do hit them with an appropiate weapon.

skyth wrote:Looks like vehicles will be seldom seen in competitive table-top play.

Having only Troops choices be scoring will be interesting, and only if they're not vehicles or swarms.

Looks like Swarm nids backed by Warriors will be the list to beat, as with the run ability, leaping warriors will actually be viable.

Ork swarms will be hard-as-nails also.

Troop-heavy drop pod marines will be the 3rd contender, and Dark Angels actually look like they'll be pretty competetive.

In other words, looks like the whiners who insist that playing troop-heavy armies are the only 'correct' way to play win out again. Blah.

Sisters of battle armies tend to be troop heavy....and with up to 20 sisters per unit....should be able to get a boost from the new rules.

I do agree they tend to go boom a lot, but even in RL a lot tend to take a lot of damage and keep on running, it just takes them out of the battle.

One of the big issues is how much AT is/was available on th board. A Land Raider will have an easier time against the new Chaos and Ork lists!

Toreador wrote:I do agree they tend to go boom a lot, but even in RL a lot tend to take a lot of damage and keep on running, it just takes them out of the battle.

One of the big issues is how much AT is/was available on th board. A Land Raider will have an easier time against the new Chaos and Ork lists!

How so vs. Chaos lists? Where they can still pack in plenty of Lascannon fire in the form of Oblits, where there can be up to 9 of them in an army?

They did a good job of eliminating tons of anti-tank/heavy weapon spam from armies except there.

Everybody can take lots of Lascannons - but they have to come from Heavy Support to have any density, and pay full price for them. You can't take 6-man Las/Plas and gain the same kinds of points efficiency.

So rather than facing 4-6 mini-Devastator squads that don't compete with Predators or Whirlwinds, you'll face honest to goodness Devastator squads that are priced and slotted properly.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

Toreador wrote:I do agree they tend to go boom a lot, but even in RL a lot tend to take a lot of damage and keep on running, it just takes them out of the battle.

One of the big issues is how much AT is/was available on th board. A Land Raider will have an easier time against the new Chaos and Ork lists!

How so vs. Chaos lists? Where they can still pack in plenty of Lascannon fire in the form of Oblits, where there can be up to 9 of them in an army?

They did a good job of eliminating tons of anti-tank/heavy weapon spam from armies except there.

They did a good job with chaos as well, yes you can take 9 - for what 700ish point? and that doesn't get you much in the line of assault or anti-infantry capability. As John said above, the later codices are reducing the amount of heavy AT by making it more expensive all round, and harder to take in any number in non-heavy slots.

edit - in fact I've been playing around with chaos today, whilst painting some more chaos models. I always feel as though any attempt to get any amount of lascannon is leaving me weak elsehwere. Possibly just cos I'm thinking in terms of how things used to be, where you would tack on a lascannon to your troops cos it was so cheap and easy and have at least 6 before you even got round to looking at heavy support. But the new chaos dex is how I think it should be for fitting in lascannon type weapons.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

Toreador wrote:I do agree they tend to go boom a lot, but even in RL a lot tend to take a lot of damage and keep on running, it just takes them out of the battle.

One of the big issues is how much AT is/was available on th board. A Land Raider will have an easier time against the new Chaos and Ork lists!

How so vs. Chaos lists? Where they can still pack in plenty of Lascannon fire in the form of Oblits, where there can be up to 9 of them in an army?

They did a good job of eliminating tons of anti-tank/heavy weapon spam from armies except there.

'


I don't have my Chaos Codex handy. Are they Elites or HS? If they're HS, than they're really no worse than three tri-Las Predator Annihilator. If Elites, then they have the same problem as Elite Dev Squads - they're in the wrong slot.

Oblits are HS. If someone really sinks the points into bringing all nine then they it is true they will have no problem brining down a Land Raider or two, but the points costs will leave them very weakened in other areas. Even at 2,000 pts. 1/3rd or so of their army is invested in 9 shots/turn at 3 targets.

And above of those Oblits...where are there any viable hvy weapons for Chaos? Bolt of Change?

SoB is mechanised...always...they forgot to add 'must buy a transport' to the Troop entry.

Just FYI, I've been busily re-working my Chaos army ever since the Codex came out, but in every build, I was going with really minimal Troops. It aways felt "wrong", but the other stuff was just too sexy not to take in quantity. With the change to only Troops as Scoring, I'll feel a lot better about taking more Troops and less non-Troops.

Really, I'm very excited about this, and I just ordered more Troops models in anticipation of the change.

vogelfrei wrote:And above of those Oblits...where are there any viable hvy weapons for Chaos? Bolt of Change?

Depending upon game pts. value 4-6 Oblits might do the trick while leaving points for other things-investing in the full 9 is rolling the dice.

They are in HS, and compete with vindicators and predators.
They are much more expensive in those three shots than a 3 las pread...

Give or take,.. give or take.

And you can still have your beloved 6-man las/plas squads, they're just called Chosen now, cost a bit more and take up Elite slots. Looks like the bargain tankbuster store closed, huh?

Mech Eldar may be getting nerfed in a big way, but it looks like Altaioc will be back in style if most of these rumors are true.

1. Improved cover rules would help- whether "improved" means more cover or more selective cover (meaning less for everyone else), those with cammo cloaks are likely to do well.

2. The leadership penalties from multiple shooting casualties will make a pinning strategy better. Although I do wonder about Dosadi's wording "There will be leadership modifiers for things like how many casualties you take from a given weapon...". I wonder whether that means single guns, a single type of weapon from one squad, or just all the shooting from one squad. Seems like the second of those choices would make more sense (or at least be less complex), but Emperor knows what the logic could be behind any of them.

3. They will also have a slightly higher chance to go through armor. Two chances really, if their rifles are rending, getting armor piercing on a 6 (or 5 and 6) to hit, plus a shot at rending on the to-wound roll. Pretty nice, really. Pity it won't stop that horde of Orks everyone will be fielding.


Not to get back to the rumor-release-to-bump-sales topic, but these rumors really do seem to favor Orks at a very convenient moment to do so. Hmmm.

Increased emphasis on leadership when taking shooting casualties will make Fearless units significantly undercosted. This plus reduced rending is going to make Plague marines much nastier.

Pardon the double post, but this was in the Warseer 5th ed. thread (52 pages of mostly useless opinion...).
A little sumthin' about Perils of the Warp:

(stolen from Warseer)
Dosadi said:

Did you hear that it now inflicts an automatic single wound not a S6 hit? No saves of any kind allowed. (except Ghosthelms )

'cause that's what I've heard.
That will make people stop complaining that their farseers are T3 now.

That's a nice change, unless you're a T4+ psyker.

I think they were making the change to favor Sanctioned Psykers.

(What? You've never seen a Sanctioned Psyker?)

And I don't think Eldar have much to fear about in your normal ork army. It's going to be a real hard battle, but eldar shuriken weapons can really lay down a huge volume of fire, while things like scorpions can help clean up smaller units. It ain't going to be easy, but it shouldn't be. Those smaller ork formations are going to really fear eldar snipers if the rumour is true.

Yes, the smaller units will be goners for sure. It's the 3-4 hugemungous mobs that I'm worried about.

Also, rumor has it that rending will be less effective against vehicles, but I wonder what sniper weapons with rending would look like for penetration rolls against vehicles. 2D6 plus an extra D6 for rending would be nice, but unlikely. If rending just gives a bonus on the damage table (which seems likely), then they won't get any better. But if it's a bonus D3 instead of the D6 or something wacky like that, that might actually be useful. More shots at Trukks, Raiders and Landspeeders are always useful when there's not many infantry to pick on.

btw, where does any rumor say only troops will be scoring units in 5th ed?

#12 Only troop choices as 'scoring?'

What a brilliantly simply change to fix comp (or reward good comp, however you want to spin it). I hope that one is true.

As long as they make it so nothing's virtually unkillable like Eldar Heavy Skimmers, then we could get something nice here.

Well, to me the SMF change is completely inconsequential now. Even if the rule wasn't changed at all, I can't see myself using 200 point transports carrying 170 point squads, neither of which can hold objectives. It's all abouts troop choices now, for every army. You max your troop choices (within reason) and then you see how many points you got left. Basically, my Eldar are going to the shelf and only come out of there for painting competitions. My new, incredibly interesting speedpaint 5th edition tournament army in 1.5K is Necron Lord with Orb and Veil, 46 Necron Warriors and 2x Monolith. In 1.85K you just get 20 Warriors more. Against armies that have long range guns the Warriors just run/march the first one or two turns to get into position. Necrons in that form aren't affected by the scoring unit change, since if those Warriors die the army phases out anyway.

Therion wrote: I can't see myself using 200 point transports carrying 170 point squads, neither of which can hold objectives.

Something needs to clear out the other guy from objectives, and those 170 pt squads do a damn good job of that. If there are 4 objectives then 4 66 point jetbike units hiding till the last turn to turbo boost in will win you the game whilst the 200 pt transports with 170 pt squads ensure that the other guy doesn't have any troops left to compete.

I doubt it is quite that easy - but all the non-scoring stuff will still have an important role in ensuring you get your troops to hold the objectives.

Gaunts without number will go from worst to best upgrade

the idea of "troops" only for holding objectives makes sense, you win wars with boots on the ground. but there has to be a rule .hold the objective for 1 turn because if not you could drive a transport on and dump troops last turn and we would still have the same problem we do now.

God loves the Infantry had to say it

puree wrote:

Therion wrote: I can't see myself using 200 point transports carrying 170 point squads, neither of which can hold objectives.

Something needs to clear out the other guy from objectives, and those 170 pt squads do a damn good job of that. If there are 4 objectives then 4 66 point jetbike units hiding till the last turn to turbo boost in will win you the game whilst the 200 pt transports with 170 pt squads ensure that the other guy doesn't have any troops left to compete.

I doubt it is quite that easy - but all the non-scoring stuff will still have an important role in ensuring you get your troops to hold the objectives.

Gaunts without number will go from worst to best upgrade

That strategy is all fine and dandy untill you run into an army that can either kill 8 Jetbikes that try to hide, or just swamp the objectives with so many scoring models that there's nothing to grab. What I'm saying is that some armies have the distinct advantage of troops choices that can kill anything in the game, like Ork Shoota Boyz with klaws and rokkits and Necron Warriors, and the new edition doesn't really give any incentive to pick anything else than those units. The less scoring units you take the more at a disadvantage you will be. Once your scoring units go below half strength you effectively phase out of the game. Does this mean Zilla Nids, DP/Oblits Chaos, tri-Falcon Eldar and Mech Tau are dead? Of course.

Someone already said that armies like Eldar haven't been designed with all purpose units in mind. They have specialised units mostly in Elite/FA/HS sections that are supposed to win you the game, and so they will be at a huge disadvantage no matter what units they take. Are you completely missing my point? Since being anything else than troops will be a huge disadvantage, a non-scoring unit has to be much more points efficient than any available troops choice for you to even consider taking it. For you to take 200 point transports that are easily shaken and which are non-scoring, they better be damn indestructible. They aren't, since they aren't only being reduced to non-scoring, they are also being made easily destructible. Same goes for the Harlequins, since their rending attacks are going down the toilet. The most scrutinising players might not field them anymore even if they were scoring, so the non-scoring factor simply makes the choice of not fielding them easy. For a Chaos player to spend 45% of his points in Obliterators they better have T6, since all they're good for is trying to whittle the opponent's troops choices down to non-scoring while the Chaos player will have only a precious few 5man scoring units for himself.

So, the power level of every codex is determined by how cheesy troops choices they have. If they have points efficient footslogger troop choices that can kill both tanks and infantry, they are going to be kicking ass left and right. Not only will they outnumber the opponent's scoring units and will have a tactical advantage, they will be incredibly resilient and because of the run rule fast enough to get wherever they want. A footslogger with the new run rule will always be more points efficient than a jetbiker or a jump packer because the latter two have to pay for their mobility.

Why don't people try playtesting some of these and see how it works? I'd be interested to see the feedback and may try it myself.

It's all theoryhammer until then.

Should we expect to see a leak of the 5th edition book a few months before its release like we saw with the ork codex, or does GW keep rule books under tighter wraps?

My 2 cents about troops being the only units that can claim objectives are that this might be indicative of changes in rules concerning transports and objective caliming.

Vehicle damage charts giving tanks a little more survivability means that rhinos and chimeras might be more appealing choices than they currently are. That coupled with the fact that troops are needed to claim objectives, might create an environment where tread transports are used more than they used to be.

Troops being the only unit types that can claim objectives is a nice way to balance out the advantage current specialized armies have. I like the fact that it's rumored that people who stack up on elites and fa are going to have re-tailor their lists. It's a built in comp system that if true, and I would be interested to see how it plays out.

I think if only troops can claim objectives then the new BA/DA armies are probabl in the best situation of all!

If it is only troops then having combat squads which means a single troop choice can claim two objectives is an amazing bonus!

Plus the fact that for the DA especially you can use Terminators and bikes as troops depending on your HQ I think they could be onto a winner there.

D6Veteran wrote:#12 Only troop choices as 'scoring?'

What a brilliantly simply change to fix comp (or reward good comp, however you want to spin it). I hope that one is true.

If this was a tabletop strategy game ala Avalon Hill I would wholeheartedly agree with you. Even in 40k, I still see your point. 40k is a miniatures game, however, and the fact is troops choices are boring. They are boring to paint and can be boring to play, depending on how you use them. For instance, there is no way I'm doing shading on my 20 guardians, they're getting a green helmet, sprayed white body, and a black gun, with some inking, maybe. My fire dragons, on the other hand, I don't mind spending hours lovingly painting them. At least until they get chipped.

Also makes the fun model kits less usefull, i.e. vehicles

Of course a lot remains to be seen, but, I'm really not liking a lot of what we're hearing about 5th edition...

And not that long ago, I was excited to see 4th getting "fixed"!

Wait and see is the order of the day, I know, but still!

Chaos can still take plenty of fun/powerful non troop units, then flood the table with lesser daemon troop units. 5 Lesser Daemons are 65pts. You only need a reliable way to get them summoned, possibly a couple bike sorcerer's with icons and lash to move around the table, summon daemons and lash enemy troops away from objectives/quarters.

guess its time to lead that archeological dig into my garage and dig out my hormies.

And it's not like tanks aren't still going to be able to tank shock troop units away from an objective, or Dire Avengers bladestorm a unit under half. There are still a lot of options, and with Eldar being a swiss knife army, with options to cover most things, I don't think they will have a problem with it. They are very very adaptable.

Harlequins loose what, 1/3 of their statistical kills on an average round with the change to rending? They still can kill almost any unit, have Hit &Run, Ignore Cover, and are hard to shoot. Suddenly this makes them from all powerful to horrible?

Toreador wrote:Harlequins loose what, 1/3 of their statistical kills on an average round with the change to rending? They still can kill almost any unit, have Hit &Run, Ignore Cover, and are hard to shoot. Suddenly this makes them from all powerful to horrible?

I agree, Harlies were already undercosted. Hmm.. I wonder if they factored 5th edition into the points cost. However the other big "rending" CC unit - Genestealers don't look like the automatic Tyranids troops choice any longer with Rending taking a hit and the potential need for large groups of troops choices to dominate an army selection.

Therion wrote: [...]Are you completely missing my point? Since being anything else than troops will be a huge disadvantage, [...]

No i didn't miss your point. Yes more emphasis on troops looks like how it is going to be if the rumour is true, but troops aren't gong to win against lists that include other stuff as well. Troops on the whole don't have the Anti-tank/anti-assault/mobility to beat out choices that are often available in fast/elite/heavy. Yes there are a lot of other rumours as well about how other things are changing, but I doubt that will alter the fact that harlies delivered into assault are still going to put a serious crimp on a troops only list. And what troops are going to kill hidden jetbikes? The sort of thing that can readily take out hidden fast jetbikes or the like are normally going to be non-troop choices that have been choosen for the sort of reason I noted - to take out enemy troops/protect yours so that it is your troops and not his that get to the objectives.

Yes troops could be more important than ever before, but it is hyperbole to suggest that we are going to throw away all the other stuff from our lists - unless you really know something about next edition that we haven't heard so far.

Given that there is another rumour that there is no such thing as an "Alpha/Gamma/Omega" mission, perhaps it's not out of the realm of possibility that the missions themselves are changing as well, and the fact that only troops can claim "objectives" is now meaningless until we find out what type and how many objectives are in any given scenario?

(Man that was a long sentence! A thousand apologies )

Viperion

Viperion wrote:Given that there is another rumour that there is no such thing as an "Alpha/Gamma/Omega" mission, perhaps it's not out of the realm of possibility that the missions themselves are changing as well, and the fact that only troops can claim "objectives" is now meaningless until we find out what type and how many objectives are in any given scenario?

(Man that was a long sentence! A thousand apologies )

Viperion

Well, I hope so!

Maybe I missed it, but IIRC, Cities of Death has the rule that vehicles can't hold objectives.

Hmmm, could some of the CoD and Apocalypse rules be playtests for the 5th edition?

Therion wrote:So, the power level of every codex is determined by how cheesy troops choices they have.

And this is somehow more unreasonable than the power level of a codex being determined by how cheesy Elite & HS choices they have? But perhaps it will once again just come down to people figuring out what are the optimal builds, but hopefully that process will not be so glaringly obvious as it currently seems to be.

Oh, and I completely subscribe to the view that CoD and Apoc are previews/playtests of designer thinking for 5th edition, combined with the last few codices having been written with the overarching aim of balancing out some of the codex abuses present.

Would be a very good reason that scouts were removed from troops in DA and BA.

Not to mention the need to put them & terminators in the same part of the org chart

If CoD and Apoc are possible insights into designer thinking for 5th, I wonder if there will be the introduction of strategems/strategic assets to the regular 40k game? Perhaps as part of the revised mission system.

uber, now that's just crazy talk!

But yeah, stratgegems woudl be great.

Strategems would indeed be nice, but also a new uncontrolled factor that's likely to unbalance the game in a whole new direction.

Please dear baby Jeebus, don't let anything even vaguely resembling Flank March make it into 5th ed. as a common mission option. Favoring infantry for scoring is one thing, but making them warp across the battlefield to get rear hits on every single tank would doom vehicles for all time.

On a tangential note, I just re-read that bit about hits against vehicles in CC always being against rear armor. That's totally uncalled for. In fact, it's going to screw everyone _but_ the skimmers that everyone complains about. I mean, CC hits on tanks are done with meltabombs or powerfists most of the time anyways. Eeesh.

@Savnock
Just think your Guardsmen with a fist can take down a Russ from the front
now if you were getting tank shocked the person with the tank has to think twice now
and people may start to buy krak grenades

and it would be from vehicle with out a WS

Right, but you'd think tanks would be... you know, armored against mines and stuff.

"In the grim darkness of the far, far future, there is only IKEA pressboard between your tank crew and that guy with an axe."

*L* well said, but somewhat innacurate. Most tanks just are not that well armored all over. You have tracks and the wheel carrige that can get mangled, vision slots, that nice little space between the turret and the hull that contains a blast, exhaust ports, and all manner of things.
Another thing to keep in mind is that a big part of the defensive capability of tank armor is the slope that it is set at. Much like a good set of gothic plate, it is designed to deflect shots instead of stopping them cold. That doesn't work as well when someone sticks a bomb on top.

Really, there are a lot of factors, but the take home message is that in real life, tanks are very vulnerable to being swarmed by infantry. That's one reason tanks don't do well in cities and forrests. At the ranges 40k takes place in, tanks really should be fairly vulnerable, but then the range scale of 40k is a bit off in general. Basilisks can fire what, 120"? That's only 240 yards assuming 1" = 6' to scale. That's nothing. The trouble is the game is scaled to play with infantry on a 96 scale yard table. Most soldiers can sprint 100 yards in ~20 seconds or less, and can shoot accurately at that range with a decent rifle. So realistically marines should be able to move 48" and shoot bolters with a 48" range, at least.

I want to start playing Epic...

Savnock wrote:On a tangential note, I just re-read that bit about hits against vehicles in CC always being against rear armor. That's totally uncalled

Actually, it's much more realistic. Tanks top armour is usually very thin, just like the rear. Plus there are hatches / vision ports / vents / whatever that infantry can get at. It is more baffling why infantry wasn't able to use their flexibility and nimbleness to attack the weak spots.

Wehrkind wrote:At the ranges 40k takes place in, tanks really should be fairly vulnerable, but then the range scale of 40k is a bit off in general. Basilisks can fire what, 120"? That's only 240 yards assuming 1" = 6' to scale. That's nothing. The trouble is the game is scaled to play with infantry on a 96 scale yard table.

I want to start playing Epic...

You are confusing model scale with ground scale.

Model scale is easily 5 to 10 times ground scale on average. What I think is that model scale only holds when models are in BtB / HtH. Ground scale increases exponentially or logarithmically with distance. So 1" might be 6 feet. But 12" isn 72 feet - it's 500 feet, and 48" isn't 288 feet - it's a mile or more!

If one wanted 40k to be have consistent model scale and ground scale, then one should be playing 40k with Epic models - at least it would seem somewhat realistic.

We also don't know what the new vehicle damage chart looks like. Disabled is not the same as destroyed. Again, 40k is more like WWI/WW2 for vintage than modern warfare (the Russ even looks like an early tank, esp. without the sponsons). Disabling the tank (but not getting a nuclear explosion) by immobilizing it, jamming the turret, or killing the crew is pretty reasonable.

And the grim darkness of the future may have bulletproof glass in the vision slits, but my marines have laser cutters and bolters (isn't the bolter supposed to be like a 25mm round? that's twice the size of a HMG round!)

all very good points now tanks should have some defense like firing your other weapons at the swarming grunt storm bolter etc.
they should let you fire all weapons and with that at two different targets whats the use for heavy bolter's on the sides if you see a guy with a AT mine but you can't shoot him?

Or say defensive weapons being -- defensive? Like say defensive weapons having an overwatch type mode if infantry are about to assault a vehicle? That would make choosing your assault route important again and also make assaulting a vehicle a somewhat dangerous proposition (as it should be).

Too bad that won't happen.

So what do y'all think is going to be "streamlined" in template/blast weapon rules? I mean, they're pretty streamlined as-is. It would be nice if a bit of hittiness was returned to them without making placement more complicated.


Also- Winterman, I'll be basing a house rule on your suggestion if the assault against vehicle rumors are true. Thanks!

Right now, there's this whole place / resolve / place / resolve thing with multiple templates. That's annoying, and could stand speeding up.

Savnock wrote:Please dear baby Jeebus, don't let anything even vaguely resembling Flank March make it into 5th ed. as a common mission option. Favoring infantry for scoring is one thing, but making them warp across the battlefield to get rear hits on every single tank would doom vehicles for all time.

Oh I dunno... it'd make the new Chaos Possessed slightly less useless.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:Right now, there's this whole place / resolve / place / resolve thing with multiple templates. That's annoying, and could stand speeding up.

Jeez man, that takes too long for you? I've got a new game type you might be interested. before we set up, or get armies out or place terrain, both of us roll a die . Whoever gets higher wins. Game over. Shake hands and go to next game.

The Power Cosmic wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Right now, there's this whole place / resolve / place / resolve thing with multiple templates. That's annoying, and could stand speeding up.

Jeez man, that takes too long for you? I've got a new game type you might be interested. before we set up, or get armies out or place terrain, both of us roll a die . Whoever gets higher wins. Game over. Shake hands and go to next game.

I dislike the current rule for it as well, apart from the agro of trying to find the best place and standing so you are looking straight down, it is also a point of debate in close games about who is or isn't a partial. Hope they go back to last edition where you figure out one blast then just multiply by number of blasts. Id even be happy to see the city fight thing where you don't have use blast markers, but just roll a dice to see how many hits you get, D3 for a small, D6 for a large or something like that, though that does take away from the tactics of spread out/clump up.

Those changes look ridiculous.

They make orks insanely powerful and kill several other builds.
they also seem to completely nerf tanks of all descriptions.
I really hope a lot of those changes aren't true.

Just realized that, with Planetstrike coming out, the nerfing of ground vehicles against CC might be one more reason to snap up (er, convert) some flyer models.

The Power Cosmic wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Right now, there's this whole place / resolve / place / resolve thing with multiple templates. That's annoying, and could stand speeding up.

Jeez man, that takes too long for you?

I've got a new game type you might be interested. before we set up, or get armies out or place terrain, both of us roll a die . Whoever gets higher wins. Game over. Shake hands and go to next game.

No, I don't want to play LotR.

The old way of doing Blasts was better.

The Power Cosmic wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Right now, there's this whole place / resolve / place / resolve thing with multiple templates. That's annoying, and could stand speeding up.

Jeez man, that takes too long for you? I've got a new game type you might be interested. before we set up, or get armies out or place terrain, both of us roll a die . Whoever gets higher wins. Game over. Shake hands and go to next game.

I was sure that rule was going to be in the new Chaos Codex. Perhaps they'll put it in when they revile the Pan-Fo.

5th edition? Sure, maybe. Next you'll perpetuate that lie about plastic cadians. Or a new Ork Codex.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:At the ranges 40k takes place in, tanks really should be fairly vulnerable, but then the range scale of 40k is a bit off in general. Basilisks can fire what, 120"? That's only 240 yards assuming 1" = 6' to scale. That's nothing. The trouble is the game is scaled to play with infantry on a 96 scale yard table.

I want to start playing Epic...

You are confusing model scale with ground scale.

Model scale is easily 5 to 10 times ground scale on average. What I think is that model scale only holds when models are in BtB / HtH. Ground scale increases exponentially or logarithmically with distance. So 1" might be 6 feet. But 12" isn 72 feet - it's 500 feet, and 48" isn't 288 feet - it's a mile or more!

If one wanted 40k to be have consistent model scale and ground scale, then one should be playing 40k with Epic models - at least it would seem somewhat realistic.

That is the silliest thing I have read all day. Do you ever read over what you type to see if it makes sense?

This isn't a fish eye lense model, it's a scale model of "reality". The trouble is they change the distance to make the weapons not have ranges of "yes" like they did in previous editions.

Seriously, do you spend time coming up with this stuff, or do you just shoot from the hip?

puree wrote:but troops aren't gong to win against lists that include other stuff as well. Troops on the whole don't have the Anti-tank/anti-assault/mobility to beat out choices that are often available in fast/elite/heavy

So that means you can show me an all-rounder Eldar build that assuming all the rumours are true can beat footslogger Orks? For example, in 1.85K, the Orks could run a klaw Warboss on Bike, a KFF Mek, 6x30 Shoota Boyz with 3 rokkits and a klaw Nob each, and a couple Deffkoptas or a squad of Lootas if you shave off a couple points elsewhere. What should the Eldar field against that? Any number of Dire Avengers get badly outshot by the Boyz, so I guess your only shot is going with six squads of Jetbikes with Destructor Warlocks, which was my entire point to begin with. Unless you max your troops you won't have a chance in hell, and you still might not have a chance in hell. Orks in that setup are one of the strongest armies in the game already in the 4th edition (although they need a couple more Lootas). A free run move (yeah try coming within 12" of the Ork army to march block them -- the Orks only get faster then since they can all get a free massacre move off you), improved cover saves, weakened vehicle armour in close combat, enemy skimmers suffering penetrating hits, and near everything in the Ork army being scoring and a lot of the opposing armies not being scoring just seals the deal.

You're right that most Troops don't have enough of everything you need, but Ork Boyz and Necron Warriors sure do. Marines of some flavors might have it too. What should you field in 1.85K if you play Necrons? Well like I've already said, a Necron Lord, 66 Warriors and 2 Monoliths should be a nice army. If you're really trying to say that making excellent armies in the 5th edition requires more thought than it does in the 4th edition I think you're sorely mistaken.

JohnHwangDD wrote:It is more baffling why infantry wasn't able to use their flexibility and nimbleness to attack the weak spots.

You don't find it baffling that infantry can attack mobile vehicles in close combat in the first place? A Leopard 2 MBT can go 72 km/h. Try to intercept a vehicle moving 60km/h by running to it and punching it real hard. Even if we imagine that it's somehow possible, you certainly won't be able to take advantage of any weak spots. Attempting something like that would be nothing short of suicidal, so I'd say I find it a little baffling that infantry can attack mobile vehicles in close combat without the huge risk of being run down and killed.

If you need to get a clue what mobile tanks look like, have a look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tbOCJdZ4sQ

Wehrkind wrote:*L* well said, but somewhat innacurate. Most tanks just are not that well armored all over. You have tracks and the wheel carrige that can get mangled, vision slots, that nice little space between the turret and the hull that contains a blast, exhaust ports, and all manner of things.
Another thing to keep in mind is that a big part of the defensive capability of tank armor is the slope that it is set at. Much like a good set of gothic plate, it is designed to deflect shots instead of stopping them cold. That doesn't work as well when someone sticks a bomb on top.

Really, there are a lot of factors, but the take home message is that in real life, tanks are very vulnerable to being swarmed by infantry. That's one reason tanks don't do well in cities and forrests. At the ranges 40k takes place in, tanks really should be fairly vulnerable, but then the range scale of 40k is a bit off in general. Basilisks can fire what, 120"? That's only 240 yards assuming 1" = 6' to scale. That's nothing. The trouble is the game is scaled to play with infantry on a 96 scale yard table. Most soldiers can sprint 100 yards in ~20 seconds or less, and can shoot accurately at that range with a decent rifle. So realistically marines should be able to move 48" and shoot bolters with a 48" range, at least.

I want to start playing Epic...

Scale in 40k is horribly mangled to start with. Leman Russ and Demolisher cannons are damn near the size of deck guns on old-school battleships. They'd be making craters out of the entire table with like two rounds.

Therion, good points. Orks will certainly be broken if this rumour about troops being the only scoring units is true. It will kill list diversity, and change "broken" from one build to another, rectifying nothing. Stupid!

If the ramming rules are anything decent, then troops assaulting a moving vehicle should be in serious trouble, but I'm not hopeful.
40k didn't need a "run" rule anyway, not unless most close combat units were toned down.

Salvation122 wrote:Scale in 40k is horribly mangled to start with.

Remember the Index Astartes article about the Leman Russ MBT? It said the main gun is a 120mm smoothbore tank cannon (same one for example the M1A1 uses in real life). Now, since we know the inside diameter of the gun's barrel, we can figure out the size of the Leman Russ tank. The tank should then be a little more than 1m tall and the only crew who might ever be able to fit inside are Snotlings

dietrich wrote:We also don't know what the new vehicle damage chart looks like. Disabled is not the same as destroyed. Again, 40k is more like WWI/WW2 for vintage than modern warfare (the Russ even looks like an early tank, esp. without the sponsons). Disabling the tank (but not getting a nuclear explosion) by immobilizing it, jamming the turret, or killing the crew is pretty reasonable.

And the grim darkness of the future may have bulletproof glass in the vision slits, but my marines have laser cutters and bolters (isn't the bolter supposed to be like a 25mm round? that's twice the size of a HMG round!)

It's .75 calibre, so roughly 20mm, which makes it a light anti-vehicle round. For example, the Vulcan, the cannon used on every American fighter since the F-4, is 20mm. A bolt-shell is also some kind of weird APDS/HE combination, so it really shouldn't have any trouble at all popping rear armor on most tanks (and should straight-up kill any living thing it hits through sheer blunt force trauma, but that's neither here nor there.)

[length and tangent alert...]

Wehrkind wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:At the ranges 40k takes place in, tanks really should be fairly vulnerable, but then the range scale of 40k is a bit off in general. Basilisks can fire what, 120"? That's only 240 yards assuming 1" = 6' to scale. That's nothing. The trouble is the game is scaled to play with infantry on a 96 scale yard table.

I want to start playing Epic...

You are confusing model scale with ground scale.

Model scale is easily 5 to 10 times ground scale on average. What I think is that model scale only holds when models are in BtB / HtH. Ground scale increases exponentially or logarithmically with distance. So 1" might be 6 feet. But 12" isn 72 feet - it's 500 feet, and 48" isn't 288 feet - it's a mile or more!

If one wanted 40k to be have consistent model scale and ground scale, then one should be playing 40k with Epic models - at least it would seem somewhat realistic.

That is the silliest thing I have read all day. Do you ever read over what you type to see if it makes sense?

This isn't a fish eye lense model, it's a scale model of "reality". The trouble is they change the distance to make the weapons not have ranges of "yes" like they did in previous editions.

Seriously, do you spend time coming up with this stuff, or do you just shoot from the hip?

Wehrkind, the numbers that JohnHwangDD is using might be off, but what he's saying makes sense. JohnHwangDD may not have expressed it in a manner you care for, so I'd like to reword it. This isn't a challenge, but an attempt to explain something that I've heard lots of other 40K players float around when discussing the strange scale of the game. As you get the fish-eye model John suggests, I see you've got that part. The bit that's sort of perplexing is why anyone would change distance scales, and more importantly whether there's a change between literal interpretation of models with that change in scale as well. This last bit is the weird part, but I hope this sounds right:

40K is a compromise between a visually interesting scale (30mm) and a realistic modern warfare scale (5mm). It's an inconsistent mix of the two that has been balanced for ease of play rather than realism. The 30mm element is stronger, but the 5mm element is also pretty clearly part of it. It's as if distance is contracted when considering the ranges of guns and movement across the battlefield (allowing lots of units on a small surface) and then brought to a more literal representation (for 30mm) when the models close with each other.

Acknowledging that real ballistic ranges would make eye-appealing models difficult to render (when scaled for a playing surface convenient for play inside anything smaller than an aircraft hangar), 40K strikes a compromise. The distances are accurate for modern weapons at something like 5mm scale, but the bigger models are used as markers. You might call this the "figurative" scale. When considering the game at this scale, each model can also be considered to represent more than one actual trooper of it's type. This is the weird part that I don't quite get myself, but I've heard the same logic applied to WHFB. Each spearman model is actually 5-10 of his type, as spear blocks of 10 are pretty useless. 50 to 100 is a more likely number. Similarly, those 10 marines crossing the 24" before they close with the enemy are actually several squads of the same type.

At this point, the 5mm system fails, though. 40K players want to see exactly what options are on which model, as it's more dramatic to play with and more interesting to model for that. It is assumed that when they get close to the enemy the action "zooms in" and the literal model-by-model view kicks in. The other squads represented are assumed to be fighting elsewhere. It's like an RTS that zooms in on one squad that you can then take over.

With unique models like characters and the addition of things like LOS around obstacles included to make the modeling aspect of the game more important, the figurative 5mm scale is ditched for the 30mm scale (a "literal" scale). Reversion to 30mm scale occurs whenever it comes in handy- like determining LOS, etc. In situations where tighter confines make a completely 30mm scale system possible (like hand-to-hand or COD), the system becomes almost completely 30mm (kill zones, movement through buildings, etc.) But when it comes to guns, the 30mm scale is unrealistic to the point of ridiculousness. While the abstraction required to think of the models as oversized markers on a 5mm battlefield fails to allow detail like heavy weapon models, it's not bad for reasoning around why a Marine can only run 30' per 5 seconds, or why rifle bullets fall out of the air at 50 yards.

Thus the chimerical fusion of the two scales. At range, things can be thought of as mostly 5mm and representative, except for LOS. As soon as you get closer in, it's one model equals one man, and yes that building really is 10 termagants high. In fact, it _is_ a fish-eye lens model, as you mentioned. It's one that includes changes in not only scale, but literal interpretation of models as well.

That's just my reasoning, but it's informed by several (admittedly very beery) discussions on just that topic over the last couple decades. It might be an overly complicated abstraction, but it's also something to think about everytime I'm like "HMGs that shoot 250 feet? WTF?!".

Sorry to go so far OT, but it's an interesting topic. If more discussion is in store, maybe we should start a different thread.

Wehrkind wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:At the ranges 40k takes place in, tanks really should be fairly vulnerable, but then the range scale of 40k is a bit off in general. Basilisks can fire what, 120"? That's only 240 yards assuming 1" = 6' to scale. That's nothing. The trouble is the game is scaled to play with infantry on a 96 scale yard table.

You are confusing model scale with ground scale.

Model scale is easily 5 to 10 times ground scale on average. What I think is that model scale only holds when models are in BtB / HtH. Ground scale increases exponentially or logarithmically with distance. So 1" might be 6 feet. But 12" isn 72 feet - it's 500 feet, and 48" isn't 288 feet - it's a mile or more!

That is the silliest thing I have read all day. Do you ever read over what you type to see if it makes sense?

This isn't a fish eye lense model, it's a scale model of "reality". The trouble is they change the distance to make the weapons not have ranges of "yes" like they did in previous editions.

Seriously, do you spend time coming up with this stuff, or do you just shoot from the hip?

Are you stupid, slowed, or what?

40k isn't even close to being a scale game, much less some kind of accurately scaled time-motion simulation. The idea that a 40k battle occurs in a space as small as a football field is completely ludicrious. It's highly abstracted with mutable distances and floating time scales.

FYI, you don't have to agree with my posts. But if you're going to respond like you're doing, I'm going to respond in kind.

Savnock wrote:40K is a compromise between a visually interesting scale (30mm) and a realistic modern warfare scale (5mm).

"HMGs that shoot 250 feet? WTF?!"

Exactly. 40k wants to have nice, big models. But it wants to be playable on a 4' x 6' board. The two cannot be reconciled sensibly without something giving way, which is model vs ground scale consistency.

For me, what kills me is how the biggest, baddest Imperial Tank in the 40k universe would have a range of only about 150 yards, when a WW2 tank / anti-tank engagements, might engage at ranges of 500 meters to 2 km. And then you have Cold War era stuff like the Soviet 2S7 Pion - indirect fire range is 37-47 km, not 500m.

Anyhow, if one were to play a true scale 30mm (1/80 scale) game, you'd need an actual football field to play it on, because that's how far scale cannons fire and how far skimmers would actually move. If you shrank the battle to the tiny 4'x6' boards we play on, there would never be any vehicles - it'd be pure squad combat.

On the other hand, if one were to play a properly-scaled 5mm (1/300) scale game, the models are so tiny you'd never be able to tell one model from another. And even that would be overscale...

So 40k splits the difference. When models are close (i.e. HtH), you pretend model scale is correct. When the are far apart, you revert more towards ground scale. And then you presume some intermediate result for models between the extremes.

FWIW, 40k isn't the only game like this. Pirates of the Spanish Main was similarly funny. You have guys arguing about how the ships need to tack into the wind, but ignoring how they scale relative to 3" long islands. Those 2" long ships are not docking at the worlds smallest islands. If PotSM were played at model scale, the whole set of islands could be explored by rowboat!

Wehrkind wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:At the ranges 40k takes place in, tanks really should be fairly vulnerable, but then the range scale of 40k is a bit off in general. Basilisks can fire what, 120"? That's only 240 yards assuming 1" = 6' to scale. That's nothing. The trouble is the game is scaled to play with infantry on a 96 scale yard table.

I want to start playing Epic...

You are confusing model scale with ground scale.

Model scale is easily 5 to 10 times ground scale on average. What I think is that model scale only holds when models are in BtB / HtH. Ground scale increases exponentially or logarithmically with distance. So 1" might be 6 feet. But 12" isn 72 feet - it's 500 feet, and 48" isn't 288 feet - it's a mile or more!

If one wanted 40k to be have consistent model scale and ground scale, then one should be playing 40k with Epic models - at least it would seem somewhat realistic.

That is the silliest thing I have read all day. Do you ever read over what you type to see if it makes sense?

This isn't a fish eye lense model, it's a scale model of "reality". The trouble is they change the distance to make the weapons not have ranges of "yes" like they did in previous editions.

Seriously, do you spend time coming up with this stuff, or do you just shoot from the hip?

I agree with the exponential scale of gun ranges. A giant laser cannon can only shoot twice as far as a standard bolt rifle, which can only shoot twice as far as a pistol, which can only shoot twice as far as you can throw a demolition charge??... It’s definitely exponential.

But back to the point of the post. I think Troops being the only scoring units would be a huge mistake. Most “Fast Attack” choices are designed to be units that would speed ahead of the main force and secure an area. It also creates weird situations like “this 10 man Marine unit can hold an objective because it has one heavy weapon. But this 10 man Marine unit can’t hold an objective because it has 4 heavy weapons”... Game balance is one thing. But you don’t have to screw up the game with irrational game mechanics in order to accomplish it.

~Logic

Therion wrote:So that means you can show me an all-rounder Eldar build that assuming all the rumours are true can beat footslogger Orks?

[...] If you're really trying to say that making excellent armies in the 5th edition requires more thought than it does in the 4th edition I think you're sorely mistaken.

What? where did I say there was more to army creation than now - you must have been reading someone elses post. I said that your argument that you max out on troops and only get other stuff with spare points was hyperbole. i.e. That whilst troops look like having more emphasis on them doesn't mean that everything else will be ignored until you run out of troops to take.

What woud your propsed 1500 ork list look like. Warboss and ~160 boyz? You can't max out troops so there are no spare points. I seriously doubt every one is going to forgo some lootas, or stormboyz or whatever just because they are 'non-scoring'. We will quite probably see less maxing out on them, but that is not the same thing.

As for creating a list based on all the current rumours, As I've indicated in other threads, what an utter waste of time. Half the rumours are so vague that even if they were true we wouldn't actually know what rule we are looking at. Some areas have multiple rumours that can't all be correct. And we don't know which areas might have changed but haven't been noted yet. I'll wait till the new rules come out (leak or release) before getting carried away creating lists.

Having only Troops act as scoring units just does not make any sense at all. I would imagine this is simply a misunderstanding of what was said or heard or read.

I can believe GW not allowing vehicles to hold objectives, which would mainly halt all the skimmers moving 24'+ in the last turn and win the game. (Land Speeders, Vypers, Falcons). CoD works somewhat in this fashion (from my limited experience with CoD)

What would also be silly is not allowing Jump Infantry/Bikes to hold objectives despite their improved movement modes. (Jetbikes, Assault Marines, Raptors, Destroyers etc...)

puree wrote:What woud your propsed 1500 ork list look like. Warboss and ~160 boyz?

I find this disturbing. In my question to you, I posted a proposed 1.85K Ork list, and yet you didn't see it or chose to ignore it. Selective reading? Same goes for JohnHwangDD, who simply ignores posters who point out holes in his arguments. Does it matter what my proposed 1.5K list would be like? I'll entertain you: Warboss, KFF mek, 120-150 Shoota Boyz, 1 unit of Lootas or Snikrot's Kommandos. Basically like I said, 75%-85% of the emphasis on troops, and one support unit. Flexible, resilient, powerful, but not interesting.

i just hope my SW dont get nerfed and lose all thioer snazzy rules and hopefully they bring back rhino rush for marines. I meen come on if they cant jump out of a moving vehicle what kind of lame superhumans are they??

with the template rules there is no problem with them.
i may have missed it in the rumors are they going to fix ,mend IC rule ?

Therion wrote:

puree wrote:What woud your propsed 1500 ork list look like. Warboss and ~160 boyz?

I find this disturbing. In my question to you, I posted a proposed 1.85K Ork list, and yet you didn't see it or chose to ignore it. Selective reading? Same goes for JohnHwangDD, who simply ignores posters who point out holes in his arguments. Does it matter what my proposed 1.5K list would be like? I'll entertain you: Warboss, KFF mek, 120-150 Shoota Boyz, 1 unit of Lootas or Snikrot's Kommandos. Basically like I said, 75%-85% of the emphasis on troops, and one support unit. Flexible, resilient, powerful, but not interesting.

I explained why I wasn't going to get into 'write a list' based on rumours - That was the point of your 1850 point army - asking me to write a similar eldar list, so I didn't ignore it. You just choose to ignore why I wasn't bothered about putting up 1850pt lists based on vague rumour.

I know you play in 1500 pt tourneys (or you did, I'm assuming you still do) so yes 1500 pts is relevant. So would you do what you say and only take non-troops after you have maxed out the troops. Cleary you didn't above in the rought list outlined. I doubt it the vast majority of people would. Your original post (that this argument was about) was hyperbole - that is you were exagerating the affect of a troop only scoring rumour by claiming people would now max out troops for all armies before using the left over points for other stuff. I can't see your post about 75-85% on troops (another thread maybe?), only the one about not spending anything on non-troops until you've maxed troops out.

PS as to interesting. What is interesting about any other list you post? Don't take that the wrong way, the point is you post tourney lists, where the point is to win. There is nothing any more interesting in those lists than the one above. They are just a collection of units that you think will max your chance of winning. That is exactly the same as the 2 rough ork lists you have outlined above. There wil be just as much discussion on optimising every last point spent under 5th as there was under 4th, troop only scores doesn't change that, it just changes the parameters of what is good or bad in an optimised list.

puree wrote:that is you were exagerating the affect of a troop only scoring rumour by claiming people would now max out troops for all armies before using the left over points for other stuff.

Okay, I get it. You ignore my questions to you and the lists that I posted as concrete examples of my opinion, and focus on the single false idea that I have supposedly advocated everyone to unconditionally take six full squads of troops with all possible upgrades before spending points on anything else. You want to draw attention away from the fact that I was right. Voodoo Boyz who replied in the beginning didn't have any trouble understanding what I stated. You're either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding what I said, or playing dense and sticking literally to my very first post regarding these rumours. I also said:

Therion wrote:It's all abouts troop choices now, for every army. You max your troop choices (within reason) and then you see how many points you got left. My new, incredibly interesting speedpaint 5th edition tournament army in 1.5K is Necron Lord with Orb and Veil, 46 Necron Warriors and 2x Monolith.

Does that look to you like six full squads of Warriors? You max out your troops choices within reason, depending on the points limit and the army in question. Did you notice me saying that Orks, Necrons and maybe some Marines are flexible enough to pull this off and because of that will be at a massive advantage? When you play 1000 point games you don't try to take six full squads of troops. Get a grip man.

Therion wrote:
Okay, I get it. You ignore my questions to you

More hyperbole?

I don't believe I've ignored a single question from you. I may not have answered in the way you'd like - e.g. producing a list based on pure speculation as to what the rumours might mean. As far as I can see you asked 2 actual questions of me. I answered both.

question 1 - Are you completely missing my point? I answered that.

No i didn't miss your point. Yes more emphasis on troops looks like how it is going to be if the rumour is true, but...

question 2 - What should the Eldar field against that? I answered that.

As for creating a list based on all the current rumours, As...

Da Boss wrote:Those changes look ridiculous.

They make orks insanely powerful and kill several other builds.
they also seem to completely nerf tanks of all descriptions.
I really hope a lot of those changes aren't true.

Ditto.

I'm thinking I'll leave off my Guard and paint Empire a bit. If all these changes are true, I'd probably sit out and play 4th until 6th gets released in 2012.

These rumours may not be true, or they could be incomplete and there could be other changes that will moderate the effects.

Otherwise it is a massive kick in the nuts for Tau who have the least effective troops in the game and will get their vehicles nerfed as well, and have a recent codex which does not fit the new format but won't get updated for several years.

GW's record on well-thought out rules changes that affect game balance is not reassuring.

I'll probably regret asking, but what's your definition of 'effective troops', KK? I only ask as people seem very quick to dismiss 80% of the troops in the game as somehow 'not worthy'. I call Theoryhammer on yous guys

A nice eldar list to beat ork hordes is based around bikes, falcons and vypers all with a lot of shuriken cannons, along with Dire Avengers to clean up the units that are still scoring. It's quite a chore to play against.

@Troeador its off topic someone seen blade runner lol sorry just read your sig

The new directors cut is out,.. and it is nice

I think once people play against orks, they won't be near what people say they are. They WILL be competitive though...

Tribune wrote:I'll probably regret asking, but what's your definition of 'effective troops', KK? I only ask as people seem very quick to dismiss 80% of the troops in the game as somehow 'not worthy'. I call Theoryhammer on yous guys

Effective troops should have a range of options for combat using H2H and/or ranged weapons, plus mobility and survivability in terms of numbers, armour and morale. Not many armies have all of that in one package but most armies have more of it than Tau.

There is a reason why Tau tournament lists often feature the minimum possible troops.

Kilkrazy wrote:Effective troops should have a range of options for combat using H2H and/or ranged weapons, plus mobility and survivability in terms of numbers, armour and morale.

Ahh, interesting. I'd call that more idealistic than anything else. As you say yourself, you're not going to see that combination often, so I think comparing Tau to that standard is a little unfair.

Kilkrazy wrote:Not many armies have all of that in one package but most armies have more of it than Tau.

Are we talking about other troops units 'having more of it' or other armies in general? I think you mean the former, but am asking the question honestly. If so, comparing one army's troop choices directly to another's in isolation is still a flawed concept IMHO.

Kilkrazy wrote:There is a reason why Tau tournament lists often feature the minimum possible troops.

I think that is the same reason as many other lists do the same. Because the perception is there are better spend options available elsewhere, rather than Tau troops not being 'effective'. Of course, this could all be a case of semantics. But steering back onto topic, the reason I asked is because if troops are actually to be more effective by virtue of being able to hold objectives, perhaps it's worth humouring the idea that Tau troops are not so bad? It may just become the case that rather than sinking points into stealth suits, crisis suits etc., people see their troops (Tau or otherwise) as worthwhile.

Which sounds a lot like what the designers have in mind. QED and all that

What I mean is that most other armies have troops options (I am talking about Troops that will according to rumour be able to capture objectives in 5th edition) that are more effective than Tau Fire Warriors because they have H2H weapons, heavy ranged weapons, bigger numbers, better morale and so on.

For example Orks have decent H2H and numbers to compensate for their low armour and poor shooting. IG have numbers, heavy weapons, some access to H2H weapons and upgrades for morale and armour save. SMs arguably have everything but cost a lot.

In my view it is perfectly reasonable to compare troops from different armies in relation to their ability to take and hold an objective, if this is going to be the focus of the game.

There is also an issue of contribution to overall army effectiveness and points balance. Because FWs are very vulnerable to H2H and cannot carry heavy weapons, increasing the proportion of them in the army makes it more vulnerable to assault and less able to deal with MEqs and vehicles because it absorbs points needed for Crisis suits. My worry is that the effect of this is less exaggerated in other armies because other troops do not have these disadvantages to such an extent.

Kroot should be a help of course.

That's a fair response. I do think your view excludes the idea already posited that troops don't necessarily have to take the objective, they have to be able to hold it. And if some other part of the Tau codex will allow you to take an objective, then comparing the FW unit in isolation with other armies' troops is unfair.

But that's just how I see it. I do agree that I feel for the Tau's need to field heavier weapons via other more specialised units, but I think it's a challenge inherent in their style, not a defining factor of their army list & it's validity.

I think Fire Warriors are great for their points, but I see your issue that they can't bulk out to nearer 20 per squad like a number of other troops choices.

Well, an army with troops that can take an objective as well as hold it would be at an advantage compared to an army whose troops rely on other units to take the objective. I don't think anyone's arguing that the non-Tau armies have useless non-Troop units.

There will always be tactics.

FW's could easily be helped by making Rapid Fire range half of maximum rather than the current 12 inches (nothing about that in the rumours but I can dream.)

Is this about right for troops?

Chaos
Chaos Space Marines
Khorne Berzerkers
Noise Marines
Plague Marines
Summoned Lesser Daemons
Thousand Sons

Daemonhunters
Grey Knights
Inquisitorial Stormtroopers

Dark Eldar
Raider Squad
Warrior Squad

Eldar
Dire Avengers
Guardian Jetbike Squadron
Guardian Squad
Rangers

Imperial Guard
Armoured Fist
Conscripts
Infantry Platoons
(is there a doctrine to allow other units as troops?)

Necrons
Warriors

Tau
Fire Warrior
Kroot squad

Tyranid
Gaunt Brood
Genestealers
Hormagaunts

Witch Hunters
Arbites
Battle Sisters
Inquisitorial Stormtroopers
Zealots

Orks
Boyz Squads
Can be Nobz
Can be Bikerz

Dark Angels
Tactical Squads
Can be Terminators
Can be Ravenwing bikers

Space Marines
Probably change with new dex
Tactical Squads
Scouts

Blood Angels
Assault Squad
Tactical Squad

Guard can have Stormtroopers as troops, Orks can have Dreads. Zealots aren't in the WH codex.

Therion wrote:JohnHwangDD, who simply ignores posters who point out holes in his arguments.

Pretending that you actually had something sensible within your argument, it wouldn't have been ignored.

You need to keep in mind that:
1. This is almost entirely opinion and perspective.
2. I'm not obliged to respond, particularly if I think the post is badgering or foolish.

IMO, the notion of comparing Troops in isolation seems mistaken. Troops will always be fielded with minimum of 1 HQ, and likely with other supporting units.

Second, the notion of including older Codices magnifies the problem, because they were designed under a totally different play concept (stand & shoot for VPs vs maneuver Scoring Troops to Objective).

So it would be appropriate to compare Tau Warriors & Kroot with CSM / Cult Marines, along with Eldar Jetbikes / Guardians / Rangers / Avengers. Within an overall Codex context, I don't think any army suffers too much.

One thing is certain is that the reshuffle will force players to rethink how much the spend on Scoring Troops vs supporting non-Troops, and how they should play. Tactically, there are a lot of interesting challenges associated with the change, far more than just firing away with Heavy Support, then bounding Fast Attack choices on Turn 6, while having 2 minimum Troops to contest one's own table quarters.

And for all those complaining how they lose their Assault Marines scoring, meh, it washes out against Chaos Bikers and Obliterators.

I think 5th Edition is going to be very exciting.

Maybe in fifth edition they should just make a "Counts
as Troops" upgrade that raises the points costs of certain
units if you want to use them to claim objectives.

Actually, Malfred, I'm already dreading the launch of 5th Ed followed by the new loyalist SM codex with the convenient rule that all Marine infantry & jump infantry count as scoring units for holding objectives, thanks to their intense training and versatility blah blah blah...

OK, I thought I'd be cynical for a moment and see how it sat. I'm over it now, honest.

I was thinking...

With this change, non-troops units have a massive disadvantage. There's no need to restrict non-troops units as any player that takes them more than is needed is shooting themselves in the forehead. (Sigh... bye-bye themed armies...)

GW could simplify the game a lot here. No need to worry about Force Organization - they could just copy the Apocalypse army selection rules (e.g. no FoC, only a certain points limit). There's really no need to worry about someone fielding 20 Obliterators or 10 Predators since doing so really wouldn't be a competitive move anyway. Their opponent would just focus on killing their troops units and automatically win the game.

Think of all the times you've been at the FLGS and seen 8 year olds play by just dumping random models on the table. Many players can't understand the force selection and slots system. This change would allow GW to simplify the game further to appeal to those players.

"Second, the notion of including older Codices magnifies the problem, because they were designed under a totally different play concept (stand & shoot for VPs vs maneuver Scoring Troops to Objective)."

Orks is finally coming out next week after 10 years. It's likely we'll be waiting at least that long for Witchhunters, Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar, Black Templars, etc. to be released. Since some of those older Codexes may be with us well into late-5th or early-mid 6th edition, I think it's fair to include them in the analysis.

Of course I think this rumour is bogus anyway, so we'll see.

Their opponent would just focus on killing their troops units and automatically win the game.

Well, sorta... If you can build a sufficiently ridiculous list (say, nothing but Dakkafexes), then hide a couple troops in the back, and bring them out after you've wiped the table by turn 4... There's still a reason for an FOC.

Asmodai wrote:With this change, non-troops units have a massive disadvantage. There's no need to restrict non-troops units as any player that takes them more than is needed is shooting themselves in the forehead.

GW could simplify the game a lot here. No need to worry about Force Organization

I can almost agree here, aside from the fact that balance will never be perfect. There will always be a "best" non-Troops option. So FOC is still useful to limit imbalances and to keep armies well-themed around an imaginary OOB.

For example, it would be silly to see an army consisting of nothing but Dire Avengers in Holo-Falcons led by Phoenix Lords. It would be better to see an army built around Dire Avengers in Wave Serpents led by a Phoenix Lord and supported by a couple Falcons.

And besides, if regular 40k became Apocalypse, then Apocalypse wouldn't be special.

It's certainly not true to say that non-troops will become useless. No-one says now that ICs and Transports are useless because they can't hold objectives in 4th edition.

It's probably a different story when ICs, transports, fast attack, heavy support, and elite troops can't hold objectives.

Greetings from a Lurker,

I am a novice at 40k, but have been playing wargames for a very long time, having played miniatures with Gary Gygax when he wrote historial rules, (WWII- Tractics), before he invented/popularized D+D.

The recent trend in wargame rules has been to make turn sequences more interactive. Examples of this would be use of card systems as in Memoire 44/Battle Cry by Days of Wonder, or the Picquet system by Bob Jones.

40k is extremely primitive in this regard with its simple I Go, You Go system. This creates the classic problem for equal point value armies of whichever force moves into range first either shoots first and kills half the enemy, or lacks move and fire weapons and hence is shot at first.

Now I doubt that any of the 40k authors will ever read this post, or would risk a major change in the rule system. But, I would suggest that the game would be much more interesting from a tactical viewpoint if they adopted an order chit system.

Order chits 1. Charge (allows move and subsequent assault). 2. Move greater than half, 3. move less than half, 4. Fire 5. move greater than half and fire 6. move less than half and fire 7. Rally.

Units receive order chits at the beginning of the turn. Players alternately reveal one units orders at a time. Units which are rallying must reveal their rally order as the first action. Units which take casualties or damage must reveal their order at the next opportunity.

This sort of order system adds a significant planning element and engages both players attention throughout the turn. I think it makes smaller games particularly more interesting.

Just an opinion.


-

after playing some games where you move ,shoot, assault ,etc . One unit at a time it makes each round long but there is no first turn i go and blow up half your army up and your guys can't FIGHT back.
think I'm going to test this with 40k I'll post how it goes .

the problem with this idea they never do it

Our group implemented some extremely straightforward alternate turn sequence mechanics for late in the 2nd edition and it overcame the first turn (and overwatch) dynamic prevalent then. I think now though, the use of concealment as a scenario rule essentially helps to even this out a great deal in the current ruleset.

If I understand correctly Brimstone has already admitted he might've got this rumour wrong. It might as well be that everything except ICs, vehicles and swarms can hold objectives. We'll see.

Unnecessary & deleted.

I think Therion refers to this: http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2233156&postcount=4

I take it as more his usual disclaimer that nothing is guaranteed to be right. But I can see your interpretation also. On that basis, all the min-troopers can go away and be happy again. Perhaps ;P

You may also like to consider this later post from the same thread: http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2234187&postcount=75

Brimstone wrote:Anything taken as a troops choice under the FOC is a scoring unit

Therion wrote:If I understand correctly Brimstone has already admitted he might've got this rumour wrong. It might as well be that everything except ICs, vehicles and swarms can hold objectives. We'll see.

Is this new news or referring to the snipped posted here, because he assured that it's just troop choices and not infantry models.

And even if it's true: All I hear here is crying. What the hell? Who says you can't win with less scoring units that your opponent?
Elite, fast or Heavy units often have the advantage of superior firepower, armor or speed. Under the new rules they can't hold objectives. Ever thought of balancing your units selection out? If you field nothing but necron warriors or space marines, dedicated anti-MeQ troops will reap a load of them...happy scoring then, maybe you should have bought a unit to counter that!

The rule surely keeps players away from fielding only the minimum of troops and powering up on elites. Since when is that bad? All the Falcon armies now are unscoring and have unscoring load. So my Ork mob for a fraction of the cost is sitting on an objective and there isn't much you can do about it. Sure kill me, but you won't get any bonus points for scoring. I feel that this rule could prevent lists like the immortal necron spam or similar lists which is a good thing, imo. And besides, tell me which of the newer codecies have sub-par troops selection?
Eldar, Tyranids, Space Marines or Chaos? Maybe Tau? Come on! A unit with 30" rapid fire S5 AP5 weapons for 10 points is bad? Not in my book...

Greets
Schepp himself

What Schepp said...

Schepp himself wrote:

Therion wrote:If I understand correctly Brimstone has already admitted he might've got this rumour wrong. It might as well be that everything except ICs, vehicles and swarms can hold objectives. We'll see.

And even if it's true: All I hear here is crying. What the hell? Who says you can't win with less scoring units that your opponent?

Of course you can, but you're at a serious disadvantage.

Elite, fast or Heavy units often have the advantage of superior firepower, armor or speed. Under the new rules they can't hold objectives. Ever thought of balancing your units selection out? If you field nothing but necron warriors or space marines, dedicated anti-MeQ troops will reap a load of them...happy scoring then, maybe you should have bought a unit to counter that!

That's not the issue. The issue is that troops get such a massive advantage relative to their points cost that it effectively breaks the game.

For example, it's currently a reasonably tough choice between Lascannon Heavy Weapons Squads and Infantry Platoons in an Imperial Guard army. Both have advantages (numbers, more firepower) and disadvantages (wasted shots, low numbers). With this rule the Infantry Platoon, already more popular, becomes far and away the best choice and the other options are just wasted space.

A Land Raider is 250 points, which is roughly the same as a 10-man Las/Plas Squad with a Veteran Sergeant, Powerfist and Rhino. It's currently a toss-up with the edge going to the troops choice. When you factor in that the Land Raider can't score then there's no longer any question. The Tactical Squad is far and away the better selection. The Land Raider goes to sit on the shelf till 6th edition.

Part of the reason people play 40K is for all the cool background. If you start closing all that off in competitive games so people just play with rifle platoons, they might as well play Flames of War.

The rule surely keeps players away from fielding only the minimum of troops and powering up on elites. Since when is that bad?

I like themed armies. The Iyaden Ghost Warrior army, a covert Tau Strike Team with Pathfinders and Stealth Suits, the Tanith 1st with lots of Veteran Squads, a cyborg Necron army full of Pariahs and Flayed Ones, etc.

There's lots of times when it's a lot more fun to play against an interesting variant than just another 60 Necron Warriors.

With all respect, this is same old, same old. Rumoured changes are discussed and people decide that their favourite style of play, whether it be winning tournaments or playing their 'themed army', is lost forever.

Actually, you can still line up whatever army you like from your codex, but as is the case at present, there will some combinations that seem better or worse to you.

Hey, here's a shocker: your mileage may vary. Play the army you like to play. If you want to win, play the army you think will win.

If a person likes an army for it's theme over it's perceived chances of winning, then they still have the same themed army available to them to use. If they only like that themed army while they think it can win, then may I suggest that the theme is perhaps not as much their priority? I don't think as many people fall into the latter category, the themers are stubborn enough to enjoy themselves regardless

As for unit choices within and without the Troops FOC, I see it as accepted wisdom on here all the time that some units are no brainers and others are not. What's the difference under your comparisons? I'd like all choices to be equally useful, but since that depends on my perception, you're never to going to please everyone, are you?

For example, it's currently a reasonably tough choice between Lascannon Heavy Weapons Squads and Infantry Platoons in an Imperial Guard army. Both have advantages (numbers, more firepower) and disadvantages (wasted shots, low numbers). With this rule the Infantry Platoon, already more popular, becomes far and away the best choice and the other options are just wasted space.

Ok, point taken.

A Land Raider is 250 points, which is roughly the same as a 10-man Las/Plas Squad with a Veteran Sergeant, Powerfist and Rhino. It's currently a toss-up with the edge going to the troops choice. When you factor in that the Land Raider can't score then there's no longer any question. The Tactical Squad is far and away the better selection. The Land Raider goes to sit on the shelf till 6th edition.

Untrue. You don't know if the revisited damage chart and possible firesplitting will greatly enhance the land raider. Also it seems that AT firepower gets more expensive in the newer codecies (Chaos, DA,BT, Orks...)

I like themed armies. The Iyaden Ghost Warrior army, a covert Tau Strike Team with Pathfinders and Stealth Suits, the Tanith 1st with lots of Veteran Squads, a cyborg Necron army full of Pariahs and Flayed Ones, etc.

Well, discussing about competitive play and then giving these armies as examples seems strange. Sure, I hate it when themed armies loose all of their hope to compete, but there are and still will be ways to play with these armies even with the possible rule change, especially when necron and guards are getting redone in the future.

Greets
Schepp himself

Schepp himself wrote:
Well, discussing about competitive play and then giving these armies as examples seems strange. Sure, I hate it when themed armies loose all of their hope to compete, but there are and still will be ways to play with these armies even with the possible rule change, especially when necron and guards are getting redone in the future.

Fair enough. I think 'semi-competitive' would be more accurate. I don't expect anyone to win a GT with the above mentioned Tau covert strike force, but they shouldn't be crippled either. The game can never be perfectly balanced, but I think it's a good thing when unusual builds can still give a spirited game.

A lot still depends on the uncertainties. If there's three objectives and each objective gives a bonus of VPs equal to the 10% of the points value (e.g. 150 each in a 1500 game) then Troops get a boost, but it's not decisive by itself. If there's two objectives and holding both = win and each having one or none = tie, then this rule's impact really starts to break the force organization system.

I think we'll stay with VP's in the core rules. Are there any/many tournaments out there that don't use VPs? Honest question.

JohnHwangDD wrote:And besides, if regular 40k became Apocalypse, then Apocalypse wouldn't be special.

No, then they'd both be special. And by "special" I mean "slowed".

To give this argument a different perspective, imagine that the rumour said that only vehicles with the Tank attribute would be allowed to hold objectives, or only Elite troops, or only Fast Attack, or even only HQ units. Then think how that might affect your favourite army or hated foe and see if it is fair and reasonable.

GW's thinking seems to be, "Players aren't using enough Troops. Force them to use more." This does not remove any imbalances that may exist between lists. It only penalises lists in which the troop choices are sub-par. Now I know that many players consider all troop choices to be sub-par, but in reality some troops are more sub-par than others.