1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Since Round 3's thread went off in a tangent on WW2 and a bunch of other stuff, I figured that after distilling some new rumors off Warseer, putting them in a new thread might be a good idea. These are taken from Warseer member "Champsguy" First Update: Link Okay, I'll give some update and a little clarification.
The rumors I gave were based off of an early version of the rulebook. I gave it a quick read-through, so I can clarify as far as how some of these rules work (i.e., I didn't just talk to a guy who told me how it would work in bullet-point fashion). I haven't had a chance to re-read it yet, as I've been too busy with work and other things to devote any time to 40K in the last few days, so certain things I'm not really sure about until I get a chance to look at the thing again.
It was an early draft, this much was obvious by sections that had old versions of charts in them (with things like "we need to update this graph" written in on top of them). Not all the rules were complete. There were a few sentence fragments and blank places where certain rules had obviously not been finished. There was also no artwork, just large blank spaces saying "put artwork here" (basically).
So, basically going off of memory, this is what I remember (not saying that other questions can't be answered, just that I didn't see or don't remember what that answer is).
Vehicles: Fire everything if you stay still (except Ordnance, it's got special rules, and I don't use Ordnance, so I didn't look closely). Fast vehicles can fire everything if they move up to 6". If you move, you can fire 1 plus defensive weapons. Fast vehicles can move up to 12" and fire 1 plus defensive. If you move more than 6", you only fire defensive (I think you can still fire defensive weapons here, but I'm not 100% on that). Fast vehicles can move up to 18" (their max speed now) and only fire defensive. Vehicles can only fire at one target. I did not see any special rules for sponsons firing at multiple targets. Not saying they won't be in the final version, or even that they aren't in the one I saw, just that I didn't see them.
Wound allocation before armor saves: Didn't see it. It may or may not be. I was looking at other sections and really didn't expect to see any changes here, so I glanced over that part and didn't look too closely. I'll try and update later on in the week, once I see it again.
Vehicle damage chart: It's about halfway between the glancing and penetrating charts of today (1-2 is the can't shoot/move thing, 3 is weapon, 4 is immobilized, 5-6 destroyed/annihilated). Glance is a -2. If you are glanced, your vehicle can at most be immobilized. Vehicles are a bit more survivable because of the way damage stacks. If you get two immobilized results, it becomes weapon destroyed. You aren't destroyed by "cumulative results" until you've been immobilized and all your weapons are gone (and then you get one more).
Transports: If your transport is destroyed, passengers now take a Str 4 hit, saves allowed (instead of a 4+). If an open-topped transport is destroyed, it's a Str 3 hit because its easier to disembark.
Plasma/frag: I don't know about their armor penetration against vehicles. I think they're the same now, but don't quote me on that.
Assaulting in cover: If you assault someone in cover, and you don't have grenades, you now become initiative 1 (instead of them becoming init 10). This works a lot better when more than two units are in combat.
LOS: I'm pretty sure that it's units that block LOS, so you shouldn't worry about spending 45 minutes drawing LOS from each individual trooper to each individual target. You draw LOS from the eyes of the model. Area terrain gives cover saves. There's an entire chapter on ruined buildings and how they affect line of sight (like a mini Cities of Death). I honestly don't remember if 6" of terrain blocks sight or not.
Blast weapons: I didn't see anything in the rules about rolling to hit at all, just scatter. But honestly, I was on the phone with a guy relating all the stuff to him, and I can't always do two things at once. So it might be there -- I didn't get to give this stuff my complete and full attention.
Running can be done w/in 12" of an enemy. You just can't charge if you run.
More rumors:
After shooting and wounding, you can choose to become pinned. You get a +1 to cover save (or a 6+ if you're in the open). It's the "get down!" rule.
If you are charged while broken, you make another fall back move immediately. If you don't get away (i.e., they can still reach you), you're destroyed. If you do get away, umm, you get away.
Gets Hot! is back to the 3rd ed version. So that Ork character doesn't have to worry about rolling 3s on his plasma gun.
There is not a new HTH chart. Sadly, the Avatar still only hits Fire Warriors on a 3+.
Preferred Enemy now allows you to reroll all misses, instead of hitting on a 3+.
Ground vehicles that move at full speed and cross dangerous terrain roll 2D6 for their test. If one "one" is rolled, they're immobilized. If two "ones" are rolled, the vehicle flips over and is considered destroyed. Kinda cool, I think, because it represents what you see in action movies.
Flamers: You now determine wounds for all template weapons firing from a squad before you take saves or remove casualties!!!
Bikes all now get a 3+ cover save for their turbo-boost. So the psy-cannon thing is out the window.
A unit with Scouts that is inside a vehicle confers that ability to the vehicle!!! Let the Pathfinders and Possessed Marines rule!
--
Honestly, one thing I noticed is that the new rules should make Dark Reapers turn back into their tank-murdering selves (at least the Exarch). An Exarch with Crack Shot and an Eldar Missile Launcher could deny a skimmer any real protection. No cover save, ka-blam!
Overall, if something remained the same, I didn't mention it. So while I understand the desire for defensive weapons to be something different than they were in 4th...
Second Update: Link Okay, I looked at it again. A few updates.
1) Blast weapons don't roll to hit, they just scatter. However, they now operate like template weapons in that any model touched by the blast is hit. None of this "roll 4+ for partial" stuff. A unit firing multiple blast weapons (a SM Dev squad being the example) fires like a multiple barrage unit would in 4th edition. Scatter once, then lay the blasts off of the original template. These two things might make up for the lack of a to-hit roll. Oh, and you don't need to center the hole over someone when you place it before determining scatter.
2) No shooting of defensive weapons if you move full speed.
3) Yes, vehicles can now get up to a 3+ cover save, depending on what they're hiding behind.
4) Still saw nothing on 6" plus of area terrain blocking line of sight. You CAN declare certain types of terrain as LOS blocking -- it just has to be done before the game. You also decide what is difficult, what is dangerous, and what is impassable. Certain things can be difficult for one type of model and not difficult for another. So tank traps might be dangerous terrain for vehicles, but count as clear terrain for infantry. A river might be impassable for infantry, but dangerous for vehicles. You just have to decide before you play. I like this, as it gives more power to the players.
5) No re-roll of wounding against transported infantry no matter how far you moved.
6) Force weapons now just inflict instant death instead of that weird pseudo-instant death.
7) Smoke launchers are a 5+ cover save.
8) You can still only take one save per guy.
9) Yes, allocate wounds before making saves. This will probably encourage larger squads (goodbye, 6 man las-plas).
10) You can shoot over other squads if you can see over them because of elevation, etc. You can always shoot at vehicles or monstrous creatures over other squads.
Overall, it looks like a lot of streamlining went into the rules. That's good. It also looks like they wanted to move away from certain types of armies. Certain vehicles have become "viable" (to some degree) again. A Dark Eldar Ravager with 3 Dark Lances is now something you can take. You couldn't really before, because you "had" to move 6+ inches to get SMF, and that meant you could only fire one weapon. Now, with SMF just a 5+ cover save, and the Ravager able to fire all weapons if it moves 6" or less, we may actually see it shoot more often.
The problem that I see with 4th is that certain builds were simply too good to not take. As a result, a lot of different units were never used. A Falcon can have a pulse laser, a scatter laser, and a shuriken cannon, move 12", and fire them all. Well, that's a hell of a lot of firepower. Likewise, the Land Speeder w/ AC and HB was just too good to ignore. Now, with these changes, vehicles that were too good in 4th will become... not so good now.
With fast vehicles only able to move 18", it likewise eliminated the Dark Eldar rush. It again looks like they're moving away from one-turn assaults and other too-good combos.
This is overall, in my opinion, a good thing for 40K. The fewer no-brainer builds that are available, the better. Builds that were never competitive before now have a chance to be good. Vehicles as a whole are now less mobile, but more survivable. It will lead to different tactics, to be sure. Some vehicles may become more common (like the Land Raider), simply because Eldar skimmers got worse. It's hard to justify 250 for a Land Raider when a Falcon is so much faster, more survivable, and has more mobile firepower than you. Of course, the Land Raider Crusader remains 10 gallons of kick-ass in a 5 gallon jug.
So if we can keep discussing these rumors based off some kind of early leak, and not diverge too far off topic; then this could be a better round than last time. UPDATE 1/17/07: More stuff from Warseer: Link Ok I have a copy of what I think is the same document (only had a quick browse)
The chart for missions says
1-2 = Recon
3-4= Take and Hold
5-6 = Total Anihiliation
Recon = You role for d3+2 objectives and if you have troops within 3" and the other guy doesnt at the end of the game, you hold that objective. The one with the most objectives wins.
Take and Hold = Is similar, except each player choses an objective within their deployment zone, not in impassible terrain, and not within 24" of the other objective.
Total Anihilation = Get 'Kill Points' for units destroyed or falling back. HQ=3pts. Fast, Heavy, Elite = 2pts Troops=1pt
Oh and later on its says VPs are used to decide draws. Units destroyed are worth their points, half strength units worth half their points. You need at least a 10% difference in VPs based on the points of the game to win (i.e. their example 1,500 points requres a 150 pints difference to register a win)
There is also a 'deployment' chart which I will put on in the morning (too tired) if someone else hasn't done it already. As noted earlier, only troops are scoring, except if falling back / it is a transport? / it has a specific rule saying it isn't scoring.
One funny thing about the deployment chart. One of the deployment types is called "Dawn of War"
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Reading some of this, it really has some positives and negatives.
Tanks taking a nerf in terms of mobile firepower is a good and bad thing.
Skimmers getting nerfed is plenty positive in my eyes; and reducing the overall speed of the fastest vehicles is positive. A lot is going to depend on if you can move 6" and fire a primary weapon, and/or Ordinance weapon. If Normal Tanks can keep that feature (and hopefully fire sponsons on the move) then we should see things brought a little back in line.
On the other hand, if vehicles can't move that fast and you can "forced march" with ground troops, and other troops block LOS to the guys behind them - whoa boy are things going to start to get silly; at least thinking from an Ork perspective.
On the other hand, Marines with Rhinos became a lot more viable, and in general even Eldar taking hits from a downed Waveserpent (or now a Falcon, which would lose it's godlike survivability if those damage tables and the other vehicle rules came into play) would probably be better off than they were with the 4+ to wound with a re-roll and the no more auto-entangled.
Assuming you can't launch assaults from the closed top transports, you get a happy medium between the death traps of 4th and the Rhino Rush of 3rd.
2661
Post by: Tacobake
The changes to vehicles sound positive. You can always remain stationary if you want to fire all your weapons.
LoS rules make the new Grots good, especially if combined with say the pinning option.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I still think defensive weapons should have remained strength 5. But lets wait and see. I'm glad they haven't given hard and fast rules about terrain. In friendly games, this means a chat beforehand. In tournaments, it should be decided by the organisers for the players.
105
Post by: Sarigar
I'm still trying to figure out the changes to vehicles. Cover saves and Glancing hits being completely unable to destroy a vehicle sounds very resilient. Did I miss the part about only being able to glance a skimmer if it moves more than 6 inches?
I've also heard that Area Terrain is, in effect, going away to true LOS. To this day, I still get in debates about Area Terrain and LOS, plus all the various Mech players wanting to declare every piece of terrain Size 3 Area Terrain. This really won't bother me.
Allocating the wounds before armor saves. I suppose this will replace the massively overlooked Torrent of Fire rule.
All in all, I look forward to seeing some new changes. I've played since 1st edition and will continue when 5th comes out and not scream out 'the end times are here!'.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Tacobake wrote:The changes to vehicles sound positive. You can always remain stationary if you want to fire all your weapons.
LoS rules make the new Grots good, especially if combined with say the pinning option.
Grots will still suck. LD7 on the Runtherds means they'll run once they take casualties; I'd rather just blow 220 Points on 30 Boyz w/ PK Nobz + Bosspoles to "screen" whatever I wanted. It certainly helps Burna Boyz, Tankbustas, and the like to become "decent". It also makes some things VERY silly since I can "forced march" that Slugga Screen up on turn one, and use it as a giant LOS blocking Wall for 20 Storm Boyz who will then get an assault on Turn 2 almost regardless of table terrain setup. Couple of other points I wanted to make: With no more "Glancing 6" to destroy a vehicle S8 just became near useless against AV14. It also sees a significant decrease in the Ork anti-tank arsenal aside from using PK's to whack things. Necrons also take it up the proverbial metal butt; only Heavy Destroyers now have a shot to do anything to most tanks. Though I'm sure the Necrons will be fixed with the new rules with a new Codex in 5th Ed, and to be honest as a Necron player I see armies made up of "Tracked" vehicles or any kind of vehicle heavy list an easy win; any kind of heavy vehicle - Land Raiders, Leman Russes, and even Monoliths are just easy fodder for my basic guns. The only sad downside to S8 becoming useless agianst higher AV's is that it's just going to encourage players to take more Lascannons instead of Missile Launchers for the few places they CAN still buy anti-tank in the new Codex's. On the other hand, once SM's get their proverbial "nerf", Tanks are going to get VERY survivable as there will be just far less anti-tank sitting around out there.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Skimmers getting nerfed is plenty positive in my eyes; and reducing the overall speed of the fastest vehicles is positive.
Why? Thats what a skimmer is all about-speed. This looks like a blatant attempt to get people who had skimmer heavy armies to buy something else. I'm not impressed with that.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I think it's a bit mental from a realism point of veiw to have infantry who can move as fast in a single turn as the fastest buggies and skimmers. In the case of leaping nids, much faster in fact.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
jfrazell wrote:
Skimmers getting nerfed is plenty positive in my eyes; and reducing the overall speed of the fastest vehicles is positive.
Why? Thats what a skimmer is all about-speed. This looks like a blatant attempt to get people who had skimmer heavy armies to buy something else. I'm not impressed with that.
And with the ability to "fire as if moving fast", combined with the fact that most skimmers are "fast" anyway, they will still be faster than their tracked vehicle counter parts 99% of the time.
But reducing their ability to move such a drastic amount in game (such as to score, block assaults, etc) is probably a good thing; and to make them chose to move as fast as possible to get the defensive bonuses or move a little slower to fire their weapons, it brings them in line instead of "I move 12, you can now only glance, and I get to shoot everything I've got too" which is what we're dealing with now.
2661
Post by: Tacobake
jfrazell wrote:
Skimmers getting nerfed is plenty positive in my eyes; and reducing the overall speed of the fastest vehicles is positive.
Why? Thats what a skimmer is all about-speed. This looks like a blatant attempt to get people who had skimmer heavy armies to buy something else. I'm not impressed with that.
To be fair, skimmers are likely just as good as other other choices in the existing codex. This is a farcry from the "Chaos Codex" yo-yo where there is a new termie kit coming out so terminators get great rules and next time it will be NEW CHAOS DREAD, NOW WITH HAVOC LAUNCHERS, and a fancy plastic kit with brand new ikons on it.
157
Post by: mauleed
So this is a big boost to transports that transport things with good armor saves. All other vehicles stay in the box.
Probably a smart marketing strategy. They sold a ton of tanks for apoc, so now release rules to make tanks useless.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Would it really hurt them to just make everything equally attractive? I don't get the "Hmmm, well, we've made our money on that in the short term, it can suck now. What should we pump up to sell more of?" way of selling games.
Though I'm not convinced this is the true way things happen- it's probably a confused jumble between that and incompetence.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
"It was an early draft, this much was obvious by sections that had old versions of charts in them (with things like "we need to update this graph" written in on top of them). Not all the rules were complete. There were a few sentence fragments and blank places where certain rules had obviously not been finished. There was also no artwork, just large blank spaces saying "put artwork here" (basically). "
Uh... this gives me great pause in terms of believing the veracity of these rumours. They book is already in layout (i.e. artwork placement) before the text is finalized?
That sounds very strange. It's not impossible, but it sounds unlikely based on what I know about the publishing industry.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
mauleed wrote:So this is a big boost to transports that transport things with good armor saves. All other vehicles stay in the box.
Probably a smart marketing strategy. They sold a ton of tanks for apoc, so now release rules to make tanks useless.
Not sure how bad they'll be, in general they shouldn't be too bad off. Probably better off now than they were before. Glances are far less dangerous, Pen's aren't as bad as now, and they're limiting the number of anti-tank weapons you can take in new Codex's.
Remember, if small Las/ Plas goes away for regular Marines and Assault Cannons aren't the vehicle killers they are now, then only IG can really throw down as many long-range anti-tank guns "en masse". Orks anti-tank that they're currently enjoying go down in overall power, especially since Glances aren't that good now.
157
Post by: mauleed
I love how it bones the venom cannon. Anything that hurts Godzilla is fine by me.
5212
Post by: Gitzbitah
Or even better-
"Bikes all now get a 3+ cover save for their turbo-boost. So the psy-cannon thing is out the window. "
If that holds up, every Waaagh! will need the supreme cover of a unit of nob bikers with painboy roaring down the field. 3+ cover, 4+ FNP will hold up to the round or so it takes them to get into close combat.
1795
Post by: keezus
Voodoo Boyz wrote:With no more "Glancing 6" to destroy a vehicle S8 just became near useless against AV14.
I think you meant "Monoliths" are essentially invincible against "Witchunters (penetent engine - huur!) and Dark Eldar (haywire)", and almost invincible against "Daemonhunters (Lascannon and dread CCW on dreads and landraiders) and Eldar (fireprism, haywire, wraithlord HTH and d-cannon)". Hooray.
4296
Post by: OverchargeThis!
THis is probably an intentional 'leak', to get input from the community at large. I agree that defensive weapons as S4 or less is a poor choice. I would say S5 or less, b/c heavy bolter class weapons are classic defensive armaments on vehicles.
But!! Overall, I like what I'm hearing. Great stuff. I hope smokes can be popped every turn. Just means no shooting in those turns. Makes vehicle use quite tactical imho.
844
Post by: stonefox
I actually wouldn't mind if defensive weapons were actually defensive. Nevermind the whole can/can't shoot thing. I want those suckers gunning down angry bald men when they charge my tank...and increase it to S5.
Uh... this gives me great pause in terms of believing the veracity of these rumours. They book is already in layout (i.e. artwork placement) before the text is finalized?
I thought dakka already agreed that it was minis>background/artwork>rules for 40k. When they're deciding what to do because adding more text would mean the artwork couldn't be placed on that page..."Hey Jim, do you really think players will need this rules clarification?" "Nah, Ed, see it says right there that they should just roll for it."
2582
Post by: glon52
My main gripe is the slowing down of vehicles. Skimmers that move only 18" is way too slow. With forced march, even infantry can move as fast as a tank. Don't get me wrong, I like forced march. The problem is that vehicles are simply too slow. If anything, they should speed them up.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
My guess is that they didn't like Fast Skimmers under their current rules.
"Oh look, I've gotten Glanced and can't shoot; I'll just zoom 24", ignoring terrain, to hide behind some cover for a turn and then I'll come out and shoot again.".
At least now you have to be somewhat close to terrain to do this; it seems like they want to stop people form being able to zoom across tables without much regard for distance like they can now.
117
Post by: Tribune
When discussing these rumours, please also note his source, which I posted the link to on Round 3's thread and appears somewhere between the two excerpts you've pulled. I ascribe little authenticity to these currently and Brim had yet to reply at all on them as of last night.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
One thing I've noticed is that Brim and other Warseer "reliables" are loathe to comment on rumors posted from "leaked" preview books.
When the first set of Ork rumors, which turned out to be almost 100% spot on in terms of rules came out from Orkdom seeing a printed copy of the leaked dex, Brim and co said nothing about it.
I think that because of the nature of the source, them "confirming what the leak shows" as something they've heard would just give credence to the leaked document where almost the entire thing is bound to get online at some point.
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
keezus wrote:Voodoo Boyz wrote:With no more "Glancing 6" to destroy a vehicle S8 just became near useless against AV14.
I think you meant "Monoliths" are essentially invincible against "Witchunters (penetent engine - huur!) and Dark Eldar (haywire)", and almost invincible against "Daemonhunters (Lascannon and dread CCW on dreads and landraiders) and Eldar (fireprism, haywire, wraithlord HTH and d-cannon)". Hooray.
Well, they already kind of are. Though the Sisters enjoy the benefits of AP1 currently to give them the Pen on a hit, and even if the rumors are true and AP1 becomes +1 on the damage chart, it gives them a one in 6 chance to tag the monolith. Not good, but workable (I guess).
I wonder if power weapons and melta grenades are going to be considered AP1 as well. It would make a certain amount of sense, and keep melee a little more effective against the fortress vehicles like Monoliths and Land Raiders that there is no "rear armor" to hit in melee.
218
Post by: widderslainte
Fast vehicles can move up to 18" (their max speed now) and only fire defensive.
Glance is a -2. If you are glanced, your vehicle can at most be immobilized. Vehicles are a bit more survivable because of the way damage stacks.
Transports: If your transport is destroyed, passengers now take a Str 4 hit, saves allowed (instead of a 4+). If an open-topped transport is destroyed, it's a Str 3 hit because its easier to disembark.
Certain vehicles have become "viable" (to some degree) again. A Dark Eldar Ravager with 3 Dark Lances is now something you can take. You couldn't really before, because you "had" to move 6+ inches to get SMF, and that meant you could only fire one weapon.
With fast vehicles only able to move 18", it likewise eliminated the Dark Eldar rush. It again looks like they're moving away from one-turn assaults and other too-good combos.
Ravagers won't be more viable, because (based on these rumours and the reported SMF changes) every Dark Eldar player will be wimpering in their closet until a new codex comes out.
4501
Post by: AlexCage
glon52 wrote:My main gripe is the slowing down of vehicles. Skimmers that move only 18" is way too slow. With forced march, even infantry can move as fast as a tank. Don't get me wrong, I like forced march. The problem is that vehicles are simply too slow. If anything, they should speed them up.
I think that's the main sticking point for me. Vehicles can move 12" and fire defensive weapons (so a heavy stubber or StormBolter, or, good god, Hurricane Bolters [yeah good call on that one], i.e., basically nothing). Infantry can move 12" and not fire at all. So infantry and vehicles are the same speed? Why would I ever take a transport then?! Well I suppose my Chimeras can be big metal skin for my Guard now. Of course, I could just take another unit and have 2 scoring units instead of 1 with an AV.
Also:
Ground vehicles that move at full speed and cross dangerous terrain roll 2D6 for their test. If one "one" is rolled, they're immobilized. If two "ones" are rolled, the vehicle flips over and is considered destroyed. Kinda cool, I think, because it represents what you see in action movies.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong... isn't that how it is NOW? What's new about this?
218
Post by: widderslainte
glon52 wrote:My main gripe is the slowing down of vehicles. Skimmers that move only 18" is way too slow. With forced march, even infantry can move as fast as a tank. Don't get me wrong, I like forced march. The problem is that vehicles are simply too slow. If anything, they should speed them up.
Seriously. GW needs to decide what the point of a transport is. Even with these changes, what good is a rhino?
2582
Post by: glon52
Maybe GW got sick of selling vehicles.
I see house rules for vehicle movement/fire in my future.
2582
Post by: glon52
An expensive storm bolter?
1523
Post by: Saldiven
One comment toward the second quote of the OP.
These rules do nothing to change DE raider rush. You couldn't disembark from raiders if they moved more than 12" in 3rd or 4th edition. Limiting the raider to a max move of 18" doesn't change that. Unless they've changed the disembarkation rules, raiders and trucks will still be able to move 12", disembark, fleet (waagh), and assault.
Also, if rumors are true, then walking still isn't as fast as a vehicle. The first rumor stated that, if you "ran," then you couldn't assault that phase. Therefore, you're limited to a max move of 12", while vehicles will be going, potentially, 18". If this rumor is true, then it goes differential "fleet" from "run/forced march." If you "run," you can't assault; if you "fleet," you can.
157
Post by: mauleed
All of this is convincing me I need to finally paint that sisters army.
2175
Post by: Chaplain Pallantide
Wow, if these rumors are true then Zilla's did get boned as Ed said. I counted on massed Venom Cannon fire to destroy enemy vehicles and now that glancing hit's cannot destroy a vehicle like it use to kind of sucks.
It would seem to me that they want to turn the attention to the basic trooper, in which case I might jump ship and go for more warmachine/hordes.
I think other game companies out there should thank GW for helping boost their sales, cause I see more PP buys in the near future.
Just my 2 cents
Chappy P!
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Chaplain Pallantide wrote:Wow, if these rumors are true then Zilla's did get boned as Ed said. I counted on massed Venom Cannon fire to destroy enemy vehicles and now that glancing hit's cannot destroy a vehicle like it use to kind of sucks.
It would seem to me that they want to turn the attention to the basic trooper, in which case I might jump ship and go for more warmachine/hordes.
That's not what's supposed to happen. You're supposed to buy a whole new set of Carnifexes and Hive Tyrants and equip them with different weapons load-outs under the new rules. Get with the program!
4042
Post by: Da Boss
What weapon load out would help them? It seems to me that the only way nids can take down 'liths now is by somehow getting a CC carnifex into it in hand to hand. Which seems unlikely to happen, ever.
Are Zoanthropes S9 or 10?
752
Post by: Polonius
As the rumours keep flying, I get more and more excited about 5th ed. I can't say I'm happy, because I have no clue what rumours are true, let alone what impact they'll have on my armies. Based on the rumours, however, it is clear that GW has at least some idea of what's wrong with the current environment.
That GW rights sub standard rules for 40k is well known, pretty well understood, and not likely to dramatically change. They are, however, still at least half assed about the job. Speeders were too good, so they got nerfed. Transports sucked too bad, so they got boosted. Tanks were weak, so they get a cover save and a new damage chart. Infantry are too slow, they get forced march.
Looking at the Ork book, I'm not sure they haven't created a monster, but it's perhaps not totally out of line to cut GW at least some slack. Every set of rules pisses somebody off: the only way to balance things is to nerf the good things and boost the weak things, and if you play something good or against something weak, yeah, you're going to be pissed when the change comes.
Given it's unwillingness to adequetly playtest (and I mean seriously, competitively playtest), GW should do the next best thing: new editions and/or updates, with the hobby as a whole testing the rules.
I'm suprised HBMC hasn't plugged his alternative ruleset in this thread, but he's got a valid point. If you want the game to stay static, then pick a ruleset, tweak it with your friends, and play it. I know that I personally like change.
782
Post by: DarthDiggler
I've heard mention that units remain scoring until they get below 25% casualties, not the 50% we currently have. I'm not making this up, but it is definitly a rumor from people who sometimes have access to such things.
157
Post by: mauleed
Chaplain Pallantide wrote:Wow, if these rumors are true then Zilla's did get boned as Ed said.
Anything that bones Godzilla nids is a wonderful thing.
64
Post by: Longshot
if the nids had any other way to pop tanks reliably I would agree 
Any nid army starts with two or three gunfexes -- without them the army is a cruel joke.
752
Post by: Polonius
Oh, and yes, I'm sure many of the rules changes are designed to sell more models. How horrible of GW! I mean, it sucks for us as consumers, but it's what any publicly held corporation has to do to make money, which is it's job. It's like saying a Baseball team only signed a big free agent to sell more jerseys, or an employee only works harder because they want a raise.
On the other hand, GW making money and being a large gaming company means that we get pretty good support for tournaments (though far less than I'd like), consistently high quality minis (Rackham were better, but apparently imploded), a strong network of gaming stores with play space and helpful, if dreadfully annoying, staff.
I remember in 95, when Middle Earth: the Wizards was released as a CCG. Unlike Star Wars, which only used the first half of A new Hope for it's main set, dragging the fans through years of expansions, ME:TW included every character, monster, and Item you'd want in the very first set. This was great for gamers: collect one set full of good stuff, and you'll never need to buy more! Unfortunatly, you never needed to buy more. The later expansions were interesting, but on the whole very unnecessary. Because the core of the game never changed, interest dwindled in a hurry.
Sure, it'd be great if GW released a rule set that was perfectly balanced, a line of codices that were evenly strong and interesting, and a model for every option in every codex. And then, GW would be reduced to 3 guys writing campaigns and Codex: Apocolypse 2: "This time, it's personal" for the 15 gamers still playing in their basement.
Feeding the beast is the price we pay. If you really think the rules and models you buy from PP will remain legal and competitive in 3 years, I think you might be a bit disappointed. Planned obsolence is the cynical beating heart of a consumer culture.
752
Post by: Polonius
Longshot wrote:if the nids had any other way to pop tanks reliably I would agree
Any nid army starts with two or three gunfexes -- without them the army is a cruel joke.
Well, part of me wonders if Nidzilla having a weakness wouldn't be a bad thing. There's currently not much it really fears, so having an inability of destroying (While still stunning, disarming and imobilizing) tanks might not be the end of the world.
Also, how many tanks do Nids actually fear?
4477
Post by: skullspliter888
After shooting and wounding, you can choose to become pinned. You get a +1 to cover save (or a 6+ if you're in the open). It's the "get down!" rule.
wow this should make things intresting ? are you pinned till you next turn or for a full turn ? now my IG can run out rapid fire take cover and have a Inv. save 
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Polonius wrote:I remember in 95, when Middle Earth: the Wizards was released as a CCG. Unlike Star Wars, which only used the first half of A new Hope for it's main set, dragging the fans through years of expansions, ME:TW included every character, monster, and Item you'd want in the very first set. This was great for gamers: collect one set full of good stuff, and you'll never need to buy more! Unfortunatly, you never needed to buy more. The later expansions were interesting, but on the whole very unnecessary. Because the core of the game never changed, interest dwindled in a hurry.
Non-collectible card games have been extremely successful for decades - Bang! is doing extremely well, so does Citadels, Apples to Apples and others. Players just own multiple games and many people who don't buy CCG's have a copy of Uno in the house. Similarly, WotC already sells collectible minis using the CCG model. Warhammer is different in terms that the consumer gets to choose what they buy. Removing that (by changing the rules constantly) lessens the whole point of the hobby - being able to design, collect, paint and play with your own army. It would make more sense to me to have solid rules that are fun to play. That would sustain interest (rather than having 80% of players leave within 2 years as GW says is the case). Instead of selling a few new units to the hardcore players every rules change, both casual and serious players would invest more money buying multiple armies. There are 15 armies or so for 40K - few players own all of them. There's tons of room for expansion there and it's more consistent with GW's existing business model.
181
Post by: gorgon
Longshot wrote:if the nids had any other way to pop tanks reliably I would agree
Any nid army starts with two or three gunfexes -- without them the army is a cruel joke.
I'm staying philosophical about it.
I figure that vehicle use will diminish overall, which should help. Being able to more easily destroy vehicles in CC will be an incremental improvement. And horde Tyranids are getting some pretty significant buffs overall, so while they'll struggle to pop tanks they're going to still kill the crap out of the infantry. *shrug*
Tyranids look to play a lot more like their 2nd and early 3rd edition versions, IMO.
752
Post by: Polonius
Asmodai wrote:
It would make more sense to me to have solid rules that are fun to play. That would sustain interest (rather than having 80% of players leave within 2 years as GW says is the case). Instead of selling a few new units to the hardcore players every rules change, both casual and serious players would invest more money buying multiple armies. There are 15 armies or so for 40K - few players own all of them. There's tons of room for expansion there and it's more consistent with GW's existing business model.
Hey, I agree. Not having GW's data, I can't vouche for how effective their strategy is, but they clearly have one. Assuming 80% of people leave the hobby after 2 years, that means GW would need to sell 5 armies to each vet in 2 years to replace each noob. Now, as you pointed out, if the rules were better, people felt more secure in the hobby, etc. then maybe only half would leave. this is an old debate of course, so I'll simply say that I'm assuming GW figures it can make more money selling to newbs and re-upping vets than by having people build new armies, and that's because new armies offer diminishing returns on fun to the veteran gamer. Your first 40k army allows you to play, a 2nd might allow you play in a very different manner, but it's still the same game. Your third army is even less distinct, etc. YMMV.
5470
Post by: sebster
I can't for the life of me figure out how the game can work if footslogging infantry can move 12" in a turn. Either vehicles become no quicker than infantry, or become so ludicrously fast that deployment loses all meaning.
I don't even know why that rule needed changing. Sure, it was hard for footslogging infantry to move right across the board and assault people, but that seemed pretty sensible, almost a good thing. Running all the way across the battlefield should be a bad idea.
At the end of the day, I guess that's why I keep doubting these rumours. I like a few of the other changes, the 5+ cover save for skimmers, allocating armour saves (should do wonders to hidden powerfists), but I just can't believe the rumours as long as the forced march is in there. GW has released some slipshod rules in the past, but nothing has ever been entirely broken. I can't see how a 5th ed game with infantry moving 12" would be anything other than broken.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Longshot wrote:if the nids had any other way to pop tanks reliably I would agree
There is another rumour that states that CC hits are resolved against a vehicles rear armour so I imagine that Genestealers or ( Str 4) Hormagaunts will be the way forward for Nids vs. vehicles with only the Demolisher and the Land raider having rear armour above 10 off the top of my head (feel free to remember some other ones). It's still possible to shoot vehicles with Zoanthropes and Hive Tyrants (who can now fleet (sort of, if the run rumour is true) if they're out of range with Warp Blast.
221
Post by: Frazzled
True that. Genies, ravenors, lictors, warriors would be able to hit most vehicles.
5917
Post by: Mekboy
I've heard that rending will change to be like the cyclic ion blaster. horray, now genestealers are way over pointed.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The "allocate wounds before saves" rule does not remove hidden powerfists unless it also allows the attacking player to decide the allocation.
The current "torrent of fire" rule does allow the attacker to impose save on the hidden pwoerfist but it is not well explained in the 4the dition book.
It will be interesting to see the detail on this rule, particularly whether it allows the attacker to allocate powerful AP value wounds to specific models.
(This would of course once again make Tau shield drones pointless.)
207
Post by: Balance
My guess is the idea behind the 'forced march' idea is to make 'tactical redeployment' a bit easier... I.E. if the game has come down to a big fight on one side of the board, at present you may as well remove any squads on the opposite side without special movement. Giving them additional movement means there's a chance they can redeploy enough to have some effect on the battle.
Still is weird with vehicle speeds, though.
2175
Post by: Chaplain Pallantide
Well my zilla's had a base of 2 sniper fexes and one uber or god fex. This just makes me wish I had gone the rare magnet route. Honestly out of all the games I have played with my zilla's I have had some pretty close calls. I think only one game was a truly bad match up and we closed the game by turn 3 in the zilla's favor.
The main issue will be speed. If the march rules are true, then I see more footsloggin list in the future. I do see that the 6 man las/plas squads becoming a thing of the past, especially if hit with enough shots. Speed kills the zilla list, mainly because I have a CC fex and run only 2 dakka fexes.
Thus I see the pendulum swinging with the Tyranid list, moving from TMC's to the swarm or even stealer shock. I am not sure if people will be taking more tanks in this version.
I would agree with Ed in the sense that tanks are great in apocalypse but in the main game with these new changes I am doubtful that they will see much light of day.
I guess I am at the end of a cruel joke as I see my zilla's become less effective in this new edition. As longshot said, if the zilla's had a better way of popping tanks then it wouldn't be so bad.
As I said before I relied on the four venom cannons and the 2 plus barbed stranglers to try to get some serious hurting on tanks. It was all about rolling lucky glancing hits, now if I am lucky I will get immobilization, but I don't want to be focusing my guns on those tanks until they explode more than what is necessary.
Again this is just my 2 cents, I miss the days of Rogue Trader that's for sure!
Chappy P!
806
Post by: Toreador
Not so overpointed if gaunts can screen them......
5566
Post by: studderingdave
im still not digging the blasts scattering. its kind of disturbing that this particular rumor keeps surfacing, makes me think its either total BS or its bead on.
dunno about scouts giving scout to a vehicle they ride in. land raiders and falcons comming in behind nemy lines and stuff, if of course, the rumor about scouts getting flank march is true.
guh.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Balance wrote:My guess is the idea behind the 'forced march' idea is to make 'tactical redeployment' a bit easier... I.E. if the game has come down to a big fight on one side of the board, at present you may as well remove any squads on the opposite side without special movement. Giving them additional movement means there's a chance they can redeploy enough to have some effect on the battle.
Still is weird with vehicle speeds, though.
It is necessary if we assume the "only Troops can score" rule is true.
Players will tend to take a lot more troops who currently are not needed for scoring and they will have to be marched up to the objectives.
In a 6 turn game current Troops can only move half the width or 2/3ths the depth of a table, less if they stop to shoot.
806
Post by: Toreador
well, with blasts able to hit everyone they touch, the scatter would be the only real way to balance it out across ballistic skills.
I wonder how that will work with Plasma Cannons, where is the overheat roll? A barrage of plasma cannon blasts hitting all that they touch, Nice.
I think it is nice that glancing weapons will have to build up to a destroyed result. Light skimmers will still go down in flames, but most higher armour tanks become much tougher.
5566
Post by: studderingdave
i dunno, i always liked the chances of nuking a tank on a glancing hit.
so a skimmer moving more then 6 inches gets a 5+ save and then my fire prism could ONLY fire the PC and not the SC as well? i dunno, on top of the fact that the PC will now scatter, making its bew higher BS worthless.
689
Post by: Salvation122
Longshot wrote:if the nids had any other way to pop tanks reliably I would agree
Any nid army starts with two or three gunfexes -- without them the army is a cruel joke.
Being able to Run means that it'll be much easier to get Carnifexes into CC with vehicles, at which point they're tossing 4-6 S10+ 2d6 swings your way. Which isn't to say that they'll be just as good as they are now, but frankly Nids needed a foil, and tanks make perfect sense for that.
5566
Post by: studderingdave
didnt the rumors say that if a unit runs it can't assault that round? or am i missing something?
2080
Post by: Samwise158
For some reason, I thought that the forced march rule let infantry units move an extra D6(like fleet is currently) but without assaulting, whereas models with fleet could still assault. That makes good sense to me, and doesn't make transports useless.
I like the 5+ cover save for smoke/smf. It makes vehicles like Rhinos more survivable, preserves lighter skimmers like Speeders or Pirhanas, but will go a long way towards making Falcons and Hammerheads not function as perfect VP denial units. Ultimately it narrows the gap between skimmers and regular vehicles.
I also really dig the blast template rules. I was so fed up with all the partials and B.S. This will be huge for Plasma Cannons. They will be more risky, but will also be far deadlier when they do hit. It will make bunched up troops targets of opportunity again.
The new screening/LOS rules look a bit problematic to me. I can forsee a lot of abuse, arguments, and cheese arising from this system. I play IG and felt that the whole IG gunline days were ridiculous. The description in the leak is too vague to start worrying about, but I hope that they tread really carefully on that one.
365
Post by: Abadabadoobaddon
Bikes all now get a 3+ cover save for their turbo-boost. So the psy-cannon thing is out the window.
No more invulnerable saves for turbo-boosting bikes? Now that's more like it! It's been too long since Tzeentch last got tzcrewed and I was starting to get anxious. This is finally starting to sound like a proper new edition of 40k!
3550
Post by: IntoTheRain
The only thing that has really ticked me off is the defensive weapons are str. 4 or less. Vehicles in 4th could actually move and fire their payloads effectively in 4th. Falcons being overpowered had nothing to do with being able to move and fire their weapons.
Also, moving turbo boosting to cover saves will work for about 3 minutes, till someone remembers soul seeker ammo.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Chaplain Pallantide wrote:Wow, if these rumors are true then Zilla's did get boned as Ed said. I counted on massed Venom Cannon fire to destroy enemy vehicles and now that glancing hit's cannot destroy a vehicle like it use to kind of sucks.
It would seem to me that they want to turn the attention to the basic trooper, in which case I might jump ship and go for more warmachine/hordes.
I think other game companies out there should thank GW for helping boost their sales, cause I see more PP buys in the near future.
Just my 2 cents
Chappy P!
I'm sorry, I'm having a really hard time feeling sorry for you (or any Nidzilla player). GW wants to turn the attention to the basic trooper and you want to jump ship? Here *holds door open* have fun!
Ozymandias, King of Kings
118
Post by: Schepp himself
First off to all people who will or did cry about the nerfing of Nidzilla: don't act like a...!
You bought the freakin army because you knew it was hardcore. Amazingly hardcore and top-tier. I want to see a Tyranid player with a maxed out TMC army before 4th edition? Hm? Where are the hand? Oh noes, no hands there! That's because they weren't hard as nails before! Come, you ain't stupid, if you buy an army just for the cheese of it, prepare to be hit by a big fat nerf stick with the new codex/edition.
Oh, you may replace Nidzilla with Falcon.
The other changes are looking good. All the screening sounds a strange, but workable.
I like the blast change, especially for my Dark Reapers fast shooting missle launcher exarch. I may need him for all the hordes out there.
Vehicle won't suck. If area terrain gives them Cover saves (reduce to glance saves) while they can still shoot at the enemy, they will be dead hard.
And by the way, what#s that silly talk with troops moving 12"? Do you play with weighted dices or what? The average is 3,5" buddies! 3,5"! So if the troops don't shoot and run they will move 9,5" a turn. And have you seen the point costs of rhinos these days? 35 or so points? That a steal! So what if it gets blown up, you can speed up, pop smoke and even if some if them get wrecked, the passengers won't be as dead and entangled as before. Other than that, if transports can pick up any unit and non-troops can't hold objectives, you need to taxi some guys around.
I'm optimistic...
Greets
Schepp himself
5566
Post by: studderingdave
yeah, i run 2 VC toting fexes in my nid list, but if the intent was to have them eventually roll a 6 to destroy then it was the wrong intent. my whole thing is as long as i can stop the tank from shooting then im in the clear for another round.
i think a solid nerf to nidzilla is needed, the army is broke.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Abadabadoobaddon wrote:Bikes all now get a 3+ cover save for their turbo-boost. So the psy-cannon thing is out the window.
No more invulnerable saves for turbo-boosting bikes? Now that's more like it! It's been too long since Tzeentch last got tzcrewed and I was starting to get anxious. This is finally starting to sound like a proper new edition of 40k!
Yeah, we wouldn't want to screw over all of those bike-heavy Tzeentch armies (all 2 of them). 
I think a cover save makes more sense, as the turbo-boost makes the bikes harder to hit, like how cover makes you harder to hit. Plus a 3+ cover save means its a boost for Eldar jetbikes and ork bikes.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
4351
Post by: ubermosher
Fast vehicles = 18"? Hellooooooo Star Engines
Toreador wrote:Not so overpointed if gaunts can screen them......
Hooray for vehicles shooting over screens.
Ozymandias wrote:Plus a 3+ cover save means its a boost for Eldar jetbikes and ork bikes.
Actually Eldar bikes were Armor Save 3 anyway so it doesn't really change anything.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Fine, then Dark Eldar Jetbikes.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
4351
Post by: ubermosher
I'm really liking the "Get Down!" rule, and hope it is true. Gives me a little hope when my Guard squad gets caught in the open by bolter fire.
What they should do though is have any squad that is pinned, whether by Get Down or any other means, not block LOS. That would make pinning even more valuable (even if tough to achieve).
Ozymandias wrote:Fine, then Dark Eldar Jetbikes.
Fair enough. Wasn't trying to be pedantic.
782
Post by: DarthDiggler
If the bikes save becomes a cover save when they turbo-boost, then why wouldn't a flame template weapon just kill them? I hope they make it cover or armor save and not just cover.
I'm still reeling about these changes. With one decent 'run' move on turn 1, Wraithcannons can be in range to shoot on turn 2. I think the run rule would have the biggest affect on shooty armies. They look to lose a turn or two of shooting before the assaults hit their lines.
I do not like defensive weapons at str 4. Str 5 should be the lowest they go. Vehicles will not be any more survivable with fast moving meltabombs and MC's slamming into their stationary sides.
The idea of all models blocking LOS bothways has some serious implications for anything that moves and shoots downfield. Oblits, Termies (maybe not for long), even attack bikes can use a marine shield and skim along the edge of it, slowly sweeping the enemy from right to left and minimizing the return fire and concentrating on one unit at a time.
I'm thinking Marine Attack Bikes will be the new in thing to take. 150pts gets you 3 Heavy Bolters or 3 Multimeltas that can be screened by friendly models, move carefully around those models to fire 3 heavy weapons at a target while maintaining LOS protection from the rest of the enemy body. 150pts for 3 heavies will also be a steel in an army losing cheap troop choice heavy weapons.
Troops lose more than half the heavy weapons they can fire back and vehicles can be out manuevered by the attack bikes who can skirt around and force the Predators to move and lose 2 shots in order to fire once. The attack bikes are also swift enough to keep away from 'running' troops who wish to assault them, at least fast enough to get a few extra round of fire in.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
IntoTheRain wrote:The only thing that has really ticked me off is the defensive weapons are str. 4 or less. Vehicles in 4th could actually move and fire their payloads effectively in 4th. Falcons being overpowered had nothing to do with being able to move and fire their weapons.
Also, moving turbo boosting to cover saves will work for about 3 minutes, till someone remembers soul seeker ammo.
It also makes bikers meat for Tau who can use markerlights to reduce cover saves.
4351
Post by: ubermosher
DarthDiggler wrote:If the bikes save becomes a cover save when they turbo-boost, then why wouldn't a flame template weapon just kill them? I hope they make it cover or armor save and not just cover.
I believe as the rules stand now, in any given situation you can opt to take a cover save or opt to stay with your armor save. I don't think it will be any different in a new version.
DarthDiggler wrote:The idea of all models blocking LOS bothways has some serious implications for anything that moves and shoots downfield. Oblits, Termies (maybe not for long), even attack bikes can use a marine shield and skim along the edge of it, slowly sweeping the enemy from right to left and minimizing the return fire and concentrating on one unit at a time.
Don't discount vehicles firing over screens, elevated firing positions (hills, buildings, etc.) firing over screens, deepstrikers, infiltrators coming on from different table edges, etc. It won't be unstoppable.
411
Post by: whitedragon
Schepp himself wrote:First off to all people who will or did cry about the nerfing of Nidzilla: don't act like a...!
You bought the freakin army because you knew it was hardcore. Amazingly hardcore and top-tier. I want to see a Tyranid player with a maxed out TMC army before 4th edition? Hm? Where are the hand? Oh noes, no hands there! That's because they weren't hard as nails before! Come, you ain't stupid, if you buy an army just for the cheese of it, prepare to be hit by a big fat nerf stick with the new codex/edition.
To keep the record straight, the reason there were no "Nidzilla" armies before 4th edition, was because you couldn't make a Nidzilla army before 4th edition. Specifically, until the 4th ed Tyranid book came out. And I'd be willing to be a bunch of people ran out and went Nidzilla becaue of the awesome new plastic carnifex AND the white dwarf spread that showed that one guy's awesome Nidzilla army when they first came out.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Anyone who bought a particular army just because it was L33t and can pwnzor in competitions will just buy whatever army happens to be L33t in the new edition.
Since GW never balance things, there will always be L33t armies and units.
What matters for most players is not what is the most effective competition build, but whether they can have fun with the armies they have now, plus some new items.
For example, most people with Orky armies are the old-timer Ork players, rejuvenated by a well-deserved new codex. If they get a big leg up from the new rules, well they are already playing Orks anyway. We just have to hope that someone elses' army isn't completely nerfed.
In this respect, GW making a rule that the no.1 rule is to "have fun" is stupid and pointless and an abdication of their responsibility. Players will find their own way to adapt to changes.
5926
Post by: Stingray_tm
Okay, guys. I am playing Nids and i have only a maximum of 1 MC per 500 points. Most of the time i play with 3 MCs at 2000 points, so this can hardly be called Nidzilla.
Having said that, i really depend on my Hive Tyrant (Venom Cannon, TL Deathspitter) the Dakkafex, my VC/DS Warrior squad and the Sniperfex to stun vehicles and finally kill them.
Now all those configurations suck extremely, because the VC will not be able to kill anything (which would be okay), and now does care about fast moving vehicles and cover. (cover saves instead of a reduction to glancin). At the same time my twin linked Deathspitter at BS4 is a waste of points. (the deathspitter hardly was a overpowered choice, i liked the looks and the idea of a specialiced medium tank hunter).
Now with those options heavily reduced i seriously wonder, how my other critters are supposed to kill vehicles (especially Eldar skimmers), without me suddenly going Nidzilla my self (this time with a Flyrant and Ninjafexes).
Biovore? Come on...
Zoanthrope? Most of the time they are nullified (psychic hood) or they blow themself up (rune of whatever).
Genestealers and Raveners now hit the rear armour? Who cares. They had rending (which gets toned down). In the past i had a real chance to kill the vehicle, now i have to glance and glance and glance again.
The funny part is (and these ones i really like): Winged Warriors will become the number one vehicle hunters (S5...) after Flyrants and Lictors will actually kick donkey! But only against non-skimmers. Oh, and Dreadnaughts. They will be a problem too.
I hate Nidzilla as most of the people here and i like all the changes, that actually make swarmy Nids better. But how the heck am i supposed to deal with mobile tanks other than glance them until round 6?
Maybe it's all balanced with mission objectives, etc. but i don't consider it fun to not have a real chance against a whole class of enemy units with my army.
The new fast skimmer rule is great for all other armies, but it is the worst, that could have happened to Nids.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Stingray_tm wrote:The funny part is (and these ones i really like): Winged Warriors will become the number one vehicle hunters (S5...) after Flyrants and Lictors will actually kick donkey!
I guess GW needed FW to sell more Nid wings...
1635
Post by: Savnock
Am I the only one who thinks that the LOS changes are the biggest step backwards in this whole list of changes? I mean, the new system for targetting priority _worked_. If this LOS change is mean to balance something else in the new rules, I can't tell what that would be. It looks like swallowing the spider to catch the fly, to me.
And I find the idea of driving up and unloading flamers being the best way to deal with turbo-boosting bikes completely ridiculous. Sure, psycannons broke the turbo rule, but they were a pretty limited problem (and hell, Grey Knights deserve _something_ in their favor).
Speaking of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", I really hope they keep TOF in there. It s was a great rule if it had just been better explained, as an earlier poster pointed out.
These rules reek of pre-playtesting guess work. I'd be surprised if even half of them made it to the final edition. Unless, of course, Gav or Alessio have their hammy little fists in them.
This report seems to break the "40K more like Fantasy" theme that we've seen. I wouldn't be surprised if things like no running within 12", morale mods for CC, etc. just got missed by the OP.
Finally, a question: with the changes to Scout moves and LOS as well as vehicular cover saves,do you fellows think that the all-Sentinel army may actually be a viable build?
5604
Post by: Reaver83
I can see if they change it so escalation is more common (few units to start with) then having reserves able to run on will be really usefull, otherwise you'll be able to cross those 24 inches of no mans land in 2-3 turns HtH armies will be too powerful
2175
Post by: Chaplain Pallantide
@Ozy whatever the Heck your name is:
I would jump ship cause GW can't seem to get things right. I kind of agree with HBMC in the fact that I like the Fluff of 40k, but not so much the rules.
Lately I just prefer PP and the fine ruleset they have with Warmachine/Hordes. They are both solid games with great rule mechanics. At least with that game I can create a viable themed army and not get the million min/maxer's out there saying the army will get hosed by this, or that.
I understand that GW is in the business of making money and to do so is to make unit x AWSOME so all the fanboyz run out and build uber army based on unit x, then when that milk train runs dry, then GW moves onto unit y, then onto z.
What sucks is when you build an army based upon unit x, then a few months later it sucks. I feel for the High elf players who had all-calvary list with lots of Silver helms. I was gonna make such a list, but decided to wait. I am glad I did or else I would be stuck with a bunch or basically worthless models.
I feel for the chaos players. That codex sucked, and before that DA and to some degree BT, now we have the Ork codex which in the area I play the hardcore ork players think the codex sucks.
Another thing that I find is that within the PP comunity there seems to be less bitchiness than in the 40k circles. I started the game when it first came out back in the mid-late eighties.
I was in junior high then and I loved the background, I loved the various influences I saw GW take from popular sci-fi at the time. When I saw the first IG guys, I thought cool these guys remind me of the colonial marines from Aliens.
But since that time I feel like GW lost something. When second edition came out, that's when I felt a sort of min/maxing feel came into the game. When people looked at units and thought how best to exploit them or how they could fit the maximum number of uber unit into their list. I had a god friend do it and it ruined the game for me.
It was no longer take the stuff that you think looks cool and have fun, it was take this ultimate list and crush...These are a few of the reasons why I would jump ship. These are a few of the reasons why I like the Apocalypse expansion.
I would love to see GW wipe the slate clean and start all over again. Try to go through each codex and balance it with one another. To make each unit viable and worthy of fielding.
As it is, I can see Pathfinder armies become viable with this new edition. I can see how BA marines will be pretty powerful, screen the assualt units or veteran assault units with either tanks or rhino's or even the cheapest troop choice possible.
I can see the Million man march BT's Marines become viable. 1 Emperor's champ and a couple of cheap Chaplains leading 20 man strong units doing the new march move, plus righteous zeal move and on and on....
Anyway enough of my rant, I am not a troll and apologize if it seems like I am flame baiting to which I am not, it just that GW frustrates me and I think others as well. who knows maybe I am totally wrong and barking up the wrong tree.
Sorry,
Chappy P!
4884
Post by: Therion
Well it seems that being a 200 point skimmer with AV12 isn't a wonderful thing anymore. You're 6" faster than a Predator, cost a whole lot more, and die easier. You have to buy Star Engines for your vehicle to have any sort of speed. You suffer penetrating hits from left and right and 3 of the 6 results kill you, not to mention the fact that AP1 weapons get +1 to the roll. Railgun hits on 3+, 3+ to penetrate, 3+ to destroy. 200 points well spent. A 5+ cover save just doesn't cut it. Skimmers should get a 3+ cover save if they move at max speed, just like turbo-boosting bikes. That of course is unless GW seriously wants to sell a lot of bikes and no tanks. They didn't sell any Rhinos during the entire 4th edition so I guess it's fine by GW.
On the other hand, armor 14 looks insane good. Lascannons have to roll a 6 to even get a chance to destroy a Monolith. Railguns are the only thing that seem to have a reliable chance of killing it, and even that chance is smaller than it is in the 4th edition. Meltaguns have to roll a 6 to glance, and then 6 to destroy. Ork Rokkits and Kannons are now completely unable to destroy the Monolith, as are Barbed Stranglers and Venom Cannons, as are rending attacks.
Falcons being overpowered had nothing to do with being able to move and fire their weapons.
...and in a manner that GW has grown accustomed to, they nerfed skimmers with a sledgehammer and condemned them to the shelves for the next four years. They didn't just want to change the SMF rule to something more balanced, they also had to nerf their speed and firepower. A fire support tank can park behind some ruins, get a 4+ cover save or better and fire all weapons each turn, while more expensive skimmers have to move each turn to get a weaker cover save for their weaker armour while firing less weapons. Something is wrong here. Someone at GW has to think that balance isn't good for business, and that it's better to have overpowered and underpowered units. My actions will prove GW right, because I'm going to buy two new completely overpowered armies next summer.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Warseer member "Champsguy wrote:Vehicles
For shooting, it sounds like regular Vehicles are unchanged and Fast Vehicles are simply Vehicles with +6" movement. This is actually a good little simplification and makes things more playable.
Vehicle damage chart: 1-2 is the can't shoot/move thing, 3 is weapon, 4 is immobilized, 5-6 destroyed/annihilated). Glance is a -2.
This is as expected for the Penetrating chart. I'm surprised that Glancing is -2 instead of -1, as you can't directly destroy a (non-Skimmer) vehicle via Glancing hits. Overall, vehicle survivability went up in a big way, especially with Hull Down giving a cover save for no effect.
Transports: If your transport is destroyed, passengers now take a Str 4 hit, saves allowed (instead of a 4+). If an open-topped transport is destroyed, it's a Str 3 hit because its easier to disembark.
Suck to be Guard, Tau, & Eldar, esp. Harlequins. Yay for the Marines, esp. Plague Marines. Personally, balance-wise, 4+ is a lot fairer - it's not like the T3 infantry needed to be wounded more often. Guard are going to lose almost half their guys when a Chimera blows up. Ouch.
LOS: I'm pretty sure that it's units that block LOS, so you shouldn't worry about spending 45 minutes drawing LOS from each individual trooper to each individual target.
There's an entire chapter on ruined buildings and how they affect line of sight (like a mini Cities of Death).
OK, it's good to see GW dealing with area terrain separate from volume terrain / buildings.
Running can be done w/in 12" of an enemy. You just can't charge if you run.
Also good not to have premeasuring. Fleet can charge, so it's better.
After shooting and wounding, you can choose to become pinned. You get a +1 to cover save (or a 6+ if you're in the open). It's the "get down!" rule.
This is awesome, and exactly what should have been in place from the beginning.
Gets Hot! is back to the 3rd ed version.
Woo hoo! IG troopers can double-tap Plasma again.
Ground vehicles that move at full speed and cross dangerous terrain roll 2D6 for their test. If one "one" is rolled, they're immobilized. If two "ones" are rolled, the vehicle flips over and is considered destroyed.
Heh. That's pretty funny. I wonder if this also applies to Bikes. (it should).
Flamers: You now determine wounds for all template weapons firing from a squad before you take saves or remove casualties!!!
Yes! More killy!
Bikes all now get a 3+ cover save for their turbo-boost. So the psy-cannon thing is out the window.
Do they still blitz 24", or only 18". If Bikes go faster than Grav Tanks and Landspeeders, that would be dumb.
A unit with Scouts that is inside a vehicle confers that ability to the vehicle!!! Let the Pathfinders and Possessed Marines rule!
That's wierd, but solves a rules argument, so OK.
Blast weapons don't roll to hit, they just scatter. However, they now operate like template weapons in that any model touched by the blast is hit. None of this "roll 4+ for partial" stuff. A unit firing multiple blast weapons (a SM Dev squad being the example) fires like a multiple barrage unit would in 4th edition.
This works. No sniping, lots of utility, standardized mechanic. All good.
No shooting of defensive weapons if you move full speed.
With Defensive weapons being S4 or less, this doesn't matter so much, though it'd have been nice.
3) Yes, vehicles can now get up to a 3+ cover save, depending on what they're hiding behind.
Predators in cover are going to rock very hard.
Smoke launchers are a 5+ cover save.
Ha, I knew it. Good change.
Voodoo boy wrote:This is overall, in my opinion, a good thing for 40K.
I agree.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
mauleed wrote:Anything that bones Godzilla nids is a wonderful thing.
Have to agree there.
'Zilla 'Nids are not 'Nids. 'Nids are supposed to be about carpets of little gribbleys punctuated by the odd big critter. Current 'Nids is played in the opposite manner. Anything that forces people to play 'Nids like 'Nids should be is a good thing.
BYE
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Therion wrote:Skimmers should get a 3+ cover save if they move at max speed, just like turbo-boosting bikes.
Totally agreed.
It should be:
3+ cover save for moving 12-18",
5+ cover save for moving 6-12".
221
Post by: Frazzled
Why? The fluff I've seen is lots of both little and big gribblies. And the occasional bio titan.
5164
Post by: Stelek
H.B.M.C. wrote:mauleed wrote:Anything that bones Godzilla nids is a wonderful thing.
Have to agree there.
'Zilla 'Nids are not 'Nids. 'Nids are supposed to be about carpets of little gribbleys punctuated by the odd big critter. Current 'Nids is played in the opposite manner. Anything that forces people to play 'Nids like 'Nids should be is a good thing.
BYE
Sounds like alot of whining to me.
Maybe you guys should play the 200 model Tyranid list at a GT, let me know how fun it was.
I know it sure as gak drove me to shelve my Nids because moving 200 guys FOURTEEN times in a game is lame.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Stingray_tm wrote:Having said that, i really depend on my Hive Tyrant (Venom Cannon, TL Deathspitter) the Dakkafex, my VC/DS Warrior squad and the Sniperfex to stun vehicles and finally kill them.
Of course you do. So do the other 3 non-Nid Zilla Tyranid players in the world. It's no fair in the slightest for the Tyranid players that do play 'Nids like 'Nids, and we feel sorry for you.
But this is GW my friend! They always make sweeping core game changes to fix specific problems, thereby creating other problems elsewhere. If the problem is Zilla 'Nids, they amend the damage charts and change the missions so that you need troops and Venom Canons start sucking rather than, y'know, actually fixing 'Zilla nids. Falcons a problem too aren't they? So what do they do? Dramatically alter the rules for vehicles!!!
I can't think of anyone else who makes basic game changes to fix specific Codex problems, but this is GW's MO through and through. You shouldn't be surprised. I'm not saying be happy about it, I'm just saying that this is normal.
BYE
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Savnock wrote:I mean, the new system for targetting priority _worked_.
The new system for target prioruty was _dumb_.
It made small firepower units and vital HQ units (Guard HW squads, CHQs, Dark Reapers, etc.) unworkable. And all that was required was an Ld check, something everyone does almost automatically due to the high amounts of Ld9 and Ld10, and then the biggest army without Ld10 as standard (Marines) then got that thanks to the Rites of Battle rule! It was a hopeless sham, and a step backwards from the screening hell of 3rd Ed.
BYE
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Stelek wrote:Maybe you guys should play the 200 model Tyranid list at a GT, let me know how fun it was.
Oh get over yourself. I didn't specifically mean Tyranid armies with 200 models. I meant armies that actually take Gaunts, Warriors and things other than TMCs and 'Stealers. True mixed armies of lots of smalls and some bigs (smalls being everything that isn't a TMC).
Right now the closest thing to that is Stealer Shock, and that's another army that's about to get Nerfed thanks to sweeping general rules changes.
Not since the new Codex came out have 'Nids acted like 'Nids.
BYE
4884
Post by: Therion
I really don't understand most of the rumours. How can it be that they increase the movement value of foot troops for free and reduce the movement value of units (including vehicles) that pay a lot of points for their mobility? In no way are the old army books compatible with these rules changes. Some of the points values will make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
5046
Post by: Orock
Tyranids going from the most close combat oriented army to being the top tier shooting army it is today was an abortion of logical codex creation anyway. And as for str 4 weapons being defensive, woot go ork battlewagons with 4 bolt on big shootas and 2 sponson ones.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
So wait a sec - if these rumors are true, we might see the radical change of Nids having to open up enemy vehicles in HtH, rather than shooting them? Wow.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
JohnHwangDD wrote:So wait a sec - if these rumors are true, we might see the radical change of Nids having to open up enemy vehicles in HtH, rather than shooting them? Wow.
Brings a smile to my face just thinking about that.
This might be one area where you and I, John, might actually see eye-to-eye on something.
BYE
4884
Post by: Therion
Brings a smile to my face just thinking about that.
This might be one area where you and I, John, might actually see eye-to-eye on something.
Remember that rending claws can only glance, so the Nids are placing their hopes on the lumbering non-scoring MCs to make close combat with tanks that are faster than they are.
752
Post by: Polonius
Therion wrote:
Brings a smile to my face just thinking about that.
This might be one area where you and I, John, might actually see eye-to-eye on something.
Remember that rending claws can only glance, so the Nids are placing their hopes on the lumbering non-scoring MCs to make close combat with tanks that are faster than they are.
not that much faster, if the rumors are true....
2175
Post by: Chaplain Pallantide
But HBMC Nid warriors are typically viewed as a sucky unit.
I don't mind Tyranids and I do see your point in the fact that nids should be a horde type army, but obviously the designers thought otherwise.
Such as the new Plastic Carnifex kit. How do we sell these en masse, I know say Phil Kelly, I'll allow up to 8 TMC's in a list. I remember when the codex first came out and people laughed at the idea of the zilla list. I remember people telling me it would never be a viable list, then suddenly it becomes top tier (build depending of coarse.)
The problem with nids specifically comes to their inability to tank bust effectively. Try getting a CC carnifex into combat. Usually my CC fex ends up grabbing a table quarter or an objective because the guy I am facing runs away from him.
Again this is where I look at the game designers and say what the heck were you thinking!?!? They should go to each list and say this army should be seen as this and make the rules flow and follow the fluff they have written.
Again this is why I like PP's stuff, because when you read the fluff of Warcaster X, the fluff is then translated excellently into X's rules.
Recent example would be the Pirate warcaster Shae, he lives, eats and breaths life on a ship and is used to the rolling deck of his ship, so in combat he gets an ability to not be knocked off his feet with his ability aptly named "sealegs."
This is what I want from GW. I am reading Brothers of the Snake by Dan Abnett and I love his work, this is not as good as say his Guants Ghost, but still very good. However if you wanted to play the Iron Snake Chapter you have to ditch some of the fluff due to the rules. I have thought about doing an Iron Snake army, but I am scared about getting all the stuff I need only to have it nerfed in a few month with either a new set of rules or a new codex.
Again my 2 cents,
Chappy P!
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Therion wrote:Remember that rending claws can only glance, so the Nids are placing their hopes on the lumbering non-scoring MCs to make close combat with tanks that are faster than they are.
They can still penetrate the armour normally with regular Strength+ D6 attacks.
BYE
2175
Post by: Chaplain Pallantide
but the issue is the new glancing rules...Sure you can get a glancing hit, but you need to take time to whittle down the tank till it finally explodes?? I think that seems rather silly to me...
Chappy p!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Not if it follows existing rules HBMC. Strength + D6 is glancing 10 on the rear. They can change that with toxin sacs though.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Chaplain Pallantide wrote:But HBMC Nid warriors are typically viewed as a sucky unit. I don't mind Tyranids and I do see your point in the fact that nids should be a horde type army, but obviously the designers thought otherwise.
Yeah, I know. At some point the vision of what Tyranids should be, and what they actually are (a Codex full of junk units with a few good ones) has to collide.
That said I don't think they really thought there'd be a problem. I think they actually think that they made a nice balanced Codex, rather than a Codex that suited two styles of play correctly and made others impossible. Oh well, 'Nids will decent to the bottom of the army latter soon, and we won't have to worry about it until they make a new Gaunt plastic kit and give them killer rules.
BYE
5926
Post by: Stingray_tm
JohnHwangDD wrote:So wait a sec - if these rumors are true, we might see the radical change of Nids having to open up enemy vehicles in HtH, rather than shooting them? Wow.
I am afraid, but if these rumours are true, we might see the radical change of Nids not being able to kill vehicles rather than shooting them!
I did some mathhammer. You need about 100 Genestealer attacks to finally bring down a vehicle with 4 weapons. And this target mustn't move or we are talking about 200 or even 600 attacks...
The only thing that could reliably bring down vehicles (non skimmers!) would be... surprise... cc MCs...
185
Post by: Ebon
The rumored LOS changes leave me with mixed feelings. Units block LOS, but terrain doesn't? WTF?
At this point though, I don't care. So long as I don't have to have a five minute discussion before each game explaining what the rule book says to a new opponent, and everyone is on the same page.
Clearing up the LOS rules so everyone 'knows' what they mean would be an enormous improvement IMHO.
4884
Post by: Therion
Stingray_tm wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:So wait a sec - if these rumors are true, we might see the radical change of Nids having to open up enemy vehicles in HtH, rather than shooting them? Wow.
I am afraid, but if these rumours are true, we might see the radical change of Nids not being able to kill vehicles rather than shooting them!
I did some mathhammer. You need about 100 Genestealer attacks to finally bring down a vehicle with 4 weapons. And this target mustn't move or we are talking about 200 or even 600 attacks...
The only thing that could reliably bring down vehicles (non skimmers!) would be... surprise... cc MCs...
If we're talking about Monoliths that can't really even be hit in close combat the Tyranids or Orks simply don't destroy them. It's fun to have unkillable models around.
and what they actually are (a Codex full of junk units with a few good ones)
You're right and I voiced my concerns about that when the codex was released. Same applies to Eldar of course, and they'll suffer largely the same fate as Nids. If an army book is so bad that you can make only one competitive build out of it, and that build then gets obliterated because of rules changes, you're left with nothing but junk. Making a good unit worse doesn't make the terrible units any better.
2175
Post by: Chaplain Pallantide
But the problem with Close Combat Carnifexes is their lack of speed. Any player worth his salt will just keep their vehicles and units free and clear of the lumbering beast, I know because my CC Carnifex has never seen action in all the times I have played my zilla's.
@Stingray_TM: Yeah that's the real issue...It'll take a lot of CC attacks to bring down vehicles now. Who wants most of their army tide up trying to bring down a tank when the other guy is just pulling back systematically picking apart your army.
Thanks,
Chappy P!
PS: I am sorry to be so focused on nids, but it's just what I know best currently and am the most familiar with. I also see how these new changes will make the $300 plus dollar army I build and make it complete crap! Thanks GW for boning a loyal buyer yet again.
689
Post by: Salvation122
Remember that your Carnifex can Run now, which will make it easier to get into CC, and that if vehicles have to dance around to avoid your Carnifex from peeling it open like an aluminum can they're not shooting much.
5926
Post by: Stingray_tm
Salvation122 wrote:Remember that your Carnifex can Run now, which will make it easier to get into CC, and that if vehicles have to dance around to avoid your Carnifex from peeling it open like an aluminum can they're not shooting much.
Well, i hoped, that i don't need to use an additional Carnifex in order to do, what my swarm was able to do until now. No one wants more Godzilla, but this is the direction.
2175
Post by: Chaplain Pallantide
I thought that the new marching rules were for troops only or did I miss something?? I'll have to go back a read a bit more carefully...
Thanks,
Chappy P!
5926
Post by: Stingray_tm
Therion wrote:
If we're talking about Monoliths that can't really even be hit in close combat the Tyranids or Orks simply don't destroy them. It's fun to have unkillable models around.
No, it's not. That's not my idea of fun, if i don't have a chance to kill a certain unit. That's bad gamedesign. There should be a Tyranid way of dealing with this threat not "Sorry, you are playing the wrong army. But don't worry, it's fun (for me) that you can't hurt my tank".
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Chaplain Pallantide wrote:Such as the new Plastic Carnifex kit. How do we sell these en masse, I know say Phil Kelly, I'll allow up to 8 TMC's in a list.
And yet the Eldar didn't get 6+ Wraithlords for their new plastic kit. Funny, that. It's almost like the Eldar Codex writers didn't get the message to pump model sales of the new Wraithlord...
The problem with nids specifically comes to their inability to tank bust effectively. Try getting a CC carnifex into combat.
First, he can't spend half his game hiding in cover. Second, he'll have Fleet of some sort.
Again this is why I like PP's stuff, because when you read the fluff of Warcaster X,
I played Warmachine waayyy back when it first came out and battles were still about the 'Jacks. Still have my Cryx. To me, with the non-customizable Warcasters, it's kind of like playing a card game: "Denigra, I choose YOU!"
Certainly, I would not be excited about having to buy a stack of quarterly rules supplements to stay on top of the game. It's nice to just buy the one Codex and have it for a few years. And rule-wise, I got to wonder if the original Slayer is still points-competitive. I'm thinking he's now rules-obsolete, meaning unsalvageable unit PP decides to do a full-game rebalance and refresh.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Therion wrote:If we're talking about Monoliths...
We should expect a new Necron Codex to follow shortly after 5th Ed releases. Rules-wise the Necrons are an absolute disaster.
If WBB becomes FNP and Gauss becomes (nerfed) Rending, that will solve the two most basic problems. Then it's simply a question of cleaning up "Living Metal" (always Glancing) and Phaseout (less than 2 Scoring units of Necron Warriors).
4884
Post by: Therion
No, it's not. That's not my idea of fun, if i don't have a chance to kill a certain unit. That's bad gamedesign. There should be a Tyranid way of dealing with this threat not "Sorry, you are playing the wrong army. But don't worry, it's fun (for me) that you can't hurt my tank".
Have a look at Apocalypse. It's marketed as something completely imbalanced and stupid and that's exactly what I think it is. GW has got this idea that whenever they don't want to spend the time to write balanced rules, they'll put in the disclaimer "remember that this game is supposed to be more about fun than anything else." When six Fire Prisms come from reserve and drop 6 S10 AP1 apocalyptic barrage templates on top of your army and annihilate you, we're talking about GW's idea of fun.
The fact is that a new rulebook like this makes people who want to stay in the game buy new models, and the people who don't want to stay in the game undoubtedly get replaced by new people. GW has a new CEO and the company hasn't been doing all that well recently so it's time for a major revamp. If you for a second think that GW would place your idea of fun ahead of making money you're being childish. Some armies will be incredibly underpowered for the entirety of the 5th edition because of these new rules, while others will prosper. The players who want to keep winning buy new models and new armies.
Gauss becomes (nerfed) Rending
That would be a significant buff to Necrons. 18 Necron Warriors rapid firing would then be able to kill a 4 wound TMC. The funny thing about 40K points costs is that they're so completely off that it's unreal. The Monolith could easily cost 285 points and noone would complain.
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
Certainly, I would not be excited about having to buy a stack of quarterly rules supplements to stay on top of the game. It's nice to just buy the one Codex and have it for a few years. And rule-wise, I got to wonder if the original Slayer is still points-competitive. I'm thinking he's now rules-obsolete, meaning unsalvageable unit PP decides to do a full-game rebalance and refresh.
You would rather go 4 or 5 years with a worthless codex instead?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
What are you considering to be a worthless Codex?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I'd consider building a nid army if the close combat carnifex was viable through the run rule. Lots of gaunts, a few stealers with a broodlord and a Hive Tyrant and assault carnifexes would be visually appealing to me.
4395
Post by: Deadshane1
All these rules have me laughing my ass off at a$$hat falcon harlequin spam players. They'll have to ditch their now-uber lists because they wont rock nearly as hard anymore, pissed that they have to pick up new models.
In the meantime, my falcon-free competetive foot-slogging eldar just got stronger with all the new rules.
Ha-Ha!
689
Post by: Salvation122
Therion wrote:That would be a significant buff to Necrons. 18 Necron Warriors rapid firing would then be able to kill a 4 wound TMC. The funny thing about 40K points costs is that they're so completely off that it's unreal. The Monolith could easily cost 285 points and noone would complain.
That assumes that Warriors don't get a sizable cost increase in their new book. If Gauss becomes Rending they'd easily be worth 22-25 points apiece.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
JohnHwangDD wrote:What are you considering to be a worthless Codex?
Don't be intentionally obtuse John. He's speaking generally.
If a worthless Codex was written (and there have been many of those in the past, but we'll ignore that for the time being), I think that players would be happier with updates and such rather than just being told 'Sorry, wait 4-8 years for a revision'.
I think the Ork players here would agree...
BYE
4884
Post by: Therion
In the meantime, my falcon-free competetive foot-slogging eldar just got stronger with all the new rules.
I refuse to believe your footslogging Eldar are anything even remotely like competitive, but as an Eldar player I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
4395
Post by: Deadshane1
Therion wrote:In the meantime, my falcon-free competetive foot-slogging eldar just got stronger with all the new rules.
I refuse to believe your footslogging Eldar are anything even remotely like competitive, but as an Eldar player I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
Its not Nidzilla or Falcon spam competetive, but its 77 fearless foot troopers with a fortuned avatar and 6 guided warwalkers played by someone who knows what his AND your army can do competetive.
I've been competetive and not a push-over with it. Thats not to say that really smart players with the Uber lists cannot beat me.
....its still getting better in the new system though from these rumours, and I wont have to change my tactics with an army I'm used to. Its part of the bonus that people get that dont buy into totally easy armies to win with.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
So Nids will basically have to suck it up and wait for a new Codex to come out that makes the Venom Cannon S9 Max and can penetrate Vehicles (or they could do that via FAQ, probably won't).
Oh well, welcome to the Ork players world before the new Codex. "Oh you're uncompetitive, well sorry - wait till we finish these other armies first and then we'll address your problems."
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
But if GW followed the PP model, you wouldn't even *get* a Codex, only an endless stream of piecemeal updates (additions).
Your CSM might just be CSM, Defilers, and Havocs. But mixed in you'll also have Shoota Boyz, Heavy Destroyers, War Walkers, and Stormtroopers.
Then next quarter, you buy another book to get rules for Possessed & Terminators. Along with Death Company, Wave Serpents and Basilisks. And 4 chapters of Dan Abnett's latest novella.
And so on.
It's the never-ending treadmill of PP stuff that I'm protesting.
Also, given that I've got several largish armies with lots of options, the odds that one of them will be strong easily offsets the odds that another one or two might be weak. So if my Eldar (or parts of my Eldar) spend 4-8 years on the shelf, I'm OK with that, because it just means my Marines or Guard get more play.
Plus, as I've retooled towards more "balanced" armies, I think I'll be even more "future-proofed" against rules changes.
If, by some strange miracle, all of my 40k armies are "unplayable", then I can always play Fantasy, Gothic, Necro, Mord, or any of a number of other GW / non-GW games.
782
Post by: DarthDiggler
Wait a minute. What is all this talk about Nids not being able to take down armor 14? Can't Nids take 3 Zopes with Warp Blast? Isn't Warp Blast str 10 at 18"? Since when is Str 10 weak? Monoliths have short range guns and cheap bugs can screen Zopes until they get in range. Besides all that, what's wrong with causing a Necron phase out to kill the Monolith?
As for Land Raiders, I don't think it was the Vennom Cannon that has kept the Land Raider out of the top lists. I think it is the enemy Lascannons, Meltaguns, Brightlances, etc... that keep Land Raiders off of the top table armies.
752
Post by: Polonius
I think JohnHwang stumbled over a pretty big factor in whether a person will look forward to or fear new rules: the sheer size of the army(ies) the person owns.
I have about 6k of IG, so while my armies might never be top teir, I can reliably field a pretty competitive build, whatever that is from the codex.
On the other hand, a gamer with exactly 1850 of nidzilla dreads every change, because a few or nearly all of the models he owns will be affected, leading to more purchases and painting.
It doesn't make one side or another right, but it probably explains at least some of my eagerness for a new edition.
161
Post by: syr8766
How did we get to page 5? Wow.
5470
Post by: sebster
DarthDiggler wrote:Wait a minute. What is all this talk about Nids not being able to take down armor 14? Can't Nids take 3 Zopes with Warp Blast? Isn't Warp Blast str 10 at 18"? Since when is Str 10 weak? Monoliths have short range guns and cheap bugs can screen Zopes until they get in range. Besides all that, what's wrong with causing a Necron phase out to kill the Monolith?
As for Land Raiders, I don't think it was the Vennom Cannon that has kept the Land Raider out of the top lists. I think it is the enemy Lascannons, Meltaguns, Brightlances, etc... that keep Land Raiders off of the top table armies.
Zoanthropes are excellent, but experienced play has demonstrated they're unreliable AT at best. Having to close within 18" will force you out into the open, the 'thropes are pretty tough but will quickly perish to any opponent keen to kill them and protect his tanks. You're also a single shot BS 3 weapon, and vulnerable to enemy librarians. A list relying on zoanthropes for AT is likely to punished by any list fielding mutliple armour units.
2175
Post by: Chaplain Pallantide
@Sebster: I agree, Zoe's can be used for AT, but their problem lies with the fact that you have to get extremely close to the enemy and the point payout might not be worth it.
As far as PP goes, it is not so much a treadmill as it was put earlier. You can choose to get whatever expansion you want when you want, and it doesn't effect the game. With the new Remix book of prime, it contains all the rules you need, plus PP is great at FAQ's and keeping said faq up to date, unlike GW. When was the last time they put out a faq??
The other thing I love about PP is that all units have some sort of viability. True some people favor a particular unit over others, but they all have a place. I buy what I like and what I think looks cool and it all comes out in the end.
@Plonius: I would agree, if you have 6k points in whatever army then new changes don't effect you, but some of us in the gaming community do not have that, nor do new gamers. I know my gaming expenditures is not what it used to be, so with each new codex/army book revision, I do cringe wondering what will work and what won't.
Again just a few thoughts
Thanks,
Chappy P!
752
Post by: Polonius
Chaplain Pallantide wrote:
@Plonius: I would agree, if you have 6k points in whatever army then new changes don't effect you, but some of us in the gaming community do not have that, nor do new gamers. I know my gaming expenditures is not what it used to be, so with each new codex/army book revision, I do cringe wondering what will work and what won't.
That was pretty much my point: people with smaller collections are more likely to be worried about a new edition. At risk of sounding obnoxious, I'd imagine people with generalist armies are less worried than those with narrow themed armies. It's times like this where all gamers really have to remind themselves that the GW hobby isn't just painting and playing with GW minis, it's buying, painting, and playing with GW minis. To reuse a tired joke, if you don't want to buy more miniatures, you might be in the wrong hobby. To be clear, I'm mocking GW more than any poster, of course.
The big advantage GW has is that they're betting it'll be cheaper in the long wrong for a hobbyist to rebuild an army and keep playing 40k than to get into a new game, especially since now new game has lasted much longer than 4-5 years in competition to 40k. PP is really making a legit run at it, and they might be the one to really break out as the solid #2 mini gaming company. If you don't think PP's business model involves a way to get you to buy new models every year, you might be disappointed. It's the way of the world.
4776
Post by: scuddman
What I like about how PP does stuff is there is less waiting. Whenever an expansion comes out, everyone gets stuff. Ork players had to wait 9 years before they got a new codex. The witchhunters aren't even going to get a 4th edition codex. The idea of giving everything something new is an awesome way of alway keeping the game interesting. On top of that, rules questions gets taken care of quickly. I really hate how GW never takes care of rules issues, and when they do take care of rules issues, more problems crop up. I'm looking at you Tyranid FAQ...
5926
Post by: Stingray_tm
DarthDiggler wrote:Wait a minute. What is all this talk about Nids not being able to take down armor 14? Can't Nids take 3 Zopes with Warp Blast? Isn't Warp Blast str 10 at 18"? Since when is Str 10 weak? Monoliths have short range guns and cheap bugs can screen Zopes until they get in range. Besides all that, what's wrong with causing a Necron phase out to kill the Monolith?
It's not only about Liths. This is what i have to do in order to kill (or better: to penetrage) a Landraider with.
- get inside 18"
- don't screw up the pschic test
- don't get cancelled by Librarian
- hit on 4+
- penetrate on 4+
Now the whole army has three of those shots. That's less firepower than a single SM Devastator squad has.
5926
Post by: Stingray_tm
JohnHwangDD wrote:
And yet the Eldar didn't get 6+ Wraithlords for their new plastic kit. Funny, that. It's almost like the Eldar Codex writers didn't get the message to pump model sales of the new Wraithlord...
Well, they already got way overboard with Harlequins, giving that treatment to other new units would have been too obvious, even for GW...
1217
Post by: Corpsman_of_Krieg
All I can say is that Forced March will probably make my horde Black Templars a decent competitor again. Maybe not a top tier list, mind you, but a good challenge for your typical gamer.
All this time I've been cramming in as many Terminators as possible to complement my already large Troops base of fatty Crusader Squads. If 5th Edition throws Forced March and Infantry Screening back into the mix, I imagine that Black Templars (as well as all the other horde lists out there) will make a solid comeback and become a fairly common, respected opponent, instead of being relegated to a sub-par level as they have in the past.
CK
5470
Post by: sebster
Thinking about it some more, forced march would also bugger up the current assault/rapid fire/heavy set up.
One of the problems with 2nd ed was that you never saw troops fire as they advanced. Units with heavy weapons stood still and fired all their guns. Units wanting to assault gave up their chance to shoot by running and then charging. All those orks with pistols never, ever shot them as they were too busy running at the enemy.
Starting with third ed, 40K took things in a new direction, getting rid of the run/walk/charge options, and giving everything a chance to move the average amount. They then gave them weapons options, meaning troops properly equipped with assault weapons could maintain their fire as they advanced. Tyranids and orks could march forward under these new rules and fire supporting rounds. GW largely buggered this up by making shoota boyz rapid fire (but they've fixed that now) and making dual purpose tyranid warriors too expensive (still wrong), but the principle is sound.
But with the proposed rule buggers that up. if you're interested in assaulting you'll happily ignore those shots for the opportunity to close with the enemy a little sooner. You won't see assault weapon used to support the advance anymore.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Well it would be even worse for the defending side if assaulters could move, shoot, pseudo-fleet, and assault.
5470
Post by: sebster
Kilkrazy wrote:Well it would be even worse for the defending side if assaulters could move, shoot, pseudo-fleet, and assault.
I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that this is a regressive step that will undo much of the rules structure put in place for third and fourth ed. Maybe we're better off with a different system with a mechanic for running, but if that's the case the only sensible thing is to throw out the whole rapid fire/assault/heavy categories, probably along with the move/shoot/charge sequence.
The proposed rule change, taken at face value and assuming no other significant rules changes are to be announced, is a weird hybrid where many rules will exist for no particular reason. Either this is an extremely preliminary GW idea, or an idea made up by a fan who didn't really think it through, or there are other significant rules changes to come, or GW are about to release a really goofy set of rules.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
You are quite right.
Whilst no-one is suggesting that the existing rumours are finished work, the past history of GW releases does not fill one with confidence that all the loose ends, ambiguities and unfortunate unexpectedly large effects will be wrapped up neatly in the finished product.
We may find that troops with assault weapons are allowed to move, shoot and pseudo-fleet, and troops with RF weapons are allowed to move and shoot to max range, but not pseudo-fleet the same turn.
105
Post by: Sarigar
I'm still unsure how woods will work regarding new LOS rules.
Anyone have any insight to this?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Perhaps they won't?
Not kidding, it just seems to me that you can treat woods as a group of individual trees in which case everyone will need a laser pointer to figure out the LOS, or else you treat it as area terrain. The problem with the area terrain system now is not that it is a bad idea but that it is badly explained.
221
Post by: Frazzled
If we go back to the days of laser pointing LOS I'm out of here. The game sucketh much at that point.
1795
Post by: keezus
Therion: Foot slogging Eldar do have the capacity to win in competitive play (mostly due to the ridiculous fearless bubble caused by the Avatar, although they will not be able to pull off anything more than a solid victory due to attrition.
I played against a similar list with my pre-nerf IW and I was only able to to pull off a solid victory. The fearless aspect means you have to kill his units 100% to get the full VPs, so even having 1 dude hiding from shooting / melee means that you can only ever get 1/2 VPs from him.
782
Post by: DarthDiggler
sebster wrote:DarthDiggler wrote:Wait a minute. What is all this talk about Nids not being able to take down armor 14? Can't Nids take 3 Zopes with Warp Blast? Isn't Warp Blast str 10 at 18"? Since when is Str 10 weak? Monoliths have short range guns and cheap bugs can screen Zopes until they get in range. Besides all that, what's wrong with causing a Necron phase out to kill the Monolith?
As for Land Raiders, I don't think it was the Vennom Cannon that has kept the Land Raider out of the top lists. I think it is the enemy Lascannons, Meltaguns, Brightlances, etc... that keep Land Raiders off of the top table armies.
Zoanthropes are excellent, but experienced play has demonstrated they're unreliable AT at best. Having to close within 18" will force you out into the open, the 'thropes are pretty tough but will quickly perish to any opponent keen to kill them and protect his tanks. You're also a single shot BS 3 weapon, and vulnerable to enemy librarians. A list relying on zoanthropes for AT is likely to punished by any list fielding mutliple armour units.
Many Godzilla Nidz lists take 3 Zopes, 2 sniper fexes and at leat one venom cannon Tyrant. That's 5 units for anti-tank. Multiple armor units will not have a lot of armor 14 all around. Those multiple armor units will consist mostly of armor 10 in the back and assaults now target the enemy rear armor. Anything with an armor 10 in the back can be brought down by str 4 assaults (Genestealers, Raveners, boosted Hormagaunts) so armor 14 all around was the big problem. 18" range seems short except Monoliths have to get within 24" to do anything to you and that is one turns walking for a Zope to be in range. Zopes seem much more survivable if they are screened by 20-25 fearless 5pt spinegaunts. It appears only Monsterous creatures and Vehicles can get to them. But I'm not sure MC's won't be able to block LOS to anything behind them like they do now and Zopes once agains get their meat shield back.
782
Post by: DarthDiggler
Stingray_tm wrote:DarthDiggler wrote:Wait a minute. What is all this talk about Nids not being able to take down armor 14? Can't Nids take 3 Zopes with Warp Blast? Isn't Warp Blast str 10 at 18"? Since when is Str 10 weak? Monoliths have short range guns and cheap bugs can screen Zopes until they get in range. Besides all that, what's wrong with causing a Necron phase out to kill the Monolith?
It's not only about Liths. This is what i have to do in order to kill (or better: to penetrage) a Landraider with.
- get inside 18"
- don't screw up the pschic test
- don't get cancelled by Librarian
- hit on 4+
- penetrate on 4+
Now the whole army has three of those shots. That's less firepower than a single SM Devastator squad has.
With an 18" threat range and 12" deployment zones, the Zopes can reach any spot on the board by turn 3 with a concentrated Warp Blast. The psychic test is on leadership 10 and enemy librarians have a 34% chance to cancel the power each turn (less if the Tyrants have psychic scream and get close). Hitting and wounding is a dice roll, but you do have 3 Zopes and with screening by fearless Spinegaunts it is not unrealistic to expect all three get into range to shoot. I'm not saying they will bring down an armored company by turn 3, I'm just saying it is not as dire for the Bugs as it seems.
And we're only talking about Land Raider, Monoliths and Leman Russ Demolishers. Every other tank can be brought down in HtH from those rear atacks. Monoliths and Demolishers have generally short range weapons which bring them even closer to the Zopes and Land Raiders still are not seen regularly on the top tables so once you get out of round 1 with a win, the chances are you won't see one.
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
I agree with Darth. Zopes are going to get a huge boost with the new screening rules and probably will become a standard choice in bug armies in 5th.
Capt K
181
Post by: gorgon
Mekboy wrote:I've heard that rending will change to be like the cyclic ion blaster. horray, now genestealers are way over pointed.
Perhaps. However, if screening by units really does come back into the game, we'll be able to screen them with Gaunts. I might not even bother with extended carapace then.
How are we going to take objectives? I dunno. I think the Tyranid plan is going to be wipe out the other guy's Troops and try to win on straight VPs.
2661
Post by: Tacobake
jfrazell wrote:If we go back to the days of laser pointing LOS I'm out of here. The game sucketh much at that point.
I think it has something to do with units rather than individual bases.
2175
Post by: Chaplain Pallantide
The issue I see is speed, as far as tyranids are concerned. I searched all over warseer and here on dakka and I have yet to see where TMC's would gain the new March move ability.
I am under the current understanding that only small based sized and maybe terminator size models would be eligible for said move. If that is ture and the move rules out TMC's, then zilla nids get totally boned.
As far as their weaponry goes, what's the point of taking a venom cannon? Sure the barbed strangler is still useful against horde armies. In my current nid army, I went purist, so I don't have a unit of Zoe's and have had to reply on 4 venom cannons to get any anti-tank jobs done, even then it was with luck of the dice if I managed to get a destroyed tank on a glancing hit.
As it is in this current edition, movement is key for and against nid zilla. It can be incredibly frustrating to try and get the big guys close enough to my opponent to do the work that needs to be done.
A smart player in this new 5th edition might or might not use tanks first and foremost. If he does and he's facing nids, then he can just keep his tanks far enough away and just blast away.
I agree with Sebster and Stingray about Zoe's. They can be good for AT, but they are not the best and with the new glancing rules, you cannot get a vehicle destroyed hit with guns that you once could.
Unless in the next Tyranid codex, whenever that may come out, they allow venon cannons to get penetrating hits. But my suspicion is that with a new edition of the tyranid codex, the zilla list will no longer be viable. This just seems the way of GW.
Scudman Said:
"What I like about how PP does stuff is there is less waiting. Whenever an expansion comes out, everyone gets stuff. Ork players had to wait 9 years before they got a new codex. The witchhunters aren't even going to get a 4th edition codex. The idea of giving everything something new is an awesome way of alway keeping the game interesting. On top of that, rules questions gets taken care of quickly. I really hate how GW never takes care of rules issues, and when they do take care of rules issues, more problems crop up. I'm looking at you Tyranid FAQ..."
QFT...I like PP's way of putting out supplements. I would rather put out money for decent books, and fast up-to-date faqs, then wait for years for essentially a shoddy product with little or no support in terms of a faqs, that will become obsolete a short time later . I also like the fact that the customers can say and voice opinions to PP and that the creators listen and seem to care.
Again, my 2 pence,
Thanks,
Chappy P!
844
Post by: stonefox
Tacobake wrote:jfrazell wrote:If we go back to the days of laser pointing LOS I'm out of here. The game sucketh much at that point.
I think it has something to do with units rather than individual bases.
Like Fantasy? It would make it much easier if I only needed to poke out one of my crisis suits to fire if that's the case.
2661
Post by: Tacobake
stonefox wrote:Tacobake wrote:jfrazell wrote:If we go back to the days of laser pointing LOS I'm out of here. The game sucketh much at that point.
I think it has something to do with units rather than individual bases.
Like Fantasy? It would make it much easier if I only needed to poke out one of my crisis suits to fire if that's the case.
from the first page of this thread.
LOS: I'm pretty sure that it's units that block LOS, so you shouldn't worry about spending 45 minutes drawing LOS from each individual trooper to each individual target. You draw LOS from the eyes of the model. Area terrain gives cover saves. There's an entire chapter on ruined buildings and how they affect line of sight (like a mini Cities of Death). I honestly don't remember if 6" of terrain blocks sight or not.
if I get what you're saying, you'd still have to move the entire squad. But you wouldn't have to worry about spaces between the screening models bases like was necessary in 3rd ed.
218
Post by: widderslainte
Kilkrazy wrote:You are quite right.
Whilst no-one is suggesting that the existing rumours are finished work, the past history of GW releases does not fill one with confidence that all the loose ends, ambiguities and unfortunate unexpectedly large effects will be wrapped up neatly in the finished product.
FWIW, it looks like the unfinished draft the Warseer poster was referring to has leaked to the web.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
It does? I can't find it on Google. Send me a PM.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
More stuff from Warseer: Link
Ok I have a copy of what I think is the same document (only had a quick browse)
The chart for missions says
1-2 = Recon
3-4= Take and Hold
5-6 = Total Anihiliation
Recon = You role for d3+2 objectives and if you have troops within 3" and the other guy doesnt at the end of the game, you hold that objective. The one with the most objectives wins.
Take and Hold = Is similar, except each player choses an objective within their deployment zone, not in impassible terrain, and not within 24" of the other objective.
Total Anihilation = Get 'Kill Points' for units destroyed or falling back. HQ=3pts. Fast, Heavy, Elite = 2pts Troops=1pt
Oh and later on its says VPs are used to decide draws. Units destroyed are worth their points, half strength units worth half their points. You need at least a 10% difference in VPs based on the points of the game to win (i.e. their example 1,500 points requres a 150 pints difference to register a win)
There is also a 'deployment' chart which I will put on in the morning (too tired) if someone else hasn't done it already. As noted earlier, only troops are scoring, except if falling back / it is a transport? / it has a specific rule saying it isn't scoring.
One funny thing about the deployment chart. One of the deployment types is called "Dawn of War"
5642
Post by: covenant84
I'm not liking the running thing. Yes some troops may need to cross the board fast but that's for transports. The fleet rule as far as I'm concered is to make some fast troops err fast - if everyone can run then arn't the just average then? I have always assumed that when a model is moving the maximum move (6") represents them runing. If you don't want to run then don't. If troops can run at 'possibly' 12 inches (just guessing, older games I played running was a second move) then why bother putting them in a transport? If you're playing an army that needs to get across the board then surely you should be looking at deep striking etc. Just don't like it myself.
As for the nids going back to swarms/footsloggers then fine by me! Comments were made in the 'should SM get strength increase', mostly by me, complaining that zillas get to your line and hack sah eat dribble etc. until your power armours massed up. After a few comments I came to the conclusion that fluff wise marines are fine, it's actually army composition that's wrong. Look at the artwork and stories - foot troops clearly outnumber anything else, there's 100's of them for each big tank/monster etc. Turning down the use of tanks/monsters gets my vote if the standard foot trooper becomes more 'valuable'. If it was that easy to field 3 carnifexs/2tyrants etc then where are they in the fluff? Bringing the balance back in favour of footsloggers to me is a v. good move.
But an army of 100 troops who can run olympic speed at the enemy? I may be wrong but isn't a 40K turn estimated at 6-10 seconds? That's a long way the standard trooper could run - across an uneven battle field while being under heavy fire. Keep it to 6" move and fleet for the rare faster troops I say. just my opinion
5470
Post by: sebster
DarthDiggler wrote:Many Godzilla Nidz lists take 3 Zopes, 2 sniper fexes and at leat one venom cannon Tyrant. That's 5 units for anti-tank. Multiple armor units will not have a lot of armor 14 all around. Those multiple armor units will consist mostly of armor 10 in the back and assaults now target the enemy rear armor. Anything with an armor 10 in the back can be brought down by str 4 assaults (Genestealers, Raveners, boosted Hormagaunts) so armor 14 all around was the big problem. 18" range seems short except Monoliths have to get within 24" to do anything to you and that is one turns walking for a Zope to be in range. Zopes seem much more survivable if they are screened by 20-25 fearless 5pt spinegaunts. It appears only Monsterous creatures and Vehicles can get to them. But I'm not sure MC's won't be able to block LOS to anything behind them like they do now and Zopes once agains get their meat shield back.
You've changed your argument. People were commenting that 'nids will struggle to knock out AV14 if their glancing venom cannons were nerfed. You replied that the zoan's warp blast was fine. A few of us pointed out that zoan's limitations were considerable... I even recognised they're excellent units but not strong enough to rely on for AT by themselves.
You then changed your assertion, making zoan's part of 'nidzilla list with multiple 'fex and tyrants. Which is considerably different to your original assertion, and nonsensical in a conversation about 'nid AT when venom cannons are no longer effective.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Very interesting.
Some observations:
Pg 3 - Blast markers now hit if they cover any part of the base. This is a nice boost for Frag Missiles, and Ordnance.
Pg 4 - The term 'model is much more explicitly defined than before. This is a good sign.
Pg 15 - 'Running' works exactly like Fleet of Foot does now.
Pg 16 - They explicitly say you can't shoot a Space Marine's back banner. That's good to have explained since I play with some obtuse players.
"Models are not allowed to fire through the gaps in an intervening unit."
You can shoot over friends if you're on a hill. This is done via the Laser Pointer method to see if the hill is high enough to not clip the heads of a friendly unit ahead of you. You can also shoot through your own unit with no problems. The 'Covering Fire' rule cuts down on some obvious abuses - but this still looks problematic to me.
Pg 18 - BS6+ works by providing a reroll when a one is rolled. e.g. 2/6 2/5 2/4, etc.
Pg 19 - Majority toughness is still used.
Pg 20 - Allocating wounds is model by model. This means all wounds must be rolled individually - not just special/heavy weapons and sergeants. This is because a failed saving throw of a particular trooper could affect line of sight or range of subsequent firing units or knock the unit out of coherency (EDIT: nope, they allow you to remove another model with an identical stat-line (p 23), things aren't as bad as they looked from this page alone). This looks like it could seriously slow the game down.
Pg 21 - Cover is better than before. It ranges from 5+ - 3+ and is generally 1 better than similar cover was in 4th.
Pg 22 - If you're deep in cover in area terrain, your opponent gets a cover save. The way wounds are allocated makes partial cover simple to resolve.
You can elect to be Pinned on your subsequent turn to get a +1 cover save. It's an interesting option.
Pg 23 - They reversed the fluff rationale for heavy weapons' saves - either he was the only one trained or the weapon was damaged.
That's movement and shooting. I'll post general impressions/rumours from other sections as I read them.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
More stuff from Warseer: Link
Ok the deployment chart isn't as complex (surprise!) as I thought, so I will try to outline it quickly:
1-2 - Spearhead (table quarters) as usual, except that is seems that the person that won the initial roll deploys their entire force and then the other player deploys theirs. The person who 'won' the initial roll then goes first.
3-4 - Pitched Battle (long table edges) Normal deployment (well 12" from the middle of the table anyway, can't remember the rules from current ed.) Again, winner deploys first, then the other player then the 'winner' goes first.
5-6 Dawn of War (Table Halves) Same as above, except you place 1HQ and 2 Troops (including infiltrators). Everyone else is placed in reserve and comes on in turn 1; and the first turn is night fighting.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Weapons
Pg 27 - Rapid Fire remains 12", not 1/2 range as Tau players want. Blast weapons don't roll to hit - it scatters a d6. The rules for multiple blasts strike me a tad unruly though.
Pg 28 - Gets Hot! is only on a 1.
Multiple templates are done by counting all the hits first, then allocating wounds, etc.
Pg 29 - All Sniper weapons hit on a 2+, wound on a 4+ and are Pinning and Rending.
Rending - 6 to wound automatically causes an AP2 wound regardless of toughness. Against vehicles you add a d3 on a 6 to pen.
The next Chapter is assault.
782
Post by: DarthDiggler
Asmodai wrote:.
Rending - 6 to wound automatically causes an AP2 wound regardless of toughness. Against vehicles you add a d3 on a 6 to pen.
Interesting. This would mean stealers would get a max of str 13 to affect vehicles. Not enough to affect Land Raiders and Monoliths, but enough to hurt everything else. I wonder if they can only glance with this or if they can pen also.
5742
Post by: generalgrog
Voodoo Boyz wrote:More stuff from Warseer: Link
Ok the deployment chart isn't as complex (surprise!) as I thought, so I will try to outline it quickly:
1-2 - Spearhead (table quarters) as usual, except that is seems that the person that won the initial roll deploys their entire force and then the other player deploys theirs. The person who 'won' the initial roll then goes first.
3-4 - Pitched Battle (long table edges) Normal deployment (well 12" from the middle of the table anyway, can't remember the rules from current ed.) Again, winner deploys first, then the other player then the 'winner' goes first.
5-6 Dawn of War (Table Halves) Same as above, except you place 1HQ and 2 Troops (including infiltrators). Everyone else is placed in reserve and comes on in turn 1; and the first turn is night fighting.
This is interesting. I don't know if I like it yet, but it could go a long way towards relieving the issue of "Whoever gets first turn wins" myth that some people judge 40K by.
GG
782
Post by: DarthDiggler
sebster wrote:
You've changed your argument. People were commenting that 'nids will struggle to knock out AV14 if their glancing venom cannons were nerfed. You replied that the zoan's warp blast was fine. A few of us pointed out that zoan's limitations were considerable... I even recognised they're excellent units but not strong enough to rely on for AT by themselves.
You then changed your assertion, making zoan's part of 'nidzilla list with multiple 'fex and tyrants. Which is considerably different to your original assertion, and nonsensical in a conversation about 'nid AT when venom cannons are no longer effective.
Not changing the argument at all. Simply answering your worry that "A list relying on zoanthropes for AT is likely to punished by any list fielding mutliple armour units." You talk about multiple armor units and not only about the Land Raider and Monolith the other posts were talking about. 3 Zopes are fine vs. a few Land raider or Monoliths and yes the Nid player can not rely on "Zopes only" when facing Multiple armor units (or armies) such as steel legion. Those are two different arguments that I tried to answer together. Zopes vs. armor 14 all around, other nid nasties vs. other armor units.
2661
Post by: Tacobake
Asmodai wrote:You can elect to be Pinned on your subsequent turn to get a +1 cover save. It's an interesting option.
This seems powerful to me, for when your squad is below half you won't fall back.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
p 31 - You can only assault the unit you shot at.
p 37 - Wounds are allocated like with shooting.
p 38 - The rumours that combat resolution was like in Fantasy don't match up with this draft - it's about the same as 4th ed.
p 42 - Friends falling back can trigger a morale check. This is big for Guard and Tau.
p 43 - You can shoot while falling back.
p 44 - You can bonuses to regrouping checks for being inside area terrain or not being able to see the enemy.
p 46 - Characters with retinues cannot leave them.
p 47 - Characters are treated as a separate unit in close combat. (Note that the new wound allocation does lessen the power of hidden 'Fists, so they've moved up in relative terms).
p 48 - Perils of the Warp is an automatic wound with no armour or cover save allowed - per previous rumours.
p 49 - City Ruins are area terrain. Different heights are measured base to base as usual. You use movement to move up and down and any excess beyond what's needed to move onto a level is wasted and you can't end up between levels.
p 51 - Blasts are fired at a particular level.
p 53 - Monstrous Creatures get Move Through Cover.
p 61 - Vehicles have the 'Relentless' special rule that allows them to fire weapons as if stationary. This clears up the ambiguity about Rapid Fire weapons. (Bikers get this too.)
If you move you can only fire one weapon, except for defensive weapons (S4 or lower). There's no exception for Tau or pintle-weapons.
Line of sight is measured from the weapon's barrel.
Other rumours accurate.
p 70 - Dedicated transports can transport other units later. Yay!
p 72 - Ramming rules for vehicles. Should be fun to do Gorkamorka in the middle of a fight when Orks fight Orks.
p 78 - The 'Eternal Warrior' special rule means immunity to instant death. Remember that Daemon Herald have this special rule and people wondered what it meant.
'Fleet' lets you assault if you run in the movement phase. Great for Gaunts, of mediocre value for Guardians.
p 85 - Missions as just stated. Only non-vehicle Troops count as scoring. This is huge, obviously.
p 87 - Army lists are not secret.
p 89 - There's a mishap table if you deepstrike within 1" of an enemy model.
No mention of Escalation.
Everything here is courtesy of widderslainte, address your kudos to him.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Some concluding remarks.
I certainly have some doubts about a few of the rules (only Troops as scoring, scattering Blast weapons chief among them), but overall it looks fairly solid. The invisible Powerfist has received a bit of a nerf and GW has listened to the fans and defined their terms much better than in the past.
Army selection will certainly be effected. But I don't think it will be quite as broken as people thing. For example Combat Squads are really vulnerable to the new wound allocation rules, so they won't dominate the field with lots of scoring units.
Things I missed: Smoke Launchers give a 5+ cover save, Fast Vehicles have a top speed of 18" now rather than 24" (which makes Star Engines more useful).
Fast Vehicles can fire all their weapons if they move at Combat Speed - Falcons won't be stationary. They can fire one weapon when moving up to 12". A skimmer moving at Cruising Speed or Flat Out (up to 18) gets a 5+ cover save. So a Falcon could move 6" and fire everything, up to 12" and fire one gun but get a cover save, or 18" and not fire anything.
Due to the way models are defined, I think you can fortune a Falcon or Wave Serpent now. I'd need to check my Eldar Codex to be sure.
218
Post by: widderslainte
Asmodai wrote:Weapons
Also, other close combat weapons can no be used with power fists (unless another power fist or equivalent).
782
Post by: DarthDiggler
No sense crying over spilled milk. It's time to start adjusting my armies.
Let me get this right, Asmodai, units block LOS but just to the enemy. Friendly units can shoot through other friendly units right?
1321
Post by: Asmodai
These page numbers will certainly change from the leaked version. They're just a way of organizing stuff and showing the flow (and where I've skipped stuff that hasn't changed much).
I won't be distributing copies. You can check with widderslainte if you want. This is classic GW viral marketing to get people excited about 5th, but I don't want to get into trouble for spreading it. If GW has any trouble with these leaks, I'll delete the posts.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
DarthDiggler wrote:No sense crying over spilled milk. It's time to start adjusting my armies.
Let me get this right, Asmodai, units block LOS but just to the enemy. Friendly units can shoot through other friendly units right?
Nope. Friendly units block line of sight too. So if you have a Tactical Squad in front of your Devastators, the Devastators can't fire.
This makes buildings, hills and other high ground extremely important.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
widderslainte wrote:Asmodai wrote:Weapons
Also, other close combat weapons can no be used with power fists (unless another power fist or equivalent).
Thanks. I missed that. I guess it provides a purpose of the Gauntlets of Ultramar and lessens the role of the Powerfist Sergeant even more - he'd have one less attack than he does now.
2661
Post by: Tacobake
Asmodai wrote:Due to the way models are defined, I think you can fortune a Falcon or Wave Serpent now. I'd need to check my Eldar Codex to be sure.
"Nominate one Eldar unit with a model within 6" of the Farseer."
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Then it works since 'model' means either vehicle or non-vehicle unless specified.
That means that Wave Serpents and Falcons without SMF aren't quite the death traps people feared as long as you have a Farseer to keep them Fortuned (~55% or so chance to ignore each hit).
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Basically out of all of that I see a few things that help Tau.
The new vehicle damage chart is good news as long as you can get yourself glanced, because it lets decoy launchers be very effective.
There's a lot more cover saves going on so markerlights will be more useful.
Pathfinders finally get a Scout ability for their obligatory Devilfish.
The replaced LOS screening will allow Crisis Suits to use FWs or Kroot as shields via the jump-shoot-jump-back move.
Freeing up transports to carry anyone is useful. It makes an upgraded D'fish into a useful battletaxi-cum-light fire support unit.
Template weapons have improved a bit.
However there is also a lot of bad.
Less firing of weapons from vehicles.
FW are weak in H2H and will not like all the assault armies getting faster.
Kroot lose their ability to see through more than 6 inches of forest cover.
The allocate saves rule makes shield drones less useful though not entirely useless.
Tau sniper rifles are not Sniper and derive no benefit from that rule.
Piranhas get a lot slower without any benefits.
The new morale rules are going to hurt Ld7 armies.
It is hard to say if the overall effect is up, down or sideways.
I am looking forwards to some assessments about the other factions.
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
FWIW, it looks like the unfinished draft the Warseer poster was referring to has leaked to the web.
PM me the location please!
Capt K
128
Post by: mothman_451
i would really like to know the location as well, im just about to start a new army and this could change alot of my plans
5027
Post by: shirou
Asmodai wrote:Then it works since 'model' means either vehicle or non-vehicle unless specified.
That means that Wave Serpents and Falcons without SMF aren't quite the death traps people feared as long as you have a Farseer to keep them Fortuned (~55% or so chance to ignore each hit).
Can you cast psychic powers out of vehicles now? I never understood why a model would be able to shoot out of a vehicle (given a fire point) but not cast a psychic power.
5164
Post by: Stelek
Kilkrazy wrote:The replaced LOS screening will allow Crisis Suits to use FWs or Kroot as shields via the jump-shoot-jump-back move.
The models aren't the same height, so you can be 'seen' over your friends.
Hopefully a nice list of what's "big" and what's "normal" size will appear and define everything for us.
I have my doubts.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Stelek wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:The replaced LOS screening will allow Crisis Suits to use FWs or Kroot as shields via the jump-shoot-jump-back move.
The models aren't the same height, so you can be 'seen' over your friends.
Hopefully a nice list of what's "big" and what's "normal" size will appear and define everything for us.
I have my doubts.
I'll convert all my crisis suits to lying down.
218
Post by: widderslainte
CaptKaruthors wrote:FWIW, it looks like the unfinished draft the Warseer poster was referring to has leaked to the web.
PM me the location please!
I imagine the mods don't want this site to be a hub for trading of copyright infringing materials. What I saw, while interesting, was incomplete and not in a playable state, so I took a look, noted a bit of the rumoured info then deleted it. Try browsing file-sharing websites and the depths of the internet, which is where I saw it. The same sort of places the codex leaks were found. I imagine it will become increasing easy to come by if people on warseer have it.
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
Now that you can fortune eldar transports, wave serpents will be extremely useful again.
Capt K
4042
Post by: Da Boss
As an ork player:
the run rule combo'd with Waaaagh! is insane. Slugga hordes will roll gaily across the battlefield to swamp opponents in hordes of attacks. It also makes warpheads even less useful. (Oh well, it's a nice model)
The changes to power claws are probably a good thing. Yeah it de-powers them slightly, but it makes sense and since they are "must have" and the army no longer sucks, that's a good thing. Maybe Uge Choppas might actually get used in some builds now, who knows?
Screening is going to make terrain placement massively important, and seizing the high ground is going to become like a little sub mission in every other mission. Shooty squads in ruins with improved cover and low morale (lootas, I'm looking at you) are happy campers, almost literally.
The new deployment stuff is actually a fairly elegant solution to the first turn problems this game has had since I started playing it.
We are going to struggle with AV14 tanks if they are used well, as the only reliable S9+ things in the army are warboss and Nob PK attacks and we're getting less of them. Not nessicarily a bad thing, tanks need to be good, and orks do need a weakness. It will be nice to see tanks coming with a little infantry support to keep the tank free of PKs for a turn while they leg it. Monoliths just became that much harder to kill. If the commentators here are right, that makes necrons even more difficult to fight.
Ramshackle actually makes sense now that everyone's transports aren't deathtraps.
All in all, I think the new changes will be pretty okay. As long as there is enough high terrain for shooters to deploy on. I think my club should start working out terrain guidlines for a balanced game now, so that we're ready for the changes. The run rule is unbalanced I reckon, and makes orks broken. But we'll see.
2050
Post by: Anung Un Rama
Also, other close combat weapons can no be used with power fists (unless another power fist or equivalent).
now this in very interesting. now I have to remodel my Warboss. the one I just finished....
*looks through Codex...*
forget that, combi-weapons are stupid anyway....
1321
Post by: Asmodai
shirou wrote:Asmodai wrote:Then it works since 'model' means either vehicle or non-vehicle unless specified.
That means that Wave Serpents and Falcons without SMF aren't quite the death traps people feared as long as you have a Farseer to keep them Fortuned (~55% or so chance to ignore each hit).
Can you cast psychic powers out of vehicles now? I never understood why a model would be able to shoot out of a vehicle (given a fire point) but not cast a psychic power.
I didn't see that. I was referring to using the Psychic Power on the vehicle.
It says you use the rules as shooting unless specified otherwise, so I don't see why you couldn't use a Psychic Power as long as the vehicle had a fire point to use it from.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
widderslainte wrote:CaptKaruthors wrote:FWIW, it looks like the unfinished draft the Warseer poster was referring to has leaked to the web.
PM me the location please!
I imagine the mods don't want this site to be a hub for trading of copyright infringing materials. What I saw, while interesting, was incomplete and not in a playable state, so I took a look, noted a bit of the rumoured info then deleted it. Try browsing file-sharing websites and the depths of the internet, which is where I saw it. The same sort of places the codex leaks were found. I imagine it will become increasing easy to come by if people on warseer have it.
That was my approach. I read it, posted a 'live-blog' of my impressions reading it, and deleted.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It is an interesting moral and legal question whether we should spread the leaked rules further (assuming they are real.)
Copyright fair dealing allows the quotation of rules in order to discuss and criticise them.
GW should perhaps have kept them under better guard, but then again, many companies allow these kind of leaks specifically to do viral type marketing and get uncensored customer feedback.
611
Post by: Inquisitor_Malice
CaptKaruthors wrote:Now that you can fortune eldar transports, wave serpents will be extremely useful again.
Capt K
What do you mean useful again? The wave serpent has always been useful. Just ask all of the player's who faced it in Vegas.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Tacobake wrote:Asmodai wrote:You can elect to be Pinned on your subsequent turn to get a +1 cover save. It's an interesting option.
This seems powerful to me, for when your squad is below half you won't fall back.
Not necessarily. If you read the 4th ed rules carefully, Pinning stops a unit from making Fallback moves, but doesn't automatically Rally them. They'll resume falling back when they come unpinned.
734
Post by: Dal'yth Dude
Wow some of those are going back to previous editions.
Fleeing units can cause other units to flee was in previous editions. Did the "rally in cover" rule return? That rule was supposedly dropped because many players 'forgot' it.
The auto scattering blast markers rule: How does one nominate the target before scattering? can one target the ground like in RT days? Does one have to target a particular model? Will lining guys up in a straight line in cover minimize any chances of templates hitting models?
Combat speed rings a bell. Do the vehicles have 3 speeds again?
Wasn't Eternal Warrior described in the most recent Codex: Eldar for the Phoenix Lords?
1321
Post by: Asmodai
"Did the "rally in cover" rule return? That rule was supposedly dropped because many players 'forgot' it. "
Yes, being in area terrain gives you +1 leadership when rallying.
"The auto scattering blast markers rule: How does one nominate the target before scattering? can one target the ground like in RT days? Does one have to target a particular model? Will lining guys up in a straight line in cover minimize any chances of templates hitting models?"
You place the template over a model. I don't recall if the hole needs to centered or not.
The vehicles have Combat Speed and Cruising Speed. Fast vehicles have third 'Flat Out' speed.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Thoughts on the snippets above (thanks Asmodai and Widderslainte)
Pg 3 - Blast markers now hit if they cover any part of the base. This is a nice boost for Frag Missiles, and Ordnance.
Pg 4 - The term 'model is much more explicitly defined than before. This is a good sign.
Agreed on both, though I'm worried that the scattering blasts will slow down play.
Pg 16 - They explicitly say you can't shoot a Space Marine's back banner. That's good to have explained since I play with some obtuse players.
That’s already in the 4th ed rulebook, but if they did make LOS clearer, it’s obviously doubleplusgood.
"Models are not allowed to fire through the gaps in an intervening unit."
You can shoot over friends if you're on a hill. This is done via the Laser Pointer method to see if the hill is high enough to not clip the heads of a friendly unit ahead of you. You can also shoot through your own unit with no problems. The 'Covering Fire' rule cuts down on some obvious abuses - but this still looks problematic to me.
In Warhammer Fantasy both friendly and enemy units block LOS, and you can’t see through the gaps in a unit of skirmishers. Units on higher ground can see over intervening units, and units defined as Large Targets can see and be seen over other units. Forests are very much like 4th ed area terrain (though you can only see through 2”, not 6”). Technically LOS is model’s eye view other than that, though house rules to make other terrain (specifically hills) abstract are extremely common. I’m very interested in how much abstraction is used here and how well it’s explained. LOS is obviously an extremely important issue which needs to be explained better in 5th.
Pg 21 - Cover is better than before. It ranges from 5+ - 3+ and is generally 1 better than similar cover was in 4th.
Pg 22 - If you're deep in cover in area terrain, your opponent gets a cover save. The way wounds are allocated makes partial cover simple to resolve.
I’m interested to see the rules for how you determine who’s in cover and who’s not. The 4th edition rules are better than 3rd, but still have a couple of holes.
p 31 - You can only assault the unit you shot at.
p 47 - Characters are treated as a separate unit in close combat. (Note that the new wound allocation does lessen the power of hidden 'Fists, so they've moved up in relative terms).
p 46 - Characters with retinues cannot leave them.
p 43 - You can shoot while falling back.
p 49 - City Ruins are area terrain. Different heights are measured base to base as usual. You use movement to move up and down and any excess beyond what's needed to move onto a level is wasted and you can't end up between levels.
These five are already rules in 4th.
p 42 - Friends falling back can trigger a morale check. This is big for Guard and Tau.
This was part of the Trial Assault Rules in 3rd edition.
p 48 - Perils of the Warp is an automatic wound with no armour or cover save allowed - per previous rumours.
This might actually reduce the number of Eldrads wandering around.
p 51 - Blasts are fired at a particular level.
Good call. More rules taking multi-level buildings into account would help.
p 61 - Vehicles have the 'Relentless' special rule that allows them to fire weapons as if stationary. This clears up the ambiguity about Rapid Fire weapons. (Bikers get this too.)
If it’s a USR, unfortunately Chaos Terminators will be left out.
p 70 – Dedicated transports can transport other units later. Yay!
This one is very interesting. Particularly since this had been a big question and common point of confusion for new players ever since 3rd ed first came out. There are some distinct potential abuses here with elite units which aren’t normally permitted a Transport option.
p 78 - The 'Eternal Warrior' special rule means immunity to instant death. Remember that Daemon Herald have this special rule and people wondered what it meant.
CSM Daemon Princes and Eldar Phoenix Lords have it already. Makes sense as a USR.
p 87 - Army lists are not secret.
A distinct departure from Warhammer Fantasy, and an interesting nod to tournament/competitive play.
2813
Post by: Waterlootian
Asmodai wrote:
p 61 - Vehicles have the 'Relentless' special rule that allows them to fire weapons as if stationary. This clears up the ambiguity about Rapid Fire weapons. (Bikers get this too.)
If you move you can only fire one weapon, except for defensive weapons (S4 or lower). There's no exception for Tau or pintle-weapons.
I'm not following this part about the vehicles since the special rule seems to overrule the move & fire rule. Or is this mostly for bikes and rapid fire weapons?
Also, do bikes get the option to 'Run' as well? Any other changes to bikes?
Thanks!
1321
Post by: Asmodai
"There are some distinct potential abuses here with elite units which aren’t normally permitted a Transport option."
I'm just picturing players using an Ork Trukk to transport Repentia in an Apocalypse game.
844
Post by: stonefox
Kilkrazy wrote:Basically out of all of that I see a few things that help Tau.
The new vehicle damage chart is good news as long as you can get yourself glanced, because it lets decoy launchers be very effective.
There's a lot more cover saves going on so markerlights will be more useful.
Pathfinders finally get a Scout ability for their obligatory Devilfish.
The replaced LOS screening will allow Crisis Suits to use FWs or Kroot as shields via the jump-shoot-jump-back move.
Freeing up transports to carry anyone is useful. It makes an upgraded D'fish into a useful battletaxi-cum-light fire support unit.
Template weapons have improved a bit.
However there is also a lot of bad.
Less firing of weapons from vehicles.
FW are weak in H2H and will not like all the assault armies getting faster.
Kroot lose their ability to see through more than 6 inches of forest cover.
The allocate saves rule makes shield drones less useful though not entirely useless.
Tau sniper rifles are not Sniper and derive no benefit from that rule.
Piranhas get a lot slower without any benefits.
The new morale rules are going to hurt Ld7 armies.
It is hard to say if the overall effect is up, down or sideways.
I am looking forwards to some assessments about the other factions.
If the "models' LOS is taken from models' eye view" rumor is correct, Tau goes back to playing with Stealth suits again. Huge shame.
Bonded firewarriors will essentially get two rolls for rallying if they choose to "get down."
Vespid can be useful if they follow behind skimmers or interact with aggressive crisis teams.
Large Kroot units in woods or ruins may be taken for screening.
I agree with the hazy overall effect. I could see myself taking vespids, kroot, and o'shovah in a very aggressive list. Maybe Mech Tau with firewarrior firing lines and Kroot rushes, with devilfish blocking LOS for concentrated efforts.
3392
Post by: neofright
Asmodai wrote:Very interesting.
Some observations:
Pg 15 - 'Running' works exactly like Fleet of Foot does now.
I can't remember - is the armor save restriction on fleet in the main book or was that an older edition or Eldar specific?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I believe it was 3rd edition eldar specific.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
That was the 3rd edition Eldar book.
There's no Armour Save restriction in the 5th leak.
218
Post by: widderslainte
Mannahnin wrote:Thoughts on the snippets above (thanks Asmodai and Widderslainte)
p 61 - Vehicles have the 'Relentless' special rule that allows them to fire weapons as if stationary. This clears up the ambiguity about Rapid Fire weapons. (Bikers get this too.)
If it’s a USR, unfortunately Chaos Terminators will be left out.
It is. Slow and Purposeful is still there, but I forgot to see if had been changed at all.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Kilkrazy wrote:We may find that troops with assault weapons are allowed to move, shoot and pseudo-fleet, and troops with RF weapons are allowed to move and shoot to max range, but not pseudo-fleet the same turn.
I don't see how this follows from the rumors.
Running ("pseudo fleet") costs both shooting *and* charging.
Fleet costs shooting, but no effect on charging.
Rapid-Fire costs charging.
Assault weapons are the only things that allow movement, shooting, and assault.
So as I see it:
- Run! (pseudo-Fleet), NO shoot, NO charge
- Move & Fleet!, NO shoot, charge
- Move, fire Assault, charge
- Move, Rapid-Fire!, NO charge
- stay, Rapid-Fire long, NO charge
- stay, fire Heavy, NO charge
4477
Post by: skullspliter888
Wow this leak is a eye opener !! Pg 23 - They reversed the fluff rationale for heavy weapons' saves - either he was the only one trained or the weapon was damaged.
man that blows most units in the world cross train all guns just for this sort of thing. but still the rules as a whole look good .
now with this one p 48 - Perils of the Warp is an automatic wound with no armour or cover save allowed - per previous rumours.
i now it says cover save do they mean Inv. save 
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Chaplain Pallantide wrote:I have yet to see where TMC's would gain the new March move ability.
Unless in the next Tyranid codex, whenever that may come out, they allow venon cannons to get penetrating hits. But my suspicion is that with a new edition of the tyranid codex, the zilla list will no longer be viable.
I think you'll have to wait for the next Codex. The TMCs shouldn't want to March anyways, as they should be primarily HtH builds with supporting fire, using the same conceptual template as the Defiler. The Defiler got Fleet added and it's a Walker, so you can expect that the Fex will get Fleet added as well.
I don't think Venom Cannons will get Penetrating Hits. That much seems to be settled rules-wise over the past couple editions. I think GW is going to force Nids to be more fighty than shooty, and that the current-style of gun-Fex Zilla Nids are doomed. I think that future claw-Fex Zilla Nids will be fine.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Warseer wrote:
The chart for missions says
1-2 = Recon
3-4= Take and Hold
5-6 = Total Anihiliation
Total Anihilation = Get 'Kill Points' for units destroyed or falling back. HQ=3pts. Fast, Heavy, Elite = 2pts Troops=1pt
This is beautiful. Most missions based on Scoring units and mobile objectives. The kill scenario is well-done, and most importantly, isn't the 1st starting scenario. Troops are automatic KP denial, where HQs are KPs on a stick. Awesome.
Oh and later on its says VPs are used to decide draws.
Nice! VPs largely don't matter except in rare circumstances. This is very much what I hoped GW would do.
only troops are scoring, except if falling back / it is a transport? / it has a specific rule saying it isn't scoring.
Totally as expected.
The bias is going to shift pretty clearly towards having mobile Troops because 2/3 of the scenarios need them. The KP scenario is a nice translation of the old holdover system, but will be much faster to tally up in nearly all cases.
Deployment
It's nice that they're going with non-alternating deployment. Much faster. And much better in terms of Attacker / Defender. 1st turn is no longer an advantage, as your opponent can react.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Asmodai wrote:If you move you can only fire one weapon, except for defensive weapons (S4 or lower). There's no exception for Tau or pintle-weapons.
GW Epic Fail!
See y'all in 6th Ed...
BYE
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
While Skimmers Moving Fast gives a nice cover save, that can theoretically be "Fortuned" - you don't get Cover Saves from CC attacks....
Go Power Klaw Nobz ripping Falcons out of the sky!
3550
Post by: IntoTheRain
Asmodai wrote:If you move you can only fire one weapon, except for defensive weapons (S4 or lower). There's no exception for Tau or pintle-weapons.
I still can't get over how much this annoys me.
Off the top of my head, these are units that get whacked by the new rules.
-tornadoes, predators, crusaders
-chimeras, leman russ (both variations)
-ionheads
-falcons, vipers
Most of these units will no longer see any play. (barring the falcon and leman russ) Whats worse, its an obvious attempt to nerf the Falcon and Tornado, neither one of which was overpowered because of its rate of fire. And both are already getting fixes in the new edition anyway. The change to add defensive weapons was, in my mind, the best change they made from 3rd to 4th. It helped encourage a more mobile style of play. But now you own those units, so GW has no further use for them.
218
Post by: widderslainte
Kilkrazy wrote:It is an interesting moral and legal question whether we should spread the leaked rules further (assuming they are real.)
Copyright fair dealing allows the quotation of rules in order to discuss and criticise them.
GW should perhaps have kept them under better guard, but then again, many companies allow these kind of leaks specifically to do viral type marketing and get uncensored customer feedback.
I thought it would be both hilarious and awesome if Dakka people/HMBC/some guy edited the pdf with a set of better rule changes and let it loose on the internet.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
skullspliter888 wrote:Wow this leak is a eye opener !! Pg 23 - They reversed the fluff rationale for heavy weapons' saves - either he was the only one trained or the weapon was damaged.
man that blows most units in the world cross train all guns just for this sort of thing. but still the rules as a whole look good .
now with this one p 48 - Perils of the Warp is an automatic wound with no armour or cover save allowed - per previous rumours.
i now it says cover save do they mean Inv. save
Cover saves are distinguished from Invulnerable Saves. So Eldar would still get their Ward Save. Being in a bunker won't protect you from the warp though.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nice! VPs largely don't matter except in rare circumstances. This is very much what I hoped GW would do.
It should speed up the post-game since you won't need to do math unless it's a draw.
waterlootian wrote:
I'm not following this part about the vehicles since the special rule seems to overrule the move & fire rule. Or is this mostly for bikes and rapid fire weapons?
Also, do bikes get the option to 'Run' as well? Any other changes to bikes?
Thanks!
Sorry. I missed this earlier.
It's mostly for Rapid Fire weapons - e.g. the Land Raider Crusader's Hurricane Bolters. The 4th edition rulebook never clarified how Rapid Fire weapons on vehicles worked. This seems to have been addressed.
Bikes can't run. They can fire one weapon for each rider if I remember right - meaning that Attack Bikes can fire their Bolters and their Heavy.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
I don't quite undestand how allocating wounds is going to work. As an example:
My unit of 10 takes 30 shots
He rolls 10 dice, with one blue dice nominating my Sergeant 3 times? So it's possible no wounds are done to my regular joes (However unlikely) yet the unit leader could be forced to save 3 times?
What happens if 4 of those shots are plasma instead of bolters? Do you distribute evenly with wrap around where you wish? IE 14 wounds is 13 regular joes and one unit leader wound rolls?
You mentioned 'covering fire'?
Units that block LOS to friendly units will stop some of the abuse...but the new running and old fleet could still see units cha-cha-chaing back and forth in front of reapers/devs/etc...
Thanks Asmo for the rumours.
4477
Post by: skullspliter888
Asmodai wrote:skullspliter888 wrote:Wow this leak is a eye opener !! Pg 23 - They reversed the fluff rationale for heavy weapons' saves - either he was the only one trained or the weapon was damaged.
man that blows most units in the world cross train all guns just for this sort of thing. but still the rules as a whole look good .
now with this one p 48 - Perils of the Warp is an automatic wound with no armour or cover save allowed - per previous rumours.
i now it says cover save do they mean Inv. save
Cover saves are distinguished from Invulnerable Saves. So Eldar would still get their Ward Save. Being in a bunker won't protect you from the warp though.
sweet that also means my Sorcerors get there Invulnerable save
2080
Post by: Samwise158
Kilkrazy wrote:It is an interesting moral and legal question whether we should spread the leaked rules further (assuming they are real.)
Copyright fair dealing allows the quotation of rules in order to discuss and criticise them.
GW should perhaps have kept them under better guard, but then again, many companies allow these kind of leaks specifically to do viral type marketing and get uncensored customer feedback.
Seeing as how the leaked Codexii have recently been available beforehand, I'm starting to think that GW is intentionally leaking the new rules to monitor the conversations on sites like this and Warseer. It makes good financial sense. If the rules have any huge problems or discrepancies they can alter them. At least I hope they are doing this, if it leads to better clearer rules.
Also, What does it say about ordinance? Is that still move and fire?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
JohnHwangDD wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:We may find that troops with assault weapons are allowed to move, shoot and pseudo-fleet, and troops with RF weapons are allowed to move and shoot to max range, but not pseudo-fleet the same turn.
I don't see how this follows from the rumors.
Running ("pseudo fleet") costs both shooting *and* charging.
Fleet costs shooting, but no effect on charging.
Rapid-Fire costs charging.
Assault weapons are the only things that allow movement, shooting, and assault.
So as I see it:
- Run! (pseudo-Fleet), NO shoot, NO charge
- Move & Fleet!, NO shoot, charge
- Move, fire Assault, charge
- Move, Rapid-Fire!, NO charge
- stay, Rapid-Fire long, NO charge
- stay, fire Heavy, NO charge
I was assuming the rumours are not necessarily the confirmed final rules so there may be changes.
4477
Post by: skullspliter888
Samwise158 wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:It is an interesting moral and legal question whether we should spread the leaked rules further (assuming they are real.)
Copyright fair dealing allows the quotation of rules in order to discuss and criticise them.
GW should perhaps have kept them under better guard, but then again, many companies allow these kind of leaks specifically to do viral type marketing and get uncensored customer feedback.
Seeing as how the leaked Codexii have recently been available beforehand, I'm starting to think that GW is intentionally leaking the new rules to monitor the conversations on sites like this and Warseer. It makes good financial sense. If the rules have any huge problems or discrepancies they can alter them. At least I hope they are doing this, if it leads to better clearer rules.
Also, What does it say about ordinance? Is that still move and fire?
O GW forum watcher if you are here please let us know move a chair or sorry watched taps last night
but for real it would be a smart move to see what people think of the new rules
1321
Post by: Asmodai
AgeOfEgos wrote:I don't quite undestand how allocating wounds is going to work. As an example:
My unit of 10 takes 30 shots
He rolls 10 dice, with one blue dice nominating my Sergeant 3 times? So it's possible no wounds are done to my regular joes (However unlikely) yet the unit leader could be forced to save 3 times?
What happens if 4 of those shots are plasma instead of bolters? Do you distribute evenly with wrap around where you wish? IE 14 wounds is 13 regular joes and one unit leader wound rolls?
You mentioned 'covering fire'?
Units that block LOS to friendly units will stop some of the abuse...but the new running and old fleet could still see units cha-cha-chaing back and forth in front of reapers/devs/etc...
Thanks Asmo for the rumours.
Welcome.
The way it works if you take 27 wounds in a ten-man Marine squad. You'd allocate one wound to each model before you allocate a second wound to each model, then you begin allocating the third wounds. You'd probably allocate it to the 7 rank and file and none of those to the Sergeant, Plasma Gun and Lascannon.
You then roll 2 saves each for the specialists, and the 21 saves for the rank and file all-together (since you can pick and choose from the identically equipped ones).
Plasma wouldn't allow a save. I'm not completely clear on how it would work. The rules said the controlling player gets to decide which model is wounded - so it looks like you could allocate the Plasma Shots to a RnF. It would seem unsporting if you could allocate all the Plasma to models in cover for a unit in mixed cover, so that might not be how it works.
'Covering Fire' means that you can shoot at a unit partially blocked by a friendly unit if you can't hurt it with any of your weapons. For example if there was Wraithlord between a Guardian Squad with no heavy weapon and a Chaos Marine squad, the Guardians could ignore the Wraithlord and shoot the Chaos Marines. The rule is there to prevent your opponent from using your tanks as cover in an unrealistic manner.
Samwise158 wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:It is an interesting moral and legal question whether we should spread the leaked rules further (assuming they are real.)
Copyright fair dealing allows the quotation of rules in order to discuss and criticise them.
GW should perhaps have kept them under better guard, but then again, many companies allow these kind of leaks specifically to do viral type marketing and get uncensored customer feedback.
Seeing as how the leaked Codexii have recently been available beforehand, I'm starting to think that GW is intentionally leaking the new rules to monitor the conversations on sites like this and Warseer. It makes good financial sense. If the rules have any huge problems or discrepancies they can alter them. At least I hope they are doing this, if it leads to better clearer rules.
Also, What does it say about ordinance? Is that still move and fire?
Ordnance didn't seem to be covered. It said Ordnance was covered in the vehicle section on page XX, but the vehicle section never touched on it. I suspect it's still to be done.
185
Post by: Ebon
I'm hoping the rules answer the following questions:
Did they drop tank shock in favor of ramming? Is their still a Death or Glory option? (that's one of my favorite rules). Did they explain how skimmer tank shock works?
It sounds like all non-large model units will block LOS to each other. This sounds good because I loathed the days of 2x model height in 3ed.
It feels like a big shift back to assault based armies for fifth edition. We won't see rhino rush, but there will be rhino walls galore.
Tanks getting cover saves (and re-rollable ones with fortune) is a big boost and will help counter all the infantry hordes I hope.
Was there any mention of Area terrain? Does a forest block LOS if you are on the other side of it from your target? or do they just get a cover save?
I don't like defensive weapons being Str 4 and hope they keep it at Str 6.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Ebon wrote:I'm hoping the rules answer the following questions:
Did they drop tank shock in favor of ramming? Is their still a Death or Glory option? (that's one of my favorite rules). Did they explain how skimmer tank shock works?
It sounds like all non-large model units will block LOS to each other. This sounds good because I loathed the days of 2x model height in 3ed.
It feels like a big shift back to assault based armies for fifth edition. We won't see rhino rush, but there will be rhino walls galore.
Tanks getting cover saves (and re-rollable ones with fortune) is a big boost and will help counter all the infantry hordes I hope.
Was there any mention of Area terrain? Does a forest block LOS if you are on the other side of it from your target? or do they just get a cover save?
I don't like defensive weapons being Str 4 and hope they keep it at Str 6.
Tank Shock still exists. Ramming is for vehicle vs. vehicle collisions. Death or Glory is still in there. There's no special rules for skimmers that I noticed - so skimmer tanks could tank shock like everyone else.
Area terrain is mentioned. The forest wouldn't block line of sight (unless it did so physically), but you would get a cover save.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Asmodai wrote:
'Covering Fire' means that you can shoot at a unit partially blocked by a friendly unit if you can't hurt it with any of your weapons. For example if there was Wraithlord between a Guardian Squad with no heavy weapon and a Chaos Marine squad, the Guardians could ignore the Wraithlord and shoot the Chaos Marines. The rule is there to prevent your opponent from using your tanks as cover in an unrealistic manner.
Thanks for the clarification on the shooting, although 'covering fire' seems pretty silly to me. So NO vehicles block LOS if the troop is armed with bolters (Or whatever weapons that would not harm the tank)? It would seem strange if I could suddenly shoot through my Land Raiders, in fact if that is the case, Land Raiders could be pretty damn good walls. I would think tanks block LOS all the time, regardless though.
If tanks are not included in 'covering fire', I don't see how often it will come up for use. Bolters are str 4, so really you would need T 8 or higher for it to come into effect...and how many things besides tanks have that?
Thanks again.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Tanks are included. Remember that it only works if the model is *partially blocked*. You couldn't fire through a Land Raider.
The models still get a 4+ cover save though for being partially obscured.
This rule would also seem to prevent the tactic of marching your army up behind a Land Raider. As long as they weren't totally obscured, you could still shoot at them (albeit most of them might have a good cover save).
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Thinking about this, I'm generally OK with the changes.
My only real complaint is how land tanks and infantry can get 5+ / 3+ cover saves, but skimmers only get 5+ when moving "flat out".
The cover saves should be comparable in both cases. If the tank can hide for a 3+, and a bike can boost for a 3+, then a skimmer should be able to get a 5+ for 6-12", and a 3+ for 12+".
Or Skimmers can go back to only glances...
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Asmodai wrote:Tanks are included. Remember that it only works if the model is *partially blocked*. You couldn't fire through a Land Raider.
The models still get a 4+ cover save though for being partially obscured.
This rule would also seem to prevent the tactic of marching your army up behind a Land Raider. As long as they weren't totally obscured, you could still shoot at them (albeit most of them might have a good cover save).
Eh, kind of strange....I would assume only the models in the unit that can actually see around the Raider could be shot or shoot though.
All in all, as a Marine Mech I'm digging the new rules. I imagine my Guard buddy won't be a happy camper though. Running for everyone, friendly units block LOS (Heavy Weapon team what?), Russ Heavy Bolters combos useless...etc
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Whilst a number of these rules do actually sound quite interesting, and if they turn out to be good we'll steal... uhh... borrow them for The Revisited Project, but so many of them just seem to slow down the game, both figurativley and literally.
1. Scattering all blast markers (more dice rolls, more measuring, more arguments over which way the arrow is pointing).
2. Barrage for multiple blast markers (more dice rolls, more measuring, more arguments over which way the arrow is pointing).
3. Allocating wounds to individual models (long process before rolling dice).
4. The return to stationary vehicles (if S5 cannot be fired on the move... vehicles will stop moving, and things like Chimeras will dissapear from the game).
5. Vehicles going from 6/12/24 to 6/12/18.
One of the first things we did in the Revisited Project was speed everything up. Infantry that do not fire could run an extra 3". Fleet became a flat 6". Vehicles went from 6/12/24 to 8/16/24 (so not actually faster at the top end, but the breaks were bigger). MCs and Walkers could move 6"/shoot/assauly 6" or simply move 12" and then shoot. Sure it created some inbalances early on, and we've used our Codex revisions to compensate for some of these (increasing the price on Wave Serpents being one example), and in other areas such as increasing the range of guns (all basic weapons in our rules have a 30" range rather than 24", and it really does make a difference). There were other things that went along with this, such as allowing heavy weapons to be moved and fired with a slight reduction in accuracy (-1BS), and increasing the amount of weapons a vehicle can fire on the move. Sometimes we ended up being dead wrong (our Sponsons = Always Defensive turned out to be a bad idea when Predators w/Lascannon Sponsons became instant kings of the battlefield), but considering we don't have to sells models and actually want to have a decent ruleset, we actually playtest these problems out of the rules.
The the biggest impact that all these immediate movement changes had was that the game was opened up. We had tanks rushing across the table blazing away. Infantry formations that would be static in 3rd or 4th Ed could now move about to get better shots without missing a turn. The traditional 'sit & shoot' army ceased being the be-all and end-all of shooty strategy, and with enhanced movement there has been less reliance on screening (which we kept from 3rd Ed, to a degree).
Then we look at GW and we see them dumbing down rules for no reason whilst at the same time adding needless complication and time consumption to things like would allocation and blast markers. It's a true case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, resulting in, as I said before, new mistakes being made, and old mistakes coming back but in slightly different ways.
Is it any wonder we gave up on them years ago...
BYE
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Asmodai wrote:AgeOfEgos wrote:I don't quite undestand how allocating wounds is going to work. As an example:
My unit of 10 takes 30 shots
He rolls 10 dice, with one blue dice nominating my Sergeant 3 times? So it's possible no wounds are done to my regular joes (However unlikely) yet the unit leader could be forced to save 3 times?
What happens if 4 of those shots are plasma instead of bolters? Do you distribute evenly with wrap around where you wish? IE 14 wounds is 13 regular joes and one unit leader wound rolls?
You mentioned 'covering fire'?
Units that block LOS to friendly units will stop some of the abuse...but the new running and old fleet could still see units cha-cha-chaing back and forth in front of reapers/devs/etc...
Thanks Asmo for the rumours.
Welcome.
The way it works if you take 27 wounds in a ten-man Marine squad. You'd allocate one wound to each model before you allocate a second wound to each model, then you begin allocating the third wounds. You'd probably allocate it to the 7 rank and file and none of those to the Sergeant, Plasma Gun and Lascannon.
You then roll 2 saves each for the specialists, and the 21 saves for the rank and file all-together (since you can pick and choose from the identically equipped ones).
... ... ... ... ...
quote]
Okay, I have a question.
In your example given, how do you roll for the saves? If the wounds are allocated three to each Marine, surely the proper way to do it is roll the three saves for SM no.1, then for no.2 and so on. A lot of players will want to roll all 21 saves and remove a Marine for each failed save.
This is a probability issue rather like rolling the twin-linked Crusader hurricane bolters (or whatever they're called.)
1321
Post by: Asmodai
That's a good point Kilkrazy. They suggest literally picking up the dice and placing it next to each model that it wounded. You're right that probability-wise, you couldn't use the short-cut I suggested.
You can replace any model killed with a model with the identical equipment, which led me astray. You do have to take each model individually.
Also interesting, and a mate just reminded me, you can allocate both Plasma Gun wounds to the same model if you wanted to minimize casualties. (That's the example they use in the leak.) This constitutes a subtle nerf to Plasma Guns.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Asmodai wrote:That's a good point Kilkrazy. They suggest literally picking up the dice and placing it next to each model that it wounded. You're right that probability-wise, you couldn't use the short-cut I suggested.
You can replace any model killed with a model with the identical equipment, which led me astray. You do have to take each model individually.
Also interesting, and a mate just reminded me, you can allocate both Plasma Gun wounds to the same model if you wanted to minimize casualties. (That's the example they use in the leak.) This constitutes a subtle nerf to Plasma Guns.
Interesting. That violates the principle that the maximum number of models should be removed if possible.
689
Post by: Salvation122
p 31 - You can only assault the unit you shot at.
With the caveat that you CAN assault units that you shot out of their transport.
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
H.B.M.C. wrote:
....Then we look at GW and we see them dumbing down rules for no reason whilst at the same time adding needless complication and time consumption to things like would allocation and blast markers. It's a true case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, resulting in, as I said before, new mistakes being made, and old mistakes coming back but in slightly different ways.
Is it any wonder we gave up on them years ago...
BYE
You may have more people join your revolution after the new rulebook is out.
806
Post by: Toreador
Play is going to be dramatically changed by these rules. Not sure what to even make of them. I don't think there is a single section that doesn't change something in the game.
5295
Post by: amnar
Man, I think the changes look great. It's going to be a great edition..... On the down side, now I have little motivation to play 4th ed
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Toreador wrote:Play is going to be dramatically changed by these rules. Not sure what to even make of them. I don't think there is a single section that doesn't change something in the game.
Yep. Despite some passages staying the same, this is much more akin to the 2nd -> 3rd change than the 3rd -> 4th change. I'm already mulling about how it's going to change my army design philosophy.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Toreador wrote:Play is going to be dramatically changed by these rules. Not sure what to even make of them. I don't think there is a single section that doesn't change something in the game.
Honestly I think a lot of these changes are for the better, but there are still some crippling items that just don't make sense or just won't work (allocating wounds to specific models before saves, Defensive = S4, slowing vehicles down whilst speeding infantry up (???), etc.). Then there's the fact that GW is going to have some of the most loosley written rules ever conceived, leading to numerous problems that everyone will find on the day of release, yet none of them were found by them because they can't be bothered to read over before they scramble for that 'create PDF' button and send it off to the printers.
BYE
806
Post by: Toreador
It really depends on how they do this. A good reason no FAQ's have been forthcoming is because of the work and changes to 5th. IF they come out with a new book AND come out with FAQs for clarifications it is fine. Most games do this anyway. The big problem with the last edition is that they really didn't FAQ a lot of the important things we found wrong with it.
5859
Post by: Ravenous D
Asmodai wrote:Toreador wrote:Play is going to be dramatically changed by these rules. Not sure what to even make of them. I don't think there is a single section that doesn't change something in the game.
Yep. Despite some passages staying the same, this is much more akin to the 2nd -> 3rd change than the 3rd -> 4th change. I'm already mulling about how it's going to change my army design philosophy.
You know why that is dont you?
When 2nd became 3rd it forced a majority of people to re-buy their armies, then from 3rd to 4th you only had to switch out of few minor things. In other words its about GW screwing us for money, why else would they abandon an edition half way in? Because they care about the rules? HA! The non stop FAQs and awesome quality of the rules are evidence enough of that fact.
The last 4 years were a waste of time and money apparently, and maybe 4 years into 5th they'll decide its not profitable and run us through it all over again.
The one thing I'm looking forward to in all of this is GWs lame excuse.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Toreador wrote:It really depends on how they do this. A good reason no FAQ's have been forthcoming is because of the work and changes to 5th. IF they come out with a new book AND come out with FAQs for clarifications it is fine. Most games do this anyway. The big problem with the last edition is that they really didn't FAQ a lot of the important things we found wrong with it.
Judging by the 91 page PDF and how Eldar onward has been designed with this in mind, I suspect GW has had a fairly clear idea of 5th for about 18 months or so by now. That means they likely procrastinated on writing up FAQs they knew would be obsolete in a year anyway.
806
Post by: Toreador
I think it really only affects those people who go to extremes in list building. The ones that more push the limits.
It doesn't really look like this will make falcons or zilla nids obsolete, but what it does is put them more on the same level as everything else, and also brings a few armies back more in line with how GW wants the list to play like.
I really don't see this really changing any of the armies I play to a major extent, maybe just some tweaks here and there.
I can see me breaking back out the plasma cannons I had for the DA though, which right now are quite useless (in comparison to the other choices), and makes the marines holding the plasma guns a little more survivable.
Hmm, it also seems grots will be useful, as well as horde nids and guardians (screen those aspect warriors!)
kinda seems like it makes a lot more unit types useful, without truly invalidating a lot.
5859
Post by: Ravenous D
Asmodai wrote:Toreador wrote:It really depends on how they do this. A good reason no FAQ's have been forthcoming is because of the work and changes to 5th. IF they come out with a new book AND come out with FAQs for clarifications it is fine. Most games do this anyway. The big problem with the last edition is that they really didn't FAQ a lot of the important things we found wrong with it.
Judging by the 91 page PDF and how Eldar onward has been designed with this in mind, I suspect GW has had a fairly clear idea of 5th for about 18 months or so by now. That means they likely procrastinated on writing up FAQs they knew would be obsolete in a year anyway.
Well thats rude of them, an FAQ takes an hour of work max, and it would have been appreciated by the people who are using their product if GW put it out shortly after the release instead of making say, the eldar players wait 14+ months saying they're going to release a FAQ then tell us "Oh yeah heres your 5th edition cross over FAQ".
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Toreador wrote:I think it really only affects those people who go to extremes in list building. The ones that more push the limits.
It doesn't really look like this will make falcons or zilla nids obsolete, but what it does is put them more on the same level as everything else, and also brings a few armies back more in line with how GW wants the list to play like.
I really don't see this really changing any of the armies I play to a major extent, maybe just some tweaks here and there.
I can see me breaking back out the plasma cannons I had for the DA though, which right now are quite useless (in comparison to the other choices), and makes the marines holding the plasma guns a little more survivable.
Hmm, it also seems grots will be useful, as well as horde nids and guardians (screen those aspect warriors!)
kinda seems like it makes a lot more unit types useful, without truly invalidating a lot.
I've been fielding a 4x Plasma Cannon Devastator Squad for about 4 years now. It'll be interesting to see how they perform in 5th. My Dark Angels have tons of everything though, so the only change I might consider would be picking up a fourth Tactical Squad for larger games.
I also think that we'll see a return to slightly smaller games. Eldar, Dark Angels, and Orks all featured 1500 or 1600 point sample armies. With these rules being a little more time-consuming, I wouldn't be surprised to see 1500 be the new tournament standard rather than 1850 or 2000 as things were trending towards.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Toreador wrote:It really depends on how they do this. A good reason no FAQ's have been forthcoming is because of the work and changes to 5th.
There goes that set of rose-tinted masks you've got Toreador. Please don't be so niave as to put the lack of FAQ's down to their work on 5th. They've had how many years to do FAQs on not just the Codices but the rules themselves? All they've managed to do was release a 1 page FAQ for a couple of Codices once in 5 years. That's a poor effort by anyone's standards, and I really don't think we can blame 5th Ed for that.
BYE
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Ravenous D wrote:The one thing I'm looking forward to in all of this is GWs lame excuse.
Personally I'm looking forward to GW's attempt at telling us that none of our armies will change and everything is fine - just like they did between 3rd and 4th... and look how that turned out.
BYE
5859
Post by: Ravenous D
Toreador wrote:I think it really only affects those people who go to extremes in list building. The ones that more push the limits.
It doesn't really look like this will make falcons or zilla nids obsolete, but what it does is put them more on the same level as everything else, and also brings a few armies back more in line with how GW wants the list to play like.
I really don't see this really changing any of the armies I play to a major extent, maybe just some tweaks here and there.
I can see me breaking back out the plasma cannons I had for the DA though, which right now are quite useless (in comparison to the other choices), and makes the marines holding the plasma guns a little more survivable.
Hmm, it also seems grots will be useful, as well as horde nids and guardians (screen those aspect warriors!)
kinda seems like it makes a lot more unit types useful, without truly invalidating a lot.
True Swarm nids will be back with a vengence for sure, especially since warriors can't be targeted behind the wall of gaunts and warriors can force march now as well.
Really 5th edition is really hurting people that built lists to cater to the 4th ed rules for maximum efficiency.
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
What do you mean useful again? The wave serpent has always been useful. Just ask all of the player's who faced it in Vegas.
Most eldar players would disagree with you.
Capt K
806
Post by: Toreador
I always have rose tinted glasses, but since the shakeup, there has been less FAQ support than ever. So I would look for this "new wave" of changes to also have an affect on FAQs. If they don't, then it really wasn't change at all.
But with no escalation, the combat squad/ vehicle problems go away, along with some other oddities in some of the new codexes.
I don't think full blame can be attributed to it, but I also think we are naive to think they didn't know what was coming, and therefor you put the resources you have pushing new stuff, not exactly supporting the old. Which this year, there has been a lot of new stuff.
806
Post by: Toreador
A wave serpent is very useful, especially with Dire Avenger squads. The issue being is that Falcons were infinitely more useful if not just plain broken in comparison.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Yep, and fortuned Wave Serpents will be a thing of beauty now. Especially since you can use them to transport your Harlequins to clear the enemy off the object, and while the Harlequins are doing that, send them back to pick up a load of Dire Avengers to taxi back to hold the objective.
To me, that just sounds neat.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Ravenous D wrote:Well thats rude of them, an FAQ takes an hour of work max,
It takes an hour to collect the questions, or proofread it, or typeset it, maybe.
But it takes a lot more than an hour to actually puzzle through the questions to give the *correct* answers.
If all you're looking for is droolsboyz to roll a pile of 4+, then yeah, they can probably slap some worthless POS together in an hour.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Asmodai wrote:
Area terrain is mentioned. The forest wouldn't block line of sight (unless it did so physically), but you would get a cover save.
So..trees are now considered individual units that must be so close together you can't see through them to block line of sight? Eh, I like felt/base/area terrain better....I guess in your individual gaming groups you could just state "That felt represents trees taller than any model on the table and growing so close they touch" . Strange though, terrain will only effect movement rates now. Even COD which is relatively new still uses area terrain rules (6 deep, can't see past, etc).
1321
Post by: Asmodai
AgeOfEgos wrote:Asmodai wrote:
Area terrain is mentioned. The forest wouldn't block line of sight (unless it did so physically), but you would get a cover save.
So..trees are now considered individual units that must be so close together you can't see through them to block line of sight? Eh, I like felt/base/area terrain better....I guess in your individual gaming groups you could just state "That felt represents trees taller than any model on the table and growing so close they touch" . Strange though, terrain will only effect movement rates now. Even COD which is relatively new still uses area terrain rules (6 deep, can't see past, etc).
I was never a big fan of Size 1, 2, 3 terrain or the way area terrain worked. Actually basing things on how much the terrain actually covers always seemed more intuitive to me. Of course I came from playing Necro, so it could just be that I got used to doing things that way first.
1952
Post by: Mr. Bombadidaloo
Total Anihilation = Get 'Kill Points' for units destroyed or falling back. HQ=3pts. Fast, Heavy, Elite = 2pts Troops=1pt
so "cheesy" armies like the Tyranid Monstrous Creature list, where you have all your points sunk into relatively few hard-hitting units, suddenly gain another advantage in that they provide their opponents with fewer targets from which to gain Kill Points. and those players looking to play a well rounded army with a little bit of everything get shafted, because they're presenting 10+ targets, often almost double that which their cheesy opponent may provide? i feel like this scenario is pushing the game in a bit of a wrong direction. i do like how troops only award one point, though.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Well the tyranid monstrous creature list is getting nailed in the other two scenarios as the MCs cannot capture objectives.
443
Post by: skyth
Question that wasn't answered that I saw -
Big things can be shot over regular sized models, but can the big things shoot over regular sized models to things behind them?
661
Post by: Leggy
Mr. Bombadidaloo wrote:Total Anihilation = Get 'Kill Points' for units destroyed or falling back. HQ=3pts. Fast, Heavy, Elite = 2pts Troops=1pt
so "cheesy" armies like the Tyranid Monstrous Creature list, where you have all your points sunk into relatively few hard-hitting units, suddenly gain another advantage in that they provide their opponents with fewer targets from which to gain Kill Points. and those players looking to play a well rounded army with a little bit of everything get shafted, because they're presenting 10+ targets, often almost double that which their cheesy opponent may provide? i feel like this scenario is pushing the game in a bit of a wrong direction. i do like how troops only award one point, though.
These Armies may only have half the targets, but those targets will be worth double the kill points. Surely that balances up?
It does give another incentive to bring larger Troops units though, as a point sink. kill off all 180 ork boyz or gaunts, get 6 kill points as a reward. Alternatively, just take out 2 HQ's for the same score. I know which i think is easier.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
It's cool actually, like the old assassinate mission card.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
If you have 8 TMCs, that's 2x 3KP for 2 HQs, 6x 2KP for 6 Feces, and 2x 1KP for 2 Rippers = 20 KP total.
If you had 6 huge mobs of 20 PM, that might be only 3 KP for the prince, and 6 KP for Troops = 10 KP total.
What this does is penalize small "throwaway" squads (i.e Stormtroopers, IG Weapons teams, 6-man Las/Plas).
Big mobs of Boyz & MEQs will not be giving up KPs.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
JohnHwangDD wrote:If you have 8 TMCs, that's 2x 3KP for 2 HQs, 6x 2KP for 6 Feces, and 2x 1KP for 2 Rippers = 20 KP total.
If you had 6 huge mobs of 20 PM, that might be only 3 KP for the prince, and 6 KP for Troops = 10 KP total.
What this does is penalize small "throwaway" squads (i.e Stormtroopers, IG Weapons teams, 6-man Las/Plas).
Big mobs of Boyz & MEQs will not be giving up KPs.
Interestingly because it uses the terms 'unit' it looks like Dark Angels are worth 1 KP if they stay together and 2 KP if they use Combat Squads.
Being able to choose whether to be two units (e.g. for holding objectives) or one (for denying KP) is going to be a useful advantage in 5th.
4884
Post by: Therion
That means that Wave Serpents and Falcons without SMF aren't quite the death traps people feared as long as you have a Farseer to keep them Fortuned (~55% or so chance to ignore each hit).
Fortune doesn't need line of sight so fire points are irrelevant. What is relevant is whether there is a rule that says that characters who are inside transports count as being 'out of the game'. If the Farseer is in game, then he can cast most of his spells from the flying car. The rule isn't exactly unambigous even now but it would be nice if it was clearly possible in the 5th edition. I think the only power that can be used from a Falcon right now is the Eldritch Storm.
Does anyone else think that ordnance might be coming back in a big way? Do partial template hits now affect vehicles normally? Sounds to me like 3rd edition ordnance rules but even better since partials hit all models. How does casualty removal work from under the templates? Are Defilers and Leman Russes coming back?
My only real complaint is how land tanks and infantry can get 5+ / 3+ cover saves, but skimmers only get 5+ when moving "flat out".
Well, it's hard to understand how GW thinks any skimmer is worth its points now. They aren't fast enough nor resilient enough to justify the points cost especially as transports. 35 points for a Rhino, 165 points for a Falcon. Let me see. To me it seems the best way to use Hammerheads is to land the vehicle behind some 4+ or 3+ cover and shoot the Railgun and SMS from there all game. Fire Prisms can't land so they suck.
443
Post by: skyth
And, if these rumors are true, with scoring completely determining winning, and only non-vehicle troops scoring, there are at least two codex legal army lists where it is impossible to win with regardless of anything else that happens in the game. Both based off of fluff descriptions of types of those armies (End of days Nid list and Dreadmob Ork List).
661
Post by: Leggy
JohnHwangDD wrote:If you have 8 TMCs, that's 2x 3KP for 2 HQs, 6x 2KP for 6 Feces, and 2x 1KP for 2 Rippers = 20 KP total.
If you had 6 huge mobs of 20 PM, that might be only 3 KP for the prince, and 6 KP for Troops = 10 KP total.
3 kp for the hq and 6kp for the troops = 9kp total.
I will assume you were in a rush 
JohnHwangDD wrote:What this does is penalize small "throwaway" squads (i.e Stormtroopers, IG Weapons teams, 6-man Las/Plas).
Big mobs of Boyz & MEQs will not be giving up KPs.
IG will definately suffer. From my assumption on how this works, they can give up 6kp PER TROOP SLOT, with each unit being easilly killed. Most of their support falls into your "throwaway squad" category too. I guess thats the trade off for having so many scoring units for the other scenarios
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
As I've stated earlier, I fail to see why this should be a problem.
If the player knowingly chooses to select an army that cannot win, that is not the fault of the designer.
It is no different than a player choosing to take a less competitive list, take a handicap, or playing for a sporting minor win / draw rather than WAAC Massacre.
4884
Post by: Therion
Well I can't see anyone hoping that the KP system actually makes it into the final version of the game. It's too easy to abuse and affects army design in a massive way. It isn't fair in any shape or form that if player A destroys 1000 points of players B's army and player B does the same to player A, one of them gets a solid victory since his units were from a different force organisation slot.
3254
Post by: NinjaRay
As I see it, even in the "Take and Hold" and "Recon" missions, if you kill the enemies troops off, it now a VP game. So armies that don't have Scoring troops (Ripper swarm troops or Dread troops for Orks) can still attempt to win the game by breaking/killing all the enemy troops then winning the old fashion way.
661
Post by: Leggy
skyth wrote:And, if these rumors are true, with scoring completely determining winning, and only non-vehicle troops scoring, there are at least two codex legal army lists where it is impossible to win with regardless of anything else that happens in the game. Both based off of fluff descriptions of types of those armies (End of days Nid list and Dreadmob Ork List).
If you're desperate to win so much, just don't take those armies!
I don't know about the End of days nid list, but i was very tempted by a dreadmob when i read the new codex. The way i worked it out, after taking 2 big meks (with force fields), 2 deffdreds (troops) and 9 killa kans you still have around half your points left over in a 1500 point game (depending on your weapons and other upgrades) as well as 4 troop slots. plenty of room for a handful of grot slaves, maybe some mini-kans (ard boys), or whatever you can cram in.
More importantly, it is definatly a "fun" build for use against friends, instead of a serious tournie army. Why not agree for the dreds to count as scoring, or use a scenario where it doesn't matter.
Of course, if you were wanting to play a real dredmob, there is always apocalypse. There's no Force Organisation Table to screw things up there.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Leggy wrote:I will assume you were in a rush
You're far more charitable than others.
IG will definately suffer. From my assumption on how this works, they can give up 6kp PER TROOP SLOT,
Actually, I think it's 7 KP per slot: Platoon Command, 5 Platoon Squads, & REMNANTS!
Perhaps you were hurried, too?
I guess thats the trade off for having so many scoring units for the other scenarios
Yup.
Players will need to balance Scoring units against risk of giving up KPs.
But with 2/3 of the scenarios being Objectives instead of KPs, it's not hard to see which way to go as a default.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
I just noticed something interesting.
When it states "allocate wounds" it specifically states "allocate wounds to visible models". I thought it was going to be cover saves for the models not visible.
It looks like you can choose not to fire certain models in the unit if you wish as well (This was a grey area with our group)
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Therion wrote:It isn't fair in any shape or form that if player A destroys 1000 points of players B's army and player B does the same to player A, one of them gets a solid victory since his units were from a different force organisation slot.
If it's easier to destroy 1000 pts of Troops than 1000 pts of Heavy / Fast / Elite then it's completely fair.
If those Heavy / Fast / Elite concentrate a lot more offensive power per point, then it's completely fair.
The idea that all points or units should be equally valuable from a strategic standpoint is kind of strange.
Particularly as Troops are currently widely considered less valuable per point than non-Troops.
4884
Post by: Therion
If it's easier to destroy 1000 pts of Troops than 1000 pts of Heavy / Fast / Elite then it's completely fair.
Correct, but it isn't.
Particularly as Troops are currently widely considered less valuable per point than non-Troops.
I'm not sure what it's like where you play but where I'm from that's not the case at all. Have a look at Ork Boyz. Masses of wounds, close combat orientated, benefit from new run rule, carry S8 anti tank weapons and a S9 power klaw. 30 of them are rock solid beyond your wildest dreams, and they are worth 1KP. They are harder to kill than almost anything in the game, especially if they have cover saves, all the while being a scoring unit and because of the KP rule completely expendable. Boyz, boyz, boyz.
As far as tanks go, after reading some of the opinions on Warseer, I'd like someone to run some maths on killing an AV14 vehicle in 4+ cover (rocks, ruins, hills, etc) with the new damage table. I think you'll find the new '4th ed Falcon' in there.
443
Post by: skyth
Lascannon kill : 2/3 hit x 1/6 Pen x 1/3 Destroyed x 1/2 cover = 1/54. Same chance of destroying a Holofield Falcon?
Railgun kill: 2/3 hit x 1/3 Pen x 1/2 Destroyed x 1/2 Cover = 1/18.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
A very good point. But wasn't the horrible thing about the falcon that is was also a skimming transport for 6 specialists? A leman russ can't fly over terrain while shaken, tank shocking those inside before dropping a squad of specialised death dealers. It's also more vunerable to assault. So I have less of a problem with it being super durable.
Land Raiders are going to be a bit mental though. But still vunerable to close assault.
You're also right about ork boys being insane in the new edition. With running and waaagh!-ing and the new scoring rules, they just went from "Strong and bordering on broken" into "broken".
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Things that jumped out at me after a brief skim (Sorry if some of them are repeats):
Assault: 2 inch kill zone is gone. You can remove any models from your unit in HTH now. This makes Ini mean alot less, makes horde units that barely reach HTH alot better.
Assault: You are a -1 to Ld for each wound you took in HTH (If you lose HTH).
If you get a "Crew Stunned" result you can't disembark. Egh.
You can run the turn you Deep Strike. Deep Strike Mishap table is nasty.
4884
Post by: Therion
Things that jumped out at me after a brief skim
Is the PDF downloadable somewhere? If anyone has it PM me a link to a torrent or whatever.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Therion wrote:They are harder to kill than almost anything in the game, especially if they have cover saves, all the while being a scoring unit and because of the KP rule completely expendable.
I don't think Boyz are any more difficult to kill than 20 Plague Marines, and they're Troops worth only 1 KP.
270
Post by: winterman
Some interesting changes from 4ed to 5ed that have not been mentioned that i know of:
1) It appears that LOS is measured from modeles eye view (or weapon mount for vehicles). Period. So yes a carnifex can shoot over the gaunts in front of it as long as models eye view wise it can see its target completely unobscured by freind/foe (partially obscured is allowed for terrain or the afore mentioned shooting beyond a friendly vehicle with low S weaponry). And again, Yakface's sig hold true even more in 5ed.
How much are laser pointers?
2) 25% casualty moral check is for each phase -- not just shooting.
"A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a
single phase of the turn must pass a Morale check
at the end of that phase, with the appropriate
modifiers, or else it will fall back." Emphasis mine.
I think this is potentially huge for non-fearless units. You could win combat, sweep, and still fall back afterward if you lose 25% casualties in the assault phase. Or you could fall back due to dangerous terrain.
3) Which brings up another change. Wrecks are dangerous as well as difficult terrain.
4) Out numbered doesn't affect moral check for running, this is now deteremined by the differnce in wounds you lost by (eg you inflicted 2 wounds, opponent inflicted 6, you lost by 4 wounds, -4 to your ld check).
5) Out numbered still affects fearless much like now, only there is no limit to the number of wounds inflicted (eg 10:1 outnumbered = 10 wounds).
6) falling back is much more dangerous. Basically you go straight back to your board edge 2D6". As mentioned you can fall back straight through friendly models (all friendly models) and if these are non-vehicle models they must take moral test or run too. Difficult terrain does not slow this movement down. The kicker: if the movement is blocked by impassable terrain or enemy models, the model is removed. This is done on a model to model basis, and remember that there is no rule for moving to avoid anything. You always go straight back toward theboard edge. Could be brutal.
7) Invulnerable save s allowed against Perils of the Warp, but requires two succesful rolls.
8) I think this was stated but is good to mention again: if a unit destroys a transport, it may assault the disembarking occupants.
9) Monsterous creatures can still fire two weapons (and on the move). They also cannot be pinned (voluntary or otherwise). They can run as far as I can tell.
10) Walkers, like other vehicles cannot fire more then one S5+ weapon if they moved (eg MCs are the better shooting platforms). They can most certainly run like infantry.
11) Jet pack (eg Tau) can fire heavy weapons as if stationary (gogo marker light drones) as well as rapid fire. eg they have relentless, which is for both rapid fire and heavy weapons and there is no caveat at all.
12) skimmers/jetbikes cannot float above terrain at the end of their move. They must take a dangerous terrain test if they end their move above terrain. Skimmers are allowed to end on immpassible terrain if the model will stay there, but must take a dangerous terrain test (i don't think jetbikes can do this however). Huge nerfage.
13) 3+ cover save for vehicles in a very limited circumstance: If you fire at a vehicle and the facing that you'd normally shoot at is 100% blocked, but you can still see a part of another facing, you may shoot at that facing but the extreme angle makes it a 3+ cover save. I can see this being situationally abused by certain vehicles (like land raiders).
14) Using instakill on Force Weapon is now most certainly a psychic power, so 1kson sorcerer can use force weapon and warp time in 5ed.
15) Models, both firendly and enemy are defined as immpassible terrain.
Much more but I'm offline for ahwile.
Enjoy!
844
Post by: stonefox
If I get this right, crisis suits and tyranid warriors can shoot over their own men (eyes are higher up) but cannot be shot back at (partially obscured by friendly models, not monstrous creatures). Terrain must be high enough that the line of sight is COMPLETELY clear of any intervening friendly/enemy models.
Gun drones are on flight stands.
270
Post by: winterman
I just noticed something interesting.
When it states "allocate wounds" it specifically states "allocate wounds to visible models". I thought it was going to be cover saves for the models not visible.
It looks like you can choose not to fire certain models in the unit if you wish as well (This was a grey area with our group)
Yeah what I noticed is that the cover save rules read much like they do in 4ed, including models being out of LOS being unable to be removed as casualties. Totally contradicts the wounding section above it. here 's a quote:
"Note that even models that are completely out of
sight and/or out of range of all of the firers
(including those behind intervening models) can
be wounded."
Then a page away in the cover save section:
"Models that are completely out of sight of all of
the firers are not counted in either category, and
they cannot be hit."
It does contradict a bit, except the difference is one is "wounding" and one is "hit". I believe the last quote is only saying that a model out of LOS cannot be counted in determining whether a unit is in cover or out of cover, but no suprise GW has some contradicting rules.
Personally, I don't understand why they wouldn't assign cover saves to models instead of the 4ed way but that is not the way it reads.
270
Post by: winterman
If I get this right, crisis suits and tyranid warriors can shoot over their own men (eyes are higher up) but cannot be shot back at (partially obscured by friendly models). Terrain must be high enough that the line of sight is COMPLETELY clear of any intervening friendly/enemy models.
It will depend on the situation but yeah, that is exactly how I read it (granted I need more time to read it a couple more times.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
winterman wrote:I just noticed something interesting.
When it states "allocate wounds" it specifically states "allocate wounds to visible models". I thought it was going to be cover saves for the models not visible.
It looks like you can choose not to fire certain models in the unit if you wish as well (This was a grey area with our group)
Yeah what I noticed is that the cover save rules read much like they do in 4ed, including models being out of LOS being unable to be removed as casualties. Totally contradicts the wounding section above it. here 's a quote:
"Note that even models that are completely out of
sight and/or out of range of all of the firers
(including those behind intervening models) can
be wounded."
Then a page away in the cover save section:
"Models that are completely out of sight of all of
the firers are not counted in either category, and
they cannot be hit."
It does contradict a bit, except the difference is one is "wounding" and one is "hit". I believe the last quote is only saying that a model out of LOS cannot be counted in determining whether a unit is in cover or out of cover, but no suprise GW has some contradicting rules.
Personally, I don't understand why they wouldn't assign cover saves to models instead of the 4ed way but that is not the way it reads.
Yeah I noticed that too. I'm inclined to believe you can only allocate to visible models considering this is new wording and specifically in the shooting phase section.
611
Post by: Inquisitor_Malice
CaptKaruthors wrote:What do you mean useful again? The wave serpent has always been useful. Just ask all of the player's who faced it in Vegas.
Most eldar players would disagree with you.
Capt K
That would mean they are bad players. How many times do we have to take Mech Eldar to events, win and get crushed in sportsmanship just to prove this point? And yet, we have the Wave Serpent naysayers out there still. In fact, I shouldn't even say anything. Mutscheller is gonna kill me for even posting on this. Ugh.
Since this is a discussion about 5th ed - I won't digress any further.
782
Post by: DarthDiggler
I'm on ebay right now looking for Warwalkers. I want 24 str 6 shots at 36", fortuned and guided in 4+ cover. OUCH!!
806
Post by: Toreador
What? You mean Vypers and warwalkers will be about on par now? You mean, Warwalkers might actually be worth taking now? (but with all the extra goodies)
3550
Post by: IntoTheRain
If by on par you mean War Walkers are already playable and Vipers are only going to get worse. Then yes, they're on par now.
734
Post by: Dal'yth Dude
12) skimmers/jetbikes cannot float above terrain at the end of their move. They must take a dangerous terrain test if they end their move above terrain. Skimmers are allowed to end on immpassible terrain if the model will stay there, but must take a dangerous terrain test (i don't think jetbikes can do this however). Huge nerfage.
Unless you buy sensor spines. Then you can be in cover and shoot both your S5 weapons, presumably while still in cover.
So the Tau skimmers will hide behind/in cover and just shoot? I hope I'm wrong about that.
806
Post by: Toreador
They are playable now, but in comparison to the survivability and maneuverability of the vyper, there isn't much reason to take them. Especially with the heavy slots being used for Falcons and Prisms.
The saves are going to make it very interesting. Fast vehicles can get a save for speeding across open ground, while the rest will have to use cover, but all of it is pretty much one nice even rule.
305
Post by: Moz
Anyone kind enough to PM a link to me? Feeling left out here. 
844
Post by: stonefox
Dal'yth Dude wrote:12) skimmers/jetbikes cannot float above terrain at the end of their move. They must take a dangerous terrain test if they end their move above terrain. Skimmers are allowed to end on immpassible terrain if the model will stay there, but must take a dangerous terrain test (i don't think jetbikes can do this however). Huge nerfage.
Unless you buy sensor spines. Then you can be in cover and shoot both your S5 weapons, presumably while still in cover.
So the Tau skimmers will hide behind/in cover and just shoot? I hope I'm wrong about that.
How come? It's pretty nifty. Unless you're using them as assault-blockers, they might as well be hiding behind a good plot of land anyway. You still get a 5+ save if you need to reposition them.
5943
Post by: Dire Wombat
Hi all, 40k newbie here, popping in to see what was up with all these rumors I'd been hearing about.
Asmodai wrote:That's a good point Kilkrazy. They suggest literally picking up the dice and placing it next to each model that it wounded. You're right that probability-wise, you couldn't use the short-cut I suggested.
You can replace any model killed with a model with the identical equipment, which led me astray. You do have to take each model individually.
Also interesting, and a mate just reminded me, you can allocate both Plasma Gun wounds to the same model if you wanted to minimize casualties. (That's the example they use in the leak.) This constitutes a subtle nerf to Plasma Guns.
Wow. I may be new to the game, but this seems like a pretty big deal. Beyond just subtly nerfing plasma guns, it seems to have a significant impact on the attacks of any unit that can put out a mix of armor-penetrating and non-armor-penetrating hits, as well as any unit that relies on causing a large number of saves, particularly when targeted against small units.
An example:
A brood of genestealers charges a 6-man marine squad. The stealers inflict 2 rending and 4 non-rending wounds (the average result for 12 hits). In this case, the marine player removes two models and makes one save on each of the rest.
But if I'm understanding Asmodai correctly, if the stealers caused one extra regular wound, for 2 rending and 5 non-rending wounds, the marine player would have to "wrap around" with assigning wounds and could put both rends on the same model. Thus, the marine player removes one model and makes one save on each of the rest.
Net result? Rolling one extra non-rending wound has effectively made one of the two rends disappear and spared a marine.
Of course, this could happen with other squads as well. You also run into issues of high- RoF units (like those guided warwalkers) forcing 2 or even three saves per model on small-to-medium units, which will often result in some models failing more than one save, thus causing (slightly?) fewer casualties than they would currently. So such high- RoF units, while gaining better odds of picking off sergeants and heavy weapons, would actually become somewhat less effective against certain infrantry targets in terms of total killing power.
621
Post by: Lowinor
Dire Wombat wrote:Wow. I may be new to the game, but this seems like a pretty big deal. Beyond just subtly nerfing plasma guns, it seems to have a significant impact on the attacks of any unit that can put out a mix of armor-penetrating and non-armor-penetrating hits, as well as any unit that relies on causing a large number of saves, particularly when targeted against small units.
This is assuming that the existing rule of handling wounds that don't allow armor saves first and by themselves doesn't make it into the new codex. Somehow I'd be surprised if you end up able to allocate two unsavable wounds to the same model when there are saveable wounds left to allocate.
5943
Post by: Dire Wombat
I'd also be surprised if that didn't get fixed... it's just a little alarming that, assuming the leak is genuine, it apparently hasn't been addressed yet.
The effects on high-RoF units would be easier to live with, seeing as the small loss in average casualties caused is a trade-off for increased odds of picking off special models.
934
Post by: Mezmaron
OK, I just found the rules posted on the web.
My favorite part is the new reserve rules - you can now choose to start in reserve.
Also, starting turn 5, you automatically come in from reserves (no 2+). Very helpful.
I also like because the rules are very clear on the order you roll and bring reserves in (roll all reserve roles first, then bring in units).
Outflanking is cool and will help infiltrating and scout units!
Oh, and one more unrelated thing - having a squad leader with higher Ld actually now (officially) gives you a benefit!
Mez
1082
Post by: Lord_Mortis
Therion wrote:Things that jumped out at me after a brief skim
Is the PDF downloadable somewhere? If anyone has it PM me a link to a torrent or whatever.
Can I get that as well?
934
Post by: Mezmaron
Edit:
Please don't even help anyone to procure the leak. I'm sure they can find it if they try hard enough.
And please don't ask where to find it here on Dakka.
--yakface
4884
Post by: Therion
My favorite part is the new reserve rules - you can now choose to start in reserve.
That might be a good thing for eldar skimmers carrying assault troops. Come in with star engines from reserve and avoid getting downed on turn one.
1217
Post by: Corpsman_of_Krieg
Wow. Just wow.
After reading through it once, my immediate, self-centered thoughts are as follows:
Mwuahahaaha! Black Templars horde squads FTW!
Vindicators are even better now according to the new Ordnance rules.
But, in relation to Imperial Guardsmen out there:
It's a sad, sad day to those of us who ever thought fielding an Armored Company would be fun. More like Codex: Leman Russ Main Bunker Tank.
S4 Defensive sucks. Horribly. I don't mind skimmers slowing down, but I'd like to see some clarification (and much needed) improvement on tanks, especially now that a Hellhound, which probably weighs in at over 15 tons, cannot shoot a heavy machine gun, flamethrower, and .50 cal in the same turn. Riddle me that one, Gee Dub!
Monoliths are even more broken now that the new Vehicle Damage Chart is the way it is. Maybe my usual Necron opponent (my most common adversary at the moment) will consent to a points hike to 265 points.
I will say though, that with S4 Defensive Weapons being the norm, I see Leman Russes becoming shells. No more Triple HB pimping, no sir. If the tank wants to move at Combat Speed and not shoot its Battlecannon (for fear of obliterating a friendly squad on the scatter, especially now that everything touching the template is hit), then IG players should just buy a Hull Heavy Bolter and either forgo a pintle weapon or take the Stubber.
All I know for sure is that my tanks just dropped in cost from 168 points (HM Las, HB Spon, Smoke) to 148 points (Hull HB, Smoke). Yay, 40 more points freed up.
I'll get back when I re-read the entire thing again.
CK
4895
Post by: Logic
Bikes all now get a 3+ cover save for their turbo-boost. So the psy-cannon thing is out the window.
This is ridiculous. It solves nothing. Now flamers will ignore the saving throw instead of weapons like psy-cannons. It’s the EXACT same problem but with different weapons.
I really hope it’s “Bikes have the option to take a 3+ cover save” and not “a bike’s armor save becomes a 3+ cover save".
P.S. I realize we talked about this back on page 3. But I had to comment on it.
~Logic
270
Post by: winterman
I really hope it’s “Bikes have the option to take a 3+ cover save” and not “a bike’s armor save becomes a 3+ cover save".
Bikes "benefit" from a 3+ cover save. Much like a unit in a bunker benefits from a 3+ cover save. They can still choose to use their regular save.
4895
Post by: Logic
winterman wrote:I really hope it’s “Bikes have the option to take a 3+ cover save” and not “a bike’s armor save becomes a 3+ cover save".
Bikes "benefit" from a 3+ cover save. Much like a unit in a bunker benefits from a 3+ cover save. They can still choose to use their regular save.
Maybe. It depends on how GW words it.
Right now bikes that turbo-boost " benefit" from an invulnerable save... But they " benefit" from an invulnerable save at the cost of their armor save.
~Logic
270
Post by: winterman
Wow. I may be new to the game, but this seems like a pretty big deal. Beyond just subtly nerfing plasma guns, it seems to have a significant impact on the attacks of any unit that can put out a mix of armor-penetrating and non-armor-penetrating hits, as well as any unit that relies on causing a large number of saves, particularly when targeted against small units.
Yeah it was a surprising example they gave (and without the example it would cause a YMTC thread to end all threads). But using wrap around to minimize casualties is exactly what is allowed. Honestly, it just makes smaller units a bit more resilient but at the same time those smaller units are more likely to lose a key model. There's a give and take which isn't so bad on my first pass through the rules.
270
Post by: winterman
Maybe. It depends on how GW words it.
Umm, that is how they word it the leaked document: "the bike benefits from a Cover Save of 3+"
There is no replacement of their save. There is even a section which talks about choosing to use cover save or regular armor save in the shooting rules.
Honestly, this is a solid change. Nashing of teeth is more warranted on other changes...
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Slow and purposeful now allows bonus attacks on the charge. So Ghaz and meganobs are better buys now, and ghaz's ability makes sense.
185
Post by: Ebon
So is this way it's supposed to work? Let's say some Genestealers attack 5 marines.
In scenario one they get 2 rending wounds and 9 normal wounds. The space marine player is then allowed to allocate them as such and rolls:
SM A: rend, rend, normal wound rolls (1) – one very unlucky space marine
SM B: rolls (1), (2)
SM C: rolls (3). (4)
SM D: rolls (3), (6)
SM E: rolls (5), (5)
So even though the space marine squad suffered 2 rends and 3 failed saves, only two guys bite it?
Contract this with Scenario 2, 1 rending wound and 9 normal wounds:
SM A: rend, normal wound rolls (4)
SM B: rolls (1), (4)
SM C: rolls (2). (4)
SM D: rolls (1), (6)
SM E: rolls (5), (5)
So in this hypothetical scenario, twice as many casualties are done (4) even though only one rending wound and three failed saves were suffered?
And in both scenarios you have to roll 5 sets of dice?
This is better how?
4395
Post by: Deadshane1
Nobody is really bringing this up, but how 'bout them scouts?
Its seems borderline stupid to me that every army in the game is going to have a unit that can come on by the enemies table edge. Stand and shoot armies will suffer horribly for this. I know there are new rules for consolidating into fresh units (not being able to) but coming onto the table with a powerfisted cheap squad of scouts and pummelling a 3 man broadside teams seems just too easy now. Squads like devestators/reapers/broadsides/lootas are all really vulnerable to these types of units that are now all too common.
I really dont like the idea of that. Its always been nearly impossible to defend or prepare for an assault by units like this (Space wolf scouts) now everyone will be bringing one to the table.
...forget snikrot, every infiltrater has his rule now, just bring some komandos with a powerklawed nob.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
I've gone through the PDF a couple times and it's mostly OK.
It's odd that Snipers lost the hit on 2+. Now they rely on BS4+, which isn't so bad, given that they got the nerfed Rending.
It's amusing that Power Fists got nerfed to block the +1A except for double Fists. I guess Lighting Claws are the answer, rather than Fists being the do-it-all no-brainers.
Glaring inconsistencies in the rules:
1. Turbo-boosting is still 24" while Fast Vehicles are 18". This makes absolutely no sense that a Bike having to navigate cross-country can be faster than helicopter or grav-tank that only has to deal with air resistance. Either Turbo-boosting should drop to 18", or else both Jetbikes and Fast Skimmers should be able to move up to 24".
2. Turbo-boosting and deep cover give 3+ cover saves, but Skimmers moving fast only gain a 5+ (like cheap 1-shot Smoke). For better consistency, either bring Turbo-boosting down to a 4+ or (more sensibly), bring Flat Out up to a 3+. At least Skimmers don't have to go Flat Out to get their SMF save, and that Cruising Speed (6+") is enough for the 5+.
3. Assigning wounds to models out of sight / range, but not assigning hits to models out of sight / range. Better to assume models move up and die, as it appears that 40k5 is increasing lethality. The out of sight / range should simply count as non-Exposed for the purposes of determining whether the unit may take Cover Saves.
____
Oh yeah, the Deep Strike Mishap table is great. If you can't place all of the models, 1/2 the time the unit is dead, and 1/2 the time, the opponent places them. Awesome!
2080
Post by: Samwise158
I agree with deadshane on this one. Scouts that can roll onto the table from wherever are way too powerful. I sincerely hope that GW takes these rules back to the drawing board big time. There is a lot of potential, but also a lot of stupidity. Strength 4 or less defensive weapons are useless, I think that they were fine as Str 6. Vehicles need to be able to move and fire, period. The individual allocation of wounds will take forever and will result in a lot of bullcrap about who is hit with what. The line of sight rules are just asking for abuse and the prospect of fortuned vehicles is sickening. I like the vehicle cover save rule, but it shouldn't result in a return to the pillbox tanks of old. If GW hears our criticism and carefully folds it into the new rules to create a better product I will be really happy, but if they just release the same messy rules leaked here, then it will definitely make the game less fun.
4395
Post by: Deadshane1
"yea, my lascannon devestators are going to shoot at your landraider."
"Umm, how, its behind this building. you cant see it."
"Well, if you look from my devestators, im perfectly lined up with that single little window in the building, I can see the side of your tank through that, and we never said that the building cannot be seen thru."
"Are you serious, you're shooting at me thru THAT? Its only just bigger than a marines head."
"Yea, but I can still see your LandRaider thru it!"
....Yay....
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Ebon wrote:This is better how?
Now you see what I mean by GW dumbing down the rules in many places (damage tables, keeping majority toughness) but at the same time introducing utterly perplexing rules that seem to exist for no other reason than to slow things down (this armour save rule, having to roll scatter for every damned blast marker, fuggin' barrage for multiple blasts).
Why can't the 5th God of Chaos - Priestley - save us from these incompetants who run 40K now...
BYE
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Yes indeedy. Especially considering that allocating wounds/saves individually means you could just as easily allocate hits/wounding individually and avoid the pitfalls of majority toughness in the first place.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
JohnHwangDD wrote:...
1. Turbo-boosting is still 24" while Fast Vehicles are 18". This makes absolutely no sense that a Bike having to navigate cross-country can be faster than helicopter or grav-tank that only has to deal with air resistance. Either Turbo-boosting should drop to 18", or else both Jetbikes and Fast Skimmers should be able to move up to 24".
2. Turbo-boosting and deep cover give 3+ cover saves, but Skimmers moving fast only gain a 5+ (like cheap 1-shot Smoke). For better consistency, either bring Turbo-boosting down to a 4+ or (more sensibly), bring Flat Out up to a 3+. At least Skimmers don't have to go Flat Out to get their SMF save, and that Cruising Speed (6+") is enough for the 5+.
3. Assigning wounds to models out of sight / range, but not assigning hits to models out of sight / range. Better to assume models move up and die, as it appears that 40k5 is increasing lethality. The out of sight / range should simply count as non-Exposed for the purposes of determining whether the unit may take Cover Saves.
____
...
I'm happy with bikes being the fastest vehicles but I think a 3+ cover save is a bit too good.
The rules on assigning wounds and stuff look like they are going to be as big a mess as the current rules, which I still have difficulty understanding.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Going through this PDF is quite funny. It's amazing the amount of stuff they've added that we've had in The Revisited Project for years now. I mean even something as simple as Ballistic Skill 6 and above - we've had that in our rules for years, and now they're adding it? We made pistols 'effectivley' Assault 1 a while back. We added Ramming rules that are simpler.
I think we'll take credit for that one, along with Shadow of the Warp, something I made a year or so before the 'Nid Codex.
Other things are written in a way to make new players go 'Huh'? Using the BS6+ example again, they talk about a character that's BS7 firing a Plasma Pistol who rolls a 1, and therefore gets to re-roll it. They also mention how it allows him to avoid the Gets Hot! rule. We haven't got to the Gets Hot! rule yet, so mentioning it is pointless as new players won't even have the slightest clue what it is and it's likely to stop them reading so they can leaf through to the weapon section. Why even bother mentioning it - why even mention the weapon, it's immaterial to the example and does nothing but clutter it up, yet they seem to want to include it. Doesn't make sense. Examples as supposed to be clear, not introduce new concepts mid-fg-sentence
It's idiotic that you have no choice whether IC's join units.
As I've said before, Defensive Weapons = S4 and below = Epic Fail for these rules.
I love their justification of Ordnance being the only weapon that can fire - 'requires the attention of all the crew'. Why? Isn't the point of having multiple crew so the tank can do different things at the same time? Do they all stop to wish the gunner good luck, or deliver a catchy one-liner each time they fire?
The Hull Down in Area Terrain rule is not at all congruent with the Cover Saves in area terrain. Infantry get it no matter how much is touching, and vehicles still have to have 50% covered...
Hit & Run now adds yet another dice roll to the game for no apparent reason.
The Kill Point system is just... oh... words fail me.
VP's are only used in the case of objective-based ties. Wonderful.
No, having read through it, I take back what I said. The 'scoring unit' rules are stupid, the 'Kill Point' rule makes me wonder (and desire) the drugs the Dev team uses for their 'brain storming & sniffing glue' sessions, and their vehicle rules make me thank the Emperor for The Revisited Project.
BYE
4296
Post by: OverchargeThis!
I've read the pdf and since it's in so early a state, I can only comment that I think it's a move in the right direction. The only thing that absolutely kills me is the defensvie weapons being S4 or less. Vehicles should be mobile rather than static pillboxes. I hope the leave the defensive weapons being S6 or less, like they got it in 4th edition. They had the righ mobility + firepower feel, even though they blew up like crap.
I'm over the 'ooh and ahh' phase with 40K. Fluff's great, models are great, but I'm looking for a good game with a good core ruleset. S4 defensive weapons, and the effect it has on vehicle use, would be a major detractor for me within that context.
Kudos to GW for great fluff and models, though. 10 out of 10 there, no doubt.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Sorry, I'm going to go on record here and say I like the new rules. A lot.
For the most part, it balances the game a lot.
I like the fact that you can't move and fire gobs and gobs of weapons now. It's about mobility or about shooting, you do not get everything in one easy to use package. More choices mean more mistakes or good moves.
And to balance that, Tanks of all kinds except Holofield Skimmers got much harder to kill. That would normally be a problem, except VP Denial armies don't really work most of the time now. I don't care if your Falcon isn't dead, I've got troops on an objective - I win.
At the same time, you can neutralize tanks by glancing them. Sure Venom Cannon's can't KILL tanks, but you can stop them from shooting the crap out of your now important troops.
And if you really NEED to kill tanks, you can if you use the right weapons to do the job - which includes things like Meltas or Power Fists, or rending in many cases. Skimmers don't get cover saves from CC attacks, and AP1 helps a lot.
|
|
