Since no one has done it yet.


Personally, I hate them. Some of the ones that really tick me off..

Defensive Weapons are Str. 4 or less. I think everyone has noticed by now that this makes me want to strangle the guy who wrote it. Is there some reason they don't want tanks to be moveable in 5th? Did someone get nostalgic for the Leman Russ Pillbox variant?

Area Terrain no longer blocks LOS. Indirect Fire is dead too. Wee.. (its not like they relied on that cover to hide their paper thin armor or anything) I am once again at a complete loss for the logic behind this change.

Only troops count as scoring. Oh fun, so to be competitive you now have to run nothing but troops. Truely, this is a masterful idea. Has anyone ever actually watched mass troop fights? It is possibly one of the most boring, dice driven, uninspiring sights you will ever see.

Forced March. Be cause 6 point Ork boys aren't broken enough.


Basically, I forsee the game becoming 100 shooty troops trying to stop 100 assaulty troops before they reach CC.

Yeah, the defensive weapons only at S4 or less sucks. But under 4th ed you can only fire one S7+ weapon when moving, it's only a matter of degree difference (a large degree yes). I'd much rather have tanks be able to fire all weapons while moving, but it's not the end of the world. Move and Fire heavy weapons are still the main advantage of tanks.

Area terrain doesn't block LOS - well, throw down more buildings, hills, towers etc. that *do* block LOS then (might want to board up the windows in the buildings though). Or use a moveable tree model on a piece of felt as a forest, define the forest to block LOS up to the tree height over its entire area, and just move the tree model when you need to check.

SMF is now 5+ cover save - excellent! (though Flat Out should really grant 3+). Fast vehicles max at 18" - good, they shouldn't be TWICE as mobile as non-fast vehicles! Ground Tanks get cover saves - excellent. Vehicles cannot be destroyed on a glance - awesome! One single damage table for vehicles - much, much easier to memorize.

Run - excellent. More mobility is good for the game. I dislike that in 4th edition, infantry have to move straight forward their maximum distance every turn to even make it into the enemy's deployment zone. With run, there may be a bit more back and forth tactical movement.

Both friendly and enemy models block LOS or screen for cover saves - fantastic. This works fine in Warmachine, and is a large part of what makes that game more tactical than 4th ed 40k.

Speaking of Warmachine, the decision to make the guy with 1st turn deploy his entire army first is sensible. It really helps to limit the first turn advantage in WM, and it should do the same in 40k. It will allow people to deploy in or out of cover/LOS knowing whether they are going first, which will help limit the first turn obliteration by shooty armies. This is actually my single favourite rumoured change.

No 2" casualty removal zone - no clever casualty removal trix, oh noes! It does kind of bone Raveners and other high Init things that need to 'clear their zone' to avoid getting smacked-back, but it also removes the ability to snipe a PF with a judicious angle of attack. Less 'sniping' by rules is a good thing in general, IMO.

New wound allocation vs Torrent of Fire - meh. Probably work out the same in most cases. It will certainly cause more tension when rolling saves, and it will mean that the Lascannon won't always be the last guy standing in every squad (ie more verisimilitude).

Blast and Template weapons improve (and speed up) - awesome. No more partials, no need to resolve templates individually. There is now a reason to take four flamers in a platoon command - in 4th, any more than 2 flamers was a waste as casualty removal from the first would severely reduce the wounds able to be inflicted by subsequent templates. Now you can get 4 hits per model on small squads...

25%+ is scoring - great! There should be much less "whittle one squad down to below scoring - then move to the next" thinking (odds are you'll kill a whole squad rather than end up with <25% standing)

Actually a lot of the rumoured 5th rules seem to encourage larger squad sizes. I don't think this is a bad thing - fewer large squads speeds up the game. If I never see another 6-man Las-plas marine tac squad, I won't cry.

5th ed will rock, and people will be looking back at 4th like they look back at Rhino-rush 3rd right now.

The only real issues I have is Flat Out not giving a 3+ to skimmers, and Turbo Boosting being faster than Fast.

Strangelooper wrote:Run - excellent. More mobility is good for the game. I dislike that in 4th edition, infantry have to move straight forward their maximum distance every turn to even make it into the enemy's deployment zone. With run, there may be a bit more back and forth tactical movement.

Both friendly and enemy models block LOS or screen for cover saves - fantastic. This works fine in Warmachine, and is a large part of what makes that game more tactical than 4th ed 40k.

I've been thinking about this, and I think fleeting is a balanced rule, and I think so because of the power of the shooting phase. If your unit is designed to be a running unit eg Cari with close combat you're not shooting. If you want to take 6x 30 Choppas you're giving up an awful lot of potential heavy weapons (so your opponent's gunline stays intact, firing away) and all you're really doing is rushing forward into rapid fire range.

So all in all I think the running rule is going to do a great job of making 40k more about tactics and gameplay and less about knowing all the tricks that go into making an army list, a concept of strategy that dominated 3rd ed.

As for tweaks to the ruleset like defensive weapons at first it seems to fun to me but Russ tanks can't fire their sponsons anyway after using their battle cannon. If they lose the battle cannon hopefully by then they have put themselves in a good postion to fire all their guns. Hellhounds take a slight hit if they choose to move. Preds have to remain stationary if they want to fire at full effect, but then maybe Space Marines shouldn't have super awesome tanks anyway (I think in this case you will likely see _less_ Pred Destructors and more TL Las since it's a better gun on the move, but things like LS Tornados will be less of a given). And Walkers can still fire two heavies on the move. S4 defensive weapons tend to be on Rhinos etc but APCs should be moving anyway.

But I still think it's dumb.

Other tweaks such as changes to blast weapons or ICs are just tweaks. It's nice to see multiple flamers in the same unit being useful. I also like the cover save rule which gives vehicles a protection against crew shaken.

Edit: speaking of blast weapons I think anything that takes away from BS is a mistake, if anything Ordnance should count as a hit when a BS check is made and a scatter otherwise.

The S4 defensive weapons blows. In fact I think just about all the rules for vehicles I've seen so far are just horrible.

All units block LOS? I see one of two things happening here. The first would be a shooty army with a meat shield up front that scatters out of the way with the new "run" rule, shoots at the other armies meat shield, then has the grunts up front rank back up. Honestly though I think what everyone will see is everyone trying to be Orks or Nids. A giant cheap unit up front taking the first round of fire to the face like champs and then the most brutal H2H armies ever created running in behind them and can't be shot at. To me this is freakin ridiculous. If I wanted to line up some models and charge across the table into a fierce H2H battle I'D PLAY FANTASY!!!

so far the 5th rules set is getting a failling grade in my book. now granted this isn't the official release yet but assuming it is-

lets start with the things they fixed right-

.ordinance-no more partials
.rending-i use assault cannons and i still like it
.vehicle damage table-made vehicle far harder to kill as long as they are not out side of terrain, and skimmers er... skimming/moving
.sniper rifles get rending-finally they are worth something
.scattering blast templates
.ramming-vehicle on vehicle death or glory attacks that are actually useful.

things that were "fixed" un-neccisarly that are now broken-

.measureing range from the weapons barrels on vehicles. there was a valid reason this went away in 3rd. it standardised base rules, sped up game play since you only had to make 1 measurement and prevented abuse. watch again for the return of the vanquisher barreled vindicator/demolisher cannon to get extra range.

.screening-this is also an old annoying rule from 3rd that was done away with fro good reason. it led to very static fanatasy style rank firefights. there were no tactics or maneuvering involved-operation "get behind the darkies(sacrificial unit)" from southpark the movie anyone? it also woked the same way for assault armies-walk the good stuff in behind the sacrificial stuff till you get into CC for the win.

.direct fire shooting causing wounds to models out of LOS or around the corner, hiding behind a tank etc..

.wounds allocated on a model by model basis ala 2nd edition-way to slow down the game.

.making all vehicles pillboxes again straight from 3rd edition -move and fire one big non-ordinance weapon(oh and that storm bolter/strength 4- weapon) or cower in a building and shoot everything

.the vehicle nerf-ok i know everybody was complaining about the eldar falcons but they didn't need to go and screw everybody. not only did they reduce the effective mobile firepower as noted above, giving ALL skimmers less firepower with weaker armor for thier faster movement with only a 5+ innvul/cover save....i play deathwing a 5+ means your going to save that pen or glance 1/3 of the time and whats more skimmers moving fast(cruising speed) can die to immobilised results-less firepower, crapy save and 3 times the chance of death is ot an improvement. and it gets little better for other vehicle types. -walkers? stable platforms? not anymore now they are shooting pillboxes as well, and if they move woops there goes half your firepower. want to run? sounds cool until you realise they cannot take objectives, hid behind area terain, or assault. and we are paying more for assault cannons and dreadnaughts in thenewer codes's again because?

.run/fleet/march wow thank you fanatasy. it used to be that being able to be "fast on your feet" was a special thing. some eldar and nids had it, cavalry had it...now everybody has it...those are some fast necrons wonder how they do in the 100 meter against eldar now? heck our infantry are faster than our vehicles but thats ok because the tanks all want to be pillbox's in a building really!... oh yes if your unit is actually "fleet" you get to make an assault move after you move that extra d6. don't you feel special.

.no blocking LOS from area terrain aside from the physical wall of a building or something similar? what ever happened to tactical use of movement and blocking LOS area terrain?

.only troop choices count as scoring while we weaken all your other choices accordingly? if they want a bigger core to the army list they could have simple made the mandatory troop rquirement 3 or 4 instead of 2. a much better fix than this.

.melta weapon nerf-get a little bump on the damage chart-loose the AP-1 auto pen ability...so it counts as an equivalent minus one given the new chart.


this isn't second edition, if the design team wants to "get back to fluff" and intent of second edition then they need to change it all, not just toss in bits and pieces from here and there to muck up the works.

I had forgotten all about the new shooting rules.

1) How on earth is rolling a scatter die, then measuring the scatter distance supposed to be faster than just rolling to see if you hit. If they really wanted to speed it up, all then needed to say was that partials are all hits.

2) The wound system. Because everyone has the kind of free time required to roll wounds for each model separately.

I voted no, but then again, people generally fear change. I'm trying not to be a chicken little about this whole thing.

I think there is good and bad in it.

If GW want a speedy combat resolution they need to dump the To Hit/To Wound/To Save sequence and do something completely different. That would require writing all the codexes at once so it will never happen.

I personally am not a fan of Area terrain, so I like the fact that it's being changed.

The troops and defensive weapons things suck, though.

What is it you dislike about area terrain?

Kilkrazy wrote:What is it you dislike about area terrain?

Too generalized, and it gets wierd with stuff like attacking up a few inches of wall.
X| | | |Y

Like that, with Y assaulting X.

Might just be my experiences of it, though, or that people I end up playing with declare it wrong.

Yeah, I hope the finally edition changes a few things. There's good and bad there, but currently the bad outweighs the good. That could easily change though with a few minor tweaks (S5 for defensive, infantry as scoring rather than troops and ditching the rumoured wound allocation system).

I would count a wall as a linear terrain piece. For me, woods or swamps is area terrain. But the rulebook does not explain things well. Even so, for GW to junk the whole system is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Kilkrazy wrote:I would count a wall as a linear terrain piece. For me, woods or swamps is area terrain. But the rulebook does not explain things well. Even so, for GW to junk the whole system is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

*shrug* It was a chunk of wall as part of a ruin. The whole ruin was a piece of area terrain, and it ended up like that. =

What they need is well explained guidelines for linear and area terrain, and let players define everything before the start of a game.

I think it is disgraceful there are players out there who have to use 3rd Ed Codecies for a soon to be released 5th Ed rules. Awful.

They don't have to. They choose to.

I'll just wait for actual rules or at the very least, a leaked
pdf file.

Nurglitch wrote:They don't have to. They choose to.

Pardon? Please enlighten me as to what the Dark Eldar players should be doing other than playing with a 3rd Ed. codex.
Or did you just mean "they choose to," as in, they choose to play armies that have crap support when they could be playing Marines?

I think he means they choose to continue playing an army
even without the support.

I don't know if that's a valid response though. When people
have 1 army, then choosing to use the 3rd edition codex
means they're choosing to play 40k at all. Sure, they don't
HAVE to play, but they want to play.

bejustofbedead: I mean people playing Warhammer 40k with armies that have codicies dating back to the 3rd edition of the game don't have to play the game if they don't want to. That goes for everyone playing Warhammer 40k: they choose to do it and GW doesn't owe them jack squat.

Nurglitch-They don't have to. They choose to.
and
bejustofbedead: I mean people playing Warhammer 40k with armies that have codicies dating back to the 3rd edition of the game don't have to play the game if they don't want to. That goes for everyone playing Warhammer 40k: they choose to do it and GW doesn't owe them jack squat.

Wow mate, comments like that really jack me off bad.

It's that kind of mentality that scream"'Suck it up wusses, and take it like a man"

So by your statement, until recently Ork players were wasting their time collecting mini's for a horrendously outdated codex, and it was their fault?

Enjoy playing games with you 12 or 13 mates, who all play Space Marines.........................

Nurglitch wrote:bejustofbedead: I mean people playing Warhammer 40k with armies that have codicies dating back to the 3rd edition of the game don't have to play the game if they don't want to. That goes for everyone playing Warhammer 40k: they choose to do it and GW doesn't owe them jack squat.

That's a completely asinine attitude, but granted, technically true. It's being a tad pedantic about the definition of "have to," though. Obviously no one really "has to" do anything with 40k. However, if someone happens to like the game, and happens to like a particular army that GW pays no attention to, well, it's inarguably unfortunate for them that they are, in fact, stuck using a woefully outdated book for so long as they continue to have an interest in playing.

Given that, like any business, GW likes money, one would think keeping codices up to date for everyone's armies and giving them each time in the spotlight would be a rather obvious way to ensure continued interest, and thus, continued forking over of cash.

Nurglitch, of course GW doesn't owe anything to anybody, but that's not really the topic under discussion. The question of whether or not a given change will be good for the game is entirely different. It is true that if somebody wanted to play Dark Eldar in 40k, then that person would have to use a 3rd edition codex. I believe akira5665 was asserting that this reflects poor game design.

Anyway, I do not like the rumors. My complaints are the same ones that have already been given. The nerf on fast skimmers is too great, changing defensive weapons to S4 will hurt all tanks needlessly, and allocating wounds before rolling saving throws will slow down the game horribly.

Oh, and I saw that rending is now only a D3 added. Nerfed Assault cannons nicely. I am a loyalist player, and when I saw that little gem tucked away in there........well a few words were said @ home that I cannot type here.

'Bout time though. Ass-cannons being called 'Donkey Cannons' is about right! lol.

I hate to say it(being a Loyalist) but for a long time there we were TOO tough. Just an opinion anyways.

So far these new rules seem like alot of fun, because adjusting to big changes is fun.

It has me thinking I might actually get out my old guard army.

And calm down people. What we've seen is obviously incomplete, so no reason to get bent out of shape about things that might not even happen.

I also dislike the attitude that you should just jack it in and quit. In the end it'll do GW more harm than good. I used to be an earnest advocate of GW games, but now I'd actively advise against playing them. They could have kept my support if they'd had better customer service (and believe it or not equal support for all factions is good customer service)

On topic:
I like:
- deployment rules
- range rules (faster)
- powerfist rules (make sense)
- cover for tanks, ramming.
- fixes to sniping, SMF, rending, AP1, vehicle damage.
-Blasts, multiple templates- great, that's faster
-Transports not being deathtraps. Hurrah!

I dislike:
-Running. Makes assault too powerful without a charge reaction or something for shooty troops.
-S4 defensive weapons. Makes no sense. Very few tanks have S4 weapons, should have been S5.
-New scoring rules. They encourage troops spam. this is better than other kinds of spam how exactly?
-Lack of missions. three missions? WTF?

Things I wish they had done:
-Skimmers tankshocking no longer count as skimmers (so difficult terrain would affect them, and if they haven't moved over six inches hits on 4+ rather than 6+. Makes more sense than them being able to simultaneously hover over terrain and tank shock those inside it)
-Tanks can shoot multiple targets. (It just makes sense)

mauleed wrote:So far these new rules seem like alot of fun, because adjusting to big changes is fun.

It has me thinking I might actually get out my old guard army.

And calm down people. What we've seen is obviously incomplete, so no reason to get bent out of shape about things that might not even happen.

it's better to register your opinion in the vague hope that someone might read it and listen than to sit and worry.

How would you run Guard with the rumoured changes? They seem to be one of the hardest hit.

akira5665 wrote:Wow mate, comments like that really jack me off bad.

It's that kind of mentality that scream"'Suck it up wusses, and take it like a man"

So by your statement, until recently Ork players were wasting their time collecting mini's for a horrendously outdated codex, and it was their fault?

Enjoy playing games with you 12 or 13 mates, who all play Space Marines.........................

Up until I started a Space Marine army a few months ago I had Imperial Guard, Orks, and Dark Eldar. I was hardly wasting my time buying these book and their associated miniatures. But I don't imagine GW owes me anything either. I wanted to play these armies and that was what was available.

I like playing these armies. If I don't want to play an army, then I don't have to buy the models and miniatures. I quit playing halfway through the 3rd edition of the game because I found the game boring and frustrating. Since being bored and frustrated with the game was my fault for playing it, I acknowledged my responsibility and wrote my own games. It wasn't GW's responsibility to improve my experience; my relationship to GW is purely commercial.

I started playing again recently because I picked up a copy of the 4th edition rules and liked what I saw. GW doesn't owe me anything, but they had released a new product that I liked enough to encourage me to renew our commercial relationship. If the little things that still annoy me about this game ever become the big things, then I'll know where the responsibility lies and once again move on to newer and better things.

Still, don't let all that reality interfere with whatever 'jacks you off bad'.

bejustorbedead wrote:That's a completely asinine attitude, but granted, technically true. It's being a tad pedantic about the definition of "have to," though. Obviously no one really "has to" do anything with 40k. However, if someone happens to like the game, and happens to like a particular army that GW pays no attention to, well, it's inarguably unfortunate for them that they are, in fact, stuck using a woefully outdated book for so long as they continue to have an interest in playing.

Incorrect. It's one of the only sensible attitudes to have towards using a commercial product for your amusement. It's likewise the only sensible thing to do when people get carried away with hyperbole, to calmly point out that no, in fact the hyperbolic statement is false and the truth is otherwise. If someone likes the game, then it is not a fact that they are stuck using a woefully outdated book for so long as they continue to have an interest in playing the game. They can, for example, write their own book, or they can buy a new army, or they can retain their interest in playing but take a break and go do other things.

bejustorbedead wrote:Given that, like any business, GW likes money, one would think keeping codices up to date for everyone's armies and giving them each time in the spotlight would be a rather obvious way to ensure continued interest, and thus, continued forking over of cash.

Yes, one would think that. It seems sensible. However, GW doesn't do that. And although it might be to their advantage as a commercial enterprise, they don't owe their customers that either.

Nurglitch

Still, don't let all that reality interfere with whatever 'jacks you off bad'.

My reality or yours mate?

You seem to be gaining a lot of popularity with the idea that GW owes us nothing, the loyal fan-base that has helped grow thier business.

I agree, you should write your own rules, and play with yourself, I think.

akira5665 wrote:My reality or yours mate?

Everyone shares reality.

akira5665 wrote:You seem to be gaining a lot of popularity with the idea that GW owes us nothing, the loyal fan-base that has helped grow thier business.

Loyal fan-base? What, you mean the customers that bought their product? They gave you the books and models you paid for. The next time you find "Eternal Gratitude" on your receipt in addition to the entries for the actual products you bought please give me a call so I can head down to my local retailer and get some.

akira5665 wrote:I agree, you should write your own rules, and play with yourself, I think.

Sorry, too busy using GW when I play with my friends. Still, nice flame, I appreciate it.

Nurglitch:

Loyal fan-base? What, you mean the customers that bought their product? They gave you the books and models you paid for. The next time you find "Eternal Gratitude" on your receipt in addition to the entries for the actual products you bought please give me a call so I can head down to my local retailer and get some.

No, but it did say 'Thank you' at the bottom, lol.
Must have been a typo.

Nurglitch wrote:

akira5665 wrote:My reality or yours mate?

Everyone shares reality.

Any proof to back that up?

As far as I can tell, reality is subjective. It's impossible for me to get inside your head and tell if we experience things in the same way. Indeed, doubt you could prove to me that other consciousnesses exist beyond my own.

I suppose you could argue that as a manifestation of consciousness you share my reality, but that would mean that the 'everyone' part of your statement becomes meaningless and it's just a tautology.

YOU'RE a tautology.

I'm telling my Mom on you..................

On topic:

Without having had time to have a good look at the rumoured changes to the rule set (and no ... the rumor threads don't cut it ... they just don't contain any "substance") it's hard to say if I like the changes or not.

I do like the sound of some of the changes. Vehicles getting saving throws for example. IMO vehicles aren't quite tough enough as it is.

I don't like the idea of limiting scoring units back to one FOC slot. Hell ... a tank will do a hell of a lot better job holding an objective than a handful of grunts.

Off Topic: It's absolutley disguisting that GW hasn't updated their codexes before moving from one edition to the next. Updating 1/3 or 1/2 of your army rules before updating the next rule edition is exactly why we have sloppy rules and the stupid RAW arguments.

If GW supported every army the same way they do the marines they would find that they didn't have to hammer space marines so much in order to make money. If they just bothered to do the comercially sensible thing of making sure that your game is fully up to date before releasing the next edition (or dropping the parts that they have no intention of updating) they wouldn't be in in the financial trouble the find themselves in now (and the fan base - the ones off whom they make all their money would actually be happier; therefore buying more minatures and making GW more money without the need to put the prices up on their kits)

The main reasons that SM are so popular is because they ALWAYS have an upto date rule system, they get all the best toys, and all the attention from GW in the forms of advertising, new minis etc.

akira5665 wrote:You seem to be gaining a lot of popularity with the idea that GW owes us nothing, the loyal fan-base that has helped grow thier business.

quote=Nurglitch
Loyal fan-base? What, you mean the customers that bought their product? They gave you the books and models you paid for. The next time you find "Eternal Gratitude" on your receipt in addition to the entries for the actual products you bought please give me a call so I can head down to my local retailer and get some.

Man i like the way you think Nurglitch, finally some body who ctually realises GW owes us nothing. Its just deluded gamers who think GW owes them something. What they owed was mini and paints and a game system. they delivered those. If anybody feels it was not upto thier expectations (you all know what coming next) they should stop playing instead of complaining about it

Well mech eldar being nerfed into the ground sux pretty hard (my three falcons and two serpents wont see much play anymore...), the meatshield block LOS is pretty stupid. LOL try and shoot ur way thru my 100 grotz to get mah orkz (which i may be actually saying soon...) Speaking of which, orks (and everyone else) now move as fast as stealers if you dont count scuttle. It also makes long range things that sit in the backfield much more difficult to use. How are my lootas going to shoot through my own wall of 100 orks? Of course through careful set up ect. they will probably do fine.

On the other hand, phoenix lords not being force weaponed may mean i might start fielding maugan ra. The new outflank will probably let me use my scorpions. Reapers and wraithlords will definitely see more play, and war walkers might make an appearance. As for orks, I wouldn't start building all those shootas quite yet. Nor would I bank on filling your elites with 45 lootas, it will be hard to get all those to be able to see. I think tank bustas will be better than everyone thought, you can pull back the grot screen when you want to shoot a juicy target, or use a screen to prevent you from having to shoot tanks. Also you can give squad a nob with PK, making them a help in combat when you close in. Stormboyz are retardedly fast. 12+2d6" if you can't assault on the first turn. You sure as hell will be set up for the 2nd turn though. Ramshackle isn't as good as everyone thought compared to other transports, but o'well. Since you can meatshield units, nob squads will be usable as you will probably be able to prevent them from being shot.

Overall...skimmer nerf sux for eldar, and the meatshield is REALLY REALLY stupid. I can just imagine how pissed my friends will be when they have to shoot through 60 grotz with 5+ KFF cover to shoot anything of value.

I would rather think of myself as a 'good customer', rather than a 'deluded gamer', and be treated accordingly.

Meep357 wrote:On topic:


The main reasons that SM are so popular is because they ALWAYS have an upto date rule system, they get all the best toys, and all the attention from GW in the forms of advertising, new minis etc.

No i think you will find that they are popular as most kids want the superhuman tough guys over insects, aliens and crappy IG. stop paintng the SM as GW poster boys. boo hoo GW spends to much time on the marines and not on my crappy DE or other equally carp xenos. SM are GW's classic icon, GET OVER IT; people need to stop having this attitude that they are elite and better players cos they dont play marines

@ Akira5665, well to be a good customer you just need to keep spending money and NOT complaining. to be a deluded customer you just have to keep complaining thinking GW will actually listen to you.

beef wrote:stop paintng the SM as GW poster boys. boo hoo GW spends to much time on the marines and not on my crappy DE or other equally carp xenos. SM are GW's classic icon, GET OVER IT

I think you'll find, when attempting to make an argument, it works better when you don't contradict yourself right at the beginning.

people need to stop having this attitude that they are elite and better players cos they dont play marines

Please attempt to point out a single example of that in this thread.

That's pretty funny, beef.

beef wrote:
@ Akira5665, well to be a good customer you just need to keep spending money and NOT complaining. to be a deluded customer you just have to keep complaining thinking GW will actually listen to you.

If you want to see deluded customers just go over to YMTC. There are a whole bunch of people there (and all over 40k forums) that push their ideas thinking that GW will listen to them & think that because GW has done something similar to what they suggested that it's because they came up with the idea.

beef wrote:
No i think you will find that they are popular as most kids want the superhuman tough guys over insects, aliens and crappy IG. stop paintng the SM as GW poster boys. boo hoo GW spends to much time on the marines and not on my crappy DE or other equally carp xenos. SM are GW's classic icon, GET OVER IT; people need to stop having this attitude that they are elite and better players cos they dont play marines

As for the anti-marine jibe ..... well it's obvious from your comments that you must play marines and feel insecure about the fact that you do play them (esp as you need to put down anyone who doesn't want to play them).

Beef-
@ Akira5665, well to be a good customer you just need to keep spending money and NOT complaining. to be a deluded customer you just have to keep complaining thinking GW will actually listen to you.

Being subtle is part of your charm Beef, lol.

I agree, the filthy Xenos should build a bridge and get over it, as I am a pure 'Humie' Loyalist.

All our joking aside-GW get with the program! Make every 3rd Ed Codex 4th ed before you make a 5th ed ruleset!!! Does that make sense to anyone else but me?

Nurglitch wrote:bejustofbedead: I mean people playing Warhammer 40k with armies that have codicies dating back to the 3rd edition of the game don't have to play the game if they don't want to. That goes for everyone playing Warhammer 40k: they choose to do it and GW doesn't owe them jack squat.

I nominate this post for "Fanboy Moron Of The Month".

It makes sense to me, but that rarely comes into it with GW. Smelly gits that they are. I'm just happy orks got a 4th and a half ed 'dex, even if it means we went the whole way through 4th with that crappy assed old excuse for a book. Now I suppose we'll have to wait for the tail end of 5th to get our new book. Messed up. Dark Eldar, Necrons and Gaurd really need updating. TBH I can live without the inquisition stuff (I don't think the game needed Witchhunters or Daemonhunters) but it would be nice if the got some sort of look in.
Why can't the do a re-set like in 3rd? That would be the sensible option. They need to hire more developers or something because it seems like the current crew are snowed under. Bah.

Beef: You've heard it before, we've heard it before. We're not going to stop complaining until the situation improves, you're not going to stop telling us to stop complaining and quit until we do. We get it. Jesus.

Da Boss: Maybe the orks will survive 5th edition
intact. If the ork codex and 5th were developed
near the same time, any possible nerf will be
pre-planned.

Ok, that's not as comforting a thought as I
thought it would be.

Malfred-If the ork codex and 5th were developed
near the same time, any possible nerf will be
pre-planned.

That would indicate foresight and cunning strategy.

Joining to sig now..............

Meep357 wrote:[

As for the anti-marine jibe ..... well it's obvious from your comments that you must play marines and feel insecure about the fact that you do play them (esp as you need to put down anyone who doesn't want to play them).

Yes i play marines. SW to be exact. I have always played them. since 2nd edition. Why would i be insecure about that?? I am not putting down peope who play other armies just the ones who think they are better by not playing marines. the ones who winge constantly about how hard done they are by GW, boo hoo, find another freakin hobby you cry babies.

mughi3 wrote:measureing range from the weapons barrels on vehicles

Yeah, this is wierd - I expected them to go back to bases / hulls for all distances. Oh, well...

screening

Meh, For the most part, it makes sense, as most troops will shoot at what they can see.

direct fire shooting causing wounds to models out of LOS or around the corner, hiding behind a tank etc..

Models aren't static - they're running about.

making all vehicles pillboxes again

Vehicles will be mobile Transports, semi-mobile Ordnance / single-gunners, or static Ordnance Barrage / multi-gun platforms. Ordnance Barrage has been move-or-fire since 3rd Edition, so no loss there.

Predators simply become the AV13 version of the move-or-fire Devastators they replace. As a nice side-effect, the all-Lascannon Annihilator vs Autocannon/HBs Destructor are far more comparable in overall battlefield utility.

Land Raider Crusader's Hurricane Bolters are more useful.

Yeah, Chimeras lose a bit of firepower, but no biggie - they're not MBTs - they're IFVs. The default config of Multi-Laser & HB is more sensible, as they don't compete with each other as much on the move.

I think they're better this way. As non-Scoring units, I'd rather pay less for lower-capability Tanks that are more clearly support. Plus, it's not like Predators moved that much in last edition, anyways.

.the vehicle nerf-

Huh? Overall, vehicles are more survivable than ever with only 2/6 Destroyed on Pen and 0/6 Destroyed on Glance.

run/fleet/march

Be thankful we don't have WFB's wheeling and reforming...

.no blocking LOS from area terrain

You know, you can agree on whether area terrain blocks LOS prior to the start of the game. Essentially "flat" things like water / mud / ice / lava needn't block LOS while still being difficult / dangerous.

.only troop choices count as scoring while we weaken all your other choices accordingly? if they want a bigger core to the army list they could have simple made the mandatory troop rquirement 3 or 4 instead of 2.

Ahh, but then armies with only 2 Troops would be invalidated, as opposed to non-competitive. There's a big difference.

And besides, this only applies 2/3 of the scenarios, and if the thing is a draw, things return to VPs. So no biggie.

.melta weapon nerf-get a little bump on the damage chart-loose the AP-1 auto pen ability...so it counts as an equivalent minus one given the new chart.

At short range, a Melta has a minimum AP of 10, and an average of 15. As it nearly always Penetrates, the +1 on the chart is more valuable.

akira5665 wrote:I think it is disgraceful there are players out there who have to use 3rd Ed Codecies for a soon to be released 5th Ed rules. Awful.

Should GW simply put them out of their misery and Squat them?

Because, that's the alternative.

bejustorbedead wrote:they are, in fact, stuck using a woefully outdated book for so long as they continue to have an interest in playing.

That presumes that they choose to only play with their outdated army. If they're don't buy new armies, are they still GW's customers?

Given that, like any business, GW likes money, one would think keeping codices up to date for everyone's armies and giving them each time in the spotlight would be a rather obvious way to ensure continued interest, and thus, continued forking over of cash.

That presumes that all Codices contribute to GW's bottom line. However, as we know, only Space Marines make real money for GW, so the slow sellers should be lucky they're not cancelled.

Like any business, GW has products that become obsolete and lose support. If the Dark Eldar actually were embraced and supported (financially) by the community (like the Black Templars and Tau), then they would have gotten a Codex update. In the mean time, GW should be commended for continuing to retain sufficient compatibility with new versions to allowing the DE to continue playing their army as-is.

IntoTheRain wrote:
Forced March. Be cause 6 point Ork boys aren't broken enough.

Basically, I forsee the game becoming 100 shooty troops trying to stop 100 assaulty troops before they reach CC.

Run - forgoe shooting to move extra d6 inches, but CAN NOT assault that turn

Only troops count as scoring. Oh fun, so to be competitive you now have to run nothing but troops. Truely, this is a masterful idea. Has anyone ever actually watched mass troop fights? It is possibly one of the most boring, dice driven, uninspiring sights you will ever see.

Some people cry cheese when an opponent skimps on troop choices.
Now there is actually an incentive to take troop choices.

You HAVE to take 2 Troop choices already.
Holding objectives with them, or taking more troops to hold objectives adds to the strategy of the game.

Da Boss wrote:Why can't the do a re-set like in 3rd? That would be the sensible option.

Not really. If GW did that, 40k would grind to a halt. They'd have to pull all of the current Codices, as the rulebook list would invalidate everything. Then they'd have to re-release everything. Remember how long it took to release the original Codices? It'd be a couple years, even if GW released a Codex every other month.

Remember how nerfed everything was when we only had the rulebook lists (NO Special Characters, NO Special Rules)? The complaints of nerfage would be insane. Right now, everybody gets to use their current Codex, so it's not so bad.

The only real reason to reset would be to kill the slow-sellers off, and after seeing the whining from the LatD, killing an actual Codex army like Dark Eldar would be much worse. This is why GW stopped with the army list expansion.

JohnHwangDD -That presumes that they choose to only play with their outdated army. If they're don't buy new armies, are they still GW's customers?

So nobody buys DE figs any more? As for new players, I was actually thinking of a 400pt DE list for Kill teams, even though the Codex is out of date, so to speak.

Should I (Or can I) only get a Talos on E-bay? Or until 6-8 months ago, Orks?

JohnHwangDD -The only real reason to reset would be to kill the slow-sellers off, and after seeing the whining from the LatD, killing an actual Codex army like Dark Eldar would be much worse. This is why GW stopped with the army list expansion.

I would not assume so neccessarily,as sometimes streamlining rules with codices is more important to me, the player, as opposed to a business owner.
If I was involved in some of the decisions over there I could tell you for sure. As for $$$ you are probably right though. *sigh*

I'm a fan to be honest.

It makes many "dumb" styled armies go away, and a few things change.

Vehicles slow down some, but get much more survivable, but don't "score" so they're the support instead of "the army" (Eldar).

They also fixed the problem where the player who goes second can just "run up and nab" an objective on the last turn without fear of reprisal. Instead of actually "fighting" they just zoom and capture the objective because their units that can move 24" or more hid most of the game and will just go "score" now that they're free from reprisal.

People complain about area terrain not blocking LOS. They say in the book to go through the game and say what blocks LOS and what doesn't and classify everything before you start to play. This is not hard. And just because all the "area terrain" that we play with now doesn't block LOS, nothing stops you from classifying different pieces of terrain as "Blocking LOS".

To even think that people will setup tables, especially for competitive play, that have no blocking LOS terrain because of the changes in 5th Ed is ridiculous.

Things will change and generally they'll be for the better IMO.

akira5665 wrote:

JohnHwangDD -That presumes that they choose to only play with their outdated army. If they're don't buy new armies, are they still GW's customers?

So nobody buys DE figs any more?

God, I hope not, for the player's sake. I mean, when GW said they're de-supported "Classic / Collectors" in the first "big" Annual / Catalog (2005?), that should be ample warning that it's a dead army. If you know of any player foolish or naive enough to buy DE minis and expect full support, please let me know - I've got a couple bridges I'd like to sell.

JohnHwangDD -The only real reason to reset would be to kill the slow-sellers off, and after seeing the whining from the LatD, killing an actual Codex army like Dark Eldar would be much worse. This is why GW stopped with the army list expansion.

I would not assume so neccessarily,

I would, at least, based on GW history.

If you look at the 40k2 - 40k3 "reset", what happened to the Squats?

If you look at the WFB5 - WFB6 "reset", what happened to the Chaos Dwarves?

Both armies, deader than a doornail after the reset.

As for $$$ you are probably right though. *sigh*

I'm just glad I flushed away my Dark Eldar and Kroot Mercenaries early rather than late.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The only real reason to reset would be to kill the slow-sellers off, and after seeing the whining from the LatD, killing an actual Codex army like Dark Eldar would be much worse. This is why GW stopped with the army list expansion.

What stop? The next codex out is codex Daemons, a new codex!

I agree that GW owe 'us' nothing, however what if this new rulebook isn't up to scratch and my (our?) current models and armies aren't supported? Then it cuts both ways and I owe them nothing. The critical point is that I'm not the one with the shrinking turnover and share price.

"If you know of any player foolish or naive enough to buy DE minis and expect full support, please let me know - I've got a couple bridges I'd like to sell."

Considering they were in the intro boxed set (when most DE players I know started the army)?

I think most players would expect them to be expected at least as well as Space Marines - the other army in that boxed set.

GW has already said that they're releasing DE again though and have committed to redesigning the range. If someone likes the current models well enough, it makes sense to have a force painted and ready to go for when the new book comes out.

With an updated army list and models that aren't ass, I expect Dark Eldar to be reasonably popular. They won't be as popular as Marines, Eldar, Necrons or Tau - but they'll hold their own with Orks, DA, BT, Tyranids, and the other secondary armies. Dark Elves have never had any trouble selling to Fantasy players. They just need sleek scary looking jetbikes, better posed characters, sexy Wych Elves and a completely reimagined design for their warriors. I expect all of those things will be out by the end of 2009.

"If you look at the WFB5 - WFB6 "reset", what happened to the Chaos Dwarves? "

They got a 'Ravening Hordes' army list and are still a fully tournament legal army?

GW learned from the Squat's disaster that saw thousands of players quit the game in disgust. Hence when they decided to drop Chaos Dwarves they left them with a token army list and some vague hope for the future. This resulted in a lot less acrimony and people quitting. I expect GW will follow a similar approach with other armies that they decide aren't worth the bother.

Kroot Mercenaries weren't an army anyway. They were a Tau sublist. So far GW hasn't run into much opposition in getting rid of them, the Chaos Legion lists, the various sublists in Fantasy (e.g. Lahmian Counts, Nuln, Snotling Hordes). It would have been nice for Tau Empire to have included a Kroot Shaper HQ option, but only a few people complained.

On the other hand, GW is adding Daemon armies to both core games, so I'd expect Ork and Dark Eldar length waits before they come around to Sisters of Battle or Wood Elves again.

WRT DE, I'll believe it when I see it on the shelf. I think if you ask both of the Squat players out there, they heard similar empty promises.

And 40k isn't WFB - Dwarves do OK in WFB, but not in 40k.

I believe GW is now moving to Army Book lists only, so tough luck, CD players.

But this is why DE are going to soldier on with their Codex in neglect. Better than being cancelled, I guess.

Kroot Mercs had a full Chapter Approved / Compiliation list.

Personally I want them to scrap the game and start from a blank sheet of paper. This constant tinkering just gets irritating. When will the grasp the nettle and realise that the basic game is a clunker?

Osbad wrote:Personally I want them to scrap the game and start from a blank sheet of paper. This constant tinkering just gets irritating. When will the grasp the nettle and realise that the basic game is a clunker?

Andy Chambers basically tried to do that when it was time to change from 3rd to 4th. Now he's no longer with the company. I suspect that there's a lesson there for future GW employees who might contemplate rocking the boat.

Asmodai wrote:On the other hand, GW is adding Daemon armies to both core games, so I'd expect Ork and Dark Eldar length waits before they come around to Sisters of Battle or Wood Elves again.

Jervis made the point at Adepticon 2007 that they won't let a 10-year wait between codeci happen again. From his comments, it sounds like the studio is taking a more business-like approach to releases. No more 'variant' lists that aren't fully supported (and may not even have models available). All armies get "regular" updates; Jervis this may not mean that in five years the Codeci will be released in the same order, but it'll be close (for example it might not be Chaos Marines, Orks, Daemons but instead be Orks, Daemons, Chaos Marines). Jervis seemed pretty embarrased that the studio let orks go as long as they did. Personally, I think there will be a LatD type codex at some point as a 'new' army for 40k, it's too much a part of the fluff and they seem to be going back to fluff. Rumors are that GW is "currently working on dark eldar." Whether that means working on sculpts, or just background fluff and concept art (probably the later and not the former) isn't completely known. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Sisters get their book and at a later time the Inquisition getting its own.

It sounds like we'll see Daemons, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Eldar, and Necrons by the end of 2009 (any maybe something will sneak in there too) with Fifth Edition and Codex: Planetstrike also being released.

Jervis also said that they'd have regular FAQ updates starting 6 months ago.

What he says and what GW does are very different things. GW has promised more regular updates for books before and not followed through (e.g. when 3rd and 4th were released). It's silly to assume that they'd keep to their word this time around.

I understand he's embarrassed and I think he honestly wants to release the Codexes in a regular schedule. He doesn't make those decisions though. That would be consistent with his attempt to 'standardize' the game somewhat (fewer variant lists, clearer Codexes with less options, etc.), but the final say goes to the bean-counters. In three years when it's a choice between updating the Inquisition or doing another Marine release, I'm pretty sure what will happen.

Regarding DE I think it is certain that GW must be working on new models because:

1. That is where they make their money.
2. Moulds wear out and need replacing.
3. A new codex will help them sell new models to DE fans who already have complete armies.

Seems odd that they couldn't follow through with the FAQs though. It's not like you need the same turn-around as a printed product.

I think that most of the rumored new rules sound like they accomplish one of three things:
1. Encourage more tactical play (running is especially good in that regard, as it's very difficult to get to maneuver infantry in the current edition).
2. Clear up unnecessarily complicated rules (mixed armour/toughness, torrent of fire, casualty removal).
3. Speed up gameplay.

Some of the rules sound like rubbish, of course, but I think that overall it sounds like the game will be more fun and interesting, which is good enough for me.

I've read through the leaked pdf, not suprising that I like some of it and hate some of it. It's pretty much par for the course. Though my mech tau list is pretty much screwed. My orks should do well.

How on earth do these rules speed up gameplay?

Kilkrazy wrote:Regarding DE I think it is certain that GW must be working on new models because:
1. That is where they make their money.
2. Moulds wear out and need replacing.
3. A new codex will help them sell new models to DE fans who already have complete armies.

1. Selling a handful of models to 2 guys *LOSES* money.
2. When you don't need to make more than a couple models a year, on average, the molds will last practically forever.
3. Warming over the same-old won't do anything.

dietrich wrote:It sounds like we'll see Daemons, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Eldar, and Necrons by the end of 2009 (any maybe something will sneak in there too) with Fifth Edition and Codex: Planetstrike also being released.

That sounds like too much for 1 year, especially as there is usually a lull before the new edition releases. I'd bank on a maximum of 4 Codices + the new edition & Planetstrike. So:

Based on rumors, these are givens:
- Daemons (winter)
- Planetstrike (summer)
- 5th Edition (fall)

With a new Edition, we get:
- Space Marines (fall)

And as Necrons close out each edition:
- Necrons (spring)

I won't believe anything said about DE until I see preview Codex PDF or a NEW range of models.

But yeah, we'll see Woofs before DE.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

I won't believe anything said about DE until I see preview Codex PDF or a NEW range of models.

I will bet you any amount of money. I know it for a fact because I have spoken with someone who may or may not be responsible for re-designing the entire army.

Dark Eldar are coming. It is just a matter of when.



But anyway, back on topic:


Part of me loves the idea of only Troops being able to score just because it really shakes up how people build armies. You can go for flashy toys that do your damage but if you don't have a solid core of troops you're going to have a hard time winning any games.

But the reality is, anytime a rule is based on a force organization selection it ultimately fails simply because different armies have their strengths in different parts of the FOC. This is exactly why blanket comp scoring systems in tournaments never worked right. When you forced people to take X% of their points in Troops (for example) some races could bring fantastic playable forces made up mainly of troops while other races really struggled with an army made up of their weakest units.

So ultimately I really hope the alter or abandon the idea just because it will give such a serious edge to armies that have strong troops choices, while other armies like your Tau or your Eldar are going to have a really hard time bringing Troops choices that can do anything except get mowed down.

People don't play DE becuase of their current state.

Give them some cheesy new rules and some sexy models and people will be lining up to buy them

The DE Concept and Fluff aren't bad, their practically freakin Space Dark Elves, except Dark Elves are actually cooler becuase they have better models and rules

Nurglitch wrote:Seems odd that they couldn't follow through with the FAQs though. It's not like you need the same turn-around as a printed product.

GW don't care about FAQs because most of their players don't need them and the tournament players get them from individual tournaments.

On the face of it that statement seems to be false since Mr. Johnson made a public statement to the contrary.

Whatever Mr Johnson says, GW does not put out timely, detailed and accurate FAQs.

If it's important, and they really care, and it is easy and cheap (which it is) why don't they do it?

That is the mystery isn't it? Might be a case of right hands and left hands. It might be important to the bottom line, and the head of the Design Studio might care, and it may be cheap and easy for the Web Team, but co-ordinating all of these things such that supply meets demand might be a touch more difficult than anyone unfamiliar with GW's corporate structure might initially imagine.

Dont like it at all. My battlewagon is now useless when it moves (hmm, what to fire, rokkit launcha, big shoota or zzap gun?)

Lootas now have to place themselves somewhere dangerous, and for IG basalisks will SUCK

Played a game with the leaked rules. Liked it a lot.

Everything aside from wound allocation sped the game up a lot.

Deployment was faster, assault resolution was faster (and crazy brutal), LOS was greatly simplified, and vehicles didn't automatically spend the entire game shaken.

Blast weapon changes suck for BS4+ users, BS3 will probably see it as about equally effective, BS2 blasts are loving life.

Objectives were simple to understand and didn't involve whipping out the calculator unless you tie on them.

No more forced escalation! No more forced escalation! Wooo!

Screening was a concern, until we started rolling the saves, and as soon as one hole opened up in the screening line (you don't necessarily get to choose where the hole opens), the guys behind are suddenly available targets. This isn't 3rd ed screening where a wall of guys 1" spaced will block LOS to everything behind it. If you can draw a line of sight to one model, you can shoot at and damage the entire squad he is with.

Overall good. It's different, slightly faster, and more intuitive.

I find it hilarious that the person who has actually tried out these rules finds them to be "Overall good" whereas those relying on their prejudices often do not.

Moz isn't the only guy to use the "leaked" playtest / preview rules and like them.

That said, one man's trash means someone else will be disappointed that his mono-dimensional WAAC army loses badly under the new rules.

"WAAC army"

Huh?

Win At All Costs

JohnHwangDD: Then please, relate your experiences so that they may speak against those of Moz.

Huh? I have no major problems with the new rules.

Ah, so you thought I was saying only Moz had tried the rules and enjoyed them. Makes sense. I'm looking forward to trying them out this weekend.

Nurglitch wrote:JohnHwangDD: Then please, relate your experiences so that they may speak against those of Moz.

Seriously!

Don't you guys realize you're part of the same Hive Fleet?

I voted Yay. The rules clear up a few things, and seem slightly tighter. The elimination of mandatory area terrain will probably be replaced by voluntary designation of area terrain. The game in general seems more dynamic, for lack of a better word, with infantry running, scouts flanking, and deepstrikers bopping all over the map. Tanks become pillboxes while transports got less awful. A few things that were universally considered subpar (snipers, bikes, footslogging assault units, and Troops selections in general) got better.

If properly supported with FAQs (both to the main rules and codices) this edition could be a really good thing.

Is it just me, or do these rules seem like they would work better for smaller games? Is 1500 the new 1850?

Tanks don't have to be pillboxes though. Only if you imagine that they have to shoot with everything every turn. Grav-tanks, particularly Eldar ones, will remain quite mobile.

A Leman Russ that moves 12" one turn and remains still to shoot the next will usually be more effective than one that grinds forward 6" for two turns and shoots at worse effect.

Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Remind me again how many times the GW cheerleaders have been right? Zero?

Polonius wrote:I voted Yay. The rules clear up a few things, and seem slightly tighter. The elimination of mandatory area terrain will probably be replaced by voluntary designation of area terrain. The game in general seems more dynamic, for lack of a better word, with infantry running, scouts flanking, and deepstrikers bopping all over the map. Tanks become pillboxes while transports got less awful. A few things that were universally considered subpar (snipers, bikes, footslogging assault units, and Troops selections in general) got better.

If properly supported with FAQs (both to the main rules and codices) this edition could be a really good thing.

Is it just me, or do these rules seem like they would work better for smaller games? Is 1500 the new 1850?

Playing with the new Codex's, they generally are much more balanced at 1500 Points. The exceptions to this, Nidzilla & Mech Eldar, are subsequently going to be balanced at 1500 Points under the new rules because at 1500 Points those lists don't get a whole lot of troops.

As much as people are thinking the new Orks are going to be this death machine in 5th Ed, they haven't run 1500 points of them, where you really start to run into problems in 4th Ed, let alone 5th Edition's rumored rules where their most effective anti-tank goes out the bloody window.

There isn't even a reason to take tanks in 5th, so its not something I would worry about.

Even if someone did, just take them out in CC. Stormboyz will hit their lines on turn 2, and the rest of the models will hit turn 3 at the latest. If they run it away, its not shooting anyway so who cares. Skimmers are neutered to the point that you don't even have to worry about them in 5th. (maybe hammerheads might pose a problem, but tau are going to be forced to the ground in 5th, so they will probably stick with broadsides)

JohnHwangDD wrote:

dietrich wrote:It sounds like we'll see Daemons, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Eldar, and Necrons by the end of 2009 (any maybe something will sneak in there too) with Fifth Edition and Codex: Planetstrike also being released.

That sounds like too much for 1 year, especially as there is usually a lull before the new edition releases. I'd bank on a maximum of 4 Codices + the new edition & Planetstrike.

End of 09 not 08, so nearly two years away.

Personally, I like the direction of the game. I think it's got a lot more potential, both with the codex releases and 5th edition rumors, than it did a year ago. It's still not a perfect game, and if the fluff wasn't so strong and the game so popular, I might not play, but I'm at least liking how things are looking.

Good Point Voodoo.

To a degree, every current top army is getting nerfed to a varying degree: terminator spam, falcons, nidzilla, and mech Tau. the current wild card is going to be Orks: they seem good, 5th seems to make them better. GW has a nasty habit of cutting too deep, so it's possible that Orks will be the overpowered book for a few years. Unlike the old powerlists, though, this army has a genuine weakness or two.

And that's, I think why Nidzilla and Falcondar players are garnering so little sympathy on the web. Yeah, they're lists got donkey stomped, but they weren't just good: they were unavoidably good. There was literally nothing a Necron army could do against Zilla, or Ig against Falcondar.

While I'm not exactly preparing for unparalleled awesomeness in the new 40k metagame, I think it will be an improvement.

IntoTheRain wrote:There isn't even a reason to take tanks in 5th, so its not something I would worry about.

Even if someone did, just take them out in CC. Stormboyz will hit their lines on turn 2, and the rest of the models will hit turn 3 at the latest. If they run it away, its not shooting anyway so who cares. Skimmers are neutered to the point that you don't even have to worry about them in 5th. (maybe hammerheads might pose a problem, but tau are going to be forced to the ground in 5th, so they will probably stick with broadsides)

Leman Russ's in 4+ Cover shooting pie plates all game isn't something that you think will be done?

Especially considering that everyone is so concerned with this horde of Troops rushing at them, you don't think 3 S8 AP3 Pie plates where all partials are hits is something IG players will take?

3 Whirlwinds are the same deal, especially with screening being back, indirect fire with a tiny minimum range sounds good to me.

Hammerheads are still great tanks, and are very survivable even in 5th Ed rules. It's got a Pie plate, can move 6" and fire everything (including four 24" No LOS S5 Shots).

Fire Prisms are still pretty good, also give you pie plates, including AP3 ones if you combine them, and Holofield tanks are STILL good and resistant to damage, especially at long range.

Heck Preds become pretty decent, especially Annihilators with 3 Lascannons in 4+ Cover. For the Firepower that tanks can put out, and the fact that you can give them 4+ cover, easily, why WOULDN'T you take tanks?

Defilers can walk into terrain for the cover save, and shoot their ordinance, and again get that magic 4+ Woods Save now. They're tall enough to use LOS to not have models hiding behind a screen be partially obscured by other models in front of them, so they theoretically can shoot over the screen, or walk up onto a hill/building/cover to see over them.

Battlewagons bring those AP3 pie plates, still screen other units or vehicles pretty well (trukks), and can use a Mek in one to give all three the Obscured bonus when run in a tight formation. AV14 with a 5+ save against all Glances or Pens is pretty good don't you think?

Vindicators aren't as attractive, but give one a Dozer Blade (mandatory in the new rules practically), and it can move around and get pie plate shots off.

Seriously, all tanks got much more survivable in the new edition except Holofield Grav Tanks. AV14, using cover, is amazing.

The difference is that now they're going to be there to support their armies, not actually BE the army.

Polonius wrote:Good Point Voodoo.

To a degree, every current top army is getting nerfed to a varying degree: terminator spam, falcons, nidzilla, and mech Tau. the current wild card is going to be Orks: they seem good, 5th seems to make them better. GW has a nasty habit of cutting too deep, so it's possible that Orks will be the overpowered book for a few years. Unlike the old powerlists, though, this army has a genuine weakness or two.

And that's, I think why Nidzilla and Falcondar players are garnering so little sympathy on the web. Yeah, they're lists got donkey stomped, but they weren't just good: they were unavoidably good. There was literally nothing a Necron army could do against Zilla, or Ig against Falcondar.

While I'm not exactly preparing for unparalleled awesomeness in the new 40k metagame, I think it will be an improvement.

Orks are going to be sick, they are in 4th with the new book, IMO, a top tier list that can actually be a foil to Nidzilla and Mech Eldar as we generally know them.

They have foils now though. Play the horde Ork army vs. Mech IG and just prepare to lose. Too many AV targets, too many guns, and 3 Pie Plates makes life terrible as a horde player, even now, let alone when all partials are hits. I ran against 3 Pie Plates, 2 Hounds, and a bunch of Chimera's plus Las/Plas squads with a horde and it just didn't end well. Imagine what that many targets can do in the new edition, with cover saves to help the vehicles stay alive.

3 Whirlwind armies now are a problem. Just about anything with Templates. Tau are hard, but are actually very beatable through completely brute force tactics. I can ensure the delivery of a Warboss to the "hiding spot" of Crisis suits because of the IC rules, and while the Hammerheads are scary, they still have to hit with that pie plate, and I can space for limited effectiveness on the Tau's part, and since the Lootas are there, once the Hammerheads come out to play they start getting Glanced to the ground. In 5th Ed, Glancing Hammerheads doesn't do a whole lot, and Lootas work like Necrons and Venom Cannons - Glance a bunch till it dies. S7 just got a whole lot less appealing as Anti-tank since AV13 doesn't look so fragile anymore. Especially with cover and more forgiving tables.

People need to PLAY with the new Orks a lot to see just how strong or weak they are.

"3 Whirlwinds are the same deal, especially with screening being back, indirect fire with a tiny minimum range sounds good to me."

I remember back in 3rd, 3 Whirlwinds was considered the ultimate in cheese.

Then they got a 10 point price bump and suddenly they became worthless. I never quite understood the logic there.

Anyway, I pretty much agree with your assessment of tanks. If defensive weapons were S5, the new tank rules would be just about perfect.*



* Well no, perfection is a high mark. They'd be very, very good though.

Does any of that matter when your in CC by turn 2?

I don't care if they knock out 3 twenty man squads turn 1. (they won't) You would still have 50 models in cc on the next turn. Pie plates have never been the end all of orks, and no partials isn't going to change that when you consider how obscenely fast orks are now.

Why wouldn't people take tanks? Because they die horrible to every list in the game. Powerfist against rear armor sounds pretty simple to me.

And any tank that didn't rely on 1 large powerful gun got nerfed badly, not just Falcons. Tanks that rely on their one big gun are now pillboxes that are extremely easy to flank with the improved Kommandos.

The bottom line is that there is no reason to play anything but marines or orks in 5th.

I just don't get this idea that tanks will be utterly worthless. Other people (Therion) are saying they will become unstoppable killing machines. Someone must be wrong.

I also don't get that the entire Ork army will be in charge range at the end of turn 1. I just don't see that it can be done, as you set up more than 24 inches apart.

I think people are missing how much more powerful RF has got with the new shooting rules. The point blank fire from a decent size unit (10+ troops) is going to have a considerable effect.

Asmodai wrote:"3 Whirlwinds are the same deal, especially with screening being back, indirect fire with a tiny minimum range sounds good to me."

I remember back in 3rd, 3 Whirlwinds was considered the ultimate in cheese.

Then they got a 10 point price bump and suddenly they became worthless. I never quite understood the logic there.

Anyway, I pretty much agree with your assessment of tanks. If defensive weapons were S5, the new tank rules would be just about perfect.*

I think it had more to do with better options appearing than whirlwinds getting worse. Destructors become awesome for only 25 points more, and could claim objectives. Units couldn't be screened, so you can shoot anything you can see, eliminating 20-30% of the value to indirect fire. AS vehicles in general become more common, the usefulness of 4 ML devestators increased.

For more or less the same reasons, we'll see the return of WW. Preds can't move and shoot to any effect. Devastators can't shoot through any friendly or enemy units, so they're less good outside of sheer anti-tank, and las-plas are still the best at that. Just theoryhammer, of course, but it doesn't take much of a boost for make a unit a slightly better choice, and then copycat syndrome kicks in.

If you are a seriously competitve player, and you believe in maths and run the figures and find that a particular unit has a 1% advantage, that is the unit to play.

Of course there is always tactics and luck.

Whirlwinds are going to be *great* for CC defense.

Oh, noes! The S5 AP*4* Whirlwind template scattered back into Close Combat, and caught a couple Marines in Power Armour - too bad for those Orks they're fighting all clumped up on top of each other...

Kilkrazy wrote:I just don't get this idea that tanks will be utterly worthless. Other people (Therion) are saying they will become unstoppable killing machines. Someone must be wrong.

Infantry are getting a major upgrade in maneuverability in 5th. Tanks are getting a downgrade.

Tanks are no longer scoring, while infantry still are.

And now you have the threat of infantry coming in from the sides of the boards and taking shots at the side and rear armor. (those whirlwinds are anything but safe.)


There is just no way for them to compete.

Polonius wrote:

Asmodai wrote:"3 Whirlwinds are the same deal, especially with screening being back, indirect fire with a tiny minimum range sounds good to me."

I remember back in 3rd, 3 Whirlwinds was considered the ultimate in cheese.

Then they got a 10 point price bump and suddenly they became worthless. I never quite understood the logic there.

Anyway, I pretty much agree with your assessment of tanks. If defensive weapons were S5, the new tank rules would be just about perfect.*

I think it had more to do with better options appearing than whirlwinds getting worse. Destructors become awesome for only 25 points more, and could claim objectives. Units couldn't be screened, so you can shoot anything you can see, eliminating 20-30% of the value to indirect fire. AS vehicles in general become more common, the usefulness of 4 ML devestators increased.

For more or less the same reasons, we'll see the return of WW. Preds can't move and shoot to any effect. Devastators can't shoot through any friendly or enemy units, so they're less good outside of sheer anti-tank, and las-plas are still the best at that. Just theoryhammer, of course, but it doesn't take much of a boost for make a unit a slightly better choice, and then copycat syndrome kicks in.

Thanks for the analysis. I'm currently painting up the pair of Whirlwind's I got in the Apocalypse box, so I have a vested interest.

It seems that if the enemy has a good amount of firepower, and lots of infiltrators to get the right board edge to try to destroy your tanks, they might not have much else to grab objectives with. I'm not sure that's really as scary as people make out. If your opponent is fielding Scorpions you might want to keep a unit in your backfield to deal with them (same as when fighting Miners in Fantasy), but it won't be too bad. Space Wolves and Deep Striking Guard remnants can already do the same sort of thing.

IntoTheRain wrote:Does any of that matter when your in CC by turn 2?

I don't care if they knock out 3 twenty man squads turn 1. (they won't) You would still have 50 models in cc on the next turn. Pie plates have never been the end all of orks, and no partials isn't going to change that when you consider how obscenely fast orks are now.

Why wouldn't people take tanks? Because they die horrible to every list in the game. Powerfist against rear armor sounds pretty simple to me.

And any tank that didn't rely on 1 large powerful gun got nerfed badly, not just Falcons. Tanks that rely on their one big gun are now pillboxes that are extremely easy to flank with the improved Kommandos.

The bottom line is that there is no reason to play anything but marines or orks in 5th.

CC by turn 2?

How many mobz are you going to get "up front" that are going to lead this charge?

You're going to get high run rolls on turn 1 for these front mobs, that will not block your mobs in the back from moving up to their full movement? You're going to have these models spaced out so that the templates mentioned aren't as good, and pull all this off?

And then even if you do get a good fleet roll, say 5 or 6, with one front mob, you're going to blow your load on the one shot Waaagh that you've got in order to hope you "roll high" enough to get to combat, or your entire advantage is gone.

No, the "run" isn't going to completely make the Boyz some unbeatable force. As it is now, you can take a horde of boyz, but now we use Shootas. This means all mobz can see through each other now to combine fire, this wont' happen in 5th.

By constantly running, your army is dedicated to CC, lacking lots of shooting. The troops blocking LOS is a boon to Tankbustas, but not so to Lootas.

And when your opponent doesn't deploy on the 24" line, but instead deploys further back, what do you do?

What do you do in Dawn of War missions where only 1 HQ and two troops go down to deploy and the rest come on via your own long table edge?

What about mobile opponents who will see your horde and run, run, run away?

You say Infiltrators will put Power Fists through rear armor? They come in on table SIDES, not the opponents long board edge.

Deploy centrally, and you're fine. Even if you have to go on a flank, there's a 33% chance that they won't come in on the side your tanks on. Even then, unless they can fleet, they're not hitting you with power fists. Meltas and the like might not be in half range if you deploy right, and you should be in cover, 4+ save cover now for your tanks.

And even with that, people take deepstrikers and other throw away squads to deal with stuff like that now (Suicide Command Squads, etc). How is the fact that now they have to deepstrike into difficult terrain and the fact that they need to get close to use their guns in the first place, or the fact that you can "Screen" the vehicles with troops to prevent Meltas from getting in good position to work right. or the fact that now the vehicles they've always been targeting get a cover save?

I guess my point here is that it's not going to be the be-all-end-all list in 5th to just take masses of Boyz on foot and hope to win.

Sure it'll dominate "balanced" armies, because it's an extreme list. But if your army has the tools to take it out (like say multi-Monolith toting Necrons, IG, Tau, Whirlwind Marines), then you will lose. Or you will play a Dawn of War mission, and still lose.

I'd gladly debate a lot of these points with you, but as someone who is trying to think of the "ultimate 5th Ed Ork list", I'm seeing problems running the army against a lot of arch types that will likely show up.

People, did you all miss the part where 2/3 of the missions are decided by who's got the better troups able to hold some alpha level objective?

The old adage of 'who cares what the objective is if you can just kill all the other guy's models' is going to be turned on it's head. You will simply have to have alot of good troops units to win. So guard, orks, dark angels, eldar jetbike armies, etc will be at a huge advantage.

I don't feel like getting in a long drawn out debate tonight, so I'll just say this, you can respond, and that'll be it.

Orks pick up several new toys in 5th that make them much scarier than they are right now. Yes I do feel they should go the dedicated CC route because it forces so many nasty problems that are not easily dealt with. Kommandos appearing on flanks mean your opponents deploy zone is shrunk down considerably. (especially for the important, squishy stuff - means less fire lanes for them) Grot screens are back with a vengeance. (except now they get a 5+ invulnerable save) This is on top of the already extremely powerful Lootas, Stormboyz, and basic Orks. And Orks still have no trouble fielding 130+ models at 1500 points, a very large chunk of which are scoring. Meanwhile nothing that your opponent has that can realistically take on that many Orks is.

If they charge, Slugga Boyz should, on average move 24" in 2 turns. (6" move+D6 run+6" move+D6 run+6" charge, assuming that 2D6 average out to 6") That means they should always be in assault on turn 3, and have solid chances of being there on turn 2. If your worried about them stepping on each others toes, just lead with the stormboyz. If they die, then they did there job anyway of shutting down enemy firepower until your mobs can dogpile them. (granted its not the best outcome, but trying to go through that many stormboyz gimes me headaches just thinking about it)

On top of that, Orks greatest enemy, mobile firepower lists, are effectively dead in 5th. Move and shoot vehicles are gone. And basically every mechanized list is going with it. Lists are forced to become vastly more focused on basic troops, something else that plays right into Orks hands.

I have no idea why you think ordinance is going to be that much of a deterrent. They have to concentrate them in the dead middle of the field or flanking reserves will eat them for breakfast. They still scatter, you still get a 5+ invulnerable save, and basic spacing tactics make it difficult to ever get more than a few models a shot. Plus now you hit the rear armor in CC. (which almost guarantees you will knock it out the turn you charge it)

Just as holofields were overpowered before them. Six point Orks are under costed, and they are only getting stronger in 5th.

You just admitted they need 3 turns to get into melee.

If I'm on the other side of the table, I don't need to move and shoot. All I need to do is stand and shoot for 3 turns and waste away the entire ork front line preventing them from getting to me by turn 3.

Ordinance is a GREAT deterent. 9 whirlwhind or lemun russ strikes in 3 turns alone will put HUGE holes in your advancing ork line. 30 ork mobs are going to have to maintain coherency and fit betwwen interveening terrain. 180 Ork boyz marching across the board means ordinance practcally can't miss.

Your huge Ork front line also blocks line of sight for your army, so your stuck moving models forward for 3 rounds while they have 3 rounds to use them for target practice.

Will huge mobs of cheap troops help you hold objectives ? Possibly, but it's not just ork who have cheap troops. Aside from marine armies, everyone has some sort of cheap troops choice.

6pt Ork boyz SUCK at shooting. For some reason you keep ignoring that fact like it doesn't matter. Shooting is HALF the combat in 40K, just because you want to run them into melee and ignore shooting, doesn't mean it shouldn't get factored into their cost.

Dark Eldar WS4 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I5 A1 LD8 SV 5+ 8PTS
Eldar WS3 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I4 A1 LD8 SV 5+ 8PTS
Termigaunt WS3 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I4 A1 LD5 SV 6+ 7PTS
All can Fleet EVERY turn

ork boyz WS4 BS2 S3 T4 W1 I2 A2 LD 7 SV 6+ 6PTS
Can Fleet once per game and not in the 1st turn

WS on par with DE
BS 33% accuracy verses the 50-67%
S same
T top of heap. Making S3 weapons 17% less effective and not meaning much to anything S4 or higher
W1 same
I2 slow as mollases, drawback in HTH
A2 where orks shine, extra roll is great
LD meh
SV useless against anything with AP(damn near everything), and only a 17% success rate if youget to use it

So for a 2pt difference Orks suck at shooting, have inferior armor, and go last, but are slightly tougher, against lasguns mostly, and get an extra melee attack if they survive long enough to use it.

Seems about right to me.

Incidently, I haven't finished my 5th Ork army list, but I imagine it will have 45 Lootas and 9 Lobbas.

Sure it's 900pts, 180 points less than 180 ork boyz with Zero upgrades. who isn't going to take the 6 nobs with PK @35pts each, so thats another 210pts right there

900 pts but it's 45 to 135 S7 AP4 shots that wound troops on a 2+ and 9 S5 AP5 Blast Markers I can shoot from my deployment zone. I'm pretty sure that will be enough to deal with those pesky lightly armored troop choices.

I might even have a few points left over to buy some troop choices of my own to claim objectives after the smoke clears

45 Shots BS2 means 15 should hit, 12 should wound
.33 accuracy times .83 damage rate = .27 effectiveness
D3 shots per loota @45 llotas = 90 sots per turn
90 sots per turn translates to about 24 dead boyz per turn

180 boyz - 72 caualties over 3 turns = 108
40% casualties in 3 turns

9 Lobbas, assuming 4 hits per template, at S5 vs T4
36 hits, wounding on a 3+= 18 casualties per turn

24 Deffgun casualties + 18 Lobba casualties = 42 Dead boyz per turn

42 boyz per turn x 3 turns = 126 dead boyz

180 boyz - 126 dead = 54 remaining boyz

Sure this all in a vacuum, but at least it's a vacuum that remembers that the game actually has a shooting phase.

Incindently the Lootas and Lobbas are 390 Points cheaper than the footsloggers.

I could use those points to buy 2 squads of boyz of my own to fill out the Force chart requirements, screen my lobbas, and hold objectives (1 of the 2 objective type missions is take and hold, where you need to hold an objective in your own deployment zone. ) 6 Big Shootas, 18 shots, 6 hit, 3 wound, no saves = 3 more casualties per turn, 9 over 3 turns....

45 remaining footsloggers
VS.
60 Foot Sloggers
45 Lootas
18 Gretchen

MY POINT IS, ORKS, THE SUCKIEST OF ALL SHOOTING ARMIES, CAN DESTROY 180 ORK TYPE ARMIES, FROM THEIR DEPLOYMENT ZONE.

Now is someone going to explain to me how Footsloggin orks are going to unfairly dominate 5th Edition again, with a straight face, and an explanation that doesn't involve wishfull thinking and fairy dust ?

IntoTheRain wrote:I don't feel like getting in a long drawn out debate tonight, so I'll just say this, you can respond, and that'll be it.

Orks pick up several new toys in 5th that make them much scarier than they are right now. Yes I do feel they should go the dedicated CC route because it forces so many nasty problems that are not easily dealt with. Kommandos appearing on flanks mean your opponents deploy zone is shrunk down considerably. (especially for the important, squishy stuff - means less fire lanes for them) Grot screens are back with a vengeance. (except now they get a 5+ invulnerable save) This is on top of the already extremely powerful Lootas, Stormboyz, and basic Orks. And Orks still have no trouble fielding 130+ models at 1500 points, a very large chunk of which are scoring. Meanwhile nothing that your opponent has that can realistically take on that many Orks is.

Lootas value is drastically diminished due to the screening rules. Arguably, Tankbustas are much better than them now.

The utility of Storm Boyz is questionable now, since Sluggas do get the run move, but they may have their uses with a Screen.

And Grot Screens are still useless. 30 Grots buys me 20 Boyz. They're LD7 and T2. They have no mob size rules for their models, they get enough casualties, and they run away. They're still useless from what I can see as someone who plans on making Orks as competitive as I can.

And I've pointed out a number of army lists that will easily be able to take on the Orks.

Do you think that Mech Tau are now going to just go away all of a sudden? 3 Railheads are now much tougher for Orks to deal with at range. Especially if the Orks are relying on Lootas, who can only glance the front of the Hammerhead. Those blasts are more devastating now, and don't miss - just scatter. Placed right, they will always inflict good amounts of casualties. Remember the center of the template does not have to be centered over a model any more. That's a big deal and will net you more Orks, max coherency or not.

Given your suggestion of all CC, the Ork shooting is going to be minimal at best, the suits can run around at max range, in the open practically, and keep dancing around you while firing.

Firewarriors in Devilfish will still be around, they can move 6 and fire all guns, or move 12 and fire just the SMS. They're harder to kill. Fish of Fury may be dead, but coordinated fire should see the Firewarriors work out just fine. Heck some static squads (to capture your own objectives) in cover with Markerlights should do wonders (remove cover saves for one). Deploy them far out and where the Orks have to go (your own objective) and you can concentrate and eliminate the Orks. Due to the KFF rules, the "Horde" is tied together in one spot, so if they "break off" to try and engage the outlying units, they will lose their cover saves.

And then there are the 3 Whirlwind armies, 3 Pie Plate IG with lots of pill box's (Chimera's) and troops. Use deepstrikers or light infantry to score objectives.

Eldar with 3 Fire Prisms, jetbikes to score on other objectives, Dire Avengers on their own objectives, in cover, they can do well. You just need to play right and force the horde to deal with threats from multiple directions. If the horde can't keep steam rolling one direction with all the numbers, they fall apart since one squad generally can get wiped out, and once it's below that magic 9 models, you start to see them as likely to break.

If they charge, Slugga Boyz should, on average move 24" in 2 turns. (6" move+D6 run+6" move+D6 run+6" charge, assuming that 2D6 average out to 6") That means they should always be in assault on turn 3, and have solid chances of being there on turn 2. If your worried about them stepping on each others toes, just lead with the stormboyz. If they die, then they did there job anyway of shutting down enemy firepower until your mobs can dogpile them. (granted its not the best outcome, but trying to go through that many stormboyz gimes me headaches just thinking about it)

They WILL get on each others toes. All it takes is one mob up front to flub their Run roll and all that crap you've got behind them, trying to stay at max coherency to avoid templates, just got screwed.

You want Storm Boyz? They're good no doubt, better with screens (except against indirect fire), but they cost twice as much as a normal Boy and don't score. Max size of 20 and with counter charge they will go down.

On top of that, Orks greatest enemy, mobile firepower lists, are effectively dead in 5th. Move and shoot vehicles are gone. And basically every mechanized list is going with it. Lists are forced to become vastly more focused on basic troops, something else that plays right into Orks hands.

See above what I said about the Tau. Many units still move and fire to full effect, maybe not as fast, but they still do. Many tanks can move and fire big pie plates still, which are now the #1 weapon to deal with hordes of low armor troops.

I have no idea why you think ordinance is going to be that much of a deterrent. They have to concentrate them in the dead middle of the field or flanking reserves will eat them for breakfast. They still scatter, you still get a 5+ invulnerable save, and basic spacing tactics make it difficult to ever get more than a few models a shot. Plus now you hit the rear armor in CC. (which almost guarantees you will knock it out the turn you charge it)

You need to re-read the rules.

That whole "all CC attacks hit the rear armor" is false.

You scatter, so what? You can see the front mob, that mob is going to be huge. You can place the template so the center isn't over a model, have it clip a ton, and be far enough back of this giant horde you fear so much that no matter which direction it scatters, there will be a lot of Orks under it.

And you focus on the Orks best case scenario. What about when I have to deploy 130+ models in a Table Quarter instead of the long table edge? What about when I can only place 2 Troops and then the rest of my "horde" comes in from my LONG TABLE EDGE?

You say I always get a 5+ Inv save? Focus on the unit that now has to hold the Big Mek to get that save. Kill enough models to make them run and watch him go with them.

Just as holofields were overpowered before them. Six point Orks are under costed, and they are only getting stronger in 5th.

The problem with Orks, IG, and all other horde style troops is that they either completely suck or are too good. Add a point and they start to be outclassed by MEQ's, like they were BEFORE the new Codex. Even now, before we heard anything about 5th ed, people loved Ork hordes because of Shoota Boyz, who can engage the enemy on turn 2, and are still a CC threat.

Now the Orks block their own firing lanes, and as you've said, Sluggas become an attractive choice, but one that brings limitations of not being able to really hurt the enemy unless you're in combat with it. This is a big deal since you know, stuff can run away from YOU now too, and you've only got one Fleet move to make it count.

I'm not saying Orks aren't going to be top tier. They're going to be one of the strongest lists in the game, but unlike Nidzilla and Mech Eldar before them, they have real foils. And these foils aren't all that uncommon, and will likely become more common as Orks get more popular or as people just adjust to 5th ed's rules.

The thing that will make Orks very good in 5th is that if an army doesn't account for facing them at all and doesn't take the right weapons, they will lose. Unable to cope with that many models.

But if you plan accordingly, they're not that hard to beat.

Lootas value is drastically diminished due to the screening rules. Arguably, Tankbustas are much better than them now.

I disagre about this point

Lootas are BS2 48" D3 S7 AP4 hits while Tankbustas are BS2 24" S8 AP3 Single hit, and they cost the same.
Average of a D3 is 2, BS2 hits 33% of the time, and S7&8 wound most things 2+ (83%)

Sooo,
10 Tankbustas hit 3 times and wound 2
10 Lootas hit 7 times and wound 5

Against marines, with 3+ saves, the lootas are half as effective as they were, bringing them down to Tankbusta levels.

At an additional cost Tank Bustas have Alqueda squigs, but also have the insufferable Glory Hogs rule.
Squigs are 83% accurate, +5 points each, max of 3, single shot and usable only against vehicles within 18"

As for the screening rules making the difference, I'll just shoot the screen

Polonius wrote:

I think it had more to do with better options appearing than whirlwinds getting worse. Destructors become awesome for only 25 points more, and could claim objectives. Units couldn't be screened, so you can shoot anything you can see, eliminating 20-30% of the value to indirect fire. AS vehicles in general become more common, the usefulness of 4 ML devestators increased.

For more or less the same reasons, we'll see the return of WW. Preds can't move and shoot to any effect. Devastators can't shoot through any friendly or enemy units, so they're less good outside of sheer anti-tank, and las-plas are still the best at that. Just theoryhammer, of course, but it doesn't take much of a boost for make a unit a slightly better choice, and then copycat syndrome kicks in.

Hmmm...will the much-impugned IG Mortar squads be worth their points now, with indirect more important and templates hitting everything touched? Krieg Heavy Mortars and Thudd Guns will be awesome...

Even the humble grenade launcher might not be a bad deal now: 4 move-and-shoot 24" range small blasts against Orks or horde Nids could be worthwhile...

adamsouza wrote:

Lootas value is drastically diminished due to the screening rules. Arguably, Tankbustas are much better than them now.

I disagre about this point

Lootas are BS2 48" D3 S7 AP4 hits while Tankbustas are BS2 24" S8 AP3 Single hit, and they cost the same.
Average of a D3 is 2, BS2 hits 33% of the time, and S7&8 wound most things 2+ (83%)

Sooo,
10 Tankbustas hit 3 times and wound 2
10 Lootas hit 7 times and wound 5

Against marines, with 3+ saves, the lootas are half as effective as they were, bringing them down to Tankbusta levels.

At an additional cost Tank Bustas have Alqueda squigs, but also have the insufferable Glory Hogs rule.
Squigs are 83% accurate, +5 points each, max of 3, single shot and usable only against vehicles within 18"

As for the screening rules making the difference, I'll just shoot the screen

I'm thinking about it in terms of damaging vehilces, not so much against MEQ's. Lootas are great, but now they work under the premise of "Death By Glances", which really isn't so much of a good idea anymore. Against stuff like Hammerheads, the Tankbustas can Penetrate, Lootas can't.

It's a bit of a toss up, the Orks are going to have a lot more anti-tank problems in the new edition than they do right now in 4th.

My mindset is always tends to revolve around how to defeat MEQ armies.

Your right about the tankbustas being better against vehicles. S8, Alqueda squigs, and Tankhammas make the superior choice when dealing with tough to crack vehicles.

Lootas are just better against everything else. I'd still take Lootas, and rely on the rest of my army to deal with such threats.

That's just my style of play though.

If you look at the vehicle damage rules in the 5th edition pdf going around you'll notice that vehicles can be destroyed solely by glancing hits.

All open-topped vehicles have a chance of being destroyed with every glancing hit. Ordinary vehicles have a chance of being destroyed by glancing hits from AP1 weapons. All vehicles can be destroyed by cumulative Damage such as Weapon Destroyed and Immobilized results. As such have extra weapons like sponsons and whatnot will have a defensive function.

A Leman Russ with a Battlecannon, Heavy Stubber, Lascannon, and two Heavy Bolters can be Destroyed: Wrecked after 7 glancing hits (minimum). One glancing hit for each weapon and one extra to immobilize it.

Voodoo: What do you think of the trukk horde in the new edition? 6 mobs of trukks are mobile and cheap scoring units that can pounce on any threat, and pack decent antitank if you kit them properly.
I'm using it currently and winning all my games without much difficulty, possibly because people haven't learnt how to deal with it properly. It seems to do better than the foot horde, though I'll admit I made mistakes when playing that.
In 5th they seem to take a slight hit in speed, but I think overall they remain effective.

Nurglitch: True, it is possible, but more difficult than it was.
Not a bad thing really, it's good to have some tactical challenges.

I just have to say that 1) I really liked beef's first post on the thread. If people wanted a better 40k, they would stop playing the existing one. Corporations only ever react to market pressure. 2) the comments on DE and unsupported lists paralel my feelings on the whole game and business plan. (gakky and verging on sleazy respectively - frankly dope dealers have more respect for their customers than GW) Like Nuglitch says, it's not like they technically promise anything besides pieces of paper and lumps of plastic, and no-one is forced to use the product at any time. Whether or not 5th makes 40k better or worse frankly doesn't bother me at all because Yahtzee is easier to set up and involves just as many tactics. Just my $0.02.

Some of us HAVE stopped playing 40k. I like being able
to model in plastic, but I spend more of my money on
other games.

wight_widow wrote: Like Nuglitch says, it's not like they technically promise anything besides pieces of paper and lumps of plastic,

Err. no. They promise a game.

E.g.

http://uk.games-workshop.com/warhammer/ wrote:you can re-enact exciting battles on the table top, fighting your opponents' armies to see who is the greatest general

That's more than just pieces of paper and lumps of plastic.

You're saying that when you go to the movie theatre all the theatre promises you is a seat to sit in for an hour and a half. That's missing the point. If the theatre didn't show a movie you'd be entitled to your money back, and you'd certainly have cause to complain if GW's products didn't enable you to re-enact exciting battles on the table top, fighting your opponents' armies to see who is the greatest general.

@Asmodai: well did they promise a GOOD game? or a game that anyone over the age of 12 would enjoy? (no disrespect to any of our younger posters, but I'm sure you all know precisely what I'm talking about) did they promise a game with replay value, or that the piece you bought for a hundred dollars when it was broken wouldn't be nerfed in the next edition? or that they wouldn't nerf your whole army in an attempt to get you to buy another one? (here's to you, stealer shock players) It doesn't matter, legally and ethically, whether you FEEL ripped off - if they didn't ACTUALLY rip you off, that's life in the big city. Ditto the theater. If I paid to see,ooh, I dunno, Waterworld, or Electra in the theatre I might FEEL ripped off. But a movie was promised and a movie shown, and having paid my ticket I can't very well go and demand a refund on my time for having my life wasted with (obscenity).

If you don't like it don't play. The good parts of the GW product are the sculpts and (for those who like pulp SF*/80s metal culture) the fluff. The only way they'll get the message is when they don't sell rulebooks and Codices any more. A poster here (whose ID I cannot reccolect) summed it up nicely: the best way to make 40k better is to play War Machine. Alternatively, take HBMC's route (again no disrespect intended) and throw out anything you disagree with when playing in house - 28mm SF games are very fun when you don't actually use GW's rules.

Trying to get GW to listen to us humble consumers and potential customers while continuing to make use of the products about which we complain is a dead end. According to basic + business logic, if a customer buys a product, they must have wanted it. If people truly did not like GW games, they would not play them. Hence, either a whole bunch of people have been hypnotized into wasting their money, or lots of people ENJOY (poor) games. If you don't like (poor) games, don't play 40k.

Frankly, even the argument that they're good for the younger demographic isn't all that great, now that Hasbro affiliates are starting to push the prepainted stuff. Wargaming will get its new recruits with or without GW, from the products of other corporations or from the grassroots. We've been around as a hobby at least since H.G. Wells wrote Little Wars, and we'll be around as a hobby long after GW's investors have yanked their money in search of greener pastures. The one thing we can't do is let a bunch of accountants and (sexual profanity implied) artists wreck our space for fun, 'cause these are OUR games, not THEIRS. They just happen to make things that we might buy.

* another acknowledgement I really ought to make - that's not my choice of words. I want to credit Nurglitch but it may have been beef - I really can't recall.
+ some might say skewed, but whichever it is it's the variety used by GW

wight_widow wrote:did they promise a GOOD game?

a game that anyone over the age of 12 would enjoy?

If you don't like it don't play.

either a whole bunch of people have been hypnotized into wasting their money, or lots of people ENJOY (poor) games.

these are OUR games, not THEIRS. They just happen to make things that we might buy.

They promised as good of a game as possible, and by most measures, they generally deliver.

There seem to be an awful lot of 13-and-overs out there...

If you don't like it, don't let the door hit ya...

Or a whole bunch of people enjoy a good game that only a vocal handful dislike.

If they're OUR games, who actually owns the Copyright and IP?

Seriously, if you don't like 40k's rules, it's a free country. Create your own game with your own ruleset. HMBC and his team have been at it for a year. If you do better, please do so. Privateer demonstrated that there is room for more than one strong player, coming out of nowhere. So go for it!