More 5th Ed. rumors from Bell of Lost Souls.

Depressingly, it looks like the .pdf was closer than we thought, including the terribly-exploitable casualty removal rules. On the good side, it looks like the USR have gotten better.

Hi all, well it looks like the rumor floodgates are opening. Here are today's tidbits regarding the upcoming book. These come to BoLS from a little bird who has taken a gander at the final product.

Charge Response Move: The response move is exactly the same as the countercharge rule. Every unit gets it, but models that already have Countercharge (like Space Wolves) gain +1 Attack as if they had charged themselves.

Relentless USR: This applies mainly to bikes and terminators. You may move and fire heavy weapons and fire to full effect with rapid fire weapons and still charge.

Hit and Run USR: This is similar to the current rule but now you have to pass an initiative test to perform it.

Vehicles: Vehicle rules are apparantly identical to the leaked codex

"No-Argument" cover saves: Your opponent says what they think it is; if you disagree they still gets the cover save but with a –1 ~That's and interesting new concept for GW to throw into a ruleset.

Wound Allocation: This is performed per model (similar to Flames of War) exactly as listed in the leaked PDF. This can lead to the loss of key models within a unit.

No Retreat: Saves are limited to the amount of wounds caused (if you outnumber a fearless opponent 4:1 and you won the combat but only caused 1 wound you cause only an additional 1 wound; if you win and cause 5 wounds you only cause 4 wounds as your limited by how much you outnumber your opponent.)

Missions: Troops are the only scoring units but they count as scoring till the last man. They must be destroyed entirely to remove their scoring status.

There are 3 different deployment zones (Quarters, Deep and Shallow Long table Edges) and 3 different objectives (VPs, Take and Hold, Loot) means that there are 9 types of missions

~Its sounding like that leaked pdf was a lot closer to the final product than many initially thought. Its also interesting to see that they are formalizing certain common items of dispute that happen in games to keep things moving along (similar to Flames of War's very clean dispute rules).

"No-Argument" cover saves: Your opponent says what they think it is; if you disagree they still gets the cover save but with a –1 ~That's and interesting new concept for GW to throw into a ruleset.

Looks like a free pass for that guy to have an auto markerlight every turn!

stonefox wrote:

"No-Argument" cover saves: Your opponent says what they think it is; if you disagree they still gets the cover save but with a –1 ~That's and interesting new concept for GW to throw into a ruleset.

Looks like a free pass for that guy to have an auto markerlight every turn!

This is going to make that guy a serious spoiler at tourneys, too. I hope good tourneys remove such rules, or allow for judge overrides when someone is being a toolbox. In firendlies, this wil be fine as always. In competition, this rule is going to have precisely the _opposite_ effect of what it was intended to do, making things way more contentious.

looks like by that wording that Bikes lose their 24" bolter shots when they are on the move. Boo :(.

I think I would house rule that one. I just like bikes too much. Nice way to give chaos termies that boost.

I think the cover save thing is for tournaments. I always get people to agree on all cover beforehand, I didn't realize it was an issue.

"No-Argument" cover saves: Your opponent says what they think it is; if you disagree they still gets the cover save but with a –1 ~That's and interesting new concept for GW to throw into a ruleset.

Why don't they call it roll a D6 Mk II?

No Retreat: Saves are limited to the amount of wounds caused (if you outnumber a fearless opponent 4:1 and you won the combat but only caused 1 wound you cause only an additional 1 wound; if you win and cause 5 wounds you only cause 4 wounds as your limited by how much you outnumber your opponent.)

It seems like there are 2 or 3 rules mish mashed in here.

Okay, so what reason is there to play IG anymore? They have next to no ability to take objectives, their tanks all got worse, and they already were the weakest codex?

Thanks a lot, GW, I was worried I was in danger of actually winning a game one of these days. Crisis bloody averted.

Tacobake wrote:looks like by that wording that Bikes lose their 24" bolter shots when they are on the move. Boo :(.

I think I would house rule that one. I just like bikes too much. Nice way to give chaos termies that boost.

I read "full effect" for rapid fire weapons as:

If your within 24", you can fire once
If your within 12", you can fire twice
You can charge regardless of if you fired or not. Normal assault rules apply, i.e. you must charge the unit you shot at.

That one with the cover saves is dumb, One could just disagree each time and thus reduce it everytime.

Hit and Run makes me feel stupid for the money i just wasted on my deffkoptas, they have I2.

I understand where troops being the only scoring units is going. WIll make horde IG and orks a LOT stronger. especially orks.

Agamemnon: Actually, their tanks got better with the cover saves and new blast rules. And all of their troops are scoring units to the last man.

What exactly made them worse?

Cover Saves: I'm sure as long as you go over in advance with your opponent what each cover save is (which you are supposed to do anyways) I don't think it'll be that bad. Plus, in the pdf they had better defined cover anyways: Can't see through it but can shoot through it (hedge): 5+; Can't see through it and likely to stop bullets: 4+; Totally enclosed: 3+. It'll be pretty easy to figure out what a terrain's save should be.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Savnock wrote:Vehicles: Vehicle rules are apparantly identical to the leaked codex

Strike 1

Savnock wrote:Wound Allocation: This is performed per model (similar to Flames of War) exactly as listed in the leaked PDF. This can lead to the loss of key models within a unit.

Strike 2

Savnock wrote:Missions: Troops are the only scoring units but they count as scoring till the last man. They must be destroyed entirely to remove their scoring status.

Strike 3

Warhammer 40K has officially moved to a model collecting hobby for me and is no longer what I will consider it a game worth playing. My army has been nerfed into oblivion, the rules are continually dumbed down and they don't support their products post release. Good thing Warmachine is releasing Legends this summer.

Back in 2nd edition, there were plenty of times you and your opponent would agree that -- for instance -- a model behind hard cover should be -1 to hit instead of -2 since only a small portion of the model was behind said cover. I immediately thought of this when I read the rumor. It does look like a nod to tourney play, at least.

Ozymandias wrote:Actually, their tanks got better with the cover saves and new blast rules. And all of their troops are scoring units to the last man.

Being scoring units to the last man is hardly a major boon on a unit with T3 and a 5+ save. The moment they leave cover to advance, they are decimated.

With the exception of the "no argument" rule which I also feel is totally unnecessary, the rules look fine.

At this moment it's total exaggerated to quit or whine about their army being "nerfed", though.

I think countercharge will be a bit more popular in 5th

Greets
Schepp himself

I have a 1+ cover save.... what you don't think so? Ok 2+ cover save it is.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Actually, their tanks got better with the cover saves and new blast rules. And all of their troops are scoring units to the last man.

Being scoring units to the last man is hardly a major boon on a unit with T3 and a 5+ save. The moment they leave cover to advance, they are decimated.

Then you'd better keep your 200+ 6 point models safe in cover until you're ready to take the objective. Throwing them into bullets is just asking to lose. This isn't world war 1 you know

200+? I was actually hoping to field less grunts in the future, not more. I think I have about 100 in 1750 pts right now, though I never play games that size.

IG infantry squads are the least fun units in the game. No fun to build, tedious to paint, useless on the tabletop and now they're expected to be on the move and take objectives, negating their capability to take heavy weapons

Agamemnon2 wrote:IG infantry squads are the least fun units in the game. No fun to build, tedious to paint, useless on the tabletop and now they're expected to be on the move and take objectives, negating their capability to take heavy weapons

Guard has to move and take more than the complusory troops choices; oh noez.

Welcome to the life of every other army

If every other army had Troops choices that were a minimum of 25 men strong, you'd have grounds to compain.

Every other armies compulsary troop choices don't require you paint a minimum of 50 models and spend nearly half your armies points.

Unless you take any of the other Troops choices, including Conscripts, although they're still 20 model minimum, Armoured Fist Squads, which are 10 model, or *Gasp* you could take Grenadiers!

Sure, everyone thinks they suck now. What about in 5th Edition? Model Troops choice, no Heavy Weapons...

Savnock wrote:

stonefox wrote:

"No-Argument" cover saves: Your opponent says what they think it is; if you disagree they still gets the cover save but with a –1 ~That's and interesting new concept for GW to throw into a ruleset.

Looks like a free pass for that guy to have an auto markerlight every turn!

This is going to make that guy a serious spoiler at tourneys, too. I hope good tourneys remove such rules, or allow for judge overrides when someone is being a toolbox. In firendlies, this wil be fine as always. In competition, this rule is going to have precisely the _opposite_ effect of what it was intended to do, making things way more contentious.

honestly its a non-issue even agianst "that guy", if he starts to argue every cover, start calling 2+ for everything, that way either you get 3+ for everything or he stops calling you on tree's and hedges giving you 5+.

The "No Argument" rule is unfortunately named.

It should be called "Always Argue."

Why would I ever agree with my opponent's choice for cover save when I recieve a bonus for disagreeing?

I don't understand why the "no argument" rule is any worse than 4th edition's "D6 it" rule. It's not like people argued every single point with you, and then insisted that you D6 it. Get a grip, people.

Savnock wrote:More 5th Ed. rumors from Bell of Lost Souls.

Depressingly, it looks like the .pdf was closer than we thought, including the terribly-exploitable casualty removal rules. On the good side, it looks like the USR have gotten better.



Wound Allocation: This is performed per model (similar to Flames of War) exactly as listed in the leaked PDF. This can lead to the loss of key models within a unit.

As a flames of war player as well, I honestly believe that this will improve 40k. I'm actually really excited about 5th edition

On second look, maybe you're right about the cover thing, PP. Agreement before the battle is the way most do it now, and this will just promote that.

Actually, I really most pissed about defensive weapons on vehicles being set at S4. This is going to completely nerf mobility for tanks and usher in the Pillbox Age, as others have noted. As an Eldar player, I knew I was going to get screwed on te S6 secondary weapons already. But killing the heavy bolters 9and burst cannons, bolt-on-big shootas, etc.) has just screwed pretty much _every_ army.


I'm going to reiterate something I said in the first wave of rumors, and do it more boldly:

If casualty removal, targeting changes and vehicle changes break the rules, "someone" should scan, fix, and distribute the rules.

Someone should scan the rulebook, fix all the stuff that sucks, and release a "Phantom Edit" on to the torrrents, via P2P and via sneakernet to every disgruntled 40K player. Piracy as punishment seems like a good way to send a message to GW about building better rules. Who wants a free, better version of the rules, with al the nice fluffy pictures preserved to boot?

Maybe I'm being hasty about this, but if after a good round of trials the rules still seem to promote immobile vehicles, horde troops with little heavy weapons fire, and dumb-as-rocks hand-to-hand rushes for objectives with little thought, I hope someone hoists the Jolly Roger right up GW's backside.

Arrrr.

There's enough "3rd edition" in these "5th edition" rumors to get we worried.

Should I be?

redstripe wrote:The "No Argument" rule is unfortunately named.

It should be called "Always Argue."

Why would I ever agree with my opponent's choice for cover save when I recieve a bonus for disagreeing?

Cause then you'd be a tool?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Centurian99 wrote:Every other armies compulsary troop choices don't require you paint a minimum of 50 models and spend nearly half your armies points.

Yeah. Most other armies also don't treat their troops as an obstacle slowing their progress to writing the tank part of their list. They y'know, put some thought and attention into the load and use of those little tiny meatsacks that take sooooooo long to paint and put on a table. If only there was some way to make an IG list where everyone could be in tanks. With the rest of your list being loaded in or starting as a tank as well. What a wonderful world that would be for the average IG player.

If only.

There's enough "3rd edition" in these "5th edition" rumors to get we worried.

Should I be?

I would be more worried if there was some "2nd edition" creeping in.

Savnock wrote:More 5th Ed. rumors from Bell of Lost Souls.

"No-Argument" cover saves: Your opponent says what they think it is; if you disagree they still gets the cover save but with a –1 ~That's and interesting new concept for GW to throw into a ruleset.

Wound Allocation: This is performed per model (similar to Flames of War) exactly as listed in the leaked PDF. This can lead to the loss of key models within a unit.

First one sounds bad unless you are VERY specific. Otherwise some retards always going to say, "No it isn't".

The 2nd one sounds great. I love this in FOW as you can get a lucky shot off. I like the randomness of it.

Yeah. Most other armies also don't treat their troops as an obstacle slowing their progress to writing the tank part of their list. They y'know, put some thought and attention into the load and use of those little tiny meatsacks that take sooooooo long to paint and put on a table.

Yes, because Eldar don't field three Falcons, Tau don't field three Hammerheads, SoBs don't field three Exorcists, and DE don't field three Ravagers.

The only races that don't spam tanks are the races that have no broken ones.

Savnock wrote:

Actually, I really most pissed about defensive weapons on vehicles being set at S4. This is going to completely nerf mobility for tanks and usher in the Pillbox Age, as others have noted. As an Eldar player, I knew I was going to get screwed on te S6 secondary weapons already. But killing the heavy bolters 9and burst cannons, bolt-on-big shootas, etc.) has just screwed pretty much _every_ army.

I don't disagree with you, but I think the potential 4+ cover save for vehicles will probably be just as much reason for the "Pillbox Age". I'll miss moving and shooting my HB with my Leman Russes, but if dug in properly, they will be an extremely tough nut to crack.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:

Yeah. Most other armies also don't treat their troops as an obstacle slowing their progress to writing the tank part of their list. They y'know, put some thought and attention into the load and use of those little tiny meatsacks that take sooooooo long to paint and put on a table.

Yes, because Eldar don't field three Falcons, Tau don't field three Hammerheads, SoBs don't field three Exorcists, and DE don't field three Ravagers.

The only races that don't spam tanks are the races that have no broken ones.

And yet all those races -still- make room for the troops part of their lists, instead of treating them as a handicap keeping them from getting -more- tanks (Which IG can already do better than any other race). Honestly if you needed your leman russ' to fly out and capture objectives because nothing else you had could do it you were doing something wrong. And hey, at least falcons don't score any more either.

All seems ok, apart from the 'No-Argument rule'.

ShumaGorath, you must play in a very Troops-friendly environment. Currently, the Tau and Eldar I know get their two compulsories and move on to the goodies in the Elites and FA slots. Let's not even talk about Nidzilla.

What I find most puzzling about your posts is that you're complaining about IG players' supposed disdain for Troops, yet in 4th, IG are really the most Troops-friendly list if you look at what decent players field. They only have one good thing in the Elites slot (droppingVets) and it takes up very few points. The FA slot has two good units that are also fairly cheap. The real work is done by line squads.

Frankly, I think I made a mistake making that crack about tri-Falcon/Hammerhead/etc because it made it seem like you had a point about IG players glossing over Troops in order to get to the armour. You don't. A decent IG list is all about Troops, and players know it. Ask anyone on the Tactics or Army Lists forum.

Frankly, I think I made a mistake making that crack about tri-Falcon/Hammerhead/etc because it made it seem like you had a point about IG players glossing over Troops in order to get to the armour. You don't. A decent IG list is all about Troops, and players know it. Ask anyone on the Tactics or Army Lists forum.

Odd then. Considering the point of my posts was to argue the fact that the IG were not duly hampered by the new infantry and objective taking rules and that the post I originally quoted was glossing over the troop possibilities of the army.

What I find most puzzling about your posts is that you're complaining about IG players' supposed disdain for Troops

No, I'm complaining about one IG players supposed disdain for troops. Who you then defended. Sorry for assuming that the position you held was the same as the one you were defending.

Wow, it looks like a lot of people here have missed the point of the "no argument" cover rule. The point isn't for one player to go "This is 4+ cover" while the second goes "No it's 6+" cover and have the rule come out to make it 4+ -1 = 5+. The rule is there because cover will be decided on a true line of sight basis. So if the unit being shot at is partialy obscured by something (based on a model's eye view), it gets cover. The rule was put in there becasue lots of arguments about line of sight and weather or not something should get cover arise under that system. The rule means that when one guy goes "I get cover because of this wall that's sort of in the way" and the second guy goes "It's totaly too far for you to get cover from it" then the answer is that the first guy gets 5+ cover instead of 4+ after 30 min of argument. Now the down side is that if someone starts being a tool, everything starts getting the minus, but at least you can do it back if you feel it is necessary.

Phoenix wrote:Wow, it looks like a lot of people here have missed the point of the "no argument" cover rule. The point isn't for one player to go "This is 4+ cover" while the second goes "No it's 6+" cover and have the rule come out to make it 4+ -1 = 5+. The rule is there because cover will be decided on a true line of sight basis. So if the unit being shot at is partialy obscured by something (based on a model's eye view), it gets cover. The rule was put in there becasue lots of arguments about line of sight and weather or not something should get cover arise under that system. The rule means that when one guy goes "I get cover because of this wall that's sort of in the way" and the second guy goes "It's totaly too far for you to get cover from it" then the answer is that the first guy gets 5+ cover instead of 4+ after 30 min of argument. Now the down side is that if someone starts being a tool, everything starts getting the minus, but at least you can do it back if you feel it is necessary.

I'm glad you have more insight into the design studio than the rest of us.

Note to anyone who gets a look at the rules before publication: If you want to be Mr. Popular with your fellow nerds the world over, please please please flip to the LOS and cover/terrain rules first, and report them here.

Following what Pheonix points out (good point, too), we can still prevent most disputes by being clear about what terrain features provide what cover ("Rocks and hard stuff are a 4+, trees a 5+, this Mountain Dew can a 3+"). We may have to more specific when area terrain contains multiple elements, but it's the interpretation on a per-model basis that will require the eyeballing and possible dispute. The ol' laser pointer is going to become as vital to play as your dice, it looks like. A small pointer with a wire sticking out the back-end to align with a model's weapon will end these disputes more easily.

This is also going to bog gameplay down bigtime. For a system which has been gradually encouraging higher model counts ($ka-ching$), this move towards model-specific treatment of terrain is pretty dumb. I liked the abstractions of 4th, including Magic Cylinder Light. More judgement calls, more time for eyeballing every trooper, more time debating cover. Yuck. Rather than encouraging better use of mixed terrain, this is going to discourage building mixed terrain at all. Expect to see less mixed foliage/rocks and hard/soft cover or terrain with various heights of cover (rubble and walls, grass and trees) and more boring, single-item terrain.

Finally, can someone please point out to me how the new casualty removal rules are in any way better than Torrent of Fire was (other than probably not being hidden in a little clause with no index link)?

I don't see the problem with the so-called "No Arguments Rule". If it's debatable whether a model gets a cover save from a piece of terrain it gets that cover save -1. There doesn't seem like any room for argument there since which terrain provides what cover save is decided before round 1.

ShumaGorath, the posts you responded to merely pointed out that IG players already have to take lots of men and spend lots of points just to fill the compulsories. How do you get from there to the position which you claim Agamemnon and C99 hold?

Edit: And if you were just talking about one player's perspective, I don't see how the "most other armies" rubbish you posted was relevant.

The problem with IG and these rules is not relying upon one's Troops or not. IG do rely upon their troops. However, they rely upon their troops to either shoot at range or use heavy weapons, or both, to win. They also have to avoid CC to do well against MEQ or anything even remotely fighty. Necessary movement to close and capture objectives screws them in every way possible. Unless IG troops can get 2 special weapons under their new (doctrineless and probably much blander) codex, they're screwed.

Expect to see Conscripts in every competitive IG build. Being forced to take something in order to win bites real bad.

I hate to be such a Negative Nancy, but this does NOT look good. I really, really wanted (want) to like 5th. Oh well- at least Pathfinders will be getting better with rending, and my 25 Wraithguard may actually see the light of day.

Okay, so what reason is there to play IG anymore? They have next to no ability to take objectives, their tanks all got worse, and they already were the weakest codex?

Thanks a lot, GW, I was worried I was in danger of actually winning a game one of these days. Crisis bloody averted.

This implies that IG were seriously hampered by the change in rules.

Every other armies compulsary troop choices don't require you paint a minimum of 50 models and spend nearly half your armies points.

This is a gross overgeneralization of the plight of the IG trooper supporting the previous quote and implying that it also take a huge ammount of time to model and deploy said worthless troops.

Yeah. Most other armies also don't treat their troops as an obstacle slowing their progress to writing the tank part of their list. They y'know, put some thought and attention into the load and use of those little tiny meatsacks that take sooooooo long to paint and put on a table. If only there was some way to make an IG list where everyone could be in tanks. With the rest of your list being loaded in or starting as a tank as well. What a wonderful world that would be for the average IG player.

This was a post sarcastically debating the previous two, noting that most armies have to paint and model tiny little meatsacks and that there is an obvious recourse for IG players that don't like fielding things with a weapon skill.

Yes, because Eldar don't field three Falcons, Tau don't field three Hammerheads, SoBs don't field three Exorcists, and DE don't field three Ravagers.

This was a post that implied that the previous post was debating the usefulness of vehicles and insinuated that the majority of armies are just broken vehicles with some filler.

And yet all those races -still- make room for the troops part of their lists, instead of treating them as a handicap keeping them from getting -more- tanks (Which IG can already do better than any other race). Honestly if you needed your leman russ' to fly out and capture objectives because nothing else you had could do it you were doing something wrong. And hey, at least falcons don't score any more either.

This was a post that noted that most armies still manage to field some form of troops choice. And went on to note that if all one has to capture table quarters is semistationary guntanks then one is probably doing something wrong.

ShumaGorath, you must play in a very Troops-friendly environment. Currently, the Tau and Eldar I know get their two compulsories and move on to the goodies in the Elites and FA slots. Let's not even talk about Nidzilla.

What I find most puzzling about your posts is that you're complaining about IG players' supposed disdain for Troops, yet in 4th, IG are really the most Troops-friendly list if you look at what decent players field. They only have one good thing in the Elites slot (droppingVets) and it takes up very few points. The FA slot has two good units that are also fairly cheap. The real work is done by line squads.

Frankly, I think I made a mistake making that crack about tri-Falcon/Hammerhead/etc because it made it seem like you had a point about IG players glossing over Troops in order to get to the armour. You don't. A decent IG list is all about Troops, and players know it. Ask anyone on the Tactics or Army Lists forum.

This post oddly contradicted its previous sentiment then about faced to say that IG are a very troop friendly army. Which oddly enough starkly contrasts the two posts originally quoted.

Odd then. Considering the point of my posts was to argue the fact that the IG were not duly hampered by the new infantry and objective taking rules and that the post I originally quoted was glossing over the troop possibilities of the army.

This post attempted to clarify a previous posts meaning.

ShumaGorath, the posts you responded to merely pointed out that IG players already have to take lots of men and spend lots of points just to fill the compulsories. How do you get from there to the position which you claim Agamemnon and C99 hold?

This was a post arguing against the intent of the original several posts, signalling a gulf between the two debaters view of the original few posts.

Edit: And if you were just talking about one player's perspective, I don't see how the "most other armies" rubbish you posted was relevant.

This was something I did not see until just before hitting submit. However I will clarify.

Space marines are not tanks with filler.
IG are not tanks with filler.
Orks are not tanks with filler.
Dark eldar are not tanks with filler.
Tyranids are not tanks with filler (except nidzilla which is a single varient that is very popular in tourny play but hardly encompasses the majority of players)
Sisters of battle are not tanks with filler.
Chaos space marines are not tanks with filler.

Eldar can be tanks with filler.
Tau can be tanks with filler (Albeit more rarely than eldar)

So yeah. Most other armies.

The problem with IG and these rules is not relying upon one's Troops or not. IG do rely upon their troops. However, they rely upon their troops to either shoot at range or use heavy weapons, or both, to win. They also have to avoid CC to do well against MEQ or anything even remotely fighty. Necessary movement to close and capture objectives screws them in every way possible. Unless IG troops can get 2 special weapons under their new (doctrineless and probably much blander) codex, they're screwed.

I would expect to see more IG units in chimeras swooping in in the final turns to take objectives (which isn't a bad thing per se as the chimeras are more surviveable now). Honestly I see rules like these doing more to hurt armies like tyranids or orks who can not simply stop to sit on objectives with large hordes of troops. If those troops aren't moving into close combat they are going to get shot to ribbons The same also applies to mech eldar and equivalent armies which will have to have units able to redeploy onto objectives since the falcons can no longer do the job alone.

Something I've noticed that people seem to completely ignore about the whole secondary weapons being S4- in 5th edition is that there is a happy medium between a tank that sits there in cover and a tank that grinds long as combat speed: A tank that sits in cover and fires at full effect, and then relocates at full speed. It's called "shoot and scoot".

Nurglitch wrote:Something I've noticed that people seem to completely ignore about the whole secondary weapons being S4- in 5th edition is that there is a happy medium between a tank that sits there in cover and a tank that grinds long as combat speed: A tank that sits in cover and fires at full effect, and then relocates at full speed. It's called "shoot and scoot".

It was called 3rd edition. You know, back when no Leman Russ would ever have sponsons, no Falcon would take any gun upgrades, and no Chimera would ever move lest it give up half its firepower.

It will be interesting to see how GW handles the IG in 5th. At the moment, minimum troops requires 4 kill points of T3 humans (min-sized platoon + armored fist/conscripts). Either they'll completely ignore the problem with both the FAQ and the next version of the codex, or else they'll codify an exception to their brand-new rules (e.g., a whole platoon is one KP, instead of a per-unit thing). Neither scenario is particularly thrilling - I really hate GW's insistence of game design by breaking their basic rules with every new release.

Nurglitch wrote: It's called "shoot OR scoot".

Fixed your typo.

There is no "happy medium" anymore. It's either one or the other. The happy medium would be the ability to fire, say, heavy bolters on the move, even if it means giving up the survivability of sitting in pillbox position. You know, like in real life. Main cannon haven't been reliable on the move until modern targeting systems like those on the Abrams. Better to make that the penalty than not being able to fire machine guns, which are the weapon of choice for vehicles that fire on the move IRL.

Threads like this should be titled...

"All of the chicken-littles post here!"

Nurglitch wrote:Something I've noticed that people seem to completely ignore about the whole secondary weapons being S4- in 5th edition is that there is a happy medium between a tank that sits there in cover and a tank that grinds long as combat speed: A tank that sits in cover and fires at full effect, and then relocates at full speed. It's called "shoot and scoot".

Of course, to fully utilize the pillbox effect, your tank will want to be in cover. Scooting means dangerous terrain tests, and a full turn of not shooting much of anything (that's a bit high on the risk analysis). Unless they changed something to allow tanks to shoot BEFORE moving, then we're still talking paying a lot of points to sacrifice firepower for mobility. Now, I don't have the leaked pdf in front of me, but don't you still roll 2 dice to see if you get immobilized if you grind at full bore? That doesn't sound like a medium that makes much of us happy.

On the bright side, if I keep Falcons in the list, I save lots of points on upgrades--just really need holofields and good cover, now... pay for an EML and you've got tank busting power for not terrible price. Not terribly pleased about decreased efficiency of vypers, though.

I'm just glad I have warwalkers in spades... with fortune, guide, and cover, those guys are gonna be beasts.

I'll also hold judgement on the "no argument" rule; seems like a guy can be an utter twit, but we'll see.

Savnock wrote:The problem with IG and these rules is not relying upon one's Troops or not. IG do rely upon their troops. However, they rely upon their troops to either shoot at range or use heavy weapons, or both, to win. They also have to avoid CC to do well against MEQ or anything even remotely fighty. Necessary movement to close and capture objectives screws them in every way possible. Unless IG troops can get 2 special weapons under their new (doctrineless and probably much blander) codex, they're screwed.

Expect to see Conscripts in every competitive IG build. Being forced to take something in order to win bites real bad.

I hate to be such a Negative Nancy, but this does NOT look good. I really, really wanted (want) to like 5th. Oh well- at least Pathfinders will be getting better with rending, and my 25 Wraithguard may actually see the light of day.

You're forgetting that there are two ways to win the objective-game. On is by taking the objective. The other is by killing all you your opponent's Troops so they can't take the objective. One thing IG tanks are good at is killing infantry, you have to admit.

I'll also hold judgement on the "no argument" rule; seems like a guy can be an utter twit, but we'll see.

The mockup specifies the exact kinds of terain and what bonus' they actually give. It's a pretty comprehensive list. Even if you do run into "that guy" there won't really be much for him to dispute outside of situations that are actually somewhat contested. If he tries to say a wall is not a wall you could probably call over a judge to shoot him in the knee.

Not to take away from all the kvetching about tanks and troops and what not, but did I just read this part right?

Charge Response Move: The response move is exactly the same as the countercharge rule. Every unit gets it, but models that already have Countercharge (like Space Wolves) gain +1 Attack as if they had charged themselves.

So when you charge my mob of 30 Boyz, all of whom have shootas, and 2 Base attacks, I get to move all the unengaged models up to 6" in order to become engaged in the combat, and the whole "You remove casualties from elsewhere in the squad" thing is still true?

Wow.

"The Boyz are back in Town"

Yeah Voodoo, that's the take I get from the wording as well. That and run make horde orks even stronger. I see that as fair reward for painting them all up in the first place

It does really help with "charge sniping", and forces people to really get stuck in. I'm not sure if it's a great solution, but it is a solution.

I'm reserving judgement on the new rules until I've played with them for a while. Some stuff sounds terrible, but if I end up playing games that I enjoy, then I'm happy.

I'll start a 5th Edition kvetching thread in Dakka Discussions for people to get it out of their systems.

PP, killing _all_ the enemy troops is not going to be easy with the 4+ cover save for intervening units.

Other than the Defensive weapons rule change I like what I'm seeing so far.

IMHO the more GW borrow from the FOW game system the better 40K will become. FOW is a slick set of rules, if you haven't tried them you're missing out.

Savnock wrote:PP, killing _all_ the enemy troops is not going to be easy with the 4+ cover save for intervening units.

I was under the impression that you had to be able to see the enemy unit over the units in front of it just to be able to fire with the 4+ cover save. Are the new rumors such that you can shoot through any unit with the penalty a 4+ cover save?

Vehicles are just as the leaked PDF? So Defensive Weapons at S4 and below?

Well that's a great way to ensure that vehicles return back to their 'Main Battle Bunker' status of 3rd Ed. Well done Jervis. Great move there, making vehicles even less dynamic than they currently are, and that's quite a feat.

I started playing this game because I love 40K tanks - never mind the fact that when I started the only tanks were Rhinos and Land Raiders - but tanks in 40K have not been fun since 2nd Ed.

In 3rd Ed they were Main Battle Bunkers. If you moved 1" you suddenly couldn't fire your guns, meaning there was no point to moving. In 4th Ed they became glass hammers and, aside from Super-Falcons, were far to easy to kill. Now we get to 5th, and we can't move and shoot with Heavy Bolters or Burst Cannons... great.

Even if the other rules are improved, which they sound like they are, this one's a deal-breaker for me. Tanks should be moving and firing at different targets. Defensive weapons should be defensive, and be able to engage threats to the tank whilst the main gun fires at the tank's target. These rules won't allow that, so forget them...

BYE

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Not to take away from all the kvetching about tanks and troops and what not, but did I just read this part right?

Charge Response Move: The response move is exactly the same as the countercharge rule. Every unit gets it, but models that already have Countercharge (like Space Wolves) gain +1 Attack as if they had charged themselves.

So when you charge my mob of 30 Boyz, all of whom have shootas, and 2 Base attacks, I get to move all the unengaged models up to 6" in order to become engaged in the combat, and the whole "You remove casualties from elsewhere in the squad" thing is still true?

Wow.

"The Boyz are back in Town"

If I'm charging your 30 Boyz then I deserve it .

/Even Stealers would be a toss up with no kill zone

Nothing wrong with charging boyz. Beats letting them charge you. With a Land Raider full of Berzerkers so that they all get into engagement? Shweet.

davidson wrote:I have a 1+ cover save.... what you don't think so? Ok 2+ cover save it is.

Something like that.

I think that shrub grants me hard cover 3+ save.
You disagree ?
Fine, it's just a 4+ cover save.

I think that is how EVERY cover save discussion will go from now on.

Except, as has already been mentioned several times, cover saves will be established prior to play. Instead of arguing whether a model gets a cover save or not for being partial, the model simply gets the cover save -1.

Savnock wrote:PP, killing _all_ the enemy troops is not going to be easy with the 4+ cover save for intervening units.

Well, we'll have to see how it plays out "in the field," so to speak. I don't think that people will have an easy time screening units that they're trying to grab objectives with. Win conditions are going to be very different from what we're used to, and all armies will have to adapt. I can certainly understand your concerns about using the Guard in objective-based missions. It's not easy being T3 with a 5+ save.

Techboss wrote:

Tacobake wrote:looks like by that wording that Bikes lose their 24" bolter shots when they are on the move. Boo :(.

I think I would house rule that one. I just like bikes too much. Nice way to give chaos termies that boost.

I read "full effect" for rapid fire weapons as:

If your within 24", you can fire once
If your within 12", you can fire twice
You can charge regardless of if you fired or not. Normal assault rules apply, i.e. you must charge the unit you shot at.

You may move and fire heavy weapons and fire to full effect with rapid fire weapons and still charge.

I see that as being two sentences. You may move and fire heavy weapons ... and ... fire to full effect with rapid fire weapons and still charge.

meh. This isn't YMTC.

Tacobake wrote:

You may move and fire heavy weapons and fire to full effect with rapid fire weapons and still charge.

I see that as being two sentences. You may move and fire heavy weapons ... and ... fire to full effect with rapid fire weapons and still charge.

meh. This isn't YMTC.

Hmm. Although it could logically take either meaning, the lack of a comma after "move and fire heavy weapons" should be enough to convince most opponents that you can do either and still charge.

Iorek wrote:It does really help with "charge sniping", and forces people to really get stuck in. I'm not sure if it's a great solution, but it is a solution.

Well, that helps tame the Lash of Fzorgle a bit. Makes power fist sniping tougher.

Iorek wrote:
I'm reserving judgement on the new rules until I've played with them for a while. Some stuff sounds terrible, but if I end up playing games that I enjoy, then I'm happy.

I'll start a 5th Edition kvetching thread in Dakka Discussions for people to get it out of their systems.

I too will attempt to refrain from *insert Yiddish- or canine-derived verb here* too much until I get to at the very least read the rules. I'm not gonna hide how concerned I am about the tank rules, however. I'm happy with increased survivability, but I'm really hesitant to see (if it's true) how trading firepower for maneuverability helps anything, especially when it's relatively easy to shake/stun a vehicle and render it useless for at least a round.

Oh well, some of the stuff I've read I like. We'll see how things play out.

One thing that was mysteriously absent in the missions rumors: no Kill Points. It mentions VP's as one of the 3 mission objectives.

Another huge point that was not in the leaked PDF was the reaction move of the unit being assaulted. I think this will be another very drastic change. It's hard to say definitively its' impact on the game, but I can easily see a lot of 4th edition tactics getting snuffed.

Is the "you see one model, you can kill the whole unit" rule still in it? And if so, how does it affect the "who is in what cover" discussion?

Doesn't sound that complicated to me...honestly

Greets
Schepp himself

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

So when you charge my mob of 30 Boyz, all of whom have shootas, and 2 Base attacks, I get to move all the unengaged models up to 6" in order to become engaged in the combat, and the whole "You remove casualties from elsewhere in the squad" thing is still true?

Wow.

"The Boyz are back in Town"

Between this rule and the change in combat resolution it appears as though they're trying to make one round of combat be pretty decisive. That isn't necessarily a good thing for assault armies as you will now tend to plow through enemy units in a single round of combat and then be left open to enemy shooting.

Combine that with the fact that the rapid fire range of 12" will now affect the whole unit as long as one model is within 12" and I think that combat needs to be more brutal in order to keep the balance of power fair between shooting and assaulting armies.

Schepp himself wrote:Is the "you see one model, you can kill the whole unit" rule still in it? And if so, how does it affect the "who is in what cover" discussion?

Doesn't sound that complicated to me...honestly

Greets
Schepp himself

Yep, that rule is still in. Models out of LOS can be casualties, but they count as being behind cover.

Oh I certainly agree. One of the problems with the 5th Ed Rumors is that people see "Run" and LD Modifiers for Assault and start whining "This is the Assault Edition!" and they don't realize that Assault Armies Live and Breathe by the fact that they finish an enemy combat in their opponents turn. Because when you send your assault unit in, you sit and pray that there's someone left for you to massacre next turn so you're safe from shooting.

With revised rules for opponents breaking in the turn you do the assault and on all consolidation/massacre results being down to a D6 now, you are looking at assault units getting blasted after they hit a target.

Regarding the "no arguments" rule, it essentially codifies what a lot of us did during 2nd edition. If a model was in hard cover, but only something like 25% coverage, you agreed to a -1 mod instead of -2. That wasn't in the rules, but it was a common "best practice." I think that when it plays out, you'll see it isn't that bad.

I agree with Yak on CC. It'll be really important to plan and coordinate assaults. Not that you shouldn't be doing that now, mind you.

I'm still leery about their approach to wound allocation. I see what they're going for, but it takes what is currently a clean mechanic and makes it more complicated and somewhat counterintuitive.

Oh, and I happen to see a lot of 2nd edition touches (running, true LOS, etc.) in these rules.

I am a bit worried about about the defensive weapons be str4, while not really hurting my Leman russ tanks ( they were still set up for 3rd ie no sponsons and a las cannon on the front) my Chimera(s) are going to take a beating, i was very much enjoying rideing them forward and unloading with a multi-laser, heavy bolter, heavy stubber, now they get to sit back behind a hill unloading at 36 inchs pray no one blinks at them. I can only hope that when the IG codex gets re-done they drop the cost of them, 103 points for a transport with 12/10/10 even with all the weapons it too high.

My 2 preds in my blood angels were tri-lascannons set up from 3rd also so they just get better, though I have switched them to auto-cannon turrets to get the points cost down. Though my Baal takes a nasty hit from it since it can't roll forward and unload the two heavy bolters now. ( well actually it might depending on how the over charged engines work and fast vehicles)

I will be honest for the most part , Im kinda happy to see the return of bunkered tanks as it fits my play style a little better, basicly it makes silver rockets and golden bb less likely against 150ish point leman russ's and 125 point bassy's.

hopefully when the guard dex comes out, you can put the heavy stubbers in the sponsons and hull.
I really like the 5th edition rumors i can't wait until it is released.

As usual with the release of a new codex or ruleset we are going to (and have already) see lots of "QQ my army is nerfed because I have to change my list from what I always run" and "my army got nerfed, I'm not playing anymore."

I like to see it as a good thing, sort of a culling of the uninterested and unimaginative.

This is how cover saves in games for me are going to work from now on in tournaments.
1.) Go over each terrain piece and assign it a cover save with my opponent.
2.) Play game.
3.) If opponent decides to be a cheese monkey and argue something we agreed upon already. 0 sports, 0 comp.

Hooray

bigchris1313 wrote:

Tacobake wrote:

You may move and fire heavy weapons and fire to full effect with rapid fire weapons and still charge.

I see that as being two sentences. You may move and fire heavy weapons ... and ... fire to full effect with rapid fire weapons and still charge.

meh. This isn't YMTC.

Hmm. Although it could logically take either meaning, the lack of a comma after "move and fire heavy weapons" should be enough to convince most opponents that you can do either and still charge.

yeah you guys are right. Gives me a reason to finally paint up those chaos termies after all XD.

Now I have to choose between plasma and melta, unfortunately.

I'm frequently on the move with my line troops anyway, so that does not hinder my play style. Defensive weapons = s5 definately hurts, though.
IG are tough to play in objective missions, but think of it this way. They just got a lot better at objective missions, because everybody else got worse in that only troops are scoring.

So far, then, without knowing all of the new rumored rules I gave the IG one shaky thumbs up. Bring in the new codex, though, and we shall see.

Given the makeup of my army (non swarm/zilla nids) I'm probably going to have a much tougher time in games. Loosing the ability to have raveners take objectives is going to be a severe blow. All that can actually do so in my army now is my single genestealer squad, because y'know, they do that kind of thing.

Oh well, this is what you get for fielding 30 ripper swarms as your troops allotment (30 not 3) *starts painting some stupid termagants*.

I still think it's a change for the better.

Dakkaladd wrote:As usual with the release of a new codex or ruleset we are going to (and have already) see lots of "QQ my army is nerfed because I have to change my list from what I always run" and "my army got nerfed, I'm not playing anymore."

I like to see it as a good thing, sort of a culling of the uninterested and unimaginative.

Most of the worry in this thread is not army-specific, outside of the IG (who are the best case-in-point for discussion, and thus being used as an example by both those who play them and those who do not). It's a concern for balance between codices, and in the core rules. LOS on a single model allowing hits on whole units is a bad idea. So is model-by-model LOS. So is making whole units strike in combats, thus making Toughness far more important than Initiative in CC. Fast CC troops are going to get universally screwed by these rules. S4 defensive weapons on vehicles promote static vehicle play for everyone.

And as for "the uninterested and unimaginative", those who have created highly-converted armies or characterful counts-as units are often the ones who get screwed by rules/codex changes (LatD, Kroot Mercs, etc. etc.). These are hardly the "uninterested and unimaginative". Converters and heavily invested players should not get screwed by rules changes. GW uses rules changes to drive marketing, through planned obsolescence and rotating overpoweredness on purpose. It's a crappy thing to do, although you (Dakkaladd) are apparently so used to it that you don't know any better. A good outcome of the complaining here would be to find ways around this (making existing collections still work).

Finally, of course we're focusing on the problems. It's a freaking internet forum, where people go to point out difficult issues, argue about them, and occasionally collaborate on dealing with them. Perhaps if you stop belittling the worries of your fellow gamers and instead address the rules issues, you won't sound like such a smug little whelp in the future.

through planned obsolescence and rotating overpoweredness on purpose.

No, look to privateer press to see that. If games workshop was doing so they would have sold a lot more chaos spawn and possessed marines.

Finally, of course we're focusing on the problems. It's a freaking internet forum, where people go to point out difficult issues, argue about them, and occasionally collaborate on dealing with them. Perhaps if you stop belittling the worries of your fellow gamers and instead address the rules issues, you won't sound like such a smug little whelp in the future.

The arguments over the "no arguments" rule kinda shows that a lot of the people on this topic have used it as a soap box to QQ without actually understanding what it is they are QQing over. Not all of them of course there have been quite a few insightful meaninful posts, but most of those take the new rules with a grain of salt and realise that army compositions are going to change in the new addition. Which understandably leaves many to hang in the wind (myself included if you read my above post.

ShumaGorath wrote:

through planned obsolescence and rotating overpoweredness on purpose.

No, look to privateer press to see that. If games workshop was doing so they would have sold a lot more chaos spawn and possessed marines.

Just because they're not always good at it doesn't mean they don't do it.

Finally, of course we're focusing on the problems. It's a freaking internet forum, where people go to point out difficult issues, argue about them, and occasionally collaborate on dealing with them. Perhaps if you stop belittling the worries of your fellow gamers and instead address the rules issues, you won't sound like such a smug little whelp in the future.

The arguments over the "no arguments" rule kinda shows that a lot of the people on this topic have used it as a soap box to QQ without actually understanding what it is they are QQing over. Not all of them of course there have been quite a few insightful meaningful posts, but most of those take the new rules with a grain of salt and realize that army compositions are going to change in the new addition. Which understandably leaves many to hang in the wind (myself included if you read my above post.

My point is that pointing out QQing rather than contributing to discussion (as Dakkaladd does, crowing rather than contributing anything useful) is dumb. Accept kvetching as part of internet forum discussion, and move on to useful discussion. I rarely femaledog that much, but systemic problems with realistic LOS and casualty removal are serious concerns. Well, for those of us who take playing "war with mandolls" seriously.

Just because they're not always good at it doesn't mean they don't do it.

I don't see that many tankbustas, deffkoptas, or kommando's cruising around either. Nor has Huron Blackheart really been the bane of too many foes. Honestly the only somewhat overpowered new release I can remember are the eldar harlequins. Maybe lootas too. Neither of which are huge cash cows for GW. In fact the entire new demon codex is a bit weak by what I've seen, and that had tons of new model releases.

Just because new codexes and rulesets force people to buy new models occasionally doesn't mean they are intentionally depowering old models and overpowering new ones. When was the last falcon revision done?

Tyranids-
new carnifex model
new carnifex rules permitting the glory that are dakkafexes (mmm me loves me some dakkafexes).

I heard that in the next Tyranid codex they are going to make Dakkafex's Troops! Really! Tyranid players need that extra edge so, you know...



Ozymandias, King of Kings

jfrazell wrote:Tyranids-
new carnifex model
new carnifex rules permitting the glory that are dakkafexes (mmm me loves me some dakkafexes).

Ok then. On the topic of tyranids (my army!). Man, those raveners sure are great! And biovores! Lictors! The tyranid codex boosted one of its models to mythic proportions while at the same time ensuring that thats all lots of people ever bought (most nid zilla lists forgo things like gaunts, warriors, lictors, etc. And raveners lictors and biovores are just terrible). I sincerely doubt they would hobble their sales like this intentionally. They came out with a new dreadnaut at about the same time they began to allow more than three in an army. Funny how you still don't see too many stomping around space marine armies.

Nidzilla was just a hideous design choice that clearly was not playtested enough and is only as popular as it is because besides hive tyrants, hormugaunts, and carnifexes most things in the tyranid codex are overcosted.

Raveners are (currently) very good, not horrible. Right on other counts, though.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Raveners are (currently) very good, not horrible. Right on other counts, though.

I've been using them for a while. They're great if they don't get shot to death but a 45+ point model with t4 2 wounds and a 5+ save (And no synapse) isn't easy to keep alive. It's more cost effective to buy 5 hormugaunts. They are situationally great, but overall they are passable at best. At least in my opinion anyway.

gorgon wrote:I'm still leery about their approach to wound allocation. I see what they're going for, but it takes what is currently a clean mechanic and makes it more complicated and somewhat counterintuitive.

The wound allocation will also slow down the game considerably as wounds increase.
3rd Ed: "21 Wounds, AP 4" Me: *Rolls dice* "okay, 7 marines die" *Removes casualties
4th Ed: "21 Wounds, AP 4. Let's Torrent of Fire your sergeant" Me: "saved" *Rolls 20 dice* "Okay, 9 failed" *Removes casualties*
5th Ed: "21 Wounds, AP 4" Me: *puts 2 dice down for each marine in squad, and one extra on bolter bob. Rolls for sergeant. Rolls for Missile Launcher. Rolls for Flamer. Rolls all the rest. Removes casualties*

I hope to God, Allah, Buddha, and Confucius that they don't use this method in close combat, but I'm sure they will.... 30+ tyranid/ork hits/wounds will... well... blech. Of course, now it's a way to get rid of special things (icons in CSM, special weapons--poor guard--and what have you) for better or worse.


On a side note, if this is supposed to be the edition of true LOS, how come you can hit members of a squad you cannot see?

ShumaGorath wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Tyranids-
new carnifex model
new carnifex rules permitting the glory that are dakkafexes (mmm me loves me some dakkafexes).

Ok then. On the topic of tyranids (my army!). Man, those raveners sure are great! And biovores! Lictors! The tyranid codex boosted one of its models to mythic proportions while at the same time ensuring that thats all lots of people ever bought (most nid zilla lists forgo things like gaunts, warriors, lictors, etc. And raveners lictors and biovores are just terrible). I sincerely doubt they would hobble their sales like this intentionally. They came out with a new dreadnaut at about the same time they began to allow more than three in an army. Funny how you still don't see too many stomping around space marine armies.

Nidzilla was just a hideous design choice that clearly was not playtested enough and is only as popular as it is because besides hive tyrants, hormugaunts, and carnifexes most things in the tyranid codex are overcosted.

Yes but they were pushing the fexxes as new sculpts. The argument, with merit, is that they shift the focus of the new codex to different units, such that existing players have to also re-focus to remain competitive. No it doesn't always work (spawn, looking in your direction), but often it does (new terminators with beefed rending pony A cannon).

I abase myself before the members of the holy Ordos and formally apologize for opening the can of worms known as "New Codex Boosting". Can we get back to kve... er, discussing the new rules rumors?

Can someone give us a condensed breakdown of the way that the casualty removal rules are supposed to work under the .pdf, and what clever exploits folks have already worked out? I want to figure this out to see how it will interface with No Retreat. I won't be on my home system with the .pdf for a while. Anyone got a moment to write this out? TIA.

"Missions: Troops are the only scoring units but they count as scoring till the last man. They must be destroyed entirely to remove their scoring status. "


That.
Sucks.

PenguinDude wrote:"Missions: Troops are the only scoring units but they count as scoring till the last man. They must be destroyed entirely to remove their scoring status. "


That.
Sucks.

You think so? Why?

Mechanical rules changes (LOS, casualties, etc.) can screw things up in a big way, but at least this just rejuggles our FOC choices. And it will certainly shake things up in an interesting way.

Peguin dude - Remember if you're scoring and falling back you're not considered scoring. So yes Guardsmen Joe is scoring but since he's booking it off the table he doesn't count.
On the other hand marines got one hell of a boost.

I wonder if that (rumored) new rule for Marines is aimed at either mitigating or changing this...

Foda_Bett wrote:Peguin dude - Remember if you're scoring and falling back you're not considered scoring. So yes Guardsmen Joe is scoring but since he's booking it off the table he doesn't count.
On the other hand marines got one hell of a boost.

I'm thinking chaos probably got the greatest boost. Fearless plague marines and thousand suns will be able to sit on objectives and hide in cover while deflecting immense ammounts of firepower aimed at them. Necrons are going to like this a lot as well.

for those of us living under a rock like me and who didn't know about the leaked beta rules, can someone go over the major changes? i'm getting snippets here and there from the discussions but i think i need more. also, what's QQ?????

warboss wrote:for those of us living under a rock like me and who didn't know about the leaked beta rules, can someone go over the major changes? i'm getting snippets here and there from the discussions but i think i need more. also, what's QQ?????

There are major revisions to the way vehicles operate, making them much more surviveable but lowering maneuverability.
Skimmers lost their rediculously hard to kill status and had it replaced with a somewhat hard to kill stand in.
Only an armies troops choices can claim objectives.
You allocate wounds before rolling saves making it possible to kill things like hidden power fists without it always being the last thing in the squad.
A lot of rules were keyworded (eternal warrior being the keyword for anything that cant be instakilled and so on) and a few were changed.
Combats are a lot bloodier with reworked charge and hit allocation rules.
If you can see only a single model in a squad you can shoot the entire squad but they all count as being in (presumably heavy) cover.
Squads can now run, but can not assault the turn they run unless they have fleet or are beasts.

QQ is a smiley face type thing made to look like two eyes crying.

I think that the "only troops can take objectives" rule is a good step in the right direction. Combined with random game length, I think it will make for some really tense games. While Plague Marines and Necrons will be damn good at holding objectives... they should be. This will make the game more about tactical movement to take and hold ground instead of hiding and then parking four skimmers on the objective in the last turn.

It really is a shame that they made vehicles only able to fire defensive weapons at St4. That was just stoopid.

The charge reaction rule is cool, I hope that they have a stand and shoot option. I could see guardsmen lining up and pouring fire into a charging foe and then being torn apart without a chance to fight back. This could be a really cool mechanic.

The only problem with troops being the only things able to take objectives is that it leads to weird situations such as:

Deathwing Terminators in one army can hold an objective, yet in another army they can't. Blood Angel Assault Squad taken as Troops can hold objectives, yet one taken as a Fast Attack slot cannot.


What's worse is that these can happen at the same time in the same game, and sometimes in the same army.

BYE

pssht forget about plague marines and thousand sons holding objectives, how are you going to uproot 30 strong squads of orks, perticularly if lead by ghazkull and the majority being orks. Whats that? Tourney game ended turn 3 due to the long movement time involved with said orks? Well lets just see who has more holdings, lets see these 2 orks squads have this point, and that other point was washed over by 40ish hitting attacks one round. Well guess it would be fair to let VP decide this then. Lets see the orks blew up one tank for 2 points, and....one full squad of orks was finally sent packing. 2 to 1.

Now my main army is orks, but man this seems beyond cheap. Please tell me im WAY off on the understanding on how new scoring will work.

Geddonight wrote:

gorgon wrote:I'm still leery about their approach to wound allocation. I see what they're going for, but it takes what is currently a clean mechanic and makes it more complicated and somewhat counterintuitive.

The wound allocation will also slow down the game considerably as wounds increase.
3rd Ed: "21 Wounds, AP 4" Me: *Rolls dice* "okay, 7 marines die" *Removes casualties
4th Ed: "21 Wounds, AP 4. Let's Torrent of Fire your sergeant" Me: "saved" *Rolls 20 dice* "Okay, 9 failed" *Removes casualties*
5th Ed: "21 Wounds, AP 4" Me: *puts 2 dice down for each marine in squad, and one extra on bolter bob. Rolls for sergeant. Rolls for Missile Launcher. Rolls for Flamer. Rolls all the rest. Removes casualties*

I know I'm a drooling GW fanboy, but I have to admit that I'm a bit nervous about wound allocation, too. It seems like it's going to take a long time to determine which models to remove.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Necrons are going to like this a lot as well.

Neg. Necrons rely on pulling casualties to break engagement and surviving the first round of assault in order to teleport out or countercharge in some fearless models. With the former removed and the latter made a lot lot harder to achieve, Warriors become far too fragile to hold objectives vs those of even just a medium level of assault ability.

Savnock wrote:GW uses rules changes to drive marketing, through planned obsolescence and rotating overpoweredness on purpose. It's a crappy thing to do, although you (Dakkaladd) are apparently so used to it that you don't know any better. A good outcome of the complaining here would be to find ways around this (making existing collections still work).

GW appears to have two distinct personalities that make up their Codex and Core rules. One is a gamer who likes to create new ways to use existing units, as well as alter the game in such a manner that is plays differently. The other is a fluff nutter who wants new and interesting and/or to retain older units. This is how you can end up with new "overpowered" armies that still have crap units in them. Based on my experiance here is how Chaos has progressed since I've been playing:

Tanks
- bad in every edition but 4th, getting nerfed in 5th

Transports
- bad in every edition but 3rd

Termintors
- awesome in 2nd, bad in 3rd and 4th, appear better in 5th

Raptors
- finally maybe useful in 5th

Obliterators
- bad initially, good in the middle of 3rd and 4th, look OK in 5th

Dreadnaughts
- good to OK in all editions except 5th, where they SUCK

As you can see, each edition has different models that are good and bad. This means that you continually have to adjust your army to keep it competative. As it is, if I were going to be super competative, I'd have to buy a ton of Raptors and probably 2 demon princes to get the cheese army of the week. The next edition will swap that up and Raptors will probably suck.

Savnock wrote:"No-Argument" cover saves: Your opponent says what they think it is; if you disagree they still gets the cover save but with a –1 ~That's and interesting new concept for GW to throw into a ruleset.

~Its sounding like that leaked pdf was a lot closer to the final product than many initially thought. Its also interesting to see that they are formalizing certain common items of dispute that happen in games to keep things moving along (similar to Flames of War's very clean dispute rules).

The cover save thing is wierd, but whatever. I guess it's a good enough way to deal with units in mixed / partial cover than to try and determine majority cover saves on a model-by-model basis.

If the leaked PDF is a solid preview, then I'm going to be relatively happy with 5th Edition. I'm generally *for* the changes, particularly the emphasis on Troops and Objectives.

How do dreadnoughts suck now? The way I see it, they can sit in cover and get a 4+ save.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Or move and shoot two weapons.

Ozymandias wrote:How do dreadnoughts suck now? The way I see it, they can sit in cover and get a 4+ save.

4+?

The cover doesn't look that good to me, how about a 6+?

5+ it is....

Hellfury wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:How do dreadnoughts suck now? The way I see it, they can sit in cover and get a 4+ save.

4+?

The cover doesn't look that good to me, how about a 6+?

5+ it is....

No, we agreed on it being 4+ before the game.

I don't think he's completely in it to qualify the full 4+ save.

Ozymandias wrote:How do dreadnoughts suck now? The way I see it, they can sit in cover and get a 4+ save.

Chaos dreads have a frenzy table they roll on. 1 in 3 it's going to be unpredicatable. 1 in 6 its not going to do what you want it to do. 1 in 6 it may also kill some of your own troops.

HF/WD: How is that different than now? He's not really obscured... Or in 2nd ed, "No, I think he's only in soft cover...". Geez, there is enough to complain about without harping on that rule.

Techboss: ??

Ozymandias, King of Kings

whitedragon wrote:I don't think he's completely in it to qualify the full 4+ save

A 5+ it is then.

ShumaGorath wrote:QQ is a smiley face type thing made to look like two eyes crying.

I thought that was TwT.

I think everyone is confused on the cover save
like currently, different things give different cover.(grass, tank traps, craters, buildings etc)

the modifier is if you and your opponent can't decide if 1/2 of the squad or more is in cover
if you can't agree because it is too close to tell, that is what reduces the cover save by 1.
if it is clear, then the unit gets the appropriate save

Personally, I think that Loyalist ven dreads will be better.

cover save, reroll on the damage chart. The new "OMFZ! the ch33Z0r!!1!"

chaos dreads will continue to suck as they always have.

What about a Fortuned Falcon inside cover with Holo Fields?

Apparantly Last man Standing is gone and FnP is getting hit (not nerfed; just hit) Also; remember that dedicated transports are taxis again...

jfrazell wrote:Or move and shoot two weapons.

In 5th Edition a Walker that moves can fire only one weapon.

Aeon wrote:...FnP is getting hit (not nerfed; just hit)

Nope. Second verse, same as the first.

Pariah Press wrote:

Geddonight wrote:

gorgon wrote:I'm still leery about their approach to wound allocation. I see what they're going for, but it takes what is currently a clean mechanic and makes it more complicated and somewhat counterintuitive.

The wound allocation will also slow down the game considerably as wounds increase.
3rd Ed: "21 Wounds, AP 4" Me: *Rolls dice* "okay, 7 marines die" *Removes casualties
4th Ed: "21 Wounds, AP 4. Let's Torrent of Fire your sergeant" Me: "saved" *Rolls 20 dice* "Okay, 9 failed" *Removes casualties*
5th Ed: "21 Wounds, AP 4" Me: *puts 2 dice down for each marine in squad, and one extra on bolter bob. Rolls for sergeant. Rolls for Missile Launcher. Rolls for Flamer. Rolls all the rest. Removes casualties*

I know I'm a drooling GW fanboy, but I have to admit that I'm a bit nervous about wound allocation, too. It seems like it's going to take a long time to determine which models to remove.

I wouldn't worry much. The only time the new casualty removal rules start to really slow down is when you have more wounds than models in a unit. This really doesn't happen to many times in game.

In the current edition, this would be akin to causing a torrent of fire save. Ask yourself: how many times in a game does that really occur? The answer is, depending on conditions maybe 3-5 times, though YMMV depending on the weapons and squad sizes you're using.

The truth is, anytime you have less wounds than there are 'basic' models (those models with the same weapon) in the unit the casualty removal is exactly as it is now. Say you have 10 marines in a unit, one with a heavy weapon, one with a special weapon and one sergeant. That leaves 7 'standard' marines. If this unit suffers 7 wounds or less (which is most of the time) you get to just pick up seven dice and roll them all together.


I mean, in that original example, 21 wounds? How often does a unit suffer 21 wounds in a game?

yakface wrote:
I wouldn't worry much. The only time the new casualty removal rules start to really slow down is when you have more wounds than models in a unit. This really doesn't happen to many times in game.

In the current edition, this would be akin to causing a torrent of fire save. Ask yourself: how many times in a game does that really occur? The answer is, depending on conditions maybe 3-5 times, though YMMV depending on the weapons and squad sizes you're using.

The truth is, anytime you have less wounds than there are 'basic' models (those models with the same weapon) in the unit the casualty removal is exactly as it is now. Say you have 10 marines in a unit, one with a heavy weapon, one with a special weapon and one sergeant. That leaves 7 'standard' marines. If this unit suffers 7 wounds or less (which is most of the time) you get to just pick up seven dice and roll them all together.


I mean, in that original example, 21 wounds? How often does a unit suffer 21 wounds in a game?

Unfortunately, I see this happening in HTH quite often as sides dwindle (Depending of course on how harsh break tests/sweeping advances become). HTH can become boggy in any game system and I'm not too crazy about adding in wound allocation.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Unfortunately, I see this happening in HTH quite often as sides dwindle (Depending of course on how harsh break tests/sweeping advances become). HTH can become boggy in any game system and I'm not too crazy about adding in wound allocation.

You are correct, but the *BIG* difference with 5th edition is that close combat wounds apply to the entire unit, so again you are less likely to run into situations where you have more wounds than models in the unit.

Will it happen? Sure. But once you play a couple games with it I really don't see it as much of an issue. Since the rules allow you to pull any 'standard' trooper model as a casualty when any other 'standard' model dies even if you have to roll for each model individually you don't have to specifically roll for each one.

Say I have four models left in the unit, one of which has a special weapon or is a sergeant or something. The unit then suffers 13 wounds in close combat.

I decide to put the 'extra' wound on a standard model, so all models have 3 wounds (including the specialist) and one model has four.
I then roll 3 dice for a standard model, check for any failures.
I then roll 3 dice for a standard model, check for any failures.
I then roll 3 dice for a standard model, check for any failures.
I then roll 4 dice for a standard model, check for any failures.

For each failure in one of those groups I have to remove a standard model, but I can (at this point) pick which ones because they are all 'standard' models.

I then roll 3 dice for the specialist and check for failures.


Personally, I don't see this as a difficult situation especially when this sort of thing doesn't happen all but a few times a game.But perhaps it is just me.

it *might* make a difference to positioning (to determine who is in/out of cover for instance) unfortantly I can just imagine people forcing you to roll all saves individually to see if a critical model is pulled as a casulaty (critical as in a standard model just being with 6" of the objective or some such like that.

And as for FnP being nerfed; you just dont get it against Perils or weapons that allow you no save (ie Plaguemarines Vs Plasma weapons wont get FnP... not sure if you get a cover save you can then claim FnP, doubtful thou...)

Well, that's a lot of die rolls compared with 4th!

Re: Feel No Pain, that's just for the usual stuff about the effect being negated by power weapons and the like, not low AP weapons.

yakface wrote:
You are correct, but the *BIG* difference with 5th edition is that close combat wounds apply to the entire unit, so again you are less likely to run into situations where you have more wounds than models in the unit.

Will it happen? Sure. But once you play a couple games with it I really don't see it as much of an issue. Since the rules allow you to pull any 'standard' trooper model as a casualty when any other 'standard' model dies even if you have to roll for each model individually you don't have to specifically roll for each one.

Say I have four models left in the unit, one of which has a special weapon or is a sergeant or something. The unit then suffers 13 wounds in close combat.

I decide to put the 'extra' wound on a standard model, so all models have 3 wounds (including the specialist) and one model has four.
I then roll 3 dice for a standard model, check for any failures.
I then roll 3 dice for a standard model, check for any failures.
I then roll 3 dice for a standard model, check for any failures.
I then roll 4 dice for a standard model, check for any failures.

For each failure in one of those groups I have to remove a standard model, but I can (at this point) pick which ones because they are all 'standard' models.

I then roll 3 dice for the specialist and check for failures.


Personally, I don't see this as a difficult situation especially when this sort of thing doesn't happen all but a few times a game.But perhaps it is just me.

Sure, I can understand your point and for those that have played the game (and other systems) for years it will simply be an annoyance. However, to those whom haven't played tabletop games for a number of years (Or those whom don't play often), I can imagine tedious scenarios popping up based on;

A) Power weapons and powerfist allocation mixed in with normal attacks confusing players
B) New counter attack rules state everyone will move up 6 inches, so more attacks in HTH will need to be allocated
C) Multiple wound models (Which by the PDF appears to defer back to 4th?)
D) HTH tends to last more than one phase/turn and with casualty removal more attacks will be going off in HTH now (Kill zone modification).
E) Players being forced to allocate and roll for each normal trooper...even if there isn't a special in the squad...because if you fail *that* one they will be out of coherency and need to move next turn.

I hope most of these are addressed and I certainly understand the motivation they had to add this element. I'm just afraid as it stands it feels a bit clunky. Then again, I've only seen the PDF, hopefully it's a bit streamlined in the current incarnation.

Cheers

MinMax wrote:Unless you take any of the other Troops choices, including Conscripts, although they're still 20 model minimum, Armoured Fist Squads, which are 10 model, or *Gasp* you could take Grenadiers!

Sure, everyone thinks they suck now. What about in 5th Edition?

Gosh, you're right. I'm going to get working on my all conscript/grenadier IG army right away so I'll be ready for 5th edition. If I hurry maybe I'll finish just in time for the new IG codex. Then me and my friends can all play warhams in the dream house I just finished building in New Orleans.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm generally *for* the changes, particularly the emphasis on Troops and Objectives.

I concur with my associate, JohnHwangDD. Also I think Stratego is a great game but could be made much better by eliminating all the ranks except for the 5's.

deitpike wrote:the modifier is if you and your opponent can't decide if 1/2 of the squad or more is in cover
if you can't agree because it is too close to tell, that is what reduces the cover save by 1.
if it is clear, then the unit gets the appropriate save

Well that's just, like, your opinion, man. Me, personally, I think my little guys are in 4+ cover. Yeah, they might not be completely physically anywhere "near" what you would call "cover" - in the parlance of our times - but, uh, has it ever occurred to you that instead of, uh, you know, sitting there and looking at me like, uh, that maybe things might be, you know, a little more, uh, uh, uh, complex? I mean c'mon man - it's only a game. Look I'm not tryin' to scam anyone here, man... I'll tell ya what - howbout we make it a 5+ then and let's just call it a day?

Nurglitch wrote:Re: Feel No Pain, that's just for the usual stuff about the effect being negated by power weapons and the like, not low AP weapons.

In 4th ed you are correct; 5th ed is a different matter

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

MinMax wrote:Unless you take any of the other Troops choices, including Conscripts, although they're still 20 model minimum, Armoured Fist Squads, which are 10 model, or *Gasp* you could take Grenadiers!

Sure, everyone thinks they suck now. What about in 5th Edition?

Gosh, you're right. I'm going to get working on my all conscript/grenadier IG army right away so I'll be ready for 5th edition. If I hurry maybe I'll finish just in time for the new IG codex. Then me and my friends can all play warhams in the dream house I just finished building in New Orleans.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm generally *for* the changes, particularly the emphasis on Troops and Objectives.

I concur with my associate, JohnHwangDD. Also I think Stratego is a great game but could be made much better by eliminating all the ranks except for the 5's.

deitpike wrote:the modifier is if you and your opponent can't decide if 1/2 of the squad or more is in cover
if you can't agree because it is too close to tell, that is what reduces the cover save by 1.
if it is clear, then the unit gets the appropriate save

Well that's just, like, your opinion, man. Me, personally, I think my little guys are in 4+ cover. Yeah, they might not be completely physically anywhere "near" what you would call "cover" - in the parlance of our times - but, uh, has it ever occurred to you that instead of, uh, you know, sitting there and looking at me like, uh, that maybe things might be, you know, a little more, uh, uh, uh, complex? I mean c'mon man - it's only a game. Look I'm not tryin' to scam anyone here, man... I'll tell ya what - howbout we make it a 5+ then and let's just call it a day?

Abadabadoobaddon: King of intelligent debate.

Yak: I think the additional rolling will come into play more often than you think. I'm used to it since I play Tau, with markerlit burst cannons and rapid firing firewarriors, but I can easily imagine all sorts of kroot, orks, and nids bogging down the game when they charge with 3+ attacks.

Abadabadetc.: Your "revolution" is over, Mr. Doobadddon! Condolences! The bums lost!...My advice is, do what your parents did! Get a job, sir! The bums will always lose-- do you hear me, Abadabadoobaddon? THE BUMS WILL ALWAYS--


Yak: Eldar players give and receive the ol' ToFing on a regular basis too.

I see your point that it's not that big of a deal, overall. But it seems an unnecessary collision of ToF and trying to fix killzones. I just don't know many folks that were seriously against the protection for special weapons, sergeants, etc. I mean, the "another guy picks up the missile launcher/knocks the sarge out of the way/etc" rationale was pretty good for shooting casualty removal, especially with the odd ToF kill making the whole thing equivalent to "Look Out, Sir!" from WHFB. In CC it seemed a lot more ridiculous to not be able to pick out the 'fists, though. Killzones gave us some ability to kill the 'fists, but now only this wounds inflicted > models in unit thingy will kill specialists in close combat. That seems a less universally smooth mechanic, as only sheer quantity attacks will ever kill fists, never quality (fast, deadly) ones.

For many armies, it's just going to mean _tons_ of specific rolling. The calculations may speed up considerably as one gets more familiar with the process, but the rolling won't speed up much. Whatever, I'll give it a try. Then if it sucks, we'll house-rule it locally and learn to deal in tourneys.

My suggestion: you're going to want at least 10 sets of colored dice, at least 3 dice per set (and several with more). Bring a dice cup. Keep all the sets in front of you, separated by color, and get good at grabbing 2-3 dice from each, dropping them in the cup, and dumping them out. A failed save on any of a particular color set means you grab a model; pre-arrange with your opponent as to which colors will generally represent special/heavy weapons/upgrade characters/etc.

It's going to be like the rapid-firing plasma "Gets hot!" thing - one guy failing multiple saves shouldn't kill his buddy off through lack of specificity.

Or am I misunderstanding the implications?

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:Well that's just, like, your opinion, man. Me, personally, I think my little guys are in 4+ cover. Yeah, they might not be completely physically anywhere "near" what you would call "cover" - in the parlance of our times - but, uh, has it ever occurred to you that instead of, uh, you know, sitting there and looking at me like, uh, that maybe things might be, you know, a little more, uh, uh, uh, complex? I mean c'mon man - it's only a game. Look I'm not tryin' to scam anyone here, man... I'll tell ya what - howbout we make it a 5+ then and let's just call it a day?

Way out west there was this fella I wanna tell ya about. Goes by the name of Arnold Snodgrass. At least that was the handle his loving parents gave him, but he never had much use for it himself. See, this Snodgrass, he called himself "Abadabadoobaddon".

Now, "Abadabadoobaddon" - there's a name no man would self-apply where I come from. But then there was a lot about Abadabadoobaddon that didn't make a whole lot of sense. And a lot about where he posted, likewise. But then again, maybe that's why I found the forum so darned interestin'. See, they call Dakka Dakka the "Shark Pit"; but I didn't find it to be that, exactly. But I'll allow it as there are some mean folks there. 'Course I ain't never been to Warseer, and I ain't never seen Bolter and Chainsword. And I ain't never seen no queen in her damned undies, so the feller says.

But I'll tell you what - after seeing Dakka Dakka, and this here story I'm about to unfold, well, I guess I seen somethin' every bit as stupefyin' as you'd seen in any of them other places. And in HTML, too. So I can die with a smileey emoticon on my face, without feelin' like the good Lord gypped me.

Now this here story I'm about to unfold took place in 2008 - just about the time of 40K's transition with 4th ed to 5th ed. I only mention it because sometimes there's a man... I won't say a hero, 'cause, what's a hero? Sometimes, there's a man. And I'm talkin' about Abadabadoobaddon here - Abadabadoobaddon from Dakka Dakka. Sometimes, there's a man, well, he's the man for his time and place. He fits right in there. And that's Abadabadoobaddon. Abadabadoobaddon, from Dakka Dakka. And even if he's a crazy man - and Abadabadoobaddon was most certainly that. Quite possibly the craziest in all of Dakka Dakka forums, which would place him high in the runnin' for craziest on the internets. Sometimes there's a man, sometimes, there's a man. Well, I lost my train of thought here.

LOL, well if you have ever been to Bolter and Chainsword, well they don't really insult you at all. The only time I remember seeing any insults or even rough language would be the infamous "Could Master Cheif Beat Space Marines?" Threads, in which all the Halo freaks go hell yah and all the Marine freaks go hell no...

For some reason, I never clicked on that thread. Can't imagine why not...