Voodoo I'm sure I missed it in the 10 pages, but how do tanks get harder to kill? The only thing I saw was that CC hits on rear armor, which means most everything in the game can at kleast glance non monolith vehicles. What juicy tidbit did I miss?

Cover saves. Falcon might be boosting up with that 5+, but that Pred has a 4+ in some trees.

jfrazell wrote:Voodoo I'm sure I missed it in the 10 pages, but how do tanks get harder to kill? The only thing I saw was that CC hits on rear armor, which means most everything in the game can at kleast glance non monolith vehicles. What juicy tidbit did I miss?

That "all H2H attacks hit Rear Armor" thing was bunk. It works just like now.

Hitting vehicles in CC works like now, so you still need 6's to hit skimmers or vehicles moving over 6", but they get no Cover Saves from these attacks.

Basically, you can set it up so your vehicles get Cover Saves in 5th, so when being shot, even tracked vehicles have a good chance of being OK. Skimmers get a 5+ Cover save for moving Fast. If you get Wargear that makes you count as obscured (see tau), you get a 5+ Cover save when obscured. Otherwise you can get a 4+ or 3+ cover save for being behind certain terrain types or have LOS angling issues, etc.

Furthermore, the damage tables are far more forgiving.

Glancing hits can only immobilize at best, unless you're using an AP1 weapon which ends up glancing, in which case a 5 Immobilizes and 6 Destroys.

Even Penetrating hits aren't that bad because of the single table:

1 or less) Shaken
2.) Stunned
3.) Weapon Destroyed
4.) Immobilized
5.) Destroyed
6.) Explodes

AP1 gives +1 to the table. AP - gives -1. Glancing -2. Open Topped +1.

That's it.

Because of the Cover saves and how much more forgiving the Glancing, and even penetrating tables are, plus the fact that you get cover saves now, your vehicles will be able to stick around a lot more.

Rending is nerfed to +D3 to your penetration rolls on a 6 now. So yes, assault cannons can still penetrate Land Raiders; but even still assault cannons are going to be limited in the future.

Likewise, if you can glance it, you can keep it from shooting, so Venom Cannon's aren't "useless".

Just noticed this gem while I was reading the pdf:

"Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a Fast vehicle if it has moved or is going to move Flat Out in that Movement phase."

To me, the way this is worded could cause the following situtations:

1. Unit A wants to embark onto a fast vehicle, but that vehicle is planning on moving flat out in the current movement phase, so Unit A cannot embark onto it.

2. Unit A is embarked on a fast vehicle at the start of their movement phase. The owning player plans to disembark the unit, then move the fast vehicle flat out. According to the RAW, since the fast vehicle is "going to move flat out in that movement phase" then the unit cannot disembark.

3. Unit A embarks onto a fast vehicle at the start of the movement phase, forcing the fast vehicle to only move 12."

H.B.M.C. wrote: Why? Isn't the point of having multiple crew so the tank can do different things at the same time? Do they all stop to wish the gunner good luck, or deliver a catchy one-liner each time they fire?

Obviously in the dark grimmness or whatever of the far future, all gun crews are recruited from PA road workers. You need 5 guys standing around smoking and drinking coffee so 2 guys can fire the gun, while 3 others supervise.

Of course, you are on the exact opposite side of the globe, so you probably have no idea what I am talking about... Still, I think it is pretty obvious that the gun crews are union workers, and thus are very rigorous about their rules.

I think it's a great game mechanic. Choose to be a bristling fortress of weapons with a bunker save or be a mobile wooden fort with a possible bunker save. This is coming from a guy who uses smart missiles on Tau tanks.

"Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a Fast vehicle if it has moved or is going to move Flat Out in that Movement phase."

This causes a problem with DE Raiders, Ork Trukks, and Tau Piranhas. Does this or the open-topped rule take precedence? You have a "transport fast vehicles" ruleset and "transport open-topped vehicles" ruleset.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Just noticed this gem while I was reading the pdf:

"Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a Fast vehicle if it has moved or is going to move Flat Out in that Movement phase."

To me, the way this is worded could cause the following situtations:

1. Unit A wants to embark onto a fast vehicle, but that vehicle is planning on moving flat out in the current movement phase, so Unit A cannot embark onto it.

2. Unit A is embarked on a fast vehicle at the start of their movement phase. The owning player plans to disembark the unit, then move the fast vehicle flat out. According to the RAW, since the fast vehicle is "going to move flat out in that movement phase" then the unit cannot disembark.

3. Unit A embarks onto a fast vehicle at the start of the movement phase, forcing the fast vehicle to only move 12."

It seems OK to me and should save Eldar from last minute land grabs using star engine boosted skimmers. If you want the logic, because the vehicle has to move fast it spedns more time accelerating and less time embarking passengers.

On balance I am starting to like these rmours a lot more than a couple of days ago.

My main reservation is the much greater emphasis on Troops, since Tau troops are weak and have been weakened further. However I can already see a lot of stuff that helps Tau so I think it will balance out.

I suspect Broadsides will go out of favoura gain, but Railheads will make a comeback because of the pieplate shot against horde armies combined with S1 AP1 armour piercing goodness.

We will also see a lot more Pathfinders and markerlights deployed, and now that the Pathfinder's 'Fish can Scout, it will be worth pimping with SMS and so on for extra fire support.

Tau vehicles pimped with SMS are going to be supercool for hiding behind cover and shooting.

They also get to have a wide view of the battlefield while hiding behind their tree fort. Perfect for deepstrike rerolls.

Seriously kill, I'm thinking that large Kroot masses will be popular. If Orks and Gaunts will be popular, Kroot are reasonably good at fighting them. Kroot can also flank march and can even take their Krootox buddy with them on devilfish (something I'm gonna enjoy doing).

Took me to realize that Broadsides aren't Jet Packer's and can't JSJ with Railguns.

They can however bring up a hell of an interesting bit of rules quandary.

Broadsides are tall, and can see over Stealth Suits. They can shoot "over them" but because they'll be obscured by the Stealths, they can't be shot back.

Stealth Suits, at long range are going to be very hard to shoot because of their rules.

Do they still "obscure" the Broadsides even if they're so far away that their stealth field makes them near impossible to shoot at?

Will we see teams of Broadsides screened by JSJ'ing teams of 3 Stealth Suits at max coherency?

Kilkrazy wrote:On balance I am starting to like these rmours a lot more than a couple of days ago.

I'm back-and-forth on them, practically hourly. I like Jervis's willingness to break some eggs, it's just that up until this point, it seems like he's smashed some fresh eggs and spared some rotten ones.

I like aspects of what I'm hearing, although part of it could be nostalgia for the days of 2nd edition. My only fear is that by putting so many aspects of the game into upheaval, there'll be (once again) some significant problems created that won't be apparent until we've all been playing with it for awhile.

I think 5th edition is probably GW's last chance to keep me in the game. If they just end up overhauling everything again in 6th, I'll be gone. It's unfathomable to me how you can have a ruleset this unsettled more than 20 years since its release.

First of all would someone be so kind as to PM me the PDF address?

Secondly, The more I hear about the new LOS rule the more the seem like a huge mistake. Aside from the fact that the Area Terrain system worked just fine, it doesn't make sense that a unit of guardsmen could block LOS when a forest doesn't. This will likely take us back into laser pointer days and result in a lot of stupid unit choreography that slows down the game.

Nothing is stopping you from classifying Area Terrain to block LOS, just like it works now.

Or it could work where you can shoot through it but it gives a cover save.

Clarify what each piece of terrain is, and does, before the game and you're good.

The GT's and GD Events had terrain packets explaining what each feature was and it's in game effects. Going on this idea that Dave Taylor and co are going to keep up their excellent job, I don't see a reason why this practice won't be continued in the future.

>>Seriously kill, I'm thinking that large Kroot masses will be popular.

Yes, I agree. Slightly disappointing that the revised area cover rules deprive Kroot of their see through woods ability but even so, they are going to be needed to do the low level H2H work.

And as you say can now be carried in D'Fish.

>>Will we see teams of Broadsides screened by JSJ'ing teams of 3 Stealth Suits at max coherency?

What about if you JSJ your Stealth from behind a screen of Sniper Drones?

Also if the rumour that JSJ troops can move and fire Heavy weapons, then Crisis Suits will be carrying more marker drones.

I like these rules quite a bit. There are a few strange oddities that I hope they clear up before the actual release.

Of course, anytime you change rules there are going to be unforseen consequences in the codices, but oh well.


A few things that popped out at me (and if I missed something in my read through, my apologies):


1) Psychic Powers still have that ridiculous "unless specified otherwise they follow the shooting rule" garbage sentence. It still isn't nearly specific enough.


2) There is a rule mentioning Last Man Standing but I don't see that rule anymore.


3) They're still using the word "dice" as a single die. Bad GW!


4) The pile in rules still state that you only pile in if not engaged (as opposed to being base to base). Here's hoping they fix the diagram to match!


5) The Fire Point rules state that codices tell you how many models can fire out of each fire point but all the recent codices don't say how many models can fire out.


6) There's still no exemption about vehicles firing templates being immune to hurting themselves.


7) The embarked rules are better (they tell you to measure from the vehicle for effects inside), but they still don't tell you what happens if something wierd happens to the guys inside a vehicle (like a Wierdboy's power goes off) or what happens if a power like FOTD has the vehicle in range: does the unit inside take the test and if they fail do they run out of the vehicle, etc?


8) It appears that you now pile in even if you just freshly consolidated into a new unit, which I kind of like.


9) The rules still don't cover what happens if models can't get into base contact because of intervening terrain (like a guy is behind a barrel). By the RAW if you can't get into base contact you don't count as being in base contact, which makes creative terrain a real impediment to smooth gameplay.


10) The Jet Pack rules are still unclear about whether they turn off when the unit assaults an enemy or stays on (and whether they can turn off the jetpack and move normally in the movement phase either).


11) The artillery rules are still a bit unclear so people will still wonder if artillery can move and fire heavy weapons like vehicles.


12) They got rid of the backwards damage on vehicles, so if you get an immobilized or weapon destroyed it doesn't appear as though you shake or stun the vehicle too. This leads to some REALLY strange situations where, if the vehicle has embarked models you really want to get a stunned result (which pins the unit inside) but not an immobilized or weapon destroyed result (which would allow them to disembark next turn). I really hope they change that before release.


13) The exploding vehicle vs. transported models still isn't clear on the timing so some people could still argue that the disembarking models essentially get hit twice.


14) The vehicle moving rules still seem to allow vehicles to move in any direction, which really should be fixed so that they only move forward or backward (especially since they can pivot any number of times).


15) There still(!) doesn't appear to be any ordnance rules. Is it possible they'll ship two editions in a row both missing the same rules?

Voodoo Boyz wrote:
The GT's and GD Events had terrain packets explaining what each feature was and it's in game effects. Going on this idea that Dave Taylor and co are going to keep up their excellent job, I don't see a reason why this practice won't be continued in the future.

Hopefully someone (I won't hold my breath on GW) will give us a good example of how they did it. If it worked for GTs, then it should be nice for friendly games.

Just to confirm for you: Unless things change from this leak, JSJ with heavy weapons is ok.

I am with you Voodoo, and am starting to come around on the Str 4 defensive weapon thing. I know it is going to cause a lot of bunkering up, but so is the cover save rule. This is probably to balance out vehicles being even more survivable. A tank being able to blast away with everything while moving across the battlefield becomes a very good choice, but if you have to make the choice of sitting in a good defensible position and blasting away (thus limiting your targets) or moving to get a better position and firing.

It just seems to work out. Fast vehicles still can shoot at combat speeds, and will try to move in and out of cover, but will lose shots if they want to get the skimmer obscurement save.

It seems you have a lot of choices to make.

I don't know. I think the old 8" howitzer we fired would be considered ordinance, and everyone cowered and or took cover when we fired that thing. There is no way I would want to be on the vehicle trying to shoot another weapon, there would be no way to hit.

Assuming Ordnance works likes blasts (and there's no reason to believe it won't) it got a bit better against vehicles, which is a good thing.

Because now if the blast scatters off the vehicle it counts as hitting the side the hole is on (this used to only apply to barrage weapons).

That means you can place your blast/ordnance over the rear section of a vehicle and feel pretty confident that you'll either hit the vehicle or if the center scatters off of it you'll partial the back armor and still have a chance to do some damage.

Toreador wrote:
I don't know. I think the old 8" howitzer we fired would be considered ordinance, and everyone cowered and or took cover when we fired that thing. There is no way I would want to be on the vehicle trying to shoot another weapon, there would be no way to hit.

I could see that for really big things like Earthshakers etc., but it seems to me that if the Battle Cannon on a Russ is going to be ordnance, they need to reevaluate things.

Possibly the answer is to change the type of the Battlecannon from Ordnance to Large Blast. *shrug* Probably more an issue of over broad catagories than anything.

Unless thats changed I don't believe that is accurate. At the current time you have to place the template over the center of the vehicle. If the center scatters off your shot is pretty much wasted at that point. How is this changing that?

jfrazell wrote:Unless thats changed I don't believe that is accurate. At the current time you have to place the template over the center of the vehicle. If the center scatters off your shot is pretty much wasted at that point. How is this changing that?

First off, I think I was unclear. When I said "now" I meant now with the new PDF.


Second, even with the current rules you are allowed to place the marker anywhere with the hole over the vehicle (see the online rulebook FAQ). The change is that in the current rules if the marker scatters off the model the armor facing you use is still in relation to firer vs. target. So if you're firing at the front armor no matter where the blast scatters you count as hitting the front armor (unless its a barrage weapon).


With the new rules, when the blast scatters you count as hitting the side the hole is on, so you can most certainly increase your chances of destroying a vehicle by placing the blast over the back end of the model (where you'd still be able to glance the armor even if your blast is at half strength).

Voodoo Boyz wrote:And to balance that, Tanks of all kinds except Holofield Skimmers got much harder to kill.

So, a lascannon will have 1/54 chance of destroying an AV14 vehicle hiding behind some rocks/ruins/hills and you like it. You like the rules because they make Orks one of the best if not the best army, and because you love the prospect of playing Orks against Orks. I can't see any other reason for liking the new rules a lot. Like yakface pointed out they're still full of holes, the game seems to become slower and slightly more complicated, and I dare to say even less balanced than it is now.

Wehrkind wrote:Obviously in the dark grimmness or whatever of the far future, all gun crews are recruited from PA road workers. You need 5 guys standing around smoking and drinking coffee so 2 guys can fire the gun, while 3 others supervise.

Of course, you are on the exact opposite side of the globe, so you probably have no idea what I am talking about... Still, I think it is pretty obvious that the gun crews are union workers, and thus are very rigorous about their rules.

That was a good one. I'm pretty sure it's like that everywhere.

In comparison to what is now, yes. I don't see many AV14 models on the battlefield already. If you are having a problem popping that tank hiding behind cover.. then move.

Orks are the best because they have a huge issue already vs av14 armies? Or that blast templates will work quite well against large mobs of boyz, and whirlwinds will be even more useful than they have been in the past, especially against orks?

I don't see anything to fear out of orks that I don't already fear with the current rules.

Hopefully it will be possible for forces to use manoeuvring to get shots at the side armour when a tank is hiding.

Toreador wrote:

I don't see anything to fear out of orks that I don't already fear with the current rules.

Running. You should fear massed Orks running on the first turn.

Orks are the best because they have a huge issue already vs av14 armies? Or that blast templates will work quite well against large mobs of boyz, and whirlwinds will be even more useful than they have been in the past, especially against orks?

I don't see anything to fear out of orks that I don't already fear with the current rules.

Oh okay. You have no trouble with running Orks, or 45 Kommandos showing up from your table edge. Or that the WAAC 1.85K Ork lists have 180 fearless T4 models with invulnerable saves, anti-tank guns and S9 power fists, and are worth 6KP overall and count as scoring units. You don't have any idea how bad the Orks will be do you? The Boyz are all assaulting on turn 3 the latest, but the Kommandos are assaulting on turn two. Have fun wiping them all out before that. No, they won't panic. They are fearless, and yes, they will bust your tanks in close combat.

In comparison to what is now, yes. I don't see many AV14 models on the battlefield

Am I reading this right? First people whine about Falcons non-stop for years, and when Falcons are nerfed people are fine with AV14 vehicles becoming the new Falcons. Let me remind you that a Falcon with discount guns and star engines on top of the other crucial upgrades does cost 210 points. AV13 vehicles will be nearly as tough of course as the old Falcons for almost half the price. The new Falcons on the other hand will be absolute garbage, and you're fine with that too.

AgeOfEgos wrote:You can run the turn you Deep Strike. Deep Strike Mishap table is nasty.

So I guess this represents your terminators getting a running start before jumping into the teleporter, all Austin Powers-style?

In other news, the Emperor's Children finally discover a reason to swap their predators' sponson heavy bolters for sonic blasters - one edition too late. Suckers!

It strikes me too that orks are going to be very, very good in the future. Changes to screening, run, changes to slow and purposeful- all of these make orks better, and I haven't seen anything that makes them worse that doesn't effect everyone else just as much.

I'm not really in favour of stationary tanks. I think they should have S5 as defensive, because how many tanks can actually take S4 weapons? Not russes, not battlewagons, not hammerheads or devilfishes, not looted wagons, normal land raiders...
Eldar and Marines are going to be the only mobile ones.
I also don't particularly like the changes to vehicle speeds as they seem nonsensical when compared to infantry speeds. If they had made it so that skimmers couldn't tank shock many of the problems people talk about would have been solved without a strange situation where a horse can outrun an advanced grav tank!
Add onto this the utterly stupid new scoring regieme and you have a recipie for orks winning every damn tourney.
I don't want orks to be the best army in the game. I want a balanced game.
Here's hoping some of the stupider decisions are rectified by the actual release, while keeping the good stuff. (and there is a lot of good stuff in there)

"Here's hoping some of the stupider decisions are rectified by the actual release, while keeping the good stuff. (and there is a lot of good stuff in there)"

I'm hoping that too. Orks was word for word the same - but that was an advanced version with all the layout and art done. Since this is just an early draft/playtest copy, hopefully they'll listen to the input and tidy things up in the final version.

Long time lurker here ...

I posted this issue late last night on Warseer but didn't get much response. From what I understand of the document, it seems that the new allocating wounds process means that small squads with decent saves being hit by a large number of wounds are much more survivable (and similarly, units that rely on large # of high-AP wounds such as war walkers or HB squads are less effective). For instance, if a squad of 5 SM gets hit with 15 wounds. Each wound is allocated to each model, e.g.

SM1 (w,w,w) SM2 (w,w,w) SM3 (w,w,w) SM4 (w,w,w) SM5 (w,w,w)

Then each model in the unit (regardless of LOS) rolls for its saves. Thus, say SM1 fails 1 save, okay, then it is dead. SM2 and SM3 saves all their wounds, then they are still alive. SM4 rolls terribly and fails all three. It's dead, and those additional fails are simply wasted, since SM5 now gets to roll its 3 wounds, and passes all three.

SM1 (p,f,p) = dead
SM2 (p,p,p) = alive
SM3 (p,p,p) = alive
SM4 (f,f,f) = dead
SM5 (p,p,p) = alive

Grand total of 4 failed saves, but only 2 models die.

Am I understanding this correctly? Unless I've totally misunderstood the document, this is going to make calculating/MathHammer quite a bit more complicated. It is also going to really slow the game down as well. Perhaps with it, the new blast rules, and the emphasis on large troop squads, four turn tournament games will become the norm.

That's my understanding of it too Randy.

Man, I'd love to be a fly on the wall of GW HQ this morning.

Part of me wonders if this leak was intentional, because it appears to be everywhere.

Part of me wonders if this might have been the work of a playtester dissatisfied with the rules and wanting to show GW what the response would be and maybe get a few changes made.

At this point, I wish GW would just harness the power of the web to distribute information. They could just post an official Trial-5th edition like they did with the assault rules prior to fourth.

Looking at Randy's post, if that's true, it seems a large deviation away from both 40k and Fantasy norms. More surprised at the latter, with a lot of other mechanisms seemingly coming in to align the rules of the two more closely.

Of course, the rationale may well be (and probably should be) to pick the Fantasy rules that work and apply well in 40k also. And maybe 40k wound allocation, if done the traditional (and quicker) way just allows too much abuse in mixed complement squads. A more elegant solution would be nice.

If Orks are going to be the biggest WAAC army in 5th, then I'm happy I have 46 Berzerkers. 184 attacks on the charge with 3's to hit and 3's to wound. You run, I run, we all run, it is anarchy!!

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I like the fact that you can't move and fire gobs and gobs of weapons now. It's about mobility or about shooting, you do not get everything in one easy to use package. More choices mean more mistakes or good moves.

Lets see if choosing to move or fire worked in 3rd edition. Nope, it looks like vehicles just stood there blasting away for 6 turns. And they only have more incentive to do so now that they no longer count as scoring. Weee...

And who would design a vehicle that couldn't effectively fire on the move. Name one modern tank that can't. (and don't give any WWII era garbage as a rationalization when their fighting in an era with grav tanks/titans/orbital bombardments/planet destroyers)

Therion wrote:Am I reading this right? First people whine about Falcons non-stop for years, and when Falcons are nerfed people are fine with AV14 vehicles becoming the new Falcons. Let me remind you that a Falcon with discount guns and star engines on top of the other crucial upgrades does cost 210 points. AV13 vehicles will be nearly as tough of course as the old Falcons for almost half the price. The new Falcons on the other hand will be absolute garbage, and you're fine with that too.

You're comparing what essentially is a AV14 bunker firing two twin-lascannons from behind cover to a vehicle that, under current rules, can perform battlefield miracles that would make God Almighty look like a 3rd class con artist?

Wehrkind wrote:Obviously in the dark grimmness or whatever of the far future, all gun crews are recruited from PA road workers. You need 5 guys standing around smoking and drinking coffee so 2 guys can fire the gun, while 3 others supervise.

Of course, you are on the exact opposite side of the globe, so you probably have no idea what I am talking about... Still, I think it is pretty obvious that the gun crews are union workers, and thus are very rigorous about their rules.

This gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling that people around the world don't necessarily have it better than me...

BTW could someone PM me with a torrent location or something? I'm feeling a bit lonely here...

Here come the Dark Angels with loads of cheap razorbacks in the trees. Oh wait their troops are still 110pts for 5? Forget it.


Here come the BA with loads of cheap razorbacks in the trees and their 3 attack bikes can get a multimelta for no cost. 9 multimelta attack bikes, in three squads, for 450pts total might be all the anti-tank you need. Roll out the 50pt razorbacks with 5-man squads, a big death company and you are ready to rumble.

randyc9999 wrote:Long time lurker here ...

I posted this issue late last night on Warseer but didn't get much response. From what I understand of the document, it seems that the new allocating wounds process means that small squads with decent saves being hit by a large number of wounds are much more survivable (and similarly, units that rely on large # of high-AP wounds such as war walkers or HB squads are less effective). For instance, if a squad of 5 SM gets hit with 15 wounds. Each wound is allocated to each model, e.g.

SM1 (w,w,w) SM2 (w,w,w) SM3 (w,w,w) SM4 (w,w,w) SM5 (w,w,w)

Then each model in the unit (regardless of LOS) rolls for its saves. Thus, say SM1 fails 1 save, okay, then it is dead. SM2 and SM3 saves all their wounds, then they are still alive. SM4 rolls terribly and fails all three. It's dead, and those additional fails are simply wasted, since SM5 now gets to roll its 3 wounds, and passes all three.

SM1 (p,f,p) = dead
SM2 (p,p,p) = alive
SM3 (p,p,p) = alive
SM4 (f,f,f) = dead
SM5 (p,p,p) = alive

Grand total of 4 failed saves, but only 2 models die.

Am I understanding this correctly? Unless I've totally misunderstood the document, this is going to make calculating/MathHammer quite a bit more complicated. It is also going to really slow the game down as well. Perhaps with it, the new blast rules, and the emphasis on large troop squads, four turn tournament games will become the norm.

I think you've understood it perfectly and you're right. In many ways this is a worse solution than the current issue.

The thing you have to remember is that the current wound allocation rules simply do not work as written. Most everyone plays a certain way based off personal preference and what seems right but if you really break down the current rules when it comes to some of the more wacky situations the whole thing is completely cracked.


That said, I really think they need to alter these rules before the book is published. I'm okay with allocating wounds to models before rolling saves because it removes the whole mixed armor debacle but they really need to change the rules for allocation.

Wounds that ignore a model's REGULAR armor save (not invulnerable or cover saves) need to be allocated and resolved BEFORE allocating and resolving wounds that don't ignore a model's basic armor save.

Allowing a single model to have multiple wounds that ignore its armor save while the rest of the unit saves against the basic wounds seems like a real recipe for disaster. The more firepower a unit puts out vs. the smaller the target enemy unit the more players are really able to absorb all kinds of firepower into a single model while leaving most of the unit unscathed.

Having now found and read the leaked pdf, Randy's assessment is exactly right. Units that put out a lot of shots stand to lose a few kills and small units stand to take a few less casualties. I'm not sure it's a major problem, though, because it only becomes really significant when the whole squad is taking multiple saves, and it balances out somewhat with better odds at killing upgrade characters and heavy weapons.


The real problem is how they treat armor-penetrating wounds (rending, AP2, etc). Asmodai is correct: they actually give an example of putting two plasma wounds on one guy to reduce casualties.

This is just bizarre; it leads to cases where causing more wounds results in fewer casualties. Those who've read the pdf can confirm this; this is not only how it works in this draft, there's even an example indicating that it's meant to work this way.

Example:
2-donkeycannon termies shoot up a squad of six 4+ save genestealers, and do six wounds with the assault cannons, which allow no saves.

6 cannon wounds = 6 dead nids = dead squad

But if they also get, say, 3 stormbolter wounds, the nid player can assign wounds as follows:

G1: 1 bolter wound (gets save)
G2: 1 bolter (save)
G3: 1 bolter (save)
G4-6: 2 cannon wounds each, dead

By causing more wounds, the nid squad goes from wiped out with no saves to half of the squad getting saves.

More wounds = fewer casualties = Whaa??

Edit: Yeah, so this is basically an example of what Yakface just said in a lot fewer words.

GW may have meant to make it a balancing thing that lets marines/necrons be a little more resilient against the future hordes of orks and gaunts. But, it won't do squat for Tau, Eldar, or DE.

Can someone PM me with the link. I can't find it in the forums.

Dire Wombat wrote:...
...

By causing more wounds, the nid squad goes from wiped out with no saves to half of the squad getting saves.

More wounds = fewer casualties = Whaa??

Edit: Yeah, so this is basically an example of what Yakface just said in a lot fewer words.

Different weapons though, which affects the result.

The way the game works you can either do it the 4th edition way, which brings in all the problems with majority armour and toughness and stuff, or you can simplify it they way they are doing and you have this "unfairness" problem. It depends on how people look at things.

I have always regarded the To Hit/To Wound/To Save triple die rolling as a way of squeezing a finer grained percentage probability out of a D6, rather than a literal hit that needs a literal wound and save. Looking at your example, how were the bullets meant to know in advance that some figures would save? And what if no-one had saved, what about the extra unsaved wounds then? Would they have carried on to the next door squad.

It will of course tend to favour small, "hard" units like SMs over hordes like Stonefox said.

Ork kommandos already have a character that can allow them to come in my deployment zone, and at least if kommandos without him can come in from different edges, they will actually be a good choice for the slot. It will be a pain, yes, but Orks will have an issue if they have any lootas, or big guns in the backfield and I am fielding scouts. They could also roll poorly and come in on an edge far away from my units.

Setup is 24" apart now, so even though they are running, they have an extra 6" to make up vs the 18" of before. Trukks are 6" slower than before, so I have a little more time to choose my targets. I can also run to redeploy, and or get into my vehicles (being mech) and redeploy to get out of the way of the masses. The missle launchers I usually field in a tourney style list will be much better now at clearing out orks with frag, while a whirlwind or vindicator will work wonders, especially against massed boyz mobs and hidden lootas.

I don't see anything that tactics and armament can't help me with. With Waagh!, Gahzkull and Weirdboyz you have a fast moving army already.

It really isn't anything I already don't fear.

Wehrkind wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote: Why? Isn't the point of having multiple crew so the tank can do different things at the same time? Do they all stop to wish the gunner good luck, or deliver a catchy one-liner each time they fire?

Obviously in the dark grimmness or whatever of the far future, all gun crews are recruited from PA road workers. You need 5 guys standing around smoking and drinking coffee so 2 guys can fire the gun, while 3 others supervise.

Of course, you are on the exact opposite side of the globe, so you probably have no idea what I am talking about... Still, I think it is pretty obvious that the gun crews are union workers, and thus are very rigorous about their rules.

LMAO i'm for western pa tis very ture

I think the wounds per model issue is going to end up only working if one applies different types of wounds seperately, rolling saves in between.
Take, for example, the demi-rending Sisters have now. On a 6 to wound with Divine Guidance, it's AP1. So even with regular bolters I might have 20 hits, and say 10 wounds vs. MEQ, 3 of which are now AP1. The only really sensible thing to do is to say "Ok, apply all the AP1 shots. Roll saves as appropriate. Ok, apply all the AP5 shots. Rolls saves." Basically treat AP as I in reverse order. That way your opponant can put the low AP hits on redshirts, but you don't get punished for doing more damage.

We sort of play this way now, assigning hits to specific models when there are differing armor saves up until torrent of fire comes into play. It works pretty well when you have an HQ or something hanging out with a troops unit etc. and want to take an invulnerable save against a plasma gun instead of toasting Brother Ryan's privates. 90% of the time it never comes up though, so I don't really see this as being too terribly different. Worries me a bit though.

It puts much more value on squad firepower than just heavy duty firepower (say, from an Assault Cannon). I think this kinda makes the game more interesting, as it's another beating the AC takes - together with the rumoured Rending Nerf.

So, if I've got a squad of 10 plague marines with 2 plasmaguns shooting at 5 terminators - is it actually *better* for me to shoot only the plasmaguns and hold fire with the bolters?

If I shoot the PGs, I get 3-4 hits, probably 3 wounds, each of which is distributed to a different termie. Then they roll their saves. I should kill 2 (1 will make his inv. save).

If I also shoot the 7 bolters from the other PMs, say I get lucky and score 8 wounds (from 12 hits). Now, the termies have 11 wounds on 5 guys. They can legally put all 3 plasma wounds on 1 guy (who will die 26/27 times), and assign 2 bolter wounds to each of the other 4 guys. Each termie has a 1/3 chance of failing one of the two armor saves, so I should kill one more. Same result as just firing the plasma guns.

This is a worst case scenario for the PMs (they scored just enough bolter wounds to allow wrapping the 3rd plasma wound onto the same guy, and the bolter wounds are subject to 2+ saves). Odds are that only one wrap would be allowed, so two termies would be eating plasma wounds. It *is* odd that if the bolters had dealt 7 wounds instead of 8, I'd likely have been able to kill a third termie...

And against anything with worse than 2+ saves, it's definitely worth firing everything. Ok, it's not as bad as I had thought. Just leads to a few weird situations...

Perhaps it's the reason you can choose that some of your guys won't fire at all if you don't want them to. I've seen someone mention this rule in the thread. The pure Assault Cannon shots or Plasma shots won't be "soiled" by some bolters if the owning player chooses so.

Yet, I'd prefer Yakface's solution.

I don't get why the target player is allowed to group the plasma hits on one of his guys but must distribute the bolter hits equally.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't get why the target player is allowed to group the plasma hits on one of his guys but must distribute the bolter hits equally.

Target player has to distribute the total # of wounds evenly. Thus, if 4 wounds and five models, then target player can decide which model didn't get wounded. If 6 wounds and 5 models, then target player has to give each model a single wound, plus choose which model to give a second wound to. Now imagine that of those 6 wounds, 2 of them are plasma. Then the target player will of course give both plasma to the same model, thus killing only one model. However, if there were only 4 wounds (2 of them plasma), then 2 models would have to take a plasma each.

Yes, but I don't get why that is allowed.

This goes back to the problem that not all wounds were created equally.

It seems more sensible to distribute hits from weapons as evenly as possible, then do the wounds and saves.

I shouldn't be arguing for it because as a Tau player my shield drones become super-useful if I can pile up the plasma.

Because in the bizarre world of in which the Design team live; it rains gum drops, Oompa Loompas dance and this makes sense.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't get why the target player is allowed to group the plasma hits on one of his guys but must distribute the bolter hits equally.

It's equal distribution of all wounds, regardless of which weapon caused them. If a unit takes 10 wounds, each model must save vs 2. If 2 of those wounds are plasma, it says you can put them both on 1 model. Each model gets 2 wounds, but 1 model sucks up the plasma wounds.

Don't like it. I do like Yak's suggestion.

Edit - wow, looks like answers came while I was reading the thread and replying.

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes, but I don't get why that is allowed.

This goes back to the problem that not all wounds were created equally.

It seems more sensible to distribute hits from weapons as evenly as possible, then do the wounds and saves.

I shouldn't be arguing for it because as a Tau player my shield drones become super-useful if I can pile up the plasma.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all wounds are created equal, that they are endowed by the Games Workshop Studio staff with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the right to be stacked in any way desired.

And now for something completely dfferent:

Has anyone confirmed the existence/nonexistence of a penalty to attacking skimmers in CC? Are they still only hit on a 6?

if not, good bye skimmer lists period. If so, it still might be viable.

Looks like the tide of Biel-Tan armies is about to rise. Lucky Snakes (Serpent rush with Fortune) will be the new assault spam. 'Course the Serpents won't be firing more than one weapon after the drop-off, but at least it will keep them cheaper. VE, StarEngines, Stones, that's it. Add Seer on jetbike (or Eldrad giving the kiss-off to two Serpents from the starting line) and hit the accelerator pedal. Do it with 4 assault squads or 2 assault squads and 2 PW/SS Dire Avenger units, and something's going to die. The best part is that they can go rescue Dark Reapers after they've dumped the assault contingent.

At least it's more thematic than walking forwards behind a Rhino wall.

I like his suggestion that they should fix it before they publish the rules.

You still need a 6 to hit skimmers.

Savnock wrote:
Looks like the tide of Biel-Tan armies is about to rise. Lucky Snakes (Serpent rush with Fortune) will be the new assault spam. 'Course the Serpents won't be firing more than one weapon after the drop-off, but at least it will keep them cheaper. VE, StarEngines, Stones, that's it. Add Seer on jetbike (or Eldrad giving the kiss-off to two Serpents from the starting line) and hit the accelerator pedal.

In other words 3rd edition, part 2. (plus the most god awful wounding rules they have managed to create yet)

Back to Mechanized Assault Lists and Tanks that never move..

Sarigar wrote:You still need a 6 to hit skimmers.

Counting down till Voodoo reads this and hits the ceiling.

T minus 100..

Or, couldn't you roll separately? Fire four shots of Plasma Gun, distribute the hits. Then fire 8 Bolters, and distribute the wounds.

The rules aren't even out and we're already discussing them like it was canon? Even though Strangelooper has raised a valid point, that doesn't mean it's going to happen as described. That could give a better use to coloured dice, rather than just characters.

Or, we could also play this like "Overkill". You've got too much firepower for your own good. Don't buy two plasma guns, buy a rhino! :p

Maybe they want to make troops more resilient, as they seem to be crucial in taking objectives - I don't know, I'm just speculating, and we won't know for another 6 or so months, so why bother?

IntoTheRain wrote:

Sarigar wrote:You still need a 6 to hit skimmers.

Counting down till Voodoo reads this and hits the ceiling.

T minus 100..

Could be an error on my part, but the issue seems to be the combination of the "6" and the total inability to penetrate. If you have "6" plus some reasonable chance of achieving a penetrating hit . . . it's no so bad

Kotrin wrote:Perhaps it's the reason you can choose that some of your guys won't fire at all if you don't want them to. I've seen someone mention this rule in the thread. The pure Assault Cannon shots or Plasma shots won't be "soiled" by some bolters if the owning player chooses so.

Yet, I'd prefer Yakface's solution.

I suppose that distributing hits instead of wounds would slow the game down too much (no more majority toughness...). Too bad - you could have the attacker choose which 'hit group' has to be distributed first, and the defender could decide exactly where the hits go. EG: I hit your termies with 3 plasma hits and 12 bolter hits. I tell you to distribute the plasma hits first; you put one on each terminator except the AC and the sgt. Then you get to distribute the 12 bolter hits: one each goes on the AC and the sgt to complete the '1 wound each' first set, and then each terminator gets 2 more bolter hits each. Then wounding rolls start.

Yeah, it would take too long :( Majority toughness is a huge timesaver.

Ok then, how about: distribute the smaller wound group first? 3 plasma wounds and 8 bolter wounds, 3 plasma wounds is the smaller wound group - each plasma wound must go on a separate model. Then the 8 bolter wounds are distributed (2 to the remaining models, then wrap 5 more at 1 per model, then the last one wraps again to a model of the defender's choice): resulting in 2 termies with one plasma and one bolter wound, 1 termie with one plasma and two bolter wounds (I assume you'd stick the 8th bolter wound on a plasma'd deadman), and 2 termies with two bolter wounds.

If some deathguard havocs instead caused 8 plasma and 3 bolter wounds: first you would have to assign 3 bolter wounds to individual models, then the plasma wounds would start being assigned (and wrapping). This would result in 3 termies with one bolter and one plasma wound, 1 termie with 2 plasma wounds, and one unfortunate sod with 3 plasma wounds.

GW are you listening?

does this troop issue mean that "without number" has found its niche? That would make holding a tyranid player's table quarter pretty tough.

pretty hard for swarms to use their fodder as fodder any more without "without number"

Thinking of nobs powerclawing down skimmers makes me really want to see a video as from the beginning of DoW of an Eldar skimmer bearing down on a mob of orks, blasting away, then as it gets close you see a nob getting a running start, leaping off the back of a dead ork or something, and burying his klaw into the underbelly of the falcon, tearing out a chunk and sending the flacon spiraling off to explode on a rock.
That would be so hot.

From the view of someone who likes the odd Guard tank now and again, I like the rumoured blast rules: It makes Executioners, Conquerers and Plasma Sponsoned Demolishers that much more useful.

Overpriced to the extreme, but useful.

Okay, could someone please explain to me what was wrong with Torrent of Fire/Blows, other than the way that it wasn't well-pointed-out in the text? I mean, it was a pretty simple system for forcing saves. Sure, those forced saves were relatively rare and then only on one or two models (out of a possible three-plus sergeants/specialweapon troopers in the average squad), but they did _something_ about invisible 'fists without bogging the game down.

This new system bites many time more than that one did.

Was it the main casualty removal rules that bit, then, or ToB/F? And is there a way to fix casualty removal by expanding/uppowering ToB without getting really intricate?

Seems like a lot of babies got tossed out with the bathwater in these rules. Hope they, like, playtest them. Or something.

One more question: Was there a name/credit on these? By that, I mean do we have proof of the "Hand of Gav" or Alessiofication? I'd liek to know who designed a rulesset this... well, bravely different, actually, but not terribly well-thought-out.

Keep in mind that the guy who was talking about this doc on warseer said it had an original date of July 2007. I doubt a set of rules from that far back will end up being the final draft.

Savnock wrote:Okay, could someone please explain to me what was wrong with Torrent of Fire/Blows, other than the way that it wasn't well-pointed-out in the text? I mean, it was a pretty simple system for forcing saves. Sure, those forced saves were relatively rare and then only on one or two models (out of a possible three-plus sergeants/specialweapon troopers in the average squad), but they did _something_ about invisible 'fists without bogging the game down.

This new system bites many time more than that one did.

Was it the main casualty removal rules that bit, then, or ToB/F? And is there a way to fix casualty removal by expanding/uppowering ToB without getting really intricate?

Seems like a lot of babies got tossed out with the bathwater in these rules. Hope they, like, playtest them. Or something.

One more question: Was there a name/credit on these? By that, I mean do we have proof of the "Hand of Gav" or Alessiofication? I'd liek to know who designed a rulesset this... well, bravely different, actually, but not terribly well-thought-out.

Well, these new rules do away with several clunky mechanisms in the old rules. The majority armor rule is removed (which was pretty darn confusing) as well as torrent of fire. There are also several situations that just aren't covered in the current rules: things like how a unit with differing invulnerable saves determines how many times each type of invulnerable save may be used (there are more, though).

Overall I have to say that the new system is vastly more simple to understand but will slow gameplay down quite a bit. Is the trade off worth it? I'm not sure yet until I try actually playing with these rules.

I know everyone's gut reaction is to look at the scenario where a small unit suffers a ton of fire and gets to abuse the allocation system but I think we need to take a step back and think about it. This sort of situation only occurs when a unit suffers more wounds then it has models in the unit. In the current game this is when 'torrent of fire' kicks in. Just think about how often 'torrent' is used in your games. In my experience, it doesn't occur all that often. In the vast majority of units firing you deal with situations in which you have less wounds than models in the enemy unit in which case the new rules work perfectly fine.


With that said, I still think the suggestion I made earlier makes the system much less open to abuse. To expand a bit on the idea, here is what I propose:


During wound allocation, if there are any wounding hits that would ignore the basic armor save of at least one model in the affected unit then those wounds must be allocated before any other wounding hits (although the owning player still chooses where the wounding hit is allocated).

Whenever a wounding hit is allocated to a model who cannot make a save of any type against it, that wound is immediately resolved. Meaning, if you allocate an AP2 wound on a Space Marine who doesn't have an invulnerable or cover save that wound is immediately resolved and if the Space Marine only has a single Wound on his profile he would be immediately removed as a casaulty before allocating any other wounds.



This proposal does two things: It ensures that the killer low AP wounds are spread evenly amongst the unit (as they are allocated before other types of wounds) and it ensures that a model which you know is going to be pasted by a low AP wound can't be loaded up with extra wounds that you know will be effectively wasted.

IntoTheRain wrote:

Sarigar wrote:You still need a 6 to hit skimmers.

Counting down till Voodoo reads this and hits the ceiling.

T minus 100..

I'm already well aware, of course I get 4 PK attacks per Nob on t he charge, and my Boss will get 6 on the Charge in 5th Ed. I'll roll my 6's, and then Penetrate the living hell out of it and bring it down.

Besides it's not like the thing is going to zoom and capture objectives, or deliver a squad that's going to pound me, and if he gets exposed to fire, the tank possibly will die with a decent probability.

Or you know, there's those AP1 Melta Guns other armies have, that can just get through their cover save eventually, and then they go bye bye. And seeing as how the Mech Eldar list generally revolves around those 3 Tanks in heavy just not dying, the list falls apart. Especially with only troops scoring.

5th Ed signals the death of that army, especially with the random game length for every game. No "last turn objective grabs with Jetbikes" because it may not be the last turn, and then they can just go get wrecked in the subsequent phase.

Similarly, nizilla is a bit weaker now (especially at 1500 points) as only the troops are scoring, and they tend to be fragile and easy to deal with.
I really don't like the current scoring rules. I hope they get changed. The current way encourages monoclonal lists, just in a different way to previously. I'd love to see a system that encourages diversity.

yakface wrote:
I know everyone's gut reaction is to look at the scenario where a small unit suffers a ton of fire and gets to abuse the allocation system but I think we need to take a step back and think about it. This sort of situation only occurs when a unit suffers more wounds then it has models in the unit. In the current game this is when 'torrent of fire' kicks in. Just think about how often 'torrent' is used in your games. In my experience, it doesn't occur all that often. In the vast majority of units firing you deal with situations in which you have less wounds than models in the enemy unit in which case the new rules work perfectly fine.

Rapid firing Marines with Plasma/Meltas pop in everyones head. My dual plasma/Apoth trait marines certainly aren't diggin' it . Then again, my Apoths will probably be 'count as' pretty soon anyways.

I still don't understand how allocating wounds works with LOS. One section it states you only allocate wounds to visible models. Another section states you allocate to everyone. Don't get it.

I still think the biggest change is HTH horde armies. No 2 inch kill zone is huge in my eyes, makes Orks with running/waaghh freaking scary.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

I still don't understand how allocating wounds works with LOS. One section it states you only allocate wounds to visible models. Another section states you allocate to everyone. Don't get it.

I don't see that in the rules. FIRING models that are completely out of range or LOS of the entire enemy unit don't get to fire, but if a firing model is within range and LOS of at least a single model in the unit then all models in the unit are potential casualties. This is the change I was really hoping for with this edition and its here (yay)!

I still think the biggest change is HTH horde armies. No 2 inch kill zone is huge in my eyes, makes Orks with running/waaghh freaking scary.

Well, only models in base contact or within 2" of a friendly model in base contact get to swing, its just that those casualties can affect any model in the target unit.

yakface wrote:
I know everyone's gut reaction is to look at the scenario where a small unit suffers a ton of fire and gets to abuse the allocation system but I think we need to take a step back and think about it. This sort of situation only occurs when a unit suffers more wounds then it has models in the unit. In the current game this is when 'torrent of fire' kicks in. Just think about how often 'torrent' is used in your games. In my experience, it doesn't occur all that often. In the vast majority of units firing you deal with situations in which you have less wounds than models in the enemy unit in which case the new rules work perfectly fine.

I found in my list (SL war walkers + bladestorming DAs), torrent wasn't that uncommon. However, it wasn't so much the chance to snipe a PF that was important to me, but the statistical strength of lots of wounds. With the new wound allocation system, the opponent will be able to blunt the effectiveness of the lots-of-wounds units/builds by putting multiple wounds on single models.

yakface wrote:
With that said, I still think the suggestion I made earlier makes the system much less open to abuse.

I agree. I very much like your idea of first having to allocate the save-ignoring wounds first.

I don't see that in the rules

I posted it earlier, might be what he is referring too. It is in the cover save rules. Quote:
"Models that are completely out of sight of all of
the firers are not counted in either category, and
they cannot be hit."

EDIT -- Looked at 4ed rulebook and this isn't cut and past from there, so I was wrong on that account

yakface wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:

I still don't understand how allocating wounds works with LOS. One section it states you only allocate wounds to visible models. Another section states you allocate to everyone. Don't get it.

I don't see that in the rules. FIRING models that are completely out of range or LOS of the entire enemy unit don't get to fire, but if a firing model is within range and LOS of at least a single model in the unit then all models in the unit are potential casualties. This is the change I was really hoping for with this edition and its here (yay)!

I still think the biggest change is HTH horde armies. No 2 inch kill zone is huge in my eyes, makes Orks with running/waaghh freaking scary.

Well, only models in base contact or within 2" of a friendly model in base contact get to swing, its just that those casualties can affect any model in the target unit.

Page 15, under step 5 it states "Allocate Wounds. The owner of the target unit allocates the wounds on the unit's visible models." Emphasis mine, true this is one statement...but still?

You might still only get to swing if you are within 2'' but that doesn't mean much with kill zone gone. 30 Orks attack Marines in cover led by a Captain, lets say they kill 6 total Orks. Currently, this is a big deal as the Orks won't get many attacks in and the Marines will win combat and bypass making saves.

New edition, you kill 6 Orks....he removes 6 Orks that are in the back of the mob 12 inches away still....yet makes all of his attacks on your Marines from the 2'' Orks. That's a big change.

This really is a cool change, and it works both ways. MIN/MAX squads get their specials etc sniped, and when they get hurt is when they get a massive load of firepower from one squad.

Flamers are uber (not that weren't useful), especially if you have more than one esp if the multiple templates rule is changing with it.

Tacobake wrote:This really is a cool change, and it works both ways. MIN/MAX squads get their specials etc sniped, and when they get hurt is when they get a massive load of firepower from one squad.

Flamers are uber (not that weren't useful), especially if you have more than one esp if the multiple templates rule is changing with it.

Plasma Devs might be nasty now, although they will lost some effectiveness against deep strikers.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Tacobake wrote:This really is a cool change, and it works both ways. MIN/MAX squads get their specials etc sniped, and when they get hurt is when they get a massive load of firepower from one squad.

Flamers are uber (not that weren't useful), especially if you have more than one esp if the multiple templates rule is changing with it.

Plasma Devs might be nasty now, although they will lost some effectiveness against deep strikers.

Plasma Devs sound nasty to me too. The 4 templates count as a scattered barage with no partials. Wherever that thing lands is going to obliterate everything beneath it.

So Plasma Cannons get a boost and the new Starcannon is crap. Eldar are once again screwed by GW! I can't believe they didn't make the Wraithlord T10 in the new book.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
Page 15, under step 5 it states "Allocate Wounds. The owner of the target unit allocates the wounds on the unit's visible models." Emphasis mine, true this is one statement...but still?

You might still only get to swing if you are within 2'' but that doesn't mean much with kill zone gone. 30 Orks attack Marines in cover led by a Captain, lets say they kill 6 total Orks. Currently, this is a big deal as the Orks won't get many attacks in and the Marines will win combat and bypass making saves.

New edition, you kill 6 Orks....he removes 6 Orks that are in the back of the mob 12 inches away still....yet makes all of his attacks on your Marines from the 2'' Orks. That's a big change.

You're right about that blurb on page 15. However its a summary and the full rules are pretty clear that any model in the unit is a potential casualty. This is an early early draft so hopefully something like that gets fixed.

As for the CC example you give, all 30 Orks would have to be in base contact or within 2" of another Ork in base contact in order to be able to attack. That's a pretty difficult thing to achieve especially on the turn they charge.

Clearly it is a boost in power for assault units, but at the same time shooting units also got a boost not losing attacks due to range limitations on the target unit. Even if only a single model in the target unit is within range then the entire unit is fair game to be blown away.

So I do think it works both ways.

Tacobake wrote:Plasma Devs sound nasty to me too. The 4 templates count as a scattered barage with no partials. Wherever that thing lands is going to obliterate everything beneath it.

But at the same time that's totally feast or famine based on where the first marker scatters. If you roll a 6" scatter for that first marker you stand a really good chance of having all your Plasma Cannons hit nothing that round.

winterman wrote:Keep in mind that the guy who was talking about this doc on warseer said it had an original date of July 2007. I doubt a set of rules from that far back will end up being the final draft.

Excellent point. The metadata on it says it was created July 19, 2007 (with QuarkXpress 6.5).

This means that this probably isn't even the version currently in playtest.

yakface wrote:

Tacobake wrote:Plasma Devs sound nasty to me too. The 4 templates count as a scattered barage with no partials. Wherever that thing lands is going to obliterate everything beneath it.

But at the same time that's totally feast or famine based on where the first marker scatters. If you roll a 6" scatter for that first marker you stand a really good chance of having all your Plasma Cannons hit nothing that round.

True enough. Combined with LoS restrictions where you have to target the unit in front (unless the devs are on a hill, gimping their already short range) maybe there's something to be said for mobile firepower.

yakface wrote:
As for the CC example you give, all 30 Orks would have to be in base contact or within 2" of another Ork in base contact in order to be able to attack. That's a pretty difficult thing to achieve especially on the turn they charge.

I think that's kind of my point. Realistically, in a game when Orks reach CC they might only get 6 within 2''. Normally this would mean a Marine unit could safely wipe out the 5-6 that actually matter, win combat and worry about no casualties that round.

However, with the new "You don't have to remove models within 2 inch kill zone" version, those 6 Orks will still fight in HTH this round and deal out potential wounds.

5th Ed signals the death of that army, especially with the random game length for every game. No "last turn objective grabs with Jetbikes" because it may not be the last turn, and then they can just go get wrecked in the subsequent phase.

If wounds allocation is any guidance 5th edition doesn't only signal the disappearance of Eldar from the 40K universe, it signals the end of 40K altogether. Let's be honest, the game has never made much sense, and the designers have never known the direction they want to drag the game, but a lot of the new rules are outright laughable. Third edition they wanted to simplify the game. Fourth edition they wanted to weaken assault, remove screening and make the game a mobile firefight. Fifth edition they want screening, bigger armies and more headlong infantry charging than in Warhammer Fantasy Battle, and no mobile firepower at all.

However, with the new "You don't have to remove models within 2 inch kill zone" version, those 6 Orks will still fight in HTH this round and deal out potential wounds.

Anything to make Orks GW's new money machine. You want to play Orks. You need to play Orks. You don't want elite Orks or trukk Orks either. You want tons and tons of Boyz. Boyz are goooood. Buy now, 20€ per 10. Buy 20 boxes and you get a pot of Gnarloc Green for free.

The last sentence was a joke. Of course you don't get anything for free.

Toreador wrote:I don't see anything that tactics and armament can't help me with

This is quite a statement. Please post your 1.85K Space Marine army list for 5th edition to the army lists forum. We're all curious to see how your all-rounder army deals with the running Orks. I can post the Ork list into your army list thread. By the way, 24" between the armies isn't exactly new.

Asmodai wrote:

winterman wrote:Keep in mind that the guy who was talking about this doc on warseer said it had an original date of July 2007. I doubt a set of rules from that far back will end up being the final draft.

Excellent point. The metadata on it says it was created July 19, 2007 (with QuarkXpress 6.5).

This means that this probably isn't even the version currently in playtest.

I think it might be pretty close though. I wrote a 1000 page textbook that became available to the publisher`s warehouse in March 07. The final draft went to the publisher in late Aug 06. I then received copy edits, with which I could make reasonably small changes. Those were due late Oct 06. The copy edits were then "pored" into the design and page proofs were then generated. I couldn't change anything that would change page flow in those. They were due Dec 06. The actual printing (only 1 color and no hard cover so much quicker) and distribution to the US warehouse then took about 3-4 months. The book didn`t start making its way to the bookstores until about May. Grand total between having a finished Word version and a finished real book in my hands was close to 10 months. Printing more copies, getting them out to a world-wide retail network ... I don`t know, I think that would add on an extra month.

If a July 08 release is planned, then we very well may have seen a rule set quite close to the final one. Again, I could be wrong here, but based on my own experience we might have to live with these rules.

Good points. I don't know the details of GW's process, but they're big fans of vertical integration, so they might be able to cut down on the turn-around time.

The Codex: Orks PDF, which was in a much more finalized state was created on August 2nd 2007 and was dated July 26, 2007 according to a friend I just bugged on MSN to check - so that was a 6 month delay between the finalized version and its release.

That suggests that 40K 5th ed. is already complete and being printed if it comes out in June. This version would be still be about 5 months before finalization though - give or take because it's a rulebook rather than a Codex.

The treatment of vehicles in this new edition will force me out of the game. They are all udder crap. I refuse to just drive up my tanks on turn one and park all game long. Boring as hell. It was tanks that got me into the game because they could actually do something. They slowed them all down and sped up the infantry guys. What the hell is the point of taking tanks again when you can get more guns that shoot and guys that can hoof it almost as fast.

I refuse to play an all infantry army and I refuse to play against most all infantry armies that will be coming my way because of these new rules. But mostly I refuse to play boring games and that sure seems to be what is coming our way with these new rule sets.

Tanks are what got me into this game, and the lack of their utility is what will drive me out.

/rant

yakface wrote:


I don't see that in the rules. FIRING models that are completely out of range or LOS of the entire enemy unit don't get to fire, but if a firing model is within range and LOS of at least a single model in the unit then all models in the unit are potential casualties. This is the change I was really hoping for with this edition and its here (yay)!

yes.. because one guy sticking his head out from behind a 4 foot thick rock wall is a perfectly good reason for his entire squad of 20 guys to evaporate into a cloud of red mist.

that's slowed and an obvious play to the powergaming fanboys that just want to have their opponents push their models out into the open against their meticulously metagamed top tier list of the month that they bought with their allowance so that they can win quickly and get their "whatever the tournament points are called this month."

Blackheart666 wrote:

yes.. because one guy sticking his head out from behind a 4 foot thick rock wall is a perfectly good reason for his entire squad of 20 guys to evaporate into a cloud of red mist.

that's slowed and an obvious play to the powergaming fanboys that just want to have their opponents push their models out into the open against their meticulously metagamed top tier list of the month that they bought with their allowance so that they can win quickly and get their "whatever the tournament points are called this month."

Wha? Powergaming fanyboys?

If anything "powergaming fanboys" loved range and LOS sniping, which is exactly what these new rules eliminate.

The exact placement of models is an abstraction. That is why, for instance, the casualty removal rules allow you to pull any model with the same stats/wargear as a casualty because it represents other models rushing forwards (the same thing why you can pull models out of the 2" engagement zone in CC).

I really don't get how this has anything to do at all with so called "power gaming".

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Page 15, under step 5 it states "Allocate Wounds. The owner of the target unit allocates the wounds on the unit's visible models." Emphasis mine, true this is one statement...but still?

Actually you're even more right than I thought. Page 22 in the section about determining if a unit is in cover or not they again state that models out of LOS cannot be hit, which directly contradicts the casualty removal rules on page 20.

I really hope they catch and correct that error because as it stands now it seems like you only count the models that are within LOS to determine if a unit is in cover or not but then casualties have to be pulled from all models, whether they are within LOS or not. This makes units that are mostly out of LOS very likely not to get a cover bonus which is pretty silly.

I hope they go with: Any unit that has a majority of its models out of LOS gets the cover save of the terrain they are out of LOS behind. If they are out of LOS behind another unit, they count as having a 4+ cover save.

But we shall see what they end up doing when the final rules come out. . .

I wonder how this range/LOS thing will affect rapid firing and double-tapping?

Kilkrazy wrote:I wonder how this range/LOS thing will affect rapid firing and double-tapping?

If at least one model in the target unit is within the rapid fire range then the firing model fires twice at the target unit. Casualties can come from anywhere in the unit.

So rapid firing is indeed more potent, as are assaults.

I know this sounds stupid but doesn't it seem like this running thing REALLY hurts the Tau. How are they supposed to stand up to say Blood Angel Jump Pack spam, assuming they can run.

Marching MEQ spam with assault weapons isn't much better, just more bodies and it takes an extra turn.

I wonder what 'neccesity is the mother of invention' tactics the combination of various new rules is going to open up?

Anything that speeds up infantry movement is bad for the Tau. And they suffer from the new morale rules.

However there seem to be some changes that are going to make things better.

For instance, markerlights are going to be very useful to deal with all the cover saves.

Suits are getting better because they can move and fire heavy weapons (this includes marker drones) and also because it looks like the JSJ manoeuvre will let them hide behind FW or Kroot screens.

The Railhead comes back with its pie plate against horde armies.

Vehicles generally lose a bit of their value because the SMF move will go, but they get a lot back with the new cover rule because they can be pimped out with sensor spines, disruptor pods and smart missiles and do a great job hiding in or behind cover.

Sorry --- misposted by accident
The new shooting rules make a big difference with pulse rifles. Get one enemy model inside 12 inches and you can hit anyone in the unit out to 30 inches with a double-tap.

That seems to be how the logic of the rules works, though I am sure there will be many arguments about that issue.

Kilkrazy wrote:The new shooting rules make a big difference with pulse rifles. Get one enemy model inside 12 inches and you can hit anyone in the unit out to 30 inches with a double-tap.

oic I'm glad you mentioned it because I would have argued for half an hour the other way over that one, shiny new rule book be damned!

Tacobake wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The new shooting rules make a big difference with pulse rifles. Get one enemy model inside 12 inches and you can hit anyone in the unit out to 30 inches with a double-tap.

oic I'm glad you mentioned it because I would have argued for half an hour the other way over that one, shiny new rule book be damned!

I think it will cause absolutely furious arguments because horde/assault players are going to hate it. People will be looking back to 4th and so on. As far as I can see it's an important part of saving Tau from the impact of much faster moving hordes who can remove their shot casualties from the rear ranks.

Just thinking... This whole Defensive weapons having S4 or less thing might be there to balanced faster assault armies against shooty ones. Faster assault armies moving their vehicles won't be able to put as much firepower downrange. Static defensive vehicles on the other hand, will.

I'm still not nuts about it. It'll destroy the feel vehicles currently have. Just my 2 cents, though.

I finally saw it, they should make Smoke do a +2 modifier on your cover save. So that pred in the forest gets a +2 the turn after it is shaken to help prevent shake-lock.

I'm not very good at reading but I think skimmers block line of sight again, which totally sucks ass for combined arms eldar and fish-of-fury type tactics.

has someone noticed taht now a plyer deploys his whole force, instead of having I-go U-Go when deployment? Or may i have misread?

You didn't misread. The winner sets up his whole army, then his opponent. The winner also gets first turn.

However, Reserves is in every mission. Combined with units with Infiltrate or Scout, this looks to be very interesting. You can even match up IC's to units in Reserve, but need to declare it.

Another thing I noticed with the Tau, is they have a piece of vehicle wargear that will make all shooting attacks over 12" count as Obscured. This will in effect give those tanks a 5+ cover save w/o even moving.

That would be the disruptor pod.

I think we will see highly pimped Tau vehicles. The disruptor pod, target lock, sensor spines and decoy launchers become obligatory. Once you've added all that crap you might as well put the SMS on as well. They will be expensive but capable and tough.

I am glad I built all my skimmer chassis with magnetic attachment points for changing all the wargear around.

Is there any timeframe on 5th ed rules coming out? Looking over this list it seems that IG tanks will be useless other then static firing bunkers. As I'm a big tankhead and with the cheaper release of apocalypse vehicles I'm in the process of making an armoured company list. Now with all the change to what qualifies as a defensive weapon, and the fact that even if you move you can't really fire these weapon it's changing the entire way I arm vehicles in 5th ed and I don't want to spend all this time and money on building an army on rules that are going to be entirely different in 5th ed.

It actually sounds like it's back to the good old 3rd ed rules of sponson being entirely useless and just buying tanks for their 1 main weapon. Heck with glancing table not having a chance to destroy tanks it seems that I could just move a few leman russes into position and lay way to enemy fire while walking sentinals through the thick of it as they seem to be all that can move and fire.

I'm still wondering why GW is trying to limit how much firing a vehicle may do. Vehicles needed to be a bit more survivable overall. I really never saw complaints at how much they were able to shoot.

yakface wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Page 15, under step 5 it states "Allocate Wounds. The owner of the target unit allocates the wounds on the unit's visible models." Emphasis mine, true this is one statement...but still?

Actually you're even more right than I thought. Page 22 in the section about determining if a unit is in cover or not they again state that models out of LOS cannot be hit, which directly contradicts the casualty removal rules on page 20.

I really hope they catch and correct that error because as it stands now it seems like you only count the models that are within LOS to determine if a unit is in cover or not but then casualties have to be pulled from all models, whether they are within LOS or not. This makes units that are mostly out of LOS very likely not to get a cover bonus which is pretty silly.

I hope they go with: Any unit that has a majority of its models out of LOS gets the cover save of the terrain they are out of LOS behind. If they are out of LOS behind another unit, they count as having a 4+ cover save.

But we shall see what they end up doing when the final rules come out. . .

Well, don't even attempt to dive into the 'true los' issues....there are too many. It states units block LOS to other units yet I can think of models that could draw LOS from their eyes over their comrades...while getting the obscured safety net from enemy shooting. This encourages guardsmen, for example, to model an entire unit laying prone, another kneeling and yet another standing on rocks so they can offer a nice Zulu firing line.


Please GW, save us from the dark days of kneeling, crawling Wraithlords and Greater Daemons.

Heh, now that I thought about it:

4th Edition Wraithlord Conversion/Construction



5th Edition Wraithlord Conversion/Construction

Hah, the dreaded Squat Wraithlord! Love it.

I briefly considered cutting the legs off my Sentinels and putting the main hulls on ork wartrack chassis, but then...the thought of walking a bunch of Sentinels up behind a wall of tanks, while still being able to shoot over them and gaining 4+ cover saves...I like!

I just hope that hardened top gets cheaper in the 2010 IG codex.

@AgeOfEgos lol by far the best Conversion on all of DakkaDakka maybe my guardsmen can kick it in the face now instead of the other way around

Therion wrote:

5th Ed signals the death of that army, especially with the random game length for every game. No "last turn objective grabs with Jetbikes" because it may not be the last turn, and then they can just go get wrecked in the subsequent phase.

If wounds allocation is any guidance 5th edition doesn't only signal the disappearance of Eldar from the 40K universe, it signals the end of 40K altogether. Let's be honest, the game has never made much sense, and the designers have never known the direction they want to drag the game, but a lot of the new rules are outright laughable. Third edition they wanted to simplify the game. Fourth edition they wanted to weaken assault, remove screening and make the game a mobile firefight. Fifth edition they want screening, bigger armies and more headlong infantry charging than in Warhammer Fantasy Battle, and no mobile firepower at all.

However, with the new "You don't have to remove models within 2 inch kill zone" version, those 6 Orks will still fight in HTH this round and deal out potential wounds.

Anything to make Orks GW's new money machine. You want to play Orks. You need to play Orks. You don't want elite Orks or trukk Orks either. You want tons and tons of Boyz. Boyz are goooood. Buy now, 20€ per 10. Buy 20 boxes and you get a pot of Gnarloc Green for free.

The last sentence was a joke. Of course you don't get anything for free.

Toreador wrote:I don't see anything that tactics and armament can't help me with

This is quite a statement. Please post your 1.85K Space Marine army list for 5th edition to the army lists forum. We're all curious to see how your all-rounder army deals with the running Orks. I can post the Ork list into your army list thread. By the way, 24" between the armies isn't exactly new.

You keep talking about how Orks are going to be the be all end all.

Never mind the fact that templates will wreak them now. IG with three pie plates a turn will do wonders, whirlwinds, etc.

At the same time while you talk about how bad AV14 will be, but it will be NOTHING like what the Falcon is now. Which can capture objectives, easily knock people off them, and deliver shock troops with no risk.

AV14 is only bad when in cover, and it can shoot well. But it doesn't score, and can be neutralized from shooting at long range with a glance, and if you come up and shoot it with a Melta it dies.

Do meltas get the extra d6 still?

Do meltas get the extra d6 still?

Yes. And with AP1 they can still destroy vehilces on a glance and get 3 out of 6 chance to destroy on a pen. Makes melta weaponry much better at killing tanks compared to other weaponry, in comparison to 4ed.

Skyth: Yes.

Please GW, save us from the dark days of kneeling, crawling Wraithlords and Greater Daemons.

Actually these rules totally bone those types of conversions for a shooty MC. A squaty wraithlord can still be shot unless it's LOS is completely blocked (due to Shoot the Big ones rule). If LOS to it is completely blocked, then it can't possibly draw LOS to shoot. Granted, would work ok for a close combat oriented MC (like say a baby fex conversion for cc) or walker (like say a mini killa kan).

However this type of conversion will be effective for non MC/vehicle models that shoot. Hell, even non-converted models will benefit: tyranid warriors, tau crsis suits/broadsides, necron destroyers, any normal models behind swarms (yep swarms still screen as far as I can tell); lootas behind grots. The list goes on.

If the rules blow this badly, I hope some of the indy tournaments will either stick with 4th or create a house ruleset for their events (with minor adjustments like S5 defensive weapons, different wounds allocation schemes, etc.) If Adepticon and a couple other indys adopted a common house ruleset, it could make them bigger draws than the GW events, especially for players pissed about pillbox tanks and turbo-boosting infantry.

On a separate note, it looks like magnet sales are about to go way up

that why i bought a mess of them a week ago can you say ebay baby

AgeOfEgos wrote:Well, don't even attempt to dive into the 'true los' issues....there are too many. It states units block LOS to other units yet I can think of models that could draw LOS from their eyes over their comrades...while getting the obscured safety net from enemy shooting. This encourages guardsmen, for example, to model an entire unit laying prone, another kneeling and yet another standing on rocks so they can offer a nice Zulu firing line.


Please GW, save us from the dark days of kneeling, crawling Wraithlords and Greater Daemons.

Maybe thats just me but the obscure rule states that you can't shoot through gaps in intervening units not above units. Of course it might be argued that since you cannot see the legs of that ork you can't shoot it in the head but hey, we all love discussions.

Does "obscured" give you the equivalent of a cover save?

An obscured vehicle gets an armor save depending on the cover that obscures it.

I used the term 'obscured' in reference to the rules governing targeting models behind other models. In one place the rules state that you can shoot at any model you can get LOS to provided you trace LOS to an arm, head, or torso. Next it states you cannot shoot through gaps in intervening units. Next it states that if you're high enough you can shoot over intervening units (provided LOS is completely free of other models).

That may mean that if I keep grots in BtB contact with the boyz behind them, the boyz can never be targeted (with the exception of orbital lance strike). Cool.

They are going to need to define all this very carefully.

Kilkrazy wrote:They are going to need to define all this very carefully.

They won't. Sales here we come!

Did I read this right; Dedicated Transports are a taxi service now and Armoured Company can never win any games? (unless its a draw then only if they are ahead in VPs)

Never mind the fact that templates will wreak them now. IG with three pie plates a turn will do wonders, whirlwinds, etc.

Haha. Who do you think you're kidding? Flamers aren't any more effective against Orks than before unless you're talking about units like Burna Boyz. Are you trying to make yourself believe Orks aren't the be all end all, just so that all of our upcoming massacre victories with Orks would taste a little better? Sure, Whirlwinds are going to cause more casualties than before when they shoot. Guess what, GW has us covered. Firstly, there's no area terrain anymore that would block los so the Whirlwinds can be shaken from anywhere. Secondly, everyone is running so the Whirlwinds won't get to fire as many times as before untill its already too late. Lastly, everyone can now get as many units of the bona fide Wolf Scouts as they like in order to shake/destroy the ordnance batteries hiding in the backfields. The reason you're not worried about tanks anymore is because there will be so many Orks on every table that it will put the O&G WFB armies to shame, and the S9 power klaws will smash through the rear armours like the tanks werent even there since cover doesn't work in close combat.

I'm talking about AV14 being bad against regular armies because it will be. 1/54 chance for a lascannon to kill one behind some terrain, and you find it justifiable because it only fires that amazing pie plate you keep talking about in another sentence plus a couple other heavy weapons, and does not tank shock like Falcons did. Did you play 40K in the third edition? If you did you probably remember people running three or four Defilers per army that were all hull down behind the smallest terrain pieces one can imagine. It was hard as hell to kill them or even stop them from shooting, and nobody liked it and everyone was happy that they were nerfed. I guess it's fine now, as long as you play Orks. You can always take so many models and so many scoring units that the enemy won't have a chance in hell. Even if the Orks and their enemy both destroy eachother the Orks will win since they will be worth much less KPs than their opponents. Justice for all.

All we need now is Codex Space Wolves having a special rule saying they can disembark and assault from Rhinos moving max speed so that everyone can take six squads of Blood Claws in Rhinos, and we're happily back in third edition (although a slightly more slowed version of 3rd ed).

I must say the introduction of 4+ and 3+ cover saves will make MEQ much less attractive than ever before. Why would you pay for armour if you can get invulnerable saves for free?

Well, nids and orks at 1,500 points now have no real way to fight a 3 monolith necron force or 3 landraider marine/chaos/inquisition force.

And don't ****ing get me started on zoanthropes. On average, without taking into account vehicles running away, cover and special anti-psyker stuff, a trio of zoanthropes will drop one armor 14 vehicle in a game.

Throw in all that crap and zoanthropes aren't dropping anything.

(Couple this with a necron rumor I heard that phase out will be removed and three monoliths becomes the "I win" button when taking on nids or orks.)

Yeah, sure, so swarms are great now. Too bad swarms aren't how you kill vehicles. They weren't then, they're not going to be now. Basically, the new rulebook's goal is to attempt to even things out by making vehicles bad against shooty armies, so that you'll take less of the big ones. I don't see this working.

Just so you know, nidzilla needed a nerf. What the tyranids didn't need, however, was an inability to destroy a vehicle-heavy list.

Yeah, sure, so swarms are great now. Too bad swarms aren't how you kill vehicles.

Yes they are. Each unit has 3 anti-tank weapons and an anti-tank squad leader. If you think these are slow hordes in the conventional sense you're wrong. They all fleet now. By the way, count the amount of scoring units/models you can squeeze into a 1500p Necron army with 3 Monoliths.

I'm pretty bummed by a lot of these new rules. They definantly need to clarify some stuff as clearly the PDF is incomplete on many levels.

I personally feel that the "run" special rule will break the game. The gaming table is just not big enough to allow for these types of movement for 6-7 turns. It takes away most all advantages that transports used to give. I saw where it specifically said bikes couldn't run, but nothing was said of jump troops. Jumpackers just got insane on how fast they can move across the table.

Did anyone here really feel that infantry moving 6" per turn broke the game before? I really wonder whether playing Apocalypse got the designers into a strange perspective when it came to movement versus table size.

Now, the run rule could be nice in Apocalypse, with the "no running within 12 inches" modifier. But in regular 40K, it's going to screw everything up big time.

Jumpackers just got insane on how fast they can move across the table.

Ork Stormboyz move 12+D6+D6, while a Falcon or Trukk next to them moves 18". Isn't it great?

Yes they are. Each unit has 3 anti-tank weapons and an anti-tank squad leader. If you think these are slow hordes in the conventional sense you're wrong. They all fleet now. By the way, count the amount of scoring units/models you can squeeze into a 1500p Necron army with 3 Monoliths.

You go ahead and enjoy needing 4s, then 6s, then a crapload of 5s and 6s.

And it isn't about how many scoring units you can squeeze into an army with 3 monoliths. It's about how many scoring units the other guy has left after you're finished.

You know what, I just realized that this doesn't make nidzilla any worse against normal armies. Being able to always score some kills with the barbed strangler and the warp blasts only make nidzilla better. The only real problem will actually be a lot of monoliths as a lot of venom cannons can still whittle down land raiders and predators, or at least remove the more dangerous weapons.

Therion wrote:

Jumpackers just got insane on how fast they can move across the table.

Ork Stormboyz move 12+D6+D6, while a Falcon or Trukk next to them moves 18". Isn't it great?

I know, I'm pretty much royally pissed at this. Added to the insane movement I also completely hate the new mission objectives and especially that every game uses random game length. It completely destroys the current endgame movement strategy. If your playing an army that has minimal scoring units in the first place, or are pretty much not very survivable in the first place. You can do you best to protect them all game long and then make that last mad dash to the objective counter. But wait, normally with smart movement you can make sure they get there and have a strong possibilty of them stay alive. But if the game suddenly goes 1 turn longer that can royally fubar your plans an litterally cost you the game because of 1 stupid die roll. Thats not fun, thats *bleep*ed up. Seriously, anyone here really think a unit of 10 firewarriors can hold an objective better than say 10 battle sisters if the game suddenly goes longer.

For some armies, every game... every single game is just going to have to be an annilation game for them, regardless of what else was rolled?

That's one of the things I think is great about the rumoured 5th ed rules - you can't pull a last-turn objective grab after hiding the whole game. No more swooping 24" across the board with a landspeeder that's been sitting behind terrain in your back corner all game, to grab a vital objective.

If armies have to actually move their troops towards objective and try to defend them, this makes for a more fun game where both sides actually get to shoot at / charge one another and, you know, fight. Rather than counting on a couple of fast vehicles to hide and then seal the deal just because they for sure can't be killed in the bottom of turn 6 (an artifact of the fixed turn system).

That Stormboyz will be faster than fast vehicles...yeah, that sucks. But Stormboyz/Jumppackers/Jetpackers in 4th ed are already faster than normal vehicles (12"+6" assault, vs 12") and nobody seemed to think that was a problem...

Strangelooper wrote:That's one of the things I think is great about the rumoured 5th ed rules - you can't pull a last-turn objective grab after hiding the whole game. No more swooping 24" across the board with a landspeeder that's been sitting behind terrain in your back corner all game, to grab a vital objective.

If armies have to actually move their troops towards objective and try to defend them, this makes for a more fun game where both sides actually get to shoot at / charge one another and, you know, fight. Rather than counting on a couple of fast vehicles to hide and then seal the deal just because they for sure can't be killed in the bottom of turn 6 (an artifact of the fixed turn system).

That Stormboyz will be faster than fast vehicles...yeah, that sucks. But Stormboyz/Jumppackers/Jetpackers in 4th ed are already faster than normal vehicles (12"+6" assault, vs 12") and nobody seemed to think that was a problem...

Trying to figure out your logic.

It's bad for a fast vehicle to swoop out 24" on the last turn to seize the objective, but it's good for Blood Angels Assault Marines to hide the whole game and swoop out 18" on the last turn to grab the objective.

I'm not sure I get why the 6" is going to make all the difference in terms of this tactic.

I wouldn't mind Stormboys being faster if normal vehicles could be mobile while shooting. I have to say, I really dislike the new scoring unit and vehicle rules.
I think I will be making a bunch of custom missions for the new edition. I can see what they were going for (Troops really being the core of the army) but I really take exception to the way they did it. It's going to cut down on list diversity massively.

Strangelooper wrote:That's one of the things I think is great about the rumoured 5th ed rules - you can't pull a last-turn objective grab after hiding the whole game. No more swooping 24" across the board with a landspeeder that's been sitting behind terrain in your back corner all game, to grab a vital objective.

If armies have to actually move their troops towards objective and try to defend them, this makes for a more fun game where both sides actually get to shoot at / charge one another and, you know, fight. Rather than counting on a couple of fast vehicles to hide and then seal the deal just because they for sure can't be killed in the bottom of turn 6 (an artifact of the fixed turn system).

That Stormboyz will be faster than fast vehicles...yeah, that sucks. But Stormboyz/Jumppackers/Jetpackers in 4th ed are already faster than normal vehicles (12"+6" assault, vs 12") and nobody seemed to think that was a problem...

But this was taken care of by making troops the only scoring unit. There are no troops that can go 24" to grab an objective. But careful use of transports could get your troops there. But why bother with transports when you own guys can just walk just as far. Its crap when you look at the whole picture rather than just the parts. Its just GWs way of overcompensating, rather than just making adjustments towards balance.

Isn't the last turn determination done randomly so you don't know when it is the last turn? That puts paid to the last second land grab.

Is anyone else as weirded out about no hiding behind terrain as I am?

As I understand it, you can hide behind terrain that actually conceals a model from literal LOS so tall hills would do it or thick stand of trees with hedges round the outside, or tall buildings with no windows.

I think they will have to leave area terrain in as an option for woods.

Etherdude wrote:Is anyone else as weirded out about no hiding behind terrain as I am?

yes. My forests block LoS, they're very woodsy. I just assume the rest of the table is sparsely covered. It's a "swirling melee".

The more I read these rules over, and the more I think about it, the more I want to get in on HBMC's Revisited Project.

Having representative style rules (such as removal of range-sniping and casualty eligibility within a squad) make a lot more sense to me, and these 5th Ed rules only serve to confuse and annoy me.

So just because a unit of 10 Terminators had ONE of its party end up within 1" of an enemy model, that unit is effectively out of the game? Never mind the fact that they still have a 50% chance of coming in on the board - if my opponent plops them down in the far corner of a 4'x6' board, those 440 points are wasted as they reposition themselves for the remainder of the game. At least in 4th Edition you could suffer the consequence of losing that one model, or in 3rd Edition, you could shift the models around under that Large Blast template to get as many in as possible.

Is it me, or are the TechnoMagi of the Adeptus Mechanicus getting worse at repairing their teleporter technology? Oh wait, I forgot, that's just the fluff - the Dev team came up with that one at their last bong-pounding session.

HBMC, if you have any pointers as to how to go about refining the the 4th Edition rules to the point of being playable, while incorporating the scarce good stuff from 3rd and 5th, please let me know - on this thread or in a PM.

I may not be the most hardcore of 40K players out there, but I definitely feel that I am along the same line of thought as many of my fellow players. This weekend was the first time that I had enough models to play a decent sized (4000 points per side) Apocalypse game - it was a lot of fun, despite the game's glaring tendency to highlight the brokenness of Assets such as Flank March and units such as Immortals, Turbo-Boosting Destroyer Lords, and Baneblades (especially when they're the only Super Heavy on the table, despite being on the 4000 points side against the 5000 points side).

My point is that I've been playing this game for 10 years, and have been eagerly awaiting some fixes to some severly description-deficient rules problems. I play Black Templars and Imperial Guard, and currently own around 4000 points of BT and 3000 points of IG (which includes a Baneblade). I've spent close to a couple thousand dollars on models, terrain, paints, and time and effort. To me, a poor college student with little free time and even less money, that means a lot. I'm sure that there are many of you out there that are either in the same boat or understand what I'm getting at, and it is that I'm really sick and tired of some really stupid rules mechanics.

I don't mind seeing some overpowered units in each army. In fact, one of the things I like about this game is seeing my opponent's eyes glimmer when he plops down Sgt. Joe Shmoe and his friends as Doom Squad X, because I know that I've probably got something equally powerful in my list too. But at the same time, fighting broken configurations and one-dimensional units that require only a brain stem to understand their uses just aggravates me.

I like some of the things GW is adding. Making the entire squad eligible for casualty-removal, and the Run! rule are both things I like, especially as an infantry-heavy Templar player. On the other hand, making tanks immobile battle bunkers irks me greatly, especially as an IG player.

I don't think that making a solid ruleset involves reinventing the wheel. I do think that it requires developers that actually play the game, and writers that understand how to explain something that is seemingly complicated in simple, grammatically correct English.

Maybe I'm asking for too much from GW though. Then again, I occasionally have these bursts of wishful thinking. Homebrew ruleset, here I come.

As for 5th Edition - if it doesn't have some major changes made to it between the current PDF version and the final print, then I'm done keeping up to date with the rules.

Sorry for the long post - I'm just really frustrated right now, and needed to dish out my 2 cents.

CK

Maybe GW don't want people deepstriking so much.

It is only risky if you slap them down into a congested area.

Like, say, anywhere they need to be.

Pshah.

With the new mobility can't you drop them in the clear and move them quickly to the attack point?

Jayden63 wrote: There are no troops that can go 24" to grab an objective.

Space Marine (Or Ravenwing) Bikes, Eldar Jetbikes and Ork Bikers can do it, and are troops.

Asmodai wrote:
Trying to figure out your logic.

It's bad for a fast vehicle to swoop out 24" on the last turn to seize the objective, but it's good for Blood Angels Assault Marines to hide the whole game and swoop out 18" on the last turn to grab the objective.

I'm not sure I get why the 6" is going to make all the difference in terms of this tactic.

Let me be clearer then. Right now (in 4th edition), it is a valid tactic to take 2nd turn, hide one or more Landspeeders/Pirahnas all game (behind a piece of LOS-blocking terrain) and use them to claim/contest objectives with a 24" move in the bottom of turn 6. These cheap fast skimmers don't take up many points in an army, so it's not too detrimental for them to not contribute to the army's shooting during the game. Another valid tactic is to use Falcons (which have a very low chance of being immobilized/destroyed) as last-turn objective grabbers. They're not as cheap as the little guys, but they are almost as survivable as an LOS-blocking AV10 vehicle and they can contribute to the game by dropping off troops and possibly getting a pulse laser shot off once or twice (if they get lucky and spend a turn un-shaken).

I dislike the fact that this tactic exists, as it strains verisimilitude - the army wouldn't know that the opposition was going to give up after turn 6, so they'd never hang a fragile AV10 speeder out to claim. It's only the player's knowledge that turn 6 is the last one, and their AV10 skimmer can't be shot at at all, that allows this tactic.

If these 5th edition rumours pan out, fast vehicles only get to move 18" and they don't score anyways. Jump-packers do get to move 13-18" (18" if an assault target presents itself) and fleet Stormboyz/jetbikes can get 17-24" in that case, true. However, a unit of jump-packers is going to be both more expensive than an AV10 skimmer, and less survivable than a holofielded Falcon. Not to mention more vulnerable to indirect blasts when hiding behind terrain (if they find some terrain that actually blocks LOS... ). But the fact that it's not certain when the game will end makes the tactic of "hide, then claim in the bottom of the last turn" really risky - there may well be another turn where your throwaway fast unit gets killed, and cannot contest/claim. Also, the random d6 of the run/fleet move makes the tactic even riskier. And yes, 18" vs 24" is a big deal when you're hiding behind something but want to get within range of a particular objective.

So in 5th, it will be much more expensive and much less certain to hold a fast claiming unit out of the game until the 'last turn' (or thereabouts) to swoop in and claim/contest an objective. Perhaps not worth it? I hope so.

Wargaming for me is the most fun when the armies actually fight in a way that mimics how such armies might actually fight (verisimilitude). The less 'gamey' trix that hinge on game elements which strain verisimilitude (eg last-turn objective claims, casualty-removal trix in close combat etc.), the more fun the game will be for me.

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:So just because a unit of 10 Terminators had ONE of its party end up within 1" of an enemy model, that unit is effectively out of the game?

Why isn't that fair? Deep Strike position is set by the player. If the player wants to gamble on placing close (for a game-breaking Boo! with Heavy Flamer against IG / Tau or something) then he risks a bad scatter. That is balancing risk for high reward.

Is it me, or are the TechnoMagi of the Adeptus Mechanicus getting worse at repairing their teleporter technology?

Huh? It's far more accurate than before - the squad is only lost 1/2 of the time.

Personally, I would have preferred to see that 40k5 go back to the original 40k3 rules for Deep Strike - Lost in the Warp for double 1s, off the board, or within 1" of the enemy.

I play Black Templars and Imperial Guard, and currently own around 4000 points of BT and 3000 points of IG (which includes a Baneblade).

Not bad. I've got over 8k worth of Eldar, 4k of SM, 3k of IG, 3k of CSM, 1k of SoB, and 1k of Inq. The way I see it, the changes all balance out in the end.

On the other hand, making tanks immobile battle bunkers irks me greatly, especially as an IG player.

I dunno about that... As far as I'm concerned, there's no real change. My Russes are Ordnance-throwers, so secondary / other weapons don't matter. My Hellhounds & Chimeras usually only move 6" and shoot. And my Bassies don't move. So everything is about the same.

Strangelooper wrote:Wargaming for me is the most fun when the armies actually fight in a way that mimics how such armies might actually fight (verisimilitude). The less 'gamey' trix that hinge on game elements which strain verisimilitude (eg last-turn objective claims, casualty-removal trix in close combat etc.), the more fun the game will be for me.

QFT.

This is why I intensely dislike super-accurate Deep Strike & Drop Pods.

JohnHwangDD wrote:My Russes are Ordnance-throwers, so secondary / other weapons don't matter. My Hellhounds & Chimeras usually only move 6" and shoot. And my Bassies don't move. So everything is about the same.

But your Chimeras and Hellhounds now put out about 1/2 the firepower when they move 6" and shoot. That's not really about the same.

To me, it seems like it would totally kill the role of the Chimera as an IFV advancing beside the troops and providing covering fire for them.

Likewise I always liked the Hellhound because it was a fun tank to use. You could run it up the board and flame down enemy troops. Under 5th (as rumoured anyway) it will just be another static pillbox. At that rate, I might as well just take another Russ or Basilisk.

Guard benefits from this rules in other ways - e.g. the new blast rules - but it seems like the competitive builds will very much be a big spam of infantry platoons supported by big tanks with much less of a role for Chimeras, Storm Troopers, Techpriests, Hellhounds, and other favorite units of mine. It's not bad per se, but I think it's a sad thing when an army gets shoehorned into only a couple competitive builds.

Which is what a lot of these changes are going to do. they aren't moving towards any sort of real balance, just a different shape for the cookie cutter.

The rulebook has been leaked already i have a pdf copy missing all the pics and from what i have read they made it more complicated and stupid

a model with bs of 6 or better may re roll his to hit roll but he now needs a 5 instead of his normal 2 ....lame

this is just one example of the crap comming out im reading and ill up date when im done

wow how is this for stupidity
you may now shoot through area terrain
quote
if a model shoots through area terrain the target recieves the cover from the interveining terrain, even if the unit is completely visable to the firer. this does not apply to shots that go over the terrain

i see many people boycotting this and running 4th edition rtt's and tell gw to stick it

What makes you think that pdf is authentic?

next all units get the RUN ability a single D6 that ignores terrain but if you run you may not assault

a unit that runs may not shoot that turn.. gee everyone gets a form of fleet how special is that ?

Asmodai wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:My Russes are Ordnance-throwers, so secondary / other weapons don't matter. My Hellhounds & Chimeras usually only move 6" and shoot. And my Bassies don't move. So everything is about the same.

To me, it seems like it would totally kill the role of the Chimera as an IFV advancing beside the troops and providing covering fire for them.

Not really. I'll go from 2 HBs & PMHS to 1 HB & PMHS, so it's not so huge. Guardsmen are still going to need their Chimeras for mobility and survivability.

Likewise I always liked the Hellhound because it was a fun tank to use. You could run it up the board and flame down enemy troops. Under 5th (as rumoured anyway) it will just be another static pillbox. At that rate, I might as well just take another Russ or Basilisk.

That presumes you haven't filled all 3 Heavy slots. Even under the new rules, you can still move 6" and fire the Inferno Cannon & PMHS.

Guard benefits from this rules in other ways - e.g. the new blast rules - but it seems like the competitive builds will very much be a big spam of infantry platoons supported by big tanks with much less of a role for Chimeras, Storm Troopers, Techpriests, Hellhounds, and other favorite units of mine. It's not bad per se, but I think it's a sad thing when an army gets shoehorned into only a couple competitive builds.

OTOH, Guard have a pretty outdated Codex. I'm hoping that the Guard get a new-style update after Planetstrike, so we can have our Valkyries for Fast Skimmer Transport.

the only thing missing from it are the pictures and it reaks of gw's not understanding anything

force weapons just got nerfed any unit that is immune to instant death cannot be killed by a force weapon.... all you nids players can start partying you will rule the battle field from hear on out

With the shoot through area terrain, it does say that terrain can block LOS if it is tall enough. So a forest is going to block LOS, but a level 1 series of sandbags or high grass, then why is it unreasonable to shoot past it?

It still seems that, depending on what you and your opponent dictate in terms of height, terrain will play mostly the same role it does now.

But if you can just shoot through terrain without worry, this does seem to balance the fact everyone can fleet, so an IG gunline has more of a chance to gun down the mass of fleeting orks.

At this point though, I think having the fleet thing is much more of an advantage.

I must say that with the new rules, it does seem pretty damn stupid that the heavier, slower tanks, can't just fire mostly everything if they aren't going full out. If a massive heavy tank isn't designed to slowly roll forward laying suppressing fire, why isn't every tank just artillery then? I more than embrace not being able to fire ordinance and other weapons in the same turn, but taking some maneuverability out of tanks is the last thing they need.

I must say I am intrigued to see how the new CC system works out with the morale modifiers, I imagine close combat is going to be a lot faster with lots of fleeing guard, tau, and orks if they get whittled down enough. I do kinda enjoy the unlimited outnumber, seems like it might be fun.

Overall, I kinda like the new rule set, although there are some serious things that doesn't sit well, the biggest to me, the new wound allocation system.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
OTOH, Guard have a pretty outdated Codex. I'm hoping that the Guard get a new-style update after Planetstrike, so we can have our Valkyries for Fast Skimmer Transport.

I'll agree with you on that. I'm also hoping that Tech-Priests get their rules cleaned up (retinue not counting as wargear, maybe not taking up a slot ala DA's Techmarines).

I disagree that 1 ML, 1HB + 1PMHS ==> 1HB + 1PMHS isn't a major change. Assuming you have the PMHS you're losing about 40% of your firepower. If you don't have that upgrade, you're losing half.

The HB or ML are nice because of their S5/6. That really helps them put some wounds on Orks and Marines, where the PMHS struggles a bit. I'm not going to go into mathhammer, but I think it's pretty clear that it's a significant reduction.

The Chimera also loses mobility since it's not that much faster than a Guardsman - 12" max a turn vs. average of 9.5" a turn. If they both shoot while they advance then they're both confined to 6". Given that the Chimera is slightly more than the cost of the squad it transports (usually) and it doesn't hold an objective, I think that it will increasingly be phased out in favour of more Infantry Platoons.

the new vehicle damage charts are absolutely ridiculous.. you have to add this subtract this add this yet again oh dont forget you have to subtract for this then add your result

lunatics running the asylum

Overall, I kinda like the new rule set, although there are some serious things that doesn't sit well, the biggest to me, the new wound allocation system.

Yeah, huge change there, and a major red flag for me.

It's not really that I think you should be able to hide special weapons in a squad. That's not "realistic" nor is it necessary for the game to work. If you built a game system that didn't allow for it, that's perfectly fine.

However... The fact that GW thinks they can turn that rule on its head without totally screwing up game balance... Well, it's a clear demonstration that they don't understand rules design, or the limits of their own playtesting capability.

It'd be one thing if every army had special weapons in squads, and now those weapons go away at roughly the same rate as everyone else. Whatever, still balanced. But that's NOT what they have. The system has armies that depend on those special weapons (Marines, Guard, Orks, etc. etc.) and those that don't (Tyranids, Necrons). By making the change they have, they SIGNIFICANTLY alter the balance of the game, and not in any uniform way that makes sense. It's an across the board change that helps armies that don't need it (Tyranids) and hurts armies that need help (Guard).

Again, it's not that this sort of system is inherantly wrong, it's just that making it at this point in time demonstrates a total lack of clarity on GW's part.

I won't even start on the insanity I've heard about target priority and screening, but I guess it's back to 3rd Edition when I could castle up my Necrons and win every game without even paying attention.

All we can do is cross our fingers and hope that they sort all of this out before unleasing it on us. I've heard a few good ideas as well, so it's not all bad, but the general attitude seems to be one of poking and hoping rather than actually knowing how to design a coherant system and how to maintain the playability of a rules base that is imprved and updated at a glacial pace.

Just received this email

Hello AdamSouza,

We at 40kTerra have obtained the Pre-Release version of the new 5th edition rulebook. We will be constantly revealing new things that are coming to the new rulebook.


Example preview:

Snipers provide Rending + Pinning

Rending - Roll to hit the same, on a wounding '6' it is AP 2
Against vehicles = If penetration is a roll of 6 - further D3 penetration is given.
This is exactly the same in CC and Shooting.

Poison Weapons - Wounds on 4+, gets re-roll if failed.

Gets Hot Rule - Only gets hot on a 1, even if rapid fire.

Pinning - A Unit PINNED gets +1 cover. If the unit is not in cover they get 6+ cover save.



Check it out at www.40kterra.com
Under the Rumors and News section.


Ikarus

On my way to check it out now

EDIT: Direct link to info is here: http://www.40kterra.com/forums/f41/5th-edition-preleak-info-giveout-4708.html

Things with greater than BS 5 will get roll benefits -> BS 6,7,8,9,10 possible


BALLISTIC SKILL OF 6 OR BETTER
Very rarely a model may have a BS of 6 or
even more. If a model has a BS of 6 or higher,
it gains a re-roll whenever it rolls a 1 to hit
with ranged attacks. The second roll has
normally a lower chance of hitting, and the
number needed is given in the chart below in
italics after the slash.

BS 6+ will get a re-roll to hit if they get a to hit roll of a '1' BUT, the 2nd chance has less likely part to hit.
BS 6 - Hits on 2+, if Misses 2nd chance on 6+
BS 7 - Hits on 2+, if Misses 2nd chance on 5+
BS 8 - Hits on 2+, if Misses 2nd chance on 4+
BS 9 - Hits on 2+, if Misses 2nd chance on 3+
BS 10 - Hits on 2+, if Misses 2nd chance on 2+


For example, a model with BS 7 fires a shot
with its plasma pistol. It rolls a 1 and so it can
re-roll the dice (and conveniently the weapon
does not Get Hot!). This time, however it
won’t hit on a 2, but rather on a 5 (and a
second one would mean its weapon has
overheated).
If a model has a special rule that already
confers it a re-roll to hit (like a master-crafted
weapon, for example), then that re-roll takes
precedence and the chances to hit on the reroll
are the same as the first shot, regardless
of the firer’s BS.

Tanks -
Combat speed - Vehicles moving up to 6'' considered as Combat Speed - 1 Gun allowed to shoot
Cruising Speed - Vehicles move up to 12'' considered as Cruising Speed - No gun Allowed.
Flat Out Speed - Vehicles move up to 18'' (Given to Fast Vehicles - no 24'' movement)


Fast Vehicles -

Can shoot all at Combat Speed
Can shoot 1 at Cruising Speed
Can shoot nothing at Flat Out Speed


Skimmers -
Vehicle Ignores Terrain
Vehicle must move at Cruising Speed or Flat Out to get OBSCURED bonus

Obscured - If tank is obscured it gets a 4+ sv to ignore Glance or Penetration results.


Walkers-
Can shoot one gun at Combat Speed



Defensive Weapons - Str 4 or under


Pintle & Turret Mounted Weapons get 360 Degress LoS
Sponson = 180 Degrees LoS
Hull = 45 Degrees LoS

AP1 - Adds +1 to Damage table results
AP 0 - Subtracts -1 to Damabe Table results



Single Universal Vehicle Damage Table -
1 or less : Crew Shaken
2 : Crew Stunned
3 : DAMAGED -Weapon Destroyed
4 : DAMAGED - Immobilized
5 : DESTROYED - Vehicle
6 : DESTROYED - Vehicle Explodes (d6'' Str 3 AP - explosion)

Glancing = - 2
AP - = -1
AP 1 - = + 1
Opened Top + 1

Affects on Passengers -
Passengers on a Vehicle Shaken ed - Crew no Affected
Passengers on a Vehicle Stunned - Can not Disembark
Passengers on a Vehicle Damaged 4 - No Effect
Passengers on a Vehicle Destroyed 5 - Disembarks Vehicle + Pinning test
Passengers on a Vehicle Destroyed 6 - Disembarks Vehicles + Suffers Str 4 AP - Hit + Pinning test



Assault Against Vehicles - If vehicles move in this speed then ->
Stationary - Auto Hit
Combat Speed - 4+
Cruising Speed - 6+

Snipers provide Rending + Pinning

Rending - Roll to hit the same, on a wounding '6' it is AP 2
Against vehicles = If penetration is a roll of 6 - further D3 penetration is given.
This is exactly the same in CC and Shooting.

Poison Weapons - Wounds on 4+, gets re-roll if failed.

Gets Hot Rule - Only gets hot on a 1, even if rapid fire.

Pinning - A Unit PINNED gets +1 cover. If the unit is not in cover they get 6+ cover save.

RUN! - New Infantry Rules
In their Shooting phase units may choose not to fire and run instead, immediately moving D6” inches
(a rather popular choice for units that do not have ranged weaponry!).
Running movement is not affected by difficult terrain – it is always a flat D6” (but models running
through dangerous terrain must test as normal).
Units that run cannot assault in the following Assault phase.

Scoring units
Normally a campaigning army employs the squads
making up the bulk of its fighting force to dig in
and consolidate any territorial gains, while the
most specialised units forge ahead to engage the
enemy with lightning-fast assaults and massive
armoured trusts.

The concept of scoring units is central to two of
the Standard Missions, which are won or lost by
capturing and holding more objectives than the
enemy, and only scoring units may do that.
An army’s scoring units are all the units that come
from its Troops allowance. There are only three
exceptions when a unit of Troops does not count
as scoring:
• if it is falling back at the end of the game
• if it is a vehicle
• if it has a special rule specifying it never counts
as scoring.

STANDARD MISSIONS CHART
D6 Roll Mission
1-2 Recon
3-4 Take and Hold
5-6 Total Annihilation

Ikarus promise to update daily with new tidbits.

So people are now calling the leaked PDF from last summer a pre-release version of the rulebook. If it is so it is more than likely that I'll take five years off 40K and spend it on other games. I've never seen a game take so many leaps backwards as 40K is taking.

Some of us like 2nd edition.

I generally don't play 40k competitively, so as a more casual player, I don't think the new rules are going to keep me from occassionally attending a local tourney or playing as much as I can.

If the leaked pdf is true, I'll still play and hopefully still have fun, although if it just takes too long, house rules and using 4th edition are still viable options.

A lot of rules seem fine to me, but yah there are a few that really suck and I hope this isn't the final version like the ork leak was, but if it is, I'll deal. But then I suppose if I was a more competitive player I might be pissed as hell.

The "leaked" pdf is from summer?

According to the metadata.
That gives me a vague hope that some of the more ridiculous ideas got dumped in playtesting.
It's fun to compare and contrast how wizards are dealing with 4th edition D'n'D to how GW are dealing with 5th edition 40K in terms of transparency and advertising.

Anyone notice that the rules pertaining to who gets to fight, anyone within 2 inches at the start of the combat even if there is no one left, and that there are no more 2 inch kill radii, means that powerfist equipped terminators become absolutely awesome in combat. They will always get to swing now. And they will not just kill out their kill box but they should wipe through units.

Cogito

Apparently the PDF is 12 months old; as for how accurate it is...

It is difficult to believe that nothing would have changed in 12 months.

Im not liking those vhechle rules. Walkers can only fire once when moving? dreadnaughts suddenly seem to have lost their value to me. Also some tanks (Especially the FW krieg - malcador etc) look great and conjour up images of trundling forward firing guns supporting troops, won't happen like that in the game! I edjoyed 2nd edition but it didn't flow as well. Tanks in my mind shouldn't be pill boxes, If they are I'd prefer to stick to heavy weapon squads myself. And wound allocation before saves....took a while to get used to this changing to the current but now I'm used to it I'd rather not go back. It makes more sense but slows down the game too much. The only thing I miss from 2nd is the character, especially the wackyness of the orks, the new ones look better but they've lost the comidy. It is nice to see things like the shokk attack comeing back but it's the character that got me into the game, then the rules. Having played now for years I think the current ruleset is very playable, it does have a few faults but it doesn't need the sort of changes that the rumours are talking about. Some of it is very good (sniper rifles etc) but get rid of the pill boxes, the 'running' (I'd say this is the maximum speed alllowed (6") why walk over a battlefield as standard pace when you're being shot at? Sometime yes you may want to go slower, so go slower and take atvantage of the new get down, but don't allow every one to fleet. how fast will that make orks with the waagh rule? Orks are descibbed as a huge wave of green, not a supper fast moving alien! Sorry, bit of a rant there. Personally I think I'm gonna stick with the current rules if some of these changes go ahead.

It also concerns me that some seem like quite big changes. Can't think of any examples but I'd put money of them not being in line with several rules in codexes, or some special rules don't work - anyone fancy waiting 3-4 years for them to fix the codex?

Therion wrote:

Never mind the fact that templates will wreak them now. IG with three pie plates a turn will do wonders, whirlwinds, etc.

Haha. Who do you think you're kidding? Flamers aren't any more effective against Orks than before unless you're talking about units like Burna Boyz. Are you trying to make yourself believe Orks aren't the be all end all, just so that all of our upcoming massacre victories with Orks would taste a little better? Sure, Whirlwinds are going to cause more casualties than before when they shoot. Guess what, GW has us covered. Firstly, there's no area terrain anymore that would block los so the Whirlwinds can be shaken from anywhere. Secondly, everyone is running so the Whirlwinds won't get to fire as many times as before untill its already too late. Lastly, everyone can now get as many units of the bona fide Wolf Scouts as they like in order to shake/destroy the ordnance batteries hiding in the backfields. The reason you're not worried about tanks anymore is because there will be so many Orks on every table that it will put the O&G WFB armies to shame, and the S9 power klaws will smash through the rear armours like the tanks werent even there since cover doesn't work in close combat.

I said templates, that means Ordinance. AV14 is very hard to deal with at range for Orks now, not even counting them in cover, which makes it even harder. Three pie plates will put large dents in this unstoppable Ork horde you keep talking about. And now that the KFF Mek isn't untargetable anymore, you can concentrate on a squad and make him run away with your pie plates.

And you keep going on about area terrain. If you somehow assume that all of a sudden tables of 40k will be near clear killing fields for guns with cover saves, you're being completely unrealistic. People will discuss terrain just like now before the game and there will be pieces that block LOS, pieces that don't but give good cover saves (4+), and the like.

I don't need any kind of statements to make myself feel better about using Orks. I already decided not to build the Shoota Horde, because after playing with it for a while using my proxy models, I'm just not going to bother building and painting 100+ shootas just so I can be a dick at a few tournaments. I'm going to run Kult of Speed mainly, and a mix of footsloggers. And despite what you think about 5th, the horde Orks will be far from unbeatable. They'll be good sure, but I doubt they'll be as dominant as Mech Eldar or Godzilla now, as long as people build their armies well.

I'm talking about AV14 being bad against regular armies because it will be. 1/54 chance for a lascannon to kill one behind some terrain, and you find it justifiable because it only fires that amazing pie plate you keep talking about in another sentence plus a couple other heavy weapons, and does not tank shock like Falcons did. Did you play 40K in the third edition? If you did you probably remember people running three or four Defilers per army that were all hull down behind the smallest terrain pieces one can imagine. It was hard as hell to kill them or even stop them from shooting, and nobody liked it and everyone was happy that they were nerfed. I guess it's fine now, as long as you play Orks. You can always take so many models and so many scoring units that the enemy won't have a chance in hell. Even if the Orks and their enemy both destroy eachother the Orks will win since they will be worth much less KPs than their opponents. Justice for all.

First off, I said it's justifiable because while it puts out offensive power, it's not as bad as "unkillable Falcons" because they can't score anymore, they can't drop off specialists without any risk to the player, and they can't play a dumb ass VP denial game. That's why AV14 becoming so survivable at long range in 5th is OK, where as Falcons are a problem now.

And as I pointed, there are ways to neutralize those AV14 tanks, using infiltrators/scouts. You're the one who seems stuck on a duplicity here. Are they "unkillable" or are they super easy to neutralize because of scouts or fast moving Melta Carriers?

You talk about the Ork Horde being unstoppable, except at the same time you're talking about 3 Pie Plate tossers being hard to neutralize even when they're AV12 like defilers that are hull-down. How is this Ork horde going to shrug off 2-3 turns of shelling from pie plates?

All we need now is Codex Space Wolves having a special rule saying they can disembark and assault from Rhinos moving max speed so that everyone can take six squads of Blood Claws in Rhinos, and we're happily back in third edition (although a slightly more slowed version of 3rd ed).

So rushing with assault troops and having little risk is bad if you're in 3rd Ed and playing Marines, but it's just fine and dandy if you're using Falcons and Harlies in 4th?

I must say the introduction of 4+ and 3+ cover saves will make MEQ much less attractive than ever before. Why would you pay for armour if you can get invulnerable saves for free?

Because cover won't be everywhere you need it to be? Because maybe the rest of their stat lines make them pretty good? Because Marines in the new edition are going to play drastically different than they do in 4th? And maybe, just maybe, it would be nice if playing a MEQ style army wasn't so appealing that a large percentage of the player base went with them? Or that other armies could compete with them without resorting to "Godzilla" or "Holofield Spam"?

I said templates, that means Ordinance. AV14 is very hard to deal with at range for Orks now

AV14 is very hard or impossible for everyone to deal with at range. Do you even understand what 1/54 means? That's for one vehicle inside some trees. Orks however probably won't have to bother with ranged weapons at all.

They'll be good sure, but I doubt they'll be as dominant as Mech Eldar or Godzilla now, as long as people build their armies well.

Both of those armies have been doing well but they haven't been nearly as dominant as for example Chaos Space Marines were under their previous codex with Siren Princes, Iron Warriors, Daemonbombs and whatnot. IIRC the UK GT or any of its qualifying heats has never been won by Tyranids, and the last time the Eldar won the UK GT final was with Ulthwé Seer Councils. I could be wrong, but the point is that they aren't nearly as dominant or popular as the Dakka metagame would like to suggest.

specialists without any risk to the player, and they can't play a dumb ass VP denial game.

What exactly is wrong with VP denial? It's an interesting aspect of the game. WHFB for example has plenty of it, and in both games it usually means that faster armies with weaker killing power are trying to compete by grabbing mission objectives and preserving units. Those Harlequin specialists you talk about cost nearly 30 points each (t3 models with no armour saves) once you factor in the shadowseer, and their transport costs 25 points less than a Monolith. How imbalanced. You can get 60 Slugga Boyz at the price of one skimmer and six space clowns.

And as I pointed, there are ways to neutralize those AV14 tanks, using infiltrators/scouts. You're the one who seems stuck on a duplicity here. Are they "unkillable" or are they super easy to neutralize because of scouts or fast moving Melta Carriers?

Some have ways to deal with them (neutralise is too strong of a word), some don't. That's what I was saying all along.

How is this Ork horde going to shrug off 2-3 turns of shelling from pie plates?

2 turns if the Orks don't get the first turn. Easily. You're also forgetting the kill point system. Ork infiltrators bust a Whirlwind, and now the Marines have to kill 60 Slugga Boyz to get the points back. It just isn't going to happen.

So rushing with assault troops and having little risk is bad if you're in 3rd Ed and playing Marines, but it's just fine and dandy if you're using Falcons and Harlies in 4th?

Comparing third edition assault style (outrageously tough Rhinos once they're smoked) where everything assaults on turn two or three, with the delicate scalpel that is Mech Eldar, is just ludicrous. If the Harlequins could assault from moving Falcons you might have a point, but alas, you don't.

Because cover won't be everywhere you need it to be? Because maybe the rest of their stat lines make them pretty good? Because Marines in the new edition are going to play drastically different than they do in 4th? And maybe, just maybe, it would be nice if playing a MEQ style army wasn't so appealing that a large percentage of the player base went with them? Or that other armies could compete with them without resorting to "Godzilla" or "Holofield Spam"?

Cover will be everywhere you need it to be. All of the expensive and static models will find themselves plenty of cover for some free invulnerable saves. Isn't it great that a six point model can get the same armour save as a 30 point model by standing inside some terrain? No, it really isn't. Terrain should only be a negative hit modifier.

Everything is going to play slightly different than before, not just Marines. What makes me really sad about your approach to the fifth edition is that hopelessly optimistic fanboys like you always think that when some old cheese is eradicated the game automatically becomes better. Not necessarily. The game should be updated in smaller patches instead of massive system shutdowns and reboots for that to happen. If you're still playing in five years you'll be replying to these same kind of threads telling people you want a change to the "troop choice spam" and that people should be able to win without resorting to "running infantry hordes".

If you made cover saves into negative to hit modifiers it would simply benefit SMs even more.

Therion already covered some stuff, but here's my opinion on the rest:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:
I said templates, that means Ordinance. AV14 is very hard to deal with at range for Orks now, not even counting them in cover, which makes it even harder. Three pie plates will put large dents in this unstoppable Ork horde you keep talking about. And now that the KFF Mek isn't untargetable anymore, you can concentrate on a squad and make him run away with your pie plates.

Yes I'm sure that spacing out your guys in a line will make pie plates very effective. Unless you're talking about some weird rule, the pdf clearly uses the word "unit" in all references to blast/barrage weapons. Pie plates won't be killing models from multiple units and hurray, 4-5 models killed from every template.

I don't need any kind of statements to make myself feel better about using Orks. I already decided not to build the Shoota Horde, because after playing with it for a while using my proxy models, I'm just not going to bother building and painting 100+ shootas just so I can be a dick at a few tournaments. I'm going to run Kult of Speed mainly, and a mix of footsloggers. And despite what you think about 5th, the horde Orks will be far from unbeatable. They'll be good sure, but I doubt they'll be as dominant as Mech Eldar or Godzilla now, as long as people build their armies well.

Yes I'm sure that since you say you won't make a retardedly powerful army, everyone else won't either.

First off, I said it's justifiable because while it puts out offensive power, it's not as bad as "unkillable Falcons" because they can't score anymore, they can't drop off specialists without any risk to the player, and they can't play a dumb ass VP denial game. That's why AV14 becoming so survivable at long range in 5th is OK, where as Falcons are a problem now.

You said you were making KoS, so you should have some trukks and bikes and stuff. Why aren't these guys covering the back door of the falcon?

You talk about the Ork Horde being unstoppable, except at the same time you're talking about 3 Pie Plate tossers being hard to neutralize even when they're AV12 like defilers that are hull-down. How is this Ork horde going to shrug off 2-3 turns of shelling from pie plates?

You'll be making conga lines of orks.

Because cover won't be everywhere you need it to be? Because maybe the rest of their stat lines make them pretty good? Because Marines in the new edition are going to play drastically different than they do in 4th? And maybe, just maybe, it would be nice if playing a MEQ style army wasn't so appealing that a large percentage of the player base went with them? Or that other armies could compete with them without resorting to "Godzilla" or "Holofield Spam"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even in 3rd edition KoS and tyranid swarms were pretty viable.

Therion wrote:
AV14 is very hard or impossible for everyone to deal with at range. Do you even understand what 1/54 means? That's for one vehicle inside some trees. Orks however probably won't have to bother with ranged weapons at all.

So AV14 is as resistant to damage from a Lascannon, as long as it's in cover, as a Falcon is now basically all the time.

Orks can't deal with AV14 at range, but we'll need the firepower elsewhere. I doubt you'll see people stop using Lootas.

Therion wrote:
Both of those armies have been doing well but they haven't been nearly as dominant as for example Chaos Space Marines were under their previous codex with Siren Princes, Iron Warriors, Daemonbombs and whatnot. IIRC the UK GT or any of its qualifying heats has never been won by Tyranids, and the last time the Eldar won the UK GT final was with Ulthwé Seer Councils. I could be wrong, but the point is that they aren't nearly as dominant or popular as the Dakka metagame would like to suggest.

They sure as hell seem to do fine last I saw. This coming UKGT is the first one where Mech Eldar can run around without worrying about Iron Warriors. If you hadn't noticed how many Mech Eldar armies have been doing in the Heats then I suggest you look at the results sheets. So many Skimmer lists have been present at the UKGT's that people are taking Necrons because it's a foil to Skimmer lists.

And Godzilla (along with Nids in general) have been doing very well out here in the US.

What exactly is wrong with VP denial? It's an interesting aspect of the game. WHFB for example has plenty of it, and in both games it usually means that faster armies with weaker killing power are trying to compete by grabbing mission objectives and preserving units. Those Harlequin specialists you talk about cost nearly 30 points each (t3 models with no armour saves) once you factor in the shadowseer, and their transport costs 25 points less than a Monolith. How imbalanced. You can get 60 Slugga Boyz at the price of one skimmer and six space clowns.

Because having a game where my opponent does nothing but not engage and runs away until about the last turn when the specialists come out to get a VP advantage around when they will face little to no retaliation and then the tanks that can't be hurt run off to score isn't exactly a "fun game".

All while the rest of the army hides and the only targets are Holofield Tanks that you just have be incredibly lucky to kill, or you get no points AND they Score.

Some have ways to deal with them (neutralise is too strong of a word), some don't. That's what I was saying all along.

Which army is going to have a hard time neutralizing them? Necrons can keep them from shooting with just one glance that gets through. It's not hard to get a few glances off when your entire army can do it. Marines can get fast moving Meltas or deepstrikers, Chaos gets infiltrating Chosen, or deepstriking Combi-Melta termies, or Oblits. Eldar get Fire Dragons in Wave Serpents or Falcons, or Hawks. Dark Eldar will need help, unless they just mass Lances, one glance keeps a pie plate from flying at you.

And of course the only armies with AV14 that will sit in cover is IG, who need SOMETHING to be good. It's nice to see their main tanks, which are supposed to be an advantage, actually be a threat, instead of the Joke that they are now. Land Raiders need to deliver troops to be very effective, and Battlewagons need to be close to throw their pie plates, so using cover all the time isn't going to be the easiest thing in the world. And then there's the Monolith, who generally won't be in cover, or can't because it's a skimmer. It'll be a beast, especially if you have to shoot it through something that gives it a cover save, but that's what you have to do. Lascannons, Railguns, S9 Spears, they need a 6 to get through it now to be effective anyway.

2 turns if the Orks don't get the first turn. Easily. You're also forgetting the kill point system. Ork infiltrators bust a Whirlwind, and now the Marines have to kill 60 Slugga Boyz to get the points back. It just isn't going to happen.

In one mission, if the Infiltrators actually show up on the table edge that lets them get to the whirlwind (it's random after all). Or they spend 265 Points for the special character and his squad, who can then be killed by surrounding marines that they can't assault because they took out the Whirlwind. And whatever that infiltrator squad is for the Orks, it still gives up just as many KP as the Whirlwind they came in to kill just gave up.

Comparing third edition assault style (outrageously tough Rhinos once they're smoked) where everything assaults on turn two or three, with the delicate scalpel that is Mech Eldar, is just ludicrous. If the Harlequins could assault from moving Falcons you might have a point, but alas, you don't.

Calling Mech Eldar a "delicate scalpel" is what's ludicrous. You hide and turbo boost till you can come out late game and get ahead, or just score because your tanks are near impossible to destroy and can move 24 - 36" in a turn.

The difference between dumb rush armies in 3rd and Mech Eldar now is that you have to wait a turn before you can assault (which can be mitigated by the fact that your stupid tanks shrug off almost all firepower), and that you can just grab objectives at the end. How exactly is it a "delicate scalpel" to use such high speeds and resilience to just run away until the end of the game?

None of the really good "competitive" armies are really delicate scalpels, they generally are pretty dumb, and just become that much harder when played by someone who isn't brainless.

Cover will be everywhere you need it to be. All of the expensive and static models will find themselves plenty of cover for some free invulnerable saves. Isn't it great that a six point model can get the same armour save as a 30 point model by standing inside some terrain? No, it really isn't. Terrain should only be a negative hit modifier.

If cover is setup fairly, it sure as hell won't be. Boyz will still need a KFF to get their boyz where they need it, and now with a tank on a hill with some ordinance or a lot of fire, can force that to go away. And if they're advancing through this terrain, then they're not moving that fast.

And if you bring enough guns to the party, you can shoot down that first line, buying you more time to shoot the horde. And if less terrain Blocks LOS, then you should be able to shoot more if you deploy right.

Everything is going to play slightly different than before, not just Marines. What makes me really sad about your approach to the fifth edition is that hopelessly optimistic fanboys like you always think that when some old cheese is eradicated the game automatically becomes better. Not necessarily. The game should be updated in smaller patches instead of massive system shutdowns and reboots for that to happen. If you're still playing in five years you'll be replying to these same kind of threads telling people you want a change to the "troop choice spam" and that people should be able to win without resorting to "running infantry hordes".

I'm a fanboy now? I'm just not blatantly hating the new edition. I'd like to think that from my posts I'm about as neutral as you can get on GW. I certainly am not too happy about having an Ork army that just flat out BLEW because of the 4th Ed rules and all the wonderful new codex's and their lovely abilities that made a mockery of my 9 year old Codex.

All I know is that I read the rules and I'm generally happy about a lot of them. Sure things need cleaning up like the LOS rules for models, but I can just hope for the best.

We'll see how this goes when the rules are released anyway, I'm not worried.

stonefox wrote:
Yes I'm sure that spacing out your guys in a line will make pie plates very effective. Unless you're talking about some weird rule, the pdf clearly uses the word "unit" in all references to blast/barrage weapons. Pie plates won't be killing models from multiple units and hurray, 4-5 models killed from every template.

Space them in a Konga Line? Reading the PDF section on blasts, it even talks about how the scatter can make it hit your own troops, or other models out of range/LOS. It clearly says that any MODEL that has its base partially touched by the template is hurt.

And I'll be amazed to see a Konga Line of 30 Orks marching straight across a table. You will have to make a second or third row to deploy them, and since the "Squad" is in LOS, you can place the template in the center of this squad, and you don't even need to have the center hole over a model anymore, so you can set it up so you get a nice clump. And if it is this giant horde, spaced at max coherency, then the guys in the OTHER squads, are going to be at the other table edge based on deployment.

And lord help the player who has that many models in a table quarters mission. One of the reasons I DON'T want to play the horde after play testing it for these past few months has been cleanse. Good lord that sucks, especially if your opponent has templates NOW, let alone when all partials are hits.

Yes I'm sure that since you say you won't make a retardedly powerful army, everyone else won't either.

Given that slowed powerful armies exist no matter what happens, what do you want me to say? If Orks get a slowed build like some current armies have, then that's what happens. I still don't think it will be the be-all end-all that some people do. Possibly because I see what happens when playing something similar to it now.

You said you were making KoS, so you should have some trukks and bikes and stuff. Why aren't these guys covering the back door of the falcon?

KoS is fast and by it's nature somewhat fragile. While on one hand I'm not worried about an assault of Harlequins, I generally can't hurt the Tanks anyway, and you can't "block" shots that hit your AV10 Vehicles or bikes that have small squad sizes and that wonderful LD7.

The problem with Mech Eldar is the fact that they can run off and nab objectives, and tank shock you into wonderful formations when things just don't go their way; or they want you off an objective. And the fact that unless you "get lucky" and down the tank, you're just hosed. Or maybe you haven't had the "fun" of playing Cleanse, or Secure and Control (with say, 4 tokens) vs. Mech Eldar.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even in 3rd edition KoS and tyranid swarms were pretty viable.

I'm talking about 4th, not 3rd. Everyone bitches about how Marines and MEQ's are overplayed. Now non-MEQ troops benefit from cover greatly, and people bitch that no one will play Marines anymore. Now the biggest "non MEQ" armies, are either Godzilla, which focuses on tons of MC's with T6 and 3+ (or better) Saves, or Mech Eldar or Mech Tau, which are more about their vehicles and units with 3+ saves (generally) than they are about the rest of the army. Orks just arrived and are something that can make a strong non-MEQ style army, and there are posts on dakka about how nice it is to see a "horde army be viable".

So AV14 is as resistant to damage from a Lascannon, as long as it's in cover, as a Falcon is now basically all the time.

1/54 is resistant? You just called Falcons something that can shrug of all firepower. Three Leman Russes in cover can therefore shrug off all enemy firepower, and that's okay, because you think Imperial Guard deserve it. Great games designing.

I doubt you'll see people stop using Lootas.

Why would people use Lootas? It's not like anyone will be using skimmers, their primary target.

They sure as hell seem to do fine last I saw. This coming UKGT is the first one where Mech Eldar can run around without worrying about Iron Warriors.

Oh wow, what a painfully long period of success. One UK GT before they come crashing down to the bottom of the food chain. It must have been hard for you to endure.

Because having a game where my opponent does nothing but not engage and runs away until about the last turn when the specialists come out to get a VP advantage around when they will face little to no retaliation and then the tanks that can't be hurt run off to score isn't exactly a "fun game".

To me that sounds much more interesting than most 40K games.

Which army is going to have a hard time neutralizing them? Necrons can keep them from shooting with just one glance that gets through. It's not hard to get a few glances off when your entire army can do it. Marines can get fast moving Meltas or deepstrikers, Chaos gets infiltrating Chosen, or deepstriking Combi-Melta termies, or Oblits. Eldar get Fire Dragons in Wave Serpents or Falcons, or Hawks. Dark Eldar will need help, unless they just mass Lances, one glance keeps a pie plate from flying at you.

That's just so idiotic I don't even think you're being serious. Half of that stuff is unbelievable crap now and/or in the fifth and certainly neutralise nothing at all.

In one mission

...out of a massive three.

Calling Mech Eldar a "delicate scalpel" is what's ludicrous. You hide and turbo boost till you can come out late game and get ahead, or just score because your tanks are near impossible to destroy and can move 24 - 36" in a turn.

Cry me a river. You're fine with 1/54 tanks and completely indestructible Monoliths but you whine because 210 point av12 vehicles are actually fast. You seem traumatised by something.

If cover is setup fairly, it sure as hell won't be. Boyz will still need a KFF

And what a horrible price to pay that is. If you make conga lines and cover a measly three squads of Boyz with the KFF the price of the invulnerable save will be less than 1 point per model.

All I know is that I read the rules and I'm generally happy about a lot of them. We'll see how this goes when the rules are released anyway, I'm not worried.

The only rule that I think is an actual improvement is the clarification that ICs can join units before deployment. The rest of the stuff is just, sad. It's nothing but shifting of balance from one end to another in order to sell the type of armies and units noone had before.

Therion wrote:
1/54 is resistant? You just called Falcons something that can shrug of all firepower. Three Leman Russes in cover can therefore shrug off all enemy firepower, and that's okay, because you think Imperial Guard deserve it. Great games designing.

Except you can neutralize it with Infiltrators/deepstrikers with Meltas, infiltrators with Power Fists. Hell just get up close with a few Meltas and away it goes.

Or you can get side shots (AV12) from the AV14 vehicles that are the ones that will sit in cover. You will need to move to neutralize them, rather than now which is "take lots of Lascannons, deploy, and kill them".

And they won't score (like Falcons do now), and they don't transport squads of specialists (who also score as of now). They deny VP's but that only matters in draws, unlike almost all the time like now.

You don't see the difference?

Why would people use Lootas? It's not like anyone will be using skimmers, their primary target.

Tau skimmers are still good, as are wave serpents. In fact the only vehicle in the game that got easier to kill with the new rules are the dumb Holofield tanks.

Oh wow, what a painfully long period of success. One UK GT before they come crashing down to the bottom of the food chain. It must have been hard for you to endure.

I've been "enduring" it since the dex came out and I've had to face it. Not everyone played Iron Warriors vs. them. And it's not even a matter of not being able to beat them. I've beaten them at tournaments, it's just never a fun game even if you win. Mainly because if you win, you probably killed a tank and "got lucky".

You're talking about how unfun and stupid the game is going to be because of some other abusive list. You think the current abusive armies are fun to play against?

To me that sounds much more interesting than most 40K games.

Maybe you're playing the wrong kind of 40k then. Obviously the designers are looking to make that kind of list suck after seeing how it came to exist.

That's just so idiotic I don't even think you're being serious. Half of that stuff is unbelievable crap now and/or in the fifth and certainly neutralise nothing at all.

How are lots of Meltas up close going to not kill an AV14 tank? Even in Cover, most units that take the Meltas will take multiple in a unit, so it's generally not that hard to get the kill.

Necrons can reliably put glances on it, that stops it from shooting. And even now we're talking about Leman Russes, the only tanks that are going to sit in 4+ Cover with AV14 at long range and lob pie plates. The other AV14 tanks won't work in that scenario and can be dealt with when they're used.

In one mission

...out of a massive three.

Except that the deployment types of the mission actually drastically change how the mission will be played, so it's more variable than that. But I do want there to be more missions. Besides, in the tournaments I've played in here in the US, generally they use special missions made up by GW or by the organizers (some even come from sites like this).

Cry me a river. You're fine with 1/54 tanks and completely indestructible Monoliths but you whine because 210 point av12 vehicles are actually fast. You seem traumatised by something.

Except those tanks can be neutralized by the right weapons, or by the right units. So it's never going to be 1/54 to kill them, all the damn time, like with the current Holofield. And again, those tanks don't score, they don't hide VP's that are as crucial as they are now. And they don't transport specialists where you want them, when you want them, with little risk.

And Monoliths aren't going to be sitting in said cover most of the time (they're skimmers, they can't land in it). And you need to penetrate a Monolith now to reliably hurt it anyway. How is this going to be different?

And what makes you think that the Monolith won't have its rules changed when Necrons are redone?

If cover is setup fairly, it sure as hell won't be. Boyz will still need a KFF

And what a horrible price to pay that is. If you make conga lines and cover a measly three squads of Boyz with the KFF the price of the invulnerable save will be less than 1 point per model.

I'm not complaining about the KFF. I'm refuting the fact that you're saying "Cover will be everywhere you need it to be", which is just flat out untrue. You think all of a sudden all blocking LOS terrain is going to be gone from the game. Suddenly all non armored troops will be able to always get a great cover save no matter where they are, or where the objective they have to get to is (that their opponent can place no less).

The only rule that I think is an actual improvement is the clarification that ICs can join units before deployment. The rest of the stuff is just, sad. It's nothing but shifting of balance from one end to another in order to sell the type of armies and units noone had before.

Right, so because if you built up an army of exactly 1500 or 1750 points that was comprised of only the most broken and powerful combos so you can dominate at tournaments, then you're screwed and have to buy new armies if you want to keep using the most broken thing you can. If that's how you buy your armies, then yes, every single rules change for your codex or the main rules are going to affect your purchases. That's what happens when you build to the absolute most competitive list you can and nothing else.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Space them in a Konga Line? Reading the PDF section on blasts, it even talks about how the scatter can make it hit your own troops, or other models out of range/LOS. It clearly says that any MODEL that has its base partially touched by the template is hurt.

Correct. "In these cases hits are worked out as normal." AFAIK, you only have one target unit that you resolve hits against.

And I'll be amazed to see a Konga Line of 30 Orks marching straight across a table. You will have to make a second or third row to deploy them, and since the "Squad" is in LOS, you can place the template in the center of this squad, and you don't even need to have the center hole over a model anymore, so you can set it up so you get a nice clump. And if it is this giant horde, spaced at max coherency, then the guys in the OTHER squads, are going to be at the other table edge based on deployment.

200+ models across a 6'x1' plot: Six feet = 72", 1"base+2" separation = 24 models. 24x12" front to back = 288. If you have vehicles it will eat up some of these spots. Yeah I guess it'd be unfortunate for those 6 models wrapped around and placed behind the first row. Even placed to get max models, you'd get maybe 6 models under there, 4" separation+3x1" bases across.

Given that slowed powerful armies exist no matter what happens, what do you want me to say? If Orks get a slowed build like some current armies have, then that's what happens. I still don't think it will be the be-all end-all that some people do. Possibly because I see what happens when playing something similar to it now.

It seemed like you felt justified in defending your position by saying "I wouldn't..." and now add "but others will." I'm not saying it (footsloggers) is wrong, but dude, you just tried to say that it's not that bad since you won't do it yourself.

KoS is fast and by it's nature somewhat fragile. While on one hand I'm not worried about an assault of Harlequins, I generally can't hurt the Tanks anyway, and you can't "block" shots that hit your AV10 Vehicles or bikes that have small squad sizes and that wonderful LD7.

The standard Tau tactic against Falcons is to keep the rear door pinned shut and keep the thing shaken. And we DO worry about the assault. Tau players are generally content with that. Don't wanna say this but...so should you. I'd feel more sympathetic if you played footsloggers, but KoS is similar to Mech Tau and we keep that rear door shut pretty nicely.

I'm talking about 4th, not 3rd. Everyone bitches about how Marines and MEQ's are overplayed. Now non-MEQ troops benefit from cover greatly, and people bitch that no one will play Marines anymore. Now the biggest "non MEQ" armies, are either Godzilla, which focuses on tons of MC's with T6 and 3+ (or better) Saves, or Mech Eldar or Mech Tau, which are more about their vehicles and units with 3+ saves (generally) than they are about the rest of the army. Orks just arrived and are something that can make a strong non-MEQ style army, and there are posts on dakka about how nice it is to see a "horde army be viable".

Nevermind. I read it incorrectly. I do agree here. If I played more games I would probably still enjoy playing against eldar/nidzilla than hurr spase mariernz.

stonefox wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Space them in a Konga Line? Reading the PDF section on blasts, it even talks about how the scatter can make it hit your own troops, or other models out of range/LOS. It clearly says that any MODEL that has its base partially touched by the template is hurt.

Correct. "In these cases hits are worked out as normal." AFAIK, you only have one target unit that you resolve hits against.

I guess we're reading it differently. I take it to read that the hits are worked out as normal, ie. you roll to wound, save, etc. There is no separate section for stating how your deal with your own models that are hit by the template (which is a possiblity given as an example in the rules). I'm just not seeing it as a restriction to a single squad as far as casualties go.

200+ models across a 6'x1' plot: Six feet = 72", 1"base+2" separation = 24 models. 24x12" front to back = 288. If you have vehicles it will eat up some of these spots. Yeah I guess it'd be unfortunate for those 6 models wrapped around and placed behind the first row. Even placed to get max models, you'd get maybe 6 models under there, 4" separation+3x1" bases across.

Vehicles, terrain placement, tons of stuff stop that. You deploy like that and you're not charging on turn 2. You won't even have a lot of models engaged to fight if you spread out that far.

I do not see that kind of deployment as even possible to get something into assault as a threat. And if there are multiple squads of this, then you can hit somewhere in the middle, but I'm reading the rules and nothing is stopping casualties coming from other units that are hit by the blasts.

It seemed like you felt justified in defending your position by saying "I wouldn't..." and now add "but others will." I'm not saying it (footsloggers) is wrong, but dude, you just tried to say that it's not that bad since you won't do it yourself.

I'm not sure how it came across, but my point is that this "horde Orks" style army isn't going to be as bad as people are making it out to be. It's not because I personally won't play it. I just don't see it as some kind of "auto-win" style army. I think that lots of templates and the mission types being laid out will very much deal with it.

Also look at the one deployment type, you get TWO troops and an HQ on the table and that's it. Everything else comes in from the long table edge. That's one mission that this army will fail at by its nature.

The standard Tau tactic against Falcons is to keep the rear door pinned shut and keep the thing shaken. And we DO worry about the assault. Tau players are generally content with that. Don't wanna say this but...so should you. I'd feel more sympathetic if you played footsloggers, but KoS is similar to Mech Tau and we keep that rear door shut pretty nicely.

I've played footsloggers (old edition), and KoS (army evolved), and I've played a number of games with the new rules using both kinds of armies (I have a lot of Orks).

Mech Eldar are a foil to Kult of Speed since generally if they can shoot our transports, we get stuck not doing a whole lot, and they can whittle down the lower numbers of Boyz in the list. And we still can't kill the tanks. Not being able to kill tanks is a problem in 4th Ed with Falcons because they can zoom 24" or more and score objectives, and they can drop off assaulters or Dragons which will give them a huge VP differential in the late game and you can't block the hatch for that sort of thing.

But my entire point isn't about dealing with Mech Eldar. The point is that having AV14 tanks in 4+ cover being very hard to kill with long range anti-tank (Lascannons) is not something you can compare to the Falcons which are already that unkillable.

The Falcons score.
The Falcons always have that kind of resilience.

The proposed AV14 tank does not score.
Its resilience can be negated by a number of different scenario's that are easily achievable, where as the falcon's generally can not.

Nevermind. I read it incorrectly. I do agree here. If I played more games I would probably still enjoy playing against eldar/nidzilla than hurr spase mariernz.

I'd rather face Marines (with my Xenos armies, or my own Marines) than Nidzilla or Eldar. Then again, I generally don't have to play against a ton of Marines as it is.

Rle68 wrote:the only thing missing from it are the pictures and it reaks of gw's not understanding anything

force weapons just got nerfed any unit that is immune to instant death cannot be killed by a force weapon.... all you nids players can start partying you will rule the battle field from hear on out

Because we all know that the only way to ever beat Tyranids is using Force Weapons. Against any army that doesn't have force weapons Nids auto-win.

Seriously? I'm having a great time laughing at all the knee-jerk reactions to changes that ultimately will have little affect on the game.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I guess we're reading it differently. I take it to read that the hits are worked out as normal, ie. you roll to wound, save, etc. There is no separate section for stating how your deal with your own models that are hit by the template (which is a possiblity given as an example in the rules). I'm just not seeing it as a restriction to a single squad as far as casualties go.

I thought so too at first, but they actually did change the blast/ordnance rules. In the current ruleset, ordnance says something to the effect of "all models under the template are hit/partials." I say the "hits your own models" is an exception to the rule, and the new ordnance/blast rules will probably be the center of a few YMDC topics, but yeah I think we're reading it differently.

stonefox wrote:

I guess we're reading it differently. I take it to read that the hits are worked out as normal, ie. you roll to wound, save, etc. There is no separate section for stating how your deal with your own models that are hit by the template (which is a possiblity given as an example in the rules). I'm just not seeing it as a restriction to a single squad as far as casualties go.

I thought so too at first, but they actually did change the blast/ordnance rules. In the current ruleset, ordnance says something to the effect of "all models under the template are hit/partials." I say the "hits your own models" is an exception to the rule, and the new ordnance/blast rules will probably be the center of a few YMDC topics, but yeah I think we're reading it differently.

To be honest, if your rules interpretation is correct, then yes the hordes will be more painful to deal with, but I'm almost positive that it's not limited to a single unit.

Though I don't want to get into a YMDC debate over these leaked rules, as it'd be kinda silly. But basing it on the fact that all partials hit, and you'll get multiple squads even if they set them up in lines, is the reasoning that these horde armies will be easier to deal with.

Also the whole thing with the one deployment setup with 2 Troops and 1 HQ max, and the table corner deployments, etc.

I just don't see it as dominating as some people do.

Therion wrote:What exactly is wrong with VP denial? It's an interesting aspect of the game.

No, not really. VP denial delays and avoids contact. It is inherently non-interactive. I find VP denial to be boring to play against. It's cowardly and uninteresting.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Therion wrote:What exactly is wrong with VP denial? It's an interesting aspect of the game.

No, not really. VP denial delays and avoids contact. It is inherently non-interactive. I find VP denial to be boring to play against. It's cowardly and uninteresting.

The game is supposed to be about the engagement of the forces after all. Similarly, VP denial is non-conducive to simulationism. It's a concept created from game mechanics that is unrelated to the reality or story the game is supposed to portray. This means it breaks suspension of disbelief and makes the game less interesting to play. 40K is about creating an epic battle for our amusement, not about pushing pieces of plastic around on a table. That's just the road to the goal.

VP sniping in warmachine is probably worse than VP denial.

Ozymandias wrote:

Rle68 wrote:the only thing missing from it are the pictures and it reaks of gw's not understanding anything

force weapons just got nerfed any unit that is immune to instant death cannot be killed by a force weapon.... all you nids players can start partying you will rule the battle field from hear on out

Because we all know that the only way to ever beat Tyranids is using Force Weapons. Against any army that doesn't have force weapons Nids auto-win.

Seriously? I'm having a great time laughing at all the knee-jerk reactions to changes that ultimately will have little affect on the game.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I've seen this posted over and over so it must be addressed in a FAQ somewhere, but the Nid codex says specifically that Nids in synapse range are immune to instant death caused by weapons with a strength double the defenders toughness. It does not say they are immune to instant death such as that caused by weapons that are double the defenders tougness. So if there isn't a FAQ to clear that up, Nids in synapse still die from force weapons.

Asmodai wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Therion wrote:What exactly is wrong with VP denial? It's an interesting aspect of the game.

No, not really. VP denial delays and avoids contact. It is inherently non-interactive. I find VP denial to be boring to play against. It's cowardly and uninteresting.

The game is supposed to be about the engagement of the forces after all. Similarly, VP denial is non-conducive to simulationism. It's a concept created from game mechanics that is unrelated to the reality or story the game is supposed to portray. This means it breaks suspension of disbelief and makes the game less interesting to play. 40K is about creating an epic battle for our amusement, not about pushing pieces of plastic around on a table. That's just the road to the goal.

I know we are getting off topic with the whole VP denial thing, but lets face it VP denial is part of the game as the game is designed in 4th edition. I.E. it is what it is. I don't personally like it, but the designers didn't acount for it's abuse in 4th edition. I suspect there will still be some aspect VP denial abuse in 5th. It really comes down to difference of opinons of what constitutes "fair" play. I.E. one mans VP denial heartburn is another mans idea of great tactics. It's kind of like the ancient Cheese debate, it really comes down to a matter of opinion.

GG

VP Denial ?
VP Denial ?

I always thought the point of the game was to completely annihlate your opponents forces

It's not over untill your models are the only ones left on the board.

adamsouza wrote:VP Denial ?
VP Denial ?

I always thought the point of the game was to completely annihlate your opponents forces

It's not over untill your models are the only ones left on the board.

I played at the FLGS and that seemed to be their default way of playing. Which I suppose means they won't be overly affected by the Troops as scoring thing.

In many years of wargaming I have found it to be a general rule that it is easier to achieve the objective once the enemy force has been annhilitated.

This is of course a very "Clausewitzean" philosophy and does not fit the modern world.

However, the concept that "I lost 1,000 troops but you lost 1,001 so I WIN!" is surely the heart and soul of the grim darkness of the far future.

Terminizzle wrote:

I've seen this posted over and over so it must be addressed in a FAQ somewhere, but the Nid codex says specifically that Nids in synapse range are immune to instant death caused by weapons with a strength double the defenders toughness. It does not say they are immune to instant death such as that caused by weapons that are double the defenders tougness. So if there isn't a FAQ to clear that up, Nids in synapse still die from force weapons.

The rumored new rule is that Force Weapons now cause Instant Death. This is good as it doesn't require a FAQ to know how it works. I'm a big fan of not having multiple rules that all do essentially the same thing but with small, confusing differences.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

My god this is the biggest bunch of crying children i have seen in a while.

First off, the rules for VPs in armies helps simulation-ism, not hinder it. Are most armies of the 41st Century made of Elite units? Or does anyone not bring troop choices anymore? Maybe the designers got sick of seeing armies with 2HQ 3Elite, 3 Heavy and 2 Troops. Heaven forbid an army be mostly comprised of _troops_.

And for you people whining about Running, christ almighty, does the concept of a Foot Army being viable scare you that much? Holy Hell! So a Black Templar Foot Slogging army is viable! Oh noes! Fleet is still special because it _allows_ you to do things that everyone else _can't_ do.

Seriously, 5th Edition is perhaps the best writing of the rules thus far. The _only_ issue here, is still the Line of Sight Rules, which while fantastic and amazing have tiny quirks in them, otherwise they're perfect, True LOS will help a lot better in these gaming circles than that Bullcrap area terrain before.

Vehicles while not the mobile forces of destruction, are back to being a survivable, thank god they wont be instantly annihilated against Necrons, and I can actually Transport a squad of marines somewhere and not have to wait two turns in order to use them if they get blown up.

So you people can keep crying wolf all you want, the games my group has played with these rules have _all_ been fun and interesting.

Ooohhh... awesome post!

(hope you got your asbestos suit on...)

strange_eric wrote: Are most armies of the 41st Century made of Elite units? Or does anyone not bring troop choices anymore? Maybe the designers got sick of seeing armies with 2HQ 3Elite, 3 Heavy and 2 Troops. Heaven forbid an army be mostly comprised of _troops_.

The thing is, that that army should be as likely to win as an army of 1 HQ and 6 Troops choices. Not to mention that the power of troops choices varies from army to army. It's a hamfisted, 'my way is the only right way to have fun' way of game design, not to mention a bad one. That's what people are complaining about.

I like the idea of having to field more troops. I kinda played that way anyways but i always liked playing similarly minded players cause it doesn't get much more fun than the massive death toll of a well played meat grinder.

skyth wrote:

strange_eric wrote: Are most armies of the 41st Century made of Elite units? Or does anyone not bring troop choices anymore? Maybe the designers got sick of seeing armies with 2HQ 3Elite, 3 Heavy and 2 Troops. Heaven forbid an army be mostly comprised of _troops_.

The thing is, that that army should be as likely to win as an army of 1 HQ and 6 Troops choices. Not to mention that the power of troops choices varies from army to army. It's a hamfisted, 'my way is the only right way to have fun' way of game design, not to mention a bad one. That's what people are complaining about.

Yep. As I've said. I've never had a problem playing against themed armies. If playing against a Blood Axe themed Ork army with three units of Kommandos or a Adeptus Mechanicus themed Guard army with three Tech-Priests is something you're unable to deal with, you should look for another game.

Troops make sense in some lists, they don't in others. It's extremely rude for you to tell me that I shouldn't be able to field my army in the way that the game rules clearly says I can. Look! That Eldar player is fielding three units of Shining Spears in their Saim Hain army! Quick, burn them at the stake!

"First off, the rules for VPs in armies helps simulation-ism, not hinder it. Are most armies of the 41st Century made of Elite units?"

Are most armies in the 41st Millennium made of Space Marines?

No?

Simple solution, no Space Marine units ever count as scoring. Problem solved.

I'm sure no one would object. After all, it's identical to the logic you used to explain the Troops scoring thing. It should also help 'simulationism' in your mind that if the entire Ultramarines 1st Company and one Gretchin are standing on a rock, clearly it's the Gretchin that controls the objective.

>>Simple solution, no Space Marine units ever count as scoring. Problem solved.

Cool! It's a great idea.

Kilkrazy wrote:>>Simple solution, no Space Marine units ever count as scoring. Problem solved.

Cool! It's a great idea.

Lets just get rid of space marines altogether. Only snot nosed newbies use 'em anyhow.

strange_eric wrote:My god this is the biggest bunch of crying children i have seen in a while.

You should see people who complain about people not taking enough troops. Oh wait.

strange_eric wrote:First off, the rules for VPs in armies helps simulation-ism, not hinder it. Are most armies of the 41st Century made of Elite units? Or does anyone not bring troop choices anymore? Maybe the designers got sick of seeing armies with 2HQ 3Elite, 3 Heavy and 2 Troops. Heaven forbid an army be mostly comprised of _troops_.

Maybe I want to field a commando unit, you ever think of that? Maybe the troop quality in the game is radically different depending on what army you play, you ever think of that? Maybe people don't have the time or money to assemble and paint 100 guys, you ever think of that? Of course not, your one of those nitwits who think sitting troops 12" apart and firing on each other for 6 turns is not only interesting, but the only way the game should be played.

strange_eric wrote:And for you people whining about Running, christ almighty, does the concept of a Foot Army being viable scare you that much? Holy Hell! So a Black Templar Foot Slogging army is viable! Oh noes! Fleet is still special because it _allows_ you to do things that everyone else _can't_ do.

Its not like there is already a tier 1 (if you don't know what that means walk away now) list of undercosted footslogging models already. (orks) So of course, the fact that it can almost be guaranteed to be in CC by turn 2 is irrelevant right?

strange_eric wrote:Seriously, 5th Edition is perhaps the best writing of the rules thus far. The _only_ issue here, is still the Line of Sight Rules, which while fantastic and amazing have tiny quirks in them, otherwise they're perfect, True LOS will help a lot better in these gaming circles than that Bullcrap area terrain before.

Are you sure you don't work for GW's PR department? I wonder what adjectives you would use to describe well written and defined rules.

strange_eric wrote:Vehicles while not the mobile forces of destruction, are back to being a survivable, thank god they wont be instantly annihilated against Necrons, and I can actually Transport a squad of marines somewhere and not have to wait two turns in order to use them if they get blown up.

Mobile forces of destruction, funny. And Necrons are the reason that ground based vehicles were unplayable. (lol)

Its not like there is already a tier 1 (if you don't know what that means walk away now) list of undercosted footslogging models already. (orks) So of course, the fact that it can almost be guaranteed to be in CC by turn 2 is irrelevant right?

d6" additional movement is hardly guarenteed to help footsloggers cross an additional 12" by round 2.

Additonally Orks are not undercosted. They can't shoot straight and have crap armor saves, while costing about as much as IG infanrty, who are comparable.

Your actually going to say that Orks and IG have similar enough statlines/weapons to be both worth 6 pts? Orks are tougher, (T:4) stronger, (S:4 with Choppa) hit harder, (A;2)
have a better weapon, and are almost always fearless. IG don't have a single thing that can compete with that.

Ummm, sorry to burst the bubble, but compared to gaurd, orks are just plain better.
Movement: Comparable, leaving out their better transport options, and access to fleet.
WS: Orks are better.
BS: Orks are worse, but it's made up for by the fact that they fire 18" S4 guns. Run the numbers and you'll find they are comparable to lasguns.
S: Furious charge. Thank you!
T: T4 means that against AP 6 and lower guns the orks are still basically as survivable as gaurd. Against AP- guns they are tougher.
W:Yup, equal, except on the Nob.
I: Lower, but furious charge makes this irrelevant most of the time.
A: Better, much better.
LD: Far better as long as you have numbers.

Now, other factors. Shootas are assault, making orks more flexible tactically, and outrange gaurd guns. Squad upgrades for orks include a power claw nob, a CC monster who can take down anything in the game with a bit of luck and some back up. Gaurd don't have anything comparable. The only area gaurd win out in is specials, and those are over costed. Orks are better than gaurdsmen. Faster, as shooty if not better, far, far tougher in hand to hand, as survivable and with more morale and better options.
Add in the fact that the rest of the options are really good too, and you have a recipie for guard whooping.

Though I think that IG are overcosted, rather than orks being undercosted really.

EDIT: What Da Boss said.

I don't want to argue.
I said that Orks were NOT undercosted.
I believe that.

Points values are not decided by a solid formula in 40K.
Troops are priced relative to other models in the army, and other army factors.

Orks will die crossing the board, to make use of their CC abilities. You will need lots of them, and they are priced accordingly.

Think of them as Gaunts who can't shoot effectively or use fleet of foot.

How about thinking of them as Gaunts who can get in Fast open topped transports if they want, and use fleet of foot when it counts?
I agree that in 4th edition they are not overcosted. But come 5th, they are going to be ridiculous.

I don't think the running thing is going to be quite as huge as everyone is predicting, but if they keep vehicles unable to fire defensive weaponry (str 6 or lower) on the move then the game is going to be skewed in favor of infantry big time. Templates hitting everyone they touch will put a few nice dents in horde armies, and if the designers have half a brain then the run rule won't apply to troops with jump packs. It is worrisome to think that some of these rules might make it unchanged into the 5th Ed Book.

It seems obvious from people's reactions on the board that these new changes won't really improve the game but rather skew it in a different direction. I really like a lot of the rules proposed, but they need to be refined big time. If GW won't do this, then the fans will have to do it.

Ozymandias wrote:

Terminizzle wrote:

I've seen this posted over and over so it must be addressed in a FAQ somewhere, but the Nid codex says specifically that Nids in synapse range are immune to instant death caused by weapons with a strength double the defenders toughness. It does not say they are immune to instant death such as that caused by weapons that are double the defenders tougness. So if there isn't a FAQ to clear that up, Nids in synapse still die from force weapons.

The rumored new rule is that Force Weapons now cause Instant Death. This is good as it doesn't require a FAQ to know how it works. I'm a big fan of not having multiple rules that all do essentially the same thing but with small, confusing differences.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I don't think I can make this any clearer than I did the first time, but what I said is the Tyranid Codex doesn't say "Tyranids in Synapse are Immune to Instant Death, period"- it says they are immune to instant death caused by being wounded by a weapon with Strength double their toughness. It does not have the such as qualifier. It seems that RAW as well as RAI do not prevent Nids from dying from Force Weapons in 5e, just as they didn't in 4e.

Terminizzle wrote:
I don't think I can make this any clearer than I did the first time, but what I said is the Tyranid Codex doesn't say "Tyranids in Synapse are Immune to Instant Death, period"- it says they are immune to instant death caused by being wounded by a weapon with Strength double their toughness. It does not have the such as qualifier. It seems that RAW as well as RAI do not prevent Nids from dying from Force Weapons in 5e, just as they didn't in 4e.

Tyranid FAQ overrules that though. They're immune to any and all 'Instant Death' effects.

And now for something completely different...

Once nice clarification is the whole 4th ed mess of "models carrying rapid fire weapons cannot shoot and assault".

Now its specifically says "Models that wish to assault into close combat in the Assault phase may not shoot with rapid fire weapons in the Shooting phase." [pg 26]

No more inane debate about whether the newer marines/CSM's can choose to fire their pistol and charge.

EDIT: Hmmm speaking of which, no more pistol double-tap. Pistols are "effectively assault 1"

5th edition:

4+ Cover
Fortune
Holofield
Falcon
???
Profit

skyth wrote:

Terminizzle wrote:
I don't think I can make this any clearer than I did the first time, but what I said is the Tyranid Codex doesn't say "Tyranids in Synapse are Immune to Instant Death, period"- it says they are immune to instant death caused by being wounded by a weapon with Strength double their toughness. It does not have the such as qualifier. It seems that RAW as well as RAI do not prevent Nids from dying from Force Weapons in 5e, just as they didn't in 4e.

Tyranid FAQ overrules that though. They're immune to any and all 'Instant Death' effects.

Thanks, that's precisely what I was asking.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:The Falcons score.
The Falcons always have that kind of resilience.

No, the Falcons don't have that resilience on turn one. Additionally, when Falcons suffer the immobilised result they lose their resilience. They are easier to destroy than the 4+/3+ cover AV14 tanks of 5th ed.

I'm not complaining about the KFF. I'm refuting the fact that you're saying "Cover will be everywhere you need it to be", which is just flat out untrue

Not untrue at all. If you use a couple squads of Lootas you can find enough cover for them on your deployment zone, for some free armour saves. The rest of the troops have KFF.

And you need to penetrate a Monolith now to reliably hurt it anyway. How is this going to be different?

Because Meltaguns can't penetrate it anymore, and because actual penetrating hits need 5+ to kill it?

I just don't see it as dominating as some people do.

You're dodging one issue constantly. What happens in most games when Orks take 6 units of Boyz, one HQ and one unit of Elites? The army is worth 11KP total. The normal Eldar armies that people play will be worth 18KP or even 20KP. It's arguable if the Eldar have any chance of actually avoid getting wiped off from the table, but my point is that even if they do manage to make an actual fight out of the game, they will simply lose because of the KP system.

Terminizzle wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:

Rle68 wrote:the only thing missing from it are the pictures and it reaks of gw's not understanding anything

force weapons just got nerfed any unit that is immune to instant death cannot be killed by a force weapon.... all you nids players can start partying you will rule the battle field from hear on out

Because we all know that the only way to ever beat Tyranids is using Force Weapons. Against any army that doesn't have force weapons Nids auto-win.

Seriously? I'm having a great time laughing at all the knee-jerk reactions to changes that ultimately will have little affect on the game.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I've seen this posted over and over so it must be addressed in a FAQ somewhere, but the Nid codex says specifically that Nids in synapse range are immune to instant death caused by weapons with a strength double the defenders toughness. It does not say they are immune to instant death such as that caused by weapons that are double the defenders tougness. So if there isn't a FAQ to clear that up, Nids in synapse still die from force weapons.

obviously you didnt read.. the new rules will state that a model that is immune to instant death (as nids are when they are in syanapse range) are immune to being killed by force weapons.. end of statement

now what part of that dont you comprehend? last time i checked fexes are their own synapse thus they cannot be killed by force weapons as the new leak is currently stating

so before you jump all in my face saying the faq says this and the faq says that which im not denying mind you im saying the new rules will nerf force weapons.. cant make it any clear if it was it would be invisible

A fairly gimpy ork army at 1500 for an annihalation game-
Biker Warboss 140

6x30 Slugga Boy mobs with Power claw nobs (who needs rokkits when you'll be running all day anyway?)
215 each, 1290 total.
With your remaining 70 points you could sprinkle in something like a kannon battery for some extra antitank (though you probably won't need it).
At 1500, I can think of a lot of armies that are going to struggle to deal with that kind of list.

At 1500, I can think of a lot of armies that are going to struggle to deal with that kind of list.

Especially as if the Orks kill 90% of the enemy army, and lose 90% of their own army in the process, they get a 20-0 victory.

It seems you remain scoring down to the last man too, and no kill points are awarded until wipe out or break. Good luck scoring points off of that list.
And the thing about that list is that it is BORING.
Whatever anyone says about the game being all about troops, that's not the whole story. Elites, HQ, Fast Attack and Heavy Support spice things up and make them interesting. I would much prefer a ruleset that made them all useable rather than encouraging Troops spam.
And I'm someone who builds his armies around troops choices btw.

Moz wrote:5th edition:

4+ Cover
Fortune
Holofield
Falcon
???
Profit

Yep. They won't be as godly as they are now, but my Falcons will still see good use in 5th ed. Eldar isn't nearly as badly hurt by the skimmer changes as Tau is.

Da Boss wrote:6x30 Slugga Boy mobs with Power claw nobs

First, they got to make 180 Orks!

Da Boss wrote:And the thing about that list is that it is BORING.

Welcome to Jervishammer 40,000. Am I the only one getting the impression that Jervis' idea of a good tactical game of 40k is 2 identical 10-man tactical squads running around shooting each other with bolters all day?

When GW pulls everything but Tac squads armed with Bolters from the game, I'll agree with you.

I've seen people field maximum amounts of cheap troops before (IG, Grots, Boyz, Gaunts).

They rarely have fun moving all those models.
They can't get them all into hand to hand.
They die horribly to AOEs
They take forever and a day to build and paint
They usually give up on them pretty quickly.

Will people do it ? Yes.

Is it something I will lose sleep over ? No.

Will Orks specifically be btter in 5th Edition ? I don't know, but I sure hope so. They haven't been top tier, anywhere around here, in a long time.

JohnHwangDD wrote:When GW pulls everything but Tac squads armed with Bolters from the game, I'll agree with you.

JohnHwang, you were not put on this earth to agree with me.

Other interesting things... Skimmers ending their turn in difficult terrain must make a dangerous terrain check. No more "hovering over".

Deepstriking vehicles count as having moved 12"... Deepstriking landspeeders become an option again.

Asmodai wrote:

Moz wrote:5th edition:

4+ Cover
Fortune
Holofield
Falcon
???
Profit

Yep. They won't be as godly as they are now, but my Falcons will still see good use in 5th ed. Eldar isn't nearly as badly hurt by the skimmer changes as Tau is.

Au contraire, Tau vehicles are improved by the new rules.

Sensor spines let you go in cover without penalty.
Disruptor pod gives you a 5+ cover save in the open, at longer ranges.
Target lock lets you move and shoot as a Fast vehicle. (There aren't any Tau vehicles with more than 2 weapons anyway.)

The Piranha is probably a bit worse off.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Au contraire, Tau vehicles are improved by the new rules.

Sensor spines let you go in cover without penalty.
Disruptor pod gives you a 5+ cover save in the open, at longer ranges.
Target lock lets you move and shoot as a Fast vehicle. (There aren't any Tau vehicles with more than 2 weapons anyway.)

The Piranha is probably a bit worse off.

Actually I think they've gotten worse to be honest. Sensor spines and the disruptor pod haven't gotten better, but are more useful because the skimmer moving fast rule is now worse than getting a hull down result rather than the other way around. Before these bits of wargear weren't needed because you could just get their bonuses by moving over 6". Now you're better off hiding behind cover so you get a better cover save and so you can fire your secondary hammerhead weapons (I'm not sure what you mean about Tau vehicles not having more than two weapons. Hammerheads certainly have two or more S5+ weapons and will only be able to fire one of them moving fast thanks to the S4 defensive weapon cut off). So they've gone from mobile firepower to a pillbox like all other tanks are now.

Not to mention your submunitions scatter now. That hurts since it was pretty simple to make it BS5.

Ubik Lives wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Au contraire, Tau vehicles are improved by the new rules.

Sensor spines let you go in cover without penalty.
Disruptor pod gives you a 5+ cover save in the open, at longer ranges.
Target lock lets you move and shoot as a Fast vehicle. (There aren't any Tau vehicles with more than 2 weapons anyway.)

The Piranha is probably a bit worse off.

Actually I think they've gotten worse to be honest. Sensor spines and the disruptor pod haven't gotten better, but are more useful because the skimmer moving fast rule is now worse than getting a hull down result rather than the other way around. Before these bits of wargear weren't needed because you could just get their bonuses by moving over 6". Now you're better off hiding behind cover so you get a better cover save and so you can fire your secondary hammerhead weapons (I'm not sure what you mean about Tau vehicles not having more than two weapons. Hammerheads certainly have two or more S5+ weapons and will only be able to fire one of them moving fast thanks to the S4 defensive weapon cut off). So they've gone from mobile firepower to a pillbox like all other tanks are now.

Not to mention your submunitions scatter now. That hurts since it was pretty simple to make it BS5.

Those burst cannons scare my guardians when they're following up a rail cannon blast and they're coming in at BS5 w/ no conceal save from markerlights. It's literally the only time that they actually been killed to a man from shooting. I can imagine the wtf look on my face when it happened.

I have been reading and taking in everyone's thoughts on 5th Edition. I think that they have radically improved the Necrons.

So, I think everyone will start to see 3 Monolith Necron armies. They actually improved one of the most unkillable, lowest costed tanks in the game. You can't even kill it now on glances? Did every necron player dance a jig when they saw that? My pie plate hits everything it touches now? You just have to pump warriors into bigger units, to accept the charges of those big foot-slogging armies. Then teleport with your Lord, WBB you're guys back up, and bring cheer and happiness to your opponent by delivering pie for everyone. Well, pie plates anyway.

Man, and monoliths don't even have to be stationary pillboxes. If anyone can PM me with practice games with or against Necrons, I would enjoy knowing how they play with these rules.

Kilkrazy wrote:Sensor spines let you go in cover without penalty.
Disruptor pod gives you a 5+ cover save in the open, at longer ranges.
Target lock lets you move and shoot as a Fast vehicle. (There aren't any Tau vehicles with more than 2 weapons anyway.)

Or you can sit in 4+ cover, use your Landing Gear to land, and shoot your Railgun and other gusn all game.

And why are people sitting Falcons in cover? Fire Prisms in cover people! Holo-Fields + 4+ cover!!!

Edit: HBMC using my account... :-)

milesteg wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Sensor spines let you go in cover without penalty.
Disruptor pod gives you a 5+ cover save in the open, at longer ranges.
Target lock lets you move and shoot as a Fast vehicle. (There aren't any Tau vehicles with more than 2 weapons anyway.)

Or you can sit in 4+ cover, use your Landing Gear to land, and shoot your Railgun and other gusn all game.

And why are people sitting Falcons in cover? Fire Prisms in cover people! Holo-Fields + 4+ cover!!!

Edit: HBMC using my account... :-)

Actually the landing gear is no longer a need wargear item. Skimmers don't appear to allow you to shoot under them anymore (goodbye Fish of Fury. I never used you, but you meant Tau could win at a competitive level so I'll miss you all the same), and you don't die on immobilised results for moving under 6" so being landed is fairly moot.

The point is we don't want to sit back behind cover. We want to run forward and dakk people in the face with our short ranged burst cannons rather than hope they'll wander into range. We buy our tanks so we get some mobile firepower rather a Broadside with an armour value.

I do hope they don't let you Fortune vehicles. Otherwise a Hellhound is going to be as good at killing Eldar Vehicles behind cover as a lascannon.

>>Hammerheads certainly have two or more S5+ weapons

I was thinking of using SMS rather than twin Burst. Extra range and no LOS requirement.

Salacious Greed wrote:I have been reading and taking in everyone's thoughts on 5th Edition. I think that they have radically improved the Necrons.

So, I think everyone will start to see 3 Monolith Necron armies. They actually improved one of the most unkillable, lowest costed tanks in the game. You can't even kill it now on glances? Did every necron player dance a jig when they saw that? My pie plate hits everything it touches now? You just have to pump warriors into bigger units, to accept the charges of those big foot-slogging armies. Then teleport with your Lord, WBB you're guys back up, and bring cheer and happiness to your opponent by delivering pie for everyone. Well, pie plates anyway.

Man, and monoliths don't even have to be stationary pillboxes. If anyone can PM me with practice games with or against Necrons, I would enjoy knowing how they play with these rules.

True, but only for the time-being. The Necron codex is a 3rd edition, and the whole game is being re-balanced. I think necrons will balance logically with the 5th edition core ruleset. they might even get a cover save for 'living metal'. Whatever. Generally speaking, I like the direction the game is taking. I think it'll work out very well for the games and crons once Necrons get their 5th edition dex.

Da Boss wrote:A fairly gimpy ork army at 1500 for an annihalation game-
Biker Warboss 140

6x30 Slugga Boy mobs with Power claw nobs (who needs rokkits when you'll be running all day anyway?)
215 each, 1290 total.
With your remaining 70 points you could sprinkle in something like a kannon battery for some extra antitank (though you probably won't need it).
At 1500, I can think of a lot of armies that are going to struggle to deal with that kind of list.

Nah. It's definitely a competitive build, but it does down fast to templates and armaments of basic infantry. I'd say it's metagame changer (this is a good thing). Once the metagame changes away from anti-MEq to anti-horde, it'll be manageable--as well as fun for both players IMHO.

A classic BA build with all assaulters, a large DC, and Lord Dante HQ will give it a good game. 4 assault squads, lord dante, and a 10 man DC in 1500 is possible and looks like an excellent match/fun game for it, as just one example.

I'm sorry, but a Boss on Bike, and 180 Sluga Boyz w/ PK Nobz does not make an uber list.

Oh sure, it's great in Total Annihilation, but then you roll up the Dawn of War deployment setup, or the table quarter deployment setup, and you're essentially hosed.

With literally Zero shooting and no cover saves, and that many models you're looking at 3 Whirlwinds in plain line of Sight having a field day. 3 Railheads, would work wonders, just about everything would.

Even Eldar, using things like Dire avengers on foot could have a field day. That Fleet move where you can charge is once per game for the Boyz, and using multiple units of Avengers (in Serpents even) with Blade Storm, Guide and Doom, could eliminate squads. A Fire Prism could do wonders against them, while staying out of being charged.

Yes, in the straight up kill points, against a number of armies without the tools to take it down (templates), that list is good.

And then it will meet foils, even Mech Tau in their new 5th ed lists would go buck wild on those Boyz. And I'd love to see someone move that many models, twice per turn, while maintaining max coherency to avoid template death, actually finish a game in 2 to 2.5 hours.

And even in the situations where everything works great and the front mobs consistently run 5 or 6 inches and then get a high fleet roll to actually GET that 2nd turn charge, there are counters, and mobile armies can get away.

Yes, your armies that are made up of a few really hard to kill units, that almost always exist outside of "Troops" with a few token "high damage, throw away" squads are going to fail in 5th Ed. Maybe the Designers saw players making lists based on these setups and decided that wasn't how they wanted 40k to be played?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Asmodai wrote:

Moz wrote:5th edition:

4+ Cover
Fortune
Holofield
Falcon
???
Profit

Yep. They won't be as godly as they are now, but my Falcons will still see good use in 5th ed. Eldar isn't nearly as badly hurt by the skimmer changes as Tau is.

Au contraire, Tau vehicles are improved by the new rules.

Sensor spines let you go in cover without penalty.
Disruptor pod gives you a 5+ cover save in the open, at longer ranges.
Target lock lets you move and shoot as a Fast vehicle. (There aren't any Tau vehicles with more than 2 weapons anyway.)

The Piranha is probably a bit worse off.

Great, so now my 180 point hammerheads and 120 point devilfishes just became 10 points more expensive each. Where the hell am I supposed to find 50 points. Its pretty tight in there as it is. Not to mention I've gone from 12" of movement and still shoot all my guns to only 6" of movement. If you think our tanks don't need to shoot all its guns every turn, clearly you don't play Tau. I'll admit we are not as bad off as other armies, but this is still a serious blow to a army list design that HAS to get it done in the shooting phase. We can't reliably use the assault phase to do our killing like a lot of other armies.

Voodoo: Alright, I can see your point to an extent- it's definitly not the most competitive list. But I think it'll be harder to kill all those orks than you're making it out to be.

I think that footslogging boys would be the cream of the leaked rule set. I'm not positive, of course, and things will change with time. But having multiple large, sort of durable units that are good in assault while being capable of some shooting will be useful in this edition. When scrums develops around objectives, orks will have every advantage.

Now, Orks will simply become the new MEQ, meaning that every army will simply need to be able to deal with 120+ boyz.

Polonius wrote:Now, Orks will simply become the new MEQ, meaning that every army will simply need to be able to deal with 120+ boyz.

I think if an army can deal with 120+ boyz with a variety of armour support they can handle pretty much anything.

Edit: which of course I suppose is exactly what you just said .

Polonius wrote:I think that footslogging boys would be the cream of the leaked rule set. I'm not positive, of course, and things will change with time. But having multiple large, sort of durable units that are good in assault while being capable of some shooting will be useful in this edition. When scrums develops around objectives, orks will have every advantage.

Now, Orks will simply become the new MEQ, meaning that every army will simply need to be able to deal with 120+ boyz.

Well the question is how do you go forward with the new run rules. Do you go Shootas, and run turn 1, and just shoot a lot in turn 2 forward? Or do you go mass sluggas (yay my old 3rd Ed Codex armies are back) and run every turn till you can Waaagh?

I think running until the waaagh will work pretty well.

What's interesting is that many of the sub par units such as burna boys and meganobs have been given a boost.

I think I'm going to stop thinking about this in abstract and go playtest a few games with what we have.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think that footslogging boys would be the cream of the leaked rule set. I'm not positive, of course, and things will change with time. But having multiple large, sort of durable units that are good in assault while being capable of some shooting will be useful in this edition. When scrums develops around objectives, orks will have every advantage.

Now, Orks will simply become the new MEQ, meaning that every army will simply need to be able to deal with 120+ boyz.

Well the question is how do you go forward with the new run rules. Do you go Shootas, and run turn 1, and just shoot a lot in turn 2 forward? Or do you go mass sluggas (yay my old 3rd Ed Codex armies are back) and run every turn till you can Waaagh?

I can't imagine taking more than 2 mobs of shootas. Running gives you a good chance of a turn 2 assault, and virtually garantees turn 3. Shootas will be useful, however, for dealing with enemy hordes. Shootas are the best anti-slugga unit, after all. Since you can't shoot when charging into an assault, I'd say sluggas will be better on the whole than shootas.

Jayden63 wrote:

Great, so now my 180 point hammerheads and 120 point devilfishes just became 10 points more expensive each.

There are always going to be winners and losers. 10 points per vehicle isn't going to decide the game by itself.

Jayden63 wrote:
Where the hell am I supposed to find 50 points. Its pretty tight in there as it is.

You'll have to find 50 points by taking something else out of the list. Those vehicle upgrades will be pretty much compulsory because they are too good to pass up.

Jayden63 wrote:
Not to mention I've gone from 12" of movement and still shoot all my guns to only 6" of movement. If you think our tanks don't need to shoot all its guns every turn, clearly you don't play Tau. I'll admit we are not as bad off as other armies, but this is still a serious blow to a army list design that HAS to get it done in the shooting phase. We can't reliably use the assault phase to do our killing like a lot of other armies.

My guess is the benefits of being hit less because of cover or obscurement will outweigh the problem of being glanced all the time as an SMF and getting stunned so you can't shoot anything.

The worst that can happen is you move over 6 inches and lose the shooting from one burst cannon from your Hammerhead. That's three shots at a range of 18 inches. One FW squad will put out 12 shots to 30 inches, and if you move it into RF range it is going to rain death on a Ork unit.

Look at how much more important markerlights are with the revised cover rules. If you don't use Pathfinders or Sniper Drones now, I think they are definitely worht looking at.

So I haven't played the new rules and it's "theoryhams" but I really don't see these changes as being the end of all things.

I can't read through this whole thread, but I noticed in the PDF that Power Fists can now only get an additional attack if combined with another powerfist (or similar weapon such as thunderhammer). Powerfist + bolt pistol becomes a less powerful combination, and may cease being the default configuration for Space Marine Vet Sergeants.

If this has already been covered, I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:When GW pulls everything but Tac squads armed with Bolters from the game, I'll agree with you.

JohnHwang, you were not put on this earth to agree with me.

HA!

I hear you there!

I'm still trying to figure out who is the Genestealer Patriarch and who are the Tyranids that he's calling in.

Toss up right now between JohnHwang, Nurglitch, Toredor, Stelek and Ozymandias...

Haha, I think Toreador was here first. Don't hate just cause we rely on logic rather than emotion.

But if Abby and I ever do agree, duck and cover cause the bomb's about to go off.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Well, I have found that over time, I do eventually agree with a few things. I mean, it just happens like that.

Anyone notice the new rules on grenades, namely, that majority of squad needs to have them in order to gain their effect? Does this mean now that the Shadowseer will no longer give the squad assault grenades (i.e, harlis will always be init 1 when assaulting into cover)?

Does majority mean 50% or more, or over 50%?

If you lose a guy with grenades, so that the number of models in the unit depicted with grenades drops to lower than majority, they lose their grenades. But if you then lose another guy who doesn't have grenades, the unit gets its grenades back.

I love it!

Well yeah, Kil. Sometimes there's just not enough grenades to go around and my teachers always told me that if I don't share, I don't get to eat my candy. Same principle applies.

It's probably meant to address when an IC with grenades joins a unit without. I've encountered some discussions as to whether the squad benefits from the grenades as the wording in 4th (IIRC) was ambiguous.

The Eldar Codex says the Shadowseer's entire squad counts as having plasma grenades, so its not an issue.

ubermosher wrote:It's probably meant to address when an IC with grenades joins a unit without. I've encountered some discussions as to whether the squad benefits from the grenades as the wording in 4th (IIRC) was ambiguous.

The Eldar Codex says the Shadowseer's entire squad counts as having plasma grenades, so its not an issue.

GW will need to phrase the rule carefully and unambiguously or there will be trouble.

Kilkrazy wrote:GW will need to phrase the rule carefully and unambiguously or there will be trouble.

Hahaha.