CaptKaruthors wrote:

Yes you can run after deep striking.

Actually you can't. In the description for deepstriking it states that a model may not move at all unless it has a special rule stating otherwise.

Capt K

You sure ? I was sure it said anyone who could run can, but you could only assault if you had a special rule that permitted it, like the rumoured vanguard marine veterans in the forthcoming codex are supposed to have.

Would also like to point out, since chain fists will only be useful against Land Raiders and bunkers now...and maybe drop-pods if you really need that extra d6 with a S8.

Also, with the new vehicle squadron rules, it appears that extra armor will be redundant as well....guess there's no need to take spirit stones on war-walkers and Vypers now eh?

I am not sure the normal infantry vs tanks thing is as bad as many may think. Lets consider this scenario, an individual vs a tank with armor 10 on back. We will assume the model is str 4 and has 3 attacks (1, +1 for chrg, +1 xtr weap). We will assume a unit of ten. The unit gets 30 attacks that hit the rear armor. So, of the 30 attacks, on average 5 of them will Glance. Since they are glances, none of them will destroy outright. The average will be less than 2 hits that will do lasting damage (lasting damage being an immobilized or weapon destroyed). This is all assuming the vehicle did not move. If you throw in the 4+ required to hit a vehicle that moved up to 6", that number tumbles downward, to less than 1 hit on average that will do damage.

Now, I doubt units like that will assault with out a PF or some other similar weapon. Those weapons will do a substantially higher amount to the vehicle, but the thought that full units attacking without the aid of some increased strength are going to rule tanks is highly unlikely.

Is there a higher chance normal infantry can damage or destroy a vehicle, yes. Is this going to be a list altering affect on the game, I doubt it.

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:Did anyone notice the little section called Retinue in the Independent Character section of the rules?

In short, Independent Characters that have Retinues (Inquisitorial Retinues, Command Squads, etc) count as upgrade characters and cannot be picked out in shooting or assault. Should the Retinue be killed, the Independent Character will revert to IC Status.

Sounds like Power Fists are in for Commanders. Hello, Thunder Hammer Chaplains.

CK

I don't think the book actually says "cannot be picked out in shooting or assault." I believe they mention counts as "upgrade character" so that the Independent Character cannot leave the "retinue" to join another squad. The page after talks about how Independant Characters are always counted as a seperate unit in the assault, so I'm pretty sure you can still single them out in hand to hand combat. I'll double the check the book later to be sure about the wording.

Zoned

The main change is now krak grenades willl be worthwhile
and if space marines get them as standard in the new codex a lot less people will drive anywhere near them.
now you dont need a lascannon to kill 99% of vechiles in the game

Ok I looked at the book yesterday and was overall impressed with 5th edition rules, but I got into a debate with a freind and I wanted to check on it.

Is there anything different about the run move for walkers and MC? Or is it exactly the same as infantry?

extrenm(54) wrote:Is there anything different about the run move for walkers and MC? Or is it exactly the same as infantry?

The same.

I'm looking forward to these new rules. My Dark Angels are looking pretty good, especially my Ravenwing force!

If I remember, turboboosting is now a cover save, correct?

Thanks!

Ozymandias, King of Kings

yes turboboosting is a cover save

Stelek wrote:Yak, I can't even read it. It's so long it's a justification-for-suckiness speech.

Mobile tanks = fun.

Bunkers = gak.

Another way of looking at it is

Vehicles as delicate 'asplode-fests = lame.

I agree that bunkers are kind of crappy, but I wouldn't be surprised if the new rules feel more right to me once I get a chance to play the game. We shall see. I like vehicles, and I think that they are too fragile in 4th. Lowering the defensive weapon strength to 4 is a dumb idea. I don't get the motivation for that at all.

I spent an hour and a half reading through the book at my FLGS on Tuesday.

I must say, I was very impressed. Most of the problems I used to have with the game have been resolved.

I'm looking forward to trying a game with the new rules. Hopefully next week!

I'm going to break out my IG and go tank heavy just to see if the tanks feel weaker. I have mixed feelings about the idea that tanks are that screwed because they are now:

A - More survivable at range (penetration table more tank friendly)
B - Have better visability (area terrain is bye bye, it will be hard to hide from the mighty battle cannon, although you will get 4+ cover saves)
C - Rotating doesn't count as moving (can still fire everything when I spin)
D - I don't need to move as much because of B
E - While the vehicle is weaker in assaults if troops get to it, it is now easier to speedbump enemy assault units with your own units, thus giving vehicle assault protection and time to shoot the assault troops.

I'm also excited to try out the plasma cannons on my demolisher. I think the Warmachine esque template weapon rules will now make these weapons rock, esp in the hands of low BS guardsmen.

Im excited too, and I have 3 Demolishers with the las plas combo, but uh..

Aren't plasma cannons at BS 3 LESS effective with the new template rules because they hit 1/3 of the time not half? Right? (and the misses go 4 inches or so?) Meh.

ThirdUltra wrote:
Would also like to point out, since chain fists will only be useful against Land Raiders and bunkers now...and maybe drop-pods if you really need that extra d6 with a S8.

Also, with the new vehicle squadron rules, it appears that extra armor will be redundant as well....guess there's no need to take spirit stones on war-walkers and Vypers now eh?

Helps against Dreads as well (Which only will be played by loyalist but with the rumours of the Ironclad, etc could be useful).

Augustus wrote:Im excited too, and I have 3 Demolishers with the las plas combo, but uh..

Aren't plasma cannons at BS 3 LESS effective with the new template rules because they hit 1/3 of the time not half? Right? (and the misses go 4 inches or so?) Meh.

Well, this would be true if your trying to kill a solo model with a plasma cannon. But I'd argue if you want to kill a solo, fire the hull mounted Lascannon.

Having played quite a bit of WM latley (which has always had the mechanic that all AOE temple scatter if you miss) you'd be suprised how often you can hit SOMETHING with a good scatter.

So fire your plasma cannons into groups of the enemy. Under v4 you'd only get something half the time. Under v5 if the mob is big enough you'll get all kinds of kills unless you roll REALLY bad on the scatter.

It might help to think about how one uses cannons in WHFB, you guess range KNOWING that you'll be rolling an artillary die that will add some random value to your guess. So you pick a spot that most rolls will help you nail something.

The same is now true with template weapons in 40k. You just PLAN for them to scatter, and you can fire in places where the odds are you'll get something.

So Russ, will you do a review of the new 5th ed rules on your podcast?

Get Yakface or another GW fanatic and go through the rules in depth, that might be a really good segment.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Cool Russ, I can see that, especially vs. hordes, like Orks and Bugs. Plus with the template rules hitting touches auto, maybe there is something to that!?

Hmmmm

Augustus wrote:Cool Russ, I can see that, especially vs. hordes, like Orks and Bugs. Plus with the template rules hitting touches auto, maybe there is something to that!?

Hmmmm

Here's another tactical conundrum I was thinking about as I pondered this. Now that LOS is 'true' you can easily see between models (even if they are base to base) to fire at models behind. So, it will be easy to place the plasma template deep in an enemy formation i.e. targeting the second or 3rd unit deep, so the scatter will hit something. But...

There is a problem.

If you fire at the middle units, they will get a 4+ cover save since you're firing through the front squad.

So, do you fire at the front squad and have a higher chance of missing? Or do you fire at a deeper squad but give him a cover save?

The ease at which you can now get a 4+ cover save is interesting. It is hard for me to grok exactly how this will effect the game until I play it. But the more I think about it the more I become less concerned with the loss of area terrain.

The D6G Podcast: We will definitly be talking about 40K5e in the very near future. The details are still fluid. :S

RussWakelin wrote:

Augustus wrote:Cool Russ, I can see that, especially vs. hordes, like Orks and Bugs. Plus with the template rules hitting touches auto, maybe there is something to that!?

Hmmmm

...
...
...

The ease at which you can now get a 4+ cover save is interesting. It is hard for me to grok exactly how this will effect the game until I play it. But the more I think about it the more I become less concerned with the loss of area terrain.

...

The subtle effect is to slightly devalue any troops who have a 4+ or better armour save. They will be paying for a benefit that is is much more available free to cheaper troops.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The subtle effect is to slightly devalue any troops who have a 4+ or better armour save. They will be paying for a benefit that is is much more available free to cheaper troops.

Everyone leaves off the obvious conclusion to this observation:

BUY MORE HELLHOUNDS.

If you shoot a flamer through a unit and hit another behind it too do they get a 4+ save? (Or not because it's cover, and no cover vs flamers...?)

Kilkrazy wrote:The subtle effect is to slightly devalue any troops who have a 4+ or better armour save. They will be paying for a benefit that is is much more available free to cheaper troops.

Aaaaand Orks win out _again_.

The loss of area terrain also adds another random factor to the game, rather than the certainty area terrain gave before. More risk is always fun, but I like a few certainties to anchor all that risk on.

Oh well. The transition will certainly be interesting, and it looks like if there are any rough spots, they can be house-ruled pretty easily (like S5 defensive weapons).

Especially because Orks can be screened by Grotz. Wuh-oh...

yeah...
If your going to use house rules to get around all the stuff you don't like... why buy the book?

Panic.

Augustus wrote:If you shoot a flamer through a unit and hit another behind it too do they get a 4+ save? (Or not because it's cover, and no cover vs flamers...?)

The "through intervening models" save is specifically a cover save. Template weapons specifically negate cover saves.

Well, being about to start tau, I need to ask because I haven't seen it stated, do skimmers now block line of sight, or are they still exempt from that?

True line of sight, always.

Ozymandias wrote:I'm looking forward to these new rules. My Dark Angels are looking pretty good, especially my Ravenwing force!

If I remember, turboboosting is now a cover save, correct?

But remember, 'only armour saves' can be taken against Psycannon hits, so you're still in the same boat.

BYE

xenite wrote:Vehicles as delicate 'asplode-fests = lame.

Somehow implying that this is the only alternative to Main Battle Bunkers.

Hey, here's an idea, allow the enemy to bypass Hull Down based upon their dice rolls (ie. I hit with a 6, your cover is ignored) rather than making it a cover save. Then allow vehicles to move and fire their guns, rather than the other way around. Not all their guns of course, but more than 1.

BYE

RussWakelin wrote:I spent an hour and a half reading through the book at my FLGS on Tuesday.

And I have a couple of questions.

RussWakelin wrote:B - Have better visability (area terrain is bye bye, it will be hard to hide from the mighty battle cannon, although you will get 4+ cover saves)
D - I don't need to move as much because of B

But is this a good thing? Tanks can now see through forests and other things, so now they don't have to move? How does that improve the game, in your opinion?

RussWakelin wrote:C - Rotating doesn't count as moving (can still fire everything when I spin)

Fire everything, or fire Ordnance or everything else. Big difference.

RussWakelin wrote:I'm also excited to try out the plasma cannons on my demolisher. I think the Warmachine esque template weapon rules will now make these weapons rock, esp in the hands of low BS guardsmen.

How does this work? Is it:

1. 2D6-BS
2. 1D6-BS
- or -
3. 2D6(picking highest)-BS

BYE

Just a few quick things; I'm read almost 100% of this and I still have a thought or two unanswered.

It says in the WH and IG codex section under armory (as well as in other books) that "You may not take duplicate items for the same model...". How are we going to take two power fists? (not that I want two of the lousy things, give me a Big Choppa or a force weapon any day).

As well, I feel I should point out the 'Blessed Ammunition' that WH can ignore cover saves; anyone hear anything about that ability changing? It seems a bit much now with all these cover saves flying around.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

How does this work? Is it:

1. 2D6-BS
2. 1D6-BS
- or -
3. 2D6(picking highest)-BS

BYE

It is 2D6-BS for misses on the scatter die. If you 'hit' it doesn't move at all.

Anything touched by the blast marker is now automatically hit without any partial rolls.

The center hole still needs to be over a vehicle to get a full strength hit (a miss still equals half strength rounded down). However, the change vs. vehicles is if the center hole scatters off the vehicle the AV used is determined by the center hole of the blast. So if your blast scatters off the back of a vehicle you can still have a chance to punch the back armor of the vehicle.

Telvos wrote:Just a few quick things; I'm read almost 100% of this and I still have a thought or two unanswered.

It says in the WH and IG codex section under armory (as well as in other books) that "You may not take duplicate items for the same model...". How are we going to take two power fists? (not that I want two of the lousy things, give me a Big Choppa or a force weapon any day).

As well, I feel I should point out the 'Blessed Ammunition' that WH can ignore cover saves; anyone hear anything about that ability changing? It seems a bit much now with all these cover saves flying around.

For any codex related questions we're all going to have to wait for the release of the 5th edition codex conversion FAQs. But as for Powerfists, I don't think you'll suddenly see the ability for models to purchase two powerfists. The whole point of the rule change (as it appears to me) is simply to give Powefists less attacks in general.

The rule about carrying two powerfists would seem to be included for the few models out there that have them (such as Marneus Calgar).

So BS3 small blasts will scatter an average of 5". That's a long way for a small blast. Hell, that's a miss most of the time with the large.

Guess that's another reason not to take MLs and GLs in Guard Armies.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:So BS3 small blasts will scatter an average of 5". That's a long way for a small blast. Hell, that's a miss most of the time with the large.

Guess that's another reason not to take MLs and GLs in Guard Armies.

BYE

I don't know...with the "no partial hits" thing, the question becomes whether you choose to disperse your troops (to minimize the effects of any one particular blast marker) or concentrate your troops (to minimize the effect of blast markers in general, while making yourself more vulnerable to a particular blast marker.

Take a small blast marker. Put it over some infantry. Now move it 5" away from them. You've basically missed unless you're firing at a big unit, or a very spread out unit.

If it were 2D6 picking highest, then the 'touch = hit' thing would be a good balance, but as it stands, most blast markers will miss by a long way.

And what's the bet Demolisher Plasma Cannons will go up in price when GW gets around to the Guard Codex again, citing that the 'touch = hit' makes them really powerful.

BYE

Average on 2D6 is 7, so wouldn't it scatter an average of 4", HBMC? Don't forget it still hits 1/3 of the time. We played a few games of 5th already and it surprising how many times a 5 or 6 was rolled on the scatter...which meant it didn't scatter very far at all.

Zoned

Is scatter still 2D6 - BS for indirect fire like Mortars? I could see the mortars being much more effective with the all touching = hit.

I noticed the new wording for the skill Hit and run.

You now have to test to leave the combat. While I think this is good, its not very balanced across all Codexs. Why should Seriphim have a better chance of getting off a hit and run than Dethcopters. I4 vs I2. Its not like their poiints changed to show their superior H&R ability.

I'm really not going to comment on most of this until I read the book myself. But somehow I don't think this will be the only codex imbalance that will show up because of these new rules.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Take a small blast marker. Put it over some infantry. Now move it 5" away from them. You've basically missed unless you're firing at a big unit, or a very spread out unit.

BYE

Or even better, play a game with these rules rather than doing the math and assuming it sucks. Here is something though if you must do math. the template has to be on a model's base. most models are typically 1- 1.5" apart. The base itself is about 1". If you put it in the middle of a squad of, say, 7 models (just for simple math) they cover about (again, just simple math) in a formation of:

....A....A
B......B....B
....C.....C

Which is a fairly realistic spread (I think) and you put it on the center B to not hit ANYTHING at all you would be looking at rolling an 8 or 9 on the 2 dice (you get a half inch in any direction from the center base, plus the 1.25" spread on the models plus the other 1" from the second models base, plus the 1.5" radius of the blast template. Like I have said before, I am not a math guru so some of the numbers may be a bit off, but it is good enough for government work. That doesn't even include the times you will get a hit and not scatter at all.

Play some games, quit theorizing and see that it is not the end of the world and actually makes blast weapons better over all. I have NEVER in my life been hit with more than 1 frag missile on my space marines before I started playing around with 5th edition. Once more, an option has been opened up that didn't exist previously.

Does the new book say anything about how base modeling should be handled for true LOS issues? For instance skimmers being modeled on top of big pillars or walls added to IG heavy weapons for flavor? Thanks in advance.

neofright wrote:
Play some games, quit theorizing and see that it is not the end of the world and actually makes blast weapons better over all.

Actually, enough theorizing would have lead to your conclusion. Warmachine
players theorize around deviations and blasts all the time.

Angst wrote:Does the new book say anything about how base modeling should be handled for true LOS issues? For instance skimmers being modeled on top of big pillars or walls added to IG heavy weapons for flavor? Thanks in advance.

As a matter of fact it does! It says no bringing along your own terrain and anything on the bases like that is purely decorative (as a paraphrase)

malfred wrote:

Actually, enough theorizing would have lead to your conclusion. Warmachine
players theorize around deviations and blasts all the time.

Yeah, but playing is more fun. Besides, everyone knows that warmachine players are deviants <quickly hides Khador models>.

Not everyone can playtest while at the office.

Or at home grading papers.

Jayden63 wrote:I noticed the new wording for the skill Hit and run.

You now have to test to leave the combat. While I think this is good, its not very balanced across all Codexs. Why should Seriphim have a better chance of getting off a hit and run than Dethcopters. I4 vs I2. Its not like their poiints changed to show their superior H&R ability.

I'm really not going to comment on most of this until I read the book myself. But somehow I don't think this will be the only codex imbalance that will show up because of these new rules.

Well exactly. There are going to be loads of minor imbalances. For example, Kroot lose their ability to see through 6.001+ inches of forest area terrain You have to hope (as a Tau player) that that minor penalty is balanced by something else, such as the ability of SMS to ignore LoS.

I think it tends to balance out.

Angst wrote:Does the new book say anything about how base modeling should be handled for true LOS issues? For instance skimmers being modeled on top of big pillars or walls added to IG heavy weapons for flavor? Thanks in advance.

As Neofright mentioned the rules say that any deocrative features modeled on your base do not count towards blocking LOS. The rules also state that models must be mounted on the base they come with. It says that if you wish to use a larger base for scenic purposes you should make sure to tell your opponent about it.

The Skimmer rules also state that skimmer bases have to remain on during the game unless the vehicle is immobilized or destroyed at which point the stand is removed. Unless your skimmer has its base glued in place in which case the skimmer is a 'floating' wreck. . .burning in mid-air while it's anti-grav drives continue to function (I actually really like that visual idea).

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:I'm looking forward to these new rules. My Dark Angels are looking pretty good, especially my Ravenwing force!

If I remember, turboboosting is now a cover save, correct?

But remember, 'only armour saves' can be taken against Psycannon hits, so you're still in the same boat.

BYE

They do actually get round this, basically you get a cover save = to your armour save, and can choose to take either, if memory serves.

HBMC its

direct fire: If not rolling a HIT 1d6 + 1d6 (aka 2d6 and add the sum) less the BS of the shooter.

indirect fire: If not rolling a HIT 1d6 + 1d6 (aka 2d6 and add the sum). There is no BS modifier.

Played last night. It slows the game quite a bit.
edit: Yakkie beat me to it.

Played with the rules last night-interesting
1. The mission setup is quite different. Having the first mover set up first might be a good way to balance. We’ll have to see.
2. No consolidation into squads following combat can really mess up the CC. That’s a real wrinkle and slows down the assault conga line which is a good thing for guard etc.
3. Deepstriking into regular cover causing wounds is glitchy to me but oh well.
4. The new blast template shooting rules slows down the game.
5. Cover. You now get lots and lots of cover saves, but this is balanced against units that would not have been struck in the past now being targets. Good for guard and hordey orks, not as hot for marines. I imagine we’ll start seeing more hills and true LOS blocking stuff for future terrain. Also repeat shooters will be efficacious then lower AP shooters as you’re almost guaranteed a 4+ cover save. I can see potentially why they decided t reduce defensive weapons else the eldar would have a distinct advantage in this in the amount of fire certain builds can put out there (and mech guard to a secondary extent). My mech eldar variant might get more efficacious because of their high firepower output vs. the standard mech eldar build (note the discussion on eldar psychic powers being used to double the cover save).
6. Tanks are much more survivable under the new rolls.
7. Could hellhounds fire indirectly before? I forget. If not, they got that much better being able to shoot through scenery to units behind. Ah my pretty demonettes it burns!

Using the True LOS can you still make an argument to target Things like an upraised sword or flag or something even if the whole model is obscured?

~TS

An interesting boost that seraphim get now is the ability to deepstrike. In the jump pack entry, it says all jump pack models can deepstrike.

Capt K

TommyStriker wrote:Using the True LOS can you still make an argument to target Things like an upraised sword or flag or something even if the whole model is obscured?

~TS

No, LoS is from head of the firer to body (heard, torso and limbs) of the target.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

RussWakelin wrote:I spent an hour and a half reading through the book at my FLGS on Tuesday.

And I have a couple of questions.

RussWakelin wrote:B - Have better visability (area terrain is bye bye, it will be hard to hide from the mighty battle cannon, although you will get 4+ cover saves)
D - I don't need to move as much because of B

But is this a good thing? Tanks can now see through forests and other things, so now they don't have to move? How does that improve the game, in your opinion?

RussWakelin wrote:C - Rotating doesn't count as moving (can still fire everything when I spin)

Fire everything, or fire Ordnance or everything else. Big difference.


BYE

I'll answer what was missed.

On Tanks an movement: Well I was looking at it purly from a 'how effective will vehicles still be in the game' point of view. Not from a 'isn't it cooler if vehicles move a lot' point of view. I guess that depends on your idea of 'realistic tank cinema'. I think of 40k vehicle combat similar to WWII vehicle combat. And when troops are on the ground in with the tanks, they are speeding around at 30 mph. They're going slow and providing cover for the troops. But, your mileage may vary on how cool you think this is. But...

It is definitly true that you will see a lot of folks advancing vehicles forward with troops partially poking out from behind to get a 4+ cover save.

Rotating: All I meant was that pivoting a vehicle doesn't count as moving. So it may EITHER fire everything OR fire ordnance. The reason this is important is now with the reduced ability of hth combat units to 'hide in combat' during your turn, you'll have a chance to turn and shoot that flanking unit of pure strains that just ate the infantry unit that was guarding your tanks left flank.

Someone asked about hellhounds:

The wording on the hellhound template in the IG codex is: The entire template must be placed within range and LOS. So it did get better, as did all shooting through woods. I do think flamers have been kicked up a notch, to the point where it actually might even make sense to put flamers on sponsons (gasp!). However I also think hellhounds will be VERY high priority targets for the enemy. So keep that in mind. But then again, against certain armies (i.e. Orks and nids) my hellhound was ALWAYS early to die.

Kilkrazy wrote:

TommyStriker wrote:Using the True LOS can you still make an argument to target Things like an upraised sword or flag or something even if the whole model is obscured?

~TS

No, LoS is from head of the firer to body (heard, torso and limbs) of the target.

Agreed. The book is quite clear on this. It actually lists what parts of the target model you have to see. It's actuall from the 'eyes of the shooter' to body (at which point it lists what counts: arms, legs, torso, head) of the target. It gives examples of such things like tails, weapons, banners, etc. not counting.

There is also a nice picture of what the 'hull' of a vehicle means. You need range and LOS to the HULL of a vehicle to shoot it. And the picture in the book makes this quite clear.

So do Grenade Launchers on Stormtroopers make sense
yet? Or is it still overcosted?

RussWakelin wrote:I do think flamers have been kicked up a notch, to the point where it actually might even make sense to put flamers on sponsons (gasp!).

Not with the width of a Russ. You'd be lucky to get it into a position where both flamers would be useful. Besides, if you move too far, they're S5, so you can't shoot them anyway! Aren't defensive weapons fun!

BYE

Also, a heavy flamer on a tank means the tank has to get close to use the flamer. This generally considered a bad thing, at least where guard are considered (remember all those marines you're flaming can minimum glance your tank now in cc). Thats also why the hellhound is sweet.

flamers on
Lemans no
Hellhounds yes
Landraiders potentially
screamers you know it baby!

jfrazell wrote:
5. Cover. You now get lots and lots of cover saves, but this is balanced against units that would not have been struck in the past now being targets. Good for guard and hordey orks, not as hot for marines. I imagine we’ll start seeing more hills and true LOS blocking stuff for future terrain...

Kinda makes it seem like the relative strengths of two armies in a game is going to be dictated (at least partially) by how much cover is on the board. Somehow that seems unfortunate but perhaps realistic.

ptlangley wrote:

jfrazell wrote:
5. Cover. You now get lots and lots of cover saves, but this is balanced against units that would not have been struck in the past now being targets. Good for guard and hordey orks, not as hot for marines. I imagine we’ll start seeing more hills and true LOS blocking stuff for future terrain...

Kinda makes it seem like the relative strengths of two armies in a game is going to be dictated (at least partially) by how much cover is on the board. Somehow that seems unfortunate but perhaps realistic.

It does make up for the lack of terrain in tournaments, however. Marines still get the upper hand since they don't need to sacrifice a unit or two to screen but at least the ability is there.

malfred wrote:Not everyone can playtest while at the office.

Or at home grading papers.

Now I know why my one history prof took about a month to grade our papers.

I am curious how the new blast rules slowed things down at all. Basically you place it and scatter, count the models touched then roll to wound.

As opposed to roll to hit, if it hits place the blast, count up models that are fully under and then the ones touched, roll 4+ for the ones touched, then roll for wounds.

It has been the opposite with us and that includes a crazy 9 man warrior squad all with blast weapons.

Scattering templates takes more time than simply hitting or missing.

Janthkin wrote:Scattering templates takes more time than simply hitting or missing.

I think scattering templates will be a bit slower than v4 missle shooting, esp. if there are a lot of missles.

However, I think hth combat resolution will be MUCH faster. And that is one part of v4 that can really slow the game down.

My guess is the game will probably play a bit faster, but only playing a few games will tell.

In all my test games with 5th, the games have been generally faster. Protracted close combats don't slow the game down. Scattering templates doesn't take any longer than how you do it in 4th either. It's about the same amount of time to resolve hit/casuaties.

Capt K

jfrazell wrote:Also, a heavy flamer on a tank means the tank has to get close to use the flamer. This generally considered a bad thing, at least where guard are considered (remember all those marines you're flaming can minimum glance your tank now in cc). Thats also why the hellhound is sweet.

flamers on
Lemans no
Hellhounds yes
Landraiders potentially
screamers you know it baby!

No only that, but in assault, you attack rear armor. Very bad for tanks with crappy rear armor to be close to the enemy.

Which is about all of them at A 10...

Vindicator? hmmmm

I haven't played much 40k lately, but when I do my favorite army is Necrons.

I am concerned about the new glancing hits at -2 to the roll. Now the only way to destroy an armored vehicle with Necrons is a Monolith or Heavy Destroyers. Disruption fields are now useless.

Any thoughts for the ancient enemy?

Smatticus wrote:I haven't played much 40k lately, but when I do my favorite army is Necrons.

I am concerned about the new glancing hits at -2 to the roll. Now the only way to destroy an armored vehicle with Necrons is a Monolith or Heavy Destroyers. Disruption fields are now useless.

Any thoughts for the ancient enemy?

It's destruction through attrition. Each immobilized result after the first destroys a weapon. If a weapon destroyed result is rolled when there are no more weapons, the vehicle becomes immobilized. If the vehicle is both immobilized and has all its weapons destroyed and suffers either of these results it is destroyed.

So Necrons should be able to tear vehicles apart through sheer volume of damage.


They should have an easier time than Tyranids whose only real anti-vehicle weapon (the Venom Cannon) now suffers the same issue but Tyranids tend to have a whole lot less of this shooting than Necrons do (since every unit in the Necron army can hurt a vehicle for the most part).

Is that confirmed Yakface-that it follows V4 on the damage chart (Immobile + allWeapons Destroyed + additional I or WD=dead tank?)

Yes

Smatticus wrote:I haven't played much 40k lately, but when I do my favorite army is Necrons.

I am concerned about the new glancing hits at -2 to the roll. Now the only way to destroy an armored vehicle with Necrons is a Monolith or Heavy Destroyers. Disruption fields are now useless.

Any thoughts for the ancient enemy?

How about you ask the question, with glances at a -2, how can anything hurt your monolith unless it is s9 or 10 or AP1. The monolith just got tougher.

Yea it did, but....

You don't need 6s anymore to hit skimmers in the air, and a running carnifex, I think would do the job just fine because monoliths are slow...

They were always beasts anyway.

Questions I have not seen answered (apologies if I missed them - its a long thread!):

1) How does Tank Shock work - is still the same lame "LD test; fail = run away, pass = stand aside unless you want to Death or Glory"? I want to be able to RUN SOMEONE OVER AND KILL THEM when I Tank Shock them, dammit! (Thats how it works in real life and RTS games!)

2) Do Ordinance weapons no longer gain any bonus on damage results against vehicles?

3) If you ram something, can you cause a penetrating hit or glancing only?

4) Is it just me or are Necron Monoliths even more unkillable in 5th Edition? It's hard enough to hurt them as is and now with 5th you can't destroy them via glancing (because the weapons don't get destroyed by Weapon Destroyed results, they just get less shots).

5) Vehicles assaulted in combat are hit on their rear armor. Are Walkers still hit on their front armor?

6) How does the Rending rule work now - roll to wound as normal but a roll of 6 ignores armor save? (i.e. no more auto-wound redonkness)

7) Can Bikes still Turbo Boost to move 24" or has that been reduced to 18"?

8) If you fail your LD test from losing combat, how does it work - still the "both sides roll D6+Initiative; combat winner wins/ties roll = losers all die, otherwise losers run away"?

yakface wrote:the rules say that any deocrative features modeled on your base do not count towards blocking LOS.

OK, but a tabard or back banner is OK?

Clever distinction.

yakface wrote:
As Neofright mentioned the rules say that any deocrative features modeled on your base do not count towards blocking LOS. The rules also state that models must be mounted on the base they come with. It says that if you wish to use a larger base for scenic purposes you should make sure to tell your opponent about it.

Thats interesting after what they did with the last couple of editions. That means a lot of models are going to get stuck in the horrendous (and slowed) category of "opponents permission" for no reason.

The Skimmer rules also state that skimmer bases have to remain on during the game unless the vehicle is immobilized or destroyed at which point the stand is removed.

This to me is another problem, not so much for what it means rules wise but actually with the models themselves. The skimmer bases were very badly designed. They break off inside the vehicles all the time, necessitating drilling and new stands frequently if used. I simply stopped using them after my first couple games with skimmers (3 of those bases broke off inside skimmers) and they don't balance well all the time either. If GW wants this to become the norm, it would really be nice to have a much stronger and balanced skimmer base. Say like the current one but with four spokes instead of one with thicker attachements to prevent breaking.

Vaktathi wrote:

yakface wrote:
The rules also state that models must be mounted on the base they come with. It says that if you wish to use a larger base for scenic purposes you should make sure to tell your opponent about it.

Thats interesting after what they did with the last couple of editions. That means a lot of models are going to get stuck in the horrendous (and slowed) category of "opponents permission" for no reason.

If the base conversion is minor and purely decorative, or upsizing to the current model's base, then I doubt any reasonable player will have an issue. OTOH, if we're talking about Grots on CDs, then yeah, there's probably a problem.

Vaktathi wrote:

yakface wrote:
The Skimmer rules also state that skimmer bases have to remain on during the game unless the vehicle is immobilized or destroyed at which point the stand is removed.

The skimmer bases were very badly designed. They break off inside the vehicles all the time, necessitating drilling and new stands frequently if used. I simply stopped using them after my first couple games with skimmers (3 of those bases broke off inside skimmers) and they don't balance well all the time either. If GW wants this to become the norm, it would really be nice to have a much stronger and balanced skimmer base. Say like the current one but with four spokes instead of one with thicker attachements to prevent breaking.

The problem is that you are using the skimmer base as-is. The skimmer bases are only usable for small plastic models.

What I do is to immediately break off that stupid little tip, and then re-drill the hole to accept the larger stem. This is a friction fit that simplifies transport and avoids constant breakage of the tip.

okay so I skimmed the article and I"m not sure if this was covered but here goes.

Where the immobilized vehicles in a squadron are destroyed because they are abandoned and destroyed by their crew as the rest of the squad advance. first if you think this is unrealistic and they'd just stay inside and shoot go rent black hawk down.

As far as fluff is concerned, marines can only deploy one vehicle in squadrons (not apoc.) and thats the landspeeder. the crew of any other vehicle will go to great lengths to protect its sacred hull. or they take great pride in it 'orks' and don't want to lose their trophies, etc etc.

Looks like landspeeders just got a good reason to fly in squads though. now they can ignore can't move/shoot results to get behind cover and their destroyed on an immobilized result anyway.

with the news of LS becoming transports for small squads of scouts (and making scouts cheaper) I'm excited for the new codex. my marines can now move up the field, use my masters LD and get the assault with counterattack, make a new fire base and scouts move to hold objectives and LS harass like they always do.

edit: my LS are the old school pewter oop ones. a plastic base can not support it at all (especially not the little hex it comes with) I used a close hanger and green stuffed it to make it sturdy and drilled the hole bigger.

so you have to use it with the base it came with/ask permission? In regular games i"m not worried but I don't want to be screwed over in a tournament because I don't have a little hex under my speeders. Also the way I have the bases built my skimmers are 6" to 9" off the table, how will that work for LOS?

H.B.M.C. wrote:Take a small blast marker. Put it over some infantry. Now move it 5" away from them. You've basically missed unless you're firing at a big unit, or a very spread out unit.

If it were 2D6 picking highest, then the 'touch = hit' thing would be a good balance, but as it stands, most blast markers will miss by a long way.

And what's the bet Demolisher Plasma Cannons will go up in price when GW gets around to the Guard Codex again, citing that the 'touch = hit' makes them really powerful.

BYE

Its an average of 4" not 5", not that it makes a huge difference. This hurts high BS armies more that it does Guard.

Bearing in mind I have not played 5th ed there are a few points Id like to make:

Against marines (lets face it most peoples most common opponent) it is a non event as krak missiles will be the choice (surely?). This applies to Necrons too. Against mob armies you WILL have a better chance of a hit in many situations. Obviously surrounding units could be hit and first turn firing will be a free for all if you get the first turn depending on mission of course. A generalisation but as valid as yours.

Excluding marine and mob armies this basically means your point is really only valid against Eldar, DE and Tau.

Against Tau krak missiles are better off used against the battle suits - no effect. If you cant see them then there is a slight loss of effectivness. While against Eldar/DE there will be a potential loss of effectivness here, no argument.

meh, duplicate

wash-away wrote:

Looks like landspeeders just got a good reason to fly in squads though. now they can ignore can't move/shoot results to get behind cover and their destroyed on an immobilized result anyway.

They are only destroyed on an immobilised result if they were moving flat out (getting the 4+ save) or are in squadrons. Below this speed they just cant move anymore as per normal tanks. According to the rules the base has to be removed, but if it is glued thats ok as the grav plate is not damaged, just the engine......

Plastic Parody wrote:Many single lines of text separated by a single space each

When did this become an acceptable post format? It hurts to read it.

bigchris1313 wrote:

Plastic Parody wrote:Many single lines of text separated by a single space each

When did this become an acceptable post format? It hurts to read it.

lol

above post edited just for your sore brain/eyes

"tanks are very vulnerable to close-up attacks with sticky bombs, etc. (the equivalent of Krak grenades)- or at least the WII ones were"

I don't really think thats the case though with some vehicles, such as the Tau skimmers that are completely enclosed or the landraider. To sight a current example of hard to kill in close tanks would be the Abrams. It doesn't have any viewparts it uses cameras so unless the hatch is open there is really no way in unless you throw a grenade down the barrel. (and I don't even think that would work all that well)

I think a more suitable thing to do would have been to add -1 modifiers in close combat for every viewport on the tank... Though I guess its a bit late.

Actually I don't use any Monoliths. I use an all metal Necron army built from 2nd edition models, but ya the Monolith will be tough.

Plastic Parody wrote:

wash-away wrote:

Looks like landspeeders just got a good reason to fly in squads though. now they can ignore can't move/shoot results to get behind cover and their destroyed on an immobilized result anyway.

They are only destroyed on an immobilised result if they were moving flat out (getting the 4+ save) or are in squadrons. Below this speed they just cant move anymore as per normal tanks. According to the rules the base has to be removed, but if it is glued thats ok as the grav plate is not damaged, just the engine......

what about los to a skimmer? I played a game today and they where the same height as most of the buildings or taller. I really don't want to have to cut them down and put them only a few feet above ground. hell the guy's in mine have respirators and when was the last time you saw any flying vehicle just float a couple feet above the ground in combat?

also is there any news on the LS transport?

BloodySabers wrote:Questions I have not seen answered (apologies if I missed them - its a long thread!):

1) How does Tank Shock work - is still the same lame "LD test; fail = run away, pass = stand aside unless you want to Death or Glory"? I want to be able to RUN SOMEONE OVER AND KILL THEM when I Tank Shock them, dammit! (Thats how it works in real life and RTS games!)

2) Do Ordinance weapons no longer gain any bonus on damage results against vehicles?

3) If you ram something, can you cause a penetrating hit or glancing only?

4) Is it just me or are Necron Monoliths even more unkillable in 5th Edition? It's hard enough to hurt them as is and now with 5th you can't destroy them via glancing (because the weapons don't get destroyed by Weapon Destroyed results, they just get less shots).

5) Vehicles assaulted in combat are hit on their rear armor. Are Walkers still hit on their front armor?

6) How does the Rending rule work now - roll to wound as normal but a roll of 6 ignores armor save? (i.e. no more auto-wound redonkness)

7) Can Bikes still Turbo Boost to move 24" or has that been reduced to 18"?

8) If you fail your LD test from losing combat, how does it work - still the "both sides roll D6+Initiative; combat winner wins/ties roll = losers all die, otherwise losers run away"?

1) Tank shock is pretty much the same. They cleaned up the wording a bit but it functions essentially the same as it does now.


2) Same Ordnance bonus vs. vehicles. 2D6 pick the highest.


3) Ramming can clause penetrating hits. Walkers (who are being rammed on their front or sides) can attempt a death or glory attacks against rammers but if they fail to stop it they are hit on their rear armor. If they don't attempt a death or glory attack they 'brace for impact' and use the armor facing they are being rammed in.


4) Yep, Monoliths are definitely beefy. But they are *much* easier to kill in close combat now as Skimmers aren't any harder to hit than regular vehicles now (so at most it will take a '4+' to hit a Monolith) and the fact that all infantry can run makes it easier to get to Monoliths in CC.


5) Yes, walkers are hit on their front armor in CC.


6) Yes, rending is now done on the wounding roll (or the AP roll with vehicles). Rending vs. vehicles now only gives an extra D3 instead of D6.


7) Turbo boost is pretty much exactly the same.


8) Yep. The big difference is the Ld modifier for losing combat is determined solely by the difference in casualties caused by each side. That means it is very easy to get a very high modifier if you cause many more casualties than the opposing side. Also, 'No Retreat' wounds now equal the amount you lost combat by (with no maximum cap) so Fearless units who get beat in combat can easily suffer many extra wounds.

wash-away wrote:

what about los to a skimmer? I played a game today and they where the same height as most of the buildings or taller. I really don't want to have to cut them down and put them only a few feet above ground. hell the guy's in mine have respirators and when was the last time you saw any flying vehicle just float a couple feet above the ground in combat?

also is there any news on the LS transport?

LOS for the whole game is true WYSIWYG, including skimmers. If you don't want to lower your Skimmers then don't. There really isn't any huge pressing need to do so.

I'm just concerned about the table that's hills and forests. any unit can pick away at them.

I can kind of see people putting fire prism's up high especially with the new template rules.

Ratbarf wrote:"tanks are very vulnerable to close-up attacks with sticky bombs, etc. (the equivalent of Krak grenades)- or at least the WII ones were"

I don't really think thats the case though with some vehicles, such as the Tau skimmers that are completely enclosed or the landraider. To sight a current example of hard to kill in close tanks would be the Abrams. It doesn't have any viewparts it uses cameras so unless the hatch is open there is really no way in unless you throw a grenade down the barrel. (and I don't even think that would work all that well)

I think a more suitable thing to do would have been to add -1 modifiers in close combat for every viewport on the tank... Though I guess its a bit late.

What about if you break the camera lenses, or squirt petrol in the radiator, or break a track link. These things are not easy, but they are certainly not impossible.

Fact is, tanks are very vulnerable to infantry close up since they cannot see or shoot at them effectively. Even Tau skimmers, though enclosed etc. have vulnerable points like attachment points for fuelling, hatches, external weapons.

Skimmer height: Perhaps it's a good idea to keep several bases handy, with rods from 1/4" to 6" high (or for the really advanced modeller, an extendo-base that's hidden inside the craft's which could telescope to any length desired).

Walkers: Does anyone know if grenades can be wielded in CC against walkers still? With PFs getting a nerf, they might be more of a threat again. However I wonder how No Retreat affects walkers in CC. If they take extra hits, that might be a problem- but if not, this might be the Day the Dreads Came back.

Savnock wrote:Skimmer height: Perhaps it's a good idea to keep several bases handy, with rods from 1/4" to 6" high (or for the really advanced modeller, an extendo-base that's hidden inside the craft's which could telescope to any length desired).

Walkers: Does anyone know if grenades can be wielded in CC against walkers still? With PFs getting a nerf, they might be more of a threat again. However I wonder how No Retreat affects walkers in CC. If they take extra hits, that might be a problem- but if not, this might be the Day the Dreads Came back.

They still can be used and still hit on a 6. I dont recall if there was any change to the armour value always being the front though.

Plastic Parody wrote:

Savnock wrote:Skimmer height: Perhaps it's a good idea to keep several bases handy, with rods from 1/4" to 6" high (or for the really advanced modeller, an extendo-base that's hidden inside the craft's which could telescope to any length desired).

Walkers: Does anyone know if grenades can be wielded in CC against walkers still? With PFs getting a nerf, they might be more of a threat again. However I wonder how No Retreat affects walkers in CC. If they take extra hits, that might be a problem- but if not, this might be the Day the Dreads Came back.

They still can be used and still hit on a 6. I dont recall if there was any change to the armour value always being the front though.

yes, as I read it any vehicle with a WS you hit the front. also there's going to be a AV 13 seige dread.

I was so excited to have scout snipers buzzing the field and taking objectives in LS but I'm kind of skeptical now... well lets chop the hell out of a $5 ebay speeder and hope for the best.

What I've done with my Tau tanks is to reject the indequate official stands. I've cemented a plastic pipe in the fuselage; this takes a thin steel rod or wire. The other end of the rod will be cemented into a drilled out stalk on the base.

It sounds as if the rules do not allow Tau tanks to land, despite them having landing gear. I think this is a pity.

Plastic Parody wrote:

bigchris1313 wrote:

Plastic Parody wrote:Many single lines of text separated by a single space each

When did this become an acceptable post format? It hurts to read it.

lol

above post edited just for your sore brain/eyes

Thanks!

Okay, i need to say something about some people thinking, that it is enough to glance tanks to death.

Let's assume we have a tank that has 3 weapons. Now assume we have Necrons shooting at that tank.

2/3 chance to hit. 1/6 chance to glance. On the damage roll we have 1/3 chance to damage the vehicle.
That means you need an average of 27 shots to affect the vehicle with the Gauss rule. Since you need 5 of those hits to destroy the vehicle we are talking about 135 shots to kill ONE vehicle. And the enemy probably has more than just one.

How many Necron Warriors are you planning to take in 2000 points to have that amount of fire power?

I know, someone will point out, that you don't NEED to destroy tanks, because they are not scoring. Well actually you do need to destroy tanks 1/3 of the time, when we talk about kill points. Or when there is a draw on objectives and VPs are used...

Stingray_tm wrote:Okay, i need to say something about some people thinking, that it is enough to glance tanks to death.

Let's assume we have a tank that has 3 weapons. Now assume we have Necrons shooting at that tank.

2/3 chance to hit. 1/6 chance to glance. On the damage roll we have 1/3 chance to damage the vehicle.
That means you need an average of 27 shots to affect the vehicle with the Gauss rule. Since you need 5 of those hits to destroy the vehicle we are talking about 135 shots to kill ONE vehicle. And the enemy probably has more than just one.

How many Necron Warriors are you planning to take in 2000 points to have that amount of fire power?

I know, someone will point out, that you don't NEED to destroy tanks, because they are not scoring. Well actually you do need to destroy tanks 1/3 of the time, when we talk about kill points. Or when there is a draw on objectives and VPs are used...

I'll just shoot the tanks with my heavier gauss weapons instead.

Radical I know.

Or get them with my faster C'tan. Or running pariah's screened by destroyers or scarabs or something.

I reckon the gauss rule will be changed for the new rending when they get a new codex anyway.

wash-away wrote:I'm just concerned about the table that's hills and forests. any unit can pick away at them.

I can kind of see people putting fire prism's up high especially with the new template rules.

The rules state that the models must be based with the bases that come with the model, that includes skimmers with their flying bases.

If you've convereted your models onto a custom base you'll need to mention that to your opponent ahead of time and you probably will need to play them as high as standard bases are.

Stingray_tm wrote:Okay, i need to say something about some people thinking, that it is enough to glance tanks to death.

Let's assume we have a tank that has 3 weapons. Now assume we have Necrons shooting at that tank.

2/3 chance to hit. 1/6 chance to glance. On the damage roll we have 1/3 chance to damage the vehicle.
That means you need an average of 27 shots to affect the vehicle with the Gauss rule. Since you need 5 of those hits to destroy the vehicle we are talking about 135 shots to kill ONE vehicle. And the enemy probably has more than just one.

How many Necron Warriors are you planning to take in 2000 points to have that amount of fire power?

I know, someone will point out, that you don't NEED to destroy tanks, because they are not scoring. Well actually you do need to destroy tanks 1/3 of the time, when we talk about kill points. Or when there is a draw on objectives and VPs are used...

You're right. It's certainly not an ideal situation but Necrons in CC with vehicles now hit on rear armor so you have new options to destroy vehicles. It may be that GW has certain armies (Necron, Tyranids) behave in a way where you essentially immobilize vehicles and then destroy them in CC.

And as reds8n mentioned, in the new codex they'll probably change their weapons to rending. We just don't know yet. Hell, they might even make some changes in the 5th edition codex FAQs.

I think the most sensible solution would be to make those changes in the FAQs:

Gauss: "A six on the armour penetration roll always gives -1 (total) on the damage table."
Venom Cannon: "Every time a Venom Cannon hit matches or exceeds the AV, the hit will resolved with a -1 on the damage table."

It's balanced, it can be done, because those weapons already have special rules overriding main rules, so you can make those changes without making any exceptions that haven't been made before.

GW listens to and acts on peoples gripes that tanks are not resiliant enough (in comparison to MC's) in the game, balancing that with new move and fire rules.

Now people gripe that they cannot destroy tanks with their current armies that havent been adjusted for 5th edition rules. Others complaining that they cannot move and fire all of their weapons anymore, depite the fact that their tanks have a better chance of seeing turn 6, in effect giving them more chances to fire.

*Sigh*

A quick question about models having to be on the bases they came with:

My tau tanks are all modeled to just sit on their landing gear because the GW bases just don't work for something that big. Couldn't it be argued that the landing gear is a GW supplied "base" since it is intended that the vehicle be able to sit on it? It's not like I converted the landing gear or anything like that.

tomguycot wrote:A quick question about models having to be on the bases they came with:

My tau tanks are all modeled to just sit on their landing gear because the GW bases just don't work for something that big. Couldn't it be argued that the landing gear is a GW supplied "base" since it is intended that the vehicle be able to sit on it? It's not like I converted the landing gear or anything like that.

The flying base is the one it is supplied with.

Can someone tell me about the Slow and Purposeful USR? Did they change it or is Ghazgkull still the only to get the bonus for charging.

Vaktathi wrote:That means a lot of models are going to get stuck in the horrendous (and slowed) category of "opponents permission" for no reason.

Look on the bright side: unless there is some club somewhere that holds a pistol to your head and forces you to play*, all GW models have always been "opponent's permission". Just think of the upcoming rule on bases as a clarification that actually changes nothing.




*If your club has a house rule that allows you to use pistols to coerce opponents to play with you, then feel free to disregard the main rule book as your ammunition permits.

Ratbarf wrote:"tanks are very vulnerable to close-up attacks with sticky bombs, etc. (the equivalent of Krak grenades)- or at least the WII ones were"

I don't really think thats the case though with some vehicles, such as the Tau skimmers that are completely enclosed or the landraider. To sight a current example of hard to kill in close tanks would be the Abrams. It doesn't have any viewparts it uses cameras so unless the hatch is open there is really no way in unless you throw a grenade down the barrel.

Are the hatches and hinges as solid as the front glacis plate? No, they aren't. And even if they were, when there are infantry on the tank, it's not going to buttoned up blind. It's going to be looking to get the hell away from the infantry.

Not that it matters, because the driver is using optical viewports, and that glass can be shattered.

Eh, the Russian t72 tank uses a hatch in the bottom to drop a gas canister that kills the people on the tank before they can do much damage.

"Skimmer height: Perhaps it's a good idea to keep several bases handy, with rods from 1/4" to 6" high (or for the really advanced modeller, an extendo-base that's hidden inside the craft's which could telescope to any length desired)."

Man, they way I really wanted to see this done would have been the way that Hero clix did it with their flying bases. They have a slider that can be moved up and down by notches and differrent rules apply depending on what notch you are at. (For instance you can only be attacked by an opponent in close combat if they are on the same notch as you. And if you are on the top notch those on the ground can't even target yeu. Makes a lot more sense to me then the current skimmer rulses.)

Ratbarf wrote:Eh, the Russian t72 tank uses a hatch in the bottom to drop a gas canister that kills the people on the tank before they can do much damage.

"Skimmer height: Perhaps it's a good idea to keep several bases handy, with rods from 1/4" to 6" high (or for the really advanced modeller, an extendo-base that's hidden inside the craft's which could telescope to any length desired)."

Man, they way I really wanted to see this done would have been the way that Hero clix did it with their flying bases. They have a slider that can be moved up and down by notches and differrent rules apply depending on what notch you are at. (For instance you can only be attacked by an opponent in close combat if they are on the same notch as you. And if you are on the top notch those on the ground can't even target yeu. Makes a lot more sense to me then the current skimmer rulses.)

well I think skimmers should get some kind of advantage if they choose to fly instead of hover. but i guess gw doesn't want to do anything that drastic yet.

wash-away wrote:
well I think skimmers should get some kind of advantage if they choose to fly instead of hover. but i guess gw doesn't want to do anything that drastic yet.

Why would skimmers need to be any better than they are?

Ratbarf wrote:Eh, the Russian t72 tank uses a hatch in the bottom to drop a gas canister that kills the people on the tank before they can do much damage.

I miss the Frag Launchers from 2nd ed - nothing like a bunch of bomblets to encourage infantry to avoid btb with a tank.

Plastic Parody wrote:Its an average of 4" not 5", not that it makes a huge difference. This hurts high BS armies more that it does Guard.

From a certain point of view (/Obi-Wan).

It hurts everyone, but in the new system high-BS gets the better benefit. And yes, it's a 4" average, not 5". So rather than missing by 5", you miss by 4". Seriously, get the small blast. A scatter of more than 2" means you will miss most of the time.

BYE

Smatticus wrote:I haven't played much 40k lately, but when I do my favorite army is Necrons.

I am concerned about the new glancing hits at -2 to the roll. Now the only way to destroy an armored vehicle with Necrons is a Monolith or Heavy Destroyers. Disruption fields are now useless.

Any thoughts for the ancient enemy?

Immoblising vehicles twice will destroy, right? So Necrons have ability.

tkdarktrooper wrote:Can someone tell me about the Slow and Purposeful USR? Did they change it or is Ghazgkull still the only to get the bonus for charging.

Ghazkull does not get the charging bonus currently but in 5th there is no longer a rule that strips the charge bonus from S&P Models

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:

Smatticus wrote:I haven't played much 40k lately, but when I do my favorite army is Necrons.

I am concerned about the new glancing hits at -2 to the roll. Now the only way to destroy an armored vehicle with Necrons is a Monolith or Heavy Destroyers. Disruption fields are now useless.

Any thoughts for the ancient enemy?

Immoblising vehicles twice will destroy, right? So Necrons have ability.

No, immobilizing twice will destroy a weapon. You have to immobilize and destroy all weapons, before it destroys the vehicle. And as only 1/3 of the glancing hits will actually damage the vehicle, it's going to take a LOT of hits to kill, say, a Predator.

H.B.M.C. wrote: A scatter of more than 2" means you will miss most of the time.

But misses will be much more entertaining... say against a horde army... orks, 'nids, etc. You're bound to hit something.

Of course with my luck, I'll be more of a danger to my own troops.

You'll see a lot of Necrons with Heavy Ds and possibly even Tomb Spyders. They are still MCs at S6. Gauss fire won't cut it, so just think of it as a fringe benefit. If you can't shoot at anything else, you can still at least annoy that vehicle.

Pariahs are good at killing vehicles, but a Destroyer Lord with Warscythe will be much better. I must admit, you might see people field Pariahs and not have everybody in the vicinity incapacitated by laughter anymore. I never thought that would happen. Ah well, the pendulum swings, welcome to 3rd ed.

Running C'tan makes them pretty good.

TommyStriker wrote:

wash-away wrote:
well I think skimmers should get some kind of advantage if they choose to fly instead of hover. but i guess gw doesn't want to do anything that drastic yet.

Why would skimmers need to be any better than they are?

I just don't like them hovering around. I really don't want to cut them down...

How do weapons with multiple possible Strength values work for Defensive Weapons? Would a Missile Launcher count as a Defensive Weapon when firing a frag/plasma missile?

I read most of this thread earlier this morning... found it very informative plus also quite amusing as well.

G

Wait, so Necrons need to take anti-tank weapons to kill tanks in 5th? The Monolith is even tougher than it currently is?

What is the world coming to?

CK

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:Wait, so Necrons need to take anti-tank weapons to kill tanks in 5th?
CK

Which is all fine and dandy if you're able to take an anti-tank weapon in any given troop slot choice, but no, Necrons have only two anti-tank gun in the entire army which are both Heavy slots. Let a Warrior unit upgrade one of it's guys to carry a Gauss Cannon or Heavy Gauss Cannon and I won't mind so much. Give Flayed One's claws the effects of a Krak Grenade would also be a nice move.

Aduro wrote:How do weapons with multiple possible Strength values work for Defensive Weapons? Would a Missile Launcher count as a Defensive Weapon when firing a frag/plasma missile?

Since it is based on the strength of the weapon you are firing a S4 plasma missile shot from an Eldar Missile Launcher does indeed count as a defensive weapon. Makes them the pivot man for any freaky-deeky Eldar weapon pron you might be filming soon.

First off, to be perfectly honest. Necrons are more balanced than they were before because of these changes. Now instead of Warrior Spamming someone to death you might have to take a heavy destroyer or two. Also you have to worry about a vehicle parking next to an objective. It may not score but it prevents _you_ from scoring.
As all objectives need to be cleared of enemy units before you can claim them. So simply immobilizing it does nothing.
I'm fairly certain 5th Edition doesn't care if a vehicle has any weapons or wheels blown off. As long as it "works" and "lives"
its in the way. Things need to be destroyed afaik.

What Necrons honestly need is a new Codex. They need FNP instead of WBB, they need more diversity in units and in weapon selection. That needs to be fixed. Not the rules, which are fine atm. Also the Monolith isn't as tough as it was before, mainly because you can actually _hit_ it in Hand to Hand now. Shooting at it is the same, however, being able to scratch its paint finally is a boost.

Haven't read much about buildings/ruins in this thread. There is a difference. Buildings are pretty much like immobile transports with armor values and access points. They can be destroyed reducing them to dangerous terrain, or even explode and replace with a crater. Ruins are pretty much like the standard Cityfight gothic ruin model. One thing that struck me is how different movement is inside ruins... Regardless of the actual building model, levels are considered 3" apart vertically. You roll difficult terrain as usual, but vertical movement counts... In other words if you roll a 1 or 2, you can move 1" or 2" horizontally. You roll a 3, you can move horizontally OR straight up or down 1 level, with no horizontal movement, and so on until you roll a 6, where you can move 6" horizontally, 3" horizontally and up/down a level, or up/down 2 levels without any horizontal movement. A real stark difference to the Cityfight rules.

I only gave a cursory glance, but it appeared that blast/template rules were the same, i.e. only affect 1 level, templates can target same level or 1 level above/below.

Yep, ruins are vastly different now.

I've got some pieces that frankly are just too tall now, and I'm going to chop them down. A 6 story building corner looked cool for COD when you could move over AND up the same amount. But now, if a squad of scouts starts out in floors 5 and 6, nothing is digging them out in HTH unless it's got a 12" move or charge. If you don't roll a 6 on either of the two dice, a unit with 6" movement is only going up/own one level a turn. I'll probably be making the terrrain wider and lower, keeping the max building height to 4 levels, with most at 2 or 3.

1. Step one, take large building, pretend your the annoying mallkid, and knock it off the table, watching it shatter.

2. Glue pieces back together in new and interesting ways.

3. Touch up with a few quick spurts of black primer and some drybrushing.

yeah...
I also think that i'm going to board up all the windows so that WYSISYG is alot easier...
this will get rid of all the 'i can see him through that window there!'

Panic...

Panic wrote:I also think that i'm going to board up all the windows so that WYSISYG is alot easier...
this will get rid of all the 'i can see him through that window there!'

Board up them windows! There's a storm brewin'!

Funny, this is exactly the sort of thing I was going to ask about.

Boss Salvage and I played a quick game Sunday with a few 5th rules. A question came up as to whether walls were impassible. No biggie, but I am now wondering if 5th does anything to specify about this sort of thing. We sort of came up with house rules that windows can only be shot through if the target or shooter was within 3" of the window, and speculated that perhaps (assuming the basic CoD boxed set buildings) walls could be moved through if they were broken, but intact walls with windows could not. We also thought maybe MC's and units with a Str6 or above model (or grenade) could move through solid walls as well as they blast/kick/use Brother Dave as a battering ram through it.

Is there anything specific in the rules about how buildings and ruins work, or even general suggestions? Or am I going to be writing a short scroll of house rules on the subject?

I think that it Makes DA tanks better. For 130 pts I can get a Vindicator with a dozer blade. I can park it in cover and it will have a 4+ armour save. That is awesome. Also now with big blast marker there are no partials. I think it makes them very hard to kill.

corwindal5 wrote:I think that it Makes DA tanks better. For 130 pts I can get a Vindicator with a dozer blade. I can park it in cover and it will have a 4+ armour save. That is awesome. Also now with big blast marker there are no partials. I think it makes them very hard to kill.

Well, obviously with the new vehicle rules and the new damage chart, vehicles in general will be hard to kill.....they may not shoot alot on the move, but they won't die as much either.....of course, now, they'll be vulnerable to infantry assaults....so I guess it's a wash.

it would be interesting if you gave a vehicle a dozer blade it got +1 to its armor on the charge. so it was 11. but yeah.

I'm glad I didn't sell my vindicators now. machine spirit ftw.

Oh, what did they do with majority toughness or saves? Are those rules still around or did the new wound distribution make them irrelevant?

bigchris1313 wrote:

Panic wrote:I also think that i'm going to board up all the windows so that WYSISYG is alot easier...
this will get rid of all the 'i can see him through that window there!'

Board up them windows! There's a storm brewin'!

but then what do you do when you want to have guys firing out of the building? They can't cause the window's are blocked.

I may have to re-do some of my buildings... Pity, they are so pretty.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Wehrkind wrote:Funny, this is exactly the sort of thing I was going to ask about.

Boss Salvage and I played a quick game Sunday with a few 5th rules. A question came up as to whether walls were impassible. No biggie, but I am now wondering if 5th does anything to specify about this sort of thing. We sort of came up with house rules that windows can only be shot through if the target or shooter was within 3" of the window, and speculated that perhaps (assuming the basic CoD boxed set buildings) walls could be moved through if they were broken, but intact walls with windows could not. We also thought maybe MC's and units with a Str6 or above model (or grenade) could move through solid walls as well as they blast/kick/use Brother Dave as a battering ram through it.

Is there anything specific in the rules about how buildings and ruins work, or even general suggestions? Or am I going to be writing a short scroll of house rules on the subject?

There are actually rather extensive (compared to the last edition which had no rules for buildings) rules for both buildings and ruins. For the most part they follow the rules laid out in Cities of Death with some exceptions.

When it comes to LOS, it is WYSIWYG pretty much all the way, so yeah you can shoot a model through a window regardless of how close to the building he is unless you make house rules to say otherwise.

Aduro wrote:Oh, what did they do with majority toughness or saves? Are those rules still around or did the new wound distribution make them irrelevant?

Majority toughness is still used exactly as it is in 4th edition. Mixed armor is now gone, replaced by allocating wounds to specific models (or groups of models with the same equipment/stats) before armor saves are taken.

Majority toughness is still used exactly as it is in 4th edition. Mixed armor is now gone, replaced by allocating wounds to specific models (or groups of models with the same equipment/stats) before armor saves are taken.

Poo. Continues to screw over Tomb Spiders who make Scarab Swarms.

Aduro wrote:

Majority toughness is still used exactly as it is in 4th edition. Mixed armor is now gone, replaced by allocating wounds to specific models (or groups of models with the same equipment/stats) before armor saves are taken.

Poo. Continues to screw over Tomb Spiders who make Scarab Swarms.

Expect you can allocate them to the swarms first, maybe?

yakface wrote:Majority toughness is still used exactly as it is in 4th edition. Mixed armor is now gone, replaced by allocating wounds to specific models (or groups of models with the same equipment/stats) before armor saves are taken.

That's good to hear. I'd heard otherwise, which would have been a problem for Warlocks hanging out in Wraithguard units.

Thanks Yak. I will have to see the new rules completely before I start my next terrain project. If nothing else, there will be a lot of interior walls surviving in my ruins.

Interesting about majority toughness too. I would have thought they would have just called for Hit allocation instead of wound allocation. That is going to hurt Daemon Armies a little.

ForceVoid wrote:

Aduro wrote:

Majority toughness is still used exactly as it is in 4th edition. Mixed armor is now gone, replaced by allocating wounds to specific models (or groups of models with the same equipment/stats) before armor saves are taken.

Poo. Continues to screw over Tomb Spiders who make Scarab Swarms.

Expect you can allocate them to the swarms first, maybe?

You'd roll to wound on the majority Toughness, which since a Tomb Spider has 2 wounds and a Scarab Swam 3, is the Scarab Swarm with his T3. You could them allocate to the scarabs first, and any hits that do get onto the Tomb Spider still let him take his 3+ save which is an improvement, but still, poo.

Could some body tell me what happens to twinlinked blast weapon? is that count as reroll wound?

Aduro wrote:

ForceVoid wrote:

Aduro wrote:

Majority toughness is still used exactly as it is in 4th edition. Mixed armor is now gone, replaced by allocating wounds to specific models (or groups of models with the same equipment/stats) before armor saves are taken.

Poo. Continues to screw over Tomb Spiders who make Scarab Swarms.

Expect you can allocate them to the swarms first, maybe?

You'd roll to wound on the majority Toughness, which since a Tomb Spider has 2 wounds and a Scarab Swam 3, is the Scarab Swarm with his T3. You could them allocate to the scarabs first, and any hits that do get onto the Tomb Spider still let him take his 3+ save which is an improvement, but still, poo.

Does all this mean that Gun Drones still hurt Crisis Suit units that carry them?

Gun drones haven't hurt crisis suits since the last codex came out. They have the same toughness as the unit that they are attached to.

Gun drones haven't hurt crisis suits since the last codex came out. They have the same toughness as the unit that they are attached to.

Incorrect. Shield Drones use the same toughness as the unit they are attached to. Gun drones (and Marker Drones) do not.

Could some body tell me what happens to twinlinked blast weapon? is that count as reroll wound?

Twin linked blasts re-roll scatter and you have to stick with the second result. Only twin-linked templates (eg immolator flamers) get to re-roll wounds.

I am curious as to what happens to abilities, effects, and wargear that are caused by models that are in transports.

If a model is in a transport...

can the SM Master's Rites of Battle ability be used if the Master is in a transport?

can a Big Mek w/ Kustom Force Field still project his field?

can the Ld of a Canoness w/ Book of St Lucius be used?

... these are just a few examples.

stjohn70 wrote:I am curious as to what happens to abilities, effects, and wargear that are caused by models that are in transports.

If a model is in a transport...

can the SM Master's Rites of Battle ability be used if the Master is in a transport?

can a Big Mek w/ Kustom Force Field still project his field?

can the Ld of a Canoness w/ Book of St Lucius be used?

... these are just a few examples.

Yes, yes and yes. For the KFF and the Book of St. Lucius the range is measured from the hull of the vehicle.


The real question (the one not answered in the new rules) is what happens when those same units in the vehicle should be affected by abilities, like Fear of the Darkness.

Someone told me you can always move and fire "assault" weapons on vehicles. Is this true?

No.

Had another look at the book this weekend, and I noticed another interesting minor change: Vehicles that deep-strike count as moving at cruising speed. As a result, at least until the new codex, a SM Landspeeder can Deep-Strike, and fire one weapon.

I'm picturing the use of Deep-striking speeders with multi-meltas... A relatively cheap way to take out heavy armor.

Aduro wrote:

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:Wait, so Necrons need to take anti-tank weapons to kill tanks in 5th?
CK

Which is all fine and dandy if you're able to take an anti-tank weapon in any given troop slot choice, but no, Necrons have only two anti-tank gun in the entire army which are both Heavy slots. Let a Warrior unit upgrade one of it's guys to carry a Gauss Cannon or Heavy Gauss Cannon and I won't mind so much. Give Flayed One's claws the effects of a Krak Grenade would also be a nice move.

That doesnt really cut it as a legitimate moan as thats the same possition that Tau are in unless you want to count the marker light. And, unless I am mistaken the Gauss rule is not removed until an FAQ says so?

I have a follow up question, I asked it several pages ago but it wasn't answered.

How is the "outflank" rule worded? Can a unit that has scouts/infiltrate always use this rule, or does the mission have to actually have the "reserves" special rule?

So which CD units get fleet? lol it sounds awsome cant wait to get my hands on the book ^^

WhiteDevil wrote:I have a follow up question, I asked it several pages ago but it wasn't answered.

How is the "outflank" rule worded? Can a unit that has scouts/infiltrate always use this rule, or does the mission have to actually have the "reserves" special rule?

Yes, you can use it any of the "standard" 3 missions in the rulebook. In fact the missions in the rulebook all have Reserves (at the players discretion), Infiltration and Deep Strike all the time.

drdeath666 wrote:So which CD units get fleet? lol it sounds awsome cant wait to get my hands on the book ^^

CD units? Chaos Demons?

All infantry, monstrous creatures, cavalry and walkers can 'run' instead of shooting, but they can't charge in the same turn. Units that are "fleet" (have the rule in their codex entry) are allowed to charge in the same turn they ran.

So any unit that currently has the fleet special rule can run in the shooting phase and then charge in the assault phase (exactly what they can do now).

Does Cav automatically have fleet still?

Guys, a few replies back I read someone say Majority toughness was the same as in 4e.

This is not so.

You still use the majority Toughness when there is majorty, but they have have changed the rule when there is no majority (equal numbers of models of different Toughness).

It used to be "use the lowest T" if there is no majority, thus allowing TombSpiders to be wounded as though they are T3 (Scarab swarm toughness). Now its "highest Toughess" when there is no majority. So that 1st Scarab Swarm is now wounded on the Tomb spider toughness, until a second swarm comes out to make T3 the majority in the unit.

Alas, Tomb Spiders only have 2 wounds to the Scarab Swarm's 3.

Aduro wrote:Alas, Tomb Spiders only have 2 wounds to the Scarab Swarm's 3.

I don't understand how the models number of wounds has anything to do with the majority toughness rule mechanic?

skyth wrote:Does Cav automatically have fleet still?

Yepper.

I ordered mine today.

Just the book, I thought £60 was a bit much for an ammo box and some plastic templates in the advance offer.

Is the whole "no more secrets" thing in the final rules set?

Started to look through this thread but at 16 pages I'll pass thanks...

Can someone please post the details for the "Run" rule, in particular:

What can run
What can't run

Thanks very much,

Viperion

TommyStriker wrote:Is the whole "no more secrets" thing in the final rules set?

Yes, just like in the leaked PDF, the contents of transports and your army list in general as explained in the rulebook is not to be kept as a secret from your opponent unless you both agree that it would be cool to do so.

Viperion wrote:Started to look through this thread but at 16 pages I'll pass thanks...

Can someone please post the details for the "Run" rule, in particular:

What can run
What can't run

What can run: Infantry, Jump Infantry, Cavalry & Beasts, Monstrous Creatures and Walkers.

What can't run: Bikes & Jetbikes, non-Walker Vehicles and Artillery.

yakface wrote:

Viperion wrote:

Can someone please post the details for the "Run" rule, in particular:

What can run
What can't run

What can run: Infantry, Jump Infantry, Cavalry & Beasts, Monstrous Creatures and Walkers.

What can't run: Bikes & Jetbikes, non-Walker Vehicles and Artillery.

Running Carnifexi! (Does happy happy dance )

Viperion

So, do deffrollas (extra hits when tank shocking) do anything against vehicles in 5th? or is tank shocking vehicles gone completely, replaced by ramming?

Only thing I'm not looking forward to is that someone at my FLGS is going to ram his wave serpents 36" so i take a S15 hit and he only takes a S8 =/

xyphoid wrote:So, do deffrollas (extra hits when tank shocking) do anything against vehicles in 5th? or is tank shocking vehicles gone completely, replaced by ramming?

Yes, tank shocking vehicles is no longer something in the rules. You are now tank shock non-vehicles and ram vehicles. So I don't think the Deathrolla will do any damage to vehicles anymore.

Red_Lives wrote:Only thing I'm not looking forward to is that someone at my FLGS is going to ram his wave serpents 36" so i take a S15 hit and he only takes a S8 =/

Ramming has to be done in the Movement phase, so I don't see how a wave serpent can move more than 24" in the movement phase (unless I'm missing something).

Red_Lives wrote:Only thing I'm not looking forward to is that someone at my FLGS is going to ram his wave serpents 36" so i take a S15 hit and he only takes a S8 =/

Except skimmer max speed is not as fast as it was.

Yakface wrote:What can run: Infantry, Jump Infantry, Cavalry & Beasts, Monstrous Creatures and Walkers.

What can't run: Bikes & Jetbikes, non-Walker Vehicles and Artillery.

Not that you are know for typoes, but can you positively confirm that Jump Infantry can Run, Yakface?

Steelmage99 wrote:

Yakface wrote:What can run: Infantry, Jump Infantry, Cavalry & Beasts, Monstrous Creatures and Walkers.

What can't run: Bikes & Jetbikes, non-Walker Vehicles and Artillery.

Not that you are know for typoes, but can you positively confirm that Jump Infantry can Run, Yakface?

Indeed. And I just noticed while checking on that, that all Jump Infantry can Deep Strike now too!

I'll have to double-check some wording in the codex but that may mean that things like winged Hive Tyrants may be able to Deep Strike as well.

yakface wrote:I'll have to double-check some wording in the codex but that may mean that things like winged Hive Tyrants may be able to Deep Strike as well.

Dear Emperor, say it ain't so.

Red_Lives wrote:

Yea you forgot star engines =/

May move an extra 12" in lieu of shooting.

So for 115pts your can have wave serpents that may move 36" with 12 front armor. That's S15 ram attacks and they only take S8 hits

Star engines are used in the shooting phase, aren't they?

And ramming vehicles take exactly the same hit back on them depending on the AV of the vehicle they're hitting, so I'm not sure how you're getting that they'll only take S8 hits.

It's:

*Each armor point above 10: +1
*Each full 3" of movement done by the rammer when they hit the other vehicle: +1
*If the vehicle is a tank: +1


So if a Wave Serpent is set up perfectly to move the full 24" before striking their target (highly unlikely), the Wave Serpent would do a S11 hit (S8 for moving 24", +2 for AV12 & +1 for being a tank).

If they hit something like an AV10 Trukk, they'll only get a S8 hit back (for the speed), but if they strike a Land Raider they'll get a S13 hit back (S8 for the speed, +4 for AV14 & +1 for being a tank).

What since when is it the shooting phase? Blasphemy

Red_Lives wrote:What since when is it the shooting phase? Blasphemy

Well, I'm not sure. I know it was in the last codex but I haven't used Star Engines since the new codex came out so I could be totally wrong.

Either way, just like tank shock you have to move in a straight line from the start of your move and its the total distance moved before you strike the target that counts, so you'll have to have enough distance at the start of the turn already to 'build up' that kind of ramming speed anyway.

I just checked, GW decided to use your ruling for star engines, so its been the shooting phase since may =/

I'm sad now

yakface wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Yakface wrote:What can run: Infantry, Jump Infantry, Cavalry & Beasts, Monstrous Creatures and Walkers.

What can't run: Bikes & Jetbikes, non-Walker Vehicles and Artillery.

Not that you are know for typoes, but can you positively confirm that Jump Infantry can Run, Yakface?

Indeed. And I just noticed while checking on that, that all Jump Infantry can Deep Strike now too!

I'll have to double-check some wording in the codex but that may mean that things like winged Hive Tyrants may be able to Deep Strike as well.

Ork Stormboyz. Deep strike at will. 20" to 30" threat radius (in the turn after the Deep strike). Waaaagh!

But why deep strike them? its way more dangerous in 5th ed.

Like I said "In the turn after the Deep strike".



Edit. Fast edit there, my friend.

With a threat radius that big you don't have to worry about deepstriking close to the board edge or enemy models.

Deep strike is worse in 5th ed. Deeps trike into a forest= dangerous terrain tests

Mishap table=suck age here is basically what it means.
1&2 you die
3&4 i kill you
5&6 try again later.

You didn't read my post at all, did you?

"When do you roll on the Mishap Table? "

When a member of your unit comes into contact with Enemy models, Board edge or Impassable terrain.
This should be relatively easy to avoid.

"But then you are way out of the way and won't have much impact on the game."

Enter the big threat radius.

You forgot friendly models. And with a 20-30" threat range it might just be better to leave them off board edge and have them arrive via NORMAL reserve IE your table edge. After all a table is only 24" between sides. And with a 15+ size mob you would be surprised how easily it is to make contact with another mob.

I totally agree. It will be safer to just leave them on the board. The option to Deep strike is just a new thing (besides Zagstruk) and should ofc be considered too.

And you are right about friendly models. I stand corrected.

It sounds cool but new deep strike rules punish large squads deep striking, since its MUCH easier for them to make contact with friendly/enemy models/terrain. The mishap table is just too punishing.

The Mishap Table is a harsh mistress indeed.
My point was that some of the dangers can be lessened by using the bigger threat radius gained by Run and Rokkit move.

Leave them off table? In 5th ed all models have the reserves rule and can arrive normally on your table edge.

Yep.
I must admit I often use Stormboyz as more of a distraction, so I like to have them available from turn 1.

Blast weapons blow in 5th edition =/

Average scatter roll for a space marine plazma cannon is 3"

that makes me sad.

A non sequentur if I ever saw one.
And a repeat from another thread, none the less.

like i said it makes me sad. small blast weapons become too inaccurate to use. They now only have a 1/3 chance to hit and if they scatter they scatter too far too hit something.

Apologies if these have been covered, but a skimming of the thread didn't get them...

How are sweeping advances handled?

What are the to-hit rules for grenades (krak/meltabombs)?

With assaults hitting rear armor, krak grenades might have just gotten useful.

About the krak grenades. I Believe they are very useful now. For instance:

Ig: Any model with krak grenades assualts any vehicle (except a LR or a mono) and has a good chance to kill it.
All S3 models with krak grenades or equivalents now hit rear armor of 10 with a S6 hit, like a free fist!

Yes vehicles should be very scared of troops

yakface wrote:
Star engines are used in the shooting phase, aren't they?

And ramming vehicles take exactly the same hit back on them depending on the AV of the vehicle they're hitting, so I'm not sure how you're getting that they'll only take S8 hits.

It's:

*Each armor point above 10: +1
*Each full 3" of movement done by the rammer when they hit the other vehicle: +1
*If the vehicle is a tank: +1


So if a Wave Serpent is set up perfectly to move the full 24" before striking their target (highly unlikely), the Wave Serpent would do a S11 hit (S8 for moving 24", +2 for AV12 & +1 for being a tank).

If they hit something like an AV10 Trukk, they'll only get a S8 hit back (for the speed), but if they strike a Land Raider they'll get a S13 hit back (S8 for the speed, +4 for AV14 & +1 for being a tank).

Yak, correct me if I'm wrong (don't have access to a 5th ed rulebook now), but isn't the wording of ramming +1 for each full 3" of movement that turn? So technically speaking, isn't it possible, RAW, to move 24" and then move another 12" and ram, for a full +12 S for speed?

ubermosher wrote:

Yak, correct me if I'm wrong (don't have access to a 5th ed rulebook now), but isn't the wording of ramming +1 for each full 3" of movement that turn? So technically speaking, isn't it possible, RAW, to move 24" and then move another 12" and ram, for a full +12 S for speed?

I would imagine that it depends on when you are allowed to make a ramming move. If the ram has to be resolved in the movement phase it would imply that you can't add any movement available in the shooting phase.

I would have said that in conjunction with a ramming move the use of Star engines would be better used to redeploy the vehicle into a better location/orientation. One of the potential problems with ramming is that it might leave you rather open to reactive fire.

Red_Lives wrote:like i said it makes me sad. small blast weapons become too inaccurate to use. They now only have a 1/3 chance to hit and if they scatter they scatter too far too hit something.

I just don't buy this. The no partials thing more than makes up for the scatter.

Indeed. And I just noticed while checking on that, that all Jump Infantry can Deep Strike now too!

Yup. Finally Seraphim can DS!

Capt K

ubermosher wrote:

yakface wrote:
Star engines are used in the shooting phase, aren't they?

And ramming vehicles take exactly the same hit back on them depending on the AV of the vehicle they're hitting, so I'm not sure how you're getting that they'll only take S8 hits.

It's:

*Each armor point above 10: +1
*Each full 3" of movement done by the rammer when they hit the other vehicle: +1
*If the vehicle is a tank: +1


So if a Wave Serpent is set up perfectly to move the full 24" before striking their target (highly unlikely), the Wave Serpent would do a S11 hit (S8 for moving 24", +2 for AV12 & +1 for being a tank).

If they hit something like an AV10 Trukk, they'll only get a S8 hit back (for the speed), but if they strike a Land Raider they'll get a S13 hit back (S8 for the speed, +4 for AV14 & +1 for being a tank).

Yak, correct me if I'm wrong (don't have access to a 5th ed rulebook now), but isn't the wording of ramming +1 for each full 3" of movement that turn? So technically speaking, isn't it possible, RAW, to move 24" and then move another 12" and ram, for a full +12 S for speed?

No, you can't do that I'm afraid. Ramming must be done in the Movement phase. Thus, the 12" Star Engine movement cannot even come into play.

biztheclown wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:like i said it makes me sad. small blast weapons become too inaccurate to use. They now only have a 1/3 chance to hit and if they scatter they scatter too far too hit something.

I just don't buy this. The no partials thing more than makes up for the scatter.

I agree with Biz on this one. This is of course affected by what army you are playing. If you are playing a horde army, than this will be more effective than against Deathwing for instance. Missile Launchers are aces in my book.

Red_Lives wrote:Deep strike is worse in 5th ed. Deeps trike into a forest= dangerous terrain tests

Mishap table=suck age here is basically what it means.
1&2 you die
3&4 i kill you
5&6 try again later.

Are the rules from the 5th Ed book different from the PDF when it comes to the mishap table? (please say yes)
The PDF has:
1 - unit dies
2,3 - unit does not appear. treat as below 1/2
4,5,6 - opponant choses where you land, no scatter (and you get shot be pieces next turn, no doubt).

Wait, I thought I heard somewhere that scatter was minus the BS of the firer (IG would be in most cases -3")

BrookM wrote:Wait, I thought I heard somewhere that scatter was minus the BS of the firer (IG would be in most cases -3")

Just give the plasmagun to someone with a 5

Accipiter wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:Deep strike is worse in 5th ed. Deeps trike into a forest= dangerous terrain tests

Mishap table=suck age here is basically what it means.
1&2 you die
3&4 i kill you
5&6 try again later.

Are the rules from the 5th Ed book different from the PDF when it comes to the mishap table? (please say yes)
The PDF has:
1 - unit dies
2,3 - unit does not appear. treat as below 1/2
4,5,6 - opponant choses where you land, no scatter (and you get shot be pieces next turn, no doubt).

1+2 = die
3+4 = misplaced , opponent places unit anywhere on the table
5+6 = delayed, unit is in reserve

actual chart WD july 08

yakface wrote:

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:Did anyone notice the little section called Retinue in the Independent Character section of the rules? In short, Independent Characters that have Retinues (Inquisitorial Retinues, Command Squads, etc) count as upgrade characters and cannot be picked out in shooting or assault. Should the Retinue be killed, the Independent Character will revert to IC Status. Sounds like Power Fists are in for Commanders. Hello, Thunder Hammer Chaplains.

I did not notice that, you are right. However, the SM codex is the first one out of the gate so that won't be a possibility for long. Dark Eldar Archons, Inquisitor Lords, IG Officers and Tau Commanders are all going to be much better protected now. Although with the super-destructiveness of close combat in v5 I don't know how helpful that will really be.

As a Templar player, this is a huge boon, because barring a nerf by the FAQ, BT will be the only army that can field Terminator Command Squads or Power Armored Command Squads (of more than 5 accompanying models). This makes wargear like Adamantine Mantle absolutely worthless if the Character has a Retinue.

All I can say is that I'm looking forward to not worrying about my commander exploding every time I run up against a squad with a hidden fist.

CK

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:

yakface wrote:

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:Did anyone notice the little section called Retinue in the Independent Character section of the rules? In short, Independent Characters that have Retinues (Inquisitorial Retinues, Command Squads, etc) count as upgrade characters and cannot be picked out in shooting or assault. Should the Retinue be killed, the Independent Character will revert to IC Status. Sounds like Power Fists are in for Commanders. Hello, Thunder Hammer Chaplains.

I did not notice that, you are right. However, the SM codex is the first one out of the gate so that won't be a possibility for long. Dark Eldar Archons, Inquisitor Lords, IG Officers and Tau Commanders are all going to be much better protected now. Although with the super-destructiveness of close combat in v5 I don't know how helpful that will really be.

As a Templar player, this is a huge boon, because barring a nerf by the FAQ, BT will be the only army that can field Terminator Command Squads or Power Armored Command Squads (of more than 5 accompanying models). This makes wargear like Adamantine Mantle absolutely worthless if the Character has a Retinue.

All I can say is that I'm looking forward to not worrying about my commander exploding every time I run up against a squad with a hidden fist.

CK

I wonder how righteous zeal will work with the "Go-to-Ground" rule with them?
I'm hoping the FAQ answers this one.....

ThirdUltra wrote:I wonder how righteous zeal will work with the "Go-to-Ground" rule with them?
I'm hoping the FAQ answers this one.....

They're marines so I'm expecting a +1 save as well as the additional "run".

Hm, it would be rather "fluffy" if BT's couldn't use go-to-ground....

Hi

Sorry if this was mentioned before but:
What about psykers in transport verhicles.
Can psychic powers be used when onboard a vehicle ?
Even if it has no firepoints ?

thx cu

One thing I noticed about Sweeping Advances:

Base contact is no longer required to attempt to over run an enemy in a sweeping advance. If you win the combat and the enemy fails his Ld check, you roll off.

Flarack wrote:Hi

Sorry if this was mentioned before but:
What about psykers in transport verhicles.
Can psychic powers be used when onboard a vehicle ?
Even if it has no firepoints ?

thx cu

From what I have read, psychic powers still follow normal LOS restrictions for shooting based powers. So, you would still need fire-points to use them. However, there is nothing in the rules that I can tell, about other powers when used in a vehicle, so it appears a psycher can use them in one, but it would depend on what the power actually is.....

Flarack wrote:Hi

Sorry if this was mentioned before but:
What about psykers in transport verhicles.
Can psychic powers be used when onboard a vehicle ?
Even if it has no firepoints ?

thx cu

Psychic powers that require LOS would require a fire point.

Powers that don't need LOS can be used and are measured from the hull of the vehicle.

like i said it makes me sad. small blast weapons become too inaccurate to use. They now only have a 1/3 chance to hit and if they scatter they scatter too far too hit something.

I'm not sure I see this...

Currently, a blast template is placed in such a way that you basically can only hit one model if the other player spreads out. That's pretty lame.

Now, as I understand it, you can place the template wherever you want, roll scatter, then 2D6-BS. No partials.

So, 1 in 3 is a hit.

The rest scatter. Let's assume you've centered the template on a model. Normal base is 1". Blast tempate is 3". So, in order to still be over the model, it'd have to scatter less than 2", so basically 1".

At BS4, that means any roll of 2D6 that's 5 or less would stll be a hit on at least one model. The odds of rolling 5 or less on 2D6 is 5/18.

So, old rules, you had a 66% chance to hit one model. In new rules you have 61% chance to hit one model, and a significantly better chance to hit multiple models, and better than 66% chance to hit larger based models.

So, no need to be sad. Lucky you!

thx

question: (related to multiple combats)
Must I attack the enemy unit I'm already in close combat with if I'm charged
by another enemy unit on my opponent's turn ?

example:
If some orkz are in close combat with a chaos dreadnought and on the next chaos turn a squad of chaos marines
charges the orkz too. They (the orkz) must attack the dreadnought again, even if they cannot harm him?
Because they were only engaged with the dreadnought at the beginning of the chaos players combat?

Flarack wrote:
example:
If some orkz are in close combat with a chaos dreadnought and on the next chaos turn a squad of chaos marines
charges the orkz too. They (the orkz) must attack the dreadnought again, even if they cannot harm him?
Because they were only engaged with the dreadnought at the beginning of the chaos players combat?

Models ENGAGED (in base contact with the enemy or within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with the enemy) with multiple units can choose to attack whichever unit they want. In the new rules models can even split their attacks (if they have more than one) between enemy units they are engaged with.

So in your example, any Orks engaged with the Chaos Marine squad could attack the marines, while any Orks only engaged with the Dreadnought would have to fight him.

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:
As a Templar player, this is a huge boon, because barring a nerf by the FAQ, BT will be the only army that can field Terminator Command Squads or Power Armored Command Squads (of more than 5 accompanying models). This makes wargear like Adamantine Mantle absolutely worthless if the Character has a Retinue.

Another big boon for Templars is the new version of Preferred Enemy...re-roll missed to-hits in the assault phase. I think this makes up for losing an attack on the powerfist Initiate.

Red_Lives wrote:like i said it makes me sad. small blast weapons become too inaccurate to use. They now only have a 1/3 chance to hit and if they scatter they scatter too far too hit something.

If you only fire one, this is possibly true...recently I've been field squads with 4+ templates, and the amount of hits is incredible. You resolve the number of total hits before you roll for wounds.

As an extreme example, my Tyranid Warrior Squad with 8 Deathspitters and a Venom Cannon was shooting at a large mob of 30 orks - 23 hits! Everytime I rolled a Hit on the scatter dice it was 5 hits. Devastators with Plasma Cannons should be pretty commonplace soon.

So, although blast templates have made you sad, they are not too inaccurate to use, and I can assure that my friend the orc player was more sad than you about the new rules.

ThirdUltra wrote:
I wonder how righteous zeal will work with the "Go-to-Ground" rule with them?
I'm hoping the FAQ answers this one.....

IIRC, Go to Ground states that a squad gives up it moving, shooting, and assault phases in its next turn, but reacts normally to the battel going on around it (they take morale checks and can fall back, defend themselves if assaulted etc.)

Since the RZ rules make them move I guess you just pass your Ld and roll the d6 for the Consolidation move (not sure if this was mentioned yet but since this is treated as a consolidation move in 5e RZ can't be used to launch an assault in your opponent's turn...you stop 1" away from the squad your templars were moving to).

Fabricator-General wrote:

ThirdUltra wrote:
I wonder how righteous zeal will work with the "Go-to-Ground" rule with them?
I'm hoping the FAQ answers this one.....

IIRC, Go to Ground states that a squad gives up it moving, shooting, and assault phases in its next turn, but reacts normally to the battel going on around it (they take morale checks and can fall back, defend themselves if assaulted etc.)

Since the RZ rules make them move I guess you just pass your Ld and roll the d6 for the Consolidation move (not sure if this was mentioned yet but since this is treated as a consolidation move in 5e RZ can't be used to launch an assault in your opponent's turn...you stop 1" away from the squad your templars were moving to).

This is true; however, since the unit fell-forward instead of backwards, and the rule mentions that the unit will act as normal if doing this, it seems that righteous zeal can be used in conjunction with the Go To Ground rule to setup an assault on the BT player's turn....however, now that I think about it, the rule specifically mentions that units that fall back due to failed morale tests would act as normal, which would mean that the fall-forward for RZ is not a failed morale test...yes?

So, what then....the unit still moves its d6" but still cannot do anything in the BT player's turn if they used Go To Ground.....?

Hopefully an FAQ can address it....

When shooting a weapon/psychic power, are we still restricted to shooting the same unit as we will be charging?
ie: can my tyrant shoot one target (w/ ranged weapons or psychic power) and assault another?

The PDF writes we can run after deepstriking - does this still hold true?



P.S.
I have read all 17 pages, but I have done so over 3 days, so I have probably forgotten a few things. Forgive me

Accipiter wrote:When shooting a weapon/psychic power, are we still restricted to shooting the same unit as we will be charging?
ie: can my tyrant shoot one target (w/ ranged weapons or psychic power) and assault another?

The PDF writes we can run after deepstriking - does this still hold true?

For psychic powers that are shooting attacks, yes you must charge the same unit you shot at.

And yes you can run after deep striking.

yakface wrote:

Accipiter wrote:When shooting a weapon/psychic power, are we still restricted to shooting the same unit as we will be charging?
ie: can my tyrant shoot one target (w/ ranged weapons or psychic power) and assault another?

The PDF writes we can run after deepstriking - does this still hold true?

For psychic powers that are shooting attacks, yes you must charge the same unit you shot at.

And yes you can run after deep striking.

I expected as much, but I was hoping otherwise.
- would be rather nice to shoot off a Gunfex's shots at high value targets and then assault the plas unit that had deepstriked right beside it last turn..

Ok ive read all of the posts and dont think this one has been covered. It has to do with True LOS, cover and friendly units.

With shooting past friendly units of different heights (eg Ork Grots with a Ork Nob mob in base to base behind them or a Broadside squad with a squad of fire warriors/kroot in Base to base in front of them)

Since the height difference if you drew true LOS from the back squad is not obscured by the front squad would the enemy still get the cover save from the shooting of the rear squad?

Put simply is the wording something similar to "partially obscured by" or is it just a simple "shooting past/threw"

It was something that came to mind today about a unit in cover right up against a wall shooting at a unit in the open. The unit in cover can see them without obstruction using true LOS however the reverse True LOS shows the guys in cover being obscured.

Turbo_MMX wrote:
It was something that came to mind today about a unit in cover right up against a wall shooting at a unit in the open. The unit in cover can see them without obstruction using true LOS however the reverse True LOS shows the guys in cover being obscured.

Wouldn't it make sense the guys behind the wall get a cover save but those they shot at don't? Isn't that why you'd want your guys behind a wall?

But I did have the same question about shooting OVER people. I asked the local GW staff and they aren't sure. :/

It becomes a question of "At what point are you shooting over, rather than through" because then we get into some trigonometry level malarky, such as a unit on a second floor of a building can shoot over a ground unit that's 6" away, but would have to shoot THROUGH a ground unit that's 48" away. Would it depend on the height of the model? Because then we have the problem where half my squads are kneeling and prone and the other half are standing. Should I be putting my kneeling models in front, despite the fact that they're just supposed to be a representation of a dynamic entity (moving person)?

Pardon me if this has been addressed before.

It becomes a question of "At what point are you shooting over, rather than through" because then we get into some trigonometry level malarky, such as a unit on a second floor of a building can shoot over a ground unit that's 6" away, but would have to shoot THROUGH a ground unit that's 48" away. Would it depend on the height of the model?

Yes it depends on the height of the models in question. Basically there's two ways a unit provides a cover save to a target.
1) Model partially obscures the target. Straightforward and easy to determine with a laser pointer

2) Quote "If a model fires through the gaps between some elements of area terrain (such as between two trees in a wood) or through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the area terrain or unit rather than through it."

How do you determine if a shot goes over rather then through? Take a laser pointer and draw across the top of the models you'd be shooting through. If the laser point (or cross hair if gws) doesn't touch the target model during this then your shot would be over. If it does, then the shot goes through the intervening models and the target gets a cover save.

Because then we have the problem where half my squads are kneeling and prone and the other half are standing. Should I be putting my kneeling models in front, despite the fact that they're just supposed to be a representation of a dynamic entity (moving person)?

This will be one of those things you will have to discuss with your opponent because the rules do not really address this. Do you treat models wyswig or do you set one pose as standard for all models of that type? There's advantages and disadvantages to either. A whole unit of kneeling guys could provide cover while not blocking LOS to the unit behind them. However the lower profile on the kneeling guys means they are more likely to have LOS issues themselves.

I'd also point out it makes sense to put the kneeling guys out front. The designers mention wanting to create a more involved view of the battlefield and having guys in front kneeling while the guys in back shoot over makes some sense.

Overall, there will be some things that may not feel right coming from 4ed style LOS but there's still a lot of improvements over the previous mix of TLOS and abstract LOS system.

Steelmage99 wrote:

yakface wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Yakface wrote:What can run: Infantry, Jump Infantry, Cavalry & Beasts, Monstrous Creatures and Walkers.

What can't run: Bikes & Jetbikes, non-Walker Vehicles and Artillery.

Not that you are know for typoes, but can you positively confirm that Jump Infantry can Run, Yakface?

Indeed. And I just noticed while checking on that, that all Jump Infantry can Deep Strike now too!

I'll have to double-check some wording in the codex but that may mean that things like winged Hive Tyrants may be able to Deep Strike as well.

Ork Stormboyz. Deep strike at will. 20" to 30" threat radius (in the turn after the Deep strike). Waaaagh!

If you run then you can't assault (unless you have fleet of foot). As far as I know the Stormboyz don't have fleet, they just gain an extra 1d6 inches each time they move during the movement phase. Therefore the most a Stormboyz unit could move would be 18" and still get to charge or they could run and potentially move up to 24" with no assaulting.

yakface wrote:

Flarack wrote:
example:
If some orkz are in close combat with a chaos dreadnought and on the next chaos turn a squad of chaos marines
charges the orkz too. They (the orkz) must attack the dreadnought again, even if they cannot harm him?
Because they were only engaged with the dreadnought at the beginning of the chaos players combat?

Models ENGAGED (in base contact with the enemy or within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with the enemy) with multiple units can choose to attack whichever unit they want. In the new rules models can even split their attacks (if they have more than one) between enemy units they are engaged with.

So in your example, any Orks engaged with the Chaos Marine squad could attack the marines, while any Orks only engaged with the Dreadnought would have to fight him.

I think you are right, but many people comprehend the first point in the multiple combat section that way:
"
the whole:
[0:08] <Badg3r> unit a assaults unit b,ends in a draw
[0:08] <Badg3r> next turn:
[0:08] <Badg3r> unit c (friend of b) assaults the combat with unit a+b.
[0:08] <Badg3r> unit a cannot attack unit c till next turn (e.g. if already involved in a comabt and you are charged by a fresh enemy, you cannot attack that fresh enemy until the next combat phase. So on the turn unit c charges they are free from getting hit)
"
I also can't explain the meaning of that first point.
What else, if Badg3r is wrong, does that point mean?

Just a quick complaint about true LOS, my prone Catachan snipers will rarely be able to draw LOS to anything.

LOL. Yes. But nothing will ever have LOS on them, either!

Time for crouching guardsmen with periscopes and curved barrel lasguns then?

Smatticus wrote:Just a quick complaint about true LOS, my prone Catachan snipers will rarely be able to draw LOS to anything.

Well they wouldn't be able to shoot anyway as they've obviously "gone to ground".

Flarack wrote:


I think you are right, but many people comprehend the first point in the multiple combat section that way:
"
the whole:
[0:08] <Badg3r> unit a assaults unit b,ends in a draw
[0:08] <Badg3r> next turn:
[0:08] <Badg3r> unit c (friend of b) assaults the combat with unit a+b.
[0:08] <Badg3r> unit a cannot attack unit c till next turn (e.g. if already involved in a comabt and you are charged by a fresh enemy, you cannot attack that fresh enemy until the next combat phase. So on the turn unit c charges they are free from getting hit)
"
I also can't explain the meaning of that first point.
What else, if Badg3r is wrong, does that point mean?

Look at the Assault phase rules on page 33. There are three parts to the assault phase:

1) Move Assaulting Units
2) Defenders React
3) Resolve Combats


Now, the bullet points in the multiple combat rules states:

"Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit.

Models that were engaged with more than one enemy unit at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) may split their attacks freely between those units. Declare how they are splitting their attacks immediately before rolling to hit."

"Combats" take place after all assault moves have been completed and defenders have reacted. *AT THAT POINT* is when you follow the bullet point rules.

As to 'why' the bullet point rules are written that way, the answer is simple if you look at the diagram on that page (although not perfectly clear in the text):

If a model starts the combat (after all assault moves are done) in base contact with one enemy unit, it MUST attack *that* unit. If the model in base contact is killed before that model gets to strike, his blows must still be directed at that original unit and not at another enemy unit that he is also engaged with.

So if you look at the diagram at the bottom of page 41, look at space marines #2 & 3. Both of them are in base contact with JUST one type of model (the Ork unit for SM #2 and the Grot unit for SM #3, respectively). Even though both are also within 2" of a friendly model who is engaged with both the Orks and the Grots, the diagram text clearly states that they MUST attack the unit they are in base contact with.

The bullet point rules simply make sure that if an enemy model is in base contact at the start of the combat, but is then killed before their opponent gets to swing, that their attacks still have to be directed at the unit they were in base contact with at the start of the combat.


GW did *not* do a perfect job on the rules in this section as they used the term "engaged" in some places where they should have used "base contact", however, when you read the rules in conjunction with the diagram ultimately it is pretty clear.

Yakface wrote:If a model starts the combat (after all assault moves are done) in base contact with one enemy unit, it MUST attack *that* unit. If the model in base contact is killed before that model gets to strike, his blows must still be directed at that original unit and not at another enemy unit that he is also engaged with.

That is incorrect. The rules you quoted say that: "Models that were engaged with more than one enemy unit at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) may split their attacks freely between those units. Declare how they are splitting their attacks immediately before rolling to hit."

Seeing as players roll to hit for attacks in Initiative order, then if a model is in base to base contact with an enemy unit, and in order to be engaged a model must be in base to base contact or within 2" of a model in base to base, then the player may choose to have the model's attacks ignore whatever unit it is in base to base contact with in favour of any other unit that it is engaged with, whether the enemy model in base to base contact is removed at an earlier initiative stage or not.

That is, if you read the rules in conjunction with the diagram and don't change any terms.

Incidentally, if you're going to claim something is "pretty clear" or "obvious" or any of those nasty little "Gee, you're stupid if you don't agree with me" words, then I suggest providing a metric which people can use to check whether such statements are true.

Nurglitch wrote:
Seeing as players roll to hit for attacks in Initiative order, then if a model is in base to base contact with an enemy unit, and in order to be engaged a model must be in base to base contact or within 2" of a model in base to base, then the player may choose to have the model's attacks ignore whatever unit it is in base to base contact with in favour of any other unit that it is engaged with, whether the enemy model in base to base contact is removed at an earlier initiative stage or not.

That is, if you read the rules in conjunction with the diagram and don't change any terms.

Incidentally, if you're going to claim something is "pretty clear" or "obvious" or any of those nasty little "Gee, you're stupid if you don't agree with me" words, then I suggest providing a metric which people can use to check whether such statements are true.

I was not insinuating that people who disagree with me are stupid. I always understand that people can come to a different conclusion from me when reading the same thing I do.

However, I am confused how you can come to the conclusion you have without disregarding the diagram on that page. It does indeed show models that are technically engaged to two different units but are only allowed to attack the ones they are in base contact with.

This sure seems like a case of the diagram not matching the basic rules text, or do you disagree?


But regardless of your stance on that issue, when it comes to the original query (can a unit that is locked in combat and then gets charged by another enemy unit direct its attacks against this new unit?) there doesn't seem to be any real basis in the RAW to deny the unit already locked in combat from attacking the unit that is charging them.

yakface wrote:

But regardless of your stance on that issue, when it comes to the original query (can a unit that is locked in combat and then gets charged by another enemy unit direct its attacks against this new unit?) there doesn't seem to be any real basis in the RAW to deny the unit already locked in combat from attacking the unit that is charging them.

true, but there is also no real basis in the RAW to declare what the first bullet point means because of the "engaged" wording.
There can only be one of this two meanings.

1. "Models that were in BASE TO BASE CONTACT with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit." -> would be easy and yakface is right
or
2. "UNITS that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model MOVED) must attack that unit." -> more complex and Badg3r would be right.

Sadly the rules are inexplicit at that point, but in context with the diagram text i tend toward yakface. "Before any model attacked" is when all moves have been made and
at that point models are engaged with both of the units (the old and the newly charged one) so they may split their attacks.
Bad at all is further more that only the diagram text saiys that models must attack the unit they are in base contact with.

dude, it's not even in stores...
cu

hehe,
its the real "Badger" on this board (you can spare the 3 ^^).

to bad its so unclear, in some cases it leads to new tactics (keeping fragile counterunits like kroot behind your lines) but it also brings up some akward situations (like khorne berserkers fighting a cybot and can´t defend themselves against charging marines).

by the way, can somebody tell me what my tau can do vs turboboosting scarab bases with 2+ coversave?

greetings Badger

Badger wrote:hehe,
its the real "Badger" on this board (you can spare the 3 ^^).

to bad its so unclear, in some cases it leads to new tactics (keeping fragile counterunits like kroot behind your lines) but it also brings up some akward situations (like khorne berserkers fighting a cybot and can´t defend themselves against charging marines).

by the way, can somebody tell me what my tau can do vs turboboosting scarab bases with 2+ coversave?

greetings Badger

Airbursting Frag Launcher... no cover save and with a bit of luck Scarabs are still vulnerable to blasts

good call,

with -5 to scatter its definitly an option.

and yes, they are vulneranble to blasts!

greetings Badger

Badger wrote:hehe,

to bad its so unclear, in some cases it leads to new tactics (keeping fragile counterunits like kroot behind your lines) but it also brings up some akward situations (like khorne berserkers fighting a cybot and can´t defend themselves against charging marines).

While the diagram and the text may not match when it comes to how attacks are allocated between multiple units, the text is clear when attacks are allocated, and that is right before attacks are made not at the beginning of the assault phase.

So the situations you describe cannot happen as players allocate their attacks after assault moves have been completed.

"players allocate their attacks after assault moves have been completed. "

thats right.
(diagram set aside) but then the rules on page 41 explain exactly where you are allowed to allocate your attacks. -> you may only attack units with which you
are engaged at the beginning of the combat (and thats before other units charge).

imho thats RAW and maybe even RAI.

greetings Badger

yakface wrote:

Flarack wrote:


I think you are right, but many people comprehend the first point in the multiple combat section that way:
"
the whole:
[0:08] <Badg3r> unit a assaults unit b,ends in a draw
[0:08] <Badg3r> next turn:
[0:08] <Badg3r> unit c (friend of b) assaults the combat with unit a+b.
[0:08] <Badg3r> unit a cannot attack unit c till next turn (e.g. if already involved in a comabt and you are charged by a fresh enemy, you cannot attack that fresh enemy until the next combat phase. So on the turn unit c charges they are free from getting hit)
"
I also can't explain the meaning of that first point.
What else, if Badg3r is wrong, does that point mean?

Look at the Assault phase rules on page 33. There are three parts to the assault phase:

1) Move Assaulting Units
2) Defenders React
3) Resolve Combats


Now, the bullet points in the multiple combat rules states:

"Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit.

Models that were engaged with more than one enemy unit at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) may split their attacks freely between those units. Declare how they are splitting their attacks immediately before rolling to hit."

"Combats" take place after all assault moves have been completed and defenders have reacted. *AT THAT POINT* is when you follow the bullet point rules.

As to 'why' the bullet point rules are written that way, the answer is simple if you look at the diagram on that page (although not perfectly clear in the text):

If a model starts the combat (after all assault moves are done) in base contact with one enemy unit, it MUST attack *that* unit. If the model in base contact is killed before that model gets to strike, his blows must still be directed at that original unit and not at another enemy unit that he is also engaged with.

So if you look at the diagram at the bottom of page 41, look at space marines #2 & 3. Both of them are in base contact with JUST one type of model (the Ork unit for SM #2 and the Grot unit for SM #3, respectively). Even though both are also within 2" of a friendly model who is engaged with both the Orks and the Grots, the diagram text clearly states that they MUST attack the unit they are in base contact with.

The bullet point rules simply make sure that if an enemy model is in base contact at the start of the combat, but is then killed before their opponent gets to swing, that their attacks still have to be directed at the unit they were in base contact with at the start of the combat.


GW did *not* do a perfect job on the rules in this section as they used the term "engaged" in some places where they should have used "base contact", however, when you read the rules in conjunction with the diagram ultimately it is pretty clear.

Wait...Can models now split attacks between units? If so, that is a huge change!

jep, under normal circumstances you can devide your attacks. its a change/new from 4th edition but not that huge.

greetings Badger

Badger wrote:"
(diagram set aside) but then the rules on page 41 explain exactly where you are allowed to allocate your attacks. -> you may only attack units with which you
are engaged at the beginning of the combat (and thats before other units charge).

imho thats RAW and maybe even RAI.

greetings Badger

That is incorrect!

And i will cite the nice little cardboard quick reference sheet we received in our WDs this month!

Assault Phase:
1. move assaulting units
2. Defenders react
3. Resolve Combats

Resolving combats:
1. Pick a combat
2.Fight close combats

so it is clear that when presented in an orderly fashion models have moved before combats start.

Badger wrote:

by the way, can somebody tell me what my tau can do vs turboboosting scarab bases with 2+ coversave?

greetings Badger

markerlights ?

Couple of things I noticed;

Shooting: Only models in range may shoot. In the first PDF, IIRC, if one part of the unit was in range to rapid...they all could rapid. Now you measure from model to model to determine who can shoot. Don't know if I like/dislike this.

Tanks in cover: Felt forests won't provide tanks cover. This is changed and I don't like this.

All I have so far...

If only models in range may shoot,could also only models in range be hit?

1hadhq wrote: If only models in range may shoot,could also only models in range be hit?

No, wounds spill over to every model in the squad regardless of range or LOS issues. So, if you have 1 marine out in the open with 9 behind the building, all 10 will take wounds if hit with enough shots (albeit they will receive a cover save).

AgeOfEgos wrote:

1hadhq wrote: If only models in range may shoot,could also only models in range be hit?

No, wounds spill over to every model in the squad regardless of range or LOS issues. So, if you have 1 marine out in the open with 9 behind the building, all 10 will take wounds if hit with enough shots (albeit they will receive a cover save).

Need only 1 model with LOS and range to hit a squad out of sight and range? The new self-seeking ammo invented by GW i suppose.
Effective range of weapons is stretched + 6" then by positioning your units. :S
Not sure if thats bad or good news.

But a big hit on "realistic weapon behaviour" .

1hadhq wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:

1hadhq wrote: If only models in range may shoot,could also only models in range be hit?

No, wounds spill over to every model in the squad regardless of range or LOS issues. So, if you have 1 marine out in the open with 9 behind the building, all 10 will take wounds if hit with enough shots (albeit they will receive a cover save).

Need only 1 model with LOS and range to hit a squad out of sight and range? The new self-seeking ammo invented by GW i suppose.
Effective range of weapons is stretched + 6" then by positioning your units. :S
Not sure if thats bad or good news.

But a big hit on "realistic weapon behaviour" .

I think I've misled you with my muddled explanation. Every gun of your shooting unit must be in range AND have LOS to at least ONE enemy model. However, after shooting, if you do more wounds than there are visible models, then the wounds lap around to models of the same unit that are out of LOS.

Badger wrote:"players allocate their attacks after assault moves have been completed. "

thats right.
(diagram set aside) but then the rules on page 41 explain exactly where you are allowed to allocate your attacks. -> you may only attack units with which you
are engaged at the beginning of the combat (and thats before other units charge).

imho thats RAW and maybe even RAI.

greetings Badger

Completely incorrect. I even posted the rules to show you how you are being incorrect.

According to the assault rules, all assault moves are completed by the player, along with all defenders reacting.

Then and only then do you pick a "combat" and resolve it. That is when you allocate your attacks. This is done after all assault moves are complete.

I just love how the rules arnt officialy out yet and we are already having debates about em

Hey, it'll save time later.

Heck, there were debates about the cover artwork when that first showed up. Something about the snakes and circles.

Turbo_MMX wrote:I just love how the rules arnt officialy out yet and we are already having debates about em

Quite a few people already have their copies and most GW/many Independents Stores either had or currently have "preview" copies.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Couple of things I noticed;

Shooting: Only models in range may shoot. In the first PDF, IIRC, if one part of the unit was in range to rapid...they all could rapid. Now you measure from model to model to determine who can shoot. Don't know if I like/dislike this.

Tanks in cover: Felt forests won't provide tanks cover. This is changed and I don't like this.

All I have so far...

Couldn't you...just...agree with your opponent that anything at least 50% within the "shadow" cast by the felt patch is being obscured, no questions asked?

ColonelEllios wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:Couple of things I noticed;

Shooting: Only models in range may shoot. In the first PDF, IIRC, if one part of the unit was in range to rapid...they all could rapid. Now you measure from model to model to determine who can shoot. Don't know if I like/dislike this.

Tanks in cover: Felt forests won't provide tanks cover. This is changed and I don't like this.

All I have so far...

Couldn't you...just...agree with your opponent that anything at least 50% within the "shadow" cast by the felt patch is being obscured, no questions asked?

Well I certainly could and my gaming group certainly will. Basement games rarely result in RAW anyways.

However, random games at the store will be less forgiving regarding felt forests (As well tournaments I imagine).

I'm doubtful that tournaments will be playing with felt forests under 5th ed rules, and I suspect most FLGS will probably change their terrain to match or come up with "house rules" for the collection they have. I know our store has forests that are designed to allow models to move through them easily, and we've already decided that we would treat the forests as capable of providing cover to tanks and whatnot that are positioned behind them.

5TH EDITION IS A PLOY TO GET EVERYONE TO BUY GW TERRAIN KITS!

Think about it, what's one of the few kits they can sell to any player regardless of army? This is like a 0 comp business plan!

Actually, some of their terrain kits are pretty army-specific. They tend to be very imperial, so everyone else is either invading, built stuff out of it (after invading), or apparently buys from the same Future Space Ikea.

The stuff from Faantasy is pretty generic. Hills, trees and some arcane ruins. Quite nice too (if you can get a boxset of it half price, anyway )

"Agara the Slasher's Warband was devoured by an errant void whale"

D: