Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Since no one has done it yet.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I still think it's dumb.

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

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

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

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

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

lets start with the things they fixed right-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

I had forgotten all about the new shooting rules.

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

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

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

I think there is good and bad in it.

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

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

The troops and defensive weapons things suck, though.

What is it you dislike about area terrain?

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

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

Like that, with Y assaulting X.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They don't have to. They choose to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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