More 40K 5th Ed. Rumors From BoLS

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.

**Savnock**

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vehicles: Vehicle rules are apparantly identical to the leaked codex

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

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

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

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

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

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

**stonefox**

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

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

**Savnock**

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

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

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

**Tacobake**

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

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

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

**Dice Monkey**

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

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

**Ahtman**

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

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

**Agamemnon2**

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

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

**Techboss**

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

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

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

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

**smart_alex**

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

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

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

**Ozymandias**

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

What exactly made them worse?

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

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**Techboss**

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

Strike 1

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

Strike 2

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

Strike 3

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

**gorgon**

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

**Agamemnon2**

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

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

**Schepp himself**

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

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

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

Greets
Schepp himself

**davidson**

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

**Leggy**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Ozymandias wrote:Actually, their tanks got better with the cover saves and new blast rules. And all of their troops are scoring units to the last man.

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

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

**Agamemnon2**

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

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

**Techboss**

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

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

Welcome to the life of every other army

**Agamemnon2**

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

**Centurian99**

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

**MinMax**

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

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

**Narlix**

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

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

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

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

**redstripe**

The "No Argument" rule is unfortunately named.

It should be called "Always Argue."

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

**Pariah Press**

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

**amnar**

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

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

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

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

**Savnock**

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arrrr.

**Alpharius**

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

Should I be?

**Ozymandias**

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

It should be called "Always Argue."

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

Cause then you'd be a tool?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**ShumaGorath**

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

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

If only.

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

Should I be?

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

**Moopy**

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

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

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

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

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