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.

My (UK) copy of June's WD dropped through the letterbox yesterday and gave the first definitive confirmation of a rule change.

All LOS will be 'true' based on how you model the terrain.

Now I know this will not come as a galloping shock to anyone, but as the first officially notified change, I decided to post it and am now asking for fellow dakkaites to contribute.

If you can confirm any rule change, please post it here (together with your source publication).

I'll periodically update the OP with everything we've found.

This is NOT a rumours thread! (I think there's enough of those ) Please post stuff you can confirm and provide your source.

Hopefully people will find this useful. Looking forward to seeing what you turn up






The plural of codex is codices, not codexes... please give a dead arm/leg to the next GW staffer who gets this wrong, its the only way theyll learn...

Chimera_Calvin wrote:
All LOS will be 'true' based on how you model the terrain.

Uh oh... I guess that peeker-fex I saw awhile back will be useful now.

Edit: First

Hence, the Official GW laser pointer.

A GW rep came out to the LA battle bunker a month or so ago and anounced that. He mentioned that there will be a cross hair laser pointer included in the 5th edition box set for line of sight purposes.

He also made some monumentous Lord of the Rings anouncement to the 6 LotR players in the group of ~100 people there. I yawned and urged him to move on to topics people actually cared about.

Defensive weapons S4

Infantry units may forego shooting to run an extra D6" but may not assault if they have done so. Fleet of Foot USR has consequently been changed to allow running units to assault.

All consolidation is D6" (it mostly is now anyway)

Any equipment that gives "obscurement" is now a 5+ cover save

No more vehicle destroyed on a glancing 6(assuming anything but AP1), since there is a -2 modifier on the vehicle damage table for glancing hits. Speaking of which, there is now one vehicle damage table as follows:

1-Shaken
2-Stunned
3-Weapon destroyed
4-Immobilized
5-Destroyed
6-Destroyed "Explodes!"

Entanglement no longer exists, it is now just a pinning check.

Units being assaulted must make a counterattack (as per the counterattack rule now) and models with the counterattack USR now get a +1 charge bonus when making this move.

Combat casualties may be taken out of models not actually locked in combat.

Powerfists and their equivilants may only recieve the +1 attack bonus for having 2 close combat weapons with a weapon of the same type (IE you must have 2 power fists to get the bonus).

Shooting through your own units (assuming you have LoS through them) gives no benefit, but shooting through enemy units at others gives a cover save.

This is what I can remember from the copy supplied by the GW rep at my flgs. As I remember things I will update.

Sorry, Dakkaladd, when you say copy -copy of what? This all looks a lot like the out of date PDA that's floating around.
For example, I have a source who says that the S4 defensive will not happen (S5 instead) but I haven't seen anything officially to that effect.

Please provide evidence!!!

When I say copy I mean literally that, a photocopy of the 5th edition rulebook brought in by the store's GW rep.

In that case, every vehicle in the game (except rhinos - woohoo) is officially f*&$%d

Nice one GW.

I know Dave Taylor comes on dakka occasionally - Dave, if you (or anyone else from GW) is listening, can you please tell us why the insistence on S4 defensive weapons. NO-ONE ON THE PLANET thinks this is a good idea!

NO-ONE ON THE PLANET thinks this is a good idea!

Oh, so you asked everybody, eh?

The only tanks I play are Falcons, and I think it's nice to have to make the decision if I want to move them or want to fire them. Fly them behind woods/buildings (getting a 5+ save, some say 4+, save on the way there) and then hide for 1+ turns and blast away. A lot nicer than before, imo.

Greets
Schepp himself

Schepp himself wrote:

NO-ONE ON THE PLANET thinks this is a good idea!

Oh, so you asked everybody, eh?

The only tanks I play are Falcons, and I think it's nice to have to make the decision if I want to move them or want to fire them. Fly them behind woods/buildings (getting a 5+ save, some say 4+, save on the way there) and then hide for 1+ turns and blast away. A lot nicer than before, imo.

Greets
Schepp himself

Falcons may be arguably over powered right now but to lose moving fast = glancing hits only AND only being able to fire one weapon after moving seriously devalues a model that easily costs close to 200 points. If you like your vehicles crippled that's cool but most people like getting thier points worth out of vehicles.

Sorry for the hyperbole schepp - I just get aggravated that nobody at GW seems to know what a tank is!

If you have to stop (or move very slowly - ie walking pace) in order to open fire, then you're not a tank, you're a self-propelled gun.

The first tanks ever built (never mind ones built 40000 years in the future) could move faster than walking pace AND fire all their guns AND independantly target each gun. Even taking into account the faith/science quandry for the imperium, it seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that every race in the galaxy is so sh1te at tank building.

Sorry for the rant but this is the one aspect of the new rules that I think GW have got HIDEOUSLY wrong and I keep hoping I will see something verifiable about it.

Actually a Falcon, being a Fast vehicle, would be able to fire all of its weapons if it moved at Combat Speed. It would only be able to fire 1 Weapon (and all defensive weapons) if it moved at Cruising Speed, and no weapons at all Flat Out.

That means that a Falcon could move 12" and fire either its Pulse Laser (or a Shuriken Cannon, Scatter Laser, Missile Launcher, Star Cannon, or Bright Lance) and its Twin-Linked Shuriken Catapults.

Moreover, the Falcon gains a Cover Save from moving above its Combat Speed.

The same goes for the BAAL preds that overcharge.

AND I think str 4 weapons are a good choice to be defensive

I like the defensive weapon change because it makes the user weigh the options. As opposed to the current system where half of the vehicles in the game have a particular speed that they just always operate at, regardless of circumstances.

More decisions = more fun imo. Run & Defensive weapon downgrade are a good step.

I imagine pintle mounted storm bolters being much more useful now.
5 points for an extra 2 shots is good on the move.

One thing I would have liked to have seen is to eliminate the requirement of a certain strength value. Rather each codex entry would specify which weapon are defensive v. offensive. i.e. inserted into the Leman Russ entry:

Offensive weapons:
* Turret mounted Battlecannon
* May Include a Hull mounted Lascannon for +XX points (Only 1 hull mounted weapon may be chosen)

Defensive weapons:
* May Include a Hull mounted Heavy Bolter for +XX points (Only 1 hull mounted weapon may be chosen)
* May include a pair of sponson mounted heavy bolters

Now each vehicle would define which of its weapons are offensive or defensive.

An additional change I think would have been appropriate for offensive v. defensive weapons is to require a "defensive weapon" to be used defensively. Something along the lines of "If you choose to fire a weapon classified as a defensive weapon, that weapon MUST FIRE at the closest unit in its firing arc.. You may ignore models that are the closest model if the weapon being fired cannot possibly hurt the model (i.e. a chimera's lasguns could ignore a dreadnought being the closest model), in this case you must fire the weapon at the next closest unit."

That's a quick and dirty, not-fully-vetted example, but I think that defensive weapons, if you haven't moved to far, should be able to fire at different targets (at perhaps a reduced range, for balance issues).

Bottom line though, all that gets overly wordy and complicated. Too many exceptions to the main rule just makes misinterpretations that much easier. bottom line, I have no problem at all with defensive weapons being str 4.

Yes, that would have been nice...

I totally agree Death god. That would be the best way to go about it : )

Any rumors about the rule where MC will be able to shoot only 1 weapon ?

Cheers,
T.

S4 Defensive? So the two machine guns on either side of the 60 ton Leman Russ tank can't fire because another crewmember decided to fire the Lascannon or the Battlecannon.

No, they wouldn't want to do the job of keeping enemy infantry away from the flanks of the vehicle is the main weapon fired...It makes perfect sense, really.

CK

Cool thread. I for one am terrified...

The first tanks ever built (never mind ones built 40000 years in the future) could move faster than walking pace AND fire all their guns AND independantly target each gun. Even taking into account the faith/science quandry for the imperium, it seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that every race in the galaxy is so sh1te at tank building.

Umm....thats not even an accurate statement about modern tanks, let alone the original Mark I. I would love to hear your sources for that statement. I am a tanker by profession and while my fire control systems are cool, and certainly much better than anything from WWI, they are still not capable of what you suggest. Also, by doctrine, tanks do not roll continously forward on the attack. When contact is made, tanks assume a hasty defense to develop the situation and once resistance is eliminated, continue the offensive.

Besides, making players choose between having to shoot or move makes the game much richer and fun to play.

Take care,
Mike K.

Only if you liked 3rd editions - metal pillboxes that occasionally moved. That was one of the things I really liked about 4th, the ability to move and fire. 5th makes vehicles more survivable, but infinitely more boring.

Only as boring as the player using them.

still I dont want to go back to the days of 3rd edition where a tank barely moved to shoot.

Nothing stopping you from moving. It's not like a Leman Russ can move 6" and fire both its Battle Cannon and its sponsons now.

The new vehicle rules are similar to the new SM USR, combat tactics. In the hands of an inept player, that player will get murdered. In the hands of a skilled player, its a major advantage.

That can only be a good thing.

Sorry PanzerLeader, but I'm confused.

My dad used to be in army engineering and when he left he worked at the factory where they built Challenger II's. He worked on every Chieftan and Challenger I ever built and most Chally II's built before the second gulf conflict (specialising in fire control systems) - so I've sort of grown up with tanks.

I'm assuming if you are a US tanker then you're in an Abrams? If this is the case are you saying an Abrams can't move faster than a 4-5mph walking pace while simultaneously firing its main gun at enemy armour at range and using point defence weaponry against attacking infantry?

I'm not saying that is necessarily the tactics you would use, but you seem to be implying that its not physically possible? Apologies in advance if I misunderstood anything...

Apologies also for being WAY off topic!!!!

Nurglitch wrote:Only as boring as the player using them.

Just a flippant semi - insult? What not even a flow chart? You're losing your gift Nurgly.