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.

I like the Infantry/Jump Infantry to hold objectives idea. Troops only is stupid. Armies have too many elite, heavy infantry choices that should also be able to hold. Monstrous creature/ Walkers should be able to hold in my opinion also but I'd be happy if tanks were no longer able to hold objectives.

Toreador wrote:But everyone being able to "March" or perform a tactical move could make basic infantry a lot more mobile.

It's not just one rule, it looks like a lot of little changes that could dramatically change the game.

True, but with Guard that means my T3 5+ troopers are just moving all the more quickly towards their death. If you start moving them early in the game, you have a big chunk of points doing nothing and the enemy's assault/shooty elements will destroy them as they attempt to cross the board. If you start moving them after its safer out, you are still going to struggle to move too far across the table.

I won't disagree that the many little changes you referenced could dramatically change the game, but I don't really see how giving an improved move to Guard infantry is going to make them terribly useful objective takers. The Guard infantry line breaks the enemy with shooting while other things use their mobility to take objectives.

Fundamentally, Guard were written to have the infantry stand and shoot and then mob the enemy in CC if it came to that. However, the designers are rather clear in their notes (http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/imperialguard/articles/designers/default.htm) that they don't want "the Imperial Guard army might become a human wave of bayonet waving maniacs capable of trampling over the likes of the Tyranids and that would just be wrong".* However, it would take changes like that to make a Guard infantry army effective at crossing the table and taking the fight to the enemy with foot troopers.

Chimeras and Mech Guard are another option, and if V5 changes mandate that build to have a chance at victory, I'll run it, but spending 150-200 pts. on a squad of 10 guys and an AV12/10 non-fast land tank that shoots for a turn or two, hops in the Chimera for a turn or two, and then hopes to stay alive on the objective for a turn or two in the face of the enemy does not seem like a particularly good bargain. Again, the small changes might help, but I'm going to be a skeptic until we see the final product.

*Yes, Mr. Haines also writes that did not want to write a Guard codex with optimization towards standing-and-shooting, but I don't think the resulting Codex has changed that balance too much.

Some armies have better troop choices than others. To make only troop choices hold objectives would give certain armies a distinct advantage over others. A needless advantage.

I do not envision this current administration lasting to long. The DA and BA rules were such a disaster they quickly tried to change things with the chaos dex. Notice how chaos can take any number, not groups of 5.

The DA sales must have tanked. I'm willing to bet an A&W root beer on that. Tanked to the point that they won't go that route again. Poor DA will be mired in shame and should be given a new dex right after 5th edition.

Marine players rejoice. If, and that's a big if, a new marine dex hits the shelves it will look more like chaos and less like DA. In either case you have the Black Templars to fall back on and their dex gives them 5-man lascannon squads and double assault cannon terminator squads. Imagine the power they will hold in a 5th edition with nerfed Godzilla, Eldar, Tau and marines (all except you Templars).

I beleive it will be, at the very least, any infantry unit can hold objectives. That means elites, troops, heavies and some fast attack are fine.

Of course the real embarassment would be when Adepticon makes all their scenarios nonobjective based if only troops hold objectives. That would be a slap in the face heard across the pond.

Alpharius Walks wrote:I don't really see how giving an improved move to Guard infantry is going to make them terribly useful objective takers.

Chimeras and Mech Guard are another option, and if V5 changes mandate that build to have a chance at victory, I'll run it,

The way IG were written and the way 40k5 will play are at odds with each other. It is likely that Mechanization will be easier and more prevalent, with a mix of shooting and embedded maneuver. Right now, the Chimera is easily the most overcosted Transport in the game, and I would expect a substantial points reduction (50 pts with hull & turret, like a Razorback). With the Ork recost, I would expect to see Guardsmen drop back to 5 pts each. So an AF Squad would cost 100-125 pts depending on squad weapons. That would be fair and reasonable.

Play-wise, IG advance forward 6" per turn, firing Dakka with a slow, steady, relentless advance until the end when they reach the Objective. If you presume Russes & Hellhounds as the point of the sword, that whole thing sounds very Guardlike.

DarthDiggler wrote:Some armies have better troop choices than others. To make only troop choices hold objectives would give certain armies a distinct advantage over others.

The DA and BA rules were such a disaster they quickly tried to change things with the chaos dex. Notice how chaos can take any number, not groups of 5.

The only reason some are better is because were in the middle of a Codex revamp. Once they're all redone, the Troops will be more even across the board.

The DA rules were such a success, they did the BA rules preview as WD. As for Chaos, they don't follow Combat Squads because some players still remember Sacred Number of 6, 7, 8, or 9. Combined with the Emperor's numbers of 5 & 10, and multiples, Chaos has more options on size, but not if they want to min-max heavy weapons. In that case, it's 10 CSM with 1 Heavy & 1 Special. Same as Marines, but without the Combat Squads option.

You may not like it, but Combat Squads are going to be the Marines biggest advantage in 5th Edition.

Yes, the changes were more for fluff, and secondary for balance. Chaos has never followed the combat squad doctrine. It was curious they didn't have cult troops based off of their sacred number, but maybe that is being saved for the legion codexes if they ever see the light of day.

Tactical movement will make it so that IG on outlying flanks can actually participate in the fight without needing vehicles. I don't have to move my central squads at the objective. They poor fire onto it while other squads move to take it. The 6" move makes this very hard to accomplish in a 6 round game with anything but nids and eldar.

Two quick things:-

When did 40k 1st edition come out, was it '97 or '98? If it was '98, I can't see how GW could resist the 'celebrating 20 years of 40k' tie in to launch 5th edition, quite frankly.

Secondly, can't the last turn objective grabbers be better addressed by having a rule that states 'started their turn holding the objective' or somesuch, so that players have to take the objective and then survive at least a turn there? FYI I'm in the 'troop heavy armies are the correct way to play' camp, but I also know that the screwy non-modified saves system has hopelessly skewed everyone's valuation of what is worth taking on the table, so we reap what we sow.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The way IG were written and the way 40k5 will play are at odds with each other. It is likely that Mechanization will be easier and more prevalent, with a mix of shooting and embedded maneuver. Right now, the Chimera is easily the most overcosted Transport in the game, and I would expect a substantial points reduction (50 pts with hull & turret, like a Razorback). With the Ork recost, I would expect to see Guardsmen drop back to 5 pts each. So an AF Squad would cost 100-125 pts depending on squad weapons. That would be fair and reasonable.

Play-wise, IG advance forward 6" per turn, firing Dakka with a slow, steady, relentless advance until the end when they reach the Objective. If you presume Russes & Hellhounds as the point of the sword, that whole thing sounds very Guardlike.

A 100 pts. would get you 10 guys with lasguns and a Chimera with a mult-laser. Once you start adding in basic goodies (special/heavy, hull Chimera weapon, near-mandatory extra armor if you want need to deliver the scoring unit, a Veteran Sgt. or vox-caster on account of Command ranges not being nearly good enough to use so no Iron Discipline), 140-150 pts. will probably be a more realistic average. If you roll forward 6" you are giving up all your heavy foot firepower and shooting with a fusilade of multi-lasers, heavy bolters, and maybe a couple of Russ/Basilisk/Hellhound templates. It sounds good in theory, but talk to someone who has tried to build a competitive grenadiers/stormie army or similar around this model-even with point reductions, its not happening. Might do something, but the limitations on the infantry tied up in vehicles will make the army's firepower a shadow of its former self. And if you move faster to deliver them to their destination quicker, your firepower is only weakened further.

I'm still unconvinced that tactical movement will help all that much. My infantry right now are participating in the fight by pounding the enemy from a distance. Walking them up and limiting their effective range to 0" (moving instead of firing) or 12" (moving and firing) only puts them closer to the enemy's vanguard-somewhere they would usually prefer not to be. Splitting your army into mobile and shooting doesn't seem to help all that much either. In the current deployment rules, the IG low number of troops selections means that even with maxed out heavy support the things you don't want your foot Guardsmen meeting (Elites/FA) are going to know exactly where you are-you're not going to be fast enough to consolidate your two flanks into the center quickly enough, and if you stay separated your opponent will concentrate on one wing and dispatch it quickly. The Guard heave-ho works when the enemy comes to you and you can decimate them on the approach-when you give that up to try and get the drop and them and rapid fire or charge, bad things will happen to you.

I don't mean to take this too OT, but with the discussed changes, I think Guard will have a big upward hurdle to climb in V5 even with some points-cheapening.

Tribune-I believe Rogue Trader had a publication date of 1987 (Wiki claims 10/87 for the release), so the opportunity for a 20th anniversary just went by.

Tribune wrote:Two quick things:-

When did 40k 1st edition come out, was it '97 or '98? If it was '98, I can't see how GW could resist the 'celebrating 20 years of 40k' tie in to launch 5th edition, quite frankly.

1st edition being Rogue Trader?

Way earlier than that, I think.

2nd edition (Yay!) came out around 1993 or 1994, IIRC.

Rogue Trader was 1987/88 I think. Back when you got two Terminators in a blister for $4 and still thought you were getting ripped off!...err...or so the old folks tell me.... ;-)

It was expensive compared to what else was out,.. but it was new exciting, hard to get AND from across the pond.

87 was when it came out.

Until we see the totality of it, not sure we can say how it will effect all the armies. First impressions are very interesting though.

Alpharius Walks wrote:A 100 pts. would get you 10 guys with lasguns and a Chimera with a mult-laser. Once you start adding in basic goodies (special/heavy, hull Chimera weapon, near-mandatory extra armor if you want need to deliver the scoring unit, a Veteran Sgt. or vox-caster on account of Command ranges not being nearly good enough to use so no Iron Discipline), 140-150 pts. will probably be a more realistic average.

Given that this will be a new Codex, let's assume the entire Codex is fixed:
100 pts = 10 IG (A2 Sergeant included) & Chimera (hull HB & turret MtL)
+10 Melta
+5 HB
+15 Extra Armour
= 130 pts total

Assume Vox (ugly, messy rules & model bitz) is eliminated in favor of Senior Officers giving Ld 9 to all IG on the board with unlimited range (same as SM Commander). This is easier to manage and makes the strong case for players taking a Senior Officer.

At 130 pts, the IG unit compares fairly well with:
140 pts = 5 SM (VS included) & Razorback (twin HB)
+10 pts Melta
+5 HB
+15 pts Extra Armour
= 170 pts total.

The IG would pay 40 pts less due to their reduced stats.

If you roll forward 6" you are giving up all your heavy foot firepower and shooting with a fusilade of multi-lasers, heavy bolters, and maybe a couple of Russ/Basilisk/Hellhound templates.

Oh I don't think the IG give up that much firepower at all. The cost of 10 IG with a Lascannon is only 75 pts, and with their Platoon structure, they can take lots of them.

Splitting your army into mobile and shooting doesn't seem to help all that much either.

If you don't take the rest of the points as mobile shooters (i.e. max Russes & Hellhounds & Sentinels), that would be a mistake, I think. Certainly, if 5th Ed emphasizes Objectives, static Guard will be an automatic loss, whereas mobile Guard would have some chance to draw.

I don't mean to take this too OT, but with the discussed changes, I think Guard will have a big upward hurdle to climb in V5 even with some points-cheapening.

This is why I think Guard will need rules changes in addition to points changes.

[quote=JohnHwangDDThe only reason some are better is because were in the middle of a Codex revamp. Once they're all redone, the Troops will be more even across the board.

The DA rules were such a success, they did the BA rules preview as WD. As for Chaos, they don't follow Combat Squads because some players still remember Sacred Number of 6, 7, 8, or 9. Combined with the Emperor's numbers of 5 & 10, and multiples, Chaos has more options on size, but not if they want to min-max heavy weapons. In that case, it's 10 CSM with 1 Heavy & 1 Special. Same as Marines, but without the Combat Squads option.

You may not like it, but Combat Squads are going to be the Marines biggest advantage in 5th Edition.

Then I guess we're just going to have to wait and see how 5th turns out.

Wow Darth, that is the biggest amount of supposition with no firm backing that I have seen in awhile. To actually go with your second shooter on the grassy knoll theory, we would have to believe that DA was released long before the BA mini dex was done, which as we all know is false as it was planned and in almost final pdf form long before the DA was released. The explanation even before either codex was released is they wanted to follow through on the old DA/BA dex by releasing both rules at the same time, but couldn't justify a full BA codex release yet as they didn't have any new models or sprues ready yet.

Even then, to actually claim the DA codex was a failure, when the only way to measure this is by sales (as GW is a mini company first), which from all the information I heard from the local stores was that it was quite a success for a sub sect marine list. They would have to gather quite a bit of tournament data even before the BA codex was released to call it a rules failure, when they didn't have the time to do that between the two releases. Even then do you believe data within the first few months of release? Or do you watch it in the long haul (like the Tyranid codex which after quite some time suddenly started to dominate a lot of tournies, but in the beginning was seen as weak?)

I love the net. Simple stories become so blown out of proportion. Just like a lot of the 5th edition rumours are becoming. It is fun to watch though.

Where is my tinfoil hat?

which from all the information I heard from the local stores was that it was quite a success for a sub sect marine list.

I'm quite certain that Codex: DA wasn't a success rules wise nor sales wise, so I'd like to see your data. As far as combat squads are concerned, I can't see them as an advantage of any kind even if troops choices become the mainstay of each army, mostly because the 5man bolter squads get owned by superior troops choices of other armies (6x Thousand Sons will beat 12x Bolter Marines). Besides, we don't know all the rules changes yet. For example, troops choices might not be capped at 6 anymore (like they aren't in FB), and then armies like Eldar could flood the table with 3man Jetbike squads and noone will ever beat them in objective games.

Therion wrote:

which from all the information I heard from the local stores was that it was quite a success for a sub sect marine list.

I'm quite certain that Codex: DA wasn't a success rules wise nor sales wise,

How about your data that makes you so certain it wasn't?

He made it fairly clear that his view is based on what he heard from the local stores, and that he was talking in terms of what a marine chapter dex might be expected to do.

What basis is your view based on?

Glaive said "Leave skimmers how they are. Bump other vehicles so they can engage multiple units."
@Glaive one of smartest thing said so far i salute you

Ouch, to those questioning my sense of history, I meant Rogue Trader in '87 or '88! Dunno where those 9's came from. I guess this is what comes of being old enough to remember queuing for the thing. Senility has laid waste to my limited faculites...

Oh, and Terminators weren't even invented then. Happy days, rolling on a D100 table for your squad weaponry: 'Ooh look, I got a D-cannon!'

Tribune wrote:Happy days, rolling on a D100 table for your squad weaponry: 'Ooh look, I got a D-cannon!'

Yep, except sometimes you got a musket, favored weapon of Birmingham the soot planet. Which no one wanted to go to because it was so black/soot filled and humorless. And bolters were the favored weapons of violent primitives (Orks). And crossbows were better than bolters.

The quote from Brimstone:

12. Only non vehicle non swarm troop choices are scoring units.
13. Vehicles types are adjusted (the rumoured skimmer nerf)

Currently, what Vehicle Troop choices exist? I wonder if Bikes/Jetbikes will finally become vehicles under the new edition.

I take it not everyone will have seen the clarification to the Infantry vs. Troops question from Brimstone - from Warseer at http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2224146&postcount=926

I've amended a couple of things to clarify that vehicles without a WS are hit in the rear armour during CC NOT shooting.

And clarified that I'm talking about TROOPS choices not infantry as scoring units.

That will definitely cause some havoc.

That would really make the focus of lists a lot different. It would further reinforce all Necron warrior armies.

Toreador wrote:That will definitely cause some havoc.

That would really make the focus of lists a lot different. It would further reinforce all Necron warrior armies.

Warriors + Liths to keep them alive. And if they get rid of more anti-tank weapons from other armies they're even better!

I'm just hoping they get the balance right for Vehicles. If they buff regular vehicles survivability or ability to continue to do damage (ie. a glance or pen no longer gaurantee's a tank can't shoot next turn), then nerfing skimmers so SMF = Hull Down isn't too bad.

As long as they make it so nothing's virtually unkillable like Eldar Heavy Skimmers, then we could get something nice here.

Very much in agreement. Though I would almost like a vehicle system like with Superheavies where vehicles could have some type of structure points (or at least things like Land Raiders). The whole one hit BOOM! sucks.

With the unified damage table, one can expect only 2/6 Destroyed on Penetrate, so it'll be fine.

Toreador wrote:Very much in agreement. Though I would almost like a vehicle system like with Superheavies where vehicles could have some type of structure points (or at least things like Land Raiders). The whole one hit BOOM! sucks.

Thing is though that is what tanks do. They tend to be largely unaffected or BOOM!. Thats why I wouldn't like any form of wound system, unless it sill allowed plenty of 1 hit BOOM!. Balancing vehicles is easiest done by keeping a tight reign on how easy it is to get hold of the weapons to take them out with. Something that seems to have been happening with last few Codices. When lists are packing 1 heavy and 1 light anti-tank weapon per 6-10 men it is hardly surprising that tanks are swept of the field in short order.

A change to AP system could be made to further set apart weapons that take out tanks. If base AV ranged from 5 to 12, and any hit being calculated as providing a total AV = base AV plus the AP of the weapon you'd get quite a change in how armor works. So an AV 12 tank hit by a lascannon would roll for AP as Str 9 against AV 14 (just like now). Rail guns would roll Str 10 vs AV 13, so they get a bit better. Missiles launchers though go Str 8 vs Av 15 (not possible). So you end up with AV 12 representing semi-super heavy tanks that need serious AT weapons to take out. At the lower end a bolter against very light vehicle with AV 5 works out as Str 4 vs AV 10. Just like existing lightest tanks. So bolters vs weakest armor and lascannon vs heaviest armor defines the upper lower and upper bounds, but a lot changes within that system.

First off you get 3 extra AV values (5-12, compared to 10-14) so you can provide a better spread of armor. e.g. I would make land raiders and Liths AV 12, but Russes AV 11. I just don't see Russes in the same category as LRs or Liths. AV 11 would be what missile launchers are currently like against AV14. At the lower end you could better split up the things that are to be affected by most basic troop guns, and those that whilst light can shrug them off.

Rending AssCannons take a bit of bit of a hit against heavy stuff, due to their AP4. They woud need to hit 16 to get a LR or 15 for an AV11 russ. Autocannons are the same AP 4 makes them ineffective against anything AV10+, clearly defining them as light/medium tank killers.

You wouldn't need a wound like system for tanks, making AT weapons require high str and low ap cuts down on what tanks have to fear quite a bit, especially at the heavy end. Whilst at the same time still leaving them as 1 hit BOOM! when you do hit them with an appropiate weapon.

skyth wrote:Looks like vehicles will be seldom seen in competitive table-top play.

Having only Troops choices be scoring will be interesting, and only if they're not vehicles or swarms.

Looks like Swarm nids backed by Warriors will be the list to beat, as with the run ability, leaping warriors will actually be viable.

Ork swarms will be hard-as-nails also.

Troop-heavy drop pod marines will be the 3rd contender, and Dark Angels actually look like they'll be pretty competetive.

In other words, looks like the whiners who insist that playing troop-heavy armies are the only 'correct' way to play win out again. Blah.

Sisters of battle armies tend to be troop heavy....and with up to 20 sisters per unit....should be able to get a boost from the new rules.

I do agree they tend to go boom a lot, but even in RL a lot tend to take a lot of damage and keep on running, it just takes them out of the battle.

One of the big issues is how much AT is/was available on th board. A Land Raider will have an easier time against the new Chaos and Ork lists!

Toreador wrote:I do agree they tend to go boom a lot, but even in RL a lot tend to take a lot of damage and keep on running, it just takes them out of the battle.

One of the big issues is how much AT is/was available on th board. A Land Raider will have an easier time against the new Chaos and Ork lists!

How so vs. Chaos lists? Where they can still pack in plenty of Lascannon fire in the form of Oblits, where there can be up to 9 of them in an army?

They did a good job of eliminating tons of anti-tank/heavy weapon spam from armies except there.

Everybody can take lots of Lascannons - but they have to come from Heavy Support to have any density, and pay full price for them. You can't take 6-man Las/Plas and gain the same kinds of points efficiency.

So rather than facing 4-6 mini-Devastator squads that don't compete with Predators or Whirlwinds, you'll face honest to goodness Devastator squads that are priced and slotted properly.