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.

It seems to me like GW is largely just going back to 3rd edition (something JJ apparently is still in love with) although with some changes thrown in for cover. If all these rumors are true then it looks like they want a total do-over for 4th Ed.

Good thing I have a 3rd edition rulebook then. And most of the codexes. I won't need to buy 5th edition at all.

It really surprises me that the design team (and with JJ's guidance) was able to sell this roll-back to the internal GW leadership. The game needs to go forwards not just back to 3rd Ed. with a few different changes that are knee-jerk to the latest Tourney powerbuilds... I'm sure JJ has a vision of what he wants 40K to be and that he wants to erase the mistakes he thinks past designers have made. I am just surprised corporate leadership is buying off on a huge step back to the past... (assuming all the posted rumors are in fact true...)

But then again perhaps corporate leadership in GW isnot what it should be. They probably have absolutely no idea how 40K is or has been played. They view a new rulebook as potential profit along with the inevitable minis that must be purchased to accomodate the new rulebook. In that light I suppose it makes sense...

Beast wrote:It seems to me like GW is largely just going back to 3rd edition (something JJ apparently is still in love with) although with some changes thrown in for cover. If all these rumors are true then it looks like they want a total do-over for 4th Ed.

I think I'd call it v2.5. Based on what we know, it's the 3rd edition structure with more 2nd edition flavor. It's probably what they should have done with 3rd edition in the first place. However...

syr8766 wrote:I'm sure this has been said by others more articulately , but it really makes me wonder if 40k can be saved in its current form at all, or does it need a complete revisioning. I don't just mean overbalancing/counterbalancing mistakes from previous editions; I mean wipe the slate clean in terms of ALL game mechanics--eliminate ALL assumptions of how the game is supposed to be played--and start from scratch.

Yeah, ultimately it becomes a question of whether the 3rd edition foundation is robust enough to support all these ridiculous patches and "backwards-compatibility." I'd be fine with a blowup and fresh start. I'd also be fine with GW settling on a ruleset, acknowledging its flaws and (importantly) that they'll never be able to dictate player behavior, and making the small tweaks and clarifications that really improve things for us (see WFB).

What drives me nuts is the constant halfway changes that create as many problems as they solve. Get a frickin' vision for the game.

I think if they are going to really fix the weapons types (primary, defensive etc.) on vehicles, they are going to need to do it on a vehicle by vehicle basis. Each entry will need "You can purchase one Primary weapon from this list... You can purchase X secondary weapons from this list" etc. Arbitrary Str ratings for various weapons will create many silly situations across the codexes, as the Tau example shows.

Also, Tanks need to be able to split fire. It just doesn't make sense that the men operating the sponsons have to either shoot the same target as the man opperating the turret, or shut up and stick their thumb in their butt.

gorgon wrote:Yeah, ultimately it becomes a question of whether the 3rd edition foundation is robust enough to support all these ridiculous patches and "backwards-compatibility." I'd be fine with a blowup and fresh start. I'd also be fine with GW settling on a ruleset, acknowledging its flaws and (importantly) that they'll never be able to dictate player behavior, and making the small tweaks and clarifications that really improve things for us (see WFB).

That's just silly. GW can and will dictate player behavior through rules. They decided that the Rhino Rush was unbalanced and overplayed, so they wrote rules that deliberately nerfed it. They decided that heroes were overpowered in WFB, so they nerfed them (a couple editions ago, granted) and made taking more than your minimum core choices a necessity if you want to be competitive (a few gimmicks like the Flying Circus aside.) They want infantry to be the focus instead of tanks, so they make tanks a comparatively weak choice that can still act as a bullet hose against a single unit.

Salvation112, don't forget that before GW decided that Rhino Rush was overpowered or Heroes in WFB, they had previously decided that Rhino Rush and Heroes were a Good Thing.

Wehrkind wrote:Also, Tanks need to be able to split fire. It just doesn't make sense that the men operating the sponsons have to either shoot the same target as the man opperating the turret, or shut up and stick their thumb in their butt.

How does that make any less sense than the men with the Lasguns having to shoot the same target as the guy operating the Missile Launcher in an infantry squad?

Kilkrazy wrote:Salvation112, don't forget that before GW decided that Rhino Rush was overpowered or Heroes in WFB, they had previously decided that Rhino Rush and Heroes were a Good Thing.

I'm pretty sure that just reinforces my point.

they'll never be able to dictate player behavior

Like Salvation122 pointed out they can, they have and they always will. The overpowered units or strategies are intended to be exactly that, so that players can have a focus. Once the time for a review comes, the focus is switched elsewhere by either making the previously overpowered units or strategies completely underpowered, or by making something else even more drastically overpowered.

Hull Down is a 5+ cover save. Smoke gives a 4+. SMF is 6+ up to 6", 5+ 6" to 12", 4+ over 12". Holofield allows re-roll of SMF.

I like those cover saves but not the Holo-Field part. Eldar players want to re-roll their cover saves with Fortune, and save the Holo-Field for the damage tables, but I would accept your rule as well were it ever to become official. Sadly GW seems to have gone with the "everyone gets 5+ cover saves, nothing else changes" approach.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

efarrer wrote:First because you don't seem to get it.

Reality check: the Canadians made trucks, not Tanks (except for their crappy, useless Ram).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_the_Second_World_War

Actually, you're completely wrong. They used American and British tanks, and even built their own version of the M4, called the Grizzly. Canada didn't just have a few tanks, a few complete armour divisions were deployed.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

efarrer wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Reality check: the Canadians made trucks, not Tanks (except for their crappy, useless Ram).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_the_Second_World_War.

You know very little about Canadian Military history.

The wiki is half right. Canada made a variety of AFV's including the Grizzly (an M4 varient) and kangaroo, in addition to trucks. It also mobilized more fully then The key though was that I should have said Candian tank crews could hit german tanks while moving at top speed.

I know enough to know that there isn't much to speak of. From what I recall, the only notable "victorious" Canadian military action once can speak of is them marching to Washington, D.C. Not nearly recompense for losing all of Canada in the French and Indian War earlier, but at at least it explains the big white stripe smack dab in the middle of the flag. Plus, the Canucks generally got used as fodder by the Brits (IOW, treated just like the other Commonwealth colonies).

As for Canadian tank crews, I can't think of any tank Aces. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to their prowess.

Given that they were in standard Allied tanks, the idea that they always hit on the move is kind of ludicrous. SOP for WW2 was move, stop, shoot, repeat. You don't have the kind of ability to fire at full-speed until you have modern computer-compensated fire systems. Again, source, please?

Dude, seriously, read a book sometime. Losing all of Canada in the French and Indian War? Do you even know what happened during that war? Maybe you should look it up, because that comment is about as smart as someone saying the US lost all of the south in the American Civil War.

Tank Aces? What are you talking about? Only the Germans really had tank aces, the allies pulled their star crews out and sent them home to train new recruits, similar to pilots. That's why you see German pilots with 300+ kills, and allied aces with 30 something kills, they get sent home to train the next batch.

Books are good... books have information...... knowing stuff in books makes you able to communicate and actually have a clue what you're talking about.

H.B.M.C. wrote:GW hasn't presented us, as we'd expect, with a progression of improved rules.

N00b.

If you had a copy of the RT Vehicle Companion (with targeting overlay), you'd change your tune.

As far as random mechanics goes, that has got to be one of the craziest things I can ever recall GW releasing for vehicles.

Salvation122 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Salvation112, don't forget that before GW decided that Rhino Rush was overpowered or Heroes in WFB, they had previously decided that Rhino Rush and Heroes were a Good Thing.

I'm pretty sure that just reinforces my point.

It depends on whether one believes the conspiracy or cock-up theories of rules writing.

The conspiracy theory is that GW have a grand understanding of how to write rules that make good sense, and deliberately create certain overpowered units or tactics every couple of years because switching that focus is a good way of selling models.

The cock-up theory holds that GW simply don't understand the full effects of their rules so things like Rhino Rush are a surprising emergent behaviour which they then overreact to and nerf in the next round.

It doesn't really matter which theory is correct. Players can always choose what they want to play. For example, I chose Tau not because they were powerful (they were actually at the bottom of the cycle at that time) but because I thought the models were cool.

sebster wrote:You’re right about whirlwinds, but tau secondary weapons (burst cannon and the like) really should be defensive weapons.

Note that I proposed that Tau & Eldar treat Secondary weapons (up to S6) as Defensive weapons, so this addresses your concern.

I also don’t like an autocannon being deemed a main weapon while an assault cannon is called secondary or defensive.

I'm OK with Plasma Cannons & Autocannons as main weapons. A2 Autocannon is arguably superior to a S8 ML.

Assault Cannon is pretty good for a Secondary weapon, but with the pending Rending nerf, I think it'll drop back in line with the other secondaries.

To be honest any point you pick is going to be fairly arbitrary, maybe individually designated weapons on each vehicle might be the way to go?

That would be possible, but seems like more work.

But there is a significant risk to advancing under my rules. As long as they’re rolling up the field firing on the enemy they’re fine, but this is increasing the chance the enemy can hit their weaker flank and rear armour, or assault them. Tanks wanting to withdraw would have to expose their rear armour.

I don't like the whole one-pivot business. It's too WFB-like and too clunky when you consider that the model represents a tiny tank. The whole "move as you like" thing is much faster and easier.

So just one table?

Yea, because that's the rumor.

I’d keep the tables as they are, but have one result for both shaken and stunned. Still call it stunned, and have it allow the tank to either move or shoot, owner’s choice. Means a tank still has a good chance of exploding, but a reasonable chance of being somewhat useful next turn.

The idea is to have 6 distinct results, so merging results is undesirable. With Shake and only 2 Destroys, it's lower risk than before.

No splitting fire - 40k is always 1 unit vs 1 unit.

We’ll just have to disagree on that one.

Given that 40k specifically limited assaults to single targets (same as shooting target), I think the designers have made their point clear that 40k is supposed to be 1v1. If tanks can split fire, then Machine Spirit has no meaning.

I’d prefer it was a little more free, but I’d be alright with that if the definition of defensive was a little broader (to include heavy bolters and burst cannon, for instance).

As above, Tau treat secondary as defensive, so Burst Cannon are OK. Imperial HBs are a problem because they are priced so cheaply. If they were Defensive, they would have to be charged at least 10 pts each for IG, 15 pts for SM. Possibly more. And inflating the points of a Russ is undesirable at this time.

Sebster, I didn't mean players that chose the tanks are retards. I meant the tanks look like the boxes retards get stuffed in by our wonderful society. They call it the 'short bus' around here....

Hmm some awesome poitns there, but some of them HAVE to be complete bs.. well. some of the stuff in the msicelanneous bit up top

Where the hell are people getting "secondary" weapons from? That's not even rumored.

Salvation122 wrote:

gorgon wrote:Yeah, ultimately it becomes a question of whether the 3rd edition foundation is robust enough to support all these ridiculous patches and "backwards-compatibility." I'd be fine with a blowup and fresh start. I'd also be fine with GW settling on a ruleset, acknowledging its flaws and (importantly) that they'll never be able to dictate player behavior, and making the small tweaks and clarifications that really improve things for us (see WFB).

That's just silly. GW can and will dictate player behavior through rules. They decided that the Rhino Rush was unbalanced and overplayed, so they wrote rules that deliberately nerfed it. They decided that heroes were overpowered in WFB, so they nerfed them (a couple editions ago, granted) and made taking more than your minimum core choices a necessity if you want to be competitive (a few gimmicks like the Flying Circus aside.) They want infantry to be the focus instead of tanks, so they make tanks a comparatively weak choice that can still act as a bullet hose against a single unit.

LOL. And the point goes sailing over your head.

What ACTUALLY happened was that transports started as deathtraps in 2nd edition. They wanted them to be more viable in 3rd, so they got a big buff. Then players discovered the Rhino rush. GW decided "that's not what we wanted," so they nerfed it. Now transports (of the tracked variety, at least) aren't used for much other than moving infantry screens. So once again they decide "that's not what we wanted," so out goes entanglement, etc.

I could list an endless amount of examples. The point is that GW ultimately CAN'T control behavior because players will either find a way around certain limitations or exploit the new rules beyond what was intended. Then the *reactionary* designers make a bunch of changes and the cycle begins anew.

This has been going on in 40K for TWENTY years now. At some point, the designers have to let go a little and let nature take its course, however that may be. Because the game is NEVER going to play exactly the way they intended. There's a Darwinian thing at work as soon as the ruleset is introduced to the public. If they really want to balance the game and improve gameplay, small and subtle rules changes or clarifications will be more effective than the endless pendulum swings we experience that inevitably create new problems as they solve others.

Or they can blow the whole thing up. Either way, at some point they need to make up their minds if this is the ruleset they're going forward with or not. How can a game be around for twenty years and have the designers still "ironing out" major issues?

I find the relative lack of overlap between these rumours and Brimstone's a little hard to believe, you'd think they were notable enough to crop up in some way in both. However, I know nothing of this second source's background and perceived reliability, anyone wish to educate me?

Then again, we may all be too busy playing our favourite meta-analysis game to care. For my part, I'd be very interested to see how troop screening and area terrain not blocking line of sight would not be retrograde steps, even with other rules changes. These just seem like bad moves.

I just hope that troop screening doesn't bring us back to laser pointers...

And I hope that there's some kind of LOS-blocking "volume terrain" for forests.

Asmodai wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:Also, Tanks need to be able to split fire. It just doesn't make sense that the men operating the sponsons have to either shoot the same target as the man opperating the turret, or shut up and stick their thumb in their butt.

How does that make any less sense than the men with the Lasguns having to shoot the same target as the guy operating the Missile Launcher in an infantry squad?

Oh, it doesn't, well not by much. I think the infantry thing is pretty stupid too. The only thing with the vehicles that makes it a little extra dumb is that they have vastly different fields of vision. The guy on the left sponson probably can't see what the guy on the right is shooting at even if he tries. So instead of shooting something he can see, he just stares blankly. That is wierd.

I personally like HBMC's fix of vehicles splitting fire and infantry squads choosing secondary targets on a Ld test. Makes a lot more sense.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:GW hasn't presented us, as we'd expect, with a progression of improved rules.

N00b.

If you had a copy of the RT Vehicle Companion (with targeting overlay), you'd change your tune.

As far as random mechanics goes, that has got to be one of the craziest things I can ever recall GW releasing for vehicles.

How many years ago was that? 10, 20, somewhere in there? I would hardly say that having a moderately workable and unsatisfying vehicle system is a vast improvement, even over a really wierd system that doesn't work well, especially over the course of decades.

Wehrkind wrote:

Asmodai wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:Also, Tanks need to be able to split fire. It just doesn't make sense that the men operating the sponsons have to either shoot the same target as the man opperating the turret, or shut up and stick their thumb in their butt.

How does that make any less sense than the men with the Lasguns having to shoot the same target as the guy operating the Missile Launcher in an infantry squad?

Oh, it doesn't, well not by much. I think the infantry thing is pretty stupid too. The only thing with the vehicles that makes it a little extra dumb is that they have vastly different fields of vision. The guy on the left sponson probably can't see what the guy on the right is shooting at even if he tries. So instead of shooting something he can see, he just stares blankly. That is wierd.

....

Especially considering that tankers are notorious for blasting off whole belts of MG ammo at any suitable target.

I can't wait for Round 4 of the 5th ed rumors so we can have more of these enlightening conversations.

I think the Canadian Military argument was of particular importance to the validity and discussion of 5th ed rumors.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozymandias wrote:I can't wait for Round 4 of the 5th ed rumors so we can have more of these enlightening conversations.

I think the Canadian Military argument was of particular importance to the validity and discussion of 5th ed rumors.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

The point which got lost in his nationalistic (and ignorant) attack on my nation's military history was that tanks did indeed move and fire while on the move. Tanks in 40K don't really do that now, and it looks like it's going to be even worse in the near future. A fricking steam tank can move and fire more accurately.

efarrer wrote:A fricking steam tank can move and fire more accurately.

Quoted for truth!

I'm thinking of joining the bandwagon with the poster that reads, "Stay Rumours!". Seriously, some of these changes seem to be changes just for the sake of it.

I'll decide when it comes out. I'll still buy the boxed set, if it's anything like people are saying on the internetz.

The source of the latest rumours said this at Warseer on http://warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2258415&postcount=391

Champsguy wrote:My only source is a guy at our store. I didn't think he knew all that many people. But the version I saw had all the little things that a fake 5th Ed wouldn't, like stuff pimping GW's website and products. Nobody writing up a fake version of the rules would spend time talking about fantastic citadel models and paints, or tell you to find out more at GW's website.

'A guy at our store' - As we all know, 'some guy at my local store' has been proven in exhaustive tests to be by far the most reliable source of accurate rumour. Ever.

Wehrkind wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:GW hasn't presented us, as we'd expect, with a progression of improved rules.

N00b.

If you had a copy of the RT Vehicle Companion (with targeting overlay), you'd change your tune.

As far as random mechanics goes, that has got to be one of the craziest things I can ever recall GW releasing for vehicles.

How many years ago was that? 10, 20, somewhere in there? I would hardly say that having a moderately workable and unsatisfying vehicle system is a vast improvement, even over a really wierd system that doesn't work well, especially over the course of decades.

It's been less than 20 years (but not by much).

Vehicles have never been a particularly strong point of 40k's rules. At least they're showing signs of settling down to a more consistent, playable ruleset. Mechanically, I think the 40k Vehicle rules get consistently "better" with each edition, but also agree that there's room for improvement.

And again and again. These are just rumours. Could be fake, could be pieces of the whole puzzle. Can't really judge anything off of the tidbits these people see. Sometimes they see things wrong, or out of context.

I like the theme of the rumours. It looks like the new rules are trying to fix and introduce a little more complexity to play. More tactics is always a good thing.