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.

Stelek wrote:

Crimson Devil wrote:

ubermosher wrote:
I only glanced at ramming, but noticed it said +1 S for each 3" moved that turn... Cheesy image of Vypers with Star Engines dancing in my head. Non-skimmers attempting to ram a skimmer, give target skimmer a 3+ save to avoid.

There was much discussion in my LGS about Kamikaze Vypers being a common sight in this edition.

Sigh. There's a reason your store is much maligned locally, CD.

And you wonder why no one like you.

You could have simply corrected me by writing that is not the way the rule works. You didn't have to take the shot, but I guess you can't help being what you are.

Oh god....This isn't good. So.....5th edition hey, how about it?

I repeat my earlier questions, and would appreciate it if anyone with a rulebook could give info on:

Is assaulting from close-topped transports back in?

Are assault weapons counted as defensive?

Thans in advance to anyone who can look those issues up...

Defensive weapons are just S4, no relevance as to their type at all.

I do not believe you can assault out of a moving closed vehicle still.

I also noted that a wrecked vehicle whilst still providing cover is now both difficult and dangerous terrain.

Which I think is quite cool in a way. It's the little changes like this that have me liking this edition so far.

Interesting. As usual, there is a fair amount of pendulem effect in the mix. However it does seem that they are mostly moving in the right direction. I'll have to get a couple of games in and see how things go.

@Phoenix. We have a copy at Game Empire and I am more than happy to get a 5th ed game with you.

Darrian

Stelek wrote:Area terrain was removed? Did you get a different copy of the rules than I did? Granted mine is a month old but still...

Slow and purposeful get charging bonuses now, and in 5th too. It's just being relentless that you need to worry about really...which says nothing about removing attacks or denying them.

They still have area terrain, but it works differently than currently. The way the piece of terrain is actually modeled has a large affect now. The main difference is for LOS drawing, and cover saves for infantry vs monstrous creatures. Infantry gain a cover save for simply have a part of their base in the area terrain, but monstrous creatures have to have 50% of their body obscured by the terrain to gain the cover save.

Aduro wrote:Hmmmm... I don't think Star Engines are used in the shooting phase. "May move an additional 12" in lieu of shooting, but troops may not embark of disembark that turn".

I see where you are coming from in that "in lieu of shooting" could be interpreted as doing it instead of shooting during that phase, but the comment about embarking lends me to believe it's used in the movement phase, or else you wouldn't have to mention it since you can't do that during the shooting phase anyways. If it was truely used in the shooting phase, I think it would have specifically told you as much.

"If you did not embark or disembark troops this turn, you may move an additional 12" in the shooting phase in lieu of shooting that turn".

It's done in the shooting, as per the FAQ&Errata that was released earlier last month. Second to last question. "This extra move of up to 12" is executed during the shooting phase."

It wasn't a shot, CD. Just saying it like it is. If you guys ever came over, or welcomed others, you'd not be in a pit. :(

I know how the new area terrain rules work. The change is mostly semantic.

Any mention of being able to consolidate into the passengers of a vehicle wrecked in CC?
For example, if my unit of Seraphim eviserate the hell out of a rhino and blow it up, are they in combat with the now exposed passengers?

Wehrkind wrote:Any mention of being able to consolidate into the passengers of a vehicle wrecked in CC?
For example, if my unit of Seraphim eviserate the hell out of a rhino and blow it up, are they in combat with the now exposed passengers?

You may NOT use the consolidate move to enter combat with another unit. Full stop.

(You can, however, shoot a transport dead and assault the passengers.)

There are vet sgt. in Templar command squads. It's the only place they get them.

Capt K

neofright wrote:

Stelek wrote:Or look at BT...

Sergeants? What are they? ;-)

Janthkin wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:Any mention of being able to consolidate into the passengers of a vehicle wrecked in CC?
For example, if my unit of Seraphim eviserate the hell out of a rhino and blow it up, are they in combat with the now exposed passengers?

You may NOT use the consolidate move to enter combat with another unit. Full stop.

(You can, however, shoot a transport dead and assault the passengers.)

Ok, though my question was more centered around the fact that in the shooting phase at least the fact that the transport and the cargo are seperate units is overlooked. I was wondering if there was a similar loop hole for assault. I was well aware that you can not consolidate into another unit, just as I am well aware you can not shoot one unit and then assault another.

On the no consolidation into enemy units thing, is it true even for units that have fallen back? Like say you win combat, they break and you don't wipe them with Int massacre roll. They roll poorly for fall back and you roll well for consolidation. Can you still catch them or do you have to stay 1" away? Curious about this for alot of reasons, not least of which is the rumored SM rules.

liljeremyd wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Stelek wrote:I can't wait for demons and drop pods to drop into terrain and die. It's quite amusing really. "Woops..."

Drop pods don't scatter.

When did drop pods stop scattering?

I've heard, twice now, that the new pods won't scatter. I'm not saying it is so but I did hear about a scouter speeder transport option from the same guy. I laughed at that then....now not so much.

winterman wrote:On the no consolidation into enemy units thing, is it true even for units that have fallen back? Like say you win combat, they break and you don't wipe them with Int massacre roll. They roll poorly for fall back and you roll well for consolidation. Can you still catch them or do you have to stay 1" away? Curious about this for alot of reasons, not least of which is the rumored SM rules.

IIRC, you have to stop 1" away from an enemy unit in your consolidation move regardless of that units current status. Basically, you will never be able to consolidate into another unit using a consolidation move.

You mean pods in the smurf book?

Excellent! That only leaves all the other marine armies with books out in the cold.

Which is still quite a lot of marine armies...and not scattering would make an already powerful unit even more so.

reds8n wrote: Defensive weapons are just S4, no relevance as to their type at all.

I do not believe you can assault out of a moving closed vehicle still.

Thanks, reds8n.

Damnit, damnit, damnit. Assault weapons (shuricannons, basically) counting as defensive was my last hope for Eldar vehicles remaining superior in both firepower and mobility. It really does look like it's one or the other now. Frustrating. Guess I'll just strip the add-on shuricannons off of all my Serpents, and mount them as the (never to be used) secondary turret weapons on the Falcons.

And no transport assault from closed vehicles- what about all of those rumors that the Rhino Rush was coming back? Was that a Codex SM rumor that the Rhino would count as having an assault ramp, or was it idle speculation?

This edition is back to looking bleak for mech skimmer armies. Except Tau, as noted above...

Oh it's not that bad Savnock. Really it isn't.

Park in cover, use vectored engines, and have a farseer tossing fortune for a re-rollable 3+ or 4+ save.

Sure it's different, but skimmer armies are not 'nerfed'. Honest.

Stelek wrote:Oh it's not that bad Savnock. Really it isn't.

Park in cover, use vectored engines, and have a farseer tossing fortune for a re-rollable 3+ or 4+ save.

Sure it's different, but skimmer armies are not 'nerfed'. Honest.

Right, I can see that. But skimmer armies have never been about firepower- it's just too easy to shake the little buggers. They're about transport, with a bit of firing on the side. Eldar did get (or remain) more powerful relative to other armies' vehicular mobility, but the combined firing isn't going to be happening. That'll have to happen after the troops get dropped off.

I guess firepower skimmers are _more_ possible now thanks to coversaves (which can be rerolled for a limited number of units) but shooting with skimmer transports is still not the best use of points. At least bikes score, so we can keep that maneuverable element in.

Thanks for the cheer-up- I'm just miffed about having to adapt in a different direction than I thought I would be. Oh well, it's much better than what Guard have to deal with.

Well if you sit still you can still dump alot of firepower out.

With 'run' I think you'll find virtually everyone in range of all of your guns.

The reason I took Prisms in my Vyper list is I think this year there is going to be a heavy emphasis on assault armies for a bit, and heavy vehicle armies. Prisms destroy both, and at long ranges...and let me avoid having to deal with the assault armies and heavy vehicle armies for a bit.

Of course you could bring dual falcons with dual dragons and blow stuff up easily that way too.

"This edition is back to looking bleak for mech skimmer armies. Except Tau, as noted above..."

How are tau not nerfed? The only things we have going for our skimmers is we count as fast moving and don't have to take dangerous terrain test.

Tau get free cover saves out in the open.

Now let me see.................................I get what I paid for before, but pay 5 less points AND get free cover saves.

Really?

"Yes, really."

Ratbarf wrote:"This edition is back to looking bleak for mech skimmer armies. Except Tau, as noted above..."

How are tau not nerfed? The only things we have going for our skimmers is we count as fast moving and don't have to take dangerous terrain test.

Two words: Disruption pods (which give Tau vehicles a 4+ cover save from any enemy more than 12" away from them).


So Tau vehicles with Multi-Trackers & disruption pods can still move 6" and fire all their weapons and any incoming shots suffer a 4+ cover save provided the attacker is more than 12" away. So they behave a bit different (slower than before) but end up being more durable.



And as for everyone talking about certain abilities in certain codexes no longer working (like Tyranid Thornbacks and Symbiote Rippers), shouldn't we wait and see what the 5th edition FAQs do to those abilities first?

And besides, even if they do *nothing* in 5th edition, you can always just not take the upgrade.

And the 4+ cover save for being more than 12" away...

So I spent 3+ hours reading the new rulebook in the LA battle bunker this weekend. Overall I'm a big fan of the rules and the way they are presented in the rulebook. Alessio is given the credit for writing the main rules and he has definitely brought quite a bit more technical clarity than in previous editions, although there are a few areas I personally found a bit lacking. For the most part the book is definitely a big step up in clarity from 4th edition which itself was a big step up in clarity from 3rd edition.

The real place where 4th edition stumbled in terms of clarity is in their 4th edition FAQs that updated 3rd edition codices into the new edition. The real test for GW in my mind will be how well they handle the 5th edition codex FAQs which will be charged with bringing older codices (in some cases 3rd edition codices!) into line with the new rules.

If they put out the same kind of one-page bullet point generalized FAQs as they did for the last edition, I expect there to be quite a few rules questions and issues stemming from these older codices and their interaction with the new rules.

What they need to release are very detailed errata pages that clearly identify the particular wording in the existing codices that needs to be changed and exactly what it is changed to.

So instead of saying stuff like: "Carnifexes with the Thornback upgrade behave as such now. . ." (which can lead to generalities and potential confusion), they need to say stuff like: "Tyranid Codex, page xx, Thornback upgrade: replace the following text: "xxx" with the following new text: "xxx".

It is only with precision errata such as this that I believe 5th edition will finally be much more concise and easy to play for all armies.



Anyway, after that long-winded rant here's a few things I noticed that I personally haven't seen in most of the rumor posts (although I'm sure someone has posted them already somewhere).


1) The Victory Point rules are located in the very back of the book as an optional rule for tournaments and players who want to claim bragging rights for their draws. They are *not* a base rule for anytime a draw occurs in a game. . .rather the game is just a draw if neither side captures more objectives or gets more Kill Points.


2) When vehicles are destroyed if embarked models can't fully fit within the range of the vehicle's access points, the player is allowed to declare an emergency disembarkation, whch allows the models to be placed within 2" of any part of the vehicle's hull (regardless of access points). However, the unit cannot do anything else the rest of that player turn. So "trapping" enemy models inside their vehicle is much harder to do now.


3) When a vehicle explodes (as opposed to becoming a wreck) the rules simply state that you place the models "where the vehicle used to be". This wording was strangely imprecise considering the rest of the rules. I guess that just means the models have to be placed within the 'footprint' of where the vehicle was, but what if there are more models than can fit in that area? Do they have to be fully within the 'footprint' or just part of them, etc.? It could have been a bit more clear.


4) One of the big areas that is not covered is the interspersed enemy unit tactic to deny assaults. I had heard rumors that there was going to be a diagram actually showing that it was allowed, but that is just not the case. The rules don't mention it at all leaving it as a viable tactic unless players and tournaments choose to disallow it.


5) Another really big area I was sad to see didn't receive more attention is units embarked on vehicles. While they do mention that special abilities from embarked passengers are measured from the vehicle's hull and that units can score while inside of vehicles (again, measure the range from the vehicle), the rules *do not* specifically state that embarked units cannot be shot at. While this may seem like a no-brainer thing for some gamers who have played 40K since 3rd edition, 2nd edition had rules for firing at units in open-topped transports and I can totally see some new gamer say: Why can't I shoot at units in an open-topped transport, I can see them! They really should have included a blanket statement that embarked units cannot be hit by enemy shooting.

The other related problem is that they do not cover what happens to embarked units who are affected by weird stuff, like psychic powers that would case them to fall back or go to ground (become pinned). Are they affected? Do they fall back out of their vehicle? What about stuff like Vibro-Cannons? Does a line passing through a transport vehicle mean that the embarked unit is hit too? Can it be pinned or fall back from these casualties, etc.


6) The front of the rulebook clearly identifies that for all ranges in the game if at least one model in a unit is within range of something, all members of the unit are within range, which should put to rest a whole bunch of arguments about stuff like the Ork Kustom Force Field.


7) They finally specify that psychic "shooting attacks" follow the rules for shooting but they no longer specify this blanket statement to 'all' psychic powers. This should solve a whole lot of psychic power arguing.


8) As mentioned by others, although non-vehicle, non-swarm infantry units are the only scoring units in the game now, the fact that ANY unit can contest objvectives (all down to the very last man just like scoring units) seems much, much more balanced than the original idea in the leaked PDF where only scoring units could score and contest objectives.


9) The whole -1 cover save if you and your opponent can't decide whether the unit is in cover or not rule is *very* well defined in the rulebook, with two whole large diagrams devoted to explaining exactly what they mean. The nitty-gritty is thus:

A unit being shot at is considered 'in cover' if the majority of its models are in cover from the majority of the models in the firing unit. If it is not immediately clear whether the majority of the models are in cover from the majority of the firing models, the players have two choices.

One, players can go through each individual model in the firing unit and determine if the majority of enemy models in the target unit are indeed in cover in relation to that particular firing model. Using this process players can determine unequivocally whether the majority of models in the target unit are in cover from the majority of the firing models.

Alternatively (if they don't want to spend all that time), players can just agree that the unit automatically counts as being in cover, but at -1 to what it would normally be.



That's all I can think of for now, but I'll post more as I think of it or answer anyone's questions if they have 'em.

shouldn't we wait and see what the 5th edition FAQs do to those abilities first?

This is GW we're talking about, right?

Breotan wrote:

shouldn't we wait and see what the 5th edition FAQs do to those abilities first?

This is GW we're talking about, right?

And. . .?


They updated most of the weird abilities in existing codices (that didn't function with the new rules) from 3rd edition to 4th edition when that change happened. Why would we not expect them to do the same?

I'm sure some abilities will ultimately become pointless, like Grot Riggers on Killa Kan squadrons, for example but I do expect to see a similar 'fix' for existing incompatible rules when the 5th edition FAQs are released around the time of the new rulebook.

Yak, on #4 are you worried about the whole RB.37.01 "you can't charge my gretchin without getting within 1" of my orks right behind them in btb because the bases are .98 inches wide" thing, or are you talking about something else?

yakface wrote:

2) When vehicles are destroyed if embarked models can't fully fit within the range of the vehicle's access points, the player is allowed to declare an emergency disembarkation, whch allows the models to be placed within 2" of any part of the vehicle's hull (regardless of access points). However, the unit cannot do anything else the rest of that player turn. So "trapping" enemy models inside their vehicle is much harder to do now.

I got the impression that that was only an option during your movement phase, i.e. a voluntary disembarkation. I remember reading later on under wrecked that models that could not disembark were removed. But I only gave it a cursory glance, so I absolutely could be wrong.