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.

biztheclown wrote: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?

That's exactly it. It doesn't appear to be addressed at all in the new rules meaning it is still technically a viable tactic to deny an assault unless you're using a fan-made FAQ or your own house rules.


Edit: Actually, I'm going to take it all back about this point. After looking back at my notes, I notice that the wording is now that charging models are allowed to move within 1" of enemy models, full stop. Since they don't specify ". . .within 1 inch of enemy models they are charging", it looks as though this has been taken care of in the new rules.


Huzzah!

Have they decided how IC join units, fight in combat, etc? What about attaching to a squad in reserve and being able to be rolled for as one group, instead of seperately?

- Salvage

yakface wrote: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.

Isn't this the same clarity he brought to the Fantasy rules?

yakface wrote: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.

Never.
Happen.

yakface wrote: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.

In tournaments, if you think it will optional I think you're mad as a hatter.

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.

Not do anything is pretty meaningless if it's your opponents go in a IGOUGO system.

yakface wrote: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.

This is part of the problem with your inat faq.

It is actually quite clear.

Remove the model, put the figs where the model was.

The rule you quoted ABOVE this one helps when you have a large number of models (like say, 12 Orks in an old school trukk; or 20 boyz in a 'rhino' battlewagon) and need to place them.

In all cases, the rules cover the situation.

yakface wrote: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.

Since you can assault multiple units at once, it isn't much of a tactic.

If you could provide a picture, maybe I could visualize it better...but right now I just don't see it.

yakface wrote: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.

Jesus Christ.

yakface wrote: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.

Jesus Christ.

yakface wrote: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.

Yes, that's why I've been pooh poohing all the ideas about troops are king.

It was eliminated months ago as bad for the game, and it was.

yakface wrote: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.

Uhh is it odd I'm defending GW in this thread (from you) and you were defending GW in the other thread (from me)?

Seems so.

Boss_Salvage wrote:Have they decided how IC join units, fight in combat, etc? What about attaching to a squad in reserve and being able to be rolled for as one group, instead of seperately?

- Salvage

ICs that move within 2" of a unit join it, they have no choice in the matter. If they move within 2" of two or more units you pick one for them to join. They may only join and leave in the movement phase as is now.

They fight exactly as they do now in combat (separately from the unit) so they have to be in base-contact with the enemy to fight. When an IC in a unit is charged, you move the IC first for his counter-charge move before the rest of the models in the unit (if he isn't already in base-contact from the charging enemy models) to ensure that characters are always fighting and not hiding behind troopers.


ICs can join any unit pre-game and any unit (including joined characters) can be assigned to a transport pre-game. If this group of units is put into reserve a single reserve roll is made for all of them.

Thanks Yak, sounds nice and simple. The bit about combining a transport pre-game too is expected and good to hear as well.

Another quick one from me, can any unit now split fire (with a Ld test or something)? Or did that get axed?

- Salvage

No split fire.

Stelek wrote:

Isn't this the same clarity he brought to the Fantasy rules?

I don't know, I never played or read the Fantasy book. Are you implying that the new 40K rulebook is not much more clear and concise than it was in the previous edition? Because I would whole-heartedly say it is more clear. While not perfect by an stretch of the imagination, it is much better.

Never.
Happen.

Most likely, of course not. But that was just my bit of constructive criticism because I think the rules are so much more clear it will be a shame if they don't take the proper time to make sure the existing codex wording fits nicely with the new rules.

In tournaments, if you think it will optional I think you're mad as a hatter.

Of course tournaments will use victory points. My surprise was that, unlike in the leaked PDF the victory points are relagated as 'optional' rules in the back of the book pretty much included for use in tournament play. I'm well aware that every tournament will likely utilize them as will most pick-up games IMO, but the fact that they separated them out from the main rules was surprising to me.

Not do anything is pretty meaningless if it's your opponents go in a IGOUGO system.

Agreed, although I did notice looking back at my notes that emergency disembarkation can be used at any time if the player wishes, so I guess that rule is in place to stop players from using that rule to drop models out on the front of their vehicle to fire at the enemy while keeping the front armor of their vehicle also facing the enemy. You can dump your models out in front of the vehicle, but they won't be able to shoot or run if you do.

This is part of the problem with your inat faq.

It is actually quite clear.

Remove the model, put the figs where the model was.

The rule you quoted ABOVE this one helps when you have a large number of models (like say, 12 Orks in an old school trukk; or 20 boyz in a 'rhino' battlewagon) and need to place them.

In all cases, the rules cover the situation.

Not exactly sure what this has to do with our FAQ, but my point is, the 'wrecked' vehicle rules specify that the models disembark, which means you'd follow the normal disembarking rules.

The 'exploded' rules don't say anything about using the disembarkation rules. They just say the passengers take hits and are then placed directly where the vehicle was. Again, this wording is very imprecise because we don't know if that means they can be placed within 2" of where the access points were, or if they have to be actually placed where the vehicle model was.

If they meant for the 'exploded' result to reference the disembarking rules they should have made it a bit more clear.

Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ.

Really? So if someone wants to fire at passengers on an open-topped transport are you going to let them? If not, why? It makes perfect sense that they *should* be an available target.

How hard would it have been to put: "embarked units cannot be targeted or hit by shooting" and "embarked units do not take any and all morale and leadership tests (besides psychic tests) and never fall back or go to ground for any reason."?


Do you really think it is unreasonable for players to wonder what happens to an embarked unit when a Vibrocannon beam passes through it? Do you really think it is unreasonable for players to wonder if Fear of the Darnkess affects embarked units?

Uhh is it odd I'm defending GW in this thread (from you) and you were defending GW in the other thread (from me)?

Seems so.

I don't think I'm attacking GW at all. I gave them some mad props for how much I like the new rulebook and I offered some constructive criticism (as unlikely as it is that it will ever be heard).

Boss_Salvage wrote:Thanks Yak, sounds nice and simple. The bit about combining a transport pre-game too is expected and good to hear as well.

Another quick one from me, can any unit now split fire (with a Ld test or something)? Or did that get axed?

- Salvage

No splitting fire except for. . .wait for it. . .artillery crew.

Artillery crew can fire their personal weapons at a different target than the gun weapons being fired. Exactly why I do not know, but +1 coolness for artillery units!

Wehrkind wrote:

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

WOOT!!!! FINALLY - thats great!

What about rapid fire - how has that been affected? I noticed the big blank bit in the leaked rules set so wondered what it was now?

I'm saying I never had a problem with the 4th edition rules that you did. Nor 3rd. I've had like one rules disagreement at a tournament that really was unclear for everyone but me and Jeff Hall. Thankfully he was there, and it was fixed.

I guess don't play with gakkers so much, and there won't be so much room for rules issues to come up? lol

As far as the passengers, I think it's covered in the rules. Nowhere does it say they are actually on the board. So why would they be valid targets? Because they can score from inside a transport? Where'd it say they were on the board? It's not really implied either.

You don't think it's an attack? Hmmm...big fan site, you run it, people listen to what you say...and you say 'this bit was great' and then list two pages of 'this sucks'...

yakface wrote:
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.

That is a shame - not only can I see them, but the blighters are shooting at me. The in cover 4+ save would have worked and not required any additional mechanic. After all, the whole of the unit can shoot out of the vehicle.

Just a general question - I found 4th ed to some how always leave an important caveat etc until the last line of the last paragraph in the section - is this still the case?

Stelek wrote:I'm saying I never had a problem with the 4th edition rules that you did. Nor 3rd. I've had like one rules disagreement at a tournament that really was unclear for everyone but me and Jeff Hall. Thankfully he was there, and it was fixed.

I guess don't play with gakkers so much, and there won't be so much room for rules issues to come up? lol

I don't tend to have issues with my tournament games because I tend to just play how my opponent plays the game, I just consider it an added challenge to adapt my game to their "version" of the rules. But playing this way definitely opened my eyes to the ways that different people naturally interpret different portions of the rules.

Obviously I can't speak for you (because I don't know how your games go down) but I do know a lot of people who play the game who have quite a few questions or different interpretations regarding the rules. I think making the rules as clear and concise as humanly possible (without making the rulebook into a tech manual) is an important goal and one that I think they made tremendous strides towards with this rulebook. I give it like an A- for clarity after my first read through.

As far as the passengers, I think it's covered in the rules. Nowhere does it say they are actually on the board. So why would they be valid targets? Because they can score from inside a transport? Where'd it say they were on the board? It's not really implied either.

Well the word "embark" does mean: "to board a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle. . ." and basic common sense dictates that when people board a vehicle they are then onboard that vehicle. The actual rule says:

"When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside, making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported (we find that placing me of the unit's models on top of the transport works welll). If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull."


So while it doesn't explicitly say "these models count as being onboard the vehicle" it also doesn't explicitly say "these models don't count as being on the table" as it did in the 4th edition FAQ.

So some players reading the rules are going to get to this part and wonder: Can I shoot enemies on an open-topped vehicle? It seems like I should be able to.

You don't think it's an attack? Hmmm...big fan site, you run it, people listen to what you say...and you say 'this bit was great' and then list two pages of 'this sucks'...

I absolutely don't think it was an attack. I listed 9 things that I noticed (and remembered) when reading the rulebook. 3 could be considered negative (the assault rule, the exploding vehicle rule and the embarked passenger rules) one of which I later rescinded because I was mistaken. So out of 8 random points I posed 6 were positive and I gave an overall very positive review of the book.

I'll say it again: I really like it!

Plastic Parody wrote:
Just a general question - I found 4th ed to some how always leave an important caveat etc until the last line of the last paragraph in the section - is this still the case?

That's far too general a statement for me to confirm or deny. I will just say it feels to me that in general the tone of the writing in the new rulebook skews towards a technical/concise aspect as opposed to the imaginative/loosey-goosey tone of 3rd edition and (to a lesser degree) 4th edition.

thanks mate, I am looking forward to this rules set.

any one able to confirm the rapid fire rules as they stand for 5th ed?

cheers

I'm excited, one of the members of our group managed to get a copy of the book and is bringing it to our weekly WHFB game. Any questions still out there that you want me to look up?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Plastic Parody wrote:thanks mate, I am looking forward to this rules set.

any one able to confirm the rapid fire rules as they stand for 5th ed?

cheers

Exactly the same as they are now. Except now if a firing model is within range of any model in the firing unit it any enemy model in that unit (even out of range or LOS) is now a valid casualty.

So if your unit of rapid-firing marines are all within 12" of only 1 Ork in the giant 30-man mob, you will still get to fire at full effect (two shots each) into the whole mob and cause maximum damage (although the Ork player will be able to pull casualties from the back of his mob to make sure he reaches you in combat the next turn too). This of course applies to all shooting, not just from rapid fire weapons.

In short, NO MORE RANGE OR LOS SNIPING (wooooohoooooo).


If the firing unit stood still, those within 12" of the target enemy unit fire twice, those more than 12" away (but up to the maximum range of the weapon) fire once. Individual models in the unit are clearly allowed (forced) to fire this way.

Ooh, I like that. Despite its abstract nature the all or nothing two shots is better for me and a little quicker to sort out mid game.

Thank you very much!

Plastic Parody, that's a really good solution to shooting at troops in open-topped transports. In fact, if there are no rules stating that they are _not_ on the board when inside an open-topped transport, and the models are there to be targeted, that's exactly what would be closest to RAW.

[EDIT: After reading Yak's post of the actual text, it seems that the models are not actually on the table to be shot at. This makes things doubtful again. The RAW seems to not support those models being targetable, even if allowing shots at them makes sense for both balance and reality. Besides, it would make the Dark Eldar cry evil little tears if we could kill their ridiculously exposed transported troops.]

Unfortunately, template weapons are really going to screw those close-packed troops- but if template weapons don't do double hits on open-topped vehicles anymore (can anyone confirm/check that, please?), then the change might be balanced. It makes little sense that the guys riding in the back of a glorified pickup truck should be just as shielded from bullets as the occupants of a Rhino. It is also realistic: mortar hits on open-topped transports at Normandy pretty much killed everything inside, even if the boat didn't sink.

I am getting more and more excited about 5th edition, even if I have to chop up all my skimmers to cut off the useless options.

Savnock wrote:Plastic Parody, that's a really good solution. In fact, if there are no rules stating that they are _not_ on the board when inside an open-topped transport, and the models are there to be targeted, that's exactly what would be closest to RAW.

Unfortunately, template weapons are really going to screw those close-packed troops- but if template weapons don't do double hits on open-topped vehicles anymore (can anyone confirm/check that, please?)

Confirm. Open-topped vehicles only suffer the +1 damage roll, they are no longer vulnerable to blasts.

The only problem about firing at troops in open-topped vehicles (even as a house rule) is that you generally can't fit all the model onto the vehicle so resolving a blast or template weapon is going to require additional house rules.

yakface wrote:

Savnock wrote:Plastic Parody, that's a really good solution. In fact, if there are no rules stating that they are _not_ on the board when inside an open-topped transport, and the models are there to be targeted, that's exactly what would be closest to RAW.

Unfortunately, template weapons are really going to screw those close-packed troops- but if template weapons don't do double hits on open-topped vehicles anymore (can anyone confirm/check that, please?)

Confirm. Open-topped vehicles only suffer the +1 damage roll, they are no longer vulnerable to blasts.

The only problem about firing at troops in open-topped vehicles (even as a house rule) is that you generally can't fit all the model onto the vehicle so resolving a blast or template weapon is going to require additional house rules.

If you're going the house rules-route anyway, just apply the Bunkers rules for templates/blasts.

That's an elegant solution, Janthkin. Too bad it won't be used outside of friendlies.

Aero hobbies has their copy of the 5th edition rulebook and I sat down for a while and looked up some specific questions we had and just browsed through it in general.

I will second what most people have said - artwork is amazing throughout. Tons of diagrams. Very good looking at first glance.

A lot of what I confirmed were things people were saying, but these are completely different that I hadn't noticed anyone posting yet.


1. Skimmers can avoid being rammed on a 3+

2. Non skimmer fast vehicles have a max of 18

3. Walkers always fire as if stationary - ie can fire all their weapons (with usual vehicle rules - no ordnance + others).

4. Going to ground prevents you from doing anything until the end of your following turn.

5. Fearless USR specifically says that you can go to ground.

6. New USR called "Rage"

7. AP- is -1 to the roll

8. Jump infantry have to take a dangerous terrain check if they start or end their move in difficult terrain (presumably can still walk out)

Edit:

9. Different rules for buildings and ruins. You can destroy a (building but not ruins) just like vehicle that turns everything but wrecked or explodes (or whatever it is called) a shaken. If it is wrecked you should replace with ruins if you have them and then, like wrecked vehicles it is both dangerous and difficult. If it is totally destroyed you can replace it with rubble.

neofright wrote:8. Jump infantry have to take a dangerous terrain check if they start or end their move in difficult terrain (presumably can still walk out)

Question is, why would you bother walking?

Better to jump and get out of it entirely than stay in it and eat another dangerous terrain check.

Stelek wrote:

neofright wrote:8. Jump infantry have to take a dangerous terrain check if they start or end their move in difficult terrain (presumably can still walk out)

Question is, why would you bother walking?

Better to jump and get out of it entirely than stay in it and eat another dangerous terrain check.

Maybe it is your last model and the game is near the end and if you walk you can contest an objective? Or maybe you plan on charging something in the terrain you are already in since you can't consolidate into a new combat. There are lots of times, actually that come up while you are playing a game that don't come up when you are just thinking about a game ;-)

Stelek wrote:

You don't think it's an attack? Hmmm...big fan site, you run it, people listen to what you say...and you say 'this bit was great' and then list two pages of 'this sucks'...

If a teacher suggests improvements to an essay or your wife suggests an improvement to a project you are doing is it an attack? Constructive criticism is complementing the good whilst criticing the bad in a manner that allows the conversation to continue and be deabted. Skipped that class in high school? Your posts are getting stranger and stranger lately.

So... what are the rules for vehicles moving and firing?

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:So... what are the rules for vehicles moving and firing?

BYE

Same as what you've heard.

Defensive weapons are S4 and less.

Standard vehicles can stand still and fire all their weapons, move up to 6" and fire one weapon, plus defensive weapons (combat speed) or move up to 12" and fire no weapons (cruising speed).

Fast vehicles can move up to 6" and fire all their weapons (combat speed), move up to 12" and fire one weapon plus all defensive weapons (cruising speed) or move up to 18" and fire no weapons (flat-out). Vehicles that embark or disembark models cannot move flat-out. Fast vehicles that make their entire move on a road may move an extra 6" (24") when moving flat-out.

Fast Skimmers may move up to 24" when moving flat-out. Skimmers gain a 4+ cover save when moving flat-out.

Walkers. . .uh. . .I'm having a brain fart. I think they can fire two weapons like MCs although they may be able to fire all their weapons, I can't remember right now (and I don't have my notes on me).


Most terrain is a 4+ cover save and vehicles must have at least 50% of the armor facing being shot at behind cover (which is explained in detail in the rules) to be considered in cover. Smoke launchers and anything else that provides obscurement give a 4+ cover save.

So, back to Main Battle Bunkers again. Yeah. They were fun in 3rd.

*shakes head*

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:So, back to Main Battle Bunkers again. Yeah. They were fun in 3rd.

*shakes head*

BYE

I know that you (and many other people) don't like this regression, but I really do think it forces players into making game choices with their vehicles about how they want them to perform. I especially like the Skimmer rules that force players to choose between firing or getting the 4+ cover save for moving fast.


I think they could have built player choices into the vehicle system in other ways (such as with cover saves as I'll propose below) and still allowed vehicles to move and fire more but the important factor (IMHO) was just to get that player choice in there in some way.


For example, a pipe-dream idea of mine would be to allow vehicles that move under a certain distance to claim a cover save. The fluff rationale would be that vehicles moving over a certain distance are basically being shot by the enemy while moving from one piece of terrain to another so they don't get the cover save unless they slow down and actually get 'hull down' behind terrain. Smoke Launchers and other wargear that obscure vehicles can still provide a cover save to moving vehicle that normally can't take a cover save.

Defensive weapons would remain at S6 and less.

Vehicles that stand still may fire all their weapons (and can get cover saves). Vehicles that move up to 6" can fire one main weapon and all defensive weapons (but can't take cover saves). Vehicles that move up to 12" can fire no weapons (and can't take cover saves).

Fast vehicles can move up to 6" and fire all their weapons (and get cover saves). Fast vehicles that move up to 12" can fire one main weapon and all defensive weapons (but can't take cover saves), Fast vehicles that move up to 18" can fire no weapons (and can't take cover saves).

Fast Skimmers can move up to 24" instead of 18" and can fire no weapons. Skimmers moving more than 12" get a 4+ cover save for moving fast.


That's about it. . .I think this system would keep important choices on how a player wants to use their vehicle (move fast and lose firepower and protection or move slower to gain more firepower and protection, except for skimmers who can move fast and get the cover save but can't shoot at the same time they do).

Under the new vehicle rules, Battlewagons and KFF just got really nasty. 4+ cover save on my cheap AV 14 vehicle full of Orks?! Yes please! WAAAAAAGH