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.

Folks,

Just found this over at BOLS, and as always very interesting and well presented. Originally posted by bigred, and thanks to BOLS. (Apologies to the Mods, and please delete, if someone's already beat me to it...)

Cheers,

Padre^.


Rumors brought to the comunity by warseer's Brimstone:

~Following up on the last set of 5th Edition rumors we see this new updated list with even more morsels for us to chew on. Lets dive right in:

5th’ edition 40K is due for release in 2008 although we have conflicting reports about the release date, it’s going to be either summer or more probably autumn (GDUK 08).

There will be a new rulebook and new starter set which will be Orks vs marines, it will include both troops and vehicles (a marine dreadnought is likely and possibly others). The 3up grot seen at UKGD ’07 is also for the starter box.

Rumoured rules amendments
1. the addition of a ‘run’ option (similar to fleet but with a trade off to keep fleet special).
2. Improvements to the cover save rules.
3. Rending toned down (auto wound if you roll a 6 to wound & reduction in effectiveness against vehicles).
4. Template(Blast) weapons rules streamlined.
5. Sniper weapons rules amended (rending probable)
6. Close combat rules amended with a combat resolution phase similar to fantasy
7. Single vehicle damage table.
8. Vehicles without a WS in CC always get hit in the rear armour.
9. Vehicles able to ram
10. Other vehicle amendments
11. Mission rules changed in a similar manner to Apocalypse (no more Alpha, Gamma or Omega).
12. Only non vehicle non swarm troop choices are scoring units (Note I did not say infantry)
13. Vehicles types are adjusted (the rumoured skimmer nerf)

Overall the ruleset hasn’t changed dramatically but areas have been clarified, streamlined and in some cases brought closer to 2nd edition. I’ll add to the list as we hear more.

Don’t forget these are rumours and should not be treated as the truth.

~Wow, this latest set promises to really shake up the game. In particular, the restriction of scoring units to TROOPS only willl turn the tournament scene on its head! -bigred

Here's hoping they incorporate COD template rules into the main ruleset. Hopefully they clear up the soda can/base area confusion while they're at it.

This was posted as an update in the original 5th ed thread. People are discussion the merits of #12 in particular.

Alright, I know this is News and Rumours, but here is where I say that rumours are only rumours and we've probably got a case of broken telephone going on, and here's why:

rumour wrote:12. Only non vehicle non swarm troop choices are scoring units (Note I did not say infantry)

Seems pretty cut and dry, troop choices are troops. However, as is being discussed, the word 'troop' is ambiguous from certain perspectives even in 40k.

My argument is simple, if they mean 'Troops Choices' as in the units that take up Troops slots in the standard Force Organization chart, then why include "non-vehicle"? There isn't a single army in the game that can take vehicles as troops choices except as transports, which already don't count as scoring units, and so naming them as part of a rule change would be redundant. If that read "Only non-swarm Troops choices can claim objectives" then that would be much more clear cut, it's the inclusion of the vehicle part that has me guessing as to the intentions.

Basically it boils down to this, whether or not the word 'troops' is being used out of context here or if it actually means Troops choices. Based on the wording of the rest of the sentence I'm thinking it's more likely that troops was used ambiguously. But I enjoy arguing little details.

It was clarified by the rumor psoter that "troops" = Troops on the FOC, not "infantry". So BA Assault Marines, Eldar Jetbikes would count.

The "non-Vehicle" bit protects against future possibility of a Walker being available as Troops.

If I take a big mek for orks leader and he makes a dreadnaught a troops choice, does that mean he still cant capture?

The "non-Vehicle" bit protects against future possibility of a Walker being available as Troops.

...or it's just another way to say the transports of troop choices aren't scoring units.

As Orock points out, there is alreayd an example of a Walker that's available as a Troop choice.

8#Vehicles without a WS in CC always get hit in the rear armour.
so let me get this right if a unit with a fist charges 6" and reaches the front of my russ AV14 it counts as AV 10!!!
sorrry one word bull sorry crying in pillow now

this means a guards men with S6 fist hit the front of my russ at AV 10 i now people wrap around to the sides yes we all do, but there is "blue moons" where you make it to the front and thats it. sorry for the edit just to rant
this my help with stopping tank shock

tegeus-Cromis wrote:As Orock points out, there is alreayd an example of a Walker that's available as a Troop choice.

And Ravenwing Tornados.

skullspliter888 wrote:8#Vehicles without a WS in CC always get hit in the rear armour.
so let me get this right if a unit with a fist charges 6" and reaches the front of my russ AV14 it counts as AV 10!!!
sorrry one word bull sorry crying in pillow now

It probably reflects that when you reach the tank you leap onto it to stick that big fist through the tank top rather than the heavy frontal armor. Rear armor just reflects the top.

Turtle wrote:
My argument is simple, if they mean 'Troops Choices' as in the units that take up Troops slots in the standard Force Organization chart, then why include "non-vehicle"? There isn't a single army in the game that can take vehicles as troops choices except as transports, which already don't count as scoring units, and so naming them as part of a rule change would be redundant. If that read "Only non-swarm Troops choices can claim objectives" then that would be much more clear cut, it's the inclusion of the vehicle part that has me guessing as to the intentions.

Because if they are changing the scoring mechanism then there may no even be such a thing as 'scoring units' in the strict sense. The new definition is essentially the definition of scoring unit, so they exclude vehicles to keep out transports.

@puree now that makes sense if the tanks doesn't move, but if it was tank shocking you it would be hard to jump on its roof. now it may make a fist armed guards men or kark grenades something to think about . hhmmm thanks puree now that i think about it it makes sense

Please continue your discussion in this thread, as it's covering the same subject.

Thank you.