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.

The rumored changes:

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 (rending i.e. auto wound/no armour save on 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)

Now lets combine these with a bit of game theory and we might bow before GWs foresight in a while.

Lets start with what we have now: The problem with 40k right now is that people are pushed towards massing certain types of untis. Nidzilla with as many TMCs as possible or All-Skimmer-lists from Eldar are known examples. The reason is that one cant have too much of a good thing at the moment. Once a unit is slightly undercosted, the tourney player has little incentive to take less then the maximum ammont.

And cooky cutter lists are even rewarded by the fact that the more of one thing you field, the less likely your opponent will have enough specialised weapons (anti tank / anti TMC etc...) to deal with it in an allcomers setting. As we know, this leads to a rather one dimensional game regarding list building and ingame-tactics: Figure out which units are slightly undercosted -> Take as many of these as possible -> play the same 1-3 tactics every game, no matter what your opponent does.

The solution to this problem is not(!) to nerf a certain unit from a specific codex, because people will simply figure out the next best unit and mass that instead. An example for this is the change from Rhino-rush in 3rd Ed to Falcon-rush nowerdays.


The solution is to change the fact that if one unit is good, everyone is pushed towards using as many of it as possible. An example are Skimmers and Terrain. Terrain is limited, so allthough a single Falcon is good, the more you take, the more your Falcons will suffer from a lack of terrain. As we know limited-terrain effects are not enough to discourage 3 Falcons in todays successful tourney lists, so we need more mechanics that make massing inefficient.

My guess is that 5th Edition changes, if done right, will make massing a thing of the past at least among top-lists:

12. Only non vehicle non swarm troop choices are scoring units
-> This creates a strong incentive to use troops.

Now we need a mechanism that prevents mass-troops from being the most powerful thing in the world. I expect this will be done by improving non-troop units, to a degree, where few elite/heavy support choices can spell doom to all-troop armys. Imagine Demolishers killing walking infantry in droves, or Harlequins eating through whole unsupported gunlines.

4. Template(Blast) weapons rules streamlined.
7. Single vehicle damage table.
10. Other vehicle amendments
-> I expect templates to be more devastating then now and vehicles that are harder to shake by shooting. Vindiactors, Fire Prisms, Demolishers etc. will force opposing players into tactics that go beyond "as many scoring troops as possible".

Now we need a mechanism that prevents 3 Template-Tanks in every list. I expect its going to be the following roumored change:

8. Vehicles without a WS in CC always get hit in the rear armour.
-> This means that tanks, while great offensive weapons at range, struggle against multiple attackers in close quarters. Cool isnt it? Sounds almost like real world warfare. Nice changes arise here: Redeplyoment per transport will work as it should, but running Transports into enemy lines unsupported (Rhino-rush/Falcon-rush) will likely result in assaulted and deastroyed transports, even against unequipped str4 opponents.

Vehicles being strong at range but weak at close combat also creates reasons to deversify lists even more: People will be encouraged to use Fast Attack to assault enemy tanks.

Conclusion: At the moment pretty much all units in an army have basicly the same role on the battlefield. Its "kill the opponent and then take whatever objective there was". In 5th edition I hope for different battlefield roles: Troops for scoring and the other choices in a complex rock-paper-scissors game. For example Elites and Heavy Support for killing troops, and Fast Attack for killing Heavy Support etc.. This hopefully leads to a situation where the in-game value of a certain unit is not primarily defined by its power per points, but by the momentary importance of its specific battlefield role.

Ideally the rules should encourage players to take enough troops, but not too many. Enough heavy support units, but not too many, etc.. This way themed armys are still doable, but will mostly lose to ballanced forces led by evenly skilled players. Once ballanced armys become the top contenders, there will likely be more tactical depth in list building as well as in-game decisions.

and the end time is here for the skimmer lol. wow my IG may kick some in the future .
Raider still no date and is there a new IG codex in there?

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

Oh good, more marine lists.

Raider, I salute your optimism. Your totally wrong-headed but refreshing optimism, that its.

I fail to see any disincentive to cookie-cutters in those changes. In fact, here come the boyz/marines/necron warrior blocks/identical IG. Only troops scoring will homogenize the game in new ways, not encourage mixed forces. No other unit is going to get strengthened to counter the legions of identical troops, as that would throw game balance even more. Swallow the spider to catch the fly, etc. And those mass-troop-killers will be non-scoring, so worth less beyond their offensive capability.

The problem is min/maxing, not the ruleset. No ruleset is proof against that practice.

Also, skimmers may get slightly downgraded, but they're less affected by the CC thingy (unless it gets easier to hit moving vehicles, which would be downright silly).

I'm way into lots of the other changes, though. I've come 'round on the CC vs. vehicles change. And weaker rending and better snipers sound cool.

The polish work will be nice, but the under-the-hood monkeying looks ominous.

Hope springs eternal.

In my case, I am expecting a lot more Troops to be fielded than current today. But I don't think this means the end to massed whatnots of any type. Particularly as non-Troops are generally fight / move / shoot considerably better than Troops do.

I don't foresee any boost to non-Troops - they're good enough already that they don't need boosting to be taken.

I think it may be a viable strategy to field two or three small units of troops for last-minute grabs, and keep the bulk of the points in the units that actually do the business.

I think having two to three small units for last minute grabs being a disaster. Any sensible opponent will realise only minimal casualties are needed to stop them being scoring units, and once you've stopped the opposition being able to score, all you need to do is keep your's safe!

Imagine Marine player A, has taken 3 6 man laz/plaz units, the rest is all in elites, HS. HQ etc.

Horde player player B (Orks, guard, nids) has invested half his points in troops. They Horde player only needs to inflict 12 casualties to get every marine unit below half strangth, a couple of well placed plasma cannon equivalents and they horde player wins by default!

Take into the equation combat squads could come in for marines, so a 5 man squad needs only 3 cas, and suddenly large units holding an objective is very viable.

Raider wrote:The rumored changes:

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)

The true effect of rumor 12 has to be taken in the context of rumor 11. I am discounting anyones complaining/celebration regarding 12, since we don't know anything about either other than what is written above, until we know more.

If the number of objectives is less or they are defined differently than they are now then it makes a big difference in the effect of 12. It would make more sense (not that I think GW will do the sensical thing) if each game there were multiple goals, perhaps prioritized in some way) that each result in some number of points:
troops grabbing objectives
assassinate an enemy character
get a unit into enemy deployment zone

Those are pretty standard, but you could come up with any number. Give each side certain random objectives, more than they could accomplish by an average player, and then let the player figure out how to accomplish as much as possible.

Thinking on that I hope it goes a bit back to 2nd ed when you had different mission cards, especially if your opponent didn't know what it was.

So say you could have player one attempting a 'dawn raid' objective i) get as many scoring units into your opponents deployment zone. objective ii) eliminate opposing HQ (the one with the radio's etc) objective iii) eliminate opponents fast attack options (they'd be the ones chasing you).

Whilst your opponent may have 'high ground' objective i) control the three highest points on the board. objective ii) Bring additional heavy support choice to high ground objective already held (to provide covering fire for troops) objective iii) destroy enemy heavy support (their ability to return fire).

Thats wishfull thinking but would be fun

It'll make a big difference if they change how long units count as scoring. In CoD, a unit at 25% or more of its original strength still counts as scoring. If that becomes the norm in 5th edition, you virtually have to wipe the squads out to drop them to non-scoring status.

I mention this b/c I heard that lots of the CoD rules will find their way into 5th edition. That, too, is just a rumor I've heard floating around.

I've been thinking about *how* they could streamline the template weapons... does anyone remember the old Cityfight rules? You had a chart for the amount of wounds they did instead of counting the number of models. Something like this:

Flamer d6 hits
Small Blast d3 hits
Large Blast 2d6 hits

That would certainly speed things up. You would just measure range and roll to see how many hits you got.

The only problem I see with this method is it would nullify the "spreading" effect facing a lot of template weapons has. There would then be little incentive to NOT packing your models in a small a space as possible.

So I was reading another forum thread about how to kill an Empire Steam Tank in fantasy and I had no idea that it took wounds and used "Steam Points" to operate (never read the new Empire Army book). This just seems so logical to me. Why can't the vehicles in 40k work like this? It would help resolve the MC problem of "Freem... I'm ok. Freem... I'm ok. Freem... I'm ok. Freem... I'm ok. Freem... Ah damn, I'm dead" and vehicles receiving a hard stare to prevent them from shooting. And don't give me that "It's too complicated, 40k needs to be streamlined more" crap. C'mon guys, how many people do you play with in your local stores wear helmets and drool on their minis not because they are gorgeously painted but because they aren't firing on all cylinders. Vehicles need a boost in 5th edition. The idea of vehicle the size of a Quickie Mart rolling around in a Wal-Mart sized parking lot firing beams of pure energy should be terrifying and yet it's not.

The Green Git wrote:I've been thinking about *how* they could streamline the template weapons... does anyone remember the old Cityfight rules? You had a chart for the amount of wounds they did instead of counting the number of models. Something like this:

Flamer d6 hits
Small Blast d3 hits
Large Blast 2d6 hits

That would certainly speed things up. You would just measure range and roll to see how many hits you got.

The only problem I see with this method is it would nullify the "spreading" effect facing a lot of template weapons has. There would then be little incentive to NOT packing your models in a small a space as possible.

That and totally nullifies any difference in template effectiveness between large tightly packed hordes and small spread out elites. (Think Boyz mob vs Terminator squad)

the template rule or good the way there are . they could try to define partially better. is it half the base or quarter of the base etc.

I am not entirely convinced only troops choices will be scoring units. 1st there are lists that manipulate the troop selections. 2nd the Chaos codex says Spawn can not hold objectives. Why have that in there if they new 5th edition wouldn't let them hold objectives anyway.

It seems more likely that vehicles and monsterous creatures will not be allowed to hold objectives. This keeps more in line with the chaos changes to spawn and even Daemon Princes/Greater Daemons who lost their IC status.

TragicNut wrote:

The Green Git wrote:I've been thinking about *how* they could streamline the template weapons... does anyone remember the old Cityfight rules? You had a chart for the amount of wounds they did instead of counting the number of models. Something like this:

Flamer d6 hits
Small Blast d3 hits
Large Blast 2d6 hits

That would certainly speed things up. You would just measure range and roll to see how many hits you got.

The only problem I see with this method is it would nullify the "spreading" effect facing a lot of template weapons has. There would then be little incentive to NOT packing your models in a small a space as possible.

That and totally nullifies any difference in template effectiveness between large tightly packed hordes and small spread out elites. (Think Boyz mob vs Terminator squad)

and it would speed up gameplay since every model wouldn't always need to be 2" apart.

it would remove the fun of deep striking terminators vs 2 plasma cannons

Removing templates is highly unlikely since Apocalypse came with new ones. The current thread is not to remove them.

The problem with 40k right now is that people are pushed towards massing certain types of untis.

Agreed. If the march rule comes into play Orks will be top tier.

- G

Savnock wrote:Raider, I salute your optimism. Your totally wrong-headed but refreshing optimism, that its.

I fail to see any disincentive to cookie-cutters in those changes. In fact, here come the boyz/marines/necron warrior blocks/identical IG. Only troops scoring will homogenize the game in new ways, not encourage mixed forces. No other unit is going to get strengthened to counter the legions of identical troops, as that would throw game balance even more. Swallow the spider to catch the fly, etc. And those mass-troop-killers will be non-scoring, so worth less beyond their offensive capability.

The problem is min/maxing, not the ruleset. No ruleset is proof against that practice.

Also, skimmers may get slightly downgraded, but they're less affected by the CC thingy (unless it gets easier to hit moving vehicles, which would be downright silly).

I'm way into lots of the other changes, though. I've come 'round on the CC vs. vehicles change. And weaker rending and better snipers sound cool.

The polish work will be nice, but the under-the-hood monkeying looks ominous.

No, you really can’t argue against the underlying theory argued by Raider. Many games, such as FoW, do not suffer from lists spamming one or two units dominating play. There are still overpriced and underpriced units, but lists spamming one or two units aren’t as viable because the different unit types are very good at different things, and you need the abilities of each unit type to succeed. I’ve seen people take lists where almost all the points were consumer by a couple of King Tigers, and they lose constantly to balanced armies capable of surrounding the tigers with smoke and running infantry units up to seize objectives.

Min-maxing is a common problem in games. But in games with units with genuinely unique abilities, the problem is far less severe than 40K’s current ‘find whatever gives the most bang for your buck and take as much of it as you can’ form of army list design.

The rumoured execution, on the other hand, is ripe for criticism. It’s an extreme change, which taken at face value will produce a number of absurd situations, and is likely to lead to optimum lists featuring almost entirely troops.

To continue the parallel troops in FoW have very limited offensive ability, especially at range, and only limited mobility. You’re paying for their durability and ability to dislodged enemy units from objectives. In FoW, a troop heavy army would have no ability to threaten enemy armour at range, and would need guns, tanks or artillery to threaten the enemy and stop them moving at will. In 40k, though, a troops unit is likely to have a lascannon, giving it all the ranged AT it needs. A troop heavy 40k list will have six scoring units, and each of them can be fairly damanging to the enemyy.

The suggested change could be part of successful 40K design, but only as part of redesigning 40K and its codices entirely. As a running change to a game built around significantly different game design principles, it’s a nightmare.

Personally, I’d change deployment to have infantry deploy first. The area of deployment would be much larger, and would see a lot of units deployed on objectives. This represents the line of skirmish, filled by regular troops. All other units would then deploy during the first and second turn as per the apocalypse reserves rules (50% one turn, 50% the next), coming on from their friendly board edge. This represents the quality units held in reserve and only being released once an engagement has begun.

Give troops a couple of bonus rules such as the current concealment rule (which they would keep until they shoot or move) and suddenly troops are an essential part of the first line of defence, needed to hold objectives and threaten enemy objectives early in the game.

Some individual units, like melee ‘fex would be nearly useless in these rules, but they’re fairly useless anyway. And it would only be a problem with an individual unit, unlike the rumoured change which seems likely to break whole codices. There’d be other problems with finding a place in the game for mechanized infantry, but I’d have to see the game in play to know if such a problem really exists.

Suddenly you'd have a whole new role for infantry units, without anything as dramatic or arbitrary as the rumoured changes.

Sebster-

I see where you're going, and agree that a game wherein "you need the abilities of each unit type to succeed" would be more fun than current 40K. Even 1st person shooters have varied towards a multi-role setup to allow players to have fun witnessing the results of skill synergy.

However, what i'm ponint out is that unit choice is not the cause of the problem (homogenous lists), but a result. The cause is not lack of variety in viable unit choice. As others have just pointed out more eloquently than i, the problem is a narrow set of victory conditions (killing stuff and static objective grabbing).

Varying the sorts of goals that are meant to be reached, and varying them widely, will make for a more rounded game. It will prevent narrow purpose-building of lists, and encourage units for contingencies rather than simple resilience and killing power vs. other predictable lists.

I can argue against the theory that Raider (and you) advance:

You're right, but about the wrong thing.

Maybe mission cards are _too_ widely varying, but the multiple varied simultaneous objectives (appropriate to the scenario, ideally) that ptlangley suggests sound just right. If that's not the way that 4th ed. missions shake out, I'll be using some houserules like that. Thanks, ptlangley!

Maybe the mission cards idea would be good as a mini-scenario. I skipped 2nd ed., and never got the chance to try that out.

Stormtrooper X wrote:C'mon guys, how many people do you play with in your local stores wear helmets and drool on their minis not because they are gorgeously painted but because they aren't firing on all cylinders. quote]

apparently that's the norm for Jervis Jr and his crew.. which is all that matters.

Savnock;

I can see more varied mission cards spicing games up with some more variety, though care would have to be taken to avoid missions being but one-off, novelty affairs. However, I can’t see how varied missions would have a significant impact on army lists. As it currently stands, I take my winged hive tyrant because he’s good at closing with the enemy and killing them, which is the exact same reason I take my ‘stealers and raveners. To deal with enemy tanks I take my walking tyrant and ‘fex. I can’t really see how different missions will change this.

As a result, I’m just not convinced various missions will have any impact on the variety of army lists. What objectives do you think lead to new tactical considerations? Exactly which units would become more or less valuable in achieving these objectives?

Okay, maybe killing things is the unavoidable central goal. but what if the enemy may still achieve their multiple goals (killing your HQ, getting units into your deployment zone, etc.) with a few evasive or purposed units while you're busy killing the bulk of their army? the game might still end up a draw. And if achieveing those goals becomes more important than victory points gained through kills, that would really change things.

So, say, your opponent is directed to hold the center at all costs while also killing all your HS units. Meanwhile you have to move a token across the battlefield with an HS unit while also contesting the center. No points are given for other achievements. The game becomes about protecting one of your units even more than killing his.

I'm thinking that the removal of Alpha/etc. levels might mean that the usual points-per-model-killed measure might be out in some cases, like an Alpha fight.

Given that crippling your enemy makes achieving their goals more difficult, but that might also make you ignore your own. As long as the goals are conflicting, they don't necessarily have to be purely about carnage.

No doubt carnage will still have a place, though. I mean, it had better!

I'd put in both template resolution systems. Either template or d(whatever), whichever the attacker decides to use. Make templates better, still keeping quick resolution, and also keep people somewhat spread out but not so that you always have to be a 2 inch coherency.

Savnock wrote:Okay, maybe killing things is the unavoidable central goal. but what if the enemy may still achieve their multiple goals (killing your HQ, getting units into your deployment zone, etc.) with a few evasive or purposed units while you're busy killing the bulk of their army? the game might still end up a draw. And if achieveing those goals becomes more important than victory points gained through kills, that would really change things.

So, say, your opponent is directed to hold the center at all costs while also killing all your HS units. Meanwhile you have to move a token across the battlefield with an HS unit while also contesting the center. No points are given for other achievements. The game becomes about protecting one of your units even more than killing his.

It would likely make for a more interesting game, depending on execution. But it really wouldn’t do much to improve the current situation of min-maxxing lists. Ultimately, if every unit is capable of the same things (holding objectives, carrying objectives up the field, whatever else) then the only differentiating factor is the ability of units to kill things and survive damage. As a result the best units will be the best units regardless of the mission. Change it up so that only certain units can achieve certain missions, and different units will become more or less important dependant on the mission.

In your example, the best lists to complete the mission are probably still ‘nidzilla and 3 falcon eldar. They’re mobile and tough, which is what you need to get the objective up to the end of the field, and they can kill stuff as they go. But what if only certain units, such as infantry, could physically escort that token up the field? And there isn’t one token, but three? Suddenly the elder and ‘nidzilla armies needs to start deploying infantry units, and a list built around spamming falcons or carnifex won’t be so dominant. Horde ‘zilla and IG would suddenly look a lot more useful.

I'm thinking that the removal of Alpha/etc. levels might mean that the usual points-per-model-killed measure might be out in some cases, like an Alpha fight.

Alpha is presently a step towards changing the game so that sheer destructive ability becomes less important. For a while I was running a tyranid list with 12 scoring units at 1,000 points… it was an interesting experiment that ultimately met with predictably poor results, I had strong success in alpha games but was only somewhat competitive at higher points costs. And that was in a largely social gaming environment, in a really cut and thrust tournament situation I doubt the list would last long at all, even at alpha level.

Ultimately alpha only comes up 1 game in 3. Change it so alpha is the dominant form of play, or so that low cost scoring units are always useful, and suddenly the game works in a wholly different way.

Given that crippling your enemy makes achieving their goals more difficult, but that might also make you ignore your own. As long as the goals are conflicting, they don't necessarily have to be purely about carnage.

Sure, but I’m not arguing against a more complex mission structure, I really think a more complicated mission structure would be welcome. But ultimately that mission structure will succeed if it manages to do what the ‘troops as scoring’ rule change attempts, make different units good at different things.

No doubt carnage will still have a place, though. I mean, it had better!

Absolutely! A better tactical game is always better, but it shouldn’t ever get in the way of mood of 40k. Much of that 40k mood is sheer, meat-headed brutality .

I predict if this type of ruleset change occurs, Godzilla nids and Necrons will become the best armies and will be nearly unstoppable.

Thank you Mr. Single Vehicle Damage Chart Man for making the venom cannon the best antitank gun in the game.

for tanks they should be able to fire all weapons and at two different targets if tanks in the real world can why not the future?
i think with one vehicles damage chart tanks well suck in less there is no more glancing you have to beat the armor to kill the tank

sebster wrote:I’ve seen people take lists where almost all the points were consumer by a couple of King Tigers, and they lose constantly to balanced armies capable of surrounding the tigers with smoke and running infantry units up to seize objectives.

I wonder how an army composed entirely of StuG III would do...

In 40k, though, a troops unit is likely to have a lascannon, giving it all the ranged AT it needs. A troop heavy 40k list will have six scoring units, and each of them can be fairly damanging to the enemyy.

Sorta, but not so much that you'd take as many without the Troops = Scoring rule.

Personally, I’d change deployment to have infantry deploy first. The area of deployment would be much larger, and would see a lot of units deployed on objectives. This represents the line of skirmish, filled by regular troops. All other units would then deploy during the first and second turn as per the apocalypse reserves rules (50% one turn, 50% the next), coming on from their friendly board edge.

Isn't this just tweaked Escalation?

Some individual units, like melee ‘fex would be nearly useless in these rules, but they’re fairly useless anyway.

The Nid book needs a rewrite anyways.

This thread is like a bad spin off series..