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.

Do we really think that the 5th Edition PDF that's been leaked and is floating around really going to be the new rules set? I'd hate to take the changes into account, change my army, and then have this turn out to be a load of hooey. What kind of lead time do the rules typically have?

I would use it to prep but as for modeling and buying things that are hinged on something technically nonexistent seems a little ill advised. From past experience i would say the majority of the rumors will be true or true-ish with a few curveballs.

I do have to say they look like a load of bullocks to me. I hope GW can get their groove back like the olden days but w.o reverting to 2nd edition. It is totally stupid to streamline the codices but present more complex rules. To me this is proof GW needs to get a clue.

- G

No doubt it'll be cleaned up somewhat before released, and the missing bits added. I couldn't find the rules for minefields, for example. Still, it would be a hoot to see all the power-gamers try to retool their armies to be "top tier" and watch them fall flat on their faces.

Off-hand, if it is the real deal, then I wonder who the mole in GW headquarters is. The Codex: Orks pdf was exactly what was released, down to its plethora of embarrassing typoes. But this document is at a much earlier stage of development as some diagrams still need insertion or correction, the page background and art/photography is missing, and there's no index or table of contents.

Who knows with these rules but look at the chaos rules alot of those turned out ot be true.

I'd guess that 80% the changes will make their way into 5th when it finally comes out. The PDF gives a good idea of what GW is trying to address with the new edition, so if GW considers something to be a problem, they'll probably continue to pick at it until they have something that addresses it to their satisfaction.

As for tooling armies, there seems premature.

OTOH, it would be sensible to start thinking about changes and buying more Troops.

The thing that irrated me the most were the sprinkled in 3rd (yes third!) edition diagrams in the leaked pdf. I thought dor a while that this could be an early draft for the 4th edition rulebook and everyone got freaked about nothing...

Would be fun.

You know what I like? I like that power fists don't get extra attacks for a pistol or close combat weapon anymore. Ticked me off every time that old rule!

Greets
Schepp himself

I expect 90% of it will be unchanged. 10% can be huge though - the discussions about the leak have shown us that.

It's hard to separate my hopes and my expectations. I hope they change Kill Points because the current system is silly (Orks take out my Command Squad's Drop Pod and score 3 KP, I now need to kill 90 Orks to get the same KP back). But will it be changed? Maybe, but probably not since GW's mouthpieces have been presenting the new missions as completed and something to be excited about.

The devil is always in the details. I agree with John though - you can never go wrong with a solid foundation of Troops. You'll need them one way or the other anyway, so they make sense as a place to focus your time and money while waiting to see what effect 5th edition will have on other units.

Where can one find this PDF? or is that a forbidden question?

Nope, just a forbidden answer. We just won't allow a link to be posted here on Dakka, that's all.

The Total Annihilation rule may encourage to take bigger HQ units like bigger troop units. Maybe it will be the same talk about escalation now. So a rule that will be ignored on tournaments or changed in th edition.

The Ork Codex seem to be even better with the new rules, or am I off road here?

Other than that the ramming rules seem to be a load of fun. I see racing my weaponless falcon through a row of enemy vehicles, especially with star engines! Yay Falconrocket with S10!!

@laserbait: you may have to search...I did...

Greets
Schepp himself

I miss the sustained fire dice and the heavy flamer template.

Some of these rules need to go back to the drawing board, as for bailing out the game...


I don't think so.

It's something to remember that the Ork Codex was written with the 5th edition in mind. Notice the expression of the Slow and Purposeful, for example.

Incidentally using a Falcon to ram other vehicles will be a waste of a Falcon. A Falcon inflicting a S10 hit, (+2 for front armour, +1 for tank, +7 for 21" of movement) on another tank AV12 or more would receive one in turn.

Is a Skimmer a Tank? I thought otherwise...
I was just playing with the idea that you could let lose you falcon on the rear armor of some vehicles.

Greets
Schepp himself

I'll be very disappointed if this represents what the core rules for 40k will be like for the next half decade or so.

Schepp himself wrote:Is a Skimmer a Tank? I thought otherwise...
I was just playing with the idea that you could let lose you falcon on the rear armor of some vehicles.

Greets
Schepp himself

Some skimmers are tanks (e.g. Falcons, Hammerheads) some skimmers are not tanks (e.g. Landspeeders, Piranhas). It says in each individual unit entry whether a given skimmer benefits from being a tank.

Iorek wrote:Nope, just a forbidden answer. We just won't allow a link to be posted here on Dakka, that's all.

I won't even ask the question that has the forbiden answer.

If someone were to happen read my mind and send me a PM pointing me in the right general direction of that which I'm thinking about, I would of course be greatfull, and amazed at their psychic prowess.

Nurglitch-No doubt it'll be cleaned up somewhat before released, and the missing bits added. I couldn't find the rules for minefields, for example. Still, it would be a hoot to see all the power-gamers try to retool their armies to be "top tier" and watch them fall flat on their faces.

That would be a very entertaining sight. Nail meets Hammer perfectly.

Accuracy of the leaked ork pdf was spot on, and it was leaked right around 2 or 3 months from release. This could be very early work indeed, but if its really going to be the summer release, I can see many of these coming to light.

I was under the impression that guys will just dust off their old Tyranids, Rhinos, and assault marines. Unless you guys actually believe that top-tier players sell their stuff every 2-3 years.

I don't believe its 5th ed but rather an Advanced ruleset.

GW has been getting their heads out of their asses and doing a lot of fan service recently, dropping an edition midway for the first time in the companies history seems unlikely.

And if it truely is, then it is an example of GWs head-in-ass-syndrome. The only problem is as usual is it is us the customers that are paying for it.

If the PDF is an advanced rules set, then the base rules must be simplified above and beyond what anyone could ever imagine. Dumbing down wouldn't even cover the butchering of the WH40K rules if they were streamlined to that extent.

As of now, it's not like the PDF has THAT many extra rules. It's just the occational extras, such as ramming and wound allocation before armour saves. At least IMHO there is hardly anything particularly advanced about it.

Ravenous D wrote:I don't believe its 5th ed but rather an Advanced ruleset.

GW has been getting their heads out of their asses and doing a lot of fan service recently, dropping an edition midway for the first time in the companies history seems unlikely.

And if it truely is, then it is an example of GWs head-in-ass-syndrome. The only problem is as usual is it is us the customers that are paying for it.

4th came out in late 2004. The typical gap between editions is 4-5 years. So it's not really a midway drop. Actually I am fairly impressed that they started designing 5th edition at least a year ago. I had imagined they probably bashed together new editions and codexes in a few months.

It will of course prove a huge boost to GW's sales if everyone buys it., which they must expect.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Ravenous D wrote:I don't believe its 5th ed but rather an Advanced ruleset.

GW has been getting their heads out of their asses and doing a lot of fan service recently, dropping an edition midway for the first time in the companies history seems unlikely.

And if it truely is, then it is an example of GWs head-in-ass-syndrome. The only problem is as usual is it is us the customers that are paying for it.

4th came out in late 2004. The typical gap between editions is 4-5 years. So it's not really a midway drop. Actually I am fairly impressed that they started designing 5th edition at least a year ago. I had imagined they probably bashed together new editions and codexes in a few months.

It will of course prove a huge boost to GW's sales if everyone buys it., which they must expect.

Yep. It's interesting to get a glimpse inside the process.

I wish GW had learned from WotC's release of D&D 4e - lots of previews, lots of insight into the design philosophy, teaser art and characters, designer discussions. It's really helped build the D&D 4e hype to a fever pitch and assuaged existing fans.

My sources in GW (which are moderately reliable) have indicated that the game designers are, to a certain degree, getting their act together. They are finally starting to run numbers on some of the probabilities and actually doing up spread sheets and what not to analyze the consequences of their changes. 3rd edition was made with the intention of trying to get armies to engage in short ranged fire fights. They were somewhat successful at this with things like necrons, mech tau, mech eldar, and to some degree sisters of battle and nid zilla. 4th was a clean up of 3rd to get rid of some of the broken ass crap that they let though (rhino rush and the like) and to put in some pendulum effect on things that were not selling well. Apparently, however, they have decided that they want 5th to now push the game towards large infantry squads hence the rules for scoring units and the mission objectives that focus on wiping out whole units. Let’s see if they can manage this while still keeping the game fun and allow for things like tanks to still be useful.

From what I understand, the “leak” was intentional. The game designers simply don’t have the time and brain power to look at things from the million and one different view points that the collective of the internet does. So it looks like they threw it out there for everyone to look at and rumor monger over. Since it was thrown out at such an early stage, it looks like there may be time to actually see some changes between this and the actual book that gets put out other than an update of the diagrams. Hopefully they will actually listen to some of what is said (and ignore other portions, particularly if their internet source is warseer).

Thanks for that info Phoenix. I'm glad to see the rules are getting another look. There's a very good game hidden in there provided they can get rid of the stuff that's obviously broken.

Phoenix wrote:Hopefully they will actually listen to some of what is said (and ignore other portions, particularly if their internet source is warseer).

God help us if they listen to the Wise Men of Warseer. Still, if it is the case that they are opening up the floor to suggestions, it probably would have been more productive if they followed the process that Mr. Johnson pioneered with the design of Epic: Armageddon. Mind you, it would cost extra to open up and run their own message board, and their previous attempt at GW 40k forums that was a mess, but Epic is a damned fine piece of work.

Nurglitch wrote:

Phoenix wrote:Hopefully they will actually listen to some of what is said (and ignore other portions, particularly if their internet source is warseer).

God help us if they listen to the Wise Men of Warseer. Still, if it is the case that they are opening up the floor to suggestions, it probably would have been more productive if they followed the process that Mr. Johnson pioneered with the design of Epic: Armageddon. Mind you, it would cost extra to open up and run their own message board, and their previous attempt at GW 40k forums that was a mess, but Epic is a damned fine piece of work.

I doubt they'll listen to Warseer (or Dakka) directly. Chances are the same people tasked with leaking the document will watch he reactions, collate them and pass on a more generalized set of reactions and the best points to the design team. I doubt Jervis is hitting refresh every five minutes for the last two weeks or reading a 100 pages of dribble.

That would be my approach anyway - find a use for all those interns!

GW doesn't need their own forums either. They've had a symbiotic relationship with B&C and Druchii.net in the past in terms of rules revisions. There's nothing that direct this time, but the discussion is still probably producing the intended result.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm with GW on this one--
my leaks are always intentional.

(except when they're not)

Asmodai: Hmm, I should make an application. I could do with some more consultation work on the side.