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.

Scooped from Stonefox who scooped it from Warseer.

The gist of it is that the PDF that's been floating around is definitely not the final rules set, but you'll have to hit the Warseer link to see more.

So screening just gives a 4+ cover save now.

I guess GW really doesn’t like shooting. Although I can understand that to a degree, losing a unit that does nothing is kind of lame, but having impotent shooting followed by getting bitched slapped in assault is just as bad.

Looks like weapons that ignore cover will be popular. I guess someone had to use the incendiary rounds for the whirlwind at some point.

some sort of modified "overwatch" rule would be nice. return fire or something like that. where a stationary unit that has done nothing in the previous turn (or the beginning of the game) can shoot at an assaulting unit that is in "open space." there is nothing worse than watching a horde army do a one turn assault on our army starting out of range of shooting and ending up getting extra attacks on the assaut. ouch.

Ravenous D wrote:So screening just gives a 4+ cover save now.

I guess GW really doesn’t like shooting. Although I can understand that to a degree, losing a unit that does nothing is kind of lame, but having impotent shooting followed by getting bitched slapped in assault is just as bad.

Looks like weapons that ignore cover will be popular. I guess someone had to use the incendiary rounds for the whirlwind at some point.

Or indirect fire. Could mortars finally be worthwhile?

Ravenous D wrote:So screening just gives a 4+ cover save now.

This actually sounds good to me, it penalizes choosing to shoot the farther units without making it easy for high LD units over low LD units.

Blast rules are different too

Roll the scatter dice, if you roll an arrow the shot scatters 2D6 (or 2D6, pick the highest - this one's unclear) minus the firers ballistic skill in that direction.

Shocking!

Did anybody really think that the leaked PDF was "the final rules".

I still like the way things are going though.

Well it's less slowed than 4th edition or the PDF rule so I suppose that makes it an improvement; somehow. It's still a sucky rule though. Maybe the equally slowed strength 4 defensive weapons rule is different too.

i like the screening rule (orks are going to be nastier!) also as far as the blast goes i hope it's 2D6 choose the highest minus BS as other wise even as BS4 ou're going to scatter about 3 inches

jfrazell wrote:

Ravenous D wrote:So screening just gives a 4+ cover save now.

I guess GW really doesn’t like shooting. Although I can understand that to a degree, losing a unit that does nothing is kind of lame, but having impotent shooting followed by getting bitched slapped in assault is just as bad.

Looks like weapons that ignore cover will be popular. I guess someone had to use the incendiary rounds for the whirlwind at some point.

Or indirect fire. Could mortars finally be worthwhile?

Doubtful because cover is going to be 4+ for pretty much everything while ruins give 3+.

3rd edition cover was meh, 5+ was the norm
4th edition cover is important, 4+ is the norm
5th edition cover is EXTREMELY important, they're handing out 3+ and 4+ like its going out of fashion.

Makes sense though because cover is extremely important in mordern war, although I imagine we would rethink a few things if we brought in 8 ft fully armoured mad men swinging axes with a 5 foot span into the picture.

I had a chance to look through the rules and had a couple comments.

Does anyone think the vehicles (ie transports) are becoming more viable yet? I don't see it, but maybe i am missing something.

The rerolls for higher BS skills is also a rather interesting idea.

Ravenous D wrote:3rd edition cover was meh, 5+ was the norm
4th edition cover is important, 4+ is the norm
5th edition cover is EXTREMELY important, they're handing out 3+ and 4+ like its going out of fashion.

Price of Cameleoline just went up, gentlemen.

(not the points cost, per se, the value of Cameleoline in a 3+ cover save environment...)

The price of Cameoline was already high enough for Guardsmen.

I thought only bunkers and other enclosed fortifications gave a 3+ cover save? Ruins I thought were still 4+.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

two_heads_talking wrote:some sort of modified "overwatch" rule would be nice. return fire or something like that. where a stationary unit that has done nothing in the previous turn (or the beginning of the game) can shoot at an assaulting unit that is in "open space." there is nothing worse than watching a horde army do a one turn assault on our army starting out of range of shooting and ending up getting extra attacks on the assaut. ouch.

Agreed entirely.

I've been waiting for someone to "scoop" this. I own a game store and I was talking to my GW rep about a month ago wrt the leaked rules PDF (which of course they knew about). He told me at that stage that the version doing the round was over a year old

Of course, he wouldn't tell me what's changed from that document to the one he had

Viperion

His Master's Voice wrote:Blast rules are different too

Roll the scatter dice, if you roll an arrow the shot scatters 2D6 (or 2D6, pick the highest - this one's unclear) minus the firers ballistic skill in that direction.

Does this explain why blastmasters are so expensive?

So let's list what ignores cover saves:

Crack Shot
flame templates
Strength D weapons in Apocalypse

What else?

And that blast change is actually pretty slick. my hopes have just gone way, way up.

will the 4+ save be anything like the old grot save?

if you make your 4+, you must remove a model in a unit you just shot through? Even friend units?

I doubt it (too confusing) but would represent current warfare and the amount of friendly fire casualties.

Everyone keeps bringing up firing through friendly units.

If you shoot through enemy screening units, remvoing models from the screening unit become a bonus. Basically giving twice the bang for each shot.

Well I missed those genestealers 6 times, so now I'll test to see if I hit any of those guants with those 6 shots

It would reward shooting through units, and I don't think that is something they intend to do.

The rule as is gives you a way to shoot at the unit you want, but at the price of giving them a 4+ save.

Viperion wrote:I've been waiting for someone to "scoop" this. I own a game store and I was talking to my GW rep about a month ago wrt the leaked rules PDF (which of course they knew about). He told me at that stage that the version doing the round was over a year old

Of course, he wouldn't tell me what's changed from that document to the one he had

Viperion

FWIW, the .PDF that I've seen shows a "last modified" date of July 2007.

Vale,

JohnS

Savnock wrote:So let's list what ignores cover saves:

Crack Shot
flame templates
Strength D weapons in Apocalypse

What else?

And that blast change is actually pretty slick. my hopes have just gone way, way up.

The Tau have a weapon, the Airburst Fragmentation Launcher or something, that ignores cover.

Tau can also reduce the cover save with markerlights.

I don't know how the effect of markerlights and the submunition large blast from the Railgun will combine.

Question is if this cover save is granted in both directions.

Like it more than the total blocking of sight. You can shoot the guys hiding behind, but half of your shots will get wasted, so think about blasting the front guys first...

Combine that with the fact that you can allocate wounds to the whole squad if you just see one model, screening will be possible, but hard to abuse.

I'm very excited about the new rules, when do they come out? Summer? Fall?

Greets
Schepp himself

Ravenous D wrote:

jfrazell wrote:
Or indirect fire. Could mortars finally be worthwhile?

Doubtful because cover is going to be 4+ for pretty much everything while ruins give 3+.

3rd edition cover was meh, 5+ was the norm
4th edition cover is important, 4+ is the norm
5th edition cover is EXTREMELY important, they're handing out 3+ and 4+ like its going out of fashion.

Makes sense though because cover is extremely important in mordern war, although I imagine we would rethink a few things if we brought in 8 ft fully armoured mad men swinging axes with a 5 foot span into the picture.

Regular mortars let the target his armour save most of the time. So a 4+ cover won't make a significant difference from before.
Moreover, a special rule will be needed, saying that a unit hidden behind another, gains no cover save against indirect barrages. Otherwise it will be completely illogical. Hope GW design team will not forget about that.
Mortars will benefit from auto-hit on partially covered models, and from massive troop emphasis of this edition.
Will this be enough ?


Thinking of importance of cover saves, here is a problem with the modification of targeting we speak of. Shooting at a unit which is already in cover will result in no penalities at all ! I don't like it. The future situation will be pretty the same as actually : nearly no restrictions. At last, the beta-test PDF rule was straightforward, and was based on a priority target concept. A pretty good modelisation of troop tendancy to shoot on a most urgent target in a given direction.

Ravenous D wrote:

Doubtful because cover is going to be 4+ for pretty much everything while ruins give 3+.

3rd edition cover was meh, 5+ was the norm
4th edition cover is important, 4+ is the norm
5th edition cover is EXTREMELY important, they're handing out 3+ and 4+ like its going out of fashion.

Makes sense though because cover is extremely important in mordern war, although I imagine we would rethink a few things if we brought in 8 ft fully armoured mad men swinging axes with a 5 foot span into the picture.

The evil part of my brain recalls that GW is making more terrain kits these days. It further notes that the rationale for the last fantast edition was (besides the usual churning and forced upgrade) to rewrite the rules so players could use the new terrain kits out.

It's really a shame how blatant GW is about writing rules to sell products, fun and playability be damned.

You must have forgotten to take your optimism pill this morning.

You can't blame GW for wanting to invent and sell more products. A lot of players will welcome more easy-build terrain. GW tries to be a "one stop shop" for wargaming (as long as it's their games of course.)

No-one complained about Cities Of Death and the Gothic ruins kits that came out at the same time.

Besides, the new rules might actually work well.

FWIW, the .PDF that I've seen shows a "last modified" date of July 2007.

Vale,

JohnS

that just means that's when the particular copy of that PDF was made, when a new copy of an existing document is created the "last modifed" date is the date of creation, the original PDF could be 10 years old at that point.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention on the subject of sales and rules changes that GW is a PUBLISHER of games, the same way as if EA owned maxis and puplished The Sims. GW's job is to find useable systems to flog the miniatures that are actually produced by Citadel.

KIL KIL KIL wrote:Oh yeah, forgot to mention on the subject of sales and rules changes that GW is a PUBLISHER of games, the same way as if EA owned maxis and puplished The Sims. GW's job is to find useable systems to flog the miniatures that are actually produced by Citadel.

GW is primarily a miniatures seller. They even said once that the only reason they even make rules these days is to sell Citadel miniatures, otherwise they wouldn't even bother. Whining about GW making rules designed to sell Citadel products just shows a distinct lack of knowledge about the hobby you claim to love so much.


As for that "over a year old", that's bollocks. They have NOT been working on it that long, it's been shoved ahead to help save the company (go look at GW's stock record, and notice when it has spikes in amongst that tumble-down). They are also not going to have playtesters trying very old versions of the rules, and I'm also beginning to believe we're being used as playtesters, as a lot of people are trying them out in games. If you'd asked GW about the Ork and CSM codices, they'd likely claim the same, but I have PDF and print copies of both and they're exactly the same - right down to the stupid editing mistakes and contradictions in the Ork codex which willed never be FAQ'd.

GW is primarily a miniatures seller. They even said once that the only reason they even make rules these days is to sell Citadel miniatures, otherwise they wouldn't even bother. Whining about GW making rules designed to sell Citadel products just shows a distinct lack of knowledge about the hobby you claim to love so much.

I dont know if that's directed at me or not, but that's the exact point I was trying to make. My thoughts on the matter are as such.