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.

Tanks are included. Remember that it only works if the model is *partially blocked*. You couldn't fire through a Land Raider.

The models still get a 4+ cover save though for being partially obscured.

This rule would also seem to prevent the tactic of marching your army up behind a Land Raider. As long as they weren't totally obscured, you could still shoot at them (albeit most of them might have a good cover save).

Thinking about this, I'm generally OK with the changes.

My only real complaint is how land tanks and infantry can get 5+ / 3+ cover saves, but skimmers only get 5+ when moving "flat out".

The cover saves should be comparable in both cases. If the tank can hide for a 3+, and a bike can boost for a 3+, then a skimmer should be able to get a 5+ for 6-12", and a 3+ for 12+".

Or Skimmers can go back to only glances...

Asmodai wrote:Tanks are included. Remember that it only works if the model is *partially blocked*. You couldn't fire through a Land Raider.

The models still get a 4+ cover save though for being partially obscured.

This rule would also seem to prevent the tactic of marching your army up behind a Land Raider. As long as they weren't totally obscured, you could still shoot at them (albeit most of them might have a good cover save).

Eh, kind of strange....I would assume only the models in the unit that can actually see around the Raider could be shot or shoot though.

All in all, as a Marine Mech I'm digging the new rules. I imagine my Guard buddy won't be a happy camper though. Running for everyone, friendly units block LOS (Heavy Weapon team what?), Russ Heavy Bolters combos useless...etc

Whilst a number of these rules do actually sound quite interesting, and if they turn out to be good we'll steal... uhh... borrow them for The Revisited Project, but so many of them just seem to slow down the game, both figurativley and literally.

1. Scattering all blast markers (more dice rolls, more measuring, more arguments over which way the arrow is pointing).
2. Barrage for multiple blast markers (more dice rolls, more measuring, more arguments over which way the arrow is pointing).
3. Allocating wounds to individual models (long process before rolling dice).
4. The return to stationary vehicles (if S5 cannot be fired on the move... vehicles will stop moving, and things like Chimeras will dissapear from the game).
5. Vehicles going from 6/12/24 to 6/12/18.


One of the first things we did in the Revisited Project was speed everything up. Infantry that do not fire could run an extra 3". Fleet became a flat 6". Vehicles went from 6/12/24 to 8/16/24 (so not actually faster at the top end, but the breaks were bigger). MCs and Walkers could move 6"/shoot/assauly 6" or simply move 12" and then shoot. Sure it created some inbalances early on, and we've used our Codex revisions to compensate for some of these (increasing the price on Wave Serpents being one example), and in other areas such as increasing the range of guns (all basic weapons in our rules have a 30" range rather than 24", and it really does make a difference). There were other things that went along with this, such as allowing heavy weapons to be moved and fired with a slight reduction in accuracy (-1BS), and increasing the amount of weapons a vehicle can fire on the move. Sometimes we ended up being dead wrong (our Sponsons = Always Defensive turned out to be a bad idea when Predators w/Lascannon Sponsons became instant kings of the battlefield), but considering we don't have to sells models and actually want to have a decent ruleset, we actually playtest these problems out of the rules.

The the biggest impact that all these immediate movement changes had was that the game was opened up. We had tanks rushing across the table blazing away. Infantry formations that would be static in 3rd or 4th Ed could now move about to get better shots without missing a turn. The traditional 'sit & shoot' army ceased being the be-all and end-all of shooty strategy, and with enhanced movement there has been less reliance on screening (which we kept from 3rd Ed, to a degree).


Then we look at GW and we see them dumbing down rules for no reason whilst at the same time adding needless complication and time consumption to things like would allocation and blast markers. It's a true case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, resulting in, as I said before, new mistakes being made, and old mistakes coming back but in slightly different ways.

Is it any wonder we gave up on them years ago...

BYE

Asmodai wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:I don't quite undestand how allocating wounds is going to work. As an example:

My unit of 10 takes 30 shots
He rolls 10 dice, with one blue dice nominating my Sergeant 3 times? So it's possible no wounds are done to my regular joes (However unlikely) yet the unit leader could be forced to save 3 times?
What happens if 4 of those shots are plasma instead of bolters? Do you distribute evenly with wrap around where you wish? IE 14 wounds is 13 regular joes and one unit leader wound rolls?

You mentioned 'covering fire'?

Units that block LOS to friendly units will stop some of the abuse...but the new running and old fleet could still see units cha-cha-chaing back and forth in front of reapers/devs/etc...

Thanks Asmo for the rumours.

Welcome.

The way it works if you take 27 wounds in a ten-man Marine squad. You'd allocate one wound to each model before you allocate a second wound to each model, then you begin allocating the third wounds. You'd probably allocate it to the 7 rank and file and none of those to the Sergeant, Plasma Gun and Lascannon.

You then roll 2 saves each for the specialists, and the 21 saves for the rank and file all-together (since you can pick and choose from the identically equipped ones).

... ... ... ... ...

quote]

Okay, I have a question.

In your example given, how do you roll for the saves? If the wounds are allocated three to each Marine, surely the proper way to do it is roll the three saves for SM no.1, then for no.2 and so on. A lot of players will want to roll all 21 saves and remove a Marine for each failed save.

This is a probability issue rather like rolling the twin-linked Crusader hurricane bolters (or whatever they're called.)

That's a good point Kilkrazy. They suggest literally picking up the dice and placing it next to each model that it wounded. You're right that probability-wise, you couldn't use the short-cut I suggested.

You can replace any model killed with a model with the identical equipment, which led me astray. You do have to take each model individually.

Also interesting, and a mate just reminded me, you can allocate both Plasma Gun wounds to the same model if you wanted to minimize casualties. (That's the example they use in the leak.) This constitutes a subtle nerf to Plasma Guns.

Asmodai wrote:That's a good point Kilkrazy. They suggest literally picking up the dice and placing it next to each model that it wounded. You're right that probability-wise, you couldn't use the short-cut I suggested.

You can replace any model killed with a model with the identical equipment, which led me astray. You do have to take each model individually.

Also interesting, and a mate just reminded me, you can allocate both Plasma Gun wounds to the same model if you wanted to minimize casualties. (That's the example they use in the leak.) This constitutes a subtle nerf to Plasma Guns.

Interesting. That violates the principle that the maximum number of models should be removed if possible.

p 31 - You can only assault the unit you shot at.

With the caveat that you CAN assault units that you shot out of their transport.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

....Then we look at GW and we see them dumbing down rules for no reason whilst at the same time adding needless complication and time consumption to things like would allocation and blast markers. It's a true case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, resulting in, as I said before, new mistakes being made, and old mistakes coming back but in slightly different ways.

Is it any wonder we gave up on them years ago...

BYE

You may have more people join your revolution after the new rulebook is out.

Play is going to be dramatically changed by these rules. Not sure what to even make of them. I don't think there is a single section that doesn't change something in the game.

Man, I think the changes look great. It's going to be a great edition..... On the down side, now I have little motivation to play 4th ed

Toreador wrote:Play is going to be dramatically changed by these rules. Not sure what to even make of them. I don't think there is a single section that doesn't change something in the game.

Yep. Despite some passages staying the same, this is much more akin to the 2nd -> 3rd change than the 3rd -> 4th change. I'm already mulling about how it's going to change my army design philosophy.

Toreador wrote:Play is going to be dramatically changed by these rules. Not sure what to even make of them. I don't think there is a single section that doesn't change something in the game.

Honestly I think a lot of these changes are for the better, but there are still some crippling items that just don't make sense or just won't work (allocating wounds to specific models before saves, Defensive = S4, slowing vehicles down whilst speeding infantry up (???), etc.). Then there's the fact that GW is going to have some of the most loosley written rules ever conceived, leading to numerous problems that everyone will find on the day of release, yet none of them were found by them because they can't be bothered to read over before they scramble for that 'create PDF' button and send it off to the printers.

BYE

It really depends on how they do this. A good reason no FAQ's have been forthcoming is because of the work and changes to 5th. IF they come out with a new book AND come out with FAQs for clarifications it is fine. Most games do this anyway. The big problem with the last edition is that they really didn't FAQ a lot of the important things we found wrong with it.

Asmodai wrote:

Toreador wrote:Play is going to be dramatically changed by these rules. Not sure what to even make of them. I don't think there is a single section that doesn't change something in the game.

Yep. Despite some passages staying the same, this is much more akin to the 2nd -> 3rd change than the 3rd -> 4th change. I'm already mulling about how it's going to change my army design philosophy.

You know why that is dont you?

When 2nd became 3rd it forced a majority of people to re-buy their armies, then from 3rd to 4th you only had to switch out of few minor things. In other words its about GW screwing us for money, why else would they abandon an edition half way in? Because they care about the rules? HA! The non stop FAQs and awesome quality of the rules are evidence enough of that fact.

The last 4 years were a waste of time and money apparently, and maybe 4 years into 5th they'll decide its not profitable and run us through it all over again.

The one thing I'm looking forward to in all of this is GWs lame excuse.

Toreador wrote:It really depends on how they do this. A good reason no FAQ's have been forthcoming is because of the work and changes to 5th. IF they come out with a new book AND come out with FAQs for clarifications it is fine. Most games do this anyway. The big problem with the last edition is that they really didn't FAQ a lot of the important things we found wrong with it.

Judging by the 91 page PDF and how Eldar onward has been designed with this in mind, I suspect GW has had a fairly clear idea of 5th for about 18 months or so by now. That means they likely procrastinated on writing up FAQs they knew would be obsolete in a year anyway.

I think it really only affects those people who go to extremes in list building. The ones that more push the limits.

It doesn't really look like this will make falcons or zilla nids obsolete, but what it does is put them more on the same level as everything else, and also brings a few armies back more in line with how GW wants the list to play like.

I really don't see this really changing any of the armies I play to a major extent, maybe just some tweaks here and there.

I can see me breaking back out the plasma cannons I had for the DA though, which right now are quite useless (in comparison to the other choices), and makes the marines holding the plasma guns a little more survivable.

Hmm, it also seems grots will be useful, as well as horde nids and guardians (screen those aspect warriors!)

kinda seems like it makes a lot more unit types useful, without truly invalidating a lot.

Asmodai wrote:

Toreador wrote:It really depends on how they do this. A good reason no FAQ's have been forthcoming is because of the work and changes to 5th. IF they come out with a new book AND come out with FAQs for clarifications it is fine. Most games do this anyway. The big problem with the last edition is that they really didn't FAQ a lot of the important things we found wrong with it.

Judging by the 91 page PDF and how Eldar onward has been designed with this in mind, I suspect GW has had a fairly clear idea of 5th for about 18 months or so by now. That means they likely procrastinated on writing up FAQs they knew would be obsolete in a year anyway.

Well thats rude of them, an FAQ takes an hour of work max, and it would have been appreciated by the people who are using their product if GW put it out shortly after the release instead of making say, the eldar players wait 14+ months saying they're going to release a FAQ then tell us "Oh yeah heres your 5th edition cross over FAQ".

Toreador wrote:I think it really only affects those people who go to extremes in list building. The ones that more push the limits.

It doesn't really look like this will make falcons or zilla nids obsolete, but what it does is put them more on the same level as everything else, and also brings a few armies back more in line with how GW wants the list to play like.

I really don't see this really changing any of the armies I play to a major extent, maybe just some tweaks here and there.

I can see me breaking back out the plasma cannons I had for the DA though, which right now are quite useless (in comparison to the other choices), and makes the marines holding the plasma guns a little more survivable.

Hmm, it also seems grots will be useful, as well as horde nids and guardians (screen those aspect warriors!)

kinda seems like it makes a lot more unit types useful, without truly invalidating a lot.

I've been fielding a 4x Plasma Cannon Devastator Squad for about 4 years now. It'll be interesting to see how they perform in 5th. My Dark Angels have tons of everything though, so the only change I might consider would be picking up a fourth Tactical Squad for larger games.

I also think that we'll see a return to slightly smaller games. Eldar, Dark Angels, and Orks all featured 1500 or 1600 point sample armies. With these rules being a little more time-consuming, I wouldn't be surprised to see 1500 be the new tournament standard rather than 1850 or 2000 as things were trending towards.

Toreador wrote:It really depends on how they do this. A good reason no FAQ's have been forthcoming is because of the work and changes to 5th.

There goes that set of rose-tinted masks you've got Toreador. Please don't be so niave as to put the lack of FAQ's down to their work on 5th. They've had how many years to do FAQs on not just the Codices but the rules themselves? All they've managed to do was release a 1 page FAQ for a couple of Codices once in 5 years. That's a poor effort by anyone's standards, and I really don't think we can blame 5th Ed for that.

BYE

Ravenous D wrote:The one thing I'm looking forward to in all of this is GWs lame excuse.

Personally I'm looking forward to GW's attempt at telling us that none of our armies will change and everything is fine - just like they did between 3rd and 4th... and look how that turned out.

BYE

Toreador wrote:I think it really only affects those people who go to extremes in list building. The ones that more push the limits.

It doesn't really look like this will make falcons or zilla nids obsolete, but what it does is put them more on the same level as everything else, and also brings a few armies back more in line with how GW wants the list to play like.

I really don't see this really changing any of the armies I play to a major extent, maybe just some tweaks here and there.

I can see me breaking back out the plasma cannons I had for the DA though, which right now are quite useless (in comparison to the other choices), and makes the marines holding the plasma guns a little more survivable.

Hmm, it also seems grots will be useful, as well as horde nids and guardians (screen those aspect warriors!)

kinda seems like it makes a lot more unit types useful, without truly invalidating a lot.

True Swarm nids will be back with a vengence for sure, especially since warriors can't be targeted behind the wall of gaunts and warriors can force march now as well.

Really 5th edition is really hurting people that built lists to cater to the 4th ed rules for maximum efficiency.

What do you mean useful again? The wave serpent has always been useful. Just ask all of the player's who faced it in Vegas.

Most eldar players would disagree with you.

Capt K

I always have rose tinted glasses, but since the shakeup, there has been less FAQ support than ever. So I would look for this "new wave" of changes to also have an affect on FAQs. If they don't, then it really wasn't change at all.

But with no escalation, the combat squad/ vehicle problems go away, along with some other oddities in some of the new codexes.

I don't think full blame can be attributed to it, but I also think we are naive to think they didn't know what was coming, and therefor you put the resources you have pushing new stuff, not exactly supporting the old. Which this year, there has been a lot of new stuff.

A wave serpent is very useful, especially with Dire Avenger squads. The issue being is that Falcons were infinitely more useful if not just plain broken in comparison.

Yep, and fortuned Wave Serpents will be a thing of beauty now. Especially since you can use them to transport your Harlequins to clear the enemy off the object, and while the Harlequins are doing that, send them back to pick up a load of Dire Avengers to taxi back to hold the objective.

To me, that just sounds neat.

Ravenous D wrote:Well thats rude of them, an FAQ takes an hour of work max,

It takes an hour to collect the questions, or proofread it, or typeset it, maybe.

But it takes a lot more than an hour to actually puzzle through the questions to give the *correct* answers.

If all you're looking for is droolsboyz to roll a pile of 4+, then yeah, they can probably slap some worthless POS together in an hour.

Asmodai wrote:
Area terrain is mentioned. The forest wouldn't block line of sight (unless it did so physically), but you would get a cover save.

So..trees are now considered individual units that must be so close together you can't see through them to block line of sight? Eh, I like felt/base/area terrain better....I guess in your individual gaming groups you could just state "That felt represents trees taller than any model on the table and growing so close they touch" . Strange though, terrain will only effect movement rates now. Even COD which is relatively new still uses area terrain rules (6 deep, can't see past, etc).

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Asmodai wrote:
Area terrain is mentioned. The forest wouldn't block line of sight (unless it did so physically), but you would get a cover save.

So..trees are now considered individual units that must be so close together you can't see through them to block line of sight? Eh, I like felt/base/area terrain better....I guess in your individual gaming groups you could just state "That felt represents trees taller than any model on the table and growing so close they touch" . Strange though, terrain will only effect movement rates now. Even COD which is relatively new still uses area terrain rules (6 deep, can't see past, etc).

I was never a big fan of Size 1, 2, 3 terrain or the way area terrain worked. Actually basing things on how much the terrain actually covers always seemed more intuitive to me. Of course I came from playing Necro, so it could just be that I got used to doing things that way first.

Total Anihilation = Get 'Kill Points' for units destroyed or falling back. HQ=3pts. Fast, Heavy, Elite = 2pts Troops=1pt

so "cheesy" armies like the Tyranid Monstrous Creature list, where you have all your points sunk into relatively few hard-hitting units, suddenly gain another advantage in that they provide their opponents with fewer targets from which to gain Kill Points. and those players looking to play a well rounded army with a little bit of everything get shafted, because they're presenting 10+ targets, often almost double that which their cheesy opponent may provide? i feel like this scenario is pushing the game in a bit of a wrong direction. i do like how troops only award one point, though.