Pre Release copy of 5th edition Rulebook hit our local store today

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.

**Aduro**

I think Tau tanks may be the new "tri-falcon" with their Vehicle Upgrade that makes any shots from more than 6" (i believe) away Obscured. Hammerheads moving 6-12" with a 4+ cover save will be nice.

**Stelek**

Yak, I can't even read it. It's so long it's a justification-for-suckiness speech.

Mobile tanks = fun.

Bunkers = gak.

**Zoned**

In fact, the more I think about the new rules, I just go:"yep, that rule helps Orks, yep that rule helps Orks...yep, that rule helps Orks." For example -

1) Countercharging - in case anyone is mad enough to charge 20-30 Boyz
2) Running - makes Sluggas viable again
3) Grotzookas are half decent now with the new Blast rules.
4) Outflanking rule makes Kommandos a serious threat without Snikrot
5) Grots giving Orks a 4+ cover save - without losing casualties!
6) All turbo boosting bikes get a 3+ cover save...on 25pt Ork Bikers

The list goes on. The only new rule that hurts Orks is the multiple template/blast rules. Oh well. Can't win them all.

Zoned

**Stelek**

Aduro wrote:I think Tau tanks may be the new "tri-falcon" with their Vehicle Upgrade that makes any shots from more than 6" (i believe) away Obscured. Hammerheads moving 6-12" with a 4+ cover save will be nice.

Yeah I pointed that out a month or two ago and got laughed at. lol

Hammerheads with cover saves in the open are real joys to behold.

**H.B.M.C.**

Can Skimmers stay in cover and get a 4+ cover save?

BYE

**H.B.M.C.**

yakface wrote:...but I really do think it forces players into making game choices with their vehicles about how they want them to perform.

I'd be fine with it if defensive weapons were S5. That way Heavy Bolters would have a use, and a Russ could either move fire its main gun or move and fire its defensive weapons. Now all it can do is fire its main gun, or sit still and fire its main gun.

yakface wrote:That's about it. . .I think this system would keep important choices on how a player wants to use their vehicle (move fast and lose firepower and protection or move slower to gain more firepower and protection, except for skimmers who can move fast and get the cover save but can't shoot at the same time they do).

Move slower to gain more firepower? You lose firepower by moving, period. You stop moving - and act like a bunker (in 4+ cover naturally) - you get to fire your guns. And you can't even score now, so what incentive is there for leaving cover?

These rules aren't the typical GW 1 step forward/2 steps back, they're just 5 steps back.

BYE

**AgeOfEgos**

yakface wrote:That's about it. . .I think this system would keep important choices on how a player wants to use their vehicle (move fast and lose firepower and protection or move slower to gain more firepower and protection, except for skimmers who can move fast and get the cover save but can't shoot at the same time they do).

I believe there will be exceptions to this rule. Land Raiders are going to ignore this rule and I'm sure others will follow in the form of vehicles upgrades.

**malfred**

Stelek wrote:You don't think it's an attack? Hmmm...big fan site, you run it, people listen to what you say...and you say 'this bit was great' and then list two pages of 'this sucks'...

Attack: You're an idiot if you don't know how to use this tactic properly.

Constructive Criticism: That tactic doesn't work because you're an idiot.

Oops, I mean:

Constructive Criticism: That tactic doesn't work because x, y, and z.

(Where x, y, and z do not equal "you are an idiot")

**biztheclown**

I have to say that I do not desire at all to read any more posts wherein the poster goes on and on about how either the new rules suck or that GW are idiots. Anybody who thinks these things is welcome to geocache their stuff and try their hand at developing the ultimate miniatures game.

I am interested in discussing the effects of the new rules on the game. So have at that.

**yakface**

Stelek wrote:Yak, I can't even read it. It's so long it's a justification-for-suckiness speech.

Mobile tanks = fun.

Bunkers = gak.

Stelek,

Your capacity to be rude for no apparent reason is simply baffling. The majority of my post was simply an offshoot idea about how GW could have made vehicles more mobile but still present the player with tough gameplay choices.

By all means skip reading my posts, I don't care but don't post a reply to a post you didn't read and then criticize it.

YOUR OPINION is that moblie tanks are fun and bunkers are boring.

MY OPINION is that units that require the player to make a choice are better than units that don't require any choice as the current vehicle rules stand. I don't think that GW went with the best possible solution, but I do believe that it is better than the 4th edition rules.

My opinion isn't inherently better or worse than your opinion as they are both just our own differing opinions. Why must every discussion with you turn into a form of verbal combat?

**yakface**

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Move slower to gain more firepower? You lose firepower by moving, period. You stop moving - and act like a bunker (in 4+ cover naturally) - you get to fire your guns. And you can't even score now, so what incentive is there for leaving cover?

All units contest objectives from scoring units, so vehicles can prevent troops units from claiming objectives.

Also, there is usually a need at some point in the game to move to get a better line of sight or to evade incoming enemies. Of course the former depends on how much line of sight blocking terrain you use on your tables. If you're playing with all very empty area terrain pieces then yeah, your units will likely have LOS over the whole board and never have to move, but that's really dependent on what type of terrain you're playing with.

**Ratbarf**

Well, I think my devilfishes may actually see use now. With a 4+ cover save and the new chart they might actually be useful aside from a glorified death trap...

(yes I know mech tau work, I just like to run them inf wise thats all. And now that the mandatory devilfishes in my pathfinders can transport anyone I may actually have them do more then sit behind my lines and spring forward to delay an assault...)

**Aduro**

And now that the mandatory devilfishes in my pathfinders can transport anyone

.....

I knew about this but completely forgot about it. I may have to rework my possible Mech Tau list to remove the Fire Warriors' Devilfishs and have them just ride in the Pathfinders'.

**H.B.M.C.**

The problem actually isn't tanks, now that I think about it, it's the core concept of the rules themselves. 40K is completely a case of:

Either/Or

There's no 'and' in the rules. You either move, or you shoot (as doing both incurs a penalty or is impossible). You either shoot, or you assault (as doing both incurs a penalty or is impossible).

Very few things in the game are every designed to be able to do more than one thing a turn. That's why this game fails to progress.

BYE

**Zoned**

Is that really a huge problem, HBMC? What you're saying is that 40k forces you to make decisions - you can't have your cake and eat it too. So you have to figure out in your head which move is more advantageous - do I sit back and fire my Heavy Weapon now at a unit that is exposed or do I move into a better firing position that will benefit me in later turns? Will rapid-firing my Bolters do more damage to my opponent or is charging in and winning the assault and possibly catching them in a sweeping advance the better move?

I remember back in third when you could shoot your melta gun and a tank, blow it up, then assault the squad next to it. I really liked the change in 4th where you could only assault the unit you shot at. You had to choose. Your unit couldn't do everything.

Personnaly, I don't find the "either/or" mentality a problem.

Zoned

**Janthkin**

Zoned wrote:Is that really a huge problem, HBMC? What you're saying is that 40k forces you to make decisions - you can't have your cake and eat it too. So you have to figure out in your head which move is more advantageous - do I sit back and fire my Heavy Weapon now at a unit that is exposed or do I move into a better firing position that will benefit me in later turns? Will rapid-firing my Bolters do more damage to my opponent or is charging in and winning the assault and possibly catching them in a sweeping advance the better move?

I remember back in third when you could shoot your melta gun and a tank, blow it up, then assault the squad next to it. I really liked the change in 4th where you could only assault the unit you shot at. You had to choose. Your unit couldn't do everything.

Personnaly, I don't find the "either/or" mentality a problem.

Zoned

I don't know that I'd go as far as HBMC does, but mobility makes games more fun - neither player is particularly satisfied when one side simply sits and shoots, while the other rushes forward as fast as possible to stop the shooting (or worse - ALSO sits and shoots).

I wish I knew who, exactly, was responsible for deciding that modifiers are "too complex" for 40k; I would like to smack them around a bit. FB handles this problem much, much better - there are penalties (for most units) for moving AND firing, but you have gradations of choice: sit still and shoot at maximum effectiveness; move, and fire at reduced effectiveness (and not at all for certain select weapons); move quickly, and forgo shooting.

**yakface**

Janthkin wrote:

I don't know that I'd go as far as HBMC does, but mobility makes games more fun - neither player is particularly satisfied when one side simply sits and shoots, while the other rushes forward as fast as possible to stop the shooting (or worse - ALSO sits and shoots).

I wish I knew who, exactly, was responsible for deciding that modifiers are "too complex" for 40k; I would like to smack them around a bit. FB handles this problem much, much better - there are penalties (for most units) for moving AND firing, but you have gradations of choice: sit still and shoot at maximum effectiveness; move, and fire at reduced effectiveness (and not at all for certain select weapons); move quickly, and forgo shooting.

I agree with you completely, but Fantasy does tend to have a whole lot less shooting than 40K so the comparison isn't identical, but still you have a good point. I don't think anyone believes that a few well used modifiers in 40k would make the game worse. First and 2nd edition were a gigantic pain where you had to work out modifiers per individual model in the unit, but as long as they kept the modifiers based on the unit level there really isn't any reason they couldn't be added into the game.

Of course, one of the things about 40K is that you have some major races (like Orks) where their standard BS2 equates to needing a 5+ to hit. You really don't have much latitude of modifying an Ork's BS for example.

**JohnHwangDD**

yakface wrote:I know that you (and many other people) don't like this regression, but I really do think it forces players into making game choices with their vehicles about how they want them to perform. I especially like the Skimmer rules that force players to choose between firing or getting the 4+ cover save for moving fast.

I agree.

5th Edition is going to be far more tactical than 4th, precisely because it is going to force players to make tactical decisions on a turn-by-turn basis between offense (e.g. shooting), defense (e.g. Go To Ground / SMF) and position (Turbo-Boost, Run), and each decision has actual ramifications beyond the phase in which they are taken.

In effect, GW is forcing a flavor of in-game time per turn restrictions and limiting a unit's actions per turn. It's very cool when you think about it from a games design perspective.

**Stelek**

Yak I speak more plainly than HBMC.

John thinks the game is going to be more 'tactical'.

I sit in my bunkers for turns 1-4, pounding you.

If I'm not a skimmer army, I start rushing forward on turn 5 and hope the game goes to 6.

If I am a skimmer army, I rush forward and contest/control all objectives/quarters/etc on turn 5 and hope the game ends...but I now have a 4+ cover save and if it goes to 6, it goes to 6.

Hey this is the same as before, except now:

You can't move and fire with tanks effectively.

How is this MORE tactical when you have LESS options? I can more, or fire. Not...I can move here, fire, and be in position to cover hill 3 in case he pushes forward--but then I'm at risk if his mobile elements comes out to challenge me.

Now whatever reason GW applied it is not a 'more choices' game system because removing secondary weapons fire just encourages ONE kind of play.

Oh and fantasy can be totally built to be a shooting game, and doing so usually leaves you vulnerable to assault.

Not so in 40k, so I don't think comparing the two is valid.

**Umungaz**

Ok, so a guy from my gaming group who managed to buy the local store copy of the 5th ED Just left. I can't really add anything to what has already been said about the rules.

My opinion is that there good. Not thrilling, GW is not putting PP out of buisness this summer or any time soon but they are cleaner and better rules then 4th ED.

The real test will be in like a year from now. Have they FAQ stuff in a timely manner (still waiting for an desperately needed Ork FAQ) or are they going to keep supporting the game like it's 1998 and people are willing to wait a year or two for rules updates. Are we gonna get a GW supported tournament system that is actually fun and doesn't require purchasing the monster army case from Sabol. Ok, that may be a bit much to ask, but how about a Mighty Empires style campaign system with the ill 3D tile map.

Playing a DoW style campaign with four to eight friends could be really cool as a matter of fact it might be more fun than a tourney.

**Kilkrazy**

Aduro wrote:I think Tau tanks may be the new "tri-falcon" with their Vehicle Upgrade that makes any shots from more than 6" (i believe) away Obscured. Hammerheads moving 6-12" with a 4+ cover save will be nice.

They also have the upgrade that lets a non-fast vehicle move and fire as if fast.

OTOH Tau vehicles no longer have any defensive weapons, because they are all S5.

**Pariah Press**

Umungaz wrote:how about a Mighty Empires style campaign system with the ill 3D tile map.

I've heard rumors that it's in the works.

**WC_Brian**

grizgrin wrote:Warmachine is a very fun game. That whole "play like you got a pair" theme just rubs me the wrong way. Hasn't stopped me from sinking $$$ into my armies, though !

Someone I know made me laugh when he said "I've seen more playing like you've got a pair in a game of chutes and ladders".

Disclaimer Warmachine is a great game. It is also a slow moving cold hearted brutally calculating game where either the first or second World Championship was decided by a single model dying and time being called.

**reds8n**

yakface wrote:
For example, a pipe-dream idea of mine would be to allow vehicles that move under a certain distance to claim a cover save. The fluff rationale would be that vehicles moving over a certain distance are basically being shot by the enemy while moving from one piece of terrain to another so they don't get the cover save unless they slow down and actually get 'hull down' behind terrain. Smoke Launchers and other wargear that obscure vehicles can still provide a cover save to moving vehicle that normally can't take a cover save.

Defensive weapons would remain at S6 and less.

Vehicles that stand still may fire all their weapons (and can get cover saves). Vehicles that move up to 6" can fire one main weapon and all defensive weapons (but can't take cover saves). Vehicles that move up to 12" can fire no weapons (and can't take cover saves).

Fast vehicles can move up to 6" and fire all their weapons (and get cover saves). Fast vehicles that move up to 12" can fire one main weapon and all defensive weapons (but can't take cover saves), Fast vehicles that move up to 18" can fire no weapons (and can't take cover saves).

Fast Skimmers can move up to 24" instead of 18" and can fire no weapons. Skimmers moving more than 12" get a 4+ cover save for moving fast.

That's about it. . .I think this system would keep important choices on how a player wants to use their vehicle (move fast and lose firepower and protection or move slower to gain more firepower and protection, except for skimmers who can move fast and get the cover save but can't shoot at the same time they do).

Hmm, interesting ideas there. when the PDF leaked last year we tried it out and I'll admit I was (am)quite taken with the idea of vehicles getting cover saves. Seems so obvious in retrospect.
We tried messing around with different ideas and the idea we had that seemed to work best was to assign a cover save for ALL vehicles depending on how fast they moved-- we stepped it in line with the speed categories , so if you moved 6" you got a 6+ save, 7-12 a 5+ save etc etc up until a 3+ for flat out. We played that smoke launchers, disruption pods etc if used added an extra +1 to your save that turn.

**WC_Brian**

Stelek makes everything so simple(and he snidely condescends all at the same time!

). Of course we'll all just shoot for 4 turns and then move to take the objectives on turn 5 even though we aren't really close to them at all and the game will end immediately 33% of the time before we get to them! Even if it goes to turn 6 we still won't necessarily be on top of the objectives but that's ok because whether we have skimmers or not are armies are still intact(we don't have to consider what damage you may have taken in projections since we are God General Stelek). You see are armies shoot and kill yet are shot at and not killed due to our insanely over the top skills(I mean irrational ego centric mind).

If Stelek would just post a blog about 40k I wouldn't have to think about 40k at all, I could just absorb his limitless genius.

Did people actually get to discuss 40K on Dakka before Stelek was spawned? Or was Dakka just a part of the Internets?

**Stelek**

I do have a blog. Derr.

**Plastic Parody**

H.B.M.C. wrote:The problem actually isn't tanks, now that I think about it, it's the core concept of the rules themselves. 40K is completely a case of:

Either/Or

There's no 'and' in the rules. You either move, or you shoot (as doing both incurs a penalty or is impossible). You either shoot, or you assault (as doing both incurs a penalty or is impossible).

Very few things in the game are every designed to be able to do more than one thing a turn. That's why this game fails to progress.

BYE

Sounds like you will prefer Warmachine mate. Maybe time for a change?

Sounds like you cant shake 2nd ed rules from your brain.

NOT a criticism.

**Plastic Parody**

Plastic Parody wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:The problem actually isn't tanks, now that I think about it, it's the core concept of the rules themselves. 40K is completely a case of:

Either/Or

There's no 'and' in the rules. You either move, or you shoot (as doing both incurs a penalty or is impossible). You either shoot, or you assault (as doing both incurs a penalty or is impossible).

Very few things in the game are every designed to be able to do more than one thing a turn. That's why this game fails to progress.

BYE

You will prefer Warmachine mate. Maybe time for a change?

Sounds like you cant shake 2nd ed rules from your brain ;-p

NOT a criticism.

**Plastic Parody**

H.B.M.C. wrote:The problem actually isn't tanks, now that I think about it, it's the core concept of the rules themselves. 40K is completely a case of:

Either/Or

There's no 'and' in the rules. You either move, or you shoot (as doing both incurs a penalty or is impossible). You either shoot, or you assault (as doing both incurs a penalty or is impossible).

Very few things in the game are every designed to be able to do more than one thing a turn. That's why this game fails to progress.

BYE

You will prefer Warmachine mate. Maybe time for a change?

Sounds like you cant shake 2nd ed rules from your brain ;-p

NOT a criticism.

**H.B.M.C.**

Well it is true, I do judge all 40K vehicle rules on the first set I played - the 2nd Ed rules. Vehicles in 2nd Ed, as much as transports were deathtraps, were fun. I've not had fun with tanks since then.

BYE