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.

So I actually got to read the book, for a limited amount of time today and I looked up a few things, but the main one being the missions and victory conditions.

The biggest thing that I could see was that 2/3 of the missions are Objective based. One mission is D3+1 objectives placed anywhere but within 12" of the table edges or 12" of another objective, the other is simply two objectives, one in each players deployment zone.

You get an objective by getting a scoring unit within 3" of the objective, with no other enemy units within 3" of the objective.

Scoring units are Troops choices that are not vehicles, swarms, or something with a rule that says it's never a scoring unit. There wasn't anything about unit size or anything like that.

For contesting objectives, it just says enemy model, so a Fex with 1 wound on it still "contests" an objective.

There are no VP's, so if both players have no objectives, or the same amount of objectives it's a "tactical draw". There was no definition of a "tactical draw" or anything like the PDF that said to calculate VP's.

The only way to "win" without getting objectives is to wipe your opponent from the table. If you do this, you automatically win. But they can't have any models left on the table, this is true for any mission.

The third mission was Kill Points, but you only got 1KP for each unit destroyed. If you have the same number of KP, it's a draw, otherwise the player with more KP's wins.

So, given all this, exactly how much does it change how armies are going to work and how you build them?

The IG gunline might work...they just focus on killing everything.

From reading rumors it seemed like there was a section somewhere in the back of the book which offered "optional" victory point rules for tournaments. Is this not the case?

Rosicrucian wrote:From reading rumors it seemed like there was a section somewhere in the back of the book which offered "optional" victory point rules for tournaments. Is this not the case?

Now that's something I didn't see, but it'd have to be at the very back of the book, since right after the section on Missions ends, it goes right into the big fluff section of the book where it talks about each race, etc.

Also, just for kicks, if you need to be within 3" of an objective to claim it, what happens when you plant a Land Raider or Monolith directly on top of an objective? Due to model size you could never get within 3" of the objective...

I would treat the model as difficult terrain if it was destroyed. However if it was still intact it would be contesting the objective according to the rules. I would look at it as a tactic somewhere between beardy and genius. It gives me the "win at all costs" feel rather than the "lets have a fun game" feeling. I know how I would play it.

If you put 30 models of any unit on TOP of an objective they would satisfy the 'within 3 inches' rule while also making sure nothing else is also within 3" of the objective as long as they are not engaged in CC.

I think bigger troops units held back specifically for the purpose of running to claim objectives late in the game may be seen as a common tactic in 5th ed. based on those objective rules, if they are correct.

Warboss Niblet wrote:I would treat the model as difficult terrain if it was destroyed. However if it was still intact it would be contesting the objective according to the rules. I would look at it as a tactic somewhere between beardy and genius. It gives me the "win at all costs" feel rather than the "lets have a fun game" feeling. I know how I would play it.

Although it would suck to have an opponent plant a big vehicle on top of an objectiveto deny it... since the vehicle can contest it would be a perfect way to do so... not beardy but certainly annoying!

OTOH with the increased utility of meltas I could see a deepstriking squad coming down next to the vehicle to pop it. Then they could climb inside the wreckage and get a cover save + the objective then dare anyone to come get them out.

I have not read the book yet as I can't get a copy here in China, but from everything I am hearing, it really seems like the more close combat oriented army will win; especially with all the new LOS rules.

Do others feel this way?

Yes, Victory Point rules are in the back of the book presented as "optional" rules mainly for tournaments but also for any players who want "bragging rights" in a draw.

mray01 wrote:I have not read the book yet as I can't get a copy here in China, but from everything I am hearing, it really seems like the more close combat oriented army will win; especially with all the new LOS rules.

Do others feel this way?

No.

CC has to be your whole focus to succeed at this.

Which makes you lose to alot of armies.

yakface wrote:
Yes, Victory Point rules are in the back of the book presented as "optional" rules mainly for tournaments but also for any players who want "bragging rights" in a draw.

Yep, I saw this too the other day when I got a look at the book again. It's in the very back of the book, but you only use VP's if you are in a Tactical Draw situation on Objectives or other things in the mission.