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.

Voodoo I'm sure I missed it in the 10 pages, but how do tanks get harder to kill? The only thing I saw was that CC hits on rear armor, which means most everything in the game can at kleast glance non monolith vehicles. What juicy tidbit did I miss?

Cover saves. Falcon might be boosting up with that 5+, but that Pred has a 4+ in some trees.

jfrazell wrote:Voodoo I'm sure I missed it in the 10 pages, but how do tanks get harder to kill? The only thing I saw was that CC hits on rear armor, which means most everything in the game can at kleast glance non monolith vehicles. What juicy tidbit did I miss?

That "all H2H attacks hit Rear Armor" thing was bunk. It works just like now.

Hitting vehicles in CC works like now, so you still need 6's to hit skimmers or vehicles moving over 6", but they get no Cover Saves from these attacks.

Basically, you can set it up so your vehicles get Cover Saves in 5th, so when being shot, even tracked vehicles have a good chance of being OK. Skimmers get a 5+ Cover save for moving Fast. If you get Wargear that makes you count as obscured (see tau), you get a 5+ Cover save when obscured. Otherwise you can get a 4+ or 3+ cover save for being behind certain terrain types or have LOS angling issues, etc.

Furthermore, the damage tables are far more forgiving.

Glancing hits can only immobilize at best, unless you're using an AP1 weapon which ends up glancing, in which case a 5 Immobilizes and 6 Destroys.

Even Penetrating hits aren't that bad because of the single table:

1 or less) Shaken
2.) Stunned
3.) Weapon Destroyed
4.) Immobilized
5.) Destroyed
6.) Explodes

AP1 gives +1 to the table. AP - gives -1. Glancing -2. Open Topped +1.

That's it.

Because of the Cover saves and how much more forgiving the Glancing, and even penetrating tables are, plus the fact that you get cover saves now, your vehicles will be able to stick around a lot more.

Rending is nerfed to +D3 to your penetration rolls on a 6 now. So yes, assault cannons can still penetrate Land Raiders; but even still assault cannons are going to be limited in the future.

Likewise, if you can glance it, you can keep it from shooting, so Venom Cannon's aren't "useless".

Just noticed this gem while I was reading the pdf:

"Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a Fast vehicle if it has moved or is going to move Flat Out in that Movement phase."

To me, the way this is worded could cause the following situtations:

1. Unit A wants to embark onto a fast vehicle, but that vehicle is planning on moving flat out in the current movement phase, so Unit A cannot embark onto it.

2. Unit A is embarked on a fast vehicle at the start of their movement phase. The owning player plans to disembark the unit, then move the fast vehicle flat out. According to the RAW, since the fast vehicle is "going to move flat out in that movement phase" then the unit cannot disembark.

3. Unit A embarks onto a fast vehicle at the start of the movement phase, forcing the fast vehicle to only move 12."

H.B.M.C. wrote: Why? Isn't the point of having multiple crew so the tank can do different things at the same time? Do they all stop to wish the gunner good luck, or deliver a catchy one-liner each time they fire?

Obviously in the dark grimmness or whatever of the far future, all gun crews are recruited from PA road workers. You need 5 guys standing around smoking and drinking coffee so 2 guys can fire the gun, while 3 others supervise.

Of course, you are on the exact opposite side of the globe, so you probably have no idea what I am talking about... Still, I think it is pretty obvious that the gun crews are union workers, and thus are very rigorous about their rules.

I think it's a great game mechanic. Choose to be a bristling fortress of weapons with a bunker save or be a mobile wooden fort with a possible bunker save. This is coming from a guy who uses smart missiles on Tau tanks.

"Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a Fast vehicle if it has moved or is going to move Flat Out in that Movement phase."

This causes a problem with DE Raiders, Ork Trukks, and Tau Piranhas. Does this or the open-topped rule take precedence? You have a "transport fast vehicles" ruleset and "transport open-topped vehicles" ruleset.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Just noticed this gem while I was reading the pdf:

"Passengers may not embark onto or disembark from a Fast vehicle if it has moved or is going to move Flat Out in that Movement phase."

To me, the way this is worded could cause the following situtations:

1. Unit A wants to embark onto a fast vehicle, but that vehicle is planning on moving flat out in the current movement phase, so Unit A cannot embark onto it.

2. Unit A is embarked on a fast vehicle at the start of their movement phase. The owning player plans to disembark the unit, then move the fast vehicle flat out. According to the RAW, since the fast vehicle is "going to move flat out in that movement phase" then the unit cannot disembark.

3. Unit A embarks onto a fast vehicle at the start of the movement phase, forcing the fast vehicle to only move 12."

It seems OK to me and should save Eldar from last minute land grabs using star engine boosted skimmers. If you want the logic, because the vehicle has to move fast it spedns more time accelerating and less time embarking passengers.

On balance I am starting to like these rmours a lot more than a couple of days ago.

My main reservation is the much greater emphasis on Troops, since Tau troops are weak and have been weakened further. However I can already see a lot of stuff that helps Tau so I think it will balance out.

I suspect Broadsides will go out of favoura gain, but Railheads will make a comeback because of the pieplate shot against horde armies combined with S1 AP1 armour piercing goodness.

We will also see a lot more Pathfinders and markerlights deployed, and now that the Pathfinder's 'Fish can Scout, it will be worth pimping with SMS and so on for extra fire support.

Tau vehicles pimped with SMS are going to be supercool for hiding behind cover and shooting.

They also get to have a wide view of the battlefield while hiding behind their tree fort. Perfect for deepstrike rerolls.

Seriously kill, I'm thinking that large Kroot masses will be popular. If Orks and Gaunts will be popular, Kroot are reasonably good at fighting them. Kroot can also flank march and can even take their Krootox buddy with them on devilfish (something I'm gonna enjoy doing).

Took me to realize that Broadsides aren't Jet Packer's and can't JSJ with Railguns.

They can however bring up a hell of an interesting bit of rules quandary.

Broadsides are tall, and can see over Stealth Suits. They can shoot "over them" but because they'll be obscured by the Stealths, they can't be shot back.

Stealth Suits, at long range are going to be very hard to shoot because of their rules.

Do they still "obscure" the Broadsides even if they're so far away that their stealth field makes them near impossible to shoot at?

Will we see teams of Broadsides screened by JSJ'ing teams of 3 Stealth Suits at max coherency?

Kilkrazy wrote:On balance I am starting to like these rmours a lot more than a couple of days ago.

I'm back-and-forth on them, practically hourly. I like Jervis's willingness to break some eggs, it's just that up until this point, it seems like he's smashed some fresh eggs and spared some rotten ones.

I like aspects of what I'm hearing, although part of it could be nostalgia for the days of 2nd edition. My only fear is that by putting so many aspects of the game into upheaval, there'll be (once again) some significant problems created that won't be apparent until we've all been playing with it for awhile.

I think 5th edition is probably GW's last chance to keep me in the game. If they just end up overhauling everything again in 6th, I'll be gone. It's unfathomable to me how you can have a ruleset this unsettled more than 20 years since its release.

First of all would someone be so kind as to PM me the PDF address?

Secondly, The more I hear about the new LOS rule the more the seem like a huge mistake. Aside from the fact that the Area Terrain system worked just fine, it doesn't make sense that a unit of guardsmen could block LOS when a forest doesn't. This will likely take us back into laser pointer days and result in a lot of stupid unit choreography that slows down the game.

Nothing is stopping you from classifying Area Terrain to block LOS, just like it works now.

Or it could work where you can shoot through it but it gives a cover save.

Clarify what each piece of terrain is, and does, before the game and you're good.

The GT's and GD Events had terrain packets explaining what each feature was and it's in game effects. Going on this idea that Dave Taylor and co are going to keep up their excellent job, I don't see a reason why this practice won't be continued in the future.

>>Seriously kill, I'm thinking that large Kroot masses will be popular.

Yes, I agree. Slightly disappointing that the revised area cover rules deprive Kroot of their see through woods ability but even so, they are going to be needed to do the low level H2H work.

And as you say can now be carried in D'Fish.

>>Will we see teams of Broadsides screened by JSJ'ing teams of 3 Stealth Suits at max coherency?

What about if you JSJ your Stealth from behind a screen of Sniper Drones?

Also if the rumour that JSJ troops can move and fire Heavy weapons, then Crisis Suits will be carrying more marker drones.

I like these rules quite a bit. There are a few strange oddities that I hope they clear up before the actual release.

Of course, anytime you change rules there are going to be unforseen consequences in the codices, but oh well.


A few things that popped out at me (and if I missed something in my read through, my apologies):


1) Psychic Powers still have that ridiculous "unless specified otherwise they follow the shooting rule" garbage sentence. It still isn't nearly specific enough.


2) There is a rule mentioning Last Man Standing but I don't see that rule anymore.


3) They're still using the word "dice" as a single die. Bad GW!


4) The pile in rules still state that you only pile in if not engaged (as opposed to being base to base). Here's hoping they fix the diagram to match!


5) The Fire Point rules state that codices tell you how many models can fire out of each fire point but all the recent codices don't say how many models can fire out.


6) There's still no exemption about vehicles firing templates being immune to hurting themselves.


7) The embarked rules are better (they tell you to measure from the vehicle for effects inside), but they still don't tell you what happens if something wierd happens to the guys inside a vehicle (like a Wierdboy's power goes off) or what happens if a power like FOTD has the vehicle in range: does the unit inside take the test and if they fail do they run out of the vehicle, etc?


8) It appears that you now pile in even if you just freshly consolidated into a new unit, which I kind of like.


9) The rules still don't cover what happens if models can't get into base contact because of intervening terrain (like a guy is behind a barrel). By the RAW if you can't get into base contact you don't count as being in base contact, which makes creative terrain a real impediment to smooth gameplay.


10) The Jet Pack rules are still unclear about whether they turn off when the unit assaults an enemy or stays on (and whether they can turn off the jetpack and move normally in the movement phase either).


11) The artillery rules are still a bit unclear so people will still wonder if artillery can move and fire heavy weapons like vehicles.


12) They got rid of the backwards damage on vehicles, so if you get an immobilized or weapon destroyed it doesn't appear as though you shake or stun the vehicle too. This leads to some REALLY strange situations where, if the vehicle has embarked models you really want to get a stunned result (which pins the unit inside) but not an immobilized or weapon destroyed result (which would allow them to disembark next turn). I really hope they change that before release.


13) The exploding vehicle vs. transported models still isn't clear on the timing so some people could still argue that the disembarking models essentially get hit twice.


14) The vehicle moving rules still seem to allow vehicles to move in any direction, which really should be fixed so that they only move forward or backward (especially since they can pivot any number of times).


15) There still(!) doesn't appear to be any ordnance rules. Is it possible they'll ship two editions in a row both missing the same rules?

Voodoo Boyz wrote:
The GT's and GD Events had terrain packets explaining what each feature was and it's in game effects. Going on this idea that Dave Taylor and co are going to keep up their excellent job, I don't see a reason why this practice won't be continued in the future.

Hopefully someone (I won't hold my breath on GW) will give us a good example of how they did it. If it worked for GTs, then it should be nice for friendly games.

Just to confirm for you: Unless things change from this leak, JSJ with heavy weapons is ok.

I am with you Voodoo, and am starting to come around on the Str 4 defensive weapon thing. I know it is going to cause a lot of bunkering up, but so is the cover save rule. This is probably to balance out vehicles being even more survivable. A tank being able to blast away with everything while moving across the battlefield becomes a very good choice, but if you have to make the choice of sitting in a good defensible position and blasting away (thus limiting your targets) or moving to get a better position and firing.

It just seems to work out. Fast vehicles still can shoot at combat speeds, and will try to move in and out of cover, but will lose shots if they want to get the skimmer obscurement save.

It seems you have a lot of choices to make.

I don't know. I think the old 8" howitzer we fired would be considered ordinance, and everyone cowered and or took cover when we fired that thing. There is no way I would want to be on the vehicle trying to shoot another weapon, there would be no way to hit.

Assuming Ordnance works likes blasts (and there's no reason to believe it won't) it got a bit better against vehicles, which is a good thing.

Because now if the blast scatters off the vehicle it counts as hitting the side the hole is on (this used to only apply to barrage weapons).

That means you can place your blast/ordnance over the rear section of a vehicle and feel pretty confident that you'll either hit the vehicle or if the center scatters off of it you'll partial the back armor and still have a chance to do some damage.

Toreador wrote:
I don't know. I think the old 8" howitzer we fired would be considered ordinance, and everyone cowered and or took cover when we fired that thing. There is no way I would want to be on the vehicle trying to shoot another weapon, there would be no way to hit.

I could see that for really big things like Earthshakers etc., but it seems to me that if the Battle Cannon on a Russ is going to be ordnance, they need to reevaluate things.

Possibly the answer is to change the type of the Battlecannon from Ordnance to Large Blast. *shrug* Probably more an issue of over broad catagories than anything.

Unless thats changed I don't believe that is accurate. At the current time you have to place the template over the center of the vehicle. If the center scatters off your shot is pretty much wasted at that point. How is this changing that?

jfrazell wrote:Unless thats changed I don't believe that is accurate. At the current time you have to place the template over the center of the vehicle. If the center scatters off your shot is pretty much wasted at that point. How is this changing that?

First off, I think I was unclear. When I said "now" I meant now with the new PDF.


Second, even with the current rules you are allowed to place the marker anywhere with the hole over the vehicle (see the online rulebook FAQ). The change is that in the current rules if the marker scatters off the model the armor facing you use is still in relation to firer vs. target. So if you're firing at the front armor no matter where the blast scatters you count as hitting the front armor (unless its a barrage weapon).


With the new rules, when the blast scatters you count as hitting the side the hole is on, so you can most certainly increase your chances of destroying a vehicle by placing the blast over the back end of the model (where you'd still be able to glance the armor even if your blast is at half strength).

Voodoo Boyz wrote:And to balance that, Tanks of all kinds except Holofield Skimmers got much harder to kill.

So, a lascannon will have 1/54 chance of destroying an AV14 vehicle hiding behind some rocks/ruins/hills and you like it. You like the rules because they make Orks one of the best if not the best army, and because you love the prospect of playing Orks against Orks. I can't see any other reason for liking the new rules a lot. Like yakface pointed out they're still full of holes, the game seems to become slower and slightly more complicated, and I dare to say even less balanced than it is now.

Wehrkind wrote:Obviously in the dark grimmness or whatever of the far future, all gun crews are recruited from PA road workers. You need 5 guys standing around smoking and drinking coffee so 2 guys can fire the gun, while 3 others supervise.

Of course, you are on the exact opposite side of the globe, so you probably have no idea what I am talking about... Still, I think it is pretty obvious that the gun crews are union workers, and thus are very rigorous about their rules.

That was a good one. I'm pretty sure it's like that everywhere.

In comparison to what is now, yes. I don't see many AV14 models on the battlefield already. If you are having a problem popping that tank hiding behind cover.. then move.

Orks are the best because they have a huge issue already vs av14 armies? Or that blast templates will work quite well against large mobs of boyz, and whirlwinds will be even more useful than they have been in the past, especially against orks?

I don't see anything to fear out of orks that I don't already fear with the current rules.

Hopefully it will be possible for forces to use manoeuvring to get shots at the side armour when a tank is hiding.

Toreador wrote:

I don't see anything to fear out of orks that I don't already fear with the current rules.

Running. You should fear massed Orks running on the first turn.

Orks are the best because they have a huge issue already vs av14 armies? Or that blast templates will work quite well against large mobs of boyz, and whirlwinds will be even more useful than they have been in the past, especially against orks?

I don't see anything to fear out of orks that I don't already fear with the current rules.

Oh okay. You have no trouble with running Orks, or 45 Kommandos showing up from your table edge. Or that the WAAC 1.85K Ork lists have 180 fearless T4 models with invulnerable saves, anti-tank guns and S9 power fists, and are worth 6KP overall and count as scoring units. You don't have any idea how bad the Orks will be do you? The Boyz are all assaulting on turn 3 the latest, but the Kommandos are assaulting on turn two. Have fun wiping them all out before that. No, they won't panic. They are fearless, and yes, they will bust your tanks in close combat.

In comparison to what is now, yes. I don't see many AV14 models on the battlefield

Am I reading this right? First people whine about Falcons non-stop for years, and when Falcons are nerfed people are fine with AV14 vehicles becoming the new Falcons. Let me remind you that a Falcon with discount guns and star engines on top of the other crucial upgrades does cost 210 points. AV13 vehicles will be nearly as tough of course as the old Falcons for almost half the price. The new Falcons on the other hand will be absolute garbage, and you're fine with that too.

AgeOfEgos wrote:You can run the turn you Deep Strike. Deep Strike Mishap table is nasty.

So I guess this represents your terminators getting a running start before jumping into the teleporter, all Austin Powers-style?

In other news, the Emperor's Children finally discover a reason to swap their predators' sponson heavy bolters for sonic blasters - one edition too late. Suckers!

It strikes me too that orks are going to be very, very good in the future. Changes to screening, run, changes to slow and purposeful- all of these make orks better, and I haven't seen anything that makes them worse that doesn't effect everyone else just as much.

I'm not really in favour of stationary tanks. I think they should have S5 as defensive, because how many tanks can actually take S4 weapons? Not russes, not battlewagons, not hammerheads or devilfishes, not looted wagons, normal land raiders...
Eldar and Marines are going to be the only mobile ones.
I also don't particularly like the changes to vehicle speeds as they seem nonsensical when compared to infantry speeds. If they had made it so that skimmers couldn't tank shock many of the problems people talk about would have been solved without a strange situation where a horse can outrun an advanced grav tank!
Add onto this the utterly stupid new scoring regieme and you have a recipie for orks winning every damn tourney.
I don't want orks to be the best army in the game. I want a balanced game.
Here's hoping some of the stupider decisions are rectified by the actual release, while keeping the good stuff. (and there is a lot of good stuff in there)

"Here's hoping some of the stupider decisions are rectified by the actual release, while keeping the good stuff. (and there is a lot of good stuff in there)"

I'm hoping that too. Orks was word for word the same - but that was an advanced version with all the layout and art done. Since this is just an early draft/playtest copy, hopefully they'll listen to the input and tidy things up in the final version.