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.

Never mind the fact that templates will wreak them now. IG with three pie plates a turn will do wonders, whirlwinds, etc.

Haha. Who do you think you're kidding? Flamers aren't any more effective against Orks than before unless you're talking about units like Burna Boyz. Are you trying to make yourself believe Orks aren't the be all end all, just so that all of our upcoming massacre victories with Orks would taste a little better? Sure, Whirlwinds are going to cause more casualties than before when they shoot. Guess what, GW has us covered. Firstly, there's no area terrain anymore that would block los so the Whirlwinds can be shaken from anywhere. Secondly, everyone is running so the Whirlwinds won't get to fire as many times as before untill its already too late. Lastly, everyone can now get as many units of the bona fide Wolf Scouts as they like in order to shake/destroy the ordnance batteries hiding in the backfields. The reason you're not worried about tanks anymore is because there will be so many Orks on every table that it will put the O&G WFB armies to shame, and the S9 power klaws will smash through the rear armours like the tanks werent even there since cover doesn't work in close combat.

I'm talking about AV14 being bad against regular armies because it will be. 1/54 chance for a lascannon to kill one behind some terrain, and you find it justifiable because it only fires that amazing pie plate you keep talking about in another sentence plus a couple other heavy weapons, and does not tank shock like Falcons did. Did you play 40K in the third edition? If you did you probably remember people running three or four Defilers per army that were all hull down behind the smallest terrain pieces one can imagine. It was hard as hell to kill them or even stop them from shooting, and nobody liked it and everyone was happy that they were nerfed. I guess it's fine now, as long as you play Orks. You can always take so many models and so many scoring units that the enemy won't have a chance in hell. Even if the Orks and their enemy both destroy eachother the Orks will win since they will be worth much less KPs than their opponents. Justice for all.

All we need now is Codex Space Wolves having a special rule saying they can disembark and assault from Rhinos moving max speed so that everyone can take six squads of Blood Claws in Rhinos, and we're happily back in third edition (although a slightly more slowed version of 3rd ed).

I must say the introduction of 4+ and 3+ cover saves will make MEQ much less attractive than ever before. Why would you pay for armour if you can get invulnerable saves for free?

Well, nids and orks at 1,500 points now have no real way to fight a 3 monolith necron force or 3 landraider marine/chaos/inquisition force.

And don't ****ing get me started on zoanthropes. On average, without taking into account vehicles running away, cover and special anti-psyker stuff, a trio of zoanthropes will drop one armor 14 vehicle in a game.

Throw in all that crap and zoanthropes aren't dropping anything.

(Couple this with a necron rumor I heard that phase out will be removed and three monoliths becomes the "I win" button when taking on nids or orks.)

Yeah, sure, so swarms are great now. Too bad swarms aren't how you kill vehicles. They weren't then, they're not going to be now. Basically, the new rulebook's goal is to attempt to even things out by making vehicles bad against shooty armies, so that you'll take less of the big ones. I don't see this working.

Just so you know, nidzilla needed a nerf. What the tyranids didn't need, however, was an inability to destroy a vehicle-heavy list.

Yeah, sure, so swarms are great now. Too bad swarms aren't how you kill vehicles.

Yes they are. Each unit has 3 anti-tank weapons and an anti-tank squad leader. If you think these are slow hordes in the conventional sense you're wrong. They all fleet now. By the way, count the amount of scoring units/models you can squeeze into a 1500p Necron army with 3 Monoliths.

I'm pretty bummed by a lot of these new rules. They definantly need to clarify some stuff as clearly the PDF is incomplete on many levels.

I personally feel that the "run" special rule will break the game. The gaming table is just not big enough to allow for these types of movement for 6-7 turns. It takes away most all advantages that transports used to give. I saw where it specifically said bikes couldn't run, but nothing was said of jump troops. Jumpackers just got insane on how fast they can move across the table.

Did anyone here really feel that infantry moving 6" per turn broke the game before? I really wonder whether playing Apocalypse got the designers into a strange perspective when it came to movement versus table size.

Now, the run rule could be nice in Apocalypse, with the "no running within 12 inches" modifier. But in regular 40K, it's going to screw everything up big time.

Jumpackers just got insane on how fast they can move across the table.

Ork Stormboyz move 12+D6+D6, while a Falcon or Trukk next to them moves 18". Isn't it great?

Yes they are. Each unit has 3 anti-tank weapons and an anti-tank squad leader. If you think these are slow hordes in the conventional sense you're wrong. They all fleet now. By the way, count the amount of scoring units/models you can squeeze into a 1500p Necron army with 3 Monoliths.

You go ahead and enjoy needing 4s, then 6s, then a crapload of 5s and 6s.

And it isn't about how many scoring units you can squeeze into an army with 3 monoliths. It's about how many scoring units the other guy has left after you're finished.

You know what, I just realized that this doesn't make nidzilla any worse against normal armies. Being able to always score some kills with the barbed strangler and the warp blasts only make nidzilla better. The only real problem will actually be a lot of monoliths as a lot of venom cannons can still whittle down land raiders and predators, or at least remove the more dangerous weapons.

Therion wrote:

Jumpackers just got insane on how fast they can move across the table.

Ork Stormboyz move 12+D6+D6, while a Falcon or Trukk next to them moves 18". Isn't it great?

I know, I'm pretty much royally pissed at this. Added to the insane movement I also completely hate the new mission objectives and especially that every game uses random game length. It completely destroys the current endgame movement strategy. If your playing an army that has minimal scoring units in the first place, or are pretty much not very survivable in the first place. You can do you best to protect them all game long and then make that last mad dash to the objective counter. But wait, normally with smart movement you can make sure they get there and have a strong possibilty of them stay alive. But if the game suddenly goes 1 turn longer that can royally fubar your plans an litterally cost you the game because of 1 stupid die roll. Thats not fun, thats *bleep*ed up. Seriously, anyone here really think a unit of 10 firewarriors can hold an objective better than say 10 battle sisters if the game suddenly goes longer.

For some armies, every game... every single game is just going to have to be an annilation game for them, regardless of what else was rolled?

That's one of the things I think is great about the rumoured 5th ed rules - you can't pull a last-turn objective grab after hiding the whole game. No more swooping 24" across the board with a landspeeder that's been sitting behind terrain in your back corner all game, to grab a vital objective.

If armies have to actually move their troops towards objective and try to defend them, this makes for a more fun game where both sides actually get to shoot at / charge one another and, you know, fight. Rather than counting on a couple of fast vehicles to hide and then seal the deal just because they for sure can't be killed in the bottom of turn 6 (an artifact of the fixed turn system).

That Stormboyz will be faster than fast vehicles...yeah, that sucks. But Stormboyz/Jumppackers/Jetpackers in 4th ed are already faster than normal vehicles (12"+6" assault, vs 12") and nobody seemed to think that was a problem...

Strangelooper wrote:That's one of the things I think is great about the rumoured 5th ed rules - you can't pull a last-turn objective grab after hiding the whole game. No more swooping 24" across the board with a landspeeder that's been sitting behind terrain in your back corner all game, to grab a vital objective.

If armies have to actually move their troops towards objective and try to defend them, this makes for a more fun game where both sides actually get to shoot at / charge one another and, you know, fight. Rather than counting on a couple of fast vehicles to hide and then seal the deal just because they for sure can't be killed in the bottom of turn 6 (an artifact of the fixed turn system).

That Stormboyz will be faster than fast vehicles...yeah, that sucks. But Stormboyz/Jumppackers/Jetpackers in 4th ed are already faster than normal vehicles (12"+6" assault, vs 12") and nobody seemed to think that was a problem...

Trying to figure out your logic.

It's bad for a fast vehicle to swoop out 24" on the last turn to seize the objective, but it's good for Blood Angels Assault Marines to hide the whole game and swoop out 18" on the last turn to grab the objective.

I'm not sure I get why the 6" is going to make all the difference in terms of this tactic.

I wouldn't mind Stormboys being faster if normal vehicles could be mobile while shooting. I have to say, I really dislike the new scoring unit and vehicle rules.
I think I will be making a bunch of custom missions for the new edition. I can see what they were going for (Troops really being the core of the army) but I really take exception to the way they did it. It's going to cut down on list diversity massively.

Strangelooper wrote:That's one of the things I think is great about the rumoured 5th ed rules - you can't pull a last-turn objective grab after hiding the whole game. No more swooping 24" across the board with a landspeeder that's been sitting behind terrain in your back corner all game, to grab a vital objective.

If armies have to actually move their troops towards objective and try to defend them, this makes for a more fun game where both sides actually get to shoot at / charge one another and, you know, fight. Rather than counting on a couple of fast vehicles to hide and then seal the deal just because they for sure can't be killed in the bottom of turn 6 (an artifact of the fixed turn system).

That Stormboyz will be faster than fast vehicles...yeah, that sucks. But Stormboyz/Jumppackers/Jetpackers in 4th ed are already faster than normal vehicles (12"+6" assault, vs 12") and nobody seemed to think that was a problem...

But this was taken care of by making troops the only scoring unit. There are no troops that can go 24" to grab an objective. But careful use of transports could get your troops there. But why bother with transports when you own guys can just walk just as far. Its crap when you look at the whole picture rather than just the parts. Its just GWs way of overcompensating, rather than just making adjustments towards balance.

Isn't the last turn determination done randomly so you don't know when it is the last turn? That puts paid to the last second land grab.

Is anyone else as weirded out about no hiding behind terrain as I am?

As I understand it, you can hide behind terrain that actually conceals a model from literal LOS so tall hills would do it or thick stand of trees with hedges round the outside, or tall buildings with no windows.

I think they will have to leave area terrain in as an option for woods.

Etherdude wrote:Is anyone else as weirded out about no hiding behind terrain as I am?

yes. My forests block LoS, they're very woodsy. I just assume the rest of the table is sparsely covered. It's a "swirling melee".

The more I read these rules over, and the more I think about it, the more I want to get in on HBMC's Revisited Project.

Having representative style rules (such as removal of range-sniping and casualty eligibility within a squad) make a lot more sense to me, and these 5th Ed rules only serve to confuse and annoy me.

So just because a unit of 10 Terminators had ONE of its party end up within 1" of an enemy model, that unit is effectively out of the game? Never mind the fact that they still have a 50% chance of coming in on the board - if my opponent plops them down in the far corner of a 4'x6' board, those 440 points are wasted as they reposition themselves for the remainder of the game. At least in 4th Edition you could suffer the consequence of losing that one model, or in 3rd Edition, you could shift the models around under that Large Blast template to get as many in as possible.

Is it me, or are the TechnoMagi of the Adeptus Mechanicus getting worse at repairing their teleporter technology? Oh wait, I forgot, that's just the fluff - the Dev team came up with that one at their last bong-pounding session.

HBMC, if you have any pointers as to how to go about refining the the 4th Edition rules to the point of being playable, while incorporating the scarce good stuff from 3rd and 5th, please let me know - on this thread or in a PM.

I may not be the most hardcore of 40K players out there, but I definitely feel that I am along the same line of thought as many of my fellow players. This weekend was the first time that I had enough models to play a decent sized (4000 points per side) Apocalypse game - it was a lot of fun, despite the game's glaring tendency to highlight the brokenness of Assets such as Flank March and units such as Immortals, Turbo-Boosting Destroyer Lords, and Baneblades (especially when they're the only Super Heavy on the table, despite being on the 4000 points side against the 5000 points side).

My point is that I've been playing this game for 10 years, and have been eagerly awaiting some fixes to some severly description-deficient rules problems. I play Black Templars and Imperial Guard, and currently own around 4000 points of BT and 3000 points of IG (which includes a Baneblade). I've spent close to a couple thousand dollars on models, terrain, paints, and time and effort. To me, a poor college student with little free time and even less money, that means a lot. I'm sure that there are many of you out there that are either in the same boat or understand what I'm getting at, and it is that I'm really sick and tired of some really stupid rules mechanics.

I don't mind seeing some overpowered units in each army. In fact, one of the things I like about this game is seeing my opponent's eyes glimmer when he plops down Sgt. Joe Shmoe and his friends as Doom Squad X, because I know that I've probably got something equally powerful in my list too. But at the same time, fighting broken configurations and one-dimensional units that require only a brain stem to understand their uses just aggravates me.

I like some of the things GW is adding. Making the entire squad eligible for casualty-removal, and the Run! rule are both things I like, especially as an infantry-heavy Templar player. On the other hand, making tanks immobile battle bunkers irks me greatly, especially as an IG player.

I don't think that making a solid ruleset involves reinventing the wheel. I do think that it requires developers that actually play the game, and writers that understand how to explain something that is seemingly complicated in simple, grammatically correct English.

Maybe I'm asking for too much from GW though. Then again, I occasionally have these bursts of wishful thinking. Homebrew ruleset, here I come.

As for 5th Edition - if it doesn't have some major changes made to it between the current PDF version and the final print, then I'm done keeping up to date with the rules.

Sorry for the long post - I'm just really frustrated right now, and needed to dish out my 2 cents.

CK

Maybe GW don't want people deepstriking so much.

It is only risky if you slap them down into a congested area.

Like, say, anywhere they need to be.

Pshah.

With the new mobility can't you drop them in the clear and move them quickly to the attack point?

Jayden63 wrote: There are no troops that can go 24" to grab an objective.

Space Marine (Or Ravenwing) Bikes, Eldar Jetbikes and Ork Bikers can do it, and are troops.

Asmodai wrote:
Trying to figure out your logic.

It's bad for a fast vehicle to swoop out 24" on the last turn to seize the objective, but it's good for Blood Angels Assault Marines to hide the whole game and swoop out 18" on the last turn to grab the objective.

I'm not sure I get why the 6" is going to make all the difference in terms of this tactic.

Let me be clearer then. Right now (in 4th edition), it is a valid tactic to take 2nd turn, hide one or more Landspeeders/Pirahnas all game (behind a piece of LOS-blocking terrain) and use them to claim/contest objectives with a 24" move in the bottom of turn 6. These cheap fast skimmers don't take up many points in an army, so it's not too detrimental for them to not contribute to the army's shooting during the game. Another valid tactic is to use Falcons (which have a very low chance of being immobilized/destroyed) as last-turn objective grabbers. They're not as cheap as the little guys, but they are almost as survivable as an LOS-blocking AV10 vehicle and they can contribute to the game by dropping off troops and possibly getting a pulse laser shot off once or twice (if they get lucky and spend a turn un-shaken).

I dislike the fact that this tactic exists, as it strains verisimilitude - the army wouldn't know that the opposition was going to give up after turn 6, so they'd never hang a fragile AV10 speeder out to claim. It's only the player's knowledge that turn 6 is the last one, and their AV10 skimmer can't be shot at at all, that allows this tactic.

If these 5th edition rumours pan out, fast vehicles only get to move 18" and they don't score anyways. Jump-packers do get to move 13-18" (18" if an assault target presents itself) and fleet Stormboyz/jetbikes can get 17-24" in that case, true. However, a unit of jump-packers is going to be both more expensive than an AV10 skimmer, and less survivable than a holofielded Falcon. Not to mention more vulnerable to indirect blasts when hiding behind terrain (if they find some terrain that actually blocks LOS... ). But the fact that it's not certain when the game will end makes the tactic of "hide, then claim in the bottom of the last turn" really risky - there may well be another turn where your throwaway fast unit gets killed, and cannot contest/claim. Also, the random d6 of the run/fleet move makes the tactic even riskier. And yes, 18" vs 24" is a big deal when you're hiding behind something but want to get within range of a particular objective.

So in 5th, it will be much more expensive and much less certain to hold a fast claiming unit out of the game until the 'last turn' (or thereabouts) to swoop in and claim/contest an objective. Perhaps not worth it? I hope so.

Wargaming for me is the most fun when the armies actually fight in a way that mimics how such armies might actually fight (verisimilitude). The less 'gamey' trix that hinge on game elements which strain verisimilitude (eg last-turn objective claims, casualty-removal trix in close combat etc.), the more fun the game will be for me.

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:So just because a unit of 10 Terminators had ONE of its party end up within 1" of an enemy model, that unit is effectively out of the game?

Why isn't that fair? Deep Strike position is set by the player. If the player wants to gamble on placing close (for a game-breaking Boo! with Heavy Flamer against IG / Tau or something) then he risks a bad scatter. That is balancing risk for high reward.

Is it me, or are the TechnoMagi of the Adeptus Mechanicus getting worse at repairing their teleporter technology?

Huh? It's far more accurate than before - the squad is only lost 1/2 of the time.

Personally, I would have preferred to see that 40k5 go back to the original 40k3 rules for Deep Strike - Lost in the Warp for double 1s, off the board, or within 1" of the enemy.

I play Black Templars and Imperial Guard, and currently own around 4000 points of BT and 3000 points of IG (which includes a Baneblade).

Not bad. I've got over 8k worth of Eldar, 4k of SM, 3k of IG, 3k of CSM, 1k of SoB, and 1k of Inq. The way I see it, the changes all balance out in the end.

On the other hand, making tanks immobile battle bunkers irks me greatly, especially as an IG player.

I dunno about that... As far as I'm concerned, there's no real change. My Russes are Ordnance-throwers, so secondary / other weapons don't matter. My Hellhounds & Chimeras usually only move 6" and shoot. And my Bassies don't move. So everything is about the same.

Strangelooper wrote:Wargaming for me is the most fun when the armies actually fight in a way that mimics how such armies might actually fight (verisimilitude). The less 'gamey' trix that hinge on game elements which strain verisimilitude (eg last-turn objective claims, casualty-removal trix in close combat etc.), the more fun the game will be for me.

QFT.

This is why I intensely dislike super-accurate Deep Strike & Drop Pods.

JohnHwangDD wrote:My Russes are Ordnance-throwers, so secondary / other weapons don't matter. My Hellhounds & Chimeras usually only move 6" and shoot. And my Bassies don't move. So everything is about the same.

But your Chimeras and Hellhounds now put out about 1/2 the firepower when they move 6" and shoot. That's not really about the same.

To me, it seems like it would totally kill the role of the Chimera as an IFV advancing beside the troops and providing covering fire for them.

Likewise I always liked the Hellhound because it was a fun tank to use. You could run it up the board and flame down enemy troops. Under 5th (as rumoured anyway) it will just be another static pillbox. At that rate, I might as well just take another Russ or Basilisk.

Guard benefits from this rules in other ways - e.g. the new blast rules - but it seems like the competitive builds will very much be a big spam of infantry platoons supported by big tanks with much less of a role for Chimeras, Storm Troopers, Techpriests, Hellhounds, and other favorite units of mine. It's not bad per se, but I think it's a sad thing when an army gets shoehorned into only a couple competitive builds.

Which is what a lot of these changes are going to do. they aren't moving towards any sort of real balance, just a different shape for the cookie cutter.

The rulebook has been leaked already i have a pdf copy missing all the pics and from what i have read they made it more complicated and stupid

a model with bs of 6 or better may re roll his to hit roll but he now needs a 5 instead of his normal 2 ....lame

this is just one example of the crap comming out im reading and ill up date when im done

wow how is this for stupidity
you may now shoot through area terrain
quote
if a model shoots through area terrain the target recieves the cover from the interveining terrain, even if the unit is completely visable to the firer. this does not apply to shots that go over the terrain

i see many people boycotting this and running 4th edition rtt's and tell gw to stick it

What makes you think that pdf is authentic?

next all units get the RUN ability a single D6 that ignores terrain but if you run you may not assault

a unit that runs may not shoot that turn.. gee everyone gets a form of fleet how special is that ?