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.

Polonius wrote:Is it possible that the new rules actually differentiate between primary, secondary, and defensive weapons? So that primary and secondary can shoot like they can now, but defensive weapons can be shot in assault, or perhaps if the vehicle moves further than 6" (makeing pintel weapons sort of useful).

Hear hear. It's pointless to get too worked up about the S4 rule until we see if the mechanic is the same or has also been changed. Imagine a S4 Pintle mounted Storm bolter being used to keep enemy infantry from hitting that Rear Armor in assault... making it truly a defensive weapon (Probably won't happen though as it makes too much sense). It might also be meant to temper a possible new rule allowing all weapons on a vehicle to fire on different targets. Have to wait and see the new context of vehicle weapons.

As a side note, I wonder if co-axial weapons will be appearing like they are in Apocalypse (which seems to be a blueprint for some of these rumored changes)? I can picture a Falcon's second weapon being made coaxial and allowed to fire when the primary weapon (Pulse Laser) fires, but only at the same target.

I tend to agree with the above comments that all models block LOS (for infantry), and area terrain not blocking LOS might be the result of a true LOS system. I won't miss Size 1, 2, and 3 models. I wonder if Jump Infantry might not have LOS blocked by screening models? Guess that depends on if sales of Assault Marines are lacking.

I love the fact that transports are no longer dedicated. I've had more than a few games that I wished that one of my Wave Serpents could "extract" another squad that was in trouble.

Maybe it's because my first army was a 3rd ed 40K Eldar mech army, but I love the gist of the rumors seem to be increasing the importance of movement and maneuver.

Who said that eldar tanks are nerfed? First of all a 5+ cover save is better than the rumoured 4+ reduces to glancing especially if the new damage table favours the vehicles, and it gets even better once you put Eldrad out there to fortune the tanks. As far as defensive weapons go, the Falcon is a transport and rarely uses any weapons, and the Prism uses the main gun from maximum range.

Most of the changes sound great. But a few are questionable.

Salvation122 wrote:
-All blast weapons now scatter.

I’d rather see it work like the Hellhound Flamer. The Template must cover as many models in the target squad as possible (this solves a lot of arguments). If you roll to hit, everyone touching the blast template is hit. If you roll to miss, everyone touching the blast template is it on a 4+ instead. This is actually much faster and eliminates the need for a Scatter roll (for non-ordinance blasts).

The Scatter roll is terrible and should be rare IMHO. I’ve seen many arguments over the direction of where the scatter lands (even if the dice is right next to the model). And many people have no sense of angles AT ALL! (in my experience).

-Saving Throws are now made AFTER wound allocation. This means you could still roll all your generic troopers as a group, but will need to roll for each special model (serg, heavy weapons, etc) one by one. Torrent of Fire is gone.

Thanks for slowing down the game even more? Honestly, some units are filled with various “special” models. What happens when you have a unit with 4 different types of special/heavy weapons and basic troops and a sergeant and an attached independent character? Then multiply that by however many of those units you fielded. It’s not going to be common. But that’s no excuse. This type of situation will be common enough that it can really slow down the game for many armies. And that’s a bad idea especially for tournaments.

-The missions are different enough that Troops only counting as scoring isn't as big a deal as it would be today.

As I’ve said before, creating unrealistic rules (an oxymoron… I know) just to needlessly adjust game mechanics is a bad idea. There’s absolutely NO reason my Jump Troops or Dev. Squad can’t hold an objective. There are other ways to balance a game system without creating rules that are just plain stupid.

P.S. The “isn't as big a deal” or “it doesn’t happen often” argument is not a justification for screwing up a game system, (any game system). And it leads to problems down the road.

~Logic

Okay, so knowing just a little bit about epic and since JJ is working on the 40K game now, this is what I think regarding 'defensive' weapons...

Epic allows shooting to occur as part of the assault 'close combat' phase. What if this mechanic is being brought into 40K?

To make it non-gamebreaking:
1. 1/2 normal range with any rapid fire or assault non-template weapon, or vehicle-mounted defensive weapon
2. may fire into one enemy assaulting unit per assault phase
3. S4 (5 in consideration of Tau) or lower weapons only, one shot per weapon fired.

this way, heavy stubbers, bolters, lasguns, etc. can shoot at enemy infantry as it assaults.

I'm not a games designer, so the specific rules-as-speculation that I've put here are pretty much trash. But the idea seems in line with something Jervis might do...

My point is that defensive weapons may support a game mechanic of short ranged shooting in the assault phase, in the form of defensive fire.

Logic wrote:There’s absolutely NO reason my Jump Troops or Dev. Squad can’t hold an objective.

Better yet, Blood Angel Assault Squads taken as troops can score, but Elite and FA ones can't!

Go GW!!

BYE

I think we all need to just chill out, and realize that these aren't the only changes being made. Of course they don't make sense because we don't know what else they've done. Instead of freaking out and saying how horrible the game will be in 5th ed, just relax...

...and wait to freak out until we know everything they've screwed up

-leo037

As far as I can tell, GW current plan is to write bad rules to cover up the terrible ones. Also they want to undo any good changes they made in 4th. (will tanks even need a movement value now?)

50% of the purpose of the news and rumours forum is to freak out at the news and rumours.
Surely you've realised this by now

I think the "template weapon scatters" thingy happens when a to-hit roll fails, ala Necromunda, or otherwise it's incredibly stupid. If it's the case (who knows) I just hope that they'll improve the blast templates a bit, for example while playing them as teardrop template (anything touched is hit.)

BS 5 max is a codex-related thing, it has nothing to do with the rules. AFAIK BS10 is still 2+ now. It's just pointless to let it appear in a codex.

I think friendly models blocking LOS has some tactical interest, at least. It may combine with current target priority rules (you have to pass a Ld test to shoot "over" your comrades.)

IC rules are a bit clearer now, I was annoyed by those "this guy is in the middle of 20 soldiers but nooooo he's not part of the unit". Now IC will be just like other characters, but just able to move from one unit to another should the need arise.

I hope they'll rewrite reserve rules ala Apocalypse, they are so much better there.

Better yet, Blood Angel Assault Squads taken as troops can score, but Elite and FA ones can't!

And if you read the rumours:

-The missions are different enough that Troops only counting as scoring isn't as big a deal as it would be today.
-Victory points are calculated differently in "cleanse" style missions (points calculated depending on the FOC slot the dead unit took up).

Then you really don't know if the statement you said above is correct or not.


Also if the IC auto joins unit within 2" rule is only a mechanism for the firing phase (something like what FOW has), it becomes a decent rule protecting an IC from fire.

Okay, I've thought about it some more (it's my day off and the boy's a-napping; whaddaya want?)

Here's my problem, and it's similar to what Pixelgeek posted over at Tabletop Gaming News on this subject. IF they were going back and starting fresh: writing a sci-fantasy game for 30mm figures, based on 20 years of 'fluff', I'd be more comfortable with this. Instead, they're essentially trying to patch the thing, which itself was a patch (or a series of patches) on the last rules rewrite. This puts us in an untenable position, basically resorting to these three kinds of discussions:
1. Does it fix/break X mechanic?
2. Does it fix/break Y army?
3. Does it fix/break Z unit?

The conversation that SHOULD be taking place is: what will the quality of the OVERALL GAME be? That question is hopelessly lost as we get mired in talking about all the fixes for all the fiddly bits.

I'm sure this has been said by others more articulately , but it really makes me wonder if 40k can be saved in its current form at all, or does it need a complete revisioning. I don't just mean overbalancing/counterbalancing mistakes from previous editions; I mean wipe the slate clean in terms of ALL game mechanics--eliminate ALL assumptions of how the game is supposed to be played--and start from scratch.

im kinda glad about the IC thing. i JUST started using the rule, so i can go back to the way i used to do it and stick everyone in units again. makes it easier when i have 3 lascannon shots aimed at st. celestine's noodle from 40 inches away though.

-There's now a reason to have a BS higher than 5
-Area terrain does not block line of sight.
-> Combine these with the rumor that cover saves will change and 40k might become more intuitive at least for beginners:

*drumloll* - Units in cover will be harder to HIT ! - *drumroll barely audibly because of overwhelming aplause*

I expect modifiers on the "to hit role" once a unit is inside area terrain, propably BS-1. This way BS6 gets an advantage over BS5.
The change also improves the gameflow by removing coversave-dice roles after wounding.
Like someone before has posted, bad shooters would be affected more by cover then good shooters: BS2-1 = 50% decrease, while BS4-1 = 25% decrease. That makes sense though, doesnt it? An army of highly trained shooters SHOULD have less problems with hiding targets.


-Defensive weapons on vehicles are now Str 4 and below.
Im pretty sure they wont make tanks offensive abilitys worse, so I have to seceond the idea of defensive weapons shooting at infantry assaulting the vehicles rear armor. After all this is what Id suppose to be the purpose of similar weapons on real worl tanks. All non defensive weapons will likely be able to shoot even when moving, with turret weapons being able to aim at independent targets (like with real tanks.. etc.)

-All models friend or foe now block line of sight.
I have no clue how this might work without slowing the game down dramaticly during the movement, as well as during the shooting phase...

Toreador wrote:

Better yet, Blood Angel Assault Squads taken as troops can score, but Elite and FA ones can't!

And if you read the rumours:

-The missions are different enough that Troops only counting as scoring isn't as big a deal as it would be today.
-Victory points are calculated differently in "cleanse" style missions (points calculated depending on the FOC slot the dead unit took up).

Then you really don't know if the statement you said above is correct or not.

I do agree that we don’t know all the details yet. But I disagree with your line of reasoning.

[As I’ve said before] creating unrealistic rules just to needlessly adjust game mechanics is a bad idea. There are other ways to balance a game system without creating rules that are just plain stupid. (In the 40k game system, the BA Jump Troops vs. other Jump Troops is just one example of how this “troop = scoring units” idea is bad).

The “this isn't as big a deal” or “it doesn’t happen often” argument is not a justification for screwing up a game system. And it leads to problems down the road.

~Logic

keezus wrote:[b- -AP 1 weapons add +1 to the vehicle damage chart instead of doing as they do now.
[i]Sweet. That means that Meltas now have even less chance of destroying a Necron Monolith. Go SOB!

lmao

Or perhaps this whole 5th edition rumor is just the FAQ we are all waiting for? ::

Maybe this is Jervis and crew's subtle attempt to get everybody playing Warmachine.

I personally wonder if the rumored fleet will have an additional effect on the game play.

maybe heavy weapons will be able to be fired ala Slow and Purposeful USR, while units with Slow and Purposeful will get to move during their movement phase but not fleet? It doesn't complicate things and allows units with heavyweaponery to be more mobile then "lets find a hill and shoot like hell" that they are now.

It really depends on what you say is "unrealistic" in an abstract game system. Needless and stupid are words that you use to describe it, but that is really just an opinion. Everyone has an opinion and either agrees or disagrees with a game system on how it achieves it's play. Since it has been stated that being a scoring unit isn't as big a deal as it is today, we can assume that all the related rules have changed enough that this may not be forcing or pushing players to take more troops choices. Maybe it only gives a benefit or perk to troops choices when they reach certain objectives or survive the game. Really, until we see the entire thing in action I don't see how you can judge it. After all it is a means to an end.

I don't think this game system necessarily needs a reboot. A decent set of rules and FAQs could achieve what needs to be done. Ravening Hordes was a lot of hell before things all got sorted out. It was almost pointless to play certain armies during that time period, or against some. It could end up being just as much a mess either way we go.

Deadshane1 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:It's because they wanted to further clarify thebattlefield roles of the various Tanks vs Transports. In particular, it nerfs the Eldar grav tanks and their plethora of S6 weapons.

It nerfs tanks across the board, not just Eldar.

No, it specifically nerfs Eldar (and Tau). A Predator doesn't need to move to stay alive.

I hate screening, and I am a tyranid player.

Pinning test, no more entangled? Wow. How does being a cult marine make you immune to having to crawl out of a burning slag heap of a rhino that just exploded? I also play chaos, and I hate how fearless will make you immune from this rule.

Entangled should always be rolled for, and it whouldn't be based on leadrship, it should be an Intiative test or somethig like that to crawl out of the wreckage.

Finally, any word on the WS vs. WS chart? This thing really pisses me off, that chart should have always run from 2+ to 6+. Its stupid that a snotling can hit a chaos marine champion with the same chances of hitting a blood thirster or avatar.

Schepp himself wrote:Some serious Fantasy impact here.
2+/5+ is for having a BS of 6 or higher. Basically you roll to hit on a 2+. If it fails, you can reroll and hit on a 5+, giving you another chance of hitting your intended target. The reroll gets better the more BS you got.

Also Combat resolution (not in this chart) and IC are targetable (the IC hiding was erased in 7th edition fantasy).

I like many of these, but some sound rather strange, I have to agree on that. Making defensive weapons S4 or lower? Mh, only with a serious reconstruction of the vehicle firing chart. I like the 5+ ward save though.

The new torrent of fire is rather nice as far as I understand it. Now you can "snipe" the sarge and the heavy weapon guy with one big volley of fire (All get wounds times x, then roll the armor save) Further supports players to bring some basic guys into the field.

Target restriction (aka screening) is the stinkness! Nothing more annoying than a heavy weapon squad with nothing to shoot at. The screening solution of H.B.M.C.'s Group was rather good, or a ward save like the grot save ork armies got...

Greets
Schepp himself

Thanks. I play Fantasy, and I guess it didn't make sense to me
until I realized that's what the +2/+5 mechanic meant.

Slave wrote:Finally, any word on the WS vs. WS chart? This thing really pisses me off, that chart should have always run from 2+ to 6+. Its stupid that a snotling can hit a chaos marine champion with the same chances of hitting a blood thirster or avatar.

If Snotlings are still WS2, then I think that is false.

A WS2 Snotling would hit a WS4 CSM Champion on 4s, but needs 5s to hit WS5+ Bloodthirster / Avatar.

It nerfs tanks across the board, not just Eldar.


No, it specifically nerfs Eldar (and Tau). A Predator doesn't need to move to stay alive.

Yeah, but a predator will likely have to move to get LOS to its target.

A Predator loses a turn of firing when it shifts to a new firing position? Oh, noes!

The key point is that the Eldar & Tau should be moving (and sacrificing firepower) most of the time.

Imperial Tanks will give up much less.

Longshot wrote:HELLO 9 KANNON ORK LISTS! HURR

And you laughed when I put them into my lists.

JohnHwangDD wrote:A Predator loses a turn of firing when it shifts to a new firing position? Oh, noes!

The key point is that the Eldar & Tau should be moving (and sacrificing firepower) most of the time.

Imperial Tanks will give up much less.

OK. First because you don't seem to get it.

Reality check. Canadian Tanks in WWII could hit moving German tanks while the Canadian tank was at Max speed (kinda required as the Panzers were a lot better).
40K tanks can't hit anything accurately while moving. THey get worse as they often can't fire more then half thier weapons if they move. Ignoring everything else this says how slowed the rules are.

Second, who really wants to go back to the immobile bunkers of third edition.

Third, if reality and game history don't work for you how about economics. If tanks are immobile bunkers good luck selling them.

sebster wrote:

gorgon wrote:It's just odd to me that they don't go back to some hit modifiers. Everyone knows that speeders should be HARD TO HIT.

But that leads to an army balance issue. If a BS 4 army suffers a -1 to hit skimmers, 25% of their usual hits would miss the skimmers. But a BS 2 army like orks would have 50% of their usual hits missing the skimmers.

So you take the base BS of 3 and ask what would happen if you applied a -1 mod for them to hit... 33% of their shots that would normally hit would miss. Then you give everyone that same 33% chance of missing by applying a second roll after determining if you hit or not, and you end up with a 5+ cover save.

You understand the GW insanity. Bonus.

Kotrin wrote:IC rules are a bit clearer now, I was annoyed by those "this guy is in the middle of 20 soldiers but nooooo he's not part of the unit". Now IC will be just like other characters, but just able to move from one unit to another should the need arise.

And think about how the newly rumoured rule on models making individual armour saves relates to this. There would have been a strong incentive for ICs to stand in the middle of units and never join the unit. Now that IC standing in the middle of that block of troops can be hit, if you put enough fire in there.

It's also possible the new system for individual armour saves may pull back on the effectiveness of powerfists a little. You don't have to kill every enemy model in the area of engagement, just have to score enough wounds to force a save on that powerfist sergeant.

I hope they'll rewrite reserve rules ala Apocalypse, they are so much better there.

I hope reserve missions are written seperately for each mission. There's a lot of potential for variety there that's been ignored so far. But I suspect your wish will come true and mine will not.

A lot of the speculation we did when we heard the first rumours have now proved to be incorrect because of incomplete information. Still, most of you are falling to the same trap yet again in assuming that the rumours here are all that will be changing. Tanks might very well be able to fire all their weapons at all times, or there might be a new category called secondary weapons, and so on. In my opinion all we need to understand from these rumours is that the game is getting a major overhaul that somewhat resembles 40K v3.5 and not v5.0. Nearly every part of the game is changing, and so will the armies that play it. I welcome this change, as it seems that all armies will be affected by it. And please, let's not make this another "but XXX army doesn't get hurt by this!!!" thread because we've already had those, and like I said, we don't have a definite list of all the changes to the game.