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.

davidson wrote:I have a 1+ cover save.... what you don't think so? Ok 2+ cover save it is.

Something like that.

I think that shrub grants me hard cover 3+ save.
You disagree ?
Fine, it's just a 4+ cover save.

I think that is how EVERY cover save discussion will go from now on.

Except, as has already been mentioned several times, cover saves will be established prior to play. Instead of arguing whether a model gets a cover save or not for being partial, the model simply gets the cover save -1.

Savnock wrote:PP, killing _all_ the enemy troops is not going to be easy with the 4+ cover save for intervening units.

Well, we'll have to see how it plays out "in the field," so to speak. I don't think that people will have an easy time screening units that they're trying to grab objectives with. Win conditions are going to be very different from what we're used to, and all armies will have to adapt. I can certainly understand your concerns about using the Guard in objective-based missions. It's not easy being T3 with a 5+ save.

Techboss wrote:

Tacobake wrote:looks like by that wording that Bikes lose their 24" bolter shots when they are on the move. Boo :(.

I think I would house rule that one. I just like bikes too much. Nice way to give chaos termies that boost.

I read "full effect" for rapid fire weapons as:

If your within 24", you can fire once
If your within 12", you can fire twice
You can charge regardless of if you fired or not. Normal assault rules apply, i.e. you must charge the unit you shot at.

You may move and fire heavy weapons and fire to full effect with rapid fire weapons and still charge.

I see that as being two sentences. You may move and fire heavy weapons ... and ... fire to full effect with rapid fire weapons and still charge.

meh. This isn't YMTC.

Tacobake wrote:

You may move and fire heavy weapons and fire to full effect with rapid fire weapons and still charge.

I see that as being two sentences. You may move and fire heavy weapons ... and ... fire to full effect with rapid fire weapons and still charge.

meh. This isn't YMTC.

Hmm. Although it could logically take either meaning, the lack of a comma after "move and fire heavy weapons" should be enough to convince most opponents that you can do either and still charge.

Iorek wrote:It does really help with "charge sniping", and forces people to really get stuck in. I'm not sure if it's a great solution, but it is a solution.

Well, that helps tame the Lash of Fzorgle a bit. Makes power fist sniping tougher.

Iorek wrote:
I'm reserving judgement on the new rules until I've played with them for a while. Some stuff sounds terrible, but if I end up playing games that I enjoy, then I'm happy.

I'll start a 5th Edition kvetching thread in Dakka Discussions for people to get it out of their systems.

I too will attempt to refrain from *insert Yiddish- or canine-derived verb here* too much until I get to at the very least read the rules. I'm not gonna hide how concerned I am about the tank rules, however. I'm happy with increased survivability, but I'm really hesitant to see (if it's true) how trading firepower for maneuverability helps anything, especially when it's relatively easy to shake/stun a vehicle and render it useless for at least a round.

Oh well, some of the stuff I've read I like. We'll see how things play out.

One thing that was mysteriously absent in the missions rumors: no Kill Points. It mentions VP's as one of the 3 mission objectives.

Another huge point that was not in the leaked PDF was the reaction move of the unit being assaulted. I think this will be another very drastic change. It's hard to say definitively its' impact on the game, but I can easily see a lot of 4th edition tactics getting snuffed.

Is the "you see one model, you can kill the whole unit" rule still in it? And if so, how does it affect the "who is in what cover" discussion?

Doesn't sound that complicated to me...honestly

Greets
Schepp himself

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

So when you charge my mob of 30 Boyz, all of whom have shootas, and 2 Base attacks, I get to move all the unengaged models up to 6" in order to become engaged in the combat, and the whole "You remove casualties from elsewhere in the squad" thing is still true?

Wow.

"The Boyz are back in Town"

Between this rule and the change in combat resolution it appears as though they're trying to make one round of combat be pretty decisive. That isn't necessarily a good thing for assault armies as you will now tend to plow through enemy units in a single round of combat and then be left open to enemy shooting.

Combine that with the fact that the rapid fire range of 12" will now affect the whole unit as long as one model is within 12" and I think that combat needs to be more brutal in order to keep the balance of power fair between shooting and assaulting armies.

Schepp himself wrote:Is the "you see one model, you can kill the whole unit" rule still in it? And if so, how does it affect the "who is in what cover" discussion?

Doesn't sound that complicated to me...honestly

Greets
Schepp himself

Yep, that rule is still in. Models out of LOS can be casualties, but they count as being behind cover.

Oh I certainly agree. One of the problems with the 5th Ed Rumors is that people see "Run" and LD Modifiers for Assault and start whining "This is the Assault Edition!" and they don't realize that Assault Armies Live and Breathe by the fact that they finish an enemy combat in their opponents turn. Because when you send your assault unit in, you sit and pray that there's someone left for you to massacre next turn so you're safe from shooting.

With revised rules for opponents breaking in the turn you do the assault and on all consolidation/massacre results being down to a D6 now, you are looking at assault units getting blasted after they hit a target.

Regarding the "no arguments" rule, it essentially codifies what a lot of us did during 2nd edition. If a model was in hard cover, but only something like 25% coverage, you agreed to a -1 mod instead of -2. That wasn't in the rules, but it was a common "best practice." I think that when it plays out, you'll see it isn't that bad.

I agree with Yak on CC. It'll be really important to plan and coordinate assaults. Not that you shouldn't be doing that now, mind you.

I'm still leery about their approach to wound allocation. I see what they're going for, but it takes what is currently a clean mechanic and makes it more complicated and somewhat counterintuitive.

Oh, and I happen to see a lot of 2nd edition touches (running, true LOS, etc.) in these rules.

I am a bit worried about about the defensive weapons be str4, while not really hurting my Leman russ tanks ( they were still set up for 3rd ie no sponsons and a las cannon on the front) my Chimera(s) are going to take a beating, i was very much enjoying rideing them forward and unloading with a multi-laser, heavy bolter, heavy stubber, now they get to sit back behind a hill unloading at 36 inchs pray no one blinks at them. I can only hope that when the IG codex gets re-done they drop the cost of them, 103 points for a transport with 12/10/10 even with all the weapons it too high.

My 2 preds in my blood angels were tri-lascannons set up from 3rd also so they just get better, though I have switched them to auto-cannon turrets to get the points cost down. Though my Baal takes a nasty hit from it since it can't roll forward and unload the two heavy bolters now. ( well actually it might depending on how the over charged engines work and fast vehicles)

I will be honest for the most part , Im kinda happy to see the return of bunkered tanks as it fits my play style a little better, basicly it makes silver rockets and golden bb less likely against 150ish point leman russ's and 125 point bassy's.

hopefully when the guard dex comes out, you can put the heavy stubbers in the sponsons and hull.
I really like the 5th edition rumors i can't wait until it is released.

As usual with the release of a new codex or ruleset we are going to (and have already) see lots of "QQ my army is nerfed because I have to change my list from what I always run" and "my army got nerfed, I'm not playing anymore."

I like to see it as a good thing, sort of a culling of the uninterested and unimaginative.

This is how cover saves in games for me are going to work from now on in tournaments.
1.) Go over each terrain piece and assign it a cover save with my opponent.
2.) Play game.
3.) If opponent decides to be a cheese monkey and argue something we agreed upon already. 0 sports, 0 comp.

Hooray

bigchris1313 wrote:

Tacobake wrote:

You may move and fire heavy weapons and fire to full effect with rapid fire weapons and still charge.

I see that as being two sentences. You may move and fire heavy weapons ... and ... fire to full effect with rapid fire weapons and still charge.

meh. This isn't YMTC.

Hmm. Although it could logically take either meaning, the lack of a comma after "move and fire heavy weapons" should be enough to convince most opponents that you can do either and still charge.

yeah you guys are right. Gives me a reason to finally paint up those chaos termies after all XD.

Now I have to choose between plasma and melta, unfortunately.

I'm frequently on the move with my line troops anyway, so that does not hinder my play style. Defensive weapons = s5 definately hurts, though.
IG are tough to play in objective missions, but think of it this way. They just got a lot better at objective missions, because everybody else got worse in that only troops are scoring.

So far, then, without knowing all of the new rumored rules I gave the IG one shaky thumbs up. Bring in the new codex, though, and we shall see.

Given the makeup of my army (non swarm/zilla nids) I'm probably going to have a much tougher time in games. Loosing the ability to have raveners take objectives is going to be a severe blow. All that can actually do so in my army now is my single genestealer squad, because y'know, they do that kind of thing.

Oh well, this is what you get for fielding 30 ripper swarms as your troops allotment (30 not 3) *starts painting some stupid termagants*.

I still think it's a change for the better.

Dakkaladd wrote:As usual with the release of a new codex or ruleset we are going to (and have already) see lots of "QQ my army is nerfed because I have to change my list from what I always run" and "my army got nerfed, I'm not playing anymore."

I like to see it as a good thing, sort of a culling of the uninterested and unimaginative.

Most of the worry in this thread is not army-specific, outside of the IG (who are the best case-in-point for discussion, and thus being used as an example by both those who play them and those who do not). It's a concern for balance between codices, and in the core rules. LOS on a single model allowing hits on whole units is a bad idea. So is model-by-model LOS. So is making whole units strike in combats, thus making Toughness far more important than Initiative in CC. Fast CC troops are going to get universally screwed by these rules. S4 defensive weapons on vehicles promote static vehicle play for everyone.

And as for "the uninterested and unimaginative", those who have created highly-converted armies or characterful counts-as units are often the ones who get screwed by rules/codex changes (LatD, Kroot Mercs, etc. etc.). These are hardly the "uninterested and unimaginative". Converters and heavily invested players should not get screwed by rules changes. GW uses rules changes to drive marketing, through planned obsolescence and rotating overpoweredness on purpose. It's a crappy thing to do, although you (Dakkaladd) are apparently so used to it that you don't know any better. A good outcome of the complaining here would be to find ways around this (making existing collections still work).

Finally, of course we're focusing on the problems. It's a freaking internet forum, where people go to point out difficult issues, argue about them, and occasionally collaborate on dealing with them. Perhaps if you stop belittling the worries of your fellow gamers and instead address the rules issues, you won't sound like such a smug little whelp in the future.

through planned obsolescence and rotating overpoweredness on purpose.

No, look to privateer press to see that. If games workshop was doing so they would have sold a lot more chaos spawn and possessed marines.

Finally, of course we're focusing on the problems. It's a freaking internet forum, where people go to point out difficult issues, argue about them, and occasionally collaborate on dealing with them. Perhaps if you stop belittling the worries of your fellow gamers and instead address the rules issues, you won't sound like such a smug little whelp in the future.

The arguments over the "no arguments" rule kinda shows that a lot of the people on this topic have used it as a soap box to QQ without actually understanding what it is they are QQing over. Not all of them of course there have been quite a few insightful meaninful posts, but most of those take the new rules with a grain of salt and realise that army compositions are going to change in the new addition. Which understandably leaves many to hang in the wind (myself included if you read my above post.

ShumaGorath wrote:

through planned obsolescence and rotating overpoweredness on purpose.

No, look to privateer press to see that. If games workshop was doing so they would have sold a lot more chaos spawn and possessed marines.

Just because they're not always good at it doesn't mean they don't do it.

Finally, of course we're focusing on the problems. It's a freaking internet forum, where people go to point out difficult issues, argue about them, and occasionally collaborate on dealing with them. Perhaps if you stop belittling the worries of your fellow gamers and instead address the rules issues, you won't sound like such a smug little whelp in the future.

The arguments over the "no arguments" rule kinda shows that a lot of the people on this topic have used it as a soap box to QQ without actually understanding what it is they are QQing over. Not all of them of course there have been quite a few insightful meaningful posts, but most of those take the new rules with a grain of salt and realize that army compositions are going to change in the new addition. Which understandably leaves many to hang in the wind (myself included if you read my above post.

My point is that pointing out QQing rather than contributing to discussion (as Dakkaladd does, crowing rather than contributing anything useful) is dumb. Accept kvetching as part of internet forum discussion, and move on to useful discussion. I rarely femaledog that much, but systemic problems with realistic LOS and casualty removal are serious concerns. Well, for those of us who take playing "war with mandolls" seriously.

Just because they're not always good at it doesn't mean they don't do it.

I don't see that many tankbustas, deffkoptas, or kommando's cruising around either. Nor has Huron Blackheart really been the bane of too many foes. Honestly the only somewhat overpowered new release I can remember are the eldar harlequins. Maybe lootas too. Neither of which are huge cash cows for GW. In fact the entire new demon codex is a bit weak by what I've seen, and that had tons of new model releases.

Just because new codexes and rulesets force people to buy new models occasionally doesn't mean they are intentionally depowering old models and overpowering new ones. When was the last falcon revision done?

Tyranids-
new carnifex model
new carnifex rules permitting the glory that are dakkafexes (mmm me loves me some dakkafexes).

I heard that in the next Tyranid codex they are going to make Dakkafex's Troops! Really! Tyranid players need that extra edge so, you know...



Ozymandias, King of Kings

jfrazell wrote:Tyranids-
new carnifex model
new carnifex rules permitting the glory that are dakkafexes (mmm me loves me some dakkafexes).

Ok then. On the topic of tyranids (my army!). Man, those raveners sure are great! And biovores! Lictors! The tyranid codex boosted one of its models to mythic proportions while at the same time ensuring that thats all lots of people ever bought (most nid zilla lists forgo things like gaunts, warriors, lictors, etc. And raveners lictors and biovores are just terrible). I sincerely doubt they would hobble their sales like this intentionally. They came out with a new dreadnaut at about the same time they began to allow more than three in an army. Funny how you still don't see too many stomping around space marine armies.

Nidzilla was just a hideous design choice that clearly was not playtested enough and is only as popular as it is because besides hive tyrants, hormugaunts, and carnifexes most things in the tyranid codex are overcosted.

Raveners are (currently) very good, not horrible. Right on other counts, though.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Raveners are (currently) very good, not horrible. Right on other counts, though.

I've been using them for a while. They're great if they don't get shot to death but a 45+ point model with t4 2 wounds and a 5+ save (And no synapse) isn't easy to keep alive. It's more cost effective to buy 5 hormugaunts. They are situationally great, but overall they are passable at best. At least in my opinion anyway.

gorgon wrote:I'm still leery about their approach to wound allocation. I see what they're going for, but it takes what is currently a clean mechanic and makes it more complicated and somewhat counterintuitive.

The wound allocation will also slow down the game considerably as wounds increase.
3rd Ed: "21 Wounds, AP 4" Me: *Rolls dice* "okay, 7 marines die" *Removes casualties
4th Ed: "21 Wounds, AP 4. Let's Torrent of Fire your sergeant" Me: "saved" *Rolls 20 dice* "Okay, 9 failed" *Removes casualties*
5th Ed: "21 Wounds, AP 4" Me: *puts 2 dice down for each marine in squad, and one extra on bolter bob. Rolls for sergeant. Rolls for Missile Launcher. Rolls for Flamer. Rolls all the rest. Removes casualties*

I hope to God, Allah, Buddha, and Confucius that they don't use this method in close combat, but I'm sure they will.... 30+ tyranid/ork hits/wounds will... well... blech. Of course, now it's a way to get rid of special things (icons in CSM, special weapons--poor guard--and what have you) for better or worse.


On a side note, if this is supposed to be the edition of true LOS, how come you can hit members of a squad you cannot see?

ShumaGorath wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Tyranids-
new carnifex model
new carnifex rules permitting the glory that are dakkafexes (mmm me loves me some dakkafexes).

Ok then. On the topic of tyranids (my army!). Man, those raveners sure are great! And biovores! Lictors! The tyranid codex boosted one of its models to mythic proportions while at the same time ensuring that thats all lots of people ever bought (most nid zilla lists forgo things like gaunts, warriors, lictors, etc. And raveners lictors and biovores are just terrible). I sincerely doubt they would hobble their sales like this intentionally. They came out with a new dreadnaut at about the same time they began to allow more than three in an army. Funny how you still don't see too many stomping around space marine armies.

Nidzilla was just a hideous design choice that clearly was not playtested enough and is only as popular as it is because besides hive tyrants, hormugaunts, and carnifexes most things in the tyranid codex are overcosted.

Yes but they were pushing the fexxes as new sculpts. The argument, with merit, is that they shift the focus of the new codex to different units, such that existing players have to also re-focus to remain competitive. No it doesn't always work (spawn, looking in your direction), but often it does (new terminators with beefed rending pony A cannon).

I abase myself before the members of the holy Ordos and formally apologize for opening the can of worms known as "New Codex Boosting". Can we get back to kve... er, discussing the new rules rumors?

Can someone give us a condensed breakdown of the way that the casualty removal rules are supposed to work under the .pdf, and what clever exploits folks have already worked out? I want to figure this out to see how it will interface with No Retreat. I won't be on my home system with the .pdf for a while. Anyone got a moment to write this out? TIA.