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.

"Missions: Troops are the only scoring units but they count as scoring till the last man. They must be destroyed entirely to remove their scoring status. "


That.
Sucks.

PenguinDude wrote:"Missions: Troops are the only scoring units but they count as scoring till the last man. They must be destroyed entirely to remove their scoring status. "


That.
Sucks.

You think so? Why?

Mechanical rules changes (LOS, casualties, etc.) can screw things up in a big way, but at least this just rejuggles our FOC choices. And it will certainly shake things up in an interesting way.

Peguin dude - Remember if you're scoring and falling back you're not considered scoring. So yes Guardsmen Joe is scoring but since he's booking it off the table he doesn't count.
On the other hand marines got one hell of a boost.

I wonder if that (rumored) new rule for Marines is aimed at either mitigating or changing this...

Foda_Bett wrote:Peguin dude - Remember if you're scoring and falling back you're not considered scoring. So yes Guardsmen Joe is scoring but since he's booking it off the table he doesn't count.
On the other hand marines got one hell of a boost.

I'm thinking chaos probably got the greatest boost. Fearless plague marines and thousand suns will be able to sit on objectives and hide in cover while deflecting immense ammounts of firepower aimed at them. Necrons are going to like this a lot as well.

for those of us living under a rock like me and who didn't know about the leaked beta rules, can someone go over the major changes? i'm getting snippets here and there from the discussions but i think i need more. also, what's QQ?????

warboss wrote:for those of us living under a rock like me and who didn't know about the leaked beta rules, can someone go over the major changes? i'm getting snippets here and there from the discussions but i think i need more. also, what's QQ?????

There are major revisions to the way vehicles operate, making them much more surviveable but lowering maneuverability.
Skimmers lost their rediculously hard to kill status and had it replaced with a somewhat hard to kill stand in.
Only an armies troops choices can claim objectives.
You allocate wounds before rolling saves making it possible to kill things like hidden power fists without it always being the last thing in the squad.
A lot of rules were keyworded (eternal warrior being the keyword for anything that cant be instakilled and so on) and a few were changed.
Combats are a lot bloodier with reworked charge and hit allocation rules.
If you can see only a single model in a squad you can shoot the entire squad but they all count as being in (presumably heavy) cover.
Squads can now run, but can not assault the turn they run unless they have fleet or are beasts.

QQ is a smiley face type thing made to look like two eyes crying.

I think that the "only troops can take objectives" rule is a good step in the right direction. Combined with random game length, I think it will make for some really tense games. While Plague Marines and Necrons will be damn good at holding objectives... they should be. This will make the game more about tactical movement to take and hold ground instead of hiding and then parking four skimmers on the objective in the last turn.

It really is a shame that they made vehicles only able to fire defensive weapons at St4. That was just stoopid.

The charge reaction rule is cool, I hope that they have a stand and shoot option. I could see guardsmen lining up and pouring fire into a charging foe and then being torn apart without a chance to fight back. This could be a really cool mechanic.

The only problem with troops being the only things able to take objectives is that it leads to weird situations such as:

Deathwing Terminators in one army can hold an objective, yet in another army they can't. Blood Angel Assault Squad taken as Troops can hold objectives, yet one taken as a Fast Attack slot cannot.


What's worse is that these can happen at the same time in the same game, and sometimes in the same army.

BYE

pssht forget about plague marines and thousand sons holding objectives, how are you going to uproot 30 strong squads of orks, perticularly if lead by ghazkull and the majority being orks. Whats that? Tourney game ended turn 3 due to the long movement time involved with said orks? Well lets just see who has more holdings, lets see these 2 orks squads have this point, and that other point was washed over by 40ish hitting attacks one round. Well guess it would be fair to let VP decide this then. Lets see the orks blew up one tank for 2 points, and....one full squad of orks was finally sent packing. 2 to 1.

Now my main army is orks, but man this seems beyond cheap. Please tell me im WAY off on the understanding on how new scoring will work.

Geddonight wrote:

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 know I'm a drooling GW fanboy, but I have to admit that I'm a bit nervous about wound allocation, too. It seems like it's going to take a long time to determine which models to remove.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Necrons are going to like this a lot as well.

Neg. Necrons rely on pulling casualties to break engagement and surviving the first round of assault in order to teleport out or countercharge in some fearless models. With the former removed and the latter made a lot lot harder to achieve, Warriors become far too fragile to hold objectives vs those of even just a medium level of assault ability.

Savnock wrote: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).

GW appears to have two distinct personalities that make up their Codex and Core rules. One is a gamer who likes to create new ways to use existing units, as well as alter the game in such a manner that is plays differently. The other is a fluff nutter who wants new and interesting and/or to retain older units. This is how you can end up with new "overpowered" armies that still have crap units in them. Based on my experiance here is how Chaos has progressed since I've been playing:

Tanks
- bad in every edition but 4th, getting nerfed in 5th

Transports
- bad in every edition but 3rd

Termintors
- awesome in 2nd, bad in 3rd and 4th, appear better in 5th

Raptors
- finally maybe useful in 5th

Obliterators
- bad initially, good in the middle of 3rd and 4th, look OK in 5th

Dreadnaughts
- good to OK in all editions except 5th, where they SUCK

As you can see, each edition has different models that are good and bad. This means that you continually have to adjust your army to keep it competative. As it is, if I were going to be super competative, I'd have to buy a ton of Raptors and probably 2 demon princes to get the cheese army of the week. The next edition will swap that up and Raptors will probably suck.

Savnock wrote:"No-Argument" cover saves: Your opponent says what they think it is; if you disagree they still gets the cover save but with a –1 ~That's and interesting new concept for GW to throw into a ruleset.

~Its sounding like that leaked pdf was a lot closer to the final product than many initially thought. Its also interesting to see that they are formalizing certain common items of dispute that happen in games to keep things moving along (similar to Flames of War's very clean dispute rules).

The cover save thing is wierd, but whatever. I guess it's a good enough way to deal with units in mixed / partial cover than to try and determine majority cover saves on a model-by-model basis.

If the leaked PDF is a solid preview, then I'm going to be relatively happy with 5th Edition. I'm generally *for* the changes, particularly the emphasis on Troops and Objectives.

How do dreadnoughts suck now? The way I see it, they can sit in cover and get a 4+ save.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Or move and shoot two weapons.

Ozymandias wrote:How do dreadnoughts suck now? The way I see it, they can sit in cover and get a 4+ save.

4+?

The cover doesn't look that good to me, how about a 6+?

5+ it is....

Hellfury wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:How do dreadnoughts suck now? The way I see it, they can sit in cover and get a 4+ save.

4+?

The cover doesn't look that good to me, how about a 6+?

5+ it is....

No, we agreed on it being 4+ before the game.

I don't think he's completely in it to qualify the full 4+ save.

Ozymandias wrote:How do dreadnoughts suck now? The way I see it, they can sit in cover and get a 4+ save.

Chaos dreads have a frenzy table they roll on. 1 in 3 it's going to be unpredicatable. 1 in 6 its not going to do what you want it to do. 1 in 6 it may also kill some of your own troops.

HF/WD: How is that different than now? He's not really obscured... Or in 2nd ed, "No, I think he's only in soft cover...". Geez, there is enough to complain about without harping on that rule.

Techboss: ??

Ozymandias, King of Kings

whitedragon wrote:I don't think he's completely in it to qualify the full 4+ save

A 5+ it is then.

ShumaGorath wrote:QQ is a smiley face type thing made to look like two eyes crying.

I thought that was TwT.

I think everyone is confused on the cover save
like currently, different things give different cover.(grass, tank traps, craters, buildings etc)

the modifier is if you and your opponent can't decide if 1/2 of the squad or more is in cover
if you can't agree because it is too close to tell, that is what reduces the cover save by 1.
if it is clear, then the unit gets the appropriate save

Personally, I think that Loyalist ven dreads will be better.

cover save, reroll on the damage chart. The new "OMFZ! the ch33Z0r!!1!"

chaos dreads will continue to suck as they always have.

What about a Fortuned Falcon inside cover with Holo Fields?

Apparantly Last man Standing is gone and FnP is getting hit (not nerfed; just hit) Also; remember that dedicated transports are taxis again...

jfrazell wrote:Or move and shoot two weapons.

In 5th Edition a Walker that moves can fire only one weapon.

Aeon wrote:...FnP is getting hit (not nerfed; just hit)

Nope. Second verse, same as the first.

Pariah Press wrote:

Geddonight wrote:

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 know I'm a drooling GW fanboy, but I have to admit that I'm a bit nervous about wound allocation, too. It seems like it's going to take a long time to determine which models to remove.

I wouldn't worry much. The only time the new casualty removal rules start to really slow down is when you have more wounds than models in a unit. This really doesn't happen to many times in game.

In the current edition, this would be akin to causing a torrent of fire save. Ask yourself: how many times in a game does that really occur? The answer is, depending on conditions maybe 3-5 times, though YMMV depending on the weapons and squad sizes you're using.

The truth is, anytime you have less wounds than there are 'basic' models (those models with the same weapon) in the unit the casualty removal is exactly as it is now. Say you have 10 marines in a unit, one with a heavy weapon, one with a special weapon and one sergeant. That leaves 7 'standard' marines. If this unit suffers 7 wounds or less (which is most of the time) you get to just pick up seven dice and roll them all together.


I mean, in that original example, 21 wounds? How often does a unit suffer 21 wounds in a game?

yakface wrote:
I wouldn't worry much. The only time the new casualty removal rules start to really slow down is when you have more wounds than models in a unit. This really doesn't happen to many times in game.

In the current edition, this would be akin to causing a torrent of fire save. Ask yourself: how many times in a game does that really occur? The answer is, depending on conditions maybe 3-5 times, though YMMV depending on the weapons and squad sizes you're using.

The truth is, anytime you have less wounds than there are 'basic' models (those models with the same weapon) in the unit the casualty removal is exactly as it is now. Say you have 10 marines in a unit, one with a heavy weapon, one with a special weapon and one sergeant. That leaves 7 'standard' marines. If this unit suffers 7 wounds or less (which is most of the time) you get to just pick up seven dice and roll them all together.


I mean, in that original example, 21 wounds? How often does a unit suffer 21 wounds in a game?

Unfortunately, I see this happening in HTH quite often as sides dwindle (Depending of course on how harsh break tests/sweeping advances become). HTH can become boggy in any game system and I'm not too crazy about adding in wound allocation.