PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone else not like 5th edition 40k?



Pages : [1] 2

Captain Micha
16-01-2008, 01:40
Given what we are learning of it almost daily it seems, does anyone else like fifth edition less and less each time they read something about it?

Honestly with the flaws that are in 4th I can safely say that as far as being a d6 system goes it is probably about is good as it can get. (I think an ap nerf of almost every weapon in the game by 1 is in order but that is something you can change on a codex to codex basis)

Making vehicles static and even more retarded than they are now? :wtf:

all of these pro assault rules to make shooting all but pointless? :wtf:

So far there has been only one thing I have liked about fifth edition and thats the change to rending (which so had it coming)

the new scatter if you miss blast template rules, and the forced march.

Note, option one is not sarcasm, nor is it an insult. If you actually like the new things coming... just vote yes. I am not being insulting..

matthewmw64
16-01-2008, 01:43
I really really dont like the whole "Str 4 weapons and under are Defensive". If this is true, ill be so annoyed.

Captain Micha
16-01-2008, 01:45
I was willingly trying to forget that one. Unless what a defensive weapon is in 40k changes dramatically.. I really don't like it. It's like they are phasing vehicles out of the game entirely by making them worse and worse with each go. I'm sorry Gw but if I wanted to play infantry /assault being the only phase that matters I would be playing fantasy more

Ravenous
16-01-2008, 01:47
Considering the only thing I've seen that doesnt bone Eldar is that sniper rifles might get rending.

To be honest I don't believe the rumours are for 5th edition but rather 40 advanced. It makes sense, GW has been doing a lot of fan service and an advanced rule set would be good for those ultra gamers. It certianly makes more sense then pissing off a large part of their players and abandoning an edition half way in.

Think about it, Apocalypse was a fluff driven book that basically said "make up your own rules", a 40K advanced book would be good for all those people that miss 2nd ed and want a more "tactical" rules filled game.

A new edition would basically trash the last 4 years including apocalypse, and if it really is true it seems more like GW trying to force another $70 book on us while a 40k advanced rule book would fit in nicely. But then again this is GW and forcing us to re buy an entire army is right up their ally.

RapidKiller
16-01-2008, 01:47
As far as i knew those were just rumors? There just Rumors right?:confused:

Baltar
16-01-2008, 01:47
I am sort of sick of assault being the only important phase. Close Combat needed to be toned down, not emphasized even more.

Gensuke626
16-01-2008, 01:49
I personally don't trust the 5th ed rumors. For the most part, if 5th ed sucks, I know I have a group of people who would be more than willing to play 4th ed with me. On top of that I could then House Rule the heck out of it to make it more fun for all involved...

But that's only if the 5th ed rumors are true...like I said, I don't think most of those are anything more than either ideas GW is kicking around or just someone's demented pipe dreams...

Baltar
16-01-2008, 01:50
As far as i knew those were just rumors? There just Rumors right?:confused:

Rumors mean something different on Warseer than anywhere else. Rumors should be more accurately called "previews"

Captain Micha
16-01-2008, 01:51
- edited out.. point said already

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
16-01-2008, 01:52
I've been avoiding reading about the 5th edition rule rumors. I guess after the new book comes out and the dust settles, we'll see where everyhting landed. I'm not going to make any judgements until everything is said and done.

Captain Micha
16-01-2008, 01:54
I wish I could do that but I can't help myself. since there have been enough rumors at this point to approximate the actual amount of total rules to the 40k current system I would say at this point we all but have a total preview of the next incarnation of the rules.... which honestly over all seem sad.

Chaos and Evil
16-01-2008, 01:54
Honestly with the flaws that are in 4th I can safely say that as far as being a d6 system goes it is probably about is good as it can get.

40k is very good at what it does, but it's not my favourite D6 system, and I'm very sure it's not the best-designed (Its problems are derrived from a desire to be backwards-compatible rather than current missteps however, I think).

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
16-01-2008, 01:56
I wish I could do that but I can't help myself. since there have been enough rumors at this point to approximate the actual amount of total rules to the 40k current system I would say at this point we all but have a total preview of the next incarnation of the rules.... which honestly over all seem sad.

That's why I play both 40K AND fantasy! If one starts to get boring/sucky/crappy rules, I just switch my focus over to the other one. It's a brilliant strategy.

Ravenous
16-01-2008, 02:00
I personally don't trust the 5th ed rumors. For the most part, if 5th ed sucks, I know I have a group of people who would be more than willing to play 4th ed with me. On top of that I could then House Rule the heck out of it to make it more fun for all involved...

But that's only if the 5th ed rumors are true...like I said, I don't think most of those are anything more than either ideas GW is kicking around or just someone's demented pipe dreams...

Just stick with the idea that its just a 40k Advanced ruleset expansion instead of thinking its 5th ed.

Even brimstone used "5th" ed when describing it.

Captain Micha
16-01-2008, 02:01
Yeah but I never really gave fantasy a chance. (I like the idea of my army shooting things too much... and part of that was.. I picked bretonnia... something of a one trick pony in my mind... no pun intended.)

yay... post 2100..... yay.....

So you are thinking (or hoping) it is not an entirely new rule set for the game, Ravenous? I am too... I would much rather it be an -option- than to mandatorily have to participate in some kind of assault happy nonsense game system.

Mr Spock
16-01-2008, 02:01
When Brimstone posted the summery of the first 5th edition rumors, I was a bit apprehensive but I was trying to be optimistic. Now I am all bu appalled at the current trend in the rumors, and I hope that they are just rumors. GW is trying to tone down vehicles, but they are making them almost worthless. The cover save instead of hull down idea is neat, but I dislike the skimmer rule as the now more expensive Landspeeder Tornado of the DA and BA are overpriced and way too fragile. The lack of IC protection is a poor choice, and forcing the IC to join a unit is a bit too simplified. All of the shooting rules just upset me, and make me not even want to finish the army I am building at the moment. I guess this is what I get for not building a generic close combat army and trying to build a shooting heavy one. The Guard will be very hurt by these changes. The one rule I especially dislike is this new way of wound allocation and saving throws as it makes it even easier to shoot the specialists and the sargent, but I guess it is a bonus to shooting armies.

Overall while being very pessimistic about the rules, I know I will most likely end up continuing to play the game and will not make any fancy statements about quitting or anything as such.

Ironhand
16-01-2008, 02:05
In the first place, what we are currently getting are at best rumors, and likely based on playtest material. What the rules will finally look like is a complete unknown.

In the second place, GW is going to do what it's going to do, regardless, so there's really not much to do except adapt to the new rules, or quit playing.

Captain Micha
16-01-2008, 02:07
I don't know if all of warseer said that it was retarded (and warseer saying this of all places) they might very well change their tune. They do take this site seriously (at least on some level)

Ps guys added a poll.

Baltar
16-01-2008, 02:09
In the second place, GW is going to do what it's going to do, regardless, so there's really not much to do except adapt to the new rules, or quit playing.

That isn't really a great attitude.

Col. Dash
16-01-2008, 02:11
Wouldnt be the first time they said "Screw the fans, we want money, lets put out a half ass rules set(3rd and to a lesser degree(but not by much)4th)"

Ravenous
16-01-2008, 02:12
Yeah but I never really gave fantasy a chance. (I like the idea of my army shooting things too much... and part of that was.. I picked bretonnia... something of a one trick pony in my mind... no pun intended.)

yay... post 2100..... yay.....

So you are thinking (or hoping) it is not an entirely new rule set for the game, Ravenous? I am too... I would much rather it be an -option- than to mandatorily have to participate in some kind of assault happy nonsense game system.

I hope so. To me it looks like a 40k advanced rules EXPANSION because some of this stuff is just too messed up for regular games.

If its not I honestly don’t think I'll bother playing 40K anymore, I took the hit between 2nd to 3rd which was huge and it was difficult but I liked 3rd because it was faster. Then 3rd to 4th was an easy transition to an even better system I enjoyed, but this, this just looks like 2nd edition threw up all over the last 10 years and is the first time I look at a new edition saying "ok ******* this I’m out".

15 years of having GW try and swindle you eventually starts to grind on your patience.

Drogmir
16-01-2008, 02:17
I think before they do anything they should at least bring everyone's codex to edition 4.

IG need love too!

Ravenous
16-01-2008, 02:26
I think before they do anything they should at least bring everyone's codex to edition 4.

IG need love too!

That’s the only hard evidence that leads me to believe its only a 40k Advanced rule expansion.

Because if it’s not its GW giving us the finger with one hand and an open palm out expecting loads of money with the other, I guess they figured out the only way to get out of the toilet is to force (gullible) players to re-buy an entire army.

However GW has been doing quite a bit of fan service as well recently, so buggering us kind of goes against that.

Evidence for 5th ed
-GWs usual "durrr" approach
-GW wanting fat piles of money

Evidence in favour of an advanced rule expansion
-Abandoning an edition half way
-The amount of fan service recently
-Apocalypse being a fluff and fun driven game, so a advanced rule set would be for hard core gamer "tacticians" that claim the game is for kids
-Not kid or beginner friendly.

Turbo_MMX
16-01-2008, 02:27
For the most part i find the rumours good. The one thing that i really cant work out is "Friendly infantry blocks LOS" Tacticly thats just going to screw the hell outta alot of current units and game-play styles.

Chaos and Evil
16-01-2008, 02:35
I hope so. To me it looks like a 40K advanced rules EXPANSION because some of this stuff is just too messed up for regular games.

If I was a GW rules designer I'd be bloody careful about releasing any '40k advanced' ruleset... I'm sure the rules devs are all well aware what happened when Advanced D&D was released...

Besides, if I was writing a 40k advanced ruleset, I'd start by scrapping the standard unit statline, turn sequence, movement rules... etc... :)

You reckon that '40k Advanced' wouldn't at the least include unit-specific movement rates?

Lord Raneus
16-01-2008, 02:36
A Fantasy-like LoS system will *NOT* work well for 40k, in my opinion. It means all you have to do is surround those Genestealers/CC Terminators/Generic Uber-death CC unit with cheap meatshields, and they won't get killed.

It would swing balance in favor of Close Combat, which I don't think is good. S4 defensive weapons would only exacerbate this.

Happy
16-01-2008, 02:37
Personally, I think too many people worry about the changes new rules make in their play styles. Without new rules and codices on a regular basis, the game would be static and boring. The new rules keep us sharp, give us something to gripe about on the boards, reasons to buy new models, etc...

Sure, GW does it to make money, but it also keeps the hobby alive and interesting. If there were no new rules, we wouldn't have something to get excited about and many of us would drift into something new.

Do I think some of the rules will be a bad decision? Absolutely. Do i think some of them will be great and fun? Absolutely.

Either way, it'll be fun to watch.

Pete278
16-01-2008, 02:40
I was willingly trying to forget that one. Unless what a defensive weapon is in 40k changes dramatically.. I really don't like it. It's like they are phasing vehicles out of the game entirely by making them worse and worse with each go. I'm sorry Gw but if I wanted to play infantry /assault being the only phase that matters I would be playing fantasy more
Apparantly the vehicle damage chart is being changed, so it may become harder to kill vehicles. Its certainly far too early to judge it yet.

Ravenous
16-01-2008, 02:41
If I was a GW rules designer I'd be bloody careful about releasing any '40k advanced' ruleset... I'm sure the rules devs are all well aware what happened when Advanced D&D was released...

Besides, if I was writing a 40k advanced ruleset, I'd start by scrapping the standard unit statline, turn sequence, movement rules... etc... :)

You reckon that '40k Advanced' wouldn't at the least include unit-specific movement rates?

They could just use it for tournaments and what not.

And I don't play DnD so what was the deal with Advanced?

Gensuke626
16-01-2008, 02:44
As far as i knew those were just rumors? There just Rumors right?:confused:

They're just rumors. Brimstone has been wrong in the past, he is only human.

The rumors may be accurate up to the latest playtesting set, but that may very well change. I think a good example of a rule that would need to be changed very quickly is the rule about non WS vehicles always getting hit on rear armor in CC. That just seems daft. I can see it as being "Grenades and Meltabombs may always opt to hit side armor, representing them being tossed onto the vehicle's top armor" but letting Mr Toxin-sac-Hormagaunt glance a russ by charging the front of the tank? That's more than silly.

Besides, look at the rumors that were coming out as close as 3 months to Apocalypse's release.
Basilisk Batteries firing Apocalyptic Barrage Templates
S7 Weapons ignoreing Armor Saves
Strength D weapons Ignore ALL Saves
Bonesinger Gets Rules
Abbadon gets Massive Terminator Bodyguard unit.

None of these things were true, though the last 2 might change, but these were rumors that people believed as close as 3 months to release. We've still got 8 months to go till the supposed release of 5th ed.

Heck, people even assumed that Orks were getting rending right up untill Orkdom posted his codex leak.

Point is, even though Warseer rumor mill is probably the most accurate one on the net, it's still not perfect, and you can't take anything it says as complete gospel.

As a side note, Brimstone predicted that Codex Orks would be released before Apocalypse in late summer 07 and Chaos marines would be released in spring 08. Not saying he's not reliable, because he is, just saying that even Brimstone and his sources can make mistakes.

Captain Micha
16-01-2008, 02:48
Ad&D was like 2nd edition 40k... horridly overcomplicated, Ravenous.. it is best such things are forgotten to the sands of time. It was in short an abomination.

Ps I think Brimstone is wrong intentionally from time to time. Or Gw makes sure he's wrong from time to time. That way we are left "excited and wondering" about what might be next.

boreas
16-01-2008, 02:49
I love a lot of what I hear:

-Rending toned down?: Well, everybody and their aunt's bitchin' about rending. So good

-Skimmers toned down: see previous point.

-"run" option: good, more tactical possibilities. Models won't be scratching their rear end if nobody's near.

-Improvement to cover save rule: I dunno, depends what improvement mean!

-Better snipers: great, these were all but useless..

-Better CC resolution. Very good, possibly no more "Mr/Mrs uber-character charges 10-15 guys, makes them flee then utterly destroys them.

-Single vehicle damage: Me like. Simpler to use, possibly with more coherent results (no more glancing makes your land raider go bye-bye)

-Vehicule able to ram: VROOM-RAM-BAM... Blood/mayhem, what's not to like?

-Only troops scoring: Like less 2 troops, 2 HQ, 3 Elites, 3 Fast, 3Heavy Min-max lists? Actual emphasis on troops, like, what should be most common in most lists? Great AND fluffy!

-LOS block: So my SOB HB squad won't be able to shoot THROUGH the other sisters parked in front? Kind of makes sense, no? Remember rule debates where people moan about rules not making sense? There ya go. Plus this helps elite armies (ie GK, etc) as they will be able to get a higher percentage of their firepower bear on the ennemy. Also, opens the door to more tactics, so that's good.

-Defensive weapons: no sure yet... but this one might be harder to incorporate. Might make ordinance bearing vehicle stronger compared the multi-strong-weapons vehicles. Good for IG I guess.

-Better transport? Once again, the whole imperium's been complaining about the utter lack of use for the Rhino, so what's no to like?

-AP 1 weapons give +1 on chart: Good streamline, no more debate needed when shot at skimmers.

-Less power to IC: great, less Herohammer, more unithammer.

-scouts and infiltrator "flank-march" good idea, makes them more usefull...

-DS less dangerous: also good, it'll make people use it more (especially with expensive GK!!!) which, once again, means more tactics.

Overall shaking-up of the meta-game: VERY good. Seems like I was seeing the same lists over and over again. That was boring. Plus, for the moderate fee of 50$ (roughly for the rulebook) I get the feeling of playing a whole new game without having to buy new minis!!! Less nidzilla -Yeah! Less tri-falcon - Yeah! Less Ass-cannon spam - Yeah!

Phil

Ravenous
16-01-2008, 02:51
Ad&D was like 2nd edition 40k... horridly overcomplicated, Ravenous.. it is best such things are forgotten to the sands of time. It was in short an abomination.

Ps I think Brimstone is wrong intentionally from time to time. Or Gw makes sure he's wrong from time to time. That way we are left "excited and wondering" about what might be next.

Ah I thought so.

And a note on Brim; he is usually right, up into th 95% range, its when we get rumours from other sources that start to bugger us up. It's a case of broken telephone, Brim gives us the heads up and then outside sources muck it up as time goes on.

Most of the rumours are coming from average joe warseers that saw a playtesters copy.

Gensuke626
16-01-2008, 02:52
Ps I think Brimstone is wrong intentionally from time to time. Or Gw makes sure he's wrong from time to time. That way we are left "excited and wondering" about what might be next.

Further proof that there is a chance we need not worry about 5th ed being "The cancer that is killing 40k"

stompzilla
16-01-2008, 02:55
New something else to whinge about! Yay! Rhino rushing marines and Spam ork hoardes behind gretchin meatshields!

Ravenous
16-01-2008, 02:56
New something else to whinge about! Yay! Rhino rushing marines and Spam ork hoardes behind gretchin meatshields!

Its 3rd ed all over again! :D

AngryAngel
16-01-2008, 02:57
I'll need to see it before I judge it honestly. I like some of what I see, and dislike some as well. Alot of the rules seem to really bone the combat squad rule. With the shooting wound allocation and all. I can forsee lots of dead heavy, special and Sgts in the future.

Captain Micha
16-01-2008, 02:57
you took the words right off my fingers. Gensuke, given the sheer -volume- of info coming I doubt this is one of those times we should not be worrying. most of the rumors that brimstone did not get correct there was very little detail on.

Angry Angel, I noticed that too.. something I find rather humorous given that allegedly codeci Da and up are made for 5th rather than 4th...

Gensuke626
16-01-2008, 02:59
Its 3rd ed all over again! :D

Hopefully without the dreadful rapidfire rules that 3rd ed had.

Did you move? No? Then you can shoot at max range or twice at 12".
Oh, you did move? Sorry, you only get 1 shot at 12".

Gensuke626
16-01-2008, 03:01
I'll need to see it before I judge it honestly. I like some of what I see, and dislike some as well. Alot of the rules seem to really bone the combat squad rule. With the shooting wound allocation and all. I can forsee lots of dead heavy, special and Sgts in the future.

yeah...if the rumor is true.

I do like Torrent of Fire better, but it functions under a similar principle...

Chaos and Evil
16-01-2008, 03:05
The hit allocation rule sounds like it comes straight out of Epic. (Just like the Apocalypse scenario is in fact a simplified version of Epic's standard meeting engagement scenario)

And frankly, Epic is awesome, therefore this hit allocation rule change is also awesome.


So, that's a rumour I'm inclined to believe is possible, considering who's in charge of the rules these days...


Also, puppies and kittens are awesome...

Occulto
16-01-2008, 03:07
Can't (and won't) say for sure until I've had at least a few games with a new ruleset and seen how it all fits together. That means the released rulebook, not a bunch of rumours.

Ravenous
16-01-2008, 03:10
Ad&D was like 2nd edition 40k... horridly overcomplicated, Ravenous.. it is best such things are forgotten to the sands of time. It was in short an abomination.

Kind of like what we are hearing about "5th edition" eh? ;)

AngryAngel
16-01-2008, 03:10
Ya know think of me what ya will. I won't complain if 5th ed bones me. I'll just take it like a man. However, I won't be happy about it. As well, as has been mentioned I've also worried about the costs of the DA BA speeders.

With the skimmers getting more vulnerable to penetration, and the nerf coming to rending. It makes me think our raised prices will end up being a real curse. What if they find the nerf really takes the sting out of the AC ? Will they raise vanilla marines costs as much for them as DA and BA ? Or will they keep them around the same leaving DA and BA just really over priced and then underpowerd ?

As well with the offerd new wound allocation rules our more expensive Fists and heavy weapons will end up being much more vulnerable and expensive. I don't know about anyone else, but that does give me some moments of worry.

Chaos and Evil
16-01-2008, 03:17
Kind of like what we are hearing about "5th edition" eh? ;)

These rumours about 5th edition are a decent way from being even close to as complicated as 2nd edition.

Fancy a different damage chart for each vehicle?

How about fifteen different template sizes and shapes?

Or checking LOS and facing for every single model on the board? ("These two of your Marines are looking the wrong way, they can't shoot this turn!")

Or every piece of wargear being represented by a different piece of cardboard, and you were forever losing the damn things?

Or a psychic phase which was so complicated that... well, you get the idea.

Captain Micha
16-01-2008, 03:21
It is not overcomplicated... it's just an abomination... (in the case of 5th edition) It's making rules for rules sake. One thing I will give AD&D is at least -half- of the changes made sense in some way shape or form.... this....... ...... ......

matthewmw64
16-01-2008, 03:23
I do hope that they fix Ghazgkull and his +2 Attacks on the charge thing. Tahst just stupidity on GW's part.

When I say fix I mean change Slow and Purposeful.

Gensuke626
16-01-2008, 03:37
Fancy a different damage chart for each vehicle?


Don't you mean a different damage chart for each part of every vehicle? and sometimes a different AV for every part of every vehicle?

"Oh, I hit the Dread in the right arm. I rolled a 6, so some of the ammo in the gun cooks off and back flashes into the cockpit, killing the guy entombed inside of it...Neat!"

stompzilla
16-01-2008, 03:41
Ya know think of me what ya will. I won't complain if 5th ed bones me. I'll just take it like a man. However, I won't be happy about it. As well, as has been mentioned I've also worried about the costs of the DA BA speeders.

With the skimmers getting more vulnerable to penetration, and the nerf coming to rending. It makes me think our raised prices will end up being a real curse. What if they find the nerf really takes the sting out of the AC ? Will they raise vanilla marines costs as much for them as DA and BA ? Or will they keep them around the same leaving DA and BA just really over priced and then underpowerd ?

As well with the offerd new wound allocation rules our more expensive Fists and heavy weapons will end up being much more vulnerable and expensive. I don't know about anyone else, but that does give me some moments of worry.

These are the same worries i have. I think torrent of fire works beautifully and is in no way in need of a change. The only thing i'd do would be to give it it's own heading in the rulebook. The no of people i've run across at GT finals who don't know this rule is shocking!

Unlike yourself, i won't be taking it like a man, if my worst fears come to pass. I'll simply retire to my own home (Which has advantages over GW, no rubbing cheeks, i can have a beer or two and a smoke i don't need to watch my language etc), quite going to GTs completely and play a modded 4th ed with friends. It's my hobby after all and i'm not going to do something i don't like.

Funny thing is, if these rumours had come out shortly after the Eldar codex, or any of the 1st generation 4th ed codexes i'd have called bull ***** straight away. They were good, interesting codices with a slight power boost/ moderation in places for all armies and i trusted the devs to get things right. However after the sudden and inexplicable direction Jervis has been taking the game, mid-way through an edition (!) RE: Chaos, BA, DA and to an extent Orks (Special crutch heavy inspired idiocy - show me an Ork list that won't have at least 1 special crutch - I'm looking at you here Snikrot) i'm not so sure and am feeling some worry coming on.

dr.oetk3r
16-01-2008, 03:42
Seems a little early to be judging it to be honest.

stompzilla
16-01-2008, 03:43
Don't you mean a different damage chart for each part of every vehicle? and sometimes a different AV for every part of every vehicle?

"Oh, I hit the Dread in the right arm. I rolled a 6, so some of the ammo in the gun cooks off and back flashes into the cockpit, killing the guy entombed inside of it...Neat!"

That was it, pretty much. It worked ok and was quite fun, although the model count was much lower than today. it did get to a point where you spent more time book-keeping than actually playing though. 2nd was essentially necromunda without the extra bits concerning running out of ammo and rolling to see if you go "Out of action".

stompzilla
16-01-2008, 03:51
Seems a little early to be judging it to be honest.

FFS! I am so sick of hearing this. Of course no-one's judging 5th ed yet. How can we? We're discussing the rumours we've heard so far and our various opinions of them.

If you don't want to join in then don't but kindly keep comments like this, that completely miss the point of our idle musings, to yourself. This applies to everyone else who thinks they're going to be a smart **** and say something similar.

Sorry, Dr.Oetk i know this is a little harsh and you probably don't deserve me laying into you like this but i'm so sick of reading comments to the effect of what you just said (Straw that broke the camel's back so to speak).

theluc
16-01-2008, 04:08
well instead of fixing 4th ed they restart a half finish ed to offer us an other half done product.. plus again a simplified version of 2nd ed ( Gav and Jervis clearly have both one vision an wont let it go ) the fact that the leak of the ork codex proved me right of the 2nd ed feel to it and the chaos one was a new version of the 1992 codex..40k players get the same treatment as the fantasy players with 6th to 7th ed..oh well ill let GW sink we will get that price reduction when the company goes bankrupt, for the mean while i re-write the whole 40k thing ..and it will be by a player for players.. and free !!

to me 5th ed is a big joke, shock players to a max.. annoy them to the point that we all go playing warmachine. in the end GW is digging their own grave

ORKY ARD BOYZ
16-01-2008, 04:16
One issue I have in particular is the rule which units now block LOS. This is fine in fantasy because the units are in large blocks and it takes skillful maneuvering, a lot of units or just one unit of skirmishes to do it right. This is ok because most skirmishes or armies aren't built for absorbing that much firepower. (e.g. beastmen for chaos have low LD, and need to be baby-sitted. Woodelves have only one type of close combat unit that doesn't skirmish or is a large target.) LOS blocking in 40K would degrade shooting by a lot. strong but delicate close combat units don't need tactics, you just stick them behind a unit. Same with any other unit you want to protect. Then again, it would up the sale of terminators. :D

Gensuke626
16-01-2008, 04:17
to me 5th ed is a big joke, shock players to a max.. annoy them to the point that we all go playing warmachine. in the end GW is digging their own grave

@stompzilla - See the above comment? That's why I'm in the camp of "We're Judging it too early."

I've seen countless posts and heard atleast an hour of dinner conversation last night dominated by the 5th ed rumors, and not by people who are pondering the ramifications of the rumors, but people who are gripeing about it as if they had already seen the book.

Granted on the net I'm notorious for not interpreting people's text properly, but at the same time...

New Cult King
16-01-2008, 04:18
It's probably been said, but how about we wait until it comes about before bitching about it? It's not even due out yet for what, another 6 months or so? And already all the "experts" are jumping all over it. This happens with every publication, every army, everything GW puts out, and while I am more of a critic than a fanboy, I find the title of this thread and the poll options quite stupid.

stompzilla
16-01-2008, 04:21
Where's the fun in that?

dr.oetk3r
16-01-2008, 04:24
to me 5th ed is a big joke, shock players to a max.. annoy them to the point that we all go playing warmachine. in the end GW is digging their own grave

Take that Sompfaceman!

AngryAngel
16-01-2008, 04:38
Well some of us aren't bitching really. We're offering our concerns about the rumors. Voicing opinion about changes to a hobby we all should enjoy, is not only valid but needed. Yes GW will do what they do. Yes as well we should wait till it comes out fully before we really, truely, judge it.

However, we can say our concerns about them. In perhaps the hopes, GW hear us. As well the hope to be understood by like minded people. Some of the changes are reason for concern or anger. A change isn't always the end of the world, but some of these are pretty drastic and will alter the game to a large extent.

New Cult King
16-01-2008, 04:40
We're hearing dribs and drabs of rumours - we have no solid context in which to place them. So by all means, discuss away, but to completely disregard the ruleset (as stupid as GW seem, I strongly doubt they are deliberately trying to sabotage themselves) is short-sighted.

Xenocidal Maniac
16-01-2008, 05:22
Considering the only thing I've seen that doesnt bone Eldar is that sniper rifles might get rending.


Thank God for Eldar getting boned. They are broken as it stands.

And, oh wait, your snipers already get a kind of rending. And cover +2.

Broken!

XM can't wait for 5th ed.

New Cult King
16-01-2008, 05:39
Hehehe... just found this, and it reminds me of this thread: http://www.secretlivesofmobs.com/index.php?strip_id=11

TzeentchForPresident
16-01-2008, 05:53
Too early to tell I will say. What 4th edition suffer is a lack of FAQs. With no FAQs in sight 5th edition canīt come soon enough.

About the rumoured changes it feels a bit like that they are adressing problems with a few units by changing the core rules, rather than taking a second look at the codex those units are in.

Atrum Angelus
16-01-2008, 05:59
Well, considering most of what people think is being changed ISN'T, I'd say wait for 5th to actually be released before making an opinion.

theluc
16-01-2008, 05:59
LOL new cult king.. that was hell good..

brimstone provided us mostly with good info and was less then rarely wrong, reading the all the info on the subject plus the new codex format its pretty clear where its going.

if the body is crap the limbs too will be

Zazoo
16-01-2008, 07:42
I love a lot of what I hear:

-Rending toned down?: Well, everybody and their aunt's bitchin' about rending. So good

-Skimmers toned down: see previous point.

-"run" option: good, more tactical possibilities. Models won't be scratching their rear end if nobody's near.

-Improvement to cover save rule: I dunno, depends what improvement mean!

-Better snipers: great, these were all but useless..

-Better CC resolution. Very good, possibly no more "Mr/Mrs uber-character charges 10-15 guys, makes them flee then utterly destroys them.

-Single vehicle damage: Me like. Simpler to use, possibly with more coherent results (no more glancing makes your land raider go bye-bye)

-Vehicule able to ram: VROOM-RAM-BAM... Blood/mayhem, what's not to like?

-Only troops scoring: Like less 2 troops, 2 HQ, 3 Elites, 3 Fast, 3Heavy Min-max lists? Actual emphasis on troops, like, what should be most common in most lists? Great AND fluffy!

-LOS block: So my SOB HB squad won't be able to shoot THROUGH the other sisters parked in front? Kind of makes sense, no? Remember rule debates where people moan about rules not making sense? There ya go. Plus this helps elite armies (ie GK, etc) as they will be able to get a higher percentage of their firepower bear on the ennemy. Also, opens the door to more tactics, so that's good.

-Defensive weapons: no sure yet... but this one might be harder to incorporate. Might make ordinance bearing vehicle stronger compared the multi-strong-weapons vehicles. Good for IG I guess.

-Better transport? Once again, the whole imperium's been complaining about the utter lack of use for the Rhino, so what's no to like?

-AP 1 weapons give +1 on chart: Good streamline, no more debate needed when shot at skimmers.

-Less power to IC: great, less Herohammer, more unithammer.

-scouts and infiltrator "flank-march" good idea, makes them more usefull...

-DS less dangerous: also good, it'll make people use it more (especially with expensive GK!!!) which, once again, means more tactics.

Overall shaking-up of the meta-game: VERY good. Seems like I was seeing the same lists over and over again. That was boring. Plus, for the moderate fee of 50$ (roughly for the rulebook) I get the feeling of playing a whole new game without having to buy new minis!!! Less nidzilla -Yeah! Less tri-falcon - Yeah! Less Ass-cannon spam - Yeah!

Phil


I agree with the above.
The one rule that ive seen that id change slightly is the defensive weapon str should be str 5 not 4. since weapons like Heavy bolters are exactly that defensive.

The cover change is simple almost all cover is the same as a ruin only really basic cover is one worse and bunkers being the same as before.

Ohh and lets not forget the voluntary pinning to get +1 to cover save.

Brother Siccarius
16-01-2008, 08:03
Hehehe... just found this, and it reminds me of this thread: http://www.secretlivesofmobs.com/index.php?strip_id=11

Darn beat me to it. I just love it when there's a full thread about how something is going to suck before it comes out.

Gorbad Ironclaw
16-01-2008, 08:04
(Special crutch heavy inspired idiocy - show me an Ork list that won't have at least 1 special crutch - I'm looking at you here Snikrot)

Mine won't :p


Anyway, my current opinion is that the rumoures are too sketchy and fragmented to actually know much about what's going on; let alone if they are even true. I don't believe half the stuff already posted, and isn't quite sure where the other half fit into the whole picture.

So I'm taking the wait and see approach(not going to stop me saying what I think about individual rumours, like the only troops are scoring...*sigh*). If GW really produce a rubbish ruleset, I'm sure we can work something about with using 4th ed rules locally.

Occulto
16-01-2008, 09:47
FFS! I am so sick of hearing this. Of course no-one's judging 5th ed yet. How can we? We're discussing the rumours we've heard so far and our various opinions of them.

When someone starts talking about "ditching the hobby" this early, how can it be taken as anything but "judging," hmm? This whole thread's titled "who else doesn't like 5th ed?"

I'm not reading these things as someone saying: "you know, I have my reservations about what I'm hearing and if the whole edition turns out to be as bad as I think, I might consider playing something else." It sounds like a flat out refusal to even consider that the new edition might actually be a decent version of the game.

Sure, 5th ed might be a pile of steaming faeces. But there's so many damn gaps in what we know (or think we know) that people can only make judgments about individual rumours, not the whole ruleset. What rumours we have seen, have come from a bunch of different people and might be contradictory or flat out wrong. Brimstone might be the most reliable source I've ever read online but jeez, he's posted a series of dot points not an entire PDF listing every change.

Some people have got so used to complaining about GW and everything they release (and there's more than a few repeat offenders), that they seem incapable of accepting that the sky isn't falling.

Sir_Turalyon
16-01-2008, 09:56
Lol New Cult King... this sums my opinion on this thread better then I could...

Bloodknight
16-01-2008, 11:07
I would like to comment about how well or not I like 5th edition, but as I, like probably all of you, have not played a game with the full 5th edition ruleset, I will reserve judgment until then. The rumours sound promising (especially for old timers like me who recognize a few of the rumoured rules from earlier editions), however - except the def weapon part.

marv335
16-01-2008, 11:26
Frankly, I'm going to wait and see the full rules, then play a few games with it, then I'll form an opinion.
any other approach is pointless. How can you judge a rules system with nebulous rumours?

Stella Cadente
16-01-2008, 12:17
how can I not like something, that does not yet exist

Lezta
16-01-2008, 12:18
The two things that currently worry me: defensive weapons being str 4. However, I'm praying that what a defensive weapon is means something else or that in some other context it makes sense and vehicles still work roughly as they do now.

And, running. Does the game REALLY need to be sped up? It was a bit unnecessary, if you ask me, to change the base move from 4" to 6" as it was. Do we really need units moving nearly a foot a turn? People running as fast a tank at full speed? (not a fast tank, obviously, but even a 'standard' tank should be considerably faster than any infantry in the game) Why is that a good idea for the game?

Chaos and Evil
16-01-2008, 12:30
Don't you mean a different damage chart for each part of every vehicle? and sometimes a different AV for every part of every vehicle?

"Oh, I hit the Dread in the right arm. I rolled a 6, so some of the ammo in the gun cooks off and back flashes into the cockpit, killing the guy entombed inside of it...Neat!"

Yep!

I still have a rhino's rules booklet around somewhere from 2nd ed. :p

Vanger
16-01-2008, 12:36
I did not vote, because the poll itself is biased.

There is no option for: I like the sound of the rumoured changes but don't hold my breath, lets see, what the 5th edition really contains.

You should wait and see what the rulebook will be, do not verdict based on rules.

Bunnahabhain
16-01-2008, 12:45
If Brimstone's summary of the major changes are anywhere near accurate, then 5th ed will be a giant step in a bad direction.

Too many of the changes seemed aimed at fixing a unit or codex though changing the core rules. Several of them seem just plain wrong- march moves, and the changes to ground vehicles shooting in particular. Units blocking line of sight in the manner proposed seems totally daft, both from a warfare and gameplay level.

Unless these are only the tip of the iceberg, they seem disjointed, badly though out, and at best the product of a few ideas being scribbled down after a long and alcoholic lunch.

Warpcrafter
16-01-2008, 12:48
The whole point of a speculative thread like this is to discuss the potential changes and their implications. If enough people bitch about something, perhaps GW will take some sort of action to placate them. This "wait and see" attitude just allows them to steamroll all over everyone with whatever broken rules they happen to throw together. I think that the following rules changes should be considered linked, for to include one without the other would ruin things.
Running/Stand and shoot. Overwatch is too easy to avoid, as the player advertises that the unit will be taking the stated action, whereas stand and shoot need not be declared until it is chosen.:chrome:

Stella Cadente
16-01-2008, 12:53
If enough people bitch about something, perhaps GW will take some sort of action to placate them.
come off it, your living in a fantasy land, GW has so far NEVER given a flying Monkies poop about our complaints, look at all the Eldar players who still want an FAQ, look at all the mistakes new codexes are released with, even when Identified months before from "Illegal" versions.
GW will not take action, because they don't care by now

Supremearchmarshal
16-01-2008, 13:01
Overall I think it's a change for the better, with only two points that worry me: only Troops are scoring and everything moves faster. Otherwise, most of the other stuff makes sense and will IMO lead to a more tactical game. Of course, it's still too early to make proper judgment.

New Cult King
16-01-2008, 13:04
Units blocking line of sight in the manner proposed seems totally daft, both from a warfare and gameplay level.


How so? I must have read that rule wrong, because it makes perfect sense to me, especially in a real-life warfare situation, and especially since 40K doesn't have rules for standing, kneeling or prone units.

Norsehawk
16-01-2008, 13:04
I voted I don't know. Frankly, currently it is being playtested for balance, and while there are some disconcerting rumors about some of the new mechanics, we don't know which rules are going to make the final cut.

I'm not going to gripe about anything that isn't set in stone. And not until I actually play the new ruleset and see how it balances out. (Not that I play very often anyway, I'm more of a painter)

Ironhand
16-01-2008, 13:06
That isn't really a great attitude.

Maybe not. It is however, realistic. I did leave off a third option however, which is to continue to play 4th Edition rules with any modifications you choose, if you can find a like-minded group of people.

Gorbad Ironclaw
16-01-2008, 13:17
How so? I must have read that rule wrong, because it makes perfect sense to me, especially in a real-life warfare situation, and especially since 40K doesn't have rules for standing, kneeling or prone units.


Not shooting through your own units makes a fair amount of sense because generally you don't. Friendly fire isn't very friendly.

But why can I shoot through my opponents units? I mean, it's not like I'm going to care if I hit anyone in front of my real target.

Bunnahabhain
16-01-2008, 13:18
How so? I must have read that rule wrong, because it makes perfect sense to me, especially in a real-life warfare situation, and especially since 40K doesn't have rules for standing, kneeling or prone units.

It's the problems associated with model and table scale.

A 1" high model is 5-8 foot tall ( grot, marine). A Bolter/lasgun range is far more than (8x24=196) 196 ft. Model scale, and table scale are nowhere near the same. This is unavaiodable in table top games.

This means that the horde of grots in front of you don't screen the orks behind them as well as the seem to on the table.

As for being able to pick out targets other than the nearest one on a real battlefield, this generally means distinguishing different weapons, ie killing the squad on the ridgeline firing RPGs at you position, even if there's an advancing squad with assualt rifles nearer.

Ironhand
16-01-2008, 13:19
I also voted "I don't know" because I haven't read or played the published rules.

Warseer is prone to this sort of hysteria every time a new book is due to come out. Remember the "Str 7+ weapons ignore armor" flap in the days leading up to the release of Apocalypse?

Personally I think most of the rumors sound pretty good, although that really depends on the final implementation.

alphastealer
16-01-2008, 14:09
First off, I am always keen to try out new rules. I think it adds new dimensions to a game, a bit like playing new mission types. It forces you to be like a borg, adapting and assimilating until you are once again king of the pile.

Second, my thoughts on a proposed rule idea:

No shooting through friendly units:

This seems to make sense since most players have a bunched up unit in front of a shooty one, so how would they ever manage to fire accurately without hitting their own guys?

When it comes to shooting enemy units behind other enemy units I say if you shoot at the closest unit then all is normal, if you shoot at a more distant unit (not directly obscured by a closer unit) then use the normal target priority test, if you attempt to shoot at an enemy unit directly behind another enemy unit then do so resolving the shooting at -1 BS for your shooting unit, excluding snipers and all vehicles.

The above would not apply if your shooting unit has elevation on the 2 enemy units, as they would then have a clear line of sight to both units.

infinity101
16-01-2008, 14:10
come off it, your living in a fantasy land, GW has so far NEVER given a flying Monkies poop about our complaints, look at all the Eldar players who still want an FAQ, look at all the mistakes new codexes are released with, even when Identified months before from "Illegal" versions.
GW will not take action, because they don't care by now

this is what i hate about GW the most.... knowing about mistakes and intentionally not fixing them :(

but voicing concerns might still be good even though GW itself wont do much about it on their own... maybe their playtesters will


.... Frankly, currently it is being playtested for balance, and while there are some disconcerting rumors about some of the new mechanics, we don't know which rules are going to make the final cut.

so if a playtester notices a glitch and reads a discussion on it to get a larger/better picture ...his report might influence final version of the rules for the better

but this requires real playtesters...and those are hypothetical at worst or really isolated from the actual gaming at best

UncleCrazy
16-01-2008, 14:27
First off no one knows for sure what the rules are going to be. So what is the point of this thread?

Keichi246
16-01-2008, 14:51
I voted "I am not sure" - because until i see how the whole thing fits together -I am reserving final judgement.

However - I will say that the rumors have me heavily worried about my favorite army. The Tau look like they are going to be well and truly boned by this rules edition.

Defensive weapons Str 4. Um... They have no str 4 vehicle weapons...
Elimination of SMF rule. Lovely - the one rule rule that made the badly undergunned Devilfish actually effective is going away.
Running outside of 12 inches. So the enemy will be spending less time in the range bracket where the Tau are most effective. That's great...
Elimination of entanglement. Great! So even if we destroy the enemy transports, they get to come at us.
Changes to cover and area terrain rules: So the Suits have no where to hide.
Infiltrate Scout changes - so the enemy can sneak up behind us and stab us in the back...
Friendly and enemy units blocking line of sight. So I have to blow through the cheap covering unit to get to the asskickers behind them. In less time due to the run rule....

Am I saying "OMG! I'm gonna quit 40k if this is true!!!" ? No.
I *am* worried - but I figure I'll see what the future holds.

I have 8 armies. If the Tau are going to be as boned as I think they are - I'll just go back to playing one of the other ones as my primary. But I think I will be very bummed that the army was gutted so badly by the rules change...

Culven
16-01-2008, 15:04
So, we have a poll on whether we like a ruleset that hasn't even been released based solely upon hearsay? :wtf:

Why not wait until the 5th edition rules are released in the official final version before trying to decide if you like it?

New Cult King
16-01-2008, 15:10
Changes to cover and area terrain rules: So the Suits have no where to hide.

Brim says "Improvements to the cover save rules".

And how is Area terrain defined in 40K (I don't have the rulebook handy :()? Do they mean like a forest wider than 2 inches or something like that? I don't mean to be down on your Keichi, just asking for clarification since you have the maturity not to write the rules off entirely.

I'm relatively positive GW aren't going to nerf Tau (or any army) back to the Stone Age with these new rules. However, forcing players to come up with some new tactics is probably a nice move.


But why can I shoot through my opponents units? I mean, it's not like I'm going to care if I hit anyone in front of my real target.

I take you're asking why you can't? If it was direct line of sight (ie: along a flat surface for all units involved) surely it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately pick out say... the Lootaz directly behind the 30-strong Boyz mob? Especially when you consider that, "in real life" those Boyz will be running and yelling and waving their weapons around.I agree with Alphastealer up to a point, but GW has moved well beyond to-hit modifiers, sadly. I would love to be proven wrong. Maybe GW are trying to force a bit more movement and lateral thinking into the game - in 40K it seems the Assault phase is the most important, where in WHFB Movement is... maybe they are trying to translate this a little into 40K.

Eh, I hope I'm not being redundant... I'm very tired.

Huw_Dawson
16-01-2008, 15:30
There is at least 2 months more playtesting/final rules balancing left before they consider printing and selling the darned thing, don't forget.

Also, "I'm annoyed because MY army is getting nerfed by this" people, observe that your armies are probably going to be the first updated (SM, Necrons, DE). So be happy this means a new codex for you to play with.

Thirdly, if it means we lose some of the cheesy ****** we have at the moment in 40k, then often an unpopular update (because it annoys the cheesy ******) is better than a popular one that makes everything cheesier. Look at it this way. If you don't like a rules revision, YOU ARE IN THE WRONG HOBBY. Sell your stuff on eBay, look into starting another war game.

My personal opinion? Space Marines will be rebalanced in the new codex, most likely to be a low-cheese army. "Not cheesy" in the most used army has to be a good thing. (I fail to see how an elite force of 3+ save four across the board folk would ever be "weak", discounting making Marines 30pt a model or something)

- Huw

EDIT: And I stand by my claim that most people that hyper cheese deliberately are ******, because the term "*****" to me indicates someone I would dislike to know.

Grand Master Raziel
16-01-2008, 15:45
come off it, your living in a fantasy land, GW has so far NEVER given a flying Monkies poop about our complaints, look at all the Eldar players who still want an FAQ, look at all the mistakes new codexes are released with, even when Identified months before from "Illegal" versions.
GW will not take action, because they don't care by now

I don't think that's entirely true. Back when 4th ed. was in the rumor discussion phase, Defensive Weapons were going to be anything of S5 and below. Eldar players pitched a fit, because all of their high-ROF heavies are S6. When 4th ed. came out, Defensive Weapons were anything of S6 and below. Or, there was the riot that was incited when the then recently-released Tyranid FAQ stated that multi-wound Nids were only immune to instakill from weapons that were exactly double the bug's toughness, which opened up Warriors to being instakilled by lascannons again. GW reversed themselves in an awful hurry after virtually every player who frequented an online forum revolted over that one.

That said, I'm a little concerned about the 5th ed. rumors. 4th ed. may not be perfect, but it works pretty well, all things considered. I'd rather see incremental rather than radical changes, and 5th looks as if it may be a lot bigger change than we went through from 3rd to 4th. Some specific rumors that concern me are:

1: A combat-resolution phase similar to Fantasy's: I'm not wild about Fantasy's combat resolution. Specifically, what I don't like is that if you stack the modifiers well enough, you can win fights, put the other guy to flight, and kill his entire unit without killing a single enemy model in the actual fighting portion of the close combat. Also, Fantasy's combat resolution doesn't seem like it would translate well to 40K, where there are no units that have ranks, and no defined flanks or rear facings for units. I don't see how you can change that without making 40K units have to be formed into blocky Fantasy-esque regiments.

2: All Blast weapons scattering: What is it about blast weapons that seems to irritate the GW rules developers? Are they trying to get people to not use them at all?

3: The "Run" options: This seems to me like it would give players even less reason to use transports than they do now. If a unit can cover practically as much ground on foot as with a transport, then where's the incentive to pay extra points to use transports? On the other hand, that could explain why they're axing Entanglement.

4: Area Terrain not blocking LOS: Not sure how I feel about that. It's a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, to say the least. Area Terrain usually winds up being either buildings or forests, and while you might make the case that a little copse of trees shouldn't completely block LOS, buildings usually do.

5: Saves after wound allocation: I guess that would be why you'd use Transports. It also encourages people to use as many meatshields as possible to protect upgraded troopers, so you have more bodies in the squad to spread the wounds out over before you have to allocate to a heavy or a sergeant. It does sort of seem like a kick in the ass to the Combat Squads rule, though.

6: Vehicles always get hit in the rear armor in CC: I'm sorry, that's just retarded. If a unit's charge range barely gets them in contact with the front facing, they shouldn't get to attack the rear armor.

7: All models block LOS: sounds like a return to an aspect of 3rd ed. no one really missed. Maybe Tyranids will wind up getting STBO! back, because the idea that Warriors can hide behind Rippers or Termagants is just plain silly.

So, there are a lot of eyebrow raisers. That said, it's impossible to judge when the rumors are taken out-of-context. Each and every one of these rumors could wind up being correct, but how they'll effect the game depends on what else is in the book. List me as mildly concerned, but reserving my judgement till I actually have 5th ed. book in hand.

Keichi246
16-01-2008, 15:53
Brim says "Improvements to the cover save rules".

And how is Area terrain defined in 40K (I don't have the rulebook handy :()? Do they mean like a forest wider than 2 inches or something like that? I don't mean to be down on your Keichi, just asking for clarification since you have the maturity not to write the rules off entirely.

Yeah - but in GW speak; everything is an "improvement"... ;)
However - if the enemy are getting "improved" cover saves from the Tau shooting - that means said shooting is less effective - which is bad from the Tau point of view...

Area Terrain has a fluid definition in the 40k rulebook (mostly being "whatever you and your opponents agree on"). The notable thing about it was that you could see up to 6 inches into it - but not through it even if it *was* smaller than 6". For example - small buildings, ruins, forests, hills, etc.

Terrain like this is vital to Crisis and Stealth suit survival. The jump, shoot, jump tactics pretty much require a place where the Suits can get out of easy line of sight. The unit design required such tactics due to their relatively low unit size and toughness. So the Crisis Suits and Stealth suits pretty much NEED the area terrain to survive.

Instead - they wil probably have to use sacrifical units of Fire warriors or Kroot to block line of sight. Which is just... "not quite right" considering the general Tau philosophy of conserving troops where possible.


I'm relatively positive GW aren't going to nerf Tau (or any army) back to the Stone Age with these new rules. However, forcing players to come up with some new tactics is probably a nice move.

I'd modify your statement a little bit to: "I'm relatively positive GW aren't going to intentionally nerf Tau (or any army) back to the Stone Age with these new rules."

I *am* afraid of the law of unintended consequences though. The changes, while looking good on paper for most armies, appear to be combining synergistically to gut most of the Tau power. That synergy is the unintended consequence...

To whit:
Less time in shooting range. (Due to run)
Fewer targets to shoot at during the firing phase. (Due to line of sight blockage by other units).
Changes in the Vehicle rules making transports more effective.

All of these *seem* to be combining to make the early "Shooting only" phases of the game shorter, and to make the Close Combat happen sooner. While most armies don't mind this - the two "shooty" armies NEED to do most of their damage in this early part of the game.

I have no problem with using new tactics. But if an army is *designed* to be good in one phase and crippled in another; then changes that reduce the efficacy of the "good phase" may not be survivable - tactics or not...

Like I said - until I read the whole rulebook - I'm withholding final judgement.

To quote Han Solo, though: "I got a bad feeling about this."

Lord Balian
16-01-2008, 15:58
I'm not to terribly upset about them. Some sound great, some sound kind of iffy. But the key we all need to remember is that we are only seeing peaces of the puzzle here. Everywhere I read people are throwing these rules into our 4th Ed book and stating how it messes things up. If this is a whole new addition, then we are seeing these tidbits out of context.

Friendly models block LOS can be good for horde armies. Put your shooters out infront blocking off your assaulters. Now with the run rules you get across the table faster, meaning your assault units get there intact.

Terrain not blocking LOS, but with units doing so, and possible other rules we don't know. Defensive weapons being S4 or below doesn't mean anything to us, because we don't know what being defensive means in this new Ed.

I do like the theory that this is a rules expansion like Apoc though. That makes more sence for the game as a whole and the marketing for things like Apoc.

Bunnahabhain
16-01-2008, 16:26
I'd modify your statement a little bit to: "I'm relatively positive GW aren't going to intentionally nerf Tau (or any army) back to the Stone Age with these new rules."

I *am* afraid of the law of unintended consequences though. The changes, while looking good on paper for most armies, appear to be combining synergistically to gut most of the Tau power. That synergy is the unintended consequence...

To whit:
Less time in shooting range. (Due to run)
Fewer targets to shoot at during the firing phase. (Due to line of sight blockage by other units).
Changes in the Vehicle rules making transports more effective.

All of these *seem* to be combining to make the early "Shooting only" phases of the game shorter, and to make the Close Combat happen sooner. While most armies don't mind this - the two "shooty" armies NEED to do most of their damage in this early part of the game.

I have no problem with using new tactics. But if an army is *designed* to be good in one phase and crippled in another; then changes that reduce the efficacy of the "good phase" may not be survivable - tactics or not...

Like I said - until I read the whole rulebook - I'm withholding final judgement.

To quote Han Solo, though: "I got a bad feeling about this."

I was refraining earlier form being too army specific, but all of the above rings true for the Guard to an even greater extent.Adittionally, ground vehicles become even less mobile, especially if they wish to fire and incoming fire can kill the special weapons and officers even quicker. Plus, the larger numbers in most Guard armies mean blocking your own LOS is even easier.

If 5th ed turns up before the new Guard codex, it looks like Drop troop spam loses nothing, but every other Gurd army type suffers considerabley.

EmperorEternalXIX
16-01-2008, 16:33
Heh. Well from what I've seen of you around here, Micha, you don't like much about 4th edition, either.

Honestly the changes to 5th Ed. had me furious at first. But the more II read about them, the more I've warmed to them. It's more 'realistic' and I think overall it's going to feel a lot more like a carnage-ridden battlefield on the tabletop with these rules in place.

That being said the idea of vehicles being static is abhorrent to me. But we have to remember that GW horribly overestimates the usefulness of a single heavy weapon, so the idea of a Chimera or Leman Russ putting out high volumes of shots is just foolish to them...so they weaken them more. Me? Ehh...it's not like my Land Raider's moved in any game, ever....

I'm a little upset about the new shooting stuff, because I don't like the idea of a very expensive sergeant dying by accident. But it is more realistic. The new method of save throws eliminates a lot of confusing parts of the game (things like wound allocation...there's no longer going to be any question who is wounded and who is a casualty...also mixed save confusion will be a thing of the past). With larger squads, you won't see the specialist/sergeant die too often because you can allocate the wounds to his lessers and roll their saves unless the wounds shore up to his number (i.e. ten wounds in a ten-man squad) so it's really more like an automatic torrent of fire than anything else.

That being said it's he who whines and bitches the loudest that is hard and those crybaby nid players look like they've won the pot this round.

The people who are really getting boned in all of this is the Imperial Guard. All of their tanks have become static and non-scoring (but still will cost them hundreds of points), they will only be able to score with their super-fragile troops, and any str6 weapon could nstakill their leaders in squads by accident.

That being said I'm tired of the bitching. Everyone bitches that the game isn't deep enough, and now it is going to get some depth and have a lot more strategic options (the Get Down rule jumps to mind, especially if it possibly makes troops in front able to be fired over). There's no reason to complain until we see the WHOLE rulebook and know what we're dealing with.

I come to 40k from the world of videogames, where we get a handful of updates and then the game is thrown away and forgotten about by the company who made it. In my opinion we should all count ourselves lucky that they are even bothering.

That being said the game is going to change...a lot. But I think it will be for the better, in the end. I reserve judgment until I read the whole book, regardless.

MegaPope
16-01-2008, 16:55
The people who are really getting boned in all of this is the Imperial Guard.

Thanks for your concern, EmperorEternal, but don't worry too much. We IG players have been categorically boned ever since 3rd ed. was released. By now we're so used to playing an army that hasn't truly been effective since 1996 that we barely notice any more;).

GW seems to hate normal humans with an intensity that only a select few psychopaths or religious/philosophic extremists can otherwise manage.

That's why they set up FW: it's a sort of asylum where the select few amongst their staff who do not share this overall group psychology get placed, to prevent their scurrilous viewpoints from gaining too much currency!

Stella Cadente
16-01-2008, 17:49
Making vehicles static and even more retarded than they are now? :wtf:

all of these pro assault rules to make shooting all but pointless? :wtf:
I was gonna do guard again but now..........sod it, GW, you just lost Ģ300 of my money

so there's really not much to do except adapt to the new rules, or quit playing.
I've chosen my option:D

IG need love too!
nah we don't wear power underwear, so GW couldn't give a damn

-LOS block:
so us guard players with already the weakest gun in the game, that only works if you have high numbers pointing at the target, can no longer point high numbers at a target?
greeeeeeeeeeat:eyebrows:

to me 5th ed is a big joke, shock players to a max.. annoy them to the point that we all go playing warmachine. in the end GW is digging their own grave
sounds like an idea to me, I enjoy warmachine, I don't have to face the pain of a spiked mace being rammed up my rectum whenever I read a rule

Defensive weapons Str 4. Um... They have no str 4 vehicle weapons...
Marines do on there crusader, so there Bolters are alright for now, but the assult cannons buggered, hmm, sounds like 3rd edition


Elimination of entanglement. Great! So even if we destroy the enemy transports, they get to come at us.

hmm sounds like 3rd edition, again

theres my little Rant/complaint list, I wish I had waited to vote

redbaron998
16-01-2008, 17:56
Thanks for your concern, EmperorEternal, but don't worry too much. We IG players have been categorically boned ever since 3rd ed. was released. By now we're so used to playing an army that hasn't truly been effective since 1996 that we barely notice any more;).

GW seems to hate normal humans with an intensity that only a select few psychopaths or religious/philosophic extremists can otherwise manage.

That's why they set up FW: it's a sort of asylum where the select few amongst their staff who do not share this overall group psychology get placed, to prevent their scurrilous viewpoints from gaining too much currency!

So true...so true.

Overall I have to just take the "I dont know" stance for now, illl just wait for more details to come out

Xenocidal Maniac
16-01-2008, 17:59
I *am* afraid of the law of unintended consequences though. The changes, while looking good on paper for most armies, appear to be combining synergistically to gut most of the Tau power. That synergy is the unintended consequence...


Welcome to a die-hard Imperial player's world!! Your Tau are overpowered as it stands. Your supposedly flimsy skimmers are in actual practice tougher than our Leman Russ tanks. Your Devilfish undergunned? How can you say that when you have 6 strength 5 shots, can move 12" and still fire all weapons? We move 6" and can only fire one. Your skimmers ignore ALL terrain while we roll 2d6 for crossing difficult terrain and if a single one comes up, we are immobilised.

Imperials have been boned for the entire 4th ed. Now it's your turn. Seriously, I take a certain joy in this. Now you know how it feels as a Guard player to have been boned for an entire edition.

(I still think Tau will come off a lot better than we did!!)

Lezta
16-01-2008, 18:10
You know, it occurs to me that maybe, just maybe, you might be able to fire 'two' main guns and move now. Maybe.

It's the only way I can see this rule making any sense.

AngryAngel
16-01-2008, 18:30
Thanks for your concern, EmperorEternal, but don't worry too much. We IG players have been categorically boned ever since 3rd ed. was released. By now we're so used to playing an army that hasn't truly been effective since 1996 that we barely notice any more;).

GW seems to hate normal humans with an intensity that only a select few psychopaths or religious/philosophic extremists can otherwise manage.

That's why they set up FW: it's a sort of asylum where the select few amongst their staff who do not share this overall group psychology get placed, to prevent their scurrilous viewpoints from gaining too much currency!


LOL LOL that was one of the funnier things I've read in quite some time. GW truely is an evil empire. If only I didn't love to play the game so much.




Welcome to a die-hard Imperial player's world!! Your Tau are overpowered as it stands. Your supposedly flimsy skimmers are in actual practice tougher than our Leman Russ tanks. Your Devilfish undergunned? How can you say that when you have 6 strength 5 shots, can move 12" and still fire all weapons? We move 6" and can only fire one. Your skimmers ignore ALL terrain while we roll 2d6 for crossing difficult terrain and if a single one comes up, we are immobilised.

Imperials have been boned for the entire 4th ed. Now it's your turn. Seriously, I take a certain joy in this. Now you know how it feels as a Guard player to have been boned for an entire edition.

(I still think Tau will come off a lot better than we did!!)


So much hatred in your my friend, you bring pride to xenocidal maniacs everywhere. That being said, I'm actually starting a Tau army so I do hope they don't get too much of smack down in the rules changes. Otherwise it won't be a good day to be a xeno out there. Well, besides a Nid that is.

Xenocidal Maniac
16-01-2008, 19:18
So much hatred in your my friend, you bring pride to xenocidal maniacs everywhere. That being said, I'm actually starting a Tau army

A traitor finds no forgiveness in this world or the next.

Ex-Blueshirt
16-01-2008, 19:26
Making a decision on a rules set that does not exist yet. That way lies madness surely.

redbaron998
16-01-2008, 19:31
A traitor finds no forgiveness in this world or the next.

Ha HA, I love the unconqurable spirit of the role player in warhammer

electricblooz
16-01-2008, 20:46
I officially hereby dub 5thed. to be CloseCombathammer. Remember you heard it here first :angel:

Keichi246
16-01-2008, 21:14
Welcome to a die-hard Imperial player's world!! Your Tau are overpowered as it stands. Your supposedly flimsy skimmers are in actual practice tougher than our Leman Russ tanks. Your Devilfish undergunned? How can you say that when you have 6 strength 5 shots, can move 12" and still fire all weapons? We move 6" and can only fire one. Your skimmers ignore ALL terrain while we roll 2d6 for crossing difficult terrain and if a single one comes up, we are immobilised.

Imperials have been boned for the entire 4th ed. Now it's your turn. Seriously, I take a certain joy in this. Now you know how it feels as a Guard player to have been boned for an entire edition.

(I still think Tau will come off a lot better than we did!!)

Gee - Rage much? :rolleyes:

I own a large Imperial Guard army - have since the Cadians came out for the Eye of Terror campaign. I 've also had Dark Angels and Deathwing since Second edition. And Grey Knights since they came out.

Hell - I had an Armored Company since the first set of "Armored Company" rules - when you could buy Leman Russ squadrons as troops choices. Only in recent Apocalypse games have I actually been able to field all my tanks again...

So you can take your "oh woe is me" imperial whining and colocate it somewhere else. I've played the Imperial Guard for a good chunk of Third ed and all of 4th. It's not THAT bad a list... Or maybe you IG folks wouldn't have scored what - second place, at Medusa?

You may also have noted that I commented about the "two shooty armies" 4 paragraphs later in the post you quoted... It's because I also play IG.

***
Regarding the Tau and my undergunned comment.
When the range of your guns is 18" - then it's undergunned. Then again - Chimeras have twice that range and just as many shots. And cost about 2/3rds the cost when both of them are loaded up with the most common options...

Sorry man. The Devilfish is an OK transport but it is expensive when you kit it out. And the funny thing about Hammerheads is that ANY glance renders them ineffective a turn, and just under half the glances render them ineffective period...

Anyways - that's getting way off topic.

To repeat my position - I holding judgement, but I'm mildly afraid of what it will do to my favorite army - Tau. as well as the other shooty army - the IG....

VetSgtNamaan
16-01-2008, 21:19
Most of the rumors that are out so far I like so the big remains what is actually going to happen. Is it 5th is it another supplement? Frankly I am not too worried really since my playing 40k is more based on the background material than any in game uberness. As long as I have friends who play I will play regardless.

Speaking of Dnd I currently am playing in a basic 3.5 and advanced campaigns. All you need to play in a different rule set it another person who agrees with you then go play 3rd or 4th edition if it tickles your fancy.

Wraithbored
17-01-2008, 00:05
Aren't we being a smidge premature, like all codexes before it I reserve judgment until I have read the book.

stompzilla
17-01-2008, 01:22
No-one's judging, just discussing the effects the possible effects that the rumoured changes (Taken in isolation because we don't know anything else) could have.

If you don't like it, then don't join in. Simple.

Brother Loki
17-01-2008, 10:20
I voted I'm not sure, because I can't make an informed decision at this stage.

All we have is fragments, but then what if other things which haven't come out yet modify them bits we have.

all the howling about defensive weapons for example, assumes the same mofe and fire rules for vehicles as now. What if it changes to something like the following, for example:

Stay still and fire all weapons
Move 6" and fire one ordnance or all main and defensive weapons
Move 12 and fire nothing, or only defensive weapons (unless fast)

My point is this - we can't make judgements about the validity of individual rules without knowing the rest of the rules that interact with them. We also don't know if these rumours are right or wrong, or based off the most recent playtest rules or ones which have now been revised.

About the only thing I actually do believe, is that 5th edition will be out next year. My reasoning is twofold:

1. Brimstone says it is
2. When making a statement about poor FAQ support, Jervis or Gav (I forgot which) said that they would be improving it, but the person responsible was tied up in a big writing project, and would attend to it once that was out of the way. At the time we assumed it was Apocalypse. I now think it's 5th ed, and the new FAQs will be to use old codexes with new rules, not to use new codexes with old rules. No point doing 4th ed FAQ's for your 5th ed. codexes, if you think about it.

Bunnahabhain
17-01-2008, 14:14
2. When making a statement about poor FAQ support, Jervis or Gav (I forgot which) said that they would be improving it, but the person responsible was tied up in a big writing project, and would attend to it once that was out of the way. At the time we assumed it was Apocalypse. I now think it's 5th ed, and the new FAQs will be to use old codexes with new rules, not to use new codexes with old rules. No point doing 4th ed FAQ's for your 5th ed. codexes, if you think about it.

Good logic, but a faulty conclusion, due to incorrect basic assumptions- ie that it would be alot of effort to do.

GW could do a set of FAQs for every army and the current rule book in a an afternoons work from one guy. Copying the Warseer ones, or their own GT ones, or any of several other sets would take no effort, cost next to nothing, and be worth it for the amount of complaining it would save for the next 8-10 months ( 5th ed is supposedly coming in Autumn, yes?)

It would also look as if they actually care about the bugs in the system, which, it has to be siad, it doesn't at the moment.

The Song of Spears
17-01-2008, 17:30
Hmm, i hate the way they will be doing Grenades. Thanks to the 5th ed rules, most Eldar no longer have access to grenades. Thanks ******s at GW :( I hope you figure that one out before this crap is released and fix it...

destroyertaux
17-01-2008, 17:52
I have to agree with Iron Hands because, we don't know what the new rules are going to be. Everyone just be happy and thankful for 4th Ed for now and be happy!!!!!!!

Hashmal
17-01-2008, 17:59
I was greatly annoyed, as a flimsy Dark Eldar player, when my troops no longer blocked line of sight at the beginning of fourth edition. This was one of the first rules I learned of, so it rankled me greatly.

I now regard fourth edition in a higher esteem than third.

My point? Piecemeal, these purported rules (remember, ALL are rumors) might seem outright ludicrous or unbelievably good. I'll hold my breath and wait until I can take the rules as they are meant to be taken: in context with one another.

szlachcic
17-01-2008, 19:41
How about everyone stops complaining until the actual book comes out. I know this will not happen since every time something new is coming out people have to moan about it.

Toreador
17-01-2008, 19:44
Be nice if the poll actually had some realistic options other than "I hate the rules and therefor I am correct, or I like what is coming but that makes me an idiot". Probably a good reason many of the answers are "not sure" as I am not sure what the poll is suppose to reflect, other than what you want it to.

Democratus
17-01-2008, 20:07
That's one skill that doesn't seem to exist on Warseer. People here aren't capable of making unbiased polls.

I'm quite excited about the upcoming changes, if for no other reason than it will change the way people play. Without change we end up playing the same kinds of games over and over.

slasher
17-01-2008, 21:42
Hay... wheres the "I'm waiting untill its out" option

Gensuke626
17-01-2008, 22:09
A couple of thoughts...The whole Infiltrate/Deep Strike getting a flank march like move...I don't think this is going to happen. here's why:
1. Supposedly, the new Ork Codex was built with 5th ed in mind.
2. Boss Snikrot's only good ability is his ability to bring in a Mob of Kommandos from any board edge.
3. If GW allows ALL infiltrators to do this, then Snikrot's ability is redundant, and no one would ever field him.

Though I dislike the rumored Frag Grenades working like Plasma Grenades rule...it means that Orks don't have a reason to take stikkbommz anymore...

Captain Micha
17-01-2008, 22:33
Be nice if the poll actually had some realistic options other than "I hate the rules and therefor I am correct, or I like what is coming but that makes me an idiot". Probably a good reason many of the answers are "not sure" as I am not sure what the poll is suppose to reflect, other than what you want it to.

Actually, option one is not made with a single iota of sarcasm, nor insult. Maybe I should have put that in there.

Alessander
17-01-2008, 22:57
Biggest eye-raiser for me is the targeting rules. I think a re-hash of size types may appear, nested with base size as well. That or model-to-model LOS is coming ("the lascannon can see your terminator's left foot" ...*ugh*).

the rest seems like a shake-up to refresh the game. I havn't played enough of Apoc's damage tables to see how fun they are, but it seems entertaining. Kind of pissed that the vehicle damage dice I just bought will be worthless though... didn't they come out relatively recently?

Combat Resolution sounds like a needed boost to the game. How they are going to work all that with the existing codices is a good question, tho....

Frak = plasma? Does this mean that plasma grenades are going to be buffed, or do all grenades now act the same way? i want to use grenades for more reasons that just making people duck before I whack them over the head! 4th ed *barely* touched on this as it is...

hammerofulric
17-01-2008, 23:09
Given that there are so many rumours out there, not all of which can be true, this is a silly question.

Captain Micha
18-01-2008, 00:27
Or a good portion of them can be. I do not see how this is a 'silly' question.

Thylacine
18-01-2008, 00:30
"Captain Micha Given what we are learning of it almost daily it seems, does anyone else like fifth edition less and less each time they read something about it?"

What's not to like about a book that does not exist yet! Has anyone bothered to check the source of the rumours, Friday night, nothing on the web, Saturday night a rumour with a vague source, Sunday night every forum on the web is quoting the rumour on Warseer and the 'wish list' or true lies on what is going to be in 5th ed is growing. Some of the so-called rumours and just fantasy and just seem to be copied and repeated from one web forum to another.

I asked one of the guys I know who is well placed in the local GW hierarchy and he said that we know what is being released up until June, he won't have another briefing until April-May but thought that if a new rulebook was on the way the usual group of play-testers would have been called up and this to his knowledge has not happened.

So until I see something more significant from GW, or am told by the guys I know that are in the know, rather than a poorly worded translation from Italian to English I won't be expecting to see a new 40K rule book this year.

Captain Micha
18-01-2008, 00:44
Unless of course Gw isn't going to actually use that group of playtesters, they already have tested it, or they are using a new batch of testers.

Given Brimstone's accuracy when it comes to rumors, and a few other fairly accurate sources putting this stuff out, I would have to disagree.

I would have to say at least half of this stuff is accurate and if it is, well.. .that's a sad day for wargaming.

Logic512
18-01-2008, 00:59
This thread is like 80% cyncism, 8% actual discussion and 3% poking bears with sticks (sampling error of 9%... just like American elections)


I will say (and no one wants to admit it) GW should be commended for 3rd edition as it was a giant step away from the way fantasy rules played and GW took a huge risk by trying to give 40k it's own identity rather than make it a game of "Warhammer Fantasy: Skirmishers with Lasers". 4th edition took things in a positive direction by cleaning a lot of rules up and making the game more about short range firefights and less about dominating in close combat.

I welcome changes to the current edition since GW has shown it can tweak it's game in good ways. Yes they make mistakes, and yes pointing only those negatives out makes you look smart to dumb people, but ultimately GW is trying to put some of the soul the game lost from the transition of 2nd to 3rd edition back with each codex (although the new Chaos codex didn't seem to have that "reflavoring" in mind for some reason).

of course, you are always welcome to play what ever edition you want :)

Captain Micha
18-01-2008, 01:03
The thing is though they seem to be quite aimed at removing the idea of those short ranged firefights and more concerned with making cc all too important. Making the game more like fantasy and less like a darkfantasy scifi wargame.

Logic512
18-01-2008, 01:18
Making fast vehicles max speed 18" instead of 24" is a pretty negative change for hand to hand units. You can't pick your battles as easily like that. it also makes the star engines upgrade for Eldar worth it's points.

It's true, they are taking a step backwards to fantasy with CC rules. The only thing I have to say about that is the Fantasy CC rules make it so combat rarely lasts more then a round or two since it's easy to break if you are overwhelmed. That might actually take some of the time spent during the game on CC out if they do it.

EmperorEternalXIX
18-01-2008, 01:18
Micha, not to be a jerk, but, if you hate this game so much why don't you just not play it? I know that seems like a canned response but it seems every time I see your posts there is something you hate about the game wrapped up in them, and in all seriousness, I don't understand how you can hate so much about the game but still be so concerned.

Then again I can see where you're coming from, wanting the game to be good. I'm a big fan of short ranged firefights but I really don't think the GOAL was to buff CC...I think it was just a series of rule changes. Half of them benefit shooters as much as anything else, really. I can see how CC players would use the new rules but think about the possibilities for shooting armies using them and it suddenly can seem beneficial (at least to a degree).

My advice is to be less concerned with your preference and more concerned with GW's and remain optimistic. I mean, we only have partial info...for all we know the new rules let you fire weapons in CC. Something as simple as that could turn this whole debate on it's side.

Though something tells me whatever happens, you will find issue with it. But still. We don't know everything yet, man. And besides it doesn't matter what we want -- pissing and bitching about how we think it should be isn't going to make a difference in the final outcome. Whatever GW puts out is 5th ed, and we have two choices -- play it, or don't play it. And even if it's the worst update in the history of updates, I'm still gonna play it, because no matter what form the game takes...I dunno about you guys...but I'd much rather play it, than not play it.

Captain Micha
18-01-2008, 01:28
Not -everything- is a hatefest that I post *L* Remember I've endorsed most of the new codexes from the word go, or have defended them. the friendly units blocking los is my biggest issue. Now if they finally let you shoot into close combat I will probably be willing to accept that somehow my guys are going to block each other's shots constantly enough to not have the guys behind them fire at all. The vehicle moving and shooting rules getting worse than they are now, and the damage chart really not changing -enough- to compensate for it are another thing of questionable issue. Let alone things getting their balls ripped off just because they happened to be skimmers just like a falcofield. (which was the only problematic thing to start with. and the other problem being that non skimmer vehicles suck worse than skimmers and skimmers are -barely- worth their points)

I probably will find some issue somewhere down the line, (assuming they make it worth our while) I will still play 40k, I have invested too much time and money to -not- play it. Whether I move into 5th edition or not remains to be seen.

I would like to remain optimistic, but some of the changes are sort of questionable in nature at best.

The things I don't like about 40k I really really really do not like because I can see -potential- but it was never realised in most cases (like rending, vehicles or the ap system)

I don't just whine to no end either, there have been times where unlike everyone else that I have actually bothered to find solutions to problems (which always get received negatively simply because it is -gasp- different rather than any problems with the actual idea itself.) which proved to be more trouble than it is worth on this forum, people are much more interested in hearing complaints than they are at looking for or even thinking about a solution. (which is half the fun honestly. making something -better-)

electricblooz
18-01-2008, 01:39
If even a quarter of the rumors here and on DakkaDakka are true, 5th ed. will be an absolute waste of time for everyone except SM, Orks, and bugs. It will a completely boring game of one side trying like hell to blow the snot out of the other side's meatshields while simultaneously engaging in zero movement of its own except for running it's own meatshields. After this stimulating exercise in rolling dice, there will be more stimulating rolling of dice as everyone runs like lemmings towards the nearest objective. Vehicles, if taken at all, will be stripped down pill boxes. The game will have no soul, it will nothing more than a meaningless exercise in meatshield slaughter coupled with even more list-hammer.

Bunnahabhain
18-01-2008, 01:50
Screening and running by themselves are enough to really cripple it.

Unless you're heavily CC biased, you're not going to have a chance. The vehicle and skimmer changes will seeminingly make Mech Tau and Eldar less effective, and gunlines will be even more screwed than they are now.

The armies who come off best seem to be Orks and Nids, who have goo CC abilty, and cheap screening troops.

Xenocidal Maniac
18-01-2008, 01:53
If even a quarter of the rumors here and on DakkaDakka are true, 5th ed. will be an absolute waste of time for everyone except SM, Orks, and bugs. It will a completely boring game of one side trying like hell to blow the snot out of the other side's meatshields while simultaneously engaging in zero movement of its own except for running it's own meatshields. After this stimulating exercise in rolling dice, there will be more stimulating rolling of dice as everyone runs like lemmings towards the nearest objective. Vehicles, if taken at all, will be stripped down pill boxes. The game will have no soul, it will nothing more than a meaningless exercise in meatshield slaughter coupled with even more list-hammer.

I think you should quit now.

theshadowduke
18-01-2008, 02:25
I think the new vehicle and blast rules are stupid. Beyond that its more like 4.5 edition, though my sniper heavy guard just got alot scarrier.

electricblooz
18-01-2008, 02:50
Screening and running by themselves are enough to really cripple it.

Unless you're heavily CC biased, you're not going to have a chance. The vehicle and skimmer changes will seeminingly make Mech Tau and Eldar less effective, and gunlines will be even more screwed than they are now.


Well, with the latest rumor that Tau 'Mechs get jump shoot jump on marketlights (and every other heavy weapon), Tau aren't that hosed. Pretty much the worst thing for them is the troops-only as scoring and even then they can overcome that with a couple of smallish kroot units.

Oddly enough the Eldar army that really gets boned is the non-falcofield armies because the falcon and the serpent really don't take it too bad. In contrast, warwalker/viper armies are totally hosed (vipers especially) as are raiders.

Based on the rumors I'm thinking that I'll probably end up playing my sisters for most of 5th. Sure, they get hosed by the S4 hit instead of wound on a 4+ for 'sploding vehicles, but they do get access to super cheap meaatshields (IG) and the codex-specific rules on the Immy and Exorcist mean that these two tanks don't get too badly hosed by the new vehicle rules. Adding power armor and leadership buff's to some of the weirder units (Repentias, ArcoFlags) and you might be able to scrap together something playable.

Gensuke626
18-01-2008, 03:09
Screening and running by themselves are enough to really cripple it.

Unless you're heavily CC biased, you're not going to have a chance. The vehicle and skimmer changes will seeminingly make Mech Tau and Eldar less effective, and gunlines will be even more screwed than they are now.

The armies who come off best seem to be Orks and Nids, who have goo CC abilty, and cheap screening troops.

it's funny...someone in the Rumor discussion thread just posted about how Gunline armies are going to become cheese in 5th ed.

If that's true then Gunline and Assault will be equally cheesey...and if everyone is cheesy then no one is cheesy...Just like Syndrome said in the Incredibles.

electricblooz
18-01-2008, 04:13
it's funny...someone in the Rumor discussion thread just posted about how Gunline armies are going to become cheese in 5th ed.

If that's true then Gunline and Assault will be equally cheesey...and if everyone is cheesy then no one is cheesy...Just like Syndrome said in the Incredibles.

Gunlines are going to become prevalent (for armies that can't spam CC) but they won't become cheese. That's because no gunline is ever going to be able to blow away enough meatshields to get to the assault units. Frankly, just one of those assault units is enough to roll a typical gunline army, in 5th, quite a few more than 1 will be hitting your lines.

Basically, the metagame will devolve to two army types:
a: static gunlines that try (and most likely fail) to blow the hell out the advancing hordes.
b: advancing meatshield hordes with a couple of juicy assault units behind them and 1 to 2 min size objective grabbers for last turn mad dashes.

As I've said before whoop de dooo....

DantesInferno
18-01-2008, 04:27
The options in this poll are so biased that the results are going to be worthless.

What would have been wrong with "Strongly Approve", "Approve", "Indifferent", "Disapprove", and "Strongly Disapprove"?

Ravenous
18-01-2008, 04:28
Gunlines are going to become prevalent (for armies that can't spam CC) but they won't become cheese. That's because no gunline is ever going to be able to blow away enough meatshields to get to the assault units. Frankly, just one of those assault units is enough to roll a typical gunline army, in 5th, quite a few more than 1 will be hitting your lines.

Basically, the metagame will devolve to two army types:
a: static gunlines that try (and most likely fail) to blow the hell out the advancing hordes.
b: advancing meatshield hordes with a couple of juicy assault units behind them and 1 to 2 min size objective grabbers for last turn mad dashes.

As I've said before whoop de dooo....

So its exactly like 3rd then, great, because its totally awesome to lose to one unit.

Pete278
18-01-2008, 04:30
Gunlines are going to become prevalent (for armies that can't spam CC) but they won't become cheese. That's because no gunline is ever going to be able to blow away enough meatshields to get to the assault units. Frankly, just one of those assault units is enough to roll a typical gunline army, in 5th, quite a few more than 1 will be hitting your lines.

Basically, the metagame will devolve to two army types:
a: static gunlines that try (and most likely fail) to blow the hell out the advancing hordes.
b: advancing meatshield hordes with a couple of juicy assault units behind them and 1 to 2 min size objective grabbers for last turn mad dashes.

As I've said before whoop de dooo....
Remember, they take a leadership test once 25% die, with negative modifiers equal to the amount of wounds taken. Unless they're Nids within synapse range, they'll most likely flee from something like that against FW Tau, or a shot from an ordnance gun.

AngryAngel
18-01-2008, 04:30
That sounds sweet. You know what..I wanna be special, I'll go to be a pointless probably failing gunline guy. With crazy slow objective grabbers. I don't think I have enough meatshields in marines for them. Well without the entanglement I guess its "Rhino ride or die" style for me. I'm thrilled.

El'Flashman
18-01-2008, 04:46
The only thing that concerns me is that it looks like vehicles are getting completely shafted. Apart from the cover saves thing, which I don't like anyway because combined with the new ***** rules for moving and firing with vehicles it returns the balance of power back to static. I loved being able to move and fire my vehicles fully and effectively now that's ruined. I'll have to park my HH in cover to avoid getting man love.

Orbital
18-01-2008, 04:58
Given what we are learning of it almost daily it seems, does anyone else like fifth edition less and less each time they read something about it?

Honestly with the flaws that are in 4th I can safely say that as far as being a d6 system goes it is probably about is good as it can get. (I think an ap nerf of almost every weapon in the game by 1 is in order but that is something you can change on a codex to codex basis)

Making vehicles static and even more retarded than they are now? :wtf:

all of these pro assault rules to make shooting all but pointless? :wtf:

So far there has been only one thing I have liked about fifth edition and thats the change to rending (which so had it coming)

the new scatter if you miss blast template rules, and the forced march.

Note, option one is not sarcasm, nor is it an insult. If you actually like the new things coming... just vote yes. I am not being insulting..

I'm not a big fan of discussions like this which start with "Who hates X?" It's sort of a formula for bad feelings all the way around.

I think the main thing about the new rules isn't necessarily to ask "How does this affect my army?" but, instead, "How does this affect everyone else's army?" Remember that what your enemy can do is every bit as important to your game as what you can do, and if I see anything in the 5th ed rumors it's that the viability of unfluffy lists and tactics is exponentially less. Gone are the Elite/HS heavy lists and the troop min/maxing that was their staple. Gone are the indestructible Skimmers that make it pointless to even shoot at them. Gone are those lists where they'd park tanks on objectives (usually those indestructible Skimmers) and you'd spend the whole game trying to pry them out. People who complain about how vehicles are getting the short end of the stick will need to: a) read the new rules a bit more closely, and b) change their tactics in ways which are not unreasonable to ask.

Personally, what my army could and couldn't do was never a barrier to me enjoying my game because I've always played a fair, balanced list. What my opponents could and couldn't do was always the barrier... cheesy lists, cheap tactics. 5th ed expertly plugs that hole for me and I can get back to playing the way I like to play. Sure, I'll have to make some adjustments and sacrifices... but it'll be so, so worth it.

peasea
18-01-2008, 12:09
the reason I'm dissapointed is that after coming in on 4th ed rules , I saw that on many fansites that GW kept re-inventing the wheel - for what ever reason ( money, incompetence, what ever!).

now I'm dissalutioned as many 2nd 3rd ed players , 5th going to be a re-write instead of a polished update .

:-(

P.

Sgt Biffo
18-01-2008, 12:47
(which so had it coming)

Is that actually English?:wtf:

Ravenheart
18-01-2008, 13:30
Apart from the new defensive weapons being S4 or lower, I ok with all the other rules.

Deathjester
18-01-2008, 14:37
The defensive weapons rule is ****, the run rule, now i've looked at the conertations is RUBBISH......

Tau are screwed, i mean seriously? a combat army can now close in 3 (yes 3 turns) or in clense 2 turns.... WOW i get 1 whole turn of shooting??? YAY! How pointless?

You used to get at least 3/4 turns before they hit you, ok so fleet doesn't change much, but the ONLY advantage of fleet is an extra d6 on the turn you're charging, and that's it... WOW pointless?

They've slowed skimmers down, and decreased their survivability, yippee, my eldar army is now pretty useless, my characters are no longer safe (i didn't like the change in warhammer making my characters targets, considering one of my main armies is skaven, and weapons teams are almost pointless), my tau army is rubbish, i think that the only army i've got that will be of any use is my space wolves, and they haven't had a codex in YEARS, well great, i'm all psyched about that nerf to all my armies;

If these rumours are true i won't be playing 5th ed.

Supremearchmarshal
18-01-2008, 19:30
Tau are screwed, i mean seriously? a combat army can now close in 3 (yes 3 turns) or in clense 2 turns.... WOW i get 1 whole turn of shooting??? YAY! How pointless?

I doubt we've heard the wider context - I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to give such a boost to CC units - and make transport vehicles pretty pointless.


They've slowed skimmers down, and decreased their survivability, yippee, my eldar army is now pretty useless.<snip>

Sorry, but the Falcons need a nerf. On the other hand I agree there's no need to nerf Vypers.
Still, I don't think your Eldar will be useless unless you play a 3 Falcon list, but then GW usually tones down min-max lists (and introduce new ones, but that's another story...), so no surprise there. Eldar still have a lot of useful units. Now maybe someone will actually use War Walkers and Support Batteries. And I doubt Falcons will be useless now - less broken is more like it.

Orbital
18-01-2008, 19:37
They've slowed skimmers down, and decreased their survivability, yippee, my eldar army is now pretty useless...
I don't mean to be harsh, but as a fellow Eldar player I gotta say: Man up and quit sniveling. The Eldar book is full of non-Skimmer options and, what's more, the Skimmers are hardly useless. Open your eyes, explore some options, and stop saying stuff that gives people with Eldar-prejudice yet more reason to think we're a bunch of goobs who depend on broken rules.

Marinox
18-01-2008, 19:41
call it a hunch,

but skimmers didn't get nerfed. they got maybe dulled a bit. (coming from a DE player)

and "run" is definatley bad news for the tau, but i don't think it's the end of the world.

i'm liking alot of stuff in this, the ramming is awesome. land raiders are just gonna run around squishing stuff. though, for armies without access to stuff like land raiders it's kinda lame...

i think the biggest thing is going to be the moral in close combat, armies are MUCH more likely to break now since negitive Ld modifiers are so much easier to come by now

electricblooz
18-01-2008, 21:26
On the other hand I agree there's no need to nerf Vypers.
Now maybe someone will actually use War Walkers and Support Batteries. And I doubt Falcons will be useless now - less broken is more like it.

Vipers will become stripped down pillbox (tank) hunters; if they are used at all. Look for teams of one or two vipers with no upgrades carrying ML's or SC's; the unit will zip up the side of the field behind cover, dash out and fire at side armor before being destroyed by counter-fire (most likely from a nearby bolter armed unit... :wtf:).

War Walkers will disappear. Why take a vehicle that moves no faster than your grunts, costs as much as your grunts, can be taken out by a single bolter round, is not a scoring unit, and can lay down no more fire than a unit of your grunts (Guardians)?

Falcons will still be the gold standard choice for heavy slots in Eldar armies. Support Batteries (either DCannons or NightSpinners) will move up to second place because they are infantry sized and, thus, cen be screened by infantry and because they are template which actual got a small buff.

boogle
18-01-2008, 21:31
Have i been asleep for a few months?

Did the release of 5th ed happen and i missed it?

No-one can comment properly on this until AFTER 5th ed is released, anything else is silly and based on speculation, things could radically change between now and the proposed release date

electricblooz
18-01-2008, 21:46
No-one can comment properly on this until AFTER 5th ed is released, anything else is silly and based on speculation, things could radically change between now and the proposed release date

Incorrect, we are commenting on the implications of the rumored 5thed ruleset which has somehow been leaked in the form of a playtest document. I have not seen the document (only it's metadata) but all indications are that the document itself is legit.

Does this mean that there have been no changes since the document was released, does this mean we are certain the document is legit? No to both counts.

But, it is prefectly valid to discuss the implications (and our likes and dislikes) of the rumored ruleset.

Captain Micha
18-01-2008, 22:42
If this is legit I think it is safe to say kiss vehicles goodbye.

Huw_Dawson
18-01-2008, 22:51
To all gunline Tau players.

Oh no! Now you can't sit around and ignore the movement phase! You actually need to avoid combat and invest in units that slow the enemy down and take the fight to the enemy!

Yes, I'm a mean git. But jeeze, this is getting monotonous.
- Huw

Gaftra
18-01-2008, 22:54
5th edition i snot going to be worse than 4th, take a deep breath unclench the collective nerd butthole and think about things rationally.

Rather than look at is as "what CANT i do that id before" just try (or try to try) looking at things as "well what CAN i do thats new and different".

Personally i cant wait to see people throwing their 30 pt rhinos and buggies into people tanks to see if the can blow them up. I have a ravenwing with crazy amounts of rending land speeders and bikes, Im not upset one bit by the change to rending. One thing thats really good is the clarification to bikes, if you turbo boost you have a 3+ cover save, infinitely easier to understand and does what it should.

As far as gunline armies go, Guard i think will have some hurt but the list is so deep that there are going to be plenty of options to explore in the new rules such as better sniper rifles. I personally have NEVER seen a straight up tau gunline sitting at the back of the table win competitive games. You wont lose the fish of fury tactic and I personally think they should be treated as a more mobile army list anyway.

Away from that tangent all the rumors mean things are DIFFERENT, judgment cant really be called till we start playing.

clanfield
18-01-2008, 23:12
looking forward to the relese then the play testing diferant combos then the changes to my army all that actualy thinking about it and planing and execution exciting stuff

haveing played 4 editions of 40k now i can honestly say evolve adapt over come

the shear joy of it is way better than what you lose

Ronin_eX
18-01-2008, 23:24
I'm declining to vote currently. As I have gotten a glimpse of the current copy and I can only say that it is far from complete. This isn't like the Ork leak that was the finished printer's copy sans hobby section. There are no pictures, no real layout. It is a simple .pdf with plain text and a bunch of place holder boxes. Most of the rules are not complete (no rules for ordinance weapons) and you come across a few little red boxes with the words "change this" in them. While it is likely a good guess at what will be happening I say we all calm down and remember that these rumours aren't even getting a complete picture even if those who post them have this document.

There are some improvements and some things I am not yet sure about but I'm holding off "like" or "hate" until I see a more complete copy. Until then anything could change. This is one of the least polished leaks we have ever gotten (and I sincerely believe this is GW viral advertising) and I think it was mainly to show us that 5th is on the way and it wont be a simple nip and tuck procedure. So get ready for some changes but don't ever be ready to condemn something before you even know the whole story.

I'm waiting until it is released to give my final verdict on whether or not I will be playing 5th when it comes out. Before then all I have is an incomplete list of possible changes that are far from set in stone like the rumours before this have been.

Supremearchmarshal
19-01-2008, 20:46
Vipers will become stripped down pillbox (tank) hunters; if they are used at all. Look for teams of one or two vipers with no upgrades carrying ML's or SC's; the unit will zip up the side of the field behind cover, dash out and fire at side armor before being destroyed by counter-fire (most likely from a nearby bolter armed unit... :wtf:).

Yeah, that's why I said they don't need a nerf - though them being Bolter-fodder is questionable - you need a 6 to glance, and I've played against Dark Eldar long enough to know how annoying it can be.


War Walkers will disappear. Why take a vehicle that moves no faster than your grunts, costs as much as your grunts, can be taken out by a single bolter round, is not a scoring unit, and can lay down no more fire than a unit of your grunts (Guardians)?

Well you have a point - though the only real change is to make them non-scoring...


Falcons will still be the gold standard choice for heavy slots in Eldar armies. Support Batteries (either DCannons or NightSpinners) will move up to second place because they are infantry sized and, thus, cen be screened by infantry and because they are template which actual got a small buff.

Hmm... I see what you mean - though at least the Falcons won't be invincible as they are now.

Halfpast_Yellow
20-01-2008, 00:25
My goodness, no more wondering how the nickname 'Whineseer' came about.

Having seen the document, I have to say a lot of you are getting your knickers in a twist for no reason.

Everything 5th Ed looks awesome. Honestly even the vehicles stuff doesn't sound as horrendous as it must do when you see it all fit together.

'Omg defensive weapons str4' is the new 'I can't assault out of my transports now?' from 3rd to 4th. A big deal then, no one cares so much now. Generally all moving vehicles will be shooting one weapon, and after release, no one is going to care.

'My X army' is not going to be nerfed. Please, STFU if you are one of these people, to paraphase Orbital you're reinforcing the stereotype that you're a bunch of goobs.

Orbital
20-01-2008, 00:42
War Walkers will disappear.
No way, man. Not at their current cost and with their great firepower. So what if they can't move? They only have 6" movement anyhow, and that isn't usually much of a game breaker. In fact, you may expect to see more War Walker action on the table as those who relied upon the Falcon's durability are being gently pushed away from that dependency.

Joewrightgm
20-01-2008, 00:45
Honestly, what I'm about to say is anecdotal in the extreme, and is my own opinion and therefore I (probably) will be appropriatly flamed.

One of the locals at GW Novi here in Michigan looked at the 3 different PDFs that have been floating around; I had printed them off for everyone to look at. He looked at them and said "huh, I could have made those PDFs in my spare time"; he's something of a computer wiz.

So I'm calling BS until I see something from GW. For real.

Orbital
20-01-2008, 02:13
Honestly, what I'm about to say is anecdotal in the extreme, and is my own opinion and therefore I (probably) will be appropriatly flamed.

One of the locals at GW Novi here in Michigan looked at the 3 different PDFs that have been floating around; I had printed them off for everyone to look at. He looked at them and said "huh, I could have made those PDFs in my spare time"; he's something of a computer wiz.

So I'm calling BS until I see something from GW. For real.
As a guy with some background in publishing I can tell you that you can't just bang stuff off like that in your spare time unless you know what you're doing with layout (not computers; layout) and you have a fair amount of time to write the text.

Ok, that having been said... I know of at least 3 versions of the PDF floating around, and they can't all be right. Your skepticism is healthy, I think.

WallyTWest
20-01-2008, 02:15
Im not feeling very good about 5th.
(Might stop playing bad.)

electricblooz
20-01-2008, 03:19
No way, man. Not at their current cost and with their great firepower. So what if they can't move? They only have 6" movement anyhow, and that isn't usually much of a game breaker. In fact, you may expect to see more War Walker action on the table as those who relied upon the Falcon's durability are being gently pushed away from that dependency.

That's probably a play style difference between us then. I can't really conceive that some would buy a twin-scat AV10 pillbox over a single-scat objective taker with 8 abalative wounds, even if the troop unit costs a scatlaser more (give or take). However, I'll concede that some may go that route.


Ok, that having been said... I know of at least 3 versions of the PDF floating around, and they can't all be right. Your skepticism is healthy, I think.

Interesting, I knew (or thought I knew) Dosadi had originally seen a different copy from the one Champsguy revealed. Where did the other source come from?

Orbital
20-01-2008, 03:27
That's probably a play style difference between us then. I can't really conceive that some would buy a twin-scat AV10 pillbox over a single-scat objective taker with 8 abalative wounds, even if the troop unit costs a scatlaser more (give or take). However, I'll concede that some may go that route.
Ok, that's fair. I'm a really big fan of War Walkers. They're a huge part of my army. So... yeah, ok. Maybe just different styles there :)


Interesting, I knew (or thought I knew) Dosadi had originally seen a different copy from the one Champsguy revealed. Where did the other source come from?
Doesn't everyone say they have the original?

electricblooz
20-01-2008, 04:01
Ok, that's fair. I'm a really big fan of War Walkers. They're a huge part of my army. So... yeah, ok. Maybe just different styles there :)

I don't disagree; in fact, my Eldar had 3 WW's and 3 holoVipers, no Falcons, no Serpents, no Aspects. But, the army was themed around near constant movement (with lots of Guardian jetbikes,etc.) so static pillbox make little sense to me.

Carlos
20-01-2008, 10:45
So long as 5th edition reinstates proper LOS and pre-measuring then Ill be happy.

Raven Down
20-01-2008, 11:12
Oh my poor Tau how you shall suffer

superknijn
20-01-2008, 11:19
Meh. Don't like the new rules one bit. I mean, running, kil points nonsense, skimmer saves....

The basic game system is fine as it is; any tweaking should be done in the codices, IHMO. Especcialy things like skimmer nerfs. Dark Eldar really need SMF.

Alessander
20-01-2008, 12:35
(check page 70 of the rumors thread for more updates to alot of the concerns on this thread)

I think this is a great example of how GW planned the USRs so they can change a bunch of codexes with just 1 publication. USRs was a GREAT idea.

Maximuspandem
20-01-2008, 15:14
I am sort of sick of assault being the only important phase. Close Combat needed to be toned down, not emphasized even more.

X2 - amen brother...

Maximuspandem
20-01-2008, 15:17
The only thing that concerns me is that it looks like vehicles are getting completely shafted. Apart from the cover saves thing, which I don't like anyway because combined with the new ***** rules for moving and firing with vehicles it returns the balance of power back to static. I loved being able to move and fire my vehicles fully and effectively now that's ruined. I'll have to park my HH in cover to avoid getting man love.

El'Flasman speeks the truth as always...

Killgore
20-01-2008, 15:39
about people whining about vehicles

squad heavy weapons such as lascannons will die alot easier with the new shooting rules

so shorly the clever/ dum balance will be restored when the days of the plasmagunner, lascannon bloke and powerfist sarg as the only survivors of a squad are gone?

less anti-tank to blast your less mobile tanks to bits.

Kirasu
20-01-2008, 15:43
I really hope all the kneejerk responses before even READING the actual rules makes for some really cheap armies on ebay.. Please PM links if possible

Really tho, basing your entire fun-ness on a set of rumors is like.. well normal I suppose! Since there has been a "end of the world" thread every time a new codex has come out and none of the newer codexs has been a failure oddly enough

Logic512
20-01-2008, 15:52
I, for one, welcome our new 5th edition overlords...

Rabid Bunny 666
20-01-2008, 15:53
Liking them alot, especially the run rules, my Chaos boys which excel at short range firefights will be getting closer a darn sight quicker.

philbrad2
20-01-2008, 16:03
Having played since RT, 5th ed is looking good to my eyes currently. Looks like GW is starting to swing the ruleset away the 'easy to follow' 3rd/4th ed with something with a bit more involved.

PhilB
:chrome:

Wraithbored
20-01-2008, 17:31
Personally vehicles i find will be a B**** to kill For example you'll put your warwalkers into a building and those "flimsy" AV10 Warwalkers now have a 3+ cover save which combines wonderfully with Fortune.

I've never used farseer's much(personal records show I've used them in 3 out of 20 games), but with the new area terrain rules well...Hmmm well I've only ever used 3 warwalkers so not much changes for me heh. However support weapons platforms will see the battlefield far more often then.

OF COURSE IF these rules are final or very close to it. Even with the new rules the only change in my army list will be an extra unit of jetbikes. Bringing my troops up to 2 DA squads and 2 Jetbike squads(ocasionally a ranger squad gets tossed in).

Captain Micha
21-01-2008, 01:56
To all gunline Tau players.

Oh no! Now you can't sit around and ignore the movement phase! You actually need to avoid combat and invest in units that slow the enemy down and take the fight to the enemy!

Yes, I'm a mean git. But jeeze, this is getting monotonous.
- Huw

To everyone that is not an meq/mc army user. Your army is being further deballed. To anyone that plays a vehicle based, mobility based list, your army is now trash. To anyone that plays guard... I really really really feel bad for you and me both.. It seems to me the more I look and think about this, there is -one- army archetype that does not seem nerfed by these rule changes and that group is the meqs. Gee.... Gw making the game so that meqs would -naturally- be even -more - at advantage for them? Nawww... they wouldn't dare!

Long live Meqs and MCs! (after all everyone knowz that they r teh bestzzz!!!) *sarcasm off*

Stella Cadente
21-01-2008, 02:10
To anyone that plays a vehicle based, mobility based list, your army is now trash.

my New Armoured Company.......


To anyone that plays guard... I really really really feel bad for you and me both..

.......and guardsmen, are ruined...........thank you GW....thank you very much:cries:

Orbital
21-01-2008, 02:15
To everyone that is not an meq/mc army user. Your army is being further deballed. To anyone that plays a vehicle based, mobility based list, your army is now trash.
I think your .sig should be "I generalize, therefore I am" :)

Captain Micha
21-01-2008, 02:20
However it is true. especially if defensive weapons means what it does now. land raiders and rhinos will be among the only vehicles that can actually move and shoot some kind of weapon now. (I think this is them trying to encourage people to buy two units that alot of people do not see the point in while at the same time trying to further boost marine sales)

Or that you can't shoot through your -enemy's - lines, or through your own. (especially since gw says themselves that the models do not represent perfectly what goes on.... nor is anything to scale)

Besides, if I sigged that, the warseer community would not have easy access to comedic gold statements.

It boosts the viability of elite hardcore non vehicle using armies even more (unless they are marines... then landraiders do not suck as hard... and not through any actual buff.... but a nerf to everything else)

The army that loses the biggest here is probably the Ig, as much as a kick to the nuts this is to everyone else.... it is only compounded exponentially with guard.

Orbital
21-01-2008, 02:33
I think you're painting with a very broad brush over stuff that we know isn't official yet... if it ever will be (or when). And I think it's a bit of fear mongering, unintentional as it may be. This crowd doesn't need yet one more person whipping them up over an itemized list of all the bad things (without playing the rules or even seeing them in final form).

What you say is true in the sense that you've managed to underline some subjective worst-case-scenario issues that will make people paranoid and angry (i.e. "Your army is now trash"). There's a lot more to the story than that.

Some of your comments are misleading, even by the standards of these unconfirmed rumors (i.e. "Rhinos and Land Raiders will be among the only vehicles that can actually move and shoot some kind of weapon now" when, in fact, any vehicle can move and shoot some kind of weapon). Other things are purely subjective; you don't like that friend or foe infantry models can't shoot through each other, but when I read that I thought "Oh thank GOD" because I think it's better for the game and the general tactics used by players of all armies.

You're taking a very stubborn "glass 1/16th empty" perspective on the matter but, even if you now take the time to explain your points in detail (which is totally cool if you do), my point that you were over-generalizing is pretty solid. "Your army is trash"... I can't think of a broader brush to paint with than that.


However it is true. especially if defensive weapons means what it does now. land raiders and rhinos will be among the only vehicles that can actually move and shoot some kind of weapon now. (I think this is them trying to encourage people to buy two units that alot of people do not see the point in while at the same time trying to further boost marine sales)

Or that you can't shoot through your -enemy's - lines, or through your own. (especially since gw says themselves that the models do not represent perfectly what goes on.... nor is anything to scale)

Besides, if I sigged that, the warseer community would not have easy access to comedic gold statements.

It boosts the viability of elite hardcore non vehicle using armies even more (unless they are marines... then landraiders do not suck as hard... and not through any actual buff.... but a nerf to everything else)

The army that loses the biggest here is probably the Ig, as much as a kick to the nuts this is to everyone else.... it is only compounded exponentially with guard.

Captain Micha
21-01-2008, 02:50
Okay case in point, with guard. They already suffer from the way that they pretty much -have- to be played if you are not going drop troop or granadiers min max. (which the last one suffers from everything else no longer being a scoring unit. which again seems to hurt guard more than almost anyone due to their units in the troops department being well....sucky)

the las gun which requires seriously massed amounts of fire to be worth anything (I really do not see why that -thing- is factored into point cost) now you most likely will not be able to mass sufficient fire with them nor the heavy weapons that are in other squads and platoons. (which you better take mass numbers of now because if you don't you won't be able to contest any objective later)

I think had target priority actually been a significant leadership test there would not be nearly so much issue here. I really think Gw made that rule so you would not be shooting deep past the front ranks of enemy troops.

Given that vehicles might very well become much less useful when it comes to when they can fire and when they can not. and that defensive weapons are now str 4 or less, they are not going to be doing much of anything in terms of being a support gunship for your troops who can effectively move just as far as the transport can, and can fire more or less within the same parameters of the transport or vehicle anyway. Thus making them abit more worthless than now.

The common damage chart does not even buff vehicles enough to compensate for this (or at all really) and now assault happy units are still going to reach combat even though their transport was just taken out. While shooting units on the other hand are punished since they had counted as moving. (unless that changes but we have not seen that yet)

The free 'run' move as it were, also helps boost -assault- units more than shooting since they can get there faster without having to quite frankly sink points on a pants transport vehicle. All of these changes seem to conspire together to boost assault meqs, while simultaneously nerfing anything that resembles a shootist style list. Especially so if you are actually playing on the appropriate terrain level dictated by current rules.

They did this I suspect to satisfy the ****** that play with less than 25 percent terrain with assault happy armies that hate those foul evil mean shootists while ignoring the fact said ****** were playing on a board as filled with terrain that equals a flat table.

The second most gimped is obviously one of my mainstays the Tau in -any- army list form since they have no jetbikes and only one true jump infantry unit.. but even then in the case of that jumpinfantry unit half of their survivability comes from the fact they can be taken out of los behind appropriately sized terrain.

Guard get gimped in almost -every- way, Tau get gimped almost the same. So what are on to now. Eldar.

Yeah, anyone that was taking waveserpents instead of falcons now has absolutely zero reason to take them over falcons now since the smf rule got a kick to the nuts. Yay... more falcofield spam....

Space Marines come out relatively unchanged in all of this and rather get a significant buff. They as far as I know (aside from the crapmera) are the only ones with str4 weapons on their vehicles standard. They have cheap cheap cheap cheap vehicles now, do not have to worry about being entangled, do not have to worry about being wailed on by a huge mass of guard anymore (while charging right up the front door no less) which means they will beat down guard even more in assault and any other 'geq' army aside from possibly Eldar or Mc happy Tyranid.

This does not help creative tactics. This discourages them. Gone are the specialists and we are left with only troops choices being scoring. And incase no one's noticed only one army can really stand alone, on it's own with pure troops. (even then it is questionable but they can none the less) and those are marines (both loyal and chaos) and if no one's noticed csm got even nastier. This makes it even easier for marine armies to effectively play themselves while the rest of us get to hope and pray very hard that we can actually down the fodder units infront, of the nasty ones coming behind them. And pray very very hard that we some how get lucky enough to roll that magical 'cover save' for our rescue vehicles to play 'keep away' which was only half effective to start with to not die to get our troops away from danger.

And then when the thing gets blasted out of the sky, well they can move, but they can't shoot beyond rapid fire range... this has another implication, does this mean they can not run as well?

This buffs MC nids since they have alot less units to clutter up the battlefield, while possibly also buffing the swarm assault army. (again noticing a theme here? )
This nerfs sob, and probably boosts Gks since incoming fire is going to be drastically lowered.

Basically Gw wants to find a way to buff the supposedly worthless armies by nerfing everyone else. ... except this is epic fail. This royally screws everyone except Space Marines, Eldar and Mc or even swarm assaulting nids.

EmperorEternalXIX
21-01-2008, 03:04
To everyone that is not an meq/mc army user. Your army is being further deballed. To anyone that plays a vehicle based, mobility based list, your army is now trash. To anyone that plays guard... I really really really feel bad for you and me both.. It seems to me the more I look and think about this, there is -one- army archetype that does not seem nerfed by these rule changes and that group is the meqs. Gee.... Gw making the game so that meqs would -naturally- be even -more - at advantage for them? Nawww... they wouldn't dare!

Long live Meqs and MCs! (after all everyone knowz that they r teh bestzzz!!!) *sarcasm off* This is the kind of thing that really makes it hard to take this kind of discussion seriously...

So far it appears MCs aren't getting a nerf at all even though properly geared they can maul whole sections of lesser armies. If you think it's unfair fighting MEQs, imagine how a guard player facing a winged hive tyrant with twin linked devourers that doesn't need target checks flies over your defenses, rips open a 200 point tank (because it didn't move and thus is likely autohit), then on the next turn proceeds to rape your entire battle line, completely bypassing LOS issues that the guard player has almost no answer to. Oh and by the way none of those troops can wound anything with killer Toughness either, nor are they fearless unless they have a whole doctrine and an expensive, insta-killable advisor in their squad (of which they can only have 5 through the entire army, and who apparently can accidentally die from one stray attack in 5th ed).

And here you are, ranting about MEQs. MEQs! Seriously. The main people getting hurt by this update are the Guard and the main people getting buffed are the Tyranids and probably orks (yeah the nids lose rending, likely, but hell if the rest of the changes aren't in their favor).

So can anyone explain to me just how in the flying hell this edition makes MEQs stronger when it's focused on close combat, when that is one of the things they don't even do that well in the first place? When it nerfs their vehicles into oblivion, keeping a huge part of their powerful weapons silent? When it forces them to barrel through tarpit after tarpit before attacking any real threatening target? When it allows MCs (one thing most of them DON'T have) to target them with impunity to ranged fire?

I agree that it sucks that the game is getting more CC emphasis (albeit unwittingly). But a lot of these complaints are just senseless bias. I'm sorry but I can't see any other reasoning for such a point of view and personally I think this thread is just a soapbox from which to proclaim the views under the guise of blaming 5th ed for furthering your very narrow view of what is "Wrong" with the game.

Please, show me the stats where all the GTs have MC nids, third ed Chaos, and Mech Eldar being dominated and destroyed by marines. In fact I would give my right arm to see such a statistic. In all likelihood it isn't even a reality, and if it is, it is a hugely limited scope and not nearly the global game-ruining mess that others have seemed to proclaim it is at every opportunity.

Either way my logic is real simple: it's an update to the game. Coming from the video game rules it's really straightforward, when they changed a game so you don't like it anymore, you stop playing it.

I will give you three guesses what my recommendations are.

Captain Micha
21-01-2008, 03:06
I take it you did not actually read my post.

All you have to do to win a cc is score more wounds than the other guy. Also guard do not and will not have anything worth while behind those walls of infantry that can actually used since apparently guardsmen block Los of their allies.

It makes them stronger because quite honestly what would you rather do? Worry about something actually being able to hurt you in shooting? Or just simply outwound whatever squad you are in cc with sweeping advance, consolidate into squad2 and proceed to trash the rest of his army with a nearly fully healthy squad?

I'm not the one who's mindlessly biased here. I'm actually concerned about something other than power armored marines. Which if you think marines are bad at assault I suggest you play an army that isn't them for a while.

TheNZer
21-01-2008, 03:08
Having played since RT, 5th ed is looking good to my eyes currently. Looks like GW is starting to swing the ruleset away the 'easy to follow' 3rd/4th ed with something with a bit more involved.

PhilB
:chrome:

Yeah that's what I'm afraid off, that the rules will get too Complicated for newer gamers to follow.

Glabro
21-01-2008, 03:11
Bad poll options. There's only the mocking "I'm a FANBOI" response, and no "I'm mostly positive" choice. Hence, no vote.
Seriously people, take a look at all these biased polls and realize that it's being done on a much larger scale in the world, too...


Anyhow, 5th looked mostly good, as long as they iron out some of the stupidities, mainly the LOS / Intervening models issue.

Orbital
21-01-2008, 04:53
All you have to do to win a cc is score more wounds than the other guy.
And... how did you win CC the old way? By trying to score fewer wounds than the other guy?

MrGarm13
21-01-2008, 05:25
A 5th version of 40K eh?

Damn it. Just got most of 4th edition pinned down.

I would like if it were just an add on, like Apocolypse. And it helped patch up and clarify the rules. Hobble the rules lawyering.

I'm sure there's something else in this, what the hell are we calling this, it's not a revision, and we're not sure that it's a new set of rules yet, so, we'll say "New rules". Anyway, in these New Rules is probably something I won't like.

"THE FAQS! ZEY DO NOTHING!"

Deathraven
21-01-2008, 05:34
I'm liking 5th ed mostly at the moment. While the defensive guns suck a bit now I think over all it's a fair trade off for the increased survivability of vehicles, especially in cover. I'm not too sure about how the run rule will pan out. A lot of people seem to think it'll make for too much cc but I'm reserving my opinion until I see it in action. I think that foot slogging units did need some sort of bonus though because at the moment they have no hope of making it across the board alive.
The only thing I really dislike atm is the LOS rules, especially the vague area terrain rules. Here's hoping they get ironed out before the release!

DinoDoc
21-01-2008, 05:36
If it is anything like the version(s?) floating around the net, my vote will be that 5th ed sucks. However, I'm inclined to believe these are fake unless GW is going to shove the chamber militant of Ordo Malleus into the path of the nearest Hive Fleet. Where the hell is True Grit in the USR?

airmang
21-01-2008, 06:05
Yeah that's what I'm afraid off, that the rules will get too Complicated for newer gamers to follow.


wait, wasn't everyone just complaining recently that the game was becomeing too simplistic and streamlined...

hmm... and about true grit and grey knights, my daemonhunters codex has rules for true grit for them to use, as does my space marine codex...

as for the strength 4 defensive weapons, only dark eldar, tau, and orks are the only races that don't have a strength 4 weapon on their basic transport.

as for me i'm liking most everything i see in these "rules". but i do agree the poll questions should have been just Yes, No, and undecided.

Prince Facestab
21-01-2008, 06:25
Captain Micha, I think your analysis is a bit off.

First of all, I think that guard receive a number of buffs from fifth edition as well.

You can screen your important infantry now. This includes heavy weapons squads; just limit their LOS to units that you want them to shoot at.

Blast weapons got better. Ordinance got much better. Indirect fire weapons is more valuable, since it can ignore screening.

Tanks, in addition to being harder to destroy, will be able to fire more often when in cover. A Leman russ in a forest will take about 9 bs4 lascannons before it even takes a roll on the damage table.

True, run will benefit some assault armies more than most, but guard still gain benefit from it. I don't think the fact that it benefits other armies more means that it's a nerf.

Improved cover saves benefit guard more than anyone else, perhaps barring orks, and the voluntary pinning for improved cover save .

That's off the top of my head. Maybe that's all of them, or maybe I'm missing some. I think that the problems that the guard have are mostly due to the same issues that they have in 4th edition, and the issues that everyone faces in 5th edition. Hopefully the new guard codex will make some of these issues better, but I don't see how 5th makes things worse.

I expect to see more waveserpents; what makes you say we should expect to see less? They're much cheaper, carry more guys, their weaponry is less affected by the defensive weapons change, and they're harder to get penetrating hits on, which is quite important with the new damage table. Also, one of the major benefits to 3 falcons is points denial; now they are no longer scoring units.

Tyranids now face some difficulties; they now have a very hard time destroying tanks from range, since glancing is so bad. Genestealers also can't destroy tanks anymore. This leaves them with what, zoanthroapes and CC monstrous creatures? So nidzilla will have issues with scoring units, and swarm with have issues with tanks, as I see it.

big squig
21-01-2008, 06:39
The biggest boost to guard is the missions. Only objectives count. So IG get 6 scoring units per troop choice.

airmang
21-01-2008, 06:46
The biggest boost to guard is the missions. Only objectives count. So IG get 6 scoring units per troop choice.


i agree with this also. don't forget about the new ways to deploy. whoever deploys first goes first, or if you deploy second, your opponent has already deployed their whole army, so you can put the right weapons in the right spots. and even the missions for kill points are better for IG. yeah they might have more troops units, but their HQ can be screened, and their tanks are harder to kill, especially in decent cover. and you have to completely destroy the units, or make them fall back to get the kill points, none of this below 50% stuff... so all those IG players out there will need to make sure they invest in voxcasters, which all the ones i play against already do.

Ronin_eX
21-01-2008, 06:48
Why is everyone assuming this is even the finished copy of the rules? At worst I think they are all fake but more likely they are all drafts and the three different versions are three different drafts that were created at different times. I know that mine at least differs in a few different aspects than those of others. To assume this is what we are getting even after we have conflicting rumours from better sources than an unconfirmed leak (which is likely representative of updated rules). In any case I don't know why I am trying it seems Warseer is too happy to whip themselves into a frenzy over incomplete, unplayed, out of date rules that are unconfirmed and of questionable origin.

What if GW published three different copies of the rules and posted them while keeping the actual 5th edition rules under lock and key. Maybe the differences aren't just changes between drafts but actually put in to mislead us? I don't see why we should be whining about this now, was the Ork codex so good that it doesn't recieve the six months of whine threads that came after the past three (despite having more typos :p). I have to wonder about some people in this community sometimes.

Stella Cadente
21-01-2008, 06:51
i agree with this also. don't forget about the new ways to deploy. whoever deploys first goes first
wait, what?, that don't sound right
if thats true at least guard will always go first

Deathraven
21-01-2008, 06:56
Guard anti tank squads will become truly awesome with screening. Deployed behind infantry platoons they'll be screened from enemy infantry with no restriction on shooting at enemy tanks and MC's.

Occulto
21-01-2008, 07:01
wait, what?, that don't sound right
if thats true at least guard will always go first

Someone mentioned something in the rumour thread.

There's a roll-off. Highest deploys their army first. Lowest deploys their army second. Then the winner of the roll gets first turn. So unless they use rigged dice, IG won't always go first! :D

Stella Cadente
21-01-2008, 07:49
so basically its the old sets up first, go first system??
the system that was unnoficially odopted by my GW
the System that was BANNED for being stupid
THAT syste, a terrible system is now returning to haunt our games?
well thats just great ain't it

Ianos
21-01-2008, 08:07
Skimmed through the threads and the pdf, and from what i have heard and seen i think that even if ONLY what Brimstone says it is true, i don't like where things are going. No more elite based, or mech armies, no more tanks really. Just masses of infantry running straight up and clashing on one another ASAP. Dominating lists will be made of armies with over the top troops (guess who they are, again...) and will mostly rely on assault, since now everyone can fleet, objectives ARE the game (which means more cc) and tanks are easily destroyed in cc.

Really its not that i play Eldar, and i am being honest to the bone here, if i can have a good rule system better than 4th i don't mind taking my falcons to dust collection duty. But the effective removal of all tanks and especially all skimmers and units that rely on them to operate, is just pathetic and i sincerely hope that i am only seeing a bad dream.

Stormsender
21-01-2008, 08:23
I think this thread was started to create fear and dread, and an attempted threat to the keep the game as it is currently played. I suppose that $40k needs a face lift $GW will make a weak attempt at this because it won't stop the current inequalities, but create different issues. I do believe $5th addition will be playable but flawed, but no game is perfect considering ballance, playability, etc... So this is why I voted not sure. Wait till the rules come out and look and see if they fit you if they don't find another game life goes on understand this is the cycle that is $GW. If a company doesn't learn from thier mistakes they're domed to repeat them.

madden
21-01-2008, 09:53
i will wait and see what acually happens as some of the ideas ive heard are #$E% and some are useful so i`ll wait and see.

airmang
21-01-2008, 12:32
so basically its the old sets up first, go first system??
the system that was unnoficially odopted by my GW
the System that was BANNED for being stupid
THAT syste, a terrible system is now returning to haunt our games?
well thats just great ain't it

that's already how you do it in apocalypse.

The_Outsider
21-01-2008, 15:20
that's already how you do it in apocalypse.

However at 1500 points you don't have 300 infantry + 30 tanks.

azimaith
21-01-2008, 15:35
I don't get how cover saves for tanks counts as removing them. If anything tanks became stronger with much improved hull down.

In 5th ed I suggest everyone start using height scaled terrain. You'll want alot of varying heights rather than the 2d boards of 4th.

AmBlam
21-01-2008, 16:47
The most disappointing thing is the possibility of GW changing things that 99% of the community thinks are fine already. It begs the unanswerable question; Why would they do that?

azimaith
21-01-2008, 16:48
Not really. Rending is changed, vehicles are changed, skimmers are changed, as well as useless units because of a lack of screening are changed. They're changing most of whats been asked to be changed.

Dark Seraphs
21-01-2008, 16:56
Most of what I've seen in the 5th ed rules is total crap.

Of all the rumors I've seen, there are maybe one til two things I like.

first of all, I totaly agree that we need to nerf abit the grav tanks, and when move over 7" glans on 4+ is just the thing! they totaly own with that rule and I liked it alot.

then str 4 defensive weapons? thats total ......

I've been speaking to the guys here in iceland about the new 5th ed. 40k and most of the guys are thinking about when the 5th ed. comes out, they are all moving to fantasy.

When all the 40k players here in iceland dont like the 5th ed. there is totaly something wrong with the 5th ed.

azimaith
21-01-2008, 17:09
I wasn't aware you knew every single person in iceland.

S4 defensive weapons, looks like they're just trying to cut down on the firepower of mobile tanks, including that of skimmer tanks.

Its a change that would require rectification later by codex changes. I think S5 would have been sufficient, but S4 might manage, you'll see more and cheaper tanks with other weapons as last resorts due to improved survivability rather than as main line weapons. In general tanks don't shoot every gun they have at one time, its one at a time.

Voodoo Boyz
21-01-2008, 17:17
I find it amazing that people think tanks will be out of the game when the only tanks that are easier to kill are Holofield Grav Tanks. And even then they're still pretty resilient, just not as crazy resilient as they are now if you use the right tools to take them down.

Tau Skimmers, Wave Serpents, and certainly land based Tracked vehicles just got a whole lot more survivable with the new rules.

Dark Seraphs
21-01-2008, 17:22
When I said every single Person in Iceland I ment Every Single Person in Iceland that had been playing 40k for longer then a day (if you get my meaning :) )

and yes I know every single Person in Iceland that plays 40k. I work in the only store that sells warhammer in iceland so if they want some warhammer they come to me :) .

Also I am a Judge in Tourniments here in iceland, both in Fantasy and 40k.

From what I've seen in the rumors is that Eldar Grav Tanks will be totaly useless, the only tank that will be fine in the new rules will be the fire prism.

All IG infantry army will not work, because friendly units block line of sight. (every single model is very cheap :p)

IG tanks will be useless, because most of their defensive weapons are str 5 (heavy Bolters).

the only tanks I can see from the 5th ed. that will come out fine is:
Rhino
Razoback
Land Raider Crusaider
Fire Prism

I shudder to see Eldar armies bringing up 3 Wraith Lords again.

And when I say useless, I dont mean totaly useless but infantry will be a much better pick then tanks.

My IG tank company will be mostly useless.
My all IG infantry army will be hard to use.
I will have to change my Eldar Army ALOT. Basically, drop all my transports.

The only 40k army I have will go kinda unharmed out of this is my Space Marine army (which is all infantry close combat Black Templars) with one tank (Razoback)

AngryAngel
21-01-2008, 17:24
Survieabiity at the cost of being mobile. Which lends them more to gunline support, then to mech support for APC cover. Which is not cool, at lest for me.

Orbital
21-01-2008, 17:53
The most disappointing thing is the possibility of GW changing things that 99% of the community thinks are fine already. It begs the unanswerable question; Why would they do that?
Where'd you get this figure from?

How do you know 99% of the community thinks those things are fine?

Let's say you've polled the Warseer users and all your 40k-playing friends (which I doubt you have, so I'm not positive you know definitively how they stand on these things). That accounts for a sliver of the 40k gaming community as a whole. So where'd you get the information about what the rest of the community thinks is fine?

Dark Seraphs
21-01-2008, 18:16
Let's say you've polled the Warseer users and all your 40k-playing friends (which I doubt you have, so I'm not positive you know definitively how they stand on these things). That accounts for a sliver of the 40k gaming community as a whole. So where'd you get the information about what the rest of the community thinks is fine?

There is no need for insults :p, when we talk, we dont need to add insults in order to get attention mate.

Orbital
21-01-2008, 18:27
There is no need for insults :p, when we talk, we dont need to add insults in order to get attention mate.
There was no insult in that comment, nor was one implied.

Komnenos
21-01-2008, 18:54
I'll wait until the book is printed and on the shelves before commenting on it, it seems foolish to dislike (or like for that matter) and complain about something that is not definite yet.

Vorenus
21-01-2008, 22:53
Doesn't make sense to me, brothers. New Codex books are popping out like baby rabbits at the moment, and they all fit the current rulebook, levelling things out more and more when you look in detail. Many of the so called new rules make the whole game wildly unbalanced, and I just can't see that happening. I'm not interested in these rumours, and I suspect they are falsehood and heresy. Stand by your faith.

Stormsender
21-01-2008, 23:39
There is no need for insults :p, when we talk, we dont need to add insults in order to get attention mate.

Orbital has a point when some one throws out a figure of 99% and you can see for your self the poll suggest most people are waiting to see and arn't making any judgements or actually like the changes then mr 99% could expect to get called on the carpet for questionable maths, at the very least.

5th edition isn't even in the presses yet and the vocal (small percentage) community is crapping themselves, /boggle.

Kirasu
22-01-2008, 00:11
Every game that requires deck building or army building requires you to change your lists every expansion or edition.. This is nothing new nor will it ever be something new.. People who cant be bothered to modify their play style or army lists to accommodate die out and new players take their places.. New editions >>> stagnantion

Move along nothing to see here

Ianos
22-01-2008, 05:44
Sorry to say so but 40k is not MTG, if it where each unit would have its own rules printed to go along with it forever. In this manner its essentially new units/cards that "force" you to select them over others and thus change your build. Plus 40k is also about the fluff and the hobby and i don't see how the exterminatus cast upon the vehicles in the rumored 5th can fit with either adaptation to new rules or fluff and hobby.

Orbital
22-01-2008, 06:07
Sorry to say so but 40k is not MTG, if it where each unit would have its own rules printed to go along with it forever. In this manner its essentially new units/cards that "force" you to select them over others and thus change your build. Plus 40k is also about the fluff and the hobby and i don't see how the exterminatus cast upon the vehicles in the rumored 5th can fit with either adaptation to new rules or fluff and hobby.
I think you might be missing his point, which appears to be: Every time a new ruleset comes out, you gotta change the way you play.

Obviously he knows that there aren't little cards and that there's fluff and so-on. I don't think that's what he was going for.

Ianos
22-01-2008, 06:14
Orbital i am not missing the point, i get it, "adapt or die". And its not about my army i have a problem either, nor in how to make competitive lists as i have already thought very nasty things to create with armies in 5th. It is just that i hate the character of the new ed. massed infantry hitting each other in the face is not my thing and i wouldn't hesitate to quit instead of playing a lets roll dice, see who wins game.

Prince Facestab
22-01-2008, 06:19
I don't see why there will be less vehicles. They can fire less weapons while on the move, but will get to fire more often, whether moving or stationary, by utilizing cover. Combine this with the improved survivability, and I see lots of reasons to still take vehicles.

dark-hamish
22-01-2008, 07:13
I refuse to comment or vote. All we have is rumour right now. Even "offical" rumour could be nothing more than an attempt to guage public opinion. I will say that the codices we have seen seem to indicate a particular trend, and I like the trend, but I still refuse to speculate. We'll know when 5th ed hits the book shelves.

TheOneWithNoName
22-01-2008, 07:24
Games Workshop swinging that pendulum again. Oh boy. :o

Khaine's Fury
22-01-2008, 08:59
It's definately a case of wait and see, no sense in panicking till we know some things for CERTAIN. What these rumours are giving us is a rather dour attempt at improvement, and if they prove to be true, would definately make me think twice about playing something else....but then again, let's not poo our pants just yet eh? GW have too much to lose by releasing a 40k version that is simply no fun to play, or which unfairly nerfs one army more than others. Even by making a bit of money on 5th ed books, they will still end up the losers as gamers will not continue to play a poorly thought-out and poorly-executed rule-set.

Wait and see.

-KF.

dark-hamish
22-01-2008, 14:33
I have to say that I had not read all 12 pages of posts on this before I added mine. I did what I usually do, read the first page, and base my comments on that.

To all that have adopted a "wait and see" perspective on this issue, I applaud you sagacity and wisdom. We do not know what changes there will be. We don't have a release date. Nor have I heard anything official that 5th ed is even on the horizon. All I have heard is speculation. An amusing mental excersise to be sure, but speculation none the less.

To the few who are bound an determined to get all wound up about this, guys, really, chill. Whatever rules may change or not, it is the same discussion that has been had abouut every change and new codice since the game began. Lets not have it again. Wait and see what the 5th has when we get it, and then decide whiether to leave the game or not.

Richter Kless
22-01-2008, 15:19
Ugh, this poll is rediculous.
2 options that say 5th edition sucks, 1 neutral option and 1 option that makes me sound like a total fanboy.

A simple 'like it', 'don't like it', 'I'm neutral' would have been enough.

And I'm going to take all this bitching and whining with a gargantuan grain of salt. They will be all emo now for the coming months and tell how they will quit, etc, etc. But in the end, they all come back and pretend like nothing happened.
I've yet to see someone actually quite completely because of these kind of changes.

I voted 'I'm not sure'.

A.S.modai
22-01-2008, 16:37
I can only go by experience. Currently the one codex I was able to "preview" was spot on. Granted this codex was very refined and by refined I mean totally jacked up. Errors, confusion and whatnot. BUT it looked exactly like the production one.

The 5th ed I previewed is crap. It's nowhere near the production quality of the other. Also I noticed stubborn rears its ugly head again(with different rules). Are they serious?

All you Blood angels can pretty much ditch your baal preds. convert them to destructors. But hang on to the death company cause they're just as overpowered vs troops as in 4th.

fire prizms and hammerheads now are going to cause lots of headaches for people. per the new blast rules.

Oh and the most moronic move of the year goes to!!!! SWEEPING ADVANCE. Dumbest rule ever. That is unmodified.

My hope is either:
A: My preview is a playtest copy from a year ago. That GW is still working on.
B: some clowns with too much time on their hands made this to mess with everyone.
C: I can still sell all of my minis on ebay.

Granted there are some things that are good. but not a lot.

marv335
22-01-2008, 16:47
Again, There is no point in getting stressed about a ruleset that has not been released.
there are several PDF files doing the rounds on the net, all with differences.
I'm going to wait until I have the finished bound copy in my hands.
Then I'll Play few games.
Then I'll decide If it's any good.
anything else is pointless no matter how "reliable" the rumors are.

The Song of Spears
22-01-2008, 16:53
My hope is either:
A: My preview is a playtest copy from a year ago. That GW is still working on.
B: some clowns with too much time on their hands made this to mess with everyone.
C: I can still sell all of my minis on ebay.


All of these possibilities are equally likely. Though for the sake of remembering the face of your father, i hope you don't choose "C". ;)

As for all the comments, they are all for the good. There is always a chance that a GW 40k game dev will read through this site and the comments on the 5th ed rules (bogus or not) and get a idea of where issues may come up or not and what changes might be legitimately good ones whenever the time does come for a new rule set.

So discuss the '5th ed rules' and let your voice be heard on what changes you might like or not like to see.

For instance, I think Fleet should give you the additional d6 move (on top of 'running' even.) but both fleeting and running should allow anyone to assault.

And I think that the skimmer should get a 4+ cover save when moving, not a 5+, thats too weeny.

And i agree that str6 should still be a defensive weapon, not 4.

I love the new rending 'rules' even though my harlequins got a bit worse.

A.S.modai
22-01-2008, 19:01
@song of spears

On that note, personally I think it's crap a marine hits with a blast weapon statisically about as often as an ork. All that training and surgical enhancement for ork like shooting? no thanks. someone posted that if you could reduce the scatter corresponding to your BS it would be more balanced. Although dark reaper exarchs with the tempest launcher would basically dominate. I think blast should be roll to hit. If you miss then scatter. Use the little arrow on the hit. Ord? just use the hit marker. I realize no partials means that could be more powerful. GOOD. It's an explosion, it should be.

If vehicles become pillboxes now what? They are LESS effective than infantry. Why would I take a pred if it can only move 6 and fire 1 hb? or 1 tl las for that matter? Whoopee! Vehicles are made to move and shoot. Thats why people take them.

Instead what about defensive weapons being 5 and less? Therefore, Baal, hammer head, Pred, Leman Russ, and basically everything is fine. The crusader can still fire the asscannon, plus hurricane bolters. the LR can fire 1 las plus tl hb's. The str6 is ridiculous. It's all just to nerf the asscannon but changes the whole balance of vehicles vs infantry. Especially if the inf can basically move almost as fast anyway.

Also, fleet should get 6" plus a full 6" in the shooty phase. (no roll) stealers should be able to reliably cross that ground.

Oh yeah, dreads can move and shoot 1 weapon while monstrous can shoot 2? Whatever.

Orbital
22-01-2008, 19:24
Instead what about defensive weapons being 5 and less? Therefore, Baal, hammer head, Pred, Leman Russ, and basically everything is fine.
I'm not a person who believes that all Marines or Imperial players have prejudice or myopic vision when it comes to other armies, but when it happens this is what it looks like.

S5 basically opens up a world of Heavy Bolters (very ubiquitous in every Marine list). In other words, the S5 defensive thing lets most Imperial vehicles rock out while others are still hamstrung. Yeah, he did mention that Hammerhead... sandwiched between 3 Imperial vehicles and a "there... everything is fine".

I don't like the idea of the S4 defensive weaponry hamstringing my Eldar tanks... but I at least like the fact that it nerfs everyone and not just a few armies. For that reason, I'd keep it as-is (I'm particularly fond of the Falcon nerfs).


Oh yeah, dreads can move and shoot 1 weapon while monstrous can shoot 2? Whatever.
I'm not sure this is the case. Wasn't there a rule about Walkers not being able to shoot more than one weapon when moving? What happens to Wraithlords, which qualify as both?

A.S.modai
22-01-2008, 19:43
I'm not a person who believes that all Marines or Imperial players have prejudice or myopic vision when it comes to other armies, but when it happens this is what it looks like.

S5 basically opens up a world of Heavy Bolters (very ubiquitous in every Marine list). In other words, the S5 defensive thing lets most Imperial vehicles rock out while others are still hamstrung. Yeah, he did mention that Hammerhead... sandwiched between 3 Imperial vehicles and a "there... everything is fine".

I don't like the idea of the S4 defensive weaponry hamstringing my Eldar tanks... but I at least like the fact that it nerfs everyone and not just a few armies. For that reason, I'd keep it as-is (I'm particularly fond of the Falcon nerfs).


I'm not sure this is the case. Wasn't there a rule about Walkers not being able to shoot more than one weapon when moving? What happens to Wraithlords, which qualify as both?

So you're complaining the falcons aren't good enough? Cause most people I talk to think they are currently overpowered where the tracked ones are just meh. I play eldar also. Orks, IGAC, Marines, and nids. I get screwed no matter who gets nerfed.

The falcon is fast so it could move 12" and fire the pulse laser. The DE can "rock out" with the ravager. Sorry I don't have most of the rules memorized.

I see your point tho, no star cannon, no scatter laser. Not much different than the land raider though. After all the upgrades the pts cost is roughly the same. the LR could move 6 and fire 1 tl lascannon. but the falcon 12" and one doubleshot pulse laser or one bright lance or whatever else you had on the other side.

doesnt the wraithlord have a special rule saying he can fire his weapons on the move?

Orbital
22-01-2008, 20:23
So you're complaining the falcons aren't good enough?
HA! OMG no! You must not know much about my posting history (which is understandable cause there are a lot of posts here by smarter people than me)... but I have never said that the Falcon needs to be more powerful in *any* version of the rules.

I think you might have misread what I said (or at least what I meant). I think I said, flat out, that I am a fan of the reduced Defensive Weapon Strength because it nerfs Falcons. I just think that "I'd like my Heavy Bolters on the move back kthx" isn't a strong enough argument to raise the stat to S5.


Cause most people I talk to think they are currently overpowered
Including me.


I see your point tho, no star cannon, no scatter laser. Not much different than the land raider though.
That's the part I like: Everyone has to re-think; not just one army or the other.


doesnt the wraithlord have a special rule saying he can fire his weapons on the move?
I'll check. I don't believe so.

The Song of Spears
22-01-2008, 20:51
I think the Wraithlord is only classified as a Monstrous Creature, not ever as a walker. So he can fire two guns.

I agree with A.S.modai about the blast weapons whole heartedly.

I see no reason for the str4 defensive weapons, str 6 is just fine.

Orbital
22-01-2008, 20:53
I see no reason for the str4 defensive weapons, str 6 is just fine.
I'm fine with S6. I'm fine with S4. I'm not fine with S5.

S6 does make the Falcon a lot scarier though. I wouldn't mind seeing that toned down (Shuriken Cannon + Scatter Laser + Pulse Laser = 9 Heavy Weapon shots... that's a lot).

The Song of Spears
22-01-2008, 21:06
i think the 195 point falcon you have there (assuming the obligatory HF, and SS) is "Toned down enough" due to the loss of glances going from auto to 5+. I have tried it out at least a hundred times over this last weekend, and IMO, It will be way more common to not have any falcons left at the end of a 6 round game vs. a average opponent. Considering the power of MC to shoot ANY two guns AND move AND never get killed in one lucky shot for less points means the falcon is if anything, under the pseudo 5th ed rules, slightly too weak for the points. Keep in mind the falcons cargo also got nerfed here as well... as i NEVER had anyone complain about empty ones, it was the ones with 6 clowns in them that broke hearts.

==Me==
22-01-2008, 21:08
I've looked through the pdf file floating about and overall I can say I am quite pleased. Steps have been taken to make the game more balanced and less about list building and slaughter, not to mention Eldar and Nidzilla getting hit by the nerf bat :D

Things I like:
-Allocating hits. It's different and does a good job of making those hidden PFs and heavy weapons more vulnerable but not completely helpless.
-Vehicle damage. Glancing hits can't destroy vehicles, I'm all about that. Melta weapons get a beefy +2 to damage rolls, making them supreme tankbusters.
-S4 hit on models bailing out of closed-top tanks (suck it Falcon-spammers :evilgrin:)
-Ramming
-Running (makes non-fleet footsloggers viable)
-Missions and their variations (does away with nidzilla and makes for much more troop-heavy and objective centered game)
-Rending balanced. It's still nasty, but not so game breaking.
-No more entaglement, transports are viable again!

What I don't like
-S4 defensive weapons. There aren't enough S4 weaponry to make this useful. I would say S5, but since that makes ==Me== a myopic marine player I'll stick with S6.
-LoS and RAW. Too easy to abuse and can lead to some serious problems. The Most Important Rule isn't going to help, so we need something tighter
-Walkers only firing 1 weapon on the move, they need something more.
-Blast weapons always scattering. I think they should only scatter if they miss, so BS remains a factor.

Something I would have really liked to see is something similar to the "stomp" ability of gargantuan critters in Apoc for walkers and MCs in combat. They can choose to hit every enemy in BtB on a 4+ with 1 half S hit each. Good for crowd control but not as guaranteed to do damage.

Some other things I've thought up:
-Nidzilla is finished, but swarmy nids and nids in general look a lot better. Running lets everything (synapse) keep up with hormagaunts, makes walking fexes viable. Venom Cannons will keep vehicles from shooting 2/3 of the time if they glance, and since vehicles aren't scoring all you need to do is keep them from killing your bugs while you run up and eat people in HtH. Screening is lovely with spinegaunts. Scuttlers are brutal on stealers, and the Broodlord and Co. look pretty good. Deathspitters are nasty. Just some observations.

Overall, I like what I've seen of 5th edition. A little fixing is all they need to make this a good improvement over 4th.

So yes, I'm an ignorant fanboi (hooray for unbiased poll options:rolleyes:)

A.S.modai
22-01-2008, 21:41
My reasoning for str5 was a majority of vehicles in 40k would benefit. Hell, my DA speeder with multimelta/asscannon WHOOMP? nerfbat. A LOT of wehicles have str5 sponsons.

the problem is all the eldar stuff is str 6. If it was only str5 scatter laser,shuriken cannon,starcannon we would all agree wholeheartedly.

Maybe not though because all the marines wouldn't be wounded as easily.

Most of the other races main battle tanks only move and fire one low ap weapon though.

The Song of Spears
22-01-2008, 21:47
I really dont see the problem with str6 weapons here fellas...

"oh noes, a atr 6 ap6 cannon!" :P come on, thats not that bad, especially on a BS 3 unit.

I mean we have str 6 warp spiders and no one complains. And thats like 20 str 6 shots from one unit!

azimaith
22-01-2008, 22:28
warwalkers would be a joke with s4/5 defensives.

Wraithlords would be better in comparison.

Captain Micha
22-01-2008, 23:59
yeah, warwalkers will go from being cool and somewhat fragile to pants incarnate.

Bunnahabhain
23-01-2008, 00:15
yeah, warwalkers will go from being cool and somewhat fragile to pants incarnate.


Yes, they would then be an AV10 walker, firing one weapon a turn. Just like a sentinal, which costs more, and is open topped to boot...