PDA

View Full Version : Concise listing of 40k 5th Edition Changes



Raverrn
24-01-2008, 06:35
So here's what I've gathered from rumors so far -
(in no particular order)

Cover - There is no 6+ cover anymore, just 5+. 4+ & 3+.
Cover - Area terrain does not block LOS, but firing through it provides a cover save to your target.
Cover - You may voluntarily pin a unit to give it a +1 to a cover save or a 6+ if it had none.
Cover - Dangerous Terrain tests allow invulnerable saves.
Casualties - Models must be assigned wounds before rolling saves. If a 10-man squad suffers 12 wounds, every model must make 1 save and two must make 2 saves. Special Weapons and Sergeants can die. - Clarified by Raddman
Weapons - Pistols are Assault 1.
Weapons - Blast weapons now scatter. Multiple Blasts act as a barrage.
Weapons - Work out how many wounds from all shooting (Blast or Template included) before picking up wounds.
Weapons - Blast weapons hit models partially under the template like Template weapons.
Weapons - Gets Hot is only on a roll of 1, no matter the shots fired.
Weapons - Force Weapons cause Instant Death
Weapons - Power Fists, Chain Fists, & Thunder Hammers do not get extra attacks unless doubled with a similar weapon.
Weapons - Sniper Rifles have rending.
Assault - Wounds may be taken from anywhere in the unit, not just engaged models.
Assault - Models check for engagement before I 10. If a model was engaged it gets it fulls attacks unless removed as a causalty. - Clarified by nova40k
Assault - All grenades make assault go in initiative order.
Assault - -1 leadership for every wound you were beaten by.
Assault - All locked models MUST Pile In.
Assault - A unit Assaulted while falling back makes another fall back movement, if it fails it is destroyed.
Characters - Independent Characters must join a unit within 2" of themselves.
Characters - Independent Characters get no special bonuses against ranged attacks.
Psykers - Perils of the Warp is an automatic wound.
Psykers - Invulnerable saves ARE allowed against PotW, but must be re-rolled once if successful.
MC - Monstrous Creatures have Move Through Cover
Vehicles - Defensive weapons are STR 4 and below.
Vehicles - Singular Damage chart, similar to Apocalypse.
Vehicles - -1 on roll for AP -. +1 for AP 1, -2 for glancing hit, +1 for open-topped.
Vehicles - Benefit from cover exactly like infantry. Smoke and SMF give a 5+ cover save.
Vehicles - Vechicle Explodes! now has a STR and AP value.
Vehicles - Dedicated Transports may carry anyone, but begin the game with their assigned troop or empty. - Clarified by Sir_Turalyon
Vehicles - Tanks may ram. Damage based on AV and distance moved. - Clarified by Lexington
Vehicles - Walkers may only move and fire one weapon.
Skilz - BS above 7 allows you to 'retry' a failed to-hit roll at a lower BS.
Rending - Automatically wounds on a wound roll of '6', also counts as AP 2. On a '6' against vehicles only rolls a D3 additional damage.
Missions - 2/3 missions revolve around objective, only nonvehicle Troop choices are scoring.
Deep Striking - If any model is placed illegally, there is a 'Deep Strike Mishap' table. 1/2 hance of entire unit dying, 1/2 chance your opponent places the unit.

Anyone else have anything?

Edit:
Morale - Units that fall back and pass through other units can make those units fall back as wall by failing a morale check. - Thanks to Sabreu

LOS - All models block LOS, both friendly and enemy, up to their height. Two exceptions - Models in the firer's unit and models the firer could not normally hurt.
LOS - Units covered by another unit the firer can not hurt receive a 4+ Cover save.
Characters - Independent Characters may form units with other Independent Characters.
Morale - There is no more entanglement, only pinning tests. - I can't believe I forgot these. Thanks to Defcon.
Vehicles - Fast vehicles can move a max of 18", may fire ALL weapon if they move 6". - Thanks to Sir_Turalyon
Deployment - Units with Infiltrate & Scouts may chose to come in on a random board edge to your left or right. - Thanks to Deadmanwade
Deployment - When setting up, the die roll winner sets up his WHOLE army first, with the loser setting up second. The initial die roll winner goes 1st.
Assault - Models subject to the 'No Retreat' rule suffer wounds equal to the ammount they are outnumbered by. 2:1 is 2, 8:1 is 8, with no upper limit. - These two thanks to Raddmann

sabreu
24-01-2008, 06:52
Weapons - Rending weapons cause an AP2 wound on a to-hit roll of 6. Against vehicles rolls of 6 allow an additional D3 roll.

Fall back - Units that fall back and pass through other units can make those units fall back as wall by failing a morale check.

Assault - All engaged models get their attacks, even if killed in initiative order.

Defcon
24-01-2008, 07:12
You forgot one of the biggest ones:

-All models block LOS, both friendly and enemy, up to their height.

-You may shoot a unit partially obscured (clarification required here, as the example made only little sense) by something that cannot hurt the closer unit, but they receive a 4+ cover save.

-Independent Characters can form units with other Independent Characters (this one sounds...doubtful)

-There is no more entanglement, only pinning tests.

centy
24-01-2008, 07:22
Baal predator can move 18" and ram as much as possible.
looks like my baals will be cheapo battering rams in the new rules.
hello mister landraider ,bye bye mister landraider and squad near buy.

kikkoman
24-01-2008, 07:23
the Kustom Force Field has become a much more handy option for orks.
Battlewagons with 5+ cover saves!

4+ cover saves, with screening rules, hmmm

>>Assault - Models that are engaged at the beginning of the assault may attack even if the 'engagor' or 'engagee' dies before their initiative.

doesn't this defeat the whole purpose of initiative if everyone always attacks?

Defcon
24-01-2008, 07:31
>>Cover - You may voluntarily pin a unit to give it a +1 to a cover save or a 6+ if it had none.

Lootas with 4+ cover saves? nice

>>Assault - Models that are engaged at the beginning of the assault may attack even if the 'engagor' or 'engagee' dies before their initiative.

doesn't this defeat the whole purpose of initiative if everyone always attacks?


the Kustom Force Field has become a much more handy option for orks.
Battlewagons with 5+ cover saves!

He worded it poorly. What it means is that you can no longer pluck the one model that is in b2b in order to ensure nobody else gets to attack at lower initiatives. Models that die obviously do not get their attacks if they haven't swung yet.

nova40k
24-01-2008, 08:06
A better way to say it is...

You check for engagement before I 10. If a model was engaged it gets it fulls attacks unless removed as a causalty.

byteboy
24-01-2008, 08:11
:wtf:
I don't like what I am seeing so far.
:(
:cries:

Sir_Turalyon
24-01-2008, 09:05
Vehicles - Dedicated Transports may carry anyone.

... but may only transport thir parent unit when deployed.

Fast vehicles move up to 18", not up to 24". There was something strange about them shooting, will find it when I get home.

eyeslikethunder
24-01-2008, 09:40
Ive seen two rending rules on vehicles a 6 causes a glancing hit
or roll an extra d3

Latro_
24-01-2008, 09:53
I really like the voluntary pinning idea. Great for holding an objective. 'INCOMMINNNNNG'

bdo
24-01-2008, 10:36
this was somewhere in one of the two 5th edition rumour threads:

pinning checks are modified by casualties inflicted through pinning weapons. i hope my memory doesen´t fail me and i don´t imagine things :)

but a pretty good idea i must say

the_picto
24-01-2008, 11:07
With regard to the sniper rifle rules, doesn't that kind of mess up eldar rangers? Well not so much mess them up as make them less special. If the rending rules remain as they are, then a ranger long rifle will become worse than a standard sniper rifle. If the rending rules change to what is rumoured then long rifles become the same as the standard ones. Only pathfinders would have special guns. Just a minor grumble since the normal sniper rifles do need a boost anyway.

SMF rules change would be annoying. Speeders and vipers are fragile enough as it is. The only probelem at the moment seems to be the falcon.

Why yes, I do play eldar.

Sir_Turalyon
24-01-2008, 13:31
Ok, I found it. Fast Vehicles may move up to 6" and fire ALL weapons as if they were stationary, move up to 12" and fire one weapon, or move up to 18".



With regard to the sniper rifle rules, doesn't that kind of mess up eldar rangers? Well not so much mess them up as make them less special.

*cough* Reaver Jetbike *cough*. It just happens to some units that with new edition everybody gets their special rules. At least in 5th edition Reavers officialy are eldar jetbikes.

Lexington
24-01-2008, 13:51
Only Tanks may ram - no, you cannot just toss Ork Trukks at Dreadnoughts in the hope of killing them. ;)

==Me==
24-01-2008, 14:03
Sure you can, they just won't get +1S for being a tank ;)

Time to build 9 Buggies :evilgrin:

sabreu
24-01-2008, 15:03
He worded it poorly. What it means is that you can no longer pluck the one model that is in b2b in order to ensure nobody else gets to attack at lower initiatives. Models that die obviously do not get their attacks if they haven't swung yet.

Actually, the rough draft states specifically,

'When it is their Initiative "step", all of the engaged models with that Initiative value must Attack. They will do so even if they are no longer engaged due to casualty removal - all that matter is that they were engaged at the start of that turn's combat.'


So yes, models that die will still get their attacks as long as they were engaged in the beginning of the assault phase.

Meriwether
24-01-2008, 15:07
I like a lot of this! It looks like they took the hyper-detailed rules set they were tossing around a few years ago and simplified some of it down for 5th. Nice!

Meri

Lexington
24-01-2008, 15:10
Sure you can, they just won't get +1S for being a tank ;)

Time to build 9 Buggies :evilgrin:
Nope, only Tanks can ram. "Ramming" is a rule that is under the Tank rules, and only refers to Tanks as being able to ram.

Deadmanwade
24-01-2008, 15:15
Actually, the rough draft states specifically,
'When it is their Initiative "step", all of the engaged models with that Initiative value must Attack. They will do so even if they are no longer engaged due to casualty removal - all that matter is that they were engaged at the start of that turn's combat.'
So yes, models that die will still get their attacks as long as they were engaged in the beginning of the assault phase.

Er... no. "They will do so even if they are no longer engaged due to casualty removal" Means that they will attack if the opponent they are facing is removed before they have the chance to strike. Models that are removed as casualties can't fight back. Once you're dead you're dead.
Nova40k had it right.

Also, Scout has changed so that you no longer get to set up on the board regardless of mission rules. Tau Pathfinders, Ravenwing and Sentinels all go into reserve now.

Infiltrate and Scout also allow you to flank march your opponent if put into reserve.

All the alpha gamma mission level stuff is gone. Now all games are random game length, infiltrate and deepstrike.

IAMNOTHERE
24-01-2008, 15:21
Actually, the rough draft states specifically,

'When it is their Initiative "step", all of the engaged models with that Initiative value must Attack. They will do so even if they are no longer engaged due to casualty removal - all that matter is that they were engaged at the start of that turn's combat.'


So yes, models that die will still get their attacks as long as they were engaged in the beginning of the assault phase.

I actually read that as only models left alive at their initiative step get to attack. They get to attack even if there are no models in base to base due to casualties having been removed at an earlier initiative step.

If you've been killed then you don't get to attack.

Minibull
24-01-2008, 15:22
Actually, the rough draft states specifically,

'When it is their Initiative "step", all of the engaged models with that Initiative value must Attack. They will do so even if they are no longer engaged due to casualty removal - all that matter is that they were engaged at the start of that turn's combat.'


So yes, models that die will still get their attacks as long as they were engaged in the beginning of the assault phase.

I think you are reading too much into this. Let's look at the rule in question - "They will do so even if they are no longer engaged due to casualty removal". You are making a separation between engaged and due, but I'm sure that the second part is one thought - if a model was engaged in combat but is no longer because a model in front of it is removed due to combat damage, it still gets its attacks. Models that have been removed due to CC damage cannot be considered 'engaged'.

EDIT - Or what IAMNOTHERE said ;).

Budro
24-01-2008, 15:22
Ork Trukks can ram if they have a reinforced ram on them. With a +2 to Armour value... (special rule in the ork dex)

Which is an excellent use for them after they have delivered their cargo.

Stingray_tm
24-01-2008, 15:23
Why is this 40K General and not "Rumours"? None of those changes are sure.

sabreu
24-01-2008, 15:45
I think you are reading too much into this. Let's look at the rule in question - "They will do so even if they are no longer engaged due to casualty removal". You are making a separation between engaged and due, but I'm sure that the second part is one thought - if a model was engaged in combat but is no longer because a model in front of it is removed due to combat damage, it still gets its attacks. Models that have been removed due to CC damage cannot be considered 'engaged'.

EDIT - Or what IAMNOTHERE said ;).

Actually, no. I just have a copy of the draft that says this. Under the 'Who can fight' section it says (and this is a direct quote):


• Models in base-to-base contact with an enemy
model.

• Models within 2" of a friendly model of the
same unit, which itself is in base-to-base contact
with an enemy model.

"These are the members of the unit that can attack
the enemy. This is worked out at the start of the
fight, and the models that are engaged at the
start of the fight will attack, even if when it is
their turn to attack, they are no longer in base
contact with an enemy or within 2" of a model in
their unit in base-to-base contact with an enemy.
This represents the dynamic nature of combat,
where warriors move about looking for enemies
to engage. If it is proving difficult to remember
which models were engaged at the start of the
fight, it is a good idea to lie down models that are
killed during a fight and then remove all the
casualties after all engaged models have attacked."

-Quote, from a document I shouldn't have but got sent from a friend.


So you see, I'm not being hopeful or ovely optimistic. I just noted it and wanted to share that this is definitely something they are considering. It might be changed, but if not at least we won't get shocked, now will we?

This rule does seem to change the dynamics of close combat alot, though!

scratchbuilt
24-01-2008, 16:22
That would be good for orks. Though it totally destroys the entire point of initiative.

I'm glad cover provides a better save. But some other rules seem so abstract as to be counter-intuitive.

sabreu
24-01-2008, 16:30
Not exactly. Initiative will still be used for fleeing, and having a higher initiative will definitely help with all those modifiers that are going to pop up.

Templar-Sun
24-01-2008, 16:48
I think you are reading it incorrectly Sabreu. I can't imagine GW is going to allow models that have been removed before their init step to attack. That rule, I believe, will still remain. The change is a model that was determined to have an attack at the beginning and is still alive at their init step will get his/her attacks regardless of what models have been removed prior to his/her init step. Just a guess based on all this unconfirmed confirmed(or is it confirmed unconfirmed...lol) rules stuff but it sounds logical to me.

Templar-Sun

azimaith
24-01-2008, 16:53
Your missing "Models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit-you only get one extra Attack regardless of whether you have two or more single-handed weapons."

sabreu
24-01-2008, 16:58
::shrugs:: I don't care if people think I'm reading it incorrecly. I just noticed this and wanted to share it. By RAW, even if a model is removed it still get's it's attack. The paragraph makes no special circumstances or statements in the document regarding initiative order, which I already said could change or be amended, at the current time.

I'll know, as well as everyone else, what they intend once it's finished and sold at a LGS.

Edit: Add-in

Just reread my post. I don't mean to sound grumpy in my post!

Ravenous
24-01-2008, 17:08
With regard to the sniper rifle rules, doesn't that kind of mess up eldar rangers? Well not so much mess them up as make them less special. If the rending rules remain as they are, then a ranger long rifle will become worse than a standard sniper rifle. If the rending rules change to what is rumoured then long rifles become the same as the standard ones. Only pathfinders would have special guns. Just a minor grumble since the normal sniper rifles do need a boost anyway.

SMF rules change would be annoying. Speeders and vipers are fragile enough as it is. The only probelem at the moment seems to be the falcon.

Why yes, I do play eldar.

Actually pathfinders are even better.

Rending now works on the WOUND, while the pathfinder HITS of 5+ count as Ap1.

So lets say you have 10 pathfinders. You roll three 5+ and six normal hits. You roll your 5+ dice first and score 1 kill, now you roll the normal hits and score 1 rending and 2 normal saves. Savvy?

Mix with Doom and you have youself a party, that is unless GW wants to hit them with the nerf bat with the FAQ. Which is more then likely, because Eldar seem to be on their black list for this edition, I guess we were killing maines too well again.

Wolflord Havoc
24-01-2008, 17:12
::shrugs:: I don't care if people think I'm reading it incorrecly. I just noticed this and wanted to share it. By RAW, even if a model is removed it still get's it's attack.

Except where it specifically says that they make their attacks 'assuming' that they have not been killed by a model with a higher initiative.

Seems pretty clear to me by RAW and RAI.

But as you say - it will 'probably' (read: hopefully) get amended in a more concise fashion by the time people start parting with hard won cash for these rules and its my fervent (if not idealistically naive) hope that it will put Rules lawyers the world over out of business.

:angel:

Templar-Sun
24-01-2008, 17:12
Just reread my post. I don't mean to sound grumpy in my post!

ROFL, thanks for that. I thought I had pissed you off. Likewise as well, I didn't intend to sound critical. After all, we are debating things that haven't even been released yet...lol


Templar-Sun

sabreu
24-01-2008, 17:18
wolflord havok,

where does it say that? the 'assuming' part, that is. Interested to see if/where I missed that part.

Templar,
It's cool. I like debating, but when working through internet forums it's way too easy for me to sound like an aggressor or just peeved. That's why I try to reread my posts and rephrase myself when I catch myself! :P

Sir_Turalyon
24-01-2008, 17:24
Ork Trukks can ram if they have a reinforced ram on them. With a +2 to Armour value... (special rule in the ork dex)

Ork Trukks can Tank Shock, with +2 to armour value. Nothing about ramming vehicles in the reinforced ram rules. Maybe there'll be errata.



Sure you can, they just won't get +1S for being a tank

As it stands, only tanks get to ram and tank shock. The +1 bonus for being a tank is there because when tank rams vehicle it's ramed back by it. So if Rhino rams Trukk Rhino gots tank bonus, but Trukk does not.

pwrgmrguard
24-01-2008, 17:27
This makes my russes so much more usable. i don't have to hide behind buidlings anymore.

Ravenous
24-01-2008, 17:33
This makes my russes so much more usable. i don't have to hide behind buidlings anymore.

You still probably want too, since you now gain a cover save.

5+ is the norm, 4+ is rare and 3+ is probably a 1 in a million situation.

Latro_
24-01-2008, 17:50
ugh hows the cover gonna work for vehicles? Dont tell me its gonna be based on how much of the model is covered. I like v4 cover since it says 'walls' 4+ bushes '5+' etc.
If they take that out we'll be back on the 'THATS HARD COVER, NO, ITS soft cover, -2 mod, no -1 RAR RAR RAR' days of version 2. Fights used to break out over that.

pwrgmrguard
24-01-2008, 17:53
I like how i am not forced to hide them if i want them to survive. I probably will any way as it's vp denial, but i won't have to wear ruts in the table from moving forward and shooting, getting shaken, moving back, repeating next turn.

Army Man
24-01-2008, 18:41
It says that vehicles can ram, but tanks get a +1 bonus

Warpcrafter
24-01-2008, 18:41
I like a lot of the changes, but regardless of how the rules end up, if anybody playing against me tries to get in attacks from models that have been removed as casualties, THEY are going to get removed as a casualty.:mad:;):eek:

Minibull
24-01-2008, 18:51
It says that vehicles can ram, but tanks get a +1 bonus

So does that mean dreadnoughts can ram?

AmBlam
24-01-2008, 19:29
Hasn't the rule of models blocking LOS been tried before? Wasn't it removed because it was ****?

Raverrn
24-01-2008, 19:45
So does that mean dreadnoughts can ram?
Donno, but I can check.

On reflection, I want giant sumo-robots.

Ravenous
24-01-2008, 21:09
So does that mean dreadnoughts can ram?

Nope only tanks.

It's the same as tank shock, because only TANKS can do it.


ugh hows the cover gonna work for vehicles? Dont tell me its gonna be based on how much of the model is covered. I like v4 cover since it says 'walls' 4+ bushes '5+' etc.
If they take that out we'll be back on the 'THATS HARD COVER, NO, ITS soft cover, -2 mod, no -1 RAR RAR RAR' days of version 2. Fights used to break out over that.

Im guessing that most cover is 50% and gives a 5+, 75% is 4+ and 90%+ is 3+

So if you have your tread sticking out behind a tree now you wont get capped as easily ;)


I like how i am not forced to hide them if i want them to survive. I probably will any way as it's vp denial, but i won't have to wear ruts in the table from moving forward and shooting, getting shaken, moving back, repeating next turn.

Theres no VPs anymore, its all alpha style missions that are completely objective based.

Technically its more tactical, but its a real sh** when you trash you opponent and he wins because he has 1 unit on the objective, but that is how it goes.

tau4ever
24-01-2008, 21:33
I'm really liking what I'm seeing here. How confirmed are these rules?

It's good that rending is going to happen on to wound rolls now, that'll keep harlequins from dominating my marines so much. Looks like the clown car strategy is going to the gutter with skimmers no longer being unkillable.

Ravenous
24-01-2008, 21:48
I'm really liking what I'm seeing here. How confirmed are these rules?

It's good that rending is going to happen on to wound rolls now, that'll keep harlequins from dominating my marines so much. Looks like the clown car strategy is going to the gutter with skimmers no longer being unkillable.

Put it this way, Brimstone (and warseer) has a 95% or higher accuracy on rumours.

Hell I dont even consider them rumours anymore but rather "previews".

IAMNOTHERE
24-01-2008, 22:02
We're pretty much just waiting on the wording in most cases.

Ravenous
24-01-2008, 22:07
We're pretty much just waiting on the wording in most cases.

So we can RAW it to death and break it like we do with everything else. :D

LususNaturae
24-01-2008, 22:13
Actually, no. I just have a copy of the draft that says this. Under the 'Who can fight' section it says (and this is a direct quote):


• Models in base-to-base contact with an enemy
model.

• Models within 2" of a friendly model of the
same unit, which itself is in base-to-base contact
with an enemy model.

"These are the members of the unit that can attack
the enemy. This is worked out at the start of the
fight, and the models that are engaged at the
start of the fight will attack, even if when it is
their turn to attack, they are no longer in base
contact with an enemy or within 2" of a model in
their unit in base-to-base contact with an enemy.
This represents the dynamic nature of combat,
where warriors move about looking for enemies
to engage. If it is proving difficult to remember
which models were engaged at the start of the
fight, it is a good idea to lie down models that are
killed during a fight and then remove all the
casualties after all engaged models have attacked."

-Quote, from a document I shouldn't have but got sent from a friend.


So you see, I'm not being hopeful or ovely optimistic. I just noted it and wanted to share that this is definitely something they are considering. It might be changed, but if not at least we won't get shocked, now will we?

This rule does seem to change the dynamics of close combat alot, though!

I am also looking at a rough draft of the rules. If you look 4 pages later, under "Removing Casulties" There is this quote:

"All the rules for removing shooting casualties
apply in close combat.
If a model becomes a casualty before it has an
opportunity to attack, then it may not strike back.
When striking blows simultaneously, you may find
it more convenient to resolve one side’s attacks
and simply lay wounded models on their side to
remind you that they have yet to attack back."

So you see, Initiative still counts!

I knew they wouldn't totally nuder Genestealers :)

Bob5000
24-01-2008, 22:14
If the skimmer nerf is an attempt to make Eldar Skimmers more killable / weaker , it would appear to affect Tau Skimmers more , they dont have Holofields

GW need to be really careful over a new edition with major changes .
They can ill afford to alienate their customers , not everyone is going to swallow anything GW gives us , and be happy when their investments are percieved as no longer useful .

Its a dangerous time to be making any big changes , it has to please the majority of players , a tweak here and there would be safer , but these seem like major changes in game mechanics .

Perhaps GW are expecting their price insensitive and truly grateful customers to gladly buy different lists / Armies due to percieved nerfing of some lists

Ravenous
24-01-2008, 22:22
If the skimmer nerf is an attempt to make Eldar Skimmers more killable / weaker , it would appear to affect Tau Skimmers more , they dont have Holofields

Didnt you know?

The group of players that GW gets their opinions from hate Mech Tau as well!

Captain Micha
24-01-2008, 23:00
Don't remind me. sheesh. Not our fault they play on flat terrainless tables. (or even improperly set up ones) Or that they don't actually understand why you should move your army around to concentrate fire.

sabreu
24-01-2008, 23:09
Lusus,

Quite simply, thank you. I totally missed that part. So I was wrong, but hey, they really ought to put relevant information together now shouldn't they! :P

LususNaturae
24-01-2008, 23:14
Sabreu,

Hey no problem! The way they had it worded definitely sounded like you had it right, but I couldn't believe they would do something like that. Especially not since every other rule seemed to be to counter the hidden powerfist. Not your fault they clarified it four pages later. I just didn't want anyone else to have a heart attack like I almost did!

Raddman
24-01-2008, 23:14
Missed a few good ones..

1) Only Troops count as scoring units

2) When setting up, the die roll winner sets up his WHOLE army first, with the loser setting up second. The initial die roll winner goes 1st.

3) The loser in assault makes his saves based on how badly he is outnumbered. hence, if outnumbered 7:1, you take seven saves, up to 10.

4) When allocating saves in a unit, each model must a save. ie) unit X has 10 models and must take 12 saves. Each model takes one save before allocating the last two.
---this makes the "hidden power fist" less resilient.---

5) Psychic powers now work similar to shooting, as you need LoS.

6) New Deep Strike rules for rolling off the table, landing in a unit or landing into Impassable Terrain.


Just a few off the top of my head.


rad.

Raverrn
25-01-2008, 00:07
So does that mean dreadnoughts can ram?

This is sadly a 'no', just like everyone else pointed out. There goes my dream.
http://aycu02.webshots.com/image/40321/2006340107001773400_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2006340107001773400)

Sekhmet
25-01-2008, 00:15
That would be good for orks. Though it totally destroys the entire point of initiative.


No it doesn't, as a squad of power weapon+pistol+charge will utterly destroy a squad with powerfists.

Initiative isn't only used for killing models in base contact, it's used for doing damage before your enemy does in the case of killing some before they get to attack.

And you're missing the fact that if a charging unit had to make a difficult terrain test, they get Initiative 1 when charging. And they must move in a straight line when charging, so they can't go around cover.



Theres no VPs anymore, its all alpha style missions that are completely objective based.

Technically its more tactical, but its a real sh** when you trash you opponent and he wins because he has 1 unit on the objective, but that is how it goes.

VPs are used when the game is a draw. And one of the missions is a kill mission, not really objective based

Latro_
25-01-2008, 01:21
So we can RAW it to death and break it like we do with everything else. :D

See its suspect all this stuff coming out earlier than normal for the rumour mill. Lol maybe the cost cutting due to bad times at GW has forced them to use us as the unsuspecting playtesters/proof readers of v5 and they have some servitor called barry, a kid from nottingham doing community service for gun crime writing down what's being said.

'iz like dis. dey like da runnin but deeez eldra krew or suttin are chattin bad rhymes about somin to do wid skimmas, you get me'

It'd make sense, collectivly we do root out all things wrong with what they churn out.

Ravenous
25-01-2008, 02:01
See its suspect all this stuff coming out earlier than normal for the rumour mill. Lol maybe the cost cutting due to bad times at GW has forced them to use us as the unsuspecting playtesters/proof readers of v5 and they have some servitor called barry, a kid from nottingham doing community service for gun crime writing down what's being said.

'iz like dis. dey like da runnin but deeez eldra krew or suttin are chattin bad rhymes about somin to do wid skimmas, you get me'

It'd make sense, collectivly we do root out all things wrong with what they churn out.

I know for a FACT that GW has flown in gamers to help them test play during the design phase.

I just think its annoying as hell when 3 or 4 bastards decided to say "Oh yeah eldar are cheese nerf them, Mech tau? Cheese, make them useless." It's terrible to think that the game is in the hands of the people that have no concept how it should work.

Captain Micha
25-01-2008, 02:05
What I can't figure out about all of this is why. Other than Gw -thinks- this can be a great cash cow for them. What units are Tau going to turn to? Do you honestly see anyone playing Tau in 5th edition? Or hell Necrons? (especially since pretty much they can't actually destroy vehicles now... which was their only strong point, and in the case of tau.... assault happy rules nuff said) There's two armies down the drain right there.

What about Ig? I don't see them really benefiting from this at all.

the changes seem to be more about changes than actual function sake over all. particularly with los and vehicle shooting.

L' aéronautique d' Eldar
25-01-2008, 02:19
What about Ig? I don't see them really benefiting from this at all.

I would suspect IG armies with a heavy infantry composition are gonna suffer a lot since their own units in front of them now block LOS :mad:

Ravenous
25-01-2008, 02:19
What I can't figure out about all of this is why. Other than Gw -thinks- this can be a great cash cow for them. What units are Tau going to turn to? Do you honestly see anyone playing Tau in 5th edition? Or hell Necrons? (especially since pretty much they can't actually destroy vehicles now... which was their only strong point, and in the case of tau.... assault happy rules nuff said) There's two armies down the drain right there.

What about Ig? I don't see them really benefiting from this at all.

the changes seem to be more about changes than actual function sake over all. particularly with los and vehicle shooting.

I agree.

I can't figure out how GW thinks that abandoning an edition midway and screwing over people (even a minority) is a good thing. Do they think that adding 2nd and 3rd ed rules will bring them back to 1998 when they were rolling in money?

Have they not realized why they are failing is because the game doesnt grant instant gratifacation and you have to work your ass off just so they can jerk you around some more?

Maybe they should look at their conduct and prices before they start laying the boots to us. But then again, look at all the spineless sheep that are bending over and ready to take it at a moments notice from GW. They treat us like crap because they know they can get away with it because we ALLOW it.

I dont know about you guys but when a company sells you an inferior product do you get your money back or pay them more money to fix it?

The only reason I can think of for GW pulling 5th edition on us 2 - 3 years early is that when they nerfed Dark Angels they started seeing sales drop on marines(GWs life blood), then with all the redux rumours people started to think that vanilla was going to get the same treatment. Now GW probably thought that toning marines down would increase sales in the other races, but Im thinking that didnt happen.

So they saw sales not moving on the xenos and evil armies, and sales dropping on their glory boys, so what do they do? Release the toned down vanilla list or change the rules to make marines popular again?

Captain Micha
25-01-2008, 02:26
I think I'll just let one of my friends take the hit on the rule book. though I don't think any of us will play 5th.

Gw loves marines too much, I think the rules prove that at this point. (rhino rush returns.... gayness..... among other things)

sabreu
25-01-2008, 02:56
I'll play 5th edition, even if it's what the rough draft says it will be. Half my armies will get a boost, the other half not so much. I'll still play orks predominantly, though. Why? I just love my Deathskullz, Eldar, and other armies that damn much I'll keep playing with mooks at my LGS just so I can line them up and see them all be jazzy.

I just won't play against any Marine armies, again. :D

Draconian77
25-01-2008, 03:18
I dont get it I just dont. I play Tyranids and have yet to lose to Marines(all varients including Chaos and Daemonhunters)

I know their infantry is pretty tough but they do die and all armies will have ways of handling the 5th ed change when it comes round.

Guard will be using 3 Russes as "troop destroyers" and going for last turn objective grabs with Infantry Platoons/Armoured Fist Squads. Are guardsmen ideal for holding objectives. No. Are Gaunts? Guardians? Dark Eldar Warriors?

CushionRide
25-01-2008, 03:36
what i dont get is whats wrong with 4th edition??????? i mean really they finally make an edition that i aggree with, all special rules are in the main rule book and the army books say(see page## of the main rule book) to use there abilities. :P i guess im only gonna play necromunda from now on :P

sabreu
25-01-2008, 03:44
I think the whole thing is alot of rules in 4th are vaguely worded or misword, in fact, so it causes arguements with the more acute players who pick up on these nuances. Also, the fact not every army has been updated has created wacky nuances and with the apparent new shift the design team has decided on has created a virtual limbo that needs to be fixed.

So basically, it's just to realign things but in the end it might be just tip the chaotic nature of the beast just a wee bit further.

Captain Micha
25-01-2008, 04:55
That puts Ig two editions behind, crons two, De borderlined three?, sisters two daemonhunters two... this doesn't bring anyone up to speed.

the armies mentioned barely function now... can you imagine what they are going to be like -another- edition behind?

sabreu
25-01-2008, 04:58
Who cares about uvver armies? Only Marines need to be updated. And their different colour schemes. :p I thought everyone knew that!

Captain Micha
25-01-2008, 05:02
Excuse me, I forgot my senses. I was thinking for a moment that we were playing a game where -all- armies got "equal" treatment. silly me. gotta remember, the game is not warhammer 40,000 it's marines 40,000. wait wait... 40,000 marines... is what I meant to say.

big squig
25-01-2008, 05:40
what i dont get is whats wrong with 4th edition??????? i mean really they finally make an edition that i aggree with, all special rules are in the main rule book and the army books say(see page## of the main rule book) to use there abilities. :P i guess im only gonna play necromunda from now on :P
What's wrong with 4t ed you say?
-Terrible area terrain rules that allow a tank to hind behind 3 trees.
-Difficult terrain tests that stop models before they even reach said terrain.
-Target Priority tests that no one ever fails.
-BS 5-10 all doing the same thing.
-Sargents with powerfists being more deadly than a hive tyrant.
-Having to resolve multiple blasts one by one.
-Rending.
-Plasma weapons killing anyone who has the sheer audacity to fire them.
-No one ever running from combat.
-Losing your attacks because you did too good.
-The confusing rule about when to consolidate 3" and when to go D6".
-Charging into cover.
-Mixed armor.
-Independent characters nearly immune to shooting.
-Eldar farseers afraid to use psycic powers.
-Artillery can't use cover.
-Turbo boost makes you lose your armor save.
-Glancing kills on tanks.
-Entanglement.
-Emergency disembarkation.
-SMF.
-Hull down is worthless.
-Calculating damage to vehicle squadrons is a mess.
-Escalation.

Captain Micha
25-01-2008, 05:42
and what was wrong with Smf?

It's the rules for tracked vehicles that were pants. (Even though both were honestly far too weak)

big squig
25-01-2008, 05:43
A couple missed 5th ed rules.

> Models only ever consolidate D6...never 3".
> Turbo boost gives 3+ cover save.
> Pen hits do not force models out of tanks or auto-stun

azimaith
25-01-2008, 06:07
What's wrong with 4t ed you say?
-Terrible area terrain rules that allow a tank to hind behind 3 trees.

It allowed for simple and fast terrain using felt as well as taking away penalties for impressive models.



-Difficult terrain tests that stop models before they even reach said terrain.

Fair enough.


-Target Priority tests that no one ever fails.

Not true but too rarely failed to be a real mechanic.



-BS 5-10 all doing the same thing.

Theres only one or two models with it, not a big issue.



-Sargents with powerfists being more deadly than a hive tyrant.

Well they aren't, they were just a little too good.



-Having to resolve multiple blasts one by one.

As opposed to gluing them all together?



-Rending.

No, certain units with rending.



-Plasma weapons killing anyone who has the sheer audacity to fire them.

This is definately not true, and its effects were fair considering its rapid fire High strength ap2 fire.



-No one ever running from combat.

Not true, it happened pretty often, in fact it was one of the few places leadership really mattered.



-Losing your attacks because you did too good.

How is this bad? They killed everyone they could reach at their initiative step.



-The confusing rule about when to consolidate 3" and when to go D6".

You think thats confusing?



-Charging into cover.

Made sense, represented shots at the charging unit as they came at you from hiding. In the case of grenades it represented you preventing them from shooting at you while you charged by hurling grenades as you closed.



-Mixed armor.

It was a stupid rule along with mixed toughness.



-Independent characters nearly immune to shooting.

This was a rather good rule for the most part as it allowed for army leaders to have a more survivability without Instant Death protection.



-Eldar farseers afraid to use psycic powers.

With the number of saves they got it often didn't make them any more afraid than before.



-Artillery can't use cover.

Uh, what? They got hull down, they just didn't get a damage table.



-Turbo boost makes you lose your armor save.

Yes


-Glancing kills on tanks.

That was a good thing, it allowed armies like tyranids to take on tanks with some degree of capability, even though it was below other armies.



-Entanglement.

Which prevents the rhino rush, which is good.



-Emergency disembarkation.

This was overkill.



-SMF.

SMF was fine, tracked tanks just sucked. The only thing that made SMF stupid was certain upgrades which I think everyone knows.



-Hull down is worthless.

Hull down was not worthless.



-Calculating damage to vehicle squadrons is a mess.

No it wasn't. One hit per vehicle.


-Escalation.
Escalation was stupid.

Deadmanwade
25-01-2008, 06:50
For the record, at least 2 of the new missions now favour IG and the new marines (DA/BA) as they can field a ridiculous number of troops choices unlike other armies who have small expensive squads of troops. (Vanilla marines).

Maybe GW thought they should redo 4th ed as the number of people who complained about it prior to the rumours of 5th was rather high. (You know who you are). I think the new rules look a lot better.

SO the tau are losing out from the loss of auto glancing hits because now they just get a 5+ save against everything? So now they have a 33% chance of just totally ignoring the hit and then a 50% chance of not being destroyed. So lets do the math here.
SMF 4th ed. Auto glance, destroys on a 5 or 6 (Immobilised or destroyed) so 33% chance. Ok
SMF 5th ed. 5+ save, so only 66% of hits go through. destroys on a 4, 5 or 6 so thats 50% of 66% = THIRTY THREE PERCENT. Same as before. And they can downgrade that if the hit would have been glancing anyway. Plus, tau have the option to reroll immobilised hits, meaning that regular glancing hits will do squat and they have another shot at not being destroyed by a glancing hit.
The only time it will make a difference is if I try to shoot them down with a flamer.

The Rhino rush still isnt so effective because you still cant assault out of them and unless you're fearless you're still going to be making some Ld tests when those rolling cardboard boxes get blown up by small arms fire. (Like S5 tau pulse rifles).

The hidden powerfists thing had many players complaining, now they're nerfed. (Tau never had powerfists did they?) The allocation of wounds now means that special or heavy weapon equipped troops now die more often than they used to. (Firewarriors didnt have those did they?)

IC no longer get to stand in full view of the enemy army and be totally ignored. Ok this might bone a few tau players who like to have a lone IC running round popping tanks. Good. It was kind of silly that people would ignore the enemy general in preference to killing off grunts instead.

Some units do get screwed over admittedly. Scouts should be renamed Reserves instead. Genestealers are about 20% less likely to kill marines now.

Overall, this ruleset whether its real or not fixes a lot of the things that many players were complaining about and encourages players to take more balanced armies. (less uber warriors and more frontline grunts).

Just one last point. If GW had updated all the codexes first and THEN released 5th ed then players would be complaining about having to buy new books or about their new DE being nerfed just after they got them. You cant please all of the people all of the time. So long as GW doesnt reprioritise their codex line up then DE, Crons, IG and Inquisition should hopefully be getting some love in the near future with the first V.5.0 codices. Then the vanilla marines will have a chance to complain about being outdated. ;)

Ianos
25-01-2008, 07:38
The ruleset as presented is actually pathetic. LOS is screwed and will lead to many fights. None can hide any vehicles. Skimmers have to roll dangerous for floating over terrain. Vehicles cannot fire any decent firepower if they move 1". They also cannot capture objectives. Despite the fact that vehicles overall become more survivable, none is really going to bother using AT since they don't deal that much damage. Shooting armies and vehicles again cannot utilize their firepower where needed, imagine in current edition auto failing all ld for targeting....

On the other hand only massed troops get objectives which extremely favors some armies over others. CC is the king of the hill, which can now make you fall back very easily and fearless can get up to 10 wounds. Hordes will use frontliners to absorb damage and even if they kill nothing they will simply hold the objectives. Less points on AT and specials will mean more and more cc troops to chop you in a gazillion ways. In the end its going to be ork numbers and fearlessness-ferocity vs. chaos and space marines increased durability(more than one save per model which can result on loosing fewer) and customization for mostly cc effectiveness.

Yeah 5th will be very nice according to what i see, remind me to sell all i have in e-bay cause there is no way on earth i am playing 40k without tanks, mobility and tactics.

IAMNOTHERE
25-01-2008, 08:39
This thread has degenerated into likes and dislikes just like the other 5th edition threads.

I thought looking at the title it was going to be a concise listing of "rumoured" 5th edition changes and it started out prety well but now its just drivel.

Can we get back on topic before its closed?

Eirich
25-01-2008, 08:43
I think it looks quite good but there are a few points that makes me worried.
Only weapons with S =>4 will count as defensive on vehicles. Basically this means that we will have a lot of 'main firepower' that will never be used as long as you don't stay in one place while the enemy stays out of range. I think this will make the flamer a more common option on vehicles, surely the enemy will be out of range at the most time but at least you can keep your tanks moving without loosing all of the weaker firepower. Tau tanks will take drones only to release them on the first turn and have them moving along whit the tank to provide defense while yet be able to move around and blast away enemies and dealing with passing infantry.

We'll see how it turns out in the end...

Makari
25-01-2008, 08:46
Another rumored change:

Assault: Models may now split their attacks between units they are engaged with.

Greatly adds to the survivability of MC and IC in CC...

Oh, and please, people, keep the rules discussions in the appropriate threads..

Sir_Turalyon
25-01-2008, 09:26
Another vehicle rule I missed:
Roads: Non-skimmer, non-walker vehicles may use roads to move with double speed. They must follow road for entire movement phase and may do nothing else that turn: no shooting, embarking\disembarking, taking Difficult Terrain tests, using upgrades like searchlights.

dblaz3r
25-01-2008, 09:34
Everyday I check out these forums and every day I see the same people complaining about the same old stuff. I seriously don't know why these people keep on going if the future is so grim and dark :) I am quite disappointened in how this site has degenerated in a whinge-fest.

I on the other hand like alot of the changes that I read are coming as I am open to change. Everything changes it is inevitable.
I find the rule of the dice winner setting up his/her whole army first interesting. I was not so much a fan of the turn by turn state we have now.

Mojaco
25-01-2008, 09:34
Summed up like that I'm slowly starting to like it. The LOS rules still seem odd at best with its 2 exceptions. What do they mean "ignore targets you can't hurt"? And tanks seem to start hiding in trees again, both otherwise the changes make sense. Sort of.

The defensive weapon debate is a bit overdone. I haven't seen that many people relying on their ability to drive and fire defensive weapon, as most shoot on tanks and defensive weapons are never quite capable of killing of a tank. Anti-infantry tanks get a nerf, yes, but are not used that much and seem to have gotten cheaper with the new codexes too (predator destructor in DA, BA and CSM codex).

Only the Tau and Eldar suffer really. The Hamerhead with Ion cannon just became more pointless, the falcon lost survivability (skimmer is now no harder to hit then a tank sitting between two trees) and a lot of firepower and the fire prism now has BS4 and a re-roll ability that have no purpose anymore with the new blast rules. Sucks.

That road rule means that tanks can go faster then skimmers, and fast vehicles twice as fast. That's just plain stupid. Don't skimmers get a turboboost option like bikes do, including the 3+ cover save? That'd be cool! And worth a pool of whining!

Barbarossa
25-01-2008, 09:50
Here are two more things for the Big List at the beginning of the thread:

Sniper weapons now use the wielder's BS instead of hitting on 2+.

All Grenades are now grouped into two categories: assault and defensive. Assault grenades let a unit charging into cover attack with their own I instead of at I1. Defensive grenades give the charging unit -1A.

big squig
25-01-2008, 10:03
Another vehicle rule I missed:
Roads: Non-skimmer, non-walker vehicles may use roads to move with double speed. They must follow road for entire movement phase and may do nothing else that turn: no shooting, embarking\disembarking, taking Difficult Terrain tests, using upgrades like searchlights.
That's not a new rule. That's in 4th ed.

eek107
25-01-2008, 10:09
Yeah, although IIRC it was only a 6" boost? Maybe I'm making that up, I don't know, I never had cause to use it.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to 5th ed. The S4 defensive weaponry will hurt my Russes a bit, but I can live with that. Especially seeing as how I can actually use inantry as screening units now. And Deep Striking is ever so slightly safer for my Elysians.

edit: I can spell, honest!

BlackViper
25-01-2008, 10:26
The rumours are certainly flying regarding 5th ed - I usually take rumours with a pinch of salt, but a lot of people seem to have a lot of fairly solid info.

I haven't been through them all in detail, but I like the idea of people being able to fleet (so long as the rules are worked out properly so that those who're "genuinely" fleet are still worth taking) and I like the idea of being able to voluntarily pin yourself to improve cover saves (although I can see my lurking-pinned gaunts becoming invincible!)

What I'm not so keen on is the idea of walkers only being able to fire 1 gun if they move - I just got a FW dread with las cannon and missile launcher, he's just going to be immobile now!

Barbarossa
25-01-2008, 10:34
Now here is some bitching of my own:
A normal ground vehicle on a road is faster than a fast skimmer going on flat out speed. A fast ground vehicle on a road will probably fall over the table edge if it moves full speed.

And how will my Land Raider (here (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/StBarbarossa/Ordo%20Malleus/Crusader_0030.jpg) and here (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/StBarbarossa/Ordo%20Malleus/Crusader_0028.jpg)) ever get cover saves if it has to be 50% covered?

big squig
25-01-2008, 10:40
Ah, I just checked it, you guys are right. It is x2 speed for roads now. That's completely idiotic.

If, they're going to to that, they need to add a turbo boost like rule to skimmers. Let them move x2 as well, but can do nothing else and must move in a strait path. Even give them the 3+ cover bikes get.

Sir_Turalyon
25-01-2008, 10:49
Yeah, Trukk outracing Falcon because it's on road sounds odd...


Summed up like that I'm slowly starting to like it. The LOS rules still seem odd at best with its 2 exceptions. What do they mean "ignore targets you can't hurt"?


Ignore targets that have too high toughness for your gun to wound, or have immunity to weapons under certain strength. Like shooting lasguns through Wraithlords or shooting splinter cannons through Grotesques.



The defensive weapon debate is a bit overdone. I haven't seen that many people relying on their ability to drive and fire defensive weapon, as most shoot on tanks and defensive weapons are never quite capable of killing of a tank. Anti-infantry tanks get a nerf, yes, but are not used that much and seem to have gotten cheaper with the new codexes too (predator destructor in DA, BA and CSM codex).

Leman Russ Exterminator. Predator destructors were used even under 3.5 CSM rules; with both Havoc ML and combibolter they could move and really hurt infrantry.

Axel
25-01-2008, 11:08
And how will my Land Raider (here (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/StBarbarossa/Ordo%20Malleus/Crusader_0030.jpg) and here (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/StBarbarossa/Ordo%20Malleus/Crusader_0028.jpg)) ever get cover saves if it has to be 50% covered?

I propose you just count the hull as part of the tank, nor the building on top. Unless you build it to get better LOS - then you deserve no cover :-)

Barbarossa
25-01-2008, 11:15
I built it to look cool, but the multimelta and pintle-mounted stormbolter are on the roof.

sjap98
25-01-2008, 11:29
I read in the closed thread that target priority has come back (maybe amended/mixed w/ new stuff) I always thought target priority was a cool thing, sexy rule, so I like it.

another sexy rule: blast and template weapons: everything under is hit: streamlined, clear.
Now I hope they don't do the small blast scatter thing again (like 2nd and 3rd ed), like they intend in the leaked document (remind you: it's a very basic draft of the rules). because doing the scatter thing slows the game.

Fast vehicles going flat out: max 18", OK, I hope the DE Raiders have a special rule making them able to go 24", they should be the fastest in the galaxy and their engine should have a mini warp drive of some kind to explain this physical prowess.

for the rest I have no problem with the changes.
I just pray the wording and the lay-out are clear as water.

Oh, one more thing: something should be done to rapid fire weapons, they can be quite limitative. maybe only allow not to assault if they fired at long range, (reprensenting the carefulness of the aim), otherwise can always assault. would be good for DE and Sm among others...

Have fun.

big squig
25-01-2008, 11:51
Personally, I found the change to rapid fire weapons between 3rd and 4th to be one of the best things to happen to 40k. In 3rd ed, there was never a reason to not charge. The rapid fire rules in 4th actually made you make some decisions. Every unit had a clear role. Assault units had (gasp!) assault weapons. Ground troops had rapid fire weapons. Their role was to close in for the double tap, not rush into assault. It gave us the rhino rush, drop, and fire that has made the game so much better.

Sir_Turalyon
25-01-2008, 11:52
Fast vehicles going flat out: max 18", OK, I hope the DE Raiders have a special rule making them able to go 24", they should be the fastest in the galaxy and their engine should have a mini warp drive of some kind to explain this physical prowess.

It they'll get to shoot their disinteggrators (Str4) on the move while rest of the world loses their defensive heavy bolters and shruniken cannons, they'll be top of fast and furious class anyway.

Axel
25-01-2008, 12:12
I built it to look cool, but the multimelta and pintle-mounted stormbolter are on the roof.

Successfully, it looks pretty impressing.

I assume you talk with your opponent. If he insists that cover means the actual modified vehicle, not the original hull then you at least can also use the better LOS from the top. This may be an advantage since infantry now blocks LOS. Not giving you that advantage may be the reason for your opponent to agree that the cathedral is only ornamental, not part of the tank.

But lets wait what 5th edition holds in petto for that specific situation.

sjap98
25-01-2008, 12:23
Personally, I found the change to rapid fire weapons between 3rd and 4th to be one of the best things to happen to 40k. In 3rd ed, there was never a reason to not charge. The rapid fire rules in 4th actually made you make some decisions. Every unit had a clear role. Assault units had (gasp!) assault weapons. Ground troops had rapid fire weapons. Their role was to close in for the double tap, not rush into assault. It gave us the rhino rush, drop, and fire that has made the game so much better.

Well, isn't there a trend (I might be completely wrong here, story of my life, I found a way to cope with it, it's call stupidity) for armies to have less and less rapid fire weapons? a little boost to the ones that do...maybe allow just one single tap before assault then?
It they'll get to shoot their disinteggrators (Str4) on the move while rest of the world loses their defensive heavy bolters and shruniken cannons, they'll be top of fast and furious class anyway.

Ok, if the Str4 makes the final version then (I doubt it somehow, just a gut feeling)... take care, Have fun.

big squig
25-01-2008, 12:37
Well, isn't there a trend (I might be completely wrong here, story of my life, I found a way to cope with it, it's call stupidity) for armies to have less and less rapid fire weapons? a little boost to the ones that do...maybe allow just one single tap before assault then?

The only change I've noticed was warp spiders and orks....both were very much needed.

The last thing you want to do is put rules in the game that asks player to make LESS decisions.

Deadmanwade
25-01-2008, 12:40
Well, most land based vehicles do go a LOT faster when they're on the road rather than off it. Skimmers just go at the same speed regardless. Besides which, suddenly moving 24" is going to leave a lot of rear armour showing. If you dont like the rule, just dont put any roads on your table. I dont have any on mine. Or just put terrain over the roads, like tank traps or something.

I dont see why tau or eldar became less of an option now. The chance of a skimmer being taken down now is still the same as before. Plus last I checked, tau had upgrades which allowed you to fire like a fast vehicle. Weee I can move 12" and still fire my ion cannon. I dont get what peoples problem is here. If you're going to claim that an Ion Cannon Hammerhead is pointless, at least say why. People playing with Leman Russ have far more reason to complain than you do. You just lost 1 weapon system if you move, they lost 3.

As for skimmers being as easy to hit as a tank in cover. Thats because the tank is IN COVER, its not like its an automatic thing or a rule that was designed to screw over skimmers. Skimmers can decide where they want to be in cover, tanks have to use the terrain. Skimmers can also benefit from hiding behind the same trees as the poor old Leman Russ.

The only downside for tau is that skimmers now block LOS due to the fact that the stupidly strong tau guns (best line infantry weapon in the game by the way) can damage the tank. Now we're going to see the IG Sentinels of Fury. Ha, flashlights for the win.

If anyone is in any doubt as to the need to change skimmer rules, check how long some of the Falcons are cheese threads went on for. Any rule with that many problems should be addressed. As it stands, skimmers went from an automatic glancing hit to a 5+ cover save (ignore it altogether) and then onto standard damage charts. The overall result is mathematically the same. 33% or even 16% if it really is a glancing hit.


Anyway, another note for the list of rule changes

All grenades can now damage vehicles.

Templar-Sun
25-01-2008, 14:16
I just wish we could get a 4ed revision before a completely overhauled 5ed release. That would be nice... We go from an ed with a dozen or so poorly worded/confusing rules to the next edition with a whole new set of poorly worded/confusing rules. Seems like correcting/clarifying things first then moving on to the next edition would be the logical thing to do.


Templar-Sun

Bloodknight
25-01-2008, 14:16
All grenades can now damage vehicles.

Nothing new here. 4th edition rules allow all grenades to damage a vehicle although frags and photon grenades are only S4.

LususNaturae
25-01-2008, 16:25
The defensive weapon debate is a bit overdone. I haven't seen that many people relying on their ability to drive and fire defensive weapon, as most shoot on tanks and defensive weapons are never quite capable of killing of a tank. Anti-infantry tanks get a nerf, yes, but are not used that much and seem to have gotten cheaper with the new codexes too (predator destructor in DA, BA and CSM codex).



Land Speeder Tornado
Falcon
Land Speeder Tornado
Wave Serpent
Land Speeder Tornado
Hammerhead
Land Speeder Tornado
Land Raider Crusader
Land Speeder Tornado
Vyper


...Did I mention the Land Speeder Tornado?

Lord Cook
25-01-2008, 16:26
People playing with Leman Russ have far more reason to complain than you do. You just lost 1 weapon system if you move, they lost 3.

And we are not in the least bit impressed by it. But all in all, I'm liking many of the other changes, so I'll wait for the final print before I decide.

shin'keiro
25-01-2008, 16:35
So yes, models that die will still get their attacks as long as they were engaged in the beginning of the assault phase.

Thats wrong...

Engaged models are any model in base to base or within 2" of a friendly model

Any models that were 'engaged' at the start of the turn and are not dead when its their turn to attack my attack back.

If a model is killed before it has a chance to attack back (ie. from a higher INi.), then it may NOT attack.

so.. Only models that were engaged at the start of the turn may attack, unless they were killed by a higher INi. model

BUT...

Models that aren't engaged (any model thats not in base to base or within 2" of a friendly model) may be taken as a casualty and hurt by close combat attacks.

Meriwether
25-01-2008, 16:37
I would suspect IG armies with a heavy infantry composition are gonna suffer a lot since their own units in front of them now block LOS :mad:


The ruleset as presented is actually pathetic.


Ah, I just checked it, you guys are right. It is x2 speed for roads now. That's completely idiotic.

I think it's important that one takes the rules as a whole and plays with them before poo-pooing them.

Fast vehicles are now slower than they were, so the x2 speed for roads isn't as good a boost as it appears.

LOS might be all completely direct, so being on a small hill could allow you to see right over the infantry in front of you (because if they block LOS up to their height, and you can see over them...)

A lot of these rules changes are going to interact with one another in a lot of interesting ways, and we really need to see final wording before we start going all crazy about them (positive or negative).

Every time any game changes rules, people whine. It's an immutable law of nature. Try to hold off on it, though, and give them the benefit of the doubt.

...if they put out a statement that counteracts RAW and goes to 'read the rules in a reasonable manner. There are no easter eggs.' it will be even better. *doesn't hold breath*

Meri

sabreu
25-01-2008, 16:43
Shin Keiro,

Scroll up and read the post where somone already clarified that to me by telling me where I could find the initiative order in the forbidden document.

shin'keiro
25-01-2008, 16:48
Shin Keiro,

Scroll up and read the post where somone already clarified that to me by telling me where I could find the initiative order in the forbidden document.

haha - thats great!.. "forbidden document" !!:D

my apologies for repeating the rules then.. its my age!

sabreu
25-01-2008, 16:51
:p I dubbed it so. it has caused quite a stir, hasn't it?

LususNaturae
25-01-2008, 17:41
Every time any game changes rules, people whine. It's an immutable law of nature.

QFT. Get out of your comfort zone. Change is good.

Also, I don't see how the rules changes are favoring Space Marines. Quite frankly, I have comprised a list of "nerf bats" if you will, directed against the boys in blue:

-Heavy Weapons and Sarges are easier to kill via shooting b/c of the new distribution of wounds

-Sarges are easier to kill in CC, nerfing the PF Sarge

-PF need another PF or T-Hammer to get the +1 A bonus for two weapons

-Models Assaulting through cover strike at I 1 instead of the assaulted striking at I 10, getting rid of I 10 P-Fists in cover.

-Land Speeder Tornado is nerfed because of the defensive weaponry change.

-Pred is nerfed for same reason as LST

-Terminators are nerfed b/c of the PF in cover rule

-Heavy weapons in squads are nerfed b/c of the new LoS rules

-Marines are easier to kill in combat b/c the whole squad can be killed, not just the one within the "kill zone"

All of this was pulled from the "forbidden document":p

Truly, the only thing I can see going for the Marines is the fact that Land Raiders are much harder to kill, a change that I think was sorely needed!

So, could someone clarify what rules benefit marines?

tanglethorn
25-01-2008, 18:20
What's wrong with 4t ed you say?
-Terrible area terrain rules that allow a tank to hind behind 3 trees.
-Difficult terrain tests that stop models before they even reach said terrain.
-Target Priority tests that no one ever fails.
-BS 5-10 all doing the same thing.
-Sargents with powerfists being more deadly than a hive tyrant.
-Having to resolve multiple blasts one by one.
-Rending.
-Plasma weapons killing anyone who has the sheer audacity to fire them.
-No one ever running from combat.
-Losing your attacks because you did too good.
-The confusing rule about when to consolidate 3" and when to go D6".
-Charging into cover.
-Mixed armor.
-Independent characters nearly immune to shooting.
-Eldar farseers afraid to use psycic powers.
-Artillery can't use cover.
-Turbo boost makes you lose your armor save.
-Glancing kills on tanks.
-Entanglement.
-Emergency disembarkation.
-SMF.
-Hull down is worthless.
-Calculating damage to vehicle squadrons is a mess.
-Escalation.

Winner! COuldnt have said it better. I've been waiting for 5th edition the day since 4th edition was released...

I'm welcoming the changes, especially the emphasis on having 6 troops slots. How many players have you seen actually use 5-6 Troops? Personally for me...never.

This pushes Elites, Fast and Heavies to a Support role. I can see how troop mobility can be a problem for some armies, especially if they are carrying heavy weapons. Yet, Guard wont have it as bad as people say. IG have a lot of firepower from the non-troop slots. I can see one squad moving forward while another one stays slight rear so it can fire it's heavies. Next turn the units reversve roles while they leap frog to an objective.

So far I like what I am seeing and many of the changes are ones that I feel should have been there from the get go.

spagunk
25-01-2008, 18:43
Does anyone know how they categorize LOS from behind your own troops?

Allow me to clarify. The new changes state that friendly models block line of sight. However, you have up to 2' of clearance between each individual model. Does this mean that the space between each model is considered blocked by the squad entirely? or does the physical model represent the blocked LOS?


Example:
___O
X---->
___O
X---->
___O
X---->

OR

___O
X->|
___O
X->|
___O
X->|

njfed
25-01-2008, 19:00
Does anyone know how they categorize LOS from behind your own troops?

___O
X->|
___O
X->|
___O
X->|

This. The idea being that the squad in front is moving around, not just standing there. I know this is different from the 4th ed where they assume the rear squad is smart enough to wait to fire until they can see a target. There are other parts in the unmentionable document where the explanation is the exact opposite of what is in the current edition. That is why fluff can never be used to argue a rule. GW can change the rule on a whim and apply new fluff to make it sound logical.

spagunk
25-01-2008, 19:30
This. The idea being that the squad in front is moving around, not just standing there. I know this is different from the 4th ed where they assume the rear squad is smart enough to wait to fire until they can see a target. There are other parts in the unmentionable document where the explanation is the exact opposite of what is in the current edition. That is why fluff can never be used to argue a rule. GW can change the rule on a whim and apply new fluff to make it sound logical.

Ugh...that can get complicated. I do see an upside, it forces formation positions to maximize/minimize LOS...

INstead of:
X X X X X

You may have to unblock LOS by moving to:
X_X
_X
X_X

Clever part on GW? or unintentional bonus?

Meriwether
25-01-2008, 19:33
Clever part on GW? or unintentional bonus?

Does it matter? The dynamics of the game are certainly going to change -- and it looks like for the most part they will be changes for the better. Even so, I still say that it's far too soon to determine what effect any given rule will have on the game, because you have to see how the rules interact before you can make that determination.

Meri

azimaith
25-01-2008, 19:39
-Models Assaulting through cover strike at I 1 instead of the assaulted striking at I 10, getting rid of I 10 P-Fists in cover.

-Terminators are nerfed b/c of the PF in cover rule


For clarity, cover had no effect on powerfists in this edition. If you were using I10 powerfists in cover you were breaking the rules.

Bunnahabhain
25-01-2008, 20:10
This pushes Elites, Fast and Heavies to a Support role. I can see how troop mobility can be a problem for some armies, especially if they are carrying heavy weapons. Yet, Guard wont have it as bad as people say. IG have a lot of firepower from the non-troop slots. I can see one squad moving forward while another one stays slight rear so it can fire it's heavies. Next turn the units reversve roles while they leap frog to an objective.



So you're halving your firepower as you move, can't use support squads to cover them as effectively due to LOS restrictions, and you have assualt units running towards you faster than they were before, whilst our only transport has sit still if it wishes to fire both it's guns.

But any weapons with a blast that are allowed to fire are might get an extra hit or two. Woo.

Magnusv
25-01-2008, 20:22
I hope to The Emperor that these rules are adjusted so that when they hit the shelves the game is playable. Yes the are some nice new/old rule in there but some are just down right abhorred. Str 4 and lower are defensive? Skimmers can move 6 and fire all weapons? Nice Universal nerf to non skimmers and clever way of hardly touching Skimmers at all. Walkers can only fire one weapon? Nades make all combat at init? Thats just moronic. So either you go first or you go first in scale of army init. Necrons will always strike last, IG will always strike just above Necrons and Marines will always strike First except against Eldar and Chaos. Genius.

Heres to hoping that Alpha sees the same treatment that the Old Play test assault rules saw for 4th. These rules so far are abysmal.

Defcon
25-01-2008, 21:24
Winner! COuldnt have said it better. I've been waiting for 5th edition the day since 4th edition was released...

I'm welcoming the changes, especially the emphasis on having 6 troops slots. How many players have you seen actually use 5-6 Troops? Personally for me...never.

This pushes Elites, Fast and Heavies to a Support role. I can see how troop mobility can be a problem for some armies, especially if they are carrying heavy weapons. Yet, Guard wont have it as bad as people say. IG have a lot of firepower from the non-troop slots. I can see one squad moving forward while another one stays slight rear so it can fire it's heavies. Next turn the units reversve roles while they leap frog to an objective.

So far I like what I am seeing and many of the changes are ones that I feel should have been there from the get go.

The only possible way this would cause people to fill out troops is in order to capture points. Those troops still can't be that large, as otherwise they'll block each other, so they will have to be mobile. some units can't move fast enough to have any reliance on getting across the board to capture objectives anyways. You'll possibly feel less strong about this change when people just focus their attention on shooting your troops, and if they happen to be slaughtered, you're going to have a real irksome time trying to figure why your Dev squad or Codex-appropriate-variant comprised of infantry just COULDN'T end up holding all of those darn difficult objectives.

Light of the Emperor
25-01-2008, 21:32
Deployment - When setting up, the die roll winner sets up his WHOLE army first, with the loser setting up second. The initial die roll winner goes 1st.


BEAUTIFUL!

No longer do games hang on who gets first turn as the player going 2nd knows what to deploy and where to avoid major losses.

Eldanar
25-01-2008, 22:28
Correct me if I am wrong, but IIRC, is there no longer a prohibition about disembarking and then assaulting from a transport that has moved?

shin'keiro
26-01-2008, 00:11
Correct me if I am wrong, but IIRC, is there no longer a prohibition about disembarking and then assaulting from a transport that has moved?


you still cant assault from a moving vehicle except open topped ones

shin'keiro
26-01-2008, 00:28
I thought it was quite interesting that dreads and other walkers can now run.. but can't assault in same turn just like other units.

szlachcic
26-01-2008, 05:20
you still cant assault from a moving vehicle except open topped ones

Correct, I am not really sure where everyone is getting the idea that the rhino rush will be back.

It is true that transports will no longer be the flaming death traps that they are currently, but getting rid of entanglement will not bring back the rush. You still can not assault from a moving rhino and there is still a chance of pinning a unit (I know SMs have good LD, but it seems like I fail my tests half the time).

CaptainDaris
26-01-2008, 12:57
I'm not looking forward to 5th ed... seems like it's gona be 2nd ed mixed with 4th... dang.

chaos0xomega
26-01-2008, 18:02
Anyone else annoyed that they haven't made leadership checks easier to fail? I have never seen such a worthless morale/leadership system before(although the moving through units change is a nice one...)

Axel
26-01-2008, 18:35
Anyone else annoyed that they haven't made leadership checks easier to fail?

Hmm. If the rumours concerning the additional -1 per excess wound received hold true, then they have done exactly that (if only for cc-resolution).

Rioghan Murchadha
26-01-2008, 20:49
And you're missing the fact that if a charging unit had to make a difficult terrain test, they get Initiative 1 when charging. And they must move in a straight line when charging, so they can't go around cover.


Well, I guess at the very least, I will have been able to enjoy a few months where my Thousand Sons weren't init 1 :p Although this is a pretty sneaky way of bringing it back.


That puts Ig two editions behind, crons two, De borderlined three?, sisters two daemonhunters two... this doesn't bring anyone up to speed.


How are DE borderline 3 editions behind? Why do people refuse to understand that DE got TWO books in THIRD edition. Most armies only got 1. DE aren't in any different of a boat than IG, or any of the other 3rd ed books out there, with the exception of the fact that their models look like they came from some D&D bondage cosplay fetish convention.

rintinglen
26-01-2008, 21:42
I find the rule of the dice winner setting up his/her whole army first interesting. I was not so much a fan of the turn by turn state we have now.
If this in fact turns out to be the case, the game is going to be vastly different. And we will be hearing howls and groans galore.
"Hmm, tank is set up here, so my tankhunters go here, my ordinance will go here to allow me to blast his troops out the way....."
Going turn by turn prevents, or at least limits, the "ambush" style of deployment.

Rioghan Murchadha
26-01-2008, 21:56
If this in fact turns out to be the case, the game is going to be vastly different. And we will be hearing howls and groans galore.
"Hmm, tank is set up here, so my tankhunters go here, my ordinance will go here to allow me to blast his troops out the way....."
Going turn by turn prevents, or at least limits, the "ambush" style of deployment.

yes, but don't forget, the guy who sets up first also takes first turn.. so...
'your tank hunters went there, but now my tank moves here out of LoS of said tankhunters etc. etc.'

Meriwether
26-01-2008, 22:56
...about time they nerfed the 'roll to win'. Huzzah!

Meri

Strikerkc
27-01-2008, 02:50
LOS - All models block LOS, both friendly and enemy, up to their height. Two exceptions - Models in the firer's unit and models the firer could not normally hurt.
[/list]

Good by 40K. You used to be fun. Guess It's good me and my friends are going to play battletech and gorka morka now mostly.

Alessander
27-01-2008, 03:34
Here's a few new gems I noticed:

new wording on poisoned weapons - if you can already wound on a 4+ or better, you get to re-roll failed wounds! (now we know why the daemon weapon for Nurgle was so good!)

multiple combats - units in combat with a single enemy unit (that are charged by a new enemy unit) MUST allocate all attacks against original enemy unit! meaning if you're in combat with a bunch of grots, then a bunch of terminators charge you, you cannot attack the terminators.

no more cap to how many wounds a fearless model takes for losing a combat while outnumbered ("no retreat"). outnumbered 10 to 1? take 10 wounds. Dreads and MC's can now pour out wounds....


Anyone else annoyed that they haven't made leadership checks easier to fail? I have never seen such a worthless morale/leadership system before(although the moving through units change is a nice one...)
Well, you can't try to regroup when assaulted while falling back - you try to get away (fall back out of assault range) or die instantly, regardless of LD...

AmKhaibitu
27-01-2008, 05:06
How are DE borderline 3 editions behind? Why do people refuse to understand that DE got TWO books in THIRD edition. Most armies only got 1. DE aren't in any different of a boat than IG, or any of the other 3rd ed books out there, with the exception of the fact that their models look like they came from some D&D bondage cosplay fetish convention.

The difference is the additions in the 2nd printing of the DE book were mostly fan suggested and minor tweaks.

Sure they got some new wargear, points adjustments, wording alterations and so on, but they didn't really get anything new.

Well they did get the archite and drachite, but those were interpolations based on Lilith.

The wych cult list already existed just with a set character leading them and so on.

The book was released at the beginning of 3rd ed more or less, and it takes more than suggestions by fans to count as an entire new book.
You know, like fluff, artwork and so on. All the same.

Ravenheart
27-01-2008, 12:25
Henche I don't have a paticular infamous document, can someone clarify to me how ramming works? What role does distance moved and AV play exactly?

Lord Cook
27-01-2008, 16:45
Henche I don't have a paticular infamous document, can someone clarify to me how ramming works? What role does distance moved and AV play exactly?

We can't give any exact rules, but generally speaking...

When a vehicle rams another vehicle (like a tank shock) they both make 1 attack against each other, on the armour facing that touches the other tank. The S of the attack is based on the armour value of the tank and the speed of the collision. Speed is based on how far you moved when making the ram move. If a tank with very high frontal armour (like a land raider) rams another land raider head on, both stand an equal chance of sustaining damage, because there is no inherent advantage to the attacker. But obviously the attacker will aim to strike in the side of a tank with weaker side armour, like a rhino.

Ravenheart
27-01-2008, 20:56
Thanks, Cook!

And just for clarification:

I figure, the further a vehicle drives the 'faster it gets' thus the ram S is higher? So a low AV vehilce has better chances of trashing a high AV vehicle, the farther it moved before impact?

And a Rhino ramming a LR has higher chance to be worse off than the LR, even though being the attacker, due to AV 11 vs. AV 14, right?

wall weasels
27-01-2008, 21:38
I haven't seen this in this thread yet, why is it that only Troops (non-vehicle ones), count as scoring units for missions? So basically, my celestines go "durr its a capture point, what do I do?" and my less trained sisters go "Gotta take the point :D:D:D"

But Ravenheart, both parties take damage, but only one gets the bonus for movement.
So an ork trukk hits a land raider from 24inchs away (turbo). It would be at Strength 8. But the return hit would be at Strength 10 (+4 armor over ten, and +1 for tank. and +8 for the trukks distance). So it is a suicide run, potientally.

Ravenheart
27-01-2008, 22:22
But Ravenheart, both parties take damage, but only one gets the bonus for movement.
So an ork trukk hits a land raider from 24inchs away (turbo). It would be at Strength 8. But the return hit would be at Strength 10 (+4 armor over ten, and +1 for tank. and +8 for the trukks distance). So it is a suicide run, potientally.

Ah, thanks a lot! I think I can see trough it now.
So a BA Rhino hitting the target form 18" would result a in S 6 + 1 (tank) + 1 (AV11) hit; I like the sound of that! :evilgrin:

It's a potential suicide run, I agree on that, but it sound like great fun and something to use empty transports for bestides screening.

Lord Cook
28-01-2008, 00:01
And a Rhino ramming a LR has higher chance to be worse off than the LR, even though being the attacker, due to AV 11 vs. AV 14, right?

Correct. In fact a rhino should never ram a land raider as in this example, it has no chance of damaging it whatsoever, simply because it doesn't have enough frontal armour. By comparison, if it was going fast enough, the land raider would stand a decent chance of destroying it in return, so basically your rhino drives into the side of the land raider and blows up, but the land raider remains intact.


But Ravenheart, both parties take damage, but only one gets the bonus for movement.

That's wrong, both sides get the bonus for movement.


So an ork trukk hits a land raider from 24inchs away (turbo). It would be at Strength 8. But the return hit would be at Strength 10 (+4 armor over ten, and +1 for tank. and +8 for the trukks distance). So it is a suicide run, potientally.

Does it max out at S10? I would assume so, but it doesn't actually say.

Also remember that if the target vehicle suffers a "Vehicle Destroyed (Explodes)" result, the ramming vehicle keeps on going up to its full movement and may ram further vehicles in the same move. I can just imagine a land raider driving through a row of sentinels, bowling them all over.