Fifth Edition Rumors from Warseer

[Higgen]

I thought that some of you folks would be very interested in some of these rumors. Keep in mind that these are all currently rumors, and some are guilty of embellishment, so take it all with a large dose of salt. Interesting stuff, nonetheless.

http://warseer.com/forums/40k-news-rumour-discussion/113113-v-edition-rumours-and-much-more.html

Common Rumors:
-It will be released in 2008. Guesses are either May or September/October.
-Rules about psychic powers will change
-There will be tweaks to Assault Phase
-Vehicle rules are undergoing a pretty big overhaul which some will be quite unhappy about. There will be one vehicle damage chart with modifiers for glancing/penetrating hits.
-Overall most sections are being amended to a degree up to and including missions.
-Movement is changing
-New Starter box will be Marines vs. Orks. May be a large plastic 'thing' in it.
-Rending is being toned down.
-Combat Patrol and Kill Team are gone from the rule book. They will make a reappearance as their own supplement in 2009 with expanded rules for "space hulk" and "Necromunda" style games.
-They have been replaced with a much expanded mission system and campaign rules that are based off the Mighty Empires system for FB. There are a few 40K specific tiles in the works, one being a hive-city tile.
-The new mission system is much better and more fun, no more Alpha, Gamma & Omega for a start.

Embellished:
-Rending: A roll of a six to wound makes the shot AP1. A roll of a six to penetrate a vehicle causes an automatic glancing hit unless the total already exceeds the AV.
-Forced March: All infantry units may make a D6” move in the shooting phase instead of shooting as long as there are no enemy models within 12”. However they may not move in the assault phase unless they have the Fleet of Foot special rule. Models with Fleet may make this move even if enemy models are within 12” and may make a 6” assault move as normal.

Non-Fifth Edition stuff:
Codex: Imperial Guard.
-New miniatures are ready.
-Codex is still undergoing the brainstorming phase.
-Combat Doctrines will remain in the Codex.
-New plastic soldiers with great coats and different heads.
-Possible new Valkyrie in plastic.
-New bits for the Sentinel.
-New bits for Rough Riders.

Dark Eldar
-The entire range is going to be redone with new design.
-The rules are going to remain much the same, excepting some units.

Necrons
-Won't be seen before the end of 2009.

Space Wolves
-End of 2008/beginning of 2009.

Personally, I am seriously thrilled about the Forced March more than anything else, if it comes into fruition. It definitely ties in more with their seeming strategy of placing more reliance on basic troops and short ranged firefights. It reduces some of the speciality of fleet, but not too much. Having a single Vehicle Damage table might be a godsend, but I was hoping for a 2D6 table, which doesn't sound to be likely. It sounds like they're trying to buff tracked vehicles somehwat to the level of skimmers, but only time will tell if they succeed.

[BrianGeneral]

Eh what? Just 2 years or 3 they're going to make 5thEd?
The Marching thingy makes 40K more alike WHFB.
Good for Rending being toned down, Death Company with lots of Rending AND Jump Pack is NUTS.
As for the vehicles, as long as Skimmers aren't going to be nerfed by a lot, I'll be quite happy already.

And for the love of the Gods, REMAKE THE MORALE SECTION! We had such discussions before as the newer units doesn't seem running away.

[FerociousBeast]

Um, wow?

If this is true, it's pretty nuts, especially for a May 08 release. That said, I've been saying for a while now that I wouldn't be surprised if either 5th or an advanced rules supplement was in the works because of little things like the BS7 in the Eldar codex.

EDIT: Okay, checking on the provided link, Brimstone confirms much of this stuff, so that's good enough for me.

5th edition in 2008, ladies and gentlemen.

[Hodgeh MkII]

Exciting

[moleytov]

as an eldar why do I get the felling I'm loosing out if forced march becomes the norm? Oh yeah, everyone can run away from my fleeting stuff/ move just as quick. Something very similar to that which adds to the points cost of my models is now free for others.

[DinoDoc]

IIRC, fleet is faster than forced march and you can actually get into assault using it.

[moleytov]

Fleet is identical to forced march except for the 12" and assault. If you're within 12", the chances are damn high you are going to want to shoot or assault anyway, so forced march wouldn't be used - the 12" is therefore a fairly moot point.

[FerociousBeast]

Um, if you're chasing the enemy around the board, they're not shooting. Do it right and they'll be cornered eventually.

[ThatGuyNZ]

I reckon the morale section needs a radical change. Almost every army has some sort of cheese to avoid morale checks
-Dark angels most of them are stubborn/fearless
-space marines- auto regroup
-orks- mob checks
-tyranids. . . .
-Eldar- just have high ld anyway

thats the ones i know. It seems to put the IG at a pretty major disadvantage if you ask me. Horde armies such as Tyranids and Orks should at least have a chance to run away right?

Maybe the synapse has to test for range? or different creatures have different range?

[FerociousBeast]

I'd like to point out that the addition of "forced march" along with the new "Waaagh" rule will make much of the cries of "Nerfed slugga boyz!" go away and will make both shootas and sluggas worth taking.

[blaesa]

1) Good for them for revamping psychic powers. They seriously need something done to them to make them more in line with WHFB magic, IMHO.

2) Points off for removing Combat Patrol and Kill Team. Both were great ways to help new people get into the hobby, as they helped with balance issues at such a low points level, and let them get away with only owning fifty bucks or so worth of models.

3) Changes to movement sounds interesting. Perhaps a WHFB style system? *crosses fingers*

4) Fiver sez they nerf vehicles even more with said chart.

[Win_Imperial]

Sounds good that the rulebook may be out in 08, but you would think that GW would've confirmed its approximate release time if its that close to coming out.

The one thing I'll be happy about (If its true) is the IG. New greatcoat models would be great. The guard really need more variety in their models, because if your the average hobbyist, your most likely going to be stuck with cadians, unless you want to shell out the money on ebay for classic models, or willing to pay ridiculous forge world prices. Rough Riders really need to be replaced, because they look terribly out of place in most armies. I would love to see a plastic Valkyrie. I think GW would have one out by now if there weren't any problems with the moulds.

[GJTFM]

So basically, transports are now obsolete?

New Ig? aw man they sound cool. Maybe I can blend them with my cadians...

[firestorm]

thatguy, guard have zero disadvantage in morale. their massive amount of ld bubbles, voxes, iron discipline, commissars...if anything, eldar/dark eldar have the disadvantage in leadership, as they're the only army that can run off the board.

[the_almighty_moo]

heh i cant help but feel 40k has been dumbed down enough as it is, but is there really a need for a 5th edition?

[DDX]

great-coated guard? would that mean new Steel Legion or Valhallan models? :jig:

[Praexes]

I'm still in shock over the new IG plastics. Great coats and new heads! F@%k Yeah! :D

That the emperor we don't have to put up with those hideous Cadians anymore.

[Ten Tigers]

I know it's probably just a pipe dream, but I would love to see a plastic Kasrkin set.

[Moress]

Hmm... I'm having kind of mixed feelings about this, mostly because I'm a 'nid player, so I'm disheartened to see rending get toned down, but maybe it is a little good... I've never really been on the reciving end of it. =D

I'm glade that vehicles are geting redon, I think skimmers need to be toned down quite a bit, but I hope they make it so you can still potientiall kill stuff on the glancing hits, not like the superheavy table where it's imbossible to do structure damage on a glancing hit, that's just stupid IMO.

As for the new IG stuff, I'm actually pretty stoked about that too, I really hope they do the DKoK style, might convert me to the other side hehe.

Hmm... What's the chances of moral being more present and tyranids keeping synapse I wonder...

[Full_ork]

I'd like to point out that the addition of "forced march" along with the new "Waaagh" rule will make much of the cries of "Nerfed slugga boyz!" go away and will make both shootas and sluggas worth taking.

Probably, but then again if you roll bad d6 rolls it won't make much of a difference.

Thoughs since waaagh gives fleet, that would be interesting to fleet instead of shoot, then waaagh. Or stormboyz not shooting and moving 12 and 2d6.

Things could get interesting.

[Rastani Helios]

-Possible new Valkyrie in plastic.
Win.

I've put some thought into doing Imperial Guard, particularly the Elysians. If rules for this model were in a new Codex as well as the model being made in plastic, I reckon I'd consider it some more.

[Higgen]

Hrm, that raises a good point. Would they consider putting flyers into normal 40k or would it be more of an Apocalypse addon? I am seriously stoked about the forced march thing, but I hope they give armies like Imperial Guard and Tau reasons to actually move their infantry closer to a close combat enemy. As it is, those armies are still going to sit back and plink away.

As for skimmers/tanks, I doubt that they're going to nerf skimmers. If it's just one table, there's not much room for it. What they will do is make penetrating hits much less potent, giving treaded vehicles most of the benefit of being a skimmer. A poster on the other thread had a very likely table, IMO.

1 or lower. Crew Shaken
2. Crew Stunned
3. Armament Destroyed
4. Immobilised
5. Vehicle Destroyed
6. Vehicle Explodes

Subtract 1 from the roll for glancing. Leave it as is for penetrating.

With such a table you have the exact same table for glancing, but the penetrating hits are less potent by one result. Instead of a 50% chance of destruction, it's a 33% chance of destruction. Not perfect, but I wouldn't complain.

great-coated guard? would that mean new Steel Legion or Valhallan models?
Nobody really knows exactly what the models will be like, but it's rather a very old rumor. The version I subscribe to is long-coated bodies with Steel Legion/Valhallan head swaps.

[Dooks Dizzo]

Where does it say Rending is changing in regards to close combat? I haven't heard anything about it. In actuality making ranged weapons AP1 on a 6 changes very little. The main offender, the Assault Cannon wounds most things on 2's anyway so you're getting a 16% better chance to survive a hit from it AND anything it manages to glance will automatically become penetrating because AP1 always penetrates. Right?


Forced March sounds interesting but it would really change some game mechanics. I hope a lot of thought goes into it.

[sccojake]

That the emperor we don't have to put up with those hideous Cadians anymore.

i happen to like the current plastic Cadians, but i would LOVE to see some new IG troops, old valhalla, DKoK, Steel Legion, or something else totally new even, that would be great too.

[Moress]

The new rending is on a wounding roll for shooting only or both shooting and CC? and now it's going to be on a roll of 6 on the wounding chart, yes?

[Gorb]

Y'know, this probably means that the more recently released Codeces (Chaos, Eldar, NOT Space Marines) were designed with 5ed in mind. Assuming these rumours are true.

[moleytov]

It might explain the giving of stats like BS7 and WS7 to characters, like the pheonix lords...

[zellthemedic]

I don't like this one bit. Though the forced march is cool, they're releasing this too early IMO. It's been like 3 years since they came out with a new edition.

How many years has WHFB been on 7th Edition?

[Imrix]

Mark me down as somebody who doesn't like this. I cannot think of a reason this is needed, nor do I like most of the stuff being mentioned. Sure, rending being downgraded isn't something I could boo, but Forced March?

Come on. It's basically Fleet for everybody. Where is the disadvantage? Can't do it within 12"? If you're that close you either want to charge, shoot or run away. Can't assault after? If you're 12" or further away then unless you're cavalry (and can therefore fleet) you can't charge anyway!

[Dooks Dizzo]

Imrix makes a really good point.

It makes Orks even more disgusting than they aleady are (new Orks). If the whole army fleets all the time you just use your WAAAGH! on the turn you want to charge.

[moleytov]

Lol - I complained about exactly what Imrix is saying page one!!!! (posts 5 & 7)

me = 1x Not a happy eldar player.

[FerociousBeast]

How would a re-roll on Fleet sound? That's not a rumor yet, but it makes sense and should take a little of the forced march sting out.

For those who fear what universal fleet would do to the game, consider that shooting we know is at least changing (BS7 in Codex Eldar). What if it's getting more reliable? If you fleet your shooters, then, if shooting is getting better, then you're sacrificing a very important part of your game. (I know shooting's not unimportant now, but if it gets better, then you'd really have to think before fleeting.)

[firestorm]

maybe shooting modifiers for movement, pistol, assault, heavy...etc?

[FerociousBeast]

That's what I'm thinking. Whenever I think about that BS7, 2nd edition sugar plums start dancing in my head.

[Shoota Fodder]

I hope they release plastic special weaps for Imperial Guardsmen. I'm currently attempting to convert 10 Guardsmen to Plasma Guns using spare bits because i can't afford them :p.

[Win_Imperial]

What would be better would be just to include plastic plasma guns and melta guns in the plastic sprues, and just have flamers and grenade launchers in metal blisters.

[onewhiteduck]

But blisters containing Flamers and Grenade launchers wouldn't sell as well as blisters containing meltas and plasmas IMO.

[Dooks Dizzo]

The Tau would officially cease to exist as a viable army is ALL their enemies suddenly became fleet. It's ridiculous.

[Higgen]

That's not necessarily true. Sure, armies like Orks, Chaos, and Blood Angels would benefit immensely from this change, but I'm certain there would have to be some kind of balancing factor for shooting. They've been trying to emphasize close range firefights for a bit now, with changes like Combat Squads. If you simply added forced march and didn't even it out with shooting somehow, armies like IG and Tau would be daft to ever use Forced March.

[SubZero]

Folks, what's with the naysaying? These are just rumours.

I must say that the previous editions have suited Ranged Combat, so it makes sense if these rumours are true, that they focus more on CC.

I feel positive that every army will have it's niché, and I feel that if these rumours hold true, that Dark Eldar just got shared out amongst every single race with the huge potential charge distance on first turn. Maybe games will be played lengthways instead of widthways?

[Optac DoS]

News from the front:

There is a low chance of a Valkyrie (well any flier for that matter) getting released in the next two years. I personally went to my local Games Workshop and asked them. Early morning too so they weren't busy.

I was informed that the rumour which has been going around is false - Yes, one (Only ONE), Valkyrie was made. This was made to test the new machine at the factory. A worker then took a photo of it and that is how it got around. So yes it is possible to make.

"So why aren't they doing it mainstream?” Well I'm not too sure, possibly took too much to make it. But your local Games Workshop will know of whatever is planned up to nearly 2 (two) years in advance. There must be some grey area in it, as the person I talked to did not know if the Baneblade was going to be released (This was back about 10 months ago), and is not 100% sure on the Stomper.

But he said that he is positive that no Valkyrie is coming out for years. Apparently it takes 2-5 years for one model to come from concept to the shelf. So I foresee no Valkyrie until late 2010-2011 at the earliest.

Gah... now what am I going to use to make an inquisitorial air cav?

[FerociousBeast]

Folks, what's with the naysaying? These are just rumours.Not really. The details may change a bit, but the major things we're hearing are bankable because they've been confirmed by Brimstone, a poster on Warseer who has been proven accurate, again and again, on Eldar, Tyranids, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, et al. He'll get a detail wrong here and there, but if he says something is true, it either is true, or something like it is true.

[BrianGeneral]

Exactly Dooks, however IMO this will just make Mech Tau more viable. Still, the Forced March is ridiculous as a Tau Player since we suddenly face the threat of being charged by EVERYTHING in opposite army. N x Not want.

GZ, the problem is that GW rules are made for balance as much as possible in previous editions, but the Force March will make some weak-at-CC armies/formations nerfed by lots.

[Susurrus]

Weren't the old rules for forced march something along the lines of:

i) Got to move an extra 6" in the movement phase.
ii) Couldn't fire any weapons.
iii) If came under any enemy fire, even if they weren't hit, they immediately fell back, with no morale check allowed.

Seems to me that that prevents an army force marching if its within sight/range of an enemy unit..

[moleytov]

How would a re-roll on Fleet sound? That's not a rumor yet, but it makes sense and should take a little of the forced march sting out.Perhaps fleet-of-_____ would allow you to choose whether to use it in the shooting OR the assault phase (instead of assaulting)? I think that would perhaps be a reasonable compramise?

My worry is that things are suddenly going to swing overly heavily towards CC based armies. Okay it would be nice if striking scorpions could forced-march, because they are too damn slow - but the proposal as it is simply stated above is drastic in terms of what makes a viable army. I get the feeling swarmy 'nids will also feel a little let down by this as it stands - and as others have said, it will strike a fairly wide deathknell for stand and shoot troops - in short I think that once again there will be a contraction of what will make a tournament or even compatative quality army. I have to agree with Dooks and BG - Tau would be mech-ed or dead.
I welcome any vehicle reforms that toughens up standard vehicles a notch, while skimmers need little to no changing (falcon point has been argued ad nauseum so can we leave it out for now?).
Maybe games will be played lengthways instead of widthways? Now this I like the sound of - plus, how often do armies really find themselves suddenly ontop of each other, even in skirmishes? perhaps they could make the game 7-8 turns to compensate - otherwise you are going to kill MCs stone cold. In fact, this would add a lot of depth in my opinion. You are benifiting shooting units by giving them more room to get shots in, but this is counterbalanced by faster Forced-marching units - cover/LOS-control will be all the more important. Although again it does hurt short ranged shooting armies.
a few thoughts. :dunce:

[mdigibou]

Well i know it was heard that the units that "march" dont get to assault on the same turn, so i guess that at least gives you one final chance to rapid fire them, or hop in a transport.

i wonder if you can "forced march" into a transport?

well depending on how this works out i might just pick up some more kroot :P

[FerociousBeast]

Now this I like the sound of - plus, how often do armies really find themselves suddenly ontop of each other, even in skirmishes?A game of 40k is supposed to be equivalent to an "assault" in epic.

[W0lf]

Meh.

Thing i want to see:

Ranged modifiers
Amour save modifiers
New 'magic' system
Movement 4 as basic. Doubled when charging and declare charges before movement.
More brutal H2H system, better/more modfiers to ld (how often do you see a unit flee combat?)
Drop all armies ld by 1 point.

Then again i could just play fantasy which is a far superior game.

Anything that makes it more fantasy like = brilliant imo.

[FerociousBeast]

Then again i could just play fantasy which is a far superior game.Or 2nd edition.

[Evil-Termite]

If marines can forced march, I don't see much use for rhinos which makes me think, "Maybe vehicles will be able to move further in the new edition." It sure would be cool if all vehicles were made to move faster in the new rules. Of course, if they added a foot to all vehicle classes movements a falcon could move 4 feet with star engines. (Now that's really crazy)

[SubZero]

If these rumours are correct, 40K in 40 minutes just got turned to 40K in 4 minutes :)

I can't see transport vehicles being made obsolete in this way - however with Apocalypse focussing on ranged warefare, I can see this potentially focussing upon CC, especially if these rumours hold true.

[FerociousBeast]

I think perhaps it needs to be re-iterated that if you Forced March, you don't shoot and you don't assault. Transports give you a reliable 12" move (or more if Fast), and you can deploy from them 2" and still shoot Assault and Rapidfire weapons. From some transports you can deploy and assault.

Transports aren't going to go away because of Forced March. In fact, I think people will find that the sacrificed shooting phase will make them think long and hard before Marching, unless we're talking CC troops like slugga boyz.

I also think it's worth reiterating that we are pretty darn sure that shooting is going to be changing somehow, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it getting slightly more effective.

[The Farseer]

I'd be sligtly annoyed if Vehicles didn't get a speed increase if there is going to be forced march. As much as it's a good idea Transports will become almost a waste of points. Being a blood angel I'd still grit my teeth at spending 40 points on a vehicle that only moves at the max speed of a marching infantry unit. Same goes with bikes and Jump Packs, if they were only slightly better than walking or running they'd never have been developed as a usuable miltary vehicle, esp for Space Marines they generally carry all their equipment anyway so they'd completely lose any use of the Rhino.

[FerociousBeast]

I suppose I should also mention that we don't have all the details of Forced March (or Run, whatever) right. Brimstone stated that the major idea is valid, but as it has been stated, it's not completely there.

[Higgen]

Aye, all that's confirmed is that there will be changes to the movement phase. Dosadi posted the exact rules to forced march, and he specifically stated that they're 'exaggerated'. He's also a bit of an unknown, so we don't know how much what he says is true.

[Splata]

35-40 points for a transport?

you'd be annoyed at paying that?? you'd just have to learn to use it differently, thats all. You are paying points for a definate move. For being able to get out and fire. For having a moving cover. For one extra bolter shot (that can move and fire). I personally think its a great bargain, even with the new BGB (or will it be a BRB, a nice red book... just don't make it blue or green cause we've had those accornims already) it just actually makes you think before adding it to your list, instead of being near mandatory.

Perhaps rapid fire is changing so you can move regularily and fire?

On the BS 7 issue, i feel that the designers wanted to make Pheonix lords a high stat. Just for old times sake.

[Full_ork]

Yea I see shooting gaing some buffs from this.

Still the idea that cc armies will be getting faster makes me a proud kroot/ork/nid/BT player.

[Brother Wolf]

I'd still grit my teeth at spending 40 points on a vehicle that only moves at the max speed of a marching infantry unit. Clearly not grasping the situation. First, the concept of forced march is still a D6 roll, meaning you mover 7"-12" in a tun, averaging 9"-10". You also forgo your shooting for the turn. Compare that to a transport moving 6-12", being able to shoot, disembarking it's troops who also get to shoot. Big difference.

And 40pts/transport? Try paying 80-93 like IG, who aren't nearly as effective when they disembark in either shooting or assault.

There's alot more at work here and I think forced march is a LONG time overdue considering the mechanic has existing in some form in WFB since it's inception.

[LordAba]

It should make infiltrators a little more interesting as well. Though it really doesn't matter for me, as my only armies are tyranids (who get fleet) and mech sisters (who get rhinos for everything).
Static Tau line will benefit even more with stealth suits!

[firestorm]

ba, there's a big difference between a rhino and a chimera. rhinos have a storm bolter. chimeras have a multilaser, 6 lasguns, and a heavy bolter. rhinos get blown to bits by nearly anything. heavy bolters can't touch a chimera.

[Phangry]

Well hopefully IG won't suck.

I can't say I'm not a little annoyed starting up an IG army with meh Cadians and then the new models get announced, or a little scared of more armies charging me.

[BrianGeneral]

Static Tau line will benefit even more with stealth suits!
Quite the opposite, Static Tau will be owned even more than now does.

[LordAba]

Quite the opposite, Static Tau will be owned even more than now does.

I think you missed the entire point of my post. It's not that they will get better, it's just that if you play a static tau line it would be a good thing to get suits in there to slow some of the enemy.
Though kroot would be a bit better at it, depending on the terrain.

[Warboss Antoni]

I actually think these rumours are crap. If they were true, it would reqcuire an entire redux of all codexes out to the date, and also all IA and supplements. We may see this, maybe, it 5-10 years when 4th ed. has had it's run , but honestly I think it was probably 2 guys chatting at lunch and said something about 5th ed, and so somebody jumped on it and said "LOLZ GAIZ DA 5 TH ED IZ COMIGN IMMENENT IMMENEMT LAL" and it spread, and now people are saying "it's gonna be like this, you know, a red shirt told me...".

[Brother Wolf]

I think the point is that the newest codices coming down the pipe require a rules change in order to move the game in the direction they want. So, Orks, DE, DA & Eldar all conform, SM get's an emergency redux to conform per DA and everything else gets to be revised as needed. It's not totally unheard of. Not putting stock in every rumour, just theorizing why it would make sense to do 5th ed only 3.5 years after 4th.

[Warboss Antoni]

No, but if things get channged like shooting modifiers, movement, psychic powers, ect., the fantasy like rumours, then I think this is dumb. However, I'm not doubting there may be a reveiw of the current rulebook and mre balancing, but I don;t think the game is ready for a lifestyle change yet.

[FerociousBeast]

Maybe you don't, but at this point 5th edition IS coming in one way or another in 2008. Enough people are in the know who have been proved right again and again in the rumor game. We may not know all the particulars (and in fact the most famous and accurate rumormonger on Warseer has said that the current rumors are NOT 100% accurate), but the basics are bankable.

[Dark Watcher]

having had to retro-fit my army 3 years ago to fit in with the 4th edition and the fact that the 4th Edition codex roll-out is incomplete, and the GW storesmen themselves think this rumour is hilarious; I for one will be throwing a spectacular strop if this comes true.


And previous success in rumour guessing is not a garauntee of future accuracy.

[FerociousBeast]

When several posters with around 95% accuracy agree on a rumor then it is. You don't have to believe me, of course, but I'm very confident on this. If you're inclined to check, the rumors that I myself have reported on this forum have proven very accurate, and I get all my stuff from the rumor mill at Warseer.

[moleytov]

but thats the thing, if everyone gets all their rumours from the same source, which diseminate and then come back together again, of course they are going to be in agreement. What if a red shirt reads warseer? Said redshirt in store says "I've heard this"... and so forth.

[Warboss Antoni]

Exactly. Most redshirts do read Warseer - all of them at my store do. And I too, would probably eat a bear if 2008 was the coming of 5th ed, considering most of the codexes aren;t done, and the rumours indicate a massive reworking of game mechanics, which would reqcuire all new codexes. And I wouldn't put my money on Warseer - as I said, the whole "IMMINENT IMMNANT LOL" thing going on at Warseer all probably started with one redshirt telling another, telling a freind, telling a forum...

[Moress]

I have only been playing TT for roughly 6 months now, so my word isn't worth much, but in my past experience, alot of the rumours form warseer seem pretty darn accurate, remember Apocalypse? everyone said a plastice BB was ludicrous, and 3k +points battles were stupid as hell, even Brother Armand thought it was a pretty dumb idea, but look at it now?

I'm not saying that everything that comes out of there is 100% right, but for the most part, they have a pretty good forsight on these things, at least imo.

[Warboss Antoni]

Yes, but those aren;t out of this world things - rumours don;t really start kicking in anyway for thing like Apoc and Codexes when things like leaked playtest versions and GD comfirmation come up - as of right now GW has made no hint at all for 5th ed ( except maybe BS 7 ). And those are beleivable too - Apoc isn't out of this world, and i9t's not like it couldn't of happened ( it did ). Just this is a massive redux here - meaning the entire game must be reworked, and right now there is confirmations for more codexes - which aparently are following the normal 4th ed, not some Fantasy Hybrid ( at least orks does, from the leaked versions ). It wouldn;t make sense to go, "Wow these are cool new army books buy buy buy, and play in tourneys, and then let's rework the entire game mechanics".

[Moress]

Remember I'm still a newbie, so I have no idea what the transition was like in the past from edition to edition, but could the next edition be somehow compadable with the current codex's and slightly teak things that need fixing such as vehciles, movement, and the rumoured rending?

[Warboss Antoni]

Yes but the rumours suggest thing like marching, 4" movement, magic like psychic powers, shooting modifiers, and the like, which are Fantasy like and would probabaly not be compatible with current codexes.

One thing I am not doubtful of though is maybe a rewrite of the rule book, with more balance and stuff.

[moleytov]

One thing I am not doubtful of though is maybe a rewrite of the rule book, with more balance and stuff
And more typos/errors leading to RAW arguements of course.

[FerociousBeast]

Yes but the rumours suggest thing like marching, 4" movement, magic like psychic powers, shooting modifiers, and the like, which are Fantasy like and would probabaly not be compatible with current codexes. The only thing you mentioned that I've heard of is marching. I've heard nothing of 4" movement or magic. Shooting modifiers seems like a logical assumption considering BS6 and 7 in Eldar, but I've heard no definite rumors. I'd warrant that anyone talking about 4" movement is just spouting off 2nd edition rules since 2nd ed had movement characteristics (marines moved 4" a turn) and a force march mechanic.One thing I am not doubtful of though is maybe a rewrite of the rule book, with more balance and stuff.In GW-Land, that IS a new edition.

[spead_Eagle]

4" movment makes little sense beause GW works with half and whole feet e.g 6" move = 1/2 foot 12" pistol = 1 foot ect.

[Shoota Fodder]

Warhamer has 4" movement, and it came out before 40k (I think).

Anyway i think a way forward for GW (Although itr would require a hell of allot of effort!) is to change to the Metric System (cm, m, km ect...)

I doubt it will happen any time soon but their going to have to eventually.

[Brother Wolf]

WFB has specific movement distances for specific races. Some have 3, most for, some 5. They also have cavalry of varying speeds, flyers, etc. WFB movement would be a HUGE change to the game and would require a new codex or major FAQ for every army. GW has trie to avoid that where possible in recent editions, (40K 3rd-4th, WFB 6th-7th).

More buzz form the bees on 5th ed;
1) There is further scuttlebutt on various forums that 40k 5th Edition is confirmed for Q3 (Aug-Oct) 2008. GW likes to release something "big" right around Gamesday UK, so it seems possible. I believe that would put 4th's lifespan at right at 5 years, (editor's note: didn't it come out Oct 2004?), so not to bad. Once again, this rumor is getting confirmations from some normally reliable community sources.

2) Just a bit of business news; Tom Kirby the current CEO of GW has stepped down and is assuming a Chairman role. Mark Wells, the Head of Sales is taking on the mantle of CEO. We will have to wait and see what this means for GW's future product and marketing strategy.

[W0lf]

had this debate of 'warseer rumours' over and over again with my local redshirts.

The truth is several members have proven reliable over 6-7 new army books so i think ill trust them.

You wait, they'll prove to be right then a new rumour will be released and people will doubt them again :P

[Ktan]

Shoota, changing to metric would add next to nothing to the game. All it would do would be to contract everything by one or two centimetres.

Plus, it's quite nice to be using a unit of measurement that's a little more 'exotic' than the more common metric system. It also harkens back to it being a game developed in England. Changing to metric just doesn't really make much rational sense. Even if you were to use the justification of humans using metric, that doesn't mean the other races would, making it a moot point.

[LordAba]

Epic uses the cm scale, and it would be quite pointless for 40k to change, as they even say in the rulebook that you can convert them to inches in a 2-1 conversion as long as the ratios are correct. Plus inches is a decent size... a cm and m would be a bit extreme for the scale.

[Shoota Fodder]

Good point. I just severly dislike feeet, pints and all those other '12' measurements. I just find it slightly confusing but its a personal preference so ignore me please. Sorry for derailing this a bit.

[Freeman]

I have to disagree i quite like pints.

As a nid player i am severly not a fan of speeding up enemy infantry and reducing rending power. GW have just got stealers back where they ought to be without this serious nerf.

A serious buff on tanks (not skimmers) would be very good.

It would be nice to see any falling back done ever!

[Shoota Fodder]

Yeh. I would probably at least reduce all units Ld by 1 point. It doesn't sound like much but it should REALY make a difference.

[Warboss Antoni]

I personally think the only things needing changing are vehicles ( non skimers are way too vulnerable ) and Ld ( make it more like fantasy where you actually need to try and not run )

[AndreasHessler]

Oh my. Dang. Great coat IG would bring me back, but thats a while off. I've just spent over an hour reading about DE. I'm still not sure what to conclude!

[Splata]

reducing LD by 1 would only massively disadvantage armies without mass Fearless. ATM some armies are entirely fearless which

What you need to do is make it so that some of those fearless troops can actually break, then you'd see some breaks. Perhaps an unmodified Ld of 10 for fearless?

[isit_ric]

Some more rumors courtesy of Brimstone over at warseer:


5th Edition Rumour roundup

‘5th’ edition 40K is due for release in 2008 although we have conflicting reports about the release date, it’s going to be either summer or more probably autumn (GDUK 08).

There will be a new rulebook and new starter set which will be Orks vs marines, it will include both troops and vehicles (a marine dreadnought is likely and possibly others). The 3up grot seen at UKGD ’07 is also for the starter box.

Rumoured rules amendments

1. the addition of a ‘run’ option (similar to fleet but with a trade off to keep fleet special).
2. Improvements to the cover save rules.
3. Rending toned down (auto wound if you roll a 6 to wound & reduction in effectiveness against vehicles).
4. Template(Blast) weapons rules streamlined.
5. Sniper weapons rules amended (rending probable)
6. Close combat rules amended with a combat resolution phase similar to fantasy
7. Single vehicle damage table.
8. Vehicles without a WS in CC always get hit in the rear armour.
9. Vehicles able to ram
10. Other vehicle amendments
11. Mission rules changed in a similar manner to Apocalypse (no more Alpha, Gamma or Omega).
12. Only non vehicle non swarm troop choices are scoring units (Note I did not say infantry)
13. Vehicles types are adjusted (the rumoured skimmer nerf)

Overall the ruleset hasn’t changed dramatically but areas have been clarified, streamlined and in some cases brought closer to 2nd edition.

I’ll add to the list as we hear more. Don’t forget these are rumours and should not be treated as the truth.


Sounds interesting to say the least. Point 12 and 13 in particular got my attention and seem to have generated a lot of discussion on a couple of forums.

[Brother Wolf]

Once again the rumour mill churns forward... Thanks to Brimstone @ Warseers & by proxy the crew at BoLS for these nuggets;1. the addition of a ‘run’ option (similar to fleet but with a trade off to keep fleet special).
2. Improvements to the cover save rules. (ed note: I'm not sure I like the sound of THAT)
3. Rending toned down (auto wound if you roll a 6 to wound & reduction in effectiveness against vehicles).
4. Template(Blast) weapons rules streamlined.
5. Sniper weapons rules amended (rending probable) (ed note: I DO like the sound of that)
6. Close combat rules amended with a combat resolution phase similar to fantasy (ed note: HUZZAH!!!!)
7. Single vehicle damage table. (ed note: HUZZAH again!!!!)
8. Vehicles without a WS in CC always get hit in the rear armour. (ed note: OWEEEE!!!!)
9. Vehicles able to ram (ed note: HUZZAH cubed!!!!)
10. Other vehicle amendments
11. Mission rules changed in a similar manner to Apocalypse (no more Alpha, Gamma or Omega).
12. Only non vehicle non swarm troop choices are scoring units (Note I did not say infantry) (ed note: OMFGWTFPWN!?!?!?! My IG just got a FAT leg up on all those min/max armies!!!)
13. Vehicles types are adjusted (the rumoured skimmer nerf)Overall, I'm getting more and more excited about these changes, (and once we pass April Fool's Day, I'll feel more confident in the rumour mill). In some ways, I have to agree with the assessment that it's like going back to 2nd ed, but streamlined.

[isit_ric]

Whoops. Just got there ahead of ya BA. Feel free ot delete my message. Have to admit I'm pretty pleased about some of the stuff. My DA termies + Belial could get a new lease of life. It could also mean that some of the more broken stuff like 3 x falcon + harlies/dragons armies would be a lot less viable.

[Brother Wolf]

Hehehe, talk about timing! I'll let them both stand since we each have points of your own to discuss.

[Xenith]

Hmm, I dont like the sounds of rule 12, but I suppose it will give other armies a chance against mech stuff. I hope they dont over-nerf skimmers. Tau and eldar will take a big hit.

How will tank companies ever win a game?

[Brother Wolf]

How does it have any impact vs Mech armies? Most Mech armies have infantry (scoring) in transports (non-scoring) w/ FA/Heavy vehicle support (scoring). This won't change at all, save that the FA/Heavy cannot score any longer, but then again no unit in those slots will.

I think rule 12 is specifically designed to get people using what they should be using, core troops. WFB forces a minimum number of Core before allowing the options for Special & Rare. Without revising the FOC to fit this model, saying that in objective based games one cannot grab objectives without having Troops to do so makes a HUGE move towards this. Sadly, I think the AC will go the way of the dodo, however with Apoc it'll stick around in full swing.

As for the proposed skimmer nerf, it only seems like a nerf because skimmer armies have never had to endure the punishment that terrestrial armies have. I think it's high time the skimmers came down a notch to be commensurate in cost and survivability with terrestrial tanks. If they do what is rumoured to be done, it'll be good for overall game balance. The auto-glance will go away since we'll be relying on a single chart, but the opportunity to reduce damage due to speed will remain.

[isit_ric]

How will tank companies ever win a game?

By squishing the enemy under there mighty treads thanks to the (rumored) ramming rule. LOL. Could prove very entertaining although with the possibility of all HtH attacks against them going to the rear it could be a risky prospect. Although I'd be interested to see if it would replace Tank Shock or incorporate it somehow.

In all seriousness though, I'm pretty happy with what I've heard so far as some of my models that i previously dismissed as redundant may well be dusted off in time for the 5th edition release. My DA scouts with sniper rifles in particular (considering the possible changes to sniper rifles and leadership effects) could get a stay of execution.

[LordAba]

Hmmm...
Number 12 is easy enough to house-rule in against my friends AC list (always a fun game with my mech sisters).
I'm conflicted on the vehicle changes, though...my Tyranid side wants to say the changes to rending and tougher vehicles will hurt, but hitting against the rear armor will be a massive boon. Hormagaunts with toxic sacs will have an ever bigger effect, and genestealers/warriors/lictors won't have to rely on rending. Though all that is to naught depending on how the crush/ram rules work. The run rule also hurts the effect of fleeting armies to a degree... both eldar and tyranid.

My mech Sisters of Battle side is wondering if the psychic powers will be changed for the better. Should be interesting! Though the same vehicle rules worries apply... The sisters have to close in on the enemy, and now that rhinos might be getting smacked in the butt makes them very risky to use... and given that the SoB needs the short range firefights it could really hurt how I'll play.

I'm not saying these are bad things. These changes might be great, and we can fall back on the old if needed. It should be a fun time for warhammer fans, that's for sure!

[Ten Tigers]

Hmm...

Lottsa reading material here. Being inducted into 40K at the very beginning of 4th edition, a lot of this sounds really groovy. :hippy:

The big thing that caught my eye is they are making changes to sniper rifles. This brings joy to my heart as right now they are a joke. Yes, yes, I know, I know, they are great for taking out high toughnes critters and the like. But the simple fact is EVERYBODY should fear a skilled sniper and they shouldn't be limited to Vindicare, Larkin, and Eldar Fudge Packers (I meant Pathfinders :nyah:).

[smasher32]

what the fcuk for number 8 for Tau >_<

[Aethyr666]

I dont quite see the point of "run", "sprint", "double time" or whatever GW will call it. This only incites massed assaults and just charges so CC forces (BA, BT, Orks! etc) can be even more deadly, ok a bit obvious, this kinda spoils the point of defensive armies, "Crap its the second turn and they're already against my lines, wait I dont see any transports...."

Instant close combat hit against vehicles without WS is a disappointment, "Great more reason not to have forward tanks and no more tank shocks incase a plucky gaunt glances the rear of a Leman Russ Battle Tank. I see the death of Armoured Companies." And rule 12, "He's dead Jim." Mc Coys turns away from ensign Leman Russ. Looks at the other enisgn Russes.... sighs. Anyway this does mean that the special choices, especially Elites cant hold or capture objectives? Isnt that a steel toe capped boot in the balls.... As why would the veteran and experienced soldiers become useless from doing something they were created for/from?

Fine it can be argued that point for rule 12 is for the Elites and Fast Attack to move in and capture the objective. Devastators and equivilants to bombard the area so the actual troop choices can hold it

Bah I need some sleep....

Edit; The other rules look nice, perosnally I quite like the reformatted Close Combat rules.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Sadly, I think the AC will go the way of the dodo, however with Apoc it'll stick around in full swing.AC will just probably get a revision that gives their standard Leman Russ scoring status. Codices are allowed to override the rulebook after all.

[firestorm]

it's to eliminate min/max, aethyr. i'm good and tired of asscans of doom armies, thank you very much. this'll also get rid of 6man lasplas, since 6-man scoring units...have fun.

and ba, how does autowound on 6 affect rending at ALL? a s6 asscan can wound anything anyways...

[Major_Blackhart]

Someone wrote somewhere that what might happen in 5th edition is that higher strength levels (like 6+ or 7+) would automatically ignore armor saves. While I don't know anything about whether or not it's true, I must say that it is an awesome idea and would make a warboss a maniac in CC.

[Full_ork]

and ba, how does autowound on 6 affect rending at ALL? a s6 asscan can wound anything anyways...


Well AC's aren't the only weapons with rending.



Someone wrote somewhere that what might happen in 5th edition is that higher strength levels (like 6+ or 7+) would automatically ignore armor saves. While I don't know anything about whether or not it's true, I must say that it is an awesome idea and would make a warboss a maniac in CC.


And Big choppas worth it on him.

AC will just probably get a revision that gives their standard Leman Russ scoring status. Codices are allowed to override the rulebook after all.

That, or they are getting dropped. As ferals and speedfreaks were.

[Brother Wolf]

what the fcuk for number 8 for Tau >_<Same as for every other army. Sheesh, everyone gets so up in arms. Assaults always hit the rear armor, but they don't automatically hit. Skimmers moving over a certain speed probably still req 6 to hit, but if they do hit, it's vs rear armor. :wtf:

[BrianGeneral]

^Tau vehicles aren't cheap nor have a decent defence mechanism like Holo-Field. That's the problem.
Flechette Discharger will be LOTS more useful if that happens. At least agsinst those Bugs or Orks swarming against my precious Skimmers......

A single damage chart? I demand keeping Vehicle Annihilated!
Otherwise the ramming thingy looks like BFG.

[Full_ork]

The trick then is to learn how to avoid getting your vechicles assualted.

And who knows, maby Tau will get redone again right away like they were for 4th.

[Xenith]

Misread that, i read as only infantry can take objectives - Its still a pain, as the expensive support tanks wont be able to hold objectives.

I agree that the game should be more troop choice based, but they should allow any non vehicle model o take objectives - i mean, a unit of obliterators sitting in a wood contests in my mind...

[Grabnutz]

I'm guessing the rear armour hits represent that when you have a tank 2 inches from your face you can see the best place to hit it with whatever you've got in your hand, alot more than you can from a hundred meters away through crosshairs. It represents climbing onto the top, smacking the door hinges, chucking grenades into fire holes etc.

[Artinam]

The Hit Tank in CC in Rear Armour reminds me of another tabletob game called Flames of War(Except they use top armour, but still). If the rumours are true the game will become a bit more appealing to me. Unfortunatly I think a lot of people will not like the fantasiation of 40k.

[Xenith]

it makes sense, like the way they chnges the walkers to always count front armour in cc - that was annoying, when a unit charges the rear of the dread...no longer!

[Doohicky]

Well, I have to say I am liking these new rumours so far.
As I think someone else said, they are seeming to take the whole thing back to 2nd ed, but keep the streamlined feel of the current version.

Big thumbs up from me so far, but we' will have to wait and see how it actually pans out.

[BrianGeneral]

And who knows, maby Tau will get redone again right away like they were for 4th.
That'll be awesome.:P

But seriously, why in this case they can't just act like this:
Assaulting FA will resolve upon Side Armour.
Assaulting SA will resolve upon Rear Armour.
Doesn't these make much more sense than "Charging at front and attack against Rear Armour"?
And the AP value+to-hit roll had already represented the chance to hit a tank by their own weapons.

[SilverTabby]

Unfortunatly I think a lot of people will not like the fantasiation of 40k.
A Lot Of People really didn't like the switch from 2nd to 3rd Ed when it became much *less* like WHF. Many players now don't remember that switch at all, and so are looking at these rumours and Not Liking Them.

*shrugs*

[Eldanesh]

You will still have to roll to hit a tank, and presumably a skimmer moving a certain distance will still need a six to hit. Always rolling for damage against the rear armour makes a lot of sense, as unlike a dreadnought, a tank doesn't have the mobility to keep attackers against it's front armour. As an Eldar player, even i find that skimmers are overpowered. The only fear is that they will swing the other way, but i will hold judgement until i have any new rules in my hand ;)

By and by, i am quite liking the rumours that are circulating at the moment. The single damage table for vehicles sounds good, ala apocalypse it seems, with modifers on the role depending on if it was a glancing or penetrating hit. I can't imagine how changing the current cover rules would bring any benefit, as the rules as they stand are quite robust and easy to use. There seems to be a lot of confusion about the psuedo-fleet rule that could come in, but again i can't see any reason not to introduce it. Most cc armies, at the moment, have some method of reaching combat fairly quickly, either using transports or fleet (including the orks with waaagh!) etc, therefore i don't think it is their to benefit them. What this rule could do is help shooty armies redeploy more rapidly, or get into close firefight range with a bit more speed.

[smasher32]

And who knows, maby Tau will get redone again right away like they were for 4th.

That doesn't seem too likely, since they still need to focus on the other armies first.

Maybe just a really nice errata?

[Imrix]

I like everything, EXCEPT the Run rule. I'm sorry, but it just really seems to me to make fleet practically worthless. The disadvantages of it I've seen bandied about just don't seem like disadvantages at all, more "you can't do stuff you'd probably never do anyway" rules.

[FerociousBeast]

Personally, against all I've said previously, I'm beginning to doubt that 2008 will see 5th. There's too little new stuff being said anywhere, and I've caught a few scents in the wind that push it back to at least late 2008 if not 09. This is not scientific, so take with a grain of salt if you wish, but at this point my unflappable conviction that 5th would appear in 08 is becoming more, uh, flappable...

[BrianGeneral]

Imrix: Probably the Fleet rule will get amended to be better, say, move 2D6" or roll 2D6" and pick the highest?
But yeah, making all capable to do "existing Fleet" will be kinda pointless.

[Brother Wolf]

I like everything, EXCEPT the Run rule. I'm sorry, but it just really seems to me to make fleet practically worthless. The disadvantages of it I've seen bandied about just don't seem like disadvantages at all, more "you can't do stuff you'd probably never do anyway" rules.Actually, I find this a very strong addition. WFB allows 'marching' under certain conditions. This will be similar, but not the same.

Consider if you will that Fleet will still be special. Any unit with fleet can fleet whenever it wishes in the shooting phase. Run/Forced March/Whatever can only occur if the unit is not within X inches, (the rumour is 12" I believe), of the enemy. So, you're getting shafted there compared to Fleet. You cannot assault either, if I recall the rumour correctly, which Fleet can. There's another distinction. Finally, the most subtle one, is that most units w/ Fleet have assault or close combat weapons. Units which cna force march will typically have rapid fire. So, you're giving up a turn of shooting to march, then you'll have to give up a turn of shooting if you want to assault. A Fleet unit could feasible move, fleet and then assault in the same turn, only giving up a handful of pistol shots or, in the case of Eldar Troops, some assault 2 shots. A unit of Tacticals or Guardsmen on the move would move, give up a turn of strong shooting to move again, (being outside 12" range of the enemy), and then be unable to assault since they had to be outside said 12" range to start.

Again, it's all rumour, but there does seems to be a genuine distinction between forced march and Fleet.

As a Fantasy player and a 40K player from way back, I find most of these rumoured changes to be very encouraging.

DOUBLE POST

Dug through the archives for this tidbitForced March: All infantry units may make a D6” move in the shooting phase instead of shooting as long as there are no enemy models within 12”. However they may not move in the assault phase unless they have the Fleet of Foot special rule. Models with Fleet may make this move even if enemy models are within 12” and may make a 6” assault move as normal.

[Brother Wolf]

The Emperor's Finest main battle tanks have RA10, so pardon me if I don't cry a river over Tau's skimmer tanks having weak rear armor. I honestly don't see Tau or Eldar having anything to cry about. They are skimmers and assuming they move over 6" will require the same to hit as they do now for assault. Regardless of hitting RA, this gives them a distinct advantage over terrestrial tanks.

Grrrrrr. Make me so... Grrrrrrr. I just wanna. GRRRRRR...

[Full_ork]

I agree that it's silly to get upset over.

[Dooks Dizzo]

'Run' is going to make Berzerkers really cool again.

Funny that we have no rumors for psychic powers. I'd be suprised if they didn't get some sort of a make over.

To go over my opinons on each change:

1. the addition of a ‘run’ option (similar to fleet but with a trade off to keep fleet special). In the end I think this will be a good thing. It'll chang ethe tactical possibilities of a lot of armies and I think we'll learn to work with and against this rule just fine.

2. Improvements to the cover save rules. Really curious about how this will work. Make you harder to hit like WHFB or let you take both cover and armor?

3. Rending toned down (auto wound if you roll a 6 to wound & reduction in effectiveness against vehicles). This is a long time coming and wouldn't even be neccessary if GW hadn't gone over board in the first place.

4. Template(Blast) weapons rules streamlined. Wonder what this could be? Will small blasts get useful again?

5. Sniper weapons rules amended (rending probable) +2 to hit 2+ to wound would be better than rending and leave Eldar snipers unique and powerful.

6. Close combat rules amended with a combat resolution phase similar to fantasy Not sure how I feel about this one. I hate killing more guys in fantasy and then running the hell away anyway. It would also make Fearless units increadibly powerful. You know how rare 'Unbreakable' is in Fantasy?

7. Single vehicle damage table. Meh. If it's on 2D6 that's be cool but with Holo Fields in existance you can promise it won't be.

8. Vehicles without a WS in CC always get hit in the rear armour. Good. Land raiders rock again.

9. Vehicles able to ram They already can, I thought? Hopefully it will do more than just push stuff around.

10. Other vehicle amendments Um...okay good.

11. Mission rules changed in a similar manner to Apocalypse (no more Alpha, Gamma or Omega). New mission rules are almost always good. Just hope they're balanced.

12. Only non vehicle non swarm troop choices are scoring units (Note I did not say infantry) Time to start filling up those Troop slots again.

13. Vehicles types are adjusted (the rumoured skimmer nerf) Once agin, I wonder what this means?

[macbrown]

Numbers 6,8 and 12 make a Mechanized BT force seem all the more evil. :err:

[ThatGuyNZ]

Hmmmm very interesting (strokes chin). First of all i think that the whole point of the game is to create a realistic battle that takes into account manny real factors but still keeps flow and is understandable. At teh moment some rules do not work towards this goal. Ill just go through each point

1. This should be a great way to totally change the tactics of some armies and will completely change the game, if it is true. The march system of WHFB makes the first 1-2 turns more than a few long range lobs, it gives both players time to react and put into place thier plans.

2. This is easily in the current top ten stupidest rules. A space marine crouches behind some sandbags, after some consideration he realises that his armour is better than the cover so he proceeds to sit on the sandbags.WTF. surely a succesful cover save occurs when the bullet hits the wall/tree/sandbags/whatever therefore when the save is failed it must have hit the target. In the current rules any shots that dont get stopped by the cover apparently gain AP2 as they do so. Im not sure how they can change this without major changes ( a space marine in a bunker getting both saves is way too good) but it is badly needed.

3. I along with the rest of the world thinks rending is too powerful. Even tyranid players must know in their heart of hearts how ridiculous it is. 6 to wound ignores armour is a great change that should bring balance between the light and dark sides of the force.

4. dont know about this, maybe similar to ordnance on vehicles? have less strength for partials? maybe -1 or -2?

5. Bring it on. At the moment they are a joke. As has been mentioned, a sniper even of mediocre skill should be a threat to the enemy. rendings would probably work, or a complete re vamp of a leadership (see below)

6. I know very little about fantasy apart from what i see at the store so...

7. Anything to increase the survivabilty of all vehicles. at the moment they dont even compete with TMCs. I refuse to get land raiders because i know there is a posibilty that the first shot of the game could destroy my 250pts.

8. Im with brian general on this one. Front should be side and side should be rear. That accounts for possible climbing/scuttling/targeting of vulnerble spots that would occur in battle.

9. Good idea but i feel has the potential to be badly carried out. i often fell the urge to run someone over with my tanks, i sometimes tank shock anyway for entertainment even though it usually means certain doom.

10. If this means a skimmer nerf than thats prob good. If (hopefully when) they increase vcehicle durabilty skimmers will need to be made less mighty.

11. Me and my mates play the rules of engagement missions from GW anyway so whatever.

12. This is like a perfect ray of sunshine, burning those who get the minimum troops or who dont use them very much. Your troops should be the centre that the support sections revolve around, they provide support.

13. see 10

This is all fine and dandy but IMHO one of the most blatant holes is yet to be filled. Morale. I have always hated the crap that each army has to some how avoid or negate morale/leadership
-space marines-they shall know no fear
-IG- leadership bubbles
-old orks-mob rule was way awesome
-new orks- mob rule still lets them dodge leadership
-tyranids-synapse
that is the limit of my knowledge. Even without this a lot of units find it hard to fail morale. target priority being so easy basically means that screens of conscipts etc are next to use less, this removes a major and broad tactic. Maybe a -1 ld penalty for each enemy within range and LOS that is closer than the target you want to hit, i dunno. I really belive that this is the phase/section that requires the most thought and careful attention.

[Full_ork]

+2 to hit 2+ to wound would be better than rending and leave Eldar snipers unique and powerful.

I don't know about that, it would fix actual snipers but I'd personally feel eldar ones would be alittle broken. Unless rangers/pathfinders went up in points.

[firestorm]

don't forget icons, thatguy.

Numbers 6,8 and 12 make a Mechanized BT force seem all the more evil.

au contraire, it seems to make mob o' meq or million marine march all the more evil. especially since chaos can field 20 csm or something stupid like that...at least templars are balanced by the fact that half their numbers in a maxed-out squad are scouts, not full-out marines.

[macbrown]

au contraire, it seems to make mob o' meq or million marine march all the more evil. especially since chaos can field 20 csm or something stupid like that...at least templars are balanced by the fact that half their numbers in a maxed-out squad are scouts, not full-out marines.



Yes,but my point is that BT are all fearless in CC,which makes me wonder how a combat resolution system is going to have any effect on them.

[firestorm]

it'd be something like the current outnumbering system we have, i imagine.

[Dooks Dizzo]

I am all for the extra armor saves for fearless units or units that fail to break in combats they have no business fighting in.

However, a WHFB system for 40k would make things like Tyranids utterly unstoppable. Ghey're fearless for the most part, have large numbers and score decent numbers of kills, they would just never lose a combat.

Here's what I hate from WHFB, a unit charges a large powerful creature, fails to do crap against it. The powerful creature then kills 1 or 2 enemies due to having a limited number of attacks. Then because he's outnumbered, and the enemy has a standard bearer or something he loses combat, runs away and gets run down by a unit that truly had no hope in hell of scoring wounds against him.

40k's system to me is much better. Who cares if you outnumber the Terminators, you can't hurt them and they're killing you off by the boat load. Why the hell should they run?

[DoomKnights]

I'm for on a 6 for rend can only glance, that makes it far less powerful.

[BrianGeneral]

http://belloflostsouls.blogspot.com/2008/01/rumors-40k-5th-edition-round-3.html
A new bunch of rumours.

Shooting
-There's now a reason to have a BS higher than 5 (can we say 2+/5+?). (Negative modifiers?)
-All models friend or foe now block line of sight. Vehicles and Monstrous Creature can be targeted over intervening infantry. (No Priority tests?)
-Area terrain does not block line of sight. (Damn.)
-All blast weapons now scatter. (WTF? Even direct fire ones?)

Vehicles
-Defensive weapons on vehicles are now Str 4 and below. (WTF? Especially for Tau)
-Skimmers Moving Fast is now a 5+ cover save. (I have heard this is the new rule for All Obscured Targets)
-Dedicated transports can now carry any unit (subject to normal restrictions, i.e., no Terminators) and are no longer the deathtraps they have been (no entangling, just pinning). (Hey, Entangle>Pinning due to teh presence of lots of High Leadership armies)
-AP 1 weapons add +1 to the vehicle damage chart instead of doing as they do now. (Gah)
-Ordinance weapons roll 2d6 and pick the highest on the vehicle damage table. (......If they keep Vehicle Annhiliated, that can still work)

Miscellaneous
-Independent Character targeting restrictions have been eased. (WHAT!?)
-There is no IC protection any longer unless he is joined to a unit (F*** this new rule)
-ICs within 2" of a unit automatically join it.
-Dark Eldar are not gone, as they're mentioned in the rules (their jetbikes DO get the 6" assault).
-Frag grenades operate as plasma grenades now. (What's the difference anyway?)
-Monstrous creatures get move through cover, not a reroll. (Shame for TMCs)
-Saving Throws are now made AFTER wound allocation. This means you could still roll all your generic troopers as a group, but will need to roll for each special model (serg, heavy weapons, etc) one by one. Torrent of Fire is gone.

Missions
-The missions are different enough that Troops only counting as scoring isn't as big a deal as it would be today. (It'll be a big deal as Tau)
-Victory points are calculated differently in "cleanse" style missions (points calculated depending on the FOC slot the dead unit took up).
-Scouts and Infiltrators can now try to outflank the enemy and come on as reserves from a different board edge.
-Deepstrike is the same, but if you can't place all the models, you roll on the "deepstrike mishap" table (50% you're dead, 50% you place yourself anywhere you like). (For large DS squads?)

"Overall, the rules look a lot more detailed. Not as detailed as 2nd edition, but now there's a difference between a guy standing on the roof of a building and a guy standing in the basement. Actual line of sight matters a lot more than "pretend" line of sight now."

Some rules are pretty WTF IMHO. Seems to benefit MEQ armies more other than the rest.

[Vaaish]

-All models friend or foe now block line of sight. Vehicles and Monstrous Creature can be targeted over intervening infantry. (No Priority tests?)

this will make terrain elevation much more important to deployment and make it easier to screen an assault force or other unit if you keep them behind the lines.

-AP 1 weapons add +1 to the vehicle damage chart instead of doing as they do now. (Gah)

not sure why you have that response. If things are going to a single table this makes much more sense than the current rule for ap1 weapons.

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

that will ease several of the debates. I wonder if this means that mixed armor rules are gone as well.

[SilverTabby]

-All blast weapons now scatter. (WTF? Even direct fire ones?)

In 2nd Ed, if you missed with (for example) a frag missile the template would scatter from it's target point rather than just evaporate and disappear. It was fun when playing with plasma grenades... :D

[BrianGeneral]

My main issue is over the vehicle Blast weapons like Railgun, Prism Cannon and others. I understand Infantry weapons may scatter badly, but how to do it for vehicles?

[Fixer]

-Frag grenades operate as plasma grenades now. (What's the difference anyway?)

Frag grenades make both sides strike at I10 in close combat when assaulting in cover. Plasma grenades mean that normal initiative is used instead.

So, say you have your Harlequins assaulting a squad of Genestealers in cover. They'd still strike last. However if you had a squad of assault marines charge in, they'd strike at the same initiative.

[SilverTabby]

My main issue is over the vehicle Blast weapons like Railgun, Prism Cannon and others. I understand Infantry weapons may scatter badly, but how to do it for vehicles?
Why would it be any different? The only difference would be its a bigger/more powerful gun - so it's potential for distance scattered may be greater. But I think that regardless of mounting, most weapons in 2nd Ed used the scatter dice combo (upto 10") and thrown grenades halved that result. What's wrong with that?

[SubZero]

Conflict...

-Area terrain does not block line of sight. (Damn.)

"Overall, the rules look a lot more detailed. Not as detailed as 2nd edition, but now there's a difference between a guy standing on the roof of a building and a guy standing in the basement. Actual line of sight matters a lot more than "pretend" line of sight now."

Am I the only one seeing this?

In 2nd Ed, if you missed with (for example) a frag missile the template would scatter from it's target point rather than just evaporate and disappear. It was fun when playing with plasma grenades...

I always preferred my Vortex Grenade Chaplain... that Grenade always seemed to detonate before he lobbed it.... meh.

[Brother Wolf]

Some things gave me the wtf until I went back and read them w/ my 2nd ed hat on.

Overall, I think many of these rules bring more balance to the game than 3rd/4th. Fast Skimmers getting the same rules as Obscured targets is way overdue.

Blast scatter, if it's how Tabby and I are envisioning it, will actually be a huge boon. Consider, if you will, firing a direct fire template at the enemy. You roll to hit and miss. The blast doesn't just vanish into thin air, it has to go someplace. Vs densely packed enemy units, it is possible to scatter a direct fire blast weapon and still score some damage despite a miss. I think we need to reserve judgment until we see it in print.

Own unit blocking LOS is hit or miss for me, but it does force the issue of maneuvering to the front, which is something in WFB we deal with all the time. Elevated shooting positions to see over advancing skirmishers. In 40K right now, all hills do is block LOS or at best obscure vehicles.

Def weapon S4 is going to make me grumble. Now that I have gone through all of my tanks to build them in order to move & shoot at max, they change the rules again? THAT will upset me, but hopefully the entire move & shoot methodology will change.

I can't complain about IC protection either really. It's broken as it stands now. HOWEVER, I do have one caveat. Jump Cannoness + Seraphim. I can't join Seraphim as I'll lost hit & run, but if I'm farther than 3" away she's naked and exposed to getting drilled. So, this is where the LOS stuff comes in now. She needs to be 'hidden' behind the Seraphim, 3" away so as not to automatically join, in order to survive. Of course, elevated troops can still see her via real LOS and thus target her.

It's a whole new ballgame for you youngins, but it's old skool goodness for us old farts.

[KingOfFools]

not that all those things are bad, but what's next? fifth edition codices bring back the armoury?

[moleytov]

Def weapon S4 is going to make me grumble.
and ditto for every eldar player out there - we love our S6 goodness.

[Sir Plasma]

-Defensive weapons on vehicles are now Str 4 and below.
Only one word can describe this, and that word is Asspiss.

[BrianGeneral]

^Agreed. 90% of Tau weapons are >Strength 5 (or I should say "No weapons on their Skimmer Tanks are lower than Strength 5"?), for the Christ's sake. WTH are they thinking about? As I said, these rules seem to benefit MEQ armies (especially newer Marines/Chaos) more than the rest of the universe.

In this case I'll have to rely more heavily on Devilfish and Bodyguards for the Commanders.

BA, the whole point is that are bringing back the old rules (or the similar stuff) necessary? Especially just after 4th start running for about what? 5 years?

[firestorm]

i see everyone pissing and moaning about how defensive weapons are going to nerf eldar and tau. dude, when you've got an av12 skimmer that can take more damage and dish out more firepower then a land raider for 2/3 the points of one, methinks it NEEDS some nerfing.

[BrianGeneral]

But now it's the reverse. Or I should say, Skimmers aren't really that powerful as one may think. They don't have much armour (Except Hammerheads I must admit, better than Preds for a bit), expensive as hell, AND doesn't seem to have much more firepower than other else (just because of some big guns on board). But now they overdo the stuff, for all Obscured Targets they got 5+ save, and AP1 weapons doesn't contribute any bonus in penetration (Auto-penetrate>+1 in damage roll IMO), making AV14 units lots more powerful than before while the thinner Skimmers don't seem viable anymore.

[SubZero]

I don't see the big deal here until something is cast in stone regarding the rules - arguing over hearsay over such a subjective topic as the defensive weapons of one race is a bit tedious.

Given any thought to the SM Predators with HBolters in the sponsons? How about Leman Russ Battletanks? (the list can go on and on for every race).

[Brother Wolf]

@BG: 3rd ed dropped in around 98 if I recall. 4th ed came Sept 2004, so 6 years. Ok, maybe only 4 years, but it is possible they realized that things needed tweaking. I certianly think they do.

[Gorb]

not that all those things are bad, but what's next? fifth edition codices bring back the armoury?Hell yes please. Me wants me Chaos cheese list back :p

Meh, I'm against some of them (like the IC rules). Though now I'm pretty damn happy Torrent of Fire will be gone :)

[moleytov]

-Skimmers Moving Fast is now a 5+ cover save. (I have heard this is the new rule for All Obscured Targets)I've just had another thought about this... isn't this... wait for it... a BUFF!!!

I refer of course to the word SAVE. a 1/3 chance for the shot to do nothing, even once it has hit? not stun or shake but absolutely nothing. I guess it all depends on the new, single vehicle damage chart and how nasty it is...

[BrianGeneral]

But Eldar vehicles have Holo-Fields and Spirit Stones already so it won't be too much problem even if it's stunned.

That 1/3 chance? I won't really say it's a buff since other vehicles have this save as well if they're Hull Down.

[Grabnutz]

I can't think of any tanks really with str <5 weaponry, bar the crusader and the chimera lasguns, so it would be unfair to say its a specific nerf to Tau / Eldar. Big Shoota toting ork tanks for example will suffer. However I reckon some changes to the way vehicles move and shoot will be changed, as someone already guessed.

[Vaaish]

But now they overdo the stuff, for all Obscured Targets they got 5+ save, and AP1 weapons doesn't contribute any bonus in penetration (Auto-penetrate>+1 in damage roll IMO), making AV14 units lots more powerful than before while the thinner Skimmers don't seem viable anymore.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought av14 was SUPPOSED to represent incredibly tough armor and not the paper thin stuff that dies turn 1 these days. Right now skimmers fall more into the category of what av14 should be. Thinner skinned skimmers are just getting dropped back in line with everything else in their av class. Moving faster is basically the same effect as hiding behind cover, both make you harder to hit but neither magically make you get hurt less when you are hit so again it makes sense for skimmers to get the obscured target 5+ save.

IIRC they had mentioned moving to a single damage chart which means there wouldn't be a penetration chart to worry about auto penetrate on so that +1 to the roll is more logical for ap1 weapons if that is true.

IMO skimmers will be viable still, but your just going to have to be a lot more careful. You pay for your maneuverability with a more fragile unit as opposed to flying around in something like sameals av14 land speeder.

[BrianGeneral]

IMO current SMF still make sense for its effects of reducing attacks to Glancing hits since, for example, the projectile or beam's kinetic power to penetrate the hull is somehow reduced due to the resistance between the 2 surface when on impact. Some may say it's nonsense, but that's how I interpret this rule.

If they introduce the "BS modifiers" like in WHFB then it may make more sense to me, otherwise, a supposedly fast-moving Skimmer got the same protection mechanism as a larger, slower vehicle hidden in a terrain piece (or a fast-moving hull is as hard as a stationary target in forest)? To be honest, Do Not Want. (Both in actual theory and game rules)

On the other hand, a single damage table seems ridiculous to me. I mean, a glancing hit upon the armour by small arms are supposd not to do much damage to the vehicle itself except minor disruptions (thus the Shaken->Stunned in glancing table). But with a single damage chart, I can see the results to become (by order of D6 1->6): Shaken, Stunned, Weapon Destroyed, Immobilized, Destroyed, Annhiliated. Are ALL ranged weapons from a distance meant to annhiliate a whole vehicle at once?

Also, reducing the Entangled effect to Pinning test? DO NOT WANT. Now lots of armies have really high Leadership that they won't be pinned 90% of the time, so unless the Morale/Leadership got a whole new redoing, please keep the Entangled result.

[Eldanesh]

I can see a damage table of 1 to 7, along the lines of:

1. no effect
2. may not shoot
3. may not move or shoot
4. weapon destroyed
5. immobilised
6. destroyed
7. annhilated

with modifers then applying, ie:

ap- modifer is -1 to damage table
glancing hits are -1 to damage table
penetrating hits roll as normal
ap1 and ordanance add 1 to damage table

This would prevent ap- and glancing hits from killing a vehicle (a notion that i always thought was ridiculous), the whole notion of always stopping a vehicle from doing something as nonsense (you could penetrate a bit of armour but not actually do any damage for example, hence my inclusion of the 1=nothing) and give tank killing weapons a boost, and also being the only weapons cabable of annhilating a vehicle.

[isit_ric]

Any further clarification on the scout rules BrianG mentioned earlier? Personally I'm stoked at the idea that infiltrating units can pop up on a different side of the table and throw a spanner in the works. It seems far more appropriate than simply giving them a free move or deployment benefits.

[Full_ork]

The loss of IC rules make the shock attack gun much harder to use, since screening him will block his line of site, and he can no longer hide for protection if he wants to fire.

I guess that's for the best, but it does effect the guns usefullness.

[SubZero]

I actually would have thought table similar to Eldanesh's but tweaked a little...

1 - Move half speed next turn.
2 - May not Move next turn.
3 - May not Shoot next turn.
4 - Defensive Weapon destroyed (select by attacker).
5 - Weapon destroyed (select by attacker).
6 - Immobilised and may not shoot next turn.
7 - Destroyed.


This way vehicles are fairly safe against anything but dedicated vehicle killers - yet they can be forever hounded by attacks keeping them subdued.

[Fannin]

Holofields are the big problem. Regular skimmers are easy enough to immobilize to offset SMF.

I hope there is an as-yet-unveiled plan for bumping up terrestrial tanks' durability, or else Falcons are just as ridiculously overpowered as ever.

[Eldanesh]

Two problems i see with the revised table:

1. result 4 wouldn't work on all vehicles due to a lack of defensive weapons. what do you do in this case? ignore, go up, or go down?

2. lascannons and missile launchers can't blow up a tank? very silly, unless you extend the modifiers that i suggested.

And the only way you can start to offset the holofield is by giving every other tank in the game 2 structure points (to be honest, not that bad an idea).

Until GW to decide to revise the Eldar codex, holofields are here to stay, and we'll just have to live with them.

AND....

if you use my table and modifiers, and manage to score a penetrating hit with a melta gun (and get pass the alledged 5+ cover, or whatever), then a 4 or more will kill a skimmer. That isn't too hard on two dice.

[moleytov]

I think he problem here is everyone is once again synonimising the words skimmer and falcon. The falcon is a skimmer on nutso juice. The problem is trying to fix that using the vehicle damage table, modifiers and changing the rules for all skimmers means that you end up screwing over other units.
As a side note, eldar Anti-vehicle weapons are going to get hit hard here aren't they... none beside firedragons are AP1, and they pretty much require one of the proposedly softened up skimmers to get them anywhere important.
As for these tables you've dreamt up so far, I have enough trouble downing all the hammerheads out there without my S6 weapons (which glance a lot) getting a -1 penalty on a chart. Warp Spiders which also have the FAIL armour piecing would be doubly gimped, to the point where they become useful for almost exactly zero.

[Eldanesh]

moleytov - i disagree on the point about the spiders. They were never meant to be vehicle hunters, they were always meant to be anti infantry.

consider what is MEANT to be the MAIN tank hunters for the Eldar:

fire dragons
swooping hawks (with the advent of intercept and haywire grenades)
pulse lasers, brightlances and emls
wraithguard
fire prisms

The fact that Eldar have been so proficient with dealing death to tanks by hitting side armour of opponents tanks with large amounts of str 6 weaponry is what has helped sparked the cry for more durable tanks in the first place.

It just means we (and i say we as i am almost exclusively an Eldar player) are gonig to have to think how to take out tanks other than 'lots of str 6 weapons on jetbikes/warpspiders can do every job that i need, so why bother taking dedicated anti tank'.

Bear in mind how proficient bank shots with prisms are going to be, espiecially if a miss now results in a scatter, rather than a complete miss.....

[Fannin]

Warp spiders? Useless? What an incredible statement.

They get lots of high strength shots on a high-mobility platform... perfect for dangerous GEQ units and MEQ units in cover. I'm not sure why they should excel against vehicles too.

[Cassidy85]

As a side note, eldar Anti-vehicle weapons are going to get hit hard here aren't they... none beside firedragons are AP1

Uh Imperial AT weapons (and by extention Chaos) aren't AP1 except for meltaguns /multimeltas either...

[Shoota Fodder]

I like these suposed infiltration rules :). If they are true, then my all infiltrator Guard army are in for a fun game :).

[Brother Wolf]

First and foremost, the vehicle damage table is going to look like the one in Apocalypse without the stuff targeting super heavies. Bank on it. If you want to know what;'s going to happen, look there.

Now, what I consider a potentially damaging element is what happens to Ordnance. Ordnance used to have the best damage table out there. Then they revised and said only the whole gets full S, if it's the template only, it's 1/2 S vs Vehicles, but they still had the stomping ass table. So, with 2D6 & pick the highest on a table that is 1-7, they will never get the best result as that is now reserved for AP1. That seems a bit foolish to me unless they revise the hole to get +1 like AP1. Or the hole becomes AP1 for all purposes or some such, (which would be a potential boon for AP3 pie plates vs Terminators. At least one bugger might go down). Now, that it pure speculation, but it follows what I consider a logical path to argument.

Now, let's talk obscurement. I always thought it was odd that vehicles never really got a legitimate cover save like everything else. It seemed to be a break in the over game mechanic. Infantry to hit, to wound, save. Vehicle to hit, possible reduce to glance table for obscurement, to wound. It breaks the flow and has always been a sore sport for me. All basic rules should apply equally for all models, otherwise what's the point?

To Hit, To Wound/Veh Dmg, Save. All as appropriate, regardless of target. If that is the path they move to, then I will be genuinely thrilled. It will make vehicles in cover the same as skimmers moving fast, and THAT levels the playing field immensely. All I ever wanted was a level playing field. Forget the holo field argument. Possession, extra armor, etc etc etc., There will be plenty of ways to mitigate light damage. What we're talking about here is a level playing field for all vehicles.

Which brings me to the S4 defensive weapon argument. If vehicles in cover or skimmers moving fast get a 5+ cover save, then we begin to look critically at what it means to be a moving vehicle and the firepower you can bring to the battlefield. This is another leveling argument. Imperial vehicles by & large pack S5+ sponson weaponry in addition to the main guns. I'm still trying to work this out in my head, but it seems to me that they really want to limit skimmers moving fast and getting to fire anything stronger than a shuriken catapult in addition to the main guns while gaining a cover save while terrestrial tanks on the move could fire more heavy weaponry, but be far more vulnerable. I would dare say is was skimmers that brought the secondary weapon S nerf in an effort again to balance vehicles. Finally, my all Las PredA has a purpose again!

It takes time to mull things over as well has a historical perspective into the game to see some of the logic behind the rules. I'm not saying my answers are right. Rather, I'm just reasoning them out as I see them were I the game designer. (If I were the game designer, the D6 would be relegated to Yahtzee, but that's another argument).

As for infiltrators, that just kicks my wolf scouts in the balls. I certainly hope they come down in price if every flippin' scout/infiltrator can do it.

DOUBLE POST

It just occurred to me about IC w/i 2" automatically becoming part of a squad. This could have a whole host of ramifications. Imagine Squad A deploys by Drop Pod while Terminator Chaplain B deploys via Deep Strike. If the units scatter in such a way that they end up with models within 2" of one another, then they automatically gain the association. I'm sure there are other examples of how this could work out, but it does seem to mitigate some of the reserve deployment flaws w/ IC's who don't have retinues. Hmmmm....

[Ktan]

Just a thought, apologies if someone else has raised this query:

what if the abilities of Defensive and Offensive weapons/the effects of firing on the move are being changed?

Say, for example, what if all Defensive weapons can fire even when gunning it at full speed, or you can fire two - three offensive weapons on the move?

To keep tanks mobile, perhaps they will be changing the 'fire on the move' chart?

[Destructor]

Is there...any point in buying Battle of MacCragge when 5th ed is just around the corner?

[Osiris Ace]

As a major treadhead, I am really looking forward to revised vehicle rules, as are many other people I'm sure. Looking at this most recent set of rumored changes, it is obvious to me that a single damage chart and revised fire on the move chart are also in the works. I can see the new damage chart/modifiers being as follows:

1.) Crew shaken
2.) Crew stunned
3.) Weapon destroyed
4.) Immobilized
5.) Destroyed
6.) Explodes
7.) Annihilated

Glancing hit = result -2
AP - = result -1 (good idea Eldanesh)
Penetrating hit = roll on table as shown
AP 1 = result +1 (as per the rumors)
Ordnance = 2D6 pick the highest (as per the rumors), the hole gives AP 1 (thanks to Brother Armand)

And I just brainstormed out a suggestion for the new fire on the move chart (just for normal speed vehicles mind you):

Stationary= Fire all weapons, or 1 ordnance
Move up to 6"= Fire 3 main weapons or 1 ordnance, and all defensive weapons
Move 6-12"= Fire 1 main weapon or all defensive weapons

With the new emphasis on getting into the fray a lot quicker (with the new "run" rule and all) I can see vehicles being able to lay down more firepower at higher speeds. This new versatility is why the table would still have a destroyed result on a 5 rather than just 6 and/or 7 as some have suggested. Also, it makes getting storm bolters and stubbers worthwhile on Leman Russes.

[firestorm]

i still feel that a glancing hit should have SOME chance to do nothing.

1 and below - no effect
2 - crew shaken
3 - crew stunned
4 - immobilized
5 - weapon destroyed
6 - vehicle destroyed
7 - vehicle explodes
8 - vehicle annhilated

glancing hit is -1 to roll
ap- is -1 to roll
1 on pen dice is -1 to roll (the shot blew through the armour, but didn't do anything except scare the shit out of the crew)
penetrating hit is +1 to roll
ap1 is +1 to roll
6 on to pen dice is +1 to roll (critical hit, the shot hit an ammo storage!)
ordinance is +1 to roll

everything stacks. so basiclally, you could, theoretically, have a penetrating hit on an ap1 ordinance weapon that rolled a 6 for armour penetration, which gets you +4 to the roll. that would be...i dunno, a vanquisher cannon on steroids. on the other hand, you could have a -3 modifier for an ap- weapon that rolled 1 for strength and glanced. still simple, nothing like 2nd ed mathhammer, but a bit more...cool, i guess.

for the 1 or 6 modifiers on penetration dice, that's there cause i felt a bit...MORE was needed. it could just as well be 1 means ignore one positive mod and 6 means ignore one negative mod.

[Brother Wolf]

Just because I'd like to beat BG to it once in awhile, (BoLS has been on of my hot spots for ages)... The next round of rumours (http://belloflostsouls.blogspot.com/2008/01/rumors-40k-5th-edition-round-4.html).Shooting
-Blast weapons don't roll to hit, they just scatter. They now operate like template weapons in that any model touched by the blast is hit. No more "roll 4+ for partial" stuff. A unit firing multiple blast weapons (a SM Dev squad being the example) fires like a multiple barrage unit would in 4th edition. Scatter once, then lay the blasts off of the original template. These two things might make up for the lack of a to-hit roll. You don't need to center the hole over someone when you place it before determining scatter. (ED NOTE: This now make IG ML HW Squads of 3 potentiall valuable additions and worth the bump in price. ~BA)

-You can shoot over other squads if you can see over them because of elevation, etc. You can always shoot at vehicles or monstrous creatures over other squads.

-Line of Sight: It's units that block LoS, so you shouldn't worry about spending 45 minutes drawing LOS from each individual trooper to each individual target. You draw LOS from the eyes of the model. Area terrain gives cover saves. There's an entire chapter on ruined buildings and how they affect line of sight (like a mini Cities of Death). I honestly don't remember if 6" of terrain blocks sight or not. (ED NOTE: That's a little more like it! ~BA)

-After shooting and wounding, you can choose to become pinned. You get a +1 to cover save (or a 6+ if you're in the open). It's the "get down!" rule. (ED NOTE: This is a smart move as well, making pinning represent exactly why a unit might pin in a first place. ~BA)

- Flamers: You now determine wounds for all template weapons firing from a squad before you take saves or remove casualties.

-Gets Hot! is back to the 3rd ed version. So that Ork character doesn't have to worry about rolling 3s on his plasma gun. (ED NOTE: Not a smart move if you ask me. Pay the penalty for pushing the gets hot weapon. ~BA)

Assault
-Assaulting in cover: If you assault someone in cover, and you don't have grenades, you now become initiative 1 (instead of them becoming init 10). This works a lot better when more than two units are in combat.

-If you are charged while broken, you make another fall back move immediately. If you don't get away (i.e., they can still reach you), you're destroyed. If you do get away, you get away. (ED NOTE: Um, TOO much like WFB and that is one of the most broken mechanics in Morale. FUCK YOU GW! ~BA)

-Preferred Enemy now allows you to reroll all misses, instead of hitting on a 3+.

Vehicles
-No shooting of defensive weapons if you move full speed.

-Smoke launchers are a 5+ cover save. (ED NOTE: NIIIIICE! (Of course, it's just the new rule for obscurment!) ~BA)

-Vehicles can now get up to a 3+ cover save, depending on what they're hiding behind. (ED NOTE: I think my tank commanders just shit themselves. THIS is almost worth the cost of the Falling back crap earlier. ~BA)

-No re-roll of wounding against transported infantry no matter how far you moved.

-Fire all weapons if you stay still (except Ordnance, it's got special rules). Fast vehicles can fire everything if they move up to 6". If you move, you can fire 1 plus defensive weapons. Fast vehicles can move up to 12" and fire 1 plus defensive. If you move more than 6", you only fire defensive (I think you can still fire defensive weapons here, but I'm not 100% on that). (ED NOTE: Interesting! ~BA)

-Fast vehicles can move up to 18" (their max speed now) and only fire defensive. (ED NOTE: Also interesting! ~BA)

-Vehicles can only fire at one target. I did not see any special rules for sponsons firing at multiple targets.

-Vehicle damage chart: It's about halfway between the glancing and penetrating charts of today (1-2 is the can't shoot/move thing, 3 is weapon, 4 is immobilized, 5-6 destroyed/annihilated). Glance is a -2. If you are glanced, your vehicle can at most be immobilized. (ED NOTE: Kudos! ~BA)

-Transports: If your transport is destroyed, passengers now take a S:4 hit, saves allowed (instead of a 4+). If an open-topped transport is destroyed, it's a S:3 hit because its easier to disembark.

Miscellaneous
-Still saw nothing on 6" plus of area terrain blocking line of sight. You CAN declare certain types of terrain as LoS blocking -- it just has to be done before the game. You also decide what is difficult, what is dangerous, and what is impassable. Certain things can be difficult for one type of model and not difficult for another. So tank traps might be dangerous terrain for vehicles, but count as clear terrain for infantry. A river might be impassable for infantry, but dangerous for vehicles. You just have to decide before you play. I like this, as it gives more power to the players.

-Force weapons now just inflict instant death instead of that weird pseudo-instant death. (ED NOTE: Hmmmm!?!?! ~BA)

-You can still only take one save per guy.

-Yes, allocate wounds before making saves. This will probably encourage larger squads (goodbye, 6 man las-plas). (ED NOTE: YAAY! ~BA)

-Bikes all now get a 3+ cover save for their turbo-boost. So the psy-cannon thing is out the window. (ED NOTE: HOORAY! HUZZAH! F-ING A RIGHT!!! ~BA)

-A unit with Scouts that is inside a vehicle confers that ability to the vehicle. Let the Pathfinders and Possessed Marines rule! (ED NOTE: Interesting! Also smart ~BA)

-Fearless REALLY sucks now. There's no limit to the number of wounds you can take from being outnumbered. 20 to 1? That's 20 armor saves. (ED NOTE: Um, Holy f-ing shite!?!! ~BA)Vehicles are finally getting some flipping punch back. FINALLY!

[BrianGeneral]

LOL, there's no reason to beat me, BA.:P

For the vehicles, it seems that they omitted Skimmer's issue or what?
But as long as the Defensive weapons are still @Strength 4 and lower, it WILL be an issue for most races.
And that's the reason they made such a strange Vehicle damage table for new Orks. But I still value Entangled>Pinning when the vehicle is destroyed. But all @fixed Strength 3 or 4? DO NOT WANT. Now some tougher units that can board vehicles will hardly take wounds......

"-Force weapons now just inflict instant death instead of that weird pseudo-instant death."
Bless and curse. Now DPs are more useful, but then guys like Abaddon will be lots harder to be killed.

But what's the 3rdEd Gets Hot! rule? I didn't recall instantly.

Edit: YAY for the abusement of Fearless units these days. This will give some headache to them.
AND a fixed 3+ Cover Save for TBing Bikes? WTF? This means Ork Bikes got an instant boost in survivability eh? INCINERATORS AND AFP!

[Shoota Fodder]

Well this sounds like allot more fun now. And i like the inability of glancing hits to destroy vehicles.

[Brother Wolf]

Agreed. In many ways, it sounds like the poor, maligned ML gets nerfed and bumped at the same time. In FRAG mode, the scatter is evident, but if you have more than one you can barrage them. The ML can no longer destroy a main battle tank on a front hit, (8vs14=glance), but the Melta can as it gets the bump for AP1 and of course if within half range gets another bump.

Conceptually, the PC dev squad gets a boost. I've used barrage weapons for some time as I know that it mitigates some of the targeting issues. Picture now, however, 4 PC's firing in barrage where ANYTHING under the template is hit. It boggles the mind and seems worth the gets hot risk. DA Devs, bring it home boys! I would imaging the 2 sponson PC's on a Demolisher would gain the same benefit if LOS could be achieved.

[BrianGeneral]

Just did some calculation. If AP1 weapons really got to +1 in teh damage table, it's still possible for them to destroy the vehicle if they rolled a 6 on the damage chart.

So at least Railguns and Combined Fire Prism will still do something against AV14.

[Brother Wolf]

But what's the 3rdEd Gets Hot! rule? I didn't recall instantly.1's only.

[LordAba]

The insta-death thing is nice for my 'nids! Now we have nothing to fear on that front!
Not sure if I like the blast changes. What about twin-linked blasts? Now that I don't have to center the hole over anyone, what happens to the stealth suits/harlies special rules?
Does the pinned thing work before or after casualties are taken?
The no re-roll thing for transports will help, though the S4 hit is going to screw my sisters over.

[SubZero]

-Bikes all now get a 3+ cover save for their turbo-boost. So the psy-cannon thing is out the window. (ED NOTE: HOORAY! HUZZAH! F-ING A RIGHT!!! ~BA)

BUT THE DAEMONIC BIKES MUST BE PURGED...

Interesting set of rumours there - sounds like the original source has seen the new Rulebook in the flesh.

[Shoota Fodder]

Not sure if I like the blast changes. What about twin-linked blasts? Now that I don't have to center the hole over anyone, what happens to the stealth suits/harlies special rules?

Nothing happens because the hole does need to be positioned over a model. The only diference is that it scatters now.

[LordAba]

Hmm... Foot slogging all infantry armies will rock under some of these rules. Imagine a HUGE amount of ork boys...

!) First wave "gets down", and since units block LoS you get your 6 cover against everything.
2) Second wave uses the running rules to leapfrog over the first wave and "gets down".

Take 3-4 waves, all running and "getting down" and you have a nearly unstoppable wall of death!

[Brother Wolf]

Well, I consider the changes to passengers upon explosion to be a good thing and commensurate with the armies themselves. Why should the wound be an arbitrary number instead of something relating to the T of the model being transported? Hey, I'm finishing up the modeling phase of a Mech Sisters list and I have 40 women who will 'suffer' under the new rules, but I don't consider that out of line. They still pack 3+ saves after all.

Consider, if you will, the rate at which transport costs have been dropping in the new dexes. Could it possibly have something to do with the shift in rules and the shift in damage to passengers? Didn't the Ork trukk go up a couple points, (don't have both codices with me at the moment). Couldn't that also have something to do with the S3 hit from open topped vs S4 from enclosed.

I look at these rumours and I review many of the changes in the recent codices and it seems like many pieces of the puzzle are coming together. It also tells me that in all likelihood the crew at GW, who have long garnered my ire for being slipshod editors and putting together a game with seemingly random an haphazard rules, have been play testing for a long time. Once might even ask ones self if they actual shelf life of 4th ed was barely 2 years as it would seem that the shift has been a long one coming.

The commentators at BoLS are griping and grousing a great deal about the rumours, "5th is shaping up to be a mess...we have a lot of detrimental changes made for their own sake...Reintroducing 'real' LOS and eliminating levels is a terrible idea that will just create odd modeling opportunities and arguments...Having just troop as scoring is plain silly. Its a shame that we have had so much hard fought improvement in the game which is just going to be discarded. ", however I see the first real vision in a long time from GW in these rumours. It looks like the [b]gamers[/b[ might actually be returning to power @GW in terms of game design, unseating the accountants from Citadel for whom the models are everything and the game is just a vehicle for selling models.

I've said it many times already, I've been TT gaming for a LONG time. True LOS is far less hassle than people make it out to be and those for whom it is a hassle are the jackasses who are a pain to play against anyway regardless of what the rules are like.

Bring on 5th ed!

[Shoota Fodder]

You messed up your bold tags :p.

ontopic
I fully agree with you BA. Fantasy has far more complicated rules and such, and you don't see many people complain about true LOS and modifiers in that game. And we now add one into 40k and you get complaints? I find it slightly bizzar and annoying. It makes the game more interesting. What would you rather play? A tactical match or a game of spam the best unit and win?

Personaly, i like it :).

[firestorm]

until you run into a triple basilisk, triple whirlie, triple hellhound, triple immolator...you get the idea.

[Brother Wolf]

In the first AC, triple Bassy DID use barrage rules. It was sick, AND it was accurate in terms of how FFE really works.

Now, the whole barrage rules for multiples is something which they will hopefully get squared away. Technically, each bassy is it's own unit, so I doubt they will just get teh barrage rule. I suppose they COULD do it tho, (if models of different units are within 2" of each other and firing blast weapons, each unit may elect to fire in barrage formation. Yadda yadda yadda). Interesting choice, but doubtful.

Now, the question being raised as it is, however, will the ML/GL combo in a normal guard squad be allowed to do so? If I fire Krak, I use BS. If, however, I fire Frag, can I roll to hit with one and then barrage the 2nd, even though they are different weapons? This could potentially open up some real validity for the ML/GL combo, (which I use for Steel Legion fluff reasons).

Hmmmmm.

DOUBLE POSTtriple hellhound, triple immolatorBlast weapons get barrage, not template weapons.

[Grabnutz]

I've said it many times already, I've been TT gaming for a LONG time. True LOS is far less hassle than people make it out to be and those for whom it is a hassle are the jackasses who are a pain to play against anyway regardless of what the rules are like.

Agreed, I never use those rules in my gaming group, we always rely on LoS, makes a hell of alot more sense.
On the Trukk thing - since you had to arm the old one, its a minimum 35pts, which is the base cost of the new trukk already armed with a big shoota, so its actually the same cost for a much better vehicle with the ramshackle rule.

[moleytov]

Most of these changes are good... except for one thing, AV 14 is now all but unstoppable - It is now even more impossible to kill a monolith... and Eldar will have to pay through the nose for brightlances to take down tanks such as hammerheads... (two guys where I am play 3 hammerheads and 3+ devilfish a piece).

And a monolith? yeah - I have no option but to get firedragons in a falcon.
None at all.

[SubZero]

Haywires? Bank Shot Prisms? Autarch (comes with all grenades)? Eldritch Storm? etc

[ZellFish]

That new Fearless bit sounds really good.. I'm also interested in the psychic powers just running an instant death now.

[Brother Wolf]

AV 14 is now all but unstoppableAV14 SHOULD be unstoppable! Or at the least, really damn hard to put down. So, to put down the emperor's finest, one must;

1- Bring S9+ (not a problem since the whole game is built around Las/Plas)
2- Bring S8+ Melta weapons at half range
3- Bring S8+ AP1 weapons
4- Bring S7+ Lance weapons

Thunderhammers in the hands of Terminators now require backup from something with a Chainfist for assault to crack AV14. Of course, vs rear armor, that will ONLY matter vs Monolith or Land Raider, (speaking of which, my twin LRC's w/ Blessed Hull just became worth the points).

And speaking of the monolith, WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND BOTHERS?!?! Focus on phase out. And if they remove phase out as some of the rumours indicate, then I imagine Monolith might get a face lift to match.

[Full_ork]

My only issue with armor 14 being so strong is with heavy tank armies. Though at least with AC's the back armor is handleable. BUt I worry about a crusader heavy army.

[Brother Wolf]

I won't argue there. Consider, however, that a pair of LRC's is over 500pts, (well over). Unstoppable, but also unscorable, (likely, anyway, assuming the new troop rules hold true). I would like for my 250+ pt vehicle to have some merit in the game other than a pick fire magnet.

[Full_ork]

I agree, but if those armor 14 tanks kill a few squads of guys or knock them less then half so they aren't scoring units, they will be an issue.

[BrianGeneral]

Same as Monoliths. People always say "focus on Phasing Out first", yeah. But if it drops into your line (it won't die if it falls into enemy unit) and provides as a Transport, then it'll be an issue against these obsencely hard-to-kill machines.

Back to topic. Is it just me or someone else will love and hate the new FW rule?

[DinoDoc]

I would like for my 250+ pt vehicle to have some merit in the game other than a pick fire magnet.Considering how hard they will be to put down under the new rules, your fire magnets will be delivering a world class beatdown be it in the form of the weapons it has or in the form of thier cargo.

[firestorm]

which they should, for the points they cost. marines took land raiders up against chaos titans during the heresy, they SHOULD be dead'ard.

[Fannin]

Mmmmmm, triple Russ.

[BrianGeneral]

It seems that Broadsides will regain thier place in the army then. Hammerheads are just suck in comparison due to thge Skimmer/Defense Weapon nerf.

[Fannin]

A highly mobile and much more survivable platform made less effective than a static single infantry model? What a crime. ;)

[BrianGeneral]

Broadside squads are 1-3 suit per squad.
Being said, when in 3rdEd they're great because of Screening.

[firestorm]

yeah, but in the grim darkness of 3rd ed there was only cheese...

[FerociousBeast]

Being said, when in 3rdEd they're great because of Screening.Ah ha, but that works both ways now. They'll have to be on a hill to see over their own units, which means they'll be visible to the enemy as well. True LOS is a much better system.

I like the sound of these rumors. Has there been anything new on whether it will or will not be this year?

[BrianGeneral]

If Battlesuits aren't taller than FWs for LOS issues, then GW=win. Since the real LOS is used (persumably), a squad of Broadsides behind a wall of FWs can't see through them? Great.

[the_almighty_moo]

i have to admit, i can never remember the vehicle damage chart, if they change too much though it'll just be boring, like this forced march thing. damn why dont they just add movement values like in 2nd edition and just make it a march move like in WFB? :-\

[Doohicky]

Some new and some older rumours from 40k online

Some dude on 40konline wrote:
Very interesting.

Some observations:

Blast markers now hit if they cover any part of the base. This is a nice boost for Frag Missiles, and Ordnance.

The term 'model is much more explicitly defined than before. This is a good sign.

'Running' works exactly like Fleet of Foot does now.

They explicitly say you can't shoot a Space Marine's back banner. That's good to have explained since I play with some obtuse players.

"Models are not allowed to fire through the gaps in an intervening unit."

You can shoot over friends if you're on a hill. This is done via the Laser Pointer method to see if the hill is high enough to not clip the heads of a friendly unit ahead of you. You can also shoot through your own unit with no problems. The 'Covering Fire' rule cuts down on some obvious abuses - but this still looks problematic to me.

BS6+ works by providing a reroll when a one is rolled. e.g. 2/6 2/5 2/4, etc.

Majority toughness is still used.

Allocating wounds is model by model. This means all wounds must be rolled individually - not just special/heavy weapons and sergeants. This is because a failed saving throw of a particular trooper could affect line of sight or range of subsequent firing units or knock the unit out of coherency (EDIT: nope, they allow you to remove another model with an identical stat-line (p 23), things aren't as bad as they looked from this page alone). This looks like it could seriously slow the game down.

Cover is better than before. It ranges from 5+ - 3+ and is generally 1 better than similar cover was in 4th.

If you're deep in cover in area terrain, your opponent gets a cover save. The way wounds are allocated makes partial cover simple to resolve.

You can elect to be Pinned on your subsequent turn to get a +1 cover save. It's an interesting option.

They reversed the fluff rationale for heavy weapons' saves - either he was the only one trained or the weapon was damaged.

That's movement and shooting. I'll post general impressions/rumours from other sections as I read them.

Weapons

Rapid Fire remains 12", not 1/2 range as Tau players want. Blast weapons don't roll to hit - it scatters a d6. The rules for multiple blasts strike me a tad unruly though.

Gets Hot! is only on a 1.

Multiple templates are done by counting all the hits first, then allocating wounds, etc.

All Sniper weapons hit on a 2+, wound on a 4+ and are Pinning and Rending.

Rending - 6 to wound automatically causes an AP2 wound regardless of toughness. Against vehicles you add a d3 on a 6 to pen.

You can only assault the unit you shot at.

Wounds are allocated like with shooting.

The rumours that combat resolution was like in Fantasy don't match up with this draft - it's about the same as 4th ed.

Friends falling back can trigger a morale check. This is big for Guard and Tau.

You can shoot while falling back.

You can bonuses to regrouping checks for being inside area terrain or not being able to see the enemy.

Characters with retinues cannot leave them.

Characters are treated as a separate unit in close combat. (Note that the new wound allocation does lessen the power of hidden 'Fists, so they've moved up in relative terms).

Perils of the Warp is an automatic wound with no armour or cover save allowed - per previous rumours.*

City Ruins are area terrain. Different heights are measured base to base as usual. You use movement to move up and down and any excess beyond what's needed to move onto a level is wasted and you can't end up between levels.

Blasts are fired at a particular level.

Monstrous Creatures get Move Through Cover.

Vehicles have the 'Relentless' special rule that allows them to fire weapons as if stationary. This clears up the ambiguity about Rapid Fire weapons. (Bikers get this too.)

If you move you can only fire one weapon, except for defensive weapons (S4 or lower). There's no exception for Tau or pintle-weapons.

Line of sight is measured from the weapon's barrel.2*

Other rumours accurate.

Dedicated transports can transport other units later. Yay!

Ramming rules for vehicles. Should be fun to do Gorkamorka in the middle of a fight when Orks fight Orks.

The 'Eternal Warrior' special rule means immunity to instant death. Remember that Daemon Herald have this special rule and people wondered what it meant.

'Fleet' lets you assault if you run in the movement phase. Great for Gaunts, of mediocre value for Guardians.

Missions as just stated. Only non-vehicle Troops count as scoring. This is huge, obviously.

Army lists are not secret.

There's a mishap table if you deepstrike within 1" of an enemy model.

No mention of Escalation.

DEPLOYMENT:

Ok the deployment chart isn't as complex (surprise!) as I thought, so I will try to outline it quickly:

1-2 - Spearhead (table quarters) as usual, except that is seems that the person that won the initial roll deploys their entire force and then the other player deploys theirs. The person who 'won' the initial roll then goes first.

3-4 - Pitched Battle (long table edges) Normal deployment (well 12" from the middle of the table anyway, can't remember the rules from current ed.) Again, winner deploys first, then the other player then the 'winner' goes first.

5-6 Dawn of War (Table Halves) Same as above, except you place 1HQ and 2 Troops (including infiltrators). Everyone else is placed in reserve and comes on in turn 1; and the first turn is night fighting.

[Eldanesh]

DEPLOYMENT:

Ok the deployment chart isn't as complex (surprise!) as I thought, so I will try to outline it quickly:

1-2 - Spearhead (table quarters) as usual, except that is seems that the person that won the initial roll deploys their entire force and then the other player deploys theirs. The person who 'won' the initial roll then goes first.

3-4 - Pitched Battle (long table edges) Normal deployment (well 12" from the middle of the table anyway, can't remember the rules from current ed.) Again, winner deploys first, then the other player then the 'winner' goes first.

5-6 Dawn of War (Table Halves) Same as above, except you place 1HQ and 2 Troops (including infiltrators). Everyone else is placed in reserve and comes on in turn 1; and the first turn is night fighting.

Whilst in principle this sounds good, i have to wonder at the accuracy, as the Eldar Autarch's special ability becomes totally redundant. Bearing in mind that it is common opinion that the newer codecii have been written with 5th ed in mind, perhaps there is still some tweeking we have not seen?

[FerociousBeast]

"Only non-vehicle Troops count as scoring."

Can this really mean what it sounds like it means?

[Full_ork]

You can only assault the unit you shot at.

Damn, I was hoping that would change since Tankbustas have to shoot the nearest seen vechicle.

ANd firestorm, Fluff dosn't count when compared with rules.

BA Trucks are like 5-10 points more. Worth the points increase though.

[firestorm]

yep. guard got a BIG leg up.

fullork: i know, but i'm saying that land raiders are supposed to be as close to a super-heavy as marines get, they should be hard to kill.

[Doohicky]

Eldanesh> I would be pretty surprised if there is no tweaking to be done. I would hazard a guess that they have the rules all but finished, apart from minor tweaks here and there to polish it up.

Just a quick question, do you mean the Autarch's reserve roll special rule? If so, I don't see what changes. He can still convey it to swoops, and I am sure you can still have depstrikers etc held on normal reserve rolls. I believe that the mission rules above are just a very quick synopsis.

[BrianGeneral]

"Rapid Fire remains 12", not 1/2 range as Tau players want."
"Friends falling back can trigger a morale check. This is big for Guard and Tau."
"If you move you can only fire one weapon, except for defensive weapons (S4 or lower). There's no exception for Tau or pintle-weapons."

Simply 3 words for GW: W.T.F?
Now I'm pretty sure that the 5thEd are made to benefit MEQ the most. With the new running rule, lowered defensive weapon Strength, Pinning test for Transports being destroyed instead of Entangled, Forcekill=>Instakill, Mishap table when being DS within 1" of enemy......More can be raised.
Simply said, DO NOT WANT.

ps. I had controlled myself not to shout "F*** Y**" directly.

[firestorm]

run - benefits EVERYONE.

lowered d-weapon s: alright, so EVERYONE got a nerf. no pred destructors taking down a squad per turn while moving at 6"

pinning test for destroyed transports - just because devilfish can't be penetrated...

mishap - ds'ing terminators?

[BrianGeneral]

I have to say I never like how this 5thEd work at all, at least from these rumours. MEQ armies are now so popular, widespread and had gone quite a few related changes (normal Marines, BT, DA, BA, CSM) when compared with other races. Once i find that these rules seem to benefit those guys instead of treating all races *relatively* equally, well, what can I say about these coming rules?

For static armies like IG, who need to run? Enemy got to run will just cause more enemies to arrive against one's firing line at the same time, and armies like mass Marines will certainly win over this issue. (Each are tough as nails to be removed already)

The vehicle sponsons. Everyone got nerfed, yeah. But LRCs will be more popular because its primary weapons are those Hurricane Bolters. Given that AV14 are hard as nails in these rules, here comes the steamroller. Just say my Tau: They already lacks AT weapons, and now tehre's a thing that murders your scoring units while are hard to be killed? Tau and Eldar's Fast & Furious Mech army will get toasted against near-static armies, for they paid lots, had less model AND yet their effectiveness dropped drastically.

Entangled is a fair rule, at least when compared with taking Pinning tests when a transport is destroyed. This means Fearless units (Cult troops, Deathwing, Death Company, etc) can get out of the wreckages more easily instead of other normal troopers? Simply nonsense.

As for Deep Strike issues. Well, aside from Terminators, Jump Pack units, Speeders, etc can all do so. While other races also have DS units, they're generally less popular (like Flayed Ones) or little people will use such method (like Tau Battlesuits), so when compared with DS units in MEQ armies and their popularity of being used (DS or not), great job.

I just read some discussions from Warseer and it seems that Swarm Bugs will hurt as well. Rending nerfed, only MC attacks and Warp Blasts can penetrate AV14, troops got slaughtered when they're becoming Scoring units......meh, you get what I mean.

[Nid Boy]

:cry: glancing hits can no longer destroy vehicles....

bit detrimental to the nid's venom cannon, my carnifex armies only ranged way of taking down landraiders & monoliths..

[Full_ork]

Brian we both know GW knows you play Tau and specificly made those three changes to piss you off.

I'm laughing over your reaction though, I agree that's all rough against Tau.

Wow, Nidboy I didn't even think of that. I may end up changing how my carni's are equipped. The venom cannon no longer seems worth it. Thinking about it, The barbed strangler can't do it either *cry*

I'm really going to have to think of something for antitank with my nidzilla now.

Entangled is a fair rule, at least when compared with taking Pinning tests when a transport is destroyed.

Well, Entaglement crippled DE and Orks becasue the fast vechicles are weak. Orks got this fixed because the truck ignores that rule now.

I'd be ok with a solution like what happened now, leave the entanglement how it is, but give both DE and Orks a semiway around it (as orks have now). That way they aren't crippled, but at the same time fearless marines are still affected.

[BrianGeneral]

LOL@Full_Ork. Of course these are my reaction upon first sight, but then these may not be too much issue (my Tau army is already complete with just some more addons), I'll jus take time to learn how to survive in the new rule.

But generally speaking, these rules are just give more advantage to MEQs while nerfing other armies. See my next post after that.

Suddenly thought about Crons. the new Vehicle Damage table means Crons are now begging for more Heavy Destroyers because generally speaking Gauss Weapons got nerfed.

Edit: With the new DE codex probably up on schedule soon enough, I'm sure they'll work for that issue. But at least they have to keep Entanglement.

[LordAba]

Open-topped vehicles are immune to entangled. It would work rather well, I would imagine.

Well over half of Games-Workshops sales come from marines and chaos marines. Of course they are going to be biased toward them! :)

[FerociousBeast]

That line of thinking is bull. They should want to diversify the market as much as possible, so if anything, they'd boost other armies.

[Brother Wolf]

If the old rule where an immobile vehicle gets a 2nd immobile result = veh destroyed, then Necrons will be fine, it'll just take a bit longer to put down the most serious threats. Gauss roll 6 gets an auto-glance, 2nd auto-glance runs chance of finishing the vehicle off. Perhaps worse now than before, but not devastating.

And since vehicles are tougher across the board, how will Mech armies take it in the pants? Consider that my Wave Serpents, (I don't use Falcons, I never have), or some other skimmer loaded with Dire Avengers or some other troops race to a point, drop troops off and they all blaze away in the usual Fish of Fury/Serpents of Savagery/Valkyries of Violence/Raiders of Rage tactic and unseat the foe, (Odds are still damn good). While the troops hold the objective, the transport can race off to grab a WHOLLY DIFFERENT UNIT and bring them back to help hold the objective only 2 turns later. All the while doing so under the potential power of a better vehicle damage table.

Railheads haven't really lost a step, but now are going to have to share the battlefield a bit. A BS4, S10 skimmer which could only be glanced by S6 or better was pretty fucking powerful compared to the BS3, S8 terrestrial tank which could be glanced on S6 and penetrated on S7 or better. We've discussed this before, I play Tau, Eldar, Necron in addition to my Imperial forces. Tau & Eldar have long had a VERY specific edge for the points and it's about time that was addressed. Skimmers will still be very strong, but they wont' be unbalanced for the points compared to their terrestrial kin.

Some of the things admittedly may harm certain units more than others. Overall, however, I see a great deal of thought into the current state of game play, (which to be blunt sucks balls compared to other systems, incl. WFB), and many of the things coming down the pipe seem to address the most glaring and problematic areas of gameplay.

Will it be perfect? Hell no. GW struggles to do a halfway decent job with the rules they do publish for any system. I do think this will make 40K more enjoyable overall in the long run. It just means that some things which have been no brainers or otherwise taken for granted in the current system will need to be reviewed and revised by players.

[Doohicky]

Brian General: Have you missed the boost that the Tau have got with their jetpack units?
Most shooty units that are screened from being shot are then made redundant themselves. But If you have Firewarriors screening any of your jetpack units, they can hop over, shoot, and hop back again. Meaning excellent survivability. (Although not for the fire warriors :P

[theshadowduke]

I have a copy of the leaked playtest rules, and I frankly am not impressed. It is a huge boost to assault armies, a massive nerf to vehicles, and large shooting armies (read IG) simply will not be able to cope with running assault troops screened not only by cheap troops from their codex, but from my own troops.

[Brother Wolf]

So, a revised damage table that removes the ability to score vehicle destroyed for glancing hits and allowing a possible 3+ cover save is a NERF to vehicles? That's a joke, right?

It is obvious that they want to get people in assault faster, but doing so comes at a price based on the rumours we've seen. Run is a good idea, but has limits as to when it can be done and what can be done after.

While I don't have a leaked play test copy, (and I'd keep that under wraps if I were you), everything I've seen in the rumours indicates that forces can choose shooty or assault as a core competency, but those who find a way to balance that will be the ones standing victorious at the end of the day. I love my IG, but to say they are nothing but large shooty is doing them a horrible disservice.

It also seems like they are forcing people to play on tables that look like something other than Nebraska for a change. 25% terrain folks, no 1%. Get some hills, some trees, some watch towers. In WFB, if you start without a hill somewhere in your deployment zone, there will definitely be a problem getting all of your shooters where they can draw a good field of fire. I guess because we play our WFB and 40K tables the same way, we never think about it, (until we go to a shop and play).

We all reserve judgement until we have rules in hand, but I've seen few things if any from the rumours that leads me to believe this is anything other than a vast improvement to the currently flawed 4th.

[Shoota Fodder]

For static armies like IG, who needs to run?

Static guard armies= Crap

To be honest for any guard player, that is where you start off. A wall of guns, but once you get the ropes, you end up assault and menouver based like most people i know. IG is not a shooty army so to speak. It's just the majority of army lists are. At least it will put some more thought into what IG players actually do rather than the game being deployment and pray.

[Full_ork]

Not to sound offensive, but how is IG not a shooty army? What does it have besides maby ogryns that is assualty.

[firestorm]

it's not a GUNLINE army. it's a SHOOTY army, but that can be short-range shooty or gunline. deep strike and mech are both decent options for guard, in the form of airborne and mechanadiers respectively.

admittedly, mechanadiers isn't the best army combo, but it's a decent mech army. 2 plasma guns in each grenadier squad all packed into multilas/hb/stubber chims put out a good amount of firepower, and 3xplas mech vets are just as good. back that up with 3x lemans, and that's a good maneuverer army.

the advantages of an airborne army is obvious. you can bring up to 55 guardsmen screaming down on someone's head with one roll. that's a maximum of 9 plasma guns and 5 lascannons.

[MooFreaky]

It is definately possible to make a good static Guard army. It's more that people don't know how to use it and don't think about it. Static Guard requires ALOT of thought and consideration so you can place your forces with maximum efficiency. But people tend to struggle with it, thinking it is simple to grasp and they can do whatever they want.

[Chip]

I'm loving this whole new theme about vehicles being harder to take down.
And whats this I hear about vehicles ramming each other? Its carmageddon on the tabletop!!!!!!

[Major_Blackhart]

I like vehicles being much tougher (the higher armor class ones anyway). It makes them much more fun to use if that's the case.

[Shoota Fodder]

The new vehicle rules sound pretty sweet. I mean the ability to ram? And not the strange impossibly strange tank-shock ram? Well if it makes a whole new rule for it then i'm all in.

[DoomKnights]

They are taking from First~Second edition for the ram. It's like taking something old and spit shining and then making it new?

[BlurredEdge]

So with the (rumored) vehicle changes my riotously fun to play but horribly uncompetitive Daemon Hunter (Pure GK) 1500 list might stand a chance? (I run with two vanilla Land Raiders and a Crusader, yes 50% of my list is Land Raiders... I know I know, shush its fun) Sweet! I might not have to break out the Sisters whenever I want a win. (not that I have anything against sisters in any way shape or form)

In all seriousness though, Land Raiders should be quite a bit tougher to take down than they are now, and they certainly under-perform in comparison to a comparable points cost MC.

[Eldanesh]

Eldanesh> I would be pretty surprised if there is no tweaking to be done. I would hazard a guess that they have the rules all but finished, apart from minor tweaks here and there to polish it up.

Just a quick question, do you mean the Autarch's reserve roll special rule? If so, I don't see what changes. He can still convey it to swoops, and I am sure you can still have depstrikers etc held on normal reserve rolls. I believe that the mission rules above are just a very quick synopsis.

Everyone else is placed in reserve and comes on in turn 1

Doohicky - sorry for the delay in replying. The game mechanic mentioned in my second quote is what is was referring to - if every reserve automatically came on the table in turn one, it would make the Autarch's bonus to the reserve role pointless (with Swooping Hawk power intercept being the only use for it)

[BrianGeneral]

That said, the making of 5thEd should be recent decisions since these older codices had not matched even the slight chance of the possible newer version. Take IA3 as example, when it's written it's already supporting the newer Tau Empire but not the old one.

I think, unless GW tries to update ALL codices at once after the 5thEd is out, some armies (or some of their forms) will suffer.

[moleytov]

On the other hand, you say the autarch gets a nerf, but what about those characters with BS of over 5? clearly they were thinking about 5ed before they wrote and released codex:eldar - they must have been aware that the ability would get made less useful...

(and it still gives the increased strategy rating)

[n0z3k1ll3r]

On the other hand, you say the autarch gets a nerf, but what about those characters with BS of over 5? clearly they were thinking about 5ed before they wrote and released codex:eldar - they must have been aware that the ability would get made less useful...Not necessarily, the DE codex was released in 3rd Ed with chars with BS 6 and 7, yet they didn't add modifiers for 4th Ed.

[theshadowduke]

So, a revised damage table that removes the ability to score vehicle destroyed for glancing hits and allowing a possible 3+ cover save is a NERF to vehicles? That's a joke, right?


No the massive nerf comes in the new version of the movement and shooting ruels, along with what classifies as a defensive weapon now. Also remember that your own models will screen your opponents, so you cant hide your tank behind your infantry and still be able to shoot with it.

[LordAba]

o you cant hide your tank behind your infantry and still be able to shoot with it.

Tanks are taller then infantry, so I'm sure you'll be able to shoot over them.

[MooFreaky]

Also remember that it will just take a new way of using tanks. Initially you will plow along at higer speeds, firing your main cannon. Then you find a suitable position and fire everything. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
The fact that your vehicles are more survivable now means that it is a far more plausable tactic.

It is nothing but the usual fears and bitching that happens before and immediately after the release of any new set of rules. People fear change, it's natural.

I mean look at the Orks, the race that needed updating probably the most. There were still a handful of people bitching about that one. It will always happen, wait and see what happens and then adapt. Once you are used to it everything will be fine again.

[BrianGeneral]

That aside, I think the current Entangled rule will work good enough. Lower Entanglement to Pinning Tests? Hey, that means Death Company wil pull out of wreckages easily than normal Marines? Or Deathwing better than normal Terminators? This rule is bugged, and means High Leadership armies (especially MEQ armies) will benefit most from this rule.

[Brother Wolf]

We're about to see all Ld stand on it's head and dance and it certainly does seem that Tau & IG will take it in the pants. Still, I reserve judgment until we see the overall effect.

In response to shadowduke, Aba & Moo already nailed it. Vehicles are changing BIG time and only those who don't have a frame of reference to more than one army and more than one edition of 40K have trouble seeing that the overall changes are very positive and very balancing. Taken in a vaccum, yeah I'm a little pissed that my PredA w/ HB sponsons or my LR with 3xHB's or Las/SHB are suddenly neutered in terms of mobile firepower. However, EVERYBODY is suffering this fate, not just me. Every single tank in 40K has to choose to move & fire one weapon or park & fire everything. Since SMF is being changed, this does put the skimmers into a different role than before, but their movement/shooting table is still adequate, so I would venture to say a skimmer moving more than 6" can still fire more weapons than a terrestrial tank can, but the terrestrial tank needs to park in cover to get the proper save whereas the skimmer gets his save so long as it's mobile.

I've been rolling dice for almost 30 years. I've played ALOT of games and 3rd/4th ed 40K, despite my love for the models & fluff, are horribly inefficient and woefully unbalanced. With 5th ed fix everything? Of course not, this is still GW after all. It does seem, however, that some of the most glaring inconsistencies are being viewed and address, at least where vehicles are concerned. No more glancing vehicles destroyed and no more auto-glance to SMF alone are worth it in my book.

[smasher32]

I've been rolling dice for almost 30 years. I've played ALOT of games and 3rd/4th ed 40K, despite my love for the models & fluff, are horribly inefficient and woefully unbalanced. With 5th ed fix everything? Of course not, this is still GW after all. It does seem, however, that some of the most glaring inconsistencies are being viewed and address, at least where vehicles are concerned. No more glancing vehicles destroyed and no more auto-glance to SMF alone are worth it in my book.

I know this is slightly off topic, but which armies (as of 4th Edition) would you say are the most unbalanced (strongest/weakest armies)?

Back on topic: as a Tau player, the defensive weapons and entanglement frustrates me, but maybe this means GW will give us a nice revision to the codex or at least an errata...

[Avatar 720]

I don't like vehicle destroyed being taken off the glancing table, it should be, a glancing hit still hits and if it is a las-cannon, should easily rip through, nothing should bounce off harmlessly, especially las-cannon shots, why don't they just remove glancing instead? It seems that a glancing hit can destroy a weapon or immobilise a vehicle easily enough but it can't destroy it somehow... it doesn't make sense...

[Brother Wolf]

I don't like vehicle destroyed being taken off the glancing table, it should be, a glancing hit still hits and if it is a las-cannon, should easily rip through, nothing should bounce off harmlessly, especially las-cannon shots, why don't they just remove glancing instead? It seems that a glancing hit can destroy a weapon or immobilise a vehicle easily enough but it can't destroy it somehow... it doesn't make sense...How so? If you view the roll of a the dice as fate deciding how good/bad something can get, then why is it so difficult to believe that a weapon of such awesome power as the Lascannon might, through pure chance, fail to strike and destroy a vehicle? Consider rolling a 2 for your penetration roll vs a Rhino as the Lascannon failing to draw a good bead on the target while the target was lucky enough to hit a sand drift and jostle just so as to avoid the full impact of the blast.

The main problem with allowing glancing hits to destroy vehicles has always been what it takes to score a glancing hit. Let's talk briefly about the difference between a missile launcher striking dead on against armor 14 while a storm bolter pops a luck shot against armor 10. In both cases, each weapon requires a 6 to glance. And yet, each weapon stands a chance at utterly destroying the vehicle in question. Ludicrous and laughable. A 40mm bazooka vs the front armor on a Tiger was suicide, yet a .45cal tommy gun against it's rear armor should be able to detonate it? Of course not. That isn't to say that the bazooka couldn't score a luck shot against the vision slit or the rotator cuff of the turret just the same as the tommy gun might damage the exhaust or rocochet vs a rapidly closing command hatch.

It's just a game and I normally shy away from real work parallels. Still, I have long helf the sincere belief that the vehicle damage tables and by extension the proliferation of weapons which could glance all but the hardiest tanks were a huge problem in 40K. Infantry don't piss their pants in the face of an 80 ton metal behemoth for nothing, and yet 3rd/4th editions' vehicle rules made tanks nothing more than clown shoes.

As far as balanced/unbalanced, I'll keep it simple. Infantry is balanced towards MEQ (T4/Sv3+), while vehicles are balanced towards Skimmers. The problem here is, while infantry rules balanced towards MEQ can still be mitigated by applying more bodies to the situation, (ie 2-3 guardsmen vs a single MEQ), the same cannot be done for vehicles. First and foremost, one can only get so many vehicles into a list. Second, the skimmer transports of the Xenos, (specifically referring to the Serpent and the Fish), are vastly superior to any terrestrial equivalent. The open topped vehicles of the DE & Orks have an assault bonus, but the worthwhile value of the Orks are only just now being shown through the Ramshackle rule and if the DE forces weren't skimmers, they'd be all but worthless. WHich leaves us the Rhino, (which can at least self repair), and the Chimera. The Chimera is a stron gun platform, packing alot of firepower and reasonable FA. However, it's SA/RA can be glanced by a bolter. How many bolters in a MEQ force? Factoring in Tau & Necrons for base weapon shooting strength, the lowly Rhino/Chimera is lucky to even make it out of it's own deployment zone.

[Avatar 720]

Bolters fire armour penetrating shells that explode, 'armour penetrating' and 'explode' are the key things here, a bolter shell can pierce armour and if it explodes once through, shit will happen, a 6 on a glancing symbolises how the shell penetrated the armour and ruptured the fuel tank or something, hence it's low chance of happening. Bolters can pierce terminator armour, so it's just common sense it can pierce vehicle armour too, terminators are sometimes walking tanks due to their 2+ save and a 5+ invulnerable, they can stand up to an awful lot.

[Fannin]

...via the occasional lucky hit, which is exactly what a failed armor save represents. A failed save vs a bolter by a Terminator most certainy does NOT represent the bolter round blowing through the Terminator's armor.

[OxfordOrks27]

Thats how armor works just because it stops a round once doesn't mean it will stop it a second time. Every time armor takes a hit it's being compromised. Just like body armor will stop a 9mm. However shoot a couple of 9mm rounds near the spot the first struck, and suddenly they will tear right through it.
Same thing with Terminator armor. It may stop the first 5 bolter rounds, but it's very likely the 6th round is going to blow right through the compromised armor.

A 2+ save basically means it should effectively stop 5 out of 6 rounds that hit it with enough force to damage it.

However until they actually print the new codex I consider everything to be just hear-say. I'm sure they've been play testing a lot of different things.
Whatever comes of it you'll have you standard percentage of people who cry foul, and leave to play something else. Then the people who absolutely love the new rules. Then the other 90% who'll just adapt enjoy a little new variety, and keep right on trucking.

[Escapehatch]

Bolters fire armour penetrating shells that explode, 'armour penetrating' and 'explode' are the key things here, a bolter shell can pierce armour and if it explodes once through, shit will happen, a 6 on a glancing symbolises how the shell penetrated the armour and ruptured the fuel tank or something, hence it's low chance of happening. Bolters can pierce terminator armour, so it's just common sense it can pierce vehicle armour too, terminators are sometimes walking tanks due to their 2+ save and a 5+ invulnerable, they can stand up to an awful lot.

You're missing the key word here, and that word is "glancing."

a 6 on a glancing symbolises how the shell penetrated the armour

How can a glancing hit penetrate armor?

The whole idea behind a glancing hit is that it was not a direct one. This is why it can destroy weapons or immobilize the vehicle, rather than flat out destroy it. We can assume that glancing hits are categorized as any hit that did not breach the main hull, but instead hit a track or a turret joint, or any weak exterior component. Or in the case of a projectile round it could have slammed into the vehicle at an angle that would thoroughly shake the vehicle and the crew inside, but had no hope of punching through the armor.

[MooFreaky]

Factoring in Tau & Necrons for base weapon shooting strength, the lowly Rhino/Chimera is lucky to even make it out of it's own deployment zone.
Personally, I feel that people are using Rhinos wrong. People still hold the old "Rhino Rush" techniques as the only way to use a Rhino. And Razorback usage is even worse.

A vehicle like this should not be rushing the front lines like I see all the time. Instead they should be doing some transporting behind the scenes. Taking troops to a position that is of value that is not directly toward the enemy, allowing them to take up cover there.
And then, if needed, pulling them off the line. It is possible for a Rhino to rarely, if ever, reveal itself. And when people see it moving sideways, rather than right toward them they are far less likely to shoot at it.

Razorbacks should be used to move into positions to channel the opponent. Find areas where the opponent will be in a turn or two, unload your troops so they can get stationed and have the Rhino sit in with them so it can unleash it's big weapons.
It's another vehicle that people love to send straight into enemy lines or operating as a lone tank killer, and people get upset when it dies miserably.

That said, I agree that the new rules are definately needed as they are still too weak regardless, as are all vehicles.

The whole point of "glancing hits" is that they do not penetrate the armour, they bounce off it. They make an impact of note, but the shot ricochets off the main hull. This will cause dents and problems, but nothing too significant. It does, however, mean anything not protected by the main hull is in danger. The ricochet can easily bounce into the main gun, or other external item/system. Or the shot can just hit them directly, while the glancing hit means it would have bounced off the hull (thus no kill shot) it doesn't mean it can't strike the guns or treads. These will not cause a ricochet and will take the hit dead on doing damage. This is why you can still damage to the vehicle but not kill it. You cannot kill something if the shot is bouncing off the main hull, as all the vital stuff is inside it.

[Sansa]

I am sorry I can not contribute much to the conversation, but I am wondering as to whether or not you guys believe it is worth my time to learn the current rules as a new player, or to wait for the 5th ed to come out and learn those (therefore preventing confusion)?

[DinoDoc]

Considering there's like 3 different versions of the proported Rules in pdf form running around, what is this discussion based on?

[theshadowduke]

BTW brother, I may be ranting about the stupid infantry screening tanks (which they do by the rules I have) and still being able to be shot, I do understand that every army takes a huge hit with that, except skimmers.

Tau get hit hard by the new SMF rule, except that they at least have decent armor, but the new defensive weapon rule neutered them. SMF is going to hurt all skimmers, though the eldar get away with less of a nerf than others.

Ld is only going to be important if you lose an assault, since moral modifiers continue to stack until auto fail, though fearless units now have to be more careful since theirs continues to stack till forever.

And while screening may make people think more about deployment and shooting lanes, its more of just a strait boost to assault armies, which IMHO dont need it. I believe that assault is already too powerful in 40k, and think that it should be more about shooting, not "who can get into CC first and get the charge". Some armies are getting a huge nerf, IG come to mind. However some make off slightly better, like MEQ's. The problem with that is there are already enough MEQ players, why give them a main ruleset buff when they dont particularly need it?

Small, elite, CC oriented armies are really getting a huge boost from the 5th ed rules I have, which is why, if it is in effect when Vegas rolls around this year, I wont be attending. I am currently re-building my guard army after selling it off to buy my marines, but since guard are getting a huge nerf with these rules, I cant be competitive with them in the new edition.

Lots of people will suffer under the new rules, but since many suffer and a handful get a huge boost, I just dont think of it as a wise decision. I dont want to see nothing but blood angles running at me for the next 5 years.

[Cassidy85]

Perhaps you should wait until you see an officially GW sanctioned 5th Ed ruleset before you start formulating such opinions...there will be plenty of time hating (or maybe loving, who knows) the new rules once they are actually there, no reason to start ranting on them straight ahead.