# 5th edition



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

I've just got back from my local GW games club and we had an intro to 5th ed and some of us older patrons played games using the new rules and all I can say is there very interesting!


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

I have done the same.

Counter assault makes things...interesting. You end up charging a unit and having it counter charge you before you realize the counter charge has placed it in assault range of a second unit of yours.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

Which is great for my Worldeaters. I like the cover save for vehicles rule too no need to take extra armour any more. And there is the tank shock rule making a return and the vehicle battering ram rule too all great fun.


----------



## Revelations (Mar 17, 2008)

Be honest... wound allocation, thoughts? It just seems this would slow the game down immensly and continue to trivialize individual upgrades.


----------



## Chase.man259 (Apr 30, 2008)

The ramming sems it will be quite a kick. After you drop off your marines send the rhino on a suicidal charge of doom. but they seem like some well balanced rules.

P.S. i dont thing that only troops being scoring is smart but whatever.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

It didn't slow the game down at all and that included an assault with 48 plus attack dice being rolled. So honestly I don't think it will affect the game unless you are going to be picky about it.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

I think the only reason they did that was so you wouldn't get armies of just 2 troop choices and then maxed out on the other sections i.e the classic 1 HQ 2 five man scout squads then 3 elite and 3 fast attack choices.

But then again I played with my Worldeaters and they only had 2 troop choice and I won mainly because I wipe out the oppositions troop choice.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

So overall would you say improvement on 4th. edition?


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

I liked it but I suppose its down to the individual. And it will make me think about changing my usually 1500 and 2000 point armies, not a lot but just a few tweaks. But with all things there are going to be players that hate it, those who like it and those it will grow on. 

Overall it seems to have added some common sense but I'm sure once I've read the rulebook I will find something I don't like and that is to be expected.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

nothing's perfect sure. There are some good rumours around but tat's it; they're rumours. I just want to read the damn book! When is official release date?


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

Official release is in July but they are taking orders for the special editions now. If you go on the GW website it has a countdown for it to tell you the date in July.


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

whocares said:


> I have done the same.
> 
> Counter assault makes things...interesting. You end up charging a unit and having it counter charge you before you realize the counter charge has placed it in assault range of a second unit of yours.


So it turns out that the rules do not work this way. First attackers move all assaulting troops in, then defenders wrap around.


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> nothing's perfect sure. There are some good rumours around but tat's it; they're rumours. I just want to read the damn book! When is official release date?


No rumors here. My store got an early copy of the book. They can't sell it, but it hasn't stopped me from reading.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Not on this thread maybe but on others there are. I've heard 4 different rumours for tank firing, 2 for deepstriking and 3 for infiltrating.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

I like the rules for vehicle ramming, deepstriking has improved and I don't know what you've heard but rolling on a table to see what happens if something goes wrong when deepstriking is an approvement on losing the sqauds. Infiltrate is basically the same however deployment has changed, all blast weapons scatter and if you move at top speed you can only fire defensive weapons which are strength 4. The victory points system has change for the better IMO and deployment has changed and the run rule is useful.

I reckon it has improved but as I've said I haven't read the rulebook cover to cover. But as quoted by a GW staff member the main changes are to shooting.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

I heard that infriltators come from a random table edge, The infriltrators get concealment rules and that they're not changing it. I'm not sure if the blast weapon scattering is a good thing. I mean that'd make plasma cannons very unpopular


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

That is why I like the rule I dont use template weapons and I'm not about to start.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Has scatter changed much though?


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

No! But it will effect Plasma Cannons like you said but not so much deepstriking because of the new table that is rolled on if you scatter into a unit, off the table or one of the other fail teleport senarios.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

like the idea of that... Can the opponent choose to put them on terrain therefore killing them?


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

I know 5 and 6 is failed teleport and nothing happens and the squad can roll to see if they come down next turn, for the rest I don't know because mainly I've forgotten what they are lol


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

hehehe its okay I'll see them in a month


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

If I find out before then I will let you know on this thread can't say fairer than that!


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

nice one thanks!k:


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> I heard that infriltators come from a random table edge, The infriltrators get concealment rules and that they're not changing it. I'm not sure if the blast weapon scattering is a good thing. I mean that'd make plasma cannons very unpopular


Template weapons do always scatter but you no longer have to roll to hit, you just place the template and roll to scatter. Also, you subtract your BS from the scatter roll. So it lands on target if you roll a hit on the scatter die or a 4 or lower on the distance scattered. Plus there are no more partials. Anything with its base under a template at all is hit automatically. I will be taking plasma cannons far, far more often now.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

So because there's no roll to hit then plasma cannons can't get hot anymore?


----------



## Juno (May 3, 2008)

They can still use the 1 on a d6 for the scatter as gets hot. If you subtract the BS from 1d6 that means the sub munition from a hammer head (bs4) (for instance) will almost always hit at least one model!


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> So because there's no roll to hit then plasma cannons can't get hot anymore?


Before placing the template you roll a die, on a one it overheats and doesn't shoot.

And on the roll to scatter you roll 2d6, but subtract your ballistic skill. This gives an average result of 3, which is actually the low end of average on 1d6 anyway.


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

whocares said:


> Before placing the template you roll a die, on a one it overheats and doesn't shoot.
> 
> And on the roll to scatter you roll 2d6, but subtract your ballistic skill. This gives an average result of 3, which is actually the low end of average on 1d6 anyway.


Does that mean it just doesn't shoot? or does it still have the chance to kill your guy? (I only have 3rd, so forgive me if that was done away with in 4th)


----------



## Ordo Xeno Commander (Jan 17, 2007)

Nope, it still wounds your guy. Im liking the sound of ramming, considering mine will be with a landraider :biggrin:

I LOVE the new POTMS rules. I move 6, disembark termies o' death and fire ALL my guns into the enemy. thats a really big :fuck:


----------



## QuietEarth (Aug 18, 2007)

I'm pretty sure you have it all wrong. I've read nothing about subtracting a ballistic skill from the dice roll. Blast weapons work exactly like Ordnance now. D6 scatter if stationary and 2D6 pick the highest if moving and all models under the blast marker are hit.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

Ordo Xeno Commander said:


> Nope, it still wounds your guy. Im liking the sound of ramming, considering mine will be with a landraider :biggrin:
> 
> I LOVE the new POTMS rules. I move 6, disembark termies o' death and fire ALL my guns into the enemy. thats a really big :fuck:


The ramming rule is cool indeed Land Raiders hit at Str 8 if they move 12 inches, bring on the demonlition derby LOL


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

QuietEarth said:


> I'm pretty sure you have it all wrong. I've read nothing about subtracting a ballistic skill from the dice roll. Blast weapons work exactly like Ordnance now. D6 scatter if stationary and 2D6 pick the highest if moving and all models under the blast marker are hit.


I don't know what you've been reading, but I'm pretty sure _you're_ wrong.

So, nyah.


----------



## QuietEarth (Aug 18, 2007)

Subtracting ballistic skill really just over complicates things.


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

QuietEarth said:


> Subtracting ballistic skill really just over complicates things.


I don't think so. Subtraction isn't all that complicated.

But whether it does or not, I'm pretty damn sure it's in the rule book.


----------



## QuietEarth (Aug 18, 2007)

Listen, whether you meant to or not you're coming off pretty pompous.

Subtracting your Ballistic skill makes no sense. Does a Space Marine get to subtract his BS from a Vindicator shot? No, and for the sake of keeping things simple GW should keep it that way.


----------



## Coffeemug (Jan 4, 2008)

It is the new way that you work out blast and ordnance. It actually works well, and it doesn't complicate anything. If you go to your local GW they have the new rule book, you can look it up.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Blast and Ordinance templates will scatter 2d6-BS in 5th ed., even if you don't move, and you add the dice together.


----------



## QuietEarth (Aug 18, 2007)

darklove said:


> Blast and Ordinance templates will scatter 2d6-BS in 5th ed., even if you don't move, and you add the dice together.


Honestly, I think that's a terrible idea. There was nothing wrong with the old Ordinance rule.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

I agree with quietearth on this one. There was nothing wrong with how blasts work before so why change it? then again I haven't played 5th yet so It could be okay


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

QuietEarth said:


> Subtracting ballistic skill really just over complicates things.


elementary school math? compared to having to roll a die, and consult a chart?


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

QuietEarth said:


> Listen, whether you meant to or not you're coming off pretty pompous.
> 
> Subtracting your Ballistic skill makes no sense. Does a Space Marine get to subtract his BS from a Vindicator shot? No, and for the sake of keeping things simple GW should keep it that way.


Most blast and ordinance weapons are indirect fire weapons, or unguided missiles, the subtracting of the ballistic skill is to give forces that are better shots the advantage that you pay points for. It also makes sense from a real world perspective, a person who is a better shot(higher bs) will be more accurate than someone who is a lousy shot.

Sure, some weapons will have the rule applied to them when it might not make sense, but that prevents having this can, but this cannot problems that plagued 3e, and to a lesser extent, 4e.


----------



## QuietEarth (Aug 18, 2007)

Here's the thing, I have no problem at math, so let's drop that right now. I just feel it's adding an unnecessary step. I realize subtracting a small number from another number is simple, but to me it seems unnecessary.

I realize that my opinion won't change the rule but I feel they are trying to fix something that wasn't broke. I agree that blast weapons being treated like ordinance was a good idea but changing the ordinance rules was a step in the wrong direction.

It it is true that you scatter 2D6 whether you move or not then there is no reason to not move and fire. And if we want to talk about realism, it is much easier to fire from a non-mobile vehicle.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

i think its a good change as Vindicators were terribly inaccurate, when they did land it hurt a lot, but they hardly ever do. this will just make them more worth the points.


----------



## ClubnBabySealz (Jun 5, 2008)

QuietEarth said:


> And if we want to talk about realism, it is much easier to fire from a non-mobile vehicle.


not to be a ass but most modern day tanks can fire on the move with almost the same acceracy as if they where standing still. now i know that with war40k some of the tech is more WW2 then modern day or even the future but i think they still should have gotten some type of guided system on there ordnece.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

Don't know what everyone is moaning about unless your BS is 2. Even with BS 3 the average distant it will scatter is 4 inches but the distant wouldn't bother me it would be the direction in which it travelled?


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Best thing is to just try it out. I don't exactly like the idea. I mean if it's adding up the 2 die then units like space marines and other high BS guys could be drifting 8". But if they are a litle clearer in the book than all the rumours I've heard(not just this thread)Then it might be okay


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

From what I saw today it ain't much different to the 2D6-BS I'm afraid but I will check it out


----------



## Captain Galus (Jan 2, 2008)

i really like the new 2d6-BS rule for blast weapons, mainly because i love plasma cannons. does the BS rule apply to tank-mounted blast weapons as well?


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Some of the changes I like, others... not so good. From what I've read so far, I like 3rd the best.


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

QuietEarth said:


> Listen, whether you meant to or not you're coming off pretty pompous.


You said subtracting over complicated things. This would imply that subtraction is, well, complicated. I stated subtraction wasn't complicated. I'm sorry, but it seems that the only way to argue against your case is to come off as pompous. What can I say? I just don't see very many people being confused by the problem of 8 minus 4. Or, whatever you happened to roll.



QuietEarth said:


> Subtracting your Ballistic skill makes no sense. Does a Space Marine get to subtract his BS from a Vindicator shot?


In fourth? No.

In fifth? Yup.



QuietEarth said:


> No, and for the sake of keeping things simple GW should keep it that way.


Again, I respectfully disagree.


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

QuietEarth said:


> I realize that my opinion won't change the rule but I feel they are trying to fix something that wasn't broke. I agree that blast weapons being treated like ordinance was a good idea but changing the ordinance rules was a step in the wrong direction.


Alright, the argument that it is over complicated aside, I still disagree. You pay points to have a higher ballistic skill, so having that ballistic skill should be an advantage, even to units that fire blast weapons. Also, I like the way it makes scatter work. It gives most armies the exact same average scatter as 1d6, but with a higher range, which makes things interesting without really changing the effectiveness of the weapon.



QuietEarth said:


> It it is true that you scatter 2D6 whether you move or not then there is no reason to not move and fire. And if we want to talk about realism, it is much easier to fire from a non-mobile vehicle.


Realism isn't an argument that I think is worth having. Most modern tanks can move and fire, but the 40k universe seems more like what would happen if the Nazis won WWII and then were attacked by demons, so who the hell knows. 

I completely agree, however, that it is rather lame that there is no disadvantage to moving and firing. That takes a whole tactical element out of the game. There is no more question of, "Should I move and be less likely to hit or stay here and not advance towards the objective?" Vehicles should have some penalty for moving and shooting ordnance. Maybe they shouldn't get to subtract their BS? I don't know. I think it is unfortunate GW didn't add some penalty.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

i've heard that BS for vehicles take a penalty after moving. any truth in that?


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> i've heard that BS for vehicles take a penalty after moving. any truth in that?


None from what I've read.

But it's possible I missed something.


----------



## QuietEarth (Aug 18, 2007)

ClubnBabySealz said:


> not to be a ass but most modern day tanks can fire on the move with almost the same acceracy as if they where standing still. now i know that with war40k some of the tech is more WW2 then modern day or even the future but i think they still should have gotten some type of guided system on there ordnece.


That wasn't my point. Even today, it is much harder to shoot from a mobile vehicle.


----------



## ClubnBabySealz (Jun 5, 2008)

yeah for a troop it is but not for tanks. cant think of what moble howezer it is but it is able to fire 3 shots of on the move and hit the same target at the same time. these are un-guided rounds. but im done cus this is way off topic. might start one about the diff. in modern tech and 40k tech.


----------



## julio d (Apr 20, 2008)

QuietEarth said:


> Listen, whether you meant to or not you're coming off pretty pompous.
> 
> Subtracting your Ballistic skill makes no sense. Does a Space Marine get to subtract his BS from a Vindicator shot? No, and for the sake of keeping things simple GW should keep it that way.


Umm, since when has warhammer been simple?


----------



## QuietEarth (Aug 18, 2007)

Listen, there's a difference between trying to keep things simple and complicating things. Now, please try to make a post that is constructive. I'm tired of bickering, I'm done and over it.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

QuietEarth said:


> Listen, there's a difference between trying to keep things simple and complicating things. Now, please try to make a post that is constructive. I'm tired of bickering, I'm done and over it.


I just want to know which you prefer 2D6 scatter for all blast weapons or 2D6-BS for all blast weapons? I know which one I'd prefer and thats the one in the 5th edition rulebook. 

The way I see it is GW could have made it just a 2D6 scatter which would mean on average ( 7 ) you wouldn't hit a barn door with a Land Raider, however GW have made it 2D6- BS so that it lowers the chances of totally missing everything, whether with a Land Raider or not. And anyway you still got the 1 in 6 chance that it won't scatter.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

QuietEarth said:


> Listen, there's a difference between trying to keep things simple and complicating things. Now, please try to make a post that is constructive. I'm tired of bickering, I'm done and over it.


We don't understand how it is complicated.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

I like to know how it is complicated?


----------



## QuietEarth (Aug 18, 2007)

godofwar said:


> I just want to know which you prefer 2D6 scatter for all blast weapons or 2D6-BS for all blast weapons? I know which one I'd prefer and thats the one in the 5th edition rulebook.
> 
> The way I see it is GW could have made it just a 2D6 scatter which would mean on average ( 7 ) you wouldn't hit a barn door with a Land Raider, however GW have made it 2D6- BS so that it lowers the chances of totally missing everything, whether with a Land Raider or not. And anyway you still got the 1 in 6 chance that it won't scatter.


I told you which one I prefer, there was rumor of doing blast the same way ordinance is done in 4th. I like that method and think it works exceptionally well.

As for making things complicated, the very nature of adding and extra step increases the complexity of the system. Regardless of whether or not you find it hard, I don't find it hard, it still is more complex.

Now, I have politely requested that this issue be dropped. Now I'm not trying to sound like a bitch, but you're getting to the point of beating a dead horse and any further comments on this in particular will result in the notification of the MODs. This is supposed to be a friendly forum and you are creating an unfriendly environment.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> We don't understand how it is complicated.





godofwar said:


> I like to know how it is complicated?


I'm sorry if I have upset you in anyway but I was simply asking a question as where other no need to get all defensive!


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

I kind of agree with quietearth here. I know having scatter modified by the model's BS is a good idea but there was nothing innately wrong with the 4th ed. way of doing it. adding more steps, however simple they are, will only make that phase slower and cause more arguements over menial and trivial things....


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> I kind of agree with quietearth here. I know having scatter modified by the model's BS is a good idea but there was nothing innately wrong with the 4th ed. way of doing it. adding more steps, however simple they are, will only make that phase slower and cause more arguements over menial and trivial things....


What menial and trivial things, you place template roll for scatter minus you BS and whatever the template touches is hit? Now I confess I don't use template weapons so I've got no problems, but the way I see it is and the way I've seen it play it don't slow the game play down and if there is an argument you got 3 choice, ask someone indepenent, roll a dice for it or pack up your army and go. But hopefully one of the first 2 will solve it?


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Stupid menial things like "you moved the blast marker too much", "you measure from here not there", "my character's in the squad so I use his BS" and similar things but stubborn sore losers and general asses who call themselves "gamers" will bring up that kind of shit and cause loads of trouble. People like that will question every new rule and demand it to be redone and rerolled several times but that's with every rule not just this one. 

I'm not trying to force my opinion on you, nor Am I saying yours is wrong, I'm just stating what i believe will happen with rules.....


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> Stupid menial things like "you moved the blast marker too much", "you measure from here not there", "my character's in the squad so I use his BS" and similar things but stubborn sore losers and general asses who call themselves "gamers" will bring up that kind of shit and cause loads of trouble. People like that will question every new rule and demand it to be redone and rerolled several times but that's with every rule not just this one.
> 
> I'm not trying to force my opinion on you, nor Am I saying yours is wrong, I'm just stating what i believe will happen with rules.....


I agree that those "gamers" will whine, and as you say, it doesn't matter what rule it is. I know of players whining about not being able to move an open topped vehicle with troops inside max speed, have those troops jump out of same open topped vehicle, move a full normal move, and then be able to assault. All in the same turn.

I don't think you were trying to force any opinions. Godofwar and I simply wanted an argument more convincing than simple math bogging the game down. I know of many gamers that can calculate an entire army list without paper, or calculators. The math is simpler than that, and in the light of blasts being treated like ordinance, i feel it is fair to have the rule, so as not to punish players fielding forces that pay for better shooting, with those that use forces with cheaper troops being minimally affected, or even rewarded.
My position is simply that is acceptable because it maintains balance.


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> Stupid menial things like "you moved the blast marker too much", "you measure from here not there", "my character's in the squad so I use his BS" and similar things but stubborn sore losers and general asses who call themselves "gamers" will bring up that kind of shit and cause loads of trouble. People like that will question every new rule and demand it to be redone and rerolled several times but that's with every rule not just this one.
> 
> I'm not trying to force my opinion on you, nor Am I saying yours is wrong, I'm just stating what i believe will happen with rules.....


The first two examples can just as easily come up with the way fourth does it as the way fifth does it. And the third example can be solved with a quick flip to the page in the rulebook which has the scatter rules. That might take a minute, but once you've shown someone you'll never have to show them again. And, if having to read the rules was actually seen as a bad thing, well, we wouldn't have any new rules. 

Really, subtraction doesn't make things any more complicated and if it slows down game play, it slows it down by miliseconds. I really don't see the argument here besides, "Change! Change bad! No change! Way now good!" And the way we do it now is good. And the way it's done in fifth is good. Honestly, I don't think it really matters which way it is done. Personally, I find the fifth method to be more interesting and balanced, but neither is particularly worth arguing about.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> Stupid menial things like "you moved the blast marker too much", "you measure from here not there", "my character's in the squad so I use his BS" and similar things but stubborn sore losers and general asses who call themselves "gamers" will bring up that kind of shit and cause loads of trouble. People like that will question every new rule and demand it to be redone and rerolled several times but that's with every rule not just this one.
> 
> I'm not trying to force my opinion on you, nor Am I saying yours is wrong, I'm just stating what i believe will happen with rules.....


It happens all the time you will always get rule jockeys that think they know it all. So hears how I would answer some of the questions. "you moved the blast marker too much" If Ive moved it to far what's your problem it ain't anymore model than it did before but have it your way oh looking I've hit 3 models shame. "you measure from here not there" I have measured as it describe in the rulebook you know the book you ain't read you plum. "my character's in the squad so I use his BS" Is that so, is he holding the Plasma Cannon? I think not so that would be the troopers BS........

For every question there is an answer or a solution and yeah it will take time for people to get used to the new rules I've seen it all before when the other edition have come out, but as I've already said there is always one that will push it to extremes to benefit him/herself but thats the nature of some people.


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

QuietEarth said:


> I told you which one I prefer, there was rumor of doing blast the same way ordinance is done in 4th. I like that method and think it works exceptionally well.
> 
> As for making things complicated, the very nature of adding and extra step increases the complexity of the system. Regardless of whether or not you find it hard, I don't find it hard, it still is more complex.
> 
> Now, I have politely requested that this issue be dropped. Now I'm not trying to sound like a bitch, but you're getting to the point of beating a dead horse and any further comments on this in particular will result in the notification of the MODs. This is supposed to be a friendly forum and you are creating an unfriendly environment.


If you really wanted the argument to be dropped, you could simply not respond instead of threatening us with the mods.

In fact, I think I made a rather good argument about game balance and vehicles moving/shooting ordnance a few pages back that you decided to ignore, yet you reply to the very posts which continue the argument you want dropped?

I know, I know, you're going to report me. Go ahead. I just thought it was worth mentioning that it takes two to argue and it's rather hypocritical to make threats because someone continued an argument that you were just as much a part of.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

It is a god rule. I like most of the 5th. stuff. I just agree with what quietearth is trying to say. Not just with this rule but with several others. Some people are set in their ways and change is hard. Maths isn't the problem. The game is all about numbers so if it was you're screwed. 
@godofwar,
people who demand the rulebook be checked everytime that rule comes up, always looking for ways around it and being a jerk for the sake of it will always be there. I've done sit down rules statements with people but they still demand it to be checked. Telling them something like that will not help. I've had to ban people from the club because of it.

@Whocares,
It might slow it down by milliseconds after a while but what about starting off? "Oops I did it the old way. I'll have to do that whole blast again" will come up so many times. 
And if all you're taking from this arguement is people who duislike it think "Change! Change bad! No change! Way now good!" I agree totally with quietearth earlier

Just I believe that the old system is good enough, the new system is good too and more balanced but the actual time it'll take people to adjust after using the current way for years will slow down many games and have a good chance of getting rid of the older gamers. Not all in general but many of them in my opinion.


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> @Whocares,
> It might slow it down by milliseconds after a while but what about starting off? "Oops I did it the old way. I'll have to do that whole blast again" will come up so many times.
> And if all you're taking from this arguement is people who duislike it think "Change! Change bad! No change! Way now good!" I agree totally with quietearth earlier
> 
> Just I believe that the old system is good enough, the new system is good too and more balanced but the actual time it'll take people to adjust after using the current way for years will slow down many games and have a good chance of getting rid of the older gamers. Not all in general but many of them in my opinion.


Yup, that's pretty much all I'm getting from your arguments. If there's more, please tell me. But from what I can see, everything that you say has nothing to do with the changes themselves and everything to do with the simple fact that there is change. People will adjust, they always do. After the first month or two of actually playing this will stop being an issue. And five years from now we can all have the same debate again about sixth.

And yes, the change may drive away some old gamers and that is unfortunate. But I seriously doubt that the way that blasts scatter will be the cause of it. It will be all of fifth edition and, in the end, the change is necessary. If the game doesn't keep evolving, if the rules and the product don't keep changing, the game will grow old and stale and die. Not to mention, we'll buy less and games workshop will slowly but surely lose money. Either way, the game dies. Praise be to Tzeentch.

Were you around for the switch from second to third?


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

I totally agree with whocares. A lot of the gamers in my club are bitching at the moment because there elite armies are now useless, some bitching that much that they refuse to play 5th even when it comes out. I personnel like the new rules and it have made me look at my list long and hard, luckily for me I have a 5000 point plus Worldeater so can chop and change my army but other are less fortunate.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

godofwar said:


> I totally agree with whocares. A lot of the gamers in my club are bitching at the moment because there elite armies are now useless, some bitching that much that they refuse to play 5th even when it comes out. I personnel like the new rules and it have made me look at my list long and hard, luckily for me I have a 5000 point plus Worldeater so can chop and change my army but other are less fortunate.




That is somewhat true.
I, like many, have adopted a "wait and see" approach... if 5th looks like an overall improvement, I'll buy and play it.
If it doesn't, I'll continue to play previous editions.
I will feel badly for not being able to play in tournaments, but I'll live.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> @godofwar,
> people who demand the rulebook be checked everytime that rule comes up, always looking for ways around it and being a jerk for the sake of it will always be there. I've done sit down rules statements with people but they still demand it to be checked. Telling them something like that will not help. I've had to ban people from the club because of it.


Well I'm afraid I speak my mind if people don't like it thats there problem.


----------



## shas'o7 (May 17, 2008)

godofwar said:


> Well I'm afraid I speak my mind if people don't like it thats there problem.


Couldn't have said it better myself.:grin:


----------



## The Hobo Hunter (Jan 2, 2008)

While overall I'm not impressed at all with 5th edition, blast weapons are not the issue. 5th has bigger problems than this (true LOS, defensive weapon S4, kill points.....etc etc...)


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

I can't believe so many people are so obsessed with such little things as defensive weapons and blast scatters!

These changes will affect all armies because these are core rules. I'm sure people would not want to be thought of in their local clubs as someone that only has a 'plan a' in their game and that they have no imagination or tactical acumen - but that is exactly what people will think if they whine and moan about changes that affect every one. Just because your old power gaming tactic does not work anymore does not mean the end of the world! It is a new game, learn it, play it, have some fun.


----------



## Frank (Nov 2, 2007)

I agree with Darklove - I love it when new rules come out. Yes it means that my exisitng army may not be as effective as it once was. However, it gives me a new challenge to learn the new rules and work out which units/armies would be the most effective with the changes. Thus, this gives me the chance to either expand my army or use other miniatures which would otherwise be gathering dust on some shelf.


----------



## Pseudo (Nov 5, 2007)

I have to agree that the new system is far superior to the old one. The old system was retarded - so a guardsmen is as good a shot with a demolisher cannon as a space marine is? Riiight, because that makes perfect sense!

There really hasn't been any plausible reason given that I can see for not moving to the new system, beyond the chance that we might lose some kindergardeners who find all this highly complex math a problem.


----------



## commissar gaunt (Jan 22, 2008)

I personally think that true LOS will be a great addition and will really add to the overall feel of the game.

And will all of these people stop bitching about blast scattering, I play IG so this will effect my army works the most and I think that 2d6 scatter-BS is a good add on to the core rules


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

The Hobo Hunter said:


> While overall I'm not impressed at all with 5th edition, blast weapons are not the issue. 5th has bigger problems than this (true LOS, defensive weapon S4, kill points.....etc etc...)


So whats the problem with true LOS, defensive weapons S4, kill points and what is the etc etc?

Its all well and good saying its a problem without putting a reason why?


----------



## general (Feb 1, 2008)

godofwar said:


> So whats the problem with true LOS, defensive weapons S4, kill points and what is the etc etc?
> 
> Its all well and good saying its a problem without putting a reason why?


In terms of defensive wepons, this is basically means that there's no point having sposons, as the lowest stregth are HB, which will still be defensive, and so cannot fire on the move. A lot of people will have to rip apart old tanks/buy new ones, unless they want armoured pillboxes!

I quite like true LOS to be honest. As long as you use common sense (i.e. its not I can see the tip of his sword, the whole squads dead!), I don't see a problem.


----------



## Pseudo (Nov 5, 2007)

general said:


> In terms of defensive wepons, this is basically means that there's no point having sposons, as the lowest stregth are HB, which will still be defensive, and so cannot fire on the move. A lot of people will have to rip apart old tanks/buy new ones, unless they want armoured pillboxes!
> 
> I quite like true LOS to be honest. As long as you use common sense (i.e. its not I can see the tip of his sword, the whole squads dead!), I don't see a problem.


In 4th Ed, LoS has to be drawn to the body of a model. Unless it's changed in 5th Ed, that means you still can't get LoS for outstreched weapons, banners, wings, etc.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

general said:


> In terms of defensive wepons, this is basically means that there's no point having sposons, as the lowest stregth are HB, which will still be defensive, and so cannot fire on the move. A lot of people will have to rip apart old tanks/buy new ones, unless they want armoured pillboxes!
> 
> I quite like true LOS to be honest. As long as you use common sense (i.e. its not I can see the tip of his sword, the whole squads dead!), I don't see a problem.


new codices are coming for space marines and IG, both might feature options with weapons under s5, eldar have s4 weapon options, necrons don't worry, only one "tank" and it has special rules, inquisition forces would draw from space marines and IG, tyranids are relatively unaffected, the only force that is truly screwed over is orks, and even they can adapt and overcome.

As for true los, I have been playing long enough to know that it isn't a concern. Those players that will argue that they can kill the squad because they can see a weapon will also argue a cover save because the terrain the model is in covers the model's left big toe. Stop playing with them until they grow up.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

No sized terrain if you can see a body part of a model you can shot it sounds go to me. Even if they get a cover save. 

The new rules have a degree of common sense attached, so I will be sticking to playing the more mature player and not the spotty teenager that will argue the toss over every little detail.


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

general said:


> In terms of defensive wepons, this is basically means that there's no point having sposons, as the lowest stregth are HB, which will still be defensive, and so cannot fire on the move. A lot of people will have to rip apart old tanks/buy new ones, unless they want armoured pillboxes!
> 
> I quite like true LOS to be honest. As long as you use common sense (i.e. its not I can see the tip of his sword, the whole squads dead!), I don't see a problem.


True line of sight is fine, it's what we had in third and it worked then. And the fifth rule book does explicitly say not to count things like swords, banners, etc.

As for defensive weapons being strength 4, I think that you have to take all of the changes into account. With the new penetrating chart and rules for tanks getting cover saves, it is MUCH more difficult to take out armor now. Your predator has just sacrificed mobility for survivability. Fair enough trade, in my book.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

whocares said:


> True line of sight is fine, it's what we had in third and it worked then. And the fifth rule book does explicitly say not to count things like swords, banners, etc.
> 
> As for defensive weapons being strength 4, I think that you have to take all of the changes into account. With the new penetrating chart and rules for tanks getting cover saves, it is MUCH more difficult to take out armor now. Your predator has just sacrificed mobility for survivability. Fair enough trade, in my book.


not only is the predator going to survive longer, but it will be filling it's role better. The predator is NOT a main battle tank. It is a light infantry support tank. Adding the sponsons is for when the predator is static, that is providing fire support to a gun line or defensive positions. either take predators without sponsons, or be prepared for firing while static. It is not that bad, leaving off the sponson weapons will free up points for other things.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

Sort of. The Predator is a heavy weapons platform, but it's meant to be mobile and keep pace with the advance of Tactical Squads. The sponsons are machine spirit-controlled so the crew of two can specifically focus on driving the vehicle and using the main weapon to support the advance. Sitting around in a firing line really isn't the kind of thing Space Marines do, even though people may play it that way. 

I agree, Predators will be making fewer appearances in a lot of armies-- but I think that's just going to be because you'll be able to accomplish what you bring a Predator for now with a Razorback, just not as effectively.


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

Plasma weapons over heating on a 1. True line of sight. No more being entangled when your transport explodes.

Fifth edition: the way third edition was meant to be written.


----------



## Pseudo (Nov 5, 2007)

Defensive weapons have to be S4, to balance the new changes.

People were complaining that tanks were too fragile in 4th Ed, so GW made them tougher - new glancing/penetrating hit tables and cover saves. This is good, because you don't end up with tanks getting popped before they can even move/fire like you do now.

But to balance it they had to make them weaker to close combat (because otherwise tanks would be too powerful, and at least engaging a tank in CC requires some forethought and tactics to arrange), which is why CC units hit tanks on their rear armor automatically. And why defensive weapons are S4 - because if you want to fire all your guns you run the risk of CC squads hitting you automatically when they reach you. Thems tactics.

Without these changes, tanks would be unstoppable, moving 6" away from approaching CC squads every turn while firing every weapon AND being extremely difficult to kill from range.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

The Son of Horus said:


> Sort of. The Predator is a heavy weapons platform, but it's meant to be mobile and keep pace with the advance of Tactical Squads. The sponsons are machine spirit-controlled so the crew of two can specifically focus on driving the vehicle and using the main weapon to support the advance. Sitting around in a firing line really isn't the kind of thing Space Marines do, even though people may play it that way.
> 
> I agree, Predators will be making fewer appearances in a lot of armies-- but I think that's just going to be because you'll be able to accomplish what you bring a Predator for now with a Razorback, just not as effectively.


If the sponsons are machine-spirit controlled why do they us a SM BS of 4 when in the codex the machine-spirit has a BS of 2?

I have Land Raiders in my army which have no option of not disgarding the twinned linked heavy bolters and in effect has 3 main weapons but I've worked out a way that they can be used still. 

It just seems to me that people aren't used to using there common sense and now the 5th edition rules has added that aspect they are pretty much stuffed.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

godofwar said:


> Well I'm afraid I speak my mind if people don't like it thats there problem.


That was not anything aimed at you. The advice you gave won't wotk for certain people is all. i didn't say it was bad advice or anything like that..... 
I've tried using a few 5th. ed rules in my games and I just want to apologise for the arguement earlier in this thread.... They are a lot easier than before, just need getting used to.... No offence intended from earlier


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> That was not anything aimed at you. The advice you gave won't wotk for certain people is all. i didn't say it was bad advice or anything like that.....
> I've tried using a few 5th. ed rules in my games and I just want to apologise for the arguement earlier in this thread.... They are a lot easier than before, just need getting used to.... No offence intended from earlier


None taken.........

5th edition is easier to use and it will take time to get used to using some of the rule changes. It has always been the same when there are rule changes, you will get your bitching and moaning and you will get those who will try to find loopholes to use to there advantage but thats all part of the game.

The best thing to come out of it those is the fact you will no longer have the armies consisting of 2 five scout squads with elite and fast attack uber armies because basically they won't get nowhere fast, but I'm sure somebody somewhere will find a way round that.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

godofwar said:


> None taken.........
> 
> 5th edition is easier to use and it will take time to get used to using some of the rule changes. It has always been the same when there are rule changes, you will get your bitching and moaning and you will get those who will try to find loopholes to use to there advantage but thats all part of the game.
> 
> The best thing to come out of it those is the fact you will no longer have the armies consisting of 2 five scout squads with elite and fast attack uber armies because basically they won't get nowhere fast, but I'm sure somebody somewhere will find a way round that.




While it isn't something I do personally, an opponent having two 5 man scout squads isn't unbalancing. I also don't see how fast attacks are uber, since you can have at most 3 fast attack choices...


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> While it isn't something I do personally, an opponent having two 5 man scout squads isn't unbalancing. I also don't see how fast attacks are uber, since you can have at most 3 fast attack choices...


usually you cannot take the three choices without Min/Maxing. What he refers to is taking two space marine scout squads at 5 scouts each, then taking 3 maxed out assault squads, 3 maxed out devastator squads and a terminator in a pear tree. This is unbalanced, and extremely inappropriate from a fluff perspective..


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> usually you cannot take the three choices without Min/Maxing. What he refers to is taking two space marine scout squads at 5 scouts each, then taking 3 maxed out assault squads, 3 maxed out devastator squads and a terminator in a pear tree. This is unbalanced, and extremely inappropriate from a fluff perspective..



I can see how it would be annoying, but not unbeatable.
But I do agree about the fluff bit; I'm nae familiar with this list, since no-one I know fields such a thing.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Does anybody know about ordnance LoS? In 4th. if they didn't have LoS they roll 2d6 scatter but now as they roll 2d6 anyway do they not subtract BS or do they roll 3d6?


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> I can see how it would be annoying, but not unbeatable.
> But I do agree about the fluff bit; I'm nae familiar with this list, since no-one I know fields such a thing.


usually, such a force will be able to be beaten because it is fielded by an inexperienced player interested only in building a force with as many "powerful' units as possible. In the hands of an experienced player, who understands tactics, it will be difficult to beat.


----------



## skad567 (Jun 4, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> usually, such a force will be able to be beaten because it is fielded by an inexperienced player interested only in building a force with as many "powerful' units as possible. In the hands of an experienced player, who understands tactics, it will be difficult to beat.


that pretty much holds true with any list though. The thing is I really haven't seen an experienced player (who is actually good) field something like that. Typically your balanced lists are the ones that win a tournament.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

skad567 said:


> that pretty much holds true with any list though. The thing is I really haven't seen an experienced player (who is actually good) field something like that. Typically your balanced lists are the ones that win a tournament.




This is true from what I've seen as well, which makes me wonder why they're making only troops scoring units.
After all, I've ended games where the only thing left on the field was my Dracon... and according to the new rules, he wouldn't be scoring. 
uke:


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> This is true from what I've seen as well, which makes me wonder why they're making only troops scoring units.
> After all, I've ended games where the only thing left on the field was my Dracon... and according to the new rules, he wouldn't be scoring.
> uke:


Then you would have to hope that your opponent doesn't have any scoring units either. I've found DE the worst for the pear shape list especially the 4 players in my club I don't find them a problem but most other players struggle.

I just think it will be interesting what these players that use pear shape list will do?


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

godofwar said:


> Then you would have to hope that your opponent doesn't have any scoring units either. I've found DE the worst for the pear shape list especially the 4 players in my club I don't find them a problem but most other players struggle.
> 
> I just think it will be interesting what these players that use pear shape list will do?


LOL!
If the Dracon is the only thing left... then the opponent has nothing left.
That aside, I'm wondering how the scoring would work if all scoring units are dead.
Erm... what's a pear shape list?


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> usually you cannot take the three choices without Min/Maxing. What he refers to is taking two space marine scout squads at 5 scouts each, then taking 3 maxed out assault squads, 3 maxed out devastator squads and a terminator in a pear tree. This is unbalanced, and extremely inappropriate from a fluff perspective..


Thats a pear shaped listed^^^^^^

Victory points are 1 point for each squad destroyed, 1 point per character and 1 point per vehicle.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

godofwar said:


> Thats a pear shaped listed^^^^^^
> 
> Victory points are 1 point for each squad destroyed, 1 point per character and 1 point per vehicle.



I see...
Sorry, I've still never seen one in actual play, which might explain my ignorance of them.


----------



## shas'o7 (May 17, 2008)

Now that I think about it, won't these new troops scoring rules ruin Nidzilla?


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> Does anybody know about ordnance LoS? In 4th. if they didn't have LoS they roll 2d6 scatter but now as they roll 2d6 anyway do they not subtract BS or do they roll 3d6?


Ordnance weapons work just like blast weapons (2d6-BS) but if it's a barrage weapon without line of site then it's just a flat 2d6 scatter. No subtracting BS.


----------



## Siege (Jan 18, 2008)

shas'o7 said:


> Now that I think about it, won't these new troops scoring rules ruin Nidzilla?


To an extent, yes. I'd say Nidzilla lists are going to be in a bit of trouble.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Unless they just table their foes. *shrug*


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

The change with Troops counting as the only scoring units makes people play fluffy, at least. Or more so than they do at the moment. The point in an invasion where you'd see that many big Tyranids would probably be in the late stages where the entirety of the resistance would be cornered-- a perfect Apocalypse battle, tbh.


----------



## chaos vince (Jun 10, 2008)

i can see emphasizing troop units fluff wise, most armies are made up of large number of basic troops but i think making them the only scoring units is taking it overboard, why not just increase the min. number of troop squads in the force org. chart?


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

chaos vince said:


> i can see emphasizing troop units fluff wise, most armies are made up of large number of basic troops but i think making them the only scoring units is taking it overboard, why not just increase the min. number of troop squads in the force org. chart?


Because people like having their own choice in the matter.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

chaos vince said:


> i can see emphasizing troop units fluff wise, most armies are made up of large number of basic troops but i think making them the only scoring units is taking it overboard, why not just increase the min. number of troop squads in the force org. chart?


It reminds me of that scene from office space: 
Boss:"I need to talk about your flair."
Joanna:"Really? I have 15 buttons on."
Boss:"Well, ok, 15 is minimum, ok? Now, it's up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum. Well, like Brian, for example, has 37 pieces of flair. And a terrific smile."
Joanna:"If you wanted me to wear 37 pieces of flair, why didn't you just make the minimum 37?" 
Boss: "Well, I thought I remembered you saying that you wanted to express yourself."

Hehe, love that movie.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

maddermax said:


> It reminds me of that scene from office space:
> Boss:"I need to talk about your flair."
> Joanna:"Really? I have 15 buttons on."
> Boss:"Well, ok, 15 is minimum, ok? Now, it's up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum. Well, like Brian, for example, has 37 pieces of flair. And a terrific smile."
> ...




Good movie.
It's going to be harder for some armies now that they're making scouts elites, from what I've heard. Out of my 6 troops in my Eldar army, one's Pathfinders. That's going to screw over my elites choices, unless they want to make Striking Scorpions or Howling Banshees troops...


----------



## chaos vince (Jun 10, 2008)

great movie. as to having the choice, you're removing choices by making troops the only scoring units, especialy when people are restricted point wise. i mean in most games you need scoring units, and 2 will rarely do it.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

whocares said:


> Ordnance weapons work just like blast weapons (2d6-BS) but if it's a barrage weapon without line of site then it's just a flat 2d6 scatter. No subtracting BS.


Nice one thanks. :biggrin:


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Good movie.
> It's going to be harder for some armies now that they're making scouts elites, from what I've heard. Out of my 6 troops in my Eldar army, one's Pathfinders. That's going to screw over my elites choices, unless they want to make Striking Scorpions or Howling Banshees troops...


Eldar already have a fifth edition codex so they won't be affected at all. The rumors are about space marines and I don't actually believe them.



chaos vince said:


> great movie. as to having the choice, you're removing choices by making troops the only scoring units, especialy when people are restricted point wise. i mean in most games you need scoring units, and 2 will rarely do it.


By that logic, all Eldar armies should be required to take three harlequins squads. It's in their best interest, so why not force them to?

And do you know how the contesting rules work? You can easily contest and win by victory points without a single scoring unit. Well, they're not actually called victory points anymore, I forget what the term is, but their fifth edition equivalent.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

shas'o7 said:


> Now that I think about it, won't these new troops scoring rules ruin Nidzilla?


I don't think it will due to the fact that a unit is to the last model and not 25% and the unit size they can take. There are a lot of Nid players in my club and they are still doing as well as always with the 5th edition rules and its nice to see nid armies without 6 Fexes.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

whocares said:


> Eldar already have a fifth edition codex so they won't be affected at all. The rumors are about space marines and I don't actually believe them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't remember off the top of my head but I pretty sure any unit or vehicle can contest an objective but only troop choices can hold them. If its a draw on the objective side then we tend to work out what the victory points would be ie. one point for each unit destroyed one point per character and one point per vehicle.


----------



## Ordo Xeno Commander (Jan 17, 2007)

godofwar has got it right. only TROOPS can hold an objective, BUT any unit can contest an objective, making the take and hold scenario much more interesting...


----------



## ClubnBabySealz (Jun 5, 2008)

Is the Blood Angel PDF codex the 5th Ed. one??


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

whocares said:


> Eldar already have a fifth edition codex so they won't be affected at all. The rumors are about space marines and I don't actually believe them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




See, that's the problem with rumours lol.
I'd heard that all scouts were going to be elites, which makes less than no sense.
With Space Wolves, I can ALMOST see it, since their scouts were Grey Hunters who went on to other things. But really, even their scouts don't have enough special abilities and whatnot to make them elites.
With regular marines though, scouts are marines who aren't fully-developed yet and haven't earned their armour. Making them elite is... silly.
Unless they want to go in and change all of the established fluff of course... in that case, I have several novels and two codices (one 3rd, one 4th) to send in for replacements.


----------



## chaos vince (Jun 10, 2008)

hmmm, well troop units being the only units still doesn't make sense to me if for no other reason than that if somethin can contest an objective then what makes it unable to hold it.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> See, that's the problem with rumours lol.
> I'd heard that all scouts were going to be elites, which makes less than no sense.
> With Space Wolves, I can ALMOST see it, since their scouts were Grey Hunters who went on to other things. But really, even their scouts don't have enough special abilities and whatnot to make them elites.
> With regular marines though, scouts are marines who aren't fully-developed yet and haven't earned their armour. Making them elite is... silly.
> Unless they want to go in and change all of the established fluff of course... in that case, I have several novels and two codices (one 3rd, one 4th) to send in for replacements.


I believe Scouts are still troops just now they have reduced skills. If the were moved to elites it does make sense because scouting is a specialised role and can't be done well by basic troops. Also with infriltrating and such they would be able to hold an objective earlier. Also the 10th company is rarely full so they would not be able to be fielded in large numbers. Similar to the 1st company but more than likley less members in it.....


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

chaos vince said:


> hmmm, well troop units being the only units still doesn't make sense to me if for no other reason than that if somethin can contest an objective then what makes it unable to hold it.


I think the reason would be is most armies would use there best troops ie elites to take an objective but they wouldn't use there elites to hold it that would be down to the normal troopers


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

In history, armies have used what you might consider "elites" and " heavy support", even "fast attack", to hold positions. Attricion happens, and you have to use what you've got.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Hell, from an IG point of view, I'd DEFINITELY use a Basilisk to hold an injective as I moved ahead.

Artillery is supposed to be in the rear-line anyway.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

It's making the game's action happen between the big guys. They clear an objective, the basic guys get there, hold it, the elites are off again to do more.... I think its a good idea as there was a lot of holding back with elitist units in my club....


----------



## QuietEarth (Aug 18, 2007)

Lord Reevan said:


> It's making the game's action happen between the big guys. They clear an objective, the basic guys get there, hold it, the elites are off again to do more.... I think its a good idea as there was a lot of holding back with elitist units in my club....


Exactly, imagine your airborne troopers dropping in to secure the objectives then the rest of your force moves in and hold the objectives while your other guys go off to risk their lives again.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

Most people who whinge about only troops being able to hold objective would be the people with only 2 troop choices, which would mean changing there army.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

My army only has a single troop choice. They are quite expensive (180pts per unit minimum) and you only have to kill 75% of them for the other 25% to die automatically. I think that will make holding objectives quite hard.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

godofwar said:


> Most people who whinge about only troops being able to hold objective would be the people with only 2 troop choices, which would mean changing there army.



I only use two troops in small games.
If you look at my lists, I've always used more than two troop squads.
My main problem is, if your troop squads get wiped out (it's happened), and you wipe out their army down to one troop squad and you've still got more units and points left, how can it be justified that only the troops can be scoring?
Stuff like that happens.
Or things like my HQ being the only thing left on the board for either side.
That's why only troops being scoring units doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## chaos vince (Jun 10, 2008)

exactly, just cause people usualy use troop i units to hold objectives, doesn't mean they won't use somethin else if they don't have any troop units left. a place named Bastogne comes to mind, somethin about airborne holdin an objective..... spartans at thermoplye(i think THOSE guys qualify as elite units)


----------



## QuietEarth (Aug 18, 2007)

I only have two troop choices in my army, but then again my troop choices consist about 70 men and eight units.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

chaos vince said:


> exactly, just cause people usualy use troop i units to hold objectives, doesn't mean they won't use somethin else if they don't have any troop units left. a place named Bastogne comes to mind, somethin about airborne holdin an objective..... spartans at thermoplye(i think THOSE guys qualify as elite units)


Spartans were the Actual basic troops of Sparta So that's not a great example. They're like grey knights. Great but still basic troops. They were the king's bodyguard but they were trained no differently to the rest. IF you take the other soldiers who were there then you have a point as they could represent the basic units.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

chaos vince said:


> exactly, just cause people usualy use troop i units to hold objectives, doesn't mean they won't use somethin else if they don't have any troop units left. a place named Bastogne comes to mind, somethin about airborne holdin an objective..... spartans at thermoplye(i think THOSE guys qualify as elite units)


There was 300 Spartans and 1,100 other Greek troops from Boeotia at Thermopylae for the final days battle. So I think your find the non elites out numbered the elites....


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

darklove said:


> My army only has a single troop choice. They are quite expensive (180pts per unit minimum) and you only have to kill 75% of them for the other 25% to die automatically. I think that will make holding objectives quite hard.


If your army only has one troop choice then its illegal in GW rules as you need two troop choice and an elite................ and 180 point I wish mine where that cheap........


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

godofwar said:


> If your army only has one troop choice then its illegal in GW rules as you need two troop choice and an elite................ and 180 point I wish mine where that cheap........


He means that necrons only have the choice of one type of troop. Warriors. THey have nothing else apart from them as troops And it's a HQ slot not elites


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> He means that necrons only have the choice of one type of troop. Warriors. THey have nothing else apart from them as troops


Necron Warriors well there really poor troops ain't they? At 180 points I wish my troop units where that cheap.



Lord Reevan said:


> And it's a HQ slot not elites


I know should really concerntrate when typing LOL


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

godofwar said:


> There was 300 Spartans and 1,100 other Greek troops from Boeotia at Thermopylae for the final days battle. So I think your find the non elites out numbered the elites....



There were also Thespians... I'm sure they acted like they helped.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> There were also Thespians... I'm sure they acted like they helped.


There most probably was but they got sent home before the last day of the battle. The Spartan where full time soldiers where as the other where part timers. 

The fact is the rules in the 5th edition say troops are the only one who can hold an objective but any unit can contest it's GW's way of getting people to change there armies and therefore buying more models.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Let's keep the off topic conversation for Off Topic folks.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

The Wraithlord said:


> Let's keep the off topic conversation for Off Topic folks.


I think what you're considering off-topic are actually meant as examples from real-life to show differences between elite and troop squads. At least, mine are.
Basically it's a discussion of why rles do/do not make sense, using real-world examples .
In other words, we're all banging our heads against the wall.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

I think having troops the only scoring unit to be a good thing as it makes the game much more infantry based and puts more power into the bread and butter units.... having elites and such contest things evens it out some bit....


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> I think what you're considering off-topic are actually meant as examples from real-life to show differences between elite and troop squads. At least, mine are.
> Basically it's a discussion of why rles do/do not make sense, using real-world examples .
> In other words, we're all banging our heads against the wall.


Totally agree with this statement..............




Lord Reevan said:


> I think having troops the only scoring unit to be a good thing as it makes the game much more infantry based and puts more power into the bread and butter units.... having elites and such contest things evens it out some bit....



I also think it is a good thing that troops get the chance to be more valuable then only being a meat shield to get the elites from getting shot or cut to pieces.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

godofwar said:


> I also think it is a good thing that troops get the chance to be more valuable then only being a meat shield to get the elites from getting shot or cut to pieces.


Exactly... So all this headbanging:headbutt: has come up with something relevant!


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> Exactly... So all this headbanging:headbutt: has come up with something relevant!



Strange, I sometimes use my elites to keep my troops alive lol.
Depends on the elites and the troops in question, of course... I really don't consider anything in my armies to be expendable. Some of them have families who would lose their BAQ if they died...
Headbanging... yes... I am listening to Metallica.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Headbanging... yes... I am listening to Metallica.


I'm listening to Slayer! Imagine that.....


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

What has listening to metallica or slayer got to do with it. As The Wraithlord said try to stay on topic?????????????


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

it doesnt really how much you bitch about it, the designers saw a trend of minimum troop requirements so that lists could load up on elites heavy support and characters. so they made a decision that thats not the way they wanted the game to be played this really caused unbalance because often different armies have better heavy support or elite options than others, so in order to discourage that they made only troops scoring so that there is now a penalty for choosing heavy support over troops.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Engelus said:


> it doesnt really how much you bitch about it, the designers saw a trend of minimum troop requirements so that lists could load up on elites heavy support and characters. so they made a decision that thats not the way they wanted the game to be played this really caused unbalance because often different armies have better heavy support or elite options than others, so in order to discourage that they made only troops scoring so that there is now a penalty for choosing heavy support over troops.


Pretty much exactly my opinion on the thing.... which is great for me because i've been starting to field only troop armies.... I haven't touched my termies in months....


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> Pretty much exactly my opinion on the thing.... which is great for me because i've been starting to field only troop armies.... I haven't touched my termies in months....


Right on, I do the same, especially in my ork force, where I can have 30 boyz per mob. The smackdown that can provide is incentive enough for me. My death guard force has 49 models, only 7 of which are not troops, none are heavy support or fast attack, and only one hq.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

I used to use a minium of 3 troop choices but I've since up that to 4, I don't field elites and the only heavy support I use is Land Raiders and as for fast attack I've got 2 unit types to choose from and I only use them in 2000 point plus games.........

I think its a good think the rules about troops being the only units that can score and I think the game will only get better because players will have to use there heads a lot more than they did to get anywhere...........


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

godofwar said:


> I think its a good think the rules about troops being the only units that can score and I think the game will only get better because players will have to use there heads a lot more than they did to get anywhere...........


exactly. If someone wants to crush opposition with hordes of elites, thats what computer games are for. warhammer is about the whole-hobby approach. It is a balance of modeling, force building, and tactics. lose one, and the game is not the same.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

With the forthcoming 5th ed do you think it will effect the way apocalypse is played?

Do you think we will see mass of troops choice being supported by the super-heavies?


----------



## LegendX (Jun 16, 2008)

godofwar said:


> With the forthcoming 5th ed do you think it will effect the way apocalypse is played?
> 
> Do you think we will see mass of troops choice being supported by the super-heavies?


Yeah because thats how you are going to score your points. I am sure the most recent things that are new were all made with 5th edition in mind.
New Chaos, Apoc, and Chaos Daemons.

Unfortunately, for anything else that wasn't lucky enough to make it to the "were thinking about 5th edition too here" list for GW, an errata/faq sheet fixes everything....easy way out x.x

LX


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Orks will be fine... because everything's so cheap you usually end up with a lot of Troops choices anyway.


----------



## Indoctrinator (Jun 6, 2008)

I have some icons in my chaos space marine squads, I hear rumours amount wound allocation being changed so (correct me if i'm wrong) your opponent chooses what model to remove. If so if he shoots my unit with icons (or wounds some guys in CC) will he be able to simply remove the icon instead of a normal marine? IE am i gonna lose 30pts worth of icon when the unit takes one wound?

Someone please clarify, I hope i'm wrong...

Indoctrinator


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

godofwar said:


> I think its a good think the rules about troops being the only units that can score and I think the game will only get better because players will have to use there heads a lot more than they did to get anywhere...........


agree totally with this. Also as troops are usuallu much cheaper thgan elites you will have fairly big gamers that still go pretty fast.... All in all I'm really lookng forward to 5th

As for the wound allocation thing I am unsure. Again I've heard several rumours about it.....


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> As for the wound allocation thing I am unsure. Again I've heard several rumours about it.....


It's really not that bad.

I'm gonna try and be ethical about privileged information here, but let me be clear-

The DEFENDER allocates wounds.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Cole Deschain said:


> It's really not that bad.
> 
> I'm gonna try and be ethical about privileged information here, but let me be clear-
> 
> The DEFENDER allocates wounds.


That's good then. I was unsure about how the thing was worked out as i have heard that it's like IC attacking now, it hasn't changed and others...


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Indoctrinator said:


> I have some icons in my chaos space marine squads, I hear rumours amount wound allocation being changed so (correct me if i'm wrong) your opponent chooses what model to remove. If so if he shoots my unit with icons (or wounds some guys in CC) will he be able to simply remove the icon instead of a normal marine? IE am i gonna lose 30pts worth of icon when the unit takes one wound?
> 
> Someone please clarify, I hope i'm wrong...
> 
> Indoctrinator


Your opponent does not choose which model to remove. Saves now have to be spread evenly across a unit. E.G. if 5 guys get hit by 5 shots then each of them has to take a save. If 4 of the guys are identical and 1 guy has the icon then you roll for the 4 guys together, and then for the icon guy on his own. Any model that fails its save takes a wound and cannot be substituted. Your opponent cannot pick which models you fail your saves on - that is up to the chance of the dice.


----------



## Indoctrinator (Jun 6, 2008)

Phew, ok that's not that bad, thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Lax (Jun 16, 2008)

darklove said:


> If 4 of the guys are identical and 1 guy has the icon then you roll for the 4 guys together, and then for the icon guy on his own.


Yes, but in the case of 10 shots, you give 2 to each guy, roll the two for the icon and the 8 remaining together.
If you fail more than 4 saves on the eight, you only remove the 4 guys, not the icon one.

I don't really like this idea since any 1HP mini that is taking 2 shots is pretty sure to die 
I know that's how it has always been with saves, but AP and rending loses interest, since this edition favorises numerous shots, that can be enough to kill everything.

By the way, playing BA, I'm still gathering all the ways to avoid my close combat units to die after winning an assault, and not being locked after it...
Feels like I've got to assault all the ennemy's army unit simultaneously, placing rhinos everywhere for LOS, kill some models, remove all my independant caracters, then look the other player blast everything that is not locked (a torso is enough with los...)

Hmmmm really stressed upon reading this book ^^!


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Don't be.

It's really NOT that bad.


----------



## godofwar (Mar 23, 2008)

Lax said:


> Yes, but in the case of 10 shots, you give 2 to each guy, roll the two for the icon and the 8 remaining together.
> If you fail more than 4 saves on the eight, you only remove the 4 guys, not the icon one.
> 
> I don't really like this idea since any 1HP mini that is taking 2 shots is pretty sure to die
> ...


That's the whole point of allocating the saves if you really wanted to be picky you could roll the saves for each model separately, it just makes it easier to 8 saves for the models that are the same and the 2 die for the icon. However if you roll the saves separately you could get away with losing only 2 models.............

Think I will roll my saves separately from now on LOL


----------



## Tau2007 (Jan 25, 2008)

Chase.man259 said:


> The ramming sems it will be quite a kick. After you drop off your marines send the rhino on a suicidal charge of doom. but they seem like some well balanced rules.
> 
> P.S. i dont thing that only troops being scoring is smart but whatever.



"Suicidal Charge of Doom" -- what an outstanding name for a band!

Speed Polka, perhaps?

:victory:

Cheerio,
Tau2007


----------



## Lax (Jun 16, 2008)

godofwar said:


> That's the whole point of allocating the saves if you really wanted to be picky you could roll the saves for each model separately, it just makes it easier to 8 saves for the models that are the same and the 2 die for the icon. However if you roll the saves separately you could get away with losing only 2 models.............
> 
> Think I will roll my saves separately from now on LOL


I get your point, but here is an exemple of what I fear :
A squad of BT, let's say 5 + 1 scouty, takes 8 bolter and 2 plasma shots.
A fairplay way to allocate would be 1 plasma+1 bolter on the scout, the 8 remaining to the rest of the squad.
A non fairplay would be 2 plasma on the scout and 8 on marines.
That's 4-5 deads against 3-4, on a larger scale, it can do a bigger difference.
I'm maybe picky, but losing 1/4 of my frags, I just caaan't !

On our french forum, we answered this by saying :
If we have to allocate wounds one by one, weapon by weapon, we cannot result as stacking special weapons wounds.
The sad point is that it's not said in the big book.
But that's the way we are going to play it.


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

Ive really got mixed feelings on the would allocation, in some ways its nice because it could potentially save your squad from complete and utter overkill, but then again loosing your cham[/sarge to an unlucky shot, i another question i have is in 5th is it true when fearless loose combat they take wounds with out armor saves equal the the amount of wounds they lost by?


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

DaemonsR'us said:


> Ive really got mixed feelings on the would allocation, in some ways its nice because it could potentially save your squad from complete and utter overkill, but then again loosing your cham[/sarge to an unlucky shot, i another question i have is in 5th is it true when fearless loose combat they take wounds with out armor saves equal the the amount of wounds they lost by?


Yes.

......................


----------



## Minion_1981 (Dec 20, 2007)

Just a question about the troops only able to hold the objectives, What if you just kill their whole army off and lets say you have no troops left yourself at the end of the game, do you win the game now because you beat them or is it a draw because no one has any troops to capture the objectives? lol, just a thought :grin:


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Minion_1981 said:


> Just a question about the troops only able to hold the objectives, What if you just kill their whole army off and lets say you have no troops left yourself at the end of the game, do you win the game now because you beat them or is it a draw because no one has any troops to capture the objectives? lol, just a thought :grin:


No scoring units for objectives means the game is decided by victory points


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

Just had a look at fifth and talked to a GW employee(for what thats worth) it does look like models still take armor saves, just now the amount of armor saves are equal to the amount they lost by when fearless units lose combat


----------



## Minion_1981 (Dec 20, 2007)

Yah, I read the book again today to make sure and yes you get armor saves for losing combat and having the No Retreat! ability. I do have 3 questions if anyone knows, 1st Do slow and purposeful units get a +1 attack for charging now, I didn't read anywhere that they don't (I didn't study this well thou). 2nd question is, if you have a Skimmer and say you try to do FoF do the opponents get a 4+ cover save for shooting under a skimmer? 3rd Question when hitting skimmers in CC do you still need 6's to hit them like in 4th edition? not sure on any of these. Thanks if ya know the answers =)


----------



## Loki_tbc (Jun 17, 2008)

Official release is Midnight July 12. GW is encouraging LGS's to run events leading up to it, including an apocalypse tourney that goes from 4th ed to 5th ed rules at midnight. I know I'll be running one down here in Miami...


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

Loki_tbc said:


> Official release is Midnight July 12. GW is encouraging LGS's to run events leading up to it, including an apocalypse tourney that goes from 4th ed to 5th ed rules at midnight. I know I'll be running one down here in Miami...


"Alright, boys, here's the plan. We're going to sit in our trenches until midnight, and let the vehicles blaze away while still being mobile with S5 defensive weaponry. Then, when it hits midnight, we're going to hop out of the trenches, use our newfound Run ability to go screaming forward like chickens with our heads cut off into close combat, and fun will be had by all." 

Sounds like a pretty awesome idea, actually, to switch the game rules edition in the middle of the game.


----------



## Lax (Jun 16, 2008)

I've read two points that were discussed before :

-Area terrain hides units for cover saves purposes, it's said that if you shoot through an area terrain and the aim is between two trees, it gets the save.
So finally, tanks can hide between two trees, without dumb LOS issue.
Exception is for firing from higher ground.

-Multiple assault : An unit can hit anyone who is locked in combat with it at beginning of combat, thus => Just before the first dice roll for this unit.
So there is no one turn waiting story neither.

Now, I quote two sentences in the book, there may be other paragraph talking about it, but that was from the main ones.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Minion_1981 said:


> Just a question about the troops only able to hold the objectives, What if you just kill their whole army off and lets say you have no troops left yourself at the end of the game, do you win the game now because you beat them or is it a draw because no one has any troops to capture the objectives? lol, just a thought :grin:


What if you kill off all their Troop units? Is the best your opponent can hope for a drawn game?


----------



## Lax (Jun 16, 2008)

Lord Reevan said:


> No scoring units for objectives means the game is decided by victory points


Answer three posts upward...
If you have troops and not the ennemy, he would just gather forces on yours to avoid losing game


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

If the enemy loses all their troops and you have some troops then it goes to victory points plus points for any held objectives which will be harder as anything can contest an objective.

What I'm curious about is if CC against vehicles is aimed at the rear armour aren't walkers basically screwed then? especially dreads that like assaulting like furiousos.... Or are they exempt from the rule due to having a WS and being a walker in general??


----------



## Lax (Jun 16, 2008)

This rule only applies if the vehicle has no CC skill 
So dreadnoughts, walkers... are not concerned.


----------



## bsantucci (Jun 23, 2008)

Real armies of the world and the future world are mostly composed of line troops not specialist's types. I think it makes the game much more real and a lot more fun!! :mrgreen:


----------



## Minion_1981 (Dec 20, 2007)

Question about Winning, Ok so I win by taking 1 more objective than the guy im playing, what does that mean?... If I am in a tournament setting and i win by 1 objective is that a massacre or do we go off of VP if we go off of VP whats the point of getting the objective and winning =p? any thoughts?


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

've seen different versions of this thing actually so here goes

1-The objective you hold gives you extra points equal to the cost of the squad holding it, plus the cost of the squad
2-It gives you an extra 10% of the point limit of the game eg. in a 2000pt. game they give 200 points 

I'm stil not sure about either of these and could be wrong but if they are they sound like good houserules


----------



## Minion_1981 (Dec 20, 2007)

Oh man that would be bad ass, I wonder thou if the squad holding is it their squad at full strength or does it depend on how many are left etc.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

woops forgot to write that. I've heard it both ways..... THe full cost seems kind of unfair IMO though.... You wasted a squad folishly and when one model flees and regroups on it he gets 190 points worth of a objective?? doesn't sound right there....


----------

