# 5th



## Chaplain Araziel (Dec 28, 2007)

Ok I guess I missed all the gossip. Just wanted to start a new thread so I can catch up on the rumours for 5th edition. I ve heard things like sniper rifles AP1 on roll of a 6. Possibly there being a stand and shoot rule for units being assaulted which I think is Awesome. I'd love to hear any other juicy rumours.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Well, the rumors are very very weak actually. A leaked PDF beta copy was released by some unscrupulous individual and was proven to be nothing more than a possible wish list of changes. 5th may be nothing like that really, though most are pretty sure that it will be something along those lines.

Vehicles will become tracked Pill Boxes that refuse to move.
Shooting will be powerful only for your front ranks.
Cover will be boosted.
Fast Infantry Assault armies will make great use of the cover boost, shooting weakness, and reluctance of tanks to 'move' and will dominate the scene.

Deployment and 'level' of missions will be altered greatly, allowing for much more diverse scenarios using only the basic options listed in the book. This I do like.


----------



## heliosmj12 (Mar 30, 2008)

pardon my ignorance but is this the 5th edition rule book or SM codex?


----------



## Dirge Eterna (Apr 30, 2007)

The tank rule alone is enough for me to quit, I think. If 5th Edition is all it's cracked up to be, I'm going to start collecting instead.

-Dirge


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

heliosmj12 said:


> pardon my ignorance but is this the 5th edition rule book or SM codex?


 
Mate, later this year the 5th Edition of Warhammer 40,000 will be released. The changes rumored are from an admittedly unreliable source, a weak beta copy used for initial playtesting. But, the direction GW Dev is heading is not seen as favorable by a large majority of gamers, though some do like it. Those who do tend to play armies that receive many benefits from the changes, and few drawbacks.


----------



## heliosmj12 (Mar 30, 2008)

the reason i ask i because they havent even brought out the new codex's for the DE and Crons, there may be others but i dont know.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

If you haven't purchased the books or dexes yet, then don't. It will be worth the wait to hold off a bit and play a few friendly games with understanding friends.


----------



## adaz (Mar 24, 2008)

It's all rumors and speculation, so at this point I wouldn't worry about it too much. CHances are they (GW) doesn't even know what 5th is. I imagine , or hope, that they are playtesting things and it's changing/evolving as we speak.


----------



## torealis (Dec 27, 2006)

Hespithe said:


> But, the direction GW Dev is heading is not seen as favorable by a large majority of gamers,


We, the online community, are NOT the majority of gamers. This is why GW is probably unconcerned by the whinging that goes on continuously online.

I myself look forward to the new book.


----------



## heliosmj12 (Mar 30, 2008)

well its kinda too late, because i just bought the current rules book a couple of months ago, and i dont really wanna have to learn a whole lot of new rules after only having the current one for such a short time, i wish the guys at GW knew this, because it seems they like to drop bombs on people like this.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Tor... I did not mention online gamers.... the entire SE of Texas is depressed about what they are hearing. Very few of us spend much time online.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

I'm quite surprised that there isn't more discussion about 5th actually, especially in things like the army lists section. After all, by the time most of these armies are ready the new edition will be out. Warseer has a pretty active forum dedicated to it.

As far as the accuracy of the rumours goes, the pdf is certainly real. Lots of it is subject to change sources I trust (of which there are few) say it is close to the truth but not completely up to date.

The overall effect of the changes will be, in my opinion, a huge improvement.

For as long as 40k has existed there has been a problem with the roll for first turn. It just matters too much. 5th introduces a system where there is only one roll for deployment and first turn. Player 1 sets up his whole force first, Player 2 deploys, Player 1 gets first turn. When Player 2 is deploying he can see all of Player 1's army and therefore avoid nonsense like first turn charges. Player 1 can be pretty agressive with his deployment and doesn't have to worry about things like having his skimmers shot before they move, but he doesn't know where Player 2 will be. That will change every game of 40k we play - for the better in my opinion.

If that was the only change in 5th then I'd be all for it. One of the things that most people have actually complained about is the LOS system. In 5th, unlike 4th, they have introduced a LOS system that actually works and is easy to understand. Currently there is a mixture of true and abstract LOS that few understand and many whole gaming groups don't use, knowingly or otherwise. 5th just uses true LOS. There is a bit of confusion on whether you will be able to fire through friendly and enemy troops because more rumours seem to be coming out to do with that.

Close combat has been tidied up. You decide who will be able to strike at the beginning of the fight, not on initiative order. You can't take casualties off to prevent the guy with the power fist from hitting or to prevent a sweeping advance. If the enemies near the powerfist guy are dead, he will go looking for more.

Likewise kill zones are gone, both in shooting and close combat. That cuts both ways really. No more rhino scoping to hit the guy with the heavy weapon or sergeants. No more worries about having characters at the front of a unit in case someone range snipes them. On the other hand, a unit can get to within 12" of the front of a horde unit and potentially rapid fire everything to death, even the ones far away. It benefits horde units in assault though, as your opponent won't be able to do the trick of killing everything in the kill zone and having no attacks back against him. You can take models off that wouldn't have been able to attack anyway.

There are more things I like and some I don't really mind either way (like armour saves being rolled seperately), but also some I don't like at all. The nerfing to vehicles moving and shooting is unnecessary, though I do like how their toughness is improved, and the kill point system used in one of the new scenarios doesn't really work.

I'm looking forward to 5th. I hope that some of the odd things get fixed but even if they don't it will be a much better game than 4th.


----------



## asianavatar (Aug 20, 2007)

Some of the rules seem pretty good some not so good, but until I see stuff for sure I am taking it all as rumours and not worrying to much. 

Just a comment on the kill zones, I think that although they made figuring out combat a bit harder it had its reasons. I can see issues where you have train lines of horde units keep most units out of cover except for the one that can charge in and stupid stuff like that. The kill zones made sense as keeping troops in front of you and not getting swarmed meant dealing with less enemies at once. Its a practice used throughout history and I think it was cool that it was taken into consideration in the game.


----------



## jlf99p (Mar 29, 2008)

*Too many changes?*

I've played, painted, and collected in the WH40K universe since the Rogue Trader rules, about 15 years I guess. There's been quite an evolution in the game play, but I still fondly remeber the best games from the 2nd addition time period. My friends and I had massive, Apocalypse style, games back then, sometimes four different factions going at it. 

I understand the GW philosophy and the business needs that drive the changes. The 3rd edition seemed to simplfy and bring more people into the Universe what with tournements and the points systems etc. The 4th edition I have honestly never played and have thought lately about puchasing. 

Now a new "improved" edition is on the way? 

My real issue with GW is the planned obsolence of Armies that I have customized, painted, converted and played with now won't work...

I tore down figures to comply with the 3rd edition changes and thought that was ridiculous, but the 3rd rules made sense as far as army make up and eliminated some of the "cheese" factor. In constructing armies I always stuck to the rules and did not push the cheese factor.

But now another "drastic" rules change? I'll have to wait and see if I want to join in this "new Verse"....

JF


----------



## Master Kashnizel (Jan 5, 2008)

I know a lot of people who are worried about 5th ed and are probably just going to use the 4th ed rules. If they are really bad than I will do the same, but for now all we can do is hope and pray.....


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

The turning of vehicles into pillboxes for tracked tanks, the raping of skimmers, and the INCREDIBLE favouritism to assault armies are what bother me the most. It is very likely that I won't be playing 40k once 5th comes out. Not unless my opponent is willing to stick with 4th. Yes there are some good rules rumoured but they are far outweighed by the bad.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Agreed... the rumors fortell a very lopsided game.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

I've said it a lot of times but I'll say it again: *Skimmers are not being nerfed*. The only skimmers that will be less tough in 5th will be those with holo fields, and only against weapons able to get penetrating hits on them easily. Everything else will be tougher in 5th than in 4th *and* entanglement is getting removed. So a few eldar players who all know they are abusing a broken rule see their tanks get toned down a little bit. Oh the humanity!

So quite the opposite of having been "raped", I now find that my hammerheads are tougher and get a 1/3 chance to ignore hits that would have shaken them or destroyed their guns.

The defensive weapon rule is a bad one but it will just make people use different kinds of tanks, if they do use them. I won't defend this rule but it won't ruin 40k. This nerfs falcons a lot, which is good. On the other hand, wave serpents are getting loads better.

I'm really amazed at the hostility towards these rules. There is no "incredible favoritism to assaulting armies". They can run, fine, most of them could already. Now you can as well.

5th edition is going to be way more about infantry than any previous edition, with the possible exception of 1st. I look forward to having games that revolve around fights between orks and space marines, not destroyers and falcons.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

I prefer the firefights to the mêlée combat. That is one of the primary differenced between 40K and WHFB. Now, the two games are too similar, down to the dominant army styles.

If your main battle tank only had AV12 max, you'd be upset too, especially when that tank cost over 200pts to field. Sure, those Eldar skimmers only have to worry about those heavy weapons (they are tanks after all), but now EVERY heavy weapon short of the heavy bolter/mortar is a major threat to such expensive units. The Predator, at a much much lower cost, can dish out just as much punishment, and is much harder to take out at AV13. The LRMBT at 50pts less than the Falcon/Prism is a much much harder tank and can be much more useful. The Serpent at 3.5x the cost of Rhino is less likely to protect the unit. Sure it can move 6" further, but it cannot block line of sight to the unit like the Rhino can. The comparisons are there, and they show that the Eldar are not benefiting from 5th Edition at all. If you look at the rankings in all major tourneys, you'll also see that Eldar are not disproportional in their winnings. The argument that Eldar skimmers are overpowered in 4th is false. In 5th, the dev team has gone overboard. Who ever said that GW did not listen to a bunch of internet whiners.


----------



## mr.darkraider (Mar 5, 2008)

Someguy said:


> For as long as 40k has existed there has been a problem with the roll for first turn. It just matters too much. 5th introduces a system where there is only one roll for deployment and first turn. Player 1 sets up his whole force first, Player 2 deploys, Player 1 gets first turn. When Player 2 is deploying he can see all of Player 1's army and therefore avoid nonsense like first turn charges. Player 1 can be pretty agressive with his deployment and doesn't have to worry about things like having his skimmers shot before they move, but he doesn't know where Player 2 will be. That will change every game of 40k we play - for the better in my opinion.
> 
> If that was the only change in 5th then I'd be all for it. One of the things that most people have actually complained about is the LOS system. In 5th, unlike 4th, they have introduced a LOS system that actually works and is easy to understand. Currently there is a mixture of true and abstract LOS that few understand and many whole gaming groups don't use, knowingly or otherwise. 5th just uses true LOS. There is a bit of confusion on whether you will be able to fire through friendly and enemy troops because more rumours seem to be coming out to do with that.
> 
> ...





hmm intersting points - but for me its like their tryng to make gaming less realistic - but easier to understand - which really is a bit double edged for me. 

the thing about the first turn bring almighty is true.. - but the new system(well the rumoured one explained above) well sucks, to me - it seems that yes turn 1 has been kind of equlised - but i think whether u deploy first or second will have just as much impact if not more as having first turn - 
as player one (so whoever wins roll) deploys all his force - so he basically gets to set the tone of the game - taking up firing lanes - geting the chance to establish great position - as since he deployed first gets to go first and doesnt have to worry about first turn cover - to some extent or another - 

while conversly player one - can also make many mistakes in deployment as player 1 can not react to (as in 4th ed - the one were playing now) we take turns - so essentially u can react to each others deployment - this means that player one can stuff his whole game up from a bad deployment - more so then 4th ed.

- this i feel defeats the purpose of deployment - and isnt really realistic in what i see a battle's deployment would be like - normally both leaders would react to each others deployment rather then someone deploying all his units at once - which gives both leaders time to be flexible enough to counter act (or something like it) according to where the enemy is deploying..

on the whole even though first turn is somewhat overpowered - the current system allows players more flexibility, - also u shouldnt' be deploying expecting first turn anyway, so it really shoudnt matter.

on other topics...

The rumoured LOS system sounds good that rule needs cleaning up..

wow - kill zones taken away? hmm not very relaistic..
if a heavy bolter etc poking around a corner(the only model in sight) and sniping away - this means that return fire to this one model in sight wont kill that model but the ones behind it?(as most likey the gamer woudn't kill his sniping model if wounds are taken) not impressed. and conversly - if u can only see one model i cant see why that means the whole unit takes ounds itself.... this just shouts unrealistic

so close combat being 'tidied'...
i dont know about this proposed change.. i think taking away initiative is big- no doubt - it doesnt seem right - it takes away specialisation of some close comabt specialists - this means that every unit basically thinks the same when coming into combat ... so banshees vs fire warriors = ? - this is a poor choice IMO.
alos killing zones bieng removed in combat? once again this is just like shooting - why would the combat be at the front and casualities (possibly) being taken at the back?


IMO i dont know if this is the right direction to take the game - its little things like this that make the difference in a gaming experiance.. 

(by the way this a semi critiscm of the proposed changes in 5 ed not on anyone's personal views whether they like 5 ed etc)

Mr.d


Mod edit: fixed the quotebox


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

> The defensive weapon rule is a bad one but it will just make people use different kinds of tanks, if they do use them.


I hate to break it to you but my Tau skimmers seemed to die quite handily in damn near every game I played with them so I don't honestly see the need for toning down that rule. However, your above quote is more along the lines of what I am talking about. The defensive weapons being set at ST4 completely and utterly FUCKS my tanks. Now, not only will I not be able to move as fire and still fire, I will only be able to fire a single weapon if I move. And unless I move over 6" I am not going to get said 5+ save anyway. So how is this NOT making my Devilfish and Hammerheads (and even Piranhas) worse off than before? How is this not fucking over Land Speeders as well? The fact remains that the nerfing of skimmers is being done thanks to the whole Holofield bs instead of GW putting out a bloody FAQ that could have taken care of the problem far more efficiently.

How is making skimmers less mobile in any way a better idea period? Same with tanks of any kind. Tanks are not bunkers that sit still and fire away, they are mobile gun platforms and should be represented in the game as such. GW was heading in the right direction with tanks in 4th ed and if they had boosted the move and shoot abilities of tanks in the same manner for 5th, they would be as they should be. Tanks should be able to move full range while firing all weapons at separate targets if need be. Or at the very least be able to do that at half range.



> There is no "incredible favoritism to assaulting armies". They can run, fine, most of them could already. Now you can as well.


Let's not forget the bs about hitting the rear armour of vehicles in cc regardless of where you actually contact the model, combat res based on the number of models you have, etc. Footslogging horde armies are going to be king of the hill with the new rules, simple as that. At 2000pts my Thousand Son army has 50 models in it while a 2000pt Ork list will have close to 120. How in the hell are my Tsons supposed to have a chance against an army that can move 7-12 inches per turn AND get a fleet move that will allow a single move of the entire army at 7-18"? And let's not forget that my own models block line of sight now so I can't castle or pull my troops back together, I have to spread out and therefore can't even concentrate fire.

I could go on but anyone who has read the rumours and/or read the pdf that is floating around can see that shooting has just been completely overrun and outclassed but assault and I for one despise it. 40K is a futuristic game involving spaceships and vehicles and big fuckin guns and yet 5th ed is going to put more emphasis on people ignoring said guns and trying to stick their opponents with a sword. I have Fantasy for that, I don't need it in 40K.


Sorry if I come off as 'yelling' at you bro, not my intention at all. I just love this game and the sickening direction that 5th is apparantly going to go pisses me off to no end.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Lowering the strength of defensive weapons to 4 is a stupid idea and I hope it gets removed. As you point out, it has a very severe affect on a lot of vehicles, basically making them useless. Falcons most obviously suffer but land speeders, warfish and predators are messed up as well. It's a mistake. Hopefully it will be fixed.

Hammerheads are not one of the units that suffers, or at least not much. They have not been toned down, they are considerably tougher in 5th than 4th. It's harder to kill them and harder to keep them from firing their rail guns. The defensive weapon change is much less of a big deal to a hammerhead than a falcon or predator, and you have the option of taking a pair of burst cannons and no target lock to save 15 points if you want.

Currently a glancing hit has a 7/36 chance of killing a hammerhead and a much smaller chance (1/36) to immobilise it if it has decoy launchers. A glancing hit's current chance to destroy a hammerhead is 2/9 if it has decoy launchers, or 1 in 4.5. Any glancing hit prevents it from firing and may destroy its railgun or stun it.

In 5th a glancing hit will destroy the same hammerhead only one time in 54. It's twelve times harder for necrons to kill the thing! A penetrating hit will kill it one time in 3.6 though, which is far more dangerous and worse than a glance at the moment, but you still have that 1/3 chance (taken into account in that calculation) to avoid the hit altogether and fire next turn. Added to that, if you actually are in cover from a building or something, your save gets better.

Rerolls from decoy launchers and holo fields have less impact on the statistics in 5th on penetrating hits, but more on glancing hits. Stopping a falcon with glancing hits is effectively impossible since a 1/54 shot only immobilises it and doesn't kill it. 

People will have to take real anti tank weapons to combat skimmers to get penetrating hits on them and that means that they will not has so many guns overall. At the moment there are many weapons that are under-costed for their effect on tanks, like scatter lasers and autocannons. It makes as much sense to fire an autocannon at a falcon as a lascannon at the moment since you can't penetrate it, but the autocannon is also cheaper and better against troops. In 5th you will really need lascannons or better to take out hammerheads and the like. Melta weapons will be really nice too, and actually about the only things that become more dangerous to vehicles in 5th than in 4th. I expect to see far fewer destroyers fielded in the new rules.

There are loads of weapons and units around that are good for fighting hordes. Clearly, thousand sons are not one of them. You are paying a ton of points for force weapons, AP3 bolters and an invulnerable save, none of which are worth very much against the average ork choppa boy or termagent. Your Tsons are going to need some back up to take on a horde, but surely they already do. If all else fails just lash the orks back again.

The new rules do help hordes. Hordes needed help. Look at the lists of top finishers at GTs and you see a list of MEQ, tau and eldar players. Maybe 2-4 of the top 20 will have orks or nids but not using horde lists. Mobile firepower is utterly dominant in 4th and other armies just don't get a look in. Slow assaulting units simply never get in, and without the run rule they were never going to.

By the way initiative isn't being removed from close combat altogether. Models still strike in ititiative order and won't strike if they have been killed, but casualty removal won't prevent models that are still alive from attacking.


----------



## 3maverick3 (Jan 24, 2007)

just remember that the guys at the store even if they know they are under a gag order some thing for the grey knights..


----------



## angels of fire (Dec 4, 2007)

Pardon? Punctuation would help here 3maverick3.


----------



## Syko515 (Jan 22, 2008)

no offence wraithlord or any of you other veteran players, but i cannot count how many games i have lost to eldar players simply because they had a few falcons suped up and moving around the feild with the max amount of guys inside to presever points. its like saying " oh..you play eldar huh? take these then and have an over 600 point advantage that you can't loose for the end of game points tally.." frankly the idea of that alone is ludicris. honestly i would get rid of the skimmer rule all together and just up the vehicle toughness. instead of always glancing the falcon move its armor valuve up to 13 and let it move the same as it does, just make it able to be penned even if it moves over 12". lets think about this people, every time i bring this up to an eldar player they ALWAYS retort with "well you get armor 14" well lets look at this claim...yes i get my landraider and it is 14 armor all around, however every eldar player pack's obscene amounts of bright lances and firedragons to combat this easily. so truthfully how effective is that 14 armor when it gets popped relyably first turn every game while their falcons barely ever suffer anything more then a shaken all damn game.

on said note, the only thing that should be able to run is khorn berzerkers...cause they need it....


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

I'd just like to note, one more time, that my Bugs, my Sisters, and my IG have never had any trouble taking down Falcons, Prisms, and Serpents. I just don't believe the negativity I hear from Eldar Skimmer Haters.

There was no problem with the Skimmers in 4th, there was only a problem with a large percentage of gamers' perceptions on how to deal with them.

The changes to vehicles in 5th has been blown over the top of the mountain and has crashed in flames on the other side. It would have been nice to just see Hull Down return in place of Concealment, a -1 to leadership check for pinning instead of Entanglement, and the removal of the silly mandatory disembarkation on a penetrating Stunned result. Those were the only changes needed for vehicles.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

the only change I don't understand is the defensive weapon S4 thing

other than the Hurricane bolter, the only defensive weapon I can think of is the pintle mounted storm bolter, which I never take cause i think its a waste of points.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Yup.... Unless you really like to waste points on weapons that'll not make a difference in your game...

*crawls back under his rock*


----------



## 3maverick3 (Jan 24, 2007)

angels of fire said:


> Pardon? Punctuation would help here 3maverick3.


holly jump on the new guy for talking.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

3maverick3 said:


> holly jump on the new guy for talking.


He's not jumping on you for voicing your opinion. He's saying that if you made an attempt to spell properly and use proper grammar people might actually be able to understand what the hell it is that you're saying.

Don't pull that "Everyone's picking on me because I'm new" crap. We don't buy it.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

*crawls out from under rock to verify that YUP, Katie has crawled out from under hers as well*

Please continue to give your opinions, mate. Just try to make them clearer. Cheers!

*crawls off looking for a more comfortable rock*


----------



## 3maverick3 (Jan 24, 2007)

one it is and two try being dislecic and didectic then tell me all about spelling I just will not post anymore thank you for making that clear.


----------



## angels of fire (Dec 4, 2007)

I was not trying to jump on the new guy I just couldn't make out what you were saying. In addition if you joined in January you're not really new.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Why is it that everyone on the internet is dyslexic these days?


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Dyslexic is not necessarily something to do with Spelling. It's the result of a slower transfer of knowledge from STM to LTM. Occasionally this results in data being lost, most usually the dyslexia forming incapability to comprehend spelling when you know the meaning behind a word is correct. You wish to argue that with someone studying PE, Neuro-biology, Motor-biology, and Sport Mechanics, argue away. IMO, you're not dyslexic - you're using that as an excuse as nobody knows you in real life, and you think you can get away using chat speak. Don't. It's bloody annoying. In any case, if you were that dyslexic, how can you even hope to understand the rules in Warhammer.

Sorry about that lads and ladies =D.

I'd just like to say, I hate skimmers. Too fast, too hard hitting, and not enough Anti-armour on my part.


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

I think eldar skimmers need to get easier to kill, but as a balance they should be better at shooting. The prism is kinda there shooting and used cautiously they are a good tank. The falcon rarely does anything and its only really the cargo it can carry that makes them scary. Harlies are a great unit and when your opp struggles to stop them getting in all the better


----------



## Sniper (Mar 9, 2008)

Skimmers are way too damn fast so that could be changed in 5th, on the side well put Vaz:mrgreen:

Sniper


----------



## angels of fire (Dec 4, 2007)

I think that Vaz is right and well argued his point, I agree.


----------



## solitaire (Mar 24, 2008)

Personally I don't think the damage to skimmers will affect Eldar that much, as I win the majority of my games and the only skimmers I use is a Fire Prism that I'm planning on dropping and I don't think a 60pt Vyper really counts.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

For those of us who stocked up on Serpents because we thought the Eldar vehicles were the coolest looking in the game, and didn't mind spending 130+points for a transport, the new rules rumors are a travesty.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

It happens in every edition. You stock up on models that are powerful and cool looking and they become far less useful. It happened to the Marine Rhino when 3rd become 4th. Let's not cry too much now.

EDIT: That wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, so please don't stab me.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Hespithe said:


> For those of us who stocked up on Serpents because we thought the Eldar vehicles were the coolest looking in the game, and didn't mind spending 130+points for a transport, the new rules rumors are a travesty.


Sorry but this is really wrong. Think what you like of 5th but it is certainly not reducing the power of wave serpents. Unlike some other vehicles there is only good news for wave serpents in 5th. In my opinion it is going to make them one of the very best vehicles in the game.

The main job of a wave serpent is, clearly, as a transport. Wave serpents are tougher in 5th edition than in 4th, a lot tougher, and there is no entanglement if they should die. Good news for the wave serpent's primary job then.

They are bought as transports but they are a really serious tank. With the possible exception of battlewagons they are easily the most combat effective dedicated transport in the game. A wave serpent with bright lances is able to take on most tanks bought as heavy support choices with a good chance of winning, while simultaneously transporting troops. 

Bought as a transport for guardians or dire avengers It only gives away one kill point and it gets to set up in dawn of war if you want it to (say, if you are going to go first).

I fielded an eldar army in tournaments in 3rd edition and it had 3 wave serpents in. In 4th I have always seen them as a pretty poor option after entanglement was introduced and charging from moving vehicles was no longer allowed. Now though, the idea of having a storm guardian squad get out of one of these things and hit a unit with 2 flamers and a destructor, or dire avengers get out and bladestorm, looks really good. I'm seriously considering a wave serpent based army for 5th.

The tactical uses for a tough, highly mobile heavy weapon platform that carries a scoring unit and is bought as troops are enormous in 5th. There is simply no other way to travel.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

I must disagree, guys.... AV12 is no contest when matched up against missile launchers, lascannons and their equivalents. Without the glancing only rule, the birds will die in droves. And at 3x+ the cost of a Rhino, and so much more likely to go crashing in flames (it is a skimmer after all, making it more likely to crash and burn than any land vehicle), the Serpent is simply not worth the cost. It costs nearly the same as the unit it is transporting. In many ways, it would just be better under the new rumored rules to have more infantry instead. And, if one is transporting at max speed, then all is well, but the vehicle is left open when disembarking troops or picking them up, and it is left open when attempting to fire its weapons. It is a tank that costs way to much for losing way too much.

With 5th edition, Eldar vehicles have taken a very heavy handed blow. A codex rewrite may solve the issue, but a more balanced 5th edition would be much better.


----------



## DarKKKKK (Feb 22, 2008)

I haven't had much of any problem so far against my friend that plays Eldar and he hasn't been playing them for that long either. The entire time that he has played Eldar was within the 4th and I have actually done quiet well against his skimmers. So skimmers in general it seems really are getting nerfed

One thing that I'm really hearing a lot of and not liking one bit is the Assault Infantry > Shooting Tanks stuff
As many have said before, WHF has our swords and shields already and 40k is supposed to emphisize our guns and futuristic devices, not just have those guns, but I guess they tactically will now suck and back to olden times even though we are very far into the future.

So far from what I've been hearing about the 5th, I'd rather just stick with the 4th.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Hespithe said:


> Without the glancing only rule, the birds will die in droves.


I'm sorry but this is mathematically wrong. It is Incorrect. Wave serpents are harder to kill in 5th edition than in 4th. I will try again to explain why.

The damage table is not the same in 5th as it is in 4th. Penetrating hits are not as bad. Normal vehicles are killed on a 5+, not a 4+. It's basically like the current table with a -1 modifier on it.

In 4th edition a skimmer is immobilised on a 5 and killed on a 6 if glanced. That's 2 chances in 6, or 1 in 3.

In 5th edition you can get a penetrating hit. If you do, you can immobilise the skimmer on a 4, wreck it on a 5 and explode it on a 6. That's 3 in 6 or 1 in 2. Looks bad right now...

*However*, you get a 5+ cover save for a fast moving skimmer. That means that one time in 3 nothing will happen at all. Your 3 in 6 chance to die just dropped to a 2 in 6 chance - exactly what it is in 4th.

*Also*, you may ignore results 1-3 on the penetrating hit table one time in 3. Look, your wave serpent didn't just get shaken or have its gun blown off. It can fire back now. I guess that makes it harder to suppress than in 4th, so... better?

*ALSO* you may not get a penetrating hit. You may only glance. If you do, you can only immobilise the skimmer on a 6, and it still gets its 5+ save. A glancing hit has a 1 in 9 chance of immobilising a skimmer, and can't destroy it if it has vectored engines. Did you ever lose a wave serpent to destroyer spam, scatter lasers or glancing hits from other weapons? Well, you never will again. 

People are going to have to invest in serious anti-tank weapons to take on skimmers, not just spray them with multi lasers, autocannons and missile pods hoping for the best. In 4th, thanks to the SMF rule, it is often more effective to fire a rapid firing low strength weapon at a skimmer than a high strength one. For example in serpent vs serpent combat it's better to have a scatter laser than a bright lance. In 5th you really want to have the bright lance. That means there are not going to be so many weapons on the field that can threaten your wave serpents because people will have to pick and choose between anti tank and anti personnell weapons.

You have to be a bit careful with AP1 weapons because they get +1 on the damage table in 5th, so they are a bit more likely to destroy your vehicle. On the other hand, your wave serpent comes with a handy field to stop melta weapons working properly and drop the railgun's strength down to 8, so the wave serpent is still much tougher than other vehicles in the same situation.

So yeah, life is good for wave serpents in 5th.


----------



## blitz451 (Apr 4, 2008)

nice post but i think some of problem is that perception tends to overule math in many cases. Play one game where someones Wave Serpent dances around the board like an avatar of death and in your mind they become much more powerful than they really are. Play a game where your Land Raider gets popped on the first turn and it's an overpriced piece of junk. Everyone has a different perception of how powerful various units are and all the math in the world won't convince them otherwise. For example: I can't kill a Wraith Lord, regardless of what unit or weapon i use i can't kill one....0% chance.

On another note aren't they going to add the vehicle ramming rules from the Ork codex to 5ed as well? I would much rather run down an enemy unit than shoot them. 

I have little experience with 4th edition anyway so i'm not that vested in the switch. (this means take my opinion on this with a large grain of salt)


----------



## agemmanjw (Apr 5, 2008)

*to be the new guy here*

I just joined, but I've been playing 40k for as long as the game has exised (go Rogue Trader). It seems that all the hubub over the new changes is insane. One, the rules aren't here yet (and I understand that most of the rules in the 'secret' copy online are staying) and we have a couple of months for them to change. I, for one, hope the defensive weapon thing gets fixed. Str 5 is perfect (I never understood an ASSAULT cannon being a defensive weapon. The name kinda says it) and str 4 is just useless. As a player of all things armored (I was even a tanker in the army...), I don't want to see move and fire disappear. Two, the new rules are meant to do something the games hasn't seen in a while. Strategy. For too long (since '98), the rules for 40k have been based on army selection. Armies like Chaos (4th ed, the new codex is a 5th ed one), 'nids, and SM all had the ability to pick wargear and unit combinations meant for 'trumping' similar enemy abilities. All too often, in tournaments and friendly gaming, the objective of the mission was nothing more than a way to earn some more victory points. Warhammer Fantasy has a unique way of being based on strategy and use of army over the army selection. the new rules for 40k, combined with the simpler style of codices means that players now have to place emphasis on how to achieve the objectives with what their army can do, not just take 'uberunits' that demolish the opponent and allow the mission to be achieved by default. I don't necessarily know how well it's gonna work, but I like where it's going. Hopefully you guys don't kill me for that, but check out the shift. It's really interesting, and seems to reward people for taking the 'cool' units again... Ave Imperator!:good:


----------



## mr.darkraider (Mar 5, 2008)

^^ very nice points - interestingly i haven't seen 5ed (rumoured) changes like that before - but now that you mention it - i can kind of see where GW going to... 
but still these changes for me still 'feel' like there trying to simplify the game or dumb it down...which = lack of variety in armies - army lists...
but ill guess we'll see in due time.

mr.d


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Heh, seems I was right about my predictions of 5th Ed fucking over the Tau. Check out what a dude on Warseer had to say about it:



> 4th win stats with tau P22 w 20/D1/L1
> 5th win stats with tau P13 w 0/D1/L12
> Same list


Doesn't surprise me in the least.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

I saw that guy's post as well. It's confusing because, with the exception to sometimes being able to see crisis suits behind area terrain, I don't think Tau have been nerfed much at all.

I do see that he says he hasn't changed his list, and that could be the problem. A troops-light tau army could really struggle to complete objectives and might give away a lot of kill points. If this guy's opponents have all adapted to 5th and he hasn't, well it's hardly surprising he's lost.

Even taking all of that into account I really can't see how he's gone from no almost defeats to no wins. If he was unbeatable before 5th then he must be a decent player, and it's weird if he now can't beat people he was dominating before. A decent player would see the problems after the first game or two (if not before) and do something about it.


----------



## patrickgamer (Mar 18, 2008)

Someguy said:


> ...A troops-light tau army could really struggle to complete objectives and might give away a lot of kill points. If this guy's opponents have all adapted to 5th and he hasn't, well it's hardly surprising he's lost....


Woops, I missed something. Are mission objectives changing in some significant way, or are you just suggesting that achieving objectives with a stale army against adapted armies is harder?


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

The changes to missions, scoring units, deployment and having no roll for first turn are going to have a huge impact on 40k. They will make far more of a difference than anything else, in my opinion, and will radically change the priorities in army design.

Firstly scoring units. Only troops will be scoring units and not any vehicles. Units will still score if below 50% strength though, so one guardsman can hold an objective, but not if broken or if they have a special rule stating that they don't score (obviously). Since you may have to try and capture up to 5 objectives, and only troops can do it, it becomes necessary to take rather more troops than it is at the moment.

There are 3 set ups and 3 missions. You can use any set up with any mission, for a total of 9 types of game.

The first mission is take and hold. In this mission you have two objectives, one in each deployment zone. If one guy controls more objectives (both of them or one and the other is contested) then he wins. If you have one each or both are contested, then it's a draw.

The second is recon. This is like take and hold but with D3+2 "loot counters" like in secure and control now. Again, whoever controls most counters wins, or draw with equal numbers.

The third is total annihilation. Here they have a system of kill points (KPs) where you get 3KPs for killing an HQ, 2 for elites, fast attack or heavy support and 1 for troops. Whoever kills the most KPs wins. I happen to hate this system, and many others do as well, as it will lead to imbalanced games. If player A's army contains fewer units than player B's, then player A has an advantage going into the game. I also hate games where the only objective is to kill the other guy. You don't need a scenario to do that.

If any of these scenarios is a draw you can then check the result with victory points.

The set up at the start of the game is clearly a big deal. It's worth having a look at how forces are set up and the implications from that. The biggest change from 4th is that you will have one dice roll before deployment. The winner gets to choose side, deploy his whole army (or whatever the scenario allows) and then the second player deploys. The person who deployed first will have first turn. 

That has massive implications as you will know, when you deploy, who is going to go first. If you deploy first you know you are going to have first turn but you can't see the other guy's army at all. Deploy second, and you know that you are going to have to take the other guy going first, but you can see where everything he has is set up. Infiltrators gain a big advantage if going first as they get to deploy after the "defender" and then move straight away, but then the defender still knows that this is likely to happen and can do stuff about it.

I'm partially interested in looking at deployment because a lot of mathammer type posts tend to assume an environment with both armies deployed 24" apart. I don't think that will be at all common in 5th edition. How we deploy, and what we deploy, will make a big difference to which tactics work, and therefore which types of armies work.

The simplest scenario is the pitched battle. You both deploy your whole armies facing off at least 12" from the line down the middle of the table, so 24" apart. This is very much the classic scenario that most of us are used to. I think that this scenario favours horde armies and fast assaulters because you know where the other guy is going to be and how far you will have to travel. Manoevring can only really be done from side to side, which isn't too useful if there's a wall of orks coming your way. Out-flanking units can do a very valuable job of making the board sides an unfriendly place to be, forcing the shooty player to concentrate his army in the centre for the assaulting horde to hit. Anyone who has access to troops that infiltrate or scout will have an advantage from this.

Next up you have "spearhead". This uses a set up similar to cleanse, apart from that you now can't deploy within 12" of the middle but there is no restriction on deploying near enemy troops. Theoretically, you could deploy within 17" of each other if the guy deploying second, and having second turn, wanted to be charged and rapid fired into. There's no-longer any incentive to leave a spacer unit at the front as there is now in cleanse.

I think this set up favours mobile armies with long range firepower and is bad for hordes and assaulting armies. The spearhead will clearly have a narrow point (a frontage about 17" wide) and you just can't cram 180 orks in that space. The assaulting guy has to travel a very long way to reach enemies hiding on their board edge. Out-flanking units will probably help but I'm not really sure where they will deploy as the pdf I've seen didn't have the diagrams in it yet. At any rate they will be useful to an attacker as it allows him to send some forces to attack from a different direction rather than have everyone madly rush down the middle of the board.

Finally dawn of war. This is the most unusual scenario and the one that needs most analysis I think. You deploy up to one hq and two troops choices but you can leave everything in reserve if you want. Infiltrate works but infiltrators come from your allowance of 2 troops and 1 hq. Everything else is in reserve. Note that this scenario effectively replaces escalation, which isn't in the ruleset I've seen. Vehicles can deploy, so long as they are from the allowed selections, so you can have units with transports set up, for example. You can deploy anywhere on your half of the table but not within 12" of the enemy, so the person deploying first can claim half the board if he wants to. Turn 1 uses the nightfight rule.

I think this scenario will be really hard on hordes. Your army starts the game split up and reinforcements arrive piecemeal. If you deploy first you can claim the middle of the board and maybe even get some first turn charges, if your opponent deploys anything for you to fight. In this case though, your starting units are going to have advanced forward and find that their reinforcements start arriving on turn 2 about 30-36" behind them. On the other hand, going second against a mobile enemy can see you pushed back to within 12" of your own board edge with an enemy who flees before you can get near him, then brings on reinforcements to shoot you down as you try to cover 36" of table and waiting for your own reinforcements to show up.

Static shooty units, other than the two troops you get to deploy and your HQ, aren't great at all in this scenario. Deploy them, and they will be in the dark with an enemy maybe 12" away. Let them come on from reserve, and they do nothing when they do finally arrive.

This set up has big implications for army design. I think it will be useful to have many troops units, and also many types of troops units in your army. That way you can deploy the two units that are most useful depending on whether you are going first or second, and who you are up against. It would be pretty nice to be able to deploy 15 black templars in a LRC as one of your troops choices, for example. I'm thinking of using quite a large IG infantry platoon for one of my troops units, though that requires a transport with a searchlight on to work effectively.

Units able to deploy by deep strike or flank march will be at a big advantage because they can get involved in the game a lot faster. The one danger for these units is that enemy reserves will be able to come on to counter them if they show up early. Similarly, mobile units with long ranged guns will be able to pick and choose where they come on and what they attack.

It may sometimes be a good option to not deploy at all at the start in dawn of war. You don't have to after all. If you are going second and the other guy has already deployed 60 hormagaunts and a flyrant along the centre line of the board, it might not be worth giving him any targets to chew on. Instead you can have your own reserves wander on and rapid fire into the enemy horde. I think it probably is worth deploying stuff if you are going first, but there might still be viable tactics you could use in which you didn't. A ravenwing army might not deploy anything, and then show up from 3 sides of the board from reserve thanks to mass flank marches. That would be tricky to play against.

Sorry for the long post. Much of this was copied from a discussion elsewhere.


----------



## vindur (Apr 1, 2008)

Why are all the eldar players complaining that their vehicles are getting nerfed. 
At least u still have AV12 to give u a small amount of protection.
Think of the Land speeders, piranas, raiders, and ravagers who dont come with a S4 weapon as standard and have armour 10 (except the ravager). The "nerf" to make your tanks balanced has effectively made 3 other vehicles near useless.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Vindur, you have incurred my wrath. It sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about, and you would have if you had read the rest of this thread. Complaining about nerfs from a position of complete ignorance about the real effect of the changes is annoying. Please stop.

I've now lost count of the number of times I have said that skimmers are tougher in 5th edition than in 4th, but I will do it again. A combination of changed damage tables and a cover save for moving fast makes them at worst equally hard to kill on a penetrating hit, and near impossible to kill on a glance. Open topped skimmers are tougher in almost all situations.

One more time then! An open topped skimmer has a 1 in 2 (50%) chance of being destroyed on a glancing hit in 4th edition. In 5th it has a 4/9 (44%) chance of being destroyed on a penetrating hit and a 2/9 (22%) chance of being destroyed on a glance. *That means it is harder to kill*. The only time it is more likely to be destroyed than in 4th ed is when hit by AP1 weapons, which get a +1 on the table. A penetrating hit from an AP1 weapon has a 5/9 (56%) chance to destroy a fast moving skimmer, so watch out for people shooting your raiders with rail guns because they are 6% more likely to die. Some nerf.

Also, you get the save against hits that wouldn't destroy it too. You can save against weapon destroyed, stunned and shaken results, so you are more likely to be able to carry on moving and shooting.

*Also*, there is no entanglement in 5th, just a pinning test if a vehicle is destroyed. Passengers are less likely to be killed as they only take a strength 4 hit, rather than having a 4+ with a reroll to wound. Unless your passengers are toughness 2, they are less likely to die in a crash. A battlewagon full of gretchin may therefore not be a great idea.

*ALSO* you know whether you are going first or second as you deploy. No more putting skimmers down not knowing whether you are going to get shot. If you are going first you can be massively aggressive with your deployment of raiders and the like, because you know that nothing bad is going to happen to them. Going second you can see where the other guy has put all his guns, because his whole army is deployed, and you should be able to seriously limit his fire.

All this, but somehow raiders are now "near useless"? The defensive weapon change doesn't seem to bother them, what with only having one gun. They are tougher and less of a death trap to their cargo. They carry a serious mobile gun as part of a troops choice and only give away one kill point. Remind me again how they have been nerfed please.

Falcons truly have been nerfed. They will be going from being able to fire 3 guns on the move to only one. Ravagers, by contrast, are unchanged. Since they had no strength 5 of 6 guns, they are just a bit tougher now. Piranhas suffer because they give away 2 kill points for a pretty easy kill but to be honest they aren't great now. Land speeder tornados are bad it's true, but to be honest assault cannon spam needed a nerf.


----------



## Steel Rain (Jan 14, 2008)

I'm still trying to figure out how a Leman Russ has a hard time firing 2 heavy bolters and a lascannon on the move, considering they each have a crewman...What tank has a main weapon of s5 or s6?


----------



## 3maverick3 (Jan 24, 2007)

Does anyone know were to get this 5th edition want to be. After all it is just speculation until the official release right???


----------



## vindur (Apr 1, 2008)

Someguy: I can see they are harder to kill but that doesn't mean they are useful
From my source moving over 6 means only firing defensive so to fire at all piranas and land speeders cant move more than six meaning that they dont benefit from the 5+ save. Raiders i don't mind because entanglement is gone but ravagers you are forced to upgrade to disintegrators and fire them on low power to have survivability.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

> Someguy: I can see they are harder to kill but that doesn't mean they are useful
> From my source moving over 6 means only firing defensive so to fire at all piranas and land speeders cant move more than six meaning that they dont benefit from the 5+ save.


Bingo. This is why the Tau are screwed alongside the troops only scoring rules. I have all skimmers that I can't move more than 6" if I want to fire a SINGLE BLOODY WEAPON but if I don't move over 6" I don't get the 5+ save. And in either case, my SMS and burst cannons can't all be fired anymore, making my vehicles damn near useless. And with troops being the only scoring unit, the Tau will fail miserably as they have NO cc ability whatsoever and the holding of an objective will almost always come down to cc. Maybe not every time but with the new running rules, you can bet it will be the majority.

Unless the final version changes greatly from what we have seen in the pdf's and heard in the rumours, Tau are going to be completely boned in 5th ed and Orks WILL be the top of the heap almost without trying.


----------



## Purge (Mar 24, 2008)

My favourite thing about the rumoured 5th ed changes is ramming. Imagine Master Sammael in his land speeder, turbo-boosting 24" & ramming a rhino... :laugh:

I'm a big fan of the 5th ed rumours on the whole. Seems like GW are trying to redress the balance between the simplicity of 3rd & 4th ed and the complexity of 2nd ed.

Only thing I don't like is assaulting OUT of cover... apparently charging out of cover means that you strike at I1, just like assaulting into cover in the new rules... I just don't understand it.
Surely the difficult terrain test indicates how quickly i move through cover... imagine it... a unit hides in a forest, waiting to spring an ambush. They jump out and get screwed over in hand to hand by necron warriors without even getting to strike back...


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

The Wraithlord said:


> Bingo. This is why the Tau are screwed alongside the troops only scoring rules. I have all skimmers that I can't move more than 6" if I want to fire a SINGLE BLOODY WEAPON but if I don't move over 6" I don't get the 5+ save.


That's interesting. It isn't what the pdf I have seen says. There's a section on fast vehicles that says something that fast vehicles at combat speed can fire all their weps, at cruising speed can fire one gun + defensive weps, and flat out can fire nothing.

According to this, fast vehicles fire in pretty much exactly the same way they do now, other than the change to defensive weapons. You *can* move fast enough to get the save and still fire a main weapon and defensive ones.

However, this section is something like 12 pages later in the document than the original section talking about what normal vehicles can fire, on page 73. It's after all the rules for transports, ramming and so on, so I can see how people might have missed it when looking for the rules for vehicles shooting. Alternatively, the copy you have seen may genuinely be different, more or less recent than mine. I don't know.



Vindur said:


> From my source moving over 6 means only firing defensive


That doesn't match my version either. I have that you can either fire nothing, one gun and all defensive, or everything. I can't see a situation where you can fire defensive only. Again, we may have seen different versions of the rules.

I'm making statements based on what I've read and heard others discussing. From that I think that vehicles mounting one gun; wave serpents, raiders and the like, have little to fear from 5th. Devilfish, especially those with smart missile systems, lose quite a lot more. I think that hammerheads are, on balance, about the same after becoming tougher, harder to prevent from firing, but usually being unable to fire their secondary weapons.

Personally I've never actually fielded a devilfish since I think kroot are better than fire warriors anyway. 5th makes them even better still.

If you are concerned about hordes of orks, try fielding a horde of kroot. You can get a vast number of kroot if you really want to and they are seriously dangerous things. I wouldn't be surprised to see an army with a hundred of them, which isn't even half your points used up in a 1500 point game. Getting past the kroot's rapid fire band will kill an average of 50 orks, and the same again if the orks charge the kroot. Then have three railheads, a unit of firewarriors and an HQ (for which I might consider shadowsun, thanks to her stealth field). You will note that the ork guy doesn't have many more models than you, doesn't have a hundred infiltrating guys he can set up after seeing where the orks are even if you are going first, and doesn't have back up from railheads dropping sub-munitions into his units. That will make a difference I suspect.

I'm not really sure that the above works, it would need trying out, as all of this stuff does. If we're working to a different pdf then that explains why we are coming to different conclusions.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

> That's interesting. It isn't what the pdf I have seen says. There's a section on fast vehicles that says something that fast vehicles at combat speed can fire all their weps, at cruising speed can fire one gun + defensive weps, and flat out can fire nothing.


There are multiple versions of the pdf out there unfortunately. The one I have seen does not say what yours does. Even so, cruising speed is 6-12" so if I move 6+ inches I can only fire a single gun as everything in my army is ST5 or higher. This STILL bones my vehicles for no reason beyond trying to nerf Eldar skimmers and I call bullshit on that. If Eldar skimmers were such a problem, FAQ -them-, don't change the core rules and fuck over skimmers in general.

In my 1500-2000pt lists, I field 2 Warfish and 1 Hammerhead, all with SMS, and now they are next best thing to useless. And while Kroot may get a small boost in the end, I really dislike the idea that I have to rebuild my army ENTIRELY because of the new rules. Yes I know it has happened before but my biggest complaint about the 5th Ed rules is the return of the vehicle pillbox and shafting of vehicle mobility and the fact that my biggest complaint also manages to fuck over my fully assembled and painstakingly painted army pisses me off to no end.

5th has a great deal to prove to me to prevent me from switching to Fantasy entirely.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

The Wraithlord said:


> This STILL bones my vehicles for no reason beyond trying to nerf Eldar skimmers and I call bullshit on that. If Eldar skimmers were such a problem, FAQ -them-, don't change the core rules and fuck over skimmers in general.


I do have a major problem with reducing the strength of defensive weapons to 4. I agree that it's stupid. I also agree that, clearly, the solution to a broken unit is to fix that unit, not rewrite the core rules and screw everyone. This is a problem with the way GW bring out rules, with a codex every 5+ years that is set in stone from that point onwards regardless of any "mistakes" in it. Other games systems have far better ongoing support for rules and GW's is, as many people have said, very poor indeed.

This particular change is not uniquely a problem for skimmers, at least if my rules are correct. The 3 predators I have with lascannon turrets and heavy bolter sponsons are all going to gather quite a bit of dust I expect. Bear in mind, a skimmer can still act as a perfectly good pillbox if it wants to, or at least an armoured one can.

Stupid rule anyway. I hate that passengers can fire to near full effect from a transport moving 12" but gunners can't. So an ork can fire his big shoota off a speeding trukk but a marine sponson gunner can't fire the heavy bolter built into his tank as it goes half the speed the trukk is going... right.



The Wraithlord said:


> In my 1500-2000pt lists, I field 2 Warfish and 1 Hammerhead, all with SMS, and now they are next best thing to useless. And while Kroot may get a small boost in the end, I really dislike the idea that I have to rebuild my army ENTIRELY because of the new rules.


I don't think things are as bad as you say. Certainly, the combat power of a devilfish is reduced, but that allows you to take its upgrades away and spend points elsewhere. If you remove the SMS, multi tracker and targetting array you save 35 points per fish, which can really add up across an army.

If my rules are correct, the hammerhead is kind of similar in terms of effectiveness. Again, a few upgrades are probably coming off. I'd probably give it burst cannons instead of SMS, no target lock and so on. Saves a little bit. Losing this but gaining significantly in toughness and kind of improved accuracy on the submunitions is not bad at all overall. The railgun is almost as good at killing vehicles in 5th as with the more harsh damage tables of 4th, and you can now have people markerlight enemy vehicles to take their cover saves away. I don't think they are useless at all.

I grant you that it's very annoying to have your army written off by new rules, but I'm used to it by now. My own 3rd edition tournament eldar army, with which I won a box full of tournament trophies including best general at a UKGT, was a shadow of its former self in 4th. Suddenly I couldn't charge out of my wave serpents, I got entangled if they died, my wraithlords were in reserve because of escalation and so on. Rules changed so tactics changed, so armies designed for one set of tactics changed as well. My eldar have been in a box for years now. Actually, the buffs to wave serpents mean they might come out again.

However, that's just what happens. It's not only because individual units are buffed/nerfed by the changes but because the game's set up, turn sequence and objectives are all also different. *Everyone* playing anything like competitively is going to go through very significant changes in how their armies are set up. You will need different tactics to win games in 5th, based solely on objective capturing which can only be done by troops, than in 4th where the main objective is nearly always to kill the other guy. Different tactics require a different army design.

I'm quite relaxed about changing my army. I need a new army and I feel like making one for one thing, so I can work out something for the new rules and be ready. Also, playing in tournaments most people come up with a new army every year or two anyway, if only because it gets boring to keep doing the same thing.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Oh I know that changes will be required and such and don't truly have a problem with that in and of itself. My problem stems from the fact that I really enjoy mobility in my armies and with my vehicles and GW has once again taken a full step forward with 4th only to take 5 steps back with 5th and are returning the vehicles to the pillboxes they once were. Then to add insult to injury they also decide, from everything I can see and have read, to return the game back to the stone ages by making close combat more have more of a focus than shooting. Sorry if I sound harsh to anyone reading this but if you want to play close combat oriented games, go play Fantasy for fucks sake. WH40K is all about FUTURISTIC combat with big friggin guns and superpowerful vehicles that can lay waste to cities. So why the focus on getting in to stab someone with a knife?? I just don't get it.


----------



## vindur (Apr 1, 2008)

Because it doesn't matter how big your gun is if someone is beating you over the head with a rock


----------



## Maximus (Mar 9, 2008)

Now, from what I read you guys writing is that IG is going up the ranks again.
Why is that so? Since vehicles are harder to kill and the IG can take a LOT of them (especially with the "Mechanized" doctrine) Guard units will be harder to kill by shooting. Also the platoon system should give Guard armies an advantage in Dawn of War-scenarios, since they may deploy more units. Well, close combat guys are still a threat but, lets face it, they always were. As far as I see it, my Imperial Guard is not going into a box because of 5th.


----------



## leinad-yor (Apr 14, 2008)

I have a copy of the PDF and play guard, I kit out all of my russ's with 3 HB's because i like to move them and if these rules stand as the are I mind as well "break" off the sponsons because I'll most likely not get to use them. 

What about the Chimera one st6 and one st5 weapon as standard kit, pintle weapons will almost be a must just to get a few extra shots in on a vehicle that is meant to move across the battle field to secure those objectives to win the game.

Stormtroopers will no longer use transports they will just deepstrike and die because they no longer can claim objectives.

On the plus side we will have more squads that can claim objectives than any other army out there, but how resilient is a lone Armored Fist squad that is trying to get the objective in your opponents deployment zone.

I love my guard but a lot of these possible new rules will make it hard for me to enjoy a game when I know I most likely can't win without totally destroying my opponent or using doctrines that we may be losing in the next codex.

OK I'm finished ranting for now...


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

I wanna chime in again...

IG will require a full makeover. While ground tanks are 'harder', they are much less effective. I move my vehicles. With the new rules, Tanks cannot claim objectives, and cannot move and fire, so why even give them a movement value at all? I don't care much for stationary gun platforms, heck, I don't even use a bassie. My three LRMBTs and two Chimeras are getting shafted, as I make great use of those heavy bolters on the move.

Wraithlord has the right of it, as I mentioned before. 40K and Fantasy should not have the same feel. Swords and Sorcery for WHFB, and BFG2000s and Technology for 40K.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

It looks like blast weapons will now get full hits when they partially cover bases, not hits on a 4+, and that will lead to many more hits from ordnance. 

It's also harder to stop the thing from shooting, for a number of reasons (not least that the other guy will probably be using more troops) and this helps it do more damage.

Also the mere fact of more infantry on the field will make it more fun to fire ordnance at them. A 20 man BT crusader squad running at you can be pretty scary, but less so after 3 leman russ fire into it.

If all else fails, and your battlecannon is shot off, ram something.

It's a real problem that the thing no longer scores. I think that IG will really struggle with missions like take and hold if they have to somehow put infantry squads on an objective in the other guy's deployment zone. This isn't the kind of thing that IG excel at, it must be said.

Swings and roundabouts in my opinion. I kind of like how it's now the battlecannon that is the main feature of the LR. It felt wrong that you were so often better off firing the 3 heavy bolters.


----------

