# AICN talks about 5th Ed



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Here is what they had to say in this article:



> Now I’ve been making a few calls, trying to get a hold of the 5E rules (which Partner stores are getting a demo copy of this week, by the way) and finally found my way to a chunk of them. I even managed to watch two complete games. And it. Is. Sick. The games run very smooth, but they are brutal as all hell. One game I watched lasted 3 rounds before the Eldar cried uncle. Close combat is a bloody, nasty affair that no longer will drag out for round after round. Losing armies roll their leadership checks with a penalty equal to the number of units they lost. Which means more fleeing armies. Yes. Let that sink in a second. But worry not, for every rule like this that makes some aspect nastier, something compensates. You can no longer consolidate into an enemy unit. Now, this is something that makes my Death Company very, very sad. Rending also got defanged, so I was getting a bit…pensive.
> 
> Then I saw Run in effect. Everyone can Run now - in place of shooting - for extra movement. Fleet apparently now allows you to assault after a run. But just as things got FASTER, table position became so much more important. The Line of Sight (LOS) rules have changed dramatically. The new TRUE LOS removes a whole level of complication, but changes the way you think about terrain and troop placement. If you can see it from eye level of the shooting mini, it has LOS. They introduced this into CONFRONTATION last year to howls, screams and calls for revolt – but I loved the mechanic. Simple, easy, right on. We'll see how the 40k community takes it. There’s still cover saves if it is partial LOS, but if you can see it, you can shoot it. And here’s the BIG kicker. If you can see one mini of a unit, you can wipe out the whole unit. Yes. Pretty brutal, huh? For terrain builders the entire field has actually changed. Things like dragons teeth and rubble will become a little less popular since the 6” rule no longer applies. And hills, buildings and walls will take on added significance. Getting high means hitting more things, and high interfering terrain means the ability to hide. Those old low hills will only grant a cover save now. Get ready to start building terrain folks.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

that sounds...almost to good to be true. The run rule is something i like a lot, and will help my guard move around a lot. Sounds like they fixed assault too, _thank god_. Though i am a little worried about the "more fleeing armies" bit. When i read that i could hear my friend saying, "WHAT!? NOW IT'S JUST LIKE FANTASY!" which i suppose is true, but then, i play both so i don't care. It brings more realism to the game anyway. An officer and two conscripts aren't going to stay and fight against a horde of genestealers, they're going to haul ass and get out of there. And of course, as a guard player, i am extremely happy about the new blast template rules. :mrgreen:


----------



## Death 0F Angels (Feb 27, 2008)

well im glad to hear more good things about 5th after all the thrashing the pdf took(nvr seen it so not sure how different). ill be picking it up either way.


----------



## Bishop120 (Nov 7, 2007)

ATSKNF just got seriously buffed and Chaos just got seriously nerfed.... I can already hear the whining.


----------



## Dirge Eterna (Apr 30, 2007)

Bah! Chaos is never nerfed, just adjusted. We blasphemers will always squeak out a win.

I love the looks so far. Seems more realistic then before. Tanks as cover, Run, LOS, etc. Plus, I can see hella Khorne armies coming back into play with the new LD modifiers. This may not be the Apocalypse I've been preaching.

Yet.
-Dirge


----------



## solitaire (Mar 24, 2008)

Hmmmm, Star Engines on tanks to ram other tanks..........*Interesting!*


----------



## EvgO (Dec 23, 2007)

Never played a game of 40k before, as I purchased my armies about half-a-year ago, and decided to wait for the new ed..

But, anyway, wiping out a _whole_ unit if you see _one_ model out of it sounds sick..
Something like "ohmygodemperor something just shot Bill, let's go out and see what it was!"..

The review sounded positive though.

Edit: and as an eldar (and chaos) player..ramming with eldar tanks? That's a bit un-eldar.


----------



## Skorch (Dec 30, 2007)

Well, ill never be going to a tournament again.

I've got no problem with tue LOS, but if you can only see one member of a unit only one should be able to be killed. What logic is behind them all being able to die. Me and my friends will be playing it "One shot one kill" way. My only other gripe is that leadership modifiers are based on units lost. Imperial guard are screwed. Seriously. Jervis is on crack.

Say what you want, but the time will come when your opponent will say. "Yep, i can see they grey knight's halberd so the whole unit of 10 dies."


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

a fair point. banners and such will present a problem that could be potentially exploited by power gamers unfortunately.


----------



## Bishop120 (Nov 7, 2007)

Well thats one of the reasons they claim to have made a laser pointer for 5th Edition.. with LOS becoming so much more important they will probably have something like if you can see an enemy models base or a whole enemy model... if they go off of things like tip of swords and banners it will just be ridiculous.

On the other hand though the rest of the rules sound pretty good. A much faster, bloodier, brutal game now. Sounds like it will be far easier to determine the winning side.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

The rules at the moment take account of units with ornate weapons/banners etc. You have to have LoS on the main body of the model, not the tip of a weapon etc.


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

so then it's safe to assume the new ones will as well.


----------



## Alexander_67 (May 5, 2007)

Its sounds... cool? I'm trying really hard to not build up my hopes so i'm not dissapointed if its shite. But it sounds good. Really good. Of course i have tonnes of worries about everyone saying about how brutal CC is. I hope for armies who dont have good CC core get something for balance. I mean if CC against my witch hunters was brutal before wtf is it going to be like now?


----------



## Dreamseller (Nov 15, 2007)

GW middlesbrough has the new rule book out every thursday for people to have a gander at and, every day till the new rule book comes out they teaching certain parts of it


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

Mmmm...some of this I like, running etc makes a lot of sense, but some points are insane! I do not get the logic behind being able to kill a whole squad merely because a part of a single model can be seen! Also I wish there could of been some distinction regarding how fast certain races run, i.e. a marine runs as fast as a gretchin. Doesn't seem right to me but that has always been a particular gripe of mine in every edition.
I shall give the 5th ago, but my little gaming group shall keep the 4th to hand, just in case....


----------



## LoreMaster (May 20, 2008)

Running sounds good as does the even more brutal CC, i mean hell its CC its supposed to be brutal! The new LOS isnt really all that new, my first intro game years ago there was a moment in game where one of my marines had a line of sight on one of the dark eldars which was sticking out round a rock and the staff memeber agreed it was a valid shot.


----------



## Bishop120 (Nov 7, 2007)

darklove said:


> The rules at the moment take account of units with ornate weapons/banners etc. You have to have LoS on the main body of the model, not the tip of a weapon etc.


Rules of the moment state from base to base.

Can anyone confirm/deny what the new codex states as far as what determines when models count as seeing each other?


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

if GW changes that, they'd have to have been smoking something...


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Bishop120 said:


> Rules of the moment state from base to base.


Please read page 21, paragraph 1, line 12 of 4th ed. It specifically says the body of the model and NOT the base.


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

Good call darklove, I'd forgotten. That's how they deal with the mounting models on a larger base rule.


----------



## Bishop120 (Nov 7, 2007)

Try checking page 6 Darklove. Paragraph called Bases. First sentence. Your sentence is almost a cut and paste from 3rd edition prior to GW adding this in. 

Since all measuring is done based upon the base and the model is considered to occupy the area of its base it can be concluded that the body of the model is visible based upon drawing LOS from base to base. If there is any intervening terrain between the two bases then you have to deal with the problem of cover saves and what not.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

np - you might have been thinking of measuring range.


----------



## Firewolf (Jan 22, 2007)

>> Page 6-bases is, and I quote from the book," So when measuring distances, use the closest edge as your referance point". 

>>Page 21 says "Line of site must be traced to the body".

>> Not trying to be an arse here, just clarifying what the rule book says. Page 21 wins.k::good:


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

The rules are pretty clear - except that you measure range to the body of a model if it is a vehicle that does not have a base or a Dred.


----------



## Firewolf (Jan 22, 2007)

>> Obviously not when Bishop put in the referance for page 6. Only trying to help wi the discussion. If you dont like it, to bad.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

Am I the only one that thinks running is stupid?

Why make it random? 

One turn you run 1 inch for a total of 7, another you run 6 inches for a total of 12. Do you run 100 metres and managed to do it 5 seconds faster than your slowest 1 time in 6?


----------



## Alexander_67 (May 5, 2007)

Fleet has always made little sense. I blame the loss of individual movement values after 3rd for creating it.


----------



## Absolute035 (Jan 13, 2008)

Jezlad said:


> Am I the only one that thinks running is stupid?
> 
> Why make it random?
> 
> One turn you run 1 inch for a total of 7, another you run 6 inches for a total of 12. Do you run 100 metres and managed to do it 5 seconds faster than your slowest 1 time in 6?


I don't care for it much either, and it devalues fleet. 

I've had to face the Nightbringer in 750, the last thing I need is him running. Not to mention running melee carnifexes. TMCs suddenly being able to move twice as fast is dumb.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

it doesnt devalue fleet, as fleet greatly benefits close combat armies, what it does do is help the guys only armed with short range weapons, or rapid fire weapons do something than stand right out in the open when there is no one in range.


----------



## Bishop120 (Nov 7, 2007)

Absolute035 said:


> I don't care for it much either, and it devalues fleet.
> 
> I've had to face the Nightbringer in 750, the last thing I need is him running. Not to mention running melee carnifexes. TMCs suddenly being able to move twice as fast is dumb.


Oh geez... I never thought about those bastiches running....


----------



## Trigger (Mar 12, 2008)

The random value represents whather the squad are strolling through a meadow or twisting their ankles on babies heads. Makes sense to me.


----------



## Tigirus (Apr 13, 2008)

or in tyranids case, their own dead, but another thing about running carnifex's, cause if they more 12" you also move 12" so you can run away if you have to, and also it can't shoot or charge on top of that 12" move

EDIT: I just though about this, can assault marines run? would that mean they could move 36" in a turn and same with the bloodthirster for that matter *shutters*


----------



## lightmonkey (Apr 1, 2008)

ohhhh i think my flying tyrant became just a little more powerful.........not really that useful just helps ^^ you still can't charge right?


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

From what I understand units that already have a movement mode beyond the normal 6" will not be able to run.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

CC is not more brutal in 5th, because you can't consolidate into new combats. I think that the changes to CC benefit shooting armies overall, not CC armies.

When that unit of khorne berzerkers charges your squad and kills it, it doesn't get to kill a 2nd unit in your turn. Instead, it gets to spend your turn being shot.

For a shooting army vs a CC army it's really a benefit to have 1 turn CCs. I want my guys to run away and maybe escape, maybe get caught. What they must not do is pass their LD check and stay in CC, preventing me from firing. In 5th, they won't.

I'm really looking forward to 5th. There are some really great changes . There are a couple of weird things too it must be said. Kill points do not work, strength 4 defensive weps are a mistake and the LoS changes are a bit of an unknown quantity (though don't get me started on the 4th ed LoS rules, which almost nobody understood). Overall I think it will be good.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Trigger said:


> The random value represents whather the squad are strolling through a meadow or twisting their ankles on babies heads. Makes sense to me.


so what we need is a chart maybe?

1 - Bill tripped on the heavy bolter ammo feed. again. stupid Bill.
2 - sarge tells off pete for doing the slow-motion baywatch run.
3 - Pete stops to (kill/help/have sex with) lost tourist who need directions to train station. (delete whichever action is inappropriate for your army/race/species)
4 - The unit hustles. Then boogies and gets down with it. manages to move quite fast despite stupid dancing.
5 - Pvt. Forrest shows the unit how to really run. Run forrest Run!
6 - Unit busts out secret suped-up segways, quickly put them away at end of turn before someone sees them and laughs.


----------



## Firewolf (Jan 22, 2007)

Engelus said:


> it doesnt devalue fleet, as fleet greatly benefits close combat armies, what it does do is help the guys only armed with short range weapons, or rapid fire weapons do something than stand right out in the open when there is no one in range.


>> Well said mate. Why anyone would stand wide open when theres bolters/shurikensd/lances/ etc etc firing round about them always mede me wonder. But, it should be a set number of inches, not a random number, cos if ye need to move 5, but role 4 whats the fuckin point in movin in the first place?:crazy:


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

So is fleet now 2D6 inches? Or can you move two seperate occasions of D6 inches?


----------



## Allos (Nov 5, 2007)

Cadian81st said:


> So is fleet now 2D6 inches? Or can you move two seperate occasions of D6 inches?


Fleet is still d6, but allows you to still assault after you move unlike 'run' where you cannot assault. Using run on a model with Fleet is pointless. since both are used in the shooting phase.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

actually theres more of a difference with fleet, you cannot run within 12 inches of an enemy, to advance or flee is you do not have fleet.


----------



## Bishop120 (Nov 7, 2007)

maddermax said:


> so what we need is a chart maybe?
> 
> 1 - Bill tripped on the heavy bolter ammo feed. again. stupid Bill.
> 2 - sarge tells off pete for doing the slow-motion baywatch run.
> ...


Only I would switch 5 and 6... Forrest is way faster than a Segway :laugh::laugh:


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

what is a 'segway'?


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

darklove said:


> what is a 'segway'?


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Those things are uber cool. I want one


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_do_you_remember_life


----------



## rgw (Jan 29, 2008)

i think it might be better if running was a constant number, since every infantry unit in the game moves at the same rate anyway, why can't they sprint the same speed?

i like the LoS, although my gaming buddies and me might change it if only one model is visible


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

rgw said:


> i think it might be better if running was a constant number, since every infantry unit in the game moves at the same rate anyway, why can't they sprint the same speed?


They CAN all sprint the same speed, i.e. d6". Anyway, it would be boring if everything was cavalry or jump infantry, People would only ever field CC armies.


----------



## rincewind (May 6, 2008)

About the LOS rule (and I want it clear that I do not aprove or disaprove of the rule yet), but...

I think they had something in mind like... You see 1 model of a unit and your squad starts shooting at it, but ofcourse alot of bullets stray or are close or whatever. Now it is possible they stand behind a wall and a stray bullet bounces of a wall and kills another model of the unit, or goes through a weak spot of the wall or whatever. It happens in war you know...


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

They say that the main fluff reason for it is that it represents how in real time the two units are moving. So if you are shooting a unit of orks running towards you, not all of which you can see, it just represents that some people fire a bit later once they do appear.

I don't think it represents that especially well. Why do I need to be able to see any of the orks then, if I can wait for them to come out of cover?


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

rincewind said:


> About the LOS rule (and I want it clear that I do not aprove or disaprove of the rule yet), but...
> 
> I think they had something in mind like... You see 1 model of a unit and your squad starts shooting at it, but ofcourse alot of bullets stray or are close or whatever. Now it is possible they stand behind a wall and a stray bullet bounces of a wall and kills another model of the unit, or goes through a weak spot of the wall or whatever. It happens in war you know...


What doesn't happen is that in a unit of ten men, you can't see, is that if one pops out for a wee you can shhot the other nine in a bunker.

Can somebody please clarify as this rule sounds poo.

I can almost accept the moving unit story but what about stationary units.

What can be easier to understand than stating that direct fire weapons cannot affect models not in line of sight?


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Well obviously this isn't really being done for fluff reasons but for game balance. GW have decided that the various methods of sniping individual models out of units need to be stopped and this is how they are doing it.

I wouldn't say that it's a particularly elegant solution but I think I can live with it. This, and various other changes like the response move when charged, mean that it's very hard for either side to prevent specific models from attacking, or from being killed. Essentially the whole unit fights or none does.

Personally I'm quite chilled out about being able to shoot guys who are out of range, as after all the bolter rounds don't just stop after 12", but the LOS one is more odd especially, as you say, with stationary units behind solid cover.

In reality, if you knew there was a unit hiding behind a wall because one guy foolishly gave them away, you would probably throw a handfull of grenades over. Think if it like that if you like.


----------



## Bishop120 (Nov 7, 2007)

I still want overwatch back from 2nd Edition...

But I can think of this as people shooting through the walls/cover to hit the rest of the unit.. its like.. Oh crap... look.. theres a squad of orks in that building... and then everyone opens fire on the building and it looks like a movie scene where in the end the only thing left of the building is the door frame..


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

The way I figure it, if you have one model peeking out around a building, and you come under fire, just remove the visible one as one of the first casualties. Sure, the shooting squad that caused the casualty might cause others too, but a single squad/vehicle usually won't cause more than 3-4 kills max, often fewer. Afterwards, any other squads that want to shoot at you can't anyway. Overall, you might lose one or two extra models than you would have in 4th ed, but unless your enemy is rolling brilliantly, and your rolling poorly, it won't be game breaking.


meanwhile, back off topic:



Elchimpster said:


> SegwayHTiSeries.jpg


That pic gave me an urge to brush up on my photoshop, so I give you:









Kharn The Segway-er
Beware His Gyroscopic Wheels of Death!

/alternate ending: Laugh or Cry, You're already dead


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

Awsome picture, but you have too much time on your hands.


----------



## rincewind (May 6, 2008)

Someguy said:


> Well obviously this isn't really being done for fluff reasons but for game balance. GW have decided that the various methods of sniping individual models out of units need to be stopped and this is how they are doing it.


Don't know what reason GW had, but I always like to 'see' it for myself. That's why I said what I said. 
:grin:


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

arghh man no more consolidating into another unit. That makes my khorne cry


----------



## Coffeemug (Jan 4, 2008)

If I were a space marine and I saw a guy peaking from behind a building I would tell the whole unit to light up that building, shoot it down and tear it apart. A bolter shell is more than potent enough to shoot through a concrete wall. I like the rule(and fear the rule). It will make games go quicker.


----------



## PapaNurgle (Jun 5, 2008)

The other thing to think about is that the game represents discrete moments in time. If that squad just crossed an opening between 2 buildings and you can only see 1 model at the end of their movement, "how much sense does it make that 'my' dev squad can only kill 1 guy out of the squad?" You can argue that lots of ways. 

In the end, there are so many ways to snipe particular models that were against the 'spirit' of what the designers intended, that they felt that this was the best solution. In lots of situations it seems elegant and intuitive. In others, there are some real head scratchers. But we've always had that. And now, at least you're really likely to get a cover save instead of just dying like a pig.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

the cabbage said:


> What doesn't happen is that in a unit of ten men, you can't see, is that if one pops out for a wee you can shoot the other nine in a bunker.


then simply don't move one of your models out to take a wee.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Bishop120 said:


> ATSKNF just got seriously buffed and Chaos just got seriously nerfed.... I can already hear the whining.


nerf us all you want, the death guard will always overcome.


----------



## justjuiced (May 26, 2008)

banners,tips of weapons,hair,even limbs has never been counted as being able to see a model page 21, 4th edition, line of sight must be traced to the body of the target i'm sure that won't change


----------



## Druchii in Space (Apr 7, 2008)

Not sure how valid it is but I've seen a few folks who claim to have seen the book from other forums, saying it clearly states LoS is to body part, as in body, head, arm or leg, not to weapons or banners.


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

justjuiced said:


> banners,tips of weapons,hair,even limbs has never been counted as being able to see a model page 21, 4th edition, line of sight must be traced to the body of the target i'm sure that won't change


yeah, we were saying we hope the don't change that for fifth. though if they haven't done it for twenty years, they're probably not starting anytime soon...


----------



## The Hobo Hunter (Jan 2, 2008)

Okay, I'm all for removing members of the squad who aren't in LOS, as the unit may be moving around exchanging fire etc, and it helps the game mechanics out as 40k is too abstract a system to take shots in a precise moment of time.

So why the hell is a true-LOS system being implemented?!? It makes no sense at all that true-LOS is to be used in a game divided into turns representing abstract movement. If you are allowed to kill soldiers not in view becuase they may or may not have been in view at other points in time, why do your soldiers have to draw a bead on their enemy's physical body to target them in the first place?

The figures themselves are all abstract representations of a soldier. Just because someone's heroic commander is modelled on a rock/piece of rubble/dead enemy, it doesn't mean he takes it with him everywhere. And any soldier will crouch, crawl, or sprint as the enviroment requires.

Likewise, with terrain. Terrain is a representation, not an absolute. Just becuase that ruin has windows here, here, and here, it does not mean that the rest of the ruin is structurally sound, or intact at all. I'll accept true LOS for terrain when I see ruins complete with destroyed furniture and realistic rubble piles.

40k is waaaaaay too abstract a system to use true LOS. Pretty much all the other rules in 5th I can live with, for better or worse, but this one is just retarded.


----------



## earlgrey (Jun 6, 2008)

the part that is being left out is that only the guys in your unit that have true LOS can shoot at the guy that is out for the wee. I think in most situations that it would mean less then the whole squad is firing ( I realize in some this won't be the case) So if half a ten man tac squad unloads on a guy taking a wee, figure some shots go wide, they were assuming more guys were behind cover etc...I think it is pretty realistic. If you were in combat and saw one guy in a building...you would totally shoot at the whole thing.

I have seen and read some of the new book, and I think the illustrations in it will remove alot of confusion. Not why they did it, but how to implement it.


----------



## jman (Feb 20, 2008)

i have a friend who plays gaurd this will make him very happy


----------



## jman (Feb 20, 2008)

well the new los rules when combined with new cover rules

you must choose between modeling higher for better los

or modeling lower for better cover


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

jman said:


> well the new los rules when combined with new cover rules
> 
> you must choose between modeling higher for better los
> 
> or modeling lower for better cover


Or, instead of being a munchkin you could model to have great looking models, and play to have cover or los.


----------



## KrythosMJarenkai (Jun 16, 2008)

first, I feel that being able to take out a whole squad behind a wall (with a cover save, of coarse) because you saw one unit in the squad should have been implimented a long time ago. and I also feel that TLOS will be welcomed for some units. of coarse some units will hurt because of it for being short, or too far down, like some of my necrons, but my skimmer destroyers who sit above will get nice shots off over cover that i have otherwise not been able to make because terrain has effectively blocked the 4th ed LoS rules.


----------



## SpaNNerZ (Jun 17, 2008)

I wanna kno how guard flashlight could breach the wall of a bunker if one guys standing on the outside??
I welcome the running gives a new element to a few things e.g. marines sprinting to get into combat but once in range slow down a bit in fear of gettig shot.

The LOS rule is.... well to say the least interesting, on the forum there has been many good and bad views on it, and I think some people should chillax and stop speculating(although it is fun) GW have reason for most things and they aim to make it enjoyable for most so once the rules actually come out, I reckon better understanding to all will be given, GW havn't stuffed up something that seems as vitally important as LOS, in more recent editions althought people have had the issues with rules it has worked none-the-less.

flying missiles now thats my type of game, ramming is goin to be great, how it'll work shall be interesting.

peace out:victory:


----------



## asianavatar (Aug 20, 2007)

> well the new los rules when combined with new cover rules
> 
> you must choose between modeling higher for better los
> 
> or modeling lower for better cover


That is the problem, game rules should not be decided on how your character is modeled. If we are all using the same exact models than no problems, but with the open, free models that GW uses, this true line of sight thing seems stupid. So my flying hovering seraphim get screwed because I modeled them to look cool, where as the genestealers modeled to look like they are half buried under the ground get an advantage...really dumb.


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

Ahh but GW have planned for this! Thats why they stopped us buying bitz from mail order. That way it limits or ability to convert models! See, GW are not as dumb as they look! 
Coz that would be impossible :grin:


----------



## Inquisitor Aurelius (Jun 9, 2008)

asianavatar said:


> That is the problem, game rules should not be decided on how your character is modeled. If we are all using the same exact models than no problems, but with the open, free models that GW uses, this true line of sight thing seems stupid. So my flying hovering seraphim get screwed because I modeled them to look cool, where as the genestealers modeled to look like they are half buried under the ground get an advantage...really dumb.


Hear hear! Of course, it wouldn't matter so much if not for the flaming munchkins that are henceforth going to be modelling all their Marines crawling through the muck or taking a knee. There's a sodding good reason that I'll never attend a GT.

Of course, it also rather ballses up my Raptors, who will now be considerably easier to hit than their Loyalist equivalents, and my Lord's scenic base may have to go. Bugger...

[EDIT: Capitalization.]


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Just use terrain to your advantage. Move yore models behind woods, buildings etc. The fact that they can be seen is not that much of a disadvantage. Use other troops to screen for the more valuable troops.


----------



## Firewolf (Jan 22, 2007)

>> Myself and the guys i play 40k with have discussed this rule, and decided that we will use the rules from the current edition instead. Simple really, dont like the rule, dont use it.


----------



## Inquisitor Aurelius (Jun 9, 2008)

The troop-screening thing would be worse than pointless - the whole point of jump infantry is that they're fast, more so than ordinary troops. The only thing that could effectively screen jump infantry is more jump infantry, which would be a bit daft, n'est pas?

Anyway, that wasn't really my point - my point was that it's another advantage that the Loyalists have over their Chaotic equivalents. Ah, well. Just one more thing to kvetch about.


----------



## vindur (Apr 1, 2008)

Engelus said:


> actually theres more of a difference with fleet, you cannot run within 12 inches of an enemy, to advance or flee is you do not have fleet.


Actually the fleet rule is very short now
"a unit with fleet may charge after running" 
says nothing about ignoring the limitations


----------



## Lax (Jun 16, 2008)

I don't really mind LOS etc for what I know of militaria.
But things are bothering me :

-Every unit can run, even a carniflex or an assault space marine, but it's D6 for everyone.
Happily Fleet is not a systematic capacity (Else, it wouldn't be a turn 2 in games)

-Allocating wounds, say hello to squad member eating all the AP/ID etc wounds and the others sharing the standard ones, that's rubbish !

-No more moves after hth, except consolidation that forbids contact with ennemy...What's the point of a hth army ? I'm really stressed on this point


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

yeah, it scares me for my BT's but I'll adjust.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Engelus said:


> yeah, it scares me for my BT's but I'll adjust.


exactly. with some adjustments to planning, the same forces, or the same forces with minor modifications, will perform the same. instead of assaulting with one unit, assault with multiple, or assault where another opposing squad will provide some cover saves, or assault near cover, and consolidate into it.
there is noting about the new edition that cannot be overcome by learning new tricks. this is the same as the switch to third and fourth editions. so no need to sweat it.k:


----------



## SpaNNerZ (Jun 17, 2008)

exactly
new tricks = new loops holes for power gamers thats my worry!:ireful2:

peace out:victory:


----------



## Judas Masias (Jun 5, 2008)

well that is just Bull Sh1t if someone says i can see the tip of your power sword so i can shoot you:angry::threaten::fuck:. I say that the tips of weapons and banner polls do not count as legel target you must be able to see 1/2 of the model to be able to shoot at it.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Once again, the rules are more common sense than this.

They say right in the book, that scenic bases and model poses aren't factored in.

If an infantry model is half-obscured, it gets the cover save, because, after all, the SOLDIER, unlike the model, will be grabbing cover to the best of their ability.


----------



## Octavian (Jun 5, 2008)

I dont like the troops are only scoring units thing cause I dont field much troops but I gues thats gonna have to change:no:


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Octavian said:


> I dont like the troops are only scoring units thing cause I dont field much troops but I gues thats gonna have to change:no:


that is why the new rules are there, to encourage more use of troops, without requiring the use of troops.


----------

