# Possible 5th ed



## Warpath (Nov 27, 2007)

Ok i heard i little rumour and this is not from other sites, that by the end of next year its possible we'll be seeing a 5th edition of 40k !!!!

Has anyone else heard this or is someone just trying to be clever and start a rumour ???

Warpath


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

There is a huge thread on Warseer about it but there is very little actual content regarding all the same. Take with a grain of salt or possibly an entire block.


----------



## Asmodai (Dec 30, 2006)

It's been substantiated by Brimstone, who hasn't ever been wrong in the past. It's probably going to happen next year sometime. Precise details are still vague.


----------



## Warpath (Nov 27, 2007)

Maybe thats where the info came from then !!

I was told it would be around November time, but we'll have to wait and see for now.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Here is a summary of the rumours from Warseer (I love this forum but we all have to admit that Warseer is THE rumour board):



> Since there isn't currently an open thread about it, I thought I'd start a compilation thread for discussion of the rumours of a 5th ed. 40k coming next year (with new starter box). I don't have any info or confirmation myself, I just wanted a thread people can go to to talk about (or possibly debunk) these rumours.
> 
> There have been a few rumblings about a rules revision in past months. There's also the fact that the studio don't appear to design codices for the 4th edition rules (at least where things like retinues are concerned). However, it's still possible that all this rumourage will never amount to anything. If you know more, spill the beans!
> 
> ...


----------



## torealis (Dec 27, 2006)

for what its worth, i heard post-summer 08.


----------



## Frodo (Nov 13, 2007)

ive only heard rumors that itl come out sometime soon. it also makes sense, look at how many new codexes since the last one.


----------



## Bloodhound (Feb 8, 2007)

Uhm, could people not use seasons for time references? It's different around the world. Also, A bit more to the rumour, the new Codex: Space Marines will be released at around the same time.


----------



## Dreamseller (Nov 15, 2007)

i heard its not gonna be a full on rule book just a supplement to go with the current rules thts wat i heard from my local GW


----------



## Pandawithissues... (Dec 2, 2007)

> Also, A bit more to the rumour, the new Codex: Space Marines will be released at around the same time.


What a surprise! Im shocked, shocked i tell you! This news has shocked me to my very foundation... :grin:


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

Im excited about the unified damage chart, and also the forced march rule.

often times for two turns I cant do anything because i have pistols, and the enemy doesn't shoot me.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

The forced march sounds like it will come in handy for my Tau, especially when enemies are bearing down on them.


----------



## Sycoa (Dec 7, 2007)

Looks pretty good, I know a few local players who might not like their skimmers messed with  

I starting to belive this rumor, as I happened across their forum, and a lot of the stuff predicted happened...i.e. Apocolypse


----------



## Sons of Russ (Dec 29, 2007)

The Wraithlord said:


> The forced march sounds like it will come in handy for my Tau, especially when enemies are bearing down on them.


yes...but so can they!

I'd be happy if they could mitigate that pesky glance-6 result somehow....just seems too drastic. Maybe a weapon destroyed AND engine immobolized+ roll again on the glance table...


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

Sons of Russ said:


> yes...but so can they!
> 
> I'd be happy if they could mitigate that pesky glance-6 result somehow....just seems too drastic. Maybe a weapon destroyed AND engine immobilized+ roll again on the glance table...


do you mean in general, or do you mean just for land based vehicles.

because if you mean in general, then skimmers would be even more immortal, especially eldar skimmers. rolling double sixes just to get engine damaged, come on, thats ridiculous. I unloaded an entire LRC into the rear armor of a falcon, hit with absolutely everything within rapid fire and bonus melta range, glanced "penetrated" and rended 8 times and I still only managed to shake it, I did the exact same thing on the other end of the table and the same situation still happened.


----------



## Blackhiker (Dec 28, 2007)

For skimmers if they are immobalized they are destroyed. and also two immobalized rolls destroys a vehicle


----------



## MarshallReinhart (Aug 20, 2007)

I talked with the guys at my local Games Workshop Store on Friday and they didn't seem to know anything about it. Seemed surprised and said as far as they knew that was a rumor.


----------



## torealis (Dec 27, 2006)

on the whole, we blue/redshirts only know about 3 months in advance. it depends on your manager for anything beyond that.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Yeah Tor, that is what the guys at my local store say as well. Half the time they haven't even heard the rumours I have been reading for months since most of them don't browse the web that much.


----------



## torealis (Dec 27, 2006)

its a good point to make, a normal blue/redshirt knows NOTHING beyond 3 months, unless told by his manager. Mostly youll find them regurging rumours from warseer.


----------



## MarshallReinhart (Aug 20, 2007)

Thanks for the information. Good to know.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Brimstone added this to Warseer and he is very much in the know usually:
5th Edition Rumour roundup

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

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

Rumoured rules amendments

1. the addition of a ‘run’ option (similar to fleet but with a trade off to keep fleet special).
2. Improvements to the cover save rules.
3. Rending toned down (auto wound if you roll a 6 to wound & reduction in effectiveness against vehicles).
4. Template(Blast) weapons rules streamlined.
5. Sniper weapons rules amended (rending probable)
6. Close combat rules amended with a combat resolution phase similar to fantasy
7. Single vehicle damage table.
8. Vehicles without a WS always get hit in the rear armour.
9. Vehicles able to ram
10. Other vehicle amendments
11. Mission rules changed in a similar manner to Apocalypse (no more Alpha, Gamma or Omega).
12. Only non vehicle non swarm troop choices are scoring units.
13. Vehicles types are adjusted (the rumoured skimmer nerf)

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


----------



## Asmodai (Dec 30, 2006)

> 12. Only non vehicle non swarm troop choices are scoring units.


This one has got to be wrong. It's just silly. Space Marine Scouts score, but Dark Angels Scouts don't.

Terminators don't score, unless you take Belial, in which case they do (but what if Belial dies halfway through the game? Do they cease to score?).

Assault Marines don't score, unless you're Blood Angels, in which case they do. Presumably the Blood Angels have a long history of using Assault Marines to hold ground rather than assaulting things with them.

Eldar Jetbikes become unbelievably good. Tau basically have to go all-mech to be able to advance their Fire Warriors quickly enough.

I wonder if they meant 'infantry' instead of 'troops'.


#6 is also interesting. I wonder if it will result in leadership modifiers ala Fantasy as well.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

I'm actually more concerned about this change than I was for the last two....

Changing combat/shooting rules is just fine, but making changes that are rumored to hamper on specific types of units is a bit too uncomfortable for me to happily accept.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Yeah that roundup has a few things that make me worry. Always hitting a vehicle without a WS on the rear armour??? Wtf is that all about? What if you can't actually REACH the back armour through movement/assault, etc.


----------



## Asmodai (Dec 30, 2006)

The Wraithlord said:


> Yeah that roundup has a few things that make me worry. Always hitting a vehicle without a WS on the rear armour??? Wtf is that all about? What if you can't actually REACH the back armour through movement/assault, etc.


Presumably throwing grenades through the hatches, attaching bombs to the tracks, etc. Tanks being vulnerable to infantry assault is actually pretty accurate.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

I agree about tanks being vulnerable to infantry. It should certainly be a bad thing to have a squad of marines climbing over a tank and it gives infantry a way to compete against vehicles other than as wounds for a guy with a lascannon.

It makes sense to have a combat resolution phase. It's really odd to have each combat resolved seperately, as it is now, since it appears to be possible currently for models that have defeated their enemy to consolidate into a combat that hasn't been resolved yet that turn, with who knows what effect. Combat should be tidied up.

I hope they can write the line of sight rules in such a way that people actually understand them. I don't really care if they get rid of the height 1, 2, 3 system or expand it, just as long as it makes sense.

4th edition in general has been full of far too many things that are unclear when they ought to be, and could easily be, simple. There have been hundreds of arguments about psychic powers, many of them around the rule saying that psychic powers work like shooting unless stated otherwise. This is a really terrible rule when you have a load of psychic powers that work a bit like shooting (mind war, lash, fury of the ancients) and nobody knows where to draw the line.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Here is a bit more, first from Brim:



> I've amended a couple of things to clarify that vehicles without a WS are hit in the rear armour during CC NOT shooting.
> 
> And clarified that I'm talking about TROOPS choices not infantry as scoring units.


Second from Demogorgon:



> > Quote:
> > Originally Posted by Stezerok View Post
> > I think thus far the rumors I'm hearing are pretty interesting. There are only really a few things I have to say about it, but this is all just my personal opinion.
> >
> ...


Personally I don't have too many problems with the rumours I am hearing with one execption: Troops ONLY for scoring units??? Wtf is that? So orks and nids and guard who can field tons of troops cheap, or new marine combat squads that all count as scoring are going to be the clear winners almost all the time. There is no way that armies with expensive troops (like perhaps ALL the chaos cult legions, grey knights, etc) are going to be able to compete with that.

Hell, my Tsons are 300+pts for a ten man squad with the transport that they MUST have in order to reach objectives and the cheapest power available, have ONE cc attack each and move in difficult terrain always if the rhino is destroyed. Compare that to a 30 model unit of ork Boyz with an 'Eavy armour Power Klaw nob, 3 rokkits, furious charge, FOUR attacks on the charge and the ability to fleet once per game for 255pts. 300+ minimum options vs 255 maximum options. There is NO comparison. Those 30 models will outlive the 10 each and every time and with the numbers they have the ability to REMAIN scoring far longer than the Tsons. And this is just one example with 2 specific armies. There are many more to be had.

How anyone could feel that this is a good thing is beyond me. Yes there are things we don't know about yet, etc, etc, but I don't see how anything can make this acceptable.


----------



## Warpath (Nov 27, 2007)

> Hell, my Tsons are 300+pts for a ten man squad with the transport that they MUST have in order to reach objectives and the cheapest power available, have ONE cc attack each and move in difficult terrain always if the rhino is destroyed. Compare that to a 30 model unit of ork Boyz with an 'Eavy armour Power Klaw nob, 3 rokkits, furious charge, FOUR attacks on the charge and the ability to fleet once per game for 255pts. There is NO comparison. Those 30 models will outlive the 10 each and every time and with the numbers they have the ability to REMAIN scoring far longer than the Tsons. And this is just one example with 2 specific armies. There are many more to be had.


This is quite scary, don't think i'll be scoring much with 5 rangers and 10 dire avengers as my troop choices. :angry:

Lets hope this part is more rumour than truth

Warpath


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

i think you might be reading too literally into that i think "troops" should have been "soldiers" or "anything but vehicles"

personally it'd be nice if vehicals and Monstrous creatures weren't scoring.

it'd be real nice if a falcon couldn't just zip onto an objective on the last turn and simply sit there being immune to all incoming fire. and count as scoring


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Nope. Brimstone is nearly always right on the money with his rumours (dude has contacts for sure) and he clarified that Troops, not infantry models, Troops only will be scoring.


----------



## RPD_Tyrant (Dec 21, 2007)

I think I wont be going to tournaments and sticking with 4th Ed. Games workshop is working so hard to simplify the game that they are ruining it for many players :ireful2:


----------



## FrozenOrb (Dec 23, 2006)

RPD_Tyrant said:


> I think I wont be going to tournaments and sticking with 4th Ed. Games workshop is working so hard to simplify the game that they are ruining it for many players :ireful2:


I wouldn't say the rules were being simplified.

The rend modification will mean for some players they will need to think more about their anti-infantry / anti-tank, and this and some vehicle rule changes will hopefully make taking vehicles in a mostly support role more desirable resulting in more varied lists.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Cant see too many problems, with the Troop thing actually, if you consider you have 6 troop options and in some armies people use the minimum. This indicate that people go for specialist units instead of lots of troops supported by specialists. 

I can see that this will mean lots of troops on the board with a couple of supporting vehicals and elites. A uicker release would be prefarable for me personally so I can plan for the 2008 GT season. Maybe I'll take guard?


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

The problem is game balance in lower point games. Some armies rely upon their troops, while some rely upon the other aspects of their army. You cannot objectively compare Space Marines to Eldar Guardians (or even Avengers) because they really only need to maintain synergy with the units in their own lists, and are not designed to be comparable with one another. If that was the case, then MEq armies would rule the game in reality, not just in sales. By limiting all races to having only Troop options as scoring units, you are handing the upper hand to Chaos, Marines, Necrons, and giving a pretty good slap in the face to those armies with worse armour saves and lower toughness. Combine this with the future inability of Transports (and the beat(stick) goes on) and you have a very fragile mandatory core for most armies in the game, while a few still stand tough.

I'm really concerned about these rumors, and hope that at the least we are not seeing the big picture. The entire thing sounds more like a colossal practical joke to me.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Hespithe, I see your point, and this would valid, but weaker foot armies usually make up for it wth big vehicals (or for tyranids the ptotential for lots and lots and lots of foot troops). If your tanks are harder to destroy and cant be destroyed on glancings, then it will make for different games anyway, and I dont think we should be too quick to judge.

There are a couple of armies whcih may come off badly on this (eldar, dark eldar and Tau) as thier vehicals are going to made more fragil apparently, therefore making these armies a bit tricker to use. But maybe Eldar is a 5th edition army, which is why its so damn good in the first place.

Except for the terrain rules, I have always liked 4th edition, but a change is as good as a rest so will wait till I pass judgment.

One thing I look forward too is the return of ramming. I wonder if it will still be possible for rhinos to blow up landraiders by ramming them. Although it was always fun to do it with Bike.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

personally, I think troops as scoring would be an improvement.

that would mean that the avatar would no longer be scoring, also no falcons as scoring. and no annoying JSJ units as scoring.

and if the tau players actually had to move their fire warriors around to capture objectives, I might have an easier time capturing them myself. This provides me with a good reason to have more crusader squads on the table, and not having to overload on elites and fast attack and heavy support just to stay alive. it also creates tension on the other players side "Do I attack this tank, or do I shoot at his troops who are the ultimate threat"


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

That's just it... the other units in the army are there to balance the lists, and this includes the Vehicles. By making it necessary to maximise on weaker troops, the stronger units of these armies will be left on the shelf. Marine armies, on the other hand, do not have such a hard time with this, as their core units can handle most any situation already.

Double this with the proposed boost to infantry movement and the craptacular changes to vehicles and skimmers and you have what seems to be GW's push for all-infantry armies.


If every army had the same core troop unit, then these changes would be fine. But Firewarriors are not Marines, and on the move, Marines have every advantage. Firewarriors NEED to be uses as a static firebase to truly affect the game. The same can be said for many core troop units. Avengers are great for Eldar, but are still less than suitable when compared with the basic Marine when on the move. There is no getting around the Toughness 4, AS 3+ with a Bolter and assault weapon of choice.

By having rules that so blatently benefit few, while trashing the others, GW is making mistakes. But like I said earlier, I really do hope that what we are hearing is not the whole of it, and hopefully, it is just a practical joke.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

You can also look at it this way: What about armies whose troops are very expensive and can't afford to take too many of them because of it a la my Thousand Sons. Even at 2000pts I can only afford to take 3 squads of Sons and still have enough to balance out their weaknesses with the rest of the army. My Sons simply CANNOT compete with Nids, Orks, DE, Guard, etc in total number of scoring units right now nevermind if Troops only are scoring. Sons may be very resilient with the 4+ inv save but they still die just as easy to massed fire as anything. A Tau player pulling the FoF tactic on me is very likely to wipe out a squad at a time from sheer number of shots and he will only have to do it twice or at best 3 times in order to win a game from my lack of scoring units.

Troops only scoring will not in any way make the game better imho.


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

Hespithe said:


> Double this with the proposed boost to infantry movement and the craptacular changes to vehicles and skimmers and you have what seems to be GW's push for all-infantry armies.


maybe because it costs more to buy an all infantry army?


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Sales should never interfere with the game-play... If it does, GW will fail at life.


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

true, but i cant think of one good reason at all that they would try and nerf vecihles.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Too many people are crying about what they just don't want to face.... Crying about Skimmers, about ordnance, about assault cannons.... Pretty soon all will go the way of the starcannon (remember that weapon?). I hear the squats are using it now....


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

The Starcannon was too good. Cheap, powerful, and effective against most things. I'd call it better than the Assault Cannon is now, because it was better against tough infantry and as good against everything else. It got the nerf it needed. Expect the same for the Assault Cannon, which should go back to heavy 4 or heavy 3 rending.

Skimmers aren't as bad as those two, but they are a bit silly in that they can reasonably expect to survive charging headlong into an enemy formation better than some main battle tanks. I like the way that they're hard to kill with weaker weapons, but there should be some way of making them still vulnerable to the dedicated anti-vehicle weapons.

I don't know anyone whining about ordnance. Certain ordnance weapons, maybe, but the rule itself?

As for the near-paranoiac doomsaying about Troops only capturing objectives, just can it. I have no idea how you justify what you've said to yourselves, because you sure as hell didn't justify it to me. Despite everything you would like to think to back up your own grudges, this doesn't stand to make Marines even more powerful at the cost of everything else. If anything, the lots of fast troops armies will benefit the most, like Tyranids and the new Orks. It's forcing some balance between troops and support units so that army lists aren't just a wad of heavy firepower or vehicles with ten guys standing around. You've got to choose between units that help you clear and defend the objective, and units that let you take the damn thing in the first place.

Wraithlord has probably the only real complaint of the lot. However, with the Daemon codex coming, I would be astonished if it did not have some cheap unit suitable for zerg rushing objectives that you can take without feeling all dirty.


----------



## jigplums (Dec 15, 2006)

all very interesting, but with 5th a year away at least then all is just speculation. Nothing is finalised until 6 months before release.
Also All infantry armies aren't nessacrily more expensive than ones with vechiles.
For example if i choose to drop a pred from my list for tactical marines the £25 pred is between 130-170ish points, whilst the £18 tactical squad starts at 150 for 10 guys with no upgrades.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

I would agree that cost is probably not a reason. Unless you have a metal army (GK or SoB) swapping a tank for a same cost unit is roughly equal.

I was thinking over thw FW issue, and found that they may come off ok if this was the case. I could get 4 largish FW squads and 2 big kroots squads, and this would cost me around half my points. Thats almost 6 full objective takers. They would not be massivly fast I could still afford a devilfish, and a good mix of support. Obviously a MEQ could do the same, but with a few exceptions I can still see most armies making nice competative lists.

The area I see this falling down is in tournaments. Some armies will not be suitable for torunaments, such as grey nights. They will have too few objective taking units, but I've never seen anybody take Grey Knights to a GT and expect to win it (except the one chap who took 5 Landraiders).

If they make vehicals harder to destroy they need to give them a big down side and stopping them being able to hold objectives is an interesting one.

I wonder how the ramming rules are going to work? The old rules were always a bit tricky, but rhino rush could have a whole new meaning if you can take on bigger vehicals.


----------



## Dreamseller (Nov 15, 2007)

talking to the store manager of middlesbrough GW he said there was a 5th edition would be coming out about summer time so gotta wait and see


----------



## The Deserter (May 28, 2007)

Ha! I talked to a staff member and he confirmed the rumour that all of you seem to have missed. He said that GW is happy with 4th edition and if they do decide to change it, it will only come when they are finished with their current project wich is re-doing every codex. This will take 3 years to do. So if there is a new rule set it won't come out for another 3 years. If you don't believe me thats your problem because they have already started..... Chaos first..... Now Orks....... Next is the new team with codex Daemonica........ after that will be the new Space Marine codex.........
thats as far as my information goes I don't know whats coming after that.


----------



## RPD_Tyrant (Dec 21, 2007)

I think the skimer rule wasnt right for most armies, but i think it fit for the Dark eldar . Personally i think it should be only fast vehicles get it, and only if they move more than 12 inches (so its either move and shot and get penatrated, or move fast and dont get penatrated) sorta like the bikes special rule :victory:


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

The troops only scoring issue is the only one that bothers me. I agree with what others have said above, in that it gives a plain advantage to some army types.

I think I'll be able to work around it with my chaos. My Tau have their kroot and might be able to have a few more troops. I could live with it but I don't like it.

I don't think the current situation is good, especially regarding vehicles. I can sort of see why a rhino or trukk wouldn't score but a razorback or devilfish probably should, if things like sentinels and pirhanas can. I've captured an objective with the two mystics attached to my inquisitor before, and they are just two unarmoured guys with las pistols.

I can see a switch to only infantry being ok. Not only troop infantry. An objective with a terminator squad standing on it is a captured objective.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Someguy said:


> I can see a switch to only infantry being ok. Not only troop infantry. An objective with a terminator squad standing on it is a captured objective.


Thats not a bad thought, but then you come across things like snipers or maybe a cult assasin, who whilst being infantry would not likly be able to hold an objective.

Making it troops means that the stock units for a race have to be used for viable armies, not armies with minimum troop selections. Anyway terminators are shock troops and should be used to take ground, not hold it :biggrin:


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

Are you telling me that guys who are basically human pillboxes can't be used defensively?


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

why do they have to meddle witht the movement its ok as it is if it ain't broken don't fix it


----------



## Alexander_67 (May 5, 2007)

hmm sounds ok i guess. Some real interesting ideas bouncing around. Just as long as 'streamlining' as GW like to call it isnt just a synonym for 'Made everything stupider' which is apparently their flavour of the month at the mo i think i could get behind the 5th ed. 

It would make sense for them to introduce a 5th edition soon, being that they might be updating the dark eldar soon. I mean if they do it now they wont have to update them again for another 4 years.


----------



## Pandawithissues... (Dec 2, 2007)

> why do they have to meddle witht the movement its ok as it is if it ain't broken don't fix it


It IS broken. It has been since they moved away from individual movement values for units. It needs fixing. However, as usual, they wont admit their mistake, and will shoehorn in a new 'solution' a la fleet of foot. 

It didnt work give it up.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Keep in mind that these rumours in this post are NOT from a known source so it is not sure as to how 'real' this batch is but...:



> So... umm.. there are going to be some more changes between 4th and 5th. Expect more changes than there were between 3rd and 4th.
> 
> There's now a reason to have a BS higher than 5 (can we say 2+/5+?).
> All models now block line of sight.
> ...





> > Quote:
> > Originally Posted by stompzilla View Post
> > Ahh, so we're going to see a return of hide the reapers behind the guardians and other such BS. What about skimmers? I would assume they don't block LOS still.
> 
> ...





> Oh, and Fearless REALLY sucks now. There's no limit to the number of wounds you can take from being outnumbered. 20 to 1? That's 20 armor saves, bucko.


----------



## Asmodai (Dec 30, 2006)

This batch does seem a lot less credible than some of the previous ones. I could nitpick the consequences of each, but it's not worth the effort until they're somewhat substantiated.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Here are some more bits for you:



> Okay, I looked at it again. A few updates.
> 
> 1) Blast weapons don't roll to hit, they just scatter. However, they now operate like template weapons in that any model touched by the blast is hit. None of this "roll 4+ for partial" stuff. A unit firing multiple blast weapons (a SM Dev squad being the example) fires like a multiple barrage unit would in 4th edition. Scatter once, then lay the blasts off of the original template. These two things might make up for the lack of a to-hit roll. Oh, and you don't need to center the hole over someone when you place it before determining scatter.
> 
> ...


----------



## Culler (Dec 27, 2007)

The rumor that even friendly infantry will block line of fire to anything but vehicles irks me even more than glances which are utterly ineffective. Horde armies will not be able to have long-range troops give their other troops fire support effectively because the firing lanes will be blocked with bodies. Lootas will lose a lot of their effectiveness for anything but hunting tanks or MCs. Boo. It's even more of an advantage for armies that use a small number of good models (which tend to have an innate advantage already, I find).


----------



## Mad King George (Jan 15, 2008)

my falcons costs 235 per model 

if they nerf them then im just taking loads of wraith guard


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Wow, GW has just made terrain a major part of their game, gone is the day of laying down felt and just dealing with it. I wish they would just bring back movement speeds for troops and vehicles. Also a double save should be allowed. If you have a character that has a cover save, you should be able to take it and if it fails then save the armor save if allowed. Invul saves would have to be covered differently. I like the idea of infantry blocking LOS, hello you would not shoot through troops standing right in front of you, seriously...


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Mad King George said:


> my falcons costs 235 per model
> 
> if they nerf them then im just taking loads of wraith guard



They have been.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Short summary of 5th ed rumours
------------Vehicles-------------------------
-Move:
--Non-fast up to 12";
--Fast up to 18"
--Ground vehicles that move at full speed and cross dangerous terrain roll 2D6 for their test. If one "one" is rolled, they're immobilized. If two "ones" are rolled, the vehicle flips over and is considered destroyed.
-Fire
--No shooting of defensive weapons if you move full speed.
- Str 4 for defensive weapons
--While Stationary:Fire everything if you don't move (except Ordnance, it's got special rules, and I don't use Ordnance)
---Non-fast vehicles: Fire 1 main and defensive if you move =< 6 fire defensive weapons if you move > 6
---Fast (move up to 18"): Fire everything if you move =< 6 Fire 1 main and defensive if you move 6 - 12; >12" only fire defensive
---Walkers moving only fire 1 weapon
-Transports
--If your transport is destroyed, passengers now take a Str 4 hit, saves allowed (instead of a 4+). If an open-topped transport is destroyed, it's a Str 3 hit because its easier to disembark.
--No re-roll of wounding against transported infantry no matter how far you moved.
--A unit with Scouts that is inside a vehicle confers that ability to the vehicle.
-Damage Chart
-- Vehicle damage chart: It's about halfway between the glancing and penetrating charts of today (1-2 is the can't shoot/move thing, 3 is weapon, 4 is immobilized, 5-6 destroyed/annihilated). Glance is a -2. If --you are glanced, your vehicle can at most be immobilized. Vehicles are a bit more survivable because of the way damage stacks. If you get two immobilized results, it becomes weapon destroyed. You --aren't destroyed by "cumulative results" until you've been immobilized and all your weapons are gone (and then you get one more).
-Cover Save
--Smoke launchers are a 5+ cover save.
--vehicles can now get up to a 3+ cover save, depending on what they're hiding behind.

------------Shooting-------------------------
-Wound allocation before armor saves: Didn't see it. It may or may not be. I was looking at other sections and really didn't expect to see any changes here, so I glanced over that part and didn't look too closely.
-LOS: I'm pretty sure that it's units that block LOS, so you shouldn't worry about spending 45 minutes drawing LOS from each individual trooper to each individual target. You draw LOS from the eyes of the model. Area terrain gives cover saves. There's an entire chapter on ruined buildings and how they affect line of sight (like a mini Cities of Death). I honestly don't remember if 6" of terrain blocks sight or not.You can shoot over other squads if you can see over them because of elevation, etc. You can always shoot at vehicles or monstrous creatures over other squads.
-Blast weapons: Blast weapons don't roll to hit, they just scatter. However, they now operate like template weapons in that any model touched by the blast is hit. None of this "roll 4+ for partial" stuff. A unit firing multiple blast weapons (a SM Dev squad being the example) fires like a multiple barrage unit would in 4th edition. Scatter once, then lay the blasts off of the original template. These two things might make up for the lack of a to-hit roll. Oh, and you don't need to center the hole over someone when you place it before determining scatter.
-After shooting and wounding, you can choose to become pinned. You get a +1 to cover save (or a 6+ if you're in the open). It's the "get down!" rule.
-Gets Hot! is back to the 3rd ed version. So that Ork character doesn't have to worry about rolling 3s on his plasma gun.
-Flamers: You now determine wounds for all template weapons firing from a squad before you take saves or remove casualties!!!
-Yes, allocate wounds before making saves. This will probably encourage larger squads (goodbye, 6 man las-plas).

------------Close Combat-------------------------
-Plasma/frag: I don't know about their armor penetration against vehicles. I think they're the same now, but don't quote me on that.
-Assaulting in cover: If you assault someone in cover, and you don't have grenades, you now become initiative 1 (instead of them becoming init 10). This works a lot better when more than two units are in combat.
-If you are charged while broken, you make another fall back move immediately. If you don't get away (i.e., they can still reach you), you're destroyed. If you do get away, umm, you get away.
-There is not a new HTH chart. Sadly, the Avatar still only hits Fire Warriors on a 3+.
-Preferred Enemy now allows you to reroll all misses, instead of hitting on a 3+.
-Force weapons now just inflict instant death instead of that weird pseudo-instant death.
------------Move------------------------
-Running can be done w/in 12" of an enemy. You just can't charge if you run.
-Bikes all now get a 3+ cover save for their turbo-boost. So the psy-cannon thing is out the window.
Dark Eldar Ravager with 3 Dark Lances is now something you can take. You couldn't really before, because you "had" to move 6+ inches to get SMF, and that meant you could only fire one weapon. Now, with SMF just a 5+ cover save, and the Ravager able to fire all weapons if it moves 6" or less, we may actually see it shoot more often.
---------Missions------------------
-Standard
1-2 = Recon
3-4= Take and Hold
5-6 = Total Anihiliation
Recon = You role for d3+2 objectives and if you have troops within 3" and the other guy doesnt at the end of the game, you hold that objective. The one with the most objectives wins.
Take and Hold = Is similar, except each player choses an objective within their deployment zone, not in impassible terrain, and not within 24" of the other objective.
Total Anihilation = Get 'Kill Points' for units destroyed or falling back. HQ=3pts. Fast, Heavy, Elite = 2pts Troops=1pt
-Victory Points
--only troops are scoring, except if falling back / it is a transport? / it has a specific rule saying it isn't scoring.
--VPs are used to decide draws. You need at least a 10% difference in VPs based on the points of the game to win (i.e. their example 1,500 points requres a 150 pints difference to register a win)
--Units destroyed are worth their points, half strength units worth half their points.
--Deployment
1-2 - Spearhead (table quarters) as usual, except that is seems that the person that won the initial roll deploys their entire force and then the other player deploys theirs. The person who 'won' the initial roll then goes first.
3-4 - Pitched Battle (long table edges) Normal deployment (well 12" from the middle of the table anyway, can't remember the rules from current ed.) Again, winner deploys first, then the other player then the 'winner' goes first.
5-6 Dawn of War (Table Halves) Same as above, except you place 1HQ and 2 Troops (including infiltrators). Everyone else is placed in reserve and comes on in turn 1; and the first turn is night fighting.


----------



## Culler (Dec 27, 2007)

A few notes on wraithlord's summary:

My rumor source says that no weapons may be fired if a non-fast vehicle moves >6" (let's call it 'cruising speed') and can fire 1 weapon and all defensive weapons at >=6" (let's call it 'combat speed'). Fast vehicles basically just get an extra 6" of movement for free. (all weapons at 6", 1 main and all defensive at 12", nothing at 18")

According to the source, skimmers moving fast only get a 5+ cover save which negates the hit, glancing or no.

Tanks can ram each other, inflicting a hit on each based on how fast the ramming tank was moving and the armor of the side the ramming vehicle is hitting with. Bonus for being a tank as well. Land raiders can destroy chimeras if they get a good head start.

Characters can be shot if they aren't part of a squad. You can hide them behind another squad due to the LoS rules, but then they can't shoot through that squad. In assaults they count as separate units, must be in base contact to attack, can be targeted by models in base contact with them or who are assisting that model.

All infantry can move d6" in the shooting phase instead of shooting, but if they do they can't assault. (Running)

Scenarios have been redone, with only 3 standard scenarios.
1. d3+2 objectives to take around the field like we've seen before
2. A single objective in each player's deployment zone that control is fought over.
3. Annihilation by kill points. Player with the most kill points wins. Troops are worth 1 kill point to the enemy, HQ 3, and the rest of the FOC are worth 2.

In addition to rolling for scenario, you roll for one of 3 deployment patterns.
1. Table quarters except you can't deploy within 12" of center.
2. Long table edges, can't deploy within 12" of the center line.
3. Table Halves (you start in your half of the table as long as you're not within 12" of the enemy but only with 1 HQ and 2 troops. Everything else is in reserve. Also night fighting the first round.)

No alpha/gamma/omega levels. 

If you deep strike into an illegal place, you roll on the mishap chart and your squad doesn't get screwed on a 4-6. They go anywhere they like and don't scatter on this second chance.

Reserves automatically come in on turn 5 if they haven't done so yet.

Victory points only used to determine who wins if a draw occurs on objectives.

Mind you, this is all just rumor. :victory:


----------



## Nosotros (Jan 8, 2008)

they need to universalize the changes to teleport homers, after they changed the deep strike rules it disables Daemonhunters from deep striking (the Daemonhunter teleport homer states that "if the template used by the teleporting grey knights to make a deep strike is centered on the model with the homer, then they won't scatter." This means given current rule sets the GKs deep strike ON the STs, lol.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

I dunno, I really never had a chance to play 4th ED but some of these changes seem ok compared to 3rd ED, I hate that they "fix" things by releasing a whole new system instead of just releasing a damn errata. 

I like how vehicles can ram now, should have always been in.
The changes to fast make sense now.
I think the vehicle chat should be 1-8 and pene hits get +2 on the roll... so 1 Crew Shaken, 2 Crew Stunned, etc etc, not 1-6 glancing gets -2, now you can get negative rolls.... easier to increase the size of the chart, maybe even go 1-10 and increase the modifiers you can get and on a 10 the thing explodes like a firework, kinda like a super heavy does.

I honestly think saves should stack in some ways, take a cover save first, then invul, then armor or something like that, it would chnage the style of play alot, but it might be a bit much vs shooty armies and force people to play assault armys in mass again. At least I would like to see cover saves stack or modify armor saves.


----------



## Greyskullscrusade (Jan 24, 2007)

I havnt really liked any changes ive seen so far.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

i like SMF being represented by a save, not by a generalized always good move, i also like that they actually have to move fast. unlike how it used to be where a tank could move faster, but still be easier to hit and penetrate.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

The '5th Edition' rulebook is not 40K as we know it... the fundamental mindset of the game is being altered dramatically, just as the change from 2nd to 3rd edition forced all players to really retool their armies and rethink their interest in 40K. Hero-hammer forced a lot of players to look into WHFB (myself included), while the loss of Hero-hammer to 3rd Edition did the same to those who had their interest in the game neutered by GW Dev's shifts in game design. This newer version of the rulebook is so alien to 3/3.5/4th edition as to be another bastard sibling of the game I like to play.

While I do like a very few changes mentioned, those changes to not affect the basics of the game. Those changes that do really ruin my impression of GW Dev's efforts this past year. When the so called '5th Ed.' comes out, I imagine my interest in all things 40K will lie dormant until the obvious errors are corrected.

Does anyone remember when GW stated that this last edition was their LAST edition, as they believed and promised to us, the consumers, that they had nearly perfected the gaming system, and that at worst a few bits of errata might need to be released to handle the few minor problems that may be found? With little hesitation, I agreed with them. A few minor changes would have made all the difference, and GW may have realized a near perfect gaming system for 40K...

Who's the bastard-child that screwed all that up and made liars of GW Dev?


----------



## Mad King George (Jan 15, 2008)

well then they best bring back a crystal targetting matrix for falcons 

2d6 speed boost instead of shooting


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Well as of right now this is all rumor and while some of it seems like good ideas, you are correct where alot of it seems to be game changing. I do not know how much faith I will put into the rumor for now.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

I would say that until we gt the rules in our hands and play a couple of games most of us are just guesing on the effects. I would certainly like terrain cleared up, Ramming coming back is a good thing, run coming back may be good, stopping skimmers being so dominate I like (and I play Tau), Im still out on only troop taking objectives but can see the sense from a game mechanics point of view and allocation of hits sounds reasonable.

The one thing from 2nd ed I would like back is area affect grenades. Having a squad of marines throwing frag grenades would be great, but I dont think its going to happen as it would require a rewrite of the points cost for pretty much all codexes (not wandering grenades like smoke or vortex though)


----------



## Vashtek (Nov 2, 2007)

tbh I like most of these changes and can't really see what most ppl are complaining about:

nerfing skimmers: good
more emphasis on infantry :good
greater clarity on missions: good
making vehicles more durable: good

I'd like more to be done to stop monstrous creatures. And I also worry about a tyranid assault force startting on the table with a winged tyrant and 60 hormagaunts v just about any other HQ + 2 troop options...

I don't really like 'giving power to the player' when deciding on terrain- I hate the discussion that goes on beforehand as one player will usually want all the saves they can get (eg ork) and the other player wants the least (eg marines). Having to dice for it is rubbish.

But like I say, seems mostly promising.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

I dislike only troops only taking objectives, but at least now something will draw fire away from my landraiders ;p.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

djinn24 said:


> I dislike only troops only taking objectives, but at least now something will draw fire away from my lardraiders ;p.


Is a lardraider a really fat landraider?


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

I think it's really interesting.

The changes to missions are one of the biggest issues and it's going to be huge. Hugely good.

You don't have the "roll to see who wins" of gamma or the arbitrary nerfing of escalation. You deploy knowing you will get first turn, then the other guy deploys knowing you wil get first turn, and able to see what you will do. That really is an improvement.

I'm not really sure about the troops as scoring issue. I think it affects some armies a lot more than others but I don't hate it. The principle is probably good and it makes 40k about infantry battles, not fights between vehicles, characters and MCs.

Might end up playing deathwing though...


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

I didnt pay much attention to the who starts first thing, but if its true it will be a intersting. You know your going first or second so can set up accordingly. This will be interesting tactically though, as shooty armies will always want to go second. If not you will waste a whole turn of shooting at things hidden in or behind terrain, plus you will leave yourself out in the open if your waiting to shoot in turn one and your oppeonet has hidden everything ready to charge forward. Very interesting, and not quite as straight forward as it sounds.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Not only infantry will count as scoring, but only troops. Most troops are scoring, with the following exceptions:

- If they are broken.
- If they are a vehicle
- If they have a special rule saying they don't score (er, obviously).

So for example eldar jet bikes and blood angel assault marines do score. Also, there is nothing about being below half strength preventing you from scoring, so even one marine is a scoring unit.

I'm going to have to change my planned army list by a lot. Back to the drawing board!


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Interesting new tidbits

Units falling back can move through friendly units, but doing so forces the friendly unit to make a morale check or fall back themselves. So that adds an interesting extra dimension to things.

And here's an odd one.
Dreadnoughts no longer have that front fire arc like they used to. Instead now all hull-mounted weapons (like the cannon on a defiler, or a sentinel's gun) have a 45 degree sweep, but the arms count as sponsons, meaning they fire where they point.

However, dreadnought arms don;t exactly, well, move. Sure, they can swivel up and down, but no side to side sweep. The rules say to follow the rules for glued-down weapons...which for sponsons is as follows



> Sponson-mounted weapons vary greatly, as
> some can cover the full 180º of the flank they
> are mounted on, while others are more
> limited. *This is obvious from the shape of the
> sponson itself.*


Which means if you glue your sponsons down, assume it can fire the normal arc for an unglued tank (no firing backwards for IG tanks)

However, what, pray tell, is the obvious arc of fire for a dreadnought's arm? The arms do have shoulder joints, and presumably they're a lot more mobile than they look on the model...but how does that translate to the game table?

And the dreadnought itself should be able to pivot at the hips without changing facing as far as its legs are concerned.

So what the hell arc of fire will a dreadnought have under the new rules? I mean, I don;t expect a big side to side action from, say, the standard lascannon or ML arms, but can they flip over backwards? Can the torso twist?

Can the dreadnought actually fire at soomething that's directly in front of it without having a blindspot as wide as its torso?


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

To be honest I think it will be a while before we get an FAQ for a ruleset that hasn't yet been released, and indeed has no confirmed release date... even though we do all know it's coming and the rules are floating around out there.

GW Could use the internet community as a resource and fix a bunch of the issues before publication, but I doubt they will.

Here's another one: Transports in the scenario where you get points for killing units. 1 point for troops, 2 for elite etc, 3 for HQ. Do you get 3 points if you kill a drop pod that belonged to a space marine command squad, but 1 point if you kill a unit of 30 orks?


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

i would like the perils of the warp to be nastier, and power weapons to be able to take out tanks they cut through body armour with ease wht not tank armour?



Galahad said:


> Interesting new tidbits
> 
> Units falling back can move through friendly units, but doing so forces the friendly unit to make a morale check or fall back themselves. So that adds an interesting extra dimension to things.


like in fantasy now


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

power weapons, they could just count as AP1. but not fists, they already get a bonus.


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

Engelus said:


> power weapons, they could just count as AP1..


i was thinking more along the lines of 2D6+Strength so they can hurt all tanks

so for a spce marine 4+2D6 so its 10 to harm A14 that sounds ok to me 

and i think the hieghest strength is a space wolf using a frost blade S5


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Body armour, even on a Terminator, is a lot thinner than tank armour. Giving power weapons the ability to destroy vehicals would bring back the time of characters being able to kill everything on the battle field, which I dont think is such a good idea.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

It's an interesting debate.

Personally I think it's a mistake that was made when 3rd came in and the AP value for guns was introduced. Suddenly AP has nothing to do with penetrating armour on vehicles, but everything to do with armour on infantry. 4th and 5th are introducing various measures to balance this out but in my opinion it was always a mistake.

The trouble is that it goes both ways. Just as a banshee can cut terminators up but can't hurt vehicles at all, a warlock with a witchblade can kill vehicles but not terminators. I think that weapons should have a comparable effect on comparable _types_ of targets and currently they don't - and 5th isn't going to fix it.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

to increase the amount of sense makingness. it would make sense that power weapons get a bonus against open topped vehicals. more so than normal weapons. once again I say AP1 is good.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Yeah that wouldn't be bad. Worth a playtest for sure.


Personally though, I want 40k to focus on mobility and shooting with cc as a last resort for most armies. Those that do focus on cc should be the exceptions and, of course, should have special benefits to balance out the lack of shooting they have such as Nids do now with the high model count and fast movement. It always amazes me to read the fluff that talks about weapons of unimaginable power and space marines scything down the enemy with bolters, tau decimating enemy formations with their incredible firepower and yet when you play the game the focus is on cc more than shooting. I just can't understand the idea that prevails in 40k that instead of using this badass gun I am holding, I should run across the valley and try to stick a sword in someone....


----------



## Dirge Eterna (Apr 30, 2007)

Well, most of the 41st Millienium's combat takes place at less than 20 feet from your opponent anyways, why waste ammo when you can stick something sharp in them instead? Obviously flailing lunatics like BT and Khorne Berzerkers will continue to be cc, but I agree with Wraith...more shooting would make the game better, but not balanced. Tau would pretty much pwn everyone. Guard and Tau. The two "shooty" armies. SM are designed to be rock-hard assault troops. Troops that close with the enemy, then assault after ripping the majority to shreds under Bolter shells and plasma guns. Given the ridiculous number of people who play SM, I would guess that anything new would either unaffect, or add a bonus to, SM. (Note I don't think this is right, but the fact is GW is a company, so they just want to make $$).

I would approve of AP1 power weapons, because basically that's what they are now, for the Armory listing anyways. Special Characters might get kicked in the ass by it (The Black Sword comes to mind), but the majority of the grimy footsloggers don't face Abbadon the Despoiler across the table too often, so mostly the rule would have NO effect on gameplay. I would like a single vehicle damage chart, with modifiers according to the strength of the weapon. I would like to see Flyers being incorporated into mainstream 40k (As I have a Valkyrie that has lived out it's life on my shelf.) And most of all I would like to see Jervis Johnson get off his throne and get some of the kookier rules back into 40k. Weapons that modify saves. Fluffier army lists. Not contradicting older fluff (Hello? Tzeentch and Khorne working in perfect harmony?). And certainly the return of the not-crappy Armory and the abilities to CHOOSE anything you want! I preferred trying to work out an armylist for three hours rather than one in ten minutes with limited options. What's the point of even HAVING an armory? 

-Dirge


----------



## Gore Hunter (Nov 5, 2007)

bloodhound said:


> Uhm, could people not use seasons for time references? It's different around the world. Also, A bit more to the rumour, the new Codex: Space Marines will be released at around the same time.


If thats true then GW must be idiots there are are loads of codexes that still need sorting out like space wolves and Dark Eldar.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Ever since the BA codex came out it's been pretty clear that a new codex SM would be needed. Expect combat squads, fixing the costs of vehicles to match, bolt pistols and grenades. It just looks wrong at the moment to have two different types of tactical squad and stuff like that.


----------



## Mad King George (Jan 15, 2008)

same for spacewolves nothing fits 

hitn hint


----------



## yamato (Nov 13, 2007)

Lord Sinkoran said:


> i would like the perils of the warp to be nastier


If the the leaked rules that I saw are correct, then that is just the case, as you can use no armor save and any inv save would have to be rerolled! Can you roll back to back 5+ ????



> The Psyker automatically suffers a
> wound with no armour or cover saves allowed – a
> Warp creature has attacked the Psyker’s soul! So
> powerful is this Daemonic attack that successful
> Invulnerable saves against this wound must be rerolled!


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Well you do actually get an invulnerable save, which currently you don't unless you have a ghost helm or something. That makes it slightly safer in 5th, not nastier.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

I thought Ghost helms were standard on Farseers?


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

I'm not talking about who gets them. They are the only thing that can currently protect you from perils of the warp, while in 5th any invulnerable save can help.


----------



## yamato (Nov 13, 2007)

Someguy said:


> Well you do actually get an invulnerable save, which currently you don't unless you have a ghost helm or something. That makes it slightly safer in 5th, not nastier.


Well it is still different:

In the current 4th Ed you only take strength 6 hit, whereas these proposed rules inflict an automatic wound.

So if you are a Marine Librarian in termie armor; today you could roll and 1 to wound, and be safe, whereas in the future you would need to roll 2 5+ dice. AND - models with no inv save still have a chance not to take a wound under the current system, whereas if under the new system, if you have no inv save; you are toast!

roll out the statistics gurus; it's way too early for me.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

That's one of the rules that I like in 5th thus far...

Farseers should not be the only Psykers to be instakilled by Perils. Farseers are supposed to be the Supreme Xenos Psykers, so being the least likely to die by Perils is perfectly in keeping with their background.


----------



## yamato (Nov 13, 2007)

The new rending rule (along with new limits on AC's in units) is really going to hurt. But mostly on the vehicle side. If you roll a 6 to try to penetrate, then you only get an extra D3! In 4th, you only needed to not roll a one to glance an AV14 vehicle with an AC after that first 6 and justa 3 to penetrate. Now you will need a 3 or 4 to glance or a 5 or 6 to penetrate.

Ouch!

On the flip side; the addition of rending to the sniper rule will see a new influx of sniper teams to several army lists.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

*statistics guru rolls out*

Now that it's an automatic wound instead of a strength 6 hit a few things changes and you are more or less safe depending on your stats, saves and so on.

Toughness 3 psykers gain the most, as they no-longer get instant killed. As Hespithe says, Farseers are now the most resilient to perils rather than the most in danger.

On the other hand, high toughness guys suffer. A daemon prince would take a wound in 2/3 cases in 4th, but 8/9 cases in 5th. Hive Tyrants with toughness 6 would only be wounded half the time, now will always be wounded (unless they have a field that gives a 1/36 chance to avoid the wound).

Overall I wouldn't say that perils is now more nasty. Now that it can't instant kill any more it allows farseers, inquisitors and the like to cast spells a lot more happily. I like that it now doesn't care about your physical toughness (or whether you are riding a bike) any more.

Snipers got nasty. Ratlings, especially with their own special rule improving their cover save and woods now giving a 4+, really look interesting.

I think that the rending reduction for killing vehicles isn't going to affect assault cannons all that much. A rend from an AC is still a result between 13 and 15, which is usually enough. On the other hand, Land raiders are now immune to the attacks of str 4 renders and can pretty much ignore strength 5, which has an impact on genestealers and daemonettes.

The interesting thing is that a lot of relatively minor changes are adding up to real shifts in relative power of units and even whole armies. Big units of troops and tanks are being improved quite substantially, while things like units of a single land speeder tornado now look almost completely useless. It's lovely to see how huge a nerf is getting handed to falcons too.


----------



## yamato (Nov 13, 2007)

yeah, I spent a couple of hours last night just pouring through all of the stuff. The first few chapters I was wondering if it was just a fake as so much of it was just cut-n-paste from the 4th ed book, but then the changes really started rolling in. Including many "little" things (like the perils) that just had not been mentioned before.

I really like making terrain/buildings/etc, so the new emphasis on higher ground to be able to see over obstacles and other units is exciting to me. There is nothing worse than playing a game with a bunch of felt cutouts on the board.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Yeah... I can see elevated terrain being the first choice of most players when dropping terrain before a game.


----------



## yamato (Nov 13, 2007)

Oh, here is one that I thought was neat:

You can choose to run even after deepstriking. So let's say that your group of (now only 5) terminators teleports onto the battlefield, but it drifts out into the open in view of several of your opponents plasma cannons. Now you could "run for cover" which could include spacing your models a bit to avoid the blast templates a bit instead of standing and shooting.

Really cool :biggrin:

I guess this could also help assaulty troops that have come down in a drop pod or what ever get a bit closer to their enemy for the next turn, or hide behind the pod better, etc.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Just to give you guys an update: I was in the local store yesterday and talked to one of the redshirts there and according to him he has seen the actual 5th ed rules and the pdf's that are floating around out there right now are VERY wrong. Some stuff is similar but his exact words were "there is more wrong in that document than there is right".

Thank the gods!!!


----------



## yamato (Nov 13, 2007)

The Wraithlord said:


> Just to give you guys an update: I was in the local store yesterday and talked to one of the redshirts there and according to him he has seen the actual 5th ed rules and the pdf's that are floating around out there right now are VERY wrong. Some stuff is similar but his exact words were "there is more wrong in that document than there is right".
> 
> Thank the gods!!!


Based on the leaked PDF, I would say that this could/should easily be the case. It looks like a first draft. It is full of typo's and contradictory statements, etc. It would seem quite likely that it was a first pass that was playtested, and then major changes were then made, etc. and then later smaller and smaller tweaks until it is finally ready.

So I would say that it is likely less than a "beta test" level right now (the PDF that is).

There are some really neat changes in there, and then some that make you say "WTF!" Let's hope that it all works out in the end.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

There are some odd things indeed.

Plasma cannons, for example, become effectively immune to "gets hot". They never roll to hit, they just scatter, so they can't roll a 1 to hit.

What would be good, would be if gw used this leak as an opportunity to take feedback from players. Maybe they will, but I doubt it.

Personally I haven't seen much that I hate and I've seen a lot that I like. There are some basic mistakes though, which need fixing.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

yamato said:


> So I would say that it is likely less than a "beta test" level right now (the PDF that is).


it's called alpha.

and yeah, its obvious that this isn't final.


----------



## yamato (Nov 13, 2007)

Engelus said:


> it's called alpha.
> 
> and yeah, its obvious that this isn't final.


I was actually going to use the term, but decided not to over estimate my audience. :shok:


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

yamato said:


> I was actually going to use the term, but decided not to over estimate my audience. :shok:


fair 'nuff

as far as I am concerned, nothing is ever finalized until its in print or as we say at work, until it's shipped.


----------



## Darthlace (Aug 31, 2007)

Editted for copyright reasons.


----------



## Darthlace (Aug 31, 2007)

my bad everyone


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

So what exactly is this hypothetical nerf to skimmers? I keep hearing about it, but could somebody fill me in on what the "Proposed" nerf encompasses? Or "hint" at it? Not wanting to break rules. Hahahah.


----------



## torealis (Dec 27, 2006)

Someguy said:


> What would be good, would be if gw used this leak as an opportunity to take feedback from players. Maybe they will, but I doubt it.


why should they? as you've seen all the 'feedback' is based on an already outdated and 'wrong' leaked pdf, so any feedback would be erroneous.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Nah, Tor... GW could easily get an idea of what the players do NOT want to see. Also, throwing out these erroneous rules will likely point out several areas that the design team did not really focus on when thinking up this nonsense.

I'll be greatly relieved to find that the PDF currently out is no where near the truth of 5th Edition.


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

LordWaffles said:


> So what exactly is this hypothetical nerf to skimmers? I keep hearing about it, but could somebody fill me in on what the "Proposed" nerf encompasses? Or "hint" at it? Not wanting to break rules. Hahahah.



Skimmers are losing the Skimmers Moving Fast rule, taking away the Glancing Only hits when moving over 6".


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Skimmers are also losing the ability to move 24" per turn, as well as the ability to provide substantial firepower as a gunship (defensive weapons are nerfed as well). All told, the Skimmer is now more prone to die quickly than most any other tank in the game. And, at nearly triple (or more) the cost of a Rhino, they'll be seldom seen as transports. So, poor as transports, poor as gunships, and pretty darn expensive to boot. Groundpounder Eldar will still be a force to deal with (don't expect to see many lists without lots of Harlies, the Eldrad/Avatar combo, or non-los heavies), but Mech and Semi-mech lists are for non-competitive lists only.

Unless, that is, the design team is very good at practical jokes and the PDF is far, far from the truth of 5th Edition.


----------



## Thanex (Feb 13, 2008)

*Hmmm...*

*Well GW have been losing money so it makes sence for them to try and push sales of the new rulebook. Also they would probably launch a new advertising campaign to get new hobbists. *


----------



## Morgal (Sep 26, 2007)

Investing in new modeling would be better...there models are almost 2x as expensive as those in other ranges.


----------



## yamato (Nov 13, 2007)

Hespithe said:


> Skimmers are also losing the ability to move 24" per turn


I think that you will eventually see bikes making a comback in 5e as well as jetbikes (not that they need a comback).

I am in the process of planning a new ork army, and I can't ignore the value of the DeffKopta (a jetbike under the rules).

You look at speeders now limited to 18" and only getting a 5+ cover save if they move 12 or more with their flimsy little armor, and compare that to the jetbike which can still turbo boost 24" and get a 3+ cover save (not to mention that @ just 35 pts the deff kopta has two wounds with a normal 4+ armour save). I will be fielding at least one squadron of these cool little "jetbikes."


----------



## torealis (Dec 27, 2006)

Morgal said:


> Investing in new modeling would be better...there models are almost 2x as expensive as those in other ranges.


this is not a thread whinging about GWs pricing, but about speculation and rumours over the new 5th edition of warhammer 40,000. If you want to talk about something else, start a thread about it.


----------



## Captain Galus (Jan 2, 2008)

i know skimmers were OP in 4th but seriously...a bike on tires moving faster than a gotdamn anti-grav tank? come on wadafak thats just horse dookie. if u take away the only glancing rule, at least give them an invul save...only 5+? really? |
all you people who disagree, seriously how hard do you think it is to hit a hover tank _hauling ass_?!!


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

well, also consider the fact that skimmers can take advantage of the same cover system as ground tanks, and also can get a 5+ save for moving fast, that cannot be negated by a better shooting angle.


----------



## psychomidget99 (Feb 10, 2008)

In case htis hasn't been mentioned, I've heard some posible changes for 5th ed. Though I hope to hell that it's just a rumour- I've only just gone through all the rules and consider myself very knowledgable about them!

Rending has the same effect, but may still allow the victim an armour save, pretty much like Necron Gauss weapons. This, if true, is going to be gay.

A new to hit chart for close combat. Maybe Kharn won't be the only one hitting on two's, and instead of 5's against teh Avatar of Khaine, 6's. 

This is what I've heard off 40k Radio. Not sure where they get their sources from.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

psychomidget99 said:


> In case htis hasn't been mentioned, I've heard some posible changes for 5th ed. Though I hope to hell that it's just a rumour- I've only just gone through all the rules and consider myself very knowledgable about them!
> 
> Rending has the same effect, but may still allow the victim an armour save, pretty much like Necron Gauss weapons. This, if true, is going to be gay.
> 
> A new to hit chart for close combat. Maybe Kharn won't be the only one hitting on two's, and instead of 5's against teh Avatar of Khaine, 6's.


The copy I have read shows that if a rending weapons rolls a 6 to wound, then they will automatically wound and count as AP2. Sounds much better, and not sure why its would be gay. Also reducing the additonal vehical damage to an additional D3 is much more reasonable.

I dont see any changes in the close combat table. You can still only hit on a 3+ regardless of the difference in WS, unless I have missed something. It would be good if they adjusted it so that for really big differences it became a 2+ to hit or a 6+ to hit, only for say triple the difference (9 vs 3), but they obviously prefer it the way it is.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

I remain to be convinced that the copy I have seen is wrong. It isn't fake. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were differences when the final version comes out, but I doubt that they will be huge.

One of the few changes I don't like is dropping defensive weapons to strength 4. I don't think there was any need for this. They have taken the nerfing of falcons way too far and caught a load of other stuff in the crossfire. The problem with falcons is not that they shoot too much (though they shoot quite a lot), it's that they cannot be killed.

Actually I think tanks should just be able to fire all their guns as they move. You have a guy whose entire job is to fire his sponson heavy bolter, or whatever, so there's no reason he can't do it. Even in the case of ordnance I don't buy that the whole crew has to operate the gun - and how do you fit 5 guys in the turret of a leman russ anyway?

5th ed, according to the leaked/test/fake/whatever rules, would be good news for transports. They are harder to kill and entangled is gone. A transport like a wave serpent, mounting one proper gun, looks like a pretty useful thing to have. Since only infantry score, it's pretty cool to be able to get a tank with a real gun without using up heavy support, even if it is marginally easier to kill than at present. Falcons suffer far more from the changes than wave serpents do.

I can't really see a use for things like land speeder tornados in this ruleset. It can't even fire both its guns, doesn't score, gets penetrating hits against it and so on and so on. Horrible.


----------



## Morgal (Sep 26, 2007)

Someguy said:


> Actually I think tanks should just be able to fire all their guns as they move. You have a guy whose entire job is to fire his sponson heavy bolter, or whatever, so there's no reason he can't do it. Even in the case of ordnance I don't buy that the whole crew has to operate the gun - and how do you fit 5 guys in the turret of a leman russ anyway?


And they manage to shoot it without sponsoons...sucks i want to shoot it all.....especially if i don't move.


----------



## Dirge Eterna (Apr 30, 2007)

I never got that. The normal crew for a tank would be around 6 or so (For a Russ), Commander, Gunner, Sponson Gunner, Sponson Gunner, Loader, Driver. So why do they need 6 dudes to fire a gun that one guy can load (and fire) himself?

-Dirge


----------



## Nightbringer416 (Feb 16, 2008)

bloodhound said:


> Uhm, could people not use seasons for time references? It's different around the world. Also, A bit more to the rumour, the new Codex: Space Marines will be released at around the same time.


I think its deamonhunters then dark eldar, have not heard about space marine. I think forced march is going to be broken.:nono: Like the other guy said if you can measure forced march it gives you a big advantage. And "perils of the warp" automatically wounding is also not cool.:nono:


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

Hi all, just joined this site, have not read all the threads on the 40k rumours as there are quite a few, but i'm well placed to state there will be a 5th ed. in December, in time for Christmas, and you may be interested to learn this is not as popular a decision as you might think. In essence, GW has not been doing too well these past couple of years so the spirit of the hobby is being sold out for a bigger bank balance. It was well held that the 4th ed. rules represented a balanced and well liked system that was generally in little need of a tinkering. Unfortunately GW cannot resist making the extra cash out of making you all pay £40 for a new book. Also the 'bigger picture' so we are told is to sell the 'Apocolypse' system in favour of the 40k system as Apoc requires substantially more models - hence greater sales. The long term plan is to put people off 40k and steer them towards Apoc. This is more money for us at GW. 40k players will be used to playing 2-3 thousand point battles, the new 40k rules are designed to make this difficult. For example, we are doing away with the rule allowing you to shoot through unengaged friendly units. With so many models on the table it will be dificult to play a standard 40k game on a normal size table, but not so in an Apoc game.
I hope this thinking by GW annoys enough of you to make some noise about it. I appreciate we need to make some money, but to compromise the hobby I love to such an extent, its not worth it...What say you?


----------



## CommanderDuskstorm (Jan 31, 2008)

Someguy said:


> One of the few changes I don't like is dropping defensive weapons to strength 4. I don't think there was any need for this. They have taken the nerfing of falcons way too far and caught a load of other stuff in the crossfire. The problem with falcons is not that they shoot too much (though they shoot quite a lot), it's that they cannot be killed.
> 
> Actually I think tanks should just be able to fire all their guns as they move. You have a guy whose entire job is to fire his sponson heavy bolter, or whatever, so there's no reason he can't do it. Even in the case of ordnance I don't buy that the whole crew has to operate the gun - and how do you fit 5 guys in the turret of a leman russ anyway?
> 
> ...


I agree, if tanks from present day can fire all their weapons while travelling at full speed, what the hell kind of future tanks can't? And as for the new rules, I agree about the Falcon, the problem isn't that they shoot too much, it's that it's way to hard to kill them, especially considering they're supposed to be lighter than regular tanks. And finally, I think they need to do something to make tracked tanks more survivable, tanks are way too easy to kill in 40K, unless they're skimmers


----------



## Captain Galus (Jan 2, 2008)

> I agree, if tanks from present day can fire all their weapons while travelling at full speed, what the hell kind of future tanks can't? And as for the new rules, I agree about the Falcon, the problem isn't that they shoot too much, it's that it's way to hard to kill them, especially considering they're supposed to be lighter than regular tanks. And finally, I think they need to do something to make tracked tanks more survivable, tanks are way too easy to kill in 40K, unless they're skimmers


i agree with all three points; unless a tank is crewed by only 1 guy, it should be able to fire all of its weapons no matter how far it moves...skimmers should be easier to kill than land raiders...and treads should be much more robust...right now a single genestealer can literally rip a land raider to shreds...wadafak?


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

slaaneshy said:


> Hi all, just joined this site, have not read all the threads on the 40k rumours as there are quite a few, but i'm well placed to state there will be a 5th ed. in December, in time for Christmas, and you may be interested to learn this is not as popular a decision as you might think. In essence, GW has not been doing too well these past couple of years so the spirit of the hobby is being sold out for a bigger bank balance. It was well held that the 4th ed. rules represented a balanced and well liked system that was generally in little need of a tinkering. Unfortunately GW cannot resist making the extra cash out of making you all pay £40 for a new book. Also the 'bigger picture' so we are told is to sell the 'Apocolypse' system in favour of the 40k system as Apoc requires substantially more models - hence greater sales. The long term plan is to put people off 40k and steer them towards Apoc. This is more money for us at GW. 40k players will be used to playing 2-3 thousand point battles, the new 40k rules are designed to make this difficult. For example, we are doing away with the rule allowing you to shoot through unengaged friendly units. With so many models on the table it will be dificult to play a standard 40k game on a normal size table, but not so in an Apoc game.
> I hope this thinking by GW annoys enough of you to make some noise about it. I appreciate we need to make some money, but to compromise the hobby I love to such an extent, its not worth it...What say you?


This is right in line with how many people have been thinking of GW lately and the pdf of the rules floating around makes me wonder just how right you are. Also hearing that Gav has parted with the company (severe rumour only, no proof) leads me to believe you a tad more than I might otherwise. I like this hobby but I have already said that if the 5th ed rules are remotely close to what I have been reading in rumour forums, I will be playing fantasy for the next while. Good luck with more sales from me then as I already have my fantasy army to use and won't be buying anything more for 40K.


----------



## Silb (Jan 28, 2008)

From the 5th edition rules and changes that I've seen, it is going to be TERRIBLE!!!!!!!! I saw some rules for 5th edition marines and not only did it say that everything was at a higher points cost, but it also changed the wargear of some of the squads for the worse. Also, everything seemed completely stupid and much more confusing than 4th edition rules. I agree with The Wraithlord, I'll also probably play fantasy and stop playing 40k if even half of the leaked rules end up being put into the 5th edition.


----------



## maxtangent (Jan 31, 2008)

If the rules wreck things, my group will just stick to fourth edition.


----------



## Zeldrin (Feb 23, 2008)

This is very concerning. I put up with games worskshop as long as they are predominantly concerned with developing the hobby. I acknowledge in this society you have to make a little profit, but to structure a hobby which, as it stands, is bloody expensive, simply towards the acquisition of profit sickens me. How can I play the game when I know the people which are creating it, those who are supposed to be more passionate about the game than most, are actually just thinking about lining their own pockets? How exactly do the younger people who play the game afford the ever increasing number of models required? For that matter how do veteran gamers? So, games workshop's policy is to bleed its devoted following dry in favour of quick money. I mock the futility of their business strategy and I will laugh at the fall of their business in five years time when their following has waned to the point of forcing them out of business. I will smile at every proxied up apocalypse game I see knowing that it is in defiance of a business' greed and I will applaud any and all I see who play 4th edition over 5th. As for me, I will never spend another penny there again if this move to a profit orientated business comes to pass.

Apologies for the forcefulness of this post but, as I am sure is the same with many of you, this news does not sit well with me; not well at all.

Zeldrin


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

Zeldrin, such passion, the pleasure god would be proud!

I agree completely with you, but when a company is owned by investment bankers and share holders and the like, its always the bottom line that counts.
And I would place a bet on your predictions that GW will be shooting itself in the foot and your not the first to think the hobby in its current form is on its last legs.

Just to stir things up a bit more, there is also a full scale review of GW stores. There is a strong push from above to close the bulk of the stores and focus on other retailers stocking/selling on GW behalf, and running a predominately web based business. So far the bosses have seen the value of 'shop fronts' as a way of getting new people into the hobby, after all, who doesn't have memories of hanging out in a Games Workshop and looking at all the 'toys', but the stores are becoming increasingly less profitable while the internet site flourishes. 
I give it 5 years before you see just a handful of GW stores. Again, this goes against the spirit of our hobby, but shareholders have to be paid, or so i am told....


----------



## Kronus (Mar 1, 2008)

I have to say from looking at the proposed 5th edition changes Orks may well go horde heavy in a very big way and I am not sure for there better. While Orks have a number of fairly competitive lists as it stands from dreadbash to speedfreak the are a number of rules that scream horde to me, especially in tournaments.

LOS-Targets most be completely visible if they are obstructed in any form by another unit then you don’t have LOS. Grot shield walls will come back as while they are not tall enough to block much of an Ork its alright to merely block some of him. In higher point matches you would use Orks just string one 30 man unit in a line and force you opponent to concentrate on one unit maintaining the combat effectiveness of everything behind it. Add in Big Mek with KFF and the grots now all have 5+ cover save. Unless they are over a certain elevation you can force your opponent to waste firepower at worthless targets as your boyz get ever closer

Run instead of shoot - Now the Ork horde has effectively doubles speed so that the time you have available to shoot them is drastically reduced.

KFF- Strategic positioning of KFF can cover whole horde providing them all with 5+ cover save

Tankbusters - units won't in most cases block LOS with regards to vehicles so Tankbusters can shoot them but LOS will protect them from being killed by any other then Tanks, large models and those in a elevated position

Add these all together and for under 2000pts you can easily field 154 Slugga boyz, 18 rokkit boyz, 8 powerklaw wielding Nobz, 28 standard Tankbusters, Big Mek with KFF, Wyrdboy

That’s a horde of 212 Orks all with 5+ cover save, 8 powerklaws and and 46 rokkit launchers, that’s all but fearless, moves up to 12" every turn and which can maintain relative combat effectiveness by using LOS to force line of fire on certain squads. In normal games this would be a real problem for most people in a objective taking mission evicting 200+ fearless Orks is going to be little short of impossible. While there are a lot of counters to this list and its dreadfully unimaginative it is never the less horribly effective


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

I'm kind of amazed at all the hate that the rumoured rules are attracting. I wouldn't say that they are perfect but they are, in my opinion, a huge improvement.

Probably the biggest and best change is in game set up. No more "roll to see who wins" at the start of the game - you know who will have first turn as you deploy. The guy who will go second deploys his whole army after the guy who will go first, so no problems with nonsense like first turn charges any more. Just deploy away from the fast stuff, hide from the static guns, and so on. This is a huge improvement that takes away loads of the current randomness from getting turn 1. It's nice to see that dusk and dawn, deploying without knowing if it is day or night, is gone as well.

The next biggest change is switching to make troops more important. A lot of the rules, from what now counts as scoring to allocating hits before rolling saves, make it a lot more sensible to take large units of troops rather than small units of elites and heavy support. This should move 40k to being more a game about infantry shooting guns at each other rather than about flying tanks and uber characters. I think that is an improvement, but fair enough if you don't.

Vehicles are getting a load of changes, and overall are being improved. Escalation and entanglement are being removed, so things like transports and assault walkers are far more viable. Vehicles are overall much harder to kill now that glancing hits can't kill them and penetrating hits only kill them on a 5+. Ramming will probably be quite rare, but is very cool. Land raiders look really useful, people will actually use rhinos to move around and so on. Falcons are nerfed, and they deserve it, but wave serpents will become the transport of choice and a rare way to get a mobile gun as part of a troops choice.

The rules also clarify a lot of the stuff that doesn't work in 4th. Line of sight is the most obvious of these, as almost nobody seems to understand the bizarre combination of true and abstract LOS that currently exists. It's good that they have also included rules for fighting in multi-level buildings, as these were missing previously. A number of these issues have been looked at from casualty removal in units with multi-wound models to what happens if you join a continuing close combat in difficult terrain (does anyone strike at I10?).

The strangest complaint is that these changes are removing the fun from the game by somehow removing options. That has happened in recent codexes but not the core rules. You get more options in the new rules than you ever did, with stuff like vehicles ramming and infantry diving for cover when shot at. I love how you can get ordinary IG in a wood to have a 3+ cover save, wasting the effect of the double AC termie squad, or whatever else is firing at them.

The rules I have seen are almost all improvements. Things work how they feel they should work and you have more options, not less. To me, it really doesn't look like the studio guys have been forced to make changes they didn't want to just to make a profit, it looks like they have taken a good look at 4th, seen where the problems lie and fixed lots of them.


----------



## Morgal (Sep 26, 2007)

I agrre i like most of the rules. the troops only thing worries me however and i would be happy if it was changed to read infantry.


----------



## Zeldrin (Feb 23, 2008)

The rules themselves do not so much concern me, it is the push to buying more models that does (especially if this is facilitated through the new rules). I am not opposed to new rules, regardless of their impact on the game, as long as the intent behind them is a genuine attempt to improve the game for its players. When I buy models it is not only the models I buy. In a sense I invest faith in the company that they will provide a solid foundation of rules and fluff in which that model operates that will bring me fun. If that is gone and people only care about acquiring more money from more models, then the game loses what makes it so much fun.

Games Worskshop stores are a really useful place for people to make friends within the hobby and gain practical advice about rules and and modelling. Not everyone enters the game with a few friends who collect and play together. Take away the stores and a fair proportion of players lose one of their main gaming forums. This just stinks of a way to save money at the expense of the hobby. Kill the spirit, kill the franchise. At their own peril I say. I know Games Workshop are struggling with money at the moment but surely they realise that undertaking such streamlining now will only lead to similar financial problems later when people stop playing because they have noone or nowhere to play? Such a move would likely drive the hobby into obscurity, unless they plan to rely on chance discoveries by their target audience on the internet.

I really hope these rules are a genuine attempt to improve the game and not just a way to make a quick buck.

Apologies if this post reads like another forceful one, but if the current moves by Games Workshop are to be interpreted as Slaaneshy suggests they are then this is a serious matter indeed.

Zeldrin

ps. on a lighter note, you could always put this, perhaps overly passionate post, down to my Slaaneshi sensibilities :biggrin:


----------



## Pandawithissues... (Dec 2, 2007)

> Good luck with more sales from me then as I already have my fantasy army to use and won't be buying anything more for 40K.


And the shift to the better game system begins...bwahaha!


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Zeldrin said:


> Games Worskshop stores are a really useful place for people to make friends within the hobby and gain practical advice about rules and and modelling. Not everyone enters the game with a few friends who collect and play together. Take away the stores and a fair proportion of players lose one of their main gaming forums. This just stinks of a way to save money at the expense of the hobby. Kill the spirit, kill the franchise. At their own peril I say. I know Games Workshop are struggling with money at the moment but surely they realise that undertaking such streamlining now will only lead to similar financial problems later when people stop playing because they have noone or nowhere to play? Such a move would likely drive the hobby into obscurity, unless they plan to rely on chance discoveries by their target audience on the internet.


I completely agree with this. Any move to close stores would be idiotic. GW needs to get people into the hobby and that happens in stores and games clubs, not at places like (for instance) online discussion. Where do they expect people to actually play the games they make? Not everyone has the space or time for gaming tables, terrain and so on.

If I was running GW then I would focus on getting more people into the hobby. Currently there are serious barriers to entry for people thinking of starting to play a GW game. You are probably talking about spending around a hundred pounds even to be able to do the smallest games, once you have the rules, codex and a few minis even before painting figs and so on. Getting BFM is an option but not great if you don't want to use marines or nids.

My solution would be to make the rules open source. Give them away for free download online. Maybe keep selling the books for people who want them but probably not bother.

That way a starting gamer can get going without needing to spend $$$ on a rulebook - they spend it on games instead. GW still get all a kid's pocket money but it gets spent on figures instead of books. I doubt the profit margins are much different. More space can be used for models in stores allowing a greater range, which makes the stores a better place to go to for models. The chances of getting the model I actually want from a store these days are pretty remote so I personally tend to go to mail order, but if stores weren't full of books this might be improved.

A big problem with rulebooks is that they are set in stone. A rule that turns out to be bad can't be changed for years when the next edition comes out. It costs way too much to change a small mistake and everyone complains about having to buy a new book, so mistakes can't be fixed. Any mistakes with online rules can be tweaked with pretty short notice and honed until they are correct. You get a constant evolution of rules, not sudden revolutions every few years that make everyone's armies useless.

I think that getting the rules for free would probably draw more people into the game. Plenty of people would download a free rulebook and lot sof those would then wander along to a store to try out the game.


----------



## DarthIbis (Aug 20, 2007)

Someguy said:


> The next biggest change is switching to make troops more important. A lot of the rules, from what now counts as scoring to allocating hits before rolling saves, *make it a lot more sensible to take large units of troops rather than small units of elites and heavy support*. This should move 40k to being more a game about infantry shooting guns at each other rather than about flying tanks and uber characters. I think that is an improvement, but fair enough if you don't.


The problem with that is that not every force is intended to be troop-heavy. Elite armies with MSU are intended to have a completely different play-style than horde or mech armies. I don't think it will be as interesting if everyone is forced to create armies of similar composition. Part of what makes this a fun and challenging game is that you have to alter your thinking and tactics depending on what type of opponent you are playing.



> Falcons are nerfed, *and they deserve it*, but wave serpents will become the transport of choice and a rare way to get a mobile gun as part of a troops choice.


I'm not sure why there is such hate toward Falcons. They tend to be expensive compared to ground-tanks, and are weaker armored than others. I've had no problem killing them (or having them killed) when the right equipment is used.



> The rules I have seen are almost all improvements. Things work how they feel they should work and you have more options, not less. To me, it really doesn't look like the studio guys have been forced to make changes they didn't want to just to make a profit, it looks like they have taken a good look at 4th, seen where the problems lie and fixed lots of them.


I may be a bit naive to think so, but I would hope that the design decisions are not really based on their alleged need to increase sales/profit, or whatever to bail them out of financial issues they are having as a company.

The fact is that if they blow-off their fans/supporters/customers by producing an inferior product, they won't have to worry about it anymore because they'll be done as a company. And apparently not everyone agrees that most or all of these proposed changes are good, or there wouldn't be such strong backlash about it.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Clearly, not everyone agrees with me. Nothing unusual about that to be honest. 

I agree that the shift to a focus on troops is going to make a difference to the balance of power between armies. Marine armies, especially non-codex marine armies (with blood claws, assault troops, highly versatile crusader squads and maybe even terminators as troops) will be better. Armies that don't use troops a lot, eldar and tau for example, will suffer, or their configurations will change dramatically. I don't have a problem with a shift in balance, though it would be nice to have a proper overall balance instead of different guys rising and falling as the rules progress. Some chance.

It will still be totally possible to play mech. Troops units can typically have transports, often very good ones. Eldar will probably end up using wave serpents quite a bit, often with bright lances on. A few of those with dire avengers in would be quite effective I think. You will need to have some back up from elites and heavy support to deal with stuff that your troops can't handle, but they will not be the entire point of your army. A mech army may not be the same in 5th as in 4th, but it will still be viable.

The hate directed at falcons is because they are a guaranteed way to get a transported unit into position and/or claim an objective. They cannot be stopped by any reliable means and there is no counter to them other than an average of 36 glancing hits. They do cost a lot but they are priceless.


----------



## Silb (Jan 28, 2008)

There are only two things I don't like about the new rules:

1. The new rules may make things more realistic (like ramming and the new vehicle armor system I've heard about) but they also make things more complicated, I already have enough stupid rules to remember!!!!!! This will definitely cause new gamers (and maybe even some veteran players) to be discouraged from playing 40k.

2. Many of the new wargear options would make some models that I have already modelled unuseable, thereby leading to me having to rebuy a quarter of my army. I have no doubt that this is the case with many gamers (especially veterans), and will cause many people to stop playing 40k.

I'll give it a chance (and by that I mean I'll skim through the 5th edition rulebook and maybe play one game with the rules), but if any of my assumptions about the 5th edition are right I'll immediately stop playing 40k.

So if you enjoy making Games Workshop rich and have a photographic memory as far as rules are concerned, then maybe the 5th edition is good thing for you. If you're anyone else, it will probably affect you more negatively then positively.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

My group is already determined to House Rule the current version a bit and continue on with that. I'm all for it.

When 5th arrives, I'll give it serious consideration. That, I promise. But I'm not a fool enough to believe that GW dictates the hobby. GW just provides primary service to the hobby. I will dictate my own direction within this hobby. If GW happens to be moving in the same direction, then they'll get more of my business. 

By the looks of it, though, they'll not.


----------



## DarthIbis (Aug 20, 2007)

Yes, my FLGS proprietor has already said that if they release 5e in it's current form then he will continue to run 4e in his store. Granted, he tends to be a bit reactionary, but I'm sure he's not the only one feeling such strong negativity.


----------



## Zeldrin (Feb 23, 2008)

Hespithe,

Glad to hear your group take the stance they do. I am sure it is far more satisfying to play that way than be dictated to by GW. I wonder if tornaments will rebel and stick to 4th ed? Now that really would send a message to GW.

Zeldrin


----------



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

I seem to be the only one who's generally not too annoyed by the 5th Edition playtest rules. The only thing that's even vaguely annoying to me is the power fist nerf, and if I get one fewer attack so my Veteran Sergeants don't completely dominate close combat over models that really ought to, like characters and monstrous creatures, then I can live with that. It just gives people a reason to bring something other than power fists where they can have them, and I kind of like that.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

The Son of Horus said:


> I seem to be the only one who's generally not too annoyed by the 5th Edition playtest rules. The only thing that's even vaguely annoying to me is the power fist nerf, and if I get one fewer attack so my Veteran Sergeants don't completely dominate close combat over models that really ought to, like characters and monstrous creatures, then I can live with that. It just gives people a reason to bring something other than power fists where they can have them, and I kind of like that.


Your not the only one who isnt upset about 5th edition. I'm not sure about not being able to fire through your own troops, but this used to be the way, that troops blocked LOS to other troops. This worked so I expect it will again.

I just wish we had a reliable date when or if the rules will be coming out as (as in a pulished date from GW themselves).


----------



## Souchan (Mar 7, 2008)

There seems to be a really strong following that it is going to be July on Warseer. Of course like all rumors, it could be a bust.

Also, I am one of the ones looking forward to 5th edition with enthusiasm even^^


----------



## The Wraithlord (Jan 1, 2007)

Not me, not in the least. From everything I have read the new edition is going to be heavily in favour of assaulty horde armies while mobile shooting based armies are going to be shafted. Hell, the fact that mobility is being taken away from armour alone is enough to make me despise the thought of 5th Ed.


----------



## Souchan (Mar 7, 2008)

The Wraithlord said:


> Not me, not in the least. From everything I have read the new edition is going to be heavily in favour of assaulty horde armies while mobile shooting based armies are going to be shafted. Hell, the fact that mobility is being taken away from armour alone is enough to make me despise the thought of 5th Ed.


I hear that a lot, though I greatly disagree with it. One of the main reasons people say that is the new Run rules. These people seem to ignore the new rules(rumors ofcourse) that area terrain no long blocks LOS(only impassable terrain will do that). Mobility isn't being taken away from armour, only forcing now the choice do I want to move and fire a single Str5+ weapon and defensive ones or stand still and unload it all. 

With vehicles newfound durability, taking one round to position isn't that bad a deal or one finally has a reason to go for the solo autocannon predators besides their new economic pricings. My Tau have so far been looking at the new rules with somewhat nervousness, as our suits are starting to feel really exposed, however, bikes new cover saves and to be honest all the new cover save rules give a nice boost to our markerlights, not to mention the change to pinning. If it's true jet packs can now fire heavy weapons and move as well, well that makes one of our lesser used models a lot more interesting.

Some of my feelings towards 5th^^


----------



## Morgal (Sep 26, 2007)

well i think many of the negative feeling boil down to this.
"In 5th edition my current army list will not work as well"

i'm not looking forward to it because my troops never hold objectives.

how ever a few changes and some conscripts later i may be okay.


----------



## Souchan (Mar 7, 2008)

Mikal Darkus said:


> *JET PACKS*
> 
> Some Jump Infantry are equipped with a
> special type of jump pack, referred to as a jet
> ...


Here's hoping that quote stays the same in the final then^^


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

Tanks becomeing pill-boxes is a step in the wrong direction. Skimmers costing 4x the price of a Rhino but less effective at transporting, 2x the cost of a Predator and still less effective.

The game is becoming more and more like WHFB. Now, don't get me wrong, I really like Fantasy, but 40K is not the same. The new edition is rumored to simply be a skirmish version of Fantasy. This is not something I look forward to seeing. I'll play one or the other if they're both the same.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

More vehicles need the assault trait, even if they have to print an errata for it. Defensive weapons need to stay STR 5.

One change that would weaken vehicles but not cut their throat would be the ability to shoot their main weapons as it sits right now and shoot secondary weapon systems at a -1 BS if they more 6 inches (12 for fast) and -1 for Main Weapon, -2 BS for secondary weapons if they move 12 inches (18 for skimmers). Barrage/ordance weapons would still be fired the same way.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Hespithe said:


> Tanks becomeing pill-boxes is a step in the wrong direction. Skimmers costing 4x the price of a Rhino but less effective at transporting, 2x the cost of a Predator and still less effective.


I agree that the defensive weapons change is a mistake. Skimmer transports, with the exception of falcons, are being improved in 5th edition though. Devilfish, Raiders and wave serpents will all be *harder to kill* after the change.

(Copied from a post in this thread):

The rumour is that the skimmers moving fast rule is being changed to give a 5+ cover save (ignore the hit on a 5+) rather than downgrading all hits to glancing. It will be possible to get penetrating hits on skimmers.

However, I can show that this doesn't make skimmers statistically more vulnerable. The vehicle damage table is also being changed. Imagine the current table but with -1 on all the dice rolls. Table looks like this:

1: shaken
2: stunned
3: weapon destroyed
4: immobilised
5: destroyed
6: explodes

There is only one table with various modifiers depending on what kind of hit you got. You get +1 if you used an AP1 wep tho these do now glance if they equal your armour value and you get -1 with an AP- wep, tho these can now penetrate. Glancing hits get -2 on the table, so note that it will be impossible to destroy a vehicle on a glance.

Another improvement is that entanglement is getting removed. If your transport is killed the troops inside will only have to take a pinning test. Troops in an exploded or wrecked vehicle will take a S4 hit rather than being wounded on a 4+, which is an obvious problem for eldar and tau. on the other hand, open topped vehicles only hit their passengers at S3, which is nice for orks. There's no reroll to wound if the transport went fast, which is nice for everyone.

There is a heavy nerf to falcons in that defensive weapons will only be weps of S4 or less. No more firing the scatter laser, pulse laser and shuriken cannon after moving 12". Another issue is that fast vehicles can only go 18", not 24".

The net result is that skimmers will be tougher than they are now.

At the moment a glancing hit has a 1/3 chance of destroying or immobilising a skimmer tank. In 5th it will be a 1/2 chance, but with a 1/3 chance of ignoring the hit altogether. Result is exactly the same overall chance of a wrecked result on a 5th ed penetrate as on a 4h ed glancing hit.

Of course, glancing hits will still exist. Nowadays people often use things weapons of S6 or 7 to target skimmers because a glance is as good as a pen. Not so in 5th. A glancing hit will only have a 1/6 chance of immobilising a skimmer, with a 1/3 chance of ignoring that with the 5+ save for moving fast. Shooting stuff like multi lasers, autocannons, scatter lasers and so on at A12 or 13 skimmers will no longer be very effective at all. On the other hand there will be an increased risk from AP 1 stuff; exorcists, meltas and railguns. That seems to make sense to me. People will use anti tank weapons against your tanks and anti personnel weps against infantry, not scatter lasers against everything.

Add to that you have a 1/3 chance to ignore other glancing hits as well. Maybe you don't get that shaken or weapon destroyed result, so you can still fire next turn. That has to be a huge improvement.

Finally the 5+ save is no longer the best that you can get. If your skimmer is partially concealed behind a piece of solid cover the save can improve to 4+ or even 3+ for fortifications. There is now a reason to use cover for skimmers, where currently you may as well just burn right down the middle of the field.

Falcons truly are getting nerfed hard, mostly due to the defensive weapon rule. They will still be damn near impossible to kill. Hammerheads, wave serpents and devilfish will all be better than they are at the moment. The fact that none will claim objectives does cause some problems though.

So overall you get to be tougher but with the slight chance that you can actually blow up a skimmer completely. That seems like a more realistic set of damage outcomes than currently exist, but harms nobody. I expect that a lot of eldar players will switch to using wave serpents. You can probably mail order the sprue to change your tanks over.



Hespithe said:


> The game is becoming more and more like WHFB. Now, don't get me wrong, I really like Fantasy, but 40K is not the same. The new edition is rumored to simply be a skirmish version of Fantasy. This is not something I look forward to seeing. I'll play one or the other if they're both the same.


To be honest I have no idea what you mean by this. I don't see any real convergence between 40k and fantasy. There are one or two things that might fit the bill, like "panic" tests being caused if friends fall back through other units, but that isn't hugely significant.


----------



## Sniper (Mar 9, 2008)

A new rule book sounds like the most likely thing. But I doubt it'll happen until late 2008 at the least.


----------



## mr.darkraider (Mar 5, 2008)

possible skimmers rule = poo for dark eldar forces. trust me - always glancing(while after moving) can be the difference - which helps a lot.

not very impressed if they introduce the one universal damage chart..


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Open topped skimmers like raiders will be harder to kill in 5th than 4th. A glance currently has a 1/2 chance of killing a raider. In 5th it is a 4/6 chance (assuming a penetrating hit) with a 1/3 chance of ignoring the hit completely. Overall it's 4/9 chance of a penetrating hit destroying your raider, marginally less than the chance of a glance killing it in 4th. That's assuming a penetrating hit of course, and glances are even less likely to kill it.

Plus of course there is no entanglement. The fact that raiders don't score is less of an issue since no vehicles score. Their dark lances are really quite good against other people's transports. Raiders are much improved by the changes.


----------



## grimbane40k (Mar 31, 2008)

*5th ed*

The owner of a hobby shop closeto me e-mailed me a copy of leaked 5th ed rules in pdf format, vehicle ramming rules caught my eye. can't wait to smash my baneblade into something.:crazy:


----------

