5th Edition Rumours

[Zeb[edee]]

From the mouth of a GW Staffer...
'Ignore the forums and the internet, most of it was leaked by us on purpose. That way, when the real rules are released, we look good for the nice rules as opposed to putting in all the ****** ones we leak.'

The One Major change in 5th Edition is how Terrain works. But Barnet can explain this better as I wasn't paying too much attention.

Basically, the rumours on here are Bull and when we asked him. He actually laughed. Games Workshop leaks horrible rules that will not be in place to look good when the adjustments are actually quite nice.

[experiment 626]

actually, alot of the rummors are (while not totally) pretty much true!
true line of sight, new vehicle damage table akin to apoc, area terrain affecting cover saves, lower S for defensive weapons...

still, do expect a number of changes from the leaked PDF file when the final book hits the shelves on july 12th!

cheers!
stitch - your friendly neibougerhood redshirt

[masterofweirdness]

Originally Posted by Zeb[edee]

From the mouth of a GW Staffer...
'Ignore the forums and the internet, most of it was leaked by us on purpose. That way, when the real rules are released, we look good for the nice rules as opposed to putting in all the ****** ones we leak.'

The One Major change in 5th Edition is how Terrain works. But Barnet can explain this better as I wasn't paying too much attention.

Basically, the rumours on here are Bull and when we asked him. He actually laughed. Games Workshop leaks horrible rules that will not be in place to look good when the adjustments are actually quite nice.

Wouldn't go that far... but it is one of the great things about the internet... you can "leak" something, and then let the fans do the work for you!

Besides... it also means that we the fans, indirectly, get some control over the rules!

[Zeb[edee]]

:O Staffer lied to me!

I am so glad the cover save rule isn't real. And the terrain thing sounds to be a big improvement, although terrain doesnt really matter for me anyways >.<

[thebarnet]

well not after that game you lost to my IG ay zeb

[Eugee]

Is Wound Allocations before Saves correct? Because while I haven't tried it, I think it's going to be horrible. Talk about slowing the game down...

10 man marine squad, sergeant, flamer, missiles, and 7 bolters. Say you get hit by 10 AP 6 wounds. I have to roll for my sergeant, the flamer, the missile, then I can roll the last 7 as one bank (since it doesn't matter which model actually fails for them). This really sucks, in my book. Current rules, the attacker picks one model I save right now (say the sergeant) and he has a 1 in 3 chance to buy the farm.

But now, not only is there a 1 in 3 shot of losing the sergeant--what are the odds that I lose at least one from my sergeant, flamer, and missile? 2 in 3 chance to make the save, cubed for three saves, means 8 out of 27 times I will not lose one of them. So 19 of 27 times (70%) I will lose at least one of my special models from the unit. Wow. For scoring 10 ap6 wounds on space marines.

Of course that depends on the definition of "wargear". Is upgrading a space marine with a flamer and another with a missile launcher "wargear" or is that only when the rules say, "May choose wargear." If so, then no problem, I have to make an armor save for the sergeant (would have had to before, anyway) and I roll 9 more saves for the "standard marines". Regardless of their weapon, they have the same "profile, rules, and wargear". In which case I can remove whichever model I like.

[Irish1642]

special weapons are not wargear, otherwise it would say as such, so your gonna roll one save for the sergeant assuming he has gear beyond standard issue and then roll the rest