Hi all,
Saw this up on GW site;
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/conte ... 03&start=1
Just another little tidbit for those of us unlucky enough not to have seen the new rulebook
Enjoy!

cheers

what a bunch of jokers, eh? listen to this:
"LOS is now an important aspect of the game..."
so it wasnt before?

"...with players using a "model's eye view" to check whether they can see their target"
you mean, like we did in 4th ed (barring Area Terrain and models Locked in CC)?

ive had 2 staff members already try to convince me that we didnt use "model's eye view" in 4th ed.

"Cover saves have now improved..."
some of them have.

"...so even hardy SM favour cover against heavy weapons."
only AP1-3 Heavy Weapons though, and thats the same as 4th ed anyway.
(they even show Marines hiding behind a low wall from Starcannons - like they dont do that already?)

oh man the run up to 5th ed is going to be hilarious.

~ Tim

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:"...with players using a "model's eye view" to check whether they can see their target" you mean, like we did in 4th ed (barring Area Terrain and models Locked in CC)? ive had 2 staff members already try to convince me that we didnt use "model's eye view" in 4th ed.

I guess they never read the first paragraph on pg 20, or maybe they never felt that they had to "stoop over" Sorry!

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:"Cover saves have now improved..." some of them have. "...so even hardy SM favour cover against heavy weapons." only AP1-3 Heavy Weapons though, and thats the same as 4th ed anyway. (they even show Marines hiding behind a low wall from Starcannons - like they dont do that already?)

Don't Terminators do that all the time because according to some, they don't have terminator armor? Sorry again, just playing devils advocate here, of course they wear Terminator armor

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:oh man the run up to 5th ed is going to be hilarious. ~ Tim

To paraphrase Beetle Juice, "Seen it 167 times, and it keeps getting funnier, every single time I see it!"
But their site not withstanding, judging from the other posts I've read here on AoS, it looks like 5th ed is going to clear up a lot of issues and make the game more fun to play.

Hmmm did I suddenly log into Warseer?

My local store has these single sheet print outs with how 5th ed changes will affect each race. Anyone else's store has them? If not I'll run back over and pick one up and paraphrase onto here. Seems like some decent info, although I'm sure most every already has some idea how 5th ed will affect their race of choice. For me, I can't wait for all rear armor attacks against vehicles for troops, yay my GKs will only be slightly less awful in an AT role



-Reaver

Algeroth wrote:Hmmm did I suddenly log into Warseer?

Good Lord I hope not!
There are some decent people there but all too often it's like a bad remake of the Pee Wee Herman Funhouse, "I know you are but what am I ?!?!"
Rant over

Much better over here in the pub!

timewizard wrote:But their site not withstanding, judging from the other posts I've read here on AoS, it looks like 5th ed is going to clear up a lot of issues and make the game more fun to play.

Algeroth wrote:Hmmm did I suddenly log into Warseer?

heh. just to clarify, i wasnt making anti-5th ed points, just (playfully) mocking the way that GW seem to have forgotten how 4th worked already (and i know they are just having selective memory loss in order to make 5th ed sound better, but its still funny seeing them make fools of themselves coming out with stuff like that ).

cheers

~ Tim

I've said before my last on depth revision of the rules was 3rd we, so there is going to be mostly new for me

Wow, this is really had to done on a iPod touch!!! Least I ch laze about on the sofa for a while now while checking ALS

Conscriptboris

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:

timewizard wrote:But their site not withstanding, judging from the other posts I've read here on AoS, it looks like 5th ed is going to clear up a lot of issues and make the game more fun to play.

Algeroth wrote:Hmmm did I suddenly log into Warseer?

heh. just to clarify, i wasnt making anti-5th ed points, just (playfully) mocking the way that GW seem to have forgotten how 4th worked already (and i know they are just having selective memory loss in order to make 5th ed sound better, but its still funny seeing them make fools of themselves coming out with stuff like that ).

cheers

~ Tim

It's definitely funny seeing the run up to 5th edition, especially in the new White Dwarf with them trying all sorts of contortions to explain how every army's better now. Especially the Eldar, where the best thing they can say is that they'll benefit the most from the improved cover saves (though Pathfinders already were getting the good cover saves without having to go to ground ), and the subtle things like "hardier vehicles" (unless they're assaulted) (and the decrease in strength for defensive weaponry means most those vehicles won't be shooting as much). The best ones, though, must be the comments for Dark Eldar - first the vehicles "can take advantage of cover saves by positioning themselves behind ruins and other obstacles"...weren't they already doing this in 4th edition, usually to not be shot at in the first place rather than just getting the cover save? "Finally, their powerful dark lance weaponry can rip apart heavily armoured enemy vehicles with consummate ease"....I suppose in 4th edition the Dark Lances worked about as well as stabbing a brick with a plastic spoon?

DoctorTom wrote:trying all sorts of contortions to explain how every army's better now.

Heartily agree "necrons can become an assualty force with the new run rule"..I really don't know where to start taking the Pi$$ with that one anymore , but I am slowly becoming a full on fanboi of 5th...I just see most of the marketing done for it is going to have a come down factor on those who buy the speil.
(officially now a fanboi for 5th- but still think 4th ed chaos is a pile of used toilet role stuck to a nice ladies shoe (spoils the whole thing))

I found another happy one, the introduction of "top armour", when you take a hit from an orbital \indirect weapon it hits the "top armour" this uses the side armour..Its really simple..makes sense\fluff realism and is easy to interpret and boosts only a few weapons.. (KMB goes into the "little things" speech from pulp fiction )

BTW the link from first post currently says
"HTTP Status 404 - /gws/content/article.jsp

type Status report

message /gws/content/article.jsp

description The requested resource (/gws/content/article.jsp) is not available.
Apache Tomcat/5.5.20"

DoctorTom wrote:

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:

timewizard wrote:But their site not withstanding, judging from the other posts I've read here on AoS, it looks like 5th ed is going to clear up a lot of issues and make the game more fun to play.

Algeroth wrote:Hmmm did I suddenly log into Warseer?

heh. just to clarify, i wasnt making anti-5th ed points, just (playfully) mocking the way that GW seem to have forgotten how 4th worked already (and i know they are just having selective memory loss in order to make 5th ed sound better, but its still funny seeing them make fools of themselves coming out with stuff like that ).

cheers

~ Tim

It's definitely funny seeing the run up to 5th edition, especially in the new White Dwarf with them trying all sorts of contortions to explain how every army's better now. Especially the Eldar, where the best thing they can say is that they'll benefit the most from the improved cover saves (though Pathfinders already were getting the good cover saves without having to go to ground ), and the subtle things like "hardier vehicles" (unless they're assaulted) (and the decrease in strength for defensive weaponry means most those vehicles won't be shooting as much). The best ones, though, must be the comments for Dark Eldar - first the vehicles "can take advantage of cover saves by positioning themselves behind ruins and other obstacles"...weren't they already doing this in 4th edition, usually to not be shot at in the first place rather than just getting the cover save? "Finally, their powerful dark lance weaponry can rip apart heavily armoured enemy vehicles with consummate ease"....I suppose in 4th edition the Dark Lances worked about as well as stabbing a brick with a plastic spoon?

i had to laugh at the sisters one: flamers and heavy flamers are now much more powerful, only needing partials to hit... lol

KInG wrote:i had to laugh at the sisters one: flamers and heavy flamers are now much more powerful, only needing partials to hit... lol

I forgot about that one! Maybe in all the excitement of developing 5th edition they forgot that template weapons work the exact same way in 4th.


I'm expecting them to make a big deal about how in 5th edition a unit with Fleet is so much better than in 4th edition because it can move in the shooting phase and assault. So far, I've seen them drawing the distinction between Fleet and Run, but at some point I bet they forget that in 4th a unit with Fleet could do what it can in 5th.

I think what they actually mean with the Flamers, is that you DO NOT need to roll to hit for partials. its an automatic hit
I don't remember that being in 4th Ed?

I think they mean if your hand is under the template ur hit by the full power,

no difference between fully under and partial, so you dont make a roll for the partial, they just go straight for the roll to hit!!

Which with flame weapons i think is the right wat to go about it, especially since i made a heavy flamer landraider bout a yr ago, now GW are robbing my idea.

If i hadnt made it in nottingham and shown the staff maybe they wudnt of though bout it

thats the rumour anyway

conscriptboris

Algeroth wrote:I think what they actually mean with the Flamers, is that you DO NOT need to roll to hit for partials. its an automatic hit
I don't remember that being in 4th Ed?

Blasts had to roll for partials, but template weapons always hit in 4th.