Librarium Online Forums banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Part time Pirate
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I don't know if any of you have been reading about the rumours of the 5th edition rulebook but from what I've seen its not looking too good for the old grey knights.

Things that will directly effect the GK's..

Firstly a simple change, bikes now getting 3+ cover instead of 3+ invulnerable ... a change for the better I think... psycannons shouldn't really work in this way.

Next I saw was the rumour of fearless going down hill. The restriction of 3 wounds for out numbering may be banished so you could take 20 or more extra wounds if hugely out numbered.

Another thing is that only TROOP units will be considered scoring units (excluding vehicles) which will mean FAGK won't be scoring.

Also deepstriking has changed a bit.

Hopefully they clear up the Truegrit thing :D
 

·
durus
Joined
·
2,578 Posts
I can understand the Turbo-boosting bike thing, but we have to remember that there will be plenty of play testing before they release 5th ed, so hopefully the minds that make the game will make it more equitable.:C
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
877 Posts
The thing is if turboing bikes get cover instead of invulnerable as it is now we will still have problems as now all template weapons own them, what they need to do is just have it say they gain a cover / invulnerable save that is equal to thier armor or have them all get a set save of like 4+. this way it would have to ignore the bikers armor and either cover or invulnerable depending on what they go with. Cause as it is with them replacing their armor save we get problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,213 Posts
The thing is if turboing bikes get cover instead of invulnerable as it is now we will still have problems as now all template weapons own them, what they need to do is just have it say they gain a cover / invulnerable save that is equal to thier armor or have them all get a set save of like 4+. this way it would have to ignore the bikers armor and either cover or invulnerable depending on what they go with. Cause as it is with them replacing their armor save we get problems.
Could be they word it better, though. Instead of "treating the save as invulnerable", it might read "gains a 4+ cover save when turboboosting" or some such. Point is, we don't really know how they'll word it, or how it'll change after play testing, but I'd be very surprised if the verbiage ended up as "replace the biker's armour save with a cover save".

-H
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
3,930 Posts
The thing is if turboing bikes get cover instead of invulnerable as it is now we will still have problems as now all template weapons own them, what they need to do is just have it say they gain a cover / invulnerable save that is equal to thier armor or have them all get a set save of like 4+. this way it would have to ignore the bikers armor and either cover or invulnerable depending on what they go with. Cause as it is with them replacing their armor save we get problems.
I view it like this.

A bike traveling real fast is hard to hit with a bullet. But if it runs into a stream of burning promethium spewed from a heavy flamer, it's going to get hit no matter how fast it's traveling. It's a matter of aiming. Weapons that don't need to aim don't have to worry about hitting.

Before it was dodgy, because invulnerable saves are usually force fields/blessings/other supernatural paraphernalia. A cover save is actually much more logical, and I believe was suggested on this very forum to Games Workshop as a possible revision about...two or three years ago. Hey, at least they got there eventually.

On topic: Grey Knights died the day Ubergrit was finalised. It absolutely killed the end-all advantage all Grey Knights had. It gimped the people supposed to fight Chaos and buffed Chaos. It was like giving the Nazis fusion bombs and giving Captain America a cardboard cut-out of Kylie Minogue instead of a vibranium shield.
 

·
Part time Pirate
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I view it like this.

A bike traveling real fast is hard to hit with a bullet. But if it runs into a stream of burning promethium spewed from a heavy flamer, it's going to get hit no matter how fast it's traveling. It's a matter of aiming. Weapons that don't need to aim don't have to worry about hitting.

Before it was dodgy, because invulnerable saves are usually force fields/blessings/other supernatural paraphernalia. A cover save is actually much more logical, and I believe was suggested on this very forum to Games Workshop as a possible revision about...two or three years ago. Hey, at least they got there eventually.
Well put, and I don't think many DH players would argue that.
I never saw sense in the loop hole.

On topic: Grey Knights died the day Ubergrit was finalised. It absolutely killed the end-all advantage all Grey Knights had. It gimped the people supposed to fight Chaos and buffed Chaos. It was like giving the Nazis fusion bombs and giving Captain America a cardboard cut-out of Kylie Minogue instead of a vibranium shield.
Agreed, hopefully it will all change with a future codex looming (albeit looming far far away)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Invu saves can be many things... assassins get a dodge save that is invu... no matter how hard ur bullets they cant hit that which is not there... same would apply for a bike moving half the board in one round (moving actually so fast it would take a person 4 rounds to get there while running).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,213 Posts
Invu saves can be many things... assassins get a dodge save that is invu... no matter how hard ur bullets they cant hit that which is not there...
Yeah, I always thought so-called 'dodge' saves should be treated as cover saves as well. I mean, how are psycannon rounds any likelier to hit someone dodging? Furthermore, how is one supposed to 'dodge' a cloud of burning napalm? Modeling 'dodge' saves as cover saves has always made more sense to me.

*Shrugs*

-H
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
Next I saw was the rumour of fearless going down hill. The restriction of 3 wounds for out numbering may be banished so you could take 20 or more extra wounds if hugely out numbered.

Another thing is that only TROOP units will be considered scoring units (excluding vehicles) which will mean FAGK won't be scoring.
These two are far and away the most concerning changes. The last thing Grey Knights need is to get overrun by imperial guard conscripts just because they are brutally outnumbered, and loosing the FAGK as a viable option seems like a slap in the face to me, not to mention the awesome point holding power of our terminators.

Now, if they changed TROOP to INFANTRY, that would be more acceptable in my mind. Still, between this and the Chaos codex it looks like another round of getting our respective behinds handed to us by GW.

Ah well, as a warrior used to facing off against an entire horde of daemons with only the Thunder hammer at my side and a handfull of faithful troops, I can take another round of semi-nerfing. :happy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,129 Posts
loosing the FAGK as a viable option seems like a slap in the face to me, not to mention the awesome point holding power of our terminators.
Losing the FAGK as a viable option? If by viable option you mean losing the chance for up to three more scoring units of power armoured grey knights than yes, by the rumours we are losing them. Last I remember though, an eight man FAGK squad was still a good and viable option, these rumours are just shifting a more important focus on keeping our troops alive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Let's not get too worried just yet. The Dakka forum is going hog-wild about this rule or that rule ruining everything. The few voices of reason are pretty much ignored. Has GW announced 5th Ed? I saw this supposed leaked pdf. It could be real or it could be a hoax. There are some pretty oddly worded sentences here and there and a whole lot of empty boxes. Anyone could have made this. Anyone. Until we hear something official, let's not sell our armies for scrap metal. :)
 

·
I am a free man!
Joined
·
4,941 Posts
I am convinced that 5th edition is real, and that it will be released this year. I do possess a draft of the rules. Overall, I do believe that the game will improve as a result of them. Mostly, they're very well thought-out changes that nerf units that need to be nerfed and boost choices that otherwise are commonly overlooked.

Regarding the DH specifically...

The changes that are (likely) coming are definitely mixed. I believe that I have lots of adjustments to make. Highlights of the rules changes that will affect me the most....

The Infantry "Run" Rule
That just means things can assault my limited numbers of GKs that much faster. I would almost never choose to run, as that utterly wastes the stormbolter dakka.

Mobile Walker Weapon Firing Limitation
The combination of walkers only being able to fire one weapon on the move and the overall increased survivability of tanks is a direct one-two punch to my (our) army's greatest weakness. The traditional GK list relies on as many vanilla GK squads as is possible. backed up by 2-3 hellfire dreads for mobile anti-armour. (And that's always been my core, too, though I've often mixed in non-GK units for fun, variety, and tactical options, most notably Seraphim.) Now I pretty much have no choice but to load up on land raiders to handle my armour duties ... but, of course, each raider costs me an entire squad of GKs. I'm caught between a rock and a hard place.

Fortunately, I just bought and constructed 2 normal raiders and a crusader, and even played my 1st game last night with a pair of them in the list. I managed a solid victory, so ... we'll see.

I have gone back over my lists, and I think that 3 dread lists are still viable, if only because it frees up points for more GK Troops squads (see below). It also means that, for the first time, I feel like TLLC/DCCW dreads should be given equal consideration with TLLC/ML dreads for anti-armour duty. However, the inability to move and fire all weapons puts a serious crimp on armour-hunting with dreadnoughts. This holds true even when I included my usual inferno pistol-toting Seraphim. (Which itself has implications. Again, see below.) I find myself strongly favoring land raiders in a way that I never have before.

Only infantry Troops Are Scoring Units
This rule will have a massive impact on me and I think, all DH players. 5th edition is mostly an objectives-based game now, and VPs only come into play for tie-breaking purposes.

Personally, I think having only infantry Troops as scoring units is a ridiculous rule, impossible to rationalize. But outside of "logic", I do agree (begrudgingly) that, overall, it will be good for the game. However, it's not good for my army. (I don't think it's particularly good for any GK army, actually.) It means it'd be stupid of me to slot GKs for Fast Attack teleport duty. With a new reliance on land raiders, every GK squad must be Troops either taking a ride or hoofing it. I cannot conceive of building any army with fewer than 3 Troops choices, either -- already a chore to achieve under 4th ed! -- which means I can no longer afford a lot of the fun units like inquisitors or assassins. Nor can I use Seraphim any more, either. I can't count the number of games where the girls and Eversor have saved my bacon. They're such great units for pulling off surprise moves or for countering some of the worst threats that face me on the table. They're tactical swiss army knives of the first order. Now ... they're gone.

I've never been a pure GK player before, and I'm not really looking forward to being one out of practical meta-gaming necessity. I was gearing up to try it out anyway, but mostly just for fun. I'm irked when meta-gaming considerations interfere with my list-building. And 5th edition does that in a major way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,213 Posts
These two are far and away the most concerning changes. The last thing Grey Knights need is to get overrun by imperial guard conscripts just because they are brutally outnumbered.
Well, remember you have to lose the combat before the outnumbering rules come into play. So just, you know, don't lose :p.

-H
 

·
I am a free man!
Joined
·
4,941 Posts
Well, remember you have to lose the combat before the outnumbering rules come into play. So just, you know, don't lose :p.
Easier said than done. There will be no kill zones. If a unit is engaged in an assault, every model, no matter how distant from the base-to-base front, will get to fight. Hordes just got a whole lot scarier, espcially considering that they will soon be able to run up to you and tie you up quicker than before.
 

·
Part time Pirate
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Easier said than done. There will be no kill zones. If a unit is engaged in an assault, every model, no matter how distant from the base-to-base front, will get to fight. Hordes just got a whole lot scarier, espcially considering that they will soon be able to run up to you and tie you up quicker than before.
Go the Orks codex :D
 

·
Ender of Threads
Joined
·
1,306 Posts
Easier said than done. There will be no kill zones. If a unit is engaged in an assault, every model, no matter how distant from the base-to-base front, will get to fight. Hordes just got a whole lot scarier, espcially considering that they will soon be able to run up to you and tie you up quicker than before.
If this all turns out to be true, I'm gonna start looking into ways of cramming 300 heavy bolters into every list I build... 'Cause those changes would make horde troops just plain sick and wrong.
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
3,475 Posts
Going by memory here but I believe the troops rule was actually:

Troops are still scoring units even if below 50%.

So we still have all the regular scoring units its just troops are BETTER at being scoring.

Guard and Eldar are looking to get nerfed in the new rules. Eldar deserved it (well the units that are getting nerfed deserved it) which just leaves the poor guard hoping for a new codex.

Personally I think daemonhunters are coming out relatively unchanged, the run rule means you can't walk backwards firing stormbolters against orks as effectively but hey, you can't have everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
hmm, that "troops are only units that can take objectives" is just plain silly if you ask me... I mean, why would OUR Stormtroopers be able to take objectives, and Imperial Guard Stormtroopers not? Thats just rediculus...

As for the running, that would be logical, but I think Fleet-of-Foot needs to get their points fixed, because it differs only a small bit from the running thing.

Outnumber rule would be a good thing I guess, but I can't say for sure.

Walkers doing only one shot when they move... Then it seems to me walkers need to get cheaper in points, because I think it's good walkers can shoot 2 weapons and move. Else those things would be pretty much the same as a tank would be...


Just let GW release the =I= any time soon, because I really hate how much we have been screwed about because of the Chaos Codex. At the very least, they should make a FAQ or something like they did for the Blood Angels and Catachan codex, making it available on the internet, even if it's just temporary.
 

·
I am a free man!
Joined
·
4,941 Posts
Going by memory here but I believe the troops rule was actually:

Troops are still scoring units even if below 50%.

So we still have all the regular scoring units its just troops are BETTER at being scoring.
I have the rules in front of me, and they clearly state that only Troops (that are not falling back, that are not vehicles, and that don't have a special rule saying they aren't scoring units) are scoring units.

As of yet, I see no rules that say anything about a unit's scoring unit status being affected by losses. The implication is that a scoring unit remains scoring until the very last model is destroyed.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top