Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

yakface wrote:

Dal'yth Dude wrote:While change is nice and may even be necessary, it would be nice to have all codexes updated before going to a new edition. I don't think that has ever happened.

Happened in 2nd edition where they put out a 'gets you by' booklet with all armies until their codex came out. Happened in 3rd edition when they put all the armies into the rulebook until the new codices came out.

But it has always been a very controversial move. Many players hate having their codex invalidated by a simpler 'gets you by' army list. Plus, not having a codex in the shop for an army (because it takes several years for the codices for every army to be published) means that it is harder to sell new players on an army.

It's one of those "you can't please all the people all the time" kind of things.

I wouldn't call "get you by" army lists codexes. I think you'd agree to that as you state "until their codex came out". FWIW, I'd prefer to have a simultaneous army list for all units and drop the Codex format altogether. I think it's better to update units on an ad-hoc basis in a yearly update as units from a variety of armies are released. Sort of like how it was done during the RT era. "Codex creep" would be gone and people could get updated units without a 3-10 year release time.

I do agree that not everybody would be happy, but those lists in the 3rd ed book seemed very balanced to me.

covenant84 wrote:Well, I'm happy. this to me is a definate move back towards 2nd, the game I started playing and enjoyed.

I agree. With the exception of IC’s being over powered and parrying in HTH, 2nd edition was the pinnacle rule set. Army lists galore in every codex, armor save modifiers, individual damage charts for vehicles and percentage limits on non-troop types (ie no more than15% of army points total could be spend on HQ, character models and their war gear).

Still scratching my head over how razor wire/chainlink fences provide a cover save....

ancientsociety wrote:Still scratching my head over how razor wire/chainlink fences provide a cover save....

Don't worry about it. Just disagree with your opponent and he'll have to take it at -1.

BYE

covenant84 wrote:Well, I'm happy. this to me is a definate move back towards 2nd, the game I started playing and enjoyed.

Except for the vehicle rules. Nothing GW has done in the past 10+ years has been as fun as vehicles were in 2nd Ed.

BYE

Vehicle rules in 2nd were insane! Would love to see those back again. And Overwatch.

I'm not against change. I'm against change that isn't well-thought-out though. And, unfortunately, it seems more and more that changes coming from GW aren't well thought-out.

It seems like designers think "hey, this would be cool", and ram it into the rules.

Tankbustas being unable to assault a unit an inch away because they can see a tank on the other side of the world, for example. Or, the new vehicle squadron immobilized = destroyed rule. Were vehicle squadrons ever overpowered? Why add this, making already marginal choices even worse?

This quote, from the latest WD (342) sums up the inherent problem, in my opinion. "This game requires you to play with a gracious, cooperative spirit. You have to make the game work for you, your opponent and the story you're creating. It is a move from the ultra-competative style that has become more prevalent in 40K over the years."


Changing the rules will not alter whether people are competative or not. All it will change is how that competativeness is expressed. Games should be written with the most competative players in mind, as casual players are casual, and will play for fun with whatever rules they're given. It is far far easier to write tight rules with competative players in mind, and allow casual players to go with what works for them, than it is to write loose rules with casual players in mind, and expect competative players to become casual players.

The good game companies out there have already realized this, and do it. It is foolish for GW to believe that they can remove competativeness from a player-versus-player game by producing inherently non-competative rules.

There will be winning strategies in 5th edition, they will simply be different than those in 4th. There will be power-units and power-armies. And, as in 4th edition, the competative players will be accused of being cheesy as they are the ones who will know, and use, tactics like the intermingled squads to gain cover saves.

Overwatch rocked, diffrent damage charts on vehicles also rocked.. dont diss 2nd ed. With a few limitations and extra work it was the best GW ever made.

But on the topic, the sheets looks pretty sweet and easy to follow. The "new" rules looks like a fresh breeze and change is usually a good thing or it would be playing the same over and over all the time. Finally getting some use of the troops, even if i would have prefered only troops could contest too. The only thing that contradicts all of that is the flattening of codexes, with lesser and lesser choices esp. with only a few that are good enough(orcs is the exception so far). That will make the changes in the game minimal..

Ripping apart players armies and making them obsolete is a bad thing too, less variations and a loss of players. They might have needed more tuning and a bit more work but it would have gotten a bigger playerbase and more sales, dont really understand why they did it.

Thing the biggest loss GW ever made was Andy C. JJ just isnt good.. or even decent, wonder how they actually made him head of anything.

Anyone notice for assault that you compare "wounds inflicted" and not casualties to determine who wins?
Armor saves have no bearing on whether you win or lose which is strange as I would think a unit that took 20 wounds and saved all but one would have a greater morale than a unit that took 10 wounds and lost 9.

An interesting thigs I see is the Assault phase sequence where it says "Defenders React" before "Resolve Combats." Does that mean that we are seeing charge reactions like in fantasy or is that just fancy talk for defenders attcks, followed by leadership rolls, etc?

I think on the whole yak vs hbmc minithread in this thread, here's my two cents.

I bought every FoW army in 2 months time because the game was so good.

When 5th edition is done bubbling over in a few months, I'll go and get into AT-43.

Both game systems impress me, they make for fun games and both have a balanced force creation system.

GW's games do not. It's always been a flaw.

The second major flaw is the scenarios are rubbish.

The last is marines, and not IG, are the baseline for the game system.

GW believes quite firmly that you must sell models by making new models superior to other models....and raise the price while doing so.

As a result of this singular policy, GW's business has shrunk remarkably over the past five years.

I have five year old armies for a reason, there's very little incentive for me to buy new models. I can get by with the ones I have, and I have enough wealth available I can literally buy a new army every month if I desired.

I don't. At some point, GW is going to realize that in order to get my business back, they need to make army lists with MORE options available.

Is 5E better than 4E? Yes. In that the game system has borrowed heavily from FoW and AT-43 (and even Warmachine) to try in one fell swoop to smother the opposition AND reinvent their own game...well, in the internet age you can't fool anyone that doesn't want to be fooled.

Do I want to play this game with 10 year olds? No.

Will I be playing this game with 10 year olds, once all of the kiddyhammer concept is introduced? No.

The 3rd edition Codices gave alot of choice, but were in a crummy game system.

Now the choice is gone, and the game system is improved.

Am I buying models? Nope. There's no incentive for me to spend money anymore, new game system or not.

Maybe someday I'll find a codex not written by Phil Kelly, that makes me go "oooh I want that". That hasn't happened in a very long time.

I'm so disgusted by the 'for retards, by retards' new codex schemes that anything Phil Kelly does not write, I don't buy...and I end up looking backwards to Codexes not yet effed up for 'new' armies.

Lots of dollars in my pocket, and nowhere to go.

Sad, really. I've spent more on tournament prizes in the last year than I have on GW product for myself.

Makov wrote:An interesting thigs I see is the Assault phase sequence where it says "Defenders React" before "Resolve Combats." Does that mean that we are seeing charge reactions like in fantasy or is that just fancy talk for defenders attcks, followed by leadership rolls, etc?

"defenders react" refers to the universal counter attack where you move the defenders models into base with their attackers. The days of 2 or 3 man killzones are gone. Usually all members of both squads will fight in each assault.

Meph

Mephistoles1 wrote:

Makov wrote:An interesting thigs I see is the Assault phase sequence where it says "Defenders React" before "Resolve Combats." Does that mean that we are seeing charge reactions like in fantasy or is that just fancy talk for defenders attcks, followed by leadership rolls, etc?

"defenders react" refers to the universal counter attack where you move the defenders models into base with their attackers. The days of 2 or 3 man killzones are gone. Usually all members of both squads will fight in each assault.

Meph

Yeah, in our games HTH was one-two phases at most. Pretty bloody with counter-assault/combat resolution.

Mephistoles1 wrote:"defenders react" refers to the universal counter attack where you move the defenders models into base with their attackers. The days of 2 or 3 man killzones are gone. Usually all members of both squads will fight in each assault.

Not really.

The LAZY days are over.

Now you need to use tactics to overcome the limits imposed by the game system.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:Interesting. I see no restrictions on the file. The fact that they are not scans and appear to be direct PDFs created from Quark Xpress 6 makes me think these are deliberate "leaks".

I guess you could call it that. These are the ones that were sent out to the hobby centers so they're open source material. They were also posted to the Kommandos Forum with permission to share them out.

MadEdric wrote:Anyone notice for assault that you compare "wounds inflicted" and not casualties to determine who wins?
Armor saves have no bearing on whether you win or lose which is strange as I would think a unit that took 20 wounds and saved all but one would have a greater morale than a unit that took 10 wounds and lost 9.

That's wounds inflicted and not saved, as in after taking saves as directed in step 2...........

Edit: Sorry for the double post, couldn't get the multiquote function to work

Redbeard wrote:Tankbustas being unable to assault a unit an inch away because they can see a tank on the other side of the world, for example. Or, the new vehicle squadron immobilized = destroyed rule. Were vehicle squadrons ever overpowered? Why add this, making already marginal choices even worse?

Ah, but this is not a case of a problem in the rules or army.

This is about a player wanting to have an uber-killy HtH unit and make them do things they weren't designed to do.
They're hard-core, tank hunting, armor killers. As far as they're concerned, the grots can have the flesh-bags. they want "Da Big uns." It's just a matter of fluff being interpreted (rightfully) into rule-format.

Eric

"defenders react" refers to the universal counter attack where you move the defenders models into base with their attackers. The days of 2 or 3 man killzones are gone. Usually all members of both squads will fight in each assault. "

Awesome, i always hated that the defenders would have to wait until the end of the assault phase to move in unengaged models. At least that's how it was back in 3rd, when I was more active in the game. Maybe that was changed in 4th.

MagickalMemories wrote:
Ah, but this is not a case of a problem in the rules or army.

No, it's a problem in design philosophy. You're right - it's crystal clear in the rules. But, have you seen a single competative player advocate taking tankbustas? I haven't. I understand they're trying to impose fluff via rules, but that doesn't encourage people to take them and use them according to the fluff, it encourages people not to take them. I have two boxes of them, they're wonderful models, but I haven't painted a single one yet because I really don't see myself ever taking them.

It's indicative of just about everything they seem to be doing lately. It's a "wouldn't it be cool if tankbustas had to go after tanks" - without giving any real thought to the real-world ramifications that the rule has (no one plays tankbustas).

And it's not just tankbustas. There are stupid rules thrown in all over the place. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that rolling for Possessed's abilities after they're deployed makes them immensely unreliable for their point-cost. Result: cool new models that no one plays with. Same exact flaw - a cool flavourful rule that wasn't thought through and makes the unit pointless.

I'm willing to give 5th ed a chance. I'm going to wait and see how the new games actually play. But, when I ran my orks at adepticon, no one was able to handle 180 boyz with a 5+ cover save. I don't know what's going to stop them when I don't have to buy a forcefield, improve my coversave to a 4+, and can run across the field instead of walking. Something just seems broken here.

yakface wrote:

Dal'yth Dude wrote:While change is nice and may even be necessary, it would be nice to have all codexes updated before going to a new edition. I don't think that has ever happened.

Happened in 2nd edition where they put out a 'gets you by' booklet with all armies until their codex came out. Happened in 3rd edition when they put all the armies into the rulebook until the new codices came out.

Untrue. They never came out with a Squats codex in 2nd edition even though they did have things like wargear cards and psy power cards for them in the dark melenium box.

Le Grognard wrote:Vehicle rules in 2nd were insane! Would love to see those back again. And Overwatch.

Oh my goodness, no. Overwatch was the worst thing to hit 40k ever. I think that a comeback of that would proably get me to quit playing.

don_mondo: thanks for the clarification. I'm unfamiliar with the Kommando's Forum and didn't think GW would send PDFs to local stores for printout.

GW believes quite firmly that you must sell models by making new models superior to other models....and raise the price while doing so.

Hmm, Chaos Spawn? Possessed? What exactly recently has been put out that is so overpowered?

And 2nd was fun in ways, but would never fly now. I hated the vehicle rules (loved the RT way), and overwatch slowed the game to such a crawl. Small games took entire days to play sometimes. It was very very ponderous, and for no real good reason.

The new edition looks a lot better, and overall, really seems to make it a better game... so far. Only time will tell.

Have to agree about Overwatch!

That was painful to have to endure, and often resulted in very boring matches.

I do miss the Psychic Phase from 2nd though.

3rd killed it, 4th brought it back to an OK level, but I fear 5th will be killing it again.

Redbeard wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:
Ah, but this is not a case of a problem in the rules or army.

No, it's a problem in design philosophy. You're right - it's crystal clear in the rules. But, have you seen a single competative player advocate taking tankbustas? I haven't. I understand they're trying to impose fluff via rules, but that doesn't encourage people to take them and use them according to the fluff, it encourages people not to take them. I have two boxes of them, they're wonderful models, but I haven't painted a single one yet because I really don't see myself ever taking them.

It's indicative of just about everything they seem to be doing lately. It's a "wouldn't it be cool if tankbustas had to go after tanks" - without giving any real thought to the real-world ramifications that the rule has (no one plays tankbustas).

And it's not just tankbustas. There are stupid rules thrown in all over the place. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that rolling for Possessed's abilities after they're deployed makes them immensely unreliable for their point-cost. Result: cool new models that no one plays with. Same exact flaw - a cool flavourful rule that wasn't thought through and makes the unit pointless.
<SNIP>

Well, not I don't necessarily disagree with anything you're saying.
I'm going to speak generally, because I have, neither, the Ork codex nor the 5th edition rules with me or memorized .

Essentially speaking:
Tank busters have to charge the tank, whether or not they will be successful. Right?
Tank busters CAN or CAN NOT but transports?
If they CAN buy one, then just put them in one and make it move far enough that they can't assault from it.

If they can NOT, then buy one for a different unit (in 5th), then load them up into it in turn on and do the same.

Disembark them the turn you want to charge with them.

Why wouldn't that work?

As for possessed... You're wrong. they are perfect as is.
It's "Chaos Space Marines," not "Predictable Space Marines."
What's more chaotic than not knowing what the heck will happen with them until the game starts?
Another "fluff turned rule" for you.
[/playful sarcasm]

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:
As for possessed... You're wrong. they are perfect as is.
It's "Chaos Space Marines," not "Predictable Space Marines."
What's more chaotic than not knowing what the heck will happen with them until the game starts?
Another "fluff turned rule" for you.
[/playful sarcasm]

Eric

Man - Chaotic would be, like, d3 Attacks each, or something. d6 Maybe.

This is just ridiculous. Roll 2d6 and take your favourite would be way better. God forbid letting US choose what we want them to do, and paying an appropriate amount of points.

So... under vehicles and firing it says that stationary vehicles (as well as fast vehicles and walkers moving at combat speed) may fire ALL weapons.

All. Not "One ordnance OR all others". Hmmm...does this mean that a stationary LRBT can fire its ordnance AND its hull lascannon AND its sponsons? And that a defiler can rock the Battle Cannon on the move, as well as the reaper and heavy flamer?

Oooo....

Presumably this is just a shorthand for the summary sheet, and the rules text will actually explain that ALL actually means "All unless your fire ordnance, natch". But if not...

Ooooo....

Stelek wrote:

I don't. At some point, GW is going to realize that in order to get my business back, they need to make army lists with MORE options available.

The 3rd edition Codices gave alot of choice, but were in a crummy game system.

Now the choice is gone, and the game system is improved.

Seconded. Bring back the options!

MagickalMemories wrote:
Essentially speaking:
Tank busters have to charge the tank, whether or not they will be successful. Right?
Tank busters CAN or CAN NOT but transports?
If they CAN buy one, then just put them in one and make it move far enough that they can't assault from it.

If they can NOT, then buy one for a different unit (in 5th), then load them up into it in turn on and do the same.

Disembark them the turn you want to charge with them.

Why wouldn't that work?

1) They cannot buy transports
2) You're missing the point. They are an expensive (by ork standards) unit that has very little tactical flexibility, and can be led around by the nose by an experienced opponent up until the point the opponent decides to take them out, which is really very easy as they die just as fast as a 6-point boy. Hence, no one takes them. Yes, you can do convoluted things involving swapping transports, and create a theoretical situation in which they would be useful. And yet, still, no one takes them in any sort of competative army. The rules team did not consider the real-world effect of giving them a fluffy rule (that being that no one would play them).

As for possessed... You're wrong. they are perfect as is.
It's "Chaos Space Marines," not "Predictable Space Marines."
What's more chaotic than not knowing what the heck will happen with them until the game starts?
Another "fluff turned rule" for you.

You're confusing 'chaos' - the opposite of order, with Chaos - the term used to represent the whims of the Warp Gods, who are apparently anything but chaotic, and pursue their own goals. It's just that their goals aren't known to humans. And, again, you missed the point. You are again correct, that taken literally, they are chaotic and not predictable. And yet, here we are, as a group of gamers as a whole, not using them. Why? Because we gamers realize for a unit that costs as much as they do, having a random effect generated after deployment isn't effective. If they were less expensive, sure. If their random effect could at least be known before you placed them on the table, sure. But it's just another example of the GW developers operating without a clue.

But what should you expect. Here's another quote from this month's White Dwarf - this time from the Lead Developer of 5th ed, Alessio Cavatore. "Now, I don't mind admitting that combat resolution in 40K, especially in the last edition, used to flummox me - there was a bit too much maths for this simple writer to attempt in the heat of combat."

When the lead developer for a game based on math says that it's too complex to work out outnumbering 2:1, or 3:1 - well... there you go.

strangelooper -

I just noticed the same thing, Ordnance is not mentioned as an exception in the shooting chart.

Can anybody who has seen the new book yet clarify this? If a LRBT (standing still of course) can fire its Battlecannon AND Lascannon, then I'm saving up for a guard army.....