I've seen a number of people who think hate 5E and think that the changes made from 4E just blow donkeycannon. So, I was curious, becaus ewhile I sue don';t think 5E is perfect I am quite convinced that it a a step in the right direction in a number of respects. I'd just be curious to see what some people consider to be "problem areas" or in some cases "whole regions of suck" in comparison to 4E.

Vehicles are, once again, immobile pillboxes. While 4e had plenty of problems relating to vehicles (including a return to the 2e "transport==deathtrap" problem), at least it offered a more dynamic playstyle for mech lists.

I agree with Janthkin. Vehicles, while alot more survivable, are somewhat of a bummer. Its a funky trade off. I am not convinced that a decent compromise has been made here, but time will tell.

I haven't played enough 5th ed to make any harsh judgments regarding changes, but I will list a few that make me wonder why the hell they did it.

TLOS.
Now I don't necessarily think this is bad, I was just always under the assumption that a model occupied the area of its base, for dynamic reasons. When thought of another way, TLOS does make for more engaging games, because you have to think about how your models are situated on the table, and forces you to get down and dirty with them to see the field from their POV.

Wound Allocation.
This one actually does drag the game down a bit. Again, not a bad rule, but until I become proficient in its use, I am non plussed by it.

Specialized CC weapons.
As a person who plays termie heavy lists, I am very chagrined about the loss of the option to turn off powerfists and simply use the normal Strength and Initiative of the wielder. Now, I am obviously biased because of my playstyle, but the omission of this option was uneeded. I have heard a few people remark about how 'cheesy' being able to do that is, but those people are bonafide morons so I discount their opinion completely.

Thats about all I can think of off the top of my head, but I am sure there will be others as I encounter them during the course of play.

The death of Elite, smaller model count armies.

I have the models to make a super-competitive "horde" Ork army, and the extra pieces that I've either not built or aren't primed are in the selling forum.

I simply do not have the will to build/paint/play that.

Past that, the way the mission setups are still done I feel as if they've tried to change some of the problems with 4th Ed, but ended up making it all worse than it was before competitively.

Application of force is more and more about just rolling tons and tons of dice more than anything else.

And on top of all that, most of the balance issues that were there in 4th Ed are still there in 5th, at least from what I can tell.

I was down on 40k in general as a game for the tail end of 4th, just about after I was all excited about the Ork dex and played the hell out of that. I just don't see it as a very good game anymore now that I've played WHFB and Warmachine as much as I have.

I'm in general a big fan of 5th edition, but the TLOS still bugs me a bit. I liked area terrain and discrete sizes of models, and I think that could have been improve by adding more categories (1: swarms, 2:infantry/bikes 3: Large infantry/light vehicles 4:Monstrous creatures/most vehicles 5: landraiders/battlewagons) rather than adopt TLOS. It's not a deal breaker for me.

In my opinion, most of the people that really hate 5th edition are using the changes as a fig leaf, and really have other reasons they're moving away from 40k. 5th might be the straw that broke their back, but I'd be genuinely surprised if an active gamer dropped 40k mainly because of 5th edition, and not lifestyle changes, other games, etc.

I agree with the vehicle changes mentioned. I don't like the idea of infantry able to keep up with my skimmer tanks.

I don't like wound allocation and this includes the part about wiping out an entire squad if one guy is in the open/seen.

I don't like TLoS as this makes terrain only an obstacle for movement. Sure, my group gave 4+ cover saves to folks if they were on the edge of cover, but we never let people shoot through woods, buildings etc. That is way beyond 'how people played it' as stated in the designer's notes.

I'm not happy with Yakface's 4th Ed FAQs being relabeled "5th edition" and not addressing how current Codexes are changed by the main rulebook changes. It is pure chutzpah.

I also agree with Voodoo Boyz in that the game has devolved to whoever throws the most dice wins. With a system that just encourages (TLoS in shooting phase, countercharge and wound allocation in HTH phase, and more extreme LD modifiers in both phases) more dice throwing. Frankly, D&D has a more challenging and thought provoking combat resolution system.

I'm not keen on the kill point system. Like escalation in the previous edition, it just seems like an afterthought only playtested with 2-3 armies a few times.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:The death of Elite, smaller model count armies.

This isn't a dig at your opinion, but I find that to be not necessarily true.

The only games I have played in 5th ed were using deathwing rules. The one that I lost was against a huge ork horde, and its was very close to the end until Belial got turned into a squig (which was pretty damned cool, even being on the receiving end.) I found how close it was to be surprising because I thought the same as you, that small elite armies are dead. Judging by my very limited experience, this may not be quite true.

The one area I have an issue with is forests and TLOS. Just giving a cover save (which is essentially all it does) doesn't play well. If you put enough trees/foliage to block LOS, you can't move your models in it w/o it becoming problematic.

KP's is another iffy decision.

TLOS is a nad sucker. The rest of 5th is an improvement tho'

Wound grouping is the thing for me. I like how most aspects of the game flow better and make the gameplay more smooth - but wound grouping/allocation makes everything come to a crashing halt.

Polonius wrote:
In my opinion, most of the people that really hate 5th edition are using the changes as a fig leaf, and really have other reasons they're moving away from 40k. 5th might be the straw that broke their back, but I'd be genuinely surprised if an active gamer dropped 40k mainly because of 5th edition, and not lifestyle changes, other games, etc.

This is it for me. I was getting bored with 4th edition and was hoping that 5th ed would spark it up a little more than it did.

I like Run, the mission deployment table, the new skimmer moving fast, and the dice for first player including deployment. That's about it. Everything else was either an equal trade-off or worse than 4th edition in my humblest of opinions. I imagine a perfect world of 40k where we kept 4th ed and added just those things.

So I guess for me it's more that I was losing interest in 40k to begin-with, and probably set my hopes too high for 5th edition fixing it. (Stupid leaked PDF)

While I like 5E a lot the way vehicles are handled could have been done slightly better.

I think 5E should have used cover saves as a kind of "to hit" modifier depending on vehicle speed. The faster the shooting vehicle moves the higher the cover save granted to the target. This would be good compensation for allowing all of the vehicles weapons to fire regardless of speed as well. For example; My Predator moves at combat speed (6"max) - I can fire all weapons, but my target gets a 4+ cover save. Additionally my Predator moves at cruising speed (12"max) - I can fire all weapons, but my target gets a 3+ cover save.

I personally enjoy 5th ed a lot. More survivable vehicles (even if they are more pillboxes, all non-skimmers were just cardboard tombs in 4th), TLOS, and only troops scoring are changes that I thought I'd be very much opposed to, but then played a bit, and now view much more favorably.

In my personal experience at my FLGS, the people most opposed to 5th ed are (and I honestly do not direct this at anyone here) the more "tactically deficient" players. They're the one-dimesional army list players that wanted to plunk down the same list and in every situation employ the same tactics and still win.

Taking away the obscure 'leveled' terrain and turning LOS into a dynamic rather than walled off aspect of gameplay have both made the game much more interesting from my perspective. It gives shooting armies with 48" range weapons actual options against the tyranid Nidzilla-cuz-it's-easy player who'd plunk down three building pieces in the middle of the board, slowly march over, and kill everything because a low hedge blocks battlecannon shots to a 18 foot tall monster bug.

Likewise wound allocation, while taking very slightly longer to resolve, helps keep Sergeant Powerfist from hurling the corpses of his squadmates at incoming fire.

The combination of abundant cover, scoring troops, and elimination of the bogus Reserves scenario rule helps to keep army lists diverse, as opposed to the ultra elite plasma toting minimalist "armies".

I don't take particular beef with any of the above I've listed (except vehicle survivability) in 4th ed, but when taken all together they've eliminated a lot of the "stupid"-ness that 4th ed seemed to promote and make 5th ed a more tactically diverse and interesting version of 40k.

As someone else said, it traded one set of gamey tactics for another. Overall, I like Fifth Edition more than Fourth Ed.

I haven't played a single game of 5th ed yet, but I've read a lot of battle reports and somethings are just obvious.

Vehicles rules. The fact that vehicle shooting has been tuned down sucks rocks. I'm a tread head. I love my tanks, but if foot sloggers are just as manuverable and in some cases put out more firepower, why take them. If I'm going to go all infantry, I'd play fantasy.

I hate the fact you can loose a whole squad if only one guy pops his head out. TLOS has dumbed down the shooting phase in my opinion, and everybody gets a cover save is not a fair compromise.

Assaults are not nearly as tactical as they used to be. With run, its impossible to stall an assault with careful setup. It also was important to know which models to move first in a charge to inflict favorable results. Now with counter charge, its just everybody mash in and the guy who rolls the best dice win.

I dislike the starting distances in the sinerios. It seems to be a huge blow to shooty armies and when combined with outflank, assault based armies just seem to have the definitive edge.

Of course, I may be wrong, but this is what I am seeing.

5th is by far better than 4th.

Mech armies can have some confidence riding in their transports again.

TLOS is good.

I prefer 5th edition to 4th edition, though it killed my crons. I think Run is a huge improvement, while the combat res takes alot of the edge off of fearless units (necessary once everyone got it).

Kill Points and the lower of the defensive weapon to S4 are the only things I dislike. And the defensive weapon one would be solved by bumping it up to S5 and making Heavy Bolters useful again.

Kill Points are stupid. It's not a gamebreaker.

I dislike the Troops Only rule -- clearly introduced to sell more Troops boxes.

Dislike the S4 rule on vehicles because all Tau weapons are S5.

I dislike TLoS because they just fudged it and make it a bit stupid. It could have been done better.

Nothing else is a big deal. Overall the rules are an improvement. They still lack good, clear writing and explanation but are much less worse than before and they can cover a lot of stuff by supporting a proper FAQ programme.

5th Ed doesn't suck compared to the 4th. It's a lot better than 4th.

Doesn't make it good though. Everything Janthkin and Hellfury said is bang on the money.

BYE

Kilkrazy wrote:Overall the rules are an improvement.

Agreed. They're much better than 4th.

That said, I don't entirely like TLOS. But to my credit, I showed no shame in adapting by threading Ordnance through windows in my most recent Apocalypse game. Imperial Basilisks in battery are a fearsome thing!

One question...why is true line of sight such a hard thing for people to deal with? It isn't a change from 4th edition. Read page 20 of the 4th editon rule book, first and second paragraph under "line of sight". To sum it up, you used true line of sight in 4th for anything that didn't involve area terrain. Did everyone just play with area terrain and not use any normal terrain? I just don't get the level of shock that people are expressing over this. And area terrain was the only thing with levels so again, why the shock?

Now, the big terrain change is the fact that area terrain no longer blocks line of sight. I'm still not sure how I feel about this one.

I think the scoring unit rules could have been done a bit better. I'm ok with troops being scoring down to the last man, but with everything else being able to contest there are a lot of draws in 5th. Still though, I'm fond of the trend towards it being all about what you have were rather than how much you can kill.

I like the removal of range sniping but I'm still a little fuzzy on the whole "if I can kill 1 guy, I can kill them all" method of dealing with it.

All in all though, 5th is a step in the righ direction. Now if only they would update all the codexes and release more than 2 a year, that would be great.

Phoenix wrote:One question...why is true line of sight such a hard thing for people to deal with?

Many of us liked to play 40k as an "eye in the sky" game with fancy 3-D counters.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Phoenix wrote:One question...why is true line of sight such a hard thing for people to deal with?

Many of us liked to play 40k as an "eye in the sky" game with fancy 3-D counters.

This has a lot of merit to it. Its probably why I prefer to play real time strategy games instead of first person shooters on the PC.

Generally speaking people are mistaking 5e rules for 5e lists.

5e is substansdard because of a plethora of imbalanced and warped army lists. The rules havev by and large improved, the Codex have not.

Generally speaking people are mistaking 5e rules for 5e lists.

5e is substansdard because of a plethora of imbalanced and warped army lists. The rules havev by and large improved, the Codex have not.

My biggest gripes:

1) Partial True Line of Sight. I'd be ok with it if it was really TLOS. I'd be ok with it if it was conceptualized terrain, like 4th ed. What I cannot understand is how you can call it True Line of Sight if I can hide 9-of-10 men behind a building, and you can still kill all 10 of them because you can see one. Surely those guys aren't that dumb.

1a) Not so much a problem with 5th ed, but, rather, with the terrain available at most stores and tournaments and how it interacts with TLOS. Line up your men and shoot, cause there's little that blocks line-of-sight anymore, and certainly not in a way that you can reliably hide a vital asset from enemy fire until it is needed. May s/he who rolls the most 4+ saves win.

2) The irrelevance of initiative in the face of numbers. A group of 10 Chaos Marines charging an ork horde are, on average going to kill 7 or 8 orks. And, somehow, all those dead orks are being pulled from models that weren't engaged and wouldn't have swung back anyway, while none of the engaged models took a hit. Having a higher initiative really is a kick in the pants now, because you're paying points for something that does very little for you.

3) The static nature of tanks, especially skimmers. I agree that the skimmer-moving-fast rule was too good. But, a leman russ should be able to move and fire all three of it's heavy bolters (they have three gunners according to the fluff), a hammerhead should be able to move and fire its secondary guns, and a falcon should be able to engage with its weapons too while flying. Modern attack helicopters do not present static targets to their opponents, they move. Same with modern tanks. And, even taking into account the the twisted future that is the imperium of man, surely the xenos wouldn't rely on backwards plodding stationary targets.

Come to think of it, the slowness of tanks in general, compared to men on foot too. You have 'slow and purposeful' guys who can, with a good roll, move just as fast as a tank that is moving so fast that it cannot fire a machine gun, nor can any passengers can fire out the side. How does that work?

4) The nature of scoring and kill points in missions. If one boy out of thirty manages to survive, you get nothing for your effort, and he can hold an objective still.

Sure, we can all "adapt" to 5th ed. If adapt means playing 180 model ork armies all the time, so be it. But I prefered the variety of viable concepts that 4th ed allowed.

Things I like:
Run: Makes things like melee carnifexes and berserkers better.
New Combat resolution: Makes for tougher broadscale tactical decisions and makes it much harder for one uber until to bowl over an army. I much much much prefer this to the 4th edition way.
More survivable vehicles: About bloody time.
Changes to transports: Mech is good now!
Screening: A very good idea.
Changes to certain USRs: Slow and Purposeful comes to mind.
Things I don't like:
Troops scoring: Bleh. Makes absolutely no sense.
Kill points: Unfair until codices are balanced for it.
TLOS: I prefered abstract LOS which allowed for soldiers ducking and taking cover, and not all waddling about with their arms in the air screaming all the time. I also liked abstractly modelled terrain that was easy to move models in and around but still had the "correct" effect on line of sight. I'll give TLOS a try, but I think it's silly.
S4 Defensive: Eh, what? So, like, just marines then?
Less mobile vehicles: I understand why from a game balance perspective, but it isn't nearly as cool.

I also wish they'd just get rid of the instant death rule. It's stupid and makes costing 2 wound T4 things a pain in the arse.

Thanks to TLOS and wound allocation, 40K went from an actual unit-based game to a slow, fiddly skirmish battle game. It makes playing apocalypse battles impossible unless both sides are made up of teams, and then it's just lots of little battles that happen to be crammed onto the same table.

Actually, the change to the rules for frag grenades (and things that "count as" frag grenades) does give you at least one reason to have a higher initiative.

Genestealers w/ fleshooks are truly ugly in 5th.

Redbeard wrote:

2) The irrelevance of initiative in the face of numbers. A group of 10 Chaos Marines charging an ork horde are, on average going to kill 7 or 8 orks. And, somehow, all those dead orks are being pulled from models that weren't engaged and wouldn't have swung back anyway, while none of the engaged models took a hit. Having a higher initiative really is a kick in the pants now, because you're paying points for something that does very little for you.

I agree, the ability to pull casualties from unengaged models is pretty goofy, and really benefits horde armies. At least in 4th, my CSM could potentially kill enough orks to survive the massive number of attacks coming back at them. As in "I kill 6 orcs, so you lost 18 attacks." Now the orks get the full power of their assault even if they fare badly.

It makes my zerkers sad in the pants.

I lost interest in the game of 40k a while ago. (I think I was always a bad
Fantasy player at heart).

warpcrafter wrote:Thanks to TLOS and wound allocation, 40K went from an actual unit-based game to a slow, fiddly skirmish battle game. It makes playing apocalypse battles impossible unless both sides are made up of teams, and then it's just lots of little battles that happen to be crammed onto the same table.

i dont see the problem with this, if you want realism, itsa s if the entire unit is getting hit, so you cant slap on someone with a 2+ invul save. (dark eldar) to stand in front of the unit and pllay a soccer goalie and catch all the hits.

Redbeard wrote:1) Partial True Line of Sight. I'd be ok with it if it was really TLOS. I'd be ok with it if it was conceptualized terrain, like 4th ed. What I cannot understand is how you can call it True Line of Sight if I can hide 9-of-10 men behind a building, and you can still kill all 10 of them because you can see one. Surely those guys aren't that dumb.

Well, I think I need to read the LOS section again. I've been playing it as a hybrid of 4th and 5th by mistake, so only the models that can be seen are viable targets, but get the cover save... Come to think of it, that's just the 4th ed rules. I guess that's what you get for skim-reading!

Oops.

TLOS sucks. I've played two games and had arguments in both. Why don't we just cut out the middle man and say "everything gets a 4+ cover save." Leaning over to see if my soulggrinder is 50% covered vertically or I can see one dork through a window and hence kill the entire squad is just stupid.

I don't like the mass of 4+ cover saves (50% of all shots ignored), strength four defensive weapons, the target priority rules. Kill points and objective taking seem badly thought out too. They put in some good rules and then put in a load of bad ones to even it out. I'm most disappointed by the lack of change to 40k's worst rules, morale and monstrous creatures vs. vehicles damage resolution.

5th ed is a mixed blessing.

I have to say that I like the fact that only troops are scoring, it means that we get to see more infantry. But the downside with that is for armies with expensive troops (like my Blood Angels), they will not have a lot of points left for cool stuff. So hmm... dont know...

Wound Allocation sucks... plain sucks... takes long time and you stand a bigger chance to loose your expensive upgrades to your troops.

New rules for Power Fists etc. The usual GW attitude, nerf the power and keep the price ( or increasing it...)

Rules for tanks... They dont move as much, almost impossible to shoot apart and far to easy to destroy them in cc..

... And the list go on...

So hmm I dont really know...

I have to play a few more 5th ed games before I make up my mind


//Edge

My problem with it is that it wasn't a step forward, it was a major sidestep. They created just as many problems as they solved, or more. the game is now much more fiddly where it didn't need to be, and it seems like it was shoved out the door just to get another product out there, and it seems more like change just for the sake of change than anything else.

The ubiquitous 4+ cover saves for just about everything are too commonplace and also disproportionatly benefit armies without power armor (3 of my 4 armies are not MEQ armies) and a BS modifier really would have been more appropriate in almost all of these cases (that way rapid firing bolter through trees at a 4+/3+/2+sv squad would actually suffer something rather than just giving the squad a cover save it isn't going to use, and isn't going to triple the life expectancy of Orks).

Kill Points are slowed, flat out. These have such a disproportionate effect on different armies that its laughable. I've seen the justification that armies with lots of KP's have lots of scoring units, but this isn't always true by any means and even when it is it doesn't mean that it in any way balances out. "oh look, I've got half my IG army left, you have one Space Marine left, you win!".

The Scoring changes are also rather stilted, as they heavily favor armies with the most mobile or sturdiest troops, and the units that have historically been the objective takers, both from a Gameplay perspective and a fluff perspective no longer function in that role (think Stormtroopers, Terminators, etc)

Wound Allocation was a *HUGE* mistake. Not only does this make many upgrades extremely overcosted in light of their likely lifespan (looking at *you* Chaos Icons) but also slows the game down immensely. I understand they wanted to get rid of the hidden powerfist, but after raising their costs, removing their attacks, and removing availability, I think they have gone *way* overboard. This also presents a much greater harm to units that rely on having upgrade equipment to be effective rather than simpler units (think Chosen with meltaguns versus Fire Dragons, every Fire Dragon is still capable of killing a tank, but it wouldn't be hard for Chosen to lose all of their meltaguns potentially and no longer be effective in their dedicated role). Far from making 40k more "cinematic" as they wanted to, this rule *really* is "game-y"

As an addendum to wound allocation, the fact that if one man in a squad can be seen, the whole unit can be killed is *slowed*, especially since the whole squad is not able to return fire due to LoS.

The defensive weapons changes weren't warranted, and after listening to Alessio's podcast and his reasoning all it did was confirm my suspicion that he really doesn't understand the role of the tank relative to the role of the infantry based heavy weapon squad.

I have grown to like the new vehicle CC rules, however I do think that if this is going to be the rule, that the big battle tanks (Leman Russ, Hammerheads, battlewagons, etc) need and deserve rear armor 11.

While I like the new CC rules for the most part, as well as the changes to consolidation, vehicle damage, deployment types, and TloS, I really think this book should have been a lot better. Not only does it leave much up to the players (and gives an opponent the opportunity to be a jackass if they want to be and be totally within the rules) but many of the changes just smack of either being lazy, or incompetently trying to cater to really young players and making the game more complex and unbalanced as a result.

enmitee wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:Thanks to TLOS and wound allocation, 40K went from an actual unit-based game to a slow, fiddly skirmish battle game. It makes playing apocalypse battles impossible unless both sides are made up of teams, and then it's just lots of little battles that happen to be crammed onto the same table.

i dont see the problem with this, if you want realism, itsa s if the entire unit is getting hit, so you cant slap on someone with a 2+ invul save. (dark eldar) to stand in front of the unit and pllay a soccer goalie and catch all the hits.

I have no idea what you're referring to, but I know better than to mix reality and WH40K. If you want to play a game with units, treat them like units and if you want to play a skirmish game, then go do that. GW is trying to combine the two, and that's not possible.

jfrazell wrote:TLOS sucks. I've played two games and had arguments in both. Why don't we just cut out the middle man and say "everything gets a 4+ cover save." Leaning over to see if my soulggrinder is 50% covered vertically or I can see one dork through a window and hence kill the entire squad is just stupid.

That is why I've not gotten beyond a few solo test-games where I switch between both sides of the board, just to see this trainwreck for myself. I don't really want to go all R. Lee Ermy on some sarcastic 13 year old at my local store just because he thinks his twisted intepretation of line of sight is so cool. All the grown-ups at my gaming store have moved on to flames of war. I just might follow.

Redbeard wrote:1) Partial True Line of Sight. I'd be ok with it if it was really TLOS. I'd be ok with it if it was conceptualized terrain, like 4th ed. What I cannot understand is how you can call it True Line of Sight if I can hide 9-of-10 men behind a building, and you can still kill all 10 of them because you can see one. Surely those guys aren't that dumb.

While I certainly agree with you on this one from a conceptual standpoint, the problem with doing things the 4th editon way was that it allows for range snipeing. I have no idea how many heavy weapon / sargeant models I killed in 4th by positioning my shooters just far enough away that only 1 or 2 models (including the special one) were in range. So really the question is, which do you think sucks more? I happen to like the 5th version a bit better. Sure I can stick one guy out in the open to shoot and the whole squad gets cover, but then the whole squad can die too. In the end, I think the 5th version makes for a smoother game since you only have to measure out one guy and then check cover for the whole squad rather than measureing out range for every guy and his mother and then check cover.

2) The irrelevance of initiative in the face of numbers. A group of 10 Chaos Marines charging an ork horde are, on average going to kill 7 or 8 orks. And, somehow, all those dead orks are being pulled from models that weren't engaged and wouldn't have swung back anyway, while none of the engaged models took a hit. Having a higher initiative really is a kick in the pants now, because you're paying points for something that does very little for you.

If you charge into an orc horde, they get the immediate pile in move so the likelyhood of any of them being out of attacking range is very small. Regardless, this prevents charge sniping / clipping (running in so you only can kill a few models and make sure you stay in hand to hand for the next round) which is another screwy game mechanic from 4th that I'm happy to see go. Still, I think initiative is still useful but not in a broken way. The (very good) change to the way frag grenades work also makes inititative more valuable so all in all I think it works out.

3) The static nature of tanks, especially skimmers. I agree that the skimmer-moving-fast rule was too good. But, a leman russ should be able to move and fire all three of it's heavy bolters (they have three gunners according to the fluff), a hammerhead should be able to move and fire its secondary guns, and a falcon should be able to engage with its weapons too while flying.

This one I agree with you on, particularly since there is a substantial bonus for not moving (cover).

4) The nature of scoring and kill points in missions. If one boy out of thirty manages to survive, you get nothing for your effort, and he can hold an objective still.

I'm of two minds about this. I like that the focus is more on getting things where they need to be and making other tactical decisions rather than just killing everything. However the fact that some things are just so much better prepared to deal with this sort of setup chafes. I guess that's really more of a problem with the codexes rather than a problem with the game design. I also kind of like the kill point system, IG just needs some adjustment so they are not screwed but again...a codex problem.

I like 5e.

I do not like the irrelevence of numerical supremacy in CC.

shrug.

First off, all the whining, holier-than-thou, one-right way to play people that spew that you're a bad person if you don't play thier way were killing my interest in playing 40k anyways.

That being said, there are two deal-breakers for me switching to 5th.

1) I'm a tread head. I used to love moving and firing all my tanks guns. The change to pillboxes is a game-play change that makes the game less fun for me.

2) Troops only scoring. It is way too hamfisted gamey to me. It makes sense that the heavy weapon squad is detailed to hold an objective in your area, the tactical squad is detailed to take the one in the middle and the assault squad is the one that takes the objective from the enemy. Not to mention that not all troops are equal makes for unbalanced games.

Other quibbles-

1) Kill points. Make no sense and heavily penalize some armies/units.

2) TLOS...As other people have said.

3) Taking skill-based things (Limited charges, sniping) out of the game, just turns results to be luck-based.

4) Skimmers having to choose between getting protection and shooting. Sorry...I like my gunships.

5) Combat resolution solely through kills.

6) The above combined with fearless units taking extra casaulties equal to combat resolution.

GW just turned the game on it's head. It is no more balanced than it was before. There are still power builds, just what the builds are different. I don't want to reconfigure all 6 of my armies for the new edition.

Numerical supremacy is irrelevant to kirsanth, but overwhelmingly broken and overpowered to redbeard. Is someone right or is the truth right in the middle?

I agree 100% with Phoenix's first two points above. Range Sniping sucks way more than a few guys out of LOS being possible casualties. Charge Clipping is tons stupider than the unengaged being possible casualties.

I wonder how much these complaints about LOS and casualty removal are just disguised and misguided nostalgia for Range Sniping, Charge Clipping, and BTB casualty shenanigans. Good riddance to all of them.

Yeah I'm in the camp of nostalgia for range sniping, charge clipping, and btb shenanigans.

Ranged sniping was not the problem anyone makes it out to be. You could defend against it quite easily by deploying your forces in such a manner that logically cover the special weapon/character with ablative bodies. I would snipe out someone's lascannon if they left it hanging out on the edge of a formation, but who's fault is that?

Setting charges, again, defensible and more high-order oriented play that is now gone. Where previously the angle of attack and the formation of participants would have an enormous effect on the outcome of an assault.

And BTB shenanigans, gave you the final piece of the charge setting puzzle. I want to hit hard enough to win, while I want to hit soft enough to stay based to get a chance to run them down. I want to get all of the casualties I can in, but I want to avoid mixing initiatives where possible to prevent faster models from taking away the potential kills of slower models. Additionally, I better have a consolidate option ready, or be prepared for this squad to get wiped if they do too well.

All of these things have been replaced with: "Roll more dice, you win!"

Meh.

It's a game, it has rules and rules can always be "exploited" (or gamed.)

That is arguably the point of a game, to learn how to exploit the rules in order to win.

In a wargame, the rules should attempt to reproduce real tactical problems.

Range sniping can be sen as an extension of skilful tactics or completely unrealistic, depending on your viewpoint.

I honestly like most of the changes other people dislike (los changes, morale changes, vehicle changes).

My major beef is with the scenarios, luckily that is an easily fixed problem: just use better ones.

I also think close combat is a little wonky now and would have liked a bit of a compromise between 5ed and 4ed -- like negatives per wounds lost but some kind of adjustment to moral and no retreat for outnumbering.

I like 5e better than 4e even though I have played only one game using the 5e rules. There are some big changes that take getting used to and the transition is harder than it was going from 3e to 4e. The rules needed a major overhaul and GW finally did it. I find the rule book easy to follow and think the format and writing style is the best yet.

G

Off the top of my head TLOS, Slow vehicles, and Ld Modifier in assault.

Sorry TLOS sucks. Especially the TLOS except when shooting at a partially hidden unit. Area terrain was way, way better. Range sniping and all that BS that supposedly rampant in 4th, yeah right, that happened on such a limited scale I hardly noticed it. Let alone got upset about it.

Slow vehicles, at least if you want to shoot, is lame. I know Eldar skimmers were out of control, but you have to punish everyone? I do like how they are a little more survivable, but how long is that gonna last? I already see everyone loading up on ap1 stuff, and units that excel at getting into rear armor.

Ld modifier in assault, yikes, that was quick. Sure I can get shot up now but the poor assault/leadership armies are getting owned. Hello outflank?

Rant off. I have played 20+ games with 5th, and I like it a lot. At first I liked it a ton, but I am quickly seeing how it is going to be just as exploitable as 4th, if not more. The current codex's are way off.

Edit:
and call me crazy, I like the new wound allocation. It was painfully slow at first, but once you do it a bunch it speeds up. You really need an assorted color collection of dice.

Okay we all agree TLOS sucks the proverbial root. We should keep crying and maybe Clint Black will write a country & western song about it.

G

as mentioned, there are some great new rules, but there are twice as many bad rules been added.
i stick to playing 4th, and most people at the local GW wont play 5th.
and since 5th has been brought out ive taken an interest in WHFB now, not as many stupid rules

Huh?

Rules-wise, 5th is a *lot* better than 4th. It is much clearer and tighter, although they are not perfect. There are still loopholes, but they are fewer and smaller. So I take that as a clear improvement.

And what is most interesting is that the new rules correspond quite well to the older FAQs.

methoderik wrote:Edit:
and call me crazy, I like the new wound allocation. It was painfully slow at first, but once you do it a bunch it speeds up. You really need an assorted color collection of dice.

Youre not crazy. I like the rule too, just hate how its hard to get a handle on when playing your first few games of 5th ed.

Assorted colors has helped work out the kinks regarding speed for me considering wound allocations as well.

Whats required to stream line the rolls really is grouping of the wounds. 4 yellow dice for the plebes, a black die for the sgt, and a red die for the lascannon, for example.

What's amusing is how it's very much like how you roll to-hit with multi-color dice.

methoderik wrote:Especially the TLOS except when shooting at a partially hidden unit.

That still uses True LOS, because you're targeting the unit, not the individual models.

Area terrain was way, way better.

...but only affected area terrain.

I like TLOS, i play with folks who dont have to argue over every lil peice of terrain. We are adults about it, and if he says its 50 and I say 75%, we agree to a 5+ cover save. It leads to the game being more about the experience than being a powergamer.

Wound allocation takes a ton of time, and in tourney play, esp recently is brutal because everyone forgets about it. I loved the idea about 3 sets of dice, since face it everyone of us has at least 3 bricks of dice because we have forgot a brick at home(I have a spare brick in my glovebox in case).

I disagree with the tank remarks. I think it is quiet appropriate, allowing for more tactical mobility and less move 6 shoot, move 6 shoot. It forces you to make a choice on whether you want to get to a position or fire all your weapons. On top of this as another poster pointed out, transports are now not just coffins, and can be used to great effect, esp with the new ramming rules, which are absolutely amazing. In my 5th edition games, I have 1 vind kill, a wartruckk and a dread kill with a rhino.

As for troops scoring and KP, I agree that it bones certain armies, but on the other hand how "lame" was it to face an infantry line with 200+ models, 6+ las cannons/heavybolters/ML/Autocannon? You no longer have gimmick lists that prey on the fact that they can overwhelm the enemy with rate of fire to mask the fact that their tactical acumen was nil. If you want to take a 200+ guard line you better know that in a KP mission you more than likely will get you ass handed to you on a platter.

Overall 5th edition made me appreciate 40k more. It turned into more of a thinking man's game than a "who can build a broken list" game. Yes there will still be broken lists, but these lists will be exploited quickly, countered and eliminated. 5th allows folks who understand tactics to work their magic instead of 4th where any 7 year old with CSM could run a table because of broken mechanics?

I like fifth. True line of sight is a bit wonky with terrain features that have to be moved like forests but it's still better and more intuitive than saying that my units can't shoot through a seven foot tree line.

The wound allocation is a great addition. Finally the guy with the powerfist is no longer guaranteed to be the last one to die. It was always an annoyance when i would cleave through six space marines only to have one guy with a big hand miraculously live and kill four of my high priced close combat only troops on the return. Granted it does take a little bit longer, but it still doesn't take very long at all as long as both players have played a few games with it before.

The new vehicle rules are nice and I still find the concept of the pillbox tank kind of frivolous. Supporting armor in modern conflicts do not move and fire at the same time when they have close infantry support (like they do in 40k). Infantry clears suspected anti armor then the tank moves up and sits using its heavy gun to provide heavy support against entrenched or behind cover combatants. It's rare to even see a tank at half full speed while in combat and its just plain dangerous to do so in a crowded theatre as your likely to impede or harm friendlies by jetting around everywhere. Tanks are mobile pillboxes (unless they are skimmers, but those still move faster than infantry so it's not a huge issue to me).

Troop scoring was a great decision and has already made armies look more like actual forces rather than a tough small band of veteran heavy weapon close combat monsters who eat bricks and crap bullets. Troops should never have been thought of as "compulsory".

Kill points suck. I will grant that.

Overall a few changes are a bit odd in fifth (LOS specific terrain pieces that you have to move to place models) and a few are annoying (killpoints) but put together its a good change.

I don't understand all the newfound joy at wound allocation. 4th Edition already HAD that in it in a more streamlined form (Torrent of fire). Granted, since it wasn't mandatory, you were sometimes seen as a power-gaming rules lawyer if you used it.

What exactly does the word wonky mean pray tell?

G

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/wonky

Thanks!

G

Wonky is a word i encourage the use of.

Hmmm what I hate about 5Ed....

TLOS w Forests ( as usually built today to allow figs to stand in them.) They are now orchards because the area that represented all the foliage and dead falls, was left open.

5th Ed true forests (Kiss your paint jobs goodbye, they will be thickets of bushes, brambles and whatnot.) Your figs will just have to lay in the mess all because you can't use your imagination anymore and you should fork out 10$ for the cute little laser pointer.

Sisters of Battle and Tau. Everyone gets a cover save from damage... Oh you are a SoB Immolator with twin heavy bolters and you spend the points to make it ignore all cover saves... You say you popped your smoke launcher.... hmmm 4 marker lights, and one seeker missile and your smoke does nothing....

Any skimmer tank is overpriced ...
4th Edition Falcon.... 115 + 15 for scatterlaser + 10 for spirit stone + 35 for holofield.

Falcon moves 12" fires the pulse laser and the scatterlaser....

4 lascannons shoot at it... 3 hit. roll a 2, 4 and a 6 ... 2 glances.
5th ed same cost

Falcon moves 6" and fires both weapons.

4 lascannons shoot ... same results but now we have two pens instead of two glances.

Oh you can get a cover save if you move it fast... don't mind that you can't fire a weapon and it is a 50/50 save unless you are facing
tau and then they can marker light your cover away....


So much for what I hate.

I do like the new scenarios and the kill points. It adds a new dimension to army builds as you have to hold objectives with troops (or play denial with non-troop choices). The kill points really make you think about running squads at minimum sizes. It may be good to play small squads in some scenarios but you will pay the price for the easy kill points if it is that one. I also like that the focus on killing the costliest squad is gone. A squad is a squad for kill points.

Ramming... Always wondered why landraiders didn't just steamroll over ork buggies and trucks.

DAaddict wrote:...

...

...

Sisters of Battle and Tau. Everyone gets a cover save from damage... Oh you are a SoB Immolator with twin heavy bolters and you spend the points to make it ignore all cover saves... You say you popped your smoke launcher.... hmmm 4 marker lights, and one seeker missile and your smoke does nothing....

...

...

Don't be such a hayta on Tau. The markerlight was the same in 4th edition. The only difference is that now it's easier to get cover saves the markerlight becomes essential rather than a nifty option.

It costs a lot to get four markerlights and a seeker missile.

Tau didn't get much love from 5th edition.

I think Skimmers are now much more fairly costed. It always bugged me how hard they were before. Actually, skimmer tank shock is what bugged me the most. Even when tankshocking troops in a forest, they somehow also simultaenously hovered over the trees avoiding danger. WTF?
And only being able to hit them on 6s in combat sucked.

insaniak wrote:
That still uses True LOS, because you're targeting the unit, not the individual models.

Then how come only models with TLOS can fire out of the firing unit? I mean why can't they shoot through buildings if their buddies with LOS can?

insaniak wrote:
...but only affected area terrain.

True... What can I say, we played with a lot of Area terrain.

I liked Area Terrain better because it was faster, easier, and was not the result of 2 different peoples opinions.

But seriously, 5th is cool. I like it for a change if nothing else. Is it better the 4th? First impression, yes, currently I think it is up in the air.

methoderik wrote:
Then how come only models with TLOS can fire out of the firing unit? I mean why can't they shoot through buildings if their buddies with LOS can?

The answer, though you might not like it, is because this is what leads to the best GAMING. It's fast and easy to adjudicate, where in previous editions this was a difficult fiddly part of the game.

I think 5th edition is a better game in each and every major aspect of the rules.

My most recent 5th edition games (five at the LVGT) were all without any major rules disputes. The closest I came was involving my Hammerhead drawing LOS over a unit that was right in front of it. My opponent wasn't really aware that you were allowed to draw LOS over a unit (as opposed to through it), but once I explained it to him he seemed fine with it.

Beyond that, the entire weekend went by without even a single hitch and I pretty much never had to even get the rulebook out for anything. The games all played much faster than they used to and besides my one game against the 189 model drop IG army (which I had no real chance against) it was my tactical choices and mistakes that determined whether or not I won or lost the game (and by how much).


As I've said before, the imbalance between 'true' LOS and the abstraction of casualty removal works because the player shooting gets to move his models and then shoot in the same turn. It is the best system for an army scale you-go/I-go style of game while still maintaining the relationship with the three-dimensional models and terrain.

wound allocation can indeed take a slight bit longer than in 4th edition, but the truth is after a few games it becomes second nature and is once again not an issue. The blessing of the system is that it is one fairly basic rule that applies to all units. Once you 'get' how the rule works that's all you need to know. Contrast this with 4th edition's casualty removal rules:

4th edition casualty removal rules
A) Basic casualty removal rules work fine (the unit has all the same armor save).
B) Torrent of Fire rule often forgotten by players.
C) No real rules for units that have the same armor save but contain some models with invulnerable saves (or differing invulnerable saves).
D) Fairly complex mixed armor rules that were often screwed up (to varying degrees) by new and veteran players alike.
E) No real rules in the mixed armor rules for models with differing invulnerable saves but the same basic armor save.


All that has been replaced with a system that, admittedly is a bit slower in some cases, is still much, much easier to understand overall and handles any situation.


The new close combat rules simply condense what would take several rounds to accomplish into (typically) a single round of combat and the ensuing resolution. When charging into combat you must be reasonably sure that you actually have the best assault unit for the job. If you aren't going to win combat, then you just can't go charging in as you *will* lose and your unit *will* get mauled.

So yeah, when charging 10 Marines into 30 Orks it is going to seem like their I4 is pointless because you're sending an inferior CC unit to fight against a superior one and the combat results are going to show that. However, if you charge 10 marines in against *10* Orks, all of a sudden their I4 attacks make a world of difference as the marines are now the superior CC unit and will likely win combat.

Allowing players to pull CC casualties from models that aren't engaged just represents that the combats tend to 'surge together' as the combatants clash. A single round of combat now represents the vast majority of the models involved getting their chance to attack (and be attacked) with the overall outcome of the combat being decisively decided in a single round.


Fifth edition is just a better game all-around.

What he said.

Yakface is the warm fuzzy center of a completely logical universe.

One of the first guys I played when I started in 3rd edition had extra big rhinos he had scratch built. He said the normal model wouldn't fit 10 so he built one that would. While I thought that was neat I also thought he was missing the point. The whole game is an abstraction.

The only thing that would make 5th better is if their was a version of the game that dealt with space combat, or at least around the planet your minis fight over. Kind of like BFG and 40K combined. After all, almost all of the novels are like that.

WC_Brian wrote:

Yakface is the warm fuzzy center of a completely logical universe.

You mean Azathoth, I hope?

yakface wrote:
...
...

wound allocation can indeed take a slight bit longer than in 4th edition, but the truth is after a few games it becomes second nature and is once again not an issue. The blessing of the system is that it is one fairly basic rule that applies to all units. Once you 'get' how the rule works that's all you need to know. Contrast this with 4th edition's casualty removal rules:

4th edition casualty removal rules
A) Basic casualty removal rules work fine (the unit has all the same armor save).
B) Torrent of Fire rule often forgotten by players.
C) No real rules for units that have the same armor save but contain some models with invulnerable saves (or differing invulnerable saves).
D) Fairly complex mixed armor rules that were often screwed up (to varying degrees) by new and veteran players alike.
E) No real rules in the mixed armor rules for models with differing invulnerable saves but the same basic armor save.

...
...

And Majority Toughness!

I never ever really understood the 4e wound allocation rules.

Plus the range and LoS sniping.

5th edition sucks because I didn't have a single rules argument phase in any of LVGT games.

I miss bickering over some talmudic interpretation of what the rules may have meant.

It also sucks because all of my games were fun and fast.

I hate 5th edition because I have to admit GW isn't full of completely mindless idiots whose sole lot in life is to make their customers unhappy.

Rofl, Somnicide. Spoken like some git who has actually played some 5th ed, not just sat there hating.

There's a few minor tweaks that need to be made to the system, but overall - I agree wiht Somnicide and Yak. 5th is a much better game. I only had one game go down to the wire at LVGT. Otherwise all the rest were done with at least 45 minutes left to go in the round. That is just awesome.

Actually the biggest problem with 5th edition is that its too much like 3rd and 4th edition. Personally I think we are playing 3.2 right now. Its always minor changes and nothing ever gets fixed without breaking something else.

They should have taken this opportunity to change 5th like they did going from 2nd to 3rd. Total revamp of mechanics. Change dice from the D6 to D10. Change over statlines for greater variation of races. Then just start over like they did back then.

Jayden63 wrote: Change dice from the D6 to D10.

This is actually one of the worst ideas ever. The current BS to hit chart, S vs T chart, and the WS vs WS chart are the best things in the game.

Such a sea change would be a big effort for the design studio and a major leap of faith.

They've spent the past 28 years with the basic mechanics of D6 to hit, D6 to wound, D6 to save (it's basically the same even in Warmaster Ancients.)

This simple formula has served them well. Are there any other tabletop wargame companies that are even half the size of GW?

To junk that whole heritage and start from scratch would be walking the edge of the abyss.

I think somnicide puts it best. I find that my games are faster (with the exception of wound allocation, and then only in case of torrent of fire), and I find that it seems GW has taken a turn for the better.

biztheclown wrote:

methoderik wrote:
Then how come only models with TLOS can fire out of the firing unit? I mean why can't they shoot through buildings if their buddies with LOS can?

The answer, though you might not like it, is because this is what leads to the best GAMING. It's fast and easy to adjudicate, where in previous editions this was a difficult fiddly part of the game.

Why would I not like your answer? It is a game. Besides, your opinion, is not my answer.

I don't think TLOS is fast and easy to adjudicate. That is why I don't like it. Try determining how many boys in a unit of 30, inside a ruin with a back wall, has LOS on unit X.

And yes, I know that is more of a terrain problem than a rule problem. Or is it? I dislike how rules are going to now affect the terrain I make/use.

Yak, I saw pics of the boards you guys were using at the GT. I can see how terrain like that (looked less than 25% to me, and pretty boring) would make the TLOS very easy/fast.

yakface wrote:
I think 5th edition is a better game in each and every major aspect of the rules.

[SNIP]

Fifth edition is just a better game all-around.

Generally agreed. 5th plays faster, better and, smoother than 4th, which did a passable job of compiling the various Trial Rules from 3rd into something semi-coherent. Yes, there are nits (I'm not sold on how KPs are in the rulebook), but not nearly the problems from before.

I have a major dig on 5th that just cracks me up, I laugh everytime I think about because the game effect is completely backward from what one would expect. Its cover, because friendly and enemy models cause cover saves, they are good at stopping high AP shots right? and low AP volume of fire is fine. The same is true for basic cover as well, trees and whathave you...

Think about that for a second, so interupting a line of fire grants a cover save, for big guns but not small ones.

The irony is, you can shoot Machine Guns through your own troops at enemy units in cover and none of it has any effect! Oh, but try and shoot a big gun, like a big tank cannon, plasma cannon or antitank gun like a rail gun and they get a cover save?

Thats just laughable, ist exactly backwards, cover ought to help from the rate of fire weapons, you shouldnt be able to shoot machines guns through your own guys at no penalty and high power weapons like ordinance and high explosive ought to blast through cover anyway AND IT IS PERFECTLY BACKWARD.

Its pretty funny, and things like this is why historical players laugh at GW guys.

Rightly so IMO.

Nah, you are assuming marines. Play orks or eldar or nids or daemons and then your save is much better.

PS here is the long list:

MISSIONS SUCK

KILL POINTS are completely unfair, KPratios or Old VPs would be better but (ZOMG MATH + KIDS OH THE NOES)
Tau drones are a KP? A squads Trans is a KP? Every IG squad in a box is a KP? Armies get no adv. for having more KP? WTF?

SCORING OBJ taking is poorly thought out:
1 turbo boosting bike (or any vehicle or unit) contests an objective from multiple scoring troop units?
Static shooter armies don't have a chance in OBJ grabber missions? No defensive missions?
A scoring unit can claim multiple OBJs?

DAWN OF WAR is a complete pain, taking opponents OBJ in their zone, immpossible for some armies.

RESERVE ROLLS are still in the game

CLOSE COMBAT SUCKS

Overunning whole units in 1 melee, really?

Counter charge is way to forgiving, so enemy units are NEVER caught off guard by a charge, like NEVER? They alwasy get to pile in and strike? Really?

Combat resolution morale check are moronic, so outnumbering is meaningless? Really?

Armor saves for fearless units is ridiculous, so 8 gaunts die the tyranids loose and the carnifex and stealer unit in the same melee both make 8 saves because....?

Negatives in CC count for every squad, so IG kill 2/4 marines and loose 7/30 guys, technically they are winning the melee, but they ALL take tests at -5, from 2 MARINES? Really? One more round and they would win right? STUPID.

MOST DIRECT ROUTE NONSENSE? SO I can charge into melee without rolling difficult checks,.... but its not the closest route, so I have to roll the difficult check and MAYBE RISK NOT MAKING IT? You have to be kidding, I could just go around the obstacle and make it? DUMB, and with dangerous terrain tests, when they could be avoided, especially wrecks? Yer kidding right my guys arent smart enough to go around it? ABSURD

COVER SUCKS

Everyone (read "all key assault units") with grenades strike in I order so defending an OBJ/wall/trench is pointless, might as well be in the open

Your own Models give the enemy cover saves, Really? Oh right, unless they are in the same squad, then they dont. So which way is it? DUMB

1 guy in LOS and range, Whole squad dies? Really?

HIT ALLOCATION IS DUMB

Some armies have characters like exarchs and chaos icons that grant powers until they are gone, other armies just get the power, imagine if marines vet sarge died they lost tank hunter in the squad, yea, 2 standards here which is it guys? DUMB

WASTING WOUNDS IN SQUADS Hit allocation ought to be for every model, but with the group thing, wounds get wasted now on double fails depending on who the hits are on, kind of gamey and ... WONKY yea

VEHICLES ARE DUMB

Why do asaulters hit rear armor? Yer kidding right?

OH AND LETS MAKE TANKS MOVE LESS TO FIRE TOO because that makes sense.

DENFENSIVE WEAPONS are stupid and fly in the face of what they have been for years. Lets here it for everyone out there with ELdar tanks w/ 2x S6 guns as extras... Or IG players with tripple HBs on the Lemans

SPONSONS on tanks need to fire independantly. Oh right, still cant seperate fire for imperial tanks with sponsons.... SO how do I shoot all this again? "Hold RIGHT Gunner the left heavy bolter gunner wants to shoot what you cant see so wait? Hello, DUMB.

TANKS have a hard time moving and firing, because..... ?

Yea theres more

(I kind of like 5th but there are a lot of dumb things in it.)

Agree again with Somnicide. Put something besides inhuman defenders of humanity wrapped in tank armour into the equation, and you get a very different ball game.

Augustus wrote:lots of stuff

That's just like, your opinion, dude.

Seriously, a lot of those things I would say make more sense. If you are charging, you don't take the long way to get to a unit, why do you think they make army guys practice climbing stuff. Also, vehicles are incredibly susceptible to infantry swarming it, placing grenades in the tracks and shooting into view ports and stuff so hitting on the rear armor is completely reasonable.

I have more to dispute but honestly don't care enough.

I do agree that KP suck.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozymandias, I admit I wrote in a dramatic style, but even in an abstract game balance sense explain to me how always hitting rear armor is better than before>?

Does it reward careful play? No

Does it correct an old imbalance? No

Does it make any sense in the points of previously overpowered or to cheap vehicles, maybe for Eldar but everyone else? Not really.

All it does is make it stupidly easy to destroy tanks in assault. Which is good why? It's NOT better, it is just different and possibly worse.

Even with my dramatic style before, I posit that 5th is NO BETTER, its just a different recipe of novel and stupid.

I can't wait for 3 more years of codex rewrites so we can get some corrections for the really glaring stuff.

grizgrin wrote:Agree again with Somnicide. Put something besides inhuman defenders of humanity wrapped in tank armour into the equation, and you get a very different ball game.

Well OK, considering in my last tourney I played: Marines, Marines, Marines, Chaos Marines, Deathwing and Tau I think that is spot on....

Whats the next dex: Marines right? (Again)

Isn't everyone also saying volume of fire is king? Yea, they are.

Somnicide wrote:Nah, you are assuming marines. Play orks or eldar or nids or daemons and then your save is much better.

OK, but what about when it IS Marines (or Necrons/Chaos/Tau/3+Sv Eldar)? Cover doesn't do ANYTHING versus machine guns? This doesn't sound silly at all to you?

Ever play a Non GW game?

yakface wrote:
The new close combat rules simply condense what would take several rounds to accomplish into (typically) a single round of combat and the ensuing resolution. When charging into combat you must be reasonably sure that you actually have the best assault unit for the job. If you aren't going to win combat, then you just can't go charging in as you *will* lose and your unit *will* get mauled.

I agree with many of your points, but this one I do not. Well, I agree with what you say, but I don't believe that it makes for a better game. Some armies don't have good assault units. Some armies rely on delaying maneuvers to get them by in close-combat. As in, send ten more guardsmen into that assault over there to keep it tied up for another turn or two. That's not an unrealistic approach, and it's an approach favoured by the fluff. But it just doesn't work anymore. Those ten guardsmen charge into their delaying action, lose by three, break, and are cut down.

Redbeard wrote:Some armies don't have good assault units.

And so should not do well in close combat.

Somnicide wrote:5th edition sucks because I didn't have a single rules argument phase in any of LVGT games.

I miss bickering over some talmudic interpretation of what the rules may have meant.

It also sucks because all of my games were fun and fast.

I hate 5th edition because I have to admit GW isn't full of completely mindless idiots whose sole lot in life is to make their customers unhappy.

I agree with this post 100%.

live with it, or leave it.

why do you keep playing it if you don't like it? DUMB

cheers?
Gutteridge

Augustus wrote:Ozymandias, I admit I wrote in a dramatic style, but even in an abstract game balance sense explain to me how always hitting rear armor is better than before>?

Does it reward careful play? No

Does it correct an old imbalance? No

Between the change to the damage table, the reduced effectiveness of glancing hits and potential cover saves for vehicles overall they have gotten much more durable against enemy firepower. So yes, I think it is a fair balance to make vehicles weaker in close combat.

Redbeard wrote:
I agree with many of your points, but this one I do not. Well, I agree with what you say, but I don't believe that it makes for a better game. Some armies don't have good assault units. Some armies rely on delaying maneuvers to get them by in close-combat. As in, send ten more guardsmen into that assault over there to keep it tied up for another turn or two. That's not an unrealistic approach, and it's an approach favoured by the fluff. But it just doesn't work anymore. Those ten guardsmen charge into their delaying action, lose by three, break, and are cut down.

I've found the need for delaying maneuvers to be greatly lessened in 5th edition because in general enemy assaulters kill or wipe out their opponents when they charge them.

Although it of course does still happen where you need to attempt this kind of tactic, but the difference is you just can't send in an extra squad and count on the assault sticking around. You actually have to send in enough attacks to give yourself a chance to win (or to at least not lose too badly).

And even if you do lose but you have like three squads in combat you increase your chance of rolling a really low Ld test to keep one of those squads locked in combat.

The point is, these are now truly desperate measures. If you send some guys into a combat knowing they're going to die, they're probably going to die immediately. Just as combat armies don't get the 'free trick' of consolidating into new combats, firepower armies don't get the 'free trick' of getting to send in a cheap extra unit to keep combat going for only one more phase.


As a shooty army if a combat ends up drawn you have three choices:

1) Get your other squads the heck out of there.
2) Send in enough units to hope to win the fight or get lucky with a low Ld test.
3) Continue on business as usual shooting at the rest of the enemy but spread your units near the combat out so the enemy unit can't charge more than one unit.



Personally as a Guard/Tau player, I greatly prefer the fact that combats tend to be over in one phase and the fact that assaulters can't consolidate into fresh units more than the fact that on those rare times when a combat does end drawn I have less ability to delay the combat with a counter-charge.

I *do* like the fact that if I'm going to charge models into combat now, I actually have to have some expectation of actually winning the combat.

Not being able to consolidate into fresh enemy is a huge thing for both assaulty and shooty armies. IG are especially affected. And that squad of ten guardsmen CAN be sent over to a CC to further a delaying action. They just don't charge in immediately, they can position themselves between Uber Scary Assault Unit currently in CC and whatever juicy target they might care to bone. Get in a round of fire with that almighty lasgun, and more importantly the supporting fire. Force them to charge you.

Quite frankly, there are units designed to just tarpit other assault units (spinegaunts, conscripts, swarms of various descriptions) which can't do thier job any more.

Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen... ah who am I kidding... just Gentlemen.

It's a fine night here at Exaggeration Theatre and boy do we have a show for you tonight.

Our act really needs no introduction, but he is the ace of ad hominem, the tyrant of tautologies and the steward of straw men - please people, give it up for Somnicide!

[applause]
[/applause]

But I'll not keep you any longer! Let's get onto the show and the incredible first act:

Somnicide wrote:5th edition sucks because I didn't have a single rules argument phase in any of LVGT games.

Incredible folks! Truly inspiring work. It's the gaming equivalent of 'Won't someone think of the children' - something that is automatically true and cannot be argued against without sounding like an idiot whilst simultaneously attempting to belittle all who do not immediately fall upon the alter of 5th Ed. I see awards in this man's future. Awards I say!!!

Onto the second act:

Somnicide wrote:I miss bickering over some talmudic interpretation of what the rules may have meant.

Is this man not an artist? He further enriches and enhances the nuance of his previous inarguable position. It's enough to make even this hard-boiled critic a bit teary-eyed!

Somnicide wrote:It also sucks because all of my games were fun and fast.

In this still-amazing third act, the tautilogical nature of his performance is beginning to wear a little thin. I feel this section of his act is the weakest, and needs an increased level ad hominem to really bring out the sparkle and pizzazz that dominates the first half of the show.

Somnicide wrote:I hate 5th edition because I have to admit GW isn't full of completely mindless idiots whose sole lot in life is to make their customers unhappy.

Bravo! Bravo!

My friends what performance at Exaggeration Theatre would be complete without an off-base, hollow and down-right straw-coloured exagerated hasty generalisation! You'll notice that not a single person has ever claimed GW is out to make their customers unhappy, but Somnicide has stared the people of the audience right in the face and brazenly said "Damn you and your logic! Damn you and your opinions! I'm gonna say what I want and make up whatever nonsense I feel necessary and there's nothing that you can do to stop me!!!!" and we can do nothing but stand back, captivated and in total awe of his meaningless majesty!

So come now people! Throw accolades. Throw flowers. Throw insults. This man deserves them all! His performance here is second to one (you know who you are, DD) and we should praise him for his inanity.

Again, bravo! What a performance!



Somnicide - I'm going to make this very clear for you.

Statements like this one:

"I hate 5th edition because I have to admit GW isn't full of completely mindless idiots whose sole lot in life is to make their customers unhappy."

Do not help you. It's all well and good to disagree with someone on their opinion of the game, but pointless things like the above statement (specifically when no one, at any point, has claimed that GW's aim is to make people unhappy - their aim, obviously, is to make money by whatever means necessary) are bad for you, and for everyone else.

If you're going to get into arguments in 'the intarwebs' it helps to learn how argue first.

Understood? Good.

BYE

yakface wrote:
I've found the need for delaying maneuvers to be greatly lessened in 5th edition because in general enemy assaulters kill or wipe out their opponents when they charge them.

Ignoring that there are units that exist for just this purpose, as Skyth pointed out, this change removes the possibility for 'good play' from the game, replacing it with "well, that would have happened anyway."

I think that detracts from the overall game experience. In my opinion, a good game has a number of opportunities for smart play to overcome differences in stats. A good game has both strategic and tactical opportunities that are more important than the simple numbers game that is rolling dice.

The new assault rules remove this. There are no tactics involved in assault anymore. None. You declare a charge, that's a strategic decision. And then you follow a very specific set of rules to move all your pieces, and then your opponent follows the same rules to move his, and then you both roll dice and then the loser runs away. Or doesn't.

There are no choices that either player can make to alter this. Once the strategic decision to charge has been made, the game practically goes on auto-pilot until a result is obtained. And, while many people refered to casualty removal tactics as shenanigans, the fact was that they allowed a more skilled player an edge over the raw statistical matchup that two assault units had. I agree, some of the casualty removal tricks were dumb. I did not like (although I understood) the ability to deny a model it's attacks by pulling the right models.

But, I think the 5e way of doing things take away from the skill required to play the game well, rendering it into little more than a dice-rolling fest. Some people may like that. Some people like not having to think about their move and just getting a result. Some people might like how this speeds up the game. I dislike how it dumbs down the game.

40k has never been a deep strategy game. Your big questions have been things like "what unit do I want to shoot at" or "do I want to move or shoot". But, there was a level of tactics in 4e. Some people called those tactics "dirty tricks". But, they're no more a dirty-trick than a knight-fork is a dirty trick in chess. The rules weren't written in invisible ink, only available to members of the right secret society, they were published for everyone to use.

In your games of 5e, what actual tactical plays have you seen? Because in my games, I haven't seen any. All semblance of tactical play has been stripped from the game, in the name of streamlining, and preventing arguments. Every choice a player is called to make is now a strategic one, and, unfortunately, 40k doesn't feature very involved strategies. This makes the game less interesting to me.

And once more, HBMC, I will point out that you have said repeatedly and loudly that you don't play so your opinion counts for exactly zero. It's like taking medical advice from a guy who watches House, M.D.

Next time I have a Battletech question, you will definitely be the guy I go to, though.

edit:
There is no straw man argument. Silly me, I was under the impression that one played a game for fun. I have fun PLAYING the game. My post said that. Am I not allowed to decide what is fun for me? That seems to be the entire underpinning of your argument. "I don't like the way that the rules look and am therefore not going to waste my time playing with them. Instead I will just waste my time bitching and waste every one else's time on a board of which I used to have a bit of respect back when I actually played. I don't like the rules, so anyone who does is an idiot or has no idea how to have fun."

edit the second: And for what it is worth, I actually played against two females at the last GT. While women are still in the minority, there are more than ever, so you can keep the ladies and gentlemen barker intro. Barker's, incidentally, are notorious con men and liars, so doesn't really strengthen your argument. And yes, I know sarcasm.

Redbeard wrote:
40k has never been a deep strategy game. Your big questions have been things like "what unit do I want to shoot at" or "do I want to move or shoot". But, there was a level of tactics in 4e. Some people called those tactics "dirty tricks". But, they're no more a dirty-trick than a knight-fork is a dirty trick in chess. The rules weren't written in invisible ink, only available to members of the right secret society, they were published for everyone to use.

I hear this argument, but I don't agree. I don't think that these tricks (range sniping, assault pining, attack denial through casualty removal, etc.) were "dirty." I do think though, that they were obscure and hard to teach to other players. I was very very good at these assault tactics, but other people were not, and it was kind of baffling to them. Since 5th, I have had an equal or greater amount of fun playing. The rest of my group has had just tons more fun however, as games are faster and more straightforward. I think 5th is a game that will appeal to a lot more people, including gamers who didn't used to be into 40K.

Uh, I thought Somnicide was being ironical.

I guess...not...?

I haven't played 5th yet, but every time I start getting kind of excited about 40k a great weariness settles over me. Perhaps the ennui is left over from 4th ed. (which really killed my desire to play the game almost ever again). Perhaps I really am just done with the game (though I'm having fun with other games and even GW figs in other games, as cf my sig). I'm hoping to give it a shot sometime soon, once I've read the rules.

Redbeard wrote:There are no tactics involved in assault anymore.

The tactics in an assault are exactly where they should be: in deciding whether or not the unit should be charging into it in the first place.

All they've done is removed the extra little side-game that went on with model placement and casualty removal to remove your opponent's chance to strike with specific weapons, which should never have been there in the first place in a squad-based game. Now, the squad charges, and the squad fights. And if the squad is outmatched, the squad dies.

I like the changes to Transports. I think Defensive Weapons for vehicles should be defined on a tank-per-tank basis.

Rhino chasis: S4.
Russ chasis: S5.
Skimmers: S6.
Land Raider: S9 (S10?).

etc.

So Preds pill box but Russes can move and shoot.

insaniak wrote:

Redbeard wrote:There are no tactics involved in assault anymore.

The tactics in an assault are exactly where they should be: in deciding whether or not the unit should be charging into it in the first place.

All they've done is removed the extra little side-game that went on with model placement and casualty removal to remove your opponent's chance to strike with specific weapons, which should never have been there in the first place in a squad-based game. Now, the squad charges, and the squad fights. And if the squad is outmatched, the squad dies.

Well said.

insaniak wrote:

Redbeard wrote:There are no tactics involved in assault anymore.

The tactics in an assault are exactly where they should be: in deciding whether or not the unit should be charging into it in the first place.

All they've done is removed the extra little side-game that went on with model placement and casualty removal to remove your opponent's chance to strike with specific weapons, which should never have been there in the first place in a squad-based game. Now, the squad charges, and the squad fights. And if the squad is outmatched, the squad dies.

Why bother having individual models then? Why have models at all when a big gelatenious blob would work just as well? Its just dumbing down the game, and squad vs squad or not, its taking the fun away from the thinking general. If I want to play a game aimed at 12 yr olds or something that plays itself I'll go play any number of Hasbro board games.

Your right, thats the way that it works now, but it doesn't mean its better.

Jayden63 wrote:Why bother having individual models then? Why have models at all when a big gelatenious blob would work just as well?

Because a big gelatinous blob is harder to place around terrain, for starters.

We use individual models because it's a miniature wargame, and individual models look better.

The rules are aimed at units rather than individuals because they're meant to be functional for large games. Rules that interact completely on a model-by-model basis are fine for small skirmish games, where you only have a handful of models to worry about. But as we discovered in 2nd edition, the larger the game, the more bogged down it gets.

The game is still a very long way from 'playing itself'... It has simply evolved from a model-based game to a (mostly) squad-based game. This has been a gradual progression ever since Rogue Trader was first released, because people kept wanting to play larger and larger games.

The tactics aren't gone. The focus has simply shifted.

If the tactics aren't gone, tell me where the tactics are. Because deciding whether a squad should charge another is not a tactical decision, it's a strategic one.

And, if 40k is meant to be just a strategic game, then what's with the super-hero characters? The very idea of a single character who can single-handedly beat 30 men speaks volumes about the strategic nature of the game.

Tarpitting should be a valid move. It isn't. I can throw 50 conscripts into a fight with Marneus and they're gone almost instantly. Shouldn't it take at least some time for him to slaughter that many people?

Again, I'd rather play a game where a few smart decisions at the right time can turn the tide of the game. I like games that reward skill. I like games that aren't entirely a comparison of stats.

5e combat, to me, is really boring. You know who is going to win before the charge is declared. You know there is nothing you can do about it. You can't throw more weak troops into the equation and hope to accomplish anything except losing those weak troops.

I haven't seen, or played, or even heard stories about any 5e games where a lone-firewarrior bought his army a win by staying alive 3 extra turns. I have heard, and seen, and played, a lot of games where an assault unit swept its target off the board on the turn it charged.

Redbeard: From what I looked at (haven't played it yet) 5th assaults seem to be more about co-ordination of several units.
To my mind, that is a good change from the "one uber unit consolidates and army to death" approach of 4th.

Redbeard wrote: Because deciding whether a squad should charge another is not a tactical decision, it's a strategic one.

They're the same thing. 'Tactics' and 'strategy' both simply refer to the way you coordinate your troops on the board.

5th edition is more about they way your units act in concert than about the exact placement of any single specific model in close combat.

Tarpitting should be a valid move. It isn't.

It is. But you need to pick your fight.

Yes, the balance of combat has shifted. That simply means you need to re-evaluate what each of your squads can handle, and give them adequate support if necessary.

I can throw 50 conscripts into a fight with Marneus and they're gone almost instantly. Shouldn't it take at least some time for him to slaughter that many people?

Should it take a model geared for close combat any significant amount of time to beat a similar points value of models who are most definitely not combat-oriented?

No, of course it shouldn't.

Again, I'd rather play a game where a few smart decisions at the right time can turn the tide of the game. I like games that reward skill. I like games that aren't entirely a comparison of stats.

And?

Unless you're equating 'smart decisions at the right time' solely to mean 'placing your models in a particular fashion in close combat to reduce the number of attacks your opponent will get back at you' I'm not seeing a problem.

Close combat isn't the entirety of a 40K game.

You know who is going to win before the charge is declared.

You could just as easily claim that the shooting rules are boring because you already know how many casualties you're likely to inflict...

There are any number of factors that affect the actual outcome.

I haven't seen, or played, or even heard stories about any 5e games where a lone-firewarrior bought his army a win by staying alive 3 extra turns.

Good. That suggests that such a situation will be rare, as it should be, rather than the norm, which it frequently was in previous editions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strategy

Go down to the synonyms part. Tactics and strategy in the military sense of the words aren't the same thing. Redbeard is correct to say that there are no tactics in assault because there is no skillful way to maneuver your models to gain an advantage.

insaniak wrote:
They're the same thing. 'Tactics' and 'strategy' both simply refer to the way you coordinate your troops on the board.

No, they're not. If they're the same, why can you find entire books devoted to chess tactics and different books devoted to chess strategy. Yes, they both involve your models on the table, but they're hardly the same thing. Tactics is small-scale, what some people are refering to as 'skirmish' moves. Tactics relates to the position of models in a unit (or, at least, used to). Strategy is large-scale. It is how you think about all the pieces working together.

5th edition is more about they way your units act in concert than about the exact placement of any single specific model in close combat.

Yes, that's what I've been saying. There is no real tactical play in the game anymore, just large-scale choices.

Tarpitting should be a valid move. It isn't.

It is. But you need to pick your fight.

Yes, the balance of combat has shifted. That simply means you need to re-evaluate what each of your squads can handle, and give them adequate support if necessary.

How can you "pick your fight" when tarpitting, by definition, is throwing weaker units at stronger ones, sacrificing men for time. It's a time-honoured military concept, as old as armies themselves. You may well know that you cannot beat Hannibal's elephants, but if you can keep them occupied killing your infantry long enough, you should be able to bring your cavalry in behind the elephants...

5e doesn't have this. If your unit cannot "handle" it's opposition, it just dies, in one turn. You trade your men for nothing - worse than nothing, in fact, as your opponent gets an extra consolidation move out of it.

I can throw 50 conscripts into a fight with Marneus and they're gone almost instantly. Shouldn't it take at least some time for him to slaughter that many people?

Should it take a model geared for close combat any significant amount of time to beat a similar points value of models who are most definitely not combat-oriented?

YES! Without this possibility, what stops the game from devolving into a question of who has the best hero? Do you want to play a strategy game with an army, or a game of heroclix without the pre-painted x-men? Tarpitting is a huge boon in games that don't want heros dominating the game. Because, generally speaking, if I can occupy your 250 point hero killing 100 points of grunts for the entire game, I come out ahead. If I cannot remove a super-hero character from the game without spending an equal number of points on heros myself, the game becomes who has the best hero.

Unless you're equating 'smart decisions at the right time' solely to mean 'placing your models in a particular fashion in close combat to reduce the number of attacks your opponent will get back at you' I'm not seeing a problem.

Close combat isn't the entirety of a 40K game.

No, but the tactics were removed from other parts of the game as well. It's just most obvious in the close-combat portion of the game because that's changed the most.

Voodoo: I've often wondered aloud whether 40k would have benefited from being a smaller scale--15mm or 20mm, with squads on a shared base--especially after the transition to 3rd ed. Many many squad-based games are actually in that scale (think Stargrunt II) and it would allow much more dynamic movement, more 'natural' ranges and speeds, and resolve a lot of issues in terms of vehicles (most of the problems with vehicle survivability and utility is, imho that really, how many tanks should you be fighting in 1/56 or so scale on a 4x6' table?). There are people who play 40k in 15mm as well and they seem to really like it.

Just another reminder that the game belongs to the players, and it can be played as desired.

Somnicide wrote:And once more, HBMC, I will point out that you have said repeatedly and loudly that you don't play so your opinion counts for exactly zero. It's like taking medical advice from a guy who watches House, M.D.

*sigh*

No, your statement above counts for exactly zero. You made a dumb post, included a lot of bs that no one was saying, and I called you on it. Whether I play 5th or not is completely irrelevent to the inanity of your previous statement.

Somnicide wrote:Next time I have a Battletech question, you will definitely be the guy I go to, though.

I can't claim to be a master of BTech. I haven't been playing that long. But if you want to know anything about the Imperial Guard, then I'm your guy.

Somnicide wrote:There is no straw man argument.

Yes there is. You set up an inarguable position with your first three statements - yes it's good that no arguments happened, everything was clear (and the 5th Ed rules are clear as they are well written compared to loose crap that was 4th Ed) - and no one can actually disagree with you because if they do they'd actually be advocating rules arguments.

Your final statement is where the straw starts to kick in - you go on about GW's not attempting to make their customers unhappy. No one here has claimed that they were doing that. It is infantile to say it, yet you say it anyway. Do you see how stupid it is to do that?

For example:

Person A: There are lots of things with these rules I don't like.
Person B: Well I love them, and see, GW isn't trying to make people's lives a misery with their rules.
Person A: What? I didn't say that? What are you blithering about?

Get it yet?

Somnicide wrote:Silly me, I was under the impression that one played a game for fun. I have fun PLAYING the game.

And here we are back to the inarguable position.

No one has disagreed with this at any point. No one has attempted to say otherwise.

Somnicide wrote:Am I not allowed to decide what is fun for me?

Strawman. No one has claimed you couldn't.

Somnicide wrote:That seems to be the entire underpinning of your argument.

If one lacks reading comprehension, then yes, I could see your point of view here.

Somnicide wrote:"I don't like the way that the rules look and am therefore not going to waste my time playing with them. Instead I will just waste my time bitching and waste every one else's time on a board of which I used to have a bit of respect back when I actually played. I don't like the rules, so anyone who does is an idiot or has no idea how to have fun."

Ad hominem.
Hasty generalisation.
Strawman.

Should I go on?

Somnicide wrote:edit the second: And for what it is worth, I actually played against two females at the last GT. While women are still in the minority, there are more than ever, so you can keep the ladies and gentlemen barker intro. Barker's, incidentally, are notorious con men and liars, so doesn't really strengthen your argument. And yes, I know sarcasm.

Ok...

BYE

While you can't tarpit a hero this game is definitely not decided by who has the best hero.

Redbeard how can you say this is so?

H.B.M.C. wrote:No, your statement above counts for exactly zero. You made a dumb post, included a lot of bs that no one was saying, and I called you on it. Whether I play 5th or not is completely irrelevent to the inanity of your previous statement.

I like 5th edition and I thought it was a smart post. You don't like 5th edition and you think it's a dumb post.

I do agree it was a straw man.

Redbeard wrote: Tactics is small-scale, what some people are refering to as 'skirmish' moves. Tactics relates to the position of models in a unit (or, at least, used to). Strategy is large-scale. It is how you think about all the pieces working together.

Fair point... but I'm still not seeing a problem.

40K is intended to work for larger scale games. If that means leaning more towards 'strategy' than 'tactics' then so be it.

That's simply the trade-off for having a system that lets you put more models on the board and still play a game in a reasonable time.

How can you "pick your fight" when tarpitting, by definition, is throwing weaker units at stronger ones, sacrificing men for time.

The point is that a weaker unit simply isn't going to last as long as a slightly stronger unit.

Simply throwing your weakest unit at an enemy's assault squad and hoping that it will last as long as you want it to isn't 'tactical'... it's throwing away a unit in a role for which it isn't suited.

Putting a wall in front of a tank is going to slow it down for longer than putting a speed bump there... If your unit only lasts a turn, and you wanted it to last longer, then clearly you should have used a slightly stronger unit.

It's a time-honoured military concept, as old as armies themselves.

That doesn't mean that it should always work regardless of the actual units involved.

Fighting naked swinging a gigantic sword around your head was a 'time honoured' military concept as well. Didn't work very well against certain opponents, though...

YES! Without this possibility, what stops the game from devolving into a question of who has the best hero?

The fact that if you throw a similarly points costed close combat unit at him, the outcome may well be very different?

Close combat units are good at close combat. Shooting units are good at shooting. Whether or not those units are squads or heroes is irrelevant... Throw a shooting unit into combat against an equal-pointed combat unit, and the shooty guys should lose, and lose badly.

Otherwise, what's the point of having any difference between units at all?

Seriously, it sounds like what you really want is for every model on the board to have the exact same statline, so that the game can be more 'tactical' by your win relying solely on the cleverest model placement. Or something.

Because, generally speaking, if I can occupy your 250 point hero killing 100 points of grunts for the entire game, I come out ahead.

Sure you do. But if makes no difference to that scenario whether the 250 points is a hero, a squad, or a vehicle. Either way, if you successfully tie it up for the entire game with a lower-points squad, you've come out ahead.

And you come out equally ahead if you realise that your shooting-oriented squad has no chance in close combat against a monster-assault character, and just shoot him with a lascannon in the first turn...

insaniak wrote:
The fact that if you throw a similarly points costed close combat unit at him, the outcome may well be very different?

Close combat units are good at close combat. Shooting units are good at shooting. Whether or not those units are squads or heroes is irrelevant... Throw a shooting unit into combat against an equal-pointed combat unit, and the shooty guys should lose, and lose badly.

Otherwise, what's the point of having any difference between units at all?

I agree with the above, and I believe Redbeard does as well. The thing is that the 'tarpit' units are 'close combat units' that were designed fully to tie up the uber assault units without actually killing them. They were resilient units (Paper vs the assault unit's rock) who's role is completely neutered by the new rules. That is bad game design. Pretty much the same as all the required FAQs that 'This item no longer has any function' like thornback or the one WH book that allows table edge choice.

It's a time-honoured military concept, as old as armies themselves.


That doesn't mean that it should always work regardless of the actual units involved.

Fighting naked swinging a gigantic sword around your head was a 'time honoured' military concept as well. Didn't work very well against certain opponents, though...

First off, there is a logical fallacy with the second part of the argument. I forget the name, but it involves the changing of a definition of a word/phrase to try to make an argument.

Second off, the argument presented is about the units that are DESIGNED to tarpit, so it is all about the actual units involved.

skyth wrote: The thing is that the 'tarpit' units are 'close combat units' that were designed fully to tie up the uber assault units without actually killing them. They were resilient units (Paper vs the assault unit's rock) who's role is completely neutered by the new rules.

Maybe I'm missing something then, because I'm not seeing how conscripts fit that definition...

First off, there is a logical fallacy with the second part of the argument.

Sure there is. It seemed an appropriate response to the idea that a tactic in a fantasy game should work a given way simply because it's been used historically.

insaniak wrote:

skyth wrote: The thing is that the 'tarpit' units are 'close combat units' that were designed fully to tie up the uber assault units without actually killing them. They were resilient units (Paper vs the assault unit's rock) who's role is completely neutered by the new rules.

Maybe I'm missing something then, because I'm not seeing how conscripts fit that definition...

Actually conscripts were the guard tarpit unit. Keep them by an officer and the standard for rerolls, and they held almost anything. They are also used that way in the fluff (A holding/delaying action...Throw the less valuable/skilled troops into the meatgrinder).

First off, there is a logical fallacy with the second part of the argument.

Sure there is. It seemed an appropriate response to the idea that a tactic in a fantasy game should work a given way simply because it's been used historically.

In a decent game, real-life tactics should have similar results in game as you would expect if they were used in 'real life'. Besides the fact that you changed the definition from one of a strategy that was used in the far past and is still used in modern times to an individual soilder's way of fighting.

The thing I like about 5th edition is that it is alot more consise rulewise which is huge (yeah I know the codex facs were not as good as the book but oh well ). Has it made me rethink 40K...hell yeah. For Tyranids it has reduced the VC role from tank killer (3rd and 4th) to tank shaker in 5th, an OK role against non-transport shooting tanks but is less effective against a mobile assault army/transport army as most vehicles still have ways of reducing its "no move" results to no shoot results...all the while, the transport and mobile assult army has gotten a large boost from increased strength against shooting from a 1) cover saves 2) Single damage table 3) and loss of maniditory pinning from a destroyed transport. Assaulting tanks (other than LR and monoliths) is easier but assaulting transports has become significantly more risky...do I assualt that rhino with genestealers and blow it up only to be shot and assualted by its contents in the next turn if they make thier leadership check to avoid being pinned. Stealers have been boosted by the FH/frags and Feeder tendrils (they are an either or), but have been more dramatically reduced by the combination of wound allocation method, d3 rend which dramatically increased the the survivability of walkers, rending on the wound, and lack of consolidation into enemy units. Stealers are still a good unit (don't get me wrong and they are way better than in the 3rd edition codex) it is just that you now need to use more tactics in thier use, which is fine by me. Death spitter warrior have become more usefull in thier anti-infantry and anti-light tank roll. Walking assaulting TMC appear feasible. Things change life goes on, I will keep enjoying the game changing things up with my Nids, while waiting for a revitalized space wolf codex!

skyth wrote:Actually conscripts were the guard tarpit unit.

Despite not being a close combat unit, or particularly resilient?

Not disputing that it's how they were used, just not seeing how they fit the description you gave.

But given Redbeard's example of throwing them at a character to tie him up, what's changed? They still stand the same chance in the combat, and they still get a Morale test before running away. They'll just possibly have a slightly higher modifier to that Morale test.

In a decent game, real-life tactics should have similar results in game as you would expect if they were used in 'real life'.

That really depends on your interpretation of 'decent'...

40K isn't, and has never tried to be, an accurate simulation of real-life war. That doesn't mean that it's not a 'decent' game... unless, of course, you're after a real-war simulation, in which case it's crap.

Besides the fact that you changed the definition from one of a strategy that was used in the far past and is still used in modern times to an individual soilder's way of fighting.

No, I changed the definition from one of a strategy that has been in widespread use to another that has been in widespread use. I wasn't talking about individual soldiers, I was talking about battles involving warriors running in swinging big honking swords until their enemy all fell down. A tactic that was eventually countered by the use of close formations, shields and stabbing swords.

Tactics depend on your opponent. Just because something is effective against one opponent doesn't mean that it should be effective against a different one.

skyth wrote:Quite frankly, there are units designed to just tarpit other assault units (spinegaunts, conscripts, swarms of various descriptions) which can't do thier job any more.

Bingo, and at Redbeard, seconded, absolutely sir!

yakface wrote:

Augustus wrote:Ozymandias, I admit I wrote in a dramatic style, but even in an abstract game balance sense explain to me how always hitting rear armor is better than before>?

Does it reward careful play? No

Does it correct an old imbalance? No

Between the change to the damage table, the reduced effectiveness of glancing hits and potential cover saves for vehicles overall they have gotten much more durable against enemy firepower. So yes, I think it is a fair balance to make vehicles weaker in close combat.

Tell that to the Eldar and the Tau. Do you really think that?

insaniak wrote:

Redbeard wrote:There are no tactics involved in assault anymore.

The tactics in an assault are exactly where they should be: in deciding whether or not the unit should be charging into it in the first place.

All they've done is removed the extra little side-game that went on with model placement and casualty removal to remove your opponent's chance to strike with specific weapons, which should never have been there in the first place in a squad-based game. Now, the squad charges, and the squad fights. And if the squad is outmatched, the squad dies.

Oh really? What about defending cover, that use to be a tactic, so models behind over were harder to dislodge, makes some sense, rewards good set up, involves terrain as important, but now, oh yea, everyone has plasma grenades? What about intentional tarpitting, as in the 600 point chaplain and squad can spend the next 3 turns murdering a 200 point platoon and or onscripts/etc...

Those TACTICS are gone, redbeard has it, now you just charge, and basically win if you have better armor, immediatley.

Tacobake wrote:I like the changes to Transports. I think Defensive Weapons for vehicles should be defined on a tank-per-tank basis.

Rhino chasis: S4.
Russ chasis: S5.
Skimmers: S6.
Land Raider: S9 (S10?).

etc.

So Preds pill box but Russes can move and shoot.

That is brilliant! Great idea!

insaniak wrote:

Fair point... but I'm still not seeing a problem.

40K is intended to work for larger scale games. If that means leaning more towards 'strategy' than 'tactics' then so be it.

But I am. The title of this thread is "Why do you think 5e sucks in comparison to 4e?" To me, it sucks because they removed a part of the game that I enjoyed. I enjoyed both the strategic and the tactical side of the game. They've removed the tactics. To me, that sucks. Maybe it is a tradeoff to allowing a game to finish quickly. But, if I sit down for some gaming, I'm not trying to rush in a game, I'm planning on having a beer or two and occupying myself for a couple of hours. Shaving a few minutes off isn't as worth it to me as having a game that has some semblance of tactics in it.

How can you "pick your fight" when tarpitting, by definition, is throwing weaker units at stronger ones, sacrificing men for time.

The point is that a weaker unit simply isn't going to last as long as a slightly stronger unit.

But it used to. And now it doesn't.

Simply throwing your weakest unit at an enemy's assault squad and hoping that it will last as long as you want it to isn't 'tactical'... it's throwing away a unit in a role for which it isn't suited.

In 5e, you're right. It is just throwing a unit away. In 4e, it was a valuable tactic, to throw chumps in front of something in order to buy yourself time. Again, why does 5e suck to me? Because the new rules have neutered smart play in favour of finishing the game quickly.

It's a time-honoured military concept, as old as armies themselves.

That doesn't mean that it should always work regardless of the actual units involved.

Actually, yes, it does. In this case. Sure, there's a matter of scale. But, if you have 100 elite warriors, and I have 1000 newly mustered scrubs, it is going to take your guys some time to kill all of mine. Even if they're just running them down. Because, leaving them alive behind you isn't an option. Throwing men away to buy time somewhere else always works because, in reality, your opponent can't just wish them dead in an instant, and can't ignore them. They have to spend the time to deal with them.

In 4e, this was represented by the fact that negative Ld penalties weren't applied until after you outnumbered your opponent. Once you outnumbered them, it became easier to break them and finish them off. But, until then, good tarpit units would do their job as long as they made their base Ld tests. And, you're right, it didn't always work, sometimes you rolled an 11. But it had a chance to work.

Fighting naked swinging a gigantic sword around your head was a 'time honoured' military concept as well. Didn't work very well against certain opponents, though...

Unless you're playing any version of 40k, where, oddly, unarmoured green guys with swords and axes seem to do ok in the face of bolters and tanks.

The fact that if you throw a similarly points costed close combat unit at him, the outcome may well be very different?

How is this relevant. If I had a similarly costed CC unit, maybe I'd do that. But you don't always have that available. If my opponent brings a 500 point CC unit, and I don't have one, should I just lose? What if they don't afford me the opportunity to shoot them first? Think the new deep-striking assault marines.

Close combat units are good at close combat. Shooting units are good at shooting. Whether or not those units are squads or heroes is irrelevant... Throw a shooting unit into combat against an equal-pointed combat unit, and the shooty guys should lose, and lose badly.

I have never doubted this. I concur, an assault unit should beat an equal-cost shooty unit, or a smaller assault unit. What we don't agree on is how long it should take to reach this end. You seem to favour the 5e approach that if A can beat B, A should beat B in one round, and stop wasting time with it. I don't like that. I think that's stupid. I think that the difference between two units, especially units designed to slow an opponent, should take longer to kill than just the time it takes to charge them.

Otherwise, what's the point of having any difference between units at all?

Seriously, it sounds like what you really want is for every model on the board to have the exact same statline, so that the game can be more 'tactical' by your win relying solely on the cleverest model placement. Or something.

I fail to see how you have come to this conclusion. I have never mentioned anything about standardized statlines. In fact, with standardized statlines, you lose interplay between units, which is pretty much the opposite of what I'm arguing for.

throwing 1000 scrubs to 100 elite warriors, i agree would take some time if you think about it in a reality perspective.
we're talking 100 super human/close combat specialist with weapon/strength that swipe droves of guys in an instant, ever read some of the fluff? or the Battle repor thow archaon swiped the head of 10 imperial knights in one slash? i can see that lets say, conscripts charge these close combat specialist marines, i can see them just swipe after swipe killing droves of them. which isnt exactly 1000 to 100. but at a smaller scal of lets say 10 to 25. i see this a very viable concept of wiping em out with ease as the 40k universe is highly exaggerated with super human CC guys with awesome strength/weapons

Redbeard wrote:But, if you have 100 elite warriors, and I have 1000 newly mustered scrubs, it is going to take your guys some time to kill all of mine.

And unless you roll badly on your Morale checks, it still will.

If my opponent brings a 500 point CC unit, and I don't have one, should I just lose?

Er... no... you should shoot him instead of expecting a unit that's nowhere near as effective as him in close combat to stand a chance of holding him up for any length of time...

What if they don't afford me the opportunity to shoot them first?

Then you're going to have to spend some time thinking about how your squads are placed, and how many of them he's going to be able to assault before you can shoot him.

You seem to favour the 5e approach that if A can beat B, A should beat B in one round, and stop wasting time with it.

No, actually, I disagree that it will always happen in one round due to the vagaries of dice rolling and the fact that running away still relies on morale, and simply don't see the 5th ed changes as being a huge deal.

Maybe I'll change my mind after playing a few more games.

I think that the difference between two units, especially units designed to slow an opponent, should take longer to kill than just the time it takes to charge them.

Fair enough. I disagree... I think that the time taken to kill them should be directly proportional to how good they are in comparison to the unit trying to kill them. Yes, low cost, low stat models will be killed off quickly. That, in my opinion, is exactly as it should be. That's why those models are so cheap.

Units closer in skill will have more of an even fight.

I fail to see how you have come to this conclusion. I have never mentioned anything about standardized statlines.

No, but you've repeatedly stated that the current rules somehow lead to the best hero winning, regardless of what he's up against. An attitude that ignores the fact that the game is based around forces with equal points costs, so having the best indidivual hero doesn't automatically mean you have a better army...


Edit: Incidentally, it occurs to me that some of what I've been posting may have come across a little strong. As you said, this is a thread asking what you dislike about 5th edition... I'm not trying to say your opinion is wrong, just interested in the reasoning behind it, and in discussing why I disagree. No slight intended.

insaniak wrote:
And unless you roll badly on your Morale checks, it still will.

No, this is one of the things that 5e has changed. If you kill three more of my guys than I kill of yours, my Ld drops 3 points. If I had a pretty solid Ld 9, that means I'm testing on a 6, which means that the odds of me failing that check are greater than of passing it.

Stacking negative modifiers have always been more effective than simply rolling dice.

The problem with this is that it takes part of the Fantasy CC resolution system, without taking all of it. In fantasy, your Ld tests are modified by the kill differential as well. However, they also have modifiers for things like outnumbering (which 40k could do), ranks (which 40k couldn't), and banners (which 40k shouldn't). The net result is that heros cannot engage units on their own and hope to win, because even if they score three more kills, the unit has ranks and outnumbering and the hero ends up losing the combat.

5e takes half of this equation, ignores the other parts of it, and ends up with a system where one man can slaughter 50 in an instant.

If my opponent brings a 500 point CC unit, and I don't have one, should I just lose?

Er... no... you should shoot him instead of expecting a unit that's nowhere near as effective as him in close combat to stand a chance of holding him up for any length of time...

If my opponent has something like a winged hive tyrant, with high toughness, a 2+ save, and has managed to get a cover save, you're asking me to take 4 wounds off it in the shooting phase. What sort of dice do you use? Mine don't work nearly that well.

No, actually, I disagree that it will always happen in one round due to the vagaries of dice rolling and the fact that running away still relies on morale, and simply don't see the 5th ed changes as being a huge deal.

You haven't seen a necron army phase out before their own turn two yet then. Simply because their warriors had to take Ld tests at -5 and got cut down. The negative modifiers for kills really skew the odds of passing those morale tests, you know.

No, but you've repeatedly stated that the current rules somehow lead to the best hero winning, regardless of what he's up against. An attitude that ignores the fact that the game is based around forces with equal points costs, so having the best indidivual hero doesn't automatically mean you have a better army...

No, but the fact that special characters are now so much better than normal models. Look at the winner of the Vegas GT. Ran two special character HQs. And the combat rules only help characters and hurt squads. It's a trend that started with the Eldar codex and has been getting progressively worse. Look at what people are talking about running with the new marine codex. Two special characters from different chapters... because they have the best rules...

insaniak wrote:

Redbeard wrote:But, if you have 100 elite warriors, and I have 1000 newly mustered scrubs, it is going to take your guys some time to kill all of mine.

And unless you roll badly on your Morale checks, it still will.

Ok, calling bogus on this one. That is just ridiculous, there is no rolling badly, once the difference is -3 kills, Ld 7/8 models are almost certainly going to fail the morale check and get destroyed in the single phase, and that is the usual situation now, it NEVER takes a long time to chew up a large unit.

Redbeard wrote:
...5e takes half of this equation, ignores the other parts of it, and ends up with a system where one man can slaughter 50 in an instant.

Yup, which is one good example where 4E>5E

To tell the truth I think just giving everybody a blanket 4+ cover save no matter what would be better than the issues with TLoS, casualty removal, and some of the other issues I have expressed here and elsewhere.

If the goal is to simplify the game so it can play faster with more models on the board, the rules will reflect it and I think 5th has gone too far in that direction. I don't see my proposal as conflicting much with what I've seen in the few games of 5th I've played. I know it'd solve a lot of questions and free me of wondering if 1 warrior is in the open then all my guys can die in shooting.

I actually liked sniping, tactical casualty removal, tarpitting etc. I must be in the minority, but at least some others feel the same. Point and click combat should be relegated to computer games like Civ.

To me, the worst part about the leadership modifiers is how low they can go in what are really pretty even fights (or even, by any real measure, a "win" for the side that is going to get swept in-game)

I see this most with my Kroot, which of course are maybe an extreme example. If my 18 kroot and 12 hounds get charged by 10 space marines, I'll kill maybe 5, and take 10 causalties. So I've lost a third of my force and he's lost half of his, and now we outnumber them 4-1. So, what decision do the kroot make? AUGH! SPAZE MARINES! RUNNNN! I'm testing on a 2 or a 3 if I have a shaper. Even if I was leadership 9 i'm testing on a 4, against a force where I'll win handily if I don't run.

This doesn't make any sense. As has been said before, it rewards low saves more than anything else. With the current rules, the only way a superiority-in-numbers squad can win a close combat is if they wipe out their opponent in one round. I've killed all but one marine or CSM in fights and still lost combat by enough to watch 18 remaining kroot get swept by that guy. It's nonsense

Redbeard wrote:No, this is one of the things that 5e has changed. If you kill three more of my guys than I kill of yours, my Ld drops 3 points. If I had a pretty solid Ld 9, that means I'm testing on a 6, which means that the odds of me failing that check are greater than of passing it.

Odds which are improved somewhat by the availability for many armeis of Ld boosts or rerolls.

And then you still have to fail the Sweep roll-off for them to actually be destroyed. It's not automatic.

If my opponent has something like a winged hive tyrant, with high toughness, a 2+ save, and has managed to get a cover save, you're asking me to take 4 wounds off it in the shooting phase.

If you have an army geared towards shooting instead of close combat, that's kind of what they're supposed to do.


I think what it really boils down to is that tarpitting with really poor troops is simply going to require a couple of waves, rather than a single unit being able to tie the enemy up indefinitely. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was the intention... it certainly seems to fit with the scale of the game otherwise. Co-ordinated units, rather than single units being automatically able to do whatever you want them to do unassisted... which requires more tactical thinking on the player's part.

Which I love. To me, tactics in a wargame aiming at games larger than a half a dozen model skirmish should be about how the units interact, not about how you can position individual models to skew the results of a given action.

The difference between poor troops (Ld 7) and typical troops (Ld 8) is not big numerically however most armies get a fairly easy boost to Ld 9 or 10 while the few that get stuck on 7 or 8 are very seriously disadvantaged.

The reason is the non-linear progression of Ld rolls.

Agree with Lambadomy.

I disagree. If I'm in a unit and suddenly there are ten less of us and only 5 less of them, I'm gonna start thinking about how to get away from that situation. That's what Morale is all about, it's about your troops reacting to situations that you as the player can't control. Same goes for the 50 conscripts vs. Marneus. The 50 conscripts see this super-human killing machine and decide that they are dead unless they get away, hence the morale check.

And there are still ways to tarpit, it's just not automatic anymore. Independent Commissars, Chem-inhalers, Book of St. Lucius', Synapse, etc.

You just need to adapt your tactics to the new cc environment.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Truthfully, I think a quick fix would be to keep the rules as they are, but also return outnumbering. Not sure exactly how to do it, either a bonus to the combat resolution or a bonus to the leadership check. Something like:

2:1 +2 LD (min 4)
3:1 +3 LD (Min 5)
4:1+ +4 LD (Min 6)

It might be better to add it to the combat resolution score instead, this would help fearless tarpits.

2:1 +2 combat resolution
3:1 +3
4:1 +4

I mean, seriously - I really like a lot of the changes to make close combat quick and brutal and avoid some of the cheesier kill zone manipulation, etc. But the pendulum swung too far towards simplistic.

Well, imagine the scenario where you get two of your squads charged - say, 10 guardsmen and 5 grey knights get charged by 5 harlequins.

You get lucky and lose 8 guardsmen, and kill 2 harlequins. So now your 5 Grey knights are testing on a...3? 4? When they outnumber the Harlequins 2:1. What exactly is happening there? "Man, those Harlies sure kill Guardsmen good, lets run"

Obviously Ozy is right as to what Morale is about...but that doesn't make it sensical in game terms. Really, I just think strength in numbers got the shaft in 5e, in the name of simplicity. I like the new rules. I like how they play mostly. I'm glad we dont have weird kill zone manipulation on charges and that everything is quicker and more brutal. But I think the pendulum swung too far towards simplicty and they shoehorned a fantasy rule (combat resolution by casualties) into 40k without thinking it out.

I think a simple and fair compromise would have been to keep the rules as is, but also add bonuses for outnumbering into combat. Either for combat resolution or for the leadership check after combat res, something like:

2:1 +2 combat resolution
3:1 +3
4:1 +4

or conversely for leadership

2:1 +2 LD (min 4 max 10)
3:1 +3 LD (min 5 max 10)
4:1 +4 LD (min 6 max 10)

Something, anything to return what was actually one of the clearer, more coherent rules in 4e, where they wrote about why outnumbering gives an advantage in CC

Some armies don't have ways to adapt to these new tactics. As I said before, I've seen a necron player phased out before they took their second turn because they lost something like six models in CC, and lost two squads of warriors because they were swept.

Well, that's ok, I guess, they can just wait for their new codex, which will, no doubt, include two or three must-have special characters that will allow their army to survive in the new 5th ed environment.

It's a poorly thought-out mish-mash of rules that doesn't work well. It blatantly rewards some armies and penalizes others. As someone mentioned earlier, the whole idea is that if I have the same number of points as you, our forces should be somewhat even.

But, because of the ham-fisted CC rules, they're not. My large number of low-quality men cannot stand up to your few high-quality men, because winnng the battle is based on the number of models lost, not the number of points lost. As Lambadomy shows, you can win the point-for-point battle and still end up losing your whole unit because of the morale rules.

There are 4 conscripts to a marine. If I have an officer with a decent leadership, I should be able and willing to lose men at a 3-to-1 ratio in that fight. This is what the imperial guard is all about. This is how the fluff presents the army. Imperial commanders expend men as other commanders might count bullets. This should be representable in the game. It is not. My guys are going to be swept because you killed 5 of them.

If you cannot see how stupid this is, then go ahead and be GW fanboyz. Everything they do is obviously great, and Marneus R0xx0rs. I, for one, think this ruleset is worse than 4e. I gave it a chance, I've played games, and I'm not a fan.

Ozymandias wrote:
You just need to adapt your tactics to the new cc environment.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Agree, but then, the people who are willing to adapt aren't the ones griping, so it is probably a lost message.

Redbeard wrote:Some armies don't have ways to adapt to these new tactics. As I said before, I've seen a necron player phased out before they took their second turn because they lost something like six models in CC, and lost two squads of warriors because they were swept.

Okay, you are a saying that a codex that is 2 editions old doesn't really work that well? Hmm...

Also, seemed to do fine at the Vegas GT.

Redbeard wrote:If you cannot see how stupid this is, then go ahead and be GW fanboyz. Everything they do is obviously great, and Marneus R0xx0rs.

So, liking one particular change to the rules, or disagreeing with you on a given aspect of the game, automatically makes someone a 'fanboy'...?

Sorry, thought we were having an actual discussion here. Obviously I was wrong. I'll stop infringing on your valuable complaining time with my rabid, fanboyish drooling.

Well, this thread has gotten a lot more attention than I would have thought when I started it. Let's try to let it keep rolling, guys?

Somnicide wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:
You just need to adapt your tactics to the new cc environment.

Agree, but then, the people who are willing to adapt aren't the ones griping, so it is probably a lost message.

Being willing to adapt is not the same as enjoying it. I am willing to adapt. My IG army is nicely put away on a display shelf. I am playing something new. That's "adapting". Between the changes to combat resolution and the introduction of Kill Points, I find it simply cannot perform with any degree of reliability. My friend's necron army has, likewise, been put away. He has "adapted" by playing sisters instead of necrons.

I've spent too much money and time on my armies to refuse to adapt. It doesn't mean that I think the new rules are good. It means that I'm kind of invested.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are some good things about 5e. I like the change to the vehicle damage table. I like the removal of SMF. I am ok with the removal of casualty-pulling tactics (I think the game was better with them, but removing them doesn't upset me). I like that infantry can run now. I like the greater emphasis on troops. But, I find that the things I don't like, I really don't like.

I'm reading all the hand-wringing about HtH in 5E, and I don't see the problem. If you have numbers of guys, then the point would be to have enough of them to kill the other guys. If they're not getting the job done, despite overwhelming weight of numbers, isn't that, by definition, failure?

5E allows pretty much all models to fight. You can't kill models in BtB to prevent them from getting their attacks. That is a huge benefit compared to 3E.

And you don't get the ability to move into other enemy units, to deny them a chance to shoot.

So you don't get to tarpit with large, crappy units? Why is that a bad thing? 40k is supposed to be a lethal environment. HtH is supposed to be decisive.

If you want to tie an enemy model up, then you need to orchestrate something with multiple units working together.

Refine your tactics. Don't blame the rules.

Augustus wrote:
Tell that to the Eldar and the Tau. Do you really think that?

Tau vehicles absolutely got much, much tougher from enemy shooting. Eldar overall are a wash. While they are more vulnerable if they fly slow enough to shoot, fast moving Wave Serpents are much tougher to shoot down before and both types of vehicles (Wave Serpent and Falcon) are uber if moving fast while fortuned.

Redbeard wrote:

Ignoring that there are units that exist for just this purpose, as Skyth pointed out, this change removes the possibility for 'good play' from the game, replacing it with "well, that would have happened anyway."

I think that detracts from the overall game experience. In my opinion, a good game has a number of opportunities for smart play to overcome differences in stats. A good game has both strategic and tactical opportunities that are more important than the simple numbers game that is rolling dice.

The new assault rules remove this. There are no tactics involved in assault anymore. None. You declare a charge, that's a strategic decision. And then you follow a very specific set of rules to move all your pieces, and then your opponent follows the same rules to move his, and then you both roll dice and then the loser runs away. Or doesn't.

There are no choices that either player can make to alter this. Once the strategic decision to charge has been made, the game practically goes on auto-pilot until a result is obtained. And, while many people refered to casualty removal tactics as shenanigans, the fact was that they allowed a more skilled player an edge over the raw statistical matchup that two assault units had. I agree, some of the casualty removal tricks were dumb. I did not like (although I understood) the ability to deny a model it's attacks by pulling the right models.

I disagree with you as to what constitutes a strategic choice as opposed to a tactical one. Overall strategic choices that a player makes (IMO) would be how they deploy and whether they plan to push up the left, middle or right flank. Or things like deciding to hold their force in reserve and outflank or Deep strike with X number of units. In other words, how is the army as a whole going to approach this game.

The tactics in 40K are now most exclusively on a unit-based level. So I do agree with you that they did take almost all of the individual model-based tactics out of an assault, such as tactical casualty pulling, combat-stalling, etc.

And frankly, I believe this is exactly what needed to be done to 40K. It is a unit based game that just happens to use individual models because they are cool looking. When a unit charges into combat they shouldn't have some god-like ability to decide that they only want to kill a couple of enemies so they can stay locked in combat a little bit longer. That just doesn't make any sense from any common sense point-of-view from the models fighting in the close combat or from a unit-based level. Overall the only thing that should ultimately matter is if unit 'A' is better than unit 'B' in combat.

So instead, all the tactical decisions are made at the squad level:

Do I move the unit or not to maximize shooting and/or cover?
Do I keep my unit bunched together (to maximize cover and to be able to charge as a clump) or spread out (to avoid blast weapons but lose cover bonuses and be more suscpetible to not having every model get into combat on the charge/counter-charge)?
Do I shoot or run or do I need to assault with this unit and if so do I still fire (if so, at what unit)?
Do I charge into cover or stand and shoot and let them charge me next turn?
If I charge will I win the combat? If no, am I likely to get run down? If so, can I send multiple units into the combat to try to win it?
As an assaulter, do I push my luck and assault multiple enemy units?


Once you add in the outflank rules, transported units, etc you have all sorts of tactical choices that a player has to make but they are all at the unit level.


I would certainly agree that certain builds with certain armies lend themselves to a more singular strategy, such as horde Orks, but that's really up to the player to decide if he likes the 'style' of that army. The more diverse an army is, with units capable of different types of deployment (infiltrate, outflank, deep strike) the more choices you'll have of ways to play.


Finally, there still are tarpit units, but not as many.

Gaunts, for example still work wonderfully as a tarpit, but they just suffer horrendous extra damage for doing so (rightly so, IMO).

Other pinner horde units like Grots and Conscripts are now better used as a bullet-screen to give a cover save. But I do disagree that these horde units are incapable of contributing to combat. The fact is, in most cases the majority of the models in the unit will get to swring in combat and if you have the numbers you absolutely can win a combat with these units. This is especially true if you charge them in along with another CC unit of yours.

But the change is now that as the commander you actually have to assess the situation and decide if your models can actually win the combat, and if they can't you're better off doing something else with your unit than suicidally sending them to their death in close combat.

Nevermind.

yakface wrote:

The tactics in 40K are now most exclusively on a unit-based level. So I do agree with you that they did take almost all of the individual model-based tactics out of an assault, such as tactical casualty pulling, combat-stalling, etc.

And frankly, I believe this is exactly what needed to be done to 40K. It is a unit based game that just happens to use individual models because they are cool looking. When a unit charges into combat they shouldn't have some god-like ability to decide that they only want to kill a couple of enemies so they can stay locked in combat a little bit longer. That just doesn't make any sense from any common sense point-of-view from the models fighting in the close combat or from a unit-based level. Overall the only thing that should ultimately matter is if unit 'A' is better than unit 'B' in combat.

And, yet, winning combat is based on counting models, not unit's strength. A 200 point kroot unit that loses 5 kroot has lost 17% of it's effective strength. A 200 point terminator unit that loses one terminator has lost 20% of its effective strength. If your assertion that everything is unit based was correct, the kroot would have won this fight. But, the terminators did, and convincingly, by 4 wounds.

But the change is now that as the commander you actually have to assess the situation and decide if your models can actually win the combat, and if they can't you're better off doing something else with your unit than suicidally sending them to their death in close combat.

I understand this. It goes against the fluff. It goes against real-world military history. It detracts from the game, in my opinion. As a general, one should be able to send men to their death to buy time. It should be a more reliable move than hoping your guys hit and that your opponent doesn't make his omnipresent 4+ cover save.

Hold on...wasn't aware you could hold back on attacks, and certainly, now everyone has a watered down Counter Attack, you can't just pick and choose how many you kill. If you can attack, you must attack.

Gaunts, for example still work wonderfully as a tarpit, but they just suffer horrendous extra damage for doing so (rightly so, IMO).

Yeah, just make sure that they aren't too close to your other shooty units if they get assualted. I was shielding warriors w/ guants and had a transport tank shock the guants and then unload its contents into CC with the guants, DS warriors and a Sniper Tyrant. Oponents CC units targeted guants. I lose cc by 6 wounds. Every unit takes 6 armour saves = 2/3 warriors wiped out, guants wiped out, and HT dead. The hit to my ego still hurts .

Just takes a little getting used to I guess.

You can hold back on shooting certain guns but I don't remember anything about holding back on CC?

Redbeard wrote:I understand this. It goes against the fluff. It goes against real-world military history. It detracts from the game, in my opinion. As a general, one should be able to send men to their death to buy time. It should be a more reliable move than hoping your guys hit and that your opponent doesn't make his omnipresent 4+ cover save.

Well, you can send your men to certain death to try to buy time. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will listen to you. If a group of Guardsmen charge in, drag down a Terminator but get 4 of their own smashed in return, it's probably pretty hard for them to keep the momentum going. Sure, in a straight points comparison the Guard is ahead, but it's rather doubtful that the soldiers fighting are busy calculating odds at the time. They've simply lost more men then the Marines have, and their break check is modified to take that into account. While the image of a crazed horde of men/beasts/chickens pouring over the defenders is nice, Guardsmen (minus Chem-inhalers) aren't that way. I also like the idea of elite troops holding out against the onslaught of numbers, forcing the attackers back through sheer fighting ability (cue 300 or any action movie really).

I'm not sure where the real-world military history part comes from either. It's awfully rare for soldiers to fight to the last man in any conflict. In close combat especially, men tend to surrender once the fight starts going drastically against them. Of course, this doesn't stop them from getting killed anyways.

IMO tarpitting of units without any way to break free was an annoying part of the game in 4th. In 5th, being able to cause the same situation over an objective would have been terrible. Having an endless fight with no way to shoot them down or leave combat would probably mean that objective just got tossed out the window.

spmusubi wrote:
Well, you can send your men to certain death to try to buy time. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will listen to you.
...
While the image of a crazed horde of men/beasts/chickens pouring over the defenders is nice, Guardsmen (minus Chem-inhalers) aren't that way.

They are in the fluff. There is a reason why commissars exist.

I'm not sure where the real-world military history part comes from either. It's awfully rare for soldiers to fight to the last man in any conflict. In close combat especially, men tend to surrender once the fight starts going drastically against them. Of course, this doesn't stop them from getting killed anyways.

There is a difference between fighting to the last man, and running away because you took 15% casualties. As for your assertion, it kind of depends on the mentality of the culture in the fight. The WWII Japanese are one example. The Spartans that you mentioned above are another. 15% casualties are, relatively speaking, nothing to be worried about. It's only in the current media-aware world where every single soldier's death is broadcast as a lead item on the nightly news that people have been concerned about lone casualties in war. Consider that fewer people have died in four years in Iraq than died in a single day in WWI. (Sources: iCasualty.org, wikipedia: Battle of the Somme) If your assertion was correct, why didn't those WWI soldiers refuse to go over the top? Because they were soldiers. They were trained and indoctrinated to give their lives for their country. Now, replace that mentality with 'For the Emperor', and why exactly are 40 guardsmen going to run away simply because 5 of them died dragging down one terminator?

It's a BS rule. It's unrealistic, it severely penalizes armies that relied upon cheap, expendable troops to engage in wars of attrition. Instead, they're forced to hope that their opponent fails some saves before getting to combat, and just lose if they make it?

Depends on how the Casualties were caused.

Precision kills are unnerving enough, but having a fellow squaddie literally pulped by an 8' tall superhuman in armour thicker than your APC's is bound to be somewhat unnerving, nes pas?

Go read Imperial Infantrymans Uplifting Primer for an idea of just how deluded a Guardsman will be until it's too late!

Redbeard wrote:...they can just wait for their new codex, which will, no doubt, include two or three must-have special characters that will allow their army to survive in the new 5th ed environment.

Ouch, ha ha ha, yea that sure seems to be the way it is going, funny.

Redbeard wrote:It's a poorly thought-out mish-mash of rules that doesn't work well. It blatantly rewards some armies and penalizes others. As someone mentioned earlier, the whole idea is that if I have the same number of points as you, our forces should be somewhat even. ...this ruleset is worse than 4e. I gave it a chance, I've played games, and I'm not a fan.

It's a big bucket of different, for no obvious reasons. I agree with you about CC being a MAJOR issue, but thats not all the game is about. I still like 5th, but not the CC and morale rules.

wyomingfox wrote:

Gaunts, for example still work wonderfully as a tarpit, but they just suffer horrendous extra damage for doing so (rightly so, IMO).

Yeah, just make sure that they aren't too close to your...

You have to be kidding, gaunts do NOT make a wonderful tarpit unit. They are a complete liability in or out of synapse range, they have almost no chance to win any melee.

I have a unit of 30 I play and in melee, Marneus calgar single handed defeated all 30 of them in a single turn at the Vegas GT, they ailed their morale check and were run down by one guy, in one turn. In other games, where they are in hive mind range they have lost 8 model easily in asingle average charge and then as they were fearless lost another 7 more or so, and were easily killed in my opponents next phase, not tarpitting at all.

It doesn't work either way, I have played the games to prove it!

By the very nature of the rules tarpitting doesnt work, that is the problem...

IMO it is also what is really stupid about WHFB, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in WHFB between 20 Goblins that get the maximum rank bonus and 100 goblins that get.... the exact same rank bonus, except that the bigger unit costs 5x as much. IMO combat run downs are THE STUPIDEST PART of warhammer rules, and now they are in 40k too, great...

spmusubi wrote:

Redbeard wrote:I understand this. It goes against the fluff. It goes against real-world military history. It detracts from the game, in my opinion. As a general, one should be able to send men to their death to buy time. It should be a more reliable move than hoping your guys hit and that your opponent doesn't make his omnipresent 4+ cover save.

Well, you can send your men to certain death to try to buy time. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will listen to you. If a group of Guardsmen charge in, drag down a Terminator but get 4 of their own smashed in return, it's probably pretty hard for them to keep the momentum going. Sure, in a straight points comparison the Guard is ahead, but it's rather doubtful that the soldiers fighting are busy calculating odds at the time.....

Uh yea, but where that falls apart is they are more than happy to march strait into withering gunfire to the last man, so explain that...?

I think people are missing at least part of the point. Sure, some of the units are superhuman soldiers. That's fine. But other units, their whole point is that they're not-so-superhuman soldiers that use strength in numbers to win. This no longer exists. They lose and run or get swept every time, unless they are fearless, and even then they get reamed by even one or two living enemies who are outnumbered 5:1 or more.

Pointing out the ways that 5e combat improved is not an answer to the other problems. Yes, it's quicker and it's about squads not characters and there's less weird charging in a line or tying people up with really god-awful but fearless units. People get that. Some of those are good, really, I agree.

But right now, I can send 30, 40, 50, even 60 weak or lower initiative guys against 10, and if I get unlucky and leave one of those 10 alive, I'm probably testing on a 5. 40 vs 10 turns into 1 against 28 and I get a -3?! What? It's a system that breaks down very, very badly in the outlying cases, and a system that penalizes any unit that should be decent in combat but relied on numbers in 5e.

I don't expect the rules to change, obviously. And I can understand absracting it out to say "well, that morale test and them getting swept is just part of the overall battle". Thats fine. But there's something about an obvious sure victory in combat being turned into "you got swept" because of 3 or 4 more casualties than the opponent that really ticks me off.

Augustus wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:

Gaunts, for example still work wonderfully as a tarpit, but they just suffer horrendous extra damage for doing so (rightly so, IMO).

Yeah, just make sure that they aren't too close to your...

You have to be kidding, gaunts do NOT make a wonderful tarpit unit. They are a complete liability in or out of synapse range, they have almost no chance to win any melee.

I have a unit of 30 I play and in melee, Marneus calgar single handed defeated all 30 of them in a single turn at the Vegas GT, they ailed their morale check and were run down by one guy, in one turn. In other games, where they are in hive mind range they have lost 8 model easily in asingle average charge and then as they were fearless lost another 7 more or so, and were easily killed in my opponents next phase, not tarpitting at all.

It doesn't work either way, I have played the games to prove it!

By the very nature of the rules tarpitting doesnt work, that is the problem...

IMO it is also what is really stupid about WHFB, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in WHFB between 20 Goblins that get the maximum rank bonus and 100 goblins that get.... the exact same rank bonus, except that the bigger unit costs 5x as much. IMO combat run downs are THE STUPIDEST PART of warhammer rules, and now they are in 40k too, great...

Riiiight.....you do know Gaunts really ought to be caught firmly in a Synaptic Web, don't you? No point complaining about them getting blatted and being a rubbish Tarpit if you didn't exploit their Fearless potential, is there?

What ever happened to using units in unison? Happens all the time in Fantasy. My ranged troops shave off your Ranks here and there, swinging combats favourably, and the unit that approached relatively unmolested are either jumped by Heavy Infantry and a Character, or ganged up on by lighter troops and a Flank charge.

Why should 40k be any different? Try sticking some Genestealers in with your Gaunts next time. Or perhaps a Carnifex, seeing as it can now keep up thanks to the rules for Running.

I really feel all that is needed is a period of adjustment to the new rules. A lot more has changed than some people might realise, particularly since Victory Conditions focus a lot less on annihilating the enemy, and a lot more on playing tactically.

What does real world combat have to do with game where many guns have a range just beyond what they can charge in a comparable amount of time, space elves, wizards and mutant bugs?

His point is that their "Fearless Potential" is pretty much wasted in Synapse as well, since they can get buzzsawed through fairly quickly due to the new rules.

Their whole point was to be effective tarpits,but 5th edition pretty much killed the entire notion of that.

Killed one notion, opened up another.

I really don't fancy trying to dislodge a Brood of Gaunts from an Objective. Soooo many wounds to grind through, and whilst I'm doing that, inevitably (where the synergy comes in) something bigger and nastier will be coming to their aid.

Yup, throw Gaunts into combat with a Carnifex alongside them and while the Carnifex wins the combat, the Gaunts win the Sweeping Advance.

Redbeard wrote:

spmusubi wrote:
Well, you can send your men to certain death to try to buy time. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will listen to you.
...
While the image of a crazed horde of men/beasts/chickens pouring over the defenders is nice, Guardsmen (minus Chem-inhalers) aren't that way.

They are in the fluff. There is a reason why commissars exist.

Commissars can get the men moving, however once they're locked into close combat, why should the Guardsmen care if one of them gets shot by him when to stay means that more of them will be killed by the enemy? This is even reflected in the old Guard codex rules where if a Commissar reroll failed, the Guardsmen killed the Commissar and ran off anyways.

Guardsmen (and Commissars) are only human, after all. Being able to always stand against overwhelming force by shooting a single man seems rather out-of-character. Summary execution is probably a great way to motivate a unit wavering under incoming fire, but I doubt it works in hand-to-hand fighting. Fluff-wise, I recall plenty of stories where a unit is pinned down/thinking of running/already in full retreat where the Commissar shoots a man or two as an example, and brings the unit back into line. When a unit is face to face with the chainsaw wielding maniacs and getting chopped up, I'm not sure a Commissar shooting one man is going to have any benefit at all. Heck, why not motivate the troops by shooting one of the enemy instead?

There is a difference between fighting to the last man, and running away because you took 15% casualties. As for your assertion, it kind of depends on the mentality of the culture in the fight. The WWII Japanese are one example. The Spartans that you mentioned above are another. 15% casualties are, relatively speaking, nothing to be worried about. It's only in the current media-aware world where every single soldier's death is broadcast as a lead item on the nightly news that people have been concerned about lone casualties in war. Consider that fewer people have died in four years in Iraq than died in a single day in WWI. (Sources: iCasualty.org, wikipedia: Battle of the Somme)

If your assertion was correct, why didn't those WWI soldiers refuse to go over the top? Because they were soldiers. They were trained and indoctrinated to give their lives for their country. Now, replace that mentality with 'For the Emperor', and why exactly are 40 guardsmen going to run away simply because 5 of them died dragging down one terminator?

Of course they didn't refuse to go over the top into no-man's land. However, once they were advancing, their training, officers and patriotism failed in the face of machine gun fire. Once engaged, their morale broke and they most definitely fled the field. WWI trench warfare was a massive meatgrinder that showed that no matter the motivation of your troops, human morale can only take so much.

Off-topic: Any major war has had greater casualties then the current conflict in Iraq. The Battle of Antietam (US Civil War) had 20k casualties in another single day battle. Sekigahara (Japan) was much the same despite being 200 years earlier. Agincourt (France) was even earlier and resulted in 6-7k casualties.

It's a BS rule. It's unrealistic, it severely penalizes armies that relied upon cheap, expendable troops to engage in wars of attrition. Instead, they're forced to hope that their opponent fails some saves before getting to combat, and just lose if they make it?

IMO the ability of Commissars to always pass morale checks is much more unrealistic. While troops hopped up on various drugs (Chem-inhalers) could conceivably perform human wave attacks successfully, a "normal" Guardsman would find it very hard to stand up against an enemy killing more of his squadmates then they lose, regardless of the game point values of such.

It's the same reason desertion was relatively rare amongst British Troops in WW1.

Run away, and when inevitably captured, you WERE shot and killed, or go over the top, where you'll only be *probably* shot and killed.

Tiny chances and that.

Going back to the Gaunts and the Fex thingy....

Sure, if the combat goes badly, your Fex will be taking wounds as well. But that requires you to have entered into a combat of your own volition that is even remotely fair. And frankly, why would you do a silly thing like that? Genestealers, Broodlords and Lictors are there to tackle nasty stuff like Command Squads, what with decent WS, high I and Rending. Raveners can be used in support of a multitude of units, and Warriors are a tasty Jack of All Trades, which are as at home supplying a lone Carnifex or Tyrant with extra attacks, or adding much needed punch to your weedier units.

Augustus wrote:

spmusubi wrote:

Redbeard wrote:I understand this. It goes against the fluff. It goes against real-world military history. It detracts from the game, in my opinion. As a general, one should be able to send men to their death to buy time. It should be a more reliable move than hoping your guys hit and that your opponent doesn't make his omnipresent 4+ cover save.

Well, you can send your men to certain death to try to buy time. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will listen to you. If a group of Guardsmen charge in, drag down a Terminator but get 4 of their own smashed in return, it's probably pretty hard for them to keep the momentum going. Sure, in a straight points comparison the Guard is ahead, but it's rather doubtful that the soldiers fighting are busy calculating odds at the time.....

Uh yea, but where that falls apart is they are more than happy to march strait into withering gunfire to the last man, so explain that...?

Huh? They take break tests, which are representative of the Guardsmen thinking that maybe advancing into the guns isn't such a great idea after all. Sorry, I think I must be misunderstanding you here.

Nurglitch wrote:Yup, throw Gaunts into combat with a Carnifex alongside them and while the Carnifex wins the combat, the Gaunts win the Sweeping Advance.

That is the stupidest thing I ever heard, I know that sounds like an outright flame, but allow me to reposte

Throwing a Carnifex (or genestealers etc.) in with a gaunt unit gets everyone killed (all the tyranids) because the target will focus all their attacks on the gaunts, when the gaunts die, the tyranids loose the melee on MODEL COUNT and the carnifex and the genestealers both have to take saves because the little guants got skwished. Its the double indemnity, in fact sending in the gaunts too might make the tyranids loose the melee by model count! It really makes NO SENSE to send in combined waves like that, the carnifex or better units are actually better going in ALONE!

spmusubi wrote:Huh? They take break tests, which are representative of the Guardsmen thinking that maybe advancing into the guns isn't such a great idea after all. Sorry, I think I must be misunderstanding you here.

Imagine if a unit took shooting morale tests at -1 for every model killed in the shooting phase... Thats how the morale checks in CC are, see what I mean?

Actually in CC it is even worse, imagine if in shooting you had to take a morale test at -1 for every casualty in a unit in 2 inches of a friendly target unit, thats REALLY how CC morale works out...

Voodoo Boyz wrote:His point is that their "Fearless Potential" is pretty much wasted in Synapse as well, since they can get buzzsawed through fairly quickly due to the new rules.

Their whole point was to be effective tarpits,but 5th edition pretty much killed the entire notion of that.

Yes exactly.

Augustus wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Yup, throw Gaunts into combat with a Carnifex alongside them and while the Carnifex wins the combat, the Gaunts win the Sweeping Advance.

That is the stupidest thing I ever heard, I know that sounds like an outright flame, but allow me to reposte

Throwing a Carnifex (or genestealers etc.) in with a gaunt unit gets everyone killed (all the tyranids) because the target will focus all their attacks on the gaunts, when the gaunts die, the tyranids loose the melee on MODEL COUNT and the carnifex and the genestealers both have to take saves because the little guants got skwished. Its the double indemnity, in fact sending in the gaunts too might make the tyranids loose the melee by model count! It really makes NO SENSE to send in combined waves like that, the carnifex or better units are actually better going in ALONE!

Please go back and read all of my post.

"Sure, if the combat goes badly, your Fex will be taking wounds as well. But that requires you to have entered into a combat of your own volition that is even remotely fair. And frankly, why would you do a silly thing like that? Genestealers, Broodlords and Lictors are there to tackle nasty stuff like Command Squads, what with decent WS, high I and Rending. Raveners can be used in support of a multitude of units, and Warriors are a tasty Jack of All Trades, which are as at home supplying a lone Carnifex or Tyrant with extra attacks, or adding much needed punch to your weedier units. "

I agree, if you are doing the assaulting, the carnifex/genestealers is better off without the support of guants who really put the wound totals in your opponents favor. I really think the moral of the story is don't assault with guants and don't let your guants drag your support units into CC when they get assualted.

Moreover, if you plan on supporting an stealer carnifex assault with guants, it means that your stealers and carnifexes must be in close proximity to your guants. Given this you are just as likely to get assualted as you are to assault, and expect your opponent to get into CC with not only your guants but to snipe either your stealers or Carnifex in the process. The opponent directs his attacks at your guants hitting them on 3+, wounding on 3+ (or 2+ if they have furios charge) and you get a 6+ armour save means that even with the carnifexes meager support you are going to lose the wound contests. Genestealers scenario gives you better odds as they can dish out more wounds than a carnifex, only don't rely on their rending against MEQ and terminators due to wound allocation consolidating rends onto a minimum # of models.

Also, I don't know of too many Nid players who look at warriors and see them as Jack of All Trades Awesomeness. Good with deathspitters, not that great in CC compared to other units. Saw some CC warriors in 4th when they were beasts and could FoF and assult 12 inches (before the latest codex came out).

Why are you tarpitting in a Nids army? You have the games most brutal cc unit, why do you need to tarpit? Tarpit with a Carnifex that can't be killed.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Its just a strawman argument Ozymandias, an example, something that was in 4th and was a certain way, and now is very different. Thats all.

The why isn't important. Maybe the carnifex was shot with lascannons.

The end result is the same. A game that claims to be all about units has a combat system that doesn't pay attention to proportional unit strength but, rather, individual models. You can make any excuses for this that you want. Gaunts shouldn't be in combat. Gaunts should be in synapse, gaunts shouldn't be in synapse, guardsmen shouldn't be in combat. Marneus is so 1337 that he should have no problem killing 40 guardsmen in a turn. Kroot aren't an assault unit...

At the end of the day, it's poor game design. When unit of 30 ork sluggas wipes out half of a unit of 10 khorne berserkers at the cost of 7 boyz and can be said to have lost that engagement, there's a problem. All of a sudden, we're back to skirmish mechanics in our unit-based game.

You can't have it both ways. Either, they went to a nice, elegant unit-based system to speed up the game and remove the skirmishy stuff in shooting, in which case you should see the flaw in game design in keeping model-based rules in combat resolution, OR they want to maintain some sort of skirmish feel, in which case the ability to shoot models that you cannot see in a True-Line-of-Sight system is a flaw. One way or the other, it's an inconsistent approach, and it plays as such.

I'd like to ad I have seen the rise of some new tactics:

Minimizing the number of units you engage when you charge so that the enemy unit intentionally survives, that way, you dont end up with your assault unit out of melee in the opponents turn.

It's about as gamey as casualty removal tactics were before, you just have to think ahead a little when you move your chargers in the movement phase so that only one or 2 actually go into melee in the turn they charge...

Isn't there a good probability of backfire as the enemy counter attacks? He ends up getting his entire unit into combat with your 2 guys. Opponent get more wounds that like shooting can be distributed to your entire squad...even those guys who are not in combat. You end up scoring only less wounds with your 2 guys who are the only ones fighting on your side...- modifier = you lose combat and run or take more wounds.

Augustus wrote:

spmusubi wrote:Huh? They take break tests, which are representative of the Guardsmen thinking that maybe advancing into the guns isn't such a great idea after all. Sorry, I think I must be misunderstanding you here.

Imagine if a unit took shooting morale tests at -1 for every model killed in the shooting phase... Thats how the morale checks in CC are, see what I mean?

Actually in CC it is even worse, imagine if in shooting you had to take a morale test at -1 for every casualty in a unit in 2 inches of a friendly target unit, thats REALLY how CC morale works out...

Close combat has always had different morale rolls then shooting though. It's more decisive (in 4th also) simply because the losing unit can be completely destroyed on a failed morale check which is something that usually doesn't happen to units getting shot, unless they run off the board. 5th has made this ability even stronger through the combat resolution modifiers, but removed the ability to consolidate into other units. I'm not sure why this this goes against both fluff and real-world military history, as the fluff often brings up situations where units falter under a strong close combat assault (William King is a frequent writer of this), attempt to run away and are cut down from behind. I'm sure that this is not an infrequent occurrence in real life as well.

Regardless, trying to rationalize why the game works the way it does based off on stories is not a really good way of figuring things out, as I'm sure we're all aware. I'm also afraid I don't quite see why proportional unit strength is so important to determine the winner of a combat. If I have a 100 Ork Green Tide, should it never be possible for me to lose combat? Ever? Superior numbers have their place, but it's hardly a guaranteed victory IRL (back to the Battle of the Somme example). Why should it be that way in the game?

In a valiant effor to increase my post count, I'm going to post this here as well (from the other 'What do you think about 5th Ed' thread):



With the Dark Angels, I can take Terminators as Elites, as you'd expect, but I can also alter my list via a Special Character and take them as Troops. So... why can these Terminators score and these ones can't?

Ok, there are some (feeble) arguments as to why the ones in a non-Deathwing army couldn't, but let's look at Blood Angels.

They can take Assault Squads as Troops and Fast Attack in the same list, no alteration or requirements for Special Characters. Now you can take two identical units, but one is Troops, one is FA, and only the Troops one can score.

One Guardsman will hold an objective over 10 Chaos Terminators. A lone Grot can stare down a Hive Tyrant W/Tyrant Guard and not flinch, 'cause he can somehow score, yet they can only contest.

I agree with Syr when he says that the Dev Team is finally asking what they want Troops to do in this game. They've made the change in the typical ham-fisted way GW makes all sweeping changes, but they have taken a step forward in that they're thinking about where they want this game to go.

That said I do not share his optimism (are you surprised?) when he says:

"[W]ill 5th edition be the one where the design team figures out that all FOC options must have some kind of synergy, if not to every other choice, then to an array of choices, so that multiple builds are possible and viable, and every unit has its synergy with the army as a whole, especially troop chocies?"

I would posit that the Dev Team has already worked this out but have chosen specifically not to design their game in this way. This isn't because they are incapable of it (as much as cynicism clouds my posts, I am certain that if they wanted to, they could write a damned fine ruleset - they have with other systems), but because they don't want to do it. Or, more accurately, their first loyalty is to their business model, and the above suggestion of Syr's would compromise that model.

In a perfect world, "FOC options [would] have some ... synergy... so that multiple builds are possible and viable, and every unit has its synergy with the army as a whole...". This is a fantastic idea for writing a game, and it is certainly something our group has strived for with our 40K Revisited Project, but the major difference between us and Games Workshop is that we don't have to sell new model kits.

As long as their focus remains on selling miniatures (and I see no reason why this would change), then Syr's perfect notion will never come to pass. If all units had synergy, if lots of different builds were viable, then there'd be nothing new to sell (unless you changed the rules wholesale between editions, but that would just annoy people).

If the rules came first, and they made sure that everything worked within the rules before they even considered a single new kit, their business would collapse or they'd have to be a much smaller company (ala. Catalyst Game Labs & Iron Wind Metals). You'd have to rely on new players and people wanting to update models, not on making a new kit and giving it killer rules whilst simultaneously nerfing the stuff that was good in the previous edition (just look at the new Marine Codex if you want a great example of this type of design philosophy).

So what has this got to do with scoring troops?

Well if we accept the fact that GW will always be a miniature company first, and a rules company last (and it is), then we can accept that they are always going to be swinging that pendulum as hard as they can between different versions of the same army or rules. What we shouldn't accept is when they do things like the scoring change.

The scoring change, from what I can tell, is their half-way attempt at doing what we want without, as I said, compromising their business model. From this we can see their desire to improve the game, but also see their servitude to the bean-counters that need to shift X units of Shiny New Model Kit #44C before the next shareholders meeting.

And this is where we get the notions of 'ham-fisted' game design and great ideas with failed executions (ala Guard Doctrines, Marine Traits, etc.). The scoring unit change, like the Doctrines and Traits, are ideas that have merit - great merit in some cases - but cannot be taken to their full because doing so would risk the 'miniature' side of things. If they didn't require you to buy more 'stuff' because their rules actually allowed you to tailor your list to bring about synergy, they wouldn't be shackled with these half-way measures when it comes to rules writing.

As much as I crap on with cheap remarks in other threads (and laugh heartily at those who take me too seriously in those), this is something I'm dead serious about:

GW either has to do one of two things:

1. Accept fully what and who they represent - a miniature company that writes rules to service those miniatures, and thusly stop making half-hearted attempts at actual game design that just end up screwing the players in the long run by creating a host of arbitrary and nonsensical rulings and problems.
2. Make some bold changes with the rules that don't cater to shiny new model kits and give us a well crafted rules system.

Sadly as long as GW remains in the financial position that it's in right now, the latter can never happen. The former isn't a bad thing though - I don't think GW simply giving up on being forward thinking with rules is a terrible alternative as it would give us a break from constantly shifting core concepts and we can get back to the usual constantly shifting unit dynamics due to changes within unit rules, not major core rules. All the former is is not ideal, and as I said to Syr's comment, we can't really live in an ideal world where GW writes great rules and continues to produce lots of great miniature kits - those two things are mutually exclusive for a company as large as them - but we can wish for them to give up on their clumsy missteps in 'fixing' the game and just let them play silly-buggers with Codex entries.

At least that's a pain only on the bank balance, not our sanity. We'll never have to ask "Why did they do that!???" in anger again, except for the answer is "To sell a new model kit", and that answer I'm fine with.

BYE

P.S. And before anyone jumps up and down claiming I'm coming up with a 'GW Conspiracy Theory' let me remind you that a conspiracy theory requires a certain amount of secretive behaviour and underhandedness. There's nothing secretive about GW's actions. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that with the new Marine Codex their goals and decisions are even more overt than ever before. They're not 'evil' for doing what they do, they're just a business. I just wish the dev team would figure that out and stop trying to be game designers in an environment that simply doesn't support forward thinking rules design and balance...

spmusubi wrote:
...I'm not sure why this this goes against both fluff and real-world military history, as the fluff often brings up situations where units falter under a strong close combat assault (William King is a frequent writer of this), attempt to run away and are cut down from behind. I'm sure that this is not an infrequent occurrence in real life as well.

It's not that a unit falters or runs under a hard assault, it's how quickly they do so. Ten guys charge Marneus. Marneus kills 2 without breaking a sweat. This is fine. The remaining eight run. Marneus catches all eight of them and kills them in a split second. This is not ok.

Under the old rules, those eight guys would test on their base morale until such a time as they were either below half strength or outnumbered. Under the new rules, units that are over half-strength and that outnumber the enemy face horrendous morale tests for losing combat by even a couple of guys. It makes close combat nearly impossible to win for units that have multiple, easily killed models, even if they inflict considerably more damage on a point-for-point basis.

I'm also afraid I don't quite see why proportional unit strength is so important to determine the winner of a combat.

Because the balance of the game is based on points, not model-count. 200 points of kroot (arguably an assault unit, and non-arguably the best assault unit available to the Tau) should stand a decent chance against 200 points of tactical marines (arguably not an assault unit). But they don't, because combat isn't based on which side inflicts more damage proportionally, only model count.

If I have a 100 Ork Green Tide, should it never be possible for me to lose combat? Ever?

If you have a 100 ork green tide, then you should probably win combat against anything less than 600 points of enemy assault specialists. Which should result in a mutual destruction fest. If you hit those orks with 1000 points of khorne berserkers (what's that, 45?) you should beat them handily.

Superior numbers have their place, but it's hardly a guaranteed victory IRL (back to the Battle of the Somme example). Why should it be that way in the game?

The discussion isn't just about superior numbers, it's about points too. If we have an equal amount of points, then, according to the game design, we're on roughly even footing. In some situations you might have an edge, in others, I might. But, under 5e, in assault, if my 500 points are spent on more numerous lower-quality troops, and yours are spent on fewer higher quality troops, I cannot win combat against you. I may inflict a greater percentage of casualties on you than you inflict on me, but by the very nature of having the lower quality men, you'll kill more models. Not more points, but more models. And so I always lose, in spite of the fact that, in theory, we're playing with equal forces, at 500 points.

Redbeard wrote:And, yet, winning combat is based on counting models, not unit's strength. A 200 point kroot unit that loses 5 kroot has lost 17% of it's effective strength. A 200 point terminator unit that loses one terminator has lost 20% of its effective strength. If your assertion that everything is unit based was correct, the kroot would have won this fight. But, the terminators did, and convincingly, by 4 wounds.

That seems entirely right, because 40k5 cares about the results of actually killing stuff, rather than a number of guys standing around and cheering. If the Kroot were kicking ass, then that would show up in the actual kills scored.

Consider 5 Assault Terminators at maximum coherency charged by equal points unit of 50 Conscripts (under the assumption that it's better to charge than be charged). By mathhammer, on average, those 5 Assault Terminators will have 15 attacks, score 10 hits, and kill 9 Conscripts. Let's assume that the Termies roll badly, so they only kill 5 Conscripts. That leaves 45 Conscripts to swing back, for 90 attacks, 45 hits, 15 wounds, 2.5 Termies killed. Let's round up and assume 3 Termies died.

Under 5th Edition, the 2 Termies won handily by 5-3 = 2 wounds, so the Ld5 Conscripts test on a 3+, and fail. If the Termies run them down, oh well. The Conscripts killed 120 pts of Termies, which is far more than what one would expect in a normal game. Hell, they probably earned the remaining 80 pts just by giving 4+ cover saves to more valuable units behind them.

So what's the problem?

[quote=Redbeard
The discussion isn't just about superior numbers, it's about points too. If we have an equal amount of points, then, according to the game design, we're on roughly even footing. In some situations you might have an edge, in others, I might. But, under 5e, in assault, if my 500 points are spent on more numerous lower-quality troops, and yours are spent on fewer higher quality troops, I cannot win combat against you. I may inflict a greater percentage of casualties on you than you inflict on me, but by the very nature of having the lower quality men, you'll kill more models. Not more points, but more models. And so I always lose, in spite of the fact that, in theory, we're playing with equal forces, at 500 points.

Redbeard wrote:

spmusubi wrote:
...I'm not sure why this this goes against both fluff and real-world military history, as the fluff often brings up situations where units falter under a strong close combat assault (William King is a frequent writer of this), attempt to run away and are cut down from behind. I'm sure that this is not an infrequent occurrence in real life as well.

It's not that a unit falters or runs under a hard assault, it's how quickly they do so. Ten guys charge Marneus. Marneus kills 2 without breaking a sweat. This is fine. The remaining eight run. Marneus catches all eight of them and kills them in a split second. This is not ok.

Wouldn't this be more of a complaint about the whole "sweeping advance" concept? Even under 4th, this was possible, it's just that it's a lot more likely now in 5th. Fluff-wise, broken or scattered beyond hope of regrouping isn't quite the same as Marneus chasing down every single man and tearing their head off. It's more like he does that to two, the others figure that this is a really bad idea, and run for the hills disregarding any regroup orders they may hear.

Under the old rules, those eight guys would test on their base morale until such a time as they were either below half strength or outnumbered. Under the new rules, units that are over half-strength and that outnumber the enemy face horrendous morale tests for losing combat by even a couple of guys. It makes close combat nearly impossible to win for units that have multiple, easily killed models, even if they inflict considerably more damage on a point-for-point basis.

I'm not sure that multiple, easily killed models should be winning close combat against heavily armoured elites. Against other light models, they'll do just fine.

I'm also afraid I don't quite see why proportional unit strength is so important to determine the winner of a combat.

Because the balance of the game is based on points, not model-count. 200 points of kroot (arguably an assault unit, and non-arguably the best assault unit available to the Tau) should stand a decent chance against 200 points of tactical marines (arguably not an assault unit). But they don't, because combat isn't based on which side inflicts more damage proportionally, only model count.

Now this can't be right. 40 Fire Warriors (400 pts) are highly unlikely to win a close combat against a 10 man Tactical squad (200pts). All models are not the same in different circumstances. At 30", sure those Fire Warriors are beating the tar out of the Marines, but in close combat, they don't stand a chance, 4th edition or 5th edition.

If I have a 100 Ork Green Tide, should it never be possible for me to lose combat? Ever?

If you have a 100 ork green tide, then you should probably win combat against anything less than 600 points of enemy assault specialists. Which should result in a mutual destruction fest. If you hit those orks with 1000 points of khorne berserkers (what's that, 45?) you should beat them handily.

Yet a single C'Tan or Wraithlord is invincible to the 100 Orks, despite costing half their points.

Superior numbers have their place, but it's hardly a guaranteed victory IRL (back to the Battle of the Somme example). Why should it be that way in the game?

The discussion isn't just about superior numbers, it's about points too. If we have an equal amount of points, then, according to the game design, we're on roughly even footing. In some situations you might have an edge, in others, I might. But, under 5e, in assault, if my 500 points are spent on more numerous lower-quality troops, and yours are spent on fewer higher quality troops, I cannot win combat against you. I may inflict a greater percentage of casualties on you than you inflict on me, but by the very nature of having the lower quality men, you'll kill more models. Not more points, but more models. And so I always lose, in spite of the fact that, in theory, we're playing with equal forces, at 500 points.

As I hope my examples have shown, I don't feel that this is the case at all. With an equal points allotment, we both have the option to build armies that put us on roughly even footing. If I buy nothing but Lootas and you bring a Land Raider, I cannot win the game by destroying it. I may be able to win through objective play, or some other means, but the Land Raider is indestructible regardless of the points differential.

In close combat, you can win by killing my entire unit, but yes, throwing large units of disposable troops at a hard to kill unit is no longer a good way to take them out of the game. Personally, I do not feel that this is a bad thing. Others may obviously differ.