On BoLS the other day, one of the articles I read that people complain about 5th edition. I came in on 5th, and i find the game system to be easy to learn, and I think the rules are pretty good.
What are the "complaints" about 5th ed.? I've never really seen this.

DoctorZombie wrote: On BoLS the other day, one of the articles I read that people complain about 5th edition. I came in on 5th, and i find the game system to be easy to learn, and I think the rules are pretty good.
What are the "complaints" about 5th ed.? I've never really seen this.

It's all a matter of perspective. Different people, different complaints.

The only things I'm not estatic about is the survivability of Deep Striking Units via Mishap. A one-third chance that the unit gets killed on mishap is way too shallow and doesn't involve that much risk anymore.

Secondly is the lack of an Auspex USR to detect Outflanking or Deep Striking Units. Again, there's too much cushioning for Reserved units.

I thought the auspex was a piece of wargear.
Isn't it that little motion detector kinda thing that you keep seeing on the space marine box examples, but that no one ever uses?

I think the expanded availability and application of Reserve rules, including Outflanking, is one of the coolest things about 5th. It virtually enlarges the board.

The main complaint I ever see about 5th is how the wound allocation rules work, and how they produce unrealistic and dumb outcomes. Like if I have a squad of three marines all with different equipment, and you're shooting at them with a squad if IG armed with 3 meltaguns and a bunch of lasguns, you're better off NOT shooting the lasguns. Because if you do, and inflict any wounds with them, I can use those to help me dump off multiple melta wounds onto a single model.

The only weakness 'i see is the vehicle damage charts. I would like to see a variation where AP2 and AP 3 would get a bonus on results. Less than melta but more than say a scatter laser.
Probably will require a 2d6 chart though so my hopes are not all that high.

Also don't like letter of the law True LOS. In practice not bad but get a rules lawer and it could be a LOOOONG game.

I started with 2nd edition, so have seen many rules changes. Cover used to make it harder to be hit, models with good armor could actualy take full advantage of cover, vehicles had acceleration and deceleration rules and individual damage charts, psychic powers where very different. Ap rules where much more realistic. Instead of the all or nothing that it is now they had save modifers, so a bolter had a better chance of penetrating armor than a lasgun. Basicaly it was a much more detailed, realistic game. People who like detail lament the newer editions, especialy 4th, as they tend to be insultingly simple. I don't hate 5th though. 5th is a step back towards detail were they're bringin back a lot of the older rules. For example everyone can run again because apparently all soldiers know how to run, not just Eldar. 5th ed cover rules and wound allocation are indeed horrible but all in all it's not a bad edition.

Now if they'll just bring back vortex grenades...

The biggest complaints I've come across have been to do with Wound Allocation (which is confusing for newcomers, and seen as open to abuse by competitive players) and TLOS... although the TLOS complaints are mostly from people who were playing 4th edition wrong, and still think that TLOS in 5th edition is something 'new'...

I'd like to see TLOS nixed.

I'd like to see KP system go in favor of VPs based upon unit/model cost.

I like the reserves/outflanking rules but would like to see "fast vehicles" be able to outflank as well in some capacity...

5th edition over compensated for how vulnerable vehicles were in 3rd and 4th edition. That is pretty much it. Other than Close Combat, which has always been over balanced.

IMO, the rearranging of phases (Shooting before Assaulting) and making units in a transport more vulnerable to vehicle destruction would be the only desired changes for me with 6th.

My biggest gripe coming from 4th was Wound Allocation, and the way morale is done in Close combat.

I always thought of the wound allocation weirdness as a result of the chaos of battle. If just three guys are taking shots, they all know which guy they are shooting at. If the whole squad is unloading hell, someone might be doubling up on a target.

Not to mention sometimes there is just one guy who is really unlucky.

I can see people's point though.

Wound allocation is dumb in a lot of ways. I guess that's been covered though.

Assault's emphasis on wounds inflicted with no consideration for outnumbering is insane. Lemme see, I have 30 guys, of which only a few are in range to get attacks (they were spread out). You have five guys who get to swing first with a few attacks. You kill 7 of mine, I kill four of yours. I now outnumber you 23-1, but I 'lost' combat and your one guy gets to cut all of mine down on an initiative check....

Unless... I'm fearless, in which case, holy crap, don't ever get in a multi-combat, because no retreat is also insanely unfair in this edition. You win by 5... but I have three fearless units in the combat, so I take 15 wounds - again, regardless of whether I outnumber you 23-1 at that point. You know, cause that one guy is hammering down those 23 fearless dudes with such ferocity...

Being able to take casualties from anywhere in assault is dumb and penalizes models that rely on their initiative to survive instead of their armour or toughness. Eldar and similar races simply cannot assault large units because they'll never kill the models who get to attack and die to the return swings.

True Line of Sight is a joke. If I see one model in your unit, I can kill the entire unit. Supposedly this helps avoid sniping important models with unrealistic tactics, but it's kind of hard to believe that you're getting a overhead view of the battle when models you can't see are dying.

Vehicles are too survivable and too cheap, lending to parking lot battles and list design focused on taking as few models as possible in order to be able to buy their overly cost-effective transport.

At the same time, the change to what counts as defensive weaponry also encourages parking-lot syndrome, as most vehicles are unable to move and fire effectively. Kind of a bummer that advanced races of space aliens with flying tanks can't even target as effectively as 20th century Abrams tanks.

Though, it's not all bad. The reserves, outflanking and objective systems are very nice. Seize the initiative rules are also good. A lot of the mission design parts of 5th ed are better than prior versions. Unfortunately, the metagame shifts as a result of the other rules have really lessened my enjoyment of the game.

The big complaints for 5th edition as far as I am aware are the following:

• Wound allocation. Abundance of 3++ and FNP in 5E codices has increased this issue.
• Vehicle damage table. Makes vehicles more of an auto include (versus the risk vs reward aspect of previous editions) as well as making 40k more of a FoW mech style environment. Cheap pricing on transports has increased this issue.
• 4+ Cover saves. Further mechs the 40k environment.
• Codices. Codex quality has largely declined from previous editions and releases have largely focused on IoM/Space Marines (with only a small handful of non IoM/SM releases).

Ideally 6E edition would need to target these 4 aspects if they wish to target the criticisms of 5E.

4+ blanket cover gets a little annoying.

Wound allocation has never really bothered me, most poeple I play dont try to abuse it.

I think Redbeard summed up how I feel about close combat.

I've seen my scarabs swarms get decimated because of this..

CthuluIsSpy wrote:I thought the auspex was a piece of wargear.
Isn't it that little motion detector kinda thing that you keep seeing on the space marine box examples, but that no one ever uses?

Was taken out of the rules. If I remember correctly it did something about infiltrating or deep striking not sure which. It's decorative at the moment though.

DoctorZombie wrote: On BoLS the other day, one of the articles I read that people complain about 5th edition. I came in on 5th, and i find the game system to be easy to learn, and I think the rules are pretty good.
What are the "complaints" about 5th ed.? I've never really seen this.

I found rules in 5'th edition great and easy to learn ( especially I am glad because blast markers and scatter dice ).
Why is 5'th edition hated? Ask our "Spiritual League" for that.

I couldn't stand TLOS - because the terrain made by GW is not in the same scale as the vehicles, meaning that hiding behind a hill out of sight was impossible (Devilfish on a flying base). Sure I'm hull down but I'd rather my opponent not shoot me at all!

For me, for TLOS to work, you'd need everything to be in the same scale so the actual model is hidden by the same sized piece of terrain, rather than terrain thats representative of a hill etc....

If you had a board full of terrain to block LoS to most vehicles you would be a bit restricted in open ground and such, making a large centrepiece to do the job shouldnt be out of the realm of possibility though.

DoctorZombie wrote: On BoLS the other day, one of the articles I read that people complain about 5th edition. I came in on 5th, and i find the game system to be easy to learn, and I think the rules are pretty good.
What are the "complaints" about 5th ed.? I've never really seen this.

There's always been a lot of complaints about 5E, just like any other edition.

Ubiquitous cover saves, Kill points, wound allocation gimmicks, defensive weapons rules, squadron rules, FNP, No-Retreat!, etc.



Many of the problems lots of people have with 5th though are issues with codex design rather than the core rules themselves, and that problem stems from the 5th edition rules being the last product of an outbound studio designer coupled with most of the 5E books being written by designers who have never done any 40k material prior to 5th edition, especially the first two books released after 5E was released (Space Marines and Imperial Guard).

I think people whine overly much about cover saves. Most terrain based cover need not be 4+. There are plenty of examples of 3+, 5+ and 6+ in the main rule book. Does anybody even look at that? That wire fence is not giving you a 4+ cover save at all its a 6+. The grass your standing in; its a 5+. The only real cover save I would change is from units supplying cover. It certainly shouldn't be 4+. I'd probably change it to 5+ or even 6+.

andrewm9 wrote:I think people whine overly much about cover saves. Most terrain based cover need not be 4+. There are plenty of examples of 3+, 5+ and 6+ in the main rule book. Does anybody even look at that? That wire fence is not giving you a 4+ cover save at all its a 6+. The grass your standing in; its a 5+. The only real cover save I would change is from units supplying cover. It certainly shouldn't be 4+. I'd probably change it to 5+ or even 6+.

Actually the 4+ there makes sense, as it represents them blocking the lines of fire.

However, I would prefer it that you could shoot through them normally, and any misses are resolved against the squad in the way. Makes more sense like that.

candy.man wrote:The big complaints for 5th edition as far as I am aware are the following:

• Codices. Codex quality has largely declined from previous editions and releases have largely focused on IoM/Space Marines (with only a small handful of non IoM/SM releases).

Ideally 6E edition would need to target these 4 aspects if they wish to target the criticisms of 5E.

I STRONGLY Disagree with the bolded statement. 4th Edition was the edition of bland and uninspired codexes. Every dex in 5th has been leaps and bounds above any 4th edition ones.

I tend to use common sence when playing 40k when it comes to the rules. I've not actually even read the latest edition of the rulebook, just taken note of the major changes. Rules like running are just plain annoying (so your Tyranid Gaunt can get to me quicker than my guardsman can shoot?) and the line of sight/wound allocation systems are plain stupid (I can see one of your men, but I caused ten instant kills...that means those nine guys standing behind that wall die too. ...Uh...right.). 5th edition's been a tad meh for me compared to what we had those previous, its just too full of stupid rules and a sort of arms race between the codexes to see which is the most overpowered. =/

I see where you're coming from. I think 6th just needs to tweak the current rules to better compensate for this. I could see if you only have LoS on one model, but have a multi-shot weapon, you only roll one die to represent the one guy you can see.

Wyrmalla wrote:I've not actually even read the latest edition of the rulebook,

I'm going to go ahead and stop you here.

Maybe you should go ahead and crack that badboy open before telling us what you don't like about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since this is basically the same thread as the 'wishes for 6th' thread, Imma cross post my response:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

pretre wrote:Ugh, the more I read of this and the '5th edition is hated' thread, the more I groan.

Ok, what ideas do you find terrible?

I think that 5th ed is great. Having played since the start of 3rd, I think that it is the best edition we've had. A lot of the ideas in the thread will bring us back to where we were in 3rd, which is a clear step backward.

If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

- Tighten up wound allocation.
(Perhaps assign or resolve all save ignoring wounds first then non-save ignoring wounds.)
- Make clear the distinctions between cover and that not everything should just be 4+ (something in the book P21, but not used right now). Move a couple around so that 4+ cover isn't quite as ubiquitous (Other Infantry gives you X+, ruins/area gives you X+, etc.) They need to be very careful of this or non-SM armies will be very hurt.
- Errata / update all books at the start of the edition (something they did with fantasy in 8th) but go a step further. Also have a living FAQ that is updated monthly with questions and answers.
(Full point and rule updates for every book at start would be ideal. Release it as a chapter approved cheap splatbook and as a PDF, also update books in the next printing. That way everyone has access to it. I.e. BT now pay X for Typhoon Launchers, GK now must have 5 minimum Henchmen in a squad, etc. Whatever they want.)
- Codify the most common mission types as 'standard missions' to expand standard play. Here's an example 6 x 6 table. 6 x 6 to make the rolling easy:(A table of VP, KP, d6 Objective, Terrain Features, Quarters, Escort/Assassination combined with Deployment (Quarters, Pitched, DoW, Short Edge 3rds, Diagonal, Breakthrough).
- Leave most of the rest alone.

We are very much in a 'be careful what you ask for' position right now. For example, as much as some might not like how we do assault resolution now, I remember assaults dragging on forever in previous editions. I also remember rhino rush, sweeping advance BS. I like that assaults are decisive in few rounds now, you either win big or go home. I remember having your lascannon guy sticking out and the rest of the squad behind cover so that there was no way for your opponent to shoot at the squad. I remember vehicles being deathtraps in multiple editions, etc so on. We don't need those things back.

Change for change's sake is a bad idea.

KplKeegan wrote:The only things I'm not estatic about is the survivability of Deep Striking Units via Mishap. A one-third chance that the unit gets killed on mishap is way too shallow and doesn't involve that much risk anymore.

Completely ignoring that the other 1/3 of a chance is your opponent putting it wherever he wants. It's a definite improvement over 4's 'die automatically.'

TLOS has always been part of the game, and it's generally a fine mechanic. Vehicle damage should be shaken up so riding in them isn't nearly 100% safe for those inside or around the tank. Strength 3 and 4 hits for people around and inside them isn't nearly dangerous enough. There should also be a few more results between "scratched paint" and a fireball. I think a 2d6 system could work.

I'd also like to see cover reduced, but not made ineffective. 4+ everywhere makes things a little too safe.

I really like 5th, but I think a few things need to be shaken up and changed for the better is all. I like it more than 3rd or 4th and it's probably the best version of the game so far. 6th just needs to take the lessons learned in 5th and apply them to some new and old ideas.

Brother SRM wrote:TLOS has always been part of the game, and it's generally a fine mechanic. Vehicle damage should be shaken up so riding in them isn't nearly 100% safe for those inside or around the tank. Strength 3 and 4 hits for people around and inside them isn't nearly dangerous enough. There should also be a few more results between "scratched paint" and a fireball. I think a 2d6 system could work.

I'd also like to see cover reduced, but not made ineffective. 4+ everywhere makes things a little too safe.

I really like 5th, but I think a few things need to be shaken up and changed for the better is all. I like it more than 3rd or 4th and it's probably the best version of the game so far. 6th just needs to take the lessons learned in 5th and apply them to some new and old ideas.

A Strength 4 hit against 10 guardsmen inside a Chimera is serious business for them considering a 5+ save with a T of 3. if you have a line of them and a deffrolla hits them you might very well lose 3 to 4 squads of guys along with their rides.

I notice that one of the main complaints seems to be the ubiquitous 4+ cover.

An unintended consequence of reducing the save to 5+ is that getting the first turn (or striking first) will be even more important, and armies that focus on long range fighting will have a significant advantage compared to 5th edition. Just an observation really...and this is coming from a Mech IG player. Basically, if we reduce the cover dynamic too much, it'll be entirely possible to blow an opponent off the field in one turn.


One issue I have with this edition is wounding: if a model is hit with something double its toughness, it should wound automatically. Not really sure how T3 models can survive a hit from a lascannon anywhere in the body...

andrewm9 wrote:
A Strength 4 hit against 10 guardsmen inside a Chimera is serious business for them considering a 5+ save with a T of 3. if you have a line of them and a deffrolla hits them you might very well lose 3 to 4 squads of guys along with their rides.

It's not that serious compared to 4th, where you could end up with a s5 explosion that rerolls to wound. A line of them getting deffrolla'd is a somewhat rare situation though, as any IG army should have the guns to deal with that on the side armor. That explosion is kinda scary for 10 Guardsmen, averaging about 4-5 kills, but for Marines it's a complete and utter joke. On average you might lose 1 or 2 Marines for riding in a cheap transport. I think upping it to strength 5 for those inside and strength 4 for those outside would be enough to make them a little more dangerous without making them rolling coffins again.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
One issue I have with this edition is wounding: if a model is hit with something double its toughness, it should wound automatically. Not really sure how T3 models can survive a hit from a lascannon anywhere in the body...

It could take your hand off but otherwise leave you unharmed...

NuggzTheNinja wrote:I notice that one of the main complaints seems to be the ubiquitous 4+ cover.

An unintended consequence of reducing the save to 5+ is that getting the first turn (or striking first) will be even more important, and armies that focus on long range fighting will have a significant advantage compared to 5th edition. Just an observation really...and this is coming from a Mech IG player. Basically, if we reduce the cover dynamic too much, it'll be entirely possible to blow an opponent off the field in one turn.


One issue I have with this edition is wounding: if a model is hit with something double its toughness, it should wound automatically. Not really sure how T3 models can survive a hit from a lascannon anywhere in the body...

I know about the last point...

"Eat my Multi Melta, Random Guardsman!"

"What the !"

KoganStyle wrote:I couldn't stand TLOS - because the terrain made by GW is not in the same scale as the vehicles, meaning that hiding behind a hill out of sight was impossible (Devilfish on a flying base). Sure I'm hull down but I'd rather my opponent not shoot me at all!

So use bigger terrain...?

GW's 'hills' aren't supposed to represent anything other than what they are, which is a small mound. A 'hill' to scale would be the entire table.

If you want LOS blocking hummocks on your table, just make some. Or if you really want to stick to terrain made by GW, use more buildings.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
One issue I have with this edition is wounding: if a model is hit with something double its toughness, it should wound automatically. Not really sure how T3 models can survive a hit from a lascannon anywhere in the body...

It could take your hand off but otherwise leave you unharmed...

A fighter who suffers amputation of an extremity, like the hand, is not going to be keeping up with his brosephs, shooting and assaulting things. In rare cases people do override extreme pain and delay incapacitation, but a man without a hand is no longer going to answer "up" when they call his name.

Sasori wrote:

candy.man wrote:The big complaints for 5th edition as far as I am aware are the following:

• Codices. Codex quality has largely declined from previous editions and releases have largely focused on IoM/Space Marines (with only a small handful of non IoM/SM releases).

Ideally 6E edition would need to target these 4 aspects if they wish to target the criticisms of 5E.

I STRONGLY Disagree with the bolded statement. 4th Edition was the edition of bland and uninspired codexes. Every dex in 5th has been leaps and bounds above any 4th edition ones.

And if you played third, you’d “STRONGLY” disagree with your rebuttal. In third, all factions got codex/model updates (not only IoM) and older books like DE got extensive WD rules updates. Codex design was largely better as it was not reliant on SCs to represent sub factions (as this could be represented with internal chapter/legion rules in the codex as well as chapter approved rules published in WD). I will agree that 5th is better than 4th in terms of codex design.

I hate what they did to skimmers. Fish of Fury, you will be missed :(

candy.man wrote:In third, all factions got codex/model updates (not only IoM) and older books like DE got extensive WD rules updates.

Everybody got new codexes because 3rd ed rendered the 2nd ed books obsolete. And what we got instead were bland, rushed out affairs that were largely lacking any real flavour.

And the DE update was for 4th edition. They only entered the game with an actual codex in 3rd.

im2randomghgh wrote:I hate what they did to skimmers. Fish of Fury, you will be missed :(

Only missed by Tau players, lol. That was one of the worst, most horribly mechanics exploitative tactics this game has ever seen.

I like 5th better than 4th and I started playing in 2nd!

I, like you, am a newer player coming in right as 5th ed came out. I like the system and generally I find that people just bitch about anything GW does anyway. It IS the internet after all.

Not to say 40k is flawless, however.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:I hate what they did to skimmers. Fish of Fury, you will be missed :(

Only missed by Tau players, lol. That was one of the worst, most horribly mechanics exploitative tactics this game has ever seen.

And it was beautiful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZacktheChaosChild wrote:I, like you, am a newer player coming in right as 5th ed came out. I like the system and generally I find that people just bitch about anything GW does anyway. It IS the internet after all.

Not to say 40k is flawless, however.

That's because they feth up so often. And charge too much. And don't give a feth about their customers.

Or because, like he said, it is the Internet and people like to bitch. Keep on keeping on though, Angry GW Guy!

im2randomghgh wrote:

ZacktheChaosChild wrote:I, like you, am a newer player coming in right as 5th ed came out. I like the system and generally I find that people just bitch about anything GW does anyway. It IS the internet after all.

Not to say 40k is flawless, however.

That's because they feth up so often. And charge too much. And don't give a feth about their customers.

Actually, I'm sure that the reason for 5th edition's super tough vehicles was because people were complaining about how easy necrons were popping their vehicles in 4th. It's nice when a company listens to their fans, but the truth is that the fan are the worse people you want to take advise from.

Luke_Prowler wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

ZacktheChaosChild wrote:I, like you, am a newer player coming in right as 5th ed came out. I like the system and generally I find that people just bitch about anything GW does anyway. It IS the internet after all.

Not to say 40k is flawless, however.

That's because they feth up so often. And charge too much. And don't give a feth about their customers.

Actually, I'm sure that the reason for 5th edition's super tough vehicles was because people were complaining about how easy necrons were popping their vehicles in 4th. It's nice when a company listens to their fans, but the truth is that the fan are the worse people you want to take advise from.

Because listening to your target demographic (wargamers) is a BAAAAAD thing /sarcasm

People do like to bitch, but there's a reason no one bitches about good things like Warmahordes.

Lesee.....

Combined vehicle damage table making tanks entirely too resilient.

Wound allocation silliness.

Cover saves. They've never been easier to get than in this edition, and I haven't liked them since they showed up in 3rd.

Not being able to directly target models in base to base contact with you in CC unless they are ICs. Hidden power fists perplex me to no end.

The prevalence of Eternal Warrior, Feel no Pain, and 3++ saves.

Kill Points. My god, please kill these. Victory points and margin of victory was SO much better. A 10 man, 600+pt unit of GK Paladins is only 1 KP, while 10 Imperial Guardsmen in a Chimera is double that.

I know that everyone seems to love it, but I hate Reserves. Outflanking and Deep Striking are fine. I hate that if I feel like it, I can just reserve my entire army. Combined with random game length (another thing I hate), it means that on average games of 40k can be as few as three or four 'real' turns.

Random game length. It's thrown out for just about every tournament I've ever been in. I seriously don't see it's purpose. Just stick to 6 turns.

Panzerboy26 wrote:
Kill Points. My god, please kill these. Victory points and margin of victory was SO much better. A 10 man, 600+pt unit of GK Paladins is only 1 KP, while 10 Imperial Guardsmen in a Chimera is double that.

I know that everyone seems to love it, but I hate Reserves. Outflanking and Deep Striking are fine. I hate that if I feel like it, I can just reserve my entire army. Combined with random game length (another thing I hate), it means that on average games of 40k can be as few as three or four 'real' turns.

Random game length. It's thrown out for just about every tournament I've ever been in. I seriously don't see it's purpose. Just stick to 6 turns.

I agree with most of your post, but I've got to reply to the three points above.

- Kill Points are something I hated at first. Your example shows they can be utterly ridiculous. However, they are the single penalizing factor for MSU spam armies. My fairly standard Chaos Marine army only stands a ghost of a chance against a venom/trueborn spam DE army, but with Kill Points I at least have the possibility of doing okay.

- Reserves keep the game steady and mobile. An all-reserves army is annoying to fight, I agree, but outflanking units add a lot to the game.

- Random game length isn't a bad thing. First of all, it mitigates the last-turn skimmer jump. You know, the classic Eldar maneuver where they have all their falcons, jetbikes, or what have you move flat out/turbo boost/whatever onto every objective. It prevents this kind of late game dickery. Also, it means you'll take some risks. If it's the bottom of turn 6, and your guardsmen are holding an objective, do you risk running out to blow up that land raider and save it, or do you just hunker down and hope the game ends at the end of this turn? It's less predictable and more dynamic.

Panzerboy26 wrote:Lesee.....

Combined vehicle damage table making tanks entirely too resilient.

Wound allocation silliness.

Cover saves. They've never been easier to get than in this edition, and I haven't liked them since they showed up in 3rd.

Not being able to directly target models in base to base contact with you in CC unless they are ICs. Hidden power fists perplex me to no end.

The prevalence of Eternal Warrior, Feel no Pain, and 3++ saves.

Kill Points. My god, please kill these. Victory points and margin of victory was SO much better. A 10 man, 600+pt unit of GK Paladins is only 1 KP, while 10 Imperial Guardsmen in a Chimera is double that.

I know that everyone seems to love it, but I hate Reserves. Outflanking and Deep Striking are fine. I hate that if I feel like it, I can just reserve my entire army. Combined with random game length (another thing I hate), it means that on average games of 40k can be as few as three or four 'real' turns.

Random game length. It's thrown out for just about every tournament I've ever been in. I seriously don't see it's purpose. Just stick to 6 turns.

This.

Is there any reason Lysander WOULDN'T take that plasma shot on his SS instead of letting his sternguard get hit?

Is there any reason I can't put both plasma hits on one termie and the bolter hits on the rest? The unit with the plasma gun is probably firing at an individual, not spray-and-pray.

im2randomghgh wrote:People do like to bitch, but there's a reason no one bitches about good things like Warmahordes.

Er... plenty of people bitch about Warmahordes.

Panzerboy26 wrote:Random game length. It's thrown out for just about every tournament I've ever been in. I seriously don't see it's purpose. Just stick to 6 turns.

If you're just playing meatgrinder style missions, yes, the random game length isn't as useful. However, in objective-based games, it prevents people from hanging back where its safer and just rushing out to grab objectives on the last turn. Having a set game length can give a huge advantage to the player going 2nd in an objective or land-grab mission.

insaniak wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:People do like to bitch, but there's a reason no one bitches about good things like Warmahordes.

Er... plenty of people bitch about Warmahordes.

TBH I don't think I've seen anyone attack Privateer Press.

The only thing I dislike is wound allocation.

Edit: also go back to victory points instead of kill points

Billagio wrote:The only thing I dislike is wound allocation

That's because it is awful

The whole b*tch cause its the internet is certainly true. lol You rarely see non-b*tching threads go 15 pages *cough* gk op thread *cough* Ask what gw does right and it'd last maybe a page and people are still spending money so guess they just like to be cranky.

Draigo wrote:The whole b*tch cause its the internet is certainly true. lol You rarely see non-b*tching threads go 15 pages *cough* gk op thread *cough* Ask what gw does right and it'd last maybe a page and people are still spending money so guess they just like to be cranky.

Well the beat this unit thread is several hundred pages long so...

Brother SRM wrote:

Panzerboy26 wrote:Kill Points. My god, please kill these. Victory points and margin of victory was SO much better. A 10 man, 600+pt unit of GK Paladins is only 1 KP, while 10 Imperial Guardsmen in a Chimera is double that.

I know that everyone seems to love it, but I hate Reserves. Outflanking and Deep Striking are fine. I hate that if I feel like it, I can just reserve my entire army. Combined with random game length (another thing I hate), it means that on average games of 40k can be as few as three or four 'real' turns.

Random game length. It's thrown out for just about every tournament I've ever been in. I seriously don't see it's purpose. Just stick to 6 turns.

I agree with most of your post, but I've got to reply to the three points above.

- Kill Points are something I hated at first. Your example shows they can be utterly ridiculous. However, they are the single penalizing factor for MSU spam armies. My fairly standard Chaos Marine army only stands a ghost of a chance against a venom/trueborn spam DE army, but with Kill Points I at least have the possibility of doing okay.

- Reserves keep the game steady and mobile. An all-reserves army is annoying to fight, I agree, but outflanking units add a lot to the game.

- Random game length isn't a bad thing. First of all, it mitigates the last-turn skimmer jump. You know, the classic Eldar maneuver where they have all their falcons, jetbikes, or what have you move flat out/turbo boost/whatever onto every objective. It prevents this kind of late game dickery. Also, it means you'll take some risks. If it's the bottom of turn 6, and your guardsmen are holding an objective, do you risk running out to blow up that land raider and save it, or do you just hunker down and hope the game ends at the end of this turn? It's less predictable and more dynamic.

Brother SRM is objectively ( ) correct on all counts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

candy.man wrote:In third, all factions got codex/model updates (not only IoM) and older books like DE got extensive WD rules updates.

Everybody got new codexes because 3rd ed rendered the 2nd ed books obsolete. And what we got instead were bland, rushed out affairs that were largely lacking any real flavour.

Agreed.

insaniak wrote:And the DE update was for 4th edition. They only entered the game with an actual codex in 3rd.

They got both of their updates in third ed. First getting vehicle upgrades in White Dwarf, then getting a revised (with a somewhat confusing "2nd edition" stamp on the cover) codex with the vehicle upgrades included, and some expanded and altered rules and units (like the introduction of a Wych HQ other than Lilith). The Dark Angels also got a revised "2nd edition" codex in 3rd edition. It got rid of that godsawful rule where every and any unit would refuse to move if they were in shooting range of the enemy at the start of their turn and you rolled a 1. It replaced it with them instead refusing to move (instead of Falling Back) if they failed a Morale test from shooting. And gave them some additional stuff, like Plasmacannons in tac squads.

Draigo wrote:The whole b*tch cause its the internet is certainly true. lol You rarely see non-b*tching threads go 15 pages *cough* gk op thread *cough* Ask what gw does right and it'd last maybe a page and people are still spending money so guess they just like to be cranky.

New Release threads quite regularly span out just as long as the complaint threads, and are often quite positive overall.

Mannahnin wrote:They got both of their updates in third ed. First getting vehicle upgrades in White Dwarf, then getting a revised (with a somewhat confusing "2nd edition" stamp on the cover) codex with the vehicle upgrades included, and some expanded and altered rules and units (like the introduction of a Wych HQ other than Lilith). The Dark Angels also got a revised "2nd edition" codex in 3rd edition. It got rid of that godsawful rule where every and any unit would refuse to move if they were in shooting range of the enemy at the start of their turn and you rolled a 1. It replaced it with them instead refusing to move (instead of Falling Back) if they failed a Morale test from shooting. And gave them some additional stuff, like Plasmacannons in tac squads.

Space marines got White Dwarf updates as well near the end of fifth (I remember “cut and paste” codex rules written in White Dwarf). Space marines also got bucket loads of variant lists in Chapter approved. IG also got a second codex during third edition. There were also quite a few expansion books introduced in third, which gave most armies some sort of new toy/variant list to play with.

Main point being is that third edition can’t be solely judged on the early third edition codices without also taking into account the revised codices, chapter approved rules updates and expansion books.

Brother SRM wrote:
I agree with most of your post, but I've got to reply to the three points above.

- Kill Points are something I hated at first. Your example shows they can be utterly ridiculous. However, they are the single penalizing factor for MSU spam armies. My fairly standard Chaos Marine army only stands a ghost of a chance against a venom/trueborn spam DE army, but with Kill Points I at least have the possibility of doing okay.

- Reserves keep the game steady and mobile. An all-reserves army is annoying to fight, I agree, but outflanking units add a lot to the game.

- Random game length isn't a bad thing. First of all, it mitigates the last-turn skimmer jump. You know, the classic Eldar maneuver where they have all their falcons, jetbikes, or what have you move flat out/turbo boost/whatever onto every objective. It prevents this kind of late game dickery. Also, it means you'll take some risks. If it's the bottom of turn 6, and your guardsmen are holding an objective, do you risk running out to blow up that land raider and save it, or do you just hunker down and hope the game ends at the end of this turn? It's less predictable and more dynamic.

I don't think swinging the game in favor of death-star hyper-elite units is any better than swinging it in favor of spam. The remedy for your chaos being able to take on Venom Spam is, sadly, a better chaos book. It's the oldest book in 40k now, and it sorely needs to be re-written. I promise the 3rd ed Chaos book would have little problem taking down venom spam.

I have no problem with things outflanking, as that requires units to have special rules in order to do it. You can't simply decide to outflank your entire army on a whim (well, most can't). You can, however, decide to start with nothing deployed, and just roll on the table. This means that turn 1, nothing happens. Not really. The other players moves around a bit, and waits for the other player to show up. Combined with Random Game length, it means that a game can 'start' on turn 2, and end on turn 5. It's a wet dream for point-denial players.

It's also something that's absent from competitive play, so all of those things still work. Honestly, I only have a 'real' objection to it in conjunction with the Reserves rule. Take the Reserves rules out, and I'd have far less problem with it.

Mannahnin wrote:The main complaint I ever see about 5th is how the wound allocation rules work, and how they produce unrealistic and dumb outcomes. Like if I have a squad of three marines all with different equipment, and you're shooting at them with a squad if IG armed with 3 meltaguns and a bunch of lasguns, you're better off NOT shooting the lasguns. Because if you do, and inflict any wounds with them, I can use those to help me dump off multiple melta wounds onto a single model.

That is a big one, its unrealistic that not shooting all your squads will produce more kills than shooting everything you've got.

I think the only one I've heard was the fact that you can't pick out models that are squad upgrades, ever, unless you've got a fancy shooting attack (like an assassin or Jaws). While I tend to exploit this being an Ork player, I've had people complain about the fact that my Nobs can just rip through things, and can't be killed because the player has to go through 29 other boys to even start wounding the Nob.

I, personally, have no complaints with the system.

I guess my main dislike is the squadron rules. The wound thing sux but I don't mind it s'much. We will see what 6th has to offer in about 7 months. Maybe good, maybe not but hopefully will fix alota probs.

Panzerboy26 wrote:
I don't think swinging the game in favor of death-star hyper-elite units is any better than swinging it in favor of spam. The remedy for your chaos being able to take on Venom Spam is, sadly, a better chaos book. It's the oldest book in 40k now, and it sorely needs to be re-written. I promise the 3rd ed Chaos book would have little problem taking down venom spam.

Except Black Templars, Eldar and Tau are all older than the current Chaos Codex.

Billagio wrote:The only thing I dislike is wound allocation.

Which is far, far better than 4th, when the Sarge and melta gun never, ever died, unless you got lucky with Torrent.

Billagio wrote:Edit: also go back to victory points instead of kill points

No. Just No. As long as we have Objective missions there has to be SOME reason NOT to take 6 troops choices all the time, every time. Razor / Venom spam has a 2/3rd advantage in missions, at least give Elite armies SOME hope, yes?

VPs encouraged MSU in 4th, objectives does this even more.

To those complaining that one guy being seen can cause the whole squad to take casualties - you do realise thats actually quite realistic, yes? You dont see one guy and only try to kill him - you work out that there is a good chance that tehre are more people you cant quite see, so you shoot your guns at the wall that doesnt really provide that much protection....

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Billagio wrote:

Billagio wrote:Edit: also go back to victory points instead of kill points

No. Just No. As long as we have Objective missions there has to be SOME reason NOT to take 6 troops choices all the time, every time. Razor / Venom spam has a 2/3rd advantage in missions, at least give Elite armies SOME hope, yes?

VPs encouraged MSU in 4th, objectives does this even more.

I think having both VP and KP as standard rollable missions could help this a bit.

Deep striking is not supposed to be army-wide, it's supposed to be a clean clinical strike into enemy territory.
Fighting an all deep strike army is annoying. It's not particularly game-breaking or unbalanced but it's not really the spirit of the game.

Joey wrote:Deep striking is not supposed to be army-wide, it's supposed to be a clean clinical strike into enemy territory.
Fighting an all deep strike army is annoying. It's not particularly game-breaking or unbalanced but it's not really the spirit of the game.

Says you.


For some armies and scenarios it makes perfect sense. Space marines are famed for this type of military action for example.

Point is having the option for deepstriking armies, flanking, and reserves adds much needed play variety to the game and can facilitate scenario play, etc.

It also makes the standard 6x4 board feel more adequate for the size games that have become standard.

CT GAMER wrote:

Joey wrote:Deep striking is not supposed to be army-wide, it's supposed to be a clean clinical strike into enemy territory.
Fighting an all deep strike army is annoying. It's not particularly game-breaking or unbalanced but it's not really the spirit of the game.

Says you.


For some armies and scenarios it makes perfect sense. Space marines are famed for this type of military action for example.

Limitting it to 50% wouldn't cripple SM. I would have thought most SM armies are mainly mech these days anyway. You could still drop pod half your army, a couple of tactical squads and some assault terminators.

Part of the point of being able to Reserve is if the table's terrain is light, and one army has gone complete gunline shooty. If given guaranteed first turn, it's nice for the opponent to have the option of Reserving.

Of course, Reserving has its downsides too. Having half your force come up without the other half to help. Having to move on from the edge and be that much farther from the enemy they want to close with, etc.

I think they did some really great things with Reserves in this edition. Way better than 3rd or 4th.

Mannahnin wrote:Part of the point of being able to Reserve is if the table's terrain is light, and one army has gone complete gunline shooty. If given guaranteed first turn, it's nice for the opponent to have the option of Reserving.

Of course, Reserving has its downsides too. Having half your force come up without the other half to help. Having to move on from the edge and be that much farther from the enemy they want to close with, etc.

I think they did some really great things with Reserves in this edition. Way better than 3rd or 4th.

Well I liked 4th better, but I can agree it is an improvement relative to 3ed.

@ Vakthati


I agree partly with you. It is not a perfect system.

I just happen to prefer it (warts and all) to the older systems. I think the "advantage" of having a chance of losing "good" models outweighs the disadvantage of a few units being able to fully exploit it. To me even the odd "kill-more-by-shooting-less" outweighs the heavy/special/sergeant never dying.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Panzerboy26 wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:
I agree with most of your post, but I've got to reply to the three points above.

- Kill Points are something I hated at first. Your example shows they can be utterly ridiculous. However, they are the single penalizing factor for MSU spam armies. My fairly standard Chaos Marine army only stands a ghost of a chance against a venom/trueborn spam DE army, but with Kill Points I at least have the possibility of doing okay.

- Reserves keep the game steady and mobile. An all-reserves army is annoying to fight, I agree, but outflanking units add a lot to the game.

- Random game length isn't a bad thing. First of all, it mitigates the last-turn skimmer jump. You know, the classic Eldar maneuver where they have all their falcons, jetbikes, or what have you move flat out/turbo boost/whatever onto every objective. It prevents this kind of late game dickery. Also, it means you'll take some risks. If it's the bottom of turn 6, and your guardsmen are holding an objective, do you risk running out to blow up that land raider and save it, or do you just hunker down and hope the game ends at the end of this turn? It's less predictable and more dynamic.

I don't think swinging the game in favor of death-star hyper-elite units is any better than swinging it in favor of spam. The remedy for your chaos being able to take on Venom Spam is, sadly, a better chaos book. It's the oldest book in 40k now, and it sorely needs to be re-written. I promise the 3rd ed Chaos book would have little problem taking down venom spam.

I have no problem with things outflanking, as that requires units to have special rules in order to do it. You can't simply decide to outflank your entire army on a whim (well, most can't). You can, however, decide to start with nothing deployed, and just roll on the table. This means that turn 1, nothing happens. Not really. The other players moves around a bit, and waits for the other player to show up. Combined with Random Game length, it means that a game can 'start' on turn 2, and end on turn 5. It's a wet dream for point-denial players.

I bolded the part where you confused Chaos and Tau.

I italicized the part where the guy who does that deserves the kroot konga line.

I underlined the part where YOU confused Tau and Black Templars.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Panzerboy26 wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:
I agree with most of your post, but I've got to reply to the three points above.

- Kill Points are something I hated at first. Your example shows they can be utterly ridiculous. However, they are the single penalizing factor for MSU spam armies. My fairly standard Chaos Marine army only stands a ghost of a chance against a venom/trueborn spam DE army, but with Kill Points I at least have the possibility of doing okay.

- Reserves keep the game steady and mobile. An all-reserves army is annoying to fight, I agree, but outflanking units add a lot to the game.

- Random game length isn't a bad thing. First of all, it mitigates the last-turn skimmer jump. You know, the classic Eldar maneuver where they have all their falcons, jetbikes, or what have you move flat out/turbo boost/whatever onto every objective. It prevents this kind of late game dickery. Also, it means you'll take some risks. If it's the bottom of turn 6, and your guardsmen are holding an objective, do you risk running out to blow up that land raider and save it, or do you just hunker down and hope the game ends at the end of this turn? It's less predictable and more dynamic.

I don't think swinging the game in favor of death-star hyper-elite units is any better than swinging it in favor of spam. The remedy for your chaos being able to take on Venom Spam is, sadly, a better chaos book. It's the oldest book in 40k now, and it sorely needs to be re-written. I promise the 3rd ed Chaos book would have little problem taking down venom spam.

I have no problem with things outflanking, as that requires units to have special rules in order to do it. You can't simply decide to outflank your entire army on a whim (well, most can't). You can, however, decide to start with nothing deployed, and just roll on the table. This means that turn 1, nothing happens. Not really. The other players moves around a bit, and waits for the other player to show up. Combined with Random Game length, it means that a game can 'start' on turn 2, and end on turn 5. It's a wet dream for point-denial players.

I bolded the part where you confused Chaos and Tau.

I italicized the part where the guy who does that deserves the kroot konga line.

I underlined the part where YOU confused Tau and Black Templars.

Touché

As far as the KP/VP debate, I say: why not compromise? In 4th ed you randomized Alpha, Gamma, or Omega missions where more special rules were allowed. 5th ed does something similar for the mission objectives. Why not just add VP's to one of the possible rolls? That way you aren't penalizing Death Stars any more than you are penalizing MSU. Both have an equal chance to get screwed and leaning how to counter those armies in those situations becomes another thought experiment. Like building your list with a couple of counters in case Night Fight happens.

Wound Allocation is plain silly the way it stands now. They could tweak it to be where you have to assign the wounds in ascending order of AP value. So you assign all the AP1 stuff first, then the AP2, 3, and so on. It's still less convoluted than "majority toughness" and "whole models," but will cause more carnage than the current version does. This could allow a fix without wholly nerfing the (agreeably) preponderance of EW and FNP.

I think I'm the only person who liked how terrain worked in 4e, with the greater degree of abstraction and differing levels of terrain. PP does this with their differently sized bases, and it works very well for them. (IE: Large bases can see past small and medium bases, but not large, Medium can see past small but not medium or large, etc.) They measure LoS through models by seeing what you could see of the base, and through terrain by what you could see of the model (not including weapons on infantry.) Of course, the also denied you cover bonuses if you were too far away from the cover. IE: there is a wall between us. I am more than 2" away, so you can shoot me cleanly. Less than an inch, and I am considered to crouch down behind it for cover (so as to allow you cool basing and modelling)

I really like outflanking and reserves, it's a sharp ability and adds another wrinkle to gameplay. I think I'd also like to see cover return to more of a penalty to hit rather than bonus saves, but I'd have to run the math first. It might be a huge nerf for GEq. >.<


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, ref the sweeping advance issue: bear in mind that it doesn't represent a guy necessarily killing everyone, but scattering them so that they are not combat effective within the next several minutes that the battle represents.

In Fantasy, you used to have to have at least 5 models in order to destroy a unit after a failed LD check. I think a similar mechanic might be more realistic.

Nagashek wrote:
Also, ref the sweeping advance issue: bear in mind that it doesn't represent a guy necessarily killing everyone, but scattering them so that they are not combat effective within the next several minutes that the battle represents.

In Fantasy, you used to have to have at least 5 models in order to destroy a unit after a failed LD check. I think a similar mechanic might be more realistic.

Maybe inflict d6 wounds (no saves of any sort) per model in the victoriuos unit, with Walkers/MC's inflicting 2d6?

I was thinking that the victorious unit gets a free round of CC (using their base number of attacks), where his attacks hit and wound automatically.

So if a 10 man squad of boyz were to beat a squad of marines, the marines would suffer 20 wounds. Saves allowed.
That should stop cases were one IC can slaughter like 15 guys.

CT GAMER wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

A fighter who suffers amputation of an extremity, like the hand, is not going to be keeping up with his brosephs, shooting and assaulting things. In rare cases people do override extreme pain and delay incapacitation, but a man without a hand is no longer going to answer "up" when they call his name.

Most things in 40K are abstract. The level of detail/realism you are trying to apply to 40K is counter to it's design and more suited for a detailed small-scale skirmish game (which 40K isnt).

Attempting to apply common sense and "ralism" to 40K is never a good idea...

In this context it would actually speed up gameplay. I wrote that to justify it from the point of view of realism, but from a gameplay fluidity perspective it makes sense too.

I think we need to step back and remind ourselves that this is the game where the rulebook says that is you lose, but succeed in killing off most of your oppenent's forces, you win bragging rights.

Look in the Victory Points section in the rulebook. It actually says that.

Generally speaking I love 5th edition. So much was done right now it's a question of smoothing out some of the, aherm, 'rough' edges.

Wound allocation shenanigans. That's all horse hockey, fix it.

I'm truly, deeply, madly in love with how assault resolution has been shifted from a four turn slog-fest to short, decisive fights but with no capability to re-engage. Honestly a marvelous introduction in my opinion. Now can we have outnumbering benefits added back into the system so a 25-ork/gaunt/IG group isn't completely obliterated by one guy? I mean seriously?

Vehicles. Good GOD this stuff needs fixed, stat. 2D6 damage table to differentiate between scratched paint and apocalyptic explosion, and if you're not going to rewrite codices to balance transports then do it in the rule book. There must be some sort of trade-off for all the benefits that a transport gives the units inside.

And my single biggest complaint is directly aimed at GW itself. It's 2012 now. You have absolutely no excuse beyond incompetence or indifference for not having some sort of living FAQ/Errata system updating minor issues in older books in a timely manner. It's totally inexcusable to be updating books once, maybe six months after they are released and then never again touching them for years upon years. This alone is the sole reason I have chosen to not further invest monetarily in the hobby. There are so many armies out there that are SCREAMING for one or two simple fixes to reflect the changing nature of the game system and the abysmal customer support given after a sale is just deplorable. Shame, shame on you for not pulling your heads out of the sand on this issue.

Uhh IG stubborn blobs do NOT get wiped out easily. If they get charged turn 2 the unit that charged them will either be dead or in combat for the rest of the game, unless they have a stupid number of attacks or are very very good at close combat.

Nagashek - so, you want 3 missions that entirely encourage MSU, and 1 that doesnt? That isnt "compromise", that is "making a poor trade off worse"

Vaktathi - no, it isnt elite, it is "average", when you have 6 x 5 marines on the board as scoring units.

After hating 4th Ed (such a dull game) and tolerating the extremes of 3rd Ed, I was quite willing to give 5th a go. But then came a list of deal breakers that I could not stand:

1. The vehicle rules. In toto.
Every edition of the game since 2nd Ed has seen the vehicle rules become more and more simplified, and more and more abstracted. I'm not asking for a BattleTech level of vehicle detail, but I am asking for something that resembles the fun of 2nd Ed vehicles. Even if all the other problems I had with 5th Ed didn't exist, the lack of a decent set of vehicle rules would still be the ultimate deal breaker.

2. True Line of Sight.
The fact that you can remove models that are both out of range and out of LOS pretty much says why TLOS isn't. It's even more puzzling when you consider that there weren't any real problems with LOS in the previous editions and what is so hard about removing only models that you can both see and are in range?

3. Wound Allocation.
GW likes to dumb things down, but at the same time add more complexity to rules that don't require it. The 3rd and 4th method of roll wounds, apply wounds, roll saves, remove models was simply. Now we have to worry about weapon and model types, who has what wargear and a host of other things.

4. Blast Markers.
GW likes to dumb things down, but at the same time add more complexity to rules that don't require it. Yeah, I just repeated myself, but it applies to scattering every blast marker. It just adds time to the game for no benefit. The previous method of roll to hit, count who is under the blast marker, roll wounds, roll saves, remove casualties has been replaced with place marker, roll scatter, work out who's under, roll wounds, apply wounds to specific sub-sets of models based on weapons and wargear, roll individual groups of saves, remove specific models. Now do that 3 more times for your Dev squad. Uhhg! Why add complication to something that didn't need it?

5. Kill Points.
My unit of Gretchin is worth just as much as your Chapter Master which is worth the same as those 3 Genestealers which is worth as much as his Land Raider which is worth as much as that unit of 10 Chaos Terminators.

No. Just no.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nagashek - so, you want 3 missions that entirely encourage MSU, and 1 that doesnt? That isnt "compromise", that is "making a poor trade off worse"

Vaktathi - no, it isnt elite, it is "average", when you have 6 x 5 marines on the board as scoring units.

Actually I believe I was suggesting half and half. Not properly detailed, as I'm still getting the hang of 5E missions, but certainly what I meant.

The issue is that Victory Points always benefit MSU list design. It's harder to get the points when they're distributed around the field. MSU design is also always better in objective missions. The more units you have the better off you are.

In 3rd ed and 4th ed it was ALWAYS to your advantage to have as many units as possible, and fill out the force org as much as you could, The introduction of KPs in 5th finally gives a counterbalancing element to let armies built around fewer, more expensive units have a decent chance. The distribution of the three core mission types in 5th is actually one of its best qualities, in part because it creates a tension between wanting to have more units and wanting to have fewer. Thus meaning there is no one optimal approach of the two in making an all-purposes list, and players are encouraged to find a working balance between the two.

That being said, you still mostly see people bringing MSU armies, because despite KPs, MSU armies have a number of pure tactical advantages. Specifically they allow you much greater flexibility of maneuver and in distribution of force around the table. If you have, say, 100% of your antitank firepower divided between two units, or divided between five units, the guy with it spread around five units has both greater flexibility and greater durability. If one of them is killed he's only lost 20%, whereas the other guy has lost half. Even better, if the first one unit's firepower gets lucky and pops a target, you've still got 80% of your firepower to distribute elsewhere around the field. If you've got the same firepower in two units, you can only engage two targets at maximum. And if the first unit doesn't do the job on your #1 priority target on a given turn, you've only got one more unit to allocate.

Part of that is also because people don't like and misunderstand KPs, and water down their impact on the game. And/or they alter the objective missions to make them favor MSU even MORE, like by defaulting to 5 objectives and forcing them to be spread around the field rather than letting a player with fewer units bunch them up as alternating placement does.

H.B.M.C. wrote:After hating 4th Ed (such a dull game) and tolerating the extremes of 3rd Ed, I was quite willing to give 5th a go. But then came a list of deal breakers that I could not stand:

1. The vehicle rules. In toto.
Every edition of the game since 2nd Ed has seen the vehicle rules become more and more simplified, and more and more abstracted. I'm not asking for a BattleTech level of vehicle detail, but I am asking for something that resembles the fun of 2nd Ed vehicles. Even if all the other problems I had with 5th Ed didn't exist, the lack of a decent set of vehicle rules would still be the ultimate deal breaker.

What sort of stuff are you after? What made 2nd Ed vehicles fun?

H.B.M.C. wrote:2. True Line of Sight.
The fact that you can remove models that are both out of range and out of LOS pretty much says why TLOS isn't. It's even more puzzling when you consider that there weren't any real problems with LOS in the previous editions and what is so hard about removing only models that you can both see and are in range?

Line of sight and range is ALWAYS going to be an issue. Theres no way to do it without making it gimmicky. Whats so hard about removing only models in sight and range? Nothing, but it means I can create artificial lines of sight with vehicles and terrain and snipe any model I want from your units. Theres going to be WTF? moments no matter how you do it, but this way works the best, IMO.

H.B.M.C. wrote:3. Wound Allocation.
GW likes to dumb things down, but at the same time add more complexity to rules that don't require it. The 3rd and 4th method of roll wounds, apply wounds, roll saves, remove models was simply. Now we have to worry about weapon and model types, who has what wargear and a host of other things.

It was simple, but made models with exceptional wargear impossible to take down, resulting in the very gamey and artificial feeling of having a ten wound heavy weapon, instead of a ten man Marine squad. This way works, but just needs the added caveat that all weapons of a particular type should be fully resolved before moving on to other weapons being fired. So, all plasma guns are fully resolved, then all lasguns are fully resolved, etc.

H.B.M.C. wrote:4. Blast Markers.
GW likes to dumb things down, but at the same time add more complexity to rules that don't require it. Yeah, I just repeated myself, but it applies to scattering every blast marker. It just adds time to the game for no benefit. The previous method of roll to hit, count who is under the blast marker, roll wounds, roll saves, remove casualties has been replaced with place marker, roll scatter, work out who's under, roll wounds, apply wounds to specific sub-sets of models based on weapons and wargear, roll individual groups of saves, remove specific models. Now do that 3 more times for your Dev squad. Uhhg! Why add complication to something that didn't need it?

Yeah, gotta agree on this one.

H.B.M.C. wrote:5. Kill Points.
My unit of Gretchin is worth just as much as your Chapter Master which is worth the same as those 3 Genestealers which is worth as much as his Land Raider which is worth as much as that unit of 10 Chaos Terminators.

No. Just no.

Kill points are a fine way of balancing armies. Some armies are more penalised than others, but thats more of a codex issue than a rule issue.

Kaldor wrote:Whats so hard about removing only models in sight and range? Nothing, but it means I can create artificial lines of sight with vehicles and terrain and snipe any model I want from your units.

It also means more time spent measuring ranges rather than just getting on with it.

The current shift towards more of a unit based game rather than every rule dealing with individual models is actually one of the things I love about 5th edition.

Joey wrote:Uhh IG stubborn blobs do NOT get wiped out easily. If they get charged turn 2 the unit that charged them will either be dead or in combat for the rest of the game, unless they have a stupid number of attacks or are very very good at close combat.

Why yes thank you the entire post is irrelevant if you have one special rule specifically designed for that situation. Again, thank you for pointing that out.

Nagashek - yet you only posited adding a mission, VPs, to the existing missions. Giving 4 in total, and only 1/4 being in favour of non-spam armies

As Mannahein said - people have made MSU even MORE of a no brainer by poor mission design; I rail against this with all tournaments I go to - dont make it ALWAYS 5 Objectives (theres a reason it is random you know) and dont make them spread out; both benefit spam armies

ITs funny when those same TOs then complain about the prevalence of spam armies, without realising that they are usually part of the problem. (especially when you have too short time limits, as that also comps against horde over mech armies, simply on a time basis)

HMBC - so you preferred rhino wall to snipe sarge and plasma out of units? Lash making that even greater an idiocy of game design? You also realise its been TLOS since RT, yes? 4th just got abused by people not understanding the (admittedly poorly written) rules, and making everything "area'

RE KP - given 2 missions HEAVILY favour MSU, what do you propose to counter that and not make MSU even more of a no brainer? Remember that anything based on points cost IS VPs, just in a different guise, and thus encourages MSU again.

KPs try to discourage MSU, but arent effective enough. 1/3 missions shoudl not be KP _ it shoudl be 1/2 or greater. Tournaments that only run 1 KP in 5 games are a big problem here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
RE KP - given 2 missions HEAVILY favour MSU, what do you propose to counter that and not make MSU even more of a no brainer? Remember that anything based on points cost IS VPs, just in a different guise, and thus encourages MSU again.

Design codex's and units so that the 5man squads aren't more effective point for point than the 10man squads? That's really the issue.

Some armies inherently are designed to have more units than others, they shouldn't be punished for that, the smaller unit count armies should be designed with capabilities to engage such larger armies in mind. What should be fixed however is the ability to take a bunch of minimum sized squads with almost full wargear alotment, and the ridiculousness of stuff like henchmen units should be apparent at first glance and fixed in early playtesting.

KPs try to discourage MSU, but arent effective enough. 1/3 missions shoudl not be KP _ it shoudl be 1/2 or greater. Tournaments that only run 1 KP in 5 games are a big problem here.

This assumes that KP are actually a balance mechanic of which GW hasn't ever really said, as opposed to simpler victory tabulation without requiring a calculator.

No assumption necessary. It's self-evident even if GW didn't do it intentionally. But it seems obvious that the purposes of it are a) to counter-balance MSU, and b) speeding up victory tablulation.

Mannahnin wrote:No assumption necessary. It's self-evident even if GW didn't do it intentionally. But it seems obvious that the purposes of it are a) to counter-balance MSU, and b) speeding up victory tablulation.

I wouldn't say "obvious", as the design studio has never really expressed any problems with MSU that I can recall, and they continue to design books that emphasize it more than ever. It may be, but it certainly isn't expressed or presented as such anywhere, and in fact operates rather contrary to the description of the annihilation mission.

GW has repeatedly made design choices which steer people away from MSU. KPs are one example. Pretty much everything about 8th edition WHFB is another.

Mannahnin wrote:GW has repeatedly made design choices which steer people away from MSU. KPs are one example. Pretty much everything about 8th edition WHFB is another.

WHFB is another game altogether with different issues and mechanics, ableit a similar stat system. the small units in fantasy that many bemoaned often weren't exactly cheap, just small (e.g. Chaos Knights) and large units died just as fast and slew as many enemies as smaller units in 7E.

KP's are about the only thing GW has done 40k-wise in terms of MSU combating, and even that is unclear as to it's intention and obviously has not been successful. Meanwhile we've gotten Marine armies that are at least as min/max-y as before if not moreso along with options to make armies that can fill all 6 troops slots with mechanized infantry for just over 400pts and more widespread availability and utilization of transports that cannot hold a 10man squad than ever.

Kaldor wrote:What sort of stuff are you after? What made 2nd Ed vehicles fun?

Where to start... variable speeds, individual damage charts, a fair balance between their survivability and the ability to be destroyed, crews that could survive wrecks... The vehicle rules were probably one of the few facets of 2nd Edition that were nearly perfect. The only real fault was the overly complicated method of armor penetration, but even that wasn't really a problem except for the most unprepared and mathematically challenged of players.

As far as the hatred of MSU tactics, I still don't really get this aversion aside from tacking in down to the Herohammer or Mechahammer preference of some players. MSU has its own weaknesses, and it seems that players just want to whine about how certain army builds aren't good for every kind of game type.

Vaktathi wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:GW has repeatedly made design choices which steer people away from MSU. KPs are one example. Pretty much everything about 8th edition WHFB is another.

WHFB is another game altogether with different issues and mechanics, ableit a similar stat system. the small units in fantasy that many bemoaned often weren't exactly cheap, just small (e.g. Chaos Knights) and large units died just as fast and slew as many enemies as smaller units in 7E.

No, not all of the small units were cheap. Just most of them. I played MSU Wood Elves for many years and most of the time I just dominated people in 6th and 7th. In 6th WE using MSU tactics were embarassingly good. 7th toned them down quite a bit. 8th has largely hamstrung them.

Vaktathi wrote:KP's are about the only thing GW has done 40k-wise in terms of MSU combating, and even that is unclear as to it's intention and obviously has not been successful. Meanwhile we've gotten Marine armies that are at least as min/max-y as before if not moreso along with options to make armies that can fill all 6 troops slots with mechanized infantry for just over 400pts and more widespread availability and utilization of transports that cannot hold a 10man squad than ever.

They've made numerous other tweaks to help and/or encourage larger units. Such as allowing a single unit to hold multiple objectives, the Torrent of Fire rule from 4th ed and its successor the wound allocation rules in 5th, the ability to remove casualties in close combat from models not close to the enemy and leave the ones in base contact and within 2" swinging to full effect. The latter rule is another. In 3rd edition the models not actually in base contact only got to throw 1 attack, without the benefit of their weapons or warger, just on their base strength. Defenders React moves are another big help to big units. Codices have done things like requiring SM and CSM to have 10 models in a squad to get a heavy weapon, and requiring Orks to take a full 10 models per Rokkit or Big shoota, unlike the last book where they could take the full number even in a min-sized squad.

When I first started playing this game, in 1999 (when 3rd edition was pretty new), the dominant army design was razorback spam with 5 man las/plas SM squads. Transports were cheap (not as cheap as today) and amazing (everyone could jump out & assault even if the vehicle moved first and was closed-topped). Min-max transport spam was the rule of the day, and tournaments included Composition Scoring with checklist items like "Are at least two Troops units taken at maximum possible size?"

4th ed largely removed the transport spam by neutering transports, but kept the MSU and made the game more about shooting than assault.

5th ed introduced the first set of missions in which a third specifically make MSU a potential liability.

MSU has always been tactically-advantagous, and more durable when playing for VPs (unless you're playing that there is no half points for half strength, and only wiped out units grant VPs; which is another facet of 8th ed WHFB). The main reasons we see transport-spam in 5th are a) MSU is still tactically more advantageous. b) GW swung the design pendulum from transports sucking to transports being remarkably durable, while cutting the point costs for them. c) Many people still play with too little LOS-blocking terrain on the table, thus turning the game into a shooting-dominated affair in which cheap transports to provide your own cover become even more valuable. d) Many folks mess with the mission balance, by doing things like making Seize Ground always have 5 objectives, and forcing them to be spread around the field, a situation which makes having more and more mobile units even more important.

Mannahnin wrote:They've made numerous other tweaks to help and/or encourage larger units. Such as allowing a single unit to hold multiple objectives

There was never a rule against that previously IIRC (though i could be wrong). Rather usually the mission calculated victory by the points value of the units within 6" of the objective or whatnot.

the Torrent of Fire rule from 4th ed and its successor the wound allocation rules in 5th

this can often help MSU as often as it hurts depending on what's being thrown at them, in many cases allowing the unit to survive where it would have been destroyed in 4th edition when you get situations where differing AP's mean more shooting nets fewer casualties.

Under 4E, with a 5man squad consisting of a pfist sergeant, a flamer dude and 4 putzes, 9 bolter wounds and 3 plasma gun wounds, on average the entire squad is dead. Under 5E, the defending player can put all 3 Plasma wounds on the putzes, assign 1 bolter wounds each to the sergeant and flamer, assign another 3 bolter wounds to the putzes, assign another 1 bolter wound each to the sergeant and flamer, and assign the last bolter wound again to the putzes, and then we've got the sergeant and flamer taking 4 bolter armor saves and likely at least one living if not both while the putzes take the rest of the shots and the unit as a whole takes fewer casualties than they did under 4E.

Wound allocation can very often work as much in favor of MSU as opposed to it, call it a wash.

the ability to remove casualties in close combat from models not close to the enemy and leave the ones in base contact and within 2" swinging to full effect.

Yup, that does help out large units, but keep in mind that not all small units are "MSU's" and many of the units that took best advantage of that were rather expensive, such Furious Charge LC terminators and the like.

In 3rd edition the models not actually in base contact only got to throw 1 attack, without the benefit of their weapons or warger, just on their base strength. Defenders React moves are another big help to big units.

Yup, that's true, but it helped all units to some extent.

Codices have done things like requiring SM and CSM to have 10 models in a squad to get a heavy weapon

And then they abandoned that with the newer marine books, who tend to run very MSU whereas CSM's and SM's do not, at least not as much. That's the fault of the design staff and a codex issue.

When I first started playing this game, in 1999 (when 3rd edition was pretty new), the dominant army design was razorback spam with 5 man las/plas SM squads. Transports were cheap (not as cheap as today) and amazing (everyone could jump out & assault even if the vehicle moved first and was closed-topped). Min-max transport spam was the rule of the day, and tournaments included Composition Scoring with checklist items like "Are at least two Troops units taken at maximum possible size?"

I definitely remember the 5man lasplas, but not so much the razorbacks being hugely popular. It didn't help that most Troops units were also some of the worst units in each codex at that point.

5th ed introduced the first set of missions in which a third specifically make MSU a potential liability.

Yup, but now we've got armies with bigger unit counts than ever before and more and the designers keep making more and more extreme examples of capable MSU armies (with GK's being the best example at this point, with abilities like Cleansing Flame that become more powerful against larger sized enemy units and are just as potent whether the Purifier squad is 10 strong or down to the last guy, and henchmen where you can take 12pt scoring units)

MSU has always been tactically-advantagous, and more durable when playing for VPs (unless you're playing that there is no half points for half strength, and only wiped out units grant VPs; which is another facet of 8th ed WHFB). The main reasons we see transport-spam in 5th are a) MSU is still tactically more advantageous.

Primarily due to poor codex production in designing units that retain most of their functionality at small sizes and work in disposable but heavy hitting IFV's

b) GW swung the design pendulum from transports sucking to transports being remarkably durable, while cutting the point costs for them.

it's not so much the durability of the transports, rather that they just don't care about many of the damage results the way gun tanks do. I routinely end up with all 4 of my boxes dead turn1 when running my CSM's and often end up with double digits of dead tanks using my IG, they die fairly easily, rather just when doing their actual job of transporting they only really care about 2 outcomes, destruction or immobilization.

c) Many people still play with too little LOS-blocking terrain on the table, thus turning the game into a shooting-dominated affair in which cheap transports to provide your own cover become even more valuable.

Yup, but that's an issue of their own making.

d) Many folks mess with the mission balance, by doing things like making Seize Ground always have 5 objectives, and forcing them to be spread around the field, a situation which makes having more and more mobile units even more important.

I've never seen that personally, though yes it would create a heavy emphasis towards MSU armies. that said, when it comes to capture and control or SG 3 objectives MSU really doesn't have any noticeable advantage. It's only really 4 and primarily 5 objective SG that MSU gains an advantage.

GKs are their own issue. They're an army specifically designed to be able to be able to beat more numerous enemies while having a small model count in their own units. That's part of their theme, so they carry it even farther than other MSU-based armies do.

Some of your other examples are incorrect, such as there never having been a ruling against a unit holding multiple objective, or the idea that more recent codices don't also limit the weapon upgrades of minimum sized squads/unlock more weapons at 10 models. I would also contest the idea that Troops units were the worst back in the day. Many armies had excellent Troops. In the context of 3rd edition, for example, Tac Marines were significantly more competitive than they are right now. So were my Guardian Defenders.

Overall, though, it sounds like we've got a similar length of tenure and have been playing through the same editions.

I think some of what we're running into is difference of perspective based on our personal experiences. Perhaps you've played in more competitive venues and more different geographic areas than I have?

Mannahnin wrote:GKs are their own issue. They're an army specifically designed to be able to be able to beat more numerous enemies while having a small model count in their own units. That's part of their theme, so they carry it even farther than other MSU-based armies do.

Right, but they're also as big a part of the problem as any, and can field even more cheap/min-max-y units than many other armies, especially with armor thanks to Henchmen units.

Some of your other examples are incorrect, such as there never having been a ruling against a unit holding multiple objective,

I'm trying to find my older rulebooks now, I have no idea where my 3E rulebook is but with the 4E book here I can't find a specific rule against that in there or in the FAQ. The big thing they did change was that the number of units holding objectives no longer counts, it's a simple binary yes/no as opposed to 4E where in Alpha missions it was whoever had the most within 6" or Gamma/Omega missions where it was largest VP margin within 6".

or the idea that more recent codices don't also limit the weapon upgrades of minimum sized squads/unlock more weapons at 10 models.

They don't limit as much, being 5 strong they can get most of their upgrades in whereas the marginal benefit of getting the second weapon for ten strong isn't anywhere near as valuable as it is for C:SM. Grey Hunters can get a melta and a powerfist at 5 strong even without a wolf guard, and at 6 strong with a melta and a powerfist wolf guard leader present (making the unit 6 strong) they cost 3pts more than a C:SM 5man tac squad with a powerfist and no melta. Likewise, BA assault Marines can get a melta and a powerfist at 5 strong and with a Fast Rhino cost as much as a basic C:SM tac squad with a pfist, no melta and a normal speed rhino (yeah, BA tac marines are basically the same, but nobody uses them for this reason).

I would also contest the idea that Troops units were the worst back in the day. Many armies had excellent Troops. In the context of 3rd edition, for example, Tac Marines were significantly more competitive than they are right now.

As a minimum sized lascannon/plasma gun unit sure, but as a whole package for a full sized squad? The current setup has more gear, more abilities, and is cheaper after transport and kit. A 10man squad in 3E with a flamer, missile launcher, and vet sergeant with a powerfist in a rhino was 256pts with no grenades, 286pts with grenades, now it's 230pts and they get frag and krak grenades and can split into two units.

Overall, though, it sounds like we've got a similar length of tenure and have been playing through the same editions.

I think some of what we're running into is difference of perspective based on our personal experiences. Perhaps you've played in more competitive venues and more different geographic areas than I have?

I dunno, it's possible, I've played through most of the major metro areas on the west coast except for San Francisco, but never really outside of that.

Vaktathi - "Some armies inherently are designed to have more units than others, they shouldn't be punished for that, "

they arent punished for it - in 2/3rd of mission their design is inherently superior.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Vaktathi - "Some armies inherently are designed to have more units than others, they shouldn't be punished for that, "

they arent punished for it - in 2/3rd of mission their design is inherently superior.

Except, as I noted earlier, they don't really. A 14 KP army versus a 22 KP army isn't really at any disadvantage in a Capture and Control mission, there just aren't enough objectives for it to matter, or 3 obj Sieze Ground for that matter, 4 is where it gets debateable, 5 sure, the big KP army has an advantage. As someone who owns both types of armies, I've been on both sides of that equation and really only notice it at the extreme end of one mission.

IME a 22 unit army does usually have a significant advantage over a 14 unit army in any objective mission. You have more tools with which to contest or capture your opponent's objective and to block off and hold your own.

With 14 KP's and only 2 objectives, needing only to hold 1 more than your opponent (so 1 vs 0 still wins) you have more than enough units and you're opponents mass isn't going to be able to overwhelm such concentrated points, same thing with sieze ground 3 objective missions, they're too concentrated, especially if properly placed with suitable terrain.

Maybe we had a weird meta in my neck of the woods, but I never once had a problem with 'MSU' armies or 'LOS sniping' or all that other stuff people blather on and on about.

Don't you mostly play with a group of friends/fanatical collectors? I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen you post about a tournament or a pickup game with a stranger.

All the pickup games I've played were smaller affairs, and, again, all this MSU stuff was never a concern.

*shrugs*

We just got on with it and played the game.

Vaktathi - except an 8 KP army (mine at 1750, assuming thawn dies) is at a massive disadvantage in bore draw, as i have so few units that can hang back and keep my own objective. A 28 KP venom spam list can hang back with cheap plentiful units.

The more units you have, the easier it is to contest objectives while keeping yours alive.

Similarly in SG a 28 KP army has so much more redundancy of units that it is silly - firstly lucky rolls are less likely to hurt you significantly, and you are also more lkely to perform to your average, as you are rolling that many more dice.

In 2/3rd of games MSU has a massive inherent advantage over actual elite armies, give us the 1/3rd chance, please!

KPs are obviously designed to counter MSU. IT is blindingly obvious from the first time i picked up 4th what they were trying to do with the missions.

HMBC - so noone ever used V walled rhinos to snipe out special weapons or used lash to pull the sarge into range and the rest of the unit out of range? Lucky you. Still doesnt alter that the studio explicitly stated they thought that was a silly way to play the rules, ditto 2" zone wiping.

Lash? *shudders*

Never played a game with that horrid abomination of a Codex.

its just people think that 5th is not as good as the others i guess

nosferatu1001 wrote:Vaktathi - except an 8 KP army (mine at 1750, assuming thawn dies) is at a massive disadvantage in bore draw, as i have so few units that can hang back and keep my own objective. A 28 KP venom spam list can hang back with cheap plentiful units.

You're talking about the two largest possible extremes at that point, and if you're coming to the board with only 8 KP's, you likely have some fairly rock hard units meaning it's going to be difficult to clear you off an objective. You still shouldn't have much in the way of issues for a Capture and Control game.

The more units you have, the easier it is to contest objectives while keeping yours alive.

Yes, but this only kicks in once a certain number of objectives come into play, with only two, even very small KP armies shouldn't have any issues given that you can concentrate your forces very easily.

Similarly in SG a 28 KP army has so much more redundancy of units that it is silly - firstly lucky rolls are less likely to hurt you significantly, and you are also more lkely to perform to your average, as you are rolling that many more dice.

Sure, but the individual units are also less hardy and capable. That's the classic trade-off of elite vs horde forces.

In 2/3rd of games MSU has a massive inherent advantage over actual elite armies, give us the 1/3rd chance, please!

Again, no they don't, except in the most extreme of cases (8 vs 28) and even then only really in seize ground, not really capture and control.

KP's very often lead to games where one player gets outfought and outthought and can still win even after getting pulverized by any reasonable measure simply because they killed a handful of relatively weak units even at the cost of several very powerful squads and war machines, and really, what sort of victory is that? If KP's actually are a balance mechanic, they're the worst kind of crutch.

If you're army can be crushed and left in tatters and completely incapable of any meaningful resistance and your opponents force can still be relatively intact and fully capable of continuing to fight but *loses* a battle of annihilation simply because they lost more discrete elements of maneuver, something is wrong with the system.

HMBC - so noone ever used V walled rhinos to snipe out special weapons or used lash to pull the sarge into range and the rest of the unit out of range? Lucky you.

I never really encountered it either, it was one of those things that *could* be done, but really wasn't as widespread as it was made out to be, but did warrant something being done about it.

I think people hate change, next edition people will say how much they miss 5th Edition and how much they hate 6th.

Vaktathi wrote:
KP's very often lead to games where one player gets outfought and outthought and can still win even after getting pulverized by any reasonable measure simply because they killed a handful of relatively weak units even at the cost of several very powerful squads and war machines, and really, what sort of victory is that? If KP's actually are a balance mechanic, they're the worst kind of crutch.

Objective missions are the same. If I can outplay you through most of the game, and you happen to get the opportunity to move a few weak elements to contest objectives with no expectation of another turn in which they'll certainly be destroyed, what sort of victory is that? Come to think of it, what sort of victory is it where one player can lose a third more pieces than their opponent and still win by checkmating their opponent's king?

It's a Game, it's not a warfare simulator. It's only a game if both sides have some reasonable chance to win. Without limiting factors on MSU armies, such as KP, large-unit armies don't have that opportunity.

As a warfare simulator, this would be true. Armies have consistently gotten smaller and more flexible. The battlefield density (men/footage) at Waterloo was higher than during the American Civil War. It was higher in the American Civil War than in WW1. It was higher in WW1 than WW2, and higher in WW2 than in Nam. It was higher in Nam than it is in Iraq.

Small units with the appropriate weaponry to engage targets at long ranges are simply more effective, especially when you have ordnance weaponry capable of devastating tightly packed formations. But, it wouldn't be much of a game if all factions had to play the same way. That means that there has to be something that makes those non-MSU armies worth playing.

rockerbikie wrote:I think people hate change, next edition people will say how much they miss 5th Edition and how much they hate 6th.

Yes, but it'll be a different group of people.

Throughout this thread, there are plenty of people who have said that they like 5th edition for the most part. Some of these people will dislike the changes made in 6th. Others, including both those who like 5th, and those who dislike 5th, will like 6th.

Pouncey wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:I think people hate change, next edition people will say how much they miss 5th Edition and how much they hate 6th.

Yes, but it'll be a different group of people.

Throughout this thread, there are plenty of people who have said that they like 5th edition for the most part. Some of these people will dislike the changes made in 6th. Others, including both those who like 5th, and those who dislike 5th, will like 6th.

True. You can't satisify everyone it seems.

rockerbikie wrote:

Pouncey wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:I think people hate change, next edition people will say how much they miss 5th Edition and how much they hate 6th.

Yes, but it'll be a different group of people.

Throughout this thread, there are plenty of people who have said that they like 5th edition for the most part. Some of these people will dislike the changes made in 6th. Others, including both those who like 5th, and those who dislike 5th, will like 6th.

True. You can't satisify everyone it seems.

:: nods :: Indeed.

And now, it's naptime! :: stayed up all night ::

Vaktathi - and, again, exactly the same thing can happen in objective missions. If you destroy an Eldar force to just 2 skimmers in C&C, you can still end up easiluy losing - to 200 points of their forces to X hundred of yours.

And not even the most extreme of cases - a middling KP army is at a disadvantage in 2/3rd of games compared to a many KP army. Its one of the reasons you see so many multiple KP armies!

Redbeard wrote:
Objective missions are the same. If I can outplay you through most of the game, and you happen to get the opportunity to move a few weak elements to contest objectives with no expectation of another turn in which they'll certainly be destroyed, what sort of victory is that?

There's a difference, stated purpose of the mission is the control bases and vital points on the battlefield, and there is a random game length so there's a risk in terms of holding said objectives. Your mission is to recover equipment/wounded/relics/etc. Grabbing them with whatever you can is the name of the game. With regards to Annihilation the goal is to destroy the opposing army, and KP's often award victory to the player that did not in fact accomplish this.

Some battles are fought with only one goal – find
your enemy, crush him utterly and take away his
means to mount further resistance.

This is how the rulebook sets up the mission. One can do exactly this and lose, one can fail miserably to do this and win.

Come to think of it, what sort of victory is it where one player can lose a third more pieces than their opponent and still win by checkmating their opponent's king?

One where the only relevant outcome is checkmate or not? If victory was destruction of the opposing force that would be different, but in this case the only goal is checkmate of the King piece and everything else is irrelevant.

It's a Game, it's not a warfare simulator. It's only a game if both sides have some reasonable chance to win. Without limiting factors on MSU armies, such as KP, large-unit armies don't have that opportunity.

Not true at all, low KP armies still do just fine in many objective missions for the reasons I've already listed with the exception of 5 and maybe 4 objective seize ground with more extreme KP differences. With 2 or 3 objectives, even relatively low KP armies are fine as the numerical advantage of the high KP armies cannot effectively be brought to bear.

As a warfare simulator, this would be true. Armies have consistently gotten smaller and more flexible. The battlefield density (men/footage) at Waterloo was higher than during the American Civil War. It was higher in the American Civil War than in WW1. It was higher in WW1 than WW2, and higher in WW2 than in Nam. It was higher in Nam than it is in Iraq.

True, but the reasons for that don't quite port over to 40k as well as one would think so it's difficult to draw the same conclusions there.

Small units with the appropriate weaponry to engage targets at long ranges are simply more effective, especially when you have ordnance weaponry capable of devastating tightly packed formations. But, it wouldn't be much of a game if all factions had to play the same way. That means that there has to be something that makes those non-MSU armies worth playing.

Their typically significantly higher defensive capabilities and killyness and limited vulnerability (if not invulnerability) to morale as well as generally significant advantage in CC resolution (one or two powerful units can win CC by a huge margin even taking more losses in terms of points value/combat ability as only kills matter) don't count? they aren't that handicapped in objective missions that they need to equate far inferior units to much superior ones in annihilation battles.

Vaktathi wrote:
There's a difference, stated purpose of the mission is the control bases and vital points on the battlefield, and there is a random game length so there's a risk in terms of holding said objectives.

If the game goes to turn 7, then it's guaranteed not to have turn 8. I can move whatever I have left to contest your stuff at that point, and regardless of how well you have dominated the game, you cannot prevent me from forcing the tie/winning as you have no further moves to make.

Not true at all, low KP armies still do just fine in many objective missions for the reasons I've already listed with the exception of 5 and maybe 4 objective seize ground with more extreme KP differences. With 2 or 3 objectives, even relatively low KP armies are fine as the numerical advantage of the high KP armies cannot effectively be brought to bear.

Sure they can. You get more options. You get more opportunities to fire, especially meaningful shots. You have more options to make tactical plays. I assume we're talking about competent players here... A player with three units of 10 boyz will beat a player with one unit of 30 boyz, if played intelligently. The player with more units can sacrifice one to draw the charge, and counter charge with the other 2. The player with one unit has no viable alternative but to take the charge offered and hope.

As a warfare simulator, this would be true. Armies have consistently gotten smaller and more flexible. The battlefield density (men/footage) at Waterloo was higher than during the American Civil War. It was higher in the American Civil War than in WW1. It was higher in WW1 than WW2, and higher in WW2 than in Nam. It was higher in Nam than it is in Iraq.

True, but the reasons for that don't quite port over to 40k as well as one would think so it's difficult to draw the same conclusions there.

Really, the problems of Kill Points vs Victory points has been the slow loss of focus and direction that Games Workshop has had over the last fifteen years.

I mean, you complain about all armies playing the same and how that wouldn't be much of a game, but there are plenty of games that do exactly that. I mean, sounds like every kind of real world sim game. I think it's also called Modern Warfare and is one of the most successful video game franchises to date.

The real secret to fixing the issues that 40K has means going back to its roots, where the armies were different, but had much of the same overall capability. Where all armies had the ability to do a variety of things as opposed to the current incarnation of SimpleK where specialization has so badly crippled some armies that their players are left to complain about the armies that aren't so badly crippled and can win using tactics (MSU) rather than statistics. It's an aggregate problem of flawed game design which is also self compounding (nobody likes having to buy new models so making drastic changes always upsets the player base if a particular winning style becomes obsolete).

Redbeard wrote:Morale is kind of a joke in 40k. The armies that do MSU well are largely immune to it, either by virtue of being fearless or having ATSKNF. Defensive capabilities?

I disagree a bit with this. ATSKNF doesn't save you from being walked off the board or tank shocked off an objective. And which MSU armies are fearless?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Really, the problems of Kill Points vs Victory points has been the slow loss of focus and direction that Games Workshop has had over the last fifteen years.

I mean, you complain about all armies playing the same and how that wouldn't be much of a game, but there are plenty of games that do exactly that. I mean, sounds like every kind of real world sim game. I think it's also called Modern Warfare and is one of the most successful video game franchises to date.

Okay, but I don't think it will be a lot of fun on the tabletop. MW and other video games provide differences by the opponent and environment, I guess you could do something similar, but I just don't imagine it would be the same. 40k has always had more variety than those type of games.

The real secret to fixing the issues that 40K has means going back to its roots, where the armies were different, but had much of the same overall capability. Where all armies had the ability to do a variety of things as opposed to the current incarnation of SimpleK where specialization has so badly crippled some armies that their players are left to complain about the armies that aren't so badly crippled and can win using tactics (MSU) rather than statistics. It's an aggregate problem of flawed game design which is also self compounding (nobody likes having to buy new models so making drastic changes always upsets the player base if a particular winning style becomes obsolete).

I kind of agree with this, in that some over specialized units or army concepts worked better in previous editions than they do in 5th. I think this can be fixed without going back to 2nd edition though.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:The real secret to fixing the issues that 40K has means going back to its roots, where the armies were different, but had much of the same overall capability. Where all armies had the ability to do a variety of things as opposed to the current incarnation of SimpleK where specialization has so badly crippled some armies that their players are left to complain about the armies that aren't so badly crippled and can win using tactics (MSU) rather than statistics. It's an aggregate problem of flawed game design which is also self compounding (nobody likes having to buy new models so making drastic changes always upsets the player base if a particular winning style becomes obsolete).

I agree with this. The main flaw with 40k IMO from a rules design perspective is the flawed core rules and unclear direction with the codices (which ideally do not supplement or synchronise with the core rules from a balance perspective as well as they should). Ambiguous wording and unnecessary add-on mechanics has made the 5E rules feel clumsy at times (e.g. 5E CC resolution rules).

It would be hard to “completely fix” 40k but with a large enough interim adjustments to the rules (via 6th) and detailed (well written) errata for all of the factions (including non IoM factions and factions with 3E/4E books), they could pave the way for 40k to be fixed by 7th.

That being said, rules are not GW’s strong suit so most likely 6E breaks things even more (from both a rules and codex design perspective). Even still, the rules are designed to sell models anyway (which is something even Kanluwen has said on dakka).

All in All 5th ed is not a bad edition IMHO... It's easy to learn and play while granting a lot of different tactics.
there are btw some problems with it...
- The increased speed of units (run or cheap transports) coupled with the brutal cc rules has made melee too much relevant IMHO
-The cover rules keep being idiotic since 3rd ed... why the hell the cover save should be AN ALTERNATIVE to other saves? I can use cover even when wearing power armour... please bring back the malus to to hit rolls of 2nd ed.
-Too much tanks... well it's realistic indeed... but this isn't an historical wargame... I want to see shiny space warriors, not parking lots... I reallywould like to see much more costly and durable vehicles... the melta spam has made every vehicle a mere vessel for cc units, or cheap weapon platform
-Wound allocation... this has been widely covered
-Useless IC... shooty ICs are incredibly rare, while , if you don't have EW you have to stay away from cc... at least let them attack those PK Nobs before they ID em.... in fact The cheap librarian is the most common choice...

5th edition is bad because....
My Assualt marines and My Vanguard suck now. Compared to 4th edition where my Veteran Marines could do alot more and still be cheaper than a full equiped Vanguard squad and carry melta guns for the entire squad i think 4th ed wins alot more. I loved 4th ed for its customizable armies especially with space marines. The big problem for me in 5th ed is Wound allocation, TLOS, Combat, vechilehammer, and the fact that sniper rifles suck...
This edition primarily focuses on vechiles. That shouldn't be happening this is the infantry level of the game, not the tank battles of epic, or the space battles of Battlefleet. But sadly people have abused this at my store and i stopped going because it was vehicles all the time and because of extremely cheesy lists.

Vaktathi wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Vaktathi - except an 8 KP army (mine at 1750, assuming thawn dies) is at a massive disadvantage in bore draw, as i have so few units that can hang back and keep my own objective. A 28 KP venom spam list can hang back with cheap plentiful units.

You're talking about the two largest possible extremes at that point, and if you're coming to the board with only 8 KP's, you likely have some fairly rock hard units meaning it's going to be difficult to clear you off an objective. You still shouldn't have much in the way of issues for a Capture and Control game.

The more units you have, the easier it is to contest objectives while keeping yours alive.

Yes, but this only kicks in once a certain number of objectives come into play, with only two, even very small KP armies shouldn't have any issues given that you can concentrate your forces very easily.

Similarly in SG a 28 KP army has so much more redundancy of units that it is silly - firstly lucky rolls are less likely to hurt you significantly, and you are also more lkely to perform to your average, as you are rolling that many more dice.

Sure, but the individual units are also less hardy and capable. That's the classic trade-off of elite vs horde forces.

In 2/3rd of games MSU has a massive inherent advantage over actual elite armies, give us the 1/3rd chance, please!

Again, no they don't, except in the most extreme of cases (8 vs 28) and even then only really in seize ground, not really capture and control.

I can't agree with anything you've posted here. Whether there are two or five objectives, more units are always an advantage. Not just in extreme cases. 14kps vs 22kps is a pretty common ratio, without even getting into particularly low counts below ten, or especially high ones pushing thirty. Maybe the play environment and metagame are just really different on the West Coast, but judging by the stuff posted by guys like Reecius, Blackmoor, and Hulksmash, I don't think so.

candy.man wrote:I agree with this. The main flaw with 40k IMO from a rules design perspective is the flawed core rules and unclear direction with the codices (which ideally do not supplement or synchronise with the core rules from a balance perspective as well as they should). Ambiguous wording and unnecessary add-on mechanics has made the 5E rules feel clumsy at times (e.g. 5E CC resolution rules).

It would be hard to “completely fix” 40k but with a large enough interim adjustments to the rules (via 6th) and detailed (well written) errata for all of the factions (including non IoM factions and factions with 3E/4E books), they could pave the way for 40k to be fixed by 7th.

That being said, rules are not GW’s strong suit so most likely 6E breaks things even more (from both a rules and codex design perspective). Even still, the rules are designed to sell models anyway (which is something even Kanluwen has said on dakka).

Did you play 2nd/3rd/4th? Because 5th is really the best yet. I guess you can just say that it has always been bad, but I don't quite buy it.

Agreed.

I liked fifth edition but its just it needs alot more improvements to it.
Of course it is a step up from fourth ed and third thats for sure. Where vehicles were so bad they weren't even taking.

Asherian Command wrote:I liked fifth edition but its just it needs alot more improvements to it.
Of course it is a step up from fourth ed and third thats for sure. Where vehicles were so bad they weren't even taking.

3rd was kind of a hilarious balance for vehicles. Your vehicles were awesome and allowed you to get sickening charge distances, but Emperor help you if Ordnance hit it while you were embarked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nice post from Kirby on 3++ re: this topic:

http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/01/joys-of-5th-edition.html

Most things in 40K are abstract. The level of detail/realism you are trying to apply to 40K is counter to it's design and more suited for a detailed small-scale skirmish game (which 40K isnt).

This is effectively the core of my discomfort with GWs rule design philosophy and implementation.

As others have mentioned ad nauseum, the 9 guys behind a bunker but one guy has his arm sticking out. Oh dear your whole squad is now dead because "they are ducking and weaving, shifting position on the battlefield". No. They are not. They are a static representation of a squad with abilities and statlines, akin to a chess piece. How you move them and position them should not be overridden by rules such as the above.

The mechline which moves 0.1" meaning your combat attacks go from a 100% chance to hit to 50% because it represents some form of the driver, "gunning the engine" hard or swirving to avoid attacks

Nids casting psychic powers but obviously being immune to Chaos, get "psychic feedback overload" instead. Why not just acknowledge the Hive Mind is a truely unmatched psychic entity, make it immune to failure but downgrade its powers slightly.

Monsorous creatures whose body is judged to be only 49% covered and takes a lascannon salvo to the face.

Strange going ons with Dreadnoughts climbing vertical building faces and attacks being made through floors.

Im sure we could go on.
GW either need to make an abstract rule system or a very realistic skirmish style one. The mixing of the two for me does not sit well.

Would a realisitic ruleset work for 40k?
I think it was Redbeard in another thread that had a great post surrounding it (which I cant find). I cast my mind back to 2nd ed which definetly did have its flaws and issues but it was more realistic and grounded in a sort of "yeah ok, that makes pretty good sense I suppose" design.

I enjoy 5th ed overall but sometimes it really is a session in games.

Taking in the 5 editions of 40k to date do you think GW has come close to a perfect (ok lets say great) ruleset?

What direction could they take it in? Perhaps split apocalypse fully from 40k and have a very realistic skirmish style game and then a more abstract large scale one?

Isn't Necromunda your 'very realistic skirmish style game' and 40k/Apoc your 'more abstract large scale game'?

Yes but surely there is a ruleset that can accom the skirmish type games with some armor, the odd flyer etc.
Necromunda was incredibly fun but sometimes you want to roll that tank squad over your opponent.

Do we have to move to the abstract ruleset for that?
I dunno, quite possibly we do.

One might say that once you're rolling a tank squad over your opponent, you have definitely escalated the engagement from a 'skirmish'.

Ratius wrote:What direction could they take it in? Perhaps split apocalypse fully from 40k and have a very realistic skirmish style game and then a more abstract large scale one?

This would be a great move from a marketing standpoint as well. It would allow people to get invested in the universe and the miniatures by buying one box of marines (or orks or whatever) and having rules that work with the same stats and codexes, but that scale up. Ideally, at the squad/skirmish level, each man is on his own, doing his own thing, moving independently of his mates, with some influence radius for squad command and such. At the mid-level (currently WH40k) your men get grouped in squads, much as they are now, but each man gets to add his specific attacks in, roll his own to-hit dice, etc, and the minimum unit of action is the squad. At the apocalypse-level, squads could be given group characteristics and resolved without needing to throw 50+ dice.


GWs biggest continual design flaw is yo-yo design. 3rd ed vehicles were too good. 4th ed vehicles were steel coffins and no one wanted to use them. 5th ed vehicles are back to being too good. 6th ed will see vehicles nerfed (you already bought them, didn't you), and infantry stressed again. There'll be some big announcement about how they didn't see people playing with armies of soldiers anymore, and that it's armies of men that make wargames really cool.

GWs biggest continual design flaw is yo-yo design.

Based soley (and perhaps harshly) in my opinion on market sales and shifting volumes.
Watch those killakans get a nerf in 6th guys as stormboys and weirdboyz make a big comeback etc.

you have definitely escalated the engagement from a 'skirmish'.

True, perhaps skirmish is too restrictive a word - small scale engagement, Im not sure what proper military buffs would call it, something like 2-3 squads supported by an APC or two, with a chopper on standby for backup.

Ratius wrote:

GWs biggest continual design flaw is yo-yo design.

Based soley (and perhaps harshly) in my opinion on market sales and shifting volumes.
Watch those killakans get a nerf in 6th guys as stormboys and weirdboyz make a big comeback etc.

I am a constant optimist, but I don't think that this is necessarily what drives everything. I think that GW legitimately tries to give customers what they ask for, which is usually a horrible idea. They should just stick to what they have and keep moving forward, tweaking slightly. I think part of the problem with edition changes is that they look at what everyone asked for or complained about on the last edition and try to fix it. This swings things way horribly in the other direction and we get pendulum design.

The pessimist in me says that in 6th we get a horrible over-nerfing of vehicles, impossible to obtain cover and defined LOS for everything which will be far worse than 4th and 3rd because that's what the customers want. If they are smart, they'll finally break the pendulum, won't do this and will simply tweak 5th.

True, perhaps skirmish is too restrictive a word - small scale engagement, Im not sure what proper military buffs would call it, something like 2-3 squads supported by an APC or two, with a chopper on standby for backup.

I think it is a great idea. They should rework Necromunda to accomodate it and push it as a parallel product to 40k. This would remove the need for 'kill team' missions and, as Redbeard said, give a gateway drug product. Also, with a sufficiently robust ruleset on the Necro side, you could potentially use codexes as a a source of material for some units and simply interpret their stats to the skirmish level.

Ratius wrote:True, perhaps skirmish is too restrictive a word - small scale engagement, Im not sure what proper military buffs would call it, something like 2-3 squads supported by an APC or two, with a chopper on standby for backup.

You’ve made some really good posts and I’d like to add a little further to hit. I agree that most people misinterpret the word skirmish. Interestingly enough, the example you quoted above sounds like a 1000pt MEQ list anyway (which is what a lot of people play anyway).

Ideally I’ve always thought that regular 40k should be based around 1000pts instead of 1500-2000pts (which is what 5E is balanced around). Ideally if 40k could scale as well as Warmachine for different point scale games (rather than 1500-Apoc), it would be a better game.

You’ve made some really good posts and I’d like to add a little further to hit. I agree that most people misinterpret the word skirmish. Interestingly enough, the example you quoted above sounds like a 1000pt MEQ list anyway (which is what a lot of people play anyway).

Ideally I’ve always thought that regular 40k should be based around 1000pts instead of 1500-2000pts (which is what 5E is balanced around). Ideally if 40k could scale as well as Warmachine for different point scale games (rather than 1500-Apoc), it would be a better game.

That opens up the old can of worms though of "what points level does 40k work best at currently?".
Which in turn leads to "if GW were to reinvent a ruleset what points level would it work best at?".
Would they have to completely change their points levels to go with it? Personally I think so.

I recently started dabbling in Warmachine (great fun btw) and it does take a bit of getting used to when your mate says "taking this unit for 2 points, this jack for 5".
Granted points are just an arbitrary means to get things on the board and make sure armies are balanced but it feels a little strange.