'Gotta watch out for trolls going over this bridge!'

I have to say that, without being too pedantic, that the 5th edition rulebook is well balanced. But maybe I'm just being uncreative in my appraisal of the RULES. I'd like to hear what Dakka thinks.

Go visit YMDC and then re-ask that question.

I think 5th is a great edition, though (being a nid player) I find you have to work alot harder to keep your big gribbly MC alive, where as vehicles get away with shot's that would got straight through your T6 nid.
I also had a bit of a rage over MC psykers only being alowed on power a turn . Overall i dont have many problems with 5th


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:Go visit YMDC and then re-ask that question.

Why dont you go to YMDC and ask what YMDC is for?

cheapbuster wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Go visit YMDC and then re-ask that question.

Why dont you go to YMDC and ask what YMDC is for?

It's for clarifying rules. It seemed like the OP was saying the rulebook is pretty clear.
If it was that clear, YMDC wouldn't be as active as it is.

The codices are the problem in 5th. The core rules are quite good, minus a few glaring issues (wound allocation, strength of vehicles).

Both the dexes and the core rules have their good points and bad. The bad is bad enough I'm waiting for 6th with baited breath and really hoping for the changes I'd like, but it's not bad enough to make me quit playing.

The mech in 5th is horrible, but thank the gods they toned down skimmers from 4th.

Pskyer abilities need to be fully clarified IN THE BOOK. I don't care, make the damn thing longer, but if I have to go through the crap where lash becomes a shooting attack, but JOTWW doesn't again, it will primarily be a big issue there.

Not to mention they need some better rules for some things, Monstrous Creatures aren't cutting it in 5th, not to mention a large number of weaponry types.

Jump Infantry aren't exactly great either, there's one army that consistently takes them and that's because they are a troops choice. Not sure what can be done there though.

Also, get rid of Wound Allocation. I don't care if this nerfs some things, you shouldn't be relying on this at ALL.

All things considered, I don't think 5th is that bad. I didn't actually play in 4th, but from everything I've heard, it doesn't quite sound as fun (and this is from re-tellings by people who loved 4th).

The biggest problem I have with 5th is that EVERYTHING is random. Random game length, random who gets first turn, random what scenario you play, random run length, random moving through cover... well, you get the idea. My biggest complaint is that it feels like, even if you play a 'perfect' game (whatever that means) you're still victim to die rolls. It's like playing Chutes and Ladders.

I personally hate the cover save rules and pinning needs to be fixed but rumors say they might have fixed pinning rules. Other than that it seemed fine to me.

Never understood why a unit that is providing cover from another unit doesn't take wounds and how a weapon can punch through Power Armor but it stopped cold by a tree.

Wound allocation nonsense, vehicle shooting and damage rules, passenger in vehicle rules, pinning is too weak, that's all I can think of. There's not a lot wrong with 5th, the issues lie more with certain codexes.

Silentway wrote:
Never understood why a unit that is providing cover from another unit doesn't take wounds and how a weapon can punch through Power Armor but it stopped cold by a tree.

Well, that's just hard cover vs soft cover for you. It's not that the tree is stopping the weapon; it's that the tree obstructs view to the target such that you wind up firing at a nonvital part of the target or miss entirely.

Now, whether that should be as good of cover as a concrete wall, well, that's a different story altogether.

daedalus wrote: My biggest complaint is that it feels like, even if you play a 'perfect' game (whatever that means) you're still victim to die rolls. It's like playing Chutes and Ladders.

This is endemic to 40k, though, not just 5th ed.

Anyways, I agree that 5th is better than 4th, and is actually pretty good over all. The only two things that really bug me are wound wrapping and TLoS. Also, as I've played more, I'm slowly starting to agree that there needs to be something a little more substantial that happens to passengers in a vehicle explosion than nothing, which is what usually seems to happen.

I have thoroughly enjoyed 5th edition and consider it the best edition of the game so far.

I am also looking forward to 6th, and am sure I will enjoy it just as much.

5th is okay, but not great. Mech and Universal Cover are probably the biggest things that need to be edited (+5 Cover Save and maybe something more drastic to passengers in exploding transports).

Not having a decent counter to Out Flanking (Besides cramming into the center of the table) needs to be addressed as well.

As mentioned, the rulebook itself has a few big glaring issues that really need addressing to balance things a bit more come 6th edition;
a) Vehicles are too strong meaning that mech is dominating while a few armies are left out in the cold because they don't get cheap super-effective transports. (Tyranids & Daemons)
Convsersely, MC's could do with a bit of tweeking to make them more desirable.

b) How scoring & contesting work needs added clairificaiton. Basically, you shouldn't be able to sit around in your metal bawkes and claim objectives, nor should a 200+pts Troops squad fil to hold an objective because a 50'ish pts transport is nearby.

c) Missions are stale as hell and need a serious overhaul to inject some variety into them again. Oh, and Kill Points really need to scale in regards to the units you're killing! Seriously, right now a grot is equal to a paladin interms of it's KP value! Or to put it another way, a 700+ pts fully tricked-out Elites unit is worth the exact same KP's value as that 60pts unit of Boyz...

d) The Force Org Chart needs to be 100% re-worked. Right now it can't scale and it overly favours MEQ type armies who don't require the same amount of redundancy and/or have far more 'specialist' type units than any marine army ever will... For example, Daemons can't get enough of their crucial Elites units onto the table at higher pts game, whereas a smurf army can take a Sternguard + Hammernators and be fine with a slot to spare.
Either scale the chart in relation to the pts level of the game, (ala 6th & 7th editions of Fantasy), or else bring percentages back into play with hard limits on the number of 'duplicate' entries allowed, (ala 8th edition Fantasy.)

e) Wound allocation abuses need to go.

f) Melta needs to be tonned way down. Rapid Fire type weapons need some buffs to make them worthwhile again.

g) Psychic powers need to have clairified classes such as 'psychic shooting attack', 'start of turn', 'unit augment', etc...
Also, every army needs to have some kind of basic psychic defense i nthe rulebook itself.



The biggest issues however lie with the codicies... Some books like SW's & IG have a few gaffs that lead to the spaming of 2 or 3 undercosted units. In the case of SW's, while Longfangs will always be 'really good', the Grey Hunters would lose a bit of their punch if the overall efectiveness of cheap transports & melta spaming were tonned down.

Some books however are just plain 'average' with few real standouts, not a single no-brainer option and haven't ajusted well at all to the current mechfest meta. (Tyranids - looking at you!)

Then you have the 'well balanced' books like Codex Marines, DE, Orks, Eldar, Necrons & Daemons which can play perfectly well and do just fine in the right hands even at the top levels of competition.

Finally, you have the 'game breakers' which are just nothing more than Codex: 'X' + 1 like BA's & GK's.
BA's are pretty much C:SM + 1, while GK's is a pile of steaming crap that reaks of being BA/SW/Eldar +11!

The rest of the books, wich are just old and need a facelift like Chaos Marines, DA's, Tau, Templars & those poor, poor Sisters!


If GW can start doing for 40k what they've started doing for Fantasy, then 6th edition could easily become the greatest edition yet with a decently rounded rulebook and well balanced army books that are short on hugely OTT entries.
What's really interesting to note so far in 8th edition Fantasy's 'new balance', Ward has yet to write a single book, while every other author has penned at least one book and so far there's very little difference between the percieved 'top book' and 'bottom rung' book! (so what does that tell us?!! )

on the whole "universal +4 cover save" isn't that just a result of player habit? When you read the rulebook, a lot of the terrain is listed at a +5 cover save (dont have book, but things like woods, ruins, chest high walls, wrecks, etc.) The way I've heard it described, GW intended +5 in most situations (KFF for example) and everyone just latched onto the whole +4 thing out of habit. I'm kind of new and dont own the rulebook though, so if someone could quote that page it'd be great. Of course, it doesnt matter if I'm right because I doubt player habit will change now.

As for the only issues I've noticed in 5th as a new player, there is a rediculous emphasis on transports in this edition (at least as far as rhinos and chimeras are concerned) Explosions are fairly non threatening, and wrecks dont threaten the occupants at all. Plus you can capture an objective without leaving a transport, which strikes me as odd. Only other thing that could probably be tweaked are the wound shenanigans things you can do with palidins and nobs. Do that and I'd probably be happy.

MrMoustaffa wrote:on the whole "universal +4 cover save" isn't that just a result of player habit? When you read the rulebook, a lot of the terrain is listed at a +5 cover save (dont have book, but things like woods, ruins, chest high walls, wrecks, etc.) The way I've heard it described, GW intended +5 in most situations (KFF for example) and everyone just latched onto the whole +4 thing out of habit. I'm kind of new and dont own the rulebook though, so if someone could quote that page it'd be great. Of course, it doesnt matter if I'm right because I doubt player habit will change now.

No, a 5+ is described as "High Grass, Crops, Bushes, Hedges, Fences" and 4+ includes things like Woods, Ruins, Walls, Wrecked Vehicles.

rigeld2 wrote:

MrMoustaffa wrote:on the whole "universal +4 cover save" isn't that just a result of player habit? When you read the rulebook, a lot of the terrain is listed at a +5 cover save (dont have book, but things like woods, ruins, chest high walls, wrecks, etc.) The way I've heard it described, GW intended +5 in most situations (KFF for example) and everyone just latched onto the whole +4 thing out of habit. I'm kind of new and dont own the rulebook though, so if someone could quote that page it'd be great. Of course, it doesnt matter if I'm right because I doubt player habit will change now.

4+ includes things like Woods, Ruins, Walls, Wrecked Vehicles.

Or essentially every piece of terrain on a 40k board.

Ailaros wrote:

daedalus wrote: My biggest complaint is that it feels like, even if you play a 'perfect' game (whatever that means) you're still victim to die rolls. It's like playing Chutes and Ladders.

This is endemic to 40k, though, not just 5th ed.

Anyways, I agree that 5th is better than 4th, and is actually pretty good over all. The only two things that really bug me are wound wrapping and TLoS. Also, as I've played more, I'm slowly starting to agree that there needs to be something a little more substantial that happens to passengers in a vehicle explosion than nothing, which is what usually seems to happen.

Average casualties from an exploding chimera is 4.4, on top of a pinning and morale test. If one of my chimeras gets popped I assume the squad inside is already dead so I'm not really sure where the idea that exploding vehicles are not powerful enough. A single extra point of strength damage, or AP5, would make mech guard unplayable.

Anyway other than wound allocation bs I'd like to see less arbitrary randomness - stealing initiative should go, cover should be 5+ by default, "25% of the game board as terrain" is bs, more like 15%.
There are others.

I think Ailaros was speaking about MEQ, not IG.

How can you make it more damaging to MEQ without making it devestating to IG? Higher strength? Give it an AP?

The movement rules are terrible
AP system is bad
Cover rules are terrible
Wound allocation is prone to abuse and clumsy

Joey wrote:How can you make it more damaging to MEQ without making it devestating to IG? Higher strength? Give it an AP?

I guess you could make it ignore armor. Hurts IG more, but it lessens the gap between the two. To be fair, if the metal box in which you are currently residing in EXPLODES, it should probably be quite damaging, whether you're in kevlar or in fiction armor.

Joey wrote:How can you make it more damaging to MEQ without making it devestating to IG? Higher strength? Give it an AP?

I like how the Leaked book did it.

D6 for each unit, on a 6, they die. No armor save, but an INV save can.

daedalus wrote:

Joey wrote:How can you make it more damaging to MEQ without making it devestating to IG? Higher strength? Give it an AP?

I guess you could make it ignore armor. Hurts IG more, but it lessens the gap between the two. To be fair, if the metal box in which you are currently residing in EXPLODES, it should probably be quite damaging, whether you're in kevlar or in fiction armor.

To be fair, your chances of surviving such explosion should be magnitudes better in power armour when compared to flak armour or no armour at all.
If you want realism, anything up to AP5 is easy to explain. Would be hard to support AP2 (direct hit by lascannon) or AP3 (equivalent to direct hit by armor piercing missile) fluffwise, though that hasn't stopped anyone before.

Personally, I'd like the mech toned down (though I run MSU list), but I really don't want the pendulum to swing back to the "All transports are death-traps. No sane commander would ever risk actually putting troops inside" which has happened in few editions.

daedalus wrote:

Joey wrote:How can you make it more damaging to MEQ without making it devestating to IG? Higher strength? Give it an AP?

I guess you could make it ignore armor. Hurts IG more, but it lessens the gap between the two. To be fair, if the metal box in which you are currently residing in EXPLODES, it should probably be quite damaging, whether you're in kevlar or in fiction armor.

That would eliminate mech guard in a stroke. Losing all the normal guys plus a special weapon, plus a pinning test, plus a morale test. Leaving you with 2 special weapons and a sargent, probably gone to ground/fleeing.
Yeah, no.

Right, there are ways of making vehicle damage worse while sill making it fair. For example, in 4th ed if you were in a vehicle explosion, the guys inside were pinned. End of. No roll. In this case, what the player lost wasn't models as much as time, which was still a real loss.

Even in the case of vets in a chimera, they get blown up, lose a couple of abblative wounds and then. more often than not just run around shooting as if nothing happened, and that's in one of the worst case transport loss scenarios.

As for cover, you've got to look at all the changes in light of 4th ed.

In 4th ed, cover was really easy to get thanks to the old non-TLoS system. Furthermore, close combat was already a joke. Yes, you could skip between units, but that's if you ever got there in the first place. In order to make CC viable, especially in a world where they were switching to TLoS, and getting rid of the (admittedly abusive) aforementioned chain close combats, they needed to give close combat a big boost. As such, they all gained the ability to run, and all imperium armies got frag grenades standard. Some of them also gained the ability to outflank, and the 4+ cover of intervening units (which is way better than the 4th ed leadership test system), means that units can actually make it to the other side of the board.

If you reduce cover to a universal 5+, an already very shooty game relapses into a practically only shooty game, as even a 4+ is already tough to make foot hordes work against opponents who know what their small arm is for. Plus, worse cover makes long-range armies even more powerful, which means more sit-and-shoot dice rolling sessions, and even less movement than we have right now.

If we want cover to get worse, then we need to make everything else faster to compensate. For example, you could give everybody in the game the equivalent of the current fleet special rule as standard, and make it so that units with fleet get to roll an extra D6 for their charge range, or something.

If you don't like cover as it is right now, you have to do things to actually keep the balance, rather than just making cover worse.

Joey wrote:

daedalus wrote:

Joey wrote:How can you make it more damaging to MEQ without making it devestating to IG? Higher strength? Give it an AP?

I guess you could make it ignore armor. Hurts IG more, but it lessens the gap between the two. To be fair, if the metal box in which you are currently residing in EXPLODES, it should probably be quite damaging, whether you're in kevlar or in fiction armor.

That would eliminate mech guard in a stroke. Losing all the normal guys plus a special weapon, plus a pinning test, plus a morale test. Leaving you with 2 special weapons and a sargent, probably gone to ground/fleeing.
Yeah, no.

Okay, rending perhaps? Always 3+ to wound regardless of the toughness?

rigeld2 wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Go visit YMDC and then re-ask that question.

Why dont you go to YMDC and ask what YMDC is for?

It's for clarifying rules. It seemed like the OP was saying the rulebook is pretty clear.
If it was that clear, YMDC wouldn't be as active as it is.

From what I've seen, YMDC is widely used to try and prove one's interpretation of the rules using mental acrobatics and arguing in circles.

Don't forget the sophistry, rhetoric and dogged refusal to recognise that you've lost, or that the other poster may actually be agreeing with you

YMDC can be fun sometimes

beigeknight wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Go visit YMDC and then re-ask that question.

Why dont you go to YMDC and ask what YMDC is for?

It's for clarifying rules. It seemed like the OP was saying the rulebook is pretty clear.
If it was that clear, YMDC wouldn't be as active as it is.

From what I've seen, YMDC is widely used to try and prove one's interpretation of the rules using mental acrobatics and arguing in circles.

Only by RAI.

Was there ever a wound allocation method that WASN'T abused?

The main issue with the 5th edition rulebook is that it isn't selling enough models

Kirasu wrote:The main issue with the 5th edition rulebook is that it isn't selling enough models

they drop their prices and they won't have the problem.

rigeld2 wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Go visit YMDC and then re-ask that question.

Why dont you go to YMDC and ask what YMDC is for?

It's for clarifying rules. It seemed like the OP was saying the rulebook is pretty clear.
If it was that clear, YMDC wouldn't be as active as it is.

A good bit of the time it seems like people grabbing at straws to pervert the rules in their favour.

Buttons wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

cheapbuster wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Go visit YMDC and then re-ask that question.

Why dont you go to YMDC and ask what YMDC is for?

It's for clarifying rules. It seemed like the OP was saying the rulebook is pretty clear.
If it was that clear, YMDC wouldn't be as active as it is.

A good bit of the time it seems like people grabbing at straws to pervert the rules in their favour.

Bingo!

Having come in on 5th, I think that the rules are easy to pick up.
The discrepancies with the older codices are a bit annoying though.

Luke_Prowler wrote:Was there ever a wound allocation method that WASN'T abused?

4th ed wasn't so bad. Back then, you did each type of weapon in its own allocation phase. First you applied all the wounds for the lasguns, for example, and then, after the armor saves were made and the necessary models removed, you then went and applied all of the plasma gun wounds in their own step. Repeat for every different kind of weapon.

It didn't really slow things down that much, and made it so that any killing power you applied always actually added to the damage that you do, unlike this current edition where it is very, very possible for applying more wounds to result in you doing less damage over all.

Against some armies i will NEVER fire my lasguns. Any MEQ squad of 5 or less can do wound wrapping to essentially nullify a special weapon wound. It happened the other day when I forget and accidentaly fired my lasguns and plasmas vs 3 terminators and a priest in termy armour. 4 plasma gun wounds, 2 lasgun wounds. Suffice that to say, the terminators died, the priest lived.

Buttons wrote:A good bit of the time it seems like people grabbing at straws to pervert the rules in their favour.

If I had a dollar for eveery time over the last decade or so that I've been accused of that (usually in a discussion of a rule for an army that I don't even play with or against) I would have... well, probably about 6 dollars.

By and large YMDC isn't like that at all. People talking about YMDC invariably remind me of the old story of a blind man being shown an elephant... People see that multi page thread with several people disecting the precise meaning of a certain word and decide that this is what YMDC is all about... completely oblivious to the 10 threads either side of it where a question is asked and answered and everyone gets on with their lives.

If you're not interested in discussing the minutae of the rules, then just avoid those threads. I don't have any interest in discussing video games... but I don't feel the need to insult those who frequent the Video Game forum for having the temerity to discuss something that doesn't interest me.




On topic, my only real gripe with 5th edition is wound allocation. From rules discussions, it seems to be one of the most frequently misunderstood rules issues in the game currently, and while the actual mechanics of it are fairly simple, it can be rather difficult to track on the table with particularly complex units. I would very much like to see something a little simpler for 6th edition.

To me many of the options found in the pancake edition solve 5th completely to my eyes.

Cover, directed attacks if your close, vehicles being able to be glanced to death again.

Bidding for 1st turn, how they deal with victory points, ect.

having played since rogue trader, 5th is better than 3rd and 4th, it just still has lots of abuses.

Certain codexes need flushed or fixed as well, they are too strong in these rules.

Wound allocation by wargear and 4+ cover save for everyone.

Tacitcal marines in cover with a 3+ 4+++ is just silly. Orks getting a free 4+ save is also silly.

Also, honestly its sad that there even needs to be a YMDC for 40k. It is not hard to just clarify these rules. I guess thats another thing to the list. The lack of rules clarity when the effort it takes to make sure your own game runs smoothly is tiny.

terranarc wrote:Wound allocation by wargear and 4+ cover save for everyone.

Tacitcal marines in cover with a 3+ 4+++ is just silly. Orks getting a free 4+ save is also silly.

Also, honestly its sad that there even needs to be a YMDC for 40k. It is not hard to just clarify these rules. I guess thats another thing to the list. The lack of rules clarity when the effort it takes to make sure your own game runs smoothly is tiny.

This a million times over. When I was starting out, the rules literally made my head hurt. They were confusing at times and could be vague. Our store has an extremely competitive player base, and they've been showing me all the little tricks to abusing these systems so I don't get cheated. But whats sad is that they shouldn't even have to do this in the first place. When a guy is playing a game against you and is reminding you on how to abuse the wound allocation to help yourself save almost HALF of your veteran squad(although that was very nice of him to try and help me) something is wrong.

I'm just lucky my store is showing me what to watch for, I doubt many newbies got that chance...

MrMoustaffa wrote:/ When a guy is playing a game against you and is reminding you on how to abuse the wound allocation to help yourself save almost HALF of your veteran squad(although that was very nice of him to try and help me) something is wrong.

It is kind of childish to insist that using the wound allocation rules to minimize casualties is "abuse" when the example associated with said rules tells us that is is good gamesmanship to do just that.

Steelmage99 wrote:

MrMoustaffa wrote:/ When a guy is playing a game against you and is reminding you on how to abuse the wound allocation to help yourself save almost HALF of your veteran squad(although that was very nice of him to try and help me) something is wrong.

It is kind of childish to insist that using the wound allocation rules to minimize casualties is "abuse" when the example associated with said rules tells us that is is good gamesmanship to do just that.

Shooting More = Less damage.

One can tell this is a gross misinterpretation of logic.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

MrMoustaffa wrote:/ When a guy is playing a game against you and is reminding you on how to abuse the wound allocation to help yourself save almost HALF of your veteran squad(although that was very nice of him to try and help me) something is wrong.

It is kind of childish to insist that using the wound allocation rules to minimize casualties is "abuse" when the example associated with said rules tells us that is is good gamesmanship to do just that.

Shooting More = Less damage.

One can tell this is a gross misinterpretation of logic.

It is shown in the example as being a smart thing to do.

Logic has nothing to do with it, and it certainly cannot be considered abusing the rules when the Games Designers shows us that "this is the intent of the rule".

SOmeone at 40k night said this
"In 40k right now its about "Buy this model and win" not tactics"
Make sense, I dont think what models i have now i think what model to get next to destroy enemies.

I think if cover saves were reduced to 5+ for some terrain (I.E. woods and the like) and units could assault out of all transports (With the addition of improved rules for vehicle destroyed/explodes) could make the game slightly better, but overall, 5th is nice.

This is purely selfish, but I dislike the cover rules because I personally get screwed.

Every little bush being a 4+ cover save means that my armour piercing sorcerous bolts I'm paying tons of points for just happen to blow up a bush or a branch half the time.

Then my 4+ invulnerable save is a big waste of points in the shooting phase when everything else gets the exact same thing just for having a branch or bush in front of them.

There is literally no benefit or change for Thousand Sons when they go into cover which makes little sense, all of a sudden shots are unerringly accurate and hit cover 0% of the time when shooting at Thousand Sons.

Change cover into a to hit modifier like Fantasy and make me happy.

Steelmage99 wrote:Logic has nothing to do with it

No, but bad game design does. Being in a situation where you need to apply less killing power to make sure you do more damage is awful game design at best, and idiotic at worst. You don't need to make an appeal to logic for why the current wound wrapping system is broken.

Likewise, any system where you can gain a serious advantage with careful memorization of the rules is also a bad design. If you want a game where the winner is the one who can figure out the rules fastest, go play Mao.

Steelmage99 wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

MrMoustaffa wrote:/ When a guy is playing a game against you and is reminding you on how to abuse the wound allocation to help yourself save almost HALF of your veteran squad(although that was very nice of him to try and help me) something is wrong.

It is kind of childish to insist that using the wound allocation rules to minimize casualties is "abuse" when the example associated with said rules tells us that is is good gamesmanship to do just that.

Shooting More = Less damage.

One can tell this is a gross misinterpretation of logic.

It is shown in the example as being a smart thing to do.

Logic has nothing to do with it, and it certainly cannot be considered abusing the rules when the Games Designers shows us that "this is the intent of the rule".

I know it's not really abuse as well, which is why I don't get upset when people do it to me. I understand that's intentionally in the game, but that doesnt mean I have to like it. If I was in a friendly game, I probably wouldn't bother with it too much, as it just feels weird.

My problem is it makes small arms on basic infantry EVEN MORE WORTHLESS. I mean seriously, I know lasguns suck. You don't need to punish me when I actually stick some wounds with them. Seriously. When I would rather just shoot my 3 meltas, instead of 3 meltas and 18 lasguns, because I know the 3 meltas will probably do more damage on their own, something is messed up. I think in the past 3 games I've played, I've fired my lasguns 3 times, and that was usually when a small PCS had their Heavy weapon sniped and had nothing else to use.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Also, get rid of Wound Allocation. I don't care if this nerfs some things, you shouldn't be relying on this at ALL.

I find that, without wound allocation, most multi-wound units are over-priced. With wound allocation, they seem to work out all-right. IMO, I'd prefer to see wound allocation become institutionalised. It just seems counter-intuitive that a unit with twice as many wounds isn't twice as hard to kill.

My only real gripe with 5th Ed. is cc Strength not having a direct correlation to beating/ modifying armour saves.. a Nob with uge choppa on the charge can take down a dread- But that guardsman with the flak jacket can shrug it off.

Hoping that cc weapons get armour save modifiers similar to how it worked in 2nd Ed... With a baseline str5 = -1, str6 =-2 and scaling from there. Power weapons maybe get an additional -1 or -2.

Just some thoughts

Kaldor wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Also, get rid of Wound Allocation. I don't care if this nerfs some things, you shouldn't be relying on this at ALL.

I find that, without wound allocation, most multi-wound units are over-priced. With wound allocation, they seem to work out all-right. IMO, I'd prefer to see wound allocation become institutionalised. It just seems counter-intuitive that a unit with twice as many wounds isn't twice as hard to kill.

If they got rid of Multi-wound allocation, they could work them down to levels of cost that's worthwhile than.

It seems also counter-intuitive that shooting more weapons actually lessens the amount of damage you do, there just needs to be either a better system, or have it removed. I don't mind wounds being allocated to different models. (A bit anyways), but I do mind when shooting more = weakness.

Ailaros wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Logic has nothing to do with it

No, but bad game design does. Being in a situation where you need to apply less killing power to make sure you do more damage is awful game design at best, and idiotic at worst.

Sure, we might not like a given rule or we might find it counter-intuitive.
That does not change the fact that the rule, its intent and its example are all clear.

You don't need to make an appeal to logic for why the current wound wrapping system is broken.

One shouldn't be making an appeal to logic, when it comes to the rules of 40k, at all.

Likewise, any system where you can gain a serious advantage with careful memorization of the rules is also a bad design. If you want a game where the winner is the one who can figure out the rules fastest, go play Mao.

What careful memorization is required to understand the wound allocation rules? And what does that have to do with anything?

Does a given players inability to remember that Fleet allows a unit to Assault after Running have any impact on the perceived "power-level" of Fleet?

Saying that using the wound allocation rules to minimize casualties (as bloody shown in the example) is abuse is like saying that moving the full 6" for an Infantry model is abuse.



This is about the childish use of "abuse" and "shenanigans" in regards to the wound allocation rules.
It is not about whether I like the rules or find them particularly good for the game as a whole.

I will also go on record saying that the wound allocation rule is perfectly easy to both understand and use in game. and that the amount of questions concerning this rule utterly baffles me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrMoustaffa wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Logic has nothing to do with it, and it certainly cannot be considered abusing the rules when the Games Designers shows us that "this is the intent of the rule".

I know it's not really abuse as well, which is why I don't get upset when people do it to me. I understand that's intentionally in the game, but that doesnt mean I have to like it.

Sorry if this seems dumb, but I'm not understanding on how firing more weapons results in less casualties. If you fired with 3 meltaguns and 18 lasguns, wouldn't the meltaguns be (probably) wounding on a 2+, disallowing normal armor saves, and the lasguns (probably) wounding on a 5+, allowing armor saves? So if 3 meltaguns wounded and 8 lasguns wounded they would lose 3 models then take their saves for the las wounds? Or am I missing something really slowed about 5th edition here? :confused:

Jerjare wrote:Sorry if this seems dumb, but I'm not understanding on how firing more weapons results in less casualties. If you fired with 3 meltaguns and 18 lasguns, wouldn't the meltaguns be (probably) wounding on a 2+, disallowing normal armor saves, and the lasguns (probably) wounding on a 5+, allowing armor saves? So if 3 meltaguns wounded and 8 lasguns wounded they would lose 3 models then take their saves for the las wounds? Or am I missing something really slowed about 5th edition here? :confused:

With the amount of wounds, on complex wound models (aka, diverse unit loadout)

Say there's five, with say..all 3 melta wounding, and about 12 lasgun wounds, by the nature of wound allocation he can allocate the three melta wounds to one model, thus sparing the rest of his models from the melta wrath, thus, doing less damage with more shots.

Maybe it should be changed, maybe it shouldn't, but it doesnt seem right that a marine in his power armour will almost gain almost no bonus against shooting when he's taking cover. Though it would break the game, especialy when you start looking at units with FNP and re-rolls to saves (fateweaver).

Jerjare wrote:Sorry if this seems dumb, but I'm not understanding on how firing more weapons results in less casualties. If you fired with 3 meltaguns and 18 lasguns, wouldn't the meltaguns be (probably) wounding on a 2+, disallowing normal armor saves, and the lasguns (probably) wounding on a 5+, allowing armor saves? So if 3 meltaguns wounded and 8 lasguns wounded they would lose 3 models then take their saves for the las wounds? Or am I missing something really slowed about 5th edition here? :confused:

Okay I'm shooting at 3 MEQ with my veteran squad.
If I shoot just the plasma guns :
I get 6 shots, 4 hits, 3 wounds. That's all three of them that have to take a cover/invulnerable.
Now if I shoot the plasma guns AND the lasguns
I have the 3 plasma gun wounds, but I get another 2 lasgun wounds. Now the other player can dump the plasma gun wounds on two models, and simply have the third model make an armour save, whears with JUST the plasma guns he would have to take a cover/invulnerable (or be dead if he was in the open).

Joey wrote:

Jerjare wrote:Sorry if this seems dumb, but I'm not understanding on how firing more weapons results in less casualties. If you fired with 3 meltaguns and 18 lasguns, wouldn't the meltaguns be (probably) wounding on a 2+, disallowing normal armor saves, and the lasguns (probably) wounding on a 5+, allowing armor saves? So if 3 meltaguns wounded and 8 lasguns wounded they would lose 3 models then take their saves for the las wounds? Or am I missing something really slowed about 5th edition here? :confused:

Okay I'm shooting at 3 MEQ with my veteran squad.
If I shoot just the plasma guns :
I get 6 shots, 4 hits, 3 wounds. That's all three of them that have to take a cover/invulnerable.
Now if I shoot the plasma guns AND the lasguns
I have the 3 plasma gun wounds, but I get another 2 lasgun wounds. Now the other player can dump the plasma gun wounds on two models, and simply have the third model make an armour save, whears with JUST the plasma guns he would have to take a cover/invulnerable (or be dead if he was in the open).

Does that constitute abuse?

At the risk of wasting time pre-game, my opponent and I, clarify exactly which terrain feature has what save and only use TLOS for wound allocation. IMO if a squad can bring overwhelming firepower on another unit ie more than one wound per model the meltas/plasmas get done last. If anyone survived the initial fusillade then the stonger guns finish them off.

The wound allocation issue seems to be more about TFG than the rules.

Rochronos wrote:... and only use TLOS for wound allocation.

Do what now?

Joey wrote:

daedalus wrote:

Joey wrote:How can you make it more damaging to MEQ without making it devestating to IG? Higher strength? Give it an AP?

I guess you could make it ignore armor. Hurts IG more, but it lessens the gap between the two. To be fair, if the metal box in which you are currently residing in EXPLODES, it should probably be quite damaging, whether you're in kevlar or in fiction armor.

That would eliminate mech guard in a stroke. Losing all the normal guys plus a special weapon, plus a pinning test, plus a morale test. Leaving you with 2 special weapons and a sargent, probably gone to ground/fleeing.
Yeah, no.

Holly sheet, it might... mean *dramatic shiver* you shouldnt run msu spam anymore.... *GASP*..... Seriously the complaint that this kind of change would ruin the current meta means this should DEFINITELY be implemented. MSU is the single most hated facet of this game currently. And I think we found a perfect way of dealing with that. d6 wounds no armour save sounds PERFECT. No more 6x chimera 5 man 3 plasma or melta squads and a ton of their other tank friends at obscenely low points levels? Sounds good. No more 5 man purifiers running around in razorbacks? AMAZING!!! So " Losing all the normal guys plus a special weapon, plus a pinning test, plus a morale test. Leaving you with 2 special weapons and a sargent, probably gone to ground/fleeing?" YES PLZ!!!!

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

Joey wrote:

daedalus wrote:

Joey wrote:How can you make it more damaging to MEQ without making it devestating to IG? Higher strength? Give it an AP?

I guess you could make it ignore armor. Hurts IG more, but it lessens the gap between the two. To be fair, if the metal box in which you are currently residing in EXPLODES, it should probably be quite damaging, whether you're in kevlar or in fiction armor.

That would eliminate mech guard in a stroke. Losing all the normal guys plus a special weapon, plus a pinning test, plus a morale test. Leaving you with 2 special weapons and a sargent, probably gone to ground/fleeing.
Yeah, no.

Holly sheet, it might... mean *dramatic shiver* you shouldnt run msu spam anymore.... *GASP*..... Seriously the complaint that this kind of change would ruin the current meta means this should DEFINITELY be implemented. MSU is the single most hated facet of this game currently. And I think we found a perfect way of dealing with that. d6 wounds no armour save sounds PERFECT. No more 6x chimera 5 man 3 plasma or melta squads and a ton of their other tank friends at obscenely low points levels? Sounds good. No more 5 man purifiers running around in razorbacks? AMAZING!!! So " Losing all the normal guys plus a special weapon, plus a pinning test, plus a morale test. Leaving you with 2 special weapons and a sargent, probably gone to ground/fleeing?" YES PLZ!!!!

Mech spam with the recommended level of terrain (25%) is a lot less potent than people think. Every tank will have to make a dangerous terrain roll more or less every movement phase. Killing the entire unit when they pop will be the last straw.

Joey wrote:Against some armies i will NEVER fire my lasguns. Any MEQ squad of 5 or less can do wound wrapping to essentially nullify a special weapon wound. It happened the other day when I forget and accidentaly fired my lasguns and plasmas vs 3 terminators and a priest in termy armour. 4 plasma gun wounds, 2 lasgun wounds. Suffice that to say, the terminators died, the priest lived.

This is an easy fix imo. When allocating wounds, you apply them in an "initiative" order if you will with lower ap values being applied first. So your melta and plasma rifle fire, the melta is allocated first, then the plasma wounds, and then the wounds from your las rifles . This way, stacking wounds is effectively impossible.

Kaldor wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Also, get rid of Wound Allocation. I don't care if this nerfs some things, you shouldn't be relying on this at ALL.

I find that, without wound allocation, most multi-wound units are over-priced. With wound allocation, they seem to work out all-right. IMO, I'd prefer to see wound allocation become institutionalised. It just seems counter-intuitive that a unit with twice as many wounds isn't twice as hard to kill.

Sorry, but the way the game has always been played was you remove whole models first. The wound allocation shenanigans do make multi-wound units vastly more survivable than they have ever been, or ever should have been. It doesn't make them worth their points, it makes them extremely undercosted.

insaniak wrote:

Rochronos wrote:... and only use TLOS for wound allocation.

Do what now?

You can only wound models that the squad that is shooting can see

ie If a squad of gaurdsmen see 3 Marines from a squad (Say 1 w/ ML 1/ PG and sarge) if the guardsmen cause any wounds they can only be applied against those three models

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

Joey wrote:Against some armies i will NEVER fire my lasguns. Any MEQ squad of 5 or less can do wound wrapping to essentially nullify a special weapon wound. It happened the other day when I forget and accidentaly fired my lasguns and plasmas vs 3 terminators and a priest in termy armour. 4 plasma gun wounds, 2 lasgun wounds. Suffice that to say, the terminators died, the priest lived.

This is an easy fix imo. When allocating wounds, you apply them in an "initiative" order if you will with lower ap values being applied first. So your melta and plasma rifle fire, the melta is allocated first, then the plasma wounds, and then the wounds from your las rifles . This way, stacking wounds is effectively impossible.

This is what I think needs to be. we are also forgetting the other abuse common in this edition: FnP. I know i tend to run a terminator squad with 5 th/ss and an apothecary. so if you get past my armor with your normal weapons my fnp kicks in and saves half. If you do manage to shoot me with something that ignores my armor I still have a 3++ invulnerable.

fix the cover rules to say
"If you can see it you can shoot it if not you can't" this will stop squad wrapping where you only have the heavy and special weapons shooting out while the rest of the squad hides giving cover.
"if it is in cover but visible 5++ cover save unless you are in a bastion or similar structure in which case it is a 4++ (non modifiable)) in other words 4++ becomes the highest cover save expect for eldar rangers

daedalus wrote:The biggest problem I have with 5th is that EVERYTHING is random. Random game length, random who gets first turn, random what scenario you play, random run length, random moving through cover... well, you get the idea. My biggest complaint is that it feels like, even if you play a 'perfect' game (whatever that means) you're still victim to die rolls. It's like playing Chutes and Ladders.

This is the weakness of playing any game involving dice, but there are random factors in war, that even if you play a "perfect" game you still can lose. The dice add that randomness to the game that would otherwise be missing...

Skriker

* Would allocation

* KP system (this makes draigowing armies unbalanced)

* FNP being a 4+

* Mech rules makes armor very hard to destroy

* Cover saves are to good - when everyone is getting a 4+ save, weapons like PGs are much less valueable.

* Beasts or bikes not being able to climb stairs.

* Lack of missions. Really? 9 mission/deployment combo's total?

Joey wrote:

Jerjare wrote:Sorry if this seems dumb, but I'm not understanding on how firing more weapons results in less casualties. If you fired with 3 meltaguns and 18 lasguns, wouldn't the meltaguns be (probably) wounding on a 2+, disallowing normal armor saves, and the lasguns (probably) wounding on a 5+, allowing armor saves? So if 3 meltaguns wounded and 8 lasguns wounded they would lose 3 models then take their saves for the las wounds? Or am I missing something really slowed about 5th edition here? :confused:

Okay I'm shooting at 3 MEQ with my veteran squad.
If I shoot just the plasma guns :
I get 6 shots, 4 hits, 3 wounds. That's all three of them that have to take a cover/invulnerable.
Now if I shoot the plasma guns AND the lasguns
I have the 3 plasma gun wounds, but I get another 2 lasgun wounds. Now the other player can dump the plasma gun wounds on two models, and simply have the third model make an armour save, whears with JUST the plasma guns he would have to take a cover/invulnerable (or be dead if he was in the open).

Dont the rules say that when a squad fires it MUST fire ALL it's weapons. You can't pick which weapons fire, they all must fire even if out of range.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

Joey wrote:Against some armies i will NEVER fire my lasguns. Any MEQ squad of 5 or less can do wound wrapping to essentially nullify a special weapon wound. It happened the other day when I forget and accidentaly fired my lasguns and plasmas vs 3 terminators and a priest in termy armour. 4 plasma gun wounds, 2 lasgun wounds. Suffice that to say, the terminators died, the priest lived.

This is an easy fix imo. When allocating wounds, you apply them in an "initiative" order if you will with lower ap values being applied first. So your melta and plasma rifle fire, the melta is allocated first, then the plasma wounds, and then the wounds from your las rifles . This way, stacking wounds is effectively impossible.

I do this as well. I usually discuss it with my opponent first before the game but I role special weapons first allocate woulds then resolve say lasguns. Same with the LRBT. I resolve the BC first allocate woulds then resolve for the bolters, if they fired.

Most players dont have a problem with this simply because most hate wound allocation shenanigans as well but like I said I unusually go over it with them before the start.

Silentway wrote:

Joey wrote:

Jerjare wrote:Sorry if this seems dumb, but I'm not understanding on how firing more weapons results in less casualties. If you fired with 3 meltaguns and 18 lasguns, wouldn't the meltaguns be (probably) wounding on a 2+, disallowing normal armor saves, and the lasguns (probably) wounding on a 5+, allowing armor saves? So if 3 meltaguns wounded and 8 lasguns wounded they would lose 3 models then take their saves for the las wounds? Or am I missing something really slowed about 5th edition here? :confused:

Okay I'm shooting at 3 MEQ with my veteran squad.
If I shoot just the plasma guns :
I get 6 shots, 4 hits, 3 wounds. That's all three of them that have to take a cover/invulnerable.
Now if I shoot the plasma guns AND the lasguns
I have the 3 plasma gun wounds, but I get another 2 lasgun wounds. Now the other player can dump the plasma gun wounds on two models, and simply have the third model make an armour save, whears with JUST the plasma guns he would have to take a cover/invulnerable (or be dead if he was in the open).

Dont the rules say that when a squad fires it MUST fire ALL it's weapons. You can't pick which weapons fire, they all must fire even if out of range.

I'm pretty sure you can choose. Don't have the rulebook on me though.

insaniak wrote:

Rochronos wrote:... and only use TLOS for wound allocation.

Do what now?

Bit of a house rule I suppose. 'What you see you can kill'

Rochronos wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Rochronos wrote:... and only use TLOS for wound allocation.

Do what now?

Bit of a house rule I suppose. 'What you see you can kill'

I don't dislike this, but on the other hand, model sniping?

Exactly. If you combat squad your tactical squad and set up the missle launcher on top of the hill and his 4 bolter buddies behind the hill to have cover, that rule will kill that missile launcher guy.

Likewise, by coming in at an angle towards a unit near cover or LoS blocking terrain, you can set your own shooters up so that they only see a special weapons guy or a sergeant and could snipe him that way.

Not a fan of either, to be honest. I'm willing to wait and see what 6th edition brings us. For now, my group is enjoying the hell out of 5th edition.

A lot of these proposed changes.. are just what was already in 4th edition (Which I think had some much better ideas in it.. and some worse ones)

Joey wrote:

Silentway wrote:Dont the rules say that when a squad fires it MUST fire ALL it's weapons. You can't pick which weapons fire, they all must fire even if out of range.

I'm pretty sure you can choose. Don't have the rulebook on me though.

You can absolutely pick what weapons to fire. IF you have a bunch of assault weapons and one heavy you can choose not to fire the heavy, then charge into CC.

rigeld2 wrote:

Joey wrote:

Silentway wrote:Dont the rules say that when a squad fires it MUST fire ALL it's weapons. You can't pick which weapons fire, they all must fire even if out of range.

I'm pretty sure you can choose. Don't have the rulebook on me though.

You can absolutely pick what weapons to fire. IF you have a bunch of assault weapons and one heavy you can choose not to fire the heavy, then charge into CC.

I thought that only applied to a model with multiple weapons. Typically HWs units or squads are also eqipped eith the same weapons as the squad, you choose which weapon the model fires on that specific model not the whole squad. (eg, Guardsmen HWS are equipped with a HW and their lasgun. I can only shooce which weapon on that model to fire but the model MUST fire, the HW or lasgun, however melta vets or plasma vets only have one weapon..)

You can choose to fire one or the other but all models still must fire. I wish I wasnt at work to check this. Maybe Im mistaken

BRB page 16 wrote:WHICH MODELS CAN FIRE?
All models in the firing unit that have line of sight to at
least one model in the target unit can fire.
A player may choose not to fire with certain models if
he prefers (as some models may have one-shot
weapons, for example). This must be declared before
checking range, as all of the models in the unit fire at
the same time.

-> TLOS (worse idea ever in a miniature game)
-> Wound Allocations
-> Transport spam being way to good
-> MCs being completely awful
-> Cover being WAY too good and WAY too easy to obtain
-> "To Hit" chart for close combat is dumb as hell (I don't know what it was like in older editions but it is stupid beyond stupid right now).
-> Squad Coherency (lol. what is that?)

I am sure there are more that I am not thinking about.

EDIT:

Saw some more:

-> Movement up and down levels in ruins are terrible due to beasts and bikes just randomly getting dicked on it
-> KP is awful
-> Missions and scenarios are awful and dull

Out of interest, what do people prefer to TLOS?

I would love more variety of missions, And deployment(please get rid of dawn of war)
Maybe a kill the leader type game.
OR a keep away, Such as a unit picks up objective, gets to carry it around, then you have to kill that unit

The battle mission book is OK, but not all of the missions are balanced. It adds variety, but not equality in mission-to-mission and codex-to-codex comparisons.

Kurce wrote:-> TLOS (worse idea ever in a miniature game)
-> Wound Allocations
-> Transport spam being way to good
-> MCs being completely awful
-> Cover being WAY too good and WAY too easy to obtain
-> "To Hit" chart for close combat is dumb as hell (I don't know what it was like in older editions but it is stupid beyond stupid right now).
-> Squad Coherency (lol. what is that?)

I am sure there are more that I am not thinking about.

EDIT:

Saw some more:

-> Movement up and down levels in ruins are terrible due to beasts and bikes just randomly getting dicked on it
-> KP is awful
-> Missions and scenarios are awful and dull

TLOS has been around since 3rd edition, so I don't see it going away any time soon.

How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

How does a bike climb a ruin?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How does a bike climb a ruin?

Like Meat Loaf.

TLOS has been around since 3rd edition, so I don't see it going away any time soon.

How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

How does a bike climb a ruin?

TLOS in its current incarnation has not been around since 3rd. 4th edition's LOS system was great because absolute TLOS is flawed in a system that uses models a FRACTION of the size of the actual person judging the LOS

In 4th you had unit sizes and the Z axis rarely mattered which made the game take a lot less time, since you could just use a laser leveler to easily figure out LOS. Granted it was silly with trukks blocking LOS to land raiders, but eh that's sorta how the game goes I guess at times (Fixed by adding more sizes I suppose)

I think the single worst part of 5th is TLOS because its extremely cumbersome when you account for terrain (and also it is the largest reason people call me over to judge in an event). Our damn eyes are bigger than 28mm how can we possibly "kneel down" to a models eye view on a board that isn't barren?

Poor mechanic due to its unrealistic expectations. Abstract LOS is better for a game based on miniatures

daedalus wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How does a bike climb a ruin?

Like Meat Loaf.

What he said.

TLOS has been around since 3rd edition, so I don't see it going away any time soon.

How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

How does a bike climb a ruin?

KP is awful. Maximum size unit of Boyz != Minimum squad size of Marines. According to KP, they are. Makes no sense. Ork Trukk? 1 KP. Necron Monolith? 1 KP. How can you defend KP? This all literally makes no sense.

From my understanding, TLOS was not introduced until 5th edition. Could be wrong since I haven't played older editions but that is my understanding. There are numerous other mini games that don't use TLOS and they work so much better and easier. This game is so abstracted anyway just to make the game "playable" so I don't see why there is a need to try and use TLOS...

EDIT:

Kirasu said it much more elegantly than I could. It is a very unrealistic expectation and is not very feasible. From my personal experience, there is no single greater cause of disputes between players than arguing over if something should have cover or not because of TLOS.

Kirasu wrote:In 4th you had unit sizes and the Z axis rarely mattered which made the game take a lot less time, since you could just use a laser leveler to easily figure out LOS.

But getting a laser pointer is OH SO BURDENSOME AND UNWORKABLE

edit:
I have zero problems with TLOS. I've never had an issue figuring out if I could see someone, or vice versa.

Kurce wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

KP is awful. Maximum size unit of Boyz != Minimum squad size of Marines. According to KP, they are. Makes no sense. Ork Trukk? 1 KP. Necron Monolith? 1 KP. How can you defend KP? This all literally makes no sense.

KP's are a balance mechanic. MSU and Mech are no-brainer winning choices for objective missions (2/3 of missions).
Function of Kill Points is to give disadvantage to MSU armies in 1/3 of missions.
So KP's make perfect sense in their context. But that context obviously isn't related to points value of a unit.

Besides, contesting makes literally no sense either, when you consider that I can have 1000 point deathstar on objective and enemy can contest it with single grot.
Same with "only troops can capture". But that is because both of these are balance mechanics too.

Edit: fixed quotes

rigeld2 wrote:

BRB page 16 wrote:WHICH MODELS CAN FIRE?
All models in the firing unit that have line of sight to at
least one model in the target unit can fire.
A player may choose not to fire with certain models if
he prefers (as some models may have one-shot
weapons, for example). This must be declared before
checking range, as all of the models in the unit fire at
the same time.

Awesome thanks for the clarification.

Jerjare wrote:Sorry if this seems dumb, but I'm not understanding on how firing more weapons results in less casualties.

I can give you a more obvious example, then.

Let's say that you've got 5 terminators near your stuff. You've got a demolisher with HHB and heavy bolter sponsons. Let's assume for the moment that the demolisher cannon hits, and hits all 5 models, and wounds with each hit. If you don't fire the heavy bolters, each termie gets an Ap2 shot on it, which means you're making 5 invul saves which means at least 3 of them will probably die. Throw on some heavy bolter shooting, which will throw down, on average three wounds. Suddenly, instead of having 5 termies with one invul save apiece, you now have 2 termies taking 2 invul saves apiece, 1 termie taking an invul and an armor, and 2 termies taking nothing more than a single armor save apiece. If you were slightly unlucky with the bolters, that's 3 termies with a single armor save, and 2 termies with a pair of invuls. Instead of losing 3, maybe 4 terminators, and having the squad wrecked, you've now got two, maybe three gone.

By comparison, if you used 4th ed's system, instead of killing one or two fewer terminators by shooting the bolters, you actually kill one or two more terminators, because the demolisher cannon would wipe out all but 1 or 2, and then the remainder would be picked off by heavy bolters after.

Currently, there are situations where doing more wounds puts down fewer kills, whereas in the past putting down more wounds put down more kills.

Steelmage99 wrote:I will also go on record saying that the wound allocation rule is perfectly easy to both understand and use in game.

Yes, but that doesn't matter.

Seriously, imagine if 40k had a rule where either player turn 5 could decide that instead of letting the game continue as-is, they could opt instead to roll a single die and on a 4+ they win the game outright, and if they fail they just lose. This would be a rule that's very easy to understand, and it would be a rule that would be easy to use.

It would also be an idiotic rule.

Just because something is easy, or logical, or intentional does not, in itself, make it good.

daedalus wrote:

Rochronos wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Rochronos wrote:... and only use TLOS for wound allocation.

Do what now?

Bit of a house rule I suppose. 'What you see you can kill'

I don't dislike this, but on the other hand, model sniping?

Just for reference, this used to be the actual rule in 4th ed. I thought it was a little strange when they moved to the current rule wherein you can kill models with shooting that you couldn't see, but it made sense in the context of killing models you can't reach in close combat. Not sure if this is the better system or not, but it doesn't seem to be much of a to-do.

As for KP, yeah, it doesn't make sense, but neither does "only troops score" so long as the latter rule is in place, then you need to have the former or the game breaks down in a hurry.

I mean, look at environments that don't have a serious KP threat in them (like tournaments). You see how everything is MSU vehicular troops choices with MSU vehicular support? This has much less to do with what is good in the codex, and much more to do with a world where there's no serious risk that you will be penalized for taking too many small units.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

KPs allow for armies like Draigowing to game/break the system.

A draigowing comes to the table with ~6 KPs, of which you can only realistically get 4. Your not going to kill draigo or his paladin squad. Your only real KPs are the psydreads and the other lone paladin -- who will just walk in and hide.

On the other hand, the draigo player only has to kill a few of your transports to get ahead in KPs. With 3 psydreads and 4 relentless psycannons in draigo's squad its pretty damn easy to get 5 KPs.

IE - the draigo army is an abuse of the rulesystem because its auto-win in one of the mission types. If VPs were used, then you could kill half of draigo's paladin squad and get 500 VPs, greatly increasing the chances of a tie.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Rochronos wrote:... and only use TLOS for wound allocation.

Do what now?

You can only wound models that the squad that is shooting can see

ie If a squad of gaurdsmen see 3 Marines from a squad (Say 1 w/ ML 1/ PG and sarge) if the guardsmen cause any wounds they can only be applied against those three models

^^^^^^This

A 20 strong unit hiding behind a wall, completely out of view except for a single model can be wiped out.

Bloomin' madness I tells ya!

Yup, that was part of 4th edition also!

4th edition + current vehicle rules would be interesting

Boggy79 wrote:
^^^^^^This

A 20 strong unit hiding behind a wall, completely out of view except for a single model can be wiped out.

Bloomin' madness I tells ya!

According to the rulebook this represents those twenty models all running out of cover to be shot, watching their friends in front of them get shot as they run.

I think wound allocation is pretty silly. To me it makes sense ti resolve all the wounds you cant get saves on first, then go from there. 5 unsaved wounds? 5 guys will die, possibly MORE, if they fail saves vs other weapons.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

Joey wrote:Against some armies i will NEVER fire my lasguns. Any MEQ squad of 5 or less can do wound wrapping to essentially nullify a special weapon wound. It happened the other day when I forget and accidentaly fired my lasguns and plasmas vs 3 terminators and a priest in termy armour. 4 plasma gun wounds, 2 lasgun wounds. Suffice that to say, the terminators died, the priest lived.

This is an easy fix imo. When allocating wounds, you apply them in an "initiative" order if you will with lower ap values being applied first. So your melta and plasma rifle fire, the melta is allocated first, then the plasma wounds, and then the wounds from your las rifles . This way, stacking wounds is effectively impossible.

I think we can dumb this down a bit. All you really need to do is separate them by what kind of saves are allowed, such as normal, invuls, etc. (such as special rules attached)
So a 6 man squad being hit with 3 invuls and 5 normals will see 3 instant deaths and 2 normal saves (because of course you're going to apply the normal saves on the dead guys)

labmouse42 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

KPs allow for armies like Draigowing to game/break the system.

A draigowing comes to the table with ~6 KPs, of which you can only realistically get 4. Your not going to kill draigo or his paladin squad. Your only real KPs are the psydreads and the other lone paladin -- who will just walk in and hide.

On the other hand, the draigo player only has to kill a few of your transports to get ahead in KPs. With 3 psydreads and 4 relentless psycannons in draigo's squad its pretty damn easy to get 5 KPs.

IE - the draigo army is an abuse of the rulesystem because its auto-win in one of the mission types. If VPs were used, then you could kill half of draigo's paladin squad and get 500 VPs, greatly increasing the chances of a tie.

Yes, you're right. That's the point. As Ailaros said, the point of KPs is to penalize MSU lists, the commonly hated "spam" lists. Without KPs or with almost no KP missions (i.e. most tournaments) MSU spam thrives. This causes people to rage against people taking "spam" lists, and in part causes the overabundance of mech spam lists seen in the tournament scene.

labmouse42 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

KPs allow for armies like Draigowing to game/break the system.

A draigowing comes to the table with ~6 KPs, of which you can only realistically get 4. Your not going to kill draigo or his paladin squad. Your only real KPs are the psydreads and the other lone paladin -- who will just walk in and hide.

On the other hand, the draigo player only has to kill a few of your transports to get ahead in KPs. With 3 psydreads and 4 relentless psycannons in draigo's squad its pretty damn easy to get 5 KPs.

IE - the draigo army is an abuse of the rulesystem because its auto-win in one of the mission types. If VPs were used, then you could kill half of draigo's paladin squad and get 500 VPs, greatly increasing the chances of a tie.

consider i played a 2000 pt list against my friends Mordrak terms he had 5 KPs in the army i had 10 in a DW list its just not right. However there is an easy balance to these problems limit terminator armor units to a max squad size of 5 problem solved

labmouse42 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

KPs allow for armies like Draigowing to game/break the system.

A draigowing comes to the table with ~6 KPs, of which you can only realistically get 4. Your not going to kill draigo or his paladin squad. Your only real KPs are the psydreads and the other lone paladin -- who will just walk in and hide.

On the other hand, the draigo player only has to kill a few of your transports to get ahead in KPs. With 3 psydreads and 4 relentless psycannons in draigo's squad its pretty damn easy to get 5 KPs.

Nobody forced you to purchase those cheap transports for your army You could footslog like Draigo ofteny does. Whole point of KP's is that you get penalized for taking advantage of those real cheap transports that greatly enchance your mobility and protect you from small arms fire.

Also remember he won't have too many models to either a) claim objectives or b) contest them, so as long as you're playing the mission, Draigowing will have major disadvantage in 2/3 of games.

labmouse42 wrote:
IE - the draigo army is an abuse of the rulesystem because its auto-win in one of the mission types. If VPs were used, then you could kill half of draigo's paladin squad and get 500 VPs, greatly increasing the chances of a tie.

It's not auto-win on KP matches, unless you bring Meched MSU. If you brought meched MSU, I'd consider having advantage in 2/3 of games be worth being disadvantaged in 1/3.

Disclaimer: I play Meched MSU army. Advantages of MSU and mech IMO far outweigh the penalty KP system imposes.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

KPs allow for armies like Draigowing to game/break the system.

A draigowing comes to the table with ~6 KPs, of which you can only realistically get 4. Your not going to kill draigo or his paladin squad. Your only real KPs are the psydreads and the other lone paladin -- who will just walk in and hide.

On the other hand, the draigo player only has to kill a few of your transports to get ahead in KPs. With 3 psydreads and 4 relentless psycannons in draigo's squad its pretty damn easy to get 5 KPs.

IE - the draigo army is an abuse of the rulesystem because its auto-win in one of the mission types. If VPs were used, then you could kill half of draigo's paladin squad and get 500 VPs, greatly increasing the chances of a tie.

Yes, you're right. That's the point. As Ailaros said, the point of KPs is to penalize MSU lists, the commonly hated "spam" lists. Without KPs or with almost no KP missions (i.e. most tournaments) MSU spam thrives. This causes people to rage against people taking "spam" lists, and in part causes the overabundance of mech spam lists seen in the tournament scene.

So I have to put up with my 50 point infantry squad being equal to a 400 point terminator squad because GW can't be arsed to make transports more expensive? KPs suck.

It's not auto-win on KP matches, unless you bring Meched MSU. If you brought meched MSU, I'd consider having advantage in 2/3 of games be worth being disadvantaged in 1/3.

Disclaimer: I play Meched MSU army. Advantages of MSU and mech IMO far outweigh the penalty KP system imposes.

I'll be honest on my opinion here, I kinda preferred VP over KP, which meant unless you were MSU'ing cheap squads, wasn't anymore effective/less effective than a standard list.

Luide wrote:Also remember he won't have too many models to either a) claim objectives or b) contest them, so as long as you're playing the mission, Draigowing will have major disadvantage in 2/3 of games.

I was waiting on someone to bite
1) 1/3 of the missions are 'roll dice and tie'. You only need 1 model to hold your home objective in those missions. Any KP denial list is not at a disadvantage on this mission. Therefore your statement of 'Draigowing will have major disadvantage in 2/3 of games' is wrong.

2) Take 12 terminator models. Space them 2" apart. See how far you can stretch your conga-line. You can grab at least 2 objectives with no problem and your not going to be shifted off them. Given the mission has 3-5 objectives, those seem like pretty good odds to start with.
GK can then make their dreads scoring, and still have a reserved deep striking paladin that can score. At that point all they have to do is hold more than you and blow you off the rest. Their not at a 'major disadvantage'.

Luide wrote:It's not auto-win on KP matches, unless you bring Meched MSU.

I'm guessing you have never played vs. Draigowing with a competent opponent. Pick an army, army in the game, and I can show you how a draigowing can win in KP. When your paladins are throwing out 16 psycannon shots per turn, and you have 3 psydreads doing the same, you can rack up KPs easily.
* On foot guard kill the PCS/CCS
* On foot orks, kill the lootas
* And so forth....noone does KP denial better than draigo.
When facing the draigowing, the only KPs you have a hope of getting are the dreads, and the 2nd troop choice which starts in reserve. That's a total of 4. MSU or no, any army that has a chance of doing damage will have more KPs than that.

Note : This is not a bitch about GKs, but pointing out how one list can abuse the KP rules greatly. Its pointing out how KP denial lists like draigowing are overly good at it, that it unbalances the games. I expect this to be addressed in 6th edition.

Ailaros wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:I will also go on record saying that the wound allocation rule is perfectly easy to both understand and use in game.

Yes, but that doesn't matter.

Seriously, imagine if 40k had a rule where either player turn 5 could decide that instead of letting the game continue as-is, they could opt instead to roll a single die and on a 4+ they win the game outright, and if they fail they just lose. This would be a rule that's very easy to understand, and it would be a rule that would be easy to use.

It would also be an idiotic rule.

Just because something is easy, or logical, or intentional does not, in itself, make it good.

Who is talking about whether it is a good rule or not......

I addressed the continued idiocy of insisting that using the wound allocation rules to their full extent was somehow "abuse" or "shenanigans".
Hell, one poster even talked about how using FNP was abuse of the rules.

I have said it before and will do so again; this is not about whether the rule is good or not.
My comments have strictly been about the childish insistence on talking about the perfectly clear Wound Allocation rules as being abusive and shenanigans, and using them somehow against the "intent" of the designers (even though the very same designers gave us an example of just that).

Well yeah, the wound shenanigan rules are completely legit, we all know this. What I think people are trying to say is that when you are doing MORE damage by shooting LESS, it needs to be reworked, no matter how clear it is.

It just pushes the meta even more towards MSU and mech spam, because why bother with larger units of infantry when most of the time you shoot with them they just hurt your damage output? At that point, you're basically buying ablative wounds to keep a few special weapons alive, which is rediculous.

That's what I believe people are trying to say. I don't care how legitimate it is, I'm just saying it needs to be redone for 6th, and I believe many players will agre with me.

Steelmage99 wrote:Who is talking about whether it is a good rule or not......

This thread is called "What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?". The entire thread is about bad rules in the rulebook.

Wound wrapping is one of them.

daedalus wrote:I don't dislike this, but on the other hand, model sniping?

Yeah, model sniping was pretty much exactly the reason that the current rules shifted to allowing you to kill models you can't see. Your shooting is at the unit, not at individual models.

Kirasu wrote:In 4th you had unit sizes and the Z axis rarely mattered which made the game take a lot less time, since you could just use a laser leveler to easily figure out LOS. Granted it was silly with trukks blocking LOS to land raiders, but eh that's sorta how the game goes I guess at times (Fixed by adding more sizes I suppose)

4th edition had the most widely misunderstood LOS rules ever found in a miniatures game. The size categories that were so frequently misapplied only kicked in when LOS involved area terrain or close combats.

Kurce wrote:From my understanding, TLOS was not introduced until 5th edition. Could be wrong since I haven't played older editions but that is my understanding.

TLOS has formed the basis of the LOS rules since Rogue Trader. Every edition of the game has used it, with some variation on exactly how it is applied and how it interacts with area terrain.

Nitros14 wrote:

Boggy79 wrote:A 20 strong unit hiding behind a wall, completely out of view except for a single model can be wiped out.

Bloomin' madness I tells ya!

According to the rulebook this represents those twenty models all running out of cover to be shot, watching their friends in front of them get shot as they run.

No it doesn't. It represents the fact that being able to see that single model gives the enemy the ability to judge roughly where the rest of the unit is. Standing behind a wall when someone is shooting at you with a high-powered assault rifle isn't actually as great a protection as Hollywood would have you believe.

Ailaros wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Who is talking about whether it is a good rule or not......

This thread is called "What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?". The entire thread is about bad rules in the rulebook.

Wound wrapping is one of them.

And Steelmage99 never negated "badness" of that rule. That's not what was said at all. He is not questioning simplicity, logic or if the rule is "bad" or "good". What he meant from the beginning is while you can call wound allocation "bad" you can't call using it "abusing the rules". Simple as that.

As far as I'm concerned, I pretty much like KPs. While this is not a perfect solution, currently IoMs incredibly cheap transports are too survivable for their price.

There were some really good changes in 5th edition, but also some really awful ones:

TLOS - This is probably the rule I dislike the most. Not only does it cause far more rules arguments, but it takes a lot of the strategy out of the game. Unless you have some really nice custom terrain, under TLOS, everyone can see everyone else all the time. If your an assault army, you will get shot closing in the on the enemy regardless of placements, its just as matter of whether or not you can make the saves and how quickly you can close. With shooting vs. shooting armies, the game often comes down to who can put out most shoots, and many times who wins the first turn role off. It took shooting from a contest where careful placement and movement mattered because you had to deny and establish line of sight, to a contest to see who can roll the most dice. That is a terrible tragedy and I would love to see it go.

Kill Points - This is a horribly written and grossly unfair rule that arbitrarily punishes players for using small and low cost units. I know a lot of people like the fact that it punishes MSU builds because some of the most hated list out there, mainly mech vets and rhino/razor spams, are major kill point liabilities. But this rule punishes any list built with any kind of small point cost units, not just those hated top tier list. I don't care what the justification is, but a Rhino should not be worth the same is a Landraider. Like it or not, this game is balanced around point cost, and an annihilation based victory condition should be constructed the same way. Given that transport spam will hopefully be reined in in the next edition anyway, so this rule will not longer be needed to punish transport spam in kill point missions, so it definitely needs to go.

Complex Wound Allocation - Its nonsensical and grossly abused. The rulebook entry regarding multiply wound models makes it clear that wounds are to be allocated in a manner that maximizing the damage inflicted to the squad, and yet by equipping each multi-wound model differently, the exact opposite effect can be achieved. Even single wound models can abuse this rule by sinking multiple low AP shoots onto a single models if the high AP shots result in wound wrapping. This rule just wasn't thought out properly.

Seize the Initiative - A 1 in 6 chance to give the player going first a metaphorical kick in the balls, by letting the other player both go first and deploy second. I liked the change in 5th that let the player who was going second to deploy second, to help make up for the disadvantage of first turn, and this rule undermines that whole element of game balance. Its far too powerful and effect, and way too much to be riding on a single die role.

Codex Creep - Technically not a rules issues, but poisonous to the game nonetheless. The 5th edition rulebooks are far more powerful the their 4th edition counterparts, and confer grossly unfair advantages to the newer books. It discourages the use of older books, particularly in tournaments and other competitive settings. Those serious about winning or even placing in competitive events, unless incredibly skilled with one of the older armies, are practically required to run one of the newer books, while users of Eldar, Tau and Chaos are essentially punished for using their armies in such events. The fact the half of the new books, and many of the stronger ones, are Space Marine variants doesn't improve the situation either, resulting in far too many Marine vs Marine games.

Aside from the apparent wound wrapping has anyone else ever thought the deep strike rules could use some fixing. I don't know about you but I never thought the whole possibility of having an entire unit get destroyed because of a bad scatter. It basically makes DS useless unless you have some way to reroll the scatter. Why have a mechanic that people are hesitant to use in the first place? I mean i get the whole going back into reserve or placed somewhere else but entirely destroyed? I had that almost happen to a guy who mishapped before he realised he got a reroll. It was the start of turn two and because of that we almost called the game before any of us even started shooting. But yeah the current deep strike rules need some fixing imo.

Actually 5th edition has made deep striking far safer. In fourth edition, if you mishapped for any reason, the unit was lost. In 5th edition, there is only a 1 in 3 chance of losing the unit to a mishap, so its actually much kinder. And deepstriking does need to carry risk with it, just being able to place a unit that was completely safe while it was kept in reserve anywhere you want on the board is just too powerful without some kind of drawback.

I think 5th is what you make of it. If you have an opponent who is willing to come to a consensus with you on cover and share each others unit stats, you can have a good game. A good pickup game that is.

Phanixis wrote:TLOS - This is probably the rule I dislike the most.

It also brings art aesthetics into the world of a "strategy" game. The fact that you can model for advantage is a travesty. So what if I think my models all look cooler crawling on their bellies? What if I want to pose them dramatically on rocks etc.? How I model a mini should have no impact whatsoever on the game, but with TLoS, it can.

Phanixis wrote:Codex Creep - Technically not a rules issues, but poisonous to the game nonetheless. The 5th edition rulebooks are far more powerful the their 4th edition counterparts

Codex creep isn't real, though. Were it an actual phenominon, then every codex would universally be better than the one before it, and newer armies would categorically beat older armies. For every 5th ed codex that comes out where people consider it better than the previous codex (GK, BA, etc.), there is one where people scream about how much worse their codex just got (CSM, eldar, tyranid), while most people consider their new codices to be about the same as the old one when their new one comes out (IG, Orks, SM, DE), if not made slightly more relevant.

And really, that's all that the new codices are about. They don't get stronger absolutely, so much as they get brought back in line with the current rules edition. The tau codex is bad not because newer codices have come out and made them better so much as 5th ed came out and made the codex much more incongruous with the new rules. Giving them a new codex to take full advantage of 5th ed rules (rather than partial) would make them much more powerful, but it would be vis. a vis. the rules, not the other codices.

Phanixis wrote:Unless you have some really nice custom terrain, under TLOS, everyone can see everyone else all the time.

This has been the case since Rogue Trader. You don't need fancy terrain... just a few decent height buildings or rocky outcrops. Having LOS to everything all the time is only a problem if you're using too little terrain, or just using forest bases with 2 or 3 trees on them, which is depressingly common.

The answer is the same as it has been for the last 15 years: use more terrain.

Seize the Initiative - A 1 in 6 chance to give the player going first a metaphorical kick in the balls, by letting the other player both go first and deploy second. I liked the change in 5th that let the player who was going second to deploy second, to help make up for the disadvantage of first turn, and this rule undermines that whole element of game balance. Its far too powerful and effect, and way too much to be riding on a single die role.

I find that the seize rule actually just forces players to consider their deployment a little more carefully. You can't just assume that because you deploy first, you can push all your units up front where they can get a head start on the first turn... you have to instead consider the possiblity that your opponent might get the jump on you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:It also brings art aesthetics into the world of a "strategy" game. The fact that you can model for advantage is a travesty. So what if I think my models all look cooler crawling on their bellies? What if I want to pose them dramatically on rocks etc.? How I model a mini should have no impact whatsoever on the game, but with TLoS, it can.

There is no 'bringing' about it. Again, this has been the case for as long as Warhammer 40K has existed. It wasn't something that they sprang on us with 5th edition.

Having said that, I fully agree that the rules should take modelling into account one way or another. This has always been a potential issue, although historically players have generally been fairly good at self-policing modeling for advantage.

insaniak wrote:There is no 'bringing' about it. Again, this has been the case for as long as Warhammer 40K has existed.

Not in 4th ed. In 4th ed, practically everything was considered area terrain. If you had a regular infantry model, it was a height 2 model, and got cover from height 1 terrain and was out of LOS from height 2 and 3 terrain. End of.

There was no "crouchafex" in 4th ed that was able to hide behind a hedgerow because you literally couldn't see him over the hedges, because he was a monstrous creature, so used monstrous creature height rules, regardless of what the model was. Likewise, you didn't have people modelling scratchbuild dreads that can miraculously shoot over objectives that the gunner himself couldn't see.

4th ed had sketchy rules for TLoS, but they were infrequently used, as they only counted for when you had terrain that wasn't situated on a base of some sort.

Ailaros wrote:Not in 4th ed. In 4th ed, practically everything was considered area terrain.

That may have been the case where you played, but it certainly wasn't universal, nor was it what the rules actually called for. Area terrain covered the same sorts of terrain it does now.

People have been complaining about potential LOS abuse through creative modelling for at least as long as I have been playing the game (which is going on 18 years now)... 4th edition saw no reduction in that over any other edition I've played. And 5th didn't see any sudden rise in it actually happening on the table... Again, most groups tend to be self-policing on it regardless of whether or not the rules technically allow it.

Ailaros wrote:
If you reduce cover to a universal 5+, an already very shooty game relapses into a practically only shooty game, as even a 4+ is already tough to make foot hordes work against opponents who know what their small arm is for. Plus, worse cover makes long-range armies even more powerful, which means more sit-and-shoot dice rolling sessions, and even less movement than we have right now.

If we want cover to get worse, then we need to make everything else faster to compensate. For example, you could give everybody in the game the equivalent of the current fleet special rule as standard, and make it so that units with fleet get to roll an extra D6 for their charge range, or something.

If you don't like cover as it is right now, you have to do things to actually keep the balance, rather than just making cover worse.

What I'd actually like to see is cover being a to hit modifier like fantasy, so that models with armour still get some benefit from that armour in cover, and models with 4+ invulnerable saves actually get benefit from cover. Obviously points values would need to be readjusted for some armies.

Nitros14 wrote:

Ailaros wrote:
If you reduce cover to a universal 5+, an already very shooty game relapses into a practically only shooty game, as even a 4+ is already tough to make foot hordes work against opponents who know what their small arm is for. Plus, worse cover makes long-range armies even more powerful, which means more sit-and-shoot dice rolling sessions, and even less movement than we have right now.

If we want cover to get worse, then we need to make everything else faster to compensate. For example, you could give everybody in the game the equivalent of the current fleet special rule as standard, and make it so that units with fleet get to roll an extra D6 for their charge range, or something.

If you don't like cover as it is right now, you have to do things to actually keep the balance, rather than just making cover worse.

What I'd actually like to see is cover being a to hit modifier like fantasy, so that models with armour still get some benefit from that armour in cover, and models with 4+ invulnerable saves actually get benefit from cover. Obviously points values would need to be readjusted for some armies.

This would basically make it where giving orks guns would be the biggest joke in the game

"Oh, I'm sorry, you're BS2? Don't forget that negative modifier to your accuracy. So now, you only hit if you manage to roll a 6 twice in a row."

Obviously, it wouldn't be that broken, but I could see more than a couple of armies getting screwed over by this system, with others getting huge buffs, especially space marines.

Not to mention that a BS cover system would have no effect on blast weapons

Luke_Prowler wrote:Not to mention that a BS cover system would have no effect on blast weapons

There are things you could do about that, like having blast weapons firing into cover always scatter.

Nitros14 wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:Not to mention that a BS cover system would have no effect on blast weapons

There are things you could do about that, like having blast weapons firing into cover always scatter.

Unfortunately, I'm sure people would get even more bent out of shape over the inaccuracy of their blast weapons
But the problem is not if it scatters, because if you're firing at a horde army(who need cover the most) then there's still a good chance of hitting something and you'll essentially insta-lose whatever was hit

Ailaros wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Who is talking about whether it is a good rule or not......

This thread is called "What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?". The entire thread is about bad rules in the rulebook.

Wound wrapping is one of them.

But my comments weren't!

I give up.

daedalus wrote:

Rochronos wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Rochronos wrote:... and only use TLOS for wound allocation.

Do what now?

Bit of a house rule I suppose. 'What you see you can kill'

I don't dislike this, but on the other hand, model sniping?

And you know what waac players are gonna do? I got my rhinos here, gonna scootch em over a bit more so the only model visable to my (insert nasty shooting weapon) is the independent character without EW in that squad. Profit.... this idea doesn't work.

MrMoustaffa wrote:

Nitros14 wrote:

Ailaros wrote:
If you reduce cover to a universal 5+, an already very shooty game relapses into a practically only shooty game, as even a 4+ is already tough to make foot hordes work against opponents who know what their small arm is for. Plus, worse cover makes long-range armies even more powerful, which means more sit-and-shoot dice rolling sessions, and even less movement than we have right now.

If we want cover to get worse, then we need to make everything else faster to compensate. For example, you could give everybody in the game the equivalent of the current fleet special rule as standard, and make it so that units with fleet get to roll an extra D6 for their charge range, or something.

If you don't like cover as it is right now, you have to do things to actually keep the balance, rather than just making cover worse.

What I'd actually like to see is cover being a to hit modifier like fantasy, so that models with armour still get some benefit from that armour in cover, and models with 4+ invulnerable saves actually get benefit from cover. Obviously points values would need to be readjusted for some armies.

This would basically make it where giving orks guns would be the biggest joke in the game

"Oh, I'm sorry, you're BS2? Don't forget that negative modifier to your accuracy. So now, you only hit if you manage to roll a 6 twice in a row."

Obviously, it wouldn't be that broken, but I could see more than a couple of armies getting screwed over by this system, with others getting huge buffs, especially space marines.

It's not like it'll effect orks that much, already have a ton of shooting thanks to shoota's, and if it's changed to BS targetting, Flashgitz git finda's could infact prevent them from needing to lower their BS, maybe increasing it.

Besides, the orks 5+ shots aren't even what makes them good, just the mass of fire.

Also it would be a 6 and than a 4+, given hard cover (-1 from soft would give a 6, hard cover -2 6+ than a 4+)

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Nitros14 wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:Not to mention that a BS cover system would have no effect on blast weapons

There are things you could do about that, like having blast weapons firing into cover always scatter.

Unfortunately, I'm sure people would get even more bent out of shape over the inaccuracy of their blast weapons
But the problem is not if it scatters, because if you're firing at a horde army(who need cover the most) then there's still a good chance of hitting something and you'll essentially insta-lose whatever was hit

If games workshop really felt blast weapons were overpowered in that scenario they could easily go back to models not fully under the template being hit on a 4+.

Kevlar wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Also, get rid of Wound Allocation. I don't care if this nerfs some things, you shouldn't be relying on this at ALL.

I find that, without wound allocation, most multi-wound units are over-priced. With wound allocation, they seem to work out all-right. IMO, I'd prefer to see wound allocation become institutionalised. It just seems counter-intuitive that a unit with twice as many wounds isn't twice as hard to kill.

Sorry, but the way the game has always been played was you remove whole models first. The wound allocation shenanigans do make multi-wound units vastly more survivable than they have ever been, or ever should have been. It doesn't make them worth their points, it makes them extremely undercosted.

I know it has always been played like that. I'm arguing that the way it's always been done is wrong and that in fact, Paladins and Nob bikers are balanced when they can distribute wounds, and far too expensive when they can't. You're paying upwards of 60 points for a single model that dies just as quickly as a 10 point model when faced with plasma, melta, lascannon, etc and only marginally slower when faced with small-arms fire.

Without recourse to distributing wounds through diverse wargear, those units pay far too much for that extra wound.

Kaldor wrote:

Kevlar wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Also, get rid of Wound Allocation. I don't care if this nerfs some things, you shouldn't be relying on this at ALL.

I find that, without wound allocation, most multi-wound units are over-priced. With wound allocation, they seem to work out all-right. IMO, I'd prefer to see wound allocation become institutionalised. It just seems counter-intuitive that a unit with twice as many wounds isn't twice as hard to kill.

Sorry, but the way the game has always been played was you remove whole models first. The wound allocation shenanigans do make multi-wound units vastly more survivable than they have ever been, or ever should have been. It doesn't make them worth their points, it makes them extremely undercosted.

I know it has always been played like that. I'm arguing that the way it's always been done is wrong and that in fact, Paladins and Nob bikers are balanced when they can distribute wounds, and far too expensive when they can't. You're paying upwards of 60 points for a single model that dies just as quickly as a 10 point model when faced with plasma, melta, lascannon, etc and only marginally slower when faced with small-arms fire.

Without recourse to distributing wounds through diverse wargear, those units pay far too much for that extra wound.

I can say without a doubt I understand your position that they pay far to much for that extra wound.

I can also say for fact, that I honestly do not care in the slightest that they become overpriced because of wound allocations removal. That should the future come for nobz, they'll be reduced to a manageable level of cost, alongside Flash-Gitz.

It has happened many times, Tau and Eldar skimmers are now overpriced in this era after the Skimmer Dominance in 4th, but now they are overpriced as it is in this 5th edition, they have been through the issue too.

Armies have gotten over it. You'll live through it too should it come down to it.

Kirasu wrote:Abstract LOS is better for a game based on miniatures

Line of sight is line of sight, regardless of whether it is abstract or 'true'.

Issues only ever come up at that very small grey area, where maybe you can see it and maybe you can't, and using true or abstract LoS does nothing to mitigate that.

True line of sight is a much simpler mechanic than anything else, because it's right there in front of you. If you can see it, you can see it, end of story.

Kaldor wrote:True line of sight is a much simpler mechanic than anything else, because it's right there in front of you. If you can see it, you can see it, end of story.

I actually disagree with this. Yes, you know if you can see what you can see for targeting, but I've gotten in way more arguments over whether something is in cover or not than I ever did back in 4th ed.

4th ed's LOS and terrain system was certainly simpler and less contentious on the table itself. I don't really see what 5th ed's system has really added that's made it worth the relative increase in hassle.

Boggy79 wrote:
A 20 strong unit hiding behind a wall, completely out of view except for a single model can be wiped out.

Bloomin' madness I tells ya!

The alternative being that with the movement of a transport or two to narrow my own line of sight, the only enemy models I can see are the squad leader or special weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:
I actually disagree with this. Yes, you know if you can see what you can see for targeting, but I've gotten in way more arguments over whether something is in cover or not than I ever did back in 4th ed.

I don't understand how that can happen though. If it's clear whether you can see something, it should be equally clear if it is in cover or not.

4th ed's LOS and terrain system was certainly simpler and less contentious on the table itself. I don't really see what 5th ed's system has really added that's made it worth the relative increase in hassle.

It was an intuitive choice IMO. Having a small model block LOS to a larger one simply because it was the same height category was silly, and having models that are clearly visible in terrain be immune to enemy fire because they were a fraction of an inch over 6" inside it, or because it was categorised as being a higher height level, was also silly.

LoS will never be perfect, and there will always be arguments.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

MrMoustaffa wrote:

Nitros14 wrote:

Ailaros wrote:
If you reduce cover to a universal 5+, an already very shooty game relapses into a practically only shooty game, as even a 4+ is already tough to make foot hordes work against opponents who know what their small arm is for. Plus, worse cover makes long-range armies even more powerful, which means more sit-and-shoot dice rolling sessions, and even less movement than we have right now.

If we want cover to get worse, then we need to make everything else faster to compensate. For example, you could give everybody in the game the equivalent of the current fleet special rule as standard, and make it so that units with fleet get to roll an extra D6 for their charge range, or something.

If you don't like cover as it is right now, you have to do things to actually keep the balance, rather than just making cover worse.

What I'd actually like to see is cover being a to hit modifier like fantasy, so that models with armour still get some benefit from that armour in cover, and models with 4+ invulnerable saves actually get benefit from cover. Obviously points values would need to be readjusted for some armies.

This would basically make it where giving orks guns would be the biggest joke in the game

"Oh, I'm sorry, you're BS2? Don't forget that negative modifier to your accuracy. So now, you only hit if you manage to roll a 6 twice in a row."

Obviously, it wouldn't be that broken, but I could see more than a couple of armies getting screwed over by this system, with others getting huge buffs, especially space marines.

It's not like it'll effect orks that much, already have a ton of shooting thanks to shoota's, and if it's changed to BS targetting, Flashgitz git finda's could infact prevent them from needing to lower their BS, maybe increasing it.

Besides, the orks 5+ shots aren't even what makes them good, just the mass of fire.

Also it would be a 6 and than a 4+, given hard cover (-1 from soft would give a 6, hard cover -2 6+ than a 4+)

I was mainly just cracking a joke. I know how orks shooting works, I was just joking if you do anything more to penalize their accuracy they'll never hit anything at all.

Penalizing accuracy wouldnt hurt some armies much, like space marines, but for armies like orks and IG it could be a severe handicap. However I play orks and IG, so I'm obviously biased. I just feel like it wouldn't affect all armies equally.

If you're running into a lot of arguments over TLoS then either you or the other guy needs to stop being TFG. <50% seen cover save, >50% no seen cover saves. For infantry and vehicles.

The only time I've ever had to debate (not even a heated one) over TLoS is with weird looking non symmetrical (which are semi-rare) models. If it does get heated just call a 3rd party, if there is no 3rd party then you're probably playing a house game and can house rule a new LoS

I was mainly just cracking a joke. I know how orks shooting works, I was just joking if you do anything more to penalize their accuracy they'll never hit anything at all.

Penalizing accuracy wouldn't hurt some armies much, like space marines, but for armies like orks and IG it could be a severe handicap. However I play orks and IG, so I'm obviously biased. I just feel like it wouldn't affect all armies equally.

IG has the same thing as orks really, Rate of Fire vs Elite models (And in some cases, same, Stormtroopers might be useful alongside veterans..Nah, but I can dream) But they are BS3, so it's not a heavy loss for IG, not to mention a large number of their vehicles fires with blasts (Which in 5th edition, doesn't roll to hit before scattering, 4th had you hit based on BS, than scattered if failed) and not to mention orders heavily help them out when it comes to shooting.

They have their elites with their BS4, and their massed fire/blasts at BS3. So they aren't bad off at all even in this regard.

Orks have a ton of shot output, those badmoon clans with alotta shoota's are gonna be putting alot of shots in the air, loota's will still potentially be very good with 1-3 shots, the only real ranged I can think of that might take a hit is Tankbusta's (Which I really enjoy personally, I always take one squad) But than it might give an incentive to use squig bombs, hm, and they still would of course have their famous Tankhammers and Da Splosives.

And if all else fails, orks, even the bad moonz clan, can still krump some gitz in melee, where cover does diddly squat to a pissed off ork.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:TLOS has been around since 3rd edition, so I don't see it going away any time soon.

How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

How does a bike climb a ruin?

Kill points are awful because they change the basic premise of the game. Victory points made the game much more tactical, strategic. You would protect your most valuable assets with screens of cheaper troops, use mobile stuff to get to vulnerable enemy, etc. The game was more strategic and made more sense. It was more "realistic" as compared to how an actual representation of real war would pan out.

With kill points the focus of the game changes drastically. It is less strategic and more, "Gee which cheap small units can I quickly eliminate to get ahead in kill points". It would be like playing chess but instead of focusing on putting the enemy king in checkmate the object is just to kill more pawns than your opponent. Sillines.

Bikes should be able to climb stairs but just make it so that any bikers assaulting a multi level building lose relentless and their +1 toughness for that turn.

Kaldor wrote:

Boggy79 wrote:
A 20 strong unit hiding behind a wall, completely out of view except for a single model can be wiped out.

Bloomin' madness I tells ya!

The alternative being that with the movement of a transport or two to narrow my own line of sight, the only enemy models I can see are the squad leader or special weapons.

I'd be happy for an opponent to do this, it's tactical play. Stil far from a perfect rule and I haven't given it enough thought to suggest a better solution. I'll admit I've missed out on most of 5th edition due to a break from the game but this rule is the one that has really bugged me since returning.

The movement phase used to be a case of carefully planning where to place models to maximise targets while minimising potential casulaties. Now you may as well charge forward because of the abundance of 4+ cover saves. As a Blood Angels and Nid player this works in my favour but I don't enjoy steamrolling my mates because the huge unit of expendible 'gaunts protect the nasty gribblies behind.

Just my opinion though, if they're the rules I'll play to them.

Ailaros wrote:4th ed's LOS and terrain system was certainly simpler and less contentious on the table itself.

4th Ed LOS spawned more rules debates than 5th ed's wound allocation has. It was a mish-mash of two adherent systems that thoroughly confused. From what I've seen, most of those who were fans of the system were actually playing it wrong.

TLOS was still the basis of the LOS rules in 4th, and I very much doubt the game will ever move away from it.

Wound Allocation, Pinning weakness, FNP is too powerful, too many Eternal Warriors in codexes.

rockerbikie wrote:Wound Allocation, Pinning weakness, FNP is too powerful, too many Eternal Warriors in codexes.

The "everybody has eternal warrior" argument is way over-exaggerated. Marines have 2 models, DA have none, BA have 1, IG have 1, Orks have 1, BT have 0, GK have 1, Sisters have 0, Dark Eldar have 1. Those are just a few of the codices, but do you see a trend? 7 models in 9 codices,thats hardly "too many". If anything I think Instant Death needs to go or at least change as T3 independent characters die far too easily. One str 6 hit with an unlucky roll and "Poof!" there went your 100 points.

Deep striking and not assaulting makes no sense.
As does not being able to fire heavy weapons when moving in a vehicle, I can understand on foot, but not in a vehicle.

rockerbikie wrote:Wound Allocation, Pinning weakness, FNP is too powerful, too many Eternal Warriors in codexes.

FNP isn't that powerful, theres quite a few ways to remove it

No assault after deepstrike is mostly a balance thing but it also models the disruptive effect on the unit of suddenly dropping into the middle of a firefight.

It is exceedingly difficult to accurately fire a smallarm accurately from a moving vehicle. It would be considerably harder to do so with a heavy weapon. This is due to the vehicle bouncing and turning as it navigates cross country so a potential set of exceptions would be skimmers and travel on roads. Note that vehicle mounted weapons move with the vehicle or have specially stabilized mounts to counter this effect.

Also some heavy weapons produce large backblasts or muzzleblasts that can be painful or even lethal if used inside a confined space.

Finally there is a balance issue again, if Devastators never had to leave their Rhino but could still move and fire it would be . . . devastating.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Wound Allocation, Pinning weakness, FNP is too powerful, too many Eternal Warriors in codexes.

FNP isn't that powerful, theres quite a few ways to remove it

Not every army has easy access to high str or low AP weapons.

FNP is extremely powerful, and only a few codexes hand it out like candy.

Jefffar wrote:No assault after deepstrike is mostly a balance thing but it also models the disruptive effect on the unit of suddenly dropping into the middle of a firefight.

It is exceedingly difficult to accurately fire a smallarm accurately from a moving vehicle. It would be considerably harder to do so with a heavy weapon. This is due to the vehicle bouncing and turning as it navigates cross country so a potential set of exceptions would be skimmers and travel on roads. Note that vehicle mounted weapons move with the vehicle or have specially stabilized mounts to counter this effect.

Also some heavy weapons produce large backblasts or muzzleblasts that can be painful or even lethal if used inside a confined space.

Finally there is a balance issue again, if Devastators never had to leave their Rhino but could still move and fire it would be . . . devastating.

Ok, then explain no assaulting from vehicles.
If they can fire when they disembark, they can assault.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Wound Allocation, Pinning weakness, FNP is too powerful, too many Eternal Warriors in codexes.

FNP isn't that powerful, theres quite a few ways to remove it

Against army-wide FNP, no matter who you are, about ~80% of your firepower just halved in efficiency.
I'd say it was a problem with specific codexes rather than the rules.

andrewm9 wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Wound Allocation, Pinning weakness, FNP is too powerful, too many Eternal Warriors in codexes.

The "everybody has eternal warrior" argument is way over-exaggerated. Marines have 2 models, DA have none, BA have 1, IG have 1, Orks have 1, BT have 0, GK have 1, Sisters have 0, Dark Eldar have 1. Those are just a few of the codices, but do you see a trend? 7 models in 9 codices,thats hardly "too many". If anything I think Instant Death needs to go or at least change as T3 independent characters die far too easily. One str 6 hit with an unlucky roll and "Poof!" there went your 100 points.

Instant death fixed grots (and other mooks) surviving lascannon shots and made some of the übercharacters killable by basic troopers. I don't remember if it fixed other stuff when it was introduced in 3rd edition, but I remember thinking it was a good rule and being happy that it was added.

but mooks like grots can still survive lascannon shots if the lascannon rolls a 1 to wound. As far as I know, there is nothing that truly instantly kills a unit thats a regular shooting attack

Here's another one that irks me:

Vehicle movement. Now, as I have stated before, I have never played the older editions of 40K so I don't know how vehicle movement worked back then. But, vehicle movement is easy to abuse right now because pivoting is free. There needs to be some sort of cost for pivoting. I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the Dark Eldar Raider setup where their sides are facing toward you and they pivot for free on their first turn to gain an extra 2"-3" of movement. Granted that this rule is insanely abusable by mainly just Dark Eldar since their transports are open-topped and their Raiders are about 4 times longer than they are wide so their troops can pull off an assault from a greater distance than other armies would be able to (much more so than what was intended I presume).

Also, there are not clear rules for front, side, and back arcs on vehicles that are not "box-shaped" like Rhinos. From what I can gather, the INAT tells you to draw an imaginary box around the vehicle in question then draw the arcs through the corners of that box (think Eldar Falcon). But, the actual 40K rulebook does not tell you to do this. This leads to a bunch of "am I in or not" situations that the rulebook says to resolve by "rolling a die."

It's been too long since I played 2nd edition to remember the specifics, but I do remember Instant Death being better than one of the 2nd Ed. mechanics. There was something screwy that gave a similar feel to the spearman killing a tank in Civilization I & II. Maybe my brainz iz just getting all fuzzy from old age.... Ugh. Now I want to drag out all the old RT/ 2nd Ed stuff I have in storage to try to figure this out.

But yeah, the toughness rolls have always been there, and I like how that part works. I view that as being the difference between getting a good, center-mass shot and winging the guy.

I personally like the ID rules from the Heretic/Leaked/Pancake 6th rulebook, where at 2 * T, it caused an additional wound if it successfully wounded, at (2 * T) +1 it caused an additional 2 wounds, at (2 * T) +2 it caused an additional 3 wounds, etc (iirc). Your Space Marine Captain would still be vaporized if he was wounded by a lascannon or a railgun, but the Krak missile would just mess him up without killing him outright (assuming full health of course).

I have to say I like the Heretic rules for Multi-wound models and wound allocation, where you group allocated wounds by save type. It still allows for some abuse in large generic squads (IG blobs for example, can still allocate most of the shots to everyone who's not the meltagunner), but unless you bought the expensive save-adjusting upgrades for your multiwound models, they're all treated the same for wound allocation (Thus reducing Nob bikers, Paladins, and Crisis Suits to the same level of shenanigans, ie essentially none, as a Tyranid warrior brood).

Plus they had the rule that at the end of each turn, you had to consolidate your wounds of a multiwound squad so that only one model was wounded, shuffling around wounds so you had as many full-health and dead models as possible. This was nice since you could still hit hard with wounded models in melee, but any wound allocation shenanigans you managed to pull were essentially nullified at the end of the turn.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok, then explain no assaulting from vehicles.
If they can fire when they disembark, they can assault.

Because running out of te hatch leaves them in a bad formation to try to assault from. Shooting it doesn't matter so much as long as everyone can point their weapon at the target, but when you charge the enemy IRL you want to be in a formation that lets your entire unit hit them at once to maximize the shock of your attack.

Open topped allows you to jump out of the vehicle more or less in formation, so there isn't as much effort needed to set up for a charge.


In terms of game balance, it's about not letting a unit have a free pass into assault, there has to be a downside somewhere. In the case of open topped its the fragility of the transport. In the case of deep strike and standard vehicles it's that turn to prepare to assault. In the case of a Land Raider it's 250 points plus options . . .

For me, it's the fact units have just as likely a shot as hitting a land raider that is in their face as they are that grot that's 48 inches away and in cover. Fantasy has this covered by adding +1 to hit large targets (that's what it was in 7th, can't remember if that carried over to 8th). I know 40k does nothing with to hit modifiers, but it would just make so much more sense. I know the argument of "it has to hit something important" is exists, but I thought that's what the penetrate roll and damage table were there to determine.

As for wound allocations, they might be annoying, but I can see how they're represented. In regards to the lasgun firing with the melta guns, what's to say that all three meltas didn't shoot the same ork? (from a fluff standpoint) With less people firing, maybe they can organize their shots to be more effective. With all of them firing, the turmoil could cause them to all hit the same target.

Trust me, as an ork player I know I'm biased towards the wound allocation rule, but to change it now would hurt certain units so much they really wouldn't be worth it. Someone commented on they didn't care if nobz and other units were "balanced" with different wound allocations. I don't think it would "balance" them so much as make them useless (just like the flash gitz in the example). When I do take a unit of nobz, the price tag usually clocks in at over 50 points per model. Hell I'm not even trying to wound allocate, but by the time I finish with upgrades I NEED, there's at least 6-7 unique models. Now, I'm paying MORE for a nob than a standard terminator, and I don't get a 2+ to compensate. Against small arms fire this is made up by the FNP, but against most of the things I'm worried about (S8 AP3 and such) all I have in defense is a 5++.

That's the only example I can draw from in my experience, but I'm sure other armies have a similar sentiment on their models as well.

Now, if it DID get changed and nobz were rendered useless, I probably wouldn't complain too much as I'd just sub in something else in their stead and get on with it, I was just wanting to play devil's advocate as this thread seemed to be unanimous in its disdain for the current rule.

I actually like the allocation rules. Without those restrictions I could just pile every shot onto one guy.

Someone commented on they didn't care if nobz and other units were "balanced" with different wound allocations. I don't think it would "balance" them so much as make them useless (just like the flash gitz in the example

Never said it would balance them, I said they would be properly balanced out with their next edition codex. I know it would make them useless now, The problem is depending upon wound allocation as a unit to begin with. As with my examples of Eldar and Tau Skimmers rules being a far cry less than 4th edition, when your entire unit is based on a single rule just now added can only end in disaster, especially one so poorly written as well as annoyingly obtuse.

I'm still hoping for that Update anyways, I'd prefer to take some MANZ over normal nobz but it's hard justifying the weird lack of choices for gear. (Where's my cybork armor!?)

I find rules problems only.come.into question when people take RAW to an intolerable level. For example, with TLoS, handsa and feet arn't mentioned, dispite being extensions.of the body, and not decorative.

Jefffar wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok, then explain no assaulting from vehicles.
If they can fire when they disembark, they can assault.

Because running out of te hatch leaves them in a bad formation to try to assault from. Shooting it doesn't matter so much as long as everyone can point their weapon at the target, but when you charge the enemy IRL you want to be in a formation that lets your entire unit hit them at once to maximize the shock of your attack.

Open topped allows you to jump out of the vehicle more or less in formation, so there isn't as much effort needed to set up for a charge.


In terms of game balance, it's about not letting a unit have a free pass into assault, there has to be a downside somewhere. In the case of open topped its the fragility of the transport. In the case of deep strike and standard vehicles it's that turn to prepare to assault. In the case of a Land Raider it's 250 points plus options . . .

Wait, You can assault when leaving open topped? Damn, i wish i knew that, more Dreads in drop pods for me.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok, then explain no assaulting from vehicles.
If they can fire when they disembark, they can assault.

Because running out of te hatch leaves them in a bad formation to try to assault from. Shooting it doesn't matter so much as long as everyone can point their weapon at the target, but when you charge the enemy IRL you want to be in a formation that lets your entire unit hit them at once to maximize the shock of your attack.

Open topped allows you to jump out of the vehicle more or less in formation, so there isn't as much effort needed to set up for a charge.


In terms of game balance, it's about not letting a unit have a free pass into assault, there has to be a downside somewhere. In the case of open topped its the fragility of the transport. In the case of deep strike and standard vehicles it's that turn to prepare to assault. In the case of a Land Raider it's 250 points plus options . . .

Wait, You can assault when leaving open topped? Damn, i wish i knew that, more Dreads in drop pods for me.

Except from deepstriking.

*Psst, buy a lucius patterned drop pod, it's made just for dread assaults*

Deadshot wrote:I actually like the allocation rules. Without those restrictions I could just pile every shot onto one guy.

Previous editions you just rolled saves equal to wounds and removed as many models as you rolled failures for, you could never just pile everything onto one guy.





As to what's wrong with 5E?

The biggest thing is the codex's really. Wildly varying power levels, armies that very much incentivize army hopping and builds that are about as opposite as one can get from what one would imagine that faction fielding, min/maxing as bad as it ever was, etc.

As for the core rules themselves, above and beyond anything else? Kill points. An unnecessarily over-simplified victory mechanic that has been misconstrued by many as some sort of balancing mechanism because nobody can rationally explain it otherwise that leads to grossly mis-matched victory outcomes and punishes armies that are designed to win through attrition...in battles of attrition and incentivizes counter-intuitive behavior (e.g. prioritizing an empty drop pod over a Land Raider).

Wound Allocation and defensive weapons rules would be next, wound allocation because you can get many situations where *more* shooting results in *less* casualties, and defensive weapons rules because they really only apply to vehicles that never really needed nerfing in the first place and makes gun tanks much less capable than they should be.

:(
Well still i think the assault thing is lame, Units trained in close combat should be able to deepstrike and assault

hotsauceman1 wrote::(
Well still i think the assault thing is lame, Units trained in close combat should be able to deepstrike and assault

Being able to appear anywhere on the board and launch right into an assault would be hideously broken, especially for armies that get to bring in a whole bunch of deepstriking stuff turn 1.

It'd also pretty much make anything that relied on barrage weapons/jump jets/etc pointless (as one can survive shooting potentially and redeploy/shoot back/etc, if locked in combat, you're stuck), and Drop Pod/Daemon armies ridiculous.

Previous editions you just rolled saves equal to wounds and removed as many models as you rolled failures for, you could never just pile everything onto one guy.

Which is my point. If you have a spare wound who to put it on? The guy hit with a meltagun and is dying anyway?

Deadshot wrote:

Previous editions you just rolled saves equal to wounds and removed as many models as you rolled failures for, you could never just pile everything onto one guy.

Which is my point. If you have a spare wound who to put it on? The guy hit with a meltagun and is dying anyway?

In the previous editions you didn't really have spare wounds. If you had a squad of 10 and took 23 wounds, you just rolled 23 saves. If you failed 12 of them, the two excess didn't matter, everyone was dead because you'd failed saves equal to or in excess of the number of models in the unit. If you failed 9 of them, you took out 9 models and left whichever model you wanted.

What you basically described is my local area noob style wound allocation. I don't play with it if I can help it but when I need to follow the rules I do.

Deadshot wrote:What you basically described is my local area noob style wound allocation. I don't play with it if I can help it but when I need to follow the rules I do.

That's how it worked in 3rd and 4th edition, and it worked a lot better in the vast majority of circumstances, the only exception being units with mixed armor typed (e.g. Templar squads with 4+ and 3+ armor saves in the same unit, rather rare, especially until after 5E).

You certainly didn't end up with situations where more shots resulted in longer lifespans for the enemy.

Anybody else get irked by rolling to wound models based off the most common toughness value present within a unit? I really don't know if there is even a better way of doing this but I feel like there should be a better way. How long has a rule like this been in 40K?

Kurce wrote:Anybody else get irked by rolling to wound models based off the most common toughness value present within a unit? I really don't know if there is even a better way of doing this but I feel like there should be a better way. How long has a rule like this been in 40K?

Rogue trader.

Kurce wrote:Anybody else get irked by rolling to wound models based off the most common toughness value present within a unit? I really don't know if there is even a better way of doing this but I feel like there should be a better way. How long has a rule like this been in 40K?

Pretty much forever. There really isn't a better way of doing it unless you're going to allocate hits first.

Yeah, it has always been that way (at least as far as I remember). Allocating after the hit step would be tons of fun. Ugh.

It does has disadvantages for you, but is balnced. It means Draigo' enhanced Toughness really only applies when alone or in CC. Same for pheonix lords and Eldrad.

Kurce wrote:Anybody else get irked by rolling to wound models based off the most common toughness value present within a unit? I really don't know if there is even a better way of doing this but I feel like there should be a better way. How long has a rule like this been in 40K?

Imagine a world where you get to allocate those to wound dice to the different toughness's in a squad and then take the saves on any wounds you couldn't allocate into the warp.

Vaktathi wrote:

Deadshot wrote:What you basically described is my local area noob style wound allocation. I don't play with it if I can help it but when I need to follow the rules I do.

That's how it worked in 3rd and 4th edition, and it worked a lot better in the vast majority of circumstances, the only exception being units with mixed armor typed (e.g. Templar squads with 4+ and 3+ armor saves in the same unit, rather rare, especially until after 5E).

You certainly didn't end up with situations where more shots resulted in longer lifespans for the enemy.

Yeah, but you DID end up with situations where a tactical squad basically become a lascannon with 9 ablative wounds. It used to be a real peeve for many players to pile wound after wound onto a squad without having any chance to remove those heavy/special weapons (or powerfists, or whatever) until every other trooper was dead.

Kaldor wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

Deadshot wrote:What you basically described is my local area noob style wound allocation. I don't play with it if I can help it but when I need to follow the rules I do.

That's how it worked in 3rd and 4th edition, and it worked a lot better in the vast majority of circumstances, the only exception being units with mixed armor typed (e.g. Templar squads with 4+ and 3+ armor saves in the same unit, rather rare, especially until after 5E).

You certainly didn't end up with situations where more shots resulted in longer lifespans for the enemy.

Yeah, but you DID end up with situations where a tactical squad basically become a lascannon with 9 ablative wounds. It used to be a real peeve for many players to pile wound after wound onto a squad without having any chance to remove those heavy/special weapons (or powerfists, or whatever) until every other trooper was dead.

Because it made sense, the other ones just picked up the weapon and continued fighting.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

Deadshot wrote:What you basically described is my local area noob style wound allocation. I don't play with it if I can help it but when I need to follow the rules I do.

That's how it worked in 3rd and 4th edition, and it worked a lot better in the vast majority of circumstances, the only exception being units with mixed armor typed (e.g. Templar squads with 4+ and 3+ armor saves in the same unit, rather rare, especially until after 5E).

You certainly didn't end up with situations where more shots resulted in longer lifespans for the enemy.

Yeah, but you DID end up with situations where a tactical squad basically become a lascannon with 9 ablative wounds. It used to be a real peeve for many players to pile wound after wound onto a squad without having any chance to remove those heavy/special weapons (or powerfists, or whatever) until every other trooper was dead.

Because it made sense, the other ones just picked up the weapon and continued fighting.

Maybe for heavy weapons, but for squad leaders?

Kaldor wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

Deadshot wrote:What you basically described is my local area noob style wound allocation. I don't play with it if I can help it but when I need to follow the rules I do.

That's how it worked in 3rd and 4th edition, and it worked a lot better in the vast majority of circumstances, the only exception being units with mixed armor typed (e.g. Templar squads with 4+ and 3+ armor saves in the same unit, rather rare, especially until after 5E).

You certainly didn't end up with situations where more shots resulted in longer lifespans for the enemy.

Yeah, but you DID end up with situations where a tactical squad basically become a lascannon with 9 ablative wounds. It used to be a real peeve for many players to pile wound after wound onto a squad without having any chance to remove those heavy/special weapons (or powerfists, or whatever) until every other trooper was dead.

Because it made sense, the other ones just picked up the weapon and continued fighting.

Maybe for heavy weapons, but for squad leaders?

A bit less sense, but one could think of it as brothers sacrificing themselves by pushing the leader out of the way (though I'd prefer it like fantasy, a "LOOK OUT SIR!" check if you directly hit that model)

labmouse42 wrote:

Luide wrote:Also remember he won't have too many models to either a) claim objectives or b) contest them, so as long as you're playing the mission, Draigowing will have major disadvantage in 2/3 of games.

I was waiting on someone to bite
1) 1/3 of the missions are 'roll dice and tie'. You only need 1 model to hold your home objective in those missions. Any KP denial list is not at a disadvantage on this mission. Therefore your statement of 'Draigowing will have major disadvantage in 2/3 of games' is wrong.

2) Take 12 terminator models. Space them 2" apart. See how far you can stretch your conga-line. You can grab at least 2 objectives with no problem and your not going to be shifted off them. Given the mission has 3-5 objectives, those seem like pretty good odds to start with.
GK can then make their dreads scoring, and still have a reserved deep striking paladin that can score. At that point all they have to do is hold more than you and blow you off the rest. Their not at a 'major disadvantage'.

Luide wrote:It's not auto-win on KP matches, unless you bring Meched MSU.

I'm guessing you have never played vs. Draigowing with a competent opponent. Pick an army, army in the game, and I can show you how a draigowing can win in KP. When your paladins are throwing out 16 psycannon shots per turn, and you have 3 psydreads doing the same, you can rack up KPs easily.
* On foot guard kill the PCS/CCS
* On foot orks, kill the lootas
* And so forth....noone does KP denial better than draigo.
When facing the draigowing, the only KPs you have a hope of getting are the dreads, and the 2nd troop choice which starts in reserve. That's a total of 4. MSU or no, any army that has a chance of doing damage will have more KPs than that.

Note : This is not a bitch about GKs, but pointing out how one list can abuse the KP rules greatly. Its pointing out how KP denial lists like draigowing are overly good at it, that it unbalances the games. I expect this to be addressed in 6th edition.

easy way to wreak havok in a draigo army is bring a normal grey knight army....

i see your 55pt paladin (with no upgrades....) and raise you 3 normal guys (for +1attack, +3 attacks on the charge, +1wound, +4 stormbolter shots, +if i take a str8+ hit i dont loose an over-priced model)


i've seen draigo tournament armies and i'm not impressed in the slightest.



as for 5th ed, i much prefer this edition to 4th where you could usually determine the outcome by looking at which armies turned up (seriously, check out the old gt winners, there are a few themes there ).

couple of gripes i have are:

i) psychic powers seem to either be completely useless or near over powered (imperial armies get cheap and impressive defence against them, others dont....)
ii) i dont see why you would use monsters

thats about it i think.

i hope they dont go back to 4th ed style.... there were so many issues with those rules (that these cleared up), such as:

i) put 2 guys either side of a flamer, he cant target models in his unit so only the models touched by the template are actually hit
ii) a random bolt pistol can destroy just about any vehicle in the game in one shot
iii) just try bringing down an eldar falcon
iv) the old chaos book

the list goes on

Vaktathi wrote:
As for the core rules themselves, above and beyond anything else? Kill points. An unnecessarily over-simplified victory mechanic that has been misconstrued by many as some sort of balancing mechanism because nobody can rationally explain it otherwise that leads to grossly mis-matched victory outcomes and punishes armies that are designed to win through attrition...in battles of attrition and incentivizes counter-intuitive behavior (e.g. prioritizing an empty drop pod over a Land Raider).

That's some nice skills in arguing there. "Everyone who disagrees is wrong".

The worst thing in 5th is the movement.
Charges and running should happen in the movement phase, not spread out to three different phases. Units with assault guns could still fire in the shooting phase so you don't have to worry about not getting into melee range because of shooting casualties.

Moving 20+ ork boyz four times (move, run, charge, consolidate) in one turn is horrible and really put me off playing with my favourite army.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:
As for the core rules themselves, above and beyond anything else? Kill points. An unnecessarily over-simplified victory mechanic that has been misconstrued by many as some sort of balancing mechanism because nobody can rationally explain it otherwise that leads to grossly mis-matched victory outcomes and punishes armies that are designed to win through attrition...in battles of attrition and incentivizes counter-intuitive behavior (e.g. prioritizing an empty drop pod over a Land Raider).

That's some nice skills in arguing there. "Everyone who disagrees is wrong".

Here's an argument, Why should 30 grots be the same cost in kill points as 30 Death Company troops?

It truly punishes the weaker units and makes it so that every unit has to be able to survive to do well.

Wound allocation, KP and the fact that vehicles got too much love.

I'm loving the rumour from 6th that vehicles have "wounds" when it comes to shaken or stunned results.

I hope it's true as it is going to make anti mech easier to organise and a lot of armies more viable to play.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:
As for the core rules themselves, above and beyond anything else? Kill points. An unnecessarily over-simplified victory mechanic that has been misconstrued by many as some sort of balancing mechanism because nobody can rationally explain it otherwise that leads to grossly mis-matched victory outcomes and punishes armies that are designed to win through attrition...in battles of attrition and incentivizes counter-intuitive behavior (e.g. prioritizing an empty drop pod over a Land Raider).

That's some nice skills in arguing there. "Everyone who disagrees is wrong".

Here's an argument, Why should 30 grots be the same cost in kill points as 30 Death Company troops?

It truly punishes the weaker units and makes it so that every unit has to be able to survive to do well.

Here's an answer: to hold back MSU. Look at most tournaments to see what happens when people largely ignore KPs.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:
As for the core rules themselves, above and beyond anything else? Kill points. An unnecessarily over-simplified victory mechanic that has been misconstrued by many as some sort of balancing mechanism because nobody can rationally explain it otherwise that leads to grossly mis-matched victory outcomes and punishes armies that are designed to win through attrition...in battles of attrition and incentivizes counter-intuitive behavior (e.g. prioritizing an empty drop pod over a Land Raider).

That's some nice skills in arguing there. "Everyone who disagrees is wrong".

Here's an argument, Why should 30 grots be the same cost in kill points as 30 Death Company troops?

It truly punishes the weaker units and makes it so that every unit has to be able to survive to do well.

Here's an answer: to hold back MSU. Look at most tournaments to see what happens when people largely ignore KPs.

Counterpoint: At the same time it buffs large expensive group units, this is the crutch behind Paladins and 10 man Nobz squads.

Countereffect: It simply nerfs one style of gameplay, while buffing another.

If one brought back victory points, it'd be able to same in effect, as crushing small and large would hold about the same

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Here's an answer: to hold back MSU. Look at most tournaments to see what happens when people largely ignore KPs.

That isn't "the" answer and it isn't the only type of list punished by such a silly rule. Like said above, even footslogging horde orks are punished for using a grot screen. KPs are a stupid lazy mechanic which is why tournaments do not use them. VPs are much more flexible and realistic with an easy to add in bonus or penalty for specific scenarios.

Kevlar wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Here's an answer: to hold back MSU. Look at most tournaments to see what happens when people largely ignore KPs.

That isn't "the" answer and it isn't the only type of list punished by such a silly rule. Like said above, even footslogging horde orks are punished for using a grot screen. KPs are a stupid lazy mechanic which is why tournaments do not use them. VPs are much more flexible and realistic with an easy to add in bonus or penalty for specific scenarios.

When you say "most" tournaments I assume you actually mean few. Very cursory check shows that Adepticon, GT, BAO and ETC all use Kill Points. Of course it is very much possible that these 4 events are the exceptions to the rule, but I personally doubt it.

But I still believe KP is pretty good balance mechanic. It can be removed, but it would require changing other game mechanics to nerf MSU/Mech spam (which I personally use).

Gargantuan wrote:The worst thing in 5th is the movement.
Charges and running should happen in the movement phase, not spread out to three different phases. Units with assault guns could still fire in the shooting phase so you don't have to worry about not getting into melee range because of shooting casualties.

Moving 20+ ork boyz four times (move, run, charge, consolidate) in one turn is horrible and really put me off playing with my favourite army.

Lulwut?

having to move your Orks puts you off playing your Ork army? Seriously?

If you don't want to not get into assault because of shooting casualties just don't shoot the unit, simple solution really. And unless you call a Waaagh you can't run and assault anyway.

hotsauceman1 wrote::(
Well still i think the assault thing is lame, Units trained in close combat should be able to deepstrike and assault

YEEEEAAAAAAA make my TH/SS terminator even more FUN. I deepstrike assult your army is gone turn 3 .

It seems everyone has lots of issues with 5E, I just read through most of this thread and it is the same game mechanics coming up over and over.... Although there are some arguments FOR Kill Points that boggle my mind.

KP is terrible.

I just hope that they fix the glaring issues with the game rather than minor ones.

KP is a bad solution to a problem with 40k's shooting mechanics that heavily favor MSU.

I absolutely love 5th ed. Id just be happy with some clarifications.

Milisim wrote:It seems everyone has lots of issues with 5E, I just read through most of this thread and it is the same game mechanics coming up over and over.... Although there are some arguments FOR Kill Points that boggle my mind.

KP is terrible.

I just hope that they fix the glaring issues with the game rather than minor ones.

And to think it was brought in because some people couldn't be arsed to do the math for victory points. It's basic arithmetic...grow up! Seriously...

And 5e buffing vehicles while doing precisely nothing to boost monstrous creatures is just terrible.

I am sitting here laughing at people who say that GW will fix it next edition! 6th ed is the perfect opportunity to spam income! Currently vehicles rule, and MCs and infantry suck in.comparison. By making vehicles suck next time round, everyone who relies on mech, or has very little infantry, will be forced to buy new non-vehicles next ed. They could make a fortune by doing this.

Deadshot wrote:I am sitting here laughing at people who say that GW will fix it next edition! 6th ed is the perfect opportunity to spam income! Currently vehicles rule, and MCs and infantry suck in.comparison. By making vehicles suck next time round, everyone who relies on mech, or has very little infantry, will be forced to buy new non-vehicles next ed. They could make a fortune by doing this.

Considering they sell terminator box sets for ~£28, for which you get what, 200, 250 points? It's unlikely they're going to completely wreck 40k as a game in order to "spam income".

KP are super broke.

1 HQ with 3 Land raiders filled with 10 Termies and 1 squad of 9 to fit the IC. = 7 KP

Not only does it take a nuclear device for most LR kills but then out jump 10 termies... then you actually have to kill off the whole squad to get the KP.

lame.

Now if I pop a LR and kill 3 Termies thats 350 points... sounds better to me than 1 KP.

Chosen Praetorian wrote:I absolutely love 5th ed. Id just be happy with some clarifications.

Second the "clarification" vote. Honestly, how they choose to abstract some silly steampunk futuristic ruleset isn't to my mind critical. The annoying part is the wording ambiguity. Probably too much to ask for, but a more strict definition of terms and cross-referencing to reduce ambiguity on how special rules work together would be sweet.

Randall Turner wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:I absolutely love 5th ed. Id just be happy with some clarifications.

Second the "clarification" vote. Honestly, how they choose to abstract some silly steampunk futuristic ruleset isn't to my mind critical. The annoying part is the wording ambiguity. Probably too much to ask for, but a more strict definition of terms and cross-referencing to reduce ambiguity on how special rules work together would be sweet.

I'd agree that I'm happy with 95% of 5th Edition rules, but you can't honestly justify current wound allocation rules, or kill points?

Milisim wrote:KP are super broke.

1 HQ with 3 Land raiders filled with 10 Termies and 1 squad of 9 to fit the IC. = 7 KP

Not only does it take a nuclear device for most LR kills but then out jump 10 termies... then you actually have to kill off the whole squad to get the KP.

lame.

Now if I pop a LR and kill 3 Termies thats 350 points... sounds better to me than 1 KP.

And what would those do in an objective game?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Milisim wrote:KP are super broke.

1 HQ with 3 Land raiders filled with 10 Termies and 1 squad of 9 to fit the IC. = 7 KP

Not only does it take a nuclear device for most LR kills but then out jump 10 termies... then you actually have to kill off the whole squad to get the KP.

lame.

Now if I pop a LR and kill 3 Termies thats 350 points... sounds better to me than 1 KP.

And what would those do in an objective game?

Probably pretty well. Despite what a lot of dakkas say, you can still blow people up in objective games, you just need to make sure you're contesting 5th turn onwards.

Joey wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:I absolutely love 5th ed. Id just be happy with some clarifications.

Second the "clarification" vote. Honestly, how they choose to abstract some silly steampunk futuristic ruleset isn't to my mind critical. The annoying part is the wording ambiguity. Probably too much to ask for, but a more strict definition of terms and cross-referencing to reduce ambiguity on how special rules work together would be sweet.

I'd agree that I'm happy with 95% of 5th Edition rules, but you can't honestly justify current wound allocation rules, or kill points?

Yeah, I play wound allocation Nobz and I dont even like the rule. And Kill Points is god awful. "Hey, I killed 9 of your 10 Paladins. What do I get for that?"......"Nothing..."
But if i had to sit down and score 5th Ed on a scale from 1-10 it would be a 9.8. Im getting a little tired of mech but it was a nice change form 4th Ed.

Joey wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Milisim wrote:KP are super broke.

1 HQ with 3 Land raiders filled with 10 Termies and 1 squad of 9 to fit the IC. = 7 KP

Not only does it take a nuclear device for most LR kills but then out jump 10 termies... then you actually have to kill off the whole squad to get the KP.

lame.

Now if I pop a LR and kill 3 Termies thats 350 points... sounds better to me than 1 KP.

And what would those do in an objective game?

Probably pretty well. Despite what a lot of dakkas say, you can still blow people up in objective games, you just need to make sure you're contesting 5th turn onwards.

Fine, let me rephrase that: How many units can they engage simultaneously? For the points of said LRs, Terminators and IC you could probably get something like 5 mechvet squads in Chimeras packing meltaguns. While they would probably lose against this particular enemy due to PotMS allowing the LRs to run away and still shoot, they'd be hideously more effective at engaging enemy targets. The strength in MSU is that they can shoot or assault every single unit at whatever they want (within the limits of the rules obviously). The limiter to that is Kill Points. While it's true that VPs could probably accomplish something similar, that's not the argument, the argument I was making was that Kill Points has a function; it limits the power of MSU.

Milisim wrote:KP are super broke.

1 HQ with 3 Land raiders filled with 10 Termies and 1 squad of 9 to fit the IC. = 7 KP

Not only does it take a nuclear device for most LR kills but then out jump 10 termies... then you actually have to kill off the whole squad to get the KP.

lame.

Now if I pop a LR and kill 3 Termies thats 350 points... sounds better to me than 1 KP.

first of all thats a problem assuming you use land raider crusaders you can only have 8 term in each. second of all every army has 2-3 ways to deal with 2+ models

Milisim wrote:KP are super broke.

1 HQ with 3 Land raiders filled with 10 Termies and 1 squad of 9 to fit the IC. = 7 KP

Not only does it take a nuclear device for most LR kills but then out jump 10 termies... then you actually have to kill off the whole squad to get the KP.

lame.

Now if I pop a LR and kill 3 Termies thats 350 points... sounds better to me than 1 KP.

If 8th ed fantasy is anything to go by, there WON'T be any partial VP (assuming they change to a VP system). So that termie squad you haven't killed still gets you nothing.

Honestly, from an ork perspective, I see little difference between KP and VP. Sure, my 70pt kopta being worth the same as a giant termie squad sucks. But things aren't typically in such a vacuum to compare X vs Y. Koptas make great alpha strike units, I think part of their "cost" (not actually what GW had intended, but what holds true) is for having a chance at that first turn destruction of a vehicle (I've poppsed hammerheads, LRBTs, rhinos, chimeras, etc first turn) is I'm also sacrificing a KP potentially.

I know that's an isolated view, but I haven't seen KP be much of an issue of things. VP would still get the same treatment. If it is on a per model basis instead of per unit, then it would make the end of games at tournaments even more cumbersome, as you're trying to determine winner, get results in etc I have to sit there and look up each individual model you killed and tally the points total? Pass.

Joey wrote:

Randall Turner wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:I absolutely love 5th ed. Id just be happy with some clarifications.

Second the "clarification" vote. Honestly, how they choose to abstract some silly steampunk futuristic ruleset isn't to my mind critical. The annoying part is the wording ambiguity. Probably too much to ask for, but a more strict definition of terms and cross-referencing to reduce ambiguity on how special rules work together would be sweet.

I'd agree that I'm happy with 95% of 5th Edition rules, but you can't honestly justify current wound allocation rules, or kill points?

No, they're vulnerable to the exploits that many posts have addressed in this thread. But though they promote "cheese", they don't cause arguments. A lot of the rules, particularly interactions between special rules, are just open to different interpretations even between two reasonable, experienced opponents. I may bump into this more often as a consequence of playing the newest (and possibly weirdest) codex, but often it's a matter of new codecs exposing BRB rules ambiguity.

A good example of this is the searchlight rules in the BRB. Before Necrons came out it was like, neh, who cares. But now, the question of whether you can light someone up after moving flat-out or popping smoke is critical - you can't roll off for it, because the outcome of the roll can determine the outcome of your whole game. You have to puzzle it out. (And this one came up in the latest Adepticon, with very experienced players.)

There are a ton of other "up in the air" little questions - is RFP/RFPaaC the same concept or not a concept at all, just convenient wording; how does sweeping advance affect EL/RP, how do we interpret the "initial shot" phrase in the Tesla Arc rule, does killing Imotekh stop the Lord of the Storm ability, can chrono's reroll part of a 2d6 roll, do you measure the 12" for a Death Ray's initial fire point before specifying that point, can Ghost Arks resuscitate crypteks attached to squads, are VoD crypteks considered to be "able to deepstrike" for the purposes of Phased Reinforcements, and at least a half-dozen more. I feel I've a good rule-of-thumb for each of these but when playing a new opponent it's almost certain we'll disagree on one or more.

The play balance / rule exploit issues are still there, to be sure - but in my experience ambiguous wording is a bigger problem.

Edit: to a lesser degree with more standard/mature codices, though. When I "go home" my friends have an enormous shared pool of armies to draw from due to one of our group just being an unbelievable painting machine, and I'll play IG or Tau or whatever in big games. It's like, "oh, god, thank you", rule stress reduced to a fraction of that playing Necrons. Edit2: but, to be clear - the interpretation problems aren't Necron specific, they always wind back to ambiguous base rule wording in the BRB.

Wether or not you agree that KP is broken... VP may not in fact be a better choice, at the end of the day it is a bone of contention for a lot of players.


GW need to fix scoring in a better way. They need to fix Wound Allocation, Cover Saves, etc.... As long as it is improving ill be happy.

5E is not a very entertaining edition. Are the rules solid compared to others, maybe so.

I think 6E needs to have a higher % of FUN rules in its gametypes, missions etc... Im ok with randomness to achieve this as I believe competing in 40k is not the intention of the game to begin with but rather to have a night out with the boys and have a few chuckles. Which is hard to do when everyone is arguing about rules interpretations and other stupidity that is built into the game.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Gargantuan wrote:The worst thing in 5th is the movement.
Charges and running should happen in the movement phase, not spread out to three different phases. Units with assault guns could still fire in the shooting phase so you don't have to worry about not getting into melee range because of shooting casualties.

Moving 20+ ork boyz four times (move, run, charge, consolidate) in one turn is horrible and really put me off playing with my favourite army.

Lulwut?

having to move your Orks puts you off playing your Ork army? Seriously?

If you don't want to not get into assault because of shooting casualties just don't shoot the unit, simple solution really. And unless you call a Waaagh you can't run and assault anyway.

Having to move a horde army multiple times every turn puts me of playing my ork army.

Milisim wrote:

5E is not a very entertaining edition. Are the rules solid compared to others, maybe so.

I think 6E needs to have a higher % of FUN rules in its gametypes, missions etc... Im ok with randomness to achieve this as I believe competing in 40k is not the intention of the game to begin with but rather to have a night out with the boys and have a few chuckles. Which is hard to do when everyone is arguing about rules interpretations and other stupidity that is built into the game.

Well, there's another point of issue, with any game that has a competitive element, you'll have competitive people playing it. I bet there's a large number of people who play to win (as we've all experienced that WAAC player). I play to win, I honestly don't get the attitude of "I lost but I don't care." Don't take that the wrong way though, I can still have a lot of fun in a loss, but it eats at my competitive spirit and I take personal pride in trying to win.

A wider array of random missions would be fun, I honestly think the three book missions are a little dated just from playing so many games with them, so some change in flavor would be nice. If they make the rules too random though, and remove even MORE reliance on strategy (what little there current is), the it turns a fun competitive game you can play with friends or tournaments, to just a "fun" game that you can't take seriously, like I know there are quite a few people who do.

wow, just realized after typing all that I didn't actually make a point. I think if they expand the missions wisely, and write rules that are CLEAR and easy to understand, the player base will cope with any of the changes made. As you said, rules arguing is the main culprit of a buzz kill.

Well think of KP's this way and tell me if it's even. My barebones, 30pts PCS (5 guardsmen) is worth the same as a maxed out nob squad with all the gubbinz (which is easily over 500pts)

I don't care what they do, not much could be worse than KP's

Luide wrote:

But I still believe KP is pretty good balance mechanic. It can be removed, but it would require changing other game mechanics to nerf MSU/Mech spam (which I personally use).

Except it was never intended as a balance mechanic. It was intended for easier victory tabulation. The idea of KP's being some sort of balance mechanic is a player created one that people just ran with because they couldn't rationalize it any other way.

It's a very wonky mechanic that results in very poor representations of victory given the intention and description of the Annihilation mission type, as quite often the player who actually accomplishes what the rulebook describes the Annihilation mission as being all about will lose, even with a much more intact force and an opponent who has been virtually destroyed.

As a balance mechanism, it is only so in the most metagame-y of senses (and GW has never addressed anything on that level before like that), and is a very poor mechanic for the mission it was actually designed for.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:
As for the core rules themselves, above and beyond anything else? Kill points. An unnecessarily over-simplified victory mechanic that has been misconstrued by many as some sort of balancing mechanism because nobody can rationally explain it otherwise that leads to grossly mis-matched victory outcomes and punishes armies that are designed to win through attrition...in battles of attrition and incentivizes counter-intuitive behavior (e.g. prioritizing an empty drop pod over a Land Raider).

That's some nice skills in arguing there. "Everyone who disagrees is wrong".

Can you please point out where I said that? I don't see that anywhere in my post. If you're going to mis-represent my argument, please elaborate. I said that it was a simplified victory mechanic (by Alessio's words) that was misconstrued as a balance mechanism by people later.

That is not the same as saying "Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong".

Vaktathi wrote:That is not the same as saying "Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong".

Which is a good thing, because your opinion doesn't matter, everyone who disagrees with *ME* is wrong.

My only problem with 5th edition is kill points. Its crazy that a 35 point rhino has the same value as a 670 point paladin squad.

Randall Turner wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:That is not the same as saying "Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong".

Which is a good thing, because your opinion doesn't matter, everyone who disagrees with *ME* is wrong.

I felt that was implied

Kain wrote:And to think it was brought in because some people couldn't be arsed to do the math for victory points.

What are you basing that claim on?

insaniak wrote:

Kain wrote:And to think it was brought in because some people couldn't be arsed to do the math for victory points.

What are you basing that claim on?

I seem to recall a GW podcast back when 5E launched where they went over a lot of the 5E stuff and this was mentioned.

I doubt that, to be honest. I can certainly see them saying that it was changed because they felt that KP were easier to track... but that's not the same as saying that it's because people can't be bothered with the maths.

Unfortunately, this seems to happen a lot when rules are changed. Whatever the actual reason for it, people like to assume that the change is in some way pandering to the stupid or the mathematically challenged.

insaniak wrote:I doubt that, to be honest. I can certainly see them saying that it was changed because they felt that KP were easier to track... but that's not the same as saying that it's because people can't be bothered with the maths.

Unfortunately, this seems to happen a lot when rules are changed. Whatever the actual reason for it, people like to assume that the change is in some way pandering to the stupid or the mathematically challenged.

Well, yes, my mistake, I don't recall the reason explicitly as because people couldn't be bothered with maths, only that Alessio specified it was for easier victory calculation.

Though that in and of itself may imply that the designers thought people couldn't be bothered with maths.

Chosen Praetorian wrote:Yeah, I play wound allocation Nobz and I dont even like the rule. And Kill Points is god awful. "Hey, I killed 9 of your 10 Paladins. What do I get for that?"......"Nothing..."
But if i had to sit down and score 5th Ed on a scale from 1-10 it would be a 9.8. Im getting a little tired of mech but it was a nice change form 4th Ed.

Thats pretty much why paladins can be so good. You just don't give up any KPs.

Though honestly I do like mech armies. A bunch of tanks on the board looks cool, and helps speed up gameplay as its less models to move. If I wanted to never have tanks I would play warmachine.

A key thing to note also is that there is a small handful of rules we think are 'broken'. The vast majority of the rules system is actually pretty good. It makes me a bit wary of 6th edition, as its just as likely as they will break other parts as to fix the broken ones of 5th.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Lulwut?

having to move your Orks puts you off playing your Ork army? Seriously?

If you don't want to not get into assault because of shooting casualties just don't shoot the unit, simple solution really. And unless you call a Waaagh you can't run and assault anyway.

No, he makes a very valid point. Having to move a model four times in a single turn is clumsy and needless.

Vaktathi wrote: Except it was never intended as a balance mechanic. It was intended for easier victory tabulation.

Citation needed.

Having all of th emovement consolidated into the movement phase ala 2nd edition does speed up play for horde armies.

insaniak wrote:Having all of th emovement consolidated into the movement phase ala 2nd edition does speed up play for horde armies.

Yeah I would be all for a smoothing of the movement mechanic. At our store its a common thing to ask your opponent "Hey, I'm just gonna run these guys in the shooting phase, is it cool if I go ahead and roll for that now and get it all out of the way?" Works great for speeding up the game, and as a horde player myself, that alone would be a huge break.

As for why its so bad for horde players to have to move up to 4 times, think of it this way. Let's say I've got a greentide list with 180 boyz in it. If I have to move all of the them each phase (this is a perfect world scenario obviously) I would have to move essentially 720 TIMES IN ONE TURN which will wear out just about anyone. Obviously, you're still looking at casualties, guys not moving, etc. but it's still perfectly reasonable that you'd have to measure for movement at least 400 times in a single turn.

Plus, anything that speeds up playing horde armies would greatly influence the meta for tournaments. A lot of people don't like bringing hordes because they take a long time to play. If you help speed up playing them (not speeding the units, just making them move over less steps aka streamlining) I think it would greatly help lower the emphasis on MSU spam like what is so prevalent these days.

MrMoustaffa wrote:Plus, anything that speeds up playing horde armies would greatly influence the meta for tournaments. A lot of people don't like bringing hordes because they take a long time to play. If you help speed up playing them (not speeding the units, just making them move over less steps aka streamlining) I think it would greatly help lower the emphasis on MSU spam like what is so prevalent these days.

It would certainly encourage me to play my Orks more. As it is, I used them in one tournament and really struggled to finish games, so switched to Space Wolves instead.

I'd like to at least see:
- more shooting
- less close combat (and not throwing 40 dice when 20 orc boyz are assaulting, better close combat weapons and less attacks would do the trick)
- different move values for different races
- better infantry
- armored figures infantry in cover gaining something from that cover
- bring back real grenades
- fix would allocation
- more area weapons and area templates
- fix KP
- give heavy weapons a better chance to hurt vehicles (no need for huge amount of insta kills though, dealing some damage would be good)

What I'd really really really like to see is more tactical variables and less randomness.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meant 100 dice orc boyz, not 40 dice.

Iceclad wrote:
- more shooting
- less close combat (and not throwing 40 dice when 20 orc boyz are assaulting, better close combat weapons and less attacks would do the trick)
- different move values for different races
- better infantry
- armored figures infantry in cover gaining something from that cover
- bring back real grenades
- fix would allocation
- more area weapons and area templates
- fix KP
- give heavy weapons a better chance to hurt vehicles (no need for huge amount of insta kills though, dealing some damage would be good)

... So, what you want is third edition? You can always just play that rules edition if you can find someone who agrees with your vision of how 40k should be played.

Actually, what he is describing is far closer to 2nd Edition than 3rd. 3rd was the start of the assault heavy rule-set, and its cover rules made cover pointless for heavily armored troops except to give them saves against weapons that would negate their saves.

If you want more shooting, real grenades, and more vehicle damage, you play 2nd. However, 2nd edition won't fix the HtH dice rolling by any means, lol.

Veteran Sergeant wrote: However, 2nd edition won't fix the HtH dice rolling by any means, lol.

Well, it kind of does... At least you won't be rolling 40 dice at once...

Actually most of those are the best parts from Battle Manual times. Battle Manual was very good, but it also had huge flaws (like CC and vehicles were too complex, although that CC was just 1 dice against 1 dice, but it took time instead of bookkeeping). But it still does have best shooting rules I've seen so far. Second edition after that was pretty poor. I'd rather like to see current rule set and take the best ideas from those times together.

Rolling 100 dice takes a huge amount of time and bookkeeping as no-one brings 100 dice to gaming table. This would be easily fixed with better close combat weapons for example.

20 Orcs assaulting:
first shoot 20 pistols
then 5 attacks in CC (3 A + 1 assault +1 additional CC weapon) = 100 dice
We can forget those 20 pistols as they are pretty much a separate phase

100 attacks, WS4, S4 against WS 4, T4, save 5+
hit with 4+ = 50 hits
wound on 4+ = 25 wounds
not save on 4- = 16,75 not saved wounds

60 attacks, WS4, S5, AP5 against WS 4, T4, save 5+
hit with 4+ = 30 hits
wound on 3+ = 20 wounds
no saves with AP 5

This was just a crude example not taking into account that other CC would be a pistol without that S5 and AP 5. Also enemy is often different so one would need to test it against all possible enemies to get the correct balance. But changing some stats would lower the amount of dice used easily. Only thing needed would be to have less attacks and better CC weapons in overall (in case of Tyranids and etc just a better stat line). Using a huge amount of dice at the same time is very problematic as it needs a lot of bookkeeping. Normal player seems to bring some 20 different colored dice, so you would need to use every one of those dice 5 times. That is simply too much and I can't see anyone liking this situation which is easily fixed.

My only problem with current WH40k is that tactical possibilities have take a serious hit from older times.

insaniak wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote: However, 2nd edition won't fix the HtH dice rolling by any means, lol.

Well, it kind of does... At least you won't be rolling 40 dice at once...

But it's kinda cruel when you can't wound if you lose the initial roll

Iceclad wrote:I'd like to at least see:
- more shooting
- less close combat (and not throwing 40 dice when 20 orc boyz are assaulting, better close combat weapons and less attacks would do the trick)
- different move values for different races
- better infantry
- armored figures infantry in cover gaining something from that cover
- bring back real grenades
- fix would allocation
- more area weapons and area templates
- fix KP
- give heavy weapons a better chance to hurt vehicles (no need for huge amount of insta kills though, dealing some damage would be good)

The days of rogue trader...
Infantry did not use their bolters, they just threw crack gernades. Why? They simply put were better.
All space marines had jump packs AVAILABLE AS AN OPTION FOR 2 POINTS and could jump 24". Yea, those big things on their backs were jump packs.
ICs were also crazy back then. You could dual wield plasma pistols and with following fire kill an entire squad in 1 round of shooting.
One virus gernade would kill everyone on the board not in powered armor.
There were also additional phases back then, such as the psychic phase which was followed closely by the argument phase.

While we often view the past through rose colored glasses, in this case things are much better in the 5th edition.

labmouse42 wrote:

Iceclad wrote:I'd like to at least see:
- more shooting
- less close combat (and not throwing 40 dice when 20 orc boyz are assaulting, better close combat weapons and less attacks would do the trick)
- different move values for different races
- better infantry
- armored figures infantry in cover gaining something from that cover
- bring back real grenades
- fix would allocation
- more area weapons and area templates
- fix KP
- give heavy weapons a better chance to hurt vehicles (no need for huge amount of insta kills though, dealing some damage would be good)

The days of 2nd edition...
Infantry did not use their bolters, they just threw crack gernades. Why? They simply put were better.
All space marines had jump packs and could jump 24". Yea, those big things on their backs were jump packs.
ICs were also crazy back then. You could dual wield plasma pistols and with following fire kill an entire squad in 1 round of shooting.
One virus gernade would kill everyone on the board not in powered armor.
There were also additional phases back then, such as the psychic phase which was followed closely by the argument phase.

While we often view the past through rose colored glasses, in this case things are much better in the 5th edition.

When one looks through Jade Colored glasses, the same result occurs in reverse, with everyone remembering 2nd either wrong or otherwise.

Iceclad wrote:Rolling 100 dice takes a huge amount of time and bookkeeping as no-one brings 100 dice to gaming table.

I do... side effect of playing Orks...

labmouse42 wrote:All space marines had jump packs and could jump 24". Yea, those big things on their backs were jump packs.

Not sure where you're getting that from, unless it's something from Rogue Trader. In 2nd ed all marines most certainly did not have jump packs.

ICs were also crazy back then. You could dual wield plasma pistols and with following fire kill an entire squad in 1 round of shooting.

I suspect this is also something from RT rather than 2nd ed...

One virus gernade would kill everyone on the board not in powered armor.

Yeah, from what I saw, most gaming groups just removed Virus grenades and the Virus Outbreak Strategy Card from the game.

I have a dice box with 20 red dice, 10 black dice and 5 white dice. So when I roll a lot of dice, I instantly have the right number of dice in my hand and roll them three or four times. I guarantee I have rolled 120 attacks from 30 charging slugga boyz faster than your average marine player takes to resolve his missile launcher blast, measuring melta range or checking whether he bought a power weapon for his sergeant.

labmouse42 wrote:

Iceclad wrote:I'd like to at least see:
- more shooting
- less close combat (and not throwing 40 dice when 20 orc boyz are assaulting, better close combat weapons and less attacks would do the trick)
- different move values for different races
- better infantry
- armored figures infantry in cover gaining something from that cover
- bring back real grenades
- fix would allocation
- more area weapons and area templates
- fix KP
- give heavy weapons a better chance to hurt vehicles (no need for huge amount of insta kills though, dealing some damage would be good)

The days of 2nd edition...
Infantry did not use their bolters, they just threw crack gernades. Why? They simply put were better.
All space marines had jump packs and could jump 24". Yea, those big things on their backs were jump packs.
ICs were also crazy back then. You could dual wield plasma pistols and with following fire kill an entire squad in 1 round of shooting.
One virus gernade would kill everyone on the board not in powered armor.
There were also additional phases back then, such as the psychic phase which was followed closely by the argument phase.

While we often view the past through rose colored glasses, in this case things are much better in the 5th edition.

Those are actually from RT and in RT everyone could have everything before Companion. But if we assume you are talking about Companion then those were the first army lists (other than some WD lists) ever made by GW and point values were far from balanced and there was way too much random elements (which did create a lot of different kind of armies). But the main point is that one had over 10 times the amount of options those days and there were so many different kind of armies on the field that you could hardly ever guess what your opponent would be using.
Marines (assuming from bolters) used sometimes those krak grenades, but there were also over 10 useful grenades back then (like Blind and Anti-Plant for example). Grenades were tactical weapons to allow more tactical options. Also they did use those bolters a lot more as they had triple the range. And of course they used those grenades from time to time as they were paying for them also. One had to also pay for those jump packs separately (although they were too cheap in points).
Actually from Companion and Compilation armies I think only 3 Harlequin ICs were able to dual wield plasma pistols and even they had a whoopin 0,3% chance or so to actually get to do that. Plasma pistols could fire as long as they missed (and only every other turn) and even with high BS you could only average that 3,5 hits (with a good chance to kill). Although if I remember correctly there was a suggestion by GW to cap following fire to BS amount. Still ICs were a tough nut, although they did have to pay for being so (Harlequin Solitaire from those times is still by far the meanest assassin/killer ever made by GW to 40k, although one only had small number of models when playing Harlequins) and could be killed with a targeted heavy weapon if in sight of one.
One virus grenade could kill everyone on board. We didn't use them as they were too good (suggested house rule).
We could still have a psychic phase. It really doesn't matter if it's during your turn or at the end of the turn, doesn't really matter when psykers use them if it's just once a turn. Although back then we had some 50 different psychic powers so there was some versatility and not just "here are your 3 powers, you are so chief librarian now".

But in the end it doesn't really matter what was in which edition. Every edition had it's own problems. There used to be robots and lots of other vehichles. Now vehicles are different. Movement rules were better back then, but vehicle rules are better now (they were too complex in Vehicle Manual for example). No-one really liked close combat rules back then as they were pretty complex also, but I've never seen anyone who has said that shooting rules and ranges would be better now (Battle Manual). Codexes and point values are in a better balance these days, but back then you would see different ind of competitive armies as there were so many options to choose from. There used to be a lot more strategy and tactics involved than these days, but games were some 50% longer (although table sizes were normally larger and there was more terrain used). It could actually take some 3 hours to play a 3000 point game and army building would take maybe some 30 minutes. So it truly was a long time.

If GW would take their best ideas from different editions together we could have an amazing game. But it won't happen as it needs to be simple so that 1st graders are also able to play. Which is also a good thing as my son started playing when he was 7 and is able to play and understand (back then it would have been too complex for someone of his age).

GW always make a problem. That way, all the WAAC players can take advantage and buy them all up to use as the competitive lists. Then next ed they simply make the "OP" stuff balanced but this in turn causes another aspect to become powerful, for example, Rapid Fire could become so powerful there is never a reason not to take Imperial armies or Necrons who all have RF weapons. \Then all the WAAC players buy up all the infantry and the GW makes more money, as well as new models, rulebooks and Boxes.

Have to agree with you. From a business point of view it makes more profit to do it like they are doing it now.

Randall Turner wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:I absolutely love 5th ed. Id just be happy with some clarifications.

Second the "clarification" vote. Honestly, how they choose to abstract some silly steampunk futuristic ruleset isn't to my mind critical. The annoying part is the wording ambiguity. Probably too much to ask for, but a more strict definition of terms and cross-referencing to reduce ambiguity on how special rules work together would be sweet.

Having worked in testing and QA for the last 15+ years GW"s rules drive me nuts. It is clear that they only do minimal testing and impact on anything they release. They still, after 5 editions, expect that players are going to play by the "spirit" of the rules instead of writing them as clearer and detailed as they need to. There seems to be little to zero oversight on the various different projects going on in the company so that the same units and weapons in different books cost differently when they should be the same. Finally they still base their rules and codex books on what is "cool" today and not what fits within the context of the rules or even what makes sense or works well. The funny thing is that people seem to think that GW will make things right in the "next" version of the rules, whatever number that may be. It is the definition of insanity right there.

Of course this is why I find myself playing Flames of War more often these days than 40k. Well written rules, that recently were upped to version 3 with actual improvements to problem rules, but no changes to rules that already worked. It is so much more fun playing games where there aren't as many interpretations for certain rules as there are people hanging around the table. I still love my citadel/GW minis and armies, still build, collect and paint (and currently have 3 growing armies in the works), but find myself more annoyed at the end of a 40k game session than happy, even if I win. I don't *expect* 6th edition to be any better than the current rules, but I'll give them a read to at least see if they aren't any worse either.

Skriker

insaniak wrote:

One virus gernade would kill everyone on the board not in powered armor.

Yeah, from what I saw, most gaming groups just removed Virus grenades and the Virus Outbreak Strategy Card from the game.

Didn't Andy Chambers actually apologise for that one and recommend everyone tear those cards up?

-Loki- wrote:

insaniak wrote:

One virus gernade would kill everyone on the board not in powered armor.

Yeah, from what I saw, most gaming groups just removed Virus grenades and the Virus Outbreak Strategy Card from the game.

Didn't Andy Chambers actually apologise for that one and recommend everyone tear those cards up?

That he did. I actually smiled when I read that.

Given that i played Orks, and my buddy SM....

I was thrilled to the core to see them go, but he insisted on checking in the local GW, with every player, before he'd 'allow' me to do so

That virus stuff SUCKED!

The hallucinogens i remember with fondness though

Yeah, one of my earlier games of 2nd edition (and the last one in which we used the Virus Outbreak card) I took out all bar 6 models from a 2000 point Ork army before the game even started.

Kindof puts the GK in perspective, doesn't it (at least if you ignore quakeshunt)

There's OP Cheese and there's WTF!

I miss the more abstract LOS rules - TLOS is a great idea, if you are going to have a realistic game. This is not a realistic game.

Skriker wrote:
Having worked in testing and QA for the last 15+ years GW"s rules drive me nuts. It is clear that they only do minimal testing and impact on anything they release.

A game system with "minimal testing" would not have remained as insanly popular as 40k. The core rules of 40k are pretty solid on the whole, they could just do with some clarification.

How is the quality of rules writing connected to popularity at all?

Deleted for inaccuracy

Joey wrote:

Skriker wrote:
Having worked in testing and QA for the last 15+ years GW"s rules drive me nuts. It is clear that they only do minimal testing and impact on anything they release.

A game system with "minimal testing" would not have remained as insanly popular as 40k. The core rules of 40k are pretty solid on the whole, they could just do with some clarification.

40k gets by on its IP, not the strength of its rules. If you took GW's rules and tried to use them with say, WW2 mini's, the vast majority of people wouldn't be interested, it'd go nowhere. What makes 40k as popular as it is, is the IP, the 40k universe. GW could dump everything about the ruleset and put out a rules system entirely unrelated to the one we have now and it'd likely remain very popular, because of the IP.

Vaktathi wrote:

Joey wrote:

Skriker wrote:
Having worked in testing and QA for the last 15+ years GW"s rules drive me nuts. It is clear that they only do minimal testing and impact on anything they release.

A game system with "minimal testing" would not have remained as insanly popular as 40k. The core rules of 40k are pretty solid on the whole, they could just do with some clarification.

40k gets by on its IP, not the strength of its rules. If you took GW's rules and tried to use them with say, WW2 mini's, the vast majority of people wouldn't be interested, it'd go nowhere. What makes 40k as popular as it is, is the IP, the 40k universe. GW could dump everything about the ruleset and put out a rules system entirely unrelated to the one we have now and it'd likely remain very popular, because of the IP.

So why do I meet up with my friends 3 times a week to battle, when before I could barely be arsed to go round once a week to play cards? And it's mainly with models that aren't even mine.
The 40k rules are great.

We need random initiatives like D&D. Roll 1d6 and add their I value.

Kirasu - then you played one of the more common misconceptions of 4th ed LOS out there, but you still didnt play the actual rules

Cover and Combat - that is when you used Levels. That was it. At any other time you used TLOS. Just because you played it wrongly then doesnt mean that 5th ed TLOS doesnt work just fine - it does. I havent had these arguments detractors seem to have about LOS - it just doesnt happen.

Oh, and yuo DID have kneeling wraithlords in 4th. You did know how old that picture was, dont you?

KPs - the games designers also said it was to help balance out objective missions, where taking more troops was a given IWIN button. VPs do nothing but help encourage MSU spam - given MSU started in 4th ed.

As for the poster that claimed draigowing isnt at a disadvantage in 2/3rd of missions - you've not seen a competent player play against it then.