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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vaktathi wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*shrugs*

We just got on with it and played the game.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lash? *shudders*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pouncey wrote:

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

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

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

True. You can't satisify everyone it seems.

rockerbikie wrote:

Pouncey wrote:

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

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

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

True. You can't satisify everyone it seems.

:: nods :: Indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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