What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?

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.

**Deadshot**

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

**ZebioLizard2**

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!?)

**Deadshot**

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.

**hotsauceman1**

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.

**ZebioLizard2**

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*

**Vaktathi**

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.

**hotsauceman1**

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

**Vaktathi**

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.

**Deadshot**

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?

**Vaktathi**

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.

**Deadshot**

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.

**Vaktathi**

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.

**Kurce**

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?

**ZebioLizard2**

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.

**Vaktathi**

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.

**pretre**

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.

**Deadshot**

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.

**Serge-David**

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.

**Kaldor**

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.

**ZebioLizard2**

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.

**Kaldor**

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?

**ZebioLizard2**

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)

**mrspadge**

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

**AlmightyWalrus**

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".

**Gargantuan**

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.

**ZebioLizard2**

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.

**Puscifer**

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.

**AlmightyWalrus**

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.

**ZebioLizard2**

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

**Kevlar**

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.