Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 13:48:09
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
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).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 14:31:45
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Junior Officer with Laspistol
Perth/Glasgow
|
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.
|
Currently debating whether to study for my exams or paint some Deathwing |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 15:15:31
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Fireknife Shas'el
|
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 .
|
8000 Dark Angels (No primaris)
10000 Lizardmen (Fantasy I miss you)
3000 High Elves
4000 Kel'shan Ta'u
"He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which." -Douglas Adams |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 15:27:02
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Cold-Blooded Saurus Warrior
The Great White North
|
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.
|
+ + =
+ = Big Lame Mat Ward Lovefest |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 15:28:40
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Been Around the Block
|
KP is a bad solution to a problem with 40k's shooting mechanics that heavily favor MSU.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 15:45:03
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Twisted Trueborn with Blaster
East Coast
|
I absolutely love 5th ed. Id just be happy with some clarifications.
|
'When in deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in little circles,
Wave your arms and shout.'
-Parody of the Litany of Command,
popular among commissar cadets |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 15:48:44
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Temple Prime
|
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/17 15:50:12
Midnightdeathblade wrote:Think of a daemon incursion like a fart you don't quite trust... you could either toot a little puff of air, bellow a great effluvium, or utterly sh*t your pants and cry as it floods down your leg.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 15:52:27
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Courageous Space Marine Captain
|
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.
|
I'm celebrating 8 years on Dakka Dakka!
I started an Instagram! Follow me at Deadshot Miniatures!
DR:90+S++G+++M+B+IPw40k08#-D+++A+++/cwd363R+++T(Ot)DM+
Check out my Deathwatch story, Aftermath in the fiction section!
Credit to Castiel for banner. Thanks Cas!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 15:56:22
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
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".
|
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 16:09:51
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Cold-Blooded Saurus Warrior
The Great White North
|
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.
|
+ + =
+ = Big Lame Mat Ward Lovefest |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 16:51:21
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot
Texas
|
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.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 17:01:59
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
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?
|
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 17:08:43
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan
|
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?
|
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 17:12:46
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Servoarm Flailing Magos
|
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.
|
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 17:17:00
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Twisted Trueborn with Blaster
East Coast
|
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.
|
'When in deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in little circles,
Wave your arms and shout.'
-Parody of the Litany of Command,
popular among commissar cadets |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 17:21:01
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan
|
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.
|
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 17:35:25
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Fireknife Shas'el
|
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
|
8000 Dark Angels (No primaris)
10000 Lizardmen (Fantasy I miss you)
3000 High Elves
4000 Kel'shan Ta'u
"He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which." -Douglas Adams |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 17:44:13
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Smokin' Skorcha Driver
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 18:01:04
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot
Texas
|
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.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/05/17 18:08:57
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 18:37:14
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Cold-Blooded Saurus Warrior
The Great White North
|
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.
|
+ + =
+ = Big Lame Mat Ward Lovefest |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 18:40:27
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
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.
|
The Tick: Everybody was a baby once, Arthur. Oh, sure, maybe not today, or even yesterday. But once. Babies, chum: tiny, dimpled, fleshy mirrors of our us-ness, that we parents hurl into the future, like leathery footballs of hope. And you've got to get a good spiral on that baby, or evil will make an interception. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 18:46:11
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Smokin' Skorcha Driver
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 18:57:17
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
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
|
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 18:58:25
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
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".
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/05/17 19:08:03
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 19:20:19
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot
Texas
|
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.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 19:33:36
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Sinewy Scourge
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 19:41:02
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
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
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 20:14:30
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
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?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 20:20:13
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
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.
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/05/17 20:51:19
Subject: What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|