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.

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.