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.

I was thinking of ways that would make 5th edition actually fun to play for me, and came up with this list.

1) Make every non-vehicle unit scoring. None of this troops-only nonsense.

2) Return to strength 6 defensive weapons.

3) Get rid of kill points, replace with victory points.

4) Bring back area terrain, but make sure that people know that it's ONLY for area terrain (I'm thinking mostly forests), not all terrain and not models.

5) change skimmer moving fast to a 5+ cover if moved >6", 4+ cover for >12".

6) Limit no retreat wounds to the actual amount of wounds that the unit took.

7) Put outnumbering into combat resolution (outnumber=+1 wound, 2x outnumber=+2, etc)


Some of the changes I like (No consolidating into other units, run rule, BS mattering for ordnance weapons, no auto-entangle in wrecks). Regardless, points 1 and 2, and probably 3 would be required for me to play 40k under this edition.

1.) agree
2.)S5 tops
3.)agree
4.)disagree
5.)disagree
6.)disagree, makes fearless troops too good for HtH
7.)disagree, uneeded

Overall your changes put the game to inline with 4th. 5th is just a differant flavor

Agree with 1, agree with 3. Everything else is either worse than the current incarnation or unnecessary.

There's nothing wrong with 5th. All you need is a 4th grade education to adapt. My 10 year old cousin has adapted to 5th, you can too...

Easy...

Make blasts scatter 2D6-BS, and you pick the higher of the two dice, not the damned sum of the two dice.

Casualties can only be removed from models within line of sight (ie. actual true LOS, not this phaux-LOS bs that 5th has now).

Wound allocation the same as it has been for the past two editions, based upon armour save, no what the damned model is armed with.

Hull Down/Skimmers moving fast = 5+ Cover Save, not a 4+. As long as it's a 4+, even with Defensive Weapon Strength going up, there's no reason to move. 5+ means tha vehicles aren't complete bunkers.

S6 defensive weapons.

Area terrain blocks LOS if two people are on either side of it.

Delete Kill Points completely.

Restore missions from 4th Ed.

Restore mission levels from 4th Ed but don't include Escalation. Keep the differing types of setup and DZ's from 5th though.

All Infantry = Scoring.

Casualties in combat can only be taken from those who can swing (none of this kill 10 Orks, but Ork unit still gets full attacks because you pulled 10 models that couldn't swing anyway nonsense).

No majority toughness or majority armour saves. It's really simple to apply hits when there are different toughnesses, or apply wounds when there are different armour saves.

BYE

The reason for the limiting no retreat wounds to the number of wounds the unit takes is for the situation where you have multiple units...A big/scary one (Carnifex, Ctan, Deamon prince) and a bunch of weaker ones (Gaunts, scarabs, generic daemons) in the same combat. It shouldn't be a handicap on the big bad unit that the others are easier to kill, and quite frankly, winning by 2 wounds in a massive battle where there are 4 individual units shouldn't have 8 wounds of no retreat damage. It should never be that much of a handicap to charge units in to support also.

The including outnumbering is because numbers should mean something, plus it gives all the things in the game that modify outnumbering (Thornback, being a Space Wolf, etc) meaning in the game.

Also, right now (with the combined above two points) there are no reasons to field units that whole purpose is just to tie up enemy units (Scarabs, Rippers, spinegaunts).

Strength 6 actually makes the most sense for the cut off of defensive weapons, as that's the break between single shot/low RoF weapons and the high rate of fire weapons which are more of a spray and pray approach. (Maybe give a 5+ cover save against them if the vehicle moved enough for it to matter). Strength 4 is just a gamey solution. Strength 5 is just a 'screw the Eldar' solution. Personally, I'd rather ALL weapons be able to be fired when the tank moves, regardless of strength value as units that move and fire add more fun to the game as it makes the game more dynamic.

I agree that defensive weapons should be S6, that kill points should be eliminated, and that casualties should only be taken from models in range and LOS.

I don't agree that we need units other than troops to be scoring. This forces a little bit of tactical thought: do I kill the more dangerous unit that can only contest, or do I kill the less dangerous unit that can hold an objective? I like that there is a trade-off that forces some decision-making.

Wound allocation should be done in two phases. First allocate the wounds that will not allow saves. Remove casualties. Now allocate remaining wounds to models and roll saves, grouping like models together.

In general I don't have any major issues with 5th Edition except Kill Points:
- Troops Scoring? It's a good start, but GW should not have let non-Troops contest below half strength, if at all.
- Wounds Allocation? Quite reasonable, actually. Troopers matter, and a lucky hit can kill the Sergeant or Heavy.
- Defensive Weapons? I can't say it's had any negative impact, as my Guard tanks can still move 6" and throw pies.
- Range Sniping? Good riddance.

But Kill Points are a problem. I say:
- 3 KPs per side, allocated by the Opponent. Allocate 2 KPs on any HQs as desired, then 1 KP on any non-HQ, as desired.

skyth wrote:I was thinking of ways that would make 5th edition actually fun to play for me, and came up with this list.

1) Make every non-vehicle unit scoring. None of this troops-only nonsense.

I agree that the troops only scoring is silly, especially when some units that can be troops are also in other FoC slots, or have traditionally been an objective nabber unit both in fluff and gameplay (Stormtroopers, terminators, etc). That said, I could live if it were just Elites and Troops that were scoring. Additionally, some armies are designed to operate around their troops very heavily, others not so much, this tends to hurt armies like Tau and make Orks simply even more amazing.

2) Return to strength 6 defensive weapons.

Yes please. This change has been by far the biggest negative in 5th ed, and I still really can't find a good reason why this was done.

3) Get rid of kill points, replace with victory points.

Again, yes please. Kill points are so slowed and poorly balanced that they just feel fun or right.

4) Bring back area terrain, but make sure that people know that it's ONLY for area terrain (I'm thinking mostly forests), not all terrain and not models.

I would agree here, especially with the slowed way they did area terrain in 5th (If you are between the two articles of trees, you get a cover save, but if there is only one tree or you are not between two trees, you get no cover save)

5) change skimmer moving fast to a 5+ cover if moved >6", 4+ cover for >12".

With the changes to the vehicle damage table, I really don't think this is needed. Skimmers seem just about right where they are now, especially after their horrendous abilities in 4th.

6) Limit no retreat wounds to the actual amount of wounds that the unit took.

I could agree with this, but I don't think its huge either, it only really comes up in multiple assaults, although it really is rather punitive on Orks.

7) Put outnumbering into combat resolution (outnumber=+1 wound, 2x outnumber=+2, etc)

Mmm..I like it, it helps to balance out uber killy small units that realistically have no other chance of loosing an assault to a large CC horde.

skyth wrote:4) Bring back area terrain,

Where did it go?

What Insaniak said. Area terrain still exists

In name, perhaps.

BYE

Just play 4th edition. Problem solved.

UUugh! That's even worse.

BYE

DeathGod wrote:There's nothing wrong with 5th. All you need is a 4th grade education to adapt. My 10 year old cousin has adapted to 5th, you can too...

Its not a question of adapting, its just that many people dont like the rules as they are in 5th ed. Whats the point in adapting to something we're not happy with? Instead, we can adapt the rules to something that allows for more dynamic gameplay and play these in friendly games.

I only agree with 1 & 3. The rest either have no point or are changing things for the worse (especially defensive weapons. They should be S5 and below, not S6).

If you want "area" terrain that blocks LOS, get off your butt and make a couple pieces that block LOS. Large hills, Large ruined buildings with a couple intact sides, large rocky areas. Stop leaving it up to the rules to block LOS to your tanks or crisis suits or whatever. Do it yourself.

blinky wrote:

DeathGod wrote:There's nothing wrong with 5th. All you need is a 4th grade education to adapt. My 10 year old cousin has adapted to 5th, you can too...

Its not a question of adapting, its just that many people dont like the rules as they are in 5th ed. Whats the point in adapting to something we're not happy with? Instead, we can adapt the rules to something that allows for more dynamic gameplay and play these in friendly games.

You can do this with your friends and local gaming group. It would only be a problem when you played with people who didn't use the same house rules.

I wouldn't bother trying to convince the internet to change to suit you but you don't need to.

The same kvetching was done in the shift from 3rd to 4th, and from 2nd to 3rd. No-one is ever happy with change, it seems; too much conservatism. This too will pass, and we'll be able to get on with playing 40K as usual.

skyth wrote:I was thinking of ways that would make 5th edition actually fun to play for me, and came up with this list.

1) Make every non-vehicle unit scoring. None of this troops-only nonsense.

2) Return to strength 6 defensive weapons.

3) Get rid of kill points, replace with victory points.

4) Bring back area terrain, but make sure that people know that it's ONLY for area terrain (I'm thinking mostly forests), not all terrain and not models.

5) change skimmer moving fast to a 5+ cover if moved >6", 4+ cover for >12".

6) Limit no retreat wounds to the actual amount of wounds that the unit took.

7) Put outnumbering into combat resolution (outnumber=+1 wound, 2x outnumber=+2, etc)


Some of the changes I like (No consolidating into other units, run rule, BS mattering for ordnance weapons, no auto-entangle in wrecks). Regardless, points 1 and 2, and probably 3 would be required for me to play 40k under this edition.

The choice to make only non-vehicle Troops Choices scoring units was a very deliberate one. The idea behind it was to encourage less of the traditional powergaming that last two Editions were so prone to. Now, you need a decent count of Troop units in order to win your game. Note that *any* unit can contest an Objective, so in that sense little has changed. In essence, they have just upped the minimum number of Troops Choices you take.

S6 Defensive Weapons. Why shouldn't they be S4? Or S5? Defensive Weapons on Tanks have traditionally been mounted versions of otherwise Man Portable guns.

Kill Points *are* a good idea, it's just the application which is currently lacking. Returning the banality of Victory Points will see a likewise return to very, very boring games. With Kill Points, there are additional tactics to consider, and since you shouldn't know the Victory Conditions until your list is written, it again encourages a more balanced approach. With VPs, I simply stonk your hardest, most expensive units with my own. With Kill Points, you need to consider your softer troops. The ones you need to win an Objective Based game, and thus, as you shouldn't know the Victory Conditions, the ones that ought to appear in your list. This adds tactics.

As Lormax said, when it comes to Area Terrain...make some. There are even spangly new, fairly well functioning Building Rules. Embrace an often forgotten aspect of the Hobby and create your own Terrain. Is fun, easy, and rewarding. Simply buildings, and thus, Area Terrain, can be made from an empty Ice Cream Tub and a few Lolly Sticks.

Skimmers. Meh, not fussed either way. Just as long as we don't end up with the stupidly invincible Falcons we used to have.

No Retreat. Leave it as is, and instead, learn that no matter how hard, every unit needs support. This is the spirit of Fantasy showing up. Even unbreakable units eventually get walloped by sheer mass.

Outnumbering counting towards Combat Resolution would unfairly punish certain armies otherwise fairly resilient in a combat, like Necrons, Marines etc for not being able to field Hordes. The idea of a Horde is that they win through sheer volume, and this is achieved by generally chucking bucketloads of dice around, whilst taking fairly horrific casualties themselves.

5th Edition, in my opinion, has really changed the dynamic of the game for the better. Now, you need to consider army synergy when writing your list. Every unit needs support. Nothing can win the game by itself. This presents your opponent with a challenge in terms of tactics and strategy, as much as it does yourself.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

S6 Defensive Weapons. Why shouldn't they be S4? Or S5? Defensive Weapons on Tanks have traditionally been mounted versions of otherwise Man Portable guns.

I'd be ok with S5 or S6 weapons, I really don't think the S4 was warranted in any way. To be honest, I've never totally understood the justification for just Strength being the factor for moving and shooting with a weapon, surely a recoil-less tube launched krak missile rack could be fired in volley on the move while massive recoil heavy bolters would be much more difficult? Either way, tanks should be much more maneuverable and able to move and fire heavy weapons as they can stay stabilized while firing, a man sized creature hauling a heavy weapon is going to have difficulty handling recoil, aiming and firing while moving to say the least, but a properly secured weapon mount? easy as cake in comparison, and the gunner just has to worry about firing, not moving and much less recoil.

Kill Points *are* a good idea, it's just the application which is currently lacking.

I really don't think they are, all it means is that an opponent can just smash your squishiest units and hide the rest of the game and win. At least with VP's a units abilities and power were tied to its value to the enemy. Killing 10 terminators was very difficult but also was a great reward, now one can just kill the Rhino's for the troops and keep the Termi's tied up with something and win the game without ever really engaging the enemy units.

Returning the banality of Victory Points will see a likewise return to very, very boring games.

Am I seriously the only one that doesn't think VP's were all that bad? I've really don't understand this thing with supposed exploitation of VP's, especially when both armies have the same potential loss or gain.

With Kill Points, there are additional tactics to consider

Stomp the squishy things? thats about it.

and since you shouldn't know the Victory Conditions until your list is written, it again encourages a more balanced approach. With VPs, I simply stonk your hardest, most expensive units with my own.

Why shouldn't killing the 'ardest enemy units bring victory? If you can kill the core of the enemy force, isn't that what its all about?

With Kill Points, you need to consider your softer troops.

Like the Gun Drones or Spore Mines that give the same KP as a 10man Terminator squad? That's not balance in any way, shape or form.

The ones you need to win an Objective Based game

Many of the units that give the easiest KP's aren't troops (Gun Drones, Spore Mines, transports, etc.) or even in fact scoring units, and even the ones that are generally aren't the best scoring units out there (I'd take a single mechanized Dire Avenger squad over a 35man IG platoon for taking objectives any day of the week, and thats 2KP's less.

This adds tactics.

I really don't see how, to me it just seems to bring a huge imbalance to most games.

Outnumbering counting towards Combat Resolution would unfairly punish certain armies otherwise fairly resilient in a combat, like Necrons, Marines etc for not being able to field Hordes. The idea of a Horde is that they win through sheer volume, and this is achieved by generally chucking bucketloads of dice around, whilst taking fairly horrific casualties themselves.

While I agree in many ways, it also means that a couple heavy CC units can wade through an equally killy CC unit that by its very nature takes more casualties, and that under 4th would have been roughly equal (think CC terminators against a large Ork squad) and ends up inflicting far more casualties and than it really should have. Take 5man Assault termi squad against a Slugga Boy squad, and both may kill roughly the same number of points worth of models, but the Orks are going to lose combat and take even more casualties simply because by their very nature they lose more guys, even though what they killed may be of equal or lesser value.

1) Disagree
    It has been long needed. If you want an elite army run with one and reap kill points.
      Elite formations are not made to hold ground.
    with the exception of Nids, I think Synapse should be scoring, not Troops
2) - Strength 5 MAX
3) Disagree
4) ( just make hedges around the edges, or declare them there )
5) Disagree
6) Disagree
7) Disagree

Vaktathi wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:S6 Defensive Weapons. Why shouldn't they be S4? Or S5? Defensive Weapons on Tanks have traditionally been mounted versions of otherwise Man Portable guns.

I'd be ok with S5 or S6 weapons, I really don't think the S4 was warranted in any way. To be honest, I've never totally understood the justification for just Strength being the factor for moving and shooting with a weapon,

Why not? 40k isn't reality, so an artificial distinction has to be made somewhere. In this case, GW has decided that Strength would be the deciding factor, as opposed to Assault (i.e. every Eldar gun) or something else that is more complicated.

On net, GW has decided that Pintle-mounted weapons (i.e. twin Bolter, Storm Bolter, Heavy Stubber) or their Xenos equivalents (twin Shuricat) are what they really want to be "Defensive Weapons". It is clear and appears to penalize all of the armies fairly evenly.

Otherwise, I'd go for "Defensive" being S5 (i.e. Imperial HB & HF) or Assault (i.e. nearly every Eldar weapon). But S6? No way. S6 Assault Cannons are not "Defensive".

I only agree with 3 and 7.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The choice to make only non-vehicle Troops Choices scoring units was a very deliberate one. The idea behind it was to encourage less of the traditional powergaming that last two Editions were so prone to.

I call BS on that argument. All it does is changes what the current 'powergaming' list is. It is no more balanced than the version that I put out (In fact, it is LESS balanced as Troops choices are not equal between codexes).

No Retreat. Leave it as is, and instead, learn that no matter how hard, every unit needs support.

Actually, an unsupported fearless unit acts exactly the same under my suggestion. The thing is units that are supported by other units in combat can make the supported side lose by more. A carnifex should not be easier to bring down because the player charged a unit of gaunts in to support the carnifex.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The choice to make only non-vehicle Troops Choices scoring units was a very deliberate one. The idea behind it was to encourage less of the traditional powergaming that last two Editions were so prone to.

Skyth wrote:
I call BS on that argument. All it does is changes what the current 'powergaming' list is. It is no more balanced than the version that I put out (In fact, it is LESS balanced as Troops choices are not equal between codexes).

Off the top of my head I can only think of the Dark Eldar & Demons lacking.
Just saying.
Marine vs CSM vs Genestealers vs Mountains of IG vs Aspect Warriors
vs Ork Boyz vs Fire Fire Warriors vs Necron Warriors vs Grey Knights
sound fair to me

Sorry, but CSM or Marines vs same points of IG, Fire Warriors or Necron warriors is not a fair matchup.

The lists change when you make troops scoring.

I actually like how they change. I know it doesn't change the fact that there are cheesy armies, but I like the changes.

Yay troops scoring.

On the defensive weapons bit:
Str 6 is not DEFENSIVE; str 6 is light-to-medium tank-killing. There is no reason for a cannon of any type (assault, shuriken, or otherwise) to be classified as such. I could see going up to str 5, but that's pushing it pretty hard.

As I explained before...The usual break between the high number of shot spray and pray possible weapons and the single/low shot, you better be aiming where your target is, weapons is 6 vs 7.

Assault Cannons/Shurkin cannons/ etc are high rate of fire and would be less effected by movement than a weapon that only gets one chance (Lascannon) to hit it's target.

This is besides the fact that the ability to move a tank around guns blazing in general makes the game more fun.