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 like how it was saying that template weapons used to only hit on a 4+ with partials...

Polonius wrote:I'm going to take this little sheet as more evidence for my theory that GW really needs to hire a PR firm. The actual changes for 5th edition are going to be great for nearly every army, but this sheet makes them sound horrible! I'm sure they spent about 20 minutes or less putting it together, but as a promotional material for their new edition, including such silly suggestions just seems odd to me. Like I've been saying, I really think GW get's in more trouble with gamers for how they do things and how they explain them then for what they do.

I agree and I think they should hire Publicity agencies also.

hammerofulric wrote:

Shifting the emphasis to Troops can only be a good thing. Stops beardy gits taking their 2 min Troops and then whooping me with all the uber powerful stuff which any army should have less of, not more of as they do at the moment.

While this is fine in principle there are still balancing issues. Marine armies (chaos or otherwise) are probably not too affected by this change due to the excellent options that their core troops choices can take. Necrons might just about get away with it due to them being rock hard individually. Tau (and to a lesser extent Eldar) are likely to run into problems because in a lot of cases the core troops rely heavily on their other units for vital special and heavy weapon support.

Its always fun when new rules come out so everyone has to learn the game all over again but I feel my Tau will be taking a few serious beatings before I can get something sorted out. At this point in time i forsee Tau armies not changing too much but keeping mechanized FWs in support for late game objective grabbing.

Flinty

I don't really understand the idea that an "ideal army" should have tonnes of troops. What's wrong with an elite strike force, low in numbers but high in hitting power?
Surely every race has some variant on this idea.

Yah, they need to have someone who knows the rules write these kind of things. The flamers statement stood out for me too. As I play a troop heavy Eldar army, I'm excited about 5th, and I'm very glad the Wave Serpent will be a more viable choice.

Da Boss wrote:I don't really understand the idea that an "ideal army" should have tonnes of troops. What's wrong with an elite strike force, low in numbers but high in hitting power?
Surely every race has some variant on this idea.

Because elite units, by definition, are limited in number. They're very good, often specialized units, but there never seems to be enough of them. There is nothing stopping us from creating a scenario where we change that rule to represent an elite strike force or what not.

But on the scale of a 40K battle it's entirely concievable that they could all be elites.

Da Boss wrote:But on the scale of a 40K battle it's entirely concievable that they could all be elites.

I disagree. Does anyone have an IG codex on hand to reference the organization charts? I gave mine away to a family member. Regardless, I feel that for any army ( I mentioned guard because it is an extreme case) in the game you're dealing with a reasonably large number of units, let alone individual models. If the game were more a pure skirmish game like Necromunda, I would definitely see the point, but as the game stands now, I think the emphasis on troops is entirely positive.

I also must admit I like troop units, and I want to see more of them out of personal preference.

40K "battles" represent local small scale actions within the context of a much larger battle or campaign. It is entirely reasonable that an elite force might be fighting a force of ordinary troops. Since the game is in theory balanced by points such fights ought to be fair as quality is balanced by numbers.

Otherwise, since all SMs are by definition elite there should be no SM or CSM armies at all.

The reason why many armies under 4th did not choose a high proportion of troops is because the troops were not worth the points. The rule in 5th that only troops can score makes them more valuable in one sense, though it does not address their combat value. Other rule changes do affect combat value.

It will be interesting to see which armies start to settle down with a much higher proportion of troops than before.

I have a gut feeling that Tau armies will not use large numbers of FWs and will continue to rely on suits and vehicles for their main combat power.

Da Boss wrote:But on the scale of a 40K battle it's entirely concievable that they could all be elites.

I totally agree! There are examples all over the place:

Anyone say:

SS Panzer
Deathwing
Spartans
101st Airborne
Napoleon's Old Gaurd
13th Legion

See?

40K is a skirmish game which has had some rules added and changed to inflate the number of models involved.

But the game itself isn't representative of the actual elitiness of the creatures it represents. If space marines were as elite as they should be then you would have armies of like three or four space marines. And that would totally suck...

Yeah, and there are alternate ways to set up your army in the current rulebook. Look under.....I think it's in the special missions area...

Kilkrazy wrote:40K "battles" represent local small scale actions within the context of a much larger battle or campaign. It is entirely reasonable that an elite force might be fighting a force of ordinary troops. ...The reason why many armies under 4th did not choose a high proportion of troops is because the troops were not worth the points. The rule in 5th that only troops can score makes them more valuable in one sense, though it does not address their combat value. Other rule changes do affect combat value.

It will be interesting to see which armies start to settle down with a much higher proportion of troops than before.

Yea! True, which is why Eldar will still be really strange where all their elites ARE essentially troops and their combat value matches up with their points cost and the troop slot, not the elite slots they are actually in... (A Swordwind gripe sorry. But also another OT example of a 40k all elites army that use to be.)

Ratbarf wrote:But the game itself isn't representative of the actual elitiness of the creatures it represents. If space marines were as elite as they should be then you would have armies of like three or four space marines. And that would totally suck...

You can play movie marines. They should still win 50% of their fights against equal points of any enemy.

Grignard wrote:

Da Boss wrote:But on the scale of a 40K battle it's entirely concievable that they could all be elites.

I disagree. Does anyone have an IG codex on hand to reference the organization charts? I gave mine away to a family member. Regardless, I feel that for any army ( I mentioned guard because it is an extreme case) in the game you're dealing with a reasonably large number of units, let alone individual models. If the game were more a pure skirmish game like Necromunda, I would definitely see the point, but as the game stands now, I think the emphasis on troops is entirely positive.

I also must admit I like troop units, and I want to see more of them out of personal preference.

See the "Grenadiers" doctrine, if you want to make an all-elite Guard army.

ANother good example!

While it is an example, I would hesitate to call it good.

I guess I just differ in how I view the game from most of you. Of course, I grew up playing games where each marker might represent several men, vehicles, etc. As is, I believe the large number of models, relative to many skirmish games, in 40k starts pushing things out of the small , elite strike force range.

SM are elite as is, so their basic troops should an "elite" choice relative to the other races ( excepting MEQs of course). Similarly, with Eldar I can take guardians if I want a "general infantry" sort of force, or dire avengers if I want an "elite" force. Although both count as troops by the rules, the DA are elite according to the fluff. I also think that limiting different categories allows another way to balance the game besides simple points. Interestingly I'm arguing something that will probably work against me, as dire avengers are a lot less flexible than guardians, as they are pretty much limited to anti-infantry roles.

I honestly would be happy with either setup, but I'd like to see how troop heavy armies change both pick up games and the tournament "metagame".

I'm not interested in seeing it. Troop-heavy MEQ armies typically are boring as all hell to play/play against.

Because of the only troops scoring and the strength 4 defensive weaponry, I've switched to Fantasy.

Celestial Lion wrote:The thing is, internet communities and comments like these are what make them feel like they have defend everything they do, leading to silly releases like this.

Agree totally. I love to bash GW, but it's because I give them so much money and continually go back. The internet is a harsh place to be. And GW has never been able to commit to an open forum because they can't take the complaints. I say allow a forum for your customers to talk about you (good and bad), in the end they will still patronize you or they won't.

yakface wrote:You never know exactly who is writing these things and what kind of tactical knowledge they have about the game but (as evidenced by a couple of the more questionable bits of advice).

But still it is a promotional piece for the company so like any other promotion you expect it to highlight the positive changes to each race while ignoring the negatives. No company would do it any differently.

Absolutely true. Every time I read promotional material from companies I work for-I have a pretty good laugh.

"I'm not interested in seeing it. Troop-heavy MEQ armies typically are boring as all hell to play/play against.

Because of the only troops scoring and the strength 4 defensive weaponry, I've switched to Fantasy. "

Oh you poor misguided fool.... May he rest in peace.

skyth wrote:I'm not interested in seeing it. Troop-heavy MEQ armies typically are boring as all hell to play/play against.

Because of the only troops scoring and the strength 4 defensive weaponry, I've switched to Fantasy.

But fantasy is really troop heavy, at least from the only four or five games I've played, that is what I have experienced. I must say I like the percentages better than "choices". I don't know why 40k doesn't do something like that.

Was 2nd ed. 40k model choices limited by percent composition? I cannot recall.

I believe it was, just like fantasy at the time.

jabbakahut wrote:

Celestial Lion wrote:The thing is, internet communities and comments like these are what make them feel like they have defend everything they do, leading to silly releases like this.

Agree totally. I love to bash GW, but it's because I give them so much money and continually go back. The internet is a harsh place to be. And GW has never been able to commit to an open forum because they can't take the complaints. I say allow a forum for your customers to talk about you (good and bad), in the end they will still patronize you or they won't.

yakface wrote:You never know exactly who is writing these things and what kind of tactical knowledge they have about the game but (as evidenced by a couple of the more questionable bits of advice).

But still it is a promotional piece for the company so like any other promotion you expect it to highlight the positive changes to each race while ignoring the negatives. No company would do it any differently.

Absolutely true. Every time I read promotional material from companies I work for-I have a pretty good laugh.

GW have always come in for a lot of bashing -- the Internet just makes it obvious and public. To be fair to both sides, some of the complaining is just whining (Models too expensive? Just buy something else!) and some is justified.

GW is a multimillion dollar global corporation and ought to be able to act like one. That means listening to customers, sorting the justified complaints from the clueless moaning, and addressing real concerns.

A lot of the complaining on DakkaDakka is about how badly the rules are written in terms of the organisation and understandability -- the editing in other words. It looks like that has been addressed in 5th edition, which is a big step forwards.

Kilkrazy wrote:A lot of the complaining on DakkaDakka is about how badly the rules are written in terms of the organisation and understandability -- the editing in other words. It looks like that has been addressed in 5th edition, which is a big step forwards.

The rules have never bothered me much, but to be fair I've only played once (and that was either 1st or 2nd ed.) I've been collecting since RT- I just love the models and fluff. One of these days I'll find some orks that I can kill.

I don't really understand people getting mad about rules. If you're playing with friends, throw out the rules you don't like and add ones you do (something that was encouraged in the first edition). If you're a tourney player and must abide by the rules; it's a challenge-isn't that why you play in a tourney?

I'm not a tourney player.

The complaint from tourney players is that the rules are too badly written to know what they mean, and the FAQs don't keep up with the issues in the book and codexes.

This was essentially true under 4th edition.

Even "friendly" games can turn to arguments about rules when they are as misunderstandable as 4th edition.

Yea, if I am going to play 50$ for a rule book, I expect it to work. This isn't an RPG where we are just telling a story and pretending to be dwarves for the sake of pretending to be dwarves. It is a competitive game, and our understanding of the rules determines how we compete.
Now, you can certainly make house rules like HBMC, but I have made a lot of new friends by way of 40k, and only because we were all playing the same game. Once I have enough people kidnapped and locked in my basement that I can run 5 man Apocalypse games with my own house rules, I will probably do so. Until then though, I will need a solid, universal rule set to lure people into playing.

I expect the best from the obvious industry leeder. I want the best product and I can accept paying the highest prices in the business. Essentially I think its the industry leeder so as a consumer its hard to see the few mistakes they make, they are worse because they set the standrad, and in some cases others get an edge on them:

bits sillyness
lack of FAQs
outdating of figures and armies
rules for models that don't exist
semi official rules (like opponents permission and FW books)

Being some good examples of this, all things that shouldnt happen from the industry leeder. In short:

I expect to pay a premium, I want the everything wrapped up with a pretty bow, service, minis and rules wise.

Lets face it AT43, warmachine, hordes, and even flames of war are all GW spin offs. Who remembers Warzone or Chronopia? Yea.

I can't wait to see the new edition. I hope the quality is what I have come to expect (or better).

@ Wehrkind

Yes,it is a competetive game. As is any game where 2 opponents play against eachother.
Is this game good for overcompetetive cutthroat tournament playing. No, not in my mind. Should the rules be changed to become just that? No, not in my mind.
Given the emphasis given to the "just-play-for-fun,roll-a-d6-for-it" attitude and the newer Standardbeares it should be obvious to most what direction this game is taking.
Take it or leave it.