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.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:I like most of the changes in 5th. No character sniping is huge for me, and running I think makes things much more dynamic.

The new wound allocation hasn’t been as bad as I thought it would be. TLOS was a serious step backwards, so much I didn’t play for like 6 months. Hopefully whenever another edition comes this will go back to a tweaked level system.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

DEATH89 wrote: I Agree that only being able to hit 1 end of a conga line but being able to kill the other is daft but i prefer that to crafty "I'm only in range of your GK Grand Master with my lascannon so he's the only one who can die" crap

Envy89 is a member of my gaming group and this is all he did in 4th, that's why he is so upset that it's gone.

TLOS existed in 4th ed as well. You're probably just one of the many people who played it wrong.

insaniak wrote:

DEATH89 wrote:Can't have it both ways,

To be fair, there are other potential fixes than just counting only Troops as scoring.

Modifying the Force Org chart so that a set number of Troops were needed to 'unlock' Elite choices, granting Troops bonuses for objectives, giving different unit types different objectives, points breaks on multiple Troops selections, scaled Kill Points (Troops worth 1 point, HS and FA worth 2 points, Elite and HQ worth 3 points) ... that's just straight of the top of my head. All would have gone some way towards encouraging people to use more Troops.

So I would have to take 3lasplas sqds instead of 2. There would be more troop units but you wouldn't see full sized troop sqds which dominate the game right now. I think this was one of the best changes that was made. Anything else can contest but simply requiring more units of troops wouldn't have changed the way troops were used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

willydstyle wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:I like most of the changes in 5th. No character sniping is huge for me, and running I think makes things much more dynamic.

The new wound allocation hasn’t been as bad as I thought it would be. TLOS was a serious step backwards, so much I didn’t play for like 6 months. Hopefully whenever another edition comes this will go back to a tweaked level system.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

DEATH89 wrote: I Agree that only being able to hit 1 end of a conga line but being able to kill the other is daft but i prefer that to crafty "I'm only in range of your GK Grand Master with my lascannon so he's the only one who can die" crap

Envy89 is a member of my gaming group and this is all he did in 4th, that's why he is so upset that it's gone.

TLOS existed in 4th ed as well. You're probably just one of the many people who played it wrong.

I know the rules. He is good a guessing ranges so he would bounce forward or around forests so only fists or only HQs (or maybe them and two other models) were in sight and then he would fire away with plasma rifles.

He actually was one of the worst abusers of the minimum troop squads. He ran 2 small FW sqds and then nothing but suits which allowed ample ability to bounce around area terrain and minipulate range.

He's a good player and we're really good friends, but 5th ed really put a hurting on what were probably his #1 and 2 tactics

@OP: If you like 4th better, play it!

Personally, I like the changes in 5th: Objectives and Armor in particular.

As a Marine player, I LOOOOVE 5th Edition and HAAATED 4th.

I can understand how Tau feel molested, though.

I just have no sympathy.

I spent the first two years of my 40K experience getting pasted by annoying JSJ suits hiding behind a lamppost that made them invincible, and rediculous amounts of firepower on invincible Devilfish.

Tau are still competitive. You just have to learn to play a bit more fair, and you just have to be happy with 4+ cover saves from your lamppost, now.

We also immediately house-ruled that detached drones are 0 KP, and my Tau opponent realized that he could pack Kroot into his Pathfinder's Devilfish, so, it comes around.

Tau should have a new codex in a year or two, I think. Unless the Tyranids eat them like they did to the Squats.

@ArtfcllyFlvrd:
Ok, talking 4th ed rules here. If a trukk was directly in front of a unit of devastators on a hill, could those devastators fire over the trukk?

insaniak wrote:

scaled Kill Points (Troops worth 1 point, HS and FA worth 2 points, Elite and HQ worth 3 points)

I really like that idea.

5th edition, rapes the dead corpse of 4th edition. I have no regrets about the edition change.

Positive Changes :

TRANSPORTS ARE NO LONGER STEEL COFFINS
I go first, I set up first
Troops now have a reason to be fielded
Skimmers moving fast being downgraded
Retinues having a purpose defined
Reserves standard - added tactical dynamics
Loss of combat bouncing (Yes, it's a bad mechanic and I'm a CC player)
Running
Jetbike rules consolidated
Sniping is gone
Wound allocation ("Hey, My Sgt is ALWAYS the last one standing!)
etc
etc

Negative Changes :

Loss of deployment order. Gave minor purpose to what slots your army is composed of

Cover almost exclusively being 4+, instead of a gentle gradient of types

Kill points instead of fractional victory points

I don't even see how this is a contest.

Quick & dirty wishlist for 6th Ed 40k (in 2012):
- deployment variances that push FA / HS / Elites into Reserves, and require HQ / Troops / Elites based on scenario (i.e. expanded d66 table of basic missions)

- range of cover from 6+ up to 3+ (with 5+ default)

- scaled KPs (1 KP troops, 3 KP HQ, 2 KP others)

Happily, all of these can be easily solved based on scenario & terrain models. So 5E really works well for us.

Hi all.
Willydstyle wrote.''Complaining that other players are "using the rules to their advantage" is ridiculous, because all tactics are based on rules knowledge.''

ANY game that promotes this style of thinking , that ALL tactics are based on rules knowlwdge.
Has much bigger problems than a few things that need changing / fixing.(IMO.)

3rd ed 40k onwards has suffered from mutilating WH close combat oriented skirmish rules, to try to make them fit a scifi battle game.Rather than developing a new rule set for the game.(As 40k overlord Andy Chamers wanted to.)

Also the amount of rules bloat to enforce artificialy high dependancy on strategic importance , in the hope of aiding marketing, doenst help.

How do you convert skirmish rules to fit bigger games?
You simply switch the focus from individual models to units.
(Define unit interaction in the game play , and allocate characteristics accordingly.Just hacking skirmish rules to pieces and patching them up ad hoc is not the best way to go.... )

But compared to alterantive rule sets, 40k still takes on average 7 times more pages of poorly defined and concieved rules,to cover its relitivley simple gameplay, than other rule sets cover with straight forward well defined rules.

So the same intrisic problems with 3rd ed 40k have continued to the present day.
(That is if you think game play and elegant well defined rules are important . )

willydstyle wrote:

Howlingmoon wrote:didn't play 4th, don't particularly care for 5th very much either. I'm ok with 40k and painting models, but every time i play I want to never play again.

Why? I place guys behind a wall. "Oh there's a small hole there and I can see one Plague Marines hand through it. 24 Ranger shots on that squad."

If you'd bother to learn the rules you could have simply avoided that hole. Complaining that other players are "using the rules to their advantage" is ridiculous, because all tactics are based on rules knowledge.

I'd be inclined to say you're not serious, but I know you are, so I'll just leave it at "at least you can validate your life with a tabletop miniature game, it's better than nothing I guess." and bid you good day.

willydstyle wrote:@ArtfcllyFlvrd:
Ok, talking 4th ed rules here. If a trukk was directly in front of a unit of devastators on a hill, could those devastators fire over the trukk?

Depends on if the devastators had LOS over the truck. But if you took to time to read and understand before you posted looking for arguments, I said he bounced around forests which in 4th were Lvl 3 area terrain allowing the character snipe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howlingmoon wrote:["at least you can validate your life with a tabletop miniature game, it's better than nothing I guess." and bid you good day.

seconded

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

willydstyle wrote:@ArtfcllyFlvrd:
Ok, talking 4th ed rules here. If a trukk was directly in front of a unit of devastators on a hill, could those devastators fire over the trukk?

Depends on if the devastators had LOS over the truck. But if you took to time to read and understand before you posted looking for arguments, I said he bounced around forests which in 4th were Lvl 3 area terrain allowing the character snipe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howlingmoon wrote:["at least you can validate your life with a tabletop miniature game, it's better than nothing I guess." and bid you good day.

seconded

First, thanks for answering my question. It was a situation that many, many players got wrong in 4th ed, as they interpreted the "levels" wrong.

Second... wow the personal attacks are coming pretty heavy here.

Third, when I say that all tactics are based on rules knowledge, that's not something that's specific to WH40k, but is simply how games are played. Consider chess. The "strategy" behind Chess' gameplay is that you must capture the king. The tactics, those specific steps that you follow in order to increase the likelyhood of capturing your opponent's king while decreasing his chances of capturing yours are based on how each individual piece interacts with the board and each other.

In 40k it is similar. The strategy of the game is to either accomplish the mission objectives, or to wipe out your enemy force if those objectives are no longer attainable (such as if all your troops die in an objective mission). The tactics, such as firing your weapons at the enemy, assaulting them in CC, forcing them to run off the board due to morale rules, etc. are all based on the rules of the game. Every time you pick up those dice to fire a weapon, you are using the rules to your advantage. Saying that your opponent is acting unfair because he knows the rules better than you is pretty ridiculous.

willydstyle wrote:
First, thanks for answering my question. It was a situation that many, many players got wrong in 4th ed, as they interpreted the "levels" wrong.

Second... wow the personal attacks are coming pretty heavy here.

I'll give you that 90% of people played everything with a level all the time, even I did for a long while. And I actually think that made the most tactically deep and interesting game. I would LOVE 5th if they had just made the lvl system better instead of scrapping it completely.

And sorry for the flame, but be careful accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

willydstyle wrote:
First, thanks for answering my question. It was a situation that many, many players got wrong in 4th ed, as they interpreted the "levels" wrong.

Second... wow the personal attacks are coming pretty heavy here.

I'll give you that 90% of people played everything with a level all the time, even I did for a long while. And I actually think that made the most tactically deep and interesting game. I would LOVE 5th if they had just made the lvl system better instead of scrapping it completely.

And sorry for the flame, but be careful accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about.

That's what I misinterpreted from your post is that you said that "TLOS" was a step backwards, when some version of True Line of Sight has existed in every edition. However, I think that scrapping the "level" system for area terrain was a good thing because the mixed "these things have 'levels' and these things also have 'levels' but it means different things for each of the things" was obviously confusing for many players because so many players got it dead wrong. I also think that focusing more on the "models eye view" makes the game more cinematic, though it does encourage terrain that is more difficult to place models in and play with. One of the things I hated most about 4th ed is how many places I went to just used green felt mats to represent forest, and that forest became pretty much all of the terrain anyone used ever.