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.

SumYungGUy - ummm, ok. Nerdrage alert.

SO you think they should have kept the 4th ed rules where you could lose combat by 30 but as long as you have at least the same number of models as the losing side you would test on, at worst, a -1 to LD?

Your point is so hilariously bad its just...just funny, really. Combat is brutal, get over it. If you have 30 boyz how in hel are you losing that badly, and if you ARE losing badly then perhaps, just perhaps, you should have selected a slightly better target?

Player incompetence isnt a rules problem...

EmilCrane wrote:I don't like how easy vehicles are to kill in CC, Kroot should not be able to harm a chimera ever, under any circumstances.

Disruption pods KFF and the like, its railroading all guard players into one style of play, and thats melta vets. I want big tank battles!

My gunline army would like to have a word with you.....

TsarNikolai wrote:
My gunline army would like to have a word with you.....

Do you have any success with anything but Melta vets?

TLOS is by far the worst rule of 5th ed. Now, the way that a unit is modeled actually matters tactically on the field. This leaves you with two options, either using models that were designed by artists, not tactitians, or to model things yourself and get accused of cheating. Combining art and strategy was the worst move of 5th ed.

Other than that, I still don't like assault rules. They did a much better job of simplifying it and weeding out some of the nonsense (endless assaults where you never got to shoot at a unit because they consolidated straight into another combat, for example), but it's still kind of bulky and awkward, especially where multi-assaults are concerned. Could use a little work.

U mad, Ailiaros?

Killpoints.

"I wipe out 3/4 your army, you took out some Rhinos...so you win?"

I don't actually think that KP was all that bad. Without it, mech armies would have their usual advantage in objectives games without the liability that KP brings. If you think we see a lot of mech lists now, just imagine if KP weren't there.

The impression I get of KP games was that they did the other two missions and thought of what kinds of lists would just horribly dominate (MSU swarms, mech lists, etc.) and then designed a mission type that was specifically designed to deter people from taking those kinds of lists to the exclusion of everything else.

You say MSU and mech is bad...because? It's mostly an annoyance that you can clobber an enemy dead, but "lose" by bookkeeping mechanics (or wonky Ard Boyz missions)

Blitza da warboy wrote:Falling back. Just once I want to play a game where the whole leadership part, doesnt exist....(and no, i hate space marines )

Pretty much hate the Falling Back rule myself.
I don't want to fall back, I came to FIGHT!

If there was one thing I would change though it's with the way Turns are played out. I think it would play better if players took it in turn to activate a Unit at a time. That way Initiative would be less important.

But generally I'm happy with the game. I would play it if I wasn't.

To people complaining about consolidation into combat ....

It was your fault if you left units too close together, you should have seen the assault coming earlier and moved unitw aaway from his intended target to leave him high and dry ...

Incompetance shouldnt get the rules changed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:SumYungGUy - ummm, ok. Nerdrage alert.

SO you think they should have kept the 4th ed rules where you could lose combat by 30 but as long as you have at least the same number of models as the losing side you would test on, at worst, a -1 to LD?

Your point is so hilariously bad its just...just funny, really. Combat is brutal, get over it. If you have 30 boyz how in hel are you losing that badly, and if you ARE losing badly then perhaps, just perhaps, you should have selected a slightly better target?

Player incompetence isnt a rules problem...

Welp you heard it hear first folks, player incompetence means a bad rule is good. As long as you insult someone else you're immediately right, bonus points for manufacturing arguments for them then knocking them down. Logic? Seeing things from another point of view? Being open minded? Nobody needs that. Just tell the other guy he sucks!

Allaros - TLOS has been in the game since 3rd ed. It was only in 5th that they finally tried to stop everyone simply classifying everything as level 3 area terrain so a tank could hide behind a tiny hedge.

4th ed should have been mostly TLOS, people simply played it wrong.

Sumyunguy - so you cant respond sensibly, well done! Keep going, your argument is brilliant so far, real grade "A" stuff.

If you lose a combat by 30 wounds then perhaps you should have not got into that combat. Being punished for losing badly is quite a sensible rule - or do you prefer the endless combats of 4th ed, where a swarm of models, as long as it had one more model than the opponent, was only ever testing (or taking NR!) on -1Ld?

Most of my problem rules are ones that slow the game down while providing little (if any) benefit.

For example, I hate scatter dice. I understand the concept: misses still hurt a densely packed foe. But it's a slow process to figure out exactly where a miss should end up. And when you need to tell whether the center hole is on a vehicle or not, a difference of a few degrees can be huge. To make things worse, thanks to the differing perspectives of the opposite sides of the table, you and your opponent are each going to have a different view of where the template ought to end up.

It's a rule that seems intentionally designed to cause tension.

I also used to really hate Feel No Pain. Mostly because of the history: Multiple saves were removed in 3rd Ed. in the name of streamlining, and then the silly 3rd Ed. Blood Angel Codex brought them right back. I have calmed down since then, but I've got to imagine that the game would play slightly faster if FNP was simplified into a bonus to either Toughness or armor save. (Or both!)

I like the abstractions of 5th Ed. A "realistic" grimdark setting would also be neat, but would need to involve a top-to-bottom redesign.

I think some of you have forgotten how much consolidating into new combats could suck. having a close combat army play connect the dots with your army for 4 turns despite you having lots and lots of guns to shoot at them. You can still do it half the time anyway when the combat ends on your opponents turn

For the record I'm not a fan of always hitting vehicles on rear armor. I could see hitting side armor from the front or rear from the side but what really grinds my gears is having my 200+ point battle tank killed by some schmoes who managed to reach the front of my AV14 tank and proceed to kill it with S6 grenades.

"Remove xxxx from play"

After playing agaisnt a IG army where the squads winded up, I found out that I think the cover saves are much better than they should be.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Allaros - TLOS has been in the game since 3rd ed.

Except this is the only edition of the game where you can be forced to remove models that are out of range of your attacker, or are out of LOS of your attacker, or out of range and LOS of your attacker.

There's nothing "true" about the line of sight rules in 5th Ed.

Just like there's nothing fun about the Sweeping Advance rules.

Just like there were never any complaints about MSU's until Kill Points first showed up (honestly - never even heard the acronym throughout all the years of 3rd and 4th).

Just like vehicles changed from moving glass hammers (4th Ed) back to stationary bunkers (3rd Ed).


5th Ed is a fething joke. Several huge steps backwards from what was already a pretty clunky game system (4th Ed).

Kill points seems inferior to victory points. The latter just seems more intuitive. TLOS isn't a perfect system but has worked well enough for me and my friends.

I just dont like sweeping advance at all. If you win the Initiative check you should just get a free hit for every model you had in the combat (save and wound as normal) then the loser retreats. Makes much more sense and doesn't lead to bizzare scenarios.

Also I don't know if it would break the game but I think they could have some shoot into melee rules, the simplest would be 4+ cover to the enemy and to hit roll of 1 are resolved as shots on allies.

Just my 2 cents.

edit: "Remove xxxx from play" I forgot to include how annoying these type of abilities are. "O hai thar Nightbringer howz about I turn you into a squig or use Jaws of the World Wolf!"
The worst is probably Dante's death mask though, free wound and then some, no saves or checks.

HBMC - which was introduced to remove the complete stupidity, excelled by Lash, of range and LOS sniping. As the studio stated at launch, many times.

ANd you didnt hear about MSU in 4th? Really? Where were you? Las/plas 6 man marine squads? 6 man lance warrior squads? Anything ring a bell?

I see plenty of moving vehicles. Maybe Australia has some weird time warp?

5th ed is the best version of the "modern" systems so far, and has seen an increase in 40k players locally (casually and at tournaments locally and nationally) which is the point.

Eldar have I5 and so aren't as likely to get cut down as I2 Fire Warriors, who should run away because they suck in CC. I've never liked KPs because they screw armies that have more squads on the field. CC is strong because there are two rounds, but they have to GET to the enemy first. And with no consolidation into assault they can get left out in the middle of an open field right before I shoot. I play Tau and although they aren't new or broken, they are unique enough to be competitive even against Space Wolves or other new codices (although I've never played vs. BA as Tau or against IG at all.) I'm not, however, a fan of Fast, Outflanking Baal Predators or Deep Striking Land Raiders. I mean, seriously?! Under what circumstances (teleportas excepted) could a land raider deepstrike!

I agree shooty units should be punished in a sweeping advance for letting themselves get caught in melee. I just think its absurd when 1 terminator takes out 30 guardsmen (hyperbole, yes but I think you get the idea).

Also I think a free attack better simulates whats happening on the field: an enemy has his back turned so no need to roll to hit, however he's trying to get away as fast as possible rather than lock you in combat so you only get a few attacks.

If one extra attack on a SA isn't enough then maybe base amount of hits, or normal amount of hits (base plus multiple CC weps, none for charging).

edit:just realized termies cant SA, bad example anyway I'm sure people have run into some odd cases so I don't feel compelled to come up with one. Or I could list every CC engagement my crons have had, all bitter defeats (and all against tau )

pariahs losing assault to broadsides was the worst

nosferatu1001 wrote:crap

Yeah yeah, fly away little troll. 'You're stupid and can't argue with me' is not a valid point.

On with the show. It will never happen because GW is allergic to such drastic changes, but I really wish they would take their 'streamlining' foolishness and apply it to the turn phases. I Go, You Go really does suck and the changes necessary are minimal to make hybrid turns. We've played a few games at my local gamer's club and it needed very few fixes.

I myself hate that if you can see the head of one guy in a squad, you can unleash on him and his squad and wipe them out to oblivion.

OH, and assualt phase, as a tau player I think GW should take it out all together (for the greater good of course )

timetowaste85 wrote:I hate that a vehicle that deepstrikes onto enemy (or friendly) models suffers a deep strike mishap-I'm pretty sure a land raider (I do play BA) that lands on my opponents unit of kroot will smoosh said kroot into little piles of gak...rather than blow up from falling on them. Seriously...the monolith has it right-push enemy troops out of the way-they scatter from a falling vehicle. Or count it as a tank shock. Or things like drop pod rules-but mishapping from falling on troops is complete gak. It should turn into a tank shock if hitting troops, or ramming if hitting another vehicle. Just my 2 cents on a great topic idea!

Further more. Blood Angels deep striking into a tiny cluster as they fall out of the sky on their jet packs. That people is TALENT.

Ice got problems with saves. Of all kinds. Wouldn't it make more sense to take armor saves BEFORE rolling to wound? That's like saying "ow you shot me in the kidney... wait hold up I'm good my armor took the bullet out." And I feel like some invulns should stack with armor saves, why should I have to choose between my armor and my energy shield when they're both there?

Cover.... ugghh cover just makes no sense, I feel like it should either a) stack with armor, just because I have good armor I'm suddenly unable to benefit from this wall? Or b) affect being shot period. If I'm behind a wall, you don't hit me and then the wall stops the bullet AFTER it's embedded in my spine, you just hit the wall. It should modify BS or something.

Wow reading that back it sounds whiney

MandalorynOranj wrote:Cover.... ugghh cover just makes no sense, I feel like it should either a) stack with armor, just because I have good armor I'm suddenly unable to benefit from this wall? Or b) affect being shot period. If I'm behind a wall, you don't hit me and then the wall stops the bullet AFTER it's embedded in my spine, you just hit the wall. It should modify BS or something.

That's exactly what it does in Necromunda, which I think has a much better shooting system than 40k despite being very simliar.

Multiple saves makes sense but it would take forever to kill anybody.

"I myself hate that if you can see the head of one guy in a squad, you can unleash on him and his squad and wipe them out to oblivion. "

I think this simulates guys bobbing in and out of cover, peeking around corners, etc. though it's still odd. I have this mental imgae of a SM getting popped in the head because he was peeking over a wall, and all his friends decide to investigate and each one gets headshot'd one by one.

Kurb wrote:

Further more. Blood Angels deep striking into a tiny cluster as they fall out of the sky on their jet packs. That people is TALENT.

I don't understand. All deep strikers do this.

DarkHound wrote:

MandalorynOranj wrote:Cover.... ugghh cover just makes no sense, I feel like it should either a) stack with armor, just because I have good armor I'm suddenly unable to benefit from this wall? Or b) affect being shot period. If I'm behind a wall, you don't hit me and then the wall stops the bullet AFTER it's embedded in my spine, you just hit the wall. It should modify BS or something.

That's exactly what it does in Necromunda, which I think has a much better shooting system than 40k despite being very simliar.

There's a reason for that. Necromunda uses 2nd ed. 40k rules

Sweeping advance. I am a 5 man tactical squad. I wound 5 guardsmen. Guardsmen only wound 2 of us. Oh ty the other 25 are dead.

Not dead they just got their morale horrible broken and the unit scattered from combat, because even though they outnumbered their enemy five to one they were smart enough to see where the fight was going and didi mao.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

Jack

I hate the vehicle shooting rules as well, if all tanks followed the fast vehicle shooting rules it would be much better.