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.

PraetorDave wrote:

Also, there need to be more modifiers to the damage table. Because even though it was just a glance, my opponent always rolls a 6. So my tank is immobilized because you glanced it?

Yes, because a 'glance' can be that lucky shot that i took where i broke a link in your tracks (or some stupid design for the floaty controller thingy if you are a race that has grav or "floaty tanks")


Assaulting out of vehicles... if im running my marine army, seriously.. i just dropped from space in a tin can, and the flower petal doors just opened, but all we can do is groggily stumble out a couple inches and shoot at something?? should be assault ramps on drop pods.

Nids... seriously, at this point in their evolution they still use weak hormagaunts and termagants?? they havent evolved themselves a tad bit more strength or WS, or BS.. or anything? i mean seriously, if a unit of 30 gaunts gets into assault with 30 ork boyz, 25 should die on both sides.. they are supposed to be CC monsters, not expensive grots. Also, why nerf the Carnifex 'squadron'?? seriously, every other army in 40k that has a unit which can be taken in a squadron can have options.. but the fex has to be 3 of the SAME EXACT thing???

Umm, I'm still new to 40k so I want to ask,
I keep hearing stories about Matt Ward and how he can basically go *beep* himself. What has he done that's so bad? Does he truely deserve all the hate? Or is it just a dude didn't like what he did with something and everyone is now on the hate Matt Ward band wagon. Not defending the guy, I honestly don't know ^^

Also, I play Chaos and I keep hearing that grey knights just get a "iwin" button against my army. What actually do they get that allows them to be awesome? Not played them yet (hell, I've yet to play a game AS chaos) and I've neglected to glance the grey knights codec to see why

I know this isn't the place for the questions, but I've seen these points come up in this thread

But, back on track, being new, the only things that bothered me was;
Not being able to use rapid fire before assaulting. Umm, the guns are rapid fire. Not like you really need to aim. Just run forward towards the enemy and hold fire, you're bound to hit SOMETHING. Although, I guess it makes sense to some degree, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for assault/pistols weapons (unless the guns itself is awesome enough to want them over your standard rapid fire buttons)

Oh, and the fact that Rapid Fire double shot range is 12“ without fail. Hated this about Tau. Surely if my gun range is bigger then most rapid fire weapons it should have a further double shot range...
Oh, and the fact that moving has no effect on double tap range its always two shots within 12" even if you moved.
Also the fact there's a clear defined line between moving, then in the shooting phrase not being able to shoot or firing two shots. Hate to play a game where I'm 1/12th of an inch off double fire range and I give up my shooting on that unit xP

But yeah, like I said, this is things I hate from a newb perceptive. I might learn to love these rules and learn to hate others x3

MittinsKittens wrote:Umm, I'm still new to 40k so I want to ask,
I keep hearing stories about Matt Ward and how he can basically go *beep* himself. What has he done that's so bad? Does he truely deserve all the hate? Or is it just a dude didn't like what he did with something and everyone is now on the hate Matt Ward band wagon. Not defending the guy, I honestly don't know ^^

Matt Ward writes codices (yes that is the proper plural form of codex). AFAIK, he has currently written Codex: space marines and Codex: grey knights. He is known for completely blowing out of proportion fluff, and for making an army completely unbalanced. He has a tendency to make an army that was "good" before, into "OMG I'm a beast, I own everyone while blindfolded with both arms tied behind my back". For instance, in the C:SM book, the Ultramarines don't lose a single fight. Not one. Ever. I will say however, he does write his rules well, and they usually require very little explanation or FAQ.

MittinsKittens wrote:Also, I play Chaos and I keep hearing that grey knights just get a "iwin" button against my army. What actually do they get that allows them to be awesome? Not played them yet (hell, I've yet to play a game AS chaos) and I've neglected to glance the grey knights codec to see why

Are you playing Chaos space marines or straight Chaos? Grey Knights fluff wise are built to hunt down demons and only demons. Before they were Codex: grey knights, they were Codex: demon hunters. They have multiple things that will screw up deep strike, and special weapons that do extra damage to demons. They also (I believe) have the ability to make demons reroll their invuln saves, but I think this is a psychic power (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Overall, grey knights are geared towards beating Chaos demons, so I have heard its a difficult fight for demons to win. I haven't seen a game of demons vs GK, so I can't say if this is actually true.

Tau, eldar.

Stupid ork "latent psychic powers".

Lame chaos gods and daemons fluff.

Fluff in general.

People that whine on and on about how GW loves marines/the Imperium and hates xenos. They do lots of marine stuff because they are popular and sell well. They are popular and sell well because they are fairly well-designed, combining the relatability of the "good guy humans" with the awesome badassery usually reserved for non-human/non-good guy factions. People act like everyone at GW HQ is super into the fluff and emotionally vested in making marines look good. When people stop buying marines and start buying Eldar, then you'll start seeing Codex: Ulthwe and Codex: Exodites.

Also, Matt Ward hate. Yes, he's bad at writing background. No, that doesn't mean he's a space marine fanatic who refuses to let his fictional space men lose in a fictional battle. It means he can't write believable background, nothing more. I would also point out that despite their silly fluff, Ward's 3 recent Marine codexes are all a hell of a lot more balanced and, dare I say, fluff-appropriate than Kelly's Wolves. BA and GK may have some ott options, but both are at the end of the day fairly well balanced internally and externally compared to stuff like Kelly's SW (some crap units no one takes, conveniently balanced by hilariously underpriced cheap units that everyone takes), or Cruddace's IG (again, useless units balanced out by units so good that it can't possibly have been missed in testing), or Tyranids (useless units balanced out by... other, expensive but useable units.) Also consider the fact that most competitive GK, BA, or SM armies look fairly-fluff appropriate in terms of composition, while competitive Wolf or IG lists focus on units that in fluff-reality should be fairly rare.

the color purple wrote:People that whine on and on about how GW loves marines/the Imperium and hates xenos. They do lots of marine stuff because they are popular and sell well. They are popular and sell well because they are fairly well-designed, combining the relatability of the "good guy humans" with the awesome badassery usually reserved for non-human/non-good guy factions. People act like everyone at GW HQ is super into the fluff and emotionally vested in making marines look good. When people stop buying marines and start buying Eldar, then you'll start seeing Codex: Ulthwe and Codex: Exodites.

If you think about it, it's a self perpetuating circle. The marines sell well, so they get more attention. And since they get more attention, they sell even better.

bombboy1252 wrote:How the ultra marines never loose in the fluff, tyranid invasion....ork waaagh.....they get apparently get through everything but "they take heavy losses" and they can STILL kill anything, I just want to see them killed

Actually if you read iron warriors they attack a space vessel with a dp guarded by ultramarines and guard, curbstop them, capture the ven dred leading the smurfs and make it get possessed by the dp and are on their way to attack ultramar

the best part in that novel was when the secondary commander of the ultras was like "its time to die traitor"
Iron warrior: "think again" *melta to the face*

And Dragio is pure bs fluff everything else is quasi feasible but the ironic this is that everything he does is futile as all his damage is erased

Oh, thanks for the replies people

I'm Chaos Space Marines, I keep forgetting that there's a Chaos Daemon codex. Thank god its not against me
Still, that does sound a little unfair...

And Matt Ward doesn't sound THAT bad then, just sounds like he drops the ball with the fluff stuff. Least it isn't in the rule sections
Rather have dodgy fluff then dodgy rules

MittinsKittens wrote:Oh, thanks for the replies people

I'm Chaos Space Marines, I keep forgetting that there's a Chaos Daemon codex. Thank god its not against me
Still, that does sound a little unfair...

And Matt Ward doesn't sound THAT bad then, just sounds like he drops the ball with the fluff stuff. Least it isn't in the rule sections
Rather have dodgy fluff then dodgy y rules

He's been blown out of proportion and his rules are mostly fine (if a lttle over-powered/complicated), but he's added some real abominations to the fluff, such as Draigo (who alone curbstomps a Deamon Primarch and all his greater deamon bodyguards, before carving his master's name on it's HEART and going on a rampage in the Warp).
5) vehicles. They should at least blow up at strength 5 and have some AP, even APd6 would be good. They need a more realisitc, possibly 2d6 damage table, and they should be able to fire all weapons on the move.
6) Being unable to split fire. As people have said, if Johnny wants to shoot a Terminator in the face with a plasma gun, why doesn't he ignore that Ralph is shooting a Rhino? It doesn't make any sense.

I totally forgot to mention how fething lame fire points are. Specifically pertaining to IG's mobile bunker (AKA Chimera). It's not the Chimera and its 5 fire points that's broken... No, it's the fire points rules. The simplest fix to this... Vehicles with fire points must remain stationary for the embarked unit to fire out of the fire points. Bam... Fixed!

Wow, lots of people wanting to buff vehicles. That seems very strange to me. Vehicles are already a bit OP in 5th. Why make them better? Do we want an all vehicle game?

oni wrote:Rapid Fire used to work like that. That's one of the big changes that came to 5th edition 40K. It still trips me up sometimes when I use my Sternguard Vets.

darkPrince010 wrote:This edition: Sweeping Advance, Rapid Fire not being 1/2 of original range, and the S values for an exploding vehicle (S4 Ap- if you're inside a vehicle reduced to a crater? OMGWTFBBQ!1!).

Rapid fire has been 2 shots at 12" since 3rd edition. And, before that, it wasn't a property of the gun, but of the model.

It has NEVER been 2 shots at half distance.

Grakmar wrote:Wow, lots of people wanting to buff vehicles. That seems very strange to me. Vehicles are already a bit OP in 5th. Why make them better? Do we want an all vehicle game?

I don't think it's that people want to buff vehicles necessarily, it's that people want to vehicles to work more appropriately (which would include some nerfs as well). I'd like to see them faster and able to actually utilize their firepower on the move (which is the whole purpose of building a tank and not a pillbox), but at the same time, I think disembarking under fire should be riskier, using fire points should have some risk of taking fire in return, being in a transport that gets penetrated should be potentially dangerous (perhaps a "hits passengers" result on the damage table), and, particularly, being in an exploding vehicle should be punishing.

I also think that there should be an attacker/defender split in at least half of the rulebook missions, like what FoW does, with infantry-heavy forces automatically becoming defender against vehicle-heavy forces. That, plus allowing units with different weapons to fire each group of weapons at a different target, would I think make tanks alot more fun to use while at the same time making foot infantry more viable against them.

I can see that codex:space marines is getting a lot of hate here and may I ask why? The codex it self is really balanced (in my opinion) and the fluff is good. The new space marine codexes (blood angels, space wolfs...) are just copies from the codex astartes book and gain all the fun stuff. For example: we are blood angels so we get big mini thunderhawks and you dont. Well the grey knights have them so why dont we? They also have the most stupid unit ever... damn flying dreadnoughts and elite chaplains, plus some damn super chaplains that own everybody, so why all the hate? Codex: space marine has an big moving cannon that no body uses and an HQ choice that is also never used (master of the forge). All the other stuff goes to every friggin non codex astartes chapter . The fluff of the Ultramarines is little goofy, but they lost at the "Damnos Incident". And the "battle for macragge" tyranids were just an splinter fleet if memory serves. And has anyone ever read the necron fluff? Those things are potrayed as almost unstoppable killing machines which cant be destroyed. Whole space marine chapters have been lost to their attacks.

Well now that I have settled my outrage, these are the things that bugger in wh40k:
1.Units only getting one save at a time? So if I wear an power armour, force field and Im in cover, I can only use one of them?
2.Stupid, overpowered fluff in the new codexes.
3.Too much FNP.
4.A lot of totally useless units.
5.All the damn Ultramarine hate . If every kid would start wh40k by starting an blood angels army then everybody would hate them and no one would give a damn about the smurfs. Same with the grey knights, space wolves etc.

Daedricbob wrote:I'm pretty sure Chenkov would have absolutely no gripes about tarpitting something shiny and expensive with a blob of disposable guardsmen, moving his big guns into LOS then dumping enough live ordnance on the spot to ensure there's nothing left bigger than a matchbox.

I agree it should be possible to shoot into melee. I'm sure the Hive Mind or a Necron Lord wouldn't care too much about hitting a few of their own troops if it helped them win, and that was before I even remembered guys like Chenkov...

H.B.M.C. wrote:Why does Mr. Right Sponson Gunner have to sit pretty and not shoot anything because he can't see Mr. Left Sponson Gunner's target?

Indeed, you'd think that if each weapon has its own operator they could at least all try to do something useful.

infinite_array wrote:5. Shooting from vehicles. So, apparently the suspension in the 41st millenium is so bad that moving 12" jostles my 8' tall demi-gods around so much that they can't fire from the vehicle. They can, however, roll right out of one of the hatches and fire perfectly fine.

Apparently so, and I think some factions wouldn't even care about stuff like this. I find it hard to buy the idea of, say, an Ork in a moving vehicle not just sticking his slugga out the window and hoping he hits something even if the vehicle's going at top speed.

I also agree that the sweeping advance rules can lead to some unintentional laughs, along with the rule that a falling back unit whose path is blocked by enemies is wiped out. I think I'd laugh if a squad of Space Marines fell back and found themselves blocked by a few Gretchin who had been trying to stay out of the way.

PraetorDave wrote:Damaging vehicles. It just blows. This literally happened in a game the other day:

My brother: "so I just rolled a 4 against your predator, what is that?"
Me: "immoblized"
Bro: "awesome, so it can't shoot anymore?"
Me: "nope, I can shoot all my guns next turn, and they can swivel too"
Bro: "now how does that work?"
Me: "beats me. Oh look my immoblized pred just put a lascannon through your zoanthropes face. Sucks"

Also, there need to be more modifiers to the damage table. Because even though it was just a glance, my opponent always rolls a 6. So my tank is immobilized because you glanced it?

I miss the good old days when the Gauss and Glancing rules gave a lone Necron Warrior the ability to blow a Land Raider to smithereens.

The Epic Chaosdude!!! wrote:I can see that codex:space marines

If it were one codex, no one would care. It's seven.

Grakmar wrote:

oni wrote:Rapid Fire used to work like that. That's one of the big changes that came to 5th edition 40K. It still trips me up sometimes when I use my Sternguard Vets.

darkPrince010 wrote:This edition: Sweeping Advance, Rapid Fire not being 1/2 of original range, and the S values for an exploding vehicle (S4 Ap- if you're inside a vehicle reduced to a crater?

Rapid fire has been 2 shots at 12" since 3rd edition. And, before that, it wasn't a property of the gun, but of the model.

It has NEVER been 2 shots at half distance.

Actually your wrong Grakmar. Both oni and darkPrince are correct. In 4th rapid fire was half weapon distance.

Ascalam wrote:Sweeping advance negating WBB, when normally a mob of grotz with rocks would have no chance of running down and destroying a Necron Warriior unit

The current rules for combat resolution.

And Ascalam, sweeping advance does not actually negate WBB. It's just very rare that there is another squad within 6". Took me 3 hours of intense reading over the codex and rulebook after falling foul of that trick. I have an obsession of checking rules that can be used against me. Not many people know it, but everyone I have shown it to has agreed (Friends, random 40K players, GW store staff).

Yes it does. I really really wish otherwise, but it does. In any case the tournament i play at rules that it does, so i'm SOL anyway

WBB doesn't specifically allow you to use it after being swept, and the sweeping advance rules say you are removed from play if you are swept successfully, unless you have a rule that specifically saves you (the only one that does that i know of if ATSKNF for marines.. convenient, huh..).

The previous edition rulebook actually came out and said it in the sweeping advance rules.

PraetorDave wrote:

MittinsKittens wrote:Umm, I'm still new to 40k so I want to ask,
I keep hearing stories about Matt Ward and how he can basically go *beep* himself. What has he done that's so bad? Does he truely deserve all the hate? Or is it just a dude didn't like what he did with something and everyone is now on the hate Matt Ward band wagon. Not defending the guy, I honestly don't know ^^

Matt Ward writes codices (yes that is the proper plural form of codex). AFAIK, he has currently written Codex: space marines and Codex: grey knights. He is known for completely blowing out of proportion fluff, and for making an army completely unbalanced. He has a tendency to make an army that was "good" before, into "OMG I'm a beast, I own everyone while blindfolded with both arms tied behind my back". For instance, in the C:SM book, the Ultramarines don't lose a single fight. Not one. Ever. I will say however, he does write his rules well, and they usually require very little explanation or FAQ.

He also wrote Codex: Blood Angels.

The Grey Knights codex required a FAQ entry for pretty much every unit.

To be fair he was probably going blind by the time he wrote the GK codex.

So very true.

Disgusting... Gods knows what he'll do to my beloved Necrons.. I may end up feeling soiled by association :(

mat ward will take codex:necrons and they will become codex:Iron hands

+1 to every complaint about vehicle rules. As someone who picked up guard because I liked the look of the tanks (ok, shoot me) I find that their armoured shell seems to suck utterly.

The Epic Chaosdude!!! wrote:5.All the damn Ultramarine hate . If every kid would start wh40k by starting an blood angels army then everybody would hate them and no one would give a damn about the smurfs. Same with the grey knights, space wolves etc.

This made me chuckle. Don't think you've been paying attention, but people have the same general complaints about Blood Angels, Grey Knights and Space Wolves as they do about the smurfs

Irony as it may seem, I dislike Space Marines with a passion. All Space Marines, that is started playtesting a couple of SM armies to see how things went... what happened really did not seem possible, particularly given that I know I made mistakes with it. This just heightened my dislike of them

Oh and people always claiming "X does not fit in with 40k". It's not like everything 'fits in' in the real world... and in 40k it has even less reason to, because it's all made up

Although I have to disagree with the Ultramarines hate and Chaos people that really think, Chaos is anywhere on the downside of GWs love.


I really think tanks should at least bcome tanks. Not more pwoerful but more ,,realistic" tanks.

Would love to see crew for tanks, that can bail, be killed. Burning Engines, that leaves you with the choices to bail or fight a round and die a horrible death.

Armour should be more solid (Penetrate or nothing at all) but tanks should be hindred by bad vision.

Honestly, I dislike people who get all annoyed that they can't move their vehicle and fire all their weapons, because they seems to utterly forget about game balance.

Luke_Prowler wrote:Honestly, I dislike people who get all annoyed that they can't move their vehicle and fire all their weapons, because they seems to utterly forget about game balance.

Surely that could be fixed by making them cost about three times as much?

Simple things to fix vehicles:

1. Make 'em faster than people in foot. Move 8/16/24". That means they're no faster overall (still can't go above 24"), but their 'steps' are faster.
2. Make Defensive Weapons S6 and below (or at least S5 and below).
3. Define what 'Turret' and 'Sponson' and 'Hull Mounted' and 'Fixed' mean specifically, and give rules to that effect.
4. Allow weapon on a vehicle to fire at separate targets.
4a. If you can't do that, at least allow weapons classed as 'Defensive' to fire at those separate to the 'Main' weapons.
4b. Treat all Sponsons and Pintle-Mounts as 'Defensive' regardless of type so they can act like sponson.
5. Rather than contracting and dumbing down the damage charts, expand them back into 2 tables (3 if you count ordnance), and make the Glancing table range from (1: No effect; 2: Shaken on a 4+; 3: Stunned on a 4+; 4: Stunned; 5: 1-3 Immobilised, 4-6 Weapon Destroyed; 6: Roll on the Penetrating Chart). That way a glance can occasionally kill something, but it can also occasionally do nothing because it's a glancing hit. Then pen would simply be Stun/Immob/WeaponDes/Wrecked/Destroyed/Explodes.
6. Make Hull Down something that can be beaten, rather than a save. 3rd Ed Hull Down didn't work because it was an all-or-nothing premise (you were either Hull Down, and therefore immune to penetrating hits, or you weren't, and all penetrating hits could get you). We tried it as Hull Down = can only glance unless you roll a 6 on your To Hit roll. It stops it from being an all-or-nothing situation.

We've been playing with most (not all) of the above rules since just after 4th Ed came out, and they work fine. The Land Raider's a little bit overpowered, but beyond that everything else works. Russes that can fire all their guns at different targets are fun!

MittinsKittens wrote:And Matt Ward doesn't sound THAT bad then, just sounds like he drops the ball with the fluff stuff. Least it isn't in the rule sections
Rather have dodgy fluff then dodgy rules

You need to be educated. Mind the bad language.

htj wrote:Surely that could be fixed by making them cost about three times as much?

Vehicles in general or just ones with multiple weapons? My observation is that most vehicles only have one worth firing or never get a chance to fire because they're always going cruising speed/flat out.

The Epic Chaosdude!!! wrote:
1.Units only getting one save at a time? So if I wear an power armour, force field and Im in cover, I can only use one of them?

It's assumed that if it can punch through your force field (which I'm guessing is your best save), then it can also punch through the leaves in front of you and your fancy armour.

The Epic Chaosdude!!! wrote:
2.Stupid, overpowered fluff in the new codexes.

Believe it or not, GW is a business. They want to sell models. If they make that army sound fething awesome, then people are gonna want to buy it. Besides that, it's their codex. Where THEY are explained. If you're a Tau player, you're not gonna want to listen to some wonderful Daemon victory. That, and it's CODICES. Not codexes

The Epic Chaosdude!!! wrote:
3.Too much FNP.
.

I haven't seen that much FNP actually. Probably due to my lack of ever actually playing

The Epic Chaosdude!!! wrote:
4.A lot of totally useless units.

There are always gonna be useless units, whether that's because the current meta makes them useless, or because they don't work with that player's army.