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.

So, most players quickly realized going into 5th Ed. 40k that armor was now king of the board. Friendlier armor tables, lack of entanglement, lowered costs, etc all led to metal boxes littering the battlefield.

At first, I didn't mind this. I thought, well it will be an adjustment---people will pack more AT guns in their armies----first couple of rounds will be blowing up tanks, then 3-6 rounds later we'll get to the good stuff. However, over the past year or so I've became pretty jaded to this mindset.

First, it takes at least 1-2 rounds to dislodge armor. Between cover saves, smoke, range, etc----it's just pretty hard to do. So, what has this led to? Alpha strike----take as many long range AT guns as you can to completely decimate their armor 1st turn so they can't do the same to you. Let's look at some lists;

Vendetta/Chimera Vet Guard
SW Razorback/Long Fang spam
BA Razorback/Predator spam
Vanilla Razorback/Predator spam (Although you don't see this, as the other two power armor armies do it better)
SW Long Fang/CML spam
Deathwing CML spam


What most of these armies have in common is===alpha strike capability----survivability via hidden long range AT or shielded AT (Psy Power Invuls, etc). The Deathwing/Loganwing armies try to take advantage of spamming long range AT in a non-armor format to hurt the other alpha-strike lists....but they're all still predominately an alpha-strike/gun line style. If you do see close combat units most times----it centers around small units that are pretty nasty on their own account (Small unit of TH/SS Terms, TWC Lords, etc). A gun line/alpha strike army can simply tank block other units or feed it with the MSU it usually has in spades.



Where am I going with all of this? I wonder if people find that fun to play. Let me be clear, I'm not judging on anyone's army/playstyle/etc. Personally, I find Razorspam/Chimera gun lines boring beyond belief.....but that's just my opinion and doesn't really matter. What I wonder though is-----do people who play those lists, do it for fun---or because it's competitive.

Further that thought experiment to 6th edition----will the design team continue to push vehicle costs down and armor availability up? I'm sure they have sold more tanks this edition than any previous----so I doubt they rein it back a bit----but it makes me wonder if the design team is happy with the current state of the game. Anyone else?

The cynic in me is wondering if we'll see a grand nerf to vehicles in 6th and an 8thWHFB style drive to increase infantry armies up to 3k to boost mini sales.

I have, as an ork player, been running battlewagon trios to get my boyz across the table under heavy fire from the vehicle/dev spam we now see rife.

Judging by the stratagy that GW's been using recently with 8th edition Fantasy, chances are that hordes armies will become more powerful than ever. Vehicles will probably stay the same, but massed troops will probably just get better.

AgeOfEgos wrote:So, most players quickly realized going into 5th Ed. 40k that armor was now king of the board. Friendlier armor tables, lack of entanglement, lowered costs, etc all led to metal boxes littering the battlefield.

I think the decreased costs was by far the biggest factor, and that started with the Dark Angels book half way through 4th. Assaulting on the rear armor, the run move, and krak grenades stock on every new marine 'dex has more that evened out the slight survivability boost from the new charts.

But generally I like it. I like building and painting tank models, and I like paying 40 dollars for a tank more than 40 dollars for ten marines.

I also think since transports are so obviously the right choice they are generally under pointed. Somewhere in between current prices and 3rd/4th ed price would be good.

If they listen to disgruntled player input, they should strive to make 6th edition more infantry competitive. As it is, Nids and Daemons are two of the few armies that can field competitive lists without armor. Guess why?

Hardly any armor between them.

But it won't be an across the board enhancement for all codices. I'm sure walking vanilla terminators will still be laughable (unless they are GK of course), but perhaps the Ork Greentide will get a boost, and maybe massive hordes of IG just like the old days.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The cynic in me is wondering if we'll see a grand nerf to vehicles in 6th and an 8thWHFB style drive to increase infantry armies up to 3k to boost mini sales.

Yeah, I think that's an interesting point. Fantasy doesn't have the means to sell 'vehicles' for infantry units so the only option they have is to increase game size (decrease unit cost and give bonuses to large blocks).

Fafnir wrote:Judging by the stratagy that GW's been using recently with 8th edition Fantasy, chances are that hordes armies will become more powerful than ever. Vehicles will probably stay the same, but massed troops will probably just get better.

As noted above, I agree.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

I also think since transports are so obviously the right choice they are generally under pointed. Somewhere in between current prices and 3rd/4th ed price would be good.

I think so too. They swung balance a bit too far imo with the armor tables, lack of entanglement. Now don't get me wrong----I hated placing a Land Raider last edition----then removing it off the board the next round. But the rhino/chimera cost seems pretty low to my 'gut'.

WarOne wrote:If they listen to disgruntled player input, they should strive to make 6th edition more infantry competitive. As it is, Nids and Daemons are two of the few armies that can field competitive lists without armor. Guess why?

Hardly any armor between them.

But it won't be an across the board enhancement for all codices. I'm sure walking vanilla terminators will still be laughable (unless they are GK of course), but perhaps the Ork Greentide will get a boost, and maybe massive hordes of IG just like the old days.

Perhaps~~~I would love to sit in on their design meetings.




As an aside, to eat crow for a moment----when I read the 5th Ed. rulebook for the 1st time I thought defensive weapons were a joke. I couldn't stand the lack of shooting my Predator had if it moved...and I remember someone with the inside scoop on Seer stating it was all Phil Kelly's fault. They wanted defensive weapons at Str. 5 and he said it was too high given the new vehicle rules. I guess that's why he's such a good design dude.....he saw the imbalance incoming it appears...

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Perhaps~~~I would love to sit in on their design meetings.

Roight ladz, we've sold them tanks right well 'aven't we?

*Chorus of 'OI!'*

Roight, toime to bugger all our suppoh-taz and make em boi infrantree instead for 6th roight left-tenant?

*Chorus of 'OI!'*

Tell me this ladz, is there anyfing sweetah than makin'em shelve half their bleedin armies for a new addition????

*Chorus of 'NO SAR! NAHFING SWEETAH SAR!*

- que dr.evil laughing.

Something like that anyways lol.

5th ed is ok - but dear god TLOS is lame.

bthom37 wrote:5th ed is ok - but dear god TLOS is lame.

Why do you have a problem with TLOS? It really keeps things from getting bogged down in rules disputes, and it's better than the super vague system they had before with "height levels" that was really underexplained.

I'm not a huge of fan of the metagamey lists. My games against mechvets have been fairly enjoyable since they tend to be very mobile, but I've played against Space Wolves razorback/thunderwolf lord spam and it wasn't very much fun. I barely ever saw his infantry models.

Hello,
Entertainingly enough a friend built a "lovely" list against this. It was around 18 krak missles around being fired per round, this of course made me smile, personally I have been a tank guy for along time, I like the looks of them and my time in the military told me walking sucks. Way back in third no one walked in my CSM army, it was funny and I used the rhino hulks as great cover. Hell in one game I got one blown up to cross a river on it. That said they were cheap to buy at the time and it was funny. However nowadays, I have to agree, seeing that much 'tactical" prep for anti-tank is horrid especially if it is your entire army, and some new player comes along and sadly has a bunch of footsloggers. I just fear the Apocalpse models getting involved, if they up the points on a "standard" game, could you picture trying to take out three Baneblades...

Regards,
Carl

AgeOfEgos wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The cynic in me is wondering if we'll see a grand nerf to vehicles in 6th and an 8thWHFB style drive to increase infantry armies up to 3k to boost mini sales.

Yeah, I think that's an interesting point. Fantasy doesn't have the means to sell 'vehicles' for infantry units so the only option they have is to increase game size (decrease unit cost and give bonuses to large blocks).

That raises an interesting question for me - what do you think gets GW more revenue from, 2000pts of vehicles, or 3000pts of hordiness?

AgeOfEgos wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

I also think since transports are so obviously the right choice they are generally under pointed. Somewhere in between current prices and 3rd/4th ed price would be good.

I think so too. They swung balance a bit too far imo with the armor tables, lack of entanglement. Now don't get me wrong----I hated placing a Land Raider last edition----then removing it off the board the next round. But the rhino/chimera cost seems pretty low to my 'gut'.

I always thought 50pts for a Rhino was too much, though...

WarOne wrote:If they listen to disgruntled player input, they should strive to make 6th edition more infantry competitive. As it is, Nids and Daemons are two of the few armies that can field competitive lists without armor.

I truly hope that is the case.

AgeOfEgos wrote:As an aside, to eat crow for a moment----when I read the 5th Ed. rulebook for the 1st time I thought defensive weapons were a joke. I couldn't stand the lack of shooting my Predator had if it moved...and I remember someone with the inside scoop on Seer stating it was all Phil Kelly's fault. They wanted defensive weapons at Str. 5 and he said it was too high given the new vehicle rules. I guess that's why he's such a good design dude.....he saw the imbalance incoming it appears...

Although my interest in 40k started during 4th, I never owned the rules or a codex until 5th, so, sorry for being a semi-newb, what was the defensive weapon S before 5th? I heard it was 6, and that, to me, is the perfect number. But, I agree. Kelly to me is the smartest of the Games Dev. team.

I still play infantry dominated lists. However, most of my Marine lists are Mech.

Peace, Doop.

Defensive weapons did used to be 6. It was kind of nasty, but Leman Russes couldn't take advantage of their sponsons because the Lumbering Behemoth rule back then, and Land Raider Crusaders could fire all their weapons.

I didn't like the change at first, but it was a smart change.

Fafnir wrote:Judging by the stratagy that GW's been using recently with 8th edition Fantasy, chances are that hordes armies will become more powerful than ever. Vehicles will probably stay the same, but massed troops will probably just get better.

I'm totally ok with this. I like where vehicles are now, I'd actually like guntanks to be even more capable so we don't continue the proliferation of special rules to get around the poor defensive weapons restrictions. I'd also like infantry units to be more capable and able to interact with the board (e.g. dig in, lay minefields, etc).

AgeOfEgos wrote:So, most players quickly realized going into 5th Ed. 40k that armor was now king of the board. Friendlier armor tables, lack of entanglement, lowered costs, etc all led to metal boxes littering the battlefield.

At first, I didn't mind this. I thought, well it will be an adjustment---people will pack more AT guns in their armies----first couple of rounds will be blowing up tanks, then 3-6 rounds later we'll get to the good stuff. However, over the past year or so I've became pretty jaded to this mindset.

First, it takes at least 1-2 rounds to dislodge armor. Between cover saves, smoke, range, etc----it's just pretty hard to do. So, what has this led to? Alpha strike----take as many long range AT guns as you can to completely decimate their armor 1st turn so they can't do the same to you. Let's look at some lists;

Vendetta/Chimera Vet Guard
SW Razorback/Long Fang spam
BA Razorback/Predator spam
Vanilla Razorback/Predator spam (Although you don't see this, as the other two power armor armies do it better)
SW Long Fang/CML spam
Deathwing CML spam


What most of these armies have in common is===alpha strike capability----survivability via hidden long range AT or shielded AT (Psy Power Invuls, etc). The Deathwing/Loganwing armies try to take advantage of spamming long range AT in a non-armor format to hurt the other alpha-strike lists....but they're all still predominately an alpha-strike/gun line style. If you do see close combat units most times----it centers around small units that are pretty nasty on their own account (Small unit of TH/SS Terms, TWC Lords, etc). A gun line/alpha strike army can simply tank block other units or feed it with the MSU it usually has in spades.



Where am I going with all of this? I wonder if people find that fun to play. Let me be clear, I'm not judging on anyone's army/playstyle/etc. Personally, I find Razorspam/Chimera gun lines boring beyond belief.....but that's just my opinion and doesn't really matter. What I wonder though is-----do people who play those lists, do it for fun---or because it's competitive.

Further that thought experiment to 6th edition----will the design team continue to push vehicle costs down and armor availability up? I'm sure they have sold more tanks this edition than any previous----so I doubt they rein it back a bit----but it makes me wonder if the design team is happy with the current state of the game. Anyone else?

A lot of this has to do with IGOUGO. A simultaneous activation system ala Battletech would be ideal, but not something GW is wont to do.


Honestly, back in the dark days of 4th edition I made a mechanized IG army with the idea to cram in as many Stormtroopers (which could be taken as up to 3 troops) and Tanks as I could. My 2000pt list had 60 BS4 infantry and double digits of AV12 and 14 tanks, because that's what I liked the concept of, an elite mechanized infantry army with heavy armor support. I liked the visual and theme. It sucked major ass back then however. Now I for competitive games I use mechanized platoons and have even more tanks. I still like the idea and theme of the army, but the alpha strikeyness of many armies, particularly those that really shouldn't be tank gunlines (marines) does tend to make boring games sometimes.

*BUT*, that's why we have reserves. This allows ways to mitigate the alpha strikeyness and make for a more fluid game.

Though yes, it is an issue, something not helped by the fact that moving tanks are tanks that can't shoot and thus need that first turn or two where movement is not necessary to cripple their opponent, rather than being able to effectively engage while moving and in later turns.

Vaktathi wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Judging by the stratagy that GW's been using recently with 8th edition Fantasy, chances are that hordes armies will become more powerful than ever. Vehicles will probably stay the same, but massed troops will probably just get better.

I'm totally ok with this. I like where vehicles are now, I'd actually like guntanks to be even more capable so we don't continue the proliferation of special rules to get around the poor defensive weapons restrictions. I'd also like infantry units to be more capable and able to interact with the board (e.g. dig in, lay minefields, etc).

I don't mind this at all, it's just that chances are that 6th edition will favour hordes, not just infantry. Something tells me that small model count elite armies won't be looked upon too favourably by the powers that be at GW HQ.

Possibly, though given their price increases...who knows. I'm expecting that by the time I'm 30 in about 5 years, that I'll be paying $20-25 per Terminator and another $5-10 per model for upgrades.

That may be the route they go. Make hordes very powerful and require those armies to buy lots of models, while small elite model count armies become powerful through individual model customization requiring lots of pricey bitz and upgrade kits to be bought.

Vaktathi wrote:
A lot of this has to do with IGOUGO. A simultaneous activation system ala Battletech would be ideal, but not something GW is wont to do.


Honestly, back in the dark days of 4th edition I made a mechanized IG army with the idea to cram in as many Stormtroopers (which could be taken as up to 3 troops) and Tanks as I could. My 2000pt list had 60 BS4 infantry and double digits of AV12 and 14 tanks, because that's what I liked the concept of, an elite mechanized infantry army with heavy armor support. I liked the visual and theme. It sucked major ass back then however. Now I for competitive games I use mechanized platoons and have even more tanks. I still like the idea and theme of the army, but the alpha strikeyness of many armies, particularly those that really shouldn't be tank gunlines (marines) does tend to make boring games sometimes.

*BUT*, that's why we have reserves. This allows ways to mitigate the alpha strikeyness and make for a more fluid game.

Though yes, it is an issue, something not helped by the fact that moving tanks are tanks that can't shoot and thus need that first turn or two where movement is not necessary to cripple their opponent, rather than being able to effectively engage while moving and in later turns.

IGOUGO is a good point and most of the alpha strike lists do originate from that play style. I'm not sure if I agree with you on reserves being the answer. If you are a mobile gunline too, then yes I think reserves vs. an alpha is the way to go. But take the Chaos player that wants to run his Zerk/Rhino rush army----all reserves do is bring half his force on the 2nd turn w/ smoke. He's still at his starting line so to speak (12" in on standard deploy). So what does he get out of reserves, provided the smoke cover does work?

50% of his force will be 12" outside of normal deployment zone before his tanks are blown up. Whereas if he went first 100% of his force would be 12" outside of normal deployment with active smoke. That's quite a swing. Of course, let's not even mention spearhead----the mission of choice to alpha-strikes everywhere---where they will be so deep in their corner, good luck~

I think reserves might work if it was a 3+ starting 2nd turn so at least you weren't so crippled with 1/2 of your force. Maybe.

Well, Chaos Space Marines aren't exactly great at it, but basically all the 5E armies have reserves manipulation. Whether its that they can bring some in on turn 1 (drop pods), have reserve modifiers (Imperial Guard, Tyranids), or other such rules (e.g. DE's stuff), they generally have some way to affect that.

However it's still not a perfect answer, you generally have to build the army with that in mind, but its still a significant mitigator.

Thankfully I dont encounter very many "overly competitive, I play only to win, not to have fun, I run the latest trendy spam list because its what the internet tells me to do," players. It doesnt matter how well the BA razorback list works, I like to try to win in a variety of ways using different units. Whats the fun in having 2000pts of 5 man assault squads and razorbacks? Thats quite lame in my opinion.

I personally think a lot of the problem with Alpha Striking comes from deployment zones being too close and a lack of terrain being used.

Due to TLOS, a lot of terrain from 3rd and 4th edition went from proper, LOS blocking terrain to merely granting a cover save. People don't want to make all new terrain (even though only 3-4 new bits that will block LOS are really needed), so they play with what they have from previous editions, which just doesn't cut it.

3-4 new large bits of terrain that block LOS to stop firing lanes down the table does wonders for the survivability of units. Mechanized alpha strike armies have far less to shoot at from the start. That still leaves the issue of deployment zones being too close, but that's more a personal preference. I prefer to have to move a turn or two to get units into position, not get turn 1 or 2 assaults.

I do hope for a new infantry trend, as this is my preferrred way to play. I only own 8 vehicles (not including walkers, 13 if we are) out of my 4 3000+ point armies. My boys(z) walk and do a damn fine job against everything but those damn humies(z) with flashlights, sorry I mean few humies and tank spam.

I really hope we get a 6th edition game that favours multiple small units over massive hordes or parking lots.

But then again, that's just the kind of player I am. And judging how GW's been going with the release of 8th edition Fantasy, I doubt I'll get that.

SMUs are bad, focusing on them would allow Space Marines to lord over the game more than they already do. I'm not saying that we should swing full force to horde, but there should be a incentive for taking a full squad.

It's obvious that vehicles will be nerfed, but I really don't want infantry to take it's place as king. I want a balanced edition that allows all builds an equal chance. And I realize that's probably not going to happen, but I hope for at least something that isn't "HEY GUIZE, SPAM DIS!"