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.

On BoLS the other day, one of the articles I read that people complain about 5th edition. I came in on 5th, and i find the game system to be easy to learn, and I think the rules are pretty good.
What are the "complaints" about 5th ed.? I've never really seen this.

DoctorZombie wrote: On BoLS the other day, one of the articles I read that people complain about 5th edition. I came in on 5th, and i find the game system to be easy to learn, and I think the rules are pretty good.
What are the "complaints" about 5th ed.? I've never really seen this.

It's all a matter of perspective. Different people, different complaints.

The only things I'm not estatic about is the survivability of Deep Striking Units via Mishap. A one-third chance that the unit gets killed on mishap is way too shallow and doesn't involve that much risk anymore.

Secondly is the lack of an Auspex USR to detect Outflanking or Deep Striking Units. Again, there's too much cushioning for Reserved units.

I thought the auspex was a piece of wargear.
Isn't it that little motion detector kinda thing that you keep seeing on the space marine box examples, but that no one ever uses?

I think the expanded availability and application of Reserve rules, including Outflanking, is one of the coolest things about 5th. It virtually enlarges the board.

The main complaint I ever see about 5th is how the wound allocation rules work, and how they produce unrealistic and dumb outcomes. Like if I have a squad of three marines all with different equipment, and you're shooting at them with a squad if IG armed with 3 meltaguns and a bunch of lasguns, you're better off NOT shooting the lasguns. Because if you do, and inflict any wounds with them, I can use those to help me dump off multiple melta wounds onto a single model.

The only weakness 'i see is the vehicle damage charts. I would like to see a variation where AP2 and AP 3 would get a bonus on results. Less than melta but more than say a scatter laser.
Probably will require a 2d6 chart though so my hopes are not all that high.

Also don't like letter of the law True LOS. In practice not bad but get a rules lawer and it could be a LOOOONG game.

I started with 2nd edition, so have seen many rules changes. Cover used to make it harder to be hit, models with good armor could actualy take full advantage of cover, vehicles had acceleration and deceleration rules and individual damage charts, psychic powers where very different. Ap rules where much more realistic. Instead of the all or nothing that it is now they had save modifers, so a bolter had a better chance of penetrating armor than a lasgun. Basicaly it was a much more detailed, realistic game. People who like detail lament the newer editions, especialy 4th, as they tend to be insultingly simple. I don't hate 5th though. 5th is a step back towards detail were they're bringin back a lot of the older rules. For example everyone can run again because apparently all soldiers know how to run, not just Eldar. 5th ed cover rules and wound allocation are indeed horrible but all in all it's not a bad edition.

Now if they'll just bring back vortex grenades...

The biggest complaints I've come across have been to do with Wound Allocation (which is confusing for newcomers, and seen as open to abuse by competitive players) and TLOS... although the TLOS complaints are mostly from people who were playing 4th edition wrong, and still think that TLOS in 5th edition is something 'new'...

I'd like to see TLOS nixed.

I'd like to see KP system go in favor of VPs based upon unit/model cost.

I like the reserves/outflanking rules but would like to see "fast vehicles" be able to outflank as well in some capacity...

5th edition over compensated for how vulnerable vehicles were in 3rd and 4th edition. That is pretty much it. Other than Close Combat, which has always been over balanced.

IMO, the rearranging of phases (Shooting before Assaulting) and making units in a transport more vulnerable to vehicle destruction would be the only desired changes for me with 6th.

My biggest gripe coming from 4th was Wound Allocation, and the way morale is done in Close combat.

I always thought of the wound allocation weirdness as a result of the chaos of battle. If just three guys are taking shots, they all know which guy they are shooting at. If the whole squad is unloading hell, someone might be doubling up on a target.

Not to mention sometimes there is just one guy who is really unlucky.

I can see people's point though.

Wound allocation is dumb in a lot of ways. I guess that's been covered though.

Assault's emphasis on wounds inflicted with no consideration for outnumbering is insane. Lemme see, I have 30 guys, of which only a few are in range to get attacks (they were spread out). You have five guys who get to swing first with a few attacks. You kill 7 of mine, I kill four of yours. I now outnumber you 23-1, but I 'lost' combat and your one guy gets to cut all of mine down on an initiative check....

Unless... I'm fearless, in which case, holy crap, don't ever get in a multi-combat, because no retreat is also insanely unfair in this edition. You win by 5... but I have three fearless units in the combat, so I take 15 wounds - again, regardless of whether I outnumber you 23-1 at that point. You know, cause that one guy is hammering down those 23 fearless dudes with such ferocity...

Being able to take casualties from anywhere in assault is dumb and penalizes models that rely on their initiative to survive instead of their armour or toughness. Eldar and similar races simply cannot assault large units because they'll never kill the models who get to attack and die to the return swings.

True Line of Sight is a joke. If I see one model in your unit, I can kill the entire unit. Supposedly this helps avoid sniping important models with unrealistic tactics, but it's kind of hard to believe that you're getting a overhead view of the battle when models you can't see are dying.

Vehicles are too survivable and too cheap, lending to parking lot battles and list design focused on taking as few models as possible in order to be able to buy their overly cost-effective transport.

At the same time, the change to what counts as defensive weaponry also encourages parking-lot syndrome, as most vehicles are unable to move and fire effectively. Kind of a bummer that advanced races of space aliens with flying tanks can't even target as effectively as 20th century Abrams tanks.

Though, it's not all bad. The reserves, outflanking and objective systems are very nice. Seize the initiative rules are also good. A lot of the mission design parts of 5th ed are better than prior versions. Unfortunately, the metagame shifts as a result of the other rules have really lessened my enjoyment of the game.

The big complaints for 5th edition as far as I am aware are the following:

• Wound allocation. Abundance of 3++ and FNP in 5E codices has increased this issue.
• Vehicle damage table. Makes vehicles more of an auto include (versus the risk vs reward aspect of previous editions) as well as making 40k more of a FoW mech style environment. Cheap pricing on transports has increased this issue.
• 4+ Cover saves. Further mechs the 40k environment.
• Codices. Codex quality has largely declined from previous editions and releases have largely focused on IoM/Space Marines (with only a small handful of non IoM/SM releases).

Ideally 6E edition would need to target these 4 aspects if they wish to target the criticisms of 5E.

4+ blanket cover gets a little annoying.

Wound allocation has never really bothered me, most poeple I play dont try to abuse it.

I think Redbeard summed up how I feel about close combat.

I've seen my scarabs swarms get decimated because of this..

CthuluIsSpy wrote:I thought the auspex was a piece of wargear.
Isn't it that little motion detector kinda thing that you keep seeing on the space marine box examples, but that no one ever uses?

Was taken out of the rules. If I remember correctly it did something about infiltrating or deep striking not sure which. It's decorative at the moment though.

DoctorZombie wrote: On BoLS the other day, one of the articles I read that people complain about 5th edition. I came in on 5th, and i find the game system to be easy to learn, and I think the rules are pretty good.
What are the "complaints" about 5th ed.? I've never really seen this.

I found rules in 5'th edition great and easy to learn ( especially I am glad because blast markers and scatter dice ).
Why is 5'th edition hated? Ask our "Spiritual League" for that.

I couldn't stand TLOS - because the terrain made by GW is not in the same scale as the vehicles, meaning that hiding behind a hill out of sight was impossible (Devilfish on a flying base). Sure I'm hull down but I'd rather my opponent not shoot me at all!

For me, for TLOS to work, you'd need everything to be in the same scale so the actual model is hidden by the same sized piece of terrain, rather than terrain thats representative of a hill etc....

If you had a board full of terrain to block LoS to most vehicles you would be a bit restricted in open ground and such, making a large centrepiece to do the job shouldnt be out of the realm of possibility though.

DoctorZombie wrote: On BoLS the other day, one of the articles I read that people complain about 5th edition. I came in on 5th, and i find the game system to be easy to learn, and I think the rules are pretty good.
What are the "complaints" about 5th ed.? I've never really seen this.

There's always been a lot of complaints about 5E, just like any other edition.

Ubiquitous cover saves, Kill points, wound allocation gimmicks, defensive weapons rules, squadron rules, FNP, No-Retreat!, etc.



Many of the problems lots of people have with 5th though are issues with codex design rather than the core rules themselves, and that problem stems from the 5th edition rules being the last product of an outbound studio designer coupled with most of the 5E books being written by designers who have never done any 40k material prior to 5th edition, especially the first two books released after 5E was released (Space Marines and Imperial Guard).

I think people whine overly much about cover saves. Most terrain based cover need not be 4+. There are plenty of examples of 3+, 5+ and 6+ in the main rule book. Does anybody even look at that? That wire fence is not giving you a 4+ cover save at all its a 6+. The grass your standing in; its a 5+. The only real cover save I would change is from units supplying cover. It certainly shouldn't be 4+. I'd probably change it to 5+ or even 6+.

andrewm9 wrote:I think people whine overly much about cover saves. Most terrain based cover need not be 4+. There are plenty of examples of 3+, 5+ and 6+ in the main rule book. Does anybody even look at that? That wire fence is not giving you a 4+ cover save at all its a 6+. The grass your standing in; its a 5+. The only real cover save I would change is from units supplying cover. It certainly shouldn't be 4+. I'd probably change it to 5+ or even 6+.

Actually the 4+ there makes sense, as it represents them blocking the lines of fire.

However, I would prefer it that you could shoot through them normally, and any misses are resolved against the squad in the way. Makes more sense like that.

candy.man wrote:The big complaints for 5th edition as far as I am aware are the following:

• Codices. Codex quality has largely declined from previous editions and releases have largely focused on IoM/Space Marines (with only a small handful of non IoM/SM releases).

Ideally 6E edition would need to target these 4 aspects if they wish to target the criticisms of 5E.

I STRONGLY Disagree with the bolded statement. 4th Edition was the edition of bland and uninspired codexes. Every dex in 5th has been leaps and bounds above any 4th edition ones.

I tend to use common sence when playing 40k when it comes to the rules. I've not actually even read the latest edition of the rulebook, just taken note of the major changes. Rules like running are just plain annoying (so your Tyranid Gaunt can get to me quicker than my guardsman can shoot?) and the line of sight/wound allocation systems are plain stupid (I can see one of your men, but I caused ten instant kills...that means those nine guys standing behind that wall die too. ...Uh...right.). 5th edition's been a tad meh for me compared to what we had those previous, its just too full of stupid rules and a sort of arms race between the codexes to see which is the most overpowered. =/

I see where you're coming from. I think 6th just needs to tweak the current rules to better compensate for this. I could see if you only have LoS on one model, but have a multi-shot weapon, you only roll one die to represent the one guy you can see.

Wyrmalla wrote:I've not actually even read the latest edition of the rulebook,

I'm going to go ahead and stop you here.

Maybe you should go ahead and crack that badboy open before telling us what you don't like about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since this is basically the same thread as the 'wishes for 6th' thread, Imma cross post my response:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

pretre wrote:Ugh, the more I read of this and the '5th edition is hated' thread, the more I groan.

Ok, what ideas do you find terrible?

I think that 5th ed is great. Having played since the start of 3rd, I think that it is the best edition we've had. A lot of the ideas in the thread will bring us back to where we were in 3rd, which is a clear step backward.

If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

- Tighten up wound allocation.
(Perhaps assign or resolve all save ignoring wounds first then non-save ignoring wounds.)
- Make clear the distinctions between cover and that not everything should just be 4+ (something in the book P21, but not used right now). Move a couple around so that 4+ cover isn't quite as ubiquitous (Other Infantry gives you X+, ruins/area gives you X+, etc.) They need to be very careful of this or non-SM armies will be very hurt.
- Errata / update all books at the start of the edition (something they did with fantasy in 8th) but go a step further. Also have a living FAQ that is updated monthly with questions and answers.
(Full point and rule updates for every book at start would be ideal. Release it as a chapter approved cheap splatbook and as a PDF, also update books in the next printing. That way everyone has access to it. I.e. BT now pay X for Typhoon Launchers, GK now must have 5 minimum Henchmen in a squad, etc. Whatever they want.)
- Codify the most common mission types as 'standard missions' to expand standard play. Here's an example 6 x 6 table. 6 x 6 to make the rolling easy:(A table of VP, KP, d6 Objective, Terrain Features, Quarters, Escort/Assassination combined with Deployment (Quarters, Pitched, DoW, Short Edge 3rds, Diagonal, Breakthrough).
- Leave most of the rest alone.

We are very much in a 'be careful what you ask for' position right now. For example, as much as some might not like how we do assault resolution now, I remember assaults dragging on forever in previous editions. I also remember rhino rush, sweeping advance BS. I like that assaults are decisive in few rounds now, you either win big or go home. I remember having your lascannon guy sticking out and the rest of the squad behind cover so that there was no way for your opponent to shoot at the squad. I remember vehicles being deathtraps in multiple editions, etc so on. We don't need those things back.

Change for change's sake is a bad idea.

KplKeegan wrote:The only things I'm not estatic about is the survivability of Deep Striking Units via Mishap. A one-third chance that the unit gets killed on mishap is way too shallow and doesn't involve that much risk anymore.

Completely ignoring that the other 1/3 of a chance is your opponent putting it wherever he wants. It's a definite improvement over 4's 'die automatically.'

TLOS has always been part of the game, and it's generally a fine mechanic. Vehicle damage should be shaken up so riding in them isn't nearly 100% safe for those inside or around the tank. Strength 3 and 4 hits for people around and inside them isn't nearly dangerous enough. There should also be a few more results between "scratched paint" and a fireball. I think a 2d6 system could work.

I'd also like to see cover reduced, but not made ineffective. 4+ everywhere makes things a little too safe.

I really like 5th, but I think a few things need to be shaken up and changed for the better is all. I like it more than 3rd or 4th and it's probably the best version of the game so far. 6th just needs to take the lessons learned in 5th and apply them to some new and old ideas.

Brother SRM wrote:TLOS has always been part of the game, and it's generally a fine mechanic. Vehicle damage should be shaken up so riding in them isn't nearly 100% safe for those inside or around the tank. Strength 3 and 4 hits for people around and inside them isn't nearly dangerous enough. There should also be a few more results between "scratched paint" and a fireball. I think a 2d6 system could work.

I'd also like to see cover reduced, but not made ineffective. 4+ everywhere makes things a little too safe.

I really like 5th, but I think a few things need to be shaken up and changed for the better is all. I like it more than 3rd or 4th and it's probably the best version of the game so far. 6th just needs to take the lessons learned in 5th and apply them to some new and old ideas.

A Strength 4 hit against 10 guardsmen inside a Chimera is serious business for them considering a 5+ save with a T of 3. if you have a line of them and a deffrolla hits them you might very well lose 3 to 4 squads of guys along with their rides.

I notice that one of the main complaints seems to be the ubiquitous 4+ cover.

An unintended consequence of reducing the save to 5+ is that getting the first turn (or striking first) will be even more important, and armies that focus on long range fighting will have a significant advantage compared to 5th edition. Just an observation really...and this is coming from a Mech IG player. Basically, if we reduce the cover dynamic too much, it'll be entirely possible to blow an opponent off the field in one turn.


One issue I have with this edition is wounding: if a model is hit with something double its toughness, it should wound automatically. Not really sure how T3 models can survive a hit from a lascannon anywhere in the body...