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.

I think the dual system is actually reasonably realistic in the reflection of the differences in the way weapons interact with human bodies and with vehicles in real life.

I would prefer saves get changed to save modifiers.

Otherwise, you get the curious example of the Manticore, where it's cluster bombs can utterly obliterate tank squadrons (Str 10 Ordnance d3) but only slightly perturbs heavy infantry (AP4).

Idk i cant see anything wrong with it.

The 'model's eye view' system is broken

Vehicles in squadrons blow up for being immobilized (blowing up after loosing unit coherency would be better IMO)

GW should might as well remove Rending all together rather than what they did to it.

Ranged combat sucks even more with the increased Friendly Fire cover saves along with the running and CC always hitting rear of vehicles (though the running and rear armour hits, I'm ok with; infact the rear armour hits make it quite cinimatic, like in Ghost in the Shell when the Major rips the entry hatches off tanks in almost every film/series).

SDFarsight wrote:like in Ghost in the Shell when the Major rips the entry hatches off tanks in almost every film/series).

Notice she fails at successfully doing so Tearing herself apart in the process, requiring the "standard issue big gun" to solve the problem

TLOS on cover is one thing I dont like...

A friend of mine who I play with all of the time has a differing view on cover than i do. he says if it is close it gets cover, i say if it is close it doesnt. This leads to disagreements in many of our games.

dajobe wrote:TLOS on cover is one thing I dont like...

A friend of mine who I play with all of the time has a differing view on cover than i do. he says if it is close it gets cover, i say if it is close it doesnt. This leads to disagreements in many of our games.

Notice that the rulebook does have a mechanic for that, if there's a disagreement it gets a cover save at -1 of what it would otherwise be, making 4+ into 5+.

dajobe wrote:TLOS on cover is one thing I dont like...

A friend of mine who I play with all of the time has a differing view on cover than i do. he says if it is close it gets cover, i say if it is close it doesnt. This leads to disagreements in many of our games.

I assume you are talking about cover for vehicles, right?

Anyway, as mentioned there is a mechanic in place for such situations.
Failing that you just need to sack up and remind your friend that the criteria is "50% or more", not "close to 50", but not quite".




...

Vaktathi wrote:

dajobe wrote:TLOS on cover is one thing I dont like...

A friend of mine who I play with all of the time has a differing view on cover than i do. he says if it is close it gets cover, i say if it is close it doesnt. This leads to disagreements in many of our games.

Notice that the rulebook does have a mechanic for that, if there's a disagreement it gets a cover save at -1 of what it would otherwise be, making 4+ into 5+.

Right but this allows you to get a 5+ cover from anywhere. My troops are in the open, I claim cover. My opponent disagrees, obviously, so it's 5+. Now that's a stupid example and it might not happen, but THIS happens quite frequently:
Defender: Well that looks like 4+ cover to me.
Attacker: No way, there's no cover at all from that
Defender: Well 5+ cover then?
Attacker: WHAT, no way does that deserve 5+ cover
ad infinitum.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Lanrak wrote:This is a prime example of overcomplication.

Roll a models armour save to prevent it taking damage/wounds.

Exception,1/If the weapons AP is lower than the models save it can not take a saving throw.

Exception 2/if the model has a cover/invunerable save this may be taken instead of its armour save.(And is not affected by AP.)

Exceptoin3/If the model has FNP it gets ANOTHER save , it can use after prevouis saves....

Exception 4/if the model is a Vehicle it uses a completly different sytem entirley!

How is this simple compard to ONE system that covers ALL weapons and units , NO exceptions?

Like I said the game play is fine.
The game mechanic chioce and multiple resolution methods are less than desirable, for elegant intuitive instructions to play the game.

Wait, how is that "overly complicated"? It takes literally 2 minutes to grasp. It'd be one thing if the save rules created long delays in game, but it doesn't! Furthermore, vehicles don't use a completely different system. Simplicity for the sake of simplicity is not something to strive for.

Lanrak is right on the money here, and you're completely wrong. Simplicity for it's own sake should always be something to strive for. Where multiple options to solve a problem exist, the simplest option is always more desirable.

And yes, the armour save mechanisms for troops and vehicles sucks. It is far too complicated. It's not hard to understand, but because it has so many steps and so many ways of interacting with itself, it is impossible to make small changes to tweak somethings abilities without having far reaching catastrophic effects. Just look at the headaches people in this thread are having trying to resolve the FNP issue. And why is there a FNP issue in the first place? Because under the current armour save and wound mechanism it was the easiest way to increase the survivability of some units.

Joey wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

dajobe wrote:TLOS on cover is one thing I dont like...

A friend of mine who I play with all of the time has a differing view on cover than i do. he says if it is close it gets cover, i say if it is close it doesnt. This leads to disagreements in many of our games.

Notice that the rulebook does have a mechanic for that, if there's a disagreement it gets a cover save at -1 of what it would otherwise be, making 4+ into 5+.

Right but this allows you to get a 5+ cover from anywhere. My troops are in the open, I claim cover. My opponent disagrees, obviously, so it's 5+. Now that's a stupid example and it might not happen, but THIS happens quite frequently:
Defender: Well that looks like 4+ cover to me.
Attacker: No way, there's no cover at all from that
Defender: Well 5+ cover then?
Attacker: WHAT, no way does that deserve 5+ cover
ad infinitum.

While I don't disagree, there comes a point at which abuse of the rules becomes obvious and you take alternative actions. Chances are someone like that wouldn't be fun to play with regardless.

Joey wrote:Right but this allows you to get a 5+ cover from anywhere. My troops are in the open, I claim cover.

It's not a blanket excuse to act like an ass.

Regardless of what the rules say, that's just going to result in you playing toy soldiers all by yourself.

Vaktathi wrote:

SDFarsight wrote:like in Ghost in the Shell when the Major rips the entry hatches off tanks in almost every film/series).

Notice she fails at successfully doing so Tearing herself apart in the process, requiring the "standard issue big gun" to solve the problem

Well, I give her full marks for effort.

Kaldor wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Lanrak wrote:This is a prime example of overcomplication.

Roll a models armour save to prevent it taking damage/wounds.

Exception,1/If the weapons AP is lower than the models save it can not take a saving throw.

Exception 2/if the model has a cover/invunerable save this may be taken instead of its armour save.(And is not affected by AP.)

Exceptoin3/If the model has FNP it gets ANOTHER save , it can use after prevouis saves....

Exception 4/if the model is a Vehicle it uses a completly different sytem entirley!

How is this simple compard to ONE system that covers ALL weapons and units , NO exceptions?

Like I said the game play is fine.
The game mechanic chioce and multiple resolution methods are less than desirable, for elegant intuitive instructions to play the game.

Wait, how is that "overly complicated"? It takes literally 2 minutes to grasp. It'd be one thing if the save rules created long delays in game, but it doesn't! Furthermore, vehicles don't use a completely different system. Simplicity for the sake of simplicity is not something to strive for.

Lanrak is right on the money here, and you're completely wrong. Simplicity for it's own sake should always be something to strive for. Where multiple options to solve a problem exist, the simplest option is always more desirable.

And yes, the armour save mechanisms for troops and vehicles sucks. It is far too complicated. It's not hard to understand, but because it has so many steps and so many ways of interacting with itself, it is impossible to make small changes to tweak somethings abilities without having far reaching catastrophic effects. Just look at the headaches people in this thread are having trying to resolve the FNP issue. And why is there a FNP issue in the first place? Because under the current armour save and wound mechanism it was the easiest way to increase the survivability of some units.

I guess I worded my point badly; what I meant was that simplicity isn't something to strive for above all else. If you simply ignore everything else and change rules around to make stuff simpler, chances are you're going to lose what made the rules work in the first place. Besides, the FNP and unsaved wound issue could simply be resolved by making FNP a save or clarifying that any wounds still count as unsaved. That's not a problem with overcomplication, that's a problem with GW doing a shoddy job in the first place.

Well 5th has been pretty good for me. I play a foot slogging black templar army and all the 5th edition rules worked nicely for me. Wound allocation was a blessing since it meant I didn't have to count scouts vs marines every time someone shot me or chopped at my 20 man squads. Yes there is the benefit of more marines living at the end too.

I also got more cover (which was both good and bad) and running was fantastic because Jim SM would look outside his rhino in amazement as this huge black templar squad outran the rhino. 5th edition was a godsend for the reasons that everyone seems to think made it worse than 4th ed.

So for me, in terms of what is wrong with 5th edition, nothing really. Maybe powerfists not getting an extra attack.

@AlmightyWalrus.
40k has very straight forward game play which is part of its charm and apeal to new players.
But the instructions to play the game could be made clearer .

An analagy.
40k rules write .
2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2.

Other games write.
2x20.

With 40k it is easier to mis understand (mis count ) the multiple instructions , and takes much longer to process them.
Other games present the infomation in a clearer easier to undestand way. (With much fewer chances to misundestand.)And they can be procesed quicker.

The truth is ..
40ks core rules have been over simplified too much to support the game play of 40k.And so depend on all these additional rules that add layer upon layer of complication .

Complication is the amount of instructions to determine function.
Complexity in the amount of function allowed by an instruction.

Most games strive for maximum complexity with the minimum complication.
40k apears to be doing the opposite.

5E is flat out garbage.

Lets just all keep our fingers crossed that 6E improves MOST of it.

Milisim wrote:5E is flat out garbage.

Lets just all keep our fingers crossed that 6E improves MOST of it.

5E is flat out awesome.

Let's just all keep our fingers crossed that 6E keeps MOST of it.

Hey, that works both ways! Who would've thunk it?

5e has alot going for it and I enjoy it alot, I really do. If 6th tightens up the wounding (wounding has changed in every edition that I've played) and leaves most everything else the same, I'll be very happy. I especially loved the changes to infiltrate and the addition of outflanking, giving more tactical options. And of course letting deepstrike happen in all missions rather than just certain ones.

I'd like to see an expansion to the mission chart, certainly. I know KP has its champions and its detractors, but I'm middle of the road on it and see its virtues and failings. Maybe if we added VP's to another of the available mission types, and maybe even another mission type still that also benefitted the small elite armies (:sigh: Yes, that is meant to read Draigowing, loth as I am to protect it.)

If 5E is so Awesome then it wouldnt be in need of a 15 page thread of why it sucks.

also if 5E was so awesome, we wouldnt need 40 000 topics in the "You make Da Call" section as 5E was written by gakkers.

Milisim wrote:If 5E is so Awesome then it wouldnt be in need of a 15 page thread of why it sucks.

also if 5E was so awesome, we wouldnt need 40 000 topics in the "You make Da Call" section as 5E was written by gakkers.

Argumentum ad populum. If you're going to whine about how bad 5th is, at least provide examples other than "it sucks because I say so, and others do too!". I can agree that there's stuff that could be better, but your post adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

5E was better than 4E in some ways, and some ways worse than 4E while being better/worse than 3E

Main Thing I truly was glad for: Skimmer's toned down, thank the gods, I was so tired of overpowered Tri-Falcon lists dominating everything besides Fish of Fury

Main Thing I truly dislike: The removal of the ordnance chart. 2D6 with the highest is not a good tradeoff.

Medicore: Blasts went from BS based to scatter dice based, bad for high BS armies, good for orks!

What I really want: Easier ways for assault to hit transports, MC's get a special damage chart for damaging transports (6 is autohits on the unit inside! )

ZebioLizard2 wrote:5E was better than 4E in some ways, and some ways worse than 4E while being better/worse than 3E

Main Thing I truly was glad for: Skimmer's toned down, thank the gods, I was so tired of overpowered Tri-Falcon lists dominating everything besides Fish of Fury

Main Thing I truly dislike: The removal of the ordnance chart. 2D6 with the highest is not a good tradeoff.

Medicore: Blasts went from BS based to scatter dice based, bad for high BS armies, good for orks!

What I really want: Easier ways for assault to hit transports, MC's get a special damage chart for damaging transports (6 is autohits on the unit inside! )

I miss those skimmer rules. :(

But I'd be allright with that last one! They do damage to the passengers as they rip the transport to pieces? Awesome. Though I also would be great with an MC (or someone assaulting a transport) being able to consolidate into the unit that was inside. You don't count as charging, but fight as normal in the next assault phase.

One thing I would like to see come back is the ability for a unit to voluntarily leave combat if the unit/s attacking it can't actually hurt it.

Once upon a time, walker and MCs could leave combat voluntarily. That led to certain abuses, but toning it down slightly, restricting it to those situations where the walker or MC can't be hurt by the attacker (and so really has nothing that is forcing it to stay there) and preventing it from charging into combat again on the game turn that it does so would be a huge help for preventing tarpitting.

Deadshot wrote:Just change it so that any shot that ignores the model in question's armour ignores FNP.

And people are going to scream out for the painboy. I have a fix.

Doc knows wotz- Due to increble orkish regenerative sytems and the Docs knowing stuff, an Ork unit may always may a FNP save, unless the wound was caused by (insert all the stuff currently ignoring FNP, Eg, power swords).

Basically limit everyone else to an armour+FNP or an invulnerable/cover. Orks being supa tuff and regenerating quick, and doc gubbins, can have the current incarnation to balance their crap armour.

That'd be a mighty sad day for Sisters Repentia and Arco-Falgellants (no armor save at all, just FNP).

Milisim wrote:If 5E is so Awesome then it wouldnt be in need of a 15 page thread of why it sucks.

also if 5E was so awesome, we wouldnt need 40 000 topics in the "You make Da Call" section as 5E was written by gakkers.

A vast majority is good. This thread is a dozen pages of people nit-picking a couple of rules. You're talking about up to a half dozen rules in a rulebook that's a hundred pages long. Sounds like a mostly successful rules system to me.

As for the existence of YMDC, clearly you've never seen such things for other games like Malifaux. Furthermore, there was rules bickering in 4th ed as well, of equal volume and ferocity. 5th ed didn't make things any worse in this regard.

Unless you've got a game as simple as chess, you're going to have people arguing about the rules, especially in a world where people try to twist rules on purpose to mean what they want them to mean. If you made an orbital ray generator that removed all TFG tendencies from all 40k players, you'd barely need to have a YMDC section.

6th edition's rulebook is going to be 98% similar to 5th ed. If you really hate 5th ed, you're not going to like 6th ed very much more.

I have been posting why the instructions in the 5th Edition rule book are poorly defined and inapropriate for the end game play of 40k, and its core demoghraphic .

I have no problem with the game play of 40k or its setting.
Most player play 40k becuse of its inspiring asthetic,despite its poor rule set.

Comparing 5th ed 40k to previous editions is just comparing different design ethos , using the same inapropriate game mechanics.

Compare 40k 5th ed rule book to, Epic Armageddon, Net Epic, Dust Warfare, Fast And Dirty, StargruntII,Infinity, etc.And you will see what I mean...

Ailaros wrote:

Milisim wrote:If 5E is so Awesome then it wouldnt be in need of a 15 page thread of why it sucks.

also if 5E was so awesome, we wouldnt need 40 000 topics in the "You make Da Call" section as 5E was written by gakkers.

As for the existence of YMDC, clearly you've never seen such things for other games like Malifaux. Furthermore, there was rules bickering in 4th ed as well, of equal volume and ferocity. 5th ed didn't make things any worse in this regard.

"What's the difference between Tier 1,2, and 3 terrain?" "Does 'Whole Models' in 'remove whole models first' mean whole as in the entire model, or whole as in unwounded?" "Does 'gets no save' mean the same as 'automatically fails a save?'" "How do Tau Drones work?" to name just a few off the top of my head.

Lanrak wrote:I have been posting why the instructions in the 5th Edition rule book are poorly defined and inapropriate for the end game play of 40k, and its core demoghraphic .

I have no problem with the game play of 40k or its setting.
Most player play 40k becuse of its inspiring asthetic,despite its poor rule set.

Comparing 5th ed 40k to previous editions is just comparing different design ethos , using the same inapropriate game mechanics.

Compare 40k 5th ed rule book to, Epic Armageddon, Net Epic, Dust Warfare, Fast And Dirty, StargruntII,Infinity, etc.And you will see what I mean...

You mean those obscure games no one has ever heard of or played?
RUDENESS REDACTED. -Mannahnin



Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I guess I worded my point badly; what I meant was that simplicity isn't something to strive for above all else. If you simply ignore everything else and change rules around to make stuff simpler, chances are you're going to lose what made the rules work in the first place. Besides, the FNP and unsaved wound issue could simply be resolved by making FNP a save or clarifying that any wounds still count as unsaved. That's not a problem with overcomplication, that's a problem with GW doing a shoddy job in the first place.

Feel No Pain explicitly states that it cannot be taken against "any other wound against which no armour saves can be taken". If you don't get an armour save, you don't get a FNP.
But why bother reading the rulebook before you start slagging it off as being badly written

Joey wrote:
Quote redacted as per original.

Don't insult people.