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 did not have any problem with the necron codex, in fact i think it was needed to make them a bit less than a 2 dimensional army.

All though 3rd and 4th they were rarely seen and when they were there were only 3 builds-massed warriors, massed destroyers or massed monoliths.


The problem with the the 5th ed GK codex is that it destroyed the lore about what the GKs are-

It tried to make them into a stand alone full space marine chapter and not a specialized chamber militant strike force under the auspices of the ordo malleus specifically to fight chaos aligned forces and demons. the demon hunters codex was a specific counter to the best chaos codex ever made (3.5).

In the time we have been running our hybrid games of 5th we have used codexes from the various edition against each other without incident for some really great games. None that i can remember have ever been one sided battles.

Oldcrons4lyfe. I still go back and read that 3rd ed codex sometimes and get re-inspired about Crons. Then I weep for what happened to them over time.

 aphyon wrote:
I did not have any problem with the necron codex, in fact i think it was needed to make them a bit less than a 2 dimensional army.

It was peak memetic Matt Ward codex creep, to the point where he was codex-creeping 6th edition while still in 5th edition (Crons came in hot with all of their fliers, effects that triggered off snapshots, the gauss/hull point interaction, mindshackle challenges, etc.

3e Crons were the most one-dimensional army ever though.


(in Wards defense, as bad as his end of edition books were the 5e Marine codex was actually fairly reasonable - Cruddace and Kelly started the rot with Guard and Wolves)

 aphyon wrote:
the demon hunters codex was a specific counter to the best chaos codex ever made (3.5).

A lot of their stuff was tied up in wargear that you would never take outside of a pre-arranged game as they were points down the drain unless you ran into the specific thing they countered (i.e. blessed hull vs mutated hull).
They had the tools to deal with outright shenanigans like the siren prince but they were roadkill against the regular gunline style lists.

Their apocalypse formation was the pinacle of awesome though - you could not deploy any of the units until your opponent had at least one greater daemon on the board, and if at any point your chaos opponent had been knocked out of the game you were required to give him all of your models so that he could carry on playing with them instead.
(seriously - look around for m1180075_Space_Marines_Datasheet_-_Grey_Knights_Redeemer_Force.pdf)

 aphyon wrote:
the demon hunters codex was a specific counter to the best chaos codex ever made (3.5).

You have a funny way of spelling "most imbalanced"...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:

Sadly Matt Ward broke everything he touched.

Fixed that for you...

A.T. wrote:

3e Crons were the most one-dimensional army ever though.

Hard disagree. While you could certainly make reasonably effective one dimensional builds, there were multiple ways to play that book, including fairly mixed forces that didn't fall into the heavy skew.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Hard disagree. While you could certainly make reasonably effective one dimensional builds, there were multiple ways to play that book, including fairly mixed forces that didn't fall into the heavy skew.

From a 5e perspective - Lords, warriors, scarabs, wraith, destroyers, and monoliths
Only the lord had a warscythe and resurrection orb wargear list to pick from and only the warriors scored.

They certainly had list building choices, but not many of them.

A.T. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Hard disagree. While you could certainly make reasonably effective one dimensional builds, there were multiple ways to play that book, including fairly mixed forces that didn't fall into the heavy skew.

From a 5e perspective - Lords, warriors, scarabs, wraith, destroyers, and monoliths
Only the lord had a warscythe and resurrection orb wargear list to pick from and only the warriors scored.

They certainly had list building choices, but not many of them.

Well I didn't play them in 5th, only 3rd/4th. And I'd certainly add Flayed Ones, Heavy Destroyers, Immortals and Tomb Spiders to that list. Plus the Veil of Darkness for the Lord. The lack of equipment options never bothered me though. I felt it was in-character. Certainly better character than what came after.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well I didn't play them in 5th, only 3rd/4th. And I'd certainly add Flayed Ones, Heavy Destroyers, Immortals and Tomb Spiders to that list

The heavy emphasis on scoring troops choices in 5th pretty much pushed out the immortals, and flayed ones to some degree along with increased mechanisation.

3e Crons weren't going to 'leafblower' anyone off the table so building for objectives and killpoints (and not getting phased out by the ever increasing lethality of the game) did shrink the list options somewhat when the new edition hit.

You have a funny way of spelling "most imbalanced"...

We discussed this at length earlier in this thread....it's ok, you can be wrong.

The heavy emphasis on scoring troops choices in 5th pretty much pushed out the immortals, and flayed ones to some degree along with increased mechanisation.

We fixed that problem by including the OBSEC rules. everything is scoring (immobilized vehicles, and flying aircraft cannot score) but troops can take objectives from non troops choices. it still encourages troops but doesn't completely handicap your army.

A.T. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well I didn't play them in 5th, only 3rd/4th. And I'd certainly add Flayed Ones, Heavy Destroyers, Immortals and Tomb Spiders to that list

The heavy emphasis on scoring troops choices in 5th pretty much pushed out the immortals, and flayed ones to some degree along with increased mechanisation.

3e Crons weren't going to 'leafblower' anyone off the table so building for objectives and killpoints (and not getting phased out by the ever increasing lethality of the game) did shrink the list options somewhat when the new edition hit.

5th ed Morale rules hit them hard too. Ld modifiers in CC were brought about through number of casualties rather than outnumbering, which was very-not-good for Crons, as the chances of getting Sweeping Advanced increased dramatically, and they couldn't WBB after that.

Necrons in 3rd and 4th were fantastic though.

5th Ed was a dumb edition Imo.

A.T. wrote:
They certainly had list building choices, but not many of them.

A paucity of unit options need not be solved by completely reinventing the race to make them Tomb Kings in Space.

 aphyon wrote:

You have a funny way of spelling "most imbalanced"...

We discussed this at length earlier in this thread....it's ok, you can be wrong.

The only ones singing the accolades of that book were the ones NOT playing against it... it's okay, you can be wrong.

Next you'll be telling us the worst part of 3.5 was the Lash of Submission...

No, you'd be wrong there. Khorne's shenanigans were the worst part of that book.

 Just Tony wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

You have a funny way of spelling "most imbalanced"...

We discussed this at length earlier in this thread....it's ok, you can be wrong.

The only ones singing the accolades of that book were the ones NOT playing against it... it's okay, you can be wrong.

Except.....i do play against it STILL and it isn't anywhere near as bad as you seem to think.

I have fought most often against khorne berserkers and iron warriors. but even so, i have done battles against it with the 5th ed SM codex and the 7th ed ADMECH codexes, but i have also seen it face off against the 3rd ed IG armored company among other lists and everything is just fine.

What it has is options and encourages players to play in accordance with the in-universe lore. It feels like a proper chaos force.

 aphyon wrote:
Except.....i do play against it STILL and it isn't anywhere near as bad as you seem to think.

It's contextual - the futher you take the 3.5 codex away from 3rd edition the less it dominates. Being able to take one extra heavy support option becomes rather meaningless after a point, and while a siren prince may still be an unkillable flying unit summoning daemons straight into combat it rather loses its teeth when your opponents army has codex-creeped to twice the size, is mechanised and/or flying, and consolidation between combats is gone allowing more static armies to simply castle up.

A bit like the 4e eldar codex - in 4th edition they were absurdly dominant while in 5th edition they were roadkill.

 Just Tony wrote:
No, you'd be wrong there. Khorne's shenanigans were the worst part of that book.

Well, ignoring the fact that Lash wasn't even in the 3.5 'Dex, Khorne units in the 3.5 'Dex jumped out of their Rhinos if you rolled a 1 at the start of the turn.

You could lean Khorne units around by the nose with some careful positioning. I once used a Demolisher to keep a massive Glaive Prince away from my squishy Guardsmen all game just by keeping it a tiny bit closer.

Khorne were great, but they weren't the powerful thing in that book. Not by a long shot.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
No, you'd be wrong there. Khorne's shenanigans were the worst part of that book.

Well, ignoring the fact that Lash wasn't even in the 3.5 'Dex, Khorne units in the 3.5 'Dex jumped out of their Rhinos if you rolled a 1 at the start of the turn.

You could lean Khorne units around by the nose with some careful positioning. I once used a Demolisher to keep a massive Glaive Prince away from my squishy Guardsmen all game just by keeping it a tiny bit closer.

Khorne were great, but they weren't the powerful thing in that book. Not by a long shot.

Yep, you got me or whatever. Most balanced and fair codex ever made, the template by which all other codices should be done.

Khorne units in the 3.5 'Dex jumped out of their Rhinos if you rolled a 1 at the start of the turn.

Being inside the transport means they are not on the table and thus are not affected by blood frenzy...although blood frenzy has led to some seriously fun silliness in our games.

A bit like the 4e eldar codex - in 4th edition they were absurdly dominant while in 5th edition they were roadkill.

Except not.....the 4th ed eldar codex is the one we use in our 5th ed games, and again it works just fine and isn't handicapped. but then we are playing more thematic 40K and not trying to squeeze every bit of powergaming out of the system.

 Just Tony wrote:
Yep, you got me or whatever.

I didn't, actually. And speaking of things that didn't happen...

 Just Tony wrote:
Most balanced and fair codex ever made, the template by which all other codices should be done.

I certainly didn't say anything like that.

 aphyon wrote:
Being inside the transport means they are not on the table and thus are not affected by blood frenzy...although blood frenzy has led to some seriously fun silliness in our games.

Nope.

"At the start of their Movement phase, roll a D6 for each unit or independent character suffering from Blood Frenzy (do not roll for vehicles, Dreadnoughts, bikes or models using Daemonic flight) to see if they are gripped so strongly by the frenzy that they must rush towards the enemy. On a 1 or 2 they advance a normal move +D6" towards the nearest enemy instead of moving normally. If mounted in a transport they will disembark before moving." - 3.5 Codex, page 47.

We are using core 5th ed rules-in transports=not on the table.

Thus, they are not affected

Although i envision the angry marines meme.

I don't think that matters, given the rule says what the rule says.

It matters-any rule that conflicts with 5th ed core rules is ignored unless a special exception was made/agreed upon or an equivalent USR already exists in 5th.

It prevents things like eldar casting powers while inside transports like in previous editions, although our khorne player might think it would be funny i'll ask him if he wants to give it a go next time we play.

 aphyon wrote:
Except not.....the 4th ed eldar codex is the one we use in our 5th ed games, and again it works just fine and isn't handicapped. but then we are playing more thematic 40K and not trying to squeeze every bit of powergaming out of the system.

I was trying to give an example of where putting a codex in the context of when/why it was dominant is important.
And not just powergaming - in 4th i've watched whole armies open up on eldar skimmers without effect, in 5th they were often underdogs to middle of the road stuff like generic mechanised Witch Hunter lists.

 aphyon wrote:
It prevents things like eldar casting powers while inside transports like in previous editions, although our khorne player might think it would be funny i'll ask him if he wants to give it a go next time we play.

Psykers (Official 5th Edition FAQ)
Q: Can a model use a psychic power that is not a Psychic Shooting Attack if it is embarked in a transport vehicle? (p50)
A: Yes. If the power requires line of sight, this is still worked out from the vehicle’s fire points (this will count as one model shooting through that fire point if the power is used in the Shooting phase).
If the psychic power does not require line of sight and has a range or an area of effect that is normally measured from the model using it, these are measured from the vehicle’s hull, as explained in the Embarking section on page 66.

Eldar suffered from not having firepoints which eliminated Destructor, Eldritch Storm and Mind War. On a related note units inside transports could be the target of psychic powers, but only those cast by other units in the same transport (5e core rules errata).

-Note that page 66 doesn't actually explain anything...

----

5e was... inconsistant at best with some of these rules. Units were certainly 'in' the transport on the table for certain purposes - scoring being the best example (i.e. no vehicle can score, an embarked unit is not on the table, however an embarked scoring unit is explicitly a scoring unit on the table with distance measured from the hull - p90)

Generally speaking all old codex rules worked as written unless they were explicitly called out or had no apparent effect(i.e. rules for 'raid' scenario). The 3.5 codex of course had no official errata for 5e leading to this odd situation. Other units with the 'berserker rage' style rule did still exist (repentia, arcos, penitent engines) but were errated to have the regular rage USR which called out specific rules for embarked units.

That is basically the point AT.


When we collected the hybrid rules fixes (on page one of this topic) from the various editions we specifically addressed this point to make all codexes available under the 5th ed rules.

Core 5th ed rules/USRs take precedent over all older and newer codexes with the few exceptions we noted. if one exists under a different name but effectively does what one of the 5th ed USRs represents you use that instead. the example i gave was dune strider being replaced with move through cover.

In this specific case blood frenzy acts as normal unless a unit is in a transport as units in transports under 5th ed core rules are effectively not on the table, except under certain special situations-IE fire points or scoring for troops. it also makes the game a bit easier to for all players to remember with uniform general rules. like standard movement for all unit types being fixed. In the several years we have been playing this way it has not caused any issues and has made the game fun for everybody involved.

Other units with the 'berserker rage' style rule did still exist (repentia, arcos, penitent engines)

None of those units could ride in transports IIRC so it isn't a great comparison. you also had the black templar but you had to shoot at them to cause a wound to make them rage so being inside a transport doesn't work for them either.

 aphyon wrote:
When we collected the hybrid rules fixes (on page one of this topic) from the various editions we specifically addressed this point to make all codexes available under the 5th ed rules.

Berserkers would jump out of transports under the rules as they were handled during 5th edition.
Berserkers would not jump out of transports under the rules as written in your newer houseruled system.

Both answers are correct, depending on which ruleset you use.

None of those units could ride in transports IIRC so it isn't a great comparison. you also had the black templar but you had to shoot at them to cause a wound to make them rage so being inside a transport doesn't work for them either.

For templars it wasn't the zeal that was the problem but 'Abhor the Witch' (the vow, not the special rule with the same name). It's a forced 1st turn move that explicitly calls out units in vehicles as making a consolidate rule (even gaining bonuses from crusader seals).
To the best of my knowledge this was never officially clarified and most players ran the Adepticon errata (or avoided the vow entirely).


5th edition was messy.

Every edition had its messy parts, 5th was actually less messy than many others. that's why it works better with a few tweaks. the entire point is to have an enjoyable game afterall. As you may have noticed from all the battle reports and pictures i post, we are having fun with it. dare i say a fair bit more fun than the consternation of the players meta chasing 9th edition.

 aphyon wrote:
Every edition had its messy parts, 5th was actually less messy than many others.

The ruleset was fine for the most part, it was GWs errata that were often messy and incomplete.

Though modern 40ks everchanging books of slightly different numbers aren't an improvement. The thing about 5e errata is that it wasn't about fixing the odd cost, it was needed to pull together ten years and two full editions of books that were absolutely not written with one another in mind.

Not that GW were helping themselves either - for example no two marine books from the start of 4th until the end of 5th had matching costs for devastator heavy weapons.

Haha, i never use devastators so i never noticed that.

In space int he 41st millennium nobody can hear you scream but Abaddon can get really angry.



Thats right it's BFG time oh yeah!

My buddy wanted to try out a new fleet list for the imperial navy.

Since the stores fleets only had one battleship we had to borrow the chaos one to be a second for his fleet.

He ran-
.admiral with 2 re-rolls
.X2 emperor class battleships
.mars class battlecruiser
.X3 dominators
.X2 dauntless light cruisers

I rolled on the random to see which of my fleet lists i would run. (with or without the planet killer).

I ended up going without-
.Abaddon +3 LD 8 chaos lords
.despoiler
.repulsive grand cruiser
.styx blattlecruiser
.X2 devastations
.X2 carnages


The game was a 2k passing engagement.

He tried to use the dauntlesses as a distraction and suicided tham into my carnages and grand cruiser. which got a torpedo salvo off for 3 of 6 hits.

He was hoping to use that to allow him to swing his nova cannons around to keep the range advantage.
In an odd twist for imperials, he was running a very heavy carrier force almost equal to my own. so, bombers and assault boats became pretty useless as it was a field of fighter screens for days.


His dice rolls with the nova cannons were underwhelming. he put 5 hits on the repulsive 2 of which i braced away and completely murdered the fighter escorts it had in tow.

And that is all he managed aside from killing loads of fighters. In return he lost both dauntlesses, the mars was crippled by hull damage, and finally one of his emperors was one hit away from half health when it took an engine crit that reduced its speed by 10cm.

The emperor frowns on wastefulness and losing a priceless battleship was not worth the fight so the imperial force surrendered the field.












We started this game about 5am ( i arrived at the store at 2pm the previous day) and it took about 3 hours. considering how tired he was may have led him to make some tactical errors. but he still enjoyed the game and is not working up a bakka fleet list we will see what happens next time.


n a silly side not the carrier group led by the styx really wanted to test Abaddon's patience. for something like 4 turns in a row they failed their LD test and had to use his re-rolls while they were directly in front of him.