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.

yakface wrote:Question:

Did you ever like the GAME of 40K? Because if so I'd be interested to hear about how the rules now are worse than back then. I mean specifically. How were those old games of 40K (rules-wise) fun for you but they're not now.

A fair question.

At one time, yes. I also want to continue to enjoy it, hence my zealous fervor for change.

Rogue trader was far too much for me (and I am sure many people) to stomach, but the imagery and models were cool.
I got back in during the end of 2nd ed/beginning of 3rd ed, not having a whole lot of wargaming experience under my belt, and not knowing the difference between good rules and bad rules. I loved the models and wanted to play the game that was a decent social item in game shops during the mid late nineties.
After playing in 3rd ed for a few years, some glaring oddities that didn't make much sense began to slowly surface in my awareness. I became more discerning. I grew up, and the game I loved wasn't keeping up with my maturity level (which we all know, isn't often that high. This doesn't say much for 40K).
I wont go into an exhaustive list, but here is a couple examples:
*Leadership: It plays barely any role in the game. Troops sit there and duke it out to the whim of the player controlling them, and even the wimpiest models seem to stay stuck in. I know this is a matter of die rolls, but there seems something flawed when you execute a well timed maneuver only to fail when you cant break a unit. I would say the dice gods hate me, and they probably do, but it was far to consistent over a decade to ignore.
*The turn structure: UGOIGO seems somehow wrong for 40K even though it seems well suited for basically most of GW's other games. The lack of reaction to an action seems like a fundamental flaw in how 40K is designed. Its why first turn is such a huge advantage. There is no recourse, you simply have to suck it up and remove your casualties hoping you have enough left over from a devastating turn to affect your opponent. Sometimes army setup cant help you against a good first turn.
Inconsistency: This happened alot in 3rd ed codecies. The most recent example is the Johnson/Kelly schism. Quite glaring differences in design style. This doesn't help the game. Yet notice how all of the army lists in the 3rd ed rulebook were pretty balanced with each other. 4th ed is so flawed they didn't even get a chance to visit all of the codecies before 5th ed revamp. Just look at the FAQ you have assembled and it should be obvious.

What keeps happening (as evinced by 4th ed), is that GW keeps compounding on the 3rd ed rules flaws, instead of just biting the bullet and fixing them at their root. Sure, you can make someone feel better by giving them medication, but in order for that person to be healthy, they have to take care of themselves. Same thing goes for 40K. In order for the game to be truly healthy, you need long term goals, like making a solid rules set.

We aren't talking about a game where the company charges $.20 a model, with shoddy rules. I could forgive a company their rules writing in the face of the money they charge. But GW has been around for faaar too long and charge quite a premium to be this remiss with such solid IP. Lesser companies utilize their [design] resources far better than GW has demonstrated.

Like I said in the post you quoted, I am not giving final damnation on 5th ed until I see the final product in my hands and play quite a few games to get the feel for how the rules have changed. Until that time, its hard for me to think that they are doing anything other than gold plating a turd. I feel that I am being suckered into another iteration of a badly worded, ill conceived 3rd ed, spin-off that requires a hundred+ pages of fan made FAQs. [and then get no official support from GW...where are those 4th ed FAQ's again? Atleast in 3rd ed, we got them. Hell, we even got a WD with actual content during that time.]

I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

Whitescar wrote:I too claim honorary Jew status, as not only have I had a Rabbi give the blessing at my wedding (The great and eloquent SYR8766 himself), but I was sent a membership card to the "World Jewish Congress" after donating to the Simon Wiesenthal (sp?) Center when I graduated college.

So Shalom biyatch

Well in addition to the Pastrami confirmation I've also seen Fiddler on the Roof like 50 times!

So Shhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllooooooooooooooom right back at ya!

Oy, I'm one shickered gentile right now.

Gawd, I have not seen that in a long time. Brilliant.

And that's EXACTLY how the rabbinate is, by the way.

Images of missing Primarch Rabbi Wabbinowitz, leading the Great Crusade and doing it kosher style!

My favorite 5th edition rumor to mock is this one:

"No-Argument" cover saves: Your opponent says what they think it is; if you disagree they still gets the cover save but with a –1 ~That's and interesting new concept for GW to throw into a ruleset.

I kinda hope this is a joke, because if this is true, I REALLY think GW needs to head back to game design 101.

Here's the source:

http://belloflostsouls.blogspot.com/2008/04/latest-5th-edition-news.html

For the record, I think 5th edition will improve the game, but will not be a big enough overhaul to bring the rules to a level of quality to rival more modern miniature war games such as AT-43, FoW, or Warmachine/Hordes.

Happy Gaming,

Russ

P.S. The above doesn't mean I think 40k will cease to be dominant miniature war game played on the planet. Rules are only part of the equation. 40k still has the best fluff and models on the planet (IMHO) and I think this overcomes the rules weeknesses that many of us whine about. And its why people like the good folks at Adeptus Windy Cit and Yak are willing to spend hours writting their own "adendum" to the base rule set to make the game more playable in a competative environment.

One thing I have to add (in favor of that defensive weapon rule!) is, that there should be a difference if the vehicle moves or not. There should be a decision involved. In 4th, especially for skimmers, there wasn't. You simply moved and didn't lose much.

Greets
Schepp himself

5th edition ran over my dog.

And slept with my girlfriend.

And virused my computer.

And lowered my stock portfolio.

I hate fifth edition.

stonefox wrote:Since I'm making a bunch of dave taylor copycat IG, I actually look forward to making a bunch of flamethrower+HB squads. I'm kidding myself when I think the flamethrower will actually do anything but the thought is nice.

Two words for you: "Plasma throwers"

As long as your consistant it's legal!

I was gonna believe you 'til you said

Kid_Kyoto wrote:5th edition ran over my dog.

And slept with my girlfriend.

And virused my computer.

And lowered my stock portfolio.

I hate fifth edition.

We're all basement-dwellers here. Nice try though.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:5th edition ran over my dog.

And slept with my girlfriend.

And virused my computer.

And lowered my stock portfolio.

I hate fifth edition.

You know, a little rearrangement of your sentences would yield surprisingly insightful
results.

malfred wrote:You know, a little rearrangement of your sentences would yield surprisingly insightful
results.

Oooh... lemme try...


5th edition lowered my computer.

And slept with my dog.

And virused fifth edition.

And ran over my stock portfolio.

I hate my girlfriend.


That makes less sense than it did before...

BYE

Schepp himself wrote:One thing I have to add (in favor of that defensive weapon rule!) is, that there should be a difference if the vehicle moves or not. There should be a decision involved. In 4th, especially for skimmers, there wasn't. You simply moved and didn't lose much.

Greets
Schepp himself

I like your EU flag.

5th edition doesn't have enough EU flags in it.

yakface wrote:All I can say is, enjoy Privateer Press's 'golden age' while it lasts, because it will end at some point.

When they finally max out their range of miniatures to the point where retailers can't add any new models without ceasing to carry another model PP will finally have to make the hard decisions GW has.

...

Right or wrong, CHANGE is the lifeblood of miniature gaming and why Games Workshop games have managed to last 25 years.

So yeah, I welcome the change of 5th edition. The wording in the codices and rulebook continues to get tighter and improve and I like the core values they seem to be focused on.


bring it on, I can't wait!

QFT. Well-put, thanks Yak!

My main worries are:

1. The game will slow down considerably. Deployment will be quicker, but the new wound resolution system (in original leaked PDF it's used for both shooting and combat), the new LOS rules (we will need to check model's eye view quite frequently now), the increased cover options that will have to be negotiated (I'm not talking just about terrain but also about troops in the way), plus the significantly increased number of models due to the focus on troops, will lead to a game that will take perhaps 20% to 30% longer to play. So instead of playing two games on a saturday afternoon, it will just be one game; instead of four games/day at our local tournaments, we only be able to play three. Alternately, we may be forced into smaller point totals for tournaments (perhaps 1350 instead of 1500). Many of you complain about the focus on elites and FA in 4ed; it did make for a faster game to play (and to paint).

2. More opportunities for discord between players. This is my main worry. The LOS rules in the original PDF seem to open up many new opportunities for debate. The very fact that there have been brand new rumours about a codified dispute-solving mechanism for arguments about cover saves indicates that the designers have realized that these debates will now be a common feature of 5th Ed play. Once again, these debates will not be about "is this terrain 4+ or 5+ save?", but whether "the arm of that intervening model gives me a 4+ save!" Players will now be forced into a constantly deciding between two unpalatable choices:

a) completely trust what my opponent says about what he/she can see from the model's eye (and thus worry about whether I'm being a chump and a fool) or
b) being an *** and not trust my opponent and double-check every thing he/she says about what he/she can see.

I know that I will choose a) but I think it will mean that I'm less satisfied with my experience playing the game.

On the other hand, I'm looking forward to retooling my lists and strategies for the new edition. Hopefully, the final rules will have been cleaned up in comparison to the leaked version.

I don't think that 1500-pts games will go considerably slower. 40k 5th places a premium on vehicle Transports to get Troops where they need to be, so that will speed things quite a bit. I think, on net, 1500 pts will be OK. And it'll be nice to see a step away from the oversized 1750 / 1850 pt games.

Besides, weren't laser pointers specially created to deal with 40k LOS issues?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:5th edition ran over my girlfriend.

And slept with my dog.

And virused my computer.

And lowered my stock portfolio.

I hate fifth edition.

If the situation were as above, I think you'd be crying a lot more.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:5th edition ran over my girlfriend.

And slept with my dog.

And virused my computer.

And lowered my stock portfolio.

I hate fifth edition.

If the situation were as above, I think you'd be crying a lot more.

Nah. My dog's a bitch.

yakface wrote:Right or wrong, CHANGE is the lifeblood of miniature gaming and why Games Workshop games have managed to last 25 years.

Well, call me a cynic (actually, you don't have to call me a cynic as I know I am one), but however right or wrong that comment is Yak, I can't get past the fact that the change in GW's rules are not borne of a desire to improve the game, such as the guys writing BattleTech who have strived for years to get a tight ruleset, but to alter the rules to push a new shiny model that they've just made.

Change isn't always bad, but GW change is just to sell something new and to make things we already own worse.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

yakface wrote:Right or wrong, CHANGE is the lifeblood of miniature gaming and why Games Workshop games have managed to last 25 years.

Well, call me a cynic (actually, you don't have to call me a cynic as I know I am one), but however right or wrong that comment is Yak, I can't get past the fact that the change in GW's rules are not borne of a desire to improve the game, such as the guys writing BattleTech who have strived for years to get a tight ruleset, but to alter the rules to push a new shiny model that they've just made.

Change isn't always bad, but GW change is just to sell something new and to make things we already own worse.

BYE

Ehhh, I'm not so sure I'm 100% behind this kind of thought.

IF what you were saying was true. Then it makes sense to see Terminators get invalidated as most people have them (2 Assault Cannons or heavy weapons per squad). Or Fex's become stupid with more than one gun on them, or for Falcons to get nerfed into Oblivion.

But at the same time, they're not making things that already suck like Spawn, Possessed, Chaos Terminators, or all the other shiny new models they put out all that much "better".

I think they're making the changes they are because they want to balance the game. I think they see the "Power Lists" as a mistake to be corrected.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:And lowered my stock portfolio...

If you're stock's with GW I wouldn't tempt fate.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Besides, weren't laser pointers specially created to deal with 40k LOS issues?

Are you serious???? Does anyone actually use a laser pointer? I've never felt the need to use a laser pointer and I have a knee-jerk reaction against such things. It sorta brings up images of TFG for me.

EDIT: I hope your /sarcasm was on JohnhwangDD, because mine wasn't and I took what you said literally.

I DO remember a laser pointer shadow box kind of thing
that was built to stand at floor level and point laser beams
at model's eye level.

I used to play a guy who used a laser pointer, and he was a TFG. Especially when I asked to use it in order to prove him wrong (turned out I was right, and he was ultra-pissy about it).

Personally I like the part of the 5th edition rumours where on a roll of 5+ Jervis Johnson promises to come to your house and piss in your corn flakes.

Nurglitch wrote:Personally I like the part of the 5th edition rumours where on a roll of 5+ Jervis Johnson promises to come to your house and piss in your corn flakes.

On a natural 6 he eats asparagus before he does.

Polonius wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Personally I like the part of the 5th edition rumours where on a roll of 5+ Jervis Johnson promises to come to your house and piss in your corn flakes.

On a natural 6 he eats asparagus before he does.

Mmmmmm.... fragrant.

In all seriousness, I'm not horribly worried about 5th edition. I have some concerns, but as the owner of two armies each over 6000points painted, with 4k each of two semi painted armies, I know I can handle changes in game balance.

One thing I've noticed in a lot of threads is that people post, making sweeping generalizations based on their own, often minotiry, circumstances. I'm not calling anybody out, but if you're a member of a solid gaming club where everybody has large collections, or a brutal balls out competitive clan, or game exclusively with 4 other dudes in your basement, that colors how you view changes to the game. I propose that it would help discourse if people, when talking about the implications a chance will have on the way they play, or while denying that any such change would occur, they remind/inform us as to HOW they play.

A guy with 6000pts of Black Legion that plays for fun probably loves the new Chaos book, while the guy with a carefully crafted 2000pt Emperor's children army with all sonic weaponry and 12 Daemonettes on steeds feels a little differently. If you can't see how one person would have far more cause then the other to feel bad, then you really need an empathy upgrade.

I'm certainly not calling anybody's opinions incorrect, quite the opposite. When I realized that JohnH, for example, plays casually in small point games, his posts made more sense! Knowing that HBMC games with a clutch of hard core gamers, I see where his critiques of GW's design come from.

Context is everything, especially for opinions. Keep that in mind when posting, because this is the internet: you have to assume that everybody that reads your words will assume the worst.

Schepp himself wrote:One thing I have to add (in favor of that defensive weapon rule!) is, that there should be a difference if the vehicle moves or not. There should be a decision involved. In 4th, especially for skimmers, there wasn't. You simply moved and didn't lose much.

I think I would be much happier making decisions about how many weapons could fire off my tanks if I knew my tanks might survive more than a round, or at least be able to dish out damage every turn like the almighty Dev squad. However, in a game where shaking a vehicle (or worse, stunning it!) means your decisions are made for you, I don't think arbitrarily making the vehicle's abilities decline is the way to go.

I'd be really happy if they incorporated structure points for normal vehicles. It would really help distinguish how tough a tank is, and might even lead to seeing landraiders on the table again. The binary nature of tanks is frustrating for the points you pay.

Falcons get a lot of flakk because they can deliver troops to their location without dying. But realistically, a Falcon doesn't get many opportunities to dish out damage. I haven't heard one iota of kvetching about Prisms--probably because they don't transport anything.

Devilfish were a pain because of Chevron maneuver, but now that skimmers won't block line of sight, that's taken care of, and there really isn't a need to decrease the firepower of such an expensive tank (same goes for the bloody chimera!)

I don't know anyone who complained about predators, leman russes, or landraiders... of course, since they're getting a universal points drop, maybe that'll work out with increased survivability & decreased firepower.

I know I'll be planting my Leman Russ & Demolisher in a copse of trees with sponson plasma cannons, waiting for the opponent to come to me. 4th was nice in that it encouraged me to move my tanks with my infantry--I could fire ordnance on the move, albeit with less accuracy, but that's okay because I could actually support my fragile troops who've lost their efficiency by moving.

Uh, skimmers never did block line of sight in 4th edition. See p.20 of the rulebook.

whitedragon wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Besides, weren't laser pointers specially created to deal with 40k LOS issues?

Are you serious???? Does anyone actually use a laser pointer? I've never felt the need to use a laser pointer and I have a knee-jerk reaction against such things. It sorta brings up images of TFG for me.

EDIT: I hope your /sarcasm was on JohnhwangDD, because mine wasn't and I took what you said literally.

Sort of serious.

I own a laser pointer, and have used it in the past where my opponents *insisted* on "true" model's eye LOS.

It is a pain in the ass to play this way, and for that reason, I prefer Magic Cylinder and "solid" objects. It keeps everything a lot simpler and less wierd.

But I'll have you know that I've used that laser pointer to thread ML fire over woods, *through* a hole in a building wall, around a hill to take out a Whirlwind...

Again, if it were my choice, that kind of shooting would be illegal, but if GW insists on true model's eye LOS, I'm sure that the batteries are still good.

KiMonarrez wrote:

beef wrote:People on Dakka Still complaining . . .Check
Me complaining about people still complaining... Check

Beef using horrible spelling, incomplete sentences and crap grammar.... UNCHECK!?!?!

WHO ARE YOU, AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH BEEF!?!?!

I have started an English Lit degree so I thought it would be wise to spell things correctly.

But dont fear my late nights posts will still occasionally be badly written.