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.

Thanks!

G

Wonky is a word i encourage the use of.

Hmmm what I hate about 5Ed....

TLOS w Forests ( as usually built today to allow figs to stand in them.) They are now orchards because the area that represented all the foliage and dead falls, was left open.

5th Ed true forests (Kiss your paint jobs goodbye, they will be thickets of bushes, brambles and whatnot.) Your figs will just have to lay in the mess all because you can't use your imagination anymore and you should fork out 10$ for the cute little laser pointer.

Sisters of Battle and Tau. Everyone gets a cover save from damage... Oh you are a SoB Immolator with twin heavy bolters and you spend the points to make it ignore all cover saves... You say you popped your smoke launcher.... hmmm 4 marker lights, and one seeker missile and your smoke does nothing....

Any skimmer tank is overpriced ...
4th Edition Falcon.... 115 + 15 for scatterlaser + 10 for spirit stone + 35 for holofield.

Falcon moves 12" fires the pulse laser and the scatterlaser....

4 lascannons shoot at it... 3 hit. roll a 2, 4 and a 6 ... 2 glances.
5th ed same cost

Falcon moves 6" and fires both weapons.

4 lascannons shoot ... same results but now we have two pens instead of two glances.

Oh you can get a cover save if you move it fast... don't mind that you can't fire a weapon and it is a 50/50 save unless you are facing
tau and then they can marker light your cover away....


So much for what I hate.

I do like the new scenarios and the kill points. It adds a new dimension to army builds as you have to hold objectives with troops (or play denial with non-troop choices). The kill points really make you think about running squads at minimum sizes. It may be good to play small squads in some scenarios but you will pay the price for the easy kill points if it is that one. I also like that the focus on killing the costliest squad is gone. A squad is a squad for kill points.

Ramming... Always wondered why landraiders didn't just steamroll over ork buggies and trucks.

DAaddict wrote:...

...

...

Sisters of Battle and Tau. Everyone gets a cover save from damage... Oh you are a SoB Immolator with twin heavy bolters and you spend the points to make it ignore all cover saves... You say you popped your smoke launcher.... hmmm 4 marker lights, and one seeker missile and your smoke does nothing....

...

...

Don't be such a hayta on Tau. The markerlight was the same in 4th edition. The only difference is that now it's easier to get cover saves the markerlight becomes essential rather than a nifty option.

It costs a lot to get four markerlights and a seeker missile.

Tau didn't get much love from 5th edition.

I think Skimmers are now much more fairly costed. It always bugged me how hard they were before. Actually, skimmer tank shock is what bugged me the most. Even when tankshocking troops in a forest, they somehow also simultaenously hovered over the trees avoiding danger. WTF?
And only being able to hit them on 6s in combat sucked.

insaniak wrote:
That still uses True LOS, because you're targeting the unit, not the individual models.

Then how come only models with TLOS can fire out of the firing unit? I mean why can't they shoot through buildings if their buddies with LOS can?

insaniak wrote:
...but only affected area terrain.

True... What can I say, we played with a lot of Area terrain.

I liked Area Terrain better because it was faster, easier, and was not the result of 2 different peoples opinions.

But seriously, 5th is cool. I like it for a change if nothing else. Is it better the 4th? First impression, yes, currently I think it is up in the air.

methoderik wrote:
Then how come only models with TLOS can fire out of the firing unit? I mean why can't they shoot through buildings if their buddies with LOS can?

The answer, though you might not like it, is because this is what leads to the best GAMING. It's fast and easy to adjudicate, where in previous editions this was a difficult fiddly part of the game.

I think 5th edition is a better game in each and every major aspect of the rules.

My most recent 5th edition games (five at the LVGT) were all without any major rules disputes. The closest I came was involving my Hammerhead drawing LOS over a unit that was right in front of it. My opponent wasn't really aware that you were allowed to draw LOS over a unit (as opposed to through it), but once I explained it to him he seemed fine with it.

Beyond that, the entire weekend went by without even a single hitch and I pretty much never had to even get the rulebook out for anything. The games all played much faster than they used to and besides my one game against the 189 model drop IG army (which I had no real chance against) it was my tactical choices and mistakes that determined whether or not I won or lost the game (and by how much).


As I've said before, the imbalance between 'true' LOS and the abstraction of casualty removal works because the player shooting gets to move his models and then shoot in the same turn. It is the best system for an army scale you-go/I-go style of game while still maintaining the relationship with the three-dimensional models and terrain.

wound allocation can indeed take a slight bit longer than in 4th edition, but the truth is after a few games it becomes second nature and is once again not an issue. The blessing of the system is that it is one fairly basic rule that applies to all units. Once you 'get' how the rule works that's all you need to know. Contrast this with 4th edition's casualty removal rules:

4th edition casualty removal rules
A) Basic casualty removal rules work fine (the unit has all the same armor save).
B) Torrent of Fire rule often forgotten by players.
C) No real rules for units that have the same armor save but contain some models with invulnerable saves (or differing invulnerable saves).
D) Fairly complex mixed armor rules that were often screwed up (to varying degrees) by new and veteran players alike.
E) No real rules in the mixed armor rules for models with differing invulnerable saves but the same basic armor save.


All that has been replaced with a system that, admittedly is a bit slower in some cases, is still much, much easier to understand overall and handles any situation.


The new close combat rules simply condense what would take several rounds to accomplish into (typically) a single round of combat and the ensuing resolution. When charging into combat you must be reasonably sure that you actually have the best assault unit for the job. If you aren't going to win combat, then you just can't go charging in as you *will* lose and your unit *will* get mauled.

So yeah, when charging 10 Marines into 30 Orks it is going to seem like their I4 is pointless because you're sending an inferior CC unit to fight against a superior one and the combat results are going to show that. However, if you charge 10 marines in against *10* Orks, all of a sudden their I4 attacks make a world of difference as the marines are now the superior CC unit and will likely win combat.

Allowing players to pull CC casualties from models that aren't engaged just represents that the combats tend to 'surge together' as the combatants clash. A single round of combat now represents the vast majority of the models involved getting their chance to attack (and be attacked) with the overall outcome of the combat being decisively decided in a single round.


Fifth edition is just a better game all-around.

What he said.

Yakface is the warm fuzzy center of a completely logical universe.

One of the first guys I played when I started in 3rd edition had extra big rhinos he had scratch built. He said the normal model wouldn't fit 10 so he built one that would. While I thought that was neat I also thought he was missing the point. The whole game is an abstraction.

The only thing that would make 5th better is if their was a version of the game that dealt with space combat, or at least around the planet your minis fight over. Kind of like BFG and 40K combined. After all, almost all of the novels are like that.

WC_Brian wrote:

Yakface is the warm fuzzy center of a completely logical universe.

You mean Azathoth, I hope?

yakface wrote:
...
...

wound allocation can indeed take a slight bit longer than in 4th edition, but the truth is after a few games it becomes second nature and is once again not an issue. The blessing of the system is that it is one fairly basic rule that applies to all units. Once you 'get' how the rule works that's all you need to know. Contrast this with 4th edition's casualty removal rules:

4th edition casualty removal rules
A) Basic casualty removal rules work fine (the unit has all the same armor save).
B) Torrent of Fire rule often forgotten by players.
C) No real rules for units that have the same armor save but contain some models with invulnerable saves (or differing invulnerable saves).
D) Fairly complex mixed armor rules that were often screwed up (to varying degrees) by new and veteran players alike.
E) No real rules in the mixed armor rules for models with differing invulnerable saves but the same basic armor save.

...
...

And Majority Toughness!

I never ever really understood the 4e wound allocation rules.

Plus the range and LoS sniping.

5th edition sucks because I didn't have a single rules argument phase in any of LVGT games.

I miss bickering over some talmudic interpretation of what the rules may have meant.

It also sucks because all of my games were fun and fast.

I hate 5th edition because I have to admit GW isn't full of completely mindless idiots whose sole lot in life is to make their customers unhappy.

Rofl, Somnicide. Spoken like some git who has actually played some 5th ed, not just sat there hating.

There's a few minor tweaks that need to be made to the system, but overall - I agree wiht Somnicide and Yak. 5th is a much better game. I only had one game go down to the wire at LVGT. Otherwise all the rest were done with at least 45 minutes left to go in the round. That is just awesome.

Actually the biggest problem with 5th edition is that its too much like 3rd and 4th edition. Personally I think we are playing 3.2 right now. Its always minor changes and nothing ever gets fixed without breaking something else.

They should have taken this opportunity to change 5th like they did going from 2nd to 3rd. Total revamp of mechanics. Change dice from the D6 to D10. Change over statlines for greater variation of races. Then just start over like they did back then.

Jayden63 wrote: Change dice from the D6 to D10.

This is actually one of the worst ideas ever. The current BS to hit chart, S vs T chart, and the WS vs WS chart are the best things in the game.

Such a sea change would be a big effort for the design studio and a major leap of faith.

They've spent the past 28 years with the basic mechanics of D6 to hit, D6 to wound, D6 to save (it's basically the same even in Warmaster Ancients.)

This simple formula has served them well. Are there any other tabletop wargame companies that are even half the size of GW?

To junk that whole heritage and start from scratch would be walking the edge of the abyss.

I think somnicide puts it best. I find that my games are faster (with the exception of wound allocation, and then only in case of torrent of fire), and I find that it seems GW has taken a turn for the better.

biztheclown wrote:

methoderik wrote:
Then how come only models with TLOS can fire out of the firing unit? I mean why can't they shoot through buildings if their buddies with LOS can?

The answer, though you might not like it, is because this is what leads to the best GAMING. It's fast and easy to adjudicate, where in previous editions this was a difficult fiddly part of the game.

Why would I not like your answer? It is a game. Besides, your opinion, is not my answer.

I don't think TLOS is fast and easy to adjudicate. That is why I don't like it. Try determining how many boys in a unit of 30, inside a ruin with a back wall, has LOS on unit X.

And yes, I know that is more of a terrain problem than a rule problem. Or is it? I dislike how rules are going to now affect the terrain I make/use.

Yak, I saw pics of the boards you guys were using at the GT. I can see how terrain like that (looked less than 25% to me, and pretty boring) would make the TLOS very easy/fast.

yakface wrote:
I think 5th edition is a better game in each and every major aspect of the rules.

[SNIP]

Fifth edition is just a better game all-around.

Generally agreed. 5th plays faster, better and, smoother than 4th, which did a passable job of compiling the various Trial Rules from 3rd into something semi-coherent. Yes, there are nits (I'm not sold on how KPs are in the rulebook), but not nearly the problems from before.

I have a major dig on 5th that just cracks me up, I laugh everytime I think about because the game effect is completely backward from what one would expect. Its cover, because friendly and enemy models cause cover saves, they are good at stopping high AP shots right? and low AP volume of fire is fine. The same is true for basic cover as well, trees and whathave you...

Think about that for a second, so interupting a line of fire grants a cover save, for big guns but not small ones.

The irony is, you can shoot Machine Guns through your own troops at enemy units in cover and none of it has any effect! Oh, but try and shoot a big gun, like a big tank cannon, plasma cannon or antitank gun like a rail gun and they get a cover save?

Thats just laughable, ist exactly backwards, cover ought to help from the rate of fire weapons, you shouldnt be able to shoot machines guns through your own guys at no penalty and high power weapons like ordinance and high explosive ought to blast through cover anyway AND IT IS PERFECTLY BACKWARD.

Its pretty funny, and things like this is why historical players laugh at GW guys.

Rightly so IMO.

Nah, you are assuming marines. Play orks or eldar or nids or daemons and then your save is much better.

PS here is the long list:

MISSIONS SUCK

KILL POINTS are completely unfair, KPratios or Old VPs would be better but (ZOMG MATH + KIDS OH THE NOES)
Tau drones are a KP? A squads Trans is a KP? Every IG squad in a box is a KP? Armies get no adv. for having more KP? WTF?

SCORING OBJ taking is poorly thought out:
1 turbo boosting bike (or any vehicle or unit) contests an objective from multiple scoring troop units?
Static shooter armies don't have a chance in OBJ grabber missions? No defensive missions?
A scoring unit can claim multiple OBJs?

DAWN OF WAR is a complete pain, taking opponents OBJ in their zone, immpossible for some armies.

RESERVE ROLLS are still in the game

CLOSE COMBAT SUCKS

Overunning whole units in 1 melee, really?

Counter charge is way to forgiving, so enemy units are NEVER caught off guard by a charge, like NEVER? They alwasy get to pile in and strike? Really?

Combat resolution morale check are moronic, so outnumbering is meaningless? Really?

Armor saves for fearless units is ridiculous, so 8 gaunts die the tyranids loose and the carnifex and stealer unit in the same melee both make 8 saves because....?

Negatives in CC count for every squad, so IG kill 2/4 marines and loose 7/30 guys, technically they are winning the melee, but they ALL take tests at -5, from 2 MARINES? Really? One more round and they would win right? STUPID.

MOST DIRECT ROUTE NONSENSE? SO I can charge into melee without rolling difficult checks,.... but its not the closest route, so I have to roll the difficult check and MAYBE RISK NOT MAKING IT? You have to be kidding, I could just go around the obstacle and make it? DUMB, and with dangerous terrain tests, when they could be avoided, especially wrecks? Yer kidding right my guys arent smart enough to go around it? ABSURD

COVER SUCKS

Everyone (read "all key assault units") with grenades strike in I order so defending an OBJ/wall/trench is pointless, might as well be in the open

Your own Models give the enemy cover saves, Really? Oh right, unless they are in the same squad, then they dont. So which way is it? DUMB

1 guy in LOS and range, Whole squad dies? Really?

HIT ALLOCATION IS DUMB

Some armies have characters like exarchs and chaos icons that grant powers until they are gone, other armies just get the power, imagine if marines vet sarge died they lost tank hunter in the squad, yea, 2 standards here which is it guys? DUMB

WASTING WOUNDS IN SQUADS Hit allocation ought to be for every model, but with the group thing, wounds get wasted now on double fails depending on who the hits are on, kind of gamey and ... WONKY yea

VEHICLES ARE DUMB

Why do asaulters hit rear armor? Yer kidding right?

OH AND LETS MAKE TANKS MOVE LESS TO FIRE TOO because that makes sense.

DENFENSIVE WEAPONS are stupid and fly in the face of what they have been for years. Lets here it for everyone out there with ELdar tanks w/ 2x S6 guns as extras... Or IG players with tripple HBs on the Lemans

SPONSONS on tanks need to fire independantly. Oh right, still cant seperate fire for imperial tanks with sponsons.... SO how do I shoot all this again? "Hold RIGHT Gunner the left heavy bolter gunner wants to shoot what you cant see so wait? Hello, DUMB.

TANKS have a hard time moving and firing, because..... ?

Yea theres more

(I kind of like 5th but there are a lot of dumb things in it.)

Agree again with Somnicide. Put something besides inhuman defenders of humanity wrapped in tank armour into the equation, and you get a very different ball game.

Augustus wrote:lots of stuff

That's just like, your opinion, dude.

Seriously, a lot of those things I would say make more sense. If you are charging, you don't take the long way to get to a unit, why do you think they make army guys practice climbing stuff. Also, vehicles are incredibly susceptible to infantry swarming it, placing grenades in the tracks and shooting into view ports and stuff so hitting on the rear armor is completely reasonable.

I have more to dispute but honestly don't care enough.

I do agree that KP suck.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozymandias, I admit I wrote in a dramatic style, but even in an abstract game balance sense explain to me how always hitting rear armor is better than before>?

Does it reward careful play? No

Does it correct an old imbalance? No

Does it make any sense in the points of previously overpowered or to cheap vehicles, maybe for Eldar but everyone else? Not really.

All it does is make it stupidly easy to destroy tanks in assault. Which is good why? It's NOT better, it is just different and possibly worse.

Even with my dramatic style before, I posit that 5th is NO BETTER, its just a different recipe of novel and stupid.

I can't wait for 3 more years of codex rewrites so we can get some corrections for the really glaring stuff.

grizgrin wrote:Agree again with Somnicide. Put something besides inhuman defenders of humanity wrapped in tank armour into the equation, and you get a very different ball game.

Well OK, considering in my last tourney I played: Marines, Marines, Marines, Chaos Marines, Deathwing and Tau I think that is spot on....

Whats the next dex: Marines right? (Again)

Isn't everyone also saying volume of fire is king? Yea, they are.

Somnicide wrote:Nah, you are assuming marines. Play orks or eldar or nids or daemons and then your save is much better.

OK, but what about when it IS Marines (or Necrons/Chaos/Tau/3+Sv Eldar)? Cover doesn't do ANYTHING versus machine guns? This doesn't sound silly at all to you?

Ever play a Non GW game?

yakface wrote:
The new close combat rules simply condense what would take several rounds to accomplish into (typically) a single round of combat and the ensuing resolution. When charging into combat you must be reasonably sure that you actually have the best assault unit for the job. If you aren't going to win combat, then you just can't go charging in as you *will* lose and your unit *will* get mauled.

I agree with many of your points, but this one I do not. Well, I agree with what you say, but I don't believe that it makes for a better game. Some armies don't have good assault units. Some armies rely on delaying maneuvers to get them by in close-combat. As in, send ten more guardsmen into that assault over there to keep it tied up for another turn or two. That's not an unrealistic approach, and it's an approach favoured by the fluff. But it just doesn't work anymore. Those ten guardsmen charge into their delaying action, lose by three, break, and are cut down.

Redbeard wrote:Some armies don't have good assault units.

And so should not do well in close combat.