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.

Somnicide wrote: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.

I agree with this post 100%.

live with it, or leave it.

why do you keep playing it if you don't like it? DUMB

cheers?
Gutteridge

Augustus wrote: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

Between the change to the damage table, the reduced effectiveness of glancing hits and potential cover saves for vehicles overall they have gotten much more durable against enemy firepower. So yes, I think it is a fair balance to make vehicles weaker in close combat.

Redbeard wrote:
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.

I've found the need for delaying maneuvers to be greatly lessened in 5th edition because in general enemy assaulters kill or wipe out their opponents when they charge them.

Although it of course does still happen where you need to attempt this kind of tactic, but the difference is you just can't send in an extra squad and count on the assault sticking around. You actually have to send in enough attacks to give yourself a chance to win (or to at least not lose too badly).

And even if you do lose but you have like three squads in combat you increase your chance of rolling a really low Ld test to keep one of those squads locked in combat.

The point is, these are now truly desperate measures. If you send some guys into a combat knowing they're going to die, they're probably going to die immediately. Just as combat armies don't get the 'free trick' of consolidating into new combats, firepower armies don't get the 'free trick' of getting to send in a cheap extra unit to keep combat going for only one more phase.


As a shooty army if a combat ends up drawn you have three choices:

1) Get your other squads the heck out of there.
2) Send in enough units to hope to win the fight or get lucky with a low Ld test.
3) Continue on business as usual shooting at the rest of the enemy but spread your units near the combat out so the enemy unit can't charge more than one unit.



Personally as a Guard/Tau player, I greatly prefer the fact that combats tend to be over in one phase and the fact that assaulters can't consolidate into fresh units more than the fact that on those rare times when a combat does end drawn I have less ability to delay the combat with a counter-charge.

I *do* like the fact that if I'm going to charge models into combat now, I actually have to have some expectation of actually winning the combat.

Not being able to consolidate into fresh enemy is a huge thing for both assaulty and shooty armies. IG are especially affected. And that squad of ten guardsmen CAN be sent over to a CC to further a delaying action. They just don't charge in immediately, they can position themselves between Uber Scary Assault Unit currently in CC and whatever juicy target they might care to bone. Get in a round of fire with that almighty lasgun, and more importantly the supporting fire. Force them to charge you.

Quite frankly, there are units designed to just tarpit other assault units (spinegaunts, conscripts, swarms of various descriptions) which can't do thier job any more.

Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen... ah who am I kidding... just Gentlemen.

It's a fine night here at Exaggeration Theatre and boy do we have a show for you tonight.

Our act really needs no introduction, but he is the ace of ad hominem, the tyrant of tautologies and the steward of straw men - please people, give it up for Somnicide!

[applause]
[/applause]

But I'll not keep you any longer! Let's get onto the show and the incredible first act:

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

Incredible folks! Truly inspiring work. It's the gaming equivalent of 'Won't someone think of the children' - something that is automatically true and cannot be argued against without sounding like an idiot whilst simultaneously attempting to belittle all who do not immediately fall upon the alter of 5th Ed. I see awards in this man's future. Awards I say!!!

Onto the second act:

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

Is this man not an artist? He further enriches and enhances the nuance of his previous inarguable position. It's enough to make even this hard-boiled critic a bit teary-eyed!

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

In this still-amazing third act, the tautilogical nature of his performance is beginning to wear a little thin. I feel this section of his act is the weakest, and needs an increased level ad hominem to really bring out the sparkle and pizzazz that dominates the first half of the show.

Somnicide wrote: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.

Bravo! Bravo!

My friends what performance at Exaggeration Theatre would be complete without an off-base, hollow and down-right straw-coloured exagerated hasty generalisation! You'll notice that not a single person has ever claimed GW is out to make their customers unhappy, but Somnicide has stared the people of the audience right in the face and brazenly said "Damn you and your logic! Damn you and your opinions! I'm gonna say what I want and make up whatever nonsense I feel necessary and there's nothing that you can do to stop me!!!!" and we can do nothing but stand back, captivated and in total awe of his meaningless majesty!

So come now people! Throw accolades. Throw flowers. Throw insults. This man deserves them all! His performance here is second to one (you know who you are, DD) and we should praise him for his inanity.

Again, bravo! What a performance!



Somnicide - I'm going to make this very clear for you.

Statements like this one:

"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."

Do not help you. It's all well and good to disagree with someone on their opinion of the game, but pointless things like the above statement (specifically when no one, at any point, has claimed that GW's aim is to make people unhappy - their aim, obviously, is to make money by whatever means necessary) are bad for you, and for everyone else.

If you're going to get into arguments in 'the intarwebs' it helps to learn how argue first.

Understood? Good.

BYE

yakface wrote:
I've found the need for delaying maneuvers to be greatly lessened in 5th edition because in general enemy assaulters kill or wipe out their opponents when they charge them.

Ignoring that there are units that exist for just this purpose, as Skyth pointed out, this change removes the possibility for 'good play' from the game, replacing it with "well, that would have happened anyway."

I think that detracts from the overall game experience. In my opinion, a good game has a number of opportunities for smart play to overcome differences in stats. A good game has both strategic and tactical opportunities that are more important than the simple numbers game that is rolling dice.

The new assault rules remove this. There are no tactics involved in assault anymore. None. You declare a charge, that's a strategic decision. And then you follow a very specific set of rules to move all your pieces, and then your opponent follows the same rules to move his, and then you both roll dice and then the loser runs away. Or doesn't.

There are no choices that either player can make to alter this. Once the strategic decision to charge has been made, the game practically goes on auto-pilot until a result is obtained. And, while many people refered to casualty removal tactics as shenanigans, the fact was that they allowed a more skilled player an edge over the raw statistical matchup that two assault units had. I agree, some of the casualty removal tricks were dumb. I did not like (although I understood) the ability to deny a model it's attacks by pulling the right models.

But, I think the 5e way of doing things take away from the skill required to play the game well, rendering it into little more than a dice-rolling fest. Some people may like that. Some people like not having to think about their move and just getting a result. Some people might like how this speeds up the game. I dislike how it dumbs down the game.

40k has never been a deep strategy game. Your big questions have been things like "what unit do I want to shoot at" or "do I want to move or shoot". But, there was a level of tactics in 4e. Some people called those tactics "dirty tricks". But, they're no more a dirty-trick than a knight-fork is a dirty trick in chess. The rules weren't written in invisible ink, only available to members of the right secret society, they were published for everyone to use.

In your games of 5e, what actual tactical plays have you seen? Because in my games, I haven't seen any. All semblance of tactical play has been stripped from the game, in the name of streamlining, and preventing arguments. Every choice a player is called to make is now a strategic one, and, unfortunately, 40k doesn't feature very involved strategies. This makes the game less interesting to me.

And once more, HBMC, I will point out that you have said repeatedly and loudly that you don't play so your opinion counts for exactly zero. It's like taking medical advice from a guy who watches House, M.D.

Next time I have a Battletech question, you will definitely be the guy I go to, though.

edit:
There is no straw man argument. Silly me, I was under the impression that one played a game for fun. I have fun PLAYING the game. My post said that. Am I not allowed to decide what is fun for me? That seems to be the entire underpinning of your argument. "I don't like the way that the rules look and am therefore not going to waste my time playing with them. Instead I will just waste my time bitching and waste every one else's time on a board of which I used to have a bit of respect back when I actually played. I don't like the rules, so anyone who does is an idiot or has no idea how to have fun."

edit the second: And for what it is worth, I actually played against two females at the last GT. While women are still in the minority, there are more than ever, so you can keep the ladies and gentlemen barker intro. Barker's, incidentally, are notorious con men and liars, so doesn't really strengthen your argument. And yes, I know sarcasm.

Redbeard wrote:
40k has never been a deep strategy game. Your big questions have been things like "what unit do I want to shoot at" or "do I want to move or shoot". But, there was a level of tactics in 4e. Some people called those tactics "dirty tricks". But, they're no more a dirty-trick than a knight-fork is a dirty trick in chess. The rules weren't written in invisible ink, only available to members of the right secret society, they were published for everyone to use.

I hear this argument, but I don't agree. I don't think that these tricks (range sniping, assault pining, attack denial through casualty removal, etc.) were "dirty." I do think though, that they were obscure and hard to teach to other players. I was very very good at these assault tactics, but other people were not, and it was kind of baffling to them. Since 5th, I have had an equal or greater amount of fun playing. The rest of my group has had just tons more fun however, as games are faster and more straightforward. I think 5th is a game that will appeal to a lot more people, including gamers who didn't used to be into 40K.

Uh, I thought Somnicide was being ironical.

I guess...not...?

I haven't played 5th yet, but every time I start getting kind of excited about 40k a great weariness settles over me. Perhaps the ennui is left over from 4th ed. (which really killed my desire to play the game almost ever again). Perhaps I really am just done with the game (though I'm having fun with other games and even GW figs in other games, as cf my sig). I'm hoping to give it a shot sometime soon, once I've read the rules.

Redbeard wrote:There are no tactics involved in assault anymore.

The tactics in an assault are exactly where they should be: in deciding whether or not the unit should be charging into it in the first place.

All they've done is removed the extra little side-game that went on with model placement and casualty removal to remove your opponent's chance to strike with specific weapons, which should never have been there in the first place in a squad-based game. Now, the squad charges, and the squad fights. And if the squad is outmatched, the squad dies.

I like the changes to Transports. I think Defensive Weapons for vehicles should be defined on a tank-per-tank basis.

Rhino chasis: S4.
Russ chasis: S5.
Skimmers: S6.
Land Raider: S9 (S10?).

etc.

So Preds pill box but Russes can move and shoot.

insaniak wrote:

Redbeard wrote:There are no tactics involved in assault anymore.

The tactics in an assault are exactly where they should be: in deciding whether or not the unit should be charging into it in the first place.

All they've done is removed the extra little side-game that went on with model placement and casualty removal to remove your opponent's chance to strike with specific weapons, which should never have been there in the first place in a squad-based game. Now, the squad charges, and the squad fights. And if the squad is outmatched, the squad dies.

Well said.

insaniak wrote:

Redbeard wrote:There are no tactics involved in assault anymore.

The tactics in an assault are exactly where they should be: in deciding whether or not the unit should be charging into it in the first place.

All they've done is removed the extra little side-game that went on with model placement and casualty removal to remove your opponent's chance to strike with specific weapons, which should never have been there in the first place in a squad-based game. Now, the squad charges, and the squad fights. And if the squad is outmatched, the squad dies.

Why bother having individual models then? Why have models at all when a big gelatenious blob would work just as well? Its just dumbing down the game, and squad vs squad or not, its taking the fun away from the thinking general. If I want to play a game aimed at 12 yr olds or something that plays itself I'll go play any number of Hasbro board games.

Your right, thats the way that it works now, but it doesn't mean its better.

Jayden63 wrote:Why bother having individual models then? Why have models at all when a big gelatenious blob would work just as well?

Because a big gelatinous blob is harder to place around terrain, for starters.

We use individual models because it's a miniature wargame, and individual models look better.

The rules are aimed at units rather than individuals because they're meant to be functional for large games. Rules that interact completely on a model-by-model basis are fine for small skirmish games, where you only have a handful of models to worry about. But as we discovered in 2nd edition, the larger the game, the more bogged down it gets.

The game is still a very long way from 'playing itself'... It has simply evolved from a model-based game to a (mostly) squad-based game. This has been a gradual progression ever since Rogue Trader was first released, because people kept wanting to play larger and larger games.

The tactics aren't gone. The focus has simply shifted.

If the tactics aren't gone, tell me where the tactics are. Because deciding whether a squad should charge another is not a tactical decision, it's a strategic one.

And, if 40k is meant to be just a strategic game, then what's with the super-hero characters? The very idea of a single character who can single-handedly beat 30 men speaks volumes about the strategic nature of the game.

Tarpitting should be a valid move. It isn't. I can throw 50 conscripts into a fight with Marneus and they're gone almost instantly. Shouldn't it take at least some time for him to slaughter that many people?

Again, I'd rather play a game where a few smart decisions at the right time can turn the tide of the game. I like games that reward skill. I like games that aren't entirely a comparison of stats.

5e combat, to me, is really boring. You know who is going to win before the charge is declared. You know there is nothing you can do about it. You can't throw more weak troops into the equation and hope to accomplish anything except losing those weak troops.

I haven't seen, or played, or even heard stories about any 5e games where a lone-firewarrior bought his army a win by staying alive 3 extra turns. I have heard, and seen, and played, a lot of games where an assault unit swept its target off the board on the turn it charged.

Redbeard: From what I looked at (haven't played it yet) 5th assaults seem to be more about co-ordination of several units.
To my mind, that is a good change from the "one uber unit consolidates and army to death" approach of 4th.

Redbeard wrote: Because deciding whether a squad should charge another is not a tactical decision, it's a strategic one.

They're the same thing. 'Tactics' and 'strategy' both simply refer to the way you coordinate your troops on the board.

5th edition is more about they way your units act in concert than about the exact placement of any single specific model in close combat.

Tarpitting should be a valid move. It isn't.

It is. But you need to pick your fight.

Yes, the balance of combat has shifted. That simply means you need to re-evaluate what each of your squads can handle, and give them adequate support if necessary.

I can throw 50 conscripts into a fight with Marneus and they're gone almost instantly. Shouldn't it take at least some time for him to slaughter that many people?

Should it take a model geared for close combat any significant amount of time to beat a similar points value of models who are most definitely not combat-oriented?

No, of course it shouldn't.

Again, I'd rather play a game where a few smart decisions at the right time can turn the tide of the game. I like games that reward skill. I like games that aren't entirely a comparison of stats.

And?

Unless you're equating 'smart decisions at the right time' solely to mean 'placing your models in a particular fashion in close combat to reduce the number of attacks your opponent will get back at you' I'm not seeing a problem.

Close combat isn't the entirety of a 40K game.

You know who is going to win before the charge is declared.

You could just as easily claim that the shooting rules are boring because you already know how many casualties you're likely to inflict...

There are any number of factors that affect the actual outcome.

I haven't seen, or played, or even heard stories about any 5e games where a lone-firewarrior bought his army a win by staying alive 3 extra turns.

Good. That suggests that such a situation will be rare, as it should be, rather than the norm, which it frequently was in previous editions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strategy

Go down to the synonyms part. Tactics and strategy in the military sense of the words aren't the same thing. Redbeard is correct to say that there are no tactics in assault because there is no skillful way to maneuver your models to gain an advantage.

insaniak wrote:
They're the same thing. 'Tactics' and 'strategy' both simply refer to the way you coordinate your troops on the board.

No, they're not. If they're the same, why can you find entire books devoted to chess tactics and different books devoted to chess strategy. Yes, they both involve your models on the table, but they're hardly the same thing. Tactics is small-scale, what some people are refering to as 'skirmish' moves. Tactics relates to the position of models in a unit (or, at least, used to). Strategy is large-scale. It is how you think about all the pieces working together.

5th edition is more about they way your units act in concert than about the exact placement of any single specific model in close combat.

Yes, that's what I've been saying. There is no real tactical play in the game anymore, just large-scale choices.

Tarpitting should be a valid move. It isn't.

It is. But you need to pick your fight.

Yes, the balance of combat has shifted. That simply means you need to re-evaluate what each of your squads can handle, and give them adequate support if necessary.

How can you "pick your fight" when tarpitting, by definition, is throwing weaker units at stronger ones, sacrificing men for time. It's a time-honoured military concept, as old as armies themselves. You may well know that you cannot beat Hannibal's elephants, but if you can keep them occupied killing your infantry long enough, you should be able to bring your cavalry in behind the elephants...

5e doesn't have this. If your unit cannot "handle" it's opposition, it just dies, in one turn. You trade your men for nothing - worse than nothing, in fact, as your opponent gets an extra consolidation move out of it.

I can throw 50 conscripts into a fight with Marneus and they're gone almost instantly. Shouldn't it take at least some time for him to slaughter that many people?

Should it take a model geared for close combat any significant amount of time to beat a similar points value of models who are most definitely not combat-oriented?

YES! Without this possibility, what stops the game from devolving into a question of who has the best hero? Do you want to play a strategy game with an army, or a game of heroclix without the pre-painted x-men? Tarpitting is a huge boon in games that don't want heros dominating the game. Because, generally speaking, if I can occupy your 250 point hero killing 100 points of grunts for the entire game, I come out ahead. If I cannot remove a super-hero character from the game without spending an equal number of points on heros myself, the game becomes who has the best hero.

Unless you're equating 'smart decisions at the right time' solely to mean 'placing your models in a particular fashion in close combat to reduce the number of attacks your opponent will get back at you' I'm not seeing a problem.

Close combat isn't the entirety of a 40K game.

No, but the tactics were removed from other parts of the game as well. It's just most obvious in the close-combat portion of the game because that's changed the most.

Voodoo: I've often wondered aloud whether 40k would have benefited from being a smaller scale--15mm or 20mm, with squads on a shared base--especially after the transition to 3rd ed. Many many squad-based games are actually in that scale (think Stargrunt II) and it would allow much more dynamic movement, more 'natural' ranges and speeds, and resolve a lot of issues in terms of vehicles (most of the problems with vehicle survivability and utility is, imho that really, how many tanks should you be fighting in 1/56 or so scale on a 4x6' table?). There are people who play 40k in 15mm as well and they seem to really like it.

Just another reminder that the game belongs to the players, and it can be played as desired.

Somnicide wrote:And once more, HBMC, I will point out that you have said repeatedly and loudly that you don't play so your opinion counts for exactly zero. It's like taking medical advice from a guy who watches House, M.D.

*sigh*

No, your statement above counts for exactly zero. You made a dumb post, included a lot of bs that no one was saying, and I called you on it. Whether I play 5th or not is completely irrelevent to the inanity of your previous statement.

Somnicide wrote:Next time I have a Battletech question, you will definitely be the guy I go to, though.

I can't claim to be a master of BTech. I haven't been playing that long. But if you want to know anything about the Imperial Guard, then I'm your guy.

Somnicide wrote:There is no straw man argument.

Yes there is. You set up an inarguable position with your first three statements - yes it's good that no arguments happened, everything was clear (and the 5th Ed rules are clear as they are well written compared to loose crap that was 4th Ed) - and no one can actually disagree with you because if they do they'd actually be advocating rules arguments.

Your final statement is where the straw starts to kick in - you go on about GW's not attempting to make their customers unhappy. No one here has claimed that they were doing that. It is infantile to say it, yet you say it anyway. Do you see how stupid it is to do that?

For example:

Person A: There are lots of things with these rules I don't like.
Person B: Well I love them, and see, GW isn't trying to make people's lives a misery with their rules.
Person A: What? I didn't say that? What are you blithering about?

Get it yet?

Somnicide wrote:Silly me, I was under the impression that one played a game for fun. I have fun PLAYING the game.

And here we are back to the inarguable position.

No one has disagreed with this at any point. No one has attempted to say otherwise.

Somnicide wrote:Am I not allowed to decide what is fun for me?

Strawman. No one has claimed you couldn't.

Somnicide wrote:That seems to be the entire underpinning of your argument.

If one lacks reading comprehension, then yes, I could see your point of view here.

Somnicide wrote:"I don't like the way that the rules look and am therefore not going to waste my time playing with them. Instead I will just waste my time bitching and waste every one else's time on a board of which I used to have a bit of respect back when I actually played. I don't like the rules, so anyone who does is an idiot or has no idea how to have fun."

Ad hominem.
Hasty generalisation.
Strawman.

Should I go on?

Somnicide wrote:edit the second: And for what it is worth, I actually played against two females at the last GT. While women are still in the minority, there are more than ever, so you can keep the ladies and gentlemen barker intro. Barker's, incidentally, are notorious con men and liars, so doesn't really strengthen your argument. And yes, I know sarcasm.

Ok...

BYE

While you can't tarpit a hero this game is definitely not decided by who has the best hero.

Redbeard how can you say this is so?

H.B.M.C. wrote:No, your statement above counts for exactly zero. You made a dumb post, included a lot of bs that no one was saying, and I called you on it. Whether I play 5th or not is completely irrelevent to the inanity of your previous statement.

I like 5th edition and I thought it was a smart post. You don't like 5th edition and you think it's a dumb post.

I do agree it was a straw man.

Redbeard wrote: Tactics is small-scale, what some people are refering to as 'skirmish' moves. Tactics relates to the position of models in a unit (or, at least, used to). Strategy is large-scale. It is how you think about all the pieces working together.

Fair point... but I'm still not seeing a problem.

40K is intended to work for larger scale games. If that means leaning more towards 'strategy' than 'tactics' then so be it.

That's simply the trade-off for having a system that lets you put more models on the board and still play a game in a reasonable time.

How can you "pick your fight" when tarpitting, by definition, is throwing weaker units at stronger ones, sacrificing men for time.

The point is that a weaker unit simply isn't going to last as long as a slightly stronger unit.

Simply throwing your weakest unit at an enemy's assault squad and hoping that it will last as long as you want it to isn't 'tactical'... it's throwing away a unit in a role for which it isn't suited.

Putting a wall in front of a tank is going to slow it down for longer than putting a speed bump there... If your unit only lasts a turn, and you wanted it to last longer, then clearly you should have used a slightly stronger unit.

It's a time-honoured military concept, as old as armies themselves.

That doesn't mean that it should always work regardless of the actual units involved.

Fighting naked swinging a gigantic sword around your head was a 'time honoured' military concept as well. Didn't work very well against certain opponents, though...

YES! Without this possibility, what stops the game from devolving into a question of who has the best hero?

The fact that if you throw a similarly points costed close combat unit at him, the outcome may well be very different?

Close combat units are good at close combat. Shooting units are good at shooting. Whether or not those units are squads or heroes is irrelevant... Throw a shooting unit into combat against an equal-pointed combat unit, and the shooty guys should lose, and lose badly.

Otherwise, what's the point of having any difference between units at all?

Seriously, it sounds like what you really want is for every model on the board to have the exact same statline, so that the game can be more 'tactical' by your win relying solely on the cleverest model placement. Or something.

Because, generally speaking, if I can occupy your 250 point hero killing 100 points of grunts for the entire game, I come out ahead.

Sure you do. But if makes no difference to that scenario whether the 250 points is a hero, a squad, or a vehicle. Either way, if you successfully tie it up for the entire game with a lower-points squad, you've come out ahead.

And you come out equally ahead if you realise that your shooting-oriented squad has no chance in close combat against a monster-assault character, and just shoot him with a lascannon in the first turn...

insaniak wrote:
The fact that if you throw a similarly points costed close combat unit at him, the outcome may well be very different?

Close combat units are good at close combat. Shooting units are good at shooting. Whether or not those units are squads or heroes is irrelevant... Throw a shooting unit into combat against an equal-pointed combat unit, and the shooty guys should lose, and lose badly.

Otherwise, what's the point of having any difference between units at all?

I agree with the above, and I believe Redbeard does as well. The thing is that the 'tarpit' units are 'close combat units' that were designed fully to tie up the uber assault units without actually killing them. They were resilient units (Paper vs the assault unit's rock) who's role is completely neutered by the new rules. That is bad game design. Pretty much the same as all the required FAQs that 'This item no longer has any function' like thornback or the one WH book that allows table edge choice.

It's a time-honoured military concept, as old as armies themselves.


That doesn't mean that it should always work regardless of the actual units involved.

Fighting naked swinging a gigantic sword around your head was a 'time honoured' military concept as well. Didn't work very well against certain opponents, though...

First off, there is a logical fallacy with the second part of the argument. I forget the name, but it involves the changing of a definition of a word/phrase to try to make an argument.

Second off, the argument presented is about the units that are DESIGNED to tarpit, so it is all about the actual units involved.

skyth wrote: The thing is that the 'tarpit' units are 'close combat units' that were designed fully to tie up the uber assault units without actually killing them. They were resilient units (Paper vs the assault unit's rock) who's role is completely neutered by the new rules.

Maybe I'm missing something then, because I'm not seeing how conscripts fit that definition...

First off, there is a logical fallacy with the second part of the argument.

Sure there is. It seemed an appropriate response to the idea that a tactic in a fantasy game should work a given way simply because it's been used historically.

insaniak wrote:

skyth wrote: The thing is that the 'tarpit' units are 'close combat units' that were designed fully to tie up the uber assault units without actually killing them. They were resilient units (Paper vs the assault unit's rock) who's role is completely neutered by the new rules.

Maybe I'm missing something then, because I'm not seeing how conscripts fit that definition...

Actually conscripts were the guard tarpit unit. Keep them by an officer and the standard for rerolls, and they held almost anything. They are also used that way in the fluff (A holding/delaying action...Throw the less valuable/skilled troops into the meatgrinder).

First off, there is a logical fallacy with the second part of the argument.

Sure there is. It seemed an appropriate response to the idea that a tactic in a fantasy game should work a given way simply because it's been used historically.

In a decent game, real-life tactics should have similar results in game as you would expect if they were used in 'real life'. Besides the fact that you changed the definition from one of a strategy that was used in the far past and is still used in modern times to an individual soilder's way of fighting.

The thing I like about 5th edition is that it is alot more consise rulewise which is huge (yeah I know the codex facs were not as good as the book but oh well ). Has it made me rethink 40K...hell yeah. For Tyranids it has reduced the VC role from tank killer (3rd and 4th) to tank shaker in 5th, an OK role against non-transport shooting tanks but is less effective against a mobile assault army/transport army as most vehicles still have ways of reducing its "no move" results to no shoot results...all the while, the transport and mobile assult army has gotten a large boost from increased strength against shooting from a 1) cover saves 2) Single damage table 3) and loss of maniditory pinning from a destroyed transport. Assaulting tanks (other than LR and monoliths) is easier but assaulting transports has become significantly more risky...do I assualt that rhino with genestealers and blow it up only to be shot and assualted by its contents in the next turn if they make thier leadership check to avoid being pinned. Stealers have been boosted by the FH/frags and Feeder tendrils (they are an either or), but have been more dramatically reduced by the combination of wound allocation method, d3 rend which dramatically increased the the survivability of walkers, rending on the wound, and lack of consolidation into enemy units. Stealers are still a good unit (don't get me wrong and they are way better than in the 3rd edition codex) it is just that you now need to use more tactics in thier use, which is fine by me. Death spitter warrior have become more usefull in thier anti-infantry and anti-light tank roll. Walking assaulting TMC appear feasible. Things change life goes on, I will keep enjoying the game changing things up with my Nids, while waiting for a revitalized space wolf codex!

skyth wrote:Actually conscripts were the guard tarpit unit.

Despite not being a close combat unit, or particularly resilient?

Not disputing that it's how they were used, just not seeing how they fit the description you gave.

But given Redbeard's example of throwing them at a character to tie him up, what's changed? They still stand the same chance in the combat, and they still get a Morale test before running away. They'll just possibly have a slightly higher modifier to that Morale test.

In a decent game, real-life tactics should have similar results in game as you would expect if they were used in 'real life'.

That really depends on your interpretation of 'decent'...

40K isn't, and has never tried to be, an accurate simulation of real-life war. That doesn't mean that it's not a 'decent' game... unless, of course, you're after a real-war simulation, in which case it's crap.

Besides the fact that you changed the definition from one of a strategy that was used in the far past and is still used in modern times to an individual soilder's way of fighting.

No, I changed the definition from one of a strategy that has been in widespread use to another that has been in widespread use. I wasn't talking about individual soldiers, I was talking about battles involving warriors running in swinging big honking swords until their enemy all fell down. A tactic that was eventually countered by the use of close formations, shields and stabbing swords.

Tactics depend on your opponent. Just because something is effective against one opponent doesn't mean that it should be effective against a different one.