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.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

KPs allow for armies like Draigowing to game/break the system.

A draigowing comes to the table with ~6 KPs, of which you can only realistically get 4. Your not going to kill draigo or his paladin squad. Your only real KPs are the psydreads and the other lone paladin -- who will just walk in and hide.

On the other hand, the draigo player only has to kill a few of your transports to get ahead in KPs. With 3 psydreads and 4 relentless psycannons in draigo's squad its pretty damn easy to get 5 KPs.

IE - the draigo army is an abuse of the rulesystem because its auto-win in one of the mission types. If VPs were used, then you could kill half of draigo's paladin squad and get 500 VPs, greatly increasing the chances of a tie.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Rochronos wrote:... and only use TLOS for wound allocation.

Do what now?

You can only wound models that the squad that is shooting can see

ie If a squad of gaurdsmen see 3 Marines from a squad (Say 1 w/ ML 1/ PG and sarge) if the guardsmen cause any wounds they can only be applied against those three models

^^^^^^This

A 20 strong unit hiding behind a wall, completely out of view except for a single model can be wiped out.

Bloomin' madness I tells ya!

Yup, that was part of 4th edition also!

4th edition + current vehicle rules would be interesting

Boggy79 wrote:
^^^^^^This

A 20 strong unit hiding behind a wall, completely out of view except for a single model can be wiped out.

Bloomin' madness I tells ya!

According to the rulebook this represents those twenty models all running out of cover to be shot, watching their friends in front of them get shot as they run.

I think wound allocation is pretty silly. To me it makes sense ti resolve all the wounds you cant get saves on first, then go from there. 5 unsaved wounds? 5 guys will die, possibly MORE, if they fail saves vs other weapons.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

Joey wrote:Against some armies i will NEVER fire my lasguns. Any MEQ squad of 5 or less can do wound wrapping to essentially nullify a special weapon wound. It happened the other day when I forget and accidentaly fired my lasguns and plasmas vs 3 terminators and a priest in termy armour. 4 plasma gun wounds, 2 lasgun wounds. Suffice that to say, the terminators died, the priest lived.

This is an easy fix imo. When allocating wounds, you apply them in an "initiative" order if you will with lower ap values being applied first. So your melta and plasma rifle fire, the melta is allocated first, then the plasma wounds, and then the wounds from your las rifles . This way, stacking wounds is effectively impossible.

I think we can dumb this down a bit. All you really need to do is separate them by what kind of saves are allowed, such as normal, invuls, etc. (such as special rules attached)
So a 6 man squad being hit with 3 invuls and 5 normals will see 3 instant deaths and 2 normal saves (because of course you're going to apply the normal saves on the dead guys)

labmouse42 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

KPs allow for armies like Draigowing to game/break the system.

A draigowing comes to the table with ~6 KPs, of which you can only realistically get 4. Your not going to kill draigo or his paladin squad. Your only real KPs are the psydreads and the other lone paladin -- who will just walk in and hide.

On the other hand, the draigo player only has to kill a few of your transports to get ahead in KPs. With 3 psydreads and 4 relentless psycannons in draigo's squad its pretty damn easy to get 5 KPs.

IE - the draigo army is an abuse of the rulesystem because its auto-win in one of the mission types. If VPs were used, then you could kill half of draigo's paladin squad and get 500 VPs, greatly increasing the chances of a tie.

Yes, you're right. That's the point. As Ailaros said, the point of KPs is to penalize MSU lists, the commonly hated "spam" lists. Without KPs or with almost no KP missions (i.e. most tournaments) MSU spam thrives. This causes people to rage against people taking "spam" lists, and in part causes the overabundance of mech spam lists seen in the tournament scene.

labmouse42 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

KPs allow for armies like Draigowing to game/break the system.

A draigowing comes to the table with ~6 KPs, of which you can only realistically get 4. Your not going to kill draigo or his paladin squad. Your only real KPs are the psydreads and the other lone paladin -- who will just walk in and hide.

On the other hand, the draigo player only has to kill a few of your transports to get ahead in KPs. With 3 psydreads and 4 relentless psycannons in draigo's squad its pretty damn easy to get 5 KPs.

IE - the draigo army is an abuse of the rulesystem because its auto-win in one of the mission types. If VPs were used, then you could kill half of draigo's paladin squad and get 500 VPs, greatly increasing the chances of a tie.

consider i played a 2000 pt list against my friends Mordrak terms he had 5 KPs in the army i had 10 in a DW list its just not right. However there is an easy balance to these problems limit terminator armor units to a max squad size of 5 problem solved

labmouse42 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

KPs allow for armies like Draigowing to game/break the system.

A draigowing comes to the table with ~6 KPs, of which you can only realistically get 4. Your not going to kill draigo or his paladin squad. Your only real KPs are the psydreads and the other lone paladin -- who will just walk in and hide.

On the other hand, the draigo player only has to kill a few of your transports to get ahead in KPs. With 3 psydreads and 4 relentless psycannons in draigo's squad its pretty damn easy to get 5 KPs.

Nobody forced you to purchase those cheap transports for your army You could footslog like Draigo ofteny does. Whole point of KP's is that you get penalized for taking advantage of those real cheap transports that greatly enchance your mobility and protect you from small arms fire.

Also remember he won't have too many models to either a) claim objectives or b) contest them, so as long as you're playing the mission, Draigowing will have major disadvantage in 2/3 of games.

labmouse42 wrote:
IE - the draigo army is an abuse of the rulesystem because its auto-win in one of the mission types. If VPs were used, then you could kill half of draigo's paladin squad and get 500 VPs, greatly increasing the chances of a tie.

It's not auto-win on KP matches, unless you bring Meched MSU. If you brought meched MSU, I'd consider having advantage in 2/3 of games be worth being disadvantaged in 1/3.

Disclaimer: I play Meched MSU army. Advantages of MSU and mech IMO far outweigh the penalty KP system imposes.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:How are KPs awful? They're the only thing other than the FOC reining in MSU lists.

KPs allow for armies like Draigowing to game/break the system.

A draigowing comes to the table with ~6 KPs, of which you can only realistically get 4. Your not going to kill draigo or his paladin squad. Your only real KPs are the psydreads and the other lone paladin -- who will just walk in and hide.

On the other hand, the draigo player only has to kill a few of your transports to get ahead in KPs. With 3 psydreads and 4 relentless psycannons in draigo's squad its pretty damn easy to get 5 KPs.

IE - the draigo army is an abuse of the rulesystem because its auto-win in one of the mission types. If VPs were used, then you could kill half of draigo's paladin squad and get 500 VPs, greatly increasing the chances of a tie.

Yes, you're right. That's the point. As Ailaros said, the point of KPs is to penalize MSU lists, the commonly hated "spam" lists. Without KPs or with almost no KP missions (i.e. most tournaments) MSU spam thrives. This causes people to rage against people taking "spam" lists, and in part causes the overabundance of mech spam lists seen in the tournament scene.

So I have to put up with my 50 point infantry squad being equal to a 400 point terminator squad because GW can't be arsed to make transports more expensive? KPs suck.

It's not auto-win on KP matches, unless you bring Meched MSU. If you brought meched MSU, I'd consider having advantage in 2/3 of games be worth being disadvantaged in 1/3.

Disclaimer: I play Meched MSU army. Advantages of MSU and mech IMO far outweigh the penalty KP system imposes.

I'll be honest on my opinion here, I kinda preferred VP over KP, which meant unless you were MSU'ing cheap squads, wasn't anymore effective/less effective than a standard list.

Luide wrote:Also remember he won't have too many models to either a) claim objectives or b) contest them, so as long as you're playing the mission, Draigowing will have major disadvantage in 2/3 of games.

I was waiting on someone to bite
1) 1/3 of the missions are 'roll dice and tie'. You only need 1 model to hold your home objective in those missions. Any KP denial list is not at a disadvantage on this mission. Therefore your statement of 'Draigowing will have major disadvantage in 2/3 of games' is wrong.

2) Take 12 terminator models. Space them 2" apart. See how far you can stretch your conga-line. You can grab at least 2 objectives with no problem and your not going to be shifted off them. Given the mission has 3-5 objectives, those seem like pretty good odds to start with.
GK can then make their dreads scoring, and still have a reserved deep striking paladin that can score. At that point all they have to do is hold more than you and blow you off the rest. Their not at a 'major disadvantage'.

Luide wrote:It's not auto-win on KP matches, unless you bring Meched MSU.

I'm guessing you have never played vs. Draigowing with a competent opponent. Pick an army, army in the game, and I can show you how a draigowing can win in KP. When your paladins are throwing out 16 psycannon shots per turn, and you have 3 psydreads doing the same, you can rack up KPs easily.
* On foot guard kill the PCS/CCS
* On foot orks, kill the lootas
* And so forth....noone does KP denial better than draigo.
When facing the draigowing, the only KPs you have a hope of getting are the dreads, and the 2nd troop choice which starts in reserve. That's a total of 4. MSU or no, any army that has a chance of doing damage will have more KPs than that.

Note : This is not a bitch about GKs, but pointing out how one list can abuse the KP rules greatly. Its pointing out how KP denial lists like draigowing are overly good at it, that it unbalances the games. I expect this to be addressed in 6th edition.

Ailaros wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:I will also go on record saying that the wound allocation rule is perfectly easy to both understand and use in game.

Yes, but that doesn't matter.

Seriously, imagine if 40k had a rule where either player turn 5 could decide that instead of letting the game continue as-is, they could opt instead to roll a single die and on a 4+ they win the game outright, and if they fail they just lose. This would be a rule that's very easy to understand, and it would be a rule that would be easy to use.

It would also be an idiotic rule.

Just because something is easy, or logical, or intentional does not, in itself, make it good.

Who is talking about whether it is a good rule or not......

I addressed the continued idiocy of insisting that using the wound allocation rules to their full extent was somehow "abuse" or "shenanigans".
Hell, one poster even talked about how using FNP was abuse of the rules.

I have said it before and will do so again; this is not about whether the rule is good or not.
My comments have strictly been about the childish insistence on talking about the perfectly clear Wound Allocation rules as being abusive and shenanigans, and using them somehow against the "intent" of the designers (even though the very same designers gave us an example of just that).

Well yeah, the wound shenanigan rules are completely legit, we all know this. What I think people are trying to say is that when you are doing MORE damage by shooting LESS, it needs to be reworked, no matter how clear it is.

It just pushes the meta even more towards MSU and mech spam, because why bother with larger units of infantry when most of the time you shoot with them they just hurt your damage output? At that point, you're basically buying ablative wounds to keep a few special weapons alive, which is rediculous.

That's what I believe people are trying to say. I don't care how legitimate it is, I'm just saying it needs to be redone for 6th, and I believe many players will agre with me.

Steelmage99 wrote:Who is talking about whether it is a good rule or not......

This thread is called "What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?". The entire thread is about bad rules in the rulebook.

Wound wrapping is one of them.

daedalus wrote:I don't dislike this, but on the other hand, model sniping?

Yeah, model sniping was pretty much exactly the reason that the current rules shifted to allowing you to kill models you can't see. Your shooting is at the unit, not at individual models.

Kirasu wrote:In 4th you had unit sizes and the Z axis rarely mattered which made the game take a lot less time, since you could just use a laser leveler to easily figure out LOS. Granted it was silly with trukks blocking LOS to land raiders, but eh that's sorta how the game goes I guess at times (Fixed by adding more sizes I suppose)

4th edition had the most widely misunderstood LOS rules ever found in a miniatures game. The size categories that were so frequently misapplied only kicked in when LOS involved area terrain or close combats.

Kurce wrote:From my understanding, TLOS was not introduced until 5th edition. Could be wrong since I haven't played older editions but that is my understanding.

TLOS has formed the basis of the LOS rules since Rogue Trader. Every edition of the game has used it, with some variation on exactly how it is applied and how it interacts with area terrain.

Nitros14 wrote:

Boggy79 wrote:A 20 strong unit hiding behind a wall, completely out of view except for a single model can be wiped out.

Bloomin' madness I tells ya!

According to the rulebook this represents those twenty models all running out of cover to be shot, watching their friends in front of them get shot as they run.

No it doesn't. It represents the fact that being able to see that single model gives the enemy the ability to judge roughly where the rest of the unit is. Standing behind a wall when someone is shooting at you with a high-powered assault rifle isn't actually as great a protection as Hollywood would have you believe.

Ailaros wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Who is talking about whether it is a good rule or not......

This thread is called "What's wrong with 5th Edition Rulebook?". The entire thread is about bad rules in the rulebook.

Wound wrapping is one of them.

And Steelmage99 never negated "badness" of that rule. That's not what was said at all. He is not questioning simplicity, logic or if the rule is "bad" or "good". What he meant from the beginning is while you can call wound allocation "bad" you can't call using it "abusing the rules". Simple as that.

As far as I'm concerned, I pretty much like KPs. While this is not a perfect solution, currently IoMs incredibly cheap transports are too survivable for their price.

There were some really good changes in 5th edition, but also some really awful ones:

TLOS - This is probably the rule I dislike the most. Not only does it cause far more rules arguments, but it takes a lot of the strategy out of the game. Unless you have some really nice custom terrain, under TLOS, everyone can see everyone else all the time. If your an assault army, you will get shot closing in the on the enemy regardless of placements, its just as matter of whether or not you can make the saves and how quickly you can close. With shooting vs. shooting armies, the game often comes down to who can put out most shoots, and many times who wins the first turn role off. It took shooting from a contest where careful placement and movement mattered because you had to deny and establish line of sight, to a contest to see who can roll the most dice. That is a terrible tragedy and I would love to see it go.

Kill Points - This is a horribly written and grossly unfair rule that arbitrarily punishes players for using small and low cost units. I know a lot of people like the fact that it punishes MSU builds because some of the most hated list out there, mainly mech vets and rhino/razor spams, are major kill point liabilities. But this rule punishes any list built with any kind of small point cost units, not just those hated top tier list. I don't care what the justification is, but a Rhino should not be worth the same is a Landraider. Like it or not, this game is balanced around point cost, and an annihilation based victory condition should be constructed the same way. Given that transport spam will hopefully be reined in in the next edition anyway, so this rule will not longer be needed to punish transport spam in kill point missions, so it definitely needs to go.

Complex Wound Allocation - Its nonsensical and grossly abused. The rulebook entry regarding multiply wound models makes it clear that wounds are to be allocated in a manner that maximizing the damage inflicted to the squad, and yet by equipping each multi-wound model differently, the exact opposite effect can be achieved. Even single wound models can abuse this rule by sinking multiple low AP shoots onto a single models if the high AP shots result in wound wrapping. This rule just wasn't thought out properly.

Seize the Initiative - A 1 in 6 chance to give the player going first a metaphorical kick in the balls, by letting the other player both go first and deploy second. I liked the change in 5th that let the player who was going second to deploy second, to help make up for the disadvantage of first turn, and this rule undermines that whole element of game balance. Its far too powerful and effect, and way too much to be riding on a single die role.

Codex Creep - Technically not a rules issues, but poisonous to the game nonetheless. The 5th edition rulebooks are far more powerful the their 4th edition counterparts, and confer grossly unfair advantages to the newer books. It discourages the use of older books, particularly in tournaments and other competitive settings. Those serious about winning or even placing in competitive events, unless incredibly skilled with one of the older armies, are practically required to run one of the newer books, while users of Eldar, Tau and Chaos are essentially punished for using their armies in such events. The fact the half of the new books, and many of the stronger ones, are Space Marine variants doesn't improve the situation either, resulting in far too many Marine vs Marine games.

Aside from the apparent wound wrapping has anyone else ever thought the deep strike rules could use some fixing. I don't know about you but I never thought the whole possibility of having an entire unit get destroyed because of a bad scatter. It basically makes DS useless unless you have some way to reroll the scatter. Why have a mechanic that people are hesitant to use in the first place? I mean i get the whole going back into reserve or placed somewhere else but entirely destroyed? I had that almost happen to a guy who mishapped before he realised he got a reroll. It was the start of turn two and because of that we almost called the game before any of us even started shooting. But yeah the current deep strike rules need some fixing imo.

Actually 5th edition has made deep striking far safer. In fourth edition, if you mishapped for any reason, the unit was lost. In 5th edition, there is only a 1 in 3 chance of losing the unit to a mishap, so its actually much kinder. And deepstriking does need to carry risk with it, just being able to place a unit that was completely safe while it was kept in reserve anywhere you want on the board is just too powerful without some kind of drawback.

I think 5th is what you make of it. If you have an opponent who is willing to come to a consensus with you on cover and share each others unit stats, you can have a good game. A good pickup game that is.

Phanixis wrote:TLOS - This is probably the rule I dislike the most.

It also brings art aesthetics into the world of a "strategy" game. The fact that you can model for advantage is a travesty. So what if I think my models all look cooler crawling on their bellies? What if I want to pose them dramatically on rocks etc.? How I model a mini should have no impact whatsoever on the game, but with TLoS, it can.

Phanixis wrote:Codex Creep - Technically not a rules issues, but poisonous to the game nonetheless. The 5th edition rulebooks are far more powerful the their 4th edition counterparts

Codex creep isn't real, though. Were it an actual phenominon, then every codex would universally be better than the one before it, and newer armies would categorically beat older armies. For every 5th ed codex that comes out where people consider it better than the previous codex (GK, BA, etc.), there is one where people scream about how much worse their codex just got (CSM, eldar, tyranid), while most people consider their new codices to be about the same as the old one when their new one comes out (IG, Orks, SM, DE), if not made slightly more relevant.

And really, that's all that the new codices are about. They don't get stronger absolutely, so much as they get brought back in line with the current rules edition. The tau codex is bad not because newer codices have come out and made them better so much as 5th ed came out and made the codex much more incongruous with the new rules. Giving them a new codex to take full advantage of 5th ed rules (rather than partial) would make them much more powerful, but it would be vis. a vis. the rules, not the other codices.

Phanixis wrote:Unless you have some really nice custom terrain, under TLOS, everyone can see everyone else all the time.

This has been the case since Rogue Trader. You don't need fancy terrain... just a few decent height buildings or rocky outcrops. Having LOS to everything all the time is only a problem if you're using too little terrain, or just using forest bases with 2 or 3 trees on them, which is depressingly common.

The answer is the same as it has been for the last 15 years: use more terrain.

Seize the Initiative - A 1 in 6 chance to give the player going first a metaphorical kick in the balls, by letting the other player both go first and deploy second. I liked the change in 5th that let the player who was going second to deploy second, to help make up for the disadvantage of first turn, and this rule undermines that whole element of game balance. Its far too powerful and effect, and way too much to be riding on a single die role.

I find that the seize rule actually just forces players to consider their deployment a little more carefully. You can't just assume that because you deploy first, you can push all your units up front where they can get a head start on the first turn... you have to instead consider the possiblity that your opponent might get the jump on you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:It also brings art aesthetics into the world of a "strategy" game. The fact that you can model for advantage is a travesty. So what if I think my models all look cooler crawling on their bellies? What if I want to pose them dramatically on rocks etc.? How I model a mini should have no impact whatsoever on the game, but with TLoS, it can.

There is no 'bringing' about it. Again, this has been the case for as long as Warhammer 40K has existed. It wasn't something that they sprang on us with 5th edition.

Having said that, I fully agree that the rules should take modelling into account one way or another. This has always been a potential issue, although historically players have generally been fairly good at self-policing modeling for advantage.

insaniak wrote:There is no 'bringing' about it. Again, this has been the case for as long as Warhammer 40K has existed.

Not in 4th ed. In 4th ed, practically everything was considered area terrain. If you had a regular infantry model, it was a height 2 model, and got cover from height 1 terrain and was out of LOS from height 2 and 3 terrain. End of.

There was no "crouchafex" in 4th ed that was able to hide behind a hedgerow because you literally couldn't see him over the hedges, because he was a monstrous creature, so used monstrous creature height rules, regardless of what the model was. Likewise, you didn't have people modelling scratchbuild dreads that can miraculously shoot over objectives that the gunner himself couldn't see.

4th ed had sketchy rules for TLoS, but they were infrequently used, as they only counted for when you had terrain that wasn't situated on a base of some sort.

Ailaros wrote:Not in 4th ed. In 4th ed, practically everything was considered area terrain.

That may have been the case where you played, but it certainly wasn't universal, nor was it what the rules actually called for. Area terrain covered the same sorts of terrain it does now.

People have been complaining about potential LOS abuse through creative modelling for at least as long as I have been playing the game (which is going on 18 years now)... 4th edition saw no reduction in that over any other edition I've played. And 5th didn't see any sudden rise in it actually happening on the table... Again, most groups tend to be self-policing on it regardless of whether or not the rules technically allow it.

Ailaros wrote:
If you reduce cover to a universal 5+, an already very shooty game relapses into a practically only shooty game, as even a 4+ is already tough to make foot hordes work against opponents who know what their small arm is for. Plus, worse cover makes long-range armies even more powerful, which means more sit-and-shoot dice rolling sessions, and even less movement than we have right now.

If we want cover to get worse, then we need to make everything else faster to compensate. For example, you could give everybody in the game the equivalent of the current fleet special rule as standard, and make it so that units with fleet get to roll an extra D6 for their charge range, or something.

If you don't like cover as it is right now, you have to do things to actually keep the balance, rather than just making cover worse.

What I'd actually like to see is cover being a to hit modifier like fantasy, so that models with armour still get some benefit from that armour in cover, and models with 4+ invulnerable saves actually get benefit from cover. Obviously points values would need to be readjusted for some armies.

Nitros14 wrote:

Ailaros wrote:
If you reduce cover to a universal 5+, an already very shooty game relapses into a practically only shooty game, as even a 4+ is already tough to make foot hordes work against opponents who know what their small arm is for. Plus, worse cover makes long-range armies even more powerful, which means more sit-and-shoot dice rolling sessions, and even less movement than we have right now.

If we want cover to get worse, then we need to make everything else faster to compensate. For example, you could give everybody in the game the equivalent of the current fleet special rule as standard, and make it so that units with fleet get to roll an extra D6 for their charge range, or something.

If you don't like cover as it is right now, you have to do things to actually keep the balance, rather than just making cover worse.

What I'd actually like to see is cover being a to hit modifier like fantasy, so that models with armour still get some benefit from that armour in cover, and models with 4+ invulnerable saves actually get benefit from cover. Obviously points values would need to be readjusted for some armies.

This would basically make it where giving orks guns would be the biggest joke in the game

"Oh, I'm sorry, you're BS2? Don't forget that negative modifier to your accuracy. So now, you only hit if you manage to roll a 6 twice in a row."

Obviously, it wouldn't be that broken, but I could see more than a couple of armies getting screwed over by this system, with others getting huge buffs, especially space marines.

Not to mention that a BS cover system would have no effect on blast weapons

Luke_Prowler wrote:Not to mention that a BS cover system would have no effect on blast weapons

There are things you could do about that, like having blast weapons firing into cover always scatter.

Nitros14 wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:Not to mention that a BS cover system would have no effect on blast weapons

There are things you could do about that, like having blast weapons firing into cover always scatter.

Unfortunately, I'm sure people would get even more bent out of shape over the inaccuracy of their blast weapons
But the problem is not if it scatters, because if you're firing at a horde army(who need cover the most) then there's still a good chance of hitting something and you'll essentially insta-lose whatever was hit