# The Worst Thing About 5th Edition?



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

So theres been a fair amount of negativity the last few days over 5th edition. Not all from me I might add! :biggrin:

So just wondering, what part about 5th edition do you personally dislike the most?


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

That its awesome? No, but seriously the kill point system is the only thing I got a real beef with in 5th.


----------



## Imperial Dragon (Dec 22, 2007)

Kill points is my major one as well and cover saves sometimes get a little crazy with it's just so easy to find cover, but other then that i think it's really good


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

True Line of Sight. Hate it. It's the only major change from 4th that I haven't warmed up to since 5th's release.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

I actually like TLOS, makes the game more realistic (Yes, I realize, realism + 40k = ????).

My beef is that they implemented 5th without realizing the implications it would have on every army. They beefed up transports and made glances less dangerous- Making Necrons totally screwed. I may be thinking a bit single mindedly but with one release they turned Necrons into a joke when they used to be widely considered to be very powerful in 4th. Since they're the only army I play it was a big hit. I still play, but its a lot less competitive.


----------



## JackalMJ (Nov 12, 2009)

Yeah I was a Necron player and I was also hit brutally by the change. Its partly why i'm working on a Space Marines army now. That and marines are a million times more fun, customiseable and interesting than generic blenders.

That said I love the change to vechile damages. I found it horribly unrealstic how easy it was to destroy tanks in 4th. Everyone had a dozen lascannons and even Monoliths tended to get shredded in 1-2 rounds.

oh... this is what I hate about 5th... umm...Necrons.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

I love it! TBH I only had about a month of 4th so not much to compair it to. lol


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

People complaining about it!




No, Capture and Control. And that has little to actually do with 5th, per se.

Single worst mission ever, and I include the old 2e Mission Cards, like the Dawn Raid, and that one where you had to destroy Bunkers in the enemy DZ.


----------



## johnnymajic (Jan 2, 2009)

I have to sat that the thing i dislike the most is all of the cover saves, other than that i'd have to say overall i like 5th


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

I like 5th but I also liked 3rd & 4th Ed. 
I can't see the point in hating this rule or that scenario (or whatever)...we play the game within the ruleset we're given. Changes in editions just means we have to adapt and learn how to play our lists to suit...swings and roundabouts.


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

Hmm lets see:

- Cover saves system
- Space Marines
- Codex Creep
- Retarded Missions (compare to 8th ed WHFB)
- Retarded victory system (both kill points and objectives; again, compare to 8th ed WHFB)
- Implications that CSM will be more like a satanist terrorist Coyote from Looney Tunes (Abaddon + Renegades + GW's warband ideas = THUNDERING EPIC FAIL).
- Necron Gauss weaponry nefred to death.
- Necron WBB FAQ-d so that you WBB back from EVERYTHING, even Gift of Chaos, which essentially mutates your model into a Chaos Spawn. Also, Jaws of the World Yiff. And I mean fluffwise. I dare you to pull that in a space hulk or on a daemon planet.
- Increasing tendency towards the total disregard of fluff, meaning 1, the never-ending 41st millenium 2, the invincible SM who must win on a 3+ or little Johnny will start crying 3, armies are being generalised to the point where fluff-based diversity disappears (see Orks, Eldar and CSM) 4, SM are an exclusion from the previous point, they're getting retarded codices with rules that are retarded and fluffwise unfitting to the Chapter (1, psyker-hating Space Wolves have the most powerful spells in the game 2, Fast Predators and Vindicators for Blood Angels and the Greater Daemon Mephiston, pedosmile mask Dante (turning DPs into Lords without an effort) and of course nipple armoured titty marines).

Have I missed anything?


----------



## Kirby (May 16, 2010)

People complaining about it.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Do we really need another thread about this shit?

Jez, not to disrespect you or anything, but as an administrator i would have thought the last thing you would do is create yet ANOTHER thread about this same topic.
I know your not complaining about 5th ed as much as others, but to everyone else... im sick of hearing this shit.

Seriously people, dont clog up the forums with all these bullshit complains about the games rules. The game is what it is, and your opinions arent going to change anything. If you dont like the game then dont play it. If you think you can write better rules, then go and start your own miniature wargaming company.

If you want to play a balanced strategy game, then go play chess or something. Fuck.



P.S. Sorry for the rant, but someone had to do it.
Suspend me, ban me, whatever. I dont really care.
But seriously, i think 99% of people will agree with me when i say "Quit your bloody bitching and play and enjoy the game how its supposed to be played or else piss off".

/end rant


----------



## Raptors8th (Jul 3, 2009)

Yeah, kill points are a bitch...



> "Sir, they've blown our Land Raider to smithereens and Venerable Brother Agrius just went nuclear, but we've managed to kill 5 grots and 2 killa kans. We are clearly winning the battle!"


:facepalm:

But otherwise 5th ed. works pretty darn well, except for necrons :laugh:

My main problem is them not updating the codices with each edition, I'd like to see some of the older codices have multiple effective options (ie.Eldar, DE, WH, Tau) or just plain be effective (Necrons, daemons, chaos, Daemonhunters, DA). Otherwise 5th ed.'s great, granted I never played 4th but from looking over the rules I'd have to say 5th ed. looks better on paper by far.


----------



## JackalMJ (Nov 12, 2009)

Khorothis said:


> Hmm lets see:
> 
> - Cover saves system
> - Space Marines
> ...


I hate to do this but i've really gotta disagree with some of your points. Its just filled with so much venom and hate. Cover saves are arguble. Its nice now that armys liket he Tau dont laugh and go "lawl you should not have bothered with armor" though it does give armies with crappy armor far better saves.

Space Marines... how exactly are Space Marines a horribly by product of 5th edition.. thats like me saying Tyranids. They are the reason 5th is bad.. I ... its just not there. You dont have to like them but how are they a horrible result of 5th Edition.

Retarded Mission and Victory system. Yeah... pretty much no one seems to like that.

CSM stuff.... prehaps a bit oversimplified.

Necron WBB... your a Necron hater arnt you? For the record WBB has been FAQed not to work a whole variety of times. JotWW does NOT get a WBB roll because the unit is taken off the field and not a casulity, also sweeping advances do not get WBB rolls which makes no sense. 

The "going against the fluff" argument is a good one. And I dont want to take a side here nor there. However I think its great to see codexs and chapters evolve. Some people cry foul the moment a new additon is added to a chapter or race codex because "its not not fluffy". Of course its not, its new! That said Space Wolves hating psykers having the nastiest psykers is... wierd.

None the less all the Codexs that have come out have been brutal. It sucks that CSM (and DE and Necrons) have old outdated dexes but I dont thhink anyones been desappointed with their new Codexs... other than a few wierd Tyrnard players.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Khorothis said:


> Hmm lets see:
> 
> - Cover saves system
> - Space Marines
> ...


-Poorly thought out points costs.
-Ridiculous psychic defenses.
-Dumbed-down special rules.
-Prevalence of Eternal Warrior, and other annoying SRs.


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

my only beef is theat only troops can capture objectives.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

KingOfCheese said:


> Do we really need another thread about this shit?
> 
> Jez, not to disrespect you or anything, but as an administrator i would have thought the last thing you would do is create yet ANOTHER thread about this same topic.
> I know your not complaining about 5th ed as much as others, but to everyone else... im sick of hearing this shit.


Personally I'm sick of your attitude. This forum is here to cover everything about the hobby, that includes negative feeling - we don't get paid by GW, we're not here to endlessly praise them. If what they're doing is bollocks we'll highlight it and give a true representation of the community.

If you don't like it don't read the thread. Or fuck off somewhere else, I'll miss you like the shit I flushed last night.


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

JackalMJ said:


> I hate to do this but i've really gotta disagree with some of your points. Its just filled with so much venom and hate. Cover saves are arguble. Its nice now that armys liket he Tau dont laugh and go "lawl you should not have bothered with armor" though it does give armies with crappy armor far better saves.
> Its not the existence of cover saves that bothers me but the way it is assigned. For instance, how come you've got a cover save in a crater if I'm shooting you from the second level of a ruin? And why does a squad get a cover save if half the squad is indeed in the forest, but the rest is out in the open? Barbed wire giving cover save against the shot of a Lascannon? And other ridiculous abuses of the cover saves rule? If only LoS gave cover I'd be happy, but this is just stupid.
> 
> Space Marines... how exactly are Space Marines a horribly by product of 5th edition.. thats like me saying Tyranids. They are the reason 5th is bad.. I ... its just not there. You dont have to like them but how are they a horrible result of 5th Edition.
> ...


I apologise if I sound offensive at some parts I wrote this on a whim and before lunch.


----------



## JackalMJ (Nov 12, 2009)

Hey some well thought out and sincere responses, appirecate it and can place a much greater value on what you've said.

Some of your dislikes are probably anothers likes. For example while cover saves annoy you, someone else loves them. I dont disagree with your statements on people getting cover in a crator when your in a tower overlooking it. Or a bush saving you from a lascannon. 

the Necron WBB thing i've seen FAQ'd against the Necrons so well I think both you and I need to go double check that rule cause we've got some differeing views. That said it would not surprise me for it to have changed.

I do think everything should have a counter. The game is so fun when every counter has a counter. If anything can be countered by something then we've got a crazy setup of balance. Thats not to stay anything should counter something. 

I dont personally know the CSM stuff so I cant say how bad they have it, but I see a lot of people complain about them.. and not so many defending .. so they must have some legit problems.

The Necrons have problems in competitiveness but I think there biggest issue is how boring they are. Look at DE.. hugely outdated but at least there still fun for the fans to play.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

The problem with the CSM dex is it's meant to represent the nine traitor legions and the tens of thousands of post-heresy traitor marines. The book has been so dumbed-down that you've lost the ability to make a unique force. 'True' daemons were removed, god specific armies were removed, god specific wargear was removed, vehicle marks were removed, legion specific units/equipment were removed, Mutations/gifts were removed, plus a heap of other things. The army literally went from being one of the most variable and interesting forces to being one of the most boring and uninteresting (at least IMO). 

GW took the 3rd ed chaos 'dex, scooped out anything interesting and unique and gave us Chaos players an empty shell of a 'dex, and then released 3 new loyalist codices.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

ChaosRedCorsairLord said:


> The problem with the CSM dex is it's meant to represent the nine traitor legions and the tens of thousands of post-heresy traitor marines. The book has been so dumbed-down that you've lost the ability to make a unique force. 'True' daemons were removed, god specific armies were removed, god specific wargear was removed, vehicle marks were removed, legion specific units/equipment were removed, Mutations/gifts were removed, plus a heap of other things. The army literally went from being one of the most variable and interesting forces to being one of the most boring and uninteresting (at least IMO).
> 
> GW took the 3rd ed chaos 'dex, scooped out anything interesting and unique and gave us Chaos players an empty shell of a 'dex, and then released 3 new loyalist codices.


I disagree, the csm codex is more to represent renegade marines of the here and now, problem is people only ever focus on the traitor legions from ten thousand years ago, mainly due to the horus heresy books.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Kill points
LITERAL true line of sight
kill points
turning tanks into pillboxes
kill points
boring missions
kill points
dumbed down special rules and spamming of others everwhere
kill points
FUCKING RAMMING!!!
and erm...did I mention kill points?


----------



## JackalMJ (Nov 12, 2009)

Stella I see the reasons but not the why. I am very seriously curious as to the reasons you dont like some of these things. Dont bother to explain the Kill Points... I think thats given. ("Yes i've taken out two land raiders... now we are even since he took out two 5 man scout teams of mine".)

True Line of Sight: To be honest I tend to like this rule. Its a very nice and simple feature. Hunch low, look over your models shoulder and "can i or can I not see it?" done. The old rules of "this or that blocks your view" when quiet clearly it did not annoyed me.

That said maybe you dislike True line of sights for reasons I have not mentioned or prehaps you jsut disagree with me, i'd love to hear your reasoning though.

Tanks as Pillboxes? Again this is another one i tend to agree with. Should tanks not be tanky? Isnt having men hiding behind the armored flanks of your tank a sound strategy. I did not like when tanks where as fragile as a modern sports car. But again prehaps you mean something else! I just love to hear peoples reasoning for the dislikes.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

literal tlos I hate because of how literal and easily abused it is, before it was basically look down, see if I can see you or where you are, and shoot, if I can't because of X terrain even though I can see your helmet, then fine thats simple enough and fine by me, I can imagine that man crouching meaning I would not have LOS, simple as taking a piss.

it also mean't you could not abuse it by posing your models weird, even if your all laying down it wouldn't matter as only the type of terrain stopped you from shooting, its area terrain, I can't shoot you, none of this its area terrain, but I can see your fingernail.

now its look down, make sure my models *eyes* can see you, make sure models that are kneeling or laying down can see you (which they usually no longer can), check what body parts I can see, judge how much of you I can see, then judge how much of an ass I can be by arguing that helmet visors don't count as eyes or model my men with stalk eyes while all laying down so I can see you, but you can't see me.

than finally, when I shoot, I determine my laying down stalk men can see one of your helmet blind space marines fingers, fire at him, and kill him, and everyone else that I can't see.

and my reasoning for tank pill boxes is simple, it has tracks, it should be allowed to use them, but why all of a sudden is it entirely unable to fire more than 1 gun when your bristling with the damn things as soon as the driver moves even slightly forward.


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> I disagree, the csm codex is more to represent renegade marines of the here and now, problem is people only ever focus on the traitor legions from ten thousand years ago, mainly due to the horus heresy books.


Okay then I'll just put a straw hat on my Word Bearer Daemon Prince because hes a pirate and his gang (AKA "warband") are on a jolly good adventure that, on a side note, happens to involve murder, rape, genocide, racism, fighting a 10000 year old war, terrorist attacks, spreading the Word of Chaos, ritual sacrifice and more. Makes as much sense as forcing every CSM player to play such pirate forces (because thats what they are if you stick to the mood of the Codex, with the Black Legion's rainbow mix of units and the rag-tag forces of the Red Corsairs).

Oh and just a side note: nobody gives a fuck about the renegade CSM on the galactic scale, the only one who managed to get something of a name for himself was Huron Blackheart of the Red Corsairs but thats all. The rest of the renegades are about as well known as your homebrew: sure they might have a great background but outside your friends in the LGS and your personal 40K universe nobody gives a fuck about them. Traitor Legions? Now they make the High Lords of Terra shit themselves on a daily basis. Hell, even Failabaddon. They have a unique feel to them that is recognised by the whole 40K community. 
Heres an example:

When I first played against Space Marines, it was against the Ultramarines, natural enemies of my Word Bearers, so the mood was set, at least for me (the other guy was a veteran player who focuses more on the metagame than the world it is set in). Long story short: I felt motivated, I felt that this encounter had a purpose, a part in a grand scheme. I loved it, even though I was beaten to a pulp (thought my Lash Prince could handle an Assault Terminator squad with 3xPoLC and 2xSS/TH :laugh.
On another occasion I played against a friend of mine who has a homebrew SM chapter that hails from the Ultramarines and the Salamanders somehow, with a wierd paint scheme. I raised an eyebrow and thought "well, they're Space Marines, after all, lets get this over with". I think that was the match when my Berzerkers kept a distance from a rampaging Assault Terminator squad and shot down 2-3 of them with Bolt Pistols in 2-3 rounds and then they killed them in one fell swoop. We laughed our asses off and we still keep talking about it (and a similar occasion when Berzerkers kept pissing down on the same Assault Terminator squad from the first floor of a ruin with their Bolt Pistols and killed all of them in doing so in 3 rounds or so :laugh.

P.S.: and btw I don't have any problem with homebrew renegade chapters, the Red Corsairs and the like, I'm just against the forced concept. No offense intended. 

EDIT: thats a triple ninja! :laugh:

I agree with most of what Stella said, especially regarding tanks. Furthermore, I've no idea why can't I shoot three different units with three different guns (see Predator with AC and HB sponsons for a classic example). There isn't just one lousy gunner in that tank, theres no way I'm buying that.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Codex Creep does not exist. Compare books from the same Edition, please. Wolves vs BA, for example, not Wolves vs Necrons. You don't expect Johann Cryff and the Oranje of '74 to come out of retirement and try to qualify the Dutch for the Euros - only difference is that they get replaced more quickly than GW does with Codexes.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

> When I first played against Space Marines, it was against the Ultramarines, natural enemies of my Word Bearers, so the mood was set, at least for me (the other guy was a veteran player who focuses more on the metagame than the world it is set in). Long story short: I felt motivated, I felt that this encounter had a purpose, a part in a grand scheme. I loved it, even though I was beaten to a pulp (thought my Lash Prince could handle an Assault Terminator squad with 3xPoLC and 2xSS/TH ).


Love it mate, the community needs more gamers like you. I remember as a kid pretending to be a Vindicare Assassin on a mission to take out a Hive Tyrant.... the fact I was in my mums car on my way to visit Grandma didn't matter. That Tyrant was gonna get slotted!


----------



## JackalMJ (Nov 12, 2009)

Ah see you've pointed out a lot of stuff I didnt think of. I still like true line of sight but you do have a good point aobut making models laying down and stuff. I remember i heard at one time of Tau soldiers made to lay down so they could shot under mounted devilfish but the devilfish prevented others from shooting back. However I think that might have happened in 4th edition rules. Still points out how LoS needs to be carefully worded

And I totally misunderstood you about the mobile pillboxes thing. Its pretty frusrating alright to have these well armed monsterous tanks that... cant shot. The Land Raider (stock standard) annoys the crap out of me. Granted at least he can move 6' inchs and fire both cannons. Move 12 and fire 1? And why would I ever fire a heavy bolter at the same target...


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

Kill points. Nuff said I think. But just add to it: Why does GW think that we need a system for 4-year-olds? Hell, even the kids they try to aim at can whip out a calculator and add/subtract numbers (and don't EVER tell me people don't have a calculator ready. If you do, consider investing in a cellphone not made in the 80'ies).

True Line of Sight.
I don't mind the cover rules. I dislike the TLoS and the way it provides cover. "I can see the left arm of your space marine. Since i'm an expert marksman I can hit him square in the palm with a 50% chance of succes!"
Or: "Wow, it sure is hard to hit those guys in the crater with my sniper rifle here from the 3rd floor."
That's one of the good things Privateer Press has going for them. A model is as high as his base is wide and different kinds of terrain works in different ways (much like in 7th ed. fantasy).
After all, we play a game where superhuman soldiers travel lightyears in space in gigantic ships only to beat bad guys to a bloody pulp with chainswords. I don't really need the game to be realistic. I need it to work. Well, first and foremost at least.

Otherwise, 5th is pretty good. It works okay and the pace is nice. Now, if GW would just update the non-marine codices a little more frequent I might start to love the game.


----------



## Blammer (Nov 17, 2009)

LukeValantine said:


> That its awesome? No, but seriously the kill point system is the only thing I got a real beef with in 5th.


I agree with you, it is so stupid that you get 1 KP for killing a unit of grots yet killing a C'Tan which is a GOD also only gives you 1 point >.<.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

KP's
TLOS: to a point it needs limiting and the added effects of area terrain put in
RULES/FLUFF: the idea that armies are updating and getting more advanced wargear but we really haven't moved past the 41st mellenium (not even that haven't really moved through too mnay years at all when going into a new edition.
STARTER KITS: Being SM vs INSERT HERE it should be more narrative like Necrons VS Eldar or Tau VS Orks.
COVER SAVES
THE MASS SPECIAL RULES SPAMMING THE SCENE - I loved a race having for example my DE grotesques FNP is different to regular FNP, also the qwhole here is a new rule and this new codex that we just brought out is going to break it ingnore it and exploit it 1,000,000 times over.
Psychic Powers being fairly prevelent and not enough defence for them


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

In fairness, you aren't really seeing a hole in the ground here - it is a CRATER. It will be full of smoke, debris, maybe flames...there will be weather, which can only be simulated by 'Night Fighting' ...there are a million and one battlefield conditions that make shooting down three floors completely different from shooting ducks in a barrel.


----------



## Kirby (May 16, 2010)

It's fish TKE, fish. Who shoots ducks in a barrel, where's the challenge in that? But those fish are slippery devils. We should discuss this, much more interesting.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Some people shoot Squigs in barrels. I learned that from Dark Crusade. I wonder how they got the Squigs into the barrels, and what type of squig they used?

Midnight


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Kirby said:


> It's fish TKE, fish. Who shoots ducks in a barrel, where's the challenge in that? But those fish are slippery devils. We should discuss this, much more interesting.


Nu-uh. Living upside down on the wrong side of the world has affected your brain.

@Midnight Sun - Obviously, they used the Barrel Squig. :gimmefive:


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Blue Liger said:


> THE MASS SPECIAL RULES SPAMMING THE SCENE - I loved a race having for example my DE grotesques FNP is different to regular FNP, also the whole here is a new rule and this new codex that we just brought out is going to break it ingnore it and exploit it 1,000,000 times over.


This is a big one for me. Furious charge is as common as the fucking cold. It's boring.


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

Kirby said:


> It's fish TKE, fish. Who shoots ducks in a barrel, where's the challenge in that? But those fish are slippery devils. We should discuss this, much more interesting.


If you are having difficulty shooting fish in barrels you are doing something wrong. I suggest in future you simply use grenades - The God Emperor invented them for just such a reason.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

ChaosRedCorsairLord said:


> This is a big one for me. Furious charge is as common as the fucking cold. It's boring.


I'm the opposite. Universal Special Rules that are actually Universal, FTW!


----------



## Kirby (May 16, 2010)

Lobbing grenadesinto barrels loses you the barrel, jeez! pewpewpew


----------



## ItsPug (Apr 5, 2009)

Kirby said:


> Lobbing grenadesinto barrels loses you the barrel, jeez! pewpewpew


Better a thousand barrels lost than a single fish escapes the divine justice of the Emperor! :laugh:

On Topic though, there isnt that much I dislike, about the ruleset, I'd prefer a game with more depth but its alright as is.


----------



## NeonDante (May 14, 2009)

TLOS is annoying. To me, it seems like area terrain was abstract anyway. Yes, there's more than three trees in that forest, but you wouldn't be able to put dynamically posed models there if they were all modeled! 

Seems... gimmicky. 

Anyway, kill points seems iffy too, but other than that, I like 5th ed fine.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Necron player came 15th in the Irish GT this year with a non monolith list and was a great sport about the game. I was proud to play him to a draw. I think gauss is good but if you have dedicated anti tank units, like every army should have then it's a bit redundant ain't it? Heavy destroyers pop tanks very easily as they're basically lascannons that can move godly fast. also amount of gaus hits can drop a tank as most you need 3-4 weapon destroyed and they can do that alright... 

KPs is my most annoying part of the rules though. In one way it makes sense, unit for a point I get that, but it's too simple. a 50pts unit of guard is the same as a 400+ unit of vanguard veterans for example.


----------



## davidmumma66 (May 11, 2010)

My problem is EVERY ONE IS MARINES! Every one! i started as a cron player but the new edition nerfed my army to the point i started playing Dark angels, but wait a second GW left dark angels behind when they updated wolves, BA and Vanilla marines. I mean gw really needs to change the way the do codexs, and kill points also bother me, if i kill your 10 man wolf guard melee terminator mob lead by Logan, i get duh duh duh 2 kill points, now if you shoot 2 of my rhinos and they die you get 2 kill points also, thats balanced how? And chapter tactics for the vanilla marines are even worse, i mean master crafted thunder hammers to go with that 3++ storm sheild


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Wait, what? You wanted to switch armies to something different than crons so you could be stronger and you went with dark angels?


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

davidmumma66 said:


> My problem is EVERY ONE IS MARINES! Every one! i started as a cron player but the new edition nerfed my army to the point i started playing Dark angels, but wait a second GW left dark angels behind when they updated wolves, BA and Vanilla marines. I mean gw really needs to change the way the do codexs, and kill points also bother me, if i kill your 10 man wolf guard melee terminator mob lead by Logan, i get duh duh duh 2 kill points, now if you shoot 2 of my rhinos and they die you get 2 kill points also, thats balanced how? And chapter tactics for the vanilla marines are even worse, i mean master crafted thunder hammers to go with that 3++ storm sheild


Well, it's balanced, because you've dealt a critical blow to their army, whereas they have only removed a measure of protection (not totally, as you know have a LOS blocker, or a Crater) and mobility. Killing a points sink Deathstar is an on-field advantage, one that cannot be expected to be legislated for by the rules. People (seem to) forget - KPs only get tallied when the dust settles. Concentrate on what you can GAIN, not what you can LOSE. 



gen.ahab said:


> Wait, what? You went from wanted to switch armies to something different than crons so you could be stronger and you went with dark angels?


Oh the humanity! :laugh:


----------



## CLT40k (Jun 18, 2010)

TheKingElessar said:


> Nu-uh. Living upside down on the wrong side of the world has affected your brain.
> 
> @Midnight Sun - Obviously, they used the Barrel Squig. :gimmefive:


But they do have Wallabies... that's got to count for something... Hey Kirby, do Space Wolf players on the counterweight continent ever model Thunder Wallaby calvary instead?


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

Wombats would be far more vicious than wallabies actually!


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

CLT40k said:


> But they do have Wallabies... that's got to count for something... Hey Kirby, do Space Wolf players on the counterweight continent ever model Thunder Wallaby calvary instead?


*Head Explodes*

Hey, CLT - why aren't you on the Blog Network Purple writing trip? Send a PM to Jezlad and get yourself sorted, buddy!

Chris, I think you may be eligible too.


----------



## davidmumma66 (May 11, 2010)

I switched because of deathwing lol i went marines while at the time of the switch was still not that common but now because of logan wing i am probably going to switch to a new army i mean nothing as unique about any of the space marine chapters anymore. Well its time to go chaos, don't see many people playing them, and i don't have to scrap all my termies and maybe i can convert cron warriors into rubric marines


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

davidmumma66 said:


> I switched because of deathwing lol i went marines while at the time of the switch was still not that common but now because of logan wing i am probably going to switch to a new army i mean nothing as unique about any of the space marine chapters anymore. Well its time to go chaos, don't see many people playing them, and i don't have to scrap all my termies and maybe i can convert cron warriors into rubric marines


Rrm.

I would advise playing using the Wolf rules, if using Chaos. Sure, you lose Kharn, PMs, Oblits, and DPs. But you get sooooo much more.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Yeah, if you want a true loganwing list I can help you if you want to post it in the list section.


----------



## davidmumma66 (May 11, 2010)

No lol don't get me wrong, i went chaos because of all the wolf guard termie lists popping up, and i am writing a fluff thousand sons list and so far it seems like it will do well, except all the cover saves and eldar lol. that or i am going to just take advantage of kill points and make 20 man squads of plague marines and camp in trees


----------



## Stockholm (Jul 6, 2010)

5e makes everything more survivable. except MEQ which was already ok and now can get cover saves from AP weapons easy. i like how important terrain and the board is now with TLOS and cover saves.

the broken parts are obbviously some codex disparity and exploitation lists. like leaf blower IG vs DoC lists, or spore mine saturation ruing a spearhead deployment game before turn 1. compared to how much i love everything else, its not so bad. 

why do warmachine players gotta be such haters?


----------



## davidmumma66 (May 11, 2010)

Hmmm, well I think i can beat kill points, My whole army will consist of a Chaos Lord terminator armor mark of nurgle and combi melta, and 20 man squads of plague marines with melta guns to counter all those mechs, and 20 fnp marines in cover, good luck killing them all


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

davidmumma66 said:


> Hmmm, well I think i can beat kill points, My whole army will consist of a Chaos Lord terminator armor mark of nurgle and combi melta, and 20 man squads of plague marines with melta guns to counter all those mechs, and 20 fnp marines in cover, good luck killing them all


Sure, but one of the BEST things about 5e is that you don;t have to kill anything to win, 2/3 of the Missions. It always helps, of course - but you don't win by killing, so there is no necessity to.

Also, you won't always have cover, and you will have very little chance of getting to Objectives in midfield.

I'm not criticising, but your list is very inflexible, has virtually no Damage Output - and won't scare any army with decent shooting or massed Power Weapons.


----------



## SHarrington (Jan 7, 2010)

#1 Wound Allocation Rules on multiwound models with different wargear.
I thought the point of moving out of 2nd edition was to make the game simpler?
I can't think of a single rule in any edition that is as complicated as this one.
Sure, you can puzzle through it, but most times you just nod your head at what your opponent says and moves on, not wanting to spend 5 minutes trying to figure out which of these ID wounds go where, which AP busters go where, and where to put the rest of the normal wounds.
Gads

#2. Transports
In all things, they are pretty cool. But the immunity to EVERYTHING that they give embarked units is stupid. 4th edition was better. Penetrating hit? Everyone out immediately. Especially open top transports. Thats just dumb. A heavy flamer should cook the guys on board.

#3. Deepstrike Mishaps. 
I understand the need for mishaps if you fly off the board or into a wall, but into an enemy model? Shouldn't the enemy get a mishap roll to? It would have just been easier to drop them all right into Melee, like back in the old days with a Warp Jump Generator.

#4.Codex errata for edition shifts.
I mean when they release a new edition, they need to go back and errata every single existing codex for all the broken rules that occured. 
Stuff like the Tau wargear that increases leadership for Target Priority Tests. 
Or all those different wargear/upgrades/biomoprhps that "increase the number of models you count as during combat resolution", the hold overs from the previous edition.

Hell, they updated (read: not a new codex) the Dark Eldar and Necron Codeci for the shift from 3rd to 4th. Something similar for all codeci would show us that GamesWorkshop loves it's game at least as much as they love our money.


----------



## Durzod (Nov 24, 2009)

Kill points. The point cost of a unit represents (supposedly) not only the relative effectiveness of a unit, but also the investment in training and/or resources to field such a unit. A commander is given a certain amount of resources from the army to accomplish a mission. In the overall scheme of things is it reasonable to claim victory if you destroy 2 mass-produced transport vehicles at the cost of a heavily armored veteran squad of Terminators? Why not Victory points? You have to calculate the points cost of your army to play, why can't you use those same calculations to determine victory?

Now to the biggie: TLOS (That Load Of S**t). What lunatic decided that it makes a better game if I can shoot a lascannon 48"(its maximum effective range) through two stands of trees, 5 windows of three different buildings at the head of some heroically posed idiot? Not to mention all the smoke and dust inherent in a battlefield situation. And what even semi-trained conscript is going to stand erect waving his arms in the air when there's a perfectly good wall to crouch behind? We're playing a game of abstractions, why do we have to be literal about LOS? Boardgames handle LOS. as do most other miniature games. Why does 40k (and now 8th ed fantasy) refuse to accept that gamers would rather have terrain pieces we can actually place our models in than cluttered messes that, while accurately depicting the obscuring value of an area of the table, can't have any models placed in them (or have a limited area that the minis will fit)? Are we all so lame that we can accept the concept of little pieces of plastic and metal representing space aliens, but not that the area covered by a piece of foamboard and plastic represents a stand of trees and underbrush or a ruined building with internal walls and debris? 4th ed had a better LOS system than 5th, all it needed was a little refinement to deal with elevation issues and narrow area terrain pieces.
I've been playing 40k since Rogue Trader days, and have seen the game progress until I felt they almost had it right. Then 5th ed came out and the process hiccuped. Rather than refine the system it was dumbed down (and certain parts, like LOS rules, totally scrapped) in the name of "streamlining". 

ENDXMIT


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Durzod said:


> Now to the biggie: TLOS (That Load Of S**t). What lunatic decided that it makes a better game if I can shoot a lascannon 48"(its maximum effective range) through two stands of trees, 5 windows of three different buildings at the head of some heroically posed idiot? Not to mention all the smoke and dust inherent in a battlefield situation. And what even semi-trained conscript is going to stand erect waving his arms in the air when there's a perfectly good wall to crouch behind? We're playing a game of abstractions, why do we have to be literal about LOS? Boardgames handle LOS. as do most other miniature games. Why does 40k (and now 8th ed fantasy) refuse to accept that gamers would rather have terrain pieces we can actually place our models in than cluttered messes that, while accurately depicting the obscuring value of an area of the table, can't have any models placed in them (or have a limited area that the minis will fit)? Are we all so lame that we can accept the concept of little pieces of plastic and metal representing space aliens, but not that the area covered by a piece of foamboard and plastic represents a stand of trees and underbrush or a ruined building with internal walls and debris? 4th ed had a better LOS system than 5th, all it needed was a little refinement to deal with elevation issues and narrow area terrain pieces.
> I've been playing 40k since Rogue Trader days, and have seen the game progress until I felt they almost had it right. Then 5th ed came out and the process hiccuped. Rather than refine the system it was dumbed down (and certain parts, like LOS rules, totally scrapped) in the name of "streamlining".
> 
> ENDXMIT


I agree with this 100%. Well said!


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

I disagree, not least because there was no incentive for people to actually BUY terrain, when we could say 'Right, these books are hills, and this blue string is a size 2 wood. This other blue string is a size 3 wood, and these two clumps of white string are a size one swamp, which is Dangerous to Infantry.

...Or, perhaps, reread the 4e book, and realise TLOS, while never referred to by name, referred to everything except area terrain?


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

TheKingElessar said:


> ..Or, perhaps, reread the 4e book, and realise TLOS, while never referred to by name, referred to everything except area terrain?



While this is true, it is much easier to turn up for a game at saya store or torunanemt and say 'The hills, woods and building size 3, that rublle and crater size 2? Cool lets role for deployment.' There were admitedly problems but Im sure they could have worked them out.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

TheKingElessar said:


> I disagree, not least because there was no incentive for people to actually BUY terrain, when we could say 'Right, these books are hills, and this blue string is a size 2 wood. This other blue string is a size 3 wood, and these two clumps of white string are a size one swamp, which is Dangerous to Infantry.


thats a load of rubbish really, the incentive would be the image on the table, terrain adds to the game, so why would someone use books and string?, unless they really can't afford it.

gimme WOTR's los rules anyday, there simple enough


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

I don't really understand the hatred for TLOS... it makes far more sense and is faster and easier than the old rules of "So, I'm 6" above the table, so I can see through 4" of forest, and if I hit this one member of a squad then he doesn't get cover...."

Like every game and every ruleset, if you're playing like/against a dickwad, you're not going to have fun. On the other hand if you talk it over like mature adults, you will have fun. _The problem isn't the shift to TLOS, the problem is people being fucking retards about it._

Oh, and everyone forgets about the modifier which the rulebook says you can agree on - so I'd be happy to let you shoot my guy through a fence, window and chinese sliding door, so long as I get 2+ cover rather than 4+. Quite often if there's a dispute over cover I'll just instantly suggest 3+/5+, and whoever I'm playing will happily go along with it. Everyone's satisfied.

The thing I hate most about 5th is probably the continuing bias in favour of the Imperium. Dark Eldar are now about 13 years old with no new codex in sight, yet every second release is "FOR TEH EMPORAH!!111one1!". Either:

Release a new codex for every army per edition (and alter the order in which they are released, so the same army isn't always left until last)

OR

Release one codex that includes every non-imperial army in one book and call it "Enemies of Mankind" and then release consecutive codicies for:

Founding Legions
Successor Chapters
Imperial Guard Regiments
Ordo Xenos
Ordo Hereticus
Ordo Malleus
Adeptus Arbites

Either way, please stop perpetuating the myth that all armies are supposed to be equal when they clearly aren't. Either level the playing field or just admit that 90% of your design team is tasked with making more "good guy" stuff and get on with it.

I like the idea that Fantasy doesn't have a "poster boy" race, so why the hell should 40k? It's a good argument.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> thats a load of rubbish really, the incentive would be the image on the table, terrain adds to the game, so why would someone use books and string?, unless they really can't afford it.
> 
> gimme WOTR's los rules anyday, there simple enough


BS.

Spend my hard earned green on scenery that I can simulate for free, or or on more toy soldiers. No brainer.

When I'm only playing in my house with my mates, I don't need more than that.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

TLOS is so much better, 4the ed with area terrain was like this: I have a small building/outpost with a bridge on it attaching it to another small building on the same base therefore if I'm under the bridge (no reference to the red hot chilli's) I couldn't see you is how I saw so many anal player s play area terrain as they were 6" away from the edge of that base I couldn't see them...WTF you are in the friggin clear I can see you and all your mates and several tanks behind you!


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

LOS is "Realistic" in some ways. The only change I make would be the only guys you could kill would be the ones in sight. 
The whole deal of me shooting the one ML Marine guy in plain sight while his mates hide behind the building, and I shoot this guy only guy I can see and score three wounds. What happens? The three guys behind the building die, WTF? My bullets curve now? 
This is vice versa as I dont like 3 guys of my own getting killed cause you can see one guys arm in the building window. Oh brother.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Perhaps your shell double penetrated the terrain..... as ichy as that sounds.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

TheKingElessar said:


> BS.
> 
> Spend my hard earned green on scenery that I can simulate for free, or or on more toy soldiers. No brainer.
> 
> When I'm only playing in my house with my mates, I don't need more than that.


so your statement on why anyone would have incentive to bother with terrain is based on because why should you bother?

thankfully not everyone is that lazy, everyone I know's incentive to buy terrain is the image during a game and in fact for allot of people it is FAR more important than the toys, just because you have no incentive with terrain thankfully doesn't mean everyone is like you....thank christ.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

gen.ahab said:


> Perhaps your shell double penetrated the terrain..... as ichy as that sounds.


Very Itchy, especially when that shot was a bunch lasguns. I also like it when my Demolisher shoots a shell directly behind it thanks to the scatter rules. How the hell is that possible, the turrent cant aim nowhere near the rear, and I cant see a Strong enough wind knocking shells out of the air when bolt guns work fine. Oh well nothings perfect.

On the Terrain issue...
I think a painted army and beautiful terrain makes for a more enjoyable game. If you play for just the rules and sake of gaming, play chess or checkers. Hell play Risk.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> so your statement on why anyone would have incentive to bother with terrain is based on because why should you bother?
> 
> thankfully not everyone is that lazy, everyone I know's incentive to buy terrain is the image during a game and in fact for allot of people it is FAR more important than the toys, just because you have no incentive with terrain thankfully doesn't mean everyone is like you....thank christ.


No, most players I've met are more interested in making their own...

But I can see why you would be confused.


----------

