# Does anyone really 'love' 5th ed.?



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

After reading this thread, I started to wonder: does anyone really love 5th ed., or is everyone just trying to survive until 6th ed.?

Not too many people seem to absolutely hate 5th ed., a lot of people think it's kind of ok, almost nobody seems to really 'love' 5th ed. like some people did 3rd ed.

I, personally, find myself in survival mode until GW get a more unified approach to 40k and quite like 5th ed. but see so much room for improvement.

Who loves 5th ed.?


----------



## admiraldick (Sep 9, 2008)

i'm not sure i ever met a person who 'loved' 3rd ed (though i know a number who look back through rose tinted glasses at 2nd ed with fondness). from my experience 5th ed has been easily the most popular and agreeable edition of the game to date. the core game is certainly not without fault, but there seems to me to be a consensus that it is much quicker, simpler and more fun than previous editions.

it is, of course, let down by the rolling codex system, which has been a thorn in the side of the game since it started in 3rd. there are benefits to the rolling system (mainly no one is absolutely without a codex at any point) but the changes in design philosophy and lack of interest in updating some codexes seems to negate such benefits pretty quickly.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Im happy with it.

There are a few things that are stupid (some cover save logic, wound allocation disrupting the flow of the game, etc), but in general i think its reasonable. It will never be perfect, but its reasonable enough as it is.
I wouldn't really care if GW released a 6th edition or just left it in 5th ed.

Just play the game and live with the rules.
If you dont like them, then play a different game.
Complaining about it on a forum (or to GW even) is going to achieve a whole lot of nothing.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

I agree with admiraldick, I think the rolling codex system is frustrating a lot of people because they can't make full use of their old armies in the new rules system. Maybe this is what stops more people loving it?
So, KoC fully agrees with my view on this, why no love? Some things are 'stupid' or go against logic, which frustrates people.

Is frustration a barrier to 'love'?


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

people tent to hate rules that handy cap there army, so getting the 5th edition just after your codex was made or so your rules have all ready changed and the way you ploay them(ya i know they would ahve taken the rule's into account, this is hyperthetical).

Alot of people conplaina bout cover etc but i feel it works. I have Aspergues syndrom so a simple rules would be great. just yesterdya i was helping a kid build an Army list for his new Tyranids and taking him thoguht it step by step. Some people find the rules hard or unfair. Personaly i find them to be "realistic" and "natural" and the fact that I could learn them makes it even better as it took me months to learn LOTR but about 2-5 weeks to learn 40k thoguht playing and reading.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

darklove said:


> I agree with admiraldick, I think the rolling codex system is frustrating a lot of people because they can't make full use of their old armies in the new rules system. Maybe this is what stops more people loving it?
> So, KoC fully agrees with my view on this, why no love? Some things are 'stupid' or go against logic, which frustrates people.
> 
> Is frustration a barrier to 'love'?


Well, i have never had the urge to stick my dick inside the rulebook, if thats what you mean.


----------



## Calamari (Feb 13, 2009)

Compared to 3rd and 4th, 5th is my favourite and I do really enjoy the game. There are a few niggles that need addressing so I would like 6th ed to be more like edition 5.5


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

KingOfCheese said:


> Well, i have never had the urge to stick my dick inside the rulebook, if thats what you mean.


It isn't what I mean, but thank you for being so frank with us...

What I mean is, there don't seem to be any gamers that feel passionately about 5th ed. in a positive way, people that absolutely 'love' it, it mostly just seems to be a grudging acceptance and an attitude of 'I suppose it is ok on balance but there are things in there that really piss me off', whatever those things might be. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

So far I think admiraldick's suggestion for this holds a lot of water. It almost feels like GW are missing a trick. As if they are on the edge of greatness, but something just pulls them back. Like getting to the end of a 3,000 piece puzzle and finding that 1 piece is missing: it might be a beautiful picture, and you have tried really hard to make it all fit, but in the end the frustration is a barrier to really loving it.

So frustration seems to be one aspect, are there any other obvious barriers to a passionately positive 'love' of 5th ed., rather than a grudging acceptance?


----------



## El Mariachi (Jun 22, 2008)

All my friends and I think it's the best edition by far. I no longer wish for the days of 2nd edition like I did through 3rd and 4th  Once all the armies get an updated codex, there should be a lot less whining. Personally speaking, the part I'm most happy with 5th edition is that it got rid of a lot of 'gamey' rules in place of rules which just felt like they made more sense and more importantly, were more fun. 4th ed was quite a yawn fest with all its abstractions- if people really want a game like that they should play chess!

My 2 cents,

El

P.S. Just thought I'd add, 4th edition- now that was a frustrating game. Person A: "What do you mean I can't see your models, I blatantly can!" Person B: "Doesn't matter, this terrain is classified as size 1/2/3 whatever".


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

No system is going to be perfect though.

You could have a passionate long-term gamer design the rules to be absolutely perfect in their view, and 80% of other people will complain. Perfect in one persons eyes is flawed in someone elses.

The rules as they are now are perfectly reasonable.


----------



## El Mariachi (Jun 22, 2008)

KingOfCheese said:


> No system is going to be perfect though.
> 
> You could have a passionate long-term gamer design the rules to be absolutely perfect in their view, and 80% of other people will complain. Perfect in one persons eyes is flawed in someone elses.
> 
> The rules as they are now are perfectly reasonable.


Quoted for truth:goodpost:


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

So it seems that 5th ed. is destined to be unloved? Maybe once 7th ed. comes out people will look back more fondly. People tend to remember the good things more strongly with the passage of time, in 10years time it might seem like the best edition ever. Who can say.


----------



## Kirby (May 16, 2010)

People who enjoy competition and tactical thought? You'll find the minority who dislike it and don't like GW producing "power armies" (read: good and balanced codecies) are quite vocal about it but those who enjoy it don't come out of the woodwork.

What's to dislike about a gaming system which encourages tactical thought and mobility?


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

darklove said:


> So it seems that 5th ed. is destined to be unloved? Maybe once 7th ed. comes out people will look back more fondly. People tend to remember the good things more strongly with the passage of time, in 10years time it might seem like the best edition ever. Who can say.


What do you mean by unloved?
What is your definition of "love"?

Almost everyone thinks that this is the best edition so far. 
What else do you want from the rules?
You want a rule that states that a female worker from GW must give you a blowjob during every game you play?
As i said before, im happy with the rulebook, but just because people aren't sticking their dicks in the rulebook and blowing their load all over the wound allocation page doesnt mean that they hate it.

Just because we dont worship the rulebook like the bible doesn't mean we hate it.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

El Mariachi said:


> Person A: "What do you mean I can't see your models, I blatantly can!" Person B: "Doesn't matter, this terrain is classified as size 1/2/3 whatever".


I liked that rule as you could put models sort of on the hill and it did not matter; now balancing them where they actually are makes a difference.

And all the stepped hills we used that could be defined as different heights in different games to vary things a little are now slight bumps that give some cover but do not block LoS.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

KingOfCheese said:


> What do you mean by unloved?
> What is your definition of "love"?
> 
> Almost everyone thinks that this is the best edition so far.
> ...


Dude, read what you are writing! :shok: Love is an intense feeling of affection. I know that not everyone is a literary genius, but love is a pretty simple word in everyday usage. You don't sound like someone that has ever loved, if you only think of your dick.
Just saying the rules are ok and seem to work does not express a deep feeling of affection or appreciation. Not hating something does NOT mean that you therefor love it! Please read your posts before clicking on submit.

I am not suggesting that everyone SHOULD love it, but I am just surprised that so few people actually do. I know people that love WFB, and Space Hulk. There aren't millions of them, but they really proclaim their affection for the game as a beautiful thing.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

darklove said:


> Dude, read what you are writing! :shok: ...
> Love is an intense feeling of affection...
> Just saying the rules are ok and seem to work does not express a deep feeling of affection or appreciation...
> Please read your posts before clicking on submit...


If you have deep feelings of affection towards a book, i think you may need some serious help...


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

I like 5th but my issues lie for me in the 3 main rules -

1) Cover - I believe this needs more detail in it's explanation - I mean realistically I believe if I'm in a tower and your on a hill how do you gain a 5+ cover save when going to ground just because it's a terrain feature! Hills should not give cover unless your on the other side and obscured by them! Other than this point I like cover rules due to playing an army with little to no saves!

2) Run rule - Yes it makes it quicker but kills the biggest advantage of my DE(and a few other armies that had this ability before) in that we have pretty much all got fleet, yes we can assault after running but there are few good CC units in DE that can do this well - wyches and archons(without incubi) are about the only thing worth it . I just don't hate it because my main army is DE but the fact this ability used to be a game changing and tactical advantage ability now it's just like a space marine having a boltgun!

3) Scoring system - Enough said!


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

I despise 5th, not as much as I despised 4th "rending" edition mind, but an edition that reduces tanks to buildings, and almost forces you to spam transports, with stupid LOS rules (why can you kill my entire squad if you can only see 1 of my men?), and how easy to abuse the LOS rules are because of how literal they are written, and many many other problems like leaving most codexes as nothing more than asswiping paper just makes it ridiculous.

gimme back 3.5, I loved 3rd, I loved 3.5 even more than that.


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

i wouldn't say i 'love' 5th i like it yeh but there are some really broken rules, like only troops count as scoring units. I'm looking forward to 6th but i'm not impatient for it


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

I for one love 5th edd, since I feel it removed a lot of the cheap tricks out their I despised, like warp spiders going to the edge of a forest to fire then jumping deep enough into cover that I couldn't fire back. Also I enjoy the fact that one unit can't massacre across a gun line in one or two turns or less single handedly killing 2-3 units with out getting shot at. Still Vehicles are a little too resilient now, hence making killing transports difficult to say the least. Also I like the general weakening of rending, since it used to be retardedly powerful for the few units that actually had rending. Further more I am a huge fan of true line of sight (Even though their are still nonsensical/contradictory parts in the rule book) since I find it really enhances the realism.

Still I understand why some people find fault with the much in the current rule book, but most of their concerns are not caused just by the rule book, but by the changes in codexe's to. For instance a huge factor in the sudden increase in transports is the fact most new codex's CSM/Gaurd/Orks now have cheaper if not far more reliable transports.

Still I will make one complaint about the 5th, and it can be summed up in a 4 words. KILL POINTS ARE STUPID!


----------



## TheSpore (Oct 15, 2009)

i havent had that many comlaints about 5th except for 2 things. Fearless is pointless now its more a curse than a perk. When combat is over its over plain and simple it makes no sense that you take double wounds just because you are fearless. For armies like daemons especially its a definate curse since every unit is fearless. sweeping advance one of the greatest thing about close combat was slaughtering one unit and moving on to the next with a sweeping advance. its great the khorne bezerkers can totally own in combat but whats the use of fielding them if when after they win combat they wind up gettin the crap shot out of them the next turn. oh and why is if you jshoot just one shot with a bolter your not allowed to charge anymore.

if they whould stop daughtling and bring back 2nd ed i would be happy or just brought back some aspects of 4th whould be fine as well,'

i am happy they brought back the run option and the mishap table is a godsend for deep strike i use to never ever deep strike until 5th. I wish they would bring back a glanceing hit table though vehicles are a lil too resilent and close combat to hit rolls could use some change if you got a WS 8 vs a WS 3 or 4 well you should be hittin on 3s it should be 2s.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Well at last someone that does love it, although not without caveats and mainly on the rebound from issues relating to 4th ed.. What you were saying about the vehicle rules changes might actually make some people love it though? I know people that really like tanks, and a vehicle oriented game might be just their cup of tea. GW are further supporting this by making most vehicles in the 5th ed. codices immune to shaken and stunned results, or with this immunity as an optional upgrade of some sort. Conversely it is making many players a little cross because their armies either have very limited anti-armour options or no vehicles at all.

Maybe that is how to find more true lovers of the edition, by identifying exactly which codex and play styles are most strongly advantaged by the current edition? Space Marines are, of course, the army with every trick pony there is. More than all other armies combined. I think there was a thread about why people hated SMs, or Ultra Marines. Maybe some of the love-blocking frustration is because 40k is a game for SM players and whoever didn't get the hint from GW sticking pictures of SMs on everything they do?


----------



## DonFer (Apr 23, 2010)

KingOfCheese said:


> Well, i have never had the urge to stick my dick inside the rulebook, if thats what you mean.


Hahahaha thanks for the thought..."Oh I love you 5th Ed... come here I've got a little something for ya....." hahahaha.... :sarcastichand:

Anyways, I think that a "game lover" it's going to be difficult at best, to find. Just consider that 40k it's a game for the masses and is common knowledge that the masses could and would never be 100% happy with anything. So your best shot is to find people that play and enjoy the rules. I started playing WH40K with 5th, but read 3rd and 4th ed rules, and I find that the game is faster and more streamlined than before. This makes it more intuitive and fun to play and enjoy.

Of course you can always love 5th ed, in the dark of your solitary dorm, from time to time....:biggrin:


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

I agree with the spore that Fearless is now possibly the worst special rule to have due to how combat now works out, especially since in 3rd and 4th it was one of the best rules you could have! 
I think maybe if they changed sweeping advance to say if you roll 3D6 and paas your LD test you may consolidate into another combat other wise you tie or you can take the normal sweeping advance rule, I think combat armies would be alot more happier.

And yes KILL POINTS are lame it's like I have 4 KP's and you have 1 and it's turn 5 now I'm just going to hide an move backwards so you can't win, Victory Points didn't have this problem as it was find expensive units and smash them then wipe up the little ones if you could which made much more interesting stand offs like HQ vs HQ and the winner gets like 200 VP's not HQ vs HQ and oh look 1 KP wow I may aswell sit back and shoot it with ork shoota boyz.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

I personally think the change to consolidating is a good thing (I don't just play Necrons, I also play Daemons and Nids). It was very unbalanced to allow a 200pt unit to wipe out 1,200pts of enemy units, which was often the case in games of SM or CSM vs Tau, Necrons or IG for example.

KP are a bit odd, they don't always reflect achievement very accurately.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

I personally like 5th edition. I woundlt say I loved it, but there is very little with the actual rule book I dislike. 

My big problem is with the codexs that have been created since the rules were produced. They have several flaws most of which are designed to bypass the rules in the main book either directly or indirectly.

The most direct way is to make non troop units into troops. This has occured in say the BA codex and the ork codex. The idea that foot troops are needed to hold a postion is very old and justified military thinking. Cavalry or artilary would need dedicated infantry units to hold ground. Tanks limited close quarter defensive abiltiy and poor rear/side visabilty stopped them from being able to defend themselves from infantry counter attack. From a rules point of view this would mean bikes or jetpack troops would be unsuited to holding ground (I know there are exceptions but an entire force of jetpack troops do not have enough long range fire power to hold of long range fire power without leaving the objective)

The other thin that the codex do indirectly is to make certain armies hard to counter. Hord armies that can take very hard vehicals are a really troublsome combination. Ork's have AP14 vehicals that can be filled with the best multiuse weapon in the game. Anybody who has come across the looter filled battlewagon will know that a couple of these will make winning any game very difficult. Im not complaining at ork players here as they are using the rules as given, but 2 squads of looters can pump out on average of 300 strength 7 shots in a 5 turn game, of which 100 on avergae will hit. And all this sitting and very hard to penetrate vehicle.

I didnt mean to pick on Orks here specifically but they just happened to be the first examples that came to mind. Codex creep is defenitly my pet hate 

Therefore


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Regarding your hate towards Lootas in Battlewagons... I was considering a 1500 point list with 3 Battlewagons with 15 Lootas in each, with a KFF in the middle one.

Dakka anyone???


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Having thought about it I do not think I will even "love" an edition of 40K again.

I loved Rogue Trader; there was all the fun new background and cool rules and I was young enough not to think there might be a less complex way of, for instance, simulating vehicle movement. I have no real desire to go back to it now.

Then Second Edition came along and put me off playing for years.

I was drawn back in with Third Edition and I liked it because it was not Second Edition and because the changes made it a quicker game to play than Rogue Trader without becoming simplistic.

Overall I preferred Fourth Edition to Third because they took out more things I did not like than they added in.

Fifth Edition is much the same for me; they removed some of the niggles of Fourth but put some new niggles in.

Overall, my thought is that, had I come to the hobby in Second Edition, or Third Edition then I would have loved that Edition, as it was not just a rule set, it was a whole new universe. Now the joy of the new is gone further Editions will only even be better or worse overall than the Edition they replace which will never be love.


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> I despise 5th, not as much as I despised 4th "rending" edition mind, but an edition that reduces tanks to buildings, and almost *forces you to spam transports*, with *stupid LOS rules (why can you kill my entire squad if you can only see 1 of my men?)*, and how *easy to abuse the LOS rules* are because of how literal they are written, and many many other problems like leaving most *codexes as nothing more than asswiping paper* just makes it ridiculous.


I completely agree with the indicated parts. I can't say anything about pre-5th ed rules as I've never played them.



TheSpore said:


> i havent had that many comlaints about 5th except for 2 things. *Fearless is pointless now its more a curse than a perk. When combat is over its over plain and simple it makes no sense that you take double wounds just because you are fearless.* For armies like daemons especially its a definate curse since every unit is fearless. *sweeping advance one of the greatest thing about close combat was slaughtering one unit and moving on to the next with a sweeping advance. its great the khorne bezerkers can totally own in combat but whats the use of fielding them if when after they win combat they wind up gettin the crap shot out of them the next turn. oh and why is if you jshoot just one shot with a bolter your not allowed to charge anymore.*


BLOOD FOR THE DAKKADAKKAKABOOOOMM!!!



darklove said:


> Maybe that is how to find more true lovers of the edition, by identifying exactly which codex and play styles are most strongly advantaged by the current edition? Space Marines are, of course, the army with every trick pony there is. More than all other armies combined. I think there was a thread about why people hated SMs, or Ultra Marines. Maybe some of the love-blocking frustration is because *40k is a game for SM players *and whoever didn't get the hint from GW sticking pictures of SMs on everything they do?


Paragraph of truth, but the part in boldface is the best. Though it'd be more accurate if you'd say "40K is a game for TEH EMPRAH', so IG can join in and who knows, the new Ordos coming out might further prove this point.

But to properly answer the question of the OP, heres my 2 cents:

If by 5th ed you mean the stuff in the BRB then I'm content. I'd love it if the problems mentioned by Stella and Spore were fixed. However, if you mean or in your interpretation include the various codices then I hate it. 
*insert your everyday tl;dr rant on how retarded the CSM Codex is, how SPESS MUHREENS ARE TEH BESTEST, how IG can have enough tanks to make me feel like we're playing Flames of War and blow me off the map without too much effort, how retarded every SM Codex is (insert nipple armour jokes and Space Wolf psychic power comparisons to any other army, mainly Eldar and CSM, who coincidentally are the best casters according to fluff) and whatever classic 40K tears of sorrow and steam of rage you can possibly imagine*

In comparison, the 8th ed rules of WHFB are pretty good and I love it. Except for the abuse of the Steadfast rule, but I'm seriously going to drop an anvil on anyone's dick who dares field a unit bigger than 40... Oh and WoC are not retarded satanist terrorists like their descendants in 40K, they are as awesome as the Legions were back in 3rd ed. So if I want to play the tabletop game I'm much more likely to play WHFB. If I happen to miss 40K I'll just go play DoW2 because its much more fun and fair (lvl 6+ Chaos Lord with PoLC, MoK, and Harness of Rage anyone? Or perhaps 3 lvl2+ Chaos Dreadnoughts with MoK? yumm-yumm). Oh and you gotta love it when the Scouts scream... "One less loyalist!"

Though if the Sisters turn out well I'll start collecting them, and wait till a decent CSM codex comes out. 'till then I'll be building my Warshrine so the weak men of the south can start shitting themselves...


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> I despise 5th, not as much as I despised 4th "rending" edition mind, but an edition that reduces tanks to buildings, and almost forces you to spam transports, with stupid LOS rules (why can you kill my entire squad if you can only see 1 of my men?), and how easy to abuse the LOS rules are because of how literal they are written, and many many other problems like leaving most codexes as nothing more than asswiping paper just makes it ridiculous.
> 
> gimme back 3.5, I loved 3rd, I loved 3.5 even more than that.


Totaly agree about the LOS there. Just cause you see one guy doesnt mean your bullets/plasma/whatever bends around the corner to hit my guys. Should be you can kill only what you see.



Lord Sinkoran said:


> i wouldn't say i 'love' 5th i like it yeh but there are some really broken rules, like only troops count as scoring units. I'm looking forward to 6th but i'm not impatient for it


Actually this rule I strongly agree with. It forces you to take Troops that is suppose to make up most your army. It makes no sense to have a Troops section if I can make my army all Termies. However thanks to this rule people with Leaders that make Elite count as troops (like Pedro Canter, or Belial) can give advantages and rewarded for shoosing that type of army.



TheSpore said:


> i havent had that many comlaints about 5th except for 2 things. Fearless is pointless now its more a curse than a perk. When combat is over its over plain and simple it makes no sense that you take double wounds just because you are fearless. For armies like daemons especially its a definate curse since every unit is fearless. sweeping advance one of the greatest thing about close combat was slaughtering one unit and moving on to the next with a sweeping advance. its great the khorne bezerkers can totally own in combat but whats the use of fielding them if when after they win combat they wind up gettin the crap shot out of them the next turn. oh and why is if you jshoot just one shot with a bolter your not allowed to charge anymore.
> 
> if they whould stop daughtling and bring back 2nd ed i would be happy or just brought back some aspects of 4th whould be fine as well,'
> 
> i am happy they brought back the run option and the mishap table is a godsend for deep strike i use to never ever deep strike until 5th. I wish they would bring back a glanceing hit table though vehicles are a lil too resilent and close combat to hit rolls could use some change if you got a WS 8 vs a WS 3 or 4 well you should be hittin on 3s it should be 2s.


Spore, is most of this steming from our last game? Its true that Units like Nids and Orks acting Fearless get massacred in CC if they lose. Daemons suffer very badly since there all about CC with meagre 5+. For MEQ Fearless is at best a annoyance, for anything with 5+ save get fuked.

Sweeping Advance is a handycap now and days where in 4th it was overpowered. I can understand how unbalance it is for Tau/IG gunlines to be wiped out in a single turn by one charging unit of Beserkers. On the same side what good is CC units when they are out in the open after wiping out one lowerpoint squad to be shot to bits? They should make Sweeping Advance like back in 4th, only instead starting a new assault you just get locked up in CC with the closest unit you can reach. That way Gunlines still have a chance to react without your precious CC units getting shot to pieces.

I can see where Daemon players get upset when asshole players line up there Rhinos and LRs in a wall, and all your deamons can do is glance them while getting shot to pieces. Is that what you mean Spore :grin:. That is also the fault of the Deamon Dex too. It suffers against Mech. Maybe they should make CSM Allies like DH and WH dex do for IG/SM.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

I don't mind 5th. I'd like it if I didn't have to hide inside transports all the time to survive but otherwise I'm pretty happy with it. The only thing that I really can't stand is True Line of Sight. I don't care what anyone says, I'd prefer abstract line of sight rules any day.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

The only real problem I had with this edition is the over reliance on tanks, I would have kept playing if GW didn't try and force me to change the way I like to game by making transports and tanks virtually compulsory if you want a competative force.
I don't enjoy painting vehicles, I definately won't spend £25+ on a vehicle (but I'd happily spend that on troops) 
I still play 40k but it's a very rare occurance and luckily many in my gaming group have no worries playing using older systems every now and then.
I really don't like it when GW release a set of rules that dictate how the armies should be played above and beyond the codex releases and it's looking likely that with fantasy trying to make every army a horde and 40k trying to make all armies super mobile that my wargaming will be drastically reduced although I can finaly get through my backlog of painting.


----------



## TheSpore (Oct 15, 2009)

Warlock in Training said:


> Totaly agree about the LOS there. Just cause you see one guy doesnt mean your bullets/plasma/whatever bends around the corner to hit my guys. Should be you can kill only what you see.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Im not venting but its true CC from was 4th better than in 5th your CC armies just suffer greatly since most the time your spending almost 200pt just have that unit anyway. I do not knock useing vehicles as barricades at all but i have always felt that the glance table should be returned from arealistic stand point if you were to hit the right spot you could destroy the vehicle. 

oh and wrlock just wait til you see my next daemon setup you will bow befor ethe dark gods


----------



## Masked Jackal (Dec 16, 2009)

Khorothis said:


> In comparison, the 8th ed rules of WHFB are pretty good and I love it. Except for the abuse of the Steadfast rule, but I'm seriously going to drop an anvil on anyone's dick who dares field a unit bigger than 40...


Just saying right here, Supreme Sorc Level 4. Soul Stealer. That is all. 

Anyways, I have plenty to like about 5th edition, such as TLOS, but there's plenty more to hate with kill points, and the unbalanced codices. If GW fixed some of this shit I'd get back into 40k, but before then, I'll just read up on the fluff.


----------



## frgsinwntr (Feb 2, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> I don't mind 5th. I'd like it if I didn't have to hide inside transports all the time to survive but otherwise I'm pretty happy with it. The only thing that I really can't stand is True Line of Sight. I don't care what anyone says, I'd prefer abstract line of sight rules any day.


#1) I love 5th ed

#2) 4th ed 3rd ed both used TLOS.... but most people didn't play this way. The sizes were only used for area terrain and close combat. Its just that most people skipped the one paragraph that said this and went right to the size thing which was like 3 pages on how to deal with area terrain if I remember right.

I think most people don't know how to play 5th ed still. But then most players I play against have issues with knowing which moves may be the best move at a particular time. 

For example. deploying your jump cannoness way up on DoW yo push me back may sound like a great idea... but when i roll onto the table and search light her then kill her... it makes the move much worse. 

People also tend to try the same tactics every game... like outflanking valks... Sometimes its better to start them on the table...


----------



## Cyklown (Feb 8, 2010)

I like the BRB overall. I have a few quibbles here and there, but it's a solid system.

I like the 5th ed codii. The new style really, really works. Props for that.

I *hate* the remnant codii. They fucked us good. All those codii that allegedly "had 5th in mind" got boned. All those codii that are desperately in need of an update (yeah, yeah, DE are getting one. Great. It's not out yet, and their last one was in 3rd edition) really blows. The fact that Spayce Mayns and Spayce Puppeez get mad love, hose other armies specialness and do everything better (well, not everything, but more or less) would be fine if everything else scaled just as well, but it doesn't.


----------



## Durzod (Nov 24, 2009)

TLOS is retarded in a tabletop game. Terrain built to truly represent its obscuring properties
is impossible to place miniatures in. Especially miniatures as heroically posed as GW's. How realistic is it to shoot someone through three broken out windows of three separate ruined buildings? And now they're inflicting it on WFB. AAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!

As for kill points: :suicide:


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

neilbatte said:


> The only real problem I had with this edition is the over reliance on tanks, I would have kept playing if GW didn't try and force me to change the way I like to game by making transports and tanks virtually compulsory if you want a competative force


tanks compulsory?, transports yeah ok they are since you get bullied if you don't take them, but tanks???, there a worthless pile of extremely static crap in 5th unless your a blood angel who actually get tanks that can use there tracks, other forces have bright shiny clean tracks since nobody else can move.


frgsinwntr said:


> #2) 4th ed 3rd ed both used TLOS.... but most people didn't play this way.


we know they did, but it wasn't as literal
"oh I can see your sgt's left index finger, but the other 9 of your men are completely out of sight, no matter, I'll shoot him and kill your entire squad, but you can't shoot back at me as I've moddled all my men laying down and used wire with eyes stuck on to get LOS"


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

darklove said:


> After reading this thread, I started to wonder: does anyone really love 5th ed., or is everyone just trying to survive until 6th ed.?
> 
> Not too many people seem to absolutely hate 5th ed., a lot of people think it's kind of ok, almost nobody seems to really 'love' 5th ed. like some people did 3rd ed.
> 
> ...


I'm with you 100%. 

I was hooked on 4th edition, the game had a few issues but worked well, there were plenty of different competitive armies and it was fun.

Fast forward to 5th edition and the whole game for me has been ruined. I detested "Alpha" missions in 4th, for me the fun in the game was calculating victory points and deciding on strategies to ensure you had more at the end with a combination of mission objectives and destroying the enemy.

Now though? Its basically a troop shoot with a last turn objective dash. The game blows hard. Every change they made was either unnecessary or incorrectly executed.

I'm waiting for 6th edition and the re-emergence of victory points and removal of troop only scoring. They can get rid of kill points too, we have intellect and calculators - we're perfectly capable of adding unit costs to formulate a victor. 

Cocks.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Jezlad said:


> we're perfectly capable of adding unit costs to formulate a victor.


I dunno about that, most people you bump into in a GW can barely add 1+1 these days.


----------



## CLT40k (Jun 18, 2010)

I started with 5th Ed... and I love the game. So I guess, by default, I love 5th.

What amazes me is the number of folks who post on this board who don't like the game... hate Spesh Marines... hate GW.... Hate 5th... WTF - why not just go play a video game or something?


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

CLT40k said:


> I started with 5th Ed... and I love the game. So I guess, by default, I love 5th.
> 
> What amazes me is the number of folks who post on this board who don't like the game... hate Spesh Marines... hate GW.... Hate 5th... WTF - why not just go play a video game or something?


I guess you will just have to put that up to people just like to bitch.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

CLT40k said:


> I started with 5th Ed... and I love the game. So I guess, by default, I love 5th.
> 
> What amazes me is the number of folks who post on this board who don't like the game... hate Spesh Marines... hate GW.... Hate 5th... WTF - why not just go play a video game or something?





gen.ahab said:


> I guess you will just have to put that up to people just like to bitch.


And some of us are English, so were brought up to believe that expressing any favourable emotion stronger than "mild liking" is wrong, and are still trying to get it out of our systems.

Grumbling about the weather on the other hand is a British pastime: and what are rules but the weather of 40K; sometimes they are good for you and sometimes they are bad but you cannot change them.


----------



## coalheartly (Jul 24, 2009)

CLT40k said:


> I started with 5th Ed... and I love the game. So I guess, by default, I love 5th.
> 
> What amazes me is the number of folks who post on this board who don't like the game... hate Spesh Marines... hate GW.... Hate 5th... WTF - why not just go play a video game or something?


 I too started in 5th edition. and i can only comment on the what ive read about the older editions. There are 2 things i dont like about the game. 1. The rolling codexes. and 2. all the SPESSSMEEEREEN faggotry

now in my eyes, both problems are the result of eachother, a paradox. I play Tau, and dabble in CSM, and wanted to start collecting Inquisitoral forces. now, all 3 armies have outdated codexes, the CSM from what i understand, had some of their better rules taken out, and blandified, but still are workable. Tau on the other hand....aren't so workable. if anything gets within assualt distance.....it doesnt end up well, along with some other problems. the Inquistoral forces have some outdated rules, and just seem so forgotten. now, the SPEESSH MARINES specifcally the ULTRAMARINESSSSS are like GW's Horus (hopefuly they'll so as he did) and have a nice, new, 5th editoin, tons unit/model choices, and alot of releases. now, if the tau got a 5th editoin codex, and some new units, i wouldnt hate the space marines, i would simply dislike them. but, with the space marines getting ANOTHER codex, it stalls the release of other codexes like DE, Cron, CSM, INquisitoral, or Tau.

if i see another 1o year old walk in with blue marines......


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Might want to get used to the whole "Space Marines are popular" thing. It's like being pissed off that the sun rises in the morning.


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

CLT40k said:


> I started with 5th Ed... and I love the game. So I guess, by default, I love 5th.
> 
> What amazes me is the number of folks who post on this board who don't like the game... hate Spesh Marines... hate GW.... Hate 5th... WTF - why not just go play a video game or something?





gen.ahab said:


> I guess you will just have to put that up to people just like to bitch.


No offense guys but its easy to love 5th with a 5th ed codex, specifically SW. Just sayin'.

And yeah I am playing DoW2 instead of the tabletop, so its pretty much settled.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

I am pretty close to loving it, but there are too many niggles that I keep getting battered by - I suppose it is more of a tainted love. I started in 4th ed., which had many problems too, and 5th ed. is overall better than 4th ed..


----------



## coalheartly (Jul 24, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> Might want to get used to the whole "Space Marines are popular" thing. It's like being pissed off that the sun rises in the morning.


EFFING SUN, ALWAYS HAVING TO RISE. I was in a ranting moodl last night, but I don't hate all SMs, or people who play them, when I play against someone who knows more about the fluff than "OMG, ULTRAMIREEENNNSSSS ARE DA BEST, IT SAYS IN DA BOOOK," and, "WTF HOW COME UR TANK IS BETTTER THAN MIIIINE.. I also like it when people do preheresy SMs or DIY chapters, but I do not like cookie cutter marines used by people who are ignorant to any kind of story.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

I don't hate people that play SMs, but they do tend to drop a few rungs in my estimations. Thats by the by, and not why I don't love 5th ed., SMs have had too much lovage since the beginning of all time, nothing related to the edition.

There are some people who don't like the way people always romanticise or rely on superstitions about the real world, like 'the sun rises' as Katie said. We all know it is an illusion, just as the SMs being the ultimate army in 40k is an illusion.

If you take the Necrons as an example, if each of the Star Vampires had their own codex (like SM chapters) then there would be a lot more stuff for people to buy and collect and GW would then make more money out of them. As it is the codex has so few units in it that, even even if people buy some of everything, they will never make as much money out of it. 4 known Star Vampires means at least 4 very different army types, all customised to match the character of the god.

But, codices have to come out in a staggered way. Every 5 years a new edition of the BRB comes along. Some codices MUST be redone for each edition of the BRB. This means that there will always be some armies that don't get an update during a single edition of the BRB. Some wait much longer than that, which is something I do feel frustrated about with 40k in general, but not 5th ed. specifically.

So rolling updates can't be the problem, it must be something inherent within the rules of the BRB. 

Something somewhere went awry.


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

I love 5th edition. I really really do.

Why? Because I absolutely HATED opponents consolidating from one combat to the next, having an entire game go by with many units doing nothing besides slowly walking forward, and above all, I HATED adding up the point totals at the end of each game. I lost at least one tournament to bad math (on my part).


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Yes. It is, IMO, the best 40k has ever been. I dread the advent of 6e, in case they knee-jerk, and fuck it up.

Exceptions-
*Capture and Control. Like, really?
*The 'Most Important Rule' - NO. ALL the rules should be important, thanks.
*Victory Points. Just fuck off and die already. This isn't 2e.
*Not total clarity regarding what TLOS actually means. It says eyes, but it says 'don't worry about it' in the next line. Well, 'don't worry' isn't a rule, Alessio/Jervis - either they can pivot before declaring a target or not. I'd be okay with Infantry getting an actual 360 arc. Walkers, however, ...


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

TheKingElessar said:


> ...the best 40k has ever been.


Definitely second that; having played every edition, each edition - apart from 2nd Edition which lost too much of the fun of Rogue Trader for my taste - has fixed more problems than it made. I am even quietly positive that 6th Edition will be better still.



TheKingElessar said:


> ALL the rules should be important


For tournaments definitely; however, as a devotee of Storyteller games I secretly find the permission to ignore the rules if everyone will have more fun charming.



TheKingElessar said:


> *Victory Points. Just fuck off and die already. This isn't 2e.


I had forgotten VPs first surfaced in Second Edition; one more reason to not try it again to see if it was better than I remember.



TheKingElessar said:


> Not total clarity regarding what TLOS actually means. It says eyes, but it says 'don't worry about it' in the next line. Well, 'don't worry' isn't a rule, Alessio/Jervis - either they can pivot before declaring a target or not. I'd be okay with Infantry getting an actual 360 arc. Walkers, however, ...


As GW have apparently recruited a new proof-reader I hope the confusion of binding rules and helpful tips can be avoided.


----------



## edd_thereaper (Oct 21, 2008)

In my opinion 5th ed. is absolutely fine, 
I started playing in 4th ed. but only really got into the whole game when the csm codex came out

As me and my wargaming firends play 40k, not to absolutely thrash each other and gloat about it, but to have fun, that is what the game is for us - fun

if you don't like the rules because you feel when you play certain people the rules disadvantage you, then don't play those people

and one more thing, as much as the rules disadvantage you, they disadvnatage your oponent, TLOS for example, whilst he/she shoots up your unit where he can only see 1 model on one side of the board, you can do exactly the same thing back to him on the other side of the board, and if he's moved his models out of site so you can't, then he's just a darn good player isn't he?

so I am content with 5th ed. because I have fun with it, and so do my regular opponents, one of which play deamonhunters, using a mix of inqu. stormtroopers, grey knights and grey knight terminators, imperial guardsmen, not the most effective list, but using 5th ed he has fun with it

thats my opinion, and indeed everyone has their own

cheers

edd


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

To sum up then:
1. Most people don't love 5th ed. - so it is generally unloved.
2. Most people think it is fine in general but that it has some frustrating flaws and badly worded rules. A lack of clarity seems to be the source of most frustration.
3. Most people would be more likely to love it if all the codices were up-to-date with the current edition - thereby making 5th ed. more relevant and lovable regardless of which faction you prefer to play.


----------



## Abomination (Jul 6, 2008)

I wouldn't say that I love it but I am pretty fond of it. On the whole I think it's the best edition so far but still with room for improvement.


----------



## Fenge (Dec 25, 2009)

I think abomination is spot on here. 5th is by far the most balanced and thought out edition so far. 

And yes there is still room for improvement. As I see it mostly in the TLoS department. 
The general hate on the standart missions I don't understand though. The randomness of it insures that no specific type of list is the most dominant list. And if you dont like it you are free to make up your own missions in fact you are encouraged to do exacly that.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

Fenge said:


> I think abomination is spot on here. 5th is by far the most balanced and thought out edition so far.
> 
> And yes there is still room for improvement. As I see it mostly in the TLoS department.
> The general hate on the standart missions I don't understand though. The randomness of it insures that no specific type of list is the most dominant list. And if you dont like it you are free to make up your own missions in fact you are encouraged to do exacly that.


I would disagree with you on that - Annihilation lists will always be more dominant because they are geared towards high damage output. If you kill all the enemy troops then it reverts to kill/victory points. If you kill all your enemies then you win by default in ALL missions.
If you don't have all your stuff in transports then 5th ed. really fucks you, not just because of the BRB but because of the Imperium codices power-jump (way beyond power-creep).


----------



## Fenge (Dec 25, 2009)

darklove said:


> I would disagree with you on that - Annihilation lists will always be more dominant because they are geared towards high damage output. If you kill all the enemy troops then it reverts to kill/victory points. If you kill all your enemies then you win by default in ALL missions.
> If you don't have all your stuff in transports then 5th ed. really fucks you, not just because of the BRB but because of the Imperium codices power-jump (way beyond power-creep).


hehe and I would have to disagree here. Annihilation is the most difficult win condition in the game, even for a list geared towards this exact condition.

To be able to remove everything the oponent owns from the table requires not only a well above average list, but also alot of skill and generous amounts of luck with the dice.
If you have made such a list it will, in my experience, lack other very significant aspects, like troops to hold opjectives in case you fail to anihilate the enemy.

About transports. While extremly powerfull in the sense that it is extremly easy to play with and it gives your troops protection. You are in no way fucked if you don't have any. Less transports usually means you have more toys/boys to destroy your enemies' transports with.
Transports are also weak in killpoint missions as they are for the most part very easy to destroy.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

I like 5th ed, its better then 4th... but the best edition I have played was 2nd. Sure it didnt work for quick games and was probably hell to try to get tournaments to work with it, but it included a full section of alies, had some awesome characters to give character to your army (yeah they were overpowered.. but so were everyone else's) and best of all a game was a serious matter- me and my friend agreed to meet up and play a 2500pt game... and that would be most of the day.

I also loved the lower model count in 2nd- less money for GW and therefore incredibly bad it did have the advantage that a mainline battletank was godly, terminators were kings of the battlefield and no unit was completely disposable. In 2nd you would see a carnifex coming at you and wet yourself... now to get the same impact you need a super-heavy and yet still most armies would have enough firepower to take it down quickly.


As for anhiliation- I used to play for it all the time with my nids. I set the army up for objectives and had huge numbers of KP (not to mention I used biovores throughout the last codex) so I was almost always going to be behind on KP games. This gave me a rather unique approch to anhiliation games: if I didnt win by anhiliation I was almost certain to lose.
I managed to wipe most people off the board quite quickly (loved my old nuke choir) unless they were fully mech. When I didnt wipe the enemy out it was quite often the case that I hit them so hard early on that in the endgame they just couldnt pick up KP: the game might be 7:3 in their favour after turn 3 with them only having a total of 10KP in the game... but if they have nothing left to really deal damage then I'm in a very strong position (I never went after killing whole units early with my nids- just bits of everything and trasnports, everything else could wait).


----------

