How do people feel about 5th ed? [Archive] - BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum

View Full Version : How do people feel about 5th ed?

Ghoulio

11-03-2009, 11:10 AM

Chumbalaya

11-03-2009, 11:56 AM

I recently started back into 40k this fall after about a 4 year break. The game has changed quite a bit. I was wondering what people like or don't like in the current edition and weither or not it is a step in the right direction as far as 40k goes. I am just going to list a couple in each category, and it would be interesting to see what other people think.

I've been playing since 3rd and this is my favorite edition so far. It's more balanced, more mission driven, and just more fun. 3rd and 4th boiled down to gunline vs assault army, which got old quick. 5th is more dynamic and I enjoy it immensely.

Things I like about the current game:

- I like how organic the game feels as far as options for HOW you play is concerned. What I mean by that is I like all the reserve/deep striking options. For me it makes the game a lot more fun to not just have one army set up on one side, then another army set up on the other. I like having half my army in reserve to be able to counter what the enemy does (for example).
- I like how blast template weapons are worked out. Kind of fun seeing them flying all over the place.

Agreed. I also like the changes to vehicles making them actually survivable.

Things I dislike about the game

- Wound allocation. To me it just seems like a system to be abused. It truely bothers me to do 4 rending wounds, and 8 regular wounds on 3 marines only to have my opponent put all 4 rending wounds on the same guy, then roll saves for the other two. Also...Nob Bikers.
- Fearless models just get mangled in hand to hand. This makes no sense to me. I had Yriel kill 23 termigaunts in hand to hand in one round (13 with the initial blast, 11 on the ensuing overkill).

Wound allocation can catch some people, but when people figure it out it isn't so bad. In your example, just don't shoot the bolters at a weakened unit. It sounds weird, but ensuring you hit them all with a save-ignoring weapon is what counts. I'm not a huge fan of it, particularly because people don't understand it and it bogs down the game.

Fearless sucks now, which is great for me because I play Deathwing.

I'm not a huge fan of the reliance on mech. I'm glad that it's viable and I enjoy my marines immensely, but having it so good that other builds are invalidated or entire Codices are made poor because they can't stop it is annoying. It may just be a problem with Codices, since SW and IG do quite well on foot or with mech or with a mix.

I also dislike being able to nail enemies even if you can't see them, it just doesn't fit with me.

My biggest problem is with GW abandoning their tournament system. A ton of other games have a centralized, standardized tourney scene that draws in lots of players and encourages competition and skill growth. 40k doesn't have that, so we get stuck with soft-score fest Indies, no consistency, and crap like chipmunking and social engineering to get wins. The worst by far is the plague of "casual" gamers, people who not only play crappy armies poorly, but they also actively work against having a tourney scene out of some notion of moral superiority. Tools.

Things I am on the fence about the game

- The abundance of cover saves. I have been playing Tyranids as my main army since 2nd ed. Naturally this army greatly benefits from friendly units giving cover saves. My only question is do people think this is too much? Just seems like EVERYTHING gets an armor save of some sort.
- The Dominance of Mech. I mean, from a logic point of view I can see this making sense. The only thing I dont like is it seems most armys these days are the same. Guard are crazy tank heavy, marines are 100% armored (which again, makes sense). I guess I miss the days of horde armies being viable (since the two main ones have no armor save AND are fearless it makes them not a great option)

I don't have a problem with cover, it encourages people to take more high RoF or cover-ignoring weapons, which end up balancing out the crazy low points costs of Ork Boyz and Guardsmen. People like getting a chance to save their men. Cover isn't guaranteed either, so it takes a measure of skill to give yourself cover and ignore your opponents. I also love flamers, so that's great for me.

I would like more variable scenarios and game types. My favorite part of the 4th ed book was the inclusion of Kill Team, Combat Patrol, campaign systems and extra missions. They weren't totally balanced, but with some work they would make for a great add on to spice up normal games.

Overall, I dont really think the current edition is a step forward. I still enjoy playing the game and none of the above complaints are enough to make me stop playing. I just find there are just as many steps back as there are steps foward.

5th is my favorite so far, I enjoy it immensely. Hopefully we can keep getting better and better.

SandWyrm

11-03-2009, 12:18 PM

I LOVE 5th edition, for all of the reasons that Chumbalaya mentions.

I first started playing around with 40K in the Rogue Trader days (I built the deodorant tank!), came back to it in 2nd Edition, got serious about it in 3rd, and stopped a couple of years later, before coming back after 4-5 years. Honestly, this is the best edition since RT. The battlefield is dynamic, the missions and deployments are nicely varied, and it's the first time that I've gotten as excited about PLAYING 40K as I used to be about the modeling and painting aspects of the game. The first time I took my old figs to the FLGS and played an objective mission I was hooked in a way I'd never been before.

I mean, back in 2nd/3rd, it really was just line up and shoot for 5+ turns. Where's the fun in that?

My biggest beefs are:

1) The army books aren't updated.

I mean really, it wouldn't be hard to release quick PDF updates to roughly re-balance things prior to the complete revamps (Points cost adjustments and such). This should have been done at the same time that the 5th Edition rules were released. All at once.

2) I want a national tournament league, with player rankings and standardized tournament rules.

Come on GW, your competition is walking all over you here. Competitive players buy butt-loads of models! Support them!

Kloud

11-03-2009, 12:22 PM

The Rules for Terrain are downright awfull in 5th.

True Line of Sight is kinda cool, but I think it caused more problems than it solved. The Area Terrain Rules are ridiculous, and the building (bunker) rules are retarded.

Area Terrain
- You can hide a tank behind a ruin, but if your opponents lascannon can see even the tiniest piece of that tank through a window of the big building in middle of table (like 2% of the tanks hull), he can shoot it just as easily as if it was right in front of him in plain sight. and you still only get a 4+ cover save.

- I had an opponent pull something out of the Area Terrain rules that was just plain retarded. I had a Devastator Squad in a bunker that we just treated as Area Terrain with a 3+ cover save. They were standing on the walkway, shooting over the side of the bunker. but because the base was 2" and 3/8ths of a inch from the edge of the bunker, and we were treating it as Area Terrain, his Wraith Lord got a 4+ cover save. WTF.

Bunkers
- So, I was reading the terrain rules a bit more closely, and that is when I read the rules for bunkers and buildings. We are supposed to treat a bunker as a vehicle. which wouldn't be so bad, except you can stun and shake a bunker. Really, what is the point of being in a bunker if the guys get scared and don't shoot everytime someone shoots at the bunker?

RocketRollRebel

11-03-2009, 12:28 PM

I started playing about 4 years ago in 4th and I'm very happy with the direction that GW has been taking 40k. 5th really did make it great.

The Rules for Terrain are downright awfull in 5th.

True Line of Sight is kinda cool, but I think it caused more problems than it solved. The Area Terrain Rules are ridiculous, and the building (bunker) rules are retarded.

Area Terrain
- You can hide a tank behind a ruin, but if your opponents lascannon can see even the tiniest piece of that tank through a window of the big building in middle of table (like 2% of the tanks hull), he can shoot it just as easily as if it was right in front of him in plain sight. and you still only get a 4+ cover save.

- I had an opponent pull something out of the Area Terrain rules that was just plain retarded. I had a Devastator Squad in a bunker that we just treated as Area Terrain with a 3+ cover save. They were standing on the walkway, shooting over the side of the bunker. but because the base was 2" and 3/8ths of a inch from the edge of the bunker, and we were treating it as Area Terrain, his Wraith Lord got a 4+ cover save. WTF.

Bunkers
- So, I was reading the terrain rules a bit more closely, and that is when I read the rules for bunkers and buildings. We are supposed to treat a bunker as a vehicle. which wouldn't be so bad, except you can stun and shake a bunker. Really, what is the point of being in a bunker if the guys get scared and don't shoot everytime someone shoots at the bunker?

as for the wraithlord thing I'm pretty sure that him being a Monstrous Creature trumps the firing out of area terrain cover save and that he wouldn't get one unless he was 50% obscured. Unless I'm wrong and I just made a total *** of myself :p

DarkLink

11-03-2009, 12:32 PM

I love 5th ed, overall. There are just a few details that I'd have done differently.

Wound allocation. I think it was worth trying out, but ultimately is just slows down the game. Wound allocation last edition was faster and smoother, and I haven't really noticed a significant good tactical difference. While you can now kill special models in the squad, you also have to be careful about how many wounds you cause to do maximum damage, which I don't think is worth the extra complication.

Cover saves. Last edition, I wished cover saves were more common. Now I don't. The problem is, GW made it extremely easy to get cover saves, AND they made cover saves 4+. They should have done one or the other, not both. Last ed, cover saves weren't good enough. Now they're too good.

No retreat. If a fearless unit looses combat, they take wounds. But if a non-fearless unit looses, but passes its morale, they somehow avoid all those wounds. Now you can take so many wounds from No Retreat that fearless is almost a weakness. I think they need to do something to revise this.

Melta. Melta guns are way too cheap for what they do. They're the best anti-tank in the game, and practically everyone can get them, and they can get them for extremely cheap, too.

Ramming. Ramming is awesome, but also almost useless. Tank Shocking can be useful, occasionally, but I would love to be able to plow through enemy squads with vehicles, actually crushing them beneath my treads. I think Ramming and Tank Shock should be able to do more actual damage, as in actually killing stuff. Just because it would be awesome.

Better shooting. Basic troops shooting sucks. Tanks have lots of firepower, but a tactical squad's bolters... so not intimidating. 5th ed has become "why would you bring a gun to a knife-fight?" I like the brutal close combat of 5th, but I want shooting to feel just as brutal (this doesn't count tanks and artillery. IG has big enough guns as it is).

But really, aside from those 6 points, I can't think of much I'd change. I think 5th ed is great.

MVBrandt

11-03-2009, 12:46 PM

5th Edition is a mixed bag in my book, for a number of reasons.

Things that stick out to me on a regular basis ...

The Good

1) The Prevalence of Cover

Cover, as a general rule, is a valuable thing, and it was valuable in 4th edition. Armies of note that benefit from cover the most among those popular are probably Tyranid, Orks and Imperial Guard. These are armies that are all capable of putting out high volumes of firepower, and high volumes of models or vehicles/monsters or both. High volumes of firepower are superior in a number of ways, the simplest of which is that they ensure or break odds. It is far less likely for a squad of terminators to roll all saves against 12 wounds than against 6, even though probability indicates either instance should result in at least a dead thing. Therefore, in a firepower sense, the armies that are costed to put the most of it down, and to put the most models down (the buffer against bad odds for your own saves) are at an inherent advantage.

In the last edition, cover required more skill to acquire than it does at present, and this made good players even better, and bad players even worse. This certainly came into play in a balance sense, and can in part explain the widening gap that formed between MEQ costs by the end of 4th edition and GEQ type costs by the end of 4th edition. That is to say, that when you are balancing for the "average" player, you cannot assume they'll find all the ways to obtain cover out there, and so troops that walk around with a 3+ save were super valuable to the average player, and troops that walked around with 5+ or 6+ saves were super fragile in the hands of an average player.

By making cover a more "regular" thing they allowed themselves to start decreasing the cost again of your standard MEQ, and this has seen its most recent instance in the form of the Space Wolves codex, where ATSKNF/CA/AS marines with ultra grit are back down to 15 points, and their weapons are cheaper too. Because all "cheap" troops have cover so frequently, marines are proportionately less durable, relative to the metagame ... and so they can cost fewer points in the codices that come out going forward. This is good for the game.

2) Tougher Vehicles

In all, I think the mechanization of the game is a POSITIVE thing for this edition. Weapons such as the meltagun become more valuable because they are more reliable at destroying vehicles, and weapons such as the lascannon become less valuable. Any time you are looking at armies that are fully mechanized or close to it, whose best counter is a short ranged move and shoot weapon ... you're looking at a game that is becoming fundamentally more tactical. The value of "stand and shoot" backboard armies decreases, and the value of "maneuver" armies increases. Applying your meltaguns to best value, getting in the face of opponents, putting overwhelming force on localized sections of opposing armies, etc. are all more important than they used to be, and so the game becomes more tactical as a result and less "roll some dice."

I see this, too, as a very positive thing. I also think it helps (though not as much as it should) to bring vehicles in line with monstrous creatures. I'll touch more on this later.

3) Close Combat Improvements

I believe the removal of consolidation into new combats, the drastic changes to the combat resolution process, and the addition of the charge reaction move are all very good things for the game.

These should all be pretty obvious in terms of what they do, without the metagame cause and effect of my first two points. Tactics are amplified when you can't just "get stuck in," so consolidation into combat removal is positive for that and other more subtle reasons. The combat resolution changes help balance out armies that were in weird situations where (for example) large blocks of cheap troops could perma-swamp units that ... while much smaller in model count, were both more elite and of roughly similar cost. The easy example of this is 30 spinegaunts charging an elite marine squad. I say easy b/c there are probably BETTER examples, but that one is certainly easy, heh :)

The charge reaction move helps prevent the cheesing of combat to the extent that was the case in 4th edition. While it was certainly a tactical thing to maneuver in such a way as to hit your opponent on the flank of his line, this is not Warhammer Fantasy Battle. "Flanks" are very different things than they are in Fantasy, with the flank of a line being its weakpoint, or its single point failure, not its geographical location on the board. I think that it makes sense for the type of game 40k is, and it also improves the general flow of the game tactically. "Cheese maneuvers" that take away from real tactics and allow people to game the system are generally bad for wargames. You want the winner to be the wiser and more learned tactician, not the person who can best abuse rules.

Unfortunately, combat changes also to a degree added new problems as well. I'll talk about those later.

The Bad
1) Missions - I like the first mission. I dislike the second mission. I abhor the third. I dislike the rules governing objectives.

The first mission is good, in lots of ways. You place the objectives early on in the whole process, removing the ability to simply game away the strategies by placing them more cleverly than your opponent. You can still do this to a point, of course, and you should be able to use your brains here, but it shouldn't win the game. 3-5 objectives makes for a good, typically draw-free environment, on face value.

The second mission is absurd, and my area can't be the only one where it is referred to as the "draw mission."

The third mission is beyond absurd. I'll go after kill points here.

The more units you have, the more tactically deep the game play. If I'm able to go at someone from 17 different directions, that's better than going at someone from 5 different directions. My opponent must effectively counter 17 threats, and I must effectively keep track of 17 "weapons." All good stuff.

Encouraging the use of "hammer" units that you basically fling at targets and spend points on to improve their survivability (read: Nob Bikers) is sloppy, bad for more obvious reasons, and dumbs down the game.

Furthermore, if my squad of terminators kills 20 gaunts spread across 2 squads, and then dies to the third squad's spinefist fire, the terminator player should not be winning 2:1. The entire game is balanced around victory points, and units scaling in value based on their point cost. Even the newer codices function as such. GO WITH VICTORY POINTS, it's so much more sensible in every single way. Killpoints are an indefensible rule. They affect the game negatively in multiple ways, including (among the other things I've mentioned) encouraging BAD tactical play. "Let's see, I can try to kill that 500 point unit that's ravaging my lines, or I can start popping empty ork trukks easy peasy and win!!!!" What?

As far as the rules governing objectives are concerned, I again advocate the use of victory points. While it is good to render TROOPS (or perhaps Infantry would have been better) the only scoring units, and I totally buy into that in terms of its impact on the game, it is entirely BAD to have a situation where - for example - a single Tau drone jumps an objective surrounded by hundreds of opponent point value, and nullifies their capture of it because ... the game ends. Weee!

They generally did the missions and everything else correctly, with the exception of taking victory points out of it, and adding kill points. Ugh.

To combat this, the local league that I operate utilizes victory points to break ties. It's a good start.

2) Template and Blast Weaponry Stacking - Blast and template stacking is both time consuming and over the top. It's impossible to balance the cost of weapons whose strength varies so widely based on the placement and organization of opposing models. I don't dislike it when it's beneficial to me, and I've used it to good effect before, but it's not a well-reasoned rule IMO.

3) Wound Allocation - I like what they were trying to do here, but I dislike the implementation. I understand that the rules of war are unfair and it's always possible that the squad leader or whatever may be struck by errant fire, and oh so sad it is. In a gaming sense, though, this has negative implications on numerous levels.

For starters, you get more of the encouragement seen with the kill point rules - big mobs. The more models you have, the safer the key ones are from wound allocation sniping them. Sure, you could say this is good because it reduces min-maxing, but why is min-maxing bad? Why on Earth are 30 army men going to operate as one big blob ever? Let's be a little serious here and understand that for those seeking a fun and deep tactical experience, big blobs =! fun and tactical.

That aside, it's also time consuming and for some opponents it's outright confusing. You get people who just can't figure it out. You get people who try to game it but aren't bright enough to and so screw it up and get pissed when you try to point out that they can't do that. You get people gaming it who ARE bright enough and ... well ... game it. You even get situations where folks are willfully NOT firing certain weapons b/c they're afraid it will make it harder to clear a unit. It is totally absurd to ever imagine that firing that pistol of yours is actually going to make your opponent MORE resilient to the flamestorm going his way. Again ... what? You see this very often in a situation where a guard veteran squad w/ 3 plasmaguns fires only the plasmaguns at a marine squad, b/c they don't want the sarge or special weapon to have the non-armor save ignoring shots allocated to them. Absurdity abounds, as does time wastery.

HOLD YOUR FIRE MEN, LET JOE, BOB, AND LARRY USE THE PLASMA! YOU DON'T WANT YOUR LASGUNS TO HIT THEIR FLAMER, DO YOU?

Uh, Sarge ... why not?

3) Close Combat "Issues" Remaining - OK, first off .. No Retreat! is a little broken. Tyranid are a good example ... so are Chaos Daemons. Let's start with the example of the Daemons ... I saw this one recently

5 space marines are stuck in combat with fateweaver and 5 horrors of tzeentch. The Marine player is foolishly allocating his attacks against fateweaver hoping to wound him through his save via an unlucky saving throw by fatey. He figures if he can get rid of fateweaver, he can mop up the horrors pretty easily, and they aren't the ones hurting him.

Seems sound in a sense, but it's totally not.

Because of the way No Retreat! applies to ALL units engaged in a combat, the marine player can put more wounds on Fateweaver by attacking the horrors than he can by attacking Fateweaver. In short, 10 marine attacks at 5 horrors hit on 3's and wound on 3's, and any unsaved wounds go to combat res. Against fatey, hit on 4's and wound on 5's. If the marines win, any wounds they win by via combat res will have to be saved against by the fearless fateweaver and the fearless horrors.

This is inappropriate in the extreme. You can understand why it's done - to prevent weird system gaming in the sense that people could try to prevent their valuable units from taking No Retreat! saves and shunt them off to cheaper units, if there were a limit or total on how many could be taken (i.e. you split the total combat res difference across all fearless units wound allocation style as you see fit).

It would be much wiser, IMO, to return to a situation where there was a cap on # of no retreat saves. If 5 terminators kill 10 spinegaunts, and are still outnumbered by 20, No Retreat! probably shouldn't even come into play. I can't think of a "best solution," and it does make combat more decisive, but I think it's an ugly application of a rule at best.

My "beef" and "soapbox"

I like predictability where reasonable. I think that the best way to balance a game is to ensure predictability. I think that using dice and having SOME random factor is good, but I think when it comes to unit DURABILITY you want to make things as reliable as possible, especially for higher points value units.

AS such, I would like to see the changing of vehicle rules in the future to de facto wounds. Glancing a vehicle inflicts 1 damage point, penetrating it inflicts 2 damage points, go back to ap1 changing a glance to a pen. Give more expensive / more durable vehicles more damage points, and cheaper vehicles less damage points (as few as 1). If needed, increase armor overall a slight bit to make it harder to impact certain vehicles that would be rendered a little weaker. Take away vehicle damage results, and add a wreck-or-blow roll when a vehicle is reduced to 0.

Monstrous Creatures are still far too reliable in comparison to vehicles. A Carnifex takes 4 successfully inflicted damaging attacks to die, every single time. You don't get "lucky" with a meltagun shot to the groin. You also don't get "unlucky" with 20 straight meltawounds that only "scare it a lot" and cause it to stop moving for a turn. How on Earth do you balance a 250 point land raider against anything when a single lascannon shot on turn 1 can cause it to explode, or 20 meltagun shots could cause it to do nothing but laugh at you? You can't.

Vehicle damage tables are cool and fluffy, it's neat to see a vehicle's guns pop off or a brilliant death or glory last stand cause a massive hulking behemoth to exlpode into smithereens. BUT it's not good gaming, and it's not something we'd miss a lot if they changed it. It would also render vehicles "perfectly" balanced by default, because they'd be as predictable and unstoppable (relatively) as monsters.

I am a lifelong nid player, so this isn't coming from the point of view of a monster hater. The "hate" is going to ramp up to an all new level when the Nid dex drops in January, I guarantee it.

Those are my reflections on 5th edition 40k for now. Hope some were enlightening.

DoctorEvil

11-03-2009, 12:47 PM

I got into 40K near the end of 3rd edition with a Demonhunters army. So far out of all the editions I've played 5th is the best. Of course I'm a "casual" player who only gets a 3-6 games in a year playing in my buddy's basement, so I'm not exactly a rules expert.

It comes down to one simple thing for me. The book is organized in a mannner that makes it easy to find the rules you're looking for. For a casual player, trying to find a certain rule in the 4th edition book was a nightware. The layout was terrible.

The nice thing is the 5th edition rule set is that it seems "flexible". You can add on expansions, like Planetstrike, and revised Codexes to give the game a new dimension without upseting the core. I think with every Codex revision, the 5th edition rule set becomes a little better.

Ghoulio

11-03-2009, 01:08 PM

A couple things I thought of while reading replys:

- I totally forgot one of my biggest peeves...Kill Points. Kill Points are just the dumbest thing I have ever seen. Why not just have VP's. As MVBrandt said the game is based around a points system to balance the game out...then why isnt that same point system in place to balance out who wins? Makes no sense.

- I agree with Chumby and Sandwyrm in regards to the tournament system. Here in Canada we had a thing called Hall of Heroes. Any sactioned GW tourney you went to you got points depending on how you did, with a small amount of points for just attending. The Conflicts (basically Mini GTs run by GW) where the big events during the year and winners of these events got a free ticket and a spot in the Grand Tournament that was at games day. I LOVED this system. It was amazing. Since the economy went into the toilet GW has abolished GW Canada so now its GW North America (or GW US and we just use your website :P ) and there is zero support, just local support. I would give anything to see a decent tournament system put back in place.

- I also agree with Dark Link. I like how easy it is to get cover saves, I just wish they werent so potent. I wish it was generally 5+ (for being in woods, firing through troops, etc..), 4+ for being in buildings/ruins and 3+ for bunkers. This gives survivability to horde armies while not making it insane lol.\

- Another thing is having the only units in the game that can hold objectives are Troops. I really dont agree with it just because some armies have it great, while other (either due to super old codexes or their playstyle) get hosed. I also dont like how it pigeon holes builds for armies.

I know I have a lot of "negative" things listed for this edition, but even considering that as I mentioned before in the original post that I still really enjoy the game, I just hope that they fix these issues with a 5.5 Update or 6th Ed :)

PhoenixFlame

11-03-2009, 01:17 PM

5th ed is my fav so far because it's overall a more balanced system game wide, my beefs are the same as quoted below and in many ways are examples of things which make the game less balanced and developed than it could be (has every reason to be IMO)

My biggest beefs are:

1) The army books aren't updated.

I mean really, it wouldn't be hard to release quick PDF updates to roughly re-balance things prior to the complete revamps (Points cost adjustments and such). This should have been done at the same time that the 5th Edition rules were released. All at once.

2) I want a national tournament league, with player rankings and standardized tournament rules.

Come on GW, your competition is walking all over you here. Competitive players buy butt-loads of models! Support them!

Big Dibs theDog

11-03-2009, 01:22 PM

I like the more dynamic feel of 5th
(i've been playing for 30 years+ since 1st Edition)

Can see the attraction of different Missions coming out in boxed sets
with lovely plastic stuff included - honestly I 'm being genuine LOL.

BUT

thank The Throne I play with a good bunch of friends that have
all unanimously ditched the rule allocating rules.

One model is visible
but you can some how wound the models out of sight with shooting
BLAH !

ridiculous

:eek:

Gotthammer

11-03-2009, 01:38 PM

What I like are things like TLoS coming back (though the stupid being able to kill guys you can't see thing is totaly counter-intuitive to that), wound allocation I don't mind as big explosions can be more deadly than a single powerful shot, and the new simplified vehicle hits table.

My only beefs with the core rules is rapid fire weapons and the WS chart. I dislike having my marines limited to 12" shooting if they move on foot. I would like it better if it was that you could fire up to your weapons max range but got two shots at 12" or less, and could not assault afterwards. It would make troops like Marines and Fire Warriors much more deadly at range, which they should be.
The WS chart doesn't go high or low enough. Capping at 3+ and 5+ is stupid IMO, they should have the full range and auto misses (still no auto hits) - make a high WS differential mean something!

I'm on the fence about the book itself. While the layout is far superior to 4ths, it doesn't seem to have as much 'stuff' in it. I was re-reading the Rogue Trader plot generator - it has 100 main plots with 20 sub-plots. 5th has 9 possible combinations of missions.
It also has all the creatures, terrain rules jammed into it. It seems like 5th ed too frequently resorts to "you can make up your own!", which while a great thing to include, it'd be nice to give some new stuff regardless.

Melissia

11-03-2009, 02:40 PM

Dunno about the BRB and rules revisions, but fifth edition codices have, thus far, been mostly superior to the fourth and third edition codices. You may have lost the occasional thing, but gained a lot more with it-- Guard especially, I absolutely love their new codex.

Denzark

11-03-2009, 03:28 PM

darth_papi76

11-03-2009, 08:29 PM

I think 5th is great. Its dynamic and a lot more fun than 4th ever was. It reminds me of how fun 3rd could be. I have only two gripes with it.

1. I think that for a glancing hit the penalty should just be -1. Granted, you can wreck a vehicle if you destroy enough weapons and such, but I think the change would give us that cinematic "desperate/lucky shot" kind of feel.

2. The missions have become bland. My friends and I sometimes grab missions from the 4th edition and adapt them for 5th edition. A mission book/white dwarf article/pdf with more missions would be good.

Katie Drake

11-03-2009, 09:32 PM

Overall, I like most of the changes that 5th edition introduced to the game. The thing I dislike most though is the introduction of True Line of Sight. It really bugs me that GW decided to move to a "simpler" system because the children didn't understand the terrain rules in 4th. I find that there's more arguing about cover saves and LoS now than there was before - maybe that's just my group, though.

Oh, and then there's the thing about how everyone has a 4+ cover save at all times. They should have picked one or the other - either cover saves are abundant and only 5+ on average, or they should be as hard to get in 4th but a 4+ more often than not.

Lerra

11-04-2009, 12:41 PM

5th ed is a huge improvement over previous editions, but I agree with pretty much everything said previously.

If I wasn't a tournament player, I would probably suggest this house-rule: squads partially in cover get a 5+ save. Squads with every model in cover get a 4+ save. I get a little bit tired of seeing this:

_________
* * |
* * * | * * * * * * * [objective]
* * |
---------

(the asterisks are models, the clump on the left is in cover, and the squad is holding an objective with a 4+ cover save even through several of the models are a 12+ inches away from the ruins that are granting them cover . . .)

Lord Azaghul

11-04-2009, 01:07 PM

Its OK. But yeah, the big AAARRGGH - the WS chart! Christ on a bike! A guardsman has a 50% chance to hit a Daemon Prince - the Prince ony has a 66% chance or returning?

I'm sure the worst thing about 5th for my opponents is where it all blurs into one and I keep remembering 4th or even 3rd ed rules.

Your forgeting how BIG that daemon prince i, its pretty easy to hit a barn! and those guardsmen are doing their best to stay out of his way (hence only the 66% chance!)

Back OT: I think 5th ed is great. Only a few things could be a little smother, like squardons of vehciles.

It has a fantastic fast paced 'feel' to it. Its just loads of fun.

Even wound allaction is not terrible, in fact only 1 or 2 units in the game really abuse it. For the most part I think it allows players to have more control of there own army.

I think cover is also great, its always nice to have a 'chance' to 'save' your lads.

oni

11-04-2009, 01:16 PM

I love 5th edition. Love it, love it, love it.

Things I like about the current game:

- I like how blast template weapons are worked out. Kind of fun seeing them flying all over the place.

Yes, I agree. This was nice improvement.

Things I dislike about the game

- Wound allocation. To me it just seems like a system to be abused. It truly bothers me to do 4 rending wounds, and 8 regular wounds on 3 marines only to have my opponent put all 4 rending wounds on the same guy, then roll saves for the other two. Also...Nob Bikers.
- Fearless models just get mangled in hand to hand. This makes no sense to me. I had Yriel kill 23 termigaunts in hand to hand in one round (13 with the initial blast, 11 on the ensuing overkill).

Wound allocation is just the opposite. In 5th edition you no longer have to wipe out the entire squad to eliminate that heavy or special weapon.

Fearless is great, but like everything has its drawbacks. They don't flee combat to save their own hides. Fearless troops fight on and thus would take additional wounds to represent this.

Things I am on the fence about the game

- The abundance of cover saves. I have been playing Tyranids as my main army since 2nd ed. Naturally this army greatly benefits from friendly units giving cover saves. My only question is do people think this is too much? Just seems like EVERYTHING gets an armor save of some sort.
- The Dominance of Mech. I mean, from a logic point of view I can see this making sense. The only thing I don't like is it seems most armies these days are the same. Guard are crazy tank heavy, marines are 100% armored (which again, makes sense). I guess I miss the days of horde armies being viable (since the two main ones have no armor save AND are fearless it makes them not a great option)

You're kind of contradicting yourself here. The abundance of cover saves makes the horde army viable. With out them armies like Tyranids would get mowed down by massed firepower.

The dominance of Mech is due to the new survivability of tanks, but even armies with tanks need troops to capture objectives.

Overall, I don't really think the current edition is a step forward. I still enjoy playing the game and none of the above complaints are enough to make me stop playing. I just find there are just as many steps back as there are steps foward.

If one really stops and thinks enough about the overall game design, 5th edition is rather balanced. I don't think there were any steps back... maybe one, vehicle defensive weapons. It's the codices that end up breaking the game IMO. Once you start stacking exceptions upon exceptions to the rules things tend to get a little murky.

Skragger

03-21-2011, 10:32 AM

I stumbed across this post while bored at work, and I wanted to try to revive it. Its an interesting time capsule seeing as we're on the cusp of 6th ed. Anybody have anything to add to the discussion now that 5th is moving out in the nearish future?

Vaktathi

03-21-2011, 01:42 PM

Derp, didn't realize threadomancy. In response to threadomancy, most of the concerns already raised are pretty much the same ones still being raised now.

Grabula

03-21-2011, 02:21 PM

I like 5th edition quite a bit. It's been the most fun for me I've had playing this game since probably 2nd edition. 3rd and 4th to me was lacking and both seemed to be lopsided to some extent so I actually didn't play that often during those editions. 5th came around and I could see immediately that it was going to be a better edition.

Keep in mind, there's always going to be some pecularities to any system. I've been wargaming for a long time and I've never played a game that didn't have some sort of bizarness except for the most simple games. The mroe complex a game gets, the harder it is to maintain solid balance. GW is going to stick to a system that will always have the same basic rules, so you'll basically see a swing, like a pendulum, with rules sets changes. Ideally, GW would settle on a rules set like 5th that's actually pretty stable, and focus on army releases but they're firmly entrenched in the 4-5 year rules cycle. Let's hope 6th edition is as solid as 5th.

Skragger

03-22-2011, 06:53 AM

I'm still trying to figure out why GW poops out a new edition before they've even finished the current one, there's still a few codexes that need finishing. It happened in fourth edition. Us Orks didn't get a 4th ed codex. *ducks from the incoming DE references*

Daemonette666

03-26-2011, 06:04 AM

Well Chaos Space Marines, Eldar, and either Dark Angels or Black Templars (maybe even both) will not get a 5th edition codex either. Sisters will also be lucky it they get a codex in just before the rumoured Olympic Games release 6th edition.

I just hate the lack of Drop pods or similar type arrangement for most of the non-Imperium armies. Tyranids get Mycetic spores, but Necrons, Tau, Eldar, Choas Marines not get anything that deploy a squad via deep strike accurately like a drop pod.

5th edition tried to fix the problem where players removed dead models from around troops that had not fought in close combat, stopping them from taking part in the fight. They succedded in combatting this common tactic used in 4th edition, but failed to combat another tactic used to stop troops from getting into close combat in the first place.

If you shoot at a unit, and the armies general removes models closer to you, then if the charge distance is increased to more than 6", you can not then attack the intended target. I have used this dirty trick/ tactic and had it used against me on many an occasion.

I have even employed the cover rule where I had 3 models out of cover, and 7 in cover. The enemy charged the 3 closer models (3 " away), and then were forced to roll 2D6 to see if they could have charged the unit in the first place as the remaining models were within their maximum 6" charge distance. This is such a broken rule, and should be looked at.

gcsmith

03-26-2011, 06:11 AM

Im praying Tau and BT dnt get a 5th edition book now, if 6th is so close, I want to have a book designed for that ruleset and not have items that are useless.

1st Satiran Fusiliers

03-27-2011, 03:07 PM

@ MVBrandt: All excellent points, and masterfully stated, sir. I hope GW is somehow receiving feedback at this level of detail, and taking it to heart for a future 6th Edition of 40K.

dethangel

03-28-2011, 08:12 AM

5th is not my favorate..nhere are my gripes and a wishlist for 6th Ed
i would like to see TLoS taken to the next level where only models of a squad that can be seen can be removed. example. if i shoot at a squad but can only see two models out of a squad of 5 or more then the only models that can be killed are are those that you see. no removing hidden models just to save the models in the open or taking more damage than you have models in open. an exception for blasts as they are area effect weapons that can extend outside TLoS
i would like to see the return of Overwatch (ei if you do not shoot or assault with a unit in your turn that unit may have a out of turn shooting attack as a reaction to assaulting enemy troops.) the game is too assault happy but really you dont bring a knife to a gun fight...duhh..
also a tactical retreat option where if your unit doesn't move or assault in your turn (but can shoot) if assaulted may make a leadership test if passed that unit may retreat away from assault units and remain out of combat and auto regroup the next turn. the retreating unit counts as having moved the next turn.
would like to see better rules for bikes like may assault like cavalry , hit and run and the like.
would like to see units in a destroyed transport are auto pinned and take a S4 hit. its stupid that units involved in a explosion can shoot and assault as if nothing happened. (in the real world if your in a APC that gets hit by anti-tank most likely you and everyone else with you are dead or injured):rolleyes:
would like to see far more missions. 9 is not enough
would like to see a faster codex sceduel no the wait 6+ years for a new one.
i would also like range modifiers like a shot taken at short range recieves +1 BS and at mid range, normal BS, and at long to max range -1BS
and the normal cover save increased to 5+ (4+ is too much).
would like dedicated Flyer rules...