WH 40K: 5th Edition (Opinions?)

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

What's wrong with the Vendetta? It's like complaining about the existence of the Apache Longbow, Strike Eagle or the Bradley Linebacker. It's just a (perfectly sensible) purpose-built variant.

I'll grant you the special rules, though. That's another problem with 5th Ed in general: every unit and its dog needs some stupid special power, I guess to further pander to the 12-year-old yu-gi-oh demographic (which Warmachine gobbles up like a motherfucker anyway, so I don't know why they're trying so hard). I miss my 3.5/4th Ed Guard, whose Guardsmen just... Guardsmen'd. The design of late-3rd/4th edition codices was generally superior in most every way: Less special rule wankery (ironic, considering 5th edition's otherwise commendable push for greater rules standardization), and more unit configuration and individualization options.

[Whiskey144]

Then again, I think GW had someone paired to him when he did the recent WD Sisters Codex, hopefully to put some reins on him, so all may not be lost.

No. Just no. Not because of any Ward fanboyism, but because it was Robin Cruddace who wrote the WD Sisters mini-dex. Just the rules, mind you.

I agree whole-heartedly that Ward's fluff can get pretty bad. But his rules are solid. Robin Cruddace, OTOH.......can be hit-and-miss. Yeah, the IG book was pretty good. The Tyranids book was okay, but a lot of units lost capability or utility, often being eclipsed by new units that were introduced.

And then you have the Sisters mini-dex. Cruddace did the rules write-up on it. You know how you can tell? Say what you will, but Ward writes some pretty solid, well-balanced books on the crunch-front. There's generally a very small number of units that are "terrible"- generally due to poor execution of basic rules and costing, and being overshadowed by more flexible units.

The Sisters mini-dex is an excellent example of how *not* to do an army book. Having said that, it's also a WD codex, and, like the Blood Angels WD 'dex that was used before the official BA rulebook, it's meant primarily as an interim.

IMO, Cruddace should have done the Sisters fluff write-up (the IG&Tyranid fluff sections are pretty good), while Ward did the rules. Because Cruddace's rules are kinda hit-and-miss, whilst Ward's rules are usually quite balanced and spot-on.

Heh. If the Grey Knight in my Deathwatch group (don't ask, ugh) ever tried something like that, I'd slap him with an instantaneous 50+ Corruption points, permanent revocation of his Grey Knight's immunity to Corruption, and a swift declaration of Excommunicate Traitoris should the group's Inquisitorial oversight ever get wind of the matter.

...........I'm actually curious why you set up a GK in the Deathwatch game- I agree with the general sentiment (unless a DW campaign is going to be *about* daemon-hunting, perhaps in the vein of the GK books, leave the daemonhunter chapter at home).

There are only two things that bother me about that codex; the Vendetta gunship, and the seeming overabundance of special rules where they just aren't needed or even warranted. I otherwise enjoy playing with and against it.

I actually think that the Vendetta fits in the IG book, for the simple reason that it could easily be explained as what can be a field expedient; IE slapping lascannons onto a Valkyrie if a regiment lacks a profusion of armored vehicles or mobile anti-armor firepower.

[Ryan Thunder]

What's wrong with the Vendetta? It's like complaining about the existence of the Apache Longbow, Strike Eagle or the Bradley Linebacker. It's just a (perfectly sensible) purpose-built variant.

The Vulture would have been a better choice and would not have required them to create a unit that on paper looks like it was invented by an overenthusiastic 13-year-old with a pile of lascannons lying around.

It's preference, I guess.

[Alkaloid]

The Vulture would have been a better choice and would not have required them to create a unit that on paper looks like it was invented by an overenthusiastic 13-year-old with a pile of lascannons lying around.

It's preference, I guess.

As far as I can tell they made the Vendetta because its easy to make from the plastic Valk kit, and the Vulture would have been a whole different model.

Speaking of Deathwatch, it's interesting that 40K-RP is any many ways supplanting the core miniatures game. Fantasy Flight Games have, ironically, been doing a much better job of not only keeping 40K on track, but also writing new fluff that fits within the setting and fleshes it out in a cohesive, logical manner than GW have lately.

Yeah. I like the Forge World books not because of the new units and rules and all that, but because the story attached to them is almost invariably better than what is coming out in the rulebooks and black library novels.

I'll grant you the special rules, though. That's another problem with 5th Ed in general: every unit and its dog needs some stupid special power, I guess to further pander to the 12-year-old yu-gi-oh demographic (which Warmachine gobbles up like a motherfucker anyway, so I don't know why they're trying so hard). I miss my 3.5/4th Ed Guard, whose Guardsmen just... Guardsmen'd.

I think they're running into the problem that MEQ armies are getting bigger, but guard armies can't really get much bigger so heavy weps and tanks are becoming more vital. The standard Guardsman with a lasgun has almost no purpose beyond being a meatshield for the heavy weapons guy now. So they have to work out a way to keep individual guardsman weak, but have more purpose than ablative wounds.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

...........I'm actually curious why you set up a GK in the Deathwatch game- I agree with the general sentiment (unless a DW campaign is going to be *about* daemon-hunting, perhaps in the vein of the GK books, leave the daemonhunter chapter at home).

Heh, I said "don't ask"...

I co-GM the game, and said co-GM can be pretty naive. He okay'd That Guy's whining and pleading to make his shitty Grey Knight character when I wasn't there, and I've had to grit my teeth and tolerate it ever since.

[Thinktank]

Speaking of Deathwatch, it's interesting that 40K-RP is any many ways supplanting the core miniatures game. Fantasy Flight Games have, ironically, been doing a much better job of not only keeping 40K on track, but also writing new fluff that fits within the setting and fleshes it out in a cohesive, logical manner than GW have lately.

This, very much so.

I noticed a hard unwavering grip on the fundamentals of 40K in 'Inquisitor' that seems to have translated over to it's younger RPG successors. I am thankful for FFG's dedication to quality in their WH40K products and have gladly plunked down some serious coin to own many of their books.

[Vendetta]

Speaking of Deathwatch, it's interesting that 40K-RP is any many ways supplanting the core miniatures game. Fantasy Flight Games have, ironically, been doing a much better job of not only keeping 40K on track, but also writing new fluff that fits within the setting and fleshes it out in a cohesive, logical manner than GW have lately.

This, very much so.

I noticed a hard unwavering grip on the fundamentals of 40K in 'Inquisitor' that seems to have translated over to it's younger RPG successors. I am thankful for FFG's dedication to quality in their WH40K products and have gladly plunked down some serious coin to own many of their books.

Current GW management doesn't really understand the hobby side of the product. They understand retail, not games or hobby collection. (One suggestion, for instance, was removing character models from stores, because they move in low volume but take up shelf space.)

[Simon_Jester]

...I understand neither retail nor hobby gaming. While I don't deny that this is a bad idea, could you explain to me exactly why it is, for future reference?

[Vendetta]

Most army lists will include at least one character. In order to effectively play the game, you need at least one. If you make lynchpin models difficult to acquire because you can't buy them in stores, it's harder to get people to buy into a new army.

Also, characters tend to be the most detailed models, the ones that attract most interest from the hobby/collector crowd and the ones that look Big And Shiny on the demo tables. Again, if you can't buy them in those stores with the demo tables in you've lost one of your selling points.

[Stark]

Yeah, that's a typical inventory management decision that might not make sense in context. You'd think the solution would be changing the character packaging and not leaving them on shelves, but what do I know.

[Kojiro]

Are you going to give any examples or reasons, rather than making a blanket, uninformative statement?

Many of my issues with 40K relate to the changes between 2rd and 3th edition which have persisted into 5th.

Cover - the way cover is worked out with squads- for example you can have a 10 man devastator squad with the 4 heavy weapons out in the open while the other 6 hide out of sight. The exposed models will gain the cover save of the concealed models. Even if you do manage to kill said exposed model, someone else simply scoops up the weapons and it's all systems go, not even a break in fire. Cover is also universally useful - sure your power armour won't stop that multimelta but the long grass you're in might. Some people say it makes you harder to hit- that's what cover does and this is true but then it only seems to make you harder to hit IF the weapon would otherwise breach your armour instantly.

This mechanic can also be used to interlace two large squads- say orks or 'gaunts. Because 50% of squad A blocks 50% of squad B (and vice versa) the entire, exposed 'brick' is considered in cover despite the fact it's really just 40 hormugaunts in the open.

This group targeting also means that you can have a single ork being engaged in melee half a board away magically providing protection from ranged attacks to his whole unit.

On this note split firing is also gone (unless you're a Long Fang- apparently they've worked it out). That is to say if there are two orks, the single survivors of their squads standing in front of a 10 man marine squad, every marine (even the ones with the heavy bolter and plasma gun) will shoot the same ork. They'll really shoot the shit out of him but can't quite grasp the idea of shooting both.

AP - There's some logic to AP. After all power armour just won't stop a lascannon. But that works in reverse too- power armour will stop a stub pistol. In this system though, the stub pistol has as much chance of penetrating the power armour as... a heavy bolter? A multi laser? This leads to the absurd situation where marines (or anyone whose armour is better than the AP of the attacker) derive absolutely no benefit from cover- none. "What's that Bob, heavy bolter is about to open up on me? No worries mate, I've got power armour".

Grenades- apparently they're something you throw at someone immediately (and only if) you intend to shortly run right up to said person. Apparently it's inconvievable you'd want to simply throw a grenade.

Base sizes - What's the right base size for a model? Some people will tell you 'it's what you got in the box' while others will confidently claim it's this, that or another. What's that? You got one box with large flying bases and one with new? AND one with a mix? Well shit... I'm still caught in a bind because my terminators (from the early 90s) are on small bases (and therefore harder to clip with templates). Base sizes are also important in determining coherence (larger based models can spread out further and contest more table area). GW however doesn't feel this is worth addressing. Hell not everything even has a base.

True LOS - I get that GW want to encourage modelling and it's an awesome part of the hobby but there are absurdities to using True Line Of Sight. This again partly relates to bases. Am I being cheesey using 'small' terminators? Has that guy who has modelled his Wraithlord to be kneeling broken the rules since now it can't be seen above everything else? Convesely someone could be penalised for putting their commander on a pretty (if elevating him) base.

Hit Modifiers - What does an ork need to hit the rear of a stationary tank from 2" away? Why a 5+ of course. What does that same ork need to hit the eldar jet bike zooming at max speed through the ruins, obscured partly by a forest at the extreme of his range? 5+ you say? That seems right...

Close Combat is King - A space marine, for example, can put out a variable number of attacks, from 1-3 depending on what they do. Unsuprisingly the number correlates with distance. 1 long range shot, two medium range shots or 1 close range shot and 2 melee attacks. No way exists to augment the longer range shot- the marine can't aim, dual shot or anything else. In other words a single kill is the best you'll ever do at 12"+ despite wielding an automatic weapon. That same tac marine can charge in, shoot his bolt pistol (exact same kill profile as the long range bolter shot) AND then slug something twice. Admittedly it takes longer for ranged retribution- the following turn- while melee retribution can be instant. But then you can fight every turn in melee while you only shoot during your own. So from the start of one turn to the next a tac marine shooting can put out, at best, 2 shots. An assault marine can put out 4, and that's assuming he doesn't charge, in which case it'd be 5.

Vehicle damage - apparently a scatter laser than penetrates your hull is exactly as dangerous as say, a heavy plasma cannon or lascannon. It's also apparent that being inside a transport is the safest place in the world. Even if that starcannon shreds your vehicle it will never, ever hit an occupant. In fact, you could just be on the transport and you're safe. No matter how many lasgun shots you throw at a DE raider (or how many DE are on it) you'll never, ever, hit one.

FAQ - THis has imporved a lot of late but given the gods awful simplicity of the game there are way, way too many questions here.

Balance - Simply put it doesn't exist. While it's not always good to compare accross codexes sometimes you can't help it. A Space Wolf gets an extra melee weapn (+1 Attack), enhanced senses and counter charge (amazing ability) with an otherwise identical marine profile and he's a point cheaper? WTF? Codex creep is well known, hence the need for resets so frequently.

Special Exceptions - Having a rule like Deepstrike is cool. Having a rule that says 'you can't assault the same turn you DS' is also good- it makes DS a tactical tool rather than an obscene 'fuck you opponent, you're not actually required'. Rules that circumvent restrictions can be cool, but then they can suck. The phenomena of 'tabling' someone (wiping out their army) is all good and fine, but it's ludicrous when it's happening before your opponent has had a god damn turn. Likewise when GW took away the Strength and Save mods on weapons they unwittingly made orks suck ass. This results in them then having to make special rules to give orks more attacks or pseudo save mods, or Striking Scorpions a special +1 STR chainsword. In other words a global rule summarily circumvented.

Single Saves - This is partly related to the cover issue but I can't believe defensive mechanisms don't stack. Who has the better chance of surviving a lascannong? An ork behind a wall or a terminator behind the same wall, with a energy shield? They're both the same apparently. 50 IG open fire with lasguns on a pair of striking scorpions. One is behind some sandbags while the other stands in the open. Both have identical (if low) chances of survival.

40K is currently a terrible game and runs pretty much on enthusiasm for the fluff. No game is perfect but system holes should be allowed to live when correcting them is genuinely more troublesome than helpful. 40K isn't some new system either- most of these issues would be forgiven in a first edition back in the early '90s.

[Whiskey144]

True LOS - I get that GW want to encourage modelling and it's an awesome part of the hobby but there are absurdities to using True Line Of Sight. This again partly relates to bases. Am I being cheesey using 'small' terminators? Has that guy who has modelled his Wraithlord to be kneeling broken the rules since now it can't be seen above everything else? Convesely someone could be penalised for putting their commander on a pretty (if elevating him) base.

Like I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm going to again say that TLoS and 'modelling for advantage' is an incredibly double-edged sword.

IMO, no, the guy who models a kneeling Wraithlord doesn't break the rules- unless he tries to draw LOS for his shooting as if the Wraithlord was standing upright. If he draws LOS in the logical way, in that the Wraithlord is kneeling, then I feel that he is perfectly fine using that model. Because yes, the kneeling Wraithlord is now more difficult for your guns to see. OTOH, said Wraithlord is also going to have a more difficult time drawing LOS to things it wants to shoot at that an upright-modeled version wouldn't bat an eye at.

I'll go back to my Leman Russ tank example; if I use a custom-hulled Russ tank (wherein the hull has been kitbashed/scratchbuilt and is fundamentally different from the base GW kit; we'll call it 'Panzer-Russ' for brevity), that happens to have a lower profile than a normal GW-Russ, then yes, the enemy's guns will have greater difficulty drawing LOS to the vehicle. However, the 'Panzer-Russ' will similarly have difficulty drawing LOS over cover and terrain pieces that the normal GW-Russ would be able to ignore- Panzer-Russ will be able to claim cover more easily than GW-Russ, but Panzer-Russ will also have a more difficult time seeing over terrain than GW-Russ, unless Panzer-Russ is in an elevated position (which GW-Russ would gain similar benefit from).

[Alkaloid]

Balance - Simply put it doesn't exist. While it's not always good to compare accross codexes sometimes you can't help it. A Space Wolf gets an extra melee weapn (+1 Attack), enhanced senses and counter charge (amazing ability) with an otherwise identical marine profile and he's a point cheaper? WTF? Codex creep is well known, hence the need for resets so frequently.

Which, hilariously, is a result of a misguided attempt to bring balance back to the game by stopping min maxing tac squads.

No game is perfect but system holes should be allowed to live when correcting them is genuinely more troublesome than helpful. 40K isn't some new system either- most of these issues would be forgiven in a first edition back in the early '90s.

Thing is, it really is a new system. Every new addition brings some fundamental changes to the core game mechanics that they don't see in testing, get picked up on by players, so they release a new edition that makes so many massive changes to the way the game is scored (usually) that they have a whole new set. Look at the new releases specialist games like BFG and you'll see a lot better balance (I'm told) because they are just making small tweaks to the same basic system.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Dude, Kojiro - half of your list are valid criticisms of 40k's mechanical issues, but the other half come off as a complete failure to understand abstraction. You're playing a D6-based miniatures game designed to be playable in a few hours. Of course many things are incredibly simplistic or in many cases completely divorced from a realistic portrayal (that's what abstract means, you know). No, you don't roll to blow stuff up every time you want to throw a grenade, because that would be silly. Frag grenades do nothing except automatically affect close combat initiative order because it's an abstract representation of how fragmentation grenades are actually used - as close-assault tools that disrupt and harass a dug-in enemy. Any casualties they might incidentally inflict are irrelevant to the abstraction of the imaginary battle that the tabletop game represents.

I mean, you don't think that because Space Marine Bob is modelled without a helmet on, he's not wearing it when you're fighting on a table modelled to represent an airless moon, surely? 40k is not designed to be a literal play-by-play where you roll on seventeen thousand tables with eight different varieties of dice to see which arm of which guy you shot got hit with a three-round burst from two of your guys with a laying prone bonus but a penalty for shooting at 362.4 meters against higher ground on a deflection shot.

[Lord Relvenous]

-snip-

Sounds like 40k isn't the game for you, man. Find yourself a skirmish game and revel in your more realistic rules.

I wholeheartedly disagree that 40k is a "terrible game". Many of your criticisms read like someone who is not able to put away his desire for complete realism to have a shorter game. If 40k really had to-hit modifiers, thrown grenade rules, individual model firing, differing damage effects to vehicles based on weapons, aiming, multiple saves, and so on it would take 5 hours to play a decent sized game. I prefer for my 2000 army that I painted to actually be used in a pick up game.

I will acknowledge that there are problems with 5th, TLOS and wound allocation being two of them, but it is by no means a terrible game. It is more streamlined (which does not equal simplified) and plays better than it ever has. I remember the days of 2nd, and I prefer 5th.

[Kojiro]

Dude, Kojiro - half of your list are valid criticisms of 40k's mechanical issues, but the other half come off as a complete failure to understand abstraction. You're playing a D6-based miniatures game designed to be playable in a few hours.

That's part of the problem- 40K has evolved from a skirmish level game to an army (and look at Apocalypse) or even Epic level game. The scale (and number of models you have to buy) has gone up so that the rules must necessarily be simplified to stop the game becoming a tarpit. Of course you could just play Epic, but then you can't model on all your shiny mastercrafted gear on that character with his 5 power weapon reroll attacks.

Of course many things are incredibly simplistic or in many cases completely divorced from a realistic portrayal (that's what abstract means, you know). No, you don't roll to blow stuff up every time you want to throw a grenade, because that would be silly. Frag grenades do nothing except automatically affect close combat initiative order because it's an abstract representation of how fragmentation grenades are actually used - as close-assault tools that disrupt and harass a dug-in enemy. Any casualties they might incidentally inflict are irrelevant to the abstraction of the imaginary battle that the tabletop game represents.

Oh I understand abstraction- it's great in a game like Epic or BFG but on a scale where the individual items in each models hand count, where each individual model contributes you expect a certain level of minutia, of detail. I mean, as Whiskey144 said you model your things to be kneeling because the game wants you to look from it's god damn eyes. That's not an abstraction, it's a step up from GIJoe. On the one hand 40K wants to be extremely specific, down to the exact gear carried by a specific model and how many hands it takes up but then it wants to be sweepingly abstract when it's otherwise convenient (such as with cover).

I mean, you don't think that because Space Marine Bob is modelled without a helmet on, he's not wearing it when you're fighting on a table modelled to represent an airless moon, surely?

Of course not, and it's not what I'm arguing for (I'm not really arguing for anything- merely stating what I think of 40K 5th Ed). A degree of abstraction is necessary but there's also abstraction for the sake of simplicity, such as the cover mechanics where it's just lazy rules writing. Abstract away but the idea that cover helps you live isn't so trivial it can really get washed into the abstraction of shooting- espcially since it isn't, sometimes, for some people.

40k is not designed to be a literal play-by-play where you roll on seventeen thousand tables with eight different varieties of dice to see which arm of which guy you shot got hit with a three-round burst from two of your guys with a laying prone bonus but a penalty for shooting at 362.4 meters against higher ground on a deflection shot.

The complexity/simplicity spectrum is long. 40K is in the very shallow end of the simplicity section. While I wouldn't advocate taking the complexity up to 11 I'm equally irritated by it sitting at 2. So you don't want a game like the original Confrontation (and who could blame you)? That's fine, we don't need a hit penatly of 2.5% per inch on a bolt pistol, it's way too far on the complex side but like wise we don't need absolutely fixed values either. There is a happy medium.

Sounds like 40k isn't the game for you, man. Find yourself a skirmish game and revel in your more realistic rules.

Which is exactly what I have done for the most part. But this wasn't a 'post why you think 5th ed is teh awesome' thread. The above is my opinion, like it or not.

Believe it or not I don't want complete realism- I thoroughly enjoy Warmachine and loved Epic, neither of which are remotely close to reaslitic. 40Ks real flaws lie in that 'streamlining' which while it doesn't have to equal simplified sometimes does, and many of the above fall into this case. If you want 'streamlined' give everything a base size- you've just made a whole lot of things easier and done away with TLoS.

If you think 40K is a good game, that's fair enough. It's always going to be subjective when it comes to what people like but for my money it's a game half way between abstract and accurate with oversimplified rules.

[2000AD]

Like I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm going to again say that TLoS and 'modelling for advantage' is an incredibly double-edged sword.

And like I also moentioned that's only true if you're wanting the model to do some shooting. If you're a combat army looking to prevent people shooting your stuff before they get in combat it's a big advantage with no downside.

Sounds like 40k isn't the game for you, man. Find yourself a skirmish game and revel in your more realistic rules.

Thing is, for a long time 40K was that game and it wasn't just a skirmish game the rules worked well for your average 2000 point pitched battle only getting a bit clunky in bigger 3000+ point games. It's a phrase that gets tossed around a lot but in this case 40K is actually a game that has been dumbed down. While overall the game is quicker to play nowadays, players like me (and apparently Kojiro) who were raised on 2nd Ed bemoan the over simplification of things like the cover system, armour saves and to hit modifiers.
And then there's the inconsistancy of making some stuff more abstract (like grenades) while taking away from abstraction in other areas (like true LOS).

[PainRack]

I like to point out that in 2nd edt, frag grenades had a role outside of assault and space marines were TRUE shooty armies with their double tap rules.

I played both epic and Wh40k, and they were both fun. When the system meshed over to 3rd edt, the resulting large numbers turned me away, mainly because of the cost involved in building an army.

Also, for the huge amount of effort placed in customisation of the army and variety, the lack of balance mean that to fight competively, certain units are not competitive on the board and army lists can be quite important.

[Slacker]

The 'nid codex is just bad, and where GW could have mitigated or fixed it in places with the FAQ, they instead went pants-on-head retarded. That said, most of the 'new' books-late 4th into 5th edition-are pretty good against each other. They play each other quite well. It's just that the older books are simply so bad in comparison that the disparity is very obvious.

[Vendetta]

That's part of the problem- 40K has evolved from a skirmish level game to an army (and look at Apocalypse) or even Epic level game. The scale (and number of models you have to buy) has gone up so that the rules must necessarily be simplified to stop the game becoming a tarpit. Of course you could just play Epic, but then you can't model on all your shiny mastercrafted gear on that character with his 5 power weapon reroll attacks.

40k's history as a skirmish game is so deep in the mists of time that it's really not relevant to the game as it is today. Infinity and Urban War are skirmish games, games where 15 guys is a big army, I don't recall any time in the last 20 years that 40k has been at that scale.

Oh I understand abstraction- it's great in a game like Epic or BFG but on a scale where the individual items in each models hand count, where each individual model contributes you expect a certain level of minutia, of detail. I mean, as Whiskey144 said you model your things to be kneeling because the game wants you to look from it's god damn eyes. That's not an abstraction, it's a step up from GIJoe. On the one hand 40K wants to be extremely specific, down to the exact gear carried by a specific model and how many hands it takes up but then it wants to be sweepingly abstract when it's otherwise convenient (such as with cover).

WYSIWYG modelling is nothing to do with game rules and everything to do with shifting product. You want the whiz-bang weapons you've got to buy the extra sprue of wargear. The problem with True LoS in 40k 5th is that, well, it isn't true, because of the squad based cover. You can have full LoS to a target but he's still in cover because some of his squad is in cover. That's just a problem with poor abstraction choices on the part of GW. Having a simplified squad to squad LOS (For instance, from leader to leader) would mesh better with the cover system in use.

Of course not, and it's not what I'm arguing for (I'm not really arguing for anything- merely stating what I think of 40K 5th Ed). A degree of abstraction is necessary but there's also abstraction for the sake of simplicity

Abstraction for the sake of simplicity also translates to "abstraction for the sake of making the game play in a reasonable amount of time". Not everyone has a whole day to dedicate to playing one match every time they feel like a game.

The complexity/simplicity spectrum is long. 40K is in the very shallow end of the simplicity section. While I wouldn't advocate taking the complexity up to 11 I'm equally irritated by it sitting at 2.

And yet it still takes forever to play. When I used to go to a gaming club we'd be able to get in two or three games of Infinity or Urban War, a whole game of Confrontation (Rackham fantasy game, not GW's one), or even most of a game of WHFB. The 40K players would maybe manage two turns. One if they went mad and played Armageddon.

[Kojiro]

The 'nid codex is just bad, and where GW could have mitigated or fixed it in places with the FAQ, they instead went pants-on-head retarded. That said, most of the 'new' books-late 4th into 5th edition-are pretty good against each other. They play each other quite well. It's just that the older books are simply so bad in comparison that the disparity is very obvious.

Which is why they need to learn from companies like Privateer- open Beta testing is your friend and produces a vastly superior product. Not only did it allow them to put out a far, far more balanced system in the end but it let them put out everything for all 11 factions in roughly 2 years. Not to mention gave them absolutely massive amounts of feedback which was acted on which in turn made players feel like they actually gave a damn.

[quote="Vendetta']40k's history as a skirmish game is so deep in the mists of time that it's really not relevant to the game as it is today. Infinity and Urban War are skirmish games, games where 15 guys is a big army, I don't recall any time in the last 20 years that 40k has been at that scale.[/quote]
It's about what you want to play and how much time you have. There should, in theory, be no reason you can't play 40K at the level is was made for but the rules just don't work well. 40K has grown into Epic, with superheavy vehicles, fliers on even on occasion titans. Again GW should be looking at PP with their 'Unbound' format (for playing really huge games) and adjust the game accordingly. Instead we get the issue that plague the game now.

WYSIWYG modelling is nothing to do with game rules and everything to do with shifting product. You want the whiz-bang weapons you've got to buy the extra sprue of wargear. The problem with True LoS in 40k 5th is that, well, it isn't true, because of the squad based cover. You can have full LoS to a target but he's still in cover because some of his squad is in cover. That's just a problem with poor abstraction choices on the part of GW. Having a simplified squad to squad LOS (For instance, from leader to leader) would mesh better with the cover system in use.

I'd say it's a bit of both. GW could send little buckets of all those hard to get pieces- combi meltas, helmt X etc to their stores, or sell a sprue of just customisation bits but they deliberately package them in pricier boxes. Devastators are a prime example of this- why buy 4 different weapons, with different roles, if you can't split your fire? Abstraction must occur (I agree with others on this) and I agree with you wholeheartedly thatof those choices, current choices are poor.

Not sure on this 'Leader to Leader' idea though.

As for how long it takes to play, that's largely up to the players. I've seen games where people have to reference the book every time they want to use a psychic power, can't remember the strength of an assualt cannon or the vehicle damage table and it takes them forever to do anything. Conversely I can play a game against my friend with little more than gestures, abbreviations and dice rolling because we both know what is going on- books don't come out and we can fly through a game in under an hour. I know I sure as hell don't have a whole day to play anything these days, the odd tournament excluded.

But it's an inevitable symptom- put more models on the table and it'll take you more time, even if that time is spent simply looking for all the 4+'s in that pile of 30 dice. I don't really disagree that despite simplification it's still time consuming, but you can put that down as another flaw if you want.

[Lord Relvenous]

[quote="Vendetta']40k's history as a skirmish game is so deep in the mists of time that it's really not relevant to the game as it is today. Infinity and Urban War are skirmish games, games where 15 guys is a big army, I don't recall any time in the last 20 years that 40k has been at that scale.

It's about what you want to play and how much time you have. There should, in theory, be no reason you can't play 40K at the level is was made for but the rules just don't work well. 40K has grown into Epic, with superheavy vehicles, fliers on even on occasion titans. Again GW should be looking at PP with their 'Unbound' format (for playing really huge games) and adjust the game accordingly. Instead we get the issue that plague the game now.
[/quote][/quote]
It's on an issue if you want the game to be a skirmish game. I'm more than happy with the rules because I like playing a big army against another big army. Whenever I play Warmachine, I always find myself gravitating to 50 points and up. I want a lot of models on the field. Also, GW "looking at Unbound" is hilarious when Unbound comes across as PP's version of Apocalypse (which is where the sueprheavies come in, so saying that they are in the base 40k game is bullshit).

It really seems like every complaint you have boils down to "go back to how it was!" If you want a smaller scale 40k game with grenade rules, less abstraction, and so on just play 2nd. It's not like you can't get the books.

[Kojiro]

It's on an issue if you want the game to be a skirmish game. I'm more than happy with the rules because I like playing a big army against another big army. Whenever I play Warmachine, I always find myself gravitating to 50 points and up. I want a lot of models on the field. Also, GW "looking at Unbound" is hilarious when Unbound comes across as PP's version of Apocalypse (which is where the sueprheavies come in, so saying that they are in the base 40k game is bullshit).

Apocalypse doesn't change the game rules, just what you can field. Unbound chnages the game rules, not what you can field. Admittedly Apoc adds rules for the new stuff it let's you play with but doesn't fundamentally change things like the turn sequence the way Unbound does. The only similarity between the two is they're for larger games. My comment was designed to show that GWs method was 'now you can buy more stuff!' while PP's was 'our game wasn't designed for this so here's how to adapt it'. That's some fundamental differences there you may have failed to notice.

It really seems like every complaint you have boils down to "go back to how it was!" If you want a smaller scale 40k game with grenade rules, less abstraction, and so on just play 2nd. It's not like you can't get the books.

Do I think 2nd ed was better? Yes I do. Last game I played was 2nd ed (and I mean recently). There are some good things in 5th ed like unversal rules but i was specifically answering Starks request for flaws. This thread is about opinions of 5th ed which for me are low. Sorry if you don't like my opinions but you could always argue the points raised.

[Lord Relvenous]

My continued response to you is that your points haven't proven the game to be bad, just not a game designed for you to enjoy. There's a difference between a badly designed game and a game you don't like. I don't like Magic, but I would never call it a badly designed game. However, you've been making statements of fact in this thread, not statements of opinion. They're not valid, and my responses have been to point out that you are posting your opinion that has been effected by your dislike of army based games and preference for skirmish games.

I don't think 40k is a badly designed game. Could it be better? Of course, no game is perfect. However, it does what it intends to just fine. TLOS (and cover) and Wound allocation are the only real problems I have with it.

As for responding to your points:

Cover - the way cover is worked out with squads- for example you can have a 10 man devastator squad with the 4 heavy weapons out in the open while the other 6 hide out of sight. The exposed models will gain the cover save of the concealed models. Even if you do manage to kill said exposed model, someone else simply scoops up the weapons and it's all systems go, not even a break in fire. Cover is also universally useful - sure your power armour won't stop that multimelta but the long grass you're in might. Some people say it makes you harder to hit- that's what cover does and this is true but then it only seems to make you harder to hit IF the weapon would otherwise breach your armour instantly.

Yes the current cover system has it's problems. However, there is no "scooping up" of weapons. Wound Allocation was specifically introduced into the game to prevent exactly that happening. As for cover being universally usual: sure, which balances out that Marines don't need cover most of the time. If cover didn't work on AP weapons, it would skew the benefit of cover even more towards horde armies. As for your last sentence, it's poorly worded, so I can't respond.

This mechanic can also be used to interlace two large squads- say orks or 'gaunts. Because 50% of squad A blocks 50% of squad B (and vice versa) the entire, exposed 'brick' is considered in cover despite the fact it's really just 40 hormugaunts in the open.

Lol, this again. Anyone that brings this up usually has n ever seen it happen, or if they have hasn't played it right. If anyone actually tries this against me, I just demand that they follow the letter of the rules perfectly. They can't move models in different units at once, they can't move through models of other units, and they must measure all of their distances. That puts an end to that real fast as their whole army gets bogged down. Oh wait, that was my answer to that situation. Now it's not:

Q: Who gets the 4+ cover save for intervening models
when two units are intermingled? (p21)
A: The unit with the model closest to the enemy that is
firing does not have a cover save.

Hey look, it's not a problem.

This group targeting also means that you can have a single ork being engaged in melee half a board away magically providing protection from ranged attacks to his whole unit.

How are you getting an Ork half a board away? The charged unit is required to pile in, and then every round both sides pile in. That means the furthest models are moving 12" towards each other. Unless you have an Ork player stretching one unit in a line at max coherency (shoot him out of coherency if that happens), that's never going to happen.

On this note split firing is also gone (unless you're a Long Fang- apparently they've worked it out). That is to say if there are two orks, the single survivors of their squads standing in front of a 10 man marine squad, every marine (even the ones with the heavy bolter and plasma gun) will shoot the same ork. They'll really shoot the shit out of him but can't quite grasp the idea of shooting both.

It's a result of slimming down the time a turn takes. If you change the rules to solve this one rare problem, it introduces much longer shooting times as people fire at multiple units with different weapons and have to resolve the results of each individually. A 40k turn is already long enough.

AP - There's some logic to AP. After all power armour just won't stop a lascannon. But that works in reverse too- power armour will stop a stub pistol. In this system though, the stub pistol has as much chance of penetrating the power armour as... a heavy bolter? A multi laser? This leads to the absurd situation where marines (or anyone whose armour is better than the AP of the attacker) derive absolutely no benefit from cover- none. "What's that Bob, heavy bolter is about to open up on me? No worries mate, I've got power armour".

An arrow may have a better penetrating profile than a rock, but if I'm wearing steel plate, neither one is going to penetrate it. They'll both only damage me in my soft armor (SM rolling a 1 or 2). I see no problem with AP.

Grenades- apparently they're something you throw at someone immediately (and only if) you intend to shortly run right up to said person. Apparently it's inconvievable you'd want to simply throw a grenade.

I just played an Apocalypse game where a guy brought 3 Deathwind drop pods (they generate blast templates against every unit within 12" on the turn they enter). It took us forever to resolve every blast scattering, wounding, and rolling saves. You wanna scatter 10 blast templates for every squad on the board (pretty much everything has grenades now, seems like). I don't.

Base sizes - What's the right base size for a model? Some people will tell you 'it's what you got in the box' while others will confidently claim it's this, that or another. What's that? You got one box with large flying bases and one with new? AND one with a mix? Well shit... I'm still caught in a bind because my terminators (from the early 90s) are on small bases (and therefore harder to clip with templates). Base sizes are also important in determining coherence (larger based models can spread out further and contest more table area). GW however doesn't feel this is worth addressing. Hell not everything even has a base.

If it doesn't have a base, you use the hull. If it comes with a base, use that. If it was supplied with a base in the past, use that. I really don't see the problem. You can have mixed base sizes in an army. And you got a box with a mix of bases? Really? Anyways, if it's a concern, talk it over with the local TO. They will give you the word of law. If you're worried about national tournaments, just get everything based on the new bases. Your 90's terminators can be on old bases or new bases, it doesn't matter. If anyone says it does, tell them to prove it to you and show you the rule.

True LOS - I get that GW want to encourage modelling and it's an awesome part of the hobby but there are absurdities to using True Line Of Sight. This again partly relates to bases. Am I being cheesey using 'small' terminators? Has that guy who has modelled his Wraithlord to be kneeling broken the rules since now it can't be seen above everything else? Convesely someone could be penalised for putting their commander on a pretty (if elevating him) base.

Have you ever actually seen an army modeled with TLOS raping in mind? I know it was bandied about quite a bit, but I've only seen maybe 2 armies with it. And one of those armies was in a tournament where the player picked up terrible sportsmanship scores. He got his just desserts. But yes, TLOS is a problem.

Hit Modifiers - What does an ork need to hit the rear of a stationary tank from 2" away? Why a 5+ of course. What does that same ork need to hit the eldar jet bike zooming at max speed through the ruins, obscured partly by a forest at the extreme of his range? 5+ you say? That seems right...

Okay. Sure there could be hit modifiers. But does it really hurt the game all that much? No. Having no hit modifers means the game doesn't reward close range fighting anymore (it already does to a large extent) and punish long range fighting more. That bike the Ork is shooting at has a 3+ cover save. That's 40k's version of their modifier. The defense is modified, not the attack.

Close Combat is King - A space marine, for example, can put out a variable number of attacks, from 1-3 depending on what they do. Unsuprisingly the number correlates with distance. 1 long range shot, two medium range shots or 1 close range shot and 2 melee attacks. No way exists to augment the longer range shot- the marine can't aim, dual shot or anything else. In other words a single kill is the best you'll ever do at 12"+ despite wielding an automatic weapon. That same tac marine can charge in, shoot his bolt pistol (exact same kill profile as the long range bolter shot) AND then slug something twice. Admittedly it takes longer for ranged retribution- the following turn- while melee retribution can be instant. But then you can fight every turn in melee while you only shoot during your own. So from the start of one turn to the next a tac marine shooting can put out, at best, 2 shots. An assault marine can put out 4, and that's assuming he doesn't charge, in which case it'd be 5.

Tell this to the Leafblower, Razorspam, and the Missile Spam. Close combat is deadly, and it has to be as many armies are built around it. However, shooting is just as mean. That Space Marine may put out a higher amount of attacks when charging, but those attacks don't benefit from high strength or AP. Also, it gives the enemy a chance to strike back.

Vehicle damage - apparently a scatter laser than penetrates your hull is exactly as dangerous as say, a heavy plasma cannon or lascannon. It's also apparent that being inside a transport is the safest place in the world. Even if that starcannon shreds your vehicle it will never, ever hit an occupant. In fact, you could just be on the transport and you're safe. No matter how many lasgun shots you throw at a DE raider (or how many DE are on it) you'll never, ever, hit one.

Vehicle damage is as complicated as it needs to be to not hamper game play. Introducing weapon specific damage effects would 1)slow down the game and 2)make it incredibly hard for a player to keep track of them all. And just because a shot penetrates the hull does not mean it penetrates to the passenger compartment. Additionally, you can hurt passengers while shooting at their transport: make it explode and they take damage and have to take a pinning test.

FAQ - THis has imporved a lot of late but given the gods awful simplicity of the game there are way, way too many questions here.

Every game needs to have holes in their ruleset fixed when players get their hands on it. PP has to run a forum specifically for rule questions and the Infernals make quite a few judgements after the release of a model. Also, most of the FAQ is merely clarifying something that has been settled for 95% of the player base, but the other 5% choose to read obtuse and unrealistic interpretations. Seriously, half the FAQ questions aren't even needed to actually clear up a rule, they're just making something obvious to a player.

Balance - Simply put it doesn't exist. While it's not always good to compare accross codexes sometimes you can't help it. A Space Wolf gets an extra melee weapn (+1 Attack), enhanced senses and counter charge (amazing ability) with an otherwise identical marine profile and he's a point cheaper? WTF? Codex creep is well known, hence the need for resets so frequently.

Bullshit it doesn't exist. Codex Creep first of all is horribly exaggerated, especially in the early days of a release. Secondly, if balance "doesn't exist" why are older codices still able to compete against new ones? Sure some are fucking worthless (Necrons), but on the whole, every codex can be played competitively, and the 5th edition codices are well balanced to each other. It's why there's a great mix of winning armies in tournaments.

Special Exceptions - Having a rule like Deepstrike is cool. Having a rule that says 'you can't assault the same turn you DS' is also good- it makes DS a tactical tool rather than an obscene 'fuck you opponent, you're not actually required'. Rules that circumvent restrictions can be cool, but then they can suck. The phenomena of 'tabling' someone (wiping out their army) is all good and fine, but it's ludicrous when it's happening before your opponent has had a god damn turn. Likewise when GW took away the Strength and Save mods on weapons they unwittingly made orks suck ass. This results in them then having to make special rules to give orks more attacks or pseudo save mods, or Striking Scorpions a special +1 STR chainsword. In other words a global rule summarily circumvented.

First of all, there's a shit ton of hyperbole in this paragraph. I have never seen someone tabled in the first turn. The only person that I have ever heard of being tabled in the first turn was a dumbass Necron player. And really, if Vanguard veterans (an overpriced assault unit) or lesser daemons (oh noes! they're so scary) are tabling you, you suck. Like legitimately blow huge donkey balls. If you get tabled turn 2, or really even turn 3, you suck donkey balls.

And Orks got gimped by a rules change, so GW fixed it to retain balance. This is a problem, how?

Single Saves - This is partly related to the cover issue but I can't believe defensive mechanisms don't stack. Who has the better chance of surviving a lascannong? An ork behind a wall or a terminator behind the same wall, with a energy shield? They're both the same apparently. 50 IG open fire with lasguns on a pair of striking scorpions. One is behind some sandbags while the other stands in the open. Both have identical (if low) chances of survival.

It all comes down to balance. Terminators are already hard to kill, with Terminators with storm shields being tough sons of bitches. Terminators that got their armor save, then their storm shield save, then their cover save would be nigh unkillable. Seriously, that's a 1/36 chance to die. Throw in FnP (which 3 different types of terminators can get) and that's a 1/72. Do you want to only kill one terminator for every 72 wounds you inflict on him? Do you want to have to shoot a lasgun at a Terminator 432 times before you can bring him down (assuming BS 3)?

40K is currently a terrible game and runs pretty much on enthusiasm for the fluff. No game is perfect but system holes should be allowed to live when correcting them is genuinely more troublesome than helpful. 40K isn't some new system either- most of these issues would be forgiven in a first edition back in the early '90s.

40k is not a terrible game because you say it is. You just don't personally like it. There is plenty of enthusiasm for the fluff, or the Black Library and Fantasy Flight wouldn't sell books of fluff, for fluff's sake. 40k isn't a new system, but neither is it as old as 1st edition would make it out to be. There was a massive overall of the rules between 1st and 2nd, and again between 2nd and 3rd. 40k has grown and changed as a game, that's why it's called 5th edition, not 1.0.5 edition.

As for time to play: my friends and I have all played for years. However, there is a baseline of how long it takes to play. At our fastest, we could knock out a 2000 point game in a little less than an hour and a half, maybe even an hour depending on army. However, if we want to actually enjoy that game, talk with each other, laugh at bad rolls, trash talk and so on, that puts the game easily up to two hours. That's enough time playing a game for me. Hell, and that's experienced players who know their shit. I run tournaments and there were many people who can't finish a 2500 point tournament game (so really, take out most of the dicking around) in 2.5 hours. That game shouldn't get longer.

Hell, AFAIK, Flames of War has just as much abstraction as 40k and is simplified so that players can play whole armies against each other. Is that a bad game too?

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Hell, AFAIK, Flames of War has just as much abstraction as 40k and is simplified so that players can play whole armies against each other. Is that a bad game too?

Well, tread carefully here. Flames of Warhammer runs on the same basic system, but is much better designed than 40k. It's also on a different scale.