WH 40K: 5th Edition (Opinions?)

[Kojiro]

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.

I call it a bad game because it's got serious flaws and is over simplified. I used to love 40K. When it started changing I didn't suddenly hate it THEN go looking for reasons why and find the talking points. I started disliking it because of the flaws. Don't forget that- I didn't come in with a 'fuck 40k' attitude, I came in as a loyal, long time fan and went 'what the fuuuuuck?'. But you're right, it's not designed for me to enjoy- I am no longer the target demographic.

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.

Absolutely. Magic is an exceptionally well designed and maintained game. I don't like Magic either but I don't have a list of issues with it- it simply isn't how I want to spend my time.

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.

Well as I said, I really loved Epic. I like a big battle as much as the next guy but that's what scale is for. If my 5 marines can't do shit but all open up on that ork mob I'm more than happy to abstract it away in Epic. Some of what I've said is entirely factual- cover, save modifiers, TLOS all have issues, which you concede some of. The opinion bit comes in where I say 'because of x,y and z' I think this is a bad game. You don't think x,y or z are that big of a problem. Meh.

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.

Some of the things that don't bug you do bug me and some of the things you concede but will tolerate are deal breakers for me. Each to their own. I think the main difference we have is you thing 40K could be improved a little where I think it could be improved a lot.

As for responding to your points:

Yes the current cover system has it's problems.

Glad we agree. Cover should be well done in a wargame given it's ubiquitous use. I can't stress how stupid I think it is that cover is useless if your armour is decent. Cover does nothing to cut down the amount of fire you take.

However, there is no "scooping up" of weapons. Wound Allocation was specifically introduced into the game to prevent exactly that happening.

Same difference. Point being even with a team of snipers you can't pick off specific targets- the sergeant/plasma gunner/etc are always the last ones to die. Call it 'scooping up', 'look out sir' or whatever you like but it's a cheap mechanic to protect assets, turning the rest of the squad into nothing more than hit points.

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:

Firstly jump infantry could theoretically (if not for the ruling) still exploit it. And that's great that they addressed it, but they did so with a commandment from on high rather than adjusting the rules. The ruling conflicts with the rulebook. If they want to change the rules fine, but making a ruling inconsitent with the rules is not, IMHO, a good idea.

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.

It could be far worse- you could have a bottleneck with forces meeting in the middle and the 14 orks who can't get within 2" are left out in the cold. The point however was to illustrate that having a single member of a squad in melee magically provides immunity to ranged attacks for all, be they right there near the fight or, as you said, strung out over a large distance.

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.

An unneccesary one- the same number of dice get rolled either way. The point stands.

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.

In 40k that 'arrow' would defeat power armour exactly as consistently as a heavy bolter. Hell that arrow will breach terminator armour just as frequently and you don't think that's a tad overplaying the abstraction? To put it another way weapons with wildly different AP (lets say an assault cannon and a multi-laser, because they're the same strength) are identical against 3+ armour. Hell you could have an AP - weapon and it'd still be just as effective. I guess that's a level of abstraction you're happy with where I'd prefer save modifiers. An assault cannon may not have a good chance of penetrating terminator armour but it's got to be better than a laspistol.

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.

Massive game+unit with no defined limit= time consuming? No, surely not!? But seriously I get that you don't want to resolve a billion deviations, and that's cool neither would I. But I could totally get behind it being a unit ability, once per turn or something like that (there's always that one guy in the film who throws the grenade). Honestly though it seems like grenades got simplified because of game size inflation.

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.

Bases are important for determining things- where you can move through, how wide your coherency is, how many models can get withing 2" to attack you, whether your hit by blasts...As it stands there's no consistent rule, which is terrible for something which has genuine game effects.

You can have mixed base sizes in an army. And you got a box with a mix of bases? Really?

Personally no but I've seen it. Usually it happens with eldar jetbikes. Either way they're one of the most frequently swapped and changed base size. Some people like the stability of larger bases, others like them as small a profile as possible. It's open season.

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.

And that's my point, there is no rule. A contributing reason why I think the current 40k is a bad game.

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.

Yes I've seen it. To the credit of players I've also seen the reverse, where people purposely make things more vulnerable and this is more frequent by far. But yes TLoS is a problem, and one more reason I call 40K bad.

And witness Sportsmanship/Comp scores. If that's not an argument for bad design I don't know what is.

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.

I think it does hurt the game, especially given the prevelance of marines. Cover should be used tactically but there's no god damn point if it does nothing for you, just like that 3+ save (cover, invulnerable or whatever you like) doesn't really mean shit because the jetbike had that save already. Why would the eldar bother flying through that mess if it doesn't benefit him? Why not just fly straight at the ork and force the same hit roll with the same save (unless of course the ork suddenly has an AP3 weapon)? And yes I think it's absurd that a giant, stationary tank is as hard to hit as that jetbike. On the one hand you can barely believe the ork could miss while on the other it seems incredibly lucky for him to hit. But he does both exactly the same. Abstraction gone a little too far again.

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.

The only thing a marine loses when he charges is the AP of his weapon which is only relevant IF it was going to defeat armour. There are some dangerous as fuck ranged armies sure.

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.

Who's talking weapon specific? How about a simple +1 to the damage roll for ever point you exceed the armour by? Instantly makes a lascannon more effective against a landspeeder than a heavy bolter. Maybe you'd have to adjust the table slightly but mechanically it's simple as.

And you can't hurt the passengers without hurting the vehicle, even if they're plastered all over it's hull. No shit if you blow up a vehicle someone is in it'll hurt them.

BBullshit 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?

Ok conceded, there's some balance, sure, it is after all a 'creep'. But there are also areas of gross imbalance, like the above mentioned Grey Hunter.

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.

It's great that 5th is balanced against 5th but it'd be better if half the line wasn't stuck in 4th (or earlier). That's part of the issue though- the support for the game is less than stellar.

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

If it ain't broke...

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)?

First up FNP already does stack with armour. Secondly I advocate cover making you harder to hit as you know. Thirdly does it not seem right to you that they guy carring the giant powered shield might be *slightly* more survivable than the guy without it? Ok, calling the section 'single saves' was perhaps misleading. The thrust of the argument is that a vest is good, a vest and a helmt is better and a vest, hemlet and solid bit of cover is better still.

40k is not a terrible game because you say it is. You just don't personally like it.

Is it not concievable I don't like it because it's a bad game? I'm not trying to dislike it- I'd love for my investments of time and cash to suddenly be worth something to me again. Sure it's not Clan Wars bad but it could be a lot, lot better.

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.

Sure... but I'm not sure what your point is.

How you want to play your game is your business, and not really relevant to whether or not it's a good game.

I'm not familar with FoW at all, other than knowing it's WW2 based. Abstraction doesn't make something bad though in and of itself.

[Thinktank]

So uhm basically Kojiro the TL-DR summary is: You do not like various aspects of the newest accumulated revisions and in your view WH40K-5th is a bad game because of them.

FWIW: I agree. RT:WH40K was simplisted enough compared to Battletech, Car Wars, OGRE, etc. And compared to many TT miniature games, it was lightning quick for the time. WH40K: Epic. Was pretty damned fast for the time too, but I do not want to play 'Epic' with much more expensive models. And it appears that is what 5th has become, which in my opinion is a bad turn for 40K to take.

[andrewgpaul]

I call it a bad game because it's got serious flaws and is over simplified.

Actually, it's probably insufficiently simplified; units act at a squad level, but it still matters exactly where the guy with the missile launcher or the power fist is; look at games like AT-43, Force on Force or Tomorrow's War - in those games, the squad is the core element - the models are only there for aesthetic value, to define firepower levels and to roughly define the area controlled by the squad. Ranges and line of fire are measured to and from the squad leader model, and all the others are arranged in a rough "blob" all within a certain distance of that model. In fact, you can base an entire squad on a single base with no effect. FoF and TW even go to the length of saying that basic infantry firepower is roughly equivalent. FoF doesn't bother distinguishing between an M16, an SA-80 or an AK-47 - the skill of the firer is what's important. In 40K terms, there'd be no difference between a model with a bolter, a lasgun, shuriken catapult, fleshborer, shoota, etc. You can see that some of GW's rules writers tried to go in that direction with Epic 40,000 and Warmaster, but the fanbase like their little trivial details, so they flopped.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I don't know if I'd go that far with 40K. A Flames of War infantry team is the same as a single 40k model, and FoW does most things on a team-by-team basis. True, the game doesn't differentiate between a Thompson and an MP40, but an individual team's armaments still matter and that's important. It also works perfectly well, and since it's the same system as 40k, I'd say the problem is in the details of 40K's implementation, not any fundamental flaw in the 40K system.

(Really, if 40k was re-tooled to use Flames of War rules it would be a pretty bad-ass game)

[andrewgpaul]

It really depends on the idea of the games writers; FoF and TW (the latter is the SF version of the former) work on the principle that the quality of the men (aliens, robots, ...) is more important than the quality of the weaponry they use. The game rules thus support that view. Discussion on whether that view is correct is partly what keeps places like The Miniatures Page going.

[Thinktank]

(Really, if 40k was re-tooled to use Flames of War rules it would be a pretty bad-ass game)

Truth.
That would be awesome times two.

[Zinegata]

The primary flaw of the current 40K system is that one side moves and shoots with all of his pieces first before the other guy does. With relatively small battlefields, being first player can potentially allow you to dictate the flow of battle and decimate the enemy team.

Many other games at this scale allow the 2nd player to do reaction fire. Or do something similar to AT-43 wherein the first player moves just one of his units, before passing to the other player who only gets to move one unit as well.

All of which prevents one side from simply flattening the other in one turn of withering fire.

[PainRack]

Isn't the problem with that more of dice rolls?

Especially since the reaction to first turn is placing large armies in reserve/deepstrike/flanking attacks?


A series of good dice rolls or bad ones can utterly ruin the strategy and make the game unsalvagable by tactics and skill.

[Zinegata]

Not really.

40K generally uses a huge number of dice, which is actually good for minimizing the effects of randomness. There are only a handful of rolls that require few dice - of which reserve and morale rolls are the most aggravating - but that's generally no worse than most other war games.

That one player moves everything and shoots everything first before the other player does is a much bigger culprit to bad play, because of the size of the maps. Most of the time, one side can hit everything the other guy has on Turn 1 without moving.

Games that let one player move everything first are usually played at a high scale level - i.e. Battalions, Brigades, Divisions - and the area of operations is much wider so that it could be several turns before both sides can even make contact.

[SpaceMarine93]

Can somebody please convince Matt Ward to leave? Or just get rid of him somehow? Anyone?!

[Kojiro]

Matt Ward is just the latest in creeping- fluff creeping. Grey Knights have gone from marines with slightly higher Ld (underdeveloped admittedly) to terminator specialists (with awesome flavour and a few neat rules) to full blown uberwank. If you read the original idea of them they're expressly chosen for lack of psychic sensitivity and the protection it brings. Over time that has evolved into 'they're all uber psykers who laugh at the warp' and their toys have correspondingly been amped up. Not only do they no longer waste their time with bolters, having upgraded to stormbolters but they've got them wrist mounted so as not to interfere with their awesome melee skillz. And while we're there, let's give them special access to Stormravens (which appeared in the previous marine codex). The Blood Angels have them and so do GKs and fuck knows why no one else does I'm sure when the churn comes round and DA, SW, BT or plain old vanilla marines are done again they'll now be purchasable. Hell my local GW already has a standing rule they can be used with any marine army.

I mean really, a whole chapter of psykers? Whose primary task is to get mixed up with Chaos? I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that it's a terrible idea and an accident just waiting to happen given enough time. Psykers above all, even marine ones, must be watched for signs of corruption. But if you put out a book which was vanilla marines who could take auxillary guard units and had a 5+ psychic power save you wouldn't sell many books.

GKs were way cooler as a group of 5 dudes, sent out as the only hope. Not to kick ass because they were so awesome, but just to give you a damned chance against the horror that was Chaos.

[PainRack]

Ok..... revamps can be sad, but the new GK codex taken on its own isn't THAT bad.

It attempts to wrench the GK into a beacon of light in a Grimdark universe, that's all.


The only real problem is the Dreadknight model..... But even here, the justification, that the GK needs something that's powerful enough to stand up to a greater Daemon makes sense. The execution sucks but......

[Alkaloid]

They used to have that. It was the Grey Knights that did it themselves, and they were much better for it. 1st War for Armageddon they teleported a bunch of them directly into combat with the Daemon Prince Angron and they Kicked his arse. Now they have a fucking baby titan to do it for them, they loose so much character.

[PainRack]

They used to have that. It was the Grey Knights that did it themselves, and they were much better for it. 1st War for Armageddon they teleported a bunch of them directly into combat with the Daemon Prince Angron and they Kicked his arse. Now they have a fucking baby titan to do it for them, they loose so much character.

So..... the idea that Terminator armour is now adequate to take out a Greater daemon is less wanky than an uparmoured Mecha?


Now, I totally agree that compared to the older fluff, the new GK doesn't jive with me well. But on its own..... it just isn't that bad.

[Kojiro]

So..... the idea that Terminator armour is now adequate to take out a Greater daemon is less wanky than an uparmoured Mecha?

But terminator armour wasn't adequete, it was just the best shot you had. I loved the imagery of a squad of GKs fighting a Bloodthirster, but as a squad. They can't cut in in half, and that's ok, they'll kill it by a hundred cuts. And they can't parry it- at least not alone but no marine lets his brother bear the weight of a strike alone. I imagine them raising their halberds as one to fend of a blow or lessen it to the point TA might actually work.

And yes, the wank is pretty bad. The old nemesis force weapons had 3 rounds. Three standard bolt rounds. And you had to record each one firing (admittedly too tedious) but you still felt like they'd traded firepower for the ability to try and stand against a demon. They've gone from that to storm bolters which don't even take up a hand.

[PainRack]

Are we talking about the wankery of Matt Ward or just the "style" of the fluff that one likes?

If its wankery, again, the idea that the Gray Knights need something tougher than terminator armour to take on a greater Daemon Prince isn't that absurd in the fluff.

And the 2nd edt Grey Knights Force weapons could banish daemons. This as opposed to the current weapons which required the pysker to channel his own pyschic might into the Nemesis to actually hurt the enemy.

The idea that the Gray Knights, dressed in POWER ARMOUR and with the elites dressed up in termie armour could take on Angron, the Daemon Prince and win is no less wankery than the idea that Purifiers, Terminators and the blessed bone can take on Angron.

[andrewgpaul]

By the time the Chaos Attack supplement for the Battle for Armageddon boardgame came out, the idea of Grey Knights as being organised like a regular Chapter was not really talked about. The only visible depiction of the Chapter was the Terminator squads. The fact that they teleported into Angron's presence implies they were all Terminators (by that point, it was already established that only troops in Terminator armour could teleport).

By the way, Kojiro, the Grey Knights were never portrayed as being chosen for a lack of psychic power - only that those psykers they did employ were the best of the best - they get first pick of the Black Ships, for one thing. They had fewer than other Chapters, but they were more psychically and morally resilient. The later addition of the Terminator unit implies that the Chapter's psykers were organised into these squads, rather than being independent characters. I'm not sure I agree with the fatalist vision of Grey Knight Terminators you subscribe to, but I've got no information about that one way or another, so I think it's just a matter of personal preference. I agree that the Dreadknight is a silly thing, though.

[Kojiro]

By the time the Chaos Attack supplement for the Battle for Armageddon boardgame came out, the idea of Grey Knights as being organised like a regular Chapter was not really talked about. The only visible depiction of the Chapter was the Terminator squads. The fact that they teleported into Angron's presence implies they were all Terminators (by that point, it was already established that only troops in Terminator armour could teleport).

Actually no. By far the most famous examples are the terminators but GKs make their first appearance in Slaves to Darkness (pg 247). This contains their original write up and army lists, including full power armoured contingents all but identical to regular space marines. There are some points variations (approx 10pts per squad of 10) which I assume is due to the +1 Cool and immunity to fear effects.

By the way, Kojiro, the Grey Knights were never portrayed as being chosen for a lack of psychic power - only that those psykers they did employ were the best of the best - they get first pick of the Black Ships, for one thing. They had fewer than other Chapters, but they were more psychically and morally resilient.

Conceded. I was remembering the lines "As a result, very few of the Grey Knights have any psychic power whatsoever" implying they're somewhat lighter on psykers than an ordinary chapter. It's still a far cry from the current version where every last one, even the techmarine drivers are psykers.

[/quote]The later addition of the Terminator unit implies that the Chapter's psykers were organised into these squads, rather than being independent characters. I'm not sure I agree with the fatalist vision of Grey Knight Terminators you subscribe to, but I've got no information about that one way or another, so I think it's just a matter of personal preference. I agree that the Dreadknight is a silly thing, though. [/quote]
There's a very cool story in the Compilation, just after the GK terminator section. It talks about 5 GKs taking on a Bloodthirster. One GK 'stumbled off to one side, away from the protection of his fellows.' Naturally this GK gets shredded but the implications from that and earlier imply that the squad fights the demon as a unit, in order to have a chance. It's never revealed if they win or not and it's up for grabs either way. But I find the imagery of that infinitely cooler than modern versions.

And yes, the dreadknight is silly.

[andrewgpaul]

By the time the Chaos Attack supplement for the Battle for Armageddon boardgame came out, the idea of Grey Knights as being organised like a regular Chapter was not really talked about. The only visible depiction of the Chapter was the Terminator squads. The fact that they teleported into Angron's presence implies they were all Terminators (by that point, it was already established that only troops in Terminator armour could teleport).

Actually no. By far the most famous examples are the terminators but GKs make their first appearance in Slaves to Darkness (pg 247). This contains their original write up and army lists, including full power armoured contingents all but identical to regular space marines. There are some points variations (approx 10pts per squad of 10) which I assume is due to the +1 Cool and immunity to fear effects.

Like I said, that army list never really impinged on the fluff to any noticeable extent. I'm aware of its existence, but Slaves To Darkness was published nearly four years before Chaos Attack and in the intervening period, the only visual depiction of Grey Knights in the background was the occasional painted Grey Knight Terminator in the 'Eavy Metal sections of White Dwarf and the inclusion of Grey Knight Terminators in the Space Hulk expansion Genestealer. I admit, there's a lot of supposition in my argument, but that's how I've always seen it. You are, of course, free to disagree.

There's a very cool story in the Compilation, just after the GK terminator section. It talks about 5 GKs taking on a Bloodthirster. One GK 'stumbled off to one side, away from the protection of his fellows.' Naturally this GK gets shredded but the implications from that and earlier imply that the squad fights the demon as a unit, in order to have a chance. It's never revealed if they win or not and it's up for grabs either way. But I find the imagery of that infinitely cooler than modern versions.

I know of that story. I agree that it takes the whole squad to fight a Bloodthirster on equal terms, but I don't think the story suggests that it's a particularly uneven match. The Imperial governor (who seems surprisingly well-informed) doesn't seem to be concerned by the appearance of a Greater Daemon in his ballroom. Brother-captain Stern seems confident he and his squad can deal with M'Kachen - a Lord of Change of some note - in the story in Dark Millennium.