PDA

View Full Version : Is it just me, or is 5th edition a lot harder?



big squig
05-07-2008, 06:23
Maybe it's just me, but I've been playing a lot of 5th edition lately and my win record has gone down from about 95% to 30%. I don't take cheesy armies, in fact both my orks and eldar are troop heavy armies to begin with. I only owned one falcon. I never took min-maxed squads. It's just, it seems this edition is less forgiving when you make mistakes. Missions are much more demanding and one wrong move can really cost you now. I kinda like that. It adds depth.

Anyone else feel this way?

Tebrey
05-07-2008, 06:27
Oddly, I seem to be doing better.

But then I play balenced troop-heavy chaos marines. Always have.

It is less forgiving. Several of the player I regularly play against have complained that they cannot win with just thier list anymore. It seems like 5th favors a wide range of units in your army.

I would have thought Eldar and Orks would be great in the new edition. What kind of problems have you been having?

Miggidy Mack
05-07-2008, 06:39
My guard are wrecking stuff, I love it!

Ragewind
05-07-2008, 06:40
The game has been nothing but easy sauce for me now, I love it.

starlight
05-07-2008, 06:48
Maybe it's just me, but I've been playing a lot of 5th edition lately and my win record has gone down from about 95% to 30%. I don't take cheesy armies, in fact both my orks and eldar are troop heavy armies to begin with. I only owned one falcon. I never took min-maxed squads. It's just, it seems this edition is less forgiving when you make mistakes. Missions are much more demanding and one wrong move can really cost you now. I kinda like that. It adds depth.

Anyone else feel this way?

So what you're saying is that either your opponents have adapted faster or their armies are more suited to 5th Ed...?:angel:


How can it be harder if the same number of games have the same number of winners...? What's changed (in your case) is *who* is winning...:p


Once you've adapted your win/loss ratio will improve, just like any learning curve.:)

Dalamyr the Fleetmaster
05-07-2008, 07:06
It's about time 40k changed from threat assessment. Some people will actually have to try their hand a tactics for once.

big squig
05-07-2008, 07:09
Well, I wouldn't say any of my units are doing worse per say, though some are a lot better. I guess the big factor is how easy it is to end up with a draw. Holding objectives is simply harder now. It's more demanding and I've learned that it takes a lot of work to flush the enemy off an objective and hold it...a lot more work than it used to be. Most of my games, win or loss, have been like 1-0.

I'm certainly not saying this is a bad thing. I much prefer it this way.

Geddonight
05-07-2008, 07:38
It's about time 40k changed from threat assessment. Some people will actually have to try their hand a tactics for once.

Urm... isn't "threat assessment" part of tactics & strategy?

shin'keiro
05-07-2008, 08:50
Some people will actually have to try their hand a tactics for once.

This makes me laugh - EVERYONE uses 'tactics' even if they dont realise it...

Its a plan or procedure for promoting a desired result....

So taking the beardiest\cheesiest army out there is a tactic, the desired result: winning!

afshinbb
05-07-2008, 09:25
well are troops scoring units even if down to one man?

Freakiq
05-07-2008, 10:12
This makes me laugh - EVERYONE uses 'tactics' even if they dont realise it...

Its a plan or procedure for promoting a desired result....

So taking the beardiest\cheesiest army out there is a tactic, the desired result: winning!

Ok then, using tactics AFTER choosing armies. :rolleyes:

At last 40k will be about tactical manuevering of units and setting up ambushes rather than just armylist building cheesefests.

xinsanityx
05-07-2008, 13:58
if you were winning 95% of your games, and now you're only winning 30%, doesn't that mean someone else has to be doing better? It may be harder for you, but for others it's easier. I've found it quite easy to win by just making overbearing firepower lists. Who needs to maneuver and set up ambushes when you can sit back and shoot hundreds of shots, get assaulted once, and then shoot hundreds more shots.

Inability to consolidate into things after combat + the openness of the field + 1-2 cheap throw away units= easy wins(unless its another gunline army)

I'm seeing guard and tau armies rack up the wins easily.

Copella
05-07-2008, 14:50
well are troops scoring units even if down to one man?

Yes. Yes they are.

Freakiq
05-07-2008, 16:15
if you were winning 95% of your games, and now you're only winning 30%, doesn't that mean someone else has to be doing better? It may be harder for you, but for others it's easier. I've found it quite easy to win by just making overbearing firepower lists. Who needs to maneuver and set up ambushes when you can sit back and shoot hundreds of shots, get assaulted once, and then shoot hundreds more shots.

Inability to consolidate into things after combat + the openness of the field + 1-2 cheap throw away units= easy wins(unless its another gunline army)

I'm seeing guard and tau armies rack up the wins easily.

Use more terrain, specifically buildings where the 1st floor has no windows or use large cliffs which both of which block line of sight.

Place most terrain in the middle of the board outside the deployment zones, this forces gunline armies to move out of their deployment zones if they want a good vantage point to deploy their heavy weapon units and makes the game more dynamic instead of just being two armies firing at each other from within their deployment zones.

Also when attacking the gunline army, make sure to assault units in or near cover, this lets you use their cover once you have destroyed the unit. Obviously frag grenades are of much use in 5th edition.

When assaulting the enemy try to charge a squad which will most likely hold it's ground until your opponents assault phase. Once the enemy unit breaks in his assault phase you can consolidate towards any of his units without fear of being caught in the open since your turn will be next.

Conspyre
05-07-2008, 16:20
I've really enjoyed all the 5th Ed games I've played with my Vostroyans. I'm definitely doing better in the win/loss columns, mostly I think because with victory points not mattering anymore, I don't have to worry so much about trying to make equitable trades, which is damn near impossible with the Guard. With several games against an Iyanden Eldar army, it's felt very much like the Guard in the fluff- they're outgunned, but they just need to throw more bodies at the problem, which also makes it VERY difficult for the enemy to take objectives away from me- they can contest them, but I will nearly always have more troops choices running around.

brassangel
05-07-2008, 16:26
In other words, if both players played as they expect 5th Edition to play out, (one thinking it's simple as pie, the other using real in-game tactics)...

Freakiq - 1
xinsanityx - 0

Yayale
05-07-2008, 16:29
I havn't read the new rule book yet or played any games but by the sounds of it IG will have a massive advantage in objective based games as they can get far more troops choices than other armies with that platoon thing they have. Im always tempted to star an IG army but I already have a load of half painted armies on the go lol.

Kulgur
05-07-2008, 16:44
and there's no man alone tests anymore either

WallWeasels
05-07-2008, 17:59
When it comes to terrain my group has always done atleast 25% of the board. It sounds alot of terrain but really I think it suited it quite well. We both take turns placing them, and then we roll for table-sides. So sometimes you get someone making terrain abit of an advantage to them, but by irony I get that side =P

Ammedie
05-07-2008, 18:17
it has got harder, becase you actualy have to do things now not just kill and move on turn 5/6 to get some more points.

i realy like it ive got troops (but not troop) heavy eldar orks(combat hord) and guard and there all as good as before but its made the game have tactics not just shooting or combat

big squig
05-07-2008, 19:07
it has got harder, becase you actualy have to do things now not just kill and move on turn 5/6 to get some more points.

i realy like it ive got troops (but not troop) heavy eldar orks(combat hord) and guard and there all as good as before but its made the game have tactics not just shooting or combat
Yep. I really hated 4th edition's reliance on VP because it meant if you were bad at the game, you could just ignore the objective and kill as much as possible...which is stupid. And the new random game length forces you to grab objective prior to the last turn.

big squig
05-07-2008, 19:08
if you were winning 95% of your games, and now you're only winning 30%, doesn't that mean someone else has to be doing better? It may be harder for you, but for others it's easier. I've found it quite easy to win by just making overbearing firepower lists. Who needs to maneuver and set up ambushes when you can sit back and shoot hundreds of shots, get assaulted once, and then shoot hundreds more shots.

Inability to consolidate into things after combat + the openness of the field + 1-2 cheap throw away units= easy wins(unless its another gunline army)

I'm seeing guard and tau armies rack up the wins easily.
Well, it sounds like you need more terrain. Every game of 5th I've played so far has had LOS blocking terrain on the board...especially in the center where one should be.

This was true in 4th edition as it is now. And just like in 4th edition it's part of what gives 40k its tactics.

mchmr6677
05-07-2008, 20:59
Yep. I really hated 4th edition's reliance on VP because it meant if you were bad at the game, you could just ignore the objective and kill as much as possible...which is stupid. And the new random game length forces you to grab objective prior to the last turn.

It's not always stupid to just kill everything, as you say. If the other army is dead and gone, it can't claim jack sqwat. And as a Nid player, the fluff demands my opponents' blood be spilled.

Will I win games in 5th by total annihalation? Sometimes. But it will always be my goal...

Afterall, the Hivemind never sleeps. And while guard seem to have neverending numbers, they are few compared to us.

:D

Starchild
05-07-2008, 21:15
I appreciate the fact that neither player knows what the mission will be before making army lists. That puts even more emphasis on flexibility, so I have to be prepared for both kill point slaughter-fests and objective grabbing. I'm sorry it took GW so long to sort this out. :angel:

Snorphel
05-07-2008, 23:14
Maybe the emphasis is more on tactics, and less on strategy.

Some people are great strategists, but poor tacticians.

Ekranoplan
06-07-2008, 01:00
You need to be a lot more mind full when planning your assaults. Its best to have multiple units hitting the enemy flank at the same time, striking at multiple enemy units. This can be tricky to do effectively, because not only do you need to win the assault, but you need to be able to survive the next round of shooting.

xinsanityx
06-07-2008, 01:30
Well, it sounds like you need more terrain. Every game of 5th I've played so far has had LOS blocking terrain on the board...especially in the center where one should be.

This was true in 4th edition as it is now. And just like in 4th edition it's part of what gives 40k its tactics.

Its amazing. Everytime someone reports results different from what some people expect they automatically go to "use more terrain" or "your opponents must be sub par" or "use different tactics". We're using 25% terrain, we're using buildings, we're using woods, we're using water. Saying there "should be" a piece of LOS blocking terrain in the middle of the board is absurd. You're saying there should always be something blocking LOS in the middle of the board to make the game work right? Sometimes we place and generate the terrain randomly, and sometimes we don't. Most of us are veteran players and a diverse group. It has nothing to do with terrain placement, tactics, or expectations.


In other words, if both players played as they expect 5th Edition to play out, (one thinking it's simple as pie, the other using real in-game tactics)...

Freakiq - 1
xinsanityx - 0


you're right, just because my results are different than you think they should be, it must be that i'm not using real tactics. And of course all of my opponents who have completely different thoughts on how 5th should play are submitting to my will and letting me use these fake tactics to win all my games. :rolleyes:

Many people have already said that their tau and guard armies are doing really well. What i've seen from playing supports this. If you've seen differently then point it out without resorting to cheap personal attacks.

Occulto
06-07-2008, 02:11
Its amazing. Everytime someone reports results different from what some people expect they automatically go to "use more terrain" or "your opponents must be sub par" or "use different tactics". We're using 25% terrain, we're using buildings, we're using woods, we're using water. Saying there "should be" a piece of LOS blocking terrain in the middle of the board is absurd. You're saying there should always be something blocking LOS in the middle of the board to make the game work right? Sometimes we place and generate the terrain randomly, and sometimes we don't. Most of us are veteran players and a diverse group. It has nothing to do with terrain placement, tactics, or expectations.

To be fair regarding comments about terrain, there seem to be a lot of people who (judging by their comments) obviously haven't started using "5th ed" tables.

Hell, you invited the comment by saying:


if you were winning 95% of your games, and now you're only winning 30%, doesn't that mean someone else has to be doing better? It may be harder for you, but for others it's easier. I've found it quite easy to win by just making overbearing firepower lists. Who needs to maneuver and set up ambushes when you can sit back and shoot hundreds of shots, get assaulted once, and then shoot hundreds more shots.

Inability to consolidate into things after combat + the openness of the field + 1-2 cheap throw away units= easy wins(unless its another gunline army)

I'm seeing guard and tau armies rack up the wins easily.

That's the kind of thing I'd expect to hear (and have heard repeatedly) from someone who's playing on table with no LOS-blocking terrain at all.

Sheesh, it's on the same level as: "My armies are nerfed! I can't win in 5th ed." You make a bold statement like that and expect people to just accept it at face value? I find it amazing whenever anything is released, there's self proclaimed "experts" who make pronouncements that should come after a lot more experience. :rolleyes:

It's the ol' "I played with/against <new codex> for the first time the other day and I can say for a fact, it's broken/nerfed beyond all belief," syndrome.

If someone moves from 95% win/loss ratio to 30%, then it could mean a few things:

That person hasn't adapted well to the new environment (lists, terrain, tactics etc)
That person's opponents have adapted better than they have
Balance issues have been corrected - armies that were over/underpowered are no longer such.
A lot of games that previously resulted in definite win/loss are now ending up as draws.

With bigsquig's comments I reckon it's probably more a case of 3 and 4.

Orks in particular under 4th ed are brutal - the Waaagh combined with consolidating into new combats in particular. Now that's no longer the case, I expect to see Orks toned down a little (and probably more in line with what the developers intended). That's the problem with a codex being written for 5th ed being released in 4th.

As for 4? bigsquig already said it. It's a lot easier to end up with a draw result. A lot of results that would've been wins are now (probably more realistically) draws.

xinsanityx
06-07-2008, 04:35
well it's true, the field is clearer than it used to be. Ruins used to completely block LOS, now its true LOS. That's clearly more open. Forests also used to completely block LOS, and now they really don't. To say that the field of battle didn't open up is just false.

As far as people proclaiming to be experts, i never did that. A question was asked whether 5th was harder, i answered the question based on my observations and experiences during the games i've played. How else do you answer a question? Because my observations and experiences didn't fit with someone's preconcieved notion of what the answer should be it was automatically assumed i was doing something wrong. When an oppinion is put out there it doesn't help anyone when you tell that person their conclusions are wrong, and that they should go back and try it again a different way.

blackspring
06-07-2008, 05:07
Saying there "should be" a piece of LOS blocking terrain in the middle of the board is absurd.

So why can't I play on a playing board that is 1'X1'; that is absurd!;)

Certain things whether you like them are not, are basically required in order for the game to work the way it is supposed to. I used to think the same as you regarding the comments "use more terrain" and etc., but then I realized that I was just being stubborn and close-minded about the whole thing.

Hoagiex
06-07-2008, 07:40
This makes me laugh - EVERYONE uses 'tactics' even if they dont realise it...

Its a plan or procedure for promoting a desired result....

So taking the beardiest\cheesiest army out there is a tactic, the desired result: winning!

Most people just play 'reactive'. They play the way, the opponent forces them too. These people seem to have some sort of buildt in 'target priority' in their head, which often results in walking into giant death traps.

xinsanityx
06-07-2008, 08:32
So why can't I play on a playing board that is 1'X1'; that is absurd!;)

Certain things whether you like them are not, are basically required in order for the game to work the way it is supposed to. I used to think the same as you regarding the comments "use more terrain" and etc., but then I realized that I was just being stubborn and close-minded about the whole thing.

right, so when i said that the shooting armies were doing very well, then that was because i must not have been using enough terrain, and it was obviously skewing the results. But its ok to put more terrain on the table, and even put it in specific places to skew the results more toward the close combat oriented armies in order to balance the game out? Its ok one way but not the other?:rolleyes:

And yes you can play on a board that is a different size than normal but if you're discussing balance it would be absurd to suggest you play on a different size board to balance things out, because no one else plays that way, and most likely no one will switch over to playing that way. Saying you should put a piece of LOS blocking terrain in the middle of the board every game is absurd for the same reasons.

What you're saying is that random and impartial terrain placement aren't good enough. The close combat armies need help, and to help them out you should put a piece of LOS blocking terrain in the middle of the board. If the close combat armies are needing help thats proof that the shooting armies are having their way with them.

I doubt that all the tournaments and gaming clubs will adopt this policy of putting a piece of LOS blocking terrain in the middle of all boards, so the point is moot when it comes to balance. If they do and it balances the game out that'd be great. I'd just be surprised if that happened.

Elios Harg
06-07-2008, 09:13
So far I've played 5 games in 5th, Deathwing/Ravenwing mix versus Necrons, 2250 pts. About all we've determined so far is that Necrons essentially require Heavy Destroyers now and that they fold like a wet paper sack in close combat. Currently, I'm 5 and 0 against them. There's a reason it's more difficult to get into close combat now because once it starts happening, the shooty armies are doomed due to the new combat resolution.

Oh and the new deepstriking is a lot better than the old.

Ragewind
06-07-2008, 16:22
About all we've determined so far is that Necrons essentially require Heavy Destroyers now and that they fold like a wet paper sack in close combat.

LOL :D:p:rolleyes:

Lax
06-07-2008, 22:30
Played a BA-Nidz game earlier and got chewed, wound allocation and total unit able to die even hidden if one is seen accelerates sooo much !
Gotta train now :)