PDA

View Full Version : 5th Edition guide released at the Bolter & Chainsword



Brother Argos
08-07-2008, 07:08
Yesterday the Bolter & Chainsword released a guide to playing Space Marines in 5th edition. This 74 page document has advice about how to play your armies in 5th Edition, and articles about how the rules will be changing. Fully illustrated throughout, this is a living document and you are invitied to submit critique, submit new articles, and discuss its contents.

Shall They Know Fear - The Bolter & Chainsword Guide to 5th Edition (http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=140316)

Lax
08-07-2008, 07:23
There are some minor errors like "consolidation move of 1D6" in the BA section, but in the global this doc rocks hard ! :D
Thanks B&C !

Mojaco
08-07-2008, 07:23
That has to be the longest rant ever. In PDF form. Some people have too much time. He could've made an awesome campaign in that amount of time and played through half of it.

Another minor error comes when he referces to an Ork Kannon as having BS2. Most have BS3 as they are grot crewed. But I skimmed through it so it could be loads more.

Mitheral
08-07-2008, 07:47
Interesting. On page 11 they go into height of bases/models being restricted. I hadn't seen that interpretation of the 5th edition base rule before. Did I just miss it or is it intended that adding decorative elements to bases is opponent permission only if it increases the height of the model? If so that sucks as my destroyers/Heavy Destroyers are all using custom size pegs; both taller and shorter.

Ravenheart
08-07-2008, 08:00
That has to be the longest rant ever.

Indeed. It's done pretty unprofessional in an (failed) attempt to be funny.

Lax
08-07-2008, 08:10
Did I just miss it or is it intended that adding decorative elements to bases is opponent permission only if it increases the height of the model? If so that sucks as my destroyers/Heavy Destroyers are all using custom size pegs; both taller and shorter.
In V5 without opponent agreement, you don't have the right to put a mini on another base/way it is supposed to be.
For true LOS purposes in friendly games, you're supposed to consider your destroyers at the same stock height.

Brother Argos
08-07-2008, 08:34
I am curious ... why would anyone think that this is a rant of some sort ?

As far as I could see a positive approach is taken throughout the guide in the main.

Ahh saw your reply on the B&C ...

--------
The beginning is very baised and not really informative. A gut reaction, as it calls it self.

It gets better on the latter pages though. Less baised and more professional as a guide should be.
--------

Makes sense now, you had just read the 5 pages or so and judged the rest based on that. Overall I would say the tone of the guide is positive and helpful and I am glad you found it professional later on :)

Khornies & milk
08-07-2008, 08:45
Indeed. It's done pretty unprofessional in an (failed) attempt to be funny.

Geez Louise, you lot are a pretty tough audience. Seems to me it was a labour of love for those concerned, and sure there may be some mistakes BUT it is a 'living document' so they can be amended.

I have had a quick read of it...mainly the DH bits and I found it insightful and will read it more thoroughly later on tonight.

I'm grateful to the B & C fraternity for spending a hell of a lot of their own time in putting this together, so well done.

Charax
08-07-2008, 08:47
Some errors that I spotted (and given recent discussions I can see the line "ramming takes place during the movement phase" being somewhat contentious) but overall it looks like an ok, if somewhat biased guide to 5th. Frankly, I don't see why anyone would need such a guide - surely a combination of "reading the rulebook" and "reading your codex" will give you a sufficient level of insight into how 5th will effect your army.

Mojaco
08-07-2008, 08:47
It's a rant, positive or negative, as each change is debated and argumented to be good or bad in a subjective manner. TLOS for instance has all the same arguments we've seen billion times like "if it ain't broke don't fix it" "no one complained as it worked great in 4th". That makes it a rant. IMO ofcourse.

Brother Argos
08-07-2008, 08:54
@ Charax : Well the need is there, people come to forums all the time to discuss rules, and this guide is a mechanism to do the same and give people a chance get a "leg up" on the rules changes. If it helps even half the 1200+ people who have downloaded it on the first day then it has been worth it.

@ Mojaco : So pretty much any debate is a rant then, ok thats clearer what you meant now :)

Ravenheart
08-07-2008, 08:57
Geez Louise, you lot are a pretty tough audience.

Indeed we are. The guide isn't perfect, and I don't see a reason not to point out it's short-commings. It can just help the B&C folks to improve it further.

The first part 'Guide to the 5th edition' is written very baised. I do not know if it's just an attempting to be funny through sarcasm; as it imho wasn't funny at all. Nor was it informative, something I'd expect from this guide.

That's too bad really, that it has such an introduction, as the guide gets better after this part. I'm reading the BA section, and that's much more the guide I was expecting.

Charax
08-07-2008, 09:00
Page 34 has a missing link

Brother Argos
08-07-2008, 09:04
Strange it works on pg34 for me, do you have your copy of acrobat set to allow you click on weblinks, perhaps try again ?

Charax
08-07-2008, 09:07
Given that the link to B&C on the same page works, I would assume yes - it's the supposed link to an article referred to in the last paragraph of the Specific Units section that is missing

Brother Argos
08-07-2008, 09:10
Ahh in which case click on that link to the B&C, it will take you to a section of the website dicussing that section of this living document, and mention what you found, so the next update can fix it for everyone please :)

Charax
08-07-2008, 09:15
If you're going to advertise it here, it would make sense to take feedback from here, rather than making people trudge along to another forum to give it.

Brother Argos
08-07-2008, 09:18
Now, a single click is hardly a trudge, and it does give a co-ordinated method of response which is critical for developing any living document.

However as always its your choice and I am glad your reading it!

IJW
08-07-2008, 09:27
In V5 without opponent agreement, you don't have the right to put a mini on another base/way it is supposed to be.
For true LOS purposes in friendly games, you're supposed to consider your destroyers at the same stock height.
Half true, half garbage. ;)

Using base sizes other than the one the model came with is opponent's permission, yes.
Nothing is said in the new rules about heights, posing, 'way it should be', and there's certainly nothing about 'you're supposed to consider your destroyers at the same stock height'. Models are the height that the models are - no more, no less unless you decide on your own house rules.

Mojaco
08-07-2008, 10:03
@ Mojaco : So pretty much any debate is a rant then, ok thats clearer what you meant now :)

a rant is one person going on and on for hours with no alternative view. A debate is two or more persons going at it. I think...

Brother Argos
08-07-2008, 16:52
Well technically the article is an editorial ...



Rant, \'rant\ intransitive verb 1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner 2 : to scold vehemently transitive verb : to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion

The article is in fact an editorial:

Editorial noun : a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers; also : an expression of opinion that resembles such an article <a television editorial>.

scheppo
08-07-2008, 17:00
The pdf is very well done, and I enjoyed reading it. The conclusion that is being drawn at the end of the summary of changes is a positive one by the way. I can't help but think that some people ranting about its' rantyness are a little jealous of the great work?

Good job!

Durath
08-07-2008, 18:28
I opened this PDF with some eagerness, as a SEVENTY FOUR page write-up on 5th edition sounded amazing and would should give some insight into what this new version really is.

However, I was almost immediately turned off by this write up, as on Page THREE you get this gem:



Admittedly, the three height levels were a bit odd but it kept 40K easy to follow on a two dimensional plane. Exact height and scale didn’t matter so much which only encouraged more elaborate and dynamic model conversions.
...

Q: How much terrain does it take to lend a 4+ save to a Land Raider?
A: A whole lot.

...

I suppose we can always draw trees on our pieces of cut felt and just claim that they happen to stand a foot tall. At least until we buy ourselves more of those GW forest terrain models. How much do those cost again? Ah yes, that will make for some good business for GW.


There are those of us who believe that TLOS is a great BOON and removes admittedly "odd" abstractions from a game that utilizes REAL models. Having a bitch-fest about LOS and existing terrain RIGHT OFF THE BAT is not a good way to start an article.

Immediately from the LOS crying, he jumps to a veiled whine about mission objectives during which he makes an obscure reference to to Fantasy (which, I would like to point out, MOST of the 40k people in my area don't play), then another veiled whine over wound allocation then another veiled whine about the removal of Tactical Casualty Removal in assaults(which I have personally HATED from 3rd edition to now, and thought it made NO sense. I'm glad GW agrees.). The spin here is how he compliments the intention of GW, but keeps using labels on new rules calling them "gamey" and questioning if they achive their intentioned result, without any REAL evidence for or against the claim.

The article goes on to another complaint about "drawing units out of cover" using Combat Reaction(wtf?). He details a specific movement and assault by some Genestealers, in which he details the assault move incorrectly. He says one GS assaults and the rest line up with him.... the ONLY way this could happen is if the GS were in single file, as you HAVE TO assault in straight lines, base to base. This also assumes that a Combat Reaction move will disregard the "assaulting a unit in cover" rule, which I am going to check the RAW on later once the rulebook is out.

That was it for me. I couldn't continue reading 74 pages of someone who is misinterpreting the basic assault rules. I then scanned through the rest of it, and while it looks like he might have some useful info, its sandwiched between more complaining.

Ah well. Closed and deleted the PDF.

{Edit: I read through some other replies... and yes, this is definitely a rant. In fact, its probably the most polished rant I have ever read. The author constantly applauds GW's intent, but constantly interjects his personal opinion on WHY they failed or questions the end result. WHY someone would invest so much time to produce a write up that sends such a confused message is truely baffling. Maybe the authors own stock in the company that makes Warmachine?}

Andyalloverdaplace
08-07-2008, 18:34
Until we all have a chance to try out these forces a few times, I think there will be a great deal of this sort of thing going on. I mean, lets face it, we are all too keenly aware of where rules creep is causing us disadvantages on our own favorite army, while those things that kill us tend to loom all the larger.

A space marines view on the issues is also less credible of course, as the first codex post release is the Space marines, same as before, and there is a certain perception that SM armies are favoured by GW (whether you agree with it or not, there will be someone to argue with you on the point I'm sure).

Brother Argos
08-07-2008, 19:31
Interesting results, firstly I would point out that each article in the guide is written by a different person, although everyone seems to assume its all written by one person. So if there is something you have a problem with, don't assume that its all like that!

Secondly the beginning part is an editorial and represents one persons gut reaction, however I can see that its hard to make it past the first few pages for a number of people. Lets hope that most of the people who read it can do that :)

If you do find something wrong with the work, once again I would recommend using the Living document feature to post your comments in a positive light so that the document can be improved!

This is about trying to help a lot of people get to grips with 5th Edition, so your criticism is important as are your recommendations for improvement. As always its easy to throw around critique, but this time you are invited to step up and write something better, you can have the soapbox, you can be heard, why therefore would you not take this chance to help everyone :)

Ravenheart
08-07-2008, 19:50
Interesting results, firstly I would point out that each article in the guide is written by a different person, although everyone seems to assume its all written by one person. So if there is something you have a problem with, don't assume that its all like that!

Secondly the beginning part is an editorial and represents one persons gut reaction, however I can see that its hard to make it past the first few pages for a number of people. Lets hope that most of the people who read it can do that :)

It's pretty obvious that it's not written by a single person, simply because the article gets better after the introduction. I read the BA part, which is absoulty fine (it could be fleshed out a bit though, after some more experience with the 5th ed. has been gained).

While people can read past the gut reaction, it's simply a bad move to put this as introduction to the otherwise well done document.
The intro is neither funny nor informative (even faulty at some points as Durath pointed out) but just a bother to read and puts some people off reading the whole document.

I hope you don't see this criticism as some kind of malevolent intent. You people have done a fine job with the guide (especily the design), but I feel that the negatives should be pointed out as well.

Elios Harg
08-07-2008, 20:14
I concur, I skipped straight to the Dark Angels article and thought it was well written and informative even if I slightly disagree with some of the tactics it puts forward. Perhaps the editorial should be moved to the back and a less biased introduction be written.

Durath
08-07-2008, 22:11
Interesting results, firstly I would point out that each article in the guide is written by a different person, although everyone seems to assume its all written by one person. So if there is something you have a problem with, don't assume that its all like that!

Secondly the beginning part is an editorial and represents one persons gut reaction, however I can see that its hard to make it past the first few pages for a number of people. Lets hope that most of the people who read it can do that :)

If you do find something wrong with the work, once again I would recommend using the Living document feature to post your comments in a positive light so that the document can be improved!

This is about trying to help a lot of people get to grips with 5th Edition, so your criticism is important as are your recommendations for improvement. As always its easy to throw around critique, but this time you are invited to step up and write something better, you can have the soapbox, you can be heard, why therefore would you not take this chance to help everyone :)

When I read an article like this, its impossible to tell who the individual authors are (even if we know multiple authors were involved). Indeed, from the layout chosen, this is quite transparent to the reader. Thus, we can only assume that the entirety of the document is representative of the opinions of the authors as a whole, and really makes the rest of the document suspect at best.

Having said that, to initially sift through a diatribe of less than complimentary opinions of incorrectly assumed rules is not really helping foster an understanding of the 5th edition. Indeed, it almost sounds like an advertisment against it.

I tip my hat at the layout, artwork, and design of the document. But all these things are hollow trappings if the content, especially the introduction, is confused, misleading and incoherent.

I hear what you're saying about the using the "Living document" feature, but honestly, we're interacting on Warseer, so this is sort of superfluous from my point of view.

My suggestions for improvement?
- Revamping/removing the intro completely.
- Removing the passonate bais in the form of the "this seems odd" or the "huh?" or opinionated remarks as such that are found throughout all the document.
- Focus on the Rules, not on perceptions. Clean up the examples, and check them for accuracy.

Brother Argos
08-07-2008, 22:56
Excellent points Durath, I am hoping they can be taken on board for the next release (tomorrow 5pm+ GMT). As we said, this is a living document and in the digital age, response and the ability to change is critical.

Vladigar
08-07-2008, 23:00
Wow, after reading some of the posts in this thread I'm reminded of a bit of wisdom from the most logical mind in geekdom...

As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create.

Brother Argos
08-07-2008, 23:23
As long as its constructive, it can only server to improve :)

Morticon
08-07-2008, 23:34
It's pretty obvious that it's not written by a single person, simply because the article gets better after the introduction. I read the BA part, which is absoulty fine (it could be fleshed out a bit though, after some more experience with the 5th ed. has been gained).

I gotta admit though, as a contributer to this- its really tough to read "its just a rant" or "i deleted after reading pg 3". I fell what I added was done with a very positive mind-set. I for one am really positive and generally happy about 5th. There are some nerfs and some changes and possibly a buff or two here and there- but overall its exciting.

So yeah- when some guy comes along and says its one long rant...just a bit odd really.

Thanks for the feedback though. To one of the first posters- you mentioned a mistake- d6 consolidate? What did you mean? Thanks in advance

JLBeady
09-07-2008, 01:24
to the B&C guys. First Kudos for the PDF. It obviously was a labor of love that I think despite some of the criticisms imbedded in the book (Yes a book, not an article) I think it is a testament to the love of the hobby that you have. I appreciate the book for the earnest attempt to contribute in a positive way to the 40K community if for nothing else. I am looking forward to future updates.

As for specific suggestions/criticisms I will save those for posting at B&C.

To everyone who is put off by some of the overt opinions shared in the book. My personal opinion is that I welcome the commentary because it gives me insight into those rules that appear to be causing the most concern or could be the most contentious. While I may not agree with the opinions (Who moved the Cheese!), I have something written down that I can share with my gaming group to see what our consensus is and how we will handle it.

So everyone, be careful not to lose sight of the forest because of the tree in front of you.


Happy Gaming

Obliterati
09-07-2008, 01:57
Heh heh, give somebody a free car, and they'll complain about the color...

I like the strong opinions in the intro, and throughout the rest of the article. I'm not interested in a straight regurgitation of the new rules, I can get that anywhere. Hell, I can just wait a few days and read the new rulebook for myself, I don't need a spoon-feeding. I want to know what people think; I want to know how they percieve and react to the new rules...I like seeing things through other people's perspective. So, as far as that goes, I think 98% of the article is pretty awesome.

That being said, there may be some room for improvement in the other 2%...as Durath mentioned earlier, the "Pulling units out of cover" scenario seems flat-out wrong, and even if it is an actual representation of the rules...well, showing the unlikeliest problems that could only happen in the most outrageously improbable circumstances is, perhaps, not the best introduction to the article.

If I were the authors I'd probably fidget with the intro a little bit, and flesh out some of the individual army reviews...but I'm sure that's happening right now.

But even as it stands, this article is better than a lot of the stuff I've paid GW for over the years, so you have my thanks and my respect!

Starchild
09-07-2008, 04:27
Ranting aside, I'm really enjoying the artwork, so I think it was worth the download. :evilgrin:

Marshal Augustine
09-07-2008, 04:51
hey im all for it. Go go B&C!

Mojaco
09-07-2008, 08:24
I'll try other articles then, if only the intro is so strong on opinion. Perhaps it'll grow better as other here claim.

Brother Argos
09-07-2008, 09:30
Thanks everyone for your feedback, I am pleased to see people giving the other articles a chance. We have taken on-board everyones comments and the new version (online already) has the following amendments.

1. Corrections where appropriate.

2. Additions to articles to aid clarity.

3. "Why 5th Edition" moved to the end of the document and defined as Editorial

4. Two versions are now being produced, the first one is now for Screen viewing and as such is much smaller at around 9mb (40% of the original). The second version will be for printing and remains at 300dpi and a link will be added for it when we get that process underway. We will continue to look at ways to make the guide more convenient to use.

So for your enjoyment, the first revision of a living document: -

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/publications/5theditionguide.pdf

forbin
09-07-2008, 12:28
I am rather in favour of the PDF , I don'r remember such a thing for the 4th ed when it came out ( my intro to Warhammer 40K so I know little of the previous versions ) , perhaps more expirence Warseer memebers can correct me there.

Overall I shall help to correct / flesh out the document.

as for the 5th itself - well my opinion is not faverable so far

Forbin

Grand Master Belial
09-07-2008, 12:43
Thanks again Brother Argos for taking the lead and kicking the Moderators of the B&C to create this great document.

I don't have 5th in my hands but I look forward to this document getting a revision that will take on the latest and greatest of the hobby for our Power-armored brethren.

I guess it's time for the Firebase Team or Warseer Mods to add and expansion to it for the non-Power-armored armies.

Mojaco
09-07-2008, 14:27
The rest of the document is better, I have to admit. A good amount of army list evaluations with actual arguments. Good stuff. The editioral, when seen as an editorial, isn't so bad, but I'd prefered a less negative tone throughout it.

Great work, I bet a lot of Marine players will enjoy this document. Now make one for the Xenos! :)

Brother Argos
09-07-2008, 15:30
In response for people asking for a smaller version ...

Next Version is released, Version 1.13

Its down to 3.5mb on server (IE7 may make that load twice) with new intro piece and more additions and corrections.

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/publications/5theditionguide.pdf

Redskull
09-07-2008, 16:37
The parts of it i read where mostly whine and with a general tone that made it hard to enjoy.

The world does not end because assault cannons donīt rend as well as they used to...

Durath
09-07-2008, 17:28
Just re-read the article. And you weren't kidding when you said this was a living document. I had to go back and re-read again it while re-reading it as it changed during my review!

The new intro is MUCH better. It gives a good breakdown of how the article will be. Its much better suited for the article as a whole. I will point out that it does still have a tinge of negativity towards the hobby, but this seems directed at GW over the course of the 4th edition, and not where they are at right now. And it does paint the new edition in a much better light. Well done.

The Rules Changes section was a compelling read. While not directly spelling out any specific RAW, it actually speaks to their effect tactically rather well. It does a good job of relating back to 4th edition changes rather well. I'm am actually sorry I didn't skip to it the first go-round.

The only thing I think it might be missing is the whole Ruins and Building section (this is 12 pages of rules!), and how many Cities of Death/City Fight concepts are now main stream rules.

Also, I'm not sure as I don't have the rulebook.... but I believe ICs that have joined units can't be singled out by shooting. The article seems to imply they can.

I'm off to an appointment, so I can't comment any more, but overall, things look better already. Good job!

Mojaco
10-07-2008, 10:59
Much, much better introduction. Thanks for taking input seriously, even if not brought in the most constructive manner :D

Great work. Seriously though, Xenos want one too.

Myst
13-07-2008, 05:13
I guess the IG guide would be "Pry off all your tank sponsons. Again..."


Seriously though, good guide.