PDA

View Full Version : 5th Edition and the Dullization of 40k



Cmac2786
11-01-2009, 15:03
I don't know about everyone else, but it has always seemed to me that the most repetitive, redundant armies are often the most successful. This is especially true in 5th edition with the inception of Troops as the only units capable of capturing objectives.

I admit it, I'm guilty myself. My Death Guard Army consists of a mechanized horde of Plague Marines. It's effective. You see a similar tactic with World Eaters and their Berzerkers. In 2000 points, Smurfs with 5 or 6 Drop Pods of Tactical Squads, Orks with 5 or 6 full mobs of Boyz, Tyranids with nothing but Monstrous Creatures, the list goes on.

The rules seem to reward a lack of imagination, a trust in stat lines and a surrender of tactics, army composition and combined arms theory. Whatever happened to an army with a half a dozen different types of units, working in a synergy of purpose to devastating effect?

It happens. Occasionally I'll come across a list that is surprisingly effective for having more than a bland 5 Troop selections, 2 Heavy Support and an HQ. In truth however, if you don't have a healthy amount of redundancy in your army, you will most likely lose out to the overwhelming power of boring lists.

This is a call to arms for the creative minds of generals who wish to beat their opponent with tactics, not lists, planning, not spamming, and a variety of units working together as opposed to one type of unit, multiplied.

Post your varied lists, your theories for tactics against redundant ones, and your stories of conquest over the dreaded Bored Horde!

sigur
11-01-2009, 15:15
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I haven't seen any duller lists than in 4th edition. Making Troops choices the only "counting" units for purposes of holding objectives was a very good move in my opinion with hardly any downsides at all.

Skyth
11-01-2009, 15:23
Troops are generally the dullest, least fun units to play/play against...Having to rely on them makes the game more boring.

Kill Points encouraging less units on the board make the game more boring.

The new defensive weapon rule making tanks pillboxes instead of mobile shooters makes the game more boring.

Granted, all my opinion, but 5th is a lot duller than 4th.

Orwin
11-01-2009, 15:30
I understand that one may feel to be dull fighting against troops, but let's remember that the focus on troops makes sense for, in theory, this model's type just be the most seen and abundant in a battlefield, which seems to be a trend now that they are the only ones who can capture objectives.

Skyth
11-01-2009, 15:32
The thing is, I don't care about 'realism', I care about fun...For me, it makes for a less fun game.

antin3
11-01-2009, 15:36
I don't mind at all, troops choices should be the most prominent on the battlefield. But I like a lot of infantry so I may be biased. As far as tanks go they should be pillboxes in 4th they were made of paper and now even in 5th there are many, many things that can pop open a tank. I think if you want varied choices in your army look at Eldar, every Eldar army I face is full of variation.

Azriel45
11-01-2009, 15:36
If you guys think that 5th is that dull... then you must be playing wrong I enjoy 5th. And while some aspects of game play have changed, i think that the overall experience is much more entertaining.

damiengore
11-01-2009, 15:50
Yes and 6 man Las Plas squads, Ass cannon armies of doom and Tank Super firepower sweepers were sooooooo much more exciting.

Face it, regardless of the rules there will always be ****** who can only make lists they find off the internet, then claim they are 'superior" players. Let's include Nob biker lists and Nidzilla lists in that category. Incidently these lists were the top 3 players in the HoH tourney I went to yesterday :rolleyes:, coincidence? I think not.

Not to rant but there's a saying that goes "A good general does well DESPITE what he has, not BECAUSE of what he has." Competitive HoH tourney`s reward mentally deficient lists that rely on the performance versus cost units and not on actual generalmanship.

==Me==
11-01-2009, 15:51
4th edition was dull, it boiled down to gunlines versus suicide assaulters and mechdar reigned supreme. VP denial and no objectives made for a very stagnant game.

5th made the game superior in virtually every way. Now people can't turtle up and blow their enemy off the board, Eldar don't dominate as heavily, and the game becomes a lot more focused on missions and mobility. People who take armies full of Troops don't know how to play, you don't win by spamming scoring units. You win by having enough scoring units to hold enough objectives while your killy units wipe the enemy's Troops. What good are scoring units if they're dead?

Try some different lists out, stop playing with a 4th ed mentality and you'll find a much more entertaining game.

Master Stark
11-01-2009, 16:00
I understand that one may feel to be dull fighting against troops, but let's remember that the focus on troops makes sense for, in theory, this model's type just be the most seen and abundant in a battlefield, which seems to be a trend now that they are the only ones who can capture objectives.

But thats patently ridiculous. If that were the 'true' reason, everyone in the world should have to play nids or IG!

People (game designers included) should remember that their army is their opportunity to tell a story with their army. If they want it to be an eclectic mix of rare and elite units, that should be entirely possible. They shouldn't be required to take X amount of Y units, just because Y is the most common unit in their armed forces.

catbarf
11-01-2009, 16:00
Am I the only one who thinks it somewhat ironic that in an argument about what makes the game boring, both sides readily concede that the game is largely dictated by your army choice?

I'm going to disagree with all of you. I think both versions are boring and stagnant when the game is largely shaped by the troops you choose. If you can make tactics worthwhile, you can make an interesting game.

qwertywraith
11-01-2009, 16:09
5th isn't about spamming troops. It's about using a few troops that you need to hold 1 objective, and sending the rest of your army off to kill their troops. The best part about this: the points of your units don't matter, so you are free to be as suicidal as you want.

Chaos armies can troop spam, but that's because our troops are like other armies elites.

Son of Makuta
12-01-2009, 02:07
OP: Play Warmachine.

Generally: I find 5th to be superior to 4th - it's more fluid and more enjoyable. Kill-points are flippin' stupid, and poor ol' Necrons got badly nerfed, but everything else has improved in my opinion. My Nids aren't restricted to hiding behind cover any more, because the stuff that's on the table is shooting from behind a 4+ cover save that goes wherever I want it (Emperor bless Gaunts :D), and against gunline opponents, my Genestealers no longer get shot before they hit combat and start tearing up devastators like nothing else can. Bliss.*

This allows me to play with more freedom, more versatility and generally enjoy the experience a lot more than 4th edition's panicked "HUG COVER OR DIE!" - a habit which ingrained itself into my consciousness so much that I even do it in Warmachine. What the synapse. Since 5th rolled around I haven't used my Hormagaunts, unfortunately, but as I've gotten used to it I've realised that maximising Troops and keeping them alive isn't so paramount that splurging way too many points on overexpensive but highly amusing Hormagaunts is a total no-go. Without Number rectifies all my 'running out of troops to defend the objectives by my board edge' worries and Outflank gets my Stealers up near the objectives on the other side. The rest of my army throws templates around and tears stuff up.

I have noticed that I'm using a lot more shooty/not-quite-so-panicked-assaulty lately, but then I was in 4th ed as well - I just have more of it now because it's cheaper. My shooty Warriors are now 31 points (scything talons, toxin sacs, deathspitter) instead of 43 (enhanced senses, toxin sacs, extended carapace, twin-linked deathspitter) and probably kill more than they used to. Similarly, my HS Boomfex has replaced one half of his TL barbed strangler with a pair of scything talons, to help with mauling tanks and taking out small units or supporting combats, as well as shaving 17 points off his total cost. I still buy him enhanced senses to reduce the scatter a bit more and make his spinebanks better, but I don't really need to (and have fielded him as the 113 point Elite Boomfex in past, without spinebanks or ES). Even my close combat Carnie builds are getting cheaper, because the defensive upgrades aren't half so necessary when you can get 4+ cover saves everywhere, and it's finally entered my head that Crushing Claws + ST < 2xST when the dual scything talons are a LOT cheaper. A 139 point CC fex build with a few useful biomorphs and (I think) an extra wound has served me well once or twice, so I think I'll knock up a 'fex or two with nothing but scything talons.

I haven't tried this yet, but I'm considering making a return to the old all-CC lists I used to use as a relatively new Nid player, under the 3rd ed codex and early 4th. Tyrant, maybe a Broodlord, a load of Genestealers and Hormagaunts, Raveners maybe, a Carnifex, and the obligatory Zoanthropes - not close combat units, but since the day I bought my first Zoan I have known they are BRILLIANT. (My next purchase after getting one 'thrope was getting another two, and I almost always include them in my lists.) Now, my collection and experience have evolved. Now, I have a Trygon and the Fexes can run. As a veteran Nid player I'm curious what the army would look like under a new edition and a more experienced eye. I'd obviously need Gaunts; they'd screen the Hormies and provide some much-needed defence in lieu of the woods and buildings I used to use. The Stealers would be on outflank duty as usual - or maybe I'd take 2-3 outflank squads and 2 foot units to save some points (we're talking a LOT of Stealers here, at least 40; in for a penny, in for a pound, as they say). My old flying CC Tyrant would get dusted off, biomorphed up and thrown at the enemy, accompanied by two or three CC Fexes and the Trygon, some Raveners, and a load of Hormagaunts. It'd make a fine 2000 point force, I think, although at 1500 I'd have to start dropping stealer broods...

*You can have your Bloodletters, your Terminators, and your Death Company; but when push comes to shove, everyone knows that the humble Genestealer is king. They're Troops, re-roll to hit, and don't get shot before they assault. Any more questions? ;)

Lord Inquisitor
12-01-2009, 02:28
Oddly, I'd agree with the OP, but not because of Troops scoring. I find that armies are generally more well-rounded and the only-Troops-scoring thing means we have seen the death of the minimum-2-Troops thing. I'm not sure this means less diverse armies and if it does that's no bad thing as combat between grunts with a few elites thrown in is generally more fun.

The thing that really constrains army build is Kill Points. Which are awful for many reasons, but as far as army build it discourages any kind of popcorn unit. While my Daemonhunters army does include more Troops, this is in the form of some Stormtroopers or power armour Grey Knights, which can actually add to the variety. What has gone from my army are things like assassins, daemonhosts, sentinels. And guess what? I'm going to be playing against an maxed out Ork Nob Biker unit. *Yawn*

Things like lictors and zoanthropes, which are not normally considered very competitive (you actually like zoanthropes?), are now completely cut out, as they are KP liabilities too.

mughi3
12-01-2009, 02:51
I see 5th as a marked improvement over 4th in many area except certain vehicle rules.

However alot of the army lists i see mentioned in the OP are not that common, in fact other than nidzilla(which is encouraged in the actual codex). i never see them . in fact many of us get by with only 2 or 3 troop choices because anything can contest an objective. if you hold at least 1 and contest the rest you win. KP games were the bone they threw those of us who don't like playing troop spam armies, where having lots of easy KP generating units is a bad thing(IG are currently royally fubared in KP games).

ehlijen
12-01-2009, 04:16
People will always spam what works best for them. In 5th ed at least they're spamming units that are meant to be the most numerous.

And I see having to use troops as a challenge: how are you going to get the same success out of less capable units as before? Let's face it: in 4th ed, troops had nothing. If you hadn't been required to take them, plenty of armies wouldn't have (this is one of the reasons the craftworld eldar codex was so popular amongst eldar players). Now the reason to take troops may seem just as arbitraty, but at least it extends into the actual game.

Codsticker
12-01-2009, 04:53
I haven't seen a difference between 4th. and 5th.; generally gamers that I play with take models they like the look of or units they like the rules for in their armys and don't really worry about KP's or Scoring units.

Eldanar
12-01-2009, 05:18
I tend to agree with the OP's premise, but disagree with his reasoning. I actually like the Troop requirement; but think the "blandness" of 5th has more to do with the severe and drastic changes to the game mechanics.

GW more or less took what were very good and playable LOS/cover rules and changed them into a really weird mix of "true" LOS mixed with abstract casualty removal, combined with the vagaries of unequal terrain distribution. In 4th, if you had a 1" or 2" hill, you could call it level 3 and not worry about it. The same with a thinly laid out forest, a series of ruins, etc. Now you have to worry about a grot sniper shooting through a door, two banks of windows and a forest, where he can "see" one model from a squad, but somehow can kill any model in the squad. And the whole, "you get 4+ cover from everything," IMHO, breaks the game for some armies.

The vehicles rules do not bother me too much. In some ways they have gotten better and in others worse. Skimmer armies have really gotten the short end of the stick though.

The game has shifted away from AP, power weapons and uber combo's to how many bucketloads of dice do players get to roll. And this is where the whole idea of mixed arms components, strategy and tactics just simply get thrown out the window.

march10k
12-01-2009, 08:39
I think both sides of this argument take themselves and their positions too seriously.

I think the "only infantry troops can claim objectives" thing, in combination with the frequency with which you find an objective in your own deployment zone that you must defend are both good for the game, since it shifts focus away from min-maxing two required troops units while spamming heavy, elite, and HQ choices (poor old fast attack is useless in most armies, and that hasn't changed).

On the other hand, the changes do heavily favor those armies who find their greatest strengths in their troop choices.

I like seeing ten man tactical squads. I like seeing guard platoons. I like seeing scores of gaunts. Overall, I think the changes are for the better, but I acknowledge that the changes slant the game in favor of certain builds, and if everyone plays those builds...I mean, how many 1750 point DW armies did you see with three tanks in 4th edition? And now? Now it's 3 tanks, 3 squads, belial, and a dread or two. KP denial in KP games, scoring indestructible land raiders in objective games. Generalship is optional, victory assured. I chose this example because I have the models to field this army, but there are half a dozen others.

IJW
12-01-2009, 09:42
In 4th, if you had a 1" or 2" hill, you could call it level 3 and not worry about it.
I'm always curious where this idea of hills having level in 4th comes from. They used LoS, just like unruined building did.

Lord Solar Plexus
12-01-2009, 09:44
1. Troops are no less challenging for either player than Elites or HS or FA. You state yourself that they are effective, so they must be challenging to defeat at least for the opponent, and since - so you imply - he does the same, both players must resort to tactics again.

Troops with their mostly lower stats and less options are much less point-and-click as some armies other FOC choices.

2. Building redundancy into any list *is* planning. It is as much a part of the decisions that constitute tactics as deployment and moves and target priority.

3. Troops are great, not bland. It was about time they focused on them to a larger extent. I find that absolutely fitting.

spaint2k
12-01-2009, 10:04
I laugh at all the people who make it sound like there was some kind of fundamental change to the game between 4th edition and 5th edition.

The differences between the two are minor at best, and trying to call one "dull" while the other was "exciting" is as pointless and laughable as trying to explain the difference between mandarin oranges and tangerines.

Steve

willydstyle
12-01-2009, 10:06
IJW, as it seems that you and I are the only two people who post on Warseer who actually knew the correct LoS rules for 4th ed, I have to give you props. I find it frustrating and ultimately futile to try to incessantly correct people on their 4th ed rules mistakes :)

Back on topic, I disagree with the OP on most counts. I play Chaos, and I never take two of the same unit in a list, as even my CSMs can be equipped differently enough with icons and special weapons to have vastly different roles in my game. The OP even admitted himself that he constrains his own army by playing Death Guard (though there is nothing wrong with this of course). There are some armies that don't have many different Troop selections, but there are many armies that do. As another poster noted, many people build homogeneous armies because they've found a unit that works well, and so try to use many of them. However, there are others who like the tactical versatility that comes from having a well-rounded list.

IJW
12-01-2009, 10:25
I have to admit that my Nurgle Renegades list could be seen as bland (4 x 7 Plague Marines, 1 x 7 Havocs, HQ, 6 Rhinos), but given that the list was put together within a month of the current CSM codex coming out that has little to do with 5th edition.

As far as other armies are concerned, locally I've not seen massive changes since 4th.

dude.sweet101@yahoo.co.uk
12-01-2009, 10:53
I just love it when the 1 remaining stunned, gore splattered Gaurdsman wanders unsteadily out of the dense black smoke, over to the objective and wins the game.

I like to think its a teleport beacon and he's whisked away to safety where there is plentiful Sacra and possibly a few ladies of negotiable affection.

As the shimmering blue StarTrekesc light rescues our hero from the hordes of screaming nasties that were just about to rip his clog off, a voice from the ether is heard to say "What do you mean .....'that's 3.5 inches..?'............."

5th spanks 4th sideways cause you've always got to have a plan B and C.

09Project
12-01-2009, 10:55
Best edition since 2nd. If any edition deserved the 'dull' title it was 3rd. I mean did you see the abomination that was the Ork 3rd edition codex?

Nero
12-01-2009, 10:58
Uhh... the game has been dullized since 3rd Ed. The differences between 3rd, 4th and 5th Ed. are so minimal because the rules were minimalist to begin with. I'm surprised anyone can tell which edition was dumber, they were all pretty dumb...

dude.sweet101@yahoo.co.uk
12-01-2009, 11:10
Ooh, and Steve (Spaint2k) you really need to play this more if you don't think the game has changed radically.It really has.

Have a think about and get back to me, my opinion as always is backed up by my (only)email address as I will not hide from anyone who fancies a discussion.

It is a fundamentally different game that influences army selection down 1 of 3 routes.

1) Old (bad) editions of kill everything 40k

2) No brainer troops swamping

3) A carefully balanced blend of focussed violence around a well controlled point.Which is why the military refer to "Surgical Strikes"

My favourite balanced force uses elites/fast attack to perform specific tasks depending on opponents army and allows me to task each unit in the pre-game.This isn't so different but you can no longer sacrifice troops as you once could- taking care of your men or women or vile alien abominations is now paramount but making sure you had enough in the first place is vital.

Cheers,

Dan

willydstyle
12-01-2009, 11:11
Uhh... the game has been dullized since 3rd Ed. The differences between 3rd, 4th and 5th Ed. are so minimal because the rules were minimalist to begin with. I'm surprised anyone can tell which edition was dumber, they were all pretty dumb...

I personally think that 5th ed has hit a "sweet spot" in the balance between complexity and ease of play. There's some little changes that have really influenced that.

One of these changes has been that 25% casualties forces a morale check in any phase now: not simply casualties from shooting. When my terminators exploded my pal's Leman Russ with a chainfist, it killed 3 stormtroopers from a nearby squad, and they started falling back. It was a pretty epic moment because my terminators were really worried about those melta guns and helguns.

Another example is vehicles ramming. MOST of the time not much happens, but when my Wave serpent rammed a bunker full of an autocannon fire-support team, it was a fun moment borne out of desperation and bravado :)

Which brings me to the new terrain and LOS rules. There are some wonderfully detailed rules written for ruins and buildings, but many players don't ever use them because they're so used to using almost exclusively forests and hills for their SF game. Also, the new LoS rules are better because they're more intuitive. MOST people played 4th ed LoS wrong, and they would say that their 2" hills would block line of sight to their 4" tall vehicle, or they would try to block LoS to a battlewagon with a wartrukk. Not only did this not follow the rules in the book, but it didn't make any sense either.

09Project
12-01-2009, 11:11
Uhh... the game has been dullized since 3rd Ed. The differences between 3rd, 4th and 5th Ed. are so minimal because the rules were minimalist to begin with. I'm surprised anyone can tell which edition was dumber, they were all pretty dumb...

5th provides good fun gaming in the 40K universe for me. Yeah there are things I would like to see come back, weapons these days are all very similar across all the armies and movement values would be nice to see again, I miss the old M column, could also rebalance the shooty/assaulty imbalance with run.

But overall with 5th I have a few minor grumbles, as many probably as I had with second. Which could get very confusing and I seem to remember having to cart around so many different books and cards and whatever. I love second, and if have been known to still have a game every so often. But times move on and they moving in a good direction, 5th, for me has brought back a lot of life to the game. I'd given up with 3rd, 4th was no incentive to return, 5th however was, and I am very much enjoying it.

I don't actually think it 'dumb', chess is a very simple game but I wouldn't call that 'dumb', you don't make a game 'clever' just by having a thousand pages of complicated rules. The new system creates for me exciting games which can go either way right to the end usually, pulling wins out of the jaws of defeat, moments of great unlikely events like my hideously accurate lobbas the other day winning me a game.

I suppose end of the day, it not whether it dumb, it whether you like it or not, and if you don't fair play to be honest I am not going to argue that you should, it a personal call to make.:)

mughi3
12-01-2009, 11:12
I mean, how many 1750 point DW armies did you see with three tanks in 4th edition?
Quite alot actually
the 3 raider, 3 squad, 2 charcter list was a popular build for deathwing in 4th. i was still running my happy 10 man squads back then but have since gone mechanised when they reduced our squad size and firepower because it has become the only way to survive and win.

The Rogue Trader
12-01-2009, 11:44
A game, particularly one with such a creative and storytelling slant as 40k, is only ever as dull as the players.

If you face someone who does just field the most effective but boring lists it will always make the game dull. This has been true in 40K from the start.

In Rogue Trader one of the most effective armies was the Imperial Guard (Army) horde concealing human bombs and beastmen. It was simply a case of the opponent trying to shoot down as many as they could before the wave hit.

In 2nd Edition is was Abaddon and his 6 best Terminators dropping in for a chat in the middle of your army. If any were left alive after a Virus Outbreak anyway...

40K is such a flexible game you can change the things you don't want to use. Don't like Killpoints? Feel they make the game dull? Throw them out the window. (Can you tell I am not a tournament player yet?).

Don't like true LoS? Either don't use it or just use common sense to clear up the "weirder" results. I.e What can't be seen by the firer can't be killed. Simple.

Nero
12-01-2009, 12:49
I don't actually think it 'dumb', chess is a very simple game but I wouldn't call that 'dumb', you don't make a game 'clever' just by having a thousand pages of complicated rules. The new system creates for me exciting games which can go either way right to the end usually, pulling wins out of the jaws of defeat, moments of great unlikely events like my hideously accurate lobbas the other day winning me a game.

Chess doesn't have 'random' up the wazoo, and stresses consideration of all pieces surrounding a piece when planning moves ahead. If 40k was Chess, then all the pieces would move d6 and could move through one-another, and if you try to take a piece you have to roll a 4+ to do so. 40k is closer to Snakes and Ladders than Chess.

2nd Ed. certainly had it's problems, but at least it required some thought to play. In later editions, once deployment is over, the game basically plays itself. Only with lots of randomness to give it the illusion that you're still taking part and making real decisions.

willydstyle
12-01-2009, 13:02
2nd Ed. certainly had it's problems, but at least it required some thought to play. In later editions, once deployment is over, the game basically plays itself. Only with lots of randomness to give it the illusion that you're still taking part and making real decisions.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed 2nd ed, but 2nd ed had even MORE randomness than the current rules do, especially when it came to morale and psychology rules. Also, most of the games I saw in 2nd ed involved putting your models in cover, then standing in your gun-line and blasting away at the other army. Every once in a while you'd have a super character or greater daemon who would charge at the enemy, but only really to disrupt his shooting. Most weapons had longer ranges, requiring less movement. Rhinos and other transports were death traps, meaning less incentive to move. Also, since the game was generally played at longer range, the first turn advantage was HUGE. Don't forget "I-Win" buttons like virus grenades and the Tyranid disruption chart.

In the current rules, you have semi-reliable transports, lots of rapid fire weapons which are great at close range, and also the way cover and LoS work you CAN cause casualties at medium to long range, but you are generally more effective at close range to get units into better LoS. I've found that in 5th edition my games are way more dynamic and strategic than in previous editions.

spaint2k
12-01-2009, 13:20
Ooh, and Steve (Spaint2k) you really need to play this more if you don't think the game has changed radically.It really has.

Have a think about and get back to me, my opinion as always is backed up by my (only)email address as I will not hide from anyone who fancies a discussion.


Hi Dan,

Without really meaning to go off down the route of bashing the current edition (I'm a big 2nd edition fan), I just feel that the changes we've seen from 3rd edition through 5th edition are minor compared to the complete overhaul that was the change from 2nd to 3rd. Add to that the fact that I didn't really like that change, and you can see why I said what I initially said.

In all honesty, I think 5th edition IS more fun than 3rd or 4th - but only by a small amount (I played orks in 2nd ed but ended up selling them all come 3rd, now I find myself wanting to play them again) and I do manage to have a lot of fun playing (usually only with like-minded players though). Nonetheless, I often find myself wishing that GW had chosen to fix the problems with 2nd edition rather than doing what they did.

Steve

willydstyle
12-01-2009, 13:26
Hi Dan,

Without really meaning to go off down the route of bashing the current edition (I'm a big 2nd edition fan), I just feel that the changes we've seen from 3rd edition through 5th edition are minor compared to the complete overhaul that was the change from 2nd to 3rd. Add to that the fact that I didn't really like that change, and you can see why I said what I initially said.

In all honesty, I think 5th edition IS more fun than 3rd or 4th - but only by a small amount (I played orks in 2nd ed but ended up selling them all come 3rd, now I find myself wanting to play them again) and I do manage to have a lot of fun playing (usually only with like-minded players though). Nonetheless, I often find myself wishing that GW had chosen to fix the problems with 2nd edition rather than doing what they did.

Steve

It's nice to see a well-rounded opinion that is not full of hyperbole. I think the reason why GW hasn't done the same sort of overhaul that we saw from RT to 2nd, and then from 2nd to 3rd is because they figured out that it's hard to manage from a games-development standpoint. Many of the early 3rd edition codices were really crappy because they had to rush them out the door just so the armies would have playable rules.

I think that by minimizing the differences between the post-3rd editions they are trying to actually do the players a service by allowing the players to continue using their armies as the editions change. This allows GW to put more effort into their codices, which I think can be seen clearly in the very-well-designed Ork, Daemon, Eldar, and Space Marine books. On the other hand it also means that the less-supported armies have received even less support.

Lord Inquisitor
12-01-2009, 14:17
I'm always curious where this idea of hills having level in 4th comes from. They used LoS, just like unruined building did.I think the culprit was the fact that hills had a pseudo-height value (i.e. 3) which was conferred onto anyone standing on a hill. So they counted as height 3 if firing in or out (or over) area terrain. If area terrain was not in the picture, hills did use TLOS.

Almost noone I ever played actually understood this, not even in tournaments. It was far easier to play by what everyone thought were the rules. It is funny hearing people saying things were better in 4th - they were only "better" because noone actually played by the rules.


Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed 2nd ed, but 2nd ed had even MORE randomness than the current rules do,
I feel that 5th ed has brought serious randomness back in because of the disproportionate number of dice rolls which critically affect the game. Sieze the Initiative, reserve rolls, run/fleet rolls, outflanking rolls, random game length. Every edition obviously rolls on dice, but this edition there seem to be much more "on a 4+ I win" sort of rolls. Not necessarily "more random" but "more critial randomness that determines the outcome of the game". And yes, I remember things like virus and vortex grenades (we certainly didn't play with either).


In the current rules, you have semi-reliable transports, .
Semi-reliable? Transports are unbelievably safe now. It's funny to watch the GW-pendulum in action. In 2nd ed, transports were deathtraps. 3rd, assault springboards. 4th, deathtraps again (particularly for guard!). 5th, virtually risk-free bunkers.


In all honesty, I think 5th edition IS more fun than 3rd or 4th - but only by a small amount (I played orks in 2nd ed but ended up selling them all come 3rd, now I find myself wanting to play them again) and I do manage to have a lot of fun playing (usually only with like-minded players though). Nonetheless, I often find myself wishing that GW had chosen to fix the problems with 2nd edition rather than doing what they did.
This is a thread topic all its own, but I feel that people remember 2nd with rose-tinted glasses. Many of the core changes to 40K in 3rd edition were sound, they just started too basic and we've been edging back to 2nd ed mechanics ever since. If they can continue bringing 40K back - we need overwatch desperately, less-random running, vehicles that can move faster and fire their weapons (including ordinance with other weapons) - then we'll have a game which is superior to 2nd ed could be.

Vaktathi
12-01-2009, 15:19
Personally, the only increased variety in lists I've seen from 4th to 5th is those looking to metagame by exploiting the crap out of wound allocation. Other than that there's a lot of things you just don't see anymore at all.

"Troops Only" scoring has thus far been highly beneficial to some armies (Orks especially, also to CSM's/SM's) of extremely exaggerated value to others (IG) and a huge crimp on other armies whose Troops really aren't the greatest units in the world (Tau, DH, etc). Not all armies troops are as effective as other armies troops. An Ork army that uses all 6 of its troops slots for Boyz can be extremely effective. A Tau army using all 6 of its troops slots generally won't be on par with the Ork army.

Kill points, something many people often look to as some silly claim to counter armies with large numbers of scoring units, really haven't affected the way people design their armies too much from what I've seen.

Most armies with huge numbers of KP's (14-20something) aren't those with huge numbers of scoring units save for typically IG armies (whose scoring units tend to be slow, best when immobile, weeny, and easily broken) and even then, not all IG armies have large numbers of scoring units (mine has exactly 3 "troops" stormtrooper squads to go along with the identical 3 "elites" ST squads which for some reason can't take objectives). I routinely see Tau, Eldar and Dark Eldar armies with upwards of 20 KP's and only 3 scoring units (gogo gadget Gun Drones!)

Furthermore the defensive weapons rule has seen the practical extinction of some vehicles on the field, as least from my experience. I've seen exactly *one* player field AC/HB predators since 5th ed, and they sat at the back board edge the whole game, shooting at the single CSM squad they could see from their deployment position.


Another thing I've noticed is that less people take the mutli-shot infantry weapons like scatterlasers and heavy bolters. the ubiqitous 4+ cover saves makes these weapons far less effective than they should be. The 4+ cover save should have been a ballistic skill modifier, not a flat cover save that grants far too much survivability to some units and does practically nothing for others. Furthermore, a ballistic skill modifier would have retained the usefulness of such high-shot count weapons.



The big changes I've seen in army lists are an increased emphasis on blast and flamer weapons (not a bad thing), a de-emphasizing of multi-shot anti-infantry weapons as anti-horde weapons, a greater reliance on transports with a reduction in the use of heavy tanks for anything other than killing other tanks, and exploitation of the current wound allocation rules (looking at you assault termi's and Nob Bikers)

spaint2k
12-01-2009, 15:23
This is a thread topic all its own, but I feel that people remember 2nd with rose-tinted glasses.

I still play 2nd ed.

Steve

Toe Cutter
12-01-2009, 15:50
I tend to disagree with the thread author.

4th edition was mostly about destroying your opponents army. I couldn't count the number of times I've gone to a local store and having asked my opponent whether he wants to play a scenario, he's said 'nah lets just play shoot each other up'. :wtf:

That quickly became the most boring thing in the world. Assault based forces playing against one another just degenerated into huge scrums in the middle of the board. Guard had to gunline to try and stave off the assaulters who would hop from one massacre to the next. Yawn, yawn and indeed yawn!

5th edition is, apart from kill points that are a hark back to the knock down drag out boring slug fests, a game of objective grabbing and area denial. You don't necessarily have to spam troops to do this. With two or three troops choices (of the right troops) you can have a good chance of hanging on to at least one objective. You then deny the rest of the objectives with your heavy hitters.

Army list production is far from a no brainer. If you spam troops choices against a canny opponent then they'll carve your troops up with a good selection of elites, HQs, fast attack, and heavy support. If you don't take enough troops then you end up playing for the draw. You then have to design an army that can both take and hold objectives. Army design has if anything got more difficult. The only reason people think its become easier is because, surprise surprise, marines (of whatever flavour) have troops choices that can both take and hold objectives from a lot of other armies units.

There's a whole lot of MEQ loving in the new rules system (no fear about being outnumbered in combat anymore and the death of the tar pit concept for example) but I wouldn't say its an inherently dull system. Some marine players may make inherently dull lists but then that says more about the marine players than about the system in my opinion.

Discord
12-01-2009, 17:13
Also, most of the games I saw in 2nd ed involved putting your models in cover, then standing in your gun-line and blasting away at the other army. Every once in a while you'd have a super character or greater daemon who would charge at the enemy, but only really to disrupt his shooting. Most weapons had longer ranges, requiring less movement.

Yeah! If you completely ignore the part in the rulebook that says at least half the board should be covered in terrain, with all the tall, line of sight blocking terrain being in the middle instead of in the deployment zones, to limit lines of fire. But if you forget about all that, you're correct.


Rhinos and other transports were death traps, meaning less incentive to move.

I don't see the problem. If there's some enemies in the bushes with missile launchers, would you pack yourself and your nine friends in that transport vehicle? No, I suppose you wouldn't. You can see this in Epic too, where troops never sit inside transport vehicles if there are enemy heavy weapons in range. The best place for troops to die is inside an exploding transport.


I still play 2nd ed.

Oh no you don't! You're some hoary old veteran who last played it ten years ago and only thinks it was good because of nostalgia reasons, most of which are misremembered! People actually preferring 1st-2nd edition to WH40K lite are just an urban legend, they don't actually exist. Didn't you get the memo? :p

Ubermensch Commander
12-01-2009, 19:05
Dull repetitive armies...oh! You mean like the bare min two naked blood angel scout squads, two baal preds, Death Company to the max, assault vet squad of doom with land speeders in 4th edition (Encounted two virtually identical lists in one tourny at LA a few years back)
Or the lysander wing?-4th
IW pie plates of doom?-3.5-4th
I am afraid I must vehemently disagree with the idea that 5th has made it dull/boring/repititive army lists. You will see this no matter what edition. People find abusable/power game lists that work and use them.
At least with troops being scoring I do not see people finding inventive ways to skimp on the FOC requirements as often.