PDA

View Full Version : Gripe groan, Games Workshop, rant rant...



massey
18-03-2009, 05:31
I felt compelled to name the title of this thread the way I did. It seems a tradition here. :)

Actually, having read the IG rumors thread, I think I'm very happy with the way GW is moving forward with the game. While they are certainly taking their time with releasing new codexes, they do seem to be getting them "right". It reminds me in many ways of 2nd edition, which I enjoyed a lot. See, back then, nothing was balanced, but there was no pretext of balance either. Lists made up on 100% Warp Spiders, Wolf Guard Terminators, and unkillable Chaos Lords were common. And while "balance" never left one's lips, the games were fun.

Then came 3rd edition, and all the cool tricks and neat weapons that everyone had previously enjoyed disappeared into the Warp, and armies were trimmed down to such basic levels that you'd think they couldn't help but be balanced against each other. Well, you'd be wrong. 3rd edition armies were rushed out so quickly that each new book would have a new special rule that would break open the game. In many ways, it played as poorly as a 1st edition wargame, with gaping holes and obvious flaws.

4th edition was next, and to me it was a lot better. The army books were thicker, the background was included again, and the rules eliminated a lot of the problems with 3rd. Of course, it brought along its own load of worries. Codexes first tried to give the player a lot more options, but those options were rarely anything close to consistently pointed. Some options were devastating (here's looking at you, Chaos codex), others were awful (Biovores, yippee!). I was very happy with 4th at the time, but I think that's only because I didn't know what 5th would bring.

I like 5th edition. It changed the rules, nerfing some armies and strengthening others. Black Templars are a lot more powerful, while Tau and Necrons have struggled. New armies, like Orks, Demons, and Space Marines, seem to play well against one another but can be quite overpowering against old 3rd and 4th edition armies. At first, I thought this was a problem. But after looking at how GW seems to be designing army books, I think it is a temporary one. Options are increasing again, but for the very first time, I think GW is getting it mostly right. That's because for the first time, I think they have an edition of the rules that is conducive to balanced gameplay. 5th edition is what 3rd edition should have been. To me, it's like the conclusion of a 10 year journey.

Even if GW only puts out 2 or 3 books a year, I think they've finally fixed most of the problems with the game rules themselves. Sure, we'll see a 6th edition come out in about four or five years, but I think it will be a small change from the current edition. I think each of the codexes that come out are going to "fix" their respective armies. Some are in more dire need of it than others. To me, Eldar and Chaos can wait. Tyranids need redone sometime soon. Tau and Necrons need it bad. Dark Eldar? They're starting over from scratch, so it's not really a fix, more of a reboot. But it looks like they are doing 10 times the playtesting they did before, and some of the things that are nasty now in the 5th ed books (Green Tide lists) are going to be brought into line as new armies come out (like the new Leman Russ with the battle cannon that ignores cover). There's a little bit of rock, paper, scissors going on, but the counters aren't so lopsided that one army simply can't win against another. Ork tourney armies will just have to adjust to the fact that putting 200 guys on the table won't quite cut it anymore. And that will help everyone, no matter what army they play.

Anyway, I just wanted to take a moment to congratulate Games Workshop. I am happy.

Thud
18-03-2009, 06:16
I have criticized GW a fair bit in the past, and I probably will in the future, but on this I have to agree with you. I think 5th edition is great. I've even come to like the changes I, in the beginning, thought were awful: I like the fact that special characters are now just normal HQ choices, and not equivalent to pissing on an altar, I like the new codex outlays, I like the new blast weapon rules and I like the fact that a close combat squad isn't invincible as soon as it reaches some unlucky squad of Fire Warriors.

Good show, GW!

samiens
18-03-2009, 13:57
I agree in principle- though not necessarily with your assessment of who needs a redo most. Its nice to see a thread actually analysing the positives for once too!

Frontier
18-03-2009, 14:32
I played a game on Sunday with a friend who clearly hadn't read through the rulebook. After much complaining at the close combat rules, our opponent and I bother were pretty much like "you need to read this rulebook....again, and shut up."

5th ed makes this game go faster, and to be honest; I like that.

Inach
18-03-2009, 14:35
Good to see something possitive about 5th edition and I fully agree with you.
GW is going into the right direction the only thing that bothers me is the release priority of the different codex's.

In my case, I started with necrons and since 5th they are just no fun anymore (great fluff and cool models, very boring to play). If it would be my only army and I didn't have the money for a second one, I probably would have quit 40K. IF they would at least announce a release date on a certain 'broken' dex, the games would at least know 'they get fixed soon'.

Razarael
18-03-2009, 14:37
Change is always a good thing. I am, as a general rule, pretty much content with whatever GW puts out. New codices tend to be really cool, supplments are spiffy, and the newest rule set, which, isn't really that new anymore is pretty good step forward. Glad to see others thinking so as well. Hard to tell sometimes with as much flak as they get. :)

Snotteef
18-03-2009, 14:40
Well, somebody has to ruin this lovefest. ;p

I really don't much care for 5th. They did some things great: better vehicle damage chart, better assault rules, etc; but mostly I think they took a step backwards. I think area terrain LOS, was quicker, simpler and less painful than true LOS and the new wound allocation rules are slow, complex, and easily abuseable.

For the most part, I enjoyed 4th a great deal more and I think the games were quicker then (wound allocation is a major factor here). I like the shape of the new codices, but I'm NOT a fan of the special character rules. I want them to be rare and opponent's permission, not required for most armies.

I understand why people like 5th so much, but I'm not a fan.

Razarael
18-03-2009, 14:50
Well, somebody has to ruin this lovefest. ;p

I really don't much care for 5th. They did some things great: better vehicle damage chart, better assault rules, etc; but mostly I think they took a step backwards. I think area terrain LOS, was quicker, simpler and less painful than true LOS and the new wound allocation rules are slow, complex, and easily abuseable.

For the most part, I enjoyed 4th a great deal more and I think the games were quicker then (wound allocation is a major factor here). I like the shape of the new codices, but I'm NOT a fan of the special character rules. I want them to be rare and opponent's permission, not required for most armies.

I understand why people like 5th so much, but I'm not a fan.


I wouldn't say that the would allocation rules are easily abuseable. I think it takes some work on some people's parts to properly abuse it. If you don't think about the rules when making an army, chances are there will be no abuse.

I like true LOS as it makes good logical sense. If I can't see you, I can't shoot you. If I can see you, then let fly. In a lot of cases, do you really need to stoop down, as is suggested?

Brother Loki
18-03-2009, 16:14
If true LOS was actually true, it would make sense. As it is now, If I can see one member of a squad, I can kill the whole squad, but if only one member of a squad can see, only he can shoot. It's inconsistent, and should work the same both ways. I really liked the 4th ed area terrain rules - they didn't penalise you for conversions or not having a particularly good terrain collection. Wound allocation slows things down enormously.

That said, theres plenty of things I do like: running makes infantry work better, and is nicely balanced by not consolidating into combat. Vehicles got a survivability boost on the whole.

I've been generally impressed with the more recent codexes. The Eldar one is excellent and flexible. Orks are good, keeping the brutality, but also bringing back some of the old humour. Daemons I'm not particularly keen on, but thats an aesthetic thing not a gameplay one. Marines work well, although I'd have preferred it if you could simply use a chapter master or captain to pick different chapter tactics, rather than relying on special characters. What I've heard of the Guard is very encouraging. I think the Dark Eldar will be much improved by giving Jes the time to work his magic, rather than rushing them out, although I can understand people's frustration.

The supplements like CoD and Apocalypse are also very welcome, encouraging a more free playing style, away from the strict 'tournament legal' mentality that has been so pervasive for the last several years. I'm really looking forward to Planetstrike.

All in all, I'm reasonably happy with the way things are going.

LictorIntheGrass
18-03-2009, 16:30
I have to say, I played the new rules just recently after a 8 month hiatus from the game. The rules were pretty smooth, have less tables and more consolidated rules. Run is my favorite from MEQ armies as it helps with those stupid objective games, 'cause lets face it, we're slow. And the lack of a Run rule NEVER made sense, as I thought up that rule years ago. Nice to see it now.

I however am not a fan of the the new blast rules, especially for small templates, which are practically useless now IMHO.

GW did a great job. Period. Now however, there's a differences between GW Rules Developers and GW Marketing. GW Marketing should made "disappeared" in my opinion, 'cause they rarely look like they know what their doing, knowadmean?

Codexes as of late are well done too, besides Chaos. Chaos I think was very unimaginative, as it is a lot like the old codex but now a poor amputee victim with a few small improvements. However, SM, Orks, and Daemons (had a hand in Chaos negative change too) are all well done.

Kettu
18-03-2009, 16:37
I like true LOS as it makes good logical sense. If I can't see you, I can't shoot you. If I can see you, then let fly. In a lot of cases, do you really need to stoop down, as is suggested?

I don't. I based my Seraphim leaping from terrain, I have a Daemon prince coiling around an obelisk and I have a few other scenes that I'm working on but with true line of sight they can all be shot from cover that would conceal anyone else all because they thought to drag along a rock from them to stand on mid battle.

At my local we have a general house rule in application that rocks, obelisks and other terrain features are not considered. For purpose of measurement and LoS issues you assume they were standing straight and normal on flat ground. (Also deals with the people that keeping bringing 'lazy' armies where everyone is lying down)

However whenever I battle else where, I'm at the mercy of a good number of a***holes and the like.

That is the part that gets on my nerves the most. GW writing rules seemingly to stop creativity on the entire modelling aspect of a modelling orientated hobby.

Pacific
18-03-2009, 17:24
However whenever I battle else where, I'm at the mercy of a good number of a***holes and the like.



That seems to be the important thing that I'm reading in post after post, forum after forum - just so much depends upon your gaming group, how they are, and the way they play the game.

People in more 'casual' groups and away from the tournament scene are loving the bits of 5th that give your a few more options (such as true LOS, ramming etc.), but because by there nature these rules require a consent on both sides of the table (rather than objectively being a 'yes' or 'no' decision, as was more the case in 3rd and th ed) then if you're outside of that environment, games can be a real grind as both players fight it out over the minutae of the rules and work out whether a laser pen is being accurately sighted along a characters rifle.

So, perhaps a lot depends on how things are within your group - I think certainly 5th edition relies on you playing 'with' your opponent to an extent, and this is something that has been emphasised again and again in both the rulebook and 5th edition.

You could argue that 5th edition has reversed a trend somewhat in that both 3rd and 4th edition were attempting to cater for the increase in tournament play. 2nd edition could no longer cut it in a gaming world that had largely moved away from a bunch of mates in the back of coffee shop in Nottingham, and out into a tournament hall in Los Angeles amongst a couple of hundred people who didn't know each other. There was simply too much 'play' in the rules in which it was possible to take advantage of in a highly competitive environment.

But, as has been mentioned in other threads around here lately (such as this one for example http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188521 ) I think Cavatore and the other designers of 5th edition realised that the game was standing at something of a crossroads.

On the one hand, they could continue to try and make a completely balanced system, where by no single army or army combination was inherently more powerful than any other. This was arguably the rationale behind 3rd edition - alot of the 'toys' were removed from the game, both from the options available as army lists but also from the game itself - but 3rd edition suffered from severe 'codex creep' and from a few codecies which, I through poor design or lack of playtesting, gave the advantage to specific lists and armies.

So, we had a system which, while not as open ended as the previous edition and therefore more suitable for a tournament environment, had removed many of the opportunities for fielding exciting and different combinations on the tabletop, either through them being dissalowed combinations (sometimes completely removed from the game) or being uncompetitive and unbalanced. In many ways this was the worst of both worlds.

So, I think for 5th edition, GW has decided to slam on the brakes for this experiment and put the 40k cart into reverse gear. The emphasis now is on many more options for the player, both tactically and in terms of army choice, and more about playing 'with' your opponent rather than 'against' them. A great deal more players play within in a casual environment, where they are not squabbling over a quarter inch, and I think it only makes sense to cater to the larger demographic of games players in general.

Just my 2 cents!

Popsical
18-03-2009, 17:57
:) Excellent :)
Constructive criticism and praise in one thread? scary lol :)

I started in 87 with rogue trader and bought every edition since. 5th is the best yet, but as mentioned before true LOS is slower and nit picky and does punish us minimod freaks who love our individuality of pose and base.
When push comes to shove we all want to win our games, and i defy anyone to say they have never used it to some effect in a close game lol.
Like a half covered vehicle, when your winning its easy to let your opponent have the benefit of the doubt (hey arent i generous) but when losing ( hmm are you sure looks more to me?).

Its as i said the best yet, but some rules need trying and then admitting that maybe the one before was better. :)

Nice try Gw. Keep it up.
My two bobs worth lol

AmBlam
18-03-2009, 20:12
Change is always a good thing.

By that logic the nazi's were a good thing.

Pacific
18-03-2009, 20:37
By that logic the nazi's were a good thing.

As would be the sun going super-nova and destroying the earth.

incarna
18-03-2009, 21:08
I feel 5th ed is an excellent game but with room for improvement. I would imagine 6th or 7th ed will be a “final” 40k rules set.

My only gripe is that the codex release schedule is too slow. Necrons and Imperial Guard barely even fit within the new rules and other codex have scatterings of holdovers from previous version of the game.

Reaver83
18-03-2009, 21:23
I like the new rules, I think they're an impovement and logical progression, and whilst it's not perfect it's moving closer.

Wound Allocation - I don't think it's too abusable, I've found about 2 cases where it's really exploitable - Nob Bikers and Blood crushers, no one else has found a really good way to exploit them otherwise.

LOS - Hmm, I prefer cover saves, but at the same time there were some rubbish situations where people huddled against rhino's were able to be shot from L3 hills, that annoyed me. But Area terrain was the right idea imho!

Harsher hand to hand + lots of cover saves, it does seem to favour close combat armies, but you're now able to shoot people a little easier due to the above!

gigglyjoker
18-03-2009, 21:54
So are you guys saying Necrons are now underpowered or still overpowered (actually I agree with GW that they play(ed) right, but all the other armies were not as good)?

self biased
18-03-2009, 22:35
By that logic the nazi's were a good thing.

goodwin's law in fifteen posts. i have stopped reading the thread.

wingedserpant
18-03-2009, 22:40
The only thing I dislike about 40k at the moment is the fact that Games Workshop only advertised the biggest changes and ledt the rest to people like me who actually read the rulebook to find all the little things.

Like the rule that gives you a 3+ cover save if you are unsure whether you can be seen or not. Or that turbo-boosting your bikes gives you a 3+ save regardless of what your armour save is like.

but thats mostly due to people not actually reading it. I dislike TLOS at times but the thing that really kills my enjoyment is having to teach people rules almost a year on from the changes. Its annoying as these people have been playing every week without fail.

AmBlam
18-03-2009, 22:57
goodwin's law in fifteen posts. i have stopped reading the thread.

No comparison was made.

The use of nazis was arbitrary.

Its called Godwin's law.

You're attempt was poor, nazi-like perhaps.

tuebor
18-03-2009, 22:59
I however am not a fan of the the new blast rules, especially for small templates, which are practically useless now IMHO.

Odd, I find them to be much more useful now.

wingedserpant
18-03-2009, 23:13
Odd, I find them to be much more useful now.

Me too. I never used to bother with frags but now I think they are great.

Hypaspist
18-03-2009, 23:19
Like the rule that gives you a 3+ cover save if you are unsure whether you can be seen or not.*snip*

Pretty sure that's a 5+ Cover save wingedserpant (ie reducing the 'arguable' cover save by 1 to represent the doubt)

On 5th Edition in our gaming group there was a lot of hubbub around whether we thought stuff would work or not. WHen we actually got down to playing the game we found that on balance it *was*a very good improvement.
TLOS, as its an opinion thing, is always one that will court disagreement.. but it does stop people claiming a level three hill from a piece of terrain thats about the same size as a landraider.
The most balancing thing (from our group perspective) was to prevent assault units from rolling from one assault straight into another, at least allowing a shootier army the right of reply (our Tau player was Very happy with that one!)
You can't please all of the people all of the time, but most gamers I have played with are positive on 5th ed
Hypa

self biased
18-03-2009, 23:49
No comparison was made.

The use of nazis was arbitrary.

Its called Godwin's law.

You're attempt was poor, nazi-like perhaps.

i stand corrected.

i wasn't a fan of the new wound allocation rules, but they have grown on me, slightly. a gripe that i still maintain is that the rampant use of cover saves doesn't wholly fix some of the problems, and seems like a band-aid over some sort of fundamental flaw in the system (though i can't provide an example).

i would also buy the fellow who dislikes small blasts a beer so we can commiserate the woes of the plasma cannon.

TLOS is meh, although it's still not quite TLOS as there is still some abstraction. there's really no arguments these days as to what has line of sight to what. however, arguments about cover saves have made up the difference, i've noticed.

vehicles are marginally more resilient from getting wrecked in one shot, but remain very much impenetrable fortresses or smoking ruins. it's frustrating to have lascannons bounce off armor twelve, or worse yet, penetrate but do nothing but alarm the crew and possibly back the toilet up. meanwhile, my land raider gets immobilized on turn one by a hail mary seeker missile and sits in one corner of the table with no targets. ultimately, i think there is a better way to do vehicles, but would likely require a rewrite of the entire ruleset.

oh, and he was comparing the logic used to nazis. so godwin's law does apply, thus making my post meaningless.

samiens
19-03-2009, 02:41
I kind've agree about the cover saves but I think the solution is simply to make cover saves 1/6 worse- the arbitrary nature of the 4+ cover save and the disadvantage to shooting armies seems unfair. that said I think the new assault rules favour shooting armies so I'm fine with it really.

Imperialis_Dominatus
19-03-2009, 03:05
Overall I'm okay with 5th. Wound allocation, massive advantages given to Ork hordes, and true LOS bother me. Special character focus as well. Do not want.


If you don't think about the rules when making an army, chances are there will be no abuse.

Well, if you don't think about the rules and the game when making a list you probably won't win much either. :p


You're attempt was poor, nazi-like perhaps.

I see what you did there.

Hellebore
19-03-2009, 03:29
Don't like the quantity of cover saves. It was an attempt to 'balance' AP without actually doing anything to the AP rules. It makes a mockery of the point of armour penetration on weapons.

LOS is not very good. The ability to see one model and shoot all of them but not see WITH one model and shoot with all of them is a bad design choice.

However the thing I dislike the most is how much LOS punishes people who like converting and modelling. There is no way that a model on a flying stand to represent jump packing is advantaged, it is always a disadvantage.

In my opinion this more than anything else in the game is the worst thing to have been done.

I liked the abstract area terrain rules. You can never model terrain realistically, and your models can never move through it realistically. So the idea that because a model is standing in a heroic 'that way men!' pose he can't hide behind a hedge or something is preposterous and actually BREAKS the versimilitude.

Yes that's right, I said that 'realism' broke the realism. For the one bit of realism they decided to focus on, 'getting down and all cinematic with your models in a model-eye view' they ignored OTHER bits of realism, like the fact that the models are supposed to be dynamically moving warriors and the terrain is much more detailed than you could possibly model onto it. Or that if you can only see one model, then you can't see any others to kill them. On the one hand they espouse the cinematic nature and realism of drawing a line from your model to the enemy, and then in the next breath ignore that by saying 'in reality the enemy are moving around and getting to cover, so you can totally kill all of them even if only one is visible.' This is what we in the business term hypocrisy.

It was an attempt at justifying a rule without realising in order to justify it you have to say the opposite of what you've said only moments before.

What were the downsides to area terrain exactly? They were very simple and easy to understand, anything inside the edges of the terrain is in cover, anything outside is not.

They also allowed conversions and scenic bases to be used, in fact encouraged conversion and modelling because it didn't matter what your model was doing or looked like, it was treated the same as any other model.

So that to me is the BIGGEST thing I hate in 5th ed. The game is about toy soldiers, not about bits of cardboard being pushed around. The rules should not be designed in a way that punishes that creativity.


Hellebore

isaac
19-03-2009, 05:22
I feel your cover woe, I may have not played much of 4th ed, but the cover was better. TLOS does help a bit, until you get the laying down troops and the well posed ones. My circle of gamers are on the same page with this. You only get penalized for cinematic poses if you try to take advantage of it, otherwise business as usual.

I also wish it was what you see you can shoot at and you get shot at only by what sees you. Half the orks see one guy, they can lay the wounds on him, but only that one guy. I know this is more plastering over the cracks, but GW, come on and do something...

Imperialis_Dominatus
19-03-2009, 05:29
I guess this was to prevent 'sniping.' A better solution would be an FAQ. It goes like this:

Q: What if my opponent uses Rhinos or some other obstacle in such a manner as to snipe specific models?

A: Dreadsock.

schottenjaeger
19-03-2009, 10:16
My major annoyance with the TLOS rules is that "forests" are now "trees with invisible Iron Halos between them" again. Also, cover saves should have stayed at 5+ all-round.

I do agree that the punishment for characterful models is a pain, but it leads into my major hatred for the 5e codexes, and 5e in general: Special characters are the only ones allowed to be "unique". Everything and everyone else just gets weapon swaps. I've been getting the sense ever since late 4th that GW is trying to flush the hobby side of 40k, or at least the converting, for generic and predictable drag-and-drop units. It's reading more and more like a computer game, and less and less like a tabletop :\

On the balance of things, the vehicle rules are much better than they ever were before, which I appreciate greatly. And Run/March is very much appreciated.

catbarf
19-03-2009, 11:10
it's impossible for the codexes to be completely equal if they want to make the different races unique. People should stop whining. Games are winnable with any race. you just have to know how to play them. The bottom line is, just choose an army that you like and enjoy it. Every race has strengths and weaknesses. that's what makes the game fun.

Not everyone is willing to sacrifice choice and variety for the sake of flawed balance.

Snotteef
19-03-2009, 13:37
Thank you Hellebore! I was starting to think I was the only one who really loved the area terrain LOS rules. I thought it was one of the most brilliant moves by GW in many, many years (and I praised GW for it). It's so simple, it protects modellers, and it makes it easy to play with strangers. I was quite dissappointed when I found out they were gone: what a huge step backwards.

Your post sums up my feelings about them nicely.

self biased
19-03-2009, 14:06
Hellebore's post of awesomeness.

i agree completely. the AP system isn't bad, it just needs some tweaking to make the lighter armor more viable. bolters punching 5+ armor is pretty gnarly.

your point about TLOS and abstract terrain is spot on as well. the design team is still half-assing the rules concerning this as there's still a fair bit of abstraction involved. they could have expanded the rules to differentiate between large wound bearing models, small vehicles, medium sized vehicles, and large vehicles. things would get sticky when you got down to titans and suchlike, but with a little forethought (snicker) it could be handled.

hell. you could probably fold the superheavy rules into the standard vehicles with only a little bit of work. you could even eliminate a page and a half of rules concerning vehicles with a weapon skill by making most walkers monstrous creatures. a streamlined ruleset does not always denote a simple one.

neXus6
19-03-2009, 15:10
I started playing 40k with 3rd ed, though I had a passing interest in it during 2nd.
Half way through 4th ed I just got bored and stopped playing. I was really hoping that the release of 5th ed, and then Imperial Guard getting a new codex, would bring me back in ...

It didn't, 5th ed changed very little I already had problems with, and made a number of changes I outright disliked.

Basicly 40k is dead to me at the moment from a gaming stand point. I still love the background, and as it is the core rules I've got problems with the release of new Imperial Guard doesn't fix any of my problems with it.

All I can do is hope 6th ed is better, or that after many years of not playing 40k I simply forget what I dislike about it and start over again.

Hellgore
19-03-2009, 15:18
By that logic the nazi's were a good thing.



yeah, truly smart remark.... :wtf:

Hellebore
19-03-2009, 15:19
Yes there were plenty of ways to improve the rules that did not include the direction they went.

Unit sizes and area terrain may have been a little wierd at times, but then that allows for more unit sizes rather than changing the entire LOS rules in the first place.

It seemed like the wheel fell off the car but rather than replace the wheel they just bought a new car.

I think that bases were the easiest method of determining line of sight for MCs and non vehicle models.

Hell, you could still incorporate some of the cover saves into the old 4th ed rules. Those strange instances where a land speeder protected a carnifex, the carnifex receives a 4+ cover save against the shot, but can still be hit.

Perhaps they could have said, if the size is bigger than you you can't be hit, if it is the same size as you you receive a 4+ cover save and if it is smaller than you you can be shot.

Adding say 1 or 2 new size categories and the above and you get a pretty good LOS system I think.

Swarms size 1
25mm base = 2
40mm base = 3
60mm base = 4
Anything with the Tank rule = 4
(4 receives 4+ cover save from 4, can't be seen behind 5 etc).
etc

Now, it probably doesn't work with the guard heavy weapons teams these days, but if they'd started with these rules then perhaps they wouldn't have gone in that direction in the first place.

I don't mind AP from a realism perspective (that a bullet will either penetrate or it won't - vests are rated for specific calibres) but if it is causing so many problems that they needed to nerf it by giving everything a cover save then there are problems.

The other thing is that cover saves use modifiers. So if they will use cover modifiers why not armour modifiers? They wouldn't have to go overboard with them. The majority could be -1 or 0, with only a few weapons at -2 and -3.

Well, I've written a system using D10s that I think solves most of these problems and creates a far more dynamic game (as IGOUGO was the first... ahem... to go).

Hopefully I won't have to worry about the problems GW keep creating in their never ending desire to create an imperfect product.

Hellebore

megatrons2nd
19-03-2009, 15:46
The other thing is that cover saves use modifiers. So if they will use cover modifiers why not armour modifiers? They wouldn't have to go overboard with them. The majority could be -1 or 0, with only a few weapons at -2 and -3.

Well, I've written a system using D10s that I think solves most of these problems and creates a far more dynamic game (as IGOUGO was the first... ahem... to go).

Hopefully I won't have to worry about the problems GW keep creating in their never ending desire to create an imperfect product.

Hellebore

VOR uses D10 and a activation system in place of the IGOUGO. It uses True line of sight that is actually a true line of sight. It also uses armor modifiers.

I like most of 5th but the LOS rules are junk. I enjoy wargaming in general and am unimpressed with the current turn system(losing on turn one sucks). When the game has a system that allows a player to lose before he(she) gets to play is bad news. Thankfully it is a rare occurance if you actually use enough terrain, if you don't it will happen more aften.

self biased
19-03-2009, 15:47
i wouldn't mind having a look at your d10 system, sir. it seems that we're largely of the same mind.

as was pointed out in another thread in regards to save modifiers, it would really have to be weapon specific. it could work, but i honestly have no strong feelings one way or the other on the subject. i wouldn't mind seeing to-hit modifiers come back in a small way instead of this cover save nonsense, provided they're used sparingly. sixteen percent is a fair chunk.

Cythus
19-03-2009, 20:02
i personally agree mainly with the initial poster, and think 5th edition is good and moving the in the right direction.
4+ cover saves on most things seems a but much but 5+ would be too little in my opinion. I guess thats the limitation of the d6 system

Rioghan Murchadha
19-03-2009, 23:47
IMO, they could've done fine with a hybrid of 4th and 5th ed casualty allocation. Something along the lines of

You can only kill the number of models the firing unit can draw LoS to, however, the defender can allocate the wound to any model in the unit.

Stops dual rhino sniping from 4th, and prevents losing the entire squad because jenkins stuck his damn fool head around a corner.

Khornate Fireball (Ork)
20-03-2009, 16:42
Overall I'm okay with 5th. Wound allocation, massive advantages given to Ork hordes, and true LOS bother me. Special character focus as well. Do not want.

Massive advantages to Ork hordes? I wish... The new combat resolution where outnumbering is irrelevant is really irksome to an army with 6+ saves that relies on being able to shrug off the loss of ten wounds. Then, our Power Klaw-wielders lost an attack. And no consolidation into combat. And probably some other stuff I forgot. Basically, what I'm saying is that I think Orks were stronger in 4th edition. But I'm open to changing my views. Certainly, Nob Bikerz are kings of the new wound allocation.

Edit: Rioghan, you're a genius. I can't believe that's not been thought of.

Rioghan Murchadha
21-03-2009, 05:01
Edit: Rioghan, you're a genius. I can't believe that's not been thought of.

Heh.. Thanks. Been creating house rules to patch holes in warhammer for 21 years now ;)

That aside, I also have personal issues with assaults. They actually introduce a reasonable aspect to CC by giving negatives to LD based on casualties caused, then take away outnumbering, and give no way to break a tie (think musician in WFB). Also, I'm rather pissed because for a brief shining moment, my 1ksons didn't go dead last in CC... The codex puts them at standard marine initiative, and S&P didn't drop them to init 1. However, there's that little tidbit in the rulebook that states that if a unit had to make a difficult terrain roll when it assaulted, it counts as init 1... (My guys are faster when they take a charge, than when they deliver one...:wtf:)

big squig
21-03-2009, 05:43
Yeah, to me 5th is the best so far. "So far" being the important part here...

I'm not too keen on models creating cover saves, I'm not to keen on tanks being so slow, and I really really hate kill points. I miss the old advanced missions...