PDA

View Full Version : How's the 5th ed?



Cap'n Facebeard
05-04-2009, 11:51
Hi, I took an extended break from 40k and my Orks have gone into the cyrogenic shoebox slumber for some time now. Personally, I wasn't really enjoying the way 40k had become (to me) less cerebral and more about dice scores. I've been watching the posts bout the new ed and was just interested in hearing peoples' opinion bout whether the new rules have made the game more strategic and tactical.

And if you have some sort of flame hate bout my opinion of the old ed., pl keep it to yourself. To all friendly posts, thanx in advance!

Brother Enok
05-04-2009, 12:01
Well, I think the new methods of deployment and mission selection have made the game ten times more enjoyable.
Troops are a must have now, as they are the only unit type that can take and hold objectives, and as at leasr 2/3 of the time you will be fighting over these they really do become the lynchpin of your force. I take at least 2-3 maxed out tac squads in my 1500 marines list.
These rules make most games very close run for me, with tactics playing a much larger part in to flow of the battle than simply skittering as many dice as I can across the table.
Vehicle are alot tougher now, as a glance can no longer destroy them. This makes mechanised armies more viable for marines and Imperial Gaurd. No longer are my Rhinos moving coffins, indeed they play a vital part in my battlefield strategy, moving my tac squads to and fro throughout the field as I take and contest objectives, and bring firesupport to bear as and when is needed.
The new wound allocation can be alittle finicky, but to be fair, when playing at home we don't bother, and alot of people in store I play simply forget about it, so dropping it dons't change the game too much. I belive it was introduced to prevent the situation that will naturally crop of the last man standing in each sqaud being the smug git with the heavy/special weapon.

Overall, Im enjoying 5th ed imensly. Though to be honest, ive never not enjoyed a game or version of 40K. If my opinion of the hobby got so bad I felt I had to come into the internet and whinge about it, its probably healthy to find somthing else to do.

Hope thats helpful. =D

Cap'n Facebeard
05-04-2009, 12:09
Not whingeing, it just didn't fit my tastes after awhile, I guess, and fantasy spoke to me a bit more. But after only noticing tonight the Ork Battlewagon on the Maelstrom games website, I'm feeling a bit green . . .

So, glances can't destroy vehicles. So, does that make skimmers an even harder proposition?

Brother Enok
05-04-2009, 12:15
My appologise, that wasn't aimed at you. Its just some posters on here do nothing but moan, yet still pour money into a hobby it appears they arn't enjoying.

I havn't had too much exsperiance with SKimmers as yet, but I belive they got a nerf with overboost now dropping the hit to a glance 50% of the time.
Smoke negates the hit on a 4+ making it very usful.

Raxmei
05-04-2009, 12:17
So, glances can't destroy vehicles. So, does that make skimmers an even harder proposition?Skimmers are no tougher than any other vehicle. A fast skimmer that sacrifices all shooting to move flat out gets a 4+ cover save, but in turn makes itself vulnerable to getting killed on immobilized results. This replaces the old skimmers moving fast rule, which would indeed be horrifically broken if it were still in place.

Vehicle damage is now done on a single table and some things modify that table. Glancing hits are -2, which means that in the absence of other modifiers a glancing hit can not produce a destroyed result. This is not the same as glancing hits being unable to destroy vehicles. That said, the vehicle damage table is more forgiving than it used to be.

Brother Enok
05-04-2009, 12:20
Ah, well put Raxmei. You can still stack immobolised and weapon destroyed results to wreck the vehicle.
Perhaps better wording on my point would have been you can no longer destroy a vehicle with a single glancing hit.

Gorbad Ironclaw
05-04-2009, 12:22
I think the focus on mission objectives rather than VP was a very nice move. Kill points have a few issues but generally I much prefer the way you win games in 5th to how you did it in 4th as you really need to keep your focus on the mission objective, rather than just pounding your opponent into the dirt.

Especially if there really is going to be a book with more missions coming out sometime soon.

Aside from the missions, transports are no longer death traps so actually gets used to transport people. That and running mean you can get a lot of mobility and limits the gunlines. But at the same time not being able to consolidate into a new combat means you can't just assault and then roll up the entire enemy army.

I'm really enjoying it as a fast paced game where you have to keep en eye on the mission objective, not just the enemy army.

Cap'n Facebeard
05-04-2009, 12:23
Ok that sounds pretty cool.

I was just having flashbacks to fighting Eldar. Falcon . . . scatter laser . . . noooo!

I haven't heard much about the tactical effects of running and going to ground. Do they affect new ed. games alot? Pos or neg?

I looked in on some batreps and no-one seemed to do either much.

Raxmei
05-04-2009, 12:25
Perhaps better wording on my point would have been you can no longer destroy a vehicle with a single glancing hit.To be completely accurate, it's more like "A single glancing hit from a weapon that is not Ap1 can no longer destroy a closed-topped vehicle."

Brother Enok
05-04-2009, 12:34
Well put Raxmei.

As for running; its great when your trapped in the open, and booking it into cover is of more benafit than standing and taking a pot shot with a special character, or you really need to close the distance to that objective.

Going to ground means the unit can do nothing next turn, but at 1 to any cover save. Excellent when you need to hold an objective.
For example, on game of mine recently saw a 5 man combat squad of mine holding a Strategic point in a crater. The squad of gaurd didn't want to risk charging the unit, as they would have struck last, and my vet had a powersword. However, they couldn't dislodge the marines either, their 3+ armour and 4+ cover saving all but one as they hunkered down in cover.

freddieyu
05-04-2009, 13:51
It is also tactical in the sense you have to watch your flanks now due to the outflank rule. In addition deep strike is more forgiving since the unit does not always die on a rotten deep strike (only on a 1-2), so more players now risk this. As mentioned, vehicles are more survivable due to the damage tables as well as the cover saves, so a mechanised army is very viable

Pacific
05-04-2009, 14:13
I think overall I'm enjoying it more. More movement rules and flexibility (such as those named above) mixed with more variety in the individual games and game set-ups means that I'm not having game after game as being the same.

Overall I think the objective grabbing was a great move, and has meant a few games have come down to last dice rolls of the game, and great excitement, rather than the 'annihilation' style missions.

Grand Master Raziel
05-04-2009, 14:25
Some things that haven't been mentioned yet:

1: Wound allocation is done before making saves, and every member of a unit has to be allocated a wound before you can allocate additional wounds to models that are already taking one. This makes it a lot more likely that upgraded troopers (sergeants, special weapons, heavy weapons) will get killed than in previous editions. I don't exactly "like' this, as it de-facto favors units that are designed to have universal coolness over units that rely on upgrades, but it is logical.

2: Combat resolution is now modified by casualties inflicted rather than the size of the units in the fight. This is, IMO, both more logical and a lot easier to keep track of. Last edition, you had to count up how many figures were still in the fight, which wasn't always easy when they were all piled into a big scrum. This edition, you just put casualties to the side and compare. Losing side takes a Ld penalty equal to how many figures they lost that round of combat by. Quick and easy.

3: Because of how combat resolution works, No Retreat now has some bite on large Fearless units. Last edition, when it was based on outnumbering an opponent, only small units would be subject to it. Large Fearless units were effectively immune. This edition, it cuts both ways.

Steel Legion for Life
05-04-2009, 14:34
In my experience, running happens in almost every game with infantry.

Going to ground, less often, as it costs you opportunities to either shoot or assault.

One of the big changes not yet mentioned is "True Line of Sight". Now, you get to the models eye view and look at what it can see, so no more area terrain that simply "blocks LOS". This includes models that you can only see because they are posed to be jumping, on big blocks to look heroic etc.

Some people like this, some people don't; it does have a negative effect on the way people model things like assault squads.

If a model is in any way obscured, by anything, even your own/enemy troops, it gets a 4+ cover save. This tends to mean almost every model will have a 4+ save vs. any shooting, especially in horde armies.

I find wound allocation a bit slow and irritating, but apparently people like it, as it stops say, the vet sergeant or lascannon always surviving. It has created a few hideous oddities, but don't worry, you play Orks, it's only good for you.

As for the missions, they are mostly good, but lots of people have gripes with one of the victory conditions: Kill points. Basically, while the other two objectives reward you for having troops choices alive, kill points are awarded based on how many enemy units are killed.

This seems fine for most games, but does have negative effects on some units - e.g. Inquistion death cult assassins count as separate units for each 2w model, so are one kill point each. It also leads to a trend for large "all your eggs in one basket" units; for example, ten thunder hammer terminators will be on killpoint, and are bloody hard to kill.

Frequently, this will lead to games where one person will have two models left, the other will have half their army left, but the person who has been comprehensively thrashed will "win" because he only had say 5 killpoints to give out in his army, and has picked off 5 small squads. As I say, some people don't mind it, but I suspect that hasn't happened to them yet:)

No-one has has yet explained to me in a sensible why ten gretchin are worth the same as ten terminators in this system.

I'm still enjoying 40k, it's still a good game, but it feels alot more retro; Killpoints feel alot like old school victory points, in that they are easy to add up at the end of the game (no more calculators! yay!), and the mission/deployment variations are good fun. 40k is still good, just different:)

Cane
05-04-2009, 15:09
I made the jump from third edition to fifth after stopping to play when I moved out of state. I like fifth edition a lot more than third though - having my Imperial Guard tanks finally being able to move AND shoot was a glorious change. Not to mention the new 'dex coming out.

In any case the game seems faster paced, has more potential for actual use of tactics, and has an overall improved gameplay experience from third edition. From an Imperial Guard army standpoint, our old dex really benefitted from a lot of the changes since sweeping advances/consoidations aren't what they were in 3rd...I can still remember watching in terror as a single squad of Banshees wiped out several squads of guardsmen with them barely taking a scratch in return...stupid third edition.

freddieyu
05-04-2009, 15:39
5th ed is FUN, that's the most important. So yeah I enjoy it. Change is good. Makes you use the gray matter up there.