Kirb your enthusiasm!


"Pink isn't a color. It's a lifestyle." - Chumbalaya
"...generalship should be informing list building." - Sir Biscuit
"I buy models with my excess money" - Valkyrie whilst a waitress leans over him

Sunday, July 11, 2010

5th edition; The Truth

A few weeks back there was a post on H-O that irked me which was complaining about 5th edition. I nerdraged and felt a bit better. Since then, there have been multiple posts on H-O about this including one on the H-O news network which was actually pro-5th by Calamari. This highlighted what I've said a couple times on H-O, the vocal minority doesn't shut up and you're going to hear about the bad more often than the good. Then there was this one which asked people what they thought the worst thing of 5th edition was. So rather than rage again, let's take a look at why 5th edition is good compared to the past and what I actually like about it. Also, I was very upset that no-one lol'd at my response in the linked post.

The major changes of 5th edition from previous editions put an emphasis on mobility, shooting and tanks. The Run! ability would on the surface seem to benefit assault armies as they can get across the board faster but the changes to assault which encourage faster assaults and disallows consolidation into nearby units has actually hindered assault units more. These changes have therefore improved shooting lists whilst also helping their mobility in being able to Run! landing the advantage firmly in the shooting army department unless the assault army is more mobile through tanks, fleet or movement bonuses. This is then mitigated by the blanket of cover. Whilst true line of sight has made it very hard to hide unless you use massive terrain, combined with the new cover rules most units and vehicles can get cover quite often which makes shooting 50% less effective. Whilst a lot of people on H-O seem to think everyone is an ass about TLoS, it makes shooting so much easier. You're either in the open, in cover or not seen. None of this, these guys can die here, these guys can't, and this one guy gets cover and this meltagunner? he's never going to die until everyone else does. Whilst it can be streamlined further, it's light years ahead of what it used to be when it could take minutes just deciding who could die and what rolls needed to be taken. Oh and if you model for advantage like laying your units down, I kick you between the balls :).

Tanks have also obviously been improved. The removal of "omg my tank got plinked jump out and cower in the middle of a battlefield" rule has vastly improved tanks as viable options to transport infantry across the board. The improvements on the vehicle damage table have also made tanks more viable as glancing hits are all but useless in killing tanks and penetrating hits only have a 33% chance of destroying them. Add in the introduction of cheaper vehicles and this promotes mobile warfare. Shame H-O thinks this has just made tanks into 'pillboxes' and combined with other threads and posts on this topic you get the feeling they think only tank armies work. If they were right, well it would be a boring state of affairs as all armies would similar. Luckily, there seems to be a vast array of builds outside pure mech and even within the pure mech department there are a vast number of different tactics and options available to your opponent.

What these changes allow is for shooting and assault armies to BOTH be very effective. Whilst 4th edition saw a lot of gunlines because getting across the battlefield for assault armies was slow and dangerous due to poor transport rules or relying on walking, anytime an assault army made it to the gunline they rampaged through the gunline. 5th edition gave the big shaft to gunlines. You want to stay immobile? Fine, you'll lose. A 5th edition army has mobility built into it because that is what the game design demands. Mobility introduces a whole lot of tactical thought as it's not just about target priority but dominating midfield for objectives and to limit your opponent's mobility, etc. etc. etc.

So there was a bit of ranting in there...aimed at a specific someone (if you read page 3 I think, you can figure it out) but these couple of paragraphs highlight the major changes brought into 5th and how it massively changed the game FOR THE BETTER. I enjoy using tactics in my tactical game called 40k. I quit in 4th edition for a couple of reasons and standing around and shooting was one of them. 5th introduced mobility not seen in 3rd or 4th (don't have the experience in 2nd to comment). 3rd was bum rushing out of transports into assault whilst 4th went the complete opposite and you stood around shooting and hoped none of the assault units made it to your lines. 5th edition takes a bit of both and actually creates a dynamic field of battle where each game requires actual analysis of your opponent's list and in-depth thought on how to play the game.

Stop the hating. If you hate it, shut up and don't play it.

23 pinkments:

Big Jim said...

I concur, 5th is much better overall than any of the previous editions.

I do wish that mobile tanks could pump out a bit more firepower, but I surely don't let that ruin the game or force me to use them as bunkers.


AbusePuppy said...

I think you missed one of the biggest improvements to 5th edition: missions and scoring.

4th Ed had some really terrible and unbalanced missions. Moreover, there was absolutely no reason to take Troops except because you were required to. Since VP generally decided the match, most battles came down to "I shoot you, you shoot me, repeat until turn 6 is over."

In 5E, not only can you NOT afford to sit on your ass shooting the whole game, you need to consider the balance of Troops vs. other units in your army. (For some codices, of course, their troops ARE their killy units and this isn't an issue, but for most this is not true.) As much as folks may complain about Capture and Control, it's still light years ahead of "whoever shoots the most wins" missions that tended to dominate 4E.

Chumbalaya said...


jabberjabber said...

I've got to agree with you: 5th edition is good. I sometimes miss the consolidation in to combat when I'm playing assault armies, but not that much(!)

RedBzerkr said...

That was 5 paragraphs more than a topic like this deserves. Last line says it all.

VT2 said...

Objectives, missions, better vehicles, infantry being more important, skimmers being killable, ultra units not being able to destroy armies with sweeping advances.
It's just a better game in every way imaginable.

Heretic said...

Since I've only played 5th edition, I don't really have any basis for comparison. However I really think victory points should have stayed in place of kill points. This is partly because of the army that I play where a 140 point piranha squadron (or for that matter any squadron) can, and generally does count for twice as much in determining the victory tally as a land raider or tyrannofex, who can be nearly twice their cost. I know tactically they are not as important as the raider, but the idea that two drones can be worth as much in determining the victor of a battle as a rolling fortress of a land raider is a bit off the deep end if you ask me.

VT2 said...

Killpoints are way better than victorypoints, and should only really be considered for tie-breaking.

Matt Varnish said...

@ Heretic... I know man, all it would take is for some GW intern to type out the following into the Tau FAQ: "Drones from vehicles can never score, and are ignored when counting Killpoints"

See? that took me 30 seconds. ITS BEEN 2 YEARS GW!

sonsoftaurus said...

I agree that 5th is a good edition. There are a few tweaks I might make, but overall IMO it is pretty solid. Most of the big complaints people have about it are self-inflicted wounds. A while back I posted about some of the Myths of 5th Ed:

The_King_Elessar said...

I LOL at you Kirby, but I'm not sure it's how you mean...:p

One of my favourite HO features is the 'Ignore' function. I do not like Stella Cadente's negative BS, so I ignore him. Literally, I have to click on them to even see the content of his posts. It is MARVELLOUS.

Also, VPs suck, even more than C&C (well, almost more...) and 5e is as good as 40k has ever been. Don't like future in the future? Play Fantasy, dumbass. Or, fuck off and die. Whichever.

*Runs off laughing*

Eltnot said...

In 2nd Ed, you had the option to run with your infantry to get them there faster and vehicles were a reasonable way to get across the board. So yes, 2nd required you to be moving around.

In fact you could fire any gun except for a heavy weapon at its full range so long as you only walked.

Kirby said...

@Puppy; I did indeed though it was implied in my midfield love. Extrapolate!

@RedBzerkr; I could make blanket statements like BoLS sucks and still be right but it's nice for most people to see the reasoning.

@Eltnot; All I remember of 2nd was uber Termies of 20 dice rolls to die and psychic powers that were catalysmic (new word).

@TKE; you can ignore people? *ignores half of them.* I think I read, 3 maybe 4 posts of Stella's and then no. Unless I feel like being pissy.

@Matt; if only GW were so capable...

Good to see the positive feedback for 5th though, spread the word ladies!

Stelek said...

2nd Edition was horrible.

You buy Abaddon + 5 Terminators.

Or 1 single Greater Demon.

That's your army.

Now as an Eldar player, I buy 3 Eldar Exarchs.

They have Jump Packs, Lascannons, the ability to jump back after shooting, and the ability to ignore overwatch.

Oh yeah and they are high BS, so they don't miss despite hard cover (what 8th is now, 2e 40k was in many ways).

I shoot you, and give your 2D6 armor save a -9 armor save modifier.

Then I roll D6 wounds.

You can literally NEVER catch me, NEVER shoot me, and holy christ was that game BORING.

Anonymous said...

TKE you're my hero... I didn't know about the ignore function...

Kirby said...

Oh hi Stelek.

The_King_Elessar said...

Yes, I'm incredible, and yes, Exarchs were TEH AW3S0M3Z. Stupidly so, to be honest.

Don't forget Sustained Assault, when we could literally kill entire units by ourselves in CC, jumping back and forth between models and hitting each smack in the face with a Power Glove.

Kirby said...

Web of Skulls + Sustained assault was awesome in 3rd as well lol, even with crappy S3 (gogo Barharroth w/o invul!). Imagine it with doom...

Oh and good job on getting the Eldar 'tactica' thread on Warseer locked TKE. el. oh. els.

The_King_Elessar said...

Well, that wasn't mostly me, and it wasn't my intent. Though that dog should have been put down LONG ago.

Kirby said...

haha true. I just saw you posting on Warseer again :P.

The_King_Elessar said...

Well, if people are wrong on the Internets, it's my role to tell them...

Just light up the BatSignal, and I'm there... ;)

Oh, and I have posts you haven't posted on. Go do so. :p

(That applies to the lot of you!)

TMiles001 said...

In 2Ed I took a Chief Librarian, would stack multiple unmodifiable saves on him (the 2Ed version on invulnerable) and teleport around the board wiping entire units off the board with impunity. Would back him up with an Assassin ally just for fun, and run my Death Company all around the table for LOLs.

Get this for balance - 2Ed you could run DC squads of infinite size - as long as you had the points (and they cost only 10% more than a Tac marine, but had, quite literally, ablative wounds - it was listed as 1+1 on their profile). Then for funsies - to give the squad jumppacks cost 50pts, irrespective of the number of models!! 100 Death Company?? 50 pts for packs! For perspective - a Tactical Squad cost 300pts for 10 men without any upgrades....

shido said...

i checked the link to the forum and i think i know where the problem is.

you dont know what your oponent list is. so you cant really create a list to counter your oponent so your suggestion doesnt help him.

lets say he makes a list to eat all those tanks.
and he wins.

then they play again.
and he wins.

this repeats for cuple of times.

then his oponnet choses to maka a diferent list to counter his.

and he loses.

then he makes a list to counter that one

but when he plays again. his oponent has a wall of tank. and he had prepared to the other one.

so he loses

so here is the problem. it shouldnt be posible for a player to create a list with 0 chance to lose to certain lists.

there should be a list he can chose and win against all lists.

if not then the luckyest wins. cause you have no idea of what he is going to chose. it would be like rock paper sissor.

Post a Comment

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...