|
Post by John on Jul 8, 2008 11:51:39 GMT
I know 40k isn't a major game at our club, but with 5th Edition out in only a few days I am looking forwards to getting my tread head back on.
Is anyone up for some 40k on Monday 21st? My preference would be one or two 1k games just to get my head round the new rules, but if anyone wants to play a larger game then that'd be fine.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 15, 2008 13:07:21 GMT
I know 40k isn't one of our big pullers but is there that little interest, or is it just me
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 15, 2008 21:11:52 GMT
If it makes you feel happier John I've just invested in a Tau army. I've got about 1650 points worth at the moment.
I'm in the process of building and undercoating it all! The starts the painting!
I'd be more than happy to give you a game but I'm playing Rob's High Elves on Monday.
I'd be happy to give you a game at some point when my models are at least all undercoated. I can pretended they are the dreaded stealth bomber Sept.
I was lucky enough to play 5th edition a few months a go and it got me back into 40k. I'm currently lamenting having sold my Crimson Fist army.
Matt
|
|
|
Post by dave3 on Jul 15, 2008 22:35:13 GMT
I haven't played a game in a while, but Matt is going on about the new rules, and I DO have 4 armies!! don't know if my codex are up to date (especialy the chaos) but wouldn't mind a game soon ... work permitting! Dave
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Jul 16, 2008 9:42:46 GMT
I bought the new rules at the weekend, so I do intend to try and get back into this, but I've not even taken them out of the bag yet.
I've several armies.
Marines Iron Warriors - old codex Lost and the Dammed - even older codex Eldar Necrons Witch hunters Demon hunters
I'll give you a game sometime, John. Need to read the rules though, so not next Monday.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 16, 2008 10:06:47 GMT
I'm massively impressed by the new rules, but have only managed to get in two games with them 1x 500 and 1x 20,000 (extreme ends of the scale). Matt: Sounds good, I've played plenty of invisible Stealth suits before (Bases with no models on ) so painted black is a good start. You're really going to regret selling the Crimsons when the new SM are about, Stubborn in 40k and Elites that can hold objectives. "There is only the Emperor! He is our shield and our protector!" Mark / Dave: Will have to give you both a game at a mutually convienant later date then
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jul 16, 2008 16:12:32 GMT
Not really played 40k before but I'll try anything once - so if somebody can lend me an army for the evening I'll have a go
Been trying to decide what to buy next anyway (bored with painting fantasy elves)
|
|
|
Post by joeoe18 on Jul 16, 2008 17:20:41 GMT
I'm vaguely intending to get back into 40k, but it might be a while before I have the moneys to get everything together.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 16, 2008 19:31:51 GMT
I look forward to wheeling out my Tau. I reckon they should be much better with the new line of sight rules and marker lights can negate cover saves. Muhahahahaha.
Of course Tau are still shite in combat.
|
|
|
Post by dave3 on Jul 16, 2008 20:51:32 GMT
Maybe when we have had a few games and got the hang of them we could play at the GW shop, and drum up some recruits. We did have a chap come along a few weeks ago, but not seen him since. Probably due to no 40K in evidence, eaven with my assurance we do play it! Dave
|
|
|
Post by dave3 on Jul 16, 2008 20:53:13 GMT
?? dont know what happened there, should read " eaven with my assurance we do play it"??
|
|
|
Post by dave3 on Jul 16, 2008 20:53:52 GMT
did it again, I give up!
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 17, 2008 8:18:10 GMT
I look forward to wheeling out my Tau. I reckon they should be much better with the new line of sight rules and marker lights can negate cover saves. Muhahahahaha. Of course Tau are still nutse in combat. As long as you weren't planning a "fish of fury" list then I too think Tau should be a much more effective and dynamic army now. I'm just finding it annoying that GW are probably going to release a new Hellhound with the Guard next spring as I don't want to buy the current one but d**n 5th Ed makes it good.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Jul 17, 2008 10:10:27 GMT
I was at the GW Launch Day event at Warhammer world on Saturday, so I’ve played through a couple of games using the new rules.
Personally I’m not really sure they’re much of an improvement over the previous version of 40K.
Movement: The run rule is going to speed up the rate at which some armies can cross the battlefield. It’s no benefit to those armies that can fleet of foot, but very helpful to Orks and Marines in getting close to the enemy more quickly.
This might slightly increase the amount of close combat that takes place, as it will allow assault armies to close in on the enemy faster, thus having to suffer less casualties from shooting.
Shooting: The absolute LoS rule is ok, but has the consequence of meaning that it’s now very hard to actually hide any units where they can’t be shot. Area terrain doesn’t block line of sight now unless the physical terrain blocks it.
This means it’s nearly impossible to hide vehicles from the enemy, buildings are now about the only terrain that’s bulky enough to hide a tank behind, as most hill models tend to be reasonably shallow. Infantry are more difficult to hide now also, but at least gain some benefit from being behind either friendly or enemy models now.
The change to how you allocate hits now from shooting is interesting. I’m not sure if it’s a plus or a minus. I think it will slow down the shooting phase a little, as a unit has to finish all it’s shooting, from all weapons, then the other player must allocate out all his hits (remembering which ones came from which weapons if some of them won’t allow armour saves, or will inflict instant death), then only after doing that can you take your saves, but you’ll have to do it one model at a time.
I don’t especially like the fact that you can now loose heavy or special weapons when you’ve got extra guys left in a unit who could pick the weapon up and carry on using it. But as it’s going to affect both sides equally in most games so it’s not a huge problem.
In general blast weapons, including ordinance, have improved, especially for those armies with high BS, all blast templates scatter so there is no need to roll to hit, but you get to deduct the BS of the firer from the scatter roll. So everyone has effectively got more accurate with those kinds of weapons, most especially Marines and anyone else with BS 4. Couple this with the fact that there is no partial hits anymore, anything touched by the blast template is hit, and they’ve become a lot more powerful.
Also for purposes of cover the hit counts as coming from the direction of the hole in the centre of the blast template, so in a number of situations you won’t even get a cover save either.
Close Combat: I think on balance the close combat rules have been improved.
The switch to essentially using WFB’s combat resolution mechanism should mean that units break from close combat more readily.
The pile in move for the defenders is a bit more iffy, but at least prevents tiny units attacking big ones and being able to escape being attacked by the majority of the large squad.
The rule that you don’t get a bonus attack for having two close combat weapons if one of your weapons is a special weapon (power weapon, lightning claw, power fist, thunder hammer, etc) doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Some guy holding a bolt pistol and a chain sword can take full advantage of having two weapons suitable for close combat, but yet swinging a power sword around means you can’t use the pistol.
The only thing I really don’t like about the combat rules now is the fact that you can’t win a combat, or wipe an enemy out, and then use your D6 inch movement to contact another enemy unit. This somewhat favours shooty non combat based armies, such as Tau or Guard, as the enemy can only wipe out a single squad and then the rest of your army can attempt to shoot them to bits in the following turn.
Vehicles: A lot of vehicles have got somewhat worse under the new rules, although as some vehicles were rather too good in the previous edition, this is not all bad news.
The change to make defensive weapons strength 4 and under, means that most tanks are now much more relegated to the static fire platform role than they were under the old rules.
Ordinance packing vehicles are less affected by this as they don’t tend to fire other weapons much anyway, but Predators, Land Raiders, Hammerheads are all less flexible now than they were.
Skimmers are now easier to kill as the glancing only rule has gone. Although a skimmer that moves more then 12” does get a 4+ cover save, but this is more than compensated for by the fact that it can’t shoot if it does so. They don’t now crash when immobilised either, unless again they were moving more than 12”.
Non skimmer fast vehicles have slowed down slightly, with only a max movement of 18”. I think this only will affect Ork vehicles, as I can’t think of any other armies that have ground based fast vehicles.
I like the new damage chart, it’s more streamlined than the old multiple tables system, simpler but still does everything the old one did.
The vehicle squadron rules for damage however are a bit strange. Vehicle squadron’s count stunned results as shaken, but count immobilised results as destroyed, which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. They can also shoot through each other freely, just like infantry units can. Although this at least makes some sense, it’s simply a matter of assuming they take their shots while they’re moving so that they don’t block each others lines of sight.
Scenarios: The scenarios have been heavily pruned and simplified. None of them now work on victory points, so the VP table has disappeared from the rulebook. They’ve also separated the deployment zone rules from the scenario rules, so you determine the scenario independently from how you get to deploy.
Two of the scenarios work on objective markers. The first is basically secure and control from the old rulebook, but where only troops choices can control an objective, but any unit can contest them. The player with the most objective at the end of the game wins.
The second has a single objective in both deployment zones, again only troops can control an objective, but anyone can contest. As with the first game the player with the most objectives controlled wins.
The third game simply works on units completely wiped out, with the player that kills the most enemy units winning the game.
As I haven’t played any of these yet, as we were running our own themed game at Nottingham on Saturday, I’m reserving my judgement.
It feels strange to not have VP’s involved somehow. At first glance the first scenario sounds fine, and the second one may also work reasonably well, although with only two objectives and having them start in the deployment zones is probably going to mean it leads to more draws than the first.
The third scenario is going to heavy favour armies that have a small number of large units over those that have a larger number of small ones. Possibly so much so that certain kinds of armies that work best with lots of small mutually supporting units are really going to struggle.
Ok that turned into a much longer message than I'm intended.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 17, 2008 11:23:12 GMT
The rule that you don’t get a bonus attack for having two close combat weapons if one of your weapons is a special weapon (power weapon, lightning claw, power fist, thunder hammer, etc) doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Some guy holding a bolt pistol and a chain sword can take full advantage of having two weapons suitable for close combat, but yet swinging a power sword around means you can’t use the pistol. I'm pretty sure you've got this rule wrong, their are four specific pairings talked about in the rules. Two normal weapons grants +1 attack, 1 normal weapon and one special weapon grants +1 attack (with the exception of Power fist and Lightning Claw weapons), 2 of the same special weapon gives +1 attack and only if you have 2 special weapons of different types do you NOT get +1 attack. Given that practically no model will have a power fist and power weapon, but not have a CCW or pistol the last combination will practically never happen. I'm sorry if I am mistaken but I'm pretty sure that a Power Weapon and CCW still gives +1A. The only thing I really don’t like about the combat rules now is the fact that you can’t win a combat, or wipe an enemy out, and then use your D6 inch movement to contact another enemy unit. This somewhat favours shooty non combat based armies, such as Tau or Guard, as the enemy can only wipe out a single squad and then the rest of your army can attempt to shoot them to bits in the following turn. At the same time the use of objectives in most games means that Guard/Tau gunlines won't be sitting back shooting if they want to win the game. The third scenario is going to heavy favour armies that have a small number of large units over those that have a larger number of small ones. Possibly so much so that certain kinds of armies that work best with lots of small mutually supporting units are really going to struggle. The third scenario is an important one as it stops people building lists purely designed for holding objectives. As I see it: Scenario 1: Benefits armies with lots of units (as they could potentially be fighting over 5 objectives). Scenario 2: Number of units is less important as you only have to fight for two objectives. Scenario 3: Benefits armies with very few units (as each unit is worth 1 point). That to me is a brilliant decision, players are given the flexibility to produce armies with any range of units but will have to accept the costs & benefits of that choice. As one example, Nidzilla lists will certainly require some alteration as although they will still be good in Scenarios 1/3 they will have a much harder time in Scenario 2 unless they bring more grunts.
|
|