About the slaughter encounter

[Natty]

Oh, I also mentioned The Viks as being able to 1st activation grab the treasure counter. This one is easy:

Activate both Viks and the Student of Conflict using companion. Use the SoC to give one Vik fast. Activate the Vik that didn't get fast, walk forward and then push the second Vik 3 inches in front fo the first. Activate the second Vik that has fast, walk foward once, grab the token, then walk back once.

Second activation, activate Hamlin and obey your Vik to walk back again, then, if that still isn't far enough for you, irresistable dance and obey the Vik to walk AGAIN!

-------------

Nicodem is easy, Nurse and a reactivating vulture. Problem with that is the vulture getting killed between activating and reactivating.

-------------

Shamus uses belles and Sybelle to push and lure to the treasure token and back. There must be 50 ways to do it with belles.

-------------

So'mer uses Moquitos, Sooey, and reactiving warpigs to grab the token and bring it back first turn.

-------------

Lilith gets carried by a mature nephilim, has a tot run out right next to the token, activates Lilith and switches the tot with a model that hasn't activated yet, then that model picks up the token and runs it back.

-------------

Zoraida uses obey with a doppelganger copying obey to make a silurid get there, pick it up, and walk back.

(Has anyone ever obeyed an enemy model to make them hand off the Treasure token to your own guy? THAT would be classic.)

-------------

Basically the moral is that everyone is good at treasure hunt except the Guild and the Arcanists, but they are good at other stuff.

(On second thought, I bet Marcus could easily get the token and bring it back first turn with reactivating superfast beasts. I don't know, I've never played nor played against Marcus and don't have the book in front of me to look at his abilities).

[Wodschow]

You can't obey Viktorias - They're a Master.

And Lilith can do better than that, so can Zoraida.

Point though was that it's tough for some crews.

Ramos and Rasputina are for instance generally slow, Cerberus is probably your best bet with those two (or Steamborg), but even this one can't always pick up the treasure in its first activation - so if the enemy crew can pick it up and bring it all the way back to their own deployment in a single turn then well..

Sonnia, Lady J, Nicodem and Levi are also all at an immediate disadvantage compared to other crews due to their lack of speed.

[Ropetus]

Guild are a bit screwed in Treasure hunt as they only have Perdita and Peacekeeper for speedy options (the rest are all only average speed). However, they have a lot of guns, making it difficult for their opponent to hang around in the middle with their Treasure. Sonnia can toss a Flame Wall on top of the Treasure, which means a model picking the treasure up will suffer 6 Wd (3 for moving there, 3 for the Action to pick it up, and possible 3 more for moving out of there) and make sure the Treasure doesn't get stolen early.

Arcanists have the Cerberus for a speedy Treasure snatcher, although I don't think it's possible on first turn. The Steamborg is also quite fast with Knock Aside to hunt down the Treasure, not to mention December Acolytes who can start in the opponent's half of the table and hamper their tactics.

Marcus is great for this scenario. He can hire Silurids so the same applies as with Zoraida (minus Obey). He can use Wild Heart (Hare + Serpent + something) + Blinding Strike (Charge a friendly model) + Walk + Interact for 16" of movement and pick the Treasure up. Next turn Wild Heart (Hare + anything) to move away 16" or move 8" and hand off the Treasure. Sadly he cannot Reactivate his own Beasts since Alpha only works on enemy models but it's one of the best ways to get the Treasure back if your opponent manages to steal it (Here boy! Fetch the shiny treasure to papa!).

All Factions and Masters can compete in this Strategy with proper Crew selection. The same does not apply for Slaughter if your opponent plays 'point denial' (which they will if they're sensible). The best bet when you get Slaughter is often get your Crew where their objectives are (the middle in case of Claim Jump or Treasure) and deny them their points or force them to confront your Crew. It is still almost impossible if they have Reconnoiter since then they can just play the 'run away and avoid fights' or 'play like a weasel' (I'm really starting to like this phrase!) and have a great shot at scoring at least 2-0 from Strategies.

-Ropetus

[Natty]

You can't obey Viktorias - They're a Master.

Oh yeah, good point. Need to learn to think before I type.

------------------------

Anyway, the first turn treasure grabbing ideas were all just ways to point out how basically everyone can compete with Treasure Hunt and how Slaughter is so much worse of a strategy to get.

[Placidemu]

I think the only time where slaughter is at a disadvantage is when it's vrs. Reconnoiter and that's only because reconnoiter involves having units spread across the board which can be difficult to deal with. But the rest of the strategies (Minus Assassinate) you already know where the other crew will be (Claim jump = Middle, Treasure Hunt = Their Deployment Zone etc. etc.) and that makes it incredibly easy to take them out.

[Anatoli]

I'm with Natty on this, I like the game but why defend something that is obviously broken as the Slaughter scenario?

I still think picking a crew AFTER deciding scenario is odd, since then you don't bring an all around force but instead focus your entire army build against one single objective. So far me and my friend have built a force before encounters are chosen and it has worked without problem every time. Well except in Slaughter where I guess I would just pick a master and only Canine Remains if that is the logic of maxing build vs encounter. I think we are going to keep playing like we have until now. There is nothing “unique” about choosing an army after you know what to do imo.

I like when the scenario flipped for both players require them to engage in the middle, like assassinate vs treasure hunt. Why would anyone play "badly" on purpose and pretend like it's normal to cover for a poorly balanced scenario like Slaughter?

I mean we have nothing to win on pretending or defending it, while we will get a more enjoyable game if it is tweaked and balanced. You need extreme luck to actually manage to kill e very model in the enemy gang. Even if you reach them it may not be enough to actually kill them to the last wound. It is way to easy for the opponent to defend himself in such a way that you will score 0.

As someone wrote this feels more like a typical GW scenario, "go kill them" deal.

How about we brainstorm a good house rule solution for this until/if it gets a proper errata?

[deadboy]

I still think picking a crew AFTER deciding scenario is odd, since then you don't bring an all around force but instead focus your entire army build against one single objective.

But isn't that what a crew/gang would do? If your objective is to dig up a body then you bring the guy with the shovel. This isn't a game where an army marches to the field and has to take what it finds. It's a small band that is going out with a particular objective. As for the game it happens that they meet another band that has objectives that conflict with theirs. Fight then win/lose.

Just my 2¢

[Natty]

How about we brainstorm a good house rule solution for this until/if it gets a proper errata?

As I said earlier, I think to make it balanced you just need to not include killing the Master. That is for assassinate strategy anyway. Slaughter should be 4 points if there are no significant minions left and 2 points if they have only one significant minion left.

That or you could make it exactly like assassinate except with minions instead of masters: 4 points if they have no significant minions, 2 points if no one has any significant minions.

[Anatoli]

@Natty, your suggestion sounds good. Will try it next time I play Slaughter.

[gunpowder saint]

here's another amazing point. In light of recent events I conducted a brainstorm.

you flip slaughter

the crew to hire.

Lilith-Master

Teddy x1

Bad Juju x1

Mature Nephilim x1

and add youngins as the scale gets bigger. you don't need to worry about claiming objectives or anything like that so take the BIGGEST and HEAVIEST guns you can field, hell throw Killjoy and a Desolate Engine in there as well if you don't want Teddy or something like that. Don't be afraid to go completely Bananas! That's my theory... haven't tried it though lol

[icemantis99]

The issue is, that only works for Lilith. I mean, I could just follow the "big guns" theory for other masters, but it doesn't work so hot. Rasputina, for slaughter, I use lots of gamin/fast stuff I can ice mirror around corners with, and use high cards and soulstones to nuke. I put a Cerberus in just so I can leap over to stuff that's running away.

[gunpowder saint]

The issue is, that only works for Lilith. I mean, I could just follow the "big guns" theory for other masters, but it doesn't work so hot. Rasputina, for slaughter, I use lots of gamin/fast stuff I can ice mirror around corners with, and use high cards and soulstones to nuke. I put a Cerberus in just so I can leap over to stuff that's running away.

I may be Metta Gaming, and normally I'm very much against that, but when it comes to slaughter you don't need synergy, you just need to make sure no one is left :\ I definetly agree though they should errata it like they did with reconitier. since having 4 'corners' in a game where you spreading yourself thin is a mark of death, to 4 quarters.

Schemes help though, call out Hold Out, and call out an Eye for an Eye. That first off almost garentees 2 VP for hold out, since they know your going to slaughter them, and an eye for an Eye will help out if they fight back to heavily.

I can see the 'balance' in the game it's just needs a ever so slight tweek ya know?

[Justin]

I believe this is what is called being a cheesy player. It's not the games fault you played like a weasel, it's yours. Don't play like a weasel and play to have fun (shocking I know, the game is about having fun) and give your opponent a good game.

It's as simple as that. You can be the jerk of the store and play like a cheesy little weasel, or you can face them and give them a good game. I know personally, I'd never want to play against someone who played like that. I'd probably leave half way through because you wont play the game. To focused on just winning.

I may being a bit harsh, but I hate when people play like this. Its not a fun style of play to go against and it's the kind of thing that isolates the person doing it. Yes it is a valid strategy to play like this, but its not a good thing to do. Im not going to bother trying to poke holes in it, there isn't much point in that.

The point I'm trying to get across is, if you want to play so that winning is all you care about, you will find there are a lot of really mean and cheesy things you can do. But most people don't sink to that low level. Most people want to have fun and enjoy themselves and the rules are written for people like that. They can't cover ever cheesy little weasel move people can think up, it just doesn't happen no system is that tight. They just have to do the best they can and provide a fun experience for as many as possible while adhering to their own goals.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, here.

Shocker, I know.

But there is a level of enjoyment in the game that can be attained by trying your best to win. There is fun that can be had in pitching your best strategy against that of your opponent and seeing who comes out on top.

And when your best game play makes it so you have a guaranteed win, not because you're a brilliant tactition but because of the strategy you flipped, then that IS the fault of the game. Not of the player.

So the player has two options:

1) Use no strategy and play a mindless game

2) Put a minimal amount of thought in, win, and look like a dick

Neither of those is optimal, there is a design problem there. Don't blame this guy.

[Justin]

Ok, so the next time my opponent draws Slaughter for their Strategy I should toss all my Crew on their face and not "play like a weasel". Check!

Oh wait, that makes absolutely no sense...

You're seeing the problem in the players, I see it in the Strategy: if the objective encourages hiding your crew and "playing like a weasel" to win something is wrong with the scenario. You can't blame players for acting in the most effective way they can.

This is the exact reason I don't like Slaughter. It's very tough to accomplish unless your opponent cooperates and doesn't actively deny your chances to kill their crew. Scenarios that force both Crews to take an active role lead to much more interesting games, Slaughter does not meet this criterion.

It is also one of the reasons I left GW a long time ago: since all games were about killing the opposing army, the most important aspect turned out to be 'point denial': you concentrate only on making sure your opponent gets no significant VP by only throwing a few cheap units in the harm's way and concentrate your points in extremely tough unkillable units which you hide somewhere. When the objectives of the game are not tied to killing your enemies, the game turns much more active as you can't deny your opponent all points by hiding your whole army.

-Ropetus

You haven't played fifth, have you?

Kill points went a long way to fixing this, and the other two basic missions are objective based.

[icemantis99]

My opinion, is that, like always, it all depends on who you play with.

I'm sorry to the people who think that "cheese" is a wrong way to play. The truth is, there is no "wrong" method of play, except for having a lack of satisfaction. If I'm playing in a tournament, in any game, I'm going to give my all and hold nothing back, and expect my opponent to do the same. I'm not ecouraging breaking the code of conduct- nobody like a dickhead, but there are no "wrong" tactics or strategies, in a game that I'm trying to win.

Now, on the other hand, if I'm just playing for fun, absolutley I have the right to declare certain tactics or methods "off limits", if I find that it reduces the fun I have. Nad my opponent is then free to play with someone else if he doesn't like my requirements.

To both sides, I really recommend reading "Playing to Win", it's a very in-depth and fairly impartial look at teh definition and habits of a "scrub" or "noob".

ANd yes, I play at both levels. At home or with friends, in games that don't matter, I'll screw around, I'll use weird strategies and go for big style over the victory anytime. At a tournament or something, I'm a completely different player. I'm polite, I'm friendly, I'm still me, but I play to win. I don't offer advice to my opponent until after the match, I don't give him any advantage unless I have to. I'll use any "cheap" tactic or strategy to win; after all, any tactic has a weakness, and if he's playing to win, he'll use whatever he can to win as well.

What's the point of playing to win halfway? Give it your all if you want to win, if not, relax and don't worry about it. Both points have their advantages and disadvantages.

[icemantis99]

here's another amazing point. In light of recent events I conducted a brainstorm.

you flip slaughter

the crew to hire.

Lilith-Master

Teddy x1

Bad Juju x1

Mature Nephilim x1

and add youngins as the scale gets bigger. you don't need to worry about claiming objectives or anything like that so take the BIGGEST and HEAVIEST guns you can field, hell throw Killjoy and a Desolate Engine in there as well if you don't want Teddy or something like that. Don't be afraid to go completely Bananas! That's my theory... haven't tried it though lol

Also, wait, how'd you hire a Desolation Engine?

[enderwiggin]

You haven't played fifth, have you?

Kill points went a long way to fixing this, and the other two basic missions are objective based.

Fifth returned Warhammer to stupider times. The game now pushes even more for annihilation of the enemy, KP's haven't changed that either. The KP system is systematically broken and many Fifth edition armies have massive advantages over non-5th edition forces.

KP's turns situations like singular models left over from a 30 man unit capable of denying a KP, when VP's before at least netted half the units cost. KP turned my 70 pt throw-away unit into the equivalent of a 450 pt unit (or worse).

5th edition and the faults of the changes brought about by it are one of the largest reasons why I've largely been playing Malifaux instead of 40k. Even if the Slaughter encounter may not be balanced in some players eyes, I'd rather take the better chances for a game of Malifaux with schemes to help kick in or actual scenarios.

I'm not fond of 5th editions standard set of games where you can just win them all by killing everything, making a very standard objective taking game (I have more than you sort), or using a broken KP system to determine the winner. Unless customizing (or ties, in which case VP's can be used for a "moral" victory), that is literally the only three ways to win in standard 40k.

[Justin]

Fifth returned Warhammer to stupider times. The game now pushes even more for annihilation of the enemy, KP's haven't changed that either. The KP system is systematically broken and many Fifth edition armies have massive advantages over non-5th edition forces.

KP's turns situations like singular models left over from a 30 man unit capable of denying a KP, when VP's before at least netted half the units cost. KP turned my 70 pt throw-away unit into the equivalent of a 450 pt unit (or worse).

5th edition and the faults of the changes brought about by it are one of the largest reasons why I've largely been playing Malifaux instead of 40k. Even if the Slaughter encounter may not be balanced in some players eyes, I'd rather take the better chances for a game of Malifaux with schemes to help kick in or actual scenarios.

I'm not fond of 5th editions standard set of games where you can just win them all by killing everything, making a very standard objective taking game (I have more than you sort), or using a broken KP system to determine the winner. Unless customizing (or ties, in which case VP's can be used for a "moral" victory), that is literally the only three ways to win in standard 40k.

I'm sorry, VPs were just lame.

They encouraged min/maxing.

Also, if you look at the three missions as a whole tournament set that was meant to be played together with a single list, it's very well done.

Kill points discourages taking lots of cheap throw away units, while sieze ground encourages lots of units to grab objectives, striking a nice balance.

No offense meant to you, but the argument you are making is what I usually hear from people who read the "newer" rules (newer in quotation marks because they aren't all that new any more), MAYBE played a game or two, and then threw their hands up without much thought or attempt to understand them. Not saying you did that but, if you haven't really given them a try, I would suggest it.

Also, you're right, newer fifth edition codices --usually-- have an advantage over older ones. But that is not the fault of the new version of the rules, it's the fault of gamesworkshop's silly style of keeping older versions of codices around to stagnate. They really just need to overhaul all of them. The switch from third to forth had the same problem.

[icemantis99]

Biiiiiiiiiit off topic now.

[Justin]

Biiiiiiiiiit off topic now.

Dude, this thread shouldn't even be in this forum. And the scenario it is discussing might potentially be errata-ed or changed or totally deleted in two weeks with the new book. (who knows?)

So long as there's something to discuss, I say discuss it.

[enderwiggin]

I agree that we might as well discuss whatever may come.

I'm sorry, VPs were just lame.

They encouraged min/maxing.

Also, if you look at the three missions as a whole tournament set that was meant to be played together with a single list, it's very well done.

Kill points discourages taking lots of cheap throw away units, while sieze ground encourages lots of units to grab objectives, striking a nice balance.

No offense meant to you, but the argument you are making is what I usually hear from people who read the "newer" rules (newer in quotation marks because they aren't all that new any more), MAYBE played a game or two, and then threw their hands up without much thought or attempt to understand them. Not saying you did that but, if you haven't really given them a try, I would suggest it.

Also, you're right, newer fifth edition codices --usually-- have an advantage over older ones. But that is not the fault of the new version of the rules, it's the fault of gamesworkshop's silly style of keeping older versions of codices around to stagnate. They really just need to overhaul all of them. The switch from third to forth had the same problem.

I'm assuming you meant SM's since nearly every other codex I've seen abuse min/maxed choices still does/can do so.

I would actually argue that codex design made min/maxing more of an issue.

Furthermore, in VP conditions a min/maxed squad was not an issue. Minute squads made torrent of fire easy to get off, forced LD checks easily, and gave half the VP's of the unit with but a few losses. Many tournament players (in the US anyway) did not use minimized squads past the Las/Plas spam, which was not that common (or high ranking) in the end.

With bennies being handed out for fuller squads, I felt it was one of the few steps in the right direction.

As for KP games, it might have worked had all armies been created equally, but too many of them can function in ways that KP was not meant to handle. Having to wipe out every single model in a unit is likewise just lazy/poor game design.

You're really telling me that if you outmaneuver/play another player and absolutely rip them to shreds that you'd feel the game is fair if, in the end, you have an all but untouched force to a decimated one? One example (that is not uncommon in 40k) is the vehicles that are sitting bricks. Immobile, stripped of guns, yet still you get nothing for reducing them to this state.

Not to sound especially confrontational, but you couldn't be more incorrect with your initial assessment of me or my playing experience. Not that you would have known (I never mentioned it on this site before that I can recall), but I have plenty of games under my belt for Fifth, including many RT and tournament games (actually, tourney play is my preferred setting). No, I won't quote any hard numbers, no need to display some e-peen imo since we both don't know each other. Suffice to say that I've been playing since mid 3rd edition and tournaments are my favorite playgrounds. Truth be told, you sound just like the direct opposite of the spectrum, which isn't a rare thing, but so far that side has not made convincing headway when Tournament results are the barometer changes are indicated by.

(I use tournaments as this because they have long been held as the most "dirty" of the list/tactics of 40k. When money or prizes are on the line, I am fully convinced that a higher class of skill comes to play than normally shown in casuals.)

As for the codex flaws... Again, I'd disagree. I point to the 3rd->4th editions design notes where they outline many issues that they had problems with in 3rd. It just so happens that many of those issues were directly brought back for 5th, even though they professed such disdain for them earlier.

Also, many of the changes in 5th edition advocate CC over ranged combat even more than in the past. This was purposefully done to help combat the vehicle heavy lists of fourth as well as a way to sell more models. Financially, GW were in dire straights at the time the 5th edition book was being tested/made. With strong returns from Orks and Apocalypse, they followed the strong trend towards "herohammer" and started making marketing numbers clear selling points of the various armies.

I won't claim familiarity with every 3rd edition codex during the change to fourth, but I did not see very many codices left behind in the power curve. When compared to 5th's changes and exacerbated by the general power creep that is happening atm I can maybe name two codices that were less powerful in 4th than they were in 3rd.

It's funny though that 4th edition had almost every codex represented in tournaments to some degree and that current tournaments show trends of many armies not even placing in the top tier brackets.

Witch Hunters, Necrons, Tau, True INQ (not those splashed in IG lists), Dark Angels, DE, and BT's all were at least placing in tournaments in fourth. With Fifth though, even when SM's were the only 5th ed codex (not counting Orks, though they were designed with 5th in mind) those numbers took staggering hits. CSM, SM, Daemons, and Eldar armies were swamping the tournament scene.

Now? You'll be very lucky to find many of those armies in the top 50 or 75, extremely lucky if many of them place more than once too.

Stupid long post, I know, but I'm almost finished.

Necrons lost much of their power due to cost, changes to combat, and changes to vehicle damage charts. Sadly, these blokes were some of the hardest hit.

WH/DH are largely overcosted at this point. Leafblowers like to combo a small Inquisitor and retinue though. Some peopel enjoy the assassin combos allowable with them, I haven't seen the combos at higher levels of play though.

DA suffer from general oldness. With old prices and few options, this is not too bad a case but is evident of how an edition can jump around poorly

Dark Eldar. Not ever especially popular, but people definitely dug them out and placed highly in fourth edition. Now, sadly, skimmer cuddles have made this glass cannon even more fragile and unpopular. Doesn't place as often or as high as it did before, but with strong rumors of them (I know, we've had two years of rumors on them...) they might actually get their due.

BT's are not too bad off really. They are certainly not the lowest or the highest, I still see them place moderately in tourneys in very small numbers.

Tau were severely cuddled in transports, KP's, and combat resolution (even more than normal). With now points-ineffective units and the limits of old, this once top tier army has fallen to the bottom of the barrel.

Disclaimer: The above assessments are merely what I've seen firsthand in the United States, or read about for the UK, Australia, and Ireland (friends in those places make me care about placements). Even allowing for some of the peculiarities of the respective places tourney playing styles (and geez can they be different) most of those results support my opinion.

*Extra disclaimer: If you happen to be a casual player and not a tournament junkie like I am (again, we don't know each other), you'll likely put less stock into the tournament results. I won't say that view is wrong or attack it, but I will point out that the respective views/playing styles do not see eye-to-eye on a few matters, this being one of them in my personal experience.

[Justin]

I did not mean to get personal. (and you took it well) But I was merely basing my assumption about how much you had played fifth on how people I know in real life reacted to the change from fourth to fifth, and suggesting it was well worth a try. I'm glad we're both familiar with it.

As for my experience, I am more of a casual gamer by nature. It is simply more fun for me that way. But I tend to get...very familiar with any rules system I bother playing with, so I have actually been running tournaments since third edition. So, while I prefer casual gaming, I am very familiar with the tournament scene and what does well there. (I actually quit running tournaments about two months ago...freedom! My hobbies have been obligations for too many years, it's why I'll never be a henchman for Malifaux)

Anyway, I'll definitely grant you that the codices need a serious over haul. No question there, a lot of armies did get screwed in the switch from fourth to fifth. However, what I'm saying is, as an actual game system, I feel fifth has less loopholes, makes more sense, and is generally more fun and has better potential than either third or fourth. Why GW hasn't really taken advantage of this by updating the codices you mention, I could not tell you. However, fifth has the added disadvantage over fourth and third of simply having more dead weight to deal with. In the switch from second to third, none of the older codices could be translated, so ALL the codices were written specifically for third. In fourth, you had codices hanging around from third, and newer ones from fourth. Now, in fifth, you have third edition codices, fourth edition codices, and fifth all in one melting pot. There are rules sets floating around almost a decade out of date and two editions behind. This is insanely poor policy and planning. However, it in no way reflects on how well the rules for fifth edition itself were written. (well being a relative term in that they were much cleaner than third or forth) So, I don't think fifth should have been written to compensate for out of date codices (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is what you seem to think should have been done) I think those out of date codices should have been updated to meet current standards, whether through errata or reprint. This, I think is, the heart of the argument, as we both agree something different should have been done, the only question is, what. And while this problem definitely detracts from the system, I still find the game more enjoyable than fourth, simply because of the core rules.

As far as the tournament scene goes having more of the same army lists over and over, I agree and disagree. I actually saw a lot of that in third. (wraithlord spam, razorback spam before the white dwarf vehicle update) Although army clones are more common now-a-days, I would actually blame this on the internet. Yes, I know the internet existed in the year 2000, but it is much more prevalent now, especially in terms of gaming forums such as this one. This phenomenon, like the infamous net decks of magic, have more to do with the ease of plucking a list off the internet than the actual gaming systems themselves. I mean, you used the term "leaf blower list" and I knew EXACTLY what you were talking about. I know that isn't coincidence. We're both reading the same forums, forums which have become much, much more prevalent in the past few years. And, more importantly, people have gotten much more comfortable with simply copy and pasting army lists. It's less taboo now. Or bringing meta lists against armies they expect to be copy and pasted.

Also, I'm not entirely sure what you meant by the vehicle heavy lists of fourth. I find vehicle heavy lists more prevalent both now and in third than in fourth. In fifth, vehicles are simply harder to destroy (since you need a 5 or 6) and they're generally cheaper. In third you could charge out of them. In fourth, the table was deadly, you couldn't charge from them, the entanglement rules were, well, lame and annoying, and they were more expensive. So, in summation, I think I'm missing the point here.

As far as being more CC heavy, it is more so than fourth, but significantly less so than third, so in my opinion it's a happy balance between the two. Also, on that point, it's worth noting that guard are one of the most ranked tournament armies, and tyranids are very low considering they were recently updated. And, we know which ends of the shooting/CC spectrum they represent.

Oh, and while I agree with you whole heartedly about most of the nerfed armies you mention, I actually find dark eldar rather effective and more difficult to destroy in fifth than they were in third or fourth. Look at the raider spam (let's face it, that's what you do with dark eldar). The raider is harder to kill in fifth. Sure, in third and fourth you could only be glanced when you moved, but a glancing hit would destroy you 50% of the time. (a role of 6, 5 because of open topped, and three because of open topped and because skimmers were destroyed on immobilized) Now they are destroyed on a 4+. Exact same odds, only now you don't need to move to get it so getting first turn isn't always the single deciding factor of the dark eldar game. Also now they get 4+ cover when they move 24".

As to your point about potentially disabling a vehicle and not getting any points, that is true. But you also run the chance of getting hit with a single shot and giving up a kill point. It's the probability that matters, in my opinion, and all those gunnless immobile predators that are giving up no VPs are balanced by all those taken down with the first shot of the game. So, while story wise it may seem ridiculous, I am more a fan of how balanced the actual mechanics are. Since I'm on vehicles and kill points, another thing I hated about VPs was essentially paying for my units twice. So, say I take a 250 point land raider, that's a big investment. There's a lot of stuff I'm not taking so I can have it. Now, it gets taken out by a single las cannon shot, and gives my opponent 250 VPs. So, not only is it costly, it's a huge liability. I feel kill points really helped free up a lot of those more expensive units and make them more fun.

So, yeah, while I am more of a casual gamer and generally judge things by how fun they are and how tactical they are, I am aware of tournament dynamics, and I know they are important.

I probably missed some of your points, but it was a long post and I think quoting either of us would be...a bad idea.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Justin

[enderwiggin]

However, it in no way reflects on how well the rules for fifth edition itself were written. (well being a relative term in that they were much cleaner than third or forth) So, I don't think fifth should have been written to compensate for out of date codices (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is what you seem to think should have been done) I think those out of date codices should have been updated to meet current standards, whether through errata or reprint.

I'm a post quoter, sorry if it's disconcerting, but it's an old habit.

Anyway, my argument against 5th being better than fourth is that the system was choosing to return to a prior example that was complained about many years ago.

I agree that codices should always be up-to-date, but GW works in ridiculous ways. Take note that GW knows that fans are unhappy, they closed down their own forums because people were questioning and criticizing. Many prominent members of the devlopment team also have left and Jervis Johnson has assumed a very strong position that (personal opinion incoming) I feel he has in no way earned. Letting an intern like Cruddace overhaul two of the more popular codices (that weren't having 5th edition problems to the degree of some of the others) was also a stupid move.

As far as the tournament scene goes having more of the same army lists over and over, I agree and disagree. I actually saw a lot of that in third. (wraithlord spam, razorback spam before the white dwarf vehicle update) Although army clones are more common now-a-days, I would actually blame this on the internet. Yes, I know the internet existed in the year 2000, but it is much more prevalent now, especially in terms of gaming forums such as this one. This phenomenon, like the infamous net decks of magic, have more to do with the ease of plucking a list off the internet than the actual gaming systems themselves. I mean, you used the term "leaf blower list" and I knew EXACTLY what you were talking about. I know that isn't coincidence. We're both reading the same forums, forums which have become much, much more prevalent in the past few years. And, more importantly, people have gotten much more comfortable with simply copy and pasting army lists. It's less taboo now. Or bringing meta lists against armies they expect to be copy and pasted.

Lol, I completely forgot that some people might not know what "leafblower" would have meant. Sadly, even fewwer people would know that it doesn't even deserve that name. After all, it's merely patterned after a SIGAFH list, swapping template count for shot count. (Shooty Imperial Guard Army from Hell, for the curious).

You'll find me in complete agreement about Netdeck/list building. I won't say that the internet has not influenced my list building over the years, but I most certainly do play the metagame against basic players in tournaments. A habit from my old Magic the Gathering days XD)

Also, I'm not entirely sure what you meant by the vehicle heavy lists of fourth. I find vehicle heavy lists more prevalent both now and in third than in fourth. In fifth, vehicles are simply harder to destroy (since you need a 5 or 6) and they're generally cheaper. In third you could charge out of them. In fourth, the table was deadly, you couldn't charge from them, the entanglement rules were, well, lame and annoying, and they were more expensive. So, in summation, I think I'm missing the point here.

Skimmers and vehicles have actually gotten much weaker in my experience. Aside from the defensive weapons cuddle that hurt a number of common units, the main push towards more ground-pounders is evident in the designs.

Think about a few key differences.

1) Vehicles can never take objectives now (core change to troops being the only scoring unit), yes, I know you can contest, but is truly not the same capability they had in earlier editions.

2) Everyone is faster now. Almost universally the run and outflank rules have brought combat to vehicles much quicker than ever.

3) Vehicles being hit on rear armor in CC. I hate this change with a passion. The game turned a deadly dance of positioning into a no-brainer for every CC force.

4) Vehicle Squadrons. I, for one, don't enjoy the fact that attacks on one vehicle can/are evenly spread around the group as a whole. Add to this the penalty for being in a group if you are immobilized and it's harsh (more on this later).

5) (This is a composite issue) Vehicles being forced to move slower to fire with the effectiveness they once did reduces the penalty for CC'ers to hit them. Moving full speed (for many) results in your firepower being severely limited.

I'm sure I could go dig up more, but these are the big sticklers that I can think of.

As far as being more CC heavy, it is more so than fourth, but significantly less so than third, so in my opinion it's a happy balance between the two. Also, on that point, it's worth noting that guard are one of the most ranked tournament armies, and tyranids are very low considering they were recently updated. And, we know which ends of the shooting/CC spectrum they represent.

I would argue that first point really. There were some very deadly 3rd edition CC armies that just aren't around any more for 4th. Tyranids now, are still showing strong numbers of participants compared to most of the armies I mentioned. This is, in part, due to the recent codex, but also capabilities.

The raider is harder to kill in fifth. Sure, in third and fourth you could only be glanced when you moved, but a glancing hit would destroy you 50% of the time. (a role of 6, 5 because of open topped, and three because of open topped and because skimmers were destroyed on immobilized) Now they are destroyed on a 4+. Exact same odds, only now you don't need to move to get it so getting first turn isn't always the single deciding factor of the dark eldar game. Also now they get 4+ cover when they move 24".

I disagree, simply put. Last time I checked, the only skimmer I know that is statistically close to it's old survivability is/are the Eldar ones. They always were pains in the ass though...

Anyway, going back to fourth, you'll notice that the "glancing only" was a much bigger buff than many first realize. Aside from what defensive gear a group might have equipped, you had to move much further in the new edition for your defensive benefits.

Oh, but before I forget though, modifiers are the real killer here. Open topped is automatically +1, now that you can be penetrated, the threat of this is higher as well. As you noted, AP1/Melta is also getting very annoyingly common in the game. In this case a Melta gun (very common mind you) automatically starts out with a +2 on whatever damage chart it ends up going on. At least half the time, when used properly, you'll actually be penetrating the skimmer which leads to even larger chances at critical damage.

Back in fourth? It didn't matter how close that Melta was, you had just that 50/50 (if you moved over 6"). Now it might be 50/50 for a glance, but the chance at getting penetrated is extremely high now. (Especially when you thrown in CC to the mix, you'll have near automatic penetrations with most power fist users)

Another portion of this is how survivable exploded vehicles are now for infantry. The chunks can barely hurt a squad of embarked guardsmen, much less how lethal it used to be (again a point for Infantry).

As to your point about potentially disabling a vehicle and not getting any points, that is true. But you also run the chance of getting hit with a single shot and giving up a kill point. It's the probability that matters, in my opinion, and all those gunnless immobile predators that are giving up no VPs are balanced by all those taken down with the first shot of the game. So, while story wise it may seem ridiculous, I am more a fan of how balanced the actual mechanics are.

I'm not seeing the balance you're taking for granted here... It's completely alien to me to think that a (for all intents of the game) rendered useless hunk of metal is somehow not an achievement for the player that did so. If he killed it before, it was full VP's, in a crippled state it was half. Now it's literally all-or-nothing. This is a game design that is completely flawed because it equates the worthless to a fully functional unit (or in the case of infantry under serious losses a full strength unit).

Now, some armies might feasible pull this off (I would rate SM's mainly) but it'd have to be a special rule.

Since I'm on vehicles and kill points, another thing I hated about VPs was essentially paying for my units twice. So, say I take a 250 point land raider, that's a big investment. There's a lot of stuff I'm not taking so I can have it.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this tbh. You still pay the 250 pts now as if you did then. For an opponent the benefit from destroying said piece of machinery hasn't changed either that I can see.

I probably missed some of your points, but it was a long post and I think quoting either of us would be...a bad idea.

*Shrugs* I'm not dismissing your points, nor am I taking it personal. I don't mind you quoting me if you feel like it. XD

[Natty]

I think this post has gone farther off topic than any other post I've seen on this forums. It has even switched game systems.

Epic topic switch.

[Anatoli]

I don't see the relevance of the crap game I stopped playing 3 years ago when I discovered games beyond GW. Is this a deliberate act to lock the thread or what?

No one cares about WH40k/WHFB on this forum, or at least in this thread and none of it helps resolve the Enounter balance question. Come on....