40k fifth edition?

[blade_runner]

The updated edition of 40k isn't exactly new news, but I've been rather confused about GW's approach with the most recent edition. I got the 3rd edition rules many moons ago, and just recently bought 4th edition. Now that 5th edition is coming out, I'm wondering if I should switch again.

I wasn't around for the 2nd-3rd edition switch, but lots of people are complaining about how the new rules system is too simple and it's getting dumbed down even more. I wouldn't know, but I quite liked 4th edition and thought it was an improvement over 3rd. The problem is that when it comes to 5th edition I've read some things about forced unit sizes and standardized battle types. It frankly scares the heck out of me. What I enjoy most about Warhammer is the ability to make up your own thing and be creative (in fact, I'm looking for a good set of vehicle creation rules right now).

What I'm wondering is if Warhammer is getting to the point where it's less of a hobby and more of a board game. I personally prefer the former, but it looks like GW is going in a completely different direction. What do you all think on the matter?

[Wraith]

I remember both 2nd Edition and the introduction of 3rd Edition quite vividly.

I agree that 40k is being made much simpler, but I also believe that this is a GOOD thing. I lost count of the hours I lost playing 2nd compared to how much smoother and more effortless the same games were in the update.

So far I think 4th Edition is for the better - some unnecessary bits have been pruned and some good bits have been reinforced, whereas some great bits have been brought back to much applause from me.

I understand why a lot of Players might not like it, but then nostalgia and familiarity will do that. No one likes having $1000 worth of models only to be told "You can't use those, those, those and those like that any more!", but I think that's just petty when the hobby is getting a much needed jump-start to prevent stagnation.

[Bryn]

Well, I completely disagree on that front (to clarify: I do not think it has been dumbed down).

Fifth edition has been out for a while now, long enough for them to release the first codex (Marines, of course :smallamused:). The rules are not dumbed down from 4th Ed at all - in essence, they are the same ruleset, with a few changes.

Things that have changed:
Vehicles:
On vehicles, glancing hits and penetrating hits now roll on the same table, with glancing hits taking a penalty on the roll. The result of this is that glancing hits can no longer destroy a vehicle, unless they are from an AP1 weapon, or the target vehicle is open-topped.

The movement of vehicles has been tweaked. Fast vehicles are now slower unless they drive on a road.

Vehicles now receive cover saves, like infantry, instead of the 4+ to downgrade to glancing hull down effect.

In close combat, strikes are resolved on the rear armour against non-walkers.

Vehicles can now ram into each other. I won't copy out the rules as they are fairly long, but basically you can inflict a strong hit on an enemy vehicle by driving your own vehicle into it, though your vehicle also takes a hit.

Defensive weapons can be fired more often now. However, only S4 or less weapons are defensive, so heavy bolters aren't any more.

Morale:
Morale check modifiers in close combat have been somewhat simplified, though they remain similar.

Blast weapons:
All the templates hit all the models under them, even those partially covered, just like flamers used to.

All blast weapons scatter 2d6"-ballistic skill instead of rolling to hit.

Line of sight:
True line of sight is now heavily emphasised over area terrain.

Consolidation moves:
After winning a combat, you can no longer consolidate straight into close combat with somebody else.

Buildings:
Ruins and buildings now have rules in the main book rather than Cityfight/Cities of Death. Intact buildings function rather like vehicles.

Weapons:
The attacks you get with a mixture of weapons is now explained clearly. Power fists and thunder hammers now require that you have two of them to get an extra power fist attack, in the same way that lightning claws do in 4th.

Allocating wounds:
One wound must be allocated to each model before a second one can be put on the model.


The biggest changes are probably the blast marker changes and the modified vehicle rules, and also that consolidation can't take you into close combat.

In terms of what has been simplified (le horreur!): about the only thing is that, when rolling to wound a unit, you use the majority toughness. It might even have been that way in 4th anyway, I can't remember. Otherwise, 5th edition is pretty much exactly the same as 4th.

One change that gets a lot of flak is that skimmers are apparently easier to kill in this version of the game, making mechanised Eldar less effective. Though this is partly true, the new cover saves mean Eldar tanks are still reasonably survivable when they move quickly.

The rules are laid out clearly and plainly, with bullet points and tables where appropriate. This is good - it's straightforward to read and understand. It does not mean there is less complexity in the rules themselves.

The background section has been enlarged, with much more about each race than before. The book also looks rather good.

In short: ignore the more rabid grognards. It is no simpler than 4th edition. While people might say that Rogue Trader (1st) or second edition were better and more complicated, it has not been dumbed down in the transition from 4th to 5th.

In terms of fixed unit sizes: Currently the only 5th Ed codex we have to comment on is the new Space Marine codex, which allows units of any size but only allows heavy weapons in a full squad. Under 4th ed, I believe the Dark Angels codex has some restrictions, and of course the Imperial Guard codex which is older still, but the present trend is towards detailed codices with plenty of options. Judging by the rumours, the upcoming Guard codex looks also to be good.

[blade_runner]

That's about the clearest description of 5'th ed. I've read so far. I think that cements my desire to buy it. Now I just have to wait until they get around to releasing Codex:Tau.

On another note, do you think they'll be updating the apocalypse rules? I'd think they'd have to, simply because those huge battles need lots of models, which means lots of money for Games Workshop. Those 10,000 point games look amazing!

[Da King]

A supplement called Apocalypse Reload was put out, not sure if the original book was updated though, I don't play apocalypse(yet...).

[Doglord]

Apocalypse fits with 5th ed anyway, and apocalypse reload clarifies some bits and gives loads more datasheets.

[Bryn]

Hey, thanks! :smallbiggrin:

One thing I missed in that summary is that Rending is now somewhat less powerful. Under 4e, 6s to hit would auto-wound, and ignore armour saves. Under 5e, 6s to hit don't do anything; 6s to wound, however, auto-wound and ignore armour.

Against vehicles, Rending adds 1d3 instead of 1d6 if you roll a 6 to penetrate.

Another change is that only units from the Troops section of the army can hold objectives now, and the missions are somewhat changed. Unlike 4e, you now separately pick the deployment zones and the objective for standard games. Two of the three mission types are objective-based, and only one is simply "Kill the enemy! Waaaaagh!". The rule that only Troops can take objectives is one thing that a few people complain about, as it makes some lists a lot less effective than others.

If you want to get a second book in addition to Apocalypse, I reccomend Imperial Armour Apocalypse over Apocalypse Reload. This is because IA:A has a lot of rules for units, whereas Reload has a few new units but mostly contains formations and strategic assets. The balance is somewhat iffy, particularly with some of the Tau assets (though people might disagree on that). There is some fun stuff in Reload, but in terms of useful content, the Imperial Armour book is probably better.

This article (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=600005&pIndex=2&aId=6900009&start=3) appears to be a shortened version of the one that appears in Reload about Apocalypse in 5e.

[Destro_Yersul]

I don't mind the 5th edition ruleset, as not that much has actually changed. What I can't stand are the new codexes. The layout is awful, they've removed the armoury, and assault marines can no longer take meltabombs. :smallmad:

[hamishspence]

Given the choice between an armoury and the awful-looking early 3rd ed codicies, late 4th- 5th is preferable for me.

Tyranid was unusual- like late 4th ed long before the first actual switch in style. As in, all upgrades are in the unit entry.

4th ed Marines, Black Templar, Tau Empire, were similar to late 3rd ed. 3.5 ed, as I like to call it, since the last codices made use of the Trial Assault Rules that were test phase for what would eventually arise in 4th ed.

Eldar, Dark Angels, Blood angels (the White Dwarf version) Chaos Marines, Orks, Daemons all have same style as the first 5th ed codex, Space marines.

You may complain about Marines, but they are one of the best codices around- thicker, more detailed, than the other late 4th ed ones.

and new options- twin thunder hammers, twin power fists.

Which makes up for fact that now, like lightning claws, you need two identical close combat weapons, in some cases (hammer, fist, claw) to get the extra close combat attack.

Giving Marines, and only marines, 3+ Invulnerable Storm shields, has decidedly disgrunted Angels players.

[Destro_Yersul]

Early 4th I was fine with. The previous Marine codex was very well done and I quite liked it. Everything done after that has been royally <expletive>d up, starting with... Dark Angels, I think it was. That's the first one I noticed it in, anyways. I like having the rules for a unit and the points cost for a unit in the same place. Available upgrades can go there too, that's fine by me.

taking away the armoury removes a lot of options though, and makes the list entries take up rather a lot of extra space, and separating unit rules and points costs is unintuitive, and means that if I'm building a list I need to check two different pages for each unit.

This is why I'm going to be moving away from the gaming aspect of it, and focusing more on modeling and painting.

[Wraith]

Well, I completely disagree on that front (to clarify: I do not think it has been dumbed down).

You have perhaps put it better than I did; the games have not been 'dumbed down' between editions (ie: it is not inherently easier to play), rather they have been streamlined to be more efficient and, I think, has been regulated to require less components to actually play.

Baring in mind, I say this having started with 2nd Edition, where shooting at Vehicles would require you to randomly determine which area had been hit; each area having a separate Armour Value (sometimes as high as 30!) AND a different Damage table. Some guns had Armour Penetration requiring d4's, 8's and 10's even though such dice where never used at any other point in the game.
And don't get me started on the whole issue of determining the To-Hit modifier on a model (or worse, a Squad) that was in or partially in cover.

Is 40k any easier that it was 10 years ago? No, not really - theres more races than ever, each using more rules than there ever have before.
Is it quicker to play and less likely to diverge into an argument over the difference between -1 or -2 every time a vaguely important model was being shot at? Hell yes, it is.

To be honest, I think that a lot of people say they dislike 4th or 5th Edition, when what they really mean is "My cool toys have been rearranged and now I can't use them all at the same time".
Trust me when I say, it could have been far, far worse - look at Warhammer Fantasy for example. Anyone remember the Doomwheel and the Vermin Lord models, in the Skaven Army? I can. I have 2 'Wheels and a Lord in my display case as we speak.
Those models cost about $20 each... and they were written out of the game in the more recent update.

So your Tactical Squads no long have a Bolter/Heavy Weapon ratio comparable to a Devastator Squad. Imagine how it would have felt to be one of a million Players to open your new codex and find out that there were no longer rules for a Predator Tank?

[hamishspence]

Concerning painting and non-Warhammer parts in warhammer models.

While (from what I can remember) official policy is don't mix LoTR parts and Warhammer or 40k parts if you ever want to enter Golden Demon with it, from what I can tell, this doesn't apply to games- you can do this all the time- balrog/fell beast wings on a Daemon Prince might raise eyebrows, but you will be able to play with it at a tournament.

At least, I think this is the policy (probably due to some agreement with Peter Jackson)

Either way, its pretty clear GW staffers themselves are happy to mix parts- went to Warhammer World today- pride of place in one cabinet was a Warhammer wyvern that was unmistakeably, mostly Fell Beast.

[blade_runner]

@ Destro_Yersul

My main concern when I heard about the removal of the armor section was if the armies still have wargear. Apparently they just moved it into the unit entry itself. I think this might be for the best because of the large variety of options available to the army.

For example, I have owned both the original Tau codex and the new Tau Empire codex (Interesting how the character of the race changed, but I'm not getting into that now). The Tau armory in the Empire codex listed every single piece of equipment a Tau army could take, from commander upgrades to troop weapons, in no particular order and over the course of six odd pages. If the other codexes are anything like this, it might be for the best they remove the armory.

I still can't wrap my mind around why they'd split the point costs from the unit descriptions.

[hamishspence]

So you can, once you've read unit descriptions, buid army quickly by just working through the codex, cos whole thing is together.

Unit descriptions are getting longer and longer- keeping the army list and points together is easier for army building purposes. Fantasy has had same format for a long time.

[Shas aia Toriia]

To be honest, I think that a lot of people say they dislike 4th or 5th Edition, when what they really mean is "My cool toys have been rearranged and now I can't use them all at the same time".
Trust me when I say, it could have been far, far worse - look at Warhammer Fantasy for example. Anyone remember the Doomwheel and the Vermin Lord models, in the Skaven Army? I can. I have 2 'Wheels and a Lord in my display case as we speak.
Those models cost about $20 each... and they were written out of the game in the more recent update.

Not entirely true in regards to us Black Templars players: When Codex: Armageddon came out, we lost Librarians (of which we had a $20 one), Devastator Squads (again, we lost another $20) and Whirlwinds (which we wanted to take). Join us. Join the clones, and experience true belonging. We think you'd really quite like it.

[Destro_Yersul]

So you can, once you've read unit descriptions, buid army quickly by just working through the codex, cos whole thing is together.

Unit descriptions are getting longer and longer- keeping the army list and points together is easier for army building purposes. Fantasy has had same format for a long time.

And I hate that. I liked being able to quickly check what each unit's special rules and stuff were while I was making the list. Keep the whole thing together, rather than just lists and points. Honestly, the descriptions are only getting longer because they've put all the fluff in there instead of somewhere else in the codex. Know how much of the Chaos Lord page is taken up by the actual unit information? Less than 10%. Ok, so they don't have any rules that aren't explained in the main rulebook. Let's look at something that does, like Thousand Sons. Now it's 20%. Noise Marines have a lot of different weapons available, let's look at them! 45%, 40% of which involves the aforementioned weapons. None of this stuff couldn't have been put into the main list, and it would remove the need to flip around looking for it. The old Chaos Codex was, to exaggerate slightly, a million times better. I've had a look at a lot of the others (read: everything released since the previous Marine Codex) and it's all the same crap.

Anyways, regarding the armoury, observe the effect the change has had on Chaos Space Marines, the Lord to be specific.

Old way: Lords were 60pts base, and had access to the armoury, which was a full page long and included Daemonic Gifts, Veteran Skills, marks of chaos, equipment for specific marks, weapons and wargear. Lots of Daemonic gifts made them into a daemon prince, they could take Daemon Weapons, flight, better armour, and a whole ton of different weapon combinations.

Now: Lords are 90 pts base, the extra 30 apparently accounting for a 5+ invulnerable save and an extra point of WS. You can still take a mark, though undivided is gone. Daemonic Gifts are gone, most of the wargear is gone, veteran skills are gone, Daemon Princes and Sorcerer lords are now separate entries, and the only way to get a 2+ armour save is by taking Terminator Armour.

Daemon Princes are better than they were in some ways, and worse in others. They can't have a 2+ save at all, though their stat line has increased. They may not take Daemon Weapons. They may take wings, a mark, and psychic powers. They cost more points than they used to.

Sorcerers are also 30 points more than they used to be. They suffer from the same restrictions as the lord, only with fewer weapon options, and a few psychic powers, which haven't been improved much.

[hamishspence]

Lords and sorcerers are Fearless.

Sorcerer's get Force Weapons.

And when you can have a 4+ Invulnerable save by taking Mark of Tzeentch, suddenly having no 2+ save isn't quite so bad. Tzeentch Lords in Terminator armour are very, very nasty.

If you are Apocalypse fan, spliting the daemons/CSMs is less annoying- 3000 pts is all you need to play a mixed army.

5th ed Marines get access to a lot more Kit than chaos does- they, at least, haven't suffered as much from the changeover. no more Only One Iron Halo.

and the breakpoint is Codex Eldar. Tau Empire, 4th ed Codex Marines, and Codex Black Templar follows old style. Tyranids are halfway- all options are in the army list, but, there is an armoury page that tells you what all of them do.

I find myself wondering if they should have followed Nid list in style- its like the best of 3rd and 5th ed styles combined.

[Destro_Yersul]

Lords and sorcerers are Fearless.

Sorcerer's get Force Weapons.

And when you can have a 4+ Invulnerable save by taking Mark of Tzeentch, suddenly having no 2+ save isn't quite so bad. Tzeentch Lords in Terminator armour are very, very nasty.

If you are Apocalypse fan, spliting the daemons/CSMs is less annoying- 3000 pts is all you need to play a mixed army.

5th ed Marines get access to a lot more Kit than chaos does- they, at least, haven't suffered as much from the changeover. no more Only One Iron Halo.

and the breakpoint is Codex Eldar. Tau Empire, 4th ed Codex Marines, and Codex Black Templar follows old style. Tyranids are halfway- all options are in the army list, but, there is an armoury page that tells you what all of them do.

I find myself wondering if they should have followed Nid list in style- its like the best of 3rd and 5th ed styles combined.

Anyone with a Mark of Chaos in the old edition is fearless. Not requiring a mark for it is pretty pointless. Force weapons aren't all that great, because they use your Psychic Power for the turn. My Space Marine Librarian has almost never used his, because I'd rather use the expensive psychic powers I bought him. The only way I'd even consider using a force weapon is with a Tzeentch character, because they can use two powers per turn now. Also, I'd like to point out that Tzeentch Lords in Terminator Armour have a 2+ save. Which, naturally, heavily limits their mobility. My complaint is that my disc-riding lord can't get a 2+ anymore, because now every punk with a rocket launcher is that much more deadly.

And yeah, splitting the Daemon list is annoying. I want screamers, and I don't want to have to play a huge game to use them. Same with flamers. And the word bearers, of course, are sod out of luck now.

As for Space Marines, I feel the need to point out that Assault Marines can no-longer all take meltabombs. It's a minor thing, but it annoys me to no end because now I have to spend a ton of points extra in order to deal with tanks.

In short, I despise the new codex format. I hate the smaller number of options, I hate the increased incomprehensibility, and I hate that it's the same format as fantasy, because I have long maintained that the 40k codexes had a superior format. Well, now they don't. Now everything is complete crap, instead of only half of it.

[hamishspence]

Eldar players, at least, are happier- farseers and warlocks had very few options anyway, and harlequins are back. When your last codex was pretty aweful, 4th ed changes tend to be something of an improvement.

Dark Angel, Chaos, and Blood Angel players so far seem to be the most annoyed.

Oh, and Undivided chaos didn't get fearless last ed- they got to reroll failed leadership checks. Which might actually be rather more useful.

[Erloas]

In short, I despise the new codex format. I hate the smaller number of options, I hate the increased incomprehensibility, and I hate that it's the same format as fantasy, because I have long maintained that the 40k codexes had a superior format. Well, now they don't. Now everything is complete crap, instead of only half of it.

Well I can't say much about the change in variety in the codex and the equipment available to them, but as for the format I prefer it. I like that all of the units and all of their costs are put in 3-4 pages in the back that can easily be looked through and to easily compare various units.

The only thing that is missing in those back pages is the definitions to special rules of various units. Seeing as how that is information only needed a few times when you are learning the army I don't see it as being a problem that it is moved.
If they had all the prices for each unit only with the bigger desciption and ability definitions then if I wanted to go and compare all of my elite eldar choices I would have to flip back and forth between 6 different pages and find the point costs mixed in with blocks of information and rules. Now all of the units of one type are on the same page which can quickly be used to compare their stats, their abilities, upgrade choices and point costs.

I have yet to play a game with eldar (probably going to order them later today) but I already know the special rules for 80% of the army.

*I didn't think Codexes looked right, dictionary.com has it listed as Codices

[Destro_Yersul]

Oh, and Undivided chaos didn't get fearless last ed- they got to reroll failed leadership checks. Which might actually be rather more useful.

Right. I had a footnote for that, I wonder where it went... ah well.

@Erloas: It's always been like that, putting the units together in a dedicated section where you can compare costs, stats and equipment options. It just hasn't had the special rules seperate, and it's always, as far as I can remember, had an armoury section for characters to choose equipment from. This section directly preceded the other section. It was a good setup, and allowed for a huge variety of weapon loadouts while still being very easy to locate everything.

Now it's not. We've got pages for special rules and pages for entries, and they are seperated by a great whacking chunk of gallery pages. I like the pictures, but couldn't they have at least put those after the army list, instead of in between the list and the unit special rules? I'd probably hate it slightly less if they had done that.

[Erloas]

Well I haven't seen the newest 40k rulebooks, but I do have 3 of the most recent fantasy books.
With all of the fantasy books it has the magic list (all 3 have their own lore) then it has all of the units and costs and then it has all of the magic items and powers that can be taken by characters/champions. Sometimes the gallery pages comes between the description pages and the points/selection section and sometimes it comes after them.

Seeing as that so far I've only seen the Eldar and Tau Codices, I like the layout of the Eldar, I don't like how Tau is done. If the newest 40k books follow that same method as Eldar (newest SM for instance) I couldn't say.

Edit: changed the last paragraph some after going back and looking at the Tau Codex again.

As a side note, I just ordered a bunch of Eldar things, so I should be getting an army together in the next couple months.

[Justyn]

As for Space Marines, I feel the need to point out that Assault Marines can no-longer all take meltabombs. It's a minor thing, but it annoys me to no end because now I have to spend a ton of points extra in order to deal with tanks.

If my memory serves, the sergeant still has access to meltabombs.

And I just remembered something that I noticed that will be a boon to White Scars players: the size of Bike squads has gone up, while the cost has gone down.

[Shas aia Toriia]

Heh, Black Templars can still have all their doodz take Melta-bombs. :smallamused:

[Ash08]

I don't mind the 5th edition ruleset, as not that much has actually changed. What I can't stand are the new codexes. The layout is awful, they've removed the armoury, and assault marines can no longer take meltabombs. :smallmad:

They can't?:smalleek:

"dooom..."

[Selrahc]

I've got to say, I definitely agree with Destro. The new codexes are lame in comparison to the old ones. You get more fluff per unit, at the cost of a much lamer codex layout for actual use.


The old Chaos codex was a thing of beauty. The level of customization I had on my characters and champions was great. By removing that, they made the book a lot less fun. Not actually less playable, since the new Dex holds up relatively well in power level to the old one.

[Ash08]

I find the new marine codex, extremly annoying. While the old codex had all the info arranged nicely on one page, the new codex has it scatter throughout the unit profiles.

[Destro_Yersul]

If my memory serves, the sergeant still has access to meltabombs.

Yep. One guy out of the ten, for 3 points more than it used to cost. One meltabomb is a lot less likely to kersplode a tank than ten are.

[blade_runner]

I still think Tau have the best anti-tank grenade; EMP grenades. Everyone gets them for 3 points a model. For each grenade, roll a d6. On a 4 or 5, score a glancing hit. On a 6, score a penetrating hit.

They work so well, if only I could get in range to use them :smallfrown:.

[Shas aia Toriia]

Yeah, I think that's kinda' the point. If you can get them in close enought to do that and not get massacred by the opponent's CC troops, than they're still amazing vs. tanks.

[Zorg]

Yep. One guy out of the ten, for 3 points more than it used to cost. One meltabomb is a lot less likely to kersplode a tank than ten are.

But everyone gets krak grenades and hit the rear armour, so I've found it evens out.