Joined
·
2,214 Posts
Hi folks i'm new to HO, i've read posts on here before but never posted myself.
I've had a 40k army since the 2nd ed rules were released so long ago though i played mainly 3rd ed before i moved into a situation where i had no space to be able to play any more.
Recently this changed and i eagerly dug out my old ork and csm models in preparation for a return to gaming.
Upon picking up the relevant 5th ed codexes i was really disapointed. Not in the level of fluff or story that was in the books but in the army lists themselves.
When new rulesbooks have come out before i have learned that i should expect to make some minor modifications to my armies to keep them up to date and legal. I dislike special character models, in approx 7,000pts of chaos and 3,000pts of speed freeks i have only one special character. Fabius bile which my girlfriend bought for her own chaos marines and has become allied to my own army. I take the view that there is only one of each of these guys in the universe so fluff wise you are more likely to have a warlord titan at your disposal. I would rather make my own commanders.
When third edition came around the argument was that too many people were relying on these spec characters and so they would be scaled down and made harder to include in battles, now it seems the opposite is true. So many characters allow specialist units to be classed as troops which is vital to most mission objectives that it is a rare thing to see an army without a special character now.
My speed freeks now require majoy reconstruction to be legal. The warbike outriders have no equivilent in the new codex, my nobs armed with choppas and shooty sluggers need full weapon changes to be effective in battle and my converted warboss with big shoota is downright illegal. Furthermore as a speed freek i must now rely on foot slogging heavy weapon squads instead of having the option to field them all in trukks. It seems like there are onlt really two effective ways of building an ork army now. A foot slogging mass with dredds and loadsa boys or a foot slogging mass with fast support.
whilst i have no issues ith the new core rules i can't see what the benefits of stripping down armies which worked well before are. CSM have lost the diffeent legion rules, i would imagine the same is more or less true of standard SM, Orks have lost a lot of their tactical flexibility by restricting weapons so heavily, IG pretty much seem to have no choice but to field tanks as the regimental rules are removed. It seems that the only armies which will benefit from this are the ones who hadn't a lot of flexibility beforehand, dark eldar, necrons, tyranids (my apologese to players who play these armies in a varied style but everytime i've played against these armies they've used very similar tactics).
So what do you guys think? I'd like to know if i'm the only one out here who feels that some of the depth has been lost with the implication of the new codexes or if the harsh simplification of the rules was a necisary evil. I myself never had any problems following a 3rd ed game and iirc 4th ed didn't introduce much that was new aside from combat changes.
Also i know that a lot of people on here support the use of 4th or 3rd ed codexes if there is no 5th ed equivilent to use. I've seen the nasty tactics thread using DH 3rd ed rules combined with IG 5th ed. Would anyone here take issue with somone using speed freek army drawn from codex armageddon? or a chaos traitors army using codex eye of terror?
Cheers for your insight
Grimzag "Spleentear" Gorwazza
I've had a 40k army since the 2nd ed rules were released so long ago though i played mainly 3rd ed before i moved into a situation where i had no space to be able to play any more.
Recently this changed and i eagerly dug out my old ork and csm models in preparation for a return to gaming.
Upon picking up the relevant 5th ed codexes i was really disapointed. Not in the level of fluff or story that was in the books but in the army lists themselves.
When new rulesbooks have come out before i have learned that i should expect to make some minor modifications to my armies to keep them up to date and legal. I dislike special character models, in approx 7,000pts of chaos and 3,000pts of speed freeks i have only one special character. Fabius bile which my girlfriend bought for her own chaos marines and has become allied to my own army. I take the view that there is only one of each of these guys in the universe so fluff wise you are more likely to have a warlord titan at your disposal. I would rather make my own commanders.
When third edition came around the argument was that too many people were relying on these spec characters and so they would be scaled down and made harder to include in battles, now it seems the opposite is true. So many characters allow specialist units to be classed as troops which is vital to most mission objectives that it is a rare thing to see an army without a special character now.
My speed freeks now require majoy reconstruction to be legal. The warbike outriders have no equivilent in the new codex, my nobs armed with choppas and shooty sluggers need full weapon changes to be effective in battle and my converted warboss with big shoota is downright illegal. Furthermore as a speed freek i must now rely on foot slogging heavy weapon squads instead of having the option to field them all in trukks. It seems like there are onlt really two effective ways of building an ork army now. A foot slogging mass with dredds and loadsa boys or a foot slogging mass with fast support.
whilst i have no issues ith the new core rules i can't see what the benefits of stripping down armies which worked well before are. CSM have lost the diffeent legion rules, i would imagine the same is more or less true of standard SM, Orks have lost a lot of their tactical flexibility by restricting weapons so heavily, IG pretty much seem to have no choice but to field tanks as the regimental rules are removed. It seems that the only armies which will benefit from this are the ones who hadn't a lot of flexibility beforehand, dark eldar, necrons, tyranids (my apologese to players who play these armies in a varied style but everytime i've played against these armies they've used very similar tactics).
So what do you guys think? I'd like to know if i'm the only one out here who feels that some of the depth has been lost with the implication of the new codexes or if the harsh simplification of the rules was a necisary evil. I myself never had any problems following a 3rd ed game and iirc 4th ed didn't introduce much that was new aside from combat changes.
Also i know that a lot of people on here support the use of 4th or 3rd ed codexes if there is no 5th ed equivilent to use. I've seen the nasty tactics thread using DH 3rd ed rules combined with IG 5th ed. Would anyone here take issue with somone using speed freek army drawn from codex armageddon? or a chaos traitors army using codex eye of terror?
Cheers for your insight
Grimzag "Spleentear" Gorwazza