To 5th Ed or Not to 5th Ed?

There really is no question. A couple of weeks ago, the local Games Workshop manager very kindly offered to run an intro night for the brand spanking new edition of Warhammer 40K. Dubbed 5th Ed as it is the fifth iteration of the rulebook, 5th Ed has been for months debated and derided on many internet forums.



We at the club decided to put 5th Ed to the test and see whether the rumours, the gossip and indeed the outrages were well founded.

For the most part, the rumourmill was correct, if not exactly honest to detail. In light of all the so called outrages percieved by a vocal internet minority, I have decided to highlight a few key changes to 40K and review them for one and all.

Normally I try to stay out of petty internet flaming and keep my thoughts and opinions to myself, but I think it's high time that someone waves the flag for the games designers and indeed Games Workshop.

Let us start with True Line of Sight (TLoS). TLoS is quite literally as it sounds. If your model can see the enemy model, it can shoot it. Fair dos I hear you cry, but not from the net community. You see, in the process of doing this, area terrain rules no longer exist. They believe that as the old seeing 6" into and out of terrain no longer applies, the rule is silly and will inevitably lead to arguing. Truth of it though, I have seen many gamers argue over whether the model is within 6" of the terrain as the two gamers desperately attempt to negotiate the tape measure through a ruined window and around a mound of rubble. How simple is the adage, "You can either see it, or you can't". A victory for common sense on that subject methinks. GW 1 Vocal Minority 0.

Moving vehicles and defensive weapons. The latest edition of 40K has seen the amount of weapons a vehicle can move and fire with greatly diminished. To place it briefly, if a vehicle wishes to fire with all of its weapons it must remain stationary. The previous edition saw vehicles laying down a withering hail of fire as the methodically advanced. In reality, tanks would come to a halt before firing on the enemy. This increased accuracy and rate of fire. There are plenty of other games, such as Flames of War that require vehicles remain stationary to produce optimum rates of fire. Indeed, 3rd Edition 40K stated that a moving vehicle could only fire one weapon (regardless of strength). To backtrack on a rule that was previously overpowerful (let's face it, a falcon zooming around the battlefield loosing 2 S8 and 7 S6 shots was a bit good) is the signs of a good games design department that can admit to have introduced a rule that unbalanced a game but an even better games design department that can backtrack and change the rule for the better. If that means you're going to tear off your shuriken cannons and put back the twin catapults to regain optimum efficiency then that is your problem. Sorry but it's GW 2 Vocal Minority 0.

Next on the hit list is Skimmers Moving Fast. For the past two editions, a skimmer moving more that 6" would only suffer glancing hits from enemy fire. To be frank, and this is coming from a veteran Eldar player, was too good. Combined with vehicle upgrades such as Extra Armour and Holofields, this rule was amazing. There is no two ways about it, the Moving Fast rule was just too effective. Eldar tanks became nigh unkillable. Other skimmers could be relied on surviving the enemy shooting phase to zoom off and fulfill some mission purpose. Changing the rule so that Skimmers Moving Fast ie 18" means that the vehicle can no longer shoot but any hits scored against the vehicle are ignored on a 4+. This trade off as opposed to having it all offers the gamer the choice and a game is all about choice. Another point to GW, 3-0.

My final two points lie with the physical game itself. These are both to do with ensuring victory. The first is all games are now objective based as opposed to securing victory through victory points. Three games, each with 3 scenarios offers 9 indivdual games that can be played regardless of the battlefield. Reliance on victory points was often a poor way of deciding victory, especially at tournaments, where gamers would often pause mid game to determine what they should now target in order to maximise their victory point yield. Again we can draw parallels to reality over the changes, modern battles are not so much about slaughtering the enemy but achieving tactical objectives to win the war; seizing ammo and fuel dumps, headquarters, comms lines and other ideas offer gamers the chance to add a narrative to the game. A variable game length also ensures that there isn't a last turn objective grab. The second point is that only troops choices can capture objectives. While this is intially confusing to understand, a quick scan of the top tables at a tournament will help the concerned gamer to understand why only troops can capture objectives. Eldar armies with 2 units of 3 jetbikes; Tau and Necrons with their two, minimum sized Troops choices, the same is seen across the spectrum. What this rule actually prompts players to do, is to increase the number of Troops choices in their army and to encourage thought and diversity in other choices, rather than spamming the same, overly effective combination (carnifex with twin devourers spring to mind). Small units are out as well with the Annihilate mission allowing a player to score 1 point for every enemy unit destroyed. It is also important to highlight that while only Troops choices can secure objectives, all other units can contest. This ensures that Troop spamming armies will not be overly comfortable. GW 5 Vocal Minority 0.

Five points to nothing demonstrates that this edition of 40K is and will be the best yet. Given that it builds on the progress the previous four have made ensures this fact. If 5th Ed has to be summarised in 3 words, it would have to be A Gamer's Game. I would have to say that 4th Ed with strict rulings, varying levels of games with differing special rules and the introduction of new game spanning concepts (eg rending) made 4th Ed feel more like a tournament rules pack as opposed to game. Don't get me wrong, 40K will still have a strong tournament presence and I would still go to a 40K tournament (have to retake the Club Challenge Shield you see) but it's just that the 40K rules are no longer written with tournaments in mind. And to be honest, tournament players must be an absolute minority in the Games Workshop community (say less than 5%) so to have an edition that is written with all types of gamers in mind must be the best yet. I congratulate GW.

Am I right or am I wrong? I know what I think and at the end of the day this is only my opinion but this isn't the doom and gloom predicted on the forums. What I will say is that this edition of 40K will last a lot longer than the naysaying and arguments will on the forums.

Tune in for next time when we will be running a showcase of people's armies, starting with my very own High Elves, a collection 12,000 points big (yes that is 12,000 points and not 1,200) and still going strong.

- Matt