I recently picked up my old 5th edition Ork codex and immediately flashed back to the Assault on Black Reach days where my charge range wasn't random and vehicles could get completely crippled without dying. I was wondering whether any other people had memories of 5th edition that made them like it better than the current one. So any thoughts about which people like more and why are welcome here.
I personally love 7th edition. My ONLY complaint is charging, the randomness there takes out the feeling of calculating a strike strategically and rather just hoping. Assault could use the stability I wish it was not random and was known like in previous editions. I am a huge fan of the psychic phase, new codices, units, and overall balance. Just waiting for them to finish up the codices for this edition - I think it is solid.
All in all, I found games to be more balanced, and my group had more fun in 5ths lifecycle. That being said, 5th had exceptionally bland codexes and across the board bad internal balance. I'd say half of the 6th/7th codexes also have bad internal balance, but there's still been marked improvement in that category.
7th, however, has a legion of problems that'd make the Alpha Legion jealous;
Overpowered psykers en-masse
Massive imbalance between codexes
Overnerfed assault
Unrestricted Lords of War
Detachment shenanigans
Major price creep on rules (Codex, codex-priced supplement, dataslates, all for things older codexes had together, hooray!)
Decrease in army customization. 7th specific codexes remove all capacity to change force-org role for units based on special characters or HQ types to represent certain kinds of armies in an effort to force you to play Unbound. This actually, in my mind, puts it *below 5th for customization, which was bland as bland could bland.
There's also a few problems which have persisted since 5th, which ought to be addressed;
Kill points as a game mechanic
Primacy of cover saves
AP creep; honestly, who gets an armour save these days?
Lackluster rules for iconic models; terminators, tactical marines, everything Tyranid, Howling Banshees, Thousand Sons (and other cult troops aside from Plague Marines) etc
Lack of customization. Only Space Marines get selectable army-wide special rules to represent sub-factions.
To me, 5th had structural problems in the way of an otherwise fun game. 7th is a menagerie of chaos, poorly thought-out or executed ideas, bad mechanics and rules bloat of the highest order, it is functionally, structurally, mechanically and thematically broken, and is enjoyable only through concerted effort between players.
Ulverus wrote: I personally love 7th edition. My ONLY complaint is charging, the randomness there takes out the feeling of calculating a strike strategically and rather just hoping. Assault could use the stability I wish it was not random and was known like in previous editions. I am a huge fan of the psychic phase, new codices, units, and overall balance. Just waiting for them to finish up the codices for this edition - I think it is solid.
All in all, I enjoy(ed) both editions.
For the charging they should make your charge range based on race. Like Nids and Orks have 8 inch range and tau have 4 inch range or something... And I'm also a fan of no random wound allocation and no Overwatch but that's just my two cents and probably because I'm an ork player
MajorStoffer wrote: 5th had a few flaws, but none of them as problematic as what is endemic in 7th
Kill points as a game mechanic
Primacy of cover saves
AP creep; honestly, who gets an armour save these days?
Lackluster rules for iconic models; terminators, tactical marines, everything Tyranid, Howling Banshees, Thousand Sons (and other cult troops aside from Plague Marines) etc
I agree with you here.
1. I don't like kill points, even though it benefits my army greatly.
2. Rather annoying but not a dealbreaker for me.
3. I find this one to be extremely annoying. Most armies have numerous ways to acquire low AP weaponry. It makes my armored men feel against the odds sometimes, like you don't have to pour firepower into them anymore but ah well.
4. Some models have nice rules though I wish they were consistent enough in each codex to make a lot of the iconic models viable choices. It seems they have been gutting the characters - removing stuff and such but not giving them anything in return. Speaking for my Grey Knights, Draigo is the only named character I'd take. Crowe has a cool daemon sword in the lore and is of the purest faith but it isn't really reflected on the board (his sword is like a regular piece of steel). A lot of the units are not customizable enough to do more than a few tasks but I guess that is why we have many units to choose from.
Ulverus wrote: I personally love 7th edition. My ONLY complaint is charging, the randomness there takes out the feeling of calculating a strike strategically and rather just hoping. Assault could use the stability I wish it was not random and was known like in previous editions. I am a huge fan of the psychic phase, new codices, units, and overall balance. Just waiting for them to finish up the codices for this edition - I think it is solid.
All in all, I enjoy(ed) both editions.
For the charging they should make your charge range based on race. Like Nids and Orks have 8 inch range and tau have 4 inch range or something... And I'm also a fan of no random wound allocation and no Overwatch but that's just my two cents and probably because I'm an ork player
I suppose I wouldn't mind this, or perhaps even on a per unit deal. That may be another area that would annoy us and make us want to revert based on the results though, who knows. At least you can count on those numbers instead of it being another random factor to take into account.
Well, the 7th ed is definitely the best edition so far.
The rule set is more complete than it was before.
However, it messes up some things which basicallly
is a concern for competitive play. But as 40k isn't
meant for competitive play as GW said its fine for them.
Is it? Then, tell me more about jumping off terrain, building levels, forests and hills. Or, what if I line up my guys across your table edge and you have infantry in reserves, what happens when your guys come in? You can't move onto the table, because my guys are blocking you, so what happens?
(For those of you wondering; yes, these things were all covered i previous editions of the game.)
wuestenfux wrote: However, it messes up some things which basicallly
is a concern for competitive play. But as 40k isn't
meant for competitive play as GW said its fine for them.
I don't know how to break it to you, pal, but in the rules book, where it tells you how the game works, it is laid out how a game goes from beginning to end and distinguishes the winner from the loser. Which is pretty much the definition of competitive.
Also, I keep reading that GW has supposedly said that "40k isn't meant for competitive play." Ignoring how this is clearly nonsensical (see: the rules), where have they actually said that? Because I've been playing this game for a while now, and I remember not only GW hosting tournaments (which they still do, btw), but also hyping these tournaments in White Dwarf (including publishing scoreboards, interviewing the winner, etc) and even having staff tournaments (including the studio guys (Phil Kelly always did well with his Eldar)) which were always very important for bragging rights. There would always be an article about the winner and his army in the following WD, where he'd give an overview of his tactics and how he went on to win the tournament. I can think of two people (Alessio Cavatore and Tuomas Piirinen) who got hired to the Design Studio after getting their foot in the door through attending tournaments at WHW.
It had it's problems - glancing hits were too weak, wound allocation was a problem for a few units, you could kill models out of LoS of the weapon etc.
However, it was close to becoming an excellent tactical game. The randomness (outside of the standard combat rolls), was pretty minimal. Whilst shooting had the edge, combat still had useful roles - whether massed AP2 or the ability to ignore the prolific cover saves. Also, the scoring system (if a little arbitrary) meant that troops had a vital purpose in any army - and so made them more than just a tax for most armies. Whilst not perfect, 5th was quite well balanced, and player actions felt important to whether you won or lost a game.
Then we move to 7th. What's that? You want your actions to be important? Well tough - here, eat this massive barrel of Random! Oh, did you feel that psychic powers were too predictable? Well, now you can random your powers, then we have an entire phase - where you get a random number of random dice, which you can throw to try and cast your powers. If you randomly score enough random, your power succeeds. But, your opponent can also spend his random to try and dispel your random, by getting at least as much random as you did to cast your power. Also, beware that if you roll too much random, your psyker might have to randomly roll on the perils of the warp random table, potentially suffering some unfortunate effects.
Oh, and we also have a system based around random objectives and, God help us, random victory points. Why don't we just flip a coin to see who wins, and save having to make any tactical decisions at all?
But, even aside from all the random, there's just so much crap these days. Allies was horribly implemented, and remains nothing more than a way to combine the most broken elements of 2 armies, into one overwhelmingly broken one. Fliers are even worse, because their mechanics are a load of nonsense, and GW thinks that any anti-air weapons must either cost 10 times what they're worth, or be useless against anything else (just like a meltagun is crap against anything that isn't a vehicle... oh, wait ). Most CC weapons got stripped of AP2, whilst shooting weapons continued to be buffed - including a slew of ignores cover stuff and AP2, thereby eliminating the two main reasons to seek melee in the first place.
Also, were you worried that only a few units could abuse the 5th edition wound-allocation rules? Well, don't worry - now all you need is a character and you're set (sure - it's perfectly reasonable for one guy to absorb every wound from a large blast or flamer template ). And, even if you don't manage to abuse the system, you can still waste everybody's time trying to. See, you'd think in GW's endless attempt to scale up 40k, they might at least make larger games easier to manage. HAHAHA, as if. No, now we have the delight of micro-managing every single bloody man in every single bloody unit. Oh, and the above mechanic frequently requires that large numbers of saves be rolled individually. Fantastic. My greatest worry was that I wasn't wasting enough time in the wound-allocation part, so thanks for rectifying that, GW.
And why do we have so many useless special rules? Did the game really need Blind? I don't think I've seen it happen once. And we even have special rules that do nothing but give the model two different named special rules. Why? What's the point? Why does every single rule need a stupid, pretentious name - no matter how rarely it's used? On the other end of the scale, why did Fear need to exist at all, let alone have a spot on anyone Warlord table? And why are warlord tables even random? It's rather hard to forge the narrative when my commander apparently can't remember what he's good at.
I think it would be fair to say that 7th edition irritates me a bit.
vipoid wrote: I think 5th was a vastly better system.
It had it's problems - glancing hits were too weak, wound allocation was a problem for a few units, you could kill models out of LoS of the weapon etc.
However, it was close to becoming an excellent tactical game. The randomness (outside of the standard combat rolls), was pretty minimal. Whilst shooting had the edge, combat still had useful roles - whether massed AP2 or the ability to ignore the prolific cover saves. Also, the scoring system (if a little arbitrary) meant that troops had a vital purpose in any army - and so made them more than just a tax for most armies. Whilst not perfect, 5th was quite well balanced, and player actions felt important to whether you won or lost a game.
Then we move to 7th. What's that? You want your actions to be important? Well tough - here, eat this massive barrel of Random! Oh, did you feel that psychic powers were too predictable? Well, now you can random your powers, then we have an entire phase - where you get a random number of random dice, which you can throw to try and cast your powers. If you randomly score enough random, your power succeeds. But, your opponent can also spend his random to try and dispel your random, by getting at least as much random as you did to cast your power. Also, beware that if you roll too much random, your psyker might have to randomly roll on the perils of the warp random table, potentially suffering some unfortunate effects.
Oh, and we also have a system based around random objectives and, God help us, random victory points. Why don't we just flip a coin to see who wins, and save having to make any tactical decisions at all?
But, even aside from all the random, there's just so much crap these days. Allies was horribly implemented, and remains nothing more than a way to combine the most broken elements of 2 armies, into one overwhelmingly broken one. Fliers are even worse, because their mechanics are a load of nonsense, and GW thinks that any anti-air weapons must either cost 10 times what they're worth, or be useless against anything else (just like a meltagun is crap against anything that isn't a vehicle... oh, wait ). Most CC weapons got stripped of AP2, whilst shooting weapons continued to be buffed - including a slew of ignores cover stuff and AP2, thereby eliminating the two main reasons to seek melee in the first place.
Also, were you worried that only a few units could abuse the 5th edition wound-allocation rules? Well, don't worry - now all you need is a character and you're set (sure - it's perfectly reasonable for one guy to absorb every wound from a large blast or flamer template ). And, even if you don't manage to abuse the system, you can still waste everybody's time trying to. See, you'd think in GW's endless attempt to scale up 40k, they might at least make larger games easier to manage. HAHAHA, as if. No, now we have the delight of micro-managing every single bloody man in every single bloody unit. Oh, and the above mechanic frequently requires that large numbers of saves be rolled individually. Fantastic. My greatest worry was that I wasn't wasting enough time in the wound-allocation part, so thanks for rectifying that, GW.
And why do we have so many useless special rules? Did the game really need Blind? I don't think I've seen it happen once. And we even have special rules that do nothing but give the model two different named special rules. Why? What's the point? Why does every single rule need a stupid, pretentious name - no matter how rarely it's used? On the other end of the scale, why did Fear need to exist at all, let alone have a spot on anyone Warlord table? And why are warlord tables even random? It's rather hard to forge the narrative when my commander apparently can't remember what he's good at.
I think it would be fair to say that 7th edition irritates me a bit.
Have every exalt in the world ever. Seriously. I could not have said it better myself.
It had it's problems - glancing hits were too weak, wound allocation was a problem for a few units, you could kill models out of LoS of the weapon etc.
However, it was close to becoming an excellent tactical game. The randomness (outside of the standard combat rolls), was pretty minimal. Whilst shooting had the edge, combat still had useful roles - whether massed AP2 or the ability to ignore the prolific cover saves. Also, the scoring system (if a little arbitrary) meant that troops had a vital purpose in any army - and so made them more than just a tax for most armies. Whilst not perfect, 5th was quite well balanced, and player actions felt important to whether you won or lost a game.
Then we move to 7th. What's that? You want your actions to be important? Well tough - here, eat this massive barrel of Random! Oh, did you feel that psychic powers were too predictable? Well, now you can random your powers, then we have an entire phase - where you get a random number of random dice, which you can throw to try and cast your powers. If you randomly score enough random, your power succeeds. But, your opponent can also spend his random to try and dispel your random, by getting at least as much random as you did to cast your power. Also, beware that if you roll too much random, your psyker might have to randomly roll on the perils of the warp random table, potentially suffering some unfortunate effects.
Oh, and we also have a system based around random objectives and, God help us, random victory points. Why don't we just flip a coin to see who wins, and save having to make any tactical decisions at all?
But, even aside from all the random, there's just so much crap these days. Allies was horribly implemented, and remains nothing more than a way to combine the most broken elements of 2 armies, into one overwhelmingly broken one. Fliers are even worse, because their mechanics are a load of nonsense, and GW thinks that any anti-air weapons must either cost 10 times what they're worth, or be useless against anything else (just like a meltagun is crap against anything that isn't a vehicle... oh, wait ). Most CC weapons got stripped of AP2, whilst shooting weapons continued to be buffed - including a slew of ignores cover stuff and AP2, thereby eliminating the two main reasons to seek melee in the first place.
Also, were you worried that only a few units could abuse the 5th edition wound-allocation rules? Well, don't worry - now all you need is a character and you're set (sure - it's perfectly reasonable for one guy to absorb every wound from a large blast or flamer template ). And, even if you don't manage to abuse the system, you can still waste everybody's time trying to. See, you'd think in GW's endless attempt to scale up 40k, they might at least make larger games easier to manage. HAHAHA, as if. No, now we have the delight of micro-managing every single bloody man in every single bloody unit. Oh, and the above mechanic frequently requires that large numbers of saves be rolled individually. Fantastic. My greatest worry was that I wasn't wasting enough time in the wound-allocation part, so thanks for rectifying that, GW.
And why do we have so many useless special rules? Did the game really need Blind? I don't think I've seen it happen once. And we even have special rules that do nothing but give the model two different named special rules. Why? What's the point? Why does every single rule need a stupid, pretentious name - no matter how rarely it's used? On the other end of the scale, why did Fear need to exist at all, let alone have a spot on anyone Warlord table? And why are warlord tables even random? It's rather hard to forge the narrative when my commander apparently can't remember what he's good at.
I think it would be fair to say that 7th edition irritates me a bit.
What do I say to this?
5th only had a few niggling flaws IMO. People always cite the wound allocation shenanigans, but lets be honest; it could only be used and abused by a handful of units. Nobz, Nob Bikers, GK Paladins, Thunderwolf Cav. and Bloodcrushers. It could be abused to lesser extent by Wolf Guard and Deathwing Termies but not as much as they only had one wound apiece. So, that's what? 7 units out of the hundreds in 40k.
Fix this, the kill points (just go back to victory points or something) and tweak the vehicle rules and you've got a great edition of 40k. What does GW do? They throw the baby out with the bathwater and we got this abomination we're stuck with.
Meh, There is no such thing as a perfect edition. I prefer more realism in my game which leads much closer to 7th edition than it did in 5th.
Most players like the edition that had the exploits they preferred the most and you can see this in the posts of the most vocal posters (regardless of which edition they prefer).
As I said, 7th has more realism so I like it better. Not that I'm saying it is better or anything like that (after all, it is a purely opinion based issue), just that I prefer it and why.
vipoid wrote: (A lot of stuff I completely agree with)
What he said! Basically exactly what I was thinking. I think there may have been a handful of ideas I liked in 6th edition that weren't in fifth, but far, far more stuff I wasn't fond of. And what I've read and heard about 7th... yeah no. No thanks.
EVIL INC wrote: Meh, There is no such thing as a perfect edition. I prefer more realism in my game which leads much closer to 7th edition than it did in 5th.
Most players like the edition that had the exploits they preferred the most and you can see this in the posts of the most vocal posters (regardless of which edition they prefer).
As I said, 7th has more realism so I like it better. Not that I'm saying it is better or anything like that (after all, it is a purely opinion based issue), just that I prefer it and why.
Well for starters, there is overwatch. I honestly dont see a bunch of guys sitting there raising their guns to fire and the "sarge" telling them to put them down because it isnt their turn.
Likewise assaulting and just running rampant through an entire army by consolidating from one combat to another without getting shot at.
Those are two of the biggies. Of course, not I did not say 7th was perfect or that it was 100% realistic. Just that it was more realistic.
Of course, your going to have a lot of players calling out their favorite editions and citing different rules. primarily, these rules will orient about brokenness and ability to exploit them for wins.
Myself, I'm more worried about enjoying myself win or lose and one of the ways I enjoy myself is through ealist play of what "would" actually happen. This brings it home to me more and makes it less like random dice results.
Like I said though, it is a purely opinion based question and your going to have a load of people giving their opinions. The question is, is this thread going to be flooded with arguments about whose opinion is right or wrong or are members going to accept that we are ALL right based on our own opinion and perspective? Even more important, is it going to be flooded with flames where members are told they are wrong and outshouted?
I posted my opinion and only replied again to clarify myself because you asked specifically. Others look at different aspects and see different aspects as more or less realistic. I was just saying why "I" found it more realistic.
EVIL INC wrote: Well for starters, there is overwatch. I honestly dont see a bunch of guys sitting there raising their guns to fire and the "sarge" telling them to put them down because it isnt their turn.
I'm not really seeing how this is any more realistic... You could as easily argue that it's unrealistic that only the unit being charged gets to shoot. Or that it's unrealistic that a unit can magically shoot twice as fast as everyone else just because an enemy unit is running towards them... But only if the enemy unit declares their intention to hit them with a pointy stock. Any other unit running toward them is ignored...
Likewise assaulting and just running rampant through an entire army by consolidating from one combat to another without getting shot at
.
That wasn't possible in 5th either. As far as I can recall, it hasn't been the case since 3rd edition
Thats why it is purely ppinion based. it keeps me from telling you your opinion is wrong and should keep you from telling me mine is wrong. of course, that never stops it from happening here (not to say you in particuler) because it happens all the time. It still doesnt make any one opinion right or wrong since it is purely subjective.
3rd, 4th 5th, whatever, it just reinforces to me that there is no perfect edition and which is "better" is based purely upon who is making the statement with no one being wrong as based purely on our own specifications, we are all "right" to ourselves.
EVIL INC wrote: Well for starters, there is overwatch. I honestly dont see a bunch of guys sitting there raising their guns to fire and the "sarge" telling them to put them down because it isnt their turn.
Likewise assaulting and just running rampant through an entire army by consolidating from one combat to another without getting shot at.
I can see how you feel that way, but personally I don't really see it as being more realistic because the game is massively abstracted in to the turn based system anyway. Even without overwatch, units will typically get several attempts to shoot an enemy unit before it charges, it's not like they're just standing there going "oh wells, we are being charged, best just sit here and wait", I picture all the turns prior to being charged as being the unit's attempt to subvert the chargers.
Especially since you can't assault from reserves and what not anyway, so you're always going to have at least 1 chance to shoot at an enemy unit before it charges. I think it's highly unrealistic that a Lictor would get shot not once but twice before it gets in to combat.
Overwatch where you forego shooting in your turn in order to shoot in the opponent's turn is something I'd prefer to see, though it would have to be managed differently (you'd have to be able to fire with more effect than just snap shooting, but not so much effect that you spend the whole game on overwatch playing the waiting game).
But either way, I don't really care all that much about realism because the game is so horribly unrealistic anyway. If you made it realistic it would lose a lot of the 40k feel (assaulting enemy units in close combat even though you have guns to shoot them is not realistic... but it's core to the whole concept of 40k, so the rules need to be unrealistic to capture that feel).
What I do care about is which makes for a better game, and I tend to think 5th made for a better game. But the frustrating thing is that almost all editions are just a few small changes from something good, but GW are too stupid to actually fix an edition and instead just release a new edition with it's own problem.
By far my favourite edition is 2nd edition, was it perfect? Nope, it had huge gaping problems... but those problems could be fixed and once they were fixed it could be a solid game. Instead they flushed it down the toilet and released 3rd, and for the past 16 years we've been having updates which shuffle the rules around but still don't fix the problems and still don't fix the poorly worded rules. 7th still doesn't properly explain how cover from intervening models works... just like 6th didn't.
EVIL INC wrote: Thats why it is purely ppinion based. it keeps me from telling you your opinion is wrong and should keep you from telling me mine is wrong. of course, that never stops it from happening here (not to say you in particuler) because it happens all the time. It still doesnt make any one opinion right or wrong since it is purely subjective.
Well of course it's opinion-based. That's what the vast majority of discussion is.
Asking you to explain your opinion is not telling you your opinion is wrong. Nor is disagreeing with it.
3rd, 4th 5th, whatever, it just reinforces to me that there is no perfect edition and which is "better" is based purely upon who is making the statement with no one being wrong as based purely on our own specifications, we are all "right" to ourselves.
Except the question asked was about 5th vs 7th. Suggesting that 7th is more realistic than 5th because of a rule that hasn't existed since 3rd is a little odd.
Wellll, we dont agree on overwatch and thats fine so long as you respect my right to my opinion. I most definately agree with you on the turn based thing. I much prefer the idea of taking turns with units which would make it a lot better (I think) in terms of interaction and reactions of units. The DUST idea seems to work for me in turns of taking turns by unit and units have the option to react to an encroaching unit provided they have not already "acted" for the overall turn.
I think GW goes overboard on stuff. They get feedback that something was too good or too bad and they slingshot it the other way instead of taking a more "gentle" approach and finding the happy middle.
Personally, I am also fond of the RT system. Not because of balance or anything like that but because it was what we had before it started getting competetive (well a lot earlier on the road we are currently on in that regard).
I have a hard time thinking of something 7th added or changed that is more realistic than 5th.
Wound allocation, vehicle mechanics, flyers, random traits and powers, and random maelstrom objectives all strike me as being far less realistic than how 5th handled those issues.
I can see an argument made for removing models from the front, but then mechanics like LoS and losing your special/heavy weapons run counter to that realism feel.
Blacksails wrote: I can see an argument made for removing models from the front, but then mechanics like LoS and losing your special/heavy weapons run counter to that realism feel.
Having the guy closest to the enemy always be the one to take the hit is not even remotely realistic.
And yes, adding in Look Out Sir so that the guy at the front is always the one to take the hit unless he's not wearing a helmet just makes it even worse.
I'm continually surprised at that, considering the legion of issues 5E had, but 7th is a mess. The Skimmer vs Non-Skimmer gap is back in tremendous force, tabletop forces often have little or no organization to them, it's near impossible to look at an army on a table and know what it actually is half the time (e.g. "well, this is a Battleforged 3 detachement army with allies...), continually more and more special rules (often simply for the sake of having more special rules), and an ever more confusing sense of scale in general.
5E had it's issues, for sure. Wound Allocation, Kill Points, issues with cheap transports (nobody thought gun-tanks were an issue in 5E, it was the 35pt Rhinos), and more. There were very glaring issues with 5th, which at the time seemed huge and were very irritating indeed.
But it played much faster, much easier, and was way more organized.
I like that 6th and 7th have opened up the game a bit more, but this was done basically by throwing everything and the kitchen sink in without any sort of plan or coherency and by introducing as many unnecessary external (and often random) elements as possible. 5th edition was just a better game to sit down and play.
I think this is why we all have so many arguments. Members post their opinions and views as facts. Then the instant someone else has a different opinion or view, they are attacked with no acknowledgement that they have a right to have and express their opinions.
In these threads, we are ALL correct as it is a purely personal question based on opinions and private views.
EVIL INC wrote: I think this is why we all have so many arguments. Members post their opinions and views as facts. Then the instant someone else has a different opinion or view, they are attacked with no acknowledgement that they have a right to have and express their opinions.
In these threads, we are ALL correct as it is a purely personal question based on opinions and private views.
Disagreeing with someone's opinion is not an 'attack'.
Someone posts an opinion. Someone else will either agree with it, or disagree with it, or ask the first person to clarify their opinion. That's how discussion works.
You weren't attacked. You were asked to clarify your opinion.
I tend to use qualifiers like "imo" or "I think" as much as I feel is necessary. When reading other peoples' comments I tend to assume they are just stating opinion unless they outright state it as fact.
But yes, you can avoid arguments more if you state things which are your opinion as being opinion instead of fact. For example, you said...
Which is stating that 7th is more realistic... so naturally people are more likely to attack that statement. If instead you go for more of a "I feel like 7th is more realistic so I like it better" as you're leaving the door more open for people to oppose your opinion without actually attacking you.
Also if you assume when people attack your statements that they are actually attacking your statements instead of you personally it does change the perceived tone. Rarely do I intend an aggressive tone when typing a message... but I can understand how often people read my comments as if they had imagined an aggressive tone where no aggressive tone exists.
5th was by far a leaner edition. 7th *may* be more fun due to the fact that my interest in winning the game goes out the window when so much of that is determined by randomness. Seems to be a better beer-and-pretzels game now, aside from the fact that there are a metric feth ton more rules now...
7th is the worst balance...it's a game with impossible balance due to randomness, which is very much beer-and-pretzels, but it's got an extremely convoluted rule set that has people arguing over the term "start of the game" in YMDC. If we can't even agree on when the game starts, I think it's time for a rewrite.
EVIL INC wrote: I think this is why we all have so many arguments. Members post their opinions and views as facts. Then the instant someone else has a different opinion or view, they are attacked with no acknowledgement that they have a right to have and express their opinions.
In these threads, we are ALL correct as it is a purely personal question based on opinions and private views.
Disagreeing with someone's opinion is not an 'attack'.
Someone posts an opinion. Someone else will either agree with it, or disagree with it, or ask the first person to clarify their opinion. That's how discussion works.
You weren't attacked. You were asked to clarify your opinion.
Now can we all get back to the actual topic?
My apologies. I was not saying I was attacked in this thread. It has happened in others for this very reason. Just putting it out there as a reminder to keep it from happening here. Again, sorry for the confusion, you were indeed very polite and respectful.
i was mentioning the phrases used by different posters stating it IS this or that instead of I think or believe it is this or that. There is a difference.
To keep it on topic, I would say that either 5th or 7th is a little slanted as it leaves out a lot of people who prefer something else and will just click on what seems the most populer in the thread. Depending on my mood and where I am oplaying, my opinion varies and is of course, influanced by the atmosphere I am looking for for that particuler game.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: 5th was by far a leaner edition. 7th *may* be more fun due to the fact that my interest in winning the game goes out the window when so much of that is determined by randomness. Seems to be a better beer-and-pretzels game now, aside from the fact that there are a metric feth ton more rules now...
I would not call 40k in general a "beer-n'-pretzel game, first and foremost because of the great deal of rules. The advantage of a Beer-'n'-pretzel game is that they're easy to get into, simple to understand, and and don't take very long to play(but can make it more enjoyable if done right). A good example of this Betrayal At House On The Hill. It's the definition of "Unfair", but because playing it doesn't require a door stopper of a rulebook to play, it's enjoyable. Randomness is not a requirement, only giving enjoyment if done right.
Indeed, no game with an $85 rulebook and a $50 codex (just to get started with the basics of a single army) and hundreds of pages of rules, can really be considered "beer and pretzels" material anymore.
Not trying to be that guy but I understand that there are many people on here that may have been a fan of 5th edition or certain aspects of it, even I liked some aspects of 5th edition and miss them. However there are a lot of things in this edition that are awesome and way better then in any of the previous editions, the changes to vehicles for example.
Vehicles are a major example of dysfunction in this edition, to me at least.
We've got a gigantic gap between skimmer and non-skimmer vehicles again, most vehicles are still way too easy to kill through HP stripping (particularly non-skimmers), and the changes to the vehicle damage chart that were supposedly made to address that issue from 6th mean that actual anti-tank guns are less effective in their role and purpose, particularly with regards to medium and light vehicles, while much lighter multi-shot weapons are often much more effective (point for point invested) in regards to killing vehicles.
Vaktathi wrote: Vehicles are a major example of dysfunction in this edition, to me at least.
We've got a gigantic gap between skimmer and non-skimmer vehicles again, most vehicles are still way too easy to kill through HP stripping (particularly non-skimmers), and the changes to the vehicle damage chart that were supposedly made to address that issue from 6th mean that actual anti-tank guns are less effective in their role and purpose, particularly with regards to medium and light vehicles, while much lighter multi-shot weapons are often much more effective (point for point invested) in regards to killing vehicles.
Please, name imballanced skimmers from 7-th ed codexes.
That's the problem with horrible power creep aproach of 6-th ed codexes.
gmaleron wrote: However there are a lot of things in this edition that are awesome and way better then in any of the previous editions, the changes to vehicles for example.
I have to agree as far as that there are some cool ideas in 6th/7th edition... but for the most part, the implementation of them is frustrating.
Hull Points were a good idea, but left vehicles too easy to take out from Glancing fire and should have been balanced out by the addition of a saving throw.
Snap Shots are a good idea, but should have been applied to Blasts. As is, the value of Blast weapons took a severe plunge.
Warlord Traits are an awesome idea... except for the random aspect meaning your Warlord changes from battle to battle (which sucks from a narrative point of view) and range from awesome to useless (I don't know how many times I managed to roll Counter Attack for my Wolf Lord...)
Challenges are a cool idea... but making them something that is more or less compulsory for everyone makes no sense, and with the wild power range between everyone's characters are just grossly unfair for some armies.
Overwatch returning is a good thing... but making it an additional attack rather than replacing normal shooting is whacked, and Wall of Death from units like Flamers is just insanely overpowered.
Look Out Sir! is a great, flavourful addition... except that it reduces you to rolling saves 1 at a time. When a unit can be wearing 30 or 40 shots from a single enemy unit's shooting, that's just painful.
All of those are things that in theory I would have quite happily seen added to the 5th edition ruleset... but the actual implementation of them just leaves me scratching my head and wondering what the hell GW were thinking.
Well, there are some bads, that's for sure. For example, i strongly dislike random wound allocation. It's just so time consuming to place this 2 mob rule wounds on someone from my 30-strong choppaboyz squad. But i approve death of the closest mechanics cause it makes positioning important resulting in much more tactical possibilities. On the other hand, it's created tank characters who conveniently look out the unwanted wounds on a 2+.
There are goods and bads but the whole direction is good imo.
Vaktathi wrote: Vehicles are a major example of dysfunction in this edition, to me at least.
We've got a gigantic gap between skimmer and non-skimmer vehicles again, most vehicles are still way too easy to kill through HP stripping (particularly non-skimmers), and the changes to the vehicle damage chart that were supposedly made to address that issue from 6th mean that actual anti-tank guns are less effective in their role and purpose, particularly with regards to medium and light vehicles, while much lighter multi-shot weapons are often much more effective (point for point invested) in regards to killing vehicles.
Please, name imballanced skimmers from 7-th ed codexes.
That's the problem with horrible power creep aproach of 6-th ed codexes.
The *one* 7E book that runs skimmers that's been out for 4 days with practically unchanged vehicles from 3rd edition?
Either way, fundamentally, Skimmer tanks and skimmer armies have advantages over their non-skimmer counterparts. Not only do they have access to a 4+ save whenever they want, they can do so even when immobilized and without any effect on on-board passengers. This makes for a drastic increase in effective lifespan next to non-skimmer counterparts which may or may not have (or have to pay for) smoke launchers for a single-use 5+ save (which prevents both *all* shooting, not just snapshots, and moving Flat Out). On top of that, they often, if not ubiquitously, have access to cover-save enhancing wargear which means they can sit in the open with a 3+ save. Additionally, if Fast, Skimmers gain additional movement over Fast non-skimmers on top of ignoring all terrain they move over.
Tracked tanks historically have tried to counterbalance that by either being cheaper or better armored, but this has only ever balanced out in 5E (3E and 4E skimmer rules were likewise heinously imbalanced, culminating in the Invinci-Falcons of 4th Edition) and many Skimmers share similar points costs and AV's with non-skimmer tanks. There are far too many parallels between tracked and skimmer tanks at the current time where there are *very* clear gaps in effectiveness. One may have noticed that, by and large, the only armies running large numbers of tanks that have been placing and winning at events in the current edition (and in 6th) are Skimmer armies.
I always thought it odd that when there were intervening enemy models between you and your target, the target got a cover save but none of the screening units took damage.
Is it all of a sudden my Orkboys are thinking,
"Oi Boss, dem gits are 'ween us a' dos lemon rusts" "Ya ya slopperin' skun'ead fire da rokets OVA' their heads" *Boyz fire over them some rockets impact the Imperial Guardsmen* *Guardsmen are unharmed from stopping a rocket with his face* "Gud job boyz 'e didn't 'urt a single hummie AN' we hit dos lemon rusts a bit to!"
As for someone who spent most of his games in competitive environment, I actually hated 5th edition. Not really because of the rules as more like 99% of your games was:
Me: my power armored army's metal bawx number 1 shoots at this. Metal bawx number 2 shoots at this. Metal bawx number 3 shoots at this. Metal bawx number 4 shoots at this. My 2 rhino bawxes moves here. Your turn.
Opponent: okay, my RED power armored army's metal bawx number 1 shoots at this. Metal bawx number 2 shoots at this. Metal bawx number 3 shoots at this. Metal bawx number 4 shoots at this. My 2 rhino bawxes moves here. Your turn.
Repeat this step until turn 5.
Me: AMAGAWD FLATOUT/TURBO-BOOST-SMOKE
Opponent: AMAGAWD FLATOUT/TURBO-BOOST-SMOKE
Me: Good game bro, sick tactics.
Opponent: Yeah man, good game, sick tactics indeed.
Looking back at why I didn't like 5th was perhaps mostly because of the tournament setting I constantly played, the fact was no one took anything but THE list whenever they played an army. If you told me I was facing an IG/BA player, I knew exactly what to expect and if my opponent varied his list from THE list, 90% I knew he would lose which was almost always correct. My annoyance was that if you played anything else than what was dictated by net lists/meta, you would always perform worse than the mechlist min/max'er.
As for private and local games, I actually remember them as quite enjoyable and easy to play, now that I compare them to 7th edition and I realize perhaps that was its biggest strength, as long as it stayed out of the min/max'ing mentality.
Metal Bawxes-Hammer is why I initially voted for 6th edition over 5th when this topic came up a couple months ago, but then it occurred to me that while metal bawxes-hammer was extremely irritating, it was only one part of the game. That was really like, the only truly irritating part of 5th edition I can think of. Via simple arithmetic, the number of things that pissed me off in 6th was far greater numerically than the number of things that pissed me off in 5th.
And, adding to that, very few of the things that were bad in 5th edition were fixed in the latter ones. To wit, most of those problems (like Death Stars) actually got worse.
And, adding to that, very few of the things that were bad in 5th edition were fixed in the latter ones. To wit, most of those problems (like Death Stars) actually got worse.
Out of curiosity, would you care to elaborate on this matter? (Mostly about the former part, the Death Stars requires little to no explanation).
Things like wound allocation shenanigans didn't get any better, just different. Where 5th was about musical wounds, 6th and on is all about micro managing model placement and gaming LoS with ICs. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Considering the fix for 5th's wound allocation on a select number of problem units was exceedingly simple, it leaves you scratching your head why they decided to go with their current route.
Vehicles (cheap transports really) went from being too durable (or at least too unpredictable) to being too flimsy with the addition of HPs. Seventh helped by making the table a little more forgiving, but vehicles are still largely inferior to MCs.
Those were the big ones for me anyways. I'm sure Blaxican will elaborate further.
Oh, and we also have a system based around random objectives and, God help us, random victory points. Why don't we just flip a coin to see who wins, and save having to make any tactical decisions at all?
IThe third edition rule books and codexes, had really fun scenarios in back and I still try to play them often. It seems like GW dropped them because of the players. The scenarios often had asymmetric points limits and alternate FOC, which made them a bit more exciting no matter which codexes were used - e.g. Meatgrinder. However, it seems like players spent more of their time at home, tinkering with their personally optimized fantasy list, and wanted to bring it down to the shop and match it up against a stranger's to prove they were better at making lists / buying models. Random missions seem like one place that GW are attempting to force players to do something other than line up on opposite sides of the table and bash each other.
Zewrath wrote:
Looking back at why I didn't like 5th was perhaps mostly because of the tournament setting I constantly played, the fact was no one took anything but THE list whenever they played an army. If you told me I was facing an IG/BA player, I knew exactly what to expect and if my opponent varied his list from THE list, 90% I knew he would lose which was almost always correct. My annoyance was that if you played anything else than what was dictated by net lists/meta, you would always perform worse than the mechlist min/max'er.
As for private and local games, I actually remember them as quite enjoyable and easy to play, now that I compare them to 7th edition and I realize perhaps that was its biggest strength, as long as it stayed out of the min/max'ing mentality.
If you got away from stuff like tourney lists, which were partly codex problems, the rules were def more fun.
At least part of the bawkses available had to do with a silly decision on BA. In third edition codexes, I think it wasn't possible to take razorbacks for assault squads, only rhinos. Blood Angels In fifths edition had assault squads as troops for a background reason to do with how much they like flying. Somehow, they got the option to something dumb. Outside of tournament stuff, you didn't see this having much effect due to the hobby/background problems with BA crouching in cramped boxes vs. jumping.
Ofc, if blood angels hadn't had razorback troops, they just would not have been played as much and the parking lots would have been IG and regular marines instead.
We also seem to be approaching the opposite of 5th in terms of damaging vehicles. In 5th, glances had an unfortunate tendency to do nothing (not so much because of the core rules, but because most codices had been given ways to ignore crew shaken/stunned - so they couldn't suppress vehicles, as they were supposed to). So, you really needed to penetrate vehicles to cripple or destroy them.
Nowadays, it's penetrating hits that seem ineffective - when it's usually pretty easy to just glance vehicles to death.
IThe third edition rule books and codexes, had really fun scenarios in back and I still try to play them often. It seems like GW dropped them because of the players. The scenarios often had asymmetric points limits and alternate FOC, which made them a bit more exciting no matter which codexes were used - e.g. Meatgrinder.
I wish I could find my 3rd edition book, because I'd be interested in trying some of those missions for a change.
pelicaniforce wrote: However, it seems like players spent more of their time at home, tinkering with their personally optimized fantasy list, and wanted to bring it down to the shop and match it up against a stranger's to prove they were better at making lists / buying models. Random missions seem like one place that GW are attempting to force players to do something other than line up on opposite sides of the table and bash each other.
Random mission type, I can understand.
Random mission objectives each turn in maelstrom missions... not so much. Virtually every single game, one side ends up with 3 easy missions (e.g. destroy one unit with shooting, capture two objectives on their table edge), whilst the other side ends up with virtually-impossible missions (capture every objective on the map, capture a heavily-defended objective on their opponent's board edge, Slay the enemy warlord when he's currently in reserve etc.). And, when one person gets ahead, it's very hard for the other player to recover (since the lead player is refreshing more objectives - thus increasing his chances of drawing more 'easy' ones, whilst the other player is stuck discarding one impossible mission and desperately hoping that he gets something more usable. But, of course, there's no way for him to draw extra cards - so he's still behind with little way to catch up).
In theory, I like the idea of having objectives every turn, but I don't think it was well executed. It just seems to come down more to luck of the draw (in terms of the cards you get), rather than the tactics you employ. Likewise, having random victory points is just bad game design. It's just not something that should ever be random.
Definitely 5th. It had it's problems but it's the fundamental direction I don't like about 7th.
It has no focus and is a wild mess of bloated, un-fun rules that make pick up games nearly impossible.
(The below list is what I don't like about 7th, but some of them may be perfectly fun for some people. Just not me.)
Mealstrum
LOW
unbound
loyalists with demonic summoning (That really bugs me.)
All or nothing psychic phase that penalizes non-psychic armies.
Necessity to ally everything.
MWHistorian wrote: Definitely 5th. It had it's problems but it's the fundamental direction I don't like about 7th.
It has no focus and is a wild mess of bloated, un-fun rules that make pick up games nearly impossible.
(The below list is what I don't like about 7th, but some of them may be perfectly fun for some people. Just not me.)
Mealstrum
LOW
unbound
loyalists with demonic summoning (That really bugs me.)
All or nothing psychic phase that penalizes non-psychic armies.
Necessity to ally everything.
For me, it's the god awful wound allocation system that grates the most. It's complicated, exploitable, and VERY time consuming. Going back to the owning player picks models would be so much better in my mind.
I preferred 6th to 5th - 7th I have not (and not likely to do now) bought but I have read it and whilst some things improve it - a lot (Force Organisation and Psychic phase) isn't better IMO.
MWHistorian wrote: Definitely 5th. It had it's problems but it's the fundamental direction I don't like about 7th.
It has no focus and is a wild mess of bloated, un-fun rules that make pick up games nearly impossible.
(The below list is what I don't like about 7th, but some of them may be perfectly fun for some people. Just not me.)
Mealstrum
LOW
unbound
loyalists with demonic summoning (That really bugs me.)
All or nothing psychic phase that penalizes non-psychic armies.
Necessity to ally everything.
I agree with you on some of these.
Fortunately, you dont have to play maelstrom games unless you and your opponent agree to. It's an optional set of rules that I find most players totally ignore.
Lords of war- I agree. I feel that they should be like maelstrom, optional. A player just cant effectively prepare for them unless they tailor for it.
Unbound- They have negatives but I think the positives are just too easy to exploit.
loyalists summoning...thats a toss up.Fairly easily explainable by renaming the daemons to be something like cyborgs or something (assembling spare battlefield rubble to create cyborgs that have the same stats as whatever daemon or some such. It would be way broken to only give one faction the option.
there are no armies that do not have access to psychers. Even tau can ally in some. So if a player doesnt want them, they dont have to but if they do, they can. advantages of having one is a toss up. They can also be a waste of points.
Allies I feel liven the game up and add flavor.I dont like the roken combos that battle brothers give though. Of course, if you dont like allies, dont take them, problem solved.
With the tanks, it is llike a lot of other stuff, just a matter of taste. I like the realism of them getting torn up by heavy weapons fire without them blowing up. Not every tank kill is an awesome explosion, most are simple breakdown due to massed weaker weapons fire. The meltas and las cannons still rule on one shot kills and punching through heavier armor.Again, a matter of personal taste.
I like that you now see a greater variety of lists instead of 15 sarbon copies of the same current fad ube army that are identical except for the paint jobs on them at every event.
codex creep. Earlier editions were bad for that. Everyone waited with baited breath to see how the new one as going to outdo the last and then rush to buy it. I'm liking the new lets try to keep the armies at equal power without overloading the new ones.
Special characters lessening... not a great thing. Wasnt fond of their overwhelming presence before though. Took away their specialness when they wee no brainers.
MWHistorian wrote: Definitely 5th. It had it's problems but it's the fundamental direction I don't like about 7th.
It has no focus and is a wild mess of bloated, un-fun rules that make pick up games nearly impossible.
(The below list is what I don't like about 7th, but some of them may be perfectly fun for some people. Just not me.)
Mealstrum
LOW
unbound
loyalists with demonic summoning (That really bugs me.)
All or nothing psychic phase that penalizes non-psychic armies.
Necessity to ally everything.
I agree with you on some of these.
Fortunately, you dont have to play maelstrom games unless you and your opponent agree to. It's an optional set of rules that I find most players totally ignore.
Lords of war- I agree. I feel that they should be like maelstrom, optional. A player just cant effectively prepare for them unless they tailor for it.
Unbound- They have negatives but I think the positives are just too easy to exploit.
loyalists summoning...thats a toss up.Fairly easily explainable by renaming the daemons to be something like cyborgs or something (assembling spare battlefield rubble to create cyborgs that have the same stats as whatever daemon or some such. It would be way broken to only give one faction the option.
there are no armies that do not have access to psychers. Even tau can ally in some. So if a player doesnt want them, they dont have to but if they do, they can. advantages of having one is a toss up. They can also be a waste of points.
Allies I feel liven the game up and add flavor.I dont like the roken combos that battle brothers give though. Of course, if you dont like allies, dont take them, problem solved.
With the tanks, it is llike a lot of other stuff, just a matter of taste. I like the realism of them getting torn up by heavy weapons fire without them blowing up. Not every tank kill is an awesome explosion, most are simple breakdown due to massed weaker weapons fire. The meltas and las cannons still rule on one shot kills and punching through heavier armor.Again, a matter of personal taste.
I like that you now see a greater variety of lists instead of 15 sarbon copies of the same current fad ube army that are identical except for the paint jobs on them at every event.
codex creep. Earlier editions were bad for that. Everyone waited with baited breath to see how the new one as going to outdo the last and then rush to buy it. I'm liking the new lets try to keep the armies at equal power without overloading the new ones.
Special characters lessening... not a great thing. Wasnt fond of their overwhelming presence before though. Took away their specialness when they wee no brainers.
It was the direction of the game that all this stuff points to that I don't like.
Also, see my complaint about psykers? What came next wasn't random. You just said "ally something in." I don't like the idea that you have to ally at all. If I play Tau, I want to play Tau. I played SOB and didn't want to ally anything in. (thematically and the required cost of buying another fething expensive dex.)
Also, see my complaint about psykers? What came next wasn't random. You just said "ally something in." I don't like the idea that you have to ally at all. If I play Tau, I want to play Tau. I played SOB and didn't want to ally anything in. (thematically and the required cost of buying another fething expensive dex.)
I agree completely.
I might be more charitable towards allies if it was even remotely based on fluff choice. However, all I've ever seen is someone running out of OP units in his own book, and so uses allies to borrow the OP units from a different army as well. It's just boring.
I think that 2nd was much better than the succeeding editions, and the most recent edition has been the worst yet. I could go into all kinds of minutia about the little rules, and the way GW is going, and this and that... but it all boils down to that the older editions were consistently more fun. For me it went from being so fun and spontaneous to feeling downgraded, to just feeling like I'm being had every time I buy or play anything new from GW.
With the tanks, it is llike a lot of other stuff, just a matter of taste. I like the realism of them getting torn up by heavy weapons fire without them blowing up. Not every tank kill is an awesome explosion, most are simple breakdown due to massed weaker weapons fire. The meltas and las cannons still rule on one shot kills and punching through heavier armor.Again, a matter of personal taste.
That's what the old vehicle damage table did, and portrayed rather well (e.g. once immobilized and guns were inoperable, the vehicle was destroyed). Tanks don't just take X number of hits and then shove off, either they get blown up or something critical breaks and the crew abandon the vehicle.
Vaktathi wrote: That's what the old vehicle damage table did, and portrayed rather well (e.g. once immobilized and guns were inoperable, the vehicle was destroyed). Tanks don't just take X number of hits and then shove off, either they get blown up or something critical breaks and the crew abandon the vehicle.
Exactly. If we want to discuss realism, the old table was more realistic than shaving off HPs.
I think for me the frustrating things are those that add a random element to the game. The more random something is the more frustration it causes. That was vehicles in 5th, some games you got penetrated repeatedly and just got glanced other times, pen, explode every time. 7th has a lot more of this, psychic powers (in every way), super heavy rules, charging, tons of random codex stuff. Etc.
I have to ask this, because I barely played 4th, and skipped 5th altogether.
Was 5th as WARMLY received back then as it is today? I get the feeling we've been trashing editions for awhile now and everyone has an old favorite. Just wondering if there was any 5th backlash back then.
KTG17 wrote: I have to ask this, because I barely played 4th, and skipped 5th altogether.
Was 5th as WARMLY received back then as it is today? I get the feeling we've been trashing editions for awhile now and everyone has an old favorite. Just wondering if there was any 5th backlash back then.
5th had its issues, it was largely seen as a sidegrade from 4th initially which changed some things for the better, some for the worse. There was backlash, but the nature was different. 5E had several major problems, some of which were obvious from the beginning, and several which were quite glaring indeed, so much so that I'm routinely surprised by how much I look back on it with fondness. But it did just work better as a "pick up and play" game.
KTG17 wrote: I have to ask this, because I barely played 4th, and skipped 5th altogether.
Was 5th as WARMLY received back then as it is today? I get the feeling we've been trashing editions for awhile now and everyone has an old favorite. Just wondering if there was any 5th backlash back then.
Wound allocation for mixed units, the preponderance of Deathstars and the fragile nature of tanks were all widely criticised. Beyond that, most of the issues were to do with balance or GW's usual sloppy writing. The actual system (aside from those couple of things mentioned) was solid, and gameplay was relatively fluid and intuitive.
So yes, there were plenty of complaints with 5th... but overall it played better than 6th/7th does.
It's funny though... Despite the fact that people might like 5th ed more, it is nigh impossible to get a gaming group to go back after the $$$ spent on the new codexes, rule books, etc.
If you want to talk vehicle damage, 2nd edition was fun. I'm not saying it was the best system, but I do remember forging some hardcore narratives with the old vehicle datacards that had different hit locations, different locations had different armour values and then different damage results. Not the most streamlined system, but I found it fun. Especially with the old armour penetration system where it wasn't just D6 + strength, but different guns had different dice worth of penetration. For example a Lascannon was 3D6 + 9, an Assault cannon was D6 + D10 + 8, a Multi-melta was D6 + 2D12 + 8.
Blacksails wrote: With 2nd, what was the average model count for an average size game?
About half of what it is now. Vehicles were more expensive, generally. Marines were 30 pts a piece, Orks were 10 or 12 (I don't have my codex with me). So with troops costing about double, you ended up wit about half the models. Which was good for those rules, since each model blocked line of sight (even in your own unit) and hand to hand combat was a slow nightmare.
Yeah, 2nd was a much smaller scale game, but definitely had its fun points. 3rd edition felt like it removed half the fun stuff in favour of larger games... a lot of my friends quit because they felt it was an unnecessary change to sell more models.
I actually didn't mind the stream lining, what I hated was some things were streamlined that didn't need to be streamlined... like 2nd edition each model had it's own movement characteristic... it doesn't actually make the game run any faster when you introduce a universal movement characteristic, it just means you have to add more special rules to account for some models moving faster. Save modifiers was another simplification that I hated, we can argue about what was more realistic, but save modifiers was definitely more balanced and once you figure out how to add and subtract it's actually no more time consuming.
Cover saves instead of to hit modifiers remains my number one choice for re-introduction.
Honestly though, I think there's only a handful of things in the core game that require changing, and many of those could be fixed by swapping the phrase "roll a D6" with the word "choose."
Really it is the codexes and their God awful internal and external balance that ultimately ruins or makes the editions.
Blacksails wrote: With 2nd, what was the average model count for an average size game?
About half of what it is now. Vehicles were more expensive, generally. Marines were 30 pts a piece, Orks were 10 or 12 (I don't have my codex with me). So with troops costing about double, you ended up wit about half the models. Which was good for those rules, since each model blocked line of sight (even in your own unit) and hand to hand combat was a slow nightmare.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Yeah, 2nd was a much smaller scale game, but definitely had its fun points. 3rd edition felt like it removed half the fun stuff in favour of larger games... a lot of my friends quit because they felt it was an unnecessary change to sell more models.
I actually didn't mind the stream lining, what I hated was some things were streamlined that didn't need to be streamlined... like 2nd edition each model had it's own movement characteristic... it doesn't actually make the game run any faster when you introduce a universal movement characteristic, it just means you have to add more special rules to account for some models moving faster. Save modifiers was another simplification that I hated, we can argue about what was more realistic, but save modifiers was definitely more balanced and once you figure out how to add and subtract it's actually no more time consuming.
Thanks guys.
Sounds like a decent skirmish game for the right amount of models.
Which is part of the reason I find 7th falls flat, and why 5th appears to be remembered with not a little fondness.
Seventh feels skirmishy, but has the point values, force org, and models that suggest 1500+, which is distinctly not a skirmish game when you have 100+ models and a dozen units. Fifth was at least a unit by unit game that actually catered to its higher model count with unit based rules and enough abstraction to create smooth gameplay.
Really, while 7th has a lot of random nonsense and poor writing, it'd probably play a lot better at very small point values if unit sizes were changed to reflect that.
It's very telling that Kill Team, which by dint of accident or design eliminates nearly all problem units and mechanics that regularly feature in a full sized game, remains an absolute blast to play.
Azreal13 wrote: It's very telling that Kill Team, which by dint of accident or design eliminates nearly all problem units and mechanics that regularly feature in a full sized game, remains an absolute blast to play.
I love Kill Team myself, the Heralds of Ruin one in particular, but it's a nightmare to try and get people to actually play it.
Ultimately, people want to use their big expensive collections, Kill Team once in a while is fine, people enjoy it, but they want to be able to enjoy using their mountain of stuff more often than not. As much as people complain locally about 7ths rules, they keep playing it over alternatives. For now, at any rate.
What's interesting to me is the death of Apocalypse, however. I haven't played in, organized, been asked to organize (that was one of my jobs in the club; run Apoc, my voice carries well, good for yelling at people to focus and get gak done) or even heard of an Apoc game in months, where we used to do one once or twice a month. One might think that's because you can now use Apoc-only units in regular 40k, but I've found people's interest waned because the problems with the 7th ed ruleset (and the new Apoc edition was also sub-par) only get worse the more points you put on a table.
considering that at 5000 points I just put more Russes and a Baneblade on the table, whereas an Eldar player then has 10 psykers and 10+ skimmers, the imbalances get absolutely ridiculous. With formations not costing any additional points and certain armies scaling much better than others, along with more random stuff which doesn't add much like the Disaster system, Finest Hours and whatnot, Apocalypse, which was once my favourite expression of 40k is fundamentally broken in the current ruleset, and completely dead. Before our group gave up on Apoc, we limited games to 30,000 points, and they were often a frustrating grind unless everyone co-ordinated their lists to make sure no one broke the very sensitive balance one can achieve in 7th. Back in fifth, we had a two-day long 120,000 point game which everyone had a blast in, brought literally everything we could find (including the store's display armies) across four tables and it worked.
And that's the big difference between 5th and now that I feel; you could bring most just about any two lists together and the game would be decided more about who played better; MEHTAL BAWKSES certainly over-performed, but it was a relatively minor advantage compared to the disparity of today.
Sounds like a decent skirmish game for the right amount of models..
Yup. Although I think the 'right amount of models' was actually fewer than 2nd ed used... Necromunda used essentially the same rules, with a few extra bits and pieces thrown in, and worked brilliantly with that system.
Yup. Although I think the 'right amount of models' was actually fewer than 2nd ed used... Necromunda used essentially the same rules, with a few extra bits and pieces thrown in, and worked brilliantly with that system.
Interesting.
Its disappointing really what GW is giving us, considering they've made some excellent games in the past.
BFG to me always struck me as a pretty good space combat game.
5th, when an army was an army and there's wasn't the need for massive hoop jumping to build a list.
You brought Blood Angels and played Blood Angels. The fluffy driven players could still modify the rules to create allies while those wanting structure, the arguably larger chunk of the community given the decline of the fiscal reports from GW, could have relatively organized play.
I wonder if we'll see 8th before it's all said and done and cuts whole cloth all the terrible changes from 6E and 7E. Random isn't a game.
And that's the big difference between 5th and now that I feel; you could bring most just about any two lists together and the game would be decided more about who played better; MEHTAL BAWKSES certainly over-performed, but it was a relatively minor advantage compared to the disparity of today.
And I agree with your discussion on Apoc. Pre-6E Apoc, it was a blast and felt like a day of hucking dice. After, it felt so convoluted... and then THAT PERSON has to bring Imotek... UGH.
Blacksails wrote: With 2nd, what was the average model count for an average size game?
About half of what it is now. Vehicles were more expensive, generally. Marines were 30 pts a piece, Orks were 10 or 12 (I don't have my codex with me). So with troops costing about double, you ended up wit about half the models. Which was good for those rules, since each model blocked line of sight (even in your own unit) and hand to hand combat was a slow nightmare.
This is the truth. H2H was fought by each engaged model. So if you had two 5 man Marine squads attacking each other in H2H, and each guy had one separate opponent in H2H, you'd have to resolve 5 separate H2H combats. Then you could parry your opponent's dice with some of your attacks...it was kind of long-winded for larger units.
RE: Hullpoints, one easy way to implement a similar mechanic would be to scale it backwards and make them "Hull Damage Points." Ea. glancing hit you suffered gave you +1, ea. penetrating hit +2 automatically after applying the result.
So a Rhino hit by 3 Missile Launchers receiving a Glance and 2 Pens would apply the Glance first (+1 on the vehicle damage table), then say the shooter rolls a 1 for the first penetrating hit, it'd be 1 + 1 = 2 (crew shaken). The vehicle now has 3 Hull Damage points. The next Penetrating Hit would destroy the vehicle on a 4+ (4 + 3 = 7, explodes).
It would still be possible to HP out a vehicle, but it would take a lot of glances. On the flipside, each Glance would make a penetrating hit far more likely to cause catastrophic damage.
Sorry, I based the realism o accounts of actual veterans who operated tanks in combat situations. Going by their accounts, the newer rules are more realistic.
Allies... Again, no one is holding a knife to anyones throat and forcing them to take any. If you dont want them, dont use them. Problem solved. lol
The good thing about all of these opinion/perspective based threads is that we ALL get to be "right" and no one is "wrong". This is because it is purely based on opinions so lets try to remember that.
EVIL INC wrote: Allies... Again, no one is holding a knife to anyones throat and forcing them to take any. If you dont want them, dont use them. Problem solved. lol
I prefer the opposite school of thought. Keeping allies out of the core rules keeps the game much cleaner, it better allows you to keep different armies unique but still balanced against each other.
Then if you want to take allies, take them anyway. I never needed the rules to tell me I was allowed to take allies, I just organised with my opponent to take them and I took them.
I've always found it easier to add to the core rules than subtract from them, as subtracting from them is more likely to lead to problems where you opponent has to cut in to their army to make a legal army with the new modifications.
At most I think allies should be an optional addition or supplement (or maybe even just a WD article).
Allies system is great unless you use battle brothers to abuse buffs not designed for that. The easiest would be just toning down all alliances to allies of convenience.
koooaei wrote: Allies system is great unless you use battle brothers to abuse buffs not designed for that. The easiest would be just toning down all alliances to allies of convenience.
This is why I don't think they should be part of the core rules. They just add to the ill-conceived bloatedness. Whenever a rule is great "but", "if", "unless", then to me it's a poorly thought out rule that should be fixed, in the case of allies I don't really think there is a good fix other than to just remove it from the core rules and have it as a WD article/supplement/optional extra.
koooaei wrote: Allies system is great unless you use battle brothers to abuse buffs not designed for that. The easiest would be just toning down all alliances to allies of convenience.
This is why I don't think they should be part of the core rules. They just add to the ill-conceived bloatedness. Whenever a rule is great "but", "if", "unless", then to me it's a poorly thought out rule that should be fixed, in the case of allies I don't really think there is a good fix other than to just remove it from the core rules and have it as a WD article/supplement/optional extra.
Player chooses who dies is a great rule unless you abuse it for your draigo pallies withh all different gear. And how come all those special weapons and sergeants are always the last survivors standing at the frontline all the time?.. Players will often abuse whatever rules they have.
I like the deeper tactical approach with positioning and micro-management that 7-th provides. It's not perfect with tanky characters, but it's better than the complete invalidation of firing directions.
Player chooses who dies is a great rule unless you abuse it for your draigo pallies withh all different gear. And how come all those special weapons and sergeants are always the last survivors standing at the frontline all the time?.. Players will often abuse whatever rules they have.
Well the special weapon makes sense. Kill the melta gunner, and one of the other 30 Guardsmen in the platoon can use it.
As for Sergeants, just imagine its a built in LoS that automatically passes. Or a motivated Guardsmen Corporal stepping up when the Sergeant bites it.
Any number of scenarios really.
But yeah, musical wounds on multiple wound, different gear models was not ideal.
I like the deeper tactical approach with positioning and micro-management that 7-th provides. It's not perfect with tanky characters, but it's better than the complete invalidation of firing directions.
That's not tactical. That's just micro-management. Its tedious and makes less sense than how wounds allocation worked in 5th. There isn't a benefit really.
Honestly, there is absolutely nothing tactical about keeping a shield of lesser duded in front of your important ones. All it does is waste time ensuring you have a safe number of wounds in front of the important guys and spending extra time measuring distances to confirm which models are the closest.
I like the deeper tactical approach with positioning and micro-management that 7-th provides. It's not perfect with tanky characters, but it's better than the complete invalidation of firing directions.
That's not tactical. That's just micro-management. Its tedious and makes less sense than how wounds allocation worked in 5th. There isn't a benefit really.
Honestly, there is absolutely nothing tactical about keeping a shield of lesser duded in front of your important ones. All it does is waste time ensuring you have a safe number of wounds in front of the important guys and spending extra time measuring distances to confirm which models are the closest.
How's moving forces to shoot someone from the flank not positioning, for example?
Imagine, you want to reach the enemy lines but there's a thin line of expendable bauble wrap. What would you do? Concentrate your fire in one place and rush in the breach! In 5-th ed you couldn't do this unless you've killed every single one of this 50 conscripts spread from one table edge to another.
I like the deeper tactical approach with positioning and micro-management that 7-th provides. It's not perfect with tanky characters, but it's better than the complete invalidation of firing directions.
That's not tactical. That's just micro-management. Its tedious and makes less sense than how wounds allocation worked in 5th. There isn't a benefit really.
Honestly, there is absolutely nothing tactical about keeping a shield of lesser duded in front of your important ones. All it does is waste time ensuring you have a safe number of wounds in front of the important guys and spending extra time measuring distances to confirm which models are the closest.
How's moving forces to shoot someone from the flank not positioning, for example?
Imagine, you want to reach the enemy lines but there's a thin line of expendable bauble wrap. What would you do? Concentrate your fire in one place and rush in the breach! In 5-th ed you couldn't do this unless you've killed every single one of this 50 conscripts spread from one table edge to another.
Yeaaaaah Have to agree here, possitioning & wound allocation in 40k is very tactical. Making sure you have enough people in front, well you don't have to - thats your tactical desicion, how many to put where dependant on the firepower and possition of your enemy, noting cover/LOS, massive tactical variables other games don't incorporate right there.
Most others rely on the only real possitioning tactic variables as 'guess how many inches you are'.
Player chooses who dies is a great rule unless you abuse it for your draigo pallies withh all different gear. And how come all those special weapons and sergeants are always the last survivors standing at the frontline all the time?.. Players will often abuse whatever rules they have.
Well the special weapon makes sense. Kill the melta gunner, and one of the other 30 Guardsmen in the platoon can use it.
As for Sergeants, just imagine its a built in LoS that automatically passes. Or a motivated Guardsmen Corporal stepping up when the Sergeant bites it.
Any number of scenarios really.
But yeah, musical wounds on multiple wound, different gear models was not ideal.
I like the deeper tactical approach with positioning and micro-management that 7-th provides. It's not perfect with tanky characters, but it's better than the complete invalidation of firing directions.
That's not tactical. That's just micro-management. Its tedious and makes less sense than how wounds allocation worked in 5th. There isn't a benefit really.
Honestly, there is absolutely nothing tactical about keeping a shield of lesser duded in front of your important ones. All it does is waste time ensuring you have a safe number of wounds in front of the important guys and spending extra time measuring distances to confirm which models are the closest.
That's exactly how I feel. I never had a problem with special weapons dying last. In 3rd it specifically tells you it represents another trooper picking up the weapon. And I like the story element of the characters leading from the front without immediately getting shot down. It's cinematic. And for what they charge for a powerfist these days it's nice to be able use it without sticking your heroic sergeant in the dead center of a unit to avoid casualties.
I think the overkill rule in 5th was more than good enough for representing the off-chance of your heroic character getting sniped, or the melta-gun getting damaged.
Even if you were gonna do a "closest models" rule, it should have been made so that you apply wounds in order from closest to furthest, THEN roll saves (all at once using different colored dice for specialist models would be best). The front guy taking every single shot until he dies is no more realistic than any other system. Just because a guy is standing half a foot closer to the enemy the the 2 guys next to him doesn't mean he'll receive more fire than the guys who are nearly as close.
But, in the end, I greatly prefer the speed, simplicity, and fun of the "owner removes models" system.
That's exactly how I feel. I never had a problem with special weapons dying last. In 3rd it specifically tells you it represents another trooper picking up the weapon. And I like the story element of the characters leading from the front without immediately getting shot down. It's cinematic. And for what they charge for a powerfist these days it's nice to be able use it without sticking your heroic sergeant in the dead center of a unit to avoid casualties.
I think the overkill rule in 5th was more than good enough for representing the off-chance of your heroic character getting sniped, or the melta-gun getting damaged.
Even if you were gonna do a "closest models" rule, it should have been made so that you apply wounds in order from closest to furthest, THEN roll saves (all at once using different colored dice for specialist models would be best). The front guy taking every single shot until he dies is no more realistic than any other system. Just because a guy is standing half a foot closer to the enemy the the 2 guys next to him doesn't mean he'll receive more fire than the guys who are nearly as close.
But, in the end, I greatly prefer the speed, simplicity, and fun of the "owner removes models" system.
koooaei wrote: Allies system is great unless you use battle brothers to abuse buffs not designed for that. The easiest would be just toning down all alliances to allies of convenience.
This is why I don't think they should be part of the core rules. They just add to the ill-conceived bloatedness. Whenever a rule is great "but", "if", "unless", then to me it's a poorly thought out rule that should be fixed, in the case of allies I don't really think there is a good fix other than to just remove it from the core rules and have it as a WD article/supplement/optional extra.
Player chooses who dies is a great rule unless you abuse it for your draigo pallies withh all different gear. And how come all those special weapons and sergeants are always the last survivors standing at the frontline all the time?.. Players will often abuse whatever rules they have.
I like the deeper tactical approach with positioning and micro-management that 7-th provides. It's not perfect with tanky characters, but it's better than the complete invalidation of firing directions.
I think you didn't mean to quote me because your reply has nothing to do with what I was saying
But since you did, I might as well put in my 2c. I prefer the system where the controlling player chooses as well. Shooting the closest model until he dies is hardly realistic anyway and the "tactical depth" it adds is marginal and really not on the scale that the game is being played (IMO you should be worrying more about squads as a whole rather than micromanaging individual squad members).
Though I don't mind the idea of allocating hits or wounds from closest to furthest, then rolling the wounds/saves (grouping together models which are identical). But there again, this is probably something more appropriate for ~1000-1500pt games at most, and since 40k can't decide what scale it wants to be, I'm happy with the abstraction that the controlling player chooses.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: If you made it realistic it would lose a lot of the 40k feel (assaulting enemy units in close combat even though you have guns to shoot them is not realistic... but it's core to the whole concept of 40k, so the rules need to be unrealistic to capture that feel).
Of course this is all opinion, but I would say that assaulting the enemy is perfectly realistic when you have technology (power armor, TDA, force fields, et cetera) that drastically reduce the effectiveness of enemy shooting. If the enemy is only effective at shooting (Tau, Guard) then it makes sense to engage them in close quarters to nullify their one and only strength.
There are a few things I dislike quite a bit with 7th and the direction the game has taken, such as super heavies, gargantuans, allies, unbound, invincible units etc.
But the absolute worst part about 7th (and 6th) has nothing to do with balance or list building or fluffiness or what-have-you. The worst part is the time-consuming rules bloat. Random this and d6 that ad infinitum. Back in 5th a game with my regular gaming buddy would take about 45-60 minutes, and a game with someone else at the club (or a store) would take about 1.5 hours. Now that time is doubled.
Spending more time on a game is not necessarily bad, but when all that extra time is just a bunch of randomization, it just sucks the fun out of it all. Particularly bad is the pre-game rolls against psychic heavy armies.
This was bad enough in 6th, but in 7th there's an additional factor with the unlimited options meaning that most games there is a 'telling your opponent what your stuff is and does' phase added in.
If we changed up the psychic phase so my being made of warp could properly harness the warp like they used to, that would bee cool (RIP flickering fire on 3 charges)
Give various unit types a minimum charge distance. It bugs the hell out of me when a 5 inch charge is failed. I understand it is also super sweet when you make a 10 in charge though.
Slap invisibility down into the ground (Just WS and BS1, no snap shot shenanigans, flamers and blasts should still be able to target them)
Those changes would make me love 7th more than anything, as they are my primary gripes.
I had to go for fifth simply because it's where I started!! The nostalgia is too much to deny!! The game also seemed much simpler and just more fun in general - along with codices which had a bit of flavour to them which just made the game more enjoyable for me personally!!
7th has killed my gaming group, so although I'm a fan of the flexibility of 7th I'll have to go for 5th as it was much easier to organise games and find common ground.
Having just recently returned to Warhammer after a long-ish hiatus, along with a small group of like-minded friends with similar amounts of disposable income, 7th has been good to us. Speaking for the rest of them, I think we would all agree that 7th is the best edition we've played so far in terms of having fun, interesting games.
I can absolutely understand the criticisms levelled at the new edition compared the previous ones. We've certainly encountered our fair share of vague rules and odd situations. But they happen with less frequency now than they ever did before. And the new additions rules-wise have been quite refreshing - although I understand that this may be because our armies don't specifically exploit those loopholes. At the risk of sounding contrarian, a lot of the gripes people have about specific units or rules or combinations thereof specific to 7th edition just don't seem to make a big splash in our group. Not for lack of trying - our lists are built to win, usually with the help of the wonderful folks in the Dakka list building forum. But we seldom encounter situations where one list is outright unbeatable, or the balance feels so off that the game is hardly worth playing, or the randomness factor prevents tactical decision making.
All that being said, if there's one thing I dislike about modern 40k, it's flyers and superheavies... they just don't feel like they fit in the scale of the regular, non-apocalypse format game, either aesthetically or rules-wise.
Thud wrote: Or, what if I line up my guys across your table edge and you have infantry in reserves, what happens when your guys come in? You can't move onto the table, because my guys are blocking you, so what happens?
(For those of you wondering; yes, these things were all covered i previous editions of the game.)
With all due respect but I'm quite sure that link is from a game that took place in 5th edition. 6th edition strictly forbids you from holding your entire army in reserve and you would auto lose if you didn't had any models at the end of a turn. Furthermore, 6th/7th both specifically states that anything stuck in reserves were automatically destroyed at the end of the game.
5th edition created a weird paradox in that situation. Movement forbids moving models through enemy units and closer than 1".
Nothing in the Reserve-section mentions this situation, except for permanently immobile units who were allowed to deep strike if they couldn't be deployed on the table.
No one disputed the fact that the bikes in the link above weren't allowed to arrive from reserve, because there were several restrictions that prevented the bikes from arriving. What was up to debate and confusing was what the hell happened at the end of the game, or rather, turn 5+. The Reserves-section directly stated that you needed to enter your units automatically, and you weren't allowed to have anything off-board. Since Ongoing Reserves wasn't a thing back then, the only thing that ever mentioned units being destroyed upon delay on turn 5+, was the Deep Strike Mishap Table but since the bikes never entered by Deep Strike no one could actually answer what happened to the bikes. It was ruled that the bike player lost by default, since there was no conceivable way for them to enter the table.
So to answer your question: in 6th edition, I would lose by default, since I could only deploy half my army in reserves and if a situation occurred were you tabled my men and the rest was in reserves, then the rules dictated that I would suffer an automatic defeat. In 7th edition, I can hold my entire army in reserves, but I would lose because I couldn't get them on the board before turn 2. If you wipe my deployed army in turn 2 and my reserves arrives in the beginning of my turn 2, BUT, you were blocking their entry, then I would lose by default. My reserves are unable to deploy and are thus delayed, the rules then dictates that since they were delayed, I had no models left at the end of the turn which causes an automatic defeat.
Blacksails wrote: I can see an argument made for removing models from the front, but then mechanics like LoS and losing your special/heavy weapons run counter to that realism feel.
Having the guy closest to the enemy always be the one to take the hit is not even remotely realistic.
And yes, adding in Look Out Sir so that the guy at the front is always the one to take the hit unless he's not wearing a helmet just makes it even worse.
The old way of always having the special weapon character be the last to die was, imho, way worse. Yes, I remember the bit about the other guys picking up the weapon; however, at least some of those heavy weapons require some sort of backpack or at least additional mounting points to use. In the 5 or 6 minutes of time that a battle represents, none of them would really have the time to stop and change out gear.
Honestly, I'm not sure there is a good way to handle this without going to random allocation and that would add at least an hour to game time. At least with hitting the closest guy it adds an element of tactics to placement. For look out sir it ought to be limited to maybe one or two attempts. After that they should go straight into that forward model. Now, docdoom77 did mention the possibility of just allocating all of the wounds across the group and letting each model make it's own saves. That's slightly better, but still time consuming.
There's two arguments for wound allocation: let the player decide, because if a special weapon trooper were to go down, someone else would pick up the gun, or if a Sergeant died, a Corporal or someone else in the squad would step or what have you. On the inverse, unlike a WW2 game where it's entirely feasible for that sort of thing to occur, in 40k, an Ork boy just doesn't become a Nob in the heat of the moment, nor can a Terminator just rip the assault cannon off a fallen comrade mid-battle, so directional losses makes sense. This mechanic, however, allows single guys to tank every single shot, often super-durable ICs who then selectively "look out sir" wounds, which is also not even remotely realistic.
There are things I like about both systems, but for gameplay simplicity and speed (and boy have the changes to 6th and 7th made the game slow; I can finish about one game a day, ranging from 4 to 6 hours depending on how argumentative the opponent is, which is insane) I think the old method just works better.
But then I'd also like to see people able to choose their warlord traits and psychic powers, but then that of course would require them to be balanced, rather than some gak and some amazing, along with fixed charge and movement ranges tied to a unit's movement value modified by terrain (ala Bolt Action; move maximum six through terrain, can move 12 and not shoot if out of terrain, charging into terrain gives defenders bonuses). On top of that I'd see cover a modifier and so on and so forth; the game doesn't need to take hours and hours if GW realized that rolling buckets of dice for every minute thing is not "cinematic" nor overly enjoyable. Save the rolling for actually interesting/fun things, like the Boon table, or everything Skaven in Fantasy.
Not only is all the random tables time consuming, but so often it just has no effect on the game because the results are either highly conditional, or result in another random effect (e.g. Mysterious Objectives and Sabotaged), and ultimately are just a time-sink and rolling dice for its own sake.
Vaktathi wrote: Not only is all the random tables time consuming, but so often it just has no effect on the game because the results are either highly conditional, or result in another random effect (e.g. Mysterious Objectives and Sabotaged), and ultimately are just a time-sink and rolling dice for its own sake.
The other aspect is that it's rather irritating to see a player get ahead because of some random nonsense (sometimes before the game has even begun), rather than good tactics.
e.g. If all his objectives give a useful bonus, while the ones you control are all sabotaged. Or, if his mission objectives are easily completed, whilst yours are next to impossible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MajorStoffer wrote: There's two arguments for wound allocation: let the player decide, because if a special weapon trooper were to go down, someone else would pick up the gun, or if a Sergeant died, a Corporal or someone else in the squad would step or what have you. On the inverse, unlike a WW2 game where it's entirely feasible for that sort of thing to occur, in 40k, an Ork boy just doesn't become a Nob in the heat of the moment, nor can a Terminator just rip the assault cannon off a fallen comrade mid-battle, so directional losses makes sense. This mechanic, however, allows single guys to tank every single shot, often super-durable ICs who then selectively "look out sir" wounds, which is also not even remotely realistic.
There are things I like about both systems, but for gameplay simplicity and speed (and boy have the changes to 6th and 7th made the game slow; I can finish about one game a day, ranging from 4 to 6 hours depending on how argumentative the opponent is, which is insane) I think the old method just works better.
But then I'd also like to see people able to choose their warlord traits and psychic powers, but then that of course would require them to be balanced, rather than some gak and some amazing
tyrannosaurus wrote: 7th has killed my gaming group, so although I'm a fan of the flexibility of 7th I'll have to go for 5th as it was much easier to organise games and find common ground.
Never really had any issues, then I went to a different game shop. Apparently unbound is all cool there, where I play it is an "ask your opponent first" thing.
vipoid wrote: The other aspect is that it's rather irritating to see a player get ahead because of some random nonsense (sometimes before the game has even begun), rather than good tactics..
Yeah. One of the games I won at Adepticon this year, my army was pretty much redundant... My opponent did more damage to himself through some bad Mysterious Forest rolls winding up with the terrain killing half his guys. While he was good about it, that game wasn't much fun for him.
I find myself sort of torn between the two editions, because I like and dislike aspects of both. I prefer the vehicle rules in 7th over 5th - it's harder to kill them in one shot, but they can't simply wander around the battlefield soaking up shots all game - but as someone who likes structure in his games, I generally dislike unbound armies because it's so easy to abuse them. I think 6th/7th did a nice job of fixing and adding things to the game, such as Warlord traits (though I feel like you should be able to choose them, not just roll for them), the new missions, making night fighting less annoying, etc, but as has been said before, the sheer number of random charts you have to roll on in the course of a game is kind of ridiculous.
I think I have to lean towards 5th slightly, partly because of nostalgia for the edition where I started, but I have to recognize that 6th/7th added a fair few number of improvements over it.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But either way, I don't really care all that much about realism because the game is so horribly unrealistic anyway. If you made it realistic it would lose a lot of the 40k feel (assaulting enemy units in close combat even though you have guns to shoot them is not realistic... but it's core to the whole concept of 40k, so the rules need to be unrealistic to capture that feel).
I'm quite certain that 38,000 years from now, it will make more sense to walk up to someone and hack at them with a chainsword than to blow the smithereens out of them with guns from a kilometer away. Or, orbital bombardment.
I havce liked bits and pieces of msot editions and disliekd as many.
Best thing to do is take what the bits your group likes and just use that - msot of us are nto interested in tourneys so we are all fine with our 6.5 rules.
MarsNZ wrote: A couple of random tables doubles your play time? Man, it must have taken you years to learn the WS/Wound tables. Brutal.
Got a 2e game coming up soon, there's an edition worth pining over.
It's not just a "couple" of tables.
We've got Mysterious Objectives, who knows how many Warlord tables, D weapons, Stomp Attacks, Superheavy explosions, Maelstrom objective tables, Maelstrom mission table, Warpstorm table, roughly a dozen Psychic Powers tables, Perils of the Warp, Chaos Boons, Chaos Gifts, and probably a couple more I'm forgetting that simply did not exist in 5E.
Granted, not necessarily all of them will show up in any given game, but it's entirely routine to half to deal with half a dozen more tables in 7E than you did in 5E.
I spoke at length about this in a previous thread about how I was building a gaming group to specifically go back and play 5th edition for a few reasons:
1. Cost of codex books and rules.
2. Comp between codex books rather than try to build a balance of detachments, formations, allies, forge world, and super heavies.
3. Fewer poorly written rules.
I think it's obvious that the 40k community isn't happy. Back in the 5th edition days, we seldom saw threads like this. Today, we see a few of them pop up every week and they're some of the most popular threads on the whole forum! Personally, I'm so unhappy with how poorly written and unbalanced 7th edition is that I actually wish for 6th edition back. Sadly GW has become a vicitm of their own creation to a point where their only goal is to continue to shovel the same material at us over and over again. By that I mean, if you go back to 2004 which is 11 years ago and not that long when you think of board games and table-top games we've had 4 different versions of 40k including what's about to be our 4th different Space Marine codex. That tells me that the only consistency that GW has is inconsistency.
The only thing that I truly believe that GW improves upon is it's presentation, and by that I mean artwork and hard-bound books. I'm happy to be going back to playing 5th edition, however if I'd just as happily go back and play 4th or 3.5 using the Chapter Approved articles/books.
My worst fear is that GW will do the same to Warhammer Fantasy Battle which really has me afraid for 9th edition.
In 5th edition I could go and play pick up games with locals. We played two or three games until the store kicked us out at 10-11pm, usually two or three games going simultaneously. Players got there at store open and played all day. By the end of 5th we'd have people refuse games with BA, GK, and IG, but it wasn't terrible.
In 6th, Pickup games were much rarer. People showed up and played maybe one game. I couldn't find anyone to meet me for a 6pm game. Played like a half dozen games, but had to schedule them, usually with out of town era and I had to drive. I played a lot of tournaments, at least one per month.
In 7th Pick up games are non existent, maybe a single game will be played. I have to schedule every game with people from out of town. Tournaments are scarce and the entire scene has slowed drastically.
5th was fun, I remember truly enjoyable games. Sure, wound shenanigans were a bit too much, sure transports were a bit too good, and BA being SM+1 and GK being BA+1 was ugly. Then there was Leafblower. But overall, it was still preferable to what 7th has brought.
Did I mention I could play a 2500pt game in less time in 5th edition than a 1500pt game in 7th, oh and we were happy to do it with one FOC.
There is a reason I've sold 75% of my 40k and haven't bought any rules and only handful of models since 7th dropped. I will not pay money for GW rules, and I'm down to one army, and trying not to spend any money on it as I debate bailing on 40k for good.
In 5th edition I could go and play pick up games with locals. We played two or three games until the store kicked us out at 10-11pm, usually two or three games going simultaneously. Players got there at store open and played all day. By the end of 5th we'd have people refuse games with BA, GK, and IG, but it wasn't terrible.
In 6th, Pickup games were much rarer. People showed up and played maybe one game. I couldn't find anyone to meet me for a 6pm game. Played like a half dozen games, but had to schedule them, usually with out of town era and I had to drive. I played a lot of tournaments, at least one per month.
In 7th Pick up games are non existent, maybe a single game will be played. I have to schedule every game with people from out of town. Tournaments are scarce and the entire scene has slowed drastically.
5th was fun, I remember truly enjoyable games. Sure, wound shenanigans were a bit too much, sure transports were a bit too good, and BA being SM+1 and GK being BA+1 was ugly. Then there was Leafblower. But overall, it was still preferable to what 7th has brought.
Did I mention I could play a 2500pt game in less time in 5th edition than a 1500pt game in 7th, oh and we were happy to do it with one FOC.
There is a reason I've sold 75% of my 40k and haven't bought any rules and only handful of models since 7th dropped. I will not pay money for GW rules, and I'm down to one army, and trying not to spend any money on it as I debate bailing on 40k for good.
Mirrors my experiences very well. 5E had its problems, and I still cannot believe that I prefer it over another edition, but I do. Pickup games are increasingly difficult to get and often nonexistent, games increasingly have to be scheduled with an increasingly smaller pool of players, tournaments (at least, local/store events as opposed to the big "convention" style tournaments) are increasingly small, games are increasingly one-sided and the balance nonexistent, and most pointedly, store stock stays on the shelves way longer.
Never thought I'd long for 5th, but I do. The game played better, there were more players, and we weren't paying Forgeworld prices for nearly everything. I damn near choked when I saw how much the new Mechanicus HQ guy cost...$36 for a Terminator sized character, nearly 3x what such characters were doing for at the start of 5E.
Wolflord Patrick wrote: The only thing that I truly believe that GW improves upon is it's presentation, and by that I mean artwork and hard-bound books.
Yes and no... Hardcovers look pretty, but they're less practical at the game table. They're ultimately an added expense just to have books that look a little prettier sitting on the shelf.
IMO, 4th was the best. The style of the codexes and the 'feel' of the game was better, at least for me.
Rules wise, 7th is great if you have a good gaming community, but otherwise is very meh. I know this sentiment has been heard so many times, but its true.
5th really lost it toward the end of the lifecycle with the Ward codexes coming out, and the loss of the options and character the new codexes suffered. It was never great, but felt better than the current state of things. Sad, as I really love 40k.
4th Ed assault, sweeping, assault out of a transport rules
With 7th rest, maybe redo the psy phase, so that if the guy ends up with 4 Warp dices Vs 22 he still has a chance to do fething something...
Dunno like you can always DtW, but you can add extra dices to the effort from your pool.
Redo the rules about assaults after scout or reserves, Give the option to Either; DS and Shoot in the same phase, or DS and assault in the same turn, but ennemy units can Overwatch on 5's.
Tweaked rules for flyers, the fact that i can't place my flyer in some way because there is dudes on the ground under him, doesn't make a freakin sens.
use the Wobbly model rule, put the flyer base the closest but still no less then 1" of the unit, place a Marker where the flyer really is, for all ranges measurements the flyer counts as been where the marker is, here done...
And there is others things that i've forgot right now...
vipoid wrote: I think 5th was a vastly better system.
It had it's problems - glancing hits were too weak, wound allocation was a problem for a few units, you could kill models out of LoS of the weapon etc.
However, it was close to becoming an excellent tactical game. The randomness (outside of the standard combat rolls), was pretty minimal. Whilst shooting had the edge, combat still had useful roles - whether massed AP2 or the ability to ignore the prolific cover saves. Also, the scoring system (if a little arbitrary) meant that troops had a vital purpose in any army - and so made them more than just a tax for most armies. Whilst not perfect, 5th was quite well balanced, and player actions felt important to whether you won or lost a game.
Then we move to 7th. What's that? You want your actions to be important? Well tough - here, eat this massive barrel of Random! Oh, did you feel that psychic powers were too predictable? Well, now you can random your powers, then we have an entire phase - where you get a random number of random dice, which you can throw to try and cast your powers. If you randomly score enough random, your power succeeds. But, your opponent can also spend his random to try and dispel your random, by getting at least as much random as you did to cast your power. Also, beware that if you roll too much random, your psyker might have to randomly roll on the perils of the warp random table, potentially suffering some unfortunate effects.
Oh, and we also have a system based around random objectives and, God help us, random victory points. Why don't we just flip a coin to see who wins, and save having to make any tactical decisions at all?
But, even aside from all the random, there's just so much crap these days. Allies was horribly implemented, and remains nothing more than a way to combine the most broken elements of 2 armies, into one overwhelmingly broken one. Fliers are even worse, because their mechanics are a load of nonsense, and GW thinks that any anti-air weapons must either cost 10 times what they're worth, or be useless against anything else (just like a meltagun is crap against anything that isn't a vehicle... oh, wait ). Most CC weapons got stripped of AP2, whilst shooting weapons continued to be buffed - including a slew of ignores cover stuff and AP2, thereby eliminating the two main reasons to seek melee in the first place.
Also, were you worried that only a few units could abuse the 5th edition wound-allocation rules? Well, don't worry - now all you need is a character and you're set (sure - it's perfectly reasonable for one guy to absorb every wound from a large blast or flamer template ). And, even if you don't manage to abuse the system, you can still waste everybody's time trying to. See, you'd think in GW's endless attempt to scale up 40k, they might at least make larger games easier to manage. HAHAHA, as if. No, now we have the delight of micro-managing every single bloody man in every single bloody unit. Oh, and the above mechanic frequently requires that large numbers of saves be rolled individually. Fantastic. My greatest worry was that I wasn't wasting enough time in the wound-allocation part, so thanks for rectifying that, GW.
And why do we have so many useless special rules? Did the game really need Blind? I don't think I've seen it happen once. And we even have special rules that do nothing but give the model two different named special rules. Why? What's the point? Why does every single rule need a stupid, pretentious name - no matter how rarely it's used? On the other end of the scale, why did Fear need to exist at all, let alone have a spot on anyone Warlord table? And why are warlord tables even random? It's rather hard to forge the narrative when my commander apparently can't remember what he's good at.
I think it would be fair to say that 7th edition irritates me a bit.
Perfect! This made me laugh so much because of exactly how true it is, and also how well it was written. Exalted!
Also you made me not want to play 7th edition as written anymore. I think houserules will start to be written.
5th was a joke....
MSU.
Grey knights EVERYWHERE.
Dead codices (BT, Eldar, Orks, etc)
Terrible models
Awful shooting rules.
No rule normalization
The damn force or chart that will forever taint the game.
Junk flyer rules
A million FAQs and errata
Seventh ed is amazing for all these things being fixed.
MSU is still a huge thing, always has been. The new Maelstrom missions only further reinforce this.
Grey knights EVERYWHERE.
This is a symptom *every* edition has suffered from. 5E had GK/SW/IG/BA, while in 4E it was Tau/CSM's/Eldar, in 6E it was Necrons/Eldar/SM/Tau, etc.
Dead codices (BT, Eldar, Orks, etc)
Hardly unique to 5E. It's not like we don't have the same issue now, particularly if we're talking about armies that aren't running allies. Earlier editions suffered the same thing, how many IG players did you see in 4E? Almost none. How many mono-CSM armies do you see today? Very few.
Terrible models
O_o what models are we talking about? Lets also not forget that they were often half or less the price they are now. Ultimately, the overwhelmingly vast majority of models out today, were there in 5E as well.
Awful shooting rules.
The shooting rules are no different in 7E than in 5E aside from Rapid Fire weapons, or are you talking about *wound allocation*?
No rule normalization
What exactly do you mean by this?
The damn force or chart that will forever taint the game.
The one also used in 3E, 4E, and 6E?
Junk flyer rules
Are we talking about core GW's hamfisting of flyers in as Skimmers, or FW's *actual* flyer rules. Lets also not make it out like newer editions are great on this front, lots of people still have major issues with 7E's flyer rules.
A million FAQs and errata
As opposed to the almost complete lack of rules support we have currently? Most people think FAQ and Errata is a good thing...
I hear this a lot on the internet... But I played 5th edition more than any other edition of the game, including around a dozen tournaments (one of those being Adepticon) and I didn't play a single game against Grey Knights.
Terrible models
... er... what?
Most of the models we had in 5th edition are the exact same models we have now. Or the same models with a few extra arm options.
Awful shooting rules.
Rolling 40 saves one at a time is not really any improvement on 5th ed's system, in my book.
The only fault I had with 5th ed's shooting was with wound allocation in mixed units... Wounding my Nob mob was just painfully tedious. But now it's even worse.
A million FAQs and errata
...which were required because of the vague nature of GW's rules writing.
Just not publishing FAQs and errata was not the solution to that, since it wasn't accompanied by any perceivable increase in the standard of the actual rules.
It's like if Ford said 'Hey, we know you were upset when the doors kept falling off your car and we had to keep reattaching them for you, so here's some great news: We're not going to reattach them any more! Yay!'
GK were popular, but no more so than Eldar now, and they were no where near as over powered.
Even at the Last Ard Boyz there wasn't more than say 25% GK at the finals, much much less so at round 1 and round 2. Hell I was the only GK player at my Local round one, the only Gk in the top three at Regional round 2, and I was the only GK in the top three in the Midwest a Finals. I may have even been the only GK in the total top 9 finals.
No matter which way we spin it, GK were no where near as dominant as Eldar are now.
And remember when they came out. GK and necron were at the end of 5th. But maybe people didn't like them, because it was cheap to have a good GK army. Draigo wing was fun to play, even while there were better GK armies. In fact the very concept of having two or three different armies out of the same codex is mind blowing. GK went from that to 4 unit types actualy being used.
Grey Knights made up something like 40-50+% of large tournies in 5th. That is a fact not a opinion. It was a massive problem.
The power levels in 7th are dramatically more balanced. In 5th seeing every army represented at a tourney was never happening. Sixth came out and BOOM suddenly stuff was playable.
You do see MSU now. But you also see foot, flyer, calvary, etc. Way more variety in army lists.
The new 40k models ARE better. Remember finecast?????
Shooting is BETTER.
Oh your unit moved? Sorry heavy weapon dude. Oh hey you moved? Sorry bolters. Oh hey you hold the pinnicle of weaponry in your hand tau fire warrior? Sorry cant shoot it at the psycho charging you.
sfshilo wrote: Grey Knights made up something like 40-50+% of large tournies in 5th. That is a fact not a opinion. It was a massive problem.
The GK dex was released in April 2011. 5th came out July 2008. So that GK book was only in circulation for just over a year of 5th's remaining life cycle. I'm going to call BS on that fact.
You do see MSU now. But you also see foot, flyer, calvary, etc. Way more variety in army lists.
You also see more Super Heavies and Gargantuan creatures, along with the aforementioned flyers and FMCs. Many would argue that this isn't a point in 7th's favour.
The power levels in 7th are dramatically more balanced. In 5th seeing every army represented at a tourney was never happening. Sixth came out and BOOM suddenly stuff was playable.
This had me LMAO sooo freakin hard, the neighbore thouhg i had an heart attack and came ringing at my door to see if i was okay.
Shooting is BETTER.
-snip-Oh hey you hold the pinnicle of weaponry in your hand tau fire warrior? Sorry cant shoot it at the psycho charging you.
Yeah...not like they can shoot at the psycho thats charging them, with the help of their buddies who are in 6" and still have more accuracy with the help of laser drones...
sfshilo wrote: Grey Knights made up something like 40-50+% of large tournies in 5th. That is a fact not a opinion. It was a massive problem.
The power levels in 7th are dramatically more balanced.
O_o with the likes of D weapons, Invisibility, Gargantuan Creatures, 2++ rerollable invul saves, etc? The stuff that's possible in 7E was limited to the realms of bad late night 4chan internet hyperbole in 5th edition. 5E had it's problems, but had absolutely nothing near the brokenness that's possible in 7E.
In 5th seeing every army represented at a tourney was never happening. Sixth came out and BOOM suddenly stuff was playable.
For a few things, sure. For others, not so much, you saw non-skimmer armor disappear overnight for example.
LIkewise, in 7th, you see "every" army only because you can basically pick and choose bits from each armies using the Detachment rules. You're not seeing pure DA armies or pure IG armies or pure DE armies at events typically, particularly any using a single detachment, and certainly not on any top tables. It's turned into "mix and match". That said I still haven't seen another IG army besides mine in...months, and haven't seen a CSM army aside from mine that wasn't running with a Daemon detachment (or KDK) in probably two years.
You do see MSU now. But you also see foot, flyer, calvary, etc. Way more variety in army lists.
These aren't necessarily all mutually exclusive, you can, and do see MSU with certain Cavalry units (like TWC's). Flyers didn't exist in 5E (at least not as a distinct unit type), but the models that are now flyers absolutely were represented and popular in 5E. Stormravens? Vendettas? Oh yes you saw those.
The new 40k models ARE better. Remember finecast?????
Finecase is still here (EDIT: and didn't come into existence until less than the last year of 5E IIRC). Likewise, the new models are also absurdly overcosted. The new [*b]plastic[/b]* AdMech Magos Dominus HQ character costs more than Forgeworld's resin Magos Dominus.
Shooting is BETTER.
Oh your unit moved? Sorry heavy weapon dude. Oh hey you moved? Sorry bolters. Oh hey you hold the pinnicle of weaponry in your hand tau fire warrior? Sorry cant shoot it at the psycho charging you.
Aside from the Rapid Fire changes, most of these are exceedingly minor at best.
5th was a joke.
5th had it's problems. I absolutely thought it was awful at the time and in dire need of improvement. Wound allocation, Kill Points, Transport functionality, and more all really needed fixing. But they're relatively minor next to the issues we've encountered in 6E and 7E.
Hell, it's pretty routine to have to deal with an extra half a dozen random tables that didn't even exist in 5E and serve no purpose other than more randomness just for its own sake.
It's kind of difficult for me to decide which edition I like more.
5th edition - This is where most of my experience with the game comes from; this is the edition I played in the most... casual games, events, tournaments... I did a lot of this during this edition. Prior to this I had played 4th edition during its last days.
7th edition - I haven't played a game during this edition yet but there seems to be a lot of things I like... or maybe I'm still remembering stuff from 6th... I barely played that edition as well.
Maybe after I start playing in this edition try out some of the stuff I'm reading (which I'm hoping for later this summer), I'll be able to better form an opinion as far as which of these two I like better.
Now...
If we're talking about all of the editions thus far? My vote is for 2nd edition. I tried it out about a year ago and thought it was really fun. In fact, it was because of the psyker phase in that edition that I was kind of excited about the one in 7th. But I think they play differently right (I need to reread the 7th edition rulebook actually). I really liked its assault phase too... something about it seemed 'meatier'.
Man, this talk of older editions has me wishing I kept the older books. In fact, I'm kind of jonesing now for my 2nd edition Ultramarines supplement.
EDIT:
By the way... I don't remember many Daemonhunter armies when I was playing during 5th edition (I assume that's the codex that's meant in regards to 'Grey Knights'). At the store I played the most at there was one Daemonhunters player there... and he didn't go anywhere near the tournaments or events. Plus during that time I don't remember reading about many Daemonhunter players.
Fifth wins. I view 7th as unplayable, and I dumped all my stuff. I loved 5th, but I was disgusted by 6th, and 7th just got worse. No thanks to the new editions.
sfshilo wrote: Grey Knights made up something like 40-50+% of large tournies in 5th. That is a fact not a opinion. It was a massive problem.
For all of a year. And even there, I would question those figures.
In 5th seeing every army represented at a tourney was never happening.
I'm fairly sure I have photos of at least one of every army from Adepticon 2012.
Some armies were represented more than others... but that's happened in every edition since people started running tournaments. The very first 40K tournament I ever entered, back in 1996, was mostly Marine armies.
The new 40k models ARE better. Remember finecast?????
We still have 'Fine'cast, so I'm not really getting your point here.
And, really, the material GW choose to make their models out of has very little bearing on how playable the game rules are.
Shooting is BETTER.
Oh your unit moved? Sorry heavy weapon dude.
Yep, that was the case. And had been since 3rd edition... because units moved and acted as units. Which is exactly the way it should be in a game the size of 40K. 6/7th edition took the game a huge step backwards, by returning us to 2nd-edition-style micromanagement.
Having said that, I do ike the addition of Snap Shots to the game... it just would have been nice if they hadn't gimped Blast and Template weapons by excluding them. My Dreadnought really misses his Plasma Cannon... but it's just not a worthwhile option any more.
Oh hey you hold the pinnicle of weaponry in your hand tau fire warrior? Sorry cant shoot it at the psycho charging you.
As others have pointed out, you have an entire phase to shoot that weapon at the psycho charging at you. There's no particular need to allow models to use their ranged attacks in the assault phase as well, unless you're also going to allow models to throw their melee weapons in the shooting phase. At which point, you might as well just merge the two phases together and be done with it.
I would rather have seen Overwatch re-introduced as something more similar to the 2nd edition version, but with a Leadership test required to go into Overwatch, and/or an Initiative test required to shoot.
6/7th has its good points. I like snap shots, as I mentioned. I like the return of the psychic phase (although I really dislike random psychic powers). I like the idea of allowing allies (but, again, not the specific implementation of it).... and I think that's ultimately the problem, for me. There are all these things in 6/7th edition that are almost good ideas, but that were implemented in a way that reall sours them for me.
I wish it was not random and was known like in previous editions. I am a huge fan of the psychic phase, new codices, units, and overall balance. Just waiting for them to finish up the codices for this edition - I think it is solid.
). Most 
). And, even if you don't manage to abuse the system, you can still waste everybody's time trying to. See, you'd think in 
