Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So about a year ago if you asked the majority of gamers whether they liked 5th or 6th better most would say 6th. New models. Allies. New psychic powers. But now, being betrayed by GW, quite a few players and tournament goers are quitting or sadly sticking to it due to years and years of investment. So after a few months of GW pushing us around do we really like 6th that much? Why not switch back to something we know worked? We could even add in the allies chart if we need some meta diversity and get the best of both worlds. Why not? Magic the Gathering has edition dependent tournaments and players thrive in knowing that their meta will never change and yet are still able to enjoy throwing together a vast array of interesting combinations. Wouldn't it be a breathe of fresh air if we were still playing 5th when the rules were designed for us? Bring on 5th edition tournaments! (maybe with allies so the meta doesn't stagnate). Everyone's army could be competitive again!

You mean 4th, right? That's the one that worked.

When somebody says 5th edition, I remember mech parking lots, Leafblower Imperial Guard, Biker nobz, Musical wounds paladins, and grey knights sweeping every damn tournament.

It's hardly better.

if i were going to play an old edition id go back further than 5th thats for sure.

I object to the idea that fifth edition's rules were "designed for us".

 Kain wrote:
When somebody says 5th edition, I remember mech parking lots, Leafblower Imperial Guard, Biker nobz, Musical wounds paladins, and grey knights sweeping every damn tournament.

It's hardly better.

Right, there was a lot wrong with the meta of 5th but wouldn't adding the allies chart fix that?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
You mean 4th, right? That's the one that worked.

So back to Fish of Fury, Necron Doom marches, and invici-skimmers?

I like 6th edition. I just play without Escalation.

 Melissia wrote:
I object to the idea that fifth edition's rules were "designed for us".

Sure. I'm not saying that 5th was necessarily perfect for the everyday gamer but it certainly wasn't as sales oriented as 6th not to mention the current imbalance of codexes (we were imbalanced in 5th too but not to the same extent as today plus the inclusion of the allies chart would fix that, No?).

 KrakenLord86 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I object to the idea that fifth edition's rules were "designed for us".

Sure. I'm not saying that 5th was necessarily perfect for the everyday gamer but it certainly wasn't as sales oriented as 6th not to mention the current imbalance of codexes (we were imbalanced in 5th too but not to the same extent as today plus the inclusion of the allies chart would fix that, No?).

The game was never balanced and is essentially unfixable without major changes.

You can either redesign the game from the ground up or acknowledge that the Taudar and Daemons are broken, and thus make every army equally as broken as they are and throw away any hint of restraint.

 KrakenLord86 wrote:
Sure. I'm not saying that 5th was necessarily perfect for the everyday gamer but it certainly wasn't as sales oriented as 6th

I believe there is a meme that encapsulates my response to this assertion:



Ah, yes, there it is.


But seriously no, 5th edition was hilariously focused on sales.

Every edition has problems. Pick the one that irritates you (and your friends) the least. Or just toss some house rules onto 6th.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
if i were going to play an old edition id go back further than 5th thats for sure.

Touche, sir. I guess my point was really why not switch to a previous edition in order to insure a closed system that tournament players could agree upon that isn't dependent on GW's current shenanigans.

Tournament players aren't dependent on GW's current shenanigans. The TOs can allow or disallow whatever they want. And, as it happens, that's exactly that they've been doing since GW stopped running tournaments.

 Melissia wrote:

 KrakenLord86 wrote:
Sure. I'm not saying that 5th was necessarily perfect for the everyday gamer but it certainly wasn't as sales oriented as 6th

I believe there is a meme that encapsulates my response to this assertion:



Ah, yes, there it is.


But seriously no, 5th edition was hilariously focused on sales.

Sure they were. But have they ever been this bad? Don't think so. And as players adopting a previous edition it's not like we would get into a time machine and re-live our irritation at sales. By the way, I was thinking about resolving tournament meta. Not friendly games where a social contract will always remain prevalent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
Tournament players aren't dependent on GW's current shenanigans. The TOs can allow or disallow whatever they want. And, as it happens, that's exactly that they've been doing since GW stopped running tournaments.

TOs have indeed always been able to allow or disallow whatever they want. Most notably Forge World and the inclusion of non-GW models. But have they really banned units (other than Forge World) altogether? Banning Forge World is one thing (not really an issue anymore) but TO's are now faced with banning rules and units that would make the very game of 40k indistinguishable from one tournament to another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
I like 6th edition. I just play without Escalation.

By the way, I play Eldar and love the new models as i like 6th edition as well. I'm just trying to find a solution to save (preserve in this case) the game we all love. And I don't want to deter anyone from playing 6th if they like it. I just think we should check our options if 40k dies in the next year as it has already died for other players.

 Kain wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
You mean 4th, right? That's the one that worked.

So back to Fish of Fury, Necron Doom marches, and invici-skimmers?

Don't forget deathtrap transports. It was also the edition with the most poorly worded rules.

Still, despite its issues, it was the last edition where on-table tactics had anything much to do with your win ratio.

Further back we have BA Rhino Rush and "SM flavour of the month" via Index Astartes. Was fun at the time, but probably only because we didn't know any better.

By the way, I still think that adding the allies chart would fix the any meta archetypes that previous editions may have had. Wouldn't that solve the majority of previous meta issues anyway?

 KrakenLord86 wrote:
By the way, I still think that adding the allies chart would fix the any meta archetypes that previous editions may have had. Wouldn't that solve the majority of previous meta issues anyway?

Allies are one reason that this edition is so mind bogglingly stupid.

Helloooo rose-colored goggles.

I find many of us have a soft spot for the rules we started the game with.

I read-up 2nd edition but only got to start playing in 3rd and I am sure I got the rose colored goggles with that rule set.

6th I think is good, the ability to use psychic powers on other allied units has created some truly nasty combos but liberal use of the nerf hammer would fix a few things if GW could be bothered to create "balance".

I am still partial to the rules for Necromunda so anything I would have to say would be suspect...

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 KrakenLord86 wrote:
By the way, I still think that adding the allies chart would fix the any meta archetypes that previous editions may have had. Wouldn't that solve the majority of previous meta issues anyway?

Allies are one reason that this edition is so mind bogglingly stupid.

Allies are a fun and flavorful way to mix up your army. They are also an excellent way to min/max power lists to the extreme. People will always find the most powerful, most broken things. Allies just give them a bigger toolbox to work from, and make the gap between tuned and casual lists wider. From a casual player POV, I’m glad they are baked into the rules. From someone who keeps tabs on the competitive side of the game, I wish they weren’t.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
You mean 4th, right? That's the one that worked.

Eh, some things worked. Consolidation into combat was a bit ridiculous (see: hopping Harlequins), last man standing (if that's the name for it. I can't remember anymore) was a bit of a drag imo, and three vehicle damage tables was a bit of a handful.

Then again, at least that book had a hobby section and decent rules for wound allocation. No idea why they had to change those into something so convoluted.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 KrakenLord86 wrote:
By the way, I still think that adding the allies chart would fix the any meta archetypes that previous editions may have had. Wouldn't that solve the majority of previous meta issues anyway?

Allies are one reason that this edition is so mind bogglingly stupid.

I know how you feel. Up until recently I was a purist and only played one dex at a time due to my firm belief that the allies chart was a sales ploy to make us buy more armies. And yet I am still a firm believer that a single dex army can still totally work (I still play pure Wolves every now and then). I was just thinking that adding allies to a previous edition would make up for the fact that we would be playing in a closed system without the possibility of new rules/units.

 KrakenLord86 wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 KrakenLord86 wrote:
By the way, I still think that adding the allies chart would fix the any meta archetypes that previous editions may have had. Wouldn't that solve the majority of previous meta issues anyway?

Allies are one reason that this edition is so mind bogglingly stupid.

I know how you feel. Up until recently I was a purist and only played one dex at a time due to my firm belief that the allies chart was a sales ploy to make us buy more armies. And yet I am still a firm believer that a single dex army can still totally work (I still play pure Wolves every now and then). I was just thinking that adding allies to a previous edition would make up for the fact that we would be playing in a closed system without the possibility of new rules/units.

I can certainly agree with this, and with Nevelon's post.

Perhaps the solution then is a generic friendly rule set, and a more restricted competitive rule set. Sort of like how Infinity handles certain units, mercenaries, etc.

Completely lost my mind for a moment:

"5th where rules were made for us"??

Cannot let that go unanswered:

That was the time where they were solidifying the concepts of AP and double your toughness insta-death. This was a time where they were leaning heavily on making rules where most codex entries focused on how it ignored certain rules. A rather lazy method.

5th was a time of just taking 4th with a small update with little thought of how to make cool things inside the rule set.

Kirby saved heavily on his R&D budget with that rehash.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
You mean 4th, right? That's the one that worked.

Eh, some things worked. Consolidation into combat was a bit ridiculous (see: hopping Harlequins), last man standing (if that's the name for it. I can't remember anymore) was a bit of a drag imo, and three vehicle damage tables was a bit of a handful.

Then again, at least that book had a hobby section and decent rules for wound allocation. No idea why they had to change those into something so convoluted.

At least the threat of sweeping advances made you deploy intelligently and not cram a whole army behind one Aegis. It was only a problem for people who couldn't learn to keep their garbage units 7" apart. Now there's no pressure - the whole system is designed to strand melee units in the open after butchering one throwaway unit no matter what.

 Talizvar wrote:
Completely lost my mind for a moment:

"5th where rules were made for us"??

Cannot let that go unanswered:

That was the time where they were solidifying the concepts of AP and double your toughness insta-death. This was a time where they were leaning heavily on making rules where most codex entries focused on how it ignored certain rules. A rather lazy method.

5th was a time of just taking 4th with a small update with little thought of how to make cool things inside the rule set.

Kirby saved heavily on his R&D budget with that rehash.

As previously stated,when I say that "5th was designed for us" this is in comparison it to our current edition.

 KrakenLord86 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Completely lost my mind for a moment:

"5th where rules were made for us"??

Cannot let that go unanswered:

That was the time where they were solidifying the concepts of AP and double your toughness insta-death. This was a time where they were leaning heavily on making rules where most codex entries focused on how it ignored certain rules. A rather lazy method.

5th was a time of just taking 4th with a small update with little thought of how to make cool things inside the rule set.

Kirby saved heavily on his R&D budget with that rehash.

As previously stated,when I say that "5th was designed for us" this is in comparison it to our current edition.

It is still incorrect. 4th ed is more applicable, as at least that edition's rulebook tried to encourage the hobby, with instructions for building your own table or making your own craters. 5th ed and on-wards is now "buy our new gaming table. Forget about building your own. We certainly aren't going to help."

The problem with all the editions is that they all have their own benefits.

From 6th I like allies.
From 5th I liked the changes to blast weapons.
From 4th I prefer the line of sight, none of this silly 'I can fire a Demolisher cannon through a crack in a stain glass window.'
From 3rd I like the sweeping into combat turn after turn. Oh, and having all the army lists in the main book.
I didn't play 2nd, but I like the idea of cards with Warhammer.
From RT? I like the beards.

The rules have changed. A few make you think more in order to successfully play. allies were screwed up by the battles brothers aspect and it being abused. Beyond that, a vast improvement over what was before.
get rid of battle brothers and it is golden.