40k 7th vs 6th

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.

**ClockworkZion**

Sir Arun wrote:
So essentially, if it werent for the near unkillable skimmers, 4th edition was the BASED 40k edition. EVER.

Rolling from assault to assault proves that wrong.

**vipoid**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Rolling from assault to assault proves that wrong.

Indeed. I'm glad we now have a logical system whereby a decisive victory in an assault is a bad thing for the attacker.

**ClockworkZion**

vipoid wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Rolling from assault to assault proves that wrong.

Indeed. I'm glad we now have a logical system whereby a decisive victory in an assault is a bad thing for the attacker.

Sarcasm noted, but the fact is that being exposed after butchering people and being vulnerable to being shot to death is pretty accurate, and makes sense. Should there be some kind of bonus for the winner of the assault to balance things better so shooting isn't so powerful? Sure. But let's not pretend that being able to steam roll an entire army with a unit of Nobs was fair or made sense.

**Dark Phoenix**

vipoid wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Rolling from assault to assault proves that wrong.

Indeed. I'm glad we now have a logical system whereby a decisive victory in an assault is a bad thing for the attacker.

... as long as it is your turn. Because winning during your opponent turn is not like consolidating into another fight, not at all....

**ZebioLizard2**

ClockworkZion wrote:
vipoid wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Rolling from assault to assault proves that wrong.

Indeed. I'm glad we now have a logical system whereby a decisive victory in an assault is a bad thing for the attacker.

Sarcasm noted, but the fact is that being exposed after butchering people and being vulnerable to being shot to death is pretty accurate, and makes sense. Should there be some kind of bonus for the winner of the assault to balance things better so shooting isn't so powerful? Sure. But let's not pretend that being able to steam roll an entire army with a unit of Nobs was fair or made sense.

And being able to alpha strike and murder an entire army before they barely get to move isn't better.

I'd rather have the assault to assault back, at the very least because it made sense because why would people fighting suddenly stop and stand still to be shot?

It gimps elite melee units and only benefits horde units who can indeed survive the shooting, it also meant you needed to take something to deter assault elements.

At the very least considering you can't even assault out of base transports anymore it might be a benefit at least, my CSM units based for melee combat are absolutely useless.

**vipoid**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Sarcasm noted, but the fact is that being exposed after butchering people and being vulnerable to being shot to death is pretty accurate, and makes sense. Should there be some kind of bonus for the winner of the assault to balance things better so shooting isn't so powerful? Sure. But let's not pretend that being able to steam roll an entire army with a unit of Nobs was fair or made sense.

I know what you mean, but I just don't think the current version of assault is any better - where winning combat in your turn is bad, but an ineffectual combat that goes on for a second turn guarantees your safety from shooting.

Thing is, with the addition of Overwatch, casualties removed from the front etc., I find myself wondering if consolidating into combat would still be unbalanced.

But then, I'd still prefer an overhaul of all the assault mechanics. As it stands, there are just too many illogical things:

- Why does a unit that stops to fight move further than one which just runs?
- Why, when a unit fails its charge, does it not move at all? Did it foresee the outcome of the charge and decide it wasn't worth bothering?
- A Daemon Prince has assaulted a guardsman squad... wait, why are my guardsmen running towards it to try and hit it with their rifle-butts?
- Why can my men not fire their weapons in combat? Especially when several of them aren't even near an enemy at the time.
- Why can my other units not fire into the combat? In the aforementioned guardsmen vs Daemon Prince approach, wouldn't it be more logical to shoot at the daemon prince? Even if they do hit some of their comrades, it seems like it would still be a more merciful death than whatever the daemon prince has in store for them. Hell, my commissars have no qualms about shooting their own men at point-blank range, why are they now refusing to fire into a doomed melee?
- Are we sure there's even a risk of hitting my own men? I mean, we have nids the size of two-story buildings - surely I could shoot that without hitting people at ground level?

**NuggzTheNinja**

In 5th you had to be somewhat careful about how you engaged in H2H. Model placement was HUGE and could determine the difference between wiping your opponent's unit in your turn or his.

I don't really long for 4th edition-style combat-to-combat consolidation, but I do miss 5th edition where tactics actually mattered. The Battle Reports and Tacticas you would read were far more complex than what people can do with the current abortion. Every 7th edition Batrep I watch goes something like, "Oh great, I win because I just so happened to draw the right objective cards while my opponent drew cards that he had a snowball's chance in hell of ever achieving."

5th was far more balanced and symmetrical. Armies weren't nearly as static as they were in 6th, and it also didn't outrageously benefit armies with Skimmers as 7th. The game was more balanced between shooting and assault, and in pretty much every other way, than current editions.

1) You had to take troops, because nothing else scored.
2) You had to have mobility because most of the missions involved objectives.
3) You had to find a balance between MSU and Death Star builds because some missions involved Kill Points.
4) Skimmers weren't the best at EVERYTHING. They were appropriately costed for their high mobility. Wave Serpents are currently under-costed by about 50 points.
5) Some armies were heavily geared toward Assault and others toward Shooting. But, in almost every army, there were reasonably good Melee units, or at least units that would like to charge other units in *certain* situations.
6) The FOC actually MEANT something. Orks had a reason to take a Warboss and Nobz. Marines had a reason to take a Biker Captain.

Basically, 6th sucked and 7th sucks harder. Is it still fun? Sure, because it's 40k and I like rolling dice, but it's not nearly as interesting a game as 5th edition.

**Vaktathi**

I'm 200% glad consolidations into new assaults is gone.

Particularly now. With the increased speed of units, it's not at all uncommon to see assault armies heavily engaged by turn 2, sometimes turn 1 (if they went 2nd), whereas with consolidation into combat it was usually more turn 3.

That is to say nothing of the fact that also units are generally much tougher and much cheaper than in editions where consolidation was allowed. For instance in 4E, a Space Marine bike was 32pts and T(4)5, now they're true T5, can Jink, and are 20pts with a greatly increased assault range. Or Necron Wraiths, which now get Rending, 2 Wounds, Fearless, are 6pts per model cheaper, and have an assortment of upgrade options.

That said, yeah, being able to assault out of stationary transports should come back, that just removes way too much utility.

EDIT: it's interesting to note that 5th keeps coming up. That edition had a huge number of critical problems, but I'm continually surprised at how I keep looking back at that edition as probably the most functional edition of 40k we've ever had, despite how badly it mucked certain things (wound allocation, KP's, vehicle movement+shooting, etc).

**Sir Arun**

You know, not being able to assault out of transport has somewhat been mitigated by the combination of being able to disembark 6" away from the access hatches, and flat outing your transport to block LoS to the unit

**creeping-deth87**

Vaktathi wrote:
I'm 200% glad consolidations into new assaults is gone.

Particularly now. With the increased speed of units, it's not at all uncommon to see assault armies heavily engaged by turn 2, sometimes turn 1 (if they went 2nd), whereas with consolidation into combat it was usually more turn 3.

That is to say nothing of the fact that also units are generally much tougher and much cheaper than in editions where consolidation was allowed. For instance in 4E, a Space Marine bike was 32pts and T(4)5, now they're true T5, can Jink, and are 20pts with a greatly increased assault range. Or Necron Wraiths, which now get Rending, 2 Wounds, Fearless, are 6pts per model cheaper, and have an assortment of upgrade options.

That said, yeah, being able to assault out of stationary transports should come back, that just removes way too much utility.

EDIT: it's interesting to note that 5th keeps coming up. That edition had a huge number of critical problems, but I'm continually surprised at how I keep looking back at that edition as probably the most functional edition of 40k we've ever had, despite how badly it mucked certain things (wound allocation, KP's, vehicle movement+shooting, etc).

Totally agreed with the bold. 5th edition had its problems but it was easily the most streamlined and straight forward 40K has been in my time playing it. It was just so much easier to play the damn thing, and I honestly miss that simplicity. 5th edition was a great foundation to build on, but instead of building on it we instead had to watch the design studio throw it all away and take several steps back with 6th edition. This was especially painful for me as I personally feel most of the problems with 5th edition were less with the core rules and more with the design decisions going on at the time with each codex update. I think it would be remembered more fondly if we had seen the more subdued power level of new codices that we're seeing now instead of the blatant power creep that characterized 5th edition codex design.

I was very hopeful that 7th edition was going to be a return to form with a much more streamlined version of the game closer to 5th, but instead the design studio decided to double down on everything they did with 6th edition and now we have even more bloat. Ah well... there's always 8th I guess.

**ClockworkZion**

I will definitely agree that 5th was likely the most streamlined edition and was the most tournament ready edition thus far. I won't say it was great, but it had simple language with little ambiguity which is a strong reason why it was so popular.

It's actually the kind of writing I'd like GW to do with their rules in the future because it'd smooth out the rough spots we have now a lot better just by tightening up the wording and working on clearing up the fuzzy language used at times in the books.

**BaalSNAFU**

Well its not Verdun 40k like 6th was with 2 gunlines.duking it out. Maelstrom missions may be hit or miss (cards) but hugely equalizes the different power tiers. The psychic phase was shoddily implemented so its either a huge advantage of an epic PITA.

**MWHistorian**

It equalizes it by making everything random. That's not good rules there.

**BaalSNAFU**

MWHistorian wrote:
It equalizes it by making everything random. That's not good rules there.

Agreed. I certainly wouldn't say good rules, but the desparity in power between dexes in 6th was so bad I welcomed the maelstrom misdions with open arms. It made the games more dynamic and fluid. Not just about building an uber list and tabling your opponents from behind your fortifications (in my meta anyway). I certainly don't like random in many aspects of 40k,chief among them are random charge distances and randomly selected psychic powers. The psychic phase would be so much better if you could choose your own powers and the assault phase would be much better if there was at least a partially finite charge distance (6"+d6" for example). However in my experience the maelstrom missions, while far from perfect did much more good than harm.

**ClockworkZion**

I honestly don't think the new missions were created with the intent to balance anything, but rather try and keep players more involved as they decide which objectives to try and complete, and which to pitch to chance a better draw as well as discourage static gunline armies.

The fact that it rather drastically shifts the way the game is balanced so that more armies have a better chance of winning and that army comp can be more diverse I think is just happy coincidence more than anything. Given enough time I'm sure players will find optimum builds and armies to use to win Maelstrom games more consistently and often, but for now not enough people are playing them enough times to find the cracks in the armor to suss out a strategy that wins more often. Because players aren't dumb, and optimization is something they do well and often. As such it's only a matter of time before it's found (and it appears it'll be different than the lists we think of normally for more traditional games).

**koooaei**

BlaxicanX wrote:
It's about the same as 6th, which was in turn garbage compared to 5th.

Sometimes we all get caught in the "It was better" thing. I started plaing in 5. Than the 6 came with it's ultimate buffs to shooting but the victory conditions didn't require to controle the field which in turn favored boring static gunline armies and annoying last-turn flatouts to win games. 7-th ruleset is much like 6-th with a few reasonable nerfs to shooting and a complete overhaul of victory conditions - maelstorm missions. Now you need board controle and not once have i seen static gunlines loosing games just cause they're sitting in one place. If you ask me, it's making games much more tactical and enjoyable.

**BlaxicanX**

I started playing the bulk of my matches in 6th edition, not 5th- I never got more than a dozen or so games in during 5th edition, so frankly if any edition was going to be my rose-tinted glasses/nostalgia preference, it would be 6th.

My comparisons between 5th edition and 6th edition are based off of objective metrics. Which edition piled on a series of nerfs on one out of the two major playstyles? 6th edition- sorry assault . Which edition added numerous rules to empower gunlines and deathstars? 6th edition- thanks allies, thanks overwatch, fortifications and removing models from the front. Which edition added a slew of additional randomness and unreliability into the game? 6th edition. Which edition made it par the course to remove slews of units from codices and tack on overpriced DLC to every release, making bookkeeping between strangers in a pick-up game a total pain in the ass? 6th edition- and I remember when Forgeworld was the main concern for that sort of thing. Which edition had more USR's, many of which are redundant and/or just reference other USR's? 6th edition.

If you'll notice, none of the observations listed above are subjective, or a matter of interpretation. They're all mathematical truths that you can discover just by using addition.

What cardinal sins did 5th edition have that wasn't present in or exasperated by 6th edition? Parking lots? Definitely. Bawx-Hammer 40K was extremely dull and tedious, not just to watch but even to play.

What else? Eh, I wasn't a huge fan of all the KP focused mission types, personally. I prefer the objective-based Eternal War missions that are in 6th and 7th- as they leave tabling your opponent as an option for victory but also made maneuvering a viable tactic (for the armies fast enough to do so).

Beyond that, can't really think of anything- though maybe other people can.

Again, nothing listed above is a judgement or opinion, they're all just objective observations about the differences between the editions. What is relative is how those observations influence your opinion on the editions. If you think that: more randomess, less reliability, less assault, more gunlines, more death stars, less vehicles that aren't flyers, more re-rollable 2+ saves, more DLC, less crunch content per codex, more choices for army lists via allies and more flexibility for how to win a watch are good things than yeah, I could see why 6th edition appeals to you more than 5th edition.

Personally, none of the above with the exception of mission flexibility and to a far lesser extent, the extra flavor brought by allies appeals to me at all.

edit- "Maelstrom missions require map-control to win at, and I've never seen an army lose for spending the whole match in one part of the board" is a paradoxical statement. That aside, tournament results are a very clear indicator of how classically immobile armies like Imperial Guard fare in Maelstrom missions. Not well. I don't think it needs to be said that the army in which half of its units can move across three-quarters of the board in a single turn while enjoying a 2+/3+ cover save is going to be the one that best excels in an environment that encourages map-control.

**Peregrine**

ClockworkZion wrote:
I honestly don't think the new missions were created with the intent to balance anything, but rather try and keep players more involved as they decide which objectives to try and complete, and which to pitch to chance a better draw as well as discourage static gunline armies.

I think the real goal was just to add more randomness to the game. Randomness is EXCITING, every turn you get to have something new and awesome happen. And who cares if you suck at strategy, just see what the cards tell you to do and roll some dice! It's absolutely idiotic design that substitutes blind luck for developing an interesting scoring mechanic that is fair for all army archetypes. You know, kind of like everything else about 7th edition.

**koooaei**

to BlaxicanX
We're comparing 7 to 6 - not to 5. And if you think that 5 was so gloriously awesome and totally not broken, you might be a bit mistaken. Wound allocation was stupid and exploitable. Draigo pallies with all the different gear on every one of them, eh? And parking lots - it was not just "Parking lots". It was "4 out of 5 armies are parking lots".

**BlaxicanX**

My mistake then, I thought your point about nostalgia was referring to my claim that 5th edition is superior to 6th and 7th.

In what ways did wound allocation actively hurt the mechanics of the game? Yeah, taking models off from the back is stupid from a "realism" or abstraction perspective, but I don't recall it actively unbalancing the game in any way. "wo0o0o, my PK nob actually survived long enough to make it into combat and use his weapon" isn't a broken mechanic. Certainly not anymore than your 2+/3++ chapter master bouncing 80 shots off his armored chest like superman, then handing off the few shots that do get through to his bros like they're candy.

As far as parking lots, my commentary on that was: "Bawx-Hammer 40K was extremely dull and tedious, not just to watch but even to play." Not sure what else you're expecting me to say on that note.

**insaniak**

BlaxicanX wrote:
Yeah, taking models off from the back is stupid from a "realism" or abstraction perspective,...

Being able to choose which models to remove is no less 'realistic' (and arguably more so) than always removing the closest model.

**BoomWolf**

It hurt the game by having 10 2 wounds models each having SLIGHTLY different setups requiring 11 wounds to actually stick before a single one is killed because you spread them around equally, for example.

Kills from front at least gives you a reliable and knowlageable count of who is getting hit, and not shuffling wounds around, or worse-having completely useless cultists tank out any plasma shot from your superbuffed chaos lord, but the lord eating all the small bullets.
Sure, it hurts assault oriented armies-but at least its consistent, can be planned to worked with and around, and opens up counterplay (you tank up front, I flank you to get around your tank)

**koooaei**

5 and 6-7 have really strong mechanical differences affecting the entire process of the game. The aforementioned wound allocation - it was not 'broken' most of the time but it was feeling somewhat less dynamic and logical rather than the current system. Yep, i'm not very happy with 1 guy tanking everything either, but i think that it's plain better than the previous incarnation of 'useful guyz alwayz die last'. Personally, i find death of the closest a really great thing even though it has made my footslogging horde much less viable. And cover system is much better as it's now. Some may argue the loss of area terrain, but i clearly remember countless situations when MC had a toe in the ruin and claimed cover save for that.

There definitely are problems left. Like the unneeded removal of multi-level building rules. But i find the whole directions of current changes positively affecting the gameplay.

**vipoid**

BlaxicanX wrote:
Yeah, taking models off from the back is stupid from a "realism" or abstraction perspective

I don't think so, to be honest. I have no problem imagining that squads are a bit more dynamic - rather than standing stock still in their exact formation whilst the enemy shoots them.

BoomWolf wrote:
It hurt the game by having 10 2 wounds models each having SLIGHTLY different setups requiring 11 wounds to actually stick before a single one is killed because you spread them around equally, for example.

No more so than having a single character with a 2+ save tank every wound from a blast or flamer.

In any case, whilst I preferred 5th wound allocation to 6th or 7th (it wasn't perfect,but the instances where it could be abused seemed far rarer), my favourite would be 4th.

**insaniak**

BoomWolf wrote:
It hurt the game by having 10 2 wounds models each having SLIGHTLY different setups requiring 11 wounds to actually stick before a single one is killed because you spread them around equally, for example.

Yup, wound allocation specifically with units of multi-wound models was a legitimate issue with 5th edition... which could have been easily fixed by reintroducing the rule from 4th edition that forced you to apply wounds to already-wounded models first.

...or worse-having completely useless cultists tank out any plasma shot from your superbuffed chaos lord, but the lord eating all the small bullets.

Another problem that was fixed in previous editions with the 'torrent of fire' mechanic allowing the attacker to allocate a shot to a specific model if the unit suffered more hits than it had models.

Sure, it hurts assault oriented armies-but at least its consistent, can be planned to worked with and around, and opens up counterplay (you tank up front, I flank you to get around your tank)

It also makes template weapons in units next to useless, forces characters to hide in the depths of the unit rather than leading from the front in a narrative fashion unless you want to find yourself having to roll 37 Look Out Sir rolls and armour saves one at a time... and the nerf to assault from the combination of random assaults leaving you with a potential 2" charge range and having to remove casualties from the front is not to be underestimated here...

**vipoid**

Can I just add in here that I hate Look out Sir.

It feels like a mechanic that's been shoehorned in as a patch job for another poor mechanic.

I might find it less offensive if it wasn't optional (and, God forbid, automatic for ICs) - as opposed to a character tanking a ton of fire, then having a random squad member jump in the way of the one AP2 round. Wait, how is it that squads are dynamic enough to be constantly jumping in front of the leader, yet static enough that only models at the front can be hit?

**koooaei**

It's a mechanismto ensure your character has a bit durability. Not everyone wears fancy 3+ armor and characters are very important. To drop 'Look out, sir' you have to completely overhaul the existing codexes to either make characters sturdier, allow currently character-only weapons to be taken by regular guyz and/or making squads less depenent on characters.

Another solution would be completely random wound allocation on the models within true line of sight of the firing squad. But it's not for games of 500+ pts - that's for sure. And even more people will be unhappy with "So much random!" ©

**vipoid**

koooaei wrote:
It's a mechanismto ensure your character has a bit durability.

Which is only necessary because the wound allocation system is crap.

koooaei wrote:
Not everyone wears fancy 3+ armor and characters are very important.

So, why is it optional?

koooaei wrote:
To drop 'Look out, sir' you have to completely overhaul the existing codexes to either make characters sturdier, allow currently character-only weapons to be taken by regular guyz and/or making squads less depenent on characters.

Or... just go back to the wound allocation system from 4th or 5th, neither of which required LoS - even on fragile characters.

**insaniak**

koooaei wrote:
To drop 'Look out, sir' you have to completely overhaul the existing codexes to either make characters sturdier, allow currently character-only weapons to be taken by regular guyz and/or making squads less depenent on characters.

Or just go back to the previous system that allowed the owning player to select the casualties...

Another solution would be completely random wound allocation on the models within true line of sight of the firing squad. But it's not for games of 500+ pts - that's for sure. And even more people will be unhappy with "So much random!" ©

Indeed. That would be worse than the current system by whole orders of magnitude.

**koooaei**

insaniak wrote:

Or just go back to the previous system that allowed the owning player to select the casualties...

Which would be awful once again.

I think the solution might lie within the combination of systems. Something like:

When the squad suffers X wounds, count 1/4 of the squad's total number rounded up. Select this number of models closest to the firer and the controling player can allocate wounds freely among them but the number of wounds per model must be as close to equal as possible. All the unsaved wounds procede to be placed on the models from this pool until they're killed or there are no more wounds to save. If all the models are dead and there are still wounds left, select the second group of closest models.

However, this is gona take longer than any of theese systems. So, i guess we have to stick either to an awful "closest die" system or awful "choose who dies yourself" system.