5th edition or 7th edition? Which do you like more?

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.

**jeffersonian000**

I actually prefer 6th, which is closer to 7th, so I selected 7th. 5th was okay, but not my favorite.

SJ

**Soggy Kittenz**

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.

**Slayer le boucher**

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...

**Icculus**

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.

**sfshilo**

You people are nuts.

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.

**Vaktathi**

sfshilo wrote:
You people are nuts.

5th was a joke....
MSU.

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...

**insaniak**

sfshilo wrote:
Grey knights EVERYWHERE.

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!'

**Zagman**

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.

**Makumba**

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.

**sfshilo**

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.

Rose tinted goggles are on good and tight...

5th was a joke.

**Grimtuff**

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.

**vipoid**

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.

Do you actually have any evidence to support this? Or are you just pulling "facts" out of your behind?

sfshilo wrote:

The power levels in 7th are dramatically more balanced.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh... wait... were you being serious?

sfshilo wrote:
In 5th seeing every army represented at a tourney was never happening. Sixth came out and BOOM suddenly stuff was playable.

And a ton of other stuff became unplayble. But I guess we're just ignoring that because it doesn't fit into your view.

sfshilo wrote:

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.

sfshilo wrote:

Shooting is BETTER.

Shooting was already great in 5th. It was assault that needed some love.

sfshilo wrote:

Oh your unit moved? Sorry heavy weapon dude.

Oh, yeah, that 1/6 chance he now gets is soooo much better. And totally not just a massive waste of everyone's time (not to mention ammunition).

sfshilo wrote:
Oh hey you hold the pinnicle of weaponry in your hand tau fire warrior? Sorry cant shoot it at the psycho charging you.

If only you had some sort of phase in your turn where you could use that weapon. Some sort of phase dedicated to shooting, say.

sfshilo wrote:

Rose tinted goggles are on good and tight...

A hilarious statement, given your own obvious bias.

**Slayer le boucher**

sfshilo wrote:

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.

sfshilo wrote:

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...

**Vaktathi**

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.

**djphranq**

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.

**timetowaste85**

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.

**MWHistorian**

7th kicked me right out of a game I loved.

**insaniak**

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.

By comparison, 5th was a much more fun game.