Switch Theme:

Discussion: The best 40k rule ever?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Ancient Space Wolves Venerable Dreadnought




 greatbigtree wrote:
I enjoyed the first half of sixth edition. It was quite good to Guard players that didn’t want to run Mech Vets *ALL THE TIME!*

For me, 7th made me actively consider selling my collections, and got me trying other game systems, notably WMH. Had my group been more willing to give it a go, I’d probably be playing that as my main game.

As it is, the lustre has worn off of 8th for us. We’re playing Magic these days as our main game. I play the odd game of Kill Team, and I enjoy that much more than typical 40k.

I just wish WMH was more accessible... but now I really wander from the OP. As much as it pains me to say, I really miss the old deep strike rules. As a Guard player.

My 2c:
5th edition was a very solid ruleset but suffered badly from badly imbalanced codices, with each new army being more unfair than the last.
6th edition tried to start selling people on collecting multiple armies and was mostly successful, but had a few serious problems with the core rules that gave major advantages to armies which could exploit them. (The introduction of flyers, in particular, turned the meta into a haves-and-have-nots system where anyone who could spam flyers would crush anyone who lacked AA.)
7th edition was a better basic ruleset than 6th, since it was very similar to 6th edition but with more refinement (and one of the edition changes where there were the fewest differences from one to the next,) but it suffered massively from supplements that tried to fix problems and consistently made them worse.

Of the editions I've played (excluding 8th), I think 6th was probably the worst ruleset, but had the closest thing to balance because the codices were the least out of whack. 5th was definitely my favorite to play.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 greatbigtree wrote:
I enjoyed the first half of sixth edition. It was quite good to Guard players that didn’t want to run Mech Vets *ALL THE TIME!*

For me, 7th made me actively consider selling my collections, and got me trying other game systems, notably WMH. Had my group been more willing to give it a go, I’d probably be playing that as my main game.

As it is, the lustre has worn off of 8th for us. We’re playing Magic these days as our main game. I play the odd game of Kill Team, and I enjoy that much more than typical 40k.

I just wish WMH was more accessible... but now I really wander from the OP. As much as it pains me to say, I really miss the old deep strike rules. As a Guard player.


I might be more biased because my main armies are Nids and DE. DE in 6th was so utterly unplayable, i was tabled turn 1 a few times, with only a 5+ save and 3 HP's, being Open top and having most of your units inside die i had to give up all venom's and raiders completely, then went the dick route and did Beaststar when CWE book came out, it at least worked for a little bit and i was able to win some games, but its just 1 super unit that eats up 1/4 of your points, the Reavers and Talos was just there to live or take objectives if i could.

15k+
:harlequin: 4k
5k
Beastmen 6500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Tribune




 captain collius wrote:
I see your 5th and raise you 6th


The broken, wasn't in the context of strength. I mean broken as not playable, the game had hundreds of exploits that would crash the game, an make it have an unplayable gamestate. These aren't even on the level of TFG there is a failure of basic English in 5th.

6th was just window dressing on 5th that had slight changes. However the meta shifted to things because this was still a slow release for codexs and that 5th ed points did not work with the changes of 6th.
7th is just a redo of 6th, with it's own quirks (early best Psychic phase ever. Later unlimited summons, I quit b4 the formations peeps say broken/op.)
8th is an attempt that backfired to make simple ruleset, an is just an updated 7th.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/22 23:35:24


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: