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.

Glancing to death was still a thing in 5th, and you had Gauss. Exploding was easier than it is in 7th.

Irrespective of that, 5th had it's issues of course, every edition does, and picking on the worst (but soooo easily fixed) doesn't render it some sort of abject failure.

But my comment was more based on the "I've never experienced it, but other people have told me what it's like and I don't like it" nature of your post. Thinking like this about anything is a slippery slope into some very small minded thinking.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Glancing to death was still a thing in 5th, and you had Gauss. Exploding was easier than it is in 7th.

Irrespective of that, 5th had it's issues of course, every edition does, and picking on the worst (but soooo easily fixed) doesn't render it some sort of abject failure.

But my comment was more based on the "I've never experienced it, but other people have told me what it's like and I don't like it" nature of your post. Thinking like this about anything is a slippery slope into some very small minded thinking.

I look at it as more of a "I have Gauss, yes. But Gauss can't wreck a vehicle." state of mind. And considering almost every Imperial army had cheap vehicles, I wouldn't have had fun. Was it bad overall? Probably not, no. But, I'm glad I came into playing during 6th edition.

What you appear unaware of is that damage from glances accumulates in 5th, so once all weapons are destroyed, then any weapon destroyed results became immobilised, and an immobilised vehicle with all weapons destroyed was considered wrecked.

 Azreal13 wrote:
What you appear unaware of is that damage from glances accumulates in 5th, so once all weapons are destroyed, then any weapon destroyed results became immobilised, and an immobilised vehicle with all weapons destroyed was considered wrecked.

Well, then yeah, no one told me about that part, I was told it just has a -2 to the Damage chart. That sounds a bit more reasonable, though.

 Azreal13 wrote:
What you appear unaware of is that damage from glances accumulates in 5th, so once all weapons are destroyed, then any weapon destroyed results became immobilised, and an immobilised vehicle with all weapons destroyed was considered wrecked.

Yeah, krodarklorr I would avoid making wide-sweeping statements about 5th if you don't have any actual experience playing that version of the game. I mean Necrons came out at the end of 5th and were rocking it pretty well...sure, the prior codex wasn't great but then again it wasn't great in any of the earlier editions IMO (as well as being a relatively minimal army list).

Not as quick as Hull Points, but it was really really easy to stunlock vehicles into not being able to move or shoot, and then move on to nerfing the next vehicle.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Glancing to death was still a thing in 5th, and you had Gauss. Exploding was easier than it is in 7th.

Irrespective of that, 5th had it's issues of course, every edition does, and picking on the worst (but soooo easily fixed) doesn't render it some sort of abject failure.

But my comment was more based on the "I've never experienced it, but other people have told me what it's like and I don't like it" nature of your post. Thinking like this about anything is a slippery slope into some very small minded thinking.

I look at it as more of a "I have Gauss, yes. But Gauss can't wreck a vehicle." state of mind. And considering almost every Imperial army had cheap vehicles, I wouldn't have had fun. Was it bad overall? Probably not, no. But, I'm glad I came into playing during 6th edition.

Necrons with their current book were just fine at the tail end of 5th, Tesla weapons were plenty to deal serious hurt to lots of AV11 and AV12, on top of things like warscythes, cryptek weapons, Doomscythes, etc. It's just that Gauss weapons didn't just need three 6's to kill almost any vehicle in the game, and you could shut vehicle shooting down *way* easier. Once they got their current book, Necrons certainly didn't have any problems dealing with vehicles. It was an issue before that, but they were also running a 3rd edition book that was 10 years old by the time it was replaced.

 Accolade wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
What you appear unaware of is that damage from glances accumulates in 5th, so once all weapons are destroyed, then any weapon destroyed results became immobilised, and an immobilised vehicle with all weapons destroyed was considered wrecked.

Yeah, krodarklorr I would avoid making wide-sweeping statements about 5th if you don't have any actual experience playing that version of the game. I mean Necrons came out at the end of 5th and were rocking it pretty well...sure, the prior codex wasn't great but then again it wasn't great in any of the earlier editions IMO (as well as being a relatively minimal army list).

Well, when numerous people say roughly the same thing, it's hard to get a good picture of it. I was wrong about the Glancing, yes. But would I prefer Hull points on vehicles? Absolutely.

The different editions seem to have multiple good and bad points to them, which points to the fact that GW is just swinging the pendulum. Hull points were supposed to address the issue of vehicles in 5th being too easy to just stun-lock out of the game without destroying them. With HP, they're getting slowly chipped away and then suffer catastrophic collapse. Or at least, that was the idea...it didn't quite work out as well and *still* didn't address the discrepancy issues with vehicles (i.e. walkers STILL being crap).

 Accolade wrote:
The different editions seem to have multiple good and bad points to them, which points to the fact that GW is just swinging the pendulum. Hull points were supposed to address the issue of vehicles in 5th being too easy to just stun-lock out of the game without destroying them. With HP, they're getting slowly chipped away and then suffer catastrophic collapse. Or at least, that was the idea...it didn't quite work out as well and *still* didn't address the discrepancy issues with vehicles (i.e. walkers STILL being crap).

Well, with 7th, I think Vehicles got put on a decent level. At least, better than 6th. The chart is much better in my opinion, but then it also directly affected Necrons in multiple ways, so I'm probably biased. My main gripes with Walkers are the fact that some of them are considered to be "Monstrous Creature" and therefor completely changes the gameplay of the unit, which makes absolutely no sense to me.

Yeah, that's been a huge gripe with a lot of people. There is no rhyme or reason to it, but then that's more systemic of the rules for 40k than anything...

Counting a vehicle as a walker as an MC, which all have somewhat different rules, might not make logical sense but it can be used to create variety in the game out of basic clusters of rules.

That is not to say necessarily that GW do this, but one can have hope.

I am surprised to see 4th Edition rated so highly in that poll, but that sentiment could also be bias and psychological backlash on my part due to the rapid re-configuration of power disparities within the game and the "less is more" mentality that affected everyone except the suddenly ascendant space-marines. I disliked it enough that I dropped the game like a bad habit for five years. 5th edition and the eventual release of the Dark Eldar codex in 2010 is what brought me back. While 5th Edition had vehicle issues (that could have been fixed with hull-point introduction) and wound allocation issues (that were fixed in 6th with the pull from the front mechanic) it felt fast paced and tactical. There where options and strategies that you had control over in-game and assault was valid without being broken.

Getting back to the topic:

In truth I want to see Warhammer 40k do well and to see Games Workshop prosper. I love the game lore, the flavor, and the distinctly cynical British feel, but the company's decisions on all levels are questionable at best. Over time it gets more and more difficult to defend them and the grass on the other side of the fence starts to look greener. The problem is that it often is. Games-Workshop has dammed up the canal that feeds its crops and can not be bothered to fix it.

I really didn't like 5th edition. In my experience it was MSU transport spam, which really sucked if you wanted to play, oh I don't know anything but that? In my old area the only people who really enjoyed it were the mech-lovers, because suddenly their armies became the top dog.

I understand why people liked 5th. When I read the rules I liked 'em. But it was the edition that killed 40K in my hometown and reduced the amount of fun I had with the game to 0.

There are tons of things wrong with 7th, but I still like it. It's not perfect, but no edition ever will be if we're honest. GW writes rules, some of them are good, some of them are bad. Do I wish they were better at it? Yes, of course I do! I just don't see that changing. For what it's worth though, I'm enjoying this edition of the game more than I enjoyed 5th.

I will agree that they should've started to clean up the stupidity that is 'oh this is a giant walker... PSYCHE! It's an MC!!!' It makes no sense. I've heard some people explaining it that the pilot is so well-interfaced with the machine that they are one being, but then why aren't dreadnoughts MCs? The guy piloting is mind-linked for crying out loud! You can't get any better interfaced than that... And besides, why make vehicle rules when you're not going to give them to half the vehicles in the game?

Personally, for me, 40k (and GW for that matter) died back in 2012. I got tired of the constant price increases GW was inflicting on its customer base. It got to the point where I just couldn't justify spending my limited hobby funds on GW product anymore. I switched my game of choice to X-Wing and haven't regretted it one bit. And at my FLGS I'm not the only ex-40k player to make the switch to X-Wing or other, more affordable, miniature games like Malifaux or WarmaHordes. Now I do like the 40k universe background and have other options to indulge my 40k interests via FFG's RPGs and the new LCG.