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.

While I agree with most of Ailaros's points, the one jbunny just made actually makes a lot of sense to me.

Of course, having started in 5th, I have no practical experience, but the idea that you can essentially be shooting at the guy in the front and actually somehow hit the guy in the back made very little sense to me. The only way I could justify it to myself was to say, "Okay, a guy just rushed up to take his place and the entire column shifted a bit." But then what about different equipped units? Did the guy who just took Mister Power Sword's place actually drop his bolter and pick up the power sword?

Doesn't make a lot of sense.

Anyway. Like I said. Started in 5th, so if I'm talking out my ass, ignore this post.

Also gonna recommend we tone down the personal jabs a little bit, this discussions getting kind of hostile, and it doesn't need to.

I prefer 5th, but maybe that's because all three of the armies I collect are stronger in 5th edition (Sister template spam is better than before, Orks gained a codex just prior to 5th which provided for great cheap boyz, and Guard... I need say no more).

I liked the chapter specialties of 4theds SM 'dex.

Nostalgia too as I started with 4th. Some things were bad some were good. Same with all editions, there will be things I like and things I don't.

Mostly i think 5th was the: Simplify everything edition.
Note that I haven't said that it was a bad thing.

jbunny wrote:It is easier to march everything accross the board now, since EVERYBODY gets cover saves.

If you were using enough terrain in previous editions, this isn't much of a change. The problem for most people seems to be that they got used to playing shooty armies on empty tables.

not to mention the location of models in units made a difference. Your sarget w power weapon, Combiweapon and alot of other wargear is leading the way, and just happens to be the only guy in plasma range, well guess he is toast. Now the guy in the back a country mile from the shooter gets to take one for the team.

Or the fact that they (gw) wants to push this true line of sight crap, but if only one model is visible and in range of a whole unit, everyone in the receiving unit is at risk.

This is simply a part of the process of moving the game from being a model-based skirmish game to a unit-based army game.

And GW have been 'pushing' true LOS since the game began. The oh-so-often misunderstood hybrid LOS rules are another part of the reason I definitely don't miss 4th edition.

Some aspects of the 5th edition are good, but 4th is best i think, bar the kill vehicles waaaaay to easy, but the combat was better rip apart on squad then rip into the next one, just great. LOS was way better to.

I think a lot of people are also hating 4th ed because of 4th ed codexs. Do not confuse the codex with the core rule set.

SW had army wide counter charge in 4th ed and no one complained about it. 5th ed changed how counter charge works and now everyone says SW are broken because they have army wide counter charge.

That's an example of a core rule problem, not a codex problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:
This is simply a part of the process of moving the game from being a model-based skirmish game to a unit-based army game.

And GW have been 'pushing' true LOS since the game began. The oh-so-often misunderstood hybrid LOS rules are another part of the reason I definitely don't miss 4th edition.

I have no problems with true LOS, but the game is still not unit based. If after moving I have 1 model in 10 in LOS and range to another unit, only that 1 model can shoot. However on the return fire, I can loose my whole squad. If each of my guys can poke his head around the corner to take a bullet, they can each damn well poke their gun barrel around the corner and get a shot off.

But that isn't the case. I also hate how the game is supposed to be fluid and dynamic, except when actually taking a shot or being shot at, in which case its a Kodak moment. The advantage going to whom ever is on the back side of the lens. Because we all know the one guy sticking his head up to look through the window is the only guy who deserves to get it shot off. And he just stands there while the entirety of the enemy army that might just get a glimps of him shoots him.

Jayden63 wrote:I have no problems with true LOS, but the game is still not unit based.

Not entirely, but it's moving towards it.

If after moving I have 1 model in 10 in LOS and range to another unit, only that 1 model can shoot. However on the return fire, I can loose my whole squad. If each of my guys can poke his head around the corner to take a bullet, they can each damn well poke their gun barrel around the corner and get a shot off.

The thing is, allowing the entire unit to fire if only one guy can see or is in range encourages a static game. You don't need to move to get a better fire position for the unit, you just huddle them all behind a wall and stick one guy's head out.

So the rules as they currently stand are supposed to encourage you to think about how best to position the unit for effect... it's in your best interests to find a position where they can all see the enemy, because they need to do so in order to shoot, and doing so doesn't make them any more vulnerable, because they could be shot at with only one of them visible anyway.

I also hate how the game is supposed to be fluid and dynamic, except when actually taking a shot or being shot at, in which case its a Kodak moment.

Until technology gets to a point where we can play in real-time with animated holograms, I'm not really sure that there's a viable solution for that problem. It's certainly not a problem that was introduced with 5th edition.

Jayden63 wrote:
I'm really surprised to see this comment about a rules edition that had no missions, units that could bounce endlessly between close combat without recourse and invincible skimmers.

Um, I'm a bit confused. If I remember correctly, 4th had like 18 missions; including Combat Patrol, with the addition of Kill Teams. 5th has.....<drumroll> 3.

I struggle to rember what I normally played in 4th ed. I know I played many diffrent things.

But I think in 4thed 80% of the time people just played victory points. I think the 4th edbook never really told you what to play but did have VP games as its man fight.

The current one however spells out for you that at the start of every game you roll and see what you get while the 4th ed one did not spell that out nearly as much.

Cambak wrote:I miss it for the Doctrines for IG, but that's about it. the 4th ed IG codex was horrid.

I agree with the IG doctrines part, but 4th ed wasn't THAT horrid. It was OK, but 5th ed is just so much better!

Brettila wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:
I'm really surprised to see this comment about a rules edition that had no missions, units that could bounce endlessly between close combat without recourse and invincible skimmers.

Um, I'm a bit confused. If I remember correctly, 4th had like 18 missions; including Combat Patrol, with the addition of Kill Teams. 5th has.....<drumroll> 3.

Yep. 5th may have all the expansions... But 4th had more missions. Hell it had a make your own. In 5th it doesn't D:

Asherian Command wrote:Also I liked the combat! Because you could assualt one kill an entire squad. And move onto another. My army was rape then! No matter what they had my elite artifcer armored space marines charged and killed everything. And Terminators were worth taking -.-

I completly agree with you, my ork army was insane back then a squad of 30 boyz could render IG and nids, khorne beserkers were just.......wrong back then to.

Asherian Command wrote:Also I liked the combat! Because you could assualt one kill an entire squad. And move onto another.

Are you saying that you could move onto the next squad and immediately fight another round of combat? Because if so, that's not right, although was a surprisingly common misconception.

I miss some of the more flavorful things of the time - doctrines for Guard, the more customizable and centralized Chaos army, and all those little nigh-useless but colorful pieces of wargear the game had. Game mechanics wise, I'm glad things have sped up for 5th. Once in a while I still have a 4th ed moment and flub a 5th ed rule though.

No i was saying. That you can go into another combat. But not fight in it. I remember i could do that. And my uber pwnage Veteran squad had 10 power weapons all with artficer armor and bionics and furious charge and true grit and fearless, they could do alot of cool stuff. And nothing could kill them. Except 3 Abbadons. Which i still don't understand how we had that many.

lowmanjason wrote:YES I DO! 5th ed nerfed my Necrons with the new vehical damage chart and made those cool vehical damage dice obsolete!

Just make your own!

I found my 4th ed rulebook the other day, I'm glad 4th is gone

NO now glancing cant kill your leman russ demolisher

Not really. I adapted to the 5th ed and the rules are fine.

I totally miss 2nd edition. I just think a lot of the mechanics worked loads better. CC and Vehicles were better. I also miss heavily customised characters with obscure wargear and weapons. Bring back the Vortex grenade. In fact there were loads of different types of grenades with bizarre but cool effects. Such as th Anti-Plant grenade. Beautiful silliness.

5th ed is fine though, if not as open.

Since 5th edition has come out, its felt a LOT better to me. Terminators having the 4+ inv. save, vehicles having decent armour and actually acting like they are GOOD vehicles. I've actually started playing 40K again on a semi-frequent basis and WINNING GAMES, because the rules didn't rely on hordes.

And actually having to plan where to go with horde armies now.

I think for the most part 5th is a better ruleset and the majority of things that are problems in this current edition come from the writers assuming that people were familiar with the previous rulesets and failed to explicitly specify certain rules that were thought to be common knowledge(Eldar Jetbikes assault range?)

As to people talking about the LoS rules being better?????What part of having your opponent walk up to a solid brick wall (That has no openings and that provides absolutely no LoS) and using a flamer on your hidden squad on the opposit side do you miss? The area terrain rules were a horrendous joke. They said that solid walls did not block LoS but six inches of 1/4" high textered terrain did.

I play Tau and still prefer the 5th ed rules. There are other rules that were problematic but the LoS in 4th ed was a pet peeve.

No,I do not miss 4th edition.