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.

The 3rd edition Tau codex was out about three years before 4th edition.

The 4th edition codex was out about two years before 5th edition.

Neither codex was immediately out of date, however they were arguably more invalidated than codexes such as Orks and Eldar which were released shortly before the new edition rules and had had some forthought put into them.

Ouze wrote:So far as the Tau Codex coming out right before the 6th edition book and being immediately out of date, has that happened previously?

Somebody's gotta be last. If you're asking about Tau specifically, I believe they were actually one of the first out in 4E.

Were Orks last for 4th? Because I think we weathered very well until the supermarine codices started appearing recently.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Ouze wrote:So far as the Tau Codex coming out right before the 6th edition book and being immediately out of date, has that happened previously?

Somebody's gotta be last. If you're asking about Tau specifically, I believe they were actually one of the first out in 4E.

No-one would be last if all codexes were released at the same time.

4th edition came out in mid (ish ?) 2004. The Tau Empire codex came out in March 2006. That was mid-way through the run. I don't know which codexes preceded Tau but it would have been about half of the codexes released during 4th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orks were last for 4th and came out only a few months before 5th edition.

The codex has aged well, partly because 5th edition favours assault armies.

I'd like a new edition because wound allocation is stupid.

Before 5th came out, there were discussions about how the new edition was designed the streamline game play.

Then they introduce wound allocation. With complex units getting hit with lots of wounds, the current wound allocation rules just slow the game down and require creative ways to account for which model has how many wounds.

While less realistic, third and fourth edition wound and save rules were infinitely simpler and more elegant.

I like 5th edition, I just want the models from the rumored 6th edition box set (Black Templars and Daemons, for those of you living under a rock). Of course, cover does kind of deserve a change...4+ for models half in cover, 5 or 6 for models barely in cover (one foot of a gaunt not visible should only grant a 6 for cover, for example).

I wouldn't mind an end to TLoS and wound allocation. I kind of like the prevalence of mech., but change can be a good thing.

Too many special rules adding up piecemeal from one codex to the next lead to contradictions when the origional rulebook is more abstract. Codex trumps rulebook, but when arguements arise about Codex trumping other Codex, special rules cancelling each other out and such, it starts getting hazy and hard to keep track of all the exceptions.

When you change rules, it affects all the things that were designed to exist within the old rules. This was a horrible blow to some armies.

Plus, wounds allocation, my personal pet hate crime waiting to happen - which makes perfect sense if you can rationalize that it doesn't and just live with its existance justified by your ability to abuse it.

Vehicle movement/shooting rules with the 'defensive weapons mandate being S4 just arbitrarily, regardless that some race might consider different strength weapons as their "defensive" (poor Tau) severely crippled some tanks, but didn't do anything to make them cheaper, just worse.

TLOS seemed like a great idea but it creates more problems with nitpick micromeasurements, noticably slows down the game, and made it much harder for JSJ reliant units to get a break (again, poor Tau).

Hazy cover rules make it too easy to create good saves, majority saves and the preponderance of invul save accessability make the effectiveness of good innate saves on a statline such as 3+ or 2+ less important (but still cost as much). SW and BA codex need to be purged from the Imperial archives. All the unloved back shelf xenos need a serious overhaul. The list could go on and on.

New edition, with a FAQ or Codex for EVERY army to bring it up to speed with the new rules released at once would earn back their games developers my respect.

TLOS is a mixed bag. Sometimes improving the quality of the game and other times being a frustrating mess.

You know, 5th is my first, and I definitely see some things that could be improved. Would allocation does kinda suck.

The real problem, of course, is codex special rules, especially when they exist solely to cancel someone else's codex special rule.

Same reason that drug users are always looking for harder drugs.

They need their 40k fix man...

Ive never had an instance where TLOS provided a BENEFIT to the game. Abstract los was much better and faster, you didnt need 100% scale terrain and it caused less arguments

Its a silly rule which Id love to see gone (but we wont). Wound allocation needs to go too, and transports need to have a detriment but not as bad as 4th..You should be locked in combat with people inside a transport you destroy in CC.

Kirasu wrote:Ive never had an instance where TLOS provided a BENEFIT to the game. Abstract los was much better and faster, you didnt need 100% scale terrain and it caused less arguments

I have to agree. I'll never understand why people seemed to have such difficulty understanding the idea of abstracted terrain that existed from Rogue Trader through 4th Edition. The fact of the matter is that making terrain that actually blocks TLOS usually makes terrain that is very difficult to actually use on the table top.

Saldiven wrote:

Kirasu wrote:Ive never had an instance where TLOS provided a BENEFIT to the game. Abstract los was much better and faster, you didnt need 100% scale terrain and it caused less arguments

I have to agree. I'll never understand why people seemed to have such difficulty understanding the idea of abstracted terrain that existed from Rogue Trader through 4th Edition. The fact of the matter is that making terrain that actually blocks TLOS usually makes terrain that is very difficult to actually use on the table top.

Same here. Has anyone put together some nice alternate rules for TLOS is 5th?

Gimme gimme if they have.

Correct me if I am wrong, but back during 3rd and 4th Ed were people not agrivated at the 'dumbing down' of the rules? Now towards the life cycle of this Ed. people are remembering the joy of certain simplified rules.

I got into 40K back when 3rd Ed came out and loved the rules back then. 4th Ed came and went and I still had no problem. 5th Ed came out however and after about 6 months I hated it so bad that I haven't played since. I even hated to read the Codex's as you have to flip back and forth all over the place to figure out what prices and abilities are.

At this point in the game, GW can make a core set of rules that makes a simple and effective game system. Supplements like Apoc, Planet Strike,etc can be used for expanded rules now. Never happen though.

This thread and its posts make me sad. :(

I can do wthout the expense - if its the same or higher cost as the Fantasy Rulebook then that would be a severe discouragement to continuing with 40K - though as said its inevitable that we get 6th at some point .

So - embracing the inevitable , 6th needs a removal of TLOS , and the 4+ cover from intervening troops . A LOS system I like is the MkII Warmachine / Hordes system .

S5 and below for defensive weapons. That is all I want. That alone will make me buy 6th rulebook.

Why don't they sell lifetime subscriptions to the Rulebook?

yeenoghu wrote: TLOS seemed like a great idea but it creates more problems with nitpick micromeasurements, noticably slows down the game, and made it much harder for JSJ reliant units to get a break (again, poor Tau).

A great idea compared to what? 40K has used TLOS since Rogue Trader. Last edition just used a more abstract system for dealing with Area Terrain.


Speaking of which, that's my only real gripe with 5th edition. I very much dislike using true LOS for area terrain, as the whole point of area terrain is that it's not physically representative of what's supposedly there... it's just a marker that says 'here be forest' or the like.

I hate the idea that models can walk through walls in a ruin with no real impediment, but in the shooting phase can't knock themselves a vision hole in that same wall that they just walked through...


I would like to see a return to Deep Strikers being placed in coherency rather than in condensed blob... the current system just makes them far too fragile, particularly without being able to assault the turn they arrive. (He says, after just having had an entire Ork Stormboyz mob destroyed in one round of shooting as they all fit nicely under the business end of a flamer template...)


And I would like to see wound allocation re-written. I don't mind the current system, although it does lend itself to a certain amount of abuse... but too many people seem to really struggle to understand how it actually works, which suggests that GW need to find a clearer way to explain it, or find something a little less complicated to use instead.


Aside from that, I like 5th edition. It wasn't a huge change from 4th, mostly... but there were enough of the right changes to turn it back into a game that I'm excited to play again... something that was lacking for the last half of 3rd edition and most of 4th.

I totally agree with your point. Wound Allocation has always been a very difficult part of the rules to understand.

TLoS is not very good in practice and should be replaced with a base to base sightline plus standardised target and terrain height levels.

We can be pretty sure that S4 defensive weapons are getting changed again. The rule is so terribad that half the 5E codexes have a special rule to circumvent it.

The only thing I want is a stable game system that lives and breaths with the changes, instead of trying to reinvent itself each and every run. I've had to relearn 5 different games, and I don't know what game YOUR playing, but THIS current edition is crap, and I'll be the one to say it, too.

1. Cover saves. Yeah, well and good that you get the save, but what does it do you when you have a be all end all cowkiller army that ignores them now? You've got one army in particular, that you are wasting your time even putting on the table against, because they have basicly a one shot, one kill army.

2. Still waiting on those decent vehicle combat rules. We've got lots of vehicles, wouldn't mind some serious rules for them, now. The placeholder ones they have are insolvent.

3. Would be nice if eveyone had straight leg infantry that was White boxed with black lettering "INFANRY"cookie cutter generic....... OH WAIT!!! that is Exactly what we have now.

4. Wishy washy psyker rules that really don't amount to anything other then a minor diversion. I fart better effects then some of them. Not to mention the "Be all end all" of serious effects of a wargame, instead of rock, paper, scissors.

5. Game upkeep. People have issues and GW sits on thier golden throne, looking around and acting like they even know whats going on. FAQ's a day late and a doller short leaving you with a freshly !@#$ed feeling after reading them.

6. Kowtowing to the noob, and deficating on a once thriving community with a general, "Pee on your head and tell you its raining" attitude.


Bottom line, and to not get too much into it comes down to caring.

GW doesn't really care about the game. Its use is the same as White Dwarf has become. a simple sales ploy to make you go out there and buy more shinys.

Feedback, interaction, evolution is nonexistant.
They wait to make a 3,4,5, edition before they even hint to admit that things are off kilter. Instead of dealing with an issue, they ignore it, the people that it affects, and push another cookie at you to keep you quiet.

You get a codex, you know it will be crap in six months. You get a model, you DON'T even know that it will be relevent in 3. As for an army? Unless its space marines, you get a penny for your thought and a two finger salute.

Biggest reason I stopped playing, collecting, and caring is because of the way in which our players here are treated.

GW? Who's that?

I love 40k right now. All i would like to see is all the grey areas cleaned up, other than that i dont have a problem. I dont expect it to be logical so the "Funny" rules dont really bother me, if i wanted realistic Id join the military. And if they do wanna come out with another edition im fine with that too. It changes the game and brings new codex line up. Which in turn makes me have to think and change play styles. I see it as a challenge.

insaniak wrote:I very much dislike using true LOS for area terrain, as the whole point of area terrain is that it's not physically representative of what's supposedly there... it's just a marker that says 'here be forest' or the like.

I would agree with this sentiment. While people can model LOS blocking area terrain, they normally chose not to do so to faciliatate the movement and posing of models through said terrain. Accordingly, area terrain is most often very open. Open terrain plus TLOS removed a very enjoyable (for me at least) strategic element in 4th edition that required gunelines to deploy and move to utilize fire lanes and close combat armies to hide and avoid getting shot at (or minimize the number of exposed models).

In addition:

I also want to see a tradeoff when it comes to transports. If an assault unit takes the risks associated with blowing up a transport in CC, embarked passengers should not get a free pass at wiping out the assualting unit during thier turn - they should either be pinned or allow the assaulting enemy unit to auto-consolidate into the passengers.

I would also like to see the surviveablity of MC brought more into line with vehicles or vise versa.

In regards to fearless wound, at the least, I would prefer to see this apply to the combat as a whole, rather than subjecting every unit involved in the losing side of the CC to the same excessive number of wounds. At most, I would love to see the return of a tarpitting strategy that didn't rely on "stubborn".

Grot 6 wrote:The only thing I want is a stable game system that lives and breaths with the changes, instead of trying to reinvent itself each and every run. I've had to relearn 5 different games, ...

I think '5 different games' is overstating things somewhat. The basic game has been unchanged since 3rd edition... it's just elements of it that have been altered. For anyone familiar with 3rd edition, coming up to speed on 4th or 5th shouldn't take too much effort.

...and I don't know what game YOUR playing, but THIS current edition is crap, and I'll be the one to say it, too.

You make that sound like it's some obvious point that everyone else is stepping around, rather than a personal opinion.

I'll be the one to say that in almost every way 5th edition has improved on what was started with 3rd and 4th. The game's not perfect, and probably never will be. But it's more fun than the stupidly 'streamlined' 3rd edition, and less buggy than the mess that 4th edition quickly became.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

wyomingfox wrote:Open terrain plus TLOS removed a very enjoyable (for me at least) strategic element in 4th edition that required gunelines to deploy and move to utilize fire lanes and close combat armies to hide and avoid getting shot at (or minimize the number of exposed models).

That's only really a problem if you're using predominantly area terrain, though.

Throw in more solid LOS-blocking terrain, and you get that back again.

I also want to see a tradeoff when it comes to transports. If an assault unit takes the risks associated with blowing up a transport in CC, embarked passengers should not get a free pass at wiping out the assualting unit during thier turn - they should either be pinned or allow the assaulting enemy unit to auto-consolidate into the passengers.

I would actually go somewhat the other way... If a transport is assaulted, I think the embarked unit should bail out immediately as a part of the normal 'Defenders react' process. Or at least give them the option to do so, with the caveat being that they are destroyed with the transport if they choose to remain on board instead.

Kilkrazy wrote:
No-one would be last if all codexes were released at the same time.

This right here would be the best single change. All army books released with maybe 60-90 days of the new edition release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grot 6 wrote:The only thing I want is a stable game system that lives and breaths with the changes, instead of trying to reinvent itself each and every run. I've had to relearn 5 different games, and I don't know what game YOUR playing, but THIS current edition is crap, and I'll be the one to say it, too...GW? Who's that?

Ill agree with all of that. I still like GW minis, so I buy and build some here and there, but as far as buying whole armies and actually playing the game...nope.

That's only really a problem if you're using predominantly area terrain, though. Throw in more solid LOS-blocking terrain, and you get that back again.

That's what I usually see...second most common is buildings with windows (that allows someone to see a... hand). Third would be low lying hills. Again, if you can see a single hand, then you can hurt the entire unit.

I would actually go somewhat the other way... If a transport is assaulted, I think the embarked unit should bail out immediately as a part of the normal 'Defenders react' process. Or at least give them the option to do so, with the caveat being that they are destroyed with the transport if they choose to remain on board instead.

Still seams like the same win-win scenario (unless the unit counts as being pinned or I can consolidate into them). They would just choose to disembark. The disembarked unit can still wipe out the assaulting unit during its own (next) shooting and assualt turn if the vehicle is destroyed. If the vehicle is not destroyed then they can do likewise or get back in the transport and drive off.

Scipio Africanus wrote:I think gw listens to the community.

Hey, who was pushing for a new dark eldar codex? Oh, what? The community?! I didn't reAlist they listned

The community pushes for every codex, so when they release a new one of course it's going to be one people were pushing for.