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.

TutorialBoss wrote:

One thing that really bugs me is that the cover art of 5th Ed books is almost universally pants.

YES! THIS! Everyone thinks Im being pedantic when I say it, but it's true! The new codex cover art is by and large rubbish! I call specific attention to the Blood Angel with the wonky eyes, and the poor sense of scale and depth on the IG and 'nid codices. There are others. That said, I do like the scene on the Marine codex cover.

In fact, I think there has been a general worsening of the art in the transition for 4th to 5th. In the BRB for example, in the hobby section where each race gets a page, compare the art on the description page for one of these in the 4th ed book to the same one in the 5th ed book. 4th wins, unquestionably.


To answer the OP's question, I like playing 5th more than 4th and 3rd, although there are some niggles. Not hitting on better than 3s or worse than 5s in combat seems odd to me; transports should be more expensive or slightly worse. That said I like having one vehicle damage table and modifiers rather than 3 seperate tables, a la 3rd ed.

somecallmeJack wrote:To answer the OP's question, I like playing 5th more than 4th and 3rd, although there are some niggles. Not hitting on better than 3s or worse than 5s in combat seems odd to me;

The Close Combat To Hit chart has been unchanged since it was introduced in 3rd edition.

I must be mis-remembering

Well...I remembering the 4th ED BRB having a lot more content then the 5th.
in the 4th BRB you got the kill team rules, instructions on how to make your terrain, etc.

In 5th however they seem to do more advertising then hobbying.

I basically see 5th as the "corporate" edition, with more of an emphasis on selling than modelling.

However, the rules in 5th ed are a lot more streamlined.

This actually rather perfectly illustrates my biggest complaint with 4th edition, which was that large numbers of people completely misread the LOS rules, resulting in huge debates about how LOS was supposed to work right throughout the 4th edition lifespan.

There has never been a point in 40K's history that was 'before TLOS'... it has been the core of the LOS rules since Rogue Trader, with the basic principle (bend over and have a look from the model's point of view) being written in every rulebook with almost identical wording.

4th edition had a different LOS mechanic specifically for handling LOS that involved area terrain or close combats... which people misread as applying to all LOS.

The fact that 5th moved back to just having a single set of rules for LOS is one of the big marks in its favour in my book, if only because the end results is a lot fewer arguments over such a basic core rule.

You would think that the simpler LOS rules in 5th edition would have reduced LOS related rules complications, but if anything, the problems seem to have multiplied. The rules might have been slightly cumbersome in 4th edition, but determining LOS was far easier. Terrain either blocked it or didn't, and if a model as behind the LOS blocking terrain, you couldn't see it, end of story. Now you constantly will get arguments about if the shooter can see the half of the one model in the squad, which permits you to fire on the whole squad. Circumstances probably vary from person to person and from area to area, but I have had far more LOS related arguments since the release of 5th edition.

Also, two unusual problems have cropped up:

1.) The 50% rule for vehicles and MC. 5th doesn't actually use a single LOS rule, but two sets, one for infantry, and one for MC and vehicles. For the MC and vehicles, cover is harder to claim because they must be 50% concealed. Mind you, the rule distinction is simple enough, and the rule should be really easy to apply(if I can see half the model, no cover save). And yet, if I had a nickel for every time I had to explain this to somebody, I would be rich. I often even need to explain this distinction to veteran players, who should know better, and I have needed the assistance of GT judges during tournies on multiple occasions because even after explaining this rules to some players, as they would still refuse to accept them. Said players would hold this against me and act as if I am a rules lawyer.

2.) Because the 4+ cover save is so easy to obtain, some players act as if they are entitled to them, even in circumstances in which they are clearly not. I have angered many a player by positioning a firing unit to deny their cover save, and they will often act like I am cheating/rules lawyering because of it.

In my experience, the elegant simplicity the 5th edition LOS rules are supposed to represent just never came to be. They are a constant source of fighting and arguments.

Phanixis wrote:You would think that the simpler LOS rules in 5th edition would have reduced LOS related rules complications, but if anything, the problems seem to have multiplied. The rules might have been slightly cumbersome in 4th edition, but determining LOS was far easier. Terrain either blocked it or didn't, and if a model as behind the LOS blocking terrain, you couldn't see it, end of story.

But that was exactly my point: Area Terrain either blocked or it didn't. Everything else worked exactly the same way it does now, and exactly the same way it has worked since Rogue Trader.

Being able to kill the whole squad through being able to see part of one model isn't a change to LOS. It's a change to how wounds are allocated, to better reflect the squad-based nature of the current game.

1.) The 50% rule for vehicles and MC. 5th doesn't actually use a single LOS rule, but two sets, one for infantry, and one for MC and vehicles.

The rules are the same. It's just how much of the model that needs to be obscure that varies between the two.

LoneLictor wrote:I apologize if I put this in the wrong section, I wasn't sure where to put it. So yeah, was 4th ed better than 5th ed in terms of....

Codexes?
Rules?
Models?

My answer is Yes, No and NOOOO. But what do you guys think?

5th edition sucks! There I said it. I've not had nearly as much fun playing 5th as I did 4th. And I even used rhinos back then.

The codexs got worse in layout. I really hate how you have to look up 3 pages just to see how one unit really works with all its gear. As for balance, 5th ed marine codexs are balanced pretty close to each other but blow everything else out of the water.

Rules - See above. I find that 5th ed is much less tactical than 4th was. My lists didn't change, but how I played them became much more straight forward with much fewer important choices.

Models - I can only comment on the armies I have. But over all, things haven't got better.
Chaos - 4th ed was better. I dislike the new DP, the new damonettes blow compared to the metal ones, I really miss the mutation sprue and the EC box comes with less stuff.
Space Wolves - The new SW pack box and termi box blows all older SW boxes away... but then again, those were 3rd ed boxes.
Tau - I dislike the new design of the stealth suits and everything else is the same.
Orks - I don't care for the sharp extra bits added to rokkit boys or several other models just to show them more ramshackle. But the new trukk is awesome. I'm not sold on the battlewagon, its good, but I like the cobbled together wagons that people make much better.

The codexs got worse in layout. I really hate how you have to look up 3 pages just to see how one unit really works with all its gear. As for balance, 5th ed marine codexs are balanced pretty close to each other but blow everything else out of the water

Thank you. It was so much easier when all the info for a unit was on one page. Example the WH codex is some much better to work with then say the IG or GK book.

Ktulhut wrote:

Vermillion wrote:In some respects (targeting rules is an example) yes. In others no.
Lets just agree both 5th and 4th were better than 3rd and 2nd was better than the lot.

As a tyranid/csm player find this statement both untrue and offensive.

CSM and nids were great in 2nd ed!

Jayden63 wrote:
Space Wolves - The new SW pack box and termi box blows all older SW boxes away... but then again, those were 3rd ed boxes.

Weren't those terminators from RT and 2nd ed though? Shows they got use from those moulds!

Honestly I liked the codexes better. I do enjoy everything I needed to know about a unit on a single page and the customization available with doctrines or chapter traits.

Rules are "simpler". 4th ed only needed the consolidate into new combat removed and probably run introduced and it would be perfect.

Models I reckon have stayed about the same. Not better but no worse either.

5th Ed

Models - Dark Eldar - simply gorgeous models

Codexes - Again great new DE codex - Very sad that the Imperail Guard lost the all the intersting and fluffy differences between Regiments

looking forward to pre measuring in 6th Ed

I agree with an earlier poster that if a model has more than double anothers WS it should hit on 2+

I have started playing in 5th edition but am interested in what the changes have been between editions, and I think the line of sight rules from 4th sounds very interesting as I really dislike the current TLOS rules.

The gaming table is just a representation of what the battle field might look like. Why should TRUE line of sight apply when rules such as wound allocation is completely independent on the models placement on the table?

It feels very weird to be able to kill a whole squad in a ruin when only the foot on one model was visible trough a tiny window.

I would like to see a system off variable cover saves and a clear definition of how much of a model should be visible to make it possible to target (and wound). And declare terrain as line of sight blocking (even though the terrain piece on the table have some small windows and cracks).

I understand that it might be simpler and quicker to use the current TLOS rules, but it doesn't fit with the other more abstract rules in the game.


It will be interesting to see what the 6th ed will change.

Vermillion wrote:

Ktulhut wrote:

Vermillion wrote:In some respects (targeting rules is an example) yes. In others no.
Lets just agree both 5th and 4th were better than 3rd and 2nd was better than the lot.

As a tyranid/csm player find this statement both untrue and offensive.

CSM and nids were great in 2nd ed!

Jayden63 wrote:
Space Wolves - The new SW pack box and termi box blows all older SW boxes away... but then again, those were 3rd ed boxes.

Weren't those teorminators from RT and 2nd ed though? Shows they got use from those moulds!

I know you're right but I started playing 40k a week after 3e came out so I never got to play 2e.

Kajon wrote:I have started playing in 5th edition but am interested in what the changes have been between editions, and I think the line of sight rules from 4th sounds very interesting as I really dislike the current TLOS rules.

Again, TLOS has always been the core of the LOS rules for 40K. 4th edition simply treated Area Terrain differently.

The gaming table is just a representation of what the battle field might look like. Why should TRUE line of sight apply when rules such as wound allocation is completely independent on the models placement on the table?

The idea is that using the model's eye view to establish LOS immerses the players more into the game. You're more involved, as you're actually getting down and seeing what they would see.

It's not a perfect system. In fact it's an incredibly flawed system. But it is a more immersive system that looking down from on high and declaring 'this is size 'x' and so the model can see over it...'

Whether or not that makes it more fun or better than the alternatives is, of course, down to personal preference.

It feels very weird to be able to kill a whole squad in a ruin when only the foot on one model was visible trough a tiny window.

When I was in the army, one of our regular range shoot exercises was called the 'falling plate'. It was essentially a right-angled piece of half-inch thick steel that stands up where the target would normally be. You have to shoot at it from a hundred meters away, and try to knock it over. If you hit it in the wrong place, instead of knocking it over, the bullet would just pass straight through it without slowing down.

Have a look on YouTube, and you'll probably find any number of videos demonstrating the effect of assault rifles on bricks, trees, cars, whatever.

What the current LOS rules reflect, ultimately, is that knowing the position of a unit (by being able to see one member of that unit) is enough to flood that area with fire. Being behind a wall isn't really a heck of a lot of protection in that situation.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Well...I remembering the 4th ED BRB having a lot more content then the 5th.
in the 4th BRB you got the kill team rules, instructions on how to make your terrain, etc.

In 5th however they seem to do more advertising then hobbying.

I basically see 5th as the "corporate" edition, with more of an emphasis on selling than modelling.

However, the rules in 5th ed are a lot more streamlined.

Personally this has been my biggest complain about fifth.

When I judge fifth, I judge it in its entirety, including rules, balance, releases, content, models, white dwarf, errata etc. The “corporate edition” comment is actually pretty spot on as 5th edition seems to be more focused on selling models than anything else which is why other aspects of 5th (like errata, releases, white dwarf) seems to be sub par than previous editions.

I’ll admit, there are certain parts of the 5th edition rules that superior over previous editions although the hobby in its entirety was better during previous editions.

LoneLictor wrote:I apologize if I put this in the wrong section, I wasn't sure where to put it. So yeah, was 4th ed better than 5th ed in terms of....

Codexes?
Rules?
Models?

My answer is Yes, No and NOOOO. But what do you guys think?

No.
No.
Of course not.

5th edition is better

VikingScott wrote:Honestly I liked the codexes better. I do enjoy everything I needed to know about a unit on a single page and the customization available with doctrines or chapter traits.

Absolutely true for the Tyranid codex. Look at 4th edition. Go to the Carnifex entry. All those upgrades. Their points and effects are listed right there on the page. Most you have to do is go to the biomorph page for a strange upgrade (like tail attacks) or the rulebook for the USR.

Now look at 5th edition. You have the army list, which tells you the points. The effects are scattered through the biomorph section, and some then refer back to the unit description page. I wouldn't be surprised if one of those even referred back to the rulebook for a USR. It's a terrible layout, by far the worst for any edition. Go back to 4th edition style codex layouts.

insaniak wrote:

Kajon wrote:The gaming table is just a representation of what the battle field might look like. Why should TRUE line of sight apply when rules such as wound allocation is completely independent on the models placement on the table?

The idea is that using the model's eye view to establish LOS immerses the players more into the game. You're more involved, as you're actually getting down and seeing what they would see.

It's not a perfect system. In fact it's an incredibly flawed system. But it is a more immersive system that looking down from on high and declaring 'this is size 'x' and so the model can see over it...'

Whether or not that makes it more fun or better than the alternatives is, of course, down to personal preference.

Yes. It is a bit more immersing, which a lot of other rules make up for by being very immersive-breaking. I think I got a hang up on the wound allocation especially here.

insaniak wrote:

Kajon wrote:It feels very weird to be able to kill a whole squad in a ruin when only the foot on one model was visible trough a tiny window.

When I was in the army, one of our regular range shoot exercises was called the 'falling plate'. It was essentially a right-angled piece of half-inch thick steel that stands up where the target would normally be. You have to shoot at it from a hundred meters away, and try to knock it over. If you hit it in the wrong place, instead of knocking it over, the bullet would just pass straight through it without slowing down.

Have a look on YouTube, and you'll probably find any number of videos demonstrating the effect of assault rifles on bricks, trees, cars, whatever.

What the current LOS rules reflect, ultimately, is that knowing the position of a unit (by being able to see one member of that unit) is enough to flood that area with fire. Being behind a wall isn't really a heck of a lot of protection in that situation.

Good point.

The ruin was a bad example as the problem comes when the terrain piece is a mountain which no bullet or railgun ever could get trough. It feels strange to treat all terrain equal.

The area terrain rules in 4th ed, and the misapplication of them to the entire damn board (it seemed like) was a huge issue in 4th

Range and LOS sniping in 4th ed was a complete travesty of a mechanic. Why Lash was derided so much when the 4th ed codex was released

Area denial in close combat making powerfists useless - another annoying mechanic in 4th

Incoherent rules writing and editing - when you have rules spanning multiple pages and no key word system, its no suprise people didnt understand them.

I have never had fewer issues with LOS than in 5th ed. If you can see it you can shoot it - none of this "now, is it level 2 or 3?" nonsense.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The area terrain rules in 4th ed, and the misapplication of them to the entire damn board (it seemed like) was a huge issue in 4th

Range and LOS sniping in 4th ed was a complete travesty of a mechanic. Why Lash was derided so much when the 4th ed codex was released

Area denial in close combat making powerfists useless - another annoying mechanic in 4th

Incoherent rules writing and editing - when you have rules spanning multiple pages and no key word system, its no suprise people didnt understand them.

I have never had fewer issues with LOS than in 5th ed. If you can see it you can shoot it - none of this "now, is it level 2 or 3?" nonsense.

Sniping - Disagree. Range and LOS sniping was a skill. A learned skill that helped show the posers from the players. Besides to do it you had to take vehicles, something not many people advocated in 4th ed. Funny that.

Area denial = Awesome combat. You actually had to think about model placement, plan your assaults on the edge. Know where to put your P-fist in the squad so he will get a chance to swing. Give people tactical decisions besides just mash forward? How dare they?

Ktulhut wrote:

Vermillion wrote:

Ktulhut wrote:

Vermillion wrote:In some respects (targeting rules is an example) yes. In others no.
Lets just agree both 5th and 4th were better than 3rd and 2nd was better than the lot.

As a tyranid/csm player find this statement both untrue and offensive.

CSM and nids were great in 2nd ed!

Jayden63 wrote:
Space Wolves - The new SW pack box and termi box blows all older SW boxes away... but then again, those were 3rd ed boxes.

Weren't those teorminators from RT and 2nd ed though? Shows they got use from those moulds!

I know you're right but I started playing 40k a week after 3e came out so I never got to play 2e.

I shall observe a moments silence for you and hope 6th ed gives us all a taste of the good sections of 2nd ed once more.

I just want to point out that the layout of the 4th ed. Eldar Codex is an unparalleled abomination. I mean, the rules for Holo Fields are on the War Walker page! What kind of sense does that make?

I don't see a better/worse situation directly.

I think 4th was a different game from 3rd.

I think 5th was a great revision of 3rd.

The more I think of 5th as a change of 3rd the easier time I have.

Jayden63 wrote:

Sniping - Disagree. Range and LOS sniping was a skill. A learned skill that helped show the posers from the players.

Except it was very clear that it was never something really intended to be a mechanic as such, and was much more abuseable than it should have been.

Besides to do it you had to take vehicles, something not many people advocated in 4th ed. Funny that.

Many people took vehicles, just not tracked transports, well, except me, I still fielded 7 chimeras

Yes
Yes
Depends on the models in question.

1. Because Chapter traits made my Imperial Fists fething legit, now we are unique only by virtue of Lysander.

2. Yes, because I hate the mobile mechiness of this Ed. I love Infantry, and I love NOT having my FW charged.

3. Depends on the models because they keep getting better, but so much different from the models I know and love. Plus some thing just get worse (See: Daemonettes)

Forbino wrote:I don't see a better/worse situation directly.

I think 4th was a different game from 3rd.

I think 5th was a great revision of 3rd.

The more I think of 5th as a change of 3rd the easier time I have.

Spot on, probably why I prefer 4th overall from those 3 editions. I think what made 4th so good though was those changes which were the ones for the better. Now mesh them into 6th with a dash of 2nd and we have a game where we start to see steps towards the better. Just a pity no matter what people will still argue over the rules.
On an aside in each edition there's always the "roll a d6 for it" to resolve arguments, who else would love a "use rules as intended not as written" rule for many of the disagreements? Would save some errata being awaited upon.

Vermillion wrote:... who else would love a "use rules as intended not as written" rule for many of the disagreements?

That would create more problems than it would solve. At least applying the written word you only have the various possible meanings of the actual writing on the page. Once you add intent into the equation, any given passage of text could mean practically anything.

A lot of the time, the original intention is easy enough to determine... but on most of the big 'grey' areas, when people try to make an argument for the 'intent' of the rule, they're usually just saying 'I think it's best played like this...'

Which isn't a problem so long as they take it as their own opinion. When you try declaring that your own opinion is clearly how it is 'supposed' to be played, you run into all sorts of problems.

insaniak wrote:

Vermillion wrote:... who else would love a "use rules as intended not as written" rule for many of the disagreements?

That would create more problems than it would solve. At least applying the written word you only have the various possible meanings of the actual writing on the page. Once you add intent into the equation, any given passage of text could mean practically anything.

A lot of the time, the original intention is easy enough to determine... but on most of the big 'grey' areas, when people try to make an argument for the 'intent' of the rule, they're usually just saying 'I think it's best played like this...'

Which isn't a problem so long as they take it as their own opinion. When you try declaring that your own opinion is clearly how it is 'supposed' to be played, you run into all sorts of problems.

Starting to think that the start of each chapter should state "we reckon..."
While in the grey areas yes thats a problem, but lets face it it's as it is now, I'm more thinking of those moments where everyone knows how a rule is meant to be followed but by a fluke of words in whatever order TFG always tries to take advantage moments.