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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 KrakenLord86 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Completely lost my mind for a moment:

"5th where rules were made for us"??

Cannot let that go unanswered:

That was the time where they were solidifying the concepts of AP and double your toughness insta-death. This was a time where they were leaning heavily on making rules where most codex entries focused on how it ignored certain rules. A rather lazy method.

5th was a time of just taking 4th with a small update with little thought of how to make cool things inside the rule set.

Kirby saved heavily on his R&D budget with that rehash.

As previously stated,when I say that "5th was designed for us" this is in comparison it to our current edition.

It is still incorrect. 4th ed is more applicable, as at least that edition's rulebook tried to encourage the hobby, with instructions for building your own table or making your own craters. 5th ed and on-wards is now "buy our new gaming table. Forget about building your own. We certainly aren't going to help."

Ok. I can agree with that. The important thing in my mind is just the idea of having an edition dependent tournament that uses a previous edition in order to avoid the disorder of the current one. To be honest I took a big break in 5th. The majority of my playing (and admittably my best games) was back in 3rd and 4th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 KrakenLord86 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Completely lost my mind for a moment:

"5th where rules were made for us"??

Cannot let that go unanswered:

That was the time where they were solidifying the concepts of AP and double your toughness insta-death. This was a time where they were leaning heavily on making rules where most codex entries focused on how it ignored certain rules. A rather lazy method.

5th was a time of just taking 4th with a small update with little thought of how to make cool things inside the rule set.

Kirby saved heavily on his R&D budget with that rehash.

As previously stated,when I say that "5th was designed for us" this is in comparison it to our current edition.

It is still incorrect. 4th ed is more applicable, as at least that edition's rulebook tried to encourage the hobby, with instructions for building your own table or making your own craters. 5th ed and on-wards is now "buy our new gaming table. Forget about building your own. We certainly aren't going to help."

Ok. I can agree with that. The important thing in my mind is just the idea of having an edition dependent tournament that uses a previous edition in order to avoid the disorder of the current one. To be honest I took a big break in 5th. The majority of my playing (and admittably my best games) was back in 3rd and 4th.

You are looking at 5th through some seriously rose-colored glasses. By the end of 5th edition people were bored. Absolutely bored.

If there is one thing you can say now... no one is bored!

I was bored! Then I tried fifth 5th edition! Where you have to finish a fifth of Vodka before round 5 ends!

Ok. I can agree with that. The important thing in my mind is just the idea of having an edition dependent tournament that uses a previous edition in order to avoid the disorder of the current one. To be honest I took a big break in 5th. The majority of my playing (and admittably my best games) was back in 3rd and 4th.

Then go start your own 5th-Ed-Only Tournaments?

... but realize that it cuts a bunch of armies out of the picture, or leaves them stranded with a Codex that was, at the time, 2 editions old.

5th Edition made us realize GW wasn't interested in fixing 4th Edition as much as just changing the game...again. So we "fixed" the things we didn't like in 4th and have added what we liked in 5th and 6th as well as implemented tweaks of our own. We'll probably never buy GW rules again, much less play them.

I personally enjoy 6th edition for the most part. Admittingly, there are some rules that irk me but I tend to house rule those in the casual setting (I'll let my bro still assault with his genestealers off an outflank/infiltrate, if there were ever a unit that should be able to do so, it's them and lictors imo).

I generally like 6th edition rules better.
If only GW would cut some of the "Battle Brothers" crap, 40K would be a much better place.
Random charge length and no charge from unmoved vehicles are the current rules i particularl dislike

The bones of 6th is good, you can see some lessons learned there from prior rule sets.
.
The issue is that the pressure of the marketing department is forcing changes on the developers where they may not have been needed or at least given proper time to develop (Death from the skies: you need more fliers! honest!, Escalation: You want all those big plastic models!, Stronghold Assault: Just in time for that TON of new defensive terrain).

Since Apocalypse has been an underwhelming success incorporating these new models into the core 40k rules is a stroke of genius: now you cannot play WITHOUT THEM! We call them "gods of war" after all...

My first army is Chaos Marines and I still cannot bring myself to buy the "Khorn Mower"... $190 ye gods!

It really is getting more critical to enter a negotiation of terms prior to creating an army list with your opponent.

My only challenge is running into people who have the view "I can play whatever I want according to the rules, how dare you try to impose limitations!!!"... Okayyyyy, X-wing it is.

Armor was absurd in 5th. Now MCs are absurd. Can we just get a rules set where NOTHING is absurd?

 amanita wrote:
5th Edition made us realize GW wasn't interested in fixing 4th Edition as much as just changing the game...again. So we "fixed" the things we didn't like in 4th and have added what we liked in 5th and 6th as well as implemented tweaks of our own. We'll probably never buy GW rules again, much less play them.

You use the term "we" so much that I've started to think that you're all some sort of fungoid hive mind (based on your avatar), it's off topic, but it's an amusing conception I've developed of you.

 kronk wrote:
I like 6th edition. I just play without Escalation.

Here here!

 KrakenLord86 wrote:
Sure they were. But have they ever been this bad?

Yes.

In fifth edition, in fact.

Martel732 wrote:
Armor was absurd in 5th. Now MCs are absurd. Can we just get a rules set where NOTHING is absurd?

Armor in and of itself wasn't absurd in 5th. Nobody complained about Predators, Land Raiders, Leman Russ Tanks, Hammerheads, etc. It was ultra cheap transports that honked people off. Instead of addressing those in the relevant codex books, they just hamfisted all vehicles

Likewise, MC's now aren't absurd by dint of the core MC rules, it's having MC's with huge numbers of wounds and outstanding saves, often in multiples and available in every FoC slot, that's absurd

 KrakenLord86 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 KrakenLord86 wrote:
Sure. I'm not saying that 5th was necessarily perfect for the everyday gamer but it certainly wasn't as sales oriented as 6th

I believe there is a meme that encapsulates my response to this assertion:



Ah, yes, there it is.


But seriously no, 5th edition was hilariously focused on sales.

Sure they were. But have they ever been this bad? Don't think so. And as players adopting a previous edition it's not like we would get into a time machine and re-live our irritation at sales. By the way, I was thinking about resolving tournament meta. Not friendly games where a social contract will always remain prevalent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
Tournament players aren't dependent on GW's current shenanigans. The TOs can allow or disallow whatever they want. And, as it happens, that's exactly that they've been doing since GW stopped running tournaments.

TOs have indeed always been able to allow or disallow whatever they want. Most notably Forge World and the inclusion of non-GW models. But have they really banned units (other than Forge World) altogether? Banning Forge World is one thing (not really an issue anymore) but TO's are now faced with banning rules and units that would make the very game of 40k indistinguishable from one tournament to another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
I like 6th edition. I just play without Escalation.

By the way, I play Eldar and love the new models as i like 6th edition as well. I'm just trying to find a solution to save (preserve in this case) the game we all love. And I don't want to deter anyone from playing 6th if they like it. I just think we should check our options if 40k dies in the next year as it has already died for other players.

Yeah. Yeah it was this bad. Need I remind you of the fact that daemons had a high chance of being auto tabled turn one against GK?

Second Edition is great as a skirmish ruleset between friends who agree not to abuse the rules, but does not handle large forces or the trust needed to play other people at a LGS.

4th edition is my absolute favorite if I want the full-scale 40K experience. Skimmer spam is a problem, but I would be the only skimmer guy, and I have a troop-and jetbike heavy Eldar army with a whopping two grav-tanks involved- so not an issue. 4th edition just fixed the things wrong with 3rd, like the assault rules.

5th edition was just the road to 6th as far as I am considered. Lots of the same stuff wrong, but then 6th edition went and invented new additional stuff to be wrong, too.

... also realize that the Necron Codex that came out just before the end of 5E was written with 6th in mind, and caused a lot of people to flip their lids when it came out. Looking back, that seems almost quaint now.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Armor was absurd in 5th. Now MCs are absurd. Can we just get a rules set where NOTHING is absurd?

Armor in and of itself wasn't absurd in 5th. Nobody complained about Predators, Land Raiders, Leman Russ Tanks, Hammerheads, etc. It was ultra cheap transports that honked people off. Instead of addressing those in the relevant codex books, they just hamfisted all vehicles

Likewise, MC's now aren't absurd by dint of the core MC rules, it's having MC's with huge numbers of wounds and outstanding saves, often in multiples and available in every FoC slot, that's absurd

Nobody gripes about TMCs even though we had monstrous creatures before it was cool.

 Psienesis wrote:
... also realize that the Necron Codex that came out just before the end of 5E was written with 6th in mind, and caused a lot of people to flip their lids when it came out. Looking back, that seems almost quaint now.

Flying croissant spam is still pretty dangerous. Nothing quaint about the Necrons.

There is much less ass-chappery directed towards the Necrons than other armies. That is what I find quaint.

It's simple: the Necrons usually win against me, but don't table me. Tau and Eldar with some solid rolling can table marines and make it clear that I never had a chance.

cvtuttle wrote:You are looking at 5th through some seriously rose-colored glasses. By the end of 5th edition people were bored. Absolutely bored.

If there is one thing you can say now... no one is bored!

Oh very this.
I was incredibly bored.
To the point I so bored, I basically stopped playing Dark Eldar in the few months before 6th was released and how bored I was with them in that edition (literally every single game was identical), and it tainted my interest in them so badly that I'm only JUST starting to take them off the shelf again.

At the end of the day, I like 6th. If you're not some WAAC douchebag, and you're not playing Tournaments (which aren't going to be fun.
Literally no seriously competitive scene I've gone to has been anything aproaching fun. It's called seriously competitive for a reason. People are there to win and nothing else.)

But generally, in pick up games, they've all felt close, they've all been interesting, and I've felt like I've been in it the whole 5-7 turns with a chance regardless of the outcome.
You can now use damn near anything, Forgeworld is widely accepted, and you can create more interesting combinations.

I mean really, you can draw from the following list of source material:34 Army Lists and 24 Chapter Tactics to draw from.
There's a huge variety of armies, units and fluffy stuff to choose from.

And you can take these in a large variety of ways:The 0+ formations is a bit silly, but otherwise, I find it nice and open allowing for very interesting lists.

5th was a good, intuitive edition. The only thing I hated there was 20 gants behind a wall and one among them visible - you can shoot all of them. I was enthusiastic about 6th at some point but atm I find it being just a chore also luckfest.

 Kain wrote:

 amanita wrote:
5th Edition made us realize GW wasn't interested in fixing 4th Edition as much as just changing the game...again. So we "fixed" the things we didn't like in 4th and have added what we liked in 5th and 6th as well as implemented tweaks of our own. We'll probably never buy GW rules again, much less play them.

You use the term "we" so much that I've started to think that you're all some sort of fungoid hive mind (based on your avatar), it's off topic, but it's an amusing conception I've developed of you.

You...will be...assimilated!

Yes, well actually I refer to the regular group of players (fun guys?) I play with...in a dank basement. Sorry for the confusion.

We play 6th here and love it.

We play no allies, superheavies or dataslate formations and it is awesome!

5th Edition made us realize GW wasn't interested in fixing 4th Edition as much as just changing the game...again. So we "fixed" the things we didn't like in 4th and have added what we liked in 5th and 6th as well as implemented tweaks of our own. We'll probably never buy GW rules again, much less play them.

I feel the same way. 4e seemed both better balanced and far more tactical (in no small part due to having no TLOS so terrain actually broke up LOS). That isn't to say it didn't have its problems, the vehicle damage rules weren't very good as many posters have already pointed out, and you also had other silly rules like last man standing checks and target priority checks that I am glad they did away with. I also like increase mission variety the new editions have brought. Unfortunately, with each improvement they made it seems they take an even bigger step back. Line of sight, wound allocation (well at least that got better going from 5e to 6e), kill points, vehicle shooting rules, and assault consolidation all got screwed up big time. I also felt the 4e codices were better balanced against each other than those that came later.

If I have to be fair though, most of the faults I find with 40k relate to the rules transition between 4e and 5e. I am not really bother by most of the changes going from 5e and 6e, and I even approve of some of them, such as hull points and no assaulting out of reserves (I know its and assault nerf and an edition were assault suck, but I do not think assault should be fixed by letting assaulters charge out of outflank/deepstrike or anything similar). LOS was botched in 5e and hasn't really been changed. Wound allocation is awful, but it was even worse in 5e. Kill points are still around, but now they only account for 1/6 of the missions. My biggest problem is flyers, and that has more to do with the balance across codices than the flyer rules themselves, although I think it is ridiculous a normal vehicle can only fire a single weapon at full BS if it moved at all versus a flyer firing four under any condition. Feels like the normal vehicles were crippled in favor of flyers.

The one thing I did like about 5e is I felt the codices they released were interesting and lended themselves to a good variety of playstyles. Too bad they release schedule was so slow, and that the majority of them were Imperium codices, and they weren't balanced against all the 4e codices that half the armies still used. However, the 5e rules in and of themselves were absolutely rubbish, and 5e was by an large an edition where Imperium armies got to curb stomp non-Imperial codices by playing 5e dexes against 4e dexes.

As with most cases when people as this question on the forum, it really isn't the edition that sucks. More likely, it's your meta that sucks.

Phanixis wrote:
...(in no small part due to having no TLOS so terrain actually broke up LOS). ...

You were playing it wrong then... 4th edition had TLOS, it just used a different system for area terrain and close combats. A lot of players misread the LOS rules, though, and either accidentally or deliberately (because they preferred it that way) applied the size categories to the whole game.


True LOS has been the core of the shooting system since Rogue Trader. It's just the specifics of how it is applied that have changed. For my money, the 5th edition system of 'If you're partially obscured, you're in cover' was the best to date, since every other edition has required some sort of percentage of the model to be covered, which is just painful.

The funniest part of the original post here is that "GW betrayed us" by putting out lots of new stuff rapidly - just like we asked for.

 Gunzhard wrote:
The funniest part of the original post here is that "GW betrayed us" by putting out lots of new stuff rapidly - just like we asked for.

While I'm not entirely sure whay he meant by the 'betrayal', the original post doesn't mention rapid releases as being the problem at all.



The problem with 6th edition isn't the pace of the new releases. It's the quality of them.

Phanixis wrote:
...(in no small part due to having no TLOS so terrain actually broke up LOS). ...

You were playing it wrong then... 4th edition had TLOS, it just used a different system for area terrain and close combats. A lot of players misread the LOS rules, though, and either accidentally or deliberately (because they preferred it that way) applied the size categories to the whole game.


True LOS has been the core of the shooting system since Rogue Trader. It's just the specifics of how it is applied that have changed. For my money, the 5th edition system of 'If you're partially obscured, you're in cover' was the best to date, since every other edition has required some sort of percentage of the model to be covered, which is just painful.

What happened was that most players simply defined all the terrain on the board as area terrain, thus essentially turning the whole board into abstracted line of sight. The fact that this was such a wide practice and so popular with the vast majority of players (area terrain was pretty much used by everyone without exception were I lived) should have been a less than subtle hint at which set of rules were superior and which direction to take future editions in. It vastly improved tactical play by breaking up lines of fire and preventing alpha strikes, and made assault units more practical. Losing the ability to run abstracted terrain was probably the worst thing that happened to this game, TLOS lends itself to static gunlines and just using volume of fire in place of actual maneuvering. I would love to see the game taken in the opposite direction, not only restoring area terrain but using an entirely abstracting system so terrain can play a bigger role in the game.