What problems has an edition change ever solved? Honestly.

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.

**martin74**

Sixth solved FnP to me. However, the whole allies and "this doesn't count as a detachment" has caused problems.

**Thylacine**

I always used Dreadnoughts in Drop Pods or as walking artillery (twin Las-cannons & Missile Launcher) on the back line or close to a protective unit of Grey Hunters. Dreadnoughts worked well for me until 6th ed and now I just don't take them, which is sad as I have sixteen of them sitting in the display cabinet gathering dust, on the work bench waiting for a repaint or waiting to be stripped.

(I thought the SW Contemptor Dreadnought in a Lucius Pattern Drop Pod was great and Bjorn, as much as I liked his inclusion into the codex was the worst thing that happened to Dreadnoughts!)

Hull points were just 'Structure points' pulled from Apocalypse and downgraded for 6th ed, a needless entry in the game. Imperial vehicles brew up quicker than ever and Eldar vehicles still rule the board which is how its been since 3rd Ed!

Hull Points were not good for the game as those with long range fire-power just Glanced vehicles off the table in turns one and two!

Just my thoughts......
.

**amanita**

Da Butcha wrote:
To me, most of the editions haven't 'solved' problems.

You order a hamburger with onions. They serve you one without onions. You complain.

They serve you a tuna sandwich. Which is fine, but you would like pickles. You ask for some.

They serve you a meatball sub.

For the most part, GW's 'editions' are each different games, using the same rule structure. I don't think they tinker with the rules and try to fix issues, as much as pick parts of the rules to change completely. The game isn't getting better with each iteration. You are just getting a different game with each one.

That's an exaggeration, of course, but I really don't see the design team making well-considered, minimal changes to tweak the system. I see them radically altering something to swing a pendulum one way or the other, while adding new stuff that creates entirely new problems. For instance, until you had points and army balance really spot on, why would you introduce Allies?

"The game is inconsistently point-costed and many things are far too expensive, or cheap, for their actual game utility. Let's allow you to take the good stuff from TWO books instead of one! Great news!"

All true. People who don't recognize GW's design paradigm are just fooling themselves.

Who's running GW anyway...P.T. Barnum?