Switch Theme:

Peak 40K?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

Yeah what Ward did to Grey knights......

most books in 5th were generally good with few exceptions

The GKs being a glaring one, they were never intended in the lore to be a stand alone force that is why they did what they did so well as part of the inquisition demonhunters 3rd ed codex. they had 1 job to do and they did it very well as a support force for general imperial factions.

That is why our group still prefers to use the 3rd ed codex...but then again we tend to fight the 3.5 chaos dex so things even out.

By the numbers-core rules by codex for 5th (not counting the odd better unit that could and should have been in the preferred dex)

5th
.space marines-good
.blood angels-good
.space wolves good
.imperial guard-good
.necrons-good

The bad-books that were better in previous editions
.tau-4th ed was better
tyranids-4th ed was better
.chaos-3.5 was better
.chaos demons-4th ed was better(minus the summoning free armies stuff)
.orks-4th was better
.eldar-4th was better
.black templar-4th was better
.dark angels-3rd was better
.demon hunters-3rd was better
.witch hunters-3rd was all they had

The outliers
GSCs and admech didn't get a codex until 7th, but they are back compatible with 5th.
Dark eldar-never had much experience with them so i don't know if the 5th ed book was better than the 3rd.

This is sort of the problem when it comes to comparisons-generally 5th was the best overall core rule set minus the one big complaint everybody has about wound allocation abuse. (but that is more given to players being jerks than the intent behind the design it is never an issue in our games of 5th). However the codexes vary wildly by edition as to the rules both being based in lore and being effective on the table without resorting to one trick lists.

Long fang spam and the leaf blower lists mentioned above were in that style, but we never really saw them in friendly normal games.

The fact that you could do the thematic lists and still have a good fun game with them is what made it worth playing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/18 12:00:16




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





a_typical_hero wrote:
I see. I got you wrong. My bad!
np.

14 years since 5th edition. Does make you wonder how much of the (very early) good running was people not yet used to going mech-heavy coming in from 4th. Though in retrospect only CSM had both good scoring infantry and cheap rhinos at the outset... I can't see leafblower working with the old three russ/basilisk limit and 85pt semi-open topped armoured fist chimeras.


 aphyon wrote:
The bad-books that were better in previous editions
.tau-4th ed was better
tyranids-4th ed was better
.chaos-3.5 was better
.chaos demons-4th ed was better(minus the summoning free armies stuff)
.orks-4th was better
.eldar-4th was better
.black templar-4th was better
.dark angels-3rd was better
.demon hunters-3rd was better
.witch hunters-3rd was all they had
To be fair none of those were 5e books except for Tyranids. They got a lot of new stuff but also lost a few key abilities and things like ultra-cheap fexes and 2+ armour saves/eternal warrior to prevent them getting shot off the board by missiles and battlecannons. And then Jaws of the World Wolf came along...

The daemonhunters were terrible in 5th as a solo faction. The sisters were stronger in 5th than in 4th (particularly after the points update) and then got badly Cruddaced.
Templars and Dark Angels were also not half bad with the update, but way behind before it. Though the templars were weirdly shooty as a result.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/18 12:16:41


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







A buddy and I are playing 4th and I am playing Armageddon (so Chimeras ahoy!).

They are fine. The 5th edition book was great, but even then I think I preferred the 3.5 book. It had the best Doctrines system I have ever seen for any Guard force in any edition.
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A buddy and I are playing 4th and I am playing Armageddon (so Chimeras ahoy!).

They are fine. The 5th edition book was great, but even then I think I preferred the 3.5 book.
Not even close to a fair fight between 3.5 and 5e mechanised units though. A 3e armoured fist squad with a single meltagun cost the same as a 5e scoring veteran squad with three guns - that's a 4:1 firepower advantage before things like orders, demolitions, and the chimera fire port changes.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







A.T. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A buddy and I are playing 4th and I am playing Armageddon (so Chimeras ahoy!).

They are fine. The 5th edition book was great, but even then I think I preferred the 3.5 book.
Not even close to a fair fight between 3.5 and 5e mechanised units though. A 3e armoured fist squad with a single meltagun cost the same as a 5e scoring veteran squad with three guns - that's a 4:1 firepower advantage before things like orders, demolitions, and the chimera fire port changes.


True, but I am having plenty of fun with Armageddon in the 3.5 book at the moment. I don't feel that there's a firepower shortage against my buddy's Orks, which makes me truly wonder if the 5th edition power increase was really warranted.

An update was clearly needed, but it didn't have to be THAT update.
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't feel that there's a firepower shortage against my buddy's Orks, which makes me truly wonder if the 5th edition power increase was really warranted.

An update was clearly needed, but it didn't have to be THAT update.
The first codex - 5e marines - didn't particularly have a firepower increase beyond the sternguard and other AP3 stuff. The core tactical marines were a step down from the 4e las/plas units, terminators had much less firepower, it was relatively reserved.

I'm not sure there was much of an oversight on game-wide balance at the time. Matt Ward had just been punted over to 40k after breaking WHFB with his "daemons should just be better than everyone" daemons of chaos codex and was trying to one-up himself with each book, Cruddace played guard and phoned everything else in, while Phil Kelly clearly put the effort in but was 'feel' first and points balance a distant last.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







A.T. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't feel that there's a firepower shortage against my buddy's Orks, which makes me truly wonder if the 5th edition power increase was really warranted.

An update was clearly needed, but it didn't have to be THAT update.
The first codex - 5e marines - didn't particularly have a firepower increase beyond the sternguard and other AP3 stuff. The core tactical marines were a step down from the 4e las/plas units, terminators had much less firepower, it was relatively reserved.

I'm not sure there was much of an oversight on game-wide balance at the time. Matt Ward had just been punted over to 40k after breaking WHFB with his "daemons should just be better than everyone" daemons of chaos codex and was trying to one-up himself with each book, Cruddace played guard and phoned everything else in, while Phil Kelly clearly put the effort in but was 'feel' first and points balance a distant last.


I just meant the Guard 5th edition power increase, not everyone's, sorry.

Though the 5th ed SM codex actually still opened the door to many many problems in later 40k - namely by "normalizing" 3++ saves. Before that, a 4+ was usually one-per-army (where it was available at all) and very few saves transcended 5++.

With the advent of the 3++, it was only a matter of time (7th) until 2++ became a thing (damn Screamerstar/Sanctuary'd Draigo/ etc) ... and we're only NOW starting to back off of that.
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Though the 5th ed SM codex actually still opened the door to many many problems in later 40k - namely by "normalizing" 3++ saves. Before that, a 4+ was usually one-per-army (where it was available at all) and very few saves transcended 5++.
I suspect a little of that may have had to do with the 4+ cover saves.

Pretty much captains and terminators only in the 5e marine book though, and you'd have seen them even less if GW hadn't of relaxed the weapon restrictions, particularly on bike units (back in the 4e CSM codex originally IIRC, it was the first proto-5th book). Early vanguard were too expensive and no-one took legion of the damned.

They did actually increase the cost of those terminators later in 5th edition too, but not retroactively and a little late in the day given the thunderwolves and other BA elite units sporting them.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 aphyon wrote:
The GKs being a glaring one, they were never intended in the lore to be a stand alone force that is why they did what they did so well as part of the inquisition demonhunters 3rd ed codex. they had 1 job to do and they did it very well as a support force for general imperial factions.

In which weird alternate reality were Grey Knights from Codex: Daemonhunters particularly good against daemons?

They usually made the daemons significantly better, since they gained free Sustained Assault if one Grey Knight turned up.

Almost nobody actually took Grey Knights as allies.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/18 17:29:51


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Grey Knights from the Daemonhunter's book were expert Eldar hunters. S6? Ignore Invulnerables?

Better get down Mr. Farseer, the Emperor's Daemon Hunters think you're a Bloodthirster!

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

Lord Damocles wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
The GKs being a glaring one, they were never intended in the lore to be a stand alone force that is why they did what they did so well as part of the inquisition demonhunters 3rd ed codex. they had 1 job to do and they did it very well as a support force for general imperial factions.

In which weird alternate reality were Grey Knights from Codex: Daemonhunters particularly good against daemons?

They usually made the daemons significantly better, since they gained free Sustained Assault if one Grey Knight turned up.

Almost nobody actually took Grey Knights as allies.


We still use that book in our 5th ed games against both chaos and chaos demons they are exceptionally good. the sustained assault only works on little demons like nurglings demonettes etc...aside from khorne none of them have armor save just invuls which psycannon bolts, incinerators and psycannons just flat out ignore. the demonic incursion rules for sustained assault also make great lore sense so i don't think having the demons walk back on the table from the enemy deployment side makes them that much better.

The gear the demonhunters book allows you to take is what makes them do their job so well against anything aligned with chaos. blessed vehicles, sacred incense, grimore of true names, null rods, demon hammers, psychic powers like hammer hand (the good one X2 strength), or sanctuary etc...

H.B.M.C. wrote:Grey Knights from the Daemonhunter's book were expert Eldar hunters. S6? Ignore Invulnerables?

Better get down Mr. Farseer, the Emperor's Daemon Hunters think you're a Bloodthirster!


Lol true, i never thought about that...in the rules the avatar of khaine is also a demon.



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Grey Knights from the Daemonhunter's book were expert Eldar hunters. S6? Ignore Invulnerables?

Better get down Mr. Farseer, the Emperor's Daemon Hunters think you're a Bloodthirster!

Nah, he's a Keeper of Secrets in a fairly hefty disguise...

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 aphyon wrote:
The gear the demonhunters book allows you to take is what makes them do their job so well against anything aligned with chaos. blessed vehicles, sacred incense, grimore of true names, null rods, demon hammers, psychic powers like hammer hand (the good one X2 strength), or sanctuary etc..
If you list-tailor against chaos with the 3e book then they get a lot of bonuses. 3 sanctuary inquisitors in landraiders is just about an automatic win against the 4e daemon codex (the sanctuary is measured from the hull - roll up on objectives and the daemons cannot contest them).

You wouldn't take most of that stuff in an all comers list though, a lot of points doing you absolutely no good in most games. Daemonhunting is something of an optional extra for them. Some of the best psychic hoods around though.
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

A.T. wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
The gear the demonhunters book allows you to take is what makes them do their job so well against anything aligned with chaos. blessed vehicles, sacred incense, grimore of true names, null rods, demon hammers, psychic powers like hammer hand (the good one X2 strength), or sanctuary etc..
If you list-tailor against chaos with the 3e book then they get a lot of bonuses. 3 sanctuary inquisitors in landraiders is just about an automatic win against the 4e daemon codex (the sanctuary is measured from the hull - roll up on objectives and the daemons cannot contest them).

You wouldn't take most of that stuff in an all comers list though, a lot of points doing you absolutely no good in most games. Daemonhunting is something of an optional extra for them. Some of the best psychic hoods around though.


When i run my GK attachment i always take sacred incense, grimore and a demon hammer no matter who i am facing.

Some of the items also work on chaos in general not just demons.

Additionally hammerhand makes for a squad of GK terminators swinging a S10 CCW at initiative. making them dangerous against almost everything.



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in us
Inspiring SDF-1 Bridge Officer





Mississippi

What was the normal game size for 5th? Wasn't it around 1500 pts., with units being more expensive than they are now?

It never ends well 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

Around here we played 1850.
3rd and 4th was 1500.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

In our area
3rd-1,750
4th-1,850
5th-2,000

That is mostly because everybody latched onto the sanctioned rogue trader and grand tournament points limits.

We can normally run a 2k game in less than 2 hours with our group, but we are not tied into that. last game i played was 500, the training game i have set up for next week is for 1k.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/19 09:48:18




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 aphyon wrote:
Additionally hammerhand makes for a squad of GK terminators swinging a S10 CCW at initiative. making them dangerous against almost everything.
That must be houseruled, the original DH hammerhand didn't work that way.

-GK terminators could not take hammerhand, only characters and inquisitors got it
-Hammerhand only affected the one model not the squad
-The power granted a GKT a strength of 8, not 10, and they lost the benefit of their power/force weapon.

I can see the logic in blowing 25pts on the gear for one allied squad, I was thinking from the perspective of running a pure GK army where it wasn't practical... or even possible as it was all 1/army.


 Stormonu wrote:
What was the normal game size for 5th? Wasn't it around 1500 pts., with units being more expensive than they are now?
1500-2000.
1850 was popular in places.

Some big tournaments ran 2500 but that was really rough on armies that couldn't spent the points efficiently (3e Dark Eldar really struggled to find anything good to buy past 1500 for instance, whereas 5e guard could just add more artillery to their squadrons)
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

That must be houseruled, the original DH hammerhand didn't work that way.


You are correct i was mixing different codexes in my mind. still hammer hand is useful and if you take the rod you can cast a second power as needed.


I can see the logic in blowing 25pts on the gear for one allied squad, I was thinking from the perspective of running a pure GK army where it wasn't practical... or even possible as it was all 1/army.


Grand master with GK terminator retinue is how i run them. but yes they are generally better as a allied attachment than a pure GK army, unless you are running an actual inquisitorial force. like a friend of mine is building. basically making it an elite guard army with space marine support in the form of vehicles and dreadnoughts......and assassins, don't forget the fun there.



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

Daemonhunters was a big mistake in terms of game design, because it didn't really make sense to have a specialist daemon killing faction fighting every other faction unless your forced the other faction's narrative into the Daemonhunter mold. So every warboss had to be possessed by a chaos artefact or whatever. Really cemented the "Non-Imperial factions are 2nd class, their narrative takes the back seat" sense that was already growing back then and is totally accepted now. My "peak" 40K has them existing only as a couple of allied squads for narrative games.

The list of when the best codices were is interesting, and I broadly concur. The 4e codices often had the most interesting options for narrative gamers especially, planning your force and making them "your guys" was often the most fun with those codices. 3.5 is the outlier for Chaos, personally I might remove one or two options from that book like some of what Iron Warriors got, but overall it was a pretty fun book and probably the best representation of Chaos. I wish GW would put the PDFs up for sale, because I'd love to be able to purchase these books to use with Prohammer or just 5e if I ever felt like it. I've lost my copies over the years and various moves.

   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

Demon hunters as a pure GK force were very situational if i am not fighting chaos they just become a very pretty but overcosted allied terminator HQ squad.


Many of the best thematic army rules were released in 3rd/4th like the index astartes books. they had the lists for white scars, iron hands, flesh tearers, as well as all the chaos stuff that ended up in the 3.5 dex. fortunately i still own all of my actual copies.


I know many guard players miss the old doctrines like drop troop and close order drill, but the 5th ed codex has so many more army options it still wins out over loosing them.




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 Stormonu wrote:
What was the normal game size for 5th? Wasn't it around 1500 pts., with units being more expensive than they are now?


Here it was 1500 for the whole 3rd-5th edition period. Raised to 1750 or 1850 during 6th-7th.

Units were more expensive compared to 6th-7th and probably 8th. They weren't more expensive than now on average. Orks were quite cheaper for example.


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 aphyon wrote:
Demon hunters as a pure GK force were very situational if i am not fighting chaos they just become a very pretty but overcosted allied terminator HQ squad.


Many of the best thematic army rules were released in 3rd/4th like the index astartes books. they had the lists for white scars, iron hands, flesh tearers, as well as all the chaos stuff that ended up in the 3.5 dex. fortunately i still own all of my actual copies.


I know many guard players miss the old doctrines like drop troop and close order drill, but the 5th ed codex has so many more army options it still wins out over loosing them.



Yep, doctrines were great. Catachans in woodland terrain were just amazing.

I really despised GW's attempt to nudge Catachan players into buying vehicles in later editions by giving them a buff concerning template weapons fired by artillery and tanks.
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

I always figured that armies should be collected with themes in mind, so my inquisition were collected to be led by Xenos hunting inquisitors and we’re modelled accordingly. When my opponent was bringing eldar, I would bring the xenos hunters. When my opponent was bringing marines, I would bring eldar.

   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




A.T. wrote:
Not even close to a fair fight between 3.5 and 5e mechanised units though. A 3e armoured fist squad with a single meltagun cost the same as a 5e scoring veteran squad with three guns - that's a 4:1 firepower advantage before things like orders, demolitions, and the chimera fire port changes.


I still think the perfect Guard book would have been 5th edition, with the 3.5 edition doctrines. Just tweak the costs of some of the weaker ones, for example Warrior Weapons which should have been free.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Stormonu wrote:
What was the normal game size for 5th? Wasn't it around 1500 pts., with units being more expensive than they are now?


In my area it's been 2k pts since at least 3rd.
Sure, sometimes we'd play some other size. But 2k was our default. And still is.
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

Da Boss wrote:Daemonhunters was a big mistake in terms of game design, because it didn't really make sense to have a specialist daemon killing faction fighting every other faction unless your forced the other faction's narrative into the Daemonhunter mold. So every warboss had to be possessed by a chaos artefact or whatever. Really cemented the "Non-Imperial factions are 2nd class, their narrative takes the back seat" sense that was already growing back then and is totally accepted now. My "peak" 40K has them existing only as a couple of allied squads for narrative games.

The list of when the best codices were is interesting, and I broadly concur. The 4e codices often had the most interesting options for narrative gamers especially, planning your force and making them "your guys" was often the most fun with those codices. 3.5 is the outlier for Chaos, personally I might remove one or two options from that book like some of what Iron Warriors got, but overall it was a pretty fun book and probably the best representation of Chaos. I wish GW would put the PDFs up for sale, because I'd love to be able to purchase these books to use with Prohammer or just 5e if I ever felt like it. I've lost my copies over the years and various moves.


You know you can get most of the old codexes online(ebay) for super cheap usually less than $10, that is how i built up my collection. the exception seems to be the 4th ed black templar dex people seem to want a fortune for that thing.

ccs wrote:
 Stormonu wrote:
What was the normal game size for 5th? Wasn't it around 1500 pts., with units being more expensive than they are now?


In my area it's been 2k pts since at least 3rd.
Sure, sometimes we'd play some other size. But 2k was our default. And still is.


Yeah back in the day it seemed like 1,500 was a UK/EU standard thing where as the US side tended for larger games.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/20 05:44:50




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




 Da Boss wrote:
When I played WMH, I was able to run a weird list with just units I liked and none of the "must haves" and find ways to win games through careful play. No GW game has ever really managed the same feat, but it's come close a few times, usually at the start of an edition before the design paradigm got ruined by the poor discipline of the design studio.

.


That is my experience with WM&H as well. Experience with a list, even a bizarre one, beats a power list almost every time.

Here our many of our WTC top players (and Polish top is world's top if you check WTC standings) have a habit of coming to some tournaments with crappiest models in their armies and they still win.

I can't imagine it in 40k, you either have enough dice to kill opponent's models or you don't. Math & luck will kill you no matter your ingenuity and skill.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/20 06:24:47


 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 aphyon wrote:


Yeah back in the day it seemed like 1,500 was a UK/EU standard thing where as the US side tended for larger games.


1500 for 40k and 2000 for WHFB were popular mostly because battle reports on White Dwarf always used those formats.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/20 06:33:50



 
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

I loved those print batreps.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: