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.

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?

Ummm

While I miss Doctrines, Chapter Traits, and 3.5 chaos. I still have to say that the versatility available in the 5th ed books is a better trade off.
Rules=flat no
Models=constantly improving..so no

biggest thing I regret about 5th ed. is that my armies both got nerfed to hell ( by new codex or by the new rules) I play chaos and Necrons. I think it's a gradual improvement.

From BRB rules I read 5'th edition is better.
Models are also better since they were improved and some new units were added ( along with new armies ).
I only don't know about balance, does 5'th edition balanced army's or not?

Brother Coa wrote:From BRB rules I read 5'th edition is better.
Models are also better since they were improved and some new units were added ( along with new armies ).
I only don't know about balance, does 5'th edition balanced army's or not?

They certainly balance well with each other...if you play an imperium army...that's not vanilla space marines or sisters of battle.

A few of my friends want to go back to 3rd ed rules until 6th comes out.
I've only played one or two games of 5th. I did enjoy 4th but I've been way too busy the past few years to get to the gaming store.
But, I'll be back soon!!!

4th ed is better.
but 5th ed does have its moments.

4th ed was good in a lot of ways but 5th ed is overall better. Unfortunately 5th ed is mech ed which makes it more boring.

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:From BRB rules I read 5'th edition is better.
Models are also better since they were improved and some new units were added ( along with new armies ).
I only don't know about balance, does 5'th edition balanced army's or not?

They certainly balance well with each other...if you play an imperium army...that's not vanilla space marines or sisters of battle.

:: lip trembling and quiet whimpering with big, sad, puppy dog eyes :: I think I need a hug now...

Edit: I got my huggle from a good friend shortly after posting that, and it's all better now. ^_^ Or at least, it will be with repeated doses... and maybe a proper Codex.

I think that 5th edition has several strong points and is a general improvement over 4th ed, but I have to say with a Codex like Grey Knights all the improvements they made with the general rules of 5th ed is for not if they just destroy the game with armies that give un-fair advantages to the worse players.

I don't know, I almost think 4th is better. I have never really been sold on the 5th edition rules. Some of the changes I liked, like troops only scoring, holding objectives actually winning the objective missions, and the changes to reserves and deployment. But a lot of the other rules have caused problems:

Kill Points - Just a horrible rule that needs to be done away with.

True Line of Sight - Overall, I think the game is tactically poorer because of TLOS. Before TLOS, I positioning was a lot more important for shooting. You could clearly obtain situations in which LOS was entirely blocked, or in which you had a clear shot where no cover save could be claimed by the opponent. So you had a rich spectrum of situation of no cover/cover/no LOS. With TLOS, its all 4+ cover, all the time. Positioning is much less important, and the best approach to shooting is often to put out as many shots/wounds as possible with little regard to weapon properties such as AP. Also, TLOS opens up alpha strike style shooting armies, which can demolish an opponent before he even gets a turn.

Complex Wound Allocation - Its nice that when shooting a TAC squad, the last marine left won't always be the one with the missile launcher/melta/flamer, but this rule is just far too open to abuse. You should not be able to spread 10 wounds across a Nobz squad, nor should every AP3 wound you inflict on a 3+ armor squad magically hit the 2+ armor save character attached to the squad. Depending on the circumstances, you can get some really weird results from this rule that make little sense.

Seize the Initiative - This rule should just be called f**k you! Way too random, and just screws over the person who was forced to both deploy first and go second, and who may not have been even planning on going second (although must of us are probably too paranoid of the dice to not expect this, but it still sucks).

You also have problems specific to the new codices. Transports are just to cheap, leading to the much hated Mech spam. I am actually not opposed to the changes in the vehicle damage table. Vehicles should be tough, but they should be much rarer. You should not see 12+ vehicles in a 2000 point game. More point and force org restrictions are needed. Also, with vehicles and most non-marine troops getting considerably cheaper, the boards are starting to get real crowded. 6 x 4 is no longer seems big enough for 2000 point games, but I don't see the tables getting bigger any time soon.

Actually, I miss 3e. Oh for the days when my khornate possessed with daemonic mutation and chainaxes would steamroller a few marine squads before getting vindicator'd. Good times.

5th works out a lot better.
I hate the 4th ed terrain rule.
4th ed was filled with MEQ Las/Plas MSU, Tau fish of fury and Eldar flying circus, Chaos Siren Prince. I rather not see anyone of those.

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.

I'm dreading 6th ed as i've only enjoyed playing the odd numbered eds.

4th was some what better, didn't need to take all troops defensive weapons on tanks were strength 6 could pretty much move and shoot with vehicles (which 5th went back to 3rd by making tanks just mobile walls)

How can people say that Kill Points are bad? They're an essential factor to balancing out lists. Without KP having a 3rd chance of being the mission then the best army list would always been lots of tiny small units in lots of cheap transports.

That set up would heavily penalise codices that cannot produce such lists or those players who want to play more fluffy lists or elite armies.

Phanixis wrote:True Line of Sight - Overall, I think the game is tactically poorer because of TLOS. Before TLOS, I positioning was a lot more important for shooting. You could clearly obtain situations in which LOS was entirely blocked, or in which you had a clear shot where no cover save could be claimed by the opponent. So you had a rich spectrum of situation of no cover/cover/no LOS. With TLOS, its all 4+ cover, all the time. Positioning is much less important, and the best approach to shooting is often to put out as many shots/wounds as possible with little regard to weapon properties such as AP. Also, TLOS opens up alpha strike style shooting armies, which can demolish an opponent before he even gets a turn.

My biggest issue with TLOS is models aren't all to scale, and with conversions being the norm, it's easy to model for advantage. See people making 'flat-tervigons'. The old LOS rules worked better to me for these reasons.

I didn't like a few things about 5th when it started, but they've grown on me a lot. For example:
- TLOS eliminates that whole vague "levels" system that was never, ever explained in detail. Were infantry level 1? Were walkers level 2? Never said anywhere. Now you can just get down there and if you can see it you can shoot it. If your opponent disputes it, he can get down there too. If you need clarification, get a laser pointer. It's easy and fast.
- Mechanization wasn't quite as big when the edition started, but it's an improvement from the rolling coffins of 4th and the assault rhinos of 3rd. i hope they make it so vehicles are a little less of a sure thing in 6th, but I'm okay with how things are.
- Killpoints are something I HATED when the edition started, but they're a way to balance out MSU spam/super mechanized armies. For this, I commend them. They're the only way I was able to beat my buddy's 22 KP Dark Eldar army.

Some rules, such as running, are a godsend and the only way to make foot lists viable. Overall I'd say 5th was a solid improvement over 4th. The models are better, the rules are better, the codices are better balanced, and while it's not perfect, it's really enjoyable.

Speaking of which, when does 6th ed come out? Waiting to see what the new starter set will be, dreading buying new rules and stuff.

My problem with kill points is that it does not make sense. A 10 man Guard squad is worth as many kill points as a 10 man Tac squad, or a 5 man Terminator squad? Rubbish. I thought victory points were a better mechanic.

Personally I prefer 4th. Some of the rules changes in 5th seem like a neat idea, but the really become abusive and slow down the game. TLOS is really a pain; it’s a game an abstract of a battle not a real battle, just a really bad idea. Wound allocation is a terrible idea and is the most abused rule among the power gamers. Kill points really sucks in a lot of respects, and all of the 4+ cover in 5th is really over done. The whole idea of having to scatter all blast weapons and subtracting ballistic skill is really stupid; frag missiles are really worthless now. With the exception of DE the past few codexes have been really OP and getting worse. That being said I think the deployment rules are better in 5th, seize the initiative is a cool idea and allows for a last minute surprise before the game starts. The rules for vehicles are a lot better. Honestly a huge Land Raider should be nigh unstoppable, were not worth taking in 4th. So in short 4th had better terrain, shooting, wounding, scenarios, and codexes. 5th had better has better deployment and better vehicles not really a good trade off, but it’s all a matter of opinion.

The 5th ed TLOS tends to bug me, as I liked it when an assault squad/stormboyz mob/etc. could actually get into combat by hiding behind a wood line the turn before jumping into combat.

TechMarine1 wrote:The 5th ed TLOS tends to bug me, as I liked it when an assault squad/stormboyz mob/etc. could actually get into combat by hiding behind a wood line the turn before jumping into combat.

Amen, to that.

5th Ed., played with an amiable opponent in a casual environment, is a better experience.

4th Ed. I found to be more tactically satisfying. Seems like for every good change in 5th, some other good element was lost.

I don't think codex quality has changed much, it's the same as ever; a general trend towards increasing power, although the trajectory isn't entirely straight (see IG followed by Tyranids).

However, I preferred the prior codexes for Chaos Marines and Space Marines. Especially for Chaos, but everyone knows that.

Matt Ward has seriously jeopardized the quality of background material. It's so embarrassingly bad that I can not bring myself to play one of the armies he writes for.

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

Models are better, of course, but that has nothing to do with the change of editions, it's coincidental.

Codexes imo slightly weaker, models a big improvement, rules Im torn on, some I liked from 4th, some I hated, same with 5th however.

1. Yes - much prefer 4th ed Codex Space Marine, and 4th Ed Imperial Guard was fantastic, loved the customization you could do with these
2. Somewhat yes, somewhat no
3. mmm, I like a mix of the old and new models, so no oppinion here either.

I wouldn't say 4E was better or worse, rather...different.

We didn't have Kill Points, awful defensive weapons rules, wound allocation gimmicks, etc, back then, but we did have Invincible skimmerspam armies (how often did you see Eldar and Tau armies where not a single vehicle was down by turn 6?), terrain rules where seeing anything at longer than 24" was often a rare gift, IC's that could wander about on their own and never get shot at, and consolidations into new combats allowing units to hide in CC almost the entire game and never get shot at.

5E was a big sidegrade in my opinion that made some armies weaker, some stronger, some weird, but overall still the same level of wonkiness just in different ways. Now instead of Tau, Eldar, CSM and Las/Plas spam lists at the top, we have Imperial Guard, Grey Knights, Razorspam and Wolfgunline armies at the top.

The biggest differences has been in codex design. The armies now have more stuff and more ways to use it, but have derpier fluff.

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.

Phanixis wrote:True Line of Sight - Overall, I think the game is tactically poorer because of TLOS. Before TLOS, I positioning was a lot more important for shooting. You could clearly obtain situations in which LOS was entirely blocked, or in which you had a clear shot where no cover save could be claimed by the opponent. So you had a rich spectrum of situation of no cover/cover/no LOS. With TLOS, its all 4+ cover, all the time. Positioning is much less important, and the best approach to shooting is often to put out as many shots/wounds as possible with little regard to weapon properties such as AP. Also, TLOS opens up alpha strike style shooting armies, which can demolish an opponent before he even gets a turn.

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.