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 have to ask this, because I barely played 4th, and skipped 5th altogether.

Was 5th as WARMLY received back then as it is today? I get the feeling we've been trashing editions for awhile now and everyone has an old favorite. Just wondering if there was any 5th backlash back then.

Depends on the faction. Chaos players hated it.

5th had its problems. But not as many as 7th.

KTG17 wrote:
I have to ask this, because I barely played 4th, and skipped 5th altogether.

Was 5th as WARMLY received back then as it is today? I get the feeling we've been trashing editions for awhile now and everyone has an old favorite. Just wondering if there was any 5th backlash back then.

5th had its issues, it was largely seen as a sidegrade from 4th initially which changed some things for the better, some for the worse. There was backlash, but the nature was different. 5E had several major problems, some of which were obvious from the beginning, and several which were quite glaring indeed, so much so that I'm routinely surprised by how much I look back on it with fondness. But it did just work better as a "pick up and play" game.

KTG17 wrote:
I have to ask this, because I barely played 4th, and skipped 5th altogether.

Was 5th as WARMLY received back then as it is today? I get the feeling we've been trashing editions for awhile now and everyone has an old favorite. Just wondering if there was any 5th backlash back then.

Wound allocation for mixed units, the preponderance of Deathstars and the fragile nature of tanks were all widely criticised. Beyond that, most of the issues were to do with balance or GW's usual sloppy writing. The actual system (aside from those couple of things mentioned) was solid, and gameplay was relatively fluid and intuitive.

So yes, there were plenty of complaints with 5th... but overall it played better than 6th/7th does.

It's funny though... Despite the fact that people might like 5th ed more, it is nigh impossible to get a gaming group to go back after the $$$ spent on the new codexes, rule books, etc.

If you want to talk vehicle damage, 2nd edition was fun. I'm not saying it was the best system, but I do remember forging some hardcore narratives with the old vehicle datacards that had different hit locations, different locations had different armour values and then different damage results. Not the most streamlined system, but I found it fun. Especially with the old armour penetration system where it wasn't just D6 + strength, but different guns had different dice worth of penetration. For example a Lascannon was 3D6 + 9, an Assault cannon was D6 + D10 + 8, a Multi-melta was D6 + 2D12 + 8.

Fun stuff, lol.

With 2nd, what was the average model count for an average size game?

 Blacksails wrote:
With 2nd, what was the average model count for an average size game?

About half of what it is now. Vehicles were more expensive, generally. Marines were 30 pts a piece, Orks were 10 or 12 (I don't have my codex with me). So with troops costing about double, you ended up wit about half the models. Which was good for those rules, since each model blocked line of sight (even in your own unit) and hand to hand combat was a slow nightmare.

Yeah, 2nd was a much smaller scale game, but definitely had its fun points. 3rd edition felt like it removed half the fun stuff in favour of larger games... a lot of my friends quit because they felt it was an unnecessary change to sell more models.

I actually didn't mind the stream lining, what I hated was some things were streamlined that didn't need to be streamlined... like 2nd edition each model had it's own movement characteristic... it doesn't actually make the game run any faster when you introduce a universal movement characteristic, it just means you have to add more special rules to account for some models moving faster. Save modifiers was another simplification that I hated, we can argue about what was more realistic, but save modifiers was definitely more balanced and once you figure out how to add and subtract it's actually no more time consuming.

Cover saves instead of to hit modifiers remains my number one choice for re-introduction.

Honestly though, I think there's only a handful of things in the core game that require changing, and many of those could be fixed by swapping the phrase "roll a D6" with the word "choose."

Really it is the codexes and their God awful internal and external balance that ultimately ruins or makes the editions.


Usually ruins.

docdoom77 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
With 2nd, what was the average model count for an average size game?

About half of what it is now. Vehicles were more expensive, generally. Marines were 30 pts a piece, Orks were 10 or 12 (I don't have my codex with me). So with troops costing about double, you ended up wit about half the models. Which was good for those rules, since each model blocked line of sight (even in your own unit) and hand to hand combat was a slow nightmare.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Yeah, 2nd was a much smaller scale game, but definitely had its fun points. 3rd edition felt like it removed half the fun stuff in favour of larger games... a lot of my friends quit because they felt it was an unnecessary change to sell more models.

I actually didn't mind the stream lining, what I hated was some things were streamlined that didn't need to be streamlined... like 2nd edition each model had it's own movement characteristic... it doesn't actually make the game run any faster when you introduce a universal movement characteristic, it just means you have to add more special rules to account for some models moving faster. Save modifiers was another simplification that I hated, we can argue about what was more realistic, but save modifiers was definitely more balanced and once you figure out how to add and subtract it's actually no more time consuming.

Thanks guys.

Sounds like a decent skirmish game for the right amount of models.

Which is part of the reason I find 7th falls flat, and why 5th appears to be remembered with not a little fondness.

Seventh feels skirmishy, but has the point values, force org, and models that suggest 1500+, which is distinctly not a skirmish game when you have 100+ models and a dozen units. Fifth was at least a unit by unit game that actually catered to its higher model count with unit based rules and enough abstraction to create smooth gameplay.

Really, while 7th has a lot of random nonsense and poor writing, it'd probably play a lot better at very small point values if unit sizes were changed to reflect that.

And movement values would be awesome. So simple.

It's very telling that Kill Team, which by dint of accident or design eliminates nearly all problem units and mechanics that regularly feature in a full sized game, remains an absolute blast to play.

 Azreal13 wrote:
It's very telling that Kill Team, which by dint of accident or design eliminates nearly all problem units and mechanics that regularly feature in a full sized game, remains an absolute blast to play.

I love Kill Team myself, the Heralds of Ruin one in particular, but it's a nightmare to try and get people to actually play it.

Ultimately, people want to use their big expensive collections, Kill Team once in a while is fine, people enjoy it, but they want to be able to enjoy using their mountain of stuff more often than not. As much as people complain locally about 7ths rules, they keep playing it over alternatives. For now, at any rate.

What's interesting to me is the death of Apocalypse, however. I haven't played in, organized, been asked to organize (that was one of my jobs in the club; run Apoc, my voice carries well, good for yelling at people to focus and get gak done) or even heard of an Apoc game in months, where we used to do one once or twice a month. One might think that's because you can now use Apoc-only units in regular 40k, but I've found people's interest waned because the problems with the 7th ed ruleset (and the new Apoc edition was also sub-par) only get worse the more points you put on a table.

considering that at 5000 points I just put more Russes and a Baneblade on the table, whereas an Eldar player then has 10 psykers and 10+ skimmers, the imbalances get absolutely ridiculous. With formations not costing any additional points and certain armies scaling much better than others, along with more random stuff which doesn't add much like the Disaster system, Finest Hours and whatnot, Apocalypse, which was once my favourite expression of 40k is fundamentally broken in the current ruleset, and completely dead. Before our group gave up on Apoc, we limited games to 30,000 points, and they were often a frustrating grind unless everyone co-ordinated their lists to make sure no one broke the very sensitive balance one can achieve in 7th. Back in fifth, we had a two-day long 120,000 point game which everyone had a blast in, brought literally everything we could find (including the store's display armies) across four tables and it worked.

And that's the big difference between 5th and now that I feel; you could bring most just about any two lists together and the game would be decided more about who played better; MEHTAL BAWKSES certainly over-performed, but it was a relatively minor advantage compared to the disparity of today.

 Blacksails wrote:

Thanks guys.

Sounds like a decent skirmish game for the right amount of models..

Yup. Although I think the 'right amount of models' was actually fewer than 2nd ed used... Necromunda used essentially the same rules, with a few extra bits and pieces thrown in, and worked brilliantly with that system.

 insaniak wrote:

Yup. Although I think the 'right amount of models' was actually fewer than 2nd ed used... Necromunda used essentially the same rules, with a few extra bits and pieces thrown in, and worked brilliantly with that system.

Interesting.

Its disappointing really what GW is giving us, considering they've made some excellent games in the past.

BFG to me always struck me as a pretty good space combat game.

Shame.

5th, when an army was an army and there's wasn't the need for massive hoop jumping to build a list.

You brought Blood Angels and played Blood Angels. The fluffy driven players could still modify the rules to create allies while those wanting structure, the arguably larger chunk of the community given the decline of the fiscal reports from GW, could have relatively organized play.

I wonder if we'll see 8th before it's all said and done and cuts whole cloth all the terrible changes from 6E and 7E. Random isn't a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MajorStoffer wrote:

And that's the big difference between 5th and now that I feel; you could bring most just about any two lists together and the game would be decided more about who played better; MEHTAL BAWKSES certainly over-performed, but it was a relatively minor advantage compared to the disparity of today.

And I agree with your discussion on Apoc. Pre-6E Apoc, it was a blast and felt like a day of hucking dice. After, it felt so convoluted... and then THAT PERSON has to bring Imotek... UGH.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
With 2nd, what was the average model count for an average size game?

About half of what it is now. Vehicles were more expensive, generally. Marines were 30 pts a piece, Orks were 10 or 12 (I don't have my codex with me). So with troops costing about double, you ended up wit about half the models. Which was good for those rules, since each model blocked line of sight (even in your own unit) and hand to hand combat was a slow nightmare.

This is the truth. H2H was fought by each engaged model. So if you had two 5 man Marine squads attacking each other in H2H, and each guy had one separate opponent in H2H, you'd have to resolve 5 separate H2H combats. Then you could parry your opponent's dice with some of your attacks...it was kind of long-winded for larger units.



RE: Hullpoints, one easy way to implement a similar mechanic would be to scale it backwards and make them "Hull Damage Points." Ea. glancing hit you suffered gave you +1, ea. penetrating hit +2 automatically after applying the result.

So a Rhino hit by 3 Missile Launchers receiving a Glance and 2 Pens would apply the Glance first (+1 on the vehicle damage table), then say the shooter rolls a 1 for the first penetrating hit, it'd be 1 + 1 = 2 (crew shaken). The vehicle now has 3 Hull Damage points. The next Penetrating Hit would destroy the vehicle on a 4+ (4 + 3 = 7, explodes).

It would still be possible to HP out a vehicle, but it would take a lot of glances. On the flipside, each Glance would make a penetrating hit far more likely to cause catastrophic damage.

It would be kinda nice if GW actually read these threads

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
It would be kinda nice if GW actually read these threads

It would be kinda nice if GW read their own rules.

Sorry, I based the realism o accounts of actual veterans who operated tanks in combat situations. Going by their accounts, the newer rules are more realistic.

Allies... Again, no one is holding a knife to anyones throat and forcing them to take any. If you dont want them, dont use them. Problem solved. lol

The good thing about all of these opinion/perspective based threads is that we ALL get to be "right" and no one is "wrong". This is because it is purely based on opinions so lets try to remember that.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Allies... Again, no one is holding a knife to anyones throat and forcing them to take any. If you dont want them, dont use them. Problem solved. lol

I prefer the opposite school of thought. Keeping allies out of the core rules keeps the game much cleaner, it better allows you to keep different armies unique but still balanced against each other.

Then if you want to take allies, take them anyway. I never needed the rules to tell me I was allowed to take allies, I just organised with my opponent to take them and I took them.

I've always found it easier to add to the core rules than subtract from them, as subtracting from them is more likely to lead to problems where you opponent has to cut in to their army to make a legal army with the new modifications.

At most I think allies should be an optional addition or supplement (or maybe even just a WD article).

Allies system is great unless you use battle brothers to abuse buffs not designed for that. The easiest would be just toning down all alliances to allies of convenience.

 koooaei wrote:
Allies system is great unless you use battle brothers to abuse buffs not designed for that. The easiest would be just toning down all alliances to allies of convenience.

This is why I don't think they should be part of the core rules. They just add to the ill-conceived bloatedness. Whenever a rule is great "but", "if", "unless", then to me it's a poorly thought out rule that should be fixed, in the case of allies I don't really think there is a good fix other than to just remove it from the core rules and have it as a WD article/supplement/optional extra.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Allies system is great unless you use battle brothers to abuse buffs not designed for that. The easiest would be just toning down all alliances to allies of convenience.

This is why I don't think they should be part of the core rules. They just add to the ill-conceived bloatedness. Whenever a rule is great "but", "if", "unless", then to me it's a poorly thought out rule that should be fixed, in the case of allies I don't really think there is a good fix other than to just remove it from the core rules and have it as a WD article/supplement/optional extra.

Player chooses who dies is a great rule unless you abuse it for your draigo pallies withh all different gear. And how come all those special weapons and sergeants are always the last survivors standing at the frontline all the time?.. Players will often abuse whatever rules they have.

I like the deeper tactical approach with positioning and micro-management that 7-th provides. It's not perfect with tanky characters, but it's better than the complete invalidation of firing directions.

 koooaei wrote:


Player chooses who dies is a great rule unless you abuse it for your draigo pallies withh all different gear. And how come all those special weapons and sergeants are always the last survivors standing at the frontline all the time?.. Players will often abuse whatever rules they have.

Well the special weapon makes sense. Kill the melta gunner, and one of the other 30 Guardsmen in the platoon can use it.

As for Sergeants, just imagine its a built in LoS that automatically passes. Or a motivated Guardsmen Corporal stepping up when the Sergeant bites it.

Any number of scenarios really.

But yeah, musical wounds on multiple wound, different gear models was not ideal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:


I like the deeper tactical approach with positioning and micro-management that 7-th provides. It's not perfect with tanky characters, but it's better than the complete invalidation of firing directions.

That's not tactical. That's just micro-management. Its tedious and makes less sense than how wounds allocation worked in 5th. There isn't a benefit really.

Honestly, there is absolutely nothing tactical about keeping a shield of lesser duded in front of your important ones. All it does is waste time ensuring you have a safe number of wounds in front of the important guys and spending extra time measuring distances to confirm which models are the closest.

 Blacksails wrote:

 koooaei wrote:


I like the deeper tactical approach with positioning and micro-management that 7-th provides. It's not perfect with tanky characters, but it's better than the complete invalidation of firing directions.

That's not tactical. That's just micro-management. Its tedious and makes less sense than how wounds allocation worked in 5th. There isn't a benefit really.

Honestly, there is absolutely nothing tactical about keeping a shield of lesser duded in front of your important ones. All it does is waste time ensuring you have a safe number of wounds in front of the important guys and spending extra time measuring distances to confirm which models are the closest.

How's moving forces to shoot someone from the flank not positioning, for example?

Imagine, you want to reach the enemy lines but there's a thin line of expendable bauble wrap. What would you do? Concentrate your fire in one place and rush in the breach! In 5-th ed you couldn't do this unless you've killed every single one of this 50 conscripts spread from one table edge to another.

 koooaei wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 koooaei wrote:


I like the deeper tactical approach with positioning and micro-management that 7-th provides. It's not perfect with tanky characters, but it's better than the complete invalidation of firing directions.

That's not tactical. That's just micro-management. Its tedious and makes less sense than how wounds allocation worked in 5th. There isn't a benefit really.

Honestly, there is absolutely nothing tactical about keeping a shield of lesser duded in front of your important ones. All it does is waste time ensuring you have a safe number of wounds in front of the important guys and spending extra time measuring distances to confirm which models are the closest.

How's moving forces to shoot someone from the flank not positioning, for example?

Imagine, you want to reach the enemy lines but there's a thin line of expendable bauble wrap. What would you do? Concentrate your fire in one place and rush in the breach! In 5-th ed you couldn't do this unless you've killed every single one of this 50 conscripts spread from one table edge to another.

Yeaaaaah Have to agree here, possitioning & wound allocation in 40k is very tactical. Making sure you have enough people in front, well you don't have to - thats your tactical desicion, how many to put where dependant on the firepower and possition of your enemy, noting cover/LOS, massive tactical variables other games don't incorporate right there.

Most others rely on the only real possitioning tactic variables as 'guess how many inches you are'.

The problem is that 40k hasn't been a skirmish game for some time. It operates on a much larger scale, including many more models.

Hence, the rules should operate on the unit level, not the model level.

It should be enough to know that a unit contains a meltagun - you shouldn't have to worry about exactly where the meltagunner model is in the unit.

 Blacksails wrote:

 koooaei wrote:


Player chooses who dies is a great rule unless you abuse it for your draigo pallies withh all different gear. And how come all those special weapons and sergeants are always the last survivors standing at the frontline all the time?.. Players will often abuse whatever rules they have.

Well the special weapon makes sense. Kill the melta gunner, and one of the other 30 Guardsmen in the platoon can use it.

As for Sergeants, just imagine its a built in LoS that automatically passes. Or a motivated Guardsmen Corporal stepping up when the Sergeant bites it.

Any number of scenarios really.

But yeah, musical wounds on multiple wound, different gear models was not ideal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:


I like the deeper tactical approach with positioning and micro-management that 7-th provides. It's not perfect with tanky characters, but it's better than the complete invalidation of firing directions.

That's not tactical. That's just micro-management. Its tedious and makes less sense than how wounds allocation worked in 5th. There isn't a benefit really.

Honestly, there is absolutely nothing tactical about keeping a shield of lesser duded in front of your important ones. All it does is waste time ensuring you have a safe number of wounds in front of the important guys and spending extra time measuring distances to confirm which models are the closest.

That's exactly how I feel. I never had a problem with special weapons dying last. In 3rd it specifically tells you it represents another trooper picking up the weapon. And I like the story element of the characters leading from the front without immediately getting shot down. It's cinematic. And for what they charge for a powerfist these days it's nice to be able use it without sticking your heroic sergeant in the dead center of a unit to avoid casualties.

I think the overkill rule in 5th was more than good enough for representing the off-chance of your heroic character getting sniped, or the melta-gun getting damaged.

Even if you were gonna do a "closest models" rule, it should have been made so that you apply wounds in order from closest to furthest, THEN roll saves (all at once using different colored dice for specialist models would be best). The front guy taking every single shot until he dies is no more realistic than any other system. Just because a guy is standing half a foot closer to the enemy the the 2 guys next to him doesn't mean he'll receive more fire than the guys who are nearly as close.

But, in the end, I greatly prefer the speed, simplicity, and fun of the "owner removes models" system.