Switch Theme:

So I played a game of 4th ed with a friend  [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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 kodos wrote:
the famous leaf blower list which by unkown reason was only famous in the US and never made it into EU meta (might be because of different scenario design, or terrain or different lists of other factions, or all together)
It was a 2500pt list, while EU games were (IIRC) typically 2000pts or less.

Even 2000pts was pushing it for some armies with the old FoC system as some books would run out of good choices whereas others (i.e. guard with its artillery squadrons) could take advantage of it. And at 2500pts your deployment zone was just one large block of targets that the guard literally couldn't miss with artillery.

Locally we only ever played 1500-1850 which worked much better. Smaller games worked but the lists could get more skewed without the same FoC pressure to vary units.

----------------------------------------

For what it's worth the original 2500pt leafblower consisted of :
-One inquisitor (anti-deepstrike)
-Two command squads in chimeras (plasmaguns)
-One infantry platoon (six squads in chimeras)
-Two veteran squads in chimeras (meltaguns)
-One psyker squad in chimera (single blast template)
-Two valkyries (rocket pods)
-Two medusas
-Two hydras
-One manticore

The artillery was only half the problem. Chimeras (like rhinos) had been made significantly cheaper and tougher and doubled up as mobile bunkers.
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

I do kind of miss the prevalence of homemade scenery, and I wish GW included more generic/nature pieces in their lines, but the ease of getting a decent board put together has advanced pretty far in the last 10-15 years.


There are currently loads of terrain suppliers now that do everything from the very basic to the very detailed.

I like most of what gale force 9 puts out in the form of rocks, rivers, water hazards and forests but the limited print runs makes it hard to find their stuff sometimes.

I am huge fan of the german ESLO hobby guys for fantastic finished terrain. and noble knight keeps it in stock

https://www.nobleknight.com/Publisher/ESLO-Hobby


That's not counting great 3d print designers like- district 12, war scenery, 2nd dynasty, dragons rest, hero's hoard, theprintpire


Available on EBAY and etsy stores like
canvas temple

https://www.ebay.com/sch/canvastemple/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=


district 12

https://www.etsy.com/search?q=District%200012

scatter terrain sets from theprintpire

https://www.etsy.com/listing/852171195/6-pc-spaceship-engine-room-mechanical?ref=shop_home_active_28

And many more.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/02 09:37:03




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
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






A.T. wrote:
 kodos wrote:
the famous leaf blower list which by unkown reason was only famous in the US and never made it into EU meta (might be because of different scenario design, or terrain or different lists of other factions, or all together)
It was a 2500pt list, while EU games were (IIRC) typically 2000pts or less.

Even 2000pts was pushing it for some armies with the old FoC system as some books would run out of good choices whereas others (i.e. guard with its artillery squadrons) could take advantage of it. And at 2500pts your deployment zone was just one large block of targets that the guard literally couldn't miss with artillery.

Locally we only ever played 1500-1850 which worked much better. Smaller games worked but the lists could get more skewed without the same FoC pressure to vary units.

----------------------------------------

For what it's worth the original 2500pt leafblower consisted of :
-One inquisitor (anti-deepstrike)
-Two command squads in chimeras (plasmaguns)
-One infantry platoon (six squads in chimeras)
-Two veteran squads in chimeras (meltaguns)
-One psyker squad in chimera (single blast template)
-Two valkyries (rocket pods)
-Two medusas
-Two hydras
-One manticore

The artillery was only half the problem. Chimeras (like rhinos) had been made significantly cheaper and tougher and doubled up as mobile bunkers.


This argument keeps popping up every time, but essentially "leafblower" referred to the whole archetype, not just one specific list.

The core units of those lists were the manticore, hydras, valks and chimeras filled with plasma, melta and the psyker squad. They covered the entire board in large blast templates while just exposing a wall of AV12 to the enemy.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

As someone who played Guard in 5th, I can testify that it was really strong at 1850p as well.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

 aphyon wrote:


3rd - 5th were the best of times, some rules implementations were better in one edition then tossed out for the next, which is why my group as well as Mezmorki's pro-hammer bases most of our rules on 5th but borrow the better rules from 3rd/4th or 7th to make 5th better.


Interesting view - did the game get better with each edition? 3rd ed killed 40k as a game for me. I didn't play again until 8th edition. Was 4th and 5th an improvement on 3rd?
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






5th definitely was a great edition, but 6th was bad and 7th worse.

5th edition with the balance and tight rules writing of 9th would probably be a really awesome game.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





a_typical_hero wrote:
As someone who played Guard in 5th, I can testify that it was really strong at 1850p as well.
Indeed. We had a local tau player and decent scenery so the hail of strength 10 wasn't quite as disconcerting.

Not being able to hide out of LoS, and having to fight something that could fight back when you closed the distance was somewhat trickier. The local guard player didn't have enough chimeras to really wall up though.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Jidmah wrote:
5th definitely was a great edition, but 6th was bad and 7th worse.

5th edition with the balance and tight rules writing of 9th would probably be a really awesome game.


Maybe? The power creep/scale creep that characterized 6th/7th did definitely get their start in 5th; people complain a lot about Flyers but the plastic Flyer models that blew a lot of the game's speed assumptions out of the water got their start in 5th, mid-power-spam AT got its start because of 5e's revised vehicle damage tables and the efficiency of psyflemen Dreads and psycannons, spam-enabling tank squadrons started in 5e, the Dreadknight started the trend of throwing the vehicle/monster balance so out of whack it never recovered, and using named characters to change detachment rules was a pretty dumb idea.

That said the core rules barely changed going from 5th to 6th/7th; the problems with all three editions were there because of things in the Codexes, and any problems I've heard people grumble about with the core rules were mostly because of how stats were assigned. The only core rules from the entire 3rd-7th era I'd read as serious problems that need fixing rather than as stylistic changes you could easily write Codexes to accommodate were the CAD superheavy slot in 7th (which you could fix with the 30k rule that you can't spend more than 25% of your points on any one model), "Look Out, Sir!" in 6th-7th (which I've fixed in my own patched version of older rules by making it one 4+ for the whole attack sequence, and if you pass it you can't come back to that model until everyone else is dead or you attack again, but you could also easily fix by just going to older editions' wound allocation rather than casualties-to-closest), and the blast changes in 5th (in 4th you rolled to hit and only scattered the blast template if you missed, which means you scattered less often and scattered further when you did, while in 5th-7th you always scattered but often didn't scatter very far, which meant tiny differences in angles and distances suddenly made a huge amount of difference to the game). Flyers, monster/walker balance, the irrelevance of morale, snap shots, unfair distribution of reliable Reserves, unfair distribution of safe Deep Strike, Initiative balance, deathstar units, psyker balance, vehicle durability, mid-power spam AT, and D-weapons are all completely fixable Codex/statline problems.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/02 18:31:11


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






I disagree - since my orks only got a codex in 7th almost all their problems came from 6th edition's core rules, 7th fixed a

7th compared to 5th has many core rules that I seriously dislike: psychic phase, challenges, USR mess, cover nerf, hull points, remove casualties from the front, rhino sniping.
No deal. I'm never, ever giving the edition which made me quit the game a second chance.

It's also wroth noting that planes in 5th were just fast skimmers, a dakkajet was just as fast as a wave serpent, and a blast hit was a hit unless you were shooting something outside of LoS with barrage.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







The_Real_Chris wrote:
 aphyon wrote:


3rd - 5th were the best of times, some rules implementations were better in one edition then tossed out for the next, which is why my group as well as Mezmorki's pro-hammer bases most of our rules on 5th but borrow the better rules from 3rd/4th or 7th to make 5th better.


Interesting view - did the game get better with each edition? 3rd ed killed 40k as a game for me. I didn't play again until 8th edition. Was 4th and 5th an improvement on 3rd?


In my view with a few exceptions the core rules got better each edition from 3rd-7th, since GW spent their time and energy standardizing/cleaning up stuff and expanding what you could do with the system, but the Codexes got worse each edition because they kept making bad decisions (cutting out options, decreasing flexibility, adding bloat) that they then felt compelled to stick to in the next book, and because the writers have never been very disciplined about trying to make their rules make sense with the core rules/alongside other books. The change from 7th to 8th was a pivot to a different target audience; GW lost the tournament players to Warmachine in the 6th/7th period and they set out to try and get them back with 8th (its launch coincided with a botched rollout for 3e Warmachine, which was pretty much the dream scenario for GW), so the game's a lot more buff-stacking/synergy-dependent than it ever was before, has tried to pay more attention to scenario design, and focused the core rules on making an internally-consistent abstraction over making sense (so we get things like flamers auto-hitting airplanes).

My own rules rewrite has been based more on 30k (alternate army books written for the 7e core rules) than anything else because 30k's army books feel to me like the first time the army books and the core rules interact in a sensible and interesting way since 4th; 7th has a lot of rules that are widely ignored/ignoreable (ex. SM vs. Eldar don't care about the Unwieldy rule since you're going last already, every 7e army's got easy access to Fearless so combat resolution never does anything, that kind of thing), 30k actually uses the whole rulebook.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in ca
Dour Wolf Priest with Iron Wolf Amulet






Canada

 Jidmah wrote:
I disagree - since my orks only got a codex in 7th almost all their problems came from 6th edition's core rules, 7th fixed a

7th compared to 5th has many core rules that I seriously dislike: psychic phase, challenges, USR mess, cover nerf, hull points, remove casualties from the front, rhino sniping.
No deal. I'm never, ever giving the edition which made me quit the game a second chance.

It's also wroth noting that planes in 5th were just fast skimmers, a dakkajet was just as fast as a wave serpent, and a blast hit was a hit unless you were shooting something outside of LoS with barrage.

I agree with this take, 6th made some big changes from 5th ed that totally changed how the game played. Plus it screwed over melee armies and vehicles and very much incentivized shooting.

   
Made in us
Frightening Flamer of Tzeentch





I know editions are a preference, but I still don't get the nostalgia for the old editions. I just like then new ones better even with all the warts but that is just my preference.

And I will provide some "core rule" issues with 3-7th version of the rules:

The "all-or-nothing" armor saves did not allow for any variance in weapons. A marine got a 3+ save against a lowly las gun, and a auto cannon, then no save against a battle cannon. So they were either very hard to kill, or died to stiff breeze, with no in between. And then it got really bad in 5th when basically everything outside of standard troop small arms had at least ap3. Does anyone else remember the phrase "die like a marine". On the other end of the spectrum, armor saves of 5 or 6 were completely and utterly pointless in almost every game as only a hand full of weapons did not have an AP of at least 5.

This "all-or-nothing" ideal also bled into the shooting, wounding, fighting etc. Since there were no modifiers used, if they wanted to give a unit something like being hard to hit (aka skimmers) they had to ham fist rules like "re-roll hits" or "sap shots only" (only hit on 6s) or if you moved you couldn't shoot. This lead to crazy things like skimmers only being able to be hit on 6's in close combat if they moved. Yea that wasn't hard to balance assault armies v. armies with lots of skimmers. Instead of the simple -1 or +1 they needed to create endless rules to get around the static and locked to hit and to wound rolls.

4th Edition in particular had the very bad rule about targeting the closest unit, and the abstract terrain rules, which could have been done right (see, obscuring) but were so poorly written they just lead to endless disagreements about what could see.

The vehicle rules for 3-5 also had the issue that if you just kept rolling ones on the damage chart vehicles would never die.

I am not saying liking the older editions is bad, I would play a game of 3rd or 5th if everyone had the right rules (and no OP lists), but people saying there were no issues with the 3-7th core rules and the only problem was from the codexes are incorrect.

   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Jidmah wrote:
I disagree - since my orks only got a codex in 7th almost all their problems came from 6th edition's core rules...


I'm saying that I think the problems with 5th-7th were problems with the writers of the Codexes not paying attention to the core rules, not problems with the core rules themselves.

...7th compared to 5th has many core rules that I seriously dislike: psychic phase, challenges, USR mess, cover nerf, hull points, remove casualties from the front, rhino sniping.
No deal. I'm never, ever giving the edition which made me quit the game a second chance...


I'm not telling you that you should, I'm telling you that I read most of these as stylistic/personal preference changes. If you don't like them you don't like them, but if you wrote the army books more intelligently you could have a game that had all of those and worked way better than any edition of 40k GW's written.

I'll give you Rhino-sniping, though; I'm still working on making LoS rules that are functional without being cumbersome or allowing dumb interactions like that.

...It's also wroth noting that planes in 5th were just fast skimmers, a dakkajet was just as fast as a wave serpent...


I don't know the Dakkajet off the top of my head. I know the Razorwing, Valkyrie/Vendetta, and the Night Scythe all had special rules that let them shoot more weapons after moving and a rule that made them turbo-boost 36" instead of 24".

...and a blast hit was a hit unless you were shooting something outside of LoS with barrage.


I may have gotten the edition wrong, that blast change may have happened in 6th.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
I disagree - since my orks only got a codex in 7th almost all their problems came from 6th edition's core rules...


I'm saying that I think the problems with 5th-7th were problems with the writers of the Codexes not paying attention to the core rules, not problems with the core rules themselves.

Yes, I understood that. I just don't think that it's true. 6th introduced a slew of terrible things and for every thing that 7th fixed, it broke two more.

I'm not telling you that you should, I'm telling you that I read most of these as stylistic/personal preference changes. If you don't like them you don't like them, but if you wrote the army books more intelligently you could have a game that had all of those and worked way better than any edition of 40k GW's written.

I don't think any amount of codex writing could have fixed inherently flawed things like invisibility, challenges or allies - all part of the core rules.

I don't know the Dakkajet off the top of my head. I know the Razorwing, Valkyrie/Vendetta, and the Night Scythe all had special rules that let them shoot more weapons after moving and a rule that made them turbo-boost 36" instead of 24".

I dug up the White Dwarf with their rules (actually the last one I've ever bought ) and you are right. It just never came up because they were 10/10/10 and I just kept them in my deployment zone, out of harms way.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/02 19:49:58


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 xeen wrote:
...And I will provide some "core rule" issues with 3-7th version of the rules:

The "all-or-nothing" armor saves did not allow for any variance in weapons. A marine got a 3+ save against a lowly las gun, and a auto cannon, then no save against a battle cannon. So they were either very hard to kill, or died to stiff breeze, with no in between. And then it got really bad in 5th when basically everything outside of standard troop small arms had at least ap3. Does anyone else remember the phrase "die like a marine". On the other end of the spectrum, armor saves of 5 or 6 were completely and utterly pointless in almost every game as only a hand full of weapons did not have an AP of at least 5...


I think all-or-nothing AP and AP-as-modifiers are both breakable, and have both been broken by GW with badly-assigned stats. All-or-nothing AP was broken by stat creep (it was way too easy to get masses of AP2/AP3 from 5th on), and mostly had the effect of forcing everyone to be in cover or die. AP-as-modifiers has been broken by stat creep (army-wide -2 AP like you can get on Primaris Marines these days shouldn't exist), and by GW not understanding that the value of improved saves/improved AP isn't linear (upgrading from AP-0 to AP-1 against 2+ armour doubles the damage you get through, going from -1 to -2 against 2+ only improves it by half), which has resulted in underpriced mid-AP and overpriced high-AP for most of 8th/9th's history. AP modifiers are great, I've used them in other projects, but you can screw them at least as badly by assigning stats without paying attention to your rules.

...This "all-or-nothing" ideal also bled into the shooting, wounding, fighting etc. Since there were no modifiers used, if they wanted to give a unit something like being hard to hit (aka skimmers) they had to ham fist rules like "re-roll hits" or "sap shots only" (only hit on 6s) or if you moved you couldn't shoot. This lead to crazy things like skimmers only being able to be hit on 6's in close combat if they moved. Yea that wasn't hard to balance assault armies v. armies with lots of skimmers. Instead of the simple -1 or +1 they needed to create endless rules to get around the static and locked to hit and to wound rolls...


I've tried writing 40k rules using hit-mods, and I can guarantee you that the reason they never went for hit-mods earlier in the life of the game was because some idiot decided that a primary defining faction identity of Orks was BS2 (BS5+, in modern parlance). If you don't have an all-BS5+ army in the game hit mods work fine (WHFB uses hit mods and its orcs/goblins are BS3 (4+), Bolt Action uses hit mods and the crappiest greenest troops in the game hit on 4s shooting). Also if you want a game with hit mods to work at all you need to be a lot more disciplined than GW usually is with how many hit mods actually exist (I count "maximum modifier -1" as a half-assed band-aid patch that only exists because GW couldn't be bothered to write their hit mods intelligently); in Bolt Action your hit mods are range, cover, and moving-shooting, there are no special rules on anything that grant hit mods.

...4th Edition in particular had the very bad rule about targeting the closest unit, and the abstract terrain rules, which could have been done right (see, obscuring) but were so poorly written they just lead to endless disagreements about what could see...


I'd read that as implementation rather than a conceptual flaw; you can use closest-target a lot more intelligently than they did (ex. in Mordheim you can ignore the closest target to shoot the closest big target, so you can't screen a troll with goblins), and I don't think abstract terrain's arguments about what could see are any worse than true LOS's arguments about what a unit could see.

...The vehicle rules for 3-5 also had the issue that if you just kept rolling ones on the damage chart vehicles would never die...


Well, yeah. If you just keep rolling ones to wound a vehicle in 8th/9th will never die either. If you just keep rolling ones on the damage chart at least the vehicle will be stun-locked and unable to shoot.

...I am not saying liking the older editions is bad, I would play a game of 3rd or 5th if everyone had the right rules (and no OP lists), but people saying there were no issues with the 3-7th core rules and the only problem was from the codexes are incorrect...


My issue is people saying the 7th core rules were bad because of D-weapons, flyers, superheavies, scatterbikes, unkillable deathstars, etc. when those are almost entirely Codex problems (D-weapons wouldn't be a problem if the cheap spammable Eldar ones weren't there, Flyers wouldn't be a problem if GW hadn't grotesquely underpriced them in every Codex, superheavies wouldn't be a problem if you didn't have the detachments to shove them into small games, scatterbikes are purely a Codex problem, everyone's favorite rerollable-2+ deathstar was enabled by one Daemons relic...). The core rules of 3rd-7th weren't perfect and there are absolutely things I'd rewrite, but I think in 8th/9th more of the things I don't like are written into the core rules, so it's easier for me to get a game I enjoy using 3rd-7th than it is using 8th/9th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jidmah wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
I disagree - since my orks only got a codex in 7th almost all their problems came from 6th edition's core rules...


I'm saying that I think the problems with 5th-7th were problems with the writers of the Codexes not paying attention to the core rules, not problems with the core rules themselves.

Yes, I understood that. I just don't think that it's true. 6th introduced a slew of terrible things and for every thing that 7th fixed, it broke two more.

I'm not telling you that you should, I'm telling you that I read most of these as stylistic/personal preference changes. If you don't like them you don't like them, but if you wrote the army books more intelligently you could have a game that had all of those and worked way better than any edition of 40k GW's written.

I don't think any amount of codex writing could have fixed inherently flawed things like invisibility, challenges or allies - all part of the core rules.


What actually changed in 6th?
-Melee weapons got profiles (which made them way less all-or-nothing than when everything was just "power weapon - ignores armour saves").
-Flyers got flyer rules (which would have been fine if they'd benchmarked stats/pricing based on the 4e Apocalypse flyers rather than the 5e flyers-as-skimmers rules, and put AA on a few more existing models).
-Hull points happened (which was classic GW overcompensation; they did two different things to make vehicles easier to kill than they were in 5th (hull points and pumping mid-power spam), and together they broke vehicles; if they'd done either one alone vehicles wouldn't have broken)
-Challenges/the psychic phase happened (which were mostly problematic because they didn't look at ten years of playtesting for WHFB challenges/magic phase, learning a few lessons from WHFB (control melee character stat ranges intelligently, don't put out armies that have no ability to compete in a challenge with any other army, don't let non-HQ units generate magic dice, don't write giant spells that end the game when they go off) could have made either or both work fine)
-Jink happened (which would have been fine if it was 7e jink from the start, the free defensive buff without any trade-off in 6th was dumb).
-Allies happened (which would have been fine if they'd thought to write character/special ability rules to reference the faction when they added the allies rules instead of letting people use cross-faction buffs and then slowly FAQing them out one by one).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/02 20:17:00


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in nl
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Rake is on fire. Exalted.

   
Made in us
Painting Within the Lines





Tangentville, New Jersey

It's funny, 4th edition is the one I remember sitting out (because of our player base, not because of the rules).

I started with 2nd, quit after 3rd, and then came back for 5th-7th. I remember 5th and 6th being a great time, but that was because I was playing Guard for the first time (brood brother-themed with old metal Hybrids for characters) and my beloved Dark Eldar got a beautiful face lift & new plastic kits.

I played ONE game of 8th. We were using the indexes, so things weren't too insane. It was nice to use actual GSC since I retrofit my metal hybrids with leftover bits from the Neophyte box. The hardest thing for me was trying to wrap my head around the AOS-style morale.

I found myself flipping through my 3rd rulebook recently and seriously considering giving that edition a go again.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/02 22:20:40



 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Sometimes I think I'm the only person who liked the all-or-nothing AP system...

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

I will start off with flyer rules

Most people didn't know they existed prior to 6th because they were FW flyer rules to go along with FW anti-air units.
The big problem was that the FW flyer rules had them move on to the table during the enemies movement phase, 6th/7th flyer rules fixed most of that however it upped the AV of most vehicles (because 5th made them fast skimmers by default and not aircraft at first)and removed key things that made the FW flyer rules good. almost every flyer in the game was AV 10/10/10 with few exceptions (even most super heavies) being the thunderhawk at 12/12/10, manta at 12/12/12 and the vulture at 11/10/10. Our group blends the 2 rules sets by keeping most of 7th but putting back in the key things that made the FW rules good. immobilizing results=crashing not vector lock, jump units can assault flyers, 12" range penalties for shooting at flyers because they are flying high (and also needing 6+ to hit for non-AA units All pintle mounted weapons are considered AA mounts) but flyers never benefit from terrain because of flying high.


The_Real_Chris wrote:
 aphyon wrote:


3rd - 5th were the best of times, some rules implementations were better in one edition then tossed out for the next, which is why my group as well as Mezmorki's pro-hammer bases most of our rules on 5th but borrow the better rules from 3rd/4th or 7th to make 5th better.


Interesting view - did the game get better with each edition? 3rd ed killed 40k as a game for me. I didn't play again until 8th edition. Was 4th and 5th an improvement on 3rd?


Others have pointed it out but there was a clear attempt in the rules development to gradually improve the game from 3rd-5th while also solidifying the lore of the universe. blast templates are a good example going from "guess range" weapons where you literally had to guess how far your target was away and if you guessed wrong you could not shoot it....to the 2d6 scatter with BS reduction for direct fire.

That is not to say all of the changes were good. with Andy Chambers leaving the company right as 5th was being developed it allowed Jervis Johnson to come in and wreck some really good mechanics that should have stayed in the game.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Sometimes I think I'm the only person who liked the all-or-nothing AP system...


No i am right there with you, it was elegantly simple and easy to follow as well as making perfect sense from an immersive perspective. even space marine armor cannot save them from dedicated heavy anti-tank weapons
If i wanted to play an AP reduction system i would have played WHFBs

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/03 14:40:37




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
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 AnomanderRake wrote:
What actually changed in 6th?
-Melee weapons got profiles (which made them way less all-or-nothing than when everything was just "power weapon - ignores armour saves").

Unless you were a dumb xenos, of course. Then your opponents just got a slew of free buffs.

-Flyers got flyer rules (which would have been fine if they'd benchmarked stats/pricing based on the 4e Apocalypse flyers rather than the 5e flyers-as-skimmers rules, and put AA on a few more existing models).

Flyers were annoying, and not every army had anti-air units. But the real abominations here were flying monstrous creatures that could move around the board nigh invincible.

-Hull points happened (which was classic GW overcompensation; they did two different things to make vehicles easier to kill than they were in 5th (hull points and pumping mid-power spam), and together they broke vehicles; if they'd done either one alone vehicles wouldn't have broken)

Sure, but they did break them, not to mention that the number of hull points were distributed completely arbitrarily and used to nerf units that didn't need nerfs and buff units that didn't need buffs.

-Challenges/the psychic phase happened (which were mostly problematic because they didn't look at ten years of playtesting for WHFB challenges/magic phase, learning a few lessons from WHFB (control melee character stat ranges intelligently, don't put out armies that have no ability to compete in a challenge with any other army, don't let non-HQ units generate magic dice, don't write giant spells that end the game when they go off) could have made either or both work fine)

I think these actually deserve two points, but I think in general you are agreeing with me here. Essentially both these massive parts of a game had absolutely no playtesting outside a single marines vs marines game. Challenges effective neutered all characters with low I because they either were fed a cheap guard sergeant at a time or killed by a space marine/eldar with a force sword. Psykers were worthless unless you were eldar, daemons or GK because not only were they almost guaranteed to roll the most powerful powers in the game and cast them at will, but also could deny the two casts your psyker had with 10 dice each.

-Jink happened (which would have been fine if it was 7e jink from the start, the free defensive buff without any trade-off in 6th was dumb).

I actually don't remember that one as being that bad, but sure.

-Allies happened (which would have been fine if they'd thought to write character/special ability rules to reference the faction when they added the allies rules instead of letting people use cross-faction buffs and then slowly FAQing them out one by one).

That would still have allowed all that battle brother nonsense though. With all that happened during 8th I really don't believe that there is any good way to implement allies for 40k. Either they are totally overbearing free buffs for those that can take allies, or they are fluffy options that allow fluffy lists, but don't actually work well. The only solution I can see would be providing severely limited army lists for specific combinations of allies found in the background - for example an inquisitorial force could have a selection of certain sisters, grey knights and inquisitorial units in one army an get a replacement trait for whatever rules they've lost for souping.

And there are more:
- Removing model closest to the firer. This allowed a single character to tank battle cannon hits for an entire unit, sniping of special weapons and unit leaders. It was especially awkward for melee specialists who wanted to be near the front of the unit to fight, but had to hide in the back so they wouldn't get shot. This also enabled barrage sniping, making an imperial basilisk more accurate at taking out the enemy general than eldar snipers.
- Standard cover save went down to 5+. On top of all the massive buffs shooting had received in this edition, this was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
- A slew of melee nerfs. In addition to challenges disallowing your best fighter to fight properly, melee units losing movement when taking casualties, you also had disordered charges, furious charge nerf, overwatch and more.

Note that I'm going from memory, I gave away my 6th edition book to a new player so they could read up on the fluff. At least it was good for something
There probably is even more.

So 6th already was pretty borked when it dropped, and the codices allowing beautiful things like screamer star, the flying circus and taudar didn't exactly help making it an enjoyable edition. And to be honest, 7th never stood a chance by building on that rotten foundation.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/07/03 10:00:16


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

Help me out here with my memory, didn't Tau count as close allys for Ultramarines or something like that?

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






a_typical_hero wrote:
Help me out here with my memory, didn't Tau count as close allys for Ultramarines or something like that?


Tau were "brothers in arms" with Eldar and Space Marines, i.e. on the same level as two Space Marines armies.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/03 10:20:52


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





A.T. wrote:
 kodos wrote:
the famous leaf blower list which by unkown reason was only famous in the US and never made it into EU meta (might be because of different scenario design, or terrain or different lists of other factions, or all together)
It was a 2500pt list, while EU games were (IIRC) typically 2000pts or less.

Even 2000pts was pushing it for some armies with the old FoC system as some books would run out of good choices whereas others (i.e. guard with its artillery squadrons) could take advantage of it. And at 2500pts your deployment zone was just one large block of targets that the guard literally couldn't miss with artillery.

Locally we only ever played 1500-1850 which worked much better. Smaller games worked but the lists could get more skewed without the same FoC pressure to vary units.

----------------------------------------

For what it's worth the original 2500pt leafblower consisted of :
-One inquisitor (anti-deepstrike)
-Two command squads in chimeras (plasmaguns)
-One infantry platoon (six squads in chimeras)
-Two veteran squads in chimeras (meltaguns)
-One psyker squad in chimera (single blast template)
-Two valkyries (rocket pods)
-Two medusas
-Two hydras
-One manticore

The artillery was only half the problem. Chimeras (like rhinos) had been made significantly cheaper and tougher and doubled up as mobile bunkers.


How well does this list perform in the current edition?
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

From my POV the game was going off the rails toward the end of 5e with the introduction of all the different fliers and stuff. I was looking at the battlefields and just feeling like these enormous fliers didn't fit on the table properly, and like the game hadn't really been designed to include them.

So when 6e was coming I was excited to see if they would fix these issues, but to my view they just doubled down on all of that and made some really silly changes the rules like challenges. No thanks. I also really disliked that it had basically done away with army list restrictions in any meaningful sense, and advantaged Imperial players who could ally across a tonne of different factions.

I was already out of the game for 7th, but when I looked back into it I could see they were just going further down the bad design rabbit hole.

8e and 9e have a lot of cool aspects to them like save mods and to hit mods coming back, unified rules for monsters and tanks with built in degradation, and so on. I'd be delighted if those core rules came with some of the other stuff from 5e to make a sort of hybrid between the two. Unfortunately some of the other aspects of the games are pretty offputting to me so I stay away.

   
Made in us
Hardened Veteran Guardsman





 Strg Alt wrote:
A.T. wrote:
 kodos wrote:
the famous leaf blower list which by unkown reason was only famous in the US and never made it into EU meta (might be because of different scenario design, or terrain or different lists of other factions, or all together)
It was a 2500pt list, while EU games were (IIRC) typically 2000pts or less.

Even 2000pts was pushing it for some armies with the old FoC system as some books would run out of good choices whereas others (i.e. guard with its artillery squadrons) could take advantage of it. And at 2500pts your deployment zone was just one large block of targets that the guard literally couldn't miss with artillery.

Locally we only ever played 1500-1850 which worked much better. Smaller games worked but the lists could get more skewed without the same FoC pressure to vary units.

----------------------------------------

For what it's worth the original 2500pt leafblower consisted of :
-One inquisitor (anti-deepstrike)
-Two command squads in chimeras (plasmaguns)
-One infantry platoon (six squads in chimeras)
-Two veteran squads in chimeras (meltaguns)
-One psyker squad in chimera (single blast template)
-Two valkyries (rocket pods)
-Two medusas
-Two hydras
-One manticore

The artillery was only half the problem. Chimeras (like rhinos) had been made significantly cheaper and tougher and doubled up as mobile bunkers.


How well does this list perform in the current edition?

I can't speak to the performance, but from a rules standpoint, it doesn't. By my estimation, the list is still around 2500-2750 pts (depending on wargear) and would fit into a Battalion excepting a single Elites choice (presuming the list includes Command Squads for each CC/PC), but the Chimera's rules at the time allowed units to fire out of the top hatch - IIRC the point of the meltavets/plasma command squads in the list were to do high-speed drive-bys of high-value targets without leaving their vehicles. With the top hatch now being ornamental, both the psykers and the infantry would need to get out to do any damage (thus preventing them from benefiting from the Chimera's former-AV/current-T+Sv).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/03 14:27:00


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Da Boss wrote:
From my POV the game was going off the rails toward the end of 5e with the introduction of all the different fliers and stuff
Arguably the rot started with the 5e guard codex, the second book of the edition. It really pushed the boat out on what you needed an army to deal with in a game,
   
Made in se
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator





OP here. I’ve really been enjoying reading the transition of this thread.
Aash wrote:

Out of curiosity, especially as you mentioned the importance of 24” ranges, what are your thoughts on the game not allowing pre-measuring for ranges?

Though my memories of 4th edition are mostly good, I do remember there were some match-ups that were really one sided. Specifically nids vs tau or eldar.

I played Tyranids back then, and they were very limited in anti-tank ranged weapons. If some genestealers with their rending claws or a monster hit in base contact with a tank they could take it down, but skimmers had a rule where you couldn’t hit it in CC unless you rolled a 6 or something like that. It made taking out things like hammerheads and wave serpents all but impossible.

Not being allowed to pre-measure was actually kind of a big deal. I frequently found myself pulling out my measurer by reflex and stopping. It did lead to some interesting situations. Like on one occasion I had to make a call whenever send a chimera forward or not. It had a heavy flamer in it’s hull and some gaunts where a prime target. After moving 6” the flame template was just out of range. It was then exposed to be charged by said gaunts. Had I been allowed to pre-measure there wouldn’t have been a decision making process. I would have known the best course of action right away. So I guess it added another layer of decision making. I kind of liked it but can see someone who has a hard time head measuring distances finding it bothersome. It did make heavy weapon ranges more important since you’re guaranteed a greater area your shot can cover.

I’ve heard that tau and skimmers where incredibly powerful in 4th. In particular the dreaded “fish of fury” strat (two devilfishes with two squads of fire warriors behind in a tight formation). Tanks worked like this in close combat: if it was stationary then any unit attacking it automatically hits it’s close combat attacks. If it moved up to 6” then any unit attacking it hits on a 4+ or better. If it moved more then 6” then any unit striking it hits on a 6+. Skimmers where always hit on a 6+ in close combat. Dice roll modifiers where non existing to my knowledge, only re-rolls where sometimes available with certain conditions (like chaplains or master crafted weapons). A 6+ is what you get. For tanks this wasn’t a problem because they could only shot their guns if they travelled up to 6”. So to be harder to hit in melee you would have to sacrifice firepower. For fast veichles and skimmers this would be a big problem, if you relied on bringing them down in melee. As I imagine it would be if you try striking a flying tank or a speeding trukk with a chainsaw.

Edit:
 Da Boss wrote:
From my POV the game was going off the rails toward the end of 5e with the introduction of all the different fliers and stuff. I was looking at the battlefields and just feeling like these enormous fliers didn't fit on the table properly, and like the game hadn't really been designed to include them.

I remember that I didn’t mind the fliers much. Rule wise they where similar to skimmers. We actually already used them to a much lesser extent in 4th. The rules where first in Imperial armour and later in apocalypse. It arrived in accordance with the reserve rules. As I recall you placed at your table edge but it wasn’t allowed to move or shoot on the turn it arrived. This was to symbolize it appproaching from the distance. The opponent was allowed to shoot it this turn. Then it could move and act normally but always had to travel a minimum distance and could only Turn 45 degrees or something like that. Overall I recall 5th ed as pretty solid. Except for this one big issue I had with it...

My issue with 5th was different. It had to do with list building. 5th introduces special characters with army wide special rules. For example, one special character might allow you to infiltrate 3 units from your army whilst another let you give 3 units furious charge. I found that this locked specific play styles behind a special character choice. Let’s say I had a sneaky army in 4th but now my sneaky army could only use it’s ability if I picked one of GW:s characters with pre decided upgrades and gear. Also that Squads where given buffs if bought in 5 man or 10 man squads. I think it gave them a free heavy weapon. In 4th squads could be as big as you wanted up untill it’s max number. I recall writing that I felt a great deal of control making my list last weekend. I felt like 5th was when GW actively started trying to limit or outright deny that control in list building and army composition. That was my big issue with 5th ed.

This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2021/07/04 08:23:44


His pattern of returning alive after being declared dead occurred often enough during Cain's career that the Munitorum made a special ruling that Ciaphas Cain is to never be considered dead, despite evidence to the contrary. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Nerak wrote:
I’ve heard that tau and skimmers where incredibly powerful in 4th. In particular the dreaded “fish of fury” strat (two devilfishes with two squads of fire warriors behind in a tight formation).
Fish of fury involved driving up to an enemy unit and disembarking with the devilfish between the firewarriors and their target. The firewarriors would then open up with a full round of rapid fire under the fish and in return the enemy were unable to effectively engage them - not enough movement to get around the transport to the squad with any survivors.
In their next turn the tau were free to board up and move out.

The eldar skimmers were worse though - it was impossible to inflict more than a glancing hit on a fast moving skimmer no matter what you rolled and you had to roll damage twice and pick the worst result against them. If either dice came up 3 or less you would basically just inconvenience it and you needed boxcars to actually destroy one outright.
As you might imagine this was even worse in apocalypse where squadrons of skimmers could palm off all of their hits to one tank at the back and escape titan-wrecking firepower with little consequence.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I find I dislike most of the core rules changes between 5th and 7th.

Some I just dislike as a concept, like Challenges. Melee is just a roll-off and unless you write big complex rules it'll never feel any different, and challenges on a battlefield just feel silly conceptually.

Others I think were solid concepts but just implemented horribly, like Flyers and Psychic rules, as was already explained perfectly by Anomander.
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

I mean, 6/7th were so bad they had to basically start the system again from scratch because they crashed the playerbase.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: