Switch Theme:

Sounding the Grog Horn - if I played 5e-7e what do I have to look out for with 4e?  [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
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 AnomanderRake wrote:
Musical Wounds

Haha. Great term.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Every edition has some some problem codexes that often define the era, I'm not sure there's one particular worst offender in the 3E-5E editions, there's a fair number to choose from.


Another thing to keep in mind in going back to an edition vs playing through it as it was live, was how often many armies would be using older books. Playing 5E IG with the 3.5E codex they used for the first year of the edition vs their proper 5E codex is an experience you wont' have to relive for example. Or with 4E specifically, 80% of that edition was played with the 3.5E codex, if you're going back to play 4E with the 4E CSM Codex, that's going to be a different experience from most people at the time through that edition.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

H.B.M.C. wrote:You really have to wonder what changed between then and now. Simple practical solutions to terrain that are quick to learn and, more importantly, quicker to use compared to the quagmire of terrain traits and TLOS horse gak that we have now.

I've wondered about that a lot as well recently. It seems like someone at gw thinks complicated = good. I mean, look at some of the faction rules they've come up with recently (have you seen the Custodes stuff?). As for the changes from 4th to 5th: I have no idea. Always felt like change for the sake of change. And not good ones at that.

Blackie wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
IMHO 3rd, 4th and 5th are pretty much on par in terms of fun or balance.
Codex: Grey Knights.

Don't put 5th with the other two.


As I said it's entirely down on what codexes a group of people plays, as the sets of core rules really don't differ significantly. If no one plays GK, especially an optimized 5th edition GK army, that codex isn't an issue. GK might have been extremely popular then, when they were the shiny new toys but now they're not that common and their range is pretty old.

There was OP stuff in 3rd and 4th as well. I've never experienced personally but it is known that the chaos 3.5 codex is one of the best examples in terms of cheese and broken lists in the history of 40k. And chaos stuff is definitely popular and common, even now that most of the builds are bottom tiers. As another example I find 4th eldars much more problematic than 5th GK as they are one of the basic and most common factions. AM as well.

Ok, so you've never played with or against 3.5, but you know it's full of broken lists. Yeah, ok. For the record, there was one broken list: Iron Warriors. But that could have been mostly fixed just by moving Obliterators from Elites to Heavy Support (were they should have been in the first place). Do that, nix the Siren psychic power, and 3.5 wouldn't have had much on most codexes being used in 4th. I've never heard anyone complain about Alpha Legion, Night Lords, or Word Bearers being broken.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:You really have to wonder what changed between then and now. Simple practical solutions to terrain that are quick to learn and, more importantly, quicker to use compared to the quagmire of terrain traits and TLOS horse gak that we have now.

I've wondered about that a lot as well recently. It seems like someone at gw thinks complicated = good. I mean, look at some of the faction rules they've come up with recently (have you seen the Custodes stuff?). As for the changes from 4th to 5th: I have no idea. Always felt like change for the sake of change. And not good ones at that.


There was a great podcast interview with Rick Priestly from earlier this year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMRcoiVeOII

They don't directly address this topic, but looking back at what authors were involved in what editions, it's clear that the 4th to 5th transition reflected the game taking a different course under different design leadership. Andy Chambers had left GW not too long after 4th edition was released, and Rick was less involved in the design of 5th edition (wasn't mentioned in the credits) and was in more of a larger managerial role at gw. Rick left in 2010, before the release of Grey Knights, which was 2011. For those that are counting.

I think there was a design trajectory that GW was on with 3rd edition, and with 4th, despite a few overcorrections, really being a refinement of 3rd. 5th was a measured layering on of new things, all considered, with a few of its own missteps along the way. But the design team had shifted with 5th and the course change was entered.

By the time 6th edition rolled out, despite being an extension of the 3rd edition, the design team was almost completely different. I'm sure there was a sense at the time of, "whoa, look what we just inherited! Let's go nuts and make it awesome!" And so 6th vectored onto a different trajectory. I think a lot of game designers (and players) confuse complexity with "good" or complexity with "depth." They are not the same things. Good designers strive to maximize depth (or other gameplay objectives) while keeping complexity relatively low or manageable. I don't think the designers of 6th subscribed to that view point.

7th edition rulebook doesn't even list authors. Was it a design-by-committee attempt to fix the mess that 6th edition was? 7th was a black-hole in my view and I'm glad I got off the train (mostly) back in early 5th edition days.

8th and 9th edition are corporate products. One can't tell who designed the rules and for what purpose. The workings have become a black box devoid of any connection to the designers and what they are trying to achieve. There's nothing personal about them at all. No note's from the designer. No credits in the back the book. It's a testament to what's its become. Cold, detached, inhumane. Ironically just like the Imperium that the lore satirized.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/12/09 04:15:50


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
As I said it's entirely down on what codexes a group of people plays, as the sets of core rules really don't differ significantly. If no one plays GK, especially an optimized 5th edition GK army, that codex isn't an issue.
If no one stabs anyone, then the knives aren't really sharp! Arsenic isn't poisonous if no one ingests it!

The book was broken. The temperament of the people playing it, or just choosing not to use it, doesn't make it less broken. Imbalances within a game aren't just down to how people play.





Yes it was broken, but someone who wants to play NOW an older edition typically isn't a WAAC or even a tournament player. It's someone that wants to play more balanced casual games and if a single codex just ruins the experience that book would simply be avoided. The fact that it's a codex about a minor faction may help even more.

It's not like 7th when in order to get balance a group of player would need to avoid 4-5 books, including some of the most important factions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ok, so you've never played with or against 3.5, but you know it's full of broken lists. Yeah, ok. For the record, there was one broken list: Iron Warriors. But that could have been mostly fixed just by moving Obliterators from Elites to Heavy Support (were they should have been in the first place). Do that, nix the Siren psychic power, and 3.5 wouldn't have had much on most codexes being used in 4th. I've never heard anyone complain about Alpha Legion, Night Lords, or Word Bearers being broken.


Yeah, it's the same with 5th GK or any other cheesy combination from other codexes, you can either house rule something in the book, avoid the book completely or just avoid the more powerful combinations that the book allows to bring. It was very possible to create terrible-mediocre-average lists with the 5th GK codex as well.

I never said chaos 3.5 was "full of OP lists", just that it was one of the most popular examples of cheese. Eldar 7th had just 8-9 OP units, while the vast majority of the codex was trash, so all Eldar competitive lists look pretty much the same in 7th, and yet it's the faction that was universally considered OP, not just some units or specific lists. Chaos 3.5 became oppressive at some point in the competitive scene, I haven't played against it because at that time I wasn't playing competitively but I remember how the reputation it had. And during that era a single list could cover a large portion of a codex, and be pretty close to real collection of models that were likely to show up regularly, since codexes didn't have more than 30 datasheets.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/09 08:11:58


 
   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

I'd rather play against Iron Warriors from 3.5 than lash of submission with high ap templates from 4 to be honest. Dual lash princes was not fun at all, and it also wasn't based on any background in any satisfying way.

   
Made in us
Terrifying Rhinox Rider




There are these extremely good battle reports by someone named Wyddr. At the time he played Thousand Sons and Tau, and later Imperial Fists and Daemons but that would have been in fifth.

https://www.40konline.com/index.php?topic=143113.msg1733361#msg1733361

Afaik he’s a college professor and commercial sci fi author and lives within 70 miles of you. Afaik.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:You really have to wonder what changed between then and now. Simple practical solutions to terrain that are quick to learn and, more importantly, quicker to use compared to the quagmire of terrain traits and TLOS horse gak that we have now.

I've wondered about that a lot as well recently. It seems like someone at gw thinks complicated = good. I mean, look at some of the faction rules they've come up with recently (have you seen the Custodes stuff?). As for the changes from 4th to 5th: I have no idea. Always felt like change for the sake of change. And not good ones at that.


My personal speculation is that a lot of the complication and heavy focus on the 2000-point level is intended to operate in the same manner as end-game content in an MMORPG game, in order to cater to a smaller number of "whale consumers" and set the full-size game up as aspirational content. At the end of the day, top-level raiding in world of warcraft is somewhat simplistic when it comes to video games - basically its just one of those 'team beat 'em ups' like the old ninja turtles arcade game, but it is STAGGERINGLY complicated and you can talk endlessly about it and optimise it and strategize for it.

The goal is to make 40k a 'lifestyle game' for this small number of people who then spend a lot of money on it and hold it up as a premium gaming product. The point of it being complicated is that its intended to hold 100% of a player's attention, rather than them being able to keep up with 40k in addition to various other game systems. MTG operates in much the same way at the top level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
pelicaniforce wrote:
There are these extremely good battle reports by someone named Wyddr. At the time he played Thousand Sons and Tau, and later Imperial Fists and Daemons but that would have been in fifth.

https://www.40konline.com/index.php?topic=143113.msg1733361#msg1733361

Afaik he’s a college professor and commercial sci fi author and lives within 70 miles of you. Afaik.


Or at least, did in 2007? 14 years ago?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/12/09 14:34:12


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 Da Boss wrote:
I'd rather play against Iron Warriors from 3.5 than lash of submission with high ap templates from 4 to be honest.
Largely dependent on the list and edition.

3.5 Iron Warriors were built on the principle of winning a game of gunline attrition by having more heavy units(and oblits) than other armies could match. They were the dwarf gunline of 40k, skill optional.

Lash with the right match-up it could neuter an opponent, with the wrong match-up not so much - and the wrong match-up in this case was mechanised infantry, aka every other opponent in 5th edition.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Biloxi, MS USA

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:You really have to wonder what changed between then and now. Simple practical solutions to terrain that are quick to learn and, more importantly, quicker to use compared to the quagmire of terrain traits and TLOS horse gak that we have now.

I've wondered about that a lot as well recently. It seems like someone at gw thinks complicated = good. I mean, look at some of the faction rules they've come up with recently (have you seen the Custodes stuff?). As for the changes from 4th to 5th: I have no idea. Always felt like change for the sake of change. And not good ones at that.

Blackie wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
IMHO 3rd, 4th and 5th are pretty much on par in terms of fun or balance.
Codex: Grey Knights.

Don't put 5th with the other two.


As I said it's entirely down on what codexes a group of people plays, as the sets of core rules really don't differ significantly. If no one plays GK, especially an optimized 5th edition GK army, that codex isn't an issue. GK might have been extremely popular then, when they were the shiny new toys but now they're not that common and their range is pretty old.

There was OP stuff in 3rd and 4th as well. I've never experienced personally but it is known that the chaos 3.5 codex is one of the best examples in terms of cheese and broken lists in the history of 40k. And chaos stuff is definitely popular and common, even now that most of the builds are bottom tiers. As another example I find 4th eldars much more problematic than 5th GK as they are one of the basic and most common factions. AM as well.

Ok, so you've never played with or against 3.5, but you know it's full of broken lists. Yeah, ok. For the record, there was one broken list: Iron Warriors. But that could have been mostly fixed just by moving Obliterators from Elites to Heavy Support (were they should have been in the first place). Do that, nix the Siren psychic power, and 3.5 wouldn't have had much on most codexes being used in 4th. I've never heard anyone complain about Alpha Legion, Night Lords, or Word Bearers being broken.


I mean, an army with 2 wounds has something going for it, right?

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:You really have to wonder what changed between then and now. Simple practical solutions to terrain that are quick to learn and, more importantly, quicker to use compared to the quagmire of terrain traits and TLOS horse gak that we have now.

I've wondered about that a lot as well recently. It seems like someone at gw thinks complicated = good. I mean, look at some of the faction rules they've come up with recently (have you seen the Custodes stuff?). As for the changes from 4th to 5th: I have no idea. Always felt like change for the sake of change. And not good ones at that.

Blackie wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
IMHO 3rd, 4th and 5th are pretty much on par in terms of fun or balance.
Codex: Grey Knights.

Don't put 5th with the other two.


As I said it's entirely down on what codexes a group of people plays, as the sets of core rules really don't differ significantly. If no one plays GK, especially an optimized 5th edition GK army, that codex isn't an issue. GK might have been extremely popular then, when they were the shiny new toys but now they're not that common and their range is pretty old.

There was OP stuff in 3rd and 4th as well. I've never experienced personally but it is known that the chaos 3.5 codex is one of the best examples in terms of cheese and broken lists in the history of 40k. And chaos stuff is definitely popular and common, even now that most of the builds are bottom tiers. As another example I find 4th eldars much more problematic than 5th GK as they are one of the basic and most common factions. AM as well.

Ok, so you've never played with or against 3.5, but you know it's full of broken lists. Yeah, ok. For the record, there was one broken list: Iron Warriors. But that could have been mostly fixed just by moving Obliterators from Elites to Heavy Support (were they should have been in the first place). Do that, nix the Siren psychic power, and 3.5 wouldn't have had much on most codexes being used in 4th. I've never heard anyone complain about Alpha Legion, Night Lords, or Word Bearers being broken.


I played Night Lords in 3.5. My opponent complained that they were difficult to remove with ranged fire in a cityfight, which we always played, because of their cover bonus. And he was right. You had to either fight them in cc or use some kind of weapon which had high AP and ignored cover but back in those days such weapons were pretty rare. Maybe the demolisher cannon had such a profile but I am not sure as I am too lazy to look it up.
   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

A.T. wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
I'd rather play against Iron Warriors from 3.5 than lash of submission with high ap templates from 4 to be honest.
Largely dependent on the list and edition.

3.5 Iron Warriors were built on the principle of winning a game of gunline attrition by having more heavy units(and oblits) than other armies could match. They were the dwarf gunline of 40k, skill optional.

Lash with the right match-up it could neuter an opponent, with the wrong match-up not so much - and the wrong match-up in this case was mechanised infantry, aka every other opponent in 5th edition.


I played both in their respective editions and I found Iron Warriors more fun to play against (still overpowered, it was definitely a bit of a mistake as a list) because Iron Warriors have cool background and the list felt like they might have actually been.

Lash Princes was a hodge podge of the only effective units out of that weird, bland codex that was a response to the 3.5 dex. And I played footslogging orks, and having my mobs cluster into perfect pie plate shapes to get removed in droves, or having them run off objectives was...less than amusing, especially when the list and the power were so obviously gamey.

YMMV of course, I only said it was my preference to play 3.5 Iron Warriors over Lash Princes, and it's possible the Iron Warriors I played were not totally optimised either.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




St. George, UT

I loved my Emperor's Children in 3.5. Now, I see you rolling your eye and thinking Another one of those guys.

However, I never had a single complaint. Damonettes, bikers, havoks, deflier, two squads in Rhinos even. The Lord however, only had a 3+/5+ save and not a siren in sight. His hidden secret was the dread axe. He killed anything he touched, just like a good Daemon Prince should. However, he could be killed, and that made a lot of people happy.

See pics of my Orks, Tau, Emperor's Children, Necrons, Space Wolves, and Dark Eldar here:


 
   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

Just my experience, but I played a lot more fun and themed lists from the 3.5 codex than the 4e one. The 4e one had so little flavour it almost left nothing else.

   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 Jayden63 wrote:
His hidden secret was the dread axe. He killed anything he touched, just like a good Daemon Prince should.
I remember the dread axe prince.
6+ attacks at 3+ to hit, striking first, instant death on 2+ (strength 8), no armour saves, no invulnerable saves, no FnP.

Basically an auto-win against anything short of insane combat monsters like the solitaire or the nightbringer, and the nightbringer would be puckering up on the charge.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/10 12:42:17


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






A.T. wrote:
 Jayden63 wrote:
His hidden secret was the dread axe. He killed anything he touched, just like a good Daemon Prince should.
I remember the dread axe prince.
6+ attacks at 3+ to hit, striking first, instant death on 2+ (strength 8), no armour saves, no invulnerable saves, no FnP.

Basically an auto-win against anything short of insane combat monsters like the solitaire or the nightbringer, and the nightbringer would be puckering up on the charge.
Yeah, but once he was a Daemon Prince he was also an MC, so you could shoot the f***er.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

A.T. wrote:
 Jayden63 wrote:
His hidden secret was the dread axe. He killed anything he touched, just like a good Daemon Prince should.
I remember the dread axe prince.
6+ attacks at 3+ to hit, striking first, instant death on 2+ (strength 8), no armour saves, no invulnerable saves, no FnP.

Basically an auto-win against anything short of insane combat monsters like the solitaire or the nightbringer, and the nightbringer would be puckering up on the charge.

Exactly what combination of upgrades are you using for this build? I'm guessing: Mark of Slaanesh + Daemonic Mutation + Daemonic Strength + Daemonic Stature + Furious Charge + Combat Drugs + Dreadaxe and CC weapon. Is that correct?
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Exactly what combination of upgrades are you using for this build? I'm guessing: Mark of Slaanesh + Daemonic Mutation + Daemonic Strength + Daemonic Stature + Furious Charge + Combat Drugs + Dreadaxe and CC weapon. Is that correct?
I'd skipped the mutation in this particular instance, the points were starting to add up and it's just a gimmick build anyway.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

A.T. wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Exactly what combination of upgrades are you using for this build? I'm guessing: Mark of Slaanesh + Daemonic Mutation + Daemonic Strength + Daemonic Stature + Furious Charge + Combat Drugs + Dreadaxe and CC weapon. Is that correct?
I'd skipped the mutation in this particular instance, the points were starting to add up and it's just a gimmick build anyway.

Agreed. It's essentially a "spikey distraction Carnifex". Skipping Daemonic Mutation would at least leave some points for a mobility or durability upgrade though. Otherwise you'd have a footslogging MC with 3 T5 3+ wounds, and a very expensive one at that. I always preferred a less expensive HQ backed up by some Chosen myself. With jump packs, of course.
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Agreed. It's essentially a "spikey distraction Carnifex"
More of a 6-7th edition d-strength attacking, demon summoning deathstar precursor, but with access to a better invisibility spell :p

Total overkill though. I'm kind of curious now on how a 3.5 prince without wargear limits would have performed in the old apoc environment, some kind of ludicrous unkillable 500pt monstrosity performing sweeping advances between titans.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




St. George, UT

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
A.T. wrote:
 Jayden63 wrote:
His hidden secret was the dread axe. He killed anything he touched, just like a good Daemon Prince should.
I remember the dread axe prince.
6+ attacks at 3+ to hit, striking first, instant death on 2+ (strength 8), no armour saves, no invulnerable saves, no FnP.

Basically an auto-win against anything short of insane combat monsters like the solitaire or the nightbringer, and the nightbringer would be puckering up on the charge.

Exactly what combination of upgrades are you using for this build? I'm guessing: Mark of Slaanesh + Daemonic Mutation + Daemonic Strength + Daemonic Stature + Furious Charge + Combat Drugs + Dreadaxe and CC weapon. Is that correct?


I didn't go for the S8 myself. So, his build was MOS, Stature, Mutation, Strength, Aura, Flight, Dread Axe, CCW. Clocks in at 172 points. He got where he needed to go, and his favorite snack was assault terminators.

But the real hidden star of my army was the biker asp champ. Chaos bike, MOS, strength, mutation, lightning claw, skilled rider. People just didn't expect my bikers to blast through cover and assault. The champ had five attacks on the charge at S5 with rerolls to wound at effective I5. The bikes came out to almost 50 points each but with their ability to hit first, they made their points back easily.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/10 19:15:40


See pics of my Orks, Tau, Emperor's Children, Necrons, Space Wolves, and Dark Eldar here:


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: