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 recently picked up my old 5th edition Ork codex and immediately flashed back to the Assault on Black Reach days where my charge range wasn't random and vehicles could get completely crippled without dying. I was wondering whether any other people had memories of 5th edition that made them like it better than the current one. So any thoughts about which people like more and why are welcome here.

I personally love 7th edition. My ONLY complaint is charging, the randomness there takes out the feeling of calculating a strike strategically and rather just hoping. Assault could use the stability I wish it was not random and was known like in previous editions. I am a huge fan of the psychic phase, new codices, units, and overall balance. Just waiting for them to finish up the codices for this edition - I think it is solid.

All in all, I enjoy(ed) both editions.

Neither. 2nd (with a few rules changes) is the only edition worth playing.

5th had a few flaws, but none of them as problematic as what is endemic in 7th

Indestructible vehicles
Crappy psykers
Grey Knights Draigowing/Purifier spam

All in all, I found games to be more balanced, and my group had more fun in 5ths lifecycle. That being said, 5th had exceptionally bland codexes and across the board bad internal balance. I'd say half of the 6th/7th codexes also have bad internal balance, but there's still been marked improvement in that category.

7th, however, has a legion of problems that'd make the Alpha Legion jealous;

Overpowered psykers en-masse
Massive imbalance between codexes
Overnerfed assault
Unrestricted Lords of War
Detachment shenanigans
Major price creep on rules (Codex, codex-priced supplement, dataslates, all for things older codexes had together, hooray!)
Decrease in army customization. 7th specific codexes remove all capacity to change force-org role for units based on special characters or HQ types to represent certain kinds of armies in an effort to force you to play Unbound. This actually, in my mind, puts it *below 5th for customization, which was bland as bland could bland.

There's also a few problems which have persisted since 5th, which ought to be addressed;

Kill points as a game mechanic
Primacy of cover saves
AP creep; honestly, who gets an armour save these days?
Lackluster rules for iconic models; terminators, tactical marines, everything Tyranid, Howling Banshees, Thousand Sons (and other cult troops aside from Plague Marines) etc
Lack of customization. Only Space Marines get selectable army-wide special rules to represent sub-factions.


To me, 5th had structural problems in the way of an otherwise fun game. 7th is a menagerie of chaos, poorly thought-out or executed ideas, bad mechanics and rules bloat of the highest order, it is functionally, structurally, mechanically and thematically broken, and is enjoyable only through concerted effort between players.

 Ulverus wrote:
I personally love 7th edition. My ONLY complaint is charging, the randomness there takes out the feeling of calculating a strike strategically and rather just hoping. Assault could use the stability I wish it was not random and was known like in previous editions. I am a huge fan of the psychic phase, new codices, units, and overall balance. Just waiting for them to finish up the codices for this edition - I think it is solid.

All in all, I enjoy(ed) both editions.

For the charging they should make your charge range based on race. Like Nids and Orks have 8 inch range and tau have 4 inch range or something... And I'm also a fan of no random wound allocation and no Overwatch but that's just my two cents and probably because I'm an ork player

 MajorStoffer wrote:
5th had a few flaws, but none of them as problematic as what is endemic in 7th


Kill points as a game mechanic
Primacy of cover saves
AP creep; honestly, who gets an armour save these days?
Lackluster rules for iconic models; terminators, tactical marines, everything Tyranid, Howling Banshees, Thousand Sons (and other cult troops aside from Plague Marines) etc

I agree with you here.

1. I don't like kill points, even though it benefits my army greatly.

2. Rather annoying but not a dealbreaker for me.

3. I find this one to be extremely annoying. Most armies have numerous ways to acquire low AP weaponry. It makes my armored men feel against the odds sometimes, like you don't have to pour firepower into them anymore but ah well.

4. Some models have nice rules though I wish they were consistent enough in each codex to make a lot of the iconic models viable choices. It seems they have been gutting the characters - removing stuff and such but not giving them anything in return. Speaking for my Grey Knights, Draigo is the only named character I'd take. Crowe has a cool daemon sword in the lore and is of the purest faith but it isn't really reflected on the board (his sword is like a regular piece of steel). A lot of the units are not customizable enough to do more than a few tasks but I guess that is why we have many units to choose from.

 Waaagh 18 wrote:

 Ulverus wrote:
I personally love 7th edition. My ONLY complaint is charging, the randomness there takes out the feeling of calculating a strike strategically and rather just hoping. Assault could use the stability I wish it was not random and was known like in previous editions. I am a huge fan of the psychic phase, new codices, units, and overall balance. Just waiting for them to finish up the codices for this edition - I think it is solid.

All in all, I enjoy(ed) both editions.

For the charging they should make your charge range based on race. Like Nids and Orks have 8 inch range and tau have 4 inch range or something... And I'm also a fan of no random wound allocation and no Overwatch but that's just my two cents and probably because I'm an ork player

I suppose I wouldn't mind this, or perhaps even on a per unit deal. That may be another area that would annoy us and make us want to revert based on the results though, who knows. At least you can count on those numbers instead of it being another random factor to take into account.

Well, the 7th ed is definitely the best edition so far.
The rule set is more complete than it was before.
However, it messes up some things which basicallly
is a concern for competitive play. But as 40k isn't
meant for competitive play as GW said its fine for them.

 wuestenfux wrote:
The rule set is more complete than it was before.

Is it? Then, tell me more about jumping off terrain, building levels, forests and hills. Or, what if I line up my guys across your table edge and you have infantry in reserves, what happens when your guys come in? You can't move onto the table, because my guys are blocking you, so what happens?

(For those of you wondering; yes, these things were all covered i previous editions of the game.)

 wuestenfux wrote:
However, it messes up some things which basicallly
is a concern for competitive play. But as 40k isn't
meant for competitive play as GW said its fine for them.

I don't know how to break it to you, pal, but in the rules book, where it tells you how the game works, it is laid out how a game goes from beginning to end and distinguishes the winner from the loser. Which is pretty much the definition of competitive.

Also, I keep reading that GW has supposedly said that "40k isn't meant for competitive play." Ignoring how this is clearly nonsensical (see: the rules), where have they actually said that? Because I've been playing this game for a while now, and I remember not only GW hosting tournaments (which they still do, btw), but also hyping these tournaments in White Dwarf (including publishing scoreboards, interviewing the winner, etc) and even having staff tournaments (including the studio guys (Phil Kelly always did well with his Eldar)) which were always very important for bragging rights. There would always be an article about the winner and his army in the following WD, where he'd give an overview of his tactics and how he went on to win the tournament. I can think of two people (Alessio Cavatore and Tuomas Piirinen) who got hired to the Design Studio after getting their foot in the door through attending tournaments at WHW.

I think 5th was a vastly better system.

It had it's problems - glancing hits were too weak, wound allocation was a problem for a few units, you could kill models out of LoS of the weapon etc.

However, it was close to becoming an excellent tactical game. The randomness (outside of the standard combat rolls), was pretty minimal. Whilst shooting had the edge, combat still had useful roles - whether massed AP2 or the ability to ignore the prolific cover saves. Also, the scoring system (if a little arbitrary) meant that troops had a vital purpose in any army - and so made them more than just a tax for most armies. Whilst not perfect, 5th was quite well balanced, and player actions felt important to whether you won or lost a game.

Then we move to 7th. What's that? You want your actions to be important? Well tough - here, eat this massive barrel of Random! Oh, did you feel that psychic powers were too predictable? Well, now you can random your powers, then we have an entire phase - where you get a random number of random dice, which you can throw to try and cast your powers. If you randomly score enough random, your power succeeds. But, your opponent can also spend his random to try and dispel your random, by getting at least as much random as you did to cast your power. Also, beware that if you roll too much random, your psyker might have to randomly roll on the perils of the warp random table, potentially suffering some unfortunate effects.

Oh, and we also have a system based around random objectives and, God help us, random victory points. Why don't we just flip a coin to see who wins, and save having to make any tactical decisions at all?

But, even aside from all the random, there's just so much crap these days. Allies was horribly implemented, and remains nothing more than a way to combine the most broken elements of 2 armies, into one overwhelmingly broken one. Fliers are even worse, because their mechanics are a load of nonsense, and GW thinks that any anti-air weapons must either cost 10 times what they're worth, or be useless against anything else (just like a meltagun is crap against anything that isn't a vehicle... oh, wait ). Most CC weapons got stripped of AP2, whilst shooting weapons continued to be buffed - including a slew of ignores cover stuff and AP2, thereby eliminating the two main reasons to seek melee in the first place.

Also, were you worried that only a few units could abuse the 5th edition wound-allocation rules? Well, don't worry - now all you need is a character and you're set (sure - it's perfectly reasonable for one guy to absorb every wound from a large blast or flamer template ). And, even if you don't manage to abuse the system, you can still waste everybody's time trying to. See, you'd think in GW's endless attempt to scale up 40k, they might at least make larger games easier to manage. HAHAHA, as if. No, now we have the delight of micro-managing every single bloody man in every single bloody unit. Oh, and the above mechanic frequently requires that large numbers of saves be rolled individually. Fantastic. My greatest worry was that I wasn't wasting enough time in the wound-allocation part, so thanks for rectifying that, GW.

And why do we have so many useless special rules? Did the game really need Blind? I don't think I've seen it happen once. And we even have special rules that do nothing but give the model two different named special rules. Why? What's the point? Why does every single rule need a stupid, pretentious name - no matter how rarely it's used? On the other end of the scale, why did Fear need to exist at all, let alone have a spot on anyone Warlord table? And why are warlord tables even random? It's rather hard to forge the narrative when my commander apparently can't remember what he's good at.

I think it would be fair to say that 7th edition irritates me a bit.

4th

5th was fine, it just needed a fix on vehicles.

Definitely 5th.

The issues 5th had were fewer than the current edition, and the gameplay was so much quicker and refined.

I felt like the change to 6th and continuation into 7th was a significant step backwards.

5th all the way.

Apart from the exact same issues most people seem to have had with 5th, it was just a better edition imo. The poor baby went out with the bath water!

 vipoid wrote:
I think 5th was a vastly better system.

It had it's problems - glancing hits were too weak, wound allocation was a problem for a few units, you could kill models out of LoS of the weapon etc.

However, it was close to becoming an excellent tactical game. The randomness (outside of the standard combat rolls), was pretty minimal. Whilst shooting had the edge, combat still had useful roles - whether massed AP2 or the ability to ignore the prolific cover saves. Also, the scoring system (if a little arbitrary) meant that troops had a vital purpose in any army - and so made them more than just a tax for most armies. Whilst not perfect, 5th was quite well balanced, and player actions felt important to whether you won or lost a game.

Then we move to 7th. What's that? You want your actions to be important? Well tough - here, eat this massive barrel of Random! Oh, did you feel that psychic powers were too predictable? Well, now you can random your powers, then we have an entire phase - where you get a random number of random dice, which you can throw to try and cast your powers. If you randomly score enough random, your power succeeds. But, your opponent can also spend his random to try and dispel your random, by getting at least as much random as you did to cast your power. Also, beware that if you roll too much random, your psyker might have to randomly roll on the perils of the warp random table, potentially suffering some unfortunate effects.

Oh, and we also have a system based around random objectives and, God help us, random victory points. Why don't we just flip a coin to see who wins, and save having to make any tactical decisions at all?

But, even aside from all the random, there's just so much crap these days. Allies was horribly implemented, and remains nothing more than a way to combine the most broken elements of 2 armies, into one overwhelmingly broken one. Fliers are even worse, because their mechanics are a load of nonsense, and GW thinks that any anti-air weapons must either cost 10 times what they're worth, or be useless against anything else (just like a meltagun is crap against anything that isn't a vehicle... oh, wait ). Most CC weapons got stripped of AP2, whilst shooting weapons continued to be buffed - including a slew of ignores cover stuff and AP2, thereby eliminating the two main reasons to seek melee in the first place.

Also, were you worried that only a few units could abuse the 5th edition wound-allocation rules? Well, don't worry - now all you need is a character and you're set (sure - it's perfectly reasonable for one guy to absorb every wound from a large blast or flamer template ). And, even if you don't manage to abuse the system, you can still waste everybody's time trying to. See, you'd think in GW's endless attempt to scale up 40k, they might at least make larger games easier to manage. HAHAHA, as if. No, now we have the delight of micro-managing every single bloody man in every single bloody unit. Oh, and the above mechanic frequently requires that large numbers of saves be rolled individually. Fantastic. My greatest worry was that I wasn't wasting enough time in the wound-allocation part, so thanks for rectifying that, GW.

And why do we have so many useless special rules? Did the game really need Blind? I don't think I've seen it happen once. And we even have special rules that do nothing but give the model two different named special rules. Why? What's the point? Why does every single rule need a stupid, pretentious name - no matter how rarely it's used? On the other end of the scale, why did Fear need to exist at all, let alone have a spot on anyone Warlord table? And why are warlord tables even random? It's rather hard to forge the narrative when my commander apparently can't remember what he's good at.

I think it would be fair to say that 7th edition irritates me a bit.

Have every exalt in the world ever. Seriously. I could not have said it better myself.

 vipoid wrote:

Spoiler:

I think 5th was a vastly better system.

It had it's problems - glancing hits were too weak, wound allocation was a problem for a few units, you could kill models out of LoS of the weapon etc.

However, it was close to becoming an excellent tactical game. The randomness (outside of the standard combat rolls), was pretty minimal. Whilst shooting had the edge, combat still had useful roles - whether massed AP2 or the ability to ignore the prolific cover saves. Also, the scoring system (if a little arbitrary) meant that troops had a vital purpose in any army - and so made them more than just a tax for most armies. Whilst not perfect, 5th was quite well balanced, and player actions felt important to whether you won or lost a game.

Then we move to 7th. What's that? You want your actions to be important? Well tough - here, eat this massive barrel of Random! Oh, did you feel that psychic powers were too predictable? Well, now you can random your powers, then we have an entire phase - where you get a random number of random dice, which you can throw to try and cast your powers. If you randomly score enough random, your power succeeds. But, your opponent can also spend his random to try and dispel your random, by getting at least as much random as you did to cast your power. Also, beware that if you roll too much random, your psyker might have to randomly roll on the perils of the warp random table, potentially suffering some unfortunate effects.

Oh, and we also have a system based around random objectives and, God help us, random victory points. Why don't we just flip a coin to see who wins, and save having to make any tactical decisions at all?

But, even aside from all the random, there's just so much crap these days. Allies was horribly implemented, and remains nothing more than a way to combine the most broken elements of 2 armies, into one overwhelmingly broken one. Fliers are even worse, because their mechanics are a load of nonsense, and GW thinks that any anti-air weapons must either cost 10 times what they're worth, or be useless against anything else (just like a meltagun is crap against anything that isn't a vehicle... oh, wait ). Most CC weapons got stripped of AP2, whilst shooting weapons continued to be buffed - including a slew of ignores cover stuff and AP2, thereby eliminating the two main reasons to seek melee in the first place.

Also, were you worried that only a few units could abuse the 5th edition wound-allocation rules? Well, don't worry - now all you need is a character and you're set (sure - it's perfectly reasonable for one guy to absorb every wound from a large blast or flamer template ). And, even if you don't manage to abuse the system, you can still waste everybody's time trying to. See, you'd think in GW's endless attempt to scale up 40k, they might at least make larger games easier to manage. HAHAHA, as if. No, now we have the delight of micro-managing every single bloody man in every single bloody unit. Oh, and the above mechanic frequently requires that large numbers of saves be rolled individually. Fantastic. My greatest worry was that I wasn't wasting enough time in the wound-allocation part, so thanks for rectifying that, GW.

And why do we have so many useless special rules? Did the game really need Blind? I don't think I've seen it happen once. And we even have special rules that do nothing but give the model two different named special rules. Why? What's the point? Why does every single rule need a stupid, pretentious name - no matter how rarely it's used? On the other end of the scale, why did Fear need to exist at all, let alone have a spot on anyone Warlord table? And why are warlord tables even random? It's rather hard to forge the narrative when my commander apparently can't remember what he's good at.

I think it would be fair to say that 7th edition irritates me a bit.

What do I say to this?




5th only had a few niggling flaws IMO. People always cite the wound allocation shenanigans, but lets be honest; it could only be used and abused by a handful of units. Nobz, Nob Bikers, GK Paladins, Thunderwolf Cav. and Bloodcrushers. It could be abused to lesser extent by Wolf Guard and Deathwing Termies but not as much as they only had one wound apiece. So, that's what? 7 units out of the hundreds in 40k.

Fix this, the kill points (just go back to victory points or something) and tweak the vehicle rules and you've got a great edition of 40k. What does GW do? They throw the baby out with the bathwater and we got this abomination we're stuck with.

Meh, There is no such thing as a perfect edition. I prefer more realism in my game which leads much closer to 7th edition than it did in 5th.
Most players like the edition that had the exploits they preferred the most and you can see this in the posts of the most vocal posters (regardless of which edition they prefer).
As I said, 7th has more realism so I like it better. Not that I'm saying it is better or anything like that (after all, it is a purely opinion based issue), just that I prefer it and why.

 vipoid wrote:
(A lot of stuff I completely agree with)

What he said! Basically exactly what I was thinking. I think there may have been a handful of ideas I liked in 6th edition that weren't in fifth, but far, far more stuff I wasn't fond of. And what I've read and heard about 7th... yeah no. No thanks.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Meh, There is no such thing as a perfect edition. I prefer more realism in my game which leads much closer to 7th edition than it did in 5th.
Most players like the edition that had the exploits they preferred the most and you can see this in the posts of the most vocal posters (regardless of which edition they prefer).
As I said, 7th has more realism so I like it better. Not that I'm saying it is better or anything like that (after all, it is a purely opinion based issue), just that I prefer it and why.

How is 7th ed more realistic than 5th?

Well for starters, there is overwatch. I honestly dont see a bunch of guys sitting there raising their guns to fire and the "sarge" telling them to put them down because it isnt their turn.
Likewise assaulting and just running rampant through an entire army by consolidating from one combat to another without getting shot at.
Those are two of the biggies. Of course, not I did not say 7th was perfect or that it was 100% realistic. Just that it was more realistic.
Of course, your going to have a lot of players calling out their favorite editions and citing different rules. primarily, these rules will orient about brokenness and ability to exploit them for wins.
Myself, I'm more worried about enjoying myself win or lose and one of the ways I enjoy myself is through ealist play of what "would" actually happen. This brings it home to me more and makes it less like random dice results.
Like I said though, it is a purely opinion based question and your going to have a load of people giving their opinions. The question is, is this thread going to be flooded with arguments about whose opinion is right or wrong or are members going to accept that we are ALL right based on our own opinion and perspective? Even more important, is it going to be flooded with flames where members are told they are wrong and outshouted?
I posted my opinion and only replied again to clarify myself because you asked specifically. Others look at different aspects and see different aspects as more or less realistic. I was just saying why "I" found it more realistic.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Well for starters, there is overwatch. I honestly dont see a bunch of guys sitting there raising their guns to fire and the "sarge" telling them to put them down because it isnt their turn.

I'm not really seeing how this is any more realistic... You could as easily argue that it's unrealistic that only the unit being charged gets to shoot. Or that it's unrealistic that a unit can magically shoot twice as fast as everyone else just because an enemy unit is running towards them... But only if the enemy unit declares their intention to hit them with a pointy stock. Any other unit running toward them is ignored...

Likewise assaulting and just running rampant through an entire army by consolidating from one combat to another without getting shot at

.
That wasn't possible in 5th either. As far as I can recall, it hasn't been the case since 3rd edition

Thats why it is purely ppinion based. it keeps me from telling you your opinion is wrong and should keep you from telling me mine is wrong. of course, that never stops it from happening here (not to say you in particuler) because it happens all the time. It still doesnt make any one opinion right or wrong since it is purely subjective.
3rd, 4th 5th, whatever, it just reinforces to me that there is no perfect edition and which is "better" is based purely upon who is making the statement with no one being wrong as based purely on our own specifications, we are all "right" to ourselves.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Well for starters, there is overwatch. I honestly dont see a bunch of guys sitting there raising their guns to fire and the "sarge" telling them to put them down because it isnt their turn.
Likewise assaulting and just running rampant through an entire army by consolidating from one combat to another without getting shot at.

I can see how you feel that way, but personally I don't really see it as being more realistic because the game is massively abstracted in to the turn based system anyway. Even without overwatch, units will typically get several attempts to shoot an enemy unit before it charges, it's not like they're just standing there going "oh wells, we are being charged, best just sit here and wait", I picture all the turns prior to being charged as being the unit's attempt to subvert the chargers.

Especially since you can't assault from reserves and what not anyway, so you're always going to have at least 1 chance to shoot at an enemy unit before it charges. I think it's highly unrealistic that a Lictor would get shot not once but twice before it gets in to combat.

Overwatch where you forego shooting in your turn in order to shoot in the opponent's turn is something I'd prefer to see, though it would have to be managed differently (you'd have to be able to fire with more effect than just snap shooting, but not so much effect that you spend the whole game on overwatch playing the waiting game).

But either way, I don't really care all that much about realism because the game is so horribly unrealistic anyway. If you made it realistic it would lose a lot of the 40k feel (assaulting enemy units in close combat even though you have guns to shoot them is not realistic... but it's core to the whole concept of 40k, so the rules need to be unrealistic to capture that feel).

What I do care about is which makes for a better game, and I tend to think 5th made for a better game. But the frustrating thing is that almost all editions are just a few small changes from something good, but GW are too stupid to actually fix an edition and instead just release a new edition with it's own problem.

By far my favourite edition is 2nd edition, was it perfect? Nope, it had huge gaping problems... but those problems could be fixed and once they were fixed it could be a solid game. Instead they flushed it down the toilet and released 3rd, and for the past 16 years we've been having updates which shuffle the rules around but still don't fix the problems and still don't fix the poorly worded rules. 7th still doesn't properly explain how cover from intervening models works... just like 6th didn't.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Thats why it is purely ppinion based. it keeps me from telling you your opinion is wrong and should keep you from telling me mine is wrong. of course, that never stops it from happening here (not to say you in particuler) because it happens all the time. It still doesnt make any one opinion right or wrong since it is purely subjective.

Well of course it's opinion-based. That's what the vast majority of discussion is.

Asking you to explain your opinion is not telling you your opinion is wrong. Nor is disagreeing with it.

3rd, 4th 5th, whatever, it just reinforces to me that there is no perfect edition and which is "better" is based purely upon who is making the statement with no one being wrong as based purely on our own specifications, we are all "right" to ourselves.

Except the question asked was about 5th vs 7th. Suggesting that 7th is more realistic than 5th because of a rule that hasn't existed since 3rd is a little odd.

Wellll, we dont agree on overwatch and thats fine so long as you respect my right to my opinion.
I most definately agree with you on the turn based thing. I much prefer the idea of taking turns with units which would make it a lot better (I think) in terms of interaction and reactions of units. The DUST idea seems to work for me in turns of taking turns by unit and units have the option to react to an encroaching unit provided they have not already "acted" for the overall turn.

I think GW goes overboard on stuff. They get feedback that something was too good or too bad and they slingshot it the other way instead of taking a more "gentle" approach and finding the happy middle.
Personally, I am also fond of the RT system. Not because of balance or anything like that but because it was what we had before it started getting competetive (well a lot earlier on the road we are currently on in that regard).

I have a hard time thinking of something 7th added or changed that is more realistic than 5th.

Wound allocation, vehicle mechanics, flyers, random traits and powers, and random maelstrom objectives all strike me as being far less realistic than how 5th handled those issues.

I can see an argument made for removing models from the front, but then mechanics like LoS and losing your special/heavy weapons run counter to that realism feel.

 Blacksails wrote:
I can see an argument made for removing models from the front, but then mechanics like LoS and losing your special/heavy weapons run counter to that realism feel.

Having the guy closest to the enemy always be the one to take the hit is not even remotely realistic.

And yes, adding in Look Out Sir so that the guy at the front is always the one to take the hit unless he's not wearing a helmet just makes it even worse.

Oh, I agree, I'm just saying casualties from front is the only thing I could see someone even attempt to argue a realism aspect.

Not to mention the clunkyness in gameplay it causes compared to casualties from wherever you wanted.

I vote for 4th edition.

Without a doubt, 5th.

I'm continually surprised at that, considering the legion of issues 5E had, but 7th is a mess. The Skimmer vs Non-Skimmer gap is back in tremendous force, tabletop forces often have little or no organization to them, it's near impossible to look at an army on a table and know what it actually is half the time (e.g. "well, this is a Battleforged 3 detachement army with allies...), continually more and more special rules (often simply for the sake of having more special rules), and an ever more confusing sense of scale in general.

5E had it's issues, for sure. Wound Allocation, Kill Points, issues with cheap transports (nobody thought gun-tanks were an issue in 5E, it was the 35pt Rhinos), and more. There were very glaring issues with 5th, which at the time seemed huge and were very irritating indeed.

But it played much faster, much easier, and was way more organized.


I like that 6th and 7th have opened up the game a bit more, but this was done basically by throwing everything and the kitchen sink in without any sort of plan or coherency and by introducing as many unnecessary external (and often random) elements as possible. 5th edition was just a better game to sit down and play.

I think this is why we all have so many arguments. Members post their opinions and views as facts. Then the instant someone else has a different opinion or view, they are attacked with no acknowledgement that they have a right to have and express their opinions.
In these threads, we are ALL correct as it is a purely personal question based on opinions and private views.