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.

It's funny I was writing up some 1,000pts 2nd Ed armies last night - I think 2nd Ed was great (but took an age and had obvious flaws) and it depends on what you have in your army to how points have depreciated over time. For example the Chaos army I wrote consists of:

Kharn - 217
3 Terminators - 151 + 40-45 for weapons
8 Khorne Berzerkers with Chainswords/Chainaxes - 297
8 Bloodletters - 280

The equivalent for those today would be around 650-700 - if you maxed them out. As an aside WD and Codex Books have gone up 100% and models from between 50-150% since the mid-90's - and the average Trooper has gone down by 20-50% in points costs on average - and you need more of them because the missions pretty much require it. I hate the objective system in 5th Ed with a passion - 2nd Ed had better missions for me. Personally I really like small games - 400-1,000pts are great as it cuts down on cheese and you can play within a 4x4 space pretty easily.

-Loki- wrote:

RatBot wrote:

frenrik wrote:Comparing points from 2nd ed to 3rd+ is is unfair, since the whole point structure was changed.

It's true that the point structure changed, but the point is still valid; what was a 2000 point Space Marine in 2nd edition wasn't one in third and certainly isn't now; if it's still legal, it's going to require a few new units to get up to 2000 points.

There's still a problem with this - the game was balanced for 2000 points in 2nd edition, and along with points restructuring, 3rd edition was rebalanced for 1500 points. While units got cheaper, the ideal size to play the game at dropped by a quarter as well.

Yup, you took the words right out of my mouth. I seem to remember in a WD when 3rd edition was releasing that Chambers and Thorpe co-authored an aritcle about the focus on the game was to simplify army selection, combat and shooting rules, streamline it, and in the midst of this, it was then re-developed for the 1500 point scope.

I know that GW has ran several tournaments a the 2000+ points level, but they are only doing that at the behest of the gamers. I can remember, and i think two of the griffons on my wall come from 1500 point RTTs. I have also played in several 1750+ point games, but even then, this point value is reserved for larger games an "bigger" tournament play. It isnt normally wasnt used for local tournaments and that point size was considered a big game in 40k in 3rd edition, and still kind of is today.

Polonius wrote:You are confusing the words "no" with "not enough to my liking."

Missions that are balanced amongst each other. Missions that shape list construction. Decently balanced army books.

All of those are aspects of the game that show at least some focus on competitive play.

You seem to be fixating on after support, rather than internal construction.

No one constructs a game with tournament play in mind that includes a rule "Hey if it's not covered, roll a die."

People can argue all day about the quality of the rules, but if Magic the Gathering, Yu-Gi-Oh or any of the other games with highly competitive tournament scenes had a rule that said "Flip a coin if you disagree with your opponent", I guarantee they'd not be as big as they are.

So... we're still trying to argue against the strawman that 40k is actually a good tournament game?

Well... keep up the fight on that. I'm sure someday you'll find somebody to actually make that argument.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

Polonius wrote:You are confusing the words "no" with "not enough to my liking."

Missions that are balanced amongst each other. Missions that shape list construction. Decently balanced army books.

All of those are aspects of the game that show at least some focus on competitive play.

You seem to be fixating on after support, rather than internal construction.

No one constructs a game with tournament play in mind that includes a rule "Hey if it's not covered, roll a die."

People can argue all day about the quality of the rules, but if Magic the Gathering, Yu-Gi-Oh or any of the other games with highly competitive tournament scenes had a rule that said "Flip a coin if you disagree with your opponent", I guarantee they'd not be as big as they are.

Which, to my mind, is exactly why warhammer 40k should never have a pro tour. Games like magic the gathering, and its younger off shoot bastard cousins, survive on a competitive environment because of a few reasons:

Tournaments are readily accessible. if you want to play in a game of warhammer, its take set up time. if you want to play in a warhammer tournament, its a two, and sometimes three day event, but if you want to play in a magic tournament, you can go play in one every Friday night, and most of the time on Saturdays or Sundays, or even both sometimes.

The comprehensive rules for Magic The Gathering are well over 200+ pages if you printed it out and indexed it. That doesn't even include the DCI rules, which determine everything else OUTSIDE of the game, like cheating, penalties, expectations of players, so on and so forth. Those rules are written to be as functional as possible, and maintain a professional decorum when playing the game on a competitive level.

and my last point: no where in the rule book for Magic that the most important point of any game is to make sure your opponent and yourself have fun. No where does it say that players should police themselves as to what is "beardy" and what isn't. Magic is not intended for both players to enjoy the game, its intended for the winner to enjoy the game, and that leads me to the final point that is directly related to this. Magic wasn't primarily designed to be a tournament game, but it has transformed itself to a tournament format because of the strict and rigidity rules for every step of the turn (i mean, 30+ layers for state based effects, REALLY??!!) and it translates well to tournaments. for that reason, most players today don't play unless their playing in a tournament. its just not worth it.

Its also for that reason that i have to kind of laugh at the concept of playing "competitive" 40k. In my mind, its min/maxing, and depending on the fluff for the army, its just downright beardy. I don't really have a problem with people that play stuff like that, either i win or i don't, but unlike magic, if i want to keep playing warhammer, i don't have to define my warhammer experience with winning tournaments, as the game mostly caters to a casual crowd. In magic, you almost have to.

as a DCI player that held and still holds a 1922 player rating (prior to switch over) i am no stranger to competitive magic, and i like the game for a competitive game, because of the clarity and that everything has a clear answer.

Warhammer is a miniatures game. it relies on human input to determine how stuff works, something magic doesnt do. magic cards will never ask the player to check line of sight, and they will never ask them if the range of a bolter is measured from the tip of the bolter, or the edge of the base. Rules in magic are very focused, and while humans do choose when and how to play the cards, every card will work like a computer program, it will respond in a well defined manner with little to no human based changes to how they play.

warhammer is a social game. pure and simple. to have the most fun out of warhammer, it requires two players playing a game and having fun with it. play only competitive, and people will stop playing you unless you have strictly a competitive list. i dont have to have friends that i can set up games for 2+ hours on a saturday to play warhammer, i can always go play in a tournament.

in short, magic is a great tournament game because its less social, not more. if that makes any sense.

Polonius wrote:So... we're still trying to argue against the strawman that 40k is actually a good tournament game?

Well... keep up the fight on that. I'm sure someday you'll find somebody to actually make that argument.

I never said anyone said that. I think you just double-strawmanned.

You said 40K was designed with a tournament focus. No one designs a game with a tournament focus that tells you to flip a coin whenever the rules don't cover something.

Well, i was responding to the thread in general, not just to you.

As for my statements:

Polonius wrote:
Oh, 40k clearly isn't a great tournament game (it take too long, if nothing else).

But it's neither as bad as it was, nor as bad as people claim.

it's not like Magic doesn't have (or had, I'm out of the loop) extensive errata and FAQs, they just keep them official and timely updated.

Comp no longer exists as a pervasive element in all tournaments, and doesn't exist at all in many of them.

While I gladly agree that there are better competitive games, and games that are truly designed "from the ground up" for competitive play, it's a gross exaggeration to say that there is zero tournament focus in 5th edition 40k.

Polonius wrote:You are confusing the words "no" with "not enough to my liking."

Missions that are balanced amongst each other. Missions that shape list construction. Decently balanced army books.

All of those are aspects of the game that show at least some focus on competitive play.
You seem to be fixating on after support, rather than internal construction.

I think show that I'm advocating the position that there is at least some awareness, by GW, that there is tournament play, and changes have been made in the game to accomdate it.

Your argument seems to be that because there are some rules ambiguity (a relatively small amount in practice, in fact), that shows zero tournament focus. Which ignores the possibility that a game could be poorly designed for tournament play.

The Kansas City Royals are a terrible Major League team... they do nearly everything wrong a clubshould do in constructing a team. That doesn't mean they're still not trying to focus on winning, even if only a little bit.

I think part of it is confusion over focus. I shouldn't have used that word. I should have said that GW clearly has at least made an effort to improve competitive play, in both the core rules and codexes. Focus does imply a main area of concern, and I'd agree that competitive play is not GW's main concern. But there is at least some effort and improvement attempted and shown.

Sc077y wrote:The comprehensive rules for Magic The Gathering are well over 200+ pages if you printed it out and indexed it. That doesn't even include the DCI rules, which determine everything else OUTSIDE of the game, like cheating, penalties, expectations of players, so on and so forth. Those rules are written to be as functional as possible, and maintain a professional decorum when playing the game on a competitive level.

This is true, but another thing to remember is that Magic (or really any CCG that is more than 1 or 2 expansions out) has a LOT more moving parts than Warhammer. In Magic we're up to 12,000 cards. A lot of them are vanilla, but there are also a lot of cards that do really bizarre effects. The nice thing about having 200+ pages of rules (most of which only need to be referenced very rarely) is that you always know how something plays out. It's not a guess, and it's certainly not a die roll.

If I can draw a comparison, the 40K rules are atrocious for clarity. They are not indexed well, things that should cross reference don't (Fearless and No Retreat, for example), and it feels like that "roll a die" clause is in their to cover them for it. I feel like you could add 10-20 pages to the 40K rules and cover most scenarios that could happen.

and my last point: no where in the rule book for Magic that the most important point of any game is to make sure your opponent and yourself have fun. No where does it say that players should police themselves as to what is "beardy" and what isn't. Magic is not intended for both players to enjoy the game, its intended for the winner to enjoy the game, and that leads me to the final point that is directly related to this. Magic wasn't primarily designed to be a tournament game, but it has transformed itself to a tournament format because of the strict and rigidity rules for every step of the turn (i mean, 30+ layers for state based effects, REALLY??!!) and it translates well to tournaments. for that reason, most players today don't play unless their playing in a tournament. its just not worth it.

This is wholly subjective. I played Magic back in the mid-late 90s pretty seriously. I played in tournaments often, along with the kitchen table. I quit around 99 and haven't touched the game until last year. Then one of my friends got me into the EDH/Commander format and I've been having a blast. I do not play tournaments. I win as often as I lose. But I have a really fun time doing it, and that is why I play it. And I have a whole 15+ strong playgroup at this point that feels the same. Just because a game has clear, concise rules does not mean it's not meant to be fun.

Its also for that reason that i have to kind of laugh at the concept of playing "competitive" 40k. In my mind, its min/maxing, and depending on the fluff for the army, its just downright beardy. I don't really have a problem with people that play stuff like that, either i win or i don't, but unlike magic, if i want to keep playing warhammer, i don't have to define my warhammer experience with winning tournaments, as the game mostly caters to a casual crowd. In magic, you almost have to.

I think any gaming experience is definied by what you want out of it. I play a lot of different CCGs along with both Warhammer games. I play every single one of these games for fun. While I do play tournaments for Warhammer and 40K, and also Legend of the Five Rings CCG, I don't do it to win prizes above enjoying myself. I just enjoy playing. Once you stop, it just becomes a job, and I already have one of those.

Warhammer is a miniatures game. it relies on human input to determine how stuff works, something magic doesnt do. magic cards will never ask the player to check line of sight, and they will never ask them if the range of a bolter is measured from the tip of the bolter, or the edge of the base. Rules in magic are very focused, and while humans do choose when and how to play the cards, every card will work like a computer program, it will respond in a well defined manner with little to no human based changes to how they play.

Warhammer COULD clarify these rules. It does not, which is again why it wasn't designed with any type of tournament focus.

warhammer is a social game. pure and simple. to have the most fun out of warhammer, it requires two players playing a game and having fun with it. play only competitive, and people will stop playing you unless you have strictly a competitive list. i dont have to have friends that i can set up games for 2+ hours on a saturday to play warhammer, i can always go play in a tournament.

in short, magic is a great tournament game because its less social, not more. if that makes any sense.

I know this is a broken record from me, but any game is what you get out of it. Whether you play to win, or play to socialize with friends, that is all you. (Not you specifically, just anyone.)

So now with all that out of the way, let me ask some questions of the forum:

1. Would Warhams (I'm just going to call them this, I'm referring to Fantasy and/or 40K) somehow be less fun if the rules were clearer?
2. Wouldn't it be easier to play and get new players to play if units had some sort of templating in their description rather than whatever word salad the author tossed out that day?
3. Do you feel Warhams are generally balanced by army? If not, would it make the games less fun to make an effort to balance power levels?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Well, i was responding to the thread in general, not just to you.

As for my statements:

I think show that I'm advocating the position that there is at least some awareness, by GW, that there is tournament play, and changes have been made in the game to accomdate it.

Could you present some examples? I am genuinely curious because to me, Warhams looks wholly designed to be played with beer and pretzels and fans have shoehorned it into competition.

Your argument seems to be that because there are some rules ambiguity (a relatively small amount in practice, in fact), that shows zero tournament focus. Which ignores the possibility that a game could be poorly designed for tournament play.

Eh, I think we disagree on the amount of ambiguity. But whatevs.

The Kansas City Royals are a terrible Major League team... they do nearly everything wrong a clubshould do in constructing a team. That doesn't mean they're still not trying to focus on winning, even if only a little bit.

This is a bad analogy. A better one would be if MLB as an organization instituted a rule that said if a coach disagree with an umpire's call, he could coinflip the opposing coach for the call. I think this would make baseball as a whole less competitive. Which is still not a great analogy because Baseball has pretty tight rules.

I think part of it is confusion over focus. I shouldn't have used that word. I should have said that GW clearly has at least made an effort to improve competitive play, in both the core rules and codexes. Focus does imply a main area of concern, and I'd agree that competitive play is not GW's main concern. But there is at least some effort and improvement attempted and shown.

I'm not seeing it.

I think that if you're not willing to either see the improved nature of 40k tournament play, or accept the statements of those that see it... you simply can't or won't see it.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but it seems that a big chunk of this thread has an idea for what a competetive game requires. Nobody has articulated that idea, which makes it hard to argue that 40k meets or doesn't meet the standard.

I've given many examples of ways the game has improved (better missions, better codices, more dynamic rules) and the response has been "but the rules still suck."

Which makes me laugh everytime I watch NFL football and see the inherent subjectivity of many penalty calls. Or, even better, the fact that nobody can succinctly define a legal completion.

Airtight rules are only necessary in non-umpired competition. It's very easy to start defining "competitive" so that it only includes track and field, chess, and weightlifitng.

Polonius wrote:I think that if you're not willing to either see the improved nature of 40k tournament play, or accept the statements of those that see it... you simply can't or won't see it.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but it seems that a big chunk of this thread has an idea for what a competetive game requires. Nobody has articulated that idea, which makes it hard to argue that 40k meets or doesn't meet the standard.

I've articulated it: it requires rules that can be interpreted without rolling a die. You may complain about sporting event calls by referees, but they are FOLLOWING A SET OF RULES.

I've given many examples of ways the game has improved (better missions, better codices, more dynamic rules) and the response has been "but the rules still suck."

All three examples you gave are subjective. I personally think (using 40K) that of the 3 BRB missions, two are alright, though the one with several objectives can be cheesed pretty easily by certain armies, and the one with 2 objectives (is is Seize Ground? I always mix the two up) is atrocious. I did not attend 'ard Boyz this year, but I heard people bitching about those scenarios sucking also this year.

Better codices is objective also. The fact that each one is followed by a several page FAQ seems to dispute that opinion.

At the end of the day, if they really wanted to make it "competitive", they'd simply write a tight BRB, and balance codices against each other. Maybe they will do it for 6th, but I have a feeling we'll end up with the same "roll a d6 lololol" nonsense, coupled with 2 codices per year with drastic power differences.

Which makes me laugh everytime I watch NFL football and see the inherent subjectivity of many penalty calls. Or, even better, the fact that nobody can succinctly define a legal completion.

Airtight rules are only necessary in non-umpired competition. It's very easy to start defining "competitive" so that it only includes track and field, chess, and weightlifitng.

"Competitive" equals clear rules. Clear rules. There, I am saying it as plainly as possible. Clear. Rules.

Polonius wrote:I think that if you're not willing to either see the improved nature of 40k tournament play, or accept the statements of those that see it... you simply can't or won't see it.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but it seems that a big chunk of this thread has an idea for what a competetive game requires. Nobody has articulated that idea, which makes it hard to argue that 40k meets or doesn't meet the standard.

I've given many examples of ways the game has improved (better missions, better codices, more dynamic rules) and the response has been "but the rules still suck."

Agreed.
I think the main difference is some folks don't realize that "the improved nature of 40k tournament play" and " the rules still suck." or more gently stated "40k is not the ideal tournament ruleset" are not mutually exclusive statements.

Regardless of how far (or not-far) a person feels 40k has advanced toward tournament-ability, the fact is that there has been intentional improvement.

Brother Gyoken wrote:"Competitive" equals clear rules. Clear rules. There, I am saying it as plainly as possible. Clear. Rules.

Fair enough.

If that's your standard, than wouldn't clearer rules show in improvement towards becoming competitive?

I think it's a very tough argument to make that 40k's rules are not improved, both in gameplay and quality of writing, over the last three editions.

Polonius wrote:

Brother Gyoken wrote:"Competitive" equals clear rules. Clear rules. There, I am saying it as plainly as possible. Clear. Rules.

Fair enough.

If that's your standard, than wouldn't clearer rules show in improvement towards becoming competitive?

I think it's a very tough argument to make that 40k's rules are not improved, both in gameplay and quality of writing, over the last three editions.

Since it's impossible to prove a negative, perhaps you can provide how they have improved?

I find that, though I prefer 2nd Ed rules, the game of 40k from 2nd to 5th has been streamlined and made better. The points costs of units within the codices point to this. Easier rules to follow and less grey areas=better.

Changes from 3rd edition to 5th edition:
Standardized Unit Types (jump troop, infantry, etc.)
Access Points/Fire Points
Clear Wargear (4th edition terminators didn't have TDA)
Set cover for terrain
Rules for buildings and ruins
Clearer deployment rules (how to deep strike, etc)
Standardized special rules (hit & run, furious charge, etc.)

They've also been a lot prompter with FAQs and errata.

We like to play 2 vs 2, usually 1000 points per player for a 2000 vs 2000 pt battle. These games usually last about 6 hours. Because we bring lots of models and because we break for lunch and because we love to socialize during the game and we love to look up every other rule.

And I like it that way.

However, the number of models required for a game HAS risen and the play time has also been extended. Personally, I like a long game. But when schedules are busy, it is harder and harder to drop half a day on a game.

Playing a game of 2nd Ed this weekend. 1000pts in 2nd Ed=small game. But I have not played a game of 2nd Ed for at least 7 years!
I have a huge soft spot for it. The ability to throw grenades that actually do damage is not to be underestimated! However, the current edition IS far more streamlined and games don't last as long. This is my observation, but obviously, it isn't everyone's cup o tea.....

Apologies for the drunken rambling.....

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Playing a game of 2nd Ed this weekend. 1000pts in 2nd Ed=small game. But I have not played a game of 2nd Ed for at least 7 years!
I have a huge soft spot for it. The ability to throw grenades that actually do damage is not to be underestimated! However, the current edition IS far more streamlined and games don't last as long. This is my observation, but obviously, it isn't everyone's cup o tea.....

Apologies for the drunken rambling.....

I would love to play 2nd again.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Playing a game of 2nd Ed this weekend. 1000pts in 2nd Ed=small game. But I have not played a game of 2nd Ed for at least 7 years!
I have a huge soft spot for it. The ability to throw grenades that actually do damage is not to be underestimated! However, the current edition IS far more streamlined and games don't last as long. This is my observation, but obviously, it isn't everyone's cup o tea.....

Apologies for the drunken rambling.....

I would love to play 2nd again.

Even with it's flaws I think it was a better ruleset overall as well.
While 3rd ed did away with the clunky CC system and long term effects like smoke clouds, randomly moving plasma etc it did away with vehicles being useful (later editions have gone some way to fixing that), a lot of customisation through the editions, and for me the thing which balanced the game:
Standard points costs for weapons and armour save modifiers.

If a weapons which is str 8 with x amount of armour penetration power is worth for example 20 points, then it should be 20 points across the board. For specific armies (IG in 2nd ed) these costs may be cheaper to reflect the armies style and perks. Not vary per squad.

Save modifiers, well, guardians used to have a save of a 6 vs bolters as an example, no auto killing. Marines however went down to a 5+ save vs shuriken weaponry. This little mechanic made investing in more powerful weapons useful vs MEQ for example. Right now I see not much use in upgrading shuriken cannons to scatter lasers across the board in and eldar army for example as most units will still have their save.

W40K is at heart a competitive game, and whenever there is one be it chess, poker, MTG, other CCG's or miniature wargame systems there will always be people who want to have a tournament of it. I agree there are better systems for having them, and some designers making systems specifically for it (KoW, after all the designer hates people stopping and thinking a while on what to do on their turn ) but 40k makes do.

6th edition I'd love to see the designers attempt to reintroduce the simple basic maths of save modifiers, just in the name of balance.
But on topic yes the trend in general is more models on the table, faster rules, quickly put together at minimal cost for greater profit.

3rd edition ruined it for me. I can see issues with 2nd ed, like having a damage chart for each bike was mad. Ravenwing were impossible.

"So um this squad, well these two move normally but have to slow down this turn, this one can only go at half speed and this one have to test to swerve while this guy doesn't ahve a bike and has to run on foot"

Yeah, ok.

And the grenades were mad. A squad of 10 marines throws some frag grenades. "Right, someone get the box of templates and give me a beer, we're pulling and all-nighter."

But really, 3rd edition removed grenades and bikes gave extra movement and toughness, it was so far the other way. I preferred the individual damage tables for each vehicle. And they got rid of almost all the psychology rules, I liked the mad boyz.

Ah the nostalgia of this thread. I remember when Dakka had one of these a WEEK! And back then we didn't pull our punches either, no one was as nice as Polonious is at telling you you are wrong (we had Triggerbaby calling you a "fatty hamfart" instead).

I've come to the realization that the GW game that I think has the absolute worst rules is 40k. It also happens to be the GW game I play the most by far...

Is 40k a great Tournament game? No and I don't think anyone has said that. Is the game better for tournaments now than it was 10 years ago? Of course it is, and 5th edition did a lot to move the game to that state (even if some of the codexes move it backward).

Well, played a game of 2nd Ed today. 1000pts of Khorne vs Space Wolves
And do you what? We had an absolute blast! Yes it's more complex, and yes the CC is quite ridiculous, but dammit it was more cinematic than 5th and I found it a lot more engaging as well. Ok, we had Kharn The Betrayor and Ragnar Blackmane as special characters and they did take up a huge portion of the points totals, but to be fair they did not do much. Kharn scored a total of 15 hits on a singular Grey Hunter and turned him into a pile of flesh noodles and wiped out a unit of scouts single handed...and Ragnar? Well, he made a complete hash of taking on 3 Bloodletters and lost a wound in the process.
We could see obvious drawbacks with the rules set of 2nd Ed, assaulting into buildings is stupid and having too many armour mods is a little daft but it was an engaging and fun game. Yes it took 2 hours, but the first hour was us reading through the rulebook and wargear book trying to reacquaint ourselves with the slighty esoteric rules!
All in all, good fun and more depth than 5th could ever hope to have....

Did Kharn go nuts and start attacking his own people? He had some rule (maybe still does?) where if he killed a character he would immediately attack another, and if no enemy was near then he would attack an ally. Had him kill three berserkers once before he stopped.

I'd love to play a 10,000pt game (Each side having 10k)
But that would be like a weekend thing that happens every once in a while.

Typical games though I'd love to just have 20 figs and go nuts. I would totally get back into it and play weekly if I didn't have to have 50ish miniatures just to field an army.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Did Kharn go nuts and start attacking his own people? He had some rule (maybe still does?) where if he killed a character he would immediately attack another, and if no enemy was near then he would attack an ally. Had him kill three berserkers once before he stopped.

Quite correct Howard, he did have that rule, sadly my bro was a little too cowardly to send him into combat with a unit of Berzerkers! He minced the scouts though. He was truly frightening in 2nd Ed, a real combat monster capable of dishing out up to 16 wounds per combat with a -3 armour save..... it's also possible to for him to have 8 attacks at WS 7/8 on the charge with a strength of 5. You also cannot parry his attacks, so ferocious are they!

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Quite correct Howard, he did have that rule, sadly my bro was a little too cowardly to send him into combat with a unit of Berzerkers!

That's not in the true spirit of Khorne!!

2nd ed grenades I preferred tbh, nothing like the look on someones face when they had str 6 damage and -3 armour saves when a few krak grenades went into their marines .
Also was the last edition swooping hawks actually did well and were a worry to the opponent :(.
Streamling the vehicles was a great idea, 3rd just did it over the top, and CC should have kept the WHFB style it is now .
My famous kharn moment was some guy going on about how great he was, how many wounds and so on. Then putting 18 wounds into him from an assault cannon the same turn abbadon took 10 from a krak missile

Howard A Treesong wrote:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Quite correct Howard, he did have that rule, sadly my bro was a little too cowardly to send him into combat with a unit of Berzerkers!

That's not in the true spirit of Khorne!!

I was not a coward - Tzeentch manipulated me into doing it! To be fair he did have to charge the nearest guys, the cowardly scouts at the top of the building - who annoyed me and if I kept him with the Khorne Berzerkers we wouldn't have had that moment when the lone Grey Hunter took a pop shot at him and ended up completely chewed before Kharn bust open the door and butchered all the scouts, then leapt off the top with his follow up move, not being wounded in the process. One more turn and he would have have done the same to Ragnar!

On topic I think the points decrease for troops was one way to go to blunt the character influence, personally I think choice restrictions or a large scale points increase for special characters could have done a similar job - but players wanted bigger battles and GW wanted more sales *shrugs* I think these characters should be death-dealing mincing machines - same as Terminators should be proper hardcore - it's not right when they probably die thousands of times a week is it?

Polonius wrote:Changes from 3rd edition to 5th edition:
Standardized Unit Types (jump troop, infantry, etc.)
Access Points/Fire Points
Clear Wargear (4th edition terminators didn't have TDA)
Set cover for terrain
Rules for buildings and ruins
Clearer deployment rules (how to deep strike, etc)
Standardized special rules (hit & run, furious charge, etc.)

They've also been a lot prompter with FAQs and errata.

This. To anyone who's actually played 3rd + 5th, or 4th + 5th, or all three, competitively, it's as obvious as the nose on your face. The rules have gotten much clearer each edition. They've added more standardized terminology and keywords (although still not to the level of a proper glossary), they've made lots of rules easier and quicker and less subjective to resolve (cover saves as an example, fall back moves as another). If clarity is the criteria for a game designed with competition in mind, than the rules have obviously gotten substantially more suitable for competitive play over each edition.

You forgot about the change from transports "being nice" to "being required" as a trend and also vehicles going from "nerfed beyond usefulness" to "useable again, only just"
However include 2nd edition and you will see why certain changes aren't exactly great imo.