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.

Phanixis wrote:What happened was that most players simply defined all the terrain on the board as area terrain,....

Maybe where you were playing. My experience, and most discussion on the forums at the time, suggests otherwise.

It's not a matter of opinion that 6th Edition has thus far proved to be a massive cash-grab compared to 5th edition.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that 5th edition was better.

5th edition was a mess of rules. you read the rules along with other stuff the rules where put into the middle of, then spend 3-40mins(yes 40mins arguing was the longest my LFG argued on one rule)

6th edition is a mess of rules, you read the rules along with other stuff the rules where put into the middle of.........<.<..........>.>.........*whisper's* but unlike the 5th the rules in this edition are in bold letters, taking away most of the arguments.

 insaniak wrote:

Phanixis wrote:
...(in no small part due to having no TLOS so terrain actually broke up LOS). ...

You were playing it wrong then... 4th edition had TLOS, it just used a different system for area terrain and close combats. A lot of players misread the LOS rules, though, and either accidentally or deliberately (because they preferred it that way) applied the size categories to the whole game.


True LOS has been the core of the shooting system since Rogue Trader. It's just the specifics of how it is applied that have changed. For my money, the 5th edition system of 'If you're partially obscured, you're in cover' was the best to date, since every other edition has required some sort of percentage of the model to be covered, which is just painful.

Woods and ruins were area terrain by default, I'm pretty sure. And area terrain blocked LOS. Units also blocked LOS to units of the same or smaller size class. Most importantly, models there were not in LOS could not be killed. There was actually a reason to maneuver. You're telling me that 5th's "doesn't matter where you stand, you can always, always be shot, so the guy with the bigger gun wins" is better?

5th edition era was in many ways very straightforward. There were lots of abstractions in the rules which were designed to simplify the game but made very little sense (aforementioned "see one molecule from the squad -> shoot everyone". Scenarios were very simple. All the rules were in the Codeci, which were often quite simple (though they got more complex towards the end): there were no Chapter Approved, no White Dwarf rules, ForgeWorld was usually banned etc.

On the other hand, there were weird quirks in the rules. Such as horrible Wound allocation, or confusing close combat rules regarding IC's. FAQs were very poor until they hired some new guy mid-edition to take care of them. Lots of people thought that 5th edition was too "slick". Most Codices designed for 5th edition felt bland, boring and simplified. Missions were very simple. There were no equivalent for old WD or modern ebook supplements.

I suspect many feel GW has gone too much to other extreme by jumbling the game with boatloads of new stuff. But make no mistake, very much opposite feelings were in place over much of the 5th.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Woods and ruins were area terrain by default, I'm pretty sure.

They were, yes. Most other terrain wasn't.

Units also blocked LOS to units of the same or smaller size class.

Only if they were in close combat.

The rest of the time, infantry didn't block LOS at all, and vehicles blocked LOS by their actual profile, as they do now.

You're telling me that 5th's "doesn't matter where you stand, you can always, always be shot, so the guy with the bigger gun wins" is better?

If that was your experience with 5th edition, you weren't using enough terrain.

Early in the 5th edition, there was widespread bemoaning how shooty armies were nerfed. 4+ cover save was easy to get and since Wound allocation allowed you to remove models from the back, it was much easier to get units into combat. This was especially true for then-new Ork Codex, which swept the floor with Tau and Space Marines. Multi-assault was particularly devastating.

 insaniak wrote:

Only if they were in close combat.

Right, I was thinking of 3rd I guess? 4th had target priority tests.

If that was your experience with 5th edition, you weren't using enough terrain.

And by terrain you mean huge, solid bricks? Because that's the only thing that makes a difference in 5th and 6th, and only if it's big enough to completely hide the whole unit behind. Because if even a single elbow is sticking out, everyone in the unit can be killed.

And no, I didn't like 4th just because I was "playing it wrong" nor do I hate 5th and 6th just because I'm "playing it wrong". We always had the amount of terrain as prescribed in the book and of mixed types (area terrain of different heights, flat difficult ground, solid bricks). Did you?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Right, I was thinking of 3rd I guess? 4th had target priority tests.

3rd edition, models just blocked LOS up to twice their own physical height.

And by terrain you mean huge, solid bricks?

Enclosed buildings, large hills, tall wall sections... yes, stuff that actually blocks LOS. The rulebook even told players to use some of this sort of terrain in the mix.

And no, I didn't like 4th just because I was "playing it wrong" nor do I hate 5th and 6th just because I'm "playing it wrong".

I never said that you did.

We always had the amount of terrain as prescribed in the book and of mixed types (area terrain of different heights, flat difficult ground, solid bricks). Did you?

Usually. I've always had a tendency to cram as much terrain on the board as possible, because in every edition since I started (which was 2nd ed) I've found that it made for a better game. Some of the tournaments I played in were a bit light on... but the prevalence of easy cover saves generally made up for it in 5th ed.

My experience from 5th, and what seemed to be the general opinion online, was that 5th was much more geared towards assault, even with the LOS rules you disliked.

 welshhoppo wrote:
The problem with all the editions is that they all have their own benefits.

From 6th I like allies.
From 5th I liked the changes to blast weapons.
From 4th I prefer the line of sight, none of this silly 'I can fire a Demolisher cannon through a crack in a stain glass window.'
From 3rd I like the sweeping into combat turn after turn. Oh, and having all the army lists in the main book.
I didn't play 2nd, but I like the idea of cards with Warhammer.
From RT? I like the beards.

Just not the Warp Deck for getting warp points and nullifies.. Dear gods, please never bring that back.
I do kind of miss the old strategy cards from 2nd though, horribly unbalanced and completely broken against a few armies.

 insaniak wrote:

My experience from 5th, and what seemed to be the general opinion online, was that 5th was much more geared towards assault, even with the LOS rules you disliked.

I wasn't even really thinking of shooting/assault balance, though. My complaint is that TLOS (especially coupled with its one particular exception, removal of casualties from outside LOS) made maneuvering irrelevant. I long for the days where a fast, fragile army could use terrain to isolate enemy units (for either shooty or choppy death) and minimize return fire. Not with TLOS. There's no room on a 4x6 for a brick that could physically hide a whole DE Raider, or a decent bike squadron. And GW keeps compensating by adding more and more passive defenses (Jink, Flicker Fields, etc...) that in turn make it even less relevant where you are in relation to your attacker, increasing the reliance on lucky save rolls instead of good tactics, and makes all armies play the same. Roll to hit, roll saves. Done.

Rumbleguts wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
The problem with all the editions is that they all have their own benefits.

From 6th I like allies.
From 5th I liked the changes to blast weapons.
From 4th I prefer the line of sight, none of this silly 'I can fire a Demolisher cannon through a crack in a stain glass window.'
From 3rd I like the sweeping into combat turn after turn. Oh, and having all the army lists in the main book.
I didn't play 2nd, but I like the idea of cards with Warhammer.
From RT? I like the beards.

Just not the Warp Deck for getting warp points and nullifies.. Dear gods, please never bring that back.
I do kind of miss the old strategy cards from 2nd though, horribly unbalanced and completely broken against a few armies.

Just a few, and they patched out a few (Though the Nid cards were scary always..Especially the one that was basically you psykers)

 insaniak wrote:

Phanixis wrote:
...(in no small part due to having no TLOS so terrain actually broke up LOS). ...

You were playing it wrong then... 4th edition had TLOS, it just used a different system for area terrain and close combats. A lot of players misread the LOS rules, though, and either accidentally or deliberately (because they preferred it that way) applied the size categories to the whole game.

Actually they were not wrong. The 4th ed rule book says that it was up to players to define terrain before the game started. So if people decided to declare all terrain "area terrain" then it was perfectly acceptable. Which is what TOs in my area did to avoid any problems during tournaments. The 4th ed size system was also very easy to follow.


Like many around here I started playing back in 2nd ed and played regularly through all of the following edditions. When 6th hit, it pretty much killed 40k in my area which has 3-4 stores to play in depending on how far you want to drive. Now people dropped off for a variety of reasons, but the majority of them were due to the overly complex and random rules of 6th. In the past year I have seen a lot of people switch to warmahordes, x-wing, and Attack Wing, favoring less complicated rules systems.

I have been rereading some of the older BRB lately and in all 4th does seem like the best basic system at 91 pages of rules. 5th is not bad at 98 pages of rules, I prefer its vehicle rules, but its terrain and wound allocation rules drag out the game and lead to disputes. 6th drags out too much with its 200ish pages of redundant complexity.

To the OP I for one would love to see some retro 4th ed tournaments.

I don't think any of the previous editions were more 'straightforward' but they were certainly more stable - meaning you had to wait several months before anything changed; and at the time nobody perceived that as a good thing. Careful what you wish for yeh?

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
Actually they were not wrong. The 4th ed rule book says that it was up to players to define terrain before the game started. So if people decided to declare all terrain "area terrain" then it was perfectly acceptable.

Yes and no... Every edition of the game has mentioned a need for players to discuss terrain before the game to avoid misunderstandings. But that's intended to make sure that both players are looking at stuff the same way, not so that you can class stuff as something completely inappropriate.

If you're playing exclusively with area terrain, that's one thing... but classifying stuff that shouldn't be area terrain as area terrain leads to weirdness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
There's no room on a 4x6 for a brick that could physically hide a whole DE Raider, or a decent bike squadron.

Not that will hide it from the entire rest of the table, no... but nor should there be.

Any decent sized ruin will give such units temporary cover though.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
Actually they were not wrong. The 4th ed rule book says that it was up to players to define terrain before the game started. So if people decided to declare all terrain "area terrain" then it was perfectly acceptable.

Yes and no... Every edition of the game has mentioned a need for players to discuss terrain before the game to avoid misunderstandings. But that's intended to make sure that both players are looking at stuff the same way, not so that you can class stuff as something completely inappropriate.

If you're playing exclusively with area terrain, that's one thing... but classifying stuff that shouldn't be area terrain as area terrain leads to weirdness.

What is wierd about it? You can see 6 inches in and 6 out. No matter the size you cannot see completely through. Terrain X is size 3, terrain Y is size 2, terrain Z is size 1 apply saves as prescribed in the book. Out side of terrain is LOS.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
You mean 4th, right? That's the one that worked.

I think you mean 2nd. A cleaned up version would be most welcome.

Am I the only one that likes the codexs coming out in a timely manner?

Granted, I don't like the low quality lately, but the speed of releases is not something I take an issue with. Quite the opposite in fact.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Am I the only one that likes the codexs coming out in a timely manner?

I think it's for the better.

 Melissia wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Am I the only one that likes the codexs coming out in a timely manner?

I think it's for the better.

Ask the Tyranid players about that.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Am I the only one that likes the codexs coming out in a timely manner?

Granted, I don't like the low quality lately, but the speed of releases is not something I take an issue with. Quite the opposite in fact.

Faster codex release is amazing, I like the way new books are going too. Less "end all" rules being seen. In 5th edition, instant death and eternal warrior were everywhere. Feel no pain and removed from play could be found all over as well. Removed from play was just a giant cluster gak (in my area at least).
6th edition has removed a LOT of the EW and instant death. Seems like only the best of the best get EW, and very few weapons are straight up instant death. Feel no pain was toned down and cleared up, and removed from play seems to be getting removed from the game. While there are still some inconsistency, 6th has been a lot easier to pick up an army and play than 5th was. To me, 5th was the nightmare of parking lots (I can only imagine how invincible my necron AV13 list would have been)


Everything looks great through rose tinted glasses.

Martel732 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Am I the only one that likes the codexs coming out in a timely manner?

I think it's for the better.

Ask the Tyranid players about that.

That's probably why I said I don't like the low quality of certain releases.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
What is wierd about it? You can see 6 inches in and 6 out. No matter the size you cannot see completely through. Terrain X is size 3, terrain Y is size 2, terrain Z is size 1 apply saves as prescribed in the book. Out side of terrain is LOS.

The weird part comes with treating enclosed buildings or hills as area terrain, since it allows models to move through them.

It's also a little peculiar for free-standing 'scatter' terrain (individual wall sections, piles of crates, rocks, sort of thing) that don't cover any actual significant real estate to be treated as area terrain.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
What is wierd about it? You can see 6 inches in and 6 out. No matter the size you cannot see completely through. Terrain X is size 3, terrain Y is size 2, terrain Z is size 1 apply saves as prescribed in the book. Out side of terrain is LOS.

The weird part comes with treating enclosed buildings or hills as area terrain, since it allows models to move through them.

It's also a little peculiar for free-standing 'scatter' terrain (individual wall sections, piles of crates, rocks, sort of thing) that don't cover any actual significant real estate to be treated as area terrain.

why would closed buildings be a problem, both sides can only see up to 6 inches and take difficult terrain to move through them, just deside before hand what level it is. As for hedges, pipes, and sandbag type stuff just use it as is, terrain. I even believe there is a recommendation in tje book to not count anything less than an inch or 2 wide are regulare terrain.

Martel732 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Am I the only one that likes the codexs coming out in a timely manner?

I think it's for the better.

Ask the Tyranid players about that.

Better yet, ask the Sisters players their opinion on not getting a codex out in a timely manner.

No, seriously, ask. I need a good laugh.

 Palindrome wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
You mean 4th, right? That's the one that worked.

I think you mean 2nd. A cleaned up version would be most welcome.

2nd? The one with the Plague Card, Tyranid pysker exploding card, and where flying jetpack equipped Eldar conquered the day?

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
why would closed buildings be a problem, both sides can only see up to 6 inches and take difficult terrain to move through them, just deside before hand what level it is.

It's an issue when a model tries to finish its movement inside the terrain. And while moving through buildings isn't that way out (although they were generally treated as impassable) moving right through a hill certainly is.

As for hedges, pipes, and sandbag type stuff just use it as is, terrain. I even believe there is a recommendation in tje book to not count anything less than an inch or 2 wide are regulare terrain.

The book also had recommendations for what should and shouldn't count as area terrain. If you're ignoring the rulebook recommendations and just counting everything as area terrain, that doesn't help much.

Although I am far from happy with 6th edition, the whole discussion of which edition is better is a rather subjective issue.
The fact that all editions have had severe balance and codex creep issues makes the enjoyment of he game largely dependant on your meta.

Personally my vote goes to 4th edition.
The rules were streamlined, most if not all armies had a codex, supplements were abundant, and the hobby element reigned supreme.
And most importantly it was affordable!
Even as a economically challenged student I owned almost every codex and supplement.
A feat I'm not likely to manage in 6th.
Sure they didn't have the fluff content the current codices have, but that was what the WD was for!

 Frank&Stein wrote:
The rules were streamlined, ...

And yet somehow still appalingly full of holes.

4th edition was the edition that made me pack everything away and wait it out to see if the next one would be better. The sheer quantity of rules issues that cropped up in that edition was just too off-putting.

That's what put me off 6th as well. 5th was already super hard for me to learn everything for, and 6th seems to have just made it worse.