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.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

I'm guessing your stuff is still packed away then.

 gwarsh41 wrote:

 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.

Does Ignore Cover count as "end all"?

Otherwise I agree, the faster pace of releases is great. Its pathology is dataslates though.

 Frank&Stein wrote:

I'm guessing your stuff is still packed away then.

Very close to it. 5th edition got me back into the game, in a big way. It still had its share of rules issues, but not to the same extent as 4th edition. But then 6th ed came along, and after a promising start, as the 6th ed codexes started coming out I found it a lot harder to maintain an interest. If it wasn't for an unexpected opportunity to get over to Adepticon again this year, I would have probably either dropped the game until 7th ed, or reverted to a slightly modified 5th ed and just stuck to playing at home with friends.

 Frank&Stein wrote:
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!

I find this comment very strange - I actually thought the 4th Ed ruleset was quite nice, but I remember, most armies NOT having a codex and waiting painfully long for the slightest whisper of an update/FAQ. The game/meta had evolved so much between codex that the creep-effect was huge.

At least around here tournaments/events came to a grinding halt. But you are right about one thing, at least compared to today - it was more affordable. I bought several armies that I am only just now building during that time.

I prefer 6th Edition over all others. They should keep the Allied chart except get rid of "Battle Brother's option" and give Nids some allies.

 fables429 wrote:
I prefer 6th Edition over all others. They should keep the Allied chart except get rid of "Battle Brother's option" and give Nids some allies.

Sounds good to me...

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.

It is not the amount of terrain that is the problem, but rather what you are using for terrain. For instance, a forest, which under 4e area terrain rules could easily be used to conceal a vehicle from LOS, is absolutely useless for denying LOS under TLOS. It is just a few trees on a flat base after all. You could fill the board with forest and it wouldn't matter, you could still fire clean across the board and the only consequence would be that your opponent would claim either a 4+ (5e) or 5+ (6e) cover save. If this problem was just limited to forest it wouldn't be a problem, but you can shoot through almost anything: forest, craters, debris fields, walls/hedges, etc. Hills would work if they were even remotely to scale, but most I have encountered only go up to about shoulder height and small based models, which is at most a cover save. Ruins are probably your best bet, but even they are filled with windows and you only need to see part of an enemy model through a single window to establish LOS. The only time I encounter proper LOS denying terrain is from handmade models made by local players, they will often be made from boxes and cans with solid bodies that actually obstruct LOS, but most terrain that is actually purchased (especially GW terrain) is terrible for blocking LOS.

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?

This had less to do with the need for constant change and more to do with the desire for a level playing field. Codex creep is a very real thing in this game and the codices released in 5th edition, especially ones like IG and SW, just utterly crushed older 4e codices. When players asked for an accelerated release schedule, what they were really asking for is a 5e codex for their army, so they did not get curb stomped every time they went up against one of the stronger 5e codices. Under 5e, you got 2 maybe 3 codex releases a year, and every other one was always a Space Marine variant, so those needing codex updates to keep up with the 5e armies, such as Dark Eldar, Necrons and Tau, ended up waiting a very long time to be brought in line.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of being able to shoot through forests either, but this:

Phanixis wrote:
If this problem was just limited to forest it wouldn't be a problem, but you can shoot through almost anything: forest, craters, debris fields, walls/hedges, etc.

...isn't true from most of my gaming. The tournaments I played in regularly had ruins, walls, rocky outcrops, crystal growths, and all sorts of other LOS blocking terrain. For my games at home, I have a number of Land Raider or larger sized ruins that perform the same job.

Hills would work if they were even remotely to scale, but most I have encountered only go up to about shoulder height and small based models, which is at most a cover save.

That's not a hill then, that's a mound

Yeah, I'm not a fan of being able to shoot through forests either, but this:
Phanixis wrote:
If this problem was just limited to forest it wouldn't be a problem, but you can shoot through almost anything: forest, craters, debris fields, walls/hedges, etc.

...isn't true from most of my gaming. The tournaments I played in regularly had ruins, walls, rocky outcrops, crystal growths, and all sorts of other LOS blocking terrain. For my games at home, I have a number of Land Raider or larger sized ruins that perform the same job.

That is some quality terrain. I wish that type of terrain was common were I game, sadly I have to make do with smaller or more porous (for lack of a better word) terrain that just doesn't cut it in TLOS environments.

Hills would work if they were even remotely to scale, but most I have encountered only go up to about shoulder height and small based models, which is at most a cover save.

That's not a hill then, that's a mound

I have to agree with you here. Sadly, I just never seem to encounter anything that approximates a proper hill. I have seen some good hill models in Flames of War, but never in 40k.

The thing is, this isn't something that should be a regional quirk. The game needs a certain amount of decent LOS-blocking terrain. So if the venues you're playing at don't have such terrain in the mix, make an issue of it. Or make some terrain and donate it, if you're playing in a regular club or group.

Nobody should have to play on Planet Bowling Green.

 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.

Maybe things work different down there in Oz, but I have never seen anyone make an argument to move through a hill. You go over the hill. It is also important to read the wording of the rules. In the 4th ed book it specifically states that the "hill crest" grants cover. Once you were on top of the hill you were in the open, unless someone placed another piece of terrain on the hill.

Enclosed buildings should have been treated as area terrain, that's the whole idea a defined area. A building is perfect for that, but if there was difficulty in taking the roof off or standing models up, it is not har to say "this piece is impassible", problem solved.

4th also had a much better system for removing models and mechanics to keep people from killing your squad leaders before the can swing. Blast weapons were way more effective. Vehicles were a mixed bag, but considering how well everything else in the eddition worked you could forgive that. Stille better than 3rd vehicle rules and not as unforgiving as 5th.

It wouldn't matter how far you go back... People would still find something to piss and moan about.

 LiveForTheSwarm wrote:
It wouldn't matter how far you go back... People would still find something to piss and moan about.

I 2nd that

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
Maybe things work different down there in Oz, but I have never seen anyone make an argument to move through a hill.

You apparently didn't spend much time on forums during 4th edition then, because it was discussed every single time someone mentioned wanting to treat all their terrain as area terrain... which was fairly frequent.

In the 4th ed book it specifically states that the "hill crest" grants cover. Once you were on top of the hill you were in the open, unless someone placed another piece of terrain on the hill.

Except that if you alter the rules to cause the hill to be area terrain, you get cover just for being inside the boundaries of that terrain.

The thing is, this isn't something that should be a regional quirk. The game needs a certain amount of decent LOS-blocking terrain. So if the venues you're playing at don't have such terrain in the mix, make an issue of it. Or make some terrain and donate it, if you're playing in a regular club or group.

Nobody should have to play on Planet Bowling Green.

I can't even convince my local gaming shops to dremel those bloody skulls off the roof tiles on the ruins (I have broken more models because they fell off ruins because the skulls prevented their bases from remaining level), so this suggestion might be a bit of a stretch. Don't get me wrong, large and intricate terrain pieces are awesome, but the fact of that matter is they may not be available for any number of reasons. Under those circumstances, the only way to avoid playing on a game on what might as well be planet bowling green is to have the option to define area terrain, so what terrain you do have on hand with break up LOS.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
Maybe things work different down there in Oz, but I have never seen anyone make an argument to move through a hill.

You apparently didn't spend much time on forums during 4th edition then, because it was discussed every single time someone mentioned wanting to treat all their terrain as area terrain... which was fairly frequent.

Yyyyep!

This was alos the same on Bolter and Chainsword as well.

 insaniak wrote:

You apparently didn't spend much time on forums during 4th edition then, because it was discussed every single time someone mentioned wanting to treat all their terrain as area terrain... which was fairly frequent..

No you are right I didn't spend much time on forums during 4th. Instead I was actually playing the game against real people 4-5 nights a week and going to tournaments every other weekend at the US headquarters store, where ridiculous arguments like moving through a hill were not tolerated.

But hey what do I know

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
[..., where ridiculous arguments like moving through a hill were not tolerated.

And here's one thing at least we can agree on - being allowed to move through a hill would indeed be ridiculous. But the point that seems to have been lost somewhere along the way is that this isn't just something silly that someone thought up to break the game. It's something silly that results from changing the rules without adequate thought as to the consequences.

The fact that nobody (apparently) in the area in which you were playing realised that this was one of the side effects of counting all terrain as area terrain doesn't change the fact that it was. And was a fairly well known one at the time. People just chose to ignore it, because for the most part counting all of their terrain as area terrain worked for them.

Other players in other areas went with the actual rules of the game instead, either just because they preferred not to use house rules unless absolutely necessary, or because counting everything as area terrain was a little boring and potentially absurd.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
[..., where ridiculous arguments like moving through a hill were not tolerated.

And here's one thing at least we can agree on - being allowed to move through a hill would indeed be ridiculous. But the point that seems to have been lost somewhere along the way is that this isn't just something silly that someone thought up to break the game. It's something silly that results from changing the rules without adequate thought as to the consequences.

The fact that nobody (apparently) in the area in which you were playing realised that this was one of the side effects of counting all terrain as area terrain doesn't change the fact that it was. And was a fairly well known one at the time. People just chose to ignore it, because for the most part counting all of their terrain as area terrain worked for them.

Other players in other areas went with the actual rules of the game instead, either just because they preferred not to use house rules unless absolutely necessary, or because counting everything as area terrain was a little boring and potentially absurd.

It wasn't a house full. From the RAW the crest of the hill only granted a cover save the hill itself was open ground unless something else was on top of it.

Back in those days the HQ was a large and diverse group of players. We had bits in the building back then so we would get players from all across the eastern US for tournaments. There was even a regular group of guys that would charter a bus from N.Y. a few times a year.plus we had the rules boys down the hall and promotions who regularly received advanced copies rules and books for play testing.

In all despite some minor disputes a fewnareas may have had, you do have to give that the 4th ed rules were much more stream lines than the current 6th ed. Sometimes minor issues are made bigger on the internet then they actually are in the game. The cloud of internet anonymity keeps things stirring.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
It wasn't a house full. From the RAW the crest of the hill only granted a cover save the hill itself was open ground unless something else was on top of it.

Sure, if you're using the normal rules. (Although there is no 'only'... just a rule that says you get a 5+ cover save for being partially behind the crest).

Once you house rule the hill to be area terrain, then being anywhere on the hill will grant you a cover save, because you are in area terrain. So you need another house rule for that to not be the case.

In all despite some minor disputes a fewnareas may have had, you do have to give that the 4th ed rules were much more stream lines than the current 6th ed.

Sure, they were more streamlined. Just full of holes and conflicts along with it.

I think that our original points were lost somewhere during this discussion of whether 4th ed. was bad because some people on the other side of the world allegedly used area terrain wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though I agree that 4th had the most poorly worded rules, they were the best when used as intended and played much better than anything since.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Though I agree that 4th had the most poorly worded rules, they were the best when used as intended

Oooh, RAI vs RAW. Let's have THAT debate again for the fifty bajilionth time!

(Hint: Not everyone can agree on RAI, either.)

 Melissia wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Though I agree that 4th had the most poorly worded rules, they were the best when used as intended

Oooh, RAI vs RAW. Let's have THAT debate again for the fifty bajilionth time!

(Hint: Not everyone can agree on RAI, either.)

Back then we didn't have to because we got regular FAQs.

RAW/RAI is also more of a theoretical issue that doesn't happen in real life nearly as often as the internet would have you believe. In a typical local hobby group (the kind GEW games are designed for) gaming conventions evolve organically and people just simply know better than to resolve hits against every model on every table in the building when a Pyrovore explodes. It's hard to believe, I know.

Yeah, 5th edition rules would actually be a step back for me. I liked 4th edition a lot more.

The one thing I could totally do without in 6th edition is hull points. They make a tank a paperweight. I have played a few games where we agreed not to use hull points and it was very, very different. To the point where we started changing army lists.

I'd be perfectly fine with seeing 4th or 5th back, just as long as 5th edition Deep Strike rules were in effect. That's all my daemons care about. 4th brings back my soul grinders, 5th brings my princes. And yes, I want to go back to the old Daemon book that hit at the end of 4th. No white dwarf update, nothing. Not many people knew how to handle them and they were good (I don't care how the Internet rated them).

Each edition thus far has had major issues. 4E had invinci-skimmers and paper tracked tanks along with armies able to be defeated by a couple units consolidating up a line from combat to combat, having never been shot at thanks to the area terrain rules. 5E had very bad wound allocation rules, the incredibly stupid Kill Point mechanic that 6E has almost managed to extricate itself from, etc.

To me, 6E has the most issues of any edition, but i won't get into that here. Ultimately, no edition has been perfect, each has had notable glaring issues and must be viewed as such. I certainly wouldn't be too enthused about playing IG in 4E again, or playing Necrons in most of 5th edition, etc.

Mainly because 5th was an inferior set of rules. The current set is designed for the actual players and allows for much more blance and fun. Well, get rid of the battle brothers part of allies of course.

5th edition quickly turned into two parking lots of tanks shooting S6 to 9 at each other.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Each edition thus far has had major issues. 4E had invinci-skimmers and paper tracked tanks along with armies able to be defeated by a couple units consolidating up a line from combat to combat, having never been shot at thanks to the area terrain rules. 5E had very bad wound allocation rules, the incredibly stupid Kill Point mechanic that 6E has almost managed to extricate itself from, etc.

To me, 6E has the most issues of any edition, but i won't get into that here. Ultimately, no edition has been perfect, each has had notable glaring issues and must be viewed as such. I certainly wouldn't be too enthused about playing IG in 4E again, or playing Necrons in most of 5th edition, etc.

Skimmers were not that bad in 4th. The only big thing was if they moved over 6 inches you could only glance them, however on the old glancing hit table if they moved over 6 immobilized counted as destroyed. They could also never claim benifits for terrain and nothing blocked LOS to them. It was the Eldar codex, not the BRB that made their skimmers better than the rest. Space marines land speeders, dark eldar raiders, and tau tanks were all quite squishy.

 Vaktathi wrote:
armies able to be defeated by a couple units consolidating up a line from combat to combat,

Only against the most incompetent gunline players. How hard is it to predict where an assault unit is going to be next turn and move your gak 7" apart?