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.

Im not being facetious. I think there's been a few problems with 40k that have been solved when 40K has changed from edition to edition. Im not talking about FAQs or errata. I'm referring to core problems in the way the game plays. More often than not i believe they've left problems unsolved, but i want to focus on the positive. I want to know how many positive changes they've made over the years in the Basic Rules.

Ill start. Consolidating into another enemy after a sweeping advance. I never liked them, even as a BAs player for 20 years. If i got just half an assault squad amongst my friends IG or Tau army's I won. Hands down, no problem. If it was an IC or Death Co....pheeewwww, the only thing left to do after that charge was repack our minis. Now don't get me wrong, I think GWs gone way too far with all kinds of other anti CC junk. ...random charge.... Anyway, i was glad to see the old sweeping advance go and more SCI in my sci-fantasy.

6th killed the Razorback Spam of 5th Edition.

6th was a very good step in the right direction, delivering a solid rules basis. Most, if not all, problems 6th currently has stem from terribly balanced army books. The only thing that is caused by the basic rules is allies as it's completely broken.

Oh, and Escalation of course.

 Sigvatr wrote:
6th was a very good step in the right direction, delivering a solid rules basis. Most, if not all, problems 6th currently has stem from terribly balanced army books. The only thing that is caused by the basic rules is allies as it's completely broken.

Oh, and Escalation of course.

Hull points need to be a might more. If razorbackeq had 4 hp and LR at least 5 but preferably 6, they'd still have a solid job, but hurt less.

Also, walkers are infairly inferior to MCs.

Having both Hull Points and a Vehicle Damage table (not to mention vehicles being hit at worst on a 3+ in assaults) has been a monstrously negative change. Two overlapping kill methods is extraordinarily punitive.

6E has been the most confused edition we've ever had, and the most micromanaging since 2nd. It doesn't know if it wants to be a small skirmish game or a company or even battalion level wargame.

Each edition has gone out and put down certain problems, only to come up with at least as many more.

3E put a stop to the Invinci-Eldar of 2E and the "take 40 mins to resolve one combat" of 2E, only for different almost-invinci-Eldar to pop up along with Rhino Rush skateboard assaults.

4E killed the Rhino Rush, but in the process killed most vehicles that weren't Skimmers also, and then we got the Invinci-Skimmer and "you don't ever get to shoot me" CC armies.

5E put a stop to both and gave rise to the parking lot and wound allocation gimmick deathstars.

6E killed that by hammering vehicles (instead of concentrating on the cheap transports that were the cause of the problems) and changing wound allocation but introduced the awful issues with Allies, more Invinci-skimmers, and humongous cover saves coupled with masses of cover ignoring weapons.

Fate weaver is the only model that hits a vehicle on a 4+

They fixed the vehicle damage chart of invincibility by adding hull points so that was a plus. Night Fighting has been more streamlined instead of being this huge hit or miss mental math thing that was pretty bad for the game (and this is a necron player saying this *cough cough* imotekh *cough cough*). Reserves got more streamlined in 6th.

Walkers became worse than MCs purely because of the vehicle nerf and are now one of the worst choices out there for unit types (mainly the units themselves more than anything since they try to be a mixture of shooting and CC but end up sucking at both).

Power weapons got fixed to no longer being the bane of anything with a decent armour save and actually became something you had to think about ie which weapon type to take or should I even bother taking one etc.

FNP got more of a lateral shift I guess. Glances finally became something that had an impact on the game instead of just being an extra shaken result. Rapid Fire weapons can actually do things now. VoF "fixed" high armour saves on low T units I guess but that's more of a codex thing and not a rules thing.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Fate weaver is the only model that hits a vehicle on a 4+

Jokaeros too. Those can't even damage AV 10 in melee with their Str 2.

Red Marine wrote:Ill start. Sweeping Advances. i never liked them.

What? We've had sweeping advances for forever now, and we still have them. Have the rules for this even changed at all since 3rd ed?

Anyways, I'd try not to focus on meta shifts. Just because something was popular doesn't mean it was broken, and just because something went away after a rules change doesn't mean it got fixed.

That said, there have been a few mechanics that desperately needed fixing that have gotten changed by rules editions.

1.) wound allocation. 4th ed's system was great. Then 5th ed came by and shuffled different types of wounds into different pools, which led to the absurd wound wrapping problem. Then 6th ed came by and changed it to nearest-model, and that got rid of wound wrapping, but it destroyed hidden weapons upgrades in the process. Curiously enough, though, they left wound wrapping in so long as the model was a character, thanks to LoS!

2.) skimmers. Skimmers were stupid in 4th ed. Just about as stupid as the 2++ rerollable invul save is right now, especially since it was possible to spam them. Eldar were, of course, the worst. You shot at a wave serpent? Well, all your pens become glances, all your rolls on the glance table have to be rerolled if I don't like them, any immibilized results are downgraded to stuns, all stuns to shaken, and all shaken results are ignored. The long and sort of it is unless you roll boxcars, any shooting against my falcon is basically ignored.

The switch from SMF to jink was very, very sorely needed, and 5th ed pretty much just solved that issue immediately. 6th didn't change it very much, but then, it didn't have to.

3.) Hull points. There were a lot of problems with vehicles that hull points fixed. The main problem was that vehicles were just too streaky. They had this annoying habit of dying instantly or being literally invincible no matter how much firepower you threw at them or how many times you punched them with a powerfist.

Making the vehicle damage chart nicer fixed the former problem, and hull points fixed the latter. Now vehicles die much more like monstrous creatures in a more smooth, reasonably predictable manner.

Also, on the other side, hull points got rid of something annoying for people who played with vehicles - stun-locking. While you could have a vehicle survive the entire game, you were also just as likely to not be able to actually use that vehicle for anything. All your opponent needed to do was throw a glance on a vehicle and it was useless next turn. The overhaul of what a glance does in favor of hull points (and the addition of snap firing) means now you can take some damage, and be damaged, but still do something, rather than being invincibly useless.

4.) close combat. Now, I think 6th edition was a vicious crime against assault, but they have done a few things right.

Back in 4th ed, all you needed to do was make it into close combat, and you had a somewhat decent chance to be immune to shooting attacks for the rest of the game. It wasn't as bad as some people remember, because you could always, you know MOVE to stop the roll-up, but it was still a pain.

5th ed removed consolidating into another close combat, which made it even - once close combat started you'd get a turn shooting, and your opponent would get a turn assaulting, and you'd get a turn shooting, etc. It was still technically in favor of shooty armies (guardsmen and firewarriors could still cause wounds in close combat while THSS termies couldn't in the shooting phase, for example), but there was some sense of fairness.

Of course, then 6th ed came by and went way, way too far, all but shutting down close combat armies altogether with a few exceptions. We'll see what they do in the future, though. Honestly, as strange as it is, I think it would be good to bring back consolidating straight into combat again (with attending overwatch). That way there would be a small chance of the attacker skipping into a new combat balanced against the defender having a small chance at stopping them thanks to overwatch.

5.) Fliers. GW made models and rules for them as fast skimmers, and then turned them into fliers, which completely changed them into different kinds of units. I don't recall seeing very many vendetta spam lists in 5th ed, for example.

Woops! fixed that.

Good to hear that theres been some good come of new editions.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Fate weaver is the only model that hits a vehicle on a 4+

If it moves flat out basically my entire army hits it on a 4+ (although if I'm doing that then things have gone very very wrong)

Second edition was quite worthwhile, compared to the 1st edition. You could buy your warbands beforehand instead of rolling their equipment randomly. You didn't need a GM. Balanced lists. Etc.

Every edition after second? I don't know. They don't seem necessary to me, as I still like 2nd best.

To me, most of the editions haven't 'solved' problems.

You order a hamburger with onions. They serve you one without onions. You complain.


They serve you a tuna sandwich. Which is fine, but you would like pickles. You ask for some.


They serve you a meatball sub.


For the most part, GW's 'editions' are each different games, using the same rule structure. I don't think they tinker with the rules and try to fix issues, as much as pick parts of the rules to change completely. The game isn't getting better with each iteration. You are just getting a different game with each one.

That's an exaggeration, of course, but I really don't see the design team making well-considered, minimal changes to tweak the system. I see them radically altering something to swing a pendulum one way or the other, while adding new stuff that creates entirely new problems. For instance, until you had points and army balance really spot on, why would you introduce Allies?

"The game is inconsistently point-costed and many things are far too expensive, or cheap, for their actual game utility. Let's allow you to take the good stuff from TWO books instead of one! Great news!"

 ClockworkZion wrote:
6th killed the Razorback Spam of 5th Edition.

6th ed killed vehicles, especially Dreadnoughts! How often do you see a Dreadnought on the table, or, STILL on the table in turn 6?

Change for the sake of change is never good.

Personally, I think each edition does a great job at modifying the system slightly to arrive at a game that was better, overall, than the edition that came before.

A) I think Hull Points have solved quite a few of the problems with vehicles.

B) It isn't so much a problem worldwide or anything, but it was always a significant source of frustration to me that my Assault Marines were carrying freaking grenades, and could never choose to throw a grenade instead of firing their bolt pistol. Sixth fixed that.

C) The startup costs for a new army were often prohibitively high prior to 6th edition. The introduction (or reintroduction) of the allies rules brought the costs down to the point where they might still be expensive, but they were at least manageable. Certainly you can start a new army, often with nothing more than an HQ and a Troop choice, and build it up slowly, all while still being able to play with your growing force. That was a welcome change, that allowed me to stick my toe into four new armies since the edition came out.

Actually, it has not solved any problem. It has created new problems.

However, each new edition provided a shift of paradigm. Players had to change their armies for being up to date and GW made more money.

It solved wound allocation problems of fifth.

There seem to be an ever increasing number of universal special rules... and everyone seems to have multiples of them moving them more towards "universal" and less towards "special".

Gw don't make improvements to their games, they make changes.

 Ailaros wrote:
Now vehicles die much more like monstrous creatures in a more smooth, reasonably predictable manner.

I do not agree. MCs have a save vehicles lack and MCs lack a 'Creature Damage Table', being able to be ID'd only by S10 weapons (if T5) or ID weapons, which are in smaller number than AP1/2 weapons capable of destroying vehicles.

Vehicles are much more prone to be destroyed than MCs.

Well 3rd edition literally changed the entire game so I'd say 2nd to 3rd solve a ton of problems. The game was more streamlined, yes some things that people loved went away but the majority of 3rd was actually waaaaaay better than 2nd edition.

Vector Strike wrote:Vehicles are much more prone to be destroyed than MCs.

I didn't say they weren't. I just said they get killed off in a much more smooth and regular manner.

Yes, vehicles still have to roll 0-2 times on a damage table, and that is different. I would note, though, that few MCs are immune to instant death, so it is still possible, if much less common, to take them out in a single shot.

It depends what you consider to be a "problem". However, GW's purpose in making a new edition is not to solve problems.

If GW solved all the problems the game would be "done", and they could not continue to sell new editions of rules, codexes and supplements to existing and new players. They would have to put some effort into making a new game. That is not the business plan.

Bear in mind that the WH/40K system is now well over 30 years old and they have done 13 editions. That is plenty of chances to get it right.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
6th killed the Razorback Spam of 5th Edition.

You should tell my friend Tom.

He never plays ultras without them still.


Even worse, he wins...

Kilkrazy wrote:If GW solved all the problems the game would be "done", and they could not continue to sell new editions of rules, codexes and supplements to existing and new players.

Right, and in a way we can already see this. The rules ARE "done" for big parts of the game. There are no longer major changes to how AV works - that was hammered out several editions ago. The way psychic powers work, and the basic hitting and wounding mechanic. A big majority of 6th edition's rules are the same as what 5th editions' were.

Yes, they do still go back and rehash things, of course, even more coreish rules like wound allocation, but most of the game is rather set. Much of what the new versions of the game are is adding in new content.

Because if we wanted a set, stable game, that had no changes, we have limitless options, from old favorites like chess to hundreds of mini wargames made by now-defunct manufacturers. One of the reasons 40k is still around and most of the others aren't is because it stays vibrant because it still changes and adds new things. It stays current and new, and fans like that. It's why world of warcraft underwent several expansions, for example.

And, in a way, that's all the new rules editions are. 6th edition is really the third expansion of 3rd edition with a bunch of patches rolled into the main set, and some new units, features, and options.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Fate weaver is the only model that hits a vehicle on a 4+

Or any BS 3 model firing at a static vehicle...

... IG ...

 Sigvatr wrote:
6th was a very good step in the right direction, delivering a solid rules basis. Most, if not all, problems 6th currently has stem from terribly balanced army books. The only thing that is caused by the basic rules is allies as it's completely broken.

Vehicle nerfs, unnecessary nerfs to assault, allies, broken divination table, flying monstrous creatures.

 Ailaros wrote:

Vector Strike wrote:Vehicles are much more prone to be destroyed than MCs.

I didn't say they weren't. I just said they get killed off in a much more smooth and regular manner.

Yes, vehicles still have to roll 0-2 times on a damage table, and that is different. I would note, though, that few MCs are immune to instant death, so it is still possible, if much less common, to take them out in a single shot.

Few things inflict ID on MC's, it's really very rare, while vehicles can be insta-killed by anything "wound" that rolls higher than the minimum required to "wound" them.

 Thylacine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
6th killed the Razorback Spam of 5th Edition.

6th ed killed vehicles, especially Dreadnoughts! How often do you see a Dreadnought on the table, or, STILL on the table in turn 6?

Change for the sake of change is never good.

I played Sisters in 5th. Between Repentia and Meltas Dreadnoughts didn't usually make it to turn 3, much less turn 6.

Aside from battle brothers, challenges and the nerf to assault, i loved 6th edition.