Switch Theme:

Which edition had the best core ruleset?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Which edition of 40K had the most balanced and fun core ruleset?
3rd Edition
4th Edition
5th Edition
6th Edition
7th Edition

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 BoomWolf wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:


 BoomWolf wrote:
Oh how people tend to have nostalgic feelings and utterly forget all the bad and just look at the good.

5E had just as many balance issues as 7th, just with less actual options around it was not as easy to notice them.
5E had it's issues. It was not perfect by any means. It had some crazy broken stuff. It did not however have anything near the balance issues of 7E. Grey Knights having cheap autocannon upgrades to S8 was bad. It was not "I get 600 free extra points just because I took X units in Y configuration" bad, or was it "Yeah my 81pt minimum sized Troop squad is outmatching your purpose built heavy support battle tank for firepower" bad, nor was it "here's my entire army of superheavies with D weapons" bad.


There isn't anything INHERENTLY unbalanced at getting free upgrade and/or transports as your formation rewards.
Its just that the formation itself, and the things it gifts, are the issue.

You can make this argument about practically anything that was broken in the previous editions.
There isn't anything inherently broken about wound allocation in 5th, certain multiple wound units are the issue.
There isn't anything inherently broken about sweeping into a new assault in 3rd, certain combat units are the issue.
There isn't anything inherently broken about the ally matrix, certain synergies are the issue.
While you do have a point that the codexes caused these issues to be so...frequent, the main rulebook is what allowed the abuses to be created in the first place. You don't see wound allocation problems as frequently, formations were not a feature of other editions, combat units aren't seen as a problem anymore... so on and so forth.

 BoomWolf wrote:

HAD the strike force only gave full 10 man squads the transport, and it was only rhino/drop pod, it wouldn't be any issue what-so-ever. its the fact its specifically razorbacks and requires just 5 man squads for it that causes the issue. most formations are a good, healthy thing. they encourage mixed forces and cross-unit synergy. its a tiny minority that I can count on one hand that are a problem, and the common themes for all the problem formations is either that the benefit is ovewhelming compared to the trouble getting it, or that the formation is made of a single unit type.

Most formations are terrible for game balance. There are a few broken ones that you see constantly (Gladius, Riptide wing, Decurion) and the rest are awful relatively speaking and never see play.
While what they encourage might be good, they certainly have not made the game state a better place. What they have done is take already powerful codexes and place them further out of reach for their weaker cousins. Some armies don't need them (eldar) but even an Aspect host is extremely difficult for the weaker armies to deal with. The decurion has been seen as a problem for a very long time. The gladius can just win against some armies who lack that level of AT. They are a skew in a game that rewards skews.

 BoomWolf wrote:

Superheavies as well, and D weapons, are not inherently a problem. in fact, most superheavies AND most D platforms never even reach the competitive table as it is THAT obvious they are just not worth the trouble. its a few, highly specific ones that are too good compared to the baseline, and it that notion, not any different form 5th that had its own set of "clearly over the top" units, it was just different units that were OP for different reasons, and were just as toxic. all the "fixes" needed, are not in the system itself, but in a handful of units-and in most cases, a mere point re-calibration is enough.

Again, you can make the inherently a problem argument against anything. 7th still introduced Superheavies and D weapons to the table this frequently, and they are a problem.
Look at the armies that get Superheavies and Str D weapons. It's usually the stronger armies outside of a few exceptions (Stompa) and the options for the weaker armies are usually considered to be quite good. SH and Str D weapons skew the game way too much. They require you to bring a weapon that can target them and other units in the case of SH (So Grav and Str D weapons end up getting taken, and the armies that can spam them rise to the top) and Str D weapons cause normal tanks to disappear outside of cheap transport spam (which strongly effects Orks BW lists, Guard, Chaos Marines...a lot of lists actually).

It just causes a skew towards certain lists that are already OP, and they are certainly a feature of this edition. Knights aren't strong, but an all knight list can cause non marine and eldar players a lot of problems if they aren't ready for it. The reason you don't see them taken is grav and str D removes them pretty easily, and the two strongest armies in the game always take some form of grav or D weapons.

 BoomWolf wrote:

No idea what sort of 81 point minimum troop squad has serious AT power though. you mean scatterbikes? that's again a local issue in a codex, not an edition problem. (also, they brake light transports, but can't touch actual tanks)

If he's talking about scat bikes agree that's not 7th's fault. Scatbikes would be powerful in any edition.

 BoomWolf wrote:

Any complaint anyone ever has on 7th can be easily rolled into the same handful of specific units/formations that have rules that are just too much. a handful that is a tiny fraction of the overall total. (and the outdated codices having issues competing with the better designed newer ones, but that always been that way at any point in time)

Exactly, so it's a terrible argument to make.
For example, I can say that would allocation in 5th was fine, it was Nob Bikers and Paladins that were the problem. Everyone who played 5th knows that the core rules enabled these units to be broken though.
Sweeping into a unit in 3rd wasn't a problem, it was the rhino rush that was an issue. But everyone who played 3rd knows it was more complicated then that.

But, we have to be real here, formations and the breaking of the CAD are bad for the game. It's gotten out of control, with formations either being terrible or over the top. Few, if any, come to mind as balanced and fair. They are allowed by 7th.
The D weapon tables and tank damage tables in general, when compared to MC's, is a problem in 7th that stems from the core rule book.
Super heavies being allowed in the base game is a feature of 7th, and they have not been healthy for the game as well.
Psyker powers are in the core rule set, and I think they are a big step down in terms of balance from what was there previously. Formations just make them worse. Brotherhood of psykers also seems like a problem to me.
Overwatch is a problem.
Random charging is a problem.
Rapid fire getting stronger is a problem.
LoS is a problem.
Jetbikes/Skimmers+Jink is a problem.
Ignores Cover USR is a problem.

Many of these are not unique to 7th, they were in 6th, but 7th could have addressed these and chose not to.
   
Made in ie
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle






I actually quite liked some of the abstract stuff regarding LoS and terrain in 4th ed. It was definitely a bit silly by times but there was less arguing over what units could actually see what and who actually got a cover save. Also the assault rules were a big improvement from 3rd ed., especially since codex changes meant Ork boyz could no longer tear through Terminators like butter! I don't doubt 5th ed was excellent but my local meta got a bit rubbish with terrain campers so I ended up moving over into WHFB full time.


I only played a tiny bit of 6th and none of 7th ed, but from a relatively outside perspective, the rules look bloated as hell. It used to be the case that 40k had a simple core system and most of the more complex (i.e. unit/army specific) rules were in the codices. WHFB on the other hand had a complex core rule set and relatively simple army books. The current rules just seem run a complex core rule set into complex codices with a smattering of the overpowered apocalypse units thrown on top. I've seen heavily amended legislation that was less complex looking than the current 40k rule set and that's worrying

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





For me 4th was the greatest.

5th for me was annoying. But I credit that mostly due to the Codexes and not the core rules.

Really hate the True Line of Site rules.
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Akiasura made some good points but I'll address these as well.

 BoomWolf wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:


 BoomWolf wrote:
Oh how people tend to have nostalgic feelings and utterly forget all the bad and just look at the good.

5E had just as many balance issues as 7th, just with less actual options around it was not as easy to notice them.
5E had it's issues. It was not perfect by any means. It had some crazy broken stuff. It did not however have anything near the balance issues of 7E. Grey Knights having cheap autocannon upgrades to S8 was bad. It was not "I get 600 free extra points just because I took X units in Y configuration" bad, or was it "Yeah my 81pt minimum sized Troop squad is outmatching your purpose built heavy support battle tank for firepower" bad, nor was it "here's my entire army of superheavies with D weapons" bad.


There isn't anything INHERENTLY unbalanced at getting free upgrade and/or transports as your formation rewards.
Getting stuff for free is inherently imbalanced. Like, by definition.

If two armies show up to play each other at an agreed points level and one has stuff it's not paying for, then, fundamentally, it's unbalanced.

One can argue it might be less imbalanced with different conditions, but no matter what, fundamentally free stuff you're not paying for isn't balanced.



Superheavies as well, and D weapons, are not inherently a problem.
If we're talking about something like a single Baneblade in an 1850pt game, sure. If we're talking about a Warhound or Revenant Titan in an 1850pt game, or 5 Knights in an 1850pt game, that's another story altogether.

in fact, most superheavies AND most D platforms never even reach the competitive table as it is THAT obvious they are just not worth the trouble.
In large part this is because most events, particularly ITC events, change the way D weapons work to make them dramatically less powerful and/or have restrictions on the type and numbers of Superheavies one can take. Most events won't allow you to take an all Knight army or use D weapons at full "as-written" power. Such events actually change the rules for how these work and what you can take.


its a few, highly specific ones that are too good compared to the baseline, and it that notion, not any different form 5th that had its own set of "clearly over the top" units, it was just different units that were OP for different reasons, and were just as toxic. all the "fixes" needed, are not in the system itself, but in a handful of units-and in most cases, a mere point re-calibration is enough.
The majority of new superheavy units and increasingly both cheaper and killier than such units were in previous editions and being pushed into smaller and smaller games where the tools to successfully engage them may simply not be available. Many SH's/GC's aren't a problem, but generally, these are also older units with rules from editions past that also have expensive FW models that nobody is using. Likewise, having entire armies composed of nothing but superheavies is just not something many armies can successfully engage with "generalist/TAC" lists.


No idea what sort of 81 point minimum troop squad has serious AT power though. you mean scatterbikes? that's again a local issue in a codex, not an edition problem. (also, they brake light transports, but can't touch actual tanks)
I didn't say they had AT firepower, just lots of firepower, compared to something like a Dakkapred or LR Exterminator/Punisher or the like. Sure, I'd gran that's more a local codex issue, but it's also one that highlights the general power insanity inherent in 7th edition that allows things which once were realm of internet hyperbole that never would have existed in 5E.

Stuff like Scatterbikes, 2++ rerollable invuls, psychic powers that move terrain pieces, invisibility, etc just were not things that 5E and older editions would have found within the realm of possibility.


Any complaint anyone ever has on 7th can be easily rolled into the same handful of specific units/formations that have rules that are just too much.
One can make the same potential claim of any edition. 7E has far more than any other edition I can think of however.

And while that handful dominated the competitive scene as in that scene only the best matters, it does not change the fact that the game, as a whole, is bigger, more versatile and enables you to truly play the way YOU WANT to play, rather than shoehorn you into a few specific builds.
Except when the power level has ramped up to the level that such is simply not true from a practical standpoint anymore unless playing with close pals of similar mind. If you're talking pickup play, league play, tournament play, etc, just "playing how you want to play" is often going to lead to pre-determined one-sided curbstomps over and over to a far greater degree than previous editions. The scale of the potential power gap between armies has never been as big as it is now.

The possibilities to allow for things which people have no answer to, or to bring absurdly overpowered things, is enormously more possible than in any previous edition.

(because lets admit, the CAD is actually the least versatile "formation". it encourages to spamming the best stand-alone unit in each slot and nothing else)
And formations don't do the exact same thing? Sure, they may force you to take a unit or two you wouldn't otherwise take, but it's incidental, and most formations are used because they either give the best bonuses or allow spam of the best units. At least with the old FOC everybody was on something of an even board in terms of force composition allowances.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 Vaktathi wrote:
Probably 5E.

5E wasn't perfect, Wound allocation, Kill Points, vehicle weapons shooting (e.g. move a predator and only 1 lascannon of 3 can fire at all), transports being a little too "point and click" (some of the 7E mechanics involving stunned vehicles requiring Ld tests by passengers would have been a good fix) and almost *all* cover being 4+ were issues. However, the rest of the core rules were probably the best all around core rule set that 40k has ever had. The 5E core ruleset probably had the least bias towards any one subset of armies, aside from the aforementioned issues, almost all other problems were codex related issues.


I agree with this. Fifth edition was a very mature game, and models had more options than in 3rd/4th, with the ability to run, improved rapid fire, outflank, and eliminating infiltrate/deep strike as mission rules. Vehicles, especially light vehicles, were absurdly tough for their points, but that's because they had been priced that way in late 4th edition, when they were deathtraps.

And people forget that while 5th edition allowed for some nasty wound allocation shenanigans with multi-wound models, it did a pretty good job of allocating wounds among squads. It allowed torrents of fire to potentially kill heavy weapons or sergeants. A quick errata that wound models must be assigned wounds prior to any models at full strength would have resolved the Nobs/Paladins nightmares.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




There isn't anything INHERENTLY unbalanced at getting free upgrade and/or transports as your formation rewards.
Its just that the formation itself, and the things it gifts, are the issue.


As others have already said, that's complete nonsense.


Any complaint anyone ever has on 7th can be easily rolled into the same handful of specific units/formations that have rules that are just too much. a handful that is a tiny fraction of the overall total. (and the outdated codices having issues competing with the better designed newer ones, but that always been that way at any point in time)
And while that handful dominated the competitive scene as in that scene only the best matters, it does not change the fact that the game, as a whole, is bigger, more versatile and enables you to truly play the way YOU WANT to play, rather than shoehorn you into a few specific builds. (because lets admit, the CAD is actually the least versatile "formation". it encourages to spamming the best stand-alone unit in each slot and nothing else)


Actually, my complaints CAN'T be rolled into the same handful of specific units/formations. My issues with 7th are the insane scale creep, rules sprawl and disorganization that make it nearly impossible for me to quickly and easily introduce a new player to the game. My issues are with things like adding entire new phases to a game that was already taking too long. My issues stem from the fact that, at any point in time, if I visit three different stores, I will see three completely different versions of the game being played due to the amount of house ruling 7th requires (this has been an issue in some other editions as well but never this bad imo). My issue is with with the fact that I just saw a guy play an army that involved two codexes three white dwarfs two army supplements a data slate AND a campaign supplement. That's ridiculous and a large contributor to why 2nd ed had to be pruned back.

SO, TL;DR:

No, my issues with 7th don't involve calling out specific units or rules imbalances. They involve being handed a ruleset that by any other manufacturer's standards would be considered "draft" at best.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in ca
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

Let's also add some other flaws with 7th as a core ruleset.

-Wound allocation: The way 5th did it (minus multi-wound model units with unique upgrades) was faster, has the same amount of abstraction, and is fundamentally simpler while fitting the scale of the game far better. The current system of from the front and/or random allocation is sloppy, slow, tedious, and doesn't add any depth to the game. Plus, for those who are fans of hero-hammer, we can do away with the absurdity that is LoS! and just let players run the characters at the front for the visual appeal and not have to worry about rolling for a guy to jump out in front.

-Vehicles vs. MCs: The core rules for these two units are just off. There's no way around it, and one or the other needs a re-work so they work more similarly. The issues are only worsened in the codices.

-The psychic phase: A poorly worded mess that changed a perfectly working system into a complicated waste of time. So many dice for so little impact. That and moving to random powers was a step backwards for the game. Speaking of random...

-Increase in random: From warlord traits to powers, the increase in randomness has not helped the issues with the game. Random powers and traits was a lazy cop out by the designers who couldn't be bothered to either make all the options equally balanced, or just assign a points cost for them, but letting players select either way. Random charging is still a change that was unnecessary, especially given how it works with overwatch if you fail. The issue is worsened within the codices, especially ones like Orks and Chaos. Oh, and I almost forgot about mysterious terrain.

-Maelstrom: Speaking of random, GW took a great idea (asymmetric missions) and took the easy method of just letting the dice decide. Not to mention that if you play Maelstrom exactly as written, some players can get screwed over simply due to army choice. Good luck casting that psychic power, Tau. From random card draws with wildly different ease of accomplishment, to random VPs on several of them, the whole game type is a random mess that struggles to make sense within GW's oft parroted 'Forging of a Narrative'. Let the players forge their own narrative instead of a random deck telling to run over there, no, wait, now go over there, oh, and shoot down that flyer that's off the table.

-Army construction: Still a hot, confusing mess. Unbound is a joke, CADs are fairly underwhelming compared to a number of formations, detachments and formations are complicated and a barrier for new players to break into.

-Finally, a confused scale of game: One of the reasons I enjoy 40k is that its a 28mm game with vehicles and some large gribblies. It makes for a cool visual table and the models are great. However, the rules don't reflect at all what the game is, and are often contradictory. From model to model wounds and movement, to keeping track of all the things that have gone wrong with your vehicles and tiny wargear options to tracks, the game screams small scale skirmish. But the addition of Lords of War with GMCs and SHVs with destroyer weapons and a constant downward trend of model points costs, the game is also screaming to be apocalypse/epic. Really, it should either be split into two games, or just pick one and do it and right. If it wants to be a 28mm version of Epic, then do away with vehicle charts, model by model wound allocation, piddly wargear differences and excessive dice rolling. If it wants to be a more standard 28mm oversized platoon/understrength company scale game, then drop all Lords of War, flyers, and re-tool the game so that an average model count is recommended in the BRB and point values are adjusted to match.


Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in gb
The Last Chancer Who Survived




United Kingdom

Exalted.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps




Phoenix, AZ, USA

While everyone seems to love 5th, I found 6th to be the best core rule set by far. It felt dynamic, openned up more options than the stale CAD and AD, and had actual terrain rules. Definitely the best core rule set.

SJ

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/01 16:59:07


“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
 
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok






Khadorstompy wrote:
For me 4th was the greatest.

5th for me was annoying. But I credit that mostly due to the Codexes and not the core rules.

Really hate the True Line of Site rules.


This. Almost exactly.

4th's LoS rules were my favorite by far.

   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I 'm not sure any core set can blamed as much as codices. 2nd ed was reasonable even until tyranids eldar and csm.
   
Made in us
Nurgle Veteran Marine with the Flu




Southern California

When was "consolidating into close combat" removed? Removing that small but valuable aspect of assault phase was frustrating.

Congrats! you just destroyed the unit you were fighting! Reward? oh, you're getting shot to gak.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/01 17:21:07


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:
When was "consolidating into close combat" removed? Removing that small but valuable aspect of assault phase was frustrating.

Congrats! you just destroyed the unit you were fighting! Reward? oh, you're getting shot to gak.


It wasn't in 5th ed. So I'm guessing between 4th and 5th.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/01 17:59:13


 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Yeah, consolidation was removed with the introduction of 5E. And for 5E that was fine, CC was still quite potent and assault oriented armies could work rather well, you just couldnt eat an opponents army without ever getting shot at. It was the post 5E "no assaulting out of any reserves, no assaulting out of even stationary transports, charge distance is now random, and oh here's overwatch again" that was the kick in the teeth.


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, consolidation was removed with the introduction of 5E. And for 5E that was fine, CC was still quite potent and assault oriented armies could work rather well, you just couldnt eat an opponents army without ever getting shot at. It was the post 5E "no assaulting out of any reserves, no assaulting out of even stationary transports, charge distance is now random, and oh here's overwatch again" that was the kick in the teeth.



5th ed was still a shooting edition. It was the beginning of the 7th ed mea.
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Martel732 wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, consolidation was removed with the introduction of 5E. And for 5E that was fine, CC was still quite potent and assault oriented armies could work rather well, you just couldnt eat an opponents army without ever getting shot at. It was the post 5E "no assaulting out of any reserves, no assaulting out of even stationary transports, charge distance is now random, and oh here's overwatch again" that was the kick in the teeth.



5th ed was still a shooting edition. It was the beginning of the 7th ed mea.
It was more shooting oriented than 4E (which was a heavily assault oriented edition), but it was *far* more assault oriented than 6E or 7E, and probably the best balanced all around.

As an example, my CSM army was tournament playable through most of the edition and relied on CC for the bulk of its killing power and was 40 CSMs, a flying khorne DP, 4 Rhinos, 12 Terminators, and 6 Oblits. The shooting was there to crack transports and neutralize key targets while everything else was destroyed through assaults. That worked fine barring matchups against the absolute worst power matchups.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





cedar rapids, iowa

Is everyone misreading the poll?

Core ruleset, 5th ed was the WORST.
Every army had uniquely named rules, weapons, tests, powers, etc.....

How was that the "best" core ruleset??????

The poll was not, "Do you like formations?"

 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 sfshilo wrote:
Is everyone misreading the poll?

Core ruleset, 5th ed was the WORST.
Every army had uniquely named rules, weapons, tests, powers, etc.....

How was that the "best" core ruleset??????

The poll was not, "Do you like formations?"


We just don't agree with you.
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 sfshilo wrote:
Is everyone misreading the poll?

Core ruleset, 5th ed was the WORST.
Every army had uniquely named rules, weapons, tests, powers, etc.....

How was that the "best" core ruleset??????
how is that different, and in fact not even *more* true, in the current edition aside from having some common psychic power schools?

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in gb
The Last Chancer Who Survived




United Kingdom

Uh-huh, the 5E brb was easy to wrap your head around.

In 2007 I bought AoBR. Went home, snap-fit the models, and taught myself how to play from the book. I was about 11 at the time.

Even taking into account the codex imbalances, 5E was by far the most stable ruleset for 40k I have seen from GW.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/01 18:29:52


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Dallas area, TX

I have to agree with the majority here. Even though I liked 6th ed better (mostly due to the codices), 5th ed was the best core ruleset.

   
Made in ca
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

 sfshilo wrote:

Every army had uniquely named rules, weapons, tests, powers, etc.....



As opposed to 7th...?

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight





Raleigh, NC

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
While everyone seems to love 5th, I found 6th to be the best core rule set by far. It felt dynamic, openned up more options than the stale CAD and AD, and had actual terrain rules. Definitely the best core rule set.

SJ


I remember 6th having a hopeful tone when it first came out, and that lasted for a period until things like Escalation started coming out.
   
Made in gb
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard



UK

I honestly don't get how people like 6th and 7th both are utter garbage.

5th had issues but it didn't have the atrocious allies system or the nonsense that is formations.

I mean c'mon 6th drove alot of the community away from GW.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




St. George, UT

I had the most fun playing 4th ed. Yeah, entanglement sucked and was a little too harsh, but LOS, wounding allocation, HTH resolution, vehicle damage tables, etc. all seemed very fair and streamlined.

5th edition introduced several core issues that I feel the game has just not recovered from.

See pics of my Orks, Tau, Emperor's Children, Necrons, Space Wolves, and Dark Eldar here:


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I agree with Jayden, 4e was the best rule set by far. It had its problems sure, namely holo-falcons, glass jaw vehicles, Nidzilla and Lash of Submission, but if your looking for perfection you aren't going to get it out of 40k. Abstracted line of sight played faster and made positioning more important because it was easier to deny LOS under that system. Wound allocation was simple, did what it needed to do and could not be exploited. There were no deathstars, little in the way of the codex arms race (at least until the end) and the each army seemed unique and filled their individual niche well.

The runner up for best edition is 5e, but I feel it falls short of 4e in a lot of respects. I feel 5e was the last edition were generalship was more important than list building, but I also feel it is responsible for many of the problems prevalent in 6e and 7e. This is where the cracks really started to form. Here are some of the bigger problems 5e introduced:

Alpha Strike Armies: The is just my opinion, but alpha strike armies suck. Getting crippled before turn 1 should not happen and yet this happens all to often in 40k, and 5e is where this truly began. True LOS made it nearly impossible to hide larger and often more important units from LOS even for a single turn, so combined with the increased codex power in 5e armies the army with first turn could now pound its opponent from across the board with little effort. Combine this with the newly introduced drop pods and crazy scouting units like the Vendetta and Baal Predator and you are often looking at one army placing troops with nasty weapons like meltaguns and flamers in their opponents deployment zone and destroying key units before the opponent gets a single turn. This problem has only become worse in later editions.

Wound Allocation Shenanigans: Unnecessarily complicated wound allocation rules both slowed down the game and lead to a host of abuses and exploits. Partially fixed in 6e, but the fix introduced a separate set of problems and is far too detailed for a skirmish level game. Wound allocation should just be a system for removing casualties, not a minigame in and of itself.

Death Stars: 5e saw the introduction of death stars with the infamous biker nobz. While technically a unit pulled for a late 4e codex, although arguable one made in anticipation of 5e, it was 5e wound allocation exploits that ultimately put them over the top as the games first real death stars. Other deathstars, such as the thunderwolf cavalry deathstar, soon followed.

Easy Access to Invulnerably Saves: Ok, arguably the first offender was the awful Choas Deamon codex at the tail end of 4e, although you could make the Ork codex argument that this was a codex built in anticipation of 5e. But I feel that Stormshields cemented this trend. Inv saves should have never been made available in anything better than a 4+ except in the rarest of circumstances, but stormshields turned 3+ inv into a stock upgrade. Even if the unit itself isn't consider that strong I still feel that this set a bad precedent.

Tank Squadrons: In 4e, every faction was essentially limited to an absolute maximum of three main battle tanks by the FOC and thus tanks were limited as supporting elements to an infantry based army, as was fitting for a skirmish level game. There existed only one exception to this rule, the awful Nidzilla builds that were possible because Nid players were allowed to take MCs in three separate force org slots when they should have been limited to the heavy support slot just like every other army. But otherwise, this rule held in check. When 5e rolled around, IG got Leman Russ Squadrons plus Vendetta skimmer tanks in the fast attack slot, Nids got Carnifex Squadrons and Blood Angles could field fast attack Predators. While these weren't always the strongest choices (see Carnifex squadrons) it established a clear precedent that it was now acceptable for armies to just spam massive amounts of their largest and strongest models.

Flyers: "But it was 6e that introduced flyers!" you say. While technically true, the first flyer models, such as Valkyries, Stormravens and Nightscythes were introduced in 5e, and all on unique bases that clearly separated them from skimmers. Did anyone honestly expect them to remain skimmer tanks indefinitely? And even as skimmer tanks, they kind of let the Imperials intrude upon xenos territory, for whom skimmer tanks were supposed to be their unique a powerful centerpiece units. In any case, I think the blame for flyers should be squarely placed here.

Codex Arms Race:
Admittedly I never played 3e so this might have been a 4e problem as well, but 5e codices were clearly more powerful than their 4e counterparts, giving the newer codices and edge over their opposition. And I am certain it was not just compatibility with the new rules. Units often got cheaper in 5e codices while gaining new assortments of special rules (this seemed to be the edition of new army wide special rules such as "tactics" and "orders"), especially basic troops, and armies often got new very powerful tools such as drop pods, scouting predators and vendettas that radically altered how you had to fight against them, and these tools were often grossly undercosted.

5th edition has several other problems, such as transport spam and kill points, but I don't feel those problems persisted and grew in 6e and 7e like the above ones did. The last thing I will mentioned about 5e though is that I felt it was a very Imperium centered edition. The first year of codex releases were all Imperials (Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Space Wolf), the first xenos release fell flat followed by the strong Blood Angles. The Dark Eldar codex was solid but its a rarely played army and was eclipsed by the very strong Grey Knights codex. It was not until the very end of 5e that we had Necrons, the only strong xenos presence in 5e outside of perhaps the Orkz. The 5e codices were clearly more powerful than their 4e counterparts, and I honestly don't know if the Imperial players at the time understood how much of an advantages they have over their opposition. I think a lot of the praise for 5e might be from Imperium players who simply enjoyed riding high on strong codices.

This message was edited 11 times. Last update was at 2016/08/02 01:33:15


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




It's either 3rd 4th or 5th to me. They all had a few things I didn't like that made the game unfun, but its a lot better than today

3rd, Rhino Rush being allowed and HTH being too strong for the most part. Eldar were the only shooty counters.

4th, Hiding the entire game and dashing forward at the end to win games. With eldar, I won a 1.5k game against 2 opponents with equal lists using this

5th Vehicle damage table and Wound allocation. With those two fixes, a lot of the broken items would have been fine and the game would have been excellent.

   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

4th Editions' hybrid (True LOS sometimes - Abstracted LOS sometimes) LOS system spawned more rules debates over the life of the edition than just about any other rule I can recall in the last 20 years... it was a mess, because people just didn't understand how it was supposed to work.


 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 Jayden63 wrote:
I had the most fun playing 4th ed. Yeah, entanglement sucked and was a little too harsh, but LOS, wounding allocation, HTH resolution, vehicle damage tables, etc. all seemed very fair and streamlined.
Vehicle tables were fair if you were running skimmers (and particularly skimmers that had wargear which mitigated or removed the downside of being skimmers), but otherwise vehicles were very poor in 4

Let's not even get started on non-skimmer transports (oh, your transport took a single penetrating hit? 50% chance of vehicle death straight away, and if it survives it's automatically stunned and probably immobilized or losing a weapon to boot and now you have to disembark and take a pinning test, skimmers get to ignore all this entirely, huzzah!).

That said, I did like 4E wound allocation and Victory Points (Kill Points were the worst thing 5E introduced and they still suck).

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




hobojebus wrote:
I honestly don't get how people like 6th and 7th both are utter garbage.

Probably because both opened up several list building opportunities that you don't need your opponent's permission to run?

It isn't like the core rules of 7th are bad. Just make a few tweaks like:
1. You can charge out of a stationary transport
2. Swarms have EW outside of any blast or template
3. Allow Blasts to target open ground inside that enemy squad
4. Soul Blaze is done on a D6
5. ATSKNF gives a reroll to Fear tests rather than ignoring them

Bam. That's pretty solid.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: