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.

I would argue that it was 5E's core set that needed editing, and that 7E needs damn near a full rewrite. Just take a look at the psychic phase and psy powers - that stuff is not only impossible to balance, but it removes player input in favour of randomly selected powers. Some days you could have the best army in the world, others the worst.

7E is an inherently unstable ruleset. The psy phase alone contains ~6,000 words, making for some obscene rules bloat (not saying 5E didn't have rules bloat, but it did have a lot less).

3rd for me, while it wasn't perfect, seemed just far simpler than all the editions that followed and at least knew what it was. Also all the army lists being in the book was great!

Never played 2nd or RT so can't comment on those.

I'm also someone who voted for 4th mainly for the LOS rules. As a broke teenager, who couldn't always afford huge amounts of terrain, it was a great band aid. Instead of buying hundreds of trees, you could mount three or four on a base and it counted as a forest. Building some card ruins, it didn't matter if there were technically no windows or access points, because it wasn't a literal representation, it was just to convey the idea, that yes, there is dense ruins here.

I mean even when Cities of Death was released, along with all the GW plastic terrain; You can't tell me those models are an accurate representation of ruined cities? Oh yeah all of these buildings fell down, minus this one or two sections of wall, and yet there is no rubble to be found. Of course not, it's just an abstract representation, so why do we have to use them as if they were a literal representation. It did a lot more for "forging a narrative" In my mind than a lot of subsequent rules have. Much less frustrating than, oh I can see through this tiny window slot, that you are 8 inches away from on the other side, but I'm going to shoot you with a battlecannon and it's going to hit you spot on, because Tanks have mad sniper skills. While ironically most sniper units are actually terrible.

However, I will say that I agree, that 5th was the most streamlined, easy to learn rule set. I can't agree that it was the best though, because I easily think it was the most boring addition. Most tables just looked like parking lots, terrain became even less important because literally everything gave 4+ saves. It was also the edition that GW started to homogenise armies. Suddenly every faction started to get Skimmers, or fast vehicle options, or MSU deepstike units. So, guard, Eldar, Marines, could all be played in seemingly the exact same way if you wanted to. Tau were regularly out shot and outmanoeuvred by Guard. BA/SW regularly carved through CSM in combat, despite CSM always being a slightly more CC focussed version of Marines. Space Wolves actually being the best gunline army for a long time. Elite units like Stormtroopers and Chaos Termies were just suicide squads. Obviously this was more down to Codex design but I thought it did a lot to blandify the game, by taking away a lot of army unique traits and making them standard fare.

I can't comment on 6th because I never played it. Seventh seems like GW got over zealous trying to fix the boring gameplay issues of fifth, but they went over board and got too complicated.

One thing I did like about 5th was that it was ultra easy to show new people how to play, and as a casual gamer myself, I could jump in and out of it without any major problems remember rules. I've recently got into 7th purely so I can play 30k. And it's insane how many similar sounding rules there are that have slight variations of rules for similar roles. Like, Sunder/Tank Hunter, shred/rend Shroud/stealthetc. In 3rd, 4th and 5th, I found it easier. There was one rule that was strong against infantry, another would help against vehicles, another improved mobility etc. Now I constantly have to go back and check which one it is and what it does, and I don't play enough games to really burn those rules into my mind.

I only played a couple of games of third and I just remember my 13 year old self thinking "I'm nids, the close combat army with the least guns but scary monsters, should be a fun match up against those well armed marines" Turn 2 "How did he just wipe out my army in CC without losing a single unit?"

Not one edition was perfect, but to me, 4th felt like it had more charm than 3rd or 5th but far less bloat than the latest editions.

Voted for 5th.

Started playing with that and despised 6th.

I dislike the bloat that came with 7th, but I feel like it improved on many things that turned me away from the game at 6th. Just remove formations, unbound, LOW, and a lot of the randomization for everything...and 7th would be really decent.

docdoom77 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:3E has similar problems to 4th, only moreso (hooray rhino rush assault spam!), but I liked the concept of all the army lists in one book.

I can't stand everyone calling it the Rhino Rush. EVERYONE could fling forward like that, and Eldar were probably the most vicious with it. Blood Angels had the one transport that could travel more than 12" and deploy charging troops, not every Marine player was a Blood Angels player.

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.

I got consolidated into once, I never let my squads stand within 6" of each other ever again.

But wasn't consolidation in 3rd 2d6 inches? Or am I mis-remembering. I remember the updated Assault rules (the basis of 4th edition) reduced the range, but didn't eliminate it..

Akiasura wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Are you sure?
I don't remember that ever happening, and sweeping advances were well...everywhere in 3rd. If your whole army could fire everytime I did a sweeping advance, the strategy would have fallen apart. With my hawks I've sweeping advanced through an ID line before, they would have been decimated if you got free shots.

It wasn't a free shot, Overwatch-style... It just allowed the enemy in their next shooting phase to target the sweeping unit even if they were in base contact with a new enemy.

Can't remember off the top of my head if that was 3rd or 4th edition, though.




The fun bit was coming across the occasional opponent who thought that sweeping into another enemy unit allowed them to fight another round of combat immediately... You still see the occasional person who thinks that a single unit could go through an entire enemy army in a single assault phase... The rules were admittedly not as clear on this as they could be, but even for GW that would have been just a tad too over the top

It was indeed 3rd, though 4th may have contained the same rule. Basically if you swept you would get shot by damn near the entire army the following term, unless the sweep happened on the opponent's turn.


And as far as fighting combat twice being far too OP for GW? Read 7th Ed. WFB.

I just double checked my 3rd edition rulebook, and I'm not seeing ANY rule to that effect. All it says if you touch another unit you count as engaged with that unit in close combat, which would prevent shooting. I checked my 4th edition rulebook too, just to make sure, and didn't see anything there (page 43, sweeping advances/consolidation). In fact, in 4th, it specifically says you can not fire.
I checked BRs from back then too, and don't see any mention of this what so ever. ]

I mainly played Wolves, Eldar, and Nids in 3rd. If this is a real thing I can't believe I never encountered it, or don't remember it. My Hawks should have died over and over.

I remember the major rule changes being everyone in 2" can swing, can't move the unit after the transport moves, sweeping advances are I+d6, consolidate is d6 even if unit is wiped. I played a lot in 3rd, and I really can't recall this rule ever existing. It would have made assault armies awful if it did, since they could kill, at best, one unit. That and you lacked fire points...half the unit could fire. I would think that would have been the strategy if you could fire into assault. It was easy for a fast unit like warp spiders to surround a transport, detonate it, and every model inside dies automatically since it can't be placed.

Tbh I remember firing into assault being a Skaven thing only, and every IG player wishing they could do it since it's fluffy.

I'm not sure about your reference to 7th WFB. Magic has been broken in WFB for several editions now, mainly suicide mages casting IF top tier spells like Purple Sun or something similar. Nothing like init save or die under a template when you play ogres or lizards.

Akiasura wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Could have sworn consolidation was 3", I mean, why would you pursue if consolidation was the same distance? I'll have to check the main book when I can.

Consolidation may have been, but the abused rule in 3rd edition was sweeping advance. It was set up like fantasy where anytime you broke or wiped out an enemy unit you made a 2d6" sweeping advance which could be used to contact other units. This move was reduced to 1d6" in fourth edition.

I'm pretty sure.

The rule for sweeping advance allowed you to rush forward 2D6 after a fleeing foe, or towards the enemy after destroying a unit. The down side to this was that the ENTIRE ARMY could shoot the unit that swept into enemy troops. I personally had a unit of Veterans shot to ribbons because of a sweeping advance.

Are you sure?
I don't remember that ever happening, and sweeping advances were well...everywhere in 3rd. If your whole army could fire everytime I did a sweeping advance, the strategy would have fallen apart. With my hawks I've sweeping advanced through an ID line before, they would have been decimated if you got free shots.

Consolidations were 3", 2d6" directly towards the enemy unless the enemy died.
In 4th I believe it was d6+Init. It was how transports were impacted that killed the rhino rush, not CC. Many powerful CC units were still seen commonly in 4th edition. It wasn't until 5th that the game began to tilt heavily towards shooting.

insaniak wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Are you sure?
I don't remember that ever happening, and sweeping advances were well...everywhere in 3rd. If your whole army could fire everytime I did a sweeping advance, the strategy would have fallen apart. With my hawks I've sweeping advanced through an ID line before, they would have been decimated if you got free shots.

It wasn't a free shot, Overwatch-style... It just allowed the enemy in their next shooting phase to target the sweeping unit even if they were in base contact with a new enemy.

Can't remember off the top of my head if that was 3rd or 4th edition, though.




The fun bit was coming across the occasional opponent who thought that sweeping into another enemy unit allowed them to fight another round of combat immediately... You still see the occasional person who thinks that a single unit could go through an entire enemy army in a single assault phase... The rules were admittedly not as clear on this as they could be, but even for GW that would have been just a tad too over the top

docdoom77 wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Are you sure?
I don't remember that ever happening, and sweeping advances were well...everywhere in 3rd. If your whole army could fire everytime I did a sweeping advance, the strategy would have fallen apart. With my hawks I've sweeping advanced through an ID line before, they would have been decimated if you got free shots.

It wasn't a free shot, Overwatch-style... It just allowed the enemy in their next shooting phase to target the sweeping unit even if they were in base contact with a new enemy.

Can't remember off the top of my head if that was 3rd or 4th edition, though.




The fun bit was coming across the occasional opponent who thought that sweeping into another enemy unit allowed them to fight another round of combat immediately... You still see the occasional person who thinks that a single unit could go through an entire enemy army in a single assault phase... The rules were admittedly not as clear on this as they could be, but even for GW that would have been just a tad too over the top

It was indeed 3rd, though 4th may have contained the same rule. Basically if you swept you would get shot by damn near the entire army the following term, unless the sweep happened on the opponent's turn.


And as far as fighting combat twice being far too OP for GW? Read 7th Ed. WFB.

I just double checked my 3rd edition rulebook, and I'm not seeing ANY rule to that effect. All it says if you touch another unit you count as engaged with that unit in close combat, which would prevent shooting. I checked my 4th edition rulebook too, just to make sure, and didn't see anything there (page 43, sweeping advances/consolidation). In fact, in 4th, it specifically says you can not fire.
I checked BRs from back then too, and don't see any mention of this what so ever. ]

I mainly played Wolves, Eldar, and Nids in 3rd. If this is a real thing I can't believe I never encountered it, or don't remember it. My Hawks should have died over and over.

I remember the major rule changes being everyone in 2" can swing, can't move the unit after the transport moves, sweeping advances are I+d6, consolidate is d6 even if unit is wiped. I played a lot in 3rd, and I really can't recall this rule ever existing. It would have made assault armies awful if it did, since they could kill, at best, one unit. That and you lacked fire points...half the unit could fire. I would think that would have been the strategy if you could fire into assault. It was easy for a fast unit like warp spiders to surround a transport, detonate it, and every model inside dies automatically since it can't be placed.

Tbh I remember firing into assault being a Skaven thing only, and every IG player wishing they could do it since it's fluffy.

I'm not sure about your reference to 7th WFB. Magic has been broken in WFB for several editions now, mainly suicide mages casting IF top tier spells like Purple Sun or something similar. Nothing like init save or die under a template when you play ogres or lizards.

The rule definitely existed at some point. Whether it was 3rd, 3rd with new assault rules, or 4th, I can't remember. You could only do it if the opponent sweeping advanced into a unit on their own turn (maybe it's in the shooting rules... I'm at work and bookless). So if they swept the same turn they charged, they counted as a viable unit to shoot on your turn. If they swept on the enemy's, turn this rule didn't apply.

Also, keep in mind that shooting wasn't as powerful in 3rd. You could only rapid fire or shoot 24" with a basic weapon if you were stationary. So, if you chose to target the heck out of that unit, you were giving up a lot of mobility. And there was nearly as much AP2 and AP3 shooting. Marines surviving after getting shot a bunch was more common.

Akiasura wrote:Hm. It could be 3rd with new assault rules, I don't have that book in front of me, but I'm looking at 3rd and 4th right now and don't see it. Unless it's not in the combat section. Those books were a bit all over the place, and near the end of third I had a ton of extra material on me.

I'm not speaking about marines, I played assault eldar and nids as well. My swooping Hawks died to a light breeze being t3 with a 4+ save, yet they rolled combat lines and were my mvp. It's the only edition i got to use them so much. I used gene stealers as well, and those aren't much tougher.

Still, a leman Russ firing into combat would devastate a marine squad. Star cannons would do the same if enough fired as well. Assault cannons could do damage as well, I have a hard time believing this never came up in any br in 3rd or 4th.

Basically tying every quote I could think that was relevant to this.



On page 69 (heh) of the main 3rd Ed. rulebook the rules for consolidation state it is a 3" move. To the right of that rule on the same page there is a grey blurb box on the edge discussing shooting into close combat. THAT is the block that explains being able to shoot sweeping advancers. The page prior states you can advance or consolidate if the enemy is destroyed. In the back of the book in the section named The Ultimate Secrets of the Galaxy Revealed is the rule stating you can consolidate into combat, basically with neither side counting as charging, so no +1A. However, nothing stops you from moving and charging in the next turn.

 KorPhaeron77 wrote:
You can't tell me those models are an accurate representation of ruined cities? Oh yeah all of these buildings fell down, minus this one or two sections of wall, and yet there is no rubble to be found. Of course not, it's just an abstract representation, so why do we have to use them as if they were a literal representation.

I always found it baffling that people struggled so much with abstract terrain. Part of it seemed to be that no one ever fully read through that section of the BRB, or that they didn't quite understand the idea that everything on the table, including the terrain, was just an abstract representation, but there also certain players who had a deliberately selective understanding of the rule. These players would be fine with the abstract LoS aspect when it came to hiding their Defiler or Basilisk behind a building on one corner of the board, but it suddenly became an issue when it came to shorter range shooting through terrain footprints. Back in the day at my local GW most of the arguing around area terrain was to do with footprints because people were desperate to deny cover saves to their opponents. True LoS made people a little less selective of their understanding of the LoS rules, but didn't end any arguments over who could see what.

You'd think that TLOS would solve most arguments, but no...

I've had battles where I got a thin stick and was able to have one end of the stick touching one model, and the other nearly touching the other model, thus proving TLOS. I still got told that the model couldn't see.

Best core rules for a fun game: Warhammer fantasy 4th edition
Best core rules to build a cool army: 40k 7th edition.

Iiked 6th the most. 5th edition had funky wound allocation shenanigans. As short as 6th was, I remember it being pretty nice core rules wise.

 Just Tony wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:3E has similar problems to 4th, only moreso (hooray rhino rush assault spam!), but I liked the concept of all the army lists in one book.

I can't stand everyone calling it the Rhino Rush. EVERYONE could fling forward like that, and Eldar were probably the most vicious with it. Blood Angels had the one transport that could travel more than 12" and deploy charging troops, not every Marine player was a Blood Angels player.

I seem to recall a lot of Dark Angels and Ultramarines suddenly getting the red thirst and sprouting death companies as well as a healthy number of BA successor chapters in that edition because the BA codex was so good compared to running marines vanilla. It kind of felt like every marine player was Blood Angels player.

Though in 5th Edition, it felt like every Marine player...and even CSM player was a Grey Knight.

SW's were the big bandwagon army of 5th, GK's only had their book for about the last year of 5E's lifespan.

BA and BT were the big draw in 3rd. SW to an extent. Pretty much any non-vanilla codex SM army was the draw. I basically handicapped myself by sticking with CF.