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.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
Agree with most of whats been said in here, I'll add the old Weapon Skill chart though. It doesn't matter if your the single best close combat fighter in the entire galaxy, you're still only hitting your opponent on 3's and they'll be hitting you back on 4's.

35 pages of Vehicle rules, all of which combined to make said vehicles utter trash unless they were a Fast Skimmer. Heck, the majority of unit type rules were terrible all told anyway.

WS:
To which edition of the rules does this apply? Models with poor WS (less than half of opponent) would hit the enemy only on 5+ (3rd to 5th).

The chart stayed the same in 3rd through 7th, and was useless in all 5 editions. It was very rare for an opponent to be forced to hit on 5's, it proved to be a dreadful way to demonstrate the supposed skill of the units involved.

To be clear, I'm not a huge fan of the fixed roll set up we now have, but it's considerably better than the screw up that was the old WS chart, and I'm not sure there is a perfect set up given the volume of dice that can be rolled.

The chart was never a problem but giving a SM Cpt. only WS5 was stupid. WS 7 would have ensured that goons (WS 2 & 3) would only hit him on 5+. The fixed chart is just there to speed up play and break immersion.

The current way would be fine if more characters had ways to apply negatives to those they were attacking. A Captain is skilled enough that I could buy him inflicting a -1 penalty on Custodes, who would still hit him often and really hurt him.

It would be more rules to add though so I'm not so sure it's worth it.

Agreed, the chart was kinda clunky but it's odd to me now that a model hits a grot with the same reliability as a primarch. my issue with the chart was that almost everything in the game was WS 3-5. It made actually comparing feel redundant.

Armor Facings
Hull Points
Weapon Arcs
Formations
Look Out, Sir!
Riptide Wings
Wraith knights
Having to carry around 5 books just to play one army.
Allies


Pretty much all of it. This edition is the best. I've played more games since July 2017 than I did the entire three years previous. And it just keeps getting better!

Deleted

 Bi'ios wrote:
Seperate USRs in the rulebook
Firing arcs
AP system

I actually really liked the psychic phase from 7th. It felt a lot more significant than the current one does. I dislike the way psychics work this edition.

I wouldn't care about the 1 Attempt Per Power rule if we at least had generic tables to choose from again. As is, it's super limiting.

That a lascannon to the face instantly killed 90% of the game unless they had a bike in which case it is but a flesh wound.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Imateria wrote:
Agree with most of whats been said in here, I'll add the old Weapon Skill chart though. It doesn't matter if your the single best close combat fighter in the entire galaxy, you're still only hitting your opponent on 3's and they'll be hitting you back on 4's.

35 pages of Vehicle rules, all of which combined to make said vehicles utter trash unless they were a Fast Skimmer. Heck, the majority of unit type rules were terrible all told anyway.

WS:
To which edition of the rules does this apply? Models with poor WS (less than half of opponent) would hit the enemy only on 5+ (3rd to 5th).

The chart stayed the same in 3rd through 7th, and was useless in all 5 editions. It was very rare for an opponent to be forced to hit on 5's, it proved to be a dreadful way to demonstrate the supposed skill of the units involved.

To be clear, I'm not a huge fan of the fixed roll set up we now have, but it's considerably better than the screw up that was the old WS chart, and I'm not sure there is a perfect set up given the volume of dice that can be rolled.

The chart was never a problem but giving a SM Cpt. only WS5 was stupid. WS 7 would have ensured that goons (WS 2 & 3) would only hit him on 5+. The fixed chart is just there to speed up play and break immersion.

The WS chart was just crap - Ohh look my Bloodthirster/Celestine/Lelith Hesperax etc etc can only hit a Gretcin on a 3+ FFS

Ice_can wrote:
That a lascannon to the face instantly killed 90% of the game unless they had a bike in which case it is but a flesh wound.

That one was always amusing, its one of the big reasons having a damage stat back in is great

That said, Bikes in general the last couple editions were particularly egregious.

"Yeah, you can get a Tac marine for 15pts...*or* for 20pts get the same thing but with T5, twin linked guns, Relentless, an extra charge attack, double the basic movement, the abilitu to Turboboost, no slowdown through Terrain, and the absurdly abuseable Jink ability"

And the less said about Eldar jetbikes the better

Bikes were way under costed last edition, especially with the ability to make them troops. Though I do want to pick up a few of the FW ones, they look sweet.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
That a lascannon to the face instantly killed 90% of the game unless they had a bike in which case it is but a flesh wound.

That one was always amusing, its one of the big reasons having a damage stat back in is great

That said, Bikes in general the last couple editions were particularly egregious.

"Yeah, you can get a Tac marine for 15pts...*or* for 20pts get the same thing but with T5, twin linked guns, Relentless, an extra charge attack, double the basic movement, the abilitu to Turboboost, no slowdown through Terrain, and the absurdly abuseable Jink ability"

And the less said about Eldar jetbikes the better

Was that the fault of the Biker being too good though? You could nerf Bikers to the ground all you wanted, but it wouldn't have made Tactical Marines more appealing.

Bikers were just good. They weren't broken. That was only as troops too, otherwise you NEVER saw them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
That a lascannon to the face instantly killed 90% of the game unless they had a bike in which case it is but a flesh wound.

That one was always amusing, its one of the big reasons having a damage stat back in is great

That said, Bikes in general the last couple editions were particularly egregious.

"Yeah, you can get a Tac marine for 15pts...*or* for 20pts get the same thing but with T5, twin linked guns, Relentless, an extra charge attack, double the basic movement, the abilitu to Turboboost, no slowdown through Terrain, and the absurdly abuseable Jink ability"

And the less said about Eldar jetbikes the better

Was that the fault of the Biker being too good though? You could nerf Bikers to the ground all you wanted, but it wouldn't have made Tactical Marines more appealing.

Bikers were just good. They weren't broken. That was only as troops too, otherwise you NEVER saw them.

Marine bikes were just the easiest direct comparison, bikes in general had a rather of absurd number of advantages over infantry equivalents. Guardians vs Windriders had the same issue.

Not saying that Bikes were the most egregiously broken thing in and of themselves, but they were ridiculously overloaded with abilities and special rules next to infantry.

Jink in particular was superbusted, though not exclusive to Bikes, no other unit could use it quite as effectively.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
That a lascannon to the face instantly killed 90% of the game unless they had a bike in which case it is but a flesh wound.

That one was always amusing, its one of the big reasons having a damage stat back in is great

That said, Bikes in general the last couple editions were particularly egregious.

"Yeah, you can get a Tac marine for 15pts...*or* for 20pts get the same thing but with T5, twin linked guns, Relentless, an extra charge attack, double the basic movement, the abilitu to Turboboost, no slowdown through Terrain, and the absurdly abuseable Jink ability"

And the less said about Eldar jetbikes the better

Was that the fault of the Biker being too good though? You could nerf Bikers to the ground all you wanted, but it wouldn't have made Tactical Marines more appealing.

Bikers were just good. They weren't broken. That was only as troops too, otherwise you NEVER saw them.

Marine bikes were just the easiest direct comparison, bikes in general had a rather of absurd number of advantages over infantry equivalents. Guardians vs Windriders had the same issue.

Not saying that Bikes were the most egregiously broken thing in and of themselves, but they were ridiculously overloaded with abilities and special rules next to infantry.

Jink in particular was superbusted, though not exclusive to Bikes, no other unit could use it quite as effectively.

Outside those Marine Bikers though you feel that on, only Scatterbikes actually created an issue. Not Shining Spears, not Chaos Bikers, not Attack Bikes, nothing. Only issue is only Marine Bikers could become troops, and that's honestly a non-issue based on their performance.

Flying monsterous creatures who cold fire weapon out of their arse. When my Stormeaven had to be carefully lined up for that single shot.

Flamers murdering flyers.

Terrain and cover rules that mattered and made the battlefield feel as realistic as it was painted and modeled to be.

Mortal wounds.

Command point spam.

errr wait!
MaybeI am getting ahead of myself, here.

Deleted

I still play 3rd Edition. What I DON'T miss from previous editions is 2nd Edition. From what I can tell, everything from 5th on up is them trying to ram 2nd Edition back into the 3rd Edition framework, ending in a quasi revamp in the way of 8th, but with more 2nd than 3rd left in it. This is why I'm not bothering to stay current, and while I will play 3rd as long as I have a circle of opponents.

BrianDavion wrote:
Hull points. They weren't entirely a bad idea but when even a land raider only had 4 and you could get one with a glancing shot it made tanks laughably weak.

I liked that they added hull points, the mistake (IMO) was that they didn't give the vehicles enough and didn't give them an armour save to (partially) compensate, (and actually encourage anti-tank weapon use against them instead of as many Autocannons/scatter lasers as you could manage)

My personal "glad to be rid of it" rule is Instant Death. I could count on one hand the amount of times my T3 characters didn't die to the first wound allocated to them...