PDA

View Full Version : Looking back: 4th edition



Azulthar
08-02-2011, 10:09
I stopped playing when 3rd edition was launched and came back with 4th. I mostly played friendly games then, it wasn't until 5th edition that I began taking the rules "serious" again.

Now, in my mind 4th edition was actually a pretty cool edition with decently balanced codices. There was a lot of variation without going over the top like, say, 5th edition Blood Angels. While 5th included a couple of things I really liked (emphasis on objectives and Troops as scoring for example), I think the codices are not as well-balanced.

Am I correct in this? Or did I just miss the horror stories of 4th edition? And if so, could you please enlighten me?

Zweischneid
08-02-2011, 10:10
Cheese Falcons (http://www.ninjabread.co.uk/cheese-falcon/)?

Also the infamous Dual-Lash/Obliterator Combo of Chaos Marines from (late) 4th Edition is hated with a passion by many (though mainly, it seems, because people dared TOUCH their precious models, than actually because the rule was much OP).

Overall, I would say 5th Edition is by and large balanced better (though of course, there are still some stinkers in there... ).

HerrDusty
08-02-2011, 10:14
I didn't play loads of 4th edition as I got into the game about a year before 5th edition came out, but I do remember the horrors of having Rhinos blow up and totally annihilate their passengers, and the time my Defiler managed to consolidate its way through an entire Tau army that had nothing that could hurt it in CC. That was just stupid.

Lord Damocles
08-02-2011, 10:15
I wouldn't say that 5th ed. codices are less balanced than 4th ed. codices. They're just unbalanced in different ways.

Take Codex: Space Marines for example - the 5th ed. list is bloated with pointless units, wargear and special rules which rarely see the table and/or are completely unnecessary.
The 4th ed. list on the other hand featured the laughably unbalanced Chapter Traits system which made a mockery of supposed 'theme'. 'Wow, your fluff is that your Tacticals have double Plasmas and can't take allies too? What a coincidence!'

Shab
08-02-2011, 12:14
I agree that 4ed codices were better. It's not so much that the codices of 5ed are more unbalanced, it's more a case of them being bloated with unnecessary and stupid unit entries and ridiculous fluff. Of the codices released so far for 5th, only the DE one was really good imho.

Bunnahabhain
08-02-2011, 12:53
Consolidation into combat. That was the biggest reason why 4th ed needed to be fixed, and by far my strongest memory of it.

Charge, fight, win, consolidate, and sit there safe from fire. Yawn. Oh look, one daemon prince has eaten half an army, with no chance to touch it. How fun.

AFnord
08-02-2011, 13:34
4th edition stands as my least favourite edition that I have played to date. While its LoS rules were better than the ones we have today and I preferred the scenario table (while there were only 6 standard scenarios, compared to the 9 that we have today, there were greater variation in the ones that we had at that time, plus there were also some special scenarios, that were fun to play, although most people seem to have ignored them).

There were two things that I found lessened the enjoyment of 4th edition: the transport rules, which seem to have been an overreaction to the transport problems with certain 3rd edition armies (rhino rush), and the inability to screen units. Taking a LD test to be able to shoot at the unit further away would usually mean that you would be allowed to shoot at whatever you wanted to shoot at. The 3rd edition rule (enemy units blocks LoS up to 2* their height) was not ideal either, but it was at least more fun than the 4th edition way of handling it.

And no, balance was not very good in 4th edition. The falcon of cheese has already been mentioned, as has lash (lash+vindicator or defiler was broken, as was lash+oblits (plasma cannons into the centre of a lashed unit...))



I didn't play loads of 4th edition as I got into the game about a year before 5th edition came out, but I do remember the horrors of having Rhinos blow up and totally annihilate their passengers, and the time my Defiler managed to consolidate its way through an entire Tau army that had nothing that could hurt it in CC. That was just stupid.
You had to spread out a little in 4th edition. You could not consolidate very far, so as long as units were not clumped up close together, consolidating from one enemy units to another was usually not easily done. You should at least not have been able to consolidate from one valuable unit to another.

With most 5th edition (and late 4th edition) codexes, GW seem to have tried to make min/maxing a bit harder. Gone are the 5man las/plas squads, or the 4 big shoota flash git mobz. This was a refreshing change of pace.

Xisor
08-02-2011, 13:42
I think, despite certain unforeseen/poorly-anticipated combinations in the codices, the 4th Ed ones had a significantly more 'sensible' feel. Well, not sensible, but 'player in control' feel to it. I'd say they are generally much worse in terms of actual gameplay quality than what we have today (I'm looking at you, Chaos Space Marines, I really think the modern one is a significant though not an ideal state).

I think the quality and memorable fondness for fourth edition is in how much of an improvement and 'tidying' it was over third. And, more than that, how much of a leap of progress was made in the fourth edition codices versus the third edition ones. Still, I see a similar progress being made from fourth to fifth, despite some of the silliness in the codices (not balance, but the continued silly naming of things [blood noun, wolf noun] being a bugbear of mine).

tuebor
08-02-2011, 14:32
You had to spread out a little in 4th edition. You could not consolidate very far, so as long as units were not clumped up close together, consolidating from one enemy units to another was usually not easily done. You should at least not have been able to consolidate from one valuable unit to another.

With most 5th edition (and late 4th edition) codexes, GW seem to have tried to make min/maxing a bit harder. Gone are the 5man las/plas squads, or the 4 big shoota flash git mobz. This was a refreshing change of pace.

Consolidation was mostly a problem that IG had. The most viable build was foot-slogging gunline which simply didn't have enough space to spread out properly and it was very difficult to prevent even one combat monster from waltzing all the way up the gunline and if two got there it was pretty much over. I recall more than once having a daemon prince or Baharoth eat several hundred points of Guardsmen simply because there was nowhere for them to go.

The move towards trying to mitigate min-maxing is one of my favorite things about 5th edition. I got really, really bored of playing against 6 man las/plas tactical squads every single game.

Thud
08-02-2011, 15:15
(...), I think the codices are not as well-balanced.

Am I correct in this?

No. You're not.

5th edition is, by far, the most balanced edition so far.

Of course, it has its issues, but when only talking about balance between codices it's pretty damn good. The only armies who are unable to compete on the same level as everyone else are the ones from older editions, which shouldn't be too surprising.

fluffymcfluff
08-02-2011, 15:32
Good riddance to 4th edition, of all the editions 5th is the most balanced and alot easier to learn than past editions. Granted its not perfect, there are still holes in the rules. Overall its still better than 3rd and 4th.

big squig
08-02-2011, 15:58
5th has better rules, but I find the codexes in 5th are a mess. I feel GW perfected the codex right at the end of 5th with eldar, orks, chaos, and daemons (granted they took a bit too much character out of chaos). Those were the simple, fair, easy to read books with tons of variety. You can do just about any craftworld or clan from the eldar and ork book and there are nearly no unique special rules or convoluted crazy units.

Today's codexes have 12 rules when one will do. Information is split all over the place maiking them a pain to read. They have endelss amounts of useless wargear and units. Their fluff is a mess of blood this and wolf that and this guy killed a whole planet on his own crap. The tyranid codex is one of the worst offenders with 75% of its units never seeing play and tons of special rules that don't work at all or require faqs.

The overall codex design quality and consistency in 5th has dropped massively.

ColShaw
08-02-2011, 16:29
Consolidation into combat. That was the biggest reason why 4th ed needed to be fixed, and by far my strongest memory of it.

Charge, fight, win, consolidate, and sit there safe from fire. Yawn. Oh look, one daemon prince has eaten half an army, with no chance to touch it. How fun.

It really wasn't all that hard to avoid this by careful deployment and movement, even for an IG infantry guy like me.

I liked 4th Ed fine. I like 5th fine. They're different animals, but in the same genus. If I'm blowing holes in foul Xenos, it's a good time, regardless. :)

Deadnight
08-02-2011, 18:34
you have to remember, in the changes between editions, GW focuses less on "improvements" and more on "changes".

I played 40k since third ed. believe me, there was a lot of cheese then between BA, Black Templars, dirt cheap h3 starcannons that could be taken with everything in the eldar codex, craftworld eldar, more eldar (:P OK, im joking. eldar were bad, but there were some notorious builds back then) In terms of styles of play, you either camped and shot the rhino rush spam, or you loaded up in rhinos, and rhino rushed the other guy (back then, you could disembark, shoot at one unit, and charge another). and then there was screening.
So yeah, bad in some ways, and good in others. i still remember fondly the old sweeping advance rules.

then 4th. you had the initial adjustment, and yes, in ways the game improved. rapid fire was cool. and in others it took a step back. transports were utterly pointless if you were a marine. and then the metagame set in. some armies had to mech-up. every tau list i saw possessed 3 hammerheads and lots of armoue. every marine army was a 6man las/plasX6 type thing. were there broken lists? yup. BA were still there. Holostone falcon eldar. *shudder* the 3.5ed chaos codex. specifically slaaneshi and iron warriors armies.
so yeah, in some ways 4th was good in some ways, and bad in others.

then 5th. you have the initial adjustment. and yes, the game has improved in some ways. and it has taken a step back in others. there are new powerbuilds, and new power armies. and a new metagame. but its all still there, just wearing a different hat.

so were previous editions better? No, not necessarily. they were just different.

Vaktathi
08-02-2011, 19:23
There's some good some bad. 5E got rid of consolidation into new combats (which was something that really needed to happen) and made non-skimmer transports into something one could use as something other than mobile terrain, but we also now have relatively immobile guntanks (or guntanks that are all being designed to circumvent the defensive weapon rules), wound allocation gimmicks and worst of all Kill Points.


I think what makes 5E better than 4E, more than the core rules, is the codecies. While there are some valid arguments of some being just too bland and some having a gazillion special rules where they really aren't needed, for the most part the books released in the last three years are generally rather well balanced in terms of competitiveness, although there are some rather glaring hiccups in some places both too good and not good enough (Long fangs, Vendettas, Rune Priests, Grey Hunters, TH/SS termi's, and then Pyrovores, Ogryns, Vanguard Vets, etc) there is still nothing like 4E invincible Eldar Skimmerspam, Siren Princes, Assault Cannon Rending spam, or the armies with two five man las/plas squads and then tons of elites and heavy support.

Azzy
08-02-2011, 20:10
Good riddance to 4th edition, of all the editions 5th is the most balanced and alot easier to learn than past editions. Granted its not perfect, there are still holes in the rules. Overall its still better than 3rd and 4th.

Oh, how I agree. There are some fiddly issues with 5th, but I'll take it over 3rd or 4th any day.

PatchOnMyShoulder
08-02-2011, 21:43
No. You're not.

5th edition is, by far, the most balanced edition so far.



Gotta agree with this.

Now I see what some people are saying... 4th was a leap from 3rd where 5th is more gradual so 4th seemed, I don't know, 'bigger' in scope.

However the big leap left holes in the rules and 5th plugged far more then it made new ones (though it did make some new ones, but how else can we get a 6th one day?)

The Codexes aren't perfectly balanced but probably won't ever be, but when I see 'broken' now I'm spoiled. I saw SW as broken. It had stuff better/cheaper in the current metagame then other SMs. But only by a tiny bit. And they paid for it in other areas (capacity of DPs, etc) Think on that. How many times does the minor point savings make a difference? 1 in 20? 1 in 50? Less? If a SW player beats my MArines I know he whopped me fair and square, the only beardyness he needs to shave being the unprofessional ones on his Marines. ;)
Now go back to when Lash/Oblits came out, or Eldar lists with unkillable tanks and combos that made a professional magic the gathering player aroused.
The days of your Codex giving you a near automatic win are gone, and to that I say Yea!!!
[Note: If your opponent fields a list meant to win and you don't by choice, that's not the same as Codex's being broken That of course will still happen]

So overall while I'm not 100% pleased with this edition, I'm more satisfied then I was with last edition. I think GW did a good job with what they had, and I'm optimistic about what comes next*.

*Edit: KNOCK ON WOOD ;)

FabricatorGeneralMike
08-02-2011, 22:26
http://tsoalr.com/?m=200706

#374 , that kind of sums it up for me regarding the skimmers o doom eldar army from back then.

Just remember its always about shifting new models, new rules, new books etc.

cailus
08-02-2011, 22:34
I liked 4th. A lot of the dudes at my club did. We didn't load up on cheese and had some really good games.

Then 5th came along and we all pretty much packed up and said no more. This includes guys who were playing since Rogue Trader.

At our club, 5th edition lost GW about 10-15 players which was pretty much 90% of 40k players. And then to add insult to injury, most of them sold their armies on the internet or to some of the kids thus depriving GW of more income.

Now 40K is played by maybe 4 or 5 guys (mainly kids) while everyone else plays Infinity, Warmachine, Fantasy and Flames of War.


Why 5th edition sucks

Counter-intuitive rules ala ***** LOS - if you can see 1 model out of 10, you can kill all 10. But those same 9 guys that can be killed cannot shoot back. 4th ed had better rules - you could only kill what was in LOS

Removal of casualties outside of range - just to make the game even more combat orientated. You remove the back row of Nids instead of the one's in range. It's fine and dandy if it's all abstracted. But true LOS counters this. 4th ed had better rules - you could only kill what was in range


No area terrain - any other system has this in order to make us able to fit models in our forests. But now if you have three trees representing a forest, it counts as three trees. So you can see through deep forests etc. 4th ed had better rules - i.e. proper area terrain


Close combat relegated to dice rolling - you can remove casualties from anywhere. There's no thought to it.4th ed had better rules - casualty removal was something you had to think about


Vehicle shooting - your flying space tank now struggles to move and shoot at anything faster than a person walking.4th ed had better rules - vehicles could move and fire a lot more effectively



Unengaging game play - In a IGOUGO system, the other player usually doesn't have much to do except roll saves and roll combat. With the ever increasing number of models on the board, the other guy's turn becomes ever more boring.

Wait for someone to move 100+ Orks or Nids (or Guard). Then go through their shooting phase where you only roll saves and remove casualties. Then wait for them to move those 100+ models into assault. It's a yawn fest. 3rd ed was already started to bloat the number of minis and it was the end of 4th ed with new Ork codex that really propelled it into the stratosphere.


In say FOW, the other guy's turn matters - you get to shoot assaulting troops (Defensive Fire), fire anti-aircraft guns, monitor availability of potential ambush spots etc. Plus you have much fewer models to move. In Infinity, pretty much all models have an overwatch capability.


There are no tactics left. Just point and click assault or stand and shoot. Then roll a bucket of dice. Hence my nickname for the game: Dice-roll-a-thon 40,000.

Lothlanathorian
08-02-2011, 22:41
I got in at the end of 2nd, loved 3rd edition, refused to play 4th and think 5th is okay. I'm still not happy with the Assault Phase.

Excessus
08-02-2011, 23:21
bring back the 30 minute melee fights from 2nd editioooooooon!!! :D


...joking! ;)

fluffymcfluff
09-02-2011, 00:44
I got in at the end of 2nd, loved 3rd edition, refused to play 4th and think 5th is okay. I'm still not happy with the Assault Phase.


The assault phase now is a blessing compared to 2nd edition. Fumbles, criticals, parrys, It was impossible for 30 space marines to even hit a Bloodthirster, Avatar or anything else with higher WS, the assault rules have come a long way since recent editions.

cailus
09-02-2011, 02:48
The assault phase now is a blessing compared to 2nd edition. Fumbles, criticals, parrys, It was impossible for 30 space marines to even hit a Bloodthirster, Avatar or anything else with higher WS, the assault rules have come a long way since recent editions.

Yes because Marines are meant to take out wargods.

While on the topic of Marines, they were so much more bad ass back then, especially in mellee.

In 5th you throw 30 Orks at 5 Marines and the Marines get crushed in a turn.

In 2nd ed, 5 Marines could realistically hold off a ton of Orks. Indeed last game I played I had 16 Stormboyz with everything from powerklaws to plasma pistols bounce off 5 Chaos Marines.

Coz Marines are superhuman nasties and should not be overhwhelmed by by a mere 30 Orks (remember the background?!?).

And combat didn't go for 30 minutes, not if you know what you're doing.

And it didn't involve the Orks rolling a total of 64 dice to hit, say 32 dice to wound (assume S4 v T4) and the Marines then rolling 32 saves. That's 128 dice rolled in half a turn in a single assault.

I've played games of 4th ed and 5th ed, where my initial roll to hit involved 96 to Hit Dice - that's 24 Orks attacking. That does not include "To Wound" dice or "Save" dice.

The massed minis and dice roll-a-thon make the game very tedious. The assault rules are just an exercise in dice rolling. Nothing else. There's abotu as much in the way of strategy or tactics in there as there is in me scratching my butt.

If that rocks your boat, awesome.


Personally I prefer 2nd edition or Flames of War where maneouvre is important and I don't have to roll hundreds of dice cause that's what the game is about (20 dice in FOW is a case of "wow that's a lot of dice").

Vaktathi
09-02-2011, 03:00
To be fair, when it comes to dice, Flames of War is a much more generalized game with amalgamated units and infinitely more similar forces than 40k. A squad of ten troops is two stands, a platoon is five to seven stands. Where an Imperial Guard infantry platoon is twenty five separately based models, a Flames of War infantry platoon is five dudes on 5-7 bases that each act as their own model.

Flames of War also doesn't have to deal with the same kind of variety that 40k. In Flames of War, the difference in infantry is their motivation, experience level, and whether they are Rifle/Rifle+MG/MG/SMG teams. They are all representing relatively generic human soldiers. In other words, Flames of War basically just deals with the 40k equivalent of IG Conscripts, basic Guardsmen, and IG vets and then tinkers with their Leadership values with Ld5, 7, and 9. FoW is not dealing gigantic space bugs, space elves, genetically engineered super soldiers, demons, etc.

The entire concept of FoW is different. Individual infantrymen are irrelevant, the game doesn't get down to that level. 40k does. Is that better or worse or just different? Who knows, I like both, though wish FoW had better missions (love the mechanics, but it tends to get decided very early very clearly and very stiltedly)

Lothlanathorian
09-02-2011, 03:18
I didn't like in 4th (and the 3rd Ed 'trial assault rules') where you made the initiative test and either stayed in combat or died. In 5th, the only thing I truly dislike is 'No Retreat'. And the 'TLoS' and wounding. I miss Lascannon sniping* :shifty:





*not really. It's somewhat more fair now that that can't be done. I was really good at it.

SON OF LION
09-02-2011, 03:47
5th Edition is better but there are still a lot of things that I don't like about it.

True line of sight bothers me, especially since it is a very limiting factor in regards to terrain.

Cover saves are terrible. Almost every unit hugs terrain now and they get a 4+ cover save for their trouble. Also with the number of units with frag grenades, cover has very little purpose in assaults now.

Vehicles. Especially transports, they are next to invincible. Try shifting three rhinos all filled with marines camping in the middle of the table after popping smoke.

New codexes. The early 5th ed codexes were great, the latter ones were silly (as mentioned elsewhere).

Everything else about it, I like a lot.

@ Cailus. Marines weren't that badass in 2nd edition. I remember back then I had a goal to assassinate an IG commander as my mission. 10 assault marines with a random assortment of hand flamers, power swords, power fists etc couldn't touch the guy and he minced me to pieces. Try saying that now. And remember that marines on the tabletop are not the same as marines in the fluff or we would all be playing movie marines instead.

cailus
09-02-2011, 03:48
To be fair, when it comes to dice, Flames of War is a much more generalized game with amalgamated units and infinitely more similar forces than 40k. A squad of ten troops is two stands, a platoon is five to seven stands. Where an Imperial Guard infantry platoon is twenty five separately based models, a Flames of War infantry platoon is five dudes on 5-7 bases that each act as their own model.

Flames of War also doesn't have to deal with the same kind of variety that 40k. In Flames of War, the difference in infantry is their motivation, experience level, and whether they are Rifle/Rifle+MG/MG/SMG teams. They are all representing relatively generic human soldiers. In other words, Flames of War basically just deals with the 40k equivalent of IG Conscripts, basic Guardsmen, and IG vets and then tinkers with their Leadership values with Ld5, 7, and 9. FoW is not dealing gigantic space bugs, space elves, genetically engineered super soldiers, demons, etc.

The entire concept of FoW is different. Individual infantrymen are irrelevant, the game doesn't get down to that level. 40k does. Is that better or worse or just different? Who knows, I like both, though wish FoW had better missions (love the mechanics, but it tends to get decided very early very clearly and very stiltedly)



Actually you can equate 1 stand = 1 model.

40k has too many models for what is still essentially a 28mm skirmish game in terms of the way the rules operate.

It becomes clunky.

As to variety, where Flames of War has oodles of it is armoured vehicles.

For example Germans have Panzer I, II, III, IV, V, VI, 38(t), 35(t), King Tiger, Char B1, StuG III/IV, Panzerjager I, Marder I, II, IIIM, IIIH, Ferdinand/Elephant, Jagdpanther, Hetzer, Mobelwind, Ostwind, Flakpanzer 38, Grille H/K, Hummel, Wespe, Beautepanzers, and a ton of armoured cars (Sd Kfz 221/222/223/250, 8 Rad, 6 Rad, Puma) and armoured personnel carriers (Sd Kfz 250/251/253/254, converted French).

Then there's variants within variants, each with it's different stats and that doesn't need a ton of special rule to differentiate.

E.g T-34-85 - better frontal armour than T-34-76, better AT capability but slower.

E.g.

Panzer IVD
Panzer IVE/F1
Panzer IVF2/G (early)
Panzer IVG(late)/H

Or Russians: T-34/76, T-34/85, T-26, T-60, T-70, KV-1e/s, KV-2, KV-85, IS-85, IS-2, Su-76i, Su-76M, SU-85/M, Su-100, Su-122, ISU-122, Su-57, ISU-152, Su-152, Valentine, Matilda, Churchill, M3 Stuart, M3 Lee, M4 Sherman (both 75mm and 76mm), M3 Scout car, BA-10, BA-64, Universal Carrier.

And that doesn't include all the 1941 stuff ala BT-2/-5/-7, T-27, T-28, T-35, T-40, Su-12 etc.

But BF's got an elegant system that works well in terms of handling variation.

Vaktathi
09-02-2011, 04:41
Actually you can equate 1 stand = 1 model. Right, that's what I was saying. However this also means it has a much lower model count and is taking fewer variables into consideration.



40k has too many models for what is still essentially a 28mm skirmish game in terms of the way the rules operate.

It becomes clunky. It is what it is. It's a much higher model count game than FoW to be sure, though whether that is good or bad is subjective.




As to variety, where Flames of War has oodles of it is armoured vehicles.

For example Germans have Panzer I, II, III, IV, V, VI, 38(t), 35(t), King Tiger, Char B1, StuG III/IV, Panzerjager I, Marder I, II, IIIM, IIIH, Ferdinand/Elephant, Jagdpanther, Hetzer, Mobelwind, Ostwind, Flakpanzer 38, Grille H/K, Hummel, Wespe, Beautepanzers, and a ton of armoured cars (Sd Kfz 221/222/223/250, 8 Rad, 6 Rad, Puma) and armoured personnel carriers (Sd Kfz 250/251/253/254, converted French).

Then there's variants within variants, each with it's different stats and that doesn't need a ton of special rule to differentiate.

E.g T-34-85 - better frontal armour than T-34-76, better AT capability but slower.

E.g.

Panzer IVD
Panzer IVE/F1
Panzer IVF2/G (early)
Panzer IVG(late)/H

Or Russians: T-34/76, T-34/85, T-26, T-60, T-70, KV-1e/s, KV-2, KV-85, IS-85, IS-2, Su-76i, Su-76M, SU-85/M, Su-100, Su-122, ISU-122, Su-57, ISU-152, Su-152, Valentine, Matilda, Churchill, M3 Stuart, M3 Lee, M4 Sherman (both 75mm and 76mm), M3 Scout car, BA-10, BA-64, Universal Carrier.

And that doesn't include all the 1941 stuff ala BT-2/-5/-7, T-27, T-28, T-35, T-40, Su-12 etc.

But BF's got an elegant system that works well in terms of handling variation.I understand that, I do play the game, but that's primarily where FoW gets its variation, is in differing vehicles and AT weapons. However at the end of the day it's still portraying relatively similarly equipped normal human soldiers with equipment and vehicles sourced from about a ten year timeline (late 30's to mid 40's)

As such, it can far more easily amalgamate mechanics, generalize statlines, etc. than 40k can. As a result of its source material and scale, by its very nature its easier to do much of the stuff that it does that 40k really can't without fundamentally changing the entire nature of the game.

TheLaughingGod
09-02-2011, 06:22
It's time for Choose Your Own Adventure!

You're a player of the Warhammer 40,000 Tabletop Wargame by Games Workshop
You have become disillusioned with the game after a period of time. What do you do?

If you choose to give up and stop playing Warhammer 40,000 entirely go to http://www.ebay.com
If you choose to stop whining and continue to play the game go to
http://www.games-workshop.com and place an order

Lothlanathorian
09-02-2011, 06:24
*places order*

*dies a little inside*

Azzy
09-02-2011, 08:39
It's time for Choose Your Own Adventure!

You're a player of the Warhammer 40,000 Tabletop Wargame by Games Workshop
You have become disillusioned with the game after a period of time. What do you do?

If you choose to give up and stop playing Warhammer 40,000 entirely go to http://www.ebay.com
If you choose to stop whining and continue to play the game go to
http://www.games-workshop.com and place an order

Congratulations! You've just won this thread.

lanrak
09-02-2011, 10:06
Hi all.
Its nice to see 'GW brain washing centres' are still working well!:rolleyes:


''It's time for Choose Your Own Adventure!

You're a player of the Warhammer 40,000 Tabletop Wargame by Games Workshop
You have become disillusioned with the game after a period of time. What do you do?

If you choose to give up and stop playing Warhammer 40,000 entirely go to http://www.ebay.com
If you choose to stop whining and continue to play the game go to
http://www.games-workshop.com and place an order''


Because GW says JUST use our products or sell them.
You do this like so many mindless sheep?

Why not chose you own adventure by looking at alterntive rules and minatures.

'freewargamesrules' , has loads of rule sets to down load , so you can just try any of those see it you like them better....

Keep you minatures (if your investment is high,)and dump GW!

Talking about 40k game development from 3rd ed to 5th ed is a bit subjective.

Its a bit like saying how thick you like the chrome on a ****.:D


Calius.
I agree that FOW is a beter rule set from the rules written to game play ratio.

Better chioce of game mechanics equals MORE gameplay and less rules.
But to radicaly improve 40k it would need a re-write.(Probably best to base th re-write on EPIC rather than WHFB.)

TTFN.

Gingerwerewolf
09-02-2011, 10:07
bring back the 30 minute melee fights from 2nd editioooooooon!!! :D


...joking! ;)

I genuinely would love that! There was character in those battles!

PapaJoe
09-02-2011, 10:12
Or any other online retailer and save ~20% rather than GW

Thud
09-02-2011, 10:52
In 5th you throw 30 Orks at 5 Marines and the Marines get crushed in a turn.


How horrible! What's GW thinking? A 200+ point close combat-oriented unit killing a 90 point generalist unit in close combat?? That's so unfair! It's like they're trying to get rid of all their Space Marine players! :mad:

*ragequits*

wyvirn
09-02-2011, 16:44
I liked 4th. A lot of the dudes at my club did. We didn't load up on cheese and had some really good games.

Then 5th came along and we all pretty much packed up and said no more. This includes guys who were playing since Rogue Trader.

At our club, 5th edition lost GW about 10-15 players which was pretty much 90% of 40k players. And then to add insult to injury, most of them sold their armies on the internet or to some of the kids thus depriving GW of more income.

Now 40K is played by maybe 4 or 5 guys (mainly kids) while everyone else plays Infinity, Warmachine, Fantasy and Flames of War.


Why 5th edition sucks

Counter-intuitive rules ala ***** LOS - if you can see 1 model out of 10, you can kill all 10. But those same 9 guys that can be killed cannot shoot back. 4th ed had better rules - you could only kill what was in LOS

I remember this was used to snipe individual models. Besides, most things that block LoS doesn't necessarily stop bullets. Or the model in the open was used to lure the other squad mates a la Full Metal Jacket.

Removal of casualties outside of range - just to make the game even more combat orientated. You remove the back row of Nids instead of the one's in range. It's fine and dandy if it's all abstracted. But true LOS counters this. 4th ed had better rules - you could only kill what was in range

Again used to isolate special models to snipe them. This actually makes a little sense, because the bullets don't magically disappear when they reach their arbitrary maximum range


No area terrain - any other system has this in order to make us able to fit models in our forests. But now if you have three trees representing a forest, it counts as three trees. So you can see through deep forests etc. 4th ed had better rules - i.e. proper area terrain

reread the area terrain rules.


Close combat relegated to dice rolling - you can remove casualties from anywhere. There's no thought to it.4th ed had better rules - casualty removal was something you had to think about

I'm glad that I killed so many of your guys that I no longer get to attack!


There are no tactics left. Just point and click assault or stand and shoot. Then roll a bucket of dice. Hence my nickname for the game: Dice-roll-a-thon 40,000.
That last remark is incredibly vague, and I think I have heard it applied to every system that I have played.

I think you named everything I hated about 4th...

Carlosophy
09-02-2011, 17:12
4th edition for me remains the apex of 40k despite some daft ideas. I never for example understood the abstract LOS rules, especially when it clearly states in the shooting section to bend down and take a 'models eye view' of the battlefield to determine if it can see the enemy. Which to me reads as true LOS.

But the scenario list made up for all this with some genuinely creative standard missions. And Table Quarters. TABLE QUARTERS! This was how to decide a battle. Objectives are a daft idea because unless you have specific terrain pieces or models to capture it very rarely makes sense.
Opposite corner deployment and table quarter capture ensured you spread your army out and flanking was a proper tactic as opposed to a special rule.

Sir_Turalyon
12-02-2011, 18:42
Post delayed for 4 days because of major net connection failure and preserved by browser; sending now :D .


I wouldn't say that 5th ed. codices are less balanced than 4th ed. codices. They're just unbalanced in different ways.

Take Codex: Space Marines for example - the 5th ed. list is bloated with pointless units, wargear and special rules which rarely see the table and/or are completely unnecessary.
The 4th ed. list on the other hand featured the laughably unbalanced Chapter Traits system which made a mockery of supposed 'theme'. 'Wow, your fluff is that your Tacticals have double Plasmas and can't take allies too? What a coincidence!'

The late 4th editicon codices (DA/BA/Orks/Eldar/CSM) were free of both these flaws, and balanced against each other. That was probably the best period in GW codex writing.

Worsle
12-02-2011, 19:34
The late 4th editicon codices (DA/BA/Orks/Eldar/CSM) were free of both these flaws, and balanced against each other. That was probably the best period in GW codex writing.

Only the late 4th edition books are filled with terrible choices but unlike the 5th edition books (note, I would count daemons as a 4th edition book in style at least) because they where so "streamlined" you are left with little to no options once you cut the wheat from the chaff (or in a few cases the books leave you with zero options). Oh and they are still filled with pointless wargear and weapons no one uses. No the current books are about as good as it has been, maybe not perfect but still you can find legitimate choices and make decisions on what to take based on the type of army you want to field. That is much more fun than having a situation where you are left with the useful choice and then junk you only really take for a laugh.

Endobai
12-02-2011, 19:59
Only the late 4th edition books are filled with terrible choices but unlike the 5th edition books (note, I would count daemons as a 4th edition book in style at least) because they where so "streamlined" you are left with little to no options once you cut the wheat from the chaff (or in a few cases the books leave you with zero options). Oh and they are still filled with pointless wargear and weapons no one uses. No the current books are about as good as it has been, maybe not perfect but still you can find legitimate choices and make decisions on what to take based on the type of army you want to field. That is much more fun than having a situation where you are left with the useful choice and then junk you only really take for a laugh.

Tyranid Codex is from the current edition too.

I've only recently returned to playing - skipping the entire 4th edition - and first thing I've noticed was how terrible the current Bug codex is.

I was supposed to play a show battle as an introduction to the game with my Eldar and I decided to convince the other player to choose Necrons rather than the Tyranids.

It seemed more resonable to use the outdated Necrons (my army wasn't the strongest to exploit their weaknesses) than the disfigured Tyranids with loads of nonsense rules so for example avoiding embarrasing silence when I would have to explain why (alleged) close combat monsters are afraid to attack my Guardians in cover.

LoreDraconis
12-02-2011, 20:16
The LOS stuff bothers me. a single exposed limb shouldnt mean death for the whole squad. It makes cover very generic. The ubiquitous 4+ save is one thing, but not being able partially hide is squad is lame.

That said, not having to pass leadership to choose targets is a major improvement. Hated that rule.

One thing I really miss in 4th though is the armoury options. Being able to kit out your sergeants with unique wargear made your army feel so much more personalized. The way they do the codex now is probably more balanced, but it makes your units feel very generic. That one thing I love when I play Fantasy, and im glad they're embracing that in their ruleset.

Aegius
12-02-2011, 22:53
I liked 4th. A lot of the dudes at my club did. We didn't load up on cheese and had some really good games.

Then 5th came along and we all pretty much packed up and said no more. This includes guys who were playing since Rogue Trader.

At our club, 5th edition lost GW about 10-15 players which was pretty much 90% of 40k players. And then to add insult to injury, most of them sold their armies on the internet or to some of the kids thus depriving GW of more income.

Now 40K is played by maybe 4 or 5 guys (mainly kids) while everyone else plays Infinity, Warmachine, Fantasy and Flames of War.


Why 5th edition sucks

Counter-intuitive rules ala ***** LOS - if you can see 1 model out of 10, you can kill all 10. But those same 9 guys that can be killed cannot shoot back. 4th ed had better rules - you could only kill what was in LOS

Removal of casualties outside of range - just to make the game even more combat orientated. You remove the back row of Nids instead of the one's in range. It's fine and dandy if it's all abstracted. But true LOS counters this. 4th ed had better rules - you could only kill what was in range


No area terrain - any other system has this in order to make us able to fit models in our forests. But now if you have three trees representing a forest, it counts as three trees. So you can see through deep forests etc. 4th ed had better rules - i.e. proper area terrain


Close combat relegated to dice rolling - you can remove casualties from anywhere. There's no thought to it.4th ed had better rules - casualty removal was something you had to think about


Vehicle shooting - your flying space tank now struggles to move and shoot at anything faster than a person walking.4th ed had better rules - vehicles could move and fire a lot more effectively



Unengaging game play - In a IGOUGO system, the other player usually doesn't have much to do except roll saves and roll combat. With the ever increasing number of models on the board, the other guy's turn becomes ever more boring.

Wait for someone to move 100+ Orks or Nids (or Guard). Then go through their shooting phase where you only roll saves and remove casualties. Then wait for them to move those 100+ models into assault. It's a yawn fest. 3rd ed was already started to bloat the number of minis and it was the end of 4th ed with new Ork codex that really propelled it into the stratosphere.


In say FOW, the other guy's turn matters - you get to shoot assaulting troops (Defensive Fire), fire anti-aircraft guns, monitor availability of potential ambush spots etc. Plus you have much fewer models to move. In Infinity, pretty much all models have an overwatch capability.


There are no tactics left. Just point and click assault or stand and shoot. Then roll a bucket of dice. Hence my nickname for the game: Dice-roll-a-thon 40,000.

Ahhhh, I know what happened here, all your 40K players read their rulebooks upside-down and got certain words confused with latin words.

MOSTof the complaints you have also appeared in previous editions.

5th edition, my pet peeves are TloS and wound allocation. Other than that, I feel that 5th ed is actually quite good.

Malphax
13-02-2011, 05:50
TLoS is wonderful for determining who can shoot and who can't, and what they can shoot at.

It's less wonderful for determining cover.

It quite clearly states in the rulebook that minor protrusions around cover don't give you LoS to the whole unit, but that's usually how it's handled ingame. It also quite clearly says you should give a 5+ cover save instead of a 4+ if you can't immediately determine what's in cover and what isn't. But apparently nobody actually does that either. And then there's the list of which cover gives which saves, and everyone also ignores that and just gives everyone 4+.

Area terrain, however, is a mess. I really liked the 4th ed area terrain rules but they were really clunky if a squad was firing from an elevated position into or through the terrain. The "height numbers" wasn't a good system, and TLoS is better for determining what you can see. But it's terrible for determining cover saves.

ehlijen
13-02-2011, 06:07
TLOS was introduced because apparently many people intuitively used it before learning the rules better. As in why can my unit see the enemy unit that is 5" into a dense forest but not the one that is behind a 2" wide treeline? Wounds carrying over into models out of TLOS was introduced because mean people would deliberatly block their own unit's LOS with rhinos to single out enemy sergeants.

Both are improvements to the game. They are not free of their own problems, but they are more consistently fair than previous rules.

I mostly remember 4th edition being mostly about skimmers kicking the utter crap out of any other vehicle that dared show it's face on the table.

-Loki-
13-02-2011, 06:29
I really wouldn't mind TLoS if wound allocation wasn't dumb. As said - I can see half the squad, but can kill them all with enough shots. I am in range of half the squad, but my opponent can remove casualties from outside my range.

It didn't take long to check what was in range for wound allocation. Find the furthest forward model, use a tape measure set to the units range, and sweep is across the target unit. it took a couple of seconds.

Same with figuring out who could see what. Find the model with the most line of sight to the enemy squad, use a tape measure to make a line. Anything visible could take wounds.

Still abstracted, not realistic, but made sense and was fast to do.

ehlijen
13-02-2011, 06:55
Loki, the point was that players were abusing those rules. Try and look up rhino sniping and rapid fire baiting.

People would deliberately obstruct their own LOS to snipe specific squad members. People would string out the first 2 models in a squad to force as much of the enemy squad to rapid fire as possibly and keep everyone but those two models perfectly safe from fire, even though they were out in the open.

The wounds carrying over was a deliberate choice to stop those two things from happening.

Also, most cover is not bullet proof. Just because a model can't be seen doesn't mean generous suppressive fire can't still hit it.

-Loki-
13-02-2011, 08:53
Loki, the point was that players were abusing those rules. Try and look up rhino sniping and rapid fire baiting.

People would deliberately obstruct their own LOS to snipe specific squad members. People would string out the first 2 models in a squad to force as much of the enemy squad to rapid fire as possibly and keep everyone but those two models perfectly safe from fire, even though they were out in the open.

The wounds carrying over was a deliberate choice to stop those two things from happening.

Both systems are abusable. Like being in range of one model and applying enough wounds to kill the unit. I simply prefer the other method, because no one in my gaming group even tried to abuse it. The new system is basically abused in the normal state of play now.


Also, most cover is not bullet proof. Just because a model can't be seen doesn't mean generous suppressive fire can't still hit it.

That would make sense if terrain was destroyed in that case. It's not. That stone wall just ceases to exist for a few seconds and reappears.

I'm not arguing for realism, which is why I liked the old system. It made sense in a game played with not to scale models and abstract measurements.

ehlijen
13-02-2011, 08:58
I prefer the current system. If one model is visible and the rest behind the wall, that one model gave away the position of the unit and now the whole unit suffers. At least this way it actually makes sense to have a unit trying to hide (the fewer models are visible the better the odds that less models will be able to see you at all) as opposed to 4th ed where you wanted as many models to be visible as possible (to spread the wounds amongst all the mooks).

fluffymcfluff
13-02-2011, 12:02
3rd and 4th edition are like ''Deadheads". They hang around to long, they stink and when they are gone you are happy :)