Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Ah, the great Achilles heel of classic Undead. Job the Vampire, job the Army.
Not quite as easy as it sounds, and of course your Undead opponent would know that’s your obvious play.
Downside for Undead was your Skellingtons and Zombies really didn’t hit terribly hard, limiting your own tactics.
And, if memory serves? If Zombies lost a fight, the whole unit crumbled.
These changed edition to edition, so apologies if I’m blending editions in my memory.
In 5th it depended on the unit. Some (zombies, wights, wraiths) were all or nothing. They broke, they just all died. Some (skeletons) took extra wounds based on how bad they lost the combat.
IIRC.
Units where there for the rank bonus. You put a nasty character in to get enough kills to do damage, if that was your goal. But if you lost combat to a unit you feared and outnumbered you, you automatically failed your brake check. Undead armies did not win in combat (besides blender vampire lords) but mostly with magic and psychology.
Undead (later VC) in 5th were horrific to play against, particularly for Empire. They could fire off unit-killing spells like t-shirts at a ball game, and the only way to really go against them was to turn your army into The Magnificent Seven with token units to meet minimal requirements.
In 6th things settled down a bit. No more "wave of death" spells, plus the Warrior Priest could turn an otherwise unremarkable Empire spear unit into an anti-undead slaying hedgehog.
Biggest weakness of 6th IMHO was scroll caddies. When it was going away and I decided to make my own fantasy rules, one of the core objectives was NO SCROLL CADDIES. I wanted players to take wizards as an affirmative choice, not just a hedge against the other guy. The other thing was to have "enhancer" spells rather than unit-killers. I hated the way 5th in particular could use magic to escape terrible tactical play.
Alas, the pool of my 40k players is vastly greater than Fantasy, so Conqueror doesn't get a lot of use. I'm hoping to lure some of the 40k guys over with the promise of a stable, customizable ruleset that lets them use whatever unit they can think up.
In the meantime, my 40kCSMs are plotting their revenge.
We had a couple of Empire players. I remember them being a good, jack-of-all trades force. They could do everything, but not as well as the specialist. I remember worrying about their artillery and war machines, but not much else about them. Might just have been what the locals were fielding against my lists (undead and chaos)
As said, nothing they had was an exemplar of its type, except maybe the Great Cannon. But none of it was awful.
An experienced Empire general could find where they trumped an opponent in a given field, and exploit it - unless you’d specialised your army list.
Battle Wizards were part of this, as with 8 lores available you could choose your College to best counter your opponent. Though certainly latterly you had to specify at list creation.
As said, nothing they had was an exemplar of its type, except maybe the Great Cannon. But none of it was awful.
An experienced Empire general could find where they trumped an opponent in a given field, and exploit it - unless you’d specialised your army list.
Battle Wizards were part of this, as with 8 lores available you could choose your College to best counter your opponent. Though certainly latterly you had to specify at list creation.
As an army, they could do anything. They had a unit on the books that could exploit the weakness of all other factions. The question is did you personally own it as a player, and include it in your army list?
Most of the time you ended up with just midline TAC lists. But if someone with an extensive collection (or just lucky unit pics) decided to hard-counter list tailor you? It was bad.
I remember in 5e we'd written Battle Magic off, allowing Empire and Brettonian players to use the optional color magic in the 5e magic box set.
We didn't actually have many Empire players, as they were generally considered to have an under-powered, old army book. The Empire-as-main guy tended to focus on knights, war machines, and the weird stuff like steam tanks and war wagons over infantry.
Then one of our players decided to do an infantry line army list with heavy handgunner and outrider backup as a second army. And in his first game (again Chaos, of all armies) he decided to take Battle Magic with his wizards, as a lark.
That day, everyone in attendance learned that Net + a black powder gunline was no laughing matter at all, even if you are Chaos Warriors in heavy armor and shields.
Psychopomp wrote: Then one of our players decided to do an infantry line army list with heavy handgunner and outrider backup as a second army. And in his first game (again Chaos, of all armies) he decided to take Battle Magic with his wizards, as a lark.
That day, everyone in attendance learned that Net + a black powder gunline was no laughing matter at all, even if you are Chaos Warriors in heavy armor and shields.
The Empire book was very out of date. They were the only army that actually paid the movement penalty for heavy armor, meaning Empire knights got only a 12" charge range. They were my first army and the trick was abandoning any pretense of a "realistic" army and just going with specialty units and various exploits. Such as: Imperial characters were dirt cheap, so you could afford to field an entire front rank of characters. Carpenter-level measurement guessing was also helpful.
That being said, I hated how that game worked and loved the changes brought by 6th. I also thought (and still think) that for most armies, the Ravening Hordes "get you by list" was the greatest, most balanced army list ever produced by GW.
IIRC the only armies that got to ignore the heavy armor thing were chaos, bretonians, and some high elf units. So hardly anyone. And by that I mean 3/4s of the armies you saw on the table.
Edit: probably dwarfs as well, but they started slow and just didn’t get slower.
Dwarfs weren’t all that slow. When it came to the crunch, the beardy wee gits could March despite enemy proximity.
And let us not forget The Dwarven Gunline Of Mindless Inevitability, which reduced your opponents strategy to “get over there and into combat as soon as possible and hope to heck we have enough to actually hurt the stunties”
Nevelon wrote: IIRC the only armies that got to ignore the heavy armor thing were chaos, bretonians, and some high elf units. So hardly anyone. And by that I mean 3/4s of the armies you saw on the table.
Edit: probably dwarfs as well, but they started slow and just didn’t get slower.
That's everyone else who had heavy cavalry. IIRC, having a move of 6" or less meant your pursuit or retreat was 2d6" rather than 3d6", so Emprire cavalry was more likely to be wiped out if it broke and more likely to fail in pursuit if it won.
For that reason I tended to use Kislev cavalry, both the lancers and the archers.
And yes, detachments were great, although the "hits last" rule on greatswords made them less useful than sleeves of handgunners or crossbowmen.
What 6th ed. did was clean up a lot of that nonsense. At long last heavy weapons could swing first on the charge, making them really useful. The "heavy armor makes you walk slow" rule also went away because the way it had been employed in 5th was basically a penalty on the Empire. When I made the "sample lists" for Conqueror, I used Ravening Hordes as the benchmark because the rules were so simple but good. No need for multi-paragraph explanations with two tables to consult.
I referred to the 5th books to find inspiration for fluff and generic special rules.
I fielded a unit of mounted wights as the core of my army. I remember forgoing the extra armor to keep the 7” move and the benefits that came with it.
IIRC heavy armor took an inch, and barding your steed was another. So the Wights of the Realm had heavy armor on unbarded steeds, lead by a vampire lord with either no armor or magic armor, and a barded steed.
I agree that the Empire heavy cav (all the flavors) were not the best.
I’m….I’m gonna have to invest in a set of 4th/5th books and gubbins, aren’t I??
How dedicated are you to legacy rules?
The reason I played only a handful of games of 2nd 40k was the fact that the local scene was all in on 5th WHFB. The two systems had a lot in common. I only have a handful of games of fantasy 6th, because we were more into 3rd of 40k at that time.
While most people wax nostalgic for 2nd 40k, that same space in my mind was leading the hordes of undead/chaos across a swath of destruction in the old world. And I can ramble on with trivia as memories allow.
I was perusing my 2nd Ed Codex Ultramarines the other day, a book I never had as a Grot.
Given how set in stone Marine background appears? I was genuinely surprised by some of the gubbins in there. I’d need to review it again, but I’m sure it said few First Founding Chapters survived into the 41st Millennium.
As a background junkie, the more obscured and wonky “canon” becomes, the happier I am, as from there interesting conversations and threads can arise.
Nevelon wrote: The reason I played only a handful of games of 2nd 40k was the fact that the local scene was all in on 5th WHFB. The two systems had a lot in common. I only have a handful of games of fantasy 6th, because we were more into 3rd of 40k at that time.
While most people wax nostalgic for 2nd 40k, that same space in my mind was leading the hordes of undead/chaos across a swath of destruction in the old world. And I can ramble on with trivia as memories allow.
Total opposite of what happened to my group. We went all-in on Fantasy, everyone got armies (some more than one) and then the reality of Herohammer dawned on us. All those pretty infantry were really just character and magic item delivery vehicles. The fancy Empire knights were the worst heavy cavalry in the game.
The end result was a lot of players drifted away but those who stuck around dove in to 40k, which felt more realistic and was a lot more fun. Basic troopers could do stuff! That Doomlord over there could actually be dropped by a humble heavy weapons team. How cool was that!?
When 6th came out, Fantasy made a comeback, but 3rd crushed interest in 40k. At that point life (jobs, marriages, kids) broke up the gaming set. A smaller circle was reconstituted to play 2nd ed. 40k, but it's a chore to keep the calendar clear.
Just Tony wrote: Which runs counter to my experiences. Both 3rd Ed. 40K and 6th Ed. WFB showed significant growth in every game store/club I participated in.
I got into 40K in 3rd and it was already hugely popular, i was looking at getting into WHFBs in 6th just as it switched to 7th and i lost interest because they removed my army build from the game.
Just Tony wrote: Which runs counter to my experiences. Both 3rd Ed. 40K and 6th Ed. WFB showed significant growth in every game store/club I participated in.
I got into 40K in 3rd and it was already hugely popular, i was looking at getting into WHFBs in 6th just as it switched to 7th and i lost interest because they removed my army build from the game.
Just Tony wrote: Which runs counter to my experiences. Both 3rd Ed. 40K and 6th Ed. WFB showed significant growth in every game store/club I participated in.
I do not claim that my group was in any way representative of the larger gaming public. It very much was not. Everyone in it came from a prior wargaming background - either historicals or board games. What WHFB did was provide an agreed-upon platform that appealed to everyone.
Obviously 3rd saw huge growth in 40k gaming and that was probably the point at which 40k overtook WHFB as the flagship setting.
The sharp break between the two lines probably contributed to the decline of Fantasy because there was no longer as much crossover potential. Much easier to switch between them when the unit profiles and core mechanics were the same.
When 40k switched to 3rd, we lost a lot of players.
One army I recall that was basically murdered was SoB. They went from being SM-lite to guardsmen with better gear. With the rise of the game size and the relative cheapening of the troops I remember our local Sister’s player saying he’d have to quadruple the size of his army, so he noped! out for a bit (he came back)
It was the first major reset of the game, and some people did not take it well.
That said, as 3rd rolled on, we got a lot of fresh blood.
It played better as a wargame. More and better plastics were being released. That was a major point. Before people had to make armies mostly out of limited, hard to work with, relatively expensive models. With the larger game size/armies of 3rd this was a major stumbling block. As more kits came out, this barrier was lowered.
On the topic of model prices, I recall some PTW aspects of 5th WHFB. My beloved mounted wights were all metal. There was a box with the command set, but if you wanted more than a single row, you needed to buy them by the blister. Which were relatively expensive. But oh man how they worked on the table. Prices being what they were, I probably could have bought a whole chaos army for the money sunk into them. I remember at the time you could put together a pretty tight chaos list on the cheep due to their low model count and good plastic range at the time.
Popping this channel recommendation here, as it’s fairly new (just 4 videos) but the format is fun and presentation is decent. Reckon other SOGs will get a kick from it.
That form of Battle Report was the best. The only thing I wish they'd added was a "post-game" map where we could see the final results of the last turn.
Very cool. Possibly nostalgia, but I always thought the battle reps of that era were the best. Having several hundred words of text on a page explaining why they had chosen particular units and their battle plans was just awesome, I used to devour that stuff as a kid (actually still do if I look through an old mag!) I understand it probably doesn't have the same presentation appeal as modern equivalents, but I much preferred it.
Nevelon wrote: We had a couple of Empire players. I remember them being a good, jack-of-all trades force. They could do everything, but not as well as the specialist. I remember worrying about their artillery and war machines, but not much else about them. Might just have been what the locals were fielding against my lists (undead and chaos)
I played almost exclusively against Empire. Their knights were pretty decent and the support units counter-charging your unit when you made contact with their big regiment were quite annoying..
Pacific wrote: Very cool. Possibly nostalgia, but I always thought the battle reps of that era were the best. Having several hundred words of text on a page explaining why they had chosen particular units and their battle plans was just awesome, I used to devour that stuff as a kid (actually still do if I look through an old mag!) I understand it probably doesn't have the same presentation appeal as modern equivalents, but I much preferred it.
I can't remember what issue number it was - 217 perhaps? - but there was a dark day towards the end of 2nd Ed (after the Sisters book had come out) where there was a Battle Report that consisted of two isometric photos of a table, and then a page with the two players explaining what went wrong/right with the battle.
I was so shocked that I went back to check if I'd somehow missed the "report" part of the battle report. Up until that point I used to get WD every month. I've bought maybe 15 issues in the 26 years since.
They were also our prime source for understanding what was nasty in a new release.
Though the battle report on that channel reminds me just how badly Orks suffered in the flavour stakes in 3rd Ed.
Got some gorgeous new Ork Boyz, a kit which redefined what Orks looked like.
But took away Clans entirely.
Did you love your Grot artillery? Got a kick out of Squig Catapults, Hop Splat Field Guns, Pulsa Rokkots? Giggled maniacally whilst hurling Snotlings through the warp at your luckless foe? Lifta Droppa getting your opponent down? Pushing your luck with the Traktor Cannon?
Then you’re gonna love….erm….super static artillery which is like other people’s heavy weapons, but worse!
Warbikez! Except…worse BS and lighter guns!
It’s…it’s like the Grots lost control over the Elf’n’Safety Squig, and it proceeded to poop all over everything that made Orks really really fun.
Yes that did generally happen to Orks, I think they lost so much character following 2nd edition and Epic Space Marine 2nd. In Epic especially it was so much fun having the different clan characters, behaving differently on the tabletop when they fell out of command and it was just a riot of different colours. Although you did then have to know your Spleenrippa, from your Bowelburna which was different again to a Scorcha!
Pacific wrote: Very cool. Possibly nostalgia, but I always thought the battle reps of that era were the best. Having several hundred words of text on a page explaining why they had chosen particular units and their battle plans was just awesome, I used to devour that stuff as a kid (actually still do if I look through an old mag!) I understand it probably doesn't have the same presentation appeal as modern equivalents, but I much preferred it.
I can't remember what issue number it was - 217 perhaps? - but there was a dark day towards the end of 2nd Ed (after the Sisters book had come out) where there was a Battle Report that consisted of two isometric photos of a table, and then a page with the two players explaining what went wrong/right with the battle.
I was so shocked that I went back to check if I'd somehow missed the "report" part of the battle report. Up until that point I used to get WD every month. I've bought maybe 15 issues in the 26 years since.
Yes I know the issue you mean and had exactly the same reaction! It was a shock!
Are you talking current or the changes from 2nd to 3rd+ because they still had stuff like those
.lifta droppa
.shunta
.rattler kannon
.supa gatla
.deff arsenal
.killkannon
.supa kannon
.krusha kannon
.deth kannon
.bursta kannon
.skullhamma kannon
.flakka gunz
they all just got moved over to forgeworld during that time period.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Popping this channel recommendation here, as it’s fairly new (just 4 videos) but the format is fun and presentation is decent. Reckon other SOGs will get a kick from it.
Literally just discovered this - I want the 90sbattlereoprt-o-matic.exe!
Pacific wrote: Very cool. Possibly nostalgia, but I always thought the battle reps of that era were the best. Having several hundred words of text on a page explaining why they had chosen particular units and their battle plans was just awesome, I used to devour that stuff as a kid (actually still do if I look through an old mag!) I understand it probably doesn't have the same presentation appeal as modern equivalents, but I much preferred it.
I can't remember what issue number it was - 217 perhaps? - but there was a dark day towards the end of 2nd Ed (after the Sisters book had come out) where there was a Battle Report that consisted of two isometric photos of a table, and then a page with the two players explaining what went wrong/right with the battle.
I was so shocked that I went back to check if I'd somehow missed the "report" part of the battle report. Up until that point I used to get WD every month. I've bought maybe 15 issues in the 26 years since.
Ack. You ran into the dreaded White Dwarf pothole.
There was a run of about 6 White Dwarf issues--coinciding with the 2nd ed Sisters, Gorkamorka, Eldar Falcon and 5th ed WFB Realm of Chaos releases--where the magazine briefly dipped in quality. Well, I say 'briefly', but that's only because I collected those issues in retrospect. At the time it would have lasted half a year, and probably seemed like the death of the mag. Issues 212-217, I think it was. At the point when Jake Thornton was replaced with Paul Sawyer as editor, and the red/blue sidebar on the cover disappeared.
There seems to have been a period of confusion or rushed production, or maybe just experimentation, during the changeover that lasted several issues. Articles had less content and more marketing word salad, the layout got really 'extreme' and 'hey kids!!!' with jumbled boxouts and painfully coloured fonts, and the proofreading was even worse than usual. Especially 216, sheesh. If you read the editorial boxout at the start of each mag it seems to indicate that WD was in a 'caretaker' period for at least one issue, with neither Jake nor Paul at the helm.
Fortunately, by issue 218 (Digganob release), Paul Sawyer had apparently settled in properly and the quality rose again. The proper maps for the battle reports came back, the layout settled down, the content became more worthwhile again, and we saw the original Tale of Four Gamers series appear, amongst other things. White Dwarf had a great run from there all the way to the early 300s before it started to decline during 4th ed 40K. Though it bounced back and forth between the maps and the isometric photography. Quite a few battle reports in 3rd used the maps.
My subscription started with 218 (which has no fewer than three proper battle reports). When I went back to collect the earlier mags, I was shocked at how much worse the run immediately before it had been.
I remember when Kid Kyoto did retro reviews of 217 and 214, and said something like "See, White Dwarf was always a bit meh." I was like, "Aargh, no fair, you're in the pothole!"
On Tale of Four Gamers? What really sold me on that, over other versions and revisits, were photos of Fat Bloke physically shopping for models with his kiddo.
The format otherwise remained pretty much the same. But those photos just made it that little bit more real - even though let’s face it, being staff Fat Bloke almost certainly would’ve bought via the hefty. “By Weight” staff discount of the time.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On Tale of Four Gamers? What really sold me on that, over other versions and revisits, were photos of Fat Bloke physically shopping for models with his kiddo.
The format otherwise remained pretty much the same. But those photos just made it that little bit more real - even though let’s face it, being staff Fat Bloke almost certainly would’ve bought via the hefty. “By Weight” staff discount of the time.
But appearances matter!
Those tale of 4 gamers felt human. Like the guys participating were just normal folks like you and the guys at the FLGS. Not company shills flogging the latest releases. Made it very enjoyable to follow their progress.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On Tale of Four Gamers? What really sold me on that, over other versions and revisits, were photos of Fat Bloke physically shopping for models with his kiddo.
The format otherwise remained pretty much the same. But those photos just made it that little bit more real - even though let’s face it, being staff Fat Bloke almost certainly would’ve bought via the hefty. “By Weight” staff discount of the time.
But appearances matter!
Those tale of 4 gamers felt human. Like the guys participating were just normal folks like you and the guys at the FLGS. Not company shills flogging the latest releases. Made it very enjoyable to follow their progress.
The real budgetting was great too, it showed you what you could have if you saved up your pocket or paper round money each month, and how it was worth jumping on a train/bus to a nearby grand-reopening!
Regarding the video he mentions how the heavy weapon damage stat made multi-wound creatures a bit vulnerable on the 2nd edition battlefield. I always thought about it the other way, there are so few multi-wound creatures that 'cause more than one wound' weapons like plagueswords have very little benifit. The one I still can't work out today is power maces vs chain axes. For the extra points, how many circumstances does the D3 wounds actually give a benefit? And on a character with higher strength, the power maul is actually worse!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On Tale of Four Gamers? What really sold me on that, over other versions and revisits, were photos of Fat Bloke physically shopping for models with his kiddo.
The format otherwise remained pretty much the same. But those photos just made it that little bit more real - even though let’s face it, being staff Fat Bloke almost certainly would’ve bought via the hefty. “By Weight” staff discount of the time.
But appearances matter!
Those tale of 4 gamers felt human. Like the guys participating were just normal folks like you and the guys at the FLGS. Not company shills flogging the latest releases. Made it very enjoyable to follow their progress.
My favourite bit was Roy Barber (who had never played WFB before) basing and painting his first Skaven Clanrats regiment ... and then realising he hadn't tried ranking them up first, and they were all stabbing each other in the back because he'd used the wrong slots on the bases. And he'd used Araldite glue.
"Only 5lbs of plastic explosive would move them babies!"
A while later, when we Aussies started getting more locally written articles in our version of White Dwarf, we had our own 'Tale of 40K Gamers' collecting early 3rd ed armies: Imperial Fists (so much yellow ...), Sisters of Battle (plus shrine terrain), Eldar (very nicely painted) and Dark Eldar (with an ongoing storyline and a revolving door of leaders who kept getting bumped off by replacements). That one was also a big influence on me--started an Eldar army because of it.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On Tale of Four Gamers? What really sold me on that, over other versions and revisits, were photos of Fat Bloke physically shopping for models with his kiddo.
The format otherwise remained pretty much the same. But those photos just made it that little bit more real - even though let’s face it, being staff Fat Bloke almost certainly would’ve bought via the hefty. “By Weight” staff discount of the time.
But appearances matter!
Those tale of 4 gamers felt human. Like the guys participating were just normal folks like you and the guys at the FLGS. Not company shills flogging the latest releases. Made it very enjoyable to follow their progress.
The real budgetting was great too, it showed you what you could have if you saved up your pocket or paper round money each month, and how it was worth jumping on a train/bus to a nearby grand-reopening!
Regarding the video he mentions how the heavy weapon damage stat made multi-wound creatures a bit vulnerable on the 2nd edition battlefield. I always thought about it the other way, there are so few multi-wound creatures that 'cause more than one wound' weapons like plagueswords have very little benifit. The one I still can't work out today is power maces vs chain axes. For the extra points, how many circumstances does the D3 wounds actually give a benefit? And on a character with higher strength, the power maul is actually worse!
Multi-wound really came into its own with the Tyranid Codex. Heavy Bolters were the natural bane of Tyranid Warriors, and could help take down Carnifex in concert with more suitable weapons.
Man I need to finish my Codex collection then see if I can find other Grognards to get some games in.
Yesterday, I received my Cricut Maker 3. And I ordered bits and bobs to assemble a “Spooky Lantern”…which the Cricut will cut from 2mm Chipboard.
And I’ve some old White Dwarfs with terrain making templates, meant to be pin marked into foamcore…
Or…in the modern day? Turned into a SVG file, so other Cricut owners can churn out their own MDF-a-like terrain…..
Oh, and it can do different materials. Like card stock. For tiling and paving….
Such possibilities!
Turning pdfs to svg files can be a PitA if the pdfs are scanned pages, but it's not entirely unfeasible The idea itself is pure genius, but you'll probably need to fiddle around a bit until you get workable files.
I was never a competitive player, but I did always wonder why I didn't see more dreads. I thought they were the coolest when I startedin 2nd ed.
I still read my 2nd edition books, but now that I play Grimdark Future, it's great to see that Dreadnaughts appear to be properly fearsome. They aren't a bargain points-wise, but they're as tough and hard-hitting as they were meant to be. Maybe I should get around to painting up the metal dreads I've got sitting on the shelf...
Yesterday, I received my Cricut Maker 3. And I ordered bits and bobs to assemble a “Spooky Lantern”…which the Cricut will cut from 2mm Chipboard.
And I’ve some old White Dwarfs with terrain making templates, meant to be pin marked into foamcore…
Or…in the modern day? Turned into a SVG file, so other Cricut owners can churn out their own MDF-a-like terrain…..
Oh, and it can do different materials. Like card stock. For tiling and paving….
Such possibilities!
Turning pdfs to svg files can be a PitA if the pdfs are scanned pages, but it's not entirely unfeasible The idea itself is pure genius, but you'll probably need to fiddle around a bit until you get workable files.
Aha! But like a bad murder mystery, your deduction is wrong, because I’m all clever and withheld info. Specifically, my besterest mate in the whole wide world? He produces vector files…for a living. And he’s happy to trade the odd beer for the odd file.
What’s particularly exciting is with Cricut, I can mix and match the shapes - as can anyone with access to the file. So I’d need but a single window, wall, roof, floor, door etc. The person cutting then decides what bits they want, and can arrange them to fit as they see…..erm…fit!
So got the bits for the spooky lantern coming which will be my litmus test for how I feel the Cricut handles chipboard (because being able to do something, and do something well aren’t the same thing!)
Oh such fun can be had!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Gosh.
I could even..whisper it now….Kickstarter!
I mean I probably won’t like. But I could.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ooooooooooohhhhh.
For that Tudor Look? Same basic building shape, with the wooden bits overlaid as cardstock, or indeed more chipboard.
Might want to rough it up a bit with a craft knife for that rustic look, but again that’s gonna be part of the Eff Around And Find Out stage.
Yesterday, I received my Cricut Maker 3. And I ordered bits and bobs to assemble a “Spooky Lantern”…which the Cricut will cut from 2mm Chipboard.
And I’ve some old White Dwarfs with terrain making templates, meant to be pin marked into foamcore…
Or…in the modern day? Turned into a SVG file, so other Cricut owners can churn out their own MDF-a-like terrain…..
Oh, and it can do different materials. Like card stock. For tiling and paving….
Such possibilities!
Turning pdfs to svg files can be a PitA if the pdfs are scanned pages, but it's not entirely unfeasible The idea itself is pure genius, but you'll probably need to fiddle around a bit until you get workable files.
Aha! But like a bad murder mystery, your deduction is wrong, because I’m all clever and withheld info. Specifically, my besterest mate in the whole wide world? He produces vector files…for a living. And he’s happy to trade the odd beer for the odd file.
What’s particularly exciting is with Cricut, I can mix and match the shapes - as can anyone with access to the file. So I’d need but a single window, wall, roof, floor, door etc. The person cutting then decides what bits they want, and can arrange them to fit as they see…..erm…fit!
So got the bits for the spooky lantern coming which will be my litmus test for how I feel the Cricut handles chipboard (because being able to do something, and do something well aren’t the same thing!)
Oh such fun can be had!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Gosh.
I could even..whisper it now….Kickstarter!
I mean I probably won’t like. But I could.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ooooooooooohhhhh.
For that Tudor Look? Same basic building shape, with the wooden bits overlaid as cardstock, or indeed more chipboard.
Might want to rough it up a bit with a craft knife for that rustic look, but again that’s gonna be part of the Eff Around And Find Out stage.
Between that, and the new innovations in 3d-printed decals that is slowly gaining traction, terrain building will get insane in the near future.
I’m particularly chuffed with this. Because let’s be honest, painting skills and the level of competition have kept paced with the miniatures having greater sculpted detail etc.
So to see some golden oldies painted to the modern competition standard? Yeah. It’s heartening. And some of them look truly great, especially when you realise just how much of a comparative blank canvas some of the models are.
Anyone who enjoys anything Oldhammer needs to be following this YouTuber.
I’m not them (the hint is competence being displayed) and I don’t know. I just greatly appreciate them.
I tried to make some terrain templates for buildings and such for a Cricut but gave up. It is not as easy as you would hope, but I had a steep Cricut learning curve and very little time to work on it.
I am sure you will have better luck than me. I look forward to your success, and using it for my own Cricut!
MDG, I think you can skip the chipboard and go right to cutting sheet styrene with the right settings.
I have used my similar tool (silhouette cameo) for various hobby adjacent tasks, and it is great as long as you remember how tightly the blade can cut (i.e. windows yes, imperial eagles no)
This thread was a nice trip down memory lane. Started with RT (only had the main book). I was able to get most of the RT books that I originally missed out on before the Oldhammer trend drove up the prices. I was never able to get my hands on the Ork books, unfortunately.
I have fond, nostalgia-tinted memories of RT, the endless possibilities of it. I have reverse nostalgia for 2nd, but that's undeserved because its only crime was not being RT (and my having the wrong people to play with). Well, I guess its one true crime was the monopose plastics that were a step down from RTB01 plastics. That was a bummer. I also remember the old Space Ork Raider set of metal models and feeling let down by the monopose dudes in the 2nd ed. boxed set.
I basically stopped at 5th, because I realized I was never going to keep buying new units, especially the flyers and big tanks and knights and whatever big Tau stuff was coming out. I like 40k as a smaller game, not 2000+ slogs. To each their own, but I'm happy here on the sidelines while the game evolves and moves on. I'm hoping to try One Page 40k as a quicker version of Kill Team (as an aside: Kill Team seems so poorly packaged...I'm in the hobby and I still have no idea what I need to play).
I do prefer the older fluff: the static universe of impending doom. It felt more like a writing prompt. Here's your starting point. Here are some key players. Here are some mysteries. Go nuts. ...and the humor, god I miss the humor and satire.
These days, I'm looking to get the rest of the codecies for 5th ed. (which also means a few from 4th too). What's the best place to find those these days in North America? I worried you're all going to say "Facebook groups," so I'm bracing myself. (If the answer really is "Facebook groups," can you tell me which ones?)
Fugazi wrote: This thread was a nice trip down memory lane. Started with RT (only had the main book). I was able to get most of the RT books that I originally missed out on before the Oldhammer trend drove up the prices. I was never able to get my hands on the Ork books, unfortunately.
I have fond, nostalgia-tinted memories of RT, the endless possibilities of it. I have reverse nostalgia for 2nd, but that's undeserved because its only crime was not being RT (and my having the wrong people to play with). Well, I guess its one true crime was the monopose plastics that were a step down from RTB01 plastics. That was a bummer. I also remember the old Space Ork Raider set of metal models and feeling let down by the monopose dudes in the 2nd ed. boxed set.
I basically stopped at 5th, because I realized I was never going to keep buying new units, especially the flyers and big tanks and knights and whatever big Tau stuff was coming out. I like 40k as a smaller game, not 2000+ slogs. To each their own, but I'm happy here on the sidelines while the game evolves and moves on. I'm hoping to try One Page 40k as a quicker version of Kill Team (as an aside: Kill Team seems so poorly packaged...I'm in the hobby and I still have no idea what I need to play).
I do prefer the older fluff: the static universe of impending doom. It felt more like a writing prompt. Here's your starting point. Here are some key players. Here are some mysteries. Go nuts. ...and the humor, god I miss the humor and satire.
These days, I'm looking to get the rest of the codecies for 5th ed. (which also means a few from 4th too). What's the best place to find those these days in North America? I worried you're all going to say "Facebook groups," so I'm bracing myself. (If the answer really is "Facebook groups," can you tell me which ones?)
Fugazi wrote: This thread was a nice trip down memory lane. Started with RT (only had the main book). I was able to get most of the RT books that I originally missed out on before the Oldhammer trend drove up the prices. I was never able to get my hands on the Ork books, unfortunately.
I have fond, nostalgia-tinted memories of RT, the endless possibilities of it. I have reverse nostalgia for 2nd, but that's undeserved because its only crime was not being RT (and my having the wrong people to play with). Well, I guess its one true crime was the monopose plastics that were a step down from RTB01 plastics. That was a bummer. I also remember the old Space Ork Raider set of metal models and feeling let down by the monopose dudes in the 2nd ed. boxed set.
I basically stopped at 5th, because I realized I was never going to keep buying new units, especially the flyers and big tanks and knights and whatever big Tau stuff was coming out. I like 40k as a smaller game, not 2000+ slogs. To each their own, but I'm happy here on the sidelines while the game evolves and moves on. I'm hoping to try One Page 40k as a quicker version of Kill Team (as an aside: Kill Team seems so poorly packaged...I'm in the hobby and I still have no idea what I need to play).
I do prefer the older fluff: the static universe of impending doom. It felt more like a writing prompt. Here's your starting point. Here are some key players. Here are some mysteries. Go nuts. ...and the humor, god I miss the humor and satire.
These days, I'm looking to get the rest of the codecies for 5th ed. (which also means a few from 4th too). What's the best place to find those these days in North America? I worried you're all going to say "Facebook groups," so I'm bracing myself. (If the answer really is "Facebook groups," can you tell me which ones?)
As I think I mentioned earlier, I came into wargaming in the 2e 40K / 5e WHFB 'Herohammer' era. Lately, I've been pursuing old RT army lists and such for hobby inspiration, and I have a question for the old timers who actually played RT in the day.
How much of the army list rules were actually followed? Like, did people actually roll for the characters' gear randomly, or was it more common to go, "I modeled this guy with a bolt pistol and power sword, I'll just pay the points for that out of the core book"? Did IG players stick to the "replace one weapon with another in a platoon, replace all types of the original in the platoon with the new one" or was it more, "I modeled this squad with a lascanon and this squad with a heavy bolter, so I'll just pay the points for those"?
I guess what I'm asking is, was it more common to follow the baroque and sometimes random army list selection rules, or was there more of a "this is close enough, now let's point up your mans and my mans and make them fight" vibe?
Psychopomp wrote: As I think I mentioned earlier, I came into wargaming in the 2e 40K / 5e WHFB 'Herohammer' era. Lately, I've been pursuing old RT army lists and such for hobby inspiration, and I have a question for the old timers who actually played RT in the day.
How much of the army list rules were actually followed? Like, did people actually roll for the characters' gear randomly, or was it more common to go, "I modeled this guy with a bolt pistol and power sword, I'll just pay the points for that out of the core book"? Did IG players stick to the "replace one weapon with another in a platoon, replace all types of the original in the platoon with the new one" or was it more, "I modeled this squad with a lascanon and this squad with a heavy bolter, so I'll just pay the points for those"?
I guess what I'm asking is, was it more common to follow the baroque and sometimes random army list selection rules, or was there more of a "this is close enough, now let's point up your mans and my mans and make them fight" vibe?
While not a useful answer: No.
We played RT as a RPG. There was a GM, he kitted out the OpFor as he saw fit. The players had 2 characters each, plus NPC mercenaries in the company we ran. Equipment was what we could buy or salvage.
We played RT as a RPG. There was a GM, he kitted out the OpFor as he saw fit. The players had 2 characters each, plus NPC mercenaries in the company we ran. Equipment was what we could buy or salvage.
No lists, no balance. Only War.
This actually jives with my suspicions. I read these rules and I get the feeling the same thing happened as what happened with what my friends and I were doing with AD&D 2e around the same time: a lot of little pockets of local groups, all playing THEIR Rogue Trader 40K.
I'd love to hear more descriptions of how others played Rogue Trader!
Same. We kinda ran one-off scenarios. Or linked scenarios with units getting upgrades or whatever. But if I recall correctly, when we ran chaos forces, we rolled randomly on the various mutations tables in Slave to Darkness, which was great fun. We didn't necessarily model those mutations but made a note on the army sheet for each character who had one or twelve.
Fugazi wrote: I have fond, nostalgia-tinted memories of RT, the endless possibilities of it. I have reverse nostalgia for 2nd, but that's undeserved because its only crime was not being RT (and my having the wrong people to play with). Well, I guess its one true crime was the monopose plastics that were a step down from RTB01 plastics. That was a bummer. I also remember the old Space Ork Raider set of metal models and feeling let down by the monopose dudes in the 2nd ed. boxed set.
They fit right in with the GW aesthetic of the time, though: cheap, quick-playing figures. And the value was great. A friend and I each bought the starter box, swapped figures and we had two decent-sized forces that needed minimal additions.
I basically stopped at 5th, because I realized I was never going to keep buying new units, especially the flyers and big tanks and knights and whatever big Tau stuff was coming out. I like 40k as a smaller game, not 2000+ slogs.
The emergence of 4th and the impending release of 7th convinced me that GW had turned the game into a treadmill (which it still is). I simply did not have the funds to "stay current" and I resented the transparent greed on display. That pushed me back into 2nd and I scratched my collecting itch by building a sample of every major faction from that edition and tracking down all the books. It has been very satisfying, and the games are still fun.
I look with bemused disinterest on the current commentary on 10th because it is now so familiar. Yes, the new edition destroyed your favorite faction, its units and the fluff. What else is new?
The advantage of "going retro" is that just about all the rules problems have a consensus fix for them by now, so more time is spent collecting, painting and playing and less on figuring out workarounds, waiting for models, and arguing about which rules interpretation is "current."
I lost touch with 40K around 2012, as I changed jobs, started my current career which for the first time in my life involved commuting to and from London.
Among many things that commute cost me, my hobby time was one of them. See, I’d have to get up at 6am, and would be lucky to be home by 6:30pm. Not only can my job be mentally exhausting, but by the time I’d eaten, changed clothes and felt ready to socialise in anyway? It was easily 8pm.
And so I just lost pace.
10th I’m genuinely looking forward to, as it’s so stripped back it’s a decent time to get back on the horse, as I’m no longer at a severe disadvantage to someone who really knows their Stratagems and CP Farming.
In RT proper, a GM provide the scenario and what forces you had (sometime proxies). They often also set-up the board too.
They then gave you a 1-pager with your forces, mission, and victory conditions. The two people played their forces while the GM arbitrated LOS, range, and other rules calls; and added in complications/events to the game.
I still like that style of play BUT it requires three people to play and 1 willing to GM.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I lost touch with 40K around 2012, as I changed jobs, started my current career which for the first time in my life involved commuting to and from London.
Among many things that commute cost me, my hobby time was one of them. See, I’d have to get up at 6am, and would be lucky to be home by 6:30pm. Not only can my job be mentally exhausting, but by the time I’d eaten, changed clothes and felt ready to socialise in anyway? It was easily 8pm.
I'm thinking your mood was Sheena Easton, "Morning Train" (UK title "9 to 5").
A friend tried to get me into Rogue Trader, but the dude-on-dude scale did nothing for me, nor did the aesthetics. I was a board gamer, and wanted to send panzer armies blitzing into Stalingrad or sent Roman legions wandering around Parthia. Miniatures were not of interest.
It was only later on, after playing some Herohammer (which I came to loathe), that I saw the 40k tables at the local shop and thought: "That's like army men for grown-ups and looks fun!"
One of the (many) things I liked about 2nd was that it was built to accommodate dense terrain. In fact, it required it. I hated the way 3rd ed. boards looked, and dense terrain just wrecked the game because troops could move and charge you without any overwatch fire. I found it darkly humorous that they had to do a Cityfight book for something that 2nd had in the core rules.
And it's not just urban, it's skywalk urban, amirite? Elevated walkways between spires, so your troops truly have to defend three dimensions. This is where jump packs come into their own, and I just loved the tangled nightmare of hives.
I started out on 2nd ed. It was nice and bonkers and Virus Outbreak killed my whole guard army most of the times I played them.
3rd ed got rid of the crazy but at the cost of character.
I think they got a lot of that character back toward the end of 3rd and beginning of 4th. The Chaos Space Marine codex with rules for every legion and customizable demon prince followed by Space Marines with customizable chapter specific rules and the Imperial Guard codex with all the customization options were really great and had fantastic character.
Disillusionment with 40k 10th edition's "points" and just being sick of mortal wounds as a mechanic has had me looking back at my starting point of 4th edition.
I've been trying to get my hands on most of the 3rd/4th edition codexes at least for novelty's sake if not able to actually find anyone to play with.
I never even "properly" played 40k until 6th edition, but the way codexes were written in early 4th and the core rules of 4th/5th interest me far more.
The rules were fairly straight forward, yes. But having cut my teeth on 2nd, it was just so flavourless.
I can see what you mean when you're talking about the switch from 2nd to 3rd, but when you're going to 4th they had brought back a lot of what made 40k so colorful to begin with.
Maybe that's because I was a chaos marine player- in the late 3rd ed 'dex, every chaos legion had its own rules, you could make enormously powerful unique demon princes or even play Huron Blackheart's recent traitor legion, Thousand Sons and Emperor's Children were super weird and cool.
The 2nd ed chaos codex was cool with the way the fluff focused on all the different legions, but the rules really only got awesome when you flipped to the back and found the Cultist and Demon World armies (and the special character demon princes that came with them).
There's also the exchange for 'balance'- which 2nd ed really didn't have (at least for anyone who had to play against Eldar).
Dreadnoughts became super wimpy. Psykers became boring. Orks were completely gutted of anything resembling silliness. No Clans. No Supa-Wepons.
2nd Ed most definitely had its flaws. And I absolutely appreciate I Had No Other Frame Of Reference At The Time. But man. 3rd and 4th were a proper “baby with bath water” job.
It did need reining in, no dispute there. But this is like asking someone to pop a dog on a leash, and them instead having it put down.
Dreadnoughts became super wimpy. Psykers became boring. Orks were completely gutted of anything resembling silliness. No Clans. No Supa-Wepons.
2nd Ed most definitely had its flaws. And I absolutely appreciate I Had No Other Frame Of Reference At The Time. But man. 3rd and 4th were a proper “baby with bath water” job.
It did need reining in, no dispute there. But this is like asking someone to pop a dog on a leash, and them instead having it put down.
I couldn't get through the video you posted because I didn't share the author's confusion. It therefore became tedious and I was bored.
The chief flaw of 2nd was that the scale was inconsistent. On the one hand, it was about squad-level combats, but many of the rules were based on individual models (like setting them on fire).
The simple expedient of eliminating persistent effects (like being on fire) and also using common sense in terms of facing (what the designers were trying to do was create overlapping fields of fire) made the game very manageable and also allowed larger games with minimal time cost.
That is why so many people independently arrived at the same solutions because they were just obvious. In a less fallen world, GW would have recognized this, and 3rd would have been the Definitive Final Edition of 40k.
Alas, for our sins we're on the 10th iteration of a seemingly endless cycle.
Well, some of us are. I'm happily locked into 2nd, and working to further clarify the concepts to the point of streamlining the melee system into two single die rolls. Works great, and is consistent with the original math, so there.
Yes, I know we're talking about a 'squad level game' but the rules were pretty much always about resolving actions individually.
But I felt like that worked at the time. Games were smaller then (the move to 3rd cut most everyone's point value in half).
I remember it getting kind of clunky when you wanted to throw up a smoke screen of blind grenades (like in front of advancing Harlequins)
I would expect games with massive infantry forces to take longer as well, but I don't remember actually having a problem with those matches (and I played Imperial Guard most of the time).
There were some major balance issues in 2e. Eldar were unstoppable in the hands of a halfway decent player.
I never saw anyone actually play the Eldar to the upmost of their capacity (I considered starting an Eldar army just to show everyone how it should be done).
I have lots of fond memories playing 2nd edition. It arrived while I was starting college and I met friends through 40K which I still hang out with to this day.
The game had its flaws for sure, but also had so much character that I really enjoyed.
Just remove the double 'V'....Vortex and Virus grenades.
odinsgrandson wrote: There were some major balance issues in 2e. Eldar were unstoppable in the hands of a halfway decent player.
I never saw anyone actually play the Eldar to the upmost of their capacity (I considered starting an Eldar army just to show everyone how it should be done).
They were tough, but beatable. All the armies were. Eldar had speed and lethality and zero endurance. There's also the question of what type of game is being played. If there is a mission, it's a lot different that simply zapping enough points while hiding to gain a VP edge.
Indeed, I would say the hallmark of that edition was the overall balance between the armies. Everything was so nasty and deadly, it evened out in the end (especially if you got rid of known problems like virus grenades, etc.).
The simplified version we use (linked below) strikes a nice balance between the detail of 2nd and streamlining fiddly rules like rolling for template movement every turn of individual jump pack scatter. Using them has allowed us to scale up the game to about the platoon scale - 2,000 or 2,500 points that is playable in a reasonable session.
I don’t know what people are doing when playing 2nd Ed, makes me wonder if I’m missing some fundamental phase like I’ve lost some pages out of my rulebook or something!
I took a pal through his first game since the 90s the other night, 2,000 points, plenty of rules and stats checking, vehicular mayhem, hobby chat, trips to the fridge for beers, jump packs, blind grenades, and we were still done in a little other 3 hours.
When we have a games day we’ll get two 2,000 point games in in an afternoon as well. 2nd Ed being an unplayable odyssey over 1500 points is a real fable that’s taken on a life of its own on the net over the years.
Luke82 wrote: I don’t know what people are doing when playing 2nd Ed, makes me wonder if I’m missing some fundamental phase like I’ve lost some pages out of my rulebook or something!
I think it has two sources. Yes, there were a few people back in the day who genuinely were troubled by the tactical skill required by 2nd. In the rules, Space Marines come off as very hard to kill. That 3+ armor save looks really good.
But on the tabletop, that 3+ gets pretty badly abused by things like heavy bolters. Figuring out how to use cover appropriately, placing squads for mutual fire support and the proper use of overwatch really messed with a bunch of people.
I did see games basically stalemate because both players selected infantry-heavy forces and couldn't figure out how to advance into the open without being torn apart by hidden+overwatch units.
If you used leg infantry, little terrain, and no mission cards, it wasn't much of a game. And of course 3rd ed. came in to make having infantry standing out in the open a viable tactic.
That being said, GW itself worked to discredit 2nd quite a bit in the early aughts. On discussions about it, people with known ties to GW would enter discussions and really pour on the mythology about how the game was unplayable at any speed. Obviously there was a fear that players would refuse to "upgrade," and so a myth took root that 2nd is so broken, so terrible, one should not even look at it. No! No looking! I told you not to look!
That may seem like some myth-making of its own, but over at Warseer, there was a thread on 2nd (and why it was awesome) and people would come in and spout absolute nonsense, citing rules that didn't exist, etc., and many of these were known GW boosters. Where there wasn't a community of experienced 2nd ed. players willing to quote the books at them, their version took root.
And that's now part of the general lore of 40k, especially for younger players.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: As part of my appreciation of old editions, I'm doggedly building a collection of the 2nd ed. era White Dwarf magazines.
It really does evoke the era to see the announcements of now-ancient, out of print models. Call it my "happy place."
Hey, some of those models are still in print!
First WD on my shelf is the one introducing the Falcon. Still a sexy tank after all these years.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: As part of my appreciation of old editions, I'm doggedly building a collection of the 2nd ed. era White Dwarf magazines.
It really does evoke the era to see the announcements of now-ancient, out of print models. Call it my "happy place."
Hey, some of those models are still in print!
First WD on my shelf is the one introducing the Falcon. Still a sexy tank after all these years.
I think part of the reason I hated the Tau when they came out was that they were clearly moving in on the Eldar's turf.
After years of weird, comical "Space Elf" stuff, the Falcon finally looked sleek and high-tech.
And it (originally) had the rules to match. I love the 2nd ed. glass hammer Eldar, brutally lethal but if you can pin them down, they just crumble. Very satisfying to play or play against.
6 months ago to clear out space I sold off my 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th codexes and rulebooks at $50 Australian (about $40US) per edition.
I'm sad that I let them go, but I really needed to clear out a mass of stuff as I was just overwhelmed with all the gear I have accumulated over the years.
Still have my RT books and every WD from 96 onwards though.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: As part of my appreciation of old editions, I'm doggedly building a collection of the 2nd ed. era White Dwarf magazines.
It really does evoke the era to see the announcements of now-ancient, out of print models. Call it my "happy place."
Hey, some of those models are still in print!
First WD on my shelf is the one introducing the Falcon. Still a sexy tank after all these years.
I think part of the reason I hated the Tau when they came out was that they were clearly moving in on the Eldar's turf.
After years of weird, comical "Space Elf" stuff, the Falcon finally looked sleek and high-tech.
And it (originally) had the rules to match. I love the 2nd ed. glass hammer Eldar, brutally lethal but if you can pin them down, they just crumble. Very satisfying to play or play against.
Exact same feeling on the Tau on release. We already had a sleek alien race with the Eldar. Compounding that was the massive nerf Eldar took in 3rd, which felt like it was just to make room for them. What kind of dying race hands out SMGs to their militia and shoves them into the meat grinder of war as ablative wounds?
If I hadn’t already started Eldar as my secondary faction (largely due to the Falcon) I would have gone with the Tau. I do love me some hover tanks, and they have some nice ones. But I could see how I’d collect both armies the same. Mechanized infantry backed up with tanks, some fast moving support. And I was already vested in the knife ears.
Nevelon wrote: Exact same feeling on the Tau on release. We already had a sleek alien race with the Eldar. Compounding that was the massive nerf Eldar took in 3rd, which felt like it was just to make room for them. What kind of dying race hands out SMGs to their militia and shoves them into the meat grinder of war as ablative wounds?
Exactly. I hated the way the Eldar were forced into use meat shield and grunt assaults. In 2nd edition, they had the best basic weapon in the game, a S4, -2 save weapon with a sustained fire die. In 3rd, they were meat shields.
And Eldar were the hovertank army! The pop-up attacks were their home turf.
Then along come some upstart weirdo race that was transparently designed to bring the Mobile Suit Gundam crowd into the game.
To this day, I have not forgiven GW for this travesty.
That is why I locked myself into the happier days of 2nd. Eldar are the ne plus ultra of technology and the Tau can be safely ignored.
Nevelon wrote: Exact same feeling on the Tau on release. We already had a sleek alien race with the Eldar. Compounding that was the massive nerf Eldar took in 3rd, which felt like it was just to make room for them. What kind of dying race hands out SMGs to their militia and shoves them into the meat grinder of war as ablative wounds?
Exactly. I hated the way the Eldar were forced into use meat shield and grunt assaults. In 2nd edition, they had the best basic weapon in the game, a S4, -2 save weapon with a sustained fire die. In 3rd, they were meat shields.
And Eldar were the hovertank army! The pop-up attacks were their home turf.
Then along come some upstart weirdo race that was transparently designed to bring the Mobile Suit Gundam crowd into the game.
To this day, I have not forgiven GW for this travesty.
That is why I locked myself into the happier days of 2nd. Eldar are the ne plus ultra of technology and the Tau can be safely ignored.
I think at this point I've either actively played or gone back and played every edition of the game except for 3rd and rogue trader. 2e is fun for some groggy fun every once in a while and I could probably go back and play 5e, that would probably be the biggest "nostalgia trip" for me becuase I started in 4e but like 3-6 months later the 5e rules dropped and I played throughout that whole edition.
The main problem I tend to run into with 2e is that there appears to be an extremely heavy have/have not split in terms of some factions having ultracool rules that are extremely fun to play with and super fluffy (Orks, Eldar, Daemons) while other factions like chaos space marines and guard I can really understand the desire to play 3e when you had the "3.5" era rules books that also look very neat, while their 2nd ed offerings were far more basic and boring.
But, I do like the core mechanics of 2e quite a lot. I like Hiding as an action, I like the activated Overwatch, I like bespoke vehicle damage tables and somewhat abstracted rules for vehicle crew it just seems so fun and old school.
3rd ed thru basically 7th ed just seems like different flavors of the same basic cake recipe.
the_scotsman wrote: The main problem I tend to run into with 2e is that there appears to be an extremely heavy have/have not split in terms of some factions having ultracool rules that are extremely fun to play with and super fluffy (Orks, Eldar, Daemons) while other factions like chaos space marines and guard I can really understand the desire to play 3e when you had the "3.5" era rules books that also look very neat, while their 2nd ed offerings were far more basic and boring.
I think the IG had wonderful rules in 2nd! They had off-board artillery and could deploy their armor in reserve, compensating them for almost always being the first one to set up.
One could argue that Chaos was at its peak and that since then has been segmented to death. Three lists in one! What's not to like?
I think the smaller number of factions made each more unique and the game more interesting. And no Tau.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: First off congratulations on your RT quest, even I don't have the ork books!
I'm a huge fan of RT fluff, but I consider the game itself to be damn near unplayable.
3rd and 4th had about the right level of granularity for my taste. A bolter is a bolter, is a bolter, and a lasgun is an autogun is a crossbow. Tanks had more specific rules but that was ok because there were just a few on the table.
I also have fond memories of Epic, but that's in part because we played all the time in my dorm. If I had to look at the ork bubble chucker rules now I'm sure I'd have a different judgement.
If anyone hasn't seen them, here are some of my trips back down memory lane.
I find that reading the RT era books in order is an awesome exercise in understanding 40K then and now.
It’s easy for peeps to not know or to have forgotten that the level of success kinda surprised GW. This meant over its five or six year or so life span, it went under various iterations (for instance, playing just with Rogue Trader, and playing with the Vehicle Manual are basically two distinct experiences).
Yet it was also a period of frankly insane creativity. Things got more and more codified. Some stuff fell by the wayside, and have returned in altered forms over the decades. Others just aren’t there anymore (Illuminati, Starchild etc). The great joy of course being that they’re not actively denied or removed, so can still be treated about as canon as the rest of 40K. What is remarkable for me is just how little the Orks have changed. Other than Nobz and that being physically larger models, everything else has largely stayed the same.
I do think it’s a shame other races didn’t get the same treatment as Orks did, but again that’s an indicator of just how chaotic and mental 40k’s growth was.
2nd Ed was definitely required. It didn’t massively change the size of games as a purpose, but it made them easier to handle. The rules (comparatively) were neater, and easier to follow. And with greater resources pumped in (more plastic kits, more vehicles), players armies expanded, and bigger games were played.
3rd Ed? Yes it was a smoother system, but from me it threw baby out with the bath water. Like someone looking to lose a few pounds going all cross fit mental and no longer coming down the pub for a laugh.
Maybe it’s a pure grognard thing, but as someone who is familiar with the early days (even if I missed them, starting as I did with 2nd Ed), many of the comments about constant FAQ and Errata? To me they’re simply par for the course. It’s always been that way with 40K, as has the Codex and Edition cycle.
Now, that is not a lazy, handwavium excuse. My experiences do not by any stretch negate such comments and complaints. It’s just, well, I’m so used to them, they neither disappoint nor surprise me as an individual.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Guard were awesome in 2nd Ed. Heavy weapons splitting. Off-board firepower. The Basilisk firing twice a turn. Hellhounds causing Fear.
Used to be able to build Guard lists from memory I used that book so much.
This is correct.
I recall a game against an Eldar player who loved himself some Wraithguard. Tough to dig out with the IG, particularly in an urban environment.
But then I came up with the notion of a Basilisk at the end of a street, screened by a Demolisher with extra armor and a dozer blade to suck up incoming fire. Two thumps per turn made short work of those oversized fossils.
Well this thread is far too low down the recent chitterchatchinwag listings.
And so as I listen to the 1812 Overture, thoroughly looking forward to once again being able to unleash genuinely Epic artillery.
That piece of course makes good use of ringing bells. Which turned my mind to something I’m aware exists, but have never seen in person, or know what its rules were.
And that’s the Warlord Titan Devotional Bell.
An alternative carapace weapon which took up both slots. And….it’s exactly what you might be thinking. A geet big bell, suspended from an arch, mounted atop a Warlord Titan (then the largest extant model any scale of 40K set games that existed).
What…what a marvellously 40K thing. Turn your city levelling death machine into a walking peal of faith.
the_scotsman wrote: The main problem I tend to run into with 2e is that there appears to be an extremely heavy have/have not split in terms of some factions having ultracool rules that are extremely fun to play with and super fluffy (Orks, Eldar, Daemons) while other factions like chaos space marines and guard I can really understand the desire to play 3e when you had the "3.5" era rules books that also look very neat, while their 2nd ed offerings were far more basic and boring.
I think the IG had wonderful rules in 2nd! They had off-board artillery and could deploy their armor in reserve, compensating them for almost always being the first one to set up.
I loved my Guard. My go to army was command squad (on table), 3 leman russ and 3 chimera squads off table. Pre game barrage. Turn one roll on, fire wildly, trigger smokes. Turn 2 drive through smoke, fire badly, trigger last of smoke. Turn 3 drive through smoke, fire wildly, everyone die.
I loved my Guard. My go to army was command squad (on table), 3 leman russ and 3 chimera squads off table. Pre game barrage. Turn one roll on, fire wildly, trigger smokes. Turn 2 drive through smoke, fire badly, trigger last of smoke. Turn 3 drive through smoke, fire wildly, everyone die.
That's why one of my first beloved Chimeras, Spider Burner, had the hull Heavy Flamer. The name came from its habit of being to find Warp Spiders as they hid behind buildings. It normally came on from reserve with the Supercharged Engine Hellhound (with hull Heavy Flamer). Enter at max speed, no to hit rolls.
The_Real_Chris wrote: I loved my Guard. My go to army was command squad (on table), 3 leman russ and 3 chimera squads off table. Pre game barrage. Turn one roll on, fire wildly, trigger smokes. Turn 2 drive through smoke, fire badly, trigger last of smoke. Turn 3 drive through smoke, fire wildly, everyone die.
Yeah, they were great to play. Targeting rules also allowed you to park a Demolisher with a dozer blade to partly obscure a Basilisk, that could just bang away twice a turn, inflicting utter devastation.
Lots of good stuff.
The weather gave its first hint of seasonal change, and that means less time outdoors and more time at the gaming table and the workbench.
I just scored this bad boy from ebay (complete set no less!)
No idea what to do with the models though. I intend to use modern minis.. anyone interested in buying the miniatures from this box, feel free to PM me
Figured that since 10th edition is the last edition with firstborn in it, might as well prepare for 11th (ie. downgrading back to legacy editions). I will quit 40K altogether before I give up on my Angels
Be sure to check out my 2nd ed. reference page for some clarifications/fixes to make your game more enjoyable.
As for the models...I'm tempted buy my reserves are still adequate. Some of the vintage models are pricey, but 2nd ed. box orks aren't not among them. As for the Marines...I'm good. I finished that army back in 2004 and still have a few models in blister packs just in case.
Be sure to check out my 2nd ed. reference page for some clarifications/fixes to make your game more enjoyable.
As for the models...I'm tempted buy my reserves are still adequate. Some of the vintage models are pricey, but 2nd ed. box orks aren't not among them. As for the Marines...I'm good. I finished that army back in 2004 and still have a few models in blister packs just in case.
Yes, I am going to dig in to your resources once I get the box. I can imagine not many people looking for the monopose minis, but there might be someoone who's into that sort of thing, I'll list en up on the swap shop after stripping the few basecoated ones
It's actually a nice feeling knowing that you can fall back to a "finished" version of a game you love
Something akin to Xenology, but focussing on general flora and fauna commonly found in the Galaxy.
Think the small bestiary of Nasties in Rogue Trader. Because those were put in as toys for the GM to play with to balance things out or add risk.
Whilst I don’t think the modern game is suited to their inclusion overall? They can still serve as inspiration for battlefield terrain, even if you don’t assign rules to them.
I had partial 2nd ed box dropped on me a little bit ago. One idea I’ve had for a while (but didn’t want to stip my active duty bolter huggers for) was to get some pillers (probably wedding cake types) and paint them up as statues lining a road, surrounding a temple, etc.
Nevelon wrote: I had partial 2nd ed box dropped on me a little bit ago. One idea I’ve had for a while (but didn’t want to stip my active duty bolter huggers for) was to get some pillers (probably wedding cake types) and paint them up as statues lining a road, surrounding a temple, etc.
A few tumbled Greek columns adds a wonderful sense of antiquity, even in the Grim Darkness of the Far Future.
The start of September means that gaming season is closing in. I'm clearing off the painting table and refreshing my knowledge of our ongoing campaign. Kickoff probably in mid-October.
Nevelon wrote: I had partial 2nd ed box dropped on me a little bit ago. One idea I’ve had for a while (but didn’t want to stip my active duty bolter huggers for) was to get some pillers (probably wedding cake types) and paint them up as statues lining a road, surrounding a temple, etc.
I had plans to use the big pile of monopose Space Crusade marines that I have sitting here as a Thousand Sons stand-in army, painting them up as statues. Never quite got to it.
Can I ask if you played BB back in the day (2nd or 3rd edition) MDG?
I played a ton of it in the early 90s and I think the rules have just stuck with me since then, helped by playing far too many hours on the computer games. The new edition is a 0.1 change on the old so have just been able to adapt (I still call 'dash' 'go for it' instead, don't think I will ever be able to change that unfortunately!)
Clearly a play off of astroturf, but I've not idea what it is, either.
If you know American football, Blood Bowl makes a lot of sense, and the human team is arguably one of the best in the game because it is balanced. This is the Platonic idea of football, being able to pass and throw.
The Elves can throw, the Orks can rush, and the other factions are various parodies of what football would be like with dead people or lawn tractors used in the field of play.
Back in the day I painted up a team that I styled the Altdorf Steelers, patterned after the legendary late 1970s Pittsburgh franchise. I even had the actual numbers of the team members. It was fun, but as gaming time became more constricted (job, kids), I had to take hard look at shelf space and also decide: If I have time to play a game, what is it going to be? 40k won, Bloodbowl got sold off.
A period of financial stress due to unemployment also factored into this.
I understood Blood Bowl long before I sat down and learnt how American Football works (more similar to Australian Rugby League than I realised).
I'm just not sure what Grotsnik is referring to when he says "Astrogranite". Like... does he mean Dungeon Bowl or something? It sounds like he's talking about a variant of regular BB.
I have always been rather puzzled by this initial shot of the famous 'astrogranite' Bloodbowl pitch which arrived with the second edition of the game. It doesn't look right does it? There is something different about the pitch seen here and the one we all played on for so many years thereafter.
Priority of actions and cumulative odds of failure - many a game is lost because a low risk action is taken and failed before an important one is attempted.
And always remember that while the mathimatical odds of rolling three skulls may be less than 1%, in your average bloodbowl game it is closer to 50% :p
Not sure if this is appropriate here, but I recently took some pictures of my old school Tyranids models that I've been painted along the rest of my army. A lot of them are my original back when I was playing 2nd edition myself, that are now repainted to a better standard
I still have some more models, some of which I'm hesitant to strip and repaint them (because nostalgia of being amongst the first models I painted), but also have some that I bough to expand the army that I've yet to paint!
And whether this is for 2nd edition or 10 edition, that's a bit over 2000pts there! I think for 2nd edition that's 2000pts+ without adding the Armorcast stuff!
What I have left to (eventually) add to that:
- Hive Tyrant x2
- Lictor x1
- Carnifex x1
- Termagants x6 (3 each of Spike Rifle and Strangleweb)
- Tyranids Warrior x6 (3 ready to paint, others are in need of repair)
- Genestealers x20 (not practical now, but yeah I have plenty of the bugger!)
Priority of actions and cumulative odds of failure - many a game is lost because a low risk action is taken and failed before an important one is attempted.
And always remember that while the mathimatical odds of rolling three skulls may be less than 1%, in your average bloodbowl game it is closer to 50% :p
Yes, and here some knowledge of American football is helpful because their plays are designed that way. Before the QB can throw or the running back take the handoff, the wideouts need to be in position, the linemen need to open a hole, etc.
It is very much the Xs and Os moving across a board, and if you get that, the quirks of Bloodbowl don't impede it's enjoyment.
One of the cool things about it is that it is I think the only GW game where basic humans are one of the most competitive choices.
Played our first game of original Necromunda with my newly finished Goliath gang vs a Shadow War Armageddon Eldar kill team. First time with 2nd Edition style rules and we had a blast. We're going to try a similar game using a set of Citadel Journal Necromunda Eldar rules next to compare and then think about some kind of campaign setup with NM and 40k/Shadow War killteams together.
Played our first game of original Necromunda with my newly finished Goliath gang vs a Shadow War Armageddon Eldar kill team. First time with 2nd Edition style rules and we had a blast. We're going to try a similar game using a set of Citadel Journal Necromunda Eldar rules next to compare and then think about some kind of campaign setup with NM and 40k/Shadow War killteams together.
That right there is 100% pure awesome! I love the card terrain. I collected some of it, "loaned" it to a friend who assumed it was a gift and gave it away.
I figured H would have an incredible setup! I've been having so much fun trying out layouts, I managed to get a double set of the basic set terrain and it's one of the best toys I've ever gotten. Definitely made it a bit too dense for that one game, with a lot of double-layered walkways that were hard to get into but looked awesome.
I'm going to recreate the card Necro stuff using the Sector Mechanicus terrain. Emperor knows I have enough spare to do a couple of sets, including bridges!
Prometheum5 wrote: I figured H would have an incredible setup! I've been having so much fun trying out layouts, I managed to get a double set of the basic set terrain and it's one of the best toys I've ever gotten. Definitely made it a bit too dense for that one game, with a lot of double-layered walkways that were hard to get into but looked awesome.
I have 5 sets of Necromunda terrain, and 2 sets of the Outlander terrain.
I can tell you that 5 sets was one too many. Yes, it's nice to have the extra bridges, but the 5th set was an indulgence that I didn't need (it was 20 years ago, and eBay 'Buy it Now' wasn't really a thing). Wish I had an extra set or two of the Outlander terrain though. That stuff is great.
Good lord. I'd love to get maybe 1 more regular set and another full Outlanders set, but that's a lot. I do want the option to make some taller centerpiece buildings, or have multiple watchtowers.
Three sets means you can add some varying height to the buildings, rather than just the same 3- and 2-story buildings you're used to.
Four sets lets you really do what you want as far as height, as height variation is very important otherwise you end up with a game that all takes place on the ground, or all takes place on the dominant level, and nowhere else.
That set looks fantastic Insaniak! You can see that it is the original designs, but improved - brilliant.
That original Necro terrain was great. Remember a mate and I both had a set and it was more than enough, and as kids our terrain was usually crap (upturned mugs and household ornaments as scatter terrain) - the cardboard set felt like it was lightyears ahead!
For a start, it was surprisingly stable. And the little buttresses provided sneaky bits of cover for fighters.
In fact, I’d argue that terrain made Necromunda the success it was. Granted you typically wanted to combine two or three sets per board, but for a skirmish game so reliant on height and cover, had it not been included? I think it would’ve fizzled out, as not everyone is a dab hand at making interesting, interactive scenery.
I mean, pretty much anyone can make a basic solid box building and tart it up with greeblies. But to have platforms, varying LoS blocks, walk ways and serious height variation? That’s a taller order.
For a start, it was surprisingly stable. And the little buttresses provided sneaky bits of cover for fighters.
In fact, I’d argue that terrain made Necromunda the success it was. Granted you typically wanted to combine two or three sets per board, but for a skirmish game so reliant on height and cover, had it not been included? I think it would’ve fizzled out, as not everyone is a dab hand at making interesting, interactive scenery.
I mean, pretty much anyone can make a basic solid box building and tart it up with greeblies. But to have platforms, varying LoS blocks, walk ways and serious height variation? That’s a taller order.
That goes to another strength of "old" GW: two game boxes allowed a satisfying game. The starter sets were very complete compared to later versions.
So yes, if you buy the game and a friend does the same (so you both have your own books, templates, etc.) you can trade figures and have a decent force selection and enough terrain for viable battlefield. The 40k of the same vintage was the same - the foundation of my 40k collection (which I still own) was four tactical squads. Add a tank, a captain and a heavy weapons squad and you're on your way to a "take all comers" ready force.
Pacific wrote: ...and as kids our terrain was usually crap (upturned mugs and household ornaments as scatter terrain) -
Some of the best Necro games I ever had were actually with scrounged 'terrain'... Towards the end of 2nd edition, I gave all of my terrain to a mate for helping me move into a new apartment, as I didn't have room for it. Had several games of Necro in that apartment on my large, round coffee table, using food cans, plastic containers, random boxes, and anything else I had laying around that fit on the table, and used wooden rulers and strips of cardboard for catwalks. Looked a bit rubbish, but made for a surprisingly effective battlefield!
insaniak wrote: Some of the best Necro games I ever had were actually with scrounged 'terrain'... Towards the end of 2nd edition, I gave all of my terrain to a mate for helping me move into a new apartment, as I didn't have room for it. Had several games of Necro in that apartment on my large, round coffee table, using food cans, plastic containers, random boxes, and anything else I had laying around that fit on the table, and used wooden rulers and strips of cardboard for catwalks. Looked a bit rubbish, but made for a surprisingly effective battlefield!
Yes, but the aesthetic really adds to much to the game experience. The urban nightmare boards really intrigued me about 40k and were a significant factor in my giving it a try. I'm now on my third generation of terrain and (like everything else), I'm always adding some details or tweaking bits. Unlike the models, I've maxed out the quantity because storage is now an issue.
My softback is somewhere, lost in the depths of storage, but a Hardback will be a welcome addition to my collection.
I kind of wish GW reprinted all their previous editions as MTO releases, I'm sure oldhammer players would snap em up if given a chance to buy all released books for a given edition without having to jump through major hoops
I have to imagine the original files will be in GWHQsomewhere. And whilst I’m sure they’d need some work, likely more than i can personally imagine, to modernise? Most of the work in getting a book on shelves is done.
We’ve seen Rogue Trader and both Realm of Chaos done and available from Warhammer World and other select stores. Just add Waaargh! The Orks and maybe the other two Orky books, and Let Us Have Them.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Price should be around £41, as if memory serves, that’s the WHW price.
As for your copy? Original for posterity and nostalgia, reprint for perusal.
The issue is limited hobby funds. Which do I want/need more? A new copy of a book I already own, or shiny new minis to add to the pile of shame? Because the new minis are really shiny...
And that’s the same price as a box of terminators.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Ah, but are those shiny miniatures going anywhere in a hurry? Because the book is!
Can you tell I used to be a GW Till Monkey? And a good one at that!
Heh. You FOMO powers are strong, but this is not my first rodeo.
I have a couple years’ budget worth of things I want to buy on my covet list already. This will probably just join the list of things I wistfully sigh at as they drift pass.
If they ever re-did some of the 2nd ed codexes, i might spring for the ones not on my shelf. But it takes a LOT for me to replace things I already own.
My big self-indulgence with last year's Xmas bonus was paying an eBay flipper to ship me the Rogue Trader and both Realm of Chaos reprints over here across the pond.
I don't regret the (extra) cost. The quality of those reprints is gorgeous and solid. I've pored over them over and over again in the last year.
Now, if they'd do the same for Warhammer Fantasy Battle 3e, I could replace my poor, battered copy of that, too.
Wow those are so cool, definitely a very talented artist!
And I now want to do some classic Salamanders in camo scheme..
Yes, thanks for sharing!
I do have an issue with an underslung rocket launcher though: the backblast. This is a known thing, and if it was possible to not have them so high up, they wouldn't be, but you really don't want to risk having your rear leg anywhere near the thing when you cut loose with it.
Also, is it just me, or are the Orks just a little too "civilized"?
Wow those are so cool, definitely a very talented artist!
And I now want to do some classic Salamanders in camo scheme..
Yes, thanks for sharing!
I do have an issue with an underslung rocket launcher though: the backblast. This is a known thing, and if it was possible to not have them so high up, they wouldn't be, but you really don't want to risk having your rear leg anywhere near the thing when you cut loose with it.
Also, is it just me, or are the Orks just a little too "civilized"?
Overall, very cool though.
I think Orks have gradually become more bestial/less civilised as the background has progressed over the years. If you think of the Stormboyz marching around in human-like gear, Orks conversing with humans in some old artwork etc. There was so much depth in the original RT books, a hell of a lot more anthropomorphised, much of which has now been replaced with 'krump it'
Random drop in. Found that I still have these while I was bagging up some old White Dwarfs. Even the 2001 catalog is starting to look like an antique. I like having it around to compare how much things changed in those few years.
youwashock wrote: Random drop in. Found that I still have these while I was bagging up some old White Dwarfs. Even the 2001 catalog is starting to look like an antique. I like having it around to compare how much things changed in those few years.
Those 96-97 catalogues are my bibles! Those are what we had when we started the hobby and perused the hell out of them! Still have them around and always love flicking through them!
Nevelon wrote: I’ve got a few catalogs myself, forget the years. They were worth picking up.
Edit:
’99, ’00, and ‘01
I've had stuff like that surface from time to time. It is interesting to compare both the prices and the model ranges.
GW was at one point the affordable gaming option for starving students. Now it is very much a luxury good. I haven't read WD in years, but I recall they had a column where budget-minded players built up their respective armies. I don't know how one could write something like that today.
Nevelon wrote: I’ve got a few catalogs myself, forget the years. They were worth picking up.
Edit:
’99, ’00, and ‘01
I've had stuff like that surface from time to time. It is interesting to compare both the prices and the model ranges.
GW was at one point the affordable gaming option for starving students. Now it is very much a luxury good. I haven't read WD in years, but I recall they had a column where budget-minded players built up their respective armies. I don't know how one could write something like that today.
There was a "Tale of Four Gamers” where they followed the growth of a bunch of guy’s armies on a budget, and their bulding/painting/modeling/gaming. Great series. A lot would be lost these days. The budget would be higher, and probably significanty less kitbashing/conversions. It’s been forever since I read them, but I recall a lot of practical advice to stretch your hobby dollar and get into the game starting a new army.
I miss blister backs and impulse buys. While accounting for inflation, they were not as cheep as nostalgia tells me, they were little bite sized chunks. You could buy a plasma gunner to swap out into your squad, or a pair of blisters to add another rank to your WHFB regiment. All for lunch money prices. Nothing in that price range anymore, at least for minis. Single characters are stupid expensive. Maybe the blind boxes when they are out? There is no slow grow, microtransaction anymore.
Nevelon wrote: There was a "Tale of Four Gamers” where they followed the growth of a bunch of guy’s armies on a budget, and their bulding/painting/modeling/gaming. Great series. A lot would be lost these days. The budget would be higher, and probably significanty less kitbashing/conversions. It’s been forever since I read them, but I recall a lot of practical advice to stretch your hobby dollar and get into the game starting a new army.
I miss blister backs and impulse buys. While accounting for inflation, they were not as cheep as nostalgia tells me, they were little bite sized chunks. You could buy a plasma gunner to swap out into your squad, or a pair of blisters to add another rank to your WHFB regiment. All for lunch money prices. Nothing in that price range anymore, at least for minis. Single characters are stupid expensive. Maybe the blind boxes when they are out? There is no slow grow, microtransaction anymore.
Yes, that was it. Lots of discussion about battlefield capability vs price point.
The blisters were great to shape your forces, especially on the 40k side when you might want to retool those Devastators for more anti-armor capability.
However, in the modern day you at least get, or some get I guess, your Special Weapons in the main kit.
So, in Scenario A where you only wanted a given Special Weapon for that squad, there’s arguably better value in the modern way.
In Scenario B where you prefer to have spares to switch in and out between games? There is a drawback, as it’s not much trickier to get the spare body. Yes we can pin and magnetise, but that’s still a right faff.
In Scenario C where you prefer to switch in and out during games? You’re a cheating get and should be shunned my all and sundry.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: However, in the modern day you at least get, or some get I guess, your Special Weapons in the main kit.
So, in Scenario A where you only wanted a given Special Weapon for that squad, there’s arguably better value in the modern way.
In Scenario B where you prefer to have spares to switch in and out between games? There is a drawback, as it’s not much trickier to get the spare body. Yes we can pin and magnetise, but that’s still a right faff.
In Scenario C where you prefer to switch in and out during games? You’re a cheating get and should be shunned my all and sundry.
True. Those were the days when the tactical box came with a ML and a flamer, BP/chainsword for the sarge. That was it. You wanted a meltagun? Get the grey hunter box with the extra SW sprue. Or buy a metal blister. God help you if you wanted a combi weapon; get the hobby knife or MO bits from named characters.
Later we got more options then bodies. But a dev box, get 5 bodies (5 and a half, you got the kneeling legs which were not hard to push to a full marine with spares from other kits) and 8 heavy weapons. Splash in some spare tac bodies, and you could stretch your army out with minimal expense. Something lost with primaris.
But in the blister pack era, I could walk into my FLGS with $10 in my pocket and walk out with new minis, and change! Even if we account for inflation, will $20 get me anything these days?
Now I’m old. I have no idea what kids think of as impulse spending. My brain is stuck financially in the early 90s. But when you need to buy full squads at $40+, and more likely $60, that’s not something you do on a whim over your lunchbreak.
Nevelon wrote: Now I’m old. I have no idea what kids think of as impulse spending. My brain is stuck financially in the early 90s. But when you need to buy full squads at $40+, and more likely $60, that’s not something you do on a whim over your lunchbreak.
GW prices were rising even before inflation came roaring in, and it's throwing all calculations off. Went to a sub shop that I used to frequent weekly on Friday and two sandwiches (which used to run $15) was $35. So for the current generation, dropping $60 on gaming stuff is cheaper than dinner and a movie.
When I was young, my disposable income, before I left education, was like, £30 a week, tops.
So a £10 regiment box seems cheap now, but for my pocket was still a chunky percentage of my available dosh.
Fast forward to now? After all my bills and subscriptions? I’ve a good £1,100 or so as disposable income.
So even a £50 Deredeo Dreadnought isn’t a big slice of that. And the Legion Battle Group I spent £100ish on was still less than 10%.
Not something I’d spend weekly on models like, but my point stands.
Value and pricing is weird, because it’s so subjective.
For instance, that battle group might represent a third of the next person’s disposable income. But, if their monthly project is buy, build and paint all of that? They’re getting better value than someone who just sticks it atop their pile of shame.
There was a period when the Start Collecting sets were new when GW was affordable again, but it wasn't really "bite sized" in the same way as the old blister packs.
I think the D&D minis fill that niche to an extent though - 2 or 3 minis for 6 euro is fully possible in my local shop, along with lots of stuff in the 10 euro bracket that's pretty cool. I think those do really well, but there's nothing in the sci fi style with them.
What I miss most about the older era was the hand made terrain being much more common. I really feel the books lost something around 5th edition when they stopped putting stuff about how to make your own terrain in the rulebook and started to only include their terrain kits.
From a business POV makes sense, of course, but I love the hand made stuff in the older books.
I do partially lament the passing of the days when WD and indeed rule books included scratch building or conversion guides.
But, GW has grown since then.
Originally, conversions and scratch building were necessary, as for a modicum of skill, you could add new semi-official models and thus add variety to your battles.
Overtime, GW added more and more vehicles and terrain, and so the need for such articles just isn’t there. But in the right way. If I want a Whirlwind or Vindicator for instance, I don’t need to hunt down a specific conversion guide, I’ll just…buy one.
Swings and roundabouts my dude, swings and roundabouts.
Yeah, that's fair. I was never very good at scratch building as a kid and I always liked it when scratch built options got a kit, the way I saw it the scratch builders still got to do their thing but cack handers like me got to have a kit too (see the Ork Battlewagon!)
I somehow feel differently about terrain, and I dunno if that's because I can actually do that fairly well and always have been able to, but it's a fair point that others would have been in my exact situation.
But there's something charming about those old guides showing how household junk can become a desert hab dome or some such. It's the vibe I aim for with my own terrain. I guess the gap is filled to an extent with stuff like the Terrain Tutor's book or various Youtube channels too.
For those of us of certain undisclosed vintage? Terrain was…whatever we could lay our hands on. Books for hills, Jumpers for Goalposts. Isn’t it? Marvellous!
And the rules reflected that. Terrain was “pretty much anything in the way”, with some very, very loose suggestions on how to represent the effects.
But, now? With Actual Kits came Kit Specific Rules, and worse? Official (but still only suggested) board layouts.
I was really into trying to make a half decent board even when I was 12. I put a lot of time into my crappy terrain and I was really proud of it. I had stuff like felt cut to make rivers or muddy patches, model railway trees, I did those cactus with red toothpicks that were all the rage. A big insert from some packaging was a futuristic building painted with an entire pot of boltgun metal, I had hills made out of layers of cardboard because I couldn't figure out where this foam stuff they used came from. A cannibalised branch from an artificial christmas tree became a bunch of bushes and hedges.
Oh, and ork huts made from the old polystyrene "trays" that used to come in the boxes, stacked on top of each other and washed with Flesh Wash to make sort of Adobe huts.
Not to mention all the 2e Cardboard ruins!
I remember carting all my stuff to uni at 17 and having someone sneer at the quality and feeling quite heartbroken!
For those of us of certain undisclosed vintage? Terrain was…whatever we could lay our hands on. Books for hills, Jumpers for Goalposts. Isn’t it? Marvellous!
And the rules reflected that. Terrain was “pretty much anything in the way”, with some very, very loose suggestions on how to represent the effects.
But, now? With Actual Kits came Kit Specific Rules, and worse? Official (but still only suggested) board layouts.
Yes, but there was also lots of non-GW terrain out there for those interested. Model railroaders are obsessive in their soil and stone needs, and that was the direction I went. Lots of trees, lichen, stones, etc., and when combined with a foam cutter and some packing material, it's not that hard to build a first-rate tabletop. Indeed, at one point I was into creating frame buildings out of sprues, but then I discovered the joy of foam core presentation boards.
Oh the *bits* were there. As were guides on what to do with those gubbins.
And I still endorse and celebrate home made terrain. Indeed one could argue that now GW is more or less entirely devoid of metal models? Home terrain terrain is an easier job, as you just don’t need to worry about load bearing and your mate’s models getting smashed if a walkway gave out.
I genuinely advocate all sides. Not a “happy medium” specifically. But that is part of it, because it can’t not be.
If I built my terrain out of stuff you’d normally bin? Or from kits and “official” kits? I don’t care.
All I care is does our mutually assembled battlefield look cool.
If the best both you and I can do is a cunning pile of differently sized books as a hill? Then it’s as cool as we manage, and so it is cool.
If like me you have several hundred quids worth of GW plastic terrain under your bed desperately in need of painting? Then provided I get just painted? We’ll have cool terrain and scenery.
If like me you have several hundred quids worth of GW plastic terrain under your bed desperately in need of painting? Then provided I get just painted? We’ll have cool terrain and scenery.
And. Every. Single. Stage. Before. And. After.
I liked the cardboard building in 40k and Necromunda. Had both sets, loaned to a friend who then thoughtlessly gave them away without asking.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Rick Priestley interview part two. And lots of info I wasn’t aware of!
Quite the contrast between the drive to create multiple games per year and the modern focus on creating the same game every three years.
There was definitely a creative energy in those years, and he's right about how the various editions lacked a "final finish" feel, but they were absolutely on the way to greatness. Had GW taken a moment to refine them, they'd have reached their full potential.
Pacific wrote: Has this one been posted yet? Quite an interesting interview with Andy Chambers about the early 40k editions.
I found his remarks about updating an edition but not changing it too much quite interesting. Obviously, I'm one of those who felt that 3rd was just too different and lost the feel of what I had liked about 40k. I did appreciate his acknowledgement that "enlarging" the game (more figures) came off as commercially motivated but he was correct that players wanted to fight bigger battles.
The sort of "universal house rules" that I've compiled go a long way to achieving that while keeping the feel of the game. Our standard game size is 1,500 to 2,000 points and we have no problem with finishing it in a timely manner.
I also enjoyed his comment that the balance of the game was fleeting because soon the codexes would wreck it.
I'm starting to lose my mind a bit, but I could have sworn at some point in time I saw some sort of boxed game on here that had copious amounts of wheeled vehicles in it but it was not Gorka market. Does anyone have a line into what this was because I'm trying to make a lot of trucks for my third edition speed freaks army?
If so it would be pretty much useless as I need them for ork trucks
Automatically Appended Next Post: This box set that I remember was something recent, and it had different colored screws in it. It definitely wasn't dark future as that game is very very old
Automatically Appended Next Post: In a perfect world I would just chase down eight of the gorka-morka/ 2nd edition plastic War trucks but there's no way in hell I'm paying $70 a model for those things
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The rules for it should be fairly easy to come across, as I suspect most buyers did so for early access to the models.
, I thought I communicated fairly clearly that I'm looking for trucks. I have no interest in the rules for that game. I'm simply trying to find the best way that I can accumulate a trucks that are smaller than the current truck model, which I feel is absolutely massive. I have one truck I got in a package deal that is the modern truck, and I intend to use it as a battle wagon. So my job now is to find smaller trucks that I can use for the rest of my speed freak boys
I had a great surprise last night when I opened my 4th ed. Warhammer Armies: Chaos set that I bought 'as new'. Not only as new box, but all cards and counters unpunched, and the book has never been opened.
I’d have to check the shelf. I recall having 2 sets of chaos rules in 5th, which was when I played the bulk of my WHFB (only a little into 6th). It might have been I started with the 4th box, which had all sorts of cards and chits and stuff. It’s been a while.
I disliked the retinue system where you picked a HQ and then an equal number of points of followers. Very fluffy, but in an era of herohammer made it real hard to get your character points settled.
Took delivery today of “White Dwarf Presents Warhammer 40,000 Battles”.
Razorbacks! Leman Russ Battle Tank! Bunker! Many battle reports!
Joy and rapture. Plus for a damned good price of £25.
That’s just Codex Space Woofs to go and I’ve a complete set.
I very, very (very!) nearly bought the Angels of Death codex the other day for what I thought was an absolutely unbelievable price of £15.. only to notice at the last moment it was for a beer coaster with the AoD cover printed on it
I will someday get Angels of Death, but it needs me to coincide being sozzled and browsing on eBay at the same time
Noticed that yesterday. I decided to stick my nose onto ebay (something I don’t normally do) looking for a copy of the 2nd ed. Ultramarine book just for completeness. Bit of a minefield. Also, way to expensive for a whim.
One of the things I learned being an infantryman in the army is to be patient he wait for your moment to take the shot. This applies to eBay as well, as I am not nearly fomo suffering enough to pull the trigger on something that costs way more than I feel I should spend for it. The minute you get past the whole fomo thing, is the minute that you will be able to wait and find something for far cheaper. Had I bid on ebay? Then I would have paid $40 for the amended 3rd Edition Dark Eldar Codex instead of the 14 I paid by being patient.
Pacific wrote: I very, very (very!) nearly bought the Angels of Death codex the other day for what I thought was an absolutely unbelievable price of £15.. only to notice at the last moment it was for a beer coaster with the AoD cover printed on it
Oh yes I hate those buggers, they had me thinking I'd found a reasonably priced 2nd ed Ork codex. The disappointment!
The sad thing is that back around 5th/6th edition, 2nd ed codexes were routinely selling for $5 a pop on eBay. I'm still kicking myself for not picking up the Sisters codex (the only one I'm missing, along with the Battles book) back then...
insaniak wrote: The sad thing is that back around 5th/6th edition, 2nd ed codexes were routinely selling for $5 a pop on eBay. I'm still kicking myself for not picking up the Sisters codex (the only one I'm missing, along with the Battles book) back then...
I caught the tail end of the Third Edition cheapness, as now all the Third Edition codices are extremely expensive.
Definitely pays to be patient, and a bit creative.
For instance, I found really reasonably priced copies of Waaaargh! The Orks and ‘Ere We Go! on eBay a few years back, well under most asking prices. But, the seller wouldn’t ship internationally.
So I got in touch and asked if he’d be happy to post to a nominated Canadian address, which he was. Member of the Loot Group also agreed, and despite paying for postage twice, I still ended up with a decent bargain.
It does help I’m happy to buy slightly tatty copies. Provided the pages are still bound, I can live with the odd tear or busted spine.
Yeah I noticed the prices for 3e stuff on ebay are really high. Tbh, I think most warhammer stuff on ebay seems extremely expensive, sometimes above retail for stuff that's actually available on retail.
I'm alright with digital copies of things that are out of print at this point. If I want it physically I'll print it out and bind it myself. Be nice to have the actual books, but not to the point I'm willing to spend big money on them, especially as I think I'm not that likely to actually play 3e these days.
Oooh. In potentially exciting news, it’s annual bonus next pay day, and I’ve found out my appraisal rating is “significantly exceeding expectations”. Which should mean I get 150% of bonus.
That neatly brings Titan Legions into “possibly affordable”. I mean, it still seems to be a ridiculous £400 for a complete set. But I think I’ll be able to do the books, which are the main thing.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah I noticed the prices for 3e stuff on ebay are really high. Tbh, I think most warhammer stuff on ebay seems extremely expensive, sometimes above retail for stuff that's actually available on retail.
I'm alright with digital copies of things that are out of print at this point. If I want it physically I'll print it out and bind it myself. Be nice to have the actual books, but not to the point I'm willing to spend big money on them, especially as I think I'm not that likely to actually play 3e these days.
Third is all I do play, so I'm kind of required to have these books. When I got my work Army lot from a friend, I knew I was going to build a speed freaks Army so I had to chase down the Codex Armageddon which I paid more than I wanted for, but I also picked up the rest of the codexes I've gotten this year for well under. I figure it makes up the difference
Yeah, full respect to you there. If I had a similar playgroup to you I think I'd be doing the same, but I mostly play with people from my RPG group who are not wargamers and don't like crunchy rules, so OPR is easier to work with. I've found non-wargamers get it pretty fast.
Just Tony wrote: I'm simply trying to find the best way that I can accumulate a trucks that are smaller than the current truck model, which I feel is absolutely massive. I have one truck I got in a package deal that is the modern truck, and I intend to use it as a battle wagon. So my job now is to find smaller trucks that I can use for the rest of my speed freak boys
I did the same thing with the modern Ork Trukk--counted it as a battlewagon, in my case for 2nd ed 40K. I glued the rear passenger tray in backward to make more room (or at least give the feeling of more room). Was fairly simple to do. Yours might have already been glued, of course.
I found the modern Trukk fiddly and delicate to build. Not very Orky.
Wow is it difficult to get 90s 40K Orks. These are the ones with the metal body and plastic arms / weapons. On ebay they are generally ridiculously expensive and missing the arms.
I came in at around the very end of 7th edition just in time for 8th.
As a young white shield I wanted to play however the shiny new edition out of my grasp. Undeterred I went to a discount book store and found some 5th edition codex's for my IG and CSM along with the rulebook, maybe it's because this was my first real taste of the table top aspect as well as it was with my friends rather than a random at an LGS, but 5th is my comfort edition.
it is practically the only edition I play with my friends as 10th is eh.
5th is that sweet spot to me not just the crunch and fluff but also the art. It felt more alive compared to the newer art.
IronRose wrote: I came in at around the very end of 7th edition just in time for 8th.
As a young white shield I wanted to play however the shiny new edition out of my grasp. Undeterred I went to a discount book store and found some 5th edition codex's for my IG and CSM along with the rulebook, maybe it's because this was my first real taste of the table top aspect as well as it was with my friends rather than a random at an LGS, but 5th is my comfort edition.
it is practically the only edition I play with my friends as 10th is eh.
5th is that sweet spot to me not just the crunch and fluff but also the art. It felt more alive compared to the newer art.
Very fortunate, you dodged the bullet on that GW trainwreck.
My french bulldog puppy somehow figured out how to build ladders. His first act of terrorism was to push a chair up to the breakfast bar, climb up to where my third edition space marine codex was, pull it down and eat the cover off of it as well as chew off the corners of some pages. So how much is a third edition space marine codex going for nowadays?
Think 4th-5th edition is in the sweet spot (Playstation 2-3) level of retro collecting at the moment, fairly cheap for the rules and army books. 2nd edition has reached 'boxed NES game in fairly good condition' price range now unfortunately. A lot of the books I got for around £10 2-3 years ago are now 4 or 5 times that amount, even more for the rare ones (Sisters of battle etc)
Bear in mind, if you just want the rules there is a 'rules bible' community version which has everything (all expansions, WD extras etc) available online.
Cap'n Facebeard wrote: Wow is it difficult to get 90s 40K Orks. These are the ones with the metal body and plastic arms / weapons. On ebay they are generally ridiculously expensive and missing the arms.
Like the plastic Marine arms these are now really hard to find for a sensible price - perhaps even worse as I don't think the Orks sold anything like in the same numbers, so are much more rare. I think your best bet might be to join one of the 2nd edition 40kFB groups and ask on there - there were some fan-made 3D prints which are apparently almost identical to the originals.
Yes I think I'm just going to shelve my impulse for a 90s Ork army. I find it very annoying with modern ebay how people post things that will obviously never sell for the price they list.
I now have complete collections of 1st and 2nd Ed 40K books.
So…what now? What will become of this hoarder of hobby lore now my horde is complete?
Will it be saving up for a copy of the Titan Legions Books? The long, slow hunt for a complete, era relevant, collection of White Dwarf magazines in good nick?
Given the frankly desultory state of modern 40K I'm looking at getting into 4E/3.5E. I feel it's probably the best edition with the right mix of 3rd and 4th edition books (though IIRC the only truly dreadful 4E book was the Chaos Codex, even the ones that were downgrades relative to their 3.5 counterparts were still perfectly serviceable; the Ork 4E Codex was a bit lacklustre compared to its predecessor but not dreadful by any stretch) and also the books tend to be surprisingly affordable on the aftermarket, assuming you don't just Yarr Harr them.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So…what now? What will become of this hoarder of hobby lore now my horde is complete?
Will it be saving up for a copy of the Titan Legions Books? The long, slow hunt for a complete, era relevant, collection of White Dwarf magazines in good nick?
Collect them all in other languages. I think Italians used to be a big fan of Warhammer.
Here's a question for old ed appreciators - in your opinion do you think the original Realm of Chaos books will ever be reprinted for international market? Or should I splurge and buy the cheapest ones on ebay (which when buying from here is Aus are still quite a high price)
GreycapTheUnwise wrote: Given the frankly desultory state of modern 40K I'm looking at getting into 4E/3.5E. I feel it's probably the best edition with the right mix of 3rd and 4th edition books (though IIRC the only truly dreadful 4E book was the Chaos Codex, even the ones that were downgrades relative to their 3.5 counterparts were still perfectly serviceable; the Ork 4E Codex was a bit lacklustre compared to its predecessor but not dreadful by any stretch) and also the books tend to be surprisingly affordable on the aftermarket, assuming you don't just Yarr Harr them.
Many of the 3.5 and 4th ed codexes are some of the best(since the original crew was still at the helm of game development), however the core rules were overall better in 5th. thats why our group uses core 5th ed rules with a few minor tweaks but allows any codex from 3rd-7th to be used within those rules. our focus is more on classic thematic play as such with a few exceptions those codexes 3rd/4th/index astartes/forge world etc..) have the best feel to them. i absolutely love the 4th ed codexes for eldar, orks, tau, tyranids and black templar.
3.5 has some of the best stuff for power armor-chaos, witch hunters, demon hunters and a smattering of the more unique loyalist chapters like scars, iron hands, and dark angels. core space marines and guard is a toss up both the 4th and 5th ed books are really good. but 5th has more unit options so it tends to win out. aside from that in 5th the ones that really stand out as great codexes are space wolves, blood angels, dark eldar and necrons.
GreycapTheUnwise wrote: Given the frankly desultory state of modern 40K I'm looking at getting into 4E/3.5E. I feel it's probably the best edition with the right mix of 3rd and 4th edition books (though IIRC the only truly dreadful 4E book was the Chaos Codex, even the ones that were downgrades relative to their 3.5 counterparts were still perfectly serviceable; the Ork 4E Codex was a bit lacklustre compared to its predecessor but not dreadful by any stretch) and also the books tend to be surprisingly affordable on the aftermarket, assuming you don't just Yarr Harr them.
Many of the 3.5 and 4th ed codexes are some of the best(since the original crew was still at the helm of game development), however the core rules were overall better in 5th. thats why our group uses core 5th ed rules with a few minor tweaks but allows any codex from 3rd-7th to be used within those rules. our focus is more on classic thematic play as such with a few exceptions those codexes 3rd/4th/index astartes/forge world etc..) have the best feel to them. i absolutely love the 4th ed codexes for eldar, orks, tau, tyranids and black templar.
3.5 has some of the best stuff for power armor-chaos, witch hunters, demon hunters and a smattering of the more unique loyalist chapters like scars, iron hands, and dark angels. core space marines and guard is a toss up both the 4th and 5th ed books are really good. but 5th has more unit options so it tends to win out. aside from that in 5th the ones that really stand out as great codexes are space wolves, blood angels, dark eldar and necrons.
This is where opinions REALLY differ, as to me the 3.5 codices started the modular build thing which allowed several armies the ability to have their cake and eat it, too. Up until the Tyranid and Chaos 3.5 codex you could look across the table and figure out where your priority of fire was. After that? With modular builds, veteran skills and their equivalents, and application of "points-free" abilities, upgrades, and weaponry, it was almost impossible to know what you were really facing with certain armies. When we tossed it all, we decided to fall back to 3rd as that was probably the most structured and balanced system to us. I know our group is pretty unique in that regard, but not everyone thought the 3.5 codices were the best unless they were the ones running them. Opponents? A different story.
While I was a fan of 2nd edition and was disappointed by 3rd, having seen the editions to follow, I'd go back to 3rd. I think it was the the most streamlined, straight forward the game ever got.
But then again I didn't mind Epic Armageddon, so there's that.
3rd was done much like 8th index era. it was a new design and they went super streamlined and simple. especially if you used the base armies out of the main rulebook.
To me as a lore inspired player that isn't what i enjoy about 40K. the codexes and add-ons that reward you for playing your force to the lore of the universe, thematic army play is more to my liking as such the codexes i mentioned are my favorites for those reasons. you will always have players who will try and break the system no matter what rule set you use. it is just human nature however it breaks the gentlemen's agreement and the golden rule that used to be in the old books-namely "the game should be a fun experience for both players".
I have found that 40K specifically is a fantastic game if you approach it with the right mind set. as epic battles in the 40K universe. anything other than that it just breaks down and becomes a bad experience for the players, especially the super competitive ones who cannot handle some bad dice rolls, and GAK out even if they win the game.
What I found out is that people who want game first, fluff second, absolutely adore Third as a rule set whereas people who want fluff first, game second, don't like it as a rule set.
Just Tony wrote: What I found out is that people who want game first, fluff second, absolutely adore Third as a rule set whereas people who want fluff first, game second, don't like it as a rule set.
I like 3rd edition but am definitely fluff first game second. The 3rd edition army lists have some of the widest coverage of any edition whilst retaining decently-extensive character armouries, which is great for narrative scenarios. I do think 4th edition is a better ruleset but generally prefer 3rd edition army lists (some exceptions for early 4th codices, which still followed the late 3rd paradigm).
Aphyon mentioned that they like the 4th edition Ork codex, but I think it is a downgrade from having 9 distinct lists prior in 3rd (standard, Speed Freeks, Feral Orks, 6 clan lists). I also disliked the trend towards contracting armouries for characters, and the increasing flanderisation beginning to set in- all burnaboyz carry flamers, all tankbustas have rokkits, nobz split into melee and shooty versions etc. Skarboyz and flash gitz as veteran boyz but below nobz was also better IMO.
I think the difference is much like the 4th ed eldar codex. all the options are there to build ork clanz or eldar craftworlds according to the lore with the 4th ed dexes, without requiring a specific list. it takes a bit more player knowledge of how the army is represented in the lore to choose the right units/options.
Honestly, 7th ed is still my favorite edition and I wish GW expanded on it more and fixed the bugs instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water with 8th.
HH v1.and v2 shows how it can be made better with tweaks and changes and how it had potential. All it took was just trimming away the GW money grubbing tendencies (removal of Formations, changing of obscene psychic powers) and focusing on what made the armies unique.
I'm just going to say it right now. In my opinion, FW always had more fun rules than GW had, and understood 40k more than GW. If the writers for forgeworld where put in charge of the space marine codexes then it would have been fluffy and fun. the GW take on the badab war chapter tactics proved it in my opinion.
from 8th edition onwards 40k felt less like 40k to me.
aphyon wrote: I think the difference is much like the 4th ed eldar codex. all the options are there to build ork clanz or eldar craftworlds according to the lore with the 4th ed dexes, without requiring a specific list. it takes a bit more player knowledge of how the army is represented in the lore to choose the right units/options.
Firstly, I liked the sperate lists because they introduced restrictions as well as new options,similar to the FoC. I think some limitations on composition are good. Systems like the IG doctrines get the flexibility by building inherent restrictions in to the choices.
Secondly, you absolutely cannot make all 3rd edition lists with the 4th ed book. Feral Orks and Snake Bites are almost entirely excised. Armies of kommandos or lootas aren't possible etc.
aphyon wrote: I think the difference is much like the 4th ed eldar codex. all the options are there to build ork clanz or eldar craftworlds according to the lore with the 4th ed dexes, without requiring a specific list. it takes a bit more player knowledge of how the army is represented in the lore to choose the right units/options.
Firstly, I liked the sperate lists because they introduced restrictions as well as new options,similar to the FoC. I think some limitations on composition are good. Systems like the IG doctrines get the flexibility by building inherent restrictions in to the choices.
Secondly, you absolutely cannot make all 3rd edition lists with the 4th ed book. Feral Orks and Snake Bites are almost entirely excised. Armies of kommandos or lootas aren't possible etc.
You posted literally everything I wanted to post in response and summed up my feelings exactly. Fourth edition was the beginning of the entire warhammer Player base losing their restraint because games workshop actively encouraged them to. The best way to sum it up is have your cake and eat it, too.
Been watching Former Studio Interview YouTube shows, and it’s pretty cool to learn just how much “everyone knows” stuff, which is usually rubbish, is actually completely true.
For instance, that 1st and 2nd Ed Epic absolutely were as wildly popular as I remember. Not just pushed, but responsible for a solid percentage of Old GW’s income.
If we go right right back to Epic’s earliest days (an edition outside of AT I never played)? It does seem to have been the secret sauce that made 40k the cultural juggernaut it is today. Just in terms of what armies could look like and feasibly include.
Consider that prior to the innovations of 2nd Ed, 40K had all of…erm….four, I think, plastic tank models. Rhino, Predator, Land Raider, Ork Battlewagon commercially available.
Epic at the same time? To name check but a mere handful? Leman Russ, Basilisk, Hellhound, Falcon, Vyper Jetbike, Whirlwind, Vindicator, Warp Hunter, Tempest, Knights, Titans, Baneblade, Stormhammer, Shadowsword, lots of Orky Tanks.
Epic allowed those still crafting, creating and refining 40K a much greater opportunity to populate the galaxy with all sorts of wonder weapons and craziness in a way 28mm wouldn’t allow at the time. It also lead to many WD articles on how to convert up the humble Rhino chassis into some of those (and more!) really adding to the hobby addiction side.
Epic scale also allowed for ludicrously sized engagements to be played out and, importantly, visualised, on a scale 28mm wouldn’t really allow for rules wise until the shift to the 3rd Ed style rules and really capitalised on in Apocalypse.
It set the scale and scope of 40K in our impressionable young minds. Hundreds of thousands of troops being thrown into remorseless meat grinders against city levelling weapons. It bridge that divide between mind’s eye and reality.
I’d love to see the old Orky tanks done in 28mm, I really would.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Been watching Former Studio Interview YouTube shows, and it’s pretty cool to learn just how much “everyone knows” stuff, which is usually rubbish, is actually completely true.
For instance, that 1st and 2nd Ed Epic absolutely were as wildly popular as I remember. Not just pushed, but responsible for a solid percentage of Old GW’s income.
If we go right right back to Epic’s earliest days (an edition outside of AT I never played)? It does seem to have been the secret sauce that made 40k the cultural juggernaut it is today. Just in terms of what armies could look like and feasibly include.
Consider that prior to the innovations of 2nd Ed, 40K had all of…erm….four, I think, plastic tank models. Rhino, Predator, Land Raider, Ork Battlewagon commercially available.
Epic at the same time? To name check but a mere handful? Leman Russ, Basilisk, Hellhound, Falcon, Vyper Jetbike, Whirlwind, Vindicator, Warp Hunter, Tempest, Knights, Titans, Baneblade, Stormhammer, Shadowsword, lots of Orky Tanks.
Epic allowed those still crafting, creating and refining 40K a much greater opportunity to populate the galaxy with all sorts of wonder weapons and craziness in a way 28mm wouldn’t allow at the time. It also lead to many WD articles on how to convert up the humble Rhino chassis into some of those (and more!) really adding to the hobby addiction side.
Epic scale also allowed for ludicrously sized engagements to be played out and, importantly, visualised, on a scale 28mm wouldn’t really allow for rules wise until the shift to the 3rd Ed style rules and really capitalised on in Apocalypse.
It set the scale and scope of 40K in our impressionable young minds. Hundreds of thousands of troops being thrown into remorseless meat grinders against city levelling weapons. It bridge that divide between mind’s eye and reality.
I’d love to see the old Orky tanks done in 28mm, I really would.
Epic is a game that is just always out of reach, but I wholeheartedly agree. I wish Imperialis was given a better shot by GW cause it's the closest thing we got... I would love to see (see, not paint or build) factions like the orks or tyranids in that scale too, it's a fricken great system.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: If we go right right back to Epic’s earliest days (an edition outside of AT I never played)? It does seem to have been the secret sauce that made 40k the cultural juggernaut it is today.
'Codex Titanicus' was the book that tied Adeptus Titanicus and all the white dwarf articles together, though 2nd edition is when the game really branched out into other factions.
Just Tony wrote: What I found out is that people who want game first, fluff second, absolutely adore Third as a rule set whereas people who want fluff first, game second, don't like it as a rule set.
I disliked 3rd ed both because of the lack of fluff and because it was really, really boring to play.
3rd was widely criticised all through its lifespan for having had all of the fun stripped out of it. I strongly suspect that most of the love for the system now comes from people looking back at it fondly in contrast to the utter chaos that came later, rather than because it was a good game in its own right.
Epic is a game that is just always out of reach, but I wholeheartedly agree. I wish Imperialis was given a better shot by GW cause it's the closest thing we got... I would love to see (see, not paint or build) factions like the orks or tyranids in that scale too, it's a fricken great system.
Epic was (is) a great system. But LI is such a bad game... it is way worse that any of the previous versions.
Instead of doing like in TOW (take the best of previous editions), they just took the worst
Just Tony wrote: What I found out is that people who want game first, fluff second, absolutely adore Third as a rule set whereas people who want fluff first, game second, don't like it as a rule set.
I disliked 3rd ed both because of the lack of fluff and because it was really, really boring to play.
3rd was widely criticised all through its lifespan for having had all of the fun stripped out of it. I strongly suspect that most of the love for the system now comes from people looking back at it fondly in contrast to the utter chaos that came later, rather than because it was a good game in its own right.
3rd was the first edition that GW decided that they wanted their miniatures wargame to actually BE a miniatures wargame rather than a miniature heavy RPG. The outcry you speak of is from those that WANTED the RPG and didn't represent the whole of the fanbase at the time. The success of 3rd, from both a sales and saturation point, is a clear indicator of this.
Loud vocal minorities have been a thing in the player base since the player base existed.
3rd was necessary, but for me went much too far in the other direction.
I’ve never liked the “all or nothing” save system, nor the general removal of modifiers.
What the right mix would be? Well if I’m honest I’m not persuaded GW has struck it yet.
Worst of all for me? Elite Units just sort of stopped feeling Elite. My classic example of this would be Howling Banshees. In 2nd Ed? Utterly murderous. In 3rd Ed? A soggy blanket. And yes that’s another “there is middle ground you know” example.
honestly I like the all or nothing AP system myself.
it means that you need the good guns for units like terminators like melta or plasma guns, or bring something else specialized. I think that HH2 handles them fairly well.
Worst of all for me? Elite Units just sort of stopped feeling Elite. My classic example of this would be Howling Banshees. In 2nd Ed? Utterly murderous. In 3rd Ed? A soggy blanket. And yes that’s another “there is middle ground you know” example.
Terminators being the other really obvious example. Even after GW erratad in an invulnerable save for them, the downgrade in 3rd was just awful...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: 3rd was necessary, but for me went much too far in the other direction.
I’ve never liked the “all or nothing” save system, nor the general removal of modifiers.
What the right mix would be? Well if I’m honest I’m not persuaded GW has struck it yet.
Worst of all for me? Elite Units just sort of stopped feeling Elite. My classic example of this would be Howling Banshees. In 2nd Ed? Utterly murderous. In 3rd Ed? A soggy blanket. And yes that’s another “there is middle ground you know” example.
Don't forget the grenades. Abstracting grenades was one change I could never get used to, no matter how necessary for gameplay. I was a young man and grenades were cool!
Grenades in 2nd ed definitely needed toning down - should have only been one or two per unit, rather than having entire squads throwing templates about. And ongoing effects from smoke or plasma could very quickly become a bit of a chore to manage (at least for the dreaded Vortex Grenade there was usually only one, occasionally two on the table at one time).
Abstracting them was GW's usual pendulum approach - grenades are over the top, so effectively remove them completely.
It's a shame they didn't find a happy medium. Throwing Scare and Toxin and other grenades with their own moving clouds is fun but complicated. Abstracted grenades is simple but much less fun.
In the end they wanted people to buy bigger armies, so the rules had to be simplified.
In the end they wanted people to buy bigger armies, so the rules had to be simplified.
While it's fun to complain about GW making decisions based on what makes them the most profit, to be fair it's worth pointing out that the people also wanted to buy bigger armies. Throughout 2nd edition, players kept pushing for larger and larger games. Anecdotal, but by the end of 2nd edition, the group I gamed with was regularly playing 3-5000 points. There was a well-attended gaming club in the city I was living in at the time called '5000+ Gamers'. Players wanted a system that catered for those sort of games without taking two weeks to play, and GW gave it to them.
I'm quite sure that the ultimate motive was to sell more models, but the reason it worked is that that's what the players wanted as well.
insaniak wrote: I'm quite sure that the ultimate motive was to sell more models, but the reason it worked is that that's what the players wanted as well.
Oh yes of course, I can remember everyone wanted to play huge apocalypse games like the Heretic battle report in WD. But maybe, in hindsight, it was the wrong direction for the community to go in.
I don't think it was inherently the wrong direction, it just suffered from GW's pendulum approach to rules changes. Instead of taking the 2nd edition system and streamlining the parts that made it particularly chunky, they stripped the whole thing down to its bare bones.
Cap'n Facebeard wrote: I just wonder what might've been if we had left 40K to be a relatively skirmish-like game and kept Epic as the big battle game. But who knows?
I would have left the game. Pure and simple. GW gave us Inquisitor as an outlet for those that wanted the level of minutiae that the player base wanted. The fact that it didn't stick around tells me more about how large that section of the player base was. Or, rather, how small that section of the player base was.
Honestly, epic should have been around all this time regardless. The fact that it was vital to 40k’s fluff in the long run, and as a side game could have been a fun skirmish game in the side. Maybe give it out to another company like FFG or something.
Just Tony wrote: I would have left the game. Pure and simple. GW gave us Inquisitor as an outlet for those that wanted the level of minutiae that the player base wanted. The fact that it didn't stick around tells me more about how large that section of the player base was. Or, rather, how small that section of the player base was.
I can see what you mean to an extent. I don't think Inquisitor is really a game similar to 2nd ed 40K. That would be kind of like saying D&D and the Castle Ravenloft board game were a similar experience.
Just IMO, and very IMO, what we are left with now is a kind of large battles / skirmish Frankenstein's monster where it matters what pants my Chaos Lord is wearing but also I have a building size robot and a supersonic aircraft.
For me, ditching AV for S, T and W worked for 40K. Whilst I’ve only played a handful of games since that change, it does feel better than the old AV system, where a single Meltagun up the rear exhaust could just blat any tank.
And when Knights are kicking about, being pretty much immune to most weapons under AV? It wasn’t much fun to face them.
Just Tony wrote: I would have left the game. Pure and simple. GW gave us Inquisitor as an outlet for those that wanted the level of minutiae that the player base wanted. The fact that it didn't stick around tells me more about how large that section of the player base was. Or, rather, how small that section of the player base was.
I can see what you mean to an extent. I don't think Inquisitor is really a game similar to 2nd ed 40K. That would be kind of like saying D&D and the Castle Ravenloft board game were a similar experience.
Just IMO, and very IMO, what we are left with now is a kind of large battles / skirmish Frankenstein's monster where it matters what pants my Chaos Lord is wearing but also I have a building size robot and a supersonic aircraft.
Yeah, Inquisitor was not remotely providing the same experience as 2nd ed 40K, nor was it designed to. It was an attempt to make more of an RPG. It was a game that nobody had asked for, in a scale that nobody wanted, and it was poorly supported, and so didn't really go anywhere.
It would've maybe not succeeded but have done better in 28mm. When it came out me and my friends at the time said 'lol action figures' and had zero interest.
Is it just me or were GWs 54mm figures particularly bad? Or is it just an uncanny valley of seeing your 28mm world in 54mm?
Yeah, the initial Inquisitor range was really, really good. They got worse as they went along, and never included anywhere near the range that the game demanded.
They absolutely should have gone with 28mm, in plastic with a host of modular conversion parts. Would have been a nice draw for a game that by its nature screamed for easily convertible miniatures (but only provided them in expensive metal) and would also have sold like hotcakes to 40K players for character conversions. And would have meant that players could also use their existing collections of 40K-scaled terrain, rather than having to build new terrain that would likely see limited use, in a larger (more difficult to store) scale.
The concept of the game was great. But it really feels like one of those things that was developed as someone's passion project, and nobody took the time to stop and think it through properly before release.
A 28mm Inquisitor build kit would have been a product that players would still be seeking and talking about fondly if they had done it. The models were great, but trying to build a game around them? Not so much. Our group was of the opinion that if GW wanted to sell larger scale showcase minis, they could have done it without a game attached and they would have still sold.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For me, ditching AV for S, T and W worked for 40K. Whilst I’ve only played a handful of games since that change, it does feel better than the old AV system, where a single Meltagun up the rear exhaust could just blat any tank.
And when Knights are kicking about, being pretty much immune to most weapons under AV? It wasn’t much fun to face them.
I'm just the opposite, i prefer the more simulation style of game. AT weapons are designed to one shot tanks. that is why i like the damage table. yeah you have a really good chance to kill it in one go with a good hit or otherwise damage it in some way. i absolutely hate everything about hull points and the GW version of the wound system post 7th. the only game i have seen get it right is DUST 1947 that uses a wound system for vehicles but light non-AT weapons cannot even hurt the ones with heavier armor (IE machineguns can hurt open topped vehicles by way of killing the crew, RPGs will do major damage to light and medium vehicles, less so against heavy and super heavies. the most powerful guns in the game like rail guns will on average take a minimum of 2 shots to kill the heaviest of vehicles).
One shotting vehicles is also not something 40K did alone, flames of war, battle tech, heavy gear etc... also have mechanics that do the same thing.
I also never had any trouble killing knights or warhounds for that matter. especially using the original FW rules for superheavies designed for normal games of 40K (pre-apocalypse rules). assuming they fail the ion shield save.
They did do large scale collector's models through Forgeworld back in the day, but they were hideously expensive. Sideshow did a short-lived range of painted figurines as well (mostly Space Marines).
After seeing some of GW's 3-ups at a Games Day back in the day, I always thought that limited runs of those as collector's minis would have done well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
aphyon wrote: I'm just the opposite, i prefer the more simulation style of game. AT weapons are designed to one shot tanks. that is why i like the damage table. yeah you have a really good chance to kill it in one go with a good hit or otherwise damage it in some way. i absolutely hate everything about hull points and the GW version of the wound system post 7th. the only game i have seen get it right is DUST 1947 that uses a wound system for vehicles but light non-AT weapons cannot even hurt the ones with heavier armor (IE machineguns can hurt open topped vehicles by way of killing the crew, RPGs will do major damage to light and medium vehicles, less so against heavy and super heavies. the most powerful guns in the game like rail guns will on average take a minimum of 2 shots to kill the heaviest of vehicles).
One shotting vehicles is also not something 40K did alone, flames of war, battle tech, heavy gear etc... also have mechanics that do the same thing.
I also never had any trouble killing knights or warhounds for that matter. especially using the original FW rules for superheavies designed for normal games of 40K (pre-apocalypse rules). assuming they fail the ion shield save.
I'm ok with games leaning into the simulation angle, but the ability to one-shot characters and vehicles should (IMO) be tied to the scale of the game. In smaller, skirmish games, losing your big hitters to a single enemy shot is annoying... The Space Marine Vindicator I built in early 3rd edition didn't actually get to fire a shot at an enemy until at least 5th or 6th edition, because it was constantly destroyed before I got to do anything with it. In a game where you have multiple vehicles, this becomes less of a problem, but when the game size means you only have one or two in the force, it's discouraging.
Likewise, I can recall a 2nd edition game with a mate shortly after the Abaddon model was released, where I had the Assassins mission, and effectively finished the game on my first turn by drilling Abaddon with a lascannon. I laughed, my opponent was... less impressed. So we started over with a new mission rather than play out the game, so that he would actually get to use his shiny new model.
Simulation is great, but it's also important to consider that people want to be able to use their models.
Cap'n Facebeard wrote: I just wonder what might've been if we had left 40K to be a relatively skirmish-like game and kept Epic as the big battle game. But who knows?
I would have left the game. Pure and simple. GW gave us Inquisitor as an outlet for those that wanted the level of minutiae that the player base wanted. The fact that it didn't stick around tells me more about how large that section of the player base was. Or, rather, how small that section of the player base was.
I dont mind games where a Lascannon oneshots a powerful HQ. Teaches that player a lesson about not leaving his valuable characters in a position where they can be Lascannoned. This is teaching real strategy & tactics IMO. Avoiding "feelsbad" makes for boring, casual family games
insaniak wrote: Likewise, I can recall a 2nd edition game with a mate shortly after the Abaddon model was released, where I had the Assassins mission, and effectively finished the game on my first turn by drilling Abaddon with a lascannon.
To be fair placing your HQ as the closest model to you opponents lascannons on the first turn is akin to playing chess by running you king up the board unsupported.
Cap'n Facebeard wrote: I just wonder what might've been if we had left 40K to be a relatively skirmish-like game and kept Epic as the big battle game. But who knows?
I would have left the game. Pure and simple. GW gave us Inquisitor as an outlet for those that wanted the level of minutiae that the player base wanted. The fact that it didn't stick around tells me more about how large that section of the player base was. Or, rather, how small that section of the player base was.
And why not Epic?
Not a fan of micromachines, for one, and I detested the gameplay. It's also why I'd take a bullet to the testicles before I'll every play Warmaster again.
Just Tony wrote: I would have left the game. Pure and simple. GW gave us Inquisitor as an outlet for those that wanted the level of minutiae that the player base wanted. The fact that it didn't stick around tells me more about how large that section of the player base was. Or, rather, how small that section of the player base was.
I can see what you mean to an extent. I don't think Inquisitor is really a game similar to 2nd ed 40K. That would be kind of like saying D&D and the Castle Ravenloft board game were a similar experience.
Just IMO, and very IMO, what we are left with now is a kind of large battles / skirmish Frankenstein's monster where it matters what pants my Chaos Lord is wearing but also I have a building size robot and a supersonic aircraft.
I'm just of the opinion that 3rd's abstraction was perfect for me, and that if I wanted to roleplay, I'd simply play a roleplaying game. I don't need it in my miniatures game. Same principle behind the card-based minigames in older editions of Warhammer. Two separate games, and I'd leave them as such.
A game I absolutely adored, and may still lurk in Dad’s attic. Will check when I’m up for the funeral.
I have delusions of same. Have downloaded many STL ship files as I only owned High and Dark Elves in original metal. Printed a few. Hope your stuff is still around!
insaniak wrote: Likewise, I can recall a 2nd edition game with a mate shortly after the Abaddon model was released, where I had the Assassins mission, and effectively finished the game on my first turn by drilling Abaddon with a lascannon.
To be fair placing your HQ as the closest model to you opponents lascannons on the first turn is akin to playing chess by running you king up the board unsupported.
But of course not everyone wants to play chess.
He wasn't the closest model. 2nd edition allowed you to target mission objectives instead of the closest enemy.
insaniak wrote: He wasn't the closest model. 2nd edition allowed you to target mission objectives instead of the closest enemy.
Page 29 :
"A squad or model may also choose to shoot at a building or a specific game objective, for example storage tanks, generators, energy lines, supporting pylons, and so forth."
It's for shooting at pre-agreed scenery pieces in custom scenarios. And frankly would be in violation of the most important rule if it wasn't.
I will say that the biggest thing I like recently from 9th was the huge variety of custom chapter tactics, forgeworlds and regiments. I wish the other editions had that too before they tossed it out like a fat man tossing away a candy wrapper.
insaniak wrote: He wasn't the closest model. 2nd edition allowed you to target mission objectives instead of the closest enemy.
Page 29 :
"A squad or model may also choose to shoot at a building or a specific game objective, for example storage tanks, generators, energy lines, supporting pylons, and so forth."
It's for shooting at pre-agreed scenery pieces in custom scenarios. And frankly would be in violation of the most important rule if it wasn't.
In The Assassin's mission, the enemy commander was 'a specific game objective', and that's how we always played it in that mission.
Man, I am on an old hammer kick. Aside from just googling it, are there any easy repositories of 4th ed rules and supplements? Kinda like a wahapedia thing?
Tiger9gamer wrote: Man, I am on an old hammer kick. Aside from just googling it, are there any easy repositories of 4th ed rules and supplements? Kinda like a wahapedia thing?
Welcome to the club, i went on the oldhammer kick when 8th ed dropped with a small group of friends, it has never been better, we have 20+ players in our local area that play house 5th ed 40K
Tiger9gamer wrote: Man, I am on an old hammer kick. Aside from just googling it, are there any easy repositories of 4th ed rules and supplements? Kinda like a wahapedia thing?
Just ebay if you want the books, but I keep a dropbox of the old website errata should you need them.
Tiger9gamer wrote: Man, I am on an old hammer kick. Aside from just googling it, are there any easy repositories of 4th ed rules and supplements? Kinda like a wahapedia thing?
Welcome to the club, i went on the oldhammer kick when 8th ed dropped with a small group of friends, it has never been better, we have 20+ players in our local area that play house 5th ed 40K
this is gonna sound wierd, but how is it playing 5th ed with 3e/4e books? like 5th ed as a concept much more, but I am falling in love with the fluffy army building of 4e
Tiger9gamer wrote: Man, I am on an old hammer kick. Aside from just googling it, are there any easy repositories of 4th ed rules and supplements? Kinda like a wahapedia thing?
Welcome to the club, i went on the oldhammer kick when 8th ed dropped with a small group of friends, it has never been better, we have 20+ players in our local area that play house 5th ed 40K
this is gonna sound wierd, but how is it playing 5th ed with 3e/4e books? like 5th ed as a concept much more, but I am falling in love with the fluffy army building of 4e
Fantastic!
All 3rd - 7th ed book are cross compatible core mechanics wise. you just play them within the confines of the 5th ed core rules and USRs. we made a few minor tweaks to make things run smoother like using the 4th ed wound allocation rules instead of 5th to avoid abuses. for more details i have topics on the rules
And actual real world game experiences where we regularly put different codexes up against each other from various editions within the frame work of 5th ed core rules. we did 4 games last weekend that used codexex from 3.5, 4th, and 5th ed.
The reality is that it is much less about what codex you use and much more to do with your attitude towards the game and what you do on the table. the current edition for example practically requires you to bring "the best" units in your codex/balance pass or you will loose the game pretty well every time (as one of our converts from 10th likes to point out) compared to 5th edition where, within the confines of the FOC, you can bring any unit you like for any reason you like and still have a chance to win the game given how the mechanics work. this is a positive for me because it allows players to bring what minis they like, not what they have to take.
Even though meta builds existed in every edition, you end up with some very different army builds on the table. our 2 regular 3.5 iron warriors players have very different lists for example, but both are very much iron warriors style armies in accordance with the lore.
Tiger9gamer wrote: Man, I am on an old hammer kick. Aside from just googling it, are there any easy repositories of 4th ed rules and supplements? Kinda like a wahapedia thing?
Welcome to the club, i went on the oldhammer kick when 8th ed dropped with a small group of friends, it has never been better, we have 20+ players in our local area that play house 5th ed 40K
this is gonna sound wierd, but how is it playing 5th ed with 3e/4e books? like 5th ed as a concept much more, but I am falling in love with the fluffy army building of 4e
Fantastic!
All 3rd - 7th ed book are cross compatible core mechanics wise. you just play them within the confines of the 5th ed core rules and USRs. we made a few minor tweaks to make things run smoother like using the 4th ed wound allocation rules instead of 5th to avoid abuses. for more details i have topics on the rules
And actual real world game experiences where we regularly put different codexes up against each other from various editions within the frame work of 5th ed core rules. we did 4 games last weekend that used codexex from 3.5, 4th, and 5th ed.
The reality is that it is much less about what codex you use and much more to do with your attitude towards the game and what you do on the table. the current edition for example practically requires you to bring "the best" units in your codex/balance pass or you will loose the game pretty well every time (as one of our converts from 10th likes to point out) compared to 5th edition where, within the confines of the FOC, you can bring any unit you like for any reason you like and still have a chance to win the game given how the mechanics work. this is a positive for me because it allows players to bring what minis they like, not what they have to take.
Even though meta builds existed in every edition, you end up with some very different army builds on the table. our 2 regular 3.5 iron warriors players have very different lists for example, but both are very much iron warriors style armies in accordance with the lore.
That is very good to know! I did love playing my admec in 7th ed, but I do worry it may be a bit much to bring a full on army with knights, skitarii and cults against other and older codexes. I would have to see if it would feel dirty or not, I played a 7th ed game recently against a demon summoning army and it was a blow out on my side, despite my opponent rolling perfectly to summon 3 big demon units.
The other way I can see running something is using HH1 as a rule basis instead of 5th ed for 7th, but again would have to see how that works.
I also run an admech list from 7th in our 5th ed games.
I have a mix of skitari infiltrators, cataphron breachers/destroyers, dune crawlers and occasionally i will toss in my warhound or macharius (i play FW lucius so it fits the theme).
To fit within the 5th ed USRs i just use move through cover in place of dune strider as they represent the same ability. as well as the fact everything in 5th has fixed movement distances based on unit types. all infantry move 6" can run a d6" and charge 6" so the extra 3" of movement is ignored/replaced.
As for using knights they work perfectly fine. they are the equivalent of other light superheavies like the macharius-2 structure points. they can walk 12" fire all their guns (at different targets) they can sprint at 18" and only fire one gun, or they can flat out run for 24" but cannot shoot any weapons or charge if they do so.
Also all imperial superheavies count as having an onboard tech marine that can repair damage (not structure) on a 5+
I suggest the original imperial armor volume 1 (first edition) superheavy damage table as it was made for using superheavies in normal games of 40K before apocalypse or D weapons were a thing. it makes them center piece models, but not game breakingly over powered especially with the original weapons profiles( IE turbo laser destructors were just las cannon profile S9 AP2 but small blast instead of a single shot with a 60" range)
aphyon wrote: I also run an admech list from 7th in our 5th ed games.
I have a mix of skitari infiltrators, cataphron breachers/destroyers, dune crawlers and occasionally i will toss in my warhound or macharius (i play FW lucius so it fits the theme).
To fit within the 5th ed USRs i just use move through cover in place of dune strider as they represent the same ability. as well as the fact everything in 5th has fixed movement distances based on unit types. all infantry move 6" can run a d6" and charge 6" so the extra 3" of movement is ignored/replaced.
As for using knights they work perfectly fine. they are the equivalent of other light superheavies like the macharius-2 structure points. they can walk 12" fire all their guns (at different targets) they can sprint at 18" and only fire one gun, or they can flat out run for 24" but cannot shoot any weapons or charge if they do so.
Also all imperial superheavies count as having an onboard tech marine that can repair damage (not structure) on a 5+
I suggest the original imperial armor volume 1 (first edition) superheavy damage table as it was made for using superheavies in normal games of 40K before apocalypse or D weapons were a thing. it makes them center piece models, but not game breakingly over powered especially with the original weapons profiles( IE turbo laser destructors were just las cannon profile S9 AP2 but small blast instead of a single shot with a 60" range)
Alright, I can get behind that! Dunestrider doesn't seem so bad imo, it's just more or less a stopgap between jump packs and bikes, stopping right in the middle. still, I can see why it would be annoying to play with.
thanks for the advice! I may try to get people to play it after the HH league
Tiger9gamer wrote: That is very good to know! I did love playing my admec in 7th ed, but I do worry it may be a bit much to bring a full on army with knights, skitarii and cults against other and older codexes.
Without using formations and the like the skitarii weren't too out of order (compared to some of the monsters of later oldhammer editions such as taudar). It was really stuff like the 'War Convocation' that pushed them well over the edge.
When playing with pre-mid 4th books against newer books (anything prior to the 4e chaos and dark angel books) you may want to consider free grenades and similar to even the table. There were official releases for bringing things like transports and storm shields, etc, up to 5th edition levels.
Knights were mainly problematic due to d strength weapons and their own self destruct table. Swap out d-strength for strength 10 and similarly adjust the stomp table if you don't want arbitrary unit deletion.
---------
If you plan on playing 5e rules with minimal adjustments then split would allocation between upgraded, non-upgraded, and character groups (i.e. if the squad contains a flamer, meltagun, and power sword then that is one group of three for wound allocation, not three groups of one). Though it was rarely a serious issue outside of ork nobz and grey knight paladins.
Yeah that is one of the things we did as well as later editions gave standard grenades for free, so we ignore basic grenade costs (frag/krak, photon etc..) from the older codexes. you still have to pay for the special stuff like melta bombs, haywire/EMP etc..
On the matter of storm shields within the confines of 5th ed core rules a storm shield is a storm shield they all have the same profile. same with POTMS applying the normal BS of the unit it is from, not BS2, as in older editions.
Also formations are flat out gone. we do not allow them because they break the game. as anybody that was around near the tail end of 7th can attest.
Whilst a little more complex, I feel that it would be better to strip the free grenades and make those newer units pay points for them rather than giving the older units free grenades.
Free grenades for everyone is a big part of why cover became irrelevant in assaults.
