118765
Post by: A.T.
 aphyon wrote: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.
It's mostly mis-matching marine stuff - storm shields, typhoon missile launchers, assault cannons. 4e Black Templars are probably where it comes up most. Though rhino and chimera costing and capabilities hits a number of books, particularly inquisition.
I forget when the rule for being able to assault occupants of a wrecked vehicle (after shooting the vehicle) was formalized ... ?
125436
Post by: aphyon
That was post 6th, you cannot shoot a transport and then assault it's occupants. you must assault the unit you shot at in 5th. if you destroy the transport there is no assault.
We take points cost and upgrades from the relevant codexes even if we treat the stat lines the same for same gear. it is a trade off, one of the guys played around with the "cheaper" 7th ed guard codex for example, but he lost access to all the upgrade options from the older editions. even if the base cost was higher he went back to the older editions to get the optional war gear he felt better fit his force.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
Gosh darn is it hard to find a copy of Tamurkhan : The Throne of Chaos now. I guess no-one bought it when it came out. Cheapest ebay copy is $420 AUD (214 GBP). Don't think I've ever seen it auctioned.
EDIT: AND IT SOLD FOR THAT
65352
Post by: SirDonlad
Cant remember what it was for earlier editions but the sixth edition rulebook has it on page 80 at the end of 'effects of damage on passengers'
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
So I never played 6th and 7th ed 40K, but I've read a lot about how 7th was the worst edition ever. A lot of what I've read is through the lens of playing it competitively.
My question is: could you play 7th ed not-very-competitively and have fun? Was it bad for everyone or just for the tournament / pickup game crowd?
125436
Post by: aphyon
6th was actually worse than 7th, in fact it was so bad GW killed it in less than 2 years. because it wasn't around very long people tend to forget how bad it was. it was the perfect storm of a time to kill 40K and give rise to warmachine and infinity moving into the limelight. 7th started out as an improvement in mechanics but they quickly destroyed it with formation spam, USR spam, and psyker bloat. If you want to see what it would have been if they had done it better take a look at horus heresy 1.0. Alan based it off 7th but fixed most of the problems starting with removing formations entirely.
118765
Post by: A.T.
 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:My question is: could you play 7th ed not-very-competitively and have fun? Was it bad for everyone or just for the tournament / pickup game crowd?
Skip formations and be wary of superheavies and Eldar.
There are also a number of 'don't be an ass' issues with the rules that you should be fine with as long as you aren't played overly competitively such as uneven distribution of aircraft and anti-air weapons and the way an army with a lot of psychic mastery just 'wins' the psychic phase by default. Avoid invisibility and possibly fortune, don't abuse daemon summoning.
Stick to a single FoC at first and if using mission cards allow things like free redraws for impossible missions.
Armies in 6e and 7e got very skewed between the haves and the have nots and while a lot of this was formations you will need to selectively easy back from time to time.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
Every edition of 40k has had issues with balance. 7th was particularly bad with power creep and layered rules that just broke things.
Formations were a poorly executed concept. What should have been fun little incentive to play fluffy combos ended up in raw power creep, and a marketing cudgel.
Superfiends allies led to some layererd BS. As did psychic powers.
The few times I played my Eldar I felt like I needed to lean on the brakes to keep the power level down. Some of that can be done. Yes, you can do every windrider a scatbike, but it’s also possible to limit yourself to the old 1-in-3 restriction.
Don’t be a jerk, talk to your opponent, and don’t go out of the way to break the game. Like most editions.
65352
Post by: SirDonlad
Ignore opinions claiming 6th to be bad.
Imperial knights were introduced during 6th and the angst stems from the typical GW approach of 'take a wild guess at what could maybe work in white dwarf and fix it later'.
That said, everyone agrees that the invisibility psychic power was stupid and needed changing and formations were an unnessecary crossover from apocalypse games.
That all continued in 7th with destroyer weapon charts and the various super-heavy rules changes that made them dominate the game in every respect and context.
But GW wanted to sell those Imperial Knight kits so we all had to put up with them being given a massive buff to ensure the happiness of a hypothetical child player.
Titans are better when they get weapon destroyed and immobilised results from the vehicle damage chart.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
Was 6th flyers and superheavies? IIRC both those were added to the game and not everyone had the tools to deal with them. So you ended up with a lot of bad matchups. This was complicated by the codex rollout schedule, so not everyone had a level playing field.
I also recall issues with psychic stuff.
But besides that nothing stands out in my mind as a major issue with the core rules. Then again, it was a very short edition a very long time ago…
99
Post by: insaniak
6th was also the edition in which I won a tournament game purely because the terrain killed three quarters of my opponent's army.
It was horribly unbalanced, and tedious to play. Particularly coming straight after the almost-a-sold-ruleset of 5th edition, it was just awful. I struggled through 6th and then quit the game completely when 7th arrived and turned out to be just 6th with the worst bits made even worse.
YMMV, obviously.
65352
Post by: SirDonlad
Nevelon wrote:Was 6th flyers and superheavies? IIRC both those were added to the game and not everyone had the tools to deal with them. So you ended up with a lot of bad matchups. This was complicated by the codex rollout schedule, so not everyone had a level playing field.
I also recall issues with psychic stuff.
But besides that nothing stands out in my mind as a major issue with the core rules. Then again, it was a very short edition a very long time ago…
Yeah, the flyers started in 5th with blood angels and grey knights and sixth tried to give everyone air support and AA choices.
insaniak wrote:6th was also the edition in which I won a tournament game purely because the terrain killed three quarters of my opponent's army.
It was horribly unbalanced, and tedious to play. Particularly coming straight after the almost-a-sold-ruleset of 5th edition, it was just awful. I struggled through 6th and then quit the game completely when 7th arrived and turned out to be just 6th with the worst bits made even worse.
YMMV, obviously.
My miles definetly do vary dude. I accept you had a gakky time with it but i cant let that opinion stand as fact.
The terrain rules in the 6th rukebook are the most solid of any edition of the game, particularly where it comes to combat between buildings and destroying them with units inside.
Im curious as to what your tourney opponent was doing to have 3/4 of their army die from dangerous/lethal terrain - turbo boosting an all-bike army through lava? 
99
Post by: insaniak
 SirDonlad wrote:
Yeah, the flyers started in 5th with blood angels and grey knights and sixth tried to give everyone air support and AA choices.
Which was a self-perpetuating problem... unless you knew what you were going to be facing, you were essentially forced to take either a flyer or an AA unit, otherwise you had no defense against an opponent showing up with flyers in their list.
Im curious as to what your tourney opponent was doing to have 3/4 of their army die from dangerous/lethal terrain - turbo boosting an all-bike army through lava?
It was a footslogging Ultramarine army, all of the terrain on the board was forest, and forests in 6th were Mysterious Terrain, which in this case was rolled up as 'Carnivorous'. He had the choice of braving the forests or standing around in the open against a gun-heavy Space Wolf army, and chose the forest... which thanks to some unlucky rolling ate half his army in the first turn. I think I lost a single model in the entire game, although we called it at the start of turn 3 because we were both feeling pretty crap about it all.
I'm a big fan of random elements in games, but that was up there with 2nd edition Virus Outbreak levels of Not Fun.
125436
Post by: aphyon
The mysterious terrain rules are fun as an optional rule, but not as a requirement. we mostly use them in old school kill team games.
As for fliers and super heavies. people act like it was something new. the reality is they were around since imperial armor 1 back in 3rd edition and forge world did a much better job on the rules. first they were permission only so you knew ahead of time if you would face them. the weapons were made with normal 40K games in mind so no such thing as destroyer weapons beyond things like volcano cannons gaining extra damage to structure against super heavies existed. turbo laser destructors wre just longer ranged las cannons that used a small blast instead of a single shot. the damage table for super heavies was also much more similar to the 5th ed damage table. almost every flyer was AV 10 with the most armored ones being 12 and the rules made them glass cannons. hard to hit, not hard to kill.
Another thing that GW really got away from in 6th was the old golden rule-"the game should be fun for both players".
6th was the edition that killed 40K at my FLGS, 7th initially brought it back some, until the end killed it again.
99
Post by: insaniak
Mysterious terrain wasn't bad when it was just one or two terrain pieces... But yeah, having it apply all the time to forests was absurd, and we generally ignored it in friendly games.
And I think the reason people treated flyers and super heavies as new was that they effectively were. Yes, they'd been around with Forge World or Armorcast rules since 2nd edition... But most players didn't actually use those, due to the perception that they weren't 'official' rules. It was only when they were added as a part of the core range that they became mainstream. And they sucked a lot of the fun out of the game.
Super heavies in particular should only ever have been allowed by specific arrangement, not as a regular unit.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Said it before and I’ll say it again. Flyers were a mistake.
The models are all great, even the Space Marine one that looks like an escape pod with stuffed stapled on. But the scope of a 40K Battlefield is just…too wee. Aye. Almost, too wee, for Flyers to really work.
I did find the old FW rules better, as it involved a level of battlefield prediction to line up your strafing or bombing run. But then…did we really need models for those rules?
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
I always suspected flyers were done best in 2nd edition with the white dwarf strategy cards Strafing Run and Bombing Run
99
Post by: insaniak
I don't have a problem with flyers as a concept, as they're not that far removed from the grav vehicles that have always been there, and the models are mostly pretty cool. But they should never have needed specific weaponry to take them out, particularly given that it was made clear way back in 2nd ed that units being largely invulnerable (looking at you, Eldar pop-up attacks and Flying High Swooping Hawks) was no fun for anyone.
124786
Post by: tauist
Been revisiting 1st edition Space Marine, and the artillery rules in it are something 40K should have borrowed. With the tiny table sizes, most fliers and artillery doesnt need models, just resolve the barrages somehow and move on
118765
Post by: A.T.
SirDonlad wrote:Yeah, the flyers started in 5th with blood angels and grey knights and sixth tried to give everyone air support and AA choices.
5th edition flyers were just fast skimmers - which was kind of a problem as GW armoured them up and lowered their costs to offset the fact that they didn't have the protection of their old apocalypse flyer rules.
6th edition introduced snap fire alongside having them zoom all over the place, and monstrous flying creatures.
But mostly 6th edition brought a whole load of extra rolls and marginal USRs.
125436
Post by: aphyon
You don't need specific weaponry you just need to be able to roll 6+ otherwise they are just like any other vehicle, more fragile actually since immobilized results also auto killed them in the FW rules. what FW did was give every faction dedicated AA options to counter air assets as it was permission only to begin with to even bring them. It is back to the fun play aspect. you want to bring air? cool i will bring a FLAKK truck, or a hydra or an eldar firestorm. it just added a bit of variety to the game.
Several other systems add air assets in different ways, heavy gear, classic battle tech, DUST 1947 etc... all have the option or various options in the case of battle tech and it is not game breaking any more than FW super heavies or flyers were originally.
On the matter of artillery a basilisk should never be on the table and there were ways to buy barrages in apocalypse as i recall, some of the other short ranged things like medusa's or griffons given their comparable short ranges make more sense.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
 tauist wrote:Been revisiting 1st edition Space Marine, and the artillery rules in it are something 40K should have borrowed. With the tiny table sizes, most fliers and artillery doesnt need models, just resolve the barrages somehow and move on
I think some of the 3rd ed codexes you could pay points for off-table lance strikes. Witchhunter? I agree that it’s the best way to deal with the concept of airstrikes and artillery. But then GW can’t sell you models, now can they?
While there were a handful of flyers in mainstream 40k before 5th I think they were all treated like fast skimmers. Nobody I knew had a IA/ FW one with the other rules. There was a guy who brought a titan to an apoc game, but that’s where they belong IMHO.
By including more aspects and counters they made it harder to make a TAC list and pushed farther into rock/paper/scissors mode.
Great models though. Even the flying bricks of the marines have grown on me.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
Both inquisition codexes had orbital barrages in 3rd. The speed freek list in the Armageddon book could also have a fighta bomma attack. I think IG had preliminary bombardments too
125436
Post by: aphyon
@Nevelon
I love and own the storm hawk and storm eagle (although the latter was a nightmare to put together, worst FW kit i ever had to deal with) and i also really like the xiphon as far as marine vehicles go (have them in epic scale only though).
124786
Post by: tauist
I agree, many of the flier models look awesome. However, not sure they have good use on a typical 28mm scale tabletop, aside from acting as "Terrain" or objectives. I bought a Valkyrie to use as terrain/objective for my KT21 Ashes Of Faith campaign, inspired by that Darktide computer game I guess.. I also want to buy an Arvus lander at some point for my Corsairs (to serve as their SpecOps HQ)
62565
Post by: Haighus
aphyon wrote:
On the matter of artillery a basilisk should never be on the table and there were ways to buy barrages in apocalypse as i recall, some of the other short ranged things like medusa's or griffons given their comparable short ranges make more sense.
Basilisks in the 3rd and 4th edition rules were intended to represent artillery that had been pressed into the assault gun role as a poorly-armoured tank alternative when tanks were in short supply. Indirect fire was a paid upgrade.
Cap'n Facebeard wrote:Both inquisition codexes had orbital barrages in 3rd. The speed freek list in the Armageddon book could also have a fighta bomma attack. I think IG had preliminary bombardments too
IG didn't in the main lists. The Chapter Approved Elysian list could purchase a preliminary bombardment (via an airstrike like the Ork list). The FW DKoK siege regiment list could purchase a preliminary bombardment too, and the FW Armoured battlegroup list could purchase off-table artillery strikes a bit like the Inquisition ones. The Damocles command Rhino rules also could call in artillery strikes.
FW was much bigger on buying strikes, GW rules sometimes enhanced preliminary bombardments if they were already featured in the scenario, like the Siege Masters rule for Imperial Fists and Iron Warriors giving extra rolls. Automatically Appended Next Post: tauist wrote:I agree, many of the flier models look awesome. However, not sure they have good use on a typical 28mm scale tabletop, aside from acting as "Terrain" or objectives. I bought a Valkyrie to use as terrain/objective for my KT21 Ashes Of Faith campaign, inspired by that Darktide computer game I guess.. I also want to buy an Arvus lander at some point for my Corsairs (to serve as their SpecOps HQ)
As an objective is how I use my deathstrike outside of Apocalypse. It is a perfect objective for a Sabotage mission.
118765
Post by: A.T.
aphyon wrote:You don't need specific weaponry you just need to be able to roll 6+
They were immune to close combat and non-skyfire blast and template weapons, several also ignored melta (if you could get close enough), were often armour 12 so effectively ignored lance and small arms, were snapshot to hit only, and if you did actually hit one of them with a weapon capable of doing damage they could retroactively jink to get a save against it, assuming they didn't already have a save like helldrakes.
It was pretty ugly being one of the 'have-not' factions compared to one of the 'have' factions - a sisters of battle army might be throwing everything they have just to try and luck out and wing on whereas red hunters siege marines with a squadron of interceptor hunter tanks treated fliers as free kills.
65352
Post by: SirDonlad
I think not being able to engage a zooming flyer in CC is a fair and realistic concept.
Youre getting confuddled with 7th i think? Jink was a constant 4+ cover save for a flyer that had moved in 6th. It was a 4+ if it zoomed/moved flat out iirc.
The "we dont have AA" argument requires ignoring the Ageis Defence Line (+50pts) which can take an icarus lascannon for an extra 35pts - thats an entirely reasonable and cheap (both in game and irl) S9 AP2 Heavy1, Interceptor, Skyfire option available to any faction for 85pts all in.
I state that with trepidation because the whole "just buy a pair of armigers for each of your 10 imperial knights" thing got me properly vexxed.
Which flyers ignored melta? I dont doubt you but there is some hyperbole going on with your number..
I recon Mad Doc is on the money about the size of the battlefield regarding flyers in 40k - it feels very constrained. I had an idea about using shelves around the gaming table as virtual spaces for flyers to have game presence and function when not physically on the table but the way GW thought to do so was an embarresment to the hobby. I never met a soul that liked or even used the death from the skies 'expansion'
And that touches on the best/worst aspect of 6th; it was heavily focussed on 'living room' gaming, not pick-up or competitive situation wargaming.
So for me it was second in the edition stakes behined the original HH using 6th core rules which is where 40k wargaming peaked.
76888
Post by: Tyran
Yes, because what any and every xeno player wants is having to buy an Imperial defense line with a lascannon for AA. /s
99
Post by: insaniak
SirDonlad wrote:I think not being able to engage a zooming flyer in CC is a fair and realistic concept.
It certainly is... but as such, if they are included as a standard part of the game, every army needs reliable and accessible options to shoot them down without having to take units specifically dedicated to only that role. Otherwise, regardless of how 'realistic' it is, it's just bad game design.
The "we dont have AA" argument requires ignoring the Ageis Defence Line (+50pts) which can take an icarus lascannon for an extra 35pts
It really, really doesn't. Again, having to take a specific unit, and in particular one that doesn't even fit your faction, on the off chance that your opponent has flyers because nothing else can hurt them is bad game design.
And that touches on the best/worst aspect of 6th; it was heavily focussed on 'living room' gaming, not pick-up or competitive situation wargaming.
So for me it was second in the edition stakes behined the original HH using 6th core rules which is where 40k wargaming peaked.
40K has always been focused on living room gaming. 6th just introduced too many concepts that only worked in that setting, whereas previous editions could all be hammered into some sort of semblance of an acceptable pick up and/or tournament game.
118765
Post by: A.T.
SirDonlad wrote:Youre getting confuddled with 7th i think? Jink was a constant 4+ cover save for a flyer that had moved in 6th. It was a 4+ if it zoomed/moved flat out iirc.
[6e-Rule-Spaghetti] Jink in 6th edition did give a constant save, but fliers only got jink if they used evade as per the hard to hit rule but only while zooming, which was further modified while going flat out, though they could in many cases choose to switch to the hover 'type' at which point as fast skimmers they temporarily gained the actual jink rule which did give them a constant 5+ cover save unless going flat out as previously mentioned... [/6e-Rule-Spaghetti]
Marine fliers were the ones that ignored the melta rule - Stormtalon, Stormraven, Stormwolf, Stormfang, Storm Eagle, Caestus Assault Ram ... curiously not the Fire Eagle unless it was errataed. The icarus was decent enough but you only got one per detachment with no real survival chances - other fliers were the best counters to fliers, and the whims of the reserve rolls.
But 6e did quite a good job of shooting itself in the foot even without fliers.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
One issue related to the no CC thing was their footprint on the table. As you could not be in CC, they acted as mobile denial zones where they were.
So many rules tweaks on that issue over the years.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
My curiosity regarding whether 7th could be fun comes from me liking the variety of units in 7th, including the superheavies, even though my inclination is more towards 2nd or 3rd edition
125436
Post by: aphyon
A.T. wrote: aphyon wrote:You don't need specific weaponry you just need to be able to roll 6+
They were immune to close combat and non-skyfire blast and template weapons, several also ignored melta (if you could get close enough), were often armour 12 so effectively ignored lance and small arms, were snapshot to hit only, and if you did actually hit one of them with a weapon capable of doing damage they could retroactively jink to get a save against it, assuming they didn't already have a save like helldrakes.
It was pretty ugly being one of the 'have-not' factions compared to one of the 'have' factions - a sisters of battle army might be throwing everything they have just to try and luck out and wing on whereas red hunters siege marines with a squadron of interceptor hunter tanks treated fliers as free kills.
Should have been clear i was not talking about 6th ed+ rules alone (all they did good was fix/standardize the movement rules with the rest of the game flow) as side from that-
This is where FW had superior rules for flyers-
.They counted as being "high up" so you took a 12" added range penalty but they never gained cover from terrain on the table.
.Non AA units could shoot at them with non-template weapons needing a 6+ to hit
.Jump infantry could assault flyers in close combat.
.pintle mounted weapons all count as AA aside from dedicated AA vehicles
.flyers hit each other on normal BS
.they crashed and burned on an immobilized result, destroyed result and explode result, which is why certain universal upgrades existed that gave them extra armor equivalents to be able to keep moving when shaken, or a once per game re-roll of an immobilized result (chaff and flare launchers)
As for the ground AA vehicle/options off the top of my head throughout the editions (3rd-7th)
.flakk trukk-orks
.firestorm-eldar
.praetor, hydra-imperial guard
.icarus array dune crawler-admech
.sky ray-tau (original FW rules were much better-could self fire 2 seekers a turn and never ran out of ammo)
.doredeo, contemptor, hunter, stalker, land raider helios, flak missiles-space marines/chaos space marines
.obelysk-necrons
62565
Post by: Haighus
Manticore for Imperial Guard and Whilrwind Hyperios for Space Marines too. Imperial Knights had the AA carapace mount.
Chaos is a glaring omission, with just skyfire missiles patched in for Havocs. Forgefiends were ok but only through weight of fire. Chaos had good flyer options instead but ground fire was limited.
I am also a bit surprised they didn't give an AA mode to Exorcists, the missile launcher tank is ideal for it.
65352
Post by: SirDonlad
Tyran wrote:Yes, because what any and every xeno player wants is having to buy an Imperial defense line with a lascannon for AA. /s
GW not producing a xenos specific aesthetic variants of the standard fortifications in the rulebook is a problem you have with GWs business strategy, not a problem with the 6th edition sir.
insaniak wrote: SirDonlad wrote:I think not being able to engage a zooming flyer in CC is a fair and realistic concept.
It certainly is... but as such, if they are included as a standard part of the game, every army needs reliable and accessible options to shoot them down without having to take units specifically dedicated to only that role. Otherwise, regardless of how 'realistic' it is, it's just bad game design.
Consider... "..if armoured vehicles are included as a standard part of the game, every army needs reliable and accessable options to destroy them without having to take units specifically dedicated to only that role. Otherwise, regardless of how 'realistic' it is, it's just bad game design."
insaniak wrote:The "we dont have AA" argument requires ignoring the Ageis Defence Line (+50pts) which can take an icarus lascannon for an extra 35pts
It really, really doesn't. Again, having to take a specific unit, and in particular one that doesn't even fit your faction, on the off chance that your opponent has flyers because nothing else can hurt them is bad game design.
Consider... "having to take an anti-tank unit, and in particular one that doesn't even fit your faction, on the off chance that your opponent has armoured vehicles because nothing else can hurt them is bad game design."
As i stated above; GW not producing xenos variants of the standard fortifications is a GW business model problem, not an edition problem.
I refuse to come out with "just print off/scratchbuild your own xenos variants!" because thats not a proper argument - same with "just use Forgeworld units!"; not available enough to constitute a proper answer imo.
All that out the way, cheers for keying out the tale of the ultramarines in the carniverrous forrest - that had me chuckling aloud, on my own, in a darkened room. 
For the AA list, the imperial guard and renegades of chaos get 'Sabre Air Defence Platform's and marines have the 'Tarrantula' Hyperios Air Defence Launcher or Hyperios Command Platform weapon upgrade.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Folks.
Can we get back to the thread topic?
An effort in that vein.
Been and gone from Dad’s house. Given inherent unpleasantness, it was kinda fleeting and totally forgot about the second attic. But sadly seems my Man O’War stuff is lost to the dust of time.
And so…..reconstituting that collection and more may very well be my next focus.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
Did you have many fleets for mow? Quite awhile ago I considered collecting it and some random helpful guy on warseer gave me pdfs of everything in every box set
76888
Post by: Tyran
SirDonlad wrote:Tyran wrote:Yes, because what any and every xeno player wants is having to buy an Imperial defense line with a lascannon for AA. /s
GW not producing a xenos specific aesthetic variants of the standard fortifications in the rulebook is a problem you have with GWs business strategy, not a problem with the 6th edition sir.
GW failing to produce xenos specific AA options for the xenos factions is a problem both with GW's business strategy and with 6th edition, because 6th edition was a GW game driven by GW's business strategy. Trying to separate them is nonsense.
65352
Post by: SirDonlad
By that logic GWs business strategy is driven by your involvement and investment so the actual problem you have with 6th edition is you!
Nice one Tyran. 6th was going to be a great and long-running edition if it weren't for you! 
76888
Post by: Tyran
SirDonlad wrote:By that logic GWs business strategy is driven by your involvement and investment so the actual problem you have with 6th edition is you! Nice one Tyran. 6th was going to be a great and long-running edition if it weren't for you!
You might be joking, but if we generalize "you" and "we" as the 40k playerbase and fandom as a whole, we did have our part in incentivising a lot of the issues 40k had over the ages. But that little argument does nothing to change the issue that a lack of access to AA options was a big issue in 6th (and best exemplified with how Flyer and FMC spam dominated 6th). Hell GW even forbade Tyranids from using weapon emplacements (and thus the Aegis Defense Line was worthless for them) so please shut up about a single Fortification somehow solving a core issue of 6th (but hardly the only one).
65352
Post by: SirDonlad
 Tyran wrote:.
But that little argument does nothing to change the issue that a lack of access to AA options was a big issue in 6th (and best exemplified with how Flyer and FMC spam dominated 6th).
If youd have just let the edition live for a couple more years GW could have released exactly that, but your hunger for edition souls couldnt wait.
76888
Post by: Tyran
Maybe, but a few more years would have done nothing for the Grav spam and D weapon rules (I'm pretty sure those were introduced in 6th).
Was invisibility and 2++ rerollable Screamer Star also a 6th ed thing or 7th? admittedly I do struggle to remember what nonsense was part of which nonsense edition (formations and psychic dice were 7th, I do recall that).
65352
Post by: SirDonlad
Tyran wrote:Maybe, but a few more years would have done nothing for the Grav spam and D weapon rules (I'm pretty sure those were introduced in 6th).
Was invisibility and 2++ rerollable Screamer Star also a 6th ed thing or 7th? admittedly I do struggle to remember what nonsense was part of which nonsense edition (formations and psychic dice were 7th, I do recall that).
Dude, i completely understand.
I know invisibility got toned down in 7th and was at its comical worst during 6th.
My mind associates grav spam with the release of SM centurions so that might be 6th?
I think the 2++ rerollable screamerstar was 7th but i cant be sure either because i was deep into HH at that point.
Smashfucker was definetly a 6th edition problem in that same vein though.
I know D weapons and the superheavy damage chart were a white dwarf addition for the release of Imperial Knights during 6th and got enshrined in 7th core rules because they ruined a game i rushed a paintjob for during 6th.
Against another tyranid player as it happens.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
Just received my sealed copy of The End Times: Archaon. Really just part of the quest to have all the 8th ed rules, the story itself is not part of my WHFB headcanon. Its a very beautiful book tho, and satisfyingly huge.
52812
Post by: Tiger9gamer
Anyone know which imperial armor books has the updated badab war stuff? Trying to get rules together for a (probably never going to happen) badab war campaign
125436
Post by: aphyon
The badab war books were IA 9&10, i have the original releases, not sure what your after with updated versions.
52812
Post by: Tiger9gamer
aphyon wrote:The badab war books were IA 9&10, i have the original releases, not sure what your after with updated versions.
I could have sworn they updated all the chapter tactics and characters in the later half of 7th, along with the siege list and so forth
118765
Post by: A.T.
 Tiger9gamer wrote:I could have sworn they updated all the chapter tactics and characters in the later half of 7th, along with the siege list and so forth
I don't know if they did anything for 7th edition, but there were pdf updates released on the forgeworld website that you might still be able to find floating around the net :
FWchaptertactics.pdf (and possibly FWchaptertactics-v2.pdf - I don't know if that was the original name or my renaming)
6th edition, November 2013
Siege_Assault_Van.pdf
6th edition, December 2013
125436
Post by: aphyon
Tiger9gamer wrote: aphyon wrote:The badab war books were IA 9&10, i have the original releases, not sure what your after with updated versions.
I could have sworn they updated all the chapter tactics and characters in the later half of 7th, along with the siege list and so forth
Ah ok i see what your after, i play core 5th so i never bothered i think the original rules are the best as is.
52812
Post by: Tiger9gamer
A.T. wrote: Tiger9gamer wrote:I could have sworn they updated all the chapter tactics and characters in the later half of 7th, along with the siege list and so forth
I don't know if they did anything for 7th edition, but there were pdf updates released on the forgeworld website that you might still be able to find floating around the net :
FWchaptertactics.pdf (and possibly FWchaptertactics-v2.pdf - I don't know if that was the original name or my renaming)
6th edition, November 2013
Siege_Assault_Van.pdf
6th edition, December 2013
these where the ones I was thinking of, thanks!
though they did butcher my minotaurs lol
118765
Post by: A.T.
I had only played a single game with the siege rules, as part of a doubles tournament.
Squadroned hunters with interceptor, red scorpions to throw a whole bunch of skyfire out onto the field, and inquisitor Lok because... I had the model I guess, also BS5 on the icarus.
After all that there was exactly one team who had turned up with aircraft. No kill like overkill against those guys.
23306
Post by: The_Real_Chris
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But sadly seems my Man O’War stuff is lost to the dust of time.
And so…..reconstituting that collection and more may very well be my next focus.
I too want my old collection to live again as I am not getting it back. Doesn't seem to be a wealth of 3D printed options out there though.
130403
Post by: blockade23
I do miss my old editions of the Renegades and Heretics FW lists (all the old list options were fun to play). I also actually miss the firing arcs of the tanks. I prefer the wounds characteristics that vehicles have now instead of Hull Points (stop glancing a main battle tank to death with damn bolters!) but especially now that they've reintroduced pivoting, there still is not a consequence for your opponent flanking you.
52812
Post by: Tiger9gamer
 blockade23 wrote:I do miss my old editions of the Renegades and Heretics FW lists (all the old list options were fun to play). I also actually miss the firing arcs of the tanks. I prefer the wounds characteristics that vehicles have now instead of Hull Points (stop glancing a main battle tank to death with damn bolters!) but especially now that they've reintroduced pivoting, there still is not a consequence for your opponent flanking you.
I mean, glancing main battle tanks with bolters rarely happened in practice for the games I played, even in 10th edition. Still, if a tactical squad managed to get into the rear arc of something so squishy then it's a big reward for that player and a learning moment for the victim. and even then most of the time bolters would still only glance on 6's against AV10, the weakest of armor saves.
I may be crazy but I don't mind hullpoints as much, but I can see how they're annoying.
125436
Post by: aphyon
The way they were applied it effectively punished you for bringing vehicles by adding 2 redundant damage systems to the game.
The wound system also was bad for the game because it removed vehicles from being vehicles and just making them mirror monstrous creatures.
The only system i play that does wounds on everything well is DUST 1947.
The way they do it is a combination of progressively less shots VS higher armor (for both infantry and vehicles) against vehicles specifically outside light or open topped vehicles heavy armor cannot even be hurt by any not AT weapon. however AT weapons do a bunch of damage for every single shot against a vehicle.
Here is an example of a SSU infantry squad-with the difference between what small arms and AT weapons can do (number of shots/damage) to infantry as well as vehicles with armor classes of 1-4 (infantry) and 1-7(vehicles).
It comes back to good game design. the idea isn't as bad as implementation in most cases.
65352
Post by: SirDonlad
I didnt mind the implementation of hullpoints, but i was always annoyed by how few a vehicle has.
I thought 7 for a rhino, 9 for a Landraider or something like that would work.
I miss vehicle stat sheets with vehicle-specific and location-specific damage charts.
76888
Post by: Tyran
Personally I would have preferred something like armor degradation with each penetrating hit.
65352
Post by: SirDonlad
With the armour value being the 'hullpoints'?
76888
Post by: Tyran
Kinda. You wouldn't die because your "hullpoints" reached zero, but because after enough penetrating hit your vehicle might only be held together by duck tape and a light tap would be enough to cause some damage and finish it off.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
Captain she's quacking up!!
99
Post by: insaniak
The existence of Hull points wasn't a bad thing... but giving vehicles what were effectively Wounds but without a corresponding saving throw put vehicles at a massive disadvantage compared to troops.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
It was a partial solution, I agree.
What Hull Points did was open up design room for guns which could erode a tank to oblivion, over big guns which could just blat them in a single shot.
I still prefer T/W/Sv, despite that not being a popular opinion.
118765
Post by: A.T.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:What Hull Points did was open up design room for guns which could erode a tank to oblivion, over big guns which could just blat them in a single shot.
Small arms already could up to a point by stripping off weapons and immobilisation ultimately leading to a wrecked result, but there was the parking lot problem where light vehicles could withstand a seemingly endless sequence of stunned and shaken results while either ignoring them (daemonic/eldar/etc) or simply not caring (troops in a transport on an objective).
If vehicles that had suffered critical damage (penetrating hit and/or loss of weapon/mobility) took +1 on their damage rolls it would have soften them up a bit.
For transports in particular it was as much the transport rule as the vehicle - forced to disembark to score?, able to be assaulted after your vehicle blew up? - all things that 5th edition could have used.
62565
Post by: Haighus
I don't think there is a substantial difference between glance on a 6+, weapon destroyed/immobilised on a 5+, Rhino destroyed with 3 weapon destroyed/immobilised results and wound on a 6+, save on a 3+, die with 3 wounds. If anything, Rhinos got tougher against anti-personnel weapons with the move to wounds + saves in 8th than in 5th! A Rhino had 10 wounds, so still took more shots to kill with a heavy bolter than in 5th, even once they moved heavy bolters to D2. The Rhino could now be hurt by S4 and below from all angles too, but given you need 18 hits to strip a single wound off a 10 wound Rhino, it is unlikely to shift the dial much except when finishing off the last wound or two.
I'm focusing on glances only, because once penetrating hits are accounted for (S6+ when talking about Rhinos) then the durability is much less favourable for the 5th edition rules. A penetrating hit is equivalent to a 5+ save and has a 1/3rd chance of outright killing the vehicle rather than just debilitating it. None of this is accounting for Shaken/Stunned, which further neutralise the vehicle on the survival equivalent of a passed save.
The ability to one-shot tanks from a penetrating hit was entirely lost, except for a few titan-hunting weapons. In practice, I recognise that an average of 3 penetrating hits with a lascannon vs 3 woundings with D6 (mean 3.5) lascannons to kill a Rhino is a wash, but lighter weapons like autocannons really suffer.
When hull points were a thing, it took a whopping 66% less shots to kill a Rhino with lighter weapons than in 5th. It was far to big a swing from 5th edition and was the equivalent of an 8th edition Rhino having no armour save and half of the wounds.
Overall, vehicles were more durable after 8th than they were in 5th IMO.
65352
Post by: SirDonlad
How many times did everybody else see a rhino get got by boltguns or equivalent?
I think i saw it happen once to an immobilised rhino?
I remember rhinos getting taken out with krak grenades more clearly but i'm presuming my experience is an outlier.
62565
Post by: Haighus
SirDonlad wrote:How many times did everybody else see a rhino get got by boltguns or equivalent?
I think i saw it happen once to an immobilised rhino?
I remember rhinos getting taken out with krak grenades more clearly but i'm presuming my experience is an outlier.
Almost never, maybe once too. Boltguns could only hurt Rhinos in the rear arc. Saw more get killed by S4 in melee because there could be a much greater volume of attacks from, say, a charging mob of boys (which then hit rear armour regardless of facing in 6th). My Chimeras were slightly more vulnerable with AV10 side armour.
The example above was to highlight one of the examples most in favour of the 5th edition rules for durability, and how it is still less durable than vs the same weapons in 8th, to show how much hull points fethed vehicles in 6th and 7th.
Most S6 or S7 weapons were far more nasty against light vehicles in 5th, because adding in a few penetrating hits really ramped up the lethality. Most of these weapons only went to Damage 2 or D3 or maaaybe 3 in 8th, which just didn't do as much to a 10 wound vehicle.
65352
Post by: SirDonlad
The other aspect that made it a pretty lethal environment for vehicles was AP2 giving a +1 and AP1 giving a +2 on the damage chart roll.
Are you leaning toward 'vehicles needed more hullpoints' or 'vehicles didnt need hullpoints'?
62565
Post by: Haighus
SirDonlad wrote:The other aspect that made it a pretty lethal environment for vehicles was AP2 giving a +1 and AP1 giving a +2 on the damage chart roll.
Did that get added in 6th? I recall it being a thing but in 5th AP2 gave no bonus and AP1 gave a +1 bonus. AP1 in 4th converted glancing hits into penetrating hits.
Are you leaning toward 'vehicles needed more hullpoints' or 'vehicles didnt need hullpoints'?
The latter, but the former would've helped. However there was enough bookkeeping for vehicles anyway without adding hull points.
I think they just shouldn't have lowered the points so much for transport vehicles in 5th (Rhinos went from 50 to 35 points, Chimeras from 85 to 55, etc.).
118765
Post by: A.T.
 Haighus wrote:Did that get added in 6th? I recall it being a thing but in 5th AP2 gave no bonus and AP1 gave a +1 bonus. AP1 in 4th converted glancing hits into penetrating hits.
6e added the bonus for AP2, but also changed the chart:
5e:
1-2 - shake/stun
3-4 - weapon destroyed/immobilised
5-6 - wrecked/explodes
6e:
1-3 - shake/stunned
5-6 - weapon destroyed/immobilised
6+ - explodes
5e rolled glancing hit damage at -2 and AP - weapons at an additional -1
6e had no glancing hits (just hull point damage) and AP - weapons had no penalty - so multi-hit high strength low penetration weapons like the wave serpent shield became premium anti-tank while things like krak missiles were downgraded.
130403
Post by: blockade23
I evidently started something. (Sorry?) I have watched multiple SM & IG tanks in my own motor pool killed by bolters (might also be my own bad rolling, but there's that). I actually think it would have been cool to have rules where if the vehicle T wasn't matched or beaten by the weapon you're shooting it with, it could not be destroyed - sort of like how there were optional D&D rules for damage threshold or similar.
But I think more realistically right now, I feel like the game would benefit from firing arcs. Sticking your tank's front left fender out and firing a MILLION weapons (looking at you Repulsor) when I cannot actually see any of the weapons is vaguely immersion breaking (yes yes I know, don't kill me on that, it's a game I know)
You wanna hit me with your turret lascannons? I better be able to see them!
62565
Post by: Haighus
blockade23 wrote:I evidently started something. (Sorry?) I have watched multiple SM & IG tanks in my own motor pool killed by bolters (might also be my own bad rolling, but there's that). I actually think it would have been cool to have rules where if the vehicle T wasn't matched or beaten by the weapon you're shooting it with, it could not be destroyed - sort of like how there were optional D&D rules for damage threshold or similar.
But I think more realistically right now, I feel like the game would benefit from firing arcs. Sticking your tank's front left fender out and firing a MILLION weapons (looking at you Repulsor) when I cannot actually see any of the weapons is vaguely immersion breaking (yes yes I know, don't kill me on that, it's a game I know)
You wanna hit me with your turret lascannons? I better be able to see them!
Oh, it definitely happened in the hull point era, I just played very little through 6th and 7th. You only needed an average of 18 hits to glance a Rhino to death with hull points, vs 56 in 5th. That is the difference between a couple of squads of Marines vs an entire army of them shooting at the Rhino's rear arc.
76888
Post by: Tyran
Another possible fix for the hull point system was that only penetrating hits remove hullpoints.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Dunno, that would once again render lighter heavy weapons pretty obsolete?
59054
Post by: Nevelon
One suggestion at the time I agreed with in the hull point era was to give vehicles armor saves. Lascannons and melta would just cut through them anyway, but it would slow down being glanced to death. And the value of the save could be adjusted per tank, so if you want something being murdered by ACs, give it a 4+ or worse, but 3+ would really want krack missiles or better.
Not a perfect fix, but IMHO a solid start to one.
125436
Post by: aphyon
As somebody who plays in a regular non tourney 5th ed group every weekend, in my experience it works fine just the way it is if the more simulation style of play is what your after.
AT weapons are designed to kill armor. so they either kill in one shot or they don't. the idea that infantry small arms could hurt heavy armor is laughably non-immersive.
I can understand bolters being able to just barely hurt vehicles from the right armor facing because they are literally APHE RPGs, and you proved your superior command ability on the table by getting into position to exploit the weaker armor.
Every system i play has some way to one shot kill armor rather it is overkill damage in heavy gear or critical hits in classic battle tech.
76888
Post by: Tyran
I think part of the discussion is the issue in 5th that you could waste a lot of penetrating hits if you rolled bad in the damage table, specially against transports and daemon engines that ignored stunned and shaken results (and transports also didn't care about weapon destroyed results)
Hullpoints were a flawed attempt of fix that issue.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Why is it that despite recognising some earlier GW sculpts were super wonky, I still adore them?
Like the RTB01 Combat Wombles. Sure, they were the sea change and the forebears of modern 40K and mass enplasticifcation. But they still stand weirdly, lack detail and options.
And some of the metals released then weren’t all that great in purely practical and aesthetic terms. But they still ooze charisma, which is a silly thing to say about an inanimate lump of lead. Some even exceed GW’s normal cavalier attitude to body proportions and have right Thunderbird bonces.
I turn my nose up at similar, modern day options. But the OG GW ones? Completely charming.
I don’t think it’s just nostalgia, as my nostalgia is a bit after that, 2nd Ed and onward.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
Is secondhand nostalgia a thing? Those of us old guard who have fond memories of the old days speak so fondly of them that it gets picked up by younger players?
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I guess so. But I don’t think it’s that.
Maybe it’s an affection for the very humble roots of a beloved setting? Essentially going from a bunch of happy-go-lucky but ambitious relative amateurs to the beast it is today - and still seeing elements of that original “sod it, give it a whirl” approach, even if most of it is just background stories and that?
Maybe there’s a certain very British Underdog thing going on. I mean sure, it’s been a looooong time since anyone could describe GW as an underdog. But it’s still gone from basically nowt but some mentalists being glorious to the juggernaut it is today. And it’s not often Britain leads the way in anything these days.
Maybe it’s also my general fondness for anything “punk rock” and cultural anti-establishment petty rebellion?
99
Post by: insaniak
I think the fact that so many of the old sculpts are clunky and ugly is exactly what gives them charm, in the same way that a really ugly dog is often more endearing than a pedigree showdog.
There's also a certain charm in the fact that so many old, hand-sculpted models look hand-crafted, because of those imperfections. Whether consciously or not, we find an appeal in that, that is missing from so many modern, digitally-sculpted and refined models.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
It could be that like an inadvertently hilariously bad movie, they were still made with care and passion, despite the wonky outcome.
And so when compared to someone trying to copy the style, those copies just ring false. Like Deliberately Bad Movies, as opposed to an u-coming sculptor where early citadel type models is genuinely their style? Automatically Appended Next Post: Or indeed former GW sculptors where….thats just their style. Like Bob Olley
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/433105762/the-mighty-exo-armoured-dwarves-28mm-scale-miniatu
Yes he’s recreating Exo-Armour Squats, sure. But….im pretty sure Bob Olley did the originals. And so yes there’s an element of nostalgia bait to this kick starter? The fact Bob is the original mind behind the original models? It’s…..fine with me. He’s not ripping off anyone else in search of a quick buck. And they’re in that style because that’s always been his style.
Same with Trish Carden, monster sculptor extraordinaire, and her ongoing releases. They look old GW, because she is old GW.
52812
Post by: Tiger9gamer
I can't speak to the old rogue trader stuff, but to me the sheer fact that so much fluff revolved around the first born and old space marines makes me nostolgic for mark 7.
Sure, at the time I agree space marines where oversaturated to say the least, but now that the focus is shifted to primaris all I can say is that I miss it.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
MkVII definitely has a special place in my heart.
As you said, it was the poster Mk when I too was getting involved.
But also? I’d say when the originals came out they were a step above what came before, as the Design Studio started really settling on each factions design language.
For example? And hopefully the imbedding works (embedding?)
The RTB01 marines. Which were and are still a pretty cool kit and look.
Pretty sure these are the first Metal/Plastic hybrid MkVII? They just seem more….I guess serious? Proportions better, more upright. And that helmet design which isn’t quite Storm Trooper, but gets across they’re not very happy with you and the only cure is a short course of DEATH!
No of course the second pic didn’t work. Why would it? Anyway. This link https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=105108.90
Scroll down to the Ultramarine squad, yeah?
41390
Post by: Fugazi
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Pretty sure these are the first Metal/Plastic hybrid MkVII? They just seem more….I guess serious? Proportions better, more upright. And that helmet design which isn’t quite Storm Trooper, but gets across they’re not very happy with you and the only cure is a short course of DEATH!
They are much more refined models, particularly the leg armor and elbow joints. The armor looks more thoughtful, like they knew better how all the joints should fit together as a full powered suit. The beakies, while I love them, always suffered from a bit of "good draft but not quite there."
Although I've long since come around, I remember that my first reaction to the Mk VII was, "oh c'mon, they slapped a darth vader grill on a space marine!" I was very surprised that they had dropped the beaky helmet, as I mistakenly considered it iconic and untouchable as a design choice.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
It’d definitely that odd thing. Maybe best known as bucking `sequelitis’ where all that followed were objectively more accomplished. But the original still can be touch for sheer ambition?
Which may be what annoys me about modern equivalent.
The medium has moved on. Those, such as Bob Olley and Trish Carden have a built in pass, because they’re not pretending, that’s just their style.
But all these Rogue Trader imitators are maybe just manbunned hipsters desperately pretending they were actually there at the time, and no simply person of frankly limited talent that found a way to make money?
I dunno. This is still something bothering my brain.
41390
Post by: Fugazi
I wonder if it has to do with the difference between guidelines and rules. Especially in the 80s, the GW stuff was more loosely defined. "This is more or less a Space Marine, but I'm adding a skull here instead of an aquila, and a pouch here just because." As GW became more successful and 40k became a brand, the guidelines turned into rules. "This *must* go here because that's in our design bible." And as the method for sculpting changed to digital, the rules became more cemented by the technology. No longer can a sculptor add a pouch with a quick blob of greenstuff. The limits are in the software, hardened by corporate styleguides.
By extension, the Oldhammer/Rogue Trader imitators are less following their own practiced style (as Olley and Carden and others do), but are following what they see as "the rules of Oldhammer design" which is more akin to following a corporate styleguide.
This is all a guess, but I have the same inchoate feeling as you do, and I'm just trying to account for it.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
You may very well have nailed it!
Sculptors all contributing and chipping in and being weird and developing and bouncing off each other.
And so, not dumping on intentional pretenders? That design room anarchy is just missing. As in they’re just replicating, not pushing, and if they do push? It’s in an isolation the predecessors didn’t know.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
How is your hunt for Man o' War stuff going, MDG?
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Haven’t started yet.
No sign of my old stuff at Dad’s, so it’s a From Scratch job.
Just need to bide my time until inheritance has shaken out. Then I’ll easily be able to buy a home lock, stock and barrel, leaving me rent and mortgage free.
Oh there will be such a collection then!
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
I have a painted Khorne Bloodship somewhere....
98665
Post by: SpinCycleDreadnought
Not starting a new thread for it, and here seems like the best place for it:
I find it really weird that ten years ago 7th edition was a thing, and that 6th edition came to pass with the hull points, etc. It'll be three more years until Primaris are a decade old, but I'm longing for the days of 3rd and 4th. I don't actively play (was always too slow to catch up before the editions sprinted away) but I miss the "complex simplicity" of the older editions. The extra year or two between editions really made it feel like it lasted longer. These days as a person approaching middle-age, I'm finding myself putting off getting back as "I can wait until 20XX for the next edition" rather than getting stuck in an having fun.
105256
Post by: Just Tony
Dude, there are people willing to play those editions with you. If memory serves me correctly, I saw posts in the 3rd Edition Facebook Group from people from your country. Might be in your interest to have a look-see.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Definitely - for second edition at least there are some very active groups, some with many thousands of members. And all sorts of stuff posted, from people that collect 100% accurate renditions of the old minis (down to goblin green-rimmed bases!) through to 3d prints done in classical style and people playing old rules with new minis. I am sure there will be similar for 3rd.
A friend of mine is collecting Necrons for 2nd, which from reading around hilariously overpowered (they were a very late WD release from memory), I am collecting a mix of the new Votann, Mantic Forge Fathers and some printed stuff and using them as Squats for that ruleset.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
There’s definitely a market for Oldhammer, as it’s affectionately known.
The good news is that whilst GW’s prices have of course increased over time (though in the grand scheme, taking into inflation not as much as we initially think. Still above inflation though), the older the edition? The smaller the overall scale battles tended to be.
Which means if other Old Grognards decide to dust off their old rule books? Even starting an army from scratch isn’t massively expensive.
For example? About three years ago, I started an Eldar army, rooted in the 2nd Ed Codex. Whilst some rule bending is needed (no more than 50% of Guardian Squads being able to field Shuriken Catapults is a problem, for instance), the army is pretty dinky.
I’ll need to revisit that soon. And with all my Legions Imperialis and Heresy stuff almost painted, I may resurrect that old plan in the coming weeks as a side project to my 2024 Hobby Odyssey.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which means if other Old Grognards decide to dust off their old rule books? Even starting an army from scratch isn’t massively expensive..
This is literally what a friend and I are doing
Also thinking of using 2nd edition as a template for 30k era battles. 20-30 marines max, a tank and walker and you are good to go.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
I'm doing this with 6th ed WHFB. The armies are indeed much smaller, eg a unit of 12 Chaos Warriors is useful. No big Hordes-like monsters and such either.
I'm only doing some armies now but as I own every 6th ed book, the temptation is strong to get them all.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I’m particularly fond of 2nd Ed 40K for that.
Aspect Warriors, for instance. They’re typically pretty damned good, even in tiny five model units. Fragile, yes. But when used well, they absolutely wreck face. And that’s helped as Blob Squads weren’t what they’d become, so even say, two or three Banshees getting the charge are gonna smash up the enemy squad.
Sod it. Tomorrow I break out the 2nd Ed Codex, and I’ll make a list. And I’ll check it twice. I won’t bother figuring out who’s naughty or nice as I reckon you’re all secretly heretics, and as I hold a real life inquisitorial mandate, I’m allowed to make such proclamations.
Yeah. Especially you.
And with payday next Monday, I can plan out any remaining purchases. Like Warlocks and/or a Farseer.
Will go for 2,000 points I think.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
Make sure you get the bubble-helmet-pointing guy
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Oh I’m using current models!
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
You can get him anyway, he's a good mini
105256
Post by: Just Tony
I chopped his helmet off and replaced it with a bare Guardian head from the 3rd Ed. sprue. He's currently either my Archmage or Lord with Armor of the Gods and Swordmaster Honor for my High Elf army.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Just checked the eBay prices.
Not. A. Chance. Waaaaay too expensive. I mean, is it a design classic? Absolutely. If I or a friend already had one lurking in the bitz box would I dust it off? Darn tooting.
But average price is £100, which is excessively excessive in an excessively-tastic way.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
Wasn’t he even MTO not that long ago? It’s not like the supply is just 30 year old relics…
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
Beginning to question your dedication to this plan 
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Hmmm.
Power and Internet bill just jumped by £100.
Guess I’m getting a Farseer or Warlocks this month.
602
Post by: lasgunpacker
"Pointy guy" can go for a lot less than £100, I just saw it go for $27 USD shipped.
It was labeled "metal warlock/Farseer" though.
52812
Post by: Tiger9gamer
One of the most annoying things about old editions is trying to find old tactics articles about factions. playing around with a mechanized guard list and have no clue what i'm doing lol
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Put lads in Chimera, drive over naughty bad guys?
118765
Post by: A.T.
Tiger9gamer wrote:One of the most annoying things about old editions is trying to find old tactics articles about factions. playing around with a mechanized guard list and have no clue what i'm doing lol
With tanks cover the more lightly armoured sides where possible and watch for units that can cross-fire you - it helps when you only have one direction in which you need to screen/cover yourself when moving and picking your facing.
Tanks frequently have the range to sit out on the edges and negate a fair amount of return fire via distance, particularly when setting up second to get maximum value from defensive placement. You'll want infantry screens against deepstrike armies (particularly mid to late oldhammer drop pods and the like).
With transports depending on the edition you either want to hide in your chimera because it's a bunker or behind it because it's a death trap.
In both cases expect transports not to survive close contact with enemy units but fast movement can help, get in to position quickly and then use the vehicle like a (temporarily)mobile wall to create concealment and force oncoming units to move around it.
And don't forget tank shock as it can both break units off the board (many undersized units won't be able to recover) and also to 'shape up' squads for the shooting phase - factions like the Witch Hunters got a lot of value out of tank-shoving units into compact flamer-friendly shapes.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
So I've gassed on in this thread about how I'd like to collect all the 6th ed WHFB armies. Well I'm going to ruddy do it! Turn the nostalgia all the way up!
Already have all the army books and the rulebook. What comes next is a collecting quest that may not ever be finished  
125436
Post by: aphyon
Do it in epic scale, thats how i managed to build all the 40K armies i always wanted without breaking the bank. ... it helps that there are 3rd party manufacturer that still support it. same with fantasy. have my 6th ed 2,500 point beastmen army in warmaster scale.
124786
Post by: tauist
 Pacific wrote: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which means if other Old Grognards decide to dust off their old rule books? Even starting an army from scratch isn’t massively expensive..
This is literally what a friend and I are doing
Also thinking of using 2nd edition as a template for 30k era battles. 20-30 marines max, a tank and walker and you are good to go.
Hey, this is exactly what I'm doing as well! Since 10th edition legended my main army big time, I am taking all my toys and making them 2nd edition compatible. My only gripe is sourcing out propa' looking Ork boyz from the modern GW model range, anything besides the Kommandos kit looks too "modern" ie not enuff flak vests and stuff, and too much blood bowl vibes.. vehicles are fine though, as are the dreads, which is a relief..
I got no idea what to use my Eldar Pirates as though.. werent they strictly a Rogue Trader affair? As in, they never got rules for 2nd ed..?
I got a move coming up, dusted the old archives and found an unopened FW Repressor kit! Did 2nd ed ever get rules for Repressors? Kind of want to make it a dedicated transport for my Arbites
105256
Post by: Just Tony
Cap'n Facebeard wrote:So I've gassed on in this thread about how I'd like to collect all the 6th ed WHFB armies. Well I'm going to ruddy do it! Turn the nostalgia all the way up!
Already have all the army books and the rulebook. What comes next is a collecting quest that may not ever be finished
aphyon wrote:Do it in epic scale, thats how i managed to build all the 40K armies i always wanted without breaking the bank. ... it helps that there are 3rd party manufacturer that still support it. same with fantasy. have my 6th ed 2,500 point beastmen army in warmaster scale.
No reason to do it in Warmaster scale unless you simply want to play Warmaster. I'm pretty sure the Cap'n would have specified Warmaster if he was going that way. Besides, I've been doing this exact thing for the last few years and it's actually affordable if you're patient enough to look for deals. We're currently only missing Chaos Dwarfs and Ogre Kingdoms, have small starting forces for Tomb Kings, Wood Elves, and Vampire Counts. Everything else we have at least 2,000 if not 3,000 points of models. And yes, that includes Dogs Of War.
89168
Post by: youwashock
tauist wrote: Pacific wrote: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which means if other Old Grognards decide to dust off their old rule books? Even starting an army from scratch isn’t massively expensive..
I got no idea what to use my Eldar Pirates as though.. werent they strictly a Rogue Trader affair? As in, they never got rules for 2nd ed..?
They were a unit in the 2nd Ed codex.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
Some old RT era guys can fit in with aspects
But some just get to collect dust. Who needs a guy with a ML on his shoulder these days?
89168
Post by: youwashock
Aww, man. Two of my favorite RT Eldar, there. That weren't Harlequins, anyway. Pointy sword guy may have been my first GW mini.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
It's definitely one way to do it, but I'm determined to collect for 6th whfb in 28mm.
I am tempted by the idea of collecting epic 40k tho. I wonder if you could play epic space marine 2nd ed using 8mm models, allowing you to use all these lovely LI minis.
124786
Post by: tauist
 youwashock wrote: tauist wrote: Pacific wrote: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which means if other Old Grognards decide to dust off their old rule books? Even starting an army from scratch isn’t massively expensive..
I got no idea what to use my Eldar Pirates as though.. werent they strictly a Rogue Trader affair? As in, they never got rules for 2nd ed..?
They were a unit in the 2nd Ed codex.
Awesome, thanks for that! Time to read through that one..
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Yup. Eldar Corsairs, with a pretty flexible loadout. They also have a character, but he leads the unit, so can’t act independently.
It’s an often forgotten option for 2nd Ed, due to the lack of models at the time. But, now we have a plastic kit? I’ll be looking to add a unit.
34906
Post by: Pacific
tauist wrote: youwashock wrote: tauist wrote: Pacific wrote: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Which means if other Old Grognards decide to dust off their old rule books? Even starting an army from scratch isn’t massively expensive..
I got no idea what to use my Eldar Pirates as though.. werent they strictly a Rogue Trader affair? As in, they never got rules for 2nd ed..?
They were a unit in the 2nd Ed codex.
Awesome, thanks for that! Time to read through that one..
From memory corsairs were a hangover from Rogue Trader (as that is what Eldar were really in that edition, before WD127 and them being fully realised) - like Squats, they didn't ever get any new miniatures released (I think) and so we're a bit of an anomaly within the 2ed codex.
If you haven't got hold of the Eldar Codex there is a 'Battle Bible' for 40k which includes all of the rules, army books, FAQ rule clarifications and other bits in handy PDF form if you want to look anything up:
https://archive.org/details/w-40-k-2nd-ed-battle-bible-1.7.2
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
Shower thoughts today about how IF I was to play 40K again it would be in 2nd edition, even though I think that 3rd/4th was the best set of rules, or best game.
The reason, is that my favourite army, CSM, became increasingly action-figure-y, cartoony after 2nd ed. I really dislike the Defiler and Obliterators, they are silly concepts and look terrible. Later I would have the same reaction to the Heldrake. And then the Lord of Skulls!
Anyway that's my little rant. I'm bored between online meetings here.
105
Post by: Sarigar
I had not seen this thread yesterday when looking for 2nd edition era threads (thank you Mad Dok).
2nd edition was an old memory of my days playing it through its entire lifespan. I enjoyed it immensely but moved on once it was replaced by third.
Fast forward 25+ years and I stumbled upon recent battle reports of 2nd edition via YouTube. The nostalgia hit hard. I found someone selling the old boxset and Dark Millennium and made the purchase.
With GW owning the IP, it is amazing to see just how many new sculpts are still playable under 2nd edition. Back then, nobody compared to GW models. Now, well, they look dated. I'm not going to seek out an original Azreal when I have the current Azrael which is one of my favorite models. Therefore, old rules but with new models. And with that, I am definitely going to build an Ork army. I loved those rules but was always intimidated to build and paint so many models (what appeared to e a lot of models back then).
I've already got one guy on board. Time to play and demo it to attract more players.
105256
Post by: Just Tony
Cap'n Facebeard wrote:Shower thoughts today about how IF I was to play 40K again it would be in 2nd edition, even though I think that 3rd/4th was the best set of rules, or best game.
The reason, is that my favourite army, CSM, became increasingly action-figure-y, cartoony after 2nd ed. I really dislike the Defiler and Obliterators, they are silly concepts and look terrible. Later I would have the same reaction to the Heldrake. And then the Lord of Skulls!
Anyway that's my little rant. I'm bored between online meetings here.
You could always simply not run the models you dislike. I personally refuse to run the 3.5 codex as I feel it's terribly imbalanced.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Chaos has had a rough ride through the editions, as each seems to have embraced one facet to the exclusion of others, when all should’ve been valid approaches.
A huge, whacking “drop it on your granny and you might get your inheritance early” Codex. That’s what Chaos deserves.
An absolutely mind boggling riot of options, open for the individual player to assemble into a force pleasing to themself.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
Thought you grognards might appreciate what I got in the mail today:
124786
Post by: tauist
Sarigar wrote:I had not seen this thread yesterday when looking for 2nd edition era threads (thank you Mad Dok).
2nd edition was an old memory of my days playing it through its entire lifespan. I enjoyed it immensely but moved on once it was replaced by third.
Fast forward 25+ years and I stumbled upon recent battle reports of 2nd edition via YouTube. The nostalgia hit hard. I found someone selling the old boxset and Dark Millennium and made the purchase.
With GW owning the IP, it is amazing to see just how many new sculpts are still playable under 2nd edition. Back then, nobody compared to GW models. Now, well, they look dated. I'm not going to seek out an original Azreal when I have the current Azrael which is one of my favorite models. Therefore, old rules but with new models. And with that, I am definitely going to build an Ork army. I loved those rules but was always intimidated to build and paint so many models (what appeared to e a lot of models back then).
I've already got one guy on board. Time to play and demo it to attract more players.
Amen brother! 2nd edition with current models is where its at for me as well. I only had Rogue Trader back in the day
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Guys, Gals, Non-Binary Pals.
I’ve had a brilliant idea.
I’ve got the 2nd Ed Chaos Codex (and all the others, so there). And it has….The Daemon World List.
And I’ll soon be in need of a new hobby project.
Are you thinking what I’m thinking?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait. No. It’s actually pretty boring. Just a Daemon army as they are, but with Chaos Warriors and Trolls and Minotaurs and that.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Guys, Gals, Non-Binary Pals.
I’ve had a brilliant idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait. No. It’s actually pretty boring. Just a Daemon army as they are, but with Chaos Warriors and Trolls and Minotaurs and that.
- Every player who tried to list build with the 2ED appendices.
The bonus is you could make up your own daemon prince, and were encouraged to make them OP
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
True that! Automatically Appended Next Post: Don’t get me wrong. For a keen and talented converter or scratch builder, there’s a lot there to play with.
For instance, your Trolls, Beastmen and Minotaurs could be anything of similar model size really, even guff from WarmaHordes if all sense of taste has fled you
105
Post by: Sarigar
Oh nostalgia, it arrived....
1
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Nice!
I’ve completed my 2nd Ed box and book collection, and now I’m considering seeking out a copy of every WD released during its tenure. Which will also help round out my 2nd Ed Epic collection.
Trouble there of course, is trying to find complete copies, without the cardboard section removed.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
Collecting WDs has got to be rough, even if you are OK with them without the extras. Seems that they would be a lot more likely to end up in the bin, and the weight to ship any volume of them would get ugly.
62565
Post by: Haighus
Nevelon wrote:Collecting WDs has got to be rough, even if you are OK with them without the extras. Seems that they would be a lot more likely to end up in the bin, and the weight to ship any volume of them would get ugly.
The price per magazine isn't bad in the UK, but the shipping can reach double digits. However, sometimes they are close enough to collect in person if you live near a big city.
I started collecting the 40k 3rd edition magazines and the rate is £1-2/mag if you poke around enough. They were produced in large numbers and the older ones (before 3rd) are easy to find digital copies of online so I suspect the demand is not all that high.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
 Nevelon wrote:Collecting WDs has got to be rough, even if you are OK with them without the extras. Seems that they would be a lot more likely to end up in the bin, and the weight to ship any volume of them would get ugly.
Here in Australia the price per mag is about $10 AUD (~5 GBP). They come up quite regularly. I've been trying to get all the issues with extra rules, army lists for 6th ed
Hunting for pdfs of them has become a bit hit and miss, the online repositories I used to know have all been destroyed, it seems.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Well this is potentially exciting. Generating some genuine interest from a relatively local gaming group for some 2nd Ed games.
Nothing concrete just yet, but have offered to run an exhibition game, and brings my books for their perusal.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well this is potentially exciting. Generating some genuine interest from a relatively local gaming group for some 2nd Ed games.
Nothing concrete just yet, but have offered to run an exhibition game, and brings my books for their perusal.
That sounds great. I wonder what armies would make the best exhibition game? Maybe avoid close combat hordes until later.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I can do a near mirror match in Marines, using my Heresy toys with a little “counts as” when it comes to exact loadout.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
Yes marines would be the easiest. I wonder if even elite, low wargear eldar would do well
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I do have my 2nd Ed Eldar project (using modern models), but I’m yet to paint those.
For Marines I can do Tactical, Assault, Devastator, and two squads of 5 Terminator with those delicious 2nd Ed Lightning Claws.
Dreads? Well if we’re both using Contemptors, the size difference between the 2nd Ed model and those is irrelevant, as nobody gains an advantage. Only thing there is none of my 8 have the same loadout. Hence a little “counts as” will help.
135333
Post by: Lathe Biosas
My favorite thing I have ever seen in anybgame ever is what brought ne into the hobby back in the olden days...
And the memories still burn bright.
Now. as I read every new Skaven codex hoping I can see a little bit of their old glory... and then remembering the ultimate saying...
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
In this moment of.glory I watched a giant 6,000 point Skaven army disintegrate into the biggest cluster of death and destruction I'd ever seen (I've never seen carnage like this since) on the Skavens OWN TURN.
Warp fire throwers spun around blowing up skaven slaves, the Doomwheel ran amok and mowed down multiple blocks of clan rats, and the Screaming Bell "cracked" and 70 percent of his army which was hugging the board edge disappeared like David Copperfield was performing, "And now I'll make your army... dissapear!"
That was the most fun ive ever had and the Empire player on the other side just stand there  mouth agape.
I remember and miss the wacky and fun and totally unbalanced Warhammer.
I just can't remember what edition that was.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
The Doomwheel suggests it was an earlier one, as it wasn’t available as a model or a unit for a decent period.
Maybe 4th or 5th Edition I’d reckon. I loved that period, so much random destruction!
99
Post by: insaniak
Cap'n Facebeard wrote:Yes marines would be the easiest. I wonder if even elite, low wargear eldar would do well
For Eldar, I think a Guardian heavy force would be better for an exhibition army. Throw in too much elite stuff and there are a lot of special rules and beardy goings on, which can get confusing for those unfamiliar with the system.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
I was thinking some small units of simple aspects, say striking scorpions and fire dragons, with no exarchs
121430
Post by: ccs
Out of the past & from the depths of a storage unit.
The box it was in was a complete loss.
But the tank inside? After a warm soapy disinfecting bath was in perfect condition - save for the couple of scratches on the rear of the turret.
1
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
Ooh very nice. If you're ever short of cash the Armorcast stuff sells quite well. Recently sold one of their ork tanks for literally 10 times what I paid for it
128381
Post by: KidCthulhu
Hey, just wanted to hop in and say I finally tracked down copies of the 2E rulebook, wargear book, and codex imperialis.
I cut my teeth on GW with 2nd ed back in '95/'96, but only one of our players had the actual rules.
I've been meaning to do an Inquisimunda thing using 2E rules in OG Necromunda and I'm so excited about finally getting these books after all these years.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
One of us! One of us! One of us!
128381
Post by: KidCthulhu
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
That’s a nice mix of eras right there!
132200
Post by: bullisariuscowl
With how much Codexes are priced nowadays, I'd be expecting them to all look like that
very cool!
93557
Post by: RaptorusRex
TAMURKHAN!
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
Its a beautiful book, makes me wish I'd bought all the Alan Bligh Heresy books when they were available too.
135032
Post by: BanjoJohn
I started off in 3rd edition. I have retroactively come to appreciate 2nd edition. I even kinda appreciate vehicles having toughness instead of AV to some degree, but I'm not sure if it was entirely needed. Been trying to find some ways to blend my favorite parts of 4th and 2nd edition, with some take-aways from battletech (alternating unit activations, wounds/casualties doesn't apply to until the end of the turn)
EDIT: I've been wondering. I have found the 2nd edition 40k battle bible, but has anything similar been made for other editions of 40k?
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Well. Damn.
Preview just showed of the remaining Aspect Warriors in plastic. Which I guess means I’ll be revisiting my “2nd Ed to Modern” Eldar army concept.
Only been at it since 9th Ed.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
Just the scorpion phoenix lord left from the old guard?
And pretty much the last of the finecast.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
And the Sniper Lad, who’s name I can’t remember.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
I think he was range rotated out, wonder if he’ll be in the new book? Corsair prince ever make it to plastic?
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Corsair Captain is made from the Corsair box, if that helps?
59054
Post by: Nevelon
I was thinking the named guy prince yrial? Guy with the cursed spear?
Sniper is illic nightspear, nice looking mini.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Oh, Yriel! Yeah, he’s gone Legends too is seems.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
So I got the last 4th ed whfb army book I needed, the Chaos Dwarf one. Not as lore heavy as the others, probably because it is a collection of white dwarf articles.
And no I didn't spend the ridiculous ebay prices, I snapped it up from an Australian seller as well as a small army of chaos dwarfs and hobgoblins
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Had a couple of revelations whilst dozing in my bed,
1. Plastic Aspects mean I now have the option to build the 2nd Ed Exarchs of my dreams.
2. Jes Goodwin is knocking on a bit now. What if this push to get the Eldar up to date is a herald of his retirement?
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Jes Goodwin is knocking on a bit now. What if this push to get the Eldar up to date is a herald of his retirement?
How old is Jes Goodwin now? His online bios are very coy about it. If we assume he was at least 20 in the 80s, he must be 60+
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Has to be at least knocking 60.
Let’s think. 40K came out 1987, which is 37 years ago now. Even if he was a mere 20 back then? That’s 57 now. But of course, he was with GW well before then.
So easily into his 60’s I’d reckon?
112559
Post by: Zenithfleet
Cap'n Facebeard wrote:So I got the last 4th ed whfb army book I needed, the Chaos Dwarf one. Not as lore heavy as the others, probably because it is a collection of white dwarf articles.
And no I didn't spend the ridiculous ebay prices, I snapped it up from an Australian seller as well as a small army of chaos dwarfs and hobgoblins
Years ago I grabbed most of the old 4th/5th WFB army books when they were in the price trough of "nobody wants these old books for an obsolete edition of the game" but before the price peak of "wait we're old enough now to be nostalgic for the old stuff". But I turned down an offer of the Chaos Dwarf one, for about $5, because I don't much like Chaos Dwarfs and I already had the old White Dwarfs with those articles in it.
That was a decision of considerable short-sightedness, let me tell you. Clearly I don't think like a Dwarf when it comes to future opportunities to accrue gold.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Has to be at least knocking 60.
Let’s think. 40K came out 1987, which is 37 years ago now. Even if he was a mere 20 back then? That’s 57 now. But of course, he was with GW well before then.
So easily into his 60’s I’d reckon?
Heresy! Jes Goodwin is timeless, just like his sculpts! He'll still be there in five hundred years. Possibly as a liche or something.
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
Zenithfleet wrote:But I turned down an offer of the Chaos Dwarf one, for about $5, because I don't much like Chaos Dwarfs and I already had the old White Dwarfs with those articles in it.
Ouch. I paid in excess of $100 AUD and I felt it was cheap, as every other time I've seen in on ebay its been $300-400+
135032
Post by: BanjoJohn
Zenithfleet wrote:Cap'n Facebeard wrote:So I got the last 4th ed whfb army book I needed, the Chaos Dwarf one. Not as lore heavy as the others, probably because it is a collection of white dwarf articles.
And no I didn't spend the ridiculous ebay prices, I snapped it up from an Australian seller as well as a small army of chaos dwarfs and hobgoblins
Years ago I grabbed most of the old 4th/5th WFB army books when they were in the price trough of "nobody wants these old books for an obsolete edition of the game" but before the price peak of "wait we're old enough now to be nostalgic for the old stuff". But I turned down an offer of the Chaos Dwarf one, for about $5, because I don't much like Chaos Dwarfs and I already had the old White Dwarfs with those articles in it.
That was a decision of considerable short-sightedness, let me tell you. Clearly I don't think like a Dwarf when it comes to future opportunities to accrue gold.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Has to be at least knocking 60.
Let’s think. 40K came out 1987, which is 37 years ago now. Even if he was a mere 20 back then? That’s 57 now. But of course, he was with GW well before then.
So easily into his 60’s I’d reckon?
Heresy! Jes Goodwin is timeless, just like his sculpts! He'll still be there in five hundred years. Possibly as a liche or something.
Oof, I have similar thoughts about 2nd/3rd edition 40k. I grabbed a codex "angels of darkness" back around 4th edition because it had more painting info than the 3rd edition codex, but I currently wish I had grabbed all the other codexes, I also kinda wish I still had all the 3rd edition codexs now too. Looking at prices, most of the stuff in the UK is decent price but shipping adds $20, and most of the stuff in the US is just as expensive with shipping as the UK stuff.
125436
Post by: aphyon
As an old dark angel player i have the 3.5, 4th, 5th and 6th ed codexes, but the 3.5 is still the best. it puts so much flavor into the army with only a couple pagers of rules.
196
Post by: cuda1179
Quick disclaimer: I haven't played in 10th edition yet.
Anyone else remember when there used to be rules for embarking units inside building that were terrain for either side to use? You could target the building and try to destroy it with the unit inside. I wish they'd bring that back.
112559
Post by: Zenithfleet
Recently I managed to snag this large 1998 coffee-table book / guide / encyclopedia thing describing the fluff of 5th edition WFB:
The World of Warhammer
Until a short while ago I never knew it existed. It seems to have come out after the 5th ed Bretonnian, Lizardmen and Realm of Chaos army books were released, but before the Vampire Counts book (it still has classic Undead). Pretty much the definitive version of the WFB background as far as I'm concerned. Everything after this was fanfiction! (Heh, fighting words? )
As a coffee-table sort of book, the main draw is the illustrations. It's full of the bombastic art of 4th and 5th edition all gathered together in one place, plus a few older pieces.
The fluff text isn't copy-pasted from WFB rulebooks but is entirely written from scratch by someone called Richard Wolfrik Galland. It's pretty basic intro-level stuff but it's interesting to see the classic background written in a different style to the usual Rick Priestley / Jervis Johnson / Bill King et al text that used to get copied and recopied across editions and into White Dwarf. It's like a fan telling you about the background in a mostly-accurate-but-not-officially-worded way.
Galland is a bit overfond of the word 'prosaic' and some of the fluff seems a little wonky in places but it's not a bad effort. There are a lot of typos, though, which sadly seems common for books of this kind. I guess the publishers see the illustrations as the main draw and the text is just there as decoration, instead of the other way around. They're meant to be leafed through and oohed and aahed over, not read cover to cover. One map is pretty much unreadable due to some sort of printing error. (And he keeps misspelling Waaagh as Waaargh, but that's how I always thought it ought to be spelled in the first place...)
In a couple of places he gets all scholarly and muses on inconsistencies like whether the Dwarf holds were destroyed by a malfunctioning Skaven device or by the Slann across the sea shifting the continents (both conflicting explanations being present in the respective army books). He notes that no one seems to know how Orcs reproduce or whether they even have genders. (This was at a time when the whole subject of where little Orcs come from was basically ignored.)
Also I'm amused that in the Chaos section there are pictures of Khorne, Nurgle and Tzeentch daemons, but not Slaaneshi ones. And the header on the page misspells it as Slannesh. I don't know what they were worried about... it's not like 4th/5th ed Slaanesh artwork had a reputation for raciness. More like the opposite. Meanwhile the 4th ed Witch Elf art is present and correct.
There may or may not be a scan of the book on the Internet Archive (not done by me, lawyers!) if anyone wants to have a squiz.
Overall it wasn't really worth the slightly silly price I paid for it, but I know some people out there have a lot of nostalgia for this book as it was their first introduction to the WFB world.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Not sure how far down this particular rabbit hole I’ll go, but last night I ordered Realm of Chaos and Champions of Chaos (books only).
Found them both for lower than usual price, from the same seller. Seemed churlish to leave them languishing.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Not sure how far down this particular rabbit hole I’ll go, but last night I ordered Realm of Chaos and Champions of Chaos (books only).
Found them both for lower than usual price, from the same seller. Seemed churlish to leave them languishing.
Those the 5th WHFB chaos books? It’s been a while. As an edition, 5ht had a lot of parallels with 2nd ed of 40k. Same era. Not a bad one to pair with your collection of that.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
That’s the ones. Either that or 6th.
The army selection was unique, where you built individual warbands, starting with a champion. That done? You had to at least match their points in followers.
With Chaos returned to the Old World, and a bunch of gorgeous options from Slaves to Darkness, I may yet find myself building up a force.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:That’s the ones. Either that or 6th.
The army selection was unique, where you built individual warbands, starting with a champion. That done? You had to at least match their points in followers.
With Chaos returned to the Old World, and a bunch of gorgeous options from Slaves to Darkness, I may yet find myself building up a force.
The retinue rule made for thematic army construction, but was a pain to actually do. And put some pretty hard caps on what you could do. In a hero-hammer edition if made it hard to max your character points.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
But, it did mean we could field 50% characters. And as even a Sorceror was a fisticuffs match for most Combat Characters, we never lacked for oomph.
I couldn’t tell you the exact composition of my old army, but it involved a Lvl 4 Sorceror on Manticore, a Hero, a bunch of Chariots, Chaos Warriors and, my personal favourites, Dragon Ogres.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But, it did mean we could field 50% characters. And as even a Sorceror was a fisticuffs match for most Combat Characters, we never lacked for oomph.
I couldn’t tell you the exact composition of my old army, but it involved a Lvl 4 Sorceror on Manticore, a Hero, a bunch of Chariots, Chaos Warriors and, my personal favourites, Dragon Ogres.
50% character was the norm for everyone except Bretonians, who could go 75% IIRC. But other armies didn’t need to worry about matching point values so everything lined up just so.
I think my army was a little bit of everything. Chaos knights/warriors, mounted marauders, chariot or two, and yes, dragon ogres. I should check to see if I’ve got pics of all of them in my gallery.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
It’s been an age since I saw the Army Books from that era but yeah, I think you’re right on the 50% characters.
Maybe I’ll do an Old Hammer thread in the appropriate board, see if anyone else fancies putting together armies using older edition rules. Doesn’t need to be bought new like.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:It’s been an age since I saw the Army Books from that era but yeah, I think you’re right on the 50% characters.
Maybe I’ll do an Old Hammer thread in the appropriate board, see if anyone else fancies putting together armies using older edition rules. Doesn’t need to be bought new like.
Or for old packrats like myself, just grab the books off the shelf and knock the dust off the old stuff. While not an exhaustive collection, I do have a good bit of 5-6th WHFB kicking around, as that was the era I played.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
All will be valid 
Can do much the same with my Heresy Dark Angels.
Squads would need rejigging somewhat, but I can definitely make some kind of 2nd Ed complaint army from them.
124786
Post by: tauist
The recent FAQ churn dumped on us for 10th edition made me long for the simpler ages of old editions again.. I remember people lamenting the lack of updates/FAQs back in the day, I'd say the current trend of overFAQing/errata'ing is even worse..
76888
Post by: Tyran
Heavily depends on where you landed on the power curve.
8 years of 5th and 6th ed Tyranid codex was rough and made me vastly prefer the high turn out rate rather than being stuck with a bad codex for years.
105694
Post by: Lord Damocles
The enlightened centrist position is that GW should be expected to be capable of producing good rules which don't require constant updates in order to be reasonably balanced.
They don't even try to achieve that, because there is no consequence for their negative behaviour.
112559
Post by: Zenithfleet
Found a few Dark Elf minis in the cupboard (6th ed vintage) and am idly considering making a small 4th/5th ed army out of them. My attempts at WFB armies never get very far, but I do now have a lot of fantasy minis that I collected for Warhammer Quest, so it's probably inevitable that they'll end up in ranks on a battlefield someday.
Reading through the 5th ed WFB Battle Book again (the background book from the Brets/Lizzies starter set), I was surprised to find that the Dark Elves are described quite differently to their 4th ed army book. The Battle Book makes them sound almost like Chaos Elves. Daemons all over the place, plus Witch Elves worshipping Khorne, whom they just happen to call Khaine.
I think it's because the 5th ed Battle Book text for the various races was mostly copy-pasted from the previous 4th ed starter set, which was written before the first army books came out, at a time when the DE were imagined to be more closely Chaos-aligned. It's odd that they didn't update the DE text in the 5th ed starter to fit the army book version, which gave them more of their own culture--Khaine being a distinctively Elven god of murder rather than just Khorne by another name, and so on.
Though the 4th ed army book fluff has its own problems. It's a bit thin on details, aside from "let's repeat some High Elf history" and "we like killing and torture a lot." Even by Warhammer standards they're so over the top it's hard to take them seriously.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Books arrived! Time for a shower and some Sosig rolls, then will get my reading eyes in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Annnnnd right in the nostalgia.
Saw a sample army with the original multipart Chaos Warriors. Reminded me of the time I won £10 from the Fruit Machine at college, and spent it on another box. And of painting my army at Granny’s over Christmas.
Won’t be repeating either of those ever again!
112559
Post by: Zenithfleet
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Books arrived! Time for a shower and some Sosig rolls, then will get my reading eyes in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Annnnnd right in the nostalgia.
Have you got the cards for Chaos Rewards and so on that came in the original box for Realm of Chaos?
(I have both the 4th ed and 5th ed Chaos books, but only the cards for the 5th ed version.)
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I’ve not, just the books. The trouble with these boxed sets is never knowing if you’ve a complete set of cards.
I’m fairly confident they’ll exist somewhere online in pdf form though.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
I should have a set of the 5th cards if the internet fails you. Can try to get some pics if needed.
Once I break out the archeological tools and fight back the dust monsters.
(I kid, pretty sure I know exactly where they are. Probably)
135333
Post by: Lathe Biosas
If I can be rude and ask, how much did you pay for those books MDG?
I'm noticing wildly various prices on old books.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Got the pair for around £45
135032
Post by: BanjoJohn
Legend! Thanks for the share!
135333
Post by: Lathe Biosas
I wish custodes could be played in 5th Edition.
125436
Post by: aphyon
They can...well under our rules all 3rd-7th ed codexes are cross compatible under 5th ed rules..anything that needs to be fleshed out not in the regular 7th ed mini codex we take directly from HH 1.0 book 7 (inferno-fall of prospero) as it is based on 7th ed.
you end up with a very tough, very small, very elite army at 2K everything in the army basically has a 2+ armor save and a 5++ invul save (including most vehicles) aside from those guys with storm shields, and since the infantry is all T5 with 2 wounds base you need S10 to insta-kill them.
A tough nut to crack but they can be beaten. especially if your playing with objectives.
This was the 4th ed iron hands fighting the custodes as described above.
135333
Post by: Lathe Biosas
Love the Dawn of War Terrain.
Looks like I'm going to have to give your system a look-see.
125436
Post by: aphyon
The terrain was from war scenery, they have a contract with gale force 9 for most of it fully painted-
https://www.nobleknight.com/Products/Battlefield-in-a-Box---Gothic-Sector-28mm
124786
Post by: tauist
Much obliged Doc!
Seems that issues 35 and 36 are missing from this batch.. I managed to find a low rez copy of issue 36 elsewhere, no luck with issue 35 so far..
But this is great! I already had that legendary issue with Space Hulk 1st edition additional rules, now I have much more. Coupled with my first 300 issues of White Dwarf, my magazine collection is now in a very good place.
cheers
59054
Post by: Nevelon
tauist wrote:
Much obliged Doc!
Seems that issues 35 and 36 are missing from this batch.. I managed to find a low rez copy of issue 36 elsewhere, no luck with issue 35 so far..
But this is great! I already had that legendary issue with Space Hulk 1st edition additional rules, now I have much more. Coupled with my first 300 issues of White Dwarf, my magazine collection is now in a very good place.
cheers
FWIW I have a handful of Journals, although didn’t collect them as throughly as WDs.
29-32, (missing 33) 34-35 (missing 36) 37-38. I can’t promise HQ scans, but if you just want to know what’s in them, I can help.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
A post of no great consequence, but in putting a couple of 2nd Ed Codexes back on their shelf, having been used for post references? I took the opportunity to order them by product ref.
I don’t typically bother, but the mood took me.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:A post of no great consequence, but in putting a couple of 2nd Ed Codexes back on their shelf, having been used for post references? I took the opportunity to order them by product ref.
I don’t typically bother, but the mood took me.
I used to sort by edition, then by faction, but last time I re-arranged the shelf I swapped that, so all of one type of book, (main rules, SM codexes, etc) are together, and then sorted by edition. Not sure if I like it better, but it is helpful sometimes.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I do keep stuff grouped by edition, and now my Rogue Trader and 2nd Ed stuff is ordered by product ref.
It makes more sense from a curation point of view with Rogue Trader, as rather than a single, cohesive edition, it’s more three editions, and possibly a couple of rather perplexed Otters, in a Trenchcoat, masquerading as a single edition.
Which frankly is part of the appeal. It was such a seemingly anarchic period of creativity, yet when followed in release order you can start to see 2nd Edition emerging from the overall chaos and whimbrilkng.
Certainly, and not without fair reason, I don’t think anyone would tolerate that creativity driven but very customer confusing, approach in the modern day.
135032
Post by: BanjoJohn
I will say, looking at the prices of some 3rd edition codexes, I'm ashamed I ever got rid of my collection of books, but the clutter was real and I had moved out of my parents and needed space.
If I still had a collection worth actually sorting ( I think I currently only have two 2nd edition books, and one 5th edition book), I would sort by edition as the main category, then maybe by release date, which might be the same as product ID.
I might have one of those shelf/magazine folders to make them easy to grab as a chunk to help them all stay together.
124786
Post by: tauist
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I do keep stuff grouped by edition, and now my Rogue Trader and 2nd Ed stuff is ordered by product ref.
It makes more sense from a curation point of view with Rogue Trader, as rather than a single, cohesive edition, it’s more three editions, and possibly a couple of rather perplexed Otters, in a Trenchcoat, masquerading as a single edition.
Which frankly is part of the appeal. It was such a seemingly anarchic period of creativity, yet when followed in release order you can start to see 2nd Edition emerging from the overall chaos and whimbrilkng.
Certainly, and not without fair reason, I don’t think anyone would tolerate that creativity driven but very customer confusing, approach in the modern day.
I have a long term project going on which aims at the creation of a "Rogue Trader Bible" of sorts. Aim is to collect and compile everything ever officially published for 1st edition, including what's in White Dwarf issues 93 -166. This includes finding all the erratas and answers to questions to Mr Priestley published in the mags etc, and editing the relevant bits of info to match the errata'd content. After all this is done, it's time to iterate on what would the "final" published version of 1st edition be like (minus the Vehicle Manual, as I personally find it too limiting for adding custom Vehicles to the game), by eliminating any conflicting/re-written rules. I have a hunch the final revision of the 1st edition rules will be very close to 2nd edition rules..
There are at least 3 distinct "graphic design styles" associated with Rogue Trader. 1st style mirrors the RT rulebook, 2nd style introduces the use of Eurostile font and changes the layouts for the army list entries (drops the funky diagonal vector graphic boxes), 3rd style, as found in the WH40K Battle Manual (1992) almost looks like 2nd edition already..
Things changed massively in the years between 1988 and 1992, those four years were perhaps the biggest ever for 40K development. Compared to what has changed since that time, it can almost be argued that 88-92 fleshed out the setting more than the 34 years since!
105256
Post by: Just Tony
By edition, and then alphabetically by army book/codex. Then rulebook, and finally alphabetical supplement books.
99
Post by: insaniak
I just recently cleared out most of my 40K books from 3rd ed onwards... I've kept all of my RT and 2nd ed books, and the later core rulebooks for reference, but all the codexes and supplemental books are gone to free up shelf space.
Still missing a copy of the 2nd ed SoB book. That one and Space Wolves were the only two 2nd ed codexes I never bought back in the day. Picked up a copy of Space Wolves a few years back, but periodically look on eBay just to make myself sad that I didn't pick up the Sisters book back when they used to routinely sell for $5 a pop...
86460
Post by: Cap'n Facebeard
Just secured myself the two Realm of Chaos books. Not cheap. I had a maximum amount I could spend on them, and that's what I ended up paying.
Cue GW releasing them worldwide now.......
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Just bought a complete, still on sprue, copy of Warhammer Quest.
Wasn’t cheap, and I won’t say how much I paid. But it’s mine now.
89168
Post by: youwashock
That's impressive. Will you be tracking down the individual character packs?
23558
Post by: zedmeister
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Just bought a complete, still on sprue, copy of Warhammer Quest.
Wasn’t cheap, and I won’t say how much I paid. But it’s mine now.
That’s the easy part. Now, try tracking down all era appropriate miniatures for levels 1 to 10!
Game is great and can be played solo!
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I will be building it up to a complete collection over time, yes.
Very much a case of taking my time though. For stuff like Deathblow! I think I’ll just go digital.
Also, I’ve now a cracking excuse to buy random boxes of stuff to populate a dungeon. Which frankly is something I don’t understand the recent Quests not including.
Make that inclusion, and people not otherwise interested in collecting a full army for AoS, or WHFB, now have a reason to buy an armies worth of random boxed sets. Or indeed more.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Mmmmmmm.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now, if someone could point me to digital copies of the characters, expansions, articles and Deathblow!, that’d be fab.
I don’t normally stand with piracy, but the second hand prices are ludicrous, and here don’t directly benefit the game’s creator company.
Though my eventual populating of dungeons certainly will.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Uh oh….had the Roleplay Book out earlier, and now can’t find it.
Stuff Goblins had best return it toot bloody sweet, or there’ll be no more socks for a month!
1
105256
Post by: Just Tony
I don't care a lick about the game itself, but the swarm models, Minotaurs, and a few of those characters are damn near perfect.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Treated myself to a copy of Inquisitor
So much novel background in that rulebook. And I’d argue to the point it’s the origin of modern 40K Background Detail.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oop, and a copy of BFG Armada.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
And a copy of Warhammer Armies Dogs of War. And the collected, soft back, Liber Chaotica.
But that’s me for the time being, unless a non-insanely priced Titan Legions crops up, when I’ll consider it.
112559
Post by: Zenithfleet
Sounds great, Mad Doc, but why bother with all those copies when you could just buy the real thing?
(boom tish )
Anyway ...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Inquisitor
So much novel background in that rulebook. And I’d argue to the point it’s the origin of modern 40K Background Detail.
Probably not what you mean, but in terms of Studio tabletop visuals, I often think of Inquisitor as ground zero for the over-gothification of 40K. Before then the official terrain and models had more of a frontier-planet feeling. The gothic elements were present but fairly low-key and mixed in with other science fiction imagery. After Inquisitor, though, there seemed to be more focus on urban settings for 40K battles too, and the skulls, scrolls, candles and grime started to get a bit out of control (as seen in the 4th ed purity-seal-plastered Marines and Cities of Death building kits).
Dogs of War is a brilliant book just for browsing. Almost Discwordlian in its flavour. Though it's a shame some of the most interesting and quirky regiments only came out as White Dwarf articles later rather than being included in the book itself.
And now for something completely different ... Can anyone help with a little mystery?
Years ago when searching for the 4th ed WFB Undead army book, someone online offered to sell me an extra-special cool edition that included the new Undead special characters from the Circle of Blood campaign pack: the Red Duke and friends. He then changed his mind and decided to keep it before we got as far as requesting photos. (It took several other false leads and dead ends before I managed to track down an Undead book, making me feel like a proper necromancer searching for an elusive forbidden tome.)
Was he pulling my leg, or was there actually an updated revision to the original Undead book with the CoB characters included? If it ever existed it would have come out in early to mid 5th ed WFB, after CoB but before Vampire Counts.
They did make various minor updates to the army books from time to time--correcting a few points values in reprints (or at least they said they would), or changing the advertisement pages in the back--but I don't know if anything that extreme ever happened.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
Zenithfleet wrote:
And now for something completely different ... Can anyone help with a little mystery?
Years ago when searching for the 4th ed WFB Undead army book, someone online offered to sell me an extra-special cool edition that included the new Undead special characters from the Circle of Blood campaign pack: the Red Duke and friends. He then changed his mind and decided to keep it before we got as far as requesting photos. (It took several other false leads and dead ends before I managed to track down an Undead book, making me feel like a proper necromancer searching for an elusive forbidden tome.)
Was he pulling my leg, or was there actually an updated revision to the original Undead book with the CoB characters included? If it ever existed it would have come out in early to mid 5th ed WFB, after CoB but before Vampire Counts.
They did make various minor updates to the army books from time to time--correcting a few points values in reprints (or at least they said they would), or changing the advertisement pages in the back--but I don't know if anything that extreme ever happened.
If it did, I have no recollection of it existing. And as someone who was playing Undead in 5th, it’s something that would have come to my attention. Not to say it didn’t happen, but I don’t think so.
I do have parts on the CoB rules tucked in the covers of my Undead book, so that kinda counts?
It might be worth scanning WDs from the time, it may have been a limited release thing that never made it to the states?
Edit:
Quick check has the CoB pages copyright 1997, and the 5th VC army book is ’99. So if there was a re-issue, it would be in that timeframe. Probably closer to the start, as if they knew a new book was coming out, they would not update the old.
Edit2:
As it happens, I have the Aug 97 WD (211) on the shelf, where the CoB characters are introduced and showcased. In the articles covering the new undead stuff there is no mention of a new army book. Again, this is not proof that it doesn’t exist. I just can’t find any signs.
112559
Post by: Zenithfleet
 Nevelon wrote:
If it did, I have no recollection of it existing. And as someone who was playing Undead in 5th, it’s something that would have come to my attention. Not to say it didn’t happen, but I don’t think so.
I do have parts on the CoB rules tucked in the covers of my Undead book, so that kinda counts?
It might be worth scanning WDs from the time, it may have been a limited release thing that never made it to the states?
Edit:
Quick check has the CoB pages copyright 1997, and the 5th VC army book is ’99. So if there was a re-issue, it would be in that timeframe. Probably closer to the start, as if they knew a new book was coming out, they would not update the old.
Edit2:
As it happens, I have the Aug 97 WD (211) on the shelf, where the CoB characters are introduced and showcased. In the articles covering the new undead stuff there is no mention of a new army book. Again, this is not proof that it doesn’t exist. I just can’t find any signs.
Thanks for the info. I have all the old ( UK/Aus) White Dwarfs from that period but don't remember ever seeing anything about a reissue of the Undead book with revisions.
It's possible that when the seller said his Undead book had the CoB characters in it, he meant something similar to what you're describing, with the physical pages from the separate campaign pack folded up or tucked into the back cover. As I recall, his communication style was of the 'hastily texting from phone' sort, so it would have been easy for me to misconstrue what he meant. But I distinctly remember him calling his Undead book a 'cool one' as if it were a special edition.
112559
Post by: Zenithfleet
In other old-edition news, for the first and probably last time, I have assembled two of the card Battle Bunkers from early 2nd ed 40K. The one in a White Dwarf article with the fourth starter scenario, and the back of the Battles book compilation.
Can't say I like them much. They're awfully flimsy and fiddly. Not a patch on the later card buildings in White Dwarf.
I own two resin Conflix bunkers that were clearly 'inspired by' that design, but what surprised me was that the original Battle Bunkers have a sloped front wall but nearly vertical side and back walls. From photos, I'd always thought they were evenly sloped on all sides and apparently the Conflix designer thought so too.
Also got to play the first two scenarios from the starter box, which pit a few Gretchin and Orks against a few Tactical Marines, in an attempt to relearn the 2nd ed rules after a gap of [insert scary number of years]. To my surprise my opponent happened to have a half-complete set of the original cardboard ruined corners, in un-folded mint condition no less. 
Amusingly I obsessively tried the hiding rules in the first scenario with the Gretchin mobs and managed to score a tie ... and then completely forgot about the rules in the second, leading to my Ork mobs getting thoroughly shot up for zero victory points. One mob shrugged off two frag missile hits with no more than a few laughs at the lone Ork ejected into the stratosphere by each explosion, but the moment they took bolter fire they rolled a 12 for their break test and ran to the other side of the planet. 
We then retried the second scenario with a lone Dreadnaught in place of the Ork mobs just so I could get a handle on the vehicle rules. First time using a datafax in donkey's. The Dread charged at the Marines' position, copped two krak missiles that bounced off harmlessly, lost its power klaw to a third missile, missed with all its guns and then slammed headlong into the building. With a metallic roar it fumbled twice and got lightly bopped on the head by a Tactical Marine, failing to achieve anything. I was just happy it didn't blow up on the first turn.
One thing the scenarios hammered home was the extreme importance of cover in 2nd ed 40K, also known as the art of How Not to be Seen. It amuses me no end that being harder to hit makes a missile launcher more likely to explode but a heavy bolter less likely to jam.
Now to try the bigger third and fourth scenarios ...
99
Post by: insaniak
Zenithfleet wrote:In other old-edition news, for the first and probably last time, I have assembled two of the card Battle Bunkers from early 2nd ed 40K. The one in a White Dwarf article with the fourth starter scenario, and the back of the Battles book compilation.
Can't say I like them much. They're awfully flimsy and fiddly. Not a patch on the later card buildings in White Dwarf.
Yeah, back in the day I looked at those and decided they were too much work for too little return, and used them as a template to make my own out of foamcore instead.
112559
Post by: Zenithfleet
 insaniak wrote:Zenithfleet wrote:In other old-edition news, for the first and probably last time, I have assembled two of the card Battle Bunkers from early 2nd ed 40K. The one in a White Dwarf article with the fourth starter scenario, and the back of the Battles book compilation.
Can't say I like them much. They're awfully flimsy and fiddly. Not a patch on the later card buildings in White Dwarf.
Yeah, back in the day I looked at those and decided they were too much work for too little return, and used them as a template to make my own out of foamcore instead.
I didn't find them too much of a hassle in terms of time. It was fairly quick to score and cut everything out. The two issues I had were a) the 'card' in the Battles book is more like thick paper, all floppy, and b) the platform on top has almost no glue contact point with the walls. It just sits on top of the wall edges, with no foldable tabs to hold it in place. Even with superglue the top keeps popping off if you sneeze in its general direction. Very strange design.
I haven't used them in a game yet, but we did get to try starter scenario 3 from the 2nd ed box (the one where you use all the Orks, Gretchin and Marines, plus a Dreadnought). Basic stuff but it's helping us to unlearn all the later-edition assumptions we're used to. I didn't have enough Grots but my opponent dug up ten of the old monopose Gretchin on sprue and assembled them just before the battle. They'd been waiting for this their whole lives ...
The Orks won, just barely, 3 victory points to 2. It was mainly thanks to the Marine player having abysmal luck with his dice rolls. I've never seen so many frag and krak missiles roll 1s to hit. One of the few times a missile launcher did hit something was when it fired into a combat between the Ork Dreadnaught and a doomed Tactical Marine. Of course, it hit the Marine instead of the Dread and deleted him.
The Dread itself chopped up most of a combat squad, then tried to make it into the Marines' deployment zone for a big fat victory point bonus. At the last minute the Marine player remembered he could throw krak grenades in 2nd ed and pelted it with three. Two bounced off the armour but the third destroyed the lascannon arm. Then the very last krak missile of the game penetrated the body and electrocuted the Gretchin pilot. It didn't kill him, but it did send him on a frothing rampage ... in the wrong direction. He wasted his last vital movement phase picking a fight with a piece of cardboard ruin. Now that's the 2nd ed silliness I'm here for.
Oh, and a single Gretchin caught fire and ran around panicking for a while. Ah, the good old days.
My one shining moment of actually effective tactics was to get three mobs all aiming at one battered Marine combat squad, to concentrate firepower. It proved to be just enough to kill them all. The reasonably effective shooting skills of Orks and Grots in 2nd ed continue to surprise me. The Gretchin are like cowardly Guardsmen!
Three points of confusion with the 2nd ed rules held us up. Some of it had to do with the emphasis on individual models in 2nd ed, whereas later editions tend to treat squads as blobs/units.
1. When a squad fires, do its own models block the line of fire of models behind them? We think so, but we're so used to 3rd ed and onwards (where you ignore your own squads' models) that we kept placing our minis in carelessly bunched-up formations, only to find hardly anyone could shoot.
2. If only some members of a squad are engaged in close combat, what happens to the other models on their next turn? (We had the aforementioned Dread fighting one or two members of a combat squad at a time, while the other Marines just stood around nearby watching the show.) We presumed they can just do whatever. Everyone can declare a charge and join in the close combat, or they can shoot at some other target because models in HtH can be ignored, or even move away ignoring coherency (on the assumption that guy fighting the Dread is going to die...)
3. This one really stumped us: Close combat weapons get a bonus armour penetration die depending on their Strength, or the Strength of the attacker. Usually this is taken into account on the summary charts. For instance, the power fist has an extra D20 armour penetration because it's strength 8, and this is included in the summary chart. But what about krak grenades? They're strength 6, so the bonus die should be D12. But on the summary charts it's 6+ 2D6. Is that a typo for D12, or is the bonus die missing from the summary and it's supposed to be 6+ 2D6+ D12? 
99
Post by: insaniak
Zenithfleet wrote:
1. When a squad fires, do its own models block the line of fire of models behind them? We think so, but we're so used to 3rd ed and onwards (where you ignore your own squads' models) that we kept placing our minis in carelessly bunched-up formations, only to find hardly anyone could shoot.
Yes, by the rulebook, all models block LOS.
2. If only some members of a squad are engaged in close combat, what happens to the other models on their next turn? (We had the aforementioned Dread fighting one or two members of a combat squad at a time, while the other Marines just stood around nearby watching the show.) We presumed they can just do whatever. Everyone can declare a charge and join in the close combat, or they can shoot at some other target because models in HtH can be ignored, or even move away ignoring coherency (on the assumption that guy fighting the Dread is going to die...)
Yes, models not engaged in the combat could just wander off and do what they wanted, although if the combat ended and their squadmates survived, then they would need to all move back into coherency again ASAP.
Some groups house ruled this one to require unengaged squad mates to pile in when they could, while others preferred the freedom of not having to pile into a hopeless fight. Note though that this did also allow for an exploit where you could tie up an enemy model by engaging it with a model that couldn't hurt or be hurt by it (or was unlikely to, at least) and then running away with the rest of the squad.
3. This one really stumped us: Close combat weapons get a bonus armour penetration die depending on their Strength, or the Strength of the attacker. Usually this is taken into account on the summary charts. For instance, the power fist has an extra D20 armour penetration because it's strength 8, and this is included in the summary chart. But what about krak grenades? They're strength 6, so the bonus die should be D12. But on the summary charts it's 6+ 2D6. Is that a typo for D12, or is the bonus die missing from the summary and it's supposed to be 6+ 2D6+ D12?
Krak grenades are special in that they can be used as both a ranged and close combat weapon. The armour pen in the summary is correct for a thrown grenade. By the rules they should indeed get the extra when used in close combat... I had thought that was covered in an FAQ somewhere, but can't find it at the moment, so might have made that up.
114198
Post by: Cebalrai
Zenithfleet wrote:
And now for something completely different ... Can anyone help with a little mystery?
The Undead book did indeed get a reprint in 98 which included the Circle of Blood special characters. It also changed many of the colour pages to show the repainted studio army, the same as was shown in WD211, and the list of army books at the end was obviously updated with all the 5th edition offerings.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
On the grenade bonus dice in HTH? I dimly remember the FAQ, explaining it represented the opportunity to be more precise in HTH, basically your dudes putting the grenades in places the enemy really doesn’t want a grenade, such as up/down exhausts, on engine grills, in your track workings etc. All those necessary weak points in a vehicle’s design.
112559
Post by: Zenithfleet
Thanks insaniak for the rules replies.
That's a good point about the krak grenades possibly having a different armour penetration value when thrown vs when used in hand-to-hand. We didn't think of that. Ironically it was the thrown grenades that successfully damaged the Dreadnought, not the ones placed in combat.
Cebalrai wrote:Zenithfleet wrote:
And now for something completely different ... Can anyone help with a little mystery?
The Undead book did indeed get a reprint in 98 which included the Circle of Blood special characters. It also changed many of the colour pages to show the repainted studio army, the same as was shown in WD211, and the list of army books at the end was obviously updated with all the 5th edition offerings.
Gasp! Stop press!
Undead generals, arise from your graves and heed this revelation!
Of course I have to say: pics or it didn't happen ...
114198
Post by: Cebalrai
If you've access to Facebook I can direct you to posts that highlight all the changed pages but for some simple proof here's the first page of the 98 edition book. Note the fine print in the box.
I don't think I've ever seen the 97 reprint though, now that I think about it...
Anyway, I had a look through it again and the 98 edition do actually make some functional changes from the first. Namely, the spell commentaries in the later no longer talks about the possibility of using the raise dead spells to create cavalry, chariots or catapults. Hence I still go with the original book. 
Edit: Throwing in the Circle of Blood characters as well for good measure. Aside from the spell commentary the rest of the changes are cosmetical.
3
112559
Post by: Zenithfleet
Cebalrai wrote:
If you've access to Facebook I can direct you to posts that highlight all the changed pages but for some simple proof here's the first page of the 98 edition book. Note the fine print in the box.
I don't think I've ever seen the 97 reprint though, now that I think about it...
Anyway, I had a look through it again and the 98 edition do actually make some functional changes from the first. Namely, the spell commentaries in the later no longer talks about the possibility of using the raise dead spells to create cavalry, chariots or catapults. Hence I still go with the original book.
Edit: Throwing in the Circle of Blood characters as well for good measure. Aside from the spell commentary the rest of the changes are cosmetical.
Bah! Obvious trickery produced by the unholy magic of Photoshop! I won't be convinced until you send me a free copy!
Seriously though, I don't know whether to thank you for posting, or curse you for making me aware of a gap in a WFB army book collection I thought was complete. It really is like trying to track down varying versions of an eldritch grimoire ...
It does help to explain why they went to the effort of repainting the whole Studio Undead army in late 4th / early 5th, if they had a plan to update the colour photo pages in the army book.
Now I can't help wondering if they did anything similar for the other campaign packs. Was there a revised Dwarf army book with the Grudge of Drong characters? I doubt it since there were so many campaign packs, but then why did only the Undead book get special treatment? Maybe it was all about the photos, and the special characters were just a case of "throw it in since we're redoing the book anyway".
(Mine is the 1994 version, not the mysterious 1997 with corrections, so I can't help with that.)
All this Undead talk brings me to the next (possible) mystery, which is:
Why was the Vampire Counts army book in 5th ed so slim and poorly proofread, and why did most of the background material for the Bloodlines end up in White Dwarf magazine instead of being published in the army book where it belonged? (It ended up in the 6th ed book but for some reason wasn't in the original.) And what on earth was all that Ushoran / Wsoran confusion about?
Of course the GW answer may be something along the lines of "no time, busy getting 6th edition ready, had two hours' sleep last night, leave me alone" ...
114198
Post by: Cebalrai
Zenithfleet wrote:
Bah! Obvious trickery produced by the unholy magic of Photoshop! I won't be convinced until you send me a free copy!
It feels like the 98 edition of the book is more rare but I've seen it pop up in ebay listings and other places. If there isn't already a picture you can usually just ask for a clear view of the backside cover of the book where it'll say either 1994 or 1998 (or 1997, I suppose) in the bottom box. That's how I found mine.
The only other books I know that got reprints with changes were Dark Elves and Empire. I don't know the dates but the elves got their repeater bolt throwers raised from 50 to 100 points (to match the high elves, presumably) and the empire changed Volkmar's 6'' leadership immunity bubble to only effect himself, for the generous compromise of great cannons going from 100 to 95 points. There could definitely be other reprints floating around out there, waiting to ruin any complete collection.
And yeah, the VC book for 5th edition is a little weird. Some fun rules in it but released just months before 6th edition came with a full replacement. GW was still GW even back then, after all.
112559
Post by: Zenithfleet
Cebalrai wrote:It feels like the 98 edition of the book is more rare but I've seen it pop up in ebay listings and other places. If there isn't already a picture you can usually just ask for a clear view of the backside cover of the book where it'll say either 1994 or 1998 (or 1997, I suppose) in the bottom box. That's how I found mine.
Good tip. Thanks.
I would guess the 1998 version is rarer simply because it wasn't available for very long, whereas the 1994 original had been around since, er, 1994.
Cebalrai wrote:The only other books I know that got reprints with changes were Dark Elves and Empire. I don't know the dates but the elves got their repeater bolt throwers raised from 50 to 100 points (to match the high elves, presumably) and the empire changed Volkmar's 6'' leadership immunity bubble to only effect himself, for the generous compromise of great cannons going from 100 to 95 points. There could definitely be other reprints floating around out there, waiting to ruin any complete collection.
Huh, that's interesting. Turns out I've got the revised Empire book. It has the 95-point great cannons, and Volkmar's psychology/leadership rule only refers to the Grand Theogonist himself. The inside front cover says 1996 (but the back cover still says 1992).
I knew it was sold at a later date because the advertisements pages in the back (pages 82-3) show the 5th edition WFB box set, plus all the army books released up to that point such as Wood Elves, but none of the 5th ed books. I hadn't realised that some rules had been tweaked, though.
There's also a 'Collecting the Empire Army' section after the ads (page 85 onward), which shows you how to build up a 1000 pt sample army, with black and white photos of metal and plastic models ranked up. It's similar to the one in the back of the Lizardmen, revamped High Elves and Realm of Chaos books, which were all 5th ed. The page with the sample army list has a 1996 copyright disclaimer at the bottom. This section also has an article at the end by Jake Thornton called 'The Empire Army' (a page and a half long). This whole section isn't listed on the contents page. Was it absent from the older version of the book? I'd assume so, since it seems to be an early 5th ed trend.
My Dark Elf book has the 50 point bolt throwers, but I do recall reading in White Dwarf that they intended to update them to 100 points with a reprint at some point.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Did another visit to Warhammer World yesterday, as I had nothing better to do and it had the Event Only models on sale.
After a quick shop to snaffle the goodies, and a filling brekkie in Bugman’s (the bacon was excellent!) I decided that yes indeed I did want to pay £8.50 to go round the museum. Again.
And that is an experience that, given the opportunity, I think every Oldhammer Fan will enjoy.
Sure, many of the displays are thoroughly modern, but done in the style of Oldhammer. Lots of kitbashing, lots of scratch build. Things us mere mortals most likely have neither the time, space nor pockets to ever hope to replicate on our own. And they of course show the hobby off in the best light as a result.
But more than that? They’ve not just models we might fondly remember from yesteryear, but some of the dioramas that I dare say provided extreme inspiration in us.
Remember the first ever Golden Demon Open Category winner, the Thunderbolt Fighter in hanger? That’s there (albeit available for Free Drooling Over in the main gaming hall). How about Mike McVey’s works? Got his Durthu vs Undead, that Warhammer Quest one. Not to mention his Horus vs Emperor, Biker Chaplain vs Mounted Exodite, and Azrael in his Sanctum.
The genuine, legitimate works of art that helped show the hobby was wider than just kicking your mate’s army’s heads in. The art of taking a stock model and a solid understanding of the world, then applying an astonishing amount of patience and skill to elevate the whole of thing.
My eyes are privileged to seen such venerable sights for themselves. And props to GW for maintaining that link to the past. Because they are absolutely pristine, not an iota of dust evident.
If you ever get the chance? I say take it. The price is perhaps a little high, sure. But if you’re attending an event anyway, seems more often than not a museum ticket is included in the main ticket.
Oh, and please to report even super recent developments, like Legions Imperialis are decently represented!
98217
Post by: Skinflint Games
Seconded - I usually make a pilgrimage there every August or so, and there are loads of nostalgia hits.. the Blood Angels from WD 139 have been there, the scratchbuilt Baneblade, OG Squats, old Epic... going all the way back to the very early days, late 70s/early 80s.
124786
Post by: tauist
I hope to see it for myself one of these days.. Me and the spouse have been planning a trip to the UK for a while now, she used to live there for a year during her study years. Not sure if Nothingham is close enough for a visit, depends on where we will end up, but sure would love to see it.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
London has a decent train link to Nottingham if nothing else. Journey is around a couple of hours from memory.
Then to get to Warhammer World you can taxi, or take a pretty pleasant canal side walk.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
My latest acquisition?
3rd Ed WHFB, Hardback.
Yet to sit down and read it, and have just bought a copy of Warhammer Armies to sit alongside it. Which when added to my existing Realms of Chaos and Siege gives me a complete set of that edition’s books.
Though that has given me a new perspective on early GW, and early 40K in particular.
3rd Ed Fantasy and Rogue Trader are contemporaneous, being available for largely the same space of time. Yet, Rogue Trader clearly bottles something special. As a nominal single rule set? 40K is actually three or so editions in a trenchcoat.
Where WHFB received two System Unique Books (rules and Warhammer Armies), 40K received rulebook, Waaaargh! The Orks, ‘Ere We Go, Freebooterz, Chapter Approved - The First Book Of The Astromicon, Compendium, Battle Manual and Vehicle Manual.
They of course shared both Realm of Chaos Books, and Siege (though that was more a WHFB book with some tacked on 40K Adaptations).
So I think that 40K awakened something in the audience, and GW itself.
Perhaps it was the “everything and the kitchen sink and maybe both your Grannies” approach. Not as constrained to a single inspiration (Tolkien, who kinda defined Fantasy) as WHFB, it instead begged, stole and borrowed from the burgeoning sci-fi scene of the time. Which meant the entire studio team could help colour in the initial rough patchwork.
Just marvellous stuff, and all of it deserves the Reprint Treatment.
71876
Post by: Rihgu
I cherish my copy of 3rd Ed Fantasy. I've been waiting for a decent price on a copy of Armies in decent condition, so a reprint would be nice.
132375
Post by: Commissar von Toussaint
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:3rd Ed Fantasy and Rogue Trader are contemporaneous, being available for largely the same space of time. Yet, Rogue Trader clearly bottles something special. As a nominal single rule set? 40K is actually three or so editions in a trenchcoat.
I can just barely claim to have played Rogue Trader back in the day. A friend bought it and ran a simple gunfight with beaky marines. At the time, I was heavy into operational/strategic wargames, so moving individual models around seemed very small ball.
Later on, my friend group got into 2nd ed. bigly, and Iron Rule of Gaming Groups came into play: you play what is being played, not necessarily what you want.
By strange coincidence, I happen to have those original boxed set Vader marines on the tabletop at the moment as my wife puts them through their paces after a long hiatus. (You don't know how it grieves me to gun them down with Kustom combi-weapons.)
Anyhow, 40k's success was the happy result of multiple trends. It came out in the trough after Star Wars was finished (if only that were still true!) and Aliens had provided the Ur-text for Space Marines to go on a bug hunt. GW had gotten into plastics, making introductory boxed sets super-cheap, so the entry cost was ridiculously low.
And of course there was the creative frisson of the staff, borrowing freely from Judge Dredd, a wealth of Chaos from Fantasy, Space Elves and so on.
The scale was also somewhat unique, small enough for range to matter, but more like Army Men than 15mm historicals.
GW was at peak creativity, and encouraged kit-bashing to flesh out their incomplete model range, which was nice.
That is why I have pitched my proverbial tent in the 1990s, collecting all things 40k from that era, even the WDs. It is my happy place.
In a supreme twist of irony, I also have a big chunk of 5th ed. WHFB, in part because the resale value was close to zero when 6th ed came out, and that was what I used as a reference to build out Conqueror: Fields of Victory. So even though I came to hate that game, it's still kicking around the house.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
It does feel like the creativity behind it had been dammed up for a while.
It wears its influences on its sleeve, and there no point denying said influences. But the rapid and ongoing rules development speaks to a commitment to make the game as good as it could be, and never rest on its laurels.
41390
Post by: Fugazi
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yet, Rogue Trader clearly bottles something special. As a nominal single rule set? 40K is actually three or so editions in a trenchcoat.
Where WHFB received two System Unique Books (rules and Warhammer Armies), 40K received rulebook, Waaaargh! The Orks, ‘Ere We Go, Freebooterz, Chapter Approved - The First Book Of The Astromicon, Compendium, Battle Manual and Vehicle Manual.
Hindsight really helps. The world moved slower back then. For me, if I got one thing at xmas, then if I wanted the second follow-up thing, it would have to wait until next xmas.
Rogue Trader moved so fast. There were so many updates, including stuff we didn't know about until some of those old White Dwarfs appeared on the internet. I could never afford keeping up. I had to rely on friends picking up White Dwarf, and still, they didn't grab them all.
By the time 2nd edition came out, it felt like Rogue Trader had already gone through multiple evolutions, but it was hard to see it at the time. It just felt ...fast and rapidly changing. From the limited perspective of a kid, the changes almost felt arbitrary...like, what are the rules?
132375
Post by: Commissar von Toussaint
 Fugazi wrote:
Hindsight really helps. The world moved slower back then. For me, if I got one thing at xmas, then if I wanted the second follow-up thing, it would have to wait until next xmas.
Rogue Trader moved so fast. There were so many updates, including stuff we didn't know about until some of those old White Dwarfs appeared on the internet. I could never afford keeping up. I had to rely on friends picking up White Dwarf, and still, they didn't grab them all.
By the time 2nd edition came out, it felt like Rogue Trader had already gone through multiple evolutions, but it was hard to see it at the time. It just felt ...fast and rapidly changing. From the limited perspective of a kid, the changes almost felt arbitrary...like, what are the rules?
The very term "2nd edition" is something of an anachronism. We call it that now, because we lump all of Rogue Trader into a single printing, but if you go back to the contemporary writing, there were two editions of Rogue Trader, and 2nd was actually considered 3rd.
But it lasted a while, and so retroactively Rogue Trader was consolidated to differentiate it from the boxed set. There is a clear line between the two in terms of marketing and aesthetics, yet the Black Codex and Wargear books hint at a lot of the old concepts and of course the artwork was duplicated. One could argue that Rogue Trader and 2nd had pretty good continuity and that the advent of 3rd edition in the fall of 1998 was really the watershed moment of the game. It fundamentally changed the mechanics and also broke the commonality between Fantasy and 40k because at that point, they became fundamentally different rules sets. Prior to that point, there were crossover opportunities, particularly for Chaos.
And then came the 3-year product cycle...
99
Post by: insaniak
Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The very term "2nd edition" is something of an anachronism. We call it that now, because we lump all of Rogue Trader into a single printing, but if you go back to the contemporary writing, there were two editions of Rogue Trader, and 2nd was actually considered 3rd.
That was very much not the case, from my experience. It was always 2nd edition, both in how the studio referred to it, and how players did.
It may have been different in some specific game groups, but from what I recall at the time there were comparatively few 2nd ed players who had also played RT or had more than a passing familiarity with how it was different to 2nd edition. The RT die-hards stuck with RT, and those who switched were mostly those who started towards the end of the edition.
While some players in the years since have referred to RT as two separate games due to the way it evolved, it was never perceived as such at the time because it was still in the middle of that state of flux.
121430
Post by: ccs
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Fugazi wrote:
Hindsight really helps. The world moved slower back then. For me, if I got one thing at xmas, then if I wanted the second follow-up thing, it would have to wait until next xmas.
Rogue Trader moved so fast. There were so many updates, including stuff we didn't know about until some of those old White Dwarfs appeared on the internet. I could never afford keeping up. I had to rely on friends picking up White Dwarf, and still, they didn't grab them all.
By the time 2nd edition came out, it felt like Rogue Trader had already gone through multiple evolutions, but it was hard to see it at the time. It just felt ...fast and rapidly changing. From the limited perspective of a kid, the changes almost felt arbitrary...like, what are the rules?
The very term "2nd edition" is something of an anachronism. We call it that now, because we lump all of Rogue Trader into a single printing, but if you go back to the contemporary writing, there were two editions of Rogue Trader, and 2nd was actually considered 3rd.
Maybe you & yours called individual printings "editions", but that's not how everyone else (including GW) does it. Not then, not now.
59054
Post by: Nevelon
I recall RT being in flux, but no lines being drawn. But then we were not as knit together as a community back then. As we were playing it more as a RPG, we just shrugged and kept on playing with what we had. My group didn’t have anyone collecting WD. We heard second hand about marines getting another point of toughness, and a change to vehicles. But never saw the sources.
132375
Post by: Commissar von Toussaint
ccs wrote:
Maybe you & yours called individual printings "editions", but that's not how everyone else (including GW) does it. Not then, not now.
The Battle Bible (1998) referred to 40k as being on its fourth edition, so obviously someone was using that terminology.
That aligns with the experience at the time. The Compendium was a big revision, which was regarded as a second edition of Rogue Trader, a unified rule book at last (which I didn't buy). When the boxed set came out, the Rogue Trader moniker was dropped and the game played differently, with many of the old factions quietly disappeared.
I still have the box and the rules and there is nothing in it referencing earlier editions or rules. It's just Warhammer 40,000. Players at the time differentiated it from Rogue Trader, and no one said they played "first edition," they instead said "Rogue Trader."
When the 3rd edition came out, there was now a need to differentiate between that 40k and the one immediately before it, because they were both "not Rogue Trader." Rogue Trader retroactively became a unified first edition, the first boxed set second, and the current one was third.
I've been collecting materials from the 2nd era, but it is far from complete. If someone has a WD proclaiming a second edition, I'd love to see it.
Because 3rd ed. was such a radical change, there were people who preferred the older rules, and that's where the "2nd ed." moniker emerged. No one used it while it was current, though. It was just 40k.
By way of contrast WHFB was well into editions, so when I got into it, I knew immediately that I was playing 5th edition, in part because people argued 4th was better (or was it 3rd?). There were no such modifiers yet for 40k because they weren't needed.
The emergence of forums (like Portent) locked in this terminology, and I supposed it's been around for so long, we think it was always that way. I'm not so sure.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
That’s my copies of Ravening Hordes (2nd Ed) and Warhammer Armies (3rd Ed) arrived.
Now my historical GW knowledge and reading has been predominantly 40K. So I greatly enjoyed when flicking through Warhammer Armies that at that point? WHFB wasn’t quite its own thing yet.
The roots are of course there, and it’d already shed its Tolkien origins. Instead, it’s more a clear mash up of Fantasy and Historical Tropes.
I am aware that what would become the WHFB 4th Ed Empire book was worked on here, and released in WD as an ongoing project. And of course the Semolina nightmare where an ape tries to eat me seminal Realms of Chaos books would debut in that edition.
Overall, whilst there’s a lot here for me to digest, I’m looking forward to following the same creative curve for WHFB that I have 40K.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Think I mentioned before, but in packing for my house move, I found I still had my old Mordheim Rulebook, and a folder stuffed full of print outs of articles.
Today? I added “Empire in Flames” to that collection. A book I never bought at the time.
52812
Post by: Tiger9gamer
the worst part about the edition churn is the erasure of warhammer history.
Trying to find first edition HH pdfs is its own special kind of hell, or trying to find which black book has what unit like secutarii
|
|
